Religion: Good or Bad?

[coltom]

Here's the thing, though: even if religion doesn't cause the problem in every case, it often prevents a solution.

 

With the gay marriage banning, or the gay-bashing, or all other forms of homophobia, people hide behind their religion. Then we can't say "Um, no, you can't do that" because then we're allegedly discriminating against people for religion. Because they get to use that as an excuse, they get to pretend they are every bit as persecuted as people who *are actually persecuted*. And that's how they manage to stop the legislation--by convincing people that if we allow gay marriage, then people will stop them from being allowed to have churches, etc.

 

Take away the excuse of religion, and people have no choice but to say "I just don't like it." And that doesn't stand up in a court of law.

 

Not like one's personal religion SHOULD stand up in a court of law as an excuse to take rights away from others, but...

Oh young one. The Soviets, to a lesser extent Nazi Germany and China moved away from an organized religion as most people would understand it, yet they committed sins against humanity to a degree that certainly rivals the worst that the Church of Rome ever thought about. They didn't need a religion to kill innocents and dance in the blood of the "others". They made a church out of the state, sans god but with will all the worst of the fanatics.

 

Study more of history, crimes against humanity have been done in the name of race, country, creed. It matter little if little red babies were killed because they were not American or because they were not Christian, in reality that was not the reason. No, think long and hard if you think religion was the only reason that they kill. During the trail of tears, the U.S. troops attacked a group of old bloods and whites that had taken refuge in a Christian Church. They burned the church, to get at "them". So I don't think they killed us for our religion. They killed, because we were not them, God is just an excuse.

 

No, don't blame She Created, for the acts done by the hand of man. Don't blame the Mother of us all, because we decide to do these acts. How can you blame religions for acts performed that are forbidden by the very god they claim to follow. If you believe in a god that says :Love they neighbour as you would yourself, you can't blame that religion because some scumpuppy hooks a chain to a gay man's feet and drags him to his death. No, don't blame god for the deeds of man.

 

Religion, true religion is what matters in the early hours of the morning, when they doctor's have came to you with stern faces and hushed tones, talked to you about how your child may not survive the night, and even if she does there might be brain damage from the lack of oxygen. There is nothing you can do, no act of skill no deed of courage that is going to save that little weak child. No, religion is about a prayer and song in a quiet corner of a dark hospital, because you will have to go on, and tend to your wife and comfort her and tell her that it is going to be ok, and you just don't have the strength. Religion is when you don't have it within you to go on, and from somewhere outside of you the sweet promise comes that it will be ok, live or die it will be ok.

And it was.

[hanashalash]

Religion just guides us to the right path and tells us there is a God

BUT

there are alot of different religions.

[Welcome Back Apathy]

Oh young one. The Soviets, to a lesser extent Nazi Germany and China moved away from an organized religion as most people would understand it, yet they committed sins against humanity to a degree that certainly rivals the worst that the Church of Rome ever thought about. They didn't need a religion to kill innocents and dance in the blood of the "others". They made a church out of the state, sans god but with will all the worst of the fanatics.

 

Study more of history, crimes against humanity have been done in the name of race, country, creed. It matter little if little red babies were killed because they were not American or because they were not Christian, in reality that was not the reason. No, think long and hard if you think religion was the only reason that they kill. During the trail of tears, the U.S. troops attacked a group of old bloods and whites that had taken refuge in a Christian Church. They burned the church, to get at "them". So I don't think they killed us for our religion. They killed, because we were not them, God is just an excuse.

 

First of all, please don't call me "young one". Not only is it incredibly disrespectful and condescending--and purposely so, or else you wouldn't have said it--but it's inaccurate. I'm pretty sure I stopped being able to be called young when I started walking with a cane. (Also, it's very disrespectful to people who ARE young--saying "I'm older, therefore I know better than you"...think about that before you post next time.)

 

The points I see in your argument:

(Please let me know if I am reading them incorrectly, and then clarify them)

 

1) Other bad things in history have been done that were NOT done in the name of religion. (Funny, I actually knew every single one of these, so I guess I don't really need to study more of history. Another point of condescension?)

2) Religion is only the good things about religion, not the bad things.

 

I have already addressed these points before, but it's been a while, so let me do it again.

 

Point 1: A teacher has a class full of students, and one student is caught passing notes at an inopportune time. When the teacher punishes the student, the student whines "But so-and-so was doing it!" How does the teacher respond?

a) Absolves the student of all blame and says it's okay because so-and-so was doing it too.

b) Absolves the student of all blame AND takes away all other blemishes on the student's record because another student happened to do it too.

c) Says "We're not talking about so-and-so. We're talking about you. You did it, and you have to face the consequences."

 

The things that DIDN'T happen in the name of religion are irrelevant, unless religion could have PREVENTED them. It doesn't make it okay that people have been killed in the name of religion just because people have been killed in the name of other things too. It doesn't erase the stain on history.

 

IF religion could and would have prevented any of those things, then it would count as a point in religion's favor. As I've said multiple times before, the fact that bad things have happened doesn't mean that good things haven't. Unfortunately, none of these things would have been prevented by religion, and therefore they stand completely irrelevant.

 

A lot of things HAVE been specifically done because of religion--witch hunts, Spanish Inquisition, terrorist bombings, the kidnapping of Elizabeth Smart (read the recent stuff too)--that were horrible and should never have happened. Had the religion not been around, those things would not have happened. A point against religion, although you would disagree, and we'll talk on the next point. But also factor in all the things, as I said quite recently, that were NOT done specifically because of religion but were done in the name of religion. Would they still have happened without religion? Probably. Could they have fallen flat on their faces? Also probably. Take out the reason for the action, take out the fanatical worship and fear of questioning, and people WILL start to question. People WILL stop following orders if they see the flimsiness behind the order. Reinforce that order with God--or the state, or whatever is at the other end--and the people will go through with the horrible acts.

 

Point 2: No. You cannot say that only the good things of something count. If religion hadn't been around--no matter how many good points of religion--certain things would not happen. As I've said before, it is the faith that causes bad things to happen. Faith, rather than relying on reason and basic philosophy and the ability to think about individual situations and understand why things are good and bad.

 

I am not blaming God. I mean, I don't believe in God, so it would be really stupid for me to blame God. I do blame mankind. Mankind does bad things. Mankind made religion. All the blame goes on people--but just as we talk about banning assault weapons even though it is the people who do the shooting, the weapon of religion must be discussed.

[coltom]

First of all, please don't call me "young one". Not only is it incredibly disrespectful and condescending--and purposely so, or else you wouldn't have said it--but it's inaccurate. I'm pretty sure I stopped being able to be called young when I started walking with a cane. (Also, it's very disrespectful to people who ARE young--saying "I'm older, therefore I know better than you"...think about that before you post next time.)

 

The points I see in your argument:

(Please let me know if I am reading them incorrectly, and then clarify them)

 

1) Other bad things in history have been done that were NOT done in the name of religion. (Funny, I actually knew every single one of these, so I guess I don't really need to study more of history. Another point of condescension?)

2) Religion is only the good things about religion, not the bad things.

 

I have already addressed these points before, but it's been a while, so let me do it again.

 

Point 1: A teacher has a class full of students, and one student is caught passing notes at an inopportune time. When the teacher punishes the student, the student whines "But so-and-so was doing it!" How does the teacher respond?

a) Absolves the student of all blame and says it's okay because so-and-so was doing it too.

b) Absolves the student of all blame AND takes away all other blemishes on the student's record because another student happened to do it too.

c) Says "We're not talking about so-and-so. We're talking about you. You did it, and you have to face the consequences."

 

The things that DIDN'T happen in the name of religion are irrelevant, unless religion could have PREVENTED them. It doesn't make it okay that people have been killed in the name of religion just because people have been killed in the name of other things too. It doesn't erase the stain on history.

 

IF religion could and would have prevented any of those things, then it would count as a point in religion's favor. As I've said multiple times before, the fact that bad things have happened doesn't mean that good things haven't. Unfortunately, none of these things would have been prevented by religion, and therefore they stand completely irrelevant.

 

A lot of things HAVE been specifically done because of religion--witch hunts, Spanish Inquisition, terrorist bombings, the kidnapping of Elizabeth Smart (read the recent stuff too)--that were horrible and should never have happened. Had the religion not been around, those things would not have happened. A point against religion, although you would disagree, and we'll talk on the next point. But also factor in all the things, as I said quite recently, that were NOT done specifically because of religion but were done in the name of religion. Would they still have happened without religion? Probably. Could they have fallen flat on their faces? Also probably. Take out the reason for the action, take out the fanatical worship and fear of questioning, and people WILL start to question. People WILL stop following orders if they see the flimsiness behind the order. Reinforce that order with God--or the state, or whatever is at the other end--and the people will go through with the horrible acts.

 

Point 2: No. You cannot say that only the good things of something count. If religion hadn't been around--no matter how many good points of religion--certain things would not happen. As I've said before, it is the faith that causes bad things to happen. Faith, rather than relying on reason and basic philosophy and the ability to think about individual situations and understand why things are good and bad.

 

I am not blaming God. I mean, I don't believe in God, so it would be really stupid for me to blame God. I do blame mankind. Mankind does bad things. Mankind made religion. All the blame goes on people--but just as we talk about banning assault weapons even though it is the people who do the shooting, the weapon of religion must be discussed.

Ah, so nice you know exactly what is in my heart. That I would greet you with a loosely translated term for anyone I was trying to teach, well, you know exactly what I mean when I say "young one". I stand in awe, such amazing ability to know all things of a stranger, from a culture you have never been around. You know not my name, my clan nor my nation, yet you know my hearts intent. My my my, I am in such awe of your skills.

 

I also am in awe of your ability to say that so many tragedies in the world that had a delude lost soul tack a supposed religious basis for their insanity, you know with certainty that they would not have happened. Oh, certainty must be a blessing to give you comfort.

 

As I have said before, there are some that decide the way the world must be and use their intellect to shape the facts to fit their conclusions and there are some that use their gifts to seek the truth. So far, katnikiachi, your skills at rhetoric and logic would indicated you follow into the first category. Aiyee, but you always have the opportunity to change my analysis.

 

So, if religion is bad because bad things have been done in the name of religion and if bad things have been in the name secular reasons and if bad things have been done in the name of science, they your reason is that religion, law, government and science must all be thrown out. After all, some people were tortured to death in the name of science, therefore all science must be bad.

 

Dang it, here I have to throw away a perfectly good religion and a perfectly good career, because of some evil that has been done in their name. Oh dear, some people use their yargas to commit unspeakable acts against the innocent, so I suppose I must take a knife to mine least it is used for evil. Aiyee, I find that conclusion most unsatisfactory. I was planning to eat supper, but some people have used supper to poison their spouse, so I must cease eating.

 

No, katnikiachi, I think it would be absurd to give up eating or my yargis or my religion. All these things, in balance have given me some comfort in my days upon this world.

[Mireia]

Ah, so nice you know exactly what is in my heart. That I would greet you with a loosely translated term for anyone I was trying to teach, well, you know exactly what I mean when I say "young one". I stand in awe, such amazing ability to know all things of a stranger, from a culture you have never been around. You know not my name, my clan nor my nation, yet you know my hearts intent. My my my, I am in such awe of your skills.

 

I also am in awe of your ability to say that so many tragedies in the world that had a delude lost soul tack a supposed religious basis for their insanity, you know with certainty that they would not have happened. Oh, certainty must be a blessing to give you comfort.

 

As I have said before, there are some that decide the way the world must be and use their intellect to shape the facts to fit their conclusions and there are some that use their gifts to seek the truth. So far, katnikiachi, your skills at rhetoric and logic would indicated you follow into the first category. Aiyee, but you always have the opportunity to change my analysis.

 

So, if religion is bad because bad things have been done in the name of religion and if bad things have been in the name secular reasons and if bad things have been done in the name of science, they your reason is that religion, law, government and science must all be thrown out. After all, some people were tortured to death in the name of science, therefore all science must be bad.

 

Dang it, here I have to throw away a perfectly good religion and a perfectly good career, because of some evil that has been done in their name. Oh dear, some people use their yargas to commit unspeakable acts against the innocent, so I suppose I must take a knife to mine least it is used for evil. Aiyee, I find that conclusion most unsatisfactory. I was planning to eat supper, but some people have used supper to poison their spouse, so I must cease eating.

 

No, katnikiachi, I think it would be absurd to give up eating or my yargis or my religion. All these things, in balance have given me some comfort in my days upon this world.

Oh, I see, using the famous reductio ad absurdum. I wondered who would be the first to use it.

 

What Welcome Back Apathy said is that, the fact that bad things have been done, not in the name of religion, does not mean that in fact, very bad things have been done in the name of religion.

 

Please, this is supposed to be a serious debate, keep it like that.

[coltom]

Oh, I see, using the famous reductio ad absurdum. I wondered who would be the first to use it.

 

What Welcome Back Apathy said is that, the fact that bad things have been done, not in the name of religion, does not mean that in fact, very bad things have been done in the name of religion.

 

Please, this is supposed to be a serious debate, keep it like that.

Well, then look to see who did the first to reduce the argument to the absurd. You scold me for pointing out the fact?

The previous "argument" was that bad things had been done in the name of religion, ipso facto religion must be bad. Then it was compounded with the "argument of the angels" that there but for religion that mankind would have better nature. Aiyee, so I counter that mankind has done many evils without the burden of religion, thus by any logical rules the debate should have been ceded.

 

To paraphrase Handsome Lake and Christ, it is hard to argue colours of the sky when your head is affixed downwards. If you are convinced that my experience is worthless, if you are convinced that all examples that do not agree with your point are invalid, then I see little need to argue with the man who is blind because he will not open his eyes.

[Spritzie]

This is getting out of hand. This thread is for debating the subject in the original post, not to attack or demean anyone for their opinions on the said topic or any type of name calling since regardless of what it may mean to one person, it could be taken a different/offensive way.

Let's keep this as a debate only on the subject at hand, without attacking other members for their point of views. Please be respectful to everyone. If you can't debate and get your point across respectfully, it's best to keep it to yourself.

[Welcome Back Apathy]

I fail to see how I have reduced anyone's argument to the absurd. I reduced it, yes, but I reduced it to something reasonable that we could then talk about. Easy to follow. (If you think it was absurd, then I'm worried that you may think your own argument is absurd. It's not absurd! It's just something I disagree with, and therefore addressed. Politely.) As I requested before, IF you think I have answered the wrong points, then please clarify them. Simply. If I have misunderstood, then the best way to "teach" me is to state it simply. Without treating me like I'm beneath you, as sadly, you have continued to do even after my polite request.

 

Unfortunately, you seem very much to have misunderstood my argument, so I will clarify so you CAN understand.

 

My stance: Religion has done more bad than good. If religion had never existed, I believe the world would be a better place, based on a plethora of evidence that other people and I have provided throughout this thread. BUT that doesn't mean all religion is bad. That doesn't mean that everyone has to give up their religion to make the world a better place.

 

In fact, here is precisely what I said about it before (28 December 2012 - 11:55 PM):

 

Now, do I believe that means that religion should be banned? No. Religion is like a knife. It is a useful tool in the hands of the good. It only has bad effects when in the hands of the bad. I am not a rule utilitarian--I am a utilitarian. And I believe that in regards to religion, the best world we can get is one in which we keep the good effects of religion while somehow removing the bad.

 

So now you know, no, I don't think you have to give up your religion! I understand that it's annoying to dig through pages of debate to find these things, but I didn't know before I posted the last couple posts that I would have to restate everything I've said earlier.

 

As to when you said:

 

The previous "argument" was that bad things had been done in the name of religion, ipso facto religion must be bad. Then it was compounded with the "argument of the angels" that there but for religion that mankind would have better nature. Aiyee, so I counter that mankind has done many evils without the burden of religion, thus by any logical rules the debate should have been ceded.

 

Since there is a misunderstanding, I am clarifying. Bad things have been done not only in the name of religion, but specifically because of religion. There is a step you missed before the conclusion, however: Good things have been done in the name of religion and specifically because of religion. However, there has been more bad than good. That does not discount all the good, but we can't discount all the bad just because there has been good.

 

I've already addressed the second point you said there, although I never said "better nature". No. People are good or bad with or without religion. As I said before, many times now, religion facilitates and multiplies both the good and the bad. The effects, however--the good and bad EFFECTS, not the nature of the people. Again, the faith--throwing logic and reason out the window--causes the bad effects to multiply, while also setting up safeguards to make sure the bad effects can continue happening.

 

 

As to

If you are convinced that my experience is worthless, if you are convinced that all examples that do not agree with your point are invalid, then I see little need to argue with the man who is blind because he will not open his eyes.

I never said that all examples I do not agree with are invalid. I explained precisely why certain points you brought up are irrelevant. Because they have nothing to do with religion. That's why I brought up the teacher thing--because you used the exact argument "other bad things have happened without religion." Okay, but like I said, are they things that religion did? No. Are they things that religion could have prevented? No. So religion's score on these ones is zero, and it doesn't help or hurt anyone's case.

 

I hope this clarification helped. I really don't know how I can state it any more simply.

[Anna Jokela]

I believe that the answer to the question: "Has religion done more good than bad?" depends on how religion is viewed.

 

In example: I am atheist, but many of my friends are religious; some are stronger in faith than the others. I am good friends with Christians, Mormons and Jews. While we may have very different beliefs religion has never been an issue to us. Religious/non-religious is a very personal thing to us and we all agree that different people think differently - there is no point in blaming, judging and hating. So on personal level, what has religion caused? In the end I think it is +/- situation, nevertheless I can't deny how important it is to some.

 

But when I think of religion on larger scale (schools, government, laws etc.) I can't help but see the bad things it has caused. No, religions should not be banned or discriminated. Religious things just should not have a place in the education system or in the government. Never. Why? Because schools are to teach us critical thinking, history, languages, math & science and religion - in a form of history and culture. Public schools should not follow or judge anyones personal beliefs (I know absolutely nothing about the education system outside Scandinavia, I'm sorry if I am speaking rubbish here =P). On larger scale religion should never justify any decision. It is reason & logic. Science is pretty good at that.

 

Has religion done only bad things on larger scale? Nope. Churches help homeless people, collect money to help children in Africa and offer consolation. Conclusion? Religion in itself may not be bad or good - it is the people who do good and bad things. Good people would do good things no matter what did they belive and the same goes for the bad people.

 

And lastly about the same-sex marriage. Even here in Scandinavia (relatively non-religious countries) people who stand against it often justify it because religion x says y. I have personally never understood why people do that. Here no one is forcing any church to do anything. Marriage in here has nothing to do with religion if you don't especially want to have religious weddings. So I am all for same-sex marriage. I have never heard a single good or even decent argument against it and I'll most likely never will.

 

Thank you for reading and sorry for all the typos and grammar mistakes I did =P

I wrote this on my phone and I am far from a native speaker.

[hanashalash]

 

And keep in mind MANY criminals are Christians....

 

I'm a Muslim but I feel the need to say something to this.

I hate when people call my religion the terrorist religion just because a couple of terrorists were Muslims Well those terrorists don't define Islam and so are those criminals you speak of, they don't define Christianity. The way you said it made it seem like you were putting all the blame on the religion, not the criminals. I hate it when people do that to my religion and I'm not gonna stand there watching this happen to other religions as well!

People are what they are. There are good people and bad but those qualities don't define the religions those people are in.

I'm sorry but I just had to say something. Even if you didn't mean it the way I thought you meant it, I still just wanted to get the message out there :)

People don't define religion. Religion should define people, but sadly it doesn't for the most part.

[Welcome Back Apathy]

I'm sorry but I just had to say something. Even if you didn't mean it the way I thought you meant it, I still just wanted to get the message out there :)

People don't define religion. Religion should define people, but sadly it doesn't for the most part.

 

Actually, the post you're talking about was a direct address to someone who claimed that Christianity gives you a moral code and stops you from doing bad things. It claimed that's why religion was good. It was not defining Christians as criminals--on the contrary, it was opposing the definition someone else had given that atheists are criminals.

[emkatrine]

I don't think that religion itself is bad, but unfortunately there will always be some bad people who use and abuse religion, and harm others that way .

 

It's people - not religion - that is harmful.

[GlitteryCupcake]

Well religion gives everyone a guide to life, what they should do and what they should not. Most religions tell people right from wrong so I think that religions are good.

That's the problem. Different religions and texts tell you what to think, but not how to think.

[Finn the Human]

That's the problem. Different religions and texts tell you what to think, but not how to think.

But that is not the religion's fault. It is the way people misuse the religion.

[coltom]

Oh Glittery Cake of Cup, you have to clarify that statement. One of the principle tenants of our religion is the need to self discover, the need to look inward to discover what is important in this world. Sometimes we walk the path, and sometimes the path finds our feet. Certainly Buddhism is almost certainly about reflection, meditation, discovery. Even real Christianity, not the false church sponsored by the right wing hypocrites, is based upon discovery, learning, discovery. Read the Book of Ecclesiastes, then ponder if it telling you what is right. Read real scholars, St. Augustine, Thomas A, and you discover that real religion is always about learning how, not simply some magical pledge of fidelity and then christ the genie starts giving you stuff.

 

People that have absolute certainty that in this immense universe, in this immense span of time before and after, that there will never be nothing beyond the physical. That seems rather dogmatic and close minded to me.

[lilshadowdweller]

Oh Glittery Cake of Cup, you have to clarify that statement. One of the principle tenants of our religion is the need to self discover, the need to look inward to discover what is important in this world. Sometimes we walk the path, and sometimes the path finds our feet. Certainly Buddhism is almost certainly about reflection, meditation, discovery. Even real Christianity, not the false church sponsored by the right wing hypocrites, is based upon discovery, learning, discovery. Read the Book of Ecclesiastes, then ponder if it telling you what is right. Read real scholars, St. Augustine, Thomas A, and you discover that real religion is always about learning how, not simply some magical pledge of fidelity and then christ the genie starts giving you stuff.

 

People that have absolute certainty that in this immense universe, in this immense span of time before and after, that there will never be nothing beyond the physical. That seems rather dogmatic and close minded to me.

 

 

Why is it "closed minded"? Please read what the moderator said about your opinion. Calling people "close minded" is an attack, not a debate. Your mentality echos someone with a superiority complex - you do not seek to defend religion, you seek gratification for yourself. Are you unable to debate in a respecful manner?

[coltom]

Why is it "closed minded"? Please read what the moderator said about your opinion. Calling people "close minded" is an attack, not a debate. Your mentality echos someone with a superiority complex - you do not seek to defend religion, you seek gratification for yourself. Are you unable to debate in a respecful manner?

I believe I said "People that have absolute certainty that in this immense universe, in this immense span of time before and after, that there will never be nothing beyond the physical. That seems rather dogmatic and close minded to me. "

Is that not enough justification for that statement? How old is the universe, is there a multiverse? Are we a cyclic phenomena, with new creations springing from the quantum void in acts of endless creations. Given infinity, to state a belief that something does not exist nor will ever exist strikes me as a tad irrational. Be agnostic, doubt, ponder, but to have FAITH in nonexistence while dismissing those that have belief in existence Sorry, that strikes me as a tad irrational.

I'm sorry that you are willing to be so dismissive of my original statement, otherwise you could have never taken that leap of faith that I was being "close minded".

 

So, now parable. Long ago when I was a young man. There was a beautiful Indian Princess. Well, not really as NDN don't have princesses but she was the eldest daughter of the clan that was honored to be the Sister of mazetiza. She loved a handsome man, a good man. A brave man that went to fight in a far away places, to die with his bones never coming back to rest at Home. As is often the way, and is considered honourable and proper, an unborn was growing when his father went to place his soul deserved. If you think he had no soul, then he just died, but back to the story.

 

Now, with the Women that Assist in such things, this created a bit of a dilemma, as tradition believes a woman should have (own) a husband to assist in a child. At least, name a man to be there for the rituals and traditions to stand as a father. As luck would have it, the dead soldier had a younger brother. While not always done, it was considered right for the younger brother to be father for the child not yet born. While he was young, he was old enough to be legally married to the Beautiful One, the one who's smile shame the rising sun, who's laughter was music beyond all. So this boy trying to be a man, stood for his brother, cause he loved his brother and would have done anything for him.

 

All went well, for awhile. Yet, she began to have pain, weak, she grew pink. The diagnosis was a cancer, and the only chance was to abort and take chemo. We always believe that a mother is the only voice that his right in such a discussion, the Creator gave unto the women the gift of life and family. So the choices were to abort and take a moderate chance at life or hope she would live long enough to birth a child that she would never see grow, never know, never see develop and grow into an adult.

 

She made her choice.

 

 

[GlitteryCupcake]

But that is not the religion's fault. It is the way people misuse the religion.

 

Yes, I do agree that people misuse religion, and I also believe that there are many tenants of religion that are worth following. However, you said, "Well religion gives everyone a guide to life, what they should do and what they should not. Most religions tell people right from wrong so I think that religions are good." I'm replying to your specific choice of words, that "religions tell people right from wrong," and that is why it is good. There's a difference between being a source of moral guidance that leads to introspection, mediation, prayer, whatever, and being a source of moral guidance simply because it says X is right and Z is wrong. So, if a religion simply "tells you right from wrong", as opposed to teaching you how to think about right and wrong, then yes, it is at "fault."

 

Oh Glittery Cake of Cup, you have to clarify that statement. One of the principle tenants of our religion is the need to self discover, the need to look inward to discover what is important in this world. Sometimes we walk the path, and sometimes the path finds our feet. Certainly Buddhism is almost certainly about reflection, meditation, discovery. Even real Christianity, not the false church sponsored by the right wing hypocrites, is based upon discovery, learning, discovery. Read the Book of Ecclesiastes, then ponder if it telling you what is right. Read real scholars, St. Augustine, Thomas A, and you discover that real religion is always about learning how, not simply some magical pledge of fidelity and then christ the genie starts giving you stuff.

 

People that have absolute certainty that in this immense universe, in this immense span of time before and after, that there will never be nothing beyond the physical. That seems rather dogmatic and close minded to me.

I think my response to Finn the Human is also an appropriate response to coltom.

[MaskedBeastDesGardius]

And if you look above you will see a prime example of how "tolerant" atheists are to people with other beliefs. Now watch as I point out that Hitler, Stalin, and Kim Jong il/Un are all atheists and watch him throw a hissy fit over the facts.

 

Atheism is the cause of nearly every genocide, dude.

 

Don't make me wanna laugh. Atheism is World peace , while religion means War.

 

Religion is the number one cause of any war.

[coltom]

Religion is the number one cause of any war.

 

Shall we ponder that hypothesis. Shall we take the American experience for our test case.

 

Queen Anne's War. Mainly a struggle of the French Empire against the British. Given the Catholic/Prot split between the two empires there might be considered a religious aspect to the conflict, so let us go 10% religion and 90% commerce.

 

American rebellion. An illegal act based upon commerce and partially the notion that somehow that men were equal in the law. A largely religious aspect to this concept of equality, but also sometimes a highly secular battle for ideas. Also a second round in the ongoing struggle between the French and British empires, so there is that whole aspect. 30% religious and 70 commerce.

 

War of 1812 Very little religious aspect, I'm going 10% religious and 90 secular.

 

War with Spain/Mexico. Certainly Prot/Catholic had some involvement. 25% religious/75 nationalism

 

American Civil War. Mainly a religious conflict over the belief that all men have souls. I'll have to say that this illegal and unconstitutional conflict, as slavery was clearly allowed by the Const, was mainly a religious war, but a large involvement in Commerce. 70% religious, 30% commerce.

 

Spanish American War Oh Nationalism 25% religious/75 nationalism

 

WWI Certainly wrapped in nationalism and religious, but mostly about German's attempt to compete in the European game of World Domination. Again, I'll go 20/80 reg/secular

 

WWII. Should have been more religious, but few stood for humanity when millions of gypsies, homosexuals, Slavs and Others were killed. Certainly, religion should have acted more to stop the secular conflict, but 20 religious/ 80 secular.

 

Korea/ Vietnam, Grenada, Wars against communism. Not a big religious aspect.

Iraq I, commerce

Iraq II, 30% religious. Certainly Son of Bush followed a calling,

 

So, outside of the American Civil War, I'm hard pressed to find that religion played a majority role, but it is an interesting topic for debate. Another is to consider the Roman experience where the political power usurped an ever changing religious system for its own political gains. How much of the Roman experience can be laid to its religion? A more complicated subject.

[neo_ryan_3_3_3]

Don't make me wanna laugh. Atheism is violence , while religion means world peace.

 

Atheism, is the number one cause of any war.

Fixed your typos for you.

 

Along with your fairytale beliefs, you atheists have a hard time with English.

 

This post has been edited by a member of staff (hrtbrk) because of a violation of the forum rules.

Please be respectful to other members, including their beliefs, even if you do not agree, at all times.

Please check your user inbox to see if you have been contacted regarding this incident, then review our rules.

[hrtbrk]

Since people are having a hard time grasping the concept of being able to debate without attacking one another for another persons opposing beliefs, I am locking this thread.

 

I highly suggest that everyone looks over the rules for the Debate Forum if you wish to continue participating in future debates.