• Hi all. We have had reports of member's signatures being edited to include malicious content. You can rest assured this wasn't done by staff and we can find no indication that the forums themselves have been compromised.

    However, remember to keep your passwords secure. If you use similar logins on multiple sites, people and even bots may be able to access your account.

    We always recommend using unique passwords and enable two-factor authentication if possible. Make sure you are secure.
  • Be sure to join the discussion on our discord at: Discord.gg/serebii
  • If you're still waiting for the e-mail, be sure to check your junk/spam e-mail folders

Explain to me the cons of basing our culture off religion.

Status
Not open for further replies.

CSolarstorm

New spicy version
Humankind has always needed, and will continue to need religion of some sorts.

Yes. Definately, I must emphasize this. Humanity needs religion. Even if we deviate from one religion, we'll just make another one. Even if we don't call it a religion anymore, it will be one.

Hospitals and psychologists will sometimes recommend that you find a spirituality in times of crisis. The science of caretaking gives due credence to religion for at least attempting to explain the unknown, in a way that comforts the patient, regardless of what explanation it provides. This helps with terror management and coping with grief, two things we will never be rid of.

I would define many forms of art and music and superstition, any form of mystification, as expressions of religion, if unorthodox.

So, to think back to Tim's words, you may "hate" religion, but it isn't going anywhere...and while it may take advantage of the disposessed, conversely, it is at least a viable option for the disposessed to take advantage of.
 

nikohesus

Banned
Religion is one of mankind's worst inventions, as it has slowed down the progress of technology, science and evolution, but it shouldn't be this way.
Religion is not necessarily a belief in Allah/God/Iehovah/a diety, but rather a set of beliefs that constitutes our philosophy and provides us with virtues and what is wrong and right. However, we have twisted it to start wars and force others to believe different things.
What a **** world.
 

Tim the turtle

Happy Mudkip
Yes. Definately, I must emphasize this. Humanity needs religion. Even if we deviate from one religion, we'll just make another one. Even if we don't call it a religion anymore, it will be one.
Are you sure you're not conflating religion with belief here? Hospitals and psychologists might indeed recommend spirituality to help someone recover, but that does not need to fall under the guise of religion.

I hear this argument all the time, that people need religion. But this is certainly not a case for the individual; atheism proves that people as individuals do not need religion so why should this not be true for the group? Yes, religion can be a psychological crutch for the down-trodden but it does not need to be the only one. Perhaps it is the most widespread and easiest now, but to say that mankind will always need it doesn't really seem true to me.
 

CSolarstorm

New spicy version
Are you sure you're not conflating religion with belief here? Hospitals and psychologists might indeed recommend spirituality to help someone recover, but that does not need to fall under the guise of religion.

Hm. Well, it is well known that whatever you are comfortable with serves you in a time of distress, via placebo effect, so the argument can be made that those who already are religious, need religion in these situations.

But to the point, I did not mean to say that people in crisis necessarily need to find religion, instead of meditation or counseling, per se. Religion can nonetheless be an instrumental part in rehabilitation, and therefore, science does give it credence as an individual method.

You'll have to explain what you mean by "belief" in distinction from religion, perhaps I am conflating the two...?

I hear this argument all the time, that people need religion. But this is certainly not a case for the individual; atheism proves that people as individuals do not need religion so why should this not be true for the group? Yes, religion can be a psychological crutch for the down-trodden but it does not need to be the only one. Perhaps it is the most widespread and easiest now, but to say that mankind will always need it doesn't really seem true to me.

I should say, humanity, when congregated, is prone to develop religion, so I inferred from this that religion satisfies some natural need of ours, hence we "need" religion, not that religion should inherently exist for no reason, but that it is an instinctual creation of us that satisfies our humane needs.

I could not claim one way or the other whether humanity will continue to generate religion if it progresses, but say somehow we crashed back to square one, I believe we would probably observe the same phenomenon of religions developing.

perhaps i should have said that differently, the world could work well without believing in God.

So in other words, you believe the world would work well without monotheism. Monotheism is the projection of having a king, a single ruling party, which often exists in real life, onto religion, which, like we said, will exist.

Or are you grievious over the influence religion has on people? Then polythiesm, as in Gods should be an obstacle as well, not just believing in God. The reasoning goes that anything is okay in moderation. You have to have power over your beliefs, not the other way around; and as long as you don't let your faith become something that interferes with your life, or the lives of others.
 
Last edited:

Tim the turtle

Happy Mudkip
I should say, humanity, when congregated, is prone to develop religion, so I inferred from this that religion satisfies some natural need of ours, hence we "need" religion, not that religion should inherently exist for no reason, but that it is an instinctual creation of us that satisfies our humane needs.
Oh, okay I get you now, and I actually agree with you. However the need I think you are referring to is one of needing confirmation and knowledge. The Greek sceptics talked about this very phenomenon (I think it was them, should really be revising that haha) I believe that in todays day and age we can satisfy that need through science and philosophy and other diciplines. I agree that if we did crash back to square one we would see religion being formed again.
 
Last edited:

Empoleon Bonaparte

Well-Known Member
I believe that in todays day and age we can satisfy that need through science and philosophy and other diciplines. I agree that if we did crash back to square one we would see religion being formed again.

I used religion as a placeholder. Replace 'religion' with 'science' or something else that a majority of the human race can believe in, and you'll get the same results.

Not saying it's bad nor good, though.
 

CSolarstorm

New spicy version
Oh, okay I get you now, and I actually agree with you. However the need I think you are referring to is one of needing confirmation and knowledge. The Greek stoics talked about this very phenomenon (I think it was them, should really be revising that haha) I believe that in todays day and age we can satisfy that need through science and philosophy and other diciplines. I agree that if we did crash back to square one we would see religion being formed again.

Speaking of satisfying this need for confirmation and knowledge; do you have a link to the explanation of this phenomenon? I would love to investigate it.
 

Tim the turtle

Happy Mudkip
Oops, did I write Sotics? Sorry, my bad, I meant to say Sceptics. Have a look at the Greek sceptics and their philosophies. In the very basic way that I remember their philosophy, they emphasised a state of uncertainty where the desire for knowledge (which they saw as a necessary and noble but often lamentable part of the human condition) is replaced by instead a feeling that such knowledge is actually impossible to attain (though not for lack of trying), and so they actually found a sort of spiritual happiness not through supplying themselves with dogmatic beliefs (their word, not mine) but rather through their own belief (a non-dogmatic one I should add) that such dogmatic beliefs were all equally bad and thus no confirmation was possible but was by this point unnecessary.

Essentially they stated that mankind desired information and confirmation and knowledge in order to be happy, but then nimbly sidestepped this problem by stating that such was impossible and simple surpressing their desire.
 

evolutionrex

The Awesome Atheist
Well, I read the post. I read the paragraph. I read the sentence. I read the paragraph again. I read the post again. I could honestly only interpret this one way.

So people shouldn't express their opinion because you don't agree with it? Every opinion is valid, regardless of your feelings toward it. Every opinion can benefit a conversation, even if it's only to make your opinion look better =P Please tell me I misinterpreted this. For my sanity's sake, please.
When i say "my opinion" it means i don't expect anyone to believe it, i was stating my thoughts on religion. In my opinion, i think people should try to save the earth instead of praying to what i believe is false hope, they should get out their and do something about it.
So in other words, you believe the world would work well without monotheism. Monotheism is the projection of having a king, a single ruling party, which often exists in real life, onto religion, which, like we said, will exist.
Do i really need to be that specific? Jeez. What i meant to say was that the world could work well without the belief of any kind of God(s).
 

CSolarstorm

New spicy version
Oops, did I write Sotics? Sorry, my bad, I meant to say Sceptics. Have a look at the Greek sceptics and their philosophies. In the very basic way that I remember their philosophy, they emphasised a state of uncertainty where the desire for knowledge (which they saw as a necessary and noble but often lamentable part of the human condition) is replaced by instead a feeling that such knowledge is actually impossible to attain (though not for lack of trying), and so they actually found a sort of spiritual happiness not through supplying themselves with dogmatic beliefs (their word, not mine) but rather through their own belief (a non-dogmatic one I should add) that such dogmatic beliefs were all equally bad and thus no confirmation was possible but was by this point unnecessary.

Essentially they stated that mankind desired information and confirmation and knowledge in order to be happy, but then nimbly sidestepped this problem by stating that such was impossible and simple surpressing their desire.

Having researched it, yes, that does match what I was talking. That helped me enrich my own understanding; much thanks. I can now say the opposite of what Fused said; this is the reason why I stay in the Debate Forum.

Do we observe that religions are more strict in places of hardship? These Greek Philosophers probably didn't have it easy, per se, but what I would say is that square one, where we would agree humanity would end up developing religion, is not just a point where civilization would be reset; if I went to square one, and found myself utterly helpless, as humans do sometimes, I would return to religion. That's why religion is so focused with the afterlife; it is concerned with what happens to people who are helpless and dying.

It is always a constant in our mind; the risk of loss, the desire to know it. For some more than others. I mean, as chronically ill, I know health isn't a given. Then there's poverty, irrationality and incohesion from grief, and natural disasters - not to mention all of them working together. Eventually, since I figure I will be cut down, I just cut to the chase and embrace my drive for dogma now, as long as I still have the rationality to be the arbitrator of how I embrace it.

Do i really need to be that specific? Jeez. What i meant to say was that the world could work well without the belief of any kind of God(s).

Yes, you do, or otherwise your statement is inaccurate. Is it that weird to be corrected in the Debate Forum? Did you see my posts about how Pokemon are based on ancient Gods of old? We would not have the Weather Trio had not someone worshipped (and later demonized) the Behemoth, Leviathan, or Ziz, we would not have Arceus without the creator god in Shinto; nor anthropomorphism of the sun and the moon in Solrock and Lunatone, or even in general; or even the idea of spirits or monsters in general. Simple shapes originated as symbols of worship, such as pentagrams and Pikachu's tail, which is the shape of the Sig Rune, a symbol of the Norse lightning God, Odin.

Without using the brain to make religion, I wonder if it would have ever been used to make logic - or imagination? Fiction is just rife with religious motifs to peel back and appreciate.
 
Last edited:

Grei

not the color
Let's turn that statement around? What makes you think slavery and stoning of witches is immoral and homosexuality is ok? On what do you base these claims?

Common sense. Anyone with half a brain can tell you that homosexuals are people just like heterosexuals. Same with witches and those who are enslaved. We are all people, and giving some people less rights because an ancient, corrupt old book says so is outrageously and monumentally stupid.

ShinySandshrew said:
Jesus forgives gays of their sin. Any and all. God let's everyone come to Him for salvation without having to change their behavior. They don't have to clean up their act to get saved. That doesn't mean He wants them to stay in the same state as when they were unsaved. On the contrary, Ephesians 2:3 and Titus 3:3 say that we should not commit the sins that we committed before we were saved.

That is, of course, going with the misguided assumption that homosexuals have any freaking choice in their orientation.

ShinySandshrew said:
Really now? Why don't you take a look at these articles?

How old are you? I would think anyone old enough to debate religion would know that it's unfair to base one's opinion on a religion on extremists.

I mean, I could base my entire opinion on Christianity off of the guy who preaches about how Pokemon is satanic, but that would give a very skewed example of what it means to be a Christian. Similarly, saying Hinduism, as a religion, is intolerant based on the acts of misguided extremists is completely unfair.

Besides, I was more or less talking about Hinduism at its core. As in, its entire basis, the morals and guidelines it began with. Christianity's basis and moral beginnings stem from "OBEY ME OR YOU WILL SUFFER PAINFULLY FOREVER!", more or less.

Or, in your words:

ShinySandshrew said:
No, not one act of defiance, sin nature. Everyone born of man has one and suffers from one. Thus, everyone deserves Hell

^ That is not the kind of religion I would like to follow, one that condemns me from the start. One reason why a number of atheists would hate religion.
 
Last edited:

evolutionrex

The Awesome Atheist
Yes, you do, or otherwise your statement is inaccurate. Is it that weird to be corrected in the Debate Forum? Did you see my posts about how Pokemon are based on ancient Gods of old? We would not have the Weather Trio had not someone worshipped (and later demonized) the Behemoth, Leviathan, or Ziz, we would not have Arceus without the creator god in Shinto; nor anthropomorphism of the sun and the moon in Solrock and Lunatone, or even in general; or even the idea of spirits or monsters in general. Simple shapes originated as symbols of worship, such as pentagrams and Pikachu's tail, which is the shape of the Sig Rune, a symbol of the Norse lightning God, Odin.

Without using the brain to make religion, I wonder if it would have ever been used to make logic - or imagination? Fiction is just rife with religious motifs to peel back and appreciate.
now you lost me, you posted about some Pokemon being based on religion, what's your point?

Religion is what people thought was true, but it has come to a time where science is the actual truth and many of the world's past beliefs are now inaccurate such as a flat earth, earth everything revolving around the earth, creationism, slavery, etc.

I may be missing your point, can you tell me what your trying to get at?
 

Sabonea_Masukippa

Well-Known Member
Let's turn that statement around? What makes you think slavery and stoning of witches is immoral and homosexuality is ok? On what do you base these claims?

Way to avoid the question.
Reasoned logic and long consideration. Slavery reduces another human being to the status of property and takes away their rights. Stoning, whether it is of witches or not, is a cruel and painful way to take another person's life based on another person's personal irrationality. Homosexuality is a physical, emotional or sexual attraction between two people of the same sex (not necessarily gender, though), and love between two people that share that attraction is consensual and does no harm to society at large.

Now, why are stoning and slavery moral and why is homosexuality a punishable action?

Jesus forgives gays of their sin. Any and all. God let's everyone come to Him for salvation without having to change their behavior. They don't have to clean up their act to get saved. That doesn't mean He wants them to stay in the same state as when they were unsaved. On the contrary, Ephesians 2:3 and Titus 3:3 say that we should not commit the sins that we committed before we were saved.

Contradiction. Either God doesn't want us to change our behavior or he does; which is it?

No, not one act of defiance, sin nature. Everyone born of man has one and suffers from one. Thus, everyone deserves Hell

So God willingly allows us to be born in a condition that dictates that we will be punished for eternity for being born in that condition? I'm sorry, even if God was real, I could not worship it, if that is the case.

Jesus is, figuratively, God holding out His hand to each of us to save us from punishment. He asks us to take His hand. What should God do to those who do not want God's help, those who slap the hand away or spit on it or pierce it through and reject the only avenue of help? Force them to spend eternity with a God they hate? That is not a loving God.

As the omniscient and omnipresent creator of all of us, who theoretically knows our hearts, he should know exactly what it would take to make each and every one of us to believe in him. If he is so petty that he is willing to put us in an eternal 'too hard basket' because some of us require more convincing than others in order to believe then again, even if he does exist, he is not something that I want to worship.

I do have one question for the Atheists, which is not meant to belittle you in any way. I just have always wondered this. Why, if there was even the slightest chance that you could be eternally happy forever, would you not take that chance?

My answer: There are thousands of human religions, gods and deities. Even among Yahweh supporters there are thousands upon thousands of conflicting groups and churches, all of whom cannot be right. I am not willing to hang my hat on any particular one until one is able to present some sort of repeatable, testable or even logical evidence that their beliefs are more 'true' than any of the others. Until then, I reject the truth about all claims about any gods.

Speaking of satisfying this need for confirmation and knowledge; do you have a link to the explanation of this phenomenon? I would love to investigate it.

The best explanation I can think of is that it provided an evolutionary advantage on our ancestors. Understanding how things work and using that knowledge to the groups advantage would have, theoretically, improved an individual and its groups chances of survival. Over time, those seeking knowledge and improving their way of life are more 'successful' than those that don't and are able to pass on their knowledge and their theoretical genetic predisposition for learning onto their children/other group members.

That is, of course, going with the misguided assumption that homosexuals have any freaking choice in their orientation.

Even if it was choice it wouldn't make a difference, of course.
 
Last edited:
When i say "my opinion" it means i don't expect anyone to believe it, i was stating my thoughts on religion. In my opinion, i think people should try to save the earth instead of praying to what i believe is false hope, they should get out their and do something about it.

I suppose that is a slightly better way of wording it, and thinking it over, I guess it's what some religious/atheistic people believe, no matter how fallacious. It's just beyond me how someone can honestly believe that somebody's opinion or perspective really doesn't count or couldn't benefit anything.

Meh.
 

Sabonea_Masukippa

Well-Known Member
We should all take a step back and see things from a bigger perspective.

Nice words. Completely devoid of any real meaning, but nice words nonetheless.

Here's the biggest con for basing culture on religion; in a society with freedom of religion, the diversity of religious beliefs amongst populations are so diverse (even within broader religions like 'Christianity' or 'Judaism' there is huge conflict over doctrine between sects) that choosing any one belief system over any other automatically privileges one belief system over another, which has possible negative emotional consequences for believers in other belief sets and it increases the chance of bias in government or commerce or public institutions which again, could negatively affect those who don't follow the arbitrarily chosen beliefs.

t is about fairness for all people, and has little to no relevance whether or not Yahweh/Allah, Vishnu, Ra, Thor, Zeus or the Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe or not, or whether a highly compressed singularity comprising of all known matter suddenly began expanding for currently unknown reasons.
 

CSolarstorm

New spicy version
now you lost me, you posted about some Pokemon being based on religion, what's your point?

Religion is what people thought was true, but it has come to a time where science is the actual truth and many of the world's past beliefs are now inaccurate such as a flat earth, earth everything revolving around the earth, creationism, slavery, etc.

I may be missing your point, can you tell me what your trying to get at?

My point was, in a world where nobody worshipped God or Gods, there would only be Pokemon based on fossils and animals. Even a lot of the Pokemon based on animals are still mythical figures. (Torterra; the world turtle, Infernape; Hanuman, Empoleon; Neptune.) There might not be Pokemon at all without the precedent of spirit worship and and the creativity that went into religions before that. Wouldn't that be tragic?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top