What evidence is there that the world would be better off without religion? (virtual, bible)
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.
What evidence is there that the world would be better off without religion?
Pick a religion, any religion, well....damn near any one of them....they are their own proof that the world is better off without them. Historically speaking, a lot of the worlds' religions have spent hundreds of millions of dollars and untold numbers of human lives trying to prove to each other they are the ONLY true religion. Most religions show scant interest in the lives of their practitioners they are too busy trying to convince other religions just how powerful they are. Edifus Rex, King Cathedral!!! this seems to be their goal. The congregation is just their bank account, a necessary identity if the church is to reach their egocentric aims.
On that religion does try to make theirs more known to the world and it is hard to tell what the one true religion is. If you believe the bible then all you need to know about the true religion is there in any bible it may be phrased different but says the same thing. One scripture Matthew 7:15, 16 "be on the watch for the false prophets that come to you in sheeps covering, but inside they are ravenous wolves. By their fruits you will recognize them." So that brings a question what fruits? Of course they are not rotten fruits but good fruits right. But what fruits? Galatians 5:22,23 " the fruitage of the spirit is love, joy, peace, king-suffering, kindness, goodness, faith, mildness, self-control." So automaticaly you can look thru the religion and see if they have not one but all of these qualities. But a lot do. So how else can you tell if its true? What else makes a true Christian? In John 17 Jesus is talking to god about his disciples. They are of the true religion. He is saying of all his followers in john 17:16 "they are no part of the world, just as i am no part of the world" Jesus did not take part in political things of the world he preached about his father and about the kingdom to come with him as our king. So if he and his followers do not partake in political events then the true religion must not either.
You also say all the religions do things for their own gain and are boisterous. In proverbs10:9 "he that is walking in integrity will walk In security, but he thatis making his way crooked will make himself known" proverbs 10 :19 "in abundance of words there does not fail to be transgression, but the one keeping his lips in check is acting discreetly." That tells me the true religion may be a more quiet hearted one than that of one demanding they be known.
It has in the bible how to tell which is the true religion it is up to the person to read it and find the true religion. The one thing that should be watched is does the religion explain things to you with their own words or do they answer your question using what god has already said. There are many false religions and is it to say the world would be better off with out any or just the right one. Matthew 7:13,14 "go in thru the narrow gate, because broad and spacious is the road leading off into destruct, and many are the ones going in thru it, whereas narrow is the gate and cramped the road leading off into life, and few are the ones finding it."
The question isn't should there be religion the question is should the world be ruled by imperfect man? "in the day of those kings the god of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be brought to ruin. And the kingdom itself will not be passed on to any other people. It will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms and it itself will stand to times indefinite." Daniel 2:44. With men being imperfect, and many wicked how can man ever really rule over this earth successfully. I would rather find that narrow door and wait for the perfect kingdom to be in place. "the righteous themselves will possess the earth, and they will reside forever upon it" psalm 37:29 revelations 21:3,4
You're essentially saying that to be a herd animal, you need religion. Because without religion, herds could not have formed.
Herds are too small to be considered a nation; a herd is no different from a family.
It takes religion for several herds or families to form a (large) tribe and it takes several tribes to form a nation.
A common enemy or threat makes a temporarily alliance between tribes possible but to form a nation (or a permanent alliance between several tribes) religion would have been necessary.
In short: the difference between herd animals and humanity is that humans are herd animals who're able to live in a society because of his intelligence.
Quote:
Group behavior is nothing more than an evolutionary survival tactic.
In order to form a group you need at least 3 people and they would not have survived the wilderness.
So if humanity was unable to form societies they probably would've gone the way of the Dodo.
Quote:
The cooperative members thus became the norm. There was nothing religious about it.
It takes religion for humans to be able to live in the 1st cities (read: to ignore their basic instinct). Living in a city is completely different from living in the wild. I'm of the opinion that you have to be 'crazy' to live in a city.
Originally Posted by nana053
Quote:
You have some reference for this? Religion seems to me to have divided tribes rather than promoting cooperation.
Is there any evidence of tribes who had no religion at all?
All ancient tribes had some form of religion.
Heck, without philosophy there would be no science and even philosophy is rooted in religion.
So without religion there would be no philosophy and thus no science.
Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo
Quote:
There is massive difference between religion and economics for the very reasons I just gave in the rest of my post. With economics we can actually have a conversation. We can discuss the trends, the facts, the figures, the very real human set exchange rates and interest rates.
That is your opinion.
I have no faith in money whatsoever, but unlike you I do not see it as a conversation stopper.
For example: exchange rates are not fact, they are agreements between 2 or more parties.
I personally would not give any value to money, but the fact that everyone else uses it 'forces' me to value it too.
Man is the only animal who believes that life costs money.
So the reason why we still have a conversation is because I treat economics like any other religion I do not believe in or don't agree with.
Quote:
As such I think the world would very much benefit from a lack of religion.
Well I personally believe the world would be better of without cities.
Cities can't survive without money & modern technology.
Then again I believe that life on Earth would be paradise if man never existed.
I guess you view humanity as the world while I consider all life on earth as the world.
The next question would be how do u know the bible is right? If a man walks up to you and tells you you will one day win the lotery you would blow him off. But if 20 years later you win a million dollar jackpot you would think again about what he said and believe him if he says somthing again. The bible has many prophecies in it. Many have already happened. Example when the earth was discovered to be a circle the bible had already written it was a circle Isaiah 40:22 and that the earth was held up by nothing was said in job 26:7 it didn't take a scientist to resurch this because the writer of the book knows about the earth he created it. What more is needed to see its truth. Well there is more. Isaiah lived in the eighth centry b.c.e he prophecied thst babylon would be destroyed. he gave d#etails as to how even. Isaiah 13:19 14:22,23. He even said the name of the king who would conquer Babylon named Cyrus. Isaiah 44:27-45:2. About 200 years later on the night of October 5/6 539 b.c.e an army camped near babylon and their commander a Persian king named cyrus. Later it was fortold in the bible that Babylon " will never be inhabited, nor will it reside for generation after generation. And there the Arab will not pitch his tent and no shepherds will let thetr flock lie down there." Isaiah 13:20 about 50 miles south of Baghdad is the curently uninhabited proff ofancient babylon.
I see no reason for humankind becoming extinct without living in large nations. The Eskimos have seemed to do a fine job.
True, but their way of life is going to end, because of the existence of these large nations.
I mean the fact that the Eskimos live on land that has recourses like fish, oil or gas which every large nation finds very valuable they will soon either become extinct or be assimilated by modern society.
When they tried the experiment of banning religion (or limiting it) in places like, say the USSR or East Germany, things did not really work out. The "Party" replaced religion, and communism turned out to be as restrictive and inhumane as fundamentalist Christianity. On the other hand, when we look at a place like say Iran, where the religious leadership has more or less a theocratic state, we see nothing but repression and further violation of human rights. Consider too the Vatican, where property crimes are amongst the world's highest.
No solution either way.
Do you even bother to read what people write before replying? Where did I say money was a conversation stopper?
And have you read what I've posted?
I've posted that I consider money (or the economy) like any other religion I've no faith in.
And was it not you who claimed that religion is a conversation stopper?
Heck money only exists because people believe in it, therefore money does not truly exist; is not real.
The validity of money, like most of man's laws, has to be enforced by humans otherwise its worth will be less than it costs to print them. So money, unlike for example gravity, stops existing the moment people stop believing in it, while gravity like God (or reality) doesn't care whether man believes in it or not.
I wouldn't be surprised if mankind would've been extinct without religion.
It simply is impossible for the 1st people to survive individually.
I'm no expert, but I doubt the family structure is capable of growing beyond a tribe, which means that it is too small to even support the smallest of nation.
Not exactly true, while in W. Africa I knew tribes with hundreds of thousands of members, tribes need not be small, Efiks, Ibo, Ibibio, Hausa, Yoruba are large tribal units broken down into clans and villages that cooperate with each other, these tribes tend to be animist, There is no church. The Zulu in the 1800's numbered in the hundreds of thousands.
What I don't understand is how believers can continue to believe that morality can't exist without religion.
We don't need imaginary sky gods to be our "parents". We can have a good morale compass without religion.
My wife would agree that there would be no social life without religion though...
this has been one thing that has absooutely infuriated me by the deceiv
ers (they call them believers. That somehow they, as believers in the various and suncry muths, have a lock on morality (as if anything that is based on fiction and liest could even be associated with morality), and that fact-based people can't have morals of their own, and are either immoral or must borrow their morality from religion.
It's the same sort of arrogance that causes some people to feel and proclaimm that they are "saved". You aren't any more or less "saved" than anyone eles (as if being saved is even something that makes a lick of sense.
Originally Posted by Dusty Rhodes Yes, well, fact is that before society was even conceived religion was necessary in order for different tribes to cooperate and live together.
Well...that's one theory, there are others. Another goes along the lines of "Religion has been an anchor on the ship of reason, impeding a lot of forward progress." Religions do not have a history of co-operation with other religions.
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.
Herds are too small to be considered a nation; a herd is no different from a family.
I'm of the opinion that you have to be 'crazy' to live in a city.
Is there any evidence of tribes who had no religion at all?
That is your opinion.
Well I personally believe the world would be better of without cities.
True, but their way of life is going to end, because of the existence of these large nations.
So money, unlike for example gravity, stops existing the moment people stop believing in it, while gravity like God (or reality) doesn't care whether man believes in it or not.
I'm no expert, but I doubt the family structure is capable of growing beyond a tribe, which means that it is too small to even support the smallest of nation.
