Crap News Network is asking: Would the world be better without religion?

CNN is asking: Would the world be better without religion. Naturally they have taken two people, each from the extreme poles of the argument. An agnostic Spokeswoman and guy with a Phd from some religious university. She says the world would be paradise without religion.(In a nutshell) He shakes his head and says this is not so. The argument then goes back and forth on tangents until the newswoman who tries unsuccessfully to moderate this banter runs out of time for the discussion.
My take is that the main fault of all religions in the world that practice demagoguery is that their PAID priests preach what pays. Their PAID priests and pastors preach what pays because that allows these seemingly ordinary men to exert power on an ignorant and often fearful populace. What pays for preachers to preach are often divisive and destructive interpretations of divine doctrine that are the result of their reading, studying, and getting degrees in the holy scriptures(Koran, Bible, Torah, etc.) to gain wealth, power, and influence rather than gaining eternal truths handed down by god and his angels.
But, would the world be better off without religion?? My answer is a resounding NO because without something to look forward to once we die, we are nothing but a bunch of existentialist pigs like the white house and the rest of the politicians that play on our fears for personal gain. But enough about them, more about you. What is all your wise, and hopefully non-incendiary take on this question? And should it even be gratified with an answer that worth the time to type out, since it is just the type of question that is used by the media and politicians to further divide this county? Any and all input will be appreciated.

Glad to see CNN asking the question.

Imagine there's no heaven,
It's easy if you try,
No hell below us,
Above us only sky,
Imagine all the people
living for today...

Imagine there's no countries,
It isnt hard to do,
Nothing to kill or die for,
No religion too,
Imagine all the people
living life in peace...

Imagine no possesions,
I wonder if you can,
No need for greed or hunger,
A brotherhood of man,
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world...

You may say Im a dreamer,
but Im not the only one,
I hope some day you'll join us,
And the world will live as one.

Writen by: John Lennon

then we would have peace.

Just like we always have. Religion is usually just windowdressing on those struggles.

We human beings have always been very good at hating those who are different.

... even if it had to come down to brown eyed you hating green eyed me ... We will find a reason (and it will be just as ridiculous as the religious reasons)

Edit: spelling

eom

The bribery of heaven and the extortion of hell are not necessary. Believe it or not, people can and do believe in doing the right thing without some holy book threatening them or commanding them to.

And for the record, after meny years of atheism I am ostensibly a Christian (though more openminded than most of those you'll see on TV). That's because of choice, though, and not because of some sort of fear or hope in the divine. Though it may not be yours, it's been my experience that atheism is a legitimate choice that must be respected and not be judged (see Calvin for examples). It's called empathy, which I personally believe that Jesus was trying to teach, and is all too unavailable to any members of many religious faiths, due to rules of the ostensible majority of those rules.

...people who wanted to be horrible to each other would just find other reasons to be horrible, and people who wanted to be kind to others would find other reasons to do so. Religion may have had a hand into turning some nice people into silent accomplices to horrors, but it has also likely had a hand in turning otherwise amoral people into functioning members of society. So I'd guess that it's about a wash at this point. I belive it's got a great capacity to change the world yet, whether it's for the better or for the worse has always been up to us.

quieted down and stopped forcing thier beliefs on others oh what a wonderful world it would be.

if you don't conform to their beliefs.

I'm convinced the world would be better off without dogmatic religion. The Abrahamic religions seem to veer toward dogmatism and extremism. I'm sure other religions can be as bad, but those three seem to have caused the most trouble for the last 2000 years or so.

They've been putting me thru hell for 37 years now.

If that is word for word what CNN's question was, then it's really a completely BS question, because there's no definition of "religion" in the question. When they say "religion," do they just mean having faith in a higher power? Or following the tenets of an organized church? Also, it doesn't address the whole issue of whether someone--or some government--forces his religion (or lack thereof) on others, something the world could certainly do with far less of.

I'm an agnostic, but I wouldn't say that the world would be better off "without religion." Some people need and others want to have faith in something higher than themselves. That doesn't make them any brighter, dumber, more moral, or more immoral than someone like myself who doesn't feel the need or desire to believe in something higher. Better without religious fundamentalism? Yes. Without the idiocy of allowing religious superstition (*ahem* Creationism) to supercede scientific observation? Yes. But better without any religious faith whatsoever? Don't see why it would be better or worse.

The problems that would ostensibly be solved by eradicating religion are those caused by religious fundamentalism, moralism, etc. not by the sole fact of having religious belief. The question they ask is thus begging for an unnuanced extreme point of view from all sides, as it just generally deals with getting rid of ALL religious belief. They ask a BS, empty question to two people on two extremes of an ideological divide (as if they even have to actually bother with interviews; you know what each persons going to say before they're even introduced), supposedly providing "balance" but simply resulting in the viewer being no more enlightened about the issue than before the segment. Typical CNN idiocy.

Therein lies problem one. Problem two is a Bruce Springsteen so eloquently puts it you take a god filled soul and it get's filled with devils and dust. Okay am paraphrasing but you get the gist.

and everything will be all right.


Everything will be all right regardless of what you think.


Everything is all right forever.

.. a British film that deals with religion and it's costs very intelligently.

Point of order, the film was written by an atheist (Russell T. Davies, he also did a coupla of little series you may have heard of.. "Queer as Folk" and this cult show that was just revived in the UK.. "Doctor Who").

Has a dramatic ending that I honestly did NOT see coming.. very well written, directed and great actors.

http://www.netflix.com/Search?v1=The+Second+Coming&search_submit.x=0&search_submit.y=0

Neither one sounds like the film you describe.

http://www.netflix.com/MovieDisplay?movieid=60034859&trkid=181026

The Second Coming (2003)

Steve Baxter (Christopher Eccleston) is found on the roadside in a
confused and illogical state. As Steve rambles on that he's the Son
of God, Steve's friend Judith (Leslie Sharp) can't help but wonder
if he's gone off the deep end. Knowing that he'll need proof to make
everyone believe he really is the Second Coming, Steve arranges to
present himself to the public. Miraculously, they believe him, and
his "revelation" creates a media whirlwind.

But, would the world be better off without religion?? My answer is a resounding NO because without something to look forward to once we die, we are nothing but a bunch of existentialist pigs like the white house and the rest of the politicians that play on our fears for personal gain.

IMO religion serves several purposes for the emotion based thinking individual.

First, mankind's basest fear is dying. Our animal instinct is never so strong as when death is a possibility. But have no fear! We can offer you "Heaven". Yes, a paradise for you when you die. But you have to worship our version of god to get there. "God" is an all-knowing, all-loving being, omnipotent even. But, unfortuantely there's an ego larger than the universe to deal with therefore you must not only be very careful not to offend but you must do much more. You must give all credit to this god, no matter what any humans may have done to achieve something, god gets credit. Oh yes and this "god" will be needing praise. Lots and lots of praise. And thanks. Constantly give thanks. Oh yes, and money's good too. God used to like animal sacrifices and other such commodities but with currency so plentiful nowadays, that'll do.

Do all these things and yes, you too can get into heaven.

Remember, if you do nice things for other people, give god the credit and, if you do this enough, there might be a ticket to heaven for you in it.

Oh yes the world is so much better off with religion. If we don't have a ticket to heaven to work for we are unable to do good in the world. :sarcasm:

I hold the opposite view. People are more than capable of leading moral lives and doing things for the benefit of others simply for the reason that they want to contribute to the greater good.

You won't find that message in any church, mosque or synagogue. It's all about pleasing their god and your personal reward. Talk about playing to man's base instincts!

If religion were eliminated maybe, just maybe, real enlightenment might have a chance.

Julie

:applause:

Lets get rid of it. Today.
Problem solved. :bounce:

now theres a question :P

My answer is a resounding NO because without something to look forward to once we die, we are nothing but a bunch of existentialist pigs like the white house and the rest of the politicians that play on our fears for personal gain.

In fact, most of this White House's policies are designed around religion.

... Chimpy and the evil cabal as religious or spiritual. I think ZEALOT ----- I know, in one sense I'm playing with semantics, but on a larger level I'm really not.

"without something to look forward to once we die, we are nothing but a bunch of existentialist pigs like the white house" ;-) .

Religion has been a unifying force since pre-history. Rituals strengthen bonds in groups, whether for activities like hunting, forming marriages, or agreeing on the basis of rules and laws. But it's very easy for those ties to be abused - whether in unequal marriages, or laws that favour one group over another.

It's inevitable that we, as curious humans, try to explain phenomena outside our immediate understanding in terms we're used to - that a being decided to order things for a reason, and that, if we're nice to them, they'll be nice to us too. It's also inevitable that these supernatural explanations would then get roped in as justifications for the rules and power structures that expanding communities need (when all the humans you interact with are well known to you, you can judge their actions yourself, or you know which of your family is the wisest, and you agree to let them be the judge of people; but when there are more people, you need a way of getting a 'neutral' judge - and if you think someone has the authority of a greater power, then they sound like someone who should be in charge).

But, for at least two and a half thousand years, we've been developing good theories of civilisation that don't depend on the authority of gods whose existence is largely 'proved' by the weather, chance events like earthquakes, or the continued fertility of agriculture. But most major religions have moved their 'evidence' from these natural occurrences to "A told B told C told D ... told me", or "it says in this book ...". These don't hold up well against real knowledge like history, sociology, or science. The general philosophy of most major religions of "be good to other people, and you'll all benefit" also exists in the general non-religious laws of civilisations. As our experience of living in large societies has increased, the need for parental authority figures telling the whole world how to behave has decreased - we've matured.

So I think the Straussian excuse for religion - "people ought to believe in something, and it doesn't matter if it has any truth, just so they think something can punish them when they get out of line" - is disappearing fast - especially since we started to realise that much of religion ended up reinforcing the privilege of the established priests and governments.

The question of "will I live on in some form after this current life?" is not answered particularly well by some religions, especially Christianity, I think (think of some basic questions, like "will we have bodies, and if so, what will they be like?", "who will I know in the afterlife?", "will I have free will?" and you'll get so many different answers from Christians that it boils down to "don't worry, there'll be something pleasurable, as long as you're good for now"). So I think that if 2 billion Christians can get along without decent answers to life after death, then the whole world could too - which gets rid of another purpose of religion.

"Where did we all come from?" is a good philosophical question, but most people get along without knowing much of the scientific details that we do know, so I don't see that they really need some religious guesswork when they can't be bothered to find out what we know about the natural world. So I think we could do without religion by now. Just as societies have tended to grow more democratic over the past few centuries, I think they are shedding, and will continue to shed, the hold of religion. Just like the gradual disappearance of feudalism, it's good for people.

Unifying within the "in" group. Undeniably divisive WRT outsiders. Disastrously divisive in more cases than can be counted.

People would be finding excuses to do terrible things to each other in the yellow pages.Its in our nature unfortunately.

Since I hold rather existentialist views myself it's pretty damned insulting. But I'm sure you meant it in the most polite way possible, right?

The obvious backlash against all this religious extremism would be that religion is outlawed.

I fully expect that. And because people aren't perfect, I even imagine some religious people will be killed, since religious people will be seen as dangerous/crazy.