Does Religion benefit?

[pureprayer]

Read the thread before posting.

 

 

 

This thread is about religion and benefiting.(im only using Christianity as an example this is about all religions) Many religions like Christianity have rules they have to follow. Buddhists are very serene and dont kill alot of people.

 

 

 

This thread is about does religion benefit general society because if there were no religions wouldent there be more crimes and terrorists? Although there are religions where they capture people and drain their blood and drink it and sacrifice them... if we exclude them do religions benefit this world?

[redhaloguy]

Hope?

 

 

 

I'm stumped really.

[ElkNight]

It can benefit in some ways I guess, but it can also hurts a lot. Just an example of something bad would be the crusades or other "holy wars".

 

I dont know if I'm exactly talking about what you want. :?

[Nenga]

Religion sets your moral standards usually. Whatever religion dominates your area, will turn into societies standards. In some cases it's great, in some cases it's really bad. Then it offers explanation for our most mysterious things.

[venomai]

The main problem I see with religion is that it teaches a set of "absolute truths" that are expected to remain fixed over time. Our understanding of life is always changing, and with it so should our belief systems.

 

 

 

Of course, not all religions are like this.

 

 

 

"Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it."

 

Hindu Prince Gautama Siddharta, the founder of Buddhism, 563-483 B.C.

[Giordano]

As great as a question as "Muslim radicalls: justified or not?". :wall:

 

 

 

I like having a set of common moral guidelines with several people around me. I'm sure most of you do as well. Anyone who says the "Survival of the fittest" crap won't last a day under their "system".

[Rebdragon]

Net? Ya, I'd say so.

[jemathonical]

Religion has given us rules which determine what is right or wrong. It has benefited society a heap. Without it we'd have nothing to live by (so to speak)

[i_love_burritos]

As a whole, yes.

 

But people must really stop looking at religion in the "set in stone", Christian Republican way. (Wow, lethal combination)

 

 

 

a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.

 

b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.

 

2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.

 

3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.

 

4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

 

 

 

 

That is the "dictionary" defintion of "religion".

 

Look at (3), and (4). Three, why does it have to be a religious "leader",

 

Sure, for Christian's there is Christ and for Buddhists there is Buddha.

 

But why can't we define religion as simply (4)

 

 

 

Religion in my view is best described as a execution of your duty, through reason and logic.

 

However this can be changed and influence by "Society", as the moral and ethical norms are just what "society" deems acceptable.

 

 

 

Without it we'd have nothing to live by

 

 

 

No.

 

Moral and Ethics do not just stem from a select few individuals.

 

Everyone, has the concept of justice and injustice, right and wrong.

 

Distinguishing between them, and following the correct course of action is religion.

[Chicken102]

It can benefit societies morales, for example, I'm an atheist, but I go to a christian school, due to my beliefs that christian morales are good to live by.

 

 

 

But at the same time, i feel that some religions can hinder people therefore hindering society. For example, if someone is born into a private religious family (I'm sorry, I've forgotten their exact name), and therefore has little outside contact, is secluded from an early age, and home skilled, that person, who for all we know could be the next Bill Gates or Isaac Newton is now extremely anti-social and secluded therefore hindering his potential.

[warri0r45]

Despite some negatives it has had a benefit to humanity in terms of being a solid moral foundation. Moral principles seem to have an added weight when phrased under the banner of religion because its all there in one place and can be passed easily from parent to child. The nature of gods, prophets, etc, adds extra weight to the morals too, being seen as divine and unquestionable. Having said that, it seems that these properties also allow the justification of what would otherwise be considered morally wrong.

 

 

 

I think that a few societies these days are capable of existing and prospering while religion takes a back seat, but on the whole humanity just isnt ready to get rid of it completely. Added, I think the trend in some countries towards questioning conservative religious beliefs wont necessarily kill it off completely, but it will see more liberal forms of the religion take over.

 

 

 

Whatever form the theology takes, religion seems to be an inextricable part of the changing moral Zeitgeist.

[IGoddessI]

Yes and no.

 

 

 

It can be a cause of war, anger, death, horrible criticism, placing labels on people's heads, hypocrisy, an attraction to child abusers (being protected by the church), misuse from the mentally unstable, divide society, hatred, prejudice, judgment, bullying, protests, humility, unfair treatment towards minorities, humanitarian issues, excessive moral preaching and a lot of other horrible things.

 

 

 

It can also be the cause of bringing people together, love, appreciation, happiness within one self, trust that there is a plan, peace of mind when it comes to death, having faith, kindness to mankind, the art of forgiveness, life morals, lessons, some promote peace within the world, discipline within one's self, abide by the rules of society, less likely to use drugs or suffer from alcohol abuse and a lot of positive things.

 

 

 

Oh and some religions promote more negative than positive, some more positive than negative.

[thrash-boy]

This thread is about does religion benefit general society because if there were no religions wouldent there be more crimes and terrorists? Although there are religions where they capture people and drain their blood and drink it and sacrifice them... if we exclude them do religions benefit this world?

 

 

 

You would think their would be more terrorists, but it would probably be the opposite. Most terrorists commit there terrorism in the name of their god, its what they believe there religion needs them to do. These people are usually taking there religion to an extreme, but if there was no religion they would have nothing to take to an extreme.

 

 

 

Religion has given us rules which determine what is right or wrong. It has benefited society a heap. Without it we'd have nothing to live by (so to speak)

 

Hundreds of years ago yes, we didn't know jack about what made the sun rise in the morning. We could only imagine why, and most people eventually believed there was a god that made it rise. Over time anything humans couldn't explain (why are we here, the meaning of life, how do we exist, why does it rain etc) got attributed to this 'God'. It made people sleep easy at night thinking they knew the answer to these questions.

 

Eventually all the answers to these questions were compiled, in a book known as the bible.

 

Off course it probably didn't start with the sun rising question, no one knows what question it began with, it could have been any one of the un-answerable questions.

 

 

 

Today however it is a completely different story. Anyone who still believes what is right or wrong based from things in the bible needs to wake up (eg believes the sun rises because god wakes up, or believes it rains because god is crying. These particular examples probably wont be in the bible, they are just examples).

 

We have more evidence for the big bang then we do god, the big bang theory explains more questions than the god theory (which just raises more). It makes more sense to me that the universe is expanding because the bang is still in progress, not god is still growing or something stupid like that.

 

 

 

if people still want to believe god created whatever was here before the big bang, im fine with that. we have nothing to say otherwise. i do have a problem though with people who believe god makes the sun come up.

 

 

 

This is MY personal opinion, and im not saying im correct, but i do think people who strongly believe in god are those who have extremely little knowledge/understanding of science. the kind of people who are born and brought up in a strongly religious life, and are taught from day 1 that god is the answer to everything. it saddens me these kids are never given the story of science from someone who can deliver it properly (a science teacher), and are forced to believe the god story by their parents (or others) when they are too young to believe otherwise.

 

i believed in god when i was 5, because i was too young to be taught about complex (at that age) science theory's and facts that explain my questions otherwise. as i grew up, i learnt from school and other sources information that explained my questions (at least more than the god theory did anyway), and i finished believing in god (as it is in the bible).

 

 

 

the thing im against the most is people believing in the god theory souly because previous generations did. im not going to force my kids to believe in science, or believe in god. ill give them the facts and they can decide for themselves.

 

imo, if every new child born from today forward was taught like this, religion as we know it would be 100% gone within about 100 years (assuming drugs aren't invented to make people live 200 years). religion may still exist, but to explain questions like what started the big bang, not what makes the sun rise.

 

i believe not forcing kids into older versions of religion is vital.

 

 

 

as you can probably guess, im an atheist.

 

 

 

 

 

and finally, my answer to the OP'ers question:

 

 

 

Religion, in its current form, was a benefit until about 30 years ago. Religion may (and probably will) continue to be a benefit in the future, but not in its current form. Religion needs to change now, because its only making our world worse at the moment.

 

 

 

Im calling for a rewrite of the bible, one that says on the last page:

 

"and on the 7th day god initiated the Big Bang,

 

and life eventually evolved from the energy god

 

placed to explode. God then sat down and relaxed,

 

as he watched hes universe grow from the outside.

 

THE END".

 

 

 

last but not least, please stop making these god topics. nothing any atheist says is going to convert a believer, and nothing a believer says is going to convert an atheist. people decide what they are when they are young, unfortunately often convinced by peers/parents to believe in one side, and not getting their own choice.

[i_love_burritos]

Stop debating/arguing/preaching/ranting, about Christian (or any other religion) views of the world. We all know that the sun doesn't rise because

god wakes up, or believes it rains because god is crying

 

 

 

Instead of taking these (B/b)ooks literally, look for the real meaning of religion.

 

 

 

(By reading the posters above you)

[RichieMcD]

 

 

 

This thread is about does religion benefit general society because if there were no religions wouldent there be more crimes and terrorists? Although there are religions where they capture people and drain their blood and drink it and sacrifice them... if we exclude them do religions benefit this world?

 

 

 

A huge amount of terrorist groups operate on the basis of religions, Al-Qaeda or PIRA / RIRA being some of the most notable. Practically any terrorist group who originate from the middle east or parts of Northern Africa are based on Islam. Many of the Western world terrorist groups are more spread on liberation (ETA, PIRA / RIRA) but some do build some of their policies on religion and targeting other religions.

 

 

 

Religion is all well and good in theory, spreading happiness and charity. But in practice it leads to a lot of intolerance and forced opinions once you let the fundamentalists do the talking for you.

 

 

 

Terrorists group don't just pop up out of nowhere, and having everyone follow one religion isn't going to curb them.

 

 

 

Jem, religion is a minor influence on the laws compared to what everybody thinks. Our laws were built on the Roman laws, who created them before converting to a christian race and then perfected up to now today. If we built laws on religious rules there'd be no meat on fridays and attending mass would be compulsory.

[warri0r45]

Our laws were built on the Roman laws, who created them before converting to a christian race and then perfected up to now today.

 

 

 

Interesting you would bring this up. It's a pretty big fallacy when people say that western society is based on Christianity, considering moral principles like the golden rule were around centuries, even millennia before Christianity even existed. Greek philosophers like Plato and Socrates were among the people who wrote about it.

[i_love_burritos]

Greek philosophers like Plato and Socrates were among the people who wrote about it.

 

 

 

True, the "western" pre-classical era of though started with Greco-Roman schools of thought, the four pillars being Ethos, Logos, Pathos and Kudos.

 

However many Greek philosophers had deep rooted principals that stemmed from the east.

[Who]

Pascal's Wager.

 

 

 

Believe and if you are right, then happy afterlife, if you aren't right, then you got nothing to lose.

[Bauke]

Religion is the opiate for the people.

 

 

 

-Karl Marx.

[Lateralus]

Pascal's Wager.

 

 

 

Believe and if you are right, then happy afterlife, if you aren't right, then you got nothing to lose.

 

 

 

Pascal's Wager is a stupid argument. It supposes that you picked the correct god and that god rewards belief. Having 'nothing to lose' is laughable as well, given the obvious differences between believers and non-believers. Anyone who actually bases their decisions about the existence of god on Pascal's Wager is spineless.

[lobsta]

We do NOT get our morals from religious texts. Does religion benefit society? I must conceed that in some circumstances, it does - however, I think the damage it causes outweighs the good.

 

My opinion nicely summarised in a quote from Steven Weinberg, who was a physicist who won the nobel prize:

 

 

 

"Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing bad things, but for good people to do bad things, it takes religion.

[assassin_696]

I think it's very hard to assess whether or not religion has been of overall benefit to society. My hunch is that it hasn't, a lot of suffering has been caused by religion but I suspect that a lot of the good done might have been done without religion anyway. But there's no denying that religion can be of fantastic benefit to some people on an individual level (finding faith and hope) and on a larger scale through charities.

 

 

 

Basically, I think it'd be nice if people didn't need religion to do good things but as long as they are doing good things their motive doesn't particularly bother me.

[Lenticular_J]

Beneficial.

 

 

 

If it wasn't for the Catholic Church during the Middle Ages, the world would be nothing like it is today. I believe many of you forget what a hellhole Europe was after the fall of Rome. The Church was the one unifying entity. While of course we can criticize the actions of various Popes, Bishops, and Archbishops, we have the advantage of hindsight and a far better education. You must remember that next to nobody could read. Kings needed the Church, just so they could send someone to read to them.

 

 

 

You're all thinking in what I see as ridiculous terms. For one thing, it's painfully obvious none of you are religious, nor do you know particularly much about the history of even the Catholic Church. While I understand how common that is, I find it a bit silly that you'd bring up the historical value of religion.

 

 

 

Religion created entertainment. Dyonisus, I believe, the Greek god of wine, the harvest, and fertility. Religious festivals in his honor often had somewhat acting-like performances. And then, according to legend, one day Thespian stepped forward and spoke alone, the chorus full of his friends replying in turn.

 

 

 

Face it ya'll, religion has likely been one of the most powerful tools on the planet, if not the. I'm not one to say whether it's been used for good or bad. What, are we going to go through history and vote on what actions influenced by religion were good, and what were bad?

[Barihawk]

Religion stands as a natural order, a defense against lawlessness and the state of nature. I should point out a few fallacies in this thread.

 

 

 

I. Terrorists

 

 

You would think their would be more terrorists, but it would probably be the opposite. Most terrorists commit there terrorism in the name of their god, its what they believe there religion needs them to do. These people are usually taking there religion to an extreme, but if there was no religion they would have nothing to take to an extreme.

 

 

 

For one I think it's a shame that the word terrorist has been redefined after 9/11 into meaning simply an extreme religious fanatic. Terrorists have plagued the world for hundreds of years for multitudes of reasons, religion ONLY coming into the spotlight after September 11th. The IRA crisis does not truly represent a religious crusade, it is a political conflict that attempts rather poorly to use religion as a justification for violence.

 

 

 

If there was no religion, there would likely be no government. Period. Without a binding force (note that I am even including shamanistic local religions here) such as religion, people would not feel a basic unity to come together and create a government. We would exist in what philosophers called "state of nature" in which is pure basic anarchy. Humans could not even go to bed at night for fear of their throat being slit and their possessions being stolen. Hobbes would even go so far to say in today's world that terror and fear are part of human nature.

 

 

 

II. Violence

 

It can benefit in some ways I guess, but it can also hurts a lot. Just an example of something bad would be the crusades or other "holy wars"

 

 

 

I'm really sick of people bringing up the Crusades as a treatise against religion, Christianity in particular. Every major power has had corrupt individuals doing stupid things in the name of a higher force, and the Catholic Church got used like Al-Queda is using Islam today. The Crusades started a process that led to the Reformation and created a great number of sects in Christianity, all of which (including the Catholic Church) have rules and checks in place to prevent a disaster such as the Crusades from ever happening. The various Christian organizations are held accountable not only by their rules, other Christians, but their own people who are now educated to the point that they can think rationally (even if but a little).

 

 

 

As for Al-Queda, this is a purely political force using the less educated to do it's will. How about instead of telling these people they have no God, you spend time trying to convince them that what they do is an affront to their God. I think that would be more effective, particularly.

 

 

Religion sets your moral standards usually. Whatever religion dominates your area, will turn into societies standards. In some cases it's great, in some cases it's really bad. Then it offers explanation for our most mysterious things.

 

 

 

Smart words. Ethics->Mores->Laws.

 

 

 

The main problem I see with religion is that it teaches a set of "absolute truths" that are expected to remain fixed over time. Our understanding of life is always changing, and with it so should our belief systems.

 

 

 

I assume this is directed at Christianity/Judaism, in which case you are wrong. Look up the practice of theology. Christianity, at least, is a breathing practice that does adapt itself to the times and to recent scientific study of both itself, other religions, and the world God created for it. While certain truths in the Bible are set in stone, the interpretation of the Bible is constantly changing. That's why you have extremely conservative Christians, and extremely liberal Christians. And a VAST MAJORITY in between. The problem I find in debates like this is the incorrect stereotype that all Christians are backwards uneducated far-right-wing hillbillies who go out on gay lynchings and attend Westboro Baptist Church. It's very incorrect stereotyping. Most organized Christian organizations (say the Catholics, Methodists, Episcopalians, etc) have dedicated theologians and scholars constantly researching, studying, and debating on how religion of all kinds fits into the world.

 

 

 

I'd suggest you try to find a theological school near you and see if they have any open conferences coming up. Go there for a day and you will learn more about all religion than in a lifetime.

 

 

 

 

I like having a set of common moral guidelines with several people around me. I'm sure most of you do as well. Anyone who says the "Survival of the fittest" crap won't last a day under their "system".

 

 

 

See "state of nature" above. Again, at least in this sentence you are wise beyond your years.

 

 

 

But people must really stop looking at religion in the "set in stone", Christian Republican way. (Wow, lethal combination)

 

 

 

Again, Religion is not set in stone. Unless you follow Al-Queda in which case you are not following a religious order but just a sheep behind an educated nationalistic shepard. In this statement you not only use the far-right stereotype of Christians, but of Republicans as well. I am quite moderate but still call myself a Republican. It's not like we go out and pray in front of effigies of George W. Bush every night, you know.

 

 

 

Everyone, has the concept of justice and injustice, right and wrong.

 

 

 

Nearly every philosopher of the last thousand years calls BS on this sentence. Hence the need for government, or at least at the lowest levels, religion.

 

 

 

But at the same time, i feel that some religions can hinder people therefore hindering society. For example, if someone is born into a private religious family (I'm sorry, I've forgotten their exact name), and therefore has little outside contact, is secluded from an early age, and home skilled, that person, who for all we know could be the next Bill Gates or Isaac Newton is now extremely anti-social and secluded therefore hindering his potential.

 

 

 

See the last quotation in my signature, I agree with you. I'm thinking that you mean Amish or a similar sect, but I assure you that they are hardly "secluded." While they are raised to ignore technology as it is a corrupting influence against hard work and promotes laze. "Idle hands are Lucifer's workshop" is the saying. The Amish are not fearful of technology nor do they consider it a sin. They just prefer not to use it. Their theology also changes and more than a few attend national religious conferences. Also, they are hardly backwards. Visit an amish town and you will find houses that look like suburban America. The only difference being they have no electricity and were built purely by hand. That's the only difference. Inside it will look just like your house, if not nicer. So they use kerosene lamps instead of light bulbs.

 

 

 

It's also worth mentioning they operate higher educational opportunities by hiring professors (who can drive their cars right to the school) from other universities to come in and teach their children.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Added, I think the trend in some countries towards questioning conservative religious beliefs wont necessarily kill it off completely, but it will see more liberal forms of the religion take over.

 

 

 

A process that has been happening since the Reformation. Does this mean conservative religion will die? No. It just means that eventually it will adapt and catch up. It is good to have multiple forms of religion as they create "competition" much like capitalism. If you don't adapt you die. It makes for religions to analyze themselves and see how they can improve instead of holding the monopoly of the old Catholic Church.

 

 

 

This is MY personal opinion, and im not saying im correct, but i do think people who strongly believe in god are those who have extremely little knowledge/understanding of science. the kind of people who are born and brought up in a strongly religious life, and are taught from day 1 that god is the answer to everything. it saddens me these kids are never given the story of science from someone who can deliver it properly (a science teacher), and are forced to believe the god story by their parents (or others) when they are too young to believe otherwise.

 

i believed in god when i was 5, because i was too young to be taught about complex (at that age) science theory's and facts that explain my questions otherwise. as i grew up, i learnt from school and other sources information that explained my questions (at least more than the god theory did anyway), and i finished believing in god (as it is in the bible).

 

 

 

This saddens me. I am a devout Christian yet I am also actually well versed in all forms of science. And it shocks me that you say that not even knowing what science is. You equate it to simply physics and chemistry, or even biology. But science is ALL knowledge. History, politics, mathematics, all fall under science. Science is purely rational and methodical evaluation of the world around you. That's all it is. It's required by any human being who isn't a sheep. To quote Einstein (and the quote I asked someone above me to read) "Science without religion is lame (mute). Religion without science is blind." In the end, a balance between the two must be maintained. Those who purely believe in "science" or those who purely believe that God wakes up and the sun rises are idiots. For one thing, the Bible actually tells us why the sun rises as it describes (albeit briefly) that God set the heavens in motion. It isn't God who is doing this actively, he set the Universe in motion according to laws to automatically move and allign in a predetermined pattern.

 

 

 

I really urge you as I said before to find a theological school and go LISTEN. It's free and being Christians they will probably feed you a good meal, too. You will learn about the marriage of science and religion, which is something most "atheists" in these debates have been utterly blind to.

 

 

 

Im calling for a rewrite of the bible, one that says on the last page:

 

"and on the 7th day god initiated the Big Bang,

 

and life eventually evolved from the energy god

 

placed to explode. God then sat down and relaxed,

 

as he watched hes universe grow from the outside.

 

THE END".

 

 

 

 

If you want to get petty, that's actually the second verse of the Bible. Except God decided to be a little more active in the beginning. Which brings me to my next point. Most "atheists" who post in these threads have never even really opened a Bible. I recall Warrior and I agreeing long ago that it should be a prerequisite on these forums to have read the Bible at least once in a neutral reasoning before you can participate in these threads, instead of getting snippets off of an agenda based website that has been purposely quoted to be taken out of context.

 

 

 

Interesting you would bring this up. It's a pretty big fallacy when people say that western society is based on Christianity, considering moral principles like the golden rule were around centuries, even millennia before Christianity even existed. Greek philosophers like Plato and Socrates were among the people who wrote about it.

 

 

 

Let's not forget that the earliest civilizations had such rules in place as well. Christ even conceded when he stated the "Golden Rule" as they call it that the thinking had been around for generations, just that nobody would follow it. It's human nature to put yourself first, after all. It's discipline when you can move past your nature and feel for others as you feel for yourself. Ancient thinking.

 

 

 

Also, the Bible does make no claim that Hebrew civilization was the first. Read Genesis to know that while the Acadians (early Jews) were disbanded and unorganized many great civilizations came to rise and pass.

 

 

True, the "western" pre-classical era of though started with Greco-Roman schools of thought, the four pillars being Ethos, Logos, Pathos and Kudos.

 

However many Greek philosophers had deep rooted principals that stemmed from the east.

 

 

 

Even as near East as Uzer and Babylon. That school of thought had begun with the very dawn of civilization.

 

 

 

Religion is the opiate for the people.

 

 

 

-Karl Marx.

 

 

 

Time and time again, Marx has been proven a moron. He couldn't even account for basic human nature and instinct when he wrote his ideas down on paper, which has led to over a century of violence because humans can not accomplish the goals he put down. Do you realize how many hundreds of millions of people have been killed in the name of Marx's teachings? That's pure freaking irony.

 

 

 

That being said, he was correct in his quote when discussing events prior to 500 years ago, but as the population of the world becomes more educated, religion no longer becomes an opiate. However, look at places where education is not so good, like the Middle East, and you will see people being manipulated by their religion.

 

 

 

That quote was written 150 years ago in the world of 150 years ago, not today.

[Lateralus]

I do love you sometimes, Barihawk. I haven't the patience to make any real argument in this thread though.

 

 

 

All I will say is that people toss that Marx quote around out of context. The full line, which is from the introduction to a critique of Hegel, should read "Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people." The difference is subtle when you read it in context, but it's really annoying when people throw that little fragment in as their two cents.