What would've happened if religion didn't exist?!

[edyzmedieval]

If religion didn't exist, what would've happened?!

What'd ya think?!

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Wow thats easy

It would have been invented of course!!!!!!!!

[Silver Rusher]

I agree with Gawain.

Mankind's curious nature would mean that it would have to come up with an explanation for the way the world worked. Philosophy would have to be very advanced for religion not to be invented sooner or later.

[Grey_Fox]

More suicides for one. There would still be wars of course, and probably just as many. All wars are caused by population pressure or greed (even the crusades, just look at the Fourth Crusade).

[King Ragnar]

Well lets say they werent smart enough and didnt, then there would be alot less wars happened.

[Redleg]

Well lets say they werent smart enough and didnt, then there would be alot less wars happened.

And you would be wrong. Wars happen for many reasons - some have religion tied into the reason for war - but if you take a good look at the warfare between nations you find the real underlying reasons behind most conflicts.

Greed, Hate, revenge, etc... Almost all aspects of human nature can be found for why nations went to war.

To blame it only on regilion is simplifying it to only one cause - at the expense of neglecting the truth.

[King Henry V]

This is the third this topic has been argued over in one week

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Again what many dont understand is religion and state work hand in hand when they dont that state generally ceases to exist. Its like a marriage. And the divorce is always very painful.

[Al Khalifah]

Not this topic again.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Its getting hard not to repeat yourself with three similar threads running at the same time.

[King Ragnar]

And you would be wrong. Wars happen for many reasons - some have religion tied into the reason for war - but if you take a good look at the warfare between nations you find the real underlying reasons behind most conflicts.

Greed, Hate, revenge, etc... Almost all aspects of human nature can be found for why nations went to war.

To blame it only on regilion is simplifying it to only one cause - at the expense of neglecting the truth.

No i wouldnt be wrong i said there would be less wars not that all there would be no war at all. Im stating tho that alot of wars and hatred is beacause of relgion.

[AntiochusIII]

No i wouldnt be wrong i said there would be less wars not that all there would be no war at all. Im stating tho that alot of wars and hatred is beacause of relgion.

Because of the Monotheistic and intolerant nature of these religions, to be more specific. These religions allows for little adaptation (despite the fact that Christianity evolves FROM the Jewish faith and that Islam also evolves with very strong Christian influence) and a lot of self-righteousness. You know what self-righteousness leads to, right?

Nonetheless, one could not deny the all-important role of religions - all of them - in creating and maintaining societies; albeit now we've evolved far enough that there are alternatives other than religions and faith that an Atheistic society is, in fact, possible.

P.S. Why are there so many threads of this type?

[Redleg]

No i wouldnt be wrong i said there would be less wars not that all there would be no war at all. Im stating tho that alot of wars and hatred is beacause of relgion.

And again you would be incorrect -

The wars that happened over religion might not be there if there was no religion - but other reasons for warfare would of been there. Man is a competive animal - when interests of different groups converge - there is often a struggle - sometimes just politicial - verbal, sometimes through armed conflict of one type or another.

There has been some interesting studies done by historical researchers that show even where religion was the major reason for the war - other factors contributed to the war.

[Adrian II]

And again you would be incorrect -

The wars that happened over religion might not be there if there was no religion - but other reasons for warfare would of been there. Man is a competive animal - when interests of different groups converge - there is often a struggle - sometimes just politicial - verbal, sometimes through armed conflict of one type or another.

There has been some interesting studies done by historical researchers that show even where religion was the major reason for the war - other factors contributed to the war.

The best example I can come up with is the Crusade against the Cathars. That was about power and wealth more than anything else, including religion, even though religion was the vehicle through which the parties concerned expressed these ambitions.

[sharrukin]

Because of the Monotheistic and intolerant nature of these religions, to be more specific. These religions allows for little adaptation (despite the fact that Christianity evolves FROM the Jewish faith and that Islam also evolves with very strong Christian influence) and a lot of self-righteousness. You know what self-righteousness leads to, right?

Nonetheless, one could not deny the all-important role of religions - all of them - in creating and maintaining societies; albeit now we've evolved far enough that there are alternatives other than religions and faith that an Atheistic society is, in fact, possible.

P.S. Why are there so many threads of this type?

So the Romans, Celts, Teutons, Greeks, and Mongols were more peace loving because of their lack of Monotheistic religions?

[AntiochusIII]

So the Romans, Celts, Teutons, Greeks, and Mongols were more peace loving because of their lack of Monotheistic religions?

No, but their motives were not primarily religious.

[BDC]

No, but their motives were not primarily religious.

Religion is just a cover anyway. You beat up the godless heathens because they aren't you and keep raiding your provinces/have things you want, not because they are godless heathens.

[bmolsson]

There wouldn't have been any difference. People would still believe in weird stuff.....

[sharrukin]

There wouldn't have been any difference. People would still believe in weird stuff.....

You mean like Bigfoot, crop circles, UFO Folklore, healing crystals, Wicca, Paganism, Divination, Astrology, Spiritualism, past lives, paranormal, etc.

I agree.

Seems to me we are inventing religions faster than we are getting rid of them.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Originally Posted by sharrukin
So the Romans, Celts, Teutons, Greeks, and Mongols were more peace loving because of their lack of Monotheistic religions?

No, but their motives were not primarily religious.

Didnt you just disprove your own post? In fact they were even more war like.

[AntiochusIII]

Didnt you just disprove your own post? In fact they were even more war like.

But they were not motivated to war mainly because of their religion demands, right?

And you must take into account the possible violence that had not happened (in large scale) thanks to the Polytheistic nature of their religions. Imagine a Mongolian horde hell-bent on converting every single piece of the world to their religion. Or a Roman empire that intends to wipe out the ancient Greek and Egyptian religions completely.

On the other hand, we see dogged violence in the wars that were fought over religious issues. The Crusades, its Islamic counterpart Jihads, the early Thirty Years War, among others, were started with religious reasons. At least, that's what the politicians used to rouse the masses to war for.

Oh yeah, and our modern "crusade" and terrorism.

Edit: However, I have made additional points about the strength of the Monotheistic religion and the weakness of the Polytheistic ones in another post/in another thread.

[Krusader]

As Voltaire said:

"If there was no God, it would be necessary to invent him"

[sharrukin]

But they were not motivated to war mainly because of their religion demands, right?

So you are not concerned if the massacre is for cash and goodies, but only if it is religious nutters?

And you must take into account the possible violence that had not happened (in large scale) thanks to the Polytheistic nature of their religions. Imagine a Mongolian horde hell-bent on converting every single piece of the world to their religion. Or a Roman empire that intends to wipe out the ancient Greek and Egyptian religions completely.

On the other hand, we see dogged violence in the wars that were fought over religious issues. The Crusades, its Islamic counterpart Jihads, the early Thirty Years War, among others, were started with religious reasons. At least, that's what the politicians used to rouse the masses to war for.

Non-religious ideologies have tallied up a butchers bill that religion cannot hold a candle too. Fascism and Communism alone have done terrible damage.

Why not take into account what actually happened, rather than non-massacres by imaginary christian mongolians. The Islamic religion didn't make the Turkic or Mongolian groups extra mean when it arrived nor did Nestorian Christianity.

The anti-religious Fascist and Communist ideologies have actually committed a few violent acts themselves.

Stalin's regime (1924-53)

* In The Great Terror (1969), Robert Conquest suggested that the overall death toll was 20 million at minimum -- and very likely 50% higher, or 30 million. This would divide roughly as follows: 7M in 1930-36; 3M in 1937-38; 10M in 1939-53. By the time he wrote The Great Terror: A Re-assessment (1992), Conquest was much more confident that 20 million was the likeliest death toll.
* Britannica, "Stalinism": 20M died in camps, of famine, executions, etc., citing Medvedev
* Brzezinski: 20-25 million, dividing roughly as follows: 7M destroying the peasantry; 12M in labor camps; 1M excuted during and after WW2.
* Daniel Chirot:
o "Lowest credible" estimate: 20M
o "Highest": 40M
o Citing:
+ Conquest: 20M
+ Antonov-Ovseyenko: 30M
+ Medvedev: 40M
* Courtois, Stephane, Black Book of Communism (Le Livre Noir du Communism): 20M for the whole history of Soviet Union, 1917-91.

So around 20 to 30 million as a minimum. This does not include WW2.
Some of the estimates are as high as 60 million dead. We cannot know for certain.

For Hitler;
4.8m to 6.3m Jews
Soviet POW's dead 2.6m to 3.9m (plus .5m to 1.1m killed by their own Soviet government when they were returned, many of the rest sent to gulags)
200,000 to 500,000 gypsies dead
70,000 to 275,000 mentally or physically handicapped
around 1 million political prisoners

WW2
Military deaths; 19 million
Civilian deaths; 32 million

In Yugoslavia
Croatian Fascists; 500,000 to 700,000 Serbs killed in Croatian death camps and field executions
50,000 Jews
20,000 Gypsies

massacred by Germans 4,000 to 7,000 total
Muslims killed by Chetniks c.11,000
Slovenes killed by Italians c.9,000
60,000 to 100,000 by Tito's government

Post-war Communist atrocities against German civilians;
1.8 million to 2.4 million dead

Communist China;
Forcible collectivization: 27 million peasants
Cultural Revolution: 0.4 million to 2 million dead
Great Leap Forward: between 20 and 40 million dead (including famine deaths, some estimates do not include this)
Govt executes landlords (1950-51): 1,000,000

On 7 Apr. 1969 the Soviet government radio reported that 26,300,000 people were killed in China, 1949-65. This is prior to the Cultural Revolution.

Estimate totals vary from 35 million dead to 72 million dead
---------------------
Will Durant, who, in, The Reformation (1957) cites Juan Antonio Llorente, General Secretary of the Inquisition from 1789 to 1801, as estimating that 31,912 people were executed from 1480-1808. He also cites Hernando de Pulgar, a secretary to Queen Isabella, as estimating 2,000 people were burned before 1490. Witch trials were uncommon in Spain, UK, and Italy and Richard Kieckhefer found 702 definite executions in all of Europe from 1300-1500. If we include the witch trials of Reformation times as well we get a much larger number. The areas where the Inquisition operated with its court procedures show a very low death count. The Inquisition almost invariably pardoned any witch who confessed and repented.

A witch hunt broke out in Vizcaya, Spain in 1616. The secular authorities petitioned the king directly for the right to try witches themselves. The king granted the request and 289 people were quickly sentenced. Fortunately the Inquisition managed to re-assert its monopoly on trials and dismissed all the charges. The "witches" of Cataluna were not so lucky. Secular authorities managed to execute 300 people before the Inquisition could stop the trials.

To date, less than 15,000 definite executions have been discovered in all of Europe and America combined.
Brian Levack estimates 60,000 dead
Ronald Hutton estimates 40,000 dead
Anne Llewellyn Barstow estimates 100,000 dead based on Levack's estimate but double calculated for lost records and new trials being found.


Inquisition 32,000 dead
Witch trials 100,000 dead
Crusades 1 million to a high of 2 or 3 million (includes Albigensian Crusade)
Thirty years war c.7m
Robert J. Knecht estimates 2m to 4m dead in the French Wars of Religion (1562–1598) including St. Bartholomew's Massacre
Ireland in the time of the English Civil War 300,000 to 620,000 dead

Given the very short time period for the Fascist and Communist regimes they seem to have done more than their fair share of killing. In fact the religious boys seem like amateurs compared to them.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

But they were not motivated to war mainly because of their religion demands, right?

Your first saying that war is fought by nations with monolethic religions. Now your admittinf polyistic ones were even more warlike and that religion had nothing to do with it. That means there would be just as many if not more wars without religion playing any part in it. Its built into us to fight for turff. We are still animals in many ways.

[Soulforged]

The anti-religious Fascist and Communist ideologies have actually committed a few violent acts themselves.

First you call the teory of fachism and communism to be terrible. Wrong. Only what you saw in reality (wich was not communism nor fachism) was terrible? And i see all the days the wonders that capitalism does...(Read both teories again after talking of ideologies )

Second, violent acts are not always wrong. There is violence as irrational destruction, and there's violence to reconstruct a new society (or a new -"put anything here"), that's rational and just (example: The French Revolution, in fact all revolutions have an element of violence).

The teory of communism states that if violence is needed (and it will be for certain) to seize with private property then it will be used (guess who was the other one (or other ones) that stated some of the same). Fachism is in all much of the same, but the fachism defends the same as capitalism does, a social structure with difference between classes.

You seem to do the same as the one you critizied. Always talking about communism and fachism when you appear to know little about them.

Anyway back on topic. Accusing religion as the only origin of all the evils or at least of war, is too narrow minded. If religion never exited i cannot give you a panoramic view of all our society, i don't know all history, and i don't know all the influence that religion has had in history. One thing is certain there're things that are, from a moral point of view, worse or equal to the "religion effect".

[Soulforged]

As Voltaire said:

"If there was no God, it would be necessary to invent him"

Of couse because Voltaire refered to the "life" of the state.

[Redleg]

First you call the teory of fachism and communism to be terrible. Wrong. Only what you saw in reality (wich was not communism nor fachism) was terrible? And i see all the days the wonders that capitalism does...(Read both teories again after talking of ideologies )

Actually I have read both theories - the intent of the Communist Revolution in Russia was to utilize Marxist doctrine with a Lenin interpation to force Russia into communism through an initial forced socialist state.

China used the same theory. The theory application by man is what went wrong. That and those in power decided that they liked to have power.

Second, violent acts are not always wrong. There is violence as irrational destruction, and there's violence to reconstruct a new society (or a new -"put anything here"), that's rational and just (example: The French Revolution, in fact all revolutions have an element of violence).

Of course violence is part of the human experience. We are a competive species.

The teory of communism states that if violence is needed (and it will be for certain) to seize with private property then it will be used (guess who was the other one (or other ones) that stated some of the same). Fachism is in all much of the same, but the fachism defends the same as capitalism does, a social structure with difference between classes.

Ah but Marx in his theories states something a little different. It made it easy for such men as Stalin, Lenin, and others to corrupt his theory for that reason.

You seem to do the same as the one you critizied. Always talking about communism and fachism when you appear to know little about them.

Actually both of you are argueing in circles. Religion and Politicial idealism have caused a lot of violence - politicial idealism has caused more deaths then Religion. Are you trying to deny that Communism and Facism are not political ideas - or shall we say dogma's of an institution. The institution being a governmental body. However again the initial philisophy of Marx was indeed corrupted by such men - but they surrounded themselves with the mantra and dogma of being Communists. In other words Idealism does a lot of harm - probably more so then religion by itself.

Anyway back on topic. Accusing religion as the only origin of all the evils or at least of war, is too narrow minded. If religion never exited i cannot give you a panoramic view of all our society, i don't know all history, and i don't know all the influence that religion has had in history. One thing is certain there're things that are, from a moral point of view, worse or equal to the "religion effect".

There is worse then a religious aspect of wars - racial differences being the main one.

[VAE VICTUS]

We Wouldnt Exist!!!!!!!!!!hahahahah

[Soulforged]

Actually I have read both theories - the intent of the Communist Revolution in Russia was to utilize Marxist doctrine with a Lenin interpation to force Russia into communism through an initial forced socialist state.

China used the same theory. The theory application by man is what went wrong. That and those in power decided that they liked to have power.

Yes you readed it, but Sharukin appears not.
They stated to use the teory, they didn't applied it. We already discussed it RedLeg. China always kept an emperor. Russia was the classic example of tirany, but this time constitutional tirany. And you said it very well: with Lenin interpretation, as i already said Lenin leaded irrational people and he make the worst mistake of dying.

Of course violence is part of the human experience. We are a competive species.

I'm not saying it just for humans and the competition. I'm talking about material and ideal evolution, both almost always needed violence to work. Socialism only can be forced, and people will die, that's inevitable, mostly capitalist of course. But what Stalin did was not an example of communism, it was tirany.

Ah but Marx in his theories states something a little different. It made it easy for such men as Stalin, Lenin, and others to corrupt his theory for that reason.

I've to disagree with you. First post that comment from Marx, because Marx leaved a lot of things to interpretation. And Lenin didn't corrupt anything he improved a lot of things and clearified the teory, he only missed in some critical points.

Actually both of you are argueing in circles. Religion and Politicial idealism have caused a lot of violence - politicial idealism has caused more deaths then Religion. Are you trying to deny that Communism and Facism are not political ideas - or shall we say dogma's of an institution. The institution being a governmental body. However again the initial philisophy of Marx was indeed corrupted by such men - but they surrounded themselves with the mantra and dogma of being Communists. In other words Idealism does a lot of harm - probably more so then religion by itself.

I agree with you. But i don't argue in circles, i really don't care what of boths are to blame for this deaths or the others, the deaths are caused by man.
Communism and facism are indeed political ideas, i'm not denyng anything. I'm just saying that teories are abstract, the same goes for ideologies, so communist claim to not have an ideology, in general this doesn't mean that they actually don't have an "ideology" but that the ideology is just to set up the general idea, and then when it comes to the actions what is best as the end is the only correct thing to do. So you can't blame an abstract (non existent) of things that exist, the abstrat is an "skin" that can be applied to reality in certain cases. Actually most people of today surround themselves with "democracy" when in reality there's no democracy.

There is worse then a religious aspect of wars - racial differences being the main one.

In general i would say that racial and social differences.

[Redleg]

Yes you readed it, but Sharukin appears not.
They stated to use the teory, they didn't applied it. We already discussed it RedLeg. China always kept an emperor. Russia was the classic example of tirany, but this time constitutional tirany. And you said it very well: with Lenin interpretation, as i already said Lenin leaded irrational people and he make the worst mistake of dying.

And I do believe that the Chinese Communists did away with the Emperor, and kept the Forbidden Palace for themselves. Just might have to go back and review a little history. A quick search seems to confirm that China no longer has an emperor, but that the COmmunist Party rules China.

I don't think the USSR was a constitutional Tyranny. But then again on that one I could be wrong since they did right a document to determine how their country would be ran - ie thats a constitution.

I'm not saying it just for humans and the competition. I'm talking about material and ideal evolution, both almost always needed violence to work. Socialism only can be forced, and people will die, that's inevitable, mostly capitalist of course. But what Stalin did was not an example of communism, it was tirany.

Someone stated that if Religion did not exist that there would of been less warfare - Religon was used as an idealism to bring the masses into the conflict - if it wasn't Religion othe Idealism's would of entered into the picture and caused conflict. (Which is my point exactly)

I've to disagree with you. First post that comment from Marx, because Marx leaved a lot of things to interpretation. And Lenin didn't corrupt anything he improved a lot of things and clearified the teory, he only missed in some critical points.

And those critical points caused massive destruction of many people - so his critical errors did indeed corrupt the system. (Remember Lenin's programs killed alot of people also - just nowhere close to Stalin's)

In general i would say that racial and social differences.

Yes indeed social differences should also be included.