NationStates

Nazeroth wrote:We are built to be religious, regardless of what high and mighty atheists think

it's spiritualism that is INHERENT in the human mind, we seek answers and find comfort in that spirituality, and honestly, we can see the cons of abandoning spiritualism.

i used to be an atheist now im spiritualistic(no specific religion, but i think i need to live and enjoy the life that has been given to me and that I should have purpose in life and that my journey is also part of being human in a greater cosmic reality)

the one thing i have noticed between large groups of completely atheistic people and religious ones is that the religious have community and unity and the atheistic are often the most depressed/cynical and egotistical people i have ever met. I think spritualism is a human NEED, people NEED an idea that there is more to life than just dying and rotting in the dirt.

note: That being said I do think some religions/faiths are infinity better than others.

I think you are partially right. The need to have meaning and to understand 'why' is very common in humanity. Putting aside the silly sweeping generalisations about an entire group of people who share nothing except lack of belief, you actually have some good points.

As I said earlier, although I am an atheist, my purpose is in trying to leave the world a better place than I found it. I'd consider myself an optimist, which I think reflects most of my beliefs, although I guess my opinions of some things could be considered cynical (the motivations of powerful groups, for example). As for being egotistical, I don't know if I am or not - maybe?

I'd suggest that it may not be Spiritualism so much as Purpose which people need. It's just religion and spirituality are quite good at filling that need, which is a good thing.

Just my thoughts.

Region of Dwipantara wrote:

Vivolkha wrote:Religion is unnecessary. The simple fact that we must live in a society (because of natural human biology) should be reason enough to develop a moral code. There is no reason why we should involve God there.

The main purpose of religion is to provide comfort against a natural human fear that is death. It provides easy answers to difficult questions, but ultimately religion imposes an arbitrary, irrational, potentially harmful set of rules as an absolute command.

Yeah, another main problem I have with any unquestionable set of beliefs — it oversimplifies what are actually very complex systems. If human societies are to have a set of guiding principles, they better construct it themseleves, listen to different PoVs and have a way to criticize or evaluate it later. Far better than adhering to random diktats from thousands of years ago of dubious origins.

TL;DR, religions are ideologies and have to be treated as such.

The problem with any unquestionable set of beliefs is that we are only human, and make mistakes. No particular ideology can claim to know all the answers, if it has one common origin, it has at least one mistake. This is why blindly following an unquestionable ideology is foolish, this is why totalitarian systems never work.

Relgiion tries to dodge this by claiming that their work is of divine origin, which I find more than questionable.

The Alma Mater wrote:We need something that encourages people to think of the wellbeing of others. Religion can and has served that role reasonable well in the past.
It is not perfect though; see e.g. the response to the current Corona crisis. Some believers volunteer to risk their life to get toiletpaper for the elderly (good), while others storm a closed house of worship so they can be together in prayer, infecting eachother (bad) or claim their magical silver potion will cure you (evil).

There are however not many secular alternatives that fare better. Humanism tries but is impopular. Communism tried harder but failed. Utilitarianism leads to animal rights activists that are more mocked than taken seriously.

So.. as answer to the question... "for now".

It depends on the religion and its content. Some are actually kinda pro-humanity. Others not so much, and are theocentric.

Voluntua wrote:No. Religion is a person's relationship to the supernatural; it's a lifestyle, a set of beliefs; and should never be treated as anything else. History has shown us that if one or more nations use religion to unite its people, horrible things happen: those outside of the religion are persecuted, faith-based tribalism (us versus them worldview) increases, ecclesial titles are filled with people who only seek worldly power instead of serving the religion, and the religion usually ceases to be what it really is and transforms into a sign of political stance (for example, gallicans and huguenots, puritans and anglicans, and so on).

That being said by the leader of a nation which is in the top 1% of nations by religiousness.

Underrated.

Nazeroth wrote:We are built to be religious, regardless of what high and mighty atheists think

it's spiritualism that is INHERENT in the human mind, we seek answers and find comfort in that spirituality, and honestly, we can see the cons of abandoning spiritualism.

i used to be an atheist now im spiritualistic(no specific religion, but i think i need to live and enjoy the life that has been given to me and that I should have purpose in life and that my journey is also part of being human in a greater cosmic reality)

the one thing i have noticed between large groups of completely atheistic people and religious ones is that the religious have community and unity and the atheistic are often the most depressed/cynical and egotistical people i have ever met. I think spritualism is a human NEED, people NEED an idea that there is more to life than just dying and rotting in the dirt.

note: That being said I do think some religions/faiths are infinity better than others.

"Religious" and mystic ideas and inspirations are inherent as our ability as humans to receive, exchange and process (to varying degrees, but usually fragmented) information from other dimensions/realms/planes of existence (whatever you want to call it) that appears to be populated by various beings and entities etc.

"Religions" are often (unless they're made up anyways) in one way or another based onto interpretations that derivated from said information exchange. Even though most followers nowadays don't made their own experiences and relay upon textual interpretations and transmission made by people who had so. Or knew people who had. Which of course makes the whole matter already more blurry than it already is.

Oh and of course, as we have learned in the recent years in Information Age, theres always the possibility that info is just not useful at all. Or maybe even of questionable or malicious intent...

I don’t think it’s a necessity, no. There are many people who do not involve themselves with organized religion and do fine. But many other people seem to gravitate towards belief in something. I’d classify it more as a want than a need.

I mean, whether or not it is necessary, societies tend not to get formed organically without a religion. Culture, family and faith tend to be the only things that get people to stick together for a long-term basis. Whether it's necessary for the society's continued survival is a different basis that wholly depends on how long said society's been around.

It's not really necessary for society, but it can be necessary for people. We need a support system, and for many people, that comes from religion. It also gives us a purpose in life.

We humans needed a way to explain/cope with the harshness of ourselves and the world around us. Religion helped with that, however nowadays people without religion don’t have that higher authority to explain away everything and keep them decent, assuming religion did that at all, life becomes pointless, because suddenly nothing matters because there’s no afterlife. Good, evil don’t matter, literally the only thing you have to live for is your lover and your family. But our lack of faith doesn’t determine if society works or not. So in that sense, no, religion isn’t a necessity anymore for society to work.

Vivolkha wrote:

Region of Dwipantara wrote:Yeah, another main problem I have with any unquestionable set of beliefs — it oversimplifies what are actually very complex systems. If human societies are to have a set of guiding principles, they better construct it themseleves, listen to different PoVs and have a way to criticize or evaluate it later. Far better than adhering to random diktats from thousands of years ago of dubious origins.

TL;DR, religions are ideologies and have to be treated as such.

The problem with any unquestionable set of beliefs is that we are only human, and make mistakes. No particular ideology can claim to know all the answers, if it has one common origin, it has at least one mistake. This is why blindly following an unquestionable ideology is foolish, this is why totalitarian systems never work.

Relgiion tries to dodge this by claiming that their work is of divine origin, which I find more than questionable.

The issue of course with that set of ideals is leaving your ideological framework easily altered allows for issues in what it changes to.

Mutable values will inevitably become tools by which the powerful oppress those below them. Immutable values however can bring down even the powerful.

Sadakoyama wrote:

Freakoland wrote:I'm intrigued by what you said about the Aztecs and contradictory morals? Would you care to enlighten me?

The Aztecs thought it was perfectly moral, indeed absolutely necessary, to sacrifice tens of thousands of people to show proper gratitude to their gods. To not do these sacrifices was to incur their wrath and risk losing the sun or the rain; that would be immoral, to them.

The Aztecs beliefs were based around survival. They believed that their only choices were to kill other people to keep the world alive or risk the apocalypse itself.

The Aztec religion had to be one of the cruelest death cults of history, and upwards of 20,000 people a year were murdered and mutilated by the Aztecs to appease their Gods. With Islam and Christianity at least you just gotta obey their stupid morals and you'll survive. It didn't matter what you believed in the world of the Aztecs. If they chose you for death, there was nothing you could do.

Rojava Free State wrote:

Sadakoyama wrote:
The Aztecs thought it was perfectly moral, indeed absolutely necessary, to sacrifice tens of thousands of people to show proper gratitude to their gods. To not do these sacrifices was to incur their wrath and risk losing the sun or the rain; that would be immoral, to them.

The Aztecs beliefs were based around survival. They believed that their only choices were to kill other people to keep the world alive or risk the apocalypse itself.

The Aztec religion had to be one of the cruelest death cults of history, and upwards of 20,000 people a year were murdered and mutilated by the Aztecs to appease their Gods. With Islam and Christianity at least you just gotta obey their stupid morals and you'll survive. It didn't matter what you believed in the world of the Aztecs. If they chose you for death, there was nothing you could do.

Fun fact. There's a Neo-Pagan Aztec Revival movement.

The Emerald Legion wrote:

Rojava Free State wrote:
The Aztecs beliefs were based around survival. They believed that their only choices were to kill other people to keep the world alive or risk the apocalypse itself.

The Aztec religion had to be one of the cruelest death cults of history, and upwards of 20,000 people a year were murdered and mutilated by the Aztecs to appease their Gods. With Islam and Christianity at least you just gotta obey their stupid morals and you'll survive. It didn't matter what you believed in the world of the Aztecs. If they chose you for death, there was nothing you could do.

Fun fact. There's a Neo-Pagan Aztec Revival movement.

Oh.

Oh no.

Sadakoyama wrote:

Freakoland wrote:I'm intrigued by what you said about the Aztecs and contradictory morals? Would you care to enlighten me?

The Aztecs thought it was perfectly moral, indeed absolutely necessary, to sacrifice tens of thousands of people to show proper gratitude to their gods. To not do these sacrifices was to incur their wrath and risk losing the sun or the rain; that would be immoral, to them.

Thousands must die, so millions may live ?

The Alma Mater wrote:

Sadakoyama wrote:
The Aztecs thought it was perfectly moral, indeed absolutely necessary, to sacrifice tens of thousands of people to show proper gratitude to their gods. To not do these sacrifices was to incur their wrath and risk losing the sun or the rain; that would be immoral, to them.

Thousands must die, so millions may live ?

That's a pretty bleak worldview.

Rojava Free State wrote:

The Emerald Legion wrote:
Fun fact. There's a Neo-Pagan Aztec Revival movement.

Oh.

Oh no.

Regarding mexico:

Look up Santa Muerte alias Nuestra Señora de la Santa Muerte.

It's actually a thing.

The number of believers in Santa Muerte has grown over the past ten to twenty years, to an estimated 10–20 million followers in Mexico, the United States, and parts of Central America.

The Emerald Legion wrote:

Vivolkha wrote:The problem with any unquestionable set of beliefs is that we are only human, and make mistakes. No particular ideology can claim to know all the answers, if it has one common origin, it has at least one mistake. This is why blindly following an unquestionable ideology is foolish, this is why totalitarian systems never work.

Relgiion tries to dodge this by claiming that their work is of divine origin, which I find more than questionable.

The issue of course with that set of ideals is leaving your ideological framework easily altered allows for issues in what it changes to.

Mutable values will inevitably become tools by which the powerful oppress those below them. Immutable values however can bring down even the powerful.

Yes, the powerful can never use immutable values to keep down those below them.

The Emerald Legion wrote:

Rojava Free State wrote:
The Aztecs beliefs were based around survival. They believed that their only choices were to kill other people to keep the world alive or risk the apocalypse itself.

The Aztec religion had to be one of the cruelest death cults of history, and upwards of 20,000 people a year were murdered and mutilated by the Aztecs to appease their Gods. With Islam and Christianity at least you just gotta obey their stupid morals and you'll survive. It didn't matter what you believed in the world of the Aztecs. If they chose you for death, there was nothing you could do.

Fun fact. There's a Neo-Pagan Aztec Revival movement.

10-20 million people holy fuck. Is the religion actually reformed or is it just as batshit insane as the original?

North German Realm wrote:

The Emerald Legion wrote:
Fun fact. There's a Neo-Pagan Aztec Revival movement.

10-20 million people holy fuck. Is the religion actually reformed or is it just as batshit insane as the original?

No thats Santa Muerte. Which is a new and... different thing.

Rojava Free State wrote:

The Alma Mater wrote:
Thousands must die, so millions may live ?

That's a pretty bleak worldview.

Not unlike the view several world leaders have expressed concerning Corona and the need to create herd immunity.

But if you prefer: "It is out duty to care for this God Given planet, whatever it takes"

Rojava Free State wrote:I don't think society needs religion but people do need something to believe in. I just wish they could believe in themselves.

Don't worry, they already do. They just don't believe in other people.

Trollzyn the Infinite wrote:The power of the immaterial is greatly beyond the power of the material.

I propose a game, in which you hit me with immaterial objects, and I hit you with material objects, until one of us concedes that the other one's object class is more powerful.

As the challenger and a true gentleman, honor demands that I allow you the first strike. At your leisure, sir.

Kristis Corpse wrote:We humans needed a way to explain/cope with the harshness of ourselves and the world around us. Religion helped with that, however nowadays people without religion don’t have that higher authority to explain away everything and keep them decent, assuming religion did that at all, life becomes pointless, because suddenly nothing matters because there’s no afterlife. Good, evil don’t matter, literally the only thing you have to live for is your lover and your family. But our lack of faith doesn’t determine if society works or not. So in that sense, no, religion isn’t a necessity anymore for society to work.

I really don't see the logic of how "life is pointless" and "good and evil don't matter" without religion. The point of life becomes something you determine for yourself, which is not the same as it being pointless. As for the other statement, you can't have a functioning society without some understanding of good and evil, and that understanding also need not come from religion.

Lower Nubia wrote:It depends, if the spiritual is real, it is a necessity. If the spiritual is not real, it is not a necessity.

Just gonna leave this here,

The falseness of an opinion is not for us any objection to it: it is here, perhaps, that our new language sounds most strangely. The question is, how far an opinion is life-furthering, life-preserving, species-preserving, perhaps species-rearing, and we are fundamentally inclined to maintain that the falsest opinions (to which the synthetic judgments a priori belong), are the most indispensable to us, that without a recognition of logical fictions, without a comparison of reality with the purely IMAGINED world of the absolute and immutable, without a constant counterfeiting of the world by means of numbers, man could not live—that the renunciation of false opinions would be a renunciation of life, a negation of life. TO RECOGNISE UNTRUTH AS A CONDITION OF LIFE; that is certainly to impugn the traditional ideas of value in a dangerous manner, and a philosophy which ventures to do so, has thereby alone placed itself beyond good and evil.

No, religion is not a necessity. One can have a philosophy, a code of ethics, or nothing at all.

Europa Undivided wrote:
Comparing religion with flat earthers is dumb. Reaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaally dumb.

Nothing shows off your intelligence better than saying something is dumb with extended vowels.

Europa Undivided wrote:

Alvecia wrote:Personally I don't think so. That which religion provides can be provided through other means.

That said, even without it, people are gonna believe in some stupid shit. Just look at the paranormal, alien consipracies, or pseudoscientific bullshit.

Reddit atheism detected.

Comparing religion with flat earthers is dumb. Reaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaally dumb.

So believing the earth is flat is vastly more silly than, say, believing humans grew out of the armpit of a giant ? (actual religious belief)