Would the world be better if there were no Religions?

[illykitty]

Well I'm just repeating what everyone already said, religion isn't the problem. It brings out the bad in some but also can bring out the good...

If it's not religion, there's another excuse. I think it's best to look at ourselves instead of an external source and try to fix the core of the issues.

 

[Sunstone]

The notion religions cannot be blamed for the way people make use of them strikes me as thoughtless bunk. For instance, some religions are more encouraging of violence as a means of settling disputes than are other religions. And rose colored glasses do not change that fact.

 

[crossfire]

[sarcastic irony] Oh, the humanity! Those darned religionists are responsible for all the world's woes and genocides! Let's wipe them out! [/sarcastic irony]

 

[Riverwolf]

The notion religions cannot be blamed for the way people make use of them strikes me as thoughtless bunk. For instance, some religions are more encouraging of violence as a means of settling disputes than are other religions. And rose colored glasses do not change that fact.

I would argue, however, that in that case, the cause may not be the religion in itself, but the culture that either produced it, or adapted it.

For example, pre-Christian Celto-Germanic paganism had war Gods at the top because the tribes were more often than not quite warlike, though some more than others

It would certainly be naive to say that, say, the Crusades would still have happened if there wasn't Christianity, since the religion played a huge part in justifying it to the armies and the people, and in any case Europe would have been a COMPLETELY different political environment without Christianity... in fact, that environment was more hostile.

 

[Breathe]

No.

(Damn character limit.)

 

[chinu]

Would the world be better if there were no Religions?

There would have been no world without religion because RELIGION means re-union with from where we all started this journey of life in the beganing, or the nick name is God.

Religion is for the world, world is not for the religion.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

If there were no religions, they would soon be invented.
It is in the nature of man to need religion.
It is also in the nature of man to be violent.
The two are not dependant on one another,
but often provide a "Tribal" element to violence.

 

[Jeremiah]

For those of you who think religion can do no wrong you should have tried growing up as a gay kid.

 

[chinu]

For those of you who think religion can do no wrong you should have tried growing up as a gay kid.

Depends on the defination that one uses for religion.

 

[LuisDantas]

To the extent that it is feasible to try... yes, it would probably be better if there were no religions. To a considerable extent they become a distraction from their supposed goals of ethical and existential achievement. Quite a few literally lack those goals, even.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

The implication was that the vast majority of them wouldn't have happened, and I say codswallop. Tribes fought each other all the time over petty insults.

I didn't say that either, I said that there would have been less inhumanity and bigotry. Are you going to claim that there has never been any wars in which religions was not an integral part of the justification? Are you honestly going to tell me that every single act of religious bigotry, genocide and terrorism would have occurred anyway if there was no religion to motivate it?

 

[rusra02]

This line of thought is exactly why we have wars based upon religion. This "Highlander" "There can be only one" line of oosh is what causes so much angst.


To the OP:
Regardless, it is not religion that is the problem, it is the mindset. The mindset of "My way is the best, all others just suck it!". That mindset can be dangerous no matter whether found in religion, business, or anywhere else.

There are some very beautiful religions out there, it is what people do to them that twists them into very ugly things. Proving it is not religion that is the problem...it is people.

People act and behave based on what they have been taught. Wars, inquisitions, blood-letting crusades, and sectarian violence are products or fruitage of religions and their teachings. Speaking of false religious teachers, Jesus said: "By their fruits you will recognize them. Never do people gather grapes from thorns or figs from thistles, do they? Likewise every good tree produces fine fruit, but every rotten tree produces worthless fruit; a good tree cannot bear worthless fruit, neither can a rotten tree produce fine fruit. Every tree not producing fine fruit gets cut down and thrown into the fire. Really, then, by their fruits you will recognize those [men]." I believe the rotten fruitage produced by false religions clearly shows the religion is rotten in God's eyes. Despite any seeming "beauty" what counts with God are works, not outward appearances. (Matthew 23:27,28)

 

[Godobeyer]

i believe most of the religions teachs the people to do good deed,
if the people (the followers) practice their own religions as well , i believe the world be better with religions .

 

[ChristineES]

The notion religions cannot be blamed for the way people make use of them strikes me as thoughtless bunk. For instance, some religions are more encouraging of violence as a means of settling disputes than are other religions. And rose colored glasses do not change that fact.

Well, sure. People do use their religions. But, at the same time, I would think that if a religious person is violent, for example, the person would still be violent even if he/she weren't religious They'd just use something else to focus their violent tendencies on.
For example, the crusades wouldn't have happened without Christianity, but those who were to blame for it could have well used their violent tendencies for some other kind of thing still would have happened in it's place. So, they used their religion to justify their actions, but the religion itself didn't change their personalities- they just would have found something else.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Well, sure. People do use their religions. But, at the same time, I would think that if a religious person is violent, for example, the person would still be violent even if he/she weren't religious They'd just use something else to focus their violent tendencies on.
For example, the crusades wouldn't have happened without Christianity, but those who were to blame for it could have well used their violent tendencies for some other kind of thing still would have happened in it's place. So, they used their religion to justify their actions, but the religion itself didn't change their personalities- they just would have found something else.

This seems like an entirely self-defeating and baseless argument to me. What you are essentially saying is that religion plays no part whatsoever in determining people's actions, because everything that you have just said could just as easily apply to any potential good deeds done in the name of religion as well. It's not as simple as "violent people do violent things". People's beliefs, and the beliefs taught to them, influence their actions. Are you honestly going to contest that people never act on their beliefs rather than just their impulses?

 

[ChristineES]

This seems like an entirely self-defeating and baseless argument to me. What you are essentially saying is that religion plays no part whatsoever in determining people's actions, because everything that you have just said could just as easily apply to any potential good deeds done in the name of religion as well. It's not as simple as "violent people do violent things". People's beliefs, and the beliefs taught to them, influence their actions. Are you honestly going to contest that people never act on their beliefs rather than just their impulses?

Actually, no, that is not what I was saying at all. I am saying that people will make excuses to do violence- including using their faith as justification. I am also saying that religion does nothing on it's own- if a person acts on his or her belief, you should blame the person or people, not the religion. If the person doesn't have the faith to use as justification, the person will likely use something else to use as justification.

If the people responsible for the Crusades didn't have their faith to use as an excuse to try and control people, they would have likely used something else to try and control the people, for example.

And it's true- people do use their faith to do good things, as well. Some people need a guide to follow- and some of them use faith. Whether it's right or wrong to do that is another debate.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Actually, no, that is not what I was saying at all. I am saying that people will make excuses to do violence- including using their faith as justification. I am also saying that religion does nothing on it's own- if a person acts on his or her belief, you should blame the person or people, not the religion. If the person doesn't have the faith to use as justification, the person will likely use something else to use as justification.

And I'm arguing that that's completely baseless. Saying that "religion does nothing on its own" and we should "blame people, not the belief" for their actions, you are essentially claiming that religious beliefs (or beliefs of any kind) play no role whatsoever in determining people's actions, which is ridiculous. Of course what people believe influences their actions, and to claim that people would just "use something else as justification" is baseless.

If the people responsible for the Crusades didn't have their faith to use as an excuse to try and control people, they would have likely used something else to try and control the people, for example.

You cannot possibly know that, and I think it's ludicrous to claim that acts like the Crusades would have "occurred anyway" without religion, when the religious beliefs in Europe at the time were the entire purpose of the Crusades in the first place. That's just plain absurd.

And it's true- people do use their faith to do good things, as well. Some people need a guide to follow- and some of them use faith. Whether it's right or wrong to do that is another debate.

And my point is that your argument basically means that religion plays no role whatsoever in whether or not people do good or bad things, which makes religion entirely superfluous. So, which is it?

 

[Deadfable]

No, the world would not be better without religion.

Some men would do as much and more evil with or without religion. For example greed, power, etc. would be their motivation.

I'm one of those who actually thinks good religion brings many people true mental peace and happiness.

I think I agree with you to a certain extent, but I personally think that if there were no religions, would people still be bickering about what religion is better or not? And people would not be judged for their religion because everyone would be equal and have no religion.

 

[Sha'irullah]

This may be a surprise but secular ideals is the major cause of violence. Religion has not even scraped the barrel.
People fight because they wish to and not because of a god tells them to do so. Look at all of the wars through mankind's history and you will obviously notice how religion played no part in it. All morals atheists have today ARE FROM RELIGION. All evils you have today are from the voids of religion or the presence of religious extremism which is more intune with politics than religion.
The mass majority of rights and freedoms you have are thanks to Christianity and the presence of religious ideals.
I will provide to you a list of military conflicts after this message as well.....

 

[Deadfable]

This may be a surprise but secular ideals is the major cause of violence. Religion has not even scraped the barrel.
People fight because they wish to and not because of a god tells them to do so. Look at all of the wars through mankind's history and you will obviously notice how religion played no part in it. All morals atheists have today ARE FROM RELIGION. All evils you have today are from the voids of religion or the presence of religious extremism which is more intune with politics than religion.
The mass majority of rights and freedoms you have are thanks to Christianity and the presence of religious ideals.
I will provide to you a list of military conflicts after this message as well.....

So your saying that the Holy Crusades of Jerusalem were non-Religion related?