What's your religion?

[roriconfan]

What is this off topic you guys play here? In before the lock are we? You are NOT talking about religion. You are comparing who has the longest.

So, trying to bring back the subject, I ask this: How will our world be different without religions? ... Aside that there will be no more churches.

[Cipher]

Originally Posted by roriconfan

What is this off topic you guys play here? In before the lock are we? You are NOT talking about religion. You are comparing who has the longest.

So, trying to bring back the subject, I ask this: How will our world be different without religions? ... Aside that there will be no more churches.

A world without religion would be a world looking for religion. If you remove religion, then you're removing one part of humanity. If that's the case, then a world without *that* part of human nature would be a world concentrated on the *now*. ---perhaps no planning and therefore lack of organization. Or, more positive, perhaps a world with greater peace.

[Quzor]

Originally Posted by roriconfan

How will our world be different without religions? ... Aside that there will be no more churches.

This could be an interesting philosophical discussion. First off, we must discern whether we are talking about a world completely void of religion, or a world in which religion has been removed in favor of something else.

If we woke up tomorrow, and science had disproved everything about religion, I suspect life would be much the same as it is now. People who believe in religion would continue to do so, and would attempt to disprove what science had recently shown to be true. And, people who believe in science will continue to do so, and attempt to prove again, or offer better explanation toward, what science had already proven before.

On the other hand, if we're talking about a world where religion never existed, and was never even considered as a possibility, that could be a radically different world indeed. I hesitate here to even speculate as to what that would would be like, because it is so far out of the realm of thought for us, that we probably would not even come close to making an accurate guess. For the sake of guessing though, I suspect that world would be founded largely in only what can be directly perceived. I would even go so far as to say that it would not be grounded in science either, unless science was a pre-existing condition of that world and had, from the beginning of time, described precisely why absolutely everything is the way it is. But, for the most part, old people die because they are old; it's sunny because the sun is out; the crops grow because we planted them; that's the sort of basic thinking, I would surmise, would permeate that society.

Originally Posted by Cipher

A world without religion would be a world looking for religion. If you remove religion, then you're removing one part of humanity. If that's the case, then a world without *that* part of human nature would be a world concentrated on the *now*. ---perhaps no planning and therefore lack of organization.

This assumes that religion is a pre-existing condition of the society we are discussing. If people initially had no concept of religion, there would be no reason for them to look for religion. Concurrently, there would be no sense of a removal of a "part of humanity," because that part of them never existed in the first place.

Also, just because you focus on the now, does not mean you cannot plan for the future. The difference is, you have no control over what the future holds, except maybe in the absolutely immediate sense of the words. In that respect, a lack of religion would have little--probably no--effect on that society's ability to cope with whatever the future may hold in store for them.

Lastly, what does a lack of organization have to do with the topic at hand? Certainly there is no religious dogma which says that those who practice a certain religion are more organized and prepared than those who do not. Lack of organization comes from an individual's inability to focus, or maintain concentration on the tasks at hand; not from their set or non-set of beliefs.

[roriconfan]

Maybe a world without religion would be a world without imagination. Trying to use your imagination to explain things you don't understand is a great part or religion. The funny thing is, as soon as an imaginative answer is given, imagination ceases to be accepted most of the times.

[Cipher]

Originally Posted by Quzor

This assumes that religion is a pre-existing condition of the society we are discussing. If people initially had no concept of religion, there would be no reason for them to look for religion. Concurrently, there would be no sense of a removal of a "part of humanity," because that part of them never existed in the first place.

But haven't we identified humanity as what it is currently and what it will be within different dimensions? From our POV, it is that, but from *that* world, it is the other way.

Also, just because you focus on the now, does not mean you cannot plan for the future. The difference is, you have no control over what the future holds, except maybe in the absolutely immediate sense of the words. In that respect, a lack of religion would have little--probably no--effect on that society's ability to cope with whatever the future may hold in store for them.

I think I'd go with "little". Religion stems from the *worry* of our distant future, having no desire to create religion means the lack of wanting to create theories and approximate future guesses.

Lastly, what does a lack of organization have to do with the topic at hand? Certainly there is no religious dogma which says that those who practice a certain religion are more organized and prepared than those who do not. Lack of organization comes from an individual's inability to focus, or maintain concentration on the tasks at hand; not from their set or non-set of beliefs.

I was thinking about Confucianism and other forms or organizational beliefs but I guess that's not a religion.

[Ascaloth]

Originally Posted by Cipher

We're running in circles. Please look for the answers to these questions on your own. I'm tired of playing this "game". Thank you for understanding---that is, if you did.

It's not my fault for not understanding your points if it was your own explanatory skills that were lacking.

[Haak]

I guess no matter how hard we may try to look there will always be some Wishful Thinking in us...

[Edgewalker]

Some may say wishful thinking, confirmation bias, and faith are all one and the same.

And you are right. Everyone has these. Technically the only thing you can know with certainty is that your consciousness exists due to the impossibility of disproving your mind to yourself ( any evidence you are presented must be understood in some way by your mind, thus any evidence that attempts to disprove the minds existence is flawed by default. ) So we all take a very small amount of faith in assuming the world we live in is real and not a dream.

It all comes down to intellectual honesty. How much faith are you willing to admit that you have, and how willing are you to accept that not all leaps of faith are equal?


@ Cipher + Ascaloth

You two should really consider just letting bygones be bygones. From my perspective it seems pretty apparent that neither of you are getting any of your points across to each other.

[Proto]

Originally Posted by Cipher

I believe that was a valid question. Do you believe that we're given "smart" brains for a reason?

Maybe we should retrace a few steps. The reason I do not believe that that was a valid question, is that while there might actually be the case that we were given brains for a reason (whoever was the giver), there might be another 100,000 equally likely reasons. And that is the problem when you try to reason things by reversing the cycle of causality. For example, it is perfectly normal to try to derive things effects from a given cause. For example, a water tank spills over the street, the outside pavement will be wet. However trying to reason things the other way around is risky. If the outside pavement is wet, it might have rained... or maybe someone wet it on purpose, or maybe a water tank spilled over, or maybe instead of a simple rain it was a hurricane or...

Which is why normally it is refuted as an invalid question, as per the link I quoted initially.

But isn't our survival also natural? Aren't our medicines and solutions natural as well?

Checking your discussion with Ascaloth, seemingly you believe that everything produced by a so called natural being, is by extension a natural product. Under this definition, what counts as an unnatural solution?

[Vexx]

Spirituality or "religion" (the codification of that spirituality) may be an unavoidable by-product of our neuro-biology, making the no-religion world more imaginary than pink unicorns. The ability to imagine scenarios, to consider the long term future, the ability to project oneself (empathize) are parts of sophisticated brain function. I'm assuming people are aware of experiments where specific locations of the brain can be stimulated to produce:
1) religious awe
2) voices, hallucinations (particularly of the deceased)
3) apparent conversations within the mind with "other" entities.

What I'm saying is that spirituality is probably unavoidable... *organized* or *codified* religion (and all the problems it seems to cause because of the ease with which it is usurped by the mentally ill people who want to "be in charge") is something that can probably be resisted, however.

[idiffer]

Originally Posted by Vexx

Spirituality or "religion" (the codification of that spirituality) may be an unavoidable by-product of our neuro-biology, making the no-religion world more imaginary than pink unicorns. The ability to imagine scenarios, to consider the long term future, the ability to project oneself (empathize) are parts of sophisticated brain function. I'm assuming people are aware of experiments where specific locations of the brain can be stimulated to produce:
1) religious awe
2) voices, hallucinations (particularly of the deceased)
3) apparent conversations within the mind with "other" entities.

What I'm saying is that spirituality is probably unavoidable... *organized* or *codified* religion (and all the problems it seems to cause because of the ease with which it is usurped by the mentally ill people who want to "be in charge") is something that can probably be resisted, however.

by-product - not exactly. there are a lot of by-products in us humans...nothing is perfect.
well actually, the strive for religion isnt a by-product. it has a purpose. the bad things that come along with religion are by-products.
avoided...more like blocked the hell out of conciousness. thats what stupid ppl do, lol.
mentally ill ppl tend to be more religious...i do urge ppl to read "The Corruption Of Reality A unified Theory Of Religion Hypnosis And Psychopathology - John Schumaker"

[BISHOU NO TERESA]

no religion. atheist

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by Vexx

Spirituality or "religion" (the codification of that spirituality) may be an unavoidable by-product of our neuro-biology, making the no-religion world more imaginary than pink unicorns. The ability to imagine scenarios, to consider the long term future, the ability to project oneself (empathize) are parts of sophisticated brain function. I'm assuming people are aware of experiments where specific locations of the brain can be stimulated to produce:
1) religious awe
2) voices, hallucinations (particularly of the deceased)
3) apparent conversations within the mind with "other" entities.

What I'm saying is that spirituality is probably unavoidable... *organized* or *codified* religion (and all the problems it seems to cause because of the ease with which it is usurped by the mentally ill people who want to "be in charge") is something that can probably be resisted, however.

I don't know. Plenty of people aren't very spiritual, me included. Sure, we're outliers. But that doesn't mean we'll always be.

[Quzor]

Originally Posted by Vexx

Spirituality or "religion" (the codification of that spirituality) may be an unavoidable by-product of our neuro-biology, making the no-religion world more imaginary than pink unicorns. The ability to imagine scenarios, to consider the long term future, the ability to project oneself (empathize) are parts of sophisticated brain function. I'm assuming people are aware of experiments where specific locations of the brain can be stimulated to produce:
1) religious awe
2) voices, hallucinations (particularly of the deceased)
3) apparent conversations within the mind with "other" entities.

What I'm saying is that spirituality is probably unavoidable... *organized* or *codified* religion (and all the problems it seems to cause because of the ease with which it is usurped by the mentally ill people who want to "be in charge") is something that can probably be resisted, however.

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

I don't know. Plenty of people aren't very spiritual, me included. Sure, we're outliers. But that doesn't mean we'll always be.

I think Vexx's point remains valid though. From a purely literal standpoint, if spirituality is something that is an "unavoidable by-product of our neuro-biology," then it is unlikely that spirituality will ever completely disappear. While I agree that there are plenty of non-spiritual people out there (I'm also one of them), even if the case becomes that we are no longer the outliers, if one spiritual person still exists, then spirituality still *technically* exists in that world. Extrapolating to the idea that spirituality begets religion, one could argue that religion would also continue to exist. As for avoiding the "organized or codified religion," I wouldn't begin to guess as to how that would come to pass.

I think this is why I find it so hard to imagine a world without religion. It's a curious topic but, in the end, I just can't seem to wrap my head around it because it just doesn't feel plausible.

[Anh_Minh]

Well, I can't really imagine it either. But five hundred years ago, could our ancestors have imagined us?

(Still, I agree that it's too far removed from our present reality for us to imagine it with any degree of usefulness or accuracy.)

[Cipher]

Originally Posted by Proto

Maybe we should retrace a few steps. The reason I do not believe that that was a valid question, is that while there might actually be the case that we were given brains for a reason (whoever was the giver), there might be another 100,000 equally likely reasons. And that is the problem when you try to reason things by reversing the cycle of causality. For example, it is perfectly normal to try to derive things effects from a given cause. For example, a water tank spills over the street, the outside pavement will be wet. However trying to reason things the other way around is risky. If the outside pavement is wet, it might have rained... or maybe someone wet it on purpose, or maybe a water tank spilled over, or maybe instead of a simple rain it was a hurricane or...

Which is why normally it is refuted as an invalid question, as per the link I quoted initially.

Aren't *all* questions valid? The reason why you did not consider its validity is that you perceived it as a statement of argument,(for example) did you not?

In relation to the topic, as you've stated, I guess it doesn't qualify as evidence. Now another question, is religion just another "tendency" of man? Maybe so, but considering how highly regarded it is as an issue, how can it be without purpose?

Checking your discussion with Ascaloth, seemingly you believe that everything produced by a so called natural being, is by extension a natural product. Under this definition, what counts as an unnatural solution?

(IMO)When an unnatural solution is created, its immediately turned into a natural solution. Though there is something as *unnatural*, its only but a short period.

(You can tell I'm just confused. )

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

Well, I can't really imagine it either. But five hundred years ago, could our ancestors have imagined us?

I believe so. If you've seen some of those old films, you could tell that they've been, ad infinitum, creating "theories" and "speculations" on our situations particularly our scientific developments.

Now, if these more recent persons did this, our ancestors' tendency and the higher chance of earlier "theories" and "speculations" of the future
is clear.

If you meant "imagining" us by *exactly* us. Then no, that would be the impossible extreme of human *intuition*.

(Still, I agree that it's too far removed from our present reality for us to imagine it with any degree of usefulness or accuracy.)

Yes, perhaps it is. Though, if you want to reduce your worry of the distant future, I suggest... *strongly* looking for the *best* "theories" and "speculations";studying every form of religion and other studies......that is, *if* you worry.

No offense, just a suggestion you could simply ignore.

Originally Posted by Quzor

As for avoiding the "organized or codified religion," I wouldn't begin to guess as to how that would come to pass.

Organization includes calculation of the *possibilities*. Its part of the system of *aligning*(organizing) standard organizations.For example, companies, with organization, will try to "predict" their "long-term" futures. Thus, religions are created.

[Ascaloth]

Originally Posted by Cipher

Aren't *all* questions valid? The reason why you did not consider its validity is that you perceived it as a statement of argument,(for example) did you not?

Questions are just that; questions. It is the conclusions derived from it which can be denoted as either valid or fallacious; and from your track record, you are prone to coming up with the latter type of conclusions.

In relation to the topic, as you've stated, I guess it doesn't qualify as evidence. Now another question, is religion just another "tendency" of man? Maybe so, but considering how highly regarded it is as an issue, how can it be without purpose?

Argumentum ad antiquitatem. Just because we've always regarded it as an important issue, doesn't prove that religion has a definite purpose.

(IMO)When an unnatural solution is created, its immediately turned into a natural solution. Though there is something as *unnatural*, its only but a short period.

Non sequitur. How does something "unnatural" become "natural" simply with the passing of time?

[Cipher]

Originally Posted by Ascaloth

Questions are just that; questions. It is the conclusions derived from it which can be denoted as either valid or fallacious; and from your track record, you are prone to coming up with the latter type of conclusions.

There were no "supposed" conclusions. It was the beginning of experimentation: question.

With "validity", it is a valid question because it is that: a question. Its qualification of being known as "question" is valid.

Just because we've always regarded it as an important issue, doesn't prove that religion has a definite purpose.

So there are important issues, in your opinion, that do not have purpose.

How does something "unnatural" become "natural" simply with the passing of time?

I'm not quite sure.

[Ascaloth]

Originally Posted by Cipher

There were no "supposed" conclusions. It was the beginning of experimentation: question.

With "validity", it is a valid question because it is that: a question. Its qualification of being known as "question" is valid.

Fair enough. So let's hear your reasoning; I don't ever remember you doing that. As far as I recall, you're always trying to draw others out.

So there are important issues, in your opinion, that do not have purpose.

Straw Man; I'll kindly ask you not to twist my words. I was merely pointing out the logical fallacy in your assumption that just because it's been a long tradition to consider religion as an important issue, doesn't mean that it has some higher purpose; thus, argumentum ad antiquitatem. Try personally being open to simple logic, for once.

I'm not quite sure.

So you admit that statement of yours was based on Wishful Thinking? Noted.

[Cipher]

Originally Posted by Ascaloth

So you admit that statement of yours was based on Wishful Thinking? Noted.

Yes, for now, I haven't thought much about it. So I guess you could say its just from the *impulse* of want of expression.


Back to the topic, What do you (everyone) think of a world of no-religion?