A perfect world without religion

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

.

.

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.

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......

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.

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.

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.

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 shit )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.

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.

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.

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.

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 fuckin 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...

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?

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 shit. 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-fucked, 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 fucked 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.

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.

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 shit. 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-fucked, 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 fucked 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 shit". Thats not science, thats storytelling.

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.

Without religion.. Well.. So much would be missed, yet so much could have been accomplished if I am correct.

I wouldn't think Arabs we be as united as they were segregated by Europeans before finding faith. Therefore I don't think Chemistry (Al-Chemy in Arabic) or Algebra (Al-Gebra in Arabic) wouldn't be as advanced or exist at all. Or even the Alphabet (Al-Phabet in Arabic) wouldn't exist. Perhaps we could have found another way, just I don't think we would be advanced.

When gold became money, it all changed. Africa was almost robbed naked. People were making slave ships... Kush, Timbuktu, Black teachers who taught Arabs and Asians... All gone when gold became money.

http://www.egypttourism.org/New%20Site/places/bibliotheca_alexandrina.htm

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.

Its so sad when people don't know history and resort to believing rumors and lies.

Galileo was opposed by the leading scientists of his day, who were advisors to the Pope. All of them were Aristotelian scientists, and held that the Earth was the center of the Universe.

Galileo had succeeded in convincing the Pope to abandon the Aristotelian view, and the Church was drafting documents to that effect. BUT THENGalileo had to write a dialogue explaning his discoveries USING THE POPE AS ONE OF THE CHARACTERS IN THE DIALOGUE. It did not cast the Pope in a sympathetic eye - in the dialogue the Pope was portrayed as being lead by the nose by his advisors, who were savaged by Galileo. Galilieo relied on his friendship with the Pope to protect him from any ramifications of his insult.

Of course the Pope's advisors used the document to drive a wedge between Galileo and the Pope and turn the Pope's opinion back in favor of the Aristotelian view of the universe.

IT WAS SCIENTISTS WHO CRUXIFIED GALILEO, NOT THE CHURCH! And it was Galileo HIMSELF who gave them the ammunition to do it!

I wish people would investigate before repeating these urban rumors. ((shakes head))

The church in the 1600's had sucked in many scientists whom supported the churchs theories. They are the scientists whom battled Galileo. His writtings against the copernican theories in his writting of the "Sunspot Letters" upset the church itself. If the catholic church had its way, sceince would never move to disprove the churchs own mandates.

I used Galileo as an example of the churches methods of using politics to combat 'new' thinking. I based what I posted not on "urban mythology" but a well known fact. In those times of old, science was a risky venture, as any writtings not approved by the Vatican were considered acts of hierecy. I cannot see how you could argure agaisnt that with what seems a purley catholic slant. Remember, this thread is about how the abscense of religion would effect the world as we know it, and without the presense of religion many scientist would have gone on unimpeded.

Galileo was wrong in some of his findings and i'm not trying to argue the validity of his claims. I only provided the breif mention of Galileo to serve as example of church interference in science. You cannot argue that he was not impeded by the CHURCH without reducing yourself to retardation.

Thank you and have a shity day.

Have you guys been into a Catholic church and looked at all the trappings that your tithe dollars buys them??? Rather then feeding people who are hungry, funding schools alot of your money goes to feeding the bloated cow that is the governing end of the Catholic church. A bunch of men in dresses who are either molesting your children, trying to figure out how to get near enough to molest your children or figuring out how to help their friends molest your children by moving them around the map to hide their past trangressions.

Past transgressions = felony behavior

The church in the 1600's had sucked in many scientists whom supported the churchs theories. They are the scientists whom battled Galileo. His writtings against the copernican theories in his writting of the "Sunspot Letters" upset the church itself. If the catholic church had its way, sceince would never move to disprove the churchs own mandates.

This is so patently false I don't know where to begin to refute it. Let me start by saying if it were not for the Catholic Church, modern science as we know it WOULD NOT EXIST. The fundamental reality is that Christian theology was essential for the rise of science—a fact little appreciated outside the ranks of academic Medievalists.

Recent historical research has debunked the idea of a “Dark Ages” after the fall of Rome. It was, in fact, an era of rapid technological progress, by the end of which Europe had surpassed the rest of the world. Moreover, the so-called “Scientific Revolution” of the sixteenth century was a result of developments begun by religious scholars starting in the eleventh century.

The Catholic Church had supported scientific endeavors for centuries. During Galileo’s time, the Jesuits had a highly respected group of astronomers and scientists in Rome. In addition, many notable scientists received encouragement and funding from the Church and from individual Church officials. Many of the scientific advances during this period were made either by clerics or as a result of Church funding. In exchange, it was the scientists of the day who advised the Church as to what was scientificly acceptable and set the policies concerning theological implications.

The truth is, centuries earlier, Aristotle had refuted heliocentricity, and by Galileo’s time, nearly every major thinker subscribed to a geocentric view. Copernicus refrained from publishing his heliocentric theory for some time, not out of fear of censure from the Church, but out of fear of ridicule from his colleagues.

Granted, the era of scientific discovery that occurred in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries was marvelous, the cultural equivalent of the blossoming of a rose. But, just as roses do not spring up overnight, and must undergo a long period of normal growth before they even bud, so too the blossoming of science was the result of centuries of intellectual progress.

Science consists of an organized effort to explain natural phenomena. Why did this effort take root in Europe and nowhere else? Because Christianity depicted God as a rational, responsive, dependable, and omnipotent being, and the universe as his personal creation. The natural world was thus understood to have a rational, lawful, stable structure, awaiting (indeed, inviting) human comprehension. Remember, it was in the University that the heliocentric view came to light - and it was the Christians who invented the University.

I used Galileo as an example of the churches methods of using politics to combat 'new' thinking. I based what I posted not on "urban mythology" but a well known fact.

No, you are wrong; it is an urban myth that can be traced to its point of origin in anti-Catholic literature. This was based on a book called A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom, by Andrew Dickson White, a noted anti-Catholic who was the founder and first president of Cornell University. IT IS ONE BIG FAT LIE.

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/science/sciencesbook.html for a list of primary sources from Latin Christendom concerning science, compiled by Paul Halsall, one of the World's leading Medieval Scholars - and one of my teachers.

In those times of old, science was a risky venture, as any writtings not approved by the Vatican were considered acts of hierecy. I cannot see how you could argure agaisnt that with what seems a purley catholic slant. Remember, this thread is about how the abscense of religion would effect the world as we know it, and without the presense of religion many scientist would have gone on unimpeded.

As the list of primary sources and the facts concerning the Church's attitude towards science show, without the Catholic Church, THERE WOULD BE NO SCIENCE!

Galileo was wrong in some of his findings and i'm not trying to argue the validity of his claims. I only provided the breif mention of Galileo to serve as example of church interference in science. You cannot argue that he was not impeded by the CHURCH without reducing yourself to retardation.

I can and do argue. And before you even suggest it, I am a Protestant Pentacostal.

The only "retarded" view would be for you to hold on to your proven false beliefs concerning science and Catholicism in the face of the facts presented here.