Would the World be better off without religion

[Brownie]

Horrible isn't it?  She presumed so much.  Her girls may not have been promiscuous, just had boyfriends.  They may have been clued up enough to have used birth control.   She sounds barking but, as you said, she's not here to tell the tale now so we'll never know.

[jeremyp]

Horrible isn't it?  She presumed so much.  Her girls may not have been promiscuous, just had boyfriends.

Reading the various sources, I think there were a lot of reasons. For instance, she was getting divorced and she wanted her husband to suffer. One of her daughters was getting married and Christy wanted to ground her before the wedding or maybe to stop it, I don't know.

Christy had been treated for depression and had tried to commit suicide in the past. It's all desperately sad.

[Brownie]

Very sad indeed jeremy and brings it home quite forcibly how shabbily people are treated who have mental health problems.  If she was treated for depression the chances are her treatment consisted of medication and some of that is quite dangerous.

[Sassy]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/guides/zcnm82p#zct79qt

According to the current position on this BBC poll  85% say yes.

Whereas the truth is that despite religion man would would still cause all these events of evil and probably far more without religion as a whole.

But the reality is that can man really have survived all this time without GOD?

Religion is not just about the god/s believed in it shaped history and today the newest religion formed from one man without any real sense of history or even basis in the real God has lead to modern day terrorism.

If the good things in people cease then things occur such as the Holocaust.

The world would not be better off without religion because it would simply come to an end because mans nature is so evil and the thirst and lust for power would eventually come to complete and utter chaos.

Without God there would be nothing today. Man would have destroyed everything. What power can a man really have over an earth he can do nothing to control?

God help us all when man eventually realises how vain it really is to gain the world and how it is worth nothing.
Your soul only God can save but man does not listen.

If a man is wise he would know that the world needs to know God not a religion.
That God is the only real explanation for anything here and now.

[Leonard James]

Whereas the truth is that despite religion man would would still cause all these events of evil and probably far more without religion as a whole.

But the reality is that can man really have survived all this time without GOD?

Religion is not just about the god/s believed in it shaped history and today the newest religion formed from one man without any real sense of history or even basis in the real God has lead to modern day terrorism.

If the good things in people cease then things occur such as the Holocaust.

The world would not be better off without religion because it would simply come to an end because mans nature is so evil and the thirst and lust for power would eventually come to complete and utter chaos.

Without God there would be nothing today. Man would have destroyed everything. What power can a man really have over an earth he can do nothing to control?

God help us all when man eventually realises how vain it really is to gain the world and how it is worth nothing.
Your soul only God can save but man does not listen.

If a man is wise he would know that the world needs to know God not a religion.
That God is the only real explanation for anything here and now.

Sing on, sweet bird! 

[Hope]

Sing on, sweet bird! 

Is that all you can come up with, Len?  Doesn't auger too well for any argument you might want to put forward 

[Sebastian Toe]

Is that all you can come up with, Len?  Doesn't auger too well for any argument you might want to put forward 

Well ,  at least it is better than constantly repeating the negative proof fallacy!   

[Leonard James]

Is that all you can come up with, Len?  Doesn't auger too well for any argument you might want to put forward 

Like everybody else on this board, you know perfectly well that Sass is unable to cope with any post contradicting her beliefs, except by spouting endless Bible quotes.

'Arguments' are lost on her, and a complete waste of time and energy ... both of which commodities are fast disappearing in my case. 

[Sriram]

Hi everyone,

As I have posted before, religion has many uses. Before civil courts and organised policing were in place, religion was the only form of social control. Killing, robbing, sexual assaults were controlled by religion. Respect for elders, parents, teachers were prescribed. Love and fellowship was taught by religion.  It also prescribed health, hygiene and behavioral norms. Marriage, family values etc were promoted and ensured by religion.  Sexual behavior was controlled.

Religion served many purposes and has succeeded in civilizing humans. Without religions we humans would not be as civilized and humane as we are now. Social cohesion and brotherhood across physical boundaries was another of its very important contributions.

The fact that some people misuse religion is just an aberration. Anything can be misused. 

It is possible that in some social groups, certain religions in their present form, may have outlived their usefulness. But in certain other groups they may still be necessary. 

Even those groups where certain religions may have become unnecessary, certain other religions/philosophies  may still hold a meaning and relevance.

So...religion is not one single and simple institution that we can dismiss off hand as useless. Religions are complex cultural institutions with complex social influence.  They will continue to exist in  one form or the other.

Cheers.

Sriram 

[Hope]

Hi everyone,

As I have posted before, religion has many uses. Before civil courts and organised policing were in place, religion was the only form of social control. Killing, robbing, sexual assaults were controlled by religion. Respect for elders, parents, teachers were prescribed. Love and fellowship was taught by religion.  It also prescribed health, hygiene and behavioral norms. Marriage, family values etc were promoted and ensured by religion.  Sexual behavior was controlled.

Sriram, whilst I'm not exactly sure what role say Hinduism or Islam played in healthcare and education prior to the state taking on these aspects of our lives, I was surprised that you didn't include them in your otherwise interesting list of issues religion oversaw.  In some cases, I'd also include the pursuance of science.

It is interesting just how much religion was involved in before states decided that they were their responsibility.  Has this change actually seen an improvement in the processes used?  Whilst understanding and therefore methods have improved, I'd question whether this is because of the change of who oversee them.

[torridon]

Hi everyone,

As I have posted before, religion has many uses. Before civil courts and organised policing were in place, religion was the only form of social control. Killing, robbing, sexual assaults were controlled by religion. Respect for elders, parents, teachers were prescribed. Love and fellowship was taught by religion.  It also prescribed health, hygiene and behavioral norms. Marriage, family values etc were promoted and ensured by religion.  Sexual behavior was controlled.

Religion served many purposes and has succeeded in civilizing humans. Without religions we humans would not be as civilized and humane as we are now. Social cohesion and brotherhood across physical boundaries was another of its very important contributions.

The fact that some people misuse religion is just an aberration. Anything can be misused. 

It is possible that in some social groups, certain religions in their present form, may have outlived their usefulness. But in certain other groups they may still be necessary. 

Even those groups where certain religions may have become unnecessary, certain other religions/philosophies  may still hold a meaning and relevance.

So...religion is not one single and simple institution that we can dismiss off hand as useless. Religions are complex cultural institutions with complex social influence.  They will continue to exist in  one form or the other.

Cheers.

Sriram

Fair post, that.

[trippymonkey]

CERTAIN religions we could ALL do well & better without....

Nick

[Sriram]

Sriram, whilst I'm not exactly sure what role say Hinduism or Islam played in healthcare and education prior to the state taking on these aspects of our lives, I was surprised that you didn't include them in your otherwise interesting list of issues religion oversaw.  In some cases, I'd also include the pursuance of science.

It is interesting just how much religion was involved in before states decided that they were their responsibility.  Has this change actually seen an improvement in the processes used?  Whilst understanding and therefore methods have improved, I'd question whether this is because of the change of who oversee them.

Hi Hope,

I have mentioned health and hygiene in my earlier post. Education is somewhat complex and not as straight forward. 

What is education?  Is it learning about the Big Bang, QM, about various kings and emperors of the past, Magna Carta, law,  geography......etc. etc.? What is knowledge? 

Its difficult to define.   In today's organised and globalized world it may be a little easier to define in terms of the standard curriculum. But in the past it was not so easy.  Information was not so easily available and not so easily shared around the world. Also, the relevance of such information to the lives of different people was not clear.

Britain was a relatively small country and it is possible that some sort of a common education system could have existed from medieval times. Not  so in a huge land like India for example, which was composed of hundreds of different kingdoms, languages and cultures.

In earlier times, education generally meant moral education and vocational training in the work that the person wanted to do. Work training was normally passed on from father to son anyway.

Cheers.

Sriram

[Sassy]

Well ,  at least it is better than constantly repeating the negative proof fallacy!   

Nah! Not even close. You see the negative proof theory is a fallacy on the part of the atheists.
It neither adds or takes away from the proof for Gods existence.
If the world itself is not enough to show something greater than us exists then really nothing will convince an atheist about the truth of God himself.

It is better to remain silent when an atheist, especially an atheist who knows nothing about God.

[jeremyp]

Nah! Not even close. You see the negative proof theory is a fallacy

What's the negative proof theory?

It neither adds or takes away from the proof for Gods existence.

It's impossible to take away from the proof of God's existence: there isn't any.

It is better to remain silent when an atheist, especially an atheist who knows nothing about God.

It's better to remain silent if you are ignorant about the topic in discussion, but it has never stopped you from posting.

[Sassy]

What's the negative proof theory?

In regards religion should you really be discussing things you do not understand or have to ask about?

It's impossible to take away from the proof of God's existence: there isn't any.
It's better to remain silent if you are ignorant about the topic in discussion, but it has never stopped you from posting.

That's because unlike yourself, I am not ignorant in matters of faith and God.
But you certainly are as your post shows, had you remained silent your ignorance would not be so apparent.

As usual the uneducated in Faith matters resorts to sarcasm and insult a know proof of not being able to respond intellectually or with understanding of the subject at hand.

Your starting to repeat yourself because you have absolutely nothing new to argue with.

[trippymonkey]

I am not ignorant in matters of faith and God.

Unfortunately NOT directly FROM God ?!!?!?!?

[jeremyp]

In regards religion should you really be discussing things you do not understand or have to ask about?

"Negative proof theory" is a phrase that I've never seen before - you just made it up so it's not surprising if I don't know what it is.

I do, however, know what the negative proof fallacy is and it is something that is perpetrated frequently by some people here, most notable Hope.

That's because unlike yourself, I am not ignorant in matters of faith and God.

You are ignorant in most subjects, why would we conclude you are not ignorant in matters of faith and God.

[Leonard James]

It is better to remain silent when an atheist, especially an atheist who knows nothing about God.

NOBODY knows anything about "God".

What you think you know about him is nothing more than silly stories invented by ignorant, early tribesmen who couldn't answer certain questions about origins. So rather than admit they didn't know, they invented "God" as an answer.

[Sebastian Toe]

Nah! Not even close. You see the negative proof theory is a fallacy on the part of the atheists.

Nah! Not even on the same planet.
For a start I have never heard of the negative proof theory, what is that exactly?

Keeping with the negative proof fallacy however. It is a fallacy whether used by an atheist, theist, Hope or you.
However all I was pointing out was that Hope is one of the main users of it on this board.
That is a FACT whether you like it or not!

It is better to remain silent when a Sass, especially a Sass who knows nothing about fallacies!
 

[Sassy]

I am not ignorant in matters of faith and God.

Unfortunately NOT directly FROM God ?!!?!?!?

Your reply is absent of any proof  of what you say as was your posts.
Hence the original post still applies and stands.
You are ignorant in matters of faith and God, your replies are the best evidence of this.
You must also remember that it is not a slight or slur against you. It is really just a simple fact.

[Sassy]

Well ,  at least it is better than constantly repeating the negative proof fallacy!   

Nah! Not even on the same planet.
For a start I have never heard of the negative proof theory, what is that exactly?

Keeping with the negative proof fallacy however. It is a fallacy whether used by an atheist, theist, Hope or you.
However all I was pointing out was that Hope is one of the main users of it on this board.
That is a FACT whether you like it or not!

It is better to remain silent when a Sass, especially a Sass who knows nothing about fallacies!
 

You claim not to know about it, but use it as an argument when replying to Leonard.
Explain how you made such a comparison.
Are you really going to make yourself look ridiculous and even worse making replies in ignorance being proved?

PS. Good luck with proving a negative....

[floo]

Sass your replies are ridiculous more often than not!

[Brownie]

This describes what I understand to be 'negative proof theory';  I've heard the phrase used a few times.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_of_impossibility

[Nearly Sane]

This describes what I understand to be 'negative proof theory';  I've heard the phrase used a few times.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_of_impossibility

Are you sure you have heard the phrase 'negative proof theory', and not either just negative proof or negative proof fallacy?


And just to note the above makes no mention of negative proof theory, nor if were you to think it was would it make any sense in or of Sassy's post.