What The World Would Be Without Religion

[Guest Emerson]

yeah let's imagine that we came at a point where mankind for the most part decided they didn't need religion. What would our world be like? Lets imagine. Would we have more peace? I'd kind of like to think so.

[Manta]

Difficult one, we would have lost our argument punchbags, so we'd just complain about something else instead, I dunno, like people from Texas.

[mwc]

I'd guess we'd have the same problems with a different excuse.

 

mwc

[Lycorth]

Have to agree with everyone else; were there no religion, there would be something else to fill the void and create as big a problem.

 

Besides, since when is religion, per se, the problem? My experience has been that the abuse of specific sects of specific religions is more the problem, usually when dogmatizing or habit is used as an excuse for violence or oppressiveness.

 

Or is this another case of "religion" being defined as only referring to Xianity/Is-lame?

[LosingMyReligion]

Difficult one, we would have lost our argument punchbags, so we'd just complain about something else instead, I dunno, like people from Texas.

 

 

I resent that! Not all of us Texans are braindead rednecks...haha.

[Ouroboros]

I don't think religion is the problem, it's only the symptom. And so is a complete trust in whatever science does. It's a sympton of a deeper behavior. We are gullible.

 

The real question is, how would society be if everyone were skeptic? My answer, probably were isolated and maybe even destroyed, because we wouldn't trust anyone. Our fellowship and feeling of "membership" etc, comes from trust. And so does belief, from trust of the source. I trust the scientific books and magazines I read (but I read them with a slight skepticism). With a 100% skeptic mind, I wouldn't trust any media or source.

 

The answer is probably not to get rid of religion, but have a more philosophical or ethereal kind. But it requires all people to become smarter and more insightful, which won't happen since we, as humans, are kind of lazy and inattentive in general.

[Amethyst]

I don't think religion is the problem, it's only the symptom. And so is a complete trust in whatever science does. It's a sympton of a deeper behavior. We are gullible.

 

Agreed. Scientists can be wrong. But it is possible to test the truth of science by experimenting, so it's not blind faith. Religions fail the veracity test because it's impossible to prove whether a deity exists. That's why Christianity and other religions have built-in safeguards like "thou shalt not put the lord to the test." Whoever wrote that part of the Bible must have taken that into account.

 

The real question is, how would society be if everyone were skeptic? My answer, probably were isolated and maybe even destroyed, because we wouldn't trust anyone. Our fellowship and feeling of "membership" etc, comes from trust. And so does belief, from trust of the source. I trust the scientific books and magazines I read (but I read them with a slight skepticism). With a 100% skeptic mind, I wouldn't trust any media or source.

 

True, but even the most skeptical of skeptics are not 100% skeptical. They all trust *someone*, be it an underground news source, other skeptics, their significant other, etc. Also, if you were 100% skeptical, it logically follows that you wouldn't even trust yourself.

 

The answer is probably not to get rid of religion, but have a more philosophical or ethereal kind. But it requires all people to become smarter and more insightful, which won't happen since we, as humans, are kind of lazy and inattentive in general.

 

How about just the Golden Rule? If everyone actually lived by the Golden Rule, or even just most people, we wouldn't have as many problems as we do today. Just treat others with compassion. That doesn't require any dogma or fairy tales. And it's what most religions boil down to, once you strip all the nonsense away. You could add don't do any unnecessary harm as a corallary, but if you're already treating people with compassion, you're probably not going to be harming them.

 

For those who need some kind of ritual, meditating helps. You don't need to sit there and say "ommm." Just breathe deeply for 10 minutes or so. Light a candle and/or incense if you want to.

 

As for filling voids, you don't need brainwashing or drugs for that. Voids can be filled by healthy things like friends, activities, hobbies, volunteering, etc.

[Guest Emerson]

Or is this another case of "religion" being defined as only referring to Xianity/Is-lame?

 

No I'm talking about all religions and its followers who insist that their is right and try to convert or do things by force. I'm thinking of the 9/11 hijackers who did it for "Allah" and their disgusting visions of going to heaven for it. Kind of like the people of the OT did it for Yahweh by destroying cities and their people.

[Ouroboros]

Agreed. Scientists can be wrong. But it is possible to test the truth of science by experimenting, so it's not blind faith. Religions fail the veracity test because it's impossible to prove whether a deity exists. That's why Christianity and other religions have built-in safeguards like "thou shalt not put the lord to the test." Whoever wrote that part of the Bible must have taken that into account.

And that's why I tend to trust science more (but not fully of course). There's a stronger probability science getting the truth than belief in someones opinion and ideas hundred or thousands years ago. But still, it's all based on trust, and we can't control who someone else trust. It's a personal choice.

 

True, but even the most skeptical of skeptics are not 100% skeptical. They all trust *someone*, be it an underground news source, other skeptics, their significant other, etc. Also, if you were 100% skeptical, it logically follows that you wouldn't even trust yourself.

Exactly. Since we can't be 100% skeptical, we always will fall for unknowingly fall for hoaxes. The only way to avoid it would be to somehow make everyone completely honest and unselfish, so we can rely on what hear will be guarranteed to be trustworthy. But even then we have the problem of perception. People will remember accounts of events differently and are not 100% correct either.

 

How about just the Golden Rule? If everyone actually lived by the Golden Rule, or even just most people, we wouldn't have as many problems as we do today. Just treat others with compassion. That doesn't require any dogma or fairy tales. And it's what most religions boil down to, once you strip all the nonsense away. You could add don't do any unnecessary harm as a corallary, but if you're already treating people with compassion, you're probably not going to be harming them.

I just think that a majority of people tend to want to believe in something beyond themselves. It's hard for most people to break out like we've done. One can only hope, but I think it's unrealistic to expect it to be simple. People need to learn to think, reason and look at things skeptical. But the level of skepticism will still be personal.

 

As for filling voids, you don't need brainwashing or drugs for that. Voids can be filled by healthy things like friends, activities, hobbies, volunteering, etc.

True. But I don't think it works completely for everyone. For me, I don't need much. I'm introvert enought to not really depend a lot on outer stimuli for self-fulfillment. But I don't say everyone could be like that. I see we all are so different that I can't expect others to reach same content I have (or you have).

[Amethyst]

True. But I don't think it works completely for everyone. For me, I don't need much. I'm introvert enought to not really depend a lot on outer stimuli for self-fulfillment. But I don't say everyone could be like that. I see we all are so different that I can't expect others to reach same content I have (or you have).

 

Yeah. I tend to fill my void with creative hobbies like writing and computer art. But I can see why more extroverted people would need something else.

[Lycorth]

No I'm talking about all religions and its followers who insist that their is right and try to convert or do things by force. I'm thinking of the 9/11 hijackers who did it for "Allah" and their disgusting visions of going to heaven for it. Kind of like the people of the OT did it for Yahweh by destroying cities and their people.

 

Then basically, you do mean Xianity, Is-lame, and Judaism - the only extant religions that doctrinally can be proven to support forced religion. Judaism is, of course, more fuzzy than its later spawn. If I recall rightly, most of its OT claims of butchering millions in the name of Yahooweh™ are without historical or archaeological support, and being an ethnocentric religion, it is only dangerous to Jews, not to Gentiles, who are generally not taught the religion.

 

I understand what you were getting at, and certainly any religion can take on a violent streak, but the testimony of know history is damning as to just who is indicted on the crime against humanity of forced religion. It's a good point, but I wish people would get it through their heads that "religion" doesn't exclusively refer to the Abrahamic cults and whenever people behave as it does, they unjustly attack many innocent faiths

[Amethyst]

It's a good point, but I wish people would get it through their heads that "religion" doesn't exclusively refer to the Abrahamic cults and whenever people behave as it does, they unjustly attack many innocent faiths

 

*Nods*

 

Not all faiths are violent. Take Buddhism, for example. I've yet to hear of any Buddhist violence on the evening news. Not that I am Buddhist, but I respect them.

[Ouroboros]

It's a good point, but I wish people would get it through their heads that "religion" doesn't exclusively refer to the Abrahamic cults and whenever people behave as it does, they unjustly attack many innocent faiths

Yes, you're right.

 

And I can tell that I too fall into the trap of talking about "religion" and in my mind I think more specifically about monotheism and certain violent religions only. I've noticed it several times lately that I tend to generalize. I'm using words that have a wider meaning that I intended too in my sentence. Don't know why I do it. Could it be that I'm lazy?

[Lycorth]

I've fallen into the trap myself a few times, certainly. It pays for me to remember that not all religions are the same, just as not all blacks are the same just because many young blacks are thugs or wannabe thugs. It never pays to judge all by the examples of a few, no matter how many that few are in number.

 

That said, "religion" has never been the problem. I wonder if people who condemn religion and religious people across the board realize they're falling to the same trap as the race-baiter or gay-basher? In truth, there is little difference.

 

If people can't specifiy their targets better, their salvos will strike noncombantants and they'll only end up with more enemies as a result.

[LosingMyReligion]

Not to hijack the thread...

 

But, are: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam like some kind of trilogy of ancient literature...Like The Lord of The Rings or something?

[The Sage Nabooru]

What would the world be without religion? Probably pretty much the same as it is now. People would still find reasons to kill off entire populations, there would still be people who are incapable of thinking on their own, and there would still be war and pestilence and disease.

 

I actually think it'd be a little more depressing. People today pray for God to deliver them from disease or poverty, and while that may turn out to be a false hope, at least that hope does help them get by day to day.

 

And what is "religion", anyway? Is it dogmatic rules for living set down in scripture, with an exclusivist doctrine for eternal salvation from eternal painful doom, with set commandments and do's and don't's, a judgemental divinity/divinities, and a set hierarchy of officials? Or is it simply a belief in something beyond the material, such as a belief in the Divine or in an afterlife, with no strings attached?

[Lycorth]

Not to hijack the thread...

 

But, are: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam like some kind of trilogy of ancient literature...Like The Lord of The Rings or something?

 

[starthijack]

No - they are rather like some kind of sick racist henotheistic fantasy gone wrong. Judaism sprang forth from the polytheistic Jewish Heathen pantheon (when some clown got the idea to glorify one of their gods, Yahooweh™, over all others and to the exclusion of all others), Xianity sprang forth from Judaism (when some clown glorified the allegedly historical character Jeezus of Nazareth™ ) and Is-lame sprang forth from Xianity (when some clown named Mohammed™ thought angels spoke to him and decided to glorify an Arabic repackaging of Yahooweh™ called "Allah™")

 

It's more like shit begetting shit. There's really nothing historical about any of it, except that these cults existed. Even the blood-soaked macho murderousness of the ancient Yahooweh™ worshippers depicted in the Torah™/Old Testament™ lacks historical and archaelogical evidence. It's all just a sick fantasy, lacking virtually all truth.

[/endhijack]

[The Sage Nabooru]

I don't think religion is the problem, it's only the symptom. And so is a complete trust in whatever science does. It's a sympton of a deeper behavior. We are gullible.

 

The real question is, how would society be if everyone were skeptic? My answer, probably were isolated and maybe even destroyed, because we wouldn't trust anyone. Our fellowship and feeling of "membership" etc, comes from trust. And so does belief, from trust of the source. I trust the scientific books and magazines I read (but I read them with a slight skepticism). With a 100% skeptic mind, I wouldn't trust any media or source.

 

The answer is probably not to get rid of religion, but have a more philosophical or ethereal kind. But it requires all people to become smarter and more insightful, which won't happen since we, as humans, are kind of lazy and inattentive in general.

 

You know, there have been times, especially in the area of psychology and the evolution of the human/animal mind and its quirks, that I've felt that scientists were merely telling themselves untested and really far-fetched theories as fact, in order to avoid admitting that they didn't have the ultimate answer, or even to avoid admitting a possibility of the "soul" or "spirit", or even appearing to do so. I often feel that science does, in fact, commit the same sin as religion - making up a story, and then accepting it as fact simply because it is easiest for them to do so.