If religion were to be abolished completely (Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, etc.), what do you believe would be the outcome because of it?

Hey, everyone! I was just wondering what you believe would happen if humans became smart enough to abolish religion? Personally, I believe that wars would come to an all-time low or even an end, and it might induce world peace. Since there would be no religion to argue about, I believe that people would be a lot nicer to each other and have a more diverse range of friends. The only downside is that it would make things like racism and sexism a lot more common, since race, sex, and religion are the most discriminated against groups right now. What do you guys think? Is there anything I missed?

Views: 1559

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

In our pond scum period, big and strong cyanobacteria ate the nearby small and weak cyanobacteria.

Our more recent ancestors acquired consciousness and we now know what we are doing.

According to Gordon Gecko, the poster child for corporate America, greed is good. It is the desire for profit at all cost and by all means that places the unsavory taste of capitalism in my mouth.

Remember to look at the label before you don your next item of Asian sweatshop apparel. 

Asian workers have ahead of them struggles like those that American workers had in the late 1800s and early 1900s.

Some of the offspring of those American workers are taking American capitalism to a more democratic level with employee-owned and operated companies. This struggle against economic tyranny echoes humankind's millenia-long struggle against political tyranny.

I'm no expert in tax law but I understand that Federal tax law encourages employee-ownership by giving tax advantages to business owners who, when they retire, sell their businesses to employees.

we are living on a planet with limited resources as long as we are living with this fact we will always have wars

As yet there seems no way to breed greed and covetousness and jealousy out of humankind.

There seems no way to breed greed and covetousness and jealousy out of humankind.

and no way to breed population control into humankind.

Think of the endeavors to increase the population.

  • They begin with the medical industry's efforts to save the life of every newborn, regardless of genetic impairments.
  • The endeavors extend to the xian-influenced laws that prohibit and even punish the attempts of ailing adults to die with dignity.

Kelli, methinks you didn't account for human nature.

Remember, the biggest and strongest of our pond scum ancestors feasted on the small and weak. In several billion years, the small and weak devised a way to minimize the chances they will be the feast: democracy. (America isn't a democracy; it's an oligarchy.)

Returning to your question, since the distribution of mental ability (and a lot of other abilities) approximates the Normal Curve, there will always be people who need religion.

They will overthrow and kill those on the curve who abolished religion.

Professor Robert:

So let's describe "passive obedience" as a cultural feature of certain ethnic or national cultures, not of religion.

Your earlier reply conveniently -- for you -- omits religion's need for passive obedience. A few hours ago, at a religious funeral service for a religious friend, the minister asked believers to say "Amen" 100 times each day.

You know what the word Amen means: So be it. Consent.

He wanted me to self-train in passive obedience!

Robert, your standards for integrity appear lower than the standards of atheists.

Your attempts at reason are motivated by a need to protect a dogma.

Dogmas are ideas.  They don't need protecting.

Within my faith at least, passive obedience is not valued. I can't speak for all religion everywhere, but at least for the religions of the Book it would be hard to imagine a notion of passive obedience taking serious hold.  The Book is filled with stories of revered figures being remarkable disobedient, right up to Jesus of Nazareth and his apostles.

Robert, dogmas or ideas don't need protecting? PREPOSTEROUS!

People kill to protect their ideas.

Hitler, to protect his Thousand Year Reich idea, ordered his military to kill millions.

Stalin, to protect his idea of communism, ordered the killing of more of the USSR's people than Hitler's military killed.

Your Catholicism has destroyed your ability to think. It has left you able only to protect -- poorly.

Within my faith at least, passive obedience is not valued.

I did twelve years in Catholic schools! You don't know what you're saying!

Further, you don't care.

Sure I know what I'm saying.   Though I am deeply sorry if you learned the wrong lessons from your time in Catholic schools. 

Look at so many of the Saints.   They were rebels and iconoclasts.  St. Francis would walk into church naked to preach sermons, just as a protest against the pomp of the bishops of his day.   The followers of Ignatius of Loyola armed the South American Indians against the Portugese slave traders.  Jesus himself thumbed his nose at religious authorities on dozens of occasions, ultimately leading a riot in the temple and telling the Vatican of his day that they were a brood of vipers.  Time after time, century after century the people we revere as Holy were almost anything but passively obedient. 

Yes, before God obedience is a virtue, a form of humility and honesty.  That obedience however, is ACTIVE.  The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob tends to tell people to go take on enormous challenges, to lead slaves to freedom, to give all they have to the poor, to lay down their lives for their friends.  Obedience to men, though?  Not so much.  For schoolkids, self-discipline?  Sure.  Passive obedience?  No.

Okay, Robert, you're happy with Catholicism. Good.

Your badgering people here helps us develop debating abilities.

You're developing abilities too. Will you use your new abilities to bully people who are less able than you?


© 2020   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service