would the world be a better place without...

[bernie]

christianity, judaism, muslim, etc...

contrary to what i think of organized religions, im not sure it would be much better.

thoughts?

b

[George Rice]

In some ways yes. But these beliefs came about because of our curiosity to discover where we came from and what our purpose was. And also our failure to explain it any other way. These traits, curiosity in specific, have been a plus in many other ways. I think it's a tough call. It's hard to figure how we would have turned out without them. We might have just whithered away when our first food source was depleated.

[Taxman]

While it's an interesting question, it can never really be answered because religion was an inevitable step in human evolution. The desire to understand the universe is inherent in human nature and thus especially before the creation of science, religion was the most logical step. The natural organization of men based on fear and superiority also made organized relgion an inevitability as well. I feel like organized religion may have even been an integral part of societal development and perhaps without it, we would have perpetually existed in a state of nature. Ethnic divisions have probably caused as many problems as religious ones throughout history and so I might argue that with the absence of religion, other forms of hatred would have only grown to be stronger. While I agree that the overall good provided by organizerd religion may in fact not outweigh the bad, I also believe that it prevented a world that could potentially have been much worse.

[Gamblor]

the continuation of this desire to achieve superiority includes a newfound need to achieve superiority over our forefathers by announcing our "revelations" that religion is just the result of ancient confusion over the elements.

I'm sure you're all extremely proud of yourselves.

I happen to like my religion and I still think the strands of your moral fabric were woven within it.

[Taxman]

I never said God was dead or anything similar. Personally I am a moderately religious person, I just believe that I can practice my faith personally, without need for an organized base. I also hold an intense curiosity and I enjoy exploring various parts of every faith. My point was that regardless of the truth of the matter, organized religion was inevitable. The fact that such organizations have caused many problems is undeniable just like the fact that they have done a lot of good. There is no need to be so reactionary to my comments especially when I never said any of the things you imply.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

a newfound need to achieve superiority over our forefathers by announcing our "revelations" that religion is just the result of ancient confusion over the elements.

and

I'm sure you're all extremely proud of yourselves.

Although I tend towards Objectivism and believe that Pride is a virtue, I think one point needs to be made.

The pridefulness of all faiths claiming to define what the deity wants was critiqued eloquently long before the birth of Abraham in the Tao Te Ching.

"The Way that can be named is not the true Way."

[Gamblor]

Doesn't the "right to practice my religion in whatever way I choose" basically mean if I don't feel like following a given law, I don't have to?

Who are we to argue with "all powerful god"?

Organized religion is only a sham as far as you accept its doctrine. For example, for Jewish law, one accepts the words of the Rabbis simply by virtue that this is what they spend their time doing. They simply know how to interpret it better, and in the absence of my own efforts to understand the Bible as well as they do, I place my faith in their ability to interpret it for the betterment of the people who follow it.

I suppose your argument is whether or not the motivations behind those decisions are pure. But the lack of a single spiritual leader in Judaism points towards a dearth of selfish interests available (though not completely absent) in the religion's establishment.

But to simply discount it on the basis of its level of organization is absurd, no?

[Taxman]

I never discounted it. To each his own. At least I know that when I observe my faith in my own way, the only biases I gain are my own. I am making no real argument other than to say that it is not so simple as saying that all religion is bad or that all religion is good. Ultimately, the intentions behind organized religion are good, but sometimes it only takes one person to twist such intentions in a most undesireable way. Nevertheless, my ultimate conclusion was that the existence of organized religion is probably preferable to no religion.

[Gamblor]

"To each his own" is the right way to approach others' beliefs.

Having said that, what do you have to say of Gentiles who celebrate Christmas but observe no other rituals of Christianity? And Jews who claim to be Jewish but haven't prayed to their God since their bar mitzvah, which their parents threw only to give their son a party and get him a pantload of presents? Aren't they simply having their cake and eating it too?

If religion is in any way correct, don't the commandments of God demand that one accepts the benefits with the sacrifices?

This is where, in my opinion, organized religion went by the wayside. When people began to observe the convenient rituals and ignore the inconvenient ones. That is not religion, that is selfishness. Religion requires total belief in the tenets of the religion, as they are interpreted. The Crusades, Jihadis, etc. are not religious, they are manipulating their religion to suit selfish goals i.e. imperialism. Just my opinion, as a fairly Orthodox Jew. I just don't see any significant events in Jewish history (or Buddhist, etc.) history that has produced misery on the same scale. Correct me if I'm wrong, of course.

The point: to each his own is right in that all are entitled to believe what they want - but to claim to be Jewish but not keep kosher is simply avoiding the sacrifices that come with Judaism. Let's call a spade a spade.

[slavic]

Considering that we develop our moral codes and basis for civilization from the foundations of the Jewish faith, I would have to say that it would probably not be a good thing if the whole setup never existed.

Lennin called religion the "Pacifist of the masses" but do you really want to live in his secular world?

Now if you want to talk about the organizations, well we can get off into some strange topics there, but as far as the uniform moral code that each of these religions presents I can't help but say that society greatly benefits from their existance.

[Zeno]

It is obvious that you think religion is the best basis for moral codes. I disagree.

It is my opinon that intelligence should be the basis for moral codes, not religion. The difference that this one concept alone could have made to the history of the world is staggering.

Think about it.

-Zeno

[WillMagic]

IMO, religion is and has been one of the most destructive forces in society for 4-5000 years.

From the egyptians killing jews to the romans and the christians to the crusades to the spanish "settlement" of the new world to inca and aztec sacrifices to the holocaust to the taliban and al qaeda to the army of god and abortion bombings and homosexual persecution and around and around we go.

A lot more bad things have been undertaken in the name of god than good things. For sure.

Honestly, the world would be a much better place without religion.

[bernie]

personally, i think morality predates religion by quite a bit. same with civilized living. religion didnt invent morality. but they sure did mutate it to suit their needs. especially in justification for genocide against heretics(free thinkers). oops, that's right, they apologized for that, didn't they. they still condemn free thinkers, they just don't necesarily murder to prove their point.

i agree with taxman that something else would've popped up if it wasnt religion that would seperate the masses and have them bicker and condemn each other over simple thoughts and questions. wars were inevitable.

-----

since i love slamming the christian church, here's 2 answers to questions to a pastor in the paper today.

Is it your contention that the Bible condemns homosexuality?

Without any doubt. First of all, in the law, it says a man should not lie with another man as one lies with a woman.
In the biblical law, homosexuality is always condemned. It is never sanctioned. It is called "detestable" practice. That's what God called it in the Old Testament.---

gotta love how they pick and choose from the old testament.

What do you think Jesus would say about gay love? Gay marriage?

First of all, he would love them. Second, he would encourage them toward healthy relationships.

so which way do they choose to teach?
along with this wonderful report from the Vatican:

The Vatican will soon publish a report about sexual abuse by clergy that draws heavily on scientific opinion, including experts skeptical about removing from the ministry any priest who has molested a child, said a psychologist who helped edit the report.

they still just don't get it. please keep feeding the collection plates for these idiots. and feel free to let them babysit your children.

above quotes taken from the seattle PI sat 2-21-03 pg A8,9

b

[Cyrus]

Religion provides persuasive comfort to Man in hiding the unbearable truth about Man's existence and the Cosmos. The alternative condition, i.e. of confronting Truth, in all its horror, is admittedly almost impossible to accept and live in; hence the persistence of the hold of Religion.

I am not sure that having no Religion would be better for the world though -- if by that term you are referring to the Earth. (The Cosmos would not even feel an itch in the balls if the human species disappears tonight.)

If we or at least most of us, can progress beyond the current state of Childhood that we are in, then yes, it would be a good thing "for the world", probably. (We would have more informed priorities and take care of our world better, for starters.) If, on the other hand, Man remains frightened, badly educated and weary, the Truth might lead to suicidal acts on a grand scale. Not a good thing for ol' "world"...

--Cyrus

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
the Truth might lead to suicidal acts on a grand scale. Not a good thing for ol' "world"...


[/ QUOTE ]

except it may free up some traffic on the freeways.
let 'em leap.

b

[John Cole]

Cyrus,

I'm not quite sure "The Truth" is all that unbearable. For the time we live on earth, we are more than just walking, breathing fertilizer--I think.

--John

[PuppetMaster]

[ QUOTE ]
christianity, judaism, muslim, etc...

contrary to what i think of organized religions, im not sure it would be much better.

thoughts?

b

[/ QUOTE ]

[Taxman]

[ QUOTE ]
I just don't see any significant events in Jewish history (or Buddhist, etc.) history that has produced misery on the same scale. Correct me if I'm wrong, of course.


[/ QUOTE ]

Well one might argue that not everything done by the Israeli government has been super nice (yes they have been constantly provoked), but still on the scale you are refferring to, you are correct. You'd probably have to go back to old testament times to find anything close. Most of the worst things I know about were done in the name of christianity or Islam.

As far as the rest of your post goes, I think you are straying from the original topic but I will respond. I would not say that religion is correct any more than I would say that it is wrong. That's a red herring. I'll agree that those who hijack religion for presents on christmas or something similar are not particularly religious people, but to them it may not necessarily be wrong. Perhaps deep down they do "know" that it is and if so, it's something they have to address within themselves. It is not something deserving of our disapproval.

Personally, I am not a strong believer that church holidays are necessary or useful for me individually. I have no problem exchanging gifts on christmas without attending church, I sometimes choose to attend church and I may enjoy doing so, but it is not integral to my faith. After all froma christian perspective at least, there is considerable doubt about Christ's actual birthday. The one celebrated was mostly chosen because it is near the Winter Solstice, an important Pagan holiday. The placement of such celebrations was common practice in order to encourage conversion. On a slight tangent, I also find it interesting that many Pagans converted because they were conquered by christians, thus "proving" that the christian god was stronger than their own.

Ultimately I think "to each his own" stands as a reasonable maxim. If people choose not to be religious or to take advantage of only the benefits provided by it, that's their perogative. You can pity them if you think they are deserving of pity, but you should not judge them.

[HDPM]

I think there is a difference between an inevitable step in a progression and its current value. Judaism in many respects represents a marked psychological development. Before the monotheistic religion of Judaism, people would basically seek advice from individual gods. You need guidance in how to farm, you build an idol and undergo some psychological process arriving at some answer. Judaism was a rather interesting step linking tribal religion to the thought and religion of a growing civilization IMO. The religious structures that worked for small tribes do not work for a bigger civilization. So instead of having families worship their own god, who really is the idol they keep in the hut, we will all at once write down a bunch of rules. We won't need to seek guidance from an idol on many decisions and can progress. It is very possible, although I cannot prove, that in addition to the developing civilization there was a different way of thinking employed by the human brain among the idol worshippers. Writings and stories from those groups suggest that people probably had some kind of hallucination or something in their religious experience. It MAY be that they employed a brain function we would now view as a mental illness. Recent experiments show that brains are activated a certain way when religious experience is deeply felt. But now most people in the world view such an experience differently than the idol worshippers of several thousand years ago. I don't think we know exactly what causes it.

So I think it is very possible that Judaism represents a big psychological and cognitive leap. That is not to say we won't evolve further. I think we already have, and in fact Judaism itself has. Whatever all the theology about the Temple and Temple ritual, I can't imagine a scenario where animal sacrifice would be brought back. I just doubt many modern Jews, however observant, would want to go slaughter pigeons and goats on the steps of the Temple.

I think in some respects Christianity owes something to Judaism, but I also think it is a big mistake when people blithley say "Judeo-Christian" values. The history early Christianity is pretty interesting and I admit I don't know it very well. I just don't think it is so clear that Christianity somehow sprang from Judaism. I believe it was meant to be very different, but the success of the Catholic Church ended some of the very important differences and probably represented a regression. Christianity started in an area where Judaism was successful, but not the only religion. There were other religions about, and my guess is that Christianity drew from them. Much of the theology and ritual in Christianity might well have come from Egyptian religions of the time, not Judaism. It isn't even real clear Jesus was a Jew. Perhaps he was born Jewish, but it doesn't mean he even practiced the religion. I don't think it is known. I even think the Talmud described him as a practitioner of Egyptian religion, but trust me, I am no Talmudic scholar. But in the period where the New Testament was being written, a lot of stuff went down. There were many ideas, theological debates, and religious writings going around. What was left after the Church got done with it was just a small part of it. I think all the progressive thinkers got trampled. Reading some of thiose writings, which I have only barely begun to do, it interesting. There is some fairly liberal or Eastern thinking there. Much more spiritual, individual, new age than we have seen in the last 1500 years.

Perhaps the lost stuff, or the unpopular stuff, represented the progression. I think religion and religious belief will continue to evolve. Already I think we are seeing a more personal less organized practice of religion. In all the religions really. The Protestant reformation hundreds of years ago was th efirst shot in our western culture and it continues today, despite the fundamentalist backlash. I think it will continue in the future, until many people won't believe the big religious doctrines or will seek some kind of spiritual understanding or experience on their own. And the world will be better off at that point. While organized religion may have been necessary or at least inevitable, that does not mean it will remain so. And if humans can progress, we might have a decent world for a change.

[daryn]

intelligence should NOT be the basis for moral codes... that is just ridiculous. anyone who is fairly intelligent can realize that there is really no difference between what we consider "good" and what we consider "evil".

[HDPM]

"On a slight tangent, I also find it interesting that many Pagans converted because they were conquered by christians, thus "proving" that the christian god was stronger than their own."

Torture chambers and burning at the stake helped things along too. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[Gamblor]

Personally, I am not a strong believer that church holidays are necessary or useful for me individually.

That was my point.

But yes, absolutely straying from the topic, but I was interested in your opinion on the matter.

To each his own. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

The way I figure, the rules are there and it is each person's responsibility to follow them. Look up "B'nei Noach" (sons of Noah) for the role of non-Jews in Jewish law. Nonetheless, I still believe that keeping Kosher puts me one step ahead of a pork-eating Jew on the road to heaven, but it's a small step - the real strides are made by adhering to Hillel's motto - "V'ahavta l'reyacha camocha" - "Treat your neighbour as you would treat yourself".

(Incidentally, I find the promise of heaven a bit of a carrot on a stick and a selfish goal in and of itself, but I figure, worst case is I was a good person, I die, and a few things go unrewarded /images/graemlins/cool.gif)

[scalf]

/images/graemlins/blush.gif even if there were no higher power..

man would invent one...

thank god he does not have to...

gl /images/graemlins/laugh.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/spade.gif

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
(Incidentally, I find the promise of heaven a bit of a carrot on a stick and a selfish goal in and of itself, but I figure, worst case is I was a good person, I die, and a few things go unrewarded )

[/ QUOTE ]

so basically you do just enough to hedge your belief in case the promise made to you is true. kind of like betting the black and red at the same time on a roulette table, when really, all the numbers 'could' be green.

b

[bernie]

after all, some of the most intelligent people were some of the most despicable. especially back in the day when intelligence/knowledge was power. and power corrupted.

b

[Zeno]

Society must be ordered in some way through codes and/or laws in order to function at all in a collective way. To base that order on superstition, ignorance, and fear (the basis of most religions in my opinion) is counterproductive to this operation. Using human's collective intelligent as a basis for morality is an improvement. Indeed, religions in general and religious beliefs in particular have, over many thousands of years, been modified or tempered by a gradual overall improvement in the intelligence of human beings and the falling off of many beliefs based on ignorance, superstitions, old taboos etc. HDPM made a good post pointing out some of this.

What do you think moral codes or codes of behavior, or societal standards should be based on?

-Zeno

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
after all, some of the most intelligent people were some of the most despicable. especially back in the day when intelligence/knowledge was power. and power corrupted.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is true in particular cases but fails in the general case. The reasons that particular individauls have all that power in the first place is the general ignorance and fettering of inquiry and knowlegde in the general population.

Power is a relative term and so to is intelligence. Any definition is slippery and can be subject to endless quibbling. We are all on slippery ground here, without some agreed upon definitions.

-Zeno

[Gamblor]

Not quite - I do what I can because that's what's important to me.

The rest is bonus.

[Zeno]

And ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free - John 8:32 KJV.


The truth is very bearable. It sets us Free, Free from the shackles and fetters of Religions based on ignorance and fear, Frees us from the infancy and childhood that the human race still clings to, Frees us to exam the universe for ourselves and see it for what it truly is....and is not.

[daryn]

it's tough to have moral codes in a society. i don't think anything you base them on can be regarded as "intelligent", including religion. i don't know how to answer your question.

[Taxman]

The problem with the "rules" is that you can't really say one set of them are the "right" ones (well you can but I don't think you should). I believe that as long as you adhere to a general code of morality, the minor details don't matter so much. There's no way that the majority of the world is going to hell just because they don't believe the same things as any given religion, assuming there is a hell to begin with. If I try to live my life the best I can and always seek to better myself then I think that's the most anyone can or shoul dask of me. If I think that incorporating religion is a part of that then that's what I'll do and if not then I'll find some other way. Nevertheless, if you believe that not eating pork will help pave the way into heaven then the chances are, it probably will. JMHO.