Printable View
God and religions are great restrictors. Religious beliefs taboo things and even same-sex marriage one of the religious debates.
I cannot imagine of a human society wherein everything is free and spontaneous, no laws – religious, moral, social and governmental. Maybe a primitive society before the birth of religion.
Today’s dos and don’ts would have no space and fewer books of tragedies would have been chronicled.
Savage society!
Man is totally living with his animal instincts..
Without in any way supporting God and Religion, I should say that religion aims to curb Man's animal instincts. So if you say Man is totally living with his animal instincts, religion will say that's because Man is drawing away from religion.Quote:
Originally Posted by osho
I don't think living with one's animal instincts conflicts with religious practice. The religious practice should fulfill those instincts or there is something wrong with the practice.
I see nothing wrong with same-sex marriages for example. Attraction for the same or the opposite sex was set in place before one was born and it is not determined by culture or morals. Nor should heterosexual sex be restricted to procreation. I don't know of anyone, religious or not, who restricts it to procreation.
If the dominant religious practice of one's culture prohibits such activities, one can switch religious practices to something better or ignore that portion of the religious practice. Rejection of religious practice entirely would be too extreme.
Osho, a society without gods is not a society without laws
The inventions of religion and God(s) are pretty convenient excuses, so that people don't have to take the responsibility of their actions themselves.
To believe and obey higher authorities is easier than using one's own brain.
In my opinion a human society without religion won't be free, it will even be more restricted because of this increased responsiblity. No one can do something in the name of any god anymore, but has to answer for it him/herself.
I think religion is part of the human condition, i.e., if the latter is both rational and emotional.
However, to put it in Fromm's terms, there seems to be a gap between that negative "freedom from" (namely, freedom from traditional bondages) and a positive "freedom to" (which implies an individual, authentic life project). Moral responsibility has too often been surrendered to some sort of secular "god" (i.e., history, nation, etc.), or narcotized by consumerism and mass-culture.Quote:
Originally Posted by loe
I think that people regardless of culture seek a moral authority.
It can be religion, the king, or the doctor. Religion is just the name we slap on an institution which makes a business out of morality. If it weren't religion, it would be something else.
osho... it sounds like you have been reading the ideals of Romantic and 19th century literature and political thought a bit too much (Rousseau, Marx, Tolstoy...) without recognizing the negatives wrought by many of these ideals. The atheistic states of the Soviet Union and the East Bloc along with Maoist China didn't bring about some fantasy state of freedom. I love Rousseau myself, but I recognize that Tennyson's view of nature ("Red in tooth and claw") might have been far more on the mark than Rousseau's fantasy of a world in which man was free to follow his animal instincts.
I agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ser Nevarc
A society without god is just another society just without the religious bits.
I would compare it to a cake without the double cream. Double cream is too rich and fattening.
In my opinion, although religion came about as a way of trying to understand the world (I think? Creation myths and all that), it has really turned into a way for priests and other religious figures to control people. Religion doesn't govern our morals, morals come from within you. If your religion said it was ok to go around killing peeps, would that make it ok?
Rousseau's myth has been put to the test in his own time (just remember Victor de l'Aveyron). The individual is only possible within a certain society, and so is morality. This is not to assume any form of social determinism, but to recognize ourselves as being situated in history (like Marx put it, man makes his own history, but he does not make it out of conditions chosen by himself). I believe that one of the main problems with revolutionary experiments like the ones mentioned above lies in the utter impossibility of making society as transparent as our concepts. I'm not advocating traditionalism and conservatism, don't get me wrong; I'm just saying we cannot jump over our own shadow.Quote:
Originally Posted by stlukesguild
There are no morals what there is is people and the rest is made up. People are made to feel guilty for a reason and what better then a religion to cause it for you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Volya
In one sense religion is a "restrictor," but it can also work as the opposite of that, in that it can be used to justify one's own non-religious feelings and actions. For instance I think religion is as much a justification for, as much as it is a cause of, homophobia. If your desire is to conquer and plunder you can just go ahead and call it a crusade. The Bible is so vast and complex a work one could find support in it for almost any course of action.
To be fair, I think this has a lot to do with the fact that the goal of the people running those states was one of power and a totalitarian state. That said, no, even a non-religious and non-totalitarian state does not necessarily mean total freedom by default; even anarchists (the philosophers, at least) have consistently advocated for a society with rules.Quote:
Originally Posted by stlukesguild
I think one also has to factor in cognitive and other psychological research which is currently leaning toward humans (and other higher apes) having a hardwired (if primitive) sense of morality.
Are you speaking to us or the world in general? Because people are out there killing others (and themselves) or plotting to kill people as we speak because they believe their religion indicates they should.Quote:
Originally Posted by Volya
religion is the cover up the shield behind the devil's hand. You have to imagine religion as the ticket to anything you wish to desire and killing is one of them. A human that is reduced to killing because the belief is in a religion that said so is a human that in danger of themselves.Quote:
Originally Posted by Volya
The best way to do it is to take it away from them religion that is. It will do it has to.
So no it is not ok by any stretch of the imagination ever. What is ok however is to tell them they have no longer a religion to run. Thy shall be don sooner or later.
SLG-The atheistic states of the Soviet Union and the East Bloc along with Maoist China didn't bring about some fantasy state of freedom.
To be fair, I think this has a lot to do with the fact that the goal of the people running those states was one of power and a totalitarian state.
Of course the same could be said of Catholicism or Islam... It isn't the religion that is inherently bad but rather the uses and abuses that it is put to by certain individuals in power.
If we had no God, atheists should feel pretty stupid for wasting so much time against the notion.
Let's not forget the Reign of Terror during the French Revolution.Quote:
Originally Posted by stlukesguild
My religion teach me that If I didn't belief there is only one god...I lose
some Religions come from god and this decide how human should live. and other people made it to rule or put their hand in place they want to get it.
------
I can control my animal instincts if i rise in good environment, in family teaching me from begin the meaning of the respect.
That's just silly. Atheists aren't fighting against a non-existent god, but the things people do in the name of their god/s.Quote:
Originally Posted by cafolini
If nobody worshipped god/s there would be any atheists.
That's truly silly. I mean the proposition that they are not fighting against a non-existing god. As if they could if they so chose? LOLQuote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
I feel this thread is pretty presumptuous that God and Religion are one. If there is a God, why would we cast him out based upon a man made and controlled institution such as religion? God doesn't call the shots in the hierarchies that are formed through them, the "enlightened" men at the top do.
Also, isn't a society achieving for pure freedom kind of a naive ideal? I don't mean to offend those who seek freedom, and I'm not saying I don't enjoy the freedoms I have. But wouldn't pure freedom just be a jungle of animals to do and act as they please at any given moment? Laws, created either with or without a religious background, are made for the intention of a greater common good toward the people. I won't deny that this has countless times gone down a path of controlling and enslaving the common people, but that's why there has to be a good balance, of law and freedom.
And if we had no God and Religion? That's hard, because religion is simply a set of rituals, practices, beliefs, etc. that one is devoted to. In many respects, Capitalism could be a religion, hell I hear enough people tie it to God somehow to throw him into it as well, lol. And it has an influence which is now on a global scale.
I'm not sure why Religion is tied strictly to Spirituality, when one could be religious doing anything.
You are getting better. You must be a Mason like this one. Good speech.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaman_Raman
Getting better?Quote:
Originally Posted by cafolini
I'm just saying: " God and Religion are restrictors." I agree that religious institutions frown on certain issues, like homosexuality, but what has God actually done to physically restrict you or me?
I absolutely agree. One can have religion at heart because one feels there is another being somewhere and that in itself is enough.Quote:
I'm not sure why Religion is tied strictly to Spirituality, when one could be religious doing anything.
No need to church and prayers to be believe in a being. The belief in itself is religion.
Indeed. All I'm getting at is that when you're dealing with the sort of individual who thinks 1984 is an instruction manual for how to run a proper society (assuming they get to be at the top of said society) their religious beliefs (or lack thereof) aren't going to matter much if they get into control.Quote:
Originally Posted by stlukesguild
That said, as I'm sure you know, most of the arguments that (famous) atheists make against religious belief are not so much about how any particular religion is inherently harmful (at least not in the bigger picture) as that teaching people to use faith rather than reason to reach decisions can cause harm.
Reason is as open to sobriety as it is open to insanity.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Star
Religion is not a restriction. It is a realization of ignorance. In God we trust by His Grace. Watch the Providence Eye above the truncated pyramid because it is watching you blunder with immaturity.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaman_Raman
Religion might be a source of earthly resignation in some historical contexts, but not necessarily. In Latin America, during the '60s and '70s, the conservative Catholic Church was unsettled by the rise of Liberation Theology and the Movement of Priests for the Third World among its lower ranks, both inspired by a strong sense of social justice and a steadfast criticism of authoritarian régimes (not surprisingly, many of those priests were later murdered by military task forces). In other historical contexts, too, religion has provided an ethics of resistance, and even of rebellion (just remember Thomas Müntzer and the Peasants' War, in Germany). Again, we may criticize religion as an illusion which ultimately "liberates" man from any real responsibility over his own acts, and thus as some sort of moral immaturity, but we should also acknowledge that the meaning of religion may be resignified in the face of particular historical circumstances; in other words, it can become a progressive force in some cases, and a reactionary one in some others... Just like any ideology, religious or not: Marxism played a revolutionary role in many occasions, but it turned into an official State ideology in the USSR, China, Cuba, etc., where it became a monolithic dogma, an automatic legitimation for anything the Party (or the Dear Leader) does or thinks.
The Eighteenth Century is long gone. Like cafolini said, "reason is open to sobriety as it is open to insanity". We, children of the Twentieth Century, should be aware of that.
Religions, whether they speak of God or gods or whatever do generally have some rules involved, which is what constitutes a restriction; a religion isn't merely 'I believe in deity X, Y, Z' or 'I believe in all three' or 'I don't believe in any deities, but...'. A system of values also tends to be included.Quote:
Originally Posted by cafolini