A good argument can be made by both atheists and non-atheists that religion is a necessity in society (esp. more primitive and less civilized ones) as it keeps society in order. For example, in the dirt poor areas of Africa and the Middle East, why don't most poor people steal, kill, and stab each other for resources when they lack the most basic necessities?? It is because (in particular with Muslim countries) they think that if they do so, they will go to hell and that belief and fear in a fake celestial dictator and the afterlife is what keeps them from not killing and creating mass chaos...


So the question is, in the 21st century, is religion a moral necessity, even if it is an evil one?? This doesn't relate so much anymore with western societies (still does with America to an extent) and was much more of an issue say 30-50 years ago. I am undecided on this but I can see from both sides of the aisle, what y'all think??

Views: 237

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Maybe using old books to try to live in a modern world is just a crazy and bad idea


Bryan Fischer: Jesus Had Disciples So They Would Become GOP Politicians

'The lowly should shut up. These rich people really need a tax cut.'“Jesus’ entire discipleship program with his apostles was an academy designed to prepare them for service in the political arena.” Oh, right, of course, Bryan Fischer. Christianity is really nothing more than one bearded guy’s boutique political consulting/candidate training shop. “I will wash your feet, then you go forth and wash the feet of wealthy campaign bundlers and make sure they bring in the big bucks so you can make a large media buy,” said Christ to the disciples. Bryan Fischer knows Jesus wanted Christians to be politicians. But he didn’t want just any kind of politicians; he wanted politicians that cut social programs for poor people. Yep, that sounds like Jesus.

More from http://wonkette.com/442291/bryan-fischer-jesus-had-disciples-so-the...

“non-atheists” haha. How about anon-atheists?

In any case, statistics show that nonreligious countries score better on measures of social health than religious countries. Phil Zuckerman presents the results of hundreds of studies in this document: http://www.pitzer.edu/academics/faculty/zuckerman/Zuckerman_on_Athe...

Among many other conclusions he points out that religious people commit more violent crimes than secular people. So I’m not sure your claim is true that religion is a necessity to keep society in order.

As far as religion being a moral necessity, absolutely not. There are a lot of good presentations on this page about the superiority of secular morality: http://iamgoodwithoutgod.com/good.php. But to summarize, secular morality has the advantage of being able to change and get better over time. Religious based morality tends to lag behind secular morality, improving only after being dragged kicking and screaming into present day definitions of what is moral.
I agree secularism and rationality is more moral and right. The only thing I worry about those statistics is that they don't take into account 3rd world countries and primitive societies. It is a big question, if tomorrow the world population found out god does not exist (if an alien landed in the front lawn of the White House) would the world go into mass chaos and riot?? When I stated "moral necessity", I was referring to an evil necessity to create world order rather than chaos and violence?? Of course religion kills, but I am referring to world order of the poor and uneducated masses.
Why do you think those statistics did not include 3rd world countries and primitive societies? The studies he referenced appear to have gathered information from all around the world. He makes reference to people world-wide, compares poor nations to rich nations and secular nations to religious nations. If you see he excluded 3rd world countries and primitive societies go ahead and point it out.

I suppose I don’t know what you mean be an “evil necessity to create world order”. But my personal opinion is that even a secular 3rd world nation (if there is such a thing) would not be motivated into mass chaos and riots by the appearance of a space alien. And I’m fairly positive this would not be seen as proof against God’s existence by the religious people of the world. This would just be a new audience to convert. :o)

Maybe this is just semantics, but I don’t think “secularism and rationality are more moral and right”. They are tools or systems that allow us to define what is moral. These tools can be used by anybody, primitive or not, in order to establish the best possible environment that promotes the well-being of its citizens.
How's this. The amount of wealth and resources used just to keep the Roman Catholic Church running, plus the billions of euros in property existing inside Vatican, would be enough to solve world hunger and poverty. Sum the money wasted in all religions in current existence (I don't even want to think in the past, as the facepalm that would come from it would shatter my skull), and you probably could fund initiatives that would cure all deceases. Therefore, the "evil necessity" wouldn't exist, as there would be no more "3rd World", only a Global First Class.
Remember, I am throwing these questions and issues out there for discussion. I am unsure myself and lean on living in rationality is always better but I have been to the middle east and realize why the poorest of the poor don't commit violence. That's the only reason why I brought out this issue to see what all of you think about this...it is a moral dilemma in which I don't think there exists any easy answers.

Your argument sounds like those Christians who claim that without God they would kill and steal. They believe the same religious propaganda that you appear to have observed in the middle east. Plainly speaking, they are just wrong that they would be violent without a belief in God. Did you take a look at the statistics I linked to? Or don't trust my link, do a search yourself. You will find that statistically people who do not believe in gods are less violent and as Phil Zuckerman adds, "markedly less nationalistic, less prejudiced, less anti-Semitic, less racist, less dogmatic, less ethnocentric, less close-minded, and less authoritarian.”

The issue is not as complicated as you portray it. It is not a mystery because we have evidence that the religious propaganda you observed in the Middle East and that Christians also repeat is demonstrably false. 

To be honest, I have not had the chance to review the data and information. I will review it tonight after my studying and post back.
Agreed. What the poor countries need most isn't really a religiously imposed morality, but a quality of life that allows them to have a good education and a good prospect of future. Real morality will come from that.
I haven't had time to read the data but I have always postulated that IF extra terrestrial life had ever visited earth, the reason global governments would keep that from the masses is because of mass panic, in particular in poor areas. Again, I am not saying this based on any sort of data but it's something that has always been on my mind as a curiosity factor.
I don't think religion is a moral necessity, more like a disciplinary necessity. It keeps people in line, but not for a 'good' reason. The corrupt religious leaders at the top of the religion control and take advantage of those at the bottom. The thing about religion that makes it wrong is that it disciplines people based on lies. Telling people to be morally good by threatening them to hell is definitely unjustifiable.

Religion does not define people's morals. Society does.

You claim that in Africa and Middle East people don't steal and kill for resources as a result of the religious discipline.

Well a simple counterexample to that is all the millions and millions of people that DO wrongfully steal and wrongfully kill REGARDLESS of their religion. Regardless of the religious consequences.....Regardless of legal consequences.....Regardless of ANY consequences for their wrongful actions.
I agree, religion at its root is evil. I think my words "moral necessity" were the wrong words to choose. More like you said: disciplinary necessity?? I mean, if you were a world leader and controlled third world countries, would you use religion to keep mass control even if you were personally an atheist?


© 2018   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service