What would the world be without religion ?

[psychoslice]

I'm scratching my head. You mean you in general? As in people, right?

There is no such thing as my religion. Religion incorporates a lot of things that every human being does in order to survive. It becomes a religion when that action and belief (whatever it may be) becomes the foundation of all the things he does.

Whatever makes you-you personally-thankful to be alive is part of religion.

Whatever you do that lets yourself and others know you are grateful for being alive is part of religion.

You don't have to call it religion.

I don't know why religion has to be about god. That wasn't implied in the OP. If it was, I may not have replied since religion to half the rest of the world has no thing and concept of in it. While another part of the world population does not live a religion based on heirchy, politics, and things of that nature.

Broaden your definition to understand it through each individual person rather than lump every religious into one group and then say we are stupid (in one way or another) for following a religion that we should be without.

It's an insult; but, more the reason I replied was, I don't see the logic behind it other than personal bias and experience maybe? Nothing objective.

Without going through all that, all I can say is that religion has nothing to offer for the intelligent, except for blind faith, which is nothing.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

@psychoslice Maybe it's more we don't need Abrahamic religions anymore? Make it more specific or is this more a "get things off your chest" thread?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Without going through all that, all I can say is that religion has nothing to offer for the intelligent, except for blind faith, which is nothing.

I am saying it does. Religion isn't about power. Control. etc. It's not about god.

It's a generalized word that it seems you're putting a lot of hate into.

I would be grateful, though, if you read my posts and take as much time as you need to do so. Summarize it if you like, but I don't like debating. I'm just saying you're putting hate words into a word that doesn't have to do with that.​

It's like saying, I don't know, having a family is wrong because family's destroy each other, parents abuse their kids, and there is no proper upbringing.

 

[psychoslice]

I am saying it does. Religion isn't about power. Control. etc. It's not about god.

It's a generalized word that it seems you're putting a lot of hate into.

Just because I don't have time for your so called religion, doesn't mean I have hate, how could I hate something that doesn't even exists ?.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Just because I don't have time for your so called religion, doesn't mean I have hate, how could I hate something that doesn't even exists ?.

Rephrase your tone.

It's like saying "Having a family makes a person stupid. Don't have a family because parents abuse their children and don't give proper upbringing."

Does that sound right?

(Trying to make this very simple so you can read my post and reply with thought)

 

[Pudding]

Well to me personally its all ignorance, I don't see religion being more intelligent than what it has for many years, its all down hill with religion, no matter what religion.

Do you mean to say all religion is ignorance?

And religion haven't making advancement to become more intelligent from over the few thousand years?
Seeing that the gradually abolishment of many ancient religions' barbaric moral/laws, to today that many people even who follow religion supporting of religion freedom, i see it as many modern religion to be much more intelligent than the ancient religion, it's not down hill but up hill.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Please read my post. It's not a debate.

I believe that it would be a far better world, we would be much more intelligent, and therefore we would be making more intelligent decisions.

Religion (the practice of one's morals) can make a better world if people's morals (or their beliefs, whichever) reflect their practices (religion).

We would be respectful to each other, not because we are told to be by commandments, but simple because we all are on this planet together, and why not treat each other, just as we want to be treated ?.

Since we are talking about people here, then, yes, I agree with you. It would be nice to have peaceful ways to relate to each other.

I disagree with you because I define those peaceful actions as religion. Why don't you? What's the logic behind defining religion based on a set of commandments?

I feel that to need a religion to keep us in check is to be nothing more than unintelligent, as if we are all stupid.

It depends on the religion. I agree in regards to Christianity. I disagree if you're talking about Buddhism and Paganism. The former does keep people in check (however, I wouldn't phrase it that way), the latter two don't.

If you have read this, hopefully you got my point. Are you talking about Abrahamic religions? Christianity specifically?

This is how most religions keep us, stupid, not thinking for ourselves, yes a world without religion will certainty make us much more intelligent.

Depends on how the person approaches and practices the religion.

When I had practiced Catholicism, I never felt stupid nor was I stupid. I thought for myself. I am intelligent (or so I think :/) I was and am still me.

Unless I wasn't the average Catholic?

So what do you think, are you addicted to your religion, can you live without your religion, and if you cannot why??.

If you're talking about control-religion, no. Left that five years ago (time is flying).

If you're talking about what religion actually is then yes, a lot of us are addicted to it. I think maybe you're having issues with specific addictions. Religion isn't an addiction. I can see how Christianity is, though. That's me.

Being more specific here. There is a difference.

Please read my post.

 

[Augustus]

I believe that it would be a far better world, we would be much more intelligent, and therefore we would be making more intelligent decisions. We would be respectful to each other, not because we are told to be by commandments, but simple because we all are on this planet together, and why not treat each other, just as we want to be treated ?.

I feel that to need a religion to keep us in check is to be nothing more than unintelligent, as if we are all stupid.

This is how most religions keep us, stupid, not thinking for ourselves, yes a world without religion will certainty make us much more intelligent.

I think the idea that without religion we would suddenly become collectively 'better' as a species, treat each other kindly and make good decisions is the comforting 'salvation myth' of the irreligious. A psychological safety blanket of the kind that they often criticise religious people for needing.

Religion is a form of myth, and must necessary be replaced with another myth. If not:

"there is no doubt that the progress of reason and the extinction of illusions produce barbarism … The greatest enemy of barbarism is not reason but nature. Nature (if properly followed, however) provides us with illusions that, in their right place, make a people truly civilized … Illusions are natural, inherent to the system of the world. When they are removed completely or almost completely, man is denatured, and every denatured people is barbarous … And reason, by making us naturally inclined to pursue our own advantage, and removing the illusions that bind us to one another, dissolves society absolutely and turns people to savagery."
Giacomo Leopardi, quote from John Gray, The Soul of the Marionette.


In a society without myth (or illusion as Leopardi puts it) there is no broader society and no wider purpose. If religion had developed in human society, we would probably still be living in caves and huts as it was the glue to bind societies into ever larger groups beyond the mere family or tribe. Religions are a mixed bag, they contain myths of great wisdom, passed down through experience that offer insight into the human condition. They also contain harmful myths of supremacy and universalism. But if religion disappeared the replacement myths would also be a mixed bag because humans are a mixed bag.

Leopardi again: "The difference between beasts and human beings is not that humans are self-aware while beasts are not. Both are conscious machines. The difference lies in the greater frailty of the human soul, which produces illusions of which beasts have no need."

Myth is a necessity, the problems start when people take theirs too seriously, but this is by no means limited to religion (see 20th C totalitarianism, etc). There is no reason to assume the new myths will be superior to the old, and no reason to assume it would make us 'more intelligent' or believe we are smart enough to 'rationally' remake the world according to our best interests.

 

[rusra02]

I think false religion does blind people's minds, and is responsible for much of the world's misery. True religion draws one to the true God, our Creator, the one who knows what is best for us. No religion (atheism), IMO, makes us blind to vital facts and keeps us from knowing the true God, Jehovah. So, both false religion and atheism leaves us to stumble in mental and spiritual darkness. Sadly, I believe many want to live their lives that way.

 

[`mud]

Question is about 'what would the earth be without 'Gods' "...or something like that.
I think of all those 'gods' out there, and inside us and blood in us and pain.
Why do all those 'gods' deliver so much PAIN to humans, in the name of religion ?
Or....does not the religion bring the pain, or the 'Gods' deliver such ?
No 'god' hurled floods one after another and the 'big one'.
What would that be like........reading here......about the same, I think.
'Gods' don't exist, just the thought of them does, and the real fear of pain.
Nothing would 'change'.......Life is Stuff and it goes on, for awhile !
~
NuffStuff
'mud

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I remember hearing some believer said that their religion keeps them from doing immoral actions...
So without their religion, those believer will become free to do whatever they like, they'll make the world a chaos.

What do you think the ratio is of people like you describe to religiously-motivated suicide bombers? To people who abuse their spouses because their religion says it's okay?

 

[David1967]

Of course it depends on how you define religion. Not every one sees religion from that perspective; therefore, while we call it is still a religion and we adhere to it, it would kind of fall through a loop hole in your OP. Trying to figure how to fix it.


If people didn't take advantage of their religion, then they (these specific people) will have that in their religion. It would be a part of their religion and it helps them see things just as respectfully and differently than how I see things and how Joe sees things.

It's abuse and control. It's the people not the religion.



Some Pagan religions and worldviews have this mindset specifically and that is how we live. Yet, we also have specific rituals and people we interact with that helps us see this without infringing on someone else's rights to believe what they want.

Of course, people can abuse this religious worldview and do their thing. That's not religion. That's, um, politics. (Couldn't figure which one matched. )



Religion in and of itself doesn't keep one "in check." Specific religions have their tenants and doctrines that keep people in check; and, it doesn't define religion and how other people without those types of doctrines live their life with structure without the politics involved.



1. Yes, I am addicted to my religion. The Buddha's Law just is regardless of what we call it. Practicing is religion. Unless I abuse the laws of cause and affect (say go murder someone) and practice the opposite, then I am practicing and being religious. That's part of my religion. So, without it, I don't have to live by any societal laws. I wouldn't have morals. My values would be gone. Without religion/practice of one's morals and values via structure whether prayer or just eating as a family every Tuesday afternoon after work and school; it's religion.

Religion is about context not content.​

I guess I already answered the second part...now that I think of it, the third part too.

I wouldn't have appreciation for life if I don't have a need nor want to not only believe in the lessons life gives me but to practice it in my life as well. I would feel disconnected because I value family even if we are a part mentally.

I value where I live on this earth and taking care of it. I value life in and of itself.

I am grateful.

How can we live without being thankful?

That is religion. I can't see humanity as a peaceful world without it.

Wonderful answer Carlita. As usual , thoughtful and well articulated.

 

[David1967]

It's hard to say. If you consider a world where we never formulated religions that would be an interesting thought, however, if you are think of a world where all the religions were removed that would be quite another. I do agree that much of religion is predicated on the inherent stupidity of mankind. In stark contrast though, Paganism for all it's tom-foolery is in many ways more enlightened than the "respected" religions.


I'm pretty sure he is implying that "divine law" has given rise to good man-made laws. You know, that happy Sharia stuff...

To be fair. I dont think that Dawud's branch of Islam subscribes to Sharia ( Dawud correct me if I am wrong). And they reject violence.

 

[LuisDantas]

What would the world be without religion ?

That would depend entirely on what changes would make it possible for religion not to exist.

Personally, I find religion as a way of pursuing stability and ethics both unavoidable in any culture of sentient beings and a good thing.

It is theism, particularly monotheism, that I find worrisome.

 

[Quintessence]

I believe that it would be a far better world, we would be much more intelligent, and therefore we would be making more intelligent decisions.

How do you figure? Religion plays no small role in my desire to learn about the world around me. Following a nature-centered religion was a major factor in me deciding to pursue graduate education in sciences dedicated to studying the natural world. But you're telling me that I would somehow be "more intelligent" and "better off" if I lacked the very thing that motivated me to follow intellectual pursuits in the first place? Sorry, that doesn't follow.

We would be respectful to each other, not because we are told to be by commandments, but simple because we all are on this planet together, and why not treat each other, just as we want to be treated ?.

What does it matter why people are respectful to each other so long as they are respectful to each other? Furthermore, the notion of behaving in a particular way due to some set of prescribed rules is hardly unique to religions , nor do such prescribed rules exist in all religions. Your example of the Commandments only applies to the Biblical religions, not to other religions.

I feel that to need a religion to keep us in check is to be nothing more than unintelligent, as if we are all stupid.

If you feel this way about behavioral prescriptions that emerge from some religions, it would make sense if you held to the same standard for all other forms of behavioral prescriptions, regardless of their source. Other sources of prescriptions for human behavior include laws created by governments, unspoken laws in the form of social norms or manners, that sort of thing. These things that keep us in check must be making us stupid too, right? Come to think of it, this is basically criticizing the fundamental nature of humans as social animals, because it is our social interactions that lead us to create various limitations on individual behaviors. It's an unavoidable aspect of who we are, so basically, you are calling humanity stupid. That's pretty cynical.

This is how most religions keep us, stupid, not thinking for ourselves, yes a world without religion will certainty make us much more intelligent.

I'm getting the impression you are conflating "religion" with "Abrahamic religious traditions that exhibit authoritarian and fundamentalist tendencies." Which is not all of the Abrahamic traditions, by the way.

So what do you think, are you addicted to your religion, can you live without your religion, and if you cannot why??.

I don't understand what "addicted to your religion" is, or what that would look like, so I have no idea how to approach answering that. As for living without my religion, that is as utterly impossible for me as it is for any other human on this planet. As @Augustus alluded to, a centerpiece of religions is mythos - the stories we tell ourselves that frame our understanding of the world, and that conjure a particular sort of meaning and purpose from life experiences. From those stories, emerge many other things - norms for behavior, creative endeavors, social institutions, and so on. All of these things are fundamental to being human.

So to me, when you ask if the world would be better off without religion, this is the same as asking if the world would be better off without the human species. But that is a trail that I shall not wander down at this time.

 

[McBell]

I believe that it would be a far better world, we would be much more intelligent, and therefore we would be making more intelligent decisions. We would be respectful to each other, not because we are told to be by commandments, but simple because we all are on this planet together, and why not treat each other, just as we want to be treated ?.

I feel that to need a religion to keep us in check is to be nothing more than unintelligent, as if we are all stupid.

This is how most religions keep us, stupid, not thinking for ourselves, yes a world without religion will certainty make us much more intelligent.

So what do you think, are you addicted to your religion, can you live without your religion, and if you cannot why??.

What is your basis for comparison?

 

[Twilight Hue]

Religion provides a platform. Like anything, as many already are all too aware, it's plieability leads to it's intended benefit or a tool of abuse dependent on outlook and appeal.

While the world would be more direct and pragmatic without religion, I also suspect there would create a paradigm shift where symbolism and iconic expression gets redirected elsewhere in some capacity.

Probably end up making literal "God's" out of regular people, again, and then back to "square one".

 

[LuisDantas]

I remember hearing some believer said that their religion keeps them from doing immoral actions...
So without their religion, those believer will become free to do whatever they like, they'll make the world a chaos.

As @9-10ths_Penguin hinted, those people are actually unusual. They are also a strong reason to question the effectiveness of religion and, as a matter of fact, their moral legitimacy.

Instilling fear and external authority is a poor substitute for morality - if it is a substitute at all, that is.

With the presense of their religion in the world, at least there may have some good moral which can come from their religion to be follow by them though there may still have quite some immoral teachings by their religion, so the result is mix, but maybe better than a world without religion.

I beg to differ. We can't accept such a confusion of fear and authority for morality proper.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Instilling fear and external authority is a poor substitute for morality - if it is a substitute at all, that is.

Also, over time, I think the less that kids are taught that the reason to be good is because an invisible, all-seeing being will punish them after they die if they're bad, the fewer adults there will be who can't be good without believing that there's an invisible, all-seeing being who will punish them after they die if they're bad.

 

[Servant_of_the_One1]

It would be sinful world