Would mankind be better off without religion today ? A topical debate .

by Finkelstein 70 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • WTWizard
    WTWizard

    I will say that the LIE-ble is the biggest piece of rubbish on the planet. It is nothing but stolen concepts that have been corrupted so no one can benefit. The originals may have been myths, but they were allegories that were meant to guide people to spirituality. The LIE-ble has corrupted them so it will not do this. Instead, there is the sense of gloom and doom, fear, shame, and guilt in the whole LIE-ble.

    Without religion, people would have a sense of belonging. Wars would be fought to conquer land and resources, but not to corrupt culture and destroy religion (and would be much shorter). People would not be sent halfway around the world to do stupid missions to corrupt and destroy people's cultures where the people are minding their own damn business. (Here I am referring to right-hand path religion, since left-hand path religion does seek to develop spirituality).

    Without right-hand path religion, sex would not be such a taboo subject. Sex play among children would be common (and bisexual); this wouldn't be such a big deal. Taboos would disappear, and you would see this energy being used constructively. Sexually transmitted diseases would be cured through science and magic (both working together), and perfect birth control would prevent unwanted pregnancies. Marriage would be to raise children, and what we know as adultery would not be a big deal. You would lose the blackmail "Don't tell anyone about our relationship" which causes the damage (along with the dirtification of sex in the first place). Sex hang-ups would disappear. And, there wouldn't need to be separate bathrooms for different sexes--that came out of religion.

    Without right-hand path religion, there would be satisfaction. People would eat to satisfaction, without worrying about getting fat. Such as self deprivation and compulsive indulgence would be gone. Obesity, anorexia, and bulemia would not exist. And you wouldn't have such greed that people want something because someone else has it--they would be able to earn it if they really wanted something. This would prevent people from going into debt (and enslavement) trying to keep up with the Joneses.

    Without right-hand path religion, people would learn to be genuinely compassionate toward others. Not the kind of "cheapened agape love" rubbish so popular among Christians, but love where appropriate. You would see charity where charity is deserved, and not where it isn't. The result is that opportunity would be easy to find, and people would be rich without taking from others. They would give a hand to those who are disadvantaged, often through the use of magic.

    Without right-hand path religion, people would have freedom of speech. Rather than the phrases so commonly found in Christi-SCAM-ity, actual ideas would be communicated. This is how the Tower of Babel started out before the Almighty Lowlife Scumbag ruined the language.

    Without right-hand path religion, psychics would outnumber non-psychics. Everyone would become psychic by the time they are 18, and church would exist to teach people. Monasteries, far from the dreadful rubbish dumps full of austerity and celibacy, would be used to meditate. You might spend a short time in a monastery to work on a chakra, or to develop a trait that is to your advantage. No more guesswork. And, with people being able to accurately predict things, the problem with gambling would disappear in short order.

    Without right-hand path religion, more people would be in touch with the universe. You would be able to access past lives, and everyone would be able to prove that such exists. Science would catch up with religion, and the two would merge and prove everything accurate. This would prevent another religious scam like Christi-SCAM-ity from coming up during the Age of Sagittarius or the Age of Virgo, because science would prove them wrong and no one would accept the bogus religion.

    Without right-hand path religion, we would see fewer people going into foreign countries and raping, killing, or kidnapping children to bring them into such religions. We would see fewer people going to take advantage of wars and disasters to bring them a religious scam. We would see more money in the hands of people, not in the hands of banks that claim to be God's chosen people or into the tops of churches that own most of the wealth today. You would see the end of enslavement. You would see people treated with respect. Homosexuality (and bisexuality, which is actually natural) would exist without "it's the end of the world" fearmongering about it. Women would start being treated with respect. And, racism among people minding their own business (especially the most blatant form, which is moving into a place where a race is indigenous and capturing and enslaving, or destroying them or their culture) would end forever.

  • corpusdei
    corpusdei

    But ... but ... but ... religion has given us such wonderful things like circumcision and other forms of genital mutilation! What's not to like about beliving that hacking off bits of our junk makes God a happy guy?

  • botchtowersociety
    botchtowersociety

    The "Dark Ages" meme as a time of scientific backwardness is a myth. The period saw major advances in science and technology.

    The medieval period is frequently caricatured as supposedly a "time of ignorance and superstition" which placed "the word of religious authorities over personal experience and rational activity." [43] However, rationality was increasingly held in high regard as the Middle Ages progressed. The historian of science Edward Grant, writes that "If revolutionary rational thoughts were expressed [in the 18th century], they were only made possible because of the long medieval tradition that established the use of reason as one of the most important of human activities". [44] Furthermore, David Lindberg says that, contrary to common belief, "the late medieval scholar rarely experienced the coercive power of the church and would have regarded himself as free (particularly in the natural sciences) to follow reason and observation wherever they led". [45]

    The caricature of the period is also reflected in a number of more specific notions. For instance, a claim that was first propagated in the 19th century [46] [47] and is still very common in popular culture is the supposition that all people in the Middle Ages believed that the Earth was flat. This claim is mistaken. [47] [48] In fact, lecturers in the medieval universities commonly advanced evidence in favor of the idea that the Earth was a sphere. [49] Lindberg and Numbers write: "There was scarcely a Christian scholar of the Middle Ages who did not acknowledge [Earth's] sphericity and even know its approximate circumference". [50]

    Other misconceptions such as: "the Church prohibited autopsies and dissections during the Middle Ages", "the rise of Christianity killed off ancient science", and "the medieval Christian church suppressed the growth of natural philosophy", are all cited by Ronald Numbers as examples of widely popular myths that still pass as historical truth, although they are not supported by current historical research. [51] They help maintain the idea of a "Dark Age" spanning through the medieval period.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Ages_(historiography)

  • corpusdei
    corpusdei

    botchtowersociety>> Good call. All my snarkyness aside, the Church did play a very important role in the actual preservation of knowledge through the dark ages and the work of re-seeding that knowledge afterwards.

    Although I'd point out that it tended to be only knowledge that they agreed with. ;)

  • Finkelstein
    Finkelstein

    What happens to the people in that country who do NOT believe in that religion??? With all the talk of freedom of religion, what about freedom FROM religion ??

    This statement makes myself think of the many people who do live in a country that is being highly controlled by a religious theocracy such as Iran.

    This is a country that still to this day kills people by hanging for the simple and perhaps unfortunate occurrence of themselves being homosexual.

    Not to mention the many other oppressive and demoralizing aspects that this religious regime imposes on to the population.

    The degradation of woman being another example.

    All enforced by contrived moral standards established by a ancient civilization thousands of years ago, no less !

  • tec
    tec

    Mankind is neither better off with religion nor is better with it. The truth is that even with all the good that religion and atheism can bring to the human race, we manage to screw things up with bloody inquisitors and religion-crushing Communists in the name of both. If

    neither set of convictions existed we would invent something else to take their place and then blame them for our shedding blood and crushing others. It's not religion that's bad, it's us.

    This.

    Peace,

    tammy

  • botchtowersociety
    botchtowersociety
    Although I'd point out that it tended to be only knowledge that they agreed with. ;)

    That's actually not true either, as your first paragraph counters it. That preservation and procurement of knowledge from prior times involved keeping and studying pagan texts. Furthermore, the so called Dark Ages saw a breaking away from the Greek focus on pure reason in the pursuit of scientific knowledge and the inclusion of empirical evidence in addition to it. That is the beginning of the Scientific Method. The University is also medieval invention.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_technology

  • tec
    tec

    To add to that, some things would be better. But I think that most thing would be the same. People would just have to stop blaming religion for the things that we do, and religion (such as WBB for an e x treme e x ample) would therefore no longer give God a bad name. for all sorts of things that still go on.

    I assume that we are talking about religion, mind you, and not faith. (I know Phizzy made that distinction) You cannot regulate someone's faith.

    Peace,

    tammy

  • Finkelstein
    Finkelstein

    So what your saying then Botchtower that religion has always played a supporting role in helping mankind toward making

    scientific discoveries and never impeded any of these endeavorers through open unhinged inquiry ?

    Really ?

  • tec
    tec

    The physicist Laurence Krauss, on a panel with Dawkins, said that scientists had for a while avoided giving any credence to the big bang theory because it was too close to the biblical account. (of the universe having a beginning) At the time, the theory was an eternal universe. Of course they had no choice when the evidence forced them to go that way (big bang). But there was bias in it for them as well. Scientists are human too.

    Peace,

    tammy

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit