Which is more perfect?

Question

What do you think is the most perfect way for humanity to be?

Should all of humanity be athiest and thus completely open us all up to more possibilities in philosophy?

Or should all of humanity unite under one religion and thus produce peace?

PS the conclusion I've come to involves morals and ethics.

To Don H.

Maybe, but without an afterlife then nihilism is the only view to take, since there is no afterlife of any kind to punish or reward your life... And with nihilism morals and ethics are pointless.

To Psyengine

Thankyou for catching that flaw.

Allow me to reward the title into, Which is a better Society.

To Mephistopheles

True, but assuming that all of the people could pertain completely to one demonination of a religion.

Philsosophy from a religious perspective (assuming that the followers of a religion completely and truely follow their religious values) requires one to streamline your view by a) morals and b) the fact that there IS a God

From an Athiest perspective you have differing morals and without a greater power more views on how things could come to be about what life could be about (although without a greater power life is pointless; or so I've come to believe).

Answer 1

Neither. All of humanity should be rational thinkers.

Answer 2

What's to say that life is any less pointless with the presumption of a greater power? Surely most thinking religious people ask themselves where their god came from, and why he bothered to create them, and inevitably what his own purpose was for existing and creating the universe.

The only difference is that a sense of void is filled with mindless ritual to establish a sense of "pleasing" the unknown. A "One world Religion" is far too easy to be hijacked by power addicts who use it and its followers for their own self interests, much as they do today.

United religion will have no greater effect than fragmented sects. Human nature will still cause divisions over time.

Atheism is also implausible, as it only affects a small amount of the population, and you can't enforce a state of mind upon individuals as was attemtped in the Soviet Union and China.

To enquire something of this nature was done more than 150 years ago. We've seen the results, so the point is moot.

Answer 3

The moral is religeous, the ethics are humanity. Perhaps that is where the conflict lies. Religion is a necessary evil, just as government and your next door neighbor. You can only be yourself and be thankful there are things that hold those you can't control in some kind of control so that you can pursue your own life.

Answer 4

Maybe I misunderstand the question, but I can't accept the argument.
If we accept your 'and thus' propositions then

1) in the first instance, to reject a higher being beyond ourselves is to reject many philosophical fields of inquiry, so you LIMIT possible philosophical inquiries. In addition what evidence do you have that philosophy is limited by such belief?

2)This proposition infers that numerous religions create something other than peace and that A religion has peace within its own fold. I've not seen evidence to either inference.

My beliefs are different than my logical, critical thinking pursuits in philosophy. Just as church and state are separated in my mind, I likewise can separate spirituality and philosophy, even though my beliefs tend to be a subset of my philosophical inclinations.

Peace

Answer 5

Perfection is possible but is has recently become my conclusion that western culture is doomed. It is dominated by people who are incapable of determining what is important and are extremely closed minded about their course.

Human perfection lies in changing perspectives from the material and spiritual. Both are incorrect visions of existence and the existence of both tells us that neither perspective alone is a correct perspective. Each perspective when applied exclusively results in catastrophe.

The correct perspective is that everybody and everything is made of value. This new foundational viewpoint changes all of man conclusions about proper actions. Being a singular perspective it makes the identification of the principles of existence possible.

We live in inescapable ignorance about principles because of the two perspectives. They generate contradictions and contradictions prevent the identification of any principle.

The new perspective is not easy to comprehend as we all have taken our former perspectives for granted and based every conclusion about our existence upon them. The insurmountable problem for western culture is that people of authority are debased by this new perspective which means they are exposed as frauds. They are unlikely to be changed.

That everyone is made of value creates the best human existence possible because it identifies respect as the principle which governs all relationships. It really brings civil treatment to all people.

Answer 6

I do not believe that having all people atheist or having just one religion would bring peace. There are too many other things which people fight about. If you consider ancient Greece they never fought about religion but they had many wars nevertheless. Absence of religion or having only one religion is not the answer to world peace.

Answer 7

There is no such thing as perfection when it comes to people. The closest we could come I think would be for all organized religion to be called out as the fraud it really is and for everyone to live by the golden rule of do unto others and you would have others do unto you. Sadly it'll never ever happen.

Answer 8

There is no quantity for perfect, something is either flawless or flawed or is perfect in its true nature.


'Atheism, as the denial of this unreality, has no longer any meaning, for atheism is a negation of God, and postulates the existence of man through this negation; but socialism as socialism no longer stands in any need of such a mediation. It proceeds from the theoretically and practically sensuous consciousness of man and of nature as the essence. Socialism is man’s positive self-consciousness, no longer mediated through the abolition of religion, just as real life is man’s positive reality, no longer mediated through the abolition of private property, through communism.

Communism is the position as the negation of the negation, and is hence the actual phase necessary for the next stage of historical development in the process of human emancipation and rehabilitation. Communism is the necessary form and the dynamic principle of the immediate future, but communism as such is not the goal of human development, the form of human society'

Karl Marx
Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/comm.htm

So if not this communism 'as such'' then what.

Answer 9

Morals and ethics do not exist outside of the eye of the beholder.

Love and blessings Don

Answer 10

all humanity should be different
it makes life interesting
and you are not gonna make me be an athiest
or any other religion besides christian
yes i can be interested in philosophy and be a christian!