Does Religion benefit?

[Barihawk]

I think the author was stretching a bit, though. While I wouldn't doubt a non-religious person on the council, I really don't think that message was inherent in his quotations. It also doesn't help that the author himself refers to his position as "bright."

[magekillr]

I think the author was stretching a bit, though. While I wouldn't doubt a non-religious person on the council, I really don't think that message was inherent in his quotations. It also doesn't help that the author himself refers to his position as "bright."

 

 

 

I completely agree with you. I also don't understand certain atheists' obsession with changing their label. I understand that atheism might have a negative connotation, but some of the claims to change it are outright ridiculous.

 

 

 

This is why I see labels as ultimately pointless. Saying you're an atheist doesn't do your beliefs justice, but neither does saying that you're a Christian. You have a simplistic and basic label not for something to identify with, but so people get a taste until you delve into your true beliefs through conversation. Labels, religious labels, sexual identity labels, whether you be homosexual, straight, bisexual, it's all a silly attempt at trying to say that you're different than other people, when you should be celebrating your innate characteristics as human beings. That's not to say we shouldn't recognize differences, in that a completely monotone society would be abhorrent, but people try and identify with labels far too much.

[Zierro]

I like to think everything should be approached from an empirical point of view with the acceptance there are limits. It goes back to the teapot in space thing, the belief in something like god at its very base requires non empiric faith but that doesnt make it less logical then something that is empirically defined.

 

 

 

Great example. The problem is that a lot of these arguments have people that seem to ignore the possibility that anything beyond empiric study exists.

 

 

 

And all these months, I thought I was alone. :cry:

[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.

[Zierro]

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?

[dusqi]

I think the author was stretching a bit, though. While I wouldn't doubt a non-religious person on the council, I really don't think that message was inherent in his quotations. It also doesn't help that the author himself refers to his position as "bright."

 

 

 

I completely agree with you. I also don't understand certain atheists' obsession with changing their label. I understand that atheism might have a negative connotation, but some of the claims to change it are outright ridiculous.

 

 

 

This is why I see labels as ultimately pointless. Saying you're an atheist doesn't do your beliefs justice, but neither does saying that you're a Christian. You have a simplistic and basic label not for something to identify with, but so people get a taste until you delve into your true beliefs through conversation. Labels, religious labels, sexual identity labels, whether you be homosexual, straight, bisexual, it's all a silly attempt at trying to say that you're different than other people, when you should be celebrating your innate characteristics as human beings. That's not to say we shouldn't recognize differences, in that a completely monotone society would be abhorrent, but people try and identify with labels far too much.

 

 

 

 

 

Because stereotypes and labels are important. People don't have time or energy to converse with everyone. Brands know this (but no one expects people to learn more about Apple than their brand of "creative", "innovative" and "cool"). Unfortunately the atheism "brand" has negative connotations. So did homosexuality, but they managed to take over the word "gay" (which was a positive word). That's what the atheists tried to do with "bright". I don't think that it was the right word to choose, since calling yourself bright sounds like you're showing off, whereas "gay" just meant that you were happy.

[Barihawk]

Which is why it's a really bad label. It makes you sound snobbish and arrogant, which is like the last thing that particular group needs (although some of the "elites" in that group might think of themselves that way.)

[KnightLite]

Let's put it this way. Almost every major war in history has been based on religious differences. I'd say it's pretty worthless actually, and if you think killing to justify your beliefs is ok, GTFO.

 

 

 

No Benefits in my opinion. It helps some people sleep better at night for crimes they've commited, knowing they can be forgiven, and do them again.

[mmmcannibalism]

Let's put it this way. Almost every major war in history has been based on religious differences. I'd say it's pretty worthless actually, and if you think killing to justify your beliefs is ok, GTFO.

 

 

 

No Benefits in my opinion. It helps some people sleep better at night for crimes they've commited, knowing they can be forgiven, and do them again.

 

 

 

American revolution=philosophy not religion. Gf

[Lenticular_J]

Let's put it this way. Almost every major war in history has been based on religious differences. I'd say it's pretty worthless actually, and if you think killing to justify your beliefs is ok, GTFO.

 

 

 

No Benefits in my opinion. It helps some people sleep better at night for crimes they've commited, knowing they can be forgiven, and do them again.

 

Mmmm, next time you hear about Europe and its greatness, thank the Catholic Church. I know they've had some of the most evil and corrupt men drawn to their organization for their power, but that one organization held the entire "genteel" world together for longer than a millennium.

[Kiriyama]

Let's put it this way. Almost every major war in history has been based on religious differences. I'd say it's pretty worthless actually, and if you think killing to justify your beliefs is ok, GTFO.

 

 

 

No Benefits in my opinion. It helps some people sleep better at night for crimes they've commited, knowing they can be forgiven, and do them again.

 

 

 

American revolution=philosophy not religion. Gf

 

 

 

The Crusades.

 

 

 

And for a lesser example, the Troubles in Northern Ireland (not exactly a full-scale war, but damn lot of killing between the Protestant British and Irish Catholics.)

[mmmcannibalism]

[hide=]

Let's put it this way. Almost every major war in history has been based on religious differences. I'd say it's pretty worthless actually, and if you think killing to justify your beliefs is ok, GTFO.

 

 

 

No Benefits in my opinion. It helps some people sleep better at night for crimes they've commited, knowing they can be forgiven, and do them again.

 

 

 

American revolution=philosophy not religion. Gf

 

 

 

The Crusades.

 

 

 

And for a lesser example, the Troubles in Northern Ireland (not exactly a full-scale war, but damn lot of killing between the Protestant British and Irish Catholics.)

[/hide]

 

 

 

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.

[Kiriyama]

How does war have a high point?

 

 

 

I mean sure, I'm against anyone who speaks of people dying in wars such as WWI and WWII as a negative thing, if Hitler had taken over, who knows what would have happened? (Aside from a better economy).

 

 

 

Really, though slavery would have ended up in an armed uprising, or with the people not knowing any other life and accepting it.

 

 

 

Honestly, I think Religon causes more problems than it does good, though it does great in perparing people for death.

[mmmcannibalism]

How does war have a high point?

 

 

 

I meant religion has high points to clarify.

 

 

 

Just a thought on perspective, what kind of religious difficulty do the eastern asia countries have? We can all agree religion has caused some problems in europe and America, but if religion accelerated the civilizing of all of humanity thats a good case for it. The Bessemer process for steel manufacturing resulted in factories that gave their workers terrible working conditions, but I doubt anyone would say steel is a bad thing. I realize this is a very stretched example, but its not fair to denounce religion solely on its bad points without considering what benefit it has had.

[Kiriyama]

Well, religion hasn't changed much. Aside from people who have learned to be more civil about it and have learned we don't want to [bleep]ing know we're going to burn in hell for not being apart of their religion.

 

 

 

God I hate those people. But I'm not judging the whole religion on them. What bothers me the most I guess, is that people generally discredit the theroy of evolution (for which we have more proof may I add) and chose creationism.

 

 

 

While early churches did infact help scientific advancement, didn't they also prevent some?

 

 

 

In the early stages of the Steel Industry, infact, the Industrial Revolution, things were pretty bad, but they improved. Religion hasn't changed all that much, you still get people preaching homosexuality is bad, premarital sex is bad, just about everything is a sin. Essentially having fun is a sin.

[Flyingjj]

I said it before, and I'll say it again. Religion does NOT cause wars. Justification, yes, possible contributor, maybe. But never underlying cause.

[Barihawk]

Let's put it this way. Almost every major war in history has been based on religious differences. I'd say it's pretty worthless actually, and if you think killing to justify your beliefs is ok, GTFO.

 

 

 

No Benefits in my opinion. It helps some people sleep better at night for crimes they've commited, knowing they can be forgiven, and do them again.

 

 

 

American revolution=philosophy not religion. Gf

 

 

 

The Crusades.

 

 

 

 

FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, YOU PEOPLE HAVE NO CLUE ABOUT HISTORY!

 

 

 

For crying out loud, religion is often used as an EXCUSE or JUSTIFICATION for a war, they generally do not CAUSE them.

 

 

 

In this case, Pope Urban was having difficulty keeping absolute control over the nobility in the various kingdoms that pledged loyalty to Rome. He used the war to keep those nobles and their armies somewhere else where they would not be in a position to attack Rome.

 

 

 

Keep in mind that the Protestant Reformation and subsequent reforms in the Catholic Church have made the corruption inherent in the medieval church GONE. The Pope no longer has any form of political control. We can thank Napoleon for that, actually.

[Wouter828]

The most important rules of religion about society, in my opinion, like respect eachother, treat someone the way you would like to be treated, just general respect and live and let live, are allready integrated in most societies as basic social values. I can't say this is because of religion but it probably played a big part in it. It wasn't the only possible way to integrate that way of thinking into society but it was the one which rose up and did the job.

 

Therefor I think we have benefited from most peaceful religions but that they are not needed anymore since society already takes the moral values explained in religion as normal social values.

 

Stories explaining these values and the rubbish about how the world was created, what comes after death and rules about your lifestyle can be burnt for all I care. They only hold people back from thinking straight in my opinion. The pope should take a few weeks off and mingle aswell, learn that the world isn't a happy place and that people should use protection and birth controll etc., if it was possible he should get to know what it's like having aids or having an unwanted baby.

[Lenticular_J]

FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, YOU PEOPLE HAVE NO CLUE ABOUT HISTORY!

 

 

 

For crying out loud, religion is often used as an EXCUSE or JUSTIFICATION for a war, they generally do not CAUSE them.

 

 

 

In this case, Pope Urban was having difficulty keeping absolute control over the nobility in the various kingdoms that pledged loyalty to Rome. He used the war to keep those nobles and their armies somewhere else where they would not be in a position to attack Rome.

 

 

 

Keep in mind that the Protestant Reformation and subsequent reforms in the Catholic Church have made the corruption inherent in the medieval church GONE. The Pope no longer has any form of political control. We can thank Napoleon for that, actually.

 

Dammit, Bari beat me. That's what I get for playing videogames.

[mmmcannibalism]

God I hate those people. But I'm not judging the whole religion on them. What bothers me the most I guess, is that people generally discredit the theroy of evolution (for which we have more proof may I add) and chose creationism.

 

 

 

While early churches did infact help scientific advancement, didn't they also prevent some?

 

 

 

to the first part, I agree with you but I would change it to people that believe in creationism and want it recognized as science. I see nothing flawed about believing everything is created by a divine being, the problem comes when you deny the science on the basis "because god did it"

 

 

 

churches had a mixed effect on science, but since they funded the original alchemy which grew into chemistry their overall effect was (unintentionally) amazing.

 

 

 

Therefor I think we have benefited from most peaceful religions but that they are not needed anymore since society already takes the moral values explained in religion as normal social values.

 

I think this hits the nail on the head, the implanting of morality into humans was greatly aided by religion, but its need has lessened over time as we figure out more science.

[magekillr]

I enjoy religion bashing as much as the next guy, but not when it's intellectually dishonest and unwarranted.

 

 

 

First, the lot of you may be inaccurately conflating 'Islam' with the political, cultural, and financial machinations of its component cultures. There were a lot of things done in the name of Islam which really had a lot more to do with politics than faith - and rather a lot more in which faith and politics were both components to some degree. Furthermore, it's a mistake to imply that some sort of unitary 'Islam' even exists, because there are so many variants on that theme that generalising is virtually impossible. It's like 'Christendom' or 'The Orient' - a convenient general designation for people perceiving what they believe to be a series of related phenomena from without, or seeking to identify disparate phenomena as a cohesive whole from within.

 

 

 

The point I'm trying to make is that talking about 'Islam as a force in history' is meaningless except in the broadest possible sense. Generalizing is utterly impossible, but we're so accustomed to thinking in terms of units and easily-quantifiable forces that we're tempted to try - and therein lies the downfall of the mind. So 'Islam' provides a unifying thread, but it's a thread that changed colour, texture, and material as it winds across cultures and down through the years.

 

 

 

Really the most egregious are the entire Western characterizations of 'Islam' during the First to the Third Crusade - everything about them, just everything. I'd point you all to Amin Maalouf's stupendous book "The Crusades through Arab Eyes" (Schocken, 1989) if you're interested in educating yourselves.

 

 

 

I'm not a Muslim, in case anyone is wondering.

[warren211]

A lot of the friends my parents have were people we met in church or people who share our religion. I can't count how many times those kind religious people have stepped in in our times of need, and how we did the same with others. It's a great way to meet lifelong friends.

 

 

 

And if you are actually thinking about practical benefits, practicing a religion helps in social studies classes when studying the history of a faith.

[Giordano]

I find it funny how people think the Crusades over weigh all the other wars. I'm having a hard time even coming up with one war that was religion based.

[KnightLite]

[hide=]

Let's put it this way. Almost every major war in history has been based on religious differences. I'd say it's pretty worthless actually, and if you think killing to justify your beliefs is ok, GTFO.

 

 

 

No Benefits in my opinion. It helps some people sleep better at night for crimes they've commited, knowing they can be forgiven, and do them again.

 

 

 

American revolution=philosophy not religion. Gf

 

 

 

The Crusades.

 

 

 

And for a lesser example, the Troubles in Northern Ireland (not exactly a full-scale war, but damn lot of killing between the Protestant British and Irish Catholics.)

[/hide]

 

 

 

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'm going to go out on a limb here and imply that you were making a reference to the Civil War. If so... you need to do some more research..

[Lenticular_J]

I assume he was talking about Quakers. They were the primary abolitionists.

 

 

 

you need to do some more research..

 

My thoughts exactly.