A world without religon

[Uzamki Seerar]

No middle east is not even under sharia law lol thats only saudi and even that isnt shaira its mostly kings orders and sharia , also your using that to again in the light of ignorace go and look at the history of islam under shaira law they where fine

exatly my point im trying to say

 

[FreakensteinAG]

Actually without those book, the Human race would had probably gone on extinction. The irony aspect about Religion is that, it instigated laws that help govern our societies even till now. Imagine if Religion had never existed, The world would had been in borderline chaos. For example, the ten commandments of the Bible states; Thou shall not steal. Now imagine this had never been introduced or implemented for some +3000 years prior. Everyone would had steal their ass off simply because stealing wouldn't had been portrayed as a crime.

Why would you think that we as humans would not be able to make laws against Theft without a holy book? We have the mental capacity to make these laws without religion being a part of it. All they would have to do is establish that law and correct people who attempt to break that law. The ancient people had leaders too, and those leaders had a military. This military would be the proto-police-force that corrects people who do not follow the laws of the leader. How is this hard to understand? This was done in the ancient and classical eras of the world without a single person uttering a word about religion. It is not hard to establish Order. The idea that, without a religion, an immoral act would suddenly disappear from the human psyche is ridiculous. We did not enjoy it when another human stole from us before religion existed!

 

[Roy]

It's not religion that's wrong it's the people who interpret it wrongly. Though some points in any religion should just be abolished in this day and age but in the end even without religion conflicts will always happen one way or another.

 

[Glad Of War]

Why would you think that we as humans would not be able to make laws against Theft without a holy book? We have the mental capacity to make these laws without religion being a part of it. All they would have to do is establish that law and correct people who attempt to break that law. The ancient people had leaders too, and those leaders had a military, and that military would be the proto-police-force that corrects people who do not follow the laws of the leader. How is this hard to understand?

You really sure we have the mental capacity to make these laws without illiberality? You really sure these laws assuming they were made, would had been generally accepted without divisiveness?

 

[FreakensteinAG]

You really sure we have the mental capacity to make these laws without illiberality? You really sure these laws assuming they were made, would had been generally accepted without divisiveness?

Illiberality: narrowminded; bigoted

I don't know if this word fits in this sentence. Why would there be bigotry in the law against Theft? Narrowmindedness does not fit either. I would think the citizens of a country would love that the government would protect against their belongings.

Why would there be divisiveness in Theft? It protected the entire population's stuff. Only the thieves would have something to gain and lose. Sure, they would be able to gain something of someone, but if caught, they would be corrected. And in ancient times, that often meant severe punishments. The idea that a religion is the only way in which people could get along and obey laws is ridiculous. If it benefited the majority of citizens, then people would usually find that law okay. It's only when the laws were against the citizens that divisiveness would occur.

 

[YellowFang]

Religion(set of believes) is necessary for mankind to live these fragile lives they have... That keep them focused, committed to something from their beliefs... And obviously basic noble virtues are to be followed which most religions promote like peace, loyalty & human rights etc.
Otherwise, world would be in chaos...

 

[Glad Of War]

Illiberality: narrowminded; bigoted

I don't know if this word fits in this sentence. Why would there be bigotry in the law against Theft? Narrowmindedness does not fit either. I would think the citizens of a country would love that the government would protect against their belongings.

Why would there be divisiveness in Theft? It protected the entire population's stuff. Only the thieves would have something to gain and lose. Sure, they would be able to gain something of someone, but if caught, they would be corrected. And in ancient times, that often meant severe punishments.

Narrowmindedness does fit. Humans had been known to be Narrowminded since forever. It's part of our nature. I doubt the vikings who were known to plague the nothern part of europe by forcefully moving into their countries stealing their belongings, wouldn't be Narrowminded against laws that tarnished their act.

In a nutt shell what I'm trying to insinuate is this; The bible not only introduced this laws, it also helped this laws to be generally acceptable without divisiveness. Most constitutions including the American constitution had their laws blue-printed from the bible. People accepted these laws simply they believed God himself wrote and introduced this laws.
n

 

[FreakensteinAG]

Religion(set of believes) is necessary for mankind to live these fragile lives they have... That keep them focused, committed to something from their beliefs... And obviously basic noble virtues are to be followed which most religions promote like peace, loyalty & human rights etc.
Otherwise, world would be in chaos...

Sure, I think it's wonderful that religion promotes these morals that teach humans to not be dicks to each other. Despite its neutrality, I like this comment more than the others in this thread.

However, is it required that we establish a religion before establishing the laws? Or is there another answer? Could it be that we possibly knew consciously that horrible crimes like theft, murder, etc. was already bad and we created the laws to establish Justice? Because while we knew that murder and theft is terrible, we would still take revenge on those that wronged us. So that's what the laws were set in place, to do the justice for that wronged citizen.

Narrowmindedness does fit. Humans had been known to be Narrowminded since forever. It's part of our nature. I doubt the vikings who were known to plague the nothern part of europe by forcefully moving into their countries stealing their belongings, wouldn't be Narrowminded against laws that tarnished their act.

In a nutt shell what I'm trying to insinuate is this; The bible not only introduced this laws, it also helped this laws to be generally acceptable without divisiveness. Most constitutions including the American constitution had their laws blue-printed from the bible. People accepted these laws simply they believed God himself wrote and introduced this laws.
n

I like that you're more rational than what I had to deal with. Now the difference in the Norse Vikings is that they plundered completely different countries. They didn't squabble with each other. Their own established laws prevented that, and they were content with it. Did they need religion to establish these laws? No, but they did in fact use the Norse Gods as witnesses to court hearings to deter people from lieing. But they did not use the Norse Gods to create their laws. There was order in their civilization, and there was no need for someone to say "these laws are here because of the Norse Gods" to do it. Because they made it with their own hands.

The Constitution did not directly get the laws from the Bible, rather the Quakers who lived up North created their laws from the Bible, which in turn was used as a template for the Constitution, as it contained several of the first Amendments, like Freedom of Religion, in their codes. Several founders of the constitution weren't explicitly religious, which is why the USA was not founded as a Christian nation, rather they felt the need for all religions to be practiced and that they made sure that no law for or against religion was passed (First Amendment).

Am I making any sense here? I'm trying to show that this in fact can be done, secularly and with Order.

 

[Power Bottom]

A world without religion means a world where I don't have to read bs explanations on why we should limit individuals freedoms

 

[Glad Of War]

Sure, I think it's wonderful that religion promotes these morals that teach humans to not be dicks to each other. Despite its neutrality, I like this comment more than the others in this thread.

However, is it required that we establish a religion before establishing the laws? Or is there another answer? Could it be that we possibly knew consciously that horrible crimes like theft, murder, etc. was already bad and we created the laws to establish Justice? Because while we knew that murder and theft is terrible, we would still take revenge on those that wronged us. So that's what the laws were set in place, to do the justice for that wronged citizen.



I like that you're more rational than what I had to deal with. Now the difference in the Norse Vikings is that they plundered completely different countries. They didn't squabble with each other. Their own established laws prevented that, and they were content with it. Did they need religion to establish these laws? No, but they did in fact use the Norse Gods as witnesses to court hearings to deter people from lieing. But they did not use the Norse Gods to create their laws. There was order in their civilization, and there was no need for someone to say "these laws are here because of the Norse Gods" to do it. Because they made it with their own hands.

The Constitution did not directly get the laws from the Bible, rather the Quakers who lived up North created their laws from the Bible, which in turn was used as a template for the Constitution, as it contained several of the first Amendments, like Freedom of Religion, in their codes. Several founders of the constitution weren't explicitly religious, which is why the USA was not founded as a Christian nation, rather they felt the need for all religions to be practiced and that they made sure that no law for or against religion was passed (First Amendment).

Am I making any sense here? I'm trying to show that this in fact can be done, secularly and with Order.

You totally missed the point. The vikings point I previously posted was nothing more than exemplification reassuring my point. Humans generally have different beliefs. The one belief that hasn't been depreciated is the belief in God. Every culture has their own laws instigated by their own gods. They only reason they accepted these "laws" without divisiveness is because these laws weren't created by mortals in other words humans. They feel since god is above all, these laws can't be questioned by mere humans. Even though we may argue these gods are fiction, we can't however argue the laws created by this so called gods didn't help the folks to better govern themselves.

Now Imagine been told not to go against a law created by "humans," than been told not to go against a law created by "God."

 

[Ripple Hole]

People have the intelligence to develop laws without an organized religion. /thread

Damn, lol... XD Nice sig ..
I don't understand the dislikes though, it's like they're implying
we'd be dumber/dumb without religion.

 

[Skylar Knight]

We have used human intelligence to cure diseases, split the atom, and invent a technology that has us reaching for the stars, yet religious people would have us believe that we are too stupid to discover that lying, stealing, and killing are morally wrong. Haha, okay.

 

[Pumpkin Ninja]

It won't be any more peaceful or any more bloodthirsty. What religion is, is essentially conviction, which is why people are so strong about theirs and are ready to fight. Humans can have that type of conviction in anything, not just religion. Once you have strong conviction towards something, let's say your nation, you're easily manipulated by others. This does not change.

Most wars, although, religion seems to be the motivator, have to do with things like resources and corruption. For example, WW1 and WW2. Both of these wars were the most gruesome of humanity. To say religion is the motivator of these two wars is completely grasping at straws.

Even peaceful religions like Buddhism, have extremely violent members.

So the problem is not religion, or atheism, the problem is humankind itself. Most people who claim religion is the problem, usually have shallow thought processes.

EDIT: I think I covered the wrong topic a bit. I was defending religion. I meant to defend both.

God is just a motivator to instill laws. Most laws and morals are thought of by humans. Even if you believe in God, you cannot deny this because many nations and cultures believe in different Gods yet all have similar morals to a certain extent. Many law makers and leaders were atheists (or at least didn't believe in the religion of the society) under the guise of holy men to instill their beliefs, in the first place. So no, a world without religion is not a world without morals.

 

[Agent Phrank]

Narrowmindedness does fit. Humans had been known to be Narrowminded since forever. It's part of our nature. I doubt the vikings who were known to plague the nothern part of europe by forcefully moving into their countries stealing their belongings, wouldn't be Narrowminded against laws that tarnished their act.

In a nutt shell what I'm trying to insinuate is this; The bible not only introduced this laws, it also helped this laws to be generally acceptable without divisiveness. Most constitutions including the American constitution had their laws blue-printed from the bible. People accepted these laws simply they believed God himself wrote and introduced this laws.
n

[CITATION NEEDED]

You must be registered for see images

Did you actually read the Constitution or the Declaration?

You must be registered for see links

you would be narrow-minded to assume that their reasoning behind the Declaration was solely based on their fear/belief of God.

The founding fathers were heavily influenced by many philosophers such as

You must be registered for see links

(

You must be registered for see links

), Thomas Hobbes(notable atheist,

You must be registered for see links

)and the great Voltaire (i

You must be registered for see links

Claiming that

"their laws blue-printed from the bible"

and

"people accepted these laws simply they believed God himself wrote and introduced this laws."

is ludicrous.

You must be registered for see links

Thomas Jefferson made an interpretation of the 1st Amendment to his January 1st, 1802 letter to the Committee of the Danbury Baptist Association calling it a "wall of separation between church and State." Madison had also written that "Strongly guarded. . . is the separation between religion and government in the Constitution of the United States."

Thornwell's view on the Declaration:

They failed to apprehend the Divine side-- that all just government is the ordinance of God, and that magistrates are His ministers who must answer to Him for the execution of their trust. The consequence of this failure, and of exclusive attention to a single aspect of the case, was to invest the people with a species of supremacy as insulting to God as it was injurious to them

First amendment:

Congress shall make NO law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances

Finale notes:
A quote from the man himself:

1. “If I could conceive that the general government might ever be so administered as to render the liberty of conscience insecure, I beg you will be persuaded, that no one would be more zealous than myself to establish effectual barriers against the horrors of spiritual tyranny, and every species of religious persecution.”
~Founding Father George Washington, letter to the United Baptist Chamber of Virginia, May 1789

“Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.”
~Founding Father Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814,

28. “No religious doctrine shall be established by law.”
~Founding Father Elbridge Gerry, Annals of Congress 1:729-731

Spoiler

You must be registered for see images

Narrowmindedness does fit. Humans had been known to be Narrowminded since forever.

You could have used a different example though.

 

[SIR HERDERP PRESIDERP SDO]

It's not religion that's wrong it's the people who interpret it wrongly. Though some points in any religion should just be abolished in this day and age but in the end even without religion conflicts will always happen one way or another.

Pretty much.

 

[Uzumaki Macho]

Without it we would be in hell because if it wasn't for the fear of hell. we would do all type of ****ed up shit

Then how come atheists aren't more likely to commit crimes?

 

[Caliburn]

I often hear people say that without religon the earth would be more peaceful. I honestly cant believe people say that probably because they dont ponder on it often. Lets imagine this we where animals correct? Do animals have laws? They have social structure but they dont have laws they can just do whatever the want but will face actions ofcourse. Now imagine earth stripped of relgoun now we would live in a worser world do you know why? most athiest are brought up in the jedo-christain west , so stuff like muder and co and wrong to them. I if there is no law at the start none of these things like murder , rape ,stealing etc would be deemed wrong at all. Infact if you look at history why was mankind so bloodthirsty? At the end of the day from an athiest view religoun is incorrect hence subjective therefore without religoun they still would be bloodthirsty they just wouldnt use god as their objectivty to justify stuff but they would use sunjectivity which is much worse.

Example I steal because I worked for hours and get a small amount No one gives me a chance to get a good job due to grades or experiance or just how I may look. Therefore I steal like big cooperations becausr they dont get stop etc. Thats a justification for todays soceity imagine a world without religon we would litterally have animal insticts so like rape would be fine since she look hot I felt turned on and there we go. Please try to justify its wrong because you can its infinitely subjective only time its objecitive is from a higeher source the highest source is truth and people can say god is truth ofcourse and since god would have created truth he is the best objective source but dismiss him we live in a world of subjectivity.
Not trying to preach about god just mentioninh him.

What you are saying makes no sense and your examples even less. Even now I can't tell whether you now are for or against religion. You also seem to be confusing religion with morality and with law. These are all very different matters. Apparently you are baselessly assuming that without religion we would be no different than animals, which is to say the least a highly subjective notion that is far from ever being proven and in fact can't be proven.

Religion on itself is neither good nor bad, it's the ones who believe in the religion who will determine that. During the Middle Ages muslims believed that science was a way of getting closer to God, which led to many important discoveries. Now it brought forth IS, a group of extremists completely void of any reason.

A world without religion wouldn't be necessary better or worse. There's no one who can objectively answer that question simply because the only world we know is drenched in religion. It's possible our world would have advanced much further without it, it's possible we would still be using horses and carts rather than cars for transportation. Frankly anyone who is claiming that it would be guaranteed better or worse, can't be taken seriously.

 

[Multiply]

People have the intelligence to develop laws without an organized religion. /thread

This. Religion did not instantly give humans intelligence.

 

[Venomous Cobra]

A world without religion means a world where I don't have to read bs explanations on why we should limit individuals freedoms

The law itself limits your freedom...smh but no let's all be cool and blame religion for not being able to do anything we want.

True freedom=chaos

OT: I completely disagree, a book cannot give intelligence, it can only guide you and that is only if you choose to follow it but even that has its own meaning. This is coming from A religious person btw.

 

[Multiply]

The law itself limits your freedom...smh but no let's all be cool and blame religion for not being able to do anything we want.

True freedom=chaos

OT: I completely disagree, a book cannot give intelligence, it can only guide you and that is only if you choose to follow it but even that has its own meaning. This is coming from A religious person btw.

@Bold, those laws come from religion though.