The World Would Be Better Off Without Religion

[GirlNextDoor15]

As usual, I will list down a few points or counterpoints.


For:
1. Religion has been at the center of many wars and the underlying cause of uncountable deaths and casualties.
2. Religious donations would be better spent directly aiding the lives of the poor, hungry and sick.


Against:
1. Religion is a concept that is part of human nature and that a world without religion would be one without such fruits of human creativity as Venice, Taj Mahal and King's College Chapel, Cambridge.
2. While atheism preaches certainty and disrespect of religions, religion preaches uncertainty and tolerance. It is certainty and conviction–not religion–that produced events such as the Crusades, and movements such as fascism, and Jewish, Christian, and Islamic fundamentalism.
3. Religion provides "why" answers – the reason why things happen and what life is for – while science can only provide causal explanations.

So, let the debate begins!

[Neversoft]

Personally, I don't think much would change if there wasn't any religion. People would still develop radical mentalities and extreme attitudes. The world would be better off if everyone was a Buddhist. Also, I think your last point is absolute tosh. Religious explanations as to "why" are largely exaggerated and incomprehensible. Science is truth and genuine understanding.

[dbgtz]

As usual, I will list down a few points or counterpoints.


For:
1. Religion has been at the center of many wars and the underlying cause of uncountable deaths and casualties.
2. Religious donations would be better spent directly aiding the lives of the poor, hungry and sick.


Against:
1. Religion is a concept that is part of human nature and that a world without religion would be one without such fruits of human creativity as Venice, Taj Mahal and King's College Chapel, Cambridge.
2. While atheism preaches certainty and disrespect of religions, religion preaches uncertainty and tolerance. It is certainty and conviction–not religion–that produced events such as the Crusades, and movements such as fascism, and Jewish, Christian, and Islamic fundamentalism.
3. Religion provides "why" answers – the reason why things happen and what life is for – while science can only provide causal explanations.

So, let the debate begins!

That last point is absurd. It's like saying things don't fall from gravity, a magical being grabs it and moves it to the floor. Also, religion does not really provide a "why" because every answer to most question is "god" or a name for a god. Science in some cases are theories yes, but if you look at things which they can prove (electronics and such) it is a definite answer. Saying everything is the cause of a god is basically like someone ignoring the fact something is wrong with them and thinking that it will go away if they ignore it.

Religion, in my opinion, is completely unnecessary and at the first point on "against", inspiration does not come from religion and to say religion should exist so that some buildings would have is also absurd. For all you know, if those buildings didn't exist then maybe better ones would be in its place.

At the second point in against, you completely contradict what you put in your first point for "for".

I would also like to add the fact that what each religion preaches and the rules of it seem to change over and over as the times go on. So evidently, if you can be part of a religion but not follow all of its rules, then that whole religion is completely redundant. Also, people seem to nitpick bits they want from religious texts as, if I remember correctly, people have found a lot of things in the Bible that goes against what is supported by that religion currently and also making things up that don't even exist in the text.

Also, final point, apparently catholic priests assume they can molest male children but it's completely wrong in their eyes for two adult males to be together? Religion just contradicts itself.

[Inseriousity.]

For:
1. Religion has been at the center of many wars and the underlying cause of uncountable deaths and casualties.

The whole 'causes war' argument is rather silly imo. Religion doesn't cause war, humans do and if there was no religion, we'd just as easily find another excuse to tear each other apart.

2. Religious donations would be better spent directly aiding the lives of the poor, hungry and sick.

Yes they would but it's not really a problem limited to religious charities so is a poor argument for saying the world would be better off with religion.

Against:
1. Religion is a concept that is part of human nature and that a world without religion would be one without such fruits of human creativity as Venice, Taj Mahal and King's College Chapel, Cambridge.

I agree vaguely with the first half and disagree with the second. I think meaning is a concept that is part of human nature. Humans want to know that there is meaning to their lives, that they are more than every other living thing on the planet and that what they do matters. There are many ways to find meaning and religion is one of them. I think to suggest that without religion there would be no creativity is clutching at straws a bit. True, the architecture of these buildings are very pretty and that the religion of the places would have had some impact on the design but there are also lots of other examples of creative things that aren't religious in origin that are just as creative.

2. While atheism preaches certainty and disrespect of religions, religion preaches uncertainty and tolerance. It is certainty and conviction–not religion–that produced events such as the Crusades, and movements such as fascism, and Jewish, Christian, and Islamic fundamentalism.

Atheism doesn't necessarily preach certainty or disrespect of religions and religion doesn't necessarily preach uncertainty or tolerance. These atheism vs religion debates tend to ignore the diverse spectrum of people on each side such as the atheists who respect that other people have different beliefs and the religious who likewise do the same.

3. Religion provides "why" answers – the reason why things happen and what life is for – while science can only provide causal explanations.

Both science and religion provide why answers. Causal explanations are just as much why answers as spiritual ones. To suggest that science is infallible is a rather annoying trap that some atheists fall into. Science is subject to change just as much as religion and is also not as fast to change and new understanding as it'd like to think it is.

Overall, the statement that 'the world would be better off without religion' is rather pointless because whether you like it or not, it's here. It is likely to always be here in some shape or form. The vast majority of religious people don't harm anyone so they should be free to believe what they wish without someone trying to suggest they're better because they don't believe in God.

[-:Undertaker:-]

As usual, I will list down a few points or counterpoints.

For:
1. Religion has been at the center of many wars and the underlying cause of uncountable deaths and casualties.

Politics and culture, of which religion is a sub, in general have caused more death and destruction yet I do not hear people advocating the abolishment of politics or culture. Indeed, only socialists in history have gone down that route by abolishing religion, culture and even politics - and look at the end results.

Indeed, if we are to propose abolishing anything - socialism, the biggest ideological killer, ought to be first.

2. Religious donations would be better spent directly aiding the lives of the poor, hungry and sick.

They are, both the Catholic Church and the protestant churches do amazing fundraising and helping the poor especially in Africa and have done so for hundreds of years since the European powers first landed in Africa and the New World. I would trust the Catholic Church/other Christian organisations much more than any political UN-run NGO.

Religion, in my opinion, is completely unnecessary and at the first point on "against", inspiration does not come from religion and to say religion should exist so that some buildings would have is also absurd. For all you know, if those buildings didn't exist then maybe better ones would be in its place.

Without religion, can you claim that the British Isles for example would be such a beacon compared to the rest of the world? with our unique consitutional system, our laws, our customs - everything has been borne out of our Christian faith. Indeed, compare Christian nations with those of Islamic nations or others and ask yourself - would it matter of Britain/the west was Islamic/Hindu as opposed to Christian.

I think you'll find the answer is that yes, it would.

I would also like to add the fact that what each religion preaches and the rules of it seem to change over and over as the times go on. So evidently, if you can be part of a religion but not follow all of its rules, then that whole religion is completely redundant. Also, people seem to nitpick bits they want from religious texts as, if I remember correctly, people have found a lot of things in the Bible that goes against what is supported by that religion currently and also making things up that don't even exist in the text.

That is true, however are you suggesting that without any of these principles (love thy enemy for example) expoused by Christianity that our society would have any sort of morality? would it be a better place if our society did not have these values; the idea that a man keeps what he earns, the idea that your life ought to be protected and so on.

Also, final point, apparently catholic priests assume they can molest male children but it's completely wrong in their eyes for two adult males to be together? Religion just contradicts itself.

The 'Catholic priests are all pedos!!!' point is so very boring and simply a pathetic slur, personally I am tiring of it and would prefer that you use some serious arguments rather than nitpicking at the bad within an organisation (name me one organisation which doesn't have bad or evil within).

[dbgtz]

Without religion, can you claim that the British Isles for example would be such a beacon compared to the rest of the world? with our unique consitutional system, our laws, our customs - everything has been borne out of our Christian faith. Indeed, compare Christian nations with those of Islamic nations or others and ask yourself - would it matter of Britain/the west was Islamic/Hindu as opposed to Christian.

I think you'll find the answer is that yes, it would.

I don't really thing religion had anything to do with our laws etc. if I'm quite frank, and I detest the Archbishops being in the House of Lords. For all you know, the British colonisation could have made much worse then if we had just not expanded (bear in mind I do admire the empire).

However I also think it can be argued either way as we haven't lived in a world without religion, some say religion just repressed human development, some say enhanced.

That is true, however are you suggesting that without any of these principles (love thy enemy for example) expoused by Christianity that our society would have any sort of morality? would it be a better place if our society did not have these values; the idea that a man keeps what he earns, the idea that your life ought to be protected and so on.

No religion wouldn't mean that people wouldn't help others, I know many who haven't grown up with religion and have these morals though.

The 'Catholic priests are all pedos!!!' point is so very boring and simply a pathetic slur, personally I am tiring of it and would prefer that you use some serious arguments rather than nitpicking at the bad within an organisation (name me one organisation which doesn't have bad or evil within).

I never said they were all paedos, but I'm saying how can it be said they are "men of god" when they do such awful things? I'm basically saying religion is quite clearly unrealistic if those who would go to hell can act "under god". The difference with a modern organisation with the church is the fact god is supposed to make everyone in his image surely, so how would he/she not realise. Gods are made out to be almighty, heads of organisations are not.

[jasey]

(name me one organisation which doesn't have bad or evil within).

Habbo Hotel Customer Service! I haven't met one unkind or unfair soul who deal with our hard to understand emails all while using their broken English.

On topic, though - I don't believe in organized religion. I think it is perfectly fine and generally therapeutic for someone to be spiritual or have faith in a higher being (if they so choose) but turning that kind of belief in to an 'organization' tends to cause more bad than good.

I am also a huge proponent of the separation of church and state. For example: In the mid-twentieth century, Iranian women gained so many rights and freedoms that made them more equal as human beings. It was a modern and beautiful thing. Take a look at these photos of Iran before the Iranian Revolution in 1979.

Show Hide

They look like regular and happy women living a life of equality that rivaled that of women in more developed nations. Granted, we can all giggle at the fashion typical of the 1970s but these women were relatively liberated and had dignity. This didn't last forever, though, because in 1979 the religious fanatics of Iran overthrew the more modern government and forced everyone in the country to live under the 'Islamic Republic'. This is the ultimate merger of church and state.

After the Iranian revolution in 1979, the status of women quickly deteriorated. Before long, many of the rights that women had gained under the Shah were systematically abolished: the family law was annulled (on grounds of being "against Islam"), veiling became obligatory, women barred from many areas of work and gender inequality was again institutionalized. Farrokhrou Parsa, the first woman to serve in the Iranian cabinet, was executed.

The violence and restrictions against women (and other minority groups) has escalated over the years. Under the Islamic laws that Iran is governed by, women are forced to dress a certain way, accept the fact that they are 'property' and accept being stripped of all basic human rights, restricted from doing almost anything and become victims of ritual executions for even minor missteps 'against Islam'. The violence is sickening and cruel.

I want to include some pictures of the violence against women in Iran but the photos are disturbing and graphic so I feel like I should keep them off a forum that caters to younger people. If you would like to see, simply search for photos of abuse against women in Iran, the 'dress code' police and victims of misogynistic violence in Iran. Mind you, these types of restrictions are certainly not limited to women (for example, a man can only choose from a certain set of 'Islam approved' haircuts in Iran and will be punished if he wears his hair any other way) but the majority of the crackdown is on the female population.

This is not something that is supported by the majority of the population. Most detest the Islamic ruling and, while many still have Muslim faith, they do not believe that their country is being run properly. They feel absent of basic rights and freedoms.

Post-revolutionary opinion polls found the overwhelming majority of students in Tehran chose "Western artists" as their role models with only 17% choosing "Iran's officials."

I guess what I am trying to show here is an example of a nation that has been taken over by religion and its abusers who seek only power over the population using 'religion' as an excuse to make unjust rules and laws and to persecute and control the population at their whim. I do understand that there are many cultures across the globe and I, without a doubt, believe that the 'western' culture found in North America and Europe is not necessarily better than any other. What I do believe in is the basic freedoms and rights we are entitled to as human beings.

Theocracies do not support the greater good. They are not a good thing. I hope one day the majority population in Iran and other countries under Religious oppressors - who despise their government - are able to overthrow their sadistic ruling party. I believe in freedom and justice. Research the topic of 'honour killings' by religious zealots. Killing a woman because she dresses differently or speaks to a man without permission is not justice.

"Women should sacrifice themselves and tolerate" is an old Iranian saying that represents how most women manage domestic abuse.

There is a new generation - a scary generation - of women all the middle east who simply don't know what it feels like to have a warm breeze blow through their hair.

[GirlNextDoor15]

I guess what I am trying to show here is an example of a nation that has been taken over by religion and its abusers who seek only power over the population using 'religion' as an excuse to make unjust rules and laws and to persecute and control the population at their whim. I do understand that there are many cultures across the globe and I, without a doubt, believe that the 'western' culture found in North America and Europe is not necessarily better than any other. What I do believe in is the basic freedoms and rights we are entitled to as human beings.

Wait a sec. I am lost in what you're trying to say here. Why is religion getting the blame? I mean shouldn't the ethnic culture and the abusers be blamed? You sound like you are contradicting yourself. For example, the official religion at Malaysia is Islam and you don't see or hear any news of domestic violence here. And I can guarantee you domestic violence at Malaysia is less than that at England. Well tbh, I think there's a misinterpretation of Islam after what has happened at some Muslim countries but I feel there's an urge for you to read this article as to me, what he said is really true. Fyi, he was Malaysia's former prime minister (the best prime minister we've ever had) and I admire him a lot. http://www.facebook.com/note.php?not...50269772292529

[jasey]

Wait a sec. I am lost in what you're trying to say here. Why is religion getting the blame? I mean shouldn't the ethnic culture and the abusers be blamed? You sound like you are contradicting yourself. For example, the official religion at Malaysia is Islam and you don't see or hear any news of domestic violence here. And I can guarantee you domestic violence at Malaysia is less than that at England.

I am explaining why I support the explicit separation of church and state. I don't believe in countries having 'official religions' or supporting the doctrine of any one faith. It is a toxic way to run a nation. You certainly understand that the sanctions based on Islamic teachings put on the Malaysian population are much more minor than those in Iran. It is like comparing a pebble and a boulder. I used Iran as an example because the religious zealots in that country persecute the population in the name of Islam more than almost anywhere else and is the ultimate argument against combining church and state.

Like I said further up in my post, I fully support the right to believe in or have faith in a higher power. It is a lifesaver for many people and helps them get through life. It is a potentially intrinsic part of the human psyche. I am not blaming the religion itself (for example, the belief in Allah) but rather the bodies that govern Islam and determine how it must be followed. I blame any leader who takes control of a religion - thus making it organised - and uses it to control the citizens of any area on the globe. In your country - Malaysia, things are going on a slippery slope.

Malaysia's top Islamic body, the National Fatwa Council has ruled against Muslims practicing yoga, saying it had elements of other religions that could corrupt Muslims.

Those are the beginnings of a decline in to a state like Iran. No one has the right to dictate how someone believes - in this case, the National Fatwa Council. It is a scary thing to me. There has long been a debate about whether Malaysia is a secular or religious state and now it seems that the governing bodies are leaning towards the integration of law and religion.

As for your spliced comment about domestic abuse in Malaysia and the United Kingdom - I will leave you with these quotes. It seems that as the United Kingdom succeeds in lowering rates of domestic violence, Malaysia is experiencing more and more problems with controlling it.

Domestic violence and rapes continue to rise in Malaysia despite several efforts made by the Government to curb the vices, said Malaysian Deputy Women, Family and Community Development Minister Chew Mei Fun.

There was a 64% decline in the incidence of domestic violence over the past eleven years according to the British Crime Survey.

[GirlNextDoor15]

Those are the beginnings of a decline in to a state like Iran. No one has the right to dictate how someone believes - in this case, the National Fatwa Council. It is a scary thing to me. There has long been a debate about whether Malaysia is a secular or religious state and now it seems that the governing bodies are leaning towards the integration of law and religion.

I strongly disagree with this because ever since 1957, there are lots of declarations like that. For example, Muslims cannot eat pork and they must not have pre-marital sex which are very common indeed. Muslims also should not celebrate Valentine's Day and banning yoga can just be another petty declarations which none of the Muslims care about. Although there are such declarations, the government still did not issue on covering their body or at least, their hair as a must. Freedom there, you can see. And just fyi, all these declarations are made by the opposition party known as PAS in Malaysia. Well, the government/National Front party must tolerate them or else, there'll be political conflicts just like in Syria now. The reason is obvious and it's either one way or another. We even have debates about using Malay as the language in Mathematics and Science but I don't see how badly it'll lead us to. I mean the language used in Mathematics and Science can be native language in certain countries and for example, Japan if I am not mistaken. So, does that mean those countries will be like Iran? Certainly not, I believe. I mean the country's economic growth will not be affected by it and become like Iran. With that, all thanks to Tun Dr. Mahathir bin Mohamad who is a good leader and he definitely knew something valuable is in Malaysia which none of the PAS leaders have known. However, interruption of opposition parties is always there and it all goes down to how the government wants to handle it. And I'm sure the government won't be so stupid to implement laws which are not favorited by the large Chinese and Indian population here.

As to the domestic violence and rapes in Malaysia, I do not know where you get that info because Chew Mei Fun is no longer in the department and as for the reason, I have no idea.. She resigned or something, I guess. However, I hear a whole different story about domestic violence and rapes in Malaysia. I'll provide you a link to it and fyi, The Star is Malaysia's newspaper. http://thestar.com.my/metro/story.as...rawak/10881111 And if you were to compare, women at Malaysia definitely have more freedom today than back in 1957 when the independence of Malaysia was announced or even surprisingly, before 1957 when Malaysia was under British colonisation.

And as for England's domestic violence, I'm very sure I heard a BBC news reporter saying that there is an increase in the rate. However, I have links for that and here you are!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-16626061
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-16279989
http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/uk...1466-30557703/
And they are all very recent, if you notice the dates.

In your country - Malaysia, things are going on a slippery slope.

k I should have quoted this earlier. hehe
Well, from your point of view, yes maybe. But from my point of view, things are becoming better. We have government clinics which offer health care for only as low as RM1 which according to the currency converter, 0.3USD or 0.25EURO. So, it's cheap but for clear reasons, you shouldn't expect it to be like 5 stars health care. And this whole clinic thing has started since 2011, if I'm not mistaken. Other than that, the government is also using lots of money to help the poor, sick and old people despite whatever races or religions they are. But, corruption is always there, I believe and racist thinking is everywhere even at countries like America or UK. So, I don't see how Malaysia is deteriorating.