Many religions actually started off as a cult/sect type of organization. It only evolves into the so called Religion when there are enough people who practices it. Many times in the past this was easily done by force, obligation to one's family, clan.. etc.. When you got enough people who believes in it, then you are able to gain power over them and punish those the stray from the beliefs.

Religion has been used as a successful form of psychological control over the uneducated masses. Examples of which can be seen in the ancient Hindu religions; with the concept of "predestination," people just accept their so called fates. They were led to believe that if they lived their lives according to their belief systems (which often meant being loyal to those mistreating you and do not fight against the system, Stay in your social class until you die) then when they do die, they will have a better chance of being reborn into a higher class in society.

Any input; whether it be for or against this post will be greatly welcomed.

Uselessknowledge

I love your username.

Welcome to Mingle kindred spirit.

Yep religions are cults. I am thinking that are on the way out.

heh.. thanks..
Staying true to my username.
Useless Knowledge #1: With increasing access to proven and accurate information presented by our ever expanding virtual world; people are now able to have access to these unfiltered information. With this, many people are now starting to be able to think for themselves, rather than being told what to think. Because of this, the actual number of people who are questioning if there is actually a god is increasing within countries who are religiously somewhat tolerant and have access to the internet.

Yeap... if you want people to convert; you're going to have to build your own "Great Golden Gate," to control freedom of information. Or you can always go "Old School" (on us non-believers, heathens, or spawn of satan" as one of my elemtary teachers called me after I suggested that she shoved her believes down her beep beep) and go with the basics of Torture, Kill, or imprison those that don't believe.

and many people, who already think for themself, choose religion

choices made in ignorance are dangerous, and ignorance is used to control

but in lieu of ignorance, many things become just plain outright personal choice,,,

Seems to me that most people today that have faith are choosing that.

It is actually rebellious today to have faith.

The revolution is over. Why does religion need to die for those that don't have faith to feel good about themselves???

lol, seems like the question we are asked too

why do we need religion to feel good about ourself?

,,,when its not the point for us at all


but see how similar we are? as humans of every type of belief?

could be that were religion to die, fewer people would die "in the name of god" and then excused as "god's will."

It's only rebellious to have a faith that is not ruled by the majority. In the US, there is no way in hell that you will ever find a Atheist, or Devil Worshiper getting voted into the presidential seat without having to lie about it. Religious choices may come down to personal choices, but with that choice, the person will have to accept the consequences depending on their social standings. For religion to die, the world may or may not become a more peaceful place; we might even already have our own personal flying cars if it wasn't for the Dark ages which was brought on by religious fanatics.

For those that believe that without religion, our morals will not exist, you are completely misguided. Throughout history, lands, and religious beliefs, the thing that we all believe is wrong are similar; cheating, killing, lying are bad. You can look at it as more of a survival of the species deal; no way in hell we would go around kill everyone just for the heck of it if there is no existence religion.

I might make the case, we have LESS morals from the religious sect than we do from the non. Reason being.....the religious are given an excuse basically to cast out those who aren't like them in the name of their beliefs, such as homosexuals.

likewise would people STOP killing if there is no religion

there are alot of 'mights' that can be assumed, but they are mere assumptions and not really proof of anything substantiating a need for religion or a need for no religion, no proof that either situation would produce any 'better' of a world

point being, we are nearly seven billion people on this planet, and any society you go to there will be a MAJORITY,, thats simple math, simple reality

but not in EVERY majority will the same guidelines, values, culture exist

so we have options of which COMMMUNITY, which SOCIETY, which CITY, which AREA we wish to live, amongst which people we share the most common values and culture

there is no monotheistic, monohomogenous world thats going to come without religion anymore than has come with it,,,

what are morals? who can prove where the INITIATE from? do they come merely from a religious belief or do they come from a conscious which may or may not already COINCIDE with the teachings of a religion?

religion doesnt create or diminish morals, anymore than 'laws' create the criminals who choose to commit them

religion is one more tenet, one more philosophy, which guides how each individual 'defines' morals, just like laws 'define' a crime

but those actual ACTIVITIES we call crimes, would not cease to happen if we suddenly made them legal,,,,and immoral action wouldnt cease to happen if we stopped calling it immoral, or a sin, or wrong, or if we stopped having religion

humans will do what humans will do, and that isnt the fault of religion or even something that came about through religion

In either case, they are rather faulty, because it often creates needless regulations that need not be there, except in the minds of those opposed. Just because they oppose it though, doesn't mean they have the right to push that on everyone else.

as with anything else,,,including opposition to religion,,

the case is , religion is not PERFECT, so yeah, often the 'religious' will be flawed in their thinking and often they will not

and what is 'needless' will usually be a rather subjective discussion,,,

Perhaps, but to me it's pretty simple. If you don't like it, don't do it, no one is forcing you. I don't think anyone has a right to tell someone else they can't do something just because they don't like it. If it's actually effecting them, that's different, but if it's not, leave them alone. Pretty simple concept.

simple in theory, not in practice

because of the whole defining 'effect' thing
and the idea that in my home, I have a right to live comfortably, including the right to define the rules based upon what I 'like' or dislike and I view a community as a larger type of 'home' where the majority should set such rules, (unless the bigger HOME of the city, state,,etc,, says otherwise)

and provided the reaction to 'insubordination' is not violence

There's a difference though, you own your home, and have every right to dictate what goes on there. However you don't own the city, nor does the majority even own the city, it is in effect owned by all who inhabit it. As such, each person should have the right to live in it as they want, provided they aren't impacting others in so doing.

and we come back to the defining 'impact' issue,,,

Ok well if you got an issue with someone, take it up with THEM, and work something out with them, don't just go banning for all because of what a few do.

The "majority rule' allowed slavery but that doesn't make it moral or right.

Msharmony, how would you feel if Lucifer/Satan was the God this country worshiped openly? What if the majority rule passed a law that public prayer to Lucifer was allowed?

"In the name of the all mighty Lucifer the Light bearer, our liberator, we pray..."

How would you like to have to constantly be subjected to that? How would you feel about separation of Church and state THEN????

the majority rule also eliminated slavery, which is to say it has little to do with 'right' or 'wrong' which are subjective standards at best,,,but more to do with the standards of 'right' or 'wrong' that each community agrees upon for THEIR environment

I would feel no differently than I do now about freedom of speech, if people prayed to Lucifer openly, Id feel its their perogative truly

a prayer is one of the LEAST offensive things to me, regardless of who it is to

I am offended by disrespectful vulgarity, and I am finding more and more that people are indeed using their FREE speech to be more and more disrespectfully vulgar, its a compromise I have to deal with for my FREEDOM to likewise speak as I choose