Thread replies: 16
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1
File: religionhumanhistory.jpg (8KB, 275x183px) Image search:
[Google]
8KB, 275x183px
I just need someone to help me find answers.
I do really believe that religion does play an important role in a man's psyche, something to believe in, the thought that there's justice in the world and that it's worth fighting for, the thought that there's a place of redemption waiting for us. cosmic order puts a man's mind at ease even when he is hounded by the horrid events present in our world
athiests ignore this psychological need for some cosmic structure as they see it as a obstacle for humanity's rational ascension to something greater yet they themselves are also suffering from its lack and fall into a more deplorable state from before, they are often restless, often angry, often paranoid, and often unhappy, and they try to replace their past purpose, the now lacking cosmic structure that religion gave them, with other things. They devote themselves to causes that they think will establish a new order worth fighting for or indulge themselves completely to their hobbies as way to replace how religion made them feel secure amidst the chaos of the world. Maybe religion, like most things that has survived throughout human history, fulfills an integral need in humans.
there's a reason why marx derogatorily called religion as the opium of the masses, but marx was wrong to point it as a negative. It's integral to humanity, to believe on something is big bulwark that safeguards a man's sanity. I just hope that we adopt a religion that is civilized and noble at the same time.
do you think this is the case /pol/? and I'm sorry for being too aggressive on my language.
>>
>>17519245
Do you need advice on something?
>>
>>17519245
and sorry for the /pol/ post, I tried posting this on /pol/ but nobody gave me any answers. i guess the board's heavy traffic made my thread invisible.
>>
Yes, having faith in stuff is a human need. Not for survival but for prosperity.
Religion was and is a means of control. I used to think this was sinister, antiquated, and something we were ready to move past. It's a community agreement though, not a top down thing like I'd initially thought. Our intelligence is what distinguishes us as a species on this planet but we enter in the same state as and with many of the same raw instincts as most of the other animals here. We aren't born with the conscious accumulated wisdom of our ancestors (or, if we are, it's not unlocked by default). We are born with capability. We are born with potential. Religion offers a guide.
Uncontrolled naive potential leads eventually to chaos. Prosperity can't even be addressed if you've not got survival down yet.
It's an imperfect system. Optimal at this stage in our collective development, but an imperfect system nonetheless. Or systems, rather. Some religions (much like Marx) analyzed, identified a problem, and then came up with a solution in the form of a new system (that remains dependent on the old ones, kek) that simply makes the whole mess 100x worse.
>>
>>17519245
If you have the intelligence and upbringing it is extremely easy to replace religion with physics and mathematics.
>>
>>17519365
but can you say the same for the majority of humanity?
>>
>>17519365
not everyone is given the intellectual prowess to live life without an ideological guide or a set of principle to live by, Religions offers great legion of humanities wisdom with a sense of community.
like most things, maybe the problem isn't religion as a whole but what kind of religion.
>>
>>17519448
also fuck autocorrect.
>>
>>17519365
I honestly don't understand this attitude. The more I learn about science, the more I believe in some form of God/creator. I think there are positives and negatives to organized religions, I don't think ancient texts should be taken as literal accounts of history or laws for modern life. But I definitely believe in God.
Call me back when human scientists have developed self-healing, reproducing machines with free will that run entirely on renewable bio-matter, for one thing. Call me back when human scientists FULLY understand even the tiniest corner of the universe we live in
>>
>>17519448
>>17519436
I guess you're right.
>>17519467
>Call me back when human scientists have developed self-healing, reproducing machines with free will that run entirely on renewable bio-matter, for one thing.
>call me back when
How about you call me when you learn a bit about higher level mathematics? The relationships therein ARE god.
>scientists have developed self-healing, reproducing machines
Not far off my friend. Self-healing and reproducing machines already exist, the issue is getting that process down to a microscopic scale.
>free will
Ah interesting, so you you believe the universe isn't deterministic? Could you explain to me then how you jump from fundamental uncertainty to free-will?
>renewable bio-matter
Tell me again how much you've "learn[ed] about science"
I didn't mean to go off on you guy, but every time I even bring up the idea of math as god, some neckbeard gives me the exact same half-baked spiel you did, and its almost always a religious nut trying to convince me from another angle.
>>
>>17519563
Rereading that I realize I'm the one who comes of as an angry neckbeard. And to clarify, this
>renewable bio-matter
sounds frankly idiotic because all matter is 'renewable' in the sense that it is completely conserved, unless you have nuclear effects in which mass is lost as energy. When you say 'renewable' you mean reusable, in the sense that a reaction occurs, and the resulting molecules are at a lower energy state, but can then be brought back up to a higher energy state and used again. But this process still takes some external source of energy (i.e. food or sunlight). So to say 'renewable' is rather silly.
Calling it 'bio-matter' is also silly. Bio and organic are old terms that refer to chemicals that were once thought to be only produced from biological reactions, i.e. couldn't be produced in a lab. This has long since been proven false, since any naturally occurring chemical species can be produced in a lab. So the term 'bio' in this case would just mean anything produced in a 'living' organism. Since we're talking about the possibility of a man-made entity creating these chemicals, using the term 'bio' is silly.
Also, the term 'mass' is generally used, not 'matter'.
Again, I realize I'm the one who sounds like the try-hard here, but I feel strongly about these things.
>>
>>17519563
Not the guy you're talking with, but:
>and its almost always a religious nut trying to convince me from another angle.
Well, when that's the point you start out from, how can you possibly expect to entertain a contrary point of view.
>the idea of math as god
Can you expound on this hypothesis, rather than just stating it and defensively going off on anyone that questions you?
>>
>>17519245
I don't know, actually, i miss the church, I miss the praying, the masses, the singing, the going to confession, the slight tingy feeling when you're all alone in the church, but when you have a nihilist awakening, I feel like I can't go back to it.
>>
>>17519365
>If you have the intelligence and upbringing it is extremely easy to replace religion with physics and mathematics.
I have a physics B.S. and am now in grad school. I have to disagree. Physics and mathematics only explain how things work. Religion and philosophy's purpose is to answer 'why.' There's nothing scientific that was discovered in the last few centuries that changes our perspective on religion. People questioned Creationism long before genetics and evolution were even pipe dreams.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJu0oYvi-cY
>>
>>17519245
Some people need religion to keep them from being fucking crazy. My uncle was like that. These people don't have morals and need fairy tales to stop them from being horrible individuals. Though most people don't need religion. And most religious people don't even believe it themselves.
I'm not religious, I don't see much to gain from it anyway. Honestly I'm one of the most sane motherfuckers I know but whatever man.
>>
>>17519245
You're wrong.
Religion is not an inherent need and you're painting atheists with too broad a brush because what you said doesn't apply to many, maybe even most of them.
Thread posts: 16
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1