Welcome to Gaia! ::

This thread is for debating whether or not religion in any guise is needed at all. Do we need it for moral guidance? Do we need it to fill a void? Do they serve to make us better human beings? What are they still here for?

Inspired by WillWintter's reply in the theocracy thread, this is a debate thread for those whom believe mankind does not need and can get along quite well without the existence of religion in today's socieities. But let us look at both sides of the issue.

For:

1. One less thing to separate mankind based upon.
2. Perhaps could favor the creation of the one world religion and one world government.
3. Could result in less psychological problems concerning abuse or extremes of faith.
4. Potentially could eliminate social injustices ie how some seen the current Proposition 8.

Against:

1. Great amounts of history and wonderful architecture possibly wiped from our history.
2. Our faiths generally exist to fill a void and give us inner peace in this world we feel is declining.
3. When positively taken and understood, some faiths allow for a great moral compass and develop fine moral consciences.
4. Sometimes in the name of faith, individuals are driven to great lengths to make great changes and partake in wonderful causes.

These are general statements on both sides, but I'd like to take it more in depth over time, pending the thread takes off. In which side are you in favor for? Support your reasoning with self-evidence, personal experiences and personal observations of what you feel would be the results of your view.

Note: This may be limited to more modern societies, as primitive cultures may not even be able to fathom living or existing without their faith driven cultures.

I would like you to elaborate further. What do you mean by "safety?" Define it. Why do you say we do not need it? Give me reasons. Examples by which you can justify your opinion. Personal experiences, something.

The Native Americans' faith is a spirituality as any other. And quite the contrary, we will get along. I'm friends with Pagans, Satanists, agnostics and atheists. What you believe is what it is, what you do as a human being is something entirely different. You could have a cat taxadermied or something, worship it as the cat god and I'd still support you. Think it a bit odd, but hey, to each their own.

In essence, many like to think their souls immortal. Of course, I don't think anymore I'd want to live forever. I used to, back in high school when I loved vampires. Forever young, living eternally... Now, not so much. My soul can live on of course, but staying forever on this earth as I am now? No. Maybe in some fantasy version were I an angel or something. Ha!

Okay, we've established you don't believe the creator, or higher powers would be interpersonal with mankind, or have characteristics as monotheistic faiths present him/her/it, or polytheistic faiths present them.

Overall, what do you think possible to remove religion from society? What would it be replaced with? Tell me about your idea of a society without religion in any form.

So we see that it has its ups and downs. Mind you, any debate here is only theoretical. Not everything has to be grounded in the real world, where it's not feasable. I'm seeking theoretical opinions and ideas as well, but realistic ones if possible.

Organized religion with a governing body is just a way to control people. There's nothing holy about the Catholic Church, it's just another feudal government. The only 'organized' religion I approve of is Buddhism, for reasons I don't think I have to mention...
But I've always thought that people who believe in a 'Greater power' or 'Higher being" are weak people who can't survive on their own. In the same way that spineless people group together to feel powerful. In short, it's simply the coward's way of finding strength, since he can't find it inside himself.
Heh, so many people are going to hate me for saying all that. But I'm okay with that.

I don't hate you. But I do not agree with you either. I actually find myself stronger than some for at least trying to practice self-restraint, being a kinder soul than others would at times, but most of all, I find myself stronger than some for the simple fact I do believe in the fact of having someone higher than myself to answer to. Some don't believe for they find it impossible, others don't believe for they don't wish to try to be mentally or spiritually "clean" in some way. Further, others do not believe since they have problems with authority, and they themselves don't want to think they have someone to answer to for their actions. Now, to me, is that not in itself finding strength inside yourself if you are practicing these things? If you continue on to try and fix your life, and answer to an authority, and live as directed? Is that not finding the strength in yourself to actually achieve these things? And do not Buddhists answer to karma, which directs their lives and actions in this world? It would seem that they too answer to something.

I thought this thread was for the speaking out against religions entirely, for those who believe that no religions are necessary. But yes, if you're willing to put down other faiths, and say you respect Buddhism, I'd like your reasoning behind that for debate purposes.

That's my point exactly. People can be kind, or self-restrained, or law abiding, without any "higher authority" to answer to. If there is no God and no Heaven, does that make these things meaningless? I don't believe in any higher power. Does that mean I can't do good, or be a kind person? Why do people need to answer to someone other than themselves? And besides, history shows that organized religion is NOT a good thing; religion has killed more people than any other institution, the Roman Catholic Church topping the list.
Either way, I still believe that people who needs 'divine' guidance to do good are weak. Do good for the sake of good, for the sake of others, not to please some undefined deity.
And as for Buddhism, I don't believe in rebirth, or any of the Buddhist deities, but as a religion that's based on the concept of "compassion", it's hard not to respect it. Historically, there's never been any forced conversions into Buddhism, no crusades, no witch hunts, no... religious persecutions made by Buddhists. Buddhist monks do not condemn others, or judge others, instead they meet cruelty with kindness, or hatred with love. It has no ruling body, although Dhalai Lama is their face to the outside world. But even he says that he is simply a monk, in no way superior to others. It is the only widespread religion that has a peaceful history, save for a few instances where they were persecuted themselves. Also, they don't 'answer' to karma. They believe in rebirth, and that the deeds of a person follows them into their next incarnation, but the concept isn't the same as Heaven. If anything, they believe that people with bad karma gets a new chance to set things right, to atone for what they did in their previous lives. Instead of being sent somewhere to be punished, they are given a chance to atone for their bad deeds by going through various hardships in their new incarnation, and they are reborn until they have attained spiritual maturity.

And the colonisation of America was a good thing? Please, enlighten me... I must have skipped that history class. And medical treatment and hospitals sprung up in China and India hundreds of years before Christianity was founded. So what if the name 'hospital' has a catholic source, it's still just a name for something that originated in another place, another time, and had nothing to do with religion. And as for music, sure it influenced music. But I don't think it was a good influence. Bach, Mozart? They would have composed music regardless if the Church had existed or not. As it was, NO music that wasn't church music was allowed, and that's censorship. Beethoven was the first musician to break away from the clutches of Christianity to create independent music. Everywhere that wasn't Europe, music was free to develop on its own.
As for the Church's influence on early black music, such as blues, you also have to remember that it was majorly the Church and various religious groups that persecuted the black population. They even labeled blues "the devil's music". Hardly the best of influences, there...
And quite frankly, if the world is ever to be equal, religion, like any other institution that puts a value on human life based on belief or sexual preference, needs to go. Regardless if religion has done good or bad in the past, it's outdated. There simply is no room for a religion that judges others arbitrarily in a world of science, technology and globalisation. It's just another thing that alienates people from one another. Black, white, red, yellow. Upper class, middle class, lower class. Rich, poor. Muslim, catholic, hindu. They are all the same thing, and these boundaries all need to vanish.