₦airaland Forum

4everGod:
Simply because I do not see Christianity being a reflection of any of the points you listed up there...

Uhh sure, keep telling yourself that

I often see the argument posed by theists, and some atheists, that humanity somehow requires religion to keep from imploding on itself, and taking away religion would lead to widespread chaos and eventually doomsday.

I tend to strongly disagree.

This is a list of ways I think humanity could very likely be better off without religion now (specifically the Abrahamic religions and others with similar doctrines), supported by evidence I've come across.

Without religion:
1. Humanity could get along better. Tribalism is the blanket term to describe the innate human tendency to form alliances and groups against one another. More and more research is showing that tribalism can be overcome, and peace amongst people of different groups can be achieved, the more people are able to see a like-ness in one another. A "you are human just like me, I accept you, I feel comfortable around you".

Religion is a direct obstacle to achieving this like-ness, and it shouldn't be hard to imagine why. Religion teaches millions of people, usually via childhood indoctrination (brainwashing), that because the so-called "creator of the entire universe" said so, they are better, more "holy", more valuable, more moral than other groups of people. This is a perfect recipe for unnecessary tribalistic tendencies. And we see this type of religious tribalism unfolding all over the world, often violently.

Don't get me wrong, tribalism can and does exist in many other forms (racism, imperialism, even people with different tastes in music can form alliances based on that). But what sets religion apart is the fact that it rests upon a firm foundation of fear (of hell), and shielded from criticism in a way other forms of tribalism aren't, making it much harder to overcome.

2. Humanity could better understand the world & universe around us. Since the dawn of scientific & empirical thought, religion has been in direct opposition to a vast amount of scientific progress. No honest person can deny this. When Galileo discovered the earth revolved around the sun and not the other way around, the church wanted him killed because it contradicted the picture the gospels painted of our place in the world. The same goes for the anti-evolution nonsense that still goes on today. People are actively against the foundational theory uniting all biology, for no other reason than that it contradicts the religion they were taught.

Religious indoctrination installs cognitive biases in peoples' minds, causing strong feelings of resistance, anger, hostility and paranoia once they are confronted with certain scientific (& sometimes philosophical) topics that call into question the religious worldview they were indoctrinated with. The anti-intellectual, anti-science mindset that religion births is causing billions of people across the globe to remain centuries behind on a huge chunk of human knowledge. Thus, impeding the scientific & intellectual progress of humanity as a whole.

According to surveys, the countries with the lowest populations of religious people have the highest rates of quality education. It's not always accurate to imply causation from correlation, and the relationship might flow both ways, but it's quite obvious that the more religious someone is, the more unwelcoming of science they're likely to be.

3. Humanity could understand ourselves better. It is true that humans have innate biological insticts that drive much of our behavior. These insticts, as science continues to find, aren't magical but evolved. They helped our species survive, just like every other animals' insticts help it survive. Rather than helping us understand and best navigate our human instincts (like our emotional reactions & sexuality), religion demonizes and mystifies them. It manufactures a ridiculous amount of shame around simply being human.

Religion also, in it's ignorance, has stamped mental disorders with labels like "spiritual invasion" or "demonic posession". Instead of people getting the psychiatric help they need, people are sent to exorcists and other phony religious leaders for "deliverance". Not only does this put lives & minds in danger, but it generates an unnecessary sense of fear and panic around treatable medical conditions, causing people to fundamentally misunderstand their own mental health.

4. Humanity could be more proactive & prosperous. Rather than relying on prayer, which is essentially talking to yourself, people could be more likely to take action towards solving their problems if religion were not a factor in their lives. Again, we see that the most prospering and forward-moving countries have smaller percentages of people who think religiously. Because their societies are based in reason and evidence-based thinking, they are quicker to find workable solutions to economic, political, health, and other issues. Much of the law in the developed world is based on our current understanding of these issues according to research. NOT religious books, which were written by people 2,000 years ago who were quite ignorant in these areas.

5. Humanity could be happier. The biggest reason of all that people give for why people need religion, is that it gives them comfort and hope. When going through a rough time, praying helps people cope. When someone dies, the promise that you'll see them again is soothing. Although I don't deny that religion can serve as an emotional bandaid, or even a vessel for truly healing practices (ex. "giving your troubles up to god" could have the same cognitive effect as "accepting what you can't control and doing your best" ), it is NOT, imo, the only way, let alone the best way, for us to achieve happiness and peace.

As I've mentioned in previous posts, the areas of Neuroscience and Psychology are making some incredible discoveries as of late, uncovering long-awaited answers to our mysterious psyches and how to navigate them. Recent studies show that happiness, contentment, and compassion for onesself and others can be learned & practiced as skills; healing from grief, sorrow, and trauma can be achieved through evidence based psychiatric techniques (including self-directed therapies); and life's obstacles can be surmounted by tapping into proven resources (like a nurturing social environment).

In other words, very good answers to how to be happier, how to get over struggles, how to find peace, are out there. In this day and age, the internet, libraries and bookstores are swarming with this information. With some research into these resources, it should become clear that religion has outlived it's usefulness in this area as well.

So, to conclude, I think that humanity could not only survive without organized religion like the Abrahamic faiths, we could thrive. The children who are raised without the religion across the globe, in areas like the Netherlands, Japan, the Czech Republic, and Iceland, yet become healthy, happy, and functioning members of their societies, are evidence of this. At this point I feel like humanity is clutching on to religion like a child to it's stuffed animal. We don't need it anymore, we just think we do.

Brymo:
"Among the repulsions of atheism for me has been its drastic uninterestingness
as an intellectual position. Where was the ingenuity, the ambiguity, the humanity
(in the Harvard sense) of saying that the universe just happened to happen and
that when we're dead we're dead?"
-John Updike

So basically, we should believe in things despite where the evidence points, because it's supposedly more "interesting" and "humane"? I can't even wrap my head around this. On what planet is it humane to lie to yourself? What's genius about emotional reasoning?

And it's flawed in the first place to think that the universe should have some sort of "reason for existing" that is immediately relevant to egoic human desires. Almost every hindrance to scientific understanding & damage to our planet has come from human beings wrongly assuming the universe revolves around our species and that it exists to cater to our whims, emotional or otherwise.

We are an inextricable part of this ever-evolving universe, but it follows it's own rules, and no amount of wishful thinking or brainwashing will change those rules. That doesn't make reality any less beautiful though, and as I've said before, it sucks that religious thinking ruins the ability to appreciate the wonder of nature and the universe, because of this ego-pleasing fantasy to live forever in an imaginary world of endless bliss - the epitome of taking the one and only lives we actually have, for granted.

Reyginus:
Lol. I think Atheism is a close minded position and shouldn't talk about open mindedness. The atheist is just like the Theist who has formed ideas without concrete evidence.

What is close minded about "show me evidence, and then I will believe, otherwise there is no good reason to"?

Reyginus:
What are you talking about? Has he helped himself to begin with? Or you think Atheism is another word for intelligence? Honestly speaking, I'm yet to see an atheist who really has a logical reason for atheism. None.

Then you've either completely closed your mind to the points put forth by atheists (like many theists automatically do) or you're deluding yourself.

No offense, but I genuinely fail to see how any reasonable person who has processed & understood atheist arguments can make this claim.

AccidentalGenius:
youre right. but you cant explain things to people who aren't prepared to learn. this will soon become an unnecessary argument. she wont understand. im an atheist and I practice the Buddhist mundra meditation.

Very awesome! I practice Vipassana. I should look into Mundra more. Seems very interesting.

naijababe:
Wrong! The Japanese are largely Buddhists or Shintos, Chinese are Buddhists, Norwegians are Lutherans/agnostics and the Swiss, though not on your list are Roman Catholics/ Anglicans.

Don't confuse agnosticism with atheism, many of the Scandiniavian nations that atheists like to use in their arguments identify as agnostics, the ones who aren't Lutherans at least- ( Evangelicals).

Atheism and agnosticism are effectively the same. I've already made posts on this, agnosticism IS a type of atheism. "Absence of belief in an intervening, personal supernatural entity that is pulling strings behind the scenes", characterizes both atheists and those who identify as agnostic. Deists too even.

And some Buddhists. Buddhism and atheism can exist together and very often does, especially in more western adaptations of Buddhism. More of a philosophy than a religion, it's focused on cultivating positive inner states of being, NOT worshipping any external creator. Shintoism, although traditionally polytheistic, is mostly focused on the apprection of nature and traditional Japanese customs that reflect that. It doesn't have any set doctrines or required professions of faith/worship, and is thus similarly compatible with a secular worldview.

Lastly, in regards to the Lutheren/Catholics/etc, many people who answer these surveys check religion off by name. But in practice, most of them do not walk around seriously believing a god will heal their illnesses and improve their finances, or truly believing that everyone who doesn't subscribe to their belief will burn in a furnace for all eternity. The amount of people who earnestly hold the types of beliefs present in the Abrahamic religions, are a declining minority in those areas.

I'm a huge fan of Family Guy

Ranchhoddas:
Great points. How would we know where to draw the line? What the OP and others do not realise is that a lot of people derive their morality from faith. A large number of people are good because of their hope in one afterlife or the other. Hardened criminals have ''discovered'' Christ or any other deity and become good. What the OP is advocating is going to lead to anarchy and chaos. No matter the amount of disdain you possess for religion, an unbiased analysis will lead you to the conclusion that its merits far outweigh the demerits.

Geofavor:
You've just said what has been on my mind for some time now.

A lot of people keep their cool because of their because of their religious beliefs. Take that away, and this world won't contain us anymore.

Everyone would define what is good and bad in his or her own way.

For example, Since there is no god( hence no eternal punishment), some people might think it okay to kill people for fun.

Just imagine a world where no one believes in any god; anything will go in that kinda world. Religion actually keeps the world in check.

The world operates based on the rules of religion. Although some of their rules are absurd, every religion preaches peace in one way or the other. And most people easily adhere to it because they believe it was set by one supreme being or the other. Now, If -- in a world where no one beliefs in a supreme being -- we humans decide to make a peace rule, it will not hold. No one would step down for anyone, No one would want to serve anyone and so on.

Religion is one of the factors that keep this world balanced. Take it out, and humanity is doomed!

Let's just leave people to believe what they want and try to be good people.

Hmm, I disagree. How do places like Norway, China, Japan etc. keep the peace, and continue developing at such steady rates despite them being the most atheist & secular countries on earth? From what I've researched, atheist/non-religious/secular countries and societies are doing better across the globe. Less crime, better healthcare, more educated, more equality, higher life expectancy, the list goes on.

I think any society of human beings, regardless of race demographics or geographical location, is capable of prospering secularly. Psychology & neuroscience are making great headway in the areas of emotional & mental health and well-being, interpersonal interaction, etc. Books are being written, techniques and practices are being developed, courses and seminars are taking place, that focus on teaching how to relate to ourselves and eachother better, and be more peaceful, compassionate, co-operative and happy, in ways that acknowledge & work with our human nature.

These things can be taught and maintained without religion, and likely even more effectively so, if only we could wake people up and get them to learn. People lean on religion because they think it's the only thing that can satisfy our inner needs. But imho it's just a placebo.

Richirich713:
Obvious an eternal being doesn't need a cause, any theist will tell u that. The op just created a strawman to mock as if theists believed "God can come from nothing."

It's no fallacy, the word "God" in traditional monotheism entails eternal existence with omnipotence, omniscience and omnibenenvence. Also since the op is referring specifically to the bible, he should have known that the bible claims God is uncreated and eternal.

"Obviously an eternal being doesn't need a cause". What about this is obvious? That it was written down/thought up?

Humans create concepts and definitions, the bible is no different. Humans 2,000 years ago believed that the concept of "a being who exists eternally and controls everything" was valid. So they created the word "God" to identify this concept, and stuck on some descriptors they found suitable (omnipotent, omniscient, etc). This, in itself, does not mean that the concept of God is objectively valid, logical or points to something real. All it means is that humans made a word for something they thought was real and defined it according to their imaginations. So no, it isn't obvious that an eternal being can exist uncaused, let alone exist at all.

That being said, it is indeed special pleading to claim that this being can be uncaused/eternal but the universe can't. The universe could also be uncaused/eternal, there is no logical reason to accept the former and reject the latter.

I think supernatural is a word humanity came up with when we still understood very, very little about nature. We thought our understanding of nature at the time was the best us "mere mortals" could do, and that everything outside of that miniscule realm of understanding must be outside of what we considered "nature".

But now, as humanity's collective thinking has evolved and progressed, and we've discovered information far, far beyond the limits we once thought restricted us indefinitely, the realm of things considered "supernatural" is getting smaller and smaller.

This is precisely what we would expect to happen if the word supernatural really just meant "natural things humans do not understand and are compelled to make up explanations for based on very limited information".

There are still lots of things we don't know, and even our most forward-thinking intellectuals are willing to admit that. But as time goes on its become glaringly apparent that the things we don't know yet might just be things we don't know yet, due to lack of information. Not magic.

Things that were once thought to be 100% SUPERNATURAL but are now explained in full, or at least partially(*), by natural processes:

Rain, thunder and lightening
Weather patterns in general, seasons
Air (how it keeps us alive, what's contained in it)
Fire
Water
Jewels, gold and other precious metals (how they got there, what's in them, whether or not they have powers)
Volcanoes
Planets
Stars
Meteorites/shooting stars/other space debris
Thinking
Consciousness*
Emotions (sadness, depression, aggression, happiness and so on have been attributed to gods, spirits, & demons)
Generational Trauma
Sickness (bacteria, viruses, etc)
Childbirth (& everything that can go wrong with it, incl. miscarriage)
Genetics & Heredity (DNA, genetically inherited illnesses aka 'family curses')
Blindness
Deafness
Seizures (all the poor epileptic children forced to undergo "exorcism", sigh)
Mental Illness (this could have it's own thread honestly)
Addiction
Genetic Diversity (how it's generated & maintained)
Agriculture (crop yields, etc)

Feel free to add to the list and discuss!
~~~

Richirich713:
What theist says "God can come from Nothing"?

Seems like a strawman.

Either that, or that "God doesn't need a cause".

Theists commit the special pleading fallacy when they claim that God can be uncaused but the universe, in whatever form (whether a singularity, or a dispersed, expanding universe like we have today), can not be uncaused.

felixomor:
Its still better than believing that u were once a maggot or bacteria and then became a monkey after living as a fish.

"Better" as in it makes you feel better? Sure, perhaps for some people; but I try not to believe things based on how good or bad they make me feel. Because then I'd end up with lots of inaccurate beliefs.

Besides, I personally find the phenomenon of evolution incredibly fascinating, and beautiful. It sucks that religion robs people of the ability to appreciate it.

4everGod:
Speak for yourself when you say you are an animal and not for humanity.

https://i68.tinypic.com/20929zk.png

You support Darwinism and Darwin Himself said man is a WILD animal and you only accept the animal part and not the WILD part? How come?

Darwinism isn't a religion. I know theists struggle to understand this but science doesn't require anyone to subscribe to an idea simply because a scientist said it. Darwin was not some sort of prophet.

That being said, I personally don't care even a little bit about whether the word wild is used to describe me or humanity as a whole, I don't find it insulting or anything, I just don't see exactly why it would be necessary.

Perhaps at the time he said it Darwin was trying to highlight the kinship between humans and animals? Since in his time humans and other animals were seen as fundamentally different by most people, & his discoveries were beginning to dismantle that paradigm.

4everGod:
Cloudgoddess are you a wild animal? Yes or no

Like all humans I'm an animal. Not sure about the wild part.

Scholar8200:
Its more of entropy now, not evolution(how then do we explain this?)! The current changes (climate etc) does not appear to promise to support life but to annihilate it.

It's a misconception that evolution progresses towards some ultimate apex. Although the "aim" of natural selection is to filter out the best-fit organisms in a population, this standard of fitness is constantly in flux due to environmental factors. So there is no ultimate "most evolved" anything.

Evolution by natural selection occurs in response to the environment, not the other way around, so extinction is an inevitable part of evolution. If an environment becomes too hostile for a certain species to survive, then that species dies out. That's what's happening with climate change. Which by the way is human-caused.

felixomor:
At least, we now know that the so called evolution fossills can be forged and used to deceive gullible folks. Hahaha.....

And who is talking about "theories" here?

Please come over to the real world.

But you don't even need evidence to believe that a Jewish man died on a cross and ascended into heaven three days later, or that a talking snake caused the fall of mankind. You believe those things and many other questionable tidbits just because one dusty religious book (of many) says it happened. Who is truly the gullible one here?

4everGod:
Oh Yeah. Cloudgoddess would declare that scientists have declared that man is the height of evolution so the evolutionary process has ceased.

No I wouldn't.

Evolution is ongoing, man is not the "height", there is no "height" as the conditions for fitness are dependent on the specific environment of an organism.

As long as the environment changes, which is constantly occuring, and populations are reproducing, which is also always happening, then evolution - the change in heritable traits across generations - is happening. Every time a baby is born, a plant is sprouted, or a bacterial colony multiplies, with a different set of genetic information than it's parentals, evolution has occured.

I applaud this man.

mcemmy0z:
If evolution is real, I should have grow wings now, or have tail

If you actually understood what evolution was/how it worked, you would have not made that statement.

The scientific community has already acknowledged Piltdown Man was a hoax... 60 years ago.

And there is still plenty of legitimate, non-forged fossil evidence proving human evolution. So I'm not exactly sure what you were aiming to accomplish with this thread.

Image123:
Oh, so there's actually a voice? And that voice is your subconscious? Prove this to cloudgoddess or Ranchhoddas my friend please.

He doesn't have to prove it to me... lol.

I'm already well aware that people who claim to be speaking to God are listening to thoughts generated by their religious confirmation bias at work - a process that takes place subconsciously.

shadeyinka:
They have Emotions, Will and Intelligence...

All which are controlled by the brain.

Its not just chemicals. That is why in electrocardiology, chemicals secreted in the brain are not measured. What is measured are electrical activities of the brain.

What do you think causes that electrical activity? Chemicals. Calcium ions are directly responsible for the depolarization of cardiac cells. Hormones like adrenaline are responsible for speeding up the heartbeat, and acetylcholine slows it down.

It is impossible for chemicals to have conciousness for all chemicals consists of Atoms which are[i] like[/i] perfect Engines.

Who said the individual chemicals were conscious?

Has science been able to create the smallest life form that can respond to stimuli?

This comment was made on two erroneous assumptions:
1. That scientific understanding of a natural phenomenon automatically means we must be able to replicate it. This is ridiculous. We understand stars, their composition, how they are formed, but because of obvious limitations in materials, we've yet to recreate a star. Doesn't mean we don't understand them.

2. That science not being able to recreate life RIGHT NOW, means we will never be able to. Remember that just 300 years ago people were dying by the thousands from diseases we can get cheap immunizations for today. Science takes time, but it can be trusted.

It amazes me the demands that theists have the audacity to make when they haven't come close to explaining some of the most glaring issues with their religious books. It's like, how can you demand a synthetic life form as evidence that we're made of chemicals, yet accept that a Jewish man died on the cross for Africans 2000 years ago, walked on water, and is his own dad -- with absolutely NO proof but a 2,000 year old, edited & re-edited book that says it.

You're obviously applying unequal standards of evidence to the two topics, and it's clear why. Religious bias is clouding your thinking.

If as you said "its just a bunch of neurochemicals", then it should be possible to keep a person alive by borrowing the chemicals from a live person and dumping it into the brain of a dead person.

Not necessarily. We each have unique immune systems that are set up to fight against unrecognized invaders. The chemical composition of a random person's brain/body won't necessarily be compatible with another's and the only way to find out is through rigorous testing for compatibility.

You're also forgetting that our trillions of brain cells age along with our bodies, accumulating mutations and waste that are incredibly tiny yet have devastating effects on the cellular scale. Fixing all of these microscopic, delicate areas would take technology that does not yet exist.

I have used the NEAR DEATH EXPERIENCE phenomenon which is clinically proven. Are you saying that NDEs in clinically dead person is the "lifeless brain" playing tricks?

Our brains are always playing tricks on us. Our minds are ripe for illusions, hallucinations, and misconceptions. Under the right conditions people can be brainwashed en masse to "see" things that aren't really there. And this is while fully conscious. Drugs like LSD can produce wild hallucinations as well, just by toying with our brain chemistry.

It's no surprise that an unconscious, "nearly-dead" person, with his mental faculties still partially in tact, would be able to see incredible visions and illusions that seem real.

Since you mentioned INSTINCT: Do you not know that Instinct is a prove that some certain behaviours are pre-recorded in an animal for instance?

Yes, instincts are genetic. Google "genome sequencing animal behaviors". Some instincts have already been traced to the specific portions of DNA that code for them. And individuals without a specific code can be seen to not show the behavior.

Actually, our morality instinct is given by whoever (GOD) did our programming. And as humans, we are different from every other animals on this bases alone. The universality of Morals in different cultures of the human race show that we had been hadwired towards the kind of behaviour.

No, our morality is a result of evolutionarily inherited traits, plus environmentally learned (culture, religion, etc) traits. It's easy to see this when you observe what was historically considered moral compared to what is now. The bible even condones slavery and the subjugation of women. Those verses speak to the morality of the bible's time. We've since developed better standards.

This is clearly wrong. There has been no chemical linked to emotion in humans or animals. You can prove me wrong.

A basic intro to Neuroscience class would prove you wrong. I mean these things are literally basic. Your education is lacking immensely.

Pure truth.

shadeyinka:
Actually, except we can explain away the experimentally/scientific verified phenomenon of Near Death Experiences, the Soul exists OUTSIDE the body and it may not just be a Biological/Chemical reactions in the brain.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QE7B2SJSC8

NDEs cannot be Dreams or Hallucinations because usually the brain activity is dead. I guess its something sincere Atheists need to examine. Its not really about finding God but finding Yourself.

No it isn't. NDE reporters are always alive at the time they claim to experience the NDE and their brains were always at least in a partially functioning state. A permanently brain-dead person has never reported an NDE.

We do know that without certain physiological structures present in the brain, a person can be rendered incapable of functions that have historically been attributed to a soul: a sense of self/personality, the ability to recognize & process faces, sights, smells and other sensory inputs, the ability to show empathy or care towards others, to name a few. When a person suffers Alzheimer's for example, they can lose all sense of what it means to be "them" and cease to recognize friends, family members, or their own homes.

The reasoning that follows this information goes like this: if losing physiological brain functions while alive can result in loss of "soul-related" attributes, then certainly the death & decomposition of the entire brain would damage all of such attributes.

Despite everything we know about the brain so far, we still have MUCH more to learn. To me, it doesn't make sense to jump to the conclusion that an immaterial soul exists, when the functions of the brains that we know are required for sensory experience, personality, movement, information processing, ect. - are still being uncovered and understood. It just appears to be wishful thinking/confirmation bias at work, and the low standards of evidence often used to support the claims reflect that imo.

Porn & masturbation stimulate our reward centers, because it's a natural part of our physiology & neural circuitry to be attracted to sexual stimuli.

Like anything pleasureful (including food, games, even using the Internet) there is a potential for an addictive habit to form. It's your brain becoming fixated on achieving the reward again & again. The dopamine rush. Chasing rewards used to be (and still is, to an extent) beneficial for our survival, but in the case of addictions, our natural reward centers are hijacked and overstimulated.

Habits/addictions can be difficult to get rid of because of how strongly they can become conditioned in the brain. But an increased awareness of ones inner state, & the ability to observe urges to carry out the behavior without acting on them, are skills one can learn to successfully decondition any unwanted habit (there are many great books on this topic).

I feel like tagging such behaviors as "sin" and insisting that they require "deliverance" only compounds the problem and makes it appear more mysterious and scary than it needs to be. Not to mention it adds an unnecessarily heavy burden of shame. No one needs Jesus or God or any religious rituals to get past these sorts of mental hang ups. All we need is to be educated on how our brains work, and learn how to mold & rewire them in more beneficial ways.

Lol.

bolt000:
If you are arguing with Christians, the chances of convincing them are very slight. For anyone else, you are preaching to the choir.

Instead, I like to remind Christians that Jesus's highest command, after loving God, is that we should love everyone as we love ourselves, including sinners, non-believers, and enemies. This is enough to show them that they should stop acting like douche bags, which really is all we need.

One of the most disappointing things about Christianity is that it doesn't even achieve its most basic task - making people kinder, more compassionate, less judgmental.

Christians, and esp NL Christians, are some of the most judgmental, hostile, insult-spewing human beings on earth. Abeg, if your religion isn't even making you a better person then what are you even defending it for? If it was effective it'd show through their behavior.

kilo4sure:
Humanism was born as a bastard child to Christianity.

...how? Humanism isn't even a religion.. nor does it have anything to do with global floods, "sacred" lands, or sacrificing people on wood. It doesn't even have any associated myths or rituals.

If anything Christianity is a bastard child of Judaism (and some even say Hinduism + an assortment of Pagan religions).

Btw, sources? Because I've never even heard this claim before. Seems very strange.

Image123:
The actual good news is that there is nothing significant outside God. There is nothing out there that cannot be obtained in here.

The precise opposite is true. No aspect of human experience is unique to religion, the good nor the bad.

If anything, the Abrahamic religions exacerbate many of the unpleasant/destructive aspects of being human (tribalism/"us vs. them" mentality, childhood trauma & indoctrination, emotional reasoning, taking life for granted, etc etc). And it teaches us to hate our very nature, causing an obsession with unrealistic ideals.

Humanism is the way to go.

sonofthunder:
communication...

For what? When he "does as he pleases" anyway?

Vicoch:
Ohhhhhhh, how i wasted my time thinking that there is a 'god'.....

I've felt the same way. The good news is that you don't have to waste any more time now