Would The World Be Better Off Without Religion?

[Kooky_Lukey]

While this may not always result in war or murder, it most certainly results in oppression of people/races/genders and stifling creative, philosophical, and scientific thought. And this is what we see in areas of religious conflict (the current hot bed is the Middle East). Yes, land rights and war might happen without religion, but you would be a fool to think that religion is not a huge catalyst that these people use to justify their actions.

We get it, you made this thread to prove to everyone that you are right. You have hardly, if at all been open minded in this thread, so why did you make it?

Yes people look to religion to do bad things, but if religion wasn't here people would still find other ways. Just like the South Park episode "Go God Go" (Yes I am quoting South Park), people will always find something to argue about or try and make themselves superior. I'm not saying South Park is scientific fact, but I think they made a good point about a no religion world.

And next you'll probably bring up the science thing again and how religion has stopped science. Even back when the church was in a lot more control people were still doing scientific things that they didn't agree with. For example, the sun being the center of the galaxy. Yes he was burned at the stake, but he still made that discovery and other scientists did feed off of it. So no I don't think science would be that much further along.

 

[californiagrown]

There is a big difference between an atheist claiming to be superior because of science (but I don't think one ought to be) and a religious person claiming to be better than an atheist or non-believer. The truly religious person believes they are 100% absolutely right and everyone else is wrong and those who are wrong are second class citizens and/or deserving of punishment. While atheists can be arrogantly superior, they do not want to punish the believers for their beliefs. That's a big difference.

From the Bible:

"I am the LORD, and there is no other, there is no God beside Me." (Isaiah 45:5)

"Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me." (John 14:6)

"They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman." (2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB)

From the Qur'an

"So exalted be Allah, the True King; no god is there but He, the Lord of the honorable dominion" (Quran 23:116).

"This is because Allah is the Truth and because He gives life to the dead and because He has power over all things" (Quran 22:6).

"And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief or unrest] is worse than killing... but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah [disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah] and worship is for Allah alone." (Quran 2:191-193) -

I am not claiming that without religion, people will 100% be good. Being a good person requires moral education, and that means being taught ethical principles of good/bad and right/wrong. And these principles can be taught and learned without religion. What I am claiming is that while religion does do some obvious good in the world, it inspires, encourages, and motivates its followers to commit horrible, horrible things because they have the "one truth" and everyone else who believes anything different is wrong and must be punished.

While this may not always result in war or murder, it most certainly results in oppression of people/races/genders and stifling creative, philosophical, and scientific thought. And this is what we see in areas of religious conflict (the current hot bed is the Middle East). Yes, land rights and war might happen without religion, but you would be a fool to think that religion is not a huge catalyst that these people use to justify their actions.

You give no credit to moderate, religious folks. It's hard-line, strict fundamentalists, or nothing.

 

[WeathermanPetro]

Y'all like Isis? No. Well there you go.

 

[WeathermanPetro]

Y'all like Isis? No. Well there you go.

 

[onenerdykid]

We get it, you made this thread to prove to everyone that you are right. You have hardly, if at all been open minded in this thread, so why did you make it?

Yes people look to religion to do bad things, but if religion wasn't here people would still find other ways. Just like the South Park episode "Go God Go" (Yes I am quoting South Park), people will always find something to argue about or try and make themselves superior. I'm not saying South Park is scientific fact, but I think they made a good point about a no religion world.

And next you'll probably bring up the science thing again and how religion has stopped science. Even back when the church was in a lot more control people were still doing scientific things that they didn't agree with. For example, the sun being the center of the galaxy. Yes he was burned at the stake, but he still made that discovery and other scientists did feed off of it. So no I don't think science would be that much further along.

Like a lot of people on here, I like to argue. I am challenging people's positions, just as they are challenging mine. And I always want to do it in a respectful way, which I hope I have. Moreover, if people do prove me wrong (which has happened a fair share in my life), I will be more than happy to change my view point. I see arguing as a way to better understand a view point and if someone leads me to a better understanding or a better view point then so be it. There is no point to holding on to a view point and being stubborn about it. That helps no one.

To your second point, I think I have also addressed that and I don't think it would be as bad. People are capable of horrible things and I just think that religion urges people to do it. If that urge were gone, you can bet that a solution would be found sooner and easier.

To your third point, religion has undoubtedly slowed down scientific progress. As you note, religious leaders imprisoned Galileo and have actively suppressed the sciences. But it can also be less direct. For example, Newton himself stopped his own progress because he claimed that knowing anything further was unknowable because it was now in the realm of God and it took another 100 years until Laplace solved the problems that Newton gave up on. My point is it great minds like these just don't happen every 10 years and if one of them gives up because religion gets in the way it does slow down scientific progress.

And if you really want to see the ultimate kibosh on science, read up on the Golden Age of Islam when the center of scientific and philosophic world was pretty much Baghdad and open to all people of all faiths etc. We still use much of what was "discovered" then in our current world. Our current numeral system are the Arabic numerals, they invented algebra & algorithms (both Arabic words), 2/3 of the stars have Arabic names (constellations are Greek & Roman) and many more topics all during a 300 year period. But then starting in the 12th century, the ruling Imam claimed that mathematics was the work of the devil, and he started dismantling the scientific infrastructure there and not much scientific progression has happened since. If you now look at modern times, it is interesting (and sad) that there have only been 3 Nobel Prize winners (in the sciences) who have been Muslim.

 

[onenerdykid]

You give no credit to moderate, religious folks. It's hard-line, strict fundamentalists, or nothing.

I just wonder how you can follow a God that clearly wants you to commit horrible things. My question to them is how do you pick and choose what to believe and why? Because it suits you? Or because your reason and common sense tell you other wise?

 

[addie.]

It really depends on who you are talking about. Some people take comfort in religion, in divinities, the fact that there is someone watching over them that they may be able to talk to or look up to. Others would rather rely on information and science to base their view of the world on. Obviously radicalist groups like Isis, the Westboro Baptist Church, and the like are not really acceptable... its hard to understand why the group feels as though they need to inflict pain and suffering. We are all human and just trying to get by. I live in Utah, I interact with a lot of mormons in my daily life, and many of them seem really happy in their belief that they are going to ascend into heaven after they die or during the rapture. I think that's totally fine. I on the other hand identify as an atheist, and I take comfort in science just as a Christian takes comfort in knowing they are loved by God. Anyways, to cut this short, I think the world would be fine without religion, but possibly better with it. As long as nobody is being hurt physically or mentally, I think religion is great - it gives people that need it something to hold on to, but if you don't want that, it's fine. In my opinion the world would be fine without religion but maybe better with it?

 

[californiagrown]

I just wonder how you can follow a God that clearly wants you to commit horrible things. My question to them is how do you pick and choose what to believe and why? Because it suits you? Or because your reason and common sense tell you other wise?

No because your personal relationship with God allows you to figure that out.

Your conscience, is God's word to them.

Stop trying to box religon into a neat little package. It's a very diverse multifaced human experience.

 

[saskskier]

There is a big difference between an atheist claiming to be superior because of science (but I don't think one ought to be) and a religious person claiming to be better than an atheist or non-believer. The truly religious person believes they are 100% absolutely right and everyone else is wrong and those who are wrong are second class citizens and/or deserving of punishment. While atheists can be arrogantly superior, they do not want to punish the believers for their beliefs. That's a big difference.

From the Bible:

"I am the LORD, and there is no other, there is no God beside Me." (Isaiah 45:5)

"Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me." (John 14:6)

"They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman." (2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB)

From the Qur'an

"So exalted be Allah, the True King; no god is there but He, the Lord of the honorable dominion" (Quran 23:116).

"This is because Allah is the Truth and because He gives life to the dead and because He has power over all things" (Quran 22:6).

"And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief or unrest] is worse than killing... but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah [disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah] and worship is for Allah alone." (Quran 2:191-193) -

I am not claiming that without religion, people will 100% be good. Being a good person requires moral education, and that means being taught ethical principles of good/bad and right/wrong. And these principles can be taught and learned without religion. What I am claiming is that while religion does do some obvious good in the world, it inspires, encourages, and motivates its followers to commit horrible, horrible things because they have the "one truth" and everyone else who believes anything different is wrong and must be punished.

While this may not always result in war or murder, it most certainly results in oppression of people/races/genders and stifling creative, philosophical, and scientific thought. And this is what we see in areas of religious conflict (the current hot bed is the Middle East). Yes, land rights and war might happen without religion, but you would be a fool to think that religion is not a huge catalyst that these people use to justify their actions.

I can't speak (and won't try) for Islam or it's practices, however this article provides a pretty good summation as to why Christians appear to be inconsistent in their following of laws/commandments/etc. Keep in mind that it's written by a Christian, largely to Christians who believe and follow the bible.
http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/making-sense-of-scriptures-inconsistency

 

[onenerdykid]

No because your personal relationship with God allows you to figure that out.

Your conscience, is God's word to them.

Your first point is a very new notion, one not really proposed in the Bible at all. The personal relationship that is proposed in the Bible is using Christ as the Mediator to God. When God says "I am the way, I am the truth" it doesn't seem to leave much for discussion, unless you don't really believe what he tells you. What you propose sounds like a clever way to disentangle yourself from the horrors in religious texts that you clearly (and rightly) don't agree with.

 

[onenerdykid]

I can't speak (and won't try) for Islam or it's practices, however this article provides a pretty good summation as to why Christians appear to be inconsistent in their following of laws/commandments/etc. Keep in mind that it's written by a Christian, largely to Christians who believe and follow the bible.
http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/making-sense-of-scriptures-inconsistency

His argument just seems to dismiss the premise of inconsistency without actually saying why- "But you can’t say in fairness that Christians are being inconsistent with their beliefs to follow the moral statements in the Old Testament while not practicing the other ones." He offer's no real substantive answer that he gives, just round-about question asking and trying to make sense of seeming contradictory ideas.

But this is precisely the dilemma of religion (and I do not mean that in a negative way): it is faith seeking understanding. Followers believe but do not possess understanding of it and spend their lives trying to do so. To try to reconcile the idea of a perfectly benevolent God with his commands about killing women & children is more than a tough nut to crack. And this is what leads most people to ignore such passages.

 

[californiagrown]

Your first point is a very new notion, one not really proposed in the Bible at all. The personal relationship that is proposed in the Bible is using Christ as the Mediator to God. When God says "I am the way, I am the truth" it doesn't seem to leave much for discussion, unless you don't really believe what he tells you. What you propose sounds like a clever way to disentangle yourself from the horrors in religious texts that you clearly (and rightly) don't agree with.

It has never been a new notion. The bible has always been taken literally by some, and figuratively by others. There's nothing wrong with that except to people like you who want religon to fit aold that makes anto-religom feel superior.

Black and white. You don't see the gray.

 

[onenerdykid]

There's nothing wrong with that except to people like you who want religon to fit aold that makes anto-religom feel superior.

Black and white. You don't see the gray.

In every other debate I see you partake in on NS, you constantly seek consistency in arguing and make tons of black & white arguments. But here when it comes to religion, then you step back a few paces and say there needs to be less consistency, more grey.

My issue is not that I want to feel superior, but I due take issue when the Gods of religion say very black and white things and their followers try to make them grey because they can't reconcile their God's incredibly clear instructions for life with their own conscience and reasoning.

 

[saskskier]

His argument just seems to dismiss the premise of inconsistency without actually saying why- "But you can’t say in fairness that Christians are being inconsistent with their beliefs to follow the moral statements in the Old Testament while not practicing the other ones." He offer's no real substantive answer that he gives, just round-about question asking and trying to make sense of seeming contradictory ideas.

But this is precisely the dilemma of religion (and I do not mean that in a negative way): it is faith seeking understanding. Followers believe but do not possess understanding of it and spend their lives trying to do so. To try to reconcile the idea of a perfectly benevolent God with his commands about killing women & children is more than a tough nut to crack. And this is what leads most people to ignore such passages.

1. "When he died on the cross the veil in the temple tore, showing that he had done away with the the need for the entire sacrificial system with all its cleanliness laws. Jesus is the ultimate sacrifice for sin, and now Jesus makes us clean."

2. "Sins continue to be sins—but the penalties change. In the Old Testament sins like adultery or incest were punishable with civil sanctions like execution. This is because at that time God’s people constituted a nation-state, and so all sins had civil penalties...Under Christ, the gospel is not confined to a single nation—it has been released to go into all cultures and peoples."

Ultimately it boils down to this:

"There are only two possibilities. If Christ is God, then this way of reading the Bible makes sense. The other possibility is that you reject Christianity’s basic thesis—you don’t believe Jesus is the resurrected Son of God—and then the Bible is no sure guide for you about much of anything."

(Same guy addresses ot violence (imperialism, holy war and genocide) briefly here)
http://derekzrishmawy.com/2013/08/29/tim-keller-on-judges-and-ot-violence/

(excerpts taken from this interview)
http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/a...ller-on-a-provocative-pivotal-pertinent-book/

 

[Kooky_Lukey]

Like a lot of people on here, I like to argue. I am challenging people's positions, just as they are challenging mine. And I always want to do it in a respectful way, which I hope I have. Moreover, if people do prove me wrong (which has happened a fair share in my life), I will be more than happy to change my view point. I see arguing as a way to better understand a view point and if someone leads me to a better understanding or a better view point then so be it. There is no point to holding on to a view point and being stubborn about it. That helps no one.

To your second point, I think I have also addressed that and I don't think it would be as bad. People are capable of horrible things and I just think that religion urges people to do it. If that urge were gone, you can bet that a solution would be found sooner and easier.

To your third point, religion has undoubtedly slowed down scientific progress. As you note, religious leaders imprisoned Galileo and have actively suppressed the sciences. But it can also be less direct. For example, Newton himself stopped his own progress because he claimed that knowing anything further was unknowable because it was now in the realm of God and it took another 100 years until Laplace solved the problems that Newton gave up on. My point is it great minds like these just don't happen every 10 years and if one of them gives up because religion gets in the way it does slow down scientific progress.

And if you really want to see the ultimate kibosh on science, read up on the Golden Age of Islam when the center of scientific and philosophic world was pretty much Baghdad and open to all people of all faiths etc. We still use much of what was "discovered" then in our current world. Our current numeral system are the Arabic numerals, they invented algebra & algorithms (both Arabic words), 2/3 of the stars have Arabic names (constellations are Greek & Roman) and many more topics all during a 300 year period. But then starting in the 12th century, the ruling Imam claimed that mathematics was the work of the devil, and he started dismantling the scientific infrastructure there and not much scientific progression has happened since. If you now look at modern times, it is interesting (and sad) that there have only been 3 Nobel Prize winners (in the sciences) who have been Muslim.

You are one of the most respectable people on here when it comes to debating and I applaud that as I try to do the same as much as I can. However, in this particular case I think you are being a little too black and white with religion. Just my observations and opinion.

About wars/violence. Agree to disagree. I think there's plenty of arguments for both sides and no one can really know for sure so it just comes down to your opinion/view/experience.

The science thing, yeah didn't think about the Islam stuff and you got me on that one.

But to answer your question for making this thread, even with the violence and science problems. I think that religion has given more people peace(within themselves) and comfort that it outweighs the bad things. At least it has for me.

 

[californiagrown]

In every other debate I see you partake in on NS, you constantly seek consistency in arguing and make tons of black & white arguments. But here when it comes to religion, then you step back a few paces and say there needs to be less consistency, more grey.

My issue is not that I want to feel superior, but I due take issue when the Gods of religion say very black and white things and their followers try to make them grey because they can't reconcile their God's incredibly clear instructions for life with their own conscience and reasoning.

Why do you take issue with that? Cause then religon doesn't fit in the nice neat box you've made for it? Why does that matter?

And I'm always the guy saying that issues are many faceted. Your reaching and making stuff up now.

 

[las.]

the sun being the center of the galaxy.

u wot

 

[las.]

I can't speak (and won't try) for Islam or it's practices, however this article provides a pretty good summation as to why Christians appear to be inconsistent in their following of laws/commandments/etc. Keep in mind that it's written by a Christian, largely to Christians who believe and follow the bible.
http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/making-sense-of-scriptures-inconsistency

[VIDEO]https://youtu.be/-xLUEMj6cwA[/VIDEO]

 

[las.]

The bible has always been taken literally by some, and figuratively by others. There's nothing wrong with that

There's everything wrong with that - when people fit a religion to their personal mould in whatever form suits them, at that point in time. The fact that religious preachings are viewed as "interpretable" is precisely why so much heinous shit happens in the name of, and directly because of, religion. I guess that's partly why many people, including myself, can't take religion seriously. It claims to be so morally superior and upright, when realistically it has no central, absolute set of principles, and for the most part its followers can't even agree on what's kosher and what's not. It's a complete shambles

 

[californiagrown]

There's everything wrong with that - when people fit a religion to their personal mould in whatever form suits them, at that point in time. The fact that religious preachings are viewed as "interpretable" is precisely why so much heinous shit happens in the name of, and directly because of, religion. I guess that's partly why many people, including myself, can't take religion seriously. It claims to be so morally superior and upright, when realistically it has no central, absolute set of principles, and for the most part its followers can't even agree on what's kosher and what's not. It's a complete shambles

So, because religon is actually a very broad and multifaceted theory, and you can't make a simple definition for it, its bad?

Morals are pretty interpretable as well, and there is no one set of principles guiding them. Do you also have a tough time taking my morals seriously?

 

[onenerdykid]

"Religious children are meaner than their secular counterparts", study finds:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/06/religious-children-less-altruistic-secular-kids-study?CMP=fb_gu

Link to the study itself:

http://www.cell.com/current-biology/pdf/S0960-9822(15)01167-7.pdf

 

[freestyler540]

Religion has 3 componants that I can observe: tradition, ideology and explaination of natural phenomenon. Claiming religion as a simple monotheist system or multitheism is like claiming Canadians and Americans are identical because they speak english.

So traditions is a core essence of spirituality. It is a way to preserve a culture, an identity and to honor one's past. They can be traced back before recorded history through archeological sites and early scriptures. At first, tribes, like family, had they own traditions. As humans banded together, some rituals were created and some lost, but all seem to unify; unless there is a clash. For example, we all celebrate christmas in different ways, but under the banner of this festivity. Each family has their special meal they eat, different activities they perform, but they celebrate on the same date and in the same rules; even if specific details are different. Tradition in religion can be interprated as a passing down teachings from the previous generation to the next.

Ideology is how a single person views a perfect life for himself and how it relates to society. Everyone has their own way of viewing governance of the self and of their community; religion can group common beliefs and translate them into rules of governance. Islam is the perfect example. In Islam, no one can be greater than god; even rulers. It applies to the rule of law, faith and the economy. Islam works because it is an understanding that everyone using the religious banner understand the other perfectly. Hence, trade and honor and judicial system are common because all of it is under God. In Christiannity, its quite different in that sense, but works because its based on compassion, trust and equality. Sure the rules are different, but an underlaying judicial system was incorporated in that religion. Damn this one is hard to tap out in a text.

Last is the belief in the higher power. It can answer all possible questions. "Its god's will" or "god did it" are simpleton answers that everyone can understand, no matter how much education you have received. That what makes it so palateble and simple to understand is that it removes some basic fears about our doom. It also connects the divine with natural observations; making things like thunder seem less scary.

However, I find it offencing that people quote 1000 year old scripture as truth and guidence and claim it to be the will of God in all religions. Funny that people memorize transformed texts, but completly forget to study God's real work: physics. Take it like this: to know an author of a piece of art, you study his work, his attention to detail; and only then you may piece together ther personality and the message the author tried to convey. So thinking you know god's will without learning about the universe around us is like hating a book without even reading it. You miss out on a huge chunk of information that is observation and replicatable with real life benefits.

Im not religious, but understanding physics is the only way to get into the mind of God.

K, sorry if this post has holes in the logic, but posting a huge message on a mobile is hard.

 

[ImNotARacist]

Religious children are meaner than their secular counterparts, study finds

 

[onenerdykid]

Religious children are meaner than their secular counterparts, study finds

Already beat you to it, but it doesn't hurt to keep posting it

 

[giqqqah]

"And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief or unrest] is worse than killing... but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah [disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah] and worship is for Allah alone." (Quran 2:191-193)

I searched these verses and found this ,

190. And fight in the cause of God those who fight you, but do not commit aggression; God does not love the aggressors.

191. And kill them wherever you overtake them, and expel them from where they had expelled you. Oppression is more serious than murder. But do not fight them at the Sacred Mosque, unless they fight you there. If they fight you, then kill them. Such is the retribution of the disbelievers.

192. But if they cease, then God is Forgiving and Merciful.

193. And fight them until there is no oppression, and worship becomes devoted to God alone. But if they cease, then let there be no hostility except against the oppressors.

If you read verse 190 "And fight in the cause of God those who fight you, but do not commit aggression; God does not love the aggressors." says fight the ones WHO fight you, and does NOT say just fight in the cause of God the others. "... but do not commit aggression" I don't think there is anything that motivates others to commit bad things in these verses, it clearly says aggression is not good.

Also in the verse 191 "But do not fight them at the Sacred Mosque, unless they fight you there. If they fight you, then kill them. Such is the retribution of the disbelievers." I think it does not need much explanation it clearly says fight them Only if they fight you.

I think that verse 190 changes the whole meaning of the 2-3 upcoming verses, and I don't think religions make people more violent it's just people misunderstand it and because of misinterpretation.

 

[onenerdykid]

Also in the verse 191 "But do not fight them at the Sacred Mosque, unless they fight you there. If they fight you, then kill them. Such is the retribution of the disbelievers." I think it does not need much explanation it clearly says fight them Only if they fight you.

I think that verse 190 changes the whole meaning of the 2-3 upcoming verses, and I don't think religions make people more violent it's just people misunderstand it and because of misinterpretation.

While wrongful persecution is highly immoral in Islam, it honestly doesn't take much to be considered rightful persecution. Anything that runs contrary to the will of Allah is considered transgression, even if you are "only" a disbeliever. And this impassioned sense of rightfulness and divine justness seeks to divide, separate, and pit believers against non-believers. It bolsters and encourages its followers to think they have the high ground and subsequently the non-believers are transgressors and they are subject to a second-class life if they choose to submit. If they do not submit, then it is ok to kill them should they resist.

 

[giqqqah]

While wrongful persecution is highly immoral in Islam, it honestly doesn't take much to be considered rightful persecution. Anything that runs contrary to the will of Allah is considered transgression, even if you are "only" a disbeliever. And this impassioned sense of rightfulness and divine justness seeks to divide, separate, and pit believers against non-believers. It bolsters and encourages its followers to think they have the high ground and subsequently the non-believers are transgressors and they are subject to a second-class life if they choose to submit. If they do not submit, then it is ok to kill them should they resist.

Well of course a religion will tell it's followers that they are better then another religion followers or the non-believers, if one obeys religion rules and one disobeys and still are equal then why would one follow a religion. But of course i'm not saying that it is ok one religion to kill the ones who do not follow the religion. This discussion is taking another direction now but going back to the main point, you said earlier in the post "Being a good person requires moral education, and that means being taught ethical principles of good/bad and right/wrong. And these principles can be taught and learned without religion." and I totally agree with you, but I think religion is needed because they give us some kind of law if we do bad deeds we get punished in afterlife and if we do good deeds we get rewarded, that's what pushes us as human beings to do good and not bad deeds. Just like the police laws, you obey them because you don't want to get a ticket. It's not that you don't know it's bad to drive fast or kill someone but still there is police and laws that tell you not to do so or you get sentenced and that (most of the time)stops you from doing bad things. I think it's the same with religion, you know to separate bad from good right/wrong but religion is there to remind you.

(Sorry for bad English, or I might not have expressed the way I wanted, not my native language)

 

[onenerdykid]

"Being a good person requires moral education, and that means being taught ethical principles of good/bad and right/wrong. And these principles can be taught and learned without religion." and I totally agree with you, but I think religion is needed because they give us some kind of law if we do bad deeds we get punished in afterlife and if we do good deeds we get rewarded, that's what pushes us as human beings to do good and not bad deeds. Just like the police laws, you obey them because you don't want to get a ticket. It's not that you don't know it's bad to drive fast or kill someone but still there is police and laws that tell you not to do so or you get sentenced and that (most of the time)stops you from doing bad things. I think it's the same with religion, you know to separate bad from good right/wrong but religion is there to remind you.

(Sorry for bad English, or I might not have expressed the way I wanted, not my native language)

No worries, I know the challenges of what it's like trying to communicate in a second language (and I am nowhere near as good as you in it haha). I would agree with you if fear of punishment were the main reason why we do or do not act in certain ways. The fear of punishment no doubt does help influence people but secular/philosophical moral people can still do the right thing, regardless if they will be caught or punished or not. Their moral law originates from their own reason/will, rather than being imposed on them by an external source (the law or God). Therefore, punishment does not motivate these people but obedience to reason or self-imposed shame does.

 

[deleted5]

I think I see milk man's family in here [video]https://youtu.be/Oju_lpqa6Ug[/video]

 

[Jane6]

To me, religion is the denial of life's pointlessness. Like, people apparently need to have something greater to believe in, they need to tell themselves that there is an afterlife or think that their actions matter. Religion is a safety blanket, and I think the world would be a better place without it. Just be a decent person towards others, it shouldnt be more difficult than that.

Also, I find this spot on:

"Homosexuality is unnatural! It says so in this book where snakes talk, people come back from the dead, a guy walks on water, and a virgin has a baby."

 

[milk_man]

No. Without religion and the moral guidelines it brings with it, people would base right and wrong on what society believes at any given time. And that would be chaos.

If your only incentive to live a moral life is because of laws and the punishment of breaking the laws, you will be morally confused. Right has to have a reason that it's right, and a wrong has to have a reason that it's wrong. And that's where religion steps in.

 

[onenerdykid]

No. Without religion and the moral guidelines it brings with it, people would base right and wrong on what society believes at any given time. And that would be chaos.

But there exists another medium aside from religion and social custom by which we get moral rules- philosophy. Philosophy has provided the rules for moral/ethical thought without any regard or reference to religious belief (or pure societal custom) for thousands of years. And it will continue to do so. Chaos is definitely not the only alternative.

 

[californiagrown]

But there exists another medium aside from religion and social custom by which we get moral rules- philosophy. Philosophy has provided the rules for moral/ethical thought without any regard or reference to religious belief (or pure societal custom) for thousands of years. And it will continue to do so. Chaos is definitely not the only alternative.

And people will hijack philosophies to gain power which will start wars... And so on, and so forth.

Religon isn't the problem. People are the problem. People are dicks.

 

[milk_man]

old men thousands of years ago with no general sense of how the world actually worked.

Religion aside, i disagree with this. Today we know more about the very technical aspects of the earth and how things work--but so many people wouldn't even be able to grow their own food if they had to. They would just die if they couldn't simply buy their food.

 

[onenerdykid]

Religon isn't the problem. People are the problem. People are dicks.

And religion encourages and promotes them to be. Ethical philosophy does neither (in fact safe-guards against it) and I challenge you to show me how.

 

[DrZoidberg]

No. Without religion and the moral guidelines it brings with it, people would base right and wrong on what society believes at any given time. And that would be chaos.

I've heard various people say the US is going to shit because the increasingly non religious population has lost their morals. That may or may not be true. I personally don't need a god to tell me not to kill somebody, steal or whatever. Some people do, apparently, and some people need something else.

What the world would be better off without is people who can't get over the fact that somebody believes something other than they do.

 

[californiagrown]

And religion encourages and promotes them to be. Ethical philosophy does neither (in fact safe-guards against it) and I challenge you to show me how.

And religon didn't either... In the beginning. Then it got hijacked, texts where "updated" or re-written entirely and humans fucked things up.

I believe the same thing would happen to philosophies if they ever became the predominant force in this world.

 

[onenerdykid]

And religon didn't either... In the beginning. Then it got hijacked, texts where "updated" or re-written entirely and humans fucked things up.

I believe the same thing would happen to philosophies if they ever became the predominant force in this world.

Your first point is honestly very interesting... For example, given the Bible was written many years after the death of Christ, that it is exactly the word of God is very contestable point. And other religious texts have this problem as well. It would definitely be one of the ultimate coups should it be true. However if it is false and the books do represent the will/words of God, then it gets difficult to reconcile some of the things described in these religious works with an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good, etc supreme being.

I do see what you are trying to get at with your second point but if you were to ever read these works you would know that in order to do that, the person would be throwing out the main tenants of the philosophy and blatantly contradicting him/herself. If they follow the philosophy, then it simply can't happen.

 

[californiagrown]

Your first point is honestly very interesting... For example, given the Bible was written many years after the death of Christ, that it is exactly the word of God is very contestable point. And other religious texts have this problem as well. It would definitely be one of the ultimate coups should it be true. However if it is false and the books do represent the will/words of God, then it gets difficult to reconcile some of the things described in these religious works with an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good, etc supreme being.

I do see what you are trying to get at with your second point but if you were to ever read these works you would know that in order to do that, the person would be throwing out the main tenants of the philosophy and blatantly contradicting him/herself. If they follow the philosophy, then it simply can't happen.

You're second paragraph applies to the major religions just as well.

 

[onenerdykid]

You're second paragraph applies to the major religions just as well.

But I think the major difference is that the ethical contradictions are found in the religious work yet they are completely absent from the main ethical philosophies. You can find numerous points in the Bible that contradict other passages in the Bible but this simply doesn't happen with philosophy. Perhaps this is case of people re-writing (or adding) parts of the Bible to make fulfill their political agenda- that could very well be true. But nonetheless it isn't found nor doesn't happen in the major ethical philosophies.

 

[AgitatedHiatus]

But I think the major difference is that the ethical contradictions are found in the religious work yet they are completely absent from the main ethical philosophies. You can find numerous points in the Bible that contradict other passages in the Bible but this simply doesn't happen with philosophy. Perhaps this is case of people re-writing (or adding) parts of the Bible to make fulfill their political agenda- that could very well be true. But nonetheless it isn't found nor doesn't happen in the major ethical philosophies.

Who cares. Just let people believe in what they want and if anyone tries to shove beliefs in your face you punch them.

 

[milk_man]

And religion encourages and promotes them to be.

Depends on what religion you're talking about. Christianity encourages people to live like Jesus did, and he is one of the best role models that ever lived.

 

[deleted5]

No. Without religion and the moral guidelines it brings with it, people would base right and wrong on what society believes at any given time. And that would be chaos.

If your only incentive to live a moral life is because of laws and the punishment of breaking the laws, you will be morally confused. Right has to have a reason that it's right, and a wrong has to have a reason that it's wrong. And that's where religion steps in.

Or maybe you just want society to function better and do unto others as you can do to yourself, and not because you want to please someone that doesn't exist.

Two people donate blood one person says I did it because I want to help someone in need.

The other person says I did it so God will like me better in heaven.

Which one sounds better?

 

[deleted5]

Depends on what religion you're talking about. Christianity encourages people to live like Jesus did, and he is one of the best role models that ever lived.

Yeah like hating gay people? I believe Kim Davis just lost in court again yesterday.

 

[milk_man]

What the world would be better off without is people who can't get over the fact that somebody believes something other than they do.

Hey this is very true. I have gotten over and even expect the fact that people will believe things that I strongly disagree with. However, I am ridiculed almost every time I state what I believe. So yes, I do wish people would accept the fact that people believe things that don't make sense to them

 

[californiagrown]

Or maybe you just want society to function better and do unto others as you can do to yourself, and not because you want to please someone that doesn't exist.

Two people donate blood one person says I did it because I want to help someone in need.

The other person says I did it so God will like me better in heaven.

Which one sounds better?

Idiots like you believe those two motivations are mutually exclusive.

At the heart of it, people do good things for selfish reasons- it makes them feel good to help someone or something in need. Shitty people then try to inflate the moral righteousness of their reasoning. You are one of those shitty people.

 

[milk_man]

For example, given the Bible was written many years after the death of Christ,

They were written 60-90 years after his death, which doesn't seem that long to me.

Yeah like hating gay people? I believe Kim Davis just lost in court again yesterday.

Jesus would not hate gay people. I can say that confidently. In fact, I believe that since they are put down in our society, Jesus would spend more time with them than anyone else. Even though they are sinful, just like everyone else. There is nothing about gay people that makes them worse than anyone else. Any true Christian doesn't treat gay people worse than anyone else.

Claim: There's a bakery in the small town I live in and it happens to have gay owners. There is a festival that happens here every year and they were really busy and had a lot on their hands. I specifically went in there to tell them that I can pick something up for them or run some errands for them since they were too busy, and I left them my number and said to call if they need me. I could look a man in the eye who has a husband comfortably. Because I wasn't judging him at all and I believe Jesus would do something of that nature.

And I would rather just not mention this because we're not supposed to go around bragging about the things we did, but I'm absolutely sick of people saying that Christians hate gay people. I love gay people and I will treat them as good or even better than other people. It doesn't matter if I disagree with what they do.

 

[californiagrown]

They were written 60-90 years after his death, which doesn't seem that long to me.

Jesus would not hate gay people. I can say that confidently. In fact, I believe that since they are put down in our society, Jesus would spend more time with them than anyone else. Even though they are sinful, just like everyone else. There is nothing about gay people that makes them worse than anyone else. Any true Christian doesn't treat gay people worse than anyone else.

Claim: There's a bakery in the small town I live in and it happens to have gay owners. There is a festival that happens here every year and they were really busy and had a lot on their hands. I specifically went in there to tell them that I can pick something up for them or run some errands for them since they were too busy, and I left them my number and said to call if they need me. I could look a man in the eye who has a husband comfortably. Because I wasn't judging him at all and I believe Jesus would do something of that nature.

And I would rather just not mention this because we're not supposed to go around bragging about the things we did, but I'm absolutely sick of people saying that Christians hate gay people. I love gay people and I will treat them as good or even better than other people. It doesn't matter if I disagree with what they do.

What are the earliest manuscripts of the new testament? Old testament?

As for the second part... You are one sheltered motherfucker haha.

 

[deleted5]

Idiots like you believe those two motivations are mutually exclusive.

At the heart of it, people do good things for selfish reasons- it makes them feel good to help someone or something in need. Shitty people then try to inflate the moral righteousness of their reasoning. You are one of those shitty people.

Exactly wanting to help people, weather helping people gives you a good feeling or whatever your reason is. Not to please someone who sits up in the clouds because it's what he wants. I think those are two very different ways of thinking and it definitely matters.

 

[deleted5]

Even though they are sinful, just like everyone else. There is nothing about gay people that makes them worse than anyone else. Any true Christian doesn't treat gay people worse than anyone else.

Thank you for proving my point, you just said being gay is a sin, and no saying just like everyone else doesn't negate the point you just made.

You just said being gay is worse and more sinful than being in a straight marriage. That's the issue at its core right there, and that's why a huge amount of Christians in America discriminate against them.