Your Opinion: RELIGION - Good/Bad Overall

[InfiniteNow]

In your view, is religion as a whole good, bad, or otherwise when it comes to our global society as a whole?

 

 

Attack me.

Attack my premise.

Show me the gray area.

 

 

But... most of all... be honest, and show me your OWN perspective and why you hold it.

 

 

 

This is a gray area concept. Let's help each other resolve the different hues.

[C1ay]

There are people that commit great violence in the name of God. I think these people would just find other excuses if there was no belief in God.

 

There are many that lead a good moral life because of their religion and their belief in accountability to a higher power. I wonder what percentage of these might be more mischievous if not for this belief.

 

Then there is non-theistic belief systems (religions) like Buddhism that give some people a needed purpose in life that just makes life better for them.

 

In the end I can't say that the world would be better or worse since it would be better for some and worse for others.

[Buffy]

I like to try to find good in everything.

 

Sometimes that's really hard.

 

Sometimes correlation is there, but no cause and effect.

 

I like to try to condemn those who do bad stuff, especially when they use stupid excuses like "God told me to."

 

I think those who do not take responsibility for their own actions are the worst people in the world.

 

I don't think people who do good things get enough credit for them, and its really horrible when they get flack for having done them for what other people think are the wrong reasons.

 

Hope begins in the dark, the stubborn hope that if you just show up and try to do the right thing, the dawn will come, :phones:

Buffy

[InfiniteNow]

I appreciate the civil responses thus far, and also the clear indication of how gray this area is. I agree that it's not religion per se which does bad things, but those who follow it. I agree that not all religions are the same. I agree that it's easy too attack and easy not to recognize those who engage in positive activies rooted in their religion.

 

That's all part of the gray area to which I referred... but... if you HAD to choose good or bad... which? It's an opinion question, not a statement of fact.

 

 

I see it as detrimental. I see more harm than good coming from it. I know problems would continue even if religion were not around, but it's the conscious act of non-thought that I want to see eliminated. The surrender to specific views and information inherent in many scriptures, despite evidence to the contrary.

 

It exploits our tendency toward group behavior, and puts power in the hands of a few. I suppose I want more people to be independent critical thinkers, capable of leading themselves and their families through existence. Religion embraces the concept of a follower, and frankly the sheep are getting out of hand.

 

Like I said. It's just an opinion. Maybe this will be yet another quickly dead thread. I'm just curious, and need to balance my own bias against the perceptions of others on this one.

[Mike C]

To All

 

My criticism of the OT is because it is NOT the word of GOD .

 

Its promotion of women as sinners, the promotion of chauvinism as exhibited by the just ONE creature and that is the male lion, portraying the 'eating of fruit from a tree as sin is an insult to the Apes that feed off the trees and that we evolved from, the first 3 commandments that demand absolute obedience with genocides for the offenders, the separation of 'day and night' is like subconsciously promoting racism and the promotion of being 'gods chosen people', is ludicrous because there is a GOD chosen specie and that is the Apes that are created with the 'Greatest Natural Tool' in creation and that tool is our HANDS. Without these HANDS, we would not have these material goodies that capitalism craves and that I accept with descretion. Ha ha.

 

The OT followers refuse to admit that we evolved from the apes and promotes the idea of 'creation out of nothing' that our science refutes with the Conservation Laws of Matter and Energy that I say has more credibility that the minds of the ancients that had limited science to be aware of.

 

Mike C

[Buffy]

That's all part of the gray area to which I referred... but... if you HAD to choose good or bad... which? It's an opinion question, not a statement of fact.

Let me counter the problem with this question with another question: Sex: Good/Bad Overall?

 

Causes lots of grief. Is very inspiring to others.

 

Is used as a weapon against a large class of people. Is very helpful in advancing societal and evolutionary/health goals.

 

Its not essential (e.g. "1984," "The Matrix," etc.), so we could easily eliminate it if it was bad.

 

There are lots of people who would agree with the following regarding sex:

I see it as detrimental. I see more harm than good coming from it. I know problems would continue even if [it] were not around, but it's the conscious act of non-thought that I want to see eliminated. The surrender to specific views and information inherent in many [beliefs/writings], despite evidence to the contrary. ... It exploits our tendency toward group behavior, and puts power in the hands of a few.

See?

 

So, I'd ask you to take a look at your last question:

I'm just curious, and need to balance my own bias against the perceptions of others on this one.

...and I'll ask you my most frequently asked question when people ask for a new feature in software: "What problem are you trying to solve?"

 

I know that the issue is emotional (more on that in a minute), but as a practical matter, I see eliminating religion as being just about as difficult a problem as the one being discussed in "Moneyless Society": we actually don't even understand its role well enough--especially when you see the fact that if anything, its *personal* religious beliefs that are outgrowing *institutional* ones--and as a result, a big bang of eliminating it has an unbelievable number of unintended consequences!

 

As you know, I'm more on your side of this debate than the other, but I see it as being one of aspects of human nature that are the problem, rather than religious belief itself being evil.

 

I think what you need to do is break it down into smaller parts and attack each one individually.

 

 

My criticism of the OT is because it is NOT the word of GOD .

Mike: do you enjoy spending Saturday mornings running up to the front of the temple and screaming this?

 

Do you really think its a good thing to yell at people, "my interpretation of your book is that it promotes "chauvinism," and "genocide" and think that people should not be offended because you say "my interpretation?"

 

Can anything be more self-referential?

 

The point here being that, as I just said to Now, its not religion that's the problem, its people doing and saying really nasty things to each other.

 

And they can be doing it *either* because the *love* OR *hate* religion.

 

I am free of all prejudice. I hate everyone equally, ;)

Buffy

[InfiniteNow]

"What problem are you trying to solve?"

 

Good question. I really need to think more about it.

[Inter.spem.et.metum]

I would say that religion falls in the realm of ideology. Wherever there is an ideology, there is catagorization, and therefore seperation. And where there is seperation, there is conflict. I don't think it can be boiled down to just religion, although religion is definitely one of the best representations of this.

 

I believe religion is an effect of society. It is created as a way to construct order and sustain it. Each religion is a direct effect of the times, and sadly, a direct effect of the religions that came before it, which makes them seem hypocrytical. But if we can all understand that humans aren't perfect, then we can see a type of evolution in religion, one that will eventually move away from blind faith and towards general desire for "goodness", whatever that may be.

 

Many are trying to tear down these walls of categorization that create conflict, without destroying some of the ideas that were created in the past. But there will always be those who wish to seperate themselves from the whole.

[Mike C]

Mike: do you enjoy spending Saturday mornings running up to the front of the temple and screaming this?

 

Do you really think its a good thing to yell at people, "my interpretation of your book is that it promotes "chauvinism," and "genocide" and think that people should not be offended because you say "my interpretation?"

 

Can anything be more self-referential?

 

The point here being that, as I just said to Now, its not religion that's the problem, its people doing and saying really nasty things to each other.

 

And they can be doing it *either* because the *love* OR *hate* religion.

 

I am free of all prejudice. I hate everyone equally,

Buffy

 

Buffy

You just do not understand the importance of the biblical teachings.

 

As I said before, the 1st 3 commandments in the OT laws portray ywwh as a demanding deity for absolute obedience. The Jews were punished for departing from these commands by 'genocidal' events.

 

This teaches the 'one god concept' that Stalin used in the communist system by establishing himself as god by murdering anyone opposing his rule. He murdered about 20-30 million Russians and peasants.

Islam uses the bible as its original doctrine of promoting this OGC by portraying any one that departs from these teachings are infidels and are then tortured and murdered.

The idea of women as sinners is obvious when they force women to hide their faces and be denied an education.

Then the wars between the Roman rulers and the Jewish uprisings resulted in more genocides and purges within the Roman territories.

 

So you can see the importance of these biblical teachings as the root cause of these genocides and conflicts.

That is why the people should be informed of the biblical teachings.

 

Mike C

[InfiniteNow]

To be clear, this thread is about religion, not Christianity. It's like I spoke of the impact of cars and somebody decided to twist it into a thread about the Audi S6 (then again, I'm not sure Christianity is as well built as that ride). :shrug:

[InfiniteNow]

...and I'll ask you my most frequently asked question when people ask for a new feature in software: "What problem are you trying to solve?"

 

Good question. I really need to think more about it.

 

It distracts us. Distraction is the problem.

[HydrogenBond]

Many non-religious people look back at the darker days of religion and generalize that to mean religion is evil. But this is only part of the entire equation. As an analogy, technology has been part of all wars, both religious and otherwise. Nobody is questioning whether it is time to blame technology and purge it from culture, even if this could slow killing and war. It is not the technology that is questionable, but the humans that misuse it. The same is true of religion, it is not religion, but human who misuse it.

 

If you look at the brain, there are two hemisphere, each with different capabilities. The left side is the place for reason and the right side is where religion is expressed. Religion is often irrational because it does not fit into the left hemisphere mold. But at the same time reason doesn't really fit into the right hemisphere mold either. The right side of the brain is more spatial and integral and uses religion to help express some of its 3-D data. For example, trying to define God, exhaustively, would take a library. This bulk data storage, is represented with a spiritual intuition. It is not easy to transfer this to the left. When human try to make this translation, there is where conflict begins leading to all types of irrational things.

 

On the other hand, although science is the master of the left side of the brain, it is not very functional within the right side. Just as the overly religious person's ability to be reasonable is quite primitive, the overly rational person's ability to utilize the right hemisphere is also primitive. One can see this reflected in the pseudo-religion of science is often geared to natural worship/fear/faith, which were the first forms of religion. If one wished to optimize both sides you need solid science reason as well as an advanced 3-D orientation. For most, one solid half, and one limp half, is considered advanced enough.

 

Many social changes, based on left side reason, have led to right side social changes that the overly religious often equate to the ancient times. At the level of the right hemisphere, this was already done and is regressive. On the other hand, the modern movement of religion into the world of reason also appears very regressive. Intelligent design is trying redo science so it appears like it did 400 years ago. It is sort of like two experts trying to be experts in each other's area, and botching things up.

 

The Re for this topic should read, is the right brain good or bad. Is it better to start with the modern left brain and then try to re-evolve the right side of the brain from scratch. We can start with nature worship. The religious response is this is very primitive and has already been done. It seems sort of a waste of time to repeat the mistakes of the past. But on the other hand, we need to go before the Age of Enlightenment and revolve science. The science response is, this is very primitive and has already been done. It would make more sense to stay with the advanced stuff.

[Freddy]

Religion is neither all good nor all bad.

 

Religion has its positive points. Hospitals, shelters, soup kitchens and other charitable functions bring a positive side to religions. Helping people to lead moral and law abiding lives is another positive force behind religion. The above efforts are done by people who are not affiliated or motivated by religion, so they are not exclusively dependent on religion.

 

Religion has its negative points as well. Religious fanaticism that leads to hatred and violence against those who do not share the same beliefs is harmful. Religious beliefs that are grounded in superstition are harmful to the believer's educational progress. Believing in religious dogma and beliefs that go against scientific knowledge is just plain nonsense. Walking on water, changing water into wine, quieting a storm, and feeding thousands with a few loaves of bread are all miracle stories that cannot be reconciled with science.

 

If the good points of religion can be accomplished without the bad points of religion I would support religions that furthered that end.

[Buffy]

It distracts us. Distraction is the problem.

So does sex.

 

So do really good movies.

 

So does chocolate.

 

Won't do without any of those, thank you very much.

 

There is much pleasure to be gained from useless knowledge, ;)

Buffy

[Mike C]

Many non-religious people look back at the darker days of religion and generalize that to mean religion is evil. But this is only part of the entire equation. As an analogy, technology has been part of all wars, both religious and otherwise. Nobody is questioning whether it is time to blame technology and purge it from culture, even if this could slow killing and war. It is not the technology that is questionable, but the humans that misuse it. The same is true of religion, it is not religion, but human who misuse it.

 

If you look at the brain, there are two hemisphere, each with different capabilities. The left side is the place for reason and the right side is where religion is expressed. Religion is often irrational because it does not fit into the left hemisphere mold. But at the same time reason doesn't really fit into the right hemisphere mold either. The right side of the brain is more spatial and integral and uses religion to help express some of its 3-D data. For example, trying to define God, exhaustively, would take a library. This bulk data storage, is represented with a spiritual intuition. It is not easy to transfer this to the left. When human try to make this translation, there is where conflict begins leading to all types of irrational things.

 

On the other hand, although science is the master of the left side of the brain, it is not very functional within the right side. Just as the overly religious person's ability to be reasonable is quite primitive, the overly rational person's ability to utilize the right hemisphere is also primitive. One can see this reflected in the pseudo-religion of science is often geared to natural worship/fear/faith, which were the first forms of religion. If one wished to optimize both sides you need solid science reason as well as an advanced 3-D orientation. For most, one solid half, and one limp half, is considered advanced enough.

 

Many social changes, based on left side reason, have led to right side social changes that the overly religious often equate to the ancient times. At the level of the right hemisphere, this was already done and is regressive. On the other hand, the modern movement of religion into the world of reason also appears very regressive. Intelligent design is trying redo science so it appears like it did 400 years ago. It is sort of like two experts trying to be experts in each other's area, and botching things up.

 

The Re for this topic should read, is the right brain good or bad. Is it better to start with the modern left brain and then try to re-evolve the right side of the brain from scratch. We can start with nature worship. The religious response is this is very primitive and has already been done. It seems sort of a waste of time to repeat the mistakes of the past. But on the other hand, we need to go before the Age of Enlightenment and revolve science. The science response is, this is very primitive and has already been done. It would make more sense to stay with the advanced stuff.

 

To sum it all up than, you have reduced religion to 'left' and 'right' politics?

 

Mike C

[InfiniteNow]

So does sex.

 

So do really good movies.

 

So does chocolate.

With few exceptions, sex is not an ideological sign post in the way that religion is.

With few exceptions, sex is not indoctrinated to youth, and does not compose the central grouping of one's existence in the way religion does.

With few exceptions, sex is not a set of unproven and unchallengable assertions dictating morality and allowable behavior.

 

Yes, sex can be (and often is) a distraction, but it is (with few exceptions) not a chronic distrator.

 

I suggest that it's the scope of the distraction and duration of said distraction that your counter points ignore.

 

Per movies and chocolate, your curt and dismissive tone indicates that you may have forgotten to mention Pinot in your cute little list of distractors above.

 

 

Cheers. :rolleyes:

[Buffy]

... is not an ideological sign post...

...is not indoctrinated to youth...

...does not compose the central grouping of one's existence....

...is not a set of unproven and unchallengable assertions dictating morality and allowable behavior....

Okay, you're from Texas so you'll understand this one:

 

What about High School Football?

Yes, sex can be (and often is) a distraction, but it is (with few exceptions) not a chronic distrator.

Speak for yourself! :rolleyes:

Per movies and chocolate, your curt and dismissive tone indicates that you may have forgotten to mention Pinot in your cute little list of distractors above.

Well, and puppies, and Matthew Fox, and '69 Shelby GT500s, and Krispy Kreme, and well, the list does get kinda long... :hihi:

 

Searchin for my lost shaker of salt, some people claim that theres a woman to blame, :phones:

Buffy