some_guy01
Registered Senior Member
What if the world never new that religion could exist. Do you people think that the world would be quite a bit more peaceful?
what are your thought???
what are your thought???
A world with out religion
- Thread starter some_guy01
- Start date
I don't think the world would be more peaceful. But perhaps it would be more sane.
On the other hand, such a world is impossible. If there were no religion, someone would invent it -- because religiously-driven societies are much more effective at war as well as at maintaining non-democratic social structures, and therefore are likely both to dominate and to spread their religion. Religions compete for survival just like all other memes. Which is why the religions you see dominating the world today are merely the most virulent ones of the lot (for the moment.)
But imagine for a moment a world that is fully democratic and unified. While the conservative right viewes that as anathema, in such a world war would be a thing of the past (just as you don't see the states of U.S. fighting each other, so you won't see the states of a unified world fighting each other.) If living conditions are more or less uniform across the board, there would be no reason for neighbors to resent each other. In such a world, religion would be deprived of its old social advantages. Which is perhaps a good part of the reason why the conservative right finds such a hypothetical situation intolerable.
Such a world is not possible in the near term, given the present realities. But perhaps in a few generations...
On the other hand, such a world is impossible. If there were no religion, someone would invent it -- because religiously-driven societies are much more effective at war as well as at maintaining non-democratic social structures, and therefore are likely both to dominate and to spread their religion. Religions compete for survival just like all other memes. Which is why the religions you see dominating the world today are merely the most virulent ones of the lot (for the moment.)
But imagine for a moment a world that is fully democratic and unified. While the conservative right viewes that as anathema, in such a world war would be a thing of the past (just as you don't see the states of U.S. fighting each other, so you won't see the states of a unified world fighting each other.) If living conditions are more or less uniform across the board, there would be no reason for neighbors to resent each other. In such a world, religion would be deprived of its old social advantages. Which is perhaps a good part of the reason why the conservative right finds such a hypothetical situation intolerable.
Such a world is not possible in the near term, given the present realities. But perhaps in a few generations...
*Originally posted by Bambi
I don't think the world would be more peaceful. But perhaps it would be more sane.*
When you wrote that, you probably thought you were sounding very wise.
What would be "more sane" about a world that is not "more peaceful?"
*But imagine for a moment a world that is fully democratic and unified.*
Democratic is practically the opposite of unified.
What you are proposing is a world in lockstep agreement with you.
*If living conditions are more or less uniform across the board, there would be no reason for neighbors to resent each other.*
Given human nature, they'll think of something.
*In such a world, religion would be deprived of its old social advantages.*
That will never happen since God is in charge of "advantage."
The LORD will not suffer the soul of the righteous to famish: but he casteth away the substance of the wicked.
(Proverbs 10:3, KJV).
It is not for nothing the poorest countries in the world are the least Christian countries in the world.
I don't think the world would be more peaceful. But perhaps it would be more sane.*
When you wrote that, you probably thought you were sounding very wise.
What would be "more sane" about a world that is not "more peaceful?"
*But imagine for a moment a world that is fully democratic and unified.*
Democratic is practically the opposite of unified.
What you are proposing is a world in lockstep agreement with you.
*If living conditions are more or less uniform across the board, there would be no reason for neighbors to resent each other.*
Given human nature, they'll think of something.
*In such a world, religion would be deprived of its old social advantages.*
That will never happen since God is in charge of "advantage."
The LORD will not suffer the soul of the righteous to famish: but he casteth away the substance of the wicked.
(Proverbs 10:3, KJV).
It is not for nothing the poorest countries in the world are the least Christian countries in the world.
LOL, Tony
It's not my intent or even aspiration to sound "very wise". But thanks for the laugh.
However, without religion there might not have been the need for the Nazi holocaust, for the Irish catholic/protestant wars, for the enmity of fundamental Islam toward the rest of the world, for the recent characterizations of imperialistic power projection as a war of "good against evil", for the incessant niggling on the topics of sexuality or sexual orientation, for the perpetual attempts at cultural censorship, for the ridiculous creationist movement, for the televangelists and tax-exempt political engines of organized religion, for even the existence of Israel, for repressive theocratic dictatorships of the middle east, for Muslim vs. Christian massacres of Indonesia, Nigeria and who knows where else, etc.
Maybe without religion, a few more things would be called by their true names and analyzed for their true causes. Maybe that would avoid some of the mindless zealotry that causes so much grief in the world. <u>Perhaps</u>, I said, the world would be more sane.
You must've never heard of the <u>United</u> States. Or, perhaps, of the European <u>Union</u>.
It's not my intent or even aspiration to sound "very wise". But thanks for the laugh.
However, without religion there might not have been the need for the Nazi holocaust, for the Irish catholic/protestant wars, for the enmity of fundamental Islam toward the rest of the world, for the recent characterizations of imperialistic power projection as a war of "good against evil", for the incessant niggling on the topics of sexuality or sexual orientation, for the perpetual attempts at cultural censorship, for the ridiculous creationist movement, for the televangelists and tax-exempt political engines of organized religion, for even the existence of Israel, for repressive theocratic dictatorships of the middle east, for Muslim vs. Christian massacres of Indonesia, Nigeria and who knows where else, etc.
Maybe without religion, a few more things would be called by their true names and analyzed for their true causes. Maybe that would avoid some of the mindless zealotry that causes so much grief in the world. <u>Perhaps</u>, I said, the world would be more sane.
You must've never heard of the <u>United</u> States. Or, perhaps, of the European <u>Union</u>.
Apparently you missed the Bush vs Gore election. Or all of politics for that matter. Since when has "United States" meant united in everything?
It is possible to be loyal to the government but fight against it's policies where one feels they are unconstitutional or just intrisicly wrong.
Ben
It is possible to be loyal to the government but fight against it's policies where one feels they are unconstitutional or just intrisicly wrong.
Ben
Ben,
When did I say "united in <u>everything</u>"? United economically, yes. United in institutionalizing and upholding common political principles, yes. Perhaps even united under a higher-level coordinative government body. But of course if a group is united in upholding <i>democracy</i>, then they automatically cannot be united in all of their views!
P.S. Sorry, I see how you could've misconstrued the phrase "fully democratic and unified". What I meant, of course, is [fully democratic], and [unified]; i.e. the "fully" only qualifies "democratic". Hmm, maybe I should've put in a comma, like "fully democratic, and unified"? Would that make it less ambiguous?
When did I say "united in <u>everything</u>"? United economically, yes. United in institutionalizing and upholding common political principles, yes. Perhaps even united under a higher-level coordinative government body. But of course if a group is united in upholding <i>democracy</i>, then they automatically cannot be united in all of their views!
P.S. Sorry, I see how you could've misconstrued the phrase "fully democratic and unified". What I meant, of course, is [fully democratic], and [unified]; i.e. the "fully" only qualifies "democratic". Hmm, maybe I should've put in a comma, like "fully democratic, and unified"? Would that make it less ambiguous?
Last edited:
The election which is a key part of democracy demonstated just how democracy isn't united. It divides people because it allows them to use their own brain to make decisions instead of being told what to think as in Communism or a Monarchy.
I was just pointing out why Tony is right.
Ben
I was just pointing out why Tony is right.
Ben
*Originally posted by Bambi
there might not have been the need for the Nazi holocaust, for the Irish catholic/protestant wars, for the enmity of fundamental Islam toward the rest of the world, for the recent characterizations of imperialistic power projection as a war of "good against evil", for the incessant niggling on the topics of sexuality or sexual orientation, for the perpetual attempts at cultural censorship, for the ridiculous creationist movement, for the televangelists and tax-exempt political engines of organized religion, for even the existence of Israel, for repressive theocratic dictatorships of the middle east, for Muslim vs. Christian massacres of Indonesia, Nigeria and who knows where else, etc.*
How would you know what cosmic influences are behind all those things?
The reality is that without religion, the earth would be blood-soaked and silent.
All of the morals you will want to credit atheists (such as yourself) with, come from religions.
Without morals, it is kill or be killed, since the world would be a zero-sum game.
*Maybe without religion, a few more things would be called by their true names and analyzed for their true causes. Maybe that would avoid some of the mindless zealotry that causes so much grief in the world. <u>Perhaps</u>, I said, the world would be more sane.*
Of course, with religion, things are called by their true names.
Evolution is called ridiculous.
Atheism is called foolishness.
You get the picture, I hope.
*You must've never heard of the <u>United</u> States. Or, perhaps, of the European <u>Union</u>. *
Thanks for the underline.
But it is quite apparent that you have missed the point.
It is the states which are united, not the people.
Democratic government is a means by which people with d-i-f-f-e-r-i-n-g opinions live together without killing each other.
*Hmm, maybe I should've put in a comma, like "fully democratic, and unified"? Would that make it less ambiguous?*
Yes.
It is still contradictory.
Perhaps you don't understand that if people are not unified in everything then they are not unified.
"Unified" literally means "made into one."
It doesn't mean "made partly into one, with some pieces left over."
*But I don't see how that makes Tony's inference from atheism to Communism or Monarchy a valid one. *
I'll bet you can read entire books between the lines of a post-it note.
there might not have been the need for the Nazi holocaust, for the Irish catholic/protestant wars, for the enmity of fundamental Islam toward the rest of the world, for the recent characterizations of imperialistic power projection as a war of "good against evil", for the incessant niggling on the topics of sexuality or sexual orientation, for the perpetual attempts at cultural censorship, for the ridiculous creationist movement, for the televangelists and tax-exempt political engines of organized religion, for even the existence of Israel, for repressive theocratic dictatorships of the middle east, for Muslim vs. Christian massacres of Indonesia, Nigeria and who knows where else, etc.*
How would you know what cosmic influences are behind all those things?
The reality is that without religion, the earth would be blood-soaked and silent.
All of the morals you will want to credit atheists (such as yourself) with, come from religions.
Without morals, it is kill or be killed, since the world would be a zero-sum game.
*Maybe without religion, a few more things would be called by their true names and analyzed for their true causes. Maybe that would avoid some of the mindless zealotry that causes so much grief in the world. <u>Perhaps</u>, I said, the world would be more sane.*
Of course, with religion, things are called by their true names.
Evolution is called ridiculous.
Atheism is called foolishness.
You get the picture, I hope.
*You must've never heard of the <u>United</u> States. Or, perhaps, of the European <u>Union</u>. *
Thanks for the underline.
But it is quite apparent that you have missed the point.
It is the states which are united, not the people.
Democratic government is a means by which people with d-i-f-f-e-r-i-n-g opinions live together without killing each other.
*Hmm, maybe I should've put in a comma, like "fully democratic, and unified"? Would that make it less ambiguous?*
Yes.
It is still contradictory.
Perhaps you don't understand that if people are not unified in everything then they are not unified.
"Unified" literally means "made into one."
It doesn't mean "made partly into one, with some pieces left over."
*But I don't see how that makes Tony's inference from atheism to Communism or Monarchy a valid one. *
I'll bet you can read entire books between the lines of a post-it note.
You people are too much
Tony,
If I may read a book between the lines of a post-it, then you can't read a line between the covers of a book!
Good grief man, that is exactly what I was saying! Didn't I make it clear that by "unified world" I meant the states of the world unified, and not the world's people? Well in case I didn't, I hope now I did!
Personally, I wouldn't be so obsessed with killing as I would be with survival. And survival -- especially among humans -- means working together with your tribe and behaving in a manner that ensures the survival of your tribe (because you cannot survive alone.)
And of course, morals do not come from religions. They existed even before protohumans were intelligent enough to form abstract and elaborate religious constructs. The emotional apparatus of the brain is much older than its neocortex. It is even fully present in dogs (you don't see dogs within the same pack killing each other, do you?)
Tony,
If I may read a book between the lines of a post-it, then you can't read a line between the covers of a book!
Good grief man, that is exactly what I was saying! Didn't I make it clear that by "unified world" I meant the states of the world unified, and not the world's people? Well in case I didn't, I hope now I did!
Personally, I wouldn't be so obsessed with killing as I would be with survival. And survival -- especially among humans -- means working together with your tribe and behaving in a manner that ensures the survival of your tribe (because you cannot survive alone.)
And of course, morals do not come from religions. They existed even before protohumans were intelligent enough to form abstract and elaborate religious constructs. The emotional apparatus of the brain is much older than its neocortex. It is even fully present in dogs (you don't see dogs within the same pack killing each other, do you?)
Does that mean you are not enough?
*Originally posted by Bambi
Didn't I make it clear that by "unified world" I meant the states of the world unified, and not the world's people? Well in case I didn't, I hope now I did!*
Well, you didn't really.
It was unclear because a "unified" world has no need of states, therefore the people are what would have to be unified.
Perhaps I'm skipping steps because I'm thinking you're headed where you eventually are going anyway.
*Personally, I wouldn't be so obsessed with killing as I would be with survival.*
You'd be one of the first to go, then.
*And survival -- especially among humans -- means working together with your tribe and behaving in a manner that ensures the survival of your tribe (because you cannot survive alone.)*
That is said from your current perspective i.e. a world with Christians in it.
Given human nature, sooner or later someone will make a mistake and not the kind that would increase survival rates.
The mistake will be to assume that killing everyone else would guarantee one's own survival.
Afterward, the error will become clear.
*And of course, morals do not come from religions. They existed even before protohumans were intelligent enough to form abstract and elaborate religious constructs. The emotional apparatus of the brain is much older than its neocortex. It is even fully present in dogs (you don't see dogs within the same pack killing each other, do you?) *
What protohumans?
Given that all other claimed Homo species are extinct, their morals perhaps didn't quite keep pace with their ability to refrain from killing each other.
(If you can hypothesize, so can I)
And you have parts of your brain that are of different ages?
As for the dog thing, you see dogs killing their own offspring.
They must not be aware of your theory.
In any case, at a literal level, you do have a point.
Since morals come from God, morals do not come from religions, literally speaking.
*Originally posted by Bambi
Didn't I make it clear that by "unified world" I meant the states of the world unified, and not the world's people? Well in case I didn't, I hope now I did!*
Well, you didn't really.
It was unclear because a "unified" world has no need of states, therefore the people are what would have to be unified.
Perhaps I'm skipping steps because I'm thinking you're headed where you eventually are going anyway.
*Personally, I wouldn't be so obsessed with killing as I would be with survival.*
You'd be one of the first to go, then.
*And survival -- especially among humans -- means working together with your tribe and behaving in a manner that ensures the survival of your tribe (because you cannot survive alone.)*
That is said from your current perspective i.e. a world with Christians in it.
Given human nature, sooner or later someone will make a mistake and not the kind that would increase survival rates.
The mistake will be to assume that killing everyone else would guarantee one's own survival.
Afterward, the error will become clear.
*And of course, morals do not come from religions. They existed even before protohumans were intelligent enough to form abstract and elaborate religious constructs. The emotional apparatus of the brain is much older than its neocortex. It is even fully present in dogs (you don't see dogs within the same pack killing each other, do you?) *
What protohumans?
Given that all other claimed Homo species are extinct, their morals perhaps didn't quite keep pace with their ability to refrain from killing each other.
(If you can hypothesize, so can I)
And you have parts of your brain that are of different ages?
As for the dog thing, you see dogs killing their own offspring.
They must not be aware of your theory.
In any case, at a literal level, you do have a point.
Since morals come from God, morals do not come from religions, literally speaking.
some_guy01
Registered Senior Member
No not everything is not just from christianity, the ancient Greeks ran a perfect society of democracy for many years without christianity's influence, infact christ wasn't even born for an other few hundred years. Of course though they did develope a religion but thats beside the point. I guess my point is that many of the laws/actions/movements that have happened before in history can relate to the past century. The only difference is that christianity was more dominit at the time. If you look at how a religion developes its through morals and laws i.e. Code of Hammurabi. so if you leve out the god or higher power part it would only be considered a moral.
Hammurabi’s code, the oldest set of laws known to exist, was created by Hammurabi, king and chief priest of Babylonia from 1792-1750 B.C. Also, the Chinese speak of the greatest thing, called the Tao. This "reality, beond all realities", the abyss that was before creation itself, the Way, the Road, was praised by ancient Jews as being "true" (Ps. 119:151).
Many civilzations, if not most, have a similar "Tao", Platonic, Aristotelian, Stoicism, Christianity, Oriental.
This is the doctrine of "objective value", the belief that certain attitudes are really true, and others really false.
Imagine that! Our earliest ancestors know what few "modernists" will admit. That TRUTH IS ABSOLUTE!.
This Tao remains the same from civilization to civilization and from time to time. I have read several times that some on this forum believe that basic morality changes from civilization to civilization. WRONG. This "code of morality", or Tao, is made up of beliefs that are shared by virtually every civilization. And, those isolated differences are like a rebellion of the branches against the tree: if the rebels could succeed, they would find that they destroyed themselves. The human mind has no more power of inventing a new value than of imagining a new primary color.
Now every civilization we have discovered has been derived from another civilization and, in the last resort, from a single center-"carried" like an infectious disease or like the Apostolical succession. And guess where these First Principles of Practical Reason came from? How about the Creator of all things who planted in human consciousness the ability to discern truth?
the ancient Greeks ran a perfect society of democracy for many years without christianity's influence
I don't believe a woman would agree with this statement.
ABOUT ANCIENT GREECE: Greek women had virtually no political rights of any kind and were controlled by men at nearly every stage of their lives. Since men spent most of their time away from their houses, Greek home life was dominated by women. In a totally slave-based economy, plentiful numbers of female slaves were available to cook, clean, and carry water from the fountain.
Judaism and Christianity were the great liberators of women. They lifted women's value and treatment compared to all civilizations at the time of their existence.
Have a wonderful day.
some_guy01
Registered Senior Member
you just said christianty did all this when now you are saying just what i said only twisting it little so it doesn't sound like what i said. many civilizations thoughout the world created almost the same basic morals and no we all did not just come from one civilization people on north and south america have been here for 16,000 years atleast, long before any of the worlds major religions developed
tao is not chritianity and has nothing to do with it
tao is not chritianity and has nothing to do with it
some_guy01
My point is that objective morality has existed since man's beginning. I am not saying that man has obeyed his own code of morality, or always acknowledged it.
There's a huge difference between knowing right from wrong and doing it.
The doing is what generally separates JudeoChristian societies from non-JudeoChristian societies. Any objective look around our world will show the great discrepancies between peoples and nations.
The Tao was around before Israel was born. I never said it was Christian. It does , however, have something to do with Christianity because the truths in Tao are included in Judeo-Christianity.
My point is that objective morality has existed since man's beginning. I am not saying that man has obeyed his own code of morality, or always acknowledged it.
There's a huge difference between knowing right from wrong and doing it.
The doing is what generally separates JudeoChristian societies from non-JudeoChristian societies. Any objective look around our world will show the great discrepancies between peoples and nations.
The Tao was around before Israel was born. I never said it was Christian. It does , however, have something to do with Christianity because the truths in Tao are included in Judeo-Christianity.
A world without religion! What a wonderful dream.
For this to have occurred then man would not have pursued or encouraged the idea of an afterlife; the basis and underlying reason for the existence of every significant religion.
Man would have then accepted that death is the end of life and acted accordingly.
A recognition that life is short would have encouraged a far greater effort to find life prolonging activities. This would have resulted in new drugs and medical breakthroughs centuries before actuality.
Needless to say that with life being seen so valuable wars would be highly unlikely. Who would want to risk their life believing that death meant permanent non-existence. The fear and increased revulsion of death would have deterred most from acts of violence and wars.
Religious fanatics believing that glory awaited them in an afterlife if they sacrificed themselves by killing thousands in plane hijackings would simply not have existed.
Our quality of life would far exceed the present, with the likelihood of little or no decease, and vastly extended life spans.
Let’s all start now and put an end to the absurdity and irrationality of religions.
Cris
For this to have occurred then man would not have pursued or encouraged the idea of an afterlife; the basis and underlying reason for the existence of every significant religion.
Man would have then accepted that death is the end of life and acted accordingly.
A recognition that life is short would have encouraged a far greater effort to find life prolonging activities. This would have resulted in new drugs and medical breakthroughs centuries before actuality.
Needless to say that with life being seen so valuable wars would be highly unlikely. Who would want to risk their life believing that death meant permanent non-existence. The fear and increased revulsion of death would have deterred most from acts of violence and wars.
Religious fanatics believing that glory awaited them in an afterlife if they sacrificed themselves by killing thousands in plane hijackings would simply not have existed.
Our quality of life would far exceed the present, with the likelihood of little or no decease, and vastly extended life spans.
Let’s all start now and put an end to the absurdity and irrationality of religions.
Cris
some_guy01
Registered Senior Member
-good point cris
-and Bevkay i do not think that Jewish people would apreciate you associating them with christianity form what i heard they hate it, just letting you know
tao is chinese like ancient chinese and not a part of anything associated with christiany or judaism or judeo-christain
every society had their right and wrong and they knew them
- My point is that objective morality has existed since man's beginning. I am not saying that man has obeyed his own code of morality, or always acknowledged it.
-im saying man has
- the animal kingdom shows that even animals with primitive minds have some sort of basic morality one does not just go around killing each animal they see
what im saying is that it is inbreed through the genes
by the way another history lesson
- isreal was born in 1948
-tao "the way" made up by confucious between 550 bc to 490 bc or so i don't know exactly how long he lived
i suggest you buy a history book
-and Bevkay i do not think that Jewish people would apreciate you associating them with christianity form what i heard they hate it, just letting you know
tao is chinese like ancient chinese and not a part of anything associated with christiany or judaism or judeo-christain
every society had their right and wrong and they knew them
- My point is that objective morality has existed since man's beginning. I am not saying that man has obeyed his own code of morality, or always acknowledged it.
-im saying man has
- the animal kingdom shows that even animals with primitive minds have some sort of basic morality one does not just go around killing each animal they see
what im saying is that it is inbreed through the genes
by the way another history lesson
- isreal was born in 1948
-tao "the way" made up by confucious between 550 bc to 490 bc or so i don't know exactly how long he lived
i suggest you buy a history book
Counterbalance
Registered Senior Member
For this thread...this is probably not the type of response that was actually sought. I am certain it will not be welcome by all. Nevertheless, (and if I may borrow from Leonard Peikoff for a moment...)
“...The Oxford English Dictionary defines ‘religion‘ as ‘a particular system of faith and worship,’ and goes on, in part: ‘Recognition on the part of man of some higher unseen power as having control of his destiny, and as being entitled to obedience, reverence, and worship.’”
Peikoff continues:
“The fundamental concept here is ‘faith.’ ‘Faith’ in this context means belief in the absence of evidence. This is the essential that distinguishes religion from science. A scientist may believe in entities which he cannot observe, such as atoms or electrons, but he can do so only if he proves their existence logically, by inference from the things he does observe. A religious man, however, believes in ‘some higher unseen power’ which he cannot observe and cannot logically prove. [he can claim anything he likes and swear by it for all of eternity] As the whole of philosophy demonstrates, no study of the natural universe can warrant jumping outside it to a supernatural entity. The five arguments for God offered by the greatest of all religious thinkers, Thomas Aquinas, are widely recognized by philosophers to be logically defective; they have each been refuted many times, and they are the best arguments that have ever been offered on this subject.
Many philosophers indeed now go further: they point out that God not only is an article of faith, but that this is essential to religion. A God susceptible of proof, they argue, would actually wreck religion. A god open to human logic, to scientific study, to rational understanding, would have to be definable, delimited, finite, amenable to human concepts, obedient to scientific law, and thus incapable of miracles. Such a thing would be merely one object among others within the natural world; it would be merely another datum for the scientist, like some new kind of galaxy or cosmic ray, not a transcendent power running the universe and demanding man’s worship. What religion rests on is a true God, i.e., a God not of reason, but of faith....”
I could have put all of that in my own words, but Mr. Peikoff expresses these ideas admirably. No need for me to tamper with that general message.
What I will add is this...
There is only a God for those who choose to believe in one. And in most parts of the world, people are still free (relatively speaking) to believe in whatever deity/faith they like. Or not.
Those that do believe in a god, therefore usually in some kind of religion, frequently have a desire to see ALL conform to the “right” way of thinking or, uh...believing.
Thus, religions throughout history have sought political power. Power over the populace. To combine “church” and state to various degrees. And this again breaks down into trying to get all to ultimately conform to a particular way of life, thought, or belief. Through faith, folks, and not through evidence. (We live in the here and now, in a physical world, and do pretty darn well when we rely on facts rather than mere hopes. Hope is good, but it only takes us so far.)
So humans balk at this. People support laws meant to prohibit a faith, or organized religion, from dictating the way they should go about making the most of their own lives.
Ever wondered why?
Because no man has the right to tell another how they should handle their “soul” or “mind.” Governments have the right, by virtue of being elected by the people, to set in place, and to enforce, a limited and carefully worded set of laws, to help keep the sick or disturbed members of our race from creating too much disruption. But that is all. A proper government’s rights are necessarily restricted. And so is man’s right to impose unacceptable “beliefs” onto another. Let someone try to take away your belief in a god, (those of you who believe) and what do you think? What do you feel?
Religion has been, and is still, used as a weapon and/or a tool to bring mankind to his knees. To submit to the will of anyone, or anything, other than his own. Man, it is argued, is not born into this world as a worthy being. Worthy of trust, worthy of being credited for his own continued existence, worthy of a being admitted to an afterlife that is defined by someone else, but one he is admonished to pine after.
Some good things have come about because of the efforts made by people--who also wore the mantle of a favorite faith.
But it was people who did the good or bad deeds--in or out of the name of their god.
Yes, I'm through speechifying for now.
(thanks for your time)
“...The Oxford English Dictionary defines ‘religion‘ as ‘a particular system of faith and worship,’ and goes on, in part: ‘Recognition on the part of man of some higher unseen power as having control of his destiny, and as being entitled to obedience, reverence, and worship.’”
Peikoff continues:
“The fundamental concept here is ‘faith.’ ‘Faith’ in this context means belief in the absence of evidence. This is the essential that distinguishes religion from science. A scientist may believe in entities which he cannot observe, such as atoms or electrons, but he can do so only if he proves their existence logically, by inference from the things he does observe. A religious man, however, believes in ‘some higher unseen power’ which he cannot observe and cannot logically prove. [he can claim anything he likes and swear by it for all of eternity] As the whole of philosophy demonstrates, no study of the natural universe can warrant jumping outside it to a supernatural entity. The five arguments for God offered by the greatest of all religious thinkers, Thomas Aquinas, are widely recognized by philosophers to be logically defective; they have each been refuted many times, and they are the best arguments that have ever been offered on this subject.
Many philosophers indeed now go further: they point out that God not only is an article of faith, but that this is essential to religion. A God susceptible of proof, they argue, would actually wreck religion. A god open to human logic, to scientific study, to rational understanding, would have to be definable, delimited, finite, amenable to human concepts, obedient to scientific law, and thus incapable of miracles. Such a thing would be merely one object among others within the natural world; it would be merely another datum for the scientist, like some new kind of galaxy or cosmic ray, not a transcendent power running the universe and demanding man’s worship. What religion rests on is a true God, i.e., a God not of reason, but of faith....”
I could have put all of that in my own words, but Mr. Peikoff expresses these ideas admirably. No need for me to tamper with that general message.
What I will add is this...
There is only a God for those who choose to believe in one. And in most parts of the world, people are still free (relatively speaking) to believe in whatever deity/faith they like. Or not.
Those that do believe in a god, therefore usually in some kind of religion, frequently have a desire to see ALL conform to the “right” way of thinking or, uh...believing.
Thus, religions throughout history have sought political power. Power over the populace. To combine “church” and state to various degrees. And this again breaks down into trying to get all to ultimately conform to a particular way of life, thought, or belief. Through faith, folks, and not through evidence. (We live in the here and now, in a physical world, and do pretty darn well when we rely on facts rather than mere hopes. Hope is good, but it only takes us so far.)
So humans balk at this. People support laws meant to prohibit a faith, or organized religion, from dictating the way they should go about making the most of their own lives.
Ever wondered why?
Because no man has the right to tell another how they should handle their “soul” or “mind.” Governments have the right, by virtue of being elected by the people, to set in place, and to enforce, a limited and carefully worded set of laws, to help keep the sick or disturbed members of our race from creating too much disruption. But that is all. A proper government’s rights are necessarily restricted. And so is man’s right to impose unacceptable “beliefs” onto another. Let someone try to take away your belief in a god, (those of you who believe) and what do you think? What do you feel?
Religion has been, and is still, used as a weapon and/or a tool to bring mankind to his knees. To submit to the will of anyone, or anything, other than his own. Man, it is argued, is not born into this world as a worthy being. Worthy of trust, worthy of being credited for his own continued existence, worthy of a being admitted to an afterlife that is defined by someone else, but one he is admonished to pine after.
Some good things have come about because of the efforts made by people--who also wore the mantle of a favorite faith.
But it was people who did the good or bad deeds--in or out of the name of their god.
Yes, I'm through speechifying for now.
(thanks for your time)
No, a living hell.
Chirs, did you know that almost all hospitals and medical care organizations were begun by Christian organizations, i.e., St. Joseph's, St. Paul's, etc.? That's because Christians believe in the value of the individual life. Most non-Christian religions believe in karma, or some other belief that would actually keep them from wanting to interfere in the pay-back that pain in this world is supposed to be all about.
Where were the atheist medical care organizations at the World Trade Center? Or, for that matter, anywhere?
So, some of your statements are true about non-Christian religions. You have to remember that Christianity is different from all other religions.
Some Guy 01: I was using Tao generically, to represent all objective value beliefs. These truth systems predated Israel's beginnings, which was technically when God re-named Jacob, Abraham's son, Israel, which was around 2,000 b.c.
Isn't it interesting that God's promise to Abraham and Israel (Jacob) that he would make them into a great nation and would bless them with great numbers, has been fulfilled with the State of Israel being formed in 1948.