Yay or Nay? Religion is more Harmful than Helpful?

[TheN3rdyOutcast]

I don't have anything against the people that can take their religion, and keep it quietly in the corner with themselves and the people around them who actually give a crap, however, extremist or radical religion is another story. These are the people that are the problem.

This comic sums it up kind of well:http://theoatmeal.com/comics/religion

[Gamma Male]

Religion is like a penis. It's a fine thing to have and be proud of, but when you take it out and start waving it around in my face, then we've got a problem.

[xXEverReadyXx]

Religion is like a penis. It's a fine thing to have and be proud of, but when you take it out and start waving it around in my face, then we've got a problem.

Spot on. I seriously could not have said it any better.

[StoppingTime]

...To put all overused cliches aside, this question is literally unanswerable.

The vast, vast majority of issues or questions simply cannot be answered in a "right or wrong" format. Things aren't that simple and they never have been. There are so many levels of complexity when one asks a question like this (time period, bias, personal background/upbringing, outside pressures, etc, etc,) that there is no way to have a definitive yes or no answer.
And yet...too often questions like this are asked, and people just yell back and forth about how they're right and how there's just no way the other side can be correct....but that simply isn't the case.

This thread can stay open so long as everyone can actually act in a respectful manor, without all the personal attacks that have been so rampant in this forum lately.

[Stronk Serb]

People say that religion is a moral guidance, we didn't have religion in the early hunter-gatherer communities, and we did just fine. Some say we need religion as a beacon of hope. Well, instead of praying for it and wasting your time, actually make it happen. I think many organized religions are bad, especially the Abrahamic ones. All the dogma and crap, they literally teach you how to think by their, mostly outdated views. So I say we don't need all those religions. Keep in mimd I have been talking about theistic religions, atheistic religions like Buddhism and Taoism aren't exactly religions to me, more like philosophies.

[Melodic]

Religion itself is not harmful, its the people who study it and pursue it that make it harmful.

[Lovelife090994]

I think it's a religion's practitioners that give it a good or bad name. Fundamentally many religion's are good.

[Southside]

Religion does a lot of good when its practiced peacefully and its followers aren't pushing it on others. Their are plenty of religious organizations going to impoverished areas and helping out.

[kylem1229]

There isn't a problem with religion at all. The main reason that it gets controversial is when people go "all and over it" and try and force people into their belief. That is the only thing I dont like. I don't care if you are religious and are public with it, that is fine. The only thing I don't like is when people come door to door and try and force me into it, and those that try to force others saying that "This is wrong, the bible states etc..." I am Christian, but I don't force others into it or go out of my way with it.

[Karagor]

Religion itself is not harmful, its the people who study it and pursue it that make it harmful.

Religion provides the medium for people to go out of their way to make other's lives miserable.

Picketing funerals, invading countries, murder, these are all things done in the name of bigotry and ignorance... Which were created by religion (Be it Islam, Christianity, or any other).

[Lovelife090994]

Religion provides the medium for people to go out of their way to make other's lives miserable.

Picketing funerals, invading countries, murder, these are all things done in the name of bigotry and ignorance... Which were created by religion (Be it Islam, Christianity, or any other).

Maybe, but was it in their belief system or in the person? There is a difference. Now some things with Islam are highly questionable, but that is another story.

[StoppingTime]

Maybe, but was it in their belief system or in the person? There is a difference. Now some things with Islam are highly questionable, but that is another story.

Some things with every religion are "highly questionable." The Old and New Testaments have plenty of laws that are absolutely abhorrent in today's world, it really isn't just Islam.
I'm really tired of seeing you're blatant, anti-Islamic comments in these threads as they contribute absolutely nothing to this, or any, debate. They're off topic and bigoted, and they need to stop.

[Lovelife090994]

Some things with every religion are "highly questionable." The Old and New Testaments have plenty of laws that are absolutely abhorrent in today's world, it really isn't just Islam.
I'm really tired of seeing you're blatant, anti-Islamic comments in these threads as they contribute absolutely nothing to this, or any, debate. They're off topic and bigoted, and they need to stop.

Anti-Islamic? Yet you allow anti-Christian comments? I mentioned Islam because the person above my comment mentioned something about it. It's not bigoted it's the truth.

[StoppingTime]

Anti-Islamic? Yet you allow anti-Christian comments? I mentioned Islam because the person above my comment mentioned something about it. It's not bigoted it's the truth.

Nobody anywhere in this thread has been "anti-Christian." The person above you mentioned Christianity as well, and yet you had nothing to say about some of the laws of that religion. Anyway, if you'd like to further discuss this, PM me. It isn't the topic of the thread.

[Blood]

Religion itself is not harmful, its the people who study it and pursue it that make it harmful.

I agree with this for the most part. Not all religious followers are harmful, but quite a few are.

[Gamma Male]

Let me elaborate my position. I'm an antitheist. Yes, some religions are less harmful and even helpful, and there are plenty of instances where religion has done a great deal of good. However, in the end I believe it's pretty much undeniable that organized religion has a negative net impact on society, holds back progress, and causes much more negativity and pain than it does good. Even nontheistic religions like Buddhism, while probably much less harmful than abrahamic religions, still get stuck up on traditions and prevent free thinking and logic, not faith or tradition, from being that which we base our decisions and lifestyles on.

And no, I don't want to make religion illegal or dislike religious people. :lol:I don't respect any religion, but I still respect people's right to be religious. It is their life after all. I just feel that so many of the worlds problems, particularly war, gullibility of the masses to authority, and opposition to social progress are caused by religion and that we would probably be better off without it. I'm not a dick about it or anything though.

[Karagor]

Now some things with Islam are highly questionable, but that is another story.

How can you even hint for a moment that "Islam" does bad things, but then say religion doesn't?

The only reason you think your religion doesn't do bad things, is because you don't want to believe that, because then you'd be put together with those people.

No-one does anything without reason. Sometimes, the reason is mental illness, but most of the time it's not. Most of the time it is a lifetime of brainwashing, telling a child that certain people (e.g. Gays) ought to be sent to hell. Most of the people who do bad things in the name of religion, wouldn't do them if that religion had never existed.

[Lovelife090994]

How can you even hint for a moment that "Islam" does bad things, but then say religion doesn't?

The only reason you think your religion doesn't do bad things, is because you don't want to believe that, because then you'd be put together with those people.

No-one does anything without reason. Sometimes, the reason is mental illness, but most of the time it's not. Most of the time it is a lifetime of brainwashing, telling a child that certain people (e.g. Gays) ought to be sent to hell. Most of the people who do bad things in the name of religion, wouldn't do them if that religion had never existed.

No, that goes to mental illness. I'm not blaming the religion, but you have to admit a lot of wrong happening now in the present is due to one religion in particular.

[PunkVanilla]

I found God around ninth grade at the peak of my depression.
I have to say (not to disrespect atheists or agnostics) that God has transformed my life for the better. I am nothing without Him.

[Karagor]

No, that goes to mental illness. I'm not blaming the religion, but you have to admit a lot of wrong happening now in the present is due to one religion in particular.

I'm not sure which religion you mean. There's Scientology, the three Abrahamic religions, Hinduism, and many lesser known religions that also have sacrifice at the heart of their belief.

brainwashing is not a mental illness. Mental illness is hereditary, brainwashing is environmental. Calling brainwashing a mental illness demeans the term "Mental illness"

[Karagor]

I found God around ninth grade at the peak of my depression.
I have to say (not to disrespect atheists or agnostics) that God has transformed my life for the better. I am nothing without Him.

No you're not. I'm glad you found something that helps you personally, but it is not everything you are, and the fact that you think that is sad.

You are so much more than your theistic beliefs.

I wish you all the best with your depression, I'm sure you'll get over it sooner rather than later!

[Gamma Male]

It's possible that Islam is the one religion that happens to be doing the most harm in the present, but even if that is true it's not like it's always been that way. Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Pagan religions, and Dharmic religious have all done their fair share of harm to society in the past. Targeting Islam in particular just because it happens to be causing a lot of problems now is not only irrational but discriminatory.

[Lovelife090994]

I'm not sure which religion you mean. There's Scientology, the three Abrahamic religions, Hinduism, and many lesser known religions that also have sacrifice at the heart of their belief.

brainwashing is not a mental illness. Mental illness is hereditary, brainwashing is environmental. Calling brainwashing a mental illness demeans the term "Mental illness"

I'm pretty sure you can get a mental illness without being born with it. And brainwashing may not be a mental illness but it borders on torture. Brainwashing will lead people to do unspeakable things. Sacrifice? Jews no longer do so since the Temple is gone. Christians are no longer to do so now that Jesus has already died for man's sins. Muslims I think have it the same way, no longer needing to sacrifice. Hinduism? Scientology is a cult not a religion or sect.

[Gamma Male]

I'm pretty sure you can get a mental illness without being born with it. And brainwashing may not be a mental illness but it borders on torture. Brainwashing will lead people to do unspeakable things. Sacrifice? Jews no longer do so since the Temple is gone. Christians are no longer to do so now that Jesus has already died for man's sins. Muslims I think have it the same way, no longer needing to sacrifice. Hinduism? Scientology is a cult not a religion or sect.

How does Scientology differ from any other religion? Why is it a cult but not Christianity or Hinduism or Judaism?

[Lovelife090994]

How does Scientology differ from any other religion? Why is it a cult but not Christianity or Hinduism or Judaism?

It is labeled as a cult. Scientology is less than 100 years old. Christianity, Hinduism, and Judaism have been around for millennia. Scientology acts like a cult, you can't leave it.

[Leeka]

im not against any religion but some times they just teach us something thats not true at all. for me its ok to have a religion or belief for our spiritual needs but too in to it, isnt good either. One again, im not against any religion :) Have a nice day :D

[Karagor]

I'm pretty sure you can get a mental illness without being born with it.

You can develop one from trauma or from damage to the brain, but these kinds of mental illnesses aren't the kind that I'm talking about. I'm talking about a complete and inherent lack of empathy. I'm talking about having no regard for other people because you're not wired to.

And brainwashing may not be a mental illness but it borders on torture. Brainwashing will lead people to do unspeakable things.

I agree completely. Which is why religion is bad. It could easily be considered a form of torture of young children.

Sacrifice? Jews no longer do so since the Temple is gone.

Jews perform mutilation of their genitals. They fast. They definitely have sacrifice at the heart of their religion.

Christians are no longer to do so now that Jesus has already died for man's sins.

Christianity has the most obvious sacrifice, and you just named it. Jesus had to die in a brutally horrible way in order for you to be "saved". That is the definition of sacrifice. Don't even get me started on Lent or the historical roots of your religion and how they apply today.

Muslims I think have it the same way, no longer needing to sacrifice.

You can't just assume you're right because you think you are. If you aren't sure, google how there is sacrifice within the religion. There are hundreds of results.

Hinduism?

If you don't know what Hinduism is, google it. I can't believe you'd debate religion and not even know one of the 5 major world religions.

Scientology is a cult not a religion or sect.

Fine, then all the other religions are also cults. There is practically no difference between you all, except Scientology is new, and your "religion" isn't.

[mrmee]

Religion? How bout wait till ya die and see where ya go. Until then, live your life as a single individual with no outside force. That way, you get all the credit for your winnings along with all the blame for your losses.

[Lovelife090994]

You can develop one from trauma or from damage to the brain, but these kinds of mental illnesses aren't the kind that I'm talking about. I'm talking about a complete and inherent lack of empathy. I'm talking about having no regard for other people because you're not wired to.



I agree completely. Which is why religion is bad. It could easily be considered a form of torture of young children.



Jews perform mutilation of their genitals. They fast. They definitely have sacrifice at the heart of their religion.



Christianity has the most obvious sacrifice, and you just named it. Jesus had to die in a brutally horrible way in order for you to be "saved". That is the definition of sacrifice. Don't even get me started on Lent or the historical roots of your religion and how they apply today.



You can't just assume you're right because you think you are. If you aren't sure, google how there is sacrifice within the religion. There are hundreds of results.



If you don't know what Hinduism is, google it. I can't believe you'd debate religion and not even know one of the 5 major world religions.



Fine, then all the other religions are also cults. There is practically no difference between you all, except Scientology is new, and your "religion" isn't.

I'm not responding to your hateful rhetoric that is filled with liberal pro-atheist antitheistic nonsense. Talk to me when you can talk like a normal person without the hate. Or are you hateful too like most of humanity?

[saea97]

I tend to disagree with the old chestnut that "religion isn't bad, people are bad". I believe most religious doctrine is fairly odious (and that it is an insult to human morality to suggest that we need to be told 'thou shalt not kill'; hence "religion is good". tldr the Ten Commandments are plagiarized from older dogmas and are, all things considered, pretty obvious), and that Abrahamic doctrine stops people achieving their full potential, stifles liberal morality and has hindered world history since the Roman times. Fundamentalists are regarded as the 'people who pervert religion' and yet groups like the WBC et al. seem to adhere most stringently to the doctrine. Meanwhile, religious people who are in favour of e.g. gay marriage, emancipation of women, etc. seem to be doing so in direct opposition to their own doctrine.

Nonetheless, for it's personal impact, which has never been influential for me - the Universe doesn't owe anyone a sense of hope - but which I would never deprive another person of, I voted 'somewhat agree'.

I'm not responding to your hateful rhetoric that is filled with liberal pro-atheist antitheistic nonsense. Talk to me when you can talk like a normal person without the hate. Or are you hateful too like most of humanity?

Why is it that whenever you run out of argument people are suddenly personally attacking you?

[Hyper]

It's possible that Islam is the one religion that happens to be doing the most harm in the present, but even if that is true it's not like it's always been that way. Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Pagan religions, and Dharmic religious have all done their fair share of harm to society in the past. Targeting Islam in particular just because it happens to be causing a lot of problems now is not only irrational but discriminatory.

Religion isn't doing the harm. People are doing the harm and the religion is simply used as an ideological justification.

It may be a ''reason'' to do harm for the people actually doing the harm but the religion itself does not do ''harm''

And those people are Islamic radicals... Widely condemned by the wider Islamic community.

Also Scientology is a cult because it behaves like a cult. Segregating it's members isolating them from the world (whole communities of scientologists where people work in said communities and are encouraged to marry within the community), persecution of members who attempt to leave, taking financial control of members and so on and on.

As for the topic in general... It's childish to think religion causes harm. Religion is an ideology the theism part is irrelevant - any kind of ideology can and has been used throughout history to motivate/fool people into doing things by others.

[Left Now]

I don't know what you guys think,but I personally believe every religion has done many great services to this world!So in general,I believe religion(every one of them) has been more helpful than harmful!


And those people are Islamic radicals... Widely condemned by the wider Islamic community.


Don't try to convince him my friend.If he could be convinced by saying "The majority of Muslims condemn their acts and crimes...",I could have done it before you.We talked a lot with each others via PM,but as we Iranians say :

"My words just went in through one ear and came out through the other..."

[Stronk Serb]

"My words just went in through one ear and came out through the other..."

We literally have the same saying here in Serbia. We probably picked that from you in some way.

Now back on topic.

The problem with religions is that a lot of the rules are outdated. If a religion is not to cause harm, the religious heads should gather and do a revision of the rules.

[Left Now]

We literally have the same saying here in Serbia. We probably picked that from you in some way.

Now back on topic.

The problem with religions is that a lot of the rules are outdated. If a religion is not to cause harm, the religious heads should gather and do a revision of the rules.

The main principles are not changeable,but it doesn't mean that the rules which are related to those principles cannot be changed,this is the ability which many religions have given to those who practice them,to be able to balance themselves with new conditions of certain eras.

[Karagor]

I'm not responding to your hateful rhetoric that is filled with liberal pro-atheist antitheistic nonsense. Talk to me when you can talk like a normal person without the hate. Or are you hateful too like most of humanity?

You aren't responding because you have no argument whatsoever for your point.

I took each of your points and I made a response to them. Telling me you wont respond to my argument because it is "nonsense" is completely typical of someone who has no argument to defend themselves.

If there's anything in what I said that you don't understand, just ask me to clarify... That is, if you care whatsoever about honesty, integrity, or the truth...

Or are you hateful too like most of humanity?

This is especially entertaining. You group humanity into one group. Last I checked, you're a human, therefore you are hateful also. If you disagree, then you are not human. There is no other way to claim what you just did.

Religion isn't doing the harm. People are doing the harm and the religion is simply used as an ideological justification.

But without religion, they wouldn't be given the money or power to do the harm that they do. The torture, child abuse, brainwashing, murder, mutilation, and every other bad thing that exists...

It may be a ''reason'' to do harm for the people actually doing the harm but the religion itself does not do ''harm''

Except for when a person loses all their worldly possessions because they are brainwashed by doctrine. Except when a theistic state deems women inferior to men. Except when a constitution that is designed to take religion out of government is twisted and warped so that not only is religion a part of government, but people begin believing it's always been that way.


And those people are Islamic radicals... Widely condemned by the wider Islamic community.

You have no authority to say who is and who isn't a good Muslim, Jew, Christian, Hindu or Pastafarian. You have no right to claim that a person is not a follower of a belief because they do things you disagree with. Just as they don't have a right to claim the same about you for not believing as they do.

Also Scientology is a cult because it behaves like a cult. Segregating it's members isolating them from the world (whole communities of scientologists where people work in said communities and are encouraged to marry within the community), persecution of members who attempt to leave, taking financial control of members and so on and on.

Also Christianity is a cult because it behaves like a cult. Segregating it's members isolating them from the world (whole communities of Christians where people work in said communities and are encouraged to marry within the community), persecution of members who attempt to leave, taking financial control of members and so on and on.

And yes. All this happens within Christianity. Just as it does in Islam, Judaism, and as far as I know, all other religions that are widely accepted.


As for the topic in general... It's childish to think religion causes harm. Religion is an ideology the theism part is irrelevant - any kind of ideology can and has been used throughout history to motivate/fool people into doing things by others.

This is absolutely true. Religion is an ideology that can and is used to motivate/fool people into doing unspeakable acts.

I don't understand how you can say that, and then say that it also doesn't do that?

We literally have the same saying here in Serbia. We probably picked that from you in some way.

Now back on topic.

The problem with religions is that a lot of the rules are outdated. If a religion is not to cause harm, the religious heads should gather and do a revision of the rules.

It's called the new testament. (http://www.devotions.net/bible/00new.htm)


Merged Triple Post. Please use the edit or multi quote button next time. ~StoppingTime

[Stronk Serb]

It's called the new testament. (http://www.devotions.net/bible/00new.htm)

Yet both Judaism and Christianity still cause harm. Religion should be decentralized. That way it's less likely that it will cause problems, but those problems would be smačler in scale.

[Karagor]

Yet both Judaism and Christianity still cause harm. Religion should be decentralized. That way it's less likely that it will cause problems, but those problems would be smačler in scale.

the best thing we can legitametly do is try to persuade as many people as possible the fallacy that is religion... It's already dying slowly, the internet is too powerful for religion.

[lacrossebro14]

the best thing we can legitametly do is try to persuade as many people as possible the fallacy that is religion... It's already dying slowly, the internet is too powerful for religion.


But yet there will still always be faithful followers that will keep religion alive as it should be

[Karagor]

But yet there will still always be faithful followers that will keep religion alive as it should be

Just as there are modern day followers of Zeus, Odin, and Acantha. ;)

[Hyper]

But without religion, they wouldn't be given the money or power to do the harm that they do. The torture, child abuse, brainwashing, murder, mutilation, and every other bad thing that exists...

Right if their radical ideology wasn't religious they wouldn't get whatever means they already get. (Whoever they are).

That is such a ridiculous claim... Nazism isn't a religion either but somehow bad things still happened when people who followed the nazi ideology did bad things because a small number of people made them think a certain way.



Except for when a person loses all their worldly possessions because they are brainwashed by doctrine. Except when a theistic state deems women inferior to men. Except when a constitution that is designed to take religion out of government is twisted and warped so that not only is religion a part of government, but people begin believing it's always been that way.

Where is the = between doctrine and religion??? And believing in something is not a religious monopoly...


You have no authority to say who is and who isn't a good Muslim, Jew, Christian, Hindu or Pastafarian. You have no right to claim that a person is not a follower of a belief because they do things you disagree with. Just as they don't have a right to claim the same about you for not believing as they do.

Yet you have the authority to claim all bad things some from religion and use the argument that I can't claim someone is a radical because I don't have the authority?

It's a widely acknowledged & accepted fact that most Islamic religious ''leaders'' condemn their extremists.

Also Christianity is a cult because it behaves like a cult. Segregating it's members isolating them from the world (whole communities of Christians where people work in said communities and are encouraged to marry within the community), persecution of members who attempt to leave, taking financial control of members and so on and on.

And yes. All this happens within Christianity. Just as it does in Islam, Judaism, and as far as I know, all other religions that are widely accepted.

Really now... You should really acquint yourself with scientology and cults in general.

All of this can happen in any religion major or small... But in general it doesn't. Find me some hinduists, buddhists, taoists, shintoists or whatever practicing cult like behavour in mass. Westboro Baptist Church or some other crap like that doesn't = majority of a religions practitioners






This is absolutely true. Religion is an ideology that can and is used to motivate/fool people into doing unspeakable acts.

I don't understand how you can say that, and then say that it also doesn't do that?

I never said it doesn't motivate people or fool them into doing bad things.

I said just because it is used to motivate/fool doesn't mean it is the inherently bad thing.

Do you really think that whatever religious leader is preaching extremism of any kind isn't doing it for some personal gain or due to some mental illness?

Here's a funny thing about the Westboro Baptist Church the now dead asshole head of the church Fred Phelps was by trade an attorney and he made a killing sueing people left and right for ''imposing on his rights''

The problem isn't that religion exists. The problem is that there are people who manipulate and use any kind of ideology (read: strong beliefs, morals, views) to motivate, fool, goad and scare people into doing things they would otherwise likely never do. As far as history goes every ''ideological'' crusade or war was truly motivated by financial & political power.

The only possibly arguable exceptions being genocidical acts.

[Karagor]

Right if their radical ideology wasn't religious they wouldn't get whatever means they already get. (Whoever they are).

That is such a ridiculous claim... Nazism isn't a religion either but somehow bad things still happened when people who followed the nazi ideology did bad things because a small number of people made them think a certain way.


I never meant to imply religion is the only thing that does bad things. Just that it is amongst the things that do bad things. If you don't know what I refer to when I say "they", I mean the 36,500,000 results you get when you google "religious acts of evil."


Where is the = between doctrine and religion??? And believing in something is not a religious monopoly...

The abrahamic religions especially are nothing without their doctrine. Unless you're willing to argue against that point, or against the fact that the abrahamic religions' books are laced with evil, we can take my point as proven.

I'm not sure what you mean by religious monopoly.


Yet you have the authority to claim all bad things some from religion and use the argument that I can't claim someone is a radical because I don't have the authority?
I never said all bad things come from religion. My position in this thread is for the idea that religion is more harm than good. This is the second strawman in your argument.


It's a widely acknowledged & accepted fact that most Islamic religious ''leaders'' condemn their extremists.

It doesn't matter who it is who condemns them. The fact is, they use their religion as an excuse to commit evil...

But even if you put this point aside - there are none-extremists who do more harm than good in the world. Catholic priests for example are well known for their abuse of children, and "The Church" protects them from prosecution.

Really now... You should really acquint yourself with scientology and cults in general.
Please be more specific.


All of this can happen in any religion major or small... But in general it doesn't. Find me some hinduists, buddhists, taoists, shintoists or whatever practicing cult like behavour in mass. Westboro Baptist Church or some other crap like that doesn't = majority of a religions practitioners

I'm not going to speak for every individual religion, mostly because it would take forever to find enough material to justify my points, but also because that's not the crux of my argument. I argue that religion in general does more harm than good, and an example of that is cultist behaviour within religions. I only have to prove that some religions have cultist behaviour for my points to stand. For this proof I point to the mutilation of male genitals at birth. The refusal of vaccination because the church deems it evil. Communion.

I could give more examples, but my point is made and so there is no need. If you can irrefutably argue that these things aren't done in the name of religion, then I'll give you other things that are.

I never said it doesn't motivate people or fool them into doing bad things.

I said just because it is used to motivate/fool doesn't mean it is the inherently bad thing.

But without this thing, the bad things wouldn't be done. It is the cause.


Do you really think that whatever religious leader is preaching extremism of any kind isn't doing it for some personal gain or due to some mental illness?


I completely agree, but that doesn't defeat my point that without tax exemption, without charity funding, without crowd sourcing, the powerful crazy man would just be a crazy man. Of which there are thousands who never do bad things, because they are never given the opportunity. My argument is, and has always been, that religion is the opportunity, and is therefore the cause for evil.

Here's a funny thing about the Westboro Baptist Church the now dead asshole head of the church Fred Phelps was by trade an attorney and he made a killing suing people left and right for ''imposing on his rights''

This has nothing to do with either of our arguments.

The problem isn't that religion exists. The problem is that there are people who manipulate and use any kind of ideology (read: strong beliefs, morals, views) to motivate, fool, goad and scare people into doing things they would otherwise likely never do. As far as history goes every ''ideological'' crusade or war was truly motivated by financial & political power.

So you do agree that religion is a cause of evil? Because it sounds here like you do. You just said that "Even if religion didn't exist, the bad things would still happen"...

There are a lot of factors in your point here, and instead of giving you a wall of text, I'll just say one thing on the matter.

There will always be bad people in the world. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try and stop them.


The only possibly arguable exceptions being genocidal acts.

You just gave an exception to your own argument... In my opinion that's self damning.

Now feel free to argue point to point, as I do, but if you want to make your post brief, feel free to respond to this one claim:

Modern Religion is used in bad ways more prominently than good ways. It is therefore more harmful than good.

That is all I am claiming. Do not presume I claim more than that.

[Gamma Male]

I don't know what you guys think,but I personally believe every religion has done many great services to this world!So in general,I believe religion(every one of them) has been more helpful than harmful!



Don't try to convince him my friend.If he could be convinced by saying "The majority of Muslims condemn their acts and crimes...",I could have done it before you.We talked a lot with each others via PM,but as we Iranians say :

"My words just went in through one ear and came out through the other..."

Uh, no we haven't. I think you're confusing me with someone else.

[Left Now]

Uh, no we haven't. I think you're confusing me with someone else.

Ay ay ay!Was he quoting you?Sorry I thought that he's quoting Lovelife090994!

Such a mistake!Apologizes!

[Kurgg]

Abrahamic religions are the cancer of the world. Atheism and paganism FTW.

But no, seriously, without major religions (Christianity, Islam, Judaism) we could have advanced further in technology and we could have avoided so much of bloodshed.

Non-theistic religions are IMO more, like Mike already said, like philosophies than religions. Paganist and native religions seem to be more tolerant to modern technology and other religions.

[Left Now]

Abrahamic religions are the cancer of the world. Atheism and paganism FTW.

But no, seriously, without major religions (Christianity, Islam, Judaism) we could have advanced further in technology and we could have avoided so much of bloodshed.

Well,I seem to disagree with you here.It was only the view of a certain religion about science and technology which could affect the speed of technological advances.For example,Jews during their own Golden Age advanced in special fields like Architecture and Chemistry.

Muslims for example in their own Golden Age,accomplished in fields like Mathematics,Medic,Chemistry,Geology and Astrology and the same about Christianity.This is right that sometimes religious radicals and extremists would slow the speed of scientific advances down,but Modern World today owes many of its technological advances to major religions like Islam and Judaism and of course Christianity!

[Kurgg]

Well,I seem to disagree with you here.It was only the view of a certain religion about science and technology which could affect the speed of technological advances.For example,Jews during their own Golden Age advanced in special fields like Architecture and Chemistry.

Muslims for example in their own Golden Age,accomplished in fields like Mathematics,Medic,Chemistry,Geology and Astrology and the same about Christianity.This is right that sometimes religious radicals and extremists would slow the speed of scientific advances down,but Modern World today owes many of its technological advances to major religions like Islam and Judaism and of course Christianity!

The scientific advancement in Christian, Jewish and Islamic peoples and nations were not achieved because of the religion. In fact, the advancement was slowed down by religion because scientist only researched what was suitable for the religion. They burned people on the Middle ages because of claiming that Earth is a ball instead of a plate. The Christian churches in general opposed this and tried to exterminate the research that were against the Bible. Yes, the modern world owes a lot to the Muslim, Christian and Jewish scientists around the world now and in the past, but none of their achievements are caused by their religions.

[Left Now]

The scientific advancement in Christian, Jewish and Islamic peoples and nations were not achieved because of the religion. In fact, the advancement was slowed down by religion because scientist only researched what was suitable for the religion. They burned people on the Middle ages because of claiming that Earth is a ball instead of a plate. The Christian churches in general opposed this and tried to exterminate the research that were against the Bible. Yes, the modern world owes a lot to the Muslim, Christian and Jewish scientists around the world now and in the past, but none of their achievements are caused by their religions.

Well,but Jews and Muslims and many Christians were inspired to learn new knowledge and sciences by their religion,and there was no ban in their way.Avicenna is a good example;

He was a great physician and mathematician,meanwhile he was an Islamic Scholar too;did his religion stopped him or decrease the speed and amount of his researches?no.It actually did speed them up,and he himself has always appreciated the role of his religion in his studies!

No religion orders its followers to just pray the God without knowledge.In fact,learning and researching themselves are types of prays in many religions.

[Kurgg]

Well,but Jews and Muslims and many Christians were inspired to learn new knowledge and sciences by their religion,and there was no ban in their way.Avicenna is a good example;

He was a great physician and mathematician,meanwhile he was an Islamic Scholar too;did his religion stopped him or decrease the speed and amount of his researches?no.It actually did speed them up,and he himself has always appreciated the role of his religion in his studies!

No religion orders its followers to just pray the God without knowledge.In fact,learning and researching themselves are types of prays in many religions.
I agree, he was an innovative researcher on medicine and mathematics, but as an offspring of Christian parents I say that those scienses were not in conflict with his religion. Also, he thought himself that his religion helped his research as he was very religious. He felt that it helped. There's no concretic proofs that religion really helped him. It's like placebo medicines: they don't actually have anything healing in them, but they work because patients believe they work.

The religions allow researching and science only if the research is not in conflict what the religion teaches. The best example of this is the Creationism vs. Evolution fight.

[Left Now]

I agree, he was an innovative researcher on medicine and mathematics, but as an offspring of Christian parents I say that those scienses were not in conflict with his religion. Also, he thought himself that his religion helped his research as he was very religious. He felt that it helped. There's no concretic proofs that religion really helped him. It's like placebo medicines: they don't actually have anything healing in them, but they work because patients believe they work.

The religions allow researching and science only if the research is not in conflict what the religion teaches. The best example of this is the Creationism vs. Evolution fight.

Well,it still has lots of places for debate!Why do people usually think that accepting Evolution means denying Creationism?It's not like this in my religion.

[Kurgg]

Well,it still has lots of places for debate!Why do people usually think that accepting Evolution means denying Creationism?It's not like this in my religion.
It is because they are a different answer for the same question: how are the world and the humans created? You cannot believe in both, as creationism means that a deity created humans and evolution means that humans evolved from monkeys themselves. Creationism and evolution are in conflict with each other.

[Left Now]

It is because they are a different answer for the same question: how are the world and the humans created? You cannot believe in both, as creationism means that a deity created humans and evolution means that humans evolved from monkeys themselves. Creationism and evolution are in conflict with each other.

Well,first of all I have to say it's not monkeys themselves whom humans are evolved from according to Modern Evolution Theory,but some kind of Common Ancestor of both Humans and other Primates.

Second,Creationism doesn't say some sort of divine thing has made the Humans directly,but actually claims that the source of all creation is that divine thing.It doesn't mean that Evolution cannot exist at all.Although there is a great debate about the creation of Adam and Eve who are considered as first conscious humans of the world by most religions.

[Jean Poutine]

No, that goes to mental illness. I'm not blaming the religion, but you have to admit a lot of wrong happening now in the present is due to one religion in particular.

You mean Zionist Judaism and their Christian Zionist supporters?

/rimshot

[Babs]

Sort of yay, sort of nay. There are religious people who are genuinely good people, the problem is that "separation of church and state" apparently means nothing to most conservative ones, and that's what's doing all the harm. As long as their religion doesn't affect other people's lives (which it is, but it doesn't have to) then I couldn't care less what they believe in.

[Allbutanillusion]

...To put all overused cliches aside, this question is literally unanswerable.

The vast, vast majority of issues or questions simply cannot be answered in a "right or wrong" format. Things aren't that simple and they never have been. There are so many levels of complexity when one asks a question like this (time period, bias, personal background/upbringing, outside pressures, etc, etc,) that there is no way to have a definitive yes or no answer.
And yet...too often questions like this are asked, and people just yell back and forth about how they're right and how there's just no way the other side can be correct....but that simply isn't the case.




I agree with this to some extent, this is a good point.


I am insightful/observant enough to know that within this forum that there is a strong bias against any form of religion and that those biases tend to lead people here to have a rather negative one sided point of view... typically intentionally but perhaps ignorantly ignoring the positive contributions of religion. Therefore I really don't expect anyone to agree with me but I think religion has been helpful overall.

I don’t think the available data supports the notion that religion has done more harm than anything else. Moreover, even if it had – and we were able to somehow abolish religion from the hearts of people everywhere – I’m not sure we would have a reduction in world violence/intolerance of others(for example).

The alleged violence of religion is simply our own violence/intolerance/hate done in religion’s name. Without religion, we simply find other banners under which to continue our deadly plans. The violence of religion is not the problem; the real problem is the seemingly primal violence/intolerance embedded in our own hearts. It is that violence which is most resistant to uprooting.

[Miserabilia]

Somewhat aggree: I wouldn't say it's directly harmful, but it causes a way of thinking that can be harmful, and in most cases, it is a way of thinking that limits new solutions or new views, which causes less open mindednes and indirectly less tolerance and progress.
Somewhat along those lines.

[phuckphace]

Religion is like a penis. It's a fine thing to have and be proud of, but when you take it out and start waving it around in my face, then we've got a problem.

this quote is funny because a lot of anti-theists will go to great lengths to defend public nudity/sex on the grounds that it doesn't "harm" anyone. so what if a guy at a pride parade wants to wave his dong around in front of children BIGOT?!

[darkangel91]

I think of religion the way I think of sexuality. It takes over your mind and causes you to think, speak, and act in irrational ways. My own perspective I call a religion only because there's no better word; I try to remain rational and scientific as much as possible.

[Gamma Male]

this quote is funny because a lot of anti-theists will go to great lengths to defend public nudity/sex on the grounds that it doesn't "harm" anyone. so what if a guy at a pride parade wants to wave his dong around in front of children BIGOT?!

Personally I don't think public nudity or sex should be illegal at all. I don't think merely seeing or being around sex is actually harmful to children. I know I'm probably gonna get a lot of flack for saying that, but whatever. I mean, it was only like 10,000 years ago that sex in public started to become discouraged, before then we had sex out in the open in front of children and everything and they all turned out fine. I would argue that harm from being exposed to sex as a child is more due to societal pressures and environmental factors than some inherent harmfulness of sex.

[Miserabilia]

Personally I don't think public nudity or sex should be illegal at all. I don't think merely seeing or being around sex is actually harmful to children. I know I'm probably gonna get a lot of flack for saying that, but whatever. I mean, it was only like 10,000 years ago that sex in public started to become discouraged, before then we had sex out in the open in front of children and everything and they all turned out fine. I would argue that harm from being exposed to sex as a child is more due to societal pressures and environmental factors than some inherent harmfulness of sex.

Maybe in theory, and maybe if all of society would restart, but starting a transittion where public sex is allowed would be pretty much impossible now.

Also, though I see your point, I think the line of keeping sex from children exists for a simple reason;
we keek sex from children, because we keep children from sex.
Children aren't developed enough to have or understand sex, so they don't and (most people) don't want them.

It wouldn't make any sense to keep children from sex but not keep sex from children; it's just a social boundary, just like talking about violence love murder and alchohol and drugs is not something you do with or around children.

[conner74]

it helps in certains cases but its not for everyone

[Typhlosion]

I'm no anti-theist. Even as an atheist, I defend religion. I do believe that it benefits society.

Even better, it HUGELY benefits the lower classes. Give 'em a reason to go on, something that I fear they couldn't go without. It's heart touching to see many ex-prisoners converting, and while some is bs cutesy news, a lot of it isn't.

[Miserabilia]

I'm no anti-theist. Even as an atheist, I defend religion. I do believe that it benefits society.

Even better, it HUGELY benefits the lower classes. Give 'em a reason to go on, something that I fear they couldn't go without. It's heart touching to see many ex-prisoners converting, and while some is bs cutesy news, a lot of it isn't.

I'd say help the lower class so they don't need religion to give themselves a point to life. I find the idea very sad that we need religion because their lives are so terrible, instead of trying to battle both poverty and religious indoctrination.

[Typhlosion]

I'd say help the lower class so they don't need religion to give themselves a point to life. I find the idea very sad that we need religion because their lives are so terrible, instead of trying to battle both poverty and religious indoctrination.I do not disagree with your post.

In lack of other help, I do see religion's "moral help" desirable. As much as indoctrination as it is, I don't see it as necessarily bad, especially considering that I'm talking about lower-class citizens. The worst, which ok isn't really acceptable, is having a religious bias when voting. Even so, I feel that the pros outweigh the cons.

[Reg_]

i say yay its more harmful
And to give a good reason y
Watch the movie Carrie
And NO im not baseing my answer on that movie

[Miserabilia]

I do not disagree with your post.

In lack of other help, I do see religion's "moral help" desirable. As much as indoctrination as it is, I don't see it as necessarily bad, especially considering that I'm talking about lower-class citizens. The worst, which ok isn't really acceptable, is having a religious bias when voting. Even so, I feel that the pros outweigh the cons.

Ah, okay :)

[Typhlosion]

Ah, okay :)
Why couldn't all forums discussions end like this?

[Miserabilia]

Why couldn't all forums discussions end like this?

I know right!? This is just ridiculously smooth. xD

[Karagor]

i say yay its more harmful
And to give a good reason y
Watch the movie Carrie
And NO im not baseing my answer on that movie

So what are you basing your argument on? You didn't give any other reason for your statement that religion is more harmful than good.

[Gamma Male]

So what are you basing your argument on? You didn't give any other reason for your statement that religion is more harmful than good.

The movie Carrie is about an extremely religious mother who forces her highschool age daughter to adhere to incredibly strict rules which lead her to become a social outcast at school and ends with her going on a murderous killing rampage triggered by a bullying incident. When she gets home her mother sees that she has developed telekinetic powers and, thinking she's a witch, attempts to murder her.

I guess he's saying he thinks religion is bad because it sometimes causes people to adhere to dogma blindy and not be open to new ideas and change. Or something like that.

[Miserabilia]

The movie Carrie is about an extremely religious mother who forces her highschool age daughter to adhere to incredibly strict rules which lead her to become a social outcast at school and ends with her going on a murderous killing rampage triggered by a bullying incident. When she gets home her mother sees that she has developed telekinetic powers and, thinking she's a witch, attempts to murder her.

I guess he's saying he thinks religion is bad because it sometimes causes people to adhere to dogma blindy and not be open to new ideas and change. Or something like that.

love this post

[Lovelife090994]

The movie Carrie is about an extremely religious mother who forces her highschool age daughter to adhere to incredibly strict rules which lead her to become a social outcast at school and ends with her going on a murderous killing rampage triggered by a bullying incident. When she gets home her mother sees that she has developed telekinetic powers and, thinking she's a witch, attempts to murder her.

I guess he's saying he thinks religion is bad because it sometimes causes people to adhere to dogma blindy and not be open to new ideas and change. Or something like that.

And people ask why we use stereotypes? This right here only enforces stereotypes.

[Gamma Male]

And people ask why we use stereotypes? This right here only enforces stereotypes.

I didn't say that I agreed with it necessarily.

[rtw1997]

It has been proven that religious people have stronger morals and are happier people in general, so in that regard, it's undeniably more helpful than harmful.

[Miserabilia]

It has been proven that religious people have stronger morals and are happier people in general, so in that regard, it's undeniably more helpful than harmful.

> it has been proevn that religious people have stronger morals

...

Please tell me how one can objectively define morals and measure how "strong" they are, and please show me the research that prooves this.

[Lovelife090994]

> it has been proevn that religious people have stronger morals

...

Please tell me how one can objectively define morals and measure how "strong" they are, and please show me the research that prooves this.

It's in the religion's teachings. Take Christianity and Judaism for example; we are both to have morals and that moral from God. We are supposed to be good and to follow one God, some call that a moral. Also we have commandments to follow. That is moral.

[Miserabilia]

It's in the religion's teachings. Take Christianity and Judaism for example; we are both to have morals and that moral from God. We are supposed to be good and to follow one God, some call that a moral. Also we have commandments to follow. That is moral.

You are saying religious people have "stronger morals" because morals are from god. That is not the objective definition of morals and there is no objective measerment of moral good or bad. You can't say religious people have stronger morals because religious people have stronger morals. That is circular.

[Lovelife090994]

You are saying religious people have "stronger morals" because morals are from god. That is not the objective definition of morals and there is no objective measerment of moral good or bad. You can't say religious people have stronger morals because religious people have stronger morals. That is circular.

No, I'm saying our beliefs have moral as a major tenant, and they have moral grounds. What's wrong if religious people do have higher morals? Why not try and follow suit?

[Miserabilia]

No, I'm saying our beliefs have moral as a major tenant, and they have moral grounds. What's wrong if religious people do have higher morals? Why not try and follow suit?

What wrong with it that "higher morals" do not exist as anything but an opinion. Morals exist, but whether a moral is "good" or "bad" or "high" or not, is subjective and achieves nothing as argument for religion.
Unless you can show me an objective standard of what morals are "high" and what are not, there's simply no point.

[Gamma Male]

It has been proven that religious people have stronger morals and are happier people in general, .

Is that so? And exactly what proof are you referring to?

[Lovelife090994]

What wrong with it that "higher morals" do not exist as anything but an opinion. Morals exist, but whether a moral is "good" or "bad" or "high" or not, is subjective and achieves nothing as argument for religion.
Unless you can show me an objective standard of what morals are "high" and what are not, there's simply no point.

I'm saying morals are a big part of religion. Morals are also things we all need. You wouldn't want to live a world where anything good and kind never exist, right?

Is that so? And exactly what proof are you referring to?

The fact that Christians and others who pray do tend to recover more from illness and also tend to fair better in the world with a sense of optimism versus negating every spiritual whim.

[Vlerchan]

I'm saying morals are a big part of religion.
He's saying morals don't exist.

Human beings invent morals which suit their purposes.

Morals are also things we all need.
I agree.

You wouldn't want to live a world where anything good and kind never exist, right?
No. I wouldn't.

The fact that Christians and others who pray do tend to recover more from illness ...
It's been shown that prayer has a negligible effect on people's recovery.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/31/health/31pray.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&


... and also tend to fair better in the world with a sense of optimism versus negating every spiritual whim.
This is an opinion.

There's no empirical evidence backing for this claim.

[Lovelife090994]

He's saying morals don't exist.

Human beings invent morals which suit their purposes.


I agree.


No. I wouldn't.


It's been shown that prayer has a negligible effect on people's recovery.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/31/health/31pray.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&



This is an opinion.

There's no empirical evidence backing for this claim.

There have been articles on it. Explain how so many testimonies involve doctors baffled at the recovery of patients? I'm a walking testimony. I had whole churches praying for me, and by the grace of God I am here. My mother too is here. The doctors wanted to give up on us both, and the next day we were both healthy. Some things you can't explain away. But I know too well that many cases involve miracles whether you believe that or not. Besides, moral or not, the religion itself is inert, what isn't are the followers. Your beliefs can be either good or bad, but the bottom line is what you do with them.

[Vlerchan]

There have been articles on it.
And there have been studies too.

The studies conclude that prayer has a negligible effect on people's recovery.

I trust the studies more than I trust the much-quoted exceptions to the studies.

The doctors wanted to give up on us both, and the next day we were both healthy.
That's great. It really is. But there's no reason why you should believe it was god that saved you.

Besides, moral or not, the religion itself is inert, what isn't are the followers.
I'm not claiming that religion is 'moral' or 'immoral'.

I'm not knowledgeable enough about all religions age-long histories to make such a judgement but also hold to a value system in which the idea of 'moral' and 'immoral' are meaningless.

[Gamma Male]

The fact that Christians and others who pray do tend to recover more from illness and also tend to fair better in the world with a sense of optimism versus negating every spiritual whim.

Can you provide certifiable evidence which shows that Christians and those who pray recover from illness better?

And I don't appreciate the stereotype that atheists are depressed pessimists. That's completely untrue.

[Lovelife090994]

And there have been studies too.

The studies conclude that prayer has a negligible effect on people's recovery.

I trust the studies more than I trust the much-quoted exceptions to the studies.


That's great. It really is. But there's no reason why you should believe it was god that saved you.


I'm not claiming that religion is 'moral' or 'immoral'.

I'm not knowledgeable enough about all religions age-long histories to make such a judgement but also hold to a value system in which the idea of 'moral' and 'immoral' are meaningless.

I have every right to thank God for my well-being. You won't understand it, but you don't have to. God is the reason why I am here, you can debate it to your grave but I have every right to believe it as such, and I will continue to even beyond my grave.

Can you provide certifiable evidence which shows that Christians and those who pray recover from illness better?

And I don't appreciate the stereotype that atheists are depressed pessimists. That's completely untrue.

Me for one. What do you want to ask? And no, I don't take too kindly to stereotypes. You are insinuating that prayer can never work. And you seem pessimistic dismissing everything that has a religion in its words.

[Miserabilia]

The fact that Christians and others who pray do tend to recover more from illness and also tend to fair better in the world with a sense of optimism versus negating every spiritual whim.

Genuinly interested in seeing a large global study that prooves this.

I'm saying morals are a big part of religion. Morals are also things we all need. You wouldn't want to live a world where anything good and kind never exist, right?


Good and kind are subjective, so I never would want to live in a world where what I concider good and kind to be never exist.
However, that does not equal that religious people have "higher morals".

[Stronk Serb]

It has been discovered that religiously raised children have a harder time telling fact from fiction.

[Lovelife090994]

Genuinly interested in seeing a large global study that prooves this.



Good and kind are subjective, so I never would want to live in a world where what I concider good and kind to be never exist.
However, that does not equal that religious people have "higher morals".

Okay, you're still not getting this. Maybe your views and my views make us incapable of agreeing, but I'll state it again.

Being religious or not can still yield a person with morals. Religion has morality as major tenant and as something all must have, the individual morals are "virtues" which lead to one being pious. Piousness is no reason to be holier-than-thou, but lack of piousness is no reason to be smarter-than-thou either. An atheist can have morals but the one thing they don't have is faith, which is what a religious person should have. Good and kind, bad and wrong do exist be they subjective or otherwise. And studies change with every reviewer. While many are valid, most are biased and thus contaminated. Also I look to more than just one study or one type of investigation. I use primary sources like testimonies, diaries, books, and histories. What I am saying is a known fact, even on YouTube under a few science channels, scientists are still baffled as to why religious people tend to be happier and healthier. There are outliers and incongruences of course, but the fact is looking at the majority.

[Vlerchan]

Good and kind, bad and wrong do exist be they subjective or otherwise.
If they're subjective, like you admit, then it should be impossible to claim that one side is more 'moral' or 'immoral'.

While many are valid, most are biased and thus contaminated.
They got that Liberal Bias too right?

I'd also say that your testimonies are a lot more susceptible to this.

I use primary sources like testimonies, diaries, books, and histories.
The problem here is that the apparently extraordinary tends to be noted down a lot more often than the ordinary.

If you want to prove something it's better to use studies: it allows one to gauge trends and averages. It allows us to avoid focusing unduly on once-offs.

What I am saying is a known fact, even on YouTube under a few science channels, scientists are still baffled as to why religious people tend to be happier and healthier.
It's not baffling that religious people are happier: religion tends to give people a sense of purpose and also a sense of social cohesion.

It's a lie to say that religious people are healthier: religious people dominate areas where disease and infections are widespread and prevalent. Like subsaharan Africa.

There are outliers and incongruences of course, but the fact is looking at the majority.
I agree.

Which is why I suggest you start producing studies.

[Lovelife090994]

If they're subjective, like you admit, then it should be impossible to claim that one side is more 'moral' or 'immoral'.


They got that Liberal Bias too right?

I'd also say that your testimonies are a lot more susceptible to this.


The problem here is that the apparently extraordinary tends to be noted down a lot more often than the ordinary.

If you want to prove something it's better to use studies: it allows one to gauge trends and averages. It allows us to avoid focusing unduly on once-offs.


It's not baffling that religious people are happier: religion tends to give people a sense of purpose and also a sense of social cohesion.

It's a lie to say that religious people are healthier: religious people dominate areas where disease and infections are widespread and prevalent. Like subsaharan Africa.


I agree.

Which is why I suggest you start producing studies.

I never mentioned anything liberal. And even though I do not side to liberalism, that isn't the point here at all. The sources when primary can be very useful. If on the subject of religion I'm never going to ask what a person's opinion is if they outright hate all religion and the people in one. That would give only negative results. And of course there are religious people in diseased areas. We are everywhere, so of course you'd find someone who is religious in a poor or diseased area. The two do not really have a connection since the disease can be from lack of sanitation from the poverty, the religion simply is something that came after. I won't blame poverty on religion.

[Vlerchan]

I never mentioned anything liberal.
I was making a joke.

But let's move on ...

The sources when primary can be very useful.
I agree.

I just disagree that they are useful when we are analysing trends.

If on the subject of religion I'm never going to ask what a person's opinion is if they outright hate all religion and the people in one.
I didn't offer an opinion. I offered a study.

Study (n): a detailed investigation and analysis of a subject or situation.

That would give only negative results.
I agree.

But it's a criticism irrelevant to what I produced.

The two do not really have a connection since the disease can be from lack of sanitation from the poverty, the religion simply is something that came after.
I'm not saying that religion makes people unhealthy. I'm saying that religious people are not on average healthier (as you claimed).

[Xealen4231]

Just look at this crisis in Israel, without religion their would be a lot less conflict in the middle east.

[Chuck_M8]

I personally don't like religion. More people have been killed because of it than any other single cause.

I find many of the morals twisted and hypocritical in the actual books of beliefs that they have. The Old Testament for Catholics (and other Christian denominations) is filled with awful morals. Women are property. God's massacre of innocent children in Egypt. It is even equipped with a "how to buy and sell slaves" manual, which pre-civil war was used by many Southerners to defend slavery as morally adequate. Even though the New Testament lightens up, Jesus says multiple times to follow the laws of the Old Testament.

The same goes for many other Religions too. Judaism, for instance, has thousands of laws that are punishable by death... no one really follows them. The Abraham and Isaac story was also where the creator of the first Saw movie got the idea of his "test."

Religion is also an excuse to punish minorities or those who don't believe in the same thing. It happens all throughout history, including now. So many use the bible to justify their anti-homosexual beliefs, which is very wrong.

I don't know why anyone would choose to believe or have hope in such religions, but i respect that they do. I firmly think that many "religious" people now a days simply believe and find hope in their actual God rather than their religion and all of its parameters, which is far far different and better, imo.

[hesaidhesaid]

This is interesting for a few reasons.
Yes, religion is harmful because of the way it is transmitted and the hypocrises it gets up to anyway. The Catholic Church earns the gold medal for this.

HOWEVER, faith does give you a background of ethics to follow in life (as does the 'secular' law), it gives you direction and as for me as a devout Catholic, it explains the meaning of life to an extent for which I am happy to consider and employ in my life.

If anyone wants to extend this debate further, by all means contact me.

-H

[ImCoolBeans]

Please don't bump threads with more than three months of inactivity. This one is over a year old. :locked: