CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Is religion good or bad for the world?
There have been many religions throughtout history, and it has had both a positive and a negative effect on the governments of the world, a huge affect on our ideas, opinions, morals, beliefs, and even on our behavior. But would we better off without religion? Or do we still need it?
It's like asking if culture is good or bad for the world. Or if government is good or bad for the world. Or if language is good or bad for the world. Or if grouping up based on shared beliefs/values is good or bad. It's a false choice question because religion in and of itself is neutral.
Kind of. Its like asking if a culture is bad for the world, or a government, but religion is a willful system of belief and therefore more open to good/bad impact criticism than, say, culture. Culture is unavoidable. Religion is an optional poison that needs to be extracted from society.
And while religion might be neutral in the way democracy is neutral, that doesn't mean we cant observe its implementation and accomplishments, such as they are, and judge it based on what we see. Religion might sound good in theory, but we've given it an inflated view of itself and fanatics are allowed to infringe on the freedom of others based on their unprovable beliefs.
Criticizing specific aspects of a specific religion is one thing, criticizing religion in general is totally pointless. You argue that culture is unavoidable, but you think maintaining "willful systems of belief" is in and of itself harmful? How is it possible for a person or a society to refrain from establishing belief/value systems? The notion of doing away with religion is as naive as the notion of doing away with government.
Who is doing more infringing on the freedom of others, governments or religions? The enforcement of belief/value systems is the business of government like it or not. The position of being against religion in general is either dishonest or delusional. We are opposed to systems we regard as too different from our own, not systems themselves. Standards of proof vary, proof consists merely of what is convincing. All beliefs are proven to the satisfaction of those who hold them.
criticizing religion in general is totally pointless
You think considering the merits and pointing out the flaws of religion is totally pointless? My fundamental argument is that religion is unnecessary and society will be better off when it's gone.
but you think maintaining "willful systems of belief" is in and of itself harmful? How is it possible for a person or a society to refrain from establishing belief/value systems?
Maybe you should go back and read the entirety of the sentence you lifted that quote from. I said it the fact that it is a willful and optional system of belief makes it more open to 'is it good/bad for the world' criticism than culture, which is an unavoidable consequence of human beings interacting with one another.
The notion of doing away with religion is as naive as the notion of doing away with government.
No, i don't think humanity can stay this stupid forever. But you're right in saying that the cancer of religion has taken very deep roots in society, so much so that many people cant imagine a world without it. Indeed, in my country we have religious groups that think the world will be possessed by demons if society isn't run by god, or rather, religion.
Who is doing more infringing on the freedom of others, governments or religions? The enforcement of belief/value systems is the business of government like it or not.
Exactly! And it is NOT any business of religion to be enforcing delusional, unprovable beliefs, its the business of the government to decide how the country is to be run, hopefully one run by the people. Religion has no place infringing on freedom, but it does anyways. And, as i said, feel free to open up a debate where we can talk about the merits of government and its impact on the world. Personally i think its done its good and its bad but it's not as fundamentally rotten as religion, it has a greater basis in reality, and society would be worse off without it than without religion. But that's not what we're discussing here, so while it has use as a metaphor i don't see the point in asking if governments or religion do more harm, because it's a perfectly valid question and invites me to compare the necessity of religion to that of government, and religion comes up short; it's a question to be asked elsewhere but it doesn't help your cause here.
We are opposed to systems we regard as too different from our own, not systems themselves.
I am opposed to the system of religion. How can i not be opposed to religion? And can someone not legitimately be an anarchist, opposed to the system of government?
All beliefs are proven to the satisfaction of those who hold them.
Okay, sounds good. Tie this to your argument again for me if you please, because I'm missing it.
You think considering the merits and pointing out the flaws of religion is totally pointless?
Right. You can consider the merits and point out the flaws of specific sects, but not religion in general.
My fundamental argument is that religion is unnecessary and society will be better off when it's gone.
And mine is that if we are talking about religion, we are talking about belief systems and it's delusional to think we can somehow avoid forming them.
Maybe you should go back and read the entirety of the sentence you lifted that quote from. I said it the fact that it is a willful and optional system of belief makes it more open to 'is it good/bad for the world' criticism than culture, which is an unavoidable consequence of human beings interacting with one another.
I went back and re-read. Now maybe you should give a go at answering the question I asked.
I think that religion of one form or another is unavoidable. It's not like a person can decide not to have a belief system.
No, i don't think humanity can stay this stupid forever.
Were stupid if we think belief systems can be done away with as opposed to improved or made worse.
But you're right in saying that the cancer of religion has taken very deep roots in society, so much so that many people cant imagine a world without it.
I said no such thing. Religion is not something that comes along after a society forms and attaches itself to it and "takes root". Religion is foundational to society. Societies don't form without commonality of belief/value systems.
Trying to come up with ways to improve specific belief systems is a much better use of our imagination than trying to conceive of a world with no belief systems at all. One is practical the other is delusional.
Indeed, in my country we have religious groups that think the world will be possessed by demons if society isn't run by god, or rather, religion.
Society will always be run by people, people's actions will always be based on belief/value systems of one form or another.
Exactly!
So you admit that government enforces whatever belief system (religion) is prevalent in the region. I'd be interested to read an explanation from you about how a government differs from a religion so I can logically disassemble it and show that there is no substantial difference.
And it is NOT any business of religion to be enforcing delusional, unprovable beliefs
A religion's business is to propagate beliefs that are proven to be helpful to those it aims to help.
its the business of the government to decide how the country is to be run, hopefully one run by the people.
So if you can see that you are opposed to certain TYPES of government (presumably top down authoritarian types) but not government itself, why can't you regard religion analogously?
Religion has no place infringing on freedom, but it does anyways.
Oh I am sure there are some freedoms you would be dogmatically opposed to.
And, as i said, feel free to open up a debate where we can talk about the merits of government and its impact on the world.
I'd rather argue that the difference between what a religion is and what a government is are purely semantic and illusory.
Personally i think its done its good and its bad but it's not as fundamentally rotten as religion, it has a greater basis in reality, and society would be worse off without it than without religion.
Everything has a basis is in reality. Now if you want to talk about delusional ideologies why not start with the one you appear to have which supposes religion and government are things society can function without.
But that's not what we're discussing here, so while it has use as a metaphor i don't see the point in asking if governments or religion do more harm, because it's a perfectly valid question and invites me to compare the necessity of religion to that of government, and religion comes up short; it's a question to be asked elsewhere but it doesn't help your cause here.
You aren't the sole dictator of what we are talking about. I am saying it's naive to think society can operate without government or religion. If you want to stay on topic try answering the question I asked earlier..to wit: "How is it possible for a person or a society to refrain from establishing belief/value systems?"
I am opposed to the system of religion.
Which one(s)? or better still which specific aspects of them? How can I get you to understand that being opposed to religion in general is a pointless approach?
How can i not be opposed to religion?
By looking at religion in a more mature and logical manner.
And can someone not legitimately be an anarchist, opposed to the system of government?
They can't be opposed to all forms of government. They can be opposed to certain types of government, but being opposed to government itself is as silly as being opposed to religion itself.
Okay, sounds good. Tie this to your argument again for me if you please, because I'm missing it.
Sure you were referring to religion as being based on unprovable beliefs which is untrue because beliefs don't form in the absence of accepted proof.
I think perhaps we should back up here and i should ask you what you think religion means. When i think of religion i think of faith and/or organized religion, fair and accurate interpretations, i think, whereas you seem to use 'religion' and 'belief system' interchangeably, also a fair interpretation, but one with a different connotation.
Because i see religion as faith (unexamined belief that defies reason) and clergy (humanity's headlice) i think this colors my opinion that religion is bad for the world because i think faith is more of a curse than a virtue, and clergy exist for the benefit and empowerment of clergy, a cause i cant stand behind.
But addressing how you seem to see religion - it seems to me that all religion is a system of belief but not all systems of belief are religious. Wouldn't it therefore be possible for humanity to retain systems of belief while also ditching religion? To still have ideals regarding morality, politics, and ideological pursuits while also being bereft of scripture, religious oppression, clergy, temples, worship, and submission?
Right. You can consider the merits and point out the flaws of specific sects, but not religion in general.
Why?
Now maybe you should give a go at answering the question I asked. I think that religion of one form or another is unavoidable. It's not like a person can decide not to have a belief system.
I tried to claim freedom as my religion, but that was only to get a tax break. But to humor you: forming a belief system is unavoidable; forming a religious belief system is avoidable. Despite my earlier sarcasm, i am completely and utterly without religion, so my existence negates religions omnipresence.
Were stupid if we think belief systems can be done away with as opposed to improved or made worse.
Hey, we agree on something!
Religion is not something that comes along after a society forms and attaches itself to it and "takes root". Religion is foundational to society. Societies don't form without commonality of belief/value systems
Religions have migrated and evolved and otherwise came along and attached themselves to various societies. You only need to puzzle out how Americans ended up worshiping the tribal god of the ancient Judean desert and his Palestinian son to see it. And i think that looking back at history and saying that we need religion to form society is a cheap shot; I've stated that region had its role to play in the past, but we do not need it to impose or even offer beliefs in order to have beliefs.
So you admit that government enforces whatever belief system (religion) is prevalent in the region.
No. Governments often willingly or unknowingly fail to do that.
I'd be interested to read an explanation from you about how a government differs from a religion so I can logically disassemble it and show that there is no substantial difference.
I can tell. Open up a proper debate on it and I'll post, i promise.
A religion's business is to propagate beliefs that are proven to be helpful to those it aims to help.
Religions rarely restrict themselves to only propaganda, religion rarely waits for proof of anything before acting on it and oftentimes acts to counter proof, and insinuating that religion exists to help people should seem foolish, even to a religious person.
So if you can see that you are opposed to certain TYPES of government (presumably top down authoritarian types) but not government itself, why can't you regard religion analogously?
Because i think that we need government a lot more than we need religion. Infinitely more, actually.
Oh I am sure there are some freedoms you would be dogmatically opposed to
Shoot. I'd love to hear 'em. I'm also intrigued to read any dogma i might type out here, so please, i insist.
Everything has a basis is in reality. Now if you want to talk about delusional ideologies why not start with the one you appear to have which supposes religion and government are things society can function without.
I don't see any way to confirm or deny the first bit. We could function without religion or government: we would function better without religion (if we attained out beliefs from something more pure and substantial), and we would function worse without government.
You aren't the sole dictator of what we are talking about...
You've thrown down too many absolutist, "cant" statements to pull that now. Besides, i was referencing the debate itself, is religion good or bad for the world. I don't think religion and government are comparable/applicable in the context you are talking about in this debate and my political views can be as lengthy as my religious ones so instead of clogging up this debate even more with points irrelevant an inapplicable to its purpose, i was simply suggesting we do it elsewhere.
Which one(s)? or better still which specific aspects of them? How can I get you to understand that being opposed to religion in general is a pointless approach?
That's also a very long-winded response i don't want to put here. I've debated the merits and demerits of several religions on several different debates on this site, but here I'm not beefing with Christianity or Islam specifically, I'm trying to assert that the world would be better off without the lot of them.
If you can show me that faith, the willful suspension of disbelief against and in spite of evidence, and clergy, a parasitical class of liars and thieves, are not at all a part of religion and that religion is 100% of the time a personal system of belief, then i will 'understand' that it is pointless to oppose religion. But i already don't oppose personal spirituality, so it may be a moot point, but we seem to like splitting hairs, here, don't we?
They can't be opposed to all forms of government.
Go look it up.
Sure you were referring to religion as being based on unprovable beliefs which is untrue because beliefs don't form in the absence of accepted proof.
And round and round we go. So religion is based on provable beliefs because religion is belief and reasonable proof is subjective standard so the moment someone accepts the measly "evidence" for faith, religion is "proved?" Clever dick rational.
criticizing religion in general is totally pointless
Religion is specifically a set of beliefs that exist outside of science, determined through philosophy and story-telling. If a religious belief can be tested, similar to science, then that part of it is science and not religion.
By this, if one asks if the influence of non-scientifically based reasoning can have a negative impact on society, then yes, it's very much NOT a pointless question.
Religion is specifically a set of beliefs that exist outside of science, determined through philosophy and story-telling.
I can grok religion being defined as a set of beliefs, but question what you mean by referring to sets of beliefs that exist "outside of science". Beliefs, be they labeled religious or secular, or if they are of the sort recognized as scientific fact, are formed by experiencing patterns of events. Religion and science's very existence depend on adequate recognition of patterns. Those who try to account for as much as possible do not necessarily have a superior approach to those who have an ostensibly overly simplistic outlook. With greater understanding comes the potential for greater blunders. Have you ever considered viewing religion from a scientific or technological standpoint? Have you ever considered that what we call science is a branch of philosophy? It seems to me that as soon as one sets a standard to live by they are practicing religion. At SOME point one must break from asking why and decide..THIS is what I value, THIS is the reason I bother get out of bed in the morning, THIS is the example I will honor. I don't have all the data, but I've seen enough to know what I value.
If a religious belief can be tested, similar to science, then that part of it is science and not religion.
Who would presume that there are phenomena which cannot be so tested?<
By this, if one asks if the influence of non-scientifically based reasoning can have a negative impact on society, then yes, it's very much NOT a pointless question.
According to whose standards of what qualifies as "scientifically based" reasoning? What is the scientific basis for determining whether an event complex's impact on society (btw which society?) is ultimately positive or negative?
but question what you mean by referring to sets of beliefs that exist "outside of science".
Empirical science differs from religious tenets in the methodology for how conclusions are reached, accepted, and rejected. In science, every new theory proposed needs to demonstrate itself as being at least as consistent with observed reality as a former theory (null hypothesis) and then add more to it (ability to make accurate predictions.) A theory that repeatedly fails to predict the outcome of events accurately is quickly dropped.
Religion's approach to explaining things typically comes from interpretations of words/ideas/thoughts of earlier people. Even if you discount the loss of the original meanings of these writings and stories, it still originates from individuals who tried to explain their experiences without performing explicit tests on them (tests intentionally designed to attempt to prove them wrong.) Example: Muhammad is said to have heard the word of god spoken to him through the archangel Gabriel. Assuming he honestly believed this, why should anyone else? It's based on one man's word, who, even if he believed it himself, could very well have dreamed it up in any number of ways that to him seemed real. Religion bases itself on beliefs that originate in ways one can't test. For that reason, I see no credibility in believing anything that originates from religion.
Who would presume that there are phenomena which cannot be so tested?
What I'm saying is, what makes a statement religion is that it has a religious origin, not a scientific one. If "god" said the Earth is a body moving around the sun, that could be tested and therefore is part of science, but the part that this statement came from "god" is untestable because again what kind of experiment can be conceived to validate that this statement originates from a supreme being? The testable part is science, adding the unverifiable religious origin makes the statement in entirety religion.
Creation myths are an example as well. Some Christians believe the Earth to be roughly 6,000 years old. This can be tested and overwhelmingly refuted. Science moves on, religion clings to this claim.
According to whose standards of what qualifies as "scientifically based" reasoning? What is the scientific basis for determining whether an event complex's impact on society (btw which society?) is ultimately positive or negative?
I'm speaking about human society. Scientifically based reasoning means experimentally verifiable. Take a claim, form it into precise quantifiable terms, and derive tests that can either support or refute it. Non-scientifically based reasoning means any kind of statement that can't be tested, and therefore can lead to illogical social policies. The Catholic Church says that gay marriage is wrong, but it's entire premise for this is interpretation of words written a long time ago by people who had different cultural views. Cases like this illustrate how ideologies without a rational, verifiable basis can produce unethical outcomes.
Empirical science differs from religious tenets in the methodology for how conclusions are reached, accepted, and rejected.
I disagree. Conclusions are reached by no other means than recognizing patterns despite the limitations of our current perceptive and cognitive ability.
In science, every new theory proposed needs to demonstrate itself as being at least as consistent with observed reality as a former theory (null hypothesis) and then add more to it (ability to make accurate predictions.) A theory that repeatedly fails to predict the outcome of events accurately is quickly dropped.
That's really the way beliefs in general work. If a person has a belief that they find unhelpful for making accurate predictions they abandon or revise it.
Religion's approach to explaining things typically comes from interpretations of words/ideas/thoughts of earlier people.
That's everyones approach
Even if you discount the loss of the original meanings of these writings and stories, it still originates from individuals who tried to explain their experiences without performing explicit tests on them (tests intentionally designed to attempt to prove them wrong.)
The tradition of record keeping is honored for many reasons, and science and religion would have never amounted to much without it. The science of storytelling has predictable socio-political results. The science of accomplishment (engineering) spends very little effort trying to prove theories wrong, it's focus is pragmatic.
Religion bases itself on beliefs that originate in ways one can't test. For that reason, I see no credibility in believing anything that originates from religion.
How can we test that belief of yours? You keep reiterating your assumption that there are untestable phenomena.
What I'm saying is, what makes a statement religion is that it has a religious origin, not a scientific one.
I see... so....the difference between a scientific statement and a religious statement is that scientific statements have a scientific origin and religious statements have a religious origin. Thanks for clearing that up.
If "god" said the Earth is a body moving around the sun, that could be tested and therefore is part of science, but the part that this statement came from "god" is untestable because again what kind of experiment can be conceived to validate that this statement originates from a supreme being? The testable part is science, adding the unverifiable religious origin makes the statement in entirety religion.
If one claims there to be an untestable, (which you have, repeatedly now) according to your logic (as I understand it) then they have made a religious statement. If a person makes a religious statement, they have a religious belief. How many religious beliefs does one need to have before they should consider themselves religious? :)
Some Christians believe the Earth to be roughly 6,000 years old. This can be tested and overwhelmingly refuted. Science moves on, religion clings to this claim.
I can accept the statement that some religions cling to that claim. As you admit, not all of them do. The ones who do modify their stance based on new evidence, are (by your logic as I understand it again) scientific in that sense since they move on?
I'm speaking about human society.
You are speaking as if it can logically be referred to as a unified whole. You do the same thing when you mention religion, and you do the same thing when you refer to science. If someone mentions society, my mind quickly inserts the question "which?" Same with religion, same with government, same with economy, same with science. Can you understand why I must?
Scientifically based reasoning means experimentally verifiable.
One popular religio-social experiment goes something like...if I make statements X,Y and Z, at frequency F people in sects C,M,J,H,B,S, around me will P% nicer to me.
Take a claim, form it into precise quantifiable terms, and derive tests that can either support or refute it.
So how about a claim like: "Health is the primary concern" What should I do with it? Is it a religious statement? I can't seem to form it into precise quantifiable terms or devise a test to support or refute it. Does this make me one of those dumb unscientific religious people?
Non-scientifically based reasoning means any kind of statement that can't be tested, and therefore can lead to illogical social policies.
Can the following statement be tested: "There are statements that cannot be tested" ? If not, I'd say you are making Non-Scientific statements that can lead to illogical social policies.
Cases like this illustrate how ideologies without a rational, verifiable basis can produce unethical outcomes
Any more so than ideologies that do have a rational, verifiable basis?....I wonder how we could test that?
Conclusions are reached by no other means than recognizing patterns despite the limitations of our current perceptive and cognitive ability.
Or by a willingness to believe in conclusions that defy recognized patterns, even to the believer. Coercion, brainwashing, fear, and faith all have a place in allowing people to draw conclusions that they know don't make sense.
When you think about it. It seems like this is reasonable. But the majority of people are happy with religion because they have found peace and "where they belong"
actually no. In Scandinavian countries, in particular, have achieved high levels of economic growth and stability, and yet the influence of religion there is in a steep decline, perhaps the lowest in recorded history. Coincidence of not, those countries also rank among the world's happiest populations.in the Netherlands' Erasmus University Rotterdams' annual World Database of Happiness the same Northern European countries that score low in religiosity rank high in reported levels of happiness (U.S. ranked 27th.)
perception of religion being bad is the conflicting views on God or deity, which causes turmoil and hate.
I agree. I'd add that all government and religious conflict is based on the problem of authority. Most would agree that serving the "greater good" is ideal, but since we don't all agree on what serves the greater good or much less how to define the greater good, we are stuck in the crossfire of competing ideologies that almost universally regard violence as a tool that serves their concept of greater good. Unfortunately for us, so far authoritarian structures prevail. If government based on the consent of the governed ever becomes the norm, I'll be amazed.
I don't think that all religious and political conflict is out of interest for the "greater good," i think it's often and perhaps more frequently motivated by self-interest, hatred, and the ideals of a brainwashed mind. Do you think that those old frauds in the Vatican sit around thinking of ways to serve the "greater good," or do you think they sit around figuring out how to maintain or improve their own status and, if full social regression isn't possible, at least maintain the status quot? And i think that politicians are more interested in their careers and in garnering public support than in actually doing whatever they consider to be the "greater good."
.... so much so that it no longer includes any attempt to great the good for anyone but themselves? At which point it kind of ceases to be the greater good and becomes instead self interest?
Religion is great! For individuals, I mean. For the world, well, it really just depends on how you spin it. People who use religion as a weapon are pretty fucked up and probably deserve only the worst the world can offer.
But even to such a thing that's brought so much hate from the intellectual community, it serves a pretty nice little purpose that I like to keep repeating because it seems pretty relevant: Religion gives people hope. Seems kinda dumb or cheesy, I know, but really, you want some pessimists, you get a group of people together who have no reason to believe anything will get any better and see what happens. You give them a religion, and suddenly? They have something to at least hope for, and believe it or not, it can help them, the delusion that is, get over all of the pessimistic attitudes they have. Plus, it gets rid of this really nasty problem of existential anxiety. Once people kind of lose that feeling well, they stop worrying about it and can get on with their lives.
It's a friggin' wonder drug. (And you don't even need a needle.)
Then why tell ourselves the truth? People don't want to believe that they've got nowhere to go when the end is nigh, and if they perform, feel, and act better when they have something to cling to, let them.
If people need to cling to spirituality for solace I've said before the are more than welcome to. I wouldn't do anything to stop them even if i could, and i dont think anyone else should try to stop them, either. But we've inflated religion up to ridiculous proportions, and the liberties it takes with other peoples freedom and human rights are unforgivable, as is the brainwashing of an unformed mind. If you're a spiritual person, you dont need religion, you don't need clergy or dogma, and counting yourself as a sheep in religions flock you do your part to enable and strengthen an institution that uses you to legitimize infringing on other peoples beliefs. That is why religious people need to be told the truth, not to strip them of spirituality or the "kingdom of heaven is within" kind of mentality, but to allow that mentality to bloom to the fullest possible extent.
I think you're describing the difference between spirituality and religion. And spirituality would be enriched if it wasn't contaminated with the hate, oppression, self-loathing, and submission of religion. To be a spiritually enlightened as you can be, i think the first thing you need to do is dump religion. Then you can have hope that has nothing to do with the celestial drama detailed in scripture, and hope free of clergy. If all that religion was and ever was was just a belief, i wouldn't have such a problem with it.
I'm not saying there's not much better alternatives. Personally I hold a few insane spiritual beliefs myself, but it's easier than the alternative or whatever. There are a lot of things in religion that I don't approve of, but I'd hope people would take what old books say with a grain of salt anyways.
You need a hug or something? Reality is beautiful, cause you're beautiful and so are other people. Don't let religion make you an idiot. Think for yourself and if life isn't that great without a god, then MAKE IT GREAT. Invent something to make people's lives easier.
religion is good if there would no religion then their would be no enjoyment in the life people would not be recognized religion is good for the world as god is 1 there no discrimination in cast or religion.
No discrimination? Have you not seen how Islam uses the holy war to promote violence? Have you not seen the hate towards homosexuals, atheist, and those of other religions? Religion is a Huge cause of hate and violence throughout the world. If you don't agree with their beliefs, then soon you'll be damning each other to the point where you now will fight and kill each other.
Well, I am actually an atheist, but, I feel myself leaning towards maybe. To me, religion is like someone's hope, you can't just stomp on it and say it's horrible and bad and disgusting. No, sometimes, it is that, sometimes people do go out and do crazy things for religion, but sometimes they don't. Sometimes, religion connects everyone, inspires everyone, and gives hope.
In your eyes. But is it a sun to not believe in the same thing that you do? If yes, are you not judging me for not following the same path you self righteously set out for yourself and then expected all to support you? Is it not a sin to judge? To not accept? Why is it that highly religious people do not practice what they preach?
without religion there really is nothing to separate who we really are whats the point of being someone if you don't have your own beliefs about things there's no point in it i say without religion there is no life worth living/.
Religion is not "bad." the depths people go to FOR their religion IS bad. Some religions try to force their way into everybody's everyday life. for instance Christians against gay marriage. You religion should be just that YOUR religion. you can follow the words of whatever book you wish. that shouldn't mean that everybody else has to live the same way you do. that reasoning led to war, mass genocide, and the killing or suicides of many. Religion can also be a good thing. It can unite otherwise completely different people and keep them within the compounds of morality.
“I believe that religion has been overwhelmingly beneficial to humanity. [Hitchens] is wrong. Yes, you can find atrocities. Yes, you can find modern, comfortable, bourgeois people feeling constrained by disapproval of Bible-quoting parents and so on. But these are minor compared to the limits placed on potentially primitive and barbaric behavior by this code. It’s absolute madness to say that the code of conduct that religion has taught has not been beneficial to humanity. It’s absurd—it’s absurd on the face of it.”
Yes since it serves as a guide to the lost and gives hope to the hopeless. Although its leaders are give trouble to the world, its teachings help humanity become more humane although one must not believe in everything they read in spiritual texts. Its fine to follow religion as long as it does not hurt anyone.
if there was no religion, there would be no equality.. every religion teaches equality... the reason for the current world being unequal is only that half of the people are atheist. The other half who have a religion, they dont follow it in a right way.. Religion is good if it is followed in the right way and without being tampered by people for their self need :)
However this is not based on a single thing in the Qur'an because then Muhammad would have killed the Muslims who were questioning him when he said he went to Jerusalem and back in one night.
One example is in one of the Qurar'an challenges to produce one chapter like the the Qur'an if you doubt it is divine, the Qur'an's recitation is so beautiful and the literature & pronouncitiaon is so complex that till now, not one has managed to produce a chapter like it. So beutiful that when the pagan leaders of the tribe of Quraysh heard that the recitation causes people to convert they decided to ban people hearing the recitation and called it "magic poetry". You may not be convinced but I am showing you that the Qur'an does not tell you to believe in God blindly.
Asking someone to write something is not encouraging criticism about the religion, and its effects on humanity.
The Dalai Lama once said that if science proved Buddhism wrong, then Buddhism would change to match the facts. I find this amazing, and see nothing of the sorts from any other religion.
I did not say it encourages criticism, the verse says that if you doubt then make a chapter like it. I don't really understand what your argument has to do with this. It basically does not say that I need you to be blind and not use logic to accept this religion.
Chuck's original post claimed that it taught blind faith. Encouraging someone to write something that meets or does not meet some arbitrary standards of writing is not 'not teaching blind faith'. Banning any opinions that differ from yours (me saying Islam is false is illegal here), and following with pure devotion something when its truth is questionable - I mean it is simply up for question, I'm not saying it's false - seems somewhat blind.
The very definition of faith, which you will not deny you have, is blind. I have a somewhat blind faith is Atheism. All I'm saying is that there are no hard facts when it comes to religion (or lack of), everyone who takes a side does not know if they are correct.
True, I don't think that any religion or belief is completely rational. Socrates first made famous the idea that 'we know nothing'.
That's why I don't call any religion 'stupid', and always make sure I justify my belief in Atheism. There's lots of information, and all you can do is look at it all and make a rational decision. And that's why I dislike it when anything seeks to make itself be seen as fact, or calls for others to ignore evidence.
i believe that the world has no need for religion we all could use some standard of morals but no one needs someone man or woman telling them they are living their life incorrectly.
The problem with that is. Who will decide what is good and what is bad? In Nazi Germany, it was good to kill Jews. It is a known fact that if you believe in a set of rules are ordained by God, you will immoral breaking them.
Religion doesn't teach you morals, it teaches you submission and obedience, like a dog. All your morals were handed to you on a silver platter, no thinking required, and you abide by those set rules not necessarily because you actually believe them, but because you're afraid not to. Its the classic reward/punishment trick that we use to train animals, which is why it's worked so well with most of humanity.
And besides, religious morality is something of an oxymoron. You have to pick and choose from scripture just to have a system of belief that can somewhat integrate into civilized culture; if you followed the madness in scripture without compromise or question, you would shortly find yourself in prison for a hate crime. Unless you live in Saudi Arabia, that is.
Funny you would pick on the Nazi morality when it was the Catholic church's centuries long religious campaign of Jew hatred that allowed the Holocaust to happen, and caused so much of Europe to stand by and let it happen. And Hitler was a Catholic, if that counts for anything in this argument.
And besides, religious morality is something of an oxymoron. You have to pick and choose from scripture just to have a system of belief that can somewhat integrate into civilized culture; if you followed the madness in scripture without compromise or question, you would shortly find yourself in prison for a hate crime.
I wasnt discussing why Hitler hated Jews. I was discussing why Europe was predisposed to agree with him in his hatred, or at least not to get in the way. Religion.
Yes, I've also noticed religious people see the tiniest flaw in an argument, even if it's unrelated to the rest of your point and they attack only that, as if that would bring down your logic.
I think the main reason for all the the wars,discrimination,harassment and differences is war.RELIGION SHOULD BE BANNED.it was startd with a gud cause to unite the world and create a link between god to bring peace to mind but has gone in the exactly opposite direction!!!!!
That is so fascistic. Most of the "religious wars" are mostly related with politics. Do you know why the pope started the crusades? To get land, and he lied to his people about what he wants, all the pope wanted was land and power. See how that "holy war" was political.
Since it's creation and first implementation religion has been used as a social and political (though not quite in the same context as today) tool, home of true believers, fanatics, and parasitic lying con-men. I don't agree with the post you're disputing, but to imply that religious and political motivation are or have been separate is foolish. Look at religions' role in determining laws around the world, and how it has been and still is a driving force in much of politics. The crusades and past holy wars were politically inclined, but they were also motivated and, more importantly, enabled by religion.
Nope not separate but they like to find something they can base their evil ideology on, religion. But that suggestion he gave was very fascistic. Even if you ban religion, that still won't help because the evil itself in people is still there. For example, SUPPOSE a religion was evil, someone would choose it because it matches their evil.
I would have to agree that someones interpretation of scripture says more about them than about their scripture; people sometimes choose and conform their religion based on their ideology, and not the other way around. And I by no means support any ban on religion, i think the best way to be rid of religion is to allow full religious freedom and freedom from religion. But the fact that evil people take refuge in scripture and religion and find solace there doesn't endear religion, and it doesn't do much to negate religions evil predisposition.
Religion has been a HUGE cause and a motivation for violence. Look at the crusades, and let's not forget the hate and discrimination against homosexuals, atheist, and everyone who are of other religions.
Religion was made by men as a tool for controlling other men. To it's credit, in ancient history religion had a role to play in uniting and motivating humanity to move forward, but shortly thereafter religion because less interested in progress and more interested in the status-quot by any means. This includes contributing to the suppression of freedom and the spreading of ignorance. Religion has served it's purpose and overstayed it's welcome and has become a burden on society, dragging us down. For these reasons, today, religion is bad for the the world.
Keep in mind this is religion we're talking about, not spirituality, or even faith.
It might be an enlightening exercise for you to replace the word "religion" in your argument with "government". I think the way you view religion could use some refining. Religion is foundational to major human ideological endeavors that span generations, such as language and science.
It might be an enlightening exercise for you to replace the word "religion" in your argument with "government
Open up a new debate. All criticism of government is completely welcome.
Religion is foundational to major human ideological endeavors that span generations, such as language and science.
But it doesn't have to be, and, in fact, those ideological endeavors might be met with more success if they weren't perceived from the warped viewpoint of a religious fanatic. Science can be bought, but is fundamentally less biased concept than religion. I don't think i need to say language is a more essential part of our existence than religion.
Individuals who realized that working together for common interests was beneficial formed the first government and the first religion and the first society and the first language. You can't change that this is how it went down. You can't change this truth. You can't change that the all these concepts, including science are inexorably related if not fundamentally indistinguishable. They are branches of the same tree.
I think "working together for the common interests" is a light and obscure assertion as to the the motives and predispositions of the very first people who originally set these things up, but hey, I wasn't there, so i wouldn't know. Even having heard it from someone who knows, i find it hard to swallow such a sugar coated line. Historically religion has been more interested in "making other people work together for self-interest," though, again, unlike you, I cant assuredly attest to the genesis of religion. I think the description "working together" hits the nail on the head for society, but government is generally a means of implementing laws through control and language is communication.
You can't change that the all these concepts, including science are inexorably related if not fundamentally indistinguishable. They are branches of the same tree.
If the tree is a tree of concepts of humanity, I agree, but the branches are not indistinguishable. Yes, at their core, all of these ideas have the human element, and i never claimed otherwise. And I'm not trying to debate origins because the point of this debate is to figure out if religion is good or bad for the world, today. But you are trying to equate length of existence and depth of belief in the populace with relevance and need. That's like saying that because you've had cancer since you were five, there's really no point in treating it or removing it because its been around with you forever, and it's really become a defining element of your personality, the fact that you have cancer.
If we manage to live long enough without blowing ourselves up, i think gradual enlightenment of humanity will cause religion to die a death of acute embarrassment; this does not mean that people will no longer have beliefs about things, it means that those beliefs will no longer needed to be policed and enforced by clerical fascists, and that those beliefs will no longer need to rely on faith that defies evidence and reason.
I think "working together for the common interests" is a light and obscure assertion as to the the motives and predispositions of the very first people who originally set these things up, but hey, I wasn't there, so i wouldn't know.
You don't have to have been there to understand that the origins of communal behavior is common interest.
Even having heard it from someone who knows, i find it hard to swallow such a sugar coated line. Historically religion has been more interested in "making other people work together for self-interest," though, again, unlike you, I cant assuredly attest to the genesis of religion.
I suppose that without a logical basis for your understanding of religion you shouldn't assuredly attest to anything about religion. Your statement starting with "Historically religion has been more interested in" illustrates that you are comfortable using the term in an illogical manner. People can "be interested in X" religion cannot.
I think the description "working together" hits the nail on the head for society, but government is generally a means of implementing laws through control and language is communication.
All three entail people working together willingly.
If the tree is a tree of concepts of humanity, I agree, but the branches are not indistinguishable.
Well since I think science refines religion and by no means negates it, I am curious to read an explanation from you of why I should think otherwise.
Yes, at their core, all of these ideas have the human element, and i never claimed otherwise.
They are also all belief/value system oriented.
And I'm not trying to debate origins because the point of this debate is to figure out if religion is good or bad for the world, today.
But the question is as pointless as asking if human thought is good or bad for the world today. Addressing specific lines of thinking makes a whole lot more sense than trying to evaluate thinking in general. How many different ways do I have to put it for you to make the connection that criticizing religion in general is an exercise in futility?
But you are trying to equate length of existence and depth of belief in the populace with relevance and need. That's like saying that because you've had cancer since you were five, there's really no point in treating it or removing it because its been around with you forever, and it's really become a defining element of your personality, the fact that you have cancer.
You misunderstand me. I view religion as an inexorable function of the human condition. To suggest doing away with religion is like suggesting the brain be removed when someone has a headache. After all thats where the problem is.
If we manage to live long enough without blowing ourselves up, i think gradual enlightenment of humanity will cause religion to die a death of acute embarrassment
With gradual enlightenment, religion will simply evolve to be less rife with delusional thinking, it won't "die a death". I share your faith however that acute embarrassment can affect some much needed changes.
it means that those beliefs will no longer needed to be policed and enforced by clerical fascists, and that those beliefs will no longer need to rely on faith that defies evidence and reason.
If these "clerical fascists" (even those who are thought of as secular) lose their lofty status, and rigorous reasoning takes the place of passive listening to lectures and parroting cheap talking points like "religion is bad" we'll be onto something.
I suppose that without a logical basis for your understanding of religion you shouldn't assuredly attest to anything about religion. Your statement starting with "Historically religion has been more interested in" illustrates that you are comfortable using the term in an illogical manner. People can "be interested in X" religion cannot.
Pardon the expression, but for Christs sake, man. If i said "the White House said today in a memo blah blah blah," i wouldn't expect you to point out that the White House cant talk, i would expect you to understand that i am referencing the actions of the people in or having to to with the building, not the building itself. And to then use my figure of speech against me as "illogical" and therefore con conclude that i shouldn't attest to anything about religion because of it is, once again, a cheap shot.
All three entail people working together willingly.
Not necessarily, but as much so to everything else of humanity. Reducing a concept or idea down it a fundamental component of it and then trying to call it the same as another idea you've found a similar component in might be technically correct, but, especially when splitting hairs, i think i would better serve our purpose to look at government as the organization, machinery, or agency through which a political unit exercises authority and performs functions, religion as the service and worship of God or the supernatural, commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance, and language as the words, their pronunciation, and the methods of combining them used and understood by a community.This, opposed to deciding that because they all have people in them they are somehow completely indistinguishable. I think you're arguing from a point where language no longer means anything.
But the question is as pointless as asking if human thought is good or bad for the world today. Addressing specific lines of thinking makes a whole lot more sense than trying to evaluate thinking in general. How many different ways do I have to put it for you to make the connection that criticizing religion in general is an exercise in futility?
Probably about as many different ways as i need to lay it out for you that it's not. But that's rather a stupid question, you're just drawing attention to the fact that we disagree and insinuating that it's the fault of some sort of an understanding disorder on my part that we haven't resolved anything yet. Don't you think i feel the same way about you? Would saying so help anything?
Religion is not as unavoidable or essential as thinking. A world without religion is entirely plausible, a world without thinking is a little harder to imagine.
You misunderstand me. I view religion as an inexorable function of the human condition.
Okay, but i am 100% without religion, yet i still seem to be here, functioning. I have beliefs and opinions and views on things, but none of them could be called religious. If religion is an absolutely necessary and irrevocable part of the human condition, how can i be without it? And what's to stop the whole world from ending up like me, and like so many other people who are without religion?
And you also seem to be making to separate points, one that we cant remove religion and the other that we cant criticize it. I disagree on both counts, but especially the latter, particularly because i don't think that anything is above criticism, because i think that questions like "is government bad for the world?" are entirely valid. And religion is less essential than government, so follows criticizing it, and perhaps even imagining a world without it.
With gradual enlightenment, religion will simply evolve to be less rife with delusional thinking
But then it wouldn't be religion. For me the defining difference between systems of values/beliefs, as you've often put it, and religion is the nonsense factor. At the point where you no longer have to base your values/beliefs on dogma/faith, religion no longer has any place. Spirituality, maybe, but not organized religion.
Pardon the expression, but for Christs sake, man. If i said "the White House said today in a memo blah blah blah," i wouldn't expect you to point out that the White House cant talk, i would expect you to understand that i am referencing the actions of the people in or having to to with the building, not the building itself.
The white house has a designated spokesperson, and so do specific religious sects. Religion does not have a spokesperson.
And to then use my figure of speech against me as "illogical" and therefore con conclude that i shouldn't attest to anything about religion because of it is, once again, a cheap shot.
As for your figure of speech being illogical, see my response above. Plus I'll address the distinction you try to make between government and religion below.
Not necessarily, but as much so to everything else of humanity.
Religion, Government, Language and Science necessarily require willful communal activity to exist. They are all based on agreements between people. Always. So yes necessarily.
i think i would better serve our purpose to look at government as the organization, machinery, or agency through which a political unit exercises authority and performs functions
There are several such systems that "political units" use to exercise authority, some are called governments, others are called religions. Both are fashioned for the purpose of affecting what is deemed by the "political unit" to be desirable human behavior.
religion as the service and worship of God or the supernatural, commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
If you want to argue against superstitions, I'm your ally. If you want to stereotype and claim that religion must by it's very nature be based on superstition, I'll argue against your over-generalization because religions exist that aren't. I think it would serve our purpose better to realize that everyone has their own individualized religion. This is easy to do if you view religion as a belief/value system. It's also mighty conducive for getting people to stop stereotyping one another based on a label. I think the chances of having progressive conversations are a whole lot better if the participants respect that despite a label like Christian, Muslim or Atheist we can learn from those with differing beliefs if we approach the conversation with curiosity as opposed to prejudice.
language as the words, their pronunciation, and the methods of combining them used and understood by a community. This, opposed to deciding that because they all have people in them they are somehow completely indistinguishable.
I never claimed language was indistinguishable from what religion and government is. I did claim that government and religion were fundamentally (not completely) indistinguishable, but I remain open to hear a logical distinction between what government and religion is. Name something that religion does not have in common with government.
I think you're arguing from a point where language no longer means anything.
I think the difference between what government is and what religion is only in how they are spelled. It would be neat to be convinced otherwise.
But that's rather a stupid question, you're just drawing attention to the fact that we disagree and insinuating that it's the fault of some sort of an understanding disorder on my part that we haven't resolved anything yet. Don't you think i feel the same way about you? Would saying so help anything?
Good point. I hope you will still engage me in good faith. I do try not to use those disturbingly effective tools of rhetoric (first at least)
A world without religion is entirely plausible
I hope by now you understand why I disagree. Now, according to how you have explained your understanding of religion, you seem to think it's synonymous with superstition. I am not sure if delusional thinking can be completely irradiated, but I do have faith that with a robust application of logical reasoning we could make great headway.
a world without thinking is a little harder to imagine.
LOL
Okay, but i am 100% without religion, yet i still seem to be here, functioning. I have beliefs and opinions and views on things, but none of them could be called religious. If religion is an absolutely necessary and irrevocable part of the human condition, how can i be without it? And what's to stop the whole world from ending up like me, and like so many other people who are without religion?
According to how you have defined religion to me, that reads like "I am free from all forms of delusional thinking" If you think that, I hope I can at least plant a seed of doubt.
And you also seem to be making to separate points, one that we cant remove religion and the other that we cant criticize it.
You can criticize a religion but not religion in general.
i don't think that anything is above criticism
Good. Then you'll be able to deal with the erroneous conclusions you have come to about what religion is.
i think that questions like "is government bad for the world?" are entirely valid.
I'll convince you otherwise if I can.
For me the defining difference between systems of values/beliefs, as you've often put it, and religion is the nonsense factor.
So once you have purged all poorly founded nonsense from your system of beliefs, you think your belief system isn't religious anymore.?..OK
At the point where you no longer have to base your values/beliefs on dogma/faith, religion no longer has any place.
...I think you have the intellectual equivalents of dogma and faith whether you recognize it or not.
The white house has a designated spokesperson, and so do specific religious sects.
A bad example, perhaps, because the white house does have a spokesperson, but it still doesn't negate the fact that i was using a figure of speech, and using it does not make me illogical.
They are all based on agreements between people. Always. So yes necessarily.
I didn't know you were arguing "based on" as opposed to "required." Not all those things require agreements between all the people they involve to function, but i suppose they would have all been impossible to found without agreements.
There are several such systems that "political units" use to exercise authority, some are called governments, others are called religions. Both are fashioned for the purpose of affecting what is deemed by the "political unit" to be desirable human behavior.
I lifted the definitions from a dictionary. Concisely describing any concept as vast as government requires some level of generalization. Again, all i see here is you picking apart the language until it doesn't mean anything anymore. You wouldn't fail to differentiate between you and me, and, indeed, fail to recognize the fact that we are separate people just because we are both fundamentally similar as human beings (or almost identical).
If you want to argue against superstitions, I'm your ally. If you want to stereotype and claim that religion must by it's very nature be based on superstition, I'll argue against your over-generalization because religions exist that aren't.
Superstitions would fit well in the religious definition, but you brought that up, not me. When a system of belief has to do with God, the supernatural, submission, servitude, worship, faith, dogma, magic, and all the other things religion is generally defined by, that is what makes those beliefs religious. If your beliefs are lacking in some appropriate variation of those elements, you beliefs go by some other name, like political beliefs or moral beliefs or what have you.
In regards to the inevitable generalization that comes with putting a timely group of words to massive concept, by and large religious beliefs are colored by the aforementioned elements; it's what makes them religious beliefs. You might be able to find me a notable exception (you'd be the first), but i don't see how the world wouldn't be better for being rid of those elements.
This is easy to do if you view religion as a belief/value system.
Here's a bit i posted for you and you didnt reply to, i think it's relevant here:
I think perhaps we should back up here and i should ask you what you think religion means. When i think of religion i think of faith and/or organized religion, fair and accurate interpretations, i think, whereas you seem to use 'religion' and 'belief system' interchangeably, also a fair interpretation, but one with a different connotation.
Because i see religion as faith (unexamined belief that defies reason) and clergy (humanity's headlice) i think this colors my opinion that religion is bad for the world because i think faith is more of a curse than a virtue, and clergy exist for the benefit and empowerment of clergy, a cause i cant stand behind.
But addressing how you seem to see religion - it seems to me that all religion is a system of belief but not all systems of belief are religious. Wouldn't it therefore be possible for humanity to retain systems of belief while also ditching religion? To still have ideals regarding morality, politics, and ideological pursuits while also being bereft of scripture, religious oppression, clergy, temples, worship, and submission?
we can learn from those with differing beliefs if we approach the conversation with curiosity as opposed to prejudice.
I think it's only natural to draw conclusions based on what we've seen and experienced, and most of what I've learned has appalled me. But I'm still a rather open minded individual, especially compared to other people on this site (not a jab at you, there are some real ignoramuses here); i do listen to and consider opposing viewpoints. I still take time out to read scripture in lieu of evidence even though i have been sorely disappointed every time. I trawl across religious propaganda websites people source, really trying to look for the substance of the argument even though I've never found any. I still ask questions. I think it's possible to think religion is bad for the world while still retaining an open mind on the subject. Opinions change.
Name something that religion does not have in common with government.
the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
If you have to define two similar things, it follows that you have to point out the differences, slight though they may be. I'll give you that the textbook definitions of religion and government are very similar. But it is the differences that set them apart, and those. Again, you and me. We both have eyes, ears, arms, legs, hair, the lot (presumably); we're both human beings. But what makes you you and me me is the few things we don't have in common.
According to how you have defined religion to me, that reads like "I am free from all forms of delusional thinking" If you think that, I hope I can at least plant a seed of doubt.
And according to how you define religion is is synonyms with 'belief system.' This is correct, but too vague. Someone can have a belief system free of magic-hocus-pocus and all the rest, but if someone's system of belief includes those things it is a religious system of belief. Not having those things might make those beliefs instead philosophical or political, or even spiritual.
You can criticize a religion but not religion in general.
Why?
I'll convince you otherwise if I can.
Sure. Tell me why i cant question government, either.
So once you have purged all poorly founded nonsense from your system of beliefs, you think your belief system isn't religious anymore.?..OK
If you look at the definition of religion and cross off poorly founded nonsense from the description, you now have the definition of a different word. I dont see how this is so irrational.
...I think you have the intellectual equivalents of dogma and faith whether you recognize it or not.
It is something i know and that's fine with me. It's the 'intellectual' part that makes it okay. Intellectual dogma is an oxymoron.
If these "clerical fascists" (even those who are thought of as secular) lose their lofty status, and rigorous reasoning takes the place of passive listening to lectures and parroting cheap talking points like "religion is bad" we'll be onto something.
Either you're referencing the passive listening to lectures given by clergy (in which case the parroted point would more likely be "religion is good"), or implying my thoughts and the thoughts of those like me regarding religion are the result of passive listening to lectures. Im not sure which one you're going for, here, but if it's the second I'd be interested to hear you explain further.
Doubt it, those terrorits only use the religeon as a basis, they can find another one,,,,,,,,,,, think about it, if a religeon was evil, then the people following it should be evil but if you take religeon, they will stay evil because they chose that religeon because it fits their agenda.
The promise of an afterlife is often all the motivates religious terrorists, because they know that their views will likely earn them condemnation and death here on earth. And selling property in heaven requires clergy and religion, unfortunately. So while i can agree that some would-be terrorists would find another outlet, religion and fanatical religious hate crimes do go hand in hand, and you cant have one without the other.
I meant its impossible for religion to exist without religious hate crimes also existing. I know its quite possible to be religious without perpetrating hate crimes.
religion has taken over the nation, first off no one can prove that there is this such thing as god and second isn't America supposed to be a free country but then why is religion taken part in the Gay marriage thing uh can you answer that question, i dont find anything to be wrong with them to be happy they are human beings just like everyone else there is nothing different about them. religion should not have been created in the first place and thats why i am a proud Atheist :)
What do you mean by religious? That you except everything to be divine? That would be dumb, but that is like calling some of the greatest pioneers in physics dumb.
If you follow the scientific method, you cannot be religious.
If you use it not just for your job, but if you actually have an interest in science, if you actually do enjoying knowing things, not based on superstition or authority, then the scientific method will get you the truth.
It's not some magic tool like religious people want to think it is. They want to think science is evil, or a tool to destroy god.
It is not. It is a tool to find things out based on observation. Black holes can never be seen, yet we still know they exist. Interesting? God also can't be seen, but we can't know it exists. Why? There is no theory behind a god. God is mythology invented by humans, and is not true. The Bible, Koran and Torah, straight from page 1 is completely factually inaccurate. Calling it a book of parables and moral stories is not acceptable. There are too many violent rules, and too many other sources of good morals in other books to want to use a religious book in this way.
Harry Potter teaches courage and friendship and never giving up. All current monotheistic religions, mainly Christianity and Islam teach obedience to authority and that they have a divine right to rule the world. An insane and dangerous philosophy that leads only to violence.
Religion in itself is a good idea but to see what people do or say in the name of religion shows how humans have a power complex wether you're catholic, muslim or even buddhist. Some people have this tendency of imposing their religious views on others which is dangerous because they only make it divisive instead of inclusive due to the many rules a religion has. In conclusion, religion would be a good idea if people were less ethnocentric, less intolerant and more inclusive. Human as shown the contrary over and over again, so religion makes it good for others and make it bad for others especially those who'll be ridiculed, beaten or even killed in the name of a notion a religion has wether your a jewish, catholic or even a muslim.
Religion is VERY bad. I remember something about "dark ages", weren't that caused by religion? If I remember correctly then during that time there was pretty much ZERO scientific development and it lasted about 1000 years. If there had not been religion, humanity and science would be so much more advanced.
Then there were the wars caused by religion, the pointless and brainless killing of anyone who did not see eye to eye with the killers.
Not to mention that religion, basically, rules out everything else that is not the same religion, at least that is how it was and still is on some degree. Thus keeping people blind and very stupid.
If you are smart you keep yourself away from religion, cut it out from your life completely. Unless you are, in some form, fighting against it or just opposing it, as every sane human should. After all, it is 21st century, time for crap like religion to go.
Yes, back in the times of ancient Greece and Rome, even Egypt, because there were so many different gods, you could easily have NOT worshiped the god of war, or a god of harvest, but instead a god of magic or knowledge.
This means a person who enjoyed philosophy wouldn't be looked down on as a heretic, because his belief in a god, even if it's only a symbolic belief (Judged by actions, not by belief), would mean people could expect him to be a good person even if he wasn't super devout.
Now, you NEED to worship a certain god, and you NEED to do it in a certain way. There are no choices, you either obey that certain god, or you are sent to hell.
Back when Yahweh was first invented, he actually started as a god of war. He was never the god of creation, he was always the god of war. Marduk was the god of creation.
The corruption that religious people want you to believe is horrifying and a self propagating tale of fear, ignorance and submission.
I think if anything religion encourages people to learn less about more logical and truth bearing evidence, as well as distorting their perception of reality and science; that is very bad indeed. It subordinates them by giving information/morals/etc. on a "silver platter" so that all the questions are answered with quick, easily understood answers; it satisfies their curiosity and mentally conditions them to not want to think and learn more, especially when those thoughts oppose those that their religion relentlessly supports and supplies.
Religion ruins so much. And as an example of why I dislike highly religious people, christianity is based on faith, acceptance , and love. But they judge you and tell you you are going to hell for not believing the same as they do. Hypocritical, and rude. Not positive impact of the world if you ask me.
Not every Christian is like that you know, only the narrow-minded ones. Christians also value respect to others and engage in charity which help people in need. In my country religion has helped people find homes, food, and education.
It is responsible for nearly all acts of terror, selfishness, greed, war and everything else that lead people to HATE! One person believes one thing, and instant;y goes against a perfectly good man because his ideas aren't the same as theirs. It causes brutality, animal cruelty and brainwashing. I have read parts of the Q'aran and it is total mind control.
First of all, you spelled Qur'an wrong and as a Muslim, I don't really think you read the Qur'an because if you actually did you will see that is not a total mind control. but hey it's your opinion choose whatever you will like to believe in.
Religion separates people. Religion gives morals, but it takes choices away. You are "forced" to view issues with such a biased point of view that your choices become radical and stupid. Religion is submission. You give up choices and freedom to worship a fictional character. Religion was created by leaders. It conforted their people. Religion is corrupt. It takes in poor souls and rots them.
Religion can have both positive and negative effect.
A positive effect -that religion can have on society is its support for those in financial or emotional need. This support is available from non-religious sources, but the organisation and focus of most religions enables them to contribute more readily than less well resourced and less well organised parties.
A negative effect that religion can have on society is often an increase in intolerance of diversity and of other beliefs. This can result in prejudice, overt persecution and even war.
I think religion can be good in moderation, but there are some people who are all "Up-in-your-face about it"! Then tere are the nice " I go to church every sunday, but if i miss one who cares. And im not gonna tell anyone else what they should believe!" people... The we got the terrorists, The Alkida, Bin Laden, Spongebob, Hitler who are all up in your twin towers about it and thoose people just make me angry!
religious text can be interpreted in many ways. so it can do more harm than good. if a country like china can prosper without religion and become the second largest economy in the world, then why not others.
Religion is not a natural thing. Faith, belief, and the need for and love of something greater than yourself is basic human nature, and throughout history religion has fed off of this basic principle to create hatred where love should be and pit people against each other. No two people believe exactly the same thing, even within the same religious group, and it is wrong to try to mold anyone's faith to fit in a box.
religion was created to establish morality in behavior. this was done through fear and intimidation techniques. today's society understands (for the most part, whether they want to agree or not) what the limitations of societies rules are, and we are more technologically advanced so that questions of morality are no longer weighed as "sin" but as legal/illegal, good for society/bad for society, etc. Today we have the ability to reason, along with the science to understand our world around us. We no longer have a need for religion, and it's continual brainwashing of the weak minded does nothing but weaken the world, keep us at war with each other, and prevent us from advancing the human race as a whole.
Religion creates a barrier between people of today to the point of were we cant go forward in science community and it keeps us from fixing the word big problems.
actually, i am Jewish but i would really say more Spiritual and not religious. i am for Spirituality rather than organized religion. i adore my belief system and the philosophy of Judaism and stand for Israel but religion in general? MORE PEOPLE HAVE DIED IN THE NAME OF RELIGION THAN IN ALL WARS PUT TOGETHER. IT IS A DOCUMENTED FACT. THE IGNORANT CRUSADES KILLED MILLIONS OF JEWS AND OTHERS OF OTHER BELIEF SYSTEMS WHO WOULD NOT CONVERT. THEY BURNED THEM ALIVE. WHAT A GREAT RELIGION CATHOLICISM WAS THEN HUH? AND CHRISTIANS FOR THE MOST PART THINK EVERYONE SHOULD CONVERT OR THEY ARE GOING TO HELL. WELL I'M A PSYCHIC AND HERE TO TELL YOU THAT YOU CREATE YOUR OWN HELL ACCORDING TO YOUR SPIRITUAL EVOLUTION. THERE ARE LEVELS OF EVOLUTION. YOU DON'T EVEN NEED TO BELIEVE IN A GOD I DON'T THINK. BUT IT IS NECESSARY TO BELIEVE IN ANIMAL PROTECTION AND UNCONDITIONAL LOVE TOWARDS ALL KIND. THAT INCLUDES ANIMALS NOT JUST DIFFERENT RACES OF MAN. AND HEY! WHY... JUST WHY? IS IT MAN KIND? BECAUSE MEN, YES MEN! DEVELOPED WAR! WOMEN WOULD OF HAD NONE OF IT! :-) !!! WE COULD OF TALKED IT OUT OR TAKEN THE BAD ONES OUT AND ELIMINATED THE ROTTEN IDEAS ALL TOGETHER. :-)
