Post Reply
Favorite
A world without religion?
|
Gabcom wrote: Looking at some of the actual arguments posted, I can only conclude that the world would be a lot different, but better or worse? Impossible to say. It would be like saying if guns were never invented. People wouldn't have the ability to kill others so easily, there'd be a lot less fear in the world, as well as crime, war, lots of other bad stuff. However, gunpowder wouldn't be so widely used, hence some of our technology wouldn't exist. People would still kill, declare war, commit crimes, etc using crossbows and swords and other stuff. Then there'd be other ways of stopping these crimes that consists of...like...a computerized crossbow...Yeah..You get the picture. So which one would you say is "better"? Hell, the world might end up with exactly the same mentalities, morals and stuff, but with some iconic differences. Like instead of churches, we have freak scientists. Theres my pointless conclusion... On a more down to daily life look, if religion didn't exist, I wouldn't have my parents nagging me to go to church. That would be good. Lol I was like that when I was coming up myself. |
|
|
|
|
btw, all these people claiming we'd have less war and ish are illy. i thought everybody knew that the majority of war is over land
|
|
|
|
|
applexshampoo wrote: btw, all these people claiming we'd have less war and ish are illy. i thought everybody knew that the majority of war is over land There'd be less wars because only the majority of war is over land, while the minority is religious wars. And that is supposed to be gone. = less wars. |
|
oh this is nifty
|
|
|
Gabcom wrote: applexshampoo wrote: btw, all these people claiming we'd have less war and ish are illy. i thought everybody knew that the majority of war is over land There'd be less wars because only the majority of war is over land, while the minority is religious wars. And that is supposed to be gone. = less wars. majority of religious wars are over land first as well. there wouldn't be the type of impact like people are claiming |
|
|
|
|
Gabcom wrote: Hitoli wrote: No, homosexuals are mainly being discriminated because it says in the bible that it's a sin. There are homosexual animals as well, it's completely natural! But because the bible says so, those animals probably are sinner too. And people actually killed each other because they didn't agree about religion. Muslims flying into towers, christians going on crusade, in Ireland protestants and catholics had major problems.. It's all because of they're religion. You should believe in the god that I think is the right one, or else you're a bad person. Homosexual animals WHAT THE SHIT?????? I demand source. ... World shocking. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_sexuality Have fun with it. Damn it, it really astonishes me that all these things that are inconvenient for christians are unknown to most Americans. In my country, I think most people know that even animals are gay. |
|
Where is Waldo?
|
|
|
applexshampoo wrote: Gabcom wrote: applexshampoo wrote: btw, all these people claiming we'd have less war and ish are illy. i thought everybody knew that the majority of war is over land There'd be less wars because only the majority of war is over land, while the minority is religious wars. And that is supposed to be gone. = less wars. majority of religious wars are over land first as well. there wouldn't be the type of impact like people are claiming True. Wait, I mean that second bit. |
|
oh this is nifty
|
|
|
withe out religion its makes life meaningless
|
|
I'm not active here sorry ( leave msg or GB ) i,ll check them later^^ T.C
|
|
|
larendilly's Avatar
Level 2 Shinji
|
Hitoli wrote: larendilly wrote: Hitoli wrote: A world without religion would be great. People wouldn't be killing eachother because they worship another god anymore. Homosexual people wouldn't be discriminated. Women would have been equal to men a long time ago. A lot less people would have died from aids (and other STD's). First off, do you mean when someone religious kills another person he does it because of his religion. Or does he do it despite his religion? The latter seem closer to the truth for me. I believe homosexual people would still be discriminated even if there were no religion. I'd say discrimination against them would persist as long as humans can see the difference between men and women, physiologically. No, homosexuals are mainly being discriminated because it says in the bible that it's a sin. There are homosexual animals as well, it's completely natural! But because the bible says so, those animals probably are sinner too. I can't agree with that. I am talking about modern discrimination, which has nothing to do with religion as far as I know. I am talking about sterotypes. Many picture a homosexual man as a person with good fashion sense, girly voice etc. Today, in this century, people mostly discriminate homosexuals because of the sterotypes the imagine. Not because of religion. Hitoli wrote: And people actually killed each other because they didn't agree about religion. Muslims flying into towers, christians going on crusade, in Ireland protestants and catholics had major problems.. It's all because of they're religion. You should believe in the god that I think is the right one, or else you're a bad person. Yes I believe that too. People went to war because of different religions. But looking deeper we should think about if they didn't go to war. Then there would be too many religions to cope with. Gabcom wrote: Looking at some of the actual arguments posted, I can only conclude that the world would be a lot different, but better or worse? Impossible to say. It would be like saying if guns were never invented. People wouldn't have the ability to kill others so easily, there'd be a lot less fear in the world, as well as crime, war, lots of other bad stuff. However, gunpowder wouldn't be so widely used, hence some of our technology wouldn't exist. People would still kill, declare war, commit crimes, etc using crossbows and swords and other stuff. Then there'd be other ways of stopping these crimes that consists of...like...a computerized crossbow...Yeah..You get the picture. So which one would you say is "better"? Hell, the world might end up with exactly the same mentalities, morals and stuff, but with some iconic differences. Like instead of churches, we have freak scientists. Theres my pointless conclusion... On a more down to daily life look, if religion didn't exist, I wouldn't have my parents nagging me to go to church. That would be good. Yeah pretty much we might as well say that the world would be better if humans didn't exist at all, completing the circle |
|
|
|
|
|
|
oh this is nifty
|
|
|
scientfically yes. many discoveries we ahve already made could have been done faster and we could maybe even control some terminal illnesses with the help of cloning.
However some peopel need religon as a source of hope. im an atheist and maybe no religon would be good but religon can be anything as long as someone puts an ideology accross then their can be a religon in it. i lold |
|
|
|
|
Gabcom wrote: applexshampoo wrote: Gabcom wrote: applexshampoo wrote: btw, all these people claiming we'd have less war and ish are illy. i thought everybody knew that the majority of war is over land There'd be less wars because only the majority of war is over land, while the minority is religious wars. And that is supposed to be gone. = less wars. majority of religious wars are over land first as well. there wouldn't be the type of impact like people are claiming True. Wait, I mean that second bit. do your research on some religious wars. it's land, always has been religion, nationalism, counter-terrorism etc we all know it's just about land |
|
|
|
|
applexshampoo wrote: Gabcom wrote: applexshampoo wrote: Gabcom wrote: applexshampoo wrote: btw, all these people claiming we'd have less war and ish are illy. i thought everybody knew that the majority of war is over land There'd be less wars because only the majority of war is over land, while the minority is religious wars. And that is supposed to be gone. = less wars. majority of religious wars are over land first as well. there wouldn't be the type of impact like people are claiming True. Wait, I mean that second bit. do your research on some religious wars. it's land, always has been religion, nationalism, counter-terrorism etc we all know it's just about land cos Al'queda wanted where the world trade centre is for some new property development. With wars their are FACTORS land is just one of thsoe factors. religon also plays a part. in the crusades people wanted jerusulem because of the religous meaning. so do your reserch mate. As we become less religous land has become a bigger factore but religon has always been used to gode peopel into fighting for their cause |
|
|
|
|
we can live without religion.................................. religion id basicaly EXTRA rules to be a better person when we arn't...... like my religiuos education teacher is an athiest (meaning he doesn't believe in god), however he is a very nice guy. I guess religion just keeps us in a "strait line"..............
|
|
LOL!?
|
|
|
JoSh242 wrote: applexshampoo wrote: Gabcom wrote: applexshampoo wrote: Gabcom wrote: applexshampoo wrote: btw, all these people claiming we'd have less war and ish are illy. i thought everybody knew that the majority of war is over land There'd be less wars because only the majority of war is over land, while the minority is religious wars. And that is supposed to be gone. = less wars. majority of religious wars are over land first as well. there wouldn't be the type of impact like people are claiming True. Wait, I mean that second bit. do your research on some religious wars. it's land, always has been religion, nationalism, counter-terrorism etc we all know it's just about land cos Al'queda wanted where the world trade centre is for some new property development. With wars their are FACTORS land is just one of thsoe factors. religon also plays a part. in the crusades people wanted jerusulem because of the religous meaning. so do your reserch mate. As we become less religous land has become a bigger factore but religon has always been used to gode peopel into fighting for their cause lol, the seljuk's wanted to expand their empire that = the crusades. it all spanned from that one action which was motivated by the expansion of an empire. also i wouldn't call the trade towers a war do YOUR reserch ~mate~ |
|
|
Videos |
Popular Free Anime |
Community |
Support |
Premium Services |
Partnerships |
Crunchyroll |