Jump to content
Itoero

Would the world be a better place without religion?

Recommended Posts

I was once in Prince Rupert (Canada)and I was waiting for a bus that would take me to a boat which would bring me to the Airport.

I tied my dog's leash around a pole but he pulled itself free and ran away.

An Indian looking guy saw what happened and offered to help. He drove me around to look for my dog. We did not find her.

When we were back at the bus stop, my dog came back. I of course missed the bus.

The guy then drove me and my dog to a small dock where another small boat took me to the airport.

 

I don't know whether he helped me because he was religious(for his karma), but I'm pretty sure he did.

I help people all the time, and I'm not religious. He might have done it because he was religious, but he might also have done it because deep down he was simply a good person. I'm sure there are plenty of religious people that would not have helped you out.

 

 

Yes it does, so whats the difference; if you saved him by being cheerful or religious?

No difference, it is the saving part that counts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would the world be a better place without religion?

 

I think it would.

Religion creates groups, it forms boundaries between people...that causes many problems.

Truth, while I am no religious nut I'd have to agree for the most part with you with one thing I'd like to point out.

 

Religion does happen to cause groups yes, but it facilitates an air of progress and innovation because groups are always trying to be 'better than' other groups in the same way males of many species (Sometimes even humans :wacko: ) fight for the position of 'alpha male', this position requires you to be the biggest baddest and best armed in a region where the species propagates. This is a natural survival instinct because if you are bigger, badder, and better armed than another group/individual then you have a very high chance of survival, and what is the base instinct of every living thing? Survive and reproduce. This mindset also applies to groups. While this can be achieved without religion, religion has a way of sparking technological innovation and a culture of moderation and democracy, So while it can be an ugly beast (Especially in the cases of some rather twisted religions like ones that use cannibalism or human sacrifice as a rite) it does serve some purpose in secular society.

Edited by DanTrentfield

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I help people all the time, and I'm not religious. He might have done it because he was religious, but he might also have done it because deep down he was simply a good person.

 

 

Or because he was Canadian.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I help people all the time, and I'm not religious. He might have done it because he was religious, but he might also have done it because deep down he was simply a good person. I'm sure there are plenty of religious people that would not have helped you out.

 

Does that mean you're entitled to pass judgement on those who are are?

Edited by dimreepr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Does that mean you're entitled to pass judgement on those who are are?

No, that's why I don't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

YES, certainly some of the religions out there, it prevents so much healthcare, freedom, learning etc, like some religions forbid abortions whatever happens, even if the baby is dead and the mother will die from the dead baby, I mean, come on, it's not an abortion anymore if the baby isn't even alive or in some way developing, it's removing something dead in your body that will kill you, continue to live and make another baby later and enjoy your new family member, others forbid blood transfusions, it's just a waste of your life, theres no proof of an afterlife or heaven so your only life could be over from the refusal of medical help.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

YES, certainly some of the religions out there, it prevents so much healthcare, freedom, learning etc, like some religions forbid abortions whatever happens, even if the baby is dead and the mother will die from the dead baby, I mean, come on, it's not an abortion anymore if the baby isn't even alive or in some way developing, it's removing something dead in your body that will kill you, continue to live and make another baby later and enjoy your new family member, others forbid blood transfusions, it's just a waste of your life, theres no proof of an afterlife or heaven so your only life could be over from the refusal of medical help.

What religion are you referring to?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

YES, certainly some of the religions out there, it prevents so much healthcare, freedom, learning etc, like some religions forbid abortions whatever happens, even if the baby is dead and the mother will die from the dead baby, I mean, come on, it's not an abortion anymore if the baby isn't even alive or in some way developing, it's removing something dead in your body that will kill you, continue to live and make another baby later and enjoy your new family member, others forbid blood transfusions, it's just a waste of your life, theres no proof of an afterlife or heaven so your only life could be over from the refusal of medical help.

What religion has "Thou shalt not remove a dead fetus from a women's womb even if the fetus is dead and the woman will die no matter what unless you take it out."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What religion are you referring to?

 

Many, not just one since many have their own beliefs that doesn't neccesarily overlap with other religious beliefs.

 

 

What religion has "Thou shalt not remove a dead fetus from a women's womb even if the fetus is dead and the woman will die no matter what unless you take it out."

 

Don't be silly, obviously it doesn't state it like that, I read an article long ago about a woman who refused to go through an abortion of her dead fetus due to her beliefs ( couldn't find it now tough ), tough many doctors who are religious refuse to proceed with abortions that are lifethreatening to the mother

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9680528/The-death-of-Savita-Halappanavar-after-she-was-denied-an-abortion-will-divide-Ireland.html

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/feb/18/michigan-catholic-hospital-women-miscarriage-abortion-mercy-health-partners

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3027599/Jehovah-s-Witness-baby-die-refuses-blood-transfusion-seven-months-pregnant-cancer-80-chance-surviving-treatment.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Many, not just one since many have their own beliefs that doesn't neccesarily overlap with other religious beliefs.

 

That was not an answer to my question. Please name the religion you are referring to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Many, not just one since many have their own beliefs that doesn't neccesarily overlap with other religious beliefs.

 

 

 

Don't be silly, obviously it doesn't state it like that, I read an article long ago about a woman who refused to go through an abortion of her dead fetus due to her beliefs ( couldn't find it now tough ), tough many doctors who are religious refuse to proceed with abortions that are lifethreatening to the mother

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9680528/The-death-of-Savita-Halappanavar-after-she-was-denied-an-abortion-will-divide-Ireland.html

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/feb/18/michigan-catholic-hospital-women-miscarriage-abortion-mercy-health-partners

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3027599/Jehovah-s-Witness-baby-die-refuses-blood-transfusion-seven-months-pregnant-cancer-80-chance-surviving-treatment.html

What religion?

Some crackjob suddenly claiming their religion forbids it doesn't exactly means the religion forbids it, it means their called extremists.

 

And as for the second link, it's a frickin catholic hospitable. Do you think they're going to do abortions? Granted, maybe it would have been smart for miscarriages, but wouldn't you just go to a normal hospitable instead of continually going to the same hospitable?

Edited by Raider5678

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What religion?

Some crackjob suddenly claiming their religion forbids it doesn't exactly means the religion forbids it, it means their called extremists.

 

And as for the second link, it's a frickin catholic hospitable. Do you think they're going to do abortions? Granted, maybe it would have been smart for miscarriages, but wouldn't you just go to a normal hospitable instead of continually going to the same hospitable?

 

If they're so hospitable, why not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, read their books...

That's not evidence. The bible is also a book.

You said that all religion teaches karma...that's another baseless claim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's not evidence. The bible is also a book.

You said that all religion teaches karma...

 

Such a disingenuous argument, you said many posts ago "many religions teach a form of karma" (post #507) and I suggested they all do, the evidence for which is contained in their bibles, or in your parlance books.

 

that's another baseless claim.

 

 

At risk of yet another neg rep from you, WTF you started it???

Edited by dimreepr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Such a disingenuous argument, you said many posts ago "many religions teach a form of karma" (post #507) and I suggested they all do, the evidence for which is contained in their bibles, or in your parlance books.

 

 

At risk of yet another neg rep from you, WTF you started it???

I agree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Truth, while I am no religious nut I'd have to agree for the most part with you with one thing I'd like to point out.

 

Religion does happen to cause groups yes, but it facilitates an air of progress and innovation because groups are always trying to be 'better than' other groups in the same way males of many species (Sometimes even humans :wacko: ) fight for the position of 'alpha male', this position requires you to be the biggest baddest and best armed in a region where the species propagates. This is a natural survival instinct because if you are bigger, badder, and better armed than another group/individual then you have a very high chance of survival, and what is the base instinct of every living thing? Survive and reproduce. This mindset also applies to groups. While this can be achieved without religion, religion has a way of sparking technological innovation and a culture of moderation and democracy, So while it can be an ugly beast (Especially in the cases of some rather twisted religions like ones that use cannibalism or human sacrifice as a rite) it does serve some purpose in secular society.

 

I think people would form competing groups regardless. We have competition within groups and competition between groups, and we always will. Religion is an interesting case because we aren't competing over the pragmatic utility of a consumer product or government system, but the pragmatic utility, regardless of accuracy, of certain beliefs about the nature of reality. Perhaps it can be useful to look at religious beliefs this way, as valuing pragmatic utility over accuracy, but are the same beliefs that were useful one- or two-thousand years ago still useful today? Look at the conflict between creationism and environmentalism for example.

 


 

I actually came in to post the chimapnzee research that I failed to link to earlier (the second, bottom hyperlink). They explain the hierarchical nature of personality, i.e. how you can analyze it at the level of two factors, three factors, five factors, etc.

Chimpanzees might have a personality dimension called "dominance" that roughly corresponds to honesty-humility in human personality. Agreeableness fuses with Conscientiousness to form a three-factor dimension called disinhibition/constraint, which then combines with (most of) Neuroticism to form a two-factor dimension called "alpha". I pointed out that the "modesty" facet of Agreeableness, which corresponds to honesty-humility along with the straightforwardness facet, is also correlated and anti-correlated with Neuroticism and Extraversion, respectively. Parts of the following publication read to me as suggestions that the Chimpanzee "dominance" factor follows a similar pattern to honesty-humility, which seems consistent with the low honesty-humility Narcissists being frequently found in positions of leadership.

 

Personality in Chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes): Exploring the Hierarchical Structure and Associations with the Vasopressin V1A Receptor Gene

 

 

 

While previous factor-analytic studies have found a six-factor solution that includes the five FFM factors (i.e., Extraversion, Conscientiousness, Agreeableness, Neuroticism, and Openness) plus Dominance %5B11%5D, %5B43%5D, others have failed to extract the sixth factor and have instead found five %5B12%5D.

 

[...]

 

At the three-factor level (see Table 2), the three dimensions that emerge are similar to the “Big Three” of Disinhibition (vs. Constraint), Positive Emotionality, and Negative Emotionality with Alpha/Stability breaking into Disinhibition and (low) Dominance. It should be noted, however, that chimpanzee Negative Emotionality appears to be a combination of traditional human Negative Emotionality items (e.g., Fearful, Cautious) and Dominance (e.g., dependent(−) and submissive(−)) items.

 

For a more general overview of the hierarchical structure of personality in both humans and chimps, see:

 

The contribution of genetics and early rearing experiences to hierarchical personality dimensions in chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes)

 

note: DIS=disinhibition, and NEM=negative emotionality which more or less corresponds to Neuroticism.

These two meta-traits then differentiated into a structure similar to the well-known “Big Three” model with Alpha differentiating into DIS and NEM/low Dominance and Beta differentiating into largely PEM. Consistent with human findings, traits ultimately differentiated into five factors largely parallel to the FFM.

I suppose the question then is why psychopaths, particularly impulsive, deviant psychopaths, tend to be less religious except perhaps when the emphasis is on these dishonest-arrogant (-dominant ???) traits, whether these differences were always present throughout the history of religion, and how they might have influenced religious teachings and institutions throughout history. It might be interesting to add that men tend to be less Agreeable, less Neurotic, and more Narcissistic.

Edited by MonDie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The best of Religion is the discussion of human sense, options and future.

 

How could we do without Religion?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The best of Religion is the discussion of human sense, options and future.

 

How could we do without Religion?

If the discussion of human sense, options and future is the best of religion, why not throw out all the rest?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the discussion of human sense, options and future is the best of religion, why not throw out all the rest?

 

Paradigms and symbols help us grow...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Paradigms and symbols help us grow...

The scientific paradigm helps us grow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The scientific paradigm helps us grow.

 

I would say scientists help us grow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are many reasons to discuss human condition, God seems to be the main one...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are many reasons to discuss human condition, God seems to be the main one...

 

 

It seems to me to be the least important. Godot may be a better one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Such a disingenuous argument, you said many posts ago "many religions teach a form of karma" (post #507) and I suggested they all do, the evidence for which is contained in their bibles, or in your parlance books.

 

 

At risk of yet another neg rep from you, WTF you started it???

When you say that all religions teach a form of Karma then I want evidence for that. Pointing to 'their books' is not evidence.

You do understand that their our 'a lot' of religions?

It's f**!ish to make an assumption about all religions because you think you understand some of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.