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?

Tags: abolish, no, outcome, peace, religion, world

Views: 1136

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

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?

@Tom, when I first blundered here after the election of Pope Francis, I was clear that I am just a guest, and an infrequent one at that.  I will happily withdraw if the community here wishes, and I have generally tried to limit my comments to those places where it seems people wish to engage with a Catholic theist's perspective.   A genuine one, not the religious straw men that are common here.

I can understand that offering such a perspective may help inform or challenge the views of some folks, but it's just information and dialog.  To imagine it to be "bullying" requires one to believe that exchange of knowledge and perspectives is a form of harassment or aggression.  I don't believe that; I'd be surprised if any free-thinking rationalist would adhere to such a notion. 

One of the memes present here is that theists all run away when confronted.  I suspect it's true for some; for most I expect the tone of the dialog is so unfriendly and at times juvenile that they decide it isn't worth continuing to engage.  I've stayed for a bit because I was asked to, and because it seemed that at least some people did not want thoughtful theists to run away. 

So I'm here just as a passing guest to engage in dialog.  I have no interest or desire in converting anyone, nor do I think it's very likely that you'll "deconvert" me.  If you're interested in the perspective of a practicing Catholic, whether it's to be honestly informed or just to hone your debate skills, I'm happy to provide insight into what my Church, and to some extent Christendom more generally, actually teaches.   If not, and you'd prefer to call me anything from Pinocchio to a child molester to someone who is just passively obedient, that's fine too.

RSS

Forum

Awe struck

Started by Davis Goodman in Small Talk. Last reply by Cato Rigas 40 minutes ago. 34 Replies

where when how who why ?

Started by aubrey knows nothing * in Small Talk. Last reply by Belle Rose 3 hours ago. 1 Reply

Blog Posts

coexist

Posted by aubrey knows nothing * on October 23, 2014 at 9:25pm 1 Comment

A Life-Changing Confrontation

Posted by Belle Rose on October 23, 2014 at 2:55am 7 Comments

Services we love!

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

In need a of a professional web site? Check out the good folks at Clear Space Media

© 2014   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service