Would the world be better off without any religion?

[danieldemol]

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

What would be better?
What would be worse?

I think the world would probably be better without Judaism, Christianity and Islam today, however I voted im not sure, because even though those religions seem to be regressive forces now, they may have brought some degree of progress in their time.

Then there is the fact that not all religions are like Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

Plus there are other considerations such as that some things we wouldn't ordinarily consider religions are difficult to distinguish from religions in some ways, even though they are not revealed.

In my opinion.

 

[Viker]

So curing AIDS wouldn't matter because there are worse ills like cancer and malaria?
I would call that definitely flawed reasoning.

Religion is not a disease. Religion is not the problem. The problem is ignorance, corruption, aggression. They act more like a disease. You contradict yourself. Earlier you stated not all religions are bad. Yet you just compared religion to disease. Make your mind up. At least stop with the fallacious generalizations. Not all religion is bad. Just as not all secularism is bad.

The world would be better off without ignorance and hate.

 

[AppieB]

So your claim is that believing in religion is like believing drinking battery water is good for you?

Can you prove in some way that religion is like drinking battery water?

The argument of @Clizby Wampuscat was: I say yes, simply because it stops people from believing things they do not have good evidence for.
So this is about believing something without good evidence. If there is no good evidence to believe somehting but you stil believe it, you might be wrong. I would consider that a bad thing.

 

[AppieB]

Please explain how that is done?

That's a whole different discussion. Please open a thread if you want to, but in this one it's way off-topic.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The argument of @Clizby Wampuscat was: I say yes, simply because it stops people from believing things they do not have good evidence for.
So this is about believing something without good evidence. If there is no good evidence to believe somehting but you stil believe it, you might be wrong. I would consider that a bad thing.

Do you have evidence that I am wrong, if I believe something without evidence?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That's a whole different discussion. Please open a thread if you want to, but in this one it's way off-topic.

You claim in this thread it is possible, so you have the burden of proof. Otherwise you might be wrong.

 

[Viker]

I'm not saying all religion is evil. As I stated in my reply to the TS: I would say the world would be better off without religion and/or religious kind of believes based upon dogma's.
That of course doesn't mean that all religions are equally 'bad' or that all religious people are 'bad'. Not at all. But I prefer people based their beliefs upon reason and facts instead of religion or dogma's.

So I'm not proposing a Stalinist dogmatic idealogy

Okay. Now we're clearing things up a bit.

I, myself, voted no because I know humanity to well. Humanity always finds reasons for atrocious behavior. It's one of it's nastier proclivities. I feel it wouldn't matter if religion in general up and vanished or had never been here. The same violent toxic world would keep on turning.

*There it is. Maybe the world would be better off without humanity?

 

[AppieB]

Religion is not a disease. Religion is not the problem. The problem is ignorance, corruption, aggression. They act more like a disease. You contradict yourself. Earlier you stated not all religions are bad. Yet you just compared religion to disease. Make your mind up. At least stop with the fallacious generalizations. Not all religion is bad. Just as not all secularism is bad.

The world would be better off without ignorance and hate.

I'm sorry, but you started with the word "ills". So don't blame me for making an analogy with disease.
You stated: No. We'd still have other ways to screw each other over, nationalism, racism, partisanship, etc.
Religion isn't always to blame.

Doesn't this say that you admit that religion is or can be bad? Just because something else is the worse evil (racism) doens't mean the lesser evil shouldn't be eliminated either. And that is what your argument is about. Hence my analogy.

I'm not saying that all religion is bad. I never stated that. But I would say overall religion does more bad than good.

 

[AppieB]

Do you have evidence that I am wrong, if I believe something without evidence?

No. Believing somehting without evidence, doesn't necessarily mean you're wrong.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I'm sorry, but you started with the word "ills". So don't blame me for making an analogy with disease.
You stated: No. We'd still have other ways to screw each other over, nationalism, racism, partisanship, etc.
Religion isn't always to blame.

Doesn't this say that you admit that religion is or can be bad? Just because something else is the worse evil (racism) doens't mean the lesser evil shouldn't be eliminated either. And that is what your argument is about. Hence my analogy.

I'm not saying that all religion is bad. I never stated that. But I would say overall religion does more bad than good.

I am not even saying religion is good or bad, because I have no evidence for either. I think that you and I have different versions of evidence and reason.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No. Believing somehting without evidence, doesn't necessarily mean you're wrong.

So how do you know if someone is wrong?

 

[Viker]

I'm sorry, but you started with the word "ills". So don't blame me for making an analogy with disease.
You stated: No. We'd still have other ways to screw each other over, nationalism, racism, partisanship, etc.
Religion isn't always to blame.

Doesn't this say that you admit that religion is or can be bad? Just because something else is the worse evil (racism) doens't mean the lesser evil shouldn't be eliminated either. And that is what your argument is about. Hence my analogy.

I'm not saying that all religion is bad. I never stated that. But I would say overall religion does more bad than good.

Yes, many religions aren't always good guys. I never implied else wise.

My argument is not about defending religious excesses. I pointed to expansionism, imperialism and absolutism. Those are universal. Religions and secular forces have skinny dipped in those cess pools, sometimes together.

Still, religion is a broad term. And as we agree not all of it is bad.

 

[AppieB]

So how do you know if someone is wrong?

No offence, but that's a whole different can of worms. If you open a new thread we can discuss this. Doing it here gonna take a long time.

 

[AppieB]

Yes, many religions aren't always good guys. I never implied else wise.

My argument is not about defending religious excesses. I pointed to expansionism, imperialism and absolutism. Those are universal. Religions and secular forces have skinny dipped in those cess pools.

Still, religion is a broad term. And as we agree not all of it is bad.

The problem with religion is that it's based upon faith and dogma instead of reason and evidence. I see a problem with that. The world would be better with less faith and dogma and more reason and evidence.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No offence, but that's a whole different can of worms. If you open a new thread we can discuss this. Doing it here gonna take a long time.

So you evade. Now either you make that thread and PM me or I will until further development consider your claims about evidence and reason a free floating belief without evidence and reason. That is all.

 

[Viker]

The problem with religion is that it's based upon faith and dogma instead of reason and evidence. I see a problem with that. The world would be better with less faith and dogma and more reason and evidence.

Mine has only a little faith and no working dogma. Dogma is rigid and absolutist, kind of bitter tasting.

The world seems to not care much for reason and evidence. Everyone's inescapable biases seem to hold them back.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The problem with religion is that it's based upon faith and dogma instead of reason and evidence. I see a problem with that. The world would be better with less faith and dogma and more reason and evidence.

Still free floating.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Mine has only a little faith and no working dogma. Dogma is rigid and absolutist, kind of bitter tasting.

The world seems to not care much for reason and evidence. Everyone's inescapable biases seem to hold them back.

Well, I try to be honest about my biases, as I have found no way to remove them all, only some.

 

[firedragon]

It in the end depends of the definition of religion used.

I think it's very specific.

 

[firedragon]

The argument of @Clizby Wampuscat was: I say yes, simply because it stops people from believing things they do not have good evidence for.
So this is about believing something without good evidence. If there is no good evidence to believe somehting but you stil believe it, you might be wrong. I would consider that a bad thing.

Why is it a bad thing? You are making an ontological assertion, but what is the argument or data? Why? That's the question.