Where would we be as a civilization if religion hadn't become doctrine?

reply to post by Pinke


LOL! I'm done! "yo, yo I'm the coolest cat"

This thread certainly blew up since my last visit, Perhaps you guys should agree to disagree.
It is interesting to imagine though. There are good theories to both sides, I must say.
What if religion never existed to begin with? -- We wouldn't know what such a thing would do if removed from human history (unless we get a time machine ). I imagine it could go both ways -- very bad, or very well -- considering what side of the fence you are already on.

~Sovereign

First of all, no one is oppressing your child (or anyone's else) by not allowing Intelligent Design being thought in school other then as art of fiction, which it really is. There is no single scientific study that proves ID, actually there are many that show that there is no such a thing as ID.

You are free to express your religious believes in religious institutions or at home, but you have to understand that public school system the same as government is not religious organization and should and is not supporting any religion.

If you really like to discuss non-religious beliefs and use USSR as example, then get facts correct. They did not burn/close churches or persecuted based only on religion. It is true that in the order to get higher position within their political body you had to cut your connection to church, which was wrong, but it is kind a the same here, where in order to succeed or run for any higher function you have to be part of religion establishment. Both doctrines are extreme and both are unfair.

Speaking of USSR, guess who leads attacks on gay population there... click here


Life without religion... no guilt, no worries about afterlife... check my signature for details...

Sincerely,

Your 'dude'

Pinke
Well there's this:

Though honestly I'm not going to stand by that. I guess I think the question is wrong. It's like asking what would have happened if humans hadn't bothered to think of anything ever.

Religion, myths and oral tradition were our first attempts at understanding the world and sharing common ground. 'We're nice because we're nice' isn't exactly a memorable oral tradition, but a flying cat on a flaming chariot who is best friends with the moon who came down and said, 'yo, yo imma the best cat evar be nice to one another!' then ran off ... that's pretty memorable. The cat also has a coconut for a helmet.

We knew these things anyway. Philosophers have had these thoughts and ideas without any belief in the supernatural, but the flaming cat thing is way more interesting. It's why people think Christianity invented the golden rule and just about everything else when no, it just remarketed old ideas in most cases.

I'd explain that more buuuut ... I think it's a thread on its own. >.<

That's the funniest image ever. "yo, imma best cat ever". I like your post, it made me smile.

reply to post by SuperFrog


Again, the public school system is government instituted, the same government instituted to protect their Constitutional right to freedom of religious expression. Either the government needs to start protecting every citizen or do away with the Constitution and form a whole new government.

We can't have it both ways. Either the Constitution protects all citizens, or none at all.

How many people again were the victims of Joseph Stalin's regime? And from that time until the collapse, how did the atheist regime doctrine affect Czechoslovakia, Romania and various other Eastern European countries?

I mean, come on, you know those people were oppressed under the State Doctrine of atheism. It worked so effectively that if you saw your neighbor praying, you had to inform the government and that person faced serious reprisals.

SuperFrog


If you really like to discuss non-religious beliefs and use USSR as example, then get facts correct. They did not burn/close churches or persecuted based only on religion. It is true that in the order to get higher position within their political body you had to cut your connection to church, which was wrong, but it is kind a the same here, where in order to succeed or run for any higher function you have to be part of religion establishment. Both doctrines are extreme and both are unfair.

Yes, let's get facts straight. Yes, churches were burned. Yes, people were killed for professing Christianity and yes, people were sent to Gulags.

Atheism in USSR

Militant Atheism in USSR

Militant Atheism and Forced Secularization

It simply can't be downplayed the effects of forced State Atheism in Eastern Europe. While you might not agree with religion, you cannot embrace any philosophy that endangers and oppresses others. And it kind of sounds like you are agreeing with Atheism as the State Doctrine.

Is that what you really want? We can say there are extremes, but one step leads to another to get to the extremes. There has to be something in place that protects the rights of individuals. But we can't deflect from the truth of the facts that under State Atheism, it was destructive.

And those facts you are going to have to reconcile within yourself. State Atheism destroys people. It's just that simple.

If you choose to believe there is no afterlife, then believe that. I am not here to tell you that you can't believe what you want. And I have to defend your right to believe that. But I can't sit by and say nothing when you promote State Atheism.

Very questionable sources, biased in every aspect. It is more then once proven that Stalin did not kill because of his believes, but just to stay in power.

Speaking of their church, do you know that orthodox church was as recently as 1990's connected to religious genocide?? Do they know that they helped and supported people wanted for genocide?

True, they did make illegal for churches to teach unproven teaching like origins of world for the same reason it should not be thought here. I don't see anything wrong with that.

World had and has thousands years of militant religion, and that seems to be fine by you, is it not?

Simply, everything is in fact a reason more to agree that without religion we would not have that many wars, we would not have this discussion now and world would progress much more.


EDIT: Sorry, my time on internet was a bit limited, let me give you better picture what happened in Russia. At the time of soviet revolution in 1917, orthodox church (major church in Russia) sided against revolution. After they lost and people revolted, thy did destroy many churches and did what I would call genocide against own population. At the time of second world war, (and that is what I call USSR, country made afterward) Stalin was working to get church involved in effort to gain moral boost for war, many churches were opened in flowing 2 decades, until Nikita Khrushchev become had of soviet state, and again started working toward forcible removal of religion from everyday life. Still church survived, and as you can see priests are working on 'clearing' population of all who are not 'desirable by the book'.

EDIT 2: I am not promoting state atheism. I am for separation of religion and state, something that is half-way done in USA, but it is done in many countries in EU and in world. Religious organizations should not have say in what teachers are teaching in schools. I would not like to oppress their teaching, they are free to propagate it in church, but there is no place in school for bible except as fiction book, which is current state of Bible in USA.

reply to post by SuperFrog


Certainly not am I endorsing militant religion. We already have that in the world. But let's take a second to view which religions we are talking about instead of lumping them together.

Militant atheism as the State Doctrine was destructive and certainly we don't want to go to that. Islam is also a state doctrine, and we don't want to go to that either.

But the issues you are having is not even in our Constitution, there is no separation of church and state that is written anywhere in any legal document to that effect.

What the issue was in Jefferson's day, was the Church of England as the state doctrine. Jefferson was blatant in his proposal that religious rights are fundamental, but not for one particular religion to be the rule of law. That's the point I wish for you to see.

Over time, when so many religious followers made their way to the United States, they brought with them their individual religious expressions. I have ancestry from French Huguenots, which had previously just been victimized in France and forced to flee under the state doctrine of Catholicism. But neither Huguenot Calvinism or Catholicism has the rule of law in the United States. William Penn created Pennsylvania with the sole purpose for religious freedom, no matter the expression. Thomas Jefferson College is now the University of Virginia, and the first non-sectarian higher education institution, in fact, Thomas Jefferson College was the first to admit women.

Thomas Jefferson was keenly aware of the need for freedom of religious expression and the government has no right to limit or prohibit it. The first mandatory public schools were in New Hampshire, but they didn't experience this controversy of whether or not the government had a right to separate religion from the public schools. It was in their curriculum from the beginning. And we know that New England was predominantly Congregationalist, a different expression than Quakers like William Penn.

Do you think that the government should not be funding madrasas in the United States? The government is doing that currently while denying other schools from teaching Intelligent Design. Do you see how it is unbalanced?

If we cannot teach Intelligent Design on that merit alone, then no money should be given to madrasas or Jewish schools that are kosher. But at the same time, madrasas should be allowed to teach students their religious expression, as Jews should be permitted to be kosher in their schools.

We cannot limit or prohibit free exercise of religion expression and the government must keep it in effect. For the government to accomplish that without violating the civil rights of citizens and their children, the government must then be involved. So by people saying religious expression cannot be voiced is a violation of the civil rights of the citizens and their children.

intelligent Design is Constitutional. And as much as I disagree with tenets of Islam, they have the same rights for their children to worship Allah in their schools. They have that Constitutional right to express whether or not their children should be taught to kiss the Black Stone of the Kaaba.

But the difference is this, they do not have the right to express Sharia law, that is designed to supplant the Constitution. As a citizen who agrees to remain in this country under the rule of law, with my rights guaranteed, then I must place the Constitution in high regard. That's why atheism as the state doctrine should not a part of the United States.

State doctrines do not work for any country that desires freedom of thought for any citizen. Christopher Hitchens was not American, therefore his opinion counts for nothing when it comes to my rights to express my religion. He was not my government, he was just a man with an opinion. But his opinion led to people embracing the violation of others fundamental rights.

He's not the only one.

This thread is asking a question, what would civilization be like if there was no religion as state doctrine. In Communist USSR It was a miserable failure. Nazism was absolutely horrific with the Nazi Party as state doctrine. Pol Phot was utterly destructive with his brand of state doctrine. And people still want to free Tibet.

Having no religion does not work, but neither does having the wrong religion. Christianity isn't the rule of law for the United States. The Constitution is.

WarminIndy
reply to post by SuperFrog

 

Certainly not am I endorsing militant religion. We already have that in the world. But let's take a second to view which religions we are talking about instead of lumping them together.

Militant atheism as the State Doctrine was destructive and certainly we don't want to go to that. Islam is also a state doctrine, and we don't want to go to that either.

Islam is as far state doctrine as is Christianity. The same laws to kill unbelievers exist in both. Old testament for example states to kill your neighbor if he works on Sunday. Isn't current bible product of old testament?

WarminIndy
But the issues you are having is not even in our Constitution, there is no separation of church and state that is written anywhere in any legal document to that effect.

What the issue was in Jefferson's day, was the Church of England as the state doctrine. Jefferson was blatant in his proposal that religious rights are fundamental, but not for one particular religion to be the rule of law. That's the point I wish for you to see.

Over time, when so many religious followers made their way to the United States, they brought with them their individual religious expressions. I have ancestry from French Huguenots, which had previously just been victimized in France and forced to flee under the state doctrine of Catholicism. But neither Huguenot Calvinism or Catholicism has the rule of law in the United States. William Penn created Pennsylvania with the sole purpose for religious freedom, no matter the expression. Thomas Jefferson College is now the University of Virginia, and the first non-sectarian higher education institution, in fact, Thomas Jefferson College was the first to admit women.

Thomas Jefferson was keenly aware of the need for freedom of religious expression and the government has no right to limit or prohibit it. The first mandatory public schools were in New Hampshire, but they didn't experience this controversy of whether or not the government had a right to separate religion from the public schools. It was in their curriculum from the beginning. And we know that New England was predominantly Congregationalist, a different expression than Quakers like William Penn.

Without going too much into debate over Jefferson, meaning of his words and letters, let me ask you this - do you think that constitution should be updated and upgraded as time progress and our knowledge?

Keep in mind, this is what people who follow Islam are experiencing at the moment. Laws that might seem good at the time, 1400 years ago (let's not lie our selves, they were barbaric at the time as well) and inability to adopt with time...

WarminIndy
Do you think that the government should not be funding madrasas in the United States? The government is doing that currently while denying other schools from teaching Intelligent Design. Do you see how it is unbalanced?

If we cannot teach Intelligent Design on that merit alone, then no money should be given to madrasas or Jewish schools that are kosher. But at the same time, madrasas should be allowed to teach students their religious expression, as Jews should be permitted to be kosher in their schools.

Where I said that government should prohibit teaching of ID in christian schools? Madrasas are religious school, tech all you like there. We are talking about public schools here.

Science is based on questioning everything, testing everything and proving it with test. All test shows that ID is based on belief, not science. It should not be part of science and it is not anywhere in world. (not even in arabic world, except in religious schools)

On the other hand, if something gets proven by science, it is science now, it should be thought in schools.

Reality is that there is no single piece of evidence that points to teaching of ID being true. Sorry.

WarminIndy
We cannot limit or prohibit free exercise of religion expression and the government must keep it in effect. For the government to accomplish that without violating the civil rights of citizens and their children, the government must then be involved. So by people saying religious expression cannot be voiced is a violation of the civil rights of the citizens and their children.

intelligent Design is Constitutional. And as much as I disagree with tenets of Islam, they have the same rights for their children to worship Allah in their schools. They have that Constitutional right to express whether or not their children should be taught to kiss the Black Stone of the Kaaba.

But the difference is this, they do not have the right to express Sharia law, that is designed to supplant the Constitution. As a citizen who agrees to remain in this country under the rule of law, with my rights guaranteed, then I must place the Constitution in high regard. That's why atheism as the state doctrine should not a part of the United States.

You got me lsot there. ID in constitution? You have right to believe all you want. You can't opress others with your beliefs.

NOTE - beliefs are not the same as scientific facts. There is no such a thing as religious science.

WarminIndy
State doctrines do not work for any country that desires freedom of thought for any citizen. Christopher Hitchens was not American, therefore his opinion counts for nothing when it comes to my rights to express my religion. He was not my government, he was just a man with an opinion. But his opinion led to people embracing the violation of others fundamental rights.

He's not the only one.

This thread is asking a question, what would civilization be like if there was no religion as state doctrine. In Communist USSR It was a miserable failure. Nazism was absolutely horrific with the Nazi Party as state doctrine. Pol Phot was utterly destructive with his brand of state doctrine. And people still want to free Tibet.

Having no religion does not work, but neither does having the wrong religion. Christianity isn't the rule of law for the United States. The Constitution is.

Christopher HItchens was an American, English- American. He took citizenship sometimes in 2007 if I remember correctly.

Life would be better without religion, Christopher Hitchens was able to prove that in his book 'God is not great'.

Let me ask you a question, do you honestly believe in ID?

WarminIndy
reply to post by eggman90

 

Atheism in the USSR was state endorsed doctrine. Your take on that?

The STATE became the god. Your take on that?

I think atheism as god holds as much value as forcing people to respect beliefs. A belief is a thought. A person can wear a costume to let others know they have strong thoughts about their beliefs, even congregating in buildings to discuss it with each other. You could sit on a park bench, I could see you, and not know or care about your beliefs. If you force kids in school to respect prayer that's the same as state atheism. Beliefs/thoughts have no value, but carry plenty of weight.

I don't respect beliefs, I respect people. I don't care what thoughts you have, as long as I'm not forced to have to include or acknowledge them in my life.

truthofnitrous
I'm asking because it's a question that's been on my mind for a really long time. ............................................... it makes me wonder ....would the world be better off if there was no religion at all?

It would be different(very different!)... however religion is part of the nature of mankind.It is a type of disease all of mankind is born with.It serves a purpose just as death serves a purpose however in and of itself it is not beneficial and will eventually be abolished.God is using both for his purposes.

One of religions purposes is to constrain the lawless.I read someone on ATS say if not for religion they would be pure evil and.... I believe them!! However religion does not make anyone good... only less(or more!) evil than the would be.Religion is not the cure for evil.... it is evil.However in a round about way religion is being used like an inoculation and those that are very ill have a very strong dose of it.

A very down side to religion is it is the crux of the judgement.Yahoshuas purpose is to "set the captives free" from religion".. the false worship of a false God..themselves..idol worship because the carnal religious mind (the adversary) is at enmity with God.

Yahoshua clearly stated in Matthew 7:1 the way you judge is how you will be judged.Those that "judge" by their religion will be judged according to the measure of their religion.This does not bade well for hell believers because THAT is the judgement.That's why Yahoshua said we can be set free from the captivity (forgiveness) of every sin but the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit (the breath of life) will not be forgiven in this age (the physical age realm) nor the one to come(The Kingdom of God realm).

So in a round about way ...Yes ..if religion was not part of our nature everything would be very different...however that is impossible in this realm just as death is part of this realm... so is religion.They will both be abolished in everyone ...all in their own order chosen by God according to Gods purposes ..not mans.

reply to post by charles1952


There is always two sides, in any case I see that in your positive listing you only accentuated the "good" (and it is not complete), for example protestantism (amongst the belief in the sanctity of work by promoting the reading of the bible and translating it from Latin to local languages) was the may force behind ending Europe's analfabetism and the promoter of the industrial revolution (that is why central Europe got their legs up on the technological tree at the time)...

In any case in general terms if we examine the bad and the good (not only of Christianity but religion or magic thinking in general) we would be generally better off if it was not adopted as a social tool to control populations and even before that it limited scientific and logic thinking a lot. But without that magic thinking we wouldn't be humans nor would we have the level of creativity and ability to think generally on "what if"...

Like anything that makes us human we just have to moderate and learn cope with what we are...

In the modern western world religion Plays no major role on the big stage.

Religious conflicts is a very old argument in Our days.

Today it dosent matter what religion the public worships. What matters is that the public fallow the Law.

No one in the western world are punished for what they believe in. We all are punished if we dont agree to fallow the Law.

reply to post by Panic2k11

Dear Panic2k11,

Thank you for your response. I agree with you perhaps more than you might suspect.

I did emphasize the good, and I'm sure I didn't even come close to mentioning everything. As to the former, I was reacting to what I thought was an assault on religion beginning with the OP and wanted to provide balance. As to the latter, I'm lazy.

In any case in general terms if we examine the bad and the good (not only of Christianity but religion or magic thinking in general) we would be generally better off if it was not adopted as a social tool to control populations and even before that it limited scientific and logic thinking a lot. But without that magic thinking we wouldn't be humans nor would we have the level of creativity and ability to think generally on "what if"...

It seems that here you are describing Islam to a "T." It is well known that science has not done well under that religion, and that their advances a millennium ago came from conquered people and civilizations. But combining Islam, Buddhism, Christianity, Voodoo, and Heaven alone knows what else, makes for a subject hopelessly over-broad. There is no way to discuss it.

Just the parable of the Good Samaritan alone has been credited with the movements for welfare, social justice, socialism, and a host of others. In the area of the sciences and the arts, Christianity has provided a huge boost. The idea that the Universe is reasonable and governed by fixed laws is not an Islamic idea but a Christian one. As I pointed out, Universities and many fields of science owe their beginnings to Christianity.

And the creative arts? La Pieta, Michaelangelo's David, Sistine Chapel, Hallelujah Chorus, Missa Solemnis, The list is nearly endless. Take a tour around the Vatican if you believe the Church stifled creativity.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by charles1952


I think we have a disconnect...

As I pointed out, Universities and many fields of science owe their beginnings to Christianity.

The concepts behind the idea of university predates Christianity (and other mainstream religions) but yes modern Western universities started around Christian institutions, but mostly as a way to control information and more so the certification of that transfer of knowledge. They were more self serving institutions that any attempt to bring light into the world. Even so we have to recognize that without especially the Orthodox Christian Church the dark ages that affected Europe and the Mediterranean basin in general would have lasted longer.

Any high level thinking can only be done in a society that has a surplus of production to support intellectual and creative work, in this religious thinking (or magic thinking) shares the same requirements. Of course that religions in its broad form can have impact in many aspects of human societies but so does other things, even war.

Religion also tends to expand like a cancer to other cultural aspects like legal system, political structure and every aspect of human society, the more complex the religions the more intrusive it becomes...

We could sublimate most mainstream religion to a core good intentioned precepts but most of those that state to fallow those religions often do not comply with those and utilize their claimed piety to exert control over others. Liberty in any form ends were it starts for another, in religious matters are the same, can anyone be really converted by force or duress ?

Religion is established by cultural hegemony that is why politicians like it so much, it falls in line with indoctrination and education but beyond social cohesion and placebo well being in itself it does not produce anything. The spread of religion also predates the idea of history (modern definition), it can also be seen as a unification effort around legend and myths, for example the Christian religions is extremely adapt in co-opting pagan rites into their own dogmas and (like Microsoft) work by extending and embracing.