Do you see any merit in religion?

[KebertX]

I was having a discussion in another thread: What is your opinion of Richard Dawkins http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=26&t=5352&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+HappyAtheistForum+%28Happy+Atheist+Forum%29&utm_content=Twitter#p75094

So long story short, the argument became whether or not religion needed to completely disappear off the face of the planet, or if there were some aspects of spirituality worth preserving.  The thread got really far away from Richard Dawkins, so... Viola!  New thread!

Just go nuts, there are a ton of questions here:

What do you think, should religion just cease to exist? Should people openly attack the idea of God? Is there any more good that religion might have to offer the world? Should we fight to abolish the churches, or let people come to their own enlightenment on the nonexistence of God?  Do you see a difference between Religion and Spirituality? Is Spirituality any better?

Just randomly throw your ideas up here, is there any merit to religion, and does it need to die for human kind to progress into the future?

[Whitney]

I think that religion can be a tool for good (though unnecessary since secular tools can fulfill the same need) but that ultimately any system which encourages sheeple is undesirable for any society which value independence, scientific thinking, and progress.  That said, I don't think it would be right to force anyone to quit being religious.  I also don't think it's a good idea to launch an 'attack' on religion...all that does is make the atheists look like they are just grumpy, mad at god, and all the other nonsense religious people think about us.  Nice clean debates are the way to go for those who are so inclined to challenge religion (not that it will do much good as religion is still around after many many years of showing why it's nonsense)...attract more flies with honey than vinegar.

[pinkocommie]

My position is that it would be best for people to abandon religion, not that religion should be taken away from anyone.  I've heard people talk about the inevitable freak out of religion were taken away from people tomorrow.  Well, yeah, but people would freak out if anything were suddenly taken away from them tomorrow.  If there was no soda tomorrow people would suddenly freak out.  And religion is a lot like soda in it's mildest form.  Can it be enjoyed without being a health risk?  Yes.  That doesn't mean it's healthy or something that should we should encourage people to drink?  Of course not, it's empty nutrition.  Religion gives some people happiness, but I don't think it's fair to assume that those people are incapable of finding just as satisfying happiness in something else.  Regardless, they have to want to abandon religion, I don't think it's OK to force anyone but I also don't consider ridiculing someone's beliefs or pointing out that the good they cherish within their beliefs is easily found elsewhere in a more trustworthy form as being forceful.

[Sophus]

I would 100% agree that we shouldn't force anyone to leave their religion. That's thought policing. I am, however, completely comfortable with being accused of attacking religion, sense many religious people seem to think criticizing, thinking freely or even disagreeing with them is offensive. There's no need for me to be worried about stepping on toes. I'm curious to know how you all, as atheists, would define an "attack on religion".

[karadan]

I would 100% agree that we shouldn't force anyone to leave their religion. That's thought policing. I am, however, completely comfortable with being accused of attacking religion, sense many religious people seem to think criticizing, thinking freely or even disagreeing with them is offensive. There's no need for me to be worried about stepping on toes. I'm curious to know how you all, as atheists, would define an "attack on religion".

To me, an attack on religion requires violence, or at least, the threat of violence. Anything else is just a debate over dogma in which atheists are right and religious people are wrong.

[Tank]

I was having a discussion in another thread: What is your opinion of Richard Dawkins http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=26&t=5352&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+HappyAtheistForum+%28Happy+Atheist+Forum%29&utm_content=Twitter#p75094

So long story short, the argument became whether or not religion needed to completely disappear off the face of the planet, or if there were some aspects of spirituality worth preserving.  The thread got really far away from Richard Dawkins, so... Viola!  New thread!

Just go nuts, there are a ton of questions here:

What do you think, should religion just cease to exist? Should people openly attack the idea of God? Is there any more good that religion might have to offer the world? Should we fight to abolish the churches, or let people come to their own enlightenment on the nonexistence of God?  Do you see a difference between Religion and Spirituality? Is Spirituality any better?

Just randomly throw your ideas up here, is there any merit to religion, and does it need to die for human kind to progress into the future?

This might sound like a rather trite question, but I assure you it is not. What makes a religion a religion? If it is a shared belief in a personal God, if that belief is removed is the religion still a religion or something else? I don't know, I don't hold a position on this as I haven't really considered what makes a religion a religion.

[Martin TK]

Personally, I see NO value in religion at all, NONE... I did an entire post to explain my reasoning, but somehow I goofed and didn't get it posted.  I was not born into the whole internet lifestyle, so I still use a club and a pencil from time to time, and make mistakes doing this.

Anyway, my post consisted of a number of examples of how religion has poisoned everything throughout history.  Of course, everyone who knows me, knows that I am almost as radical an atheist as Dawkins.  

[LoneMateria]

No one on this thread has asked this important question when it comes to religion.  What benefit does religion have that cannot be obtained through secular means?  I haven't been able to think of one.  Does that mean I think religion should be attacked?  It depends on what you mean by attacking religion.  I'm going to assume most of us here don't refer to doing something physical/illegal like destroying churches.  But if you also mean to lash out and condemn the religion and its members then I don't suggest we do that.  I think a strong education would probably get rid of a lot of religious people.  Most people don't think critically about their religion.  Most people don't ask enough questions when it comes to it.  I wouldn't be sad to see religion go away.  As for spirituality, I've always kinda viewed it as a lazy form of religion that comes down to a feeling one has.  "I feel i'm spiratual so I am, what do you mean i'm pronouncing it wrong I can't be wrong i told you already i'm spiratual."  Spirituality has just as little value as religion and would probably suffer the same fate as religion if everyone got a strong education.

[pinkocommie]

In the previous thread where this conversation began, I asked something close to that -  

I don't see any of the good qualities that do exist within religions being specific to religion though. Humans are good. Some humans are religious. Therefore, some good is created in the name of religion. I honestly don't see a loss of anything worth keeping that is specific to religion and would be lost and unattainable were religion entirely abandoned. Do I want religion to be abandoned personally? I don't care. I grew up an atheist around Unitarians, probably the most lovey, happy, inclusive, non judgmental religious people out there, I had no idea religious people were actually far crueler than that until I was older so I understand the good people who aren't hurting anyone angle and I agree that they should be able to do whatever they want as long as they aren't hurting anyone. I just don't agree that something would be lost if religion were abandoned.

Getting back to Dawkins, that's one of the things I think he and I really agree on. It's selling humans short to just assume we as a species somehow need false hope, which is essentially what I see religion as being. False hope that makes big bucks. Why is that worth saving?

And got this response -

It makes people feel good?  You and I understand that religion is an unnecessary waste of time for society. But for billions of people on the planet who subscribe to some religion... well, it's important to them. Even if they are persisting under delusion, that delusion makes them happy.  I consider it an inevitability that one day people will break free of all superstition. I just have hope that before religion is gone for good it will clean up it's act. Turn into something beneficial to the human race.  Reform itself of all it's problems before humanity realizes it doesn't need it any more.

Specific to religion. Okay with that extra bit of criteria I suppose you have me: All the good things about religion can be found in other things.  But religious faith (not a GOOD thing per say) is unique.  It gives people hope, (even if that hope isn't based on anything externally verifiable, it is still there inside the person's mind). Spirituality is a special bit of reality that appeals exclusively to your emotions. Inside your own mind, you can make whatever you want of it.  It isn't real, but anything you have faith in is as real as it needs to be.  Spirituality doesn't need religion.

Am I making the least bit of sense? People can make what they want out of these things, and that's okay. It's when a specific spiritual philosophy gets hijacked by religion that we see the problems that we do today.  Humans have had long relationship with religion. In the next few centuries, I'm pretty sure it's going to end. It's the dawn of the age of the Internet. Knowledge is free, education is simpler than ever. Logic will inevitably win out over superstition.  But before this happens, I, personally, would like a fond farewell to the age of religion. Just to be able to look at the state of religion in the world and see something that isn't so bad.

I'm not saying save religion, in the sense that it should be preserved forever.  Just preserve the fond parts at the core of spirituality for now, as religion goes through massive reform.  I can't describe it properly, but having spiritual fulfillment is something that billions of people crave.  I know what it feels like, and it's harder to get over than God.  There is intrinsic good there, and it deserves to rise to the to surface before the very end.  I say fix the good, abolish the bad, and let the natural progression of human reason sort out the rest.  Just because it isn't real outside the human mind doesn't mean people shouldn't believe in it.

Instead of Attacking belief in God, like Richard Dawkins, Attack Dogma, Intolerance, and Myths.  God is more than just Dogma or Mythology, it's slightly more complex.  Let people have their idea of God, it's not hurting anything on it's own.  What needs to be done is the systematic dismantling of Organized Religion. Churches have got to go, god can stick around until people outsmart belief on their own.  It's not to be attacked, people have to define that reality for themselves.  On the question of Religion, I'm more inclined to agree with the Dalai Lama than Richard Dawkins.

[teifuani]

Alright, this is is my take on it after my rocky transition from theism. I'll try to avoid letting my emotions bleed through too much. Sorry about that.

[GAYtheist]

See, I see no merit to religion. but I'm a bit biased in a few ways. I think its the second biggest mistake mankind made, and it's nearly the biggest mistake, except I think the atomic bomb will nearly forever hold that spot.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I see little merit in religion in general, but I see much in the freedom of conscience.

[Kylyssa]

As for spirituality, I've always kinda viewed it as a lazy form of religion that comes down to a feeling one has.  "I feel i'm spiratual so I am, what do you mean i'm pronouncing it wrong I can't be wrong i told you already i'm spiratual."  Spirituality has just as little value as religion and would probably suffer the same fate as religion if everyone got a strong education.

I think that people confuse strong emotions with spirituality.  I think it's important to not discard the value of the emotions along with the woo.  

I've purposely used the words "atheist spirituality" to talk about that phenomenon, that spirituality is just a term to describe incredibly intense emotions including but not limited to awe, wonder, joy, and a sense of connectedness.  I admit I have also used the word combination as a cheap ploy to get views.

[Thumpalumpacus]

For me, "spirituality" is merely a feeling of connectedness to the Universe, be it bandmembers when we're having a great jam, or me alone pondering the stellar origins of every atom of calcium in my body.  It has very little to do with religion, thankfully.