A_C_E said:
Your response highlights why this distinction is useful. I'm not meaning to offend you in any way since I've very much enjoyed this conversation, having said that, you seem to have this pre-conceived notion that religion needs to be dealt with, your mind is actively thinking religion is the problem. Whereas I think it is completely up to the human brain to take an idea in a good or bad direction. Quick question: Let's say we erase all people on Earth who are bad but we keep religion. What are the results? Basically no murders, and crime is almost non-existant because good people are good due to their high standard morals. Another question: Let's say we erase all religion but we keep all the same people. What are the results? I think we could both agree that it would be a crime filled world still. Bad people are the problem and Chicago, Atlanta and Detroit are places whose yearly death tolls, due to gangs and drugs, are higher than a lot of war-torn religious cities. |
I think you're misunderstanding me.
By deal with I don't mean like "we have to deal with that snitch". I mean that we have to deal with it like we have to deal with taxes, deal with rain, deal with children, deal with the media, deal with social media, deal with nutrition, deal with international trade, etc. It's a part of our world, that we will interact with whether we want to or not. When I say how should we deal with it, I mean how should we interact with it.
As for your questions, removing all "bad" people from the world would by definition remove all crime. And that's why we have mechanisms (incredibly flawed ones that need vast improvements) to remove "bad people" from society.
Removing all religion would get rid of a sizeable chunk of it. Nothing even close to all of it, but a good enough chunk to be worthwhile.
Ultimately, you could say that people are the root of all social problems. But I still don't see how that position is useful. How does that inform how we should act?
