This is really funny

[CYP450]

Yes it's true that if you don't believe in god then you must think that religion is ultimately man made and man is therefore responsible.

Man is definitely a bastard but we have learned and are still learning how we can all act in a way to make life better for everyone, religion tries to take us backwards several thousand years in our development to allow us to be more selfish and dickheaded than we are now. Religion is merely a tool for control (albeit a very powerful one); any way we can get control over our fellow person will benefit us as an individual all the more.

I don't think religion can be the bane of existence, but certainly of civilisation.

 

[CYP450]

Today we get our moral values from our parents and family more than religion, but those moral values all stem from religion.

I hear this argument all the time, "but religion gave us our morals at least".

It is however, patent bullshit.

If we followed all the teachings of the bible (I'm using christianity as it is most applicable in the West) we'd think it was OK to sell our daughters and OK to turn people into pillars of salt for looking over their shoulder.

A lot of people then say, "well they are obviously bad, we just follow all the teachings about loving each other and charity etc", this only proves that they are wrong though, if they can distinguish what is right and wrong in the bible than that faculty is within them already without religion.

The "morals" argument is just another straw-clutching attempt by institutions that are losing their grip and become more irrelevant daily.

 

[Dead Winter]

You're missing the point. I'm not saying that religion went about everything the right way. Had there been no religion to guide the ignorant and stupid masses into not killing each other and destroying the world with overpopulation by fucking each other to death like stupid rabbits, we would be much worse off now than without religion, at least up until the Middle Ages. After that point science began to take hold slowly and eventually superstition gave way to reason.

People didn't know right from wrong in primitive times before that. Killing someone wasn't a big deal, much less rape, theft, etc. Religion became the road map toward a more civilized society.

The reason religion will continue to thrive in the world can be explained perfectly by the example Brooks spoke about. That guy was a fucking moron who, much like any other neanderthal millions of years ago, hasn't evolved enough intellectually to respond to other suggestions without resorting to violence and anger. As long as there are stupid human beings in the world, religion will thrive. Do the rest of us need it? No. But we're still not at the point where mankind can be left to it's own devices without the aid of superstition to keep it afraid of fucking up.

The only other way to keep masses in line at this point would be a one-world fascist government with penalty of death for crimes. However, it's the same thing. It's the constant threat of pain and suffering and death used to keep people in line. The only difference is that religion promises that in the afterlife, not in the now. Are you so naive to believe that people should be left to their own devices in order to make good life decisions? Do we really have to bring up a perfect example, Sarah Palin?

As long as there are people who would vote for such a person to reign over their lives, humankind isn't ready for the next step.

 

[Macharius]

The Virgin Birth and Virgin Mary are, pardon the pun, pregnant with social symbolic significance in most, if not all, parts of the world. Whether you believe in them or not, they are solid social constructs, rehearsed endlessly in art, humour, everyday life, and language. And yet their birth is due to a relatively simple mistake in translation. The Old Testament talks about almah 'young woman,' not bethulah 'virgin.' However, the scholars in the 3rd century BC translated the Hebrew almah as parthenos in Greek. Thus the 'young woman' in Hebrew metamorphosed into a 'virgin' in Greek—and she has remained a virgin ever since in translations across the world. The notion of 'virgin birth' was born, thanks to a mistranslation.

...

 

[Werckmeister Harmonies]

I generally see religion as just one out of many forms of alienated thinking. Religion gives a mystified view of the world which gives human attributes to a supposed "supreme being", gives answers to questions which science and logic cannot answer, but foremost results in a false consciousness.
I however think that religion, just like all other systems of thought in philosophy and ethics, cannot be understood except looking at it in relation to the society which gives birth to it, as well as it´s development cannot be understood except in relation to changes those societies undergo. My point is that religion, like all ideology, does not exist on it´s own in a vacum, but is always conditioned by society. It is for example no coincidence that in most "western" countries catholicism gave way as a dominant religion to various forms of protestantism in the 18th- 19th century. The reason is that by then feudalism, which was the basis of the catholic church, was giving way to an emerging capitalist economy which had needs for different ethical ideas and world view than the feudal economy. The same thing can be seen in philosophy at that time when philosophers begun to speak of individual freedom and private property being "sacred", instead of honoring traditions and the needs of "the whole". That being said, the catholic church as a global institution, has no real base in today´s global capitalist economy, even though it still plays a role in various countries at a different economic stage. The catholic church with it´s rigid traditions, fetishes, Papal infallibility etc. is today just a relic of a time gone by. Therefore those reactions of the vatican spoken about in this thread are typical reactions of an institution which has lost it´s functional base and is on a steady decline into oblivion.

 

[EricT]

 

[Dead Winter]

I generally see religion as just one out of many forms of alienated thinking. Religion gives a mystified view of the world which gives human attributes to a supposed "supreme being", gives answers to questions which science and logic cannot answer, but foremost results in a false consciousness.
I however think that religion, just like all other systems of thought in philosophy and ethics, cannot be understood except looking at it in relation to the society which gives birth to it, as well as it´s development cannot be understood except in relation to changes those societies undergo. My point is that religion, like all ideology, does not exist on it´s own in a vacum, but is always conditioned by society. It is for example no coincidence that in most "western" countries catholicism gave way as a dominant religion to various forms of protestantism in the 18th- 19th century. The reason is that by then feudalism, which was the basis of the catholic church, was giving way to an emerging capitalist economy which had needs for different ethical ideas and world view than the feudal economy. The same thing can be seen in philosophy at that time when philosophers begun to speak of individual freedom and private property being "sacred", instead of honoring traditions and the needs of "the whole". That being said, the catholic church as a global institution, has no real base in today´s global capitalist economy, even though it still plays a role in various countries at a different economic stage. The catholic church with it´s rigid traditions, fetishes, Papal infallibility etc. is today just a relic of a time gone by. Therefore those reactions of the vatican spoken about in this thread are typical reactions of an institution which has lost it´s functional base and is on a steady decline into oblivion.

Great explanation.

 

[Altitudes]

 

[freewill]

SKY CAKE!!!