Well, ideally speaking, yes. I know it's not very likely, but still
I consider religion and every other kind of superstition harmful to mankind, it's only logical that I see it as my duty to resist it. I'm not expecting immediate results, I just want to raise consciousness.

Can omniscient God who
knows the future
find the omnipotence
to change his future mind?

- Karen owens.

Ok, I have some questions.

1. Why would I need to believe in god?

2. Why would a gigantic invisible wizard create the universe for no reason, and then make humans to fuck it all up?

3. If god made languages to stop people from building a tower to heaven, why hasn't he stopped NASA?

1. cuz he made you!

2. He was bored, probably. seeing that he excisted 'forever'.

3. because miracles only happen in the past, duh!

I disagree.

As Machievelli () proclaims;
"The truth is that there has never been in any country an extraordinary legislator who has not invoked the deity; for otherwise his laws would not have been accepted. A wise man knows many useful truths which cannot be demonstrated in such a way as to convince other people".

My disagreement lies on the premise that organized religion is essential in the formation of civilized society.
Without a deity such as that of Christianity (the omnipotent/omniscient), one cannot efficiently impose moral and social conduct to suite the majority.

While the wise man may recognize that such morality and social conduct is beneficial to society as a whole, the wise man is not the majority. So, in order to benefit (read: control) the masses, the most effective (if only) method is to impose divine justification.

Many people seem to think that this is a bad thing. What they fail to realize is that without such foundations, civilized society (and the perception to recognize such methods of control) would not exist, or rather, be known among many. In this sense, it is undoubtedly essential that religion was imposed.

But, many shall argue that one does not need divine justification to impose morality - or rather, that morality, despite it's subjective nature, holds some similar foundations in every human (be it evolutionary or other). Such ideals may be that of murder, rape and the like.

While in this day and age, the argument may hold, I propose to you that you are still simply a product of Christian (or other) morality through the social conditioning you experience from birth. To clarify;

The morals of which we assert are evident regardless of religion are only so due to the time of which we have been exposed to such imposed morality.

These morals of which we believe to be evident are simply in place to benefit society as a whole. While you may consider yourself morally stable without the religious justification, your moralistic foundations are still influenced by societies' itself.

However, this is not to suggest that if now, in the present, religion was to cease it's hold, we would become beings of highly ambiguous morality. It is so thoroughly conditioned into our being that undoubtedly we see the social benefits of living by such morals without the need for the God. We know it works, and can understand why.

In conclusion, I disagree that religion is harmful to man. In fact, the very opposite. Without such imposed ideals, we would not have the civilized society we have today. And I thank God for that ;)

Or else we would be Pirates!

Pirates of the Carribean. (doesn't sound that bad tbh)

Ains, Machiavelli was born in 1469! That's before the age of enlightenment, as it's called. I agree that our mutual friend Niccolђ was a genius for his time, but hardly fit as a guideline for today... A good read, though... Like the Bible...

Now, how can you say that society wouldn't have been here without imposed religious morals, when it has, so to say, never been tried? As far as we can tell by history, religion has always been there in some form or other... It's (arguably) a byproduct of the way our minds assign purpose to the world around us. I can't be arsed to go into all that right now unless you specifically want to know... Let's just say that there's a very plausible scientific explanation for the occurrence of religion in almost all peoples worldwide...

I have argued before that the god of abraham is, to say the least, not an example we should follow. He hates unbelievers, apostates, gays, people who masturbate, people who indulge in sex of any other kind than the kind for making babies, and basically everyone who isn't a jew (or a christian, or a muslim, depending on your tastes). He orders the wholesale destruction of entire cities at a time. Now, Jesus isn't much better... Die for another man's sin? Imagine this: my brother kills someone, and I love him so much that I go to jail instead of him... So, now he's guilt free? Of course not, he killed someone... The idea is not only morally reprehensible, it's absurd.
Jesus was a genius for his time, maybe... But still, a barbarian by our present-day standards. Same goes for Muhammad... Undoubtedly a great man, but not an example to follow nowadays.

I could go on forever if I were to list all the atrocities condoned by, and perpetrated in the name of the God of Abraham, but that's not the point here... The point is that the morality of our present-day society is NOT christian (abrahamic, whatever) in any way... The -DARK AGES- had a christian morality system. It's not until science came and caused the age of enlightenment that the foundation for society as we know it were laid. You know, freedom of speech, equal treatment for all, that sort of thing. The things that make the west a better place to live than, for example, saudi arabia.

Now, I really think the Bible is a good read, with a few good lessons here and there... It's not all horror... The sad reality is that most of its (god's) moral standards really are reprehensible. The good outweighs the bad by a factor 10. Part of the problem is that the believer is, by his own (god's) standards is not allowed to make the distinction between them, on pain of eternal hellfire.
The rest of the problem is that you can only see it this way if you look at it from the outside. Which, just like following your own judgment in the first place, is forbidden on pain of eternal hellfire.

Let me put it differently... You're no different from a scientologist. It's just that your brainwashing scheme is far, far older. I hope you will one day be freed from it, for the grass is indeed MUCH greener on the other side.

p.s. I forgot... Before you reply to my post, bear in mind that what I said to Chronos about answering my fundamental questions applies to you as well. You can find the post here: http://forums.toribash.com/showpost....&postcount=227

Ah perhaps my post was somewhat misinterpreted.

Firstly, I assume your scientific explanation for religion in the masses would be as Dawkins proposes?

I do not believe that today, or any time in the near past, religion is needed. I merely meant to assert that at the very foundations of society religion was needed to secure social order. After the initial use, it becomes somewhat limiting as indeed, as you say, our understanding is furthered. But I still feel that it had beneficial effects upon the societies it was preached before scientific discovery reached a certain point. My mention of Christianity was purely due to ignorance on my part; being somewhat ill educated, I know little of other religions.

I agree that perhaps we are not products of Christian morality in totality, but still it has many influences in people's beliefs (pre-marital sex, homosexuality etc.)

I can in no way acquit Christianity of the atrocities done in it's name.
All I was suggesting is that it has been beneficial in two aspects:

1 ) Forming the very foundations of society. Uniting the people, imposing morality.

2 ) Controlling the masses before sufficient scientific evidence was readily available.

While it may be valid to argue from a worldly perspective that religion has caused more good than bad, I don't agree that our ability to recognize this would exist without it.

So effectively, we reach a point in which we can eliminate religion in favor of science and human morality.
But we cannot reach such a point without it.

Hope this was sufficient.
(I'm an atheist btw)

Oh, err, whoops *puts sword away, wipes foam from mouth*

I think your reasoning is correct in the broad sense... You need dark to see the light by... But I don't think we can be sure about your statement that we couldn't have reached this point without religion... Of course, without religion, 'this point' wouldn't exist in the first place, since history would probably have played out differently...
I think that the chief danger in your reasoning is that it might give Christians (or whatever) ideas above their station. After all, it does boil down to religion being responsible for our sense of morality. At least, that's how I'd interpret it if I were a religious zealot
Social behavior, including mutually beneficial relationships between individuals, occurs in many different species. Apes, marine mammals, certain species of bird, etc. As far as I know, they're not religious... And I do believe there's a pretty sound scientific explanation for it too. Can't be arsed to find a source right now, though.
To be short about it, I think that religion did affect the formation of our early societies in the way you describe, but I don't think it's actually -necessary- for society to form.

In closing, a great comic I found by accident that I'm quite sure you'll appreciate: http://www.viruscomix.com/page433.html

Heh thanks for that it was great.

And I guess ultimately, as with the majority of online debate, our opinions differ and will continue to do so.

I appreciate your responses and your comment on social relations within different species is certainly something I need to consider.

Peace.