• 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!

Which religious situation would you prefer?

Which would you prefer?

  • A world with one religion

    Votes: 1 2.6%
  • A world with several religions

    Votes: 21 53.8%
  • A world with no religion

    Votes: 17 43.6%

  • Total voters
    39
Many religions, because there is no reason to get rid of them

As part of continued arrogance of our species, we put the blame on the systems, rather than fault the people that are a part of them. This happens across a broad spectrum of topics, not just religion. The failings of capitalism, marxism, socialism, anarchism, liberals, conservatives, religions, football teams all have to do with the failings of the people that partake in these endeavors. Every system out there would work, if they could count on all people to behave and perform in a certain way. And thats why none of them work perfectly. It is our imperfections that are to blame for societies ills, rather than simply dismissing the problems as being caused by(religion, capitalism, conservatives etc...)
 
A world without religion would be a world where there is one less thing to believe blindly in. Isn't that a good thing thus tipping the scales ever so slightly toward "no religion".

Any cons of no religion? Perhaps people who can't handle there being no afterlife? However, there are plenty of people now who can't mentally handle the requirements placed upon them for trying to reach the afterlife they believe in.
Your thesis requires several assumptions about religion that are questionable:
  1. Religious belief is "blind" belief: While not every human is a deep religious thinker, a good many, perhaps even most, do spend some time contemplating the meanings and implications of their beliefs. On what basis can we generalize that religious belief necessitates the willing suspension of reason intimated by the words "believing blindly"?
  2. Religions require an afterlife: This is just wrong. Some belief systems, such as Buddhism, impute a belief in rebirth, rendering an "afterlife" meaningless. Most atheists that I have encountered positively reject the concept of an afterlife. If memory serves, the ancient Hebrew traditions did not include an afterlife (this is a recollection on my part, and so I beg everyone's pardon if I am mis-stating this). We need not believe in Heaven and Hell in order to believe.
  3. Lack of belief is preferable to "blind" belief: This normative position requires some exposition. One could easily argue that "blind" belief is better than lack of belief; even if one merely believes without contemplation or reflection, having a set of beliefs does much to guide and inform human motivations, and, outside of certain prejudices, "blind" belief is not incapable of motivating a person in socially positive directions.
  4. "No religion" is attainable within the human psyche: In my experience, man is, as I have noted, a religious animal. We believe in things; this is part of what it is to be human. If, as I believe is the case, we cannot "not believe", we cannot attain the position of "no religion."
For myself, even if "no religion" were attainable, I would not desire such a thing. Belief does most people good.
 
How are you certain everything in the universe is temporary. Perhaps your conciousness is but why does that matter?
That is the point. If your life ends, why does it matter?

Importance to you does not equate to importance, it only equates to importance to you. You are temproary, and so any importance you place on something ends when you end.

In other words: any statement of importance you might make -- so what?

If you (however you want to define you) ceases to exist when you die, then there is no lasting consequece for anything you do. Whatever penalty you may suffer for what you do is temproary, just as you are.

You kill someone. So what?
Someone kills you. So what?
No matter what happens, you wind up the same.
 
Last edited:
There's no need for you to misrepresent what I said.


No. In a universe where everyting is temporary, nothing has meaning. Your actions carry no lasting consequence, good or bad.Strongly disagree..
Define "lasting"..
If 5,000 years, then the Pyramids
If 50,000 years, then civilization
The more advanced man influences the less advanced..or he tries to..
This does not mean that the Christian missionaries were more advanced, in truth, they could have been more backward than those they were trying to convert...

Things must have a meaning, otherwise, why exist ?
 
If there's no afterlife -- no eternal consequence for your actions while on earth -- then nothing that your anyone else does has any meaning whatsoever.

You kill someone. So what?
Someone kills you. So what?



Personally, I dont care what religion, if any, anyone cares to practice.

Fear of God doesn't keep from us from killing, but prison sentences and the death penalty will do that to some extent. We don't need religion in govt. There is no moral case in anyone's holy books that does not have a parallel in ordinary, non-theist based, government...
I favor COMPLETE separation of church and state, with criminal penalties for either church or govt leaders who try to combine the two...
 
No religions wouldn't give us less war, it'd just give us a world where men in silly hats are warring against men in funky clothes that are warring against sentient otters who wish to crack humanities head open and eat their entrails from upon their tummy.

People are simply war like as a base nature, conflict is part of human nature. If religion wasn't part of that conflict something else would slide into the spot. Removing religion would not reduce conflict but simply change the reasoning of said conflict.
 
Fear of God doesn't keep from us from killing, but prison sentences and the death penalty will do that to some extent.
Keeping us from killing wasnt really the issue. The point was that if everything is temporary, then it doesnt really matter that you kill someone, or that someone kills you.

I favor COMPLETE separation of church and state, with criminal penalties for either church or govt leaders who try to combine the two...
So, someone with a "Reverend" in is name can never hold elected office?
 
There is no moral case in anyone's holy books that does not have a parallel in ordinary, non-theist based, government...

Are you quite certain it is indeed a parallel and not a derivative? Man's faith predates man's government, and while government does indeed say killing is wrong without resorting to appeals to divinity, government says killing is wrong because man says killing is wrong. If man's position is derived from faith, then government's position is similarly derived from faith.

Mere absence of a reference to a deity does not strip principles of government of their origins in the faiths of man.
 
Are you quite certain it is indeed a parallel and not a derivative? Man's faith predates man's government, and while government does indeed say killing is wrong without resorting to appeals to divinity, government says killing is wrong because man says killing is wrong. If man's position is derived from faith, then government's position is similarly derived from faith.

Mere absence of a reference to a deity does not strip principles of government of their origins in the faiths of man.

Much of Man's faith is derived from superstition....shall we allow astrologers to be judges?
Survival instincts taught man to work together, rules of behavior are required in any group seeking survival in a dangerous world. The rules that worked are still with us.
 
That is the point. If your life ends, why does it matter?
because I feel joy, pleasure, and other emotions. Because there is always uncertainty. Because I want to make the world a better place even if I am not in it any longer.

Importance to you does not equate to importance, it only equates to importance to you. You are temproary, and so any importance you place on something ends when you end.
So? I can still find valid reasoning to be altruistic.

In other words: any statement of importance you might make -- so what?
only if you so choose to believe such. Its a CHOICE. There is but many conclusions due to uncertainity.

If you (however you want to define you) ceases to exist when you die, then there is no lasting consequece for anything you do. Whatever penalty you may suffer for what you do is temproary, just as you are.
this is but one narrow line if thought. Yes.

You kill someone. So what?
Someone kills you. So what?
No matter what happens, you wind up the same.
non-sequitur. If you believe in god and someone kills you, you still die. If you believe in God and killl someone else they still die. There is no difference.
 
That's not true. People have sacraficed to gods ever since the concept of gods existed. There's no necessary relationship between killing people in the name of religion and hateful, angry, terrified people.

Accepted. I was speaking more of the contemporary practice of religion, and assumed that was obvious.

So, religious practice which does not demand human sacrifice has never killed a human being.

I'd have to disagree with you on your second point. If you bomb an abortion clinic because your religious beliefs lead you to think that human beings are being murdered there, is not motivated by your anger at those you feel are defying the one true God? Hell, let's take it back even further. Human sacrifice was often motivated by the desire to please a God, or to ellicit some blessing from a God. Could fear, either of a negative response from God or in the latter case, fear of a lack of response from God, notbe seen as a strong motivating factor there?

The fact is, religion itself is NOT dangerous. It can be wielded as a weapon, but that's down to the personal inclinations and prejudices of it's practitioners, not the religion itself.
 
because I feel joy, pleasure, and other emotions. Because there is always uncertainty. Because I want to make the world a better place even if I am not in it any longer.
So what? You still end up the same.

So? I can still find valid reasoning to be altruistic.
So what? You still end up the same.

This is but one narrow line if thought. Yes.
If there is no lasting consequence for what you do, then what you do doesnt matter -- in the end, Hitler and Mother Teressa are exactly the same.

non-sequitur. If you believe in god and someone kills you, you still die. If you believe in God and killl someone else they still die. There is no difference.
You arent addressing the point
The point is that your death or you causing someone to die are equally irrelevant and menaingless- you still end up the same.
 
Accepted. I was speaking more of the contemporary practice of religion, and assumed that was obvious.
i assumed you were speaking in a more plenary nature. Thats what happens when you use terms like 'never' and 'always'. :mrgreen:

I'd have to disagree with you on your second point. If you bomb an abortion clinic because your religious beliefs lead you to think that human beings are being murdered there, is not motivated by your anger at those you feel are defying the one true God?
There is not ALWAYS a necessary relationship.
That doesnt mean that, sometimes, there is.

Hell, let's take it back even further. Human sacrifice was often motivated by the desire to please a God, or to ellicit some blessing from a God. Could fear, either of a negative response from God or in the latter case, fear of a lack of response from God, notbe seen as a strong motivating factor there?
Perhaps, but not necessarily. Hoping for a positive effect is not necessarily based on the fear of a negative effect.

The fact is, religion itself is NOT dangerous. It can be wielded as a weapon, but that's down to the personal inclinations and prejudices of it's practitioners, not the religion itself.
This is true.
 
So what? You still end up the same.


So what? You still end up the same.
just because my conciousness will inevitably cease to exist doesn't mean I shouldn't enjoy my life or find joy in helpings others. I don't need a God to have altruistic morals.

If there is no lasting consequence for what you do, then what you do doesnt matter -- in the end, Hitler and Mother Teressa are exactly the same.
but they did have lasting consequence otherwise I wouldn't recognize their names! The actions of these people have had consequences for the living far beyond their life spans. Surely you see that.

You arent addressing the point
The point is that your death or you causing someone to die are equally irrelevant and menaingless- you still end up the same.

Yes, YOU still end up the same. But its not always about YOU unless you choose to believe its all about YOU.

Think of it this way: If you enjoy your life its partially because some people did things to contribute to your positive life experience. You can choose to continue that cycle.
 
Crap. I accidentally edited my response. Oh well.

I'll just state this:

Without an afterlife, in an ever-expanding universe, every particle that was ever part of you, after numerous recyclings, will wind up cold and alone in the vast empty expanse of the universe, with the next nearest particle so far away that its light will never arrive.

If that doesnt paint a picture of how nothing matters, nothing will.
 
Last edited:
Much of Man's faith is derived from superstition....shall we allow astrologers to be judges?
Survival instincts taught man to work together, rules of behavior are required in any group seeking survival in a dangerous world. The rules that worked are still with us.
Your first statement presumes facts not in evidence. It is a claim which presupposes a knowledge which, if possessed, would of necessity invalidate all faiths save your own.

Survival instinct alone is an inadequate foundation for even the fundamentals of law that exist in every society--indeed, law serves as a counterweight to those instincts in many cases.

Which is why I do not consider the total eradication of religious influence from institutions of government to be even possible--even where there is not direct reference to a deity, or to holy writ, there is within law an expression of ethic, of "right" and "wrong", "good" and "evil" that transcends mere instinct. So long as man must believe, his beliefs must inform all that he does--including governing.
 
The point is that no matter what you do, you end up the same.
Whatever you do, for whatever reason, you end up the same as everyone else.
Thus, what you do is meaningless.
so life is only meaningful if you are immortal? If not, then when is life meaningful and why should others believe such?

As I noted before -- for clarity, add 'ever-' before lasting.
No one you care to name has any more lasting effect than the very first bacterium.
The first bacteria isn't meaningful to me. Theoretically it was required so I could become but my friends, family, and others have far more meaning to me than that first life form.

It doesn't matter. Everyone ends up the same way.
You keep repeating this as though its proving something. Its not.


Without an afterlife, in an ever-expanding universe, every particle that was ever part of you, after numerous recyclings, will wind up cold and alone in the vast empty expanse of the universe, with the next nearest particle so far away that its light will never arrive.
This is but a theory that's not strongly supported. Our known universe is expanding, yes, but whether the future you propose is a certainity is not well established. There are still too many unknowns to make the bold claim you do.

Nothing you do or anyone else does anything to change that.

Thus, you do not matter, nor does anything else.
See above. I do not need to have an immortal conciousness to find meaning in my existance.
 
I cannot answer because I am so torn on this issue. On one hand I support freedom of religion but on other hand feel the world may be a better place without religion.
 
So we quit blaming guns for killing people, now we blame religion?

When are we going to actually take responsibility and blame people for killing people?

I was being sarcastic. The point I was making was precisely the point you just made. :2razz:
 
Religion does not cause conflict--people cause conflict.

Religion does not hate--people hate.

Religion does not make war--people make war.

Religion does not kill--people kill.

Religion is not the problem--people are.

A world with no conflict would be a world with no people, not a world with no religion.

Yes but people invented religion and people use religion to indoctrinate the youth in order to have wars and kill people. What you're saying is akin to saying that the ideology of Nazism itself wasn't even part of the problem.
 
Your first statement presumes facts not in evidence. It is a claim which presupposes a knowledge which, if possessed, would of necessity invalidate all faiths save your own.
Survival instinct alone is an inadequate foundation for even the fundamentals of law that exist in every society--indeed, law serves as a counterweight to those instincts in many cases.

Which is why I do not consider the total eradication of religious influence from institutions of government to be even possible--even where there is not direct reference to a deity, or to holy writ, there is within law an expression of ethic, of "right" and "wrong", "good" and "evil" that transcends mere instinct. So long as man must believe, his beliefs must inform all that he does--including governing.

Nice, a lot of words saying very little. How is it facts not in evidence? MODERN cultures in many places in this world use superstition, voodoo, magic, smoke and mirrors, etc.
There is very little logical foundation for any religion on this planet with the one exception of a group of people using it to aid the survival of the group.
And survival instincts have done more than anything else to guarantee our continued existence on this planet.
Religious beliefs have been used to motivate more people than anything else. Sometimes the motivation and/or end result is good, sometimes not...depends on the leadership, the ones wielding the words and his agenda....
 
Back
Top Bottom