Religion is OCD

[lambsy_uk]

Isn't religion just another manifestation of OCD?!

Repetition and rituals gone through to make one feel they have a handle on things!

These people need help!

[**caution**opinion_ahead]

I'd say the main difference between OCD tendencies and religious rituals is that the former generally cause stress (even though the actions originate to relieve it) and the latter give comfort (unless taken to extremes).

Religion has developed through individuals keen on holding power over others playing on the human fear of death.  Those who can accept that one day their neurons will stop firing and they will cease to exist have no need of religion.  

[jd.linklater]

I wouldn't say that religion is the same as OCD even though certain denominations have lots of ritualistic activities attached to them. I regard myself as a secular humanist ie I think human beings are capable of leading moral lives without any divine inspiration or intervention, but I realise that religion gives a lot of people comfort and wouldn't dream of denigrating or denying them whatever their form of worship may be......whatever gets you through the night so to speak.

My view of life and death is that everthing on the Earth came from the Earth and will eventually be returned to the Earth. It is a closed system, nothing can be added nor taken away from the whole. When we die, the individual atoms that make us will eventually break down and at some future time become part of something else. It's a natural recycling process, that is the way the Earth works and always has done. I know it's not exactly reincarnation but I'll die with a certain amount of comfort knowing that the atoms that are me right now will later become part of another entity, whether it be a tree, a butterfly or maybe another human.

 

[Anonymous]

[mini_ok]

Religion should be banned, look at the mess this planet is in due to religion, there are no Gods, we live, we die, end of.

[tommy.irene]

---

@mini_ok wrote:

Religion should be banned, look at the mess this planet is in due to religion, there are no Gods, we live, we die, end of.

---

..i agree .. no religion no wars.. My God is better than your God ..lets fight and prove it.. What you dont believe in God..stone him to death for not believing..

[**caution**opinion_ahead]

There would still be war ... because war is about resources.   Abolishing religion would just change the overt pretext on which the war was started.

Indeed, the demise of religion could lead to more conflict than we currenly experience.  If this life is all there is, you might as well go all out to get the best for yourself and your descendents.  Removing the promise of "wealth" to come after death makes the stakes higher now for those currently content to languish near the bottom of the heap (in terms of living conditions, access to food, etc), surely?  

Humans cannot ever live in peace because we are programmed to compete for survival.  That's a given that cannot be changed.  Those who live in a utopia of plenty get bored very quickly.  We need to strive and we need novelty.  This leads to good (the invention of antibiotics, say) and bad (wielding oppresive power over others).  

[upthecreekyetagain]

Religion isn't the cause of wars - simply a weapon of war.  As Caution says, there would still be war without religion.

[tommy.irene]

I think if we took Religion out off Northern Ireland things would be better..

[upthecreekyetagain]

Perfectly true Tommy - 'disinvent' guns or explosives or any other weapon used and things would also be better.

[tommy.irene]

---

@upthecreekyetagain wrote:

Perfectly true Tommy - 'disinvent' guns or explosives or any other weapon used and things would also be better.

---

Dont blame the guns..its the people that use them that are at fault..

[upthecreekyetagain]

Not blaming the guns Tommy, they're just a weapon being used in the wrong way - likewise don't blame religion that is being used in the wrong way.

[lambsy_uk]

---

@**caution**opinion_ahead wrote:

There would still be war ... because war is about resources.   Abolishing religion would just change the overt pretext on which the war was started.

Indeed, the demise of religion could lead to more conflict than we currenly experience.  If this life is all there is, you might as well go all out to get the best for yourself and your descendents.  Removing the promise of "wealth" to come after death makes the stakes higher now for those currently content to languish near the bottom of the heap (in terms of living conditions, access to food, etc), surely?  

Humans cannot ever live in peace because we are programmed to compete for survival.  That's a given that cannot be changed.  Those who live in a utopia of plenty get bored very quickly.  We need to strive and we need novelty.  This leads to good (the invention of antibiotics, say) and bad (wielding oppresive power over others).  

---

This suggests that religion could be the only thing stopping many from riding rough-shod over others! This would suggest that religious people are not very nice people, only remaining righteous because of promises of future gain!

I know plenty on non religious people who do not feel the need to grab all they can at the expense of others, myself for one!

[lambsy_uk]

---

@upthecreekyetagain wrote:

Not blaming the guns Tommy, they're just a weapon being used in the wrong way - likewise don't blame religion that is being used in the wrong way.

---

Is there a right way to use religion, apart from OCD appeasement?

[upthecreekyetagain]

---

@lambsy_uk wrote:

---

@upthecreekyetagain wrote:

Not blaming the guns Tommy, they're just a weapon being used in the wrong way - likewise don't blame religion that is being used in the wrong way.

---

Is there a right way to use religion, apart from OCD appeasement?

---

Sure there is a 'right way' - most of the 'moral rules' of society have been reinforced by religious 'laws'.

Man's ability to survive and prosper depends upon group cooperation and religion has been an effective tool in binding societies to a common purpose.  All the successful civilisations have had one religion or another at the core of their civic governance.

[**caution**opinion_ahead]

---

@lambsy_uk wrote:

---

This suggests that religion could be the only thing stopping many from riding rough-shod over others! This would suggest that religious people are not very nice people, only remaining righteous because of promises of future gain!

I know plenty on non religious people who do not feel the need to grab all they can at the expense of others, myself for one!

---

Well, religion encourages (requires even) a fairly low level of moral development.  If you need fear of retribution by a god to keep you on the straight and narrow, you are stuck in a childlike state.

Atheists develop their own checks and balances rather than depend on supernatural belief.  (Some fail, obviously, just as some religious people don't find the fear of a god enough to suppress selfish behaviour.)

Now, say there was suddenly no religion throughout the world.  That would "free" a massive number of people from the constraints they currently operate under.  Would they all, therefore, ride roughshod over others?  No.  But a proportion might be a whole lot less content with their present resources, having lost the promise of an afterlife to even things out and compensate them for earthly suffering or lack.

Humans need group networks.  Religion provides a unifying force for individuals across the world.  Remove it and you would get other groupings - tribal, ethnic, whatever.  You would still get conflict between the groups as resources (wealth, land, status, power) are always limited.

[lambsy_uk]

---

@upthecreekyetagain wrote:

---

@lambsy_uk wrote:

---

@upthecreekyetagain wrote:

Not blaming the guns Tommy, they're just a weapon being used in the wrong way - likewise don't blame religion that is being used in the wrong way.

---

Is there a right way to use religion, apart from OCD appeasement?

---

Sure there is a 'right way' - most of the 'moral rules' of society have been reinforced by religious 'laws'.

Man's ability to survive and prosper depends upon group cooperation and religion has been an effective tool in binding societies to a common purpose.  All the successful civilisations have had one religion or another at the core of their civic governance.

---

I don't believe one needs religion in order to to uphold moral values, I certainly don't!

[lambsy_uk]

---

@**caution**opinion_ahead wrote:

---

@lambsy_uk wrote:

---

This suggests that religion could be the only thing stopping many from riding rough-shod over others! This would suggest that religious people are not very nice people, only remaining righteous because of promises of future gain!

I know plenty on non religious people who do not feel the need to grab all they can at the expense of others, myself for one!

---

Well, religion encourages (requires even) a fairly low level of moral development.  If you need fear of retribution by a god to keep you on the straight and narrow, you are stuck in a childlike state.

Atheists develop their own checks and balances rather than depend on supernatural belief.  (Some fail, obviously, just as some religious people don't find the fear of a god enough to suppress selfish behaviour.)

Now, say there was suddenly no religion throughout the world.  That would "free" a massive number of people from the constraints they currently operate under.  Would they all, therefore, ride roughshod over others?  No.  But a proportion might be a whole lot less content with their present resources, having lost the promise of an afterlife to even things out and compensate them for earthly suffering or lack.

Humans need group networks.  Religion provides a unifying force for individuals across the world.  Remove it and you would get other groupings - tribal, ethnic, whatever.  You would still get conflict between the groups as resources (wealth, land, status, power) are always limited.

---

Beer drinkers would be a better grouping in my opinion!

[upthecreekyetagain]

---

@lambsy_uk wrote:

---

@upthecreekyetagain wrote:

---

@lambsy_uk wrote:

---

@upthecreekyetagain wrote:

Not blaming the guns Tommy, they're just a weapon being used in the wrong way - likewise don't blame religion that is being used in the wrong way.

---

Is there a right way to use religion, apart from OCD appeasement?

---

Sure there is a 'right way' - most of the 'moral rules' of society have been reinforced by religious 'laws'.

Man's ability to survive and prosper depends upon group cooperation and religion has been an effective tool in binding societies to a common purpose.  All the successful civilisations have had one religion or another at the core of their civic governance.

---

I don't believe one needs religion in order to to uphold moral values, I certainly don't!

---

Nor do I - but I never claimed it was necessary to uphold moral values - all I stated was that historically most of the 'moral rules' of society have been reinforced by religious 'laws'.

Likewise it's an historical 'fact' that most of the great civilisations have used religion to bind their population to a common purpose.

The two exceptions I can think of to this are the USSR and Communist China - both of which used a secular system of government depending on civil punisments, ('oppression'), to maintain order rather than depend on a 'spiritual' level of morality.  Neither have been particularly successful nor desirable.  I'm sure there are other examples but off the top of my head I can't think of any others that didn't use religion in one form or another during their establishment.

[**caution**opinion_ahead]

The Romans were pretty well established BC.  Mind, they did have gods, if not a unified religion as such.

Did the early Chinese have religion?  I'm not sure.

I think the difference between past great civilisations and today is gods were specific to a region or race of people as there was much less travel.  So, the ancient people of Australia were not aware of, far less bothered by the contradiction of, gods worshipped by, say, the ancient Greeks.  Where civilisations did extend their influence, eg the Romans coming to Britain, they didn't impose their gods on the locals.  It is only in recent (comparatively) history that people believing in one religion have tried to impose this on others.  The reason for this has more to do with increased population making the fight for resources greater than with any spiritual end.