Keep or Remove Religion Poll

[Istvan]

Of course. Just look at the war in Palestine: they are not fighting for food or water or land, but because their fairytales are different. If religion suddenly disappeared, they would immediately stop fighting.

This is so far past wrong it couldn't even afford bus fare back to wrong.

It's one thing to deplore the way religion maps onto volatile ethnic divisions, but it's another thing to oversimplify complex cultural matters out of all reasonable proportion just to externalize blame for geopolitical problems.

[FrustratedFool]

Wouldn't you want someone to enable you to realise which beliefs of yours were false and harmful?

If someone could magically have me stop believeing false and harmful things, I'd consider that a good service.

But that wasn't your question. If the wand wave was to have everyone stop believing false and harmfule things, I might be able to go along with that.

Wouldn't that remove all religion? Unless you believe there are true and non-harmful religions. But then it goes back to what I said it all boils down to - whether you think religion harmful or not. Not overriding people's will seems a red herring, in the sense that you're OK over-riding it to remove false and harmful beliefs. So the only conundrum seems to be whether one holds religion to belong to the set of false and harmful beliefs.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

I contend that smallpox has done more good than harm, so there.

But back to the topic: There are significant numbers of people who donate significant resources to helping the less fortunate, and do so purely out of religious motivations. It’s reasonable to assume that if religious belief were magic-wand away, those donation would dry up. This alone seems sufficient reason to conclude that magicking religious belief away would be a bad idea, especially since there’s no guarantee that the loss of aid would be made good via other sources.

Boru

[FrustratedFool]

I dont think it's reasonable to think good people would stop doing good because they weren't religious.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

I dont think it's reasonable to think good people would stop doing good because they weren't religious.

Neither do I, but that’s not what I said.

Boru

[Mister Agenda]

But that wasn't your question. If the wand wave was to have everyone stop believing false and harmfule things, I might be able to go along with that.

Wouldn't that remove all religion?  Unless you believe there are true and non-harmful religions.  But then it goes back to what I said it all boils down to - whether you think religion harmful or not.  Not overriding people's will seems a red herring, in the sense that you're OK over-riding it to remove false and harmful beliefs.  So the only conundrum seems to be whether one holds religion to belong to the set of false and harmful beliefs.

Well, I can think of about five nontheistic religions off the top of my head, and if there is no God (or gods) there can be individual beliefs in the religion that are not directly god-related that can still be rational and true.

I'd be interested in what you find so objectionable about Ethical Culture or Untitarian Universalism that the wolrd would be better off if they were erased.

[GrandizerII]

Sigh, I voted yes but meant to vote no. Serves me right not reading the actual question first before voting.

As to why I vote no to waving the wand, it's because religion is not, by definition, the root of all evil. It can be a good thing, it all depends on various factors/variables involved.

Also, cultural diversity. Why the hell would you want to do away with that if there are inevitably going to be religious elements involved?

Now, if you were to ask me if I could wave a wand to certain aspects of fundamentalist/radical versions of some religions, sure. I'd wave away. But I would wave a wand first to certain brands of antitheism that end up encouraging/enabling bigotry against people who dare to adhere to a religion ... than to religion in general.