If all religions were false, do they hurt society more than help?
No! Think of all the morals!
Side Score: 7
Yes! It's just dividing us.
Side Score: 6
I disagree with both positions. Religion does not exist soley in the clouds and in the minds of men. It has it's basis in the existing material conditions of society.
You can argue all you like about whether religion in the fuedal era was a positive or negative force, but the fact that it was a force, and a force that could not be done away with due to the existing material and social conditions makes the question void.
2120 days ago | Side: No! Think of all the morals!
I don't see how this really has anything to do with the question. It could be my own misunderstanding though. I'm not asking where religion exists, or what its basis is. I'm also not limiting the question to any period of time like the feudal era. Furthermore, just because religion hasn't been done away with, doesn't mean it's not a detriment to society.
2120 days ago | Side: Yes! It's just dividing us.
religion give humanity somthing to cling on to. who really wants to die and be thrown into a void? and i personally cant imagine my whole existence just stopping entirely thats it zip nada bye. obviously most of the religions have to be false, and if they all are, at least religion gives us a reason to be nice to eachother, morally or not, it makes (most of)us terrified to do horrible things.
1754 days ago | Side: No! Think of all the morals!
Wow, nobody wants to touch this one. I guess I'll start.
While it's impossible to know every decision people make in the world thats based on religion, we can get a feeling of how it's shaping our society from decisions we know are based on religion.
-Islamic fundamentalists killing themselves, to kill others.
-Bush getting elected, Twice.
-Keeping that baby you accidentally made when your sixteen.
-Accepting your slave-hood to the rich elite because "The meek shall inherit the earth."
-Depriving homosexuals of common human rights.
I really wanna hear a theist answer this question.
2121 days ago | Side: Yes! It's just dividing us.
Before secular humanists or Atheists or anti religionists start judging religionists for causes of wars, discontent, division and so forth, let me share some evidence to the contrary. Marxist philosophy is based on positive law philosophy, that is, a moral argument for a society is based on a populace vote (democracy) or coercion by a dictator. As historical evidence has demonstrated, this became an ideology that appealed to early to Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, and Chinese Communists. Let me re-emphasize...a moral law based on humanistic decision making and populace voting. This gave rise to Eugenics (almost took a foothold with Pres Franklin Roosevelt) to allow abortions to weed out the weak and undesirables through genetic disposition. Hitler used it to amend the Nuremberg Laws of Humanity to justify the Jewish genocide during WWII. Positive Law based on Bentham's philosophy is factual evidence that non religious moral intent is far more dangerous to society in much less short of time than any Inquisition, Crusade or religious infraction during the history of written language. This is factual information, and I would debate any of the tiresome liberal rhetoric promoting ideologies that are dangerous to humanity. History is the proving ground for any irrational or unreasoned philosophies and removing religious moral intent cannot be successfully replaced with a man made philosophical ideology. We may as well try to change the laws of gravity while we are at it. Study Natural Law philosophy, it's allowed us to have our 1st amendment rights today so be thankful to God for it.
1431 days ago | Side: non religious moral compass is dangerous
Yes they obviously hurt society more then help. You can be moral without religion, and many of the morals included in religion are skewed. Lemme just name a few
1. homosexuality is a sin (christian)
2.You are superior to people of other religions (Muslim)
3. If you are not Christian, you will go to hell.
4. Most religions are against progession of society and science.
In addition, secular humanism adopts all the morals of religion, makes them better, and would not divide the world as it is unnecessary to fight over it.
1570 days ago | Side: Yes! It's just dividing us.
1. Homosexuality is a sin but it is not against the civil law. Should we use Positive Law philosophy to allow pedophilia as an accepted practice and legal in society? I'm certain there are limits liberalism will allow based on what moral code I wonder?
2. Any person of faith would never judge oneself above another. Virtually all religious texts have that point in common, however, the practice of it is an entirely separate manner.
3. No not all Christians believe the basic heaven or hell doctrines, this is an assumption on your behalf.
4. Incorrect, the U.S.A. was founded on Natural Law philosophy dependent on reason, enlightenment, logic and law. The main difference is in the acknowledgment of a Creator whom ever that being may be is a moral integration the U.S. Constitution.
I have studied secular humanism, it's precursor was "socialist humanism" and gave rise through Positive Law philosophy to Hitler and the Nuremberg Law modifications authorizing genocide of the Jews, Eugenics in Germany and proposed to the U.S. President Frankin D Roosevelt, Mussolini, Stalin's Marxist philosophy and so forth. Historically, Positive Law morality theory has been the course of many deaths in recent human history, the like religious infractions on human kind have never seen. I'd gladly debate you on this matter should you choose. The facts of recent human history prove this point, it also proves secular humanists can also be as biased in their point of view as any religionists.
1431 days ago | Side: No! Think of all the morals!
I checked out the above site, a quick overview doesn't sound to bad but i don't know much about it. legal realism and critical legal theory seem pretty interesting on a glance as well.
I know Legal laws are made by humans. The law is also no substitute for morality.There are "natural rights". I don't consider Rights to be laws(perhaps as "meta-laws"), i do consider good laws to support natural rights. natural rights don't need a creator. too many people are guilty of anthropomorphizing nature. Natural rights come from natural laws, not necessarily from a god character whoever that may be.
1430 days ago | Side: Yes! It's just dividing us.