What do you mean atheist group? I assume we would all just say we're humans
I think she's referring to a South Park episode.
Oh I don't watch that shrug
That's just it though. If there was no theism, atheism wouldn't exist either any no one could fight over religion ever again. It's just a theoretical thought though. Also, agnosticism has nothing to do with belief or disbelief. At least the definition I use doesn't shrug
True for some. But many atheists like myself don't know if they're right and will admit they're wrong when proven wrong. Plus, sometimes misunderstanding can be the greater evil in a discussion. Lastly, by comparing atheism to agnosticism, you're putting them in the same realm. I'd say agnostic people believe there's nothing that can prove or disprove god. Some can believe in god and some don't. I don't think there's any middle ground really. Let me ask you a question. Are you agnostic?
okay, do you believe there are things that can disprove god?
I was just trying to explain that agnostic can't stand alone to describe someone's belief in a higher power. But anyway I do see what you're saying. I just try to not be a stereotypical atheist.
the only way to have even a small clue would be to unobtrusively observe a society that contains
A) all members who fit the definition of atheist
B) Have been untouched by the outside world
and even then
you wouldn't know because it would be that society's world
not our entire world
Best I can think of is Sweden.
does not fit A, which states all members fit the definition of atheist
does not fit B, which states that it is untouched by the outside world
I know that. But they are the most atheistic country I believe.
the majority of the members in Sweden are not atheists
I'm pretty sure that the majority is
"Lutheran 87%, other (includes Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Baptist, Muslim, Jewish, and Buddhist) 13%"
according to that link
China is the only one that is officially atheist
Yeah I just realized
I added some stuff to my first comment
There are definitely way too many variables to control in such an experiment for it to be accurate.
A few minor inconveniences would be resolved. Probably about it.
More advanced, in terms of technology,medicine and science.
Maybe less populated in countries that are religious today. Babies just keep constantly popping out!
Less knee problems.
Less people going hysterical and mass-hysterias. I've actually witnessed people going hysterical in these so-called "faith healings" when I was kid, it's so messed up.
I wouldn't have wasted my childhood in church every Sunday from like 11am-7:30pm. Oh the horror. In sunday school, they made us wear uniforms, can you believe that!?
A lot less debates in Amirite, I'm guessing.
Exorcist's wouldn't exist, so I wonder if they would have some other odd job.
More money in people's pocket. But then again if they were dumb enough to give it to some preacher, cult or whatever they would probably lose it to some other scam.
Millions of people wouldn't be waiting for some savior to come down from the sky. People wouldn't rely on the end of the world in ending the world's problems.
Many parents wouldn't have the reward of an afterlife or the punishment of going to hell to rely on to encourage their kids to be good, and no Santa as well.
No more Christmas carols.
No more Mormons knocking at your door.
No more people going "... but as a Christian", like so what doesn't make you a more moral person.
No more children fearing for their friends that have different beliefs as them burning in hell for eternity... wouldn't that be a relief?
Downsides would be no massive chocolate sales after Easter and a world without hot cross buns.I could go on but I'm going to stop.
"More advanced, in terms of technology,medicine and science"
Dark Ages set the world a few centuries back in this regard, but religion was not the only cause, and most of those religions once promoted knowledge and science.
And for #'s sake, Christianity and Islam aren't the only religions...
first of all
Christianity or a sect of Christianity were the only ones she mentioned by name
she said "I wouldn't have wasted my childhood in church every Sunday from like 11am-7:30pm"
it's obvious that's the religion she comes into contact the most probably
the more you see something
the more likely you talk about it
the average person rarely comes in contact with Zoroastrians
so that is a religious group people rarely talk about
other than that
I agree with you
there are countless religious scholars who advanced knowledge in many fields
um yes that's why I mentioned Christianity...
I also included Islam, because it seemed to have known a dark age at some point too. But it's probably not the only ones, and my point is that probably no religion was the exclusive cause of any Dark Age.
I understand that
I was replying to "Christianity and Islam aren't the only religions"
since these 2 are the ones with the highest "populations"
they're talked about more
if you go to India
people talk about Hinduism and Islam a lot because those are the two groups with the most people
Well of course religion wasn't the only cause, a lot of factors play into it. Though, religion has repressed science and knowledge a lot more than it has promoted it , plus how has it even promoted it? Give me some examples . I never heard anything from the bible that would. And many religious leaders, e.g, Martin Luther, have actively discouraged reason.I don't know much about Islam's stance.
"Much of the scientific method was pioneered first by Islamic scholars, and later by Christians. Hinduism has historically embraced reason and empiricism, holding that science brings legitimate, but incomplete knowledge of the world. Confucian thought has held different views of science over time. Most Buddhists today view science as complementary to their beliefs." (Wikipedia, Relationship between religion and science, the rest may interest you).
Coolio, I know Eastern Religions have embraced reason and so on, but I think it's has everything to do with philosophy, no need for the religion part at all.
Well the scientific method was bound to pioneered by someone who was religious, since you know pretty much everyone was back then.
Is religion an actual factor here influencing these Christians and Islamic Scholars to begin investigating? Or is it something completely outside that... like you know curiosity, wonder, etc.
it's a long comment I made
but I'd like you to read it
and who is to say that even without religion
people wouldn't repress science?
if so many were "inclined" to do it back then
what makes you think they wouldn't do it without religion?
they didn't wanna be "wrong"
isn't the ego a problem with any person?
don't pressures exist outside the religious?
Not me, but I can't think of any other thing that would have done a better job or have that much of an affect.
Can you elucidate your last paragraph?
I'm not blaming everything on religion, but it sure has played a big part.
On that link
I talked about social and political pressures
and how these pressures led people to disregard ideas
Well yeah, that still happens now...
but you're still giving religion so much credit
saying the world would be so much more "advanced" without it
Religion, quite simply, does have some of the biggest impact on the suppression of scientific and social advancement. Primarily Abrahamic religions in my opinion, yet, this opinion is probably because I live in the United States.
well to me
it sounds like you guys are using religion as a scapegoat
no matter how many mediators I give
it always goes back to religion
Notice that I said "some of". This is objectively true. I didn't say it had THE largest impact (although I do subjectively believe that). Regardless, we would most likely be more advanced without most things that repress advancement, including religion.
you said that on another post
and it's the same argument over and over
I pointed out how a bajillion things have caused harm
and then you said something like "my perfect world is death"
you guys use religion as a scapegoat for everything
and now yet another: setting the world back by centuries
and not even pointing out that such issues exist in irreligious societies
and then not even realizing that influence works both ways: positively and negatively
if you think it has a such a huge impact (which I agree with), then why not ever argue how it has influenced people to do positive?
that it has influenced people to advance
the very same reasons people have used to hinder society
are the sames one people have used to advance society
the idea that atheists are the better group for the advancement of this world is just not true (in my opinion of course)
We've already acknowledged both positive and negative things with religion. Yet, those negative things happen BECAUSE of religion and the things taught in religion. From my perspective, all positive aspects of religion are psychological (and don't require religion for similar effects) and/or delusional. Less negative things happen BECAUSE of atheism, or even in the name of atheism. Atheists experience the same positive things religious people experience without religion.
I said the positive part to show that advancement has occurred with its existence
this whole thread is about how the world would be more advanced without religion
which is what I am disagreeing with
all positives of religion are psychological?
do you not know that psychological aspects benefit the physical too? It influences everything
your thoughts, behavior, etc.
so don't stand there saying it's all psychological when psychological is linked to physical actions
you say the good of religion is psychological only but the negative isn't psychological only?
do you hear the double standard?
can't have it both ways
atheists are a minority so you're not taking proportion into account
and how do you know there's less negative?
you haven't measured it all out
you can't do something in the name of atheism unless you do something by saying "I'm gonna murder because I don't follow a religion"
look at Kim Jong Un
he has had a huge impact
would he be as horrendous if he was religious?
we won't know unless he becomes religious
because he's the perfect example of how advancement can be at jeopardy without belief
and there are others like him
but I don't go around saying his lack of belief is the root of his issues
now do I?
There are only millions of atheists in the world. When the amount of religious people was at that amount, there was still more negativity spread because of religion. I'm taking proportion into account. Doesn't Kim also think he is God? Does he actually kill in the name of atheism? And yes, religion causes both negative and positive psychological effects that can happen without religion. Atheism does neither. I'm not arguing that negativity wouldn't happen. But atheism would cause none in a world without theism. So, less negativity results.
You said advancement occurred with religion. That's true. Yet, I think most of the advancement occurred separately from religion. Atheism didn't cause advancement or regression/suppression. Yet, religion did cause the latter.
But let's be honest. We've had these discussions before fuzala. We may as well just agree to disagree.
I didn't say that it was in the name of atheism
regardless, he still considered himself atheist
it could be said that the the benefit people brought was because of their beliefs
seeking knowledge is a religious duty upon Muslims
so advancement would not be separate from religion
there was an era where Muslims contributed vastly towards science and knowledge
for some reason, that has changed in present times in terms of being "vastly"
I don't know why
my guess is that poverty and living in war torn places are major factors
religion is a real motivator for advancement whether you want to believe so or not
how do I know? because it's a motivator for me
and people talk about how it's a motivator for them
so another example how religion is not separate from advancement
like Hugo said
many if not all religions encourage advancement, knowledge, etc.
to give it so much bad credit (even if it's not all the credit) is incorrect
do religious people follow the rules of their beliefs all the time?
they obviously do not
can religious people not make mistakes, do wrong, and all other flaws? obviously they can do those things
but do you really know the source of these flaws?
that's still a minority
millions is small in comparison to billion
proportion meaning the the group in comparison to the total population then and there
you're comparing the population of atheists now with the population of theists back then
the comparison should be the proportion of atheists/total and theists/total (both in their respective time periods)
there are millions of atheists today in comparison to the billions of theists today
there were even less atheists back then in comparison to the millions of theists before
(still a minority) so your point that there are millions of atheists today with millions of theists before doesn't work
you're not looking at proportion
you're looking at one group in one period
and another at another time period
"But let's be honest. We've had these discussions before fuzala. We may as well just agree to disagree."
then why did you jump in?
I get 100 comment alerts a day from this post. Why not?
so what if you do?
I said why? because I don't see the point of that comment in this context
if you didn't want to debate
no one forced you to
and there were different pieces of information in this thread
it's not the same discussion
Because I keep getting alerts and I just thought maybe I'd throw in a couple cents. I wasn't really anticipating prolonged debate and I'm fatigued beyond belief.
let me tell you what my problem is
instead of responding to my last, long comment
you just talked about something that is not vital to the discussion
you responded to that one non-vital part
and didn't respond to any of the vital parts
I didn't force you to do it
my other problem is that we're now doing something similar to bickering
and no longer contributing to the post
and I, myself, could've just stopped this similar to bickering thing by not commenting at all
yet, here I am typing away
I replied to that last bit. I also just thought about it. I have a much too ignorant point of view on religion in general for me to make such accusations
I know you replied to the last bit
that's what I said
"you replied to the non-vital part"
which was my last bit
I don't think ignorance is the word here
I think bias is a better word here
I think it deserves it.
I don't see political or social influence/power (w/o link to religion) halt the progression of our scientific advancement the same way religion has and not nearly the same magnitude.
That's what I think. To how advance , I don't know (obviously) , but a significant difference to how it is now I believe.
I don't need to jump in here but I will...
Religious people have advanced science,
organized religion (especially christianity) has many many examples of stopping, dening, and reversing science throughout history, and even today with loud opposition to some very promising research areas (stem cells being just one of many.)
Not much different. We'd just find other reasons to hate each other.
Trve, it'd be terrible regardless of anything
a little more logical lol
There'd be a lot more depressed people. Spirituality is known as a coping method for theists. If there was no God or any spiritual entity and the world was filled with atheists, there'd be a lot more crazy, rude, suicidal, depressed, murdering, people in this world. That's not to say that some of those people do not fall victim to that ind of life style now. I for an example, would seek to be worshipped by the people of this planet. Since I know how to make that possible, I'd strive to become a "god" of this world. I can't very well do that if I am a theist now can I? I thank God I'm not as crazy as I should be.
You realize that you just proved that religion is psychological. Psychology is still real if the world is filled with atheists. You can't strive to be worshipped even if you're a theist? Have you even read about the shit in the Catholic Churches past? Essentially exactly that. I take offense to that third sentence. You don't see me going around killing others or myself. Research about violence and conflict caused by theists.
this a good point, but if there was no religion, we would have found another way to cope with stress, and instable types would probably have been naturally ruled out...
Here's something nobody else mentioned: Less awe-inspiring architecture.
No great Egyptian temples. Possibly no pyramids. No massive Greek temples. No Hagia Sophia. No Pisa cathedral or leaning tower. No Great Mosques. No giant Gothic Cathedrals with intricate detail in every brick. No St. Peter's Basilica. No Ananda Temple. No Saint Basil's Cathedral. No big metal crosses on the side of interstate highways. That last one's a joke.. it seems like most churches built nowdays are just a warehouse with a cross on it with a warehouse the same size built next door for the youth group basketball court and social gatherings.
But I digress...
Something I learned in AMC180 (history of architecture) is that people have come together with their money and resources and built some astounding works of architecture in dedication to their god(s). I think these forms of architecture were an important part in the overall evolution architecture. Who knows? Perhaps without them, our architecture would be set back a tad. Perhaps we would just have big blocks of concrete with no attention to detail.
"At the beginning of the twenty-first century there are many more people and exponentially more architects than there have been at any time in the history of civilization. This certainly hasn't led to an increase in the quality of architecture. Why? Because we no longer build to connect humankind to God or to make sense of our place in the cosmos, but for any number of mundane, banal, fashionable, and profitable reasons that reduce architecture to a vainglorious and earthly pursuit."-Jonathan Glancey.
Oh, no Vikings either. Vikings were badass and awesome at sailing. I don't want to live in a world where Vikings never existed.
But, yes. Vikings are cool as fuck lol
Interesting and true points. Yet, I feel that people would still have made works of architecture that are better than before, not to be closer to any gods, but to help people have shelters that will last and insulate. They would have been more practical and less artistic structures, but I'm not one to care for the art. Can't say much for the speed at which architectural reforms may have occurred though.
About the same, but with less religion.
If no one believed in God, then there would never be a dispute about it. Therefor, there would be no need to claim such a belief as atheism.
Exactly. Atheism and theism wouldn't even be words in such a world
Some Atheists are nice. Some religious people are nice. I think at the end of the day, no matter their lies/exucses..people do what they want. A religious person may kill a 4 year old child for having the potential to be gay or blow up an abortion clinic becasue of "god". An atheist may shoot and rob somone because they are their own "god"
probably a lot more peaceful, and advanced.
We'd be living in a Star Trek world.
peaceful and fair.
I think that's an unfair thing to say considering all the conflict and misunderstanding and greed that happens between humans regardless
just because we're theist
doesn't mean we're horrendous, violent people
I agree that "just because we're theist doesn't mean we're horrendous, violent people" I would however point to many-many wars, violence, and mayhem committed by people who believe their god is more right than their neighbor's god.
I also admit that some violence is perpetrated by atheist (the Russian Revolution comes to mind). Yet for the most part atheists also eschue border disputes (the other major cause of violence) believing that humans are all brothers and boarders are unnecessary.
Atheist (in general) tend to revolt against tyrannical leaders so if the world was all atheists then the number of tyrannical leaders would (in my estimate) be much lower. Tyrants tend to raise to power on their mistaken belief that they are somehow entitled, either by their belief in god or directly at his command.
tell that to Kim Jong
the majority of the world is theist
so proportionally, tyrannical leaders will probably match that majority
if it was reversed
those leaders would probably match the majority again
you're forgetting the conflict, misunderstanding, and greed that occurs between humans regardless
Notwithstanding human greed...
Kim is a poor example because he believes himself to be a god - and even as the official state position is atheism I am looking for examples of Kim starting wars and killing thousands in the name of atheism.
Plus I said they :tend: to be - always exceptions.
And this is a silly question because we will always have religions.
And my opinion is what it is...
I saw the tend to
that's why I added the second comment
don't downplay the atrocities he has committed
bottom line is that he is not peaceful and fair
and there are other atheists who are not peaceful and fair
which leads to my prediction
the world would not be peaceful and fair
it only takes a few people to destroy entire societies
"peaceful and fair."
It seems foolish to me to make such a bold assumption. It has shaped the world and is ingrained in most societies ; one can simply not realistically take one apart from the other and tell how the world could be without religion.
As an atheist I reject the belief in a creator; I also reject the belief that there is no creator. In fact I reject all beliefs and accept only “possibilities.” I accept the possibility that there might be a creator. I submit that the one described in the bible does not uphold my ideals of morality, is a mass murderer, is vengeful and mean and is therefore unworthy of my worship.
I think we'd be much more advanced if religion didn't exist. Before the Enlightenment and Renaissance, war was all about religion. Imagine if the resources poured into war was put into schools/research. I believe that we would be at least 100 more years advanced than now.
Many religions promoted knowledge and science at some point, and helped the world move forward.
Religion wars aren't so much about religion, rather about power.
And how have many acquired power? Through religion. Has there been any other tool used to manipulate so many people to go into war as effective as religion? Would these people still be wanting to go fight and possibly die if there was no reward for them at the end of the line , or what they were doing wasn't some supreme being's will?
uhh yeah there are many tools of persuasion
the reward at the end of the line is more territory, resources, and wealth
people can acquire power by promising instant gratification
the benefits of afterlife (in the mind of many) is too far away
aren't there irreligious people who are willing to die for their country, for respect, etc.?
by themselves, those are secular reasons
Well yeah, religion isn't the only tool of persuasion.
In the midst of war you would think that death would be in the minds of people, and knowing god has your back and that your carrying out his will have given people the confidence that they’d be victorious, it’s a win-win situation either way.
I’m not arguing that religion is the only cause and motivator. But if it didn't exist millions of people would have been save, many wars can be attributed to religious difference. Nothing has divided humanity more than organized religion. Do you not agree that a lot of conflicts could have been avoided or at least subsided if religion didn't exist?
maybe if differences in religion didn't exist
but I'm glad for differences
aren't most, if not all, conflicts because of diversity and being different?
people will not jump off a cliff and say
"I'm not worried because God has my back"
I still lock my car doors, etc.
you still have to be practical
Sure the differences that religion offers makes the world a more interesting place, but it's definitely not worth the destruction it has caused.And there are so many other differences that have made a more positive impact than it has negative. It comes down to accepting people's differences, but unfortunately religion has been used to promote the opposite at the most part throughout history.
That's different, what does jumping off a cliff have do in the"name of god"? What would they be trying to achieve?
it's similar to people praying for a good grade on a test without studying
racial differences has caused genocides and destruction
regardless, I would not take some invention and make everyone the same in color
It all comes down to accepting people's differences, but unfortunately racial differences have been used to promote the opposite.
People don't just run into a battle without being prepared.
Touche, I see your point.
Would the world be better off without race, as it would without religion?
ah, but they're so confident
I don't see it that way in that I think diversity has a lot to offer
diversity is what pushes us to progress
if we're all so similar
there's nothing to argue and no conflict
no conflict means no need to improve
you know what I mean?
all the same views
in a stagnant environment
or willing to fight for a cause they believe in. I don't know where this is heading, my original point was that religion has inspired people to go into war...
I don't see religion as a source of diversity necessary for progress. How has the conflict from religion beneficial to improving society? All the disagreements and conflict that have lead to progressing society have been focused on the ideas, disproving each other ,debating, coming up with new theories, not on hating and killing each other because of differing viewpoints.
you're talking about another thread that's above this thread
it's all related to this post
followers in different groups can learn things from each other and so forth
and they have done so
people always focus on the fighting
but no one talks about coexistence
There is no need for religion for all of that to take place.
coexistence does not need it
but so what?
why does that matter?
I thought we were arguing if the world would be way better without religion...
coexistence isn't the only thing out there
you don't need science for coexistence either so...
that doesn't mean there's no need for it at all
and the main intention of religious people is to please who? God
so religious scholars who contributed so much to advancement may have lacked that motivation
you said yourself just how influential religion can be
it works the other way too in positive terms
Doesn't matter how many religious people have made discoveries, in a world without religion someone else would have taken their place. And if they had the talent and inquisitiveness I don't see why pleasing a god would be an absolute vital motivator.
The main intention of religious people is to please who?God"- back then most of the time that meant not questioning what you have been taught,disregarding differing viewpoints, just believe in everything you been feed and obey. Stories,superstitious beliefs and anecdotes explaining everything from medicine to the sun interfered with research taking place and one to think for themselves.I'm more talking about Christianity specifically.
I think the negative far outweighs the positive. Religion has halted the advancement of humankind more than it has contributed to it.
I already explained how pleasing is a vital motivator
the same way you said it's a motivator negatively
and if you say people can replace the person advancing then then you can also replace the person hindering advancement as well
you're generalizing about what it meant to please God
I think the positive far outweighs the negative. Religion has contributed to advancement more than it has halted it.
Love is for the logic not the opinion. I still think the negatives win but cannot argue with your logic on the fallacy of generalization.
I'm not sure what you mean in the first sentence
"Love is for the logic not the opinion"
I "love" 'd your comment - I did that because I agreed with your logic, not with your opinion.
I thought you were talking about love as a motivator
Well I see people may want to please god in that way to fundamentally improve people’s lives, but it’s sad if you took god out of the equation that that and among other things wouldn't be a strong enough motivator, is that the way you see it? In most cases if they weren't religious such discoveries would have never been made?
I guess I did overgeneralize, probably because I see pleasing god via other non-productive means or going backwards in terms of advancing society more prevalent and making more of an impact than the latter.
"I guess I did overgeneralize, probably because I see pleasing god via other non-productive means or going backwards in terms of advancing society more prevalent and making more of an impact than the latter."
I think that's your confirmation bias
I don't think it's sad at all
I don't see what is so sad about having motivation
just because it's not your kind of motivation or your source of motivation
I didn't hold this view before I knew more about history and religion. Maybe I look at the negatives too much.
Yeah, but I'm asking if your view is that if religion didn't exist that these people wouldn't have carried out their research for the sake of trying to improve people's lives among having other motivations?
From what you have said I think your downplaying the destruction religion has caused, and you think I'm downplaying the good it has done. Meh.
worked on improving people's lives in order to please God
I think I finally agree with you with that last section
improving lives is a motivator
but you pointed out the influential power of religion
and I'll say it again
it works both ways
if it has the power to destroy
it has the power to do the complete opposite
power of persuasion can be used either way
and you're talking about the negativity bias
even on the news
they talk about negative things more than the positive
more views come from the negative
on tv shows
people get bored when the storyline is all happy/harmony
May I change the subject by taking this tangent?
If a tv show becomes boring with too much happy
if there is a Heaven
will Heaven have disharmony, or will it be boring?
watching a tv show and living it are 2 different things
you may have had a fun day
but watching you go through that day would probably not be all that fun for the viewers
interesting. How about living an infinite number of fun days? Just wondering your thoughts on that.
when I think of Heaven
I think of eternal bliss
and eternal bliss probably varies from person to person according to their preferences
I wonder what eternal bliss would be for a masochist? If it would be hell that would be ironic.
could it be that one person's Heaven is another person's Hell and vice versa?
preferences are probably taken into account
could it be that the masochist doesn't remain a masochist?
I won't even attempt to speculate
because this is a world I know next to nothing about
What if one persons heaven was a life of complete wrongdoing? Yet, the person never did much wrong in this life. I wonder...
perhaps this person doesn't have this desire in that world
I don't know what Muslims believe, but the Christian heaven has free will. If the personality just changes once you get to heaven, then you're not truly yourself
desire to harm is not personality
it is a mental disorder
to take away mental disorder is heaven for many
You can't know that.
can't know what?
it is a mental disorder
I think it's called psychopath or something
and maybe sadism
You can't know that a desire to harm isn't part of one's personality. And besides, I'm not only talking about a desire to harm. I also mean things like indulgences
that doesn't mean getting cured of a mental disorder means you are a whole new person
who cares about indulgences?
if someone's heaven is indulging
the consequences of this world and the other world are obviously not the same
Well I'm thinking of indulgences that are "wrong". Say, pr0n, for example. I'm just wondering if god would let that happen in heaven if its wrong down here.
Also I guess this is based on Christian teaching. I'm ignorant to Islam
the consequences are probably not the same
so maybe the negative effects of p0rn do not exist there
I really don't wanna talk about this anymore
I already said I know next to nothing about that world
I don't want to speculate about these kinds of things
Yeah you're right
I agree that it works both ways...
I'm talking about in terms of influence
the strength of the motivation is very high
and my speculation is that it was so high that it has pushed people to advance
The Age of Enlightenment is when things really started to pick up and progress. It emphasized on reason and individualism, rather than on tradition and religion,in which it challenged.
and you're equating religion and tradition with the opposite of reason and individualism
they're not mutually exclusive
"Enlightenment was a desire for human affairs to be guided by rationality rather than by faith, superstition, or revelation; a belief in the power of human reason to change society and liberate the individual from the restraints of custom or arbitrary authority; all backed up by a world view increasingly validated by science rather than by religion or tradition."
ohhh I see
well I looked at the Enlightenment stage some more
and found this religious dude Martin Luther
" Martin Luther’s translation of the bible into German encouraged people to read and think for themselves, rather than rely on religious authority, and the printing of the results of scientific experiments and observations allowed people to test and verify or disprove those results for themselves. "
so it points out here it was not religion that was hindering but it was certain people who were doing so
the religious guy actually pushed people to follow religion without having to rely on religious authority
and he also encouraged science and reason
and scrolling down
I see that religion is what encouraged literacy and feminism in the education system (allowing more girls to get an education)
"so it points out here it was not religion that was hindering but it was certain people who were doing so"- I don't see that?
It interesting he also said "reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has; it never comes to the aid of spiritual things, but more frequently than not struggles against the divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God.”
I know one can value both reason and faith...
And you have to admit many religions have mostly treated women inferior to men, or/and that men have used religion to discriminate against women. It wasn't religion that encouraged feminism in the education system it was the idea of enlightenment. It also says " schools for women did not bring about a social change because the schools themselves did not challenge the social status quo. Women were excluded from learning subjects such as science and politics". Why? "The main issue about female education relates to the traditional view of women’s weakness being due to nature". Which I believe religion played a big part in.
I think it's great that the increase in literacy rate was "likely due, at least in part, to religious influence". There I've mentioned an upside .
people's ideas change
so his probably did too
and literacy for females was encouraged too because of the importance of reading the bible
hence, religion pushing equality
and every single thing is blamed on religion
I forgot to add that to the list
China is the only nation considered atheist
and sexism is rampant there
go to tribe that knows nothing of the outside world
and is irreligious
and you'll see sexism
yet I don't say "China has so much sexism and female infanticide likely because of lack in faith"
if people stopped blaming it on all faith groups not their own or all faith groups
maybe more time would be spent trying to find/fix the underling issues
Ah okay, I see your point. But why couldn't they before, like men?
I don't really know of any irreligious tribes...
Do you think I think that if religion didn't exist sexism wouldn't have existed at all, and today? Because that's not what I think at all.
To relpy to your last paragraph- is that an issue irl?
I'm going to put a pause on this discussion, it's been going on for a while.
they couldn't like men because of sexism
it is an issue in real life because people blame religions other than their own when it is an issue they themselves have
"Nothing has divided humanity more than organized religion."
Nope. Really, no.
Religion has united people (see etymology for "religion"). At times where nations didn't exist, everyone outside your city/village could be an enemy. Organized religion allowed people to connect, with the same faith, to create alliances. It also made countries with the same beliefs ally.
So, it unified people, but often against the others.
Man needs someone to fight, that has always been, before religion, and may always be.
Yes,it has united people. So you think the construction built by these unities have been greater and more impactful than or worth the destruction caused by these divisions? And that nations wouldn't have come together otherwise?
Also if religion didn't exist... they'd be about the same number of wars and as destructive.They'd be about the same amount of gender inequality, homophobia, ignorance,intolerance,terrorism and hatred in the world. And certain evil and corrupt men would have been as powerful?
What I think is, religion played a role in every aspect of history, be it war or peace.
At this point anything could be said to be caused by religion, yet some seem determined to see only the bad side of it.
I think arguing about it is useless, I just want people to realize that religion isn't just one aberration that came out of nowhere and caused only hatred and suffering.
I say it is useless, because the questions kind of boils down to "how mankind would be if it weren't mankind ?".
"And certain evil and corrupt men would have been as powerful?"
Oh, yes there's that guy, often deemed as "evilest person ever", who became quite powerful and nearly took over Europe. Guess what, he didn't need religion.
I agree on that.I know that there's actually a good side.
I think arguing on the net is in general useless altogether, I just use it to put off studying.
"how mankind would be if it weren't mankind ?" Well in the begin humans were bound to start seeking for answers and as a result start forming belief systems ...but then it just got out of hand.
I'm aware that not all evil and powerful people have used religion.Are you talking about that Russian dude?
Arguing on the net may be useless after all, but the point is to find an answer to a question (even if it is useless to do so). In the case where we know it the question makes no sense from the start and that we can't find any satisfying answer, then it is really useless. (I mean, useless to cling on finding the answer. At least we learnt something on others' opinions and maybe about religions...)
I was thinking more about that German chap, that got even more famous (and infamous).
Even the Russian fella didn't use religion, we can't really call a religion the cult that he set.
Didn't the hatred that Christians have against jews, play a part in that? Since they believed they killed gods's only son.
It was not about religion, mainly about race and other stuff.
Nazism had little to do with Christianity, if at all.
Okay then, that's why I asked. Well my confirmation bias had just become apparent, I see it now.
Hitler used religion to gain support from German Christians.
That's beside the point, and not surprising.
Your point was that nazism had nothing to do with Christianity. I said otherwise. Nazism grew through religion AS WELL AS other things like race and politics
Nazism may have "something to do" with Christianism, but the former was not a consequence of the latter.
Of course Hitler used Christianism, he would have been a fool not to. If I were as clever as him, and within the right context, I could somehow use it to convince people we should walk around naked and greet each other by making our privates touch.
How do you make emojis?
Well obviously not. I'm just saying
here's a list: http://www.amirite.com/help#styles
like wary would be ( wary )
just take the space out between the parentheses
the trick is you got to lifo them
I should try this...
meh, doesn't do a darn thing
Like I said, religion is about power.
And people would be driven to war by something else anyway if it wasn't for religion.
Possibly without the benefits of it ?
But I'm gonna say what I said in another comment on this thread, we simply cannot know.
Well, of course, war is going to happen regardless if there's religion. But you have to admit so many wars have been driven by religion.
Well of course, but what we can do is make plausible speculations and this is a 'what if?' post after all.
My point was that those that happened to be driven by religion might have been driven by anything else.
meaning they might've done the same thing
just using something else justification
people will use any excuse/justification they can find to reach their goal
Maybe, but I don't know I think they've been called holy wars for a reason.
You still can't really say that if we didn't have those wars that the money would have been put into schools and research.
I've never met an atheist
that wanted to fight me
So maybe the key is
to not pick fights in
the first place?
it's all in tone of voice and body language I guess
I can't image challenging (or being challenged) for saying (like you did) "I don't care what you believe, believe whatever you want, your beliefs are not affected by mine"
however I imagine some people getting POed by
"I'm a Christian and don't care what you believe."
The first seems like a fair minded statement of acceptance
The second like a braggadocio, it comes across as dismissive