World without Religion: Better or Worse? page 22

656 posts

Flag Post
Originally posted by Gastly101:

But, how do you feel about the situation? Would you like for there to be no religion, or do you think religion is the only thing preventing wars and killing?

Religion isn’t the only thing preventing us from fighting wars, in fact looking at the past it sparked numerous wars (Jihad’s and the Crusades). No, religion isn’t stopping wars, I believe the main thing preventing wars is moral and practicality. Its in practical to declare war in the modern age. Unless there is no other way to resolve the situation then you end up losing lives and money, all for what? A win? We all know there are no winners in war. A little reputation maybe, that is if you ended it in/famously (e.g. Nukes) and in the end if you did ‘win’ then you may get what you were aiming for.

Now don’t get me wrong, many wars were neccessary… um… just let me think… ummm… M k, so none off the top of my head (remember that WW1 was caused due to an ‘assasination’ and WW2 was Hitlers act of revenge for losing WW1 [My theory, there is also numerous other major reasons]).

Anyway, back on topic. The 2nd reason is morals. If we didn’t have our morals then the millions of people who have died in wars would be little more then pawns. Morals are drilled into us from religion. While many atheists may start a post being condescending to Christians in a troll like manner they will usually finish with a good argument of ‘I grew up as an atheist and I turned out fine’, just because you grew up as an atheist doesn’t that the morals you grew up on weren’t taken from religion, they all would’ve been, that is unless you were taught Killing people, mutilating and abusing their dead bodies then stealing the money from their wallet was very ethical.

I think this discussion is a bit impossible though, I can’t really see a world without religion.

Also, I was wondering if this discussion involved Buddhism, because though it is considered a religion it is more of a way of life (though they do believe in enlightenment).

As one of my final comments, (until I read the last page properly in which I discovered lots of little posts about not too much [though my morals point seemed to have a part]) I take not at the last bit of the OP regarding how we would not anyone else to please….

I love pleasing my parents and other parent-like figures to me, it makes me happy, makes them happy. YAY! It tells me that what I’m doing is right to them. While sometimes this can be used wrongly (such as approval for illegal activities) but that’s a minor part of the population.

Originally posted by 1badCompany1:

Easy answer. It would be much, much, MUCH better. Just think about grown-up adults not fighting over imaginary people in the sky and which religion is “right.” And no crusades or politicians trying to bring God into politics which would just be horrendous and further complicate things. Sure, religion offers great morals and values, but the way people interpret them and not even follow them such as “love thy enemy” even though most ‘christians’ in the U.S. were ecstatic that Osama Bin Laden was killed just bugs me that they don’t truly follow Christianity and they call themselves christian. Religion just complicates everything and is often misused. I like the quote by Edward Gibbon that states Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.

While this contradicts my earlier point on wars :L I’m offering another viewpoint. A lot of people use religion as a smokescreen for what they do. Religion as a whole is an alight thing, people just abuse it. Now you can’t say that without religions they wouldn’t find anything else to blame, or that they wouldn’t do it, because they would.

For example, the first crusade. The things that actually started it all was the Byzantine emperor appealing to help from the pope to defend the empire against advancing Turks, nothing to do with religion, right? Of course its blew way out of proportion. Its like when you go to visit one particular landmark and you end up passing 3 or 4, you’ll stop by them? Saves you time later. This was similar. While were in the ME why don’t we stop by and annex some Christian landmarks? Sure, lets get Jerusalem.

Once Jerusalem was annexed the Arabian’s got angry and took it back and on and on it went. So really, the thing that started the series of crusades was a simple act an outdated empire not wanting to be taken over.

The 9/11 Terrorist attacks…..

A controversial issue. I think that the main reason the terrorist attacked was because America was trying to shove their ways down their throat. As we all know democracy doesn’t simply happen overnight but some countries still tried to install it in the Middle East….. I wonder why the middle east of all places….. cough oil cough. Anyway, so some extremists didn’t like this and decided to attack America.

Now if they really hated the infidels then wouldn’t they attack major religious sites?

Anyway, this post is getting too long so I’ll stop here.

 
Flag Post

With out religion, there will be Chaos.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by thepunisher52:

With out religion, there will be Chaos.

How?

 
Flag Post

The 9/11 Terrorist attacks…..

A controversial issue. I think that the main reason the terrorist attacked was because America was trying to shove their ways down their throat. As we all know democracy doesn’t simply happen overnight but some countries still tried to install it in the Middle East….. I wonder why the middle east of all places….. cough oil cough. Anyway, so some extremists didn’t like this and decided to attack America.

Now if they really hated the infidels then wouldn’t they attack major religious sites?

Anyway, this post is getting too long so I’ll stop here.

Good point

 
Flag Post

A World without religion is a world without morality and grounded, inherent beliefs that make society function. I can never understand why atheists are so up in arms against religion considering some of the most horrible wars and atrocities and genocides were committed by atheists. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and Jim Jones were atheists who murdered millions of people. And before you say Hitler was a Roman Catholic, that’s been proven false. He simply manipulated Christianity in his speech to rally the Nazi people and even threatened priests and bishops if they went against the Nazi doctrine.

“The book Hitler’s Secret Conversations 1941-1944 published by Farrar, Straus and Young, Inc.first edition, 1953, contains definitive proof of Hitler’s real views. The book was published in Britain under the title, _Hitler’s Table Talk 1941-1944, which title was used for the Oxford University Press paperback edition in the United States.

All of these are quotes from Adolf Hitler:

Night of 11th-12th July, 1941:

National Socialism and religion cannot exist together…. The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity’s illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity…. Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things. (p 6 & 7)

10th October, 1941, midday:

Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure. (p 43)
"

http://www.doxa.ws/social/Hitler.html

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Darear:

A World without religion is a world without morality and grounded, inherent beliefs that make society function.

And again: assuming that religion is the source of morality and social structures without any evidence.
And calling Hitler an atheist… That’s so 2011.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by EPR89:
Originally posted by Darear:

A World without religion is a world without morality and grounded, inherent beliefs that make society function.

And again: assuming that religion is the source of morality and social structures without any evidence.
And calling Hitler an atheist… That’s so 2011.

Well, what evidence can I provide? I certainly can provide evidence but how do you quantify morality and ethics and which came first? It’s for the most part a matter of opinion.

 
Flag Post

You could use an evolutionary explanation.
Humans rely heavily on their intelligence. Their bodies are not that great when compared to other animals. But in groups they could become more powerful and take on bigger prey and protect each other. Individuals who favoured such traits were more successful. they had more offspring who had a higher probability to have similar traits. And that way we get stable social structures that over time became more and more sophisticated and allowed for even greater capacities for intelligence. Over time that capacity became so huge that dealing with pure survival was not enough to fully use it.
That’s where culture began to start up. Clothes did not only have to protect your from cold weather, they could also look nice. A weapon could have some cool ornaments. And why do we live in groups in the first place? People started to reflect on their own lives and tried to find explanations.
Some of those explanations stuck. Maybe they were brought forth by an especially powerful individual. Maybe they seemed to make sense at the time. Maybe they simply inspired people. And viola, we end up with stuff like religion, where unspoken rules that had previously existed in the group for quite some time were now summarised in a code and some actually not really related views on the groups life and environment.

 
Flag Post

I’m a creationist though. The theory of evolution is just that. A theory. Even some atheists question the validity of evolution.

 
Flag Post

Wow.
Just a theory.
What a counter.
Wow.

Yes, you sure are a creationist.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by EPR89:

Wow.
Just a theory.
What a counter.
Wow.

Yes, you sure are a creationist.

Do you have evidence of evolution? Hahahahaha!

http://thegoodreporters.blogspot.com/2007/01/evolution-isnt-even-logical.html

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Darear:
Originally posted by EPR89:

Wow.
Just a theory.
What a counter.
Wow.

Yes, you sure are a creationist.

Do you have evidence of evolution? Hahahahaha!

http://thegoodreporters.blogspot.com/2007/01/evolution-isnt-even-logical.html

Your article claims to be about how evolution is nonsensical and its opening point is the Big Bang, which is also called an explosion in the very first sentence of that paragraph…

As I said before, you sure are a creationist.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by EPR89:
Originally posted by Darear:
Originally posted by EPR89:

Wow.
Just a theory.
What a counter.
Wow.

Yes, you sure are a creationist.

Do you have evidence of evolution? Hahahahaha!

http://thegoodreporters.blogspot.com/2007/01/evolution-isnt-even-logical.html

Your article claims to be about how evolution is nonsensical and its opening point is the Big Bang, which is also called an explosion in the very first sentence of that paragraph…

As I said before, you sure are a creationist.

So you didn’t even read the article and simply dismiss it as absurd.
You sure are an evolutionist…

 
Flag Post

I read the article.
It shows that the one who wrote it has roughly as much knowledge about the theory of evolution as you have: next to none. The Big Bang has nothing to do with evolution. The Big Bang was not even an explosion. The rest of the article only reinforces that first impression. Everyone who has ever read a biology textbook can see that. Basically it boils down to: “It couldn’t have happened that way. Therefore our counter hypothesis, MAGIC MAN DONE IT!!!1, must be accepted.”

So, to sum it up: no knowledge about the Big Bang theory, no knowledge about the theory of evolution, no knowledge about basic science.

 
Flag Post

It is the theory that at the moment explains the existing evidence (like fossils) the best, makes accurate predictions of developments we are seeing today and has make the fewest unfounded assumptions. It is the best scientific explanation we have right now.

Creationism, on the other hand, is based on absolutely unfounded assumptions that are not based on any scientific evidence whatsoever. It is an inherently unscientific theory.

Edit: where’d your post go?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by EPR89:

I read the article.
It shows that the one who wrote it has roughly as much knowledge about the theory of evolution as you have: next to none. The Big Bang has nothing to do with evolution. The Big Bang was not even an explosion. The rest of the article only reinforces that first impression. Everyone who has ever read a biology textbook can see that. Basically it boils down to: “It couldn’t have happened that way. Therefore our counter hypothesis, MAGIC MAN DONE IT!!!1, must be accepted.”

So, to sum it up: no knowledge about the Big Bang theory, no knowledge about the theory of evolution, no knowledge about basic science.

The author of the article didn’t say that the big bang was an explosion. He was giving an analogy to a factory explosion producing a unscathed car.

“Do you believe your car is the result of an explosion in an automobile factory? If you took the thousands of parts of your car, lined them up in a building, blew the building up with TNT, do you believe when the dust cleared, they will have formed a nice, shiny, brand new, perfectly running automobile? Of course not! That is not reasonable. Do you believe your wristwatch is the result of an explosion in a watch factory? Impossible!”

And I know a lot about biology, mostly about the human body but I still can’t bring myself to fully commit to the theory of evolution.

God is also not a man and he does not reside in the sky. God is an eternal being that has been here from the beginning even before time and space.

Here is an interesting account of a doctor’s experience in the after life. Read it EPR89, I am open to these ideas and you should be too.
www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/9598971/Is-the-afterlife-full-of-fluffy-clouds-and-angels.html

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Darear:

The author of the article didn’t say that the big bang was an explosion. He was giving an analogy to a factory explosion producing a unscathed car.

Then it is an bad analogy, since it uses the image of an explosion, which the Big Bang according to the theory was not, it uses the image of a direct intact result of that explosion, which is not what the theory says, and because IT IS AN ARTICLE ABOUT EVOLUTION, WHICH HAS NOTHING TO DO WIT THE EFFING BIG BANG THEORY!!!

Oh, and look up the counters to the watchmaker argument; I seriously can’t be bothered to recite at 2 a.m. what has been posted in these threads time and again.

And I know a lot about biology, mostly about the human body but I still can’t bring myself to fully commit to the theory of evolution.

That’s alright. But it really looks to me that you lack basic understanding of it. I mean, you cited that pathetic first article in an attempt to find a source that offers good arguments against the theory.

God is also not a man and he does not reside in the sky. God is an eternal being that has been here from the beginning even before time and space.

What! That makes even more unfounded claims that are not backed up by evidence than the magic man.

Here is an interesting account of a doctor’s experience in the after life. Read it EPR89, I am open to these ideas and you should be too.
www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/9598971/Is-the-afterlife-full-of-fluffy-clouds-and-angels.html

The afterlife, or the result of hallucinations due to the brain being deprived of oxygen for a long amount of time? Not surprising that these hallucinations took the form of concepts that were familiar to that person, mixed with dream like images.
Given your understanding of science, which one is more scientific, makes less assumptions?

Related. It’s only two paragraphs. Keep in mind that a neuro scientist is not an expert on the afterlife and that a neuro scientist is not a scientific expert on his own near death experiences due to bias.

 
Flag Post

It’s not a bad analogy. Have you heard of the Kalam Cosmological Argument? How could the universe be created from nothing, creatio ex nihilo, and how could it have been the product of some random occurrence? The chances are extremely small to nil and the process would have to be repeated several times for life to begin existing. The only logical conclusion is that God has predated time and space, and all matter and life is the direct output of His actions. Physicists claim this would be an extremely unlikely occurrence.

Also ask yourself how at the conception of Christianity, did the population suddenly begin booming at the exact, precise moment?

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html

As for the afterlife, it’s just gut instincts and feelings though. Some things indescribable just happen. Science is a good thing but it can’t prove everything. There is mounting evidence of people experiencing strange conditions in near-death experiences.

I have had very strange dreams of which I was fully cognizant and conscious of. It’s just indescribable. I think it’s part hallucinations of what naturally goes on at death but that doesn’t describe some of the more seemingly implausible incidents that happened to people especially if what they claimed to be true as they were fully conscious of their being and surroundings.

 
Flag Post

So because one thing that could theoretically happen is very unlikely, an explanation that assumes that there is a supernatural entity that defies everything we know about the universe automatically becomes the better theory? Btw. you are still throwing evolution and big bang together. Stop it. It’s stupid.


And just because you cannot explain certain things, arguments from ignorance and circular reasoning suddenly become valid arguments?

Oh, and that article you posted there is pretty much on par with your first one. People can believe in the tooth fairy and still be geniuses in a different field. One doesn’t add or detract from the other, unless they are mixed up and that causes problems. The fact that they believed in something is irrelevant to their scientific endeavours.

I’m sorry. That is just too much for me. I need to go to sleep.

 
Flag Post

Good night then. Perhaps you will have a religious experience as well and open your eyes to these possibilities.

 
Flag Post

You mean a dream?
I had one last night. I could fly… For safety reasons I simply won’t jump off my house now, if you don’t mind.

Maybe I will if I dream of flying tonight again, just to make you happy.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by EPR89:

You mean a dream?
I had one last night. I could fly… For safety reasons I simply won’t jump off my house now, if you don’t mind.

Maybe I will if I dream of flying tonight again, just to make you happy.

I’m not talking about a simple dream. Why do you act as if it’s totally implausible that religion is right? Also, I thought it’s 2 A.M. where you lived.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by EPR89:

You mean a dream?
I had one last night. I could fly… For safety reasons I simply won’t jump off my house now, if you don’t mind.

Maybe I will if I dream of flying tonight again, just to make you happy.

Tower of babel, moses splitting ocean, stories got to come from somewhere

 
Flag Post

1 billion times better!

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Rpoman2009:

1 billion times better!

Let’s see past atheist countries… The Soviet Union or USSR under Stalin had the official religion stated as atheism. Stalin murdered roughly 20 million of his own people. Explain how this is better?