By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - Is religion still relevant in modern society?

Player1x3 on 08 November 2011
Troll_Whisperer said:
It depends on the society and how it's structured. In Western Europe religion is mostly irrelevant today, because a majority of people are non-believers.


You know, the great thing about religion is that it teaches us not to lie, but im gonna assume you were just misinformed

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_France#Statistics

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Portugal#Atheism_and_agnosticism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Spain

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Germany

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_England

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Italy



Around the Network
Player1x3 on 08 November 2011

OT: Seeing as how 4/5 of world population is religious, I would have to say PRETTY DAMN RELEVANT



Metallicube on 08 November 2011

Religion is about as useful as a poopie flavored lollypop. Maybe in the past when people were more ignorant and supersticious, and it acted as a sort of social cohesion in a divided world, religion had it's place. But I think by now we have evolved past such primitive ideas.

I get the whole argument of using religion as a means of morality, but we should be asking ourselves why we would need something as fake as religion to assure ourselves or our good will? Humanity should have the faith in THEMSELVES to be good at heart, non a false institution like religion. THIS is where my faith lies, that all humans are born with a good heart, or at least with potential goodness, and we don't need to go running to religion so that God can "save us" in order to achieve goodness. All religion does is take away the power of humanity, creating a mob-like, follower mentality, and throwing all their responsibility to the wind and into the hands of an unseen deity.

You could argue that some people need religion as a source of happiness, to which I say those people are weak minded.



theprof00 on 08 November 2011
Andrespetmonkey said:
padib said:

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?

 

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.

1. Your whole analogy of teaching everything is wrong. YOu teach kids useful skills and information. You don't go teaching them everything because all a teacher's job is to instill a desire to learn. School isn't really about what is taught. It's teaching people HOW to learn. It's about socializing people in a cohesive group. It's about getting kids motivated. So, you teach them morally ambiguous things. Biology, History, science, language, etc. You give kids argument and you will crush them.

Secondly, it's so easy to draw the line. You draw the line where things might become inappropriate. It's not as hard for your average person to decide as you might believe. And the whole homosexuality -> zoophilia train wreck? You're spouting religious zealot propoganda. You think that just because a person isn't of faith, they have no moral guidelines and are capable of anything. Let me remind you of the church pedophilia fiasco. There are things that people are into and religion is not going to stop those people from taking advantage.  They'll simply say "god help me" and do it anyway. The difference, by the way, of all those things you listed, is that homosexuality is with two consenting adults, and everything else is people taking advantage. The sheer madness evoked when you basically just explained that you can't tell the difference is shocking.

2. Actually, Japan didn't do that bad of a job. Shinto is basically a simple belief in ghosts, and deities similar to Greek mythos. THeir honor sustained them quite well into the technological era and are a powerhouse economy. They have almost the least crime out of any other country in the world, live almost the longest, and are one of the most healthy. So much for religion, eh?

3. The modern civil rights movement for african americans would have never been possible without violence. You can't just have martin luther espousing love and equality and morality without malcolm x putting a figurative gun to the white man's head. As long as a group is capable of being taken advantage of, they will be. Seizing power is the only way to promote equality. Sorry to break it to you.



IvorEvilen on 08 November 2011

So we have three groups: those with faith in the theories provided by science, those with faith in the theories provided by religion, and lastly those who simply choose to not have faith in anything in fear that they are wrong. Although, the whole issue isn't so black and white, as there is overlapping, which just befuddles things. Why can't we have faith in both science and God? Why are people that are religious attacked verbally, and why do those who are religious condemn those who are not?

Speaking from experience, I'm Christian, and I know one major thing that many Christians practice that is not appropriate. The bible does not call us to condemn anyone, but rather represent and spread the truth to those who are willing to listen. If someone who is gay, for example, is not a Christian, why should I care if they're gay? On the other hand, I watch others call those who are religious out of their minds, crazy, and they seem to have an air of arrogance and superiority because they are not. Why does having faith in either science... or worse... being indecisive give these people any right to cut anyone down? It's their own personal insecurities. I respect all of you who do not attack and discriminate against someone because of their personal beliefs.



Around the Network
Runa216 on 08 November 2011

Evrer dealt with a person who's viewpoint is so skewed, their logic so flawed, that any attempt to even wrap your head around how dumb what they just said was results in your brain frying?

I get that way coming to religious threads.

Seriously, I read some posts on here and I'm making a mental checkpoint of how many times something faulty, flawed, or irrational is said. If I can get past 5 before the first sentence is over, then I give up and don't even bother writing out a detailed explanation of what they messed up. It's at this point that I Realize that this person is physically, mentally, and emotionally incapable of understanding logic, so I know that no amount of science, fact, and well-supported theories will alter their flawed logic.

sometimes I honestly hope 2012 IS some catastrophic event.



My Console Library:

PS5, Switch, XSX

PS4, PS3, PS2, PS1, WiiU, Wii, GCN, N64 SNES, XBO, 360

3DS, DS, GBA, Vita, PSP, Android

DeadNotSleeping on 08 November 2011
Runa216 said:
Evrer dealt with a person who's viewpoint is so skewed, their logic so flawed, that any attempt to even wrap your head around how dumb what they just said was results in your brain frying?

I get that way coming to religious threads.


Yeah, I get that a lot.  Anyone who reads opinion editiorials in the newspaper will encounter such a person at least twice a week.  But only if you disagree with them.

As a student of philosophy the first thing I was taught was logic.  Atheists can be really illogical, too.  Especially the ones I've seen on the Internet. 



osamanobama on 09 November 2011
Runa216 said:
Evrer dealt with a person who's viewpoint is so skewed, their logic so flawed, that any attempt to even wrap your head around how dumb what they just said was results in your brain frying?

I get that way coming to religious threads.

Seriously, I read some posts on here and I'm making a mental checkpoint of how many times something faulty, flawed, or irrational is said. If I can get past 5 before the first sentence is over, then I give up and don't even bother writing out a detailed explanation of what they messed up. It's at this point that I Realize that this person is physically, mentally, and emotionally incapable of understanding logic, so I know that no amount of science, fact, and well-supported theories will alter their flawed logic.

sometimes I honestly hope 2012 IS some catastrophic event.

fits you to a T



theprof00 on 09 November 2011
padib said:

@bolded Of all people I was expecting you to see through it. I like your posts and they are very intelligent. Now, have a take at incest, I'm curious.

 

Remember: "The difference, by the way, of all those things you listed, is that homosexuality is with two consenting adults, and everything else is people taking advantage."

Also: Who judges useful? "You teach kids useful skills and information. " On this thread you might judge it one way, but when it matters, things are taught in school that don't need to be taugh. Are they yet at the point where homosexuality is encouraged in schools? I thought I heard that some time. Is that useful? Teaching religion,  is that considers useful? Who's the judge?

@2 So much for religion? But you said Shinto is a belief?

@3 No, I understand no hard feelings. But that's why I'm saying it's not one way or the other, it's both. Actually, you're breaking it to yourself, because you seem to want just one of the two (if I understood your position in this thread right).

I personally don't care if two consenting relatives engage in incest. It is not my position to judge those people, nor am I going to pry. I think it's gross, but I'm not going to say people should go to hell for doing it. You talk about how successful empires were built on religion. 90% of those empires were also incestuous.

Useful skills. How to weld, how to sell things, psychology, computers, scientific method, logic. I could create a curriculum right now that has no morally ambiguous problems and yet is capable of helping kids learn, and love to learn. You also have your specifics wrong. Nowhere is homosexuality encouraged. There is no group out there being like, hey kids go have homosexual relationships. There is possibly teaching acceptance, which is related but different. TEaching religion is like teaching history. Religion should be an elective though as it has nearly no bearing on getting a job, which is the most important thing...now, culture class could be an option. But I would say it should be one class that teaches the aspects of all religions and cultures and assigns readings. A whole class on Christianity should not be a mandatory thing. In my experience in catholic schools, the religion teachers were the worst of all of them.

Being Shinto is like believing in ghost or aliens, or being athiest and celebrating Christmas. EVERYONE celebrates Christmas, but not everyone is Christian or Catholic...but, it's a religious holiday, yes? No. It's a socio-cultural aspect. Shinto is much the same. There is no praying to anyone, there is no moral guideline for the most part. It's like believing in fate. Fate is not a religion, but it is a belief system.

I want the diplomatic solution. But unfortunately, like I said with the malcolm X analogy, until radical Christians understand that we aren't going to take their crap, there can be no peace.



theprof00 on 09 November 2011
padib said:
theprof00 said:
padib said:

@bolded Of all people I was expecting you to see through it. I like your posts and they are very intelligent. Now, have a take at incest, I'm curious.

 

Remember: "The difference, by the way, of all those things you listed, is that homosexuality is with two consenting adults, and everything else is people taking advantage."

Also: Who judges useful? "You teach kids useful skills and information. " On this thread you might judge it one way, but when it matters, things are taught in school that don't need to be taugh. Are they yet at the point where homosexuality is encouraged in schools? I thought I heard that some time. Is that useful? Teaching religion,  is that considers useful? Who's the judge?

@2 So much for religion? But you said Shinto is a belief?

@3 No, I understand no hard feelings. But that's why I'm saying it's not one way or the other, it's both. Actually, you're breaking it to yourself, because you seem to want just one of the two (if I understood your position in this thread right).

I personally don't care if two consenting relatives engage in incest. It is not my position to judge those people, nor am I going to pry. I think it's gross, but I'm not going to say people should go to hell for doing it. You talk about how successful empires were built on religion. 90% of those empires were also incestuous.

Useful skills. How to weld, how to sell things, psychology, computers, scientific method, logic. I could create a curriculum right now that has no morally ambiguous problems and yet is capable of helping kids learn, and love to learn. You also have your specifics wrong. Nowhere is homosexuality encouraged. There is no group out there being like, hey kids go have homosexual relationships. There is possibly teaching acceptance, which is related but different. TEaching religion is like teaching history. Religion should be an elective though as it has nearly no bearing on getting a job, which is the most important thing...now, culture class could be an option. But I would say it should be one class that teaches the aspects of all religions and cultures and assigns readings. A whole class on Christianity should not be a mandatory thing. In my experience in catholic schools, the religion teachers were the worst of all of them.

Being Shinto is like believing in ghost or aliens, or being athiest and celebrating Christmas. EVERYONE celebrates Christmas, but not everyone is Christian or Catholic...but, it's a religious holiday, yes? No. It's a socio-cultural aspect. Shinto is much the same. There is no praying to anyone, there is no moral guideline for the most part. It's like believing in fate. Fate is not a religion, but it is a belief system.

I want the diplomatic solution. But unfortunately, like I said with the malcolm X analogy, until radical Christians understand that we aren't going to take their crap, there can be no peace.

@Shinto It's like believing in fate, but it has deities? You just want to liken Shinto to atheism so you can show that atheism is positive for society. You will spin things and paint them in any way to show that atheism is a good thing and religion isn't. But prof, I thought you were more learned than that. Why negate all the positive things religion has brought (or ignore them), yet bring in things that areligion (or beliefs you prefer to liken to areligion) has. Whether Shinto is a religion or not, it doesn't matter because the point you're trying to make is that a belief with 0 passion (like of what I understand here in Shinto) is what can drive a society forward.

@bolded Again, you show that your view is single-sided, though we had just seen earlier that evil was in the heart of man (atheist or religious). Yet you prefer to peg (not religious people) radical Christian as the evil ones. Again, this is proof that this debate will go down the dumpster sooner or later because I'm trying to show that there is evil in all areas of life (religion and areligion), but you're trying to stick it to religion, nay radical Christianity.

With such one-sided vision, how can discussion be made? Can I trust your judgement? You seem to have lost trust in mine because I went really far in my train-wreck description (I must have shocked some), but you I thought would understand I couldn't possibly be serious. However with most folks on your side of the fence (the 4 walls of secularism), there is no balanced view. It's "Religion is evil", period. Though history shows otherwise, you won't look at it. *Clap*

No I didn't say religion didn't do good things. Early life thrived upon religion because as I said with my first post, it gets people to become civilized. But I wanted to make the point that religion isn't the sole necessitator of civilization.

I'm looking at the big picture. I'm looking at the times. In these specific times, religion is choking progress. At other times, religion buoys survival and drive. Right now, in context, the main threat is radical Christians. It's not that I don't want to see both sides, it's just one side called reality. Reality right now has radical Christians preaching hate against other religions. Reality right now has religious people in places of power who shouldn't be there. Do you agree with mormons? They are tax exempt. Why the fuck should that exist as a rule? The whole purpose of tax exemption is that they are separated from the state, but they are not. They hold seats of power. They pass pro-mormon legislation. It's madness.