Would the world be a better place without religion?

[Prometheus]

It is amazing how so many people are polarised by this topic: religion either did nothing but evil or it has never done any harm. Is it really that hard to see the truth is somewhere in the middle?

[dimreepr]

38 minutes ago, Prometheus said:

It is amazing how so many people are polarised by this topic: religion either did nothing but evil or it has never done any harm. Is it really that hard to see the truth is somewhere in the middle?

Indeed, much like all polarised political arguments, the OP may as well have asked 'would the world be better a better place without humans?' a much simpler question to which the answer is, yes if your not human and no if you are.

[koti]

1 hour ago, Strange said:

Schools, universities, hospitals and some great art and music.

Those things could have been without religion ever existing. WWII „gave” us atomic power, vehicle technologies, computer technologies and a dozen other technological breakthroughs. Does that mean that we can assume war is not all that bad?

[Strange]

6 minutes ago, koti said:

Those things could have been without religion ever existing.

Yes, and relativity theory could have happened without Einstein. But we still give him credit for it.

7 minutes ago, koti said:

WWII „gave” us atomic power, vehicle technologies, computer technologies and a dozen other technological breakthroughs. Does that mean that we can assume war is not all that bad?

Those things could have happened without war.

And, although I was brought up as a strict pacifist, I can see that sometimes war is defensible, or maybe even necessary.

[dimreepr]

15 minutes ago, koti said:

Those things could have been without religion ever existing. WWII „gave” us atomic power, vehicle technologies, computer technologies and a dozen other technological breakthroughs. Does that mean that we can assume war is not all that bad?

Stabbing people leads to guns/cars/internet/washing machines etc...  Does that mean stabbing people is not so bad?

[koti]

9 minutes ago, Strange said:

Yes, and relativity theory could have happened without Einstein. But we still give him credit for it.

Those things could have happened without war.

And, although I was brought up as a strict pacifist, I can see that sometimes war is defensible, or maybe even necessary.

I say Einstein is a little less controversial than religion and war   I too believe that war is a necesity in some cases and I share your upbringing. I just think that we could have easilly had all the good things that came with religion, without having religion ever existing.

[Strange]

1 hour ago, Prometheus said:

It is amazing how so many people are polarised by this topic: religion either did nothing but evil or it has never done any harm. Is it really that hard to see the truth is somewhere in the middle?

Quite. People don't seem to say the same about science: "science created nuclear weapons, nerve gas, pollution, etc so the world would be better off without science." (Well, people here don't; there are people who do).

Just now, koti said:

I say Einstein is a little less controversial than religion and war   I too believe that war is a necesity in some cases and I share your upbringing. I just think that we could have easilly had all the good things that came with religion, without having religion ever existing.

But as religion does exist (and is never going to go away) why not give it credit for the good things, while condemning (and trying to stop) the bad things.

[koti]

6 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Stabbing people leads to guns/cars/internet/washing machines etc...  Does that mean stabbing people is not so bad?

Ofcourse not, that is my whole point.

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, koti said:

Ofcourse not, that is my whole point.

And mine, religions didn't invent stabbing.

[koti]

2 minutes ago, Strange said:

But as religion does exist (and is never going to go away) why not give it credit for the good things, while condemning (and trying to stop) the bad things.

That seems reasonable when you assume that religion is never going away which I say is innevitable. Either we kill ourselves or religion is going away, both scenarios are without any religion in the future. I say with the current rate of advancement without any wars in between we need a couple hundred years for religion to be gone completely.

[Strange]

5 minutes ago, koti said:

That seems reasonable when you assume that religion is never going away which I say is innevitable. Either we kill ourselves or religion is going away, both scenarios are without any religion in the future. I say with the current rate of advancement without any wars in between we need a couple hundred years for religion to be gone completely.

You might as well imagine that art, love or dance is going to go away.

Religiosity is an inherent part of human nature.

But you are, of course, welcome to hang on to your irrational beliefs!

Edited April 1, 2018 by Strange

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, koti said:

That seems reasonable when you assume that religion is never going away which I say is innevitable. Either we kill ourselves or religion is going away, both scenarios are without any religion in the future. I say with the current rate of advancement without any wars in between we need a couple hundred years for religion to be gone completely.

Can science never be a religion in your understanding of religion? TBH I'd like to think you're correct, but science depends on the understanding of knowledge/data; is it really such a stretch that a break between the two could create a religion?

[koti]

14 minutes ago, Strange said:

 

But you are, of course, welcome to hang on to your irrational beliefs!

I’m willing to admit my irrationality (or rather gullability) in this case. After all, we’re all emotional beings and I’d like to think that hotels will have science books in drawers in the future instead of bibles. 

 

8 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Can science never be a religion in your understanding of religion? TBH I'd like to think you're correct, but science depends on the understanding of knowledge/data; is it really such a stretch that a break between the two could create a religion?

My personal view is that it is not needed. Science is such a different concept from religion that I think it would be surreal to assume its possible to merge the two somehow. Its like trying to divide by zero. 

[dimreepr]

11 minutes ago, koti said:

Science is such a different concept from religion that I think it would be surreal to assume its possible to merge the two somehow. Its like trying to divide by zero. 

1

Is it? Understanding shows why dividing by zero is futile.

[koti]

49 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Is it? Understanding shows why dividing by zero is futile.

Absolutely. Just like understanding shows that a bybrid between butter and a tricycle is futile. 

[zapatos]

1 hour ago, koti said:

My personal view is that it is not needed. Science is such a different concept from religion that I think it would be surreal to assume its possible to merge the two somehow. Its like trying to divide by zero. 

In one of the books in the Foundation Trilogy by Isaac Asimov, science essentially becomes a religion. Technology advances to such a degree that life is as perfect as possible for humans, and the machines that sustain that life are so near perfect that they cease to fail. Science stops progressing and over many thousands of years humans no longer understand how those machines work. They simply have faith in the science and technology, with no evidence or understanding of how it is possible. They just accept things as they are and believe there is a reason for everything.

[koti]

40 minutes ago, zapatos said:

In one of the books in the Foundation Trilogy by Isaac Asimov, science essentially becomes a religion. Technology advances to such a degree that life is as perfect as possible for humans, and the machines that sustain that life are so near perfect that they cease to fail. Science stops progressing and over many thousands of years humans no longer understand how those machines work. They simply have faith in the science and technology, with no evidence or understanding of how it is possible. They just accept things as they are and believe there is a reason for everything.

I havent read that one by Asimov, sounds like an entertaining utopia. From what you wrote, it assumes a cease in advancement due to reaching perfection which is just as implausible as a science-religion marriage which would I guess be inevitable if something like that did happen. 

Edited April 1, 2018 by koti

[Lasse]

No. It is part of Humanities cognitive evolution. Religions (and humanity) would be better off without closed minded, manipulative religious leaders. 

Edited April 1, 2018 by Lasse

[Lasse]

9 hours ago, koti said:

 I just think that we could have easilly had all the good things that came with religion, without having religion ever existing.

How? 

You have to recognize the state of the simple minds tens of thousands of years ago when religions the first times through shamans arise.

It is easy to judge relegions from todays ivory towers but without the past wonderings and questions, seeking understanding and reason for our own existence (motivated by different believe systems), art and science would not achive what we have today.

Without questions there are no answers.

Religion gave food for thought for the simple minds in primitive circumstances and still does that actually in a significant part of the world where education, internet access, or even electricity and running water is an issue. For them religion is the only path finding purpose in their life even the religion they believe in might be controversial for some.

Edited April 1, 2018 by Lasse

[koti]

37 minutes ago, Lasse said:

How? You have to recognize the state of the simple minds tens of thousands of years ago when religions the first times through shamans arise.

It is easy to judge relegions from todays ivory towers but without the past wondering and questions seeking understanding and reason for our own existence (motivated by different believe systems), art and science would not achive what we have today.

Without questions there are no answers.

Religion gave food for thought for the simple minds in primitive circumstances and still does that actually in a significant part of the world where education, internet access, or even electricity and running water is an issue. For them religion is the only path finding purpose in their life even the religion they believe might be controversial for some.

Some of the most pronounced artists and scientists were sceptics or at least they havent followed strongly mainstream religion even at times when it could cost them their life. I do agree that the masses were more easilly manouvered over millenia by the more clever to achieve goals and I agree that in hopeless dark times religion is a means of escape and hope for the uneducated and frightened masses. Or the ones who are so screwed that they have to escape into dillusion to bare the pain. I don’t see how this or how food for thought for the simple minds in primitive circumstances have anything to do with my point that we could have had Michael Angelo, Leonardo da Vinci, Newton, Einstein, Mozart or any of the other geniuses if religion was not part of our civilisation. Ofcourse the art and science was influenced by religion but I don’t see a reason why it couldn’t have been otherwise. We are not all built the same way, I had my share of suffering in life and in those dark times I never had to lean towards dillusion and I am ready to bet anyone that I never will. I assure you there are more people like me in this world and frankly I don’t give a damn that we’re in the minority. 

Edited April 1, 2018 by koti

[MaximThibodeau]

All this thread is a sin, and i dont believe in any religion. Only mention it, mean maybe achieve it. And you wont be able to do that, in a Human way...

[Moontanman]

896 replies to a question whose answer is simply yes... 

[Raider5678]

2 hours ago, Moontanman said:

896 replies to a question whose answer is simply yes... 

Ah.

Glad to see it was so simple all along. Clearly, the answer is black and white.

 

 

 

Also, I found a documentary of an Athiest going on a quest to disprove the bible.

And he goes along so brilliantly, using science, history, and common sense to single-handedly tackle the main questions surrounding the accuracy of Christianity and the bible.

You'd probably enjoy it quite a bit, I suggest you watch it, it's called "The Case for Christ"

 

 

[Strange]

7 hours ago, Moontanman said:

896 replies to a question whose answer is simply yes... 

The problem is that the answer is obviously no ...

[koti]

5 hours ago, Raider5678 said:

Ah.

Glad to see it was so simple all along. Clearly, the answer is black and white.

 

 

 

Also, I found a documentary of an Athiest going on a quest to disprove the bible.

And he goes along so brilliantly, using science, history, and common sense to single-handedly tackle the main questions surrounding the accuracy of Christianity and the bible.

You'd probably enjoy it quite a bit, I suggest you watch it, it's called "The Case for Christ"

 

 

There is also the 2008 documentary by Bill Maher „Religious”, its an interesting watch:

https://m.imdb.com/title/tt0815241/