Religion: Does It Do More Harm Than Good? (2 Viewers)

[volition]

In response to you guys, I think religion might make some people who would otherwise not hate other people, hate them. Even if it's just because of belonging to a community where you can get an "us vs them" mentality going

"Don't take Jews or Christians for friends. If you do, then Allah will consider you to be one of them." 5:51 The Quran

More? http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/

 

[ihavenothing]

We just hate people because they're fat

 

[Not-That-Bright]

i'm not debating...i'm more 'contributing'.

Um yeaaaaaaaaaaaaas

without creative activity, (i associate creativity to divine inspiration, something magical, something beautiful that's beyond understanding).

Big premise there... I mean we understand creativity to be something brought about by evolution.. the actual creative process its self is merely about different segments of information comming into your brain and you forming new ideas from them... I don't see where the magical source takes a part, but of course when you throw in a magical being they can do whatever the hell they like cuz they're magical.

without creativity in man, we would have nothing to talk about nothing to live for, no books no ideas no humour. we'd just work, rest and exist.

Here you list some good things to do with creativity... forgetting all the bad things that come with creativity also. 'Creativity' is a very broad term.

religion is part of our creativity, it can nurture the very essence that makes us human, that's why religion can be a good thing, a beautiful thing. it all depends on our own interpretation of it.

See you actually have to prove this because there are a shitload of non-religious very creative people.

to all those people who think religion is the reason for this hate, stop living in denial:

Ironic...

WE HATE EACH OTHER, BECAUSE WE HATE EACH OTHER.

Um yah... good call, you're trying to give us a reason as to why we hate each other... and you're saying 'we do because we do' - bad logic.

 

[heybraham]

yes not too bright, i know about the concept of riffing in creativity. but sometimes something truly creative comes along, and all u say is 'wow, i never thought of that'. that's 'magical', 'divine', 'inspirational', whatever the hell u want to call it, it still astonishes. i don't find the concept of 'riffing' very creative, but creativity is more or less just varying degrees of riffing if u want to look at it at an existential view. not like i give a shit, coz that's not my point anyway.

ps. all else u've said in that post could be summed up with a 'no', a simple denial. i don't need witless comebacks.

btw "people dont hate because religion told them to, they hate because they want to".

honestly, ure missing the point. i'm simply talking about what defines humanity, and that's culture. religion is just part of culture.

 

[ur_inner_child]

btw "people dont hate because religion told them to, they hate because they want to".

you keep saying that but what I keep saying is that it encourages the "i am right" mentality. It promotes it strongly, that they are the CORRECT God, everyone else is doomed/ignorant. It pushes people to believe such things if one is to follow a religion properly. It is not because they want to hate, you miss the point there. I agree that it is part of human nature to prejudice against differences, and I am saying that religion encourages it. Just because it is human nature does not mean anything that encourages such behaviour is "okay".

At this point, I'd like to bring up the fact that I have three wonderful friends, who, when it comes to religion, is on my back about it. One muslim, two CHristian. Both fundamentalists - feel that I need to be saved, even without my consent. They severely look down on me in the things I do, and have the balls to tell me I'm most probably going to hell and that it is their responsibility as "my friend" to help me. Their thinking is black and white, and I blame religion, considering it is the core part of their ways of thinking. Even weird case scenarios eg a family that does not ever marry, but raises kids and manages to stay intact is STILL not a family. And this is where your repeated sentence falters, considering it has nothing to do with what I'm saying here. It is narrow minded thinking. Religion encourages or pushes for the 'i am right, no exceptions' mentality. My friends want to 'save' me, not 'hate' me.

honestly, ure missing the point. i'm simply talking about what defines humanity, and that's culture. religion is just part of culture.

Just because its cultural doesnt make it right. If it is a culture, it has a significant system of values. Values are fairly subjective (except, I suppose the humanist ones eg do not kill) and are able to be challenged. It was cultural once to bind a chinese girls feet. It was a thing of beauty, art etc. But it was cultural. A set of values that defined a girl's looks. It CAN be challenged, it CAN change, morph through time, in which most cultural traditions have.

You say "culture" like it is out of the question to challenge it. I really really really beg to differ. Most of western society's current values are old values re-shaped, evolved or a replacement of the old. Eg women as possessions.

You're missing the point I feel. You keep reaffirming that "religion is a part of culture it defines humanity etc", it can, but it doesnt HAVE to. Proof here is that I am without religion, and I am still much of a human. If you're talking socially, we all know that it is a significant role to humanity, but it is not an essential one (if you put the existance of a deity aside). We ALL know it is human nature to think of a higher being and be spiritual, but you are putting forward that it cannot be questioned, as if it is a natural thing.

Even if you replaced this idea with art. "you cannot question art, because it is part of human nature". it is an absurd idea, because we are not questioning art itself, we are not trying to wipe art out of humanity, we are discussing more so its elements. Eg we could be questioning the value of postmodern techniques. It is STILL a valid question!

 

[Not-That-Bright]

This is from an atheist website (bias) I'm a subscriber of... you generally have to pay for this content however I believe this link should get around that - I'll take this down in a couple of days so please download it while you can and consider joining www.infidelguy.com

In the name of God - Scenes from Extremism

Rage, sadness, fear I can't explain how this documentary makes me feel. I'm speechless. Lawd help us. "This flim offers a glimpse into the world of Muslim extremists in Afganistan, Pakistan, Lebanon and the Palestinian territories. The people we will see do not represent the majority in the great religion of Islam." This is a large 349 MB file.

It is quite a pertanent movie for the question of 'what harm does religion do?'...

Another movie I suggest watching is "Osama" - the first movie made in Afghanistan after the removal of the taliban... story of a young girl posing as a boy to get money for her family under taliban rule. It's in arabic but the subtitles at least on the copy I watched were pretty good.

yes not too bright, i know about the concept of riffing in creativity. but sometimes something truly creative comes along, and all u say is 'wow, i never thought of that'. that's 'magical', 'divine', 'inspirational', whatever the hell u want to call it, it still astonishes. i don't find the concept of 'riffing' very creative, but creativity is more or less just varying degrees of riffing if u want to look at it at an existential view. not like i give a shit, coz that's not my point anyway.

Yea but you're just giving something which we do know a fair bit about... like we have explanations about where creativity comes from, but instead of taking the naturalistic scientific explanations you just go for the much more implausible supernatural explanation. You can attribute anything to a supernatural all-powerful being... but why would you when there's natural explanations that we can actually do something with?

ps. all else u've said in that post could be summed up with a 'no', a simple denial. i don't need witless comebacks.

Ooooo Witless!

 

[Brycie]

Hey I'd just like to say to all you churchie school types out there - public rulez, and Mr Marx once said words o AKA "religion is the opiate of the masses.' How true is that!

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Hey I'd just like to say to all you churchie school types out there - public rulez, and Mr Marx once said words o AKA "religion is the opiate of the masses.' How true is that!

PUBIC RULEZ!

 

[MiuMiu]

I hate (yes, hate) religion on both a personal and global scale.

No one has the right to tell me that the way I live is wrong. That the fact that I have a sexual relationship with one that I am not married to means I am a bad person (Christianity), or that as a female if I wear shorts and a tank top that I am disgusting (Islam). How dare another human being judge me like that.

On a global scale the root of ALL conflict stems from religion. You can argue as much as you like that its not, but if you manage to overcome your denial and actually look closely, all major conflict is religious based.

Religion will see the destruction of the world, not something that enriches it.

 

[the.chosen.one]

No one has the right to tell me that the way I live is wrong. That the fact that I have a sexual relationship with one that I am not married to means I am a bad person (Christianity), or that as a female if I wear shorts and a tank top that I am disgusting (Islam). How dare another human being judge me like that.

well if you take "religion" as what is written in black and white, then yes...you are likely to misunderstand it and hence dislike it.


religion can be seen as the ideas or values in which a person believes, in order to give meaning to his or her life.

today religion is vast, there are athiests and agnostics and several other smaller groups besides.

we're not tlaking about organised religion. or extremists.

religion is a concept. it is not black and white. if u take it to be black and white then yeah...you are gnna misinterpret it.

On a global scale the root of ALL conflict stems from religion. You can argue as much as you like that its not, but if you manage to overcome your denial and actually look closely, all major conflict is religious based.

you have to seperate religion and it's followers. i don't think religion has done anything to aid destruction of our world in any aspect. but yes, certain followers have. followers who misinterpret the religion they choose to follow, extremists etc.

RELIGION on it's own can only enrich. it's up to the believers/followers as to what effect they allow it to have.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

today religion is vast, there are athiests and agnostics and several other smaller groups besides.

Atheists and agnostics are not religious... saying that atheism is a religion is like saying not collecting stamps is a hobby.

religion is a concept. it is not black and white. if u take it to be black and white then yeah...you are gnna misinterpret it.

We can give an operational definition of the various religions so we can understand them and analyse them - you'd like to make religion this mysterious thing that can't be defined so you can just reject any analysis of it.

you have to seperate religion and it's followers. i don't think religion has done anything to aid destruction of our world in any aspect. but yes, certain followers have. followers who misinterpret the religion they choose to follow, extremists etc.

You CANNOT separate religion and its followers and do a proper analysis - for all operational purposes a religion is what its followers make of it.

RELIGION on it's own can only enrich. it's up to the believers/followers as to what effect they allow it to have.

You're saying that yet you're not willing to give an operational definition of what religion is... you're essentially just saying 'religion is a good thing, if it appears bad that's not real religion' and not giving any real definition so we can counter you.

 

[HotShot]

Atheists and agnostics are not religious... saying that atheism is a religion is like saying not collecting stamps is a hobby.

i think u could consider atheism as religion - in the sense u have faith that god doesnt exist?

 

[ur_inner_child]

i think u could consider atheism as religion - in the sense u have faith that god doesnt exist?

re·li·gion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-ljn)
n.

1. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

dictionary.com

 

[the.chosen.one]

i had a feeling you'd do that....and though i find it pointless in attemptin to have a rational discussion with you, i'll try it anyway.

first off,

We can give an operational definition of the various religions so we can understand them and analyse them - you'd like to make religion this mysterious thing that can't be defined so you can just reject any analysis of it.

i didn't say what i said without reason. from what i know, it's extremely hard to correctly define "religion" without missing out on some aspect of it. and i'll thank you to refrain from assuming what i'd "like to" do.

however, seeing as you would like to define religion ....i'm open to hear you out. what definition do you have for religion?

when i say religion is not black and white i mean that say, for eg, when a holy scripture emphasises that something should/should not be done, there is a concept behind it. it is this concept which is important to understand. if you say that oh, in islam u have to do such and such, without grasping an understanding of the underlying concept, you are likely to get a distorted image of the religion and its practises.

You CANNOT separate religion and its followers and do a proper analysis - for all operational purposes a religion is what its followers make of it.

are you serious? okay so in that case religion could be anything. no wonder people get misinterpreted ideas about what islam is like - becoz according to you, religion is what its followers make of it. so islam would include a whole heap of extremist values which, in fact are condemned in islam.

that's kinda like saying a movie is what it's viewers make of it. the viewers' response may be an indication of how the public responded to the movie. it may indicate public tastes and interests. but it is not the movie itself.

one same religion means different things to differnt ppl. but essentially, it is something through which ppl attempt to find meaning in life, and answer lifes' basic questions (eg. who am i? why am i here? is there life after death etc). religion provides people something, with which, they can give meaning/purpose to their life.

the destruction done in the name of religion is not supported by religion....it is done, and supported by people who just need an excuse to destroy/hate. it is supported by people who often misinterpret their religion and then use it to justify their actions.

religion is not what its followers make of it. religion is a constant: it stays the same no matter what ppl do in its name. it is the followers and their interpretations that are constantly changing.

 

[ur_inner_child]

i feel the question is pretty straight forward.

are you serious? okay so in that case religion could be anything. no wonder people get misinterpreted ideas about what islam is like - becoz according to you, religion is what its followers make of it. so islam would include a whole heap of extremist values which, in fact are condemned in islam.

I dont think you've understood, considering that idea was never suggested.

Does religion do more harm than good - and you're telling me we cannot analyse its followers when relating to the question? Even though specifically, as the thread creator, I asked people to look at religion socially, not emotively? Even religious types understand the concept, and agree that religion is a hazardous thing.

This IS a rational debate. I don't understand how you can't understand the flaw in your argument. You have told me that extremists are not representing religion, yet you don't know what the right of religion is. What if extremists, or a certain degree of "extreme" were the right way of following? Which interpretation of a religion is correct, do you know? And judging by the rules in which you've somehow created about debating this topic - to not include the followers, then religion collapses. You cannot say "religion itself enriches" when you do not wish to refer to the follower.

Instead, by doing this, you have been selective of what religion is - you cannot argue who does NOT represent the true following of religion considering you do not know what religion is yourself.

In a dictionary definition, the idea of a supernatural being who promotes that "we" and "they" mentality is a problem itself. That is what I keep affirming. It is also something you'd probably agree on, which is the reason why I have brought this thread to existance - that there are pro's and con's in religion and not many people are willing to see it.

The definition of not being black and white, I'm not sure what that means to you considering most contributors to this thread have handled religion in a very sophisticated manner, is not just text, we know. I strongly advise you to read through the thread again, because you are throwing punches underwater.

Religion provides people with something yes, I do see extremely good value in that quality, but we are debating here. We are not acknowledging that there is NO value, as stated the very first post of this thread, but whether it outweighs the other.

IN DOING SO, religious types can understand the flaws of a religious mentality, STILL maintain a religious belief if they so wish, but critically think, keep a severely open mind, and approach non-believers and the world with a different attitude to avoid such flaws.

 

[Generator]

i had a feeling you'd do that....and though i find it pointless in attemptin to have a rational discussion with you, i'll try it anyway.

Why would you say that? In what way are your views any more rational than NTB's?

religion is not what its followers make of it. religion is a constant: it stays the same no matter what ppl do in its name. it is the followers and their interpretations that are constantly changing.

A religion is essentially a physical and institutional manifestation of the religious teachings - you cannot divorce the teachings from the way in which they are interpreted and practiced (for better or worse).

 

[the.chosen.one]

Why would you say that? In what way are your views any more rational than NTB's?

i didn't actually have anything against his views, so i should have kept that comment to myself. my apologies NTB


ur inner child: i see what you're saying in that its necessary to consider the followers to answer the question in a correct perspective....but then would you say that destruction/good deeds done in the name of religion is becoz of religion? or the followers?

 

[MiuMiu]

If the followers of a religion are living in and acting in a way they interpret their religion to dictate, then yes, everything that is done, is done because of religion.

 

[ur_inner_child]

i didn't actually have anything against his views, so i should have kept that comment to myself. my apologies NTB


ur inner child: i see what you're saying in that its necessary to consider the followers to answer the question in a correct perspective....but then would you say that destruction/good deeds done in the name of religion is becoz of religion? or the followers?

when you put it that way, of course you criticise the person.

when it becomes a collective, you criticise their collective common belief

when we want to talk about what religion encourages, I say it encourages the "i am right", "non-believers are doomed/different/ignorant", which is a dangerous mentality to promote.

do you see the differences I see? Please feel free to tell me whether I should clarify particular parts of my post. I do ramble a bit sometimes.

 

[HotShot]

more specifically:
just explain how has religion done more harm than good?
Especially if it is the basis of our morals, ethics and laws..