"Religion is not a matter of God, church, holy cause, etc. These are but accessories. The source of religious preoccupation is in the self, or rather the rejection of the self. Dedication in the obverse side of self-rejection. Man alone is a religious animal because, as Montaigne points out, it is a malady confined to man, and not seen in any other creature, to hate and despise ourselves." - Eric Hoffer

Example:

Little girl: “Mother, why does grandma eat that wafer and drink that wine the priest gives her.”

Mother: “She believes that it becomes the body and blood of Jesus inside her after she eats it.” (Transubstantiation)

Little girl: “Gross! That’s sick! You mean that if a doctor cut her stomach open they would find parts of Jesus’ body, like his penis or his hemorrhoids.”

Mother: “Well uh, not exactly, but that is what she believes.”

Little girl: “That’s embarrassing and ignorant, why would she reject herself and disregard her own intelligence. She’s a physicist, why would she reject her education, her intelligence, her common sense, and herself in such a way.”

Mother: “She is trying to save herself.”

Little girl: “From what?!?”

Mother: “Death, …hell, …whatever bad things she believes, …or whatever machinations that her religion pushes. When people refuse to reject lies they will reject themselves in order to embrace them.”

Little girl: “Do you mean that I must condone and validate her ignorance and delusions. That lying is okay in this ridiculous situation. That because she believes the Bible, I must also condone the things it teaches like slavery, murder, and thievery. That would also disparage and disrespect my teachers and education in general. It also disparages truth and reality, why should I follow any rules when I can make up my own reality. By not confronting her I inadvertently validate her beliefs, suggesting that her beliefs are viable. I can see why her religion would not want that!

Mother: “Oh, and by the way, she has been elected as the Head of the School Board at your school so her policies will affect you for a long, long, time.”

Little girl: Oh SHIT!

@nogod4me what a lovely little girl.

@Lorajay I find the grandmother disturbing and somewhat disgusting.

WHAT !?!?!? Are you saying convulating everything and the whole wide world is hard work?

@twill Ummm, no, not at all.

Did you notice how believers try to define you, try put you in a box to disregard you. Believing lies and living in fantasy doesn't make life better, it makes you a target for con men, charlatans, and swindlers like Trump. That is why religion is pushed.

@Matias Just because you "LIVE" in delusion and fantasy doesn't mean others do. I live in physical reality just a you do, if you find it necessary to delude yourself with fantasies in order to cope with reality that doesn't make you better or wise, it just makes you delusional. Religion is dangerous, that is a proven fact.

@Matias Just 'cause I said so

@Matias Just read history and open your eyes and stop being willfully ignorant.

@nogod4me Zinn taught us that known history is not what happened so we can't trust history. Opening our eyes only tells us what we're allowed to see by light spectrum or selectively applying it. I think almost everyone in America is riding a very big ego trip about what is reality. I hope so, anyway, because this reality isn't going to survive.

@rainmanjr You are being willfully ignorant, at least I hope you are.

On this site alone there have been thousands of examples of how dangerous religion is.

@nogod4me Oh, I'm not disputing that dogmatic religion is dangerous. Been saying so, myself, for some time. But it's also true that their are very few actual facts in this thingy you call "reality" that aren't subjective. While we all fight over the subjective shit the glaring truth is changing our environment and, as a species, we are not doing much about it. I think we're likely done so prefer my illusion. It's more consistent and reassuring.

@Matias Delusion: "An idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument, typically a symptom of mental disorder."

So, are you going to be the one who determines what delusions are "beneficial?" What if you are the one with the mental disorder? Acceptance of reality is far better than delusion and imposing your delusions on others.

"There is always a chance that he who sets himself up as his brother's keeper will end up by being his jail-keeper." - Eric Hoffer

"Take away hatred from some people, and you have men without faith." - Eric Hoffer, The Passionate State of Mind

@Matias Believers are consistently trying to put others in a box to easily disregard. Don't project your flaws onto others.

@Matias My comment is not 'unduly' aggressive.

Throughout history religion has not brought people together, but defined them for the purpose of separation - hence religious wars, religious genocide, and religious intollerance.

Placebo effect - yes it exists. However ( 1 ) the advancement of medical science has saved vastly more lives than the placebo effect ever will, and ( 2 ) whatever effect exists, it is an effect based on delusion and ignorance.

Us vs them is a concept actively encouraged by religions.

'Function' of religion is strongly over-rated. It is not 'unduly' aggressive to say so.

I agree: "...end to end..bullshit..." with a lot of mental masturbation thrown in

5. Secular laws are for enforcement of what most humans know to be right and wrong. Small children may test their parents but know not to steal, harm others, etc. I think that the basics we are born with and societal norms teach us the fine points aka manners.

You and I don’t need them, but it would be a mistake think that because I don’t need them no one does. What you and I do need is a stable society to live in.

When you have a sizable percentage of the population resisting and resenting mandatory public education, religious adherence may be the last buffer against societal fragmentation and chaos.

@skado What country do you live?
What "Guiding Hand" is behind all of this (Hint: it's not the "evil" corporations)

@twill
U.S.
Guiding hand behind all of what?

@skado The destruction of secular, public education

@twill
I wasn’t thinking specifically of the destruction of it, which I think is political, but just the natural resistance to it, which I think is mostly biological, and partly cultural
The natural human animal doesn’t want to be civilized, and I have some compassion for that. I can see some of that in myself. Some of us think it’s better that we submit to civilization anyway, and some of us don’t.

@skado You're playing it pretty fast and loose with the word "need". Show me evidence that anyone needs religion.

@ChestRockfield
It took me six years of daily study to understand it. How much time do you have?

@skado I'm not talking about what you assume was beneficial in the past. I'm taking about right now how some people need religion. Not how they benefit from it, not how they're better off with it than without, how they NEED it.

@ChestRockfield
Are you open to finding out? I burn up a lot of time talking to people who have their minds made up, and wouldn’t believe evidence if it were clear and obvious. If you are genuinely interested I can suggest some reading. It’s not simple and quick.

@skado You're suggesting that this reading contains within it information that proves people would literally die simply from a lack of religion?

@ChestRockfield
No, I’m not suggesting that.

@skado You claimed you learned how people NEED religion after 6 years of daily study. Now you're saying that the readings you wanted to recommend to me so I could learn it too don't say what you were suggesting. Which is it?

@ChestRockfield
I never said people would die without religion. You wouldn't die without sex. Does that mean you're ready to say you don't need sex? The first five years is working through the semantics. Then we can get down to understanding the issue.

@skado Correct. I don't need sex. There are people who live their entire lives without sex. I assume there are even people who live their entire multiple-decades-long lives without even knowing about sex. Thus, it is obviously not a NEED (and for the same reasons, neither is religion). And we certainly don't treat it as a need in the US either as we prosecute the sale of it almost everywhere. Seems like 5 years wasn't enough time to work through semantics...

It takes some folks longer than others. You seem to be operating under the assumption that the only meaning of the word “need” is something that would cause death if not received. Is that correct?

@skado While that would certainly be a criterion that would undeniably certify something as a need, I don't feel the need to box myself in at this point. I think evidence excluding something from being a need is all that I need to present here. There are humans that don't have, use, or possibly even know about religion (just as there are humans that don't have or possibly even know about sex), thus it is not a human need.

@ChestRockfield
You understand, I haven't claimed every individual human needs religion. My original comment was that just because some don't, doesn't mean no one does. Not every human will get pregnant in a lifetime. Does that mean reproduction is not a human need?

@skado I didn't mention all people. "I'm not talking about what you assume was beneficial in the past. I'm taking about right now how some people need religion. Not how they benefit from it, not how they're better off with it than without, how they NEED it." You haven't presented any evidence that anyone NEEDS religion.
And no, no one needs to reproduce. The human race would die off, sure, but the humans that are living would technically be completely unaffected if they all individually decided not to reproduce (or there was some natural phenomenon that prevented reproduction).

@ChestRockfield said: “I think evidence excluding something from being a need is all that I ”need” to present here.”

If you didn’t mean you would die if you didn’t present it, and you didn’t mean you would benefit from presenting it, and you didn’t mean you would be better off with presenting it than without presenting it, how did you NEED to present it?

Were you playing fast and loose with the word “need”?

@skado Snore. An equivocation fallacy? No wonder everyone gets sick of talking to you.

@ChestRockfield
I had not heard of equivocation fallacy before. Let me see if I understand. You get to determine the meaning of the word when I use it, but you get to determine the meaning of it when you use it. Is that what you mean by equivocation fallacy?

And when I point out the fact that you are doing what you accuse me of doing, then, instead of either admitting it or explaining how it’s actually different, you resort to libel. Now is that ad hominem, or just personal insult for lack of any rational ground to stand on?

And if everyone is sick of talking to me, why on earth do they persist in doing so? And why will you?