Would the world be better off without any religion?

[mikkel_the_dane]

Every belief system relies on a presupposition. I presuppose the laws of logic are true. I do that based on the fact that we have never been able to find one instance where the laws of logic do not work. That does not mean that the laws of logic are always true. But the track record is pretty good.

I also do not believe solipsism is true. Basically because there is no way to know if it is or is not true so practically it seems to be the best option to live like it is not true.

From these presuppositions I can objectively look at the world and make assessments of what is true and what is not true.

To think that since we cannot know anything with 100% certainty we cannot know anything is not how anyone lives their lives. Everything thing we believe to be true has a level of certainly with it that may change as more information comes to light. When we say we have knowledge we are saying we have a high level of confidence that it is true. Science always leaves room for more information to change anything we think is true. This is the only honest and best position to take because that does advance us toward us believing true things. If you don't think wanting to know what is true and what is not true s a good goal then we will never agree on anything.

I think a good goal is a form of a non-objective and thus not true in that sense world view.
To me it is to find out what matters in the end and I don't think that this is objectively true.
Of course objective true is a part of it, but that matters is not objectively true.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

My definition of truth is what describes reality.

So objective correspondence theory of truth? Is that it?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Then why do you believe this?

Because it gives me comfort.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Great. Rather than strawmannirg me you asked a question. Thats an achievement.

This is the second time I asked this question. Not the first, where did I strawman you?

I am asking, even if religions were false, why is it bad for the world if human beings believe in religion.

Because it cannot be shown with good evidence to be true. If you want to argue that not knowing what is true is better than knowing what is true is better then ok, but we will never agree.

Some reasons I think religion is more bad than good:

1. Promotes tribal mentality, creating insiders and outsiders. Without religion your status in your community is based on who you are not based on what you believe.
2. People get morals from a system that cannot be shown with good evidence to be good. There is no reasoning behind their morals and they can cause more harm than good. Example is anti LBGTQ sentiment and actions.
3. Religion generally teaches your are bad or hopeless without a God. People are neither bad or good. People do bad and good actions.
4. Religion teaches bad things about our health. It incorporates supernatural causes for our health conditions and allows people to avoid or delay getting treatment.
5. Believing in a god with bad reasoning will allow you to use that reasoning for more serious things. Believing in the tooth fairy may not have bad consequences by itself. But to promote that bad thinking may lead to use that thinking into other areas of a persons life and cause you to believe false things.
6. Any good people do because of a religion they can do the same good without that religion.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

No, but you used death as the only example. Use more if there are more variants.

Why, it does not affect my reasoning. Would you like to know if a stove is hot or not hot before you touch it?

 

[Semmelweis Reflex]

I agree. I believe that conclusion is not based on good evidence.

Well, now, hold on. First of all that means you have faith that that conclusion is not based on good evidence because you don't have good evidence of that. You would have to evaluate each one.

Then why even use the word faith? Just say you have good evidence.

I think it is time that you define faith.

Believing something with good evidence is not faith.

When you have faith in money, faith in a friend, family member or anything else, the rising or setting of the sun, or God or religion it means you have trust or confidence in someone or something. How is it established? Through evidence or blindly. Either one.

So, faith is defined as complete trust or confidence in someone or something. Although I wouldn't say complete because how could it ever be complete? Evidence is defined as the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid. Neither of these are certain. If you are certain that your money will be good you don't need faith or evidence to that effect. Neither the faith or evidence are infallible.

There are things we can know with a high level of certainty like the earth has one moon even though we cannot know for certain. There is a lot of evidence for that. That is not the same as having faith in supernatural claims.

Once Giant squid and octopi were thought to be supernatural. Supernatural just means we can't explain it. We don't know about it. If we can't test the supernatural how do we know it exists? We don't. With equal certainty we can't say it doesn't exist because we don't have the evidence. Your argument is strawman. An intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument.

The reason I believe we cannot have certainty on anything is because we cannot rule out solipsism definitively.

Oh, I think we can. What is up with all of the Matrix etc. philosophies here? Is that reflective of the real world? It's been a while since I've been around people.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

This is the second time I asked this question. Not the first, where did I strawman you?

Because it cannot be shown with good evidence to be true. If you want to argue that not knowing what is true is better than knowing what is true is better then ok, but we will never agree.

Some reasons I think religion is more bad than good:

1. Promotes tribal mentality, creating insiders and outsiders. Without religion your status in your community is based on who you are not based on what you believe.
2. People get morals from a system that cannot be shown with good evidence to be good. There is no reasoning behind their morals and they can cause more harm than good. Example is anti LBGTQ sentiment and actions.
3. Religion generally teaches your are bad or hopeless without a God. People are neither bad or good. People do bad and good actions.
4. Religion teaches bad things about our health. It incorporates supernatural causes for our health conditions and allows people to avoid or delay getting treatment.
5. Believing in a god with bad reasoning will allow you to use that reasoning for more serious things. Believing in the tooth fairy may not have bad consequences by itself. But to promote that bad thinking may lead to use that thinking into other areas of a persons life and cause you to believe false things.
6. Any good people do because of a religion they can do the same good without that religion.

Rationality, normality, sane and all that do that with some humans. You should start checking out some secular ideologies/philosophical systems.
You see religion is not a special negative. You can find all the same traits in some non-religious people. Maybe you have a point about #4, but bad folk psychology is not limited to religion.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Why, it does not affect my reasoning. Would you like to know if a stove is hot or not hot before you touch it?

Well, still with objective facts. That is not all of the everyday world.

 

[Heyo]

I'm not sure. Richard Dawkins of all folks said the Fine-tuning Argument is the one that would be most likely to lead him to Deism.

I agree with Dawkins that Fine Tuning is is one of the better arguments - which says a lot as it is still a very bad one. And even if it leads to the conclusion of a creator god, it only bring you, as Dawkins says, to deism not any further.

In any case, my point here isn't to get into the arguments, but to say that many do exist, they're not as easy to challenge as many atheists like to believe, and that theism isn't totally irrational. I think both sides have good arguments and to call the other irrational is an ad hom that never helps.

Calling a person irrational is an ad hominem and it doesn't help. Calling an argument irrational is normal debate style. Ideally it is also followed by an explanation how it is irrational. And I've yet to encounter a rational argument for theism.

 

[Rival]

it only bring you, as Dawkins says, to deism not any further.

Yes, this is what a theistic argument is meant to do.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I agree with Dawkins that Fine Tuning is is one of the better arguments - which says a lot as it is still a very bad one. And even if it leads to the conclusion of a creator god, it only bring you, as Dawkins says, to deism not any further.

Calling a person irrational is an ad hominem and it doesn't help. Calling an argument irrational is normal debate style. Ideally it is also followed by an explanation how it is irrational. And I've yet to encounter a rational argument for theism.

Or a rational argument for philosophical naturalism or its variants.

 

[Heyo]

These are all atrocities that the Christian God has committed as recorded in the Bible. Despite John's personal flaws, he was never a mass murderer like the Christian God has proven himself to be.

That is if you believe the biblical "records" to be factual. Fortunately for the people of the book, they aren't and neither their god nor their ancestors can be accused of genocide with any real evidence.

 

[Rival]

And I've yet to encounter a rational argument for theism.

You probably haven't looked very far or very hard. There are decent arguments on both sides. The atheists are just so wedded to philosophical naturalism that they won't accept literally anything other than God standing right infront of them or some other empirical evidence. Your window of evidence is too small and bizarrely narrow.

 

[Semmelweis Reflex]

Speaking as a lifelong Beatles fan and as a Beatles historian, I'm pretty damned sure that John Lennon never caused people to drop dead because he was p***ed off at them or because they disobeyed him, or ordered his followers to kill other people in a conquest to take over another nation's land, or committed worldwide genocide. These are all atrocities that the Christian God has committed as recorded in the Bible. Despite John's personal flaws, he was never a mass murderer like the Christian God has proven himself to be.

I didn't say any of that though. I said Lennon was vindictive, unjust, sadistic, barbaric and psychopathic. I could give you examples of each of those but what would be the point? The same pretty much applies to what you say about the Christian God. The first problem you would have is authority and reason. Does the God in question have authority or reason to have allegedly acted in the manner you attribute to him?

For example, if there is a farm with pigs on it and there is some destructive threat within the herd would it be accurate to say the farmer is unjust, vindictive, sadistic, barbaric and psychopathic to deal with the problem? Is it possible for that action to be misinterpreted?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You probably haven't looked very far or very hard. There are decent arguments on both sides. The atheists are just so wedded to philosophical naturalism that they won't accept literally anything other than God standing right infront of them or some other empirical evidence. Your window of evidence is too small and bizarrely narrow.

Well, I get you. But it goes in both directions, so I end with I don't know for either case, but here is what I personally believe.

 

[Audie]

That's interesting. I don't see the Christian God as being vindictive, unjust, sadistic, barbaric and psychopathic but I do see John Lennon as having been all of those things. To many he is a god. I disagree with the common opinion that religion was designed to control people. I think it was redesigned in order to be controlled by people. The chances of finding one that hasn't been is pretty slim.

So sending a henchman to kill
all the firstborn children is groovy.
Even Charles Manson didnt go that far.

Faith 1. complete trust or confidence in someone or something. 2. strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.

The Latin root word cred means “believe.” This Latin root is the word origin of a good number of English words, like credit, credo, and credentials.

You know what I've provided you with? Evidence of faith.

Nah. Just unneeded evidence that you just like your equivocation game

 

[Heyo]

You probably haven't looked very far or very hard. There are decent arguments on both sides. The atheists are just so wedded to philosophical naturalism that they won't accept literally anything other than God standing right infront of them or some other empirical evidence. Your window of evidence is too small and bizarrely narrow.

RF isn't the first forum I visited. And I'm not looking only for evidence. Sure, I need good evidence if someone claims their god is real but I'd take a rational argument for an ideal god or a construct. But most apologist couldn't even decide where to classify their god.

I'm not totally adverse to "god proves", though. I even came up with one myself, simple and rationally flawless. In syllogistic form it is:

P1: Clapton is god.
P2: Clapton exists (and is real). (And there is good evidence.)
C: God exists (and is real).

 

[Semmelweis Reflex]

So sending a henchman to kill
all the firstborn children is groovy.
Even Charles Manson didnt go that far.


Nah. Just unneeded evidence that you just like your equivocation game

[Laughs] Honestly. Your post above is far less an equivocation game than mine?! C'mon!

Faith 1. complete trust or confidence in someone or something. 2. strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.

The Latin root word cred means “believe.” This Latin root is the word origin of a good number of English words, like credit, credo, and credentials.

You know what I've provided you with? Evidence of faith.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

I think a good goal is a form of a non-objective and thus not true in that sense world view.
To me it is to find out what matters in the end and I don't think that this is objectively true.
Of course objective true is a part of it, but that matters is not objectively true.

So how do you know what matters? What are things that matter to you that may be false?

 

[Bird123]

Would the world and people be better off without any religion?

What would be better?
What would be worse?

The world is better with religion than without. Religion is a catalyst that brings so many of the world's problems to the surface so they can be dealt with. After all, when one believes one has God's backing, one holds nothing back. Problems are solved much quicker when they are out in the open.

Sure, this can create a lot of Drama, however I have found more is learned around Drama than at almost any other time. Everyone seems to want peace, however Drama is something that one should not always be trying to avoid.

That's what I see. It's very clear!!