Would the world be better off without any religion?

[Ponder This]

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

What would be better?
What would be worse?

I think that, as the world currently is, religion is, on the whole, more beneficial than detrimental.
The major religions: Christianity, Islam, and Hindiism are, on the whole, more beneficial than detrimental. Even many of the smaller religions are more benefical than detrimental.

Even though there do exist religions that are more detrimental than beneficial, I still have to say that, on the whole, the world, as it currently is, is better than if there were no religion.

That is not to say that people who are not religious don't also contribute to society. Many of them do contribute. But that doesn't mean that no religion would be better for the world as a whole.

For example, religion is associated with reduced suicide rates, alcoholism, and drug use.

 

[YoursTrue]

The question has been answered. There are billions of . . . countless gods.

good point
True but is there a true, supreme God like Jesus said when he called his father the only True God? John 17:3. Let me put it this way as for answer. I believe Jesus when he called his Father in heaven the only true God. He declared, "This means everlasting life, their coming to know you, the only true God, and the one whom you sent, Jesus Christ."

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...



Possibilities:
1. God is all-powerful and all-knowing, and enjoys sitting back, doing nothing, watching some kids suffer and die. The suffering is worse when those in pain see others who are "blessed" randomly. #blessed, haha.... I'm sure they totally deserved it.
2. God is not all-powerful, and therefore not God.
3. God is not all-knowing, and therefore not God.

Thinking about it, the world is unjust, unmerciful. God ceases to be God if unjust, unmerciful etc. so reality clearly shows us there is no loving, just, powerful, God. No God. Any powerful being who sits back and allows what happens on this earth is no being to worship.

Best to face reality, do something real rather than "pray" which is doing nothing. Reading a fictional book, dressing up feeling chosen and better than others, preaching to others they know nothing about - privileged people escapism.

Religion is a way for people to avoid helping others - "I'll pray for you", or " it will all be worked out in heaven" - this is how people avoid actually serving and working for others in my experience.

Question for all the religious people out there - how much time have you spent getting dressed up, reading, and preaching, and looking good in front of others.... in comparison to how much time have you spent with immigrants? in soup kitchens? in hospitals?

I have to get back to work, do something real.

Well, I am not standard religious, so I won't answer for the religious people.
As for your logic about God, that only applies if you check through evidence what God is.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Why don't you start another thread to discuss this. It is a long discussion. What is good epistemology is a good discussion to have and come to conclusions on.

Well, I can save you the trouble. I am a strong general philosophical skeptic so I know nothing about knowledge. So that is not worth debating with one like me, because I in the end only have blind faith.

 

[Semmelweis Reflex]

good point
True but is there a true, supreme God like Jesus said when he called his father the only True God? John 17:3. Let me put it this way as for answer. I believe Jesus when he called his Father in heaven the only true God. He declared, "This means everlasting life, their coming to know you, the only true God, and the one whom you sent, Jesus Christ."

Well, okay. That's a good answer. But the Bible calls Jehovah, Jesus, Moses, and the Judges of Israel Gods that were true as well. So, what does it actually mean to be the "only true God"? The Amplified Bible points out it means supreme and sovereign. That's good enough for me, but it doesn't exclude there being other true Gods. Only true God is a hyperbolic intensifier. So, no true God is above or equal to the only true God.

 

[firedragon]

What are you asking? Why believing things without good evidence is bad?

Nope.

 

[firedragon]

...The Bible is not wholly authentic, and in this respect is not to be compared with the Qur'an, and should be wholly subordinated to the authentic writings of Bahá'u'lláh.
(28 July 1936 to a National Spiritual Assembly)

In that case, don't make them all equal. Be consistent.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

The question has been answered. There are billions of . . . countless gods.

I finally realized this truth after I disavowed my faith in the Christian God and freed myself from the Christian indoctrination that was in my head for the majority of my life. However, I'm not emotionally inclined at the moment to worship a new god and/or goddess, but when I am ready, I'll seek a god and/or goddess who isn't vindictive, unjust, sadistic, barbaric, and psychopathic like the God of the Bible has shown himself to be. Surely, there are benevolent gods and goddesses who are morally superior to the Christian God.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I think it can be demonstrated that believing false things to be true can be harmful. Such as believing that humors out of balance in your body is the reason for sickness can lead to bad treatments for sickness and lead to death. Believing the true reason behind a sickness is far better because you then can have a better chance of healing a person.

Yes, you use the standard one for some non-religious people. For something objective it might kill you, so you better know that, because you don't want that. And everything else I say it is same as the cases with something objective, which might kill you.

Well, it is now close to 25 years ago that I heard a variant of that one, and it still doesn't hold, because all of the everyday world is not just objective stuff, which can kill you, if you don't watch out.
So try another one and I might learn something new, but not this time, sorry.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It depends on what you are talking about. Subjective truths are true but not true for everyone. Like a favorite color. I define truth as what lines up or describes reality.

Does the bold sentence line up to reality or does it describe reality?
But we do agree that there seems to be different kinds of truth.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Objective reality is all we have good evidence for. I never said the supernatural does not exist.

Nor did I. As for evidence that to me is a belief system that appears to work:
Philosophy of science - Wikipedia

Now I do believe in this. "1. that there is an objective reality shared by all rational observers." But I don't know that as true or with evidence.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I'm talking about theism in general, not the Christian God. I'm not a Christian. There are several arguments used routinely by theists, but you'd have to go to someone else for Christian specific arguments. I'm talking about things such as the Cosmological Argument; The Argument from the Existence of Evil; the Ontological Argument; the Argument from Design; Fine-tuning; Moral Argument; Argument from the Existence of Free Will etc.

Some of those aren't very good points. Like fine tuning. It may seem that way, but there's a lot of sloppy tuning as well. Free will we love to cling to, but the more we learn the more it looks like the old Saxon phrase, wyrd bið ful aræd, that fate is everything, is more true than free will.

 

[Audie]

Communism is very atheist. The Chinese Government in very communist. They impose a great deal on the people.

I did not say atheist can't know right from wrong. Many do live very moral lives. However many also do not.

"I know nothing of history"? Yeah that's pretty funny there.

Still claiming there is no religion in Chuna.
Thats three times

 

[Audie]

Okay, well good luck getting a handle on or describing reality. It’s quite a big subject and no one has cracked it yet, certainly not using reason and logic alone.

Closer than religion will ever get.

Looking at the resistance to evolution,
its a wonder religiin ever gave up and accepted
heliocentrism.

 

[Semmelweis Reflex]

I finally realized this truth after I disavowed my faith in the Christian God and freed myself from the Christian indoctrination that was in my head for the majority of my life. However, I'm not emotionally inclined at the moment to worship a new god and/or goddess, but when I am ready, I'll seek a god and/or goddess who isn't vindictive, unjust, sadistic, barbaric, and psychopathic like the God of the Bible has shown himself to be. Surely, there are benevolent gods and goddesses who are morally superior to the Christian God.

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.

 

[Rival]

Some of those aren't very good points. Like fine tuning. It may seem that way, but there's a lot of sloppy tuning as well. Free will we love to cling to, but the more we learn the more it looks like the old Saxon phrase, wyrd bið ful aræd, that fate is everything, is more true than free will.

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 do think it has merit, especially when one looks at the numbers and the overwhelming chance that the universe we live in would basically never have existed in any other configuration. 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.

 

[Audie]

Right, so their evidence through personal experience, or their intepretation of that evidence draws them to their own conclusion.



True, but if you have good faith you need good evidence.



Either or, huh? But you said you didn't believe in certainty. It sounds to me like you are simply saying your evidence is good and any other conclusion would be faith. If you don't have certainty then you have faith.

Good grief, the way people equivocate the word " faith"!

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

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 do think it has merit, especially when one looks at the numbers and the overwhelming chance that the universe we live in would basically never have existed. 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.

Well, I get what you are saying. But to me a strong general philosophical skeptic it is all blind faith in the end.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Good grief, the way people equivocate the word " faith"!

Well, I am not standard religious, but all I have for what objective reality is in itself is a variant of faith as complete trust or confidence in someone or something. I completely trust objective reality to be epistemologically fair so we can know something.

 

[Semmelweis Reflex]

Good grief, the way people equivocate the word " faith"!

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.