A world with many religions or a world with zero religions

[lerapt78]

Utopia doesn’t exist.

There is the here and now.

Nothing more. **So, you’d better make the most of it **while you have your one and only shot at existence.

Durus, in all honesty I would be a complete train wreck if I went down that route.

I’m a very self-indulgent person.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

Without religion there is no heaven (because there is no afterlife, according to most every atheist that I have ever encountered). Thus, the table from the OP should actually look more like this:

No religions|Many religions

No one|All good peopleless the set of people who rejected the true religion

QED: it is far more beneficial to have many religions than to have no religions.

As I said in the very beginning this is not a discussion of atheism. We are assuming that heaven exists and that there is a true religion. Moreover, it is possible to get to heaven without that religion under the conditions I described (1a and 1b.)

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

False premise. You are ignoring the culpability of the person.

Also a false premise. To reject the true religion is to turn to one of one’s own making; it is to reject a relationship God in favor of one with yourself.

No. People are absolutely culpable. That is why, if they reject the true religion they do not go to heaven.

But if people are ignorant of the true religion they cannot reject it. Can you explain how someone could reject Catholicism without knowing what Catholicism was?

 

[Durus]

If no one knew about religion and all the ways to screw up.

More people would make it to heaven, as their minor transgressions that would ordinarily offend God, would still be offensive to him, but he could not blame them, as they didn’t know any better.

Example, pre-marital sex, masturbation or co-habitating.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

God also gave man free will, which completely muddled the entire concept of getting everyone into the same boat.
The vast majority of the world isn’t Christian and of course, absolutely does not believe that Jesus is the son of God.
Here’s a link for you: adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html

Be careful. Christianity is not a single religion. Catholicism has just under 1 billion members, or around 15% of the world population.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

Personally, I think the idea of getting into Heaven free from the shackles of religion.

Now, if someone could only be so kind as to point me in the direction of one of those Godless Utopias… …

Who said that life on earth would be better or worse? I am claiming something very specific:
more people would get into heaven.

 

[Durus]

If no one knew about religion and all the ways to screw up.

More people would make it to heaven, as their minor transgressions that would ordinarily offend God, would still be offensive to him, but he could not blame them, as they didn’t know any better.

Example, pre-marital sex, masturbation or co-habitating.

 

[ivebeenshown]

Who said that life on earth would be better or worse? I am claiming something very specific:
more people would get into heaven.

We don’t believe God arbitrarily bars entry to heaven for charitable, loving people who for one reason or another did not fully embrace Catholicism. God is concerned with charity first and foremost. Jesus said “love your enemies, do good, and lend without hoping for something in return, and your reward shall be great.” This is charity, and charity is possible by the grace of God through all of mankind, Catholic and non-Catholic.

You would have to demonstrate that more men would live life in pursuit of perfect charity in a world with no religion than in a world with many.

 

[ivebeenshown]

If no one knew about religion and all the ways to screw up.

More people would make it to heaven, as their minor transgressions that would ordinarily offend God, would still be offensive to him, but he could not blame them, as they didn’t know any better.

Example, pre-marital sex, masturbation or co-habitating.

Would you agree that, for the most part, people know that truth is good and that deviating from the truth is bad – and also that people will at times suppress, reject, or refuse to come to an understanding of the truth in favor of justifying their actions?

We Catholics argue that what is wrong with pre-marital sex, masturbation, and co-habitation, abortion, and so on are all discernible through reason and observation of the natural world and the laws that govern it.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

We don’t believe God arbitrarily bars entry to heaven for charitable, loving people who for one reason or another did not fully embrace Catholicism. God is concerned with charity first and foremost. Jesus said “love your enemies, do good, and lend without hoping for something in return, and your reward shall be great.” This is charity, and charity is possible by the grace of God through all of mankind, Catholic and non-Catholic.

You would have to demonstrate that more men would live life in pursuit of perfect charity in a world with no religion than in a world with many.

So you’re saying that it doesn’t matter which religion you are so long as you are a charitable and loving person? That doesn’t sound like an actual Catholic teaching to me. However, if it were the case, then it wouldn’t matter how many religions there were, or if any of them were the “true” religion.

I suspect that the world would have about the same number of good and bad people regardless of which religions (if any) existed. I agree that there are examples of people who become good by following religious teachings, but I suspect that the primary driver for this transformation was their own desire for goodness. If there had only been secular organizations, they would have become good by serving them instead. I also posit that there exist people who were made into bad people by following religions.

 

[ivebeenshown]

Before we proceed, what is the working definition of religion for this discussion? If a religion is ‘true’, isn’t that religion then simply a set of true beliefs?

 

[davidv]

Come on, that’s not exactly fair now is it?

Nor are you unsupported denials.

Couldn’t a person say the same thing about a believer?

There is common ground to be attained.

Not by thowing around unsupported opinion.

There are both good and bad believers.

There are both good and bad non-believers.

Neither of which support the OP claim.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Perhaps I’m missing something and you can explain it, TC.

Now, you’re saying (I believe) that there can be a true religion but that, even if this is so, and in fact, especially if this is so, the world should have ‘no religion’ because in doing so, this will ensure that nobody will ‘reject’ the true religion for a false religion.

Um. . .but the whole idea of a concept of ‘no religion’ is a false religion. It has to be, if you argue that there is a true religion. Anything which is in opposition to the truth is false, by definition.

So instead of having a world of several religions where a person at least has the opportunity to choose the ‘true’ one, you’re offering a world where the true religion is not even ‘on the table’ to choose. Because that true religion then has no chance of being chosen (since there are ‘no religions’), everybody winds up rejecting the true religion.

NOT a good move!

 

[Durus]

Would you agree that, for the most part, people know that truth is good and that deviating from the truth is bad – and also that people will at times suppress, reject, or refuse to come to an understanding of the truth in favor of justifying their actions?

We Catholics argue that what is wrong with pre-marital sex, masturbation, and co-habitation, abortion, and so on are all discernible through reason and observation of the natural world and the laws that govern it.

No reasonable person would deduce that masturbation is a terrible sexual activity, unless someone told them it was.

There is no way that pre marital sex and masturbation are innately known to be sinful.

 

[atheistgirl]

Because that true religion then has no chance of being chosen (since there are ‘no religions’), everybody winds up rejecting the true religion.

NOT a good move!

But they wind up going to heaven, because they were ignorant of the truth, and hence couldn’t use their free will to reject this truth, thereby risking damnation.

I had a conversation with some Jeshovah’s Witnesses. They claimed earth was the New Heaven, and those who believed as they did, would inherit the earth when Jesus returns, and some select would actually get to heaven.

They said there was no hell, just the souls that were damned would be wiped out. Cease to exist.

To get to this new earthly paradise, I had to believe as they did, as they had the truth.

I asked what would happen if I was ignorant of the Bible and the Good News, and their beliefs, would I have no chance of getting to heaven.

They said of course I would, as I was ignorant of the truth, and that wouldn’t be my fault.

I told them, in that case, tell me nothing, I’ll remain ignorant, and you’ve guaranteed my place in this new earthly paradise.

They weren’t too impressed and told me they were commanded by God to tell me the good news, as it’s in the Bible.

As they say in the best journalistic traditions, I made my excuses and left

Sarah x

 

[Durus]

Nor are you unsupported denials.

Not by thowing around unsupported opinion.

Neither of which support the OP claim.

All of religion, 100% of it is based on belief without evidence. That is why by faith you believe.

That is unsupported opinion in view.

 

[davidv]

All of religion, 100% of it is based on belief without evidence. That is why by faith you believe.

That is unsupported opinion in view.

Another false claim. And kindly stop telling me why I believe. I have plenty of evidence. Evidence that you blindly claim doesn’t exist.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

But they wind up going to heaven, because they were ignorant of the truth, and hence couldn’t use their free will to reject this truth, thereby risking damnation.

I had a conversation with some Jeshovah’s Witnesses. They claimed earth was the New Heaven, and those who believed as they did, would inherit the earth when Jesus returns, and some select would actually get to heaven.

They said there was no hell, just the souls that were damned would be wiped out. Cease to exist.

To get to this new earthly paradise, I had to believe as they did, as they had the truth.

I asked what would happen if I was ignorant of the Bible and the Good News, and their beliefs, would I have no chance of getting to heaven.

They said of course I would, as I was ignorant of the truth, and that wouldn’t be my fault.

I told them, in that case, tell me nothing, I’ll remain ignorant, and you’ve guaranteed my place in this new earthly paradise.

They weren’t too impressed and told me they were commanded by God to tell me the good news, as it’s in the Bible.

As they say in the best journalistic traditions, I made my excuses and left

Sarah x

Interesting, Sarah, but not quite correct.

Nothing that we do merits heaven.

IOW, there is simply no way, now that true religion exists (that is, since the time that God made His covenant with the Jews which was fulfilled by Jesus Christ), for us to simply ‘set aside’ true religion.

The truth (pace X-Files) is out there. It can’t be covered up or buried or set aside.

So any person existing in some world in which there is supposedly ‘no religion’ would have access to the fact that indeed, religion exists.

NOT seeking out the truth makes a person culpable for not seeking.

 

[Durus]

Another false claim. And kindly stop telling me why I believe. I have plenty of evidence. Evidence that you blindly claim doesn’t exist.

Your evidence is all anecdotal and personal.

If it weren’t, you’d be on the cover of Time magazine as being the first person on earth who actually proved that God exists.

 

[davidv]

Your evidence is all anecdotal and personal.

If it weren’t, you’d be on the cover of Time magazine as being the first person on earth who actually proved that God exists.

I asked you nicely to stop putting words in my mouth.

And thank you for proving my point with great emphasis, without even knowing what the evidence was.

Do you know what a strawman argument is? If not, read your post.