Is the world better off without religion?

It is accurate to say that that's when it had widespread success in the West, and not until then. The Enlightenment was, by every conceivable measure, the biggest influence.

 

And where that enlightenment come from ? Out of nowhere ? They just appeared like that ex nihilo as the past never mattered. Because slavery in the late 18h century became more and more a vast hypocrisy, I'm speaking of the history I know better, France, not tolerated in France, but accepted far away in the colonies, far from the eyes and the ears, and that maybe, the fact that people like Rousseau could grow in place where there was no slaves because of reforms pushed under christian motivation, maybe it pushed them to consider it as untolerable ? Maybe the fact that all those thinkers when they're were walking in cities of London or Paris, cities where there were no slaves (just an unbearable slavery) could have influence the way they considered humans ?
And again, like it or not, if it's enlightenment that allowed

But let's go back to the main topic : would the world be better without religion ?

Yes, I suppose the world would be better without death penalty for apostasy, blasphemy, that it would positive of children not be ostracized for their sexual orientation or their own religious believes, I would think it would be better if people cease also to ostracize their relatives on political believes.
Would be the world better if stop gathering, encouraging and comforting each other at church for instance ? I don't think so.

Do I think that mankind would become more reasonable ? I doubt of that especially when people are unable to define their method of thinking when they speak of reason. And what's the future today ? Consuming all ressources and then dying ? Polluting ourselves to death ?
The 20th century have been full of godless ideologies that did plenty of damage. People killing each other in the name of the revolution or god don't change a lot of things to me.

 

It largely came out of a re-emergence of classical texts that had previously been repressed and a newfound legal ability to stand up to religious authority through secular exploration.

No, they appeared like that because of the above. If they had appeared because of Christianity, it wouldn't have taken them well over a millennium to appear.

Slavery had existed throughout Christian history, and throughout Judeo-Christian history before that . . . and was explicitly supported by said religious texts.

Slavery wasn't completely and ultimately outlawed by France until the mid 1800s . . . after Rousseau's death.

The fact that, after more than 1,000 years, they stopped killing people for being free-thinkers, does not give them credit for the free-thought movement.

 

What new found text ? Plato ? Socrates ? Aristotle ? All those texts that were copied in an abundant manner during middle age ? All those texts praised by different christian clerics ? What classical text advocated for free thinker ?
Yes a lot of texts were more widespread after 1453, a hint : it's because book became much cheaper when we got the paper from the chinese, and thanks to Mr Gutenberg, not a sudden change of way of thinking, or texts that were known for centuries.

Yes and all along the roman empire history or the athenian democracy, the first measures to regulate or stop slavery in Europe would start during the middle age, under christianity.

French slavery existed only in the colonies, not on mainland France, that was completely hypocrite yes, but Rousseau grew up in mainland France, where slavery didn't existed anymore for centuries.

I'm not pretending Christianity had a particular contribution to "free thinking", I'm pretending that the beginning of abolishement of slavery started during the middle age in Europe, even if it won't be completed only during the 19th century. The fact that the first steps was done at that moment can't be discussed.

That's not a religious problem, that's an ideological trouble, ideologies might be totalitarian, and because religions are ideologies, they might become totalitarian. Should I really have to quote examples ?

Because without religion, this happen only inside specific circles : family, friends at best, with religion it happen in larger circle, because it extend it through the religious community.

 

With all of the damn problems in the world why are you worrying about this?

 

Where have I mentioned being 'worried'?

It's an opinion poll regards a topic I was 'Wondering' about....

What a bizarre reaction to a question lol

 

What a bizarre thing to be "wondering about". Would the world be better off without religion? Reminds me of the atheists who are still butthurt about the Crusades.

Well, guess what? It ain't gonna happen.

 

Ok...... That's fine

 

What is the distinction you make between religion and spirituality? Religious faith is a set of moral beliefs based on supernatural being(s) and we are subordinate to them and must worship them. Spirituality I guess says there is an "inner spirit" but then does that soul that spirit die with the body or does it become supernatural being as in religious faith..

But what I do find is that most if not all the "atheist" I know, including myself, carry about the same moral and ethical beliefs of those of religious faith. Yes there are disagreements over some issues but on both sides. But basically regardless of a religious faith or inner spirituality we all mostly hold the same moral and ethical standards and we as a society base many of our laws on those moral beliefs on which we can agree and in makes for a more civil society.

 

Christianity is an example of what I would call a spiritual faith. Methodism, Catholicism, Southern Baptism are examples of what I would call religion, that either claim or otherwise attempt to exert an authority in defining how the Christian spiritual faith manifests for followers of it.

I hope that makes sense... I do recognize that the terminology in this subject is not very objective from one person to the next.

 

With the exception of Islam, please provide an example of religion being "forced" on anyone?

 

Same sex marriage which is still being fought against, special considerations for religious institutions, tax payers funding religious groups that turn around and discriminate, religious denial of services in some situations (special rights that no one else has).

 

This is one of those polarizing issues - the existence/benefit of religion. Let me qualify - before weighing in - that I draw a hard line between religion and faith.
The former is an organization which I no longer support while the latter is something, I believe, can be exercised without the former.

Is the world better off without religion? I'd be fine with it - but I respect the millions who cling to it. The millions to whom I refer are those who go to church and worship as a personal experience. They don't lord it over others and don't use it as a club to bludgeon others. And with it in their lives, they are happier, kinder and better citizens. For them, I see the benefit. However, those who hide behind their religion while living their lives in judgment of others and display hatred for those who do not 'believe' as they do make a great case for the annihilation of organized religion.

 

I could go so far as to say a religion based on the precept of the relief of suffering in sentient beings would make the world a better place.

 

Maybe you can change the Constitution?

 

Much agreed, though I would point out the folks who display hatred for opposing believers are likely to do so with or without religion. Religion is just one of many outlets for that type of person, and should religion somehow be annihilated, they will just find something else to excuse their hatred of opposing believers.

 

The constitution does not say what it has been manipulated into saying in regards to religion. Like the Bible itself it has been twisted until it is no longer recognizable

 

Religion, in the words of Salvador Dali, is a crutch.

Some people need them, some don't. It gives them a sense of hope ( that death isn't the end ) and meaning in life.

For those who justify religion to commit murder, those, if they didn't have religion, would find some other excuse to murder.

I think it would be wrong to make religion illegal ( like it was done in Communism ). For me, whatever floats your boat.

I suppose most people have a bag of tricks of some kind. Even I believe in reincarnation and the eternal soul, but I don't believe in a personal God.

Note, though I believe in reincarnation, I wouldn't bet my life on it.

 

The problem with your poll, is that if you say, NO, the world would not be better off without religion, implies one supports religion. I don't support religion any more than I support rage in the emotional range. But, you can't get rid of it, it's going to happen because it's, well, it's human.

See, religion is a natural stage in human growth and development. How it manifests depends on the development of the population. Most people need it, and some people do not.

To say we would be better off without religion would be like saying that we would be better off without anger, since anger is responsible for many deaths.

While it might be true, but, as a point to be made, well, what is the point?

 

It isn't religion so much as the people that practice it.

 

Man has always had some form of religion. It seems to be an inherent need. The most religious societies are usually the most unstable, the most unequal or the most repressive. Today, countries with the least religious populations (excluding where it was repressed) are the most stable, most open and law abiding. So, that tells you that in a perfect world society may shed religion and look back on it as primitive superstition.

 

22 x yes
22 x no

So far ....

 

I think the question is moot. A religious instinct is something that human brains seem designed for, and in fact it was the same potential to lose our sense of self in larger group, that allowed early man to live in larger groups than chimpanzees, which top-out at around 45. And our larger groups gave us other advantages that spurred both our advancement & our evolution. For one thing, it gave us bigger tribal gene pools. It also allowed for any knowledge or technique, discovered by one human, to be spread to a greater number of others.

While I can, of course, see how all the sectarian violence can make it appear that this is the problem, note that humans can & do become discriminatory, partisan, antagonistic, & demonizing towards other groups, based on things other than religion, such as skin color/race, ethnicity, nationality, philosophy, political party, sexual preferences, and favored sports team. So, I believe the evidence supports the idea that it is not religion that causes people to hate, but only gives them a convenient way to differentiate who the, "different," ones are. If there was no religion for that spirit of human animosity to inhabit, I contend that it would simply find another host, some other means of drawing lines between us and them.