CubsIn5 wrote:SortaCreative wrote:
My point about eradicating religion isn't purely based on stopping attacks, it's just the next logical step to a more enlightened and sophisticate society, imo. You don't need religion to be charitable or to appreciate art or to have a sense of right and wrong. Again, I completely understand why people may think religion is a force for good and thats fine. I appreciate the sense of community and the bond people can share through religion but ultimately it's not needed imo.
I want to focus on this because, well, why is it logical to believe that eradicating religion will lead to an enlightened and sophisticate society when theres no proof for this case?
I'm going to take a stab at this one, if you don't mind. I don't want to derail the thread too much, but this is what I fundamentally dislike about organized religion in practice:
I think we can all agree that as a society we're always trying to improve. As the decades and the centuries pass, we're always progressing and usually progressing for the better. We try to become more inclusive of other races, genders, sexualities, etc. We discard old laws that don't make sense to us any more and create new ones to try and address social wrongs that we didn't recognise previously.
With that in mind, imagine that a bunch of well meaning people get together and write a book. This book contains a list of rules on what is considered proper and acceptable behaviour in society; on what is moral and what is amoral. We'd all probably agree that this is a pretty admirable goal.
Now imagine a large and influential group pointing to this book and saying that it is the holy and divine word of a higher power and is therefore beyond criticism. And if you do not follow the rules contained within its pages you will go to hell when you die and face unfathomable torment for all eternity.
And then several hundred years pass ...
Suddenly that well meaning book is an anchor on our society, constantly holding us back. People are trying to improve. We're starting to become aware of new issues, and see new perspectives on the world and as a result we want to change as a society. But that fucking book keeps getting in the way. And it's not the book's fault. It was only trying to help. But someone had to go and say that it was the word of God, and that stops us from seeing it as the historical artifact that it clearly is. Representative of the time it was written and not representative of the modern world. So people will cling to those old rules irrationally, because if you start questioning the word of God, then this entire religion concept might start to unravel.
It's for this reason that world religions can never really be moral leaders, as they intend to be. They always become moral followers. They slow our progression. Eventually they usually come around to the more modern way of thinking, but it's a slow and arduous process and they only do it because they're forced by popular opinion.
That's why I dislike organised religion, and it's why I think Taj is right when he says that we'd be a more sophisticated and enlightened society without it.
With that being said, I do my best to divorce faith from organized religion. If someone does believe, then that's their right and I always do my best to respect that. I don't think that the belief that we're going somewhere better after we die is necessarily harmful in isolation.
Besides, I don't think there are any two Christians who believe exactly the same thing, or any two Muslims who believe exactly the same thing. Everyone has their own spin on their religion, and far from being a cop out, I think that's the most natural and right way to approach religion. If you're going to have faith, it should be in your own beliefs and not someone else's.
So there are plenty of religious people nowadays, who believe (for example) 100% in gay rights and gay marriage. That's not what their religions actually profess, but I won't judge them or call them hypocritical simply for being religious. You can't know their actual opinions until you get to know the people themselves. But if I hear someone is against gay rights (again for example), it will invariably lessen my opinion of them whether they're religious or not.
I guess what I'm saying is that while I respect and admire people's ability to believe in a higher power, I can't support the religions themselves because they are demonstrably holding us back as a society. But then that's my perspective as a liberal atheist pussy, so take it whatever way you want.
