A perfect world without religion

[phreakwars]

Do you think we would be better off or worse off ??
.
.

 

[cynthiaa89]

Ooooh, I hate this topic. People seem to feel very strongly about it. Personally, I think it'd be better off. I'm not saying I'm right, it's just an opinion. It seems like religion causes conflict. Massive conflict.

People feel VERY strongly about their religious beliefs and there's usually no way to persuade them to think differently. To me, most extremely religious people I know almost seem brain washed.

I'm not saying religion is a horrible thing, it's just that until people can start being more open-minded and more acceptable of others, it's going to cause issues.

 

[Vortex]

Do you think we would be better off or worse off ??
.
.

Well i for one would be better off myself.

I think the world would actually be better off if there were no dominant major religions. This way religion wouldnt have strangle holds on governements. But that may lead to more intolerance of others and their beliefs....but if it was private maybe this wouldnt happen. Religion is your own private belief to get closer to something spiritual......not depecting how others shall live outside of your beliefs...

so in conlcusion to this brief post......the world would be better off if we didnt have the current major religions (islam and christianity for starters) who believe they are they only way to salvation and influence governements and those outside of their faith......

 

[builder]

I'm reading a novel right now entitled "A Creed for the Third Millenium" by Australian author, Colleen McCullough.

Such an insightful novel. Based in America, it points to the social problems that sectarian religion causes, and the malaise that results from disparate belief systems. Most enlightening reading.

 

[Lethalfind]

As has been said I know I am better off without religion in my life.
I don't think people who are religious now could survive without religion. So many people have to have someone to spoon feed them life.
If you could snap your fingers and it be gone, YES I think we would be better off.

 

[RoyalOrleans]

A world without religion? It would have a three-pronged effect on civilization...

1. I think it would cause megalomaniacs, despots, and dictators to be more honest when they decide to eradicate, decimate a neighboring culture. "Gee... I really despise those Kurds. Let us, the majority, eliminate them folk because they dress funny." for example.

2. Then again, I believe it would cause people to be a little more tolerant of other cultures from far away lands.

3. Of course, you'd have to tolerate them. After all, its the right thing to do.

Religion was invented before the microwave. If the microwave came first, perhaps religion wouldn't be that big of a deal.

 

[eisanbt]

I think that it should disappear now (or even 100 years ago) But were there never any major religions then we'd not have many of the technologies we now enjoy. Religion was not only the earliest form of science (As in it attempted to explain the unknown with the rational of the story teller) but religions all over the world are also accredited with the preservation of historical documents and making sure that things like literacy were passed on to members of the next generation (Which is really the absolute foundation of all science and history and well...everything?).

We live in a world now where religion has become obsolete due to the testable facts provided by the world of science. And although whenever science must undergo an adjustment and rethink old ideas in the light of new facts (Which is a key element almost all religions are missing) people run back to religion But it soon becomes apparent again and again that dispite the confidence of its convictions religion cannot be trusted.

But also with the morality base installed in pretty much all religions, there are many who've been helped that otherwise may not have been thanks to the charitable nature and considerable power of the religious institutions. (If only they didn't require conversion or some dum **** )But even in light of this fact, it is not to say that we couldn't do the same or even better without them. Heres a neat little example of this;

There was a sudy done whereby they wished to see who would act the quickest to help a fellow human. They would get a person, an old man, to fake a heart attack. This was done outside a university building when classes got out (The academic world), Outside a military barracks (The military world) And outside a church just as the congregation was leaving (The religious world) The results really make sense. It was not the religious folk who were quickest, most effective or even empathetic to the man's 'trouble' but it was the soldiers who worked quickest, together and provided the best treatment. Seeing as the military runs of of logic this is a cool example of how the 'Compassion' of religion can be outdone by reasonability. (And it does make sense to help people)

So yes! If it would all just disappear right now then mega-cool-2-thumbs-up. People who feel they NEED it will realize they can find fulfillment elsewhere as well. But organized religion has definatly been essential in the earlier days of humanity.

 

[Jhony5]

Were there never any major religions, then we would not have many of the technologies we now enjoy.

WRONG. INCORRECT. HORSESHIT. NOT!!!

We might have landed on the moon 100 years ago if it were not for the Xtian crucifiction of scientists. Galaleo Was imprisoned in his own home by order of the church when he refused to stop star gazing. It was considered hieracy to dabble in any studies of the cosmos and many other scientific applications for fear that it might disprove their lies. Even now, in the year 2005, scientists are constantly defending science against the wishes of church leaders who know that the facts don't jive with the hocus pocus of their respective religions. Just imagine how horribly we, as a world society, were held back in the pursuit of science due to the imprisonment and murder of ancient scientist.

Religious leaders teach the thinking of "Don't seek answers, as we will provide you with them".

As to the OP of this thread, a world without religion would undeniably suffer from far less 'seperation'. Look at any religion, at its base a core teaching that preachs seperation. The 'us vs them' mentality is the foundation of religion. Its all that there is in religious belief. Good vs evil IS the premise and starting point of any and all religious teachings. "we're good, they're evil", 'they' being anyone who prays to a false god. Whats the biggest social problem facing the world community today? Islam/Muslums terrorizing on a global scale. Would this issue exist if there was no religion/Islam? Of course not. So you tell me that wouldn't be nice to do without.

 

[angie]

WRONG. INCORRECT. HORSESHIT. NOT!!!

We might have landed on the moon 100 years ago if it were not for the Xtian crucifiction of scientists. Galaleo Was imprisoned in his own home by order of the church when he refused to stop star gazing. It was considered hieracy to dabble in any studies of the cosmos and many other scientific applications for fear that it might disprove their lies. Even now, in the year 2005, scientists are constantly defending science against the wishes of church leaders who know that the facts don't jive with the hocus pocus of their respective religions.

That isn't COMPLETELY true. In the past, yes. But as of late, the Vatican has begun to take its head out of its arse and get with the times.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,176050,00.html

The Vatican's chief astronomer said Friday that "intelligent design" isn't science and doesn't belong in science classrooms, becoming the latest high-ranking Roman Catholic official to enter the evolution debate in the United States.

A few weeks ago, there was an article (I can't for the life of me find it, but if I do, I will post it) basically stating that the Vatican has finally admitted that Evolution DID in fact take place, it was just guided by God. They want to believe it was strung along by the hand of God? So be it. But they are no longer denying it. A small step, yes, but a step nonetheless.

 

[Jhony5]

Very intresting article, Angie. I wouldn't go reading to much into it as far as the Vatican changing its official interpetation of intelligent design.
In the eyes of science, to form a theory you need something to substanciate your claim. In the complete abscence of fact in the intelligent design theory, it goes stray from science.To use an analogy, hundreds of years ago, if the church said grass is red, then it WAS red. Nowadays the church will say the grass is red in the eyes of god, and we as mortals just can't see it.

 

[Lethalfind]

That isn't COMPLETELY true. In the past, yes. But as of late, the Vatican has begun to take its head out of its arse and get with the times.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,176050,00.html

A few weeks ago, there was an article (I can't for the life of me find it, but if I do, I will post it) basically stating that the Vatican has finally admitted that Evolution DID in fact take place, it was just guided by God. They want to believe it was strung along by the hand of God? So be it. But they are no longer denying it. A small step, yes, but a step nonetheless.

COME ON angie, its only been sometime in the last year that the Vatican in all their learned wisdom decided that officially the world is round that the Galileo or Magellan whoever said it was round was not going to burn in hell fire eternal for saying such a thing...
Those people are out of their ****in minds and always will be. They have forgotten their own history how they got where they are now, their egos and sense of control are legendary...

 

[angie]

Don't get me wrong-I'm not Catholic, never will be, and for the most part, I think the Vatican is full of **** and off their rockers the majority of the time. I was just pointing out that they're starting to catch up with the rest of the world, and finally admitting that they can't deny science anymore.

 

[Jhony5]

What cracks me up is when a natural disaster occurs, the religious institutions always give praise to god for the ones who survive. All the while neglecting to mention that, according to their own teachings, it was gods hand that killed so many anyway.
The whole idea that god controls all things within the universe just stands as a mochery to the belief itself. An 82 year old woman has cancer, it goes into remission and she survives giving all glory to god for his "miracle". Meanwhile across the way, an eight year old boy is raped to death by a maniac whos high on viagra. Way to go god. What happened on that one, huh?

 

[eisanbt]

WRONG. INCORRECT. HORSESHIT. NOT!!!

Smarten up now and consider what my justification was. I didn't say that religion was a good thing for science, I said it was an out-of-date model to explain ****. Science is the second wave of 'truth' except unlike religion it accually works. What I said was, during periods such as the dark ages, when all science and reasonability was pretty much horse-****ed, it was religious institutions who kept alive many of the scientific records from civilizations such as the Romans and Greeks and Islrealies. Since religion was still being phased out as the bases of fact, many men of reason (Philosphiors) still made up the religious bodies.

To learn from the past's great thinkers you had to read, to learn to read you'ld have to become a monk. This also allowed you to access to such documents as repriting was pretty much non-existant and most of the non-religious holdings of histroy were ****ed up or burnt down by feudal lords with itchy breads and dull axes.

Take more consideration of reasons given before you jump on a statment.

 

[snafu]

Imagine there's no heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today...
Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religon too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace...
Imagine no possesions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
In a brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world...
You may say i'm a dreamer
But i'm not the only one
I hope some day you'll join us
And the world will be as one


Until Man can understand the universe they will need something to fill the void in the mind.
That is religion.

 

[eisanbt]

Really wish I could give you rep for that, but I'm not so privledged.

 

[Lethalfind]

right on snafu...

 

[Jhony5]

Smarten up now and consider what my justification was. I didn't say that religion was a good thing for science, I said it was an out-of-date model to explain ****. Science is the second wave of 'truth' except unlike religion it accually works. What I said was, during periods such as the dark ages, when all science and reasonability was pretty much horse-****ed, it was religious institutions who kept alive many of the scientific records from civilizations such as the Romans and Greeks and Islrealies. Since religion was still being phased out as the bases of fact, many men of reason (Philosphiors) still made up the religious bodies.

To learn from the past's great thinkers you had to read, to learn to read you'ld have to become a monk. This also allowed you to access to such documents as repriting was pretty much non-existant and most of the non-religious holdings of histroy were ****ed up or burnt down by feudal lords with itchy breads and dull axes.

Take more consideration of reasons given before you jump on a statment.

Hey, you said what you said, now your backpeddling. I challenge anyone to make sense out of what you just typed. You said "religion was an old form of science because it was a way to explain ****". Thats not science, thats storytelling.

 

[eisanbt]

In the respect that it was the search for anwsers then they ARE the same. Before discoveries had accumlated enough to start dismising religious THEORY then they were one and the same.

 

[cybacaT]

I think the world would be a more selfish, self-centred place.

There would be much, much more global poverty as nations sought to look after themselves only.

There would be less care for the underprivileged in our communities, therefore more poverty, more crime.

There would be a reduction in terrorism due to islam's demise, but getting rid of all religions to achieve this would be like cutting off your nose to spite your face. The everyday lives of many times more people would be worse off.

Standards would slip in the community, as the people who acted as the brakes on moral decline were taken out of the action.

Despite all this, I think people have an inner questioning about why they are here, and that would necessarily lead to a revival in religious interest soon enough.