Is religion harmful to society?

[Michaelangelica]

The only antidote to intolerance then is having the meekness to accept those who are different than us, which I consider to be a biblical outlook.

.

One of the few times I have been in church of late, was to hear the Anglican Bishop of Sydney speak.

He started talking of how the three main religions all decended from Abraham and all had this in common.

I was impressed. Tolerance, harmony, inclusiveness- i see where this is going- all good.

But then he showed his colours by loudly proclaiming that the Jews and Muslims were wrong and would all go to hell.

 

The churches seem to have cornered the market on hypocrisy.

I wonder which of the 10 Commandments says. Thou shall not be gay/use condoms/have sex/make love peace etc.

Vote on gay bishops threatens archbishop with another schism | World news | The Guardian

It seems the churches have always been complicit in the breaking of the "Thou shall not kill" Commandment.

 

I guess all things can be used for good or evil. But it seems to me that the message of Jesus and Mohamed has been lost. The three most intolerant religions in the word are undeniably the three biggest.

Every day you see evidence of this. Yesterday it was the Indonesian Bombings.

Today I read this horrifying report

Brethren | Peter and Elspeth | Athol Greene

Tomorrow?

[Moontanman]

Religion was probably a great idea for bronze age half savages trying to live together. Religion no doubt gave them a sense of belonging and a stable way to plan for the future, a way to see who agreed with you and who could be trusted. Once religions began to compete with each other religion, far from being a cohesive force, became appoint of contention, to force others to believe the way you did became the mantra that wars were fought over. making sure everyone was on the side of the strongest god for only the strongest god would win. Then there came the idea of monotheism, only one god, the rest were at best false gods at worst demons working against the real god. Then there was the idea of my mono god is the real one and yours is the false one not one, not two, but at least three and so it goes, wars are going to be fought over who's deity is the best and millions will die never knowing the idea of god is simple BS made up by people who want to control what people think and do.

[Thunderbird]

Religion was probably a great idea for bronze age half savages trying to live together. Religion no doubt gave them a sense of belonging and a stable way to plan for the future, a way to see who agreed with you and who could be trusted. Once religions began to compete with each other religion, far from being a cohesive force, became appoint of contention, to force others to believe the way you did became the mantra that wars were fought over. making sure everyone was on the side of the strongest god for only the strongest god would win. Then there came the idea of monotheism, only one god, the rest were at best false gods at worst demons working against the real god. Then there was the idea of my mono god is the real one and yours is the false one not one, not two, but at least three and so it goes, wars are going to be fought over who's deity is the best and millions will die never knowing the idea of god is simple BS made up by people who want to control what people think and do.

 

Moontanman, No disrespect, but listening to you explain the history of religion is akin to listening to a creationist explain the history of science. :lol:

[Moontanman]

I alwasy try to do my best with the material at hand:hihi:

[RevOfAllRevs]

You're putting the cart before the horse. Society came before religion, not the other way around.

 

 

What are you using for information? It does not matter which came first as much as to why they remained together. The oldest artifacts save for hunting items are religious artifacts such as fertility pieces in the neolithic era demonstrating that even then man dedicated time energy and resources to make these icons and amulets. So I think you may be wrong even in which came first. In any case no one can deny the fantastic buildings (and other things such as art) and social structure that religious belief provided.

 

; {>

[RevOfAllRevs]

Moontanman, No disrespect, but listening to you explain the history of religion is akin to listening to a creationist explain the history of science. :hihi:

 

With all due respect, I don't think anyone could make an accurate blanket statement about anyone including creationists. That would include Progressive or YE creationists. Many creationists are PhDs and are qualified to teach traditional science math or any advanced subject.

 

; {>

[RevOfAllRevs]

I alwasy try to do my best with the material at hand:hihi:

 

You did OK moonman. At least you didn't resort blatant insults, and that is a good start for productive dialog.

 

; {>

[RevOfAllRevs]

I would like to add upon seeing some comments concerning faith healing etc. I am 99.99999% against the preacher that asks for money to heal through the power of JC (hee hee, in this universe I am not 100% sure of anything).

 

However when the state insists on coming into a free mans home and taking a child because the family does not think modern medicine is beneficial and may be harmful is a crime against 'natural' law. Taken to extremes one day you may have federal agents kicking down your door because you are sensitive to flu shots and refuse to take them. However we all know that taking the flu vaccinations are good for society eh? You could be the enemy of the state for not taking a shot! Not giving your children flu shots are child abuse, right? Not in my world.

 

; {>

[InfiniteNow]

What are you using for information? It does not matter which came first as much as to why they remained together. The oldest artifacts save for hunting items are religious artifacts such as fertility pieces in the neolithic era demonstrating that even then man dedicated time energy and resources to make these icons and amulets. So I think you may be wrong even in which came first. In any case no one can deny the fantastic buildings (and other things such as art) and social structure that religious belief provided.

Well, I think part of the issue is that we may be using different definitions of society. I see apes as a form of society. I see wolves as a society. I see elephants as a society. I see ants and bees as a society. Obviously (to me, at least) the society (reproductive advantage via group behavior) preceded religion.

 

Also, you mentioned the great works of art. You're right, those are powerful and beautiful. However, you'd be hard pressed to prove that they could not have been done without religion. There are many (countless actually) amazing artistic pieces which come from people without belief... from the non-religious and atheistic alike... and that art is just as powerful, marvelous, and majestic as your aforementioned chapels and idolatry. This suggests to me that art itself is the more primary ability, completely independent of belief, and that the religions just piggy-backed on this already existing ability... this already existing trait found in humanity.

[RevOfAllRevs]

Well, I think part of the issue is that we may be using different definitions of society. I see apes as a form of society. I see wolves as a society. I see elephants as a society. I see ants and bees as a society. Obviously (to me, at least) the society (reproductive advantage via group behavior) preceded religion.

 

Also, you mentioned the great works of art. You're right, those are powerful and beautiful. However, you'd be hard pressed to prove that they could not have been done without religion. There are many (countless actually) amazing artistic pieces which come from people without belief... from the non-religious and atheistic alike... and that art is just as powerful, marvelous, and majestic as your aforementioned chapels and idolatry. This suggests to me that art itself is the more primary ability, completely independent of belief, and that the religions just piggy-backed on this already existing ability... this already existing trait found in humanity.

 

I agree that no one could prove to a 100% degree of satisfaction for everyone that the religious art, or its equal that I mentioned would not of been created anyway. However I was talking specifically of art that was inspired by the beliefs of the men painting them or ordering them done. There is no need in going into a long tirade about the personal beliefs of the artists and why the many paintings of Jesus and of Christan subjects were rendered by the great masters, I was only making the point that they were wonderful gifts to society and that they enriched our ilk. Maybe there were no of no practical use but they did inspire me at a young age. I dabble in art and consider myself a fairly good photographer so I am biased towards art and philosophy over hard science and math which will become evident in my future posts. Nevertheless I think that art and the sciences as well as religion and metaphysics should all be merged instead of having the confrontational attitude that is prevalent today.

 

I should of indicated what I meant by 'society' & 'civilization' because I jumped back and forth between a neolithic society and early civilizations. I will be more careful in the future.

Peace ~

 

; }>

[Moontanman]

Rev do you not think that in the absence of religion humans could have been inspired to create works of art just as vast and wonderful as the religious ones? I think it's more likely that the ability and desire to create art is independent of religion and would have been used to for other purposes, possibly even purposes that would have actually helped humanity instead of hindering us like religion has done over the ages by stifling human creativity that was outside the boundaries created by religion? A cathedral is wonderful creation but it's real purpose has nothing to do with helping humanity and everything to do with making religion appear more powerful and to influence people into giving more time and money to the purpose of glorifying religion to no other end but the glorifying of religion not helping humanity in any way. I have no doubt that religion at one time was positive influence on society but now it is a negative, a parasite that milks humanity for far more than it gives just to propagate it's self.

[Pyrotex]

With all due respect, I don't think anyone could make an accurate blanket statement about anyone including creationists. ...Many creationists are PhDs and are qualified to teach traditional science math or any advanced subject. ...

Sorry, but that is what they would like you to believe.

 

The percentage of PhDs among creationism apologists is rather low. The vast majority of those with PhDs have their degrees in non-related subjects, such as history, psychology, english lit, etc. You do not need a major degree in science or math to be "qualified" to teach either in American high schools. Many science teachers have only a Masters degree in education.

 

The number of publicly known creationism apologists with PhDs in, say, geology or biology, is vanishingly small. Of course, I guess I could be wrong -- so if you can give me the names of half a dozen creationists with PhD degrees in geology, biology, or paleontology then by all means, I will recant and apologize.

[Thunderbird]

With all due respect, I don't think anyone could make an accurate blanket statement about anyone including creationists. That would include Progressive or YE creationists. Many creationists are PhDs and are qualified to teach traditional science math or any advanced subject.

 

; {>

I can only assume from this post that you hold the opinion that Creationism is science ?

[RevOfAllRevs]

Rev do you not think that in the absence of religion humans could have been inspired to create works of art just as vast and wonderful as the religious ones?

 

I have already indicated that was possible. But why reach into a imaginary hat to produce a rabbit? The facts are that these wonders of art and building and language and the written word to name a few gifts of religion to man are real. We don’t have to say what if etc. I have my doubts that we would be out of the mud huts if religion had not of been around to provide the social and moral glue (most if not all morals were based on a religious model early on) to hold us together long enough to create civilization.

 

I think it's more likely that the ability and desire to create art is independent of religion and would have been used to for other purposes, possibly even purposes that would have actually helped humanity instead of hindering us like religion has done over the ages by stifling human creativity that was outside the boundaries created by religion?

 

For starters I don’t think that religion has done much to stifle creativity, in fact the opposite is true. When Michelangelo was commissioned to do a piece for the church, I highly doubt if the church restricted the artist in creativity and would bet that he had free reign to do as he wished. The facts are that we do have the great wonders created by the religious builders and artists, we don't have to speculate what could of been. We have some of the greatest things that man has ever created or accomplished BECAUSE of religion. Its that simple.

 

A cathedral is wonderful creation but it's real purpose has nothing to do with helping humanity and everything to do with making religion appear more powerful and to influence people into giving more time and money to the purpose of glorifying religion to no other end but the glorifying of religion not helping humanity in any way.

 

I think that you have the wrong ideas about religion. Where are your sources for these beliefs? Most religious buildings are built to glorify God. That is why their architecture was so perfect. Your claims simply don’t ring true. Religion in general is and was good for society. Government and the love of money (Greed) is the real evil in the modern world.

 

I have no doubt that religion at one time was positive influence on society but now it is a negative, a parasite that milks humanity for far more than it gives just to propagate it's self.

 

I think that when the church was more of a government than a religious organization it was somewhat harmful, but no more harmful than government. Today I would agree that the radical Islamic who aren’t real Muslims anyway are doing harm to the world.

 

However the other religions including Christianity are doing far more good than any harm to the world and the people of the world. In the modern age secular man is the true destroyer. Stalin, Pol Pot, the warlords in Africa that behead and mutilate and cause the death of 2,500 children a day from starvation and the lack of clean water. That is the true evil in the world, and that is where the UN is afraid to go, and that is where hundreds of Christian Missionaries are today.

 

So no, with all due respect, I don’t agree with your assessment.

 

; }>

[RevOfAllRevs]

I can only assume from this post that you hold the opinion that Creationism is science ?

 

Why would you assume that? What I said was that a creationist could be a PhD. And that any blanket statement has a very high probability of being wrong. I was challenging that just because a guy is a creationist he could not understand or explain evolution as well as or better than a secular individual. He (a creationist) may not believe it but that does not mean he does not understand evolution.

 

; }>

[Thunderbird]

 

 

For starters I don’t think that religion has done much to stifle creativity, in fact the opposite is true. When Michelangelo was commissioned to do a piece for the church, I highly doubt if the church restricted the artist in creativity and would bet that he had free reign to do as he wished. The facts are that we do have the great wonders created by the religious builders and artists, we don't have to speculate what could of been. We have some of the greatest things that man has ever created or accomplished BECAUSE of religion. Its that simple.

 

; }>

 

 

 

 

The art and architecture of the renaissance was not inspired by religious thought.

 

The era preceding it however was. It was called the “Dark Ages”.

[RevOfAllRevs]

Sorry, but that is what they would like you to believe.

 

The percentage of PhDs among creationism apologists is rather low. The vast majority of those with PhDs have their degrees in non-related subjects, such as history, psychology, english lit, etc. You do not need a major degree in science or math to be "qualified" to teach either in American high schools. Many science teachers have only a Masters degree in education.

 

The number of publicly known creationism apologists with PhDs in, say, geology or biology, is vanishingly small. Of course, I guess I could be wrong -- so if you can give me the names of half a dozen creationists with PhD degrees in geology, biology, or paleontology then by all means, I will recant and apologize.

 

I didn't say that what I did say is that a creationist could have a PhD. And that he could understand and explain evolution (which doesn't take a PhD in biology etc to understand). Also I said that blanket statements are nearly always wrong.

 

BTW, most creationists have degrees in a religion related field I would assume, and I don't recall saying otherwise. Your quote reminds me of something ie; " When Selfish Gene author Richard Dawkins challenged physicist John Barrow on his formulation of the constants of nature at last summer at the Templeton-Cambridge Journalism Fellowship lectures, Barrow laughed and said, “You have a problem with these ideas, Richard, because you're not really a scientist. You are a biologist."

 

Indeed!

 

; }>