A Question for Atheist.

[Ekleipsis]

I think if what you believe does not negatively affect the quality of somebody else's life, then kudos to you

Personally, as a human, I find that I have more than enough on my own plate to deal with

I see that many times religion is a gateway to finger-pointing and thus leads to irresponsible living, as you can't clear your own plate if you are focused on somebody elses meal

 

[Augustus]

But we do share humanity. Even if only because we are all human. The same as any species shares its existence with others of its species. Perhaps some are territorial, some are intrinsically woven into distinct groupings, some are loners. Time and time again humans have proven that they are a community-driven animal. We desire contact with others - we do best when we work together. Perhaps there are myths - but there are facts to support the idea that we, as a species, desire to share our experiences with one another. You can't ignore it all as "myth". To do so would also be irrational, and attempt to support simply another version of "mythology".

We may share a zoological taxonomy but I'm not sure what wider effects this has in creating unity and mutual understanding among 'humanity' as a whole.

We have a need for community, but not a need for universal community. Our identity is constructed as much by who we are not as by who we are. We define ourselves partly in opposition to other humans.

We are a diverse species comprised of individuals and groups with differing and often contradictory needs and wants. We can't identify with everybody only those within a (fairly wide) latitude of acceptance.

The idea that if 'something' was different then we could better relate to each other is appealing but harmful. We don't need a world where we understand and empathise with everyone else, we need a world where our differences and animosities don't lead to hostilities or violence.

 

[Thumper]

But we do share humanity. Even if only because we are all human. The same as any species shares its existence with others of its species. Perhaps some are territorial, some are intrinsically woven into distinct groupings, some are loners. Time and time again humans have proven that they are a community-driven animal. We desire contact with others - we do best when we work together. Perhaps there are myths - but there are facts to support the idea that we, as a species, desire to share our experiences with one another. You can't ignore it all as "myth". To do so would also be irrational, and attempt to support simply another version of "mythology".

That has grown as our species has evolved. As a hunter-gatherer we were only concerned with the survival of our immediate family and blood related clan. But as we became more agrarian, we saw the need to be responsible for a larger community who worked together to provide food for all.

Then we learned about safety and survival in larger numbers and our town became cities with fortresses and armies.

(And, of course, while all of this was going on the shaman was also evolving.)

Today our interconnected needs for food and survival have become world-wide, but our sphere of compassion hasn't caught up yet. I hope it eventually does.

 

[Lorgar-Aurelian]

Do you think the world would be better off without religion?

No. Then Again I can not tell you for sure as I don't know what a world without religion or humanity without religion would be like. I'll quote my namesake here

"Faith is the soul of any army; be it vested in primitive religion or enlightened truth. It makes even the least soldier mighty, the craven is remade worthy and through its balm any hardship may be endured. Faith ennobles all of the worlds the soldier undertakes be they so base or vile, and imports to them the golden spark of transcendent purpose."
— Lorgar Aurelian, Primarch of the Word Bearers

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Since the majority of religions require followers to blindly follow the central dogma? And anytime that dogma is threatened by actual facts?

Yes-- the world would be better off without such things; humans would have long since colonized the planets by now. The ancient Greeks were on the cusp of discovering a workable scientific method, and without christian/islamic fueled Dark Ages in Europe?

Who knows how far along our progress would have been-- Europe stagnated under religion. And Asia stagnated under Tradition which had the same sort of issues as religion. Africa? Was riddled with competing religions, and never rose above the stone ages. Same for North and South American cultures; stone age cultures hampered by religion.

So a big *yes*-- the world would be far better off without religion.

Religion teaches the *wrong* lesson: when your "answer" is "goddidit", there is no need to inquire further-- indeed, such inquiry is likely to get you killed or worse. Yes--there is worse than being killed, when we are speaking of religion...

Did not *anyone* read 1984?

 

[infrabenji]

Do you think the world would be better off without religion?

Yes, religion is toxic to the human brain.

 

[infrabenji]

Yes. But only because I believe that you can get rid of religion, in general, only when social security is in place. For every one.

Ergo, when the world will voluntarily reject metaphysical claims and the hope of a better life in the hereafter, then we will have already reached the pre-conditions for a better world.

Until that point is reached, I would have a moral dilemma to debate with people whose only hope is to have a better life after they die.

Ciao

- viole

Dang that hit me hard. “People who’s only hope is a better life after they die.” Salient point Viole. So sad though.

 

[Kfox]

Do you think the world would be better off without religion?

I think so. Without religion I don't think we would be dealing with the war on terrorism, the conflicts in the Middle East.... I think those issues alone resolved would make the world a better place.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Do you think the world would be better off without religion?

Faith-based religions may cause problems due to extremism. If followed sanely as personal views, that is OK. There are religions and philosophies which do not require belief in unnatural things. For example Buddhism or what I follow, Advaita Hinduism.

 

[Aletheia Athanatos]

Do you think the world would be better off without religion?

Yes.

You will always have good people who do good deeds and bad people who do bad deeds, whether you have religion or not.

But, looking at recent history, most of the time that you get good people carrying out bad deeds - there's religion involved.