I am forced to say no because of my religion, but if it were my opinion, I would say yes. The world would be more peaceful because people will be afraid to die. Why? This is because they have no reason to believe in an "after life" when they are religion-less. The next reason would be that there will be nobody that will insult you regarding the way you dress, since everybody will be the same.

However, I still think every human is the same, no matter what religion they follow.

Reply

what does it matter?
A World Without A Religion?

What does it matter whether we think the world would be a better, safer place. Jsut because its what you believe doesnt mean it actually will be.

How about you think about all the people who actually enjoy religion. Alot of the time, their religion offers them a meaning in life. And if not a meaning, then something to look foward to. Peoples beliefs give them, or at least let them belive that they have a better understanding of where they will be after life. People feel safer knowing or thinking they know where they will go.

Christianity for example, it gives christians a belief that heaven is perfect, their utopia. At least when they die they can look foward to something. Rather then dieing and not having any idea at all about where youll end up.

Also, everyone has to believe in something. An athiest believes that there is no God. That means that they still believe in something. Its jsut opposite to most religions. An athiest is still in the same boat as budhist and christians. Athiest are still believing something, by believing that there is no God at all. So it would be virtually impossible to have a world without religion.

Religion didnt start the wars, the people did. You cant base the whole war situation on one thing. Hilter didnt go around killing people because of his religion, he was killing people because of what they looked like. Can you blame being judgmental on religions as well?

Religions arnt making people pay out and discriminate other people. Christianity tells people not to judge. Their religion they believe in tells them to acept everyone. And yet they could possibly and often are the most judgmental of all. Is it the religion or the people? people would still be judgmental without religion, its human nature.

What would life be if you didnt believe in anything. What would be the purpose of it? people live to get to where their religion offers them. Budhists are nice to people so that in the next life, they are rewarded. They have something to look foward to, and they have a meaning and purpose to life in the mean time.

Personally, having a world without religion would solve nothing. Cutting out religion isnt going to stop wars. Wars occur for many reasons. Such as one country wanting more land, does that have anything to do with religion? cutting out religion wouldnt solve wars, it would jsut make people try to find other reasons to start them. People with beliefs would be unhappy, as their purpose in life, their meaning of living would be taken away from them. And lastly people wouldnt be anyless judgmental as its human instict to judge, its what we do, with or without religion.


-reply by betty

-----ADMIN opinion... -> One Word -> WOW.
God Bless you. And all. :-)

-Shree

Reply

Replying to JasperIk
Replying to Justin S.
Then what has happened to humanity? We would've destroyed our diversity, which is the largely defining trait of humanity, in order to not offend people of our own race... Are you willing to sacrifice everything that makes us human just to make things "better"? The last time religion was abolished, Stalin and Red China killed millions, if not hundreds of millions.

-reply by none of your business

Reply

Faith in God can actually be a good thing. It gives you a sense of motivation, et cetera, that if you do something that's bad in someone else's eyes, "He" (there, I capitalized it once) will know that you meant well, and forgive you against that specific other person.

It's only the organization of religion that's a problem. No religion today can possibly claim that they are the best religion to follow God with, simply because they have too many flaws for the perfect image of God to accept. For example, Catholicism holds an Index Librorum (?) Prohibitorum that acts as a "guideline" (since '54, it was the absolute law before then) to which books Catholics should not look at. And in Islam, if it's not good enough for you, too bad, you're already under Allah's control. With Judaism, you have to lose part of your skin near your "equipment" at 8 days of age, which is an extremely old tradition.

All I'm saying is, follow what you want.

Reply

Since (not sense) when is working to get into Heaven part of Christianity? Being religious does not mean that we are not allowed to become artists, programmers, musicians, et cetera. You're making assumptions about the Christian life that isn't true. You say you want to live life to the fullest, but you also imply that you are limiting yourself. For a moralistic person would not try to live life to its fullest. You might see worshipping God as a waste of time, but what if people choose to? Who says i can't become a musician and give people a new look at my religion and change the music industry from foolishness to proper morals? Who says i can't become a programmer and make programs for churches, schools, people in general, et cetera? People have many ways of worshipping God.


Because of your assumptions, that is why you "know for a fact" that you would not have done what you have done. Regardless, you're making little sense: you keep mentioning that for the religious this life is to work for Heaven. Wouldn't someone who is working for Heaven work harder than you? Do you know how hard it is to get into Heaven through deeds alone? I don't think you've taken the time to look at the religious folk who have been working as "hard" as you say you have or harder. Either that or you are emphasizing far too much on those who don't. Each have their own reason(s) for doing and not doing something, but if they aren't doing anything wrong, why speak against it? But what is the "minimum" to you? Or, perhaps i should say, what is the "maximum" to you? How will you make it appear objective?

Reply