Should we eliminate culture, language and religion?

[Deleted]

As long as the people are free willed, culture and religion will always exist.

[urasim]

Gnostic, of course. They are no better, at all, than those they condemn. Every bit as sold on their own unproven belief, and every bit as intolerant and rude toward other beliefs. I better bail the thread before I get blamed for starting something that I clearly did not, though.

What do you mean "unproven belief"? I don't think you know what atheism means.

---------- Post added 2013-06-14 at 02:48 AM ----------

Hitler worshipped God as much as Satanist worship Satan (they dont). A lot of evidence points to Hitler strictly using Christianity as a political pawn while practicing his own form of self righteous mysticism. Even the mysticism angle is a stretch.

Can you link that evidence, please?

[PACOX]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religio...f_Adolf_Hitler

Its an interesting read.

[KayossZero]

We should totally eliminate atheism. How the world would improve!

Better to eliminate bigots such as your self.

[Kuja]

World would be a lot better without religions. So many people die (or worse) every day because of them :\ Though banning religions in every country would have even worse consequences :P

[Deleted]

As has been said, it's impossible to eliminate culture because it's intrinsic to any society. Differences in languages will eventually evaporate. Religion is an insult to human intellect, but it shouldn't be forcefully removed, though I am confident it'll just go away on its own. People shouldn't need religion to cope with life, I'd even say people that need a backwards superstition to deal with life are more of a problem than the religion itself.

[jahasafrat]

Should we eliminate culture, language and religion? No, I say keep culture and language.

[Deleted]

In your example we'd have a psychological and science based culture. I do believe all midevil cultures can gtfo such as based on christianity, islam, etc. (amish, and fundamentals alike). Their dogma's don't belong in the 21th century. You can't really root out culture without putting a straint on religion, so youd have to ban certain religions in order to do so. But that will only result in those religions going to extremes to carry out their believes, which results in underground cults.

[Skroe]

Culture no.

Language yes. English is the only serious claimant to the title.

Religion no. If people don't want to believe anymore, they need to make that decision themselves for it to stick. The rest of us just have to be patient for folks to come around.

[Phlegethon]

This seems to be a popular opinion on the internet. The view that culture has no place in society anymore and that all such cultural manifestations should be exterminated and replaced with a single homogenous group. Rather than derailing the other thread, I have posted a new one for this discussion. Do you agree with such individuals?

Here's my view on it:
Science and physiology can tell us what we are, but it cannot tell us who we are. Only we can do that. Our culture is what defines our civilization, it is a manifestation of mankind's thoughts, desires and attitudes. From the Mona Lisa to the Moonlight Sonata, from the Eiffel Tower to Christmas, from American gun ownership to Italian pasta. Our culture is what defines us and to eliminate, no, to deny, this is to deny who we are.

Culture is not the same as language and religion.
Culture you don't need to eliminate.
Language is not needed either it would be interesting if everyone had Esperanto as second language, so everyone in the world could communicate on the same level. Noone has that language as first language.
Religion, that's just a joke right? Ofcourse it needs to be abolished, destroyed.

[Nerevar]

Humanity NEVER stopped being animals.

Never said they did. But we came further from them.

[Phlegethon]

Language yes. English is the only serious claimant to the title.

That's not good.

[Skroe]

That's not good.

It's the language of international commerce, foreign relations, and science and technology. It's the de facto language of the internet. It's vocabulary is immense and it has more speakers (first and second language combined) in the world than any other language.

In fact the only reason NOT make English the unified language is expressedly for the purpose of not showing favoritism to english because of sensibilities about Anglo-American / Western imperialism or nonsense like that. And that's a ridiculous perspective. The fact is if trillions of dollars are going to move around the world and hundreds of thousands of scientific papers are going to be published in English, and its the primary means of communication on our global network, that's going to be the language by default. You're not going to seriously have Goldman Sachs release its quarterly statement in Esperanto out of general principle and more than any scientist is going to publish his work in Nature in Esperanto.

English Chauvinism? Absolutely. But language is a tool more than anything else. It is used to fill a need to communicate, the same way the Metric System is designed to be a system of standard measurement. Language should be standardized too.

[THE Bigzoman]

Religion, as bad as it is for society, it is a necessary evil. If it hadn't been for thousands of years of religious oppression and bigotry, we would never have discovered science and secularism. I contend that we need religion (and will continue to need it) in order to inspire humanity to continue bettering itself. I would not want to take religion away from people, that would be like denying them the ability to learn from their mistakes

Because religion has never challenged the status quo of a society for the better.

People seem to consistently mention the bads of religion in history while subliminally rejecting religious individuals and groups that did wonders for the world. It's mind boggling.

[Dezerte]

Because religion has never challenged the status quo of a society for the better.

People seem to consistently mention the bads of religion in history while subliminally rejecting religious individuals and groups that did wonders for the world. It's mind boggling.

Religion is not a prerequisite in order to do good. And I don't know if it makes me happy or sad that some people who do good in the world, only do it because their religious beliefs told them so.

[THE Bigzoman]

Religion is not a prerequisite in order to do good. And I don't know if it makes me happy or sad that some people who do good in the world, only do it because their religious beliefs told them so.

It can be absolutely be a perquisite for good based on interpretation and emphasis on particular texts.. Most modern religions, at their core, preach almost the same thing. So im not sure why people give it as bad as a wrap as they do instead of letting extremists be, well, extremists.

Also, im sure Gandhi, Martin Luther, MLK Jr, The Dalai Lama, St Thomas Acquinas, among others did the things that they did simply because "Their religion told them to do it" and not because they saw massive wrongs in the world.

[Frozenzooom]

First of all it's retarded to try to remove culture from one or another person, you are basically born with culture, from the moment you speak to your mom or to the doctor that takes you out from your mom's <insert word here> you get contact with the society, which has a culture, so for it you already will have culture, and even if the USA decides to explode the world and you and a girl are the only survivors, you'll still have culture.

Probably as well, religions will be created as an exit to questions you guys might not be able to answer now and then.

At last, I agree that having one true Universal language should be allowed, but I don't it's necessary to eliminate other languages.

[Kaleredar]

With those three things dissolved, one might just ponder what the point of existing would be.

Existing to exist? Pointless.

[Frozenzooom]

With those three things dissolved, one might just ponder what the point of existing would be.

Existing to exist? Pointless.

You could not exist as a human, philosophically speaking.

[Kaleredar]

You could not exist as a human, philosophically speaking.

exactly.

At that point, one might as well be a particularly intelligent beetle.