PDA

View Full Version : A world without religion, or a world with religion?


comical
July 19th, 2013, 05:11 PM
This question was posted on another forum I'm apart of, and felt it would be interesting to see here.

"Today's topic: "A world without religion, is better than a world with religion"
Thread number #2

Overview:

As today's world becomes more non-religious and liberal, there are questions being laid on whether religion is good for our social and economical progress? Many critics claim religion to be holding back our development and to be a major source of violence and discrimination, as well as backwards thinking. Many studies also correlate religion with standards of living and prosperity. Countries which are fundamentally secular, liberal and non religious tend to be far richer and have a higher standards of living than religious states. Many critiques also state that religion fosters certain attitudes of hate against minorities such as gays/lesbians, as well as close mindedness. Religion has also been a source of violence and wars over history.

Religion has also played an integral part in world history. For example America's democracy had religious roots and ideals. Religion can also teach good morals such as honesty, integrity and acceptance. Religion helps unite people of different backgrounds, under one religion. Religion can be a part of a persons identity. Religion can also give a sense of hope in bad times to people. "

Please note, America's democracy didn't have major religious roots. I would personally like to note, that religion has also brought some negative morals and ideals to the world. Such as murder, rape, genocide, etc.

Gigablue
July 19th, 2013, 06:05 PM
I think a world without religion would be fundamentally better than one with it. Religion is a major cause of discrimination. While there is definitely discrimination for other reasons, a lack of religion would fight against discrimination.

Religion is a major obstacle to science. It is the main reason the general public doesn't accept iron clad scientific theories like the Big Bang or natural selection. A better understanding of science by the public is better for everyone. Furthermore, it hinders progress on the cutting edge of science. The supposed ethical issues about stem cell research, for example, are only issues in the context of religion, without it, the controversy disappears and science moves forward.

Religion is also very good at taking away rights. Without religion, same sex marriage would be a non issue. The same can be said for abortion. In both these cases, people have had their rights violated without a valid reason.

Religion does a terrible job of teaching morals. Most religions have morality as a set of rules. In reality, moral decisions are complex and nuanced. A simple set of rules cannot adequately inform these decisions.

I think religion does some good. It provides a social network for people. Furthermore many religious organizations contribute significantly to charity. However, secular organizations can take over these functions without invoking the supernatural aspect.

In general, the benefits of religion are outweighed by the harm. Religion significantly hinders the progress of modern society.

Jess
July 19th, 2013, 10:05 PM
Religion has its good, I suppose, but the world would be better without it. All reasons that Gigablue listed I agree with.

LouBerry
July 19th, 2013, 10:23 PM
Well, my view isn't really that simple. I think a world without religion would be horrible, but then again, some religious people are horrible too.

So, I would say that a world with religion would be better, but under the condition that the religious people were the right kind, that use their beliefs to spread love and hope, not discrimination, hatred, and pain.

Cygnus
July 19th, 2013, 10:28 PM
A world without religion would be much better, people would not be controlled by fairytales, religious wars would not be waged, there would be few discrimination or genocides, science would flourish, people would think concretely. It would be amazing.

Sugaree
July 19th, 2013, 10:47 PM
Perhaps, speaking as a Buddhist, I can easily see a world without religion being more beneficial to the human race as a whole. But I also have to look at it from the standpoint of how much religion has contributed to societies in its thousands of years of existence. Music, art, poetry, literature...like it or not, religion has contributed its fair share to the arts.

In whole, I feel that religion, by itself, is not a corrosive material to society. It is the extremists and zealots who push their agendas and use religion to justify their hate. Do not typecast all of religion as one bad thing when it is only a few that are ruining it for the rest of us.

Walter Powers
July 19th, 2013, 11:41 PM
Religion oftentimes is the framework for telling us what's right and what's wrong. I think that things would be rather chaotic without the values it has provided.

Gigablue
July 20th, 2013, 09:39 AM
So, I would say that a world with religion would be better, but under the condition that the religious people were the right kind, that use their beliefs to spread love and hope, not discrimination, hatred, and pain.

I take some offence at that. You seem to be implying that religion has monopolized love and hope. You can still have both without religion. Religion does provide good, but secular organizations could provide the same good if there were no religion.

In whole, I feel that religion, by itself, is not a corrosive material to society. It is the extremists and zealots who push their agendas and use religion to justify their hate. Do not typecast all of religion as one bad thing when it is only a few that are ruining it for the rest of us.

I disagree. The issues with discrimination, which are caused mainly by the zealots, are only part of the problem. The larger problem I have with religion is that it promotes unscientific thinking. It teaches that blind faith is a valid way to know things. The lack of critical thinking caused by religion is a huge problem.

Religion oftentimes is the framework for telling us what's right and what's wrong. I think that things would be rather chaotic without the values it has provided.

Religion is a terrible moral guide. It teaches that following a set of rules is the way to be moral. In reality, morality is complex.

Furthermore, many of the moral principles taught by religion are self evident. Religion is not needed to figure out that, for example, killing people is bad. A rational person can figure out that murder hurts all of society, and therefore is a bad thing. You don't need religion.

Can you give an example of a moral principle provided by religion that is not obvious for a secular reason as well?

Rayquaza
July 20th, 2013, 09:49 AM
A world without religion would be chaos. Law does not teach inner belief and control, it gives you extremities to be bound by but no internal framework. I could personally say that if I was not a Hindu, I would not be in a very good place. If you take away religion you take away one of the major pieces of the human experience. It's one of the key features that differs humans from other organisms as we acknowledge religion.

Religion differs from people to people. While some apparent "religious groups" may cause damage to society, it is no where near to the damage caused by no religion whatsoever.

saea97
July 20th, 2013, 09:59 AM
Religion depends largely on childhood indoctrination to propogate itself. Telling children lies about God, Heaven, Hell, sin and creationism (and so on) is nothing short of an abuse of a formative mind that has not yet learned to think critically.

That alone is a reason for stamping it out; the minds of the next generation will be more disposed to critical thinking if they haven't been indoctrinated.

Stronk Serb
July 20th, 2013, 11:19 AM
Without religion. Religions are mostly discriminating. The non-religion world would be a safe-haven for scientific research and development, and as such, humanity would prosper.

Human
July 20th, 2013, 12:45 PM
A world without religion would be chaos. Law does not teach inner belief and control, it gives you extremities to be bound by but no internal framework. I could personally say that if I was not a Hindu, I would not be in a very good place. If you take away religion you take away one of the major pieces of the human experience. It's one of the key features that differs humans from other organisms as we acknowledge religion.

Religion differs from people to people. While some apparent "religious groups" may cause damage to society, it is no where near to the damage caused by no religion whatsoever.

I have to disagree with you.
Religion doesn't teach control either, what about Islam, and even Christianity promoting slavery and inequality? I'm an atheist, and I was taught control by my parents and self... I am a perfectly fine person. Millions of people are atheist, are all these lawless criminals? In fact, most criminals in America are Christian. I don't agree that religion is part of the 'human experience' either - I don't need a higher being to dictate what I can and can not do, I make my own decisions based on my own morality and I don't need to be scared into being good by an afterlife of eternal flames.
What damage does no religion cause? You haven't got sources or anything - like the OP has stated, more secular regions such as Norway and Sweden have some of the highest living standards, and undoubtedly the standards are higher than religious countries - that includes the USA.

A world in the future when people have came to their own conclusions, and the majority are non religious could only have good consequences for humanity.

Rayquaza
July 20th, 2013, 12:55 PM
I have to disagree with you.
Religion doesn't teach control either, what about Islam, and even Christianity promoting slavery and inequality? I'm an atheist, and I was taught control by my parents and self... I am a perfectly fine person. Millions of people are atheist, are all these lawless criminals? In fact, most criminals in America are Christian. I don't agree that religion is part of the 'human experience' either - I don't need a higher being to dictate what I can and can not do, I make my own decisions based on my own morality and I don't need to be scared into being good by an afterlife of eternal flames.
What damage does no religion cause? You haven't got sources or anything - like the OP has stated, more secular regions such as Norway and Sweden have some of the highest living standards, and undoubtedly the standards are higher than religious countries - that includes the USA.

A world in the future when people have came to their own conclusions, and the majority are non religious could only have good consequences for humanity.

I disagree almost entirely.

I can't speak on behalf of Islam or Christian people because I'm not one of them, nor am I going to judge them. I'm only saying that from my personal experience the world would be chaotic if there was no religion.

Most people might claim to be "Christian" but probably use that as an excuse or were born into a Christian household so that's what they believe, when actually they might not follow any of Christianity at all.

I don't need to source something if it's my own experience- this isn't just some debate on something that can be proved like Abortion or Gay Marriage; you need to see the bigger picture. We can't just follow a load of atheist people and see how they turn out because the world isn't as black and white as you try and put it.

Perhaps it's your prejudiced views of Islam and Christianity which is why you think like that, when I beg to differ that the religion itself actually does quite the opposite of what you claim.

Harry Smith
July 20th, 2013, 12:56 PM
I disagree almost entirely.

I can't speak on behalf of Islam or Christian people because I'm not one of them, nor am I going to judge them. I'm only saying that from my personal experience the world would be chaotic if there was no religion.

Most people might claim to be "Christian" but probably use that as an excuse or were born into a Christian household so that's what they believe, when actually they might not follow any of Christianity at all.

I don't need to source something if it's my own experience- this isn't just some debate on something that can be proved like Abortion or Gay Marriage; you need to see the bigger picture. We can't just follow a load of atheist people and see how they turn out because the world isn't as black and white as you try and put it.

Perhaps it's your prejudiced views of Islam and Christianity which is why you think like that, when I beg to differ that the religion itself actually does quite the opposite of what you claim.

If it's from your personal experience then how can you judge what the whole world will do?

Rayquaza
July 20th, 2013, 01:06 PM
If it's from your personal experience then how can you judge what the whole world will do?

My experience of seeing other people without religion and with religion. I've seen it on a small scale and it's likely that it'll happen on a large scale. Besides if you abolish religion there's a very good chance it'll sprout up again. I've at least seen this and that's more accurate than hypothesising what could happen.

Harry Smith
July 20th, 2013, 01:25 PM
My experience of seeing other people without religion and with religion. I've seen it on a small scale and it's likely that it'll happen on a large scale. Besides if you abolish religion there's a very good chance it'll sprout up again. I've at least seen this and that's more accurate than hypothesising what could happen.

The chance of it sprouting up doesn't make it any better, I mean Nazism has sprouted back up, Slavery has sprouted back up.

My experience is that society without Religion prospers in both civil liberties and advancement. You've got nearly every religion opposing Gay marriage, you've got religion opposing stem cell research. Religion opposes progress

comical
July 20th, 2013, 01:38 PM
Without religion. Religions are mostly discriminating. The non-religion world would be a safe-haven for scientific research and development, and as such, humanity would prosper.


The thing is, humans did not to make major scientific revolutions until religion was failing them and they wanted more logical answers. Do you think without those circumstances we would be like we are today? Or better? I honestly don't.

I'm aware of all of the positive things religion has contributed to society, but there are many negatives as well. I guess in order to win there have to be some losses? lol, but as a religious person I'm kind of half and half. I guess if there was always no religion we would never know. Hmm.

Rayquaza
July 20th, 2013, 01:46 PM
The chance of it sprouting up doesn't make it any better, I mean Nazism has sprouted back up, Slavery has sprouted back up.

My experience is that society without Religion prospers in both civil liberties and advancement. You've got nearly every religion opposing Gay marriage, you've got religion opposing stem cell research. Religion opposes progress

Are Nazism and Slavery types of religion?

Religion differs. You cannot say "Religion opposes progress" so broadly and generalise it, just because a few do.

Human
July 20th, 2013, 01:54 PM
Are Nazism and Slavery types of religion?

Religion differs. You cannot say "Religion opposes progress" so broadly and generalise it, just because a few do.

The few main ones do... the ones which make an impact on our daily lives. I couldn't care less what Wiccans do in their spare time, because they aren't influencing politics and technology. Isn't it strange how as we as humans have advanced the world has became more atheist? Because they realise that they don't need a god to make their own choices, or to decide their fate because science answers it.
Maybe we are being too broad by saying it opposes progress, but the majority of religions certainly slow down progress of the world. (Dark Ages for example).

We didn't get to the moon by praying to the lord to teleport us up there, we got there with technology which was developed by hard work, not prayer.

Rayquaza
July 20th, 2013, 02:22 PM
The few main ones do... the ones which make an impact on our daily lives. I couldn't care less what Wiccans do in their spare time, because they aren't influencing politics and technology. Isn't it strange how as we as humans have advanced the world has became more atheist? Because they realise that they don't need a god to make their own choices, or to decide their fate because science answers it.
Maybe we are being too broad by saying it opposes progress, but the majority of religions certainly slow down progress of the world. (Dark Ages for example).

We didn't get to the moon by praying to the lord to teleport us up there, we got there with technology which was developed by hard work, not prayer.

Tell me, how on earth a religion that you probably are not part of makes an impact in your day-to-day life? I don't see how religion influences technology. Is Religion holding us back? Is that what you think?

Science answers absolutely nothing. Science comes up with theories, yes, but no answer. Surely if there was an answer, every single person would be atheist. There are elements of religion that are not falsifiable.

And surely science would not have even been fuelled without anything to challenge it. Just like on of the posters said above, if there was no religion, science would have nothing to challenge.

And what about other scientific discoveries? Does religion slow down the progress of the cancer cure?

Lastly, don't ever use the moon as an example as there is evidence to easily suggest the whole landing was a hoax- but that's another debate.

Gigablue
July 20th, 2013, 02:25 PM
The thing is, humans did not to make major scientific revolutions until religion was failing them and they wanted more logical answers. Do you think without those circumstances we would be like we are today? Or better? I honestly don't.

Look at everything science has given us: Medicine, agriculture, electricity, transportation, etc. Without science, we would live much shorter lives, everyone would struggle to get enough food, we wouldn't be able to interact with people not in out immediate area, etc. Science has given us so much.

Compare science with religion. Religion can't cure diseases, science can. Religion can't help feed people, science can. As science progresses, quality of life increases. I think it's pretty clear that we need science.

Harry Smith
July 20th, 2013, 02:30 PM
Are Nazism and Slavery types of religion?

Religion differs. You cannot say "Religion opposes progress" so broadly and generalise it, just because a few do.

It really does- Stem cells

I was showing the fallacy of your argument, just because something could come back doesn't mean you should accept it

Rayquaza
July 20th, 2013, 02:35 PM
It really does- Stem cells

I was showing the fallacy of your argument, just because something could come back doesn't mean you should accept it

You tried to show the fallacy of my argument by using an argument completely off topic. Slavery and Nazism are not types of religion. They are different. Besides, I never said you should accept it, I just said they could come back.

Harry Smith
July 20th, 2013, 02:37 PM
You tried to show the fallacy of my argument by using an argument completely off topic. Slavery and Nazism are not types of religion. They are different. Besides, I never said you should accept it, I just said they could come back.

Nazism in fact became very close to becoming a religion, it had the whole set-up of approaching a modern day religion, something which is also very dangerous.

I'm just saying it doesn't matter if it could come back or not, whilst I don't agree on a blanket ban on religion I do think ideally it would of never existed

Rayquaza
July 20th, 2013, 02:41 PM
Nazism in fact became very close to becoming a religion, it had the whole set-up of approaching a modern day religion, something which is also very dangerous.

I'm just saying it doesn't matter if it could come back or not, whilst I don't agree on a blanket ban on religion I do think ideally it would of never existed

Yes but it is not a religion, that does not justify your claim.

Harry Smith
July 20th, 2013, 02:42 PM
Yes but it is not a religion, that does not justify your claim.

My claim was that we shouldn't ignore something or ban something because it may emerge later, your point was that religion will emerge again and my point is that doesn't matter one bit-it's still a flawed idea

Rayquaza
July 20th, 2013, 02:48 PM
My claim was that we shouldn't ignore something or ban something because it may emerge later, your point was that religion will emerge again and my point is that doesn't matter one bit-it's still a flawed idea

You've completely lost me.

You're talking about Nazism as an example and now you're saying it doesn't matter? What?

Whatever the case is, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Gigablue
July 20th, 2013, 02:50 PM
Tell me, how on earth a religion that you probably are not part of makes an impact in your day-to-day life? I don't see how religion influences technology. Is Religion holding us back? Is that what you think?

Religion affects everyone. Even non religious individuals. The main source of opposition for things like same sex marriage and abortion, two social issues which affect large numbers of people, regardless of religion.

Science answers absolutely nothing. Science comes up with theories, yes, but no answer. Surely if there was an answer, every single person would be atheist. There are elements of religion that are not falsifiable.

Science hasn't answered everything yet, but it has answered a lot.

If you are going to use the word theory, learn what it means. In science, a theory is a very well tested hypothesis that explains a phenomenon. In short, a theory is a fact that explains another fact.

Also, many people reject science because of religion. For example, science has conclusively proven where the diversity of life came from, via the theory of natural selection, yet people reject it.

Lastly, I agree that religion has non falsifiable elements, but that isn't a good thing. If something isn't falsifiable, it's just wild speculation that should be used as a basis for anything.

And surely science would not have even been fuelled without anything to challenge it. Just like on of the posters said above, if there was no religion, science would have nothing to challenge.

Science isn't fuelled by religion, it's fuelled by curiosity. As long as there are things we don't know, science will continue. All religion has done to science is hinder it. It hasn't helped it.

And what about other scientific discoveries? Does religion slow down the progress of the cancer cure?

It slows down embryonic stem cell research, which could help us cure many degenerative diseases as well as neurological injuries, to name a few applications.

Lastly, don't ever use the moon as an example as there is evidence to easily suggest the whole landing was a hoax- but that's another debate.

You can't use the moon landing being a hoax as a valid point. The fact the we went to the moon is accepted by all but a few deniers. If you want, start a new thread about it, but the evidence for the moon landing is very clear.

Rayquaza
July 20th, 2013, 03:00 PM
Religion affects everyone. Even non religious individuals. The main source of opposition for things like same sex marriage and abortion, two social issues which affect large numbers of people, regardless of religion.



Science hasn't answered everything yet, but it has answered a lot.

If you are going to use the word theory, learn what it means. In science, a theory is a very well tested hypothesis that explains a phenomenon. In short, a theory is a fact that explains another fact.

Also, many people reject science because of religion. For example, science has conclusively proven where the diversity of life came from, via the theory of natural selection, yet people reject it.

Lastly, I agree that religion has non falsifiable elements, but that isn't a good thing. If something isn't falsifiable, it's just wild speculation that should be used as a basis for anything.



Science isn't fuelled by religion, it's fuelled by curiosity. As long as there are things we don't know, science will continue. All religion has done to science is hinder it. It hasn't helped it.



It slows down embryonic stem cell research, which could help us cure many degenerative diseases as well as neurological injuries, to name a few applications.



You can't use the moon landing being a hoax as a valid point. The fact the we went to the moon is accepted by all but a few deniers. If you want, start a new thread about it, but the evidence for the moon landing is very clear.

I'll just have to agree to disagree with you then.

- I know what theory means, don't test me.
- Religion doesn't physically stop scientific research. And if that's your excuse as to why we haven't progressed, it is a poor one.
- Stem cell research could, that doesn't mean it will. And the laws on stem cell research differ from country to country.

I only came to this thread to voice my opinion, not have to stand up for it. I will agree that in countries where religion plays a major role such as Saudi Arabia, in which case yes, no religion would be beneficial. But not everywhere. Furthermore, all religions are different, so just because some might hinder research doesn't mean all will.

Gigablue
July 20th, 2013, 03:34 PM
- I know what theory means, don't test me.

Seeing how you used it, I don't think you do. You said science has theories and not answers. In reality, a theory answers the question of why a phenomenon occurs.

- Religion doesn't physically stop scientific research. And if that's your excuse as to why we haven't progressed, it is a poor one.

Religion does indirectly stop research. For example, in the US, Bush banned funding for new embryonic stem cell lines. This effectively stopped research in the US until Obama reversed the ban. While he didn't explicitly state the reason, it is obvious that religion played a role. This is only one way that religion hinders science.

Also, religion is a major reason we haven't progressed. Many new discoveries are met with huge opposition by religion. As such, they don't gain acceptance, or their acceptance is delayed.

- Stem cell research could, that doesn't mean it will. And the laws on stem cell research differ from country to country.

The laws differ, but the countries that ban their research do so because of religion. If embryonic stem cell research were legal everywhere, we would progress faster.

Also, it is likely that embryonic stem cells will help treat many diseases. While we can't say for certain, the probability is very high.

I only came to this thread to voice my opinion, not have to stand up for it. I will agree that in countries where religion plays a major role such as Saudi Arabia, in which case yes, no religion would be beneficial. But not everywhere. Furthermore, all religions are different, so just because some might hinder research doesn't mean all will.

If you voice your opinion, you should be prepared to defend it.

I think a lack of religion would be better in every country. In more religious countries, the change would be more significant, but it would still be beneficial in less religious countries.

All religions are different, and many don't hinder science. However, they all promote illogical, unscientific thinking, and for that reason, they have a negative impact.

comical
July 20th, 2013, 03:48 PM
Look at everything science has given us: Medicine, agriculture, electricity, transportation, etc. Without science, we would live much shorter lives, everyone would struggle to get enough food, we wouldn't be able to interact with people not in out immediate area, etc. Science has given us so much.

Compare science with religion. Religion can't cure diseases, science can. Religion can't help feed people, science can. As science progresses, quality of life increases. I think it's pretty clear that we need science.

I didn't say that we don't need science. I posted that we starting using science once religion began failing us. We need a better explanation for the unknown, so began thinking more logical on physical things than spiritual things.

The thing is, humans did not to make major scientific revolutions until religion was failing them and they wanted more logical answers. Do you think without those circumstances we would be like we are today? Or better? I honestly don't.

Rayquaza
July 20th, 2013, 03:51 PM
Seeing how you used it, I don't think you do. You said science has theories and not answers. In reality, a theory answers the question of why a phenomenon occurs.
Religion does indirectly stop research. For example, in the US, Bush banned funding for new embryonic stem cell lines. This effectively stopped research in the US until Obama reversed the ban. While he didn't explicitly state the reason, it is obvious that religion played a role. This is only one way that religion hinders science.
Also, religion is a major reason we haven't progressed. Many new discoveries are met with huge opposition by religion. As such, they don't gain acceptance, or their acceptance is delayed.

The laws differ, but the countries that ban their research do so because of religion. If embryonic stem cell research were legal everywhere, we would progress faster.

Also, it is likely that embryonic stem cells will help treat many diseases. While we can't say for certain, the probability is very high.

If you voice your opinion, you should be prepared to defend it.

I think a lack of religion would be better in every country. In more religious countries, the change would be more significant, but it would still be beneficial in less religious countries.

All religions are different, and many don't hinder science. However, they all promote illogical, unscientific thinking, and for that reason, they have a negative impact.

I have defended my opinion, and the fact that your putting across your opinion to be a fact is rather asinine in this debate. What you're saying is what you think will happen, there's the possibility none of it will. My opinion will remain unchanged and you should respect that. Furthermore Bush's banning of the funding doesn't mean it was for religion. As you said, the reason wasn't explicitly stated. Your argument on law is off topic to the thread. You're showing yourself to be quite the arrogant atheist when you're attacking different religions when they have not affected you.

Gigablue
July 20th, 2013, 07:11 PM
I didn't say that we don't need science. I posted that we starting using science once religion began failing us. We need a better explanation for the unknown, so began thinking more logical on physical things than spiritual things.

I didn't mean to imply that you said we didn't need science. The way I interpreted your question I thought it was asking if we would be better with or without science. If that's not what you meant, I apologize.

What you're saying is what you think will happen, there's the possibility none of it will.

The whole thread is based on speculation, since we will never have a world without religion. Everyone in the thread is only saying what they think will happen.

My opinion will remain unchanged and you should respect that.

That is the very definition of closed minded, refusing to change your opinion in light of evidence. If you can give me facts which prove that religion does more good than harm, I will change my opinion. My opinion is always open to change given the latest evidence.

Furthermore Bush's banning of the funding doesn't mean it was for religion. As you said, the reason wasn't explicitly stated. Your argument on law is off topic to the thread.

The only reason people oppose stem cell research is religion.

Also, it is a relevant point. I was giving a specific example of how religion hinders science.

You're showing yourself to be quite the arrogant atheist when you're attacking different religions when they have not affected you.

My main issue with religion and the main reason I think society would be better without it is that it promotes unscientific thinking. The harm done by it is a minor point. Every religion promotes unscientific thinking. The fact that I have not personally been affected by every religion is irrelevant.

Sugaree
July 20th, 2013, 07:20 PM
Every religion promotes unscientific thinking.

I like how some of you atheists act like complete know-it-all's when it comes to religion. Please, tell me further about how every religion promotes unscientific thinking. Because, as far as I'm aware, there are some religions such as Buddhism which have come to accept science.

Gigablue
July 20th, 2013, 07:31 PM
I like how some of you atheists act like complete know-it-all's when it comes to religion. Please, tell me further about how every religion promotes unscientific thinking. Because, as far as I'm aware, there are some religions such as Buddhism which have come to accept science.

I'll admit I don't know much about Buddhism. Does it have any sort of supernatural? Is there anything in Buddhism that requires some sort of faith? If yes, then my statement stands. If no, then I suppose, to the best of my knowledge, every other religion promotes unscientific thinking.

Sugaree
July 20th, 2013, 07:33 PM
I'll admit I don't know much about Buddhism. Does it have any sort of supernatural? Is there anything in Buddhism that requires some sort of faith? If yes, then my statement stands. If no, then I suppose, to the best of my knowledge, every other religion promotes unscientific thinking.

Buddhism only requires faith in one's self, not in the supernatural or what can not be seen. So you see, you can make a blanket statement that EVERY religion promotes an unscientific thought process. Though, I must admit, you are right to some degree.

Rayquaza
July 20th, 2013, 07:38 PM
I'll admit I don't know much about Buddhism. Does it have any sort of supernatural? Is there anything in Buddhism that requires some sort of faith? If yes, then my statement stands. If no, then I suppose, to the best of my knowledge, every other religion promotes unscientific thinking.

Oh, but you know so much about Hinduism which is why you've tried to counter-attack all my points? Tell me more about this. Considering Buddhism and Hinduism follow quite a similar set of beliefs, I don't really think you understood that point I was getting across.

As a Hindu, we believe in inner peace. Surely if everyone had inner peace the world would be a better place? Refer to my first post.

Walter Powers
July 20th, 2013, 08:45 PM
I take some offence at that. You seem to be implying that religion has monopolized love and hope. You can still have both without religion. Religion does provide good, but secular organizations could provide the same good if there were no religion.



I disagree. The issues with discrimination, which are caused mainly by the zealots, are only part of the problem. The larger problem I have with religion is that it promotes unscientific thinking. It teaches that blind faith is a valid way to know things. The lack of critical thinking caused by religion is a huge problem.



Religion is a terrible moral guide. It teaches that following a set of rules is the way to be moral. In reality, morality is complex.

Furthermore, many of the moral principles taught by religion are self evident. Religion is not needed to figure out that, for example, killing people is bad. A rational person can figure out that murder hurts all of society, and therefore is a bad thing. You don't need religion.

Can you give an example of a moral principle provided by religion that is not obvious for a secular reason as well?

I'm not sure what a secular reason would be. Religion is the reason murder is illegal and stealing is against the law. Could you name a successful secular society?

Gigablue
July 20th, 2013, 09:14 PM
I'm not sure what a secular reason would be. Religion is the reason murder is illegal and stealing is against the law. Could you name a successful secular society?

Murder is illegal because if it were legal society would collapse. The same can be said about many other crimes. We don't need religion to know that things like murder is bad. Also, most developed countries have secularly derived laws. Basically, the majority of developed countries have secular governments. Their laws aren't based on religion, and yet they are highly successful.

LouBerry
July 21st, 2013, 12:25 AM
I take some offence at that. You seem to be implying that religion has monopolized love and hope. You can still have both without religion. Religion does provide good, but secular organizations could provide the same good if there were no religion.

I have no idea how you got that from my statement. I know you can be a kick-ass person with being religious. But, if all religious people were the kind that were nice to people, and just legitimately tried to make the world a better place, I think it'd be great.

Human
July 21st, 2013, 03:22 PM
Oh, but you know so much about Hinduism which is why you've tried to counter-attack all my points? Tell me more about this. Considering Buddhism and Hinduism follow quite a similar set of beliefs, I don't really think you understood that point I was getting across.

As a Hindu, we believe in inner peace. Surely if everyone had inner peace the world would be a better place? Refer to my first post.

People can have inner peace without believing in Ganesha. I have inner peace as far as I know, by leading a fulfilling life.

Rayquaza
July 21st, 2013, 03:26 PM
People can have inner peace without believing in Ganesha. I have inner peace as far as I know, by leading a fulfilling life.

I didn't say that people cannot have inner peace without religion, I said that as a hindu who does believe in inner peace, if everyone believed in inner peace, then the world would be a better place. You got the complete wrong end of the stick. And that's quite an assumption you're making considering;

a) Hindus are polytheists or
b) The main god is actual Brahma.

Ganesha is irrelevant.

Zarakly
July 21st, 2013, 03:49 PM
I think a world without religion would be fundamentally better than one with it. Religion is a major cause of discrimination. While there is definitely discrimination for other reasons, a lack of religion would fight against discrimination.

Religion is a major obstacle to science. It is the main reason the general public doesn't accept iron clad scientific theories like the Big Bang or natural selection. A better understanding of science by the public is better for everyone. Furthermore, it hinders progress on the cutting edge of science. The supposed ethical issues about stem cell research, for example, are only issues in the context of religion, without it, the controversy disappears and science moves forward.

Religion is also very good at taking away rights. Without religion, same sex marriage would be a non issue. The same can be said for abortion. In both these cases, people have had their rights violated without a valid reason.

Religion does a terrible job of teaching morals. Most religions have morality as a set of rules. In reality, moral decisions are complex and nuanced. A simple set of rules cannot adequately inform these decisions.

I think religion does some good. It provides a social network for people. Furthermore many religious organizations contribute significantly to charity. However, secular organizations can take over these functions without invoking the supernatural aspect.

In general, the benefits of religion are outweighed by the harm. Religion significantly hinders the progress of modern society.


As much as I like to say I'm a Christian and I have fought over this very topic with GigaBlue before, I have to admit, religion does hinder science and its research. Me I like to believe in both, but there are times when I believe in one more than the other. But one thing I want to add, is it really religion that is stopping stem cell research? I thought people just didn't want it because they thought of it to be like inhumane and not natural? Maybe I don't understand that part.

Moondust
July 21st, 2013, 03:50 PM
With. But with a few changes. We'd have to STOP all the stupid fighting over it. Cause when it comes down to it, it's purely the choice of the person whether to believe in a certain faith or not. Religion doesn't make me hate gay people or be serious and offended by everything. Everybody is different and it's a shame to see that so many churches of Christianity have evolved to hate gay people as much as they have.

Zarakly
July 21st, 2013, 03:53 PM
With. But with a few changes. We'd have to STOP all the stupid fighting over it. Cause when it comes down to it, it's purely the choice of the person whether to believe in a certain faith or not. Religion doesn't make me hate gay people or be serious and offended by everything. Everybody is different and it's a shame to see that so many churches of Christianity have evolved to hate gay people as much as they have.

I don't understand this either. If the Bible teaches you to treat others how you want to be treated and to love eachother then why do other Christians make a huge deal about gay people. But I guess the same could be said about wars and such of whose religion is better. Doesn't make sense to me.

britishboy
July 21st, 2013, 03:57 PM
I don't understand this either. If the Bible teaches you to treat others how you want to be treated and to love eachother then why do other Christians make a huge deal about gay people. But I guess the same could be said about wars and such of whose religion is better. Doesn't make sense to me.

some Christians are gay some HATE gays so the followers of the religion do have different beliefs