Where would the world be right now if religion never existed?

[Slimebeast]

highwaystar101 said:

Slimebeast said:

highwaystar101 said:

There would be little or no dogmas, everyone would be a lot more freethinking. But then again none of us could debate theology, which is always a fun.

But seriously, if there was no religion we would find something else to occupy our mind in the same way and pander to our need to feel as though we know about things that we just can't explain in reality. But all in all I guess it's had some positive influence and some negative, there's no direct and easy answer.

No dogmas? Freethinking?  I don't know really.

Look at how many dogmas have replaced religous dogma and how much freethinking have been restricted in the short time since religion lost it's grip of Western society.

• Everyone must love immigration or else you're labeled racist.
• You have to love the environment and care about nature.
• You have to not only believe in global warming but also be concerned about it and actively support measures taken against it.
• You must accept evolution theory or you're labeled a nutcase.
• You have to be against drugs or be labeled someone who doesn't take responsibility of himself.
• You shouldn't be religious or people will label you ignorant.
• You should accept abortions or you're barbaric.
• You should not support the concept of revenge because that's considered primitive.

Without religion I think we still live in mental slavery.

I see your point, there are pressures that society place on people and I know that society can make one feel as though they are outcasts for not accepting the norm. But I would argue a few of the examples you gave.

A dogma is a doctrine that should never be challenged from within. Some of your points don't fit this definition.

For example some things can oscillate between views over time as accepted by the general population. A dogma wouldn't allow for people to accept it one decade and not the next. Your point about immigration is a classic one. Whole populations have often swung from accepting immigration to condemning it and vice versa. Whilst right now it may seem as though you are alone in opposing immigration the population there will come times when anti-immigration feelings are high.

Because of this oscillation from one extreme to another I don't see it as fitting the definition of dogma. You can also see a similar trend with Climate change scepticism right now, which is clearly changing from the general population accepting climate change to becoming more sceptical about it. 

Another example is where the idea itself is ever changing, and this can be seen in the theory of evolution. A dogma doesn't change over time, it remains a static unquestioned belief. The theory of evolution is very open to valid scepticism in order to change and better define the model. The theory has become dramatically better defined since the days of Darwin. Evolution and other theories will always be open to change from scientific scepticism. Further to this point you will always find that as the theory becomes better defined as evidence is discovered more people will start to accept it (in general), until those that don't become the minority.

As for being against drugs, I think that's just generally a 50/50 thing, abortion too. You tend to find a find a mix of opinions.

But for your points about things like environmentalism, I can see your point that there are dogmas that societies do have. We have always had people applying environmental pressure to get other people to "clean up their act". I think that things like that are just generally part of human nature though.

I dunno. That point was only semi-serious anyway.

Wether or not it fullfills the definition of dogma is for me irrelevant. Call it mini-dogma then if you like, but it's certainly has the same effect on people's lives.

Those oscillations don't do me any good. I live here and now and I am affected by all these mini-dogmas. It doesn't comfort me one bit if the climate fools finally will have been proven wrong in 20 years when I'm already old and the people in charge are so old that they don't even have to pay for their crimes.

Your analysis of what's gonna happen to evolution theory is flawed. The more we learn about evo the more dogmatized it will become. There just happens to be an appearance of flexibility today because we've only come so far in actual scientific studies.

Drugs. No. In Sweden it's simply a big no. It's illegal and everyone is against it and you will pay the consequences if you argue for it or use it.

Abortion. No. In Sweden it's legal, it's going on, it's very prevalent and everyone who opposes it is seen as a nutcase.

As for your (near) last paragraph. Exactly. People always want to control each other, and to do that they create dogmas and restrict freethinking.