If you could somehow rid of religion altogether...

[pokemario]

It seems like a good idea in theory, but...

If there's no religion, people are going to find other problems to bicker about. Racism will still be there, since not all racism is religion-based. Look at the Gypsies, who are usually the same religion as the people around them (usually, they're Christian, though many in the Balkans and Turkey are Muslim) and face severe racism. Certain countries hating each other will not be resolved. Economic problems won't be resolved, crime won't go away, and much of Africa, Asia, and Latin America will still be poor. Even sexism won't completely go away.

Also, many people in communist countries like China, Vietnam, and North Korea are atheists and there's very little support for gay marriage there.

I am against getting rid of religion since religion matters to a lot of people, even ones with socially liberal views. Plus I think religious and nonreligious people can get along. I'm Catholic, but I love my atheist friends. I can't imagine a world without religion. I am against forcing beliefs on others, and a would without religion would be forcing people to not have religious beliefs. (Every system of belief has loopholes - no exceptions.)

Not to mention, what will we do with the millions of religious buildings that dot the world?

Well, one less problem to deal with.

 

[bound_for_earth]

first of all i would explain to them the impossibility of the existance of a deity that created the universe and how science today can easily debunk the myth of any higher power. this would not work because of the stupidity of the modern religious groups. i would have to find a way to prove to them that their beliefs are irrational. i would have to explain that beliving a desert mans scribbles from 2000 years ago is as insane as you can get. i would explain to women and men that the bible condones **** ,molestation and violence against women. i would also explain how the koran allows violence against females and the killing of any soul who doesnt worsip allah. i would definitely explain that allah means god and that christians and muslims are worshipping the same deity under different names and morals. i would also explain that preists molest children and the pope assists in covering it up. i would also tell scientologists that their belif is bassically a science fiction novel written by an old man who clearly was not all there. plus i would talk about how buddhists spend precious time of their lives meditating when they could be contibuting to society. personally i think an atheistic society would end a lot of disputes but most of all improve the middle eastern way of thinking greatly. i am all for freedom of religion but when it comes to the truth of religion and its short comings i will surely explain that. well that was my quite long rambling burst about the rationality or lack there of in religion. if you made it this far kudos to you.

 

[Dastardly Ridleylash]

The real issue isn't religion itself, really; it's the fanatics who keep trying to shove it into everything. We don't need to treat religion like it's a science, because everyone knows it's nothing like science and that's what has worked. Claiming science is wrong just because it conflicts with the idea that the Earth isn't billions of years old and was made only six thousand years ago by a deity that has no physical proof makes for ludicrously bad science. Religion also caused Adolf Hitler to start the second World War, it's what produced racism, the murder of thousands just because they didn't agree to religious beliefs...it's far more violent than the so-called "heretics" who don't think God exists or are not 100% absolutely sure he does.

The biggest issue is that the fanatics also say Darwin was some kind of Satan-worshiper...but the man was, himself, a religious person; except he thought that all religions should be equal, and not have Christianity be some kind of "real" religion. He wasn't even an atheist, either; he was agnostic (so he didn't know if a higher power existed, but was open to it). And he thought that theism and evolution could co-exist, as well;

It seems to me absurd to doubt that a man may be an ardent Theist & an evolutionist.

It's only really in modern times that this dichtomy of "evolution OR a God" became standard, as Darwin (and indeed, many scientists like him) thought that both evolution and a God could both exist at the same time.

So I wouldn't get rid of religion, but I'd certainly make it so it was compatible with (or directly emphasized) evolution in it's core. The two can coexist, it's just that the dichtomy prevents both sides from seeing that the ideas can.

 

[Claire Diviner]

The biggest issue is that the fanatics also say Darwin was some kind of Satan-worshiper...but the man was, himself, a religious person; except he thought that all religions should be equal, and not have Christianity be some kind of "real" religion. He wasn't even an atheist, either; he was agnostic (so he didn't know if a higher power existed, but was open to it). And he thought that theism and evolution could co-exist, as well;

I don't think he was the strictest sense of the term, agnostic. Apparently, he labeled himself as such to not offend people. On the whole, he really wasn't a believer in a deity.

http://www.discovery.org/a/9501

 

[Sehnsucht]

I would prefer to spread scientific and philosophical literacy over excising religion outright from the world.

Because whether or not you happen to be religious, being literate and savvier in matters of science and philosophy would be beneficial to all. The ability to think critically, to know how best to communicate your ideas, how to recognize good ideas from worse ones, promoting skepticism, understanding the world as revealed through scientific discipline, using philosophy to handle conflicts and promote betterment of the self and others...

I suspect that these values would go some way in ameliorating the overall human condition. I would further suppose that should the above scenario transpire, religion would end up being phased out -- since religion is a prescriptive enterprise instead of an investigative one, and as a skeptical mindset takes hold, people will become more willing to be skeptical and inquisitive of authority and tradition and orthodoxy. Would it disappear entirely? I'm less sure. But I think orthodoxy would become heavily challenged, such that religious institutions may have to evolve in their dogma to retain their adherents, lest they lose them to critical inquiry.

Simply excising religion may not outright eliminate bigotry and xenophobia and tribalism and strife over ideas and norms and values. But I imagine that religion is a prime vehicle for such things because of a lack of scientific and philosophical rigour in the mindset of many of a given faith's adherents, so they're less likely to question dogma and tradition and the word of authority figures.

And promoting the "literacy" of thinking and communication is a good in its own right anyway, regardless of the presence or absence of religion. Even if people remained religious, they would on the whole become more astute of mind and constitution (while also allowing people to remain religious, or choose religion, without violating their autonomy).

 

[Claire Diviner]

Here's an interesting clip of Stephen Fry on his view of God. It pretty much goes in line with how I currently feel on the matter.

 

[Lichi]

Religion also caused Adolf Hitler to start the second World War, it's what produced racism, the murder of thousands just because they didn't agree to religious beliefs...it's far more violent than the so-called "heretics" who don't think God exists or are not 100% absolutely sure he does.

This is the most incomplete and therefore wrong reasoning for the start of WW2. You should look up what really lead to war.

Also, assuming you were correct, what you definately are not, by your logic religion is bad because Hitler killed many people. Ever heard of the so-called "heretic" Stalin, who does not need to hide his kill-count either?

 

[Swamp Sensei]

This is the most incomplete and therefore wrong reasoning for the start of WW2. You should look up what really lead to war.

Also, assuming you were correct, what you definately are not, by your logic religion is bad because Hitler killed many people. Ever heard of the so-called "heretic" Stalin, who does not need to hide his kill-count either?

Yeah.... Gonna jump in here and agree with this.

Hitler's reasons for starting WWII weren't religious in nature, he just used social outcasts (Jews, communists, homosexuals, gypsies, etc.) as scapegoats to further his own desires.

Even then, Stalin, as stated above, was a profound atheist and killed more than Hitler. So the point is as moot as moot can be.



On the topic of evolution and creationism coexisting, yeah it can, there are a few interesting parallels between the Bible/Torah and how life is believed to have evolved. Most notably how the very first thing we hear about earth is that it's covered in water, where life evolved from.

It's an interesting little thing to think about.


And here's an interesting trend.

While the majority of people here seem to think that changing a person's belief's forcibly is wrong and wouldn't do it, there is a trend.

The majority of religious individuals say they wouldn't force anyone.

A notable amount of atheists say they would.

Why do you think that is?

Note: I'm not trying to accuse anyone here, I'm just trying to open discussion over a trend I find somewhat fascinating.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

On the topic of evolution and creationism coexisting, yeah it can, there are a few interesting parallels between the Bible/Torah and how life is believed to have evolved. Most notably how the very first thing we hear about earth is that it's covered in water, where life evolved from.

Unfortunately, as many parallels as there are, there are also some clear issues. The earth and plants existing before the sun, for example. And, you know, the whole "day" thing. As much as apologists try to say they meant "eras", the fact is that it's clearly described with morning and evening - it's very hard to deny that the bible describes a literal 6-day creation, and unless you're convinced that the bible cannot be wrong, there's no reason to twist its words like this.

And here's an interesting trend.

While the majority of people here seem to think that changing a person's belief's forcibly is wrong and wouldn't do it, there is a trend.

The majority of religious individuals say they wouldn't force anyone.

A notable amount of atheists say they would.

Why do you think that is?

I'm not sure most people here are saying they'd force anyone. If I could convince everyone, sure. But brainwashing? Pass, thank you.

 

[adumbrodeus]

This about sums up why I'd rid the world of religion, if I could; stripping people of free will to believe be damned. I'm willing to bet our society and technology would be about 1500 years more advanced by now had there not been the oppression of the church, especially during the Middle Ages... But that's for another topic, I suppose.

Take out, THE CHART!

Ah, such a pretty idea.

Unfortunately, it's also quite wrong.

Case in point, the christian middle ages, the church functioned as a primary promoter, financier, and reviewer of natural philosophy. In addition they preserved many older texts that would otherwise be lost. In every respect the church was a net advantage scientific advancement.

You see what was actually at fault for a net slowdown in advancement in natural philosophy was, the fall of Rome! You see, advancement in natural philosophy and the spread of newly developed technologies is improved by communication between scholars while the spread of inventions is facilitated by the same. This means that if there's a good infrastructure for travel and communication as well as the spread of materials then technology and educational infrastructure. The decline and fall of rome resulted in roads falling into disrepair and infrastructure generally failing. Bandits roamed the roads, economic systems contracted and became balkinized resulting in much smaller potential public works projects.

Italy was one major exception to this because they recovered very quickly, (in major part due to the continued influence of the church who at the time was quite wealthy) which resulted in no long term slowing.



So what's with the galileo affair? The church reviewed his work and found it wanting (again, the church functioned as the natural philosophy reviewer and patron at the time), the fact is that the information of the day was most strongly supportive of the Tychonic system which the church at the time ruled was an acceptable competing system. Heliocentricism had a number of missing critical observations and the same mathematical inconsistencies that the Ptolemaic system (though to a lesser degree). For example the chief criticism of the day as put forward by Tycho himself, was that if the earth did move around the sun then there would be a stellar parallax, which was true. That said it couldn't be observed due to the great distance (which was considered implausible by everyone at the time).


The issues with the Math were not resolved until Kepler's use of Ellipses and the Stellar paralaxes were observed until 1838.

So ultimately he wasn't allowed to teach because the science wasn't there to support his position, yet. His eventual house arrest occurred mostly because he managed to alienate a close friend and supporter (who happened to be the pope) by essentially calling him an idiot. Probably accidentally, but difficult to see any other intent upon initial reading.


So, the Church was, while probably not the most suited organization to shelter scientific advance was the only organization that cared enough to do so and was definitely a net asset. Conflict thesis is pretty roundly rejected by modern historians. The relative lack of advancement in natural philosophy in Western Europe has little to do with the church, and more to do with ability to transfer information, something that was present as the empire began declining as well.

Another issue that led to this perception is the loss of technologies, but the reality is that advances were made laterally. Smaller more balkinized economies meant that giant cities and armies couldn't be supported so technology that explicitly supported the former scale fell into disuse and was lost except that which was preserved in church libraries. Instead technology that was efficient for smaller scale settlements were used.


The fact is that this perception of the so called dark ages was actually just a criticism of literature in the middle ages relative to Roman literature by the scholar Petrarch, but it caught on in popular culture and took on a use to express the middle ages as a period of backwardness when admiration of the Greeks and Romans were popular during the Renaissance. This went to the point that Medieval scholar's works went uncredited even when Renaissance scholars' works were directly based on them.


Not to mention it's a staggeringly eurocentric thesis, while it's certainly true that advancement in the sciences and technology slowed in Western Europe, other areas were advancing. China, the Byzantines, India, and the Muslim world all were advancing at a furious pace. This is true of almost all times, some nations are in a position to advance technologically, others aren't. Western Europe wasn't at the time so it's progress was slowed reletive to better equipped areas.


TL;DR: That impression of the church is an incorrect assumption of the Church's role during that period that has been roundly dismissed and the entire thesis ignores the contributions of other areas during the period.

 

[clydeaker]

This is the most incomplete and therefore wrong reasoning for the start of WW2. You should look up what really lead to war.

Also, assuming you were correct, what you definately are not, by your logic religion is bad because Hitler killed many people. Ever heard of the so-called "heretic" Stalin, who does not need to hide his kill-count either?

also, the idea of evolution was what influenced Hitler to commit Genocide among what thought weren't human or part human.

 

[AfungusAmongus]

also, the idea of evolution was what influenced Hitler to commit Genocide among what thought weren't human or part human.

Just like the idea of nuclear fission was what influenced Truman to nuke Hiroshima. Get where I'm going with this?

Knowledge is power, and we can debate the proper uses of power but ignorance is NEVER the solution.

 

[Sehnsucht]

also, the idea of evolution was what influenced Hitler to commit Genocide among what thought weren't human or part human.

I'm no historian, nor any expert on Hitler, but my colloquial understanding is that Hitler was into racial purity and Social Darwinism, and other extreme notions. And as I recall, Hitler was publicly a Catholic, and privately a sort of mystic Christian, blending elements of Catholicism and Nazi ideology into a singular worldview.

So I don't think evolutionary theory had anything to do with Hitler's genocidal campaign, nor atheism/secularism/materialism/etc. At most, he might have espoused a Might Makes Right conception of Survival of the Fittest, but the MMR thing is a misconception of what evolutionary theory entails anyway (not that I'm confident that Hitler did espouse that maxim, of course).

 

[Sucumbio]

ha, you main luigi.

>.>

I mean, Hitler sucks!

Why do I keep trolling this thread?

Okay: serious face.

I would only do this thing, if I could have the memory of doing it, wiped.

Ooooooooo.

Yah, cause, like, I don't want to live with the guilt of knowing that I caused the world to be as it is. That's not to say one day I may not enjoy a decision that I see unfolding into the multitudes. Just that if Sucumbio here and now snaps his fingers and *poof* ALL RELIGION IS GONE! (and spirituality, and anything metaphysical, and anything otherworldly, etc.etc.) and it turns out to SUCK, oh woe is me, yeah couldn't' live with that.

 

[Swamp Sensei]

Gotta love Godwin's Law.

 

[adumbrodeus]

Ya, this thread sorta illustrates how hilariously poor the quality of discourse has gotten around here.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

also, the idea of evolution was what influenced Hitler to commit Genocide among what thought weren't human or part human.

Okay, this myth has got to die.

Hitler was not a believer in the theory of evolution. In fact, "On The Origin of Species" was one of the books burned by the Nazis, and Darwinism was explicitly referenced in the guidelines of which books were forbidden:

6. Writings of a philosophical and social nature whose content deals with the false scientific enlightenment of primitive Darwinism and Monism (Häckel).
(source: http://www.library.arizona.edu/exhibits/burnedbooks/documents.htm#guidelines )

Huh, that's weird. Why would Hitler, who believed in evolution, want Darwin's books banned? Meanwhile, here's a quote from Hitler's Table Talk:

Where do we acquire the right to believe that man has not always been what he is now? The study of nature teaches us that, in the animal kingdom just as much as in the vegetable kingdom, variations have occurred. They've occurred within the species, but none of these variations has an importance comparable with that which separates man from the monkey — assuming that this transformation really took place

So... Man has always been what he is now. Huh, that doesn't sound very Darwinistic. Here's another quote, this time from Mein Kampf:

This urge for the maintenance of the unmixed breed, which is a phenomenon that prevails throughout the whole of the natural world, results not only in the sharply defined outward distinction between one species and another but also in the internal similarity of characteristic qualities which are peculiar to each breed or species. The fox remains always a fox, the goose remains a goose, and the tiger will retain the character of a tiger. The only difference that can exist within the species must be in the various degrees of structural strength and active power, in the intelligence, efficiency, endurance, etc., with which the individual specimens are endowed

Now, I don't know about you, but when I think Darwinian evolution, my first thought is not "species never change or interbreed" or "the only differences are minor ones". No, that's creationism. Hitler was not a Darwinist. If he was, his misunderstanding of the science is to the extent that you cannot attribute anything he did to evolution. If I read a book on gravity and my takeaway is "big things attract little things therefore celebrities are greater beings and everyone else must be culled", you cannot blame Newton for my complete butchery of the scientific theory or for the asinine ethical conclusions that I drew from the facts present!

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Hitler_and_evolution

 

[Troll Man]

Religion is merely a more powerful form of control over others.
I mean, look at communism. They tried to supplant religion and the results are still not pretty.

Look at what communism? Where?
If you're referring to the USSR, you'd be surprised to know that it's often labeled as "state capitalist"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_capitalism
"Communism" is a classless, moneyless society and depending on your other beliefs, stateless society.
Though I'll concede that a lack of religion is a necessary part of communism, it's not because they're trying to repress you, quite the opposite. The Church is by its own admission is supposed to be a point of hierarchy in society, which communists object to because hierarchies in society lead to corruption and the general discomfort of the working class.

Without religion other systems of control would take its place.

No. Just because people stop holding superstitious beliefs and giving power to an unjustified authority (the church) stops doesn't mean that some new authority will take its place, and if it did, it would likely be less harmful than religion has and is.

Do not think for a second that humans are capable of creating a utopia.

Even if what you were saying were backed by evidence, doesn't mean we shouldn't rid ourselves of social ailments like religion if that's what you're trying to imply.

Religion has sparked a lot of beautiful music and art, but has historically been the cause of lots of death, destruction and repression. On top of being flat out child abuse, religion obviously holds anti-feminist dogma and is by its own nature totalitarian. We'd be in a better world without it.

 

[adumbrodeus]

I for one find it rather hilarious that everyone tries to attribute Hitler to their political opponents in order to paint their political philosophy poorly.

Here's the rub, Hitler wasn't religious and was against Christianity viewing Christ as a weak God and in general opposed mysticism which he compared to the rationality of nazism. In practice however he put on a very pro-christian front as a way to achieve support.

He intended to either subvert or replace Christianity in the long term, positive Christianity was his solution on the subvert end, which de-emphasized it's spirituality in favor of painting Christ as a anti-Jewish leader. It did not gain much traction in the short term.

That said his rhetoric was heavily Christian focused and he was generally heavily supported by religious Germans, especially Lutherans, so there is some indictment to be found of the Authoritarianism in religion and the value of religious rhetoric to a fascist regime.

 

[StaffofSmashing]

Every time a religious argument comes into play, Hitler's always brought up. Why? All he did was wide out 6 million Jews from Germany. He wasn't targeting the entire branch. Islam, Christianity, and Zoroastrianism remained relatively unfazed during this. Hitler never tried to erase the Judaism branch, but really only the jewish roots and the other few million miscellaneous victims.

 

[Sucumbio]

Godwin's law answers why Hitler so quickly comes up. Personally speaking I cite more often the warrior popes of the crusades who were just as infantile in their quest to purify the Holy Land.

 

[adumbrodeus]

Every time a religious argument comes into play, Hitler's always brought up. Why? All he did was wide out 6 million Jews from Germany. He wasn't targeting the entire branch. Islam, Christianity, and Zoroastrianism remained relatively unfazed during this. Hitler never tried to erase the Judaism branch, but really only the jewish roots and the other few million miscellaneous victims.

"all he did was.." that was quite a lot and he was explicitly trying to erase Judaism, primarily ethnically and secondarily religiously. Also the other victims weren't miscellaneous, they were core to his racial and soceital purity doctrine.

But the reason he's brought up is basically because he's the personification of evil to many people, add to that the complexity of his views and he's somebody you can quite easily attribute to almost any political opponent.

For example if you opponent is:

Catholic: Hitler was a lifelong Catholic and the church never singled him out for excommunication, also many Catholic clergymembers supported him. Therefore Catholics are literally Hitler!

Anti-Catholic: Hitler explicitly struggled with the church trying to repress it because he viewed it as competing for loyalty with the state along with his views of Christ as a weak God. The Church's opposition to can be illustrated by the church smuggeling in Mit brennender Sorge to be read at all the churches, it's excommunication of the Nazi party and it's supporters as a whole, and on Hiter end the breaking of the concordat and support for positive Christianity politically. Therefore people who criticize Catholicism are literally Hitler!

See how easy that was?

 

[Deleted member]

It seems like a good idea in theory, but...

If there's no religion, people are going to find other problems to bicker about. Racism will still be there, since not all racism is religion-based. Look at the Gypsies, who are usually the same religion as the people around them (usually, they're Christian, though many in the Balkans and Turkey are Muslim) and face severe racism. Certain countries hating each other will not be resolved. Economic problems won't be resolved, crime won't go away, and much of Africa, Asia, and Latin America will still be poor. Even sexism won't completely go away.

Also, many people in communist countries like China, Vietnam, and North Korea are atheists and there's very little support for gay marriage there.

I am against getting rid of religion since religion matters to a lot of people, even ones with socially liberal views. Plus I think religious and nonreligious people can get along. I'm Catholic, but I love my atheist friends. I can't imagine a world without religion. I am against forcing beliefs on others, and a would without religion would be forcing people to not have religious beliefs. (Every system of belief has loopholes - no exceptions.)

Not to mention, what will we do with the millions of religious buildings that dot the world?

That is probably the best reply in this post... Me being Christian would be against getting rid of religion because I don't think that it is the source of all the worlds problems and getting rid of it would solve very few of them. I am religious and have no problem with people of other religions or atheists. I have friends who are atheist who respect my views and I theirs. I also think people base religion as a whole off Islamic terrorism and the Westboro Baptist Church and not every religious person is "anti everyone who isn't us".

Also this thread is sorta pointless, every person who is religious in one way or another will defend religion and atheists will (most likely) be against it.

 

[Desu_Maiden]

The more well-educated people are the less likely people will be religious. Well-educated is defined not by how much formal schooling you received, but refers to how knowledgeable you are. The Internet gives you plenty of informative articles and other educational sources of information that help shed ignorance and superstition. I don't believe anyone should be forced to not believe in a religion. Rather if you educate people with facts and reason, people will naturally shed superstitious beliefs like theism.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

That is probably the best reply in this post... Me being Christian would be against getting rid of religion because I don't think that it is the source of all the worlds problems and getting rid of it would solve very few of them. I am religious and have no problem with people of other religions or atheists. I have friends who are atheist who respect my views and I theirs. I also think people base religion as a whole off Islamic terrorism and the Westboro Baptist Church and not every religious person is "anti everyone who isn't us".

Also this thread is sorta pointless, every person who is religious in one way or another will defend religion and atheists will (most likely) be against it.

It wouldn't solve all the world's problems, you're right. But addressing the thought process, this anti-intellectual appeal to faith and superstition, would solve some of the world's problems. In terms of cost-benefit, "solves some problems" is a benefit, regardless of how you slice it.

 

[Deleted member]

It wouldn't solve all the world's problems, you're right. But addressing the thought process, this anti-intellectual appeal to faith and superstition, would solve some of the world's problems. In terms of cost-benefit, "solves some problems" is a benefit, regardless of how you slice it.

I would slice it as get rid of the extremism. There is 0 need for it because religion doesn't need to be kill kill kill. And I'm wondering what problems would be solved by getting rid of religion?

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

I would slice it as get rid of the extremism. There is 0 need for it because religion doesn't need to be kill kill kill. And I'm wondering what problems would be solved by getting rid of religion?

Not so much religion as faith. Quite a few problems would be solved by getting rid of faith; most notably, it might cause people to ask, "Hang on, before I kill myself and a bunch of others, is there actually any reason to believe I'm going to get the reward I was promised?"

 

[Deleted member]

Not so much religion as faith. Quite a few problems would be solved by getting rid of faith; most notably, it might cause people to ask, "Hang on, before I kill myself and a bunch of others, is there actually any reason to believe I'm going to get the reward I was promised?"

I addressed that in my original reply to this post that a lot of people base their opinions on religious stereo type that is Muslim extremists. I seriously don't understand killing yourself and other innocent people just because they don't believe in the same thing as you do. That aside, you would literally rid millions of people of their god and faith just because of a select few?

P.S. I know there is grammatical errors in this reply but I don't have enough time to fix them so I hope you can fill in the blanks

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

I addressed that in my original reply to this post that a lot of people base their opinions on religious stereo type that is Muslim extremists. I seriously don't understand killing yourself and other innocent people just because they don't believe in the same thing as you do. That aside, you would literally rid millions of people of their god and faith just because of a select few?

No. I'd do it because faith is a dead-end epistemology that is all but guaranteed to lead to wrong answers. If I had to list the things that are ****ed up with the world, faith would be reasonably high up the list. Faith is the excuse people give when they have no reason to believe the things they believe. If you live your life based on faith, you have no way of telling what is or is not true. You can be brought to believe literally anything if your epistemology is faith - after all, you require no reason! You can keep your god, but your faith? Why should anyone want to have faith?

 

[Troll Man]

I would slice it as get rid of the extremism. There is 0 need for it because religion doesn't need to be kill kill kill. And I'm wondering what problems would be solved by getting rid of religion?

You don't think that it's kind of ****ed up to teach a kid "there's a big scary dude in the sky who will not kill you, but send you to burn forever and ever until the end of time"

idk that's child abuse in my book

 

[Planet Cool]

To quote Mycroft Next, "Religion isn't the cause of wars, it's the excuse." If it disappeared tomorrow, we would have lost one of the biggest sources of our cultural identity (and even that is a tremendous understatement), but we wouldn't suddenly run out of reasons to hate, shoot, and bomb each other. So, to answer the OP's questions, no and no.