Is religion still relevant in modern society?

[Andrespetmonkey]

padib said:

Andrespetmonkey said:

padib said:

Andrespetmonkey said:

theprof00 said:

Secularism has given people freedom.

Secularism doesn't promote homosexuality. It promotes being honest with yourself. It lets you know that there is nothing wrong with you despite all the religious people judging you (when they shouldn't be in the first place).

Secularism brought women the freedom to rise above the shackles of abusive relationships. Women have power now. There are plenty of healthy relationships and secularism gives women the ability to choose.

Secularism, more than anything else, REALLY gives people the freedom to choose. Religion, and Christianity more importantly, never really gave people the freedom of choice. Without choice, how good can you really be? What metric can you base the value of moral ethic on, when the subject knows they are being judged.

An athiest man of equal moral ethic to a religious man vastly outweighs the latter in worth. An athiest man knows that there is no reward in his good, and yet sacrifices what he has for others.

This ^

I read it too and I liked it.

Nice, just in case you didn't see my last reply to you, here it is:

"When I see people denying the existence of God, what I generally witness is a source of pride, selfishness and arrogance."
Really? Because what I see are the most successful nations in the world.
The peacefulness of countries, the amount of aid a country gives, the lower crime rates, the higher quality of life people have on average in a country positively correlates with the amount of atheists and agnostics in a country. Examples? Sweden, Norway, France, Iceland, New zealand, Denmark, Finland.

I don't see any oppression, hate or lies. Infact, that's precisely what I see when I read many parts of the bible.

If all of nature can be explained without the agency of God, and especially if the creation of man is totally unrelated to the deity's cause, then we have just lost the greatest link to the divine that we had: Nature. To follow that route in my view is already a position of deceit. It's like someone worked on a masterpiece for years, and then people denying his work. Worse, they deny his ownership of said masterpiece. This, if true, is the sign of a stolen possession, and a broken relationship (with the creator).

This WOULD be true, if a god did exist, however I don't think one does, so this does not relate to me at all :) This is your opinion and not a fact.
I see more beauty in a world without a divine creator and ultimate meaning. Opinions are a bitch, aren't they?

 

Opinions opinions opinions opinions opinions.

What theprof00 said is that he wants a world where people have a choice. How is that not possible in a religious mindset?

If the smart ones took the route of secularism rather than religion, wouldn't you give credit to their intelligence rather than their choice? There are problems in religion, there are problems in secularism. If I were to choose, I chose religious secularism. In other words, you live your faith perfectly, you live your every day life perfectly. You let people live, people let you live.

The problem I see is when either religion or "science" aka evolution is pushed onto people. That is not a choice. Is that what you all want?

What about this. Your son decides he would like to embrace religion. What is your perspective there? Will you try to talk him out of it? If so, how are you any better than parents of a religion who don't allow their grown children to walk away.

Even harder question. What do you do if there is someone teaching your children things that are contrary to what you desire them to learn until they are of age to make their own decisions? Would you allow people of faith to show children or other people alternative ways to their current (possibly atheistic) lifestyle. Why would a person of faith appreciate a non-faither to teach their views to the children? No more double-sided playing! It's both ways or nothing.

 

Here's what I demand, and I'll follow by tying in with the OP. I demand a world where all views are taught. If we're going to be secular let's do it all the way. All religions taught in school, all theories taught in school. Let the students decide. People are to present their lectures of whatever nature they so please, and everyone has the right to freely attend. Teach Gay Marriage, teach Heterosexual Marriage, teach Faithfulness, teach Adultery, teach child innocence, teach pedophilia, teach child sacrifice (which some cultures do), teach PolyAmory, teach Fanatic Religion, teach everything. Teach madness, and teach lucidity. Encourage madness, and encourage lucidity. Everyone chooses.

 

If we're not going to draw the line, who will? Where is the line, where is it drawn? Who determines what is the limit. Homosexuality? Incest? Maybe not incest? What about Pedophilia? Necrophilia? No? Zoophilia, maybe that's ok... How about, teaching kids how to eat shit when having sex? How about teaching kids to have sex?

Where do you draw the line? How is the above picture drastically wrong?

It's wrong when you break society down to smaller levels, where what you do has a consequence, and where every person in that society has a greater importance and affection. For example, the family. You wouldn't want people in your family to practice things you consider wrong, but especiallyharmful. Why? Because you care about them, and because it can affect others. The choice argument works in larger societies because the structure is weaker. But live in a world of survival where all you have is your clan and things get a little less free.

The things religion has brought to society can't be replaced. Not by any anti-religion. Honor, truth, virtue, faith, trust, nobility, purity, chastity, dedication, discipline, focus, longsuffering, sacrifice, .... You'll find them in a form or another but each religion brings a flavor of that, and noone can say they would be as easily found without it.

Much of the teachings of light can still be used today. For instance, the teachings of the NT could have allowed a proper form of female emancipation without the need of rebellion. Liken this to Martin Luther versus Malcolm X. Both wanted to achieve the same thing, one through non-violence, the other through violence. In the case of feminism, secularism caused the shift to go from oppression to rebellion, whereas a true form of Christianity for instance would've encouraged a balanced emancipation, where women take their god-given place, but fulfill it through sacrifice. Giving up their rebellion to humble themselves before their husbands, but taking back the rights they were removed, the priviledges to have a voice, to be productive and to be of value to society.

Padib, I'm sorry but if you really believe what you just said, you are batshit insane. Fuck this, I'm not gonna even begin to explain to you how disgustingly small-minded and ignorant a lot of what you just said was, maybe someone else will. I'm done talking to you. I'm going to sleep.