NationStates Jolt Archive

Well, my personal opinion is yes.

Religion is the single biggest cause of bloodshed in human history.
It is unnecessary in modern times, acting as an excuse for ignorance and intolerance.
Religions are, generally speaking, the early forms of government. Having established true governments, religions are no longer needed.
Currently religion serves no purpose whatsoever, except to provide comfort for those who are unable to accept certain truths. It is akin to using narcotics to escape reality.

So on and so forth.

Thoughts, opinions and please, why?

(As an after thought, lets try and avoid any forms of flamming or trolling, shall we? Civilized is the word of the day.)

I used to think like that when I was a kid, but as I mature I have come to understand that it is acceptable for religion to continue to be allowed to cause wars, because invariably it is religious people killing one another, not atheists.

absolutly not.

I abhore organized religion. I feel very much like you do, that it has accomplished great evils and only scant benefit to humanity.

That being said it is still the fundamental right of every human being to believe and worship as he or she wishes to, in the privacy of their own homes and places of worship, in so far as it does not impact the rights of others.

To abolish the right of the free and private exercise of religion would be an assassination on the fundamental liberties of mankind.

(As an after thought, lets try and avoid any forms of flamming or trolling, shall we? Civilized is the word of the day.)

so... uh... calling religious people "weak minded" surely doesn't count as trolling right?

I do, however, feel that erecting a building for something you believe in a public place is offensive.

I consider the construction of a church/mosque/cinagog(sp.?) to be along the same lines as creating statues of two men kissing or of the construction of a whites-only club. It is offensive to people, and as such infringes on peoples rights to feel safe and comfortable in public.

Ahhh, touchee. Perhaps an edit is due.

Original post edited, thanks smunkee.

"Science without religion is lame, and religion without science is blind."

Remember, what we want here is more personal freedoms, not less.

It depends on what you think religion is. Should organized religion be abolished? Maybe. Should all religion/belief systems be abolished? ABSOLUTELY NOT! People will end up being morally bankrupt and hopeless if they have nothing to believe at all. Please clarify your question.

I do, however, feel that erecting a building for something you believe in a public place is offensive.

I consider the construction of a church/mosque/cinagog(sp.?) to be along the same lines as creating statues of two men kissing or of the construction of a whites-only club. It is offensive to people, and as such infringes on peoples rights to feel safe and comfortable in public.

why do people suddenly have the right not to be offended? surely everything is offensive to someone..... just a thought.

Maybe humans should be abolished, then you would see an end to bloodshed. Religion is the excuse, not the cause. So absolutely not. Free people have the right to believe what they want and organise how they like. So long as they don't dictate other's lives, you have no right to dictate theirs.

It depends on what you think religion is. Should organized religion be abolished? Maybe. Should all religion/belief systems be abolished? ABSOLUTELY NOT! People will end up being morally bankrupt and hopeless if they have nothing to believe at all. Please clarify your question.
there is no proof that people "without anything to believe in" are morally bankrupt.

I know many atheists who are quite moral.

People will end up being morally bankrupt and hopeless if they have nothing to believe at all. Please clarify your question.

I'd rather live in moral bankruptcy than misguided naïveté.

Maybe humans should be abolished, then you would see an end to bloodshed. Religion is the excuse, not the cause. So absolutely not. Free people have the right to believe what they want and organise how they like. So long as they don't dictate other's lives, you have no right to dictate theirs.
well put. ;)

On the contrary, morals are NOT dictated by religious beliefs. Instead morals are dependant upon society. The fact many morals are considered to derive from religion is because organised religions were the previous societies.

there is no proof that people "without anything to believe in" are morally bankrupt.

I know many atheists who are quite moral.
Be that as it may, it does not give one the right to not allow others to believe freely, so long as they aren't hurting anyone.

On the contrary, morals are NOT dictated by religious beliefs. Instead morals are dependant upon society. The fact many morals are considered to derive from religion is because organised religions were the previous societies.
Or a feature of them. The "excuse" I was referring to.

there is no proof that people "without anything to believe in" are morally bankrupt.

I know many atheists who are quite moral.

Yes, but these athiests must have their own values and beliefs that they follow. If they believed absolutely nothing, then they would be left with only instincts. Religion preaches moral values, but the lack of religion is not the lack of morals. But the lack of your own guideline and rules to life will result n the lack of morals.

It depends on what your government you have for example i have a Corrupt Dictatorship but I allow religion. It Just depends.

Be that as it may, it does not give one the right to not allow others to believe freely, so long as they aren't hurting anyone.
I agree.

I wonder though who gets to decide what "hurting someone" is. I have heard some pretty radical definitions of it.

It depends on what your government you have for example i have a Corrupt Dictatorship but I allow religion. It Just depends.
The government should get its bloody nose out of things, and stick to making sure the economy runs well, and that it provides law and order efficiently. It has no job regulating people's lives.

Yes, but these athiests must have their own values and beliefs that they follow. If they believed absolutely nothing, then they would be left with only instincts. Religion preaches moral values, but the lack of religion is not the lack of morals. But the lack of your own guideline and rules to life will result n the lack of morals.

I suppose, if you include things like "reason" in the set 'Beliefs'.

Yes, but these athiests must have their own values and beliefs that they follow. If they believed absolutely nothing, then they would be left with only instincts. Religion preaches moral values, but the lack of religion is not the lack of morals. But the lack of your own guideline and rules to life will result n the lack of morals.
you obviously then can have beliefs and values without religion. All I am saying is it's not an absolute. It's not black and white where it would be religious=moral, no religion = immoral.

Since I dig that whole "freedom" thing I say no.

The government should get its bloody nose out of things, and stick to making sure the economy runs well, and that it provides law and order efficiently. It has no job regulating people's lives.
wow. I agree with you a lot today.... it's kinda scary :eek:

wow. I agree with you a lot today.... it's kinda scary :eek:
We disagree usually?

To suggest that Religion is the cause of most, or even many, wars and so on is to misunderstand the deeper causes. Religion is used as justification - you can feel better about yourself if you can convince yourself you're doing something "right" rather than something that only benefits you. But even without religion, unless all moral systems are entirely abolished as well, we will still have people seeking to justify their actions. Germany in WWII was athiest, and the nation/fatherland became the center of morality measurement - something was good insofar as it was good for the State, and bad insofar as it was bad for the State. Here we have both aspects - a war of expansion for many materialist reasons, as well as justification. Only the complete destruction of moral systems will end this tendency to justify things and fight in the name of rightness - but, in a cache 22, once we get rid of moral systems there's no reason for War to be considered wrong. Oops. :P

On the other hand, if we want to get rid of wars, we'd have to get rid of what people -really- fight over - stuff. It is true that the occasional nutjob will kill someone because "God told him to" but murder happens far more often because someone wants something someone else has. Unfortunately, we can't get rid of stuff. Even if we blew up all our houses, people would still possess territory. And food.

No, Religion is frequently pointless, but it does offer various systems of morality that have held our world together for thousands of years. Abolishing it (making it illegal, etc.) would not make it go away - you would have to kill everyone who subscribed to every single religion. I sense anger at that which makes you uncomfortable ;)

*snip*
Excellent post. Essentially, we are the centre of all problems. Not religion, or any other justification we use. The sooner we realise this the better.

We disagree usually?
sorry, I had you confused with another Europa... I think.....:confused: I have no clue... I usually don't agree with anyone on here much... most people think I am a nut. :cool:

sorry, I had you confused with another Europa... I think.....:confused: I have no clue... I usually don't agree with anyone on here much... most people think I am a nut. :cool:
Probably Europa Alpha, the ranting leftie. My polar opposite.

you obviously then can have beliefs and values without religion. All I am saying is it's not an absolute. It's not black and white where it would be religious=moral, no religion = immoral.
I didn't say it was black and white either. If the OP's definition of religion included every religion in the world and people's own moral values, then the world would end up morally bankrupt. It was just to show that the definition of religion is not exactly fixed.

Probably Europa Alpha, the ranting leftie. My polar opposite.
ah.. yeah. I bet you are right.:)

I didn't say it was black and white either. If the OP's definition of religion included every religion in the world and people's own moral values, then the world would end up morally bankrupt. It was just to show that the definition of religion is not exactly fixed.

ah. then I grossly misunderstood your post, please forgive me. ;)

if however morals are defined by the society you live in, then can an entire society actually be morally bankrupt?

probably best discussed elsewhere though.

ah. then I grossly misunderstood your post, please forgive me. ;)

if however morals are defined by the society you live in, then can an entire society actually be morally bankrupt?

probably best discussed elsewhere though.
Depends on whether you consider the world a moral vacuum, or a world of absolutes with a lot of grey in between the white and black. I personally go for the second interpretation. But yeah, this is for another topic.

I used to think like that when I was a kid, but as I mature I have come to understand that it is acceptable for religion to continue to be allowed to cause wars, because invariably it is religious people killing one another, not atheists.Hahaha, well said.

People should be free do believe whatever they please, and express those beliefs however they see fit - as long as they don't impede the freedoms of others.

That said, I really, really wish people would stop being religious.

Usually it's not the religion itself that is the cause for bloodshed. As with so many other civilisational differences, religion is used merely as an excuse for violence.

It seems almost assured that if there had never been religion, people would have found another reason to brutalise each other. After all, when it comes to violence and the reasons for violence, the human mind is almost infinite in its creativity.

Beyond that, "abolishing" (banning?) certain ways of thought is a very Orwellian thing to suggest.

Excellent post. Essentially, we are the centre of all problems. Not religion, or any other justification we use. The sooner we realise this the better.

I agree as well. Plus, if religion stopped existing, people would just find anouther excuse to kill each other. People have used Darwin's ideas as a justification for mass murders, does that mean we should ban evolution as well?

Usually it's not the religion itself that is the cause for bloodshed. As with so many other civilisational differences, religion is used merely as an excuse for violence.

It seems almost assured that if there had never been religion, people would have found another reason to brutalise each other. After all, when it comes to violence and the reasons for violence, the human mind is almost infinite in its creativity.

Beyond that, "abolishing" (banning?) certain ways of thought is a very Orwellian thing to suggest.
Precisely. We'd just end up banning free thought.

I agree as well. Plus, if religion stopped existing, people would just find anouther excuse to kill each other. People have used Darwin's ideas as a justification for mass murders, does that mean we should ban evolution as well?
If people want an excuse to do something, they will find it. Blaming the excuses is an exercise in futility and stupidity.

I strongly believe that it absolutely should NOT be abolished. I must restate a few good points I have seen:

Religion is not the cause of violence. It is an excuse:
It's simply human nature to kill each other. Religion is just used as an excuse for this impulse. Remember, the original message of most religions (even Islam and Christianity, which have both been used to kill many people) start out strongly being about peace. People simply use religion as a tool. If it wasn't religion, it'd be something else-- "People from X are evil and they rape our children! Let's go to war and kill them all!"

The point is, people will kill each other for any reason they can find-- heck, sometimes nations of the same religion go to war, so religion is not always at fault-- it's often greed, nationalism, or any number of reasons.

Also, people say it's offensive to see a place of worship. I think that this is the most foolish argument I've heard against religion. How does it offend you? Do they drag you into the worship building and try to force you to worship? No. If you outlaw giving people a place to congregate to worship would be a terrible violation of human rights, and, in the USA, at least, a violation of the Constitution (I don't know the constitutions of other countries well enough, but I believe they have similar provisions for freedom of practice).
In any event, since when do you have a right not to be offended? It offends me that I don't get that job! Therefore, despite my lack of qualifications, they must hire me! I mean, it's SO OFFENSIVE that they think I'm NOT GOOD ENOUGH! You have a right to keep your basic human rights, but saying you have a right never to be offended is like saying you have the right to go through life not experiencing any negative emotion: rejection, sadness, and anger. But anybody can tell you it's not true. As long as people don't take your rights away, you will have to deal with being offended.

If people want an excuse to do something, they will find it. Blaming the excuses is an exercise in futility and stupidity.

I know; I know. I just wish people would understand that.

Precisely. We'd just end up banning free thought.
maybe we should, it has cause more wars, death and violence than anything, I mean it has a few good points, but not enough to justify it's continued existence....

Also, people say it's offensive to see a place of worship. I think that this is the most foolish argument I've heard against religion. How does it offend you? Do they drag you into the worship building and try to force you to worship? No. If you outlaw giving people a place to congregate to worship would be a terrible violation of human rights, and, in the USA, at least, a violation of the Constitution (I don't know the constitutions of other countries well enough, but I believe they have similar provisions for freedom of practice).
Well said. People who find it offensive that others worship need to grow thicker skin.

In any event, since when do you have a right not to be offended? It offends me that I don't get that job! Therefore, despite my lack of qualifications, they must hire me! I mean, it's SO OFFENSIVE that they think I'm NOT GOOD ENOUGH! You have a right to keep your basic human rights, but saying you have a right never to be offended is like saying you have the right to go through life not experiencing any negative emotion: rejection, sadness, and anger. But anybody can tell you it's not true. As long as people don't take your rights away, you will have to deal with being offended.
Agreed.

maybe we should, it has cause more wars, death and violence than anything, I mean it has a few good points, but not enough to justify it's continued existence....
And be reduced to a mind-controlled droid? I'd rather suffer the faults of humanity than suffer a fate so dire. To me, that would be an end of my existence.

Well, my personal opinion is yes.

Religion is the single biggest cause of bloodshed in human history.
It is unnecessary in modern times, acting as an excuse for ignorance and intolerance.
Religions are, generally speaking, the early forms of government. Having established true governments, religions are no longer needed.
Currently religion serves no purpose whatsoever, except to provide comfort for those who are unable to accept certain truths. It is akin to using narcotics to escape reality.

So on and so forth.

Thoughts, opinions and please, why?

(As an after thought, lets try and avoid any forms of flamming or trolling, shall we? Civilized is the word of the day.)

Would you like to explain how you'd go about abolishing religion? Please bear in mind that there are less than 500 million atheists in the world and most of us wouldn't support your endeavor anyway.

Meh. What good would it do? Stupid people will do stupid things and smart people will do smart things whether or not they have the excuse for religion. The only thing you can do is stay out of the way and let them kill one another in peace.

It's a hard decision.

Religion is bad, yes, but to what extent? I believe in god, but I don't have a religion. I have a set of ideas, but it's not a religion. In someone else's perspective, that could still be taken as a religion because it's ideas that pertain to god.

I think personally-owned buildings could be made into churches etc and have open doors so people can come and worship, but the government shouldn't recognize it as tax-exempt or anything other than a personal hobby.

Allow me to quote the former Governor of Minnesota:

"Organisied religion is a crutch for the weak-minded."

Religion explains things for which there are not other available explanations. I see no reason why people can't accept the absence of an explanation, and yet they keep holding religious beliefs.

Well by that some logic it should be perfectly acceptable to have a statue of two men kissing one another as an expression of freedom of sexuality. However, it is highly unlikely that such a statue would be allowed.

Perhaps a view that religion is often inflicted upon children. They may be taught the 'values' of that religion, which can be to discriminate against people of other religions, of homosexual or bisexual orientation and so forth.

Surely entering children into religion would breach the human rights of the child to freedom of worship, as they are effectively forced into the religion. While they may convert at a later stage in life, it is possible they will have the beliefs deeply ingrained and be unable to live without the religion, as it is all they know.

Well by that some logic it should be perfectly acceptable to have a statue of two men kissing one another as an expression of freedom of sexuality. However, it is highly unlikely that such a statue would be allowed.

Perhaps a view that religion is often inflicted upon children. They may be taught the 'values' of that religion, which can be to discriminate against people of other religions, of homosexual or bisexual orientation and so forth.

Surely entering children into religion would breach the human rights of the child to freedom of worship, as they are effectively forced into the religion. While they may convert at a later stage in life, it is possible they will have the beliefs deeply ingrained and be unable to live without the religion, as it is all they know.
Their parents can teach it to them, and the education system can make sure they know what else there is out there. There is no reason to force their parents not to raise them with religious views.

Well by that some logic it should be perfectly acceptable to have a statue of two men kissing one another as an expression of freedom of sexuality. However, it is highly unlikely that such a statue would be allowed.

Perhaps a view that religion is often inflicted upon children. They may be taught the 'values' of that religion, which can be to discriminate against people of other religions, of homosexual or bisexual orientation and so forth.

Surely entering children into religion would breach the human rights of the child to freedom of worship, as they are effectively forced into the religion. While they may convert at a later stage in life, it is possible they will have the beliefs deeply ingrained and be unable to live without the religion, as it is all they know.

That, we call "indoctrination".

maybe we should, it has cause more wars, death and violence than anything, I mean it has a few good points, but not enough to justify it's continued existence....

I suggest we simply abolish the human race.

I suggest we simply abolish the human race.
Commit suicide then and get the ball rolling...I am happy with my existence.

Commit suicide then and get the ball rolling...I am happy with my existence.

Nah, I've got to stay behind and clear up after the rest of you. :p

What about the fact religion can breed intolerance? Granted the parents will likely infect their children with intolerance anyway... It is a problem that religion from an outside perspective is not taught in schools, which means it is quite easy for children to fall into religion. While not a bad thing in itself, the continuation of religion isn't exactly helpful to humanity. It encourages obscure belief and, as has been stated, acts as a scape goat.

Still, if the Government (English) can ban children from certain methods if discipline, then logically they can ban certain methods of non-state approved education.

I wonder how far humanity would have progressed had the three primary organised religions not come into being? Now consider that religious beliefs prevent or hinder the advancement of science in areas of bio-alterations such as cloning and stem-cell research, and you wonder how further along humanity would be if religion did not dictate so much of modern life.

What about the fact religion can breed intolerance? Granted the parents will likely infect their children with intolerance anyway... It is a problem that religion from an outside perspective is not taught in schools, which means it is quite easy for children to fall into religion. While not a bad thing in itself, the continuation of religion isn't exactly helpful to humanity. It encourages obscure belief and, as has been stated, acts as a scape goat.

Still, if the Government (English) can ban children from certain methods if discipline, then logically they can ban certain methods of non-state approved education.

I wonder how far humanity would have progressed had the three primary organised religions not come into being? Now consider that religious beliefs prevent or hinder the advancement of science in areas of bio-alterations such as cloning and stem-cell research, and you wonder how further along humanity would be if religion did not dictate so much of modern life.
I am sorry, but I disagree with this view. If they want to infect their children with intolerance they will find ways around religion. Many religions, in their proper context (Christianity being one), actually foment tolerance and have no objection to scientific research. Indeed, religion should not dictate government policy. Neither though should government dictate people's lives. Again, this is a matter of blaming the excuse. The government has too much power as it is. It needs not a drop more. Irreligious people can be as, or even more, intolerant than religious people, so let's not make religion out to be the issue.

Well, my personal opinion is yes.

Abolished by whom, Mr. Totalitarian?

Religion is the single biggest cause of bloodshed in human history.

*sigh* This is defiantely among the most often repeated fallacies on the internet. :(

Correlation is not causation!

It is unnecessary in modern times, acting as an excuse for ignorance and intolerance.

There's no shortage of ignorance (religion is the biggest cause of bloodshed) or intollerance (abolish religion) among anti-religion people (you!).

(As an after thought, lets try and avoid any forms of flamming or trolling, shall we?

ROFLMAO You titled a thread "Should we Abolish Religion?" not "I don't like religion" or "I think religion is counter productive" or a host of more civil titles.

Religion doesn't breed intolerance. Morally needy people become religious, breed fanaticism, which causes intolerance.

I know quite a number of religious people who are open-minded, well mannered and fair to everyone else.

Religion is the physical and political manefestation of our morality to others. Early on, Religion was vital to government. Now it is still vital, to keep our morality in check. Either through compassion, or through fear, religion is still needed to remind people that perhaps there is something higher up there - otherwise we're simply nothing more than elitists.

Yes, but not by force.

it is still the fundamental right of every human being to believe and worship as he or she wishes to, in the privacy of their own homes and places of worship, in so far as it does not impact the rights of others.

To abolish the right of the free and private exercise of religion would be an assassination on the fundamental liberties of mankind.

Or publicly for that matter, so long as the equal rights of another arent' be infringed.

Yes, but not by force.

Most religions teach peaceful work with exception only under extreme circumstances. For example, the infamous Islamic 'Jihad', which does not mean Holy War. It means defense and suffering to defend what you believe is right, not Islam.

A proper religion isn't created to control people, but to make a logical explanation for things that cannot be explained.

Yes, but not by force.

How would you abolish something without force? Just curious.

Of course when it comes to human behavior you cannot abolish something even with force.

Marijuana smokeing has been abolished by force. And of course since it's abolished nobody out there is smokeing it. :rolleyes:

Most religions teach peaceful work with exception only under extreme circumstances. For example, the infamous Islamic 'Jihad', which does not mean Holy War. It means defense and suffering to defend what you believe is right, not Islam.
Or in Christianity's case, Jesus' call for tolerance.

A proper religion isn't created to control people, but to make a logical explanation for things that cannot be explained.
Precisely. It is the human mind which devised methods of using religion to further political motives.

I mentioned in that post parents are likely to still infect their children with intolerance.

To everyone who asks 'By whom shall religion be abolished'? Why waste effort in typing it? It shan't be, not in our life times, but it is a question of should.

As for 'Should We Abolish Religion?', is it really offensive?

I mentioned in that post parents are likely to still infect their children with intolerance.

To everyone who asks 'By whom shall religion be abolished'? Why waste effort in typing it? It shan't be, not in our life times, but it is a question of should.

As for 'Should We Abolish Religion?', is it really offensive?
It isn't offensive to me, but I wonder with what right do you go about doing this? It's entirely against the notion of individual freedom to force people not to engage in a non-harmful activity relative to others.

Ever thought there is an excess of individual freedoms?

Ever thought there is an excess of individual freedoms?
By what standard? I am going to venture a guess, and say you are some kind of totalitarian statist?

This is plain stupid. no. What is with people, can't you be tolerant? Don't start to tell me about intolernce in religion, because it won't prove your point. It makes you a hypocrit, because you can't practice tolerance your self. I hate the claims that all religion is just been blood shed. The Crusades, that was a diffrent time. It's not right to compare our standerds, to theirs. I'm sorry a few Radicals tarnish your trust in religion. Most religions promote peace, and contribute to Humanitarian Affairs. The LDS Church does this.

Seriously.

Personally I don't know that Religion is the problem so much as Organized Religion is. But to say it must be abolished is to take things too far, because without it who would the masses look to for answers to lifes questions? And though Religion slows finding the true answers to these questions(And in the case of the Catholic church has done powerful things to stop us from finding any real answers.) it is still need as a temporary solution to keep the masses in line.
When the time comes that we have our answers, it will simply fade into the background.

Well by that some logic it should be perfectly acceptable to have a statue of two men kissing one another as an expression of freedom of sexuality. However, it is highly unlikely that such a statue would be allowed.

If it's private property you absolutely can put a statue of two men kissing. Churches are also built on private property so if you are offended by that well that sucks for you. It's not your property and you don't have a right to not be offended.

It is possible that some busy body could complain about your homosexual statue as violating obsenity statutes but that is up to your local government. So I imagine you'd be fine doing that in San Francisco but maybye have a bit more trouble down in Mobile.

But in any case that's a matter of your local ordenances, certainly not national and generally not even a state matter.

Not quite, but somewhat. As an example, we have the freedom to spout racist remarks. I have the freedom to post this topic which may be considered offensive toward religious people. At what point do our freedoms become excessive and at what point are we oppressed?

This is getting a touch side-tracked, though.

If it's private property you absolutely can put a statue of two men kissing. Churches are also built on private property so if you are offended by that well that sucks for you. It's not your property and you don't have a right to not be offended.
Agreed completely. So long as it is all mutually consentual and non-harmful to others, you have no right whatsoever to tell others what to do.

Not quite, but somewhat. As an example, we have the freedom to spout racist remarks. I have the freedom to post this topic which may be considered offensive toward religious people. At what point do our freedoms become excessive and at what point are we oppressed?

This is getting a touch side-tracked, though.
It's quite pertinent, and what you are referring to is the freedom of speech. Hardly an excess of freedom in any way. The market of ideas is the forum to weed out bad ideas, not suppressing people's minds and thoughts. You cannot silence someone simply because you don't agree with them.

Nice post Ayka.

And be reduced to a mind-controlled droid? I'd rather suffer the faults of humanity than suffer a fate so dire. To me, that would be an end of my existence.
I toyed with the idea of adding a [/sarcasm] tag but decided against it.... looks like I made the wrong decision.

I thank you all for the interesting discussion, alas I am tired and seek my bed.

Goodnight all.

Ever thought there is an excess of individual freedoms?

:eek: WTF?!

Um, no!

ARE YOU TOTALLY NUTS?! abolish religion!! ya sure and why dont you just abolish some people to live too! yes i see we all have opinions.. and ya its good to have an opinion and this is mine...
k think of all those people that religion IS THEIR LIFE!! just imagine how upset they would be. they wouldnt be able to anything, it would be a new life and they wouldnt know what to do. they would be completely lost. and just htink of the side affects some people may go completely NUTS!! and who ever abolished religion.. well tehy would be seeing ALOT of wars and stuff due to this. why cant we just leave religion alone. its not harming anything. its not like someone has a belief that killing everyone in the world is good. .. just think of what would happen, all the side affects if such a thing happened!
jessssss:D

:gundge: :headbang: -ignore those.

I toyed with the idea of adding a [/sarcasm] tag but decided against it.... looks like I made the wrong decision.
I wasn't sure if you were being sarcastic. :p I have met people on here who do claim that free thought should be suppressed quite literally.

Europa Maxima I'm a Libertarian too BTW. :)

Europa Maxima I'm a Libertarian too BTW. :)
I sort of picked up on that. :)

ARE YOU TOTALLY NUTS?! abolish religion!! ya sure and why dont you just abolish some people to live too! yes i see we all have opinions.. and ya its good to have an opinion and this is mine...
k think of all those people that religion IS THEIR LIFE!! just imagine how upset they would be. they wouldnt be able to anything, it would be a new life and they wouldnt know what to do. they would be completely lost. and just htink of the side affects some people may go completely NUTS!! and who ever abolished religion.. well tehy would be seeing ALOT of wars and stuff due to this. why cant we just leave religion alone. its not harming anything. its not like someone has a belief that killing everyone in the world is good. .. just think of what would happen, all the side affects if such a thing happened!
jessssss:D

:gundge: :headbang: -ignore those.

...Who else couldn't understand this?

...Who else couldn't understand this?
I understood it, frighteningly enough. :confused: It makes little sense though.

Not quite, but somewhat. As an example, we have the freedom to spout racist remarks. I have the freedom to post this topic which may be considered offensive toward religious people. At what point do our freedoms become excessive and at what point are we oppressed?

This is getting a touch side-tracked, though.
what do you mean by excessive freedom?

I don't think there is such a thing, provided that by exercising your rights you are not hindering someone else's.

and btw no you don't have a "right" not to be offended, or not to have your feelings hurt, heck you don't even have the right not to be annoyed.

what do you mean by excessive freedom?

I don't think there is such a thing, provided that by exercising your rights you are not hindering someone else's.

and btw no you don't have a "right" not to be offended, or not to have your feelings hurt, heck you don't even have the right not to be annoyed.
Imagine if you did though...that would literally be wrapping people in cotton-wool. :confused:

...Who else couldn't understand this?
I kinda corrected it in my head... although I now understand what Fass was talking about when he said that grammar is important....

How would you abolish something without force? Just curious.

Of course when it comes to human behavior you cannot abolish something even with force.

Marijuana smokeing has been abolished by force. And of course since it's abolished nobody out there is smokeing it. :rolleyes:

I don't see it as bad if religion fades from the public conscience. I wouldn't want to force people to give it up though.

Marijuana smoking hasn't been abolished, just made illegal, and that hasn't helped it vanish at all.

...Who else couldn't understand this?
Not coherent, but interperatable. They are groping for something they cannot express. I think I got the gist of it.
@Smukeeville: Grammar is fun! :D

according to John Tesh (http://www.tesh.com/ittrium/visit) people who live a more religious life (whatever religion) have a tendency to live longer and with less illnesses

"I heard that on the John Tesh Radio Show"

Religion is something that can never be abolished, no matter how much intolerant people attempt it. Every nation on the earth has attempted to do it. America tried for a long time, by outlawing the faith of the native people of this nation, it didn't work by the way. And as for freedom of speech, there are many limits to it. For one, in this forum, you post something that offends a lot of people, it is well in the power of the people who run it to remove your post, and ban you from it. You could do nothing about it. As for in the rest of the world, there is many many many limits to it. You say something that offends a lot of people, you can get sued.

It doesn't really matter in the end, religion is never going away, you will people will give up every other right that they have before they give up this one. You will sooner see the Internet itself successfully banned before you see religion done successfully.

And for the religion breeds intolerance, everything in the world does, for every person of faith who is intolerant Ive meet someone who wasn't of it that was. The person who started this thread is intolerant, in my mind, everyone on the planet is intolerant to a point, but many just wont admit it, or are very ashamed of it.

according to John Tesh (http://www.tesh.com/ittrium/visit) people who live a more religious life (whatever religion) have a tendency to live longer and with less illnesses

"I heard that on the John Tesh Radio Show"
Apparently forms of religious focus such as prayer or meditation set in motion a feeling of euphoria in the brain, and bring some other benefits, according to what Eut said anyway, which I can believe.

And for the religion breeds intolerance, everything in the world does, for every person of faith who is intolerant Ive meet someone who wasn't of it that was.
Agreed. Folks like to think that education breeds tolerance, but then today we see radical Islam and Christian fundamentalists running amock. Why? Too much free-time and education. *nods*

Agreed. Folks like to think that education breeds tolerance, but then today we see radical Islam and Christian fundamentalists running amock. Why? Too much free-time and education. *nods*
Humans will be human. Abolishing free thought as a counter would be to remove humanity in my view, something I'd rather do without.

I do, however, feel that erecting a building for something you believe in a public place is offensive.

I consider the construction of a church/mosque/cinagog(sp.?) to be along the same lines as creating statues of two men kissing or of the construction of a whites-only club. It is offensive to people, and as such infringes on peoples rights to feel safe and comfortable in public.

Good. Because I don't. I may be a Christian, but I still like many synagogues, temples, and mosques because of their architecture. Furthermore, anyone is welcome in a church. One time I did this fun thing with a Jewish friend where I went to visit his synagogue and he came to visit my church. You feel uncomfartable around a church? Good, because there are a lot of things in this country that creep me out. Put up with it. And learn to spell.

Humans will be human. Abolishing free thought as a counter would be to remove humanity in my view, something I'd rather do without.
Never suggested "abolishiing free thought", which couldn't happen anyhow. That's like making suicide illegal ( if it isn't already in your locality ). What can you do about it? Punish them? I was merely debunking an opinion I view as a myth.

Never suggested "abolishiing free thought", which couldn't happen anyhow. That's like making suicide illegal ( if it isn't already in your locality ). What can you do about it? Punish them? I was merely debunking an opinion I view as a myth.
Yeah I know, I was agreeing with you. :)

Religion is the single biggest cause of bloodshed in human history.

Don't be so naive. People just used it as an excuse. And religion is also the greatest source of charity but you seem to have forgotten that. Also you have no right to force people to believe what you want even if you believe it doesn't exsist. You really are no different from one of the crazy evangelicals. (Except they scare me and you I just find a little anoying, so you win.:D )

Don't be so naive. People just used it as an excuse. And religion is also the greatest source of charity but you seem to have forgotten that. Also you have no right to force people to believe what you want even if you believe it doesn't exsist. You really are no different from one of the crazy evangelicals. (Except they scare me and you I just find a little anoying, so you win.:D )

Wait, when it's bloodshed it's an excuse, but if it's charity it's responsible for it?

I do think that this thread as a form of actual debate has come to near an end. More or less people have come to the conclusion, that independent of what peoples personal opinion of religion and people of it are, that abolishing religion is a bad idea and would not work. Attempting to abolish anything to do with free speech and thought will never work. While it is very possible for a nation to outlaw anything, and make the following of it very difficult and deadly, they will keep doing it some way.

I do think that this thread as a form of actual debate has come to near an end. More or less people have come to the conclusion, that independent of what peoples personal opinion of religion and people of it are, that abolishing religion is a bad idea and would not work. Attempting to abolish anything to do with free speech and thought will never work. While it is very possible for a nation to outlaw anything, and make the following of it very difficult and deadly, they will keep doing it some way.

Obviously you're new. Nothing on NS ends when it should. I've seen topics that should have been labeled "Case Closed" after the first post, but that never stops them.

I'm an agnostic, and even when i believed in God, i never believed in organized religion, but i don't think it should be abolished. I believe in personal freedoms, and i think people have the right to believe in whatever they want as long as it doesn't harm anyone or infringe on anyone else's rights. Religion isn't the problem, some people who practice it are. Some atheists cause problems too though, every group has its assholes.

I'm an agnostic, and even when i believed in God, i never believed in organized religion, but i don't think it should be abolished. I believe in personal freedoms, and i think people have the right to believe in whatever they want as long as it doesn't harm anyone or infringe on anyone else's beliefs. Religion isn't the problem, some people who practice it are. Some atheists cause problems too though, every group has its assholes.

And some agnostics, don't imply you've abstained from it.

I do, however, feel that erecting a building for something you believe in a public place is offensive.

I consider the construction of a church/mosque/cinagog(sp.?) to be along the same lines as creating statues of two men kissing or of the construction of a whites-only club. It is offensive to people, and as such infringes on peoples rights to feel safe and comfortable in public.

You offend me. We should kill you.

Note: You don't actually offend me, I'm just using that as an example.

I believe in Frued's theory about religion. That even though it might not be real, it serves the purpose of comforting man.

I didn't mean to imply that at all, i was just going for the direct opposite. When i said every group, that's exactly what i meant, including agnostics.

Maybe humans should be abolished.


I like the way you think, good sir. Let us kill everone. Begin today, in the home, and with your aged grandmother.

...Who else couldn't understand this?

I got lost after a few line - grammatical black holes and spelling errors were the end of me. And did anyone notice; first post and GUN SMILIES! Unholy Alliance!

Point of fact, gun smilies offend me, so they must be banned - they infringe on my right to feel safe and comfortable in public.

As to the actual subject matter, I disagree wholeheartedly, for pretty much all the reasons (sound reasons that is) that have already been stated.

Ah the joys of joining a thread a few pages in - I don't even have to formulate my opinions, everyone else has done it for me :D

I'm an atheist and have little time or love for religion, but I don't think it should be abolished. If you wish to believe/practise, it's your personal choice and right to do so.

I think the poll is rather interesting. 30% for a ban on religion, 60% against.

If I was part of an organised religion, those numbers would seriously give me pause. I don't know the demographics of the online population, but if my memory's still alive, the 30% corrosponds fairly well with the number of people in the western world who doesn't actively partake in organised religion.

I'm reminded of a poem by a German priest called Niemöller, written during Hitler's rule of Germany.When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for the Jews,
I did not speak out;
I was not a Jew.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.Perhaps the various organised religions shouldn't be so eager to undermine the freedoms of others. Who knows, the day may come when they'll need us to defend their right to exist.

I dislike organized religion. It's elitist and exclusionary, it attempts to rule through guilt and fear. However, it should not be abolished. If you abolish religion, you abolish freedom - not because religion makes you free (the most liberating day in my life was the day I realized I didn't have to believe anything if I didn't want to), but because a free society accepts all belief systems and no belief systems.

So I'm not allowed to go to church anymore, because (horror of horrors) I might offend some bypasser?

It's called public for a reason. You know, because everyone has a right to be there. It'd be nice if people could just recognize that the world does not stop for them, if they discover their feelings are hurt because they are reminded that others disagree with them.

Personally, I think not. Anything that keeps you from killing me or anyone else, out of jail, and not messing up anybody else's lives intentionally (I say intentionally, because it's rather hard not to insult some of the touchier people--like those mentioned above), will do fine for a moral code.

Here's a hint: religions=moral code. You don't have to follow it, although I think it'd be nice if people switched to my moral code (and yes, within Christianity, there is division, even amongst Protestants and Catholics themselves--it is not simply one huge mass, no pun intended). If you outlaw moral codes, people don't have rules. And without rules, it all goes to hell. Also, have you considered that because laws accomplish the same thing, they might be considered moral codes, and by extension, religious doctrine?

well the fact that this thread is totally retarded doesnt help your ways much

religion can never even come close to being abolished, even if you wanted to.

it doesnt take a building for religion to carry on. the only way to patrol a religion free zone is to know what people are thinking. im not entirely sure that is even possible or people are easily going to allow their government to regualte what they think.

I'm deeply disturbed by these numbers. It makes it quite clear that atheism has become as militant and abnoxious as has the christian right in America. The fact that 30% of any community would support such an absurd policy is actually very worrisome.

Freedom not to beleive requires freedom not to beleive, it's just a matter of live and let live.

I'm deeply disturbed by these numbers. It makes it quite clear that atheism has become as militant and abnoxious as has the christian right in America. The fact that 30% of any community would support such an absurd policy is actually very worrisome.I'm not "deeply distorbed" by the numbers - some votes are undoubtedly fake - but I agree.

I never thought I'd see masses of relatively free peoples promote the removal of eachothers freedoms... But half the damn topics here on NSG & in pretty much any media, is about one group of relatively free individuals trying to strip another group of individuals of their freedoms.

The poem I quoted was aimed as much at my fellow atheists as it was at the NSG repressive religious types. What kind of backwards idiot would willingly try to do away with the freedoms we've won over hundreds of years of bloody struggle?

I'm not "deeply distorbed" by the numbers - some votes are undoubtedly fake - but I agree.

I never thought I'd see masses of relatively free peoples promote the removal of eachothers freedoms... But half the damn topics here on NSG & in pretty much any media, is about one group of relatively free individuals trying to strip another group of individuals of their freedoms.

The poem I quoted was aimed as much at my fellow atheists as it was at the NSG repressive religious types. What kind of backwards idiot would willingly try to do away with the freedoms we've won over hundreds of years of bloody struggle?

The kind called "people" :p .

What it does tend to demonstrate to me, though, is that many "seculars" are, in fact, not seculars at all, but actually just Fundamentalists in their own right.

I'm deeply disturbed by these numbers. It makes it quite clear that atheism has become as militant and abnoxious as has the christian right in America.

Did you read the rest of the thread?
Quite a few atheists, myself included, disagree with the abolition of religion.

For some people religion is all they have. Therefore no.
Plus it's fuckin' stupid.. 'Abolish religion'? Rubbish.

Pretention on a nationstates forum? NO!

I love how the right to say such things like "Religion is stupid lol!" is protected on a document that says you can worship whatever you want, or not at all.

Seriously though, it would be much easier to find some 14 year old goth kids to talk about this with you. They seem to have it all figured out. Well I am spent, mock me if you want, talk about how closed minded people like me are, do whatever.

No, by doing so you will become the very thing you hate.

It's fun to talk about "abolishing religion," but, regardless of what your stance on that is, there remain the issues of who is to be the arbiter of what a religion is, and the manner in which to go about abolishing religion. The administrative oversight required for such an expansive operation is completely unthinkable, and the ban would be unenforceable, even using force. You can't change peoples minds with the barrel of a gun.

Yes, because telling the billion(s) who practice some form of religion that they can no longer do this would be better for everybody :rolleyes: .

You can't change peoples minds with the barrel of a gun.Unfortunately, this obvious truth has never stopped anyone from trying.

Besides, you almost can. Look at the anarchism thread. Most of the American population don't know the significance of May 1st. Most of the rest of the world have no idea it's got everything to do with anarchism.

I chose yes but i'm wondering how many of the other poeple who chose yes think relgion is actually the cause of greed/anger/jelousy/bigotry or that its abolition would end those feelings?

How do you propose to abolish it?

Morning all.

As stated before in this thread, that isn't anything to do with how to go about abolishing religion or if it is possible. If you want to say how impossible such a thing would be to implement, start a new thread and then people can go give their opinions.

Well, those billions of people who would lose their religion would, in the long-term, be better off. Furthermore, science would be able to progress in areas that are constrained due to religious views.

I'm also sure that I read in a much earlier post last night that Government should steer clear of religion. Well the problem is, the Government is elected by the people, and where the majority of voters are religious, it pretty much -has- to pander to the whims of the religious. By going against religion, a Government would effectively be shooting itself in the foot. People can say that religion should have nothing to do with Government, but the sad fact is people enjoy being ruled by religions and as such try and incorportate religion into their Governments (If nothing else, than for a sense of 'morals').

absolutly not.

I abhore organized religion. I feel very much like you do, that it has accomplished great evils and only scant benefit to humanity.

That being said it is still the fundamental right of every human being to believe and worship as he or she wishes to, in the privacy of their own homes and places of worship, in so far as it does not impact the rights of others.

To abolish the right of the free and private exercise of religion would be an assassination on the fundamental liberties of mankind.

Amen to you, sir :p

my principal objection to any attempt to abolish religeon is that doing so only encourages it!

=^^=
.../\...

Religion is the single biggest cause of bloodshed in human history.


This is a rather simplistic opinion, held by those who generally don't go into detail on these matters. The fact is if religion were truely the cause of wars then we would see throught history a great many more wars which say "go out and kill all of the X's there are at all". The fact is religion is more often used as an excuse for conflict than an actual cause. The actual cause's useually lie in old favourites like greed which everyone has.

I abhore organized religion. I feel very much like you do, that it has accomplished great evils and only scant benefit to humanity

Hmm, scant benefit. What about the works of the following?

Charles Babbage
Robert Boyle
Werner von Braun
George Washington Carver
Georges Cuvier
Leonhard Euler
Michael Faraday
John Ambrose Fleming
James Joule
Johannes Kepler
Carl Linnaeus
Joseph Lister
Matthew Maury
James Clerk Maxwell
Gregor Mendel
Samuel Morse
Issac Newton
Louis Pastur
William Thomson (Lord Kelvin)
William & Orville Wright

All Christians. And if you know anything of them, you will find they often gave humanity a great benefit.

you are a pretext for war, however religion are too a pretext for war, but are not a cause.
Religions on the contrary are a stabilizer for social diseases. Religion are a way for diplomacy. A way for reunion and alliances.

Now you cannot stop religions, poor's are in need and only religions give them the hope YOU refuse them.
Riches too need religion. Religions are the pretext to be rich...

But to systematically fight religions blind you the fact religions are more positive than negative in our lives.


Now we pray, brothers remember we are the fathers of your children, do not hold up their past, amen

The High Priest
Great Prophet,
Writer of The Scriptures

Well, my personal opinion is yes.

Religion is the single biggest cause of bloodshed in human history.
It is unnecessary in modern times, acting as an excuse for ignorance and intolerance.
Religions are, generally speaking, the early forms of government. Having established true governments, religions are no longer needed.
Currently religion serves no purpose whatsoever, except to provide comfort for those who are unable to accept certain truths. It is akin to using narcotics to escape reality.

So on and so forth.

Thoughts, opinions and please, why?

(As an after thought, lets try and avoid any forms of flamming or trolling, shall we? Civilized is the word of the day.)NO. Organized religion, maybe, but the idea of something greater than what mortals can comprehend should not be destroyed, as should no other idea. I myself am a Christian, never go to Church, and I'm pretty liberal. There's a difference between organized religions (such as Catholicism, Islam, etc.) and their ideas (Jesus was God, Muhammed was last prophet).

Hmm, scant benefit. What about the works of the following?

Charles Babbage
Robert Boyle
Werner von Braun
George Washington Carver
Georges Cuvier
Leonhard Euler
Michael Faraday
John Ambrose Fleming
James Joule
Johannes Kepler
Carl Linnaeus
Joseph Lister
Matthew Maury
James Clerk Maxwell
Gregor Mendel
Samuel Morse
Issac Newton
Louis Pastur
William Thomson (Lord Kelvin)
William & Orville Wright

All Christians. And if you know anything of them, you will find they often gave humanity a great benefit.

And

Martin Luthor King Jr.
George Washington
John F. Kenedy
Winston Churchill

I did make an alteration to the beginning post that this debate refers to organised religion as oppossed to religion in general. If people want to believe that a dead carpenters was their messiah, that is their choice. However do we really need these global organisations?

Those people were Christians, I see, however how does them being religious in any way support the need for organised religions in present day? Sir Isaac Newton was a Christian, so logically if he were an atheist he would never have written any of his theories!

Finally, yes religions have done good things, however as an example; the catholic church refuses to participate in charitable events for third world countries as money may be spent on providing those people artificial contraception. Is that a good thing?

I won't approach my answer to this on the basis on the merits of organised religion, because that would imply that I accepted the principle that I have the right to remove the liberties of others on a whim.

Religion should not be abolished because the abolition of religion would require the removal of every single liberty we hold dear.

As to the idea that religion is responsible for more bloodshed than anything else, it is pure horse hockey. Government is by far the biggest killer in human history; wars, repressions, genocides, deliberate famines, famines caused by government idiocy (socialist regimes stand out in the latter), and in the Century of the State (the 20th), governments murdered 170 million of their own citizens.

To say that religion is responsible for anything like the level of misery for which government is responsible is nothing more than slander.

Cruxium, whether or not you think something is good or necessary has no bearing on whether or not it should exist. All your personal opinions can legitimately influence is your own actions.

Why is this board home to so many wannabe Stalins?

This is ridiculous. People here seem to be drawing a distinction between religious ideas and organised religion, one good one bad. The distinction should rather be between religion and religious people. No Religion is a hard-and-fast decleration of unalterable truths, religion is only what people make it, and if you "abolish" religion, people will find other doctrinal belief systems to attempt to valididate their actions and points of view.

Commie Catholic's says he doesn't believe in anything except the logic of maths, and there is a lot to be learnt from that. The problem is not that people believe in religion, it is that people believe. Communism, capitalism, facism, atheism, the same charges can be laid at their feet as can be laid at the feet of religion. The choice is simple, abolish beliefs altogether or let them all stay.

Disraeliland 3, religion is an early form of government. Witch-hunts were no different than Stalin's purges of 'spies'. The Crusades were an act of genocide in the same fashion as the Axis movement.

In truth we cannot prove whether governments or religions have been the cause for more deaths; calling my statement slanderous though is somewhat pointless, as religions have been the result of millions of deaths, whether because of an idiotic member of the religion, due to misinterpretation or simple use as a scape goat. Of course you can equally argue that about governments, that it has been insane people seizing power for their own ends.

Pray tell, what makes any of us that have been in favour of such a concept resemble Stalin- who was drunk with power and insane? (Nice bit of trollish behaviour by the way)

Government and religion are quite different, and religion doesn't inevitably lead to government.

Government is an institution which can legally initiate force within a defined territory. Only government can legally initiate force, and only government can approve of others doing it (Letters of Marque, for example).

The only way a religious group could go on a witch-hunt was if the government in that area approved of it. Should the government disapprove of it, they are pefectly entitled to kill, or imprison the clerics on the witch-hunt.

Governments have been the cause of hundreds of millions of deaths. Over 170 million people were killed by their own governments in the twentieth century alone. Before that, governments engaged in countless persecutions, and massacres. Add to that all the wars, and government clearly has the prize for "Most Murderous Institution".

As for the Crusades, they were organised and led by Kings and Generals, the government in other words. Clerics certainly did the rabble-rousing for the war, but they Crusades could never have happenedc without the governments concerned organising, and sending in the crusader armies.

In truth we cannot prove whether governments or religions have been the cause for more deaths;

In point of fact we can, and as we move our evaluations forward in time, finding such proof becomes easier.

Pray tell, what makes any of us that have been in favour of such a concept resemble Stalin- who was drunk with power and insane? (Nice bit of trollish behaviour by the way)

You, and the other militant secularists here think just as he did, if you believe something is bad, you have this idea that it is entirely legitimate to abolish it.

I find it disturbing that you don't want to approach the question of how religion would be abolished, and the borader implications of introducing the necessary factors for its abolition. Such things are relevant to the thread, as any question of this nature must be approached on a full cost versus benefit basis.

You may well point out all the benefits to abolishing religion (though neither you, nor anyone else has posted anything resembling a convincing argument), but in the cost column must stand this: The abolition of religion positively requires the removal of all liberties. This removal must be permanent in case of a resurgence of religion. Prevent a resurgence of religion would also require introducing the sort of surveillence society that not even George Owerll could conceive.

Bearing this in mind, how can abolishing religion possibly be a good idea. For benefits that are nebulous at best, we would have to give everything that makes life worth living, and become slaves.

No Religion is a hard-and-fast decleration of unalterable truths, religion is only what people make it, and if you "abolish" religion, people will find other doctrinal belief systems to attempt to valididate their actions and points of view.

True. Societies in which religion was abolished, like Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge certainly founds excuses to kill. God one day, and Angka the next, it all comes to the same thing: Unapproved people murdered.