would the world be better off without religion.
Yes it would. I'm here to argue that religion sucks. I am going to point out that religion has set science back by 1,000 years. Science disproves religion but people turn down science for religion.
Not to mention it's caused most wars and terrorist groups. For example, the crusades, 9/11, ISIS, and Hitler has said his movement was christian. Not to mention all the genocides and hate crimes. Countless people died for religion.
Another reason is religion has caused prejudice against women (the Quaran and the Bible have said women are inferior), homosexuals, transgenders, atheists and many more.
Religion has devided people by fear and hatred. We have been taught we are nothing without God, and we need to know God to know ourselves, and to be satisfied with not knowing the world. This is religion.
Not to mention religion is fantasy. Religion suggests ideas that have been disproved by science. The bible thought the world was a square, and have ideas on how things were made that science proves wrong. Also, who made God? For these reasons religion is fantasy.
Not to mention it's caused most wars and terrorist groups. For example, the crusades, 9/11, ISIS, and Hitler has said his movement was christian. Not to mention all the genocides and hate crimes. Countless people died for religion.
Another reason is religion has caused prejudice against women (the Quaran and the Bible have said women are inferior), homosexuals, transgenders, atheists and many more.
Religion has devided people by fear and hatred. We have been taught we are nothing without God, and we need to know God to know ourselves, and to be satisfied with not knowing the world. This is religion.
Not to mention religion is fantasy. Religion suggests ideas that have been disproved by science. The bible thought the world was a square, and have ideas on how things were made that science proves wrong. Also, who made God? For these reasons religion is fantasy.
Comments150
Join the community to add your comment. Already a deviant? Log In
without religion something else have would taken over the masses. i mean we need to believe in something, to distract ourselves from... the nothingness, to avoid existencialist thoughts...
but most of what you pointed out it's quite true you know
still, try to read more about the subject. in the end you shouldn't care for it, as a normal person 
but most of what you pointed out it's quite true you know
still, try to read more about the subject. in the end you shouldn't care for it, 
I agree that religion has a biological function of stopping people from focusing on the ever looming void of death. But I also think that along the way, it stunted others ability to think critically. Imagine all that the human species could achieve if religion didnt hold us back?? We could have unlocked the key to immortality, thus forgoing the need to distract ourselves from the void.
If you look at religion clearly, you realize that it's a reflection of the human condition aka the average person from whatever period or region that the religion came from.
yes. but that didn't happen, deal with it! xd
...i have a deeper dislike for every form of religion. you see, religion is to praise some form of god. but there isn't such a thing. it's a projection of ourselves into the immortality, is our creation. god is ourselves, the humanity. everything the religion does is for humanity, everything it preaches is for our own sake and enjoy. with it we don't look at ourselves as the animals we are. so we're not part of the same realm of birds, fishes, this wonderful biosphere. we're something else. and that's the stupidest thing to affirm nowadays, and the reason why we're so screwed up so far
it's something that most people isn't willing to accept.
hi.
...i have a deeper dislike for every form of religion. you see, religion is to praise some form of god. but there isn't such a thing. it's a projection of ourselves into the immortality, is our creation. god is ourselves, the humanity. everything the religion does is for humanity, everything it preaches is for our own sake and enjoy. with it we don't look at ourselves as the animals we are. so we're not part of the same realm of birds, fishes, this wonderful biosphere. we're something else. and that's the stupidest thing to affirm nowadays, and the reason why we're so screwed up so far
it's something that most people isn't willing to accept.hi.
thats an interesting take. Whereas I was essentially arguing that we can transcend common animals by reaching some form of enlightenment without religion, youre saying that it stops us from realizing that we are really no different from the animals we distance ourselves from.
so out of curiosity, what do you think of laws? Animals do not have laws, and most laws for humankind are based on religon. should we forsake any kind of structure in our environment that doesn't come naturally? Im legit not attacking you, Im just honestly curious, Ive never heard this viewpoint before and its interesting!
so out of curiosity, what do you think of laws? Animals do not have laws, and most laws for humankind are based on religon. should we forsake any kind of structure in our environment that doesn't come naturally? Im legit not attacking you, Im just honestly curious, Ive never heard this viewpoint before and its interesting!
i don't like laws. laws are preventing us from evil? perhaps. but maybe laws create evilness, what 'is correct' and what 'is not'. in fact, that's actually a fact: without laws there is no right or wrong... in a system ruling us all. but what exists is what we like and don't like.
example: think of a human family as a group in a world with no laws or rules of any kind (i mean they can agree on some aspects, hence creating some kind of rules, but those do not apply on other people, so it's fine). a subject from other group comes and kills a baby in the family... just cus he wanted to! members of the affected family dislike that action and seek revenge.
in that case laws would say 'killing is wrong', but in the example there's no such thing... so nothing's wrong. the baby died and there will be some conflict about it... but nothing's really wrong. life goes on. the corpse will feed something, and the natural balance is once again made clear... so there is no such thing as evilness. is the poorest example i could think of
with laws, if you forbid something to the child, he will want to do it...
example: think of a human family as a group in a world with no laws or rules of any kind (i mean they can agree on some aspects, hence creating some kind of rules, but those do not apply on other people, so it's fine). a subject from other group comes and kills a baby in the family... just cus he wanted to! members of the affected family dislike that action and seek revenge.
in that case laws would say 'killing is wrong', but in the example there's no such thing... so nothing's wrong. the baby died and there will be some conflict about it... but nothing's really wrong. life goes on. the corpse will feed something, and the natural balance is once again made clear... so there is no such thing as evilness. is the poorest example i could think of
with laws, if you forbid something to the child, he will want to do it...
"with laws, if you forbid something to the child, he will want to do it..."
I don't want to rape or murder. So, I'm not entirely sure what you're talking about here.
I don't want to rape or murder. So, I'm not entirely sure what you're talking about here.
we're kinda normal people 
don't know, apply that to drugs, to stealing... maybe mostly to drugs xd
sorry. i'm no goodat english at explaining things out
don't know, apply that to drugs, to stealing... maybe mostly to drugs xd
sorry. i'm no good
In what instances has religion "held us back"?
Also, I think talking about religion as a monolithic mass is rather ignorant, as there are many faiths and many more sects of those faiths.
Also, I think talking about religion as a monolithic mass is rather ignorant, as there are many faiths and many more sects of those faiths.
ok, for example, stem cell research. stem cells could unlock so many medical discoveries, yet we arent allowed to use them. Why? Because religious people in power deem it as immoral on no other grounds that religious basis.
also, I say religion in general as a blanket statement. I do not want to attack any particular sect, but rather, any kind of organized dogma as a whole.
also, I say religion in general as a blanket statement. I do not want to attack any particular sect, but rather, any kind of organized dogma as a whole.
That one is a better example than most that get brought up in these arguments, though I think general ignorance plays a role. It rests on the misconception that the only way to acquire stem cells is through abortions. The gist of the fear, from what I've gathered, is that demand for stem cells will result in fetuses being conceived and aborted just to get their stem cells. If steps were taken to correct that misconception, I don't think many people would have a problem with the research.
but then we go back to the whole 'abortion is wrong' thing that the church seems to support. Now, if you've researched and come up with a scientific reason for why abortion is not for you, fine. But if you think abortion is wrong based simply on what you've been taught by religion? Or worse, if you tell someone ELSE they cannot support/have abortions based on your religious beliefs? Thats where my issue lies.
In my opinion, we shouldnt have a negative sigma on abortion to begin with, and then we wouldnt be holding back with stem cells. Even IF fetuses are created and aborted just for stem cells, why is that a bad thing? We have the means to create medically significant results, so why not do it?
Now, of course, this isnt an attack on you or any religion specifically, just my humble opinion. I'd love to hear why you disagree (if you do)!
In my opinion, we shouldnt have a negative sigma on abortion to begin with, and then we wouldnt be holding back with stem cells. Even IF fetuses are created and aborted just for stem cells, why is that a bad thing? We have the means to create medically significant results, so why not do it?
Now, of course, this isnt an attack on you or any religion specifically, just my humble opinion. I'd love to hear why you disagree (if you do)!
It comes across as human farming. One can argue that up to a certain point, the fetus has no sense of self and isn't truly alive, but even in that case an abortion is ending the possibility of human life. That's just as good as murder for a lot of people. Scale that up, with fetuses harvested just for their stem cells, and it looks like industrialized murder.
That's why people who believe the misconception about stem cell research get so bent out of shape. As far as they're concerned, it would be like supporting the Holocaust. And that's why, more generally, some members of the pro-life community wish to use the State to stop people from getting abortions: they see it as no different than murder.
That's why people who believe the misconception about stem cell research get so bent out of shape. As far as they're concerned, it would be like supporting the Holocaust. And that's why, more generally, some members of the pro-life community wish to use the State to stop people from getting abortions: they see it as no different than murder.
You know, thinking the entire world should have the same belief [or lack thereof] is what causes wars in the first place.
Yes, but it's not how it works. Look what happens when a country that struggles to build a middle class knocks off a theocracy: the result always is a dictatorship, often accompanied with personality cult. If you want religion and other oppressive powers to lose influence, you need a strong middle class. It works both ways: when a country is impoverished, religion and/or dictatorship rise again.
In brief you're not attacking religion, you're attacking poverty. As a spoiled brat.
In brief you're not attacking religion, you're attacking poverty. As a spoiled brat.
Somewhere in Job ( think it's Job 26 :27) it says " He suspends the Earth up nothing "
Gravity 3000 years before Isaac Newton
Gravity 3000 years before Isaac Newton
I let people believe what they want.
umm.. hmm. hard hard debate but I'll say No. I'm not really religious or anything but I do see the good that people are because of their religion. Yes there are some pretty terrible people who do things because of their religion but if there wasn't any type of religion then there would be something else or someone else they'd "trust in" or "believe in" and we'd still be where we are now anyway. People will still put in their "two cents" and kill and praise things/people/etc in some way so it's kind of inevitable.
Yes 1000%
without the stain and corruption of superstition and ignorance rational thought and the pursuit of real knowledge would take the place of religions/cults
without the stain and corruption of superstition and ignorance rational thought and the pursuit of real knowledge would take the place of religions/cults
What are you? A three year old? I'm not a big fan of religion but the absence of religion alone and 'rational thought' and 'real knowledge' won't stop people from being selfish bastards and committing evil things to get what they want. We just get smarter criminals and despots.
People shouldnt strive to be good people for religion. They should be good people because thats the right thing to do and they WANT to do it. No, knowledge wont stop people from being selfish bastards, but it also wont stop people from using what they learn for GOOD.
No one ever said there would not be an end to greed and power seeking. What are you 4?