Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Without religion would there be less hate, figthing and fanatics willing to do crazy things for their religion?
Or is religion an important part of what hold our society together and keeps people from acting solely on impulse and keeps us (most of us) in check?

*Yeah I just had to go and botch the spelling in the title. :P

Imagine - John Lennon. Nuff said.

P.S. I think the world would be exactly the same. That said I also think people should get to believe in what they want. I've always been agnostic, but I'm slowly learning about different faiths thanks to a friend.

If Religion didn't exist, Arabs would use some other reason to beat their wives and Atheists would find some other reason to think they're better than non-Atheists and people who eat meat. It's simply human nature to have an "us vs. them" mentality.

I think it would be worst.There will be alot of crime and hate towards others and no one would get along with each other.This whole world would be a mess.

Originally posted by Sai1
Without religion would there be less hate, figthing and fanatics willing to do crazy things for their religion?
Or is religion an important part of what hold our society together and keeps people from acting solely on impulse and keeps us (most of us) in check?

*Yeah I just had to go and botch the spelling in the title. :P

The problems of the world would only change. Religion is not the cause of evil in the world. Religion is a vehicle that can do good or evil depending on people are doing with it. The source of evil in the world is humans, not religion.

Well religion was invented in order to control the masses so take that as you will.

Originally posted by Liberator
Well religion was invented in order to control the masses so take that as you will.

I don't believe that. I think religion was first invented for the same reason science exists today; the need to understand the natural world. Religion was later (when is unknown) corrupted to control the masses.

the problems with "religion" are not of a religious nature, but stem from the very basic in-group/out-group tendencies of human psychology

if the question was: "would the world be a better place if people found no reason to draw distinctive groups while dealing with personal identity?", of course, but as has been mentioned, religious strife is mearly a product of these issues, not the cause. doing away with religion would not solve anything

I love how all of you guys basically said what I said. I love being superior/Christian.

Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
There will be alot of crime and hate towards others and no one would get along with each other.

Look around, follow the news a bit, you just described today.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
I love how all of you guys basically said what I said. I love being superior/Christian.

You said something?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I don't believe that. I think religion was first invented for the same reason science exists today; the need to understand the natural world. Religion was later (when is unknown) corrupted to control the masses.

true enough.like you said,the source for evil is humans,not religion.Its all in how you were brought up.I myself am not religious but i turned out to be someone you can trust and its because of my upbringing by my parents and the people i was around,teaching me of right from wrong.

Originally posted by inimalist
the problems with "religion" are not of a religious nature, but stem from the very basic in-group/out-group tendencies of human psychology

if the question was: "would the world be a better place if people found no reason to draw distinctive groups while dealing with personal identity?", of course, but as has been mentioned, religious strife is mearly a product of these issues, not the cause. doing away with religion would not solve anything

This. I'd throw in some personal caveats, because I do think the world would be slightly better sans (organized) religion. But the improvements would be minor. Religion is a product of human nature. It's goods and ills are our own, and wouldn't disappear with religion.

Yes, the world would be better off with no religion. I don't think necessarily because of any properties of religion itself, but there are definitely policies in most religions that negatively impact the world.

If what we define now as religion were gone, we'd eventually manufacture some new organization with which to base our life around. Like Disney.

I follow the news every day.and the world is bad but it would be worst.Anyway it keeps the world balence.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
I love how all of you guys basically said what I said. I love being superior/Christian.

You're not a Christian to begin with, you're a Jehovah Witness.

Superior, has yet to be seen.

Originally posted by Robtard
You're not a Christian to begin with, you're a Jehovah Witness.

Superior, has yet to be seen.

He's a JW? I never knew that. So he's one of those annoying black people who knock on your front door at 8am to spread the good word.

You've been handed Watch Tower pamphlets too, I see.

I've never had them come to my door though; I'd gladly invite them in and discuss what they're peddling.

Originally posted by Robtard
You've been handed Watch Tower pamphlets too, I see.

I've never had them come to my door though; I'd gladly invite them in and discuss what they're peddling.

Funny story:

Are you familiar with the I-8? Its the main artery between Phoenix and San Diego; it leads straight from one city to the other. Well anyways, several years back when I was a trucker, I was driving to SD and I had to use the bathroom, so I stopped at that rest-stop outside Alpine, CA, where the brown desert starts to turn into really green terrain. Standing in front of the bathrooms were about 30 well-dressed black people of both genders. I couldn't tell if they were part of a funeral procession, or heading to some kind of rally. But then they were handing out the Watch Tower, and it all made sense. I talked to one of them for a little bit, but then I had to go because I was on a schedule.

It was the only time in my life I ever saw a large religious group who chose to do their prostelyzing at a highway rest-stop.

The real question is if a society can even develop without some kind of religion/belief system/ritualism.

Religion is social glue.

Opiate of the people

However, i think it would be possible and I can imagine their being positive changes.

The problem is, religion is so ingrained in society and there are just such bloody fanatics that it would take generations of being secular. Imagine; people being good willed towards one another without doing it because they can get to 'heaven'. It's possible its just going to take awhile and hard work.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Yes, the world would be better off with no religion. I don't think necessarily because of any properties of religion itself, but there are definitely policies in most religions that negatively impact the world.

I could get on board with this, to a degree. There's good actions and bad actions that people do. My thought is that if you took away religion, some of the good people do in the name of religion would leave, some of the bad would leave as well, but most of both would stick around because it's human good and evil, not particular to religion.

But I do think more of the bad would go away than the good. It's hard to create good where the altruism doesn't already exist. It isn't as hard to create negativity where otherwise people wouldn't look down on an idea or person.

Originally posted by Liberator
Opiate of the people Nah, that's sports.

Originally posted by Digi
I could get on board with this, to a degree. There's good actions and bad actions that people do. My thought is that if you took away religion, some of the good people do in the name of religion would leave, some of the bad would leave as well, but most of both would stick around because it's human good and evil, not particular to religion.

But I do think more of the bad would go away than the good. It's hard to create good where the altruism doesn't already exist. It isn't as hard to create negativity where otherwise people wouldn't look down on an idea or person.
I can agree with that.

No it would not because you would be living in a world full of racist European Atheist scumbag murderers

That would be hell itself

atheists are statistically much less likely to commit murder than are those who profess religious belief

Originally posted by majid86
No it would not because you would be living in a world full of racist European Atheist scumbag murderers

That would be hell itself

Well, judging from this thread the only racist seems to be a South Asian Religious person, can't be all that bad.

Originally posted by majid86
No it would not because you would be living in a world full of racist European Atheist scumbag murderers

That would be hell itself

Hey now, I'm not European.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Hey now, I'm not European.

Two out of three ain't bad.

lol

Originally posted by Robtard
You're not a Christian to begin with, you're a Jehovah Witness.

Superior, has yet to be seen. Technically Jehovah's Witnesses are Christians. Don't you read those pamphlets we give you!?

Don't answer that.

But I'm not a JW anymore anyway, so yah I'm not a Christian.

All things are good until you overindulge in them.
Money is good until you get greedy.
Sex is good until you become a perv. Killing to a degree is fine.
Religion and Spirituality is good until Fundamentalism rears it's ugly head.

Overindulgence is the Devil!

Originally posted by the ninjak
All things are good until you overindulge in them.
Money is good until you get greedy.
Sex is good until you become a perv. Killing to a degree is fine.
Religion and Spirituality is good until Fundamentalism rears it's ugly head.

Overindulgence is the Devil!

I call it extremism, and yes extremism (Overindulgence) is the evil path.

Death to Extremism!

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Death to Extremism!

without religion peoole would get along better all over the world.

Originally posted by chomperx9
without religion peoole would get along better all over the world.

Really? I don't think so. Religion is a product of people, and not the other way around.

Victorian science wasn't a nice thing.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Really? I don't think so. Religion is a product of people, and not the other way around. yeah countries blowing up one another over their gods dont exist in the middle east right ?

Originally posted by chomperx9
yeah countries blowing up one another over their gods dont exist in the middle east right ?

So, you think it is gods that cause people to blow each other up. Gods are just an excuse.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
So, you think it is gods that cause people to blow each other up. Gods are just an excuse.


after all the debating over religion like right here on this thread for example proves my answer to yes.

Reading this thread is an example of what religion does to people when it is shared with one another.

Originally posted by chomperx9
after all the debating over religion like right here on this thread for example proves my answer to yes.

Reading this thread is an example of what religion does to people when it is shared with one another.

Getting rid of religion to prevent war is like getting rid of sports to prevent bar fights.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Getting rid of religion to prevent war is like getting rid of sports to prevent bar fights. debating over sports and tv stars and movie stars or anything that involves entertainment would never get to the point where its just a dramatic as discussing religion.

Houston is not gonna go drop a bomb on LA because the Lakers are better.

ermm however that might be a way to beat them though

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Getting rid of religion to prevent war is like getting rid of sports to prevent bar fights.

Originally posted by chomperx9
debating over sports and tv stars and movie stars or anything that involves entertainment would never get to the point where its just a dramatic as discussing religion.

Houston is not gonna go drop a bomb on LA because the Lakers are better.

ermm however that might be a way to beat them though

It was an analogy. And a fitting one, imo.

Originally posted by Digi
It was an analogy. And a fitting one, imo. I still think its a bad comparison to how people handle religion with one another

Originally posted by chomperx9
I still think its a bad comparison to how people handle religion with one another

Have you seen soccer riots?

In the Developed World I'd say sports can be more volatile than relgion in some cases.
Originally posted by chomperx9
debating over sports and tv stars and movie stars or anything that involves entertainment would never get to the point where its just a dramatic as discussing religion.

Houston is not gonna go drop a bomb on LA because the Lakers are better.

ermm however that might be a way to beat them though
You've clearly never been to a game involving the Philadelphia Eagles

Originally posted by Omega Vision
In the Developed World I'd say sports can be more volatile than relgion in some cases.
when have countries ever attacked one another over fanboyism with sports ?

anytime theres a fight in a bar over sports its not spread out all over the nation and doesnt make other team fans dislike the other one more.

and if you do dislike a team do you go around harassing other fans to dislike that team and convince others to be fans of your team ? I hope your answer is NO

but with religion people non stop try to convince one another what they think is right from what book they read or where ever they got their info from their religion.

Now I agree you dont want to say the Lakers suck at a bar in LA but thats just gonna effect the people in there not every lakers fan across the nation.

Originally posted by chomperx9
when have countries ever attacked one another over fanboyism with sports ?

anytime theres a fight in a bar over sports its not spread out all over the nation and doesnt make other team fans dislike the other one more.

and if you do dislike a team do you go around harassing other fans to dislike that team and convince others to be fans of your team ? I hope your answer is NO

but with religion people non stop try to convince one another what they think is right from what book they read or where ever they got their info from their religion.

Now I agree you dont want to say the Lakers suck at a bar in LA but thats just gonna effect the people in there not every lakers fan across the nation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Football_War

Not exactly what you were asking about, but the point is you shouldn't underestimate what sports can do.

Originally posted by chomperx9
when have countries ever attacked one another over fanboyism with sports ?

anytime theres a fight in a bar over sports its not spread out all over the nation and doesnt make other team fans dislike the other one more.

and if you do dislike a team do you go around harassing other fans to dislike that team and convince others to be fans of your team ? I hope your answer is NO

but with religion people non stop try to convince one another what they think is right from what book they read or where ever they got their info from their religion.

Now I agree you dont want to say the Lakers suck at a bar in LA but thats just gonna effect the people in there not every lakers fan across the nation.

Originally posted by chomperx9
I still think its a bad comparison to how people handle religion with one another

Analogies aren't a 1-to-1 comparison. A bar fight is metaphoric for war, just as sports are metaphoric for religion. It's the relationship between them that is the same, not the severity. Do I really have to explain to you how analogies work? How does your point invalidate shakya's analogy, or his conclusion that removing religion would not remove war? it doesn't. You simply aren't understanding the point correctly, and the fact that you keep pressing the issue of "people don't kill over sports" is simply proving my point.

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=8831046128904338535#

Ross Kemp: On Gangs - Poland



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ross_Kemp_on_Gangs

Originally posted by Digi
Analogies aren't a 1-to-1 comparison. A bar fight is metaphoric for war, just as sports are metaphoric for religion. It's the relationship between them that is the same, not the severity. Do I really have to explain to you how analogies work? How does your point invalidate shakya's analogy, or his conclusion that removing religion would not remove war? it doesn't. You simply aren't understanding the point correctly, and the fact that you keep pressing the issue of "people don't kill over sports" is simply proving my point. Never said it would stop all wars but the world woud me more preaceful. A huge majority of the wars in the past have been over religion. there are people in the midlde east killing eachother every day over debates over their gods.

I dont have a problem with religion or people believing what they think is right I just think religion needs to be kept to ones self and not leave family. everyone has there own beliefs and you can never change that.

understand ?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Football_War
and does that happen every day ? NO

does killing over ones belief over their gods happen every day ? YES

Originally posted by chomperx9
Right but when has the world taken things to a physical level over sports compared to religion ?

inimalist just linked to an investigation about murderous football (soccer) fans in Poland. These are people so out of control that when the police don't get bum-rushed right off the bat it's seen as a good day.

Besides, Digi's point was that it was an analogy. There don't have to be murders over sports for it to work.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
inimalist just linked to an investigation about murderous football (soccer) fans in Poland. These are people so out of control that when the police don't get bum-rushed right off the bat it's seen as a good day. yeah i read it and replied

Originally posted by chomperx9
yeah i read it and replied

Okay, now you're moving the goal posts, which is a very extreme and obvious logical fallacy.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
You're moving the goal posts, which is a very extreme and obvious logical fallacy. maybe its just u guys cant accept my point That there is much much more drama and physical violence every day over religion compared to sports.

sure there will aways be sports fights, there will always be fights over over TV or movie stars or who knows kids fighting over who is cooler batman or spiderman or anything involving personal likes. but none of those things reach to a point where countries start to despise one another and attack one over fanboyism.


yeah i saw the link with the football war and how often does that happen ?

Originally posted by chomperx9
maybe its just u guys cant accept my point That there is much much more drama and physical violence every day over religion compared to sports.

I don't think anyone disagrees with you on that point

Shakey's analogy was, literally, that if you took away sports, people would still get into bar fights.

Similarily, if you took away religion, people would still fight wars.

It has nothing to do with whether sports or religion produces more violence, but with what motivates the violence we see in either instance.

Originally posted by inimalist
I don't think anyone disagrees with you on that point

Shakey's analogy was, literally, that if you took away sports, people would still get into bar fights.

Similarily, if you took away religion, people would still fight wars.

It has nothing to do with whether sports or religion produces more violence, but with what motivates the violence we see in either instance. Yes even without religion some people desire to be worshipped. The wars would be started when two leaders with minds like this disagree.

Originally posted by inimalist
I don't think anyone disagrees with you on that point

Shakey's analogy was, literally, that if you took away sports, people would still get into bar fights.

Similarily, if you took away religion, people would still fight wars.

It has nothing to do with whether sports or religion produces more violence, but with what motivates the violence we see in either instance. I know that and i answered above there will still be wars going on for sure over different topics but a huge % of the violence from one country to another would be decreased if there was no religon. A huge % of wars and killings go on everyday over religion. not saying there isnt murders every day over money or for drugs or just for the hell of it. Just saying it would make a difference.

and reason i replied it was a stupid comparison is because if there is a fight in a bar over sports like some knicks fan knocked out a lakers fan the city of LA is not gonna go attack NY to defend their home team now.

Originally posted by chomperx9
I know that and i answered above there will still be wars going on for sure over different topics but a huge % of the violence from one country to another would be decreased if there was no religon. A huge % of wars and killings go on everyday over religion. not saying there isnt murders every day over money or for drugs or just for the hell of it. Just saying it would make a difference.

most wars aren't over religion at all.

statistically speaking, more people die from coconuts falling each year than religious terrorism.

Originally posted by inimalist
most wars aren't over religion at all.

statistically speaking, more people die from coconuts falling each year than religious terrorism. OMG I know that there is multiple reasons why people die every year but a huge % of violence across the world comes from others not agreeing to one anothers beliefs.



Understand ?

Originally posted by chomperx9
Never said it would stop all wars but the world woud me more preaceful. A huge majority of the wars in the past have been over religion. there are people in the midlde east killing eachother every day over debates over their gods.

I dont have a problem with religion or people believing what they think is right I just think religion needs to be kept to ones self and not leave family. everyone has there own beliefs and you can never change that.

understand ?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Football_War
and does that happen every day ? NO

does killing over ones belief over their gods happen every day ? YES

I'm in agreement with you, I think getting rid of religion would do more good than harm, and I agree that religion causes more violence than sports. You changed our discussion by questioning me on a point that I never had contention with.

My point was simply that you didn't understand the analogy, and the fact that you're still trying to hang your hat upon the differences in severity between the two realms (sports and religion) shows me you still don't get it, or at least aren't adequately explaining that you do.

Originally posted by chomperx9
OMG I know that there is multiple reasons why people die every year but a huge % of violence across the world comes from others not agreeing to one anothers beliefs.



Understand ?

I'd imagine isntances of violence motivated specifically by religion are a very low percentage of all violence

but whatever, i get what you are saying

Originally posted by chomperx9
OMG I know that there is multiple reasons why people die every year but a huge % of violence across the world comes from others not agreeing to one anothers beliefs.



Understand ? You could say that disagreements account for almost 100% of unnecessary violence. Take away religion and introduce politics.

Originally posted by Digi
I'm in agreement with you, I think getting rid of religion would do more good than harm, and I agree that religion causes more violence than sports. You changed our discussion by questioning me on a point that I never had contention with.

My point was simply that you didn't understand the analogy, and the fact that you're still trying to hang your hat upon the differences in severity between the two realms (sports and religion) shows me you still don't get it, or at least aren't adequately explaining that you do.

I understood completely what he said.

yes i know there would still be bar fights without sports and there will still be wars without religion.

Taking away sports would decrease the % of bar fights. Taking away religion would take away a % of wars

adding things and taking away things always makes a difference. sometimes it can make a small difference sometimes big.

Originally posted by chomperx9
I understood completely what he said.

yes i know there would still be bar fights without sports and there will still be wars without religion.

Taking away sports would decrease the % of bar fights. Taking away religion would take away a % of wars

adding things and taking away things always makes a difference. sometimes it can make a small difference sometimes big.

Horray! So why argue over severity if you got the point in the first place? Of course sports don't engender the same level of violence as religion. No one will ever debate you on that, except to point out that there is violence in both (which has indeed been mentioned).

But sure, some wars would go away. Others wouldn't. Coconuts would continue to rape our populace either way, so let's focus on the real threat coming from the tropics....

fdog

after reading this im most deffinetely still sticking to my previous answer to the thread title.

http://worldblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010/11/29/5543912-christian-woman-faces-death-for-blasphemy

Originally posted by chomperx9
after reading this im most deffinetely still sticking to my previous answer to the thread title.

http://worldblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010/11/29/5543912-christian-woman-faces-death-for-blasphemy

How would you get rid of all religions? If you formed an army and killed every religious person in the world, you would become for more evil then any religion that has ever been on the face of the Earth. After all religions are people, and not something abstract.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
How would you get rid of all religions? If you formed an army and killed every religious person in the world, you would become for more evil then any religion that has ever been on the face of the Earth. After all religions are people, and not something abstract. so i guess you dont have a problem with what happend to that christian lady. Yeah discussing religion with others sure as hell looks like it brings peace.

Getting rid of religion is almost like getting rid of gravity.

Impossible for the most part.

Originally posted by chomperx9
so i guess you dont have a problem with what happend to that christian lady. Yeah discussing religion with others sure as hell looks like it brings peace.

That is a totally different argument. We need better religions in the world, would be the answer to that question.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Getting rid of religion is almost like getting rid of gravity.

Impossible for the most part. ur missing the point. not saying how easy it would be to remove it. im talking about what its doing everyday and that murder over muhammad proves an answer to the thread title.

Religion would never end I understand that but I just dont agree on sharing it with others who have different beliefs. its not your job or duty to encourage others to believe in what you do.

Originally posted by chomperx9
its not your job or duty to encourage others to believe in what you do.

While this position in commendable in moderation it doesn't make for a good general principle. Imagine a samurai that wishes to test his sword by cutting down the first peasant he sees. Surely you have a duty to get him to not do that?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
While this position in commendable in moderation it doesn't make for a good general principle. Imagine a samurai that wishes to test his sword by cutting down the first peasant he sees. Surely you have a duty to get him to not do that?

How can I pose this to you in a relatable way? Hmm, you are all members of the Yakuza and you happen to be visiting the Lackawanna trolley museum... and you are attacked by triads... how can you hold them off until your clan arrives?

Wow were actually arguing that religon causes more good than harm? I thought this thread was retarded, religon doesn't do shit people do.

And Nazism doesn't do shit, people do. Yet, I think the world would definitely have been better off without the influence Nazis have had.

Originally posted by Bardock42
How can I pose this to you in a relatable way? Hmm, you are all members of the Yakuza and you happen to be visiting the Lackawanna trolley museum... and you are attacked by triads... how can you hold them off until your clan arrives?

I think I understand . . . but let me answer your metaphor with another metaphor. Do I get a katana (made of Emmanuel Kant's spine) or a uzi (with bullets forged from the blood of Ayn Rand)?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I think I understand . . . but let me answer your metaphor with another metaphor. Do I get a katana (made of Emmanuel Kant's spine) or a uzi (with bullets forged from the blood of Ayn Rand)?

Lol, that's good.

But I for my part just made a comment on odd or far-fetched examples by quoting the Office. Now I feel stupid and lazy.

Originally posted by King Kandy
And Nazism doesn't do shit, people do. Yet, I think the world would definitely have been better off without the influence Nazis have had.


Thank you for reinforcing my point. You probably think you weren't doing that.

Originally posted by Deadline
Thank you for reinforcing my point. You probably think you weren't doing that. Well, I can see how his post could refute your point, in that you may claim that it is people who did that bad things under the banner of Nazism, yet the world would be a better place if Nazism didn't exist (I don't agree btw, I think the 2nd World War was immensely useful in making the world a better place, admittedly at an enormous price)

I do kinda agree with that view, in some ways, and I think your point may only be valid semantically, i.e. what you call it doesn't matter if it is the same action, however that's not the discussion, rather it is if one popular view of the world would not exist (not just the name) how would it influence the actions and lives of people in it.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, I can see how his post could refute your point, in that you may claim that it is people who did that bad things under the banner of Nazism, yet the world would be a better place if Nazism didn't exist (I don't agree btw, I think the 2nd World War was immensely useful in making the world a better place, admittedly at an enormous price)

I do kinda agree with that view, in some ways, and I think your point may only be valid semantically, i.e. what you call it doesn't matter if it is the same action, however that's not the discussion, rather it is if one popular view of the world would not exist (not just the name) how would it influence the actions and lives of people in it.

So do I (in a way refutes my point), but Nazism isn't a religon. Also it's a bit of silly argument to make. Nazism didn't come into existance from nothing, one of the main reasons was because of Europe boycotting Germany. It's just simplistic to say the world would be better of without Nazism.

In India in 1829, the British (who at that time were almost 100% Anglican Christians) outlawed suttee. Suttee was the practise of new widows throwing themselves on their dead husband's funeral pyres, and therefore committing suicide by burning alive.

^That counts for something. It could be argued that in this case Christianity righted another, older religion's wrong. (In this case, Hinduism's endorsement and mandate of bride suicide through a pretty barbaric means).

So we can sit here all day and talk about bad and good things that have been done in the name of, or because of religion.

Christianity didn't right anything in that case; CHRISTIANS, may have, but it was the removal of a belief that solved that. AKA, increasing secularization solved that problem. The Indians didn't suddenly replace their older belief with a christian one--it simply became absent.

And by extension, Christianity did. When India was under Muslim rule for like 300 years or so, it was never banned. The Mughals apparently saw nothing inherently horrible about suttee. But the Christian British did, and swiftly put an end to it. The connection can't be denied. If the Brits had adhered to another faith, they most likely would not have banned it.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
And by extension, Christianity did. When India was under Muslim rule for like 300 years or so, it was never banned. The Mughals apparently saw nothing inherently horrible about suttee. But the Christian British did, and swiftly put an end to it. The connection can't be denied. If the Brits had adhered to another faith, they most likely would not have banned it.

interesting fact:

many of the muslim leaders in India argued that "dhimmi" status could actually cover non-"book" based religions, because they were able to tax the population.

It proved easier for them to bend their theology so that the Hindu could keep their practices and pay the Muslim rulers, rather than attempt a forceful conversion.

Originally posted by inimalist
interesting fact:

many of the muslim leaders in India argued that "dhimmi" status could actually cover non-"book" based religions, because they were able to tax the population.

It proved easier for them to bend their theology so that the Hindu could keep their practices and pay the Muslim rulers, rather than attempt a forceful conversion.

The Mughals only allowed Hindus to practice because they were hopelessly outnumbered. It was just a CYA move. They "bent" their theology (a sin in Islam) and sold out to the religion of the masses all in the interest of saving their own behinds and to fatten their pockets.

But in other places Muslims conquered, like North Africa, Persia and Indonesia, the native folk-religions were totally wiped out. Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon and other Muslim countries still have Christian minorites, because Dhimmi-tude only applies to Jews and Christians. The Mughals basically sold out, and eventually paid for it. Because religious unrest helped to crumble their empire, since they failed to convert everyone unlike the Muslims in Indonesia. A lot of historians say that the British Raj never would have been established if the entire Subcontinent was Muslim, because they wouldn't have been able to divide the population.

the $$ probably didn't hurt

I'm sure the imputus to convert the Hindus was sort of reduced as the dumptrucks full of cash rolled up

The Brits could have followed suit and taxed them as well, but suttee and other Hindu practices revolted them. The Christians weren't gonna turn a blind eye to a moral issue in exchange for cash, like the Muslims did.

Muslims could have taxed the Buddhists in Indonesia and made a lot of money, but instead they adhered to the Koran by converting them. Because the jizya doesn't apply to non-book religions.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
The Brits could have followed suit and taxed them as well, but suttee and other Hindu practices revolted them. The Christians weren't gonna turn a blind eye to a moral issue in exchange for cash, like the Muslims did.

Muslims could have taxed the Buddhists in Indonesia and made a lot of money, but instead they adhered to the Koran by converting them. Because the jizya doesn't apply to non-book religions.
Not all Muslim rulers tolerated Sati. Generally the Muslim rulers tried to dissuade widows from doing it rather than outright outlawing it.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
The Brits could have followed suit and taxed them as well, but suttee and other Hindu practices revolted them. The Christians weren't gonna turn a blind eye to a moral issue in exchange for cash, like the Muslims did.

Muslims could have taxed the Buddhists in Indonesia and made a lot of money, but instead they adhered to the Koran by converting them. Because the jizya doesn't apply to non-book religions.

no, totally, just any time I've been taught it in a class, the tax incentive from the indian population was one of the big reasons that was talked about

obviously it isn't the one single reason.

Theres been Laws since the cavemen days and look what happened.
I find very weathly people want religion..who knows they might want to control your minds... Islam two women = one man. maybe thats where men got the idea for a threesome?

I'm happy for the bump, I have some things to add.

First we have to separate personal good/bad from societal good/bad. I'll be focusing on societal below.

Second, we have to determine whether or not the good/bad has its root cause in religion, and is specifically caused by religion or religious belief. Or if the good/bad is simply inherent in us, and religion is simply one manifestation of our natural tendencies. And in what ratio between those two options, since it's not 100% either way.

Originally posted by Digi
...I do think the world would be slightly better sans (organized) religion. But the improvements would be minor. Religion is a product of human nature. It's goods and ills are our own, and wouldn't disappear with religion.

This was more intuition than researched when I wrote it, but once I delved a bit deeper it turned out to be mostly true. Turns out there's no good evidence to suggest that religion creates within us the impetus for harm more so than many other factors. For an extreme example, social, economic, and political factors have been found to contribute far more to the likelihood of suicide bombing than religious factors, even when those involved are a part of a specific religion.

What religions do is create an insular community, or in-group, that people naturally gravitate toward. Such in-groups, as a by-product of their very nature, create an in-group/out-group mentality. But, stripped of religion, we are no less likely to form such groups, and can even observe such behavior in a religion-less environment like, say, primate groups.

I use these anecdotes to represent the larger point made at the onset, a point that is backed by further evidence (which I can provide sources for, for those interested, but synopsis is usually in order on the forums).

So. Would the world be better off without religion? It's almost an invalid question. For religion to not exist, we'd have to change human nature to an extent that we wouldn't be looking at the same cultural or biological context. It serves a need in our basic nature (backed by both social and biological studies, some of which I pulled the anecdotes above from), and if religion didn't exist, institutions similar enough to religion would exist that would produce a largely similar society.

There's also some evidence to suggest the opposite, that a belief in a higher deity suppresses endeavors that would be strictly for personal desire that may cause others harm. I could not find as much documentation on that particular idea, but my central idea that religion isn't accountable for evil that isn't already ingrained with us is much more widespread and backed with evidence.

...

I do believe that there's still a host of reasons why a religious worldview is not a particularly desirable one for personal and societal reasons. But the idea that religion creates more bad than good in the world on a societal scale is not one of them.

Originally posted by Digi
Coconuts would continue to rape our populace either way, so let's focus on the real threat coming from the tropics....

...I also don't remember ever writing this. In browsing this thread, this elicited a huge 'wtf' from me.

I've kind of revised my thought on this. I think the world would not have been better off until now with no religion. However, I think that now we are at a stage where it IS time to remove religion and go to the next stage of development of values.

I think we're well past that phase as well, so we're in agreement there. But, again, I don't think that violence in the world would be noticeably less if we actually made that transition. An absurd amount of progress would need to be made, not just religious, for us to collectively overcome our natural agressive and in-grouping tendencies.

I think this whole trend I envision from the old model of ethics to the new model that will exist had an early transition point in the 60s and many of the movements springing from that era were symptomatic of it. However it was a false start, it didn't get enough people and wasn't matured properly and ended up as the New Age type movements. However, I think we could see another embrace soon, maybe feeding of the energy of these revolutions taking place.

Originally posted by King Kandy
I think this whole trend I envision from the old model of ethics to the new model that will exist had an early transition point in the 60s and many of the movements springing from that era were symptomatic of it. However it was a false start, it didn't get enough people and wasn't matured properly and ended up as the New Age type movements. However, I think we could see another embrace soon, maybe feeding of the energy of these revolutions taking place.

That would be cool to see. It's bit too early in the process to say I can see it as a likely outcome, but it's interesting food for thought. Hopefully the original desires of many of the revolutionaries, which revolved around the need for freedom, won't become lost when the eventual power shift takes place, in Egypt or anywhere else (because there have been some fledgling movements inspired by the current turmoil).

Originally posted by Digi
Second, we have to determine whether or not the good/bad has its root cause in religion, and is specifically caused by religion or religious belief. Or if the good/bad is simply inherent in us, and religion is simply one manifestation of our natural tendencies.
IMO, it could be said that humans are ultimately driven by Death Terror, deeply rooted in the dark pit of our psyche. Religion developed as a means of managing this on an abstract, sublime level as we became more and more conscious of our mortality. Unfortunately, as with any system ever produced by humans, system corruption and abuse eventually sets in.

Well, Death Terror is giving it a concrete name. I prefer to just refer to it as "our intrinsic nature" to leave in other possible explanations. I don't doubt that fear of death is part of it, but part of it also derives from our tendency to gravitate to social groups, or the cognitive dissonance that arises when we can't rationalize the world around us, or other factors I'm not thinking of.

We'd find a different reason to kill each other.

/thread.

Originally posted by Digi
Well, Death Terror is giving it a concrete name. I prefer to just refer to it as "our intrinsic nature" to leave in other possible explanations. I don't doubt that fear of death is part of it, but part of it also derives from our tendency to gravitate to social groups, or the cognitive dissonance that arises when we can't rationalize the world around us, or other factors I'm not thinking of. Offered for consideration...

Everything we think, do and say is geared toward distancing ourselves from DT. As individuals, as a species, we seek power. It's mostly unconscious, of course, and its influence takes on different manifestations at different levels. But all other drives can be traced back to this. If you can't stay alive, you can't do anything else.

Noted, and thanks. It's an interesting perspective. I'm just not sure I can attribute it as the cause of our other motivations. It is a motivation, to be sure, and a big one. But I simply see it alongside others, not the driving force behind them all.

Because, yes, we can't operate on our other motivations if we're not alive. But, for example, I rarely think about my mortality, though I'm aware of it. Most of my decisions in life don't revolve around survival chance. You have a stronger point in more harrowing life circumstances, certainly, but religion is an influence over every walk of life, including those whose deaths are more an abstract concept than an imminent event.

That theory also gets thrown into chaos by things like my suicide bomber example earlier. Is death terror the primary motivation behind someone taking their life, in the name of a religion or other cause? More likely the were simply unattached males (which nearly all suicide bombers are) who were manipulated by someone in a position of power, religious or otherwise. It's a power grab for one, sure, but just a social phenomenon for the bomber himself.

Originally posted by Digi
Because, yes, we can't operate on our other motivations if we're not alive. But, for example, I rarely think about my mortality, though I'm aware of it. Most of my decisions in life don't revolve around survival chance. You have a stronger point in more harrowing life circumstances, certainly, but religion is an influence over every walk of life, including those whose deaths are more an abstract concept than an imminent event.It is most obvious in life harrowing situations, whereas, yes, in daily life it's very much background. Religion is our means of addressing it from a distance.

That theory also gets thrown into chaos by things like my suicide bomber example earlier. Is death terror the primary motivation behind someone taking their life, in the name of a religion or other cause? More likely the were simply unattached males (which nearly all suicide bombers are) who were manipulated by someone in a position of power, religious or otherwise. It's a power grab for one, sure, but just a social phenomenon for the bomber himself. By choice or by brainwashing, the bomber identifies with something beyond himself (eg, a higher cause, Allah, 72 virgins). His biological survival is now secondary to the survival of the integrity of his memory and honor.

Just being apologetic...

That can also be applied to seppuku. In Japanese culture, suicide is a way to remove one's shame.

But suicide--for any reason--seems to fly in the face of "Death Terror".

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
That can also be applied to seppuku. In Japanese culture, suicide is a way to remove one's shame.

But suicide--for any reason--seems to fly in the face of "Death Terror".

We think of suicide as an extraordinary act. No one is claiming that every single person in the history of the human race acts on this principle all the time.

In the US (for example) 99.989% of the population does't commit suicide. I'd say that's enough for us to call it a consistent rule, wouldn't you?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
We think of suicide as an extraordinary act. No one is claiming that every single person in the history of the human race acts on this principle all the time.

In the US (for example) 99.999996% don't commit suicide. I'd say that's enough for us to call it a consistent rule, wouldn't you?

How is it "extraordinary", and who's "we"? In my life, I've personally known 6 people who've commited suicide. In fact, according to the World Health Organization, a suicide occurs somewhere every 40 seconds. So what happens to the so-called Death Terror?

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
How is it "extraordinary", and who's "we"? In my life, I've personally known 6 people who've commited suicide.

I assume you've known a lot more than six people in your life. Thus suicide is out of the ordinary.

And your life is an irrelevant anecdote compared to the lives of every person on the planet. Fact: less than .1% of people ever kill themselves.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
In fact, according to the World Health Organization, a suicide occurs somewhere every 40 seconds. So what happens to the so-called Death Terror?

In the case of people who kill themselves? I have no idea. It's a big planet, there are all kinds of potential circumstances severe enough to make them overcome the natural inclination not to do so.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I assume you've known a lot more than six people in your life. Thus suicide is out of the ordinary.

And your life is an irrelevant anecdote compared to the lives of every person on the planet. Fact: less than .1% of people ever kill themselves.



In the case of people who kill themselves? I have no idea. It's a big planet, there are all kinds of potential circumstances severe enough to make them overcome the natural inclination not to do so.

The fact that it occurs at all, and isn't a freak once-in-a-century occurance probably speaks to something. It may be a lot more rare than homocide and natural death, but its not unheard-of; it literally happens every single day. Depression/sadness is far and away the most common cause, so then why doesn't the survival drive/"Death Terror" kick in and over-ride it? Perhaps it isn't strong as people like to believe.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
The fact that it occurs at all, and isn't a freak once-in-a-century occurance probably speaks to something. It may be a lot more rare than homocide and natural death, but its not unheard-of; it literally happens every single day. Depression/sadness is far and away the most common cause, so then why doesn't the survival drive/"Death Terror" kick in and over-ride it? Perhaps it isn't strong as people like to believe.

Or perhaps depression is much more severe than popular culture likes to pretend.

Let's put it this way. I have a suit of armor that protects me 99.89% of the time. I'm going to call that good, highly effective armor and try to find out what could possibly be piercing it that .11% of the time. You would apparently claim that it doesn't do anything.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
That can also be applied to seppuku. In Japanese culture, suicide is a way to remove one's shame.

But suicide--for any reason--seems to fly in the face of "Death Terror". Sometimes death is simply preferred to living with pain. It is the lesser of the two evils.

The thing about human beings is that we aren't just biological creatures; we are psychological beings as well, and sometimes the symbolic integrity of the ego supercedes the physical integrity of the body. "Death before dishonor." This would also explain "heroes": people who would sacrifice themselves to save others. There is identification with something "bigger" than one's physical existence. Humans can attach themselves to all sorts of high-falootin' abstractions, and the survival of that self-concept then becomes paramount.

Are Quiero and I arguing the same side? haermm

Originally posted by Mindship
Sometimes death is simply preferred to living with pain. It is the lesser of the two evils.

The thing about human beings is that we aren't just biological creatures; we are psychological beings as well, and sometimes the symbolic integrity of the ego supercedes the physical integrity of the body. "Death before dishonor." This would also explain "heroes": people who would sacrifice themselves to save others. There is identification with something "bigger" than one's physical existence. Humans can attach themselves to all sorts of high-falootin' abstractions, and the survival of that self-concept then becomes paramount.

...which I believe is a defense of my point, but meh. We're squabbling over breadcrumbs here. Right or not, my lengthy defense (again ironic) of theism as a non-issue as it concerns global violence remains valid, imo.

Originally posted by Digi
...which I believe is a defense of my point, but meh. We're squabbling over breadcrumbs here. Right or not, my lengthy defense (again ironic) of theism as a non-issue as it concerns global violence remains valid, imo. Squabbling? I don't do no stinkin' squabbling. Spar, perhaps, with occassional third-rate wise-assery. But I save the squabbling for the wife.

I'm not sure how what I said defends your point of multiple motivations (?), since I was defending mine (why suicide and DT can still get along), but generally I do agree that religion, in and of itself, is not the root cause of human aggression. But it is a good way to justify it (ie, Divine License to kill).

I'm much more a proponent of an aphorism by Twain: "Fear of death is the same as fear of life. A man who lives fully is never afraid to die."

Paraphrased as closely as I could remember. But the message is there.

Anyway, I believe that your point about heroes strengthens my own because you're showing evidence of a motivation that supercedes a fear of death. Whether or not a fear of death is always present (which I'd argue it isn't, especially in religious cases), there are motivations that will not only compete with DT but overcome and replace it.

Originally posted by Digi
I'm much more a proponent of an aphorism by Twain: "Fear of death is the same as fear of life. A man who lives fully is never afraid to die."

Paraphrased as closely as I could remember. But the message is there.

Anyway, I believe that your point about heroes strengthens my own because you're showing evidence of a motivation that supercedes a fear of death. Whether or not a fear of death is always present (which I'd argue it isn't, especially in religious cases), there are motivations that will not only compete with DT but overcome and replace it. Ah. Understood. I still disagree, as I think DT should not always be interpreted solely "biologically," but I see what you're saying.

Sorry if I was pushing. But now and then, I do like to use KMC as training for real life debating.

The world would definitely be worse off without religion. Religion gave us all of our civilizing qualities, and without it, we would have been long extinct.