Many Religions Make for a Better World than One (or None)

[tayla]

History shows us what happens when humans lack choices, as our nature begs for options. Attempts at monopolies fail - the authoritarian structure become corrupt over time, and people beg for something different when the monopoly inevitably fails to meet someone's particular needs. One way cannot last and will fragment into many. So why try and force a monopoly of religion (or irreligion) in the first place?

Notice that the argument presented seems to assume that religions are being forced on people, so therefore, it is better to give them a choice which religion they accept.

But we should stop forcing anything on people, religion included. Perhaps everyone will willingly choose only one religion; should we stop them? Also, people tend to choose the religion they were raised with. We should forbid this so people can choose freely?

 

[paarsurrey]

This is a false premise.

The argument against religion simply needs to point out that religion's one undeniable accomplishment is its division of humanity into thousands of quarreling sects; and, as such, is a major obstacle in humanity's quest for global harmony.

A big claim but what are you talking about? Can you give us say three examples of beautiful things that religion, and only religion, have given the world?

"The argument against religion simply needs to point out that religion's one undeniable accomplishment is its division of humanity into thousands of quarreling sects; and, as such, is a major obstacle in humanity's quest for global harmony." Unquote

The non-religions are even more divided than the religions. The people of non-religions namely Atheism/Agnosticism etc people openly say that every or most individuals belonging to them have different approaches in matters pertaining to life. Right, please?

Regards

 

[tayla]

There's no way to know if something is the "One True Way"

Yes, of course not. But this doesn't mean we should strive to have a diversity of religions. Rather, we should leave people alone and let them believe what they want, even it they all end up rejecting religion altogether. As long as everyone is allowed dignity and freedom, there is no need to control anything.

 

[paarsurrey]

Can someone be peaceful, righteous, a person of good standing without God?

In the temporal or worldly or secular matters, yes.
The Revealed Religions or paths are for obtaining nearness to G-d spiritually , it is not possible, as the adherents of non-religions don't believe in G-d and the right path they have to follow as revealed by messenger/prophets.

Regards

 

[Mock Turtle]

"The argument against religion simply needs to point out that religion's one undeniable accomplishment is its division of humanity into thousands of quarreling sects; and, as such, is a major obstacle in humanity's quest for global harmony." Unquote

The non-religions are even more divided than the religions. The people of non-religions namely Atheism/Agnosticism etc people openly say that every or most individuals belonging to them have different approaches in matters pertaining to life. Right, please?

Regards

Oh yes, we see just so many atheists and agnostics saying my belief is better than yours and the only one - unlike the religious. Understand what inversion is? Seen many atheists or agnostics warring against each other recently - where their beliefs are the causes of this? When this is precisely what we see (have seen) happening with religious beliefs.

I think what you are referring to is freedom of expression or freedom of thought, not exactly the same usually as religious belief, with the former rather encouraged in most democratic societies it seems.

 

[Quintessence]

You seem to assume religious diversity is the superior viewpoint, and that the other two possible viewpoints are inferior to this.

I don't assume this, it's the argument of the opening post - that allowing for diversity in religious matters (which includes irreligion) is matter of factly superior to lack thereof.

I prefer to view the issue in terms of whether someone and their viewpoint, whatever it may be, is exploiting others by demanding they agree, and with how we build a just society without doing this. The question has nothing to do with religious diversity but, rather, with people treating each other with respect.

That's a fair point, but treating other peoples with respect requires respecting human diversity, religious or otherwise. By "respect" here I basically mean "accept the existence of and strive to coexist with rather than change." Perhaps the biggest component of respect is tolerance of differentness IMHO.

Just because something is beautiful doesn't mean we should saturate the world with it. And by removing one beautiful religion, you may be making the world an even better place by saturating it with an even better religion than the one you discarded. Thus, we should get rid of all but the best religion to maximize the beauty.

How do you decide what the "best or better religion" is for this purpose? I don't believe that's possible. In fact, I'm positive people are going to disagree with each other on this point given how subjective aesthetics are. This means that the moment you remove some component of religious diversity, you are loosing something beautiful (whether or not you personally like it or find it beautiful someone does).

Also, we can't just ignore the ugly side of religion just because it has a beautiful. If all religions have an ugly side, then getting rid of them all will make the world a more beautify place by removing all the ugliness.

The intent isn't to ignore the ugly side of religion. The point is mainly to recognize that you will throw the baby out with the bathwater by attempting to eradicate it or homogenize it.

Notice that the argument presented seems to assume that religions are being forced on people, so therefore, it is better to give them a choice which religion they accept.

I think the author of the article that inspired this post assumes that because of both history and an understanding of human nature. What you say here actually supports the point rather than derails it. In order to get everyone - no exceptions - on the same train as far as religion goes, some sort of coercion or force is necessary. Religious diversity exists because human diversity exists; we really can't get rid of one without getting rid of the other or using coercion or force. It's how life in general operates, come to think of it - the universe resists stagnation and is always changing. Diversity is in its blood, so to speak.

Yes, of course not. But this doesn't mean we should strive to have a diversity of religions. Rather, we should leave people alone and let them believe what they want, even it they all end up rejecting religion altogether. As long as everyone is allowed dignity and freedom, there is no need to control anything.

If we do that, then we'll pretty much have the landscape that we do today - diverse human cultures (a component of which is religion), some of which that are live and let live, some of which that want to command and control. I rather like it as it is. I don't really see it as about striving for diversity in of itself either, but diversity is an inevitability of the human condition (and the universe as a whole).

 

[Woberts]

Eh, I'll stick with hating all religions with a violent passion.
Cheers.

 

[Woberts]

Can someone be peaceful, righteous, a person of good standing without God?

Of course. Thinking otherwise is just ignorant.

 

[Quintessence]

Eh, I'll stick with hating all religions with a violent passion.
Cheers.

I sincerely hope you don't mean that literally. I also find myself wondering why you are on these forums at all.

 

[Woberts]

I sincerely hope you don't mean that literally. I also find myself wondering why you are on these forums at all.

I'm just being a caricature of myself.
Replacing violent passion with disliking would be more accurate.
Of course, that's not much better.

 

[joe1776]

"The argument against religion simply needs to point out that religion's one undeniable accomplishment is its division of humanity into thousands of quarreling sects; and, as such, is a major obstacle in humanity's quest for global harmony." Unquote

The non-religions are even more divided than the religions. The people of non-religions namely Atheism/Agnosticism etc people openly say that every or most individuals belonging to them have different approaches in matters pertaining to life. Right, please?

Regards

Despite their differences, though, I haven't noticed atheists or agnostics forming groups to make war on their opponents or to organize politically to deprive opponents of their rights. Have you?

This doesn't argue that atheists and agnostics are morally superior individually to theists. It only argues that they aren't organized to do much harm.

 

[paarsurrey]

Despite their differences, though, I haven't noticed atheists or agnostics forming groups to make war on their opponents or to organize politically to deprive opponents of their rights. Have you?

This doesn't argue that atheists and agnostics are morally superior individually to theists. It only argues that they aren't organized to do much harm.

To be not organized is not appreciable, it shows they are in doubt and therefore in quandary.

Regards

 

[joe1776]

To be not organized is not appreciable, it shows they are in doubt and therefore in quandary.

Regards

My friend, you strike me as a nice, intelligent person who is trying much too hard to find fault with atheism.

Atheists think you're mistaken. Why does it bother you so much that they think that?

 

[Vinayaka]

To be not organized is not appreciable, it shows they are in doubt and therefore in quandary.

Regards

It doesn't show that at all, Paar. It shows that atheism is really diverse, in many countries, and there is no real need to organise in the way you're talking about.

 

[Looncall]

To be not organized is not appreciable, it shows they are in doubt and therefore in quandary.

Regards

Not at all. Being unwilling to succumb to scams doesn't require organization.