World without Religion: Better or Worse? page 24

656 posts

Flag Post
Originally posted by vikaTae:

I cannot remember if I have posted in this thread before, but if I have it’ll be another way of saying the same as this post:

A world without religion would be very different. You see religion, systems of belief, are a side-effect of the way our higher thought processes work. If we were able to change the world so that all throughout time there was no religion, or change it so that existing religions die out and no new ones could form, the only way we could actually do that would be to remove the parts of our brains that produce a tendency to form a system of belief.

In other words, we would have to remove our higher brain functions – our sense of self and our ability to puzzle out the world around us. This would be the only way to kill off any possibility of systems of belief.

As to whether the world would be ‘better’ if we did that, it all comes down to a matter of opinion. It would completely destroy our civilisation, and any possibility of a new civilisation ever emerging. We would revert back to being mere beasts, operating on instinct like any other animal, unable to be anything more.

Perhaps that would create a ‘better’ world for the planet at large, as it would never see a human civilisation to damage it. However, from the perspective of individual humans, it would be a radically different life, and a radically shorter one.

So as much as some systems of belief are aggrivating as all hell, systems of belief are a necessary evil; a side-effect of the marvelous minds we possess. Having such a mind to work with, far outweighs the perils and pitfalls inherent in some undesirable systems of belief that grow out of that mind’s understanding of the world it sees.

wow. what a way to confuse people.

what you’ve given are side-effects of what you claim it takes for there to be no religion, not side-effects of there being no religion. you’re giving blank ammo to pro-religious arguments (such as BSG above).

also i’d suggest that the fact that there are atheists that don’t lack this higher brain functions proves to us that it is possible, in theory, for there to be no religion without removing those higher brain functions, in a way probably more easy than removing those without killing everyone.

we just have to figure out what inherent difference there is between atheists and theists, other than upbringing.

 
Flag Post

What? You don’t understand what we’re saying. This isn’t an opinion. Religion could not be wiped off of the face of the planet unless everyone was given immortality and sterilized tomorrow, and then every religious person was killed, and anyone who made a statement that could be construed as a false appeal to authority or natural law would be punishable by death. Religion isn’t a thing, it’s a description of what people do. You might as well ask what it would be like if we had wings instead of arms. Being human is having arms. Being human is wondering about things and making suppositions that may or may not be right. Science couldn’t happen if the faculties that enable believing something you don’t know weren’t there. Even religious institutions are indistinguishable from any other institution. Religion isn’t a thing, it’s a description of a thing.

This isn’t giving theists fuel any more than admitting if men weren’t oversexed our society wouldn’t exist as it is today somehow giving rapists fuel. Religion isn’t true because it’s how our brains work. In fact, it’s just the opposite. Saying fairy tales are inevitable side effects of an imagination isn’t saying that people should believe in fairy tales.

A better analogy: A world without computers wouldn’t be a world without internet forums, it’d be a world without electricity and information. A world without religion wouldn’t be a world without pseudoscience and logical fallacies, it’d be a world without wonderment and cognition. Freedom enables lots of awful things, but that doesn’t mean freedom itself should be eliminated.

 
Flag Post
you’re giving blank ammo to pro-religious arguments (such as BSG above).

lol.

I’m sorry, it’s just the idea that BSG did or ever would make a pro-religion argument is patently absurd. He and vika are simply pointing out the catastrophic results that would necessitate from the eradication of religion. In order to remove religion, you would have to remove every belief system, everything that cannot be empirically proven. That’s a staggering amount of ideologies and philosophies that would have to be eliminated, and the result would be a cold and colourless society.

And, if we’re talking about getting rid of religion tomorrow, rather than if it hadn’t existed at all, then such a hypothetical society would be built on the backs of countless dead. No amount of time or ‘education’ would do the trick, you’d need a mass slaughter that would make the holocaust look like a dent in the human population.

 
Flag Post

Haha! I make defenses of religion all the time against some of the militant atheists on these boards. You’re right though, I still don’t necessarily take the side of religion. I like the philosophy bit, but I don’t think that’s exactly what religion is, so much.

 
Flag Post

no, you seem to not understand a what-if scenario. sure, vika may have said a “that would be impossible unless something highly impractical”, that’s fine, notice i didn’t disagree with her…well except i haven’t accepted the prerequisite.

but when you said

it’s a stupid assertion that is only made by angry angsty atheists
it seems you were calling the assertion that a world without religion would be better stupid. which would further suggest that religion makes the world better.

and it was also suggested that this is what vika said, as this was you explaining your agreement with her. however, that was not what i read in what vikaTae said. she made an addition to the hypthesised “what if” scenario (for realism), and based her argument on that addition.

He and vika are simply pointing out the catastrophic results that would necessitate from the eradication of religion. In order to remove religion, you would have to remove every belief system, everything that cannot be empirically proven. That’s a staggering amount of ideologies and philosophies that would have to be eliminated, and the result would be a cold and colourless society.

that’s not what i read. what you are saying is about a consequence of there being no religion. what vikaTae said was about a prerequisite to there being no religion. there is a subtle difference, in that one assumes benifit of religion, the other assumes inevitibility of religion, which is a different point.

 
Flag Post

We are not saying that religion is good for the world, we are saying that religion is a description or label or flavor for something that is not strictly religious.

It’d be nice if, for example, disability didn’t exist, but that would somehow imply an inability to become damaged or for molecular codes to not contain methods of information variation. It’d be nice if racism didn’t exist, but that would imply there is an origin for racism that isn’t also the ability to discriminate against different things necessarily (Wolf bad; Dog good). Religion isn’t an object or a singular thing that could be severed from the human race. It’s how people are, not something people catch or consume. It isn’t that believing in God is innate, but that beliefs in things are not necessarily confined to logically sound concepts. People believe and religion is just one flavor of believing.

I mean, what exactly would be removed if we got rid of religion? All pseudoscience? Everyone understands everything within complete logical terms and they are never wrong? So everyone is omnipotent? What does the functional lack of religion look like? Is it less of a magical deletion, so cults of personality still exist? Would there still be hoards of idiots who follow Oprah’s every word, or people who hold moral expectations for others without any objective reasoning? What specifically would change about the world? I’d argue it would contain no less idiots than before.

 
Flag Post

Without religion, the world will be one step closer to world peace. (Peace = No war = No death)

If we started without religion, we would never have been thought so highly on religion, we never would know it’s there. It’s like senior citizens and electronics. They never grew up with them, so they never knew they were there.

But if we didn’t have religion, us humans would probably end up creating some religion anyway…

But, I say the world would be much better off without religion.

 
Flag Post

so then why, BSG, did you say “it’s a stupid assertion that is only made by angry angsty atheists”? what did you mean?

do you mean it is stupid to contemplate the “what if” scenario? or is it the conclusion?

Religion isn’t an object or a singular thing that could be severed from the human race. It’s how people are, not something people catch or consume. It isn’t that believing in God is innate, but that beliefs in things are not necessarily confined to logically sound concepts. People believe and religion is just one flavor of believing.

i would disagree with that though. although many cultures have had religion, i’m not so sure all of them have. and considering there are plenty of atheists, i think it should theoretically be possible for a society of humans to exist that all are atheist. non-religious should be even easyer.

would it be possible to turn all humans existing now into an atheist? well, obviously not in reality. how would you even communicate with all of them. but what if you could? i mean, in what scenario?

i think it would require is far less stupid people, which shouldn’t be impossible.

I mean, what exactly would be removed if we got rid of religion? All pseudoscience? Everyone understands everything within complete logical terms and they are never wrong? So everyone is omnipotent? What does the functional lack of religion look like? Is it less of a magical deletion, so cults of personality still exist? Would there still be hoards of idiots who follow Oprah’s every word, or people who hold moral expectations for others without any objective reasoning? What specifically would change about the world? I’d argue it would contain no less idiots than before.

well i do have to agree with that, that the hypothesis would require more definition about what it is about religion that doesn’t exist. just the organisations? or all mythology? or just the belief in mythology? dogmatic moral codes? superstition? spiritualism? reverance?

do we have an absense of all of these individual fields? or only an absense of a collection of all of them as one interwoven set of beliefs and submission?

 
Flag Post

If it were possible to flick a switch and have all memories and signs of religion erased from earth, I think the world would possibly be better off.

I do believe that society as a whole is becoming less religious and supersitious…whether or not that trend will continue until eventually everybody is agnostic or atheistic is highly unlikely, but I do believe the trend will continue.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by FlabbyWoofWoof:

If it were possible to flick a switch and have all memories and signs of religion erased from earth, I think the world would possibly be better off.

I do believe that society as a whole is becoming less religious and supersitious…whether or not that trend will continue until eventually everybody is agnostic or atheistic is highly unlikely, but I do believe the trend will continue.

Everyone you seem to be forgetting a HUGE part of religion.

I go to a catholic school, I go to private hospitals (some religious some not), I donate to Catholic organisations to help with poverty in the Philippines and I donate my spare items to St. Vinnies and the Salvation Army (A Christian denomination).

All of these are based off religion and you can’t say they haven’t helped the world, because they have. Most people who decide to help the poor and give up a life of riches have a religious breakthrough (a lot wake up one morning and decide they should help without religious imput as well though). While most of these would’ve existed without a world of religion, you can’t say that there would be the same amount or that they would have had a big of an impact.

 
Flag Post

basicbasic…I don’t think there would be any less charity if there were no religions, although I don’t how it could be proven one way or the other.

I don’t find the ‘charity’ argument all that compelling, I think that everyone is able to do good without the need of religion.

 
Flag Post

Would the world would be better off without everyone but Christians of a specific faith? Or if it was just Nazis? That’s why this is a stupid question; people are people.

 
Flag Post

People are people…yes…and people can be influenced.

Religion influences peoples views about homosexuals, blood transfusions, AIDs, science…etc…etc…etc…so the question is not a stupid one.

Would the world be better with religion or without?

I’m going to say that I think the world would be better without religion.
Good can be done with or without religion, bad can be done with or without religion…but at the end of the day I think the world would progress better without religion.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by TheBSG:

Would the world would be better off without everyone but Christians of a specific faith? Or if it was just Nazis? That’s why this is a stupid question; people are people.

It’s a stupid question because neo-atheism / anti-theism / the philosophy of the Four Horsemen and countless internet atheists (just to cover all my bases)…is an ideology which relies on illogical and unproven beliefs to formulate its dogma. All belief systems are this way – all political, social, and religious ideologies are like this. Meaning THE VERY BELIEFS about society, its inherently progressive quality, the idea of mythology, dogmatism and irrationalism being the sole province of religion, ‘solutions’ like education as a way to curb or eradicate religion…would of necessity need to be eliminated beforehand in order for this atheistic utopia to function. It reminds me in many ways of the Republic, which is surely a recipe for a dystopia.

Even as a thought experiment it just fails. And i’m given to suspect by many of the ‘thumbs up’ responses that it’s intended as less of an heuristic device and more like wishful thinking…’wouldn’t it be nice, ah but there will always be stupid people who belief in fairy tales instead of reason. sigh.’

Please. The end-goal, the world without religion: THAT’S the fairytale.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by OmegaDoom:

wow. what a way to confuse people.

You have misunderstood. I will try to use simpler terms, okay Omega?

what you’ve given are side-effects of what you claim it takes for there to be no religion, not side-effects of there being no religion. you’re giving blank ammo to pro-religious arguments (such as BSG above).

also i’d suggest that the fact that there are atheists that don’t lack this higher brain functions proves to us that it is possible, in theory, for there to be no religion without removing those higher brain functions, in a way probably more easy than removing those without killing everyone.

we just have to figure out what inherent difference there is between atheists and theists, other than upbringing.

There is not any inherent difference, that’s the problem. Have you never sat down one day and wondered how everything fits together? You have forrmed abstract concepts in your head and tried to make them fit together in a way that makes sense to you.

That is the higher brain function of abstract thinking at work. That is the root cause of all belief systems. It is also the root cause of all science, all investigation, all ability to look beyond what is in front of your nose and imagine how the pieces fit together.

In order to kill religion, that is the system we have to eliminate from the human brain. Science, religion, the brain cannot tell them apart at a fundamental level. There is just data, and an attempt to make the pieces fit together. That’s what abstract thinking does; tries to make the pieces fit together. If we are to remove the possibility of belief ever forming, we must remove the system that is capable of the abstract notion of belief.


There is another system we must target. Sometimes new data springs fully formed from the brain, in a fully formed fashion. This is the work of our imagination, another higher brain process, a sub-set of abstract thought. It is responsible for creating new data pretty much from random sifting, and is responsible for ‘eureka’ moments in science, as well as all artistic works – painting, sculpting, imaginging ficticious worlds for novel writing and belief systems.

There’s no way to separate the results. The ‘aha’ moment in scientific discovery is no different from the formation of a sudden understanding in theology, or the vision of a finished masterpiece. All are equal value results of this subsystem of the brain. If we wish to wipe out our ability to conceive of one of them, the only way to do it, is to wipe out all of them. They are all just different facets of the exact same process. Wiping out the process is the only way to get any of them, so we must wipe out all of them to get rid of any one.


A third related brain process is another, different higher thought process: The sense of self. It is the sense of yourself as an individual, a thinking living being distinct from your surroundings. It is the oldest of the higher thought processes, and the one whose existence is what, over time, led to the development of the other higher thought processes.

Having a sense of self leads to questioning of one’s place in things. Even if we eliminate all abstract thinking such as your mind only exists in the here and now, and is only capable of thinking about the shapes in front of your face, and the smells underfoot, you still have the possibility of struggling to understand how everything puts together. Your brain won’t be able to come up with any answers – for answers would demand thought in the abstract – but you will still struggle to understand.

Therefore I recommend we also remove the sense of self, removing this struggle to understand our place in the world, completely. Without abstract thought there to back it up, it is hollow, empty, and can only lead to negativity.


Do all of these, and you will have killed religion forever. Unfortunately since religion is but organised belief, and belief is but a form of abstract thought, with abstract thought itself being the one thing that elevated us from animals, that drives all creativity and research, drives imagination and wonder, the only way to kill the possibility of any undesirable belief system arising in the brain, is to do this: To kill our ability to create any belief, any abstract thought in the first place.

Do this and you have won: religion is dead forever. Creativity is dead forever. Science and discovery are dead forever. Imagination is dead forever. Human civilisation is dead forever. Abstract abilities such as reading, writing, struggling to understand, are dead forever.

Victory, yes?

 
Flag Post

Vika…I accept that wihtout imagination there would not be religion…but to say that without religion there would be no imagination is wrong…if that is what you are essentially saying.

While religion is most definitely very very intertwined with the evolution of human civilsation, I do not believe the abscence of religion would mean the loss of our ability to create abstract thought.

And to say “kill religion” is terribly emotive. I don’t think religion needs to be killed off…just reasoned.

My understanding of the question is you do think that a world where there NEVER was religion would be better…and I think probably yes.

 
Flag Post

imagination is one of the root causes of belief, Flabby. The only way to remove our ability to have belief in abstract concepts in the first place, is to remove several subsystems from the brain.

Imagination’s job is to sift randonly through the data and create new beliefs. These then go on to be substantiated (or not) later, through interaction with other minds. It’s this interactivity with other minds that turns belief into organisation.

In order to prevent belief forming in the first place – to prevent those ‘eureka’ moments, we must, absolutely must excise the ability to imagine, from the brain.

Remove it permanently, and cast it away, taking all its possibilities with it. It is the only way to stop the brain from generating new possibilities, any one of which could be a new belief.

 
Flag Post

So are you saying that religion is a by-product of humans ability to create (more or less) abstract thought? And because of this, religion can not be removed without atleast ‘removing’ abstract thought?

In order to prevent belief forming in the first place – to prevent those ‘eureka’ moments, we must, absolutely must excise the ability to imagine, from the brain.

I think we’re getting away from the actual question, I don’t think the question was how to stop religion…but to imagine a world without religion. I understand that you think the question is an impossible event, I agree…but I don’t think the question is a stupid one, for me it’s asking the reader two questions…would the world be better to have NEVER have had religion (that I’m not sure about, but think religion has been important in the development of civilisation)…and the other question I get is, would the world be better NOW is there was no religion. That one I think yes, I think religion has done all that it can for humanity and is superfluous.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by FlabbyWoofWoof:

So are you saying that religion is a by-product of humans ability to create (more or less) abstract thought? And because of this, religion can not be removed without atleast ‘removing’ abstract thought?

It’s not religion that is the problem. It’s belief. Religion is an emergent structure, based on belief. To deal with religion, we must remove the ability to believe.

The problem is that the brain doesn’t label ‘this is a belief’, ‘this is a hypothesis’, when its generating new ideas. They are all just beliefs. So in order to stop the possibility of any new belief turning into a new religion, the only way we can do this is to stop the brain from being able to create any new beliefs – stop the creation of any new ideas at all.

I think we’re getting away from the actual question, I don’t think the question was how to stop religion…but to imagine a world without religion. I understand that you think the question is an impossible event, I agree…but I don’t think the question is a stupid one, for me it’s asking the reader two questions…would the world be better to have NEVER have had religion (that I’m not sure about, but think religion has been important in the development of civilisation)…and the other question I get is, would the world be better NOW is there was no religion. That one I think yes, I think religion has done all that it can for humanity and is superfluous.

If the world never had religion, then the thought processes which can create beliefs could not have been present in our brains in the first place, can you see the logic in that?

Therefore, a world without any religion is a world without the possibility for religion to form. Thus it is a world without a great many things apart from religion that also use the exact same mechanisms in the brain that religion does.

Science is one. Art is another.

 
Flag Post

The idea that religion is now superfluous is an idea that is probably only palatable from a western well-to-do perspective. Meaning a sheltered, altogether wrong perspective. It’s the one that looks at the middle east and thinks ‘Hey, if it weren’t for religion there’d be way less problems there’ – Wrong! – or (if you’re American), ‘Hey, if we got rid of religion maybe the conservatives wouldn’t be so fucked up!’ – Wrong! – and so on.

I could get into a few of these in detail, if you like. But the main point is that religion is, with many worldly controversies, just an ideological vehicle. The Gay marriage thing wouldn’t go away just because there’d be no Christian-Right movement to blockade it…it would just get rid of one peg in their attack. People would still see it (homosexuality) as dirty and if combined with traditional marriage, despicable. The creationism debate might go away, but to be honest i never understood how that one became important anyway. Most other conservative causes can be traced back to basic social conservatist creed, which, while inspired by religious tenets, is wholly secular.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by FlabbyWoofWoof:

basicbasic…I don’t think there would be any less charity if there were no religions, although I don’t how it could be proven one way or the other.

I don’t find the ‘charity’ argument all that compelling, I think that everyone is able to do good without the need of religion.

A study done by Harverd showed that religious people donate more then their atheist counterparts.

 
Flag Post

You wouldn’t have to remove the ability to think critically and believe; you’d simply need to execute those who believe things which are blatantly false. That would eliminate most, if not all, monotheistic religions. And, you’d also wipe out the Flat Earth Society as collateral.

Sure, it’d leave a handful of polytheistic and atheistic religions; but those aren’t Christianity, so annihilating them isn’t as important.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Captain_Catface:

You wouldn’t have to remove the ability to think critically and believe; you’d simply need to execute those who believe things which are blatantly false. That would eliminate most, if not all, monotheistic religions. And, you’d also wipe out the Flat Earth Society as collateral.

And what do you do when new religions start popping up over time? Religion is a side-effect of how we think. Unless you change the way we think, new systems of belief will start popping up in the populace immediately, spreading and consolidating over time.

 
Flag Post
Have you never sat down one day and wondered how everything fits together? You have forrmed abstract concepts in your head and tried to make them fit together in a way that makes sense to you.

That is the higher brain function of abstract thinking at work. That is the root cause of all belief systems. It is also the root cause of all science, all investigation, all ability to look beyond what is in front of your nose and imagine how the pieces fit together.

In order to kill religion, that is the system we have to eliminate from the human brain. Science, religion, the brain cannot tell them apart at a fundamental level. There is just data, and an attempt to make the pieces fit together. That’s what abstract thinking does; tries to make the pieces fit together. If we are to remove the possibility of belief ever forming, we must remove the system that is capable of the abstract notion of belief.

yes you said all that. but the “what if” scenario proposed doesn’t include all of that. if we would assume that by magic, rather than what you propose, religion would stop existing, all those negative effects you suggest would not be there. so what you are talking about is not about benifits brought by religion.

you just assume the inevitability of religion unless some drastic change to our neurology, and talk about the consequences of that drastic change. that is clearly a difference.

especially since i do not subscribe to the same prerequisite. i think in theory at least it’s possible for there to be no religion, while still having those higher brain function. maybe not practically, at least not realistically at the moment. but that’s not what this is about.

There’s no way to separate the results. The ‘aha’ moment in scientific discovery is no different from the formation of a sudden understanding in theology, or the vision of a finished masterpiece. All are equal value results of this subsystem of the brain. If we wish to wipe out our ability to conceive of one of them, the only way to do it, is to wipe out all of them. They are all just different facets of the exact same process. Wiping out the process is the only way to get any of them, so we must wipe out all of them to get rid of any one.

yeah, i don’t believe that. in fact, if this were true, that would mean most scientists that are open to such aha moments would be religious, while clearly the opposite is true. nearly all scientists are either deist or atheist; not religious.

the idea that imagination inevitibly makes one religious, and therefor that atheists merely lack imagination, is ridiculous. just because someone has imagination, doesn’t mean that someone lacks logic. that’s the whole point. to be religious, you have not just to have imagination, but to have an absense of logic too.

plus i would think that unimaginative people are more likely to buy into religious dogmas, anyway.

maybe if you were to count all forms of spiritualism or deism or “ietsism” it would become a little more difficult. but religion surely…i bet we’ll be passed religion at some point.

there are entire families without religion. so why not entire communities or entire societies? Sweden is said to be 85% atheist…

Do all of these, and you will have killed religion forever. Unfortunately since religion is but organised belief, and belief is but a form of abstract thought, with abstract thought itself being the one thing that elevated us from animals, that drives all creativity and research, drives imagination and wonder, the only way to kill the possibility of any undesirable belief system arising in the brain, is to do this: To kill our ability to create any belief, any abstract thought in the first place.

yeah yeah, you can repeat yourself as often as you like. but just because that would be one way, doesn’t mean that it would be the only way.

and even if it was, that wasn’t the question. you would still be talking about consequences to prerequisites of making it reality, not purely responding to the direct effects of the what if scenario. there would still be a difference.

 
Flag Post

yes you said all that. but the “what if” scenario proposed doesn’t include all of that. if we would assume that by magic, rather than what you propose, religion would stop existing, all those negative effects you suggest would not be there. so what you are talking about is not about benifits brought by religion.

You’re the only one trying desperately to twist my words into ‘benefits brought by religion’.

Religion is an emergent process. A side-effect of how our brains process abstract data. In order to eliminate the side effect, you have to target the process that causes that side effect. That is ALL I have been (repeatedly) saying.

you just assume the inevitability of religion unless some drastic change to our neurology, and talk about the consequences of that drastic change. that is clearly a difference.

Belief IS inevitable, based on our wiring, yes. Belief in what, it does not matter. Belief in God, hope someone will get better, an untested scientific hypothesis, seeing a painting in your mind before you paint it – they’re all using the exact same process.

especially since i do not subscribe to the same prerequisite. i think in theory at least it’s possible for there to be no religion, while still having those higher brain function. maybe not practically, at least not realistically at the moment. but that’s not what this is about.

The only way you could keep those higher brain functions without having any possibility of a new belief being created in the brain, would be to use some form of neuroprosthetic to detect when a new idea is formed, and send out an electric pulse to crush it whilst it is being formed. I am horrified at the concept, but it should work. You keep your higher thought processes, but are unable to form any NEW ideas.

That would be the only oteher way of dealing with your scenario. A big concern of mine with such a system is the distributed nature of abstract thinking in the brain – its not all in one place. So to do this (I was thinking on it this morning as you can tell) we have a potential problem in that the system may see memories transferring from long-term storage to working memory as ‘new’ ideas as well, and suppress them. The effect may well be that we lose our long-term memories. Whether or not that is worth it to kill religion is for you to decide.

yeah, i don’t believe that. in fact, if this were true, that would mean most scientists that are open to such aha moments would be religious, while clearly the opposite is true.

Actually, nearly all scientists are susceptible to the ‘aha’ moment, when an idea coallesces in their head from random data sifting. It is the exact same process as all belief systems follow. It is just a different expression of it. Even there, on occasion, a scientific ‘aha’ moment leads to a theory that is plausibly religious in nature. Sometimes ala ID, what starts off as a scientific idea is also a religious one.

If we are looking to eliminate all belief-based ideas, then we can’t tell from person to person until they are fully formed whether they are of a religious nature or not. Worse, whilst they may not be seen as such an idea to the person originating the idea, they are likely to be seen as such by others they communicate with. So, either we outlaw all communication, or we eliminate all abstract idea creation (imagination). Surgically eliminating the imagination from every human mind is the easier parh to enforce, by far.

the idea that imagination inevitibly makes one religious

Is complete bullshit,and solely of your own manufacture.

maybe if you were to count all forms of spiritualism or deism or “ietsism” it would become a little more difficult. but religion surely…i bet we’ll be passed religion at some point.

All forms of spiritualism are the same thing as religion. They only lack the organisation – and time will give them that.

Religion is not a ‘thing’ of itself, it’s an emergent nebulous, gaseous entity. There is no substance there to target. Rather we must target the pipe opening the gas is pouring out of, to shut religion off. That brings us right back to targeting the belief system of the human brain, once more.