Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Without religion the world would be far less violent, more moral, less bigoted, with fewer wars, and less strife....
Why wasn't that option on your poll since it is obvious?
According to their most recent rankings, among the top ten most peaceful nations on earth, all are among the least God-believing – in fact, eight of the ten are specifically among the least theistic nations on earth. Conversely, of the bottom ten – the least peaceful nations – most of them are extremely religious. https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...-earth-atheism
Yes, I wanted that option too.
Overall religion cause humans more harm than good.
Blah, poll question cut off. The last bit says to "pick the closest response", since of course there are no true absolutes.
Quick clarification: This is of course a hypothetical scenario. Whether or not you desire to live in a theocracy, just imagine a world with no religious adherence at all.
a world without religion would be a world without Humans, somehow Animals do not have religion, only humans happen to have a sense of trascendence, animals seem not to do so.
"Either the maxims of traditional morality must be accepted as axioms of practical reason which neither admit nor require argument to support them; or else there are no values at all, what we mistook for values being "projections" of irrational emotions.
It is perfectly futile, after having dismissed traditional morality with the question, 'Why should we obey it?' then to attempt the reintroduction of value at some later stage in our philosophy. Any value we reintroduce can be countered in just the same way. Every argument used to support it will be an attempt to derive from premises in the indicative mood a conclusion in the imperative. And this is impossible." - C.S. Lewis
"Many a popular "planner" on a democratic platform, many a mild-eyed scientist in a democratic laboratory means, in the last resort, just what the Fascist means. He believes that "good" means whatever men are conditioned to approve. He believes that it is the function of him and his kind to condition men; to create consciences by eugenics, psychological manipulation of infants, state education and mass propaganda. Because he is confused, he does not yet fully realize that those who create conscience cannot be subject to conscience themselves. But he must awake to the logic of his position sooner or later; and when he does, what barrier remains between us and the final division of the race into a few conditioners who stand themselves outside morality and the many conditioned in whom such morality as the experts choose is produced at the experts' pleasure? If "good" means only the local ideology, how can those who invent the local ideology be guided by any idea of good themselves? The very idea of freedom presupposes some objective moral law which overarches rulers and ruled alike. Subjectivism about values is eternally incompatible with democracy. We and our rulers are of one kind only so long as we are subject to one law. But if there is no Law of Nature, the ethos of any society is the creation of its rulers, educators and conditioners; and every creator stands above and outside his creation." - C.S. Lewis
I have to say I don't know. I don't think it will be super good, or super bad. Just different, I guess.
However, I can say this as a Christian, if Christianity disappeared today, Some other religion would be dominant - probably Islam. Though a lot of pagan religions may have flourished.
I'm a Christian but have no desire to live in a theocracy. Just look at the history of religious wars and persecutions among Christians themselves!
Let us make something clear. So-called religious wars, whether justified by religion, were never the product of religion.
When the Catholics and Protestants fought against one-another, it was about power, not religion. And the fighting ended only once they agreed on how the continent would be divided between them(IE Treaty of Westphalia).
All wars are about power, money, resources, and control.
The real reason theocracy was replaced by secularism, is not because secularism is more-peaceful(don't be absurd). Rather, because it served the interests of governments to appear impartial. How can you rule over vast territories populated by diverse peoples if your government isn't impartial?
Furthermore, the entire purpose of theocracy in the first place, at least in Europe, was about establishing a given government as "legitimate".
All Christian theocracies were justified by the bible, Romans 13, in something referred to as the "Divine Right of Kings".
In short, Romans 13 declares that all governments were placed here by god himself. And thus, to disobey your government, was to disobey god.
This principle was the only thing that held society together anywhere in Christian Europe after the collapse of the Roman Empire. And, seemingly paradoxically, it was this principle which helped to develop the institutions which led to what many now call "Western Civilization".
To explain, imagine that, if a King was only in power because god placed him there, then he has to appear to be doing god's will, obeying god's commandments. Thus King's, at least from the outside, had to themselves appear to be good Christians. They had to appear moral, in the Christian sense, or all their legitimacy was lost.
The great difficulty of all governments, is in how to get the masses to obey its authority, and to cooperate with each other, voluntarily.
From the perspective of all governments, the only alternative to voluntary obedience and cooperation, is slavery. The state, if it must, would reduce anyone to the most revolting levels of slavery, if it felt its very survival was at stake.
And this principle has played out again and again, even in the so-called "humanitarian" or "secular" states of the communists and others.
Last edited by Redshadowz; 02-11-2017 at 08:36 AM..
Well, I assume you mean organized religion and I think that the world would be worse off without it.
Here are some things that the Catholic Church has given the world: (from What the Church has given the world | CatholicHerald.co.uk) 1. Light and the cosmos
The Opus Maius (1267) of the Franciscan Roger Bacon (d 1292), written at the request of Pope Clement IV, largely initiated the tradition of optics in the Latin world. The first spectacles were invented in Italy around 1300, an application of lenses that developed later into telescopes and microscopes.
While many people think of Galileo (d 1642) being persecuted, they tend to forget the peculiar circumstances of these events, or the fact that he died in his bed and his daughter became a nun.
The Gregorian Calendar (1582), now used worldwide, is a fruit of work by Catholic astronomers, as is the development of astrophysics by the spectroscopy of Fr Angelo Secchi (d 1878).
Most remarkably, the most important theory of modern cosmology, the Big Bang, was invented by a Catholic priest, Fr Georges Lemaître (d 1966, pictured), a historical fact that is almost never mentioned by the BBC or in popular science books.
LOL..in what way has Christianity been a positive influence on the world? Because i can't think of one single thing that Christianity has contributed that's been positive. Nothing.
Hell, Judaism has been far more positive than Christianity for several reasons...most of all because it doesn't proliferate and spread, and Jews have no interest in attracting converts. That in itself makes it the best religion.
BTW...Christianity sure hasn't been a positive influence on Judaism, has it? After all, six million Jews are dead at the hands of Christians....and that doesn't include all of the pogroms over all the centuries.
Buddhism is positive because relative few people practice it.
You are what I would call a radical atheist or at very least a hater of Christianity. If you're not an atheist, you very much align with them politically, a group of folks who wreak of political agenda.
You are wrong. The Christians are not responsible for the Holocaust. In fact, the Christians are not even responsible for the Crusades. That was ramroded by the infiltration of the Vikings.
Religion adds purpose and direction and hope to billions.
The problems with our planet are all us. We butt heads when we bicker over power and control, fear, selfishness, inconsiderate behavior, dishonesty, resentment and the like.
It's not God's fault, never was, never will be. Atheism is a religion unto itself. They tend to be liberal. They tend to be politically correct. They are victims, they judge others but not themselves, duck responsibility and accountability. Half of them like to be in control and the other half like to be cared for. It's truly a sick codependent relationship.
Kinda sounds like a man-made religion, huh?
Separation of church and state is one thing, but there is a somewhat small faction of misguided people who demand that established religions via the church pay taxes, lose their tax exempt status. These folks would create a world which is the exact opposite of what they set out to accomplish. Could you imagine if churches paid taxes to the government? They would own the government. Lobbyists sure have been trying to gain power with money.
Like I said, the fight for power and control is real and money is the ammunition.
I personally believe that American Christians have been good stuarts of God's Grace amongst the needy across the planet. No coffeeshop atheist is gonna sway my conviction on that. I've seen it time and time again with my own eyes. No amount of Fake Radical Atheistic agenda will sway that fact. Think back when Penn and Teller, with the aid of human genatalia and liberal cash tried to convince us that Mother Teresa was satanic.
No religion at all be it poly or monotheistic. I could see human societies being set up much like a pride of lions with the smaller men banding together like hyenas to take down the dominant male.
I'm Christian and my answer isn't a choice. You present only extremes. I am moderate and I think the world would pretty much be the same without religion as it is now. It's not like if there were no religion, it would be replaced by something else. To see this, look to atheistsas a group. They aren't amoral or dangerous and they aren't dull or empty either. They have personal philosophies, moral codes, political ideals, passions, etc.
Good answer. Same here. I tend to be more liberal, but neither of the secondary parts of the sentences make sense, so I didn't vote.
Overall religion cause humans more harm than good.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanspeur
Without religion the world would be far less violent, more moral, less bigoted, with fewer wars, and less strife.
I don't necessarily consider myself a religious person. But when atheists believe this, I assume they haven't really thought the situation through.
Let us understand that what war has always been about, is power/dominance/control.
Wars are fought between various factions, for dominance over a given territory. Much like one dog might challenge another dog for dominance over a given territory.
Wars will continue so long as there are factions vying for dominance. And the only practical way to end all war, is to have only one power, greater than all the rest, who can prevent all that rest from fighting.
In simplest terms, the only way to prevent all war, is to have something akin to a "one-world government".
This is where atheism/secularism appears to be a solution. You cannot have a one-world government, so long as people are divided by things like race, religion, culture, etc. And this is why the communists wanted to destroy all of these things. To create a truly "class-less" society. Free from any economic, ideological, or spiritual division.
So would such a world come with any downsides?
Now, most of what you two said, is wholly irrelevant to what is actually important here. When we discuss harmful or beneficial. What we are really doing is making a judgement of "good" or "evil". Or even, "moral" or "immoral". And functionally-speaking, "good" and "moral" are the same thing.
So the question then becomes, would a one-world government, completely free of all religion, be "more moral" or "less moral", than a religious world?
Well let us ask the question, "What is morality?"
The idea of morality, regardless of the people and culture, or the time in human history, always means "To act unselfishly". Morality simply means to "put others first".
In every society, and through all time, immoral behavior merely means selfish behavior. It is that behavior which hurts others, or otherwise has a "harmful" effect on society.
Thus the actual question here, is whether religion makes people more selfish, or less selfish.
If religion makes people more selfish, then that means a world without religion would necessarily be more moral.
If religion makes people less selfish, then that means a world without religion would necessarily be less moral.
I have found absolutely no evidence to believe that doing away with religion encourages people to become less selfish. As religion wanes, morality always wanes with it.
The Chinese lived without religion for 4,000 years, and most of time it was one of the most powerful and wealthy countries in the world.
Human nature is such that we will always seek purpose even when none exists and the approval of authority even when the authority figure is imagined.
It reassures us to think someone is in control even if we are not.
Like dreams and art, religion is an integral part of our nature.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
