Popular new studies show that Religion is a dying concept and that, in Britain and other MEDCs (developed countries), less and less people in each new generation are becoming religious.
Some people, when asked why they aren't religious, refer to new videos such as Zeitgeist (hope I spelt that right) that suggest religious values are mostly the same for each religion, or that religion is a way of controlling people.
My personal view is, referring to events such as the Inquisition, that religion was developed purely and simply to give 'divine' power to those who chose to be favoured by the new god or have duties that, if tampered with, may lead to catastrophic result. I believe that this was a way of protecting previous religious and political rulers, and that now people realise this, they won't become religious.
I would like to hear your views on this subject, GamingAchilles
Now we have video cameras, DNA tests and other things that help us hunt down criminals, but in the old days, they had nothing like that, so the only way to catch a criminal would be if there was a witness. So what better way to stop crime than to tell everyone an almighty being was watching their every move, and would punish them for an eternity if they misbehaved?
I find it difficult to swallow the idea that religion itself was developed as a social tool. Humans have had religion and religious ceremony since before recorded history.
I do believe that it has become a tool and is used as such by any number of individuals and organizations large and small to accomplish varied ends, many devious and some simply evil. I also believe that there are those who are actually true believers and even if they do wield their religion as a tool it is only because they believe that is true and correct.
This is only my opinion. Perhaps 2000 years ago a group of people banded together for political, such as Roman, reasons? Now, 2000 years later if new groups of people are banding together and studying their Holy books together and praying for others to be healed from the grip of cancer, for instance, then I don't agree with the OP in saying that we believers are mindless sheep being led by a political shepherd. I do agree when it comes to certain groups, like the one led by Jim Jones where everyone committed suicide by drinking his koolade!
mmmmmm koolade..... look, if they choose to die, isn't that a good thing for us sane people?? not saying religious people are insane, but some of them are, then again, non religious people can be nuts too.... but religion, in my opinion, is a tool now adays.
That's not good. While it did make a few points that video was very misleading on many of it's facts. In other words it's the truth wrapped in a lie.
MY thoughts on the matter. Religion has been clearly used as a means of control through out history but I don't think that's how it started. I think it likely started as a means to comfort and offer an explanation to the things we didn't understand or had any control over. (which considering when religion began would have been a lot.) To make these things that were terrifying to us seem less scary we put a recognizable face to them, our own. So take an event like a huge thunder storm, that could have seemed like an all powerful unstoppable world altering event, and anthropomorphize it. Now instead of just a mindless uncaring force that you have no power over and can destroy you instantly. You now have a very powerful being that could possibly be reasoned with. You also (at least in the minds of the people) eliminate the feeling of not knowing what's going on. Even though the answers are completely unfounded and likely wrong.
like the one led by Jim Jones where everyone committed suicide by drinking his koolade!
koolaid*
If any birds, pigs, or sheep ask you about the koolaid, it was all him. I was sleeping.
I think it likely started as a means to comfort and offer an explanation to the things we didn't understand or had any control over. (which considering when religion began would have been a lot.)
Yesh. Back when we didn't have technology and we frequently saw rain, lightning strikes, and sudden sickness outbreaks, we sought answers. Religion solved that. Though it wasn't truthful, the common man got their answers.
Then it got controlling.
People, under the influence of religion, had to do what the Church decreed, as they wanted to be in a better place when they died; they also didn't want to be branded heathens, heretics, and unbelievers. Back then, that would merit execution. I sure wouldn't wanna be executed. I like my life, thank you very much.
So it wasn't that bad. As long as you obeyed and kept to the regulations, you wouldn't die, and better yet, you were promised The Promised Land. Terrific! What if science stepped in? Well that means the Church would be under skepticism. That would be terrible in their part. One such man was called Copernicus who found the real truth--the Earth revolved around the sun, not vice-versa. Well it was the truth wasn't it? It had scientific evidence and substantial backing. Well ya know what? They executed him, to keep him quiet. Other scientists later viewed the theory plausible, and so the Church was under hot water again.
They added it to their beliefs.
So...where do we go from here? I could say religion is controlling, if under the right principles. On pen and paper, you would think religion to be harmless. When controlled by people, a government, and an economy, it is dangerous to the life and minds of the people who do and don't follow it. Hey, we can view what tolls religion creates in modern life, can't we? Wars....discrimination...immoral ethics....sheep-based following, all that good stuff.
Yesh. Back when we didn't have technology and we frequently saw rain, lightning strikes, and sudden sickness outbreaks, we sought answers. Religion solved that. Though it wasn't truthful, the common man got their answers.
Yep that's the basic idea.
For those claiming to be spiritual but not following those "insane" religious sheeple. Don't your own views just stem from the same source? If the religious mind is "insane" what makes your beliefs any less "insane"?
Talking about the origin of religion presupposes that religion was, in certain aspects, similar to what it is today. I just don't buy it. One primary concern I have is that we lack a satisfying definition for even modern forms of religion. Couple that with the fact that, before writing, all we have to go on are burial sites for ancient peoples. But then archaeologists and anthropologists look at, say, a body buried it's spear and a necklace and draw all sorts of unwarranted conclusions about how and why he's there.
It's highly doubtful that early forms of "spiritualism" resembled in any way the dogmatic religions we see today. And yet, we try to draw conclusion about the roots of religion based on this false analogy.
There is one more philosophical problem with this pursuit (I won't go into the pragmatic problems). Trying to determine a purpose, or telos, for religion brings with it a commitment to one of both of these ideas: A) There was some sort of design behind early spirituality, whether human or divine b) Religion is of a "natural kind" - a necessary condition for something's having a purpose.
The commitment to A, I think, sets up a bit of fallacious reasoning and the status of A's truth seems dubious. As for B, it just seems flat out false. The very fact that philosophers of religion have such a hard time with a definition is just because it doesn't fall into one neat category.
So while you may be able to make the point that religion has the effect today of controlling people (and many people, like Kant, would agree), to argue that was it's original intent or even that this outcome was in any way foreseen just doesn't follow from anything.
Talking about the origin of religion presupposes that religion was, in certain aspects, similar to what it is today. I just don't buy it.
Based on what we know of early religions they worshiped natural phenomena around them such as the moon, sun, and storms. Treating these things as living beings we a clear form of anthropomorphization. Also coming up with animal and even plant spirits that they could talk to is again anthropomorphizing things.
One primary concern I have is that we lack a satisfying definition for even modern forms of religion. Couple that with the fact that, before writing, all we have to go on are burial sites for ancient peoples. But then archaeologists and anthropologists look at, say, a body buried it's spear and a necklace and draw all sorts of unwarranted conclusions about how and why he's there.
It also had to do with things like arrangements and early art.
So while you may be able to make the point that religion has the effect today of controlling people (and many people, like Kant, would agree), to argue that was it's original intent or even that this outcome was in any way foreseen just doesn't follow from anything.
I agree it likely didn't start as a means of controlling people.
That's not good. While it did make a few points that video was very misleading on many of it's facts. In other words it's the truth wrapped in a lie.
I believe, on the topic of this video (despite discussion having moved away from it), that despite you having balanced and potentially true points that this person may have been bias or under influence against religion, that the points he brings up are more than good, they are spot on. The points that are made, especially towards the links in religion, and how every religion is the same on a few important point, are so, in fact convincing, that I doubt if you watched this, it would be hard to believe any religion is true ever again, as for every question that non-religious people ask, he gives a valid, understandable and convincing argument (in the name of atheism).
I believe, on the topic of this video (despite discussion having moved away from it), that despite you having balanced and potentially true points that this person may have been bias or under influence against religion, that the points he brings up are more than good, they are spot on. The points that are made, especially towards the links in religion, and how every religion is the same on a few important point, are so, in fact convincing, that I doubt if you watched this, it would be hard to believe any religion is true ever again, as for every question that non-religious people ask, he gives a valid, understandable and convincing argument (in the name of atheism).
My problem isn't so much with the overall message it was how they were getting it out. They threw in many things that were stretches or even just false, when they could have gotten many of the same points across using actual facts. By doing it the way they did it actually hurts the factual points they made. How is using intentionally misleading tactics to get someone to deconvert any better then getting someone to convert using intentionally misleading tactics? If people realize they based what they thought on a lie again, this could have the opposite effect then what the movie intended.
What would be one specific instance of this Mage, just for reference?
Hmm, this is a reasonably old (and thus understandably corrupt) reference, against religion in that the leaders of the Vatican secretly held unrecorded or documented meetings with the Illuminatas (a secret cult in the name of science over religion) in which they convinced the Illuminatas that they would be safe in the name of deconversion so long as they were shown as being (technically) Christian. They then used the guise of their apparent 'attempted compromising of the Vatican' to massacre well over 10,000 people (I believe, see Spanish Inquisition).
If this isn't misleading (albeit misleading of Church as opposed to misleading of atheists), I don't know what is, GamingAchilles
What would be one specific instance of this Mage, just for reference?
Their comparison of Jesus and other gods and religious figures are misleading and in some cases are completely false. Many of the characters they claim were born of a Virgin either did not or the circumstances were far different from the Jesus myth. They made claims of many of these characters being born on the 25th, just like Jesus. The only one that relates to this date including Jesus is Mithra, who was the Sun god originally relating to the 25th celebration before taken over by Christianity. So Jesus really had nothing to do with this date.
Now it is very possible that the myths and stories of Jesus were built from other existing myths and historical characters, but not to the extent or way they suggest.
Yes they do have some facts in there, for instance the timeline of Jesus's life and the creation of the gospels. But it's so bogged down with all this crap the facts get lost.
