• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

What would the world be like without religion?

Jaq

Remember, Humanity.
Joined
Apr 14, 2011
Messages
3,032
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
379
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
It's human nature to compete. You put two people into a room and they'll start comparing themselves to each other. With two people, you have a family, a family, a neighborhood.
[MENTION=7280]Lark[/MENTION] The quote you thought was Asimov was Arthur C. Clarke if I'm not mistaken. Close though, very close.
 

Riva

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 26, 2014
Messages
2,371
Enneagram
7w8
Whatever religion has promised you science is giving you and will continue to give.

Effort, guidance and altruism trumps affects of prayer on any given day.

It makes me laugh when people say pray for this pray for that etc. If you really care send a donation or spend some of your valuable time trying to ease that person's stress/workload etc.
 

Virtual ghost

Complex paradigm
Joined
Jun 6, 2008
Messages
19,769
I think people may try to create a world without religion but, as you say, its been tried before and it wasnt any better.

The kinds of religion that practice the sorts of things you are talking about and propose that the religious laws, which properly should only apply to believers, and the secular laws, should be the same and should apply to everyone, believer and non-believer alike, are absolutely and totally bad religions. They are worldly and will always be threatened by extinction, I think properly so, but if you believe that a religion contains any sort of truth, for this life or the afterlife, you're going to want to be worried, or at least concerned, about its extinction and practice accordingly.

That doesnt mean compromising your own values but does realise that those values apply to yourself primarily and to other believers who share you creed, secondly (I will be honest, its a distant, distant second), and finally they do no apply to non-believers. If their actions are offensive to God then God will deal with them and he will not appoint anyone to do so in his stead. If they are, as is more likely, simply offensive to believers, well, and I'm totally serious about this, believers are going to have to discover a way to cope or what possible learning there could be for them in this. Seriously. Confucious said that if you met a righteous and a wicked man while out walking it was important to be aware that both had something to teach you, the former as an example of how you should wish to behave, the later as an example of how you should not wish to behave. He did not say the wicked should cease to exist and violence was the best remedy on that front.

A lot of the laws within religions which persist in causing conflict between believers and non-believers I really, really do believe are cultural as opposed to actually religious, that does not make it less of a problem or an issue but I think its an important distinction to make when you are sitting in judgement of religion per se.

Fundamentally, I think religious laws and strictures apply to believers, most of the time the believers fall far short of them, and some of the time the attempts to persecute others who are falling short in some way is a total and utter deflection from their own conduct. This in itself is reason enough to believe there should be a hard and fast and permanent separation between religion and state and that the law has not a religious basis and applies to all religious and non-religious equally, so if you are committing violence against a person you will be prosecuted for breaking the law, your motivation doesnt matter.

As a believer I think this is important, if people conform to a rule simply because it is "the law of the land", they have not demonstrated faith of any sort. They have simply kept mans laws to avoid the negative consequences. However, if they have kept mans laws, then have chosen also, as a matter of private conscience, to keep God's laws, without broadcasting to anyone that is what they are doing, and succeeded, then they are exceptional as opposed to merely good. That should be the goal of believers, for themselves, and by example, other believers and possibly eventually non-believers but instituting their own rules of conduct as "the law of the land", its then impossible to tell imposter from believer.




This is all great but the problem is that in many places around the world you would be punished in various ways or even killed for this kind of open mindedness. This can perhaps be changed but that surely requires open conflict with many many fundamentalists. From authoritarian theocracies to various sects and even average Joes in many cases, since their version of religion evidently doesn't recognize other methods as worthy (even other religions). However once you remove them I am not sure that what remains can be fully called religion, since so many texts and doctrines will be cut out of the loop permanently. What altogether returns us to what happened in my part of the world. People should do all kinds of things but putting the whole process of making peace to practice is where real challenges are. This can even be seen in international affairs with rejection of various treaties on human rights to deep cracks in various multi cultural societies. In my country catholic religious groups are/were even calling for the impeachment/removal of entire government since they pushed through the set of progressive international laws regarding the protection of women in family/household violence. Therefore as I said before on this forum: you can't have infinite diversity and expect that everyone lives under the same roof.



Plus I am pretty sure that differences behind believers and unbelievers are pretty fundamental and that this isn't just a matter of local culture. The difference is mostly coming from technological progress and it will probably only grow larger as the time goes by. 150 years ago everyone lived more or less on the same way since there weren't many options, while progress imported many dilemmas and arguments into the equation. Such as abortion, age of the world, evolution, desired number of children and what they should learn at school .... even the women's rights can be added to the mix and therefore the rift will probably only grow in the future.
 

Virtual ghost

Complex paradigm
Joined
Jun 6, 2008
Messages
19,769
Do you ever consider that just as your context may have provided you with some special insight that others has provided them with a similar insight?

I am simply telling you that you are projecting your logic/culture on the rest of the world and live in belief that everyone has the same goals as you. I am often using my local examples simply since I know them well and they make a decent point.


I dont really see it as a matter of real politic, choosing between two imperfectly evil options and its just a matter of taste/expediency which, however, pragmatic I may be in practice I dont see pragmatism as an end in itself.

Yeah but if you cut out real politic you are left with only hopes and dreams and that surely isn't going to salvage the situation.

The end of history will be infinite diversity and everyone under the same roof because the alternative is monoculture, however, you draw the boundaries monocultures destroy one another (or what they consider to be alternatives) and then themselves.

I am not even sure there will be the end of history, since I am not a Christian even on paper and therefore I don't really accept the "end game logic". Which is kinda my point about the idea that co-existence may be quite taxing in the long run.


I dont believe there's ever been puppeteers in human history, although there's been no end of conspiracies breaking out and beginning and ending, that's conspiracies plural, and people exploiting the course of events. That's just politics. However, if ever there was a bunch of Puppeteers that wanted to ruin a society completely they slowly drip feed the idea that a monoculture is wonderful to that society. They wouldnt even have to say so, simply build up enough of a head of steam, or exploit an existing one, which says that the alternatives to a monoculture are rotten, utopian, whatever.


Yes, my local politicians are puppeteers and my country is mono racial, with very very clear domination of Catholic/Atheist value system and it is quite proud of it. What I think of this doesn't really even matter in all this, this is just how it is. Good chunk of my county never even saw a black guy in person and it seems that they prefer it that way, you probably don't even want to see what we will "unload" into EU parliament in a few months (just like our neighbors).


I dont even believe it'd take the sort of revolutions and violence that you suppose to spread the idea of religion that I'm talking about, just a lack of laziness/motivation and a sure tradition, neither of which exists in much of the parts of the world that could be most able to influence the course of events.


You really think that the Saudies, Iran, Pakistan, Turkey, China, Serbia, Poland, red state USA, etc. will trade their ideology/identity without a fight/push ? Just as the name suggests real-politic is real.



I am sorry if I sound like a dick, that really isn't the point here.
 

AOA

♣️♦️♠️♥️
Joined
Jan 8, 2009
Messages
4,821
MBTI Type
ENTJ
Enneagram
8
Instinctual Variant
sx
We'd live like the Romans.
 

Mole

Permabanned
Joined
Mar 20, 2008
Messages
20,284
Mbti.is our guide to the unknown, to those we don't know across the world and even to our unknown selves. It performs the function of religion. And although mbti is untrue and obnoxious, we cling to it as a babe clings to its mother.
 

Virtual ghost

Complex paradigm
Joined
Jun 6, 2008
Messages
19,769
Nawh, you dont sound like a dick, you're just wrong again.

Its alright though.

If you think about it you'll see that I'm right. Eventually. Not right away though. ;)


Yeah, too bad our conversation isn't really about right and wrong but about choosing the working tools and methods of achieving the goal of balancing the world. To be honest this is department where I find religion(s) quite lacking, since they force the methodology of thinking about the goal and values, but how exactly to get to that point remains pretty blurry in most cases, since vision and will just aren't enough in most long term cases. Without proper strategy, resources, practical skill and alliances you wouldn't get far.
 

Virtual ghost

Complex paradigm
Joined
Jun 6, 2008
Messages
19,769
If that where true though, we wouldnt even be having this conversation.

Instead we'd be having a conversation about that thing which used to exist, religion, but which became extinct long ago.

Yet, we're not having that conversation. So, you know.


I was more commenting your methods than religion in general. In my book world as you want it isn't possible to make without certain pushing or force and "You are just wrong" and "I dont really see it as a matter of real politic" just isn't solid enough plan for me. That is all I am saying.


On the other hand religion in a more traditional sense is getting slowly extinct exactly because it struggles to keep up with modern times that have plenty of variables. As soon as the "game" speed up the system(s) found themselves in problems, what generally leads to dropping of faith or radicalization . Therefore I don't see my claim as fundamentally wrong since the topic is more about the present.



But ok, I am going to bed and we can leave it at this since we wouldn't agree on all details for sure. :)
 

Lark

Active member
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
29,569
Some of this thread is also culturally specific to the western world or "christendom" too.

In fact centric on the Abrahamic tradition.

I dont see the Asian buddhist, shinto, taoist, zen traditions contemplating their shrinking numbers or disappearance.

Not the shaolin temple for instance, whose physical feats and training have no parallel within western monastic and clerical traditions or orders.

In fact I'm pretty sure those temples do not experience the kinds of problems that western equivalents have in terms of abuse scandals or their infiltration by people interested only in abusing what power their position could provide them with but then I dont know, I'm talking as an outsider and a foreigner to all that.
 

LightSun

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 9, 2009
Messages
1,107
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
#9
So, I've been wondering how the world would be like if religion would've never existed.
Now let's see...
If there was no faith in "God", people wouldn't have wasted their money building churches and donating to slimers who are just money hungry.
If there was no admiration of "God", people wouldn't have fought wars over trying to prove a point that cannot be proven.
If there was no belief in "God", people would have been more independent and technologically further advanced than now. There's a reason why technology drastically advanced in the 19th century and not sooner. Because people stopped believing in "God" and started to think. Innovation is a beautiful thing.

"God" is a mere concept of humanity, nothing more than a theory. "God" is just as real as the big bang.
Humans are stupid to blindly follow something they can't even prove to themselves that it's real.
Even more stupid is, that some become terrorists and kill people just to prove a pointless point.
Also, killing people in the name of "God" is a contradiction in itself, since, according to the bible, "thou shalt not kill".
So, since they are killing people, they are going against themselves and therefore making them nothing more than stupid terrorists.

Thoughts?
I am an atheist. That being said, we all live in independent internal perceptions of reality. I don’t have a right to tell another what to believe or not to believe.

I accept anyone who has positive energy. I can’t stand Christopher Hitchens. He goes on that religion is the greatest cause of human misery.

It’s my contention that Homo Sapiens would do evil if there is a religion or not. It’s our primitive emotions being triggered.

In my mind all of the worlds mythologies were at one time believed as true. I watch science documentaries. I’ve come across a documentary that stipulates that human kind have a predilection to have supernatural belief.

We humans fear the unknown. The human brain filters in and out information of every human being on the planet on a daily basis. There is a plus side evolutionary speaking and a downside.

To fill in the gaps of our not understanding the brain filters in metaphors to explain the inexplicable. These metaphors are then taken as literal truth.

I love Joseph Campbells quote that half the people of the world take scripture to be literal truth and the other half as mere metaphor.

Since we can’t change people. Let’s have at least rational people who are not dogmatic.

This means being open minded, respect peoples beliefs, have tolerance and work together in communication and dialogue on what we can agree upon. Let’s focus on our common humanity.

I am a fan of Bertrand Russell. It is my hope one day to have a rational society. Unfortunately, it seems a long time coming. As I take the best of all religions, I agree with Buddha.

He said that we have to walk the path ourselves. That only we can save ourselves.
 
Top