Francisco Time Mag. Person Of The Year..

[ajoknoblauch]

Your questions are difficult to answer for a number of reasons. First, you can't just broadly paint all religions together. A Wiccan actually has zero in common with the Christian worldview, for instance. Also, some people that practice religions are actually atheists, like some Buddhists (I guess in that case, it would be considered more of a religious philosophy). I think we might be able to say, for instance, that if Islam were banned, we might have less wars. But if Buddhism was banned, would we have less wars? I doubt anything would really change. So your questions are unfair in that respect.

However, we do have some indicators as to what a world without any inkling of God would look like. We have the Soviet Union and Pol Pot's regime. These were both states that completely destroyed or attempted to destroy belief in God. As a direct result of their Atheist philosophy, in these countries, the State became God. The result is the death of millions and millions of people due to murder, starvation, etc. Please note that this is a DIRECT result of atheist philosophy. God does not exist...therefore...and those were the results. I am not saying here that Atheists cannot be good people or that there is anything to fear from an Atheist, I'm simply pointing to an answer for your question.

Finally, if science proved that God does not exist (strange since at present the evidence points to the fact that God exists), we would at last know that objective moral values and duties are a figment of our imagination, since without a God, objective moral values and duties cannot exist (lots of Atheists believe this, like Nietzsche for instance). Once we know that objective moral values and duties do not exist, then people can determine what their own subjective morals are according to their desires. They would then be perfectly justified if they wished to rape, murder, kill, etc. What would it matter, anyways, since we are just walking bags of genetic material? Whoever would be tougher and fitter, would be stronger and survive. There would be no more need for such illusory concepts as morals anymore.

The persistence of organized religion is proof that you can't easily end superstition and stupidity, but you can at least work toward that goal.

 

[khairyexpat]

First, you can't just broadly paint all religions together. A Wiccan actually has zero in common with the Christian worldview, for instance.

The moral equivelancy of all religions:
They all have in common:
.... ... ... EACH & EVERY ONE CLAIMS IT'S THE ONLY TRUTH ...

The question still is ... W H A T .... I F ... there's no Gods (All of them ... NONE ...)?
Not which God is better.

 

[ARbound]

Well I'll just quickly weigh in here and try not to disturb anyone.

I think Francis getting the title is interesting. I don't know what I really think of him but I do like the anti-poverty
and frugal, more down to Earth persona. I do however think he needs to work harder at reforming the
Roman Catholic Church Inc. and it's subsidiaries around the globe.

I wish that the state and it's institutions were non-religious here. I don't like the fact that there are pictures/cards
of Mary or Jesus in the police station or that the Church is even referenced in the constitution. I also think that
Churches should not but tax exempt as they benefit from the services of the state while pushing and advocating
an agenda, whether I agree with it or not.

As for respecting religious beliefs, I think there is a fine line to walk. I don't believe that all components of all
religions should be respected, such as homophobia, misogyny, violence, 100% unquestioned obedience,
forced wearing of certain clothes or religious paraphernalia. I respect peoples beliefs but that does not give
you a right to force them upon others.

Regarding kids, I don't believe in forcing them go to religious services or baptizing them, etc. as this removes
the right of the child to have a free choice in what they believe is right for them. I think it is important to educate
kids that there are multiple religions, no single one is the correct one and just because the family members
practice one doesn't mean it is right either. I think it is also important to teach kids that being agnostic or
atheist is ok too and that it does not make them bad people.

Morals and the like do not come from religion. There is no proof of this at all and even Francis/others have
said that the morally superior person is the one who lives their live to the betterment of humanity irregardless
of their religion or lack there of.

Finally, what am I? I don't know. I am a non-practicing Christian. I guess the closest branches of
Christianity to me are Quakers and Unitarians. I think the most important thing you can do with
religion is find the one that works for you and follow it. As long as you don't violate the rights of
others you can worship anything or anybody you want all day long as far as I care, but I do worry
about the spread of fanaticism in American and European Christians and Subsaharan Muslims.

 

[ajoknoblauch]

The moral equivelancy of all religions:
They all have in common:
.... ... ... EACH & EVERY ONE CLAIMS IT'S THE ONLY TRUTH ...

The question still is ... W H A T .... I F ... there's no Gods (All of them ... NONE ...)?
Not which God is better.

All religions are equally delusional, but some are less pernicious than others.

 

[khairyexpat]

As long as you don't violate the rights of others

That is the tricky part ....

They all DO advocate ... to violate ...

 

[Jaredberryman]

The moral equivelancy of all religions:
They all have in common:
.... ... ... EACH & EVERY ONE CLAIMS IT'S THE ONLY TRUTH ...

The question still is ... W H A T .... I F ... there's no Gods (All of them ... NONE ...)?
Not which God is better.

You don't really know what you are talking about. Some religions believe that other religions have the truth from a different perspective, such as Hinduism or Bahai. So they do not claim to be the only truth. Once again, it is complete nonsense to refer to "religion" as a completely uniform belief. Just because you are an atheist does not make you right.

 

[khairyexpat]

You don't really know what you are talking about. Some religions believe that other religions have the truth from a different perspective, such as Hinduism or Bahai. So they do not claim to be the only truth. Once again, it is complete nonsense to refer to "religion" as a completely uniform belief. Just because you are an atheist does not make you right.

W H A T ... I F .... is just that ... a curious question (does not imply right or wrong).

I know citizenship allow duality, ... but dual religionship ?

 

[Matiasba]

I like religious discussions, did god create men or men created god?

Although beliefs are mainly irrational, Descartes, the more rationalist philosopher, had to go to god to explain the genesis. To him, and most rationalists, the ultimate answer is god. He had a point, if you start asking why ad infinitum, the limit is always god, or something our minds cannot get.
Nevertheless, I still dont believe in nothing, so I think every god is a human creation.

 

[citygirl]

While I avoid the religion discussions as they smack of my 100 level philosophy courses, I will simply say if you haven't read through the list of Francisco's actions, you should.

http://distractify.com/people/reasons-why-pope-francis-is-the-person-of-the-year/

 

[Matiasba]

Theres so much PROPAGANDA about Francis, its not an accident that he was on the front page of Time magazine.
Its not an accident than for the first time in thousands years a pope resigned to his charge, and of course the next one has 100% oposite policies.
Its not an accident than the pope is latinamerican since here is the continent where there are more believers.

Just in Brazil, the Vatican loses per year A MILLION FOLLOWERS, in hands of the evangelists (the ones on the tv shows, that have people in the congress of Brazil as well).

So the Vatican policies with Benedict were too much conservative, closed, reactionary, traditionalistic, etc...
And with Francis they tried to re capture those people whose faith was in crisis, those people who in some way or another were apart from the church. Gays, for example. Francis this year brought MILLIONS of gays back to the church.

And then we have the ENORMOUS presence of the pope in the media. A very high profile character, it must appear close to the masses, close to the people, close to futbol, close to the poor, close to everything thats masive, it appears everywhere, and always "being good", always close to the people, trying to be loved, trying to recapture faith.

It is amazing how volatile the church was the last year, they made a pope resigne and then changed 180° their policies. They used their influences, lots of leaders, lots of media, lots of catholic states (like the argentinean and Cristina)... They needed a white wash after the scandals with the bank and the weapon industry, lots of corruption, lots of paedophiles....


and people still believe them.