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

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

neerdowell on 04 August 2010

...oops.



How do you breathe again?

Around the Network
neerdowell on 04 August 2010
sapphi_snake said:
neerdowell said:

The United States wouldn't have a constitution.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."

It's hard to say where we would be in terms of technology considering many early institutions of academics were affiliated with religion (in order to educate priests/other religious authorities). Early on education was not valued so much outside of religion. Yes, science would no longer be restricted by certain religious teachings, however, the advent of science may have been put off by a couple centuries at least.

Laws would be much more difficult to establish as there were be no consensus on an authority to establish said laws. In particular I believe that foreign relations would suffer as people would be swayed more by cultural values rather than religious values, hence there might be even more prejudice; if this were the case there would also be less spread of technology from one nation to another and likely more wars.

And the list goes on. I am not particularly religious (I am not an atheist but I do not attend church or other religious activities), however, I find the notion that a lack of religion provides one more freedom absolutely ridiculous. When you take God away from people they will not live without a God, they will simply make one of themselves.

The United States wouldn't have a constitution.

Of course the US would have a constotution. LOL... just no mention of that creator thingy.

It's hard to say where we would be in terms of technology considering many early institutions of academics were affiliated with religion (in order to educate priests/other religious authorities). Early on education was not valued so much outside of religion.

Early education was valued outside of religion... up until Christianity rose in the Romnan Empire. In Medieval Christian Europe only those affiliated with the church had the possiblity to become educated.

Yes, science would no longer be restricted by certain religious teachings, however, the advent of science may have been put off by a couple centuries at least.

Wrong, the advent of science was put off by a couple of centureis by religion.

Laws would be much more difficult to establish as there were be no consensus on an authority to establish said laws.

Now this one is just plain stupid. Who's the authority establishing the laws today? I know for sure it ain't no deity. And I also know for sure no deity ever established any laws in the first place.

In particular I believe that foreign relations would suffer as people would be swayed more by cultural values rather than religious values

Culture and religion constantly interwine, see for example the wearing of the burkha in some predominantly muslim countries (like Saudi Arabia) and not in others (like Turkey).


The United States wouldn't have a constitution.

Of course the US would have a constotution. LOL... just no mention of that creator thingy.

The constitution would likely lack authority being as there would not be a single/unified source that everyone would agree grants people rights, which is predominantly what the US constitution was intended to do. What else would "grant" people their rights?

It's hard to say where we would be in terms of technology considering many early institutions of academics were affiliated with religion (in order to educate priests/other religious authorities). Early on education was not valued so much outside of religion.

Early education was valued outside of religion... up until Christianity rose in the Romnan Empire. In Medieval Christian Europe only those affiliated with the church had the possiblity to become educated.

Rome's education system was primarily influenced by Greece before Christianity. Early education in Sparta, Greece was primarily for military purposes and was not the most productive learning environment. Athens however did have private institutions which were available to the majority of the public (the poor went to about 13-14 years of age), however, the education provided was poor. The only real opportunities were reserved for private tutoring for the wealthy. After the collapse of Rome and the Dark Ages, Christianity provided a means of a public education system which was not restricted by wealth, even if it was restricted by belief.

Yes, science would no longer be restricted by certain religious teachings, however, the advent of science may have been put off by a couple centuries at least.

Wrong, the advent of science was put off by a couple of centureis by religion.

I will give you that this is really hard to state with certainty, it could have went either way. Early on most advances in science were done by individuals who were likely not swayed greatly by religion and were not participating in many activities in violation of the church. I believe that conflict began to emerge primarily with the theory of evolution, well after the foundation of science. That is not to say there were not conflicts and religion likely did present some issues; one can only speculate whether those influences were greater than religion fostering curiosity over origins and spreading public education systems.

Laws would be much more difficult to establish as there were be no consensus on an authority to establish said laws.

Now this one is just plain stupid. Who's the authority establishing the laws today? I know for sure it ain't no deity. And I also know for sure no deity ever established any laws in the first place.

I think you misinterpreted this one a bit. I do not mean authority as in a particular authority figure, rather, authority as in a source from which one would originate their ethical reasoning. For example, the US judicial system derives it's authority to enact/enforce laws through the constitution. It holds authority only so long as the constitution holds authority and it can not supercede the constitution. With that said, establishing laws would be more difficult as there would be less consensus among the population as to ethical guidelines to establish the original laws. The ideas that we often take for granted (murder,rape,stealing, etc.) are only common because they have been spread through a system of belief such as religion.

In particular I believe that foreign relations would suffer as people would be swayed more by cultural values rather than religious values

Culture and religion constantly interwine, see for example the wearing of the burkha in some predominantly muslim countries (like Saudi Arabia) and not in others (like Turkey).

You just proved my point here. If religion is not present to intertwine with the daily lives of a nation's citizens, some other factor will contribute to their way of lives. Nevertheless, it would still come to be known as culture and would likely be a governing force behind many of their actions.



How do you breathe again?

The Ghost of RubangB on 04 August 2010

I think there would be fewer wars.  I'm not saying religion is the cause of ALL wars though.  What I'm saying is that, no matter what the cause of the war is, if somebody doesn't believe they'll be rewarded for dying for a good cause, they will be less likely to fight.  I'm also not saying that ALL atheists are anti-war like I am.  There are many atheist soldiers all over the world fighting for ideas or land or their families.  But I do think that without the absolute belief that your side is right, and is the side of G-D, there would be far fewer suicide bombers, and far less absolute blind hatred.

Blind nationalism is just as deadly as blind religion, and it would still be around, but I think an entire planet of atheists would have an easier time getting past nationalism.  People tend to tie their blind nationalism to their blind religion, "for God and country."

I'm also not worried about a planet of atheists not doing anything to help their fellow man.  It's definitely possible to be an atheist philanthropist.  Just ask Bill Gates.

The scientific progress would be ridiculous though.  If you believe there's no G-d, and no heaven, and no hell, and just this one rock flying through space, and we're just lucky enough to be on it, then you'd be more interested in taking care of it because you need it to live.  Somehow a certain type of religious folk have decided to believe that this planet is a gift from the heavens, and is ours to drink up and kill for fun.  For some reason they want to do this as fast as possible and they love oil and hate science, gays, women, minorities, and atheists.  I don't get it.

 

That said, I don't really care about religion either way.  I just think the pope is an asshole, and extremists are assholes, and they're ruining my kickass planet.  Extremists on all sides suck, but science is pretty kickass.  I'll let the religions do their religion things if they let the scientists do science.  I've never seen a scientist tell the pope he'll burn in hell for eternity if he prays at night.



twitter.com/evaneldeneller

Sunday Fundays

Kasz216 on 04 August 2010
Icyedge said:
Kasz216 said:
Icyedge said:
Kasz216 said:
 


1. And... your completely wrong.  The percentage of pedohplies in teh priesthood was never way higher then the percentage of pedophiles in the general population.

Again it's lower.  That's what the research shows.

So... you are completley off base and misinformed.

Also pedophillia is something that is caused at a very early age... by the time someone would be old enough to be a priest said behevaior will have already manifested.

Additionally research seems there is a heavy biological component involved.


2.People don't just become pedophiles.  They have to be biologically receptive and also have something else trigger it... before or during their sexual development.

30 year old people don't magically become pedophiles.  Once you hit sexual maturity you are either  a pedophile or you aren't.

I think you need to do some more studying of Psychology.

I mean heck... teachers have power over children... parents too.  Do you think Parenthood turns people into pedophiles?


1. I said in the 60-70 where pedophilia was rempant in priesthood, not today

2. Something to trigger it, thats what I said. Surely if you have pre-disposition then your more likely to trigger the problem. Tough, it can happen with or without pre-disposition. And, even if you have pre-disposition (whatever the factors) problem may never arise. So no its not true that a pedophile priest would have been one nonetheless. It may, but not neccessarily. What about the army mens who rape women from the enemy. Would they have been rapist anyway if they handt been place in that situation? What about the one that will do it because the other does it?

3. Both of my parents are psychologist, ive discussed about psychology since a very young age. And you?

 

Between, if you didnt get it, my point is that, in many instance the serial killer or pedophile would be one nonetheless but not neccessarily. In the orphanage there was more pedophile priest than in other situation. Sure, there could be many factors to explain that. But its not as simple as black or white. Thats what im trying to explain to you.


1.  Which, surprise surprise,  isn't true.  It wasn't more prevelent then in the general population then.

2.  By the time someone is a priest it's too late to trigger it.   Pedophillia has to be triggered BEFORE sexual maturity.  So again.   You are wrong. 

3.  I personally have a degree in psychology.  Try talking to your parents about this again if they really are psychologists.  You are wrong.  They will tell you as such.  Padophillia has to be triggered BEFORE sexual maturity.

Like any mental problem it can be develop or trigger at anytime. Theres no absolute rule, you should know that. Pedophilia is not a sexual preference its a mental problem.

No... It's both.



Kasz216 on 04 August 2010
Icyedge said:
Kasz216 said:

Also, as for rapists who rape people in wartime.

They do so because of stress... not because they suddenly have a bunch of power over people.  They rape to take power away from what they see as the cause of their stress.  People related to the people shooting at them.  Except for those that already would rape. 

Being a preist isn't particularly that stressful of a proffession compaired to the general population of profession.  Said offenders are more likely to offend outside of the priesthood due to the fact that they'd likely have a harder life outside of the priesthood. 

Furthermore stress child molesters aren't pedophiles.  Stress offenders prefer adults.

So, once again... you need to talk more with your parents... because your actual understanding of psychology is quite lacking.

Or do you think that having a child turns people into pedophiles?  Afterall who has more power over a child then their own parents?  Or School Teachers... do you think Schools create pedophles?  Babysitters?

LOL not neccesarily... not neccesarily is what im saying from the start. Theres no absolute rule. It always depends on the person and the environment.

So your saying churches yes.  Those two know...

even though you have asbolutely no proof... and infact all shown proof points to the EXACT opposite.


Once again... Pedophillia has ALWAYS been in lower numbers in the preisthood then the general population.

So it's either

1) Pedophiles are less attracted to the priesthood then normal life.

2) Pedophiles are caused less by said things.

So either

1) Without Churches there would be know effect.

2) Without churches, more pedophiles would be triggered.


Although it'd be 1... since Pedophillia DOES need to be triggered before sexual maturity.  Once again, ask your parents.



Around the Network
WessleWoggle on 04 August 2010

If religion never existed Hitler never would have hated the jews.



Slimebeast on 04 August 2010
Scoobes said:
Slimebeast said:

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.
Not neccessarily. Depends on your motivations and the current problems in the country you're in. For instance, in the UK immigration is a hot topic of debate and many are for stricter immigration control.
  • You have to love the environment and care about nature.
You do? I find it varies person to person. Take the guys on Top Gear for instance, absolutely hate anything about supporting the environment.
  • You have to not only believe in global warming but also be concerned about it and actively support measures taken against it.
Again, not neccessarily. Plenty out there argue against global warming (at least humans causing it). Also, see above.
  • You must accept evolution theory or you're labeled a nutcase.
Well, this one's kinda true, mainly due to the level of evidence for evolution, but that's already been discussed in other threads so I'll leave it be here.
  • You have to be against drugs or be labeled someone who doesn't take responsibility of himself.

Errr... depends who you talk to. Obviously the conservative groups will always say so, but about half the people I know have used recreational drugs. And what about places like Amsterdam or even Camden Town? It's pretty much socially acceptable to take drugs at certain places such as music festivals.

  • You shouldn't be religious or people will label you ignorant.
I thought freedom to practice religion was kinda important in the Western world?
  • You should accept abortions or you're barbaric.
Again, a debate that rages and is hardly black and white. That viewpoint is hardly the norm, even in the Western world.
  • You should not support the concept of revenge because that's considered primitive.
Yet revenge stories do incredibly well in cinema, literature etc. I think there are plenty out there who support the idea of vengeance up to a point.

Without religion I think we still live in mental slavery.

I think the major difference is that those dogmas are more likely to change if and when new evidence/circumstances presents itself. With Religious dogmas there is a whole lot of confusion if we're presented with new evidence contrary to past dogmas and many just won't accept it until the majority of society does (which takes a long time if the religion is dominant). Without religion I don't think this would occur.

A lot of what you put up there as well varies from country to country and I don't neccessarily agree with. Just because large groups have reached similar conclusions doesn't equate to mental slavery. See comments above.

1. There were opposing opinions towards religious dogma too, historically.

2. Modern dogma varies from country to country? No kidding. Religion varies from country to country too.

You bring me freaking Amsterdam to prove that there is actually people in this world who are pro-drugs. I think that speaks for itself.

 



highwaystar101 on 04 August 2010
Slimebeast said:
highwaystar101 said:

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.


How can you have a mini dogma? A dogma is an absolute state, for example you must accept and not question the existence of God if you want to be a Christian, ever. What you call mini dogmas is in reality you not having the same opinion as the majority. They aren't dogmas. Face it, we all hold opinions that the majority don't, but it doesn't restrict our thinking. It can't be called a dogma, mini or otherwise.

The oscillations don't do you any good? That point is completely irrelevant. I proved that they aren't dogmas by showing that the stance a population takes on it changes fairly frequently. If they oscillate, then they can't be dogmas, simple as. You don't find generations of Christians who don't believe in God sandwiched between generations that do.

As for my analysis of evolution, it isn't flawed. The more we learn, the most compelling the theory becomes, it's not dogmatised. For what it's worth you might as well say gravity or germ theory is dogmatised. It's not a dogma, it's just that there's so much compelling evidence that the majority accept it, and all can challenge it.

As for drugs and abortion, the debate is pretty raging on in most places. I know Sweden is pretty liberal, so the opinion may be more extended there, but here on the internet you will find people wanting to support either side. In the real world a more politically balanced country like the USA is certainly more evenly split on the subjects.

To be honest as well, I think I have come across more anti-drug legalisation supporters in my time than pro-drug legalisation supporters.

My last paragraph wasn't intended to read like that. Although I do think that environmentalism has become dogmatised, I also think that it's just a product of human nature to want to protect the environment we live in. Furthermore, nobody is going to force you to recycle against your will or anything. The most they can really ever do is try and debate your viewpoint (unless you're going to dump nuclear waste in a lake or something, in which case I think they should stop you).



Slimebeast on 04 August 2010
highwaystar101 said:
Slimebeast said:
highwaystar101 said:

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.


How can you have a mini dogma? A dogma is an absolute state, for example you must accept and not question the existence of God if you want to be a Christian, ever. What you call mini dogmas is in reality you not having the same opinion as the majority. They aren't dogmas. Face it, we all hold opinions that the majority don't, but it doesn't restrict our thinking. It can't be called a dogma, mini or otherwise.

The oscillations don't do you any good? That point is completely irrelevant. I proved that they aren't dogmas by showing that the stance a population takes on it changes fairly frequently. If they oscillate, then they can't be dogmas, simple as. You don't find generations of Christians who don't believe in God sandwiched between generations that do.

As for my analysis of evolution, it isn't flawed. The more we learn, the most compelling the theory becomes, it's not dogmatised. For what it's worth you might as well say gravity or germ theory is dogmatised. It's not a dogma, it's just that there's so much compelling evidence that the majority accept it, and all can challenge it.

As for drugs and abortion, the debate is pretty raging on in most places. I know Sweden is pretty liberal, so the opinion may be more extended there, but here on the internet you will find people wanting to support either side. In the real world a more politically balanced country like the USA is certainly more evenly split on the subjects.

To be honest as well, I think I have come across more anti-drug legalisation supporters in my time than pro-drug legalisation supporters.

My last paragraph wasn't intended to read like that. Although I do think that environmentalism has become dogmatised, I also think that it's just a product of human nature to want to protect the environment we live in. Furthermore, nobody is going to force you to recycle against your will or anything. The most they can really ever do is try and debate your viewpoint (unless you're going to dump nuclear waste in a lake or something, in which case I think they should stop you).

Dogma is the established belief or doctrine held by a religion, ideology or any kind of organization: it is authoritative and not to be disputed, doubted, or diverged from.
(Wikipedia)

Global warming, abortion, immigration, drugs, evolution, homosexual marriage, rehabilitation of criminals. Welcome to Sweden. Kthxbye.

Technically you are right though if you really want to keep nitpicking. My examples of "dogmas" aren't as strong as classical religious dogma. (as a note though, here in Sweden we use the word dogma for my type of opinions.)

But you opened up to my type of response since you said "freethinking" in the same sentence right after dogma.

Besides, if you choose to just look at dogma from it's classic definition, religious dogma, I think actually that's a positive thing. Religious dogma is good because it's a way to define the religion - if you don't adhere to the dogmas you aren't a follower of that religion. Clear and simple.

I prefer that instead of the politically correct opinions of modern society because here I am forced to adhere to them (or stay silent, or get discriminated) even if I don't even accept their fu***ng world view. I can't even choose to be a heretic and refuse to pay for their socalist bullshit reforms.



pizzahut451 on 04 August 2010
novasonic said:
pizzahut451 said:
novasonic said:

There would have only been like 1/5th the wars, and a lot less sickness and death... Less raceism.. less everything bad. Religions are outdated concepts that work great in small anchient communities, but cause hatered and war on a large scale.


i love how people blame relgion for mankind's faults...


Religion caused many of man kinds faults. It's also man kind's biggest faults. It's slaughtered more people than any other person or country ever has or will.


i agree, papers in bible were so sharp they caused lot of paper cuts killed so many innocent people...