Would you rather live in a world without science...or in a world without religion? Showing 4,351-4,400 of 12,463

[Anjali]

Let me try and say something about Hindu Philosophy. The word Atma can be literally translated as Soul. Concept of Atma has been the central dogma of Indian Philosophy.The Atma refers to the individual living entity as a spirit soul. Some philosophers consider the individuality of the atma to be eternal, others believe the atma eventually merges back into the Brahman/Eternal God and loses its individuality.

The Brahman is like a fire, and the Atma is like the small sparks that fly out of the fire. Due to their microscopic nature, the small sparks have a tendency to be extinguished. In a similar matter, the infinitesimal atmas have a tendency to be overpowered and covered by illusion, or Maya. The illusion that covers the atma's true knowledge causes him to falsely identify himself as a product of matter. To accommodate the polluted consciousness of the soul, the nature creates a series of coverings, or koshas, moving from subtle to gross. The congregate of these coverings is what is generally referred to as the body. According to the pollution of the soul's consciousness he will be given a suitable body, either as a human, animal, plant, or any one of 8,400,000 species of life.

Once embodied, the soul becomes entangled in a chain of actions and reactions, known as Karma. Every moment we are performing thousands of actions, even unknowingly, and these are all creating seeds of reactions which we must later experience either in this life or another. In order to properly receive our due reactions, the nature creates a new suitable body for us to enter at the time of death. Thus we are entrapped in a seemingly endless cycle of actions and reactions.

Only by acting fully in the service of God, offering the fruits of all our actions to God, can we become free from the reactions, or karma. As one engages in the service of God, one's built up karmic reactions are slowly burnt up, and one becomes free from future bondage. By becoming free from the bondage of our karmas, and by realizing our true nature as a spirit soul (atma) distinct from the body, we remove the coverings of illusion (maya).

When one is free from the illusion of false identification with the body and its possessions, and when one is resituated in his own spiritual form, that state is known as Moksha, or liberation. Some schools of philosophy believe that the atma becomes one with Brahman. Other schools believe the atma is an eternal individual spiritual person, and at the point of moksha he attains the spiritual abode of God, known as Vaikuntha.

The main scriptural book followed by Hindus is the Bhagavad Gita. he original sound vibration pranava (Om) is the seed of all matter. The recitation of Vedic mantras can be heard in the ether even now through internal meditation

[Swati]

No religion would be fine. I believe in God, and s/he does not need a religion/our praise/our approval to survive. Science on the other hand, combined with ethics, is something we can't do without.

[Hazel]

Swati wrote: "No religion would be fine. I believe in God, and s/he does not need a religion/our praise/our approval to survive. Science on the other hand, combined with ethics, is something we can't do without."

I completely agree with your last statement, about science. However, it should be remembered that the most basic definition of religion is a belief in a god or higher power, thus as soon as you have belief, you have religion. I think what you mean is removing the institutions of religion would be fine, but when you consider the full implication of the word religion, it would actually mean there being no belief in a god or higher power, as you cannot hold a set of beliefs in relation to such without it being religion, ie belief is religion.

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definit...

[Hazel]

or maybe you meant that even if there was no belief, god would still happily pootle along doing what god does. Hypothetically, yes, that is indeed true, assuming that a god exists, said god (or gods/goddesses/demons/spirits) does not need belief in it to exist.

[Shanna]

Hazel wrote: "or maybe you meant that even if there was no belief, god would still happily pootle along doing what god does. Hypothetically, yes, that is indeed true, assuming that a god exists, said god (or god..."

Tinkerbell

[Hazel]

Come on Shanna, we all know Tinkerbell exists, I've seen her on TV and everything...

[Shanna]

I don't believe in fairies, I don't believe in fairies

[Gary]

cs wrote: "And who is to say that it is not true. All you are doing is putting your own percentage rating on the outcome."

At least I am not saying that some peoples meaning is definitely not true, which most religions claim of unbelievers.

cs wrote: "How many frightened of hellfire Homosexuals do you know?"

Personally two, but one is completely over it now while the other just feels residual guilt (and the hatred and scorn of his 'loving' christian family). Apart from that I know a few more indirectly, one of whom contacted me on another forum to try to find a way he could convince himself and his christian family that he wasn't going to hell for being a bad person because he loved another man. I helped him by citing biblical scripture, not by trying to get him to leave his faith.

cs wrote: "Yes I get that, but Christians have a starting point be way of Jesus, which to them is proof enough. The teapot is no where close to being a credible example."

So you don't believe in Jesus, as you have proof? Do you not believe in Jesus because of the cultural influence you have previously been so proud of? Therefore if the teapot had similar authoritarian backing it would be the same example, which is a claim that is practically impossible to disprove like many others.

cs wrote: "You are unable to separate the two."

This is getting repetitive now. Read the dictionary.

religion [ri-lij-uhn]  
noun
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.

belief [bih-leef]  
noun
1. something believed; an opinion or conviction: a belief that the earth is flat.
2. confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof: a statement unworthy of belief.
3. confidence; faith; trust: a child's belief in his parents.
4. a religious tenet or tenets; religious creed or faith: the Christian belief.

Belief in God is a religion. If you do not believe in god then you need to accept that your acceptance of his existence may be wrong. This is not some form of inability of comprehension on everyone else's part that is the English Language!

cs wrote: "Now you are being pedantic. When atheists on this forum say they will only believe in a god when science proves that there is a god should they also be corrected for confusing ‘science’ with people?"
No because the term "science proves" is shorthand for "proved by the scientific method which requires independently verified evidence." The fact that you are deliberately confusing the difference means that you are committing the pedantry (though I will be willing to admit that correcting pedantry in others is perhaps indulging in pedantry :-)

cs wrote: "Arrogance, if that is what it is, it can be a two sided coin. If there is life after death regardless of whether there is a god or not, the use of the word ‘soul’ or ‘spirit’ is only a way of showing that in some way we carry on. I could have put ‘x’ in place of soul but why confuse the issue.
"

Arrogance can be a two-sided coin indeed, but not always. Just because one person resorts to arrogance it does not mean the other person has by default.

You implied that "some people" who didn't accept the existence of a soul were somehow deficient in being able to imagine one, which was both wrong (which can be easily seen since I used to be a christian who accepted the existence of a soul, and arrogant because you implied that other people were mentally deficient for not believing as you do.

In the end your argument still is "if there is life after death we can label that entity a 'soul'" just like you state "if there was a creator to the universe we can label that creator 'god'". Both statements are assumptions with no stated evidence, and both are potentially misleading. A soul then implies that this entity is one "essence" of a person while other religions assume the existence of many souls that combine to make one person and other religions believe in one soul shared amongst many. So the label 'soul' also carries with it a set of assumptions. Just as the label 'god' tends to carry the assumptions of a male, omnipotent christian god, rather than Allah, Saturn, The Morrigan etc ad practically infinitum.

If you are unable to see your own biases in this regard then try to imagine what another faith imagines when they apply those labels.

[Gary]

Swati wrote: "No religion would be fine. I believe in God, and s/he does not need a religion/our praise/our approval to survive.

How would you know of god without religion?

Swati wrote: "Science on the other hand, combined with ethics, is something we can't do without."

Well said, especially the bit about ethics. I do feel that ethics in itself should be in itself a 'science'. Given a set of propositions that people can agree on (for example the right of people to freely pursue happiness as long as it is not at the cost of others) then ethics can be derived. Of course some of the more complex ethical questions would still be difficult, but I feel would still be addressed better by rational examination than religious edict.

[[deleted user]]

Religion ....

I can't find my textbook (I likely sold it) and I can't find sites on the Internet. But, ....

I remember being in an "Intro" class in college, Intro to Sociology maybe, and learning about the definition of religion. It wasn't as atheists on this thread define it.

There were specific conditions, at least three, if I remember correctly, that needed to be met.

One dealt with the number of followers, a certain number was needed. One dealt with the number of years people believed in/participated in that particular belief system. I can't remember the other or others. Belief in a supernatural being or something else? Not sure.

I do remember the debate that ensued. Mormonism was not a religion, so said the professor, based on the definition and requirements that needed to be met. It had not been practiced for the requisite number of years. I remember some of the students arguing quite forcefully that it should be considered a religion. It was one of the fastest growing religions. No, the professor said, it's not a religion, not yet. On and on it went.

It could be that people took a similar class or have read the same type of definition.

Regardless of what the dictionary says, I've got to tell all of you, that professor drilled a very, very different definition into my head. That's not likely to change.

[Hazel]

looks like your professor was talking about the definition for a religion as an institution, this does not detract from the fact that belief in and of itself is religion, not A religion, simply religion.

[Gary]

Shannon wrote: "Now, is anyone ... other than Hazel and Tim ... willing to say, at least, that local churches and church members do good works that support their local communities? "

Just to be clear I never intended to imply that churches and church members didn't do good works. I know of many that do, and many religious people who are wonderful people.

My point was that the assumption that this meant without religion we would have less charity or altruism is just that, an assumption. Personally speaking I have more trust in the ethics of the people that chose the church and charity than in the ethics of the Church itself.

As pointed out the fact that the charitable people are religious in an area where people are predominantly religious is like saying that white people are more charitable when examining the charities in a predominantly white area.

Good people will be attracted to religion because religion proclaims itself as good and the alternatives evil. However, there is no independently verified evidence that in religious areas there is a large shift to more moral behaviour (taking generally undisputed principles). If anything the opposite seems to be the trend.

Going to the sources of the religions also tends to show mixed results. I have often heard the evangelicals proclaim that "Good works count for naught, only faith in Jesus Christ to forgive our sins will earn redemption." According to the Bible John 5:29, Jeremiah 17:10, 2 Corinthians 5:10, James 2:17 and other references appear to say that doing good is required, while Galatians 2:16, Psalm 37:40, 2 Thessalonians 1:8-9, Acts 2:21, Romans 10:13 and others seem to imply faith is more important or indeed the only necessity.

This of course leaves aside the fact that religion telling people to do good because they will be rewarded after death is, after all, a bribe. This does not seem to be a particularly good moral basis to start with.

[[deleted user]]

Hazel wrote: "looks like your professor was talking about the definition for a religion as an institution, this does not detract from the fact that belief in and of itself is religion, not A religion, simply rel..."

Likely so. I also think, when many people talk of religion, they're referring to religious institutions. Speaking for myself, when I speak of religion, I'm speaking of organized religion ... religious institutions. In my mind, given this class, etc... religion is an institution.

[Gary]

Shannon wrote: "I do remember the debate that ensued. Mormonism was not a religion, so said the professor, based on the definition and requirements that needed to be met."

To be honest I would like to know the religious orientation of said professor. I have heard many people try to claim that their beliefs constitute "religion" while other people claim that it is a "cult" simply because the former has positive associations and the latter has negative. The claim has been levelled against Scientology, Mormonism, Catholicism etc. etc. It is the modern version of "heresy".

George W. Bush once said that he wished the military would reverse its decision to allow Wiccan chaplains as he "didn't believe Witchcraft was a religion".

But perhaps Stephen T. Colbert said it best (in front of George W. Bush) "And though I am a committed Christian, I believe that everyone has the right to their own religion, be you Hindu, Jewish or Muslim. I believe there are infinite paths to accepting Jesus Christ as your personal savior."

[Travis]

What's the cut-off between cult and religion?

You know, hypothetically, how many people do I need to be considered a religion?

[Hazel]

I always figured the terms were essentially interchangeable, when it comes to institutioned religion, they're cults, just bigger than what most people think of as cults. A cult is simply a system of religious veneration and devotion towards a particular figure or object (oxford english dictionary definition). Cults are religions and religions are cults, look at the roman worship of different deities, each deity had its own cult of followers, same with the greeks.

Its only in recent times that larger religions want to separate themselves from cults, even though they are really the same thing. At least, thats what reading about such things suggests to me.

[[deleted user]]

Gary wrote: "However, there is no independently verified evidence that in religious areas there is a large shift to more moral behaviour (taking generally undisputed principles). If anything the opposite seems to be the trend.
"

We need to be careful when it comes to making statements like this.

First, as I've stated and argued, I don't believe morality is linked to religion or faith. Believers can be just as immoral as atheists. Atheists can be just as moral as believers. People are people, regardless of belief systems. I'm not one to say that atheists are immoral or that religious folk are moral pillars of society.

Second, as ironic as it might be, I'm really starting to get into evidence. I know! Ironic. But, there's the rub. Is the opposite the trend? Hmmm.... I wonder what evidence exists to back that belief?

I found the following site. Granted, it's limited since it deals only with the US and only looks at certain years. (Which makes me wonder ... how much of our "evidence" is limited? When it comes to trying to prove something like this, my guess is it's extremely limited and not necessarily accurate.)

http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_D...

This site says Utah, home of a gazillion Mormons, has the highest volunteer rate. Does this prove the idea that religious folk aren't as moral?

Oh, crap! We're mixing, aren't we? The conversation went from churches supporting their communities through good works, volunteerism, to morality. How did that happen?

While linked, I think this poses a problem. In that, I suppose one could volunteer on church suppers and still be watching porn, drowning unwanted puppies, and dreaming of killing one's jerk of a boss.

So, now where do we go?

Instead of looking at crime rates in Utah in order to prove that religious folk are morally superior, not something I'm into proving, just don't like it much when people throw out the opposite without worthy evidence or with biased evidence ... I know ... oh, the irony...,

Let's look at volunteerism and supporting one's community ....

Speaking only about volunteerism, when I look at this site, I see people volunteering all over the place. I see Utah ranked as number one for having the highest percentage of volunteers. VERY religious state. I see Vermont listed as number nine. Vermont is said to have the lowest % of people for whom religion is of extreme importance. The Midwest has the highest rate of volunteerism. Lots of Bible believers out there. The Northeast, not so religious, has the highest proportion of volunteer fundraising.

Both religious and secular support their local communities. That's my point. Both.

Do we always and forever need to put the most negative spin on all things religious? Like ... the only way religion supports communities is as a threat, etc....

That's my point ... and my only point.

[Gary]

Shannon wrote: "Regardless of what the dictionary says, I've got to tell all of you, that professor drilled a very, very different definition into my head. That's not likely to change."

Well we can only really discuss if we can agree on a consensus in terms, otherwise we are not communicating our ideas.

Does your definition of religion compared to the dictionary definition or the 'atheists' definition make a difference to the question at hand anyway?

If it requires belief for a certain period, then you can substituted the term religion and "pre-religion". If it requires (x) members does that mean current or total. E.g. does this mean that a religion that has had (a) members each generation for (b) generations it counts or do you need a threshold of (a) x (b) of current members. Either way if the first 2 points are relevant to the question at all, they will have had to have influenced enough people that they have (or will eventually have) the numbers to pass whatever arbitrarily assigned threshold you prefer.

The last factor also seems irrelevant (as far as you can indicate anyway) as the term "supernatural" is rather vague in itself.

I would however humbly suggest that in absence of this one textbook we converse on a clear definition of the word "religion" we can both accept, otherwise there cannot be a discussion. I would posit the dictionary definition (as of www.dictionary.com) as being reasonable.

After all, all I have to do is to say conviction is that the term "religion" means 'to believe in things that do not exist' and claim victory, but that is not a sensible conversation to have.

[Travis]

Hazel wrote: "I always figured the terms were essentially interchangeable, when it comes to institutioned religion, they're cults, just bigger than what most people think of as cults. A cult is simply a system o..."

How am I ever going to get one of those sweet tax exempt deals if you can't give me the hard numbers, Hazel?

[Travis]

I've always said that there is religion ( the belief) and religion ( the structural organization)
Maybe we need to agree on a big R, little r system or something for deciding which is which and we could cut through all this debate, so Shannon can get back to the important things, like the Sean Bean updates.

It's been pages since we've had one and I, for one, am getting the shakes.

[[deleted user]]

Gary wrote: "To be honest I would like to know the religious orientation of said professor."

Not a clue. It was many a moon ago, likely 1989. I have a pretty good memory, though. From what I remember, he didn't share his personal views regarding religion. I remember people in the class trying to guess afterward. Some guessed he wasn't religious at all.

I know some of the kids, those who argued forcefully, thought he was, hmmm.... I don't know what they thought he was ... but I do know, based on the argument, that they felt an exception should be made for Mormonism, given the huge number of followers. I remember the professor asking ... how do we decide which group to make exceptions for ... for whom do we make exceptions and for whom do we not ... based on what ... just numbers of believers or based on something else ... how do we decide .... I remember the professor throwing out a year, though I can't remember which year. I believe it's already happened; I think it was 15 or 20 years out. He told us Mormonism would become a religion in that year. That's when it would meet all of the requirements to be a religion. And, he told us, with the number of converts, etc..., he had absolutely no doubt that Mormonism would achieve the status of a religion that year. Until then, he said, it was not a religion.

My sense .... He was very about the definition. That was THE definition of religion. Period. It didn't matter what persuasion. The requirements under the definition, meeting those requirements or not, was what mattered.

But, like I said, he didn't share his personal beliefs or lack thereof. He just focused on the definition. So, I don't know, truly, what beliefs were behind the man.

[Hazel]

Travis wrote: "How am I ever going to get one of those sweet tax exempt deals if you can't give me the hard numbers, Hazel? "

ah, in that case you don't want the difference between a cult and a religion, you need to know what it takes to be officially recognised by the state, and I think in the UK that includes having at least 10,000 adherents, and it must include a belief in a higher power/being/concept. I think theres a couple of other prerequisites too, but I can't recall them. When druidism got made a recognised religion here in the UK, they had to register as a charitable organisation to get the tax exemption.

[Gary]

Shannon wrote: "We need to be careful when it comes to making statements like this."

Agreed, which is why I said "appears". For the record I did not look at charity as this is quite difficult to run numbers on as poorer areas often have less donations to charity due to poverty rather than lack of altruism, and peoples ideas of charity vary greatly.

What I looked at was more clear indicators such as rates of crime, in particular violent crime. Now some references have indicated that (at least in the US) more violent crimes happen in the more religious areas, however I will cede that the data is difficult to analyse fairly. However what is definitely clear is that there is no indication that religious superior morality leads to more ethical behaviour.

Shannon wrote: "First, as I've stated and argued, I don't believe morality is linked to religion or faith."

Some people have. There has been several claims on this thread that without religion we would have a less moral society. That claim remains unsupported by rationale or evidence. If you do not claim that then that is fine. :-)


Shannon wrote: "Second, as ironic as it might be, I'm really starting to get into evidence. I know! Ironic. But, there's the rub. Is the opposite the trend? Hmmm.... I wonder what evidence exists to back that belief?"

Personally I could never ask you for more :-) as long as you are willing to think and question what you are told then I think you are a wise person, theist or not.

Shannon wrote: "This site says Utah, home of a gazillion Mormons, has the highest volunteer rate. Does this prove the idea that religious folk aren't as moral?

No one is claiming that religious people are less moral, in fact I have indicated that in a society where people are brought up to believe that religion is good then more moral people will be attracted to religion. However, what there is no evidence for is that religion makes people more moral.

Shannon wrote: "Both religious and secular support their local communities. That's my point. Both."

Agreed. My observation is that I have yet to see a clear advantage to religion that cannot be replicated in its absence. However religion does have many clear disadvantages. I am open to be convinced on this matter.

In relation to the thread's question however is that it is clear what we would lose without science, it is a lot less clear what we would lose without religion. (Except of course heaven or an afterlife, but since they are unproven advantages with their own peculiarities it is a bit difficult to quantify them :-D)

[Hazel]

Shannon wrote: "This site says Utah, home of a gazillion Mormons, has the highest volunteer rate. Does this prove the idea that religious folk aren't as moral?"

interesting little factoid, slightly tangentally, Utah also has the highest number of women on anti-depressants of all the US states. No real link to current discussions, it just came to mind when I read what you put.

[[deleted user]]

Gary wrote: "Shannon wrote: "Regardless of what the dictionary says, I've got to tell all of you, that professor drilled a very, very different definition into my head. That's not likely to change."

Well we ca..."

Well ....

I brought this up to explain why some might define religion differently ... why some say they can believe in a higher power without believing in religion.

It's been coming up in a lot of posts recently. In fact, a couple days ago, someone took cs to task for not understanding the definitions most atheists use on this thread. Those weren't the exact words, but it's pretty darned close. Most atheists. That part was exact, I believe. Not my words, originally, but I did adopt them.

Can we converse without agreeing on a formal definition? I think we can. After all, we have been. ;)

When I think of religion, I think of organized religion. So, when we talk, you know I mean organized religion ... as many people do. I know you mean a belief in a supernatural force.

I know this has become a point of argument, but I'm not sure why. Frankly, I don't really get it. I get the ... where's the evidence ... argument. How does religion make sense when there are so many religions ... some must be wrong, right? I get that one. Taking one specific religion, like Christianity, and pointing out all the inconsistencies in the Bible in order to create doubt and encourage independent thought and questioning ... I get that.

I get a bunch of the arguments. But, I don't get the ... you can't have God without religion ... argument. Either it's just about a definition in a dictionary, or it's about the fact that the word 'religion' has some pretty dark connotations for a lot of people, even spiritual people. I just don't know.

I do know many people who believe in one thing or another, who count themselves as spiritual but who do not consider themselves religious or supporting a religion. I think that's the sticking point here. Strict dictionary definition vs. a more commonly accepted meaning.

I don't really care either way. I just wanted to point out why this might be coming up as an issue.

[[deleted user]]

Gary wrote: "My observation is that I have yet to see a clear advantage to religion that cannot be replicated in its absence. However religion does have many clear disadvantages."

I missed this finer point in your first post. I thought you were saying there were no "pros" with regard to religion, in general ... and that, specifically, religion offers no support to the community other than to serve as a threat in order to keep people in line with adopted mores, etc.... It wasn't clear, to me at least, that you were simply talking in terms of science over religion/religion over science. It's a difference of ... religion has no "pros" vs. religion has no "pros" over science.

I get what you're saying now, although I'm still a bit confused by your paragraph on community support.

That aside ....

I think it comes down to something I've mentioned before.

Personal choice. The individual and that person's right to make decisions for his/her life. Would YOU rather live in a world without science or a world without religion?

Trying to gather my thoughts ....

We, all of us, can discuss the positive things science and scientists have brought to our lives. From the scientific method to antibiotics, science has bettered our lives in SO many ways. Science has brought bad things our way. Stay with me. Plastic. Plastic can be great. Super-freaky great. But, I'm constantly looking for that symbol on the bottom of plastic bottles and cups, fearing if I'm drinking from the wrong type I'll spontaneously combust or something. All in all; however, I think science and scientists have made more of a beneficial impact than not. I'd not want to live without science.

I think it's more difficult to figure out how or if religion has made a beneficial impact. I mean, if we were to be honest, we'd have to say that religion and religious followers have brought some very bad things. We can make REALLY long lists. I know I can. Good has also come from religion ... local churches and church members supporting their communities, for example. But, the thing that's left out when looking at religion, I think, is the individual.

While we know, historically, what impact religion has had on society and by looking around us today, I don't think we know what benefit it has had to individuals.

(Oh, I know. A woman, right this second, is being brutalized in the name of religion. I know. Truly.)

There might be some individuals whose lives were saved due to religion. While we went round on this a bit ago, I know someone in my family who went to AA and it worked. This person had been a raging alcoholic for years. Had tried to stop. For years. Finally, he went to AA and it worked. Something clicked for him. Now, for him, I don't think it was the religious aspect ... the higher power thing. He never mentioned that. For him, I think, it was the community aspect ... the partner ... or ... what is the term ... sponsor ... that worked for him. I have another member of my family who had been an alcoholic for years ... tried to stop ... couldn't ... tried different things ... AA worked for her. Big time. She talked a lot about the higher power aspect. That's what clicked for her.

So, what am I saying? Religion wasn't the key for one and was for the other. That shows that it doesn't have to be about the spiritual, right? No. I think it depends. This one woman believes AA saved her life. She believes it worked and worked because of the higher power angle. That clicked for her ... made it all click for her. And, her life is better as a result. The lives of her children ...!

I guess what I'm trying to say is it's hard to make a judgment, I think, about the pros religion can offer, when we don't know how it has worked in the lives of all individuals.

I, personally, don't think we can look at religion, in general, and what religion might be responsible for, in general, and determine that it has no pros or not enough pros to make it worthwhile, in general.

An individual can make that determination for him/herself. But, can an individual make that determination for all others?

There's another thing that has me wondering ....

When I was in high school, I was very into history and anthropology and Mead. Nerd. I know. Anyway, PBS ran this series with Bill Moyers and Joseph Campbell. The Power of Myth. I watched and loved it. Nerd. Then, I started reading Campbell. I won't say it a third time. ;)

I haven't watched that program since the 80's or read Campbell in years. But .... Something struck me. I don't know that he was talking just about religion. Religion was a piece of it. He, Campbell, made a hypothesis. Gangs membership was going to go through the roof in the coming years.

Why? I believe he was making the point that people need to belong. It's a deep human need. Belonging. And, I remember there was a piece about coming of age and ritual and rituals that were done, religious and others, I think, that brought youth into the community. Those rituals, he said, we're going by the wayside. It's been a long time, but I don't think he was making an argument for religion. No. But, I believe he was saying that this is something we need, as humans, to belong to a community and to experience certain rituals that, well, bring us into the fold. If certain religious beliefs and rituals were not going to be part of our future, we needed to find other ways to belong and other rituals to bring our youth into the community. Why? Humans need it. If it's not there, the youth will find it for themselves ... will form it themselves. In his mind, many youth, lacking this, would turn toward gangs.

Now, please .... I'm not saying ... am NOT ... implying that without religion we have gangs ... without religion we have issues with morality. No. Absolutely not.

I'm not even saying anything ... other than ... Campbell just popped into my head. And, I wonder .... In deciding on the pros of something like religion, I wonder .... Stress on ... I wonder.

People have said on this thread that religion came about as a way to explain the world. Why are there rainbows? Etc.... I agree with that, in part. But, I think there's more to it ... this need to belong ... perhaps a need for ritual .... I just don't know for sure.

I just wonder if there's a part or a piece to this that we're missing. If this is a necessary piece to our development as humans, I think it would be rather difficult to try to figure out ... what would life have been like, what would our societies have been like, without religion.

I think it's easier to think about what life would have been like without science. I think we can come up with a pretty accurate read of life without medicine, technology, etc.... Therefore, we can more easily, I think, decide whether or not we'd want to live with or without science.

When it comes to religion and Campbell's idea, if he was right, I think it becomes more difficult. We've always had religion ... be it through simple faith or an organized religion. Can we know what we'd have been like, as a society, without it?

Dang, this is getting too deep for me.

Going to do ironing and contemplate all things Sean Bean.

[cHriS]

Gary wrote: Personally two, but one is completely over it now while the other just feels residual guilt (and the hatred and scorn of his 'loving' Christian family). Apart from that I know a few more indirectly, one of whom contacted me on another forum to try to find a way he could convince himself and his christian family that he wasn't going to hell for being a bad person because he loved another man. I helped him by citing biblical scripture, not by trying to get him to leave his faith.
..."

There are a lot of issues here. But citing a person, who’s family are christian and who have issues with the son’s lifestyle and choice of partner, does make good copy for the anti christian brigade.

In reality there must be many families who are not understanding about their son being homosexual, and for many reasons, and they may make many different threats in the hope they can change their sons mind. You know this to be true as well as I do, but it is convenient to just point to a case involving a christian family.

An atheist family may have the same concerns about their son being gay and may use threats of a different sort, but just as hateful to discourage his feelings.

This is also a two way road; if the son is homosexual he has to consider how his family will react. We don’t yet live in a perfect world where we all can accept everything without question, and many parents are of an older generation where they grew up being told that being homosexual was wrong, regardless of whether they were christian or not.

It is very easy to take the problems of our society, put a christian slant to it and use it to your advantage on forums like this to use as evidence of how evil Christians really are.

You change the above to an atheist family who’s father tells his son that he does not want a ‘poofter’ in the family and to go out and get a girlfriend before any of his mates find out, and if he doesn’t change he can leave home. I would say that is just as hateful and maybe even more so because there is no religion to blame.

So you don't believe in Jesus, as you have proof

We all know that Jesus existed, he was a real person, some of us believe he was who he said he was, some don’t, I believe he was.

This is getting repetitive now. Read the dictionary.

It gets repetitive because you don’t grasp the point. If an atheist who has atheist parents, grandparents and all this family are atheist, who never went to a religious school and never had an interest in religion, wakes up one morning and believes his thinking is wrong and that his family are wrong in their way of thinking and he now believes that there could be a god………. ???????????

No because the term "science proves" is shorthand

If you say I am wrong then most of the other atheists here are as well. Unless we are right of course.

[Travis]

cs wrote: "Gary wrote: Personally two, but one is completely over it now while the other just feels residual guilt (and the hatred and scorn of his 'loving' Christian family). Apart from that I know a few mor..."


We don't all know Jesus existed, as there is only faint historical evidence that he might have existed, or that the guy that the Jesus story is based on might have existed.

[[deleted user]]

Travis wrote: "It's been pages since we've had one and I, for one, am getting the shakes. "

Oh, my goodness! Poor Travis! I didn't see this earlier. Sometimes I miss posts if they happen as I'm posting.

Okay .... Missing, the tv show, spoiler alert!

Sigh .... This season ended a week ago. How sad am I? Is it coming back next season? I don't know. But ....

Sean Bean, while shot, is alive!! Reunited with his family! Sigh .... He left them in order to save them! Double sigh. And, well, frankly, he's rather un-Sean Bean in this role. Un-sigh.

When their son is taken and they capture someone who knows his whereabouts, Ashley Judd decides to torture the woman. The woman taunts them ... their son is about to die ... and Judd warns her, but .... She won't give them his location. So, Judd starts asking for all of this torture equipment, and Sean Bean freaks out. A) He's not going to torture the woman. B) Judd shouldn't. C) This goes against everything she believes in, he says. Well, she basically tells him she's a mother and is gonna do it and do it she does. She's breaking the woman's fingers and Sean Bean is in the other room, listening to the screams with a pained expression.

Yeah. I know!

She gives up the location and they find their son and Judd kills the animal who has been threatening her family ... in cold blood, I might add. Well, he's unarmed. So ....

I did admit, as one of my faults, that I'm a bit bloodthirsty from time to time.

Anyway ....

Then, in the last seen, well ... I was expecting my poor Sean to meet with some horrid mishap, but no ... he's just fine ... more than fine, though wincing once in awhile over his gunshot wound. Judd goes to get the car for them ... father and son stand talking ... when ... the car runs into the walk beside them ... driverless ... blood in the car ... no Judd.

Well, their son started yelling, "Mom!" over and over. Cut to Sean Bean ... looking ... confused and helpless.

What the ....

No, don't worry. I'm not giving way to despair. I'm sure, if it's renewed, the very next scene will show Sean Bean using his superhuman intellect and strength to save the day.

Yes, I so to am sure!

Phew!

Aren't you glad I saw your post?

[Travis]

Shannon wrote: "Travis wrote: "It's been pages since we've had one and I, for one, am getting the shakes. "

Oh, my goodness! Poor Travis! I didn't see this earlier. Sometimes I miss posts if they happen as I'm..."

I feel better already.

[[deleted user]]

To be fair, cs, you did ask Gary the following ...

cs wrote: "How many frightened of hellfire Homosexuals do you know?"

It stands to reason, given that, they he'd tell you of homosexuals with a religious background ... homosexuals he knows who are frightened of hellfire.

It's doubtful that atheists would raise a child who believes in hellfire. While atheists might have issues with homosexuality, I don't know that their issues would be based in a fear of hell and damnation.

So .... He did answer your question, which was very specific.

I mean, I was thinking of a homosexual man I know who was disowned by his Mormon family due to his homosexuality. I also know a woman, whose parent is Christian, who accepts her fully. I was thinking of mentioning both, but .... Neither, to my knowledge, is afraid of hellfire. They've both dealt with discrimination and trauma as a result of the sexual orientation. But, I don't know that either is afraid of burning in hell. So, ....

[[deleted user]]

Travis wrote: "I feel better already."

Ah.... I'm so glad, but .... What will we do all summer long, with no Sean Bean to be seen in any TV shows?!

I'll have to watch reruns of things and Google articles about him ....

Wait ...

Would that prove your previous point? That I might be veering into stalker-ish territory.

Thinking, thinking, thinking ....

Naw...!

[cHriS]

Shannon wrote:So .... He did answer your question, which was very specific.."

.......... but if you care to read back a little further, the original text started here.........

cs wrote: "Yes it is. We live in modern times now and maybe religion is not needed as much as it once was, but we should not forget that the Christian religion and the Church was a comfort to people during past times.

Gary wrote: Again you state that it was a comfort, but you don't explain "why" it was a comfort. In past times it may have been a comfort to some, but it was also a very real horror to others. The fear of hell and the demands of god have forced people to suppress their natural feelings or even to carry out acts they find abhorrent because they were terrified of eternal suffering.

............. we have gone from talking about past times to the present day where a male adult homosexual was somehow fearful of his mother telling him that for being a bad person he would go to hell. It does seem as though that person has a problem, but I would suggest that it was not because of the fear of going to hell, it was because his parents could not accept what he said he was. This does not put his parents at fault either. Parents and their sons and daughters have issues all the time, this is only one.

From talking about the past and then suggesting the example as Gary did, was for effect and to be critical of the Catholic religion.

Yes I know Catholic parents talk about hell, but not just to homosexual sons about their lifestyle. It is not much different from parents telling their children that the boggey man will get them.

I was thinking of a homosexual man I know who was disowned by his Mormon family due to his homosexuality. I also know a woman, whose parent is Christian, who accepts her fully

This sounds as though you have to justify both sides now giving a bit of balance to the Christian family.

A bit like when people say 'I have nothing against x,I have a friend who is x.

[Travis]

Shannon wrote: "Travis wrote: "I feel better already."

Ah.... I'm so glad, but .... What will we do all summer long, with no Sean Bean to be seen in any TV shows?!

I'll have to watch reruns of things and Goo..."

Well, my wife has added all the 'Sharpe's' series to our netflix queue. So, I know there's no getting away from Sean Bean, no matter how hard I try.

[Hazel]

Sean is at his sexiest in that uniform.

SHannon, have you ever played "spot sharpe" when watching Bean films? If not, look for it, in almost every film he's been in since making Sharpe, he gets the word Sharp into the film. Even in Lord of the Rings, when he says "Still sharp"

[[deleted user]]

Hazel wrote: "Sean is at his sexiest in that uniform.

SHannon, have you ever played "spot sharpe" when watching Bean films? If not, look for it, in almost every film he's been in since making Sharpe, he gets th..."

In all the fervor of discussing religion/ science, I missed the Sean Bean one. I just have to say, he is one of, if not the hottest man alive, thank you very much (don't tell my husband,:O). I was seriously considering not watching LOTR because they cast him as Boromir and I knew from having read it that he'd be gone from the movie shortly. Now the same thing with GOT, Edward Stark! Bean kinda fits the character but it's another one that gets killed off early into the story *tears*

[[deleted user]]

Travis wrote: "Well, my wife has added all the 'Sharpe's' series to our netflix queue. So, I know there's no getting away from Sean Bean, no matter how hard I try. "

You'll have to give us updates! ;)

[[deleted user]]

Hazel wrote: "Sean is at his sexiest in that uniform.

SHannon, have you ever played "spot sharpe" when watching Bean films? If not, look for it, in almost every film he's been in since making Sharpe, he gets th..."

I haven't! Hadn't heard of it. Now, I'm going to need to watch things again and look for that ... will have to give updates! ;)

Sigh ...

[cerebus]

cs wrote: "I would say that is just as hateful and maybe even more so because there is no religion to blame."
So you see religion in this case as mitigating the hatefullness? Atheists have to take responsibility when they're hateful, christians get a pass?

[Gary]

cs wrote: "There are a lot of issues here. But citing a person, who’s family are christian and who have issues with the son’s lifestyle and choice of partner, does make good copy for the anti christian brigade."

Remember you asked if I knew anyone in that position.

In my opinion it is unethical to try to force your children to marry who you want. I also find it ironic that the people that try to claim "god is love" believe their god is so hateful.

It is not just christians though some Muslims have been arrested in the UK for spreading pamphlets on how to murder gay people.

So to say it is just "good copy for anti christians" is disingenuous until you can demonstrate that such bigotry is completely marginalised from the mainstream christian religion. Looking at the US, good luck with that one.

cs wrote: "it is convenient to just point to a case involving a christian family."

Convenient because it answered your direct question, and in the cases cited the problem was quite clearly that the parents thought it was "against god's design" and "sinful".

Trying to squirm out of it by saying "there may be other factors" ignores the fact that there is definitely one big factor.

The bible supports homophobia, the main christian sects support homophobia, and by silent acceptance the bulk of christianity condones homophobia (with some notable and brave exceptions).

cs wrote: "It is very easy to take the problems of our society, put a christian slant to it and use it to your advantage on forums like this to use as evidence of how evil Christians really are. "

I notice again you try to put words in my mouth that you would speak. I do not believe "christians" are evil, I do not stereotype them like you constantly stereotype "atheists". In my opinion the christian faith has evil parts (and good parts) but there are plenty of good people who are christian who do not follow the evil parts or even speak out against them.

cs wrote: "I would say that is just as hateful and maybe even more so because there is no religion to blame."

Well it's good to see that you recognise the role of religion in justifying evil acts as 'good' because its gods will, yet if I had of answered any of your questions by saying "oh that might of happened anyway" you would be screaming for evidence, numbers and personal examples. You asked the question, it is not my fault you didn't like the answer.

1. Do christians usually follow their churches directives and/or the bible?
2. Does the majority of churches and the bible condemn homosexuality?

Yes and yes. Therefore you get the situation I mentioned. If you are trying to say that doesn't influence the situation above then you are ceding your entire previous points about Christian influence on the morality of society.

cs wrote: "We all know that Jesus existed, he was a real person, some of us believe he was who he said he was, some don’t, I believe he was. "

Evidence please. No known contemporary accounts exist that corroborate the existence of a figure called Jesus that wasn't written after the establishment of the Christian religion.

I certainly do not "know" he existed. I am not saying he didn't, but the fact is that a gulf of decades or centuries exist between the claimed date he lived and any accounts of what he did or said. I believe Josephus and Tacitus are the best non-christian sources and yet they were reporting on the early christian religion. So there may have been a "Jesus" but whether he was even the person that the early Christians claimed he was, let alone the god that later christians claim.

There is also contemporary and earlier accounts and myths that are almost identical to the figure of 'Jesus'.

Interesting aside here. The Roman Empire eventually adopted Jesus Christ as the state godhead, but he was not the first person with those initials (JC or more correctly in the Latin alphabet IC). That was given to another "god who assumed a mortal form and then was brutally murdered". Divus Iulius or "Julius Caesar", who was known in the East Mediterranean (including near Judea) as "God and Saviour" and was also termed the "living god" before his official posthumous deification. His son - the first Roman Emperor - needed to avoid being seen as claiming divinity in Rome, while implying it heavily to Rome's neighbours and was thus known as the "Son of God".

It is easy to see why the early Roman Christian church developed as it did.

cs wrote: "It gets repetitive because you don’t grasp the point. If an atheist who has atheist parents, grandparents and all this family are atheist, who never went to a religious school and never had an interest in religion, wakes up one morning and believes his thinking is wrong and that his family are wrong in their way of thinking and he now believes that there could be a god………. ???????????"

Prove that has ever happened and you have managed to prove yourself wrong on an earlier point. You claim that Jesus has influenced everyone in the modern western world, therefore that hypothetical "ex-atheist" would be then believing in a religion. Plus the term Religion still only requires "belief" according to the dictionary and does not specify that this belief has to be precedented by another 'official' religion.

So using English you are wrong, unless you have independent verifiable proof of god and a willingness to accept that that proof may actually be wrong. Then it would not be a belief.

cs wrote: "If you say I am wrong then most of the other atheists here are as well. Unless we are right of course. "

Yet another unsupported claim.

In debate we offer opinion, then reasoning or evidence for that opinion. This is why you are not getting much respect as a debater from others because you make a claim, do not offer any rational or reason for that claim and then when challenged on that claim rarely answer directly or demand answers of your own instead, which are often duly given.

Besides other atheists might be wrong, I might be wrong. Knowing that you might be wrong is an important start to wisdom. It is the willingness to accept that we might be wrong that differentiates us from the arrogance of faith.

[Gary]

Shannon wrote: "To be fair, cs, you did ask Gary the following ...

cs wrote: "How many frightened of hellfire Homosexuals do you know?"

So .... He did answer your question, which was very specific.

Thank you Shannon. On occasion I have wondered whether cs was actually an atheist troll who is trying to make religious people look like they cannot engage in debate. I would really hate that to be so, I personally value the intellectual challenge of honest debate and whether you convince people or not, I think the benefit is that both sides ends up examining their own assumptions and beliefs. However, occasionally cs seems to engage so I think its worth persevering with.

Shannon wrote: "I also know a woman, whose parent is Christian, who accepts her fully."

As I have clearly stated, I do not wish to tar all Christians with the brush of bigotry, I have repeatedly said that it is the doctrines of Christianity I have trouble with, not Christians themselves (though I do wish more would take a stand against such things).

[Hazel]

Lila wrote: "In all the fervor of discussing religion/ science, I missed the Sean Bean one. I just have to say, he is one of, if not the hottest man alive, thank you very much (don't tell my husband,:O). I was seriously considering not watching LOTR because they cast him as Boromir and I knew from having read it that he'd be gone from the movie shortly. Now the same thing with GOT, Edward Stark! Bean kinda fits the character but it's another one that gets killed off early into the story *tears* ."

I may have put this before, but meh

[Hazel]

Shannon wrote: "I haven't! Hadn't heard of it. Now, I'm going to need to watch things again and look for that ... will have to give updates! ;)

Sigh ... "

Its just the cross you'll have to bear... ;P

[Hazel]

Gary wrote: "Evidence please. No known contemporary accounts exist that corroborate the existence of a figure called Jesus that wasn't written after the establishment of the Christian religion"

its worth mentioning at this point that both the jewish and the roman people were well known for keeping excellent records, so the lack of any such record speaks volumes.

I have been told that there was mention of a Jeshua, who was listed as a rebel, in a roman record of executions from about 7BC, but thats the closest, and I haven't been able to corroborate this, so likelihood is it was someone chatting shit.

[Gary]

cs wrote: " we have gone from talking about past times to the present day where a male adult homosexual was somehow fearful of his mother telling him that for being a bad person he would go to hell.

What's strange is that you claim to believe, and yet you cannot comprehend the idea of other people believing.

Christianity claims that being gay is bad, many Christians claim that bad people are going to hell. Therefore many homosexuals brought up with a Christian influence feel guilty about their feelings and are afraid of being punished by god for the sin of how they feel.

The fact that Christian influenced parents and bullies add to the problem just makes it worse.

Yes there would probably be prejudice against homosexuals in a world without Christianity, but it would likely be a lot less that in a world were a lot of people believe that god thinks gay people should be killed and sent to hell.

cs wrote: "From talking about the past and then suggesting the example as Gary did, was for effect and to be critical of the Catholic religion."

Critical of any Christian sect, or Muslims or anyone else that supports hate and bigotry based on what they believe their god has told them.

It is not for effect, apart from the effect of "I think the support of bigotry is disgusting."

cs wrote: "Yes I know Catholic parents talk about hell, but not just to homosexual sons about their lifestyle. It is not much different from parents telling their children that the boggey man will get them."

That's quite funny. I saw a large group of Christian's with preachers in our City Centre this week. They were preaching about Jesus coming to save us from the wages of sin. It would have been hilarious if they added "or the boggey man will get you".

Perhaps that you recognise the absurdity of the 'boggey man getting you' is a good sign. How is this different from "god will punish you"? What did Jesus save you from?

However, a lot of people believe in god, in satan and in hell, even if you don't.


cs wrote: "This sounds as though you have to justify both sides now giving a bit of balance to the Christian family.

A bit like when people say 'I have nothing against x,I have a friend who is x. "

Are you trying to imply that Shannon is secretly bigoted against Christians then?

[Gary]

Lila wrote: "I was seriously considering not watching LOTR because they cast him as Boromir and I knew from having read it that he'd be gone from the movie shortly."

But there was no one else better for that role. He managed to make Boromir the tormented hero he was when there was a great danger that he could end up appearing weak or evil.

[[deleted user]]

Gary wrote: "Lila wrote: "I was seriously considering not watching LOTR because they cast him as Boromir and I knew from having read it that he'd be gone from the movie shortly."

But there was no one else bett..."
I have to agree, Gary. He did a great job, in that movie. I think the whole cast crew was matched pretty we'll, n

I haven't seen that poster, Hazel but I love it.. Really, what the hell with all that dying?

[Shanna]

Lila wrote: "Really, what the hell with all that dying? "

Personally I think he's been stereotyped...

[Hazel]

Gary, I just watched this TED talk, and I thought you'd be interested.

http://www.ted.com/talks/frans_de_waa...

[Gary]

Sorry Shannon, missed your post when catching up.

Shannon wrote: "I get what you're saying now, although I'm still a bit confused by your paragraph on community support."

The distinction is that I am not saying that religion is bad, what I am saying is that it has aspects of good and bad, but importantly many bad aspects are unique to religion but none of its good aspects are.

I accept that where you are charity may come from mainly religious institutions but that does not mean religion is good any more than the majority of
people in jail being religious is an indication religion is bad.

What it doesn't show however is any indication that there are substantially more "good" people in more religious areas, which is what you would expect if religion promoted "goodness".

There are also political differences to consider, at least in the US. Republicans (at the moment) tend to be more religious but also tend to believe that support for the needy should be voluntary (i.e. Charity), a lot of Democrats support the idea that the cost of support for the needy should be fairly distributed amongst people who can afford it via taxes.

I am not saying anything about the relative merits of each position, just that this gives different attitudes to charity.

Shannon wrote: "Personal choice. The individual and that person's right to make decisions for his/her life. Would YOU rather live in a world without science or a world without religion?"

I do not deny anyone their choice, I just question the reasons for that choice.

Food for thought. Most of the Abrahamic religions include the concept of being subservient to god (serving god's will, he is the LORD etc.) In fact a lot of sects believe that our only choice is to either obey god or be punished somehow. Adam and Eve were punished for even finding out what was right and wrong.

So is it right for people to choose the option to not have a choice? This is happening potentially with the Arab spring where the religious majority are likely to turn any new democracy into an undemocratic theocracy via democratic vote.

Just a thought.

Shannon wrote: "She believes it worked and worked because of the higher power angle. That clicked for her ... made it all click for her. And, her life is better as a result. The lives of her children ...!"

I am not debating that people have felt positive effects of religion, just whether those effects are exclusive to religion or worth the cost of religion.

To contrast I would like to cite the Roman Republic. Slaves were known to occasionally be fiercely loyal to a good master, and indeed one of the great issues during the Republic was that the poorest free people protested that all their jobs were being taken by slaves (who may work for free but were in general fed and housed). Would individual slaves who felt the benefits of a good master then justify the institution of slavery?

Similarly it has been said that democracy is a terrible form of government but is the least worst of all the ones tried. However, benevolent dictatorships of Roman Emperors (and similar despots before or after) have led to the love of their people and great advances in civilisation. In fact since a despot tends to need popular support beyond the 4-5 year term of government they can be more forward thinking and responsive than a politician who is lining their pocket with lobbyist cash so they can retire.

Now I haven't chosen these examples because they are old, or to be offensive. I have chosen them because they are examples of authoritarianism. We are probably certain of the abuses of slavery and the abuses of dictators, but this is what happens when someone is handed absolute power. It can work, but it can also be easily abused.

The institution of slavery we have almost grown out of, though the argument is there that economic slavery still exists because of low wages and the opportunistic use of workforces in poorer and stricter countries.

The institution of dictatorships is being actively opposed by the "freedom-loving" west.

Now I am happy to accept that religion may have served to help bind society together, to promote good behaviour and to provide a threat of ultimate retribution to transgressors. But like any other authoritarianism it can be (and has been) abused with severe consequences.

The question is does religion really perform this role any more, and did it ever perform its role well in the past compared to the problems it caused?

Shannon wrote: "An individual can make that determination for him/herself. But, can an individual make that determination for all others?"

Good point. The problem is here that the religions that have survived have done so because they do try to make that determination for all others, and encourage people not to determine for themselves but to submit to a "higher power".

You can see it with what cs has said. Though he and other theists have posted claims that religion is superior, he accuses atheists of lurking on forums to attack religion. So it is ok for him to preach his religion and claim its benefits but other people who choose to disagree are "attacking" him.

Shannon wrote: "When it comes to religion and Campbell's idea, if he was right, I think it becomes more difficult. We've always had religion ... be it through simple faith or an organized religion. Can we know what we'd have been like, as a society, without it?"

You have raised some excellent points there. In terms of the question of the thread I think that it would still be a lot clearer what we would lose without science compared to religion. But I agree your points are worth considering.

The need to belong does seem to be part of our evolved nature and it is easy to see why that trait would be an advantage. In fact it is easy to see how a group made up of co-operative individuals would be better adapted to survive than a collection of independents surviving alone.

The recent studies I referred to early have shown that altruism is not a state that is unique to humanity and nor is the ideas of society, belonging or social punishment. However to our best knowledge the concept of Religion is unique to our species, perhaps because of our unique ability to communicate (and thereby enforce) complex ideas through language.

What this suggests is that religion arose from a combination of our need to belong, our desire to understand, and our acceptance of authority (particularly as children). All these traits are qualities that would help a group co-operate and therefore increase an individuals chance of surviving. Yet religion seems to then subsist on these traits.

Since there have been many different conflicting religions with their own god, gods or lack of gods, but the religious imperative recurs from culture to culture. It seems that this combination of states has the ability to perpetuate a conviction for many generations regardless of its veracity (after all not all faiths can be correct).

What this means in a world without religion I suppose depends on your definition of religion, a definition which appears to be remarkably different if of course you believe that you do not require belief in the thing that you believe exists because to your mind it exists independent of the belief of the believer. This I think is perhaps the crux of the reason cs keeps trying to claim god and religion are separate because of the simple belief that his belief is true and therefore does not require belief.

In a world without religion of that definition, we would either have (depending on your belief) a world where each person has their own individually crafted conviction of the true state of the world, or each person would have a direct connection to god unbiased and unfiltered by the many 'incorrect' versions around. The first situation is quite similar to how many modern theists behave, picking and choosing their convictions, without the opportunity for someone to claim their version over others with everyone making up their own minds. That sounds good to me. In the second version (if you believe in god) everyone knows the truth of god.

Ironically from that version of religion it seems that atheists and theists alike should choose science over religion.

However, I accept the dictionary definition as it covers the things outside of the convictions of any one religion. Religion is belief or conviction in an idea. By this definition all religions are covered (even the godless ones) and in fact certain political ideologies are also included if the adherents place political ideas above any actual evidence. (E.g. communism).

Without this religion, would we lose our sense of belonging? I doubt it. However, we would be a lot more critical about what we accept about our group and indeed our groups would probably be more likely to discard outdated or erroneous ideas. Utopia? I doubt it, but better? Probably.

It is entirely possible as well that perhaps without the evolution of religion we would not have had the conviction or organisation to survive as a species, but again other species have survived without it. Every other species.

The only thing I can say about the truth of any particular religion is that looking from the outside I would say that the chance of being right seems to be low compared to the amount of competing views. What I can say about religion in general however is that like other institutions we have (hopefully) outgrown as a society, perhaps the time has come to outgrow this one?