Why are most religious followers irrational?

[I.S.L.A.M617]

I know people see things the way they want to. That doesn't mean it is really like that. Some people can use religion as a fear tactic to control the people, but that doesn't mean that is the same of all faiths. Most people don't become Christians because they are afraid of hell (whatever that is)but because they love God and Jesus. Can you say that someone is truly faithful if they only worship out of fear? On top of that, Christianity is not the only religion- there are many, many religions.

Just because you can do something does not mean that you should do something. Some things are not good for you and some things can cause harm to others as well as yourself.

I'm not only talking about Christianity, or the fear of hell. I'm talking about any religion that insists you do good things; they don't even necessarily have to have consequences for bad things. Just the fact that the religion teaches to do good things is incentive enough for people to follow them. In reality, people don't have to be good, or listen to any of the established rules. Religion helps to ensure that people don't realize this.

 

[Self]

Why are most religions irrational?



Because rationality is of the mind. Religions bring people beyond the Mind. Come on, be free. Give up your rationality and live in an unconditional land of bliss. This is what religions say, and its the truth.

 

[Riverwolf]

Why are most religions irrational?



Because rationality is of the mind. Religions bring people beyond the Mind. Come on, be free. Give up your rationality and live in an unconditional land of bliss. This is what religions say, and its the truth.

Dude, the way that was worded didn't sound all that great.

 

[Riverwolf]

In reality, people don't have to be good, or listen to any of the established rules.

No, but it's what helps keep society together.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

No, but it's what helps keep society together.

Exactly, that's what I'm saying the purpose of religion is. It serves the same purpose as law.

 

[Badran]

Exactly, that's what I'm saying the purpose of religion is. It serves the same purpose as law.

That's just a part of it. You are forgetting that it gives those who follow it great spiritual satisfaction in many ways. And those who follow it are the majority of society. So that's another contribution to society.

Also all this is the purpose from a neutral outlook, but from the religious one, it's main purpose is that it is the truth.

 

[Riverwolf]

Exactly, that's what I'm saying the purpose of religion is. It serves the same purpose as law.

That's A purpose of organized religion, but not the only one.

I already had my morals before I had a religion.

 

[Self]

Dude, the way that was worded didn't sound all that great.

Dont get caught up in the words, or how it sounds. Internalize the message.

 

[Riverwolf]

Dont get caught up in the words, or how it sounds. Internalize the message.

I know what you meant. We follow similar paths.

What I meant was the fact that for most people, a message is dependent on words. Most people don't look past the words and see the essence.

IOW, the "message" that you were giving could easily be misinterpreted as "get high," or something like that.

 

[Self]

Exactly, that's what I'm saying the purpose of religion is. It serves the same purpose as law.

To many of the western religions I would agree with you 100%! But, with others like Zen and Advaita thats the periphery of the philosophy. Their purpose is to go above it.

 

[Self]

I know what you meant. We follow similar paths.

What I meant was the fact that for most people, a message is dependent on words. Most people don't look past the words and see the essence.

Yes, you are right.

But dont judge "most people". If they have a problem with how I word it, they can ask me what I mean or why its written like that and I will gladly respond and give them another wording so that they can get the essence of it better.

 

[tarasan]

Hardly moot (not mute, btw, a freindly spelling hint) when it is you who brought up logic.

And my post was also referencing the god of Abraham, Jehovah.

yes moot (thanks btw)

the statement i was infering wasnt meant to defend specifically the abrahamic God merely the concept of God why argue particulars when we are arguing universal terms, I beleive the thread addressed thiests not christianity specifically, remeber Abrahmic God could be fake but a God could be real. merely knocking down one particular God doesnt stop thiesm, cause heck we ALL could be wrong and there could still be a God :angel2:

 

[Rainbow Mage]

You know my take tarasaan, no one is wrong, Monism properly describes God. A duck by any other name is still a duck.

 

[tarasan]

You know my take tarasaan, no one is wrong, Monism properly describes God. A duck by any other name is still a duck.

I know your pluralistic mindset Herectic and although i respect it I just find to many flaws in the thinking, although im sure you would say exactly the same to me

 

[Self]

...flaws in the thinking...

There is your problem. If the Thought is flawed, then eliminate it and what is true will emurge from behind it.

 

[tarasan]

There is your problem. If the Thought is flawed, then eliminate it and what is true will emurge from behind it.

i jave eliminated it im not a pluralist, im also not an athiest for that exact same reason, its just such a flawed concept to take, at least in my opinion.

my conclusion is there can only be one truth, and as far as i have seen so far mine is the better fit.

 

[LoTrobador]

We're reffering to the same quotation. Marx is referring to religion as a tool to make people feel better about their lives in order to keep the established order, much like opium keeps people calm and relaxed.

And I'm not saying that this wasn't how Marx saw the social function of religion. I think, though, that this particular passage might be seen as expressing a more positive attitude towards religion, or at least a less fierce condemnation, than that usually associated with it; while, according to such interpretation, religion could be seen as a reaction to socio-economic conditions and a tool eployed by the ruling class over the people, it wouldn't necessarily exclude its more positive aspects.

And to address your point - while I'm not saying that religion might not be used in such way, I think some religious movements could be seen as having an aspect critical, opposing or not upholding the socio-economic environment (e.g. the Liberation Theology), thus not necessarily being a tool to make people feel better about their lives in order to keep the established order.

 

[Peacewise]

Name a moral kindness or action that a theist can do because of their belief, but that an atheist can't.

Love a stranger.

 

[Riverwolf]

Love a stranger.

Atheists are very capable of that.

 

[ChristineES]

Exactly, that's what I'm saying the purpose of religion is. It serves the same purpose as law.

It is nothing like law. Law is for punitive measures. Someone murders someone, goes to trial, goes to prison or get executed or whatever. Religion is a lot deeper than that. It isn't only about doing good deeds (as I said) and it isn't only about not doing bad things either. For we who believe in the spiritual world, it is a way to connect to it. If you don't believe in any kind of spirits, then you certainly are not going to worry about having any connection to something that doesn't exist. But theists do believe in it and we want to connect to it.