What's the point of religion when we have education now?

[Politico]

The purpose of religion is to keep people who can't accept the realities of life from going crazy and killing each other.

 

[zaangalewa]

The purpose of religion is to keep people who can't accept the realities of life from going crazy and killing each other.

You are right. No one needs religion to kill someone. It's in the opposit: Someone needs to forget god if he likes to kill someone. But god will not forget.



Ich hab im Traum geweinet,
Mir träumte, du lägest im Grab.
Ich wachte auf, und die Träne
Floß noch von der Wange herab.

Ich hab im Traum geweinet,
Mir träumt', du verließest mich.
Ich wachte auf, und ich weinte
Noch lange bitterlich.

Ich hab im Traum geweinet,
Mir träumte, du bliebest mir gut.
Ich wachte auf, und noch immer
Strömt meine Tränenflut.

Heinrich Heine

 

[Politico]

No they need to believe that they will someday end up in heaven. The reality that we all end up as worm food makes weak minded people go nuts. We need religion to keep them out of our way.

 

[zaangalewa]

No they need to believe that they will someday end up in heaven. The reality that we all end up as worm food makes weak minded people go nuts. We need religion to keep them out of our way.

I did not think about a punishment or the situation after our life. I thought about the present. People from the organisation IS for example are murdering people while they are on the retreat. It's just simple terrible enough that god has to see this. I would not like to be in his position, because I fear god dies the death together with his children.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

...
I'm just gonna number these so I don't have to play with the quote function and break it down.

1. "I don't doubt that human beings in general are not non psychopaths." Triple negative, took me a few seconds to unwrap that sentence and gather what you were saying. People in general -are- in fact non psychopaths. The indiscriminate lack of empathy and remorse in a psychopath that distinguish them from a typically wired human is only found, according to modern studies, in about 1 percent of our population. For most of us, intentionally causing someone else to suffer requires a strong enough negative emotional response to depersonalize/dehumanize the object of that suffering, and even then repression of remorse is far more typical than a lack thereof. That's how empathy works in the vast, vast, VAST majority of everyone you've ever encountered, religion notwithstanding.

2. You're inserting your own assumptions, here. I didn't say or even imply parental fault or childhood virtue. What I said literally had nothing to do with assigning responsibility for childhood trauma, and literally nothing to do with praising children for their potential virtue. All I was implying is that childhood trauma has the potential to vastly alter someone's emotional responses, and thus their empathetic responses. Adult trauma can do it too, but influences that occur during one's formative years are generally more compelling than those that occur later. That's why they're called "formative" years.

When you say, "so what, it's all meanwhile", I gather that you think I'm insinuating that childhood trauma excuses adult behavior. I'm not making that claim at all, I'm saying that it effects the empathy that is the -actual- source of our morals regarding how we interact with others. It had little to do with my greater point, I was simply acknowledging that not -everyone- is possessed of the typical empathetic responses.

3. What you said here isn't a contradiction to anything I've said. All this does is explain your disdain for the word, "morality".

In reality, I'm simply using the accurate English term to describe what we've both been talking about. Morality is, by definition, someone's values of right and wrong. Your contention is that without religion, people would have no concrete reason to worry about right and wrong (which is called morality). So, lemme make this easier for you to consider objectively without taking issue with my word choice: The concept of right and wrong isn't a construct of religion. Better?

4. Fun fun, but not actually relevant to our discussion. Not sure why this was its own section.

5. No, not just principles of war, but principles of right and wrong. Your response, though appropriately snide for an attempt to belittle my point without analyzing it, doesn't actually counter my position. Got any actual point with which to refute what I've said, or just unsubstantiated condescension?

6. Ask an atheist whatever you want to ask them. "Why did you do that?" seems like a pretty valid one, if you're looking for motive. I don't see how the fact that -you- would be awkward finding language by which to qualify a non-religious person's moral values proves that they don't exist. All it proves is that you have a hard time understanding how concepts of right and wrong could exist without a supernatural parent deciding what they are.

As far as your "God exists and doesn't exist at the same time" explanation of agnosticism, I've never heard this conundrum assigned to agnosticism. Not believing one way or the other doesn't mean that I believe that both are true simultaneously. It means I haven't experienced evidence that compells me to believe one way or the other with any conviction, and certainly not enough conviction to try to live my life according to anyone's explanation.

Lastly, by my understanding, Kant's categorical imperative has literally nothing to do with a human spirit. Kant's "categorical imperative" is a moral maxim that transcends conditions and is -always- logically correct. "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law without contradiction." His idea was about morality based -specifically- in logic and rational thought, not in the existence of a hard, spiritual standard of right and wrong. You've spun Kant to support your own view that religion is necessary for right and wrong when what he actually said about the categorical imperative didn't presuppose the existence of a spirit at all. It only necessitated the appearance of free will and a human's knack for rational thought.

Not that it matters. What a philosopher says is by no means gospel, regardless of how respected that philosopher is. If Kant -had- said that universal moral values could only be achieved by recognition of a spiritual authority, I don't care how many college professors touted his genius, I'd say he was wrong. In his defense, he never, to my knowledge, posited anything so silly.


Bottom line: If religion is required for people to understand right and wrong, why is it that religions all over the planet, throughout all historical time periods, all seem to have moral maxims that hit on the big three? Don't steal, don't lie, don't hurt others. These religions often contain stories that exclude the potential existence of the universe as presented in other religions. They are often mutually exclusive, and therefore can't all be correct. If most aren't correct, why is it that so many of these mutually exclusive explanations espouse those same three rules? IF the true God(s) only inspired one of these religions, then it must be acknowledged that these other religions were largely invented, and not inspired by the supernatural. IF humans the world over all invented the same rules about not fucking each other over, and most of them weren't actually divinely inspired, maybe we might acknowledge the possibility that there's something other than a God telling us right from wrong that inspires people to do right by each other.

Do you expect an answer? I guess you know very well, where you ignored what I said so you are able to repeat what you always thought. I don't have any problem if you live without the spirit of Immanuel Kant - I can also live with people who are falsly thinking agnosticism is a position in a spectrum between atheism and the belief in god. Besides: right and wrong and/or moral are not very interesting themes for me. Sure we need justice - but we are not able to find justice in wars of words or in the letters of the laws. I'm convinced without his Holy Spirit everyone is lost. Believe it or not - that's not my problem. I wish you a good day.

Wow, disingenuous much?

I literally went through your post point for point to try and cover everything you said, and in a post where you address -none- of my points, you're gonna accuse me of intentionally ignoring you so I can keep talking? Holy shit! Do you at least understand that you're a hypocrite, or do you repress it?

Also, I don't consider agnosticism the center of the spectrum, I consider it polar on the scale of faithless (agnostic) to faithful (religion and atheists).

 

[zaangalewa]

... I literally went through your post point for point to try and cover everything you said, and in a post where you address -none- of my points, you're gonna accuse me of intentionally ignoring you so I can keep talking? Holy shit! Do you at least understand that you're a hypocrite, or do you repress it?

I had a very long answer - but it got lost because of technical problems. And when I thought again about I understood that it makes not really a difference whatever I would say. I had for example once a friend who spoke not with me when he liked to abort the baby of his girl friend. They did it and from my point of view - I knew nothing about - they started to grow more and more depressive. One day I asked him "What's going on?" - then he told me the story and why they decided to do so. It were not very plausible reasons. When I asked him "Why did you not speak with me before she and you did so?" then he said to me "I knew you are against abortion". We never spoke about but he knew I'm against abortion. He was right. His girl friend left him a short time later and I lost him out of my eyes.

Also, I don't consider agnosticism the center of the spectrum, I consider it polar on the scale of faithless (agnostic) to faithful (religion and atheists).

I am agnostic and I am a faithful Catholic. Your problem is : Agnositicism is not a scale or a point of view. It's a philosophy - a real philosophy is more comparable with a mathematical expression as it is comparable with an opinion - what shows that no one is able to know wether god (or transcendence in general ) exists or wether god is not existing. That's maybe a deeper reason why Christians always said "I believe in god" - what's a true sentence (everything is true what's not false except the speaker is a liar) also in case of agnosticism. One of the most impressive forms of agnosticism was used from the lutheran protestant Dietrich Bonhoefer when he said "The god, who is, is not" (German: "Der Gott, der ist, ist nicht"). Don't forget please that he died for this god. He was faithful and he believed in god.

But okay if you like to be faithless - be faithless - if this is possible, what I don't know. But should be possible because it's said: If we are faithless, he remains faithful, for he cannot deny himself.

 

[Quentin111]

The purpose of religion is to keep people who can't accept the realities of life from going crazy and killing each other.

In afterlife and retribution can be trusted and without religion: Atheism and belief in afterlife US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

... I literally went through your post point for point to try and cover everything you said, and in a post where you address -none- of my points, you're gonna accuse me of intentionally ignoring you so I can keep talking? Holy shit! Do you at least understand that you're a hypocrite, or do you repress it?

I had a very long answer - but it got lost because of technical problems. And when I thought again about I understood that it makes not really a difference whatever I would say. I had for example once a friend who spoke not with me when he liked to abort the baby of his girl friend. They did it and from my point of view - I knew nothing about - they started to grow more and more depressive. One day I asked him "What's going on?" - then he told me the story and why they decided to do so. It were not very plausible reasons. When I asked him "Why did you not speak with me before she and you did so?" then he said to me "I knew you are against abortion". We never spoke about but he knew I'm against abortion. He was right. His girl friend left him a short time later and I lost him out of my eyes.

Also, I don't consider agnosticism the center of the spectrum, I consider it polar on the scale of faithless (agnostic) to faithful (religion and atheists).

I am agnostic and I am a faithful Catholic. Your problem is : Agnositicism is not a scale or a point of view. It's a philosophy - a real philosophy is more comparable with a mathematical expression as it is comparable with an opinion - what shows that no one is able to know wether god (or transcendence in general ) exists or wether god is not existing. That's maybe a deeper reason why Christians always said "I believe in god" - what's a true sentence (everything is true what's not false except the speaker is a liar) also in case of agnosticism. One of the most impressive forms of agnosticism was used from the lutheran protestant Dietrich Bonhoefer when he said "The god, who is, is not" (German: "Der Gott, der ist, ist nicht"). Don't forget please that he died for this god. He was faithful and he believed in god.

But okay if you like to be faithless - be faithless - if this is possible, what I don't know. But should be possible because it's said: If we are faithless, he remains faithful, for he cannot deny himself.

Faithless might be a bad way to put it, no human is truly faithless. When I say faithless, I mean an agnostic finds neither theism nor atheism compelling enough to believe. Classical view of agnosticism, which was coined to differentiate from theists and atheists.

What you're claiming to be is a more modern form of agnosticism, where we've recently separated the concept into agnostic theists and agnostic atheists, those who believe but don't know. I would argue, however, that this development takes all the meaning out of the philosophy. If anyone is agnostic who believes in god or believes there's no god, but doesn't know for certain, then you could logically say that everyone is agnostic because, NEWS FLASH, -nobody- knows whether God exists. If you're going to adopt this silly new explanation of agnosticism, fine, but you might as well replace the term "agnostic" with the term "human", because you've effectively removed all distinction.

Either that, or you only apply agnostic labels to those who don't believe they know, while calling all (a)theists who think their faith is knowledge theists or atheists. Even then, you remove the terms' meaning. Considering that a human can't know whether there's a god or not, you could replace "agnostic" with "correct".

While you explain to me that agnosticism is a philosophy and not just an opinion (a fact I'm well aware of and a philosophy whose aspects and history I'm pretty familiar with, thank you), you explain it in a matter that makes it superfluous, a simple acknowledgement of an undeniable fact. By the definition you propose, agnosticism is as philosophical as accepting that ice is really just frozen water.

Ironic, no? In your attempt to paint it as a philosophy that I don't understand, you've presented it as a non-philosophy.

 

[zaangalewa]

... I literally went through your post point for point to try and cover everything you said, and in a post where you address -none- of my points, you're gonna accuse me of intentionally ignoring you so I can keep talking? Holy shit! Do you at least understand that you're a hypocrite, or do you repress it?

I had a very long answer - but it got lost because of technical problems. And when I thought again about I understood that it makes not really a difference whatever I would say. I had for example once a friend who spoke not with me when he liked to abort the baby of his girl friend. They did it and from my point of view - I knew nothing about - they started to grow more and more depressive. One day I asked him "What's going on?" - then he told me the story and why they decided to do so. It were not very plausible reasons. When I asked him "Why did you not speak with me before she and you did so?" then he said to me "I knew you are against abortion". We never spoke about but he knew I'm against abortion. He was right. His girl friend left him a short time later and I lost him out of my eyes.

Also, I don't consider agnosticism the center of the spectrum, I consider it polar on the scale of faithless (agnostic) to faithful (religion and atheists).

I am agnostic and I am a faithful Catholic. Your problem is : Agnositicism is not a scale or a point of view. It's a philosophy - a real philosophy is more comparable with a mathematical expression as it is comparable with an opinion - what shows that no one is able to know wether god (or transcendence in general ) exists or wether god is not existing. That's maybe a deeper reason why Christians always said "I believe in god" - what's a true sentence (everything is true what's not false except the speaker is a liar) also in case of agnosticism. One of the most impressive forms of agnosticism was used from the lutheran protestant Dietrich Bonhoefer when he said "The god, who is, is not" (German: "Der Gott, der ist, ist nicht"). Don't forget please that he died for this god. He was faithful and he believed in god.

But okay if you like to be faithless - be faithless - if this is possible, what I don't know. But should be possible because it's said: If we are faithless, he remains faithful, for he cannot deny himself.

Faithless might be a bad way to put it, no human is truly faithless. When I say faithless, I mean an agnostic finds neither theism nor atheism compelling enough to believe.

You are still thinking agnosticism is a point of view or a scale of interpretation. But it is not. Agnosticism tells you only that you are not able to say on good reasons wether the transzendent god is existing or not. Ignoramus. Ignorabimus. If you don't like to believe in god and you don't like not to believe in god the same time this is a completly different thing.
Agnosticism is a gerneralisation of this what Imanuel Kant and others did. Kant destroyed every known evidence for the existance of god. The same is possible for every evidence for the notexistance of god (maybe temporarily except some thoughts like the theodizee of Leibniz, who loved god very much).

Classical view of agnosticism, which was coined to differentiate from theists and atheists.

I don't know what to do with the word "classical" in this context. And no one calls himselve a "theist". There's nothing existing what we could call the "religion of theism", there are lots of theisms - could be the expression "religion of atheism" would be even more clear.

What you're claiming to be is a more modern form of agnosticism, where we've recently separated the concept into agnostic theists and agnostic atheists, those who believe but don't know. I would argue, however, that this development takes all the meaning out of the philosophy. If anyone is agnostic who believes in god or believes there's no god, but doesn't know for certain, then you could logically say that everyone is agnostic because, NEWS FLASH, -nobody- knows whether God exists.

Exactly. If agnosticism is true (and agnosticism is true as long as it is not false so this logical truth depends on progress like every truth of science) then nobody knows wether god exists or not. If god tells me something and I speak about then you know nothing about wether this is true or not. Waht a martyr like Bonhoefer saíd is often more plausible - what his murderers said - if they said something at all - is less plausible. But there are no automatisms. We have to listen to everyone. This makes our lifes not more easy because it's not simple to find good ways between all the nonsense of the world.

If you're going to adopt this silly new explanation of agnosticism, fine, but you might as well replace the term "agnostic" with the term "human", because you've effectively removed all distinction.

Human is a lot - for example it's human to burp. Humanity and Christianity are often synonyms in the german language. Guess it's the same in the english language.

Either that, or you only apply agnostic labels to those who don't believe they know, while calling all (a)theists who think their faith is knowledge theists or atheists. Even then, you remove the terms' meaning. Considering that a human can't know whether there's a god or not, you could replace "agnostic" with "correct".

Try it with "rumpelstiltskin" and maybe he teaches you how to make solid gold out of empty straw.

While you explain to me that agnosticism is a philosophy and not just an opinion (a fact I'm well aware of and a philosophy whose aspects and history I'm pretty familiar with, thank you), you explain it in a matter that makes it superfluous, a simple acknowledgement of an undeniable fact. By the definition you propose, agnosticism is as philosophical as accepting that ice is really just frozen water.

Ice is frozen water. What's your problem?

Ironic, no? In your attempt to paint it as a philosophy that I don't understand, you've presented it as a non-philosophy.

Philosophy is easy to understand. Just simple try to find out what's really true.

 

[Muslim75]

Education lacks religion. It seems to flee from religion instead of teaching it.

 

[sealybobo]

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that religion is bad or dumb. I'm just saying we've outgrown it. We don't need stories about how the Sun moves across the sky because it's sitting in a chariot. We understand how the solar system works and know that it's actually the Earth revolving around the Sun. We don't need an illiterate Neolithic tribesman's best guess that the first people were made by Sky Father. We understand evolution now. We don't need these attempts to explain why the world is the way it is when we have the real answers to many of our questions.

Isn't it time for us to accept this and move on to bigger and better things now? Isn't it time for Jews to give up their Judaism and its attendant falsified history and ethnic supremacy? Isn't it time for Christians to give up their Christianity and its worship of an executed Jewish convict as the creator of the universe? Isn't it time for Muslims to give up their Islam and its calls for a global theocratic dictatorship? We don't need these things anymore. We can let go. Will you join the rest of the human family in letting go of the past and stepping out into the light of the bright future we can build together?

I can't imagine when Mormons in utah and Muslims in the middle east will stop raising their children to believe.

But I can see in maybe 500 years the majority of free americans will either consider themselves athiests agnostic or spiritual. The more free Muslims become the less religious they will be but they might be 1000 years behind us.

 

[zaangalewa]

... But I can see in maybe 500 years the majority of free americans will either consider themselves athiests agnostic or spiritual. The more free Muslims become the less religious they will be but they might be 1000 years behind us.

It seems to me the only progress in the western world is a progress in technics and natural science and not a progress in justice and welfare. And it's interesting for me that you spoke about "free americans". I would say "unfree americans" are for example the Catholics of the USA, because in 240 years only 2-3 years was a Catholic president of the USA before he was murdered. And maybe in 500 years it will be difficult to find anyone who is not a Muslim in the area what's today called the United States of America - if there are some people at all living in this area any longer.

 

[Unkotare]

I'm just saying we've outgrown it.

Then you don't understand it, simpleton.

 

[Unkotare]

But I can see in maybe 500 years the majority of free americans will either consider themselves athiests agnostic or spiritual. The more free Muslims become the less religious they will be but they might be 1000 years behind us.

Athe-isn t US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[sealybobo]

... But I can see in maybe 500 years the majority of free americans will either consider themselves athiests agnostic or spiritual. The more free Muslims become the less religious they will be but they might be 1000 years behind us.

It seems to me the only progress in the western world is a progress in technics and natural science and not a progress in justice and welfare. And it's interesting for me that you spoke about "free americans". I would say "unfree americans" are for example the Catholics of the USA, because in 240 years only 2-3 years was a Catholic president of the USA before he was murdered. And maybe in 500 years it will be difficult to find anyone who is not a Muslim in the area what's today called the United States of America - if there are some people at all living in this area any longer.

I know Arabs and Persians who came here to get away from Islam.

The ones that stay faithful have children who won't be wearing headscarfs. Why? Because they are free. Free to think for themselves.

You know how you get rid of Santa? Stop telling kids the story. I know its tradition but its a lie no matter how much good you think it does.

 

[sealybobo]

I'm just saying we've outgrown it.

Then you don't understand it, simpleton.

We understand you believe because you want to believe. No other reason. Wishful thinking.

Funny the biggest assholes are the most faithful. Like you.

 

[there4eyeM]

We've outgrown it? In the greater sense of 'humankind', certainly. Statistically, the majority still seems steeped in misunderstood, arcane dogma that leads only to confusion, frustration and strife.

 

[Votto]

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that religion is bad or dumb. I'm just saying we've outgrown it. We don't need stories about how the Sun moves across the sky because it's sitting in a chariot. We understand how the solar system works and know that it's actually the Earth revolving around the Sun. We don't need an illiterate Neolithic tribesman's best guess that the first people were made by Sky Father. We understand evolution now. We don't need these attempts to explain why the world is the way it is when we have the real answers to many of our questions.

Isn't it time for us to accept this and move on to bigger and better things now? Isn't it time for Jews to give up their Judaism and its attendant falsified history and ethnic supremacy? Isn't it time for Christians to give up their Christianity and its worship of an executed Jewish convict as the creator of the universe? Isn't it time for Muslims to give up their Islam and its calls for a global theocratic dictatorship? We don't need these things anymore. We can let go. Will you join the rest of the human family in letting go of the past and stepping out into the light of the bright future we can build together?

A few years back in a public school a girl was raped during study hall. The father got wind of it and came down to the school to demand answers. The first words out of the mouth of the school officials was to calm down and not call attention to the matter. Of course, the father refused and the story hit the news stands.

The first words out of the teacher who was suppose to supervise the children in the study hall where the girl was raped was, "It's not my job to teach the children morality".

This is where the US is today. Children are taught everything EXCEPT the most important things, which is how to become a decent human being.

 

[sealybobo]

We've outgrown it? In the greater sense of 'humankind', certainly. Statistically, the majority still seems steeped in misunderstood, arcane dogma that leads only to confusion, frustration and strife.

Yes we are hundreds of years away from shedding this god hypothesis. We are still way to unevolved and superstitious still.

 

[there4eyeM]

It is not the job of educators to teach morality. It is the job of educators to teach that there is such a concept and what classic concepts of it are.
It is not the job of education to teach what to think, though that is largely what happens. It is the job of compassionate, enlightened educators to teach how to think.