stof said:
I really have to disagree with this one. The notion that religion is something that society or individuals "need" seems less dirty truth and more well, dirty. I know it's always been around and most people still follow one, but there are millions of happy healthy and very nice atheists out there who don't need something to put their faith into. It always just seems a little bit... Patronizing to both sides. It suggests people that follow religion do it not out of conviction or choice, but because they're intellectually or mentally incapable of getting along without it, while at the same time suggesting that a society without religion wouldn't work. And I'm not sure what exactly would go horribly (or even mildly) wrong with a society that turned away from religion completely. |
Many of those that are atheist are so because they don't see religion as playing an important role in their lives and so they choose to live without one. They live a happy and healthy life, but it is through not needing religion. Many people still need religion.
My argument would be that, like it or not, religion is here and billions of people follow one as part of their daily lives because it does play an important role in their existence. If we said tomorrow that all religion is banned, millions of peoples lives would be devastated.
