NationStates Jolt Archive

Okay, so let us back track to the foundings of civilization. Our ancestors are finally tapping into their sentience, but instead of using myths and odd stories to explain all that is around them, they decide to try to find out just how everything works. So, they do so.

Fast forward to today.

...

Except, just what IS today? That, my friends, is the experiment. Unfortunately, while I'm great at coming up with these, most of the time my knowledge of history and whatnot is, ashamedly, not up to the task of even coming close to how things might have turned out. Still, I'll give it a whirl:

~1000 years before what we would call 2006, we had a society much like ours today, only it was not full of religious nuts and was altogether more progressive in terms of social liberties and economics. We completely avoided anything such as Peak Oil or Global Climate Change. Nay, instead, we sought out alternative fuels, eventually developing neato technologies.

~Today, we have founded colonies throughout the solar system, and among planets many light-years away, as we have developed an actual, scientifically accurate warp drive that actually warps space through what is known science. We are a peaceful society for the most part, with the occasional rivalry flaring up but not all that much.

So, that's basically my idea. A more or less utopia. A realistictopia? Anyway, what's yours? I am hoping those who are nigh omnicient with history might provide a much more accurate possible outcome.

Unlikely. Most early European pioneers were religious. Without religion, we'd have no basis of understanding for evolution, no gunpowder. (Not strictly true, but it would be extremely retarded.)

And money and power motivate far better than religion. Religion is only one of many means to an end for certain, unscrupulous people.

And our cultures would be non-existant. There would be no culture. None. No myths, no legends. Nothing.

We would've found a way to differentiate ourselves into "Them against Us," nothing would be different. Except at least we wouldn't be burning people at the stake for their beliefs, just for the color of their skin or something.

A society not evolving the meme of religion is like fish not evolving fins: it doesn't work.

I'm fully aware of that. But let's stop trying to use common sense to rule out even the possibility of this thought experiment. That's why it's a thought experiment. It's academic discussion. Let's say, for the purpose of this thought experiment, that culture did not NEED religion to function, or what have you. I know, hard to accept, but it's what we need to do for this thought experiment to work.

Homo sapians did not invent religion. Nor did any ancestors of modern humans. It was first created by a now lost race called the Neanderthals. If they didn't create religion, at some point we would have and thus been in exactly the same place we are today.

There would be no morals or ethics. Poeple would do whatever they felt like, because there would be no consequences after death.
People would find something else to attach their worship to - celebrities, possessions. We'd be living in a materialistic society
On the plus side, my Sundays would be freed up

The issue here is what you consider religion. Personally, I think it is a rather arbitrary category of very, very different memes that all share the traits of being vaguely similar in expression or concepts to ancient Roman religion and not being consistent with modern science. If nothing fit that...that would mean that science would have stayed the same for the entirety of human history, and that the same methods were used to rule society.

The issue here is what you consider religion. Personally, I think it is a rather arbitrary category of very, very different memes that all share the traits of being vaguely similar in expression or concepts to ancient Roman religion and not being consistent with modern science. If nothing fit that...that would mean that science would have stayed the same for the entirety of human history, and that the same methods were used to rule society.
You're right. I had not considered that.

So, in that case, we need to alter it. What would you suggest?

There would be no morals or ethics. Poeple would do whatever they felt like, because there would be no consequences after death.
People would find something else to attach their worship to - celebrities, possessions. We'd be living in a materialistic society
On the plus side, my Sundays would be freed up

Morality has been, for the most part, independent from other aspects of religion. Plus, unlike religion, morality has a biological basis in addition to the memetics, so I think it would be one of the things most likely to evolve even without religion.

The problem with an aithestic societys development is that religion starts off as a way to explain the world around you. Without that, well, science and other important things like that never get started. If you ask any socialogist they will tell you that the main driving force behind that scientific method was a religouse shift away from the original mythological pantheons where every natural ocurance was explained as the will of the gods towards a monotheastic mythology which eventually led to a 'god doesn't get his hands dirty mentality'.

I don't buy the argument about morals. Morals and religion have historically not been in any way shape or form synonimouse. The rape of the americas, the crusades, the massacre of nanking, these where all acts carried out by those who used there religion and its mythos to justify there actoins. Lets face it the majority of moral people are just that 'moral' not religouse in the traditional sense of the word.

Apologys for the spelling errors, but feel free to check my facts on this one. I know the majority of my examples are from a christian stand point but using erlier times to explain today seems like a waste of time and arguments. The world is just too diffrent in some ways for the examples i could bring in from babylon et al to work. There modos aporati would horrify most people but, for there time it was not in any way shape or form strange or even considered out of line in any way.

There would be no morals or ethics. Poeple would do whatever they felt like, because there would be no consequences after death.
People would find something else to attach their worship to - celebrities, possessions. We'd be living in a materialistic society
On the plus side, my Sundays would be freed up

I disagree.
I disagree that we'd just do whatever we felt like without religion. I don't need to imagine some afterlife to attach a certain level of importance to morals and ethics.
I'm generally a decent person, and do live by a particular moral code, but mainly to be a good person to others, not because of my fear of some vengeful afterlife that will punish me for my 'sins.' I don't believe in an afterlife, and I'm still a decent person.

Nevertheless, I believe for many people societal consequences function to create a personal moral/ethical code much better then religion. For many, not everyone.

The way I see it, religion/myths and the like were originally created to help explain things the curious early man did not understand. But, if the curious man were curious enough to seek out the real truth, it seems to me that science would have evolved anyway regardless of religion's existance or not. The fact that science is, science came about by way of attempting to prove or disprove myths and religion, and otherwise find the truth of life, the universe, and everything.

Therefore, as I said, science would evolve eventually anyway despite religion, hence why I proposed this thought experiment.

There would be no morals or ethics.
Religious Right propoganda. Do atheists kill innocent civilians by flying planes into buildings, or strapping bombs to themselves to detonate in crowds full of innocents? Do agnostics hold inquisitions or crusades? You do not need an invisible parent figure threatening you with eternal punishment to know the difference between right and wrong.
Poeple would do whatever they felt like, because there would be no consequences after death.
So, all atheists go on killing/raping rampages, while good religious people would NEVER do that. :rolleyes:
People would find something else to attach their worship to - celebrities, possessions. We'd be living in a materialistic society
What planet do you live on? You just described the real world.

You're right. I had not considered that.

So, in that case, we need to alter it. What would you suggest?

We just need to agree on what constitutes religion. So what are you thinking of? Some could allow civilization, some can't.

There would be no morals or ethics. Poeple would do whatever they felt like, because there would be no consequences after death.
People would find something else to attach their worship to - celebrities, possessions. We'd be living in a materialistic society
On the plus side, my Sundays would be freed up
Sense when did morals have to be defined by religion? or ethics for that matter

We just need to agree on what constitutes religion. So what are you thinking of? Some could allow civilization, some can't.
Mostly? I speak of organized religions, such as Christianity, or anything else that could dissuade a person from scientific fact. Those that focus on the spirit of the self, such as Satanists, would still be acceptable, as they do not detract from scientific truth.

So basically, as long as it does not affect one's judgement of fact, it's acceptable.

The way I see it, religion/myths and the like were originally created to help explain things the curious early man did not understand. But, if the curious man were curious enough to seek out the real truth, it seems to me that science would have evolved anyway regardless of religion's existance or not. The fact that science is, science came about by way of attempting to prove or disprove myths and religion, and otherwise find the truth of life, the universe, and everything.

Therefore, as I said, science would evolve eventually anyway despite religion, hence why I proposed this thought experiment.

The issue is that early religion was basically science. Priests developed models of how the world appeared to work based on how they understand simpler phenomena, and that's really all science is. We simply have better science now than then.

If we had not created religion then the world would not have evolved as it has done today. Most pioners were religious and some were even spurred on by religious people and some were scoffed at by them. In any case no-one would be as racists as they are now a days because the church would not have been portraying them as evil black men or chinese.

However society may not have elvolve without religion as no-one would have hated it and tried to make something that riveled the church. Just like the people in the bible after they had been freed from the egyptians they created statues of false gods, and even the egyptians built giant monuments to honour their gods. They even put them into their society and history.

Think about it.

The way I see it, religion/myths and the like were originally created to help explain things the curious early man did not understand. But, if the curious man were curious enough to seek out the real truth, it seems to me that science would have evolved anyway regardless of religion's existance or not. The fact that science is, science came about by way of attempting to prove or disprove myths and religion, and otherwise find the truth of life, the universe, and everything.

Therefore, as I said, science would evolve eventually anyway despite religion, hence why I proposed this thought experiment.

Without religion there, would be no philosophy. Without philosophy, there would be no morality.

However, men do think. And so there is philosophy. Religion would become an out-growth of this philosophy. Imagine, for instance, the antics of Plato or Aristotle, instead of being absorbed by religion, became religion? Then we would have one religion which says that nothing is real (which is already bordering on the religious) and another which says that women are merely incomplete men who are attracted to men because men are complete and women are not and that men do not, in fact, need women. And would the philosophical aspects of Buddhism survive this atheism? Why shouldn't they, if the purely philosophical schools of Plato made it through?

In this case, we would see philosophy replace religion and used to oppress women, the poor, and generally result in the same things that have occured anyway. (With Confucians persecuting Platonic missionaries and Platonic crusaders slaughtering Confucians and so forth.)

~snippage~
Think about it.

Sorry, I can't get past the thought that you need a spellcheck, badly. Oh, and a logic class. I can't even begin to list the false conclusions, logical fallacies, and "where the hell in left field did that come from" statements.

The issue is that early religion was basically science. Priests developed models of how the world appeared to work based on how they understand simpler phenomena, and that's really all science is. We simply have better science now than then.
But that originated out of the curiosity of mankind. All I'm saying is that we should consider the possibility of mankind's curiosity driving it towards science and the like rather than seeking answers that don't make much sense, i. e. the mythos of religions.

But then, it is possible my overly scientific mind is clouding my judgement here, so I might be looking at this the wrong way.

In response to the original post, we'd probably have had just as many wars even if humanity was 100% atheist.

We humans are just naturally wired to kill each other it seems.

Interesting . . . maybe by not waging war, we'll overpopulate the earth and cause our own extinction. I know you peace loving hippies were dangerous, but damn!

Heh, we have to kill each other, or else we'll die!

Without religion there, would be no philosophy. Without philosophy, there would be no morality.

However, men do think. And so there is philosophy. Religion would become an out-growth of this philosophy. Imagine, for instance, the antics of Plato or Aristotle, instead of being absorbed by religion, became religion? Then we would have one religion which says that nothing is real (which is already bordering on the religious) and another which says that women are merely incomplete men who are attracted to men because men are complete and women are not and that men do not, in fact, need women. And would the philosophical aspects of Buddhism survive this atheism? Why shouldn't they, if the purely philosophical schools of Plato made it through?

In this case, we would see philosophy replace religion and used to oppress women, the poor, and generally result in the same things that have occured anyway. (With Confucians persecuting Platonic missionaries and Platonic crusaders slaughtering Confucians and so forth.)
Thank you, for being the first to truly answer the question.

I suppose you're quite right, and my initial ideas were idealistic rather than realistic. Assuming then, that philosophy does replace religion, how would society evolve instead? What would we be today? The exact same, only with, say, Platonicism being the foremost philosophy instead of Christianity the foremost religion? I don't know. It seems to me that society would still be quite different. But then, I have not exactly been able to examine as many facts as I would like.

But that originated out of the curiosity of mankind. All I'm saying is that we should consider the possibility of mankind's curiosity driving it towards science and the like rather than seeking answers that don't make much sense, i. e. the mythos of religions.

But then, it is possible my overly scientific mind is clouding my judgement here, so I might be looking at this the wrong way.

But science is an outgrowth of philosophy. And if there is no religion, philosophy will be substituted. And since science is an outgrowth of philosophy, would we not then acquire numerous sciences all controlled by 'organized philosophy', instead of the relatively 'pure' and 'religion-free' sciences that would enable your utopia?

But science is an outgrowth of philosophy. And if there is no religion, philosophy will be substituted. And since science is an outgrowth of philosophy, would we not then acquire numerous sciences all controlled by 'organized philosophy', instead of the relatively 'pure' and 'religion-free' sciences that would enable your utopia?
Yes, yes we probably would.

But consider this philosophy. What would it actually be, by this time? Would it be reasonable, or still backwards-minded?

But that originated out of the curiosity of mankind. All I'm saying is that we should consider the possibility of mankind's curiosity driving it towards science and the like rather than seeking answers that don't make much sense, i. e. the mythos of religions.

But then, it is possible my overly scientific mind is clouding my judgement here, so I might be looking at this the wrong way.

Early religion made quite a bit of sense to early peoples, especially with their limited methods of induction. What they pursued were the first glimmerings of science. If you want a point where the quest for information got perverted, you could place that at the point when the era's skilled specialists began to demand a bigger piece of the power pie than they got just based on their skills, as this was the point when religion evolved from specialized skills to justifications for kleptocracy. Even then, it was really more of a form of primitive political science.

Edit: As to the Platonism, etc. topic: after Alexander the great Hellenized most of the Middle East, Plato and Aristotle's philosophies effectively became pseudo-religions. If they grew they could have filled the same niche as Christianity.

Yes, yes we probably would.

But consider this philosophy. What would it actually be, by this time? Would it be reasonable, or still backwards-minded?

It would be as reasonable as ever.

Which is to say, that it would be as reasonable as the human being who ponders it. Would, for instance, the Aristoleans allow science to disclose the fact that the vagina is not, in fact, an inverted penis? This did not occur IRL until the late-1700s and even then, it was a tightly controlled fact, despite centuries of scientific dissections.

Which is beside the fact that, in the East, there are many religio-philosophies, such as Buddhism, Taoism, and Confucianism. And there has been no shortage of violence in China and her neighbors.

Alright then. So, in essence, philosophy replaces religion. I still wonder what it would be like today, and would we have people breaking away from it like we do religion? Would we have athiests of philosophy? Or, instead, would we still see everyone ruled by philosophy?

Alright then. So, in essence, philosophy replaces religion. I still wonder what it would be like today, and would we have people breaking away from it like we do religion? Would we have athiests of philosophy? Or, instead, would we still see everyone ruled by philosophy?

We would probably have nihilists instead of atheists. ;)

But what would things be like? I will have to sit and meditate on this. I doubt the answer I get will be entirely accurate, though (not that that's much of a concern with counterfactual history or anything)....

Oh, alright then. I think I shall do so as well. I hesitate to suggest a possibility now, given that mostly my predictions are rather...not...correct. ~_~

There would be no morals or ethics. Poeple would do whatever they felt like, because there would be no consequences after death.
People would find something else to attach their worship to - celebrities, possessions. We'd be living in a materialistic society
On the plus side, my Sundays would be freed up
You do realise you're calling every atheist a sociopath, right? People can be moral in the absence of a supernatural father figure always watching them.

In fact, I would argue that the very presence of such a superbeing would diminish a person's capacity to behave in a moral manner, since one would never be certain if the person was behaving out of moral imperitive, or merely out of fear of divine punishment.

Hmm...depends.

Are we just talking...exactly the same, except without religion?

Or were the cavemen culturally inundated with the scientific method?

Because, if scientific method *became* the religion, I think it would have prevented a lot of the violence and hatred in the world. Because the scientific method is about skepticism, and questioning logical inconsistancies. And...well, a majority of prejudices and rationalizations for war are extremely logically inconsistant.

So...current world minus religion:

-Just as much hatred and persecution, except justified with the language of cultural supremacy, international legal arguments, and just 'We know better than them, because we're us'.

Current world where Scientific Method is the religion:

-There would be much fewer wars, as people wouldn't believe the propaganda that convinces them to go to war. Instead of two cultures coming into violent conflict, they'd apply game theory and basic economics and figure out ways to work to mutual profit.

Cultural inequalities between races and gender would have never arisen or dissapeared more quickly, as people would question immediately whether their assumptions were true.

There would still be giant *class* inequalities but we'd basically live in a secularly moralized capitalistic society, probably democratic, and probably with a cripplingly large world population and major famines.

--

My theory behind the creation of morality: People gradually figured out rules which, if everybody lived by them, they would be happy. So, they said 'If God is so great, he MUST believe in these rules'. Hence, morality.

Hmm..

The people saying 'Without religion there are no consequences to immorality, therefore without religion people would just do whatever they felt like and attach themselves to materialism'.

First of all, aren't most atheists intellectuals, and isn't most intellectualism anti-materialistic?

Second of all, consider this: It is not in people's best interests to just follow their impulses.

It's a matter of game theory. If everybody follows the basic rules for a civil society, everybody is happier. So, it's in people's best interest to set up those rules. Even if it's as simple a rule as 'I won't kill you if you don't kill me'. Morality is in people's best interests. You don't need religion to establish that.

Hmm..

The people saying 'Without religion there are no consequences to immorality, therefore without religion people would just do whatever they felt like and attach themselves to materialism'.

First of all, aren't most atheists intellectuals, and isn't most intellectualism anti-materialistic?

Second of all, consider this: It is not in people's best interests to just follow their impulses.

It's a matter of game theory. If everybody follows the basic rules for a civil society, everybody is happier. So, it's in people's best interest to set up those rules. Even if it's as simple a rule as 'I won't kill you if you don't kill me'. Morality is in people's best interests. You don't need religion to establish that.

Indeed. I may be an athiest, but I'm probably more virtuous than most religious folks. I don't do drugs, don't drink alcohol, commit no crimes--barely ever lie--hell, I don't even drink coffee. Religion =/= morals and vice versa.

Religious Right propoganda. Do atheists kill innocent civilians by flying planes into buildings, or strapping bombs to themselves to detonate in crowds full of innocents? Do agnostics hold inquisitions or crusades? You do not need an invisible parent figure threatening you with eternal punishment to know the difference between right and wrong.

So, all atheists go on killing/raping rampages, while good religious people would NEVER do that. :rolleyes:

What planet do you live on? You just described the real world.

with out religion, wouldn't people be more uncaring towards each other? there'd be no one reminding you to think about the poor, for example. itd be much easier to take on an independent outlook, not care about the disadvantaged.

christianity, for example, teaches to love one another. without this sort of thing to live by, i argue that the world would be a worse-off place.

the real world at least has some sections not defined by materialism. that would be because they're concerned with the higher things like family, friends love, health. religion reminds us to have place in our lives for this sort of thing.

I disagree that we'd just do whatever we felt like without religion. I don't need to imagine some afterlife to attach a certain level of importance to morals and ethics.

Sense when did morals have to be defined by religion? or ethics for that matter

morals and ethics do not need to be defined by religion. but often, a religion is defined by morals and ethics that govern the way people live, for the better.

with out religion, wouldn't people be more uncaring towards each other? there'd be no one reminding you to think about the poor, for example. itd be much easier to take on an independent outlook, not care about the disadvantaged.

christianity, for example, teaches to love one another. without this sort of thing to live by, i argue that the world would be a worse-off place.

the real world at least has some sections not defined by materialism. that would be because they're concerned with the higher things like family, friends love, health. religion reminds us to have place in our lives for this sort of thing.

morals and ethics do not need to be defined by religion. but often, a religion is defined by morals and ethics that govern the way people live, for the better.

Biology and economics are the only things that can make people care about the disadvantaged. Even if someone's religion encourages them to care, if the other factors aren't present it's relatively easy to find a way out of it.

And really, how often does religion TRULY help such disenfranchised peeps, or make others truly care? Not often. Even people like Mother Teresa weren't the figures of divinity they are often made out to be. (Yes, I know, practically treasonous to say that, but do some research. She wasn't exactly a fantastic person by any means.)

As we said before, religion=/=morals. I point to a large variety of athiest friends. They typically tend to be far more reasonable and caring than most religious people I know.

'Course, there are exceptions. My friend Jake, a Bible thumper if there ever was one, truly believes in loving everyone and all that good junk. But then, as I said, he's a rare exception.

You do realise you're calling every atheist a sociopath, right? People can be moral in the absence of a supernatural father figure always watching them.

In fact, I would argue that the very presence of such a superbeing would diminish a person's capacity to behave in a moral manner, since one would never be certain if the person was behaving out of moral imperitive, or merely out of fear of divine punishment.

sorry. i don't believe now that i really thought that through.
morals and ethics can be connected to religion, but they certainly aren't defined by it.

but surely, it doesn't matter whether someone is doing the right thing because they are forced to, or want to.
what matters is that the right thing is done.

sorry. i don't believe now that i really thought that through.
morals and ethics can be connected to religion, but they certainly aren't defined by it.

but surely, it doesn't matter whether someone is doing the right thing because they are forced to, or want to.
what matters is that the right thing is done.
That's true, though we shouldn't start using "the ends justify the means" argument. Or, for that matter, the original quote, "Use the best means towards the best ends" or whatever it was exactly.

Biology and economics are the only things that can make people care about the disadvantaged. Even if someone's religion encourages them to care, if the other factors aren't present it's relatively easy to find a way out of it.

disagreed. people will care about the disadvantaged if they believe it is the right thing to do - based on their own morals, or more probably, from morals that extend from a religion.

if religion is present and economics arent, then 'getting out' of caring would be contradicting one's morals.
and then we're back to materialism. if its not going to benefit you financially, why do it??
because it would be the right thing to do.

disagreed. people will care about the disadvantaged if they believe it is the right thing to do - based on their own morals, or more probably, from morals that extend from a religion.

if religion is present and economics arent, then 'getting out' of caring would be contradicting one's morals.
and then we're back to materialism. if its not going to benefit you financially, why do it??
because it would be the right thing to do.

The morals/applications of religion are all based in either biological or economic drives. If religion is present and economics and biology aren't, the disadvantaged involved are heretics, or going to turn out better, or would benefit more from bibles than from food, or etc. It's very easy to get out of what you think your morals are when your real evolutionary moral drives don't get engaged.

The morals/applications of religion are all based in either biological or economic drives. If religion is present and economics and biology aren't, the disadvantaged involved are heretics, or going to turn out better, or would benefit more from bibles than from food, or etc. It's very easy to get out of what you think your morals are when your real evolutionary moral drives don't get engaged.

i think the human race is better than that
i think they will help where help is needed.

[yeah, ok, not in some situations. but in general]

OK. Let's see....

I think that philosophy and religion are pretty inseperable, so the first split would probably occur in the West... probably around the year 32. On this date, the philosopher, Yeshua of Nazareth, is crucified for his philosophical leanings. His philosophical leanings are largely similar to those of the out-lawed Platoism and Eastern Buddhism.

As the Roman Empire faces the troubles that await it, Nazarethism becomes popular in the Empire for its optimism, compared to the relative cynicism and pessimism of Aristotlism and Mosesianism. Eventually, Narethism enjoys the patronage of a majority of the intellectual elite of the Empire. However, due to the construction of the Great Wall, the fall of the empire to the Huns is inevitable.

The High Master of Nararethism and Emperor of the Roman Empire pleads to Attila the Hun to spare Rome. Which he does. But he also takes away key teachings of Nazarethism, which will become heavily flavored in later years by Buddhism and Confucianism (as well as by the harsh life the Mongols live) to become the philosophy governing the Mongols when they return nearly a millenia later.

Europe fall into anarchy as the Empire collapses, but Nazarethism is carried far beyond the borders of the Empire, by word and sword. In many parts of Europe, the teaching of other philosophies is banned, and those who follow those philosophies are put to the sword or the stake. Because of the violence of this period, Nazarethism is altered to fit the times and becomes Crusaderism.

Meanwhile, in Asia Minor... in about 700, another philosopher is 'born'. This one is a merchant, heavily influenced by his interactions with Mosesians and Nazarethists, he founds Hajjism. Many of his neighbors view this Hajjism as a threat, with its 'enlightened' ideas concerning women and the lower classes. They make war on this founder who, in turn, turns to the sword. For many years this war wages, but ultimately Hajjism wins out. The founder of Hajjism dies shortly after and after a couple of decades, the learnings of the founder of Hajjism are compiled into a book. While the teachings of other philosophies are not banned, they are viewed with suspicion, as they led once to the near destruction of Hajjism.

Faced with nothing but bloodshed in the past and with nothing but a hope of bloodshed for the future, the Grand Master of Crusaderism calls upon the European warlords to concentrate their efforts on one thing: conquest. And the armies of Crusaderist Europe turn outward, drive through Eastern Europe and come into conflict with Hajjism. Hajjism provides the Crusaderists with their first real threat, although they still make numerous inroads into Hajjist lands. They are only truly defeated by a Hajjist king, and come to terms with the Hajjists and then continue to drive through Northern Europe, only to run headlong into the Golden Horde of the Great Khan.

The Great Khan espouses no particular views on philosophy and takes all of the lands the Crusaderists took years to capture in a matter of months. The Hajjists are utterly smashed aside by the Golden Horde. The Golden Horde continues its drives deeper into the Middle East, not stopping until it holds both banks of the Nile River, while in Europe it stops on the Danube. In the Far East, China and much of India has fallen under the sway of the Golden Horde, with only minor defeats here and there.

While the Great Khan's ruthlessness cannot be denied, all philosophies are allowed. Schools of Crusaderism are built in Beijing, schools of Hajjism in Moscow, schools of Buddhism in Alexandria, and schools of Confucianism in Baghdad. The Great Khan attempts, and fails, to invade Japan, a land ruled by harsh, pragmatic Buddhist warlords. While the Golden Horde brings a great deal of peace and prosperity, it also acts as a lightning rod for the Black Plague. With a third of the Golden Empire's population destroyed, the empire dissolves.

With the collapse of this empire, however, the Hajjist Arabs are soon torn asunder by their own ethnic strife. Crusaderist Western Europe, which has now adopted a veritable racial purity clause, drives back into Eastern Europe. They further take advantage of Hajjist division and drive deep into the desert, with territorial gains unseen in over a century. The Crusaderists continue to drive East through Asia, but are stopped and bloodily repelled by the remnants of the Golden Horde in the Urals (while the Hajjists hold them off at the Nile, while simultaneously launching an invasion of Spain). Seeing no way through this, their lust for wealth, silks, perfumes, and spices unslaked, and charged exorbidant prices by the Golden Remnant, the Crusaderists seek an alternate route.

They begin by sending ships south, around the Horn of Africa. Although expensive, this route proves that it can be done. Eventually, some genius decides that it could be done by going all the way around the world. Because the Crusaderists are sorely pressed in Southern Europe by the Hajjists, this man is instead funded by the Hajjists. He, naturally, discovers America, and proceed to spread Hajjism among the peoples and returns home with his news. Bolstered by rumors of gold, the Hajjists send more vessels and philospher-teachers to establish an empire in the Americas. Soon, all of South America is held by the Hajjists.

Using secret arangements with the Golden Remnant, the Hajjists are able to effectively stop any further expansion into Asia or Africa by the Crusaderists. Fearing that the Hajjists may gain an un-counterable advantage, the Crusaderists soon establish their own colonies on North America. Although the Hajjists never attempt to push the Crusaderists off the continent, the impoverished stated of the Crusaderists leads the new colonies to never expand much beyond their initial gains.

Facing utter stalemate, peace reigns once more. Among the Crusaderists, a number of rogue philosophers, called heretics, give birth to Neo Nazarethism. The Hajjists once again find themselves riven with chaos in Africa and the Middle-East, as ethnic strife breaks out once more. With Neo Nazarethism comes the Enlightenment. The first to apply the principles of the Enlightenment to practicality, however, comes from the Hajjists of the Americas, many of whom do not wish to be associated any longer with the African and Middle-Eastern Hajjists who are tearing each other apart.

With the rise of Neo Nazarethism, the collapse of order among the Hajjists comes a resurgence of European might. The Crusaderist colonies in the Americans grow strong for the first time, although they are closely watched by their southern Hajjist brethren. And this is when the first European vessels reach the shores of Buddhist China and India. They possess mighty armies, powerful warships, and advanced weaponry, preventing the Europeans from creating a globe-spanning Empire. Unable to bend the Buddhists to their will, the Europeans must enter into trade with the Buddhists as equals.

Soon, the European colonies stretch West-ward across the face of North America. But they do not make it to the coast. The entirety of the Pacific Ocean is ruled by the Buddhist Chinese and their puppet states, including the West coast of North America. (It turns out that the American Hajjists were in collusion with the Buddhists.) Soon, the North American colonists and their converts are at war with the Buddhists and theirs. In Asia, Europe is able to just avoid full out war with the Buddhists. Ultimately, the North Americans make only one inroad to the Pacific Ocean and are either held off or fought back along other parts of their border with the Buddhists. Peace ensues.

Wars come and go. The borders remain largely unchanged for nearly two centuries as technology slowly snails forward. Today, in the Two-thousand and Sixth year since the birth of the founder of Nazarethism, technology is at the birth of the second industrial revolution. The last standardized tracks for the first transcontinental trains are being laid. In South America, still largely Hajjist, but now open to 'foreign' philosophies, two bicycle mechanics are toying with the shape of bird wings. The Imperial Navy of His Divine Celestial Majesty, the Emperor of China and Greater Asia has begun its first world tour, visiting ports in the Americas, Europe, and Africa, while Korean and Japanese seperatists jointly plan rebellion. In Europe, racial purity has long been taken to an extreme, and it is a rare sight to see anyone who does not possess blonde hair and blue eyes, except for foreign tourists. The North American colonies have been largely usurped by the Greater Chinese Empire and the United States of New Hajjistan. In Africa, the Hajjist Republic of Africa has arisen, and have begun construction of their first warships, with long term plans of eventually contesting the Greater Chinese Empire for control of the seas.

EDIT: I'm gonna take a breather and get a cup of water, now....

i think the human race is better than that
i think they will help where help is needed.

[yeah, ok, not in some situations. but in general]

The only reason the human race is "better than that" is because we have a biological drive to further our communities, as doing so was evolutionarily essential. When that drive is successfully exploited, people care. When it isn't they don't. Religion doesn't influence the process one way or another.

It would be a dull world without some of the great art and music that was inspired by religion...

OK. Let's see....

I think that philosophy and religion are pretty inseperable, so the first split would probably occur in the West... probably around the year 32. On this date, the philosopher, Yeshua of Nazareth, is crucified for his philosophical leanings. His philosophical leanings are largely similar to those of the out-lawed Platoism and Eastern Buddhism.

As the Roman Empire faces the troubles that await it, Nazarethism becomes popular in the Empire for its optimism, compared to the relative cynicism and pessimism of Aristotlism and Mosesianism. Eventually, Narethism enjoys the patronage of a majority of the intellectual elite of the Empire. However, due to the construction of the Great Wall, the fall of the empire to the Huns is inevitable.

The High Master of Nararethism and Emperor of the Roman Empire pleads to Attila the Hun to spare Rome. Which he does. But he also takes away key teachings of Nazarethism, which will become heavily flavored in later years by Buddhism and Confucianism (as well as by the harsh life the Mongols live) to become the philosophy governing the Mongols when they return nearly a millenia later.

Europe fall into anarchy as the Empire collapses, but Nazarethism is carried far beyond the borders of the Empire, by word and sword. In many parts of Europe, the teaching of other philosophies is banned, and those who follow those philosophies are put to the sword or the stake. Because of the violence of this period, Nazarethism is altered to fit the times and becomes Crusaderism.

Meanwhile, in Asia Minor... in about 700, another philosopher is 'born'. This one is a merchant, heavily influenced by his interactions with Mosesians and Nazarethists, he founds Hajjism. Many of his neighbors view this Hajjism as a threat, with its 'enlightened' ideas concerning women and the lower classes. They make war on this founder who, in turn, turns to the sword. For many years this war wages, but ultimately Hajjism wins out. The founder of Hajjism dies shortly after and after a couple of decades, the learnings of the founder of Hajjism are compiled into a book. While the teachings of other philosophies are not banned, they are viewed with suspicion, as they led once to the near destruction of Hajjism.

Faced with nothing but bloodshed in the past and with nothing but a hope of bloodshed for the future, the Grand Master of Crusaderism calls upon the European warlords to concentrate their efforts on one thing: conquest. And the armies of Crusaderist Europe turn outward, drive through Eastern Europe and come into conflict with Hajjism. Hajjism provides the Crusaderists with their first real threat, although they still make numerous inroads into Hajjist lands. They are only truly defeated by a Hajjist king, and come to terms with the Hajjists and then continue to drive through Northern Europe, only to run headlong into the Golden Horde of the Great Khan.

The Great Khan espouses no particular views on philosophy and takes all of the lands the Crusaderists took years to capture in a matter of months. The Hajjists are utterly smashed aside by the Golden Horde. The Golden Horde continues its drives deeper into the Middle East, not stopping until it holds both banks of the Nile River, while in Europe it stops on the Danube. In the Far East, China and much of India has fallen under the sway of the Golden Horde, with only minor defeats here and there.

While the Great Khan's ruthlessness cannot be denied, all philosophies are allowed. Schools of Crusaderism are built in Beijing, schools of Hajjism in Moscow, schools of Buddhism in Alexandria, and schools of Confucianism in Baghdad. The Great Khan attempts, and fails, to invade Japan, a land ruled by harsh, pragmatic Buddhist warlords. While the Golden Horde brings a great deal of peace and prosperity, it also acts as a lightning rod for the Black Plague. With a third of the Golden Empire's population destroyed, the empire dissolves.

With the collapse of this empire, however, the Hajjist Arabs are soon torn asunder by their own ethnic strife. Crusaderist Western Europe, which has now adopted a veritable racial purity clause, drives back into Eastern Europe. They further take advantage of Hajjist division and drive deep into the desert, with territorial gains unseen in over a century. The Crusaderists continue to drive East through Asia, but are stopped and bloodily repelled by the remnants of the Golden Horde in the Urals (while the Hajjists hold them off at the Nile, while simultaneously launching an invasion of Spain). Seeing no way through this, their lust for wealth, silks, perfumes, and spices unslaked, and charged exorbidant prices by the Golden Remnant, the Crusaderists seek an alternate route.

They begin by sending ships south, around the Horn of Africa. Although expensive, this route proves that it can be done. Eventually, some genius decides that it could be done by going all the way around the world. Because the Crusaderists are sorely pressed in Southern Europe by the Hajjists, this man is instead funded by the Hajjists. He, naturally, discovers America, and proceed to spread Hajjism among the peoples and returns home with his news. Bolstered by rumors of gold, the Hajjists send more vessels and philospher-teachers to establish an empire in the Americas. Soon, all of South America is held by the Hajjists.

Using secret arangements with the Golden Remnant, the Hajjists are able to effectively stop any further expansion into Asia or Africa by the Crusaderists. Fearing that the Hajjists may gain an un-counterable advantage, the Crusaderists soon establish their own colonies on North America. Although the Hajjists never attempt to push the Crusaderists off the continent, the impoverished stated of the Crusaderists leads the new colonies to never expand much beyond their initial gains.

Facing utter stalemate, peace reigns once more. Among the Crusaderists, a number of rogue philosophers, called heretics, give birth to Neo Nazarethism. The Hajjists once again find themselves riven with chaos in Africa and the Middle-East, as ethnic strife breaks out once more. With Neo Nazarethism comes the Enlightenment. The first to apply the principles of the Enlightenment to practicality, however, comes from the Hajjists of the Americas, many of whom do not wish to be associated any longer with the African and Middle-Eastern Hajjists who are tearing each other apart.

With the rise of Neo Nazarethism, the collapse of order among the Hajjists comes a resurgence of European might. The Crusaderist colonies in the Americans grow strong for the first time, although they are closely watched by their southern Hajjist brethren. And this is when the first European vessels reach the shores of Buddhist China and India. They possess mighty armies, powerful warships, and advanced weaponry, preventing the Europeans from creating a globe-spanning Empire. Unable to bend the Buddhists to their will, the Europeans must enter into trade with the Buddhists as equals.

Soon, the European colonies stretch West-ward across the face of North America. But they do not make it to the coast. The entirety of the Pacific Ocean is ruled by the Buddhist Chinese and their puppet states, including the West coast of North America. (It turns out that the American Hajjists were in collusion with the Buddhists.) Soon, the North American colonists and their converts are at war with the Buddhists and theirs. In Asia, Europe is able to just avoid full out war with the Buddhists. Ultimately, the North Americans make only one inroad to the Pacific Ocean and are either held off or fought back along other parts of their border with the Buddhists. Peace ensues.

Wars come and go. The borders remain largely unchanged for nearly two centuries as technology slowly snails forward. Today, in the Two-thousand and Sixth year since the birth of the founder of Nazarethism, technology is at the birth of the second industrial revolution. The last standardized tracks for the first transcontinental trains are being laid. In South America, still largely Hajjist, but now open to 'foreign' philosophies, two bicycle mechanics are toying with the shape of bird wings. The Imperial Navy of His Divine Celestial Majesty, the Emperor of China and Greater Asia has begun its first world tour, visiting ports in the Americas, Europe, and Africa, while Korean and Japanese seperatists jointly plan rebellion. In Europe, racial purity has long been taken to an extreme, and it is a rare sight to see anyone who does not possess blonde hair and blue eyes, except for foreign tourists. The North American colonies have been largely usurped by the Greater Chinese Empire and the United States of New Hajjistan. In Africa, the Hajjist Republic of Africa has arisen, and have begun construction of their first warships, with long term plans of eventually contesting the Greater Chinese Empire for control of the seas.

EDIT: I'm gonna take a breather and get a cup of water, now....
Now that is what I'm talking about. A true scenario.

Frankly, I really like your scenario. It's both realistic and appealing. Not so sure about the technological bit, but I'm sure in the 21st century of this philosophy driven world we're likely to see equivalents of World War I and II, which will speed up technology much like it did in our own history.

Now that is what I'm talking about. A true scenario.

Frankly, I really like your scenario. It's both realistic and appealing. Not so sure about the technological bit, but I'm sure in the 21st century of this philosophy driven world we're likely to see equivalents of World War I and II, which will speed up technology much like it did in our own history.

Except those wars happen a Century later and occur between the Hajjist Republic of Africa (allied with the United States of New Hajjistan and the Japanese and Korean seperatists) and the Greater Chinese Empire....

EDIT: WAIT! That's what you said. Brain fried. :(

The only reason the human race is "better than that" is because we have a biological drive to further our communities, as doing so was evolutionarily essential. When that drive is successfully exploited, people care. When it isn't they don't. Religion doesn't influence the process one way or another.

furthering our communities doesn't seem like a good reason. today, especially, there are enough people around to keep the species alive, whether or not we care. perhaps it is religion which takes that biological imperative and exploits it for the benefit for everyone, not just those who will contribute to the survival of the species.

without religion, the world would be way more unconcerned about the little guys. it would be a worse off place.

Except those wars happen a Century later and occur between the Hajjist Republic of Africa (allied with the United States of New Hajjistan and the Japanese and Korean seperatists) and the Greater Chinese Empire....

EDIT: WAIT! That's what you said. Brain fried. :(
Definitely some odd contenders...but again, I like it.

...

You know, this whole philosphy driven history sounds like a FANTASTIC idea for a series of alternate history novels...

furthering our communities doesn't seem like a good reason. today, especially, there are enough people around to keep the species alive, whether or not we care. perhaps it is religion which takes that biological imperative and exploits it for the benefit for everyone, not just those who will contribute to the survival of the species.

without religion, the world would be way more unconcerned about the little guys. it would be a worse off place.

No. Because philosophy would tell people that it's morally responsible to take care of the poor and down-trodden.

Definitely some odd contenders...but again, I like it.

...

You know, this whole philosphy driven history sounds like a FANTASTIC idea for a series of alternate history novels...

Speaking of which... I still need to finish In the Presence of Mine Enemies... and apparently Harry Turtledove wrote a book about Mars being large enough to hold an atmosphere and sustain life when intelligent life is discovered on Mars (Minerva) during the height of the Cold War, titled A World of Difference... this book calls out to me.... Oh. And I need to finish The Black Angel and Blood Avatar. :x

Speaking of which... I still need to finish In the Presence of Mine Enemies... and apparently Harry Turtledove wrote a book about Mars being large enough to hold an atmosphere and sustain life when intelligent life is discovered on Mars (Minerva) during the height of the Cold War, titled A World of Difference... this book calls out to me.... Oh. And I need to finish The Black Angel and Blood Avatar. :x
Try his alternate World War One series. Starts with How Few Remain.

...

Ya know, I'm an aspiring writer. Perhaps I should file away the idea of a philosophy driven society for further usage later down the line...yes, I think I will...

History would have been interesting with people having to find another excuse besides religion to start wars over. I suspect there'd be a lot more wars over women.

Try his alternate World War One series. Starts with How Few Remain.

...

Ya know, I'm an aspiring writer. Perhaps I should file away the idea of a philosophy driven society for further usage later down the line...yes, I think I will...

Actually, I've read it. :p

Now I've made my way through a third of the WWII books (Settling Accounts, not the other ones)....

No. Because philosophy would tell people that it's morally responsible to take care of the poor and down-trodden.

philosophy cannot take the place of religion because of the lack of a belief in a higher power, right?
yeah. i don't think i can argue with your logic.

here's a thought though....who says that religion was 'invented'?
it could have been 'discovered'. ie. maybe, religion is right. what would the world be like if a higher being did exist and we had no idea of its existence?

Actually, I've read it. :p

Now I've made my way through a third of the WWII books (Settling Accounts, not the other ones)....
Ah, yes. Drive to the East was a little disappoint almost. I am eager to see what results from the U.S.A's nuclear weaponry program, though, and to see if our little Hitler wannabe will make it out of the war alive or if he'll commit suicide like his idol.

philosophy cannot take the place of religion because of the lack of a belief in a higher power, right?
yeah. i don't think i can argue with your logic.

here's a thought though....who says that religion was 'invented'?
it could have been 'discovered'. ie. maybe, religion is right. what would the world be like if a higher being did exist and we had no idea of its existence?

*Shrugs*

Philosophy is merely science with out the instruments. It's also one of the fundamentals of both religion and science. You can have philosophy without religion, but you cannot have religion without philosophy. Similarly, you can have philosophy without science, but you cannot have science without philosophy.

The metaphysics of philosophy becomes religion, while epistemology becomes science. If you were to strip philosophy of metaphysics and epistemology, you would still have aesthetics (art), ethics (feed the poor, respect your elders), and logic.

Metaphysics is, of course, still a key to well-thought life. It is one of the things that seperates us from the beasties, this ability to think about what happens after life. Similarly, epistemology, that is, where knowledge comes in, is also key, since humans are one of the few animals that can (seemingly) learn from the expiriences of others.

REGARDLESS, ethics is not encompassed by religion, but by philosophy. It is the philosophy of the religion that gives it its sense of right and wrong.

Mostly? I speak of organized religions, such as Christianity, or anything else that could dissuade a person from scientific fact. Those that focus on the spirit of the self, such as Satanists, would still be acceptable, as they do not detract from scientific truth. :headbang:


You see, 'organized' religion and detraction from science are in no way synonymous, I am a Christian, reborn in the sanctifying Blood of my Messiah Christ, but... wait, how does my acknowledgement say anyhting about my scientific feelings? You assume that since many who follow a dogma don't believe in evolution that all organized religion must completely detest all forms of science... that is unbelievably narrow-minded.

To give an example, lets talk about evolution, there certainly is a lot of science that points to evolution being a real possiblility (if you can show me complete undeniable proof I would like to see it....) so, I can accept that we might have evolved, it seems rather plausible, a lot of scienctific findings support it, however it is indeed unproven, now, as far as my beliefs, the Bible (as I have read) does not in any place say that evoltuion is completely false, my feelings, although I lean towards un-evolution, I don't really care, that is not the crux of my faith

You jump to ridiculous conclusions such as "people who are in a religion (which, actually includes everyone) completely reject all of science" to explain that "everyone" comment, athiesm is a religion, it is the belief in lack of God, materialism is a religion, one worships money, and goods, and it effects what they value, and how they interact and view people, and the world around them, so, whatever belief you have, my religious friend (even, perhaps scientology) remember, that you do indeed have one

Now, the topic of the forum itself, 'what if the world had no religion' is a stupid 'what if' question, there is no way at all to make any conjecture on how 10,000 years of human history would have changed without the single most important factor of its development, perhaps you could stick to a smaller 'what if' question, like, 'what if mormons had settled more widely throughout the country?" (rather than such dense ratios in Utah), or what would have happened had Hitler not invaded Russia (although conjecture on that topic is run thoroughly dry I assume)

<snip>

Failure to ask 'what if' leads to nuclear war. *Nods sagely*

Someday, young Padawan, I shall show you why this is so.

*snip*
Thanks for the rant. I assume what I do because most of my experience with religious peoples--my friend Jake being, again, a rare exception--is that they ARE idiots who prefer their Bible thumping to actual, scientific fact.
And please don't insult me with scientology. That is just...ugh. I am an athiest. I do not worship anything. I am a skeptic by nature. I need proof before I can believe anything. Sometimes, I envy those capable of faith, for except in terms of people's ability, I am in no way capable of faith. So, please, do not accuse me of such crap, because not only do you make yourself sound like a complete hypocrite--what a surprise from a religious person--you invalidate your own points.

Further, I especially pity you, for being a reborn Christian. I've noticed that they tend to be the worst offenders when it comes to Bible-thumping.

BUT WE ARE DIGRESSING FROM THE MAIN POINT.

I asked the question I did because it IS a relevant idea, because it is not asked often, and because it provokes academic thought and discussion. See Jerusalas and his philosophy argument, which I have come to agree with because not only is it logical, it is reasonable AND realistic.

Frankly, I'd rather not argue about this, and if you are willing to let bygones be bygones and all that jazz, we can get back to the subject at hand.

Sometimes, I envy those capable of faith, for except in terms of people's ability, I am in no way capable of faith.

No. You believe in science. You're perfectly capable of faith, as your belief in science proves.

funny, I dont recall saying that we should all cease asking 'what if' I said it is reletively pointless to assume we have any idea what a religion free world would be liek (considering everything waqs ultimately made from God in the first place...)

funny, I dont recall saying that we should all cease asking 'what if' I said it is reletively pointless to assume we have any idea what a religion free world would be liek (considering everything waqs ultimately made from God in the first place...)

It has a perfect point. It allows us to appreciate the fact that we have religion. That we are not living in a nation about to be thrown into the greatest meat-grinder ever known to man, which will literally consume an entire generation of men-folk. That we live in a relatively stable, relatively peaceful world.

No. You believe in science. You're perfectly capable of faith, as your belief in science proves.
...perhaps we simply differ on what the word faith actually means. I see it as meaning "believing in something that has not been proven/cannot be proven" but you may see it another way.

Der Teutoniker: Nor did I imply you said that. It is still a relevant question though. Don't let your beliefs close your mind to interesting ideals.

...perhaps we simply differ on what the word faith actually means. I see it as meaning "believing in something that has not been proven/cannot be proven" but you may see it another way.

Prove that you're recieving stimuli from your fingers, your mouth. You have faith in your senses. And you have faith in the scientific instruments that tell you what it is that you believe. From a philosophical standpoint, your belief in science is as much a religion as Der Teutoniker's belief in God.

Prove that you're recieving stimuli from your fingers, your mouth. You have faith in your senses. And you have faith in the scientific instruments that tell you what it is that you believe. From a philosophical standpoint, your belief in science is as much a religion as Der Teutoniker's belief in God.
...err...

Eh...I suppose if you look at it that way, you could say that. 'Course, makes you wonder what I'd call it. Scientology is already taken, and I wouldn't want to be likened to that crap.

...

Bah. I'll just call it science. Good enough for me. =/

...err...

Eh...I suppose if you look at it that way, you could say that. 'Course, makes you wonder what I'd call it. Scientology is already taken, and I wouldn't want to be likened to that crap.

...

Bah. I'll just call it science. Good enough for me. =/

Heh. It works. It's what everyone else knows it as, after all. :p

Okay, so let us back track to the foundings of civilization. Our ancestors are finally tapping into their sentience, but instead of using myths and odd stories to explain all that is around them, they decide to try to find out just how everything works. So, they do so.
Myths do not explain the world around them, they explain what the world around them means. Regardless of how things work, people would still desire to know what it means.

Okay, so let us back track to the foundings of civilization. Our ancestors are finally tapping into their sentience, but instead of using myths and odd stories to explain all that is around them, they decide to try to find out just how everything works. So, they do so.

Fast forward to today.

...


Interesting idea.

I think what we would have, for the most part, is a lot less, possibly NO fiction. If, instead of creating some unseen super power to explain things, our earliest ancestors had sought out scientific truth, they would not have begun the process of creating fiction.

Art would be entirely different. The earliest art forms WERE depictions of what man saw (animals, hunters, and the like) and then god figures were added. Art evolved to include fanciful characters, ie dragons, magicians and so on. Theatre story telling grew out of that, and abstract art, fiction books, most of what we see in the movies...

I think that the prevalent art form would be biographies. With no belief in the supernatural, we would be more focussed on what actual, real life heroes were doing. We would have a much better grasp of history, as it would have been better recorded. With no religions and their need to alter what may have been historical documents to fit dogma, our distant past would be a clearer, open book. As far as morals go, I think that we would be more conscious of group survival needs, and that our moral code would probably lean more towards what is good for all of humanity. We would probably be more communistic in nature, from each according to his ability to each according to his need. This would help the group in its search for truth... learning from each other is better possible if everyone is alive and healthy and able to share what they know.

I am not sure that we would, necessarily, be extremely further advanced scientifically, but certainly somewhat. Some of the discoveries could only be made after a foundation was laid. Even with the idea that these ancestors would be seeking the truth, there is no basis for thinking that they would get there that much faster. If it were easier and safer to make scientific discoveries, it might turn out that the drive to do so would be lessened.

The likelyhood is that communication would be better. A knowlege seeking culture would be more likely to try and learn neighboring languages and share ideas with those neighbors, without the barrier of religious zeal between them. On the other hand, religion, and the perceived need to proscelytize, has been a major reason for a great deal of human expansion worldwide. So perhaps the human race would be a smaller group, but I imagine we would be just as interested (or perhaps more so) in exploration.

So... smaller numbers of humans, science about the same, no fiction... that is my guess.

You see, 'organized' religion and detraction from science are in no way synonymous, I am a Christian, reborn in the sanctifying Blood of my Messiah Christ, but... wait, how does my acknowledgement say anyhting about my scientific feelings? You assume that since many who follow a dogma don't believe in evolution that all organized religion must completely detest all forms of science... that is unbelievably narrow-minded.

Uh-huh...

To give an example, lets talk about evolution, there certainly is a lot of science that points to evolution being a real possiblility (if you can show me complete undeniable proof I would like to see it....) so, I can accept that we might have evolved, it seems rather plausible, a lot of scienctific findings support it, however it is indeed unproven, now, as far as my beliefs, the Bible (as I have read) does not in any place say that evoltuion is completely false, my feelings, although I lean towards un-evolution, I don't really care, that is not the crux of my faith

Yeah...I assume you lean towards intelligent falling as well, as gravity is "indeed unproven".

You jump to ridiculous conclusions such as "people who are in a religion (which, actually includes everyone) completely reject all of science" to explain that "everyone" comment, athiesm is a religion, it is the belief in lack of God, materialism is a religion, one worships money, and goods, and it effects what they value, and how they interact and view people, and the world around them, so, whatever belief you have, my religious friend (even, perhaps scientology) remember, that you do indeed have one

Saying nothing for materialism, Atheism is the lack of belief in a god. The word order is important, slight difference between "lack of belief" and "belief in the lack"

Now, the topic of the forum itself, 'what if the world had no religion' is a stupid 'what if' question, there is no way at all to make any conjecture on how 10,000 years of human history would have changed without the single most important factor of its development, perhaps you could stick to a smaller 'what if' question, like, 'what if mormons had settled more widely throughout the country?" (rather than such dense ratios in Utah), or what would have happened had Hitler not invaded Russia (although conjecture on that topic is run thoroughly dry I assume)

Philosophy was probably more important to our development...

There would be no morals or ethics. Poeple would do whatever they felt like, because there would be no consequences after death.

That's bullshit and only serves to illustrate the moral vacancy thiestic moral philosophy. There are plenty of societies whose beliefs have no concept of an afterlife and they have very highly developed ethics and morals. "Morality" based on fear of punishment is not morality. It's a fake saftey code. Like a construction site with signs that read "beware of falling objects, wear your yamulka."

People would find something else to attach their worship to - celebrities, possessions. We'd be living in a materialistic society
On the plus side, my Sundays would be freed up

True. Capitalism and Communism served the exact same fuction as religious wars in the Cold War.

Ther would definetly be a lot less genocide in this world.

Ther would definetly be a lot less genocide in this world.

I disagree, people have a penchant for hatered, and fighting, and we would find excuses to try to kill off different people, for example Hitler killed the race of Jews, he dod not seek out practicing committed Jews, but by blood, essentially, ethnically, like the Serbians did in Kosovo, Saddam did to the Kurds, and so forth, and actually ethnic factors are far more prevaent for genocide than religions I believe (many religious wars are to conquer, or subdue, reather than exterminate everyone who believes differently)

and to comment on prior, Athiesm is the belief that there is no god/ess/s, so, belief in lack of god/ess/s also a lack of belief, belief in lack entails lack of belief, that word change is similar, but the fact that and athiest cant prove it makes it a belief (and even proven facts are still beliefs, however verified because many can disbelieve them should they so choose), again let me restat that, and athiest believes that there are no divine forces, so s/he believes in lack thereof right? hmmm, belief in lack of god/ess/ and I think I am right on this one... athiesm is a religion


EDIT: thank you Jerusalas for some points you made prior about something I forgot... defining faith I believe

and also, religion fits into the subset of philosophy so they arent always two entirely different things, although philosophy need not be religion, they often parallel each other, as I defined religion as 'anyhitng that shapes how you view or interact with others/the world around you'

ps I know, my spelling sucks, but it is not so unclear that you cannot get my point, and I dont want to spend ten minutes crossing my 't's and adding tittles

A society not evolving the meme of religion is like fish not evolving fins: it doesn't work.
Ah yes, but fish that grow out of fins become mammals. And then become intelligent.

and to comment on prior, Athiesm is the belief that there is no god/ess/s, so, belief in lack of god/ess/s also a lack of belief, belief in lack entails lack of belief, that word change is similar, but the fact that and athiest cant prove it makes it a belief (and even proven facts are still beliefs, however verified because many can disbelieve them should they so choose), again let me restat that, and athiest believes that there are no divine forces, so s/he believes in lack thereof right? hmmm, belief in lack of god/ess/ and I think I am right on this one... athiesm is a religion

Dude....that was basically nothing but commas.

See, here's the thing...There's no proof either way, so you wouldn't believe either way. If you're not believing in a god, that would make you an Atheist.

and also, religion fits into the subset of philosophy so they arent always two entirely different things, although philosophy need not be religion, they often parallel each other, as I defined religion as 'anyhitng that shapes how you view or interact with others/the world around you'

Well, that's a lot of things...American Football, for one thing.

ps I know, my spelling sucks, but it is not so unclear that you cannot get my point, and I dont want to spend ten minutes crossing my 't's and adding tittles

How about periods?

Gentlemen, please, let's not let this turn into a religious debate. It's academic discussion, not a flame war.

religion is a crutch, it makes you stupid....if it were not for religion we would definitely be far advanced of where we are today.... or extinct as early progress without time for civilization/common sense to evolve we may nuked ourselves a 1000 yrs ago....or global warming would have happened much sooner and the earth would be a big desert now ......

religion is a crutch, it makes you stupid....if it were not for religion we would definitely be far advanced of where we are today.... or extinct as early progress without time for civilization/common sense to evolve we may nuked ourselves a 1000 yrs ago....or global warming would have happened much sooner and the earth would be a big desert now ......

You know about as much about climatology and human nature as "Dubya" Bush does about, well, pretty much anything.

I imagine that there were people originally, in prehistoric times, without any religion, but they clearly didnt make it. religion seems to be a necessary developmental stage. while it can be a hindrance, like now, without science or technology it may be necessary. eventually we will grow out of it, but it has helped us in the past.