Is the world better off without religion?

They executed Gallileo for using his mind.

Yeah, like you said, thought.

Altruism has nothing to do with abolishing slavery.

No, it is not. It is based on the knowledge that knowledge is possible.

Oh no! Are you a skeptic?

We are not animals, so we are able to not fall for our impulses.

Faith is the direct opposite of reason. Imposing religion on children is a gross crime.

If Chile was a totalitarian theocracy tjere would be little difference between the two. Chile is a very Liberal and secular country, of vourse I would choose that over the Communist hellscape that is North Korea. It is not even a fair comparison.

It is not one bit reasonable to kill every member of a group simply for being members of that group. That is tribalism which is cancer too.

You have gotten everything completely backwards.

It does determine what is good. Anyone can introspect to realise this.

 

Much of Christian scriptures are diametrically opposed to the concept of human rights, as they are diametrically opposed to the concept that individuals will be judged according to their own individual acts (even the 10 Commandments directly contradict this), and slavery did not disappear in Europe in the Middles Ages. And it continued in European territories into the 19th Century.

It comes from basic logical principles that far predate Christianity.

 

I voted no.

My opinion is that it is not even possible to get rid of religion, since mankind is innately a religious creature (meaning that we all make use of religion in some way/shape/form).

 

Many people incorrectly conflate 'religion' with 'theism' (or even 'science').

Religion is, simply put, any initial circular argument with other arguments stemming from it.

 

Okay, so your question in your OP should be asking about "theism" rather than "religion". Religion is MUCH more than theism.

 

In the Byzantine Empire, slaves became quite rare by the first half of the 7th century.[1] A shift in the view of slavery is noticed, which by the 10th century transformed gradually a slave-object into a slave-subject.[2] From 11th century, semi-feudal relations largely replaced slavery, seen as "an evil contrary to nature, created by man's selfishness", although slavery was permitted by law.[/quote]

 

Not even "organized religion", but rather, fundamentalists of any particular religion. THEY are the problem, not religion in and of itself.

 

Please read again. There may be other faults with his definition, but his definition is not limited to theism. Read.

 

Please refer to previous post and actually address what was said if you would like to have a discussion. This is an nonsensical attempt to dodge and change the subject. Slavery continued in Europe, and was NOT (please consult any historically literate person) seen only as "an evil contrary to human nature." Clergy defended slavery as PART of human nature AND as God's design, AND they directly appealed to scripture (which explicitly agrees in several places) when making this claim.

 

Exactly. The original Christians were not entirely organized until the Roman empire adopted the religion. They organized it and power centralized in it causing it to be corrupted by the 'chruch'.

 

What ? No.

At least if you want to quote people that are executed for their ideas by christians, do it properly and quote Bruno Giordano..

You will explain me that there is no concern for the happiness for slaves to free them of that disgusting condition ?

Knowledge is got through experiences, you write a hypothesis, and you don't take for true as long as you don't test it through experience, that's what make the base of poperian science, the bade of modern western science. You might have a better way ?

If you want to drop religious BS, then you may start by aknowledge that human are animals. Different psychological sciences have show that every human being has cognitivie bias.

It was a reasonable way for Chinese authorities to stop a problem. Morally disgusting yes, not reasonnable, you would have to prove that China didn't managed in an efficient manner to reduce their problem of terrorism. And again, I'm not defending it's morally right, I'm defendin the fact that's a logical. You pretend it's not reasonnable, then define what you hear by "reason", it's not something you can just claim "it's reasonnable", you're defining it so, why ? Because you're feeling it so ?

For someone who love reason, you're lack of ability construct a backed argument is annoying.

What does it mean to be "good" ? What it is your method to determine something is good ? Use you're reason.

 

What is a "superhuman controlling power" supposed to mean?

The meaningful parts of that definition constitute the very definition of theism.

 

Literacy 101: the definition specifies that this includes MORE than JUST personal gods. That goes beyond the very definition of theism. Think. Think. How many more times do I have to ask? If you won't do it now, you never will.

 

Is the world better off without religion?
Probably not better off without, but would be much better with intelligent reflection and penetration into the subject. The real problem with religion is that most people do not experience it as a choice.

 

Slavery appeared back with the atlantic slave trade, things got worse after the 15th century when there was a real progress before, not in all european history, did Poland ever allowed back slavery ? No. Slavery was abolished in 1335 in Sweden, was it every brought back ? No, and it happened under a time it was very christian, very catholic. The start of abolishement of slavery in Europe started a long time before the enlightenment, like it or not.

Considering the catholic church, if it's true that a lot of popes were accomplice of slavery, it wasn't always true. In 1435, the pope Eugene IV published the papal bull "Sicut Dudum" condemning without any doubt any form of slavery.
That was mentionning the people of Canary Islands :
"We order and command all and each of the faithful of each sex, within the space of fifteen days of the publication of these letters in the place where they live, that they restore to their earlier liberty all and each person of either sex who were once residents of said Canary Islands, and made captives since the time of their capture, and who have been made subject to slavery. These people are to be totally and perpetually free, and are to be let go without the exaction or reception of money"
Under the sentence of excommunication, the heaviest there was at that time.

So again, thing is more nuanced than a disney movie, and things haven't been constant.

 

My gut tells me that religion in us humans works like the wings on a penguin. They came about as a valuable adaptation for flight and that is exactly how they functioned for eons. Over time, penguins adapted into birds that needed to swim effectively, swiftly and for greater distances, more than they needed to fly effectively, swiftly and for greater distances, so that is what their body shape rewarded as they evolved. Those wings were simply useless because they could no longer carry that new body into the air. Either they would change into flippers, or they would shrink into evolutionary stubs.

That is what is happening to religion as a psycho-social evolutionary attribute among humans. It just is not serving our modern needs and is maladaptive for our new evidence based information age environment. Either religions have to dramatically change their structure and essence into something more valuable, or they will gradually shrink like the primate tail on us did. All we have left is a bony stublet at that is fused to our coccyx.

I don't know yet whether we are 'better off' without religion, but I definitely don't think we would be smart penquins if we decided to go around ripping and tearing at those 'wings' off each other, because who knows what they might begat eventually which might be very very useful to enough of us to survive in some very very cold dark and forbidding waters.

For now it seems Mother Nature wants some of us penquins to have these appendages of varying sizes until she decides what to do with them. I am content to let 'nature' take its course slowly. I am in no rush to either save and protect religion or bite at it, tear at it and rip its tendons and muscles. ,.

 

This is not even remotely true. You haven't even finished your sentence and your statement is already completely, diametrically opposed to historical fact. We can't progress beyond this point if you are unwilling to accept historical facts. If you can catch up with historical fact at least this far, then we can move on to the next point.

 

My gut tells me that religion in us humans works like the wings on a penguin. They came about as a valuable adaptation for flight and that is exactly how they functioned for eons. Over time, penguins adapted into birds that needed to swim effectively, swiftly and for greater distances, more than they needed to fly effectively, swiftly and for greater distances, so that is what their body shape rewarded as they evolved. Those wings were simply useless because they could no longer carry that new body into the air. Either they would change into flippers, or they would shrink into evolutionary stubs.

That is what is happening to religion as a psycho-social evolutionary attribute among humans. It just is not serving our modern needs and is maladaptive for our new evidence based information age environment. Either religions have to dramatically change their structure and essence into something more valuable, or they will gradually shrink like the primate tail on us did. All we have left is a bony stublet at that is fused to our coccyx.

I don't know yet whether we are 'better off' without religion, but I definitely don't think we would be smart penquins if we decided to go around ripping and tearing at those 'wings' off each other, because who knows what they might begat eventually which might be very very useful to enough of us to survive in some very very cold dark and forbidding waters.

For now it seems Mother Nature wants some of us penquinins to have these appendages of varying sizes until she decides what to do with them. I am content to let 'nature' take its course slowly. I am in no rush to either save and protect religion or bite at it, tear at it and rip its tendons and muscles. ,

 

Oh, then you would disprove everything I published to prove what I'm says ? Because I backed what I'm said.
You will pretend that Poland didn't abolished slavery in the 15th century ? And that Sweden didn't in the 14th century ? Have a proof of that ? Or you're unable to take in account facts when they don't fit your world view.

 

You haven't actually done anything to support the initial argument that I quoted. You did nothing to support it and did nothing to back it. And it is completely historically inaccurate.

Your initial claim was that "Slavery appeared back with the Atlantic slave trade." This is complete nonsense, and frankly, you know it.

Your additional comments are lame straw men. No one is claiming that there were no efforts anywhere, on a local level, to temporarily restrict slavery. Why make that **** up? Stop shifting the goalposts and try actually being honest about the discussion.

I'll briefly address one of those fake, intellectually dishonest arguments and talk about Sweden. You claimed that Sweden abolished slavery in the 14th century and "was it every brought back ? No." This is a lie. It was brought back in Swedish territories.

 

@yardmeat Did a further more research, seems some of the treaties were unfortunately partially applied [edit : what you mention]. Good news for me, I have much more examples of slavery ban under the Christian era :
960 Venice Slave trade banned in the city under the rule of Doge Pietro IV Candiano.
1080 Norman England William the Conqueror prohibits the sale of any person to "heathens" (non-Christians) as slaves.
1100 Normandy Serfdom no longer present.[14]
1102 Norman England The Council of London bans the slave trade:"Let no one dare hereafter to engage in the infamous business, prevalent in England, of selling men like animals.".[15][11]
c. 1160 Norway The Gulating bans the sale of house slaves out of the country.[citation needed]
1171 Ireland All English slaves in the island freed by the Council of Armagh.[11]
~1220 Holy Roman Empire The Sachsenspiegel, the most influential German code of law from the Middle Ages, condemns slavery as a violation of man's likeness to God.

Slavery is condemned because it violate likeness of man to God, but you would likely tell me there is no link with religion ?

 

Literacy 101: No, it doesn't. The definition of theism includes any god or gods, not just personal ones.

THINK. THINK. How many more times do I have to ask? If you won't do it now, you never will.

 

No one, anywhere, has claimed that no Christian nation at any point in time instituted any restrictions on slavery. No one claimed that. You also need to learn that condemnations of slave trade are not condemnations of slavery . . . the US outlawed slave trade far, far before it outlawed slavery. The Confederacy condemned slave trade, but still made slavery the "cornerstone" of their government.

If slavery were condemned because it violated the likeness of man to God, then the Bible would universally condemn it . . . which isn't even close to being the case. It's just plain nonsense to expect people to believe that Christianity always opposed slavery (despite Christian scriptures explicitly condoning it), and that it just took them over a century and a half to figure that out.

 

If you believe in an impersonal force, but not a god, then you aren't a theist. Words matter. Stop trying to pretend they don't.

 

I never claimed that Christians were always opposed to slavery, but @Ritter pretend that fighting slavery was all about enlightenment, he is just wrong, and it's historically not the case.