Would the world be better...............

[JGalt]

[gamblore99]

I would guess no. but the world without religion would be way to hard to imagine. it may not be even possible

[jakethebake]

Wow! An excellent question! Even non-belivers may not believe the world would be better w/o it.

[jakethebake]

[ QUOTE ]
the world without religion would be way to hard to imagine. it may not be even possible

[/ QUOTE ]

That has nothing to do with the question.

[TimM]

Not possible.

I'd settle for secular governments and laws, and religion being a private matter and not something to be pushed on others.

[jesusarenque]

Yes, and it is a joke to say otherwise.

[jakethebake]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, and it is a joke to say otherwise.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not necessarily. Religion gives people hope and comfort. It also provides an incentive against certain non-desired behaviors.

[jesusarenque]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yes, and it is a joke to say otherwise.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not necessarily. Religion gives people hope and comfort. It also provides an incentive against certain non-desired behaviors.

[/ QUOTE ]

It also incites ignorance and hatred. In addition, it provides an incentive against many desired behaviors.

[jakethebake]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yes, and it is a joke to say otherwise.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not necessarily. Religion gives people hope and comfort. It also provides an incentive against certain non-desired behaviors.

[/ QUOTE ]

It also incites ignorance and hatred. In addition, it provides an incentive against many desired behaviors.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't necessarily disagree. I'm just saying it's not all bad and certainly debatable. I think it's pretty much safe to say therte would still be ingorance. Religion fills a void that could be filled with worse things.

[Broken Glass Can]

[ QUOTE ]
It also incites ignorance and hatred. In addition, it provides an incentive against many desired behaviors.

[/ QUOTE ]

The biggest impact is on children. Those from a religious background as a group thrive and contribute to society more than those without religious support.

I know many parents who only start going to church again once their kids are toddlers, because they realize that this would be a good thing for their kids.

[jakethebake]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It also incites ignorance and hatred. In addition, it provides an incentive against many desired behaviors.

[/ QUOTE ]

The biggest impact is on children. Those from a religious background as a group thrive and contribute to society more than those without religious support.

I know many parents who only start going to church again once their kids are toddlers, because they realize that this would be a good thing for their kids.

[/ QUOTE ]

But is that the impact of a close-knit church community, that could exist with something else tying it together rather than a result of religion itself?

[Homer]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, and it is a joke to say otherwise.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's a joke for you to say this. It's a [censored] hypothetical question.

[Broken Glass Can]

[ QUOTE ]
But is that the impact of a close-knit church community, that could exist with something else tying it together rather than a result of religion itself?

[/ QUOTE ]

That may be the case, but without the church option, many families would fail to find another good community group that actively involves kids to become involved in. We should be thankful churches are there to serve in that role.

[trying2learn]

didn't jesse ventura say that religion was a, "crutch for the weak minded"? i believe he followed that statement with the thought that religion 'guilts' people into trying to do the right thing.

[jakethebake]

[ QUOTE ]
didn't jesse ventura say that religion was a, "crutch for the weak minded"? i believe he followed that statement with the thought that religion 'guilts' people into trying to do the right thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's what I was getting at earlier...both points. Not saying it's right or wrong, but certainly in many cases is correct.

[Broken Glass Can]

[ QUOTE ]
didn't jesse ventura say that religion was a, "crutch for the weak minded"? i believe he followed that statement with the thought that religion 'guilts' people into trying to do the right thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

So when someone doesn't rob you because they were "guilted" into not robbing you, are you going to complain?

And since when is Jesse Ventura worthy of paying attention to?

[Dr. Strangelove]

Since he started saying things that make sense. Since when are you worth paying attention to?

[FoxwoodsFiend]

The thing is, without religion people would find some other reason to be hateful. I'm not religious, but I still hate as many people as most religious people I know.

[duk]

[ QUOTE ]

I know many parents who only start going to church again once their kids are toddlers, because they realize that this would be a good thing for their kids.

[/ QUOTE ]

There are also lots of parents who start hitting their kids, because they "realize" it'll be good for them. Teach them some discipline, ya know.

The way I see it, religion as a moral foundation is relatively similar; behave, or god will hit you. In my experience, children brought up (properly, of course) without religion have a much sounder moral compass. Some people learn not to do bad things because the bible tells them so. Others learn not to do bad things because they understand that bad things have negative externalities, so to speak.

Suppose, for instance, there are three children who all decide not to steal their classmate Timmy's comic book. One might decide thusly because he knows if he is caught his father will hit him, and getting hit hurts. One might decide not to steal it because he's learned that god doesn't like people to steal, and no one wants god to be angry at him. One might decide not to steal it because it will cause distress to Timmy if he steals it. While having the comic book might be nice, it's not worth making Timmy sad.

As far as I can tell, the third thought process is the most reasonable (and therefore, in part, most desirable). So, to sum up, I like to think we'd be better off without religion. <font color="red"> </font>

[thatpfunk]

A world in which everyone is certain there is no god (no afterlife, no repercussions, etc) would be very scary.

Religion causes all kinds of harmful things, but it dues serve as an opiate for the weak-minded masses.

If the question is more complicated (no religion, but spiritual beliefs are allowed, etc) my answer changes.

[peachy]

im not religious...but if religion was taken away i dont think the majority of the population would know how to function b/c most cant face the reality of our world...the here and now. It also sets universal morals...its a shame humanity cant do this on its own...the majority of (religious) people r walking through life blind and wasting every day they have...and completely niave

[ilya]

Are you really asking a multiple-choice question about the overall value of religion to society.

[Phoenix1010]

Depends on what your definition of 'better' is. In my eyes, it's a resounding yes. No religion = no Conservative Christians. No religion = no Islamic Fundamentalists. I do think this is a good question for discussion though.

[Huhmare]

Is the world better without christianity. DEFINITELY.

Is the world better without any religion. NO.

[Drunk Bob]

I do not believe in god but the 10 commandments are the basis of civil law that led to todays society.

If only more people obeyed them. /images/graemlins/frown.gif

[jakethebake]

[ QUOTE ]
It also sets universal morals...

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you paying attention?

[Girchuck]

I don't think all ten of the commandments are used in civil law.
There is no requirement to worship the almighty god in civil law.
There is no prohibition against idolatry in civil law.
Coveting your neighbor's posessions is one of the main engines of today's economy.
The laws against adultery are relaxed or abolished everywhere.