Would humanity be better off without religion?

Posted by: Kivits

  • Yes, because religion has been the cause of wars and conflict throughout history.

  • No, because without religion there would be no sense of morality.

64% 53 votes
36% 30 votes
  • In a nutshell, religion encourages 'magical thinking'. While it may have been useful in the past to enforce a moral framework, we really don't need that anymore, much like many other frames of superstition.

  • I don't think that we should get rid of all religions, people have a right to their beliefs, but I do think that if the world never had religions, there would be less conflict

    Posted by: Zoecri
  • The only good religion can do is encourage people not to do bad things, however The judicial system does a way better job at keeping people in line.

    Posted by: Hyde1
  • ISIS. The Westboro Baptist Church. Those exist purely because of religion. It’s time to move forward. Mankind should be united, not divided based on what if any higher power they choose to believe in.

    Posted by: LYC
  • I think that religion has been helpful throughout history too a degree, but now its only slowing down scientific development due to some religious people denying and cherry picking evidence.

  • Everyone is born ignorant. Our knowledge of the world is the result of our education. Some knowledge is independently verifiable, so we call this science. Some knowledge isn't independently verifiable, so we call this faith. However, faith always has a threat attached to it... if you don't believe, you will be <insert the various forms of punishment that you or your soul will be subjected to>. This may or may not be sufficient to condemn faith as both irrational and/or toxic, but it get's better. For those who succumb to the threats, the teachings of faith often go further... now you MUST act on your faith by <insert any crime you choose here>. The fearful puppets are now primed to commit any act because they are too afraid not to. Fear... the foundation for a just and moral belief system? How can we NOT be better off without it?

  • You don't need religion to be a moral being. If you do you're probably a psychopath.

  • I think so because so many people have died over religion and it forces you to belive as in nonbelivers burn in hell

  • Creates communities within communities and a feeling of superiority amongst those cliques. Divisive and the world would be more tolerant and open-minded without it

  • Yes, religion poisons everything. Basing morality on religion is a terrible way to find a moral compass. Morality should be based on reason and a careful analysis of how your actions affect those around you. Religion present a morality dictated by an absent dictator, and religious people can justify truly evil actions because they believe their God commanded them to do so.

    Posted by: mwtech
  • Yeah, also, god is hypocritical. He makes the 10 Commandments. Commandment 7 says Thou shalt not kill. Yet in the bible, in many cases, he instructs people to kill people for homosexuality. Many Christians nitpick the good bit of morals from the bible that match the current moral code of that era. Then, they throw out the bad bits. That's so dumb! Religion keeps people from actually looking for the correct answer. #SCIENCEBITCH

  • You dont need the bible to have morals

  • Aside from religion being a cause of war , here are my arguments : 1. Science has proved that the world wasn't created by God , but by nature . You know atoms , protons , organisms ... stuff like that . Also the Bible says that God created humans to look like him , how can he make them look like him if there are 4 races , each with it's own differences and unique looks ? 2. People say that if religion existed for so many years it MUST BE REAL . Due to the lack of knowledge civilization had in the past , people needed to explain to themselves why and how certain happened . For example when there is a thunderstorm , it's not because of physics and science , but because Zeus was angry . 3. They needed something to keep the slaves , lower class and basically everyone from doing crimes . What would stop a mistreated slave from going crazy and killing everybody ? Somebody who would send him to hell for everything bad he had done . People needed something more powerful than them to give explanation of the world around them and to guide them in life . I don't believe we need religion in modern society . Humans are smart enough to live on their own .

  • Having religion may have been evolutionarily beneficial to us in the distant past, But now it is a hinderance to progress and accepting reality.

  • Honestly, man needs a proper faith to build itself up on as to aid much needed structure and progression. Personally I am sitting well with my Imperial Truth/Cult where the ascension and maintenance of man is the focus. The problem lies in eliminating the white noise that causes chaos which has lead to so much suffering.

  • Franken, Leni. Liberal neutrality and state support for religion. Cham: Springer, 2016. Print. https://books.google.com/books?id=s_M0DAAAQBAJ&pg=PA76&lpg=PA76&dq=institutionalized+religion+good&source=bl&ots=lZQkrhcxHF&sig=L7i2T-Iv-EePIvaCYxGSEJOhBIY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjqs8GlmILVAhUByoMKHae1DJ0Q6AEITDAH#v=onepage&q=institutionalized%20religion%20good&f=false In the nineteenth century, the German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer called the human being an ‘animal metaphysicum" and notified that both religion and philoso- phy try to satisfy our ‘metaphysical needs’. More recently, Martha Nussbaum (2008,9‘) points to our common interest in the meaning of life and states that religion is “enormously important and precious". Our common interest in metaphysical ques- tions. and our search for the meaning of life are, without a doubt, indisputable. But does this also imply that (institutionalized) religions are to everyone’s advantage? According to authors like Robert Bellah, Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Alexis De Tocqueville. this is indeed the case: religions have a positive influence on human ethics and behavior, they are catalysts for social cohesion and they are thus at the benefit of the entire society. For somewhat different reasons, also Tariq Modood (2oIO. 6) considers religion to be “a potential public good or national resource (not just a private benefit). which the state can in some circumstances assist to realize”. As argued by Modood (2010. I2). Whether we are a believer or not. religion is a good in itself and “a person, a society, a country would be poorer without it" (Modood 20”), 12). From both perspectives (religions are extrinsically good because they lead to social cohesion and ethical responsibility; and religions are, as human phenomena intrinsically good). all citizens - believers as well as non-believers - benefit from the existence of religion and religions are thus non perfectionist goods. They are not only in a direct way to the advantage of believers. but they are also i indirectly f to the advantage of non-believers because they lead to more cohesion and ethical responsibility (cf. Bellah. Rousseau and De Tocqueville). or because individuals, cultures, societies. etc. would be poorer without the existence of such a typically human phenomenon (cf. Modood). This shows the positive result of religion being used as an influence in society

  • In my opinion, I think we should keep religeons. Being christian myself, it drives to me to be a better person, and learn from my mistakes. Religeon has been leading people for centuries, and has been driving people to follow the word of god/buddah/allah etc. We have learnt to be better people, and help others when in need. In my opinion, I think this actually makes our world better because with religeon, we have extremely diverse people all over the world.

  • It would be AWFUL without religion. The Western world wouldn't exist.

  • People will be shameless if the impact of religion gets any lower than today.People will not distinguish right from wrong, the virtues from defect etc.

  • So what is meant by "banning religion" and how is that enforced?

  • if we were to abolish religion, that would be abolishing some peoples culture. some people choose not to have a religion in there life, for some people it is there life, and they don't know where they would be without it. we don't want to take such a huge chunk out of peoples lives!

    Posted by: kiwi23
  • No, even Science is a faith. Let me explain: Science is the study of events that we observe. Science says that based on the events we have observed, we predict that a certain result will happen. You are just putting faith in a frequent/calculated result. Science falls apart once something happens that is out of science's context. Then science claims to "fix itself" and deems the new result fact. Religion is the same thing. It a lot of "if you do this, this will happen" and if evidence shows up that there is no deity, then it falls apart. (which hasn't happened yet for GOD) Now, with science as faith, most of you people who think that religion is stupid would transfer over. But let me finish my argument to try to convince the last few people. All of our governments were established under some faith's values or a compilation of religious values. If you have your own "morals" you have your own faith; you believe you should act a certain way to get a certain result.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
stemaclean says2017-08-31T11:48:11.8555865Z
To all those looking at people gaining a sense of morality, keep in mind that religions sanction a whole long line of acts we consider immoral today. If the religion can be wrong about things that are so fundamental (slavery), I don't know how we can rely on them, truly, to get a moral compass.
NKaloms says2017-09-08T16:17:11.4256031Z
What religions are you talking about? I can recall many religions that were always against slavery.
Capor says2017-12-06T18:08:10.2502135Z
Islam and Christianity have both condoned slavery. It is in both of their holy books and just because it is not regularly preached doesn't take away the fact that their God's have it written in their book. That is what he was referring to. To claim man needs religion for morals is as backwards as you can be. Anytime people wanted to become moral people held up their holy books in protest. It's happened with woman, gays, and slavery. The South was justified in holding their Bibles up to fight for their right to own slaves.
stemaclean says2017-12-07T12:32:07.4038048Z
NKalom - you say they were 'always' against slavery, but that would be ignoring what the Torah, Bible, and Koran say on the subject. The Torah, considered to be a foundational document of all abrahamic faiths explicitly rule on how to keep your slaves...

Freebase Icon   Portions of this page are reproduced from or are modifications based on work created and shared by Google and used according to terms described in the Creative Commons 3.0 Attribution License.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.