A World Without A Religion?

[WarFact 0]

Personally, I also think the world is better with religion. As most people would say, christians and other religions believe in heaven and hell. They follow the 10 commandments and such. If we didn't have religion, there would be no moral code or moral ethics, to speak of. Nobody would be afraid of 'going to hell' or anything. Sure, there could probably be rules and laws made, but right now, it seems with religion, people are more afraid of doing anything bad because the consequences are too dire to risk.So, yes my opinion is that the world is better with religion; however, we do need to try and do something about the religious wars.

[cangor 0]

Personally, I also think the world is better with religion. As most people would say, christians and other religions believe in heaven and hell. They follow the 10 commandments and such. If we didn't have religion, there would be no moral code or moral ethics, to speak of. Nobody would be afraid of 'going to hell' or anything. Sure, there could probably be rules and laws made, but right now, it seems with religion, people are more afraid of doing anything bad because the consequences are too dire to risk.
So, yes my opinion is that the world is better with religion; however, we do need to try and do something about the religious wars.

But then again, religious wars will never end as long as there is religion... While the world without religion wouldn't have religious violence or discrimination, there would be violence based on the lack thereof.

[kasm 0]

You have to be joking. Seriously. Ever heard of a holocaust

Just in case genocide means:

In this case it was the Jews.

The meaning of marriage? Between a man and women right. In the bible dosnt it say that? They took that law from the teachings in the bible right? And also for the 1,000,000,000,000 its is NATURAL! ANIMALS CAN BE GAY TOO! LOOK IT UP.

Yah well the "rules" are a great thing. Look at the leader of the United States. He sends people to die everyday. Not to mention he allowed the excution of a mentally handicapped man in texas.

So your saying without any religion the world would just calapse because we wouldnt know whats right and wrong. You only need 10% brain to figure out that hurting people is bad. A 3 year old knows that. And stealing DUH, chating on your wife, DUH. These are simple ways of life. You dont need a damn book to tell you this or form a society. You need common sence.

 

1. Has WW2 statred because Hitler want to do the holocaust?. This misplaces "cause" with "effect". Be logic. It is funny to put this as reasons for the war. Study the history. Read books and gain knowledge.

 

2. In WW2, 20 millions from the Soviet Union [which was Russia and other 15 Republics if you don't know]was killed. It is not only the jews were killed, Frensh, Polish and others were killed. Many countries even which didn't declared the war have suffered . For example Egypt where Athe famous Alemin Battele occured. Until now big area from western desert of Egypt full of mines and I wonder why Egpt don't seek compansation from Germany as Jews did and received. Hitler bomped Alexandria[the second city in Egypt if you need add knowledge].

 

3. You find the Words "marry" , "married" and marriage in the new and old Bible and also the definition by Jesus and Moses.

 

4. We know that hurting people is bad because of the values developed by religions and societies that took them , the schools and ..... What about killing animals? What about Plants?. How animal survives without eating either another animals and plants. Read about how the tribes were killing one another. How the war prisiners were sold. Read about how Geneva Convention and Red Cross were established and why. Read how the nurses sucrafies their lives to help soldirs in wars and after to help African nations against diseases.

 

5. 3 years old knows what the parents show them and not their genes . From the attitudes of the adults, from films, etc

 

6. Then it is naive method to think by using "1,000,000,000,000" to convice that "Animals can be Gay too. It is not by adding 12 zeros or more you prove your idea. It is abuse of mathematics. I need one case only that "Lion" live with "lion" or male dog" hasa sexual relation with male dog". Enough for me one approved example. and not by words as all your reply did for all points.

[Shadowshark 0]

I think the world would be terrable without religion. Religion gives people something to believe in and trust. Some people wrap thir whole life around one belivef. Telling them their wrong would make them fairly mad. Religon also keeps people in line. Think about it Chrishitan beliefs say though shall not kill. If it wasnt in there the law agenst killing may not have never been made sence it was never inforced before chrishtianitythose are just some of my thoughts

[BooZker 0]

1. Has WW2 statred because Hitler want to do the holocaust?. This misplaces "cause" with "effect". Be logic. It is funny to put this as reasons for the war. Study the history. Read books and gain knowledge.

He didnt want to, but he did. He knew he was going to kill people to get the to follow and believe him. Does this make it right then. I guess what your saying is, It's OK to go o war if you don't know its going to kill lots of people.

2. In WW2, 20 millions from the Soviet Union [which was Russia and other 15 Republics if you don't know]was killed. It is not only the jews were killed, Frensh, Polish and others were killed. Many countries even which didn't declared the war have suffered . For example Egypt where Athe famous Alemin Battele occured. Until now big area from western desert of Egypt full of mines and I wonder why Egpt don't seek compansation from Germany as Jews did and received. Hitler bomped Alexandria[the second city in Egypt if you need add knowledge].

Are you arguing that this was NOT a holocaust. Because, yes, i now that. He wanted to get rid off everyone who was not perfect in his eyes. Sorry next time i wont use Jews as an example.

3. You find the Words "marry" , "married" and marriage in the new and old Bible and also the definition by Jesus and Moses.

That's great, but i really do not have the time to be looking up stuff in some book when it is not the law, and i was responding to how you said its scientific why you do not think gay marriage should be legal.

5. 3 years old knows what the parents show them and not their genes . From the attitudes of the adults, from films, etc

True somewhat, but don't ou think they would figure this out when the other kid they are playing with goes "OW OW THAT HURTS. STOP IT!" I think they would figure it out without adults. Although i don't have proof like you always want even when it common sence, but this is what i think and what i think many others would think also.

6. Then it is naive method to think by using "1,000,000,000,000" to convice that "Animals can be Gay too. It is not by adding 12 zeros or more you prove your idea. It is abuse of mathematics. I need one case only that "Lion" live with "lion" or male dog" hasa sexual relation with male dog". Enough for me one approved example. and not by words as all your reply did for all points.

Jease... can't you take a joke. I was using it as an adjective, which is legal in the english lanquage. It's also known as sarcasm. And it is not an abuse of mathematics, because it was a joke like the numbers "69" and "420" if i were to say those numbers you would say the same thing, wouldn't you? And if you want to give me proof i'll prove it like all those people in the gay marriage post, here, and other places. I just don't believe that you want proof... again. How many times do people have to show you this. I you think wikipedia is lying and those scientific documents then that is one thing, but your just always saying "Give me an example" or "Give me proof of that" and it just gets tiring.


P.S. someone has been mesing with the poll because it was like 14 - 6 now its like 14-13. Someone has been deleting cookies of their computer. They should get warned. It just ruins the poll.
Edited June 21, 2006 by BooZker (see edit history)

[truefusion 3]

And also for the 1,000,000,000,000 its is NATURAL! ANIMALS CAN BE GAY TOO! LOOK IT UP.

Animals aren't gay naturally. They aren't really gay period. Just cause you see an animal having sexual intercourse with the same sex, doesn't mean it's gay. Animals have sexual urges. When that kicks in, they'll have sexual intercourse with whatever. Even a mop (yes, a mop, i bore witness to it; it was hilarious, but weird). It's not being gay, it's just a strong desire to have sex.

Yah well the "rules" are a great thing. Look at the leader of the United States. He sends people to die everyday. Not to mention he allowed the excution of a mentally handicapped man in texas.

Try not to blame one person for many. Not everyone takes everything into account.

So your saying without any religion the world would just calapse because we wouldnt know whats right and wrong.

It's possible, even if it doesn't seem like it.

You only need 10% brain to figure out that hurting people is bad. A 3 year old knows that. And stealing DUH, cheating on your wife, DUH. These are simple ways of life. You dont need a damn book to tell you this or form a society. You need common sense.

Common sense is usually learned. If you never told a child stealing is bad, or if the child never knew about stealing, what would happen? Sorry, but most things are learned, yes this includes morality.

but don't ou think they would figure this out when the other kid they are playing with goes "OW OW THAT HURTS. STOP IT!"

Sometimes, the kid inflicting the pain doesn't stop unless forced to. Like for your quote "OW OW", this declares the kid got whacked twice. If it hurt the first time, you'd figure the kid in pain would stop the second "attack," but maybe they weren't expecting a second "attack". And it looks like the kid dealing the damage didn't take the first "OW" into consideration. Since "OW" is in all caps the kid shouted. Maybe it was some bully that over powered a kid. Different story now, huh?

..when it is not the law

It's the law in other places. It may not be in your area, but don't limit things.

P.S. someone has been mesing with the poll because it was like 14 - 6 now its like 14-13. Someone has been deleting cookies of their computer. They should get warned. It just ruins the poll.

I don't believe it's based on cookies. Only one way to find out right? But, if it's not based on cookies, then sweet! Go for the "no"'s! :)P.S. Tested it, it's not based on cookies. No warning needed.
Edited June 21, 2006 by truefusion (see edit history)

[kasm 0]

He didnt want to, but he did. He knew he was going to kill people to get the to follow and believe him. Does this make it right then. I guess what your saying is, It's OK to go o war if you don't know its going to kill lots of people.

Are you arguing that this was NOT a holocaust. Because, yes, i now that. He wanted to get rid off everyone who was not perfect in his eyes. Sorry next time i wont use Jews as an example.

That's great, but i really do not have the time to be looking up stuff in some book when it is not the law, and i was responding to how you said its scientific why you do not think gay marriage should be legal.

True somewhat, but don't ou think they would figure this out when the other kid they are playing with goes "OW OW THAT HURTS. STOP IT!" I think they would figure it out without adults. Although i don't have proof like you always want even when it common sence, but this is what i think and what i think many others would think also.

Jease... can't you take a joke. I was using it as an adjective, which is legal in the english lanquage. It's also known as sarcasm. And it is not an abuse of mathematics, because it was a joke like the numbers "69" and "420" if i were to say those numbers you would say the same thing, wouldn't you? And if you want to give me proof i'll prove it like all those people in the gay marriage post, here, and other places. I just don't believe that you want proof... again. How many times do people have to show you this. I you think wikipedia is lying and those scientific documents then that is one thing, but your just always saying "Give me an example" or "Give me proof of that" and it just gets tiring.

P.S. someone has been mesing with the poll because it was like 14 - 6 now its like 14-13. Someone has been deleting cookies of their computer. They should get warned. It just ruins the poll.

 

1. The debate point is :"has the WW2 was for religious reason?. I said and history support me it didn't. Hitler didn't start the war to kill Jews. It is in result of the war. That why I said you misplaced "cause" and "effect". I also gave examples of 20 million persons from Soviet Republics were killed and Egypt which hasn't declared war was bombed too.

 

2. The threat is not about Holocaust and the results of that war wasn't only the Holocaust but many suffering and disasters. The threat is not about what actions were in that war.

 

3. If you don't have any time to give me one example about homosexuality in the animals of the nature, then don't argue. I gave you some examples that lion has a particular space and doesn't allow another one in his space. BEE queens divide the kingdom to not allow two female in the same place. Instead of saying millions in last reply and now saying it was joke and wrote 5 lines having nothing , give me one exampled with reference by page or issue. That the logical discussion. Saying wikipedia and stop is not the answer. You have to post the url by which I visit , read and investigate. By the way for your knowledge "wikipedia" can be edited (including addition) by any one then it is not the final say. Exactly as you accused some by deleting cookies and affect the poll results. But minimum give it to me. I like to add knowledge.

 

4. I don't comet on the polls because it is statistically wrong (even without cheating) . It don't satisfy the rules of the statistical samples and statistical inference. That why the elections poll are mostly wrong. Morever there are things are not by the poll for example the results of the exams or the outpot of a trial

Edited June 30, 2006 by kasm (see edit history)

[dyknight 0]

The world won't be better without religion.

People need some form of spiritual support. Something to turn to when all else fails. Something to give them hope when they struggle in the hours of darkness and the shackles of despair. The poor pray. The ill pray. The needy pray. It gives these people a sense of hope which would otherwise have been non-existent without religion. It is what makes people hold on till the last minute. Imagine what would have happened if the family members of the victims at the 9/11 attacks didn't have Jeus Christ to turn to. Imagine the despair, the sense of loss. Belief, I say, can be a strong source of strength.

Of course it would be difficult to debunk that fact that many wars in history started because of religion. However, does this necessary mean that a world without religion will be a world without wars? Definitely no. It must also be noted that religion has also played a part in avoiding wars and promoting diplomacy. When interviewed by TIME, Imelda Marcos, wife of former Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos, said the following in response to the question on how she negotiated with Gaddafi to stop Libya's backing for the separatist Moro National Liberation Front in Mindanao:

Gaddafi said to me: Your're a good woman, why don't you become a Muslim? I said I didn't know Islam. He said Islam is kind, so I said, then don't let Mindanao separate from Philippines. He said Islam is generous, so I said, then give us oil at a low friendship price. I ended up with getting eight concessions, including cheap oil.

It can thus be concluded that it is presumptous to dismiss religion as useless in today's world.

[seastien 0]

If I think about a world without a religion, we can see no more religion wars. I think it would be better because a world without religion is a science world so people would have more logical ideas.peace

[dyknight 0]

If I think about a world without a religion, we can see no more religion wars. I think it would be better because a world without religion is a science world so people would have more logical ideas.peace

No offence, but I beg to differ.

A world without religion is a science world. Yes.
A science world so people would have more logical ideas. No.
Religion causes people to have illogical ideas. No.

Logic, I reckon, can only happen when people are in the correct state of mind. When people let the head rule the heart and not the other way round. Does being entirely scientific allow people to have perfectly logical ideas? There will definitely be times where even the scientist loses control of emotions and turns irrational and illogial. Human beings are, after all, not robots, but living and thinking creatures with emotions and impulses.

Moreover, contrary to your point, religion helps people to generate logical ideas. Many a times one may have criminal impulses, but religion causes one to control oneself and step back from the verge of offence. Guilt, resulting from religion, also brings about resent and remorse, allowing rehabilation. Even in a modern world of today, religion is used to counsel ex-offenders and prisoners.

[hedzup 0]

my vote made it even... 50/50 (15 votes each)... anyways.

 

first of all I don't believe in anything. I can't bring myself to believe that all these religions exist, all claiming to be true.

 

you could on one side say yes, the world would be better, no more fighting over holy land, or killing because someone disagrees with your religion. We could concentrate on what we need to do to survive, and worry about our life now, not what it might be in an afterlife we can't be positive exists.

 

However, I voted no, it would not be better. It would be, eventually, perhaps... but the majority of people need something to believe in. They need to know what they are doing is not in vein, or at least, they need to think that. Some people need religion to explain what they can't... how was the earth created? I don't know, let's say some all powerful being did so i don't have to think about it. it gives some people comfort, and others don't need it... others can accept that there are some things they can't understand, maybe they will eventually, maybe they won't, but they won't let it bother them.

 

But religion will always exist, people will always wonder, people will always make theories of how life was created and how it will end (basically, religion). You can't stop people from being curious. You can't stop religion.

 

What would be interesting would be alien contact... it would throw so many super-religion people out of whack and they would be confused, but I, I would be prepared

[BooZker 0]

I don't want to make anyone mad, but i am just supporting someones quote.

 

Logic, I reckon, can only happen when people are in the correct state of mind. When people let the head rule the heart and not the other way round. Does being entirely scientific allow people to have perfectly logical ideas? There will definitely be times where even the scientist loses control of emotions and turns irrational and illogial. Human beings are, after all, not robots, but living and thinking creatures with emotions and impulses.

You replied to the person above who said that religion makes people think in an illogical way. How is it logitcal to believe in any God? Think about that for just a second. I'm not saying it is "bad" at all, but just ask that to yourself. It is a sort of ghost in the sky. There is a King, you could say, of the world. You can never see him during your living life, but after your dead you can, in a place in the sky, if you will. If your bad you go down in the Earth and down there is a evil king who tortures people for being bad during there life on Earth.

 

I am just making a point. To me that sounds like it could be a child's book. Think about if you have never heard of religion before and you read the Bible. That would be odd, wouldnt it? How would you explain that this story is real to an adult? You wouldn't be able to. So my point is religion really isnt logical. It is based on beliefe not logic. Which most people would agree on. Is it not true religion is based on belief?

 

 

1. The debate point is :"has the WW2 was for religious reason?. I said and history support me it didn't. Hitler didn't start the war to kill Jews. It is in result of the war. That why I said you misplaced "cause" and "effect". I also gave examples of 20 million persons from Soviet Republics were killed and Egypt which hasn't declared war was bombed too.

Well he wanted to take over the world. He also, from day one, wanted to make the human race different. He wanted to make them all super humans you could say. To him blacks, jews, mexicans, ect were not the perfect match. If i'm not mistaken it was blonde hair and blue eyes and were followers of him and his religion were the perfect match for him. So now how is this not a war about religion or race? If you said you didn't want to be a Jew anymore and wore a special badge they would not do anything to you (or so they said) because you were no longer a "weak" human. Now you are part of a super race. Not a war about religion or race. I beg to differ. Your are right about everything, but you missed the small point about why the war was started. He wanted to take over the world AND wanted to make a super human race.

 

 

 

3. If you don't have any time to give me one example about homosexuality in the animals of the nature, then don't argue. I gave you some examples that lion has a particular space and doesn't allow another one in his space. BEE queens divide the kingdom to not allow two female in the same place. Instead of saying millions in last reply and now saying it was joke and wrote 5 lines having nothing , give me one exampled with reference by page or issue. That the logical discussion. Saying wikipedia and stop is not the answer. You have to post the url by which I visit , read and investigate. By the way for your knowledge "wikipedia" can be edited (including addition) by any one then it is not the final say. Exactly as you accused some by deleting cookies and affect the poll results. But minimum give it to me. I like to add knowledge.

I do know about wikipedia. And that is why i have found you some scientific books. Here is a link to the best one which is also the first book that coes up in the search below:

 

https://books.google.com/?hl=en&lr=

 

Also if you have the time you could look at all the results in Google Scholar which are found at:

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=homose&oe=UTF-8&hl=en

 

If you don't like those results because some are tested in labs you can go to this search i did for you which is 'homosexual animals in the wild':

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lrals+in+the+wild

[kasm 0]

I don't want to make anyone mad, but i am just supporting someones quote.

You replied to the person above who said that religion makes people think in an illogical way. How is it logitcal to believe in any God? Think about that for just a second. I'm not saying it is "bad" at all, but just ask that to yourself. It is a sort of ghost in the sky. There is a King, you could say, of the world. You can never see him during your living life, but after your dead you can, in a place in the sky, if you will. If your bad you go down in the Earth and down there is a evil king who tortures people for being bad during there life on Earth.

....

 

Well he wanted to take over the world. He also, from day one, wanted to make the human race different. He wanted to make them all super humans you could say. To him blacks, jews, mexicans, ect were not the perfect match. If i'm not mistaken it was blonde hair and blue eyes and were followers of him and his religion were the perfect match for him. So now how is this not a war about religion or race? If you said you didn't want to be a Jew anymore and wore a special badge they would not do anything to you (or so they said) because you were no longer a "weak" human. Now you are part of a super race. Not a war about religion or race. I beg to differ. Your are right about everything, but you missed the small point about why the war was started. He wanted to take over the world AND wanted to make a super human race.

 

I do know about wikipedia. And that is why i have found you some scientific books. Here is a link to the best one which is also the first book that coes up in the search below:

....

1. There is differnce between "believing in God is logicall" and saying " that religion makes people think in an illogical way" . Read both of them more and see the difference. Of course believing in God is a belief. But that not mean a believer take non logical decisions. The oipposite can happen.

 

2. We don't discuss here how bad was Hitler, his acts and his plan, We debate whatever the wars were becauso of relegion and I said as examples among many examples that WW1 WW2 haven't started because of relegion. You recognise that in saying:

"..you missed the small point about why the war was started. He wanted to take over the world AND wanted to make a super human race."

3. Last time you give us wikipedia and when I said give us a specific page and reminded you that this wikipedia can be edited by any one, now you said:

" I do know about wikipedia. And that is why i have found you some scientific books."

Then why you give us unreliable reference in the first place?. Now you give us links which are the promotional advertising to the books.

 

It was better and productive that you give us a selective example and refer to this book and in which page. This is not only for me but to all members. I and they will not go buy this books for something we are not in urgent need even though if it is exist or available now. We have not the time to read a whole book for discussing a claim.

 

4. Give us an example in 5-20 lines saying : "This author in the book " Title of the book" told us that he has observed that animal "X": is living in homosexual relation with same sex. Show us why he think that there are homosexual relation . What the author definition of the homosexuality? Was it dance, song, living in group or real *person* relation. Does this animal live with his same-sex partner and refuses a sexual relationship with the opposite sex.[that what we are debating now. It is guy marriage and not casual sex with the same sex in some circumstances. I don't deny existence of the homosexuality but i say it is not normal and it happen in prisons and camp , sometimes as punishment by the stronger or abusing in investigation. Even some use finger to express the insult against other. It is funny I saw in films some women's used this gesture when they are angry.

 

5. Everyone can publish any book and about any subjects. How many books were published Agassi's Christ. How many books has published on "existence of Shakespeare" . How many books have published on John Kennedy Murder? That it why the new scientific observation, hypothesis or theory has to be review in Scientific Journal or Conference.

 

6. You describe this book as a scientific book, has the book's key points were published in scientific Journal or had discussed in scientific conference. If not then the claim that it is science is False.- The peer review in disputed matter or discovery is crucial. Scientific methods are impersonal. Any other scientist should be able to duplicate other scientist's work. When a person claims to observe something by some which others cannot observe or duplicate, that person is not doing science

 

7. Also falsification is essential to claim that something scientific. For a proposition to be falsifiable, it must be at least in principle possible to make an observation that would show the proposition to be false, even if that observation had not been made. For example, the proposition "All swans are white" would be falsified by observing one non-white swan.

The following is quoted from : " http://www.synapses.co.uk/evolve/lec1b.html

The "falsifiability" seem a strange requirement but it is very important.

For example, I might make up the silly hypothesis that the Earth's core is made of chocolate. You would have a difficult time proving me wrong because you cannot visit the Earth's center in order to get a sample. For hundreds of years I could claim (unscientifically) that the Earth's core was chocolate and no one could prove me wrong.

8. The minimum requirements for scientific material was given in the ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court, 1981. Judge Overton found that science has four essential features:

-It is guided by natural laws, and is explanatory by references to natural laws.

- Science is testable against the empirical world.

- Its conclusions are tentative, not the final word.

- It is falsifiable

9. I will give you a recent example of false publication . In January this year and in this Forum a post by Cerebral Stasis in http://forums.xisto.com/topic/32226-what-is-the-human-tail-graphical-content-the-tails-of-12-million-people/ . claimed that there are 12 million people having tail according to Dr X who was published in http://www.wildness.com/features/science/47083 .

then I replied saying:

1. This is Joke was published on Feb 2002 i.e four years ago.

 

2. Even Darwinisms have been never mentioned it and they still looking for the missing Link !!!!!!

 

3. The article didn't say how they counted the 12 millions. Is this number at the moment or accumulation of the 7000 years of civilization.

 

4. Then why Dr x is " so embarrassed by the two-foot tail that juts out from his own behind.". Who could easily did operation to get rid of them as the operation of circumstance or separation of twins or extra defected part .

 

5. The article mentioned that: "No one wants to come out and admit that tails are as common as they are," says Dr. X." Then from where he find the 12 millions"

 

6. Being with tail or not, what this deal with Christianity?

 

7. How we verify his findings if he hide himself under Dr"X".

......

During the postings in that thread, the initiator, Cerebral Stasis said:

You may be correct concerning that Weekly World News article (their articles have been known to be less-than-accurate), but these "tails", whether they are as common (12 million in the world) as WWN claims or not, they DO exist. The images posted earlier very well could be faked. However, the articles posted at the bottom of my original post are quite credible, and they all agree that this is a real phenomenon. Although it may not be as pronounced as suggested by the (possibly false) articles posted earlier, humans have been born with tails in the past, although it is pretty rare.

 

I appologize for misleading people due to my being fooled by the article/images. It is certainly a very elaborate hoax.

 

*edit inserted here*

By the way, according to this article, there have been only 23 true "tails" reported since 1884. It certainly does sound like a more reasonable number than 12 million...

.

Then I said:

Thanks for correction

That is reasonable now. 23 cases since 1884 and can be considered as other defective [2 heart, 3 eyes, 6 fingers, etc ].

 

The beginning of my doubts was questioning using math for wrong purposes[than 12 millions without specific times]. I am mathematician.

 

Then came the logical question that was why the Darwinists didn't mention any of these 12 millions as evidence for their claims. I am aware of all their others claims. I am as scientist is seeking truth and real proof before hypothesis to be considered a fact.

Then "Cerebral Stasis " posted saying: "

Thanks for setting me straight, Kasm.

 

Don't let the fact that these tails are very rare discourage people from commenting on this odd occurance."

[DjLuki 0]

No, the world would not be a better place without religion. it would only be worse. In my opinion Religion keeps less crimes. because if there was no religion, than people would not know anything about the human life or would have no feelings about killing another. and why is now religion being mixed with religion? they are not one related. a terrorist could be somebody your own relgion killing you, i think you are kind of discriminating when you use terrorists and religion.terrorists are not religious people, not matter what they say. those are jsut some iditos who think that, and we have many of those in this world. and i think that no days, when somebody speaks of terrorists is kind of talking about the alquida, but there could be other groups as well, you never know! I think that religion is here to test us to see if we can live in peace with each other, all the different races, religions and everything else that makes us differents, cultures as well. So far, i really haven't seen it working, so much racism and many religion problems.. We all have a heart, breain and feelings, you just gotta know how to use them. Without religion there woul dbe less laws and sure as heck more crimes, trust me, there are many people who respect their religion and try to follow it and stay away from problems, but there are those who just want to scew things up. my answer is There would be no world without religion!!!

[pixieloo 0]

I think a big problem is that people don't understand other religions, and that's why there are so many problems. There are some people who say they're a certain religion, but they don't follow it, and they think they're doing the right thing, but they're not. For example, I know many Christians that say they're Christian, but they don't act like it. And then, people get the wrong idea that all Christians are like that. And that cuases problems. I think, sometimes, the people following their religion don't understand their own religion, so that causes confusion. I think people should just try to understand and respect their own and other religions.