Is religion harmful to society?

[modest]

See post #417:

 

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.

 

Yes, under that definition society certainly predates religion.

 

~modest

[Turtle]

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. ...>

 

no; he did not have free rein. it was recently discovered that Michelangelo lied in his written description of his installation featuring Moses at the Basilique San Pietro when describing the figure of Leah. he said she was holding a mirror and a flower, symbols in line with the church, but she is realy holding a torch and a laurel, symbols of secularism. he also recarved the head of Moses in the piece so that he was not looking forward, but rather to the left at Leah.

 

edit: add source:

Secrets of the Dead » Michelangelo Revealed | PBS

[RevOfAllRevs]

Quote:

Originally Posted by RevOfAllRevs View Post

Still it does not distract from the fact that the works that we do have ...wouldn't be here save for religious belief...

This is an un-answerable question, that is founded on the "false dichotomy" fallacy.

There is no rational reason to demand that either the works were the direct products of religion or else they would never have existed.

 

My argument doesn't fit the requirements of a false dichotomy. If religion did not exist its highly unlikely that a painting of a religious nature would exist. If religion did not exist why build a temple to the Gods? According to the people there would be no Gods and no temple to the sun God etc. Its silly to say that if religion were non existent that religious art would exist. Nothing is 100% positive but we must use common sense sometimes. If you want to think that all the religious art and buildings would of been created without religion that is your right. Its not debate in good faith tough but rather the gurgling sounds made from a drowning man losing said debate.

 

The undeniable fact remains; the RELIGIOUS (caps of emphasis only) art and buildings are real, and they are here now. Forget the 'what if's' and the 'maybes' etc. of your attempts to discredit religions gifts to mankind. The 'what ifs' are pure speculation on your part, not mine. The FACT is that we have the real art buildings and other treasures and tangibles and everyone knows what they are. Your argument is weak to non-existent in my opinion and not valid, at least in these respects.

 

; {>

[RevOfAllRevs]

no; he did not have free rein. it was recently discovered that Michelangelo lied in his written description of his installation featuring Moses at the Basilique San Pietro when describing the figure of Leah. he said she was holding a mirror and a flower, symbols in line with the church, but she is realy holding a torch and a laurel, symbols of secularism. he also recarved the head of Moses in the piece so that he was not looking forward, but rather to the left at Leah.

 

edit: add source:

Secrets of the Dead » Michelangelo Revealed | PBS

 

 

I trust (anti religion) PBS (and the history channel etc) about as much as a wolf in with the chickens. What I meant was that the artists were free to use any style etc. When anyone commissions a artist to do a piece there are guidelines. No one comes up to me and gives me 5k and tells me they want a photo. They are specific, but allow me in most cases free reign on the style and other parameters of the commissioned photos.

 

; {>

[RevOfAllRevs]

Yes, under that definition society certainly predates religion.

 

~modest

 

Yes but we were discussing religion here correct? I love my basset hound and he comes to the mission and what I call my Church (its a office space now) but he doesn't have a religion.Or at least not one that he tells me about.

 

 

; }>

[RevOfAllRevs]

However, if the Church had not existed - had Paganism (for example) survived the pogroms of the 5th century CE, and replaced christianity, which it could plausibly have done - and had everything else been equal (more or less) - then great art would STILL have been produced.

 

Pssssst......Brother Pyrotex.....Paganism* is religion!

 

notes

 

* Paganism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Paganism" frequently refers to the religions of classical antiquity, most notably Greek mythology or Roman religion, and can be used neutrally or ...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paganism -

 

; {>

[RevOfAllRevs]

So my claims remain. Due to the gifts of religion to man I feel religion is so over the top helpful to society as to be (nearly) not even debatable. Religion may of even of allowed society to began and flourish. Those that belittle religion and suggest it is harmful are usually misinformed, having been 'mis-taught' by atheist agents (parents teachers or trusted people in their lives) or simply have taught themselves to hate or dislike religions.

 

I haven't even mentioned that religious belief gives us a moral compass and a gives believers a moral standard other than mans horrid ideas of what morality should be even leading to such extremes of the death camps in the 'modern era' (from 1900AD). Stalin never broke a law, murder was legal and morally correct in 1940's USSR. Murder was or is never morally correct according to Jesus.

 

; {>

[Moontanman]

I'll say it again, I have no doubt the religion was originally helpful to humanity in most ways. It gave a sense of purpose, an explanation for how and why things happened. It gave comfort to those who had lost loved ones and gave direction to those who had lost theirs.

 

But at some point religion began to clash with reality, it became an organization with an agenda separate from humanity. The life and survival of religion became far more important than the survival of individual humans and far more important that the survival of humanity in general. Religion became the law of the land and no matter how much reality differed from Dogma the dogma was correct.

 

This was when religion went over the the "dark" side. The purpose of religion became to promote religion at all costs, nothing more. Anything good religion did was offset by the huge amounts of money and human sweat and toil that went into growing religion. a strong religion became more important than everything else, pleasing god became more important than anything and only the people in control of religion knew what was necessary top please God. Often pleasing god was simply worshiping and giving money to allow the parasite that is religion to grow.

 

Far too often pleasing god became synonymous with persecuting anyone who didn't worship the same god as you or worship the same god in the correct way.

 

Eventually religions explanation of the real world began to prove false but instead of backing away from the dogma that dictated the real worlds properties religion closed ranks and declared it's self to be the one and the only truth. Instead of staying with the supernatural and religion couldn't allow it's faithful to see the truth for fear they would loose their need for the opiate of religion.

 

So the big lies of religion were embraced and this dogma is what must be believed to be one of the faithful. Even this wouldn't be so bad if not for the idea the religious have that they must spread the word and convert anyone who disagrees with them and often this conversion comes in the form of violence or even more insidious a slow but sure spread of guilt and fear to those who do not worship the "right"way.

 

Contrary to popular belief science doesn't attack religion, religion is outside the bounds of science. Science doesn't care if you believe the flying spaghetti monsters has send purple unicorns to wait for you at the end of rainbow. Science doesn't care if Jupiter is the king of gods or Odin or Thor the thunder god. all science cares about is the evidence, do you have evidence for any of these things? if not then science ignores them. You see no scientific studies to disprove God but religion seems to eat and breath trying to disprove science....

[Pyrotex]

... If religion did not exist its highly unlikely that a painting of a religious nature would exist. If religion did not exist why build a temple to the Gods? According to the people there would be no Gods and no temple to the sun God etc. Its silly to say that if religion were non existent that religious art would exist. ...your attempts to discredit religions gifts to mankind. ...

Okay. I answered in haste and tripped over my own fingers. Score one for you. And thanks for being reasonable.

 

The question I answered was "what if the Catholic Church had not existed...".

I answered the wrong question. Now, what I posted was a damn good answer to MY question, but not an answer at all to YOUR question.

 

I shall now go flog myself. [PAUSE] ... [/PAUSE] Jeez, that stings!

 

Yes, "religion" inspired a LOT of great art and architecture. Granted. But isn't all "great" art inspired by something? Isn't that what makes it "great"? Because the source of inspiration MEANS something to an entire culture? It reaches back into the collective sub-conscious and afirms or validates some aspect of our existence?

 

My point(s) should have been these:

The era after 500 BCE showed a flowering of the Arts. Some of them were inspired by religious motifs. Like the Pieta by Michaelangelo. Some of them were inspired by a worship (of sorts) of human sexuality, like the tiled frescoes at Pompeii. Much art was inspired by other "high-endorphin" human activities, such as hunting and sports. Much was inspired by conquests and victories, and unique instances of natural beauty in the world. Others were inspired by secular historical events that had become embedded in oral tradition and myth. Had "religion" not been around, there would have been plenty of inspirations for Art, all the same.

 

Yes, we might not have Michaelangelo's Pieta. But we would still have Michaelangelo's David.

 

And two, although I devoutly :hihi: believe that religion deserves to be discredited to some extent, I am not HERE trying to a priori descredit religion. I'm trying to show that heaping too much credit on religion for our artistic achievements is a distraction -- Michaelangelo's Pieta does not in any way lessen the horrors that religion has visited upon humanity over the last 2000 years. Specifically, the horrors that "state religion" (a religion that also serves as legal authority and social governance) has visited upon us.

[RevOfAllRevs]

Okay. I answered in haste and tripped over my own fingers. Score one for you. And thanks for being reasonable.

 

There is a rift between science and religion I wouldn’t like that to happen between us. BTW, your welcome.

 

The question I answered was "what if the Catholic Church had not existed...".

I answered the wrong question. Now, what I posted was a damn good answer to MY question, but not an answer at all to YOUR question.

 

I agree it was a very good answer and I agree with it.

 

I shall now go flog myself. [PAUSE] ... [/PAUSE] Jeez, that stings! Yes, "religion" inspired a LOT of great art and architecture. Granted. But isn't all "great" art inspired by something? Isn't that what makes it "great"? Because the source of inspiration MEANS something to an entire culture? It reaches back into the collective sub-conscious and afirms or validates some aspect of our existence?

 

No worries you should see some of the blunders that I have made!

 

My point(s) should have been these:

The era after 500 BCE showed a flowering of the Arts. Some of them were inspired by religious motifs. Like the Pieta by Michaelangelo. Some of them were inspired by a worship (of sorts) of human sexuality, like the tiled frescoes at Pompeii. Much art was inspired by other "high-endorphin" human activities, such as hunting and sports. Much was inspired by conquests and victories, and unique instances of natural beauty in the world. Others were inspired by secular historical events that had become embedded in oral tradition and myth. Had "religion" not been around, there would have been plenty of inspirations for Art, all the same.

 

I have never denied that without religion there would not of been any art etc. What I meant to say is that we DO have religiously inspired art and buildings. That is a good thing that enriches all of us. I am not saying if religion did not exist we would have no or less art than we have today. That said, I know we wouldn’t have certain art and certain building and certain structures. Why go to a what if mode? We are asking if religion is good for society. Its here and my point that religion HAS ALREADY (caps for emphasis not shouting etc) accomplished these good things.

 

Yes, we might not have Michelangelo’s Pieta. But we would still have Michelangelo’s David.

 

Again we already have these art pieces so we don’t have to ask ‘what if‘. I am sure that society if it emerged out of the caves and mud huts would have art and buildings even without religion. That isn’t the question. The question the thread asked was “ is religion harmful to society”. I feel that religion has helped society much more than harmed it.

 

And two, although I devoutly believe that religion deserves to be discredited to some extent, I am not HERE trying to a priori descredit religion. I'm trying to show that heaping too much credit on religion for our artistic achievements is a distraction -- Michaelangelo's Pieta does not in any way lessen the horrors that religion has visited upon humanity over the last 2000 years.

 

What horrors? The Crusades? I think some of the crusades were justified. The Inquisition? I think a lot of the inquisition was hyperbole and embellishment. However some atrocities were committed by people who thought they were Christians. I am saying that we might not even have civilization as we know it without religion. Religion from Buddhism to the Mayan God Priests to the Aztecs to the Christians have enriched society much more than harmed it.

 

Specifically, the horrors that "state religion" (a religion that also serves as legal authority and social governance) has visited upon us.

 

Well the church was simply acting as the government. And so it executed and imprisoned like a government. Tell me how was it worse than any secular government? Especially some of the dictatorships?

 

Nevertheless thanks for your reply brother.

 

; }>

[Michaelangelica]

There is a rift between science and religion

Is there? What evidence/statistics do you have for this assumption?

 

we DO have religiously inspired art and buildings. That is a good thing that enriches all of us. I am not saying if religion did not exist we would have no or less art than we have today

Talking of the Renaissance and Michaelangelo, it was the Medici's invention of banking, bookeeping and credit that provided the wealth for the art(tists). The churches up until then only allowed Jews to lend money and charge interest. Somehow the Medici Family got around that on a technicality and thus the huge growth of the Italian economy at this time. They were also able to support scientists like Galileo Galilei.

That said, I know we wouldn’t have certain art and certain building and certain structures.

No the peasants could have had houses insted of building cathedrals because they were **** sacred of going to hell

We are asking if religion is good for society. Its here and my point that religion HAS ALREADY (caps for emphasis not shouting etc) accomplished these good things.

And Music, which the Church (s?) practically invented.

 

 

I feel that religion has helped society much more than harmed it.

On Balance, I don't.

 

 

What horrors? The Crusades? I think some of the crusades were justified.

Really. How come? Which one? We all still seem to be suffering from this catalclysmic meeting between the cultured, intelligent ,tolerant Arabs of the time and the bog ignorant, murderous, intollerant Christians. Even today with the continuall demonisation of the Arabs by Holliword (since day one), and the Arabs never forgiving the West for the Crusades.

The Inquisition? I think a lot of the inquisition was hyperbole and embellishment.

Do you mean you are a Inquisition denier/apologist?

However some atrocities were committed by people who thought they were Christians.

Yes that is always the problem. God wants me to kill, enslave, impoverish, marginalise, conquor and burn the devilish Mayan Books and obliterate cultures with an icing of "Christainisty". I think Jesus would be turning over in his grave/cloud (?).

Get rid of the Old Testamant and teach the suggestions of Jesus and I am all for "Christainity'. Especially if I found people actually living his precepts.

I am saying that we might not even have civilization as we know it without religion.

No it would be different, of course. We would, however, be growing interesting mushrooms. (Where the idea of spirit world probably came from).

Religion from Buddhism to the Mayan God Priests to the Aztecs to the Christians have enriched society much more than harmed it.

That is avlue judgement that I don't share especially about the Mayans and Christians. At least Buddhism gave us tolerance and meditation. Although many would argue that the Tibetan regime was a backward theocracy and everyone is much better off with the (invent new word for here that says communist-capitalist-Stalinist-dictator- paranoid-corrupt-new thing) Chinese Regime.

 

 

Well the church was simply acting as the government. And so it executed and imprisoned like a government. Tell me how was it worse than any secular government? Especially some of the dictatorships?

This is a good thing?

I haven't even mentioned that religious belief gives us a moral compass a

Murder was or is never morally correct according to Jesus.

But rampant, endemic pedophilia is OK? People/victims who are 'walking wounded' and in constant pain because someone couldn't read his compass? or some idiot said 1,000 BCE that priests should be celibate?

How is it that if murder is "Not OK" we allow "holy" wars, jihad, capital punishment?

 

Nevertheless thanks for your reply brother.:shrug:

 

PS

How come, churches/religions and their businesses, enterprises and investments are free of Government/State income taxes? Wouldn't paying taxes be more helpful to society?

[Turtle]

I trust (anti religion) PBS (and the history channel etc) about as much as a wolf in with the chickens. What I meant was that the artists were free to use any style etc. When anyone commissions a artist to do a piece there are guidelines. No one comes up to me and gives me 5k and tells me they want a photo. They are specific, but allow me in most cases free reign on the style and other parameters of the commissioned photos.

 

; {>

 

your bias is showing and you are misstating the exchange. you made a claim, i showed it false. you used that claim as a premise to conclusions, so they too are false. this is what is harmful to society from religion today and in the past. you would deny your own nose to spite your face. not gonna fly here bub. better gird your loins. :shrug:

[lawcat]

Is there? What evidence/staistics do you have for this assumption?

 

No evidence needed there. It is a known fact. Actually those that assert otherwise must provide evidence.

 

it was the Medici's invention of banking, bookeeping and credit that provided the wealth for the art(tists). The churches up until then only allowed Jews to lend money and charge interest. Somehow the Medici Family got around that on a technicality and thus the huge growth of the Italian economy at this time. They were also able to support scientists like Galileo Galilei.

I fail to see how those inventions and funding has any relevance to harm of religion, or alternatively that secular is tolerant.

 

No the peasants could have had houses insted of building cathedrals because they were **** sacred of going to hell

Paeants had houses, but the issue here is the beauty and grandiose of the religious buildings. Rev's statement was easy to understand. Religious buildings, from Pyramids, to Greek pantheons, to gothic cathedrals were erected with the purpose of glorification of diety and greatness of the instutitons that built them. Simple and true statement.

 

And Music, which the Church (s?) practically invented.

I don't know about this generally, but some music is pastoral.

 

Really. How come? Which one? We all still seem to be suffering from this catalclysmic meeting between the cultured, intelligent ,tolerant Arabs of the time and the bog ignorant, murderous, intollerant Christians. Even today with the continuall demonisation of the Arabs by Holliword (since day one), and the Arabs never forgiving the West for the Crusades.

Do you mean you are a Inquisition denier/apologist?

 

Tolerant Arabs of the era? Hold on. Islam was born on desert robberies and plunderings. Mohammed specifically engaged in robberies to raise money. The Arabs of the time were slaughtering christians and others in their way and burning settlements in their path. I don't know where you get the tolerant and cultured.

 

God wants me to kill, enslave, impoverish, marginalise, conquor and burn the devilish Mayan Books and obliterate cultures with an icing of "Christainisty". I think Jesus would be turning over in his grave/cloud (?).

Get rid of the Old Testamant and teach the suggestions of Jesus and I am all for "Christainity'. Especially if I found people actually living his precepts.

This is the problem of shallow inquiry. You are looking at final conclusions and actions of men who reasoned on their beliefs, without analyzing the reasoning of the time. We've done the same in the secular sector, which is to act and impose our reasoning stemming from todays secular beliefs within and without jurisdiciton. Prime examples are Civil war in U.S., Napoleon and French revolution, Hitler, Stalin, Saddam with the Kurds and Kuwaitiis and U.S. in Iraq, and it goes on and on. Secular tought has been maybe even more catastrophic in many instances.

 

But rampant, endemic pedophilia is OK? People/victims who are 'walking wounded' and in constant pain because someone couldn't read his compass? or some idiot said 1,000 BCE that priests should be celibate?

How is it that if murder is "Not OK" we allow "holy" wars, jihad, capital punishment?

 

Where do you come up with endemic pedophilia? Pedophilia is endemic to human species.

People walking wounded in pain? Dude, look at the civilizational context. Heck, there are people walking wounded in pain right in front of 21st century health facilities in U.S.

And, dude, murder has nothing to do with religion. Blaming murder on religion is crazy. in fact, it is so crazy that it is a defense to murder in english common law system.

 

How come, churches/religions and their businesses, enterprises and investments are free of Government/State income taxes? Wouldn't paying taxes be more helpful to society?

 

Donations gift and charity not for profit. Zero sum game.

[Thunderbird]

Originally Posted by Michaelangelica

How come, churches/religions and their businesses, enterprises and investments are free of Government/State income taxes? Wouldn't paying taxes be more helpful to society?

 

 

 

 

Donations gift and charity not for profit. Zero sum game.

 

 

 

I recently started a community project called , “ Welcome home backpack project” for men and women that are released from prison. My goal was to fill backpacks with essential items like food, a watch, a track phone, phone card, hygiene products, gift certificates for clothes , and a folder with information on employment and services . Many have nothing when they get out and are not helped by family or friends or the tax payer.

 

I sent out letters to churches and business in the local community and placed ads in the local paper. I received a little from local business . A good donation from an attorney, but thanks to the local churches donating the lions share, everyone released into our community from state prison or county jail will be getting a fully stocked backpack. :hihi:

[RevOfAllRevs]

Chaos and uncertainty are states of mind as probability is opinion.

 

I should of expanded on what I meant by those words. The universe is a system that runs on uncertainty at the most basic level (the quantum level), however this uncertainty can be calculated using the rules of probability. Chaos theory is also a condition of our temporal (time dependent) universe. As the saying goes; 'the flutter of a butterflies wing in Kansas can cause a typhoon in the sea of Japan'. (see the butterfly effect*).

 

Gods realm according to my theology is not effected by time as God is eternal and the first cause, prime mover.

 

Your stance on anything on anything will depend upon your experience and what it teaches you about existence i.e. I don't understand what this is? I experience it, gain knowledge and control of the situation and I gradually do understand it.

 

Well, if you are non-religious that may be true.

 

Chaos and confusion are our first experiences of anything new, which when it turns old hat becomes boring certainty and overdone order (paper shuffling, until we can go home). Doubt keeps us from experience, where certainty is a theory that plunges us into the world of experience, to learn the actual truth. Probability as a belief, leads us out of doubt into try-all and error.

 

As I said I apologize for not explaining that I was talking about the scientific theories of probabilities (more math than science) Chaos and uncertainty. Thanks for your reply my friend.

 

; {>

 

*….Butterfly effect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The butterfly effect is a phrase that encapsulates the more technical notion of sensitive dependence on initial conditions in chaos theory. ...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butterfly_effect -

[RevOfAllRevs]

your bias is showing and you are misstating the exchange. you made a claim, i showed it false. you used that claim as a premise to conclusions, so they too are false. this is what is harmful to society from religion today and in the past. you would deny your own nose to spite your face. not gonna fly here bub. :hyper: better gird your loins. :hihi:

 

Ha ha save that for a stand up comedy routine. You should be specific because your general claims mean nothing. I said that religion has given us gifts, it has, more and better gifts than say, atheism. (not that atheism is bad but there is no Pyramids, or wondrous buildings that could compare with the chapels and pyramids etc. built by and for atheists).

 

I said that secular man has destroyed and caused the world far more pain than religious war etc. It has in fact one SECULAR** war has destroyed more than all the religious wars combined. I said that religious beliefs helped pull civilization out of the muck of the distant past where we lived in caves (the Neolithic era and before), and provided evidence for that.

 

So It is you that is sucking hind titty* it seems, not I.

 

 

: {>

 

Hind titty is the last teat on a bitches (female dog) udder. It has less milk sometimes none and the runt is usually relegated to it.

 

** SECULAR war means war waged for secular not religious reasons, which you can add the American civil and revolutionary war, the Spanish American war, World war one and two, Korea and Vietnam, and many others.

[RevOfAllRevs]

Great post lawcat.

 

And turtle your outreach program was wonderful. God (or what if anything you hold as a higher power) bless you

 

; {>