Religion A world without religion

[scieck]

No Sabro i am not getting snippy, i was just annoyed by this, i wrote:

my life is full of love and passion, it is constantly enriched by human beings achievements of any sorts, from sport to poetry and science, just to see two friends shake hands, can bring tears to my eyes not because i see any God or God son there but because i see friendship, respect and love between to human beings, and are this simple things that make my life beautiful and rich ....

... and you understood:

...You want to do sports, poetry or science and it makes you happy, go for it...

Your answer was cheap and annoyed me.

I regard religion to be a natural phase of human evolution, i can't imagine a world without.
It would be like discussing a world without Medieval times, of course we would talk about the good and bad points, but at the end human beings had to go through it to gain the knowledge to get where we are now.
In my opinion the same stands for religion.
The title of this thread: “A world without religion”, it would be great for many of us, but to achieve that we require a knowledge that can only be build by learning from “A world with religion”.

In other words Sabro i agree with you, i also don't think the world would be better off without religion, but for different reasons then the ones you do.

 

[No-name]

scieck-
I understand why that annoyed you. My answer was not meant to cheapen what you said anymore than your dislike of religion in general is an attack on my faith. The fact that you find beauty in such things is admirable as is the effort to see the good in mankind. I don't however see these the pursuit of these thing as antithetical to religion...I see them as one of the purposes of it.

I also don't view religious people as somehow less intelligent, less developed, less informed, less moral or somehow primitive in their thinking. My faith is not some natural phase I need to grow out of, nor is it some pursuit like sports, poetry, or entertainment to make me happy. Simply because some people decide to pursue spirituality through traditional religions does not make them inferior. Thor had asserted that the world would be better without religion. I disagree. I believe it to be an integral part of our history and culture and that it plays an important role in almost every human society.

Here is a good article that could add to the discussion:
http://alternet.org/story/26721/

 

[scieck]

Thank you for your answer Sabro.

Just to be clear my evolution/phase point was by no means insinuating that religious people are some how less intelligent, or inferiors or any thing of the sort.
Religion as a whole i see it as a phase of human evolution and not as a phase of a single person (although it could be).

The article seams interesting, i just brush upon it i will read it properly later.
I am going home now 'cause i am tired, its 7:11pm in London, time to leave work.
Talk to you all tomorrow, thanks to all for challenging posts, i am enjoying this.

 

[No-name]

Thank you for being so gracious scieck.

I totally understand your point, and the second paragraph about religious people being percieved as inferior was not specifically targeted at you. I think the discussion on this thread has been intelligent, above board, fruitful and enjoyable with the barest minimum of stupidity.

 

[Mars Man]

And...all's well that ends well. (An old Jewish saying) [although I'm not insinuating, nor suggesting that this thread should end here...just that this flow of development has settled to a resting point.]

 

[Reiku]

I guess I am somewhat fanatical about this subject. I know the world would be better if religion was banned. Religion has caused wars, acts of terrorism, murder, discrimination, and genocide. Imagine a world without religion. I honestly think religion has been there for mankind as a comforter. We don't know if there is a heaven or a hell. People like to think there is life after we die. I really don't care if there is.
Religious fanaticals like Hitler blamed the problems of his country on judaism. The crusades were fought in the name of god. Even the Bush administration claims some sort of connection to religion. Islamic terrorists are supposedly fighting in the name of Allah.
People today dicriminate against homosexuality because it is deemed improper in their religion.
I would like to live in a world where gods and goddesses have no effect on humanity. It would be a better place.

You're missing the point.

Hitler blamed one religion, and tried to wipe it out--you're suggesting we do the same thing: Ban a group of beliefs that are contrary to yours.

People don't hate and kill people because their bible tells them to--they pick a religion that they feel justifies their own prejudices.

If you ban the religion, they'll just find another excuse--the only thing you'll have done is add more intolerance into the world.

 

[No-name]

Reiku, I agree...
Ridiculing the belief systems of others and telling others how they should believe is wrong. It goes against every principal of basic human rights. Although some may wish to live in a world without religion, I dread to see the one where it is banned.

 

[Reiku]

After all, science is just a religion that explains itself. :blush:

We can base our beliefs on our senses or our feelings, but ultimately, we're just taking it on faith that they--and our interpretation of them--are correct.

 

[scieck]

Science is nothing like religion, on one side you have something totally based on proof, on the other side you have something totally based on faith.
On one side there is at least one human that can without doubt prove a scientific law, on the other side no one can without doubt prove the existents of God, hence faith.
If a scientist is giving an interpretation of some observation it calls it theory, it only became science when the theory is proved, there is not faith involve in this process.

 

[No-name]

Science is nothing like religion, on one side you have something totally based on proof, on the other side you have something totally based on faith.
On one side there is at least one human that can without doubt prove a scientific law, on the other side no one can without doubt prove the existents of God, hence faith.
If a scientist is giving an interpretation of some observation it calls it theory, it only became science when the theory is proved, there is not faith involve in this process.

Although you are essentially correct, there is a great deal of overlap between the two. To the psyche of an individual they may both have the same function. Both give explanations and provide a sense of certainty. Not all science involves absolute proof... it builds on the proofs and assumptions of the past. And religion is not separate from reason or at least id doesn't need to be... faith should be something applied intelligently.

You do however point out that the methods and purpose of each is entirely separate and should not be confused.

 

[Mitsuo]

It will never be eradicated. Especially since there are so many people that are intent to spread the word. The only way that religion will stop is when God himself comes and tells everyone that religion is the devils work.
Not saying I believe that or anything, just a point trying to be made.

 

[Mars Man]

Interesting. It just kind of brought up to my mind the thread on ideas of how human existence might come to an end.

When nature itself works out that way--if it were to--that would be it. This assumes that animals of lesser 'intelligence' and lower forms of life do not have religion. (again, I do not equate 'religion' with 'belief-system', though there is intersection.)

 

[Tsuyoiko]

My thought process on Mars' 'Science & Religion' thread led me back here.

History would suggest that any attempts to eradicate religion are misguided at best - and not just because they lead to bloodshed, but because they are unnecessary. As I just said on that other thread, although I think it's worth reiterating here, the beliefs of organised religions are being slowly eroded by science, and that process will continue. No-one questions Copernicus anymore, most religions have ratified evolution and one day people will stop believing in an immortal soul.

Let Nature take its course. Don't focus on destruction, focus on creation. Instead of trying to convince people that such-and-such belief is wrong, educate yourself and share that knowledge with others. Don't be negative by shouting "this is false, wrong, bad", be positive by learning what is true, right and good and sharing that with others. Above all, be patient.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

It will never be eradicated.

But, it can definitely be marginalized to a very small minority.

...
History would suggest that any attempts to eradicate religion are misguided at best - ... As I just said on that other thread, although I think it's worth reiterating here, the beliefs of organised religions are being slowly eroded by science, and that process will continue. ...
Let Nature take its course. Don't focus on destruction, focus on creation.

There could always be wide swings in the pendulum. There is nothing to say that the pendulum would not swing so far back and cause a theocracy to come about. When something that is dangerous is in a weakened state, why not add to its toppleing over by giving it a little shove? Could go a long way in preventing that pendulum from swinging back any time soon.

"Letting nature just take its course" is too passive in the face of determined proselytisers. But, that is the path they would like skeptics to take, because that offers them the least resistance.

Instead of trying to convince people that such-and-such belief is wrong, educate yourself and share that knowledge with others.

"Sharing" could be construed as "convincing". When religionists "share" their 'Good News' with me, they are definitely trying to "convince" me (and most people to whom they speak with) that by choosing to believe in their God, they will be 'saved'.

What is the line between "sharing" and "convincing" when it comes to religion -- especially the type that tells their members it is their duty to "save" others? The only way they can do this is to convince them in some way that the "Good News" is in fact true and should be adopted by them. I think there is a play on semantics here.

Don't be negative by shouting "this is false, wrong, bad", be positive by learning what is true, right and good and sharing that with others.

I don`t think highlighting something as false, wrong, or bad, when it is indeed false, wrong, or bad is being negative. Is it negative to say to your children, "doing drugs is wrong"? Is it negative to say to anyone, "having unprotected sex with strangers is bad"? Is it negative to say to a child, "Johny is a false friend because he continuously betrays you by misleading you and confusing you by false promises and deceptions and often leads you into lifethreatening situations"?

I don`t think any of those admonitions are negative. They are warnings to danger with concern for the well being of the person that the warning is directed at.

Above all, be patient.

Yes. But that doesn`t and shouldn`t mean to be passive. Patience can be wed with pro-active action. Don`t you think so?

 

[No-name]

Tsuyoiko,
I appreciate your post...and I don't actually disagree with what you are saying, but at least in the West, religion will adapt to discoveries in science and changes in society and continue to fill virtually the same role it always has. (In the east, science and social change may face some challenges...)

There was a poll that Maciamo posted a while ago showing that most people on the planet (90%) affiliate themselves with one religion or another... and the numbers show that every major religion is growing even reactionary fundamentalist religions-- not eroding. Obviously the human condition seems to require some opiates for the masses. There are reasons- social, historical, political, psychological, sociological... for religion to exist that nothing else seems to fit very well. Human beings seem to be designed for religion and religion for humanity. Traditions, customs and language cement this bond

 

[Tsuyoiko]

at least in the West, religion will adapt to discoveries in science and changes in society and continue to fill virtually the same role it always has.

Agreed - but organised religions have slowly adapted their doctrines to fit the new discoveries, and will continue to do so.

There was a poll that Maciamo posted a while ago showing that most people on the planet (90%) affiliate themselves with one religion or another... and the numbers show that every major religion is growing even reactionary fundamentalist religions-- not eroding.

The religions themselves are growing, but the doctrines that disagree with science are being eroded.

Obviously the human condition seems to require some opiates for the masses. There are reasons- social, historical, political, psychological, sociological... for religion to exist that nothing else seems to fit very well. Human beings seem to be designed for religion and religion for humanity. Traditions, customs and language cement this bond

Agreed - as science continues to erode away the doctrines, religion - and even individual belief systems - will survive, but they will have to adapt in order to do so. For example, in a few hundred years time, Christian practices might continue virtually unchanged, but the doctrines underlying them will have changed dramatically, just as they have over the last few hundred years.

 

[Revenant]

I highly doubt any single religion will take complete control of any of the more developed countries, at least not within those that already are religiously pluralistic. People will continue to choose the religions that bring them closer to percieved or real happiness.

Religions bring a lot of people a purpose in life, powerful paradigms of happiness, and helps assign value to the various moral issues that can be confusing.

Until one can fill in the need for the above mentioned, religions will continue to find new believers despite harsh criticisms.

 

[No-name]

The essentials of Christianity, in spite of what many Christians may assert, has been summed up in several rather simple straightforward creeds, the most common being "The Apostle's Creed." There is nothing in these essentials that would conflict necessarily with anything science is likely to find or to even be looking for. Any doctrines which disagree with science are simply non-essential. Christian Irenics (and not Agustine) once wrote: "In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in utrisque caritas." (in essentials, unity; in doubtful matters, liberty; in all things, charity.) We as Christians can hold tight to the truths of the Gospel and all of our essentials without fear that somehow science will contradict, dispute or disprove them. Science as it approches Truth, provided that the quest for truth is sincere, will eventually find faith has already been there.

 

[Mars Man]

Hi again folks ! It *****ed my interest that ideas which came up on the 'Science & Religion' thread lead back to this one, in that the foreshadowing for the conception of that thread can be seen in my #52 post on page three of this thread.

Going back to Tsuyoiko's post (#73, p 3) and then from there up to now, I think, and have heard it voiced by a number of people, that education is really, really a key. This would be the 'positive' mode, I reason, that Tsuyoiko had been talking about. Looking at it carefully, in consideration mode, would surely show that such a positive approach would encourage further progession-like attitudes than any other approach.

Revenant, I understand the emotion. I hope that the essence of religiosity that is within us will, in time, allow humanity to grasp for the unifying goal ! A paradigm shift will be needed, and I guess it would take a real, real long time to get there, if we ever do.

sabro san, I guess you would know that much, but it is here where I'd suggest more thought would be needed--regarding what others have thought in the distant past. I may bring that up on other threads since it doesn't really fall so neatly under the theme of this one, however.

EDIT: I intentionally used a word which begins with a P followed by an R, then an I followed by C & K--as a verb, and the rest is history, as seen above ! Lol hee, hee.....

 

[Revenant]

A unifying goal would be great, even if the methods and paradigms we use to attain the goal are different. I actually don't see anything wrong with the core doctrines of any religion (that I know about), even if some of them confuse me.

More my post was written with the idea that simply going after religion as the culprit for the world's pain seemed to be hacking at the branches, and not going after the roots. If someone finds certain religions are incorrect, or just plain wrong, then one has to get to the root of the reasons these religions continue to thrive.

Just to illustrate, and I'm only trying to make one parallel, and none others (i.e. people abusing drugs and religious people are generally very different), if one is to be more effective in getting rid of drug abuse, then one has to realize that most people using drugs do so out of a need. Perhaps it's a need to escape the present boredom, depression, or some other emotion. So one needs to lift the boredom or depression to negate the driving need for drugs. Simple campaigns against drugs won't be as effective as a campaign to give purpose to someone's life, or something like that. That at least would seem a more pro-active approach.

It was written more in response to another post, or set of posts.