Does the World Need Religion?

[phoenix31]

If that person can ignore the consequences of a secular society, what makes you think they won't also ignore the consequences of a religion?

Because they believe it. I'm not saying all people follow their religion and stay away from morally reprehensible choices, but I'm saying that a lot of them do because they believe it.

[Cyberman]

You just agreed with Min that the only thing stopping people from raping and killing is the threat of retribution. The only point of dispute is the nature of the reality of that retribution. Min has a respect for the judicial system, which we know is real and has authority; you're just proposing a fear of the dark.

I might add that I myself don't commit any kind of atrocity, despite being atheist, not out of any fear but because I simply don't want to; it's not in my character.

[Jesster]

If that person can ignore the consequences of a secular society, what makes you think they won't also ignore the consequences of a religion?

Because they believe it. I'm not saying all people follow their religion and stay away from morally reprehensible choices, but I'm saying that a lot of them do because they believe it.

And how do you suppose we make everyone believe in the values of religion? If that was possible, couldn't we make everyone believe in the positive values of a secular society just as easily? How about we just go around brain-washing everyone?

[phoenix31]

Yeah, I'm gonna need some evidence for this one.

I can't link it yet but it's from conservapedia.

"Concerning atheism and mass murder, Christian apologist Gregory Koukl wrote that "the assertion is that religion has caused most of the killing and bloodshed in the world. There are people who make accusations and assertions that are empirically false. This is one of them."[1] Koukl details the number of people killed in various events involving theism and compares them to the much higher tens of millions of people killed under atheistic communist regimes, in which militant atheism served as the official doctrine of the state.[1] See also: Atheism and communism
Communist regimes killed 60 million in the 20th century through genocide, according to Le Monde, more than 100 million people[2] according to The Black Book of Communism (Courtois, Stéphane, et al., 1997).[3] and according to Cleon Skousen[4] in his best-selling book The Naked Communist.[5]
It is estimated that in the past 100 years, governments under the banner of atheistic communism have caused the death of somewhere between 40,472,000 and 259,432,000 human lives.[6] Dr. R. J. Rummel, professor emeritus of political science at the University of Hawaii, is the scholar who first coined the term democide (death by government). Dr. R. J. Rummel's mid estimate regarding the loss of life due to communism is that communism caused the death of approximately 110,286,000 people between 1917 and 1987.[7]
The Reign of Terror of the French Revolution established a state which was anti-Roman Catholicism/Christian in nature [8] (anti-clerical deism and anti-religious atheism and played a significant role in the French Revolution[9][10]), with the official ideology being the Cult of Reason; during this time thousands of believers were suppressed and executed by the guillotine.[11] Although Communism is one of the most well-known cases of atheism's ties to mass murder, the French Revolution and subsequent Reign of Terror, inspired by the works of Diderot, Voltaire, Sade, and Rousseau, managed to commit similar persecutions and exterminations of religious people and promote secularism and militant atheism. Official numbers indicate that 300,000 Frenchmen died during Robespierre's Reign of Terror, 297,000 of which were of middle-class or low-class.[12] Of the amount murdered via the guillotine, only 8% had been of the aristocratic class, with over 30% being from the peasant class.[13]"

[phoenix31]

Because they believe it. I'm not saying all people follow their religion and stay away from morally reprehensible choices, but I'm saying that a lot of them do because they believe it.

And how do you suppose we make everyone believe in the values of religion? If that was possible, couldn't we make everyone believe in the positive values of a secular society just as easily? How about we just go around brain-washing everyone?

I don't know if we could make people believe in the positive values of a secular society because morality is relative. And I'm not saying that I think we should make people believe in the value of religion. I'm just wondering if, as it's already in place, it's useful for people to self regulate their own behavior.

[Jesster]

And how do you suppose we make everyone believe in the values of religion? If that was possible, couldn't we make everyone believe in the positive values of a secular society just as easily? How about we just go around brain-washing everyone?

I don't know if we could make people believe in the positive values of a secular society because morality is relative. And I'm not saying that I think we should make people believe in the value of religion. I'm just wondering if, as it's already in place, it's useful for people to self regulate their own behavior.

Yes, morality is relative. Societies can set up a shared moral code, but people can always choose to deviate from that. That's the exact reason why people could also deviate from a religious society to commit crime. This is why your hypothetical fails. You are relying on the idea that you can convince everyone to stop committing crimes, which is unrealistic no matter the level of religiosity.

So tell me, if a criminal can get away with anything he wants, how does a religious society stop them?

[phoenix31]

Yes, morality is relative. Societies can set up a shared moral code, but people can always choose to deviate from that. That's the exact reason why people could also deviate from a religious society to commit crime. This is why your hypothetical fails. You are relying on the idea that you can convince everyone to stop committing crimes, which is unrealistic no matter the level of religiosity.

So tell me, if a criminal can get away with anything he wants, how does a religious society stop them?

I'm not saying religion is the answer to solving crime or tyranny, and I'm not saying people wouldn't/don't deviate from their religious beliefs. I'm saying I think maybe it prevents a lot of people from committing crimes and being tyrants, people who otherwise might not care.

[Jesster]

I'm not saying religion is the answer to solving crime or tyranny, and I'm not saying people wouldn't/don't deviate from their religious beliefs. I'm saying I think maybe it prevents a lot of people from committing crimes and being tyrants.

If we can make everyone believe any value system we want, what makes you think a religious value system is any better than a secular one? Wouldn't a belief in a positive secular value system also stop them from committing those crimes or becoming tyrants?

[Cephus]

Nope.  Mankind needs to outgrow religion.  It isn't necessary and is actually harmful to human advancement.  I've had my tagline for years for a reason.

[phoenix31]

I'm not saying religion is the answer to solving crime or tyranny, and I'm not saying people wouldn't/don't deviate from their religious beliefs. I'm saying I think maybe it prevents a lot of people from committing crimes and being tyrants.

If we can make everyone believe any value system we want, what makes you think a religious value system is any better than a secular one? Wouldn't a belief in a positive secular value system also stop them from committing those crimes or becoming tyrants?

Well I don't necessarily agree that you could make anyone believe any system. And because if morality is relative, without religion, anybody can choose his or her own morality and doesn't have to go along with any particular secular moral code.