Imagine A World With No Religion
- Thread starter indica
- Start date
kjf
Likes Bikes and Dirt
I don't think Dawkins is implying that without religion our world would be a cheating, murdering, lying free world. (I worded that badly)
There would just be no disagreement of personal beliefs to snowball into war between, or within countries.
One less cause for disagreement is always good, right?
edit: also, greed and power...from..religion?!?! The war in the "Promised Land"which has been going on for a veeerrryyy long time, is about land which a "god" from a book said was sacred?
Are you implying that Good and evil are at an equilibrium? (Good and evil aren't good examples, but you get what I mean)
Last edited:
kjf
Likes Bikes and Dirt
Atheists?
Naw.
(I've recently jumped ship. No longer atheist, just agnostic)
I read the God Delusion (dawkins) thinking it would concrete my atheistic views. Apparantly not, his arguments for the non-existance of God are pretty lousy. However his debunking of the "proof" of God is pretty bloody good.
People who dislike organised religion?
Yahuh.
Naw.
(I've recently jumped ship. No longer atheist, just agnostic)
I read the God Delusion (dawkins) thinking it would concrete my atheistic views. Apparantly not, his arguments for the non-existance of God are pretty lousy. However his debunking of the "proof" of God is pretty bloody good.
People who dislike organised religion?
Yahuh.
ajay
^Once punched Jeff Kennett. Don't pick an e-fight
No, People ALWAYS asimilate power/greed with religion, when infact its just human nature.
One less cause for disagreement IS good, I agree with you, but removing relgion wont just remove the amount of disagreements. Its also used as a guise to create war - which is ALWAYS based on power. One religious faction may dislike the other, but beating them in war is more to do with dominating that land/resource of the people they dont like than it is whiping out a religion.
IM not implying that good and evil (or whatever) are an equilibrium, good and evil is subjective to the person/race/culture etc. People lust after power, religion in someways helps them to "justify" there quest for power.
Urgh, im drunk as F^*k right now, ill come back to this
kjf
Likes Bikes and Dirt
I'm also drunk, and now I'm starting to agree with you.
Religion is used as an excuse alot of the time, but without a decent excuse what will cause people to go to war? "We want their oil" "They've got some damn good bits of land"
"God promised us this land and everything below it (oil)" "This is our God's sacred land"
It seems that the religious approach is more justifiable. But without being able to justify going to war, or being greedy for something, or murdering someone to better one's position, would it happen as much? I dunno if it would.
"I'm going to blow myself, and 30 other people up, because I am promised a place with God (Allah)" - Martyr
"I want to kill a bunch of people just for the sake of it" - Lunatic
Same ending, one is seen as a hero, one is scowled upon by the world.
Last edited:
|Matt|
Banned
My major problem with religion is that it imposes its ugly head on things and restricts us from benefiting from things like stem cell research and abortion.
Fuck me, we would have a great shot at curing AIDS and cancer and half the other horrible things out there if stem cell research was legal, but no the bible bashers say god doesn't like it.
Same goes for abortion, but I won't go into that now because I can't be bothered and I'm sure someone will have a sook about it.
Fuck me, we would have a great shot at curing AIDS and cancer and half the other horrible things out there if stem cell research was legal, but no the bible bashers say god doesn't like it.
Same goes for abortion, but I won't go into that now because I can't be bothered and I'm sure someone will have a sook about it.
kjf
Likes Bikes and Dirt
Religious figureheads are just worried that if research continues with things like stem cell research, it might uncover evidenc which might aid in the disproving of a God.
After the first vatican council (about the time Charles Darwin published his book), Pope Pius XII (I think), made it a law that any outwards thinking with regard to scientific research is a mortal sin.
Which means: read the book, think about his ideas, you're fucked and going to hell!
After alot of conflict about this, a second vatican council in the 1960s was held, yet the church is still nuetral about the whole evolution thing (only because of things like intelegent design).
So, religious leaders are afraid that people will stop believing in God. They care more about the number of people who go to church, rather than the religious community as a whole (you can be religious but not go to church. you can believe in god and still not go to church etc, but you can also believe in things like evolution and all of that)
Am I waffling?
Sorry.
Last edited:
ajay
^Once punched Jeff Kennett. Don't pick an e-fight
Yeah I guess its a tough scenario, that probably cant be quantified by 2 drunk mountainbike riders late at night on a forum!
kjf
Likes Bikes and Dirt
Haha too right. Time to have another!
kjf
Likes Bikes and Dirt
One of the things which really got to me in his book.
Alot of dead arse-kissing going on in those few hundred pages.
Darwinian this, darwin that, all got a bit much.
I'm posting wayyyy to much in this thread.
Damn you all.
slip
Beefcake...BEEFCAKE!!!
kjf
Likes Bikes and Dirt
Dawkins knows how to deliver the lulz then, doesn't he.
I was just trying to say what I thought he was implying from the quote in the OP.
I'm going to laugh at your posts, and leave it at that. I won't write about why I thought it was funny or stupid, because that's just lame, isn't it?
Hahaha.
I was just trying to say what I thought he was implying from the quote in the OP.
I'm going to laugh at your posts, and leave it at that. I won't write about why I thought it was funny or stupid, because that's just lame, isn't it?
Hahaha.