Why a world without religion would be a better place

  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Ethics
  3. » Why a world without religion would be a better place

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

ArthBH
 
Reply Tue 5 Jan, 2010 11:12 am
First of all, I would like to point out that I do not think religion would stop wars. I just want to say that before anyone assumes that that is what this thread is about.
This thread is about how I think a world without religion would bring a kinder, better oiled, more socially economically sufficient, and more intelligent world. Many will hate me for it. But this is merely my opinion, and it doesn't stop me from having many friends who are religious. To all the religious people reading this who are already critizing my argument before it has started, I would like you please to be open minded.

In my last thread (see here http://www.philosophyforum.com/philosophy-forums/branches-philosophy/ethics/7159-morally-twisted-society.html) there was a clear clash between those who were religious and those who were not. The religious people argued that unloving sex is equally as bad as violence. One of the repliers reasoned that although violence can be justified, sex without love cannot, because it is entirely selfish. I would argue again that it can be justified simply by the fact the people having sex enjoy it and it can harm no-one if done safely. I would also argue that a religious person cannot criticize selfishness because religion is entirely selfish. Most religions have the idea that being 'good' all your life will pay for a completely selfish form of life insurance: heaven, or it's various alternatives. This also gets rid of any form of altruism.

If on the other hand you are atheist, you can still be altruistic. Yes, of course many religious people will tell you that they have done things that are purely altruistic, but I find the concept that they have not at some point thought of it as a help to pay for their ticket into heaven unlikely. Do humans really need religion to be kind? I certainly don't. I am in no way saying that I am always a kind person but I need no God for it to feel good to help a dying animal. Wouldn't it be nicer if everything people did was out of the goodness of their hearts instead of for God?

The other problem that religion creates is the fundamentalist morals and values that it carries with it. These morals are often logically and socially economically flawed, and by that I mean they have no positive influence on society. The reason people follow them is to please God. So there again we see the selfishness of religion. Instead of helping society, religious people are thinking of their own personal gain by following absurd morals so that they can get into heaven. We only have to look back to the slave trade, which the puritans didn't see as morally wrong in any form, to see just how absurd these fixed morals can look. Even if something only creates positives in terms of happiness, such as professional pornography as discussed in the last thread, religious people will condemn it and judge those that are in it or watch it as nothing but evil. You can call me a pervert, a sleeze, or whatever for arguing against them, but it won't matter because I think they are the ones that are perverted. Christianity and Islam says that people should dress modestly, and that nudity is an evil thing that should not be seen by anyone but you or who you are married with. Does this mean to say that the tribes around the world that wear barely any clothes are going to Hell for it? Does this mean to say, that the people that lived before humans started wearing clothes, all went to Hell? And what do you mean by nudity? What parts of the body must not be seen and why? Breasts certainly seem to be one of them, but seeing as they have nothing to do with sex, why?

It is for similar reasons that often intelligent discussions are infected by people who's morals are perverted by their selfish attention to their religion. If it wasn't for religion, we could discuss economics and logic with more ease, not bothering to stop to think about absurd morals that, from an atheist perspective, do not help anyone.

Not only that, religion represses people, and this is the most dangerous thing of all. Repression creates aggression. We can see it with the muslim extremists, and when it comes to sexual repression, it doesn't take a genius to see a link with it and serial killers such as Ed Gein. And before anyone says it, yes I know their also is a link with serial killers and the opposite extreme to sexual repression as well. But non-the-less repression is dangerous, it's unhealthy, and it's unnatural, and the only thing that creates it is religion, or someone's excuse for it.

Religion also creates some disturbing and sadistic traditions and ideals. Satī, witch hunting, human sacrifice, male dominance and racism are to name but a few. Sure you are thinking, well those things happened a long time ago, but they didn't really did they? Male dominance and racism is still very much thought of as morally OK in a few parts of the world. And who says the other things aren't going to reinvent themselves at some point in the future, because some religious group that believes sacrifice is 'morally right' becomes more powerful.

This is why I think a world without religion would be better, to give an unadulterated and open minded look at how the world could be made a better, using economics and logic, instead of nonsense morals and values.
 
Merry Prankster
 
Reply Tue 5 Jan, 2010 11:31 am
@ArthBH,
When speaking about religion you can't just focus on the Abrahamic Traditions, you have to take into account all the Eastern and Indigenous traditions, and because of how diverse every religion is, you have to then apply the nul hypothesis, you have to ignore the mythos of each religion so that the conversation does not get bogged down and lost in the discussion of the stories, but the religions must be discussed based on the morals they teach, because the morals are the only thing that matter.

So then we face the dilemma on whether people would act morally without religion or if religions are necessary to instill these values into the masses? And that's the dilemma. I don't know the answer. All I know is that religious people have morals even if they are misguided by the notion that something exists beyond life, and that I know some atheists who are completely immoral and obviously only adopted that set of beliefs to enable them to act immorally.

So I guess the conclusion is that people can be pretty, can't put this any other way, shitty, and the reason I think people are the way they are is because they don't realize the extent of their own individualism, for when people have a scapegoat to place the blame on they can do some pretty horendous things, so I think people need to learn the nature of their self so that they realize that they are only accountable to themselves, and I think that would eventually lead to an improvement in society. Religions are just one of the scapegoats, but a necessary one up until this point. If people can be taught how to think for themselves then religions won't be necessary any more.
 
Fido
 
Reply Tue 5 Jan, 2010 11:33 am
@ArthBH,
It would stop people from adding the weight of the world onto the side of infinites having no weight or worth...
 
andy1984
 
Reply Tue 5 Jan, 2010 02:40 pm
@ArthBH,
i think that people can have crazy ideas, repression, etc. all on their own.

i'm not sure what your definition of religion is. is it the organisation of a set package of beliefs or just a term for people you see as crazies that deviate from what you see as good? or maybe just beliefs based on dogma? or maybe just old ways of thinking?

i don't think that there are a set of good values which float around in an unorganised way and that we naturally gravitate towards them. in order to make a better world we need to work together.

what you are suggesting sounds like it leads to rationalisation, and Max Weber's "iron cage" of bureaucracy.
 
Jebediah
 
Reply Tue 5 Jan, 2010 04:30 pm
@andy1984,
Maybe a world without religion would be better. Let's assume it would be. Now what? A world without violence, murder, theft, and any number of things would be better too, so why not just get rid of those?

People have a natural instinct towards religious like beliefs, you can't get rid of that. And I don't know how you would argue that religious people should be converted to atheism.

Separation of church and state is the best answer I can see. Let the advancements of science and thinking do their work.
 
Fido
 
Reply Tue 5 Jan, 2010 08:29 pm
@Jebediah,
Jebediah;117423 wrote:
Maybe a world without religion would be better. Let's assume it would be. Now what? A world without violence, murder, theft, and any number of things would be better too, so why not just get rid of those?

People have a natural instinct towards religious like beliefs, you can't get rid of that. And I don't know how you would argue that religious people should be converted to atheism.

Separation of church and state is the best answer I can see. Let the advancements of science and thinking do their work.

Churches feed the division between people, and there were in the past only two groups, the saved and the dead...No one troubled to keep sinners alive, though at least for the Catholics, they would not execute the insane because they needed to give people the chance to repent before death, but then they would kill them...

If your concern is for the natural consider how natural it is for one to crap in ones britches, and how unnatural it is to not...If society has always modified its behavior in view of the greater good, it cancertainly limit the influence of religion on society...There is a limit to how much nonsense people should be subjected to...
 
Amperage
 
Reply Tue 5 Jan, 2010 08:38 pm
@Fido,
Fido;117488 wrote:
Churches feed the division between people
no, people feed division between people. Church or no church, there would still be division
 
Jebediah
 
Reply Tue 5 Jan, 2010 08:43 pm
@Fido,
Fido;117488 wrote:
Churches feed the division between people, and there were in the past only two groups, the saved and the dead...No one troubled to keep sinners alive, though at least for the Catholics, they would not execute the insane because they needed to give people the chance to repent before death, but then they would kill them...

If your concern is for the natural consider how natural it is for one to crap in ones britches, and how unnatural it is to not...If society has always modified its behavior in view of the greater good, it cancertainly limit the influence of religion on society...There is a limit to how much nonsense people should be subjected to...


Oh, we can change religions certainly, just as we can change our bathroom habits. But we can't do away with either.
 
Fido
 
Reply Tue 5 Jan, 2010 10:28 pm
@Amperage,
Amperage;117497 wrote:
no, people feed division between people. Church or no church, there would still be division

Churches are social forms and all social forms feed division...Their identity is made on who they reject...

---------- Post added 01-05-2010 at 11:33 PM ----------

Jebediah;117500 wrote:
Oh, we can change religions certainly, just as we can change our bathroom habits. But we can't do away with either.

You can't if you think you can't...I will agree that people are formal, that in trashing one form they soon erect another in its place...But religions have changed, and humanity has changed, and if we could get democracy over the dead body of the church, people would find they had no need to pray for the justice, the welfare, the unity, the tranquility, or the liberty they so desparately need now... If they had their natural power they would not crave the power of God, but they would have to accept that they could not walk all over the rights of others as if it were their right because they believe as they are told to believe on human authority...I am not telling anyone what to believe or who to associate with, but the state should not support any of these religious social clubs who are very unsocial, and hate all who are not them, or of their group...
 
Khethil
 
Reply Wed 6 Jan, 2010 06:58 am
@Fido,
I think you're probably right - in more ways than your original post put it. But, unfortunately it doesn't really matter.[INDENT]For one, we don't know a world without religion. It's been with us so long and in so many forms - continually passed amongst and between the generations - that we really can't conceive of a world without it. I also don't buy the idea that humans have some endemic need for religion; because we've always had 'em around in one form or another doesn't mean that the needs they satisfy couldn't be handled any other way - their profuseness indicates nothing but that this has been a popular, perhaps easiest, way to handle such pseudo-emotional issues.
[/INDENT][INDENT]Secondly, it can't really be eradicated; there's nothing you or I could say that would motivate a religious person to say, "Wow, I feel so silly now - thanks!" ...so this is all academic. For those of us who believe similarly (i.e., that overall religion tends to do more harm than good), our best bet is to work to honestly understand and embrace spiritual people - work to understand and relate with them; not towards any 'goal', but because mutual understanding, towards any end, strengthens us all.
[/INDENT]I also think there's a good chance religion, in all its forms, will fall in popularity over time, but this is a wild guess. And of course, there's the none-too-insignificant issue of: Those "who aren't ready to be unplugged"... I wouldn't even begin to try and crack that nut. Many on the inside of various religious influences tend to see a life without <this> or <that> religion as being worthless, empty, meaningless and/or without conscience - as if their beliefs somehow dispensed meaning and happiness on demand. The reason I believe religion's grasp will likely slacken over time is based on a large-scale trend I've detected; both through my historical studies and understanding/grasp of contemporary spirituality; this being threefold:[INDENT]1) That over time religions are continually fragmenting (splitting the split off splinter of the group that separated from...). With each iteration, the once concrete dogmas become less adhering in the mind. The more ambiguous the concept, belief or "thing", the less there is for the heart or mind to hold on to. It becomes harder to enunciate, tougher to extol and much more difficult to put ones' hopes in to. Moves towards fundementalism, too, often represent yet another fragmentation. Whether or not this is happening, and might de-emphasize religion's hold over time is up for debate - I think it quite likely to have just such an effect though.
[/INDENT][INDENT]2) There is a very popular, very en-vogue stance these days that - I believe - amounts to a virtual abolishment of religiousness. It's the, "I'm a spiritual salad"-cap where someone might have "a dash of Buddhism, a pinch of Islam and half a cup of pantheism", try and swallow it all and proclaim, "See how unique and open-minded I am?" while issuing forth the obligatory hearty belch. I find this propensity (and we see it a lot here on the Forum) patently hilarious; as if "what is" was an All-You-Can-Eat buffet. What is, is - and isn't negotiable from mind to mind (like perceptions of what is, are).

3) Religion appears to be continually recast. Although this feels nice and liberating, it's actually a diffusion of that which makes religion, religious. In an ostensive effort to avoid being called the "A"-word, there appears to be a continual re-defininig other words, concepts and disciplines as "my religious view". Some sound like astrophysics, others have placed the famous quantum-mechanics cliche right up there on the cross with Jesus, others take what should be called an "attitude" and say, "X is my religion". Astrology's long been, what I'd call, a pseudo religion too - but there are many more brewing in the weeds; science, nature, hell... why not toss in Garfield. At some point, the diffusion in definition becomes so pronounced, so unavoidable, that the term "Religion" has all the specificity of the word "Thing" - in that over time it means nothing on its own; only with extensive clarification from the expressor, can it be understood.
[/INDENT]... doesn't matter. I, like you, have written extensively on this. The conclusion I've come to is that although your theme may indeed be correct; it doesn't really matter and isn't quantifiable anyway. Let's spend our energies, our hopes and what faith we *can* muster, on each other; towards mutual benefit and let this dog lie.

Good post - thanks
 
xris
 
Reply Wed 6 Jan, 2010 07:16 am
@Khethil,
But the dog will not lie down . Religion is not going to fall asleep and not let its damaging dogma effect us all. It is proactive, it will never just be happy with those who choose. It constantly tries to educate the young into its beliefs. Our education systems dictate we will never have a free vote.
 
Fido
 
Reply Wed 6 Jan, 2010 09:15 am
@xris,
xris;117650 wrote:
But the dog will not lie down . Religion is not going to fall asleep and not let its damaging dogma effect us all. It is proactive, it will never just be happy with those who choose. It constantly tries to educate the young into its beliefs. Our education systems dictate we will never have a free vote.

People do not get their morals from their church or society...It is the other way around, and when the people lose their morality no church on the planet excepting one with a brand new morality will make any headway...If children were loved they are moral...It is not a thing of reason, but of pre reason, it is not a thing that can be taught or learned...Morals are not a thin at all... One is raised with morals as a part of their character, as Ethics suggests, so morals are what people are, or what the indivdual is not... It is the bond between people, and some people cannot bond, and I expect it is often because they were not loved...Morals are a thing of emotion, and emotions cannot be taught...
 
prothero
 
Reply Wed 6 Jan, 2010 11:09 pm
@ArthBH,
There has never been a society or culture without religion.
Man is a meaning seeking creature, man searches for transcendent purpose.
The best you can hope for is religion which inspires to positive ends.
Even if you destroyed all religion, man would invent new religions.
Our relationship to the universe is an eternal persistant existential question.
 
starfighter
 
Reply Wed 6 Jan, 2010 11:51 pm
@prothero,
I am kind of depressed by what the majority of the people commenting on this post have made into a general consensus of religion.

The OP's generalization seems to have only allowed a negative argument. It might be more poignant to ask a world without faith in an everlasting life past this one, or maybe a specific religion.

I have witnessed things that have forced me to believe there is something out there more powerful then my consciousness. If there isn't then we may be lost. (I am kinda in the process of feeling this one out and have been since I can remember) Am I agnostic? Does your word religion = GOD? Explain what counts for religion and I might be able to play devil's advocate on this one.
 
richard mcnair
 
Reply Thu 7 Jan, 2010 12:21 am
@ArthBH,
ArthBH;117300 wrote:
First of all, I would like to point out that I do not think religion would stop wars. I just want to say that before anyone assumes that that is what this thread is about.
This thread is about how I think a world without religion would bring a kinder, better oiled, more socially economically sufficient, and more intelligent world. Many will hate me for it. But this is merely my opinion, and it doesn't stop me from having many friends who are religious. To all the religious people reading this who are already critizing my argument before it has started, I would like you please to be open minded.

In my last thread (see here http://www.philosophyforum.com/philosophy-forums/branches-philosophy/ethics/7159-morally-twisted-society.html) there was a clear clash between those who were religious and those who were not. The religious people argued that unloving sex is equally as bad as violence. One of the repliers reasoned that although violence can be justified, sex without love cannot, because it is entirely selfish. I would argue again that it can be justified simply by the fact the people having sex enjoy it and it can harm no-one if done safely. I would also argue that a religious person cannot criticize selfishness because religion is entirely selfish. Most religions have the idea that being 'good' all your life will pay for a completely selfish form of life insurance: heaven, or it's various alternatives. This also gets rid of any form of altruism.

If on the other hand you are atheist, you can still be altruistic. Yes, of course many religious people will tell you that they have done things that are purely altruistic, but I find the concept that they have not at some point thought of it as a help to pay for their ticket into heaven unlikely. Do humans really need religion to be kind? I certainly don't. I am in no way saying that I am always a kind person but I need no God for it to feel good to help a dying animal. Wouldn't it be nicer if everything people did was out of the goodness of their hearts instead of for God?

The other problem that religion creates is the fundamentalist morals and values that it carries with it. These morals are often logically and socially economically flawed, and by that I mean they have no positive influence on society. The reason people follow them is to please God. So there again we see the selfishness of religion. Instead of helping society, religious people are thinking of their own personal gain by following absurd morals so that they can get into heaven. We only have to look back to the slave trade, which the puritans didn't see as morally wrong in any form, to see just how absurd these fixed morals can look. Even if something only creates positives in terms of happiness, such as professional pornography as discussed in the last thread, religious people will condemn it and judge those that are in it or watch it as nothing but evil. You can call me a pervert, a sleeze, or whatever for arguing against them, but it won't matter because I think they are the ones that are perverted. Christianity and Islam says that people should dress modestly, and that nudity is an evil thing that should not be seen by anyone but you or who you are married with. Does this mean to say that the tribes around the world that wear barely any clothes are going to Hell for it? Does this mean to say, that the people that lived before humans started wearing clothes, all went to Hell? And what do you mean by nudity? What parts of the body must not be seen and why? Breasts certainly seem to be one of them, but seeing as they have nothing to do with sex, why?

It is for similar reasons that often intelligent discussions are infected by people who's morals are perverted by their selfish attention to their religion. If it wasn't for religion, we could discuss economics and logic with more ease, not bothering to stop to think about absurd morals that, from an atheist perspective, do not help anyone.

Not only that, religion represses people, and this is the most dangerous thing of all. Repression creates aggression. We can see it with the muslim extremists, and when it comes to sexual repression, it doesn't take a genius to see a link with it and serial killers such as Ed Gein. And before anyone says it, yes I know their also is a link with serial killers and the opposite extreme to sexual repression as well. But non-the-less repression is dangerous, it's unhealthy, and it's unnatural, and the only thing that creates it is religion, or someone's excuse for it.

Religion also creates some disturbing and sadistic traditions and ideals. Satī, witch hunting, human sacrifice, male dominance and racism are to name but a few. Sure you are thinking, well those things happened a long time ago, but they didn't really did they? Male dominance and racism is still very much thought of as morally OK in a few parts of the world. And who says the other things aren't going to reinvent themselves at some point in the future, because some religious group that believes sacrifice is 'morally right' becomes more powerful.

This is why I think a world without religion would be better, to give an unadulterated and open minded look at how the world could be made a better, using economics and logic, instead of nonsense morals and values.


Oh dear... a typically uninformed post by someone who clearly doesn't have the slightest clue what he is talking about.

Why don't you actually learn something about religion before laying into it? You have not made a single statement about religious belief which applies to religion as a whole. I'm guessing you are a typically small-minded ignorant atheist who once sat down and heard the deranged ramblings of an evangelical pastor, and assumed that this is what all religious people believe.
 
xris
 
Reply Thu 7 Jan, 2010 04:21 am
@richard mcnair,
As an agnostic atheist I see 2% of the population who attend church having an unbalanced influence on my life and my country. Schools are governed by Christians, from that minority. C.E school education dominates primary education. With it goes the charade of praying before education and the silly childish christian indoctrination.It would not be so bad if parents where given alternative schools for their children to attend. "All things bright and beautiful , the lord god made them all" is still ringing in my head. Its not that I'm against any one worshipping their god its the influence and ability they are given to indoctrinate the young.

We also see workers being excluded from certain positions because they are not of a certain faith. Why should any of us be asked our faith on a form? what purpose does it serve? who business is it but mine what god I do or dont believe in. Sorry but I am annoyed at the minority having so much power, its undemocratic and archaic.
 
Fido
 
Reply Thu 7 Jan, 2010 07:51 am
@prothero,
prothero;118048 wrote:
There has never been a society or culture without religion.
Man is a meaning seeking creature, man searches for transcendent purpose.
The best you can hope for is religion which inspires to positive ends.
Even if you destroyed all religion, man would invent new religions.
Our relationship to the universe is an eternal persistant existential question.

It is probably natural for us to crap in the yard with the dog, but that doesn't mean we should encourage such behavior... We conceive of all things, even the most immediate and real quality of our lives as spiritual... That is what forms and concepts are, and sort of spiritual representation of the thing... DOES that mean that everything we conceive of is real...Far from it, so to the extent that organized religion supported by and supporting the state and economy distracts us from the matter at hand, of making this thing called society to work, Or helping humanity to survive- it is our enemy, natural or not... If we thought rationally about how our mental forms become social forms, such forms as our government, and economy, and religion would fall apart... Our government arose out of a certain conception of the purpose and powers of government, and that purpose is clearly stated... Would it stand the comparison of its goals with its progress??? They respond to a need that has already killed many, and injured more with baby steps, and call them great strides...What were the churches formed to produce???What was their intended result??? What was the expecation for capital??? None of our social forms can bear the comparison... We are stuck with this real constitution as the medieval constitution of England stuck their working people...Church, Lords and King carved up the country between them and justified each other...Did they offer a creditable defense from others??? No...They defended their own positions in life essentially giving nothing worth knowing to future times..

Organized religion is a political prop to the economy and government...It does not exist for man or God, but to preserve itself...There is no opportunity I will not take to kick the props out of these monstrosities... They are just social forms, and I have no respect...All human progress requires a change of forms...I am ready to get out of the stone ages please...

---------- Post added 01-07-2010 at 09:09 AM ----------

richard_mcnair;118064 wrote:
Oh dear... a typically uninformed post by someone who clearly doesn't have the slightest clue what he is talking about.

Why don't you actually learn something about religion before laying into it? You have not made a single statement about religious belief which applies to religion as a whole. I'm guessing you are a typically small-minded ignorant atheist who once sat down and heard the deranged ramblings of an evangelical pastor, and assumed that this is what all religious people believe.

Is there really a typical athiest who is small minded, and ignorant... It seems that to be against something one must know something about it, in the way black sort of defines white...I am not even sure there is anything like an official athiest anti-theology one could cling dogmatically to...If they were to have a meeting, how many do you think would join in and pay dues???

The church ladies make much of the secular humanists...It must be their way of distinguishing that sort of humanist from ones like Erasmus, or Jesus...But what is the danger??? Is it that some sort of reason should prevail beside faith???It can't be numbers...I went to a secular humanist meeting in a fairtly large city, and it could have been held in a phone booth, if they still have phone booths...

If you don't buy organized religion, you don't care...Just because you don't love nonsense does not mean you hate stupidity...One day, people just hit their crap limits, and they never go back to church but for a funeral...
 
josh0335
 
Reply Thu 7 Jan, 2010 09:57 am
@ArthBH,
ArthBH;117300 wrote:

In my last thread (see here http://www.philosophyforum.com/philosophy-forums/branches-philosophy/ethics/7159-morally-twisted-society.html) there was a clear clash between those who were religious and those who were not. The religious people argued that unloving sex is equally as bad as violence. One of the repliers reasoned that although violence can be justified, sex without love cannot, because it is entirely selfish. I would argue again that it can be justified simply by the fact the people having sex enjoy it and it can harm no-one if done safely.


It depends on what your version of the 'harm principle' is. People of a religious disposition would argue that no man is an island i.e. nothing or very little that you do has no effect on others. Getting drunk at home every night might seem perfectly fine to you, but if it means you neglect your family as a result it's no longer a simply private affair. That's why sexual liberation is such a controversial topic. It is difficult to see how having casual sex does not have a profound effect on how people treat and interact with eachother. If you believed there was a good chance that the girl accross the room might sleep with you, you would behave differently than if you knew you had no chance at all.

Quote:
I would also argue that a religious person cannot criticize selfishness because religion is entirely selfish. Most religions have the idea that being 'good' all your life will pay for a completely selfish form of life insurance: heaven, or it's various alternatives. This also gets rid of any form of altruism.

If on the other hand you are atheist, you can still be altruistic. Yes, of course many religious people will tell you that they have done things that are purely altruistic, but I find the concept that they have not at some point thought of it as a help to pay for their ticket into heaven unlikely. Do humans really need religion to be kind? I certainly don't. I am in no way saying that I am always a kind person but I need no God for it to feel good to help a dying animal. Wouldn't it be nicer if everything people did was out of the goodness of their hearts instead of for God?
You've basically contradicted yourself as well as defined altruism out of existence. You being kind 'to feel good' is more altruistic than one being kind to get into heaven in what way? There is no such thing as absolute altruism. Although I'm no fan of his, Dawkins has written a lot about altruism which might be beneficial for you to read.

Quote:
It is for similar reasons that often intelligent discussions are infected by people who's morals are perverted by their selfish attention to their religion. If it wasn't for religion, we could discuss economics and logic with more ease, not bothering to stop to think about absurd morals that, from an atheist perspective, do not help anyone.
You've contradicted yourself again. Morals are based on one's own perspective, and you've basically labelled all religious morals as perverted. But a religious person would say the same thing about your morals. Are you going to present an objective measure for what is a perverted moral standard and what is not? If it wasn't for atheists with their selfish disregard of religion, us theists could have more intelligent discussions about economics and logic with more ease, not bothering to stop to think about absurd amoral objections, which from a theist perspective, do not help anyone.

Quote:
This is why I think a world without religion would be better, to give an unadulterated and open minded look at how the world could be made a better, using economics and logic, instead of nonsense morals and values.
In your atheistic world, what would happen if one camp of atheists decided that sexual liberation was a bad idea based on trends seen in society? Would there be an intelligent debate? And what happened if there was no consensus reached, and those who felt strongly about their position were unmoved?
 
Strodgers
 
Reply Thu 7 Jan, 2010 03:11 pm
@ArthBH,
Both from Dictionary (dot) com
-------

religion
-noun
a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

(and exactly what is a "superhuman agency", it doesn't necessarily mean a god)

atheist
-noun
a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


It appears to me that one doesn't need a God to be religious. All one would need is a belief. Today it seems that the biggest "Religious" group isn't one that believes in a god, but believes in science. Scientists go around telling us 'This is definitely how the universe was made.' yet they don't show proof. Prove black holes exist, bring me one or go to one close up. Prove the universe started as small as a pin head, I've heard a scientist say it began as an infinitely small point. You don't need a god or gods to be religious. The next big religious war might be between scientific beliefs. It wasn't the Theist who created eugenics. Having a belief in god isn't dangerous, having a belief period can be.
Anyone who wants to get rid of religion, two words - Good Luck -
 
Jebediah
 
Reply Thu 7 Jan, 2010 03:27 pm
@Strodgers,
Strodgers;118286 wrote:
B
It appears to me that one doesn't need a God to be religious. All one would need is a belief. Today it seems that the biggest "Religious" group isn't one that believes in a god, but believes in science. Scientists go around telling us 'This is definitely how the universe was made.' yet they don't show proof. Prove black holes exist, bring me one or go to one close up. Prove the universe started as small as a pin head, I've heard a scientist say it began as an infinitely small point. You don't need a god or gods to be religious. The next big religious war might be between scientific beliefs. It wasn't the Theist who created eugenics. Having a belief in god isn't dangerous, having a belief period can be.
Anyone who wants to get rid of religion, two words - Good Luck -


Do they? Prove it.
 
 

 
  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Ethics
  3. » Why a world without religion would be a better place
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 07/24/2021 at 02:47:36