[haylie]

Originally Posted by Led ++ They didn't have a government? Sure it's not the sort of democratic society we have now, but they did have a government. Lead by the ones claiming to act in the word of god. And you just didn't question that. Not if you wanted to live.

Hey, if it kept people from stealing from each other, I'm cool.

Like I said, religion is a form of crowd control. Good or bad. Unfortunately democracy hadn't been around at the time, so the "government" had to use other means of subduing the masses, like oppression. Good or bad, it worked didn't it?

All those things weren't available for Joe the farmer because he was just a cheap/poor workforce. Constantly getting told everything would be alright once he get's into heaven where everyone is equal. The one who did actually benefit were once again the people with lots of money who could literally buy their way in, or the people who studied the word of god. They were the ones getting education (again, the word of god, nothing more), medical care, ... And who got to go to school? Not Joe the farmer or his 20 kids. With some luck some priest came to him and told him how wonderful god is and that he has a plan for everyone etc. In the meanwhile the educated could just profit more and keep the power. Great and at the same time you couldn't doubt the one they called god. Help the poor? The church made a great deal of money from the poor yeah. Keeping people stupid but "comfortable" at the same time.

Oh wow, so you mean in that time... life was unfair?! How DARE they! They should have totally invented democracy sooner. Where was Obama when you needed him?!

Stop trying to pitch the blame on God by the way. God didn't say that you had to pay for education and care. The Church did. Learn to spot the difference between what religion actually tells you and what things other people do "in the name of religion".

And what about all the non-believers? They have this void in their life? No. They live a normal life like anyone else. There are communities of every kind if type, religion is just one of many. I don't act like a douchebag and I don't need to have someone (especially a jealous god) to tell me not to act like a douchebag. The state does tell em not to act like a douchebag, it's called the law. Does that mean in society there won't be douchebags? Ofcourse not, that's exactly the same with religion. You make it sound that if someone religious tells you not to act like a douchebag you wont act like one.

Argue all you want on the matter but this in not just my opinion. This is a thesis developed by Tocqueville in the 19th century. You know, a person that actually did some sort of research and didn't just blindly spill his opinion on an internet forum. Argue all you want with him, but he's kinda dead so that would be unfair.

A state should make you feel like a community, you and me are both part of a community, it's called .. the state.

Uh, no. The fact that we're both from the same state does not mean we're a community. The fact that I walk past people on the street does not make them part of my community. The state doesn't tell me to go out and make friends. To be nice to people beyond what their human rights require. These things I had to learn on my own, from different persons and entities, yes, one of them being religion.

No moral in the state? Didn't you say they all used the ten commandments? It's intelligence and experience that makes morality. And morality is dependent on the position you live in. Your morale would be very different if you lived in one of the execution camps during WW2. Do you think religious people wouldn't kill or steal in conditions that aren't perfect. Ofcourse they would, because they're human. Just like everybody else. And it's that humanity that makes our morale, be it by believing what your god has written on 2 stone tables, or be it your own experience, intelligence, ...

There's a difference between moral as basic human rights (life, private property, etc) and moral as stuff that influence your everyday decisions. You choose whether or not you should cheat on your girlfriend, it's not the state that makes you do it. You choose to troll people on internet forums, it's not something the state can and should definitely NOT be able to regulate (cause then we'd be in all sorts of oppressive societies again and who hasn't had enough of that?).

Intelligence makes morality, but what about non-intelligent people that can't go to school. Like, for example in underdeveloped countries? Who's gonna teach them and their parents what's moral and not?

Of course people adapt to the environments they live in, and that's a good thing. I never claimed otherwise. Religion also adapts to the environment. Religion practices in Asia are different than those in Europe for instance. Don't forget that Christianism is not the only religion on the planet. There are only like a few thousand more. Some of them "adapted" from mainstream religions, according to people and society's needs.

Which brings me back to my first post and that thing I posted about religion filling a void in society that is not filled by other means such as education, the state, etc.

And just to be clear... in the last part of your post, you actually agree with me don't ya?

You don't choose a morale, it develops.

Of course you can. I can choose the Buddhist moral tomorrow if I wanted to. Who's gonna stop me?

Which basically means you don't need religion to have a good morale. And a religious morale doesn't guarantee no stealing, killing, raping, dancing naked in a fire, etc.

You seem to forget that not everyone on the planet lives in a democratic society, has access to medical and social care and to higher education. Yes, in some parts of the planet, religion is the ONLY thing that keeps people relatively organized in a society.

If you don't personally feel the need to be religious, that's fine. But maybe other people do.

Oh come on. People (rleigious and non religious) have ALWAYS been fascinated by phenomenons they could not understand. And we will always be fascinated as we have a natural desire of understanding things. This is nothing t hat religion gave us, it's build in our brains.

Well, yeah. And the outcome of that was that a new religion was born. Exactly how did you prove me wrong?

Maybe some people are content with understanding nature as God's creation.

You say religion gave life a meaning, thus that also means you know the meaning of life. I would certainly like to know what the meaning of life is. If anything it forced their meaning of life onto other people.

I didn't say it gave MY life a meaning, or yours. It gave life a meaning for SOME people.

What was that thing again about people having different opinions?

Also, make no mistake, I'm talking about modern day religion here. The one that doesn't kill you if you didn't obey. You know, as a form of crowd control.

Religion indeed helped develop art and culture. Ofcourse when you only allow people to make 'god' inspired culture people would have to believe you're telling the truth yes?

That was the sound of my point passing right over your head.

PS - the evil church of the middle ages is not the only form of religion out there.

Huge amounts of men and women have been killed because they didn't agree and wrote/painted/whatever something that wasn't right in the vision of religion.

How sad

Crowd control is crowd control dude, good or bad. Gotta keep that society together.


I could go on like this forever, but I'd just be repeating the same stuff over and over like a broken record.

Religion was and is used either as a form of control over society (predominantly in the past) or as a source of moral code when nothing else provides it (which is mostly the case today).