• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Would the world would be better off without religion?

Do you believe the world be better off without religion?


  • Total voters
    44
The world might be better if people actually followed their religions like they should...
 
The world might be better if people actually followed their religions like they should...

Or, if people just thought rationally, there would be no reason for anyone to follow any religion in the first place.
 
Or, if people just thought rationally, there would be no reason for anyone to follow any religion in the first place.

:lol: So what, exactly, is rational about purporting life came into being by a series of improbable coincidences?
 
Do you believe the world would be better off without religion?

I would have to guess “no difference”. Religious groups undeniably do a lot of good in the world, but there are also many wars centered on religious differences. Without religion, I believe there would still be the good deeds - those people who do such deeds do so because it is in their nature and a church (for example) is just their means, but other means would be used instead (i.e. nonprofits). I also believe mankind would still find something to go to war over (and so religion is just an excuse to fight over something - basically that war is in our nature too)… and so I don’t think there would be much of a difference. Our actions are not in spite of or because of religion. Religion is just a means to multiple ends that all derive from human nature.

I think what generates love, hope, prosperity and goodness throughout the world is the closeness of community. Unfortunately, most human groups need a reason to feel connected to each other, and I can't think of a single reason (besides the simple close proximity of location) that doesn't come attached with some sort of us v. them mentality. Communities congregate based on religious views, political views, ethnic ties, and/or racial ties. Unless we can simply promote the proximity of location as a sole means to get people together to mingle and share feelings and to form a strong cohesive bond, we'll never be able to rid this country, or the world, of so much anger and war.

thoughts?[/QUOTE]
 
I think it's a little of both. Its too much stress and tension to think that the world is not being guided towards a certain path by a superior being, so I prefer to believe that God just made things this way for something we don't understand yet. So...God made it so this is just the way it is, IMO.
Oh, me too. I just don't like the idea of people who don't believe in god getting down about themselves feeling unimportant. If they can't turn to god is there anything that could make them more content? Either way, creation or evolution, we are clearly living miracles.
 
:lol: So what, exactly, is rational about purporting life came into being by a series of improbable coincidences?

It's supported by every shred of evidence that we have, unlike the existence of imaginary friends in the sky.
 
It's supported by every shred of evidence that we have, unlike the existence of imaginary friends in the sky.

Has anybody ever figured out the odds of life today? With all the death and diseases and wars and famine and disasters, what are the odds of a life surviving every single one of them? More than winning the lottery every day for ten years? Something like that. It would be a big project but we could come up with a very good estimate of the odds.

You understand what I'm saying? I have a dad and he had a dad and he had a dad and...........green slime. The chain has never been broken for anyone alive for tens of millions of years. Is there a part of evolutionism that admits "That's just a miracle!" Is there any other word that could be used?
 
Nah, here's a few cool things religion has given us:
St-Basils-Cathedral.jpg

Holy Crap, Religion gave us Tetris?!
 
Has anybody ever figured out the odds of life today? With all the death and diseases and wars and famine and disasters, what are the odds of a life surviving every single one of them? More than winning the lottery every day for ten years? Something like that. It would be a big project but we could come up with a very good estimate of the odds.

You understand what I'm saying? I have a dad and he had a dad and he had a dad and...........green slime. The chain has never been broken for anyone alive for tens of millions of years. Is there a part of evolutionism that admits "That's just a miracle!" Is there any other word that could be used?

No, because for every you that exists right now, there are many many more that didn't. The odds of you being here may be one in a trillion, and each of those alternatives are one in a trillion, and there are a trillion attempts... Someone will make it. Life is actually a statistical imperative. It takes a staggering number of coincidences for life to not only exist on a planet, but for it to exist like this... The odds are tiny. But in this vast universe, there are many many many many many possible planets. Many of them have some of the qualifications met. Some have others. Statistically, one of them (or more), is likely to have them all. And maybe it's not quite an imperative. Maybe the size of the universe only belies a one in three chance for life. That's suddenly less a miracle and more just a good roll in Yachzee.

To reply to the main question. Religion is largely obsolete, I feel. When these faiths were created, they were a way for dealing with the world. To answer unanswered questions. In some cases, we have better answers. In others, where the theories have stood the test of time, they were good ideas by their own merits.
 
No, because for every you that exists right now, there are many many more that didn't. The odds of you being here may be one in a trillion, and each of those alternatives are one in a trillion, and there are a trillion attempts... Someone will make it. Life is actually a statistical imperative. It takes a staggering number of coincidences for life to not only exist on a planet, but for it to exist like this... The odds are tiny. But in this vast universe, there are many many many many many possible planets. Many of them have some of the qualifications met. Some have others. Statistically, one of them (or more), is likely to have them all. And maybe it's not quite an imperative. Maybe the size of the universe only belies a one in three chance for life. That's suddenly less a miracle and more just a good roll in Yachzee.

To reply to the main question. Religion is largely obsolete, I feel. When these faiths were created, they were a way for dealing with the world. To answer unanswered questions. In some cases, we have better answers. In others, where the theories have stood the test of time, they were good ideas by their own merits.

Thank you! It's certainly an honor to receive your good reply and I thank you for your time and assistance. I'll have to ponder for a bit about this. I'm a little overwhelmed by you intelligence but it will come to me in short time.

Just letting you know I have received and am grateful for your reply.
 
I say no. For every evil act committed in the name of religion, there are probably ten positive acts committed in the name of religion.

The Salvation Army is a perfect example. They have touched the lives of hundreds of millions of people, in a positive way, for decades and they're not the only religious group to do so.
 
I say no. For every evil act committed in the name of religion, there are probably ten positive acts committed in the name of religion.

The Salvation Army is a perfect example. They have touched the lives of hundreds of millions of people, in a positive way, for decades and they're not the only religious group to do so.

They also refuse to feed people who don't profess religious beliefs and you have to pray with them to get a bed for the night. They're a really poor example of a positive religious influence.
 
There needs to be a profile thingy that indicates a member is smart.
 
No. The world would be better off it those who practice a religion would keep it in their private sphere, would cease all proselityzing and would respect the beliefs of other faiths. And this goes double for the insufferably rabid atheist that make me ashamed to admit my own atheism.
THANK you for this. :) I've seen atheists be just as self righteous and judgmental as any extreme religious fundamentalist.
 
Do you believe the world would be better off without religion?

I would have to guess “no difference”. Religious groups undeniably do a lot of good in the world, but there are also many wars centered on religious differences. Without religion, I believe there would still be the good deeds - those people who do such deeds do so because it is in their nature and a church (for example) is just their means, but other means would be used instead (i.e. nonprofits). I also believe mankind would still find something to go to war over (and so religion is just an excuse to fight over something - basically that war is in our nature too)… and so I don’t think there would be much of a difference. Our actions are not in spite of or because of religion. Religion is just a means to multiple ends that all derive from human nature.

thoughts?

I voted no but would have perfered some other option...like "other".

For somethings yes it would be better. For example we wouldn't have muslim extremeists commiting atrocities because of how they interpret thier religion. Gays would be able to marry, abortion wouldn't be as big of a deal.

But for other things it would be bad to not have it. For example there wouldn't be that peace of mind that religions give to people. That sense of something out there being greater than oneself. The prospect of something Good. It also helps communities come together and promotes helping others more than athiests do. At least imo.

As with anything else it has its pro's and its con's.
 
Then you got the wrong message. It was to demonstraight that religion or not, we would find other things to fight wars over.

You do realize that those atheists factors were religious. The belief in a supreme being is not required for something to be a religion. Enviro-loons for example are religious even though a great number of them are atheists. Enviro-loons have a certain set of beliefs and practices agreed up by a lot of enviro-loons and they agree to those beliefs and practices.



Religion | Define Religion at Dictionary.com

noun
1.
a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2.
a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3.
the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4.
the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5.
the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
6.
something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.
7.
religions, Archaic . religious rites.
 
They also refuse to feed people who don't profess religious beliefs and you have to pray with them to get a bed for the night. They're a really poor example of a positive religious influence.

Bull****, I've done voluntary work with the Salvos, no-one was turned away if they were in need.
 
I rather admire religion even if I have personally only had the vaguest of sensations toward it or subscribe in mere basics. I believe at the very least, humans would have been on the same level, if not worse off without it. I'm not the biggest enthusiast in the belief that the rational mind shall triumph or that is how I shall want to think about the human condition.
 
They also refuse to feed people who don't profess religious beliefs and you have to pray with them to get a bed for the night. They're a really poor example of a positive religious influence.
No. Apdst is exactly right. Another for instance, nobody helps AIDS victims in cities more than the catholic church. Nobody is refusing any of these people if they are gay.

People are going to think that forcing religion on people will ultimatly save them and improve their lot. It's not some sort of evil scheme. Who could turn a hungry child away?
 
Congratulations, you posted an article that not only had nothing to do with the Salvos refusing to 'feed people who don't profess religious beliefs', but also said that the case against them was dismissed. :lol:

Which only proves you didn't read the article, which is hardly a surprise:

In a settlement agreement signed by a federal judge on Feb. 16, 2010, the government defendants adopted auditing procedures or standards of conduct to ensure that The Salvation Army does not force people in need of government-funded services to engage in religious activities, such as worship or religious instruction. The procedures and standards will also ensure that recipients of social services are not discriminated against because of their religious beliefs.

As part of the settlement, the NYCLU will receive regular reports from the government agencies on The Salvation Army’s compliance with the agreement. A federal court will maintain jurisdiction over the agreement for two years to ensure that it is enforced.
 
Which only proves you didn't read the article, which is hardly a surprise:

Where in that sentence does it say they didn't feed 'cause of their religious beliefs? The judge ruled they're not allowed to do that, but I'm yet to see any evidence that it's happened.
 
You do realize that those atheists factors were religious. The belief in a supreme being is not required for something to be a religion. Enviro-loons for example are religious even though a great number of them are atheists. Enviro-loons have a certain set of beliefs and practices agreed up by a lot of enviro-loons and they agree to those beliefs and practices.



Religion | Define Religion at Dictionary.com

noun
1.
a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2.
a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3.
the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4.
the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5.
the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
6.
something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.
7.
religions, Archaic . religious rites.

You are preaching to the wrong person about the what can be a religion thing.

Your comment about the "Go God Go" episode of South Park, has nothing to do with your current comment. You got the wrong message even according to the guys who wrote it, no big deal though.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom