Would World be better off without Religions?

by **CtrlAltDel** » Sat Dec 20, 2003 12:07 am

Recently a friend of mine commented that if no human followed any religion there would be peace...no Israel-Palestine problem, no Indo-Pak problem (no Pakistan in first place!!!)...and million other examples.
 If u notice most of the conflicts in history have a Religious basis. Of corz\' others too are there like: expansionism etc, but not as prevalent as a Religious war or conflict.
 After all Religion is an abstract concept invented by humans as a kind of moral crutch or support.
 What is your take on this...?

by **Mayavi Morpheus** » Sat Dec 20, 2003 12:22 am

You are underestimating the human mind and what man can do. Will post a detailed response after I have lunch.
 CIAO.

by **Srinu** » Sat Dec 20, 2003 3:03 am

absolutely, of course there will still be regional affinities and color based discrimination. but coming back to your question. yes. without religion it would be a BETTER place.

by VM » Sat Dec 20, 2003 3:36 am

I dont accept your statement that the world would be a better place without any religion. There are many positive aspects about religion than the negative aspects of any religion. Remember we would not have any festivals and any occasions for interactions between people,relationships etc.
 
 Religion was found to maintain a group in ancient times so that people can live together as small communities . There came the thing called Unity ... I can add more things to my discussion once i find more interesting responses from others.....

by **CtrlAltDel** » Sat Dec 20, 2003 9:50 am

It can be said that the only positive aspect of Religion is that faithful have some moral support during crisis and they usually take care not to commit some so-called \"sins\".
 
 The problem is not with religion as such but people. What is to stop somebody from taking an extreme and intollerant stance on this...? It has been proved again and again in history and modern days that Religion can be a Weapon Of Mass Destruction in human hands.
 
 Religion was found to maintain a group in ancient times so that people can live together as small communities . There came the thing called Unity ... I can add more things to my discussion once i find more interesting responses from others.....
 
 Do people get together only on religious occassions? Humans being social animals would find any excuse to mingle and interact with others. Religious festivals are only an excuse.
 
 That \"Unity\" you talk about is only within that group or worse, within a sub-group of that goup. The non-members of that group (or sub-group) are not trusted. That is the worrying aspect.
 
 Every religion has a superiority complex...a feeling that they are the best. This attitude has given birth to most of the conflicts.
 
 
 
 
 
 Religion was found to maintain a group in ancient times so that people can live together as small communities . There came the thing called Unity ... I can add more things to my discussion once i find more interesting responses from others.....

by **CtrlAltDel** » Sat Dec 20, 2003 9:52 am

sorry...the last paragraph shud have been marked as Quote by VM

by **Ravi** » Sat Dec 20, 2003 11:12 am

Its not religion or just religion which has to go but lot of other things - more fundamental. While on the topic, think about the two distinct roles religion plays - social role and spiritual role.
 
 Great topic - Will add more.

by **JustaLittleUnwell** » Sat Dec 20, 2003 12:21 pm

Ctrl-bhai, my take is that religion-based discrimination is bad, but religion is per se is not.
 
 As you yourself mentioned, it offers an excellent support mechanism in times of crisis. More than that, it stipulates a set of \"do\'s and dont\'s\" for individuals and societies, which could be thought of as the precursor to the legal system. Sometimes such \'rules\' appear myopic, but for a large part they are in sync with the needs of the human life. They provide a framework for the value system of an individual, and even modern gurus like Steven Covey acknowledge the importance of such things like values, principles and charecter.
 
 It\'s not like all religions necessarily prescribe to the notion of God - there are ones which dont emphasize God as well (e.g.Buddhism, or our own JK). So, if your beliefs are more Darwinian, you can still subscribe to those elements of religion which are in sync with your beliefs.

by **Arch** » Sat Dec 20, 2003 3:05 pm

catrl alt del (CAD ? whoops ) a very interesting topic.. but its what? 12:53 midnight? wud love to write whatever is upper most on my mind on the topic, and maybe as several of u said add as the days pass by.
 Religion/God/Nature/Belief in something more than what we can understand\' is something most wonderful that has happened to humanity. It gives us a sense of peace and happiness, more so when we need them the most. Religion becomes ones source of strength when and if we choose to use it so.
 
 Man basically needs to fight just as much as he needs to have peace. One eg is that of 2 siblings who get to fight and make up later. The religion is not the reason there, its just the need to fight, for whatever reason. They may not be even aware of any existence of religion, yet they are fighting ! So maybe we have to think of \'this\' need for fight, nai?

by **Anil** » Sun Dec 21, 2003 8:50 am

Why religion became so important in the society? Since ages, once a group is formed in a-cult, cooperation in many other things followed like defense, agriculture and irrigation, cultural arts – music, crafts, economic production, law, courts and eventually government. All these, in majority of cases, arose gradually from what started as a cult – a crude version of religion. It is widely accepted that these small knots of worshippers – be it in Egypt, India, or China - grew up to become plain cultures. Such simple and plain cultures developed into complex and intricate cultures, and finally gave birth to great civilizations. It’s hard to digest but even the American civilization has its roots in tiny knots of worshippers in Palestine, Greece, and Italy albeit thousands of years ago. Ironic isn’t it that what started as a force to unite people turned out to be the biggest stumbling for uniting people! What went wrong? Can we reinvigorate religion and restore its lost aura?
 
 World sans religion! Chances are things could be far worse than they are now because many people still believe in the ULTIMATE punishment. That does deter some, if not many, from indulging in acts against the societal norms or mores. Imagine how it would be if there is no fear of retribution, other than what happens to them on this earth? We have also seen the failure of Marxist ideologies too which were based on the idealist meliorism - the belief that improvement of society depends on human effort. I know several of Chinese here who don’t have any religion back home. But once they are here in USA they adopt the Christian faith and are one of the staunch believers. Of course, there are several other reasons for this urge to satisfy spiritual thirst including financial/economic gains too but…
 
 So, what if we have an alternative - Either religion without God, or God without religion. How feasible is it?
 
 Why religion without God? Because, we are guilty of fashioning our own God according to our whims and fancies? For most of us, God is like a best friend who has endless time for our needs even the most trivial of them too. For us God is a therapist, a security guard. Sad, but we have trivialized God. We have long back turned God into a divine Brufen (pain killer)! Moreover, spirituality without a deity may be indeed a perfect way to satiate the spiritual hunger of modern era man – the man of secular and scientific age. The \"church-free spirituality\" (or popularly referred as cafeteria religion) promoted by Oprah Winfrey is an example of this. Some call it \"private spirituality\" or “spirituality without religion”. Now-a-days, it\'s also cool, modern, and progressive to be spiritual. After all we have several celebrities raving about Dalai Lama and Buddhism – based on advocacy of spiritualism without religion. His followers include celebrities like Oprah Winfrey, Harrison Ford, and Richard Gere (not that they are some yard sticks to measure the social structure) surprisingly some Christians too. In fact I once heard a University of Chicago Professor (can’t remember the first name, but some Warner) saying that in the American religion it would soon be difficult to distinguish Christians and Buddhists. May be a little exaggerated. OK, What about God without religion? Because, we have been witness to many countries that have fallen under the command of sordid oligarchical government (Taliban, for instance) or are now reduced to total anarchy.
 
 Or should we leave everything to our sociologists or their ugly alter-egos, the politicians to come up with something more damaging. They have already done once – by attenuating the religion or “secularizing” it and even use it as an implement for social transformation though failing miserably.
 
 Agreed that religion as of now divides people into groups and does create havoc between opposing groups. To get to a state of totally religion-free society what needs to be done? First, science and scientists should prove that God doesn’t exist. Any takers? Let\'s imagine that it\'s done. What are the consequences? Will the entire world realize that they must all depend on each other for everything? Will the existing gaps be closed? Will there be a break down of the prejudicial barriers? Are we all braced up for one colossal embrace? I doubt it.
 
 Instead, how about a unifying religion? Hmm… back to square one! Anyway, imagine that each country had its own way of solving a simple arithmetic problem. And as expected, each country feels that its way of solving is the correct way. Wouldn’t this lead to lot of chaos, confusion or even frustration? On the other hand if this fictional world comes together to create a universal arithmetic language – there’s no scope for doubt, confusion or frustration. All tasks will then be performed more efficiently because there’s no waste of time with meaningless arguments. Thus, efficiency turns into productivity and productivity is nothing but progress. At the same time everyone has their identity in tact, though with a mutual understanding of arithmetic. Sounds too utopian? May be not.
 
 In any case, what we should remember is that a majority of societal ills and afflictions are outcomes of social and personal disintegration. They reflect on the fact that we moderns basically lack the moral imagination and the appropriate basis required to preserve tolerable community. As simple as that. Let’s, for once, not succumb to the temptation of using religion as a pretext.

by **JustaLittleUnwell** » Sun Dec 21, 2003 6:58 pm

Anil, though i\'m not a fan of long posts, I enjoyed reading this one - especially your comment about God being the \'divine Brufen\'

I just have one issue though - your depiction of \'secularism\' as an attenuator or inhibitor of religion. Secularism is not \'anti-religion\'. It believes in giving space to every religion and its practitioner. A true secularist is one who may not practise a given religion, but would give his life to safeguard the rights of a person practising that religion.

by **Anil** » Sun Dec 21, 2003 8:27 pm

JustalittleUnwell, sorry for that long posting but glad that you enjoyed. Belive me, I am trying hard to curtail this habit of long posting. But, old habits die hard... Anyway, I opine that no country is following secularism in a true sense, including India. For India it is a means for vote bank. I also wanted to drive home the point that matters of religion can still be discussed without mud-slinging or denigrating any particular religion (because everyone has its flaws). Religion or no religion, what needs a dry-cleaning is the basic thought-process of each individual since good, bad, evil, sin - all are just relative terms.

by **Mayavi Morpheus** » Sun Dec 21, 2003 11:35 pm

Forgive me for butting in, but I have to say this. Secualrism means giving space to other religions while following ur religion, not hating other religions. Unfortunately most Indian secualrists believe in Justa\'s definition of secularism which is further corrupted and became - Hate thy religion and Love others religion.
 So, though secularism as such is not an inhibitor of peace, this skewed form of secularism is, and acts as an obstacle for religious harmony.
 I will not detail how its an obstacle here, but a little thought will make it obvious.

by **Srinu** » Sun Dec 21, 2003 11:40 pm

well, look at the world today. how many ppl follow the spirit of religion. perhaps few or perhaps even none. but many people use it as a tool for spreading hatred. i remember someone mentioned in these very boards that religion is more important than his country. or taking this to the extreme some ppl think its more important than a fellow human. is that the spirit of religion? but then, as i sort of insinuated b4, am not saying if there was no religion there wouldnt be any probs. maybe something else like regional divisions (of course, with no religion, there would be no caste based divisions either) or maybe color based divisions or what not.

by **JustaLittleUnwell** » Mon Dec 22, 2003 10:57 am

Mayavi, the \'butt\' is ok (as in, can anyone do anything about it?

) but there you go, back to your old ways. You misquote me and base an entire argument on that misquote. If you read my definition of secularism once again, there\'s nothing in it to suggest either love or hate of any religion, never mind one\'s own. It only suggested respect for another individual\'s religious rights (irrespective of the religion he/she practises). How that can be corrupted / skewed to mean \"hate thy religion and love other religions\" is beyond my limited imagination. Thanks for \'butting\' anyway

by **Fiddler** » Mon Dec 22, 2003 11:47 am

Like has earlier been said, religion per se is not bad, just the uses that some people put it to. Religion offers a lot by way of giving individuals the reassurance that they\'re not alone, either through the belief that there\'s someone/something out there, or through being part of a larger group. The problems that arise because of religion are spawned by the varied interpretations of religious writings/teachings. All religions basically preach the same thing, so where\'s the problem? I wouldn\'t say that the world would be a better place place without religion, but I will say this: the world would probably be a better place if everyone practiced the SAME religion. Controversial, utopian, whatever

by **shaikh** » Mon Dec 22, 2003 12:02 pm

For me personally it is ridiculous to think the absence of religions or world without religions or all the peoples not following any religion. It is indeed amazing; I can’t even understand what people are trying to say here. You are saying there is god but there should be no religions. In any case I will try to present few quick points here:
 Question: would the world be a better place without religions?
 I don’t think so, because there were times in the past when for a certain period there was none religion and the result was that people were being punished or oppressed by the powerful and there was so much pain, death, fear.
 At some other such occasions (in the absence of religions) there was free sex being practiced and spread so everything was going on. !!
 I wouldn’t equate religions to a cult as Anil mentioned, since major religions like Hinduism, Islam and Christianity are threads from the same one god with books and messages and records so there are proofs.
 When we say religion, it is man’s attention towards god. The automatic consequence of not doing this is oppression and pain.
 So the more we detach or cut off from the religions even bigger problems are going to surround us.
 I hope I don’t sound like a mullah issuing blanket Fatwas here. !!!

by **Mayavi Morpheus** » Tue Dec 23, 2003 2:11 am

Sorry Justa, I was a bit confused when I read ur post, was readin something similar elsewhere.
 Actually I was referring to this statement of urs
 \"A true secularist is one who may not practise a given religion, but...\"
 Thats the only thing that I remembered when posting, seems I ended up using ur own words.
 Anywaym, Apologies.

by **JustaLittleUnwell** » Tue Dec 23, 2003 7:25 am

Mayavi, I appreciate that. Maybe you mistook \"a given religion\" to \"his own religion\", but that\'s not what I meant. By the phrase \"given religion\" I actually meant another religion which he doesn\'t belong to (say, Islam or Christianity, as it is in my case), which he would still defend if he were a secularist.
 
 And yes, a secularist would and should defend the rights of his co-religionists as well, while defending such rights of members of other faiths.

by **CtrlAltDel** » Tue Dec 23, 2003 9:25 am

this talk of secularism begs a question...
 
 Doesn\'t France\'s current interpretation of secularism takes things a bit too far...? whats wrong in french muslim girls willingly covering their heads, as long as they follow the common French civil law and co-habit peacefully with their french christian friends.
 
 i think clothing is a personal choice and the French are wrong when they ban head scarves along with Jewish skull caps and large crosses, in the name of secularism.

Who is online