• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Religion is a Blessing in Disguise

sindex.1983

Helpful Friendly Advice
If religions didn't exist, what would the world be like?

Before we answer that, let's examine some general character properties of people who choose to believe in their respective religions:

1. Religious believers engage in faith. They use their imagination to visualize a story that they have been told previously (nobody was born believing in Jesus or Allah or Buddha, etc.), and using apprehension of that mental image, they take that instead of actual proof that the belief system they have adopted is, in fact, actually real.

2. Religious believers support their organizational communities. Christians gather for Christian gatherings, Muslims for Muslim gatherings, and so forth. In other words, all of these people are able to set aside regular times in their lives that they can devote to any activity that their organization deems fit.

3. Religious believers engage in frequent ritualistic behavior both on a daily, weekly, monthly and yearly cycle. While it's true that all humans have adopted some form of ritual in their lives (though it can vary widely as to exactly what it is and why), religious believers elevate the rituals that have been taught to them by their religious organization to a high status of importance in their lives, thereby imagining that they have a duty, a responsibility, to always perform these rituals at the set times (and places, in some cases).

Those three points should be sufficient to demonstrate my argument.

Now, let's re-examine those three points. Let's imagine the same group of people - religious believers, as they exist today at this moment - but let's strip them of their religious beliefs.

If we stripped religious believers of their religious beliefs somehow without offending them, what kind of people would they be?

1. Schizophrenic, or at the very least psychotic. This sort of mental activity is a holdover from childhood, when you can't distinguish what is real in your daydreaming from what is real in the physical reality shown to you through your senses. Without some form of storybook to latch onto, imagine the chaos these people would cause! Each of them would instead latch onto a different story - a story that is more uniquely tailored to them, since in our hypothetical scenario there are no religious institutions to feed them systematic belief structures anymore - and so, every one of these former religious believers, would now be clinging to some deluded fantasy of their own making, rather than conforming to one made by many people over a long period of time.

2. While we're not about to indulge in religious beliefs ourselves, the old adage "idle hands are the devil's workshop" seems to fit here. These people, now devoid of a story fed to them from an institution seeking to corrupt, degrade and enslave their wills, must instead fend for themselves! Again, we find ourselves in a precarious position. We're not talking about a handful of people here - there are unimaginably vast flocks of human beings out there who believe in this stuff. Each one of them, when attending religious gatherings, had time, attention, money, etc. extracted from them, at least a little bit - but it adds up over a lifetime! Imagine that, now, since all these former religious believers no longer engage in these regular gatherings, what will they put all these resources to, now that they are free of their former mental shackles? Well, if we remember that in point 1, these people are schizoid/psychotic, then it stands to reason that a good portion of them will engage in activities that will undermine society rather than support it. Why? Well it just stands to reason that they would do that, because all the major world religions preach against the 'evil' of Man, his 'evil' society, and all the 'Evil' that lurks around just about every corner. Would dropping their belief systems make them drop the paranoid fantasy of constant persecution? The answer is no. This fantasy is part of the reason these people are in religion in the first place - they're magnetized to the message, because in some small way they subconsciously agree with it, even if it's for different reasons that they aren't aware of. These people like to amalgamate their negative feelings into a dense mixture with no discernible cause in their minds; then they point their finger at an imaginary boogeyman like "Satan" and blame him for all the bad feelings inside them. They may have been hard done by in some way - mistreated - at some times in their lives, and decide that these occurrences are representative of some force of 'Evil' that has come to persecute them. Truly, if there is one constant across the vulgar masses of mankind, it is superstition, so the conjecture that makes up this point should be solid enough.

3. Imagine that, since all the rituals of these former believers have now been tossed out, what will these people do? Will they stop praying at every meal? Will they stop wearing head-scarves? Will they stop bowing in the dirt, singing nonsensical praises to the ceiling, and chanting mantras and slogans? The answer is no; at least, they may stop doing the things I just listed, but in the stead of those things they will probably adopt equally, if not increasingly, crazy things to do. Think about the first principles of this mentality. These people are already acting in a robotic fashion in their real (non-hypothetical case) state right now. You think that's just going to disappear the moment religion disappears? Ha! The function of these people is best considered through the archetype they represent. This archetype I'm referring to is that of a person whose logical centre in the brain does not function adequately to sustain what could be considered a rational viewpoint from the perspective of one whose logical centre does function properly. I'm not calling this a malfunction; don't get me wrong - they are born to be this way; this is what they are. Well, consider points 1 and 2 before you consider this further: We have schizoid/psychotic people, with lots of free time and resources available, engaging in all manner of random exploit due to the vast size of the sample population of religious believers. On top of that, they all like to engage in rituals that bear none of the results that they think they do; and then, when they start to feel bad (generally because their life isn't yielding the results they would like to see) they are mentally balkanized within - confusion sets in. More randomness piled on randomness - and what does that lead to? Well, apart from a lot of really weird harmless stuff, it also results in a lot of violent crazies with the will to do harm to others. An extremist is going to be an extremist, whether they are religious, or not; their extreme, radical plans and actions are simply going to be based on a different set of ideas.

To sum those three up quickly - these people are ruled by sentimentality and dull imagination, which is what makes them prime candidates for being believers in religion. Religion neutralizes the potentially lethal consequences that these mental elements in the equation of every religious believer might cause.

Ok? I'm much happier with these people all yoked together in a common religious belief system. Much less chaos. The idea of these people being free to think and choose for themselves is utterly absurd. They can't do that. They can barely choose in their own best interests, let alone consider the repercussions of their actions on society at large. Sure, maybe 90% of these former religious believers will ultimately be benign wackos with no negative impact on things. That leaves 10%, la crème du la crème of the crazy, unleashed to just develop insane plans and try to execute them against their perceived 'evil'. Makes me shudder. I don't know about you, but I'm happier with religion keeping these people bound up and tied!

Thank you, creators and owners of all religion!

P.S. Now I know there's going to be a good deal of you saying, "Wait - isn't the West at war with religious extremists?" Yes, it is. War is another issue completely. I will point out to you that the vast majority of Muslims are not engaging in extremist behaviors, just the same as members of other major religious institutions. What we are seeing here in the modern world is a war between interests, using their pawns to fight a battle - the battle is what the world sees, not its true cause. The pawns believe something is being accomplished in the world. What is really happening is a delicate shift in the balance of geopolitical power, that's all. It's economic and it's political underneath the cheap veneer of a war against 'terrorists' (give me a break). Abolishing Islam from the world wouldn't end this war, because Islam is just a pack of lies like the other religions; human hands are fighting the war. These people are violent and they want to be violent. If there never was an Islam - or any other faith for that matter - they would be violent anyway, provided the circumstances of their lives were similar enough with Islam gone.

Religion is a convenient wrapper to twist around and bind up the minds of crazed savages and hopeless mental derelicts. May all religions stand so long as these insane folk are around, in order to keep us safe from them!
 
Last edited:

xkatz

Well-Known Member
I agree with your 3 points in the beginning. However, I think your view is a tad too reductionist for my liking. The ultimate purpose of religion is extinction of ego, purification of self, and/or union with g-d IMO. All religions have this, though of course there are vast differences in the philosophical implications, not to mention the laws and praxis. However, from what I've seen, all religions are dedicated to this idea in some way. People are far from perfect and many of them struggle seriously with this goal, religion is just giving them a way to do this that is accessible to the masses. That's why religion comes from the latin 're-ligare', meaning to reconnect.

At least that's my $0.02 on religion when understood correctly from a metaphysical perspective.
 

sindex.1983

Helpful Friendly Advice
I agree with your 3 points in the beginning. However, I think your view is a tad too reductionist for my liking. The ultimate purpose of religion is extinction of ego, purification of self, and/or union with g-d IMO. All religions have this, though of course there are vast differences in the philosophical implications, not to mention the laws and praxis. However, from what I've seen, all religions are dedicated to this idea in some way. People are far from perfect and many of them struggle seriously with this goal, religion is just giving them a way to do this that is accessible to the masses.

Thank you for your input.

That's the ostensible purpose of religion, not the reality. But if I have to say that, it's not worth explaining! The intent of my article is not to slag religion itself, but to praise its social virtues. So I would not want to explain or debate anything about what people think religion intends to do for them. I am only looking at the societal effects of my hypothetical scenario in order to properly appreciate religion.

That's why religion comes from the latin 're-ligare', meaning to reconnect.

Actually religare in the Latin is commonly misconstrued that way in terms of religion's etymology; people say it means to reconnect, or to re-read (associating it to the verb 'lego'). Religare actually means to tie back; to hold back; to bind fast. It literally means binding.

But most so-called experts in etymology will actually agree with you. So if you want to consider your own view correct on this word, I could hardly blame you.
 
Last edited:

Theweirdtophat

Well-Known Member
I've known people say that the world is better off without religion as it has cause conflict and wars. There was a couple wars based on it, but most wars aren't fought for religious reasons anyway. Territory, goods, ect are the main reasons. The Soviets and Chinese communists weren't really religious and suppressed it, and they've killed millions.
 

Excaljnur

Green String
If we stripped religious believers of their religious beliefs somehow without offending them, what kind of people would they be?

1. Schizophrenic, or at the very least psychotic. This sort of mental activity is a holdover from childhood, when you can't distinguish what is real in your daydreaming from what is real in the physical reality shown to you through your senses. Without some form of storybook to latch onto, imagine the chaos these people would cause! Each of them would instead latch onto a different story - a story that is more uniquely tailored to them, since in our hypothetical scenario there are no religious institutions to feed them systematic belief structures anymore - and so, every one of these former religious believers, would now be clinging to some deluded fantasy of their own making, rather than conforming to one made by many people over a long period of time.

I think you've leaped too far to assume even most people will create a new story to latch onto in your first point. Perhaps most people will try to create a new story, but in their efforts, fail because it is simply too complicated and focus more of their time on sustaining their lives, increasing their standard of living, and leaving behind systematic belief structures based on stories. What I'm saying is that you seem to misrepresent human nature as dependent on religion, given they were raised in one. I believe it is more likely, that "stripped of religious rituals" individuals will search to find another source of meaning in their lives, and in that search where argument and debate ensues, education will become the admirable path because it searches to find the best way to argue and debate using valid sources and proof as support. People will begin to exercise logic as a typical mode of discussion and be capable of recognizing logical fallacies quicker and more accurately. And when an individual proposes a new story as the foundation for belief, rational individuals will quickly point out its flaws and the flaw in even needing a story. So there will be a spectrum of people who have educated themselves using logic on one end and those who have surrendered their beliefs to the most appealing dogmas that they perceive as giving purpose to life on the other end. The people in the middle will move to both sides; however, I would argue that the rational individuals will be more persuasive because they can provide valid sources and proof which appeals to our sense of reason. Thus, after a conflict between the dogmatic few and the rational few, the rational few will prevail reflecting the trend that human history has presented with our gradual movement away from dogmatic beliefs and toward rational ideas.
 
Last edited:
Top