Would the world be better off without any religion?

[Audie]

A world without religion can be sampled in China, Russia and to a large degree DC.

Guess you dont know much about China.

 

[AppieB]

Yes, I get that you disagree with them. Others don't. But you cannot say that those others have no good reasons for their belief, that's still your opinion about those arguments. They believe they have good reasons.

Of course they believe that. If not, they would change their mind. I also believe I have good reasons for my believes. If not, I would not have had them.
But saying the moral argument is a good reason is in my opinion just wrong. The argument is flawed.

 

[Audie]

I think a question should be -- is there a God?

No

 

[loverofhumanity]

Yes

Hi Audie. Still flogging a dead horse I see. Lol

 

[Rival]

Of course they believe that. If not, they would change their mind. I also believe I have good reasons for my believes. If not, I would not have had them.
But saying the moral argument is a good reason is in my opinion just wrong. The argument is flawed.

Yes, I get you find the arguments flawed. We've been over this. That doesn't make them unreasonable for those who believe them. One can find flaws in nearly every argument. I find the arguments in favour of atheism flawed, but I don't think atheists are unreasonable in their beliefs.

 

[1213]

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

What would be better?
What would be worse?

No, but I don't think it would be possible to be without. If someone could get rid of all else, he would have formed his own religion and forced everyone to follow him.

 

[firedragon]

So you don't think that wrong beliefs can impact in a negative way?

Strawman mate. Strawman. And just rhetoric after rhetoric. Just your "feelings" based on an "emotional feeling".

Go back and try your best not to create questions for others and read the real question.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Again, that's also another can of worms.
Let me elaborate a little bit: The basics of morality and ehtics is about preference and desire (a goal). Those are not objective. But once you have a goal (for instance: human well being) you can objectively asses if an action will work to that goal or not.
For more, please open a thread about morality or someting like this. I'm happy to discuss.

No, because human happiness might not be universally the same for all cases for all humans.
Basically what can happen is that someone takes a limited view of happiness and declares it universal. My wife is a Danish social educator and that is one of the first things they learn. Not to take for granted that what is declared happiness is universal. Always question when you have time, what you consider happiness when you deal with other humans. It is practical skepticism borne out of practice.

I mean I know that, since I am neurodiverse, so I know it can happen first hand and I have read enough academic books on the problems of what happiness as to not fall for the Sam Harris trick of solving morality.

And no, we will do it here, because it fit a better world as per the OP.

 

[Kenny]

Yeah, we already have that as there is no one God in practice.

I thought of that when I posted it. A point well taken IMV.

But then I brought that into the billions of people or, in other words, billions of gods. Compounded problems in a never ending change of "who is right" and when do we change to a different right.

Obviously I think Jesus is right. (signature)

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Of course they believe that. If not, they would change their mind. I also believe I have good reasons for my believes. If not, I would not have had them.
But saying the moral argument is a good reason is in my opinion just wrong. The argument is flawed.

Here is what you do in effect: You think X. I then think not X and Y. You then declare that based on you thinking X me thinking X is flawed. That is not the case, if both cases are not universal, but local in time, place and sense.

And yes, there is objective evidence for some cases in the everyday world, but that doesn't apply if both cases are not objective. That is the limit of evidence and reasoning. If you can reason X and act on it and I can reason differently and act on it differently, objective doesn't apply.
That is the limit of the law of non-contradiction.

 

[AppieB]

Yes, I get you find the arguments flawed. We've been over this. That doesn't make them unreasonable for those who believe them. One can find flaws in nearly every argument. I find the arguments in favour of atheism flawed, but I don't think atheists are unreasonable in their beliefs.

Well, if the argument is flawed and you still believe them, then by definition, you are unreasonable.
That's the whole point of an argument: it needs to be valid and sound in order to accept it. If it's flawed, one should not accept the argument to be true. That doesn't mean the conclusion is wrong, but that it's unreasonable to accept the conclusion.

 

[Rival]

Well, if the argument is flawed and you still believe them, then by definition, you are unreasonable.
That's the whole point of an argument: it needs to be valid and sound in order to accept it. If it's flawed, one should not accept the argument to be true. That doesn't mean the conclusion is wrong, but that it's unreasonable to accept the conclusion.

Sigh.

Again, this is just your subjective opinion about these arguments. Obviously if others saw them as flawed they wouldn't believe them. Maybe one day you'll see the obvious flaws in atheistic arguments and become a theist and stop being unreasonable, right?

 

[AppieB]

Strawman mate. Strawman. And just rhetoric after rhetoric. Just your "feelings" based on an "emotional feeling".

Go back and try your best not to create questions for others and read the real question.

Who's strawmanning who?
It's obvious you're not being an honest interlocutor.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Well, if the argument is flawed and you still believe them, then by definition, you are unreasonable.
That's the whole point of an argument: it needs to be valid and sound in order to accept it. If it's flawed, one should not accept the argument to be true. That doesn't mean the conclusion is wrong, but that it's unreasonable to accept the conclusion.

So now we are reduced to argument by definition. A definition is about meaning, but that doesn't make is a fact.
If that is the case, then God as per definition as the creator of the universe is fact.

 

[AppieB]

Sigh.

Again, this is just your subjective opinion about these arguments. Obviously if others saw them as flawed they wouldn't believe them. Maybe one day you'll see the obvious flaws in atheistic arguments and become a theist and stop being unreasonable, right?

Logical arguments are not about subjective opinions. You've got that all wrong. If it would be, why bother with logical argument at all?
Just because somebody doesn't see it's flawed, doesn't mean it's not flawed.

 

[Rival]

Logical arguments are not about subjective opinions. You've got that all wrong. If it would be, why bother with logical argument at all?
Just because somebody doesn't see it's flawed, doesn't mean it's not flawed.

I mean the way you are talking about these arguments. You are introducing your subjective opinion about these arguments as 'flawed' into the discussion as though these arguments being 'flawed' (your opinion) is fact. The idea that these arguments in favour of God are flawed is your opinion.

Why does this need explaining to you?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Logical arguments are not about subjective opinions. You've got that all wrong. If it would be, why bother with logical argument at all?
Just because somebody doesn't see it's flawed, doesn't mean it's not flawed.

But logic doesn't apply to 2 different cases, where both are actually a part of the everyday world.
If you subjectively can think/feel X and not Y and I can think Y and not X, then that is not a contradiction, because those are different places and times.
You are conflated that there is no evidence as per your version of evidence for God with the fact that other people can believe in God and act on that. The latter is a fact of how the world works.

 

[Kenny]

It's obvious you're not being an honest interlocutor.

@firedragon

Interesting...

In two short days, it is the second time someone has used that exact same phrase.

At this time, the only common denominator is that both are non-theistic. Is this the new "don't want to address someones view"?

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Most all religious people have hope. Getting rid of religion gets rid of their hope.

Hope in or for what?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

@firedragon

Interesting...

In two short days, it is the second time someone has used that exact same phrase.

At this time, the only common denominator is that both are non-theistic. Is this the new "don't want to address someones view"?

Well, it also happens for other people than non-theists.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Good point. No one should believe their husband, wife or kid is the best.
Evidence would suggest otherwise. There is always someone that has it better.
Why should anyone believe their children will grow up to be great? Until they are grown, there is no evidence to prove they will. Right?

The reality is there is only one person that is the best at anything and the odds of that person being you or your kids is miniscule. I am more concerned that my kids are good and kind people while giving them the tools to succeed at what they want to do in life. One of the best parenting advices I received when I was a young dad was to look at your kids character and honestly evaluate it. Pick something they are deficient in and work on that. Thinking your kid is the best can fool you into thinking they are the best. Being honest with them while helping and encouraging them to succeed is what you need to do in my opinion.