Change my mind: The world will be better without religion
Most religions base their beliefs on the Bible. If so, where was the bible based on? Clearly, the bible was written by a bunch of men. Men. Humans. Humans are prone to corruption. We cannot tell whether these authors corrupted or even invented stories? So, why should we base our virtues on a thick book when we don't really know if it's accurate or not?
Science has already proven that Adam and Eve didn't exist. Evolution does exist. And Science have evidences. The bible said the Earth was FLAT and have 4 corners and sides. Science said the Earth was spherical, and it proved what it said. Science seeks evidence. Science seeks the TRUTH. The bible? It was just created by men many years ago to answer questions they cannot answer.
There are tons of wars and crusades that were religion driven, whether we had holy wars or wars because of terrorists following inhumane beliefs, many people ultimately died. Just like wars almost eradicated humanity, that is what should happen to be Religion. Become eradicated. Adding on to that we see many deaths every day just because of religious differences.
The bottom line is, The holy book is repulsive and its repulsiveness creates a huge barrier to development. The world would be a better place without religions. Religions claim themselves right. And because of that, people around the globe were divided by awful beliefs. It's really sad to think that people do good things because they FEARED the awful HELL and because they wanted to go to the fictional HEAVEN. Religious people were driven by a 'holy' book which cannot speak and collect evidences for what it says. We should wake up. Be united by an accurate tool that seeks truth. Science. We should base our virtues on our intelligence and common sense.
Greek mythology was once a religion, and it flopped and became a myth. Religion in the US is now declining according to surveys. With our eyes, watch and see how will religion disintegrate through the years while the development, peace and stability of the world integrates. To add to my initial statement, I can provide sources for every argument against religion and the "holy book"
You said it in a more civil way than I could.
I'm all for in-depth conversations on difficult or controversial subjects, but this user is beginning come across to me as a person with ill-intent. It's one thing to start a topic on a sticky subject, it's another to post many with little additional contribution from the user after the topic is made. It comes across as.. instigatory? instigative?
And so it begins! Well guys Tildes was fun while it lasted lol
@cfabbro It's not perfect and there is currently no report button, but do you know if @Deimos can at least see edits and deleted posts? I know the platform stores data 30 days before being purged but the idea of admins/mods not having any access to some form of edit history will handicap their ability to determine if someone is abusing the edit feature.
re: @Hypnotoad's posts/content
I'd like to refer to Ian Fleming's quotation when it comes to actions in bad faith.
Look, Tildes is in the alpha stage, and it's going to be an ongoing community struggle trying to work out how to drive constructive discussion (not necessarily harmonious, fair debate is the lifeblood of warding off echo chamber tendencies) and the production of quality original content. Hell, you express your disapproval of gay marriage and/or alt "lifestyles", but to quickly edit that out ostensibly to avoid the free rebuttal of other Tilders is kinda crass. But making, then deleting a blanket statement about the "degeneracy" of an entire school system sans clear sources of evidence really sounds like ignoring the spirit of a CMV type post, dancing up to the "don't be an asshole" line, and playing an ideological "I'm not touching you" game.
When I first saw this username, I really, really wanted an opportunity to be positive and underline the pop culture reference. Unfortunately, no - no glory to this Hypnotoad. :c
The absolute worst I've seen from Toad is that Gay marriage post. Regardless of how he feels he's entitled to his opinion. I feel like a lot of people are seeing him in a more negative light because of his views. I obviously don't support it but do we really want the site to turn into this? The moment someone posts something that the majority disagree with they'll question every single thing they do?
I don't think the problem is Toad's opinions—or at least I hope that's not it. What I personally dislike to the point where I'm wishing there was a way to filter submissions by user, is that the posts are based on misconceptions, oversimplifications, or are completely misinformed, and after they make the post they never bother to participate in the discussion at all. That makes the responses turn into a criticism of the user, instead of an actual discussion. If I had to guess, I'd say bad faith is being argued not because of Toad's opinions, but by their lack of engagement, the blatant misinformation or misrepresentation of facts, and the choice to make only low-effort posts on controversial topics.
While I agree that those elements are all problems (given the focus of ~), I think communities in general tend to engage in double standards when calling out those problems. When the opinion is one the majority agrees with the problems go largely unnoticed and unremarked. I don't know how to defend against that bias really, but it'd sure be nice if this community was at least self-aware of the tendency.
Maybe but you all keep going back to "Low-effort" which makes it sound like you're more upset on the topic itself. Toad can definitely express his opinions in a bit more of a tactful way (How did he talk about the gay marriage?) but aside from that I don't see much issues with the posts on its own.
I don't think the topic is bad (essentially the societal benefits/disadvantages of religion), I've had quite a few discussions on that very topic over the years. What I find "low-effort" is using simplistic, ill-informed, stereotypical-high-school-atheist arguments: the Bible says the world is flat, the church rejects evolution, fundamentalism is caused by religion, religion should be destroyed, and so on. The authoritative tone in which his opinions are expressed, coupled with the patent lack of knowledge or interest in actual discussion, are what I personally find off-putting.
It's not so much the views, as it is the manner in which they're expressed.
There's a MAGA-type user here who gets along just fine from what I've seen, even as the site majority is more liberal in nature. It's all in how you present yourself.
I feel like it's more both for some of you. The way he expresses isn't that great but the views themselves also make people upset on their own. If Toad were to tactfully say "I don't agree with gay marriage" I believe the same arguments would've sprung up. It's clearly a very big and emotional topic to some of the users here.
If the tactful iteration attracts the same arguments/rebuttals, why not encourage the more tactful approach? If the issue is arguments being posted, why would this be a problem (assuming said argument posts follow the code of conduct and have somewhat verifiable info to back/supplement them)?
Every view is bound to make someone, somewhere out there, upset. As far as I have seen, Tildes is not aiming to penalize people for getting upset, but for channeling that into "internet fuckwad" behavior like brigading, flaming, trolling, etc. that is not conducive to principled rational debate and discussion.
Let's pick something less emotional. I an supportive of @Hypnotoad expressing his views, even if I disagree with them, and I would be equally supportive of either topic title:
But substituting accordingly, does this excerpt from the original topic sound like a request for debate being made in good faith?
Definitely possible, probably the case for some quantity of users. We're all going to have to actively check ourselves before we wreck ourselves in the heat of debate, but this should not negate the value of other users pointing out the flaws in said views or how they are expressed.
Assuming the questioning is done within good faith and the COC, I'd imagine each Tilder is free to question whatever they want. Pointing out common trends (provocatively couched queries, using the edit tool to avoid rebuttals for holding a certain view or blanket statement made without evidence) in subsequent threads for the same user should not be considered a form of harassment.
While not exactly my idea of a spa day, if I posted a topic and espoused a view that was disagreeable to the minority, I would not aim to shame or censor rebuttals made within the bounds of good faith, even if I don't like the content. I imagine most users don't want sunshine blown up their asses, but most would prefer to engage with a topic knowing they're not trying to debate with a brick wall.
I would love to see an edit history feature added. I know there are more pressing things but it'd be nice for situations like the one you mentioned.
I don't think that's a good idea. There are many instances of people editing out personal information, images, etc. By allowing people to see what was edited out defeats the purpose. I know I had an instance where Ctrl-C failed and I ended up posting a link to a video of a CGI chicken dancing and playing a piano to a privacy focused subreddit. That's pretty tame but you get the idea.
Now that is something I didn't consider. Perhaps something where site admins (not mods) could see...hmmm
Maybe the visibility of the edit history could be toggled to the moderation/admins, and only pop up when a "report" button is pushed on the topic/post? I don't like the idea of users being able to hoodwink/gaslight others by abusing the edit system.
That way, a false report on someone who removed personal or incorrect images/information can be differentiated from a justified report on actual shitposting/bad faith shenanigans.
That still means the information is there. What if I posted some personal information by accident? I wouldn't want the mods/admins to see it either. Nor would I want them to have the power to suddenly allow people to see it again.
Absolutely valid concerns. However, how would you propose handling the following theoretical reports as an admin/mod?
A user is reported by several others for posting "doxx", but when you check out the post, it's been edited to show a blank or innocuous content, and you cannot see the history, only the current iteration. How do you proceed?
Another user gets several reports for trolling on a discussion about police brutality. This is how the post appears to you:
You can see the post was edited, but nothing else. Without the edit history, the following original statement is not visible to you:
This implies it gets reported before anybody notices. Some threads are busy and so you can remove a self or accidental "dox" but nobody would have reported it. I think the simplest thing is to just have it be the way it is now. There is a mention that the post was edited but that's it. There isn't much reason for anybody to have to see the "original" post.
OK, that could definitely work for the first case.
In the second case, where a moderation decision might need to be made for the validity of "Troll" tags on what now looks like an inoffensive post, how could a fair choice be made in the absence of a visible edit history? Other users could try posting screenshots of the pre-edit version, but those can be faked.
I think that might be fine as long as it's for a short amount of time. After a few hours, it should be wiped. And even then I'm not completely sold...
I'm glad you posted this. This was my gut-feeling as well, but I couldn't articulate it the way you did.
I added a custom style (using Stylish) to tag @Hypnotoad as a troll just so I know to ignore their posts.
Well they have been banned so you probably can disable that. ;)
Oh, didn't know that Deimos took care of him. Thanks for the link.
The Catholic Church agrees with you.
"Four corners of the Earth" is an idiom, not meant to be taken literally.
People are shitty. Always are, always will be. If religion wasn't a driving factor to go to war, there would be another scapegoat.
Look, I'm not religious. I'm pretty strongly against the Church in many ways. But I don't hate religion. The Catholic church does a lot of good right now in the form of donations and humanitarian work, and if religion brings comfort to peoples' lives, who am I to denigrate them for that?
Since you've already addressed some of the major points, I'll try to go for the lesser ones here.
This goes against the teaching of the Catholic Church. They teach you should do things because you love God, not because you fear his punishment.
The Catholic Church (again using it because I'm most familiar with this part of Christianity) is not anti-science at all. A Catholic priest suggested the idea of the expanding universe. A Catholic priest suggested the Big Bang.
The catholic church may not be anti-science and education but many catholic priests and adults i have met are. The church and the sheep are different entities that don't necessarily have the same views.
Edit: by education i meant college "where liberals will try and poison your mind". I also should have said progressive social views.
As an atheist, even I can admit that religion was one of the biggest motivators of early innovation. Roman and Greek temples were built for their gods, Egyptians are still mystical today in how they managed to do all they did in the name of religion, the list goes on. Our earliest roots in architecture simply wouldn't have grown as they did without religious motivations.
Wars happen regardless of religion, and to blame all war on religion is to misplace what's really just "humans want what other humans have". If religion is why war exists, why does it exist today? What do you think are the motivations for, say, war against the Middle East? It's not because they're Muslim, it's because they have oil, lots of it.
Yep, whenever I tell someone I'm an atheist I get a look as if I'm the type of person to write up what OP did, and it starts to get annoying. I've started calling myself agnostic (even though I'm not) because people seem to be less abrasive about it.
Blaming all our problems on religion is just as short-sighted as blaming them on the non-religious.
Sidenote, the current Pope is fantastic, I love all the changes he's been making to converge rational thought with religion. He's a prime example of how it can be a force for good.
Just thought I'd throw this out there, but Pope Francis hasn't actually changed much in church doctrine, though most people think He's changed a lot. He's just been really good about living up to what it's supposed to be and really good at explaining how it's supposed to work to the rest of the world.
But his stances on things definitely rubs a lot of people the wrong way. Too bad it's exactly what a Christian is supposed to be. I'm super proud to have him as my pope and I always aspire to act like him.
I should rephrase I guess, he hasn't changed doctrine as much as he's changed the way we see religious leaders. He's the single highest person in the religion aside from the obvious, yet he's a very down-to-earth person, which can't be said about his predecessors. He doesn't diminish the role, though, as he's absolutely a model of what everyone should act like, in fact I'd argue that he's strengthened the respect many have for the Pope by being more relatable of a role model than those past.
Do you mean for your post to be about Christianity?
Perhaps he meant to say "a" bible, but even then, that'd be very incorrect for plenty of religions.
Buddhism does not fit the criteria you have laid out for "religion".
Religion has influenced aspects of life outside of science. History was basically born out of the Abrahamic religions and much of the Western world's morals and philosophy came out in part because of religious influences. You see a ton of divergence in these areas between the Western world and the Eastern.
Your argument for science and "truth" as the main driver for innovation and progress is wrong as well, in my opinion. The examples you listed out could also apply to Greed, Capitalism, and other drivers of human behavior and beliefs.
My advice for you would be to open your mind and open your heart. If your main point was to cast a stereotype to live and die by, I would have to argue you have a pretty closed off mind.
Many of humanity's most enduring artworks were inspired by religion. From Angkor Wat to Leonardo to Mahalia Jackson; the world would be a poorer place without them.
I think it's easy to make your claim after the fact that all of it has already happened, and that you have constructed a narrative that, while understandable, isn't disprovable.
A priest tells a man who doesn't believe in God that prayer works-- his proof being some nuns that had prayed during a flood and survived. The man who doesn't believe in God asks "But what of the nuns who prayed and didn't survive? They aren't here to make their case that God doesn't exist."
The point of the story is it is easy for you to speak on behalf of atheists today and shun all of the religious people of the past (and present) for doing what they've done. I believe (with the same "disprovable" problem as your belief) religion was a necessary invention as we learned more and more about the world to mitigate the crippling tsunami of fear that washes over us whenever we think of the idea of nonexistence and to explain all of the (at the time) unexplainable, and discussing a world without it will be, for the foreseeable future, fruitless.
To say that those who do not believe in God would not be as destructive is a little shortsighted. Tribalism is at the root of most conflicts, whether that tribalism stems from religious beliefs, wealth, or sports, it is an inherent aspect of our minds that makes us buckle down and get violent with others. Had religion not been created, some other causes would've been found to fight around instead.
So while I agree with all of your talking points, I don't think it is an achievable idea, and instead should be adjusted to just address tribalism and dogmatism, and why some people's minds just can't be changed before violence is turned to as the answer. And then incorporate alongside that why the greed and selfishness steers those who use religion (or law, or any modicum of power) to control others and take things for themselves. How much of that is the endowment effect, how much of that is a lack of empathy, how much of that is just stupidity and ignorance?
The problem with religion is that it invokes extremist lunatics to do things in the name of a false deity. So, this causes a lot of conflicting values in societies across all religions because they all have these fundamental values they have to stay consistent to or they'll go to their hell or whatever.
Some of these principles are good though, don't get me wrong. Helping people, doing good, etc. These things are great principles to abide by and serve to do good in the world. However, the extremist and other parts that religion doesn't exactly ask for but seem to find it are a large negative.
Would the world be better off without religion? I'm not really qualified to weight pros/cons and see what the net result is. I think the world would be better off without extremist lunatics.
The Bible was authored by God, not humans. But the only way we can know that, is by first proving that the Catholic Church is infallible when it makes that claim. So it doesn't make sense to base our virtues on the Bible, when we can get a better understanding of them directly from the Church.
Science has NOT proven that Adam and Eve didn't exist. Evolution doesn't support that claim either.
The Bible does not say the Earth is flat. You are using some mistranslation it would seem.
Talking about "religious-driven" wars is a false comparison. What you're doing here is grouping religions into two categories (spiritual ones vs secular/humanist ones), but this grouping is fundamentally flawed. Instead, you should group into Catholicism (aka true religion) vs false religion (everything else). Catholic wars have mostly been justifiable, at least in principle. Regardless of how you group it, note that the atheistic wars have been far worse.
I think you have the pretty common misunderstanding that science and religion can't work together. It's entirely untrue.
Many early scientists were priests. In fact, the man who proposed a sun centric solar system was a priest. There are countless examples of priests being scientists and making many discoveries. The commonality here was that all of these priests sought to understand the world God had created for them and how it worked.
I always say that religion begins where science ends. There are certain questions that science cannot answer. For example, we understand that the laws of physics are a thing and that they govern the way the universe works. But we don't know why the laws are the way they are. We can explain things like that gravity is a characteristic of mass and has to do with higgs fields and things like that. But we can't explain why it is that the higgs field does that. Why is it that particular thing? When it gets down to it, science can explain a lot of things, but once it gets to an answer, it is extraordinarily difficult to figure out the reason behind the reasons. Like why is a quark or lepton the basic block to make particles? Why not something else? Where did the first quark come from?
All of this stuff is answered by religion, if you simply understand that it was God who created all the stuff to start and God who designed all these rules, such as physics or evolution, that everything would be governed by.
Think of it this way, God is the architect. He made the plans for a building and how it all should work and what it looks like. But things like physics, chemistry, evolution, and other sciences are the engineers and construction workers. They make the building that is existance happen and look the way it does according to God's plan.