Depends a lot on how one defines religion. Seems to me your definition of religion resembles Christian fundamentalism more than what most scientists are talking about when they use the word religion. And the problem isn't helped by the fact that even the scientists can't agree on a succinct definition. But theirs is generally broader than the currently infamous right wing "Christian" zealotry. I am reminded that scholars like Karen Armstrong, in her survey of world religions, says that the single most common feature of all religions is the promotion of compassion.

@skado I don't see a lot of compassion in the religions of today. My definition of religion likely differs from yours. Even the "10 commandments" don't say anything about compassion, maybe honor in a few, but the rest is piffle, in my opinion. Civil laws can handle the important stuff that many want to give credit to religion.

For me, a religion would be a way we consider ourselves linked to our source of creation, which is largely unknown, though I have my personal thoughts on that. Beyond that initial link, we might also imagine a code of ethics or way of life that is true to that creative source and intention.

Most of us would like to see positive growth and harmony with our surroundings, with the use of knowledge, wisdom, reason and doing what's best for ourselves, our loved ones, and the larger community, in somewhat equal measures.

Lots of ways to think about a personal religion, not all of us want to be a part of an organized tool of oppression. I see that as destructive. I was understanding the original post to be crediting religion with the strides earthlings have made, where I feel it has stifled it instead, in many ways.

Could there be a better way? Yes, I think so, but what we've got controlling a large part of the world is not working to make humanity better, in my opinion.

Are there caring people who are religious? Yes. Are there caring people who are not religious? Yes. Are the religious taught to fear and distrust the non-religious? At this point yes.

@Julie808
Pretty much everybody’s definition of religion differs from mine.

Yep, no matter how much you polish a turd and even put sugar sprinkles on it, it's still a turd. Religion is human made - so only humans can improve upon it. But if we give credit to an imaginary god as the creator of the religion only that god can edit it... so here we sit waiting. The next religion will have to be created by humans with the ability to adapt and change, evolving as human needs change.

@Julie808 Or get rid of religion completely.

Well we DO have examples of societies formed without a religion and worsened once religion was introduced.

I became very interested in the culture and society in Hawaii before the missionaries came and brought religion to the islanders. Much of the history of pre-missionary times is told through the eyes of the missionaries, so the islanders are portrayed as "savages, immodest and unclean" which skews the record. But they had in fact built a civilization that worked for them. Were some of the practices barbaric? Like the threat of death for some crimes? Perhaps in our modern view, but they did what was necessary to keep the society working in a way that was best for the whole. Western notions crept in and things changed. Some for better, some for worse. Put people to death for heinous crimes, or introduce guns, knives and murder?

For a society where a child is born to a woman, and that child is looked after by the village, with not only mom, but aunties and uncles, and they might not know who fathered the child, but that wasn't important in their way of life. Genders were separate but equal. When male dominated religion was introduced, it upset that balance and life changed.

The islanders had a mythology and many stories to share that recorded history and taught values. Could that mythology be called a religion, yes, I suppose, but it was a living breathing thing, all around them, not a dusty old book that can't adapt to changes or be questioned. The kapu system was dictated by the chief and could be changed by the chief/chieffess later as king/queen.

Hawaiian royalty had no notions of palaces and such until learning how the Christian world did things. The only palace in America is in Hawaii, built before the overthrow of the government by the missionaries/businessmen who wanted Hawaii for their country's strategic military post.

@Julie808 actually the Hawaiians did have their own religion before Christianity so in the purest sense we do not have any societies that weren't influenced by religion. I will admit that Hawaiian Society was much more content and homogeneous but Human sacrifice was unfortunately part of their makeup. Incest as we all know was part of their divine belief...isnt that strange that two societies separated by half a world would walk down that same road...smfh

@phoenixone1 I will disagree with your thoughts on that. It's hard to find books on the mythologies of the pre-Christian Hawaii that weren't written by Christians with a disdain for the previous way of life, but from what I've read and have learned from others in talking with historians, I wouldn't call it a religion in the sense of the word where it was believed literally, but metaphorically as myths are meant to be.

My thoughts are that there was no "divine belief" or "religion" that encouraged incest, but a misguided wish to keep the bloodlines pure for the ruling class, as far as marrying within the family, which is something other nations have done within their religions, if I'm not mistaken. The bible includes some incestuous relationships, without condemning them, though does condemn others. Many religions allow marriage between first cousins, and though many states in America currently forbid it, marriage between cousins is still legal in Hawaii.

@Matias No difference.

@Matias
I’m somewhat relieved to finally learn I’m not the only one against whom the term “apologetics” is being used, on this site on which nearly everyone is an apologist for something.

I always feel smarter, and learn so much after reading your post’s on this subject! Thank you!

@Redheadedgammy Yeah, he's brilliant. I can always tell it's his even before I've scrolled enough to see his name.

@ChestRockfield Yes me too! I really learn so much from Fernapple!! I always get a kick out of Matias’s passive aggressive post’s.

@ChestRockfield same

@Matias No my last was only about the present and future. I made no mention of the past. Really, if that is the kind of silly joke argument that you think is worth making, it is time to consider the damage to the personality that long term contact with religious appologetics may be doing. It is I know, common place in theist circles to use that sort of misdirection, but they never seem to realize that outside in the open air that is only going to make them look silly.

Quotes, it only took seconds to run these down, and there are lots more.

"And of course we can retain a sentimental loyalty to the cultural traditions of, say, Judaism, Anglicanism or Islam, and even participate in religious rituals such as marriages and funerals " "It is time to face up to the important role that God plays in consoling us; and the humanitarian challenge , if he does not exist." Both R. Dawkins.

@Matias, @Redheadedgammy I try my best, it is nice to know that people find value in it.

@Matias, @Redheadedgammy, @ChestRockfield You two will make me blush.

@Matias I would think that it would get quite a high return of yes votes, and there would be some justification in that. In part because everything poisons everything, there is nothing in human experience that does not have a cost and a down side, whatever the benefits. Simple dualism s belong to religious thinking and sadly that can infect other ideologies as well, especially those who are most engaged with relgion even in oposition.

@Matias No I do not think that anyone would assume that, no mention of a time period, meant all time periods, but would rather assume that the present tense was implied by default. However since this is a broad and liberal site, some members may not be all that intelligent or diligent readers, and it is possible that I could have misled them, for which I stand corrected. It is always good to be very careful what you write because of that, but sometimes it is needful to take risks in order to keep things short enough.

As to why and how religion switched sides, that did not take place at any one time but was a gradual process, in which the definition of the word itself was forced to change to match growing understanding. Which history was the main part of my comment here. So that I will quote it again.

"In part because, in the ancient past, religion was simply the same thing as culture, the Roman word "religio" even meant exactly that, because the modern word culture did not then exist. But the world moves on, and soon, as knowledge grew, and morality became more refined, people added new words to represent more nuanced ideas, starting with philosophy way back in ancient Greece and China, then politics, then the arts, then science, then secularism, then at last culture, humanism and environmentalism etc. in this century. And as new ideas carved out new areas for themselves, the world of thought became more complete and more nuanced, and so did the language that modelled it. And wisdom and understanding is always about the greater nuance.

Religion was probably mainly harmless, even beneficial, ( Though I doubt it. ) when it was the same as all of human culture. But eventually the word came to mean just that small corner of human life and thought, where we still deploy fake authority and little else."

The word religion simply does not mean the same thing today that it did in the past, and that is not just a label swap but represents real changes in society and thinking.

And I am sorry to say that the simplistic demand for a stated single time when the change occured, ignoring the fact that changes may be gradual. Is just another example of apologitics style pseudo-logic, the sort of low trick which I was talking about, which may be forgivable in people infected with apologetics, where low standards are the norm, because it usually only involves preaching to a converted audience who will nod along to anything. But it hardly belongs in real debates between adults.