Does Religion benefit?

[dragoonson]

Don't usually agree with KniteLite,or really care for American history,or history after the year of 1500,but damn I lol'd.

[KnightLite]

 

I fully agree a good bit of wars can be placed on religion, but its not almost all of them.

 

 

 

Also, religion led to a war that ended slavery in the US so Id say it has its high points. Religion does cause a lot of problems, but then again so does science so its really a case by case matter.

 

 

 

 

 

I'll try to go slightly more indepth than my answer last night. I have pnuemonia, and my fever started running high.

 

 

 

Soooo.. I'll make this as absolutely brief and short as I can.

 

 

 

The American Civil War was nowhere close to being a religious war. The southern states wanted expansion of slavery, while the North did not. For every new state brought into the union that didn't allow slavery, the south was given a state which allowed it.

 

 

 

North told the South to get rid of Slavery

 

South gave the North the middle finger

 

 

 

The South left the union and formed their own independent country called the Confederate States of America. New York almost joined, but backed out at the last second.

 

 

 

The North went to War with the South, in attempts to bring them back into the Union. Although they were losing at first, they eventually won (obviously).

 

 

 

Religion had absolutely no important factor in this one.

 

 

 

 

 

Don't usually agree with KniteLite,or really care for American history,or history after the year of 1500,but damn I lol'd.

 

 

 

Glad I could brighten your day :)

[mmmcannibalism]

The objection to slavery, particularly its expansion were almost entirely based upon religion. Northern churches were becoming more strongly anti slavery and pro abolition. Many northerners also wanted slavery contained to keep electoral power, but the fact is without any religious backing the abolition movement would have been stymied for a much larger amount of time. The American civil war was fought over states rights, but the key right being debated was slavery which many religious movements were trying to abolish.

 

 

 

edit--could I have a source for new york almost joining the csa? I realize they has some pro slavery tendencies, but that seems like a bit of a stretched claim.

[pureprayer]

VERY SORRY TO BRING THIS UP BUT...

 

 

 

Without religion there would be ALOT more abortions. Not sure if thats good or bad.

[mmmcannibalism]

VERY SORRY TO BRING THIS UP BUT...

 

 

 

Without religion there would be ALOT more abortions. Not sure if thats good or bad.

 

 

 

Lets not go down this route, I can see it killing this thread. Not commenting on that, but there is a place for debating abortion.

[meol]

I'm not versed at all on American history, so I have no idea about what I'm saying, but was your Civil War really caused by some states opposing slavery and other states wanting to keep it?

 

 

 

[Edit] Maybe you could send me a PM so the thread won't go off-topic.

[KnightLite]

edit--could I have a source for new york almost joining the csa? I realize they has some pro slavery tendencies, but that seems like a bit of a stretched claim.

 

 

 

I'd have to search for a source. New York's suceeding wasn't because of slavery, it was because of their economic profits they got from the south, or something along those lines.

[Barihawk]

I'm not versed at all on American history, so I have no idea about what I'm saying, but was your Civil War really caused by some states opposing slavery and other states wanting to keep it?

 

 

 

[Edit] Maybe you could send me a PM so the thread won't go off-topic.

 

 

 

That was the argument 50 years before it happened. There were a multitude of other factors but slavery definitely helped. It also spilled into other issues like labor and the rapid industrialization of the North causing the South to bleed to death.

[aspokaspofkjsopfkapo]

Religion has very little overall benefit. The tiny amount of good that it does is far overshadowed by the huge amount of trouble it has caused and all the stuff about religion being the basis of morality is complete crap.

 

 

 

What makes you think that the trouble religion causes greatly overshadows the good it causes? I would agree that religion doesn't have much of an overall benefit off the basis that non-religious people can be just as efficient and righteous as a religious one, but you have said that it is a cause of trouble.

 

 

 

I don't think the trouble necessarily stems from religion - but the divisions of man. There has been slavery, segregation, and many other problems caused by race, gender, and nationality but would you blame the divisions for the problems or would you blame it on the people who are intolerant about the divisions?

 

Many many wars have been started over or fueled by religion, religion has destroyed countless lifes through discrimination or simply misguidance and the loss of potential scientific advancement alone has overshadowed the good religion has caused.

[lobsta]

When people reject irrefutable evidence and their religious beliefs directly oppose science the result can be very dangerous. There are two ways of looking at the world; by faith and superstition, or through the riggers of observation, logic and reason. Irrational superstitious thinking is a blight to society and in extreme circumstances can be very dangerous. Richard Dawkins writes:

 

 

 

Christianity, just as much as Islam, teaches children that unquestioned faith is a virtue. You dont have to make the case for what you believe. If somebody announces that it is part of his faith, the rest of society, whether of the same faith, or another, or of none, is obliged, by ingrained custom, to respect it without question; respect it until the day it manifests itself in a horrible massacre like the destruction of the World Trade Center, or the London or Madrid bombings.

 

 

 

Some rapture Christians yearn for nuclear war because they interpret it as the Armageddon which, according to their disturbingly popular interpretation of the book of Revelation, will hasten the Second Coming. Sam Harris, in his Letter to a Christian Nation writes:

 

 

 

It is, therefore, not an exaggeration to say that if the city of New York were suddenly replaced by a ball of fire, some significant percentage of the American population would see a silver-lining in the subsequent mushroom cloud, as it would suggest to them that the best thing that is ever going to happen was about to happen: the return of Christ. It should be blindingly obvious that beliefs of this sort will do little to help us create a durable future for ourselves socially, economically, environmentally, or geopolitically. Imagine the consequences if any significant component of the U.S. government actually elieved that the world was about to end and that its ending would be glorious. The fact that nearly half of hte American population apparently believes this, purely on the basis of religious dogman, should be considered a moral and intellectual emergency.

 

 

 

If we take the World Trade Center as an example, what can we ask were the motives? To call bin Laden evil is to evade our responsibility to give a proper answer to such an important question. Sam Harris goes on to add:

 

 

 

The answer to this question is obvious if only because it has been patiently articulated ad nauseam by bin Laden himself. The answer is that men like bin Laden actually believe what they say they believe. They believe in the literal truth of the Koran. Why did nineteen well-educated middle-class men trade their lives in this world for the privilege of killing thousands of our neighbours? Because they believed that they would go straight to paradise for doing so. It is rare to find the behaviour of humans so fully and satisfactorily explained. Why ahve we been so reluctant to accept this explanation?

 

 

 

Religion is the Enemy of Reason, and fosters irrationality amongst those it infects. It is no more logical to believe in Christianity or Islam than to believe in Witch Doctors and Voodoo magic.

[Lenticular_J]

Many many wars have been started over or fueled by religion, religion has destroyed countless lifes through discrimination or simply misguidance and the loss of potential scientific advancement alone has overshadowed the good religion has caused.

 

Honestly, are you joking? We would all be Mongolian, Huns, Saracen, or others if it weren't for the Catholic Church. It was what held most of the world together. You seem to be forgetting that to this day, Islamic scientists are some of the greatest in the world. Shall I use Copernicus as an example for a devout scientist? Sure, he got [cabbage] for his heliocentric theories, but he remained both a Christian and a scientist. Stop using the same tired "argument", which time and time again has been proven to originate solely from the greed of man.

 

 

 

[this]

 

I don't know what to say. You claim all religious people are brainwashed morons, and yet infallibly follow Richard Dawkins' word as law? He is one of the most extreme, blatantly arrogant people in this Earth. He is more insane than a fundamentalist, and you know why? Because he despises EVERYONE with beliefs different from his. You claim fundamentalists do as well, but that is a false assumption, due to the fact that EVERYONE believes EVERYTHING differently. Perception is different through every human beings' eyes on this Earth. You call religion the "Enemy of Reason". You call it: an infection. You have no respect for others' beliefs, which is, quite frankly, despicable. You seem to set folks who don't follow religion (or despise it) on some sort of high horse, as if they are perfect because they follow morals without learning them from a book. Well, I must tell you something. That voice, that tells you whether something is right or wrong, is the voice of God for so many of us. It's comforting. You believe this sense dates back to evolution and mutation and people finding out that there are consequences for their actions.

 

 

 

You are far too zealous about your own righteousness.

[lobsta]

I shall concede that Dawkins words are strong and his hostility to religion in some instances maybe regarded as intellectual arrogance. I do not take any teachings (that are not proven by irrefutable evidence) as infallible, to do so would be silly. Until I am shown evidence to the contrary, I shall believe in part (not all) Dawkins argument.

 

This hyperbolic statement is absurd:

 

He is one of the most extreme, blatantly arrogant people in this Earth. He is more insane than a fundamentalist, and you know why? Because he despises EVERYONE with beliefs different from his.

I am not getting into a debate about this.

 

 

 

 

 

You call religion the "Enemy of Reason". You call it: an infection. You have no respect for others' beliefs, which is, quite frankly, despicable

. Religions do not respect the beliefs of other religions. And I do respect other peoples beliefs, provided their beliefs are grounded in logic and rationality. I do not respect the belief of someone who wishes to harm others because they believe it is ok. I respect the belief of someone who wishes to do good to others.

 

 

 

You seem to set folks who don't follow religion (or despise it) on some sort of high horse, as if they are perfect because they follow morals without learning them from a book.

You have misunderstood me, probably due to miss-articulation on my part I apologise. I do not believe anyone on this planet is perfect.

 

 

 

You believe this sense dates back to evolution and mutation and people finding out that there are consequences for their actions.

I dont understand.

 

 

 

You are far too zealous about your own righteousness.

No, I am not.

[Dizzle229]

I shall concede that Dawkins words are strong and his hostility to religion in some instances maybe regarded as intellectual arrogance. I do not take any teachings (that are not proven by irrefutable evidence) as infallible, to do so would be silly. Until I am shown evidence to the contrary, I shall believe in part (not all) Dawkins argument.

 

This hyperbolic statement is absurd:

 

He is one of the most extreme, blatantly arrogant people in this Earth. He is more insane than a fundamentalist, and you know why? Because he despises EVERYONE with beliefs different from his.

I am not getting into a debate about this.

 

 

 

 

 

You call religion the "Enemy of Reason". You call it: an infection. You have no respect for others' beliefs, which is, quite frankly, despicable

. Religions do not respect the beliefs of other religions. And I do respect other peoples beliefs, provided their beliefs are grounded in logic and rationality. I do not respect the belief of someone who wishes to harm others because they believe it is ok. I respect the belief of someone who wishes to do good to others.

 

 

 

I don't know who raised you, but the whole idea of my religion is to do good for the WHOLE world, not just followers of this religion.

 

 

 

You seem to set folks who don't follow religion (or despise it) on some sort of high horse, as if they are perfect because they follow morals without learning them from a book.

You have misunderstood me, probably due to miss-articulation on my part I apologise. I do not believe anyone on this planet is perfect.

 

 

 

You believe this sense dates back to evolution and mutation and people finding out that there are consequences for their actions.

I dont understand.

 

 

 

You are far too zealous about your own righteousness.

No, I am not.

 

 

 

Yes, you are.

[lobsta]

oh ok, I am then

[mmmcannibalism]

[hide=]

Religion has very little overall benefit. The tiny amount of good that it does is far overshadowed by the huge amount of trouble it has caused and all the stuff about religion being the basis of morality is complete crap.

 

 

 

What makes you think that the trouble religion causes greatly overshadows the good it causes? I would agree that religion doesn't have much of an overall benefit off the basis that non-religious people can be just as efficient and righteous as a religious one, but you have said that it is a cause of trouble.

 

 

 

I don't think the trouble necessarily stems from religion - but the divisions of man. There has been slavery, segregation, and many other problems caused by race, gender, and nationality but would you blame the divisions for the problems or would you blame it on the people who are intolerant about the divisions?

 

Many many wars have been started over or fueled by religion, religion has destroyed countless lifes through discrimination or simply misguidance and the loss of potential scientific advancement alone has overshadowed the good religion has caused.

[/hide]

 

 

 

reread his last sentence, he said religion was a scapegoat for the real causes of said wars which is accurate in a good amount of situations(crusades were about gaining land/power not spreading the word of christ)

 

 

 

lobsta--so your saying everyone is either an atheist or fundamentalist, funny I seem to be neither

[Guest]

Well, without religon we would have alot less morals. Seeing as law was basically formed over the commandments, (some of them) I think it does. However, I think some take it too far.

[Flyingjj]

How many freaking times do Barihawk, myself, and others have to say that most, if not all, wars are NOT, repeat NOT, caused by religion. I've never studied the crusades in depth, but from my understanding they were a series of land wars. The only reason they are associated with religion is because (in most cases) the pope was like "Hey, go support the Empire in their because I think their cause is just. Free pass to Heaven if you die while at it!" I don't know about you, but in my book that's motivating the soldiers, not what caused the war.

 

 

 

Well, without religon we would have alot less morals. Seeing as law was basically formed over the commandments, (some of them) I think it does. However, I think some take it too far.

 

 

 

Unfortunately, I can't agree with this statement either. Sure, religion lays down the law(morals) for some people, but for the most part you don't see nonreligious people running around killing everyone, do you? I believe that morals are more of an inherent nature of humans than having a religious context. For the most part at least.

 

 

 

As another example, you mentioned the commandments. That statement can only be applied to the western world. What about the Eastern Lands? Were they complete and utter barbarians with no sense of right or wrong? The Americas? I think not.

 

 

 

After eliminating the default arguments for both sides, I personally lean toward the idea that religion does, indeed, benefit. I personally have gained much from my spirituality. I practice prayer, which helps me to sort my thoughts, calm myself down, and grant myself comfort in hard times. There are other examples.

[lobsta]

lobsta--so your saying everyone is either an atheist or fundamentalist, funny I seem to be neither

 

No I am not.

[Lenticular_J]

And I do respect other peoples beliefs, provided their beliefs are grounded in logic and rationality.

 

That's the only thing I took issue with in that post. Because if you don't understand something, or find it illogical, isn't it better to try and learn about it instead of listening to people who also refuse to learn instead of hate them for their beliefs?

[lobsta]

You are absolutely correct. I agree, people should spend time to research and try to understand these issues. Please do not missunderstand me - I do not hate all religious people. The people who I dislike, are those who wish to harm others in the name of religion. I do not hate people who would believe in the Flying Spaghetti monster, for example. My argument is; that there is no difference between believing in things such as the 'Flying Spaghetti Monster' and believing in God. The problem is when people use their beliefs to justify harming others. If I told you that the Flying Spaghetti Monster told me to kill all those who do not believe in him, you would think me insane! (At least i hope you would :) )

 

 

 

For me, this is a list that helps to summarise the principles for leading a good life today:

 

This is a list of commandments from an atheist website;

 

1. Do not do to others what you would not want them to do to you.

 

2. In all things, strive to cause no harm.

 

3. Treat your fellow human beings, your fellow living things, and the world in general with love, honesty, faithfulness and respect.

 

4. Do not overlook evil or shrink from administering justice, but always be ready to forgive wrongdoing freely admitted and honestly regretted.

 

5. Live life with a sense of joy and wonder

 

6. Always seek to be learning something new

 

7. Test all things; always chec your ideas against the facts, and be ready to discard even a cherished belief if it does not conform to them.

 

8. Never seek to censor or cut yourself off from dissent; always respect the right of others to disagree with you.

 

9. Form independent opinions on the basis of your own reason and experience; do not allow yourself to be led blindly by others.

 

10. Question Everything.

[dusqi]

I don't know what to say. You claim all religious people are brainwashed morons, and yet infallibly follow Richard Dawkins' word as law? He is one of the most extreme, blatantly arrogant people in this Earth.

 

 

 

lobsta quoted Dawkins (as well as another author), and then you assumed that he follows his word as law instead of arguing why Dawkins was wrong...

 

 

 

 

 

He is more insane than a fundamentalist, and you know why? Because he despises EVERYONE with beliefs different from his. You claim fundamentalists do as well, but that is a false assumption, due to the fact that EVERYONE believes EVERYTHING differently. Perception is different through every human beings' eyes on this Earth.

 

 

 

...Then you went on to insult Dawkins, and incorrectly assume that he despises everyone. Why is it that you assume that someone who disagrees with your religious beliefs necessarily despises you? If someone disagreed with your opinion about a painting, would you assume they are an enemy? People disagree with your belief, not with you - it's only you that internalises that belief and makes it so that your belief = yourself.

 

 

 

 

 

You call religion the "Enemy of Reason". You call it: an infection. You have no respect for others' beliefs, which is, quite frankly, despicable.

 

 

 

This reasoning is what Dawkins is talking about when he says that religious people expect undue "respect" for their beliefs. Well, lobsta may say that he respects your beliefs, but I don't have any respect at all. Why should I care what you believe if you don't have a good reason for believing it - especially if it affects my life (which it does at least indirectly)? I do, however, respect you as a person with your own opinions, even if I would argue against them.

 

 

 

 

 

You seem to set folks who don't follow religion (or despise it) on some sort of high horse, as if they are perfect because they follow morals without learning them from a book. Well, I must tell you something. That voice, that tells you whether something is right or wrong, is the voice of God for so many of us. It's comforting. You believe this sense dates back to evolution and mutation and people finding out that there are consequences for their actions.

 

 

 

You are far too zealous about your own righteousness.

 

 

 

The moral voice in my head is my own feelings and thoughts. It is comforting to me because it means that I can rely on myself to have a view on right and wrong. It is empowering, because it means that I don't have to rely on anyone else to tell me what to do (although I can listen to their opinions and potentially change my views - something that the religious zealot cannot do). It is also beautiful, because it evolved in me but not in the millions of other species that exist on this planet.

 

 

 

And now you'll be tempted to call me an atheist preacher. But this is another religious mistake. They assume that because people are rational, they cannot see beauty in their world view - they cannot "live life with a sense of joy and wonder". But that's not the case at all. Not only is the world beautiful, but the (non-divine) processes that have combined to bring it about are also beautiful. And what's great for the person with a world view based on reason, is that we have the benefit of fact behind us - like watching a film that you know is based on a true story rather than a work of fiction, we can check and see that the beauty is real.

[Lenticular_J]

The moral voice in my head is my own feelings and thoughts. It is comforting to me because it means that I can rely on myself to have a view on right and wrong. It is empowering, because it means that I don't have to rely on anyone else to tell me what to do (although I can listen to their opinions and potentially change my views - something that the religious zealot cannot do). It is also beautiful, because it evolved in me but not in the millions of other species that exist on this planet.

 

I liked that post. I just wanted to poke this part, and say that it's comforting to other people (such as myself) to believe that voice as God. I guess I did get a bit overcritical on Dawkins, but he gets as rabid as many of the most anti-semitic (or anti-arab, anti-gay, anti-black, whatever) fundamentalists on cocaine when he throws a fit. Oh, wait.

 

 

 

Why is it that you assume that someone who disagrees with your religious beliefs necessarily despises you? If someone disagreed with your opinion about a painting, would you assume they are an enemy?

 

Well, I believe that something along these lines...

 

When people reject irrefutable evidence and their religious beliefs directly oppose science the result can be very dangerous. There are two ways of looking at the world; by faith and superstition, or through the riggers of observation, logic and reason. Irrational superstitious thinking is a blight to society and in extreme circumstances can be very dangerous.

 

 

 

Religion is the Enemy of Reason, and fosters irrationality amongst those it infects. It is no more logical to believe in Christianity or Islam than to believe in Witch Doctors and Voodoo magic.

 

Constitutes a personal affront, both to my faith and my intelligence.

[Saru Inc]

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.

 

 

 

I completely agree. "+1"

 

 

 

I also think, in general, religion benefits, but the followers do not. Peaceful Muslims help the world a great deal, while the Jihad-Crazed ones kill for the heck of it. And while I don't believe in Allah personally, I don't see how believing in him is wrong(as in doesn't benefit the world). But killing innocents in the NAME of Allah IS wrong.

[candychimp]

I think we'd benefit if certain religions didn't push their beliefs onto others, Just accept each other as different people.

 

Although if there were no religion, it'd cause Anarchy amongst many individuals as they don't see any consequences of their actions, there is no punishment that is mentioned in religion such as going to Hell or bad karma.