|
Post by qooqǝɯɐƃ on Sept 7, 2010 13:57:13 GMT -5
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 may not be a lot less war, since wars today aren't directly due to religion, but it may actually lead to more progress. And as we progress the religious population decreases. Hmm...
|
|
|
Post by Ryan on Sept 7, 2010 18:15:18 GMT -5
I think people overgeneralize religion on this board - please be careful not to do so (it's in the rules of debating religion)
|
|
Nakor
Star
Non-Prophet
Posts: 991
|
Post by Nakor on Sept 7, 2010 22:41:11 GMT -5
@ 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. I'm aware of this, but I don't think that just because religion is societal that it will always inevitably be. Things change, and this could very well be one of those things. I do not think it's impossible that one day most of the population will be free of superstitions.
|
|
|
Post by rialvestro on Sept 7, 2010 22:50:26 GMT -5
Why do you assume that I meant Atheist? Because the only thing you said was "you people" without stating anything about what "you people" actually means. There was no clue at all in your own post to tell me what that meant. However being that the topic is against religion that automatically lead me to believe you meant "Atheist people" given the facts I had at the time didn't lead me to believe anything different. You should really try to avoid the term "You People" unless you can clearly back up what you mean when you say that. "You people" is such a general statement that it's easy to misinterpret. I'm not always the most clear speaker myself but I do try to avoid using general statements like that as much as possible.
|
|
metoyou
Meteorite
A dream we dream alone is merely a dream, but a dream we dream together can become reality.
Posts: 34
|
Post by metoyou on Sept 8, 2010 0:34:06 GMT -5
I will admit it I am writing this a bit late, so some of my ideas may not be expressed as clearly as I intended. I do think my point will be understood, but let me know if you need clarification.
@ricky
You are correct; my original writing was simply questioning your arguments, which was my intent. I did not actually anticipate becoming a heavy player in the debate; I was simply hoping to provide questions to further conversation. Take it as my application of the Socratic method. I did not present much of an argument and I realize that, but I will see what I can do here.
In more modern times religions have been used as a means of coercion to try and get people to do the will of those in power, that I will grant you. But I do not think that was the main purpose of religion nor was it the reason for it’s development. Originally, religion was used to understand and have a sense of control over that which humans felt at the mercy of. For example, this is why the Native Americans had rain dances (generic example I realize, but there are many others). It was also used to explain how we as humans came to be. Most religions have a creation story and use it as a form of validation for their perspective. Those that don’t have one tend to believe in more of a cyclical existence (for example Buddhism) and although they are not concerned with the nature of creation, they do focus a lot of energy on what happens after death, the other major point of discussion for religion. From this we can deduce that although religions have unifying characteristics, they are unifying because of the individual benefits they offer, not necessarily because of political interests (the benefits being an explanation and understanding of the world around the individual). Once an individual buys into the explanation, they feel part of the group, which is how the religion unifies people. As the religion continues to develop and spread, it takes on more characteristics of the society it is developing in, which is why we see similarities in the agendas of many religions and the societies they are associated with. From here stems the abuse of religion, but the abuse is not inherent in the formation of it.
With regards to religious changes throughout the world, what I have been able to find is not as conclusive as I would like. I have looked at various sources and am getting a variety of answers. However, with everything I have found, if you lump all religions together, the non-religious are still loosing by a reasonable margin. But perhaps on a more encouraging note, when you break the religions down into their individual groups, atheism and other non-religious classifications are holding their own. As an aside to this, I do remember seeing statistics for industrial nations that weighed heavily in support of a consistent increase in atheism (I think it was on a Dawkins film). Even still, atheism was the minority when placed against religion as a whole.
This I disagree with: “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.” We are not there yet. In the societal structure we live in religion is an integral and necessary part. To prove this I admit will take a bit of explaining, more than what I want to commit to at the moment, but it is not until we reach a society like that of socialism or communism that we can begin to outgrow the need for religion. As it stands in the capitalist society that is America, religion must exist. (if you don’t believe me on this matter, consult Marx’s 1844 manuscripts. I don’t pretend to be an expert, but I do think I have a decent understanding of what he was thinking, and he makes some very valid points.)
I also want to clarify that I was referring to scientific study, not technology. Your argument on the topic of technology is incomplete, since those who don’t follow the law have access to technology as well. Therefore the rules don’t change, just the field in which the game is played. Better education is the key, which is what I was referring to. The more we understand about how things work, the less we have to rely on religion to explain them. The more personally we are connected with the world, the less we need religious interpretation. If we can connect cause and effect, we don’t have to rely on magic. That is what I mean with my initial comment on the subject.
I dare say that you agreed with the only argument I presented, making it still applicable.
I do hope this humors your intellect. Let me know what you think.
|
|
theeverbored
Meteor
if a nerd has no avatar, does she still have a face?
Posts: 81
|
Post by theeverbored on Sept 8, 2010 0:54:03 GMT -5
That's not the case anymore and thats why I think religion is losing its hold, and might not exist in the future. It's an interesting thought Ricky. As it would seem, countries in power are becoming less and less religious which begs the question, why are there still so many wars? This is very simplistic reasoning because the debate is not over religion's influence in war. All the same while in the last 100 years of mankind has become less religious as a whole, there have also been the bloodiest wars in history. Religion is just one way people unite. Mankind seems to love finding people that see things their way. It's a form of congregating. In that sense it doesn't make the Crusades any different from the Nazi invasions.
|
|
|
Post by redkneehighsocks on Sept 8, 2010 6:39:55 GMT -5
if there were no Religeon to fight over, we'd fight over wether our science is right.
|
|
|
Post by Kevak on Sept 8, 2010 9:10:32 GMT -5
I love religions which leave me alone.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 8, 2010 11:21:01 GMT -5
if there were no Religeon to fight over, we'd fight over wether our science is right. If that was true, wouldn't we be already fighting over which science is right, ignoring that the religious people were fighting too? Science is not entirely objective, but objectiveness is deeply involved in the scientific method. So it is useless to war against another scientific theory to defend it, as it would not help gain supporters. The only way science wars happened so far and will keep happening is by trying to corroborate one theory/falsify the other. Wars happen in religion because traditions can make the belief, and that doesn't work with science, as a belief must be corroborated so as to be accepted.
|
|
|
Post by Ryan on Sept 8, 2010 14:07:20 GMT -5
There have been wars for religious reasons - and there have been terrorist attacks for religious reasons, there have been charities for religious reasons, and there has been discrimination for religious reasons.
The majority of discrimination, war, charity, and terrorist attacks has NOT been religion. Discrimination is primarily spread through hate which is taught from one generation to the next and from one person to another. War is fought over ideologies not necessarily religion. Charities are formed in good nature, be it of a religious stem or for the sole purpose that a group of people are just good (shocker!). And terrorist attacks are acts of violence meant to strike fear into people as a method of control.
There are religious reasons for many things, but you cannot say that there would be less war in a world without religion, there would be less terrorism in a world without religion, there would be less charity in a world without religion, or there would be less discrimination in a world without religion.
In response to the argument listed prior prior (the one from metoyou), he's got a very good point. People should discuss
|
|
Nakor
Star
Non-Prophet
Posts: 991
|
Post by Nakor on Sept 8, 2010 19:37:26 GMT -5
^ That ties into why I think the real fix isn't the end of religion, but rather the end of dogma and the beginning of a more freethinking (that is, both open-minded and sceptical) society. That said I has only see such a change also resulting in the effective end of religion, which is built upon dogma and walled by the desire to believe and the fear not to.
I do think that you underestimate religion's role in wars and the like. In some cases it was certainly just an excuse. Yet it can also be argued that religion teaches people that blind faith and dogma are acceptable alternatives to reason and logic. I wonder if a person not raised under superstitious beliefs would be willing to kill as readily without a better reason to do so. If such a person would be more likely to hear his/her enemy out before blowing up a plane.
Dogma is the problem, and dogma causes religion. But religion also spreads dogma. It is a cycle, and religion certainly has blame to take there.
|
|
|
Post by Ryan on Sept 8, 2010 19:53:19 GMT -5
All (current) forms of government also relate in part to a dogma as well - dogma is an over-generalization of the problem while religion is an under-generalization of the problem.
The problem is probably 100% related to lack of freethinking and skepticism which leads to poor logic and reasoning which leads to bad decisions and blind faith.
Perhaps in a world where religion and government are centered around an open minded philosophy in which logic and reasoning are prided there will be no wars. But religion isn't the cause so let's stop saying that it is.
|
|
|
Post by Flags_Forever on Sept 8, 2010 20:10:42 GMT -5
@ Ryan "Sinner" Walker: But religion is going to continue to be blamed by some for many wars and acts of terrorism as long as people continue to fear what they don't understand (Islam is evil, Jews are the Illuminati, Christians don't even respect each other, let alone other religions, Atheists worship the Devil; and other insane generalizations and conspiracy theories as examples). Even the devout blame other religions for war and terrorism. The idea isn't exclusive to people who are against religion. I think that's an important point to consider here. I mostly agree with you, I just felt your statement was incomplete. I don't know if any of that was at all clear, though...
|
|
|
Post by Ryan on Sept 8, 2010 20:22:11 GMT -5
Well - my point was that religion isn't to blame - even though it is
|
|
metoyou
Meteorite
A dream we dream alone is merely a dream, but a dream we dream together can become reality.
Posts: 34
|
Post by metoyou on Sept 8, 2010 20:51:17 GMT -5
I don't think removing religion from the world will reduce war; the relationship is not causal. However, I do think that if the influence of religion is reduced we will also see a reduction in the amount of war, and vise-versa. The main issue is that the world exists in competition. We feel like we have to compete, that we have to be the best, and that the way to do that is to exploit (i.e. "maximizing returns"). If this mentality is changed, if we can advance society to a point where we aren't at each others throats over personal desires (notice the difference between needs and desires), perhaps we will see a reduction in war. With this reduction in war, we will see a reduction in the dependence on and influence of religion.
note: this is just the conclusion of a more complex theory. It relates somewhat to the Secularization hypothesis, but takes things a bit farther.
|
|
|
Post by redkneehighsocks on Sept 9, 2010 6:11:16 GMT -5
I love religions which leave me alone. alone? religeons are a healthy part of a human being
|
|
|
Post by struwwel on Sept 9, 2010 9:26:35 GMT -5
Without religion there would be a lot more members of the Clergy in prison and a lot more happy young children Realistically there would be a push towards a much more existential existence, people would be forced to give they're own lives meaning and would be driven by what ever ambition or sense of self worth that they attach to themselves. With no promise of eternal bliss or damnation you're forced to live your life for what it is as opposed feeling it's a precursor to some eventual divine judgement. Also there would be no awful Christian rock bands.
|
|
metoyou
Meteorite
A dream we dream alone is merely a dream, but a dream we dream together can become reality.
Posts: 34
|
Post by metoyou on Sept 9, 2010 11:11:54 GMT -5
@ struwwel
I think that what you are saying may be a possibility in the future, but we as a society are not at a point yet where it can be a reality. Think of Maslow's Hierarchy of needs. Before people can devote the time and energy into self-realization and answer the existential questions themselves, they must first feel safe and secure; they must reach a point where not only are their physical needs taken care of for the moment, they don't have to worry about it for the future. Same goes with relationships and things of that nature. In the present time a non-religious world cannot exist because of the nature of capitalism. It pits people against each other and drives people to produce for fear of being fired. This is not a social construct conducive to free thinking and individual pursuit. Once these problems are addressed, then I think the process you suggested would be more feasible.
That is not to say that some people do not do it within the capitalist economy, but those that do are more along the lines of anomalies or come from a reasonable background where these worries don't apply as heavily. What I am referring to above is a more universal shift.
|
|
|
Post by struwwel on Sept 9, 2010 12:13:30 GMT -5
I would disagree and say that in the current climate a truly existential society is impossible in the current climate not due to a capitalist economy but rather a conformist society.
Due to the tribal nature of human society people don't look for meaning in life from themselves but rather refer to peers and create a group census as to what it is they should believe. This is both true for religions, within social subcultures and fashion on a clearly observable level but also as a the power behind capitalism. Capitalism is powered by consumerism which in turn is the result peoples need to to conform to a common ideal i.e. wealth, possession and social status think of it almost as the religion of money, everyone obeys the same rules in effort to achieve a shared ideal. The only difference is that the religion of money has become ubiquitous within society whilst spiritual religions tend to originate from specific geographical locations and then spread via migration.
The European existentialist movement reached peak in the 19th and early 20th Century but was crushed by the first and second world wars due to a sudden change into what was previously an intellectually liberal environment to a society in fear and when threatened a society form a consensus as to how are their friends and anything which doesn't conform to their way of thinking is considered to be a danger. Whilst there was a brief time in the 60s of the idea of free thought and free speech that was overshadowed by what is now the age of the consumer.
By being an anomaly you risk persecution and alienation, that is why in the current climate an existential mindset in now one that is embraced, simply due to people's needs to label themselves and others in the groups.
Your point about Maslow's Hierarchy is correct (although to an extent I disagree with him as it creates a generalised view what isn't there) that sort of self indulgent free thinking is something that is really only associated with the privileged but realistically it can come from anywhere.
|
|
|
Post by Ryan on Sept 9, 2010 14:01:38 GMT -5
While existing as an anomaly does violate the comfort zone for us as a tribal species of interconnecting and societal constructiveness - what metoyou was getting at is that in the future where a not so capitalist society exists, free thinking and existentialism will be more common and not anomalous. Really - the two of you are arguing for the same thing - along different paths, in different languages - same point though.
|
|