Thread: Alright Religion - You Win

So what I'm picking up from this thread is, when the jehovah's witnesses become the undisputed religion (lol) god will start letting us metagame and be aware of the sick game that he plays, but still tell us to keep playing? damn, thats a sadistic bastard.

I'd suggest that O'nus should have suggested a particular religion, since religion itself if a very general term that can apply to a great number of different beliefs. Each of these beliefs can effect the world in a number of varying ways, depending on which system it is the world would believe in. To pick one religion for the thread though, I think, could possibly illicit some hostile feelings from members of other systems of belief/non-belief/what-have-you.

The world could still end up being a violent place even with one universal religion, depending on which was chosen.

Originally Posted by invader_tech

I'd suggest that O'nus should have suggested a particular religion, since religion itself if a very general term that can apply to a great number of different beliefs. Each of these beliefs can effect the world in a number of varying ways, depending on which system it is the world would believe in. To pick one religion for the thread though, I think, could possibly illicit some hostile feelings from members of other systems of belief/non-belief/what-have-you.

The world could still end up being a violent place even with one universal religion, depending on which was chosen.

I'm not sure you gwt O'nus' point?

Alright.. that's enough religion.. you win.

The whole world now agree's with your religion..

Everyone on the planet has the same belief system as you..

Now what?

Had he been divergent and proposed one particular religion the thread would have got muddled up with specifics to that one religion. Which would have surely digressed it's point.
Isn't it that religion requires a faith base belief system, which is the main underlying principle to what he may be implying?

Originally Posted by Howie

I'm not sure you gwt O'nus' point?


Had he been divergent and proposed one particular religion the thread would have got muddled up with specifics to that one religion. Which would have surely digressed it's point.
Isn't it that religion requires a faith base belief system, which is the main underlying principle to what he may be implying?

Well, I assumed he wanted to know what our opinions would be in regards to what the world would be like if everyone held the same system of beliefs: If there could be no more discrimination based upon difference of beliefs. I made a post earlier that detailed what I thought the world would be like not under a religion, but based on personal beliefs. It's in this sense that I figured that people's answers will be different depending on what their system of beliefs/religion entails.

My problem, after I reviewed this thread and my answer, was this: I didn't consider that the variation in answers caused by the different beliefs would be what was desired. One person might be Hindu, another may be Jewish, one an Atheist, but if they don't specify under which system of beliefs the world would be governed to answer the question, the source of the variation in answers could'nt be as easily identified. Does that make sense? So, if I can correct myself here, I should have said earlier that people may want to specify what their beliefs actually are in regards to this question, prior to giving their answer (and that the rephrasing of the original post should not be altered, as I had otherwise earlier suggest). I hope I was clearer here.

Originally Posted by invader_tech

Well, I assumed he wanted to know what our opinions would be in regards to what the world would be like if everyone held the same system of beliefs: If there could be no more discrimination based upon difference of beliefs. I made a post earlier that detailed what I thought the world would be like not under a religion, but based on personal beliefs. It's in this sense that I figured that people's answers will be different depending on what their system of beliefs/religion entails.

My problem, after I reviewed this thread and my answer, was this: I didn't consider that the variation in answers caused by the different beliefs would be what was desired. One person might be Hindu, another may be Jewish, one an Atheist, but if they don't specify under which system of beliefs the world would be governed to answer the question, the source of the variation in answers could'nt be as easily identified. Does that make sense? So, if I can correct myself here, I should have said earlier that people may want to specify what their beliefs actually are in regards to this question, prior to giving their answer (and that the rephrasing of the original post should not be altered, as I had otherwise earlier suggest). I hope I was clearer here.

I see what you mean. That is a good point.
I could not figure out anything close to a definitive answer before, now I have to go back and rethink it all over.
LOL

@IT + Howie,
I don't know about purpose, but the main effect of the thread is to flush out those who think there's one right answer to life, the universe and everything. Regardless of what answer we choose--Rapture, Eudamonia, or Universalism--the results are absurd.

Of course, I believe Universalism wins If everyone on earth adopts Universalism, then the one thing everyone believes in is not believing in the same thing, making it both the most and least absurd option.

Originally Posted by Apopholis

So, basically, we'd be using bigger bombs in Iraq, and with a big smile on our faces.

No. Without religion, there is no need for war in Iraq.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

No. Without religion, there is no need for war in Iraq.

With or without religion, there is no need for any war.

But that is, of course, only according to my awareness of it.

Originally Posted by really

With or without religion, there is no need for any war.

But that is, of course, only according to my awareness of it.

If we no longer have our divine lords and saviors whispering in our priests' ears to tell us which men, women, and children to hack down! Of course! We wouldn't even need to fight for food and supplies, let alone territory!

Originally Posted by Daniel Danciu

If we no longer have our divine lords and saviors whispering in our priests' ears to tell us which men, women, and children to hack down! Of course! We wouldn't even need to fight for food and supplies, let alone territory!

Obviously they are not "divine lords" and "saviors" then, are they?

Sarcasm aside, as long as there is a division of the human species into groups of any kind, we will compete with each other for things, be they necessary to our survival or not. Of course, taking away irrational beings like gods and their psychopathic mandates for humanity out of the equation will help considerably. However, war will never die until there is no need for humans to compete with each other. But when will that be?

Originally Posted by Daniel Danciu

Sarcasm aside, as long as there is a division of the human species into groups of any kind, we will compete with each other for things, be they necessary to our survival or not. Of course, taking away irrational beings like gods and their psychopathic mandates for humanity out of the equation will help considerably. However, war will never die until there is no need for humans to compete with each other. But when will that be?

Advanced democracies don't go to war with each other. There is a totalitarian dick involved in every war. If the whole world is ever democratic, wars between nations will be a thing of the past.

yep, fact: The only time one democracy declared war on another was when britain declared war on finland. there was never even weapons raised against each other.

(I'm not directly responding to the OP. Partly I am, but in some parts I'm reffering to other posts. Just so you understand what I'm saying.)

Some people are suggesting that if everyone had the same religion, or if there was none at all, there would be less war and crap and manipulation of peoples lives. Wrong.

If everyone agreed to one religion, people would manipulate other factors of belief, there would be other radical organizations and such. People would take advantage of the situation and manipulate as they've always done.

Unless you're saying there will be no corrupt individuals and everyone will be legitimatley religous, in which case we may as well not be human anymore as our nature has just been thrown out the window.

Unless of course the suggestion that everyone would have the same belief system is taken one step further. If so, that wouldn't fall in line with the way I view my religion at all, quite the opposite. So I suppose that part wouldn't relate to me.

Originally Posted by Daniel Danciu

Sarcasm aside, as long as there is a division of the human species into groups of any kind, we will compete with each other for things, be they necessary to our survival or not.

The division only exists in our animal minds. Being racist is not the same as accepting the vast culture and human diversity on this planet. To see that one is black and another white is far too often attributed with stereotypes and prejudice. Without them, we are family.

Originally Posted by Daniel Danciu

Of course, taking away irrational beings like gods and their psychopathic mandates for humanity out of the equation will help considerably. However, war will never die until there is no need for humans to compete with each other. But when will that be?

Like I said, there is already no reason. But in what context? I am aware of this, does that mean that others are aware? No.

We are human; you can see the vast multitudinous expressions of mankind, from the most loving to the most hating. Really, we are all reasoning to our own reason; this can be illustrated in consciousness. There is no "cause" out there that is causing wars. It is a natural tendency of human consciousness. The source of a seeming problem is resolved in evolution; in increasing awareness; increasing context; expanding meaning.

Originally Posted by O'nus

Religions often think it best that the entire planet have the same beliefs system as them. Thus..

Thought experiment time:

Everyone on the planet has the same belief as you.

The planet is entirely suitable to every desire and variable of your belief system (eg. all jews are dead, all gays are dead, etc.).

Now what do you do?

~

If every person in the world was a Christian, theoretically there would only be joy. No thievery, no murder, no dangerous drugs (I say dangerous because Marijuana is hardly dangerous), no over indulgence, no child or adult porn, none of that. I would think it would be a pretty happy and go lucky place.

Now tell me, what if the entire world was Atheist?

Originally Posted by Fruscainte

If every person in the world was a Christian, theoretically there would only be joy. No thievery, no murder, no dangerous drugs (I say dangerous because Marijuana is hardly dangerous), no over indulgence, no child or adult porn, none of that. I would think it would be a pretty happy and go lucky place.

Now tell me, what if the entire world was Atheist?

I do not understand.

There are Christians today who do everything you just said they wouldn't be doing. Everyone, regardless to their beliefs, are still subject to their humanity. Some are better at controlling their urges than others, and some feel the urge to do something they consider "wrong" less than others. Personal morals come from within, not from outside systems of belief (although guidelines from a religion or set of laws may certainly be adopted and followed).

If the world were entirely atheist? Technological advancements would be accelerated, at the very least.

Originally Posted by Fruscainte

If every person in the world was a Christian, theoretically there would only be joy. No thievery, no murder, no dangerous drugs (I say dangerous because Marijuana is hardly dangerous), no over indulgence, no child or adult porn, none of that. I would think it would be a pretty happy and go lucky place.

Now tell me, what if the entire world was Atheist?

That's assuming everyone stopped being people and became perfect.

O'nus was talking about everyone sharing the same ideology.

If everyone were Atheist, then everyone would be atheist. They'd still be people, with thoughts and feelings and emotions all based on their own situations.

Originally Posted by Fruscainte

If every person in the world was a Christian, theoretically there would only be joy. No thievery, no murder, no dangerous drugs (I say dangerous because Marijuana is hardly dangerous), no over indulgence, no child or adult porn, none of that. I would think it would be a pretty happy and go lucky place.

Are you truly confident in this..? Has not history shown that Christians are capable of all these wrongs? Do I really need to list and demonstrate how Christians are capable of committing wrongs? Would the whole entire being Christian really change this..? How? Christians still do wrong to other Christians.

I do not feel confident in your answer and highly doubt its plausibility.

~

Originally Posted by O'nus

Are you truly confident in this..? Has not history shown that Christians are capable of all these wrongs? Do I really need to list and demonstrate how Christians are capable of committing wrongs? Would the whole entire being Christian really change this..? How? Christians still do wrong to other Christians.

I do not feel confident in your answer and highly doubt its plausibility.

~

This man speaks truth.

Why are you so smart? It's impossible not to sin. It is possible to cut down on sin though. No Christian.. ANYONE in the right mind shouldn't murder.

Originally Posted by O'nus

Are you truly confident in this..? Has not history shown that Christians are capable of all these wrongs? Do I really need to list and demonstrate how Christians are capable of committing wrongs? Would the whole entire being Christian really change this..? How? Christians still do wrong to other Christians.

I do not feel confident in your answer and highly doubt its plausibility.

~

I think Fruscainte was referring to true Christians, I.e. those who are devoted to the Lord and show integrity, respect and love to others. Then again, we are human beings anyway; all capable of likely mistakes and animal behaviors.



Nevertheless, your question was, again, purely hypothetical. Therefore you cannot expect detailed or realistic answers, as there is no stated realistic context to begin with.

Originally Posted by O'nus

Are you truly confident in this..? Has not history shown that Christians are capable of all these wrongs? Do I really need to list and demonstrate how Christians are capable of committing wrongs? Would the whole entire being Christian really change this..? How? Christians still do wrong to other Christians.

I do not feel confident in your answer and highly doubt its plausibility.

~

I agree, we've given Christians since the Dark Ages to have a majority of people follow them and I've seen nothing but hate and war caused by Christian churchs..

Originally Posted by really

I think Fruscainte was referring to true Christians, I.e. those who are devoted to the Lord and show integrity, respect and love to others. Then again, we are human beings anyway; all capable of likely mistakes and animal behaviors.

You realize that every Christian thinks that they are a "true" Christian?

Nevertheless, your question was, again, purely hypothetical. Therefore you cannot expect detailed or realistic answers, as there is no stated realistic context to begin with.

This answer is not realistic to begin with. "True" is a contextually relevant thing, and relying on it for the answer that "the world be peaceful" is not plausible. Sorry, but they are not perfect.

~

Originally Posted by O'nus

You realize that every Christian thinks that they are a "true" Christian?

Everybody has an opinion of themselves, regardless. That's beside the point.

Originally Posted by O'nus

This answer is not realistic to begin with. "True" is a contextually relevant thing, and relying on it for the answer that "the world be peaceful" is not plausible. Sorry, but they are not perfect.

~

Yes, they are not plausible, because you have not stated anything plausible to begin with, again. Please start a realistic, genuine topic, if anything.