Would the world be better off with or without God (includes allah and all the other names)? By better, I mean safer, more enjoyable and more humane.

This post isn't meant to incite or to condemn those on either side.
I just wonder if folks even ponder it (like I do) and what influences their decision.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/08/2009 11:38AM by Numbers.

Who knows but it would certainly be better off without you!

John Doe Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Who knows but it would certainly be better off
> without you!


Why did you even bother to post this? It's not in any way an interesting or informative response on either side of the issue. This implies you don't have an opinion and and probably are incapable of critical thinking and that implies you are a fool. Yet you believe the world is better off with you than with me? Good job, John.

Well, I think we're already without God so that isn't really the question. Now if we could just get rid of the idea of people believing in God.

Numbers Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Would the world be better off with or without God
> (includes allah and all the other names)? By
> better, I mean safer, more enjoyable and more
> humane.
>
> This post isn't meant to incite or to condemn
> those on either side.
> I just wonder if folks even ponder it (like I do)
> and what influences their decision.

an episode of south park called "Go God Go" best explained such an idea.


we will find a reason to kill each other.


"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."

Without god...assuming they werent replaced by some other organization requiring our financial support....would at least result in a different and hopefully better allocation of the money required to support their infrastructure. In other words...just imagine how many homes could be built..hom many kids put through college if there were no priests...bishops...popes to support.

Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.

Gravis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> an episode of south park called "Go God Go" best
> explained such an idea.
>
>
>
> we will find a reason to kill each other.


oh my "science"!

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Without god...assuming they werent replaced by
> some other organization requiring our financial
> support....would at least result in a different
> and hopefully better allocation of the money
> required to support their infrastructure. In other
> words...just imagine how many homes could be
> built..hom many kids put through college if there
> were no priests...bishops...popes to support.

think about how many more people would be unemployed.

Czar Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Vince(1) Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Without god...assuming they werent replaced by
> > some other organization requiring our financial
> > support....would at least result in a different
> > and hopefully better allocation of the money
> > required to support their infrastructure. In
> other
> > words...just imagine how many homes could be
> > built..hom many kids put through college if
> there
> > were no priests...bishops...popes to support.
>
> think about how many more people would be
> unemployed.

True..now wouldnt be the time to abolish their jobs...we'd have to wait until the economy turned around.

Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Without god...assuming they werent replaced by
> some other organization requiring our financial
> support....would at least result in a different
> and hopefully better allocation of the money
> required to support their infrastructure. In other
> words...just imagine how many homes could be
> built..hom many kids put through college if there
> were no priests...bishops...popes to support.

How many homes are built, kids put through college, etc. through Christian and/or Catholic charities?

hahah vince ur so dumb.

Numbers Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Would the world be better off with or without God
> (includes allah and all the other names)? By
> better, I mean safer, more enjoyable and more
> humane.
>
> This post isn't meant to incite or to condemn
> those on either side.
> I just wonder if folks even ponder it (like I do)
> and what influences their decision.


I think you might be more befitting asking if the world would be better off with or without the WORSHIP of God. Without God himself, I really don't think that there would ever be an existence.

I will give you my honest opinion of such, and I would like to refer you to History. Look at how society was before we had Judeo-Christianity, and you will realize that despite the violence facing us now-a-days, life in general used to be FAR more violent before the rise of the morals expressed in these beliefs. Now, this doesn't mean that you're a "bad person" or immoral simply because you don't hold faith in such views, but many of the logical and accepting societies currently on this Earth in fact had their origins in such faiths. Modern and open Western Society has its origins in the aforementioned, and while the long and arduous process was not perfect, and most certainly not easy, the culmination of this is our very own Nation.

Thats an easy one. Much safer. Its just another dividing line for humanity, just like skin color and nationality. Its another thing to make people different from one another. Something invisible to fight for.

recipient Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Vince(1) Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Without god...assuming they werent replaced by
> > some other organization requiring our financial
> > support....would at least result in a different
> > and hopefully better allocation of the money
> > required to support their infrastructure. In
> other
> > words...just imagine how many homes could be
> > built..hom many kids put through college if
> there
> > were no priests...bishops...popes to support.
>
> How many homes are built, kids put through
> college, etc. through Christian and/or Catholic
> charities?


think how many churches are built, how many priests and pastors are payed for by this money. The Catholic churches bank accounts total in the billions if not trillion's of dollars the last i checked. And to think that people would not be charitable just because they arent required by the "laws of god" to give 20% of their income (which i doubt many catholics/christians abide by). What would happen without churches? you cut out the middle man. And im sure the number of people sent to colleges through the churches number in the tens of thou... well the tens.

ThePackLeader Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Numbers Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Would the world be better off with or without
> God
> > (includes allah and all the other names)? By
> > better, I mean safer, more enjoyable and more
> > humane.
> >
> > This post isn't meant to incite or to condemn
> > those on either side.
> > I just wonder if folks even ponder it (like I
> do)
> > and what influences their decision.
>
>
> I think you might be more befitting asking if the
> world would be better off with or without the
> WORSHIP of God. Without God himself, I really
> don't think that there would ever be an
> existence.

well thats debatable. There may be a god, i just dont think hes sitting in a cloud with billions of cameras trained on our every move to judge us.

>
> I will give you my honest opinion of such, and I
> would like to refer you to History. Look at how
> society was before we had Judeo-Christianity, and
> you will realize that despite the violence facing
> us now-a-days, life in general used to be FAR more
> violent before the rise of the morals expressed in
> these beliefs.

I dont think this is a reflection on judeo-christianity as much as it is a reflection on the changing of society around the world. We live in a civil society and so does much of the world. People who are christians still commit murders, they still lie, they still cheat, but people in general have become more civil. Much of this I think is do to the fact that if you do something against the law, you have a MUCH better chance of being caught in this day and age. In other words... we're a bunch of pussies now.


> Now, this doesn't mean that you're
> a "bad person" or immoral simply because you don't
> hold faith in such views, but many of the logical
> and accepting societies currently on this Earth in
> fact had their origins in such faiths. Modern and
> open Western Society has its origins in the
> aforementioned, and while the long and arduous
> process was not perfect, and most certainly not
> easy, the culmination of this is our very own
> Nation.

I dont think that law has its basis in religion, but infact quite the opposite, the basic laws of society have been adopted by the religions. What better way to get your people to not murder one another than saying "i may not catch you or see you commit this act, but god sure as shit will. AND YOU WILL BURN FOR IT!" Now thats quite a message to keep your sheep in line with. The only basic law or rule we need is the golden rule, do unto others as you would have them do unto you. And I dont think this has been adapted from or through religion, i think it is in us naturally. Its just empathy.

John Lennon wrote a song about this, and look what happened to him.

Numbers Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Would the world be better off with or without God
> (includes allah and all the other names)? By
> better, I mean safer, more enjoyable and more
> humane.
>
> This post isn't meant to incite or to condemn
> those on either side.
> I just wonder if folks even ponder it (like I do)
> and what influences their decision.


Better, of course, but it's human nature, vanity, to believe in stuff.

Kenny_Powers Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> And to think that people would not be
> charitable just because they arent required by the
> "laws of god" to give 20% of their income (which i
> doubt many catholics/christians abide by).

10% not 20%


"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."

I'm an atheist and I think religion, etc, is dumb. But I think that a world without religion would be bad... very bad. Religion is popular because it gives weak-minded people the false hope that there's something more to life than what we see around us now, and that there is an afterlife of eternal happiness for those that "behave" appropriately. A large majority of these religious types stay (approximately) on the right side of the law for the sole reason of pacifying their wrathful god and reaching this afterlife. If they did not have this, they would be insanely dangerous (and dangerously insane). Put simply: I think the world would descend into chaos.

Consider your average fundamentalist, for example. A good proportion of them are ex-cons, drug addicts, sexual deviants, or any combination thereof. They "found jesus" and were "saved" from their life of evil. Take their precious jesus away and guess what happens...

I suppose, given that the most intelligent people are typically atheists, agnostics or, at least, somewhat sane christians/jews/buddhists/etc, we could gradually eradicate the remaining crazy now-godless warriors, with little long-term detriment. But that process would be ugly, messy and somewhat inconvenient (though admittedly kinda fun, too...). Seems much easier to let them keep their god and give us some peace and quiet on a Sunday morning (and a bunch less junkies on the streets).

Wrinkle, that's an interesting viewpoint. However, for every weak-minded person who might behave appropriately, there might be one who behaves badly. Why? Because many believe that their almighty and infinitely powerful god cannot protect himself, either from verbal, visual or mental abuse. So these people take up arms individually or in groups and will stop at nothing to defend him.

At what point do you ween people of the bottle? The drug addicts, ex cons and sexual deviants all knew of god before they became this way and it didn't phase them. They all didn't become that way through lack of belief and even after being "saved", usually return to their ways before too long. Those that do stick with it may actually become fundamentalists, and that's not good for the rest of us either.

I think most people without belief see life in a more cheerful and positive light. Knowing that life is finite gives me and many others more incentive to enjoy it while we can and hopefully to leave with something positive to build on. Not one atheist I know has ever expressed a desire to go on a killing spree or promote any form of anarchy. This is one of the most bizarre theories I've ever heard from creationists.

Lets be honest, the 10 commandments did NOTHING to stop people from murdering, coveting, committing adultery, or anything else. In fact, it may have made things worse. The Homosapien species could never have survived and prospered if there weren't some level of logic, respect and reasoning. You can see it work in many species of godless wild animals in nature.

We're learning more and more about the universe and where we actually came from. This is one of the most exciting times in history to be alive and to learn cool stuff about ourselves. All we need to do is peacefully coexist, but that ain't gonna happen as long as religion (in it's current form) prevents that. Jews will never get along with muslims, muslims will never get along with anyone, catholics and protestants have a bad history and mormons and scientologists are just plain whacky. None of these groups like each other and none will accept another as the world dominant theocracy.

Therefore I believe the world would benefit greatly without any gods. I just think we've outgrown the need for any and I worry about some delusional fundamentalist pushing the button based on some religious ideology and killing us all.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/09/2009 11:24AM by Numbers.

Some people NEED hope. A society without religion would adopt some other form of religion to replace it. It may not call it a religion, but it would be one. Popular belief in a charismatic leader, belief in the empire, etc.

Religion, not attached to the running of a government, is just fine. One thing most Christian religions teach these days is peace, tolerance, and good will toward others - regardless of the violence inherent in the actual book and history. If ALL religions today taught that, there would be much fewer problems. In a society without religion, it is likely that the malcontents would be dealt with in a much harsher, less respectful manner.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

Numbers, I agree on most of your points but I still think society would break down if the majority (and let's face it -- religious folks are the majority) no longer had their god. I do disagree somewhat with your comment about the 10 commandments, though. While their creation may not directly have stopped murdering, etc, they were a pretty good framework for modern laws. More importantly, though, they gave the church strict rules that allowed them to lead with power and fear. (Religion is all about fear.)

I also agree with RV (I'm very agreeable today) that people would look for something else to believe in. I think the mindless, godless masses would be ripe for the plucking for fascists, dictators, war lords, etc. I laughed at this quote from RV though: "One thing most Christian religions teach these days is peace, tolerance, and good will toward others". Yeah, right. Tolerance and goodwill to ALL OTHERS, except "others" do not include the vast majority of the world's population! And peace? Oh yeah, the Christians just looove peace. All about it, they are. Any good history book shows that...

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Some people NEED hope.

Agreed, but they need real hope, not fantasy hope that will never actually pan out. Even on a psychological level, religious hope is at best, a quick fix. In the long run, people need to learn to sort out their own problems, take resposibility and stop relying on the invisible man in the sky to come to the rescue.

A society without religion
> would adopt some other form of religion to replace
> it. It may not call it a religion, but it would be
> one. Popular belief in a charismatic leader,
> belief in the empire, etc.

What evidence do you have for this? What past emamples are there for this? You can't use Nazi Germany as an example because the economy is the sole cause for Hitlers rise to power.



> Religion, not attached to the running of a
> government, is just fine. One thing most Christian
> religions teach these days is peace, tolerance,
> and good will toward others - regardless of the
> violence inherent in the actual book and history.
> If ALL religions today taught that, there would be
> much fewer problems.

True, but if history is any indication, that's just not gonna happen, especially with regards to other religions.


> In a society without
> religion, it is likely that the malcontents would
> be dealt with in a much harsher, less respectful
> manner.


Harsher than the threat of burning in hell for eternity?

Numbers Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Registered Voter Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Some people NEED hope.
>
> Agreed, but they need real hope, not fantasy hope
> that will never actually pan out. Even on a
> psychological level, religious hope is at best, a
> quick fix. In the long run, people need to learn
> to sort out their own problems, take resposibility
> and stop relying on the invisible man in the sky
> to come to the rescue.

But what if that "false" hope empowers them to sort out their own problems? One of the 12 steps of AA is to recognize that you're powerless to stop yourself and need to find an external power to give you strength. You might say it's ridiculous and I'll admit that it may not be the right thing for everyone, but you can't deny that it has helped a lot of people over the years achieve sobriety.

> A society without religion
> > would adopt some other form of religion to replace
> > it. It may not call it a religion, but it would be
> > one. Popular belief in a charismatic leader,
> > belief in the empire, etc.
>
> What evidence do you have for this? What past
> emamples are there for this? You can't use Nazi
> Germany as an example because the economy is the
> sole cause for Hitlers rise to power.

You're right here but for different reasons. I don't think there's any example of a civilization that has had its religious structure ripped away and replaced by an immediate vacuum. You might be able to point to the Easter Islanders, but there's not much to go on there - just a bunch of statues looking out to sea and a distinct lack of people.

On the other hand, there are many examples of societies where a powerful and charismatic leader has come to power and outlawed religion. None of them are Utopian societies full of love and peace. Typically the ruler outlaws religion because he views it as a threat to his absolute power. He doesn't stop with religion, but treats all other threats harshly. That means anything anyone does that may be a threat gets punished, causing the citizens to live under fear not of God, but of the current ruler.

> > Religion, not attached to the running of a
> > government, is just fine. One thing most Christian
> > religions teach these days is peace, tolerance,
> > and good will toward others - regardless of the
> > violence inherent in the actual book and history.
> > If ALL religions today taught that, there would be
> > much fewer problems.
>
> True, but if history is any indication, that's
> just not gonna happen, especially with regards to
> other religions.

You can't judge everything solely based on distant history. I don't see Inquisitors roaming the land torturing people for the Catholic Church. At least in the West, religiously motivated violence is strongly frowned upon. There will always be violent individuals or groups, whether motivated by "God" or for some other reason. The Beltway sniper killed a lot of people, but it appears he was motivated by general hatred rather than some biblical or koranic teaching. Sure, the whackos blowing up abortion clinics may not be violent in the absence of religion, but there are likely plenty of people kept in line by that same religion that would be rather unpleasant.

> > In a society without
> > religion, it is likely that the malcontents would
> > be dealt with in a much harsher, less respectful
> > manner.
>
> Harsher than the threat of burning in hell for
> eternity?

When there's no eternal hell, those in power find other ways to frighten people to their cores. The Soviets used Gulags, the North Koreans use their labor camps. With those, even the relatives of rule-breakers were/are sent to hard labor, not just the guilty individual. Again, in these cases, the fear of God is replaced by the fear of the supreme leader.

Mr Captcha Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> When there's no eternal hell, those in power find
> other ways to frighten people to their cores. The
> Soviets used Gulags, the North Koreans use their
> labor camps. With those, even the relatives of
> rule-breakers were/are sent to hard labor, not
> just the guilty individual. Again, in these
> cases, the fear of God is replaced by the fear of
> the supreme leader.


The question posed by the OP is not a hypothetical imponderable, the answer to which we can only "imagine".

History in the form of expressly atheistic regimes such as North Korea, Maoist China and the Soviet Union clearly teaches that the world would not be better off without God, or the idea of God.

If those regimes teach us anything, it's that atheism is no panacea, and the world would be just as bad if not worse.

Job Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> History in the form of expressly atheistic regimes
> such as North Korea, Maoist China and the Soviet
> Union clearly teaches that the world would not be
> better off without God, or the idea of God.
>
> If those regimes teach us anything, it's that
> atheism is no panacea, and the world would be just
> as bad if not worse.

That's ridiculous! None of those examples based their regimes on atheism. Neither are they oppressive because of atheism. There are just as many, or more atheist countries that are examples for the opposite.

It takes more than a belief or non-belief to build a respectable nation.

Numbers Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> That's ridiculous! None of those examples based
> their regimes on atheism.

False. Each of those regimes was expressly atheistic, as a matter of policy, and
actively repressed any teaching or expression of religious belief.

In other words, you couldn't get any more atheistic than North Korea, Maoist
China, and the Soviet Union.


> Neither are they oppressive because of atheism.

They were atheistic and repressive. We can argue the causal relation between
these two phenomenon (just as we could in the context of "religious" countries).

But if atheism was truly a panacea - i.e., if it made the world "safer, more enjoyable
and more humane" - then we would have seen these effects demonstrated in atheistic
countries.

On the contrary, however, the cited examples establish that atheistic regimes can
be just as bad or worse than those compatible with theism.


> There are just as
> many, or more atheist countries that are examples
> for the opposite.

What countries are *expressly* atheistic, as a matter of formal policy, in the
way North Korea, etc., are?

Sweden, for example, may have a large number of atheists according to some
statistics http://www.atheistmind.com/avoid-the-religious-masses-top-10-atheistic-countries, but its government is not atheistic, but rather
one that follows a policy of freedom of religion, not unlike the US. It also
pays direct governmental support, raised through taxes, to certain recognized
religions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Sweden#Religion_in_Sweden_today So it can hardly be considered an "atheist country".


> It takes more than a belief or non-belief to build
> a respectable nation.

Well then, is that not the answer to the question you posed in your initial post?

Side note - read up on Karl Marx. He is the one that stated something to the effect of replacing religion with government.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University