Do human need religion?

[ZPanea]

"With or without religion, good men will do good things and bad men will do bad things. But, in order for GOOD men to do bad things, THAT takes religion." One of the most profound quotes I've been fortunate to come across.

I think if you spelled out the reasoning behind the assertion (for good men to do bad things...) you would find it untrue. Good men can and often do do bad things without being religious. Of course, from another angle, if there is no such thing as "good" or "bad" without "religion" (taken in some broad sense including God's existence) then the quote is true, but only because religion makes it possible to call a man good or a thing bad. I just came across this article today and something the author said reminded me of the thread. So I thought I would come back and share: The author is an agnostic and is reflecting on a conversation he had with some other atheists and agnostics. He says,

Religion is not going to go away. It is a natural and legitimate response to the human condition, to human consciousness and to human ignorance. One of the most striking things revealed by the progress of science has been the revelation of how little we know and how easily what we do know can be overthrown. Furthermore, as Hitchens in effect acknowledged and as the neo-atheists demonstrate by their ideological rigidity and savagery, absence of religion does not guarantee that the demonic side of our natures will be eliminated. People should have learned this from the catastrophic failed atheist project of communism, but too many didn't.

[♣╠Ĵäķé╣♣]

Humans don't need religion

what they need is air , water , food and clothing.


religion is just a strong belief , a set of moral values, accepted by the society . Remember We are responsible for this (religion).
those who have contributed in making of it were very much aware of the fact that it gonna be for the betterment of the society.
but few of 'em , made it worse.


Religion is optional.
it is more of a "want" than a "need"

well,

Humans don't belong to religion.

it's other way round.

Because everyone thinks God and religion are so much alike, I'll act like you mean, God instead of religion.
Because we're not talking about buddist or other religions, that make no sense.
But the main debate, the main argument is with the christian belief, which is theist, and the belief of one God, who in which created all things, and by him all things were created and came in to being.
Now that we got that out of the way...
Do humans need God?
Depends on what you mean by that, do we need God to explain things in science? Yes we do.
Do we need God for moral values, Yes we do.
Without God, there really is no meaning for life. I'll repeat what William Lane craig said, in an interview

Without God, there is no objective meaning for life, there may be a subjective meaning for life but there is no "objective" meaning for life
By "subjective" he means, the meaning in which a humans makes for him or herself such as, "My goal in life is to bat 400 in the major leagues and hit 40 home runs every year."
and that would be his subjective meaning in life, but there may not be an objective meaning for his life.
Without God, there is no objective meaning for life which means that humans are accidentalBy-Products who are doomed to perish. The universe will eventually perish as all the stars burn out, and all the energy is used up, and than the universe will just be a cold,dark, lifeless place of expanding particles.
So without God, we're literally nothing, and all we have is a subjective meaning, so all these purposes and meanings we make up for life are subjective illusions, there not really objective meanings.
William Lane Craig
" It's like shuffling a deck of cards on the titanic, which is meaningless activity in which we can engage in, but we're all going down at the end"

[~Tyson~]

Do humans need God?
Depends on what you mean by that, do we need God to explain things in science? Yes we do.
Do we need God for moral values, Yes we do.
Without God, there really is no meaning for life.

Allowing God to be part of science is almost the equivalent of dividing one by zero - it can't be done.

The meaning of life is the same for all living things (and questionable 'living' things), to make more copies of itself. That is the fundamental core princple for all life on earth from bacteria to fungi, from plants to animals and so on.

The concept of god is a personal aspect of the human mind and is subject to individual's personal views, and often not based on what nature tells us.

[♣╠Ĵäķé╣♣]

Allowing God to be part of science is almost the equivalent of dividing one by zero - it can't be done.

The meaning of life is the same for all living things (and questionable 'living' things), to make more copies of itself. That is the fundamental core princple for all life on earth from bacteria to fungi, from plants to animals and so on.

The concept of god is a personal aspect of the human mind and is subject to individual's personal views, and often not based on what nature tells us.

God being a apart of science is a terrible example of dividing one by zero. That's irrelevant to the clear evidence around us,
When I say there is a God, I mean there has to be a creator for a creation.
I don't mean religion, and what to do, or how to dress. I mean there has to be a creator for this universe, our DNA, our brains, etc..
Science cannot simply be, without a beginning, the problem with you, is that you're looking at this from a view of inside science, instead of looking outside of it, and seeing where it begins and where it ends.
Evolution is a part of science, and that alone proves there must be a creator, although there must be a creator for many other things, evolution is one of them.
The "odds" of evolution occurring by chance are so infinitely small that it is a miracle in itself that such things are still taught as if they were a "fact" of science.

Evolutionist Harold Morowitz estimated the probability for chance formation of even the simplest form of living organism at 1/10340,000,000. "By comparison only (10 to the 20th) grains of sand could fit within a cubic mile and 10 billion times more (10 to the 30th) would fit inside the entire earth. So, the probability of forming a simple cell by chance processes is infinitely less likely than having a blind person select one specifically marked grain of sand out of an entire earth filled with sand."

"There is nowhere near enough time nor matter in the entire universe for even the simplest cell to have formed by chance combinations. Even if all the correct chemicals somehow came together in the correct place, you still wouldn't have life. This is exactly the situation every time a living organism dies. Immediately after death, all the right chemicals exist, in the right proportions, and in the right place -- yet the creature is still dead! Five billion years is nowhere near long enough for evolution to have taken place. In reality, all of eternity would not provide enough time for random processes to form the enormous complexity of life."

[ZPanea]

Allowing God to be part of science is almost the equivalent of dividing one by zero - it can't be done.

Why? Some have made the argument that the Christian belief in God is what sparked “the scientific revolution.” Regardless of whether that historical claim is right, there can be no doubt that a theistic worldview like the Christian one which sees God as a rational agent ordering and sustaining the creation rationally provides a ground for science. As the atheist Anthony Gottlieb admits:

"If, like Aristotle, you believe in something like Plato's purpose-filled account of nature, you have a philosophical incentive to dissect things in order to find evidence for such an account in their intricate functioning. But if, like Lucretius, you are mainly concerned to refute superstitious and theological ideas, there is not much point in going out of your way to lift up stones when all you are going to find underneath them is a teeming mass of inexplicably sophisticated phenomena…. The same was true to some extent in later, Christian times, when empirical investigations could be glossed as uncovering and thereby glorifying the works of Providence." (The Dream of Reason. 217.)

Indeed, I would say it’s the atheist worldview, which cannot ground objective meaning or purpose, that undermines a realist science. This isn’t too damaging though, unless you really really want a realist account of science. I myself lean towards an instrumentalist view of science, which atheism can do just fine.

The meaning of life is the same for all living things (and questionable 'living' things), to make more copies of itself. That is the fundamental core princple for all life on earth from bacteria to fungi, from plants to animals and so on.

How is that a “meaning” of life? All you can say is that this is what most organisms do and organisms that do it well have more copies of themselves. But where do you get that this is their *meaning* from the simple fact that most organisms do it? Organisms do a lot of things. Why not pick any of the other things they do and assign that as the meaning?

Of course, the idea that atheism cannot ground meaning, purpose, or morality is usually objectionable to New Atheists, or laymen who are only familiar with the popular maxims of New Atheism, but this is a peculiarity of some New Atheist types and has never been news to classical atheists. So, for instance, atheists like Joel Marks and Michael Ruse freely throw morality out the window (Ruse labeling it “flim flam”). But I think the atheist philosopher of science Alex Rosenberg sums it up best in this little quote:

“…morality as a source of meaning, value, or purpose, people have looked to consciousness, introspection, self-knowledge as a source of insight into what makes us more than the merely physical facts about us. Scientism must reject all of these straws that people have grasped, and it’s not hard to show why. Science has to be nihilistic about ethics and morality. There is no room in a world where all the facts are fixed by physical facts for a set of free floating independently existing norms or values (or facts about them) that humans are uniquely equipped to discern and act upon....Just because there is strong selection for a moral norm is no reason to think it right. Think of the adaptational benefits of racist, xenophobic or patriarchal norms. You can’t justify morality by showing its Darwinian pedigree... The process of natural selection is not in general good at filtering for true beliefs, only for ones hitherto convenient for our lines of descent... we can’t invest our moral core with more meaning than this: it was a convenience, not for us as individuals, but for our genes. There is no meaning to be found in that conclusion.”

The problem with the new breed of atheists is that they have thus far failed to come to grips with their atheism. Perhaps they could learn from their atheist forebears... maybe start with a little Nietzsche.

[FRazier]

Because everyone thinks God and religion are so much alike, I'll act like you mean, God instead of religion.
Because we're not talking about buddist or other religions, that make no sense.
But the main debate, the main argument is with the christian belief, which is theist, and the belief of one God, who in which created all things, and by him all things were created and came in to being.
Now that we got that out of the way...
Do humans need God?
Depends on what you mean by that, do we need God to explain things in science? Yes we do.
Do we need God for moral values, Yes we do.
Without God, there really is no meaning for life. I'll repeat what William Lane craig said, in an interview

Without God, there is no objective meaning for life, there may be a subjective meaning for life but there is no "objective" meaning for life
By "subjective" he means, the meaning in which a humans makes for him or herself such as, "My goal in life is to bat 400 in the major leagues and hit 40 home runs every year."
and that would be his subjective meaning in life, but there may not be an objective meaning for his life.
Without God, there is no objective meaning for life which means that humans are accidentalBy-Products who are doomed to perish. The universe will eventually perish as all the stars burn out, and all the energy is used up, and than the universe will just be a cold,dark, lifeless place of expanding particles.
So without God, we're literally nothing, and all we have is a subjective meaning, so all these purposes and meanings we make up for life are subjective illusions, there not really objective meanings.
William Lane Craig
" It's like shuffling a deck of cards on the titanic, which is meaningless activity in which we can engage in, but we're all going down at the end"

Religion and Science both are interrelated to each other.
Here you're saying "Without god there is no meaning for life"
So lemme tell you , you're wrong here.

God never gives the meaning of life , we humans are responsible for our own failure , our own success.
When you fail in an exam , god never takes the responsibility and says the you're failed cuz you've not worshipped me.

well
GOD is just a belief and so is religion.
Religion is based upon the set of rules for the betterment of society.

GOD in simple is NATURE.

GOD and RELIGION both are two different things , though interrelated to each other they are misunderstood very often.

ONE is any supernatural BEING worshipped as a controlling some part of the world and another is a strong BELIEF in a supernatural powers that controls humans destiny.

[♣╠Ĵäķé╣♣]

Religion and Science both are interrelated to each other.
Here you're saying "Without god there is no meaning for life"
So lemme tell you , you're wrong here.

God never gives the meaning of life , we humans are responsible for our own failure , our own success.
When you fail in an exam , god never takes the responsibility and says the you're failed cuz you've not worshipped me.

well
GOD is just a belief and so is religion.
Religion is based upon the set of rules for the betterment of society.

GOD in simple is NATURE.

GOD and RELIGION both are two different things , though interrelated to each other they are misunderstood very often.

ONE is any supernatural BEING worshipped as a controlling some part of the world and another is a strong BELIEF in a supernatural powers that controls humans destiny.

Okay, you must have not understood the objective and subjective words I threw in.
For a person to fail or succeed is not an objective meaning, it's a subjective meaning, because it's what you think and what you do to carry out that thought.
Objective would be a God given meaning, You can create your own subjective meaning, but just because you have a subjective meaning for life does not mean you have a objective meaning, what I mean by this is that, there is no reason for you to breathe breath, you shouldn't even be here, you're an accident that is doomed to perish, so you have to create subjective illusions, such as passing a test or graduating and working a job, to bring meaning to your life, because you don't have a reason to live, besides what you try and make it.
So if God is real, the objective would be that you were created for his purpose and to follow his ways and so on.
But obviously we have free-will so that's where our *Subjective Meaning for life* Comes in, because we create our own life without him, but if you do not believe in him, that's all you can do is make a life, and die in it. and one day all humans will suffer one fate, which is death, there is no spirit world, there is nothing, but death in front of us all. One day the universe would no longer be stable for us.
So without God, death awaits us all, so there is no *real* meaning for us* only to die.

[~Tyson~]

God being a apart of science is a terrible example of dividing one by zero. That's irrelevant to the clear evidence around us,
When I say there is a God, I mean there has to be a creator for a creation.
I don't mean religion, and what to do, or how to dress. I mean there has to be a creator for this universe, our DNA, our brains, etc..

Science cannot simply be, without a beginning, the problem with you, is that you're looking at this from a view of inside science, instead of looking outside of it, and seeing where it begins and where it ends.
Evolution is a part of science, and that alone proves there must be a creator, although there must be a creator for many other things, evolution is one of them.
The "odds" of evolution occurring by chance are so infinitely small that it is a miracle in itself that such things are still taught as if they were a "fact" of science.

Are you referring to the 'creator' as the 'big bang'?

Science does not have a beginning nor an end, and that is proven. The end of one event is the begining of another - that is really how universe (chemistry) works (especially the 1st and 2nd law of thermodynamic - possibly the 3rd law as well). You have 15 billion years worth of chemical binding, bonding and bombarding each other...the result of that is what you see around you.

Regarding evolution...it happens all the time. The concept of evolution are not confined strictly to biological organisms, the fundamental concept it can also be apply to non-living organisms as well.

It would be highly unusual' (if not impossible) for evolution not occur. For that to happen, we would need a higher power to stop all laws of nature.

The point being, humans don't 'need' religion. They 'want' it, but they don't 'need' it.

[♣╠Ĵäķé╣♣]

Are you referring to the 'creator' as the 'big bang'?

Science does not have a beginning nor an end, and that is proven. The end of one event is the begining of another - that is really how universe (chemistry) works (especially the 1st and 2nd law of thermodynamic - possibly the 3rd law as well). You have 15 billion years worth of chemical binding, bonding and bombarding each other...the result of that is what you see around you.

Regarding evolution...it happens all the time. The concept of evolution are not confined strictly to biological organisms, the fundamental concept it can also be apply to non-living organisms as well.

It would be highly unusual' (if not impossible) for evolution not occur. For that to happen, we would need a higher power to stop evolution.

The point being, humans don't 'need' religion. They 'want' it, but they don't 'need' it.

Science may not ever have an end, which is somewhat true, so I admit my wrong for saying end.
But there is and has been a beginning for everything.
You cannot say there was science before the creation of the universe, that is not logical, because there was nothing before the universe.
And you cannot say the universe always existed, because that theory died years ago, before you were born.
The universe is running down, and something that is running down must have started at some point. The second law of thermodynamics states that the universe is running out of usable energy and if you doubt this, look in the mirror (you’re aging and running down just like everything else.
And the universe is expanding. This was confirmed through the Hubble telescope many years ago.
So, just like the universe being created, so was science, which is knowledge or study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural.

[Ố_ỏ TǿsspǿT ỏ_Ố]

Nothing is something








I don't do woo woos

I want an iron!