Is religion relevant to the world of 2020 except as a cause for conflict?

[Owlswing]

Looking at the posts on this Forum, taken as a whole and including my own, I have  to say, with deep regret, that, taken as a whole, I think that religion has outlived its uefulness.

If, that is, it was ever actually useful at all! Ever!

The two main 'old' religions, Judaism and Catholicism, both have histories of armed and bloody conflict, the Jews mainly to survive attacks by Islam, a Johnny-come-lately compared to Judaism and Catholicism as a body and its hierarchy are about as corrupt as any big business or major criminal gang anywhere in the world.

To individuals there seem to be positives to be gleaned from the religions and their beliefs, but taken as a whole, they seem to be causing more harm than good, in a lot of cases because of their involvement in politics.

[Nearly Sane]

The problem with this is it sees religion as external. It oddly follows the same idea that the religious feel. Religion is merely a manifestation of what we are, and isn't different from any ideological belief.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Looking at the posts on this Forum, taken as a whole and including my own, I have  to say, with deep regret, that, taken as a whole, I think that religion has outlived its uefulness.

If, that is, it was ever actually useful at all! Ever!

The two main 'old' religions, Judaism and Catholicism, both have histories of armed and bloody conflict, the Jews mainly to survive attacks by Islam, a Johnny-come-lately compared to Judaism and Catholicism as a body and its hierarchy are about as corrupt as any big business or major criminal gang anywhere in the world.

To individuals there seem to be positives to be gleaned from the religions and their beliefs, but taken as a whole, they seem to be causing more harm than good, in a lot of cases because of their involvement in politics.

These sentiments sometimes come to people before they experience some kind of religious transformation. Hang on to your hat.

[Owlswing]

These sentiments sometimes come to people before they experience some kind of religious transformation. Hang on to your hat.

Which hat?

What kind of religious "transformation" are you hoping I am going to have?

[Owlswing]

The problem with this is it sees religion as external. It oddly follows the same idea that the religious feel. Religion is merely a manifestation of what we are, and isn't different from any ideological belief.

Internal - Extrernal - I don't care where it is, or where it comes from - it is what it does, or what it causes to be done by its adherants that I was talking about.

[Nearly Sane]

Internal - Extrernal - I don't care where it is, or where it comes from - it is what it does, or what it causes to be done by its adherants that I was talking about.

It doesn't cause anything. It doesn't do anything.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Which hat?

What kind of religious "transformation" are you hoping I am going to have?

Dunno. As they say ''don't have expectations but be expectant.''

[SteveH]

They must confer some survival advantage, or they wouldn't have lasted so long.

[Nearly Sane]

They must confer some survival advantage, or they wouldn't have lasted so long.

Murder has always happened. That things last is not an indication of good.

[SteveH]

Murder has always happened. That things last is not an indication of good.

I didn't suggest otherwise.

[Nearly Sane]

I didn't suggest otherwise.

I am just pointing out that based on your post religion is comparable to murderr.

[SteveH]

I am just pointing out that based on your post religion is comparable to murderr.

Or co-operation for the common good.

[Nearly Sane]

Or co-operation for the common good.

No, your post's logic simply argued that longevity of a phenomenon was about evolutionary advantage. Nothing about a common good. And since by your criterion, murder qualifies, then in that logic murder and religion have the same qualification.

[SteveH]

No, your post's logic simply argued that longevity of a phenomenon was about evolutionary advantage. Nothing about a common good. And since by your criterion, murder qualifies, then in that logic murder and religion have the same qualification.

You are being even more than usually tiresome. The ability of a species to co-operate for the common good gives it an evolutionary advantage. Religion promotes that (although we can do it without religion as well), and has other evolutionary advantages as well - group bonding, for example.

[Owlswing]

 It doesn't cause anything. It doesn't do anything.

So, you are saying that those who demand that Muslims act upon the Koran's demand that all 'infidels' be put to death do not have to take responsibilty, together with the religion that they espouse, for those deaths!

[Nearly Sane]

So, you are saying that those who demand that Muslims act upon the Koran's demand that all 'infidels' be put to death do not have to take responsibilty, together with the religion that they espouse, for those deaths!

No. I am saying that the people need to take responsibility and be held accountable. Religion itself is nothing other than people.

[Nearly Sane]

You are being even more than usually tiresome. The ability of a species to co-operate for the common good gives it an evolutionary advantage. Religion promotes that (although we can do it without religion as well), and has other evolutionary advantages as well - group bonding, for example.

   Your point in the post I originally replied to   was that something that had longevity in human social terms conferred evolutionary advantage. By that logic murder and religion ard similar. 

[SteveH]

   Your point in the post I originally replied to   was that something that had longevity in human social terms conferred evolutionary advantage. By that logic murder and religion ard similar.

And so are religion and the ability to co-operate.

[Nearly Sane]

And so are religion and the ability to co-operate.

And religion and rape. Longevity itself is not a useful indicator of anything. Not even evolutionary advantage as it may just be neutral. 

[SteveH]

I was simply stating a fact, not arguing either for or against religion. In your usual tiresome way, you are just picking arguments for the hell of it. Even Dawkins admits that religion confers, or conferred in the past, evolutionary advantages.

[Nearly Sane]

I was simply stating a fact, not arguing either for or against religion. In your usual tiresome way, you are just picking arguments for the hell of it. Even Dawkins admits that religion confers, or conferred in the past, evolutionary advantages.

And since I haven't argued against that possibility your point is irrelevant. You used longevity as the evidence for conferring an advantage. All I pointed out was that that longevity also applies to rape and murder.

[Sriram]

We cannot be looking at everything from the perspective of evolutionary advantage. Some nebulous 'survival strategy' conjured up by random variations and a metaphoric natural selection.....!   

We should in fact be looking at evolution from the perspective of spiritual advantage and development. 

[Stranger]

We cannot be looking at everything from the perspective of evolutionary advantage. Some nebulous 'survival strategy' conjured up by random variations and a metaphoric natural selection.....!   

You not understanding natural selection does not make it metaphorical. It is a very real process that can be modelled by computer, demonstrated in a laboratory, and is supported by plentiful evidence from the natural world - unlike your vague, hand-waving assertions.

[SusanDoris]

Looking at the posts on this Forum, taken as a whole and including my own, I have  to say, with deep regret, that, taken as a whole, I think that religion has outlived its uefulness.

If, that is, it was ever actually useful at all! Ever!

The two main 'old' religions, Judaism and Catholicism, both have histories of armed and bloody conflict, the Jews mainly to survive attacks by Islam, a Johnny-come-lately compared to Judaism and Catholicism as a body and its hierarchy are about as corrupt as any big business or major criminal gang anywhere in the world.

To individuals there seem to be positives to be gleaned from the religions and their beliefs, but taken as a whole, they seem to be causing more harm than good, in a lot of cases because of their involvement in politics.

Yes, I agree. Except that I think they, that is the mainly Christianity-based ones, serve as a barrier against the aim of Islam to take their place.this is of course speaking generally, as I am sure many middle-of-the-road Muslims would not feel that way - some of whom are becoming atheists.

[Owlswing]

Yes, I agree. Except that I think they, that is the mainly Christianity-based ones, serve as a barrier against the aim of Islam to take their place.this is of course speaking generally, as I am sure many middle-of-the-road Muslims would not feel that way - some of whom are becoming atheists.

Is it not possible that the reason that atheists are not a worthwhile force against religion is the fact that there are more atheist factions than there are religious ones? Almost one for each atheist?