What good is religion?

Yes...that is so.
As a matter of fact I may die any day now...
I could not possibly decipher that monstrous ream you've written above.
By the time I finished one paragraph...the previous would be forgotten.

So why not be a good "religious" boy and help an old guy out.

Please sift through all of the critical rant above...and find something that addresses the topic (religion).
If and when you do...write a simple sentence or two to describe it.
That is all I ask...oh one more thing...if you are going to copy Edna's "persistence and popularity" idea
then forget it. that one only holds water if you are pro-addiction.

 

My reply to your solicitation of a response was not a, "rant," of any type. It was mostly a supplying of our past posts, to back up my claims that you have refused to address all my comments which were very much on-target for your OP, but which you nonetheless claimed were off-topic-- "verbose ranting," seems to be a favorite phrase-- without quoting my questions or justifying/explaining your allegations. So this is what your debating tactics have come to, in support of your advocated spiritual path, to replace religion-- lie about any criticism applying, unless it is too overwhelmingly backed-up, in which case you merely write it off as a, "monstrous ream," which is certainly too much to expect you to be able to comprehend (after all, you are only arguing for your view as being superior to all religions, not saying that you are a big, "reader")? I must say that it does not seem all that different a playbook than the one used by the religions you condemn (or disparage, or whatever word will suffice to avoid a meaningless semantic dickering, which seems the best defense you've been able to mount).

If I'm not already past your mind's word-processing limit for one post-- btw, the short lines of this screen make insignificant amounts of text seem much more than they would appear, typed out on a standard sheet of paper-- here is one quote from my ream, repeating a point I've made numerous times, which you can finally address, if there is any sincerity to your stated desire for a true debate.

 

Thanks much for condensing your rants...although as you can see above...
you still have some cleanup to do. Nothing there at all concerning the topic of "religion".

You did at least try to address the topic of "religion" with this tidbit below....

I would say that it is quite obvious to anyone that there exists an "apparent need" for religion.
You pointing that out really doesn't support the "need" for religion any more than
the "apparent need" for drugs that an addict might display.
You haven't supported the "need" for religion any better than Edna.
You are both saying the same thing...."persistence and popularity" (like drug abuse)

Please find something that proves religion to be essential in some way or another...
Things like food, water, clean air are "needed"...."religion" is not needed.
Lets see if you can respond without all the ranting this time.

 

I will try this one . Any need can be compared to a drug - and so I discount this analogy - although the relationship is interesting.

The question here is is there some inherent need for this drug .. that we call religion ?

While food - aid - water are obvious - lacking of which we die - it is still comparable to a drug - this need ...

and we are now having a separating needs from wants conversation - kind of ..

I will argue that the mind might go insane in the end .. due to a sense of purposlessness - infinite repetition. Think about infinite existence - and how that might drive a person bonkers .. as after all "Who wants to live Forever"

So the mind "MUST" create diversions - it is "Essential" to our sanity.. hard wired into the machine.

 

You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but don't expect much.

 

sounds to me like you arent talking about 'religion', you are talking about deity worship. everyone has religion of some sort.

 

Correct ...

 

The whole thread seems to focus on deity/supernatural worship under the label 'religion', and conveniently forgets about 'nondeity' based religions. Typical endrun omission that I often see in atheist v theist arguments.

 

Good advice

 

Thanks much!
IMO you have accurately described the so called "need" for religion.....it's simply another diversion...
a temporary fix for the "sense of purposelessness" that you stated above.

And as you say we are "hard wired" to create such "diversions"....
But who/what exactly did the wiring??
Some would prefer to blame a man made God....instead of looking at themselves.

 

Exactly!!
The "religions" themselves have become nothing more than "diversions" as @Giftedone suggested.

But what is it they are "diverting" from? Why?
@Giftedone suggests..."sense of purposelessness - infinite repetition"

I would add to that...the desire to feel "different" from others...
to separate themselves....from how they see others...
to see themselves as somehow...better, smarter, faster, more intelligent, wittier, etc,....or even...."saved".

 

Yes .. the problem with God is not that God is not real. The problem with God is that man made depictions of God are not.

 

so then by that standard morals (part of 'every' religion) has no purpose?

.

 

"Morals" may be mentioned in "religious" texts....but do not need "religions" to exist...
neither are they a product of "religion".
Perhaps some of the most "immoral" acts have been committed by so called "religious".

 

That is the idea I had hoped this thread would lead to.

But sometimes it makes more sense to someone...when they "discover" it for themselves.
If I can offer up an idea that sparks an interest....even if the idea "seems" negative....
it might cause someone to give it some thought.
People are not stupid or "ignorant" (Edna's favorite word)....
they are simply unconscious....probably due to all the "diversions" they have created for themselves.

 

what I would like to know is why atheists and their mouthpieces continually 'reverse' the process?

religion is a term that demonstrates recognition and acknowledgement of the 'result of your beliefs/morals', its 'not' the creator of your morals.

everything starts with a thought that is believed in the human brain, not the other way around.

Even atheists cannot create a moral without first having some kind of thought and resultant belief which are the core constituents of any moral they are trying to create, or can they?

.

 

Thank you for the idea....do you think they have a particular motive for doing that?

That sounds logical IMO

Also quite accurate IMO

I'm not sure it is necessary to separate "atheists" from "religious"...since they both worship "thoughts" (their own).

 

I dont see too much of that from theists out here, but atheists have an overwhelming inordinate drive to separate themselves from anything that might concern or include a deity, even life itself.

They dont worship thoughts, they worship the 'conclusions' of their thoughts, which are their beliefs, which when put into 'practice' is there 'religion' regardless what title they want to claim.

One of the most cherished rights throughout time is 'religion', the ability to live according to your own way, outside the mob in peace, no one should understand this better than an atheist since they whine about freedom from everyone elses religion consistently, all the while evangelizing and beating the hell out of their own drums to convince everyone to accept their religion because they have no clue it includes their way of life therefore believe or want us to believe they do not need it.

Destroy or get rid of your right to religion and only the 'thought police guv' will have the right to religion through their flagrant abusive use of metaphors and euphemisms as we have seen in the bigamy laws, the guv laid their religion over top of the Mormons religion by threat of penalties, fines, and imprisonment.

Texas bigamist, a Warren Jeffs follower, gets 10 years in prison

https://www.latimes.com › nation › la-xpm-2012-mar-3...
Mar 30, 2012 — A West Texas polygamist who authorities said had multiple “celestial marriages” was sentenced Friday to 10 years in prison. Wendell Loy ...

'polygamist' a religious practice, tried under 'bigamy' the guvs religious switcheroo, hiding behind judicial metaphors.

The guv simply creates a metaphor or euphemism (FRAUD) to prosecute you under the secular word they created (despite it has an identical meaning in substance [obviously] to your religious laws/beliefs) to rob you of your rights, that atheists just happen to agree that you dont need anyway, because it has that evil word religion attached to it.

This is nothing new to lawmakers and legal thinkers.

 

Yes...everyone wants to see themselves as somehow "different" than others....
"religions" even the "atheist" band together simply to re-enforce their their particular choices.
They seem to think the more that agree with them...the more "right" they must be.
What may have started out as helpful ideas...
now becomes something that must be protected at all costs...
God forbid my "religion" might be found lacking.

Maybe just my opinion...but conclusions and beliefs are also just "thoughts".
Beliefs can change over time...likewise conclusions are not stable.

I still don't see how "religion" ...is required...or "needed" for anyone to have "the ability to live according to your own way"...
"religion" could very easily become a barrier to..."to live according to your own way, outside the mob in peace"
"religion" itself can become "the mob"

I don't see much difference between "religion" and "guv".
Sometimes "guv" even toots "religion".
Both seek a way to control people...manipulate them to compliance.
That is not freedom....

 

Now I see your difficulty, and if you were not being so nasty, I would actually have sympathy for the severe lack in your understanding of what it is to be human. Perhaps, in all your scholarly research-- which has supposedly yielded something better than any religion we now have (or than was ever created?)-- you came across the saying, "Man does not live on bread alone?" For, while what you say is, in a meaninglessly strict sense, correct, that humans can survive without religion, and without drugs, and without love, and without friendship, and without human contact, nevertheless, such an existence would be, psychologically speaking, greatly deficient in various things that I am surprised (with your fondness for psychologist authors) you are not aware that this profession claims we DO actually NEED, despite the purely biological fact that we can survive without them. It might surprise you, further, to hear me tell you that people generally accept this wild theory of psychology, that we humans have psychological, emotional, & mental needs which, if they are not fulfilled, our life experience is miserable (and, w/o this reformative sustenance, many more than those who currently can't take life's pressures & disappointments, would find life intolerable).

It is from THIS PERSPECTIVE that I am making the argument that anything that people have, on such a grand scale, everywhere on the planet, for eons before written history even begins, put so much energy into, and have made so central to their existence, does very strongly suggest, that it is filling a psychological need.

Note that all that verbiage is just for YOU-- because you are the only one who questioned the assertion, when I put it forth, much more succinctly, that religion clearly satisfies a strong need, for much of humanity. So please do not be such an ass as to complain about the length of an explanation that was written solely to cater to your own obtuseness to the concept of psychological needs.

Not to get off track but, as an aside, it has been documented that, for many indigenous peoples, drug use is not only practiced, but plays an important role in their culture (e.g., peyote, ayahuasca, coca leaves). Often, the substance(s) are used ritualistically, and addiction is rarely, if ever, a problem. This has perhaps been a factor in the belief, advocated by scientists from various disciplines (e.g., psychology, anthropology), and accepted by many, that occasional drug use is a natural human behavior, and one that satisfies the psychological, "need," of people to sometimes escape their mundane existence (which is not as fully-sustaining, for many, as it apparently is for you), and feel connected to something beyond themselves, which is a typical element of these practices. It has even been suggested by those who study the brain, and consciousness, that temporarily changing the brain's normal pathways, allows new neural pathways to be created, increases the brain's plasticity, and can not only allow creative insights, but can contribute to what has been described as a religious peace of mind (I am specifically thinking of hallucinogenic mushrooms, and salvia divinorum).

But I will not tax your attention span. In short, whether or not you see it this way, it is accepted as a fact that humans have various psychological "needs," for happiness. A sense of purpose, and of being connected to something greater than themselves, are two of these things, which we can just call promoters of a more satisfying life. While, certainly, some can get these things outside of religion, many others do get these things, vital to their psychological health, from religion. There is NO reason to assume that all of those people would be able to find an efficacious substitute; if that is your contention, the onus is upon you, to make a credible case.

Now let's see if you are able to respond, this time, both directly to my points, and without gratuitous insults.

 

But I have not made any insults...
nor have I said the things above that you have again accused me of saying.
Again....you're insisting that your own ideas are mine and then proceeding to argue with yourself.
Again....your 10,000 word theme above does not add anything different
to what has already been suggested here by others.
Again....I did not say any drug use is bad....what I said was...
using "persistence and popularity" as an excuse that "religion" is "needed"
is no different than defending drug-abuse because it is "needed" by the addicts.

 

Yes! Exactly! That's what I've been trying to call attention to.

"Religion" is just that...."a psychological need"

the nature of addiction....
"Their behavior is reflexive and automatic, based on a physical and "psychological need" for a substance."
"Even as their lives are caving in around them, they continue to believe they're in control and that they don't have a problem."

That is how I see Edna's "5 billion" religious people....
...."they continue to believe they're in control and that they don't have a problem."

 

And thus you prove you are not interested in (or capable of) an actual debate of your thesis, with me. All you can do is exaggerate the length of my replies (it was not even 1000 words, much less 10,000, so is counting also beyond your skill set?), without addressing any of the arguments I present. For YOUR Information, only, because anyone else can plainly see that the paragraph on drug use was only an aside (based on my writing that it was an aside)--

-- that was not my main point. If you cannot even identify that, it is no poor reflection on my communication skills, and only demonstrates your purposeful evasion of answering my points which, once again, you fail to quote:

And that was my recap, my 2nd stating of what I find to be the initial fault in your "argument." I had previously stated:

But you somehow missed that, as well, huh? Or didn't understand how it applied to your thread? The idea also appeared a third time:

Unfortunately, you opted to be an ass, or could not help yourself, in still criticising only the length of my reply (which your claimed cluelessness as to my argument had been the impetus for my needing to explain it in such a remedial manner). So, if that's the best defense you can mount of your ideas, it speaks rather lowly of their merit.

Additionally, your continued lies in falsely portraying your own comments--

-- speak poorly of your own character, & worthiness to even be engaged in a conversation. I am not going to waste my time going through your past posts, to once again show all the times you have falsely referred to my posts as, "verbose ranting," while falsely claiming they did not address your topic. I just did so, a few posts back:
http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/what-good-is-religion.588493/page-18#post-1072721513

of which post, of course, you complained about its length and incorrectly referred to it as a rant; these additional quotes all came on this page, after my post listing all your other maligning comments:

Perhaps you are incapable of discerning a dry, logical argument, from a rant? No, I do not think that is the case. Perhaps you do not understand that terms like, "verbosity," and, "ranting," have negative connotations? I'm sorry to say I don't believe that, either, is you sincere misunderstanding. You are merely responding childishly, without honor, to arguments you cannot address, on intellectual terms. Your argument is very poorly made-- why don't you take your own advice, and sum up your thought, in a sentence or two?-- and seems to have simpletonistic underpinnings. Since you have no desire to examine possible flaws in your thinking-- which, btw, would be a sign of someone who was to any degree evolved, in their thoughts & perspective-- I will, once again, leave you to your thread's pathetic excuse for an argument.

 

Lol...thank God!

Am starting to worry that all of your emotional ranting...
may cause you to suffer stroke or heart attack.
No thread is worth that kind of misery...
"Live long and prosper" as they say

 

Name one culture, throughout human existence, that had no religion.

Even modern, Communist, totalitarian states were unsuccessful, in their attempts to stamp it out.

These are proof that, for a large part of our species, religion is the only thing that fills this, what you now say you have always regarded as a, need (despite your earlier comments which cast into doubt, one's confidence, that you understand the meaning of that word).

In this case, unlike the case of the addict, it is pragmatic to say that the need appears to be for religion. Not for all people, of course. But few things do apply to all people; most certainly including philosophies-- your own advocated concepts included.


Word count: 118.