• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The "What should replace religion?" question

Humes fork

Banned
Joined
Jul 9, 2011
Messages
3,358
A common critique levelled against the "new atheists" is that they don't put forth a replacement for religion. For some reason this critique appears to be more common among atheist critics than religious critics.

Dawkins briefly deals with it in The God Delusion. How would you answer that question? If it is a bad question, then how would you explain it?
 
Responsability, accountability, respect for life, the knowledge that each of us is unique, frail, precious and will live just for a very brief time.

Oh, and sex too. Especially sex, lots of it. Beats most religious rites.
 
Replace it for what purposes?

Cosmology: Science
Origin Stories: Science
Morality: Humanism - "Be excellent to one another"
Emotional support: Family and friends
Social Cohesion: Any group affiliation, even internet message boards ;)
Reason to oppress or kill someone else because they are different: Nationalism, Racism, politics
Pretending that there is life after death: Sorry, you're on your own if self delusion is your thing

I'm not sure what other functions religion serves.
 
Replace it for what purposes?

Cosmology: Science
Origin Stories: Science
Morality: Humanism - "Be excellent to one another"
Emotional support: Family and friends
Social Cohesion: Any group affiliation, even internet message boards ;)
Reason to oppress or kill someone else because they are different: Nationalism, Racism, politics
Pretending that there is life after death: Sorry, you're on your own if self delusion is your thing

I'm not sure what other functions religion serves.


that pretty much sums it up for me.
the only thing I miss from church is the community part, but that can be easily replaced.
 
Agreed.

Religion basicaly says that one should act a certain way because a particular deity wants you to and will punish you if you don't.

The ethical standpoint of morality basicaly says that one should avoid causing suffering to others. There are several reasons for this, one is remorse, causing the suffering of others can lead you to experience uncomfortable emotional responses. Another is that of revenge/reciprocation, if you cause another to suffer, he/she, or others, may in turn wish to cause you to suffer.

Interestingly, one thing that is almost universal in religion is the 'Golden Rule', which is based upon reciprocation and in it's basic form states that you should treat others as you wish to be treated yourself.

Ancient Egyptian religion.
"Now this is the command: Do to the doer to cause that he do thus to you." (From the story of 'The Eloquent Peasant', estimated time of writing 2040–1650 BC)

Hinduism
"Let no man do to another that which would be repugnant to himself." (Mahabharata, bk. 5, ch. 49, v. 57. estimated writing 1400 BC)

Judaism
"Love your neighbor as yourself" (Torah, Leviticus 19:18. estimated writing 1240 BC)

Confucianism
"Do not impose on others what you do not desire others to impose upon you." (Analects XV.24. estimated writing 500 BC)

Buddhism
"Putting oneself in the place of another, one should not kill nor cause another to kill." (Dhammapada 10. estimated writing 480 BC)

Christianity
"Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them" (Matthew 7:12. estimated writing 30 AD)

Islam
"That which you want for yourself, seek for mankind." (Sukhanan-i-Muhammad, 63. estimated writing 630 AD)

Bahá'í Faith
"And if thine eyes be turned towards justice, choose thou for thy neighbour that which thou choosest for thyself." (The Hidden Words of Bahá'u'lláh – Part II, 19th century)

The Golden Rule is one thing that religion got right. It's a formula for universal peace that's elegant in it's simplicity, if everyone followed it, there would be no crime, no abuse and no wars, but one doesn't need religion in order to learn this very simple lesson. Many ancient philosophers came to exactly the same conclusion without turning to religion.

"Do not do to your neighbor what you would take ill from him." – Pittacus
"Avoid doing what you would blame others for doing." – Thales
"What you do not want to happen to you, do not do it yourself either. " – Sextus the Pythagorean
"Do not do to others what would anger you if done to you by others." – Isocrates
"Expect from others what you did to them" - Seneca.
 
Last edited:
I don't want people going around "replacing" religion with what they think is best.
 
Further to my earlier post, unfortunately, the Golden Rule also has a dark side too. The 'Eye for an Eye' principle is based upon it, (essentialy it's treating others with the same bad intent that they have treated you with) and as Mahatma Gandhi once said, "An eye for an eye leaves everybody blind."

I don't want people going around "replacing" religion with what they think is best.
Don't worry, I seriously doubt anyone here actualy has that power.
 
Last edited:
Except for Wicca's Great Rite.
That's one of the reasons I wrote "beats most"... Seems some goddesses of the past had some very... interesting rites.

Seriously now. If people had more sex, instead of babbling against it, the world would be a better place. Feeling sad? Sex helps. Feeling lonely? Sex helps.

Popes, priests, pastors. They should have more sex. And this includes gay sex too. Yes, I know, they just pretend not to have it. But they should admit they have it and like it.
 
Replace it for what purposes?

Cosmology: Science
Origin Stories: Science
Morality: Humanism - "Be excellent to one another"
Emotional support: Family and friends
Social Cohesion: Any group affiliation, even internet message boards ;)
Reason to oppress or kill someone else because they are different: Nationalism, Racism, politics
Pretending that there is life after death: Sorry, you're on your own if self delusion is your thing

I'm not sure what other functions religion serves.


Catharsis (as in religious ecstasy): in a social context, raves (ecstasy! :D).

In a psychological context: low-dose psychedelic therapy.
 
Hmmmmm.....
Healthy cells?
Due to a cure created by science?

Return to the pre-cancerous state? Nah, according to people who say that society needs cancer or something like it I should just get a different kind of cancer. They can't seem to see that "no cancer" is an option. I suppose that if you're used to cancer then not having it would be a major life-change. This worries them, change is scary after all. So they chose to remain sick.

And that's fine, but when they insist that others should get sick to share the experience we have a problem.
 
Everything positive in religion has already been replaced with equivilent concepts without religions problems or baggage.

Secular, even totally rational concepts of rationality exist which are in most cases are far superior to religious morality. Secular charities, hospitals, and so forth exist.

If people insist I guess we can all wake up early on Sunday, get in our best clothes, go to a special building in town, and be bored out of our minds with a dull speech without believing in absurdities.
 

Back
Top Bottom