What if?

[Stu Pidasso]

It seems that in every culture there is some sort of religion and/or belief in a diety. Its a universal attribute. Other universal attributes cultures develope are counting systems and language. I believe its natural for a people to develope social tools such as language and counting systems. Is religion just another social tool created by man?

Suppose the social tool of language was removed from our culture. There would be utter chaos. Same if we decided to abandon counting. What if religion was removed from our culture, would the human condition improve or worsen?

Stu

[ QUOTE ]
What if religion was removed from our culture, would the human condition improve or worsen?

Stu

[/ QUOTE ]

Improve, unless you ignore all the barbaric, evil and monstruous deeds that have been made, and still are made, in the name of religions.

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
Improve, unless you ignore all the barbaric, evil and monstruous deeds that have been made, and still are made, in the name of religions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you honestly believe that religion causes men to commit barbaric, evil, and monstrous deeds? If so how do you explain Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Hussien, and Jong?

Stu

[imported_luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you honestly believe that religion causes men to commit barbaric, evil, and monstrous deeds? If so how do you explain Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Hussien, and Jong?

[/ QUOTE ] Nope. What religion does is put an powerful tool in the hands of treacherous leaders ( or leading groups) that makes acheiving their goals a lot easier. Any given group in power may be montrous or not, religion or not. Stalin or the Taliban, those crimes were gov vs it's own citizens.

Religion is much more effective in getting the average citizen motivated against it's neighbours, with or without goverment guidance. It's an easy base to build a We-they hate on, look around the current world or any past one. It's not religions fault directly but the 'chosen people' view of cults and most religions does create an unlevel playing field and so supports intolerance or persecution, gov directed or in society in general.

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
Nope. What religion does is put an powerful tool in the hands of treacherous leaders ( or leading groups) that makes acheiving their goals a lot easier. Any given group in power may be montrous or not, religion or not. Stalin or the Taliban, those crimes were gov vs it's own citizens.

[/ QUOTE ]

The wheel is also a powerful tool in the hands of treacherous leaders. Are you vehemently against wheels too? Of course not, the beneficial ultility of wheels outways any harmful use of them.

[ QUOTE ]
Religion is much more effective in getting the average citizen motivated against it's neighbours, with or without goverment guidance. It's an easy base to build a We-they hate on, look around the current world or any past one. It's not religions fault directly but the 'chosen people' view of cults and most religions does create an unlevel playing field and so supports intolerance or persecution, gov directed or in society in general.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't agree with that. We persecuted Italians simply because they came from Italy, Mexicans simply because they came from Mexico, and Poles simply because they came from Poland. As human beings have a tendency to look down upon or distrust people who are not part of our group. Take your quote above and substitute "religion" with "Nationalism/nationality" or "race" etc. It still holds true.

Stu

[imported_luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
The wheel is also a powerful tool in the hands of treacherous leaders. Are you vehemently against wheels too? Of course not, the beneficial ultility of wheels outways any harmful use of them.

[/ QUOTE ] cheeesh. Let's say we could settle to our total satisfaction your question about wheels. what possible bearing would that have on the question about religion? You can't decide things by analogy, an analogy is a pointing device, a conceptual aid even, not a congruency.

To go along with it though, any worthwhile advantages that arise out of religion have been shown to be easily acheived by other methods, so if those methods can be put in place then dispensing with religion is a plus. If we could replace the utility/benefit of wheels with a transportation method that was as effective but reduced carnage then yes, I'd be very against the continued use of wheels.

On my We-They statement-
[ QUOTE ]
Take your quote above and substitute "religion" with "Nationalism/nationality" or "race" etc. It still holds true.

[/ QUOTE ]
And this makes my claim less true how? Your We-They examples are valid, which strengthens my point, but some of them are harder to get worked up over without some historical grievances to help inflame them. Canada/US is a good example. Very mild historical/political reasons for hatred, but if one was a muslim country and the other xtrian with the same political history as now, that religious difference would be an easy one to build some serious animostity on. Even now the theocratic trend in the US is starting to create a divide between the two countries that wasn't there 30 years ago.

You say you don't agree that religous differences between neigbouring countries or competing factions in a country is a problem because it's an easy basis for we-they anymosity? That a sad blindness to have when you look arond the current or past world situation. Does it contribute to the problem in Iraq? Ireland? Bosnia? etc, etc, .. gawwwwlie.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Improve, unless you ignore all the barbaric, evil and monstruous deeds that have been made, and still are made, in the name of religions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you honestly believe that religion causes men to commit barbaric, evil, and monstrous deeds? If so how do you explain Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Hussien, and Jong?

Stu

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes I do, and those mentionned are tyrants in the same ways that there exists religious tyrants. Religion lends itself to be abused by power mad individuals because it is based on beliefs (the non-rational) which makes it more adept than mere politics at manipulating masses.

[Lestat]

I think man would be WAY better off without religion.

On the other hand, I think that beliefs such as religion may actually be evolutionary as a means for man to advance his own culture or even race.

I am vehemently opposed to religion, but I will give it this: it is the best way to enforce a system of ethics upon a common person's conscience. Take religion away from society and you have a people with no concrete idea of morality, thus allowing the government to mold it for them. This can be very dangerous... look at what communist governments have done without a national religion. At least the idea of a higher being keeps people in check and also together as a society, if they hold a common belief.

Should religion rule individual life? No. Should it exist in society? I say yes, not because it is ideal, but because it has to, at least until humans can grow out of it.

The human condition would not worsen without religion, but order in society would. Some may live fuller lives, but others may live in constant fear. The common person just isn't ready yet for the abolition of religion.

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
I am vehemently opposed to religion, but I will give it this: it is the best way to enforce a system of ethics upon a common person's conscience.

[/ QUOTE ]

Would you agree that religious teaching of chastity before the advent of prophylactics and birth control was beneficial to society?

Stu