I believe that you need something to congregate people, like a common philosophy or religion, in order to start a society. However, if a country is greatly influenced by a religion, would a fear of god(s) slow progress? I believe the answer is yes. Anyone who is atleast a little religious will do things based on their beliefs. If god told Adam and Eve not to seek knowledge, should we do the same and burn books?

Invictus_88 wrote:

Kingkool wrote:I believe that you need something to congregate people, like a common philosophy or religion, in order to start a society. However, if a country is greatly influenced by a religion, would a fear of god(s) slow progress? I believe the answer is yes. Anyone who is atleast a little religious will do things based on their beliefs. If god told Adam and Eve not to seek knowledge, should we do the same and burn books?

What about a common need to eat, drink, and stay warm and safe? Might that suffice?

that would create a nomadic tribe of hunter-gatherers. I'm talking about a civilization. But peoples' definitions of civilization may vary.

-- Updated February 9th, 2012, 10:40 am to add the following --

King_David_James wrote:In the story of Adam and Eve, it was Knowledge of Good and Evil, not Knowledge. They had Knowledge, they just had no concept of good and evil, they knew the rules, and broke them.

I made this mistake the other day too, knowledge vs knowledge of good and evil.

As to a fear of Gods slowing progress, that could happen, yes. However that does not mean it would happen, or that it was even likely. Such a thing is difficult to calculate or test.

We saw great advancements in science and technology in antient Islamic civilization. They believed anything they discovered was because their god wanted them to. Where as Christian civilizations believed that doing so was to question their god, and made only practical advancements in technology.

Wooden shoe wrote:Hello Kingkool, you wrote:
I believe that you need something to congregate people, like a common philosophy or religion, in order to start a society.

This is putting the cart before the horse.
All the evidence supports that religions were invented after agriculture made it practical for people to settle in an area, usually in river valleys, where agriculture was the easiest.
As settlements grew some order was required, powerful men became leaders and nature worship was transferred to some type of deity fashioned on the model of an earthly despot.
The earliest records which exist are more than 6000 years old, from Egypt, where the conditions were right for preserving things which we can study today.
It has been argued that the dark ages in western Europe were the result of christianity, but it would be unfair to give it all the blame.
The Islamic world definitely was much more enlightened from about 600 to the 1500 with the Ottoman empire being the longest lasting nation in Europe's history.

You would still need a group of people to come together and say "we all think that food is very important, and hunting in groups will improve the outcome" the way I see it, people who think that logically would start to say, "maybe we can raise our food and domesticate animals" and then philosophers appear, some become religious leaders, others disagree with religious leaders, disputes over whether or not there are indeed people in the sky or if we become new people after we die start to appear. Then they get violent, and a war breaks out. One side wins, and either restores the nation, or destroys it.

Obviously there are many other things that can happen, but in the end philosophy unites people, then destroys them.

To get a little specific, the US is a very christian nation. Though we say there is a barrier between church and state, that is simply not true. The reason that gay and lesbiam marrige is not allowed in some states is because of christian politicians that think it's wrong. Our national moto was changed from e pluribus unim to in god we trust. We make our children say a pledge that says there is a god and he favors our country (which I am against). There are people pushing to ban atheist politicians. There is no arguing that our country is greatly affected by christianity.

James said:

One misunderstands the "Separation of Church and State" is not the Separation of God Almighty and State. Church is a institution run by Man, it can be corrupted, God Almighty is Divine. These concept is to keep one Church from getting any leg up through Government than any other, Not to deny God Almighty

The separation of church and state was created to make sure no individual felt that the government was favoring a certain religion over others. I feel that my atheist beliefs are being threatened by our motto, and the fact that we acknowledge that there is a god in the pledge of allegiance.
James said:

The Gay Marriage thing has nothing to do with politicians, the population of the State does not want it. The will of the People. The better question to ask is why in the hoot is State in the Marriage business.

I very much disagree with this. Most people don't care. People who think Gay and Lesbian marriage is wrong usually think so because their religion says that to be gay or lesbian is wrong. And most politicians belong to a religion that believes homosexuality to be wrong. That;s why the the concept of sme-sex marriage is even questioned.
James said:

If whomever can find some church to wed them, that is not my affair. State should not have it's nose in it.However this opens the Door for all other forms of Marriage too. Like hate speech on must take the Good with the Bad.

If one does not Define Marriage under the law, and the State will only Honor Legal Contracts "Civil Union", then minors, or Goats can not by Law be Partners in a "Civil Union", as minors and Goats can not enter into legal contracts.

That is very...literal. If your problem with legalizing gay marriage is that it doesn't specify that it is indeed a marriage between two consenting adults, then the simplest way to fix that is to state in the legislation "it is unconstitutional to ban same sex marriage between two consenting adults over the age of 18." The problem most people have with it, once again, is that their religion says it is wrong. And if you start banning atheist politicians, you will warrant the ban of any other religion. And because the majority of the U.S. is Christian, and so are the politicians, we would turn into a christian government. Then, there would be no legal abortion, same-sex marriage, evolution in schools, ect..

Invictus 88 said:

"a group of people [...] come together"
"and then philosophers appear"
"some become religious leaders"
"Then they get violent, and a war breaks out."

That is such a naive view of the development of society it beggars belief. Just look at it. Look again. Can you really believe you said such a thing?

It would be naive to say this would happen as quickly as I made it seem. There would be hundreds or thousands of years before it met its end. If the disputes weren't domestic, they would be between some other land. And as I stated in the post, it is not set in stone. There are many different ways this can happen, but in the end, a dynasty, empire, ect. is always conquered by a neighboring people because they think they are better, or believe being bigger is better, or there is a civil war, uprising, revolution, because they believe the government or main religion or philosophy is wrong.

-- Updated February 16th, 2012, 10:34 am to add the following --

Another related question to ask is if the majority of people in a country belong to one religion, does that mean the government will favor that religion? Assuming of course the constitution of said hypothetical nation says there should be separation of church and state. Otherwise the answer would almost cetainly be yes.

Belinda wrote:Kingcool wrote:

Another related question to ask is if the majority of people in a country belong to one religion, does that mean the government will favor that religion? Assuming of course the constitution of said hypothetical nation says there should be separation of church and state. Otherwise the answer would almost cetainly be yes.

Ruling regimes do sometimes repress majority religious faiths, like they may be repress majority feelings in other areas too. The safeguard against oppression of this sort is democratic rule. Separation of church and state is a result of democracy.

You give democracy too much credit. The separation of church and state could be the result of a ruler of an empire wnating rligious freedom.

Belinda wrote:Kingcool wrote in answer to my last:

You give democracy too much credit. The separation of church and state could be the result of a ruler of an empire wnating rligious freedom.

Has this ever been known to happen?
I agree with James S Saint, and I say that religions as institutions that exert emotional controls over people, whatever else they are, are such useful means of social control that they are indispensible to any sort of regime.
True, the USA separates church and state and is democratic too but is nevertheless very religious . However much the US religious factions may disagree with each other they are each Protestant ,or RC ,or other civilised religion in origin and share the Golden Rule or variations thereof.The Golden Rule is a civilised idea for social control via self discipline which is very efficient in the way it operates. I cannot think that any developed society can be ruled without it.
Democracy is an extension of The Golden Rule, please see John Rawls for the argument for this.

Many ancient empires have given religious, and cultural freedom to those that were conquered. This resulted in a fondness of that conquerer, which lead to obedience. Alexander the Great, for example, not only allowed you to keep your culture, but combined the major ones into the Hellenistic age.

Belinda wrote:

Kingcool, I see what you mean. However. I still think that religion is an efficient means of social control.

if you are a religious leader then yes, it is very efficient. If you are a ruler, it's only good if everyone or atleast the vast majority are the same religion. Not all the time, but certainly a lot in ancient times, having more then one religion leads to violence in a country. We see that in Ireland, and Rome. In Rome, it lead to the great Schism which lead to much violence and dispute between the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Church. In Ireland, the dispute between Catholic and Protestant has caused much violence. But when you look at Athens, you see much prosperity, and a golden age. This is because most citizens worshiped Athena. It fell due to the outside threat of Sparta.

dparrott wrote:

Xris wrote:

dparrott wrote:If religion is slavery then people are only enslaving themselves.

So if a tyrant rules then we can only blame his victims. The message of jesus was a revolutionaries dream of peace mercy and freedom but like all common rebellions, the men who seek power over others made it holy and degraded it into a religion that controlled and manipulated men.

I agree with you Xris. In the United States you have the freedom to walk away from religion. That freedom does not exist for slaves.

No matter what people try to force you to do, or how much influence a religion has on you, no one but yourself can force you to believe.

You could be tortured. You could look at all the statisticts you want. You can see god with your very eyes. But no matter what you tell other people, or yourself, you, nor anyone else can directly control what you believe. Even if they came out with some sort of drug or hypnosis, you still wouldn't truly believe.

dparrott wrote:

Kingkool wrote:You could be tortured. You could look at all the statisticts you want. You can see god with your very eyes. But no matter what you tell other people, or yourself, you, nor anyone else can directly control what you believe. Even if they came out with some sort of drug or hypnosis, you still wouldn't truly believe.

Are you speaking about "doubt"? If so you are right, doubt always contains some percentage in a belief, but the amount of doubt decides whether you take the belief as truth or a falsehood.

I agree. But weather or not the doubt outweighs the belief depends on the kind of person you are.

Invictus_88 wrote:

eyesofastranger wrote:The original idea behind religion is slavery.

Cool story. Got a reference for that one?

That's not really a fact that can be proven. Unless by reference you mean something out of a holy book.

Invictus_88 wrote:

eyesofastranger wrote:The original idea behind religion is slavery.

Any sort of coherent grounding for that statement at all then, maybe? Anything?

Well, if you truly have faith in a religion, then your actions are affected by it. And you cannot change what you believe in.

In Full Metal Alchemist, a false preist was using a science called alchemy to create false miracles. He used this to make the people do what he wanted because he claimed he was a messenger of god. These miracles included making statues walk, and healing injuries.

An intersting thing he did was tell one of his disciples he could bring her dead boy freind back to life. He knew he couldn't actually do that. Is this woman a slave to the religion because she thinks if she follows the rules she will get her dead loved one back? I think no, but it is a loose example of how religion can become slavery.

You have to realize that not everything posted will be 100% relevant. Just because FMA is a fictional example doesn't mean it won't do so something like bring up a real world example (which it did). I brought it up to ask a general question being, if a preist tells you he can bring your loved one back to life if you believe in their religion and do as they say, is that person a slave to that religion, or do they actually have a choice in the matter?