There is no right or wrong answer. This is not a thread about what religion is right, what religion is wrong. Historically, religion has held many nations together, and caused them to crumble. It has been used as a tool in political agendas, imperial conquest, world peace, scientific discovery, ethical achievements, moral standards, law... the list goes on. Of course, you can argue that religion hindered every one of these things, or that religion has become so corrupt that it does not further any of these things, and in fact does more to hinder it than to further humanity's development.

What do you believe?

As per request...
I feel that without the institute of religion, humanity would have taken a lot longer to organize, and therefore would have taken a lot longer to collaborate and solidify basic facts.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Nov 17 2009, 6:37 pm by Fire_Kame.

Either everyone has free will to do whatever they want, and they know about it: which is bad (Especially if convincing a religious person that religion is not true, the person can turn into a killer). Or everyone is okay with everyone else, and the society helps and cooperates with each other.

Religion tended to hinder scientific progress (because it disagreed with the scriptures). Many scientists and reformers against the old regimes were punished or even killed for disagreeing.

Also, on the subject of religion created morals: We'd reason that killing each other and stealing each others stuff is a bad thing regardless.

About reasoning pertaining to morals, I could argue that without religion in any sense humans would have evolved with a propensity towards the mantra of "might is right". Maybe society would have developed into a more universal form of Fascism, in which ethnic cleansing were rampant, and in the minds of those who are the "mighty" they would be absolutely right in there killing off of the weak, since the weak really hinder society as a whole. Without religion in any sense, I don't think we would actually be a surviving race anymore, I think that we would have ended up killing each other off or resulting in our own destruction much earlier than we ever can possibly do as of now.

How can you know, that without religion, ideas of property rights, value, monetary systems, the value that life in general inherently receives just for existing, how can you know that any of this would exist if early religions weren't developed? Without any religion, I'm thinking that humanity would have felt it had absolutely no purpose, and a sentient race without a purpose doesn't sound very likely to survive for long.

Of course, non-sentient races survive rather well without purpose..

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Nov 17 2009, 5:28 am by CecilSunkure. Reason: Removed off topic discussion.

Your post makes me sad Cecil, it's as if you're saying that the non-religious folk have no purpose....

The purpose of any living organism (including humans) is to create more living organisms. What I think you're trying to say is religion helps people discover "What am I here to do?" Religion has brought people together for common goals, but it also produced many negative effects. One could say, "For every soul saved, there was another enslaved." Think about it: Islam promotes peace, but Jews get killed. Hinduism promote nonviolence, but discriminates based on birth placement. Christians convert Native Americans, but 90% of the indigenous population dies. In short, religion can be called a "mixed blessing."

There is no doubt that the world would be drastically different today without religion.

The analysis of the state of the world with and without religion would require comparisons between the effect that religion has had and the effects of a world without religion. In essence, whether religion is "right or wrong" is a necessary part of this question, if one were to truly examine the case. In a topic on SEN obviously no one's going to get that deep into it (I'd go so far as to question whether it's even possible on SEN), but its worth a thought or two.

Addtionally, if you mean the topic to refer to "Religion" and not just "Christianity" you need to consider a broader spectrum of beliefs. Its perfectly possible to create your own moral code, and were Christianity and the other well-known religions never on the earth it's still possible that religion would have developed. An atheist could be religious, strange as that seems, so long as he or she conducts him or herself by the standards he or she sets forth as his or her code.

In the topic post you should edit in whether you wish the discussion topic to refer to the broader spectrum, or those well-known religions such as Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, ect. This simple constraint can produce two completely different topics, and certain points from one may not apply to the other at all.

The biological purpose.

Additionally, you're supposed to provide your own argument in the opening post and state your case. Once more, of course the world would not 'exist as it is' without religion. It also wouldn't exist as it is without popsicles. I don't think that your topic question actually asks what you meant it to ask.

Perhaps Fire_Kame meant to ask "How would the world be different without religion?"

I don't think that is satisfying enough for very many people. Something like "You only have one life, so have as much fun as possible." would be more satisfying, to me.

@Norm
Yeah, I definitely implied that, but I assumed that the general public would feel the same way I do about their purpose -probably not a good thing to do when debating

You're completely disregarding Confucianism. Without religion, the growth of science wouldn't be as heavily stunted, and countless devastating wars would have been avoided. Take Copernicus and Galileo for example. Religion is, and always has been, superfluous and parasitic to mankind.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Nov 17 2009, 5:31 am by CecilSunkure. Reason: Removed response to modifed post.

I would agree with sentences one, two, and three. I don't agree with your last sentence however. Just because religion has stunted the growth of science in the past, doesn't mean that it is necessarily a bad thing. I don't pretend to omnipotent, and I don't think you should either. How do you know that religion is parasitic, and that the effects of religion are overall negative? About religion being superfluous, that is really just an opinion; just because it stunted the growth of science and has created some nasty wars doesn't make it superfluous, that just shows that religion had a great impact on how our world turned out and how our world was run in the past. You made a good observation, though I don't think your opinion is justified or proven by your previous statements.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Nov 17 2009, 5:31 am by CecilSunkure.

Is the growth of science really even stunted anymore by religion? I think the consensus nowadays is that science is a very important part of our reality. Maybe a few hundred years ago this would have been a relevant obstacle, but nowadays the only well-known controversial conflict I know of between science and religion is the whole Creationism vs. Evolution topic, and that's certainly not hindering scientists from doing their work.

I never pretend to omnipotent.
I know that religion had a great impact. It was a great and negative impact, which wasn't necessary to the survival of mankind. How do my examples contradict my view? Is it not true that religion caused millions of deaths, and silenced many great scientists?
It was stunted heavily in the past, and as a result, progress has been delayed. The state of the present is connected to the past.

It isn't necessary for your examples to contrdict your view, it could simply be the case that you haven't provided enough examples to properly justify your claim. The names of 2 scientists is hardly sufficient to demonstrate thousands of years worth of a particular aspect of religion. You could just as easily say that the U.S. law is bad by providing 2 cases of an innocent man being wrongly convicted, when there are countless thousands who have been convicted rightly.

Perhaps religion has done more for science than you know. Would scientific achievement have been so possible in a primitive culture which was not bound by a central leadership under God, where man was relatively free from harm in comparison to a leaderless state? Perhaps by instituting the rule of religion, an environment of stability was created which allowed science to progress faster than if there had been no religion. Would the Renaissance have happened, if not for religion? Would fate have conspired to allow Da'Vinci to do the work he did, if not for the institutions which had their root in religion? Maybe, and maybe not. It's also possible that people could have formed their own civilizations under some other banner which would not have contradicited the findings of men like Galileo and would have been equal or greater in producing an environment in which science could flourish. The point is, as cecil said, we are not omnipotent and can not say for certain about any particular scenario (except those we have experienced or know of ourselves, of course). Just because you believe religion was a great impediment to science does not necessarily make it so.

Well I could write pages about the Crusades, the War in Iraq, Hitler's Jew cleansing regime, The murder of Jesus, the death of Socrates, treatment of those with Leprosy, animosity towards homosexuals, Manifest Destiny, The Klu Klux Klan, Scientology, the "Flat Earth" concept, The Church of The Middle Ages, the fall of every native country in South America, the key justification for all of European racism, The Salem Witch Trials, and etc.
I just assumed it was common knowledge.

Also, you are again denying/ignoring the success of Confucianism. From this we can see that humanity obviously would not have fallen into moral disrepair were it not for guidance of a manufactured god.

Also, according to your logic, nobody should be arguing about the past at all because nobody can make reasonable inferences as to what course history would have taken if certain factors never existed. If we follow your argument, nobody can say Hitler was bad, because who knows, maybe if Hitler was killed Germany would have gone on a massive Jew slaying rampage and killed even more Jews.

Post has been edited 5 time(s), last time on Nov 17 2009, 6:35 am by PwnPirate.

The point I am trying to make is this:

You make an observation, a pretty good one. Your good observation was that religion has caused some awful wars. Now, just because you make a good observation, doesn't mean your conclusion is necessarily a good one. I can observe that the moon is a yellowish color; that is a good observation. I can also conclude that the moon is made of cheese based off of my observation. Good observation, bad conclusion.

Just because religion made very heavy influences to history, and the present, doesn't make those influences inherently good or bad. Whether or not these influences were negative or not, or parasitic or not, is not a claim that is properly backed by spouting out influences that religion has made on science. You don't know exactly how religion influenced science (in terms of negative/postitive good/bad influences), all you know is that religion influenced science. You aren't properly backing up the how of my last sentence.

So please, before you post again, don't make the same mistake. I'm not trying to dissuade you from posting, just don't make the same actions expecting different outcomes (yeah this can go both ways, but I'm drawing the line here).

[Edit]Eek! I've been ninja-edited! I'll have to respond tomorrow, I have to go now.

[Edit2]I dun wanna.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Nov 18 2009, 4:50 am by CecilSunkure.

No, we know that religion has a bad influence on science because historically people like Galileo, Socrates, Copernicus, Giordano Bruno have ended up in bad situations because of religious ideals. Things like Index Librorum Prohibitorum have hindered science. The Antikythera mechanism was thought to be built in 100B.C. but similar devices were not seen again until the 14th century. This is a good conclusion unless you can make one that somehow shows religion helping science or being neutral to science. Your moon is made out of cheese conclusion is bad because you can provide stronger alternative conclusions. Can anybody provide a strong alternative conclusion to how religion influences science that refutes the one i presented?

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Nov 17 2009, 7:14 am by MasterJohnny.

Religion was probably among the first to unify the masses.
And although originally created to explain the unexplainable and generally create humans with greater mindsets, people tend to take things too far. And then you get insane zealots that dictate law and kill people.

Confucianism is a philosophy, not a religion. It would be helpful at this point to define the difference between a religion and a belief system. In a wider definition of "religion," almost any way of life can be considered its own religion. In a narrower definition of "religion," one might be referring to an organized church or theocracy, not just the indigenous tribal religions that existed before the rise of settled agriculture and the first cities, which prompted universalizing religions.