Why do people believe in religion?

[Noaidi]

I believe this because I have seen people are getting corrupt in the name of God and religion. I believe this because tall temples and monasteries are erected to dwarf humanity. I believe it because it has deluded people to behave irrationally, stupidly and often violently. I believe it because more battles were fought through religious fanaticism to assassinate the innocent. Religion is anti-scientific.

I think you are grouping all religions under the notion of what you perceive in the Abrahamic religions. Your views certainly wouldn't apply to a pantheist or an animist, yet they are regarded as religions. Where are the animist temples and what battles have been fought in the name of pantheism?

 

[haribol]

Pantheism, animism or any other isms all that is coming under the umbrella of religion has one source- fear and religion is deemed to have originated from man's inadequacy. There are some moral sides too, but they are only sides, not the core.

The core thing in religion is fear and when we do things out of fear it breeds irrational behavior

 

[Storm]

In fact all i want to say is religion is born of fear and uncertainty. Man is mortal and everything he encounters in nature is admonishing, be it a thunderbolt, floods or typhoons. Man sees the wrath of god even in drought or in the torrent that drowns his settlement.

All I want to say is stereotyping rarely paints an accurate picture, and this is not one of the exceptions.

I believe this because I have seen people are getting corrupt in the name of God and religion.

That has nothing to do with religion's foundation, only human nature.

I believe this because tall temples and monasteries are erected to dwarf humanity.

Also irrelevant. Have you noticed that most skyscrapers are for business, not religion?

I believe it because it has deluded people to behave irrationally, stupidly and often violently. I believe it because more battles were fought through religious fanaticism to assassinate the innocent. Religion is anti-scientific.

Fundamentally, factually wrong. Sometimes religious people behave in these ways, but 1) they're not the majority, much less the totality, and 2) it's still people, not religion. Religion is a set of ideas - it has no agency to DO anything at all.

 

[Storm]

Pantheism, animism or any other isms all that is coming under the umbrella of religion has one source- fear and religion is deemed to have originated from man's inadequacy. There are some moral sides too, but they are only sides, not the core.

The core thing in religion is fear and when we do things out of fear it breeds irrational behavior

Repeating the stereotype does nothing to improve its persuasive power, much less its veracity.

 

[sandandfoam]

I believe this because I have seen people are getting corrupt in the name of God and religion. I believe this because tall temples and monasteries are erected to dwarf humanity. I believe it because it has deluded people to behave irrationally, stupidly and often violently. I believe it because more battles were fought through religious fanaticism to assassinate the innocent. Religion is anti-scientific.

The opinions you express above seem on a par with zealous religious views - I believe X because I see X and anyone who doesn't see it as I do must be somehow lacking in critical faculties. Am I mistaken?

How is religion, any more than say literature, anti-scientific?

 

[haribol]

Repeating the stereotype does nothing to improve its persuasive power, much less its veracity.

Man swayed morbidly by religious radicalism becomes blind and does not choose to know truth. Recently a Hindu nationalist died in India who was a great force in igniting the furor of people across the lengths and breaths of India. It is everywhere that religious people want to have a strong political hold. It is divinity they theorize but in practice they use politics.
People are still killing in the name of religion. Religious wars end up in civil wars which are deadlier than territorial wars

 

[sandandfoam]

The core thing in religion is fear and when we do things out of fear it breeds irrational behavior

The core thing in my religion is not fear. Do you believe you knw my religion better than I?

What is irrational? I suggest that what is understood to be rational is a function of culture rather than either reason or reality.

 

[Storm]

Man swayed morbidly by religious radicalism becomes blind and does not choose to know truth. Recently a Hindu nationalist died in India who was a great force in igniting the furor of people across the lengths and breaths of India. It is everywhere that religious people want to have a strong political hold. It is divinity they theorize but in practice they use politics.
People are still killing in the name of religion. Religious wars end up in civil wars which are deadlier than territorial wars

I say again: Repeating the steroetype does nothing to improve your case. You can froth at the mouth all you want, it's not going to make me "realize" that you know my motivations and beliefs better than I do. Do you know why? Because it's a ludicrous, arrogant proposition.

 

[haribol]

I am not critical of your religion or anybody's personal belief. But when it goes ideologically to sweep a society of people I think I have to encounter.

 

[Noaidi]

Pantheism, animism or any other isms all that is coming under the umbrella of religion has one source- fear and religion is deemed to have originated from man's inadequacy. There are some moral sides too, but they are only sides, not the core.

The core thing in religion is fear and when we do things out of fear it breeds irrational behavior

I see religion as having a certain explanatory power and, regardless whether the explanation is factually correct or not, it does give some religious people a sense of understanding and purpose. Fear may play a role for some, but I know of no pantheist who came to their religion through fear. It was more out of a profound feeling of connectedness.

 

[sandandfoam]

But when it goes ideologically to sweep a society of people I think I have to encounter.

Where do you perceive this to be a risk?

 

[haribol]

I say again: Repeating the steroetype does nothing to improve your case. You can froth at the mouth all you want, it's not going to make me "realize" that you know my motivations and beliefs better than I do. Do you know why? Because it's a ludicrous, arrogant proposition.

I am not speaking against your religion and your wrath is unwanted, my friend. I am arguing for its own sake, not to decry any particular religious cult.

Your motivations, your beliefs can proceed robustly and my arguments are not directed at your domains.

 

[Storm]

I am not speaking against your religion and your wrath is unwanted, my friend. I am arguing for its own sake, not to decry any particular religious cult.

Actually, you are. When you say "religion" with no qualifiers, that means all religion. Also, this isn't wrath.

 

[haribol]

Actually, you are. When you say "religion" with no qualifiers, that means all religion. Also, this isn't wrath.

In fact this does not have to bother you. Your concern for this is baselss since i have generalized my argument for religion. This is an open forum and it has no room for any prejudice. You are venting your thought without comprehending the substance of my post. I am also a temple goer and yet when it boils down to politicizing religious thought out of the intention of making it a career or business to earn a living i feel trather critical. My intent is to dispel the idea of institutiona lizing religion. You can prvitely practce any cult but when you take it as a wopen it becomes a destructive force.

 

[mycorrhiza]

Religion is anti-scientific.

Pantheism, animism or any other isms all that is coming under the umbrella of religion has one source- fear and religion is deemed to have originated from man's inadequacy. There are some moral sides too, but they are only sides, not the core.

How is pantheism based on fear, and how is it anti-scientific?

I would say that the reasons for being religious are more complex than you make them out to be. Sure, many probably believe in religions out of fear of death, but there are also many that are religious for other reasons.

 

[Storm]

In fact this does not have to bother you. Your concern for this is baselss since i have generalized my argument for religion. This is an open forum and it has no room for any prejudice. You are venting your thought without comprehending the substance of my post. I am also a temple goer and yet when it boils down to politicizing religious thought out of the intention of making it a career or business to earn a living i feel trather critical. My intent is to dispel the idea of institutiona lizing religion. You can prvitely practce any cult but when you take it as a wopen it becomes a destructive force.

Your "generalization," as you call it, is itself the problem. Mostly because it's a fine line between generalization and stereotype, and you took a swan dive off that cliff. That's on you, not me.

 

[haribol]

Your "generalization," as you call it, is itself the problem. Mostly because it's a fine line between generalization and stereotype, and you took a swan dive off that cliff. That's on you, not me.

In fact there is nothing for you to brawl about. This is a discussion and I am raising some fallacious issues for public opinion. Nothing is written here to hit upon any personal domain and I do not thing there is anything substantially to exasperate you. It is opinion only not anything conclusive.

You can go on following your creed whatever it is and there are piles of books written in support of theism and atheism and they have little to do with your faith and you can take things indifferently. If you want to argue do not hit upon the personal issue.

I want to maintain common decency and if I have transcended any point to me wherein I did and I will withhold it.

I love arguing over religious issues. This is not an ideological argument. It is communication. I am taking advantage of the freedom or the space given by this forum. I have been speedily learning discussing with people here. I feel I have infuriated you, but this is not on purpose. This is by accident I might have hurt your sentiment.

 

[Storm]

In fact there is nothing for you to brawl about. This is a discussion and I am raising some fallacious issues for public opinion. Nothing is written here to hit upon any personal domain and I do not thing there is anything substantially to exasperate you. It is opinion only not anything conclusive.

You can go on following your creed whatever it is and there are piles of books written in support of theism and atheism and they have little to do with your faith and you can take things indifferently. If you want to argue do not hit upon the personal issue.

I want to maintain common decency and if I have transcended any point to me wherein I did and I will withhold it.

I love arguing over religious issues. This is not an ideological argument. It is communication. I am taking advantage of the freedom or the space given by this forum. I have been speedily learning discussing with people here. I feel I have infuriated you, but this is not on purpose. This is by accident I might have hurt your sentiment.

No, you have not "infuriated" me. You've made several gross errors which I have pointed out. If you want to see where, review my previous posts, they spell it out.