A World Without A Religion?

[killerbichon 0]

One would not truly believe in everything in the Bible, if they really believe in the Theory of Evolution. There's a good chance that they'd fully reject the Bible if they believed in the Theory of Evolution.

The bible is not a scientific manual and doesn't try to be one. Not only this, the "Theory of Evolution" talks only about differences that may arise within a species, not how a fish might become a man.

 

You can believe in the bible and dinosaurs in organized religion. Robin Williams says so:

 

The comedian Robin Williams, who is an Episcopalian, gave these top ten reasons for being an Episcopalian on a recent HBO special:

 

10. No snake handling.

 

9. You can believe in dinosaurs.

 

8. Male and female, God created them; male and female, we ordain them.

 

7. You don't have to check your brains at the door.

 

6. Pew aerobics.

 

5. Church year is color coded!

 

4. Free wine on Sunday.

 

3. All of the pageantry, none of the guilt.

 

2. You don't have to know how to swim to get baptized.

 

And the number one reason for being an Episcopalian:

 

1. No matter what you believe, there's bound to be at least one other Episcopalian who agrees with you.

Notice from truefusion:

You must place copied material within the QUOTE bbcode

[Thorned Rose 0]

killerbichon, you bring up some very good and intelligent arguements although I have to say I disagree.Human beings like most other mammals instinctively require hierachy. You will see this is very small groups as well as large populations. The size of the group really doesn't matter. Religion has nothing to do with instinctive hierachy behaviour. It's just another way humans have found to force their own hierachy on others.As for having more time, hunter gathers still had more time then at any other point in human history and they weren't 'religious'. They had beliefs, yes, that were passed down but these beliefs were formed in lieu of science. They didn't understand how things work so without any way to measure or experiment they formed their own ideas and beliefs which made logical sense at the time.Another reason for religion's existence - to explain things that aren't yet understood. This is part of the reason why religion is on the decline and why intelligence = less likelyhood of being religious. People who have knowledge don't need religion to explain things because science has given them the answers. That's not saying science knows everything, just that many of the things religion once claimed has been explained away by science making it obsolete. (Take the whole bats are birds thing, or men have one less rib than women)As for science not having a moral framework, I believe given anough time it will. Unfortunately it's at a place where it knows enough to do a lot of things but not enough to do it safely. Take your example about people with mental disabilities. My brother has Downs Syndrome. Science currently will tell you that his body is defective and does not work correctly. That's all it says. It's only humans putting their own ideas on this that can make science immoral. i.e. it is people who say that because he is defective his life isn't worth living. With time science could prove that he is happy and fuctional and just as deserving of life as anyone else. It could also one day find a way to reverse genetic abnormalities such as Downs making it a moot point.And I have to agree with many of the points BooZker made especially that religion gives people something to descriminate against. Yes, people are inherently descrimatory (another biological function to ensure survival of the fittest) unfortunately some people take it too far and do descriminate against those of differing beliefs. And no offence intended to Christians but out of all the religions I have been around, they have been the worst for descrimination. Out of all the people I have been with only the Christians have outright told me I was sinful and evil and to revoke my ways.killerbichon, I have to say I resent the reference to porn. People are less likely to be religious if they are educated and are more intelligent so I don't see how porn has anything to do with making people less religious. I've known plenty of 'religious' people who still looked up porn if what you mean is that people who like porn don't go religious because then they wouldn't be able to.Whew, that's long. Though I would imagine because of that a lot people won't read what I've said, lol

Edited September 8, 2006 by Thorned Rose (see edit history)

[killerbichon 0]

killerbichon, I have to say I resent the reference to porn. People are less likely to be religious if they are educated and are more intelligent so I don't see how porn has anything to do with making people less religious. I've known plenty of 'religious' people who still looked up porn if what you mean is that people who like porn don't go religious because then they wouldn't be able to.

If science begins to lay down a moral framework, it ceases to be science and starts to become religion. Stem Cell research is a good example of where these two world views collide. Jesus didn't say anything to either allow stem cell research or prohibit it. He didn't say anything about landing on the moon or not landing on the moon either.

I was pointing out that religion has much more competition today than it did in even our parents generation (even if you are very young, as it appears most of the people on this forum are). It is safe to say that watching porn and receiving communion are mutually exclusive activities. Last year the pornograpy industry did over $10 billion dollars in the US alone. To put that in perspective, total revenue's for non-porn movies were only $3.7 billion. The "Religious Industry" doesn't have to report its earnings per se, but it is in decline in terms of overall giving in most denominations. As religion's income is likely measured in the trillions per year, they certainly have a long way to fall.

I didn't make any subjective or judgmental remarks about individuals who go to church and also happen to watch porn. Live and let live as far as I am concerned.

[Thorned Rose 0]

I think that definition of science is a very narrow and limited one. The universe is it what it is. Things work the way they do. Humans have morals for reasons.... Science is what it is. It explains how and why things are the way they are. If it explained morals it wouldn't *become* a religion, it would explain what morals are and why humans have (or don't have) them. Science doesn't change how things it work, it just defines and explains them thus it cannot 'create' morals just show the ones that are already there.For the record, I'm against fetal stem cell research. I think however that when science shows that these 'fetuses' have souls, the people behind the research will have a moral obligation to stop and look at adult stem cell research instead. Whether they choose to do the right or wrong thing has nothing to do with science or religion. Already science is starting to show more and more that things like abortion is wrong. It's unfortunate that people choose to be immoral and ignore the facts.I don't think pornography is in direct competition with religion and I don't think that it has any great impact upon religion. Yes people who aren't religious are more likely to be looking at porn but I think they are non-religious for reasons other than they want to look at porn. Porn is immoral full stop, religious or no. You don't need religion to know that. The fact that it exploits women is unquestionable and science can easily show this.

[killerbichon 0]

I think that definition of science is a very narrow and limited one.

Science is a fairly narrow discipline. It is essentially a framework for answering factual questions. From dictionary.com:

A branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws.

The universe is it what it is. Things work the way they do. Humans have morals for reasons.... Science is what it is. It explains how and why things are the way they are. If it explained morals it wouldn't *become* a religion, it would explain what morals are and why humans have (or don't have) them. Science doesn't change how things it work, it just defines and explains them thus it cannot 'create' morals just show the ones that are already there.

Unless they can establish some biochemical or genetic mechanism for things like morality I doubt that science will even be able to frame useful questions about it. Science is good at asking questions about factual things and has a rigorous framework for determining whether the answers are true. It is bad at establishing absolutes like "Good' or "Bad" or "Right" or "Wrong" because all assertions in science can be proven false (indeed HAVE to be proven false for progress to exist).
As soon as science says "This is absolutely and unequivocally true" and then fails to entertain the idea that it might be wrong, it has crossed over into the domain of Religion (or at least philosophy). At the very least, it has ceased to be science.

For the record, I'm against fetal stem cell research. I think however that when science shows that these 'fetuses' have souls, the people behind the research will have a moral obligation to stop and look at adult stem cell research instead. Whether they choose to do the right or wrong thing has nothing to do with science or religion. Already science is starting to show more and more that things like abortion is wrong. It's unfortunate that people choose to be immoral and ignore the facts.

I should point out that Stem cells are not in fact fetuses. They are merely cells which have been not been pre-imprinted to become a particular kind of cell. It is true that these cells can come from blastocysts as a source, but they can come from cord blood, placentas, and even adult bone marrow. If you spill a petri dish of stem cells you are no more guilty of murder than if you wipe up a drop of blood with a paper towel.

[SGCHS 0]

It is bad at establishing absolutes like "Good' or "Bad" or "Right" or "Wrong" because all assertions in science can be proven false (indeed HAVE to be proven false for progress to exist).
As soon as science says "This is absolutely and unequivocally true" and then fails to entertain the idea that it might be wrong, it has crossed over into the domain of Religion (or at least philosophy). At the very least, it has ceased to be science.

We have pseudo religions using "absolute science" to prove that global warming is a fact, that man can destroy the earth, that man evolved from an one cell organism in the ocean.

I guess you could say I'm a blend of religion and science to the point that I don't believe every interpretation of the scripture and the more I learn scientifically the more I believe in a Creator.

I can agree that many things we are able to accomplish today would be seen as divine or magic many many years ago, but that does not mean there is never any divine intervention.

Either way....don't worry, be happy!

[tdktank59 0]

Religions cause most of the wars in the world other wars are also caused by things we need but its mostly because we dont like the poeple and that sort of stuffScience is not a religion in science you DONT have to belive in anything you just accept it. Scientists dont go door to door "converting" people. In order to advance in society (technologicaly) we have to have science so in turn science cant really be considered a religion because it does prove stuff but science cant prove that god dosnt exist (or gods) due to the fact that we came from somewhere (big bang THEORY) and so on... However science has proved that the earth is not the center of the universe. there is this invisible force called gravity, and a few other things...ALso by we i mean science sorry for saying we alot... but im into science and meh... but yeah...Science is all around us and it exists, while religion you have to have fate in something that cant be proved is there so yeahtheres my 2 cents...

[BooZker 0]

I was pointing out that religion has much more competition today than it did in even our parents generation (even if you are very young, as it appears most of the people on this forum are). It is safe to say that watching porn and receiving communion are mutually exclusive activities. Last year the pornograpy industry did over $10 billion dollars in the US alone. To put that in perspective, total revenue's for non-porn movies were only $3.7 billion. The "Religious Industry" doesn't have to report its earnings per se, but it is in decline in terms of overall giving in most denominations. As religion's income is likely measured in the trillions per year, they certainly have a long way to fall.

I don't understand how you come up with more porn less god? Think about how this sounds? Obviously people like porn because it "gets them off" and it's entertaining. Religion and God is not supposed to "get you off" or even be entertaining, forgive me if i am wrong. I think to have a correlation you need to have two subjects that have the same outcome, result, ect. For example, "Dogs and cats? What's the better pet?" In this example i show two variables that are used for the same thing. Dogs and cats are normal house pets. The most common in America, i believe. They are also animals, they are used as a sort of friend, i could go on and on about how they are alike, but this would really just make this post to long and boring. In conclusion on this topic, porn and religion are two completely seperate things. You can not compare the two just as you would not compare if black is the same color as white.

--

Yes people who aren't religious are more likely to be looking at porn but I think they are non-religious for reasons other than they want to look at porn.

I totally understand what you are saying, but read what i have to say.

In response i just want to say that i do not believe this. This is no way scientific and i have no proof, but hear me out. My father has been a fireman sence before i was born... almost 20 years i believe. He has had a few co-workers who were very religious. They always ended up with something bad happening. I will state one example, and please do not warn me because I am trying to state this in a mature manner so that i can argue my point.

My dad's co-worker, who is very religious, was caught by the cops while masturbating in his car at 3 am. He was caught AGAIN doing this, but instead of the cops getting there, who would arrest him for his 2nd offense, the other fireman came to the scene where he was drunk and naked in his car.

This is only ONE of about 10-15 stories of very religious people doing this that are clearly against the rules of their beliefs and even against the law. My dad and his friends came to a conclusion of these stories. Yes, this is not scientific at all, but here it is. (I think this is a pretty good quote i thought up. Mostly the first sentence haha)

When one has so many restraints and rules to follow that he can not keep up with he goes mad. Think about it. This is the same for teen girls and boys. The difference is that these are grown men a women who try to keep themselves so perfect and they never will be that perfect. They are so pent up they just need to break free. They break free in the worst ways however.

--

One would not truly believe in everything in the Bible, if they really believe in the Theory of Evolution. There's a good chance that they'd fully reject the Bible if they believed in the Theory of Evolution.

Good chance, maybe, but i know many people who believe in evolution and the Bible. Look at the entire Catholic Church. Even the Pope! They believe this.

There will always be a greater amount of people who don't follow theistic religions. Even the Bible tells you this. But how many people was this study based on, and on what society?

This was based on MANY and based in the USA. I looked up the article in google, but i can not find it. It just comes up with lots of Atheist articles. This was the front page of Newsweek, so i am sure it had many. Also i mean it's newsweek. It's not that reliable haha

And finally

As for people becoming less religious, studies have shown that the more intelligent a person is, the less likely they are to be religious. (here is a list of studies going back to the 1920's http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-thinkingchristians.htm ). As societies go, religion has lots of competition in western style civilizations (Internet, TV, Porn). I said that the more free time a person has, the more a person tends towards introspective thought. Religion is introspective thought, but I didn't say that more free time == Religion.

haha so we were debating something that we both believed? Thanks for clearing that up.

MAN, this is one of m longest posts ever by me. Too bad i have so many credits it wont count as probably more then 3! And over 70 votes and almost 2,000 views! That's more then i think the Trap 17 Readme Thanks for keeping this topic alive because this is a topic that i can write a lot as shown above haha Keep posting. I hear great new ideas and arguments everytime i go back here. It's awesome!
Edited September 9, 2006 by BooZker (see edit history)

[Rhode 0]

A world without religion? Sign me up!The problem with religion is that everybody thinks theirs is the only right one. You're not ____? Screw you, devil!That's not being nice, you know. Don't religions teach compasion?

[Brian Gillingham 0]

I agree that a world with no religion would be better than one where allowances are given to religion. The greatest tragedy of religion is the clash caused when two strong "beliefs" meet (think about islamic and christian beliefs - and how they have clashed in the middle-east for well over 1000 years). Imagine a world without the wasted time dedicated to religion - we'd be much more advanced if we didn't waste any time praying. The waste also extends to the actions of the billions of misdirected minds over the history of humans, for example: building a temple. These actions do nothing realistically and measurably constructive.

 

Now, I acknowledge the only beneficial part of religious practice that I know - it makes people feel less stress when they imagine that there is a superior force in charge. They feel less overwhelmed.

 

I like reality. I don't mind feeling a bit overwhelmed by it all - it is a friggin' big universe. There is more proof for intelligent life outside our planet than there is proof of god.

[BooZker 0]

I just wanted to post a personal opinion on this topic, but not on the subject.Why did the admin or mods move it to the Life Talk Debates section? You do not get credits for this if i am correct. I wish you would not have moved it because i collected a great amount of credits from this topic. It was in the My Ideas, Theories, Possiblities, Innovation since May until September (3 months). I guess it doesn't matter. I just liked it when i got credits for posting!

[richierich1m 0]

I think religions did made worse through wars ,but the same religion taught us values of humanity,there are various religions like hindu,christian,muslim but we all forget the basic of these all religion which is humanity ,i haven't found a religion which doesn't teaches humanity,but it is the selfish people who change the religion rules from time to time for their own benifits.i also think that religion and god have become different nowadays ,people have gone so much into religion that they have forgot its basic,people have tendency of revenge,if someone kills 5 kill 10 this is a false religion ,the religion is diverted from the orignal one,

i heard a good story about buddha who persisted on non-voilence,buddha used to bathe daily in a river before performing his worship and according to him he has to be completely clean and pure to perform that tradition,once a guy thought of checking buddha's determination on his teaching,when buddha came after bathing the guy spit on buddha, buddha calmly went to the river and bathe again,the guy spat again and again buddha went to bath ,the same thing kept repeating again and again .even after so many attempts buddha was the same calm and at peace,the guy actually bowed before buddha and fall on his legs to apologize ,and became a disciple of buddha

the reason for telling this story was not to promote buddhism (i am myself not buddhist)

i told this story because we are lacking this stuff called non-voilence,if someone does anything bad to you we fight and then he fights,the fight just keeps on going and becomes a war,the victor and the victim both are losers in the war ,any religion that teaches revenge is wrong ,any religion that promise on giving material possesion if you convert to their religion is a false,the content of the religion should be such to attract all

i believe in a religion of humanity where a person is more important than religion, all people are equal,

there is not one pope or one saint but everyone is pope in their own way,complete freedom to all ,subject to their freedom doesn't create problem for other,s.follow any god you want but stay positive about life

religions is the most controversial subject everyone wants their own rules ,but every normal person wants humanity .

and what i feel is that the biggest failure in a religion is when it provacates voilence ,but most of the time it isn't in religion but in people

religion has to be like you follow or you don't follow is your choice thgere shouldn't be a force working,if a religion tries to control peoples life its going to fall sooner or later.

well this are my views about religion the basic theme is

"live and let live"

Edited September 25, 2006 by richierich1m (see edit history)

[franz see 0]

I don't think there would be less war. Religion is not actually the cause of all those wars. It was merely an excuse to most of them ...for god & country? or is it for wealth & power? hehehe ..will the world be a better place? i doubt it religion ain't bad it's just human nature to blame things on that which cannot decide for something to be good or bad, that something must first be able to choose so what can make things better? - us ! we decide, not religion sure, you may go sociology me and stuff, and we can debate on this all year long, but nonetheless, if you want to make a change, your mindset must be "im in control" and not "______ is in control" (ok, the next argument would probably something like what is good or bad anyway without religion..thus, it would be dictated by society and so on and so forth...but again, if you want to make a change, your mindset must be "im in control" )

[BooZker 0]

Religion is not actually the cause of all those wars. It was merely an excuse to most of them ...for god & country? or is it for wealth & power? hehehe

uhh i dont think so. Do you now how many wars there are that are not even fought with military? The war like America is in is for money and power (even though George Bush says god speaks to him). They are started for something. They are usualy fought over Religion, Land (not really anymore), Money, or Power. How many wars where they were fighting for power or money and they went to a country of the same religion? Something to think about.

P.S. You use a lot of smileys. Just 15 more views and this topic hits 2,000!

[truefusion 3]

I just wanted to post a personal opinion on this topic, but not on the subject.

 

Why did the admin or mods move it to the Life Talk Debates section? You do not get credits for this if i am correct. I wish you would not have moved it because i collected a great amount of credits from this topic. It was in the My Ideas, Theories, Possiblities, Innovation since May until September (3 months). I guess it doesn't matter. I just liked it when i got credits for posting!

 

You're kidding, right? This topic was never a "theory" or an "innovation". It was a debate from the start, since it's a question. If it was where it used to be, you would not have asked if it were possible, but rather you, personally, would have provided a way of how it could be. BuffaloHELP explained many times the difference between a debate topic and a theory/innovation/etc topic.

 

[hr=noshade]

uhh i dont think so. Do you now how many wars there are that are not even fought with military? The war like America is in is for money and power (even though George Bush says god speaks to him). They are started for something. They are usualy fought over Religion, Land (not really anymore), Money, or Power. How many wars where they were fighting for power or money and they went to a country of the same religion? Something to think about.

You know, stating that thing about Bush is actually agreeing with the quote from Franz see. You know it's for money and power--not a religious reason. Then you say, Bush said such-and-such, which makes it an excuse. Thus, it is not religion's fault, but the people within it.

 

But you know, Wikipedia has a list of wars. If you want, you can go through all of them, and tell us how many wars are recorded, and compare that to the number of wars that have been started by religious groups. Then you can state whether or not most (more than half) wars were started by religious groups.

[/hr]