• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The "What should replace religion?" question

Belz... said:
Really ? I never heard that. So theists have a hole in their lives that needs filled ?
Click to expand...


Apparently so. Some of them are even quite aware and articulate about it. I'll see if I can dig up a letter written to Dawkins by a believer who basically asked him flat out, "If we take your advice and reject religion, what are you offering in its place?"

Strangely enough, my own answer -- "Grow the **** up and deal with it" -- hasn't proven terribly popular among either theists or atheists.
 
Last edited:
Acleron said:
That's a great list, it's such a shame that another thing all religions agree on is to disregard it.
Click to expand...

To be fair, it's not the 'religions' that disregard it, that would have to involve the religions themself being sentient, like a thought that eminates from someone's brain and then goes on to have it's own self aware existence... it's people who interpret religion in ways that they consider to justify their own personal discriminations that disregard it.

Yes, I realise that certain religions have certain scriptures that seem to contradict their own versions of the Golden Rule, but one must ask, how did those contradictions come to be in the scriptures in the first place? Obviously because someone high up in the religion's higharchy who had a chip on his shoulder about something or other once placed them there.

Y'see, religions are very rarely written by one person, they usualy develop over a long period of time and tend to include scripture written by all sorts of different people who have all sorts of different views and agendas.

Take Christianity for example, according to it's New Testament scripture Jesus didn't once criticise homosexuals, the only criticism of homosexuality in the New Testament actualy comes from Paul the Apostle, a man who apparently never even met Jesus personaly (although he claimed to have met him in a vision) but went on to influence Christianity almost as much as Jesus himself did.

I've known plenty of Christians who completely disregard the Golden Rule, but I've also known plenty of Christians who practicaly live by it, people who would do anything to help their fellow man, regardless of whether he shares their beliefs or not. Same goes for Muslims. There are obviously lots of Muslims who completely disregard the Golden Rule, otherwise there wouldn't be Muslim terrorist attacks upon innocent people, but there are also a hell of a lot of Muslims for who those terrorist attacks are hidious acts that they consider no true Muslim would ever commit.

Personaly, I'm an atheist, so I obviously have no religious belief myself, but I don't have a problem with those who do have religious beliefs, just those who use religion to justify discrimination against others. After all, that's the essence of the Golden Rule, if I wish for the religious to respect my atheism, then I should start by respecting their theism. That doesn't mean that I have to agree with their beliefs or that I shouldn't debate against them, I just consider it to be distasteful to personaly attack somone because of their religious beliefs.
 
Last edited:
SlackerBabbath said:
To be fair, it's not the 'religions' that disregard it, that would have to involve the religions themself being sentient, like a thought that eminates from someone's brain and then goes on to have it's own self aware existence... it's people who interpret religion in ways that they consider to justify their own personal discriminations that disregard it.

Yes, I realise that certain religions have certain scriptures that seem to contradict their own versions of the Golden Rule, but one must ask, how did those contradictions come to be in the scriptures in the first place? Obviously because someone high up in the religion's higharchy who had a chip on his shoulder about something or other once placed them there.

Y'see, religions are very rarely written by one person, they usualy develop over a long period of time and tend to include scripture written by all sorts of different people who have all sorts of different views and agendas.

Take Christianity for example, according to it's New Testament scripture Jesus didn't once criticise homosexuals, the only criticism of homosexuality in the New Testament actualy comes from Paul the Apostle, a man who apparently never even met Jesus personaly (although he claimed to have met him in a vision) but went on to influence Christianity almost as much as Jesus himself did.

I've known plenty of Christians who completely disregard the Golden Rule, but I've also known plenty of Christians who practicaly live by it, people who would do anything to help their fellow man, regardless of whether he shares their beliefs or not. Same goes for Muslims. There are obviously lots of Muslims who completely disregard the Golden Rule, otherwise there wouldn't be Muslim terrorist attacks upon innocent people, but there are also a hell of a lot of Muslims for who those terrorist attacks are hidious acts that they consider no true Muslim would ever commit.

Personaly, I'm an atheist, so I obviously have no religious belief myself, but I don't have a problem with those who do have religious beliefs, just those who use religion to justify discrimination against others. After all, that's the essence of the Golden Rule, if I wish for the religious to respect my atheism, then I should start by respecting their theism. That doesn't mean that I have to agree with their beliefs or that I shouldn't debate against them, I just consider it to be distasteful to personaly attack somone because of their religious beliefs.
Click to expand...

Point taken, I was using it to describe those who believe they are religious.

And I have no quarrel with those who behave in a civilised manner to others. But religions are inherently divisive. They only exist because they have a belief set different from others, therefore everyone else is wrong. It is an easy step to despise others and treat them as lesser beings. Killing others then becomes easy and is mandated by the 'correct' interpretation of the vague scriptures of almost all religions.
 
Quinn said:
Strangely enough, my own answer -- "Grow the **** up and deal with it" -- hasn't proven terribly popular among either theists or atheists.
Click to expand...

Maybe it's high time for skeptics to grow up, too ...
Religion is already a substitute for drugs, i.e. "the opium of the people", so weed wouldn't make much difference ...

If you have things like irrigation and proper housing, that is if you don't expect to become a victim of the elements on a regular basis, you don't need to pray to a god for protection against rain, drought, hurricanes etc.
If you have proper food on the table (due to irrigation etc.), you don't have to ask a deity for your daily bread.
And if you have proper health care, you don't need to see a witch doctor.
Telling somebody who doesn't have access to proper health care to stop being so superstitious is both stupid and cynical ...

Read Phil Zuckerman's Society without God.
Zuckerman about his book on youtube.

The foundation of irreligious criticism is: Man makes religion, religion does not make man. Religion is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again. But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man – state, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world. Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopaedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d’honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality. The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion.

Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.

The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.
http://marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1843/critique-hpr/intro.htm
Click to expand...
 
Frozenwolf150 said:
Art.


Both religion and the arts have endured for thousands of years because they organize cooperative behavior in humans, and are therefore advantageous. Certain religious organizations however teach us prejudice, bigotry, hatred, and division. Art by itself is a means by which people from very different backgrounds, having different points of view, can come together and share the deepest human experiences. Art and religion often overlap, and much great art has come out of religion, which is why I don't actually advocate replacing religion so much as pushing it more in the direction of creativity and inclusiveness.
Click to expand...

Are "Chick Tracts" art?
 
dann said:
Maybe it's high time for skeptics to grow up, too ...
Religion is already a substitute for drugs, i.e. "the opium of the people", so weed wouldn't make much difference ...

If you have things like irrigation and proper housing, that is if you don't expect to become a victim of the elements on a regular basis, you don't need to pray to a god for protection against rain, drought, hurricanes etc.

<snip for brevity>
Click to expand...


I agree with your point that material well-being is necessary for people to free their minds from superstition, and criticising the poor for clinging to their comforts or allowing fear to oppress them is a grotesque position for affluent western "skeptics" to adopt.

However, material well-being is not sufficient to free people from inherited cultural memes such as the belief in witchcraft that is rife in Africa. Here in Britain, there have been several cases of children dying through "exorcisms" visited in violence on children of African immigrants, even though their standards of living were not comparable to the abject poverty you cite in the OP of that thread you provided a link for. I'm not convinced that your idea is correct, that the poor families used witchcraft as an excuse to get rid of excess children they could not afford to feed. I don't believe they are as calculating as that. Desperate, and therefore prey to the already circulating memes of witchcraft and fear, yes, but rationally choosing it? Hard to believe. (In fact, poor people have lots of children so that they have more potential workers to help feed the parents as they age... and because child mortality is high, of course... so just abandoning them so easily is not what I would think they would do if they weren't genuinely letting their cultural memes of witchcraft take precedence over their material priorities.)

I don't think you can just address one aspect of a culture, such as poverty levels, and expect the rest to fall into line. The key to improved health of a culture is education, around all issues and aspects of living in this world. I think it's vitally important to make it very clear that such devices as superstition and religion are not necessary to achieve a healthy and happy life, right from the outset of any attention being paid from those in the West who may get involved in the work in places like Africa. The harm done by western missionaries in South American jungle societies I am aware of. Secular education is needed to provide a healthier option for all developing peoples.

Focusing on only one aspect of development will always fail to bloom. In my opinion.

Oh, thanks for the quote from Zuckerman... a nice piece of poetry.
 
Last edited:
asydhouse said:
Here in Britain, there have been several cases of children dying through "exorcisms" visited in violence on children of African immigrants, even though their standards of living were not comparable to the abject poverty you cite in the OP of that thread you provided a link for.
Click to expand...
Are you sure? What do you know about the cases you refer to?
I'm not convinced that your idea is correct, that the poor families used witchcraft as an excuse to get rid of excess children they could not afford to feed. I don't believe they are as calculating as that.
Click to expand...
What's calculating about it? It's the same principle that you find almost everywhere: Blame it on the victim - in particular when you're the one executing the sentence.
Desperate, and therefore prey to the already circulating memes of witchcraft and fear, yes, but rationally choosing it?
Click to expand...
There's nothing rational about it.
Hard to believe. (In fact, poor people have lots of children so that they have more potential workers to help feed the parents as they age...
Click to expand...
Well, yes, certain poor people in certain rural economies.
... and because child mortality is high, of course... so just abandoning them so easily is not what I would think they would do if they weren't genuinely letting their cultural memes of witchcraft take precedence over their material priorities.)
Click to expand...
Nobody claims that it's easy! And I don't see where that mistake comes from. It's not easy! That's why they have to come up with an excuse. And this is the stage when you can refer to "the already circulating memes of witchcraft". Different cultures, different excuses: 'He was laid off twice this year? He must have a personality problem!'
I don't think you can just address one aspect of a culture, such as poverty levels, and expect the rest to fall into line. The key to improved health of a culture is education, around all issues and aspects of living in this world.
Click to expand...
So what would an educated person with no access to health care do when the faith healer is in town? Accept his fate and die peacefully?
I think it's vitally important to make it very clear that such devices as superstition and religion are not necessary to achieve a healthy and happy life,
Click to expand...
Of course they aren't! But they are what you resort to when it appears to be impossible "to achieve a healthy and happy life" in the real world!
... right from the outset of any attention being paid from those in the West who may get involved in the work in places like Africa. The harm done by western missionaries in South American jungle societies I am aware of. Secular education is needed to provide a healthier option for all developing peoples.
Click to expand...
In Uganda American missionaries seem to be the reason why extreme homophobia is now in vogue ....
Oh, thanks for the quote from Zuckerman... a nice piece of poetry.
Click to expand...
I dídn't quote Zuckerman! The quotation is from a different guy - see my sig line - but the two guys would probably agree that religion and superstition tend to disappear when a society takes care of people, which requires a certain level of wealth. Religion is "the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering", which is why the "abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness." Telling people who can't afford to feed their children or who don't have access to health care to give up their superstitions is a particularly cynical idealism:
"To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions."
We still have superstition in Scandinavia, but poverty also has not been abolished yet.
 
Last edited:
Religion has to do with a desire for God. Whatever replaces it will still develop into religion unless you can get people to stop believing in God which I don't think will ever happen. Unless you are equating religion with belief in God, then there's nothing to replace it with.
 
Gawdzilla said:
Of course it's not popular, it requires effort, something people really try to avoid.
Click to expand...
Don't underestimate the efforts it takes to maintain superstitions!
It's extremely difficult to come up with a valid argument for Creationism, for instance! :-)
 
Peterson said:
Religion has to do with a desire for God.
Click to expand...
You may find that this desire is a rather natural feeling. It isn't, however.
Whatever replaces it will still develop into religion unless you can get people to stop believing in God which I don't think will ever happen. Unless you are equating religion with belief in God, then there's nothing to replace it with.
Click to expand...
The question in the OP is wrong! You should ask what religion replaces. A secure, pleasant, meaningful existence does not require comforting ideas of a meaning beyond reality, and therefore it also doesn't "develop into religion". See Zuckerman!
 
Last edited:
SlackerBabbath said:
>snipped for brevity>

The Golden Rule is one thing that religion got right. It's a formula for universal peace that's elegant in it's simplicity, if everyone followed it, there would be no crime, no abuse and no wars, but one doesn't need religion in order to learn this very simple lesson. Many ancient philosophers came to exactly the same conclusion without turning to religion.

"Do not do to your neighbor what you would take ill from him." – Pittacus
"Avoid doing what you would blame others for doing." – Thales
"What you do not want to happen to you, do not do it yourself either. " – Sextus the Pythagorean
"Do not do to others what would anger you if done to you by others." – Isocrates
"Expect from others what you did to them" - Seneca.
Click to expand...


To nitpick just a bit, most of these are examples of The Sliver Rule, not the Golden one. Personally, I have always preferred the Silver version.

Sorry about the link, it is a little ad-heavy, but I could find a better short summary.
 
dann said:
Don't underestimate the efforts it takes to maintain superstitions!
Click to expand...
As rebuttal I present about 38 of my cousins, each of whom are blessed with IQs no high than that found in tap water.
It's extremely difficult to come up with a valid argument for Creationism, for instance! :-)
Click to expand...
Oh, that's easy, they just Lie for Jesus. (tm)
 
Peterson said:
Religion has to do with a desire for God. Whatever replaces it will still develop into religion unless you can get people to stop believing in God which I don't think will ever happen. Unless you are equating religion with belief in God, then there's nothing to replace it with.
Click to expand...

If you qualify that with "some people" I might agree. But religion is completely extraneous to reality, so it is being artificially supported by the parasitic priesthood.
 
dann said:
I never claimed that it takes more effort than believing in IQ:
Click to expand...
You don't believe in peoples's ability (or inability) to solve abstract problems? For that's what IQ test measures.
 
You know dann, you seem to be debating ideas you have about what I said rather than what I actually said. I can't be bothered to correct your misapprehensions. If you were to dispassionately reread what I wrote in order to understand what I was saying instead of creating ducks for you to knock down, you might think a bit more clearly about what I said.

To answer your first question, I have heard on the news several times over the years the reports of deaths from exorcisms among African immigrants in Britain.

You undermine your own thesis that all it takes is an increase in material well-being when you mention that Scandinavia is full of woo. Are you trying to say that only people in the relatively affluent poverty you cite are the believers in that woo? That's not true, though, is it?

All I'm saying is that criticism of superstition is always valid, but can only be "imposed" on a population you are also helping in material terms; and a necessary corollary to material aid is secular education. You seem to focus on only one aspect of interfering at a time. My argument is simply that it's more complicated than that, and a mere increase in physical well-being without a concomitant betterment of educational levels/contents will never succeed in enlightening the culture.

Witness the persistence of religion in affluent America. (Pax Zuckerman, where he says in that video you linked to that the wealthy nation of America has vast gaps between the rich and poor... true, but... some of the richest people are the Mormons, and other evangelical organisations, who are rolling in it, and yet maintain the hardest medieval lines of religiosity in the world!)

Also, in Africa, I'd say your own assumptions that the only victims of witchcraft are those in such dire poverty that they are willing to dump their children on the street... well, that's to assume that there are no functioning communities where relatively affluent people have viable economic countries/towns... which is sort of almost a racist assumption! (Unconscious, I'm sure, before you get reactionary on me for saying that!) Belief in witchcraft is rife all over, not just among the most poverty-ridden. All kinds of atrocities go on under the influence of its perversion of undestanding of how the world works: the belief that HIV can be cured by raping a virgin child, is just one of them.

Aid without education, and a forthright statement that superstition is plain wrong, is just as colonialist as any other interference. IMHO.


PS Why didn't you attribute your quote to the guy who wrote it then? Normally when people post a link and then an unattributed quote, it's to share a bit of what's in the link! That was confusing how you did that.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom