-
Religion: A force for good or ill?
IMHO Religious thoughts in humans began as a reaction to a hostile and frightening environment and must have had some survival value (e.g. overcoming the fear of death and thus being able to face a world that was going to kill you, one way or another, whatever you did).
Is there any point to retaining these vestiges of primeval rationalisation now tho?
And without meaning to cause offence to anyone more spiritual than me, but I personally believe that religion has become a sort of mass-hysteric mental illness over the millenia. Please note I don't use 'mental illness' in this context as a jibe or denigration; I suffer from anxiety, depression and OCD myself.
Just as we host many bacteria and viruses, some of which can become harmful, and 'broken' DNA that can cause disease but may have other positive effects, maybe religion is just another 'cross to bear' that comes with benefits for humanity? A symbiotic meme that continuously replicates and will always be with us... :undecided
...or will evolution condemn it to the dark ages (tho it shows no sign of happening so far, even (or especially) in ostensibly 'atheist' (ex-) communist countries)...?
-
Re: Religion: A force for good or ill?
A force for both. Religion is responsible for some very good things, and some very bad ones too.
-
Re: Religion: A force for good or ill?
I think the basic motivations of humans are the things we need to look,not the conduits.
-
Re: Religion: A force for good or ill?
TBH, I can see no downsides if all religion was magically abolished tomorrow. People would be exactly the same in all respects, they wouldn't suddenly devolve into depravity, quite the opposite I feel...
OTOH I can see nothing but more misery for more people in the future, as the more unenlightened tenets of religions invented in the dark ages conflict with the modern era :(
-
Re: Religion: A force for good or ill?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Pleiades
TBH, I can see no downsides if all religion was magically abolished tomorrow. People would be exactly the same in all respects, they wouldn't suddenly devolve into depravity, quite the opposite I feel...
OTOH I can see nothing but more misery for more people in the future, as the more unenlightened tenets of religions invented in the dark ages conflict with the modern era :(
It wouldn\'t change anything. Humans have never needed religion as an excuse to be horrendous to each other. The last 100 years of our history are enough to prove this.
-
Re: Religion: A force for good or ill?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
CAT-THE-FIFTH
It wouldn't change anything.
How do you know?
-
Re: Religion: A force for good or ill?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Pleiades
How do you know?
Because motivations are more important than conduits. Again the last 100 years of history have long debunked that religion had the monopoly on humans being horrible to each other.
Sadly the religious and anti-religious fanbois will waste more time beating the same old stupid drum while nothing is achieved.
Our basic motivations are the main problem and tackling them will be the only way humanity will eventually become better. However,it also means each one of us will need to change at an intrinsic level and I don't see humanity at that point yet.
We are way too petty and selfish ATM.
-
Re: Religion: A force for good or ill?
But if we weren't petty and selfish I would hesitate to call us 'human' at all :undecided
Maybe a 'post-human' society (possibly inorganic) could remove the base motivations that underpin our whole way of life, I don't see any other way it could evolve.
A society that didn't have these 'animal' urges (7 deadly sins, basically) would be so far removed from our experience it'd be as alien to us as we are to plankton.
I just don't believe *any* religion ameliorates these base desires, in fact they sometimes inflame and exaggerate them in some respects.
Though if I'd choose a religion, it'd be Buddhism (hasn't stopped Burmese Buddhists attacking the Muslim minority in Burma though)...
-
Re: Religion: A force for good or ill?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
CAT-THE-FIFTH
Because motivations are more important than conduits. Again the last 100 years of history have long debunked that religion had the monopoly on humans being horrible to each other.
Sadly the religious and anti-religious fanbois will waste more time beating the same old stupid drum while nothing is achieved.
Calling people 'fanbois' is fairly petty I'd aver.
What great achievement should we expect from you then, seeing how you're not beating the same old stupid drum, a rather silly phrase imo. You must have some answers, please enlighten us.
-
Re: Religion: A force for good or ill?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Pleiades
But if we weren't petty and selfish I would hesitate to call us 'human' at all :undecided
Maybe a 'post-human' society (possibly inorganic) could remove the base motivations that underpin our whole way of life, I don't see any other way it could evolve.
A society that didn't have these 'animal' urges (7 deadly sins, basically) would be so far removed from our experience it'd be as alien to us as we are to plankton.
I just don't believe *any* religion ameliorates these base desires, in fact they sometimes inflame and exaggerate them in some respects.
Hence,you see the issue here. Our basic emotions are the reason why we do horrible things to each other,so your insinuation that the removing religion will be some wonder bullet won't change anything. People will use some other conduit and we are back to square one.
The problem is that religious like behaviour is part of our emotional pysche. Religous like attachment,behaviour and rationalisation does not need supernatural beings from another dimension. It can be based around people and very many worldly things like ideology and money.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Pleiades
Though if I'd choose a religion, it'd be Buddhism (hasn't stopped Burmese Buddhists attacking the Muslim minority in Burma though)...
Buddhism is a philosophy and attacking Muslims or anyone is not anywhere in Buddhism last time I checked.
Its more a case of people who happened to be Buddhists having a vendetta against Muslims and attacking them,making some lame excuse, and probably forgetting half what the philosophy they supposedly follow actually teaches.
Humans have a good way of cherrypicking what suits them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Pleiades
Calling people 'fanbois' is fairly petty I'd aver.
What great achievement should we expect from you then, seeing how you're not beating the same old stupid drum, a rather silly phrase imo. You must have some answers, please enlighten us.
It is fanboism. Fanboism actually stimulates the same parts of the brain as religion.
"Anti-religious" fanbois only want the total destruction of religion as the way to make things better(one ideology),and the "religious" fanbois only see religion as the only way to make things better(another ideology).
What you will notice with the fanbois is that there is NO middle ground. In fact they are just opposite sides of the same coin. I consider them both the same in practice.
They will continue to argue and not give in,like they have done for time memorial and achieve nothing.
Anyway,thats me done for this thread!! :)
-
Re: Religion: A force for good or ill?
Mostly bad. But not purely so.
Religion keeps a huge number of morons off the roads every Sunday Morning, for example.
Many people use it to seek comfort and to avoid the realities of the world. It's good for their mental stability.
But on the other hand, it's used to perpetuate stupidity, and to hold back science education, leads to the spread of disease, deaths of millions (in the modern world) and to justify hatred, bigotry and restrictions on human rights. And the unforgivable abuse of children.
It's dying out. Maybe not quickly enough, and probably not completely, but certain;y we'll see it being almost totally marginalised. Irreligion has already reached a critical mass in the UK. The US is holding out, but maybe only trailing by ten years or so. The current attempts by Christians to block civil rights legislation here are driving people away in their millions.
-
Re: Religion: A force for good or ill?
I'm amazed this kind of thread has appeared without it degenerating into senseless namecalling within the first few posts. :P
But anyway, religion. It does good and it does bad. The good it does is ultimately for it's own service. Help in Africa? The Pope threatened to pull aid when the use of condoms was being promoted because it was against their teaching. Think they are doing it out of the kindness of their heart or to drive their own political machine regardless of how many people suffer in the process?
The founding of the Vatican? They basically endorsed the Facists to get what they wanted. And has also been mentioned, the systemic cover up of child abuse all the way to the highest reaches of the church (see; Mea Maxima Culpa: Silence in the House of God).
I can't comment much on other religions because I don't know that much, but Muslims get a bad rep because of the middle east and I completely see why with the amount of ongoing violence even against fellow Muslims. I remember a time with the phrase 'sectarian violence' was on the news every day. On the other hand, there are countries which are largely Muslim but perfectly peaceful. It is people who tend to corrupt the message of religion weather it be Muslim, Christian or otherwise.
I have no problem with the idea of God per se, because I don't think such an ambiguously defined being can ever be proven or disproven, nor do I have a problem with people believing in such a thing. But organised religion, driven by politics, used to discriminate, to impose their own values on those who do not share their beliefs and to promote and forgive things society would have thrown someone behind bars for...
To say that you are born into sin, for something you had no choice or part in, for which the penalty is torture for all eternity. That is detestable.
-
Re: Religion: A force for good or ill?
I think you'd have to define religious thought much more clearly before you can answer the question clearly. For me religious thought is quite simply any thought which gives consideration to whether there is a purpose for life existing and what role that life might have. The conclusions you draw from that are wide ranging - the belief that there is no deity for example is itself a religious thought, and I think the world is a richer place for us having the ability to think and discuss freely about such things.
So I guess I'm saying that being open to think about things, rather than restricting debate and discussion, is a beneficial thing, therefore religion, like other intellectual, spiritual and artistic pursuits, is a force for good.
-
Re: Religion: A force for good or ill?
I'd have to agree with a lot of what AETAaAS has said. I voted "bad" in the poll because from my perspective, in my lifetime, religion has done far more bad than good. However, I would differentiate between "religion" and "faith". Religion seems to have far more capacity to bring out the worst in people, almost like a mob culture. Faith on the other hand is a very different thing, it can give people a lot of strength to deal with problems in life (not just fear of death).
-
Re: Religion: A force for good or ill?
Some sort of spiritualism in a person's life can enhance it no end and people with a faith generally live longer and have more fulfilling lives, if you believe the research. However there have historically been some truly heinous acts done 'in the name of' religion. It is the nature of man & I believe that these acts would have happened whether religion existed or no.
-
Re: Religion: A force for good or ill?
I'd agree with Zadock that faith is one thing, religion is quite another.
Ultimately, I hope humanity outgrows religion because it strikes me as being essentially someone telling someone else what to believe/how to behave with little or no evidence to support it.
I say this as a devout and practising agnostic.
-
Re: Religion: A force for good or ill?
I agree with kalniel, Zadock and 0iD, which is why in the latter part of my post I made the distinction of "organised religion", as opposed to what I believe are rights which were addressed by the above posters such as free thought, speech, critical thinking, independence, individuality and autonomy.
Organised religion tramples all that, and treats you as if you had no mind to think of your own. In politics today, saying you believe in one religion or the other, seems to automatically ascribe a number of beliefs to you, weather you even knew about them or not. And on the front of thinking and beliefs; Killing is bad, stealing is bad, lying is bad. If you think doing those things is only in contravention to your faith, I have unfortunate news for you; you are a bad human being.
-
Re: Religion: A force for good or ill?
I had a very interesting chat with a kind of buddhist monk once, english was not his first language, but we were able to communicate.
Anyway, this man who had dedicated his life to meditation and introspection unsurprisingly said something thats were very elegant and sometimes profound. My favourite was:
Quote:
Religion is a benefit to the person who holds it, because it brings them a comforting righteousness, but a negative for all those around for the same reason.
When you consider that the "hot topics" in the last week have been opposing gay marriage, even though it doesn't directly effect them at all (I still can not understand their logic there, other than a desire to control other peoples lives!). And well the obvious one this week, but hopefully this thread won't beheading down that path...
-
Re: Religion: A force for good or ill?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
AETAaAS
And on the front of thinking and beliefs; Killing is bad, stealing is bad, lying is bad. If you think doing those things is only in contravention to your faith, I have unfortunate news for you; you are a bad human being.
Well the head of the largest organised religion agrees with you to some extent:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013...ts-can-be-good
-
Re: Religion: A force for good or ill?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
0iD
Some sort of spiritualism in a person's life can enhance it no end and people with a faith generally live longer and have more fulfilling lives, if you believe the research.
I'd be interested to see this research. What's the measure for 'fulfilling'?
-
Re: Religion: A force for good or ill?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
kalniel
I must admit, I am slightly skeptical of Pope Francis. He stepped in after Pope Benedict stood down, an unprecedented move which in itself is suspicious. My tin-foil-hat tells me that it was a committee decision to damage control the church's image; and to have this new, humble face would shift the perception of the church as a whole. Whereas in all probability, it would be as if the queen stepped down. It is the huge machinery of government that dictates how this country moves and not so much its figurehead.
And if I read between the lines; it is as if he says that the default position of atheists is neutral or bad unless they do good. I know this is being a little extreme but it's because I feel religious people seem to think that they get a free pass on this issue.
-
Re: Religion: A force for good or ill?
In itself, it generally is just a bit nutty. Trouble is lack of separation of church and state/society, so it is used to justify all sorts of acts of the patriarchal misogynist repressive warlike kind.
-
Re: Religion: A force for good or ill?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
AETAaAS
And if I read between the lines; it is as if he says that the default position of atheists is neutral or bad unless they do good. I know this is being a little extreme but it's because I feel religious people seem to think that they get a free pass on this issue.
I don't think there's any kind of free pass or inherent differences between atheists or theists, nor do any of the religious people I know, but if our impressions are formed by experiences of other people then you might have a different impression to me. But this is wandering off topic -feel free to PM me for discussion :)
-
Re: Religion: A force for good or ill?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
kalniel
I don't think there's any kind of free pass or inherent differences between atheists or theists, nor do any of the religious people I know, but if our impressions are formed by experiences of other people then you might have a different impression to me. But this is wandering off topic -feel free to PM me for discussion :)
Ah, I don't mind as long as the mods don't. I hope to draw criticism; if I have a stance which is adequately rebutted, it would be wise of me to reconsider my position. :)
You are quite right that my current opinion is formed by my experiences (while an incredibly redundant statement as it can be said for almost anyone, it is a necessary prologue to the following :p). When I was younger, perhaps no older than 13, I read the Bible and I still remember having sleepless nights after reading Revelations. And it was not something transient; I spent a good amount of time being afraid of what tomorrow would herald.
When I went to high-school, it was a Christian one where I was a passive observer most of the time. I joined late, after cliques of people had formed. But it was clear I had a greater affinity for one group over the other, and it was not the ones who joined the church choir. In front of the teachers, yes they would be exactly what you would expect, pious, obedient and quiet. Away from that however, they had an overbearing holier-than-thou without reproach attitude to other students.
I don't remember when it was that I changed my view of religion from 'something that is absolute' to something that is subject to debate and challenge. It might have been when I was discussing religion with a Muslim friend of mine or with the broader view of the internet. Regardless, my opinion shifted from being god-fearing to doubting his existence. And if he did exist, my view was that he would not be the violent, vindictive god of the Christian faith. Of course, this is idealism, but would you think a loving, caring God would drown, burn, send disease, order the slaughter of and starve millions of human beings? He would be more benevolent and accepting, as I would call upon an earlier point to drive this; "To say that you are born into sin, for something you had no choice or part in, for which the penalty is torture for all eternity. That is detestable."
To boil it down; to say that you are born with debt, threaten eternal torture and that unless you do everything he and his emissaries on earth direct you to, you better look over your shoulder every hour of every day for the horsemen. That is terrorism.
I apologise for taking so much time on the soapbox. Next speaker please... :P
-
Re: Religion: A force for good or ill?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Pleiades
But if we weren't petty and selfish I would hesitate to call us 'human' at all :undecided
Maybe a 'post-human' society (possibly inorganic) could remove the base motivations that underpin our whole way of life, I don't see any other way it could evolve.
A society that didn't have these 'animal' urges (7 deadly sins, basically) would be so far removed from our experience it'd be as alien to us as we are to plankton.
I just don't believe *any* religion ameliorates these base desires, in fact they sometimes inflame and exaggerate them in some respects.
Though if I'd choose a religion, it'd be Buddhism (hasn't stopped Burmese Buddhists attacking the Muslim minority in Burma though)...
“If you meet the Buddha, kill him.”– Linji
-
Re: Religion: A force for good or ill?
My two cents on the matter :
-Without Religion, you are just an animal.
Religion acts as a code of conduct for humanity and it keeps mankind humane.
-If you don't believe in religion, you don't belive in God either.
So, how do you think you were made ? Who gave you your soul ? You, who were made from nothing but mud, who are you to question HIS existence ?
-There are religions which were preached by prophets at the instructions of God aka God-approved religions. These are Judaism ( Jewish ), Christinaity, Islam ( Muslims ). All other religions such as Hinduism, Sikhism, Buddhism, Scientology, Jedi are not God approved and are man-made and the followers will not be entitled for Heaven selection on judgement day.
- If you are atheist, gay,lesbian, transgender, Satan-worshipper, you are destined for hell.
These comments might anger some people but I speak nothing but the truth. It is your responsibility to open your eyes and see the truth
-
Re: Religion: A force for good or ill?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
OilSheikh
My two cents on the matter :
-Without Religion, you are just an animal.
Religion acts as a code of conduct for humanity and it keeps mankind humane.
-If you don't believe in religion, you don't belive in God either.
So, how do you think you were made ? Who gave you your soul ? You, who were made from nothing but mud, who are you to question HIS existence ?
-There are religions which were preached by prophets at the instructions of God aka God-approved religions. These are Judaism ( Jewish ), Christinaity, Islam ( Muslims ). All other religions such as Hinduism, Sikhism, Buddhism, Scientology, Jedi are not God approved and are man-made and the followers will not be entitled for Heaven selection on judgement day.
- If you are atheist, gay,lesbian, transgender, Satan-worshipper, you are destined for hell.
These comments might anger some people but I speak nothing but the truth. It is your responsibility to open your eyes and see the truth
Oh dear :(
How about answering the question posed in the topic? I guess the first point implies \'force for good\' right? Not sure how the other points you make are relevant.
-
Re: Religion: A force for good or ill?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
OilSheikh
My two cents on the matter :
-Without Religion, you are just an animal.
Religion acts as a code of conduct for humanity and it keeps mankind humane.
-If you don't believe in religion, you don't belive in God either.
So, how do you think you were made ? Who gave you your soul ? You, who were made from nothing but mud, who are you to question HIS existence ?
-There are religions which were preached by prophets at the instructions of God aka God-approved religions. These are Judaism ( Jewish ), Christinaity, Islam ( Muslims ). All other religions such as Hinduism, Sikhism, Buddhism, Scientology, Jedi are not God approved and are man-made and the followers will not be entitled for Heaven selection on judgement day.
- If you are atheist, gay,lesbian, transgender, Satan-worshipper, you are destined for hell.
These comments might anger some people but I speak nothing but the truth. It is your responsibility to open your eyes and see the truth
Morality is not a product of religion. That's an idiotic notion.
I'm not made of mud. I'm made of stars.
Souls are a concept from some religions, but not others. There is no evidence that they exist.
Christianity is not approved by any of the Hindu gods. No Swarga for you!
Threatening me with hell is like telling me that Santa Claus won't bring me any presents.
-
Re: Religion: A force for good or ill?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
OilSheikh
These comments might anger some people but I speak nothing but the truth. It is your responsibility to open your eyes and see the truth
And I also speak nothing but the truth....
And the truth is that there is no god.
:rolleyes:
-
Re: Religion: A force for good or ill?
It tells you more times in the bible not to eat prawns than not to be gay.
How do you know you've got the right god? What if you die, and there's Thor waiting for you? 'Why did you not worship me? I have a day named after me, did you not take the hint?'
We are all atheists towards at least 2,999 gods.
-
Re: Religion: A force for good or ill?
Thanks for bringing the discussion alive girls & guys, hope we can keep it (relatively) civil... :)
IMO If the Priests/Imams had been in charge during the scientific and industrial revolutions that have changed the world, I doubt we'd be having this conversation. Not via the medium of the internet anyway.
The use of the scientific method in enabling mass destruction means that yes, it's morally neutral, but life without it would be short and wretched. Life without religion of any sort OTOH would make no such difference.
I'm grateful for Big Pharma for developing Fluoxetine for example, despite the many drawbacks; I have no found no comfort, personally, in the Church (or Mosque for that matter). I did however appreciate the peace and tolerance of the Quaker meeting house I admit.
To re-iterate: I'm in no way stating that all those 'of faith' are so deranged that they are untrustworthy. It's just that I would be more inclined to pay attention to what say, Julia Gillard was proposing (if she were US Pres.) than Barack Obama (who I love dearly); the latter, like all preceding Presidents, pays at least lip-service to the idea of 'one nation, under God'. If, like George W. Bush, he gets inspiration, encouragement or even advice :eek: from said God whilst praying, then bully for him but I would be a bit uncomfortable him making important decisions on that basis...
-
Re: Religion: A force for good or ill?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Pleiades
IMO If the Priests/Imams had been in charge during the scientific and industrial revolutions that have changed the world, I doubt we'd be having this conversation.
Well actually they kind of were. The church was what enabled education and encouraged scientific examination in the first place and it was scientists like Newtons own beliefs that led them into scientific studies in the first place. The liberalising of free thought wasn't due to a decline in religion, merely a shift from one type to another, no less devout.
-
Re: Religion: A force for good or ill?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
OilSheikh
These comments might anger some people but I speak nothing but the truth. It is your responsibility to open your eyes and see the truth
Quote:
Originally Posted by
kalniel
Oh dear :(
How about answering the question posed in the topic?
Don\'t you see, he not just answered it, but demonstrated it wonderfully. It also exemplifies that phrase I quoted earlier.
It\'s great for him, just everyone around him who is ****ed. How dare they think rationally.
-
Re: Religion: A force for good or ill?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
OilSheikh
My two cents on the matter :
-Without Religion, you are just an animal.
Correct. Homo sapiens is an animal species.
Quote:
-If you don't believe in religion, you don't belive in God either.
i believe religions exist. All the churches in the area prove that. Doesn't make me believe in god.
Quote:
So, how do you think you were made ? Who gave you your soul ? You, who were made from nothing but mud, who are you to question HIS existence ?
Not sure how I was made, but chances are pretty good it wasn't a magic man in the sky. I don't have 'soul' - more of a funk / trip-hop / 90s hardcore guy myself. Who am I to question his existence? Me - my choice.
Quote:
-There are religions which were preached by prophets at the instructions of God aka God-approved religions. These are Judaism ( Jewish ), Christinaity, Islam ( Muslims ). All other religions such as Hinduism, Sikhism, Buddhism, Scientology, Jedi are not God approved and are man-made and the followers will not be entitled for Heaven selection on judgement day.
- If you are atheist, gay,lesbian, transgender, Satan-worshipper, you are destined for hell.
These comments might anger some people but I speak nothing but the truth. It is your responsibility to open your eyes and see the truth
I suppose if that is what the sky fairy told you, then at least your view is consistent.
However rhe sky fairy didn't magically send me that memo.
-
Re: Religion: A force for good or ill?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
kalniel
Well actually they kind of were. The church was what enabled education and encouraged scientific examination in the first place and it was scientists like Newtons own beliefs that led them into scientific studies in the first place. The liberalising of free thought wasn't due to a decline in religion, merely a shift from one type to another, no less devout.
Yes, the established churches in europe were a bastion of enlightenment and helped further scientific advances all the time. They never cried heresy to any of the people who were attempting observation based sciences because it would have changed the status quo of their worship.
For people like Newton, he was born into a religious family, and melded to become something of the institute. A better question would be, what would have happened to his principles of maths, had he not been distracted by bible code!
To try and balance a question like this, we can't really say "church made newton's theories possible" because we can't in anyway prove the theory that he would have done the work anyway with or without the influence. What we can do is say that people no born under a religious viewpoint appear to do good science too. People not born with religious doctrine tend not to oppose things for silly reasons (gays, stem cells, earth revolving around the sun). We can have some kind of model that shows only deterioration due to religious views on scientific progress, it is very hard to demonstrate this with non-religious groups. As such I think it is perfectly fair to say that the Catholic Church was a major force against scientific progress.
Moral progress is harder to define, as morals are subjective. But today, right now, it's incredibly easy to see the damage they do, and very hard to see the good they do via church doctrine. Prophylactic education opposition is killing people. If a small percentage of the worlds population didn't have the idea of "killing someone is a sin, sins make me burn in hell" would we see more people murder? Probably not, countries with lower theism generally have lower murder rates...
-
Re: Religion: A force for good or ill?
Sorry, Pleiades. Just have rebutt these points quickly. :p
Quote:
Originally Posted by
OilSheikh
My two cents on the matter :
-Without Religion, you are just an animal.
Religion acts as a code of conduct for humanity and it keeps mankind humane.
-If you don't believe in religion, you don't belive in God either.
So, how do you think you were made ? Who gave you your soul ? You, who were made from nothing but mud, who are you to question HIS existence ?
-There are religions which were preached by prophets at the instructions of God aka God-approved religions. These are Judaism ( Jewish ), Christinaity, Islam ( Muslims ). All other religions such as Hinduism, Sikhism, Buddhism, Scientology, Jedi are not God approved and are man-made and the followers will not be entitled for Heaven selection on judgement day.
- If you are atheist, gay,lesbian, transgender, Satan-worshipper, you are destined for hell.
These comments might anger some people but I speak nothing but the truth. It is your responsibility to open your eyes and see the truth
On the first point; I refer to my earlier statement; "Killing is bad, stealing is bad, lying is bad. If you think doing those things is only in contravention to your faith, I have unfortunate news for you; you are a bad human being." Imagine two people; one who does good because he recognizes that his actions could have an impact on someone else. Or, someone who does good only because he was told to do so in a "code of conduct" and because he fears retribution. Surely, it is the former person that we should aspire to be.
On the second. Even if the beginning of time and space as we know it is unknown to science, it does not automatically mean the answer has to be the God of the Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc. As Smudger alluded to, it could have been Zues or Pandora. We may all even be an elaborate experiment by aliens into "intelligent" life. We can't disprove that. :p
Third, religions by and large claim their own God. Christians and Muslims think each other have got it as wrong as anyone else.
Fourth, I defer to TeePee's response. :)
-
Re: Religion: A force for good or ill?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TheAnimus
As such I think it is perfectly fair to say that the Catholic Church was a major force against scientific progress.
And yet the protestant Church wasn't. What conclusion can you draw from this: That religion is a force for good or ill, or that the Catholic Church is a force for good or ill?
-
Re: Religion: A force for good or ill?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
kalniel
And yet the protestant Church wasn't. What conclusion can you draw from this: That religion is a force for good or ill, or that the Catholic Church is a force for good or ill?
I'm measuring the ill. Assuming that its too hard to get a baseline for good, when so much of it is variance. Is it fair to say Newton was because he was Christian? Or what about Einstein or Hawking. Do we just pick famous people?
The one thing we do know, is no atheist group, has persecuted people for a theory of planetary motion. So yeah, I'll count the Ill.
-
Re: Religion: A force for good or ill?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TheAnimus
I'm measuring the ill. Assuming that its too hard to get a baseline for good, when so much of it is variance. Is it fair to say Newton was because he was Christian? Or what about Einstein or Hawking. Do we just pick famous people?
The one thing we do know, is no atheist group, has persecuted people for a theory of planetary motion. So yeah, I'll count the Ill.
But atheists have done various other nasty things. Does that mean atheism is a force for ill?
-
Re: Religion: A force for good or ill?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
kalniel
But atheists have done various other nasty things. Does that mean atheism is a force for ill?
Not the same, because they don't justify it so.
When torturing people to death for not believing in a god, those doing it had a moral excuse, if challenged, they would torture and kill you. People did expect that inquisition!
If some nut job, starts talking about the lizard people or whatnot, you simply don't pussy foot around it, you call them mentally ill. Religion is often used as an impenetrable shroud for these things. You can't question it!
I'd also suggest that statistically, countries where more people identify themselves as not practicing a religion tend to have lower murder levels, thou I accept it is very hard to compare crime levels.
-
Re: Religion: A force for good or ill?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
kalniel
But atheists have done various other nasty things. Does that mean atheism is a force for ill?
They havn't done it in the name of atheism.
-
Re: Religion: A force for good or ill?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Zadock
I'd have to agree with a lot of what AETAaAS has said. I voted "bad" in the poll because from my perspective, in my lifetime, religion has done far more bad than good. However, I would differentiate between "religion" and "faith". Religion seems to have far more capacity to bring out the worst in people, almost like a mob culture. Faith on the other hand is a very different thing, it can give people a lot of strength to deal with problems in life (not just fear of death).
Hmm, is it possible to have just faith? As opposed to a faith in "something"? e.g. Faith that tomorrow will be better than today. Faith in your loved ones. Faith in Science. It also seems to me that religion requires an element of faith.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
CAT-THE-FIFTH
Buddhism is a philosophy and attacking Muslims or anyone is not anywhere in Buddhism last time I checked.
Hmm, whereas I agree that attacking others is not part of Buddhism, I would say that it is a form of religion.
But in agreement that religion is just one of many pretext people use to do horrible things to each other. Religion can have a powerful influence, and can amplify people's action. But so can, a particularly charismatic leader.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
wasabi
They havn't done it in the name of atheism.
It might not have happened yet. But can you say, with 100% confidence, that it can't happen? An atheist dictator in power who decides to "cleanses" the religious for "holding back progress", or whatnot. I sincerely hope that I am wrong, but I am sceptical. As the atheism increase, I reckon that it's statistically only a matter of time before a deranged but charismatic individual in the wrong place and wrong time manage to get into power and decide to "save" the world in a deranged and horrific way.
It seems pretty clear to me, by the simple fact that I am still alive today, that someone can be a practitioner of X religion, without wanting to eliminate everyone who isn't a practitioner. Regardless of the text could be interpreted. But there are enough messed up things in the world that it does happen.. but I am unconvinced that the opposite can't happen just because it might not have happened yet.
-
Re: Religion: A force for good or ill?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
wasabi
They havn't done it in the name of atheism.
Nor have catholics done ill in the name of protestantism, or hinduism etc.
-
Re: Religion: A force for good or ill?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TheAnimus
If some nut job, starts talking about the lizard people or whatnot, you simply don't pussy foot around it, you call them mentally ill. Religion is often used as an impenetrable shroud for these things. You can't question it!
So is science, art, football, etc. All have been used as rational for ill, that does not make them inherently a force for ill.
-
Re: Religion: A force for good or ill?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
wasabi
They havn't done it in the name of atheism.
The funny thing about atheists is that simply reject one god for another
-
Re: Religion: A force for good or ill?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
melon
The funny thing about atheists is that simply reject one god for another
No. They reject all gods or they wouldn't by definition be atheists.
-
Re: Religion: A force for good or ill?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
melon
The funny thing about atheists is that simply reject one god for another
Sorry Melon that doesn't appear to make much sense to me :undecided
Plus: how can I reject a God if I don't believe in one? :p
-
Re: Religion: A force for good or ill?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Pleiades
Sorry Melon that doesn't appear to make much sense to me :undecided
Ah well, Im not going to spoil the fun , cat knows what I mean :)
Quote:
Plus: how can I reject a God if I don't believe in one? :p
The same way you are talking about it to me ;)
-
Re: Religion: A force for good or ill?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
kalniel
Nor have catholics done ill in the name of protestantism, or hinduism etc.
Not sure of the relevance. Catholics have done ill in the name of Catholicism, Hindus, etc.
Atheists have done bad, but not in the name of atheism.
-
Re: Religion: A force for good or ill?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
kalniel
So is science, art, football, etc. All have been used as rational for ill, that does not make them inherently a force for ill.
Your comparing religion to football?
I guess both do make a lot of money from their followers.
I have never, once, ever, heard of football been an excuse to burn someone for talking about the planets revolving round the sun. Not even in Millwall.
Science people have had say eugenics, where they have used theories to validate their ideology, however they aren't able to squirm and hide behind "SkyFairy said so" or similar. We are not talking about abstract things here, there are still many people, often with positions of power, who seek to derail scientific progress with their bible backings.
There are going to be bad people, it's not as if that will disappear, but when you try and test morality, we can see that the bible hasn't helped. Gays, still many people clutching a bible say persecute them. Black people, the civil movement in the US was heavily justified by religion. It's hard to form a grown up argument as to why its OK without some "it's our divine right, stop questioning it" ultimately it is this aspect, that is unique to it. It is a belief, but one which can not be questioned by someone else.
If I said I believe in Eugenics, lets do away with the north of england, you'd expect me to be able to justify it and be open to debate.
What if the only justification I offered was "Because God says its the thing to do".
This is why there is such a difference, this is why AFAIK no one has ever burnt a scientist to death, for their atheist beliefs. Sure, nut jobs will have killed people over petty arguments. But we call them just that, nutjobs, because they believe they have a right to kill other people for no reason. Religion is just another label for that, but one which has respect.
-
Re: Religion: A force for good or ill?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
kalniel
Nor have catholics done ill in the name of protestantism, or hinduism etc.
The Inquisition?
The Borgias?
Witch hunts?
Crusades?
Preventing birth control causing massive overpopulation and destruction of planet's resources?
Factions in N Ireland killing in name of religion?
-
Re: Religion: A force for good or ill?
Preventing use of physical barrier contraception. The death toll for this alone discredits the whole religion to me, they reject scientific method for doctrine which statistically just doesn't work. How anyone can support this action is beyond me.
-
Re: Religion: A force for good or ill?
The catholic church doesn't 'prevent' the use of physical/barrier contraception any more than it 'prevents' sexual relationships outside marriage,
It opposes both, but a catholic who exercises his (or her) free will to engage in sexual relationships outside marriage is just as capable of exercising their free will to use barrier methods of contraception.
However, I will agree that the catholic church's opposition to artificial means of contraception may contributee to poverty and over-population in countries with a devout but less well educated catholics population.
-
Re: Religion: A force for good or ill?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
peterb
The catholic church doesn't 'prevent' the use of physical/barrier contraception any more than it 'prevents' sexual relationships outside marriage
Utter dangling fun sacks.
They have been directly involved in FUD campaigns of all levels, from telling people "they don't work" to "you'll burn in hell if you use one".
If there was an ounce of honesty in their policy, they would be a simple case of "it's better to abstain, if you can't, use a rubber" instead they go the otherway, actively blocking aid workers. I knew a couple of friends from uni who went to work in this area, they were lucky enough not to need money for life and so they formed a trio and dedicated themselves to charity, one is now in effect a make-shift doctor. But I digress, the point is, directly sanctioned by the location church, they have had their sex ed supplies burnt, one even had her speculum destroyed in front of them. This was done under the eyes of the local minister, but worse yet 'white people' were watching. She has no idea who they are, doesn't want to find out because it might hinder the other health plans they give.
Just look at Mother Teresa if you want to see another horror of church doctrine.
-
Re: Religion: A force for good or ill?
The catholic church regards sex outside marriage as a more serious sin than the use of contraception. If catholics are prepared to risk 'burning in hell' for sex outside marriage, they aren't going to worry about the use of condoms. The catholic church can't prevent either, however much it might condemn both practices.
I know catholics in this country who cheerfully ignore catholic teaching on both subjects. In poorer countries there may be more influence, but that may be as much to do with culture and women's rights than catholic doctrine.
Catholicism may have had a role there as well, but the issues are not as simplistic as you like to portray.
-
Re: Religion: A force for good or ill?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
peterb
Catholic church regards sex outside marriage as a more serious sin than the use of contraception. If catholics are prepared to risk 'burning in hell' for sex outside marriage, they aren't going to worry about the use of condoms.. The catholic church can't prevent either, however much it might condemn both practices.
The church has had officials going on record to say that aids spreads through the barrier of a condom.
They are possible the most evil force in sex education that charities are doing in Africa at the moment.
They ignore science, the WHO and everyone else to force their agenda. They are responsible for horrific scale of suffering a illness. Over 2 million people die a year because of AIDS, over half of them are in Africa. When you consider the global population this is really scary. Entire swaves of africa have 20% to 5% HIV+ rates.
The church doesn't promote abstinence then condoms, they discourage condoms because they fear that condom use would discourage abstinence. Their morals over-ride reality, medical science, statistics and economics.
I never understand why people are OK with this. Assuming condoms could have prevented only 5% use, that is 60,000 deaths per year due to the church. Some people suggest they are 80%+ effective at discouraging condom use in non-north africa. That would be about 900,000 deaths per year. GO TEAM JESUS!
-
Re: Religion: A force for good or ill?
to be religious is one thing
to belive in religion is another
and a third is to ignore it.
I am in the middle.... and I love it.
I have no religious beliefs BUT I make no bones about this.. I love other people "believing"
becuase I like to understand humans as best I can, and I enjoy people being happy in their life
0iD's reply above is finest..... spiritualism can help.. (and God need not play a part.) but the Christian Crusades and a terror attack on Western Society by a muslim faction horrify me in equal measure.
-
Re: Religion: A force for good or ill?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Zak33
to be religious is one thing
to belive in religion is another
and a third is to ignore it.
I am in the middle.... and I love it.
I have no religious beliefs BUT I make no bones about this.. I love other people "believing"
becuase I like to understand humans as best I can, and I enjoy people being happy in their life
0iD's reply above is finest..... spiritualism can help.. (and God need not play a part.) but the Christian Crusades and a terror attack on Western Society by a muslim faction horrify me in equal measure.
keep in mind , religion as we know it now has changed a lot ( western )
Im happy where I am , and dont mind opposing beliefs because it creates a balance I think is necessary sometimes like your appear to be saying above.
What I want to see is Science and Spiritual unite , because right now I think the lack of this consciousness has been Sciences biggest downfall i.e. in catering to business ,governments that are just abusing technology to suit themselves. ( and at our expense )
it needs to end or we will , and we're already more than halfway there..
-
Re: Religion: A force for good or ill?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TheAnimus
The church has had officials going on record to say that aids spreads through the barrier of a condom.
They are possible the most evil force in sex education that charities are doing in Africa at the moment.
They ignore science, the WHO and everyone else to force their agenda. They are responsible for horrific scale of suffering a illness. Over 2 million people die a year because of AIDS, over half of them are in Africa. When you consider the global population this is really scary. Entire swaves of africa have 20% to 5% HIV+ rates.
The church doesn't promote abstinence then condoms, they discourage condoms because they fear that condom use would discourage abstinence. Their morals over-ride reality, medical science, statistics and economics.
I never understand why people are OK with this. Assuming condoms could have prevented only 5% use, that is 60,000 deaths per year due to the church. Some people suggest they are 80%+ effective at discouraging condom use in non-north africa. That would be about 900,000 deaths per year. GO TEAM JESUS!
What we need is someone to go over there and give them demonstration , Jesus is away on business , so we'll just have to send you instead.
Your aim is to decrease the population by f _ _ _ _ _ _ them over till theyr understand theirs no harmful effects other than burning bush to be had.
-
Re: Religion: A force for good or ill?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
wasabi
The Inquisition?
The Borgias?
Witch hunts?
Crusades?
Preventing birth control causing massive overpopulation and destruction of planet's resources?
Factions in N Ireland killing in name of religion?
Indeed, in none of those cases were catholics doing ill under the banner of protestantism or hinduism. They were doing ill under their own.
-
Re: Religion: A force for good or ill?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
kalniel
Indeed, in none of those cases were catholics doing ill under the banner of protestantism or hinduism. They were doing ill under their own.
Seriously, opposing birth control isn't due to the catholicisim? Last I checked CoE were not opposed to it, instead encouraged it, just only as part of their moral idelogy (ie, marriage, abstinence etc).
-
Re: Religion: A force for good or ill?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TheAnimus
Seriously, opposing birth control isn't due to the catholicisim?
I'm saying it's due to catholicism, not protestantism or hinduism.
-
Re: Religion: A force for good or ill?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
kalniel
Indeed, in none of those cases were catholics doing ill under the banner of protestantism or hinduism. They were doing ill under their own.
Thought your post was a typo. Now I just can't see what point you're trying to make - catholics aren't doing stuff in the name of protestantism or hinduism? So? Huh?
-
Re: Religion: A force for good or ill?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
wasabi
Thought your post was a typo. Now I just can't see what point you're trying to make - catholics aren't doing stuff in the name of protestantism or hinduism? So? Huh?
Meaning you can't tar everyone with the same brush. It's not anything inherent in religion that causes ill in those cases, or all religion would be causing ill like that as well.
-
Re: Religion: A force for good or ill?
I think when we are born, society dictates our morals, whether mugging someone for their £5.40 for the bus fare home is right or wrong depends on what is socially acceptable at the time.
Therefore it is up to us and our upbringing to either accept or reject what society think is the 'norm' for example. Prime example was racism/slavery against Afro Carribeans in the 18-19th century, which of course is not acceptable now and will land you jail/caution.
In regards to religion, it is a grey area. You will often find it is often the 'needy' or less wealthy who often turn to 'God' in times of need especially financial or social difficulty. There is nothing wrong in believing in a religion which provides comfort for yourself and helps you have some support in your life.
However I believe at the end of the day whether you are into religion or not, you make your own choices and are responsible for them. People who hide behind religion when they do something bad are the people to watch out for. These people have taken religion and taken a corrupted interpretation of it and twisted it to their needs or someone else's.
In this case religion is still not to blame but those who wish to use it for malice or selfish needs i.e killing of non muslims and muslims alike, crusades and sexual abuse of children. I must reiterate religion is not to blame but rather, the followers are as they make their own decision not what they read. Interpretations vary perhaps but not to kill each other and abuse non believers/believers alike.
At the end of the day all the religions promote a basic set of morals which promote harmony amongst the humans and generally not 'following' or accepting these morals will lead to human destruction which is inevitable as we are a destructive species who knows nothing but endless hunger, be it for power/greed, physical belongings or ego.
Look at how many conflicts we as a species have caused, not just counting the two world wars over the past 1000 years. It is inevitable we will destroy ourselves unless we have a basic set of morals holding back our basic animal instincts, the need to feed, and I am not just taking about physical sustenance but the fact is what we have is never enough.
-
Re: Religion: A force for good or ill?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
csgohan4
However I believe at the end of the day whether you are into religion or not, you make your own choices and are responsible for them. People who hide behind religion when they do something bad are the people to watch out for. These people have taken religion and taken a corrupted interpretation of it and twisted it to their needs or someone else's.
All undoubtedly true in some cases. Sadly especially relating to oppression of women.
However there are many specific instructions in core religious texts to kill the unbelievers. One well known book in particular which I sadly can't / won't name name as it will undoubtedly kick off a poo-storm.
-
Re: Religion: A force for good or ill?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
wasabi
All undoubtedly true in some cases. Sadly especially relating to oppression of women.
However there are many specific instructions in core religious texts to kill the unbelievers. One well known book in particular which I sadly can't / won't name name as it will undoubtedly kick off a poo-storm.
But do all religions have that, or is it just something applicable to some religions?
-
Re: Religion: A force for good or ill?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
csgohan4
I think when we are born, society dictates our morals, whether mugging someone for their £5.40 for the bus fare home is right or wrong depends on what is socially acceptable at the time.
Therefore it is up to us and our upbringing to either accept or reject what society think is the 'norm' for example. Prime example was racism/slavery against Afro Carribeans in the 18-19th century, which of course is not acceptable now and will land you jail/caution.
In regards to religion, it is a grey area. You will often find it is often the 'needy' or less wealthy who often turn to 'God' in times of need especially financial or social difficulty. There is nothing wrong in believing in a religion which provides comfort for yourself and helps you have some support in your life.
However I believe at the end of the day whether you are into religion or not, you make your own choices and are responsible for them. People who hide behind religion when they do something bad are the people to watch out for. These people have taken religion and taken a corrupted interpretation of it and twisted it to their needs or someone else's.
In this case religion is still not to blame but those who wish to use it for malice or selfish needs i.e killing of non muslims and muslims alike, crusades and sexual abuse of children. I must reiterate religion is not to blame but rather, the followers are as they make their own decision not what they read. Interpretations vary perhaps but not to kill each other and abuse non believers/believers alike.
At the end of the day all the religions promote a basic set of morals which promote harmony amongst the humans and generally not 'following' or accepting these morals will lead to human destruction which is inevitable as we are a destructive species who knows nothing but endless hunger, be it for power/greed, physical belongings or ego.
Look at how many conflicts we as a species have caused, not just counting the two world wars over the past 1000 years. It is inevitable we will destroy ourselves unless we have a basic set of morals holding back our basic animal instincts, the need to feed, and I am not just taking about physical sustenance but the fact is what we have is never enough.
And that is why certain ..... life paths focus on being present here and now instead of in the future ( wanting ) or in the past with regret , its is basic law of duality that ensures no matter what end we're on we always tip the scales .
You can not win simply by accumulating material wealth for although it may stall death , time will claim everything else..
All roads lead to rome ..
But some are more fun than others ;)
-
Re: Religion: A force for good or ill?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
kalniel
But do all religions have that, or is it just something applicable to some religions?
I am not sure which religion wasabi was referring to, but I'm assuming it's Islam going by the statement earlier in the post. Do not however, think that Christians do not have blood on their hands.
Let's take an example. Most people know the story of Moses going up the hill to receive the ten commandments, and when he came back down the hill, he was angry because his followers had made a golden calf to worship. He had to go back to God because he was so enraged that he broke the original tablets. What they don't teach you in Sunday school, is that Moses later effectively ordered the death of 3000 men, women and children. There are many other examples in the Bible from the Canaanites to the Egyptians and many other smaller communities which were steamrolled into the annals of history.
The Old testament is something many Christians would sooner sweep under the carpet, except of course the parts which support their bigotry. Being the Old testament, this is also something in the Jewish text.
wasabi made reference to many other examples earlier on. But I will point to an example made by Stephen Fry in the Intelligence Squared debate on the subject of this thread; that Thomas More, in his war against Protestantism had people killed in England for owning a Bible in English. Yes, this was in the 1500s, but remember this was some 300 years AFTER the Magna Carta. And it was in 2000 that he was made a patron saint.
-
Re: Religion: A force for good or ill?
People kill for their religion and this is where the line must be drawn and sadly this has, had and will continue to happen.
I don't mind what religion you have, but when you start affecting the person next door and causing direct/indirect harm that is where it is wrong.
-
Re: Religion: A force for good or ill?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
csgohan4
People kill for their religion and this is where the line must be drawn and sadly this has, had and will continue to happen.
I don't mind what religion you have, but when you start affecting the person next door and causing direct/indirect harm that is where it is wrong.
people kill for money too, whether its oil or drugs , and unlike religion its universally enforced and accepted everywhere so we are not even given an alternative or choice.
-
Re: Religion: A force for good or ill?
Religion doesn't kill people, people kill people.
Banning religion won't make the world a safer place. People need to be trained to use religion in a safe manner.
I'm not sure that carrying concealed religion is a good idea, but the open carrying of religion, if universally adopted will increase the security and safety of everyone.
Of course there will be some people who should not be permitted religion, but religion should be available for everyone else.
(Perhaps there should be a constitutional amendment)
-
Re: Religion: A force for good or ill?
-
Re: Religion: A force for good or ill?
I am very much an admirer of Hitchens / Dawkins / Harris et al and am so thankful that I was brought up in a country / time where I was encouraged to challenge ideas and think for myself. I actually did go to church (C of E) and even sang in the choir (I was even confirmed, mostly because I thought it was really grown up to go and get communion). I'm pretty sure my mum only took us to church to get us into the C of E aided secondary school in the area, rather than the horrible comprehensive. I don't think even as a young child I actually believed in any of it, then again I used to go to bed reading an encyclopedia, so from a very early age I knew about evolution, and dinosaurs, and all sorts of things that didn't fit with bible myths.
I used to have the fairly cynical view, that to be fair I think has perhaps been shared by people in power (note I'm not saying I'm a person of power, just that they perhaps have had this view as well as me) throughout history, that again I think Dawkins talks about in the god delusion. The view is basically well of course we dont believe this nonsense, but its damn useful for controlling the rest of them. However, if religion is required for keeping people under control then 1) Isn't that sad, and 2) How does one explain the change in morality over the ages. Again it's a Dawkins view that he almost has more respect for religious fundamentalists, than he does for moderates, because how are moderates justifying what they are "cherry picking" from religions morality.
'Of course we don't believe that anymore, that was the morality of a different time' but by what criteria are you judging this. It must have come from somewhere outside religion, some secular morality. And if so, why do you still cling to the rest of religion which was an understandable response of people to answer questions which at a time seemed unanswerable.
I'm rambling because it is a subject that I feel strongly about, but in general I feel that "faith" is ultimately a dangerous concept. Once you have opened that door and have someone believing anything you say no matter how ridiculous, or potentially harmful it is I think you are in a bad situation.
Another thing that I think should be challenged is the privileged view that religion seems to have in our society. Although perhaps political correctness has more to do with it than religious privileged. I've always considered myself fairly liberal, and equality and opportunities for all all sound very noble, but I remember reading a story about muslim workers in supermarkets refusing to sell alcohol at the checkout, and the supermarket which I believe was Sainsburys saying "Yes thats fine". No thats not fine. Part of the job requires selling alcohol. If you don't want to sell alcohol, find another job that doesn't involve this. If I worked at a supermarket, and said something like "I don't want to sell chewing gum because of the litter damage it causes to pavements", or "I don't want to sell cigarettes because of the health damage they cause" they would tell me where to go. Yet both are infinitely better reasons (perhaps a matter of opinion) than because the imaginary friend in the sky told you it was bad. Wouldn't it be ludicrous for a Catholic to apply for a job at a family planning clinic, which of course she should be perfectly entitled to do, but then on getting the job, refuse to give out contraceptives or abortion advice. Its part of the job!
Definitely not a structured reply, but some of my thoughts!
-
Re: Religion: A force for good or ill?
I see your point Champman, there was a marriage registrar who refused to do gay marriages on the basis of her religion and got sued. I mean common sense dictates, do something else when you are going to be put in that situation. Or perhaps when she goes to a supermarket the cashier refuses to serve her because she is catholic/Christian? how would she feel then??? Both different scenarios but both plausible and based on their own beliefs
-
Re: Religion: A force for good or ill?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Champman99
I am very much an admirer of Hitchens / Dawkins / Harris et al and am so thankful that I was brought up in a country / time where I was encouraged to challenge ideas and think for myself. I actually did go to church (C of E) and even sang in the choir (I was even confirmed, mostly because I thought it was really grown up to go and get communion). I'm pretty sure my mum only took us to church to get us into the C of E aided secondary school in the area, rather than the horrible comprehensive. I don't think even as a young child I actually believed in any of it, then again I used to go to bed reading an encyclopedia, so from a very early age I knew about evolution, and dinosaurs, and all sorts of things that didn't fit with bible myths.
I used to have the fairly cynical view, that to be fair I think has perhaps been shared by people in power (note I'm not saying I'm a person of power, just that they perhaps have had this view as well as me) throughout history, that again I think Dawkins talks about in the god delusion. The view is basically well of course we dont believe this nonsense, but its damn useful for controlling the rest of them. However, if religion is required for keeping people under control then 1) Isn't that sad, and 2) How does one explain the change in morality over the ages. Again it's a Dawkins view that he almost has more respect for religious fundamentalists, than he does for moderates, because how are moderates justifying what they are "cherry picking" from religions morality.
'Of course we don't believe that anymore, that was the morality of a different time' but by what criteria are you judging this. It must have come from somewhere outside religion, some secular morality. And if so, why do you still cling to the rest of religion which was an understandable response of people to answer questions which at a time seemed unanswerable.
I'm rambling because it is a subject that I feel strongly about, but in general I feel that "faith" is ultimately a dangerous concept. Once you have opened that door and have someone believing anything you say no matter how ridiculous, or potentially harmful it is I think you are in a bad situation.
Another thing that I think should be challenged is the privileged view that religion seems to have in our society. Although perhaps political correctness has more to do with it than religious privileged. I've always considered myself fairly liberal, and equality and opportunities for all all sound very noble, but I remember reading a story about muslim workers in supermarkets refusing to sell alcohol at the checkout, and the supermarket which I believe was Sainsburys saying "Yes thats fine". No thats not fine. Part of the job requires selling alcohol. If you don't want to sell alcohol, find another job that doesn't involve this. If I worked at a supermarket, and said something like "I don't want to sell chewing gum because of the litter damage it causes to pavements", or "I don't want to sell cigarettes because of the health damage they cause" they would tell me where to go. Yet both are infinitely better reasons (perhaps a matter of opinion) than because the imaginary friend in the sky told you it was bad. Wouldn't it be ludicrous for a Catholic to apply for a job at a family planning clinic, which of course she should be perfectly entitled to do, but then on getting the job, refuse to give out contraceptives or abortion advice. Its part of the job!
Definitely not a structured reply, but some of my thoughts!
I dont think religion was invented as control mechanism , but it became that for the same reason everything becomes corrupted when someone like a bilderberg sees an opportunity that they can take.
Doesnt matter if its banking, religion or politics , those that are attracted to having that level of power to influence others always seem to use it to suit themselves, and those that arent can always be influenced.
This is important point because if its greed that motivates and changes , then what do you think will happen when these egomaniacs take control ?
They might well be great at what they do but only at the level it furthers themselves, so if that is the case then perhaps it is better not to have hierarchy system at all, because the typical human ego cant handle it.
I dont think you need religion for morality either - there are many examples of animals saving their owners or helping humans ( even wild ones )
so where does that come from ?
I think the reason people dont get morality is because their looking at the end equation of something larger they fail to get and mistaking the answer to it as the solution
Yes someone said such and such as guides for others , but you still need to do your own working to understand it properly and get there - that is why we have these parables,and all these stories ,but it still cant / wont substitute the real thing which is where the real work and commitment begins.
I dont think you will find the answer in any written book or law , you need a direct real experience to make sense -not someone elses 5000 yrs ago , and the best ,perhaps easiest ,way ( without doing the heav work ) to get a glimpse / taste of that is through entheogens.
-
Re: Religion: A force for good or ill?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
kalniel
But do all religions have that, or is it just something applicable to some religions?
Many religions do have a 'crime' of apostasy but Islam appears to be the only one that still takes it seriously, at least in Saudi and Pakistan. Your lifespan is very limited if you're unfortunate enough to be located there and someone accuses you...
Declaration of personal interest: I'm technically an apostate myself as I have a nominally (non-practicing) Muslim mother but was baptised by my (European) father in NZ at an early age. Telling this to some family members in Malaysia (where I was born), they were visibly shocked; some said it was actually their Islamic duty to kill me :surprised: but I think (hope) they've got over it now LOL :mrgreen:
Malaysia is pretty relaxed as far as Muslim countries go; it has to be, given the large Chinese, Indian, indigenous tribal and mixed-race (inc. Eurasians like myself) populations that live there, most of whom are not in the slightest bit Islamic...
Some interesting (to me anyway) links:
First Wiki link I googled about apostasy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy_in_Islam and a court case in Malaysia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lina_Joy
List of religions (edit: scroll up, I was just reading about Tenrikyo and the url points there first) http://www.adherents.com/Religions_B....html#Tenrikyo
(never heard of Tenrikyo before tbh).
Missing 'God spot' in the brain? http://www.theglobeandmail.com/techn...rticle4313359/
I know I could have worded the original question better, apologies for being so generalized (though I don't think it's a bad as the 'Modern life is rubbish ' one lol...) :)
-
Re: Religion: A force for good or ill?
Interested to see the breakdown of results so far, thought it'd be slightly more equal. I know it's hardly a scientific survey of course :)
Wonder what the poll would be like in the States, Brazil or Aghanistan (more 'Godly' I'm presuming?)...
-
Re: Religion: A force for good or ill?
Bottom line for me.........
Religion is a placebo......... given or administered, by persons knowingly involved or corrupted by the obvious psychological effects, and potential financial, political and coercive effects it can have on the weak, poor, and those of simple mind.
In effect Religion is the benign face of all that is evil in the Human race.
-
Re: Religion: A force for good or ill?
In my youth I would have voted Meh, but age seems to have hardened me in this case.
My problem with religion is when people know, with absolute certainty, that they know what is best for me. Give them the power to do it, and they will try and "protect me from myself".
Politics can be nearly as bad, but there is a big difference between someone thinking they are doing good work from a sense of purpose and someone who thinks they are doing "His work" from a sense of superiority. When the two mix, trouble starts.
Even ignoring the big world religious disasters (which is hard), on an everyday level:
- There is no reason to feel guilty about *everything*. Just be the best you that you can.
- Your rewards will not come in heaven, so do everything you can to fix things now.
I still remember the moment when, being educated as a Christian I realised there is no god. There was an initial feeling of emptiness, but followed by a feeling of freedom. Religion seems very supportive, but when you are being supported from all sides, that is a cage.
-
Re: Religion: A force for good or ill?
Regarding the Drummer Lee Rigby murder case. The press has pointed out that the murderers were Muslim converts, but is there anything to suggest that they were motivated by religion (e.g. a confession of any sort)?
-
Re: Religion: A force for good or ill?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TooNice
Regarding the Drummer Lee Rigby murder case. The press has pointed out that the murderers were Muslim converts, but is there anything to suggest that they were motivated by religion (e.g. a confession of any sort)?
I'm sorry if the original poll was construed as purely a response to those events, it was intended to go a bit deeper than that.
I don't know how much 'religion' per se can be held accountable in this case; I suspect mental illness (of which religious mania is a common manifestation), cultural, social and many other complex factors were also to blame.
-
Re: Religion: A force for good or ill?
Curious debate proposition when you look at it. I haven't voted because I don't like any of the answers. One might even ask what the question means - and that's not to be awkward for the sake of it.
I think for the OP's poll to be of use it needs to be far more specific in defining 'Religion' and explaining exactly what the question is. For example, by religion do you mean any action motivated by religion? I assume it can't be that because then it would be a matter of asking the question for a thousand different actions for a hundred different religions. Does 'religion' mean a specific religion? That doesn't seem to be the case either otherwise I expect the OP would have just mentioned the religion by name. There has been a discussion about 'organised religion' vs. 'spirituality', so I assume the poll doesn't mean just 'organised religion'. I suppose we are to take it then that by 'religion' one means belief in a theistic/spiritual/supernatural being or realm.
Here's the thing though, there are too many diverging 'religious' beliefs and ideas to be able to give a single answer to the poll. That is to say, it is perfectly reasonable for someone to accept one set of religious beliefs and reject a different set. This would, in a way, make that person both a 'believer' in 'religion' and also a 'disbeliever'. That being the case, how could that person answer the question polled? It's impossible without getting more specific.
Further to the point, many 'religious' people would actually contend against the benefit of 'religion' per se and would instead contend for whatever truth is the foundation of their religion. Here I will speak as a Christian to make my point. A Christian would not say that 'religion' (as defined as a set of rules/guides/ideas followed) is of any great use in benefiting society. Rather, a Christian would say that the 'Good News' that Jesus Christ brought was that humanity is essentially corrupt at the core and there's no more point in a corrupt human being trying to be good than a fig tree try to produce apples. Instead, the Christian would point to Christ's message being that freedom from corruption/sin comes in being connected to some One who is perfect and is able to make others perfect by unison with them - the grafting in of a wild branch into a cultivated vine. Essentially, the Christian would teach that 'religious thought and action' are worthless in and of themselves and all human beings are hypocrites or self-deceived if they think those things will make any difference. The message of Christ, Christians say, is that we all need to acknowledge the reality of our own corruption, as evidenced every minute on this world, and enter into relationship with Jesus who by an exchange of lives, a spiritual exchange of sorts, can transform who you are and bring you into His purpose in eternal love.
Now, that went on a bit, but the point is that to ask a Christian (someone considered by most to be an adherent of religion) if religion is a force for good or ill, is actually pointless. The question is too shallow and cannot provide an answer.
The reality is that any religious teaching, structure or thought must be examined on its own terms and the truth, benefit, lie or hindrance be determined accordingly.
Even if one wishes to apriori dismiss all such 'religious' ideas as false, it still doesn't answer the question. To state that the tenets of every religion are empirically false does not answer the question of whether belief in or adherence to those tenets results in good or ill. To the contrary, in this situation the issue actually becomes more complex. If we are to dismiss 'spirituality' in its entirety then we must come to the conclusion that the rise of such notions is, as the OP pointed out, an entirely human/biological product. If that's the case, the problem arises that religious ideas were never the problem in the first place, but rather, humanity who created those ideas, also created the evil and/or the good that resulted from them. So then, it is no good to ask if 'religion' is a force for good or ill because it answers nothing, we might instead ask if humans are a force for good or ill, or if we wish to press in, if certain types of thinking are a force for good or ill. This is, I think, what Cat was trying to point out in the intial comparison between fanboyism and religion - a comparison of similar thinking.
I think in the end, what this poll is actually trying to ascertain is whether purely empirical/scientific thought is the only consistent way to result in good and not ill.
If that were the question, I would have to answer no. At least at this point in time (empirically speaking). Why? It comes down to the question of morality. I'm sure TheAnimus and TeePee will disagree with me here, although I suspect the issue is one of semantics and misunderstanding, but scientific thought alone is unable to provide a sense of morality (that is, good and ill) in the same way that religious thought is capable of doing. This is because the morality of religion is an objective thing, indeed, such thinkers argue that morality by definition needs to be objective for it to be of any use. The morality suggested by an empirical-thought-only proponent must, by their own definition, be relative or subjective. That being the case, the empirical morality boils down to the mere language of preference and in reality loses all moral force. What society decides as 'good' or 'ill' is actually neither 'good' nor 'ill' but only 'what I like' and 'what I dislike'. This leaves the whole system open to the argument that we are all players in a temporary game and none of the rules really matter, you just have try to get the most individual enjoyment out of it that you can... or not.
You see, empiricism cannot provide any real answer to the commonly desired and acknowledge notions of real, objective justice, or good, or reward, or evil. Everyone just eats shoots and leaves.
You might be fine with that. That's everyone decision to make. As for whether empiricism alone is satisfying, I would say no. I could preach the Gospel that has blessed my life. I don't think I need to go that far though. I think in the simple debate of needing empiricism versus something more (real/explainable or not), one need only point to the historical foundation of justice upon religious thought (maybe we don't need it now, but all we can say is that we founded most of our societies morality and codes of justice upon notions taken from religion - can we yet get rid of them, if ever?), or to the striking reality that the vast, and I mean, VAST, majority of charitable work that takes place on this planet, is done by religious people and motivated by religious thought. Caring for everything from education to the sick, needy, and suffering, religiously motivated individuals are the ones out their doing the most work precisely because of, not in spite of, their religious notions.
I think for these two reasons alone, it is impossible to argue that if all religious notions were removed from the world tomorrow, the world would be better off for it. I think the observable reality at this moment in time, is that it would not.
-
Re: Religion: A force for good or ill?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Galant
You see, empiricism cannot provide any real answer to the commonly desired and acknowledge notions of real, objective justice, or good, or reward, or evil. Everyone just eats shoots and leaves.
You might be fine with that.
So it is better to make up some fantastical cobblers in order to make yourself feel better? Then of course start punishing those who don't agree with what the Magic Pixie considers good?
-
Re: Religion: A force for good or ill?
I find the notion that people are by nature corrupt is a nasty, immoral doctrine. This is part of the sickness of religion that creates a fictious 'illness' and offers the only possible cure.
It's just a con, and a lot of people are week-minded enough to fall for it, or indoctrinated by their parents.
To suggest that one particular religion is the sole source of morality is idiotic. When a religion uses this type of scam to keep it's followers in a set of fear, that's immoral.
Anyone who has actually read the Bible or Qur'an and claims that these books represent a good moral code is a sick, twisted and damaged individual.
-
Re: Religion: A force for good or ill?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wasabi
So it is better to make up some fantastical cobblers up to make yourself feel better? Then of course start punishing those who don't agree with what the Magic Pixie considers good?
I was speaking of the need, or least desire, for an objective morality where things really are good or really are bad, aside from any specifics - whatever they may be. This actually a decent example of that reality. If there is an objective reality then making up lies an imposing them can be genuinely despicable and we can make our judgements based upon the standard of that objective reality. If, however, morality is relative then there isn't any problem with doing so, we just don't like it. Your objection is based upon the idea that lying to people and treating them badly is actually wrong. The challenge is discovering what that standard is.
-
Re: Religion: A force for good or ill?
lol. I'm glad Galant entered the discussion, since he put the point across far more succinctly than I would have done, while thinking across the same lines. Was actually musing over posting this afternoon, then logged in and saw his response.
Regardless of what TeePee or others find reprehensible in Christianity, religion is not and never has been advocated as desirable in the Bible. Truth has. And I assume that is the goal off all peeps on this thread - to establish and trumpet the truth as they see it.
No, I'm not getting all cuddly and huggy here.
For someone on the Christian side of the divide, they advocate Christ as the truth; for an atheist, they tend to support materialism as the source of truth, because that's all they know.
Being religious about anything tends not to help either side of the debate. Being religious is about rule observance, a static perception, and intolerance of any alternative viewpoint.
Ho hum. Pursue the truth.
-
Re: Religion: A force for good or ill?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TeePee
I find the notion that people are by nature corrupt is a nasty, immoral doctrine. This is part of the sickness of religion that creates a fictious 'illness' and offers the only possible cure.
It's just a con, and a lot of people are week-minded enough to fall for it, or indoctrinated by their parents.
To suggest that one particular religion is the sole source of morality is idiotic. When a religion uses this type of scam to keep it's followers in a set of fear, that's immoral.
Anyone who has actually read the Bible or Qur'an and claims that these books represent a good moral code is a sick, twisted and damaged individual.
So when you take a look at the world today, the conflict in the Congo, the rape, murder, kidnapping, the abuse of governments world wide, the neglect of the poor, the morbid interest in and expenditure upon trivialities and gossip while curable poverty and suffering exist, the greed, the abuses of the banks, the wars, the murder and abuse of children and no end of other ills, you don't think that indicates an inherent problem within us?
You don't think that if alien visitors came to the Earth and viewed its history it would be possible they could come to the conclusion that human beings are corrupt and given to wrong?
-
Re: Religion: A force for good or ill?
When religious people blew up the Boston Marathon, it was humans who ran toward the blast to help save the injured.
You can't pick a few example of bad people doing bad things (Especially in the Congo, where they are fighting a religious war), and condemn the entire human race for them. Keep spinning the con man's tales.
Rape, murder, kidnapping? More likely to be committed by religious people than the irreligious, statistically.
Abuse of children? As we know, religious organisations are well known for this, and not just the Catholics.
Poverty and suffering? And the religious hail Mother Theresa as a shining light. She who thought sick people should suffer in their dying days. It's religion which has led to suffering from the spread of HIV in Africa.
It is no wonder that there is a strong correlation between religiosity and lower quality of life and social equity in every country around the world. The lower the religion, the stronger a country scores in every social metric.
The only action most religious people take to help someone else is to pray for them. Because that allows them to massage their ego and believe that they have done something. Which, of course, they haven't.
Religion is an inherent problem with mankind.
-
Re: Religion: A force for good or ill?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TeePee
When religious people blew up the Boston Marathon, it was humans who ran toward the blast to help save the injured.
You can't pick a few example of bad people doing bad things (Especially in the Congo, where they are fighting a religious war), and condemn the entire human race for them. Keep spinning the con man's tales.
Rape, murder, kidnapping? More likely to be committed by religious people than the irreligious, statistically.
Abuse of children? As we know, religious organisations are well known for this, and not just the Catholics.
Poverty and suffering? And the religious hail Mother Theresa as a shining light. She who thought sick people should suffer in their dying days. It's religion which has led to suffering from the spread of HIV in Africa.
It is no wonder that there is a strong correlation between religiosity and lower quality of life and social equity in every country around the world. The lower the religion, the stronger a country scores in every social metric.
The only action most religious people take to help someone else is to pray for them. Because that allows them to massage their ego and believe that they have done something. Which, of course, they haven't.
Religion is an inherent problem with mankind.
Wow. Reality check?
Congo is not a religious war. It's a resource war for one of the most resource rich countries/regions on the planet.
But that's just one war. There are plenty of others. And I've just decided that I'm not going to challenge the rest of your points. I'm going to reiterate a point I made earlier and say that blaming religion for all of these ills doesn't change the problem for those who reject all spirituality. Since, TeePee, you reject it all, then religion,with all its ills, is a human product, and so religion which is an inherent problem with mankind, demonstrates that there is a problem with mankind.
So we agree. There is a demonstrable, world-wide problem with mankind. I'm not entirely sure how you explain it. As for me, I say that it is an underlying spiritual problems which shows itself in many ways. How do you explain it?
-
Re: Religion: A force for good or ill?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Galant
Wow. Reality check?
Congo is not a religious war. It's a resource war for one of the most resource rich countries/regions on the planet.
But that's just one war. There are plenty of others. And I've just decided that I'm not going to challenge the rest of your points. I'm going to reiterate a point I made earlier and say that blaming religion for all of these ills doesn't change the problem for those who reject all spirituality. Since, TeePee, you reject it all, then religion,with all its ills, is a human product, and so religion which is an inherent problem with mankind, demonstrates that there is a problem with mankind.
So we agree. There is a demonstrable, world-wide problem with mankind. I'm not entirely sure how you explain it. As for me, I say that it is an underlying spiritual problems which shows itself in many ways. How do you explain it?
Whoa there. One second war is a resource problem, the next it is a spiritual problem with mankind.
I take it the only way to fix mankind's problems is to follow the absolute reassuring moral guidance of the Magic Pixie? Rather than, you know, thinking about it a bit?
-
Re: Religion: A force for good or ill?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
wasabi
Whoa there. One second war is a resource problem, the next it is a spiritual problem with mankind.
I take it the only way to fix mankind's problems is to follow the absolute reassuring moral guidance of the Magic Pixie? Rather than, you know, thinking about it a bit?
Under-lying spiritual problem showing itself in various ways - abusive greed and power grabbing being two of them.
Also, the OP's question was, is religion a force for good. I stated that I thought a materialistic only viewpoint is inadequate and unsatisfying in terms of providing a moral compass or motivating towards whatever 'goodness' one determines. I also pointed out that 'religious thought' gave rise to much of the system and way of thinking which established the sense of rights and justice prevalent today, as well as also being the motivation for most of the world's charitable work at present.
That's all.
What's your take on the OP's poll question - and if religion is a force for evil, please explain all the good being done? I'd also be interested to hear your reply to my previous response to your comment about objective morality vs. subjective.
Finally, on the subject of thinking, would you agree that we are currently in the most knowledgeable and enlightened age the human race has ever seen, where the thinking is clearest?
-
Re: Religion: A force for good or ill?
Of course it's a religious war. I know you'll claim the Christian militants aren't true Scotsmen..
You say religion is a problem and claim the solution is MORE religion? I know logic has never been your strong point, but this is approaching the surreal.
The abhorrent notion that babies are born bad, and can only be 'saved' by your particular brand of faith-healing is just a con. A cult of fear.
-
Re: Religion: A force for good or ill?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Galant
Finally, on the subject of thinking, would you agree that we are currently in the most knowledgeable and enlightened age the human race has ever seen, where the thinking is clearest?
I would certainly agree that we live in the most secular age in history, yes.
-
Re: Religion: A force for good or ill?
Firstly Congo, 95% of Congolese self identify as Christian. Those Christian are now responsible for 5.4million+ causalities. Nearly half of which children. The devout love of Jesus on all sides has yet to even slow this down.
Just looking at current events in 2013 AD, 1434 AH or AM 5773;
No atheists/agnostics have been eating human hearts on youtube videos.
No atheists/agnostics have been using chemical weapons.
No atheists/agnostics have been beheading people in the street.
No atheists/agnostics mutilated their children.
No atheists/agnostics are taking over large medical corporations for force their doctrine on patients at the expense of their health.
No atheists/agnostics are creating and running fake medical services to force their doctrine on patients at the expense of their health.
No atheists/agnostics are giving misleading medical advice, killing hundreds of thousands, in the name of their doctrine.
No atheist/agnostic organisations suppress and manipulate information provided to school children to force their doctrine on them at the expense of their education.
No atheist/agnostic organisations are implicated in widespread child abuse and protection of abusers.
No atheist/agnostic organisations are implicated in widespread money laundering for serious criminal organisations involved in drug and human trafficking(and associated murders, torture and rapes).
No atheist/agnostic organisations or governments have; killed, tortured or imprisoned anybody for not holding the same beliefs as them.
No atheist/agnostic organisations fulfil the BITE criteria for the definition of a dangerous cult, ten's of thousands of religious groups do.
No atheist/agnostic organisations are engaged in prolonged and violent campaigns against homosexuals.
No atheist/agnostic organisations are engaged in prolonged and violent campaigns against women.
No atheist/agnostic organisations are engaged in prolonged and violent campaigns against other races or beliefs resulting in millions of displaced and dead.
No atheist/agnostic organisations have used their wealth and power to suppress and discriminate against people of other beliefs via the political system.
I'm not arguing atheism/agnosticism is special, super lovely or even inherently 'more moral'(not right now anyway). They are merely the control group, but if religion in of itself is a force for good in the world(rather than people who were raised within it, who certainly can be). It must at minimum trump those with no theistic beliefs, the control group.
It quite plainly does not.
-
Re: Religion: A force for good or ill?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TooNice
Regarding the Drummer Lee Rigby murder case. The press has pointed out that the murderers were Muslim converts, but is there anything to suggest that they were motivated by religion (e.g. a confession of any sort)?
Yes he was quoting verses from the Koran(for a good 20minutes, because we don't have enough armed police), he even stated that he wasn't a violent man, but that because Allah mandated it via the Koran he had to. Along with the usual cries of Allah Ackbar, jihad etc. This has gotten little media coverage, I assume to avoid giving his message publicity. I don't necessarily object to this so long as actual motivations aren't misrepresented.
This is exactly the kind of solo/very small group, small scale, home grown terrorism AQ has been promoting lately.
Quote:
“I strongly recommend all of the brothers and sisters coming from the West to consider attacking America in its own backyard,”
Quote:
“The effect is much greater, it always embarrasses the enemy, and these types of individual decision-making attacks are nearly impossible for them to contain,”
Quote:
R U dreamin’ of wagin’ jihadi attacks against kuffar?” the 64-page manual asks, using a pejorative term for unbeliever. “Have u been lookin’ 4 a way to join the mujahideen in frontlines, but you haven’t found any? Well, there’s no need to travel abroad, because the frontline has come to you
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/06/us...anted=all&_r=0
-
Re: Religion: A force for good or ill?
I don't think there's a lot I can add to the discussion that has already taken place here, but I'll give my 2p anyway.
It's very helpful when considering the question asked by the OP to attempt to differentiate between religion and religious extremism, since they are very different philosophies with very different motivations. Religious extremism can't exist without the framework of religion of course, but then neither can pseudo-political extremism (e.g. Anders Breivik) exist without politics. Nor can insanity exist without sanity...
More importantly it is key to note that any form of extremism must be considered in light of the mental state of the perpetrator. There are very few cases in which a person or group commit crimes under the banner of extremism without some kind of mental issue, whether that be delusion, paranoid schizophrenia, depression or shock - amongst many others.
On the whole, although I am an atheist I am happy to co-exist with normal religious folk as long as they go about their business and I can go about mine with minimal disruption. But I always have to question how things would be if religion and mass delusion had never evolved in the human race. I understand of course that this would never have been possible, as the capabilities of the human mind evolved far more rapidly than our understanding of the fixed laws of the universe, or the subjective, flexible framework of morality and eudaimonia. Religion crept in to answer those questions a long time ago and has never left us despite the fact that I truly believe it is no longer relevant, particularly in the civilised world.
I have often questioned where the human race would have ended up had this inevitable twist not occurred. Even as atheists we are forced to accept that our moral framework is largely based upon millennia of religious dominance, and we are quite often sold the theory that without religion the world would be a far more brutish place. However, I strongly disagree with this concept based on what we can observe in the natural world. Other animals are capable of living together largely harmoniously in order to maximise their individual "success". I believe that in a parallel universe where religion had never dictated morality the human race would still be thriving and successful, possibly even more so. Of course there would always be conflict with or without religion, but if you take away the artificial segregation of religion it is one less flashpoint to worry about.
-
Re: Religion: A force for good or ill?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TeePee
Of course it's a religious war. I know you'll claim the Christian militants aren't true Scotsmen..
You say religion is a problem and claim the solution is MORE religion? I know logic has never been your strong point, but this is approaching the surreal.
The abhorrent notion that babies are born bad, and can only be 'saved' by your particular brand of faith-healing is just a con. A cult of fear.
No it's really not. Just because some people lay claim to a religion doesn't mean their motivations are religious or the driving force. The conflict in DPRC is a resource war combined with ethnic conflict. That is the absolute fact of the matter. Here, read this:
"UN Special Adviser on the Prevention of Genocide, Francis Deng, visited the Great Lakes region from 23 November to 4 December 2008 to assess whether or not the human rights violations in the North Kivu region of the DRC could be evidence of the “intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group as such”. He found that “massive violations of international human rights and humanitarian law were being committed on the basis of ethnicity and national origin” in the DRC. Special Adviser Deng urged all parties to the conflict to put an end to the atrocities and work toward a political solution."
As for religion being a problem you haven't paid the slightest attention to what I've said, so I'll say it once more and then I'm done repeating myself.
The question of the benefit/harm of 'religion' per se is the WRONG question, it's too shallow. It means nothing. I have said that if we boil it down to whether the inclusion of spiritual belief/thinking/motivation is a force for good, I would say it can be, depending upon the belief, and that it can be better than pure materialism which really can say very little on the subject of morality at all in the same way.
As for my last comment, I asked you a question about how you differentiate between religious and non-religious causes of ill since both of them stem from human beings - that is - you can't say humans don't demonstrate an inherent bad nature when all the problems with religion that you point out are all the product of human beings. To put the question in reverse for clarity, why, if human are not inherently bad natured, are there problems in the first place and on the scale that we see (religious or otherwise)?
-
Re: Religion: A force for good or ill?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
chuckskull
Firstly Congo, 95% of Congolese self identify as Christian. [SNIP]...
I'm not arguing atheism/agnosticism is special, super lovely or even inherently 'more moral'(not right now anyway). They are merely the control group, but if religion in of itself is a force for good in the world(rather than people who were raised within it, who certainly can be). It must at minimum trump those with no theistic beliefs, the control group.
It quite plainly does not.
Again, I've not argued religion is a force for good.
However, with regards the Congo, it's two different things to say that a conflict involves religious people and that a conflict is motivated by religion. It would seem that if 90% of the Congo all share the same religion, then whatever conflict exists is not taking place because of religion but in spite of it. No?
My argument was not that holding any sort of religious belief is a force for good. It was, [QUOTE=Galant]I think in the end, what this poll is actually trying to ascertain is whether purely empirical/scientific thought is the only consistent way to result in good and not ill. (SNIP) ... I think for these two reasons alone, it is impossible to argue that if all religious notions were removed from the world tomorrow, the world would be better off for it. I think the observable reality at this moment in time, is that it would not.[QUOTE] That is, certain types of 'religious' ideas/thoughts/beliefs have brought and continue to bring something to the table, and in a specific way, that pure materialism cannot. Putting even more succinctly, there has been and continues to be value in certain religious beliefs.
-
Re: Religion: A force for good or ill?
My post wasn't aimed at you, nor am I arguing directly against you Galant, although I'm obviously on the force for ill side. Just making that point in of itself. But going back to the original discussion.
No empiricism alone cannot be used in the manner you describe, I absolutely agree. Empirically speaking the the most direct route to the highest number of happy, healthy humans and it's long term maintenance would be an all out first strike with chemical weapons on Asia with the express intention of total annihilation of the population(2-4billion people). This would ensure enough food, energy, resources and living space for the remaining population. Free up a billion+ jobs, stimulate the economy and create several hundred million tons of high quality fertiliser. Not to mention the removal of climate change as an existential threat to our existence(In all human history no-one has done more for the environment than Genghis Khan). Nothing personal, highest population density is simply the best target and any retaliation would, in strategic terms, be minimal. Empirically speaking, surely the the most moral thing to do is make as many people happy and healthy as possible.
http://i.imgur.com/IYFqe6cl.jpg
Of course, I and any other right minded person would abhor such an act.
However empiricism must be part of the equation, along with empathy and respect for life. That trifecta is the only consistent way to achieve 'good'. Adding anything to that trifecta will only corrupt it, no matter how well intentioned and nothing is more consistently trying to insert itself than religion.
Human well being can be empirically measured, however a perfect and absolute morality can never be created by science nor God. This is the underlying issue. For any rule or system of rules that can be created a scenario can be created whereby their implementation would be a morally abhorrent thing to do. Only through empirical measurement of the issue, empathy for their suffering and commitment to their right to live, can we achieve the best possible outcome. If there is any value to human well being in certain religious beliefs, it is because there are right and nothing to do with their origin, which was usually not religion anyway.
Why do humans do bad things, if they aren't inherently bad? Because billions of them live in crippling poverty and a similar proportion have for all of human history, this combined with a powerful survival instinct and a high level of intelligence will produce abhorrent results, this is not the singular motivator, but it is the prime motivator. A history dominated almost totally by religious belief for nearly 50,000years, until the enlightenment. The movement/age that codified that trifecta into the human experience. The results speak for themselves, in fact we are using some of those results to speak.