Wouldn’t It Be Great …

If we could remove belief in a “God’
from the human community?

It has been proven time and again throughout history that God and “His” influence in human affairs has done nothing but create strife and dissension.

This is partially because the many and several individuals who are certain a “God” exists are unable to agree on what “He” wants.

  • Does “He” want a person to use beads when s/he prays?
  • Does “He” want individuals to dance in the aisle in worship of “Him”?
  • Does “He” want his followers to speak to “Him” in a strange language?
  • Does “He” want “His” believers to perform or avoid certain acts?
  • Does “He” want “His” worshippers to wear special clothing?
  • Does “He” support killings in “His” name?
  • Does “He” enjoy songs –or silence– when people worship “Him”?

(Of course I feel certain my readers can offer several other areas in which “He” isn’t clear on what “He” wants.)

Yes, the dissidence among “His” followers as related to “His” wishes and instructions is overwhelming even though each one of them is certain s/he knows what “He” wants.

Some know because they have put their confidence in a book — even though it is replete with confusion and obfuscation related to “His” wishes. Others have turned to individuals whom they believe possess (inside) “divine” knowledge. Others rely on what they call a “still small voice” to gain insight. But no matter what method is used, believers have total confidence they know what “His” wishes and desires are for each of them.

Even though “He” has never uttered a sound.

Yes, even considering all these logical fallacies, unknown multitudes of humans continue to accept –and defend– “His” existence. 

Further, anyone who rejects “His” existence is seen as confused, belligerent, self-absorbed, stubborn, ignorant, antagonistic, hard-hearted … and most of all, to be pitied.


Now let’s consider a world where these illusions do not exist. Let us imagine a world in which humans rely on humans. Let us consider an environment where decisions are made to benefit humans rather than to please a “god.” 

 Let us contemplate courses of action that are based on acquired knowledge and intelligence. Let us ponder the idea of educational studies based on science and logic. Let us think about a world in which women are free to make choices about their own bodies (!).

The question then becomes … What would such a world look like to you?

71 thoughts on “Wouldn’t It Be Great …

  1. As you write it, Nan, a world based solely on science and logic, I would not want to live there. There needs to be an ameliorating factor, whatever you want to call that. Humanness, humaneness, compassion, love, those things would all be missing from a logical scientific world. Maybe you took for granted they would be there, but I for one think they would not.
    But as for having a world without gods, greed, government (I tried to slip that one in there hoping you would not notice), and guns, I am all for that world. But everyone tells me it is not possible.
    I still think it is.

    Liked by 5 people

    • Did you miss the part where I wrote humans would rely on humans? Science and logic would only be a part of the envisioned world. My main point surrounds getting rid of the “God” belief.

      People could still be spiritual (or whatever word seems appropriate), but there would be no “god” involved. Decisions and actions would be based on how it affects other humans, not on whether a “God” approves or disapproves.

      Liked by 7 people

      • You are in a good place. Soldier on.

        What a good topic!

        Imagine a world without religion!

        Just before I came to your post I was reading Memant Metha’s article on Mat Staver. I’ve posted a link below if anyone cares to read it. People of his ilk represent all that is wrong with Christianity and religion in general. Judaism has given us the two most hate-filled religions that I am aware of. They both call themselves the standard-bearers of morality and spirituality, but cannot make a statement without lying and calling for some hateful event to spoil the day of someone they don’t know, but they hate.

        “(Of course I feel certain my readers can offer several other areas in which “He” isn’t clear on what “He” wants.)”

        We have about 4000 religions in the world today, with the Christians being divided into 41,000 denominations. How many of them share the same god? This alone is sufficient reason to conclude there is no such thing as a god. Big G or g.

        We all have to, or have had to, consider seriously what humanity could be at this time had we not spent so much time and effort a religious leader who claimed himself the agent of the “most high god.” All of my prejudices were fed to me by Christianity and my Christian family. I didn’t realize then, of course, but I was being taught to hate. Whenever I began to form my consciousness, my spirit, the hatred was already there. I started life looking at others seeking to see all that was wrong with them. Their religion was probably the first target.


        A lot of us would still be some screwed-up people. We can’t blame religion for all our faults. I don’t think that if religion disappeared we would find ourselves in the garden of Eden. I read a book, whose title and author I can’t recall, that we would be 1500 years more advanced than we are today were it not for religion. (I didn’t get to see their calculation.) I wouldn’t argue about that.

        I wish I had studied the Summerian a little closer. I wish we had more of the writings of Democritus and Epicurus. So much of our early knowledge does not exist, partly because of despots and religious bigots. We may yet find troves of those clay tablets in future archeological digs. We have always had gods, so I’m sure that religion may well be part of any such discovery, but maybe a critical thinker like Democritus.

        We have never known a world without religion and much as I want to I can’t chase that hypothesis. My head is too soft and my attention span is too short. As soon as I start thinking about people being free and eating their own bread, I cannot help think about those who have been denied so much, right up to never being accepted in our society of white privilege.

        Damn! Do you see what I mean?

        Liked by 5 people

        • I read a book, whose title and author I can’t recall, that we would be 1500 years more advanced than we are today were it not for religion. (I didn’t get to see their calculation.) I wouldn’t argue about that.

          What evidence do you have for this statement?

          Liked by 1 person

        • Catherine Fahringer.
          I had to look it up. You can find a source to her papers and see if she provides any other evidence.


      • We can pretty much tell from real-world examples. Scandinavia and Japan, for example, are 95% of the way to being god-free. They don’t lack humanness, humaneness, compassion, love, or government — they’re far more humane societies than highly religious societies like Afghanistan or Pakistan or medieval Europe. The god delusion contributes nothing of any value to human society, and its eventual disappearance will cost us nothing.

        Liked by 7 people

      • No, I didn’t miss it, but my personal thought was you did not make clear about the role of humans in the world. The only beings I know in this world that use science and logic are humans, and of course I thought back to Mr. Spock. I would not have liked to live on his home world either.
        No offense intended. Just a kind of clarification.

        Liked by 1 person

      • People could still be spiritual

        Oh the gods, noooo. Not that frakking word again!!

        How about people could be kind, and generous and compassionate and … (appreciate Football and like spiders)

        Liked by 3 people

    • That is a correct assumption, but I think Nan means that we preclude any gods or religion, including in the future.

      I have this dream about society outlawing religion.

      Liked by 5 people

    • Then you have to ask, scientifically, why it is so built in to our psyche? Why was man driven to religion in the first place and why does it seem so permanent? Something in evolution? I don’t know.

      I believe in some way, it may be a “survival of the fittest” strategy that ensures wars and killings, to therefore help keep the population in check. Ultimately, one of the factors of population control along with disease and natural disasters.

      Or it could just be a form of insanity.

      Liked by 3 people

      • Then you have to ask, scientifically, why it is so built in to our psyche? Why was man driven to religion in the first place and why does it seem so permanent?

        I’m just guessing here. I don’t think religiosity is built in. But working together in cooperative groups is built in. Science is, itself, a great example of working together in cooperative groups.

        I guess religions are just an effective way of organizing such groups.

        Liked by 2 people

        • I do. It’s been around since man was still in the caves. Working in groups for collecting crops or killing for food is one thing. And working together to try to figure out things, like in science, is another. But working together to invent fantasies and punishments and things that cannot ever be verified one way or the other is not logical, while the other two are. So a degree of illogic is built into man and we see it everyday over and over.

          Liked by 2 people

      • Oh my, Mary! The “believers” would LOVE your remark about it being built into our psyche!! That’s what a ton-load of them already believe/preach– that the “God” gene is part of our nature.

        Liked by 1 person

  2. This quote from Wade Davis sums up my feelings
    the ethnosphere is the sum total of all the thoughts, dreams, ideals, myths, intuitions, and inspirations brought into being by the imagination since the dawn of consciousness. The ethnosphere is humanity’s great legacy.”. There is nothing wrong here at all. Nothing is in error. Everything is exactly as it could be. Science would eventually be lord and master with genetic tampering and forced compliance for the common good. We already see that happening where any authority has carte blanche rule it would be all business and no fun at all.

    Liked by 3 people

    • I have never heard of Wade Davis nor his ethnosphere. (My spell checker refuses to accept that word.) I looked up the definition and it is his. Very mystical.

      We do not and can never know “the sum total of all the thoughts, dreams, ideals, myths, intuitions, and inspirations brought into being by the imagination since the dawn of consciousness.” We only know what has been recorded and we have to discard a good portion of that as doubtful sources.

      The ‘dawn of consciousness’ may have a host of times in the universe.

      Is that what he meant?

      Liked by 3 people

      • Wade is an ethnographer and botanist that has spent about 50 years living remotely with indigenous people. The idea stems from his vast experience with the people and shaman of various regions. The word is his own creation based on his experience.
        He also said that these disappearing tribes and languages are not failed attempts at being human, but legitimate ways of seeing and experiencing life on earth.
        He has some TED talks as well that are amazingly intuitive to the human race in all its varieties.
        If I die and come back I’d be him. Great guy.

        Liked by 3 people

        • Jim, I appreciate that you have a great deal of respect for indigenous people. And I can understand your affection for their perspectives on life. However, most people are not so tuned into this way of thinking and seeing life. In fact, I would venture to say most people have no clue!

          Of course I welcome all viewpoints (except maybe Christian since it’s a bit overdone!) because that makes for good discussion. But do consider the fact that you’re a bit of an “outsider” in your views on (religious) life and thus are very likely to get some kickback.

          P.S. I do enjoy the off-beat topics you share on your blog … although some of the “after” discussion can get a bit overdone. 😋

          Liked by 3 people

        • Of course this is likely the only group of people (or the AOG) that would reject the scientific observations of a PhD Harvard trained Anthropologist and ethnobotanist who experience first hand for decades the practices and religious culture of indigenous people.

          Liked by 2 people

        • In defense … many (most?) people are simply not into reading/studying these practices. Of course, it’s sad in many ways since these people have much to offer in their approaches to life.

          In any case, I think “rejection” is the wrong word. It’s more that many of us are simply not “into” such studies. So please. Be kind and tolerate our “ignorance.”

          Liked by 2 people

  3. i’m comfortable using the word ‘god’ because i didn’t grow up with the ‘daddy in sky’ idea. on my spiritual path, it was never about finding god and worshiping some outside deity, it was about gaining a deeper undertsanding into what life is, beyond having a family, a career, making some money and constantly looking for some momentary entertainment.
    in this search for deeper meaning, i found that ‘god’ is Reality itself, expressing as the continous Now moment, which is all we ever have. very much an idea shared by Zen, Hinduism, and other eastern paths.
    i also found that there is, undoubtedly, an underlaying unity, a common consciousness that ties everything together and all we have to do to reach it is calm the mind and be still. it is very much within us, and cannot be found by looking anywhere outside. we’ve all small glimpses of this, at some point or other, and think of it as emiphanies, moments of illumination or ‘aha!’ moments.
    moments of pure being, when all thoughts and worries are forgotten.

    can we live without Reality? certainly not. but we can learn to live more WITH reality, and not so much with busy, over-crowded minds. i think we’d see a more peaceful, joyful, fulfilled world and a deeper respect for all that surrounds us.

    Liked by 3 people

    • monicat, you are obviously quite deep into transcendental thinking … and I have no problems with that. However, I think you will agree this is not the case with a large majority of people so many will not understand and/or miss your points.

      What I had hoped to convey with my post is what a joy it would be to live without the constant bombardment of “God-thinking.” Just living our lives without being bombarded by people shaking their heads and fingers at us because we’re not following (what they consider) “God’s” laws. A pipe dream, I’m sure. But as Louis Armstrong sings … what a wonderful life it would be!❤

      Liked by 2 people

      • oh, absolutely! i won’t have anyting to deal with the Christian god. in fact, i can see how dangerous and poisonous it actually is to follow traditional Christianity: it talks big about love, but that love is only for those who share their exact beliefs. such limited love!!

        there is a quote by Ghandi that i like so much, he said “I like your Christ, but your Christains are so unlike your Christ”.

        most people that turn away from this Christan, father figure, feel that this might be the end of the road. in fact, the truth about ‘god’ is much closer to us, and it’s not at all about belief, but about expanding our awareness.

        Liked by 1 person

  4. I think we could be better off without gods, but that doesn’t necessarily mean we would be better off without gods. I could imagine a world without gods that was much improved, mostly through humanism. I could also imagine a world without gods that was even worse because everyone retreated to selfishness and lacked empathy for others.

    Liked by 2 people

    • I recognize that I’m proposing somewhat of a pipe dream because humans are what they are. Nevertheless, it would be SO NICE to get rid of the finger-wagging and door-knocking — and even deaths in-the-name-of — that accompany people’s belief in a god.


    • If the triangles made a god, they would give him three sides.


      Most societies who create gods, create them in their own image and endow them with all the qualities they dream of having.
      Why do angels have wings? Because men thought wings, like birds’, would be necessary for them to traverse the space between earth and heaven.

      BTW, we always credit ‘men’ with creating gods. Women are seldom accused of such emotional weakness as to need a god to lean on. Could it be?


  5. See, “gods” are really space aliens who came here thousands of years ago to build pyramids and give us things like pizza and ice cream. Once humanity realizes this, and begins to worship said aliens as really cool space guys ‘n gals, all will be grand in the world. 🙂

    Liked by 4 people

    • I’m glad consoledreader caused me to come back and review these posts.
      We were discussing the launch of the JWST and he said the whole world will go bugshit crazy when we spot all the space aliens out there.

      I see the conversation went on very well without me, just as life can go on very well without any more sky daddies.

      Liked by 1 person

  6. Nan, sounds like a contemplative and powerful song written by some guy named John Lennon. “Imagine” it was called. One of the challenges with religion has always been it is recorded, interpreted, translated, and reinterpreted by imperfect humans (mostly men) based on the context of the day. Varied interpretations have led to differences of opinion and, sadly, even violence.

    Even if divinely inspired, God or Allah did not dictate the words, so imperfect men wrote them down. The modern science of today would be perceived as a God-like miracle even to people 100 years ago, so I have always found it arrogant that some religions do not believe in modern medicine as the cure. Maybe, God is delivering the miracle for which they are praying through the hands of skilled surgeons. Keith

    Liked by 1 person

    • John Lennon’s song never crossed my mind … but yes! It pretty much sums up the idea I was trying to put forth.

      Imagine there’s no Heaven
      It’s easy if you try
      No Hell below us
      Above us only sky

      Imagine all the people
      Livin’ for today
      Aaa haa

      Imagine there’s no countries
      It isn’t hard to do
      Nothing to kill or die for
      And no religion too

      Imagine all the people
      Livin’ life in peace
      Yoo hoo

      You may say I’m a dreamer
      But I’m not the only one
      I hope someday you’ll join us
      And the world will be as one

      Imagine no possessions
      I wonder if you can
      No need for greed or hunger
      A brotherhood of man

      Imagine all the people
      Sharin’ all the world
      Yoo hoo

      You may say I’m a dreamer
      But I’m not the only one
      I hope someday you’ll join us
      And the world will live as one

      Liked by 2 people

      • Nan, I am glad you included the words. Given its message, I think Lennon wrote it simply so ESL listeners would hear the message. He and Paul McCartney did the same with “All you need is love.” Keith

        Liked by 2 people

  7. I think your entire premise that it has “been proven time and again throughout history that God and “His” influence in human affairs has done nothing but create strife and dissension” is pretty debatable.

    No one is denying that religion has sometimes caused conflict and strife, but there is definitely a case to be made that certain religious ideas have improved the human condition and influenced the better parts of Western Culture. The evidence points to religion containing both the capacity to make people better and make people worse.

    Liked by 1 person

    • “Religion” per se is NOT necessary to improve human conditions. This can easily be done if HUMANS respected and cared about other HUMANS.

      The fact that people seem to need some “higher power” to live their lives is, IMO, a fallacy. Certainly human nature definitely has its flaws, but to me, religion tends to emphasize these flaws — and then offers a “solution.” One that has never worked. And this has been proven time and again throughout human history.


      • History is contingent. It’s hard to say what would be different and how people would think differently if we never had religion or some of the ideas that came along with it and developed. But I think it’s a huge and questionable assumption to suggest belief in God has only had negative effects on society and history.


        • History and its several and varied events have shown time and again the negative effects that result from belief in “God.” And it continues to do so in modern day.

          There is simply NO NEED for gods or “God” in human affairs. Yes, humans can be cruel, uncaring, selfish, and just plain dangerous to one another … but it has been thoroughly demonstrated that a belief in the existence of a “God” does NOT take this away. Even among “His” followers.

          Liked by 1 person

        • Perhaps, but IMO, the negative FAR outweighs the positive. Moreover, I think humans have the capacity to do good things all by themselves without calling upon “God” or gods. Of course, as it stands now, we’ll never be able to test the theory. 🙂

          Liked by 1 person

    • There are a host of ‘good’ things we can credit religion for, but the fact is that all these good things exist and are practiced without the need for religion. I don’t know what your religious persuasion is. That is entirely your business. No church and no secular organization has any special authority on morality and humaneness.

      But the Christian religion is no less militant and misguided than ISIS. Since the Christian nationalists have taken control of that religion and have joined ranks with criminal politicians to destroy our democracy and our republic, they have thrown away all/any credibility they may have had prior to 2016 and now are seen as enemies of the state. If I could see anyone resisting the way Christian leaders are now going I may be able to tone down my rhetoric, but it is not happening.

      “Rick Wiles, the senior pastor of the Flowing Streams Church in Florida, said that President Donald Trump’s administration should “start shooting” Democrats and members of the media in firing squads if it turns out they conspired to rig the presidential election.”

      Yes. I picked this example for this purpose, but it certainly is not the only one available. This is what Christianity has come to. There are no moral, spiritual, or factual grounds to give anyone reason to believe that Christianity is worth keeping around.

      Christianity declares all other religions to be false and they can provide no better proof for their own other than, “I believe.”

      Take the money, the political influence, and the prestige out of religion, especially Christianity, and it will crumble into oblivion.
      Imagine a preacher without a private jet!!! That would be a lowly creature in the Christian hierarchy.

      Transcendental meditation is a practice in which people are supposed to reach a mental state beyond thinking. It has that in common with most religions. Thinking is not conducive to beliveing.

      Liked by 2 people

      • I would agree with you that a person can do good without religion. However, while some elements of moral behavior, ethics, goodness, whatever word you’d like to use have a biological basic, it also seems to have an environmental and cultural component as well. Similarly, bad behaviors (i. e. Human capacity for violence) exists without religion and must have some biological basis as evidenced by this study that primates as a group are 6 times more violent than other mammals:


        I have many of the same concerns about Christian Nationalists violating the constitution and trying to transform the United States into some sort of Christian theocracy. However, you’re confusing the parts with the whole. While 1/4 of all Christians in the US support ending separation of church and state that also means 3/4 do NOT. If we use the data about those who only want to display religious symbols on public property and have prayer in school that bring us to a little under half of all US Christians that want this—a very large amount indeed, and who seem to have different ideas about what separation of church and state means. Nevertheless, that also means slightly more than half of all Christians don’t support that either. Should I judge every Christian or all of Christianity based on what a portion of them want or do?

        In regards to Catherine Fahringer’s idea that you mentioned in your post above:

        “ “We would be 1,500 years ahead if it hadn’t been for the church dragging science back by its coattails and burning our best minds at the stake.”

        —Fahringer interview, San Antonio Express-News, “Portrait of an Atheist” (March 24, 1991) as quoted in https://ffrf.org/ftod-cr/item/14551-catherine-fahringer

        What evidence does she have for any of this? Most historians of science would point out that the Middle Ages, particularly the High Middle Ages, was a fruitful period for philosophy, logic, and the study of mathematics and natural science. Could she name any scientist burned at the stake? Why were the Jesuits major contributors to scientific research if the church was trying to hold back science? If what she was saying was remotely true, why didn’t places that were more technology advanced than the Christian West for long periods of history and lacked Christianity such as China develop rockets, computers, and the Internet at a much earlier time period? After all, they should have been almost 1500 years more advanced than any place that had Christianity.

        Liked by 1 person

  8. Good point. Uplifting rituals such as eating a savior’s flesh and drinking his blood seem to strengthen the cohesion of a cult, while repulsing outsiders and turning them away.

    Liked by 4 people

  9. Humans are pretty unreliable and death looms, so people have always looked hopefully for something higher- perhaps even superior aliens who will come to sort us out! We cannot prove there is not a higher being who created the universe, whether he/she is remotely interested in our pathetic little lives is another matter.

    Liked by 2 people

  10. A quote I’ve heard somewhere, but can’t remember exactly, comes to mind…

    Something about, how odd it is that gods will is often in direct accordance to the believers wishes.

    Again I say, there are as many gods as there are believers.

    Liked by 2 people

  11. I’m familiar with the hypothesis which argues that – at least in groups – widespread religious belief actually confers an evolutionary advantage. The certainty of an afterlife where one will be judged and/or rewarded for his actions on earth has arguably served to constrain much of the unsocial passions of man.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Hi Dylan! Nice to see you visiting my blog!

      An evolutionary advantage? Perhaps in some circles, but from my perspective, religion actually hinders the advance of the human race.

      As far as an “afterlife”? I suppose if one truly believes in such an event, they might be inclined to constrain their more coarse and/or brutish actions towards others, but for all intents and purposes, this has not been demonstrated among the believing sector of humanity.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Hello Nan,

        I’m willing to debate you on that point (i.e, that religion hinders the advance of the human race). Empirically speaking, religious people are (1.) more likely to be charitable, (2.) less likely to smoke and drink, and (3.) less likely to commit crime. Aren’t these practices conducive to the “advancement” of the human race?




        • Perhaps religious people are healthier and happier … and perhaps they also can be identified by the three points you mentioned. Perhaps. However, none of this “advances” the human race.

          In fact, one of the most active groups in the religious world, i.e., the evangelicals, tend to do just the opposite. They consistently “make waves” over all sorts of modern day advancements. As an example, they are against desegregation, women’s rights, gender equality, climate change — and many even reject scientific advancements as being “against God’s will.” (This is not to say there are no “progressive” evangelicals, but they do tend to be in the minority.)

          In too many instances, those who fall into the “religious” category are so focused on “winning souls” that they overlook (or deny) the accomplishments of the “non-religious” as related to improving lives and circumstances and preparing for the future.

          Liked by 3 people

        • Well, I appreciate the interesting dialogue. However, I’m afraid it has been politicized, and that I should probably cease now, lest we begin discussing things which go far beyond the scope of my objection. Adieu.



        • These are not political issues. They are human issues that religious individuals are attempting to put into place. None of which benefit or advance humanity.

          If you are simply wanting to debate who is “happyist” between believers and non-believers, it seems to me you have missed the point of my post.

          Liked by 1 person

    • I’m familiar with a lot of arguments, hypotheses, theories, and outright made on the fly ‘evidence’ for all the religious claims of some entity influencing humankind. I’m glad you at least recognize evolution, but I want you to consider the fact that ancient hominids were forming groups and clans, etc. before they developed language. They were burying their dead, I suspect because their camps were becoming more permanent. My guess is that it was necessary, more humane than leaving them for the elements and scavengers long before there were any ‘widespread religious beliefs. Christians seize on such unprovable hypotheses because it is as close as they can come to evidence or proof.

      As far as constraining the “social passions of man,” look no further than the Christian church to view all of the worst behavior man can or has inflicted on his fellow. You may name ISIS, but the only reason Christians are not killing ‘infidels’ is that the secular world has outlawed it.

      If you and I suffer the same calamity we would be judged differently:
      The calamity befell you because God was testing your ‘faith’.
      The calamity befell me because God is punishing me for not believing he exists.

      Debate, you say? A debate requires two sides to present facts, logic, and reasoning. Religion doesn’t have access to any of these, so what you propose is another circular argument. I have had my fill of those.

      Transcendental Meditation. Crossing the void between reality and nonreality (?) The kind of thing that makes people step off fourteenth-floor balconies, maybe, thinking they can fly. Psilocybin, peyote/mescaline, and LSD used to be touted as capable of taking people into that dream world.

      If you believe in one escape mechanism, then you have no grounds to deny any of the others. Vishnu is as real as Jesus.
      Can you prove otherwise?

      Liked by 1 person

Don't Be Shy -- Tell Us What You Think!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.