Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

If Religions never existed....

Options
2»

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    brianthebard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,165 ✭✭✭✭brianthebard


    Húrin wrote: »
    Which would be the same really, just without a God. The equivalent of atheists would still appear to deny that life has a meaning!

    That was my point.


  • Options
    #33
    Phototoxin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,398 ✭✭✭Phototoxin


    I would be a happier less confused person. But the world would probably be at war.


  • Options
    #34
    Galvasean
    Registered Users Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    If there were no religions we'd still argue about things like abortion, gun control and the death penalty. We'd still fight wars over land and resources.We'd still hold prejudices against each other over silly things like skin colour.
    About the only thing that'd be much different would be people who reject the theory of evolution. I can't imagine there would be many of them.


  • Options
    #35
    oshead
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,131 ✭✭✭oshead


    There would be no need for this forum and indeed, for this thread. ;)

    Dave OS


  • Options
    #36
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    DapperGent wrote: »
    Wow. That's pathetic.
    Posts like the above only inflame a thread.

    If you disagree with what has been stated, elaborate.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    pH
    Registered Users Posts: 4,188 ✭✭✭pH


    I'm not willing to concede this so easily, much of the pro-religion points here seem to be a form of the Broken window fallacy.

    Throughout history there have always been the rich, and these men regularly supported their pet scientists and artists through a system of patronage. The fact that one or two monks over the millennia did something useful with their times seems poor recompense for the thousands which society supported over that time. Couple with that the general desire for religion to maintain the status quo, and the observation that how once universities moved out of direct religious control there was an explosion of enlightenment it's very hard to take a pro-religion argument seriously in the scientific area.

    We've been through the "where does morality come from before" and the answer seems to be "certainly not from an ancient book".

    Also statistical evidence seems to show that fear of hell and a desire to get to heaven doesn't seem to make people behave better (this is a real shock to me, I feel that if I believed I'd certainly behave a lot better!)

    I think you can explain religion by looking at how people want status and power within a society, how people like to band together around a totem and support it (be it a faith, soccer team or pop band) and also the human mind's desire for an explanation resulting in a bad explanation being far preferable to no explanation (See point 1 in jakkass' post above).

    I suppose some argument could be made for "good works" but once again we find religion lacking. Redistribution of wealth (either purely financial or in terms of time and effort) has been provided by religions but rarely (if ever?) has it produced real societal change (in that for most of the last 2,000 years with say Christianity the rich have been living alongside the very poor with the religions making token efforts mainly for their own benefit). Strangely Islam seems to have a much better track record here than Christianity.

    Real change, has come through secular political efforts, and it's interesting that it's the US (probably the most religious western democratic state) who is the most resistant to the welfare state and free health care.


  • Options
    #38
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    pH wrote: »
    Also statistical evidence seems to show that fear of hell and a desire to get to heaven doesn't seem to make people behave better (this is a real shock to me, I feel that if I believed I'd certainly behave a lot better!)

    That isn't anywhere near what Christianity amounts to, and I don't think that it should be the 100% motivation to follow God, and to try and serve your fellow man. These things should be capable of existing without these two situations being in your mind constantly.

    However, I do think that Christianity does give a very strong moral guideline for life, which I haven't seen of any secular philosophy really. The answer that atheists give says "Not from a holy book", because they already have other issues with faith and as I say before, you'd be surprised at how little of them are actually intellectual issues in many cases.
    pH wrote: »
    I think you can explain religion by looking at how people want status and power within a society, how people like to band together around a totem and support it (be it a faith, soccer team or pop band) and also the human mind's desire for an explanation resulting in a bad explanation being far preferable to no explanation (See point 1 in jakkass' post above).

    See this is my problem with Christian - Atheist discourse. Why can't you try to give me some form of an answer to the questions I have instead of dismissing them as "bad"?


  • Options
    #39
    Goduznt Xzst
    Registered Users Posts: 1,353 ✭✭✭Goduznt Xzst


    Húrin wrote: »
    The idea of progress is a religious one in the first place.

    Please elaborate on this point
    Húrin wrote: »
    Besides, what man made systems are not flawed?

    How is this any form of argument? So you are saying that because secular systems are flawed that we should just accept religious systems as at least they give the masses the opiate of immortality and an omnipotent sky spirit to watch them day and night (would take a helluvalot of CCTV cameras to have the same secular effect)

    Firstly, what you are failing to admit is that religions are man made systems. I know you will be more than happy to accept that every present and past religion and God that you do not believe in are man made, but the one you have personal faith in was "clearly" ordained by your "God" and not man.

    Secondly what separates a religious system to a secular one is that its believers imagine that God has instituted the rules for life, not man, and in such must be followed until he changes them. As this God doesn't exist, these rules will stagnate to the point where society has changed sufficiently enough that a group from this religion will schism to reunderstand what God really meant.

    Imagine how chaotic this world would be if people believed the constitution that governs our base rights was tied to the will of some non existent God? You only have to look at the caste system of India to see how hazardous religious rulership is to human rights.

    Imagine if, instead of a schism, a new republic would form each time people disagreed with the ruling religious system. Religions are inherently resistant to revolution so we'd see a world ruled by religions becoming increasingly more and more fragmented and segregated.


  • Options
    #40
    brianthebard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,165 ✭✭✭✭brianthebard


    Húrin wrote: »
    The idea of progress is a religious one in the first place. Besides, what man made systems are not flawed?

    What sort of progress are you referring to? Modern ideas of linear progress date from the nineteenth century and the industrial revolution I would say.


  • Options
    #41
    Húrin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,045 ✭✭✭Húrin


    Goduznt Xzst wrote: »
    How is this any form of argument?
    In pointing out how religion is an inherently flawed system, which I agree with, and giving this as a reason to abandon it, he implies that there are flawless human systems.
    So you are saying that because secular systems are flawed that we should just accept religious systems as at least they give the masses the opiate of immortality and an omnipotent sky spirit to watch them day and night (would take a helluvalot of CCTV cameras to have the same secular effect)
    I am absolutely not saying that! For the purposes of this thread I am presupposing atheism.
    Firstly, what you are failing to admit is that religions are man made systems. I know you will be more than happy to accept that every present and past religion and God that you do not believe in are man made, but the one you have personal faith in was "clearly" ordained by your "God" and not man.
    Well you don't actually know what my opinions are, and I think you've read far too much into my one sentence.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    Húrin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,045 ✭✭✭Húrin


    brianthebard wrote: »
    What sort of progress are you referring to? Modern ideas of linear progress date from the nineteenth century and the industrial revolution I would say.

    It goes back much further than that. The ideologies of the 19th century did not come from nowhere. They came out of the Age of Reason. That came from the reformation and that came from medieval Christianity.

    Unlike the Romans and Greeks who saw time as cyclical, Jews had a linear notion of time, beginning at creation and ending with judgement. The fact that our system is based on the notion of perpetual progress is rooted in Judeo-Christian teleology. It is so deeply rooted that it is shared by nearly every western ideology, from Islam to Communism.


  • Options
    #43
    pH
    Registered Users Posts: 4,188 ✭✭✭pH


    Jakkass wrote: »
    See this is my problem with Christian - Atheist discourse. Why can't you try to give me some form of an answer to the questions I have instead of dismissing them as "bad"?

    Because there are plenty of other threads discussing why "we can't quite explain the first couple of nano-seconds of the universe .... THEREFORE GOD DID IT!!!!!!!!!!!" is a bad explanation (or indeed the "I'm too stupid to understand it and too lazy to check for myself ... therefore GOD DID IT" one). Therefore I see no need to do it again in this thread.
    It goes back much further than that. The ideologies of the 19th century did not come from nowhere. They came out of the Age of Reason. That came from the reformation and that came from medieval Christianity.

    It's certainly debatable that they "came out" in much the same way that communism "came out" of Imperialist Russia. Anyway that is to miss the point, they certainly weren't driven by religion, I don't remember God contributing anything to these ideologies (and I'd go so far as to say you'd probably dismiss those who claim much later revelations say Mormons and Scientology for example). I think it would be fair to say that most of religions would have been on the conservative side of all these debates/philosophies and fought against each change.


  • Options
    #44
    brianthebard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,165 ✭✭✭✭brianthebard


    Húrin wrote: »
    It goes back much further than that. The ideologies of the 19th century did not come from nowhere. They came out of the Age of Reason. That came from the reformation and that came from medieval Christianity.

    Unlike the Romans and Greeks who saw time as cyclical, Jews had a linear notion of time, beginning at creation and ending with judgement. The fact that our system is based on the notion of perpetual progress is rooted in Judeo-Christian teleology. It is so deeply rooted that it is shared by nearly every western ideology, from Islam to Communism.

    I agree on most points you have there, I just wanted you to clarify. Thanks for that. I would slightly disagree on the Communism part but I guess that depends on who you are reading, Marx saw communism as the next step in linear progress, others who build on his work look at more cyclical systems.


  • Options
    #45
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    Húrin wrote: »
    The fact that our system is based on the notion of perpetual progress is rooted in Judeo-Christian teleology.
    How does the notion of perpetual progress fit in with the promises of Revelations? Doesn't Christianity envisage a preordained end to everything? It hardly encourages scientific progress when the End is Nigh! ;)


  • Options
    #46
    brianthebard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,165 ✭✭✭✭brianthebard


    That sounds very nihilistic Dades, almost like those arguments about atheists having no meaning to their life if there is no afterlife?


  • Options
    #47
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    brianthebard wrote: »
    That sounds very nihilistic Dades, almost like those arguments about atheists having no meaning to their life if there is no afterlife?
    It more like having less meaning to this life in anticipation of an afterlife.

    Besides, I wasn't being totally serious. It was just a comment on the use of the word "perpetual" in that context. That said those crackpots who celebrate the 'imminent' arrival of Judgment Day do nothing to promote the supposed "Christian" idea of perpetual progress.


  • Options
    #48
    Turncoat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 534 ✭✭✭Turncoat


    If religions didn't exist, countless conflicts and terrorist activities could have just been attributed to the bloodthirsty nature of people and not "we'll bomb your country because you are from another religion or doing so will get me my 72 virgins". I don't mean to offend anyone but this is just a personal opinion.


  • Options
    #49
    Goduznt Xzst
    Registered Users Posts: 1,353 ✭✭✭Goduznt Xzst


    Húrin wrote: »
    In pointing out how religion is an inherently flawed system, which I agree with, and giving this as a reason to abandon it, he implies that there are flawless human systems.

    Ok forgive me if I'm wrong, but your previous postings have led me to believe you are a theist. Are you not?
    Húrin wrote: »
    I am absolutely not saying that! For the purposes of this thread I am presupposing atheism.

    presupposing in what sense?
    Húrin wrote: »
    Well you don't actually know what my opinions are, and I think you've read far too much into my one sentence.

    Then please elaborate. What was the purpose in asking the rhetorical question as to which man made systems are not flawed?


  • Options
    #50
    brianthebard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,165 ✭✭✭✭brianthebard


    Sharad wrote: »
    If religions didn't exist, countless conflicts and terrorist activities could have just been attributed to the bloodthirsty nature of people and not "we'll bomb your country because you are from another religion or doing so will get me my 72 virgins". I don't mean to offend anyone but this is just a personal opinion.

    Most wars that are supposedly about religion are usually more about race, economics, resources, nationalism, or a combination.


Advertisement