A world without religion.

[Flappy]

I think it would be a magnificent world full of peace. what do you think? Why?

The reason I think this is because there would be a lot less war and a lot more progress.

[Lex]

Nope. Because people will always find SOMETHING to fight over. If religion didn't exist, they'd likely be fighting over buttering different sides of their bread or something like that...

[rialvestro]

Sept 6, 2010 17:28:45 GMT -5 Flappy said:

I think it would be a magnificent world full of peace. what do you think? Why?

The reason I think this is because there would be a lot less war and a lot more progress.

There would be less war over different opinions in religion but there's still plenty of other things we could fight over. In fact most wars aren't even about religion at all. Some wars are about religion but most wars have been about fighting over ownership of land.

If the world had no religion, I think every religious person on the planet would either continue to live in ignorance or commit mass suicide if we ever proved beyond any doubt that God really existed.

I think the only reason the believe that God exists has lasted so long is because people need to believe in God to prevent themselves from going into a downward spiral of depression. Religious people as I see them, just live in a delusional state of mind that helps them to cope with the harsh realities of life.

[Enemynarwhal]

I think you could argue that there would be less fighting. Some people love the idea of fighting against evil in the world and they would probably find some other stupid crap to fight against (although they might actually find something thats evil to fight against rather than people of different religions) so those people would probably just continue to fight over stuff. There would also be other negatives like lonliness, and peace of mind that religion can give some people but those problems could probably be solved by other means.

The positives would be that we would live in a world that celebrates science and intellect (well the majoirty of people probably would care more about which famous person just got knocked up but at least there wouldn't be anybody trying to argue that science is the work of the devil) so that would improve society. There would also be one less thing to fight against in other countries. People do have wars over racial differences and stuff like that but religion does contribute to many problems in the middle east, and in countries where there is only one race. In those places where the only difference between the people is their religion there would be less fighting, as well as less fighting between those who want to live on the holy land and whatnot. The world wouldn't be filled with peace but it would be a less violent one.

[Benyamin]

what everyone else said
there's always gonna be something to fight about

[Nakor]

A world without dogma is the real goal; most dogma is religious, but not all. Some, for example, is political.

The ultimate (albeit likely unattainable) goal I suppose isn't worldwide atheism so much as worldwide open-minded scepticism.

[Ryan]

I actually believe that there is a famous sociologist who postulates that religion stems from society - so as long as there is society there will be religion.


Now - that doesn't mean that all the religions that exist today will exist in the future - or that there will not one day be a world united in a different religion - but the fact remains that religion is indeed a sociological construct and is not something that will be 'gotten rid of' easily (if at all)


More to come (like sources - just gotta ask my friend for the name of the guy - as I am not a sociologist)

EDIT: The source of this is Emile Durkheim who in a nutshell states that God is Society and Society is God and that neither can exist without the other, as they are one in the same. The two are immediately connected. (please note that this is a nutshell version and if you wanted more on the subject you should read Durkheim's theories in a book perhaps)

[krzych32]

Sept 6, 2010 17:28:45 GMT -5 Flappy said:

I think it would be a magnificent world full of peace. what do you think? Why?

The reason I think this is because there would be a lot less war and a lot more progress.

Don't get me the wrong way I am not trying to attack you, but people like you are a part of the problem, not the solution.

[rialvestro]

Sept 7, 2010 0:44:53 GMT -5 krzych32 said:

Sept 6, 2010 17:28:45 GMT -5 Flappy said:

I think it would be a magnificent world full of peace. what do you think? Why?

The reason I think this is because there would be a lot less war and a lot more progress.

Don't get me the wrong way I am not trying to attack you, but people like you are a part of the problem, not the solution.

Um... I know you're not talking to me but if you were I wouldn't think simply saying "I am not trying to attack you" would make this comment any less of an attack. What the heck is that suppose to mean "people like you" just because he's an Atheist? How does a disbelief in God make us part of the problem?

[Alex]

Without religion a lot of people would be depressed and confused. Some people need their religion to guide them. Religion is essential.

I'm saying this and I am Atheist.

[Kevak]

Religion has just been the excuse mostly. Those who really belive in something wont kill over it. It doesn't read in the Koran or the Bible 'Kill all who don't believe in God/Jahve'

And people will always believe in SOMETHING. It keeps us sane.

[Nakor]

Sept 7, 2010 5:26:05 GMT -5 Alex said:

Without religion a lot of people would be depressed and confused. Some people need their religion to guide them. Religion is essential.

I'm saying this and I am Atheist.

It's like an addiction though; if they never had it in the first place they would do just fine without it.

ryan: All religion will not disappear in our lifetimes certainly, but how will the zeitgeist look in 1000 years... or 10000? What roles might the pursuit of knowledge, the welcoming of change in new generations and, in the very long term, evolution play?
Religion being all or nearly all gone is not impossible, just improbable hard.

[speedyreedy]

Sept 7, 2010 5:26:05 GMT -5 Alex said:

Without religion a lot of people would be depressed and confused. Some people need their religion to guide them. Religion is essential.

I'm saying this and I am Atheist.

I agree with this 100%.

There will always be war and aggression, and with the major source of morality removed, this can only increase.

It would be like suggesting a world without electricity, because sometimes it can hurt people.

[Ryan]

@ Nakor - religion is a society thing, the religions that exist today will not exist in the future - they will be replaced though.


ALSO (EVERYONE PLEASE READ)

Religion is not analogous to belief in god - please stop making this mistake.

[Ricky]

I believe religion served its purpose in the past. It was needed for people to join together, and help one another within a community/city/country. Also, it was a great way of getting people to obey rules in a time when not everyone could be watched.

That's not the case anymore and thats why I think religion is losing its hold, and might not exist in the future. Specially since all those pros that were mentioned before came with side effects that are not wanted (such as religion wars) <- although some took advantage of them


Nowadays, I think they cause more problems than what they solve

[krzych32]

Sept 7, 2010 3:08:36 GMT -5 rialvestro said:

Sept 7, 2010 0:44:53 GMT -5 krzych32 said:

Don't get me the wrong way I am not trying to attack you, but people like you are a part of the problem, not the solution.

Um... I know you're not talking to me but if you were I wouldn't think simply saying "I am not trying to attack you" would make this comment any less of an attack. What the heck is that suppose to mean "people like you" just because he's an Atheist? How does a disbelief in God make us part of the problem?

This is exactly what I'm talking about. Why do you assume that I meant Atheist? I was talking about ignorance that people like him show. When everything is not all right, they look for an scape goat. If religion is such a problem, then USSR must have been a perfect nation to live in. Since they were heavily atheist. At the end, the local churches and religions are just a representation of the community around them. If people want to be pacifist and help others they will do that, if on the other hand they want to wage holy wars, they will do that also.

[metoyou]

@ Ricky,
The first two words of your post present the flaw of your argument. Most everything you said has it's basis in popular rhetoric and not verifiable facts or well thought out theories. Was religion needed or was it created because of a need? (the difference would be that there could have been other alternatives). In the past, was the primary use of religion to control people or to unify them? Is religion really losing its hold (this is particularly debatable)? And if religion was a means of controlling people, as you say, is it only nowadays that it is causing more problems than it solves? I am sure the same arguments you could make for the past can also be made for the present.

I apologize for picking on you because you were not the only one making these kinds of mistakes, you were just the last one to post when I looked at the board (I am including myself in this critique because I know I do some of the same things).

The major variable now is how much we can learn from scientific study. The more we know the less we have to rely on superstition.

Coincidentally, as I was writing this I was bombarded with two evangelicals who were as close minded as I have ever come across. As frustrating as the encounter was, I do have to laugh at the irony.

[metoyou]

Ahh, just have to say one more thing.

krzych32
Be careful how you generalize about USSR. There were a lot of variables in place during that situation, and although the conditions were terrible, it was not because of atheism or the idea of Communism. Lenin and Stalin both had agenda's (their fault) and were both put into situations that were doomed for failure (outside their control). Communism could work, but it cannot really compete in a capitalist world, especially if the communist nation has to play catch up and the capitalist nations are out to get it. Again, the conditions were bad, but those were due to a communist nation trying to compete, which is inherently against the way it is designed to function.

I do agree that we have to be careful about ignorance, especially when ignorance pushes an agenda, but remember that is a two way street.

[Ricky]

Sept 7, 2010 11:42:45 GMT -5 metoyou said:

@ Ricky,
The first two words of your post present the flaw of your argument. Most everything you said has it's basis in popular rhetoric and not verifiable facts or well thought out theories. Was religion needed or was it created because of a need? (the difference would be that there could have been other alternatives). In the past, was the primary use of religion to control people or to unify them? Is religion really losing its hold (this is particularly debatable)? And if religion was a means of controlling people, as you say, is it only nowadays that it is causing more problems than it solves? I am sure the same arguments you could make for the past can also be made for the present.

I apologize for picking on you because you were not the only one making these kinds of mistakes, you were just the last one to post when I looked at the board (I am including myself in this critique because I know I do some of the same things).

The major variable now is how much we can learn from scientific study. The more we know the less we have to rely on superstition.

Coincidentally, as I was writing this I was bombarded with two evangelicals who were as close minded as I have ever come across. As frustrating as the encounter was, I do have to laugh at the irony.

First, the theories I present are well enough thought out that are used in universities in the study of religion... Which is more than can be said about several parts of your argument.

If it can even be called an argument, since most of it was questioning mine without a clear goal or perspective.

So, to answer your questions:

yes, religion was used to control and unify people. The two can exist at the same time, and have been presented in different ways and quantities in each part of the world.

e.g. During the Crusades, the killing of other groups was justified as one was doing the work of 'god'. Which meant wealth of leaders (more control over people) and unity against an enemy.

yes, religion is losing its hold as population census indicate that in industrialized countries religious activity and following has been in a steady decline for decades now. (which is the culture that is spreading)

yes, i did say that religion was the means to control people, but it doesn't mean that it was for good reasons. The terrorist attacks were made by extremists, but also there are Christian foundations that help the poor. It all depends on the goal of the leaders.

Also, yes it is only now that there are more problems because of the new world that we live in. Religion, simply put, has outlived it's use.

Technological advancements mean that we can take care of those who don't obey the law without having to put some moral lie over their heads. Better education means that people can do the right thing because they understand that its the right thing and not because they might go to hell. People are able to connect one another easier due to communication devices and it means that you don't have to put a label for them to be united.

The arguments that you made in the past are no longer applicable...

In conclusion, don't worry about picking on me, I understand and accept when i'm mistaken, but right now this is not the case.

I hope you do answer this post and i'm really wondering what you could say about the matter without going to an alternative argument.

[metoyou]

Ah, good! I am looking forward to responding. I unfortunately have class and other obligations at the moment, but I will surely get back to you.
And not to worry, I try to restrain myself from digressing. I can be wordy enough as it is but when I get off topic it becomes very long .

I realize that I didn't give you much to go on about myself or my stance. I have given thorough responses in the past and more often then not they tended to be dismissed or ignored (I share the same grievance as you for people not responding to questions posed). I didn't want to put the time and energy into a detailed reply unless you were as committed as I.

As it stands, I will present my counter when I can. Take care!