We Would be Better off without Religion

[der Astronom]

The title came from the topic of an Intelligence Squared debate among people who are more knowledgeable about the subject than I am, and while I'm not using it to support my argument, and the result may have been in favor of being without religion, I just thought it was an interesting discussion. You can see the debate in the link down below. Be warned that it's rather lengthy though, so if you don't have time to watch it, try doing it when you actually get the time for it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jmn-RFiKpRk&playnext=1&list=PL165C36A119835436

Anyways, this is actually a response to someone posting in a different thread, but I figured it would be better to create a separate thread for this, and because I think it makes for a good discussion anyways.

Now generally, (and I am just repeating what I said in the other thread), I think we would be better off without religion. There's lots of harm that religion has done, and while I agree some good things have come about because of it, one cannot consider the good it has done without considering the harm it has done, and if it disappeared tomorrow, it would not bother me at all.
I would be happier without religion because religion teaches people to be happy with beliefs they cannot confirm, and I do not think it is a healthy way of thinking, if we were to care about the truth (which I do).
I don't deny that religion brings some people happiness, but it should only bring them happiness in a way that it does not harm other people, which generally means that it should stay out of the public sphere, and should have no influence over the government or society. If you want to pray in a church, you are free to do so. If you want to pray at dinner, you are free to do so. But I don't want to see people dragging other people to church against their own will, I don't want to see people condemning homosexuals or fighting against abortion quite simply because their religion tells them to, and I don't want to see people pushing for religious ideas being taught in a science class. I'm aware that there will still be some people against abortion or condemning homosexuals, even if religion didn't exist, but if that were the case, they'd have their own reasons for it; they'd have one less excuse they could use. I can't claim to know how many people would think that way, and even if they inherently did, that wouldn't make them right anyways.
If the only thing religion is good at is giving people the illusion that everything is okay, then that's the only thing it should be doing, and only for the people that find it comforting.
Yes, I know that people find religion comforting, and they attribute art and lots of things in entertainment and culture to religion. I'm aware that events organized by religious organizations bring people together and maintain some level of affection. But are you somehow saying that we can't have art or entertainment without religion? There is certainly a lot of secular art and secular entertainment out there. And there are also events organized by secular people that are just as good at bringing people together and bringing about some affection too. The fact is, I can't see any difference between religiously inspired art or secularly inspired art, or events organized by either religious or secular organizations. If religion didn't exist, it doesn't mean we wouldn't have art or entertainment, or events that are fun and bring people together. Sure they'd be different, but they'd still exist.
I also dislike that people are using religion as the excuse to be offended. Now we can't talk about something and discuss it like grown up people because they'd rather say they were offended than talk it through and reach an understanding. And I find this appalling because we don't give politicians or celebrities any special treatment over this. The same can be said about science or any other subject. Whenever politicians or celebrities get offended, we still keep making fun of them. Why is it that we can make fun of politicians or celebrities (which may include criticizing them), but we can't do the same with religion? It's just special pleading. That people would rather be offended and not come to an understanding or simply agree to disagree is blatantly "shut up, that's why". Without religion, we would not have an excuse to be offended.
Now I'm aware there are some people who would rather not talk about this at all. They are free to exclude themselves from the discussion. I'm not going to force them to stay. But to say that we cannot talk about religion at all in public simply because people might get offended is absurd.

Now to answer specific points from the recent post in the other thread:

That a parent chooses not to bring their child to a doctor can be blamed on religion. You may say it is their choice, but no one who knows what a doctor does would avoid seeing one if they were sick, unless they were personally traumatized by it. They believe that they can be cured by simply believing in prayers and god, and that by praying, they would get better. Now this mentality isn't actually all that uncommon. You do see people who pray for their friends or family, in the hopes that they will get better (and they really believe god will help them). But just because it's a common mentality doesn't mean that it's right, or that it's even based on a good reason. Studies have shown that people who have been prayed for don't fare any better then people who don't. That people would believe in something this absurd could only be because they believed in something as ridiculous as religion. Praying doesn't harm people though; avoiding the doctor based on the belief that prayer has more power than science does. And this can be traced logically to religion, which is all the more reason why I blame it.
There was actually another point I wanted to make. This actually has more to do with the Christian religion specifically, because I agree that other religions are effective at giving people the illusion that everything's okay (and I'll admit I haven't studied them in much detail, so I don't know if they'll have similar problems, but people are free to bring them up if they notice them), but in Christianity, this feeling is induced by scapegoating Jesus. That there is always someone who will take responsibility for everything you do wrong, and because this topic has been done to death, I will only say that I don't think feeling comfortable at the expense of being irresponsible is really a good idea. If criminals get this feel good feeling by believing they don't have to take any responsibility, then what do you think happens to them? Do you think sitting in jail really means they're going to learn their lesson?

We would not know what a world would be like without religion. That it has influenced us for better does not mean that we could not have good things without it. If you are going to claim that religion is only one source of bad things happening, then I can also say that it is only one source of good things happening. Good and bad things can happen for reasons other than religion. I just happen to think we would do better without ideas that are grounded on nothing more than blind faith (that's the difference), and it's all because I care about the truth.

What are your thoughts? Do you believe we would be better off without religion? Why or why not?

 

[Shaissa]

Overall I think Religion is a good and bad thing...

The good things are that its usually a church or some religious organization that gets donations and tries to help out in the communities, getting rid of graffiti, picking up trash, helping out people with money trouble or any other trouble.

The bad things are that people usually get a little, arrogant about their religion. I don't mean that they think their religion is the right one, I mean they will go as far as someone like me who is atheist, they will try and shove their religion down my throat. Religion has also been a cause for war, murder, and a lot of other things.

Now would we be better off without it? I don't think so, cause Religion is what give's people their Morals, for not killing or stealing, or anything, without any form of religion or beliefs It would literally be survival of the fittest in my mind, cause even governments have based their laws off of religion, Religion is what has made governments stable, even with all the problems with religion, I just can't see humans being... caring without religion at all.

 

[bearsfwd]

I don't think so, cause Religion is what give's people their Morals, for not killing or stealing, or anything, without any form of religion or beliefs It would literally be survival of the fittest in my mind, cause even governments have based their laws off of religion, Religion is what has made governments stable, even with all the problems with religion, I just can't see humans being... caring without religion at all.

I don't get my morals from religion. I can count the number of times I've been to church on one hand for that matter.

People don't need religion for any of the things you mentioned. They simply need to learn how to use common sense. That's something a good number of people seem to have a problem with (and if you ask women, they will tell you no man uses common sense ).

In reality, being religious, or even simply following a religion, doesn't get you anything.

I've managed to live a good 25 years so far without religion...never been arrested, never done drugs. No, I'm not perfect, but if me, and average person, can live without religion, ANYBODY can.

 

[Shaissa]

I don't get my morals from religion. I can count the number of times I've been to church on one hand for that matter.

People don't need religion for any of the things you mentioned. They simply need to learn how to use common sense. That's something a good number of people seem to have a problem with (and if you ask women, they will tell you no man uses common sense ).

In reality, being religious, or even simply following a religion, doesn't get you anything.

I've managed to live a good 25 years so far without religion...never been arrested, never done drugs. No, I'm not perfect, but if me, and average person, can live without religion, ANYBODY can.

I'm atheist myself, but I believe that morals came from religions first, Cause before that, it really was survival of the fittest. Its human nature to just take take and take. Why do you think you learn to share first at a young age?

Without religions, I would say that most of the world would turn to selfishness and survival over their "common sense" as you call it (even woman wouldn't use it.)

And do you disagree that Religions probably start providing the most citizen relief to people in need? I know there are other groups that aren't religious that provide relief to people in need, but I bet there are more religious organizations out there that provide relief than non religious ones.

I'm saying that even those without religion realize it has changed people for the better than for evil in the end. Minus terrorist who go to the extreme, Most religions have the same moral system, and feel the need to help others in many cases.

Now yes religions to argue, I wont deny that either, and they butt heads with one another in the "holy land" and in many parts of the world. But I honestly believe that the do more good than harm in the end.

 

[Roland_Deschain]

Haha you rap bastard you! =P

I knew the minute I saw this thread that I was the one who planted this seed =)



Well I suppose I can dive into this sometime, but not too much right now. I feel that we may have already crossed swords with many of the points we have between us anyhow.

You should change the title of this thread to a question and not a statement, seems to be a little bold for some one who values facts so highly, as you do. The fact is we do not know, and that is the only fact about this, the rest is debatable perspectives.

I will look at this and probably respond in a day or so, I will start by making only one point. This issue is moot, I mean we know of all of the problems that religion causes and we can recognize a lot of the goodness it has brought to the society, but the main point I am making is that religion is thousands of years old, how are we ever to tell the result we would have if society had been drivin by something different, if all of that time has passed already. There will never be a clear answer to this, only speculation and opinions from us naive 21st century youngsters. Some of the most powerful people in history had religion and it might have been the only thing holding them back from being even bigger monsters than they already were, for all we know many of the countries that exist would not even exist today without it, its just real hard to say.

I know that there is absolutely no possible way to calculate the difference and if it is good or not, there is no need either, as we have been all brought here by the actions before us and who is to say we would even be here had it been different...you know the flick of a butterflys wings blah blah, because even if you derived what may be different in one country as young as america, there are countless religions worldwide (in older countries) that effect each other in both possitive and negative ways. This topic is a long shot at wondering, but I am willing to wonder about it.

you guys have your fun and I will follow up on this one, however I hope nobody barges in here claiming their opinions are baseless facts to this one, because none of us were alive 6,000 years ago.In some ways I feel religion may evil, but its a neccisary evil.

And if we take this debate in a worldwide view, we must not just converse about western religions but eastern ones as well. Some religions are anchient, and as I am not an advocate of religion in the first place I will do a little snooping around at cause and effect of religions I am unfamiliar with, I will even discuss religion with my Chinese co workers here in Beijing, I know that these days Chinese are some of the least religious people in the world, but it did not used to be that way, I will consider their perspectives as well.

 

[der Astronom]

I'm atheist myself, but I believe that morals came from religions first, Cause before that, it really was survival of the fittest. Its human nature to just take take and take. Why do you think you learn to share first at a young age?

Actually, I disagree. Religion is not a necessary condition of morality. If it were not, we could not contest its treatment of women, homosexuals or slavery. Learning to get along with other people and working with them does not require religion. You can get along fine with someone who doesn't share the same beliefs as you. And that I do not believe in religion does not mean I am inclined to do evil things, nor does my lack of belief give me an excuse to do bad things; that I do not believe in a personal scapegoat means I have to be responsible for what I do.

Without religions, I would say that most of the world would turn to selfishness and survival over their "common sense" as you call it (even woman wouldn't use it.)

Actually, religion itself is just as selfish (see the thread on prayer). Even if we didn't have religion, I know we'd be just as selfish, but we'd be selfish in a different way.

And do you disagree that Religions probably start providing the most citizen relief to people in need? I know there are other groups that aren't religious that provide relief to people in need, but I bet there are more religious organizations out there that provide relief than non religious ones.

Actually, that depends on how you want to put it. Are you talking about religious groups that give their relief to just about anyone, regardless of what they believe, or are they organizations that only provide support for people that believe the same things? Are they only in the interest of proselytizing their religion to people too poor or suffering too much to realize what's going on? Are they just providing this relief because it furthers their own agenda, and not because they actually care about these people? Or maybe even because they believe their god told them to?
Either way, it doesn't really matter. Saying there are more religious organizations that do these things isn't any different from saying there happen to be more Christians in the population than atheists or other religious groups.

I'm saying that even those without religion realize it has changed people for the better than for evil in the end. Minus terrorist who go to the extreme, Most religions have the same moral system, and feel the need to help others in many cases.

I'm not actually sure if that's true, but in the case of Abrahamic religions, I don't believe that's true. These religions are only in the interest of feeding oneself. That you do anything for anyone else is for the sake of religion; not humanity. That you do anything at all that's not considered selfish is because you want to guarantee a spot for yourself in heaven. Otherwise, why bother listening to god or following the bible at all?

I will look at this and probably respond in a day or so, I will start by making only one point. This issue is moot, I mean we know of all of the problems that religion causes and we can recognize a lot of the goodness it has brought to the society, but the main point I am making is that religion is thousands of years old, how are ever to tell the result we would have if society had been drivin by something different, if all of that time has passed. There will never be a clear answer to this, only speculation and opinions from us naive 21st century youngsters. Some of the most powerful people in history had religion and it might have been the only thing holding them back from being even bigger monsters than they already were, for all we know many of the countries that exist would not even exist today without it, its just real hard to say.

I'm not sure how much worse it could get; you had people torturing others for no reason at all, or maybe because they chose not to follow the same religion. Women got burned for no reason at all other than being accused of being witches (Come on...Witches probably don't exist). Some of the worse torture methods that existed existed during a time when government was run by religion (now you don't see those wheel torture devices anymore, and people don't get sawed in half). And people in general were pretty ignorant; there was no science, and people probably didn't value rationality in the same way we do now; Galileo was being entirely honest and rational about his findings, but they didn't get accepted. And all this happened because religion existed. If you think religion was preventing people from being worse than it already was, please explain how. I'd be curious to know how these ridiculous beliefs kept people in check back then.

you guys have your fun and I will follow up on this one, however I hope nobody barges in here claiming their opinions are baseless facts to this one, because none of us were alive 6,000 years ago.

I don't know what you mean about not being alive 6000 years ago, but that's not important. What's important is that we have the tools necessary to have a glimpse of things that happened that long ago. Perhaps we don't always have the right interpretation of those things back then, and it might all just be speculation, but you can't even begin to talk about history if you believe we can't know anything that long ago just because we weren't alive then.

 

[Roland_Deschain]

I don't know what you mean about not being alive 6000 years ago, but that's not important. What's important is that we have the tools necessary to have a glimpse of things that happened that long ago. Perhaps we don't always have the right interpretation of those things back then, and it might all just be speculation, but you can't even begin to talk about history if you believe we can't know anything that long ago just because we weren't alive then.

But it DOES matter, because like you know and like I know, religion is not just something you base your choices upon, its a lifestlye. Every single thing they do is offset by that, and as me and you are NOT religoius, how can we ever have "their" perspective...we can predict how "we" would have made the world without religion, but how can we say we would have made better decisions? I know more evil people who are not religious than actually religious. Who is to say the world wouldnt be worse if we can only percieve decisions through our own view. People all throughout recorded history would have acted differently becuase of their thinking, so the time does matter, because things were not as advance and religion was a better tool for control, perhaps it was the only thing back than that could be used for control.

My gut reaction to thread is that perhaps we would be better off today without it, but honestly we are growing to the point where it is boiling over by itself, and we show respect as humans to others beliefs. But as far as making the world what it is today I would think "hell no," but thats a gut feeling. When you talk about such epic overall thing it has done in crafting the world with it, I think sick babies and homosexuality is trumped.

And people are going to get tortured one way or another by other people, its the evil we have potential for. There are a great many killers whoms have no god and to stand up on, and to say that religion is the cause of most violence is a little extreme.

 

[Will Graham]

Well personally I think we would be better off without religion, but this is a large debate spanning a number of topics, so for now I'll focus on morals. To think morals are solely the product of organised religion, is to me a bit patronising but mainly ridiculous. If humans really were as greedy and survivalist as you think, then how would religion or civilisation come about to begin with?

Secondly that would mean atheists are effectively vile and evil savages with no care for anyone other than themselves. I'm an atheist myself and when faced with say, seeing someone drop a fifty and having the option of taking it or returning it, I don't believe my actions will be judged by any higher power. Yet I still feel compelled to do the right thing and return the money. Some might argue my motives are purer than a religious person's as my actions are not governed by a desire for divine reward or fear of retribution.

 

[Shaissa]

WIf humans really were as greedy and survivalist as you think, then how would religion or civilisation come about to begin with?

Secondly that would mean atheists are effectively vile and evil savages with no care for anyone other than themselves.

Im atheists too and i believe that we can be "civil" and moral, but overall, let me ask you this, if the whole world didnt have religions and civilizations that didnt allow anyone to kill what do you think would happen? it would be survival...and let me ask another question...where do you think governments get there main laws from, that no one shall kill another human being or steal or any of those... bet you most of those if you trace it back well base it on religion...just saying.

 

[bearsfwd]

And do you disagree that Religions probably start providing the most citizen relief to people in need? I know there are other groups that aren't religious that provide relief to people in need, but I bet there are more religious organizations out there that provide relief than non religious ones.

I would donate to the Red Cross before I EVER donated to a church. With the church, unless they would specifically say where the money was going, I wouldn't know if I was helping someone who truly needs it or if I was simply helping the church get funding to build a bigger church when they DON'T need it. I'm not going to fund churches to build themselves up bigger.

 

[Will Graham]

Im atheists too and i believe that we can be "civil" and moral, but overall, let me ask you this, if the whole world didnt have religions and civilizations that didnt allow anyone to kill what do you think would happen? it would be survival...and let me ask another question...where do you think governments get there main laws from, that no one shall kill another human being or steal or any of those... bet you most of those if you trace it back well base it on religion...just saying.

Well you can say that, and it would be a difficult thing to disprove or prove either really. My point is though, if religion supposedly came up with morals way back when how did they do it. As you said that humans are basically naturally immoral, so why would they have created morals originally?

 

[Roland_Deschain]

Ok I have given it some thought and here is my opinion.

I think regardless of religion causing problems for the world we have a lot to be thankful for it.

Some of the earliest form of government and control can be traced back to religion. Thousands/hundreds of years ago when ethics were not so black and white and the human race was not as adapted to everything as it is today, religion is one of the only things leaders could have possibly created to give the people the fear and reconciliation they needed for change. While I admit it may have been evil, it was a neccissary evil (same as government).

Some of the earliest science was born out of religion including chemistry. Even in the last century science is still inspired by religion in an effort to prove of disprove it.

The geography of this world may never have been the same, countries could have different names and habitants and perhaps me and you posting in this thread would not even exist.

Organized religion may be bad, but the idea and possibility of a god is just as unprovable as the big bang theory. I feel that such an idea should not be disregarded, and organized religion gives strength and courage to wonder about such things thanks to organized religion. Organized religion is not just a system of evil control, it can be a looking glass for different theorys and ideas that insist a god is possible. Without that, we would not be open minded of such a possibility even if it have it correct or not.

Some of the earliest and recorded ethics recorded of this world were born out of religion, I am not saying we can not have good ethics without religion, but I think that over thousands of years religion has created a bar to set ourselves by. Even though that has changed now, who is to say the ethics the majority of people have were not very first set by laws of a religion, thus forcing a positive change upon the world.

I know how we can "percieve" people and society was 6,000 years or more ago, but in those days all records were kept by emperors, kings, and the leaders of the countries, they were the people in charge of historical documents being recorded and you can garuntee they were probably biased. We can imagine the world through only the eyes of those who wrote such documents, but not the populas of civilians.

My point is of course its easy for us to think the world would be better without it, due to the problems we witnessed. Yet should you choose to take a look at all angles perhaps you may think its just as hard to think this way. The world was crafted the way it is now through religion by a large amount. I think its impossible we would have grown without religion because we created it in the first place, many different kinds, it was inevitable, and is was US who created it. The weakness fall upon humans and not the religion. I also think maybe it was not such a big mistake and perhaps we should be more thankful for this then hateful.

So in short, no I do not believe we would be better without religion, but than again its easy to point fingers at problems as opposed to benifits, and its easy to think this way after witnessing what harm it has brought, but its hard to take a look at a situation that never happened and say that it would be better this way, and its harder for us to find the good it brought, because many of us just do not want to.

Thats my opinion. Though we will never know =P

 

[der Astronom]

But it DOES matter, because like you know and like I know, religion is not just something you base you choices upon, its a lifestlye. Every single thing they do is offset by that, and as me and you are NOT religoius, how can we ever have "their" perspective...

But we were at some point, right? Some people I know of used to be religious, and would know what it's like. And despite that, they still continue to criticize religion and might believe they were better off without it. I used to be religious, and I'm telling you, I'm happier without it, and if it never existed, I wouldn't be upset by it.

we can predict how "we" would have made the world without religion, but how can we say we would have made better decisions? I know more evil people who are not religious than actually religious. Who is to say the world wouldnt be worse if we can only percieve decisions through our own view. People all throughout recorded history would have acted differently becuase of their thinking, so the time does matter, because things were not as advance and religion was a better tool for control, but perhaps it was the only thing back than that could be used for control.

Because I am not talking about the other things that cause people to be evil; I'm not denying they exist, but that's not got to do with this topic; we are talking about the bad things religion causes. Sure poverty causes crime. Sure bad politics or bad economy might cause crime. But so too can religion, and if religion stopped existing, there is one less source of bad things happening. That's the only thing I was ever driving at, and at no point did I recall saying we would be free of evil if religion stopped existing.

My gut reaction to thread is that perhaps we would be better off today without it, but honestly we are growing to the point where it is boiling over by itself, and we show respect as humans to others beliefs.

I don't know if I read that right, but I don't have to respect someone else's beliefs. They can have whatever beliefs they want, but I don't have to agree with them, and I can find them repulsive too. Hitler had pretty repulsive beliefs that weren't worth respecting, and I believe a lot of people don't respect them anyways.

But as far as making the world what it is today I would think "hell no," but thats a gut feeling. When you talk about such epic overall thing it has done in crafting the world with it, I think sick babies and homosexuality is trumped.

Well, you were using the argument that we could not know what happened 6000 years ago, and if that's what you believe, then you couldn't know how the world could have turned out otherwise. You just assumed that just because religion did some good things for us that it would have been bad otherwise. I don't actually find it all that hard to believe that we couldn't come to a natural understanding of how people should get along and work together; the realization that you are stuck here with other people that you have to get along with doesn't require centuries and centuries of philosophy you know. I'm not saying we must necessarily realize this if religion hadn't existed; I'm saying it's a possibility that would be equally as good at shaping the world, if not better than religion at it.

Ok I have given it some thought and here is my opinion.

I think regardless of religion causing problems for the world we have a lot to be thankful for it.

Some of the earliest form of government and control can be traced back to religion. Thousands/hundreds of years ago when ethics were not so black and white and the human race was not as adapted to everything as it is today, religion is one of the only things leaders could have possibly created to give the people the fear and reconciliation they needed for change. While I admit it may have been evil, it was a neccissary evil (same as government).

And if we can govern ourselves now on the ideas of the Enlightenment and democracy, why do you think it couldn't have happened back then? It's not as if these ideas were never available to the public back then; the Ancient Greeks knew about democracy, and a few civilizations were not hostile towards women. There's no reason why government couldn't simply have looked after their own citizens without the help of religion.

See, here's the problem. The only difference between us now and them then was they didn't have quite an advanced understanding of science. So why would religion change anything?

Some of the earliest science was born out of religion including chemistry. Even in the last century science is still inspired by religion in an effort to prove of disprove it.

Which is the irony, because it never goes how they wanted it. Galileo might have been conducting his studies of the Earth and the moon in the hopes that it would reveal something about his religion, and I'm sure the results might have disappointed him because it doesn't agree with the religious ideas that the majority of people during his time believed about the Earth and the sun. Nevertheless, he gave up his faith in the idea of a geocentric universe and accepted the heliocentric model. Newton did the same thing; he was hoping his studies would reveal more about what he believed in religion. And he was wrong. He never got closer to god because he studied physics and revealed a lot of what we know about physics now. And many alchemists did the same things too. They had the right way of going about it (which is apparently by using the scientific method), but never got what they wanted. Darwin made his voyage for similar reasons, and Mendel was a monk. If we were to simply discard scientific fact from observations and conclusions of controlled experiments quite simply because they didn't agree with our preconceived notions of reality from religion, then religion would win, we'd learn nothing, and you'd be right in crediting religion. But we didn't. If religion did any good for science, then they would agree. But it did nothing. All religion ever did was be a vehicle by which scholars (eg, monks) transcribe books and all the things we consider to be knowledge and education. The fact that it happened to be religion is not a necessary requirement; education need not have to do with religion. And besides which, who knows how much editing and destruction came about because of these monks; they even messed up their own bible.

Disproving religion isn't the only reason why people are interested in science. If you think it's the only thing that motivates people to do science, then I don't think you understand why people enjoy it. I like science because we discover new and interesting things with it. I like it because we reach new heights we've never reached before. I like science because it's the best thing we have to discern truth from fiction. I like science because it helps our economy grow. And I'm sure many other people like it for similar reasons, and even more that I might not be aware of.

I'll just end this point on something interesting. There was a guy who had a promising science career, and would be studying geology under Stephen Gould at Harvard. Anybody who made it this far would actually be happy to have such a position. But the subject he was studying conflicted with his religious views. He took a pair of scissors and went through the bible, cutting out the parts of the bible that he would have to discard if he were to accept the science that he had been studying. By the end of the exercise, there was almost nothing left of the bible. And it was in that instant that he decided he would discard his career forever and remain a Christian, as he was raised such. And if religion can do that to someone, then it doesn't matter how much religion has an influence over science, science would be useless if we couldn't even accept the results it has for us just because we'd rather believe in some baseless fairytales.

We are lucky that many distinguished scientists even discarded their religious beliefs and accepted the results they got from science to begin with. Religion does not encourage the healthy amount of skepticism that is necessary to accept a scientific principle, even if it goes against everything you believe for no good reason.

The geography of this world may never have been the same, countries could have different names and habitants and perhaps me and you posting in this thread would not even exist.

And that doesn't bother me in the slightest. You couldn't tell if it would be worse or better.

Organized religion may be bad, but the idea and possibility of a god is just as unprovable as the big bang theory.

Not really. The reason why we can't prove or disprove god is because nobody has a singular definition of god that can be made to be observable and testable. That we have evidence for the big bang is based on evidence, observation and things that are tangible. At the very least, the Big Bang theory is falsifiable. God is not.

I feel that such an idea should not be disregarded, and organized religion gives strength and courage to wonder about such things thanks to organized religion.

Only for some people. This is not a universally held concept.

Organized religion is not just a system of evil control, it can be a looking glass for different theorys and ideas that insist a god is possible. Without that, we would not be open minded of such a possibility even if it have it correct or not.

No, it's an inconsistent idea that nobody has any clue about. A look at the various different Christian denominations is enough to tell me that they don't even believe in the exact same god. When I ask people why they think god exists, they don't have a good reason. When I watch streams of religion shows on the Internet, nobody who claims they know god exists has a good reason for it. It's not any better than considering whether or not Santa Claus exists, and if Santa Claus never existed, I wouldn't cry myself a river anyways. If god were even a remote possibility, science would discover him anyways. I can't concern myself with things that are possible but can't be proven because they might not have anything at all to do with reality.

Some of the earliest and recorded ethics recorded of this world were born out of religion, I am not saying we can not have good ethics without religion, but I think that over thousands of years religion has created a bar to set ourselves by. Even though that has changed now, who is to say the ethics the majority of people have were not very first set by laws of a religion, thus forcing a positive change upon the world.

But it hasn't really been a positive change. It did nothing for the Dark Ages, and while the Muslims had their Golden Age, it wasn't on account of Islam; it was on account of Islam staying out of the way of their scientific advancements. Religion did not end the world wars, it did not condemn slavery, it did not give women rights, nor did it stop racism. If we really cared all that much about the good ethics religion has brought us, why has it taken so long for those ideas to motivate us, and why is it that that required rejection of religious ideas and the Enlightenment?

I know how we can "percieve" people and society was 6,000 years or more ago, but in those days all records were kept by emperors, kings, and the leaders of the countries, they were the people in charge of historical documents being recorded and you can garuntee they were probably biased. We can imagine the world through only the eyes of those who wrote such documents, but not the populas of civilians.

And the majority of these emperors and kings were probably religious. I'd actually be more worried about the "good" religion has brought them if that's what their history says.

My point is of course its easy for us to think the world would be better without it, due to the problems we witnessed. Yet should you choose to take a look at all angles perhaps you may think its just as hard to think this way. The world was crafted the way it is now through religion by a large amount. I think its impossible we would have grown without religion because we created it in the first place, many different kinds, it was inevitable, and is was US who created it. The weakness fall upon humans and not the religion. I also think maybe it was not such a big mistake and perhaps we should be more thankful for this then hateful.

I'm actually more thankful not to be controlled by the fear that religion has caused, and for all the twisted and absurd thinking it encourages. If we would be the same without religion because it does both good and bad, the only other nail in the coffin would be for the fact that religion does not encourage good, rational thinking, and instead encourages people to be blinded by faith. I can live without a lot of good things that religion has done for us (and it's not unique at them anyways). But I cannot live without rationality. I am thankful not to be brainwashed by religious thinking from a young age.

(As a side note, you have no idea how scary that is. Even my friends here in Germany are horrified by its results.)

Im atheists too and i believe that we can be "civil" and moral, but overall, let me ask you this, if the whole world didnt have religions and civilizations that didnt allow anyone to kill what do you think would happen? it would be survival...and let me ask another question...where do you think governments get there main laws from, that no one shall kill another human being or steal or any of those... bet you most of those if you trace it back well base it on religion...just saying.

Please tell me what religion Aesop's fables are considered to be a part of. Because so far as I know, they're not bound to any religion, and they're a good source of morality from antiquity anyways.

Religion is not a necessary requirement of morality, and if you think not killing or stealing was unique to religion, I'd disagree; we don't have to kill or steal, not because religion says so but because there's no good reason for it. Besides which, you'd have people killing and stealing for economic reasons; people subjected to poverty are more likely to be involved with theft because it's the only way in which they might survive. People might kill other people for similar reasons. If people were wealthy, they'd have no reason to steal from others. If people got along with each other (and this can be done without religion), they'd have no reason to kill other people. The irony is that having morals like not killing and saying that it came from religion is ridiculous if you take religion as a whole; you have religious people from history killing other people anyways because they didn't belong to the same religion or because there were verses in their own texts telling them when it was okay. Religion didn't discourage murder; it just gives people the illusion it did.

 

[Shu]

Well without religion I think mostly we wouldn't have a decent society. All religion does for me is instill order. If you put your faith in something you can not see, as in love, then you tend to have a more pious point of view unless you take everything to literally. I never think religion was supposed to be used so hands on in the first place. It was used for early age educational and historical.

If you don't have religion what "can" you believe in really? Love .. is love really real without religion? Think about it. Love is a concept. It's never been tested in a scientific way otherwise, it might be deemed all emotional.

Religion is all about theory and philosophy, it's believing in the things you can't see, and putting more faith into whatever it is. Though having "no" religion at all, it's really no different, though I'm sure you believe in something, if not yourself.

Skepticism is flowing through my veins, and the only thing I know is what I've seen and what I've felt and what my other senses have told me. Beyond that how am I able to grow if I don't have faith in others? I think religion sort of creates that. It's like scientists always wanting to find that little green man, at least they believe in it.

Math, numbers, it's just a language is it not? Artificially engineered by philosophers and scientists over long periods of time. Trust me, we never just "came upon it" some person made the system and boom. I think religion is sort of the same way, People made.. such is why I am a humanitarian.

I don't believe in a good and evil god, I just believe in a presence that created it, and left it up to it's own demise.

 

[Abstract Debauchery]

In all reality, I don't think the world would be much different with or without religion. I'm Atheist, and I really don't care what anyone else believes. Whatever makes people happy, makes people happy. If someone is happy believing in nothing, let them. If someone is happy believing in a god, let them. It's not my place to tell someone they're wrong.

However, I believe man to be inherently evil. Not everyman, but the vast majority of us. It's instinct, it's human nature. I believe that while religion teaches morals, it, like everything else in the world, will never succeed in forcing man to follow them. Nor does Atheism, or anything else. I live in Houston, I got mugged at the age of 16 by a group of thugs. They stole all my shit, and they three of them were wearing crucifixes around their neck.

I don't blame religion, I blame society. Though, I did find it ironic as fuck at the time.

Priests have been reported as pedos, Atheists have been reported for rape, Muslims have been charged with murder, ect. etc.

While I believe Religion to be a good tool in teaching morals, I don't view it as necessary to teach them. After all, before man founded any religion, a sense of morality had to have been in circulation around the world before then. Religion (in my view) hasn't been around since the beginning of time. It's a concept (I can't stress enough that this is just my view, damn it) that was thought up by man, and without that concept, there would be no Atheism.

Without the concept of religion, everyone would simply be ignorant of the belief, meaning that no one would believe in anything. We would all not believe if religion never existed, we just wouldn't have a term for it. However, let it not go without saying that Atheism is just as much of a concept as Religion.

However, at the end of the day, if we never had religion, I think we wouldn't be any better off, or any worse than we are now. You would have people that were otherwise nice and good, and you would still have pricks that are otherwise mean and evil.

So all in all, nothing would be different. We would still have murders, wars, etc. We would still have assholes that steal parking spaces, and we would still argue about mundane shit. John Lennon would still be dead (and Yoko would STILL LIVE), JFK would have still be shot, and Tupac and Biggie Smalls would still hate each other.

It's funny... for something that doesn't even exist... it sure does have the whole world in a tiff.

The concept exists. And that is not an argument, young lady.

 

[ANGRYWOLF]

How would you establish ethics then without religion ?
A moral compass ?

Religion has helped establish those although you can argue it hasn't always been so.

 

[Harlequin]

I agree in most part with Ringo. To believe religion is the bane of mankind is naive to say the least. As long as the individual always wants what's best for themselves, we'll constantly have the problems we're faced with on a day to day basis.

The Crusades took place because it would have been political suicide to attack your Christian neighbours what with everyone in Euope being under the Catholic umbrella. War was primarily for power but also a sport in those days, do the maths.

In fact, after it's emancipation from the Catholic Church the British Empire carried out centuries of exploits including colonisation and slavery, not in the name of the Church of England but simply for power.

 

[Abstract Debauchery]

Ringo, ilu, really. But how do we know that? I mean, there might very well be proof of morals existing but do we have it? If so, I've never heard of it before.

Well, we don't, it's just a theory. But in order for morals to have been taught, they would have had to have been around. Someone would have to have developed them in order to teach them.

Or there is the theory that people started realizing that doing certain things got certain reactions out of the people they did them to. For example, caveman A steals a rock from caveman B. Caveman B gets pissed and angry and knocks the shit out of Caveman A and gets his damned rock back. Caveman A just learned that he shouldn't take things from Caveman B, because he just got knocked the fuck out.

The moral of that was that people shouldn't steal. Caveman A then goes around saying "uba chuk muga flung ding dong dipperous", which roughly translates into, "hey, guys, don't go taking things that belong to other cavemen. It apparently pisses people off."


At least, that's my theory.

So people having a problem with a concept is enough for the whole world to get angry?

I wouldn't say the whole world has a problem. Just a few. But then again, both sides have their extremists. Atheists have hardcore Atheists that think we should abolish all religion, and I've met Christians that have said that I wasn't worth giving life because I was Atheist.

So I flipped them the bird and said, "fuck you, I'm awesome" and walked off.

Sounds like it's them that has a problem.

Everyone's got problems. However, no one is willing to admit it.

I mean, that's like me getting angry about someone saying my skin is purple and I throw up unicorns.

Perhaps you should get that taken care of, you purple unicorn vomiting harlot.

If it's not real or if it's so bizarre people should ignore it, as it should be. Why argue with nonexistent things? :/

I don't know. Why do people argue with people they believe to be wrong and stupid when it's obvious the other side isn't backing down? Why not just go out to Denny's and stop letting the opinions of others get you in a rump?

(Note: Not "you" as in "you", but "you" as in "people in general". )

 

[der Astronom]

Well without religion I think mostly we wouldn't have a decent society. All religion does for me is instill order. If you put your faith in something you can not see, as in love, then you tend to have a more pious point of view unless you take everything to literally. I never think religion was supposed to be used so hands on in the first place. It was used for early age educational and historical.

Actually, I think something as natural as love can exist without religion. In fact, that people think religion is necessary for love seems awkward to me, at least when taken from the Christian religion. How can you even love a person you've never even met and know almost nothing about? I can understand loving someone you've been with your entire life, and had lots of experiences with, but it doesn't make sense to love someone you've never met, and for whom you've been commanded to love.

If you don't have religion what "can" you believe in really? Love .. is love really real without religion? Think about it. Love is a concept. It's never been tested in a scientific way otherwise, it might be deemed all emotional.

And even if there were religion, it wouldn't change the fact that you couldn't test it, if that's what you believe.

Religion is all about theory and philosophy, it's believing in the things you can't see, and putting more faith into whatever it is. Though having "no" religion at all, it's really no different, though I'm sure you believe in something, if not yourself.

I prefer the term "acceptance". I don't believe in things for no good reason at all, and if it becomes effectively disproven, I won't mind rejecting it. The problem with faith is that you're asked to believe in something without evidence, and if you believe it not on the basis of evidence, then any evidence for or against it won't convince you, no matter how rational it may seem. That's the problem I have with faith.

Skepticism is flowing through my veins, and the only thing I know is what I've seen and what I've felt and what my other senses have told me. Beyond that how am I able to grow if I don't have faith in others? I think religion sort of creates that. It's like scientists always wanting to find that little green man, at least they believe in it.

I wouldn't call it faith in the religious sense though. I have trust in friends in the sense that I have observed them and noticed that they haven't betrayed me. That doesn't mean I'm not willing to consider the possibility that they might betray me. If I had faith, then I could be friends with random strangers without bothering to care if they had good intentions or not.

To the title's name... "we would be better off without religion"

I say... says you.

Thanks for not reading my post. If you can't be bothered to read an argument, no matter how long it may seem, then I don't think I can be bothered to read through your argument either because I fear you may be making strawman arguments.

There is evil and wars in the world even without religion. Look at animals. Animals, kill and war against packs all the time and guess what?... it isn't over their religion of choice. It's over other things--things like mates, land, food...

This demonstrates to me that you have not read my original post.

So even if this big bad ebil religion was washed from the earth you'd still have rapist, you'd still have murderers and pedophiles and wars over stupid crap like land and oil.

People always say "oh religion causes all the problems in the world" I call BS on that. Sure, religions have been the facade evil rulers have hidden behind so they can get their precious land or their precious oils or whatever they greed after... but that's really more of the PEOPLE doing that in the name of religion rather then the actual religion being evil or bad.

Any religion that suggests or encourages things that might be considered evil or bad are...well, evil or bad. Otherwise, you're saying that people are falsely accusing religion of saying something untrue. Well, religion (particularly Christianity) doesn't condemn slavery, it doesn't give women rights, it doesn't support freedom of religion, it doesn't support gays, and it allows people to scapegoat someone so that they don't have to be responsible for anything they do wrong. And you're saying people are excusing their actions on account of this? Get real; that is what their religion says.

Guess what, if religion didn't exist people that do evil would just use something else to hide their evil acts behind.

Thanks for making another strawman argument.

I mean, in the words of John Lennon... let's IMAGINE a world without religion... where does that leave us? Exactly where we are now. If there were no religion, we would still have all the evils in the world... only difference people wouldn't be able to blame a higher being or religion for the worlds problems all so they can deny the fact that we, as a race, are flawed and make mistakes and do irrevocably disgusting acts with or without a religion to hide behind.

So what? I consider this world infinitely less evil than the world of the Dark Ages. Did you know how much time we wasted then? I imagine a world without religion wouldn't have science set back by at least a century. At least if it weren't for religion, people might actually have to be responsible for what they do instead of blaming it on Jesus and praying to him.

That's the sad fact.

Imagination is not fact; it's just speculation.

So you and anyone else can take your "the world would be so much better without religion" and eat dust.

You know what, I'm not even advocating that everyone has to believe that the world would be better off without religion. I admit that's my opinion, but I just wanted some discussion over the subject. Too bad you didn't bother reading what I wrote in my first post.

You know what I say?

I say the world would be a better place without practicing pedophiles, without murderers, without greed, without selfish people that try and force others to not believe in a peacefulness they receive from religion.

You know what I say?

The world would be a better place without the pope covering up for priests being pedophiles, without people being killed because they thought prayer was more powerful than medicine, without the kind of greed the church has from taking donation money for itself, or without people being unaware that prayer is selfish, and forcing people to believe in their god.

So yeah, go ahead and continue and blame religion for the worlds problems. While you attack something that for the VAST MAJORITY of the world gives a sense of happiness and peacefulness to its believers and followers, I'll continue to focus on the actual problems such as murderers, rapist, greed, and selfishness instead of something that you(and others) believe to not be real.

Hmmm....Last I checked, America has nowhere near the level of safety and education as some secular nations like Sweden and Finland (for example) do. In America, religion is a largely public issue. It would have to be, otherwise people wouldn't be complaining about creationism in schools, stem cell research or abortion. But when we look at nations where religion is private (eg, Germany), science is advanced, abortion isn't an issue, and neither is creationism in schools. I wonder why that is?

It's funny... for something that doesn't even exist... it sure does have the whole world in a tiff.

Hey, math isn't real either, but we spend an awful lot of time on it.

EDIT:

You know what... here's something else for you to think about. In the amount of time you used from your day to write those way too long to read posts about blaming religion for the world's problems... you have managed to end world starvation, end wars over land/oils/golds/metals/precious rocks, ended children becoming sex slaves in third world countries, ended man's selfishness, man's greed, and every other problem you can't blame on religion.

*thumbs up*

Good job.

If you are somehow implying that religious organizations are helping people in poor countries, I'm going to go by what a previous poster said earlier; that we cannot know if these churches are spending their money on fancier stained glass windows or indoctrinating people in exchange for food and money, or if they're doing what any other secular organization might be doing.

It's a concept (I can't stress enough that this is just my view, damn it) that was thought up by man, and without that concept, there would be no Atheism.

Actually, atheism is the lack of religion, so even if religion didn't exist, atheism would still exist. There just wouldn't be a need for the term because then everyone would be atheist.

Without the concept of religion, everyone would simply be ignorant of the belief, meaning that no one would believe in anything. We would all not believe if religion never existed, we just wouldn't have a term for it. However, let it not go without saying that Atheism is just as much of a concept as Religion.

Not really; religion has a set of principles, atheism does not. Atheism is just a simple concept; it describes any and all people who don't believe in a religion.

How would you establish ethics then without religion ?

Actually, that's a good question, and I believe you can answer that yourself. If you were Christian, and you believed morality came from your religion, then how did you know slavery was wrong? It couldn't have been from the bible because it says nothing of the sort.

 

[Rapture]

...If you are somehow implying that religious organizations are helping people in poor countries, I'm going to go by what a previous poster said earlier; that we cannot know if these churches are spending their money on fancier stained glass windows or indoctrinating people in exchange for food and money, or if they're doing what any other secular organization might be doing.

Mmm..I'm sorry but I beg to differ. I am Lutheran and have a family member who sits on our church counsel. We know EXACTLY where our money goes because we help with paying the bills...so really blindly not knowing where our finances (and I'm speaking of myself here) are going is a fallicy. We give to the ELCA disaster fund and they donated 100% of their donations to the Haiti Earthquake and the Japan Tsunami. ...and I know you are going to respond prove it so here:
https://community.elca.org/netcommunity/page.aspx?pid=631

They state 100% of the donations are given...I haven't seen the Red Cross post a promise like that out of my recollection.

As I'm sure you know, the Red Cross isn't the ideal one to donate to either because much of the money collected for the Haiti disaster has not been allocated to Haiti...and who knows about the Japan Tsunami because its too early to tell. They can be every bit the subject of donation scandal as much as one would like to think the churches are.

I'll also go as far to say that as a member of a congregation that donates canned goods and non perishable food items for a city with a 10% unemployment rate's food pantry, a member that has personally donated prepared food and volunteered serving it at a homeless shelter, and whose members volunteer at a small health clinic for the ailing in Africa during the summer that stained glass windows come SECOND to the problems that the people in our society are facing today.