I do believe so, more murders have been caused by religion than anything else in the worlds history. I could not imagine us living in a world without religion since I was born into it. If I wasn't born into religion maybe I could see the truth behind my own religion. But since the truth is I do believe in God and that their is a heaven waiting to take my soul in after I die, I cannot truly say with all my heart that the world would be better. To imagine a world without religion ... back in the midieval ages the Pope would not have been totally revered as being the true sender of someone to hell or heaven. He and every Pope before and after him they are all just regular men who should not with any doubt in my mind be looked upon as being any better than me or any reader. All in all if I did not have a religion and nobody else had a religion we might be farther along in technology or who knows the possiblities and the point being we will never know and the world will always have at least 1 religion until it ends or people end.

Even though I'm sure that humans will find other things to "worship" they will no longer be tied to the irrational beliefs that religion adheres to.

People will continue to war, but at least no in the name of invisible beings that have the power to create the universe and all it's splendor but seem to be conveniently absent to help us figure out our own little (in comparison) problems.

I think you are correct - religion has caused the intorerant idealism that causes suffering. I posted on a topic of what three wishes would you choose if you had a genie. After I posted, I realized that I should have wished for all religions to be more tolerant.

religion is used for comfort, plain and simple. the fact that people on massive scales will believe in something against all evidence from the academic world on a few scant unproven theories, and a horribly inconsistent series of books written centuries ago all for self comfort is astounding.

as a society we frown upon the imaginary friend that so many lonely children imagine, but when someone whispers into the wind to a god , many of us hold said person in high regard. their is no concise difference between the two. why do we continue to allow ourselves to be comforted by the impossibly improbable?

to the arguments based on why nots, religion helps many people, i must say i totally agree with you. religion helps many people, but religion also hurts many people. In the middle east the tali ban blow up schools full of children in the name of Allah. In America Christian extremist bomb abortion clinics. Mayans beheaded 225,000 Mayan men and women, boys, and girls, to make the sun come back up, on a cloudy day. religion is a detriment to all society, and in my conclusion i will address the way in which religion restricts our most basic and primitive want, the want for knowledge.

the Vatican would arrest and murder scientist, who had beliefs that went against those of the mighty bible. present day, many routes of medicine are n OT allowed to be taken b cause it "goes against the will of god". god never wrote anything about genetics, DNA, or even the simple microscope, so how do we know he doesn't want us saving our race from diseases? we dint! it is only the high, most often, rich priest that ascertain such meaning from the bible, to support their hidden agendas.

my argument has nothing to do with whether god exist or not, i personally am a firm agnostic, for i believe theist and atheist are narrow minded to not see both sides. my argument states that religion should be abolished, and no longer practiced

Religion helped culture out in the early days and helped people see the error in their ways in the past when we were young, but we have reached a point where the crutch is hurting us rather than helping. Ditching old habits is a good idea.

religion gave us Al qaeda, the holocaust, Bosnia troubles.

Put aside our differences and unite under atheism

yeah defiantly because it would save having to learn about thme and respect all of them. so if there was noreligion it would be better

Exactly! I don't see how this has disputed my point. You're absolutely right. Again, the question of evil existing outside of reilgion has no place here. The question at hand is whether or not the world would be better without religions.

And since you admit that anything applied radically can breed evil, and since it is known that religious fanatics are extreme, then we can conclude that religions are dangerous and the world would be better without them.

The question about evil existing outside of religion is moot.

Of course evil exists outside of religion. The point is that religion breeds evil through its corrupt institutions and intolerance.

Spirituality is fine, but religions are corrupt institutions in the same way that any powerful institution is corrupt. Some may argue that by nature, religions are exempt from such corruption because of the moral values to which they adhere. Sadly, this is not the case. The people in power in any institution, be it religious or otherwise, are human. And human beings are corruptible and sinful.

Look to the Vatican for your proof. Is it IN ANY WAY the type of church Jesus would approve of? Absolutely not. It is an ornate waste of money.

Religions breed hatred for those that disagree. They also provide an easy scapegoat for problems. History is full of examples, but let's look at present times. After September 11, it became abhorrent to be Muslim. Granted, Islam is a prime example of why religion is dangerous, but the blame is placed on all Muslims, rather than to those who act on hate.

Historically speaking, we have gotten nowhere fast in terms of religious tolerance. Religions by nature believe that they alone are correct on the big questions. And that is the inherent flaw.

Religion hinders science and social progress. It leads to death and hate. The worst part is there is no evidence for the basis of any religious belief. It is a pile of necrotic lard around the midriff of the world. Get rid of it so we can advance as a species.

why? explian yourself?

and is their realy a need for haste, the point of debate is to hear all sides, to become immersed in all arguments, and then make your decision, based on information that you interpret to mean one thing or another.

i happen to take the complete opposite, i believe that religion must be abolished in order for the human race to survive.

religion is an educational retardant, under the influence of religion, humans are able to accept talking snakes, as apposed to abiogenesis.

niether are definitive, the difference is one source is thousands of years old, says we rode dinosaurs, is very contradictory, and suggests that their is an omniscient and omnipotent being, who contradicts himself by being a malevolent, torturer.

the other source has prime data to support it, is beleieved by most scientist, and other academic scholars, and doesn't discredit other widely accepted sciences, like carbon dating.

Well, who came up with the ideas for the Gods? I mean somebody had to create the religion, so obviously he could figure out morals. The same is true with all religions, and laws. Whoever created them obviously must have had some sense of right and wrong otherwise no religions would have been created in the first place.

If a part of your brain swelled you would die. The frontal lobe does allow us to process rational thoughts, and through those thoughts we can figure out what is moral and what is immoral. Pick any topic, and using reason you can figure out if it's okay to do it.

Religion cannot be questioned and therefore many of the things religion claims are "immoral" have no basis.

Okay, so people who lived before modern religion were animals? The greeks for example never heard of the Judeo Christian God and yet somehow they were able to come up with a set of morals.

Also I'm pretty sure you don't understand psychology, otherwise you'd realize that your argument is flawed. There is a part of the brain that helps humans to develop a "moral" sense. When it judges weather we should do something it weighs two factors: "How will this action help me" and "How would I feel if this action was being done to me." So religion isn't necessary, and in fact many of our "instincts" are actually beneficent. The base for our morals is not religion, but instead a basic empathy for others.

Actually, we did do something about it when we first learned of the hole (not whole). We determined that ChloroFluoroCarbons (CFCs) were responsible. they were being used for a lot of things, but mostly refrigerants. So what did we do? We outlawed them. Guess what happened? The hole in the Ozone began to shrink! So actually we used science to solve the problem.

Also, the hole in the ozone is not the same thing as global warming. Global warming is caused by greenhouse gases (such as CO2) building up in our atmosphere. It's a separate issue.

So you don't think we can use reason to determine morals? Do you need a 2,000 year old book to know that killing or hurting someone is wrong? I think that people are very capable of determining the basic difference between right and wrong without religion.

i dont have no religion so why have it