Now you seem to be claiming that your evidence is only in response to the part where I said that religion is not a primary cause of war, and that your evidence is NOT meant to support the conclusion that many atheists draw about this (truly the most irrational part) where they claim that the world would be more peaceful without religion.

I think I have shown that the ONLY primary cause of war is human nature- the prideful, egotistical, power-seeking, selfish nature of humanity. But regardless of that, it’s beginning to look like you are dodging and weaving and changing your argument.

I will quote from some of your comments. From your initial post, the same one you quoted from above. Two paragraphs further on, you said…

[So in what way, pray, can you even remotely object to the notion that - and I quote you exactly, "the world would be a much more peaceful place without religion"?]

And in a later post you said….

[Small minority, large minority, some, any... all support the point I made that without religion, there would be fewer.]

(ie: You were referring to “wars and violence”)

So you were clearly and undoubtedly arguing that the world would be a more peaceful place without religion and that there would be less wars and violence without religion's harmful presence. And now you are claiming that your evidence was "simply" meant to show "that to describe religion's major contribution to strife in the world as a "canard" is insupportable".

So, what’s the go? Are you backpedalling? Are you deliberately evading the argument here or changing your own argument as you see fit? It certainly seems like it.

AJ.
"Although, one would think that if an infinitely perfect being really did create all that we see, then surely it would be caring enough and proficient enough in its communication skills to convey its message to us in a way clear enough to prevent us destroying each other over him."

The God that I know does communicate through the Bible (which contains 66 separate books). Gods message is contained within it and the blood of Jesus is on every page Old and New Testament-(not literally of course).
God does care enough to send His Holy word which was written by men of God who listened to the God who divinely inspired them to record His word. The styles vary but the Holy Bible has ONE author --God Himself.
God's message has been described as "A still point in a turning world" and it needs to be understood in its entirety.
God tells mankind to LOVE God and LOVE one another. These 2 commandments are actually in the New Testament.
They are the 10 Old Testaments commandments in summary.
Commandments 1-4 in the OT are LOVE God and commandments 5-10 are LOVE one another.
Do people listen to God??NO. It is difficult to LISTEN. How come God gets the blame. God also sends His Holy Spirit to comfort and guide.
What more can God do to get people to listen? God also provides a church family to support and encourage anyone seeking to follow Him.
Scripture says, "Seek First the Kingdom of God". and (everything else will fall into place-my paraphrase).

It looks as though I have to answer my own question: "Is a world without religion possible, or even preferable? I say No. Now for an attempt to justify.

Religion is a good thing! Why? Because its highest endeavor and intention is promote goodness - good behaviour, honesty, responsibility for one's actions, and goodwill towards all of mankind irrespective of differences. In consequence of these good intentions, most mainstream religions have a good backing - by followers, in numbers and in support volunteered, and by governments and the public in general. How have these churches achieved wide acceptance? By the performance of good works - charities, help to the sick and to the poor and needy, and in providing hope and confidence to its followers in services to lift the spirit and nourish the soul. (Don't believe in a soul? Ok, just stick with spirit, or sense of wellbeing.) Large numbers of like-minded good people have achieved great things, and continue to do so - albeit today in spite of various hecklers and naysayers. The human is a gregarious animal, we need other people, and in particular we need like-minded people, and people we know we can trust. We can get this in church, and in community - though these days community is becoming a harder thing to find, or to rely upon. A church provides people with a level of certainty rarely found elsewhere, either today or in the past.

So, where do things go horribly wrong? When churches (meaning religious movements, denominations or creeds) get a bit too carried away with their own self-importance, start identifying and highlighting "differences" - differences with other groups, even with some having the same or similar origins - and start adding special provisions to denominate "true faith". Schisms, intolerance, bigotry, hate - these are not religious doctrine, they are hateful discriminatory infractions of goodness, of faith. Simple faith in the power and the necessity of goodness is, and must be foremost. To profess and to teach otherwise is simply sinful.

A world without religion could only be a tougher more discriminatory place.

Is a settlement/compromise possible?

Pericles… Would you accept that religion's role in warfare and violence is to about the same degree as that which Trav believes Christianity has contributed to Western civilisation?

Trav… Would you accept that religion's role in warfare and violence is to about the same degree as that which Pericles believes Christianity has contributed to Western civilisation?

Thanks Grim.

Yuyutsu,

Most religious people do still make claims regarding the supernatural and that’s what I was referring to.

I’m sorry, but with limited posts and time, generalising is unavoidable on OLO when there are nearly 3000 deities, billions of different religious beliefs and over 30,000 denominations of Christianity alone.

But please, feel free consider my criticisms irrelevant to your take on religion. Most theists do that anyway, whether or not it’s the case. Although, from what I can remember, you at least have the advantage of a religious belief that has been purposefully devised with the sole intent of sheltering it from criticism.

Sandpiper,

Thanks. I’m glad you feel you have a sufficient level of communication from god. But the 30,000 odd denominations of Christianity speak otherwise, I’m afraid.

Saltpetre,

It appears I inadvertently half answered your question in my last response to Trav.

Is a world without religion preferable?

To whom? Broadly speaking, though, the statistics suggest it is.

Is a world without religion possible?

I think the answer is a resounding “yes”.

We can get the sense of community and all the other benefits you speak of in many ways without religion. In fact, try naming one benefit religion has provided us with that cannot possibly come about through secular means.

<<A world without religion could only be a tougher more discriminatory place.>>

An amazing claim considering the justification religion has provided us with for discrimination throughout history. How do you explain the fact that the less religion plays a role in our societies, the healthier they become?

Only 70 odd years ago we had a large-scale war in which Western countries were actually fighting against each other with one of them being run by a psychopath. The thought of that happening today is unimaginable.

The further we progress, the less of a role religion plays and the more peaceful we become. You would be hard-pressed to find a 10 year period since the dawn of civilisation where war, poverty and famine were at such proportionately low levels as they are now.

But surely, Trav, you must realize that the "claims" you have identified are far from being mutually exclusive. On the contrary, they support each other.

>>So you were clearly and undoubtedly arguing that the world would be a more peaceful place without religion and that there would be less wars and violence without religion's harmful presence. And now you are claiming that your evidence was "simply" meant to show "that to describe religion's major contribution to strife in the world as a "canard" is insupportable". So, what’s the go? Are you backpedalling? Are you deliberately evading the argument here or changing your own argument as you see fit? It certainly seems like it.<<

If it helps, let me say categorically that i) I believe that to describe religion's major contribution to strife in the world as a "canard" is insupportable, and ii) that the world would be a more peaceful place without religion and that there would be less wars and violence without religion's harmful presence.

And thanks for the chuckle, WmTrevor, but compromise is not on the table - even if I could work out what I would be agreeing to...!