Is religion a necessity for society?

[Ayytaly]

I'm not at all denying that religion is very useful to society or that it's possible that there is a true religion.

I'm just saying that things other than religion could serve a similar purpose, and it's possible that everything is natural without a need for a supernatural aspect.

Like A.I. and mass surveillance?

[Vetalia]

Saudi, Kuwait and Qatar aren't exactly the best examples.

https://www.populationpyramid.net/egypt/2019/ Egypt

https://www.populationpyramid.net/syria ... blic/2019/ Syria

https://www.populationpyramid.net/libya/2019/ Libya

lol, love the backtracking.

"MENA nations are totally demographically healthy."

*Shows examples of unhealthy MENA nations*

"No no no, I didn't say you could pick those ones!"

What are the populations of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Qatar vs the ones I cited?

[Ayytaly]

So why is it not possible for there to be a creator?

There's nothing to say it's not possible. However, there's as much or more reason to believe there is none.

That's like saying you didn't need to be born without your pops inseminating your mom. Existrnce has a purpose.

[Nakena]

Religion is sort of necessary for a society in the long run. I would use here an expanded meaning of religion, namely the fundamental belief system which a society does, however vague, follow. This doesnt has to be a theistic or dharmic or whatever else kind of "supernatural" religion but can also be a secular one as WRA outlined. Or something in and between.

People here think a bit too much in certain limited dichtonomies, normative assumptions and the likes.

[Albrenia]

There's nothing to say it's not possible. However, there's as much or more reason to believe there is none.

That's like saying you didn't need to be born without your pops inseminating your mom. Existrnce has a purpose.

It's really not. We know how people are made, we don't know how the universe came to be or if it has always existed, or if an endless amount of them exist.

Can you prove Existence needs a purpose, would existence cease without a purpose?

[Albrenia]

Religion is sort of necessary for a society in the long run. I would use here an expanded meaning of religion, namely the fundamental belief system which a society does, however vague, follow. This doesnt has to be a theistic or dharmic or whatever else kind of "supernatural" religion but can also be a secular one as WRA outlined. Or something in and between.

People here think a bit too much in certain limited dichtonomies, normative assumptions and the likes.

In that sense I agree. If one stretches 'religion' that much to include such things.

[Necroghastia]

There's nothing to say it's not possible. However, there's as much or more reason to believe there is none.

That's like saying you didn't need to be born without your pops inseminating your mom.

...How? We know exactly how human reproduction works; while the creation of a universe is still riddled with questions, what we do know tells us nothing about an intelligent creator.

[Nakena]

Religion is sort of necessary for a society in the long run. I would use here an expanded meaning of religion, namely the fundamental belief system which a society does, however vague, follow. This doesnt has to be a theistic or dharmic or whatever else kind of "supernatural" religion but can also be a secular one as WRA outlined. Or something in and between.

People here think a bit too much in certain limited dichtonomies, normative assumptions and the likes.

In that sense I agree. If one stretches 'religion' that much to include such things.

Its not uncommon: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_religion

[Region of Dwipantara]

So why is it not possible for there to be a creator?

There's nothing to say it's not possible. However, there's as much or more reason to believe there is none.

Clearly, if we don't know the answer to "how does the universe exist", the answer must be that it is created by a Jew-hating superdictator in the sky who is also homophobic, thought that the stars are created after the earth, and is very concerned with the the life and sex and interests of a specific random trader in a random 5th century desert that He made a few verses in His (supposedly made since antiquity) holy book just to grease the gears.

Religion is necessary for a society in the long run. I would use here an expanded meaning of religion, namely the fundamental belief system which a society does, however vague, follow. This doesnt has to be a theistic or dharmic or whatever else kind of "supernatural" religion but can also be a secular one as WRA outlined. Or something in and between.

People here think a bit too much in certain limited dichtonomies and the likes.

Are there any certain criterias that differentiates "good" religion from the "shitty", or does any religions will do?

[Nakena]

Are there any certain criterias that differentiates "good" religion from the "shitty", or does any religions will do?

Yes.

Because theres religions centered around circut-logic worldviews (dialectical materialism/marxism), anti-man deities (abrahamism), or all around awful (nazism).

[Insaanistan]

There's nothing to say it's not possible. However, there's as much or more reason to believe there is none.

Clearly, if we don't know the answer to "how does the universe exist", the answer must be that it is created by a Jew-hating superdictator in the sky who is also homophobic, thought that the stars are created after the earth, and is very concerned with the the life and sex and interests of a specific random trader in a random 5th century desert that He made a few verses in His (supposedly made since antiquity) holy book just to grease the gears.

Religion is necessary for a society in the long run. I would use here an expanded meaning of religion, namely the fundamental belief system which a society does, however vague, follow. This doesnt has to be a theistic or dharmic or whatever else kind of "supernatural" religion but can also be a secular one as WRA outlined. Or something in and between.

People here think a bit too much in certain limited dichtonomies and the likes.

Are there any certain criterias that differentiates "good" religion from the "shitty", or does any religions will do?

Couple of things: God is not Anti-Semitic or a superdictator, and while he says homosexuality is a sin, he never gives an actual punishment for it. He’s all powerful, so he can do what seems to us to defy physics and whatnot. There are a lot more than a few verses, and the book itself has not existed forever, but as long as man has existed, the religion has, too.

[Freakoland]

I like the way that this thread is going very fascinating to read thank you for all your input

That being said, I do have a couple of things to say regarding the nature of god specifically and how that, in turn, could possibly make you think about religion in a new way. Perhaps.

First of all, I don't know how to do that thing where you highlight a specific phrase or sentence so I'm just gonna call out by name.

Firstly, Insaanistan, I disagree with your view of God. As a Roman Catholic, and you as a Muslim, we are of course going to have fundamental differences that we can appreciate about each other's faith and also value because of how closely related they are in origin. That being said, I do not believe in a literal God. If there is a God he certainly exists outside human comprehension and science. Basically, God cannot be empirically explained. For if he were empirically explained he would become just another scientific fact of nature. Essentially, in order to prove God's existence, we would have to fully understand Him, which, Biblically speaking (if you want references I'd be happy to provide them later on) isn't possible, for "My ways are higher than your ways" and "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End." Literally, there is not a chance in hell that anyone is ever going to be able to comprehend a sentient being that is literally the beginning of time and the end, is time itself and is yet outside of time. As someone said earlier in this forum, science is gradually being able to explain the empirical nature of the universe without God. Your argument for God in regards to the Big Bang Theory is similar to "well because we haven't opened the door yet, there can still be an elf behind it." To borrow an analogy from C.S. Lewis from Mere Christianity (and I go to a religious school so I was coerced into reading this lol) God is like the builder of a house and you're inside it. You weren't there when the house was built but yet you can still see the product of the builder's works. But the builder of the house can't say, like a door or a chandelier. The builder exists outside the house and you can't prove his existence, because by all accounts there is no evidence of the builder being actually in the house and you do not know for certain if he is even there or not.

I essence, what I am trying to say, Isaanistan, is that the minute we prove God he ceases to be God. The universe is one big enigma and makes no sense at all. The condition of human suffering shows that if God existed as a tangible force in our universe, then he is a sadistic despot who created a wack-ass world with wack-ass people who are destroying each other and, dare I say, the planet. And yet, from our common understanding of a benevolent and loving God based on Biblical and Koranic texts alike, this can not be the case, because for the first obvious reason we know that our understanding of God is benevolent and not despotic. Second, God cannot be comprehended, which is funny because I'm writing a blurb about the nature of God and I'm writing like I know for certain. Logically speaking, I should stop writing right now because I'm writing about something that infinitely beyond my mortal comprehension. And yet here we are. So for the sake fun and trying to at least make some sense out of this nonsense, which in turn I discover to be nonsensical or at least minute in intellectual endeavors compared to the grand majesty of the universe, I still endeavor to try to explain my faith which I don't even understand. The truth is that if we knew God existed for certain, then we thus wouldn't need faith and for that matter religion neither. For faith is the core aspect of religion. Faith in something. So, in the end, this is how I view God. There is no evidence for a God in our universe insofar as we do not have direct evidence for his actual existence. The only "evidence" of him existing in our universe is pure speculation based on the world around us, which increasingly shows itself to have evolved over a period of millions of years into the present state it is now. Faith has to be placed in something that is uncertain. Proving God is a theological absurdity and if we did then religion would be nothing more than a system of government (this is from the Abrahamic understanding of God, not other non-Judeo-Christian religious views).

That being said, I shall now embark on the second portion of my intellectual investigation into the value of religion for society, which was the aforementioned topic which prompted the latter responses up until now. First of all, let me disclaim I am using the conventional definition of religion. This is the definition of religion according to the Oxford Dictionary: "the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal god or gods." With that said, this definition can, arguably, be applied to just about anything that exerts authority, which in turn becomes really vague and arbitrary. But I'm not here to get into an epistemological debate. So for the sake of brevity, I shall continue with the latter definition as my understanding. Religion, as with anything else, has benefits and costs. Some benefits may include but are not limited to, a sense of community, a sense of purpose, a way to explain the chaos of this universe in order to function on a daily basis, etc, etc. Of course, there are horrible effects as well, such as genocide, discrimination, violence, and religious wars. Especially religious wars. Nobody likes religious wars. My point is that religion, in my opinion, is not essential to society. And by society, I mean that the basic functions of society like law and order, food production, industry, economy, etc. One does not need a sense of purpose to go to work, but it sure as hell helps. Religion's benefit or harm to society does not need a dissertation on apologetics to be explained. Whether or not a religion is "right" or "wrong", it has costs and benefits like anything else.

[Nouveau Yathrib]

It isn't necessary for modern societies to conform to a single faith, or for that faith to be an Abrahamic religion. But faith and spirituality are important for creating social cohesion, and it definitely shouldn't be entirely stamped out either.

[Narland]

So, since we're all locked up in our houses I'm sure many of you have had more time for intellectual pursuits. Hence the reason I'm here. I'll be honest I am very bored (not say that reading is boring) and I'm at home and I want to hear an interesting and volatile discussion.

Recently I read "The Brothers Karamosov" by Fyodor Dostoevsky. If you have not read it I highly recommend very good book which pokes some pertinent questions in regards to human nature. One of these is religion, and more specifically whether or not religion is necessary. I think "god" may be a better word for that matter. One of the principle characters, Ivan, talks about how that if god did not exist, it would be necessary to invent god. More specifically that god and religion are essentially the corner stones of society. Now as a Roman Catholic I have my own opinions on this matter but as I said before I'm bored and I want to hear a debate on an internet forum.

So.....is "god" and/or religion a necessity for society?

I look forward to reading your view on this question. By the question, I will try to stick to religion proper and not God in and of Himself (theology). Religions do not require a God (Buddhism), unless it posits the most worthy thing conceived as the most worthy being conceived (Monotheist Religion). I think it a different topic in this context. I tend to agree with Dostoevsky that the nature of man is inescapable regardless of his adhering to Atheism or Theism).

Thought provoking things I found from reading the book:

Man is by nature a religious creature. By religious I mean that he worships (give worthiness) to the most supreme thing that his mind conceives (his belief). What he gives ultimate worthiness to, is that which he ultimately worships (his god). He ascribes to, or finds amenable that which necessarily follows as a duty or obligation thereof (his religion).

His allegiance to it will vary in thought word and deed. He may not be able to expressly articulate it, or be fully persuaded by it himself. But the ideals he ascribes to it will direct his life. It will to him be better than the gods (the person, place, idea, or thing that are the pinnacle of worthiness) of others that are contrary to his conception. This conduct that he expects of himself, and of others in this regard, is his religion.

What is ultimately the most worthy to the individual has ramifications on the rest of society: If one gets the nature of what is ultimately the most worthy thing to ascribe wrong, it necessarily follows that that one will get truth, justice and peace/beauty (good) wrong. He will get how he handles sex, money (stuff), fame and power wrong. He will screw over himself, others, and society for generations to come.

With sapience he ordinates and defines the world around him according to that which he deems most worthy, in deference to the rest. He will act in a manner consistent with his understanding of his person, of others, and of the world around him accordingly. He will desire others to be persuaded by this thing that is reckoned to be supreme to share in common– as in case of each brother.

That is not to say giving ultimate credence and worth to the right thing will guarantee that it will be implemented correctly, but you are at least going in the right direction so as to better understand the nature of truth, justice, and peace and perchance live them happily; You will have a better chance not to destroy yourself and others with sex, money (stuff), fame, and power – or in the case of the book, bad politics.

It is isn't a matter of if religion is a nessictiy for society as much as it is what that religion will look like..

[North German Realm]

Pretty much the same stuff in three, somewhat destinctively altered, variations.

The Islamic belief is that all previous religions are corrupted versions of Islam, and that Islam is the one true message.

Given Islam came the last (other smaller Abrahamic or semi-Abrahamic sects nonwithstanding), it's far more likely that Islam is the one that's corrupted. Something there's a lot of evidence for, starting with the fact that Muhammad and his posse didn't even know half of the Jewish (and to a lesser degree Christian) stories he was bastardizing [seriously, you couldn't find the actual name for Adam's son (Qa'en) and so used a gibberish that means literally nothing in its stead? and you dare call the religions you ripped off from 'corrupted'?]

I'm not sure how to answer that. Islam hasn't demonstrated any physical evidence for the existence of their personal god (or the lackthereof)... because it's impossible to do so. The most it has done is to provide a weaker, less stable form of the same flawed and rebuked arguments that Christians have been using for about 600 years more and Jews for much much longer.

God states in the Qur’ân that all previous religions are corruptions of what he sent down to mankind.

I don't care what your god says in your holy book. Your holy book is not evidence for your god, it's just another thing you have to prove the legitimacy of first.

[Ultimate Destructive Fighting Nation]

So, since we're all locked up in our houses I'm sure many of you have had more time for intellectual pursuits. Hence the reason I'm here. I'll be honest I am very bored (not say that reading is boring) and I'm at home and I want to hear an interesting and volatile discussion.

Recently I read "The Brothers Karamosov" by Fyodor Dostoevsky. If you have not read it I highly recommend very good book which pokes some pertinent questions in regards to human nature. One of these is religion, and more specifically whether or not religion is necessary. I think "god" may be a better word for that matter. One of the principle characters, Ivan, talks about how that if god did not exist, it would be necessary to invent god. More specifically that god and religion are essentially the corner stones of society. Now as a Roman Catholic I have my own opinions on this matter but as I said before I'm bored and I want to hear a debate on an internet forum.

So.....is "god" and/or religion a necessity for society?

Yes. It’s rational- Just as sticking a loaded shotgun to your head and pulling the trigger. I think you’ll find it to have a loud BANG at the end. Of course, if you insist on living and see this as a suicidal thing to do, then be “irrational “ and hold on to you’re life.

***WARNING*** suicide kills***WARNING***suicide is a leading cause of death.***WARNING*** Don’t commit suicide ***WARNING***

[Vivolkha]

Except it is not, because just like all religions it claims many falsehoods, hence it is at best not entirely true, and it consists of non-falsifiable statements. If there was a God, how come there isn't even the smallest bit of evidence that he exists? In fact science is ever more converging to the conclusion that there is no God. That God exists is a conjecture, which you must prove. Until then you do not have the justification to force religion upon others.

What untrue statements does it hold? And the perfection of the universe indicates there must be a creator. Despite that logic right there comes from a show, it actually makes sense. Let me ask you: if not by God, how was the universe and Earth created? By chance? Or by an all powerful being? I believe the latter. What about you?
And God says: “Let there be no compulsion in religion.”

There are 100% physical mechanisms by which the universe can origin that do not require a creator. There is no perfection in the universe whatsoever. It advances slowly and inexorably towards its death strictly following the same physical laws that led to its origin. If we are here is a matter of chance and anthropic principle.

God states in the Qur’ân that all previous religions are corruptions of what he sent down to mankind.

I don't care what your god says in your holy book. Your holy book is not evidence for your god, it's just another thing you have to prove the legitimacy of first.

This.

Also, I suggest abandoning the debate on whether Islam is corrupted or not because it leads nowhere. Just like other religions, Islam consists of unfalsifiable statements. Religion must be discredited as a concept, because there is no way to prove a particular one is right or wrong.

My closest attempt at discrediting the validity of religion (again considering that strictly speaking their statements are unfalsifiable - else there would be no religious people to begin with) consists in pointing out that arbitrary religious rules derived from similarly arbitrary, unfalsifiable religious teachings/texts are occasionally harmful to human health (e.g. purdah, FGM) or directly contradict basic human biology (e.g. sexual abstinence requirements), with catastrophic results (e.g. priests abusing children).

These points, as well as the outdated understanding of the world of many holy texts (e.g. geocentrism) and the comical, desperate retrofitting of modern, proven scientifical facts that discredit them into religious teachings signal that, as unfalsifiable religious statements may be, evidence suggests they are false.

[An Alan Smithee Nation]

I'm not at all denying that religion is very useful to society or that it's possible that there is a true religion.

I'm just saying that things other than religion could serve a similar purpose, and it's possible that everything is natural without a need for a supernatural aspect.

Like A.I. and mass surveillance?

or culture, tradition, education

[Insaanistan]

What untrue statements does it hold? And the perfection of the universe indicates there must be a creator. Despite that logic right there comes from a show, it actually makes sense. Let me ask you: if not by God, how was the universe and Earth created? By chance? Or by an all powerful being? I believe the latter. What about you?
And God says: “Let there be no compulsion in religion.”

There are 100% physical mechanisms by which the universe can origin that do not require a creator. There is no perfection in the universe whatsoever. It advances slowly and inexorably towards its death strictly following the same physical laws that led to its origin. If we are here is a matter of chance and anthropic principle.

I don't care what your god says in your holy book. Your holy book is not evidence for your god, it's just another thing you have to prove the legitimacy of first.

This.

Also, I suggest abandoning the debate on whether Islam is corrupted or not because it leads nowhere. Just like other religions, Islam consists of unfalsifiable statements. Religion must be discredited as a concept, because there is no way to prove a particular one is right or wrong.

My closest attempt at discrediting the validity of religion (again considering that strictly speaking their statements are unfalsifiable - else there would be no religious people to begin with) consists in pointing out that arbitrary religious rules derived from similarly arbitrary, unfalsifiable religious teachings/texts are occasionally harmful to human health (e.g. purdah, FGM) or directly contradict basic human biology (e.g. sexual abstinence requirements), with catastrophic results (e.g. priests abusing children).

These points, as well as the outdated understanding of the world of many holy texts (e.g. geocentrism) and the comical, desperate retrofitting of modern, proven scientifical facts that discredit them into religious teachings signal that, as unfalsifiable religious statements may be, evidence suggests they are false.

What do you mean it’s not perfect. And also, in Islam, we believe that you don’t go to heaven immediately after you die. The world will end, and the Day of Judgement will come. In Surah at-Takwir (Putting Out The Sun) it says: When the sun is put out, and when the stars fall down, and when the mountains are blown away, and when pregnant camels are left unattended, and when wild beasts are gathered together, and when seas are set on fire, and when the souls and their bodies are paired once more, and when infant girls, buried alive, are asked for what crime they were killed, and when the records of everyone’s deeds are laid open, and when the sly is stripped away, and when the Hellfire is fiercely flared up, and when Paradise (Heaven) is brought near— on that day, each soul will know what deeds it has done.

And NGR, If Islam isn’t the true message, then how come unlike the Bible and Torah, it has remained the same throughout the centuries? You have so many Bibles today, some not even agreeing on numbers. The Torah is speculated to have been lost at some point and possibly rewritten simply on memory, and much what is taught today is simply oral tradition. Meanwhile, there is only one Qur’ân, and it has been widely memorized.

[Swindenland]

Having read many reponses in this very interesting thread I have noticed two main arguments in favour of religion that I will attempt to negate:

1) Social cohesion/unity

I mean okay, but even secular and irreligious societies have good social cohesion. Secular societies are based on mutual respect and liberty. Religious societies are based on strict following of rules. This is not optimal, because if your opinion differs from the accepted religious viewpoint you get fucked over by others. Freedom is defined as the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action, hence if a society is very religious you have less liberties. Quite obviously secular and less religious countries tend to have more civil rights, at least here in the west. Trading your freedom for unity based on a lie is not okay.

2)Religion is the natural state of mankind

Ya I mean, the natural state of humans and many other intelligent animals (monkeys, dolphins, corvids etc.) is to look for patterns. We oftentimes find patterns even when there are none, especially when we want to explain the outcome of things. For example, let's say I won three ski jumping awards when I had a Rolex watch on my wrist, but last time when I didn't have it I lost, thus my superstitious conclusion is that I have to have that watch for good luck. This is natural, but clearly stupid. Other animals also display superstition. Religion is basically superstition on steroids. But looking for patterns is also inherent to something else: Science and mathematics. Science also wants to know how a natural pattern works, but it does so rationally. Unlike religion science builds on truths and universal because of that. Science is constantly evolving and when something cannot be explained well new better paradigms become the norm. Scientific discoveries are far more fascinating and exhilerating than praying for magic. Nothing has emancipated our species on this forsaken planet more than science. We went to our fucking moon, created vaccines, quantum computers and supersonic airplanes. Science is hope.

But religious arguments are inherently problematic because of irrationality. Your belief is irrational if and only if it is not true. Most falsifiable statements made by the church were negated by science and the only ones left are the unfalsifiable ones. These statements cannot even be true or false. Since such a statement cannot be true it is irrational. Humans aren't machines and a purely rational society is not the one I fancy, but religion, pseudoscience and superstition are irrational beliefs that cause real harm with wars, discrimination, justification of unfair structures and the exploitation of the hopeless.

[Terabithya]

Why would one neglect the existence of the triune God and His love and help for you? The only true religion (Catholic Christianity) is necessary for the salvation of every human. Outside the holy mother Church one cannot be saved except in rare circumstances. In these circumstances however the souls usually stay much longer in purgatory than they would have if they were part of the Church and able to receive the sacraments. The only exception are killed unborns: children killed in their mother's womb have no personal sin, therefore they go to Heaven immediately, but since they die in original sin, they can never see God.

[Swindenland]

Why have we not at any point in the history of science discovered the faintest hint that a God could is real? Why does religion explain God's existence only with things we do not yet know? And if christianity as a whole is true, why have so many claims in the bible been proven wrong, does this not make religion as a whole false as well, since it claims to be entirely correct?

Noone answeres such questions. The existence of god is a conjecture that noone is proving, but that science is asymptotically disproving. Truth is important. It might hurt knowing that we aren't special, but living a lie or even worse enforcing a lie on others is terrible. A good society is a society based on truth, science, the desire to explore, good will and compassion.

You can have a fulfilling life, morals and philosophy completely without religious worship. Secular humanism is one of those philosophies and it works just fine.

[Grahnol]

The way I see it, whilst religion is not necessary for a person to live and function, I think religion is a major and vital component of multiple societies across the world. For those societies, religion is so ingrained it's almost impossible to even imagine them without their religion much less function. It's a major source of moral guidance and philosophical thoughts, and indeed, many religious revelations and beliefs in many religions are based extensively on philosophy and deep philosophical questions. An extensive amount of current philosophies, political beliefs, cultural beliefs and political philosophies look up to religious guidance for much of their base philosophies. Hell, I would argue the vast majority of modern nation-states exist primarily through religious belief, indirectly or not, explicit or not.

There is also community. I think one of the major, and I mean major drawbacks of irreligiosity is that by itself, it has little provision or teaching on how people should interact with each other and forms communities. Atheism doesn't tell people to congregate with each other and forms rich and meaningful communities I think community as a social construct is a major backbone of any functional society, as it's how people meet their social needs as humans are fundamentally social animals, who fundamentally need social support, attachment and help from others as humans can't function alone when social interactions are so vital to the human condition. That's not to say there aren't any atheistic or agnostic movements that provision guidance for community and social company, there are many of those, such as those 'godless churches' which invite attendants to follow through rituals to increase social bonds and create a sense of community amongst each other. A problem I find is that many irreligious people often don't even desire finding an irreligious substitute for religious guidance about community and social relations, leaving a void in what guidelines they use to keep their social needs well and checked.

While I don't think society necessarily needs to practice religion in order to be functional, I think the moral, philosophical, cultural and guiding advice of religion is a key success to pretty much every society that has both succeeded and is functional. Without it, we would have to rely entirely on completely emotionless and hard cold philosophies to build our societies based on, which are basically a dead-end road, as whilst they make sense in the most logical and pragmatic framework, they don't work at all in the real world, even being disastrous much of the time, which is anything but pragmatic, logical, consistent or perfect. Those philosophies completely neglect the fact that reality has no symmetry or even anything close to complete perfection. You don't just randomly find a rock that's completely square in shape with zero blemishes or imperfections in its shape whatsoever. Exaggerated example, but it proves my point. Physics is fundamentally chaotic and nothing even close to consistent or logical. Those atoms constantly form and get obliterate themselves with little symmetry or logic behind why or how. Hell, we are imperfect creatures, every living being is, it's the inevitable result of the imperfect and messy world we live in. No matter how much we try to build something completely perfect, our imperfect hands will leave their mark by leaving behind blatant imperfections that might not be seen at first since our ability to detect such things are also imperfect, but is in the end imperfect and blemished.

Whilst a person and/or society can be irreligious, they still need guiding values, based on religion or not, and for the latter, based on religious-like ideas and guidance, because without them, we would be completely aimless from our lack of a guiding moral and cultural framework that helps us live our lives in the real world we live in. It also helps us self-limit and keep our human nature from fucking itself over, by giving guidance on how to be humble and how we should live meaningful fun lives, these guiding ideals help us accept the inevitabilities of the real world and work within them and not just completely ignore the real world altogether. Personally, I think everyone has a religious instinct, irreligious people merely remove the rituals and practices of religion and in place of religion, they rely on pretty much anything from philosophy to critical analysis of the real world to take up the religious space in their head. When that happens, I think they essentially treat and use that framework as a dogmatic source of guidance to live through and understand the world; in this sense, 'religious instinct' is the instinct to use something as guidance for explanation and dogmatic principle in which much of a person's life is based on. Not religion in the traditional sense but it's definitely somewhat religious. Irreligious people merely reject religious belief or superstition but don't and can't fully distance themselves fully from the religious instinct.

Irreligious people can definitely be moral, live meaningful lives and the like, but they need those guiding values that help them accept and understand the real world through a symbolic and philosophical lens to help them understand the world in a philosophical and symbolic sense and how it all fits in. The Netherlands is a great example of a society that's irreligious but still places value on morals and guidance derived from religious principles. And I think that's the healthiest way of remaining a prosperous society whilst still being irreligious; i.e, be irreligious but don't reject everything derived from religious, in fact, take in some of that and turn it into simply your culture.

[Swindenland]

Why would one neglect the existence of the triune God and His love and help for you? The only true religion (Catholic Christianity) is necessary for the salvation of every human. Outside the holy mother Church one cannot be saved except in rare circumstances. In these circumstances however the souls usually stay much longer in purgatory than they would have if they were part of the Church and able to receive the sacraments. The only exception are killed unborns: children killed in their mother's womb have no personal sin, therefore they go to Heaven immediately, but since they die in original sin, they can never see God.

Because there is no proof. It's like having a large locked treasure chest in front of you and you don't know what's in it. Then someone comes around asking: 'Hey pal, what is in this chest?' And even though literally anything could be in this treasure chest, you say: 'It's God.'

[Terabithya]

Because there is no proof. It's like having a large locked treasure chest in front of you and you don't know what's in it. Then someone comes around asking: 'Hey pal, what is in this chest?' And even though literally anything could be in this treasure chest, you say: 'It's God.'

There's countless proof but atheists won't accept it. The only atheists I know of that were actually converted to faith was a famous example: the writer C. S. Lewis, and those that had near-death experiences. It's almost impossible to convince an atheist of the existence of God and life after death.