Religion: For Better or For Worse?

[ZzKingz]

I personally think that religion has little positive impact on todays world. Sure, faith is fine, it's great, but with true faith comes blind faith, and with blind faith comes trouble.

Blind faith ["The- bible- tells us- to- do this,,, must-do-this…"] is terrible for human development. It is a road block to technology [i.e. "The bible tells us that ____ is a bad technology,,, must boycott research…"] and it can't even be justified.

Not to forget the extremists [remember 9/11?]

I think the side effects of religion cancel out anything good that it does, and humans need to mature a bit and stop this.

NOTE: I AM AGNOSTIC AND I AM NOT CONTRADICTING YOUR BELIEFS.

[Death]

There's nothing wrong with believing in a higher power, but I agree that many problems have come of it. Not only do you get selfish people who like converting you (like Jehovah's Witnesses), but people who actually carry out all the bad things that the holy texts say and start wars over it. So, it depends. Simply believing is okay, but swallowing it all and being narrow-minded including refusing to see facts that contradict it is terrible - which religion also ends up doing.

[Obscene Eyedeas]

I personally think that religion has little positive impact on todays world. Sure, faith is fine, it's great, but with true faith comes blind faith, and with blind faith comes trouble.

what is your definition of great? In my eyes religion causes a lot of harm and blind faith, this in turn can lead to people becoming like sheep. I dislike how people will use faith to debate with facts, that is what religion does. I see very few positives to it and unless you have a very low definition of great I do not believe you can call faith 'great'.

is terrible for human development. It is a road block to technology [i.e. "The bible tells us that ____ is a bad technology,,, must boycott research…"] and it can't even be justified.

Ok well what era are we talking about because in this century religion has little to no hold over science and technology, people have accepted science in many ways now as our future and more and more people leave faith and religion behind. People also do not follow everything their book of faith states for them to do, many have not even read it. They simply follow that which is preached to them as most important. If something is not justified then one should speak out against it and people do. Hence why religion has little hold over technological and scientific advances of the 21st century.

Not to forget the extremists [remember 9/11?]

Extremists are called extremists for a reason. You can't use them to portray religions as being for the worst. Certain religions are worse then others but when talking in general one must stick to general and not isolate one particular aspect and use it to argue for the general case.

I think the side effects of religion cancel out anything good that it does, and humans need to mature a bit and stop this.

NOTE: I AM AGNOSTIC AND I AM NOT CONTRADICTING YOUR BELIEFS.

you are holding a debate on whether religion is for the better or worse of man you are questioning the beliefs of people religions, asking are they for better or worse. Maturing has really nothing to do with faith as many people who have faith are mature they simply believe in something different to you. I fail to see how this leads to a lack of maturity. While I do not believe in religion I fail to see why people should stop believing just because someone believes in something others don't. I thought people were meant to be open minded and embrace all cultures and religions even the ones we dislike and do not believe in, we should still have the ability to accept them for what they are. No person has the right to decide what you should or should not believe in.

[Perseus]

T Not only do you get selfish people who like converting you (like Jehovah's Witnesses), but people who actually carry out all the bad things that the holy texts say and start wars over it.

How are they selfish?

[Death]

Because people who feel the need to try to convert you to religion (especially the ones who try to force you) can only be thinking of themselves because they are trying to promote their own religion. If they actually gave two shits about anyone else, they wouldn't try to make people follow their religion.

[Sith Lord 13]

Because people who feel the need to try to convert you to religion (especially the ones who try to force you) can only be thinking of themselves because they are trying to promote their own religion. If they actually gave two shits about anyone else, they wouldn't try to make people follow their religion.

Whether you agree with it or not, it's not selfish, it's actually selfless. All they're trying to do is save you from what they believe will happen if you die without converting. It's like shouting at someone through a window to wake them up when you see smoke coming from the house. Maybe the house is on fire. Maybe someone's BBQ-ing in the back. They're trying to be nice, even if they did interrupt your nap.

[INFERNO]

I personally think that religion has little positive impact on todays world. Sure, faith is fine, it's great, but with true faith comes blind faith, and with blind faith comes trouble.

What are the many negative and few positive impacts?


Blind faith ["The- bible- tells us- to- do this,,, must-do-this…"] is terrible for human development. It is a road block to technology [i.e. "The bible tells us that ____ is a bad technology,,, must boycott research…"] and it can't even be justified.

Agreed with this but not all religions are like this. You're over-generalizing to include religions that have no book or person demanding what you should and should not do.


Not to forget the extremists [remember 9/11?]

Non-extremists outnumber the extremists vastly making the extremists a minority but having a profound effect. But it's like saying since one kid pushed another off the swingset, all kids are no longer allowed to use the swing-set. It was a tragic event but why want to take away something that others may use for peace?


I think the side effects of religion cancel out anything good that it does, and humans need to mature a bit and stop this.

I feel like I'm repeating myself: what are the few good or positive impacts and what are the negative ones? How do they cancel out the good ones?


NOTE: I AM AGNOSTIC AND I AM NOT CONTRADICTING YOUR BELIEFS.

You don't know what my beliefs are so I don't see how you know you're not contradicting them, unless you've done some stalking of my posts.

[The Dark Lord]

My signature sums up my view on religion. I believe it is a control mechanism and is exceptionally hypocritical

[Peace God]

people who feel the need to try to convert you to religion can only be thinking of themselves

:confused:...they're selfish because they take time out of their day to try to help and save strangers?

[Death]

Save strangers? How arrogant must one be to believe that they are doing that? It's like they're saying that your religion is wrong. Would you like it if I came up to you and told you to change religion because "yours is wrong"? Religion is supposed to be something that's between you and your maker (and possibly friends and family who don't mind). It's not something that should be forced down peoples' throats.

[Perseus]

Save strangers? How arrogant must one be to believe that they are doing that? It's like they're saying that your religion is wrong. Would you like it if I came up to you and told you to change religion because "yours is wrong"? Religion is supposed to be something that's between you and your maker (and possibly friends and family who don't mind). It's not something that should be forced down peoples' throats.

It's still not selfish. It is selfless, like Sith Lord said. I would like to see why you think it is selfish.

[Sith Lord 13]

Save strangers? How arrogant must one be to believe that they are doing that? It's like they're saying that your religion is wrong. Would you like it if I came up to you and told you to change religion because "yours is wrong"? Religion is supposed to be something that's between you and your maker (and possibly friends and family who don't mind). It's not something that should be forced down peoples' throats.

Arrogant? Maybe. Or maybe kind. They feel blessed that somebody opened their eyes to this religion and now feel compelled to do the same for you. And honestly, how are certain atheists any different? Their derisive statements made to belittle all non-atheists and shame them away from their religion. To try and convince everyone that belief in God is "stupid".

[Death]

It's still not selfish. It is selfless, like Sith Lord said. I would like to see why you think it is selfish.

I've already told you. What a silly question.

Arrogant? Maybe. Or maybe kind. They feel blessed that somebody opened their eyes to this religion

See, arrogance already. They are basically feeling that they are right and everyone else is wrong. Selfish.

and now feel compelled to do the same for you.

Even when you ask them not to?

And honestly, how are certain atheists any different? Their derisive statements made to belittle all non-atheists and shame them away from their religion.

We don't try to convert Christians. However, if you are going to participate on a debate, what do you expect? Come on, obvious stuff...

Now, I know I've said this before, but I'd like to ask again: Would you like it if someone came up to you and wouldn't stop going on about their religion even after you asked them to stop and they basically tried to force you to change? Would you like that? Or would it end up pissing you off?

[Sith Lord 13]

I've already told you. What a silly question.

Well I've missed it. And apparently I'm not alone.

See, arrogance already. They are basically feeling that they are right and everyone else is wrong. Selfish.

1) Arrogance =/= selfish.

2) Yet you sit here and feel you're right and everyone else is wrong, when for the four millennia of human history (give or take) An overwhelming majority of persons have believed in a god in one form or another. Most religions believe practitioners of other religions are misguided. The only one who seems to think others are WRONG are atheists.

Even when you ask them not to?

Most will stop when you ask. Those who don't usually are not following their own religion. As such, you've entered the realm of personal misconduct as opposed to a fault of the religion.

We don't try to convert Christians. However, if you are going to participate on a debate, what do you expect? Come on, obvious stuff...

Ummm, don't try to speak for all atheists. I have known several atheists in my life, as well as being atheist for a time. I know several who did like to try and change people's beliefs, and would practice "militant atheism".

Now, I know I've said this before, but I'd like to ask again: Would you like it if someone came up to you and wouldn't stop going on about their religion even after you asked them to stop and they basically tried to force you to change? Would you like that? Or would it end up pissing you off?

It might annoy me, but I wouldn't have a huge problem with it. Just like it annoys me when I see atheists pushing their beliefs on others.

[Perseus]

I've already told you. What a silly question.





You haven't told me, and now you're just copying when I call out your bullshit questions you ask people. And it wasn't even a question. It was a statement.

[Death]

Well I've missed it.

Then why don't you go back and read what I said?

And apparently I'm not alone.

You may not be alone, but that doesn't mean that I should have to agree with you.

2) Yet you sit here and feel you're right and everyone else is wrong,

I never said that. Please don't try to speak for me because you are incorrect about me.

Most religions believe practitioners of other religions are misguided. The only one who seems to think others are WRONG are atheists.

Who's being insulting now?

Most will stop when you ask. Those who don't usually are not following their own religion. As such, you've entered the realm of personal misconduct as opposed to a fault of the religion.

If Jehovah's Witnesses always stopped when you asked, people would not view them as a problem.

Ummm, don't try to speak for all atheists.

Don't try to speak for me like you did earlier.

I have known several atheists in my life, as well as being atheist for a time. I know several who did like to try and change people's beliefs, and would practice "militant atheism".

Funny, all the atheists I know don't. But I wasn't discussing atheists; only the jehovah's Witnesses who don't stop what they do when asked.

It might annoy me, but I wouldn't have a huge problem with it. Just like it annoys me when I see atheists pushing their beliefs on others.

Anyone pushing anyone's faith onto others is annoying. Why is it particually bad for atheists to do it?

You haven't told me, and now you're just copying when I call out your bullshit questions you ask people. And it wasn't even a question. It was a statement.

If you are incapable of both reading what I said and speaking with civility, then there's no point in me speaking to you any further. If you would like to speak with me however, kindly show some respect, like the respect that I've shown you. Thankyou.

[Perseus]

If you are incapable of both reading what I said and speaking with civility, then there's no point in me speaking to you any further. If you would like to speak with me however, kindly show some respect, like the respect that I've shown you. Thankyou.

I am capable of reading what you said, but you still haven't explained it properly. And I'll show respect towards you when you show respect to other people. You're the only person who I won't respect because of your personality that you give off on this website.

[hrecknoall]

I can only speak as a christian...I think for us the problems come out when we get to hung up in the religion and the bible and forget abot Jesus and what he told us to do (Love one another) just my two cents

[Sith Lord 13]

Then why don't you go back and read what I said?

I have. I'm still not seeing it.

You may not be alone, but that doesn't mean that I should have to agree with you.

We seem to have a misunderstanding there. I meant I wasn't alone in not seeing how you feel it is selfish. I apologize for not making myself clearer.

I never said that. Please don't try to speak for me because you are incorrect about me.

So you don't feel you're right? I'm sorry that what I said came across as harsh, as that was not what I intended. However, I would like a clarification of what you believe, if you're saying you don't believe you're correct.

Who's being insulting now?

If I insulted you, I apologize. I don't intend to insult. Just to say what I see.

If Jehovah's Witnesses always stopped when you asked, people would not view them as a problem.

Those I've met, have. Most people I know don't see them as a problem (and that includes my atheist friends). At worst, they're usually seen as a joke, not a problem.

Don't try to speak for me like you did earlier.

I didn't feel I was speaking for you. Just repeating you, and perhaps paraphrasing.

Funny, all the atheists I know don't. But I wasn't discussing atheists; only the jehovah's Witnesses who don't stop what they do when asked.

Well, I suppose we know different people. And I was bringing a relevant counterpoint. You can't show religion as evil for trying to convert people while atheists do the same thing.

Anyone pushing anyone's faith onto others is annoying. Why is it particually bad for atheists to do it?

It's not. I feel it's annoying when people won't stop bothering when you ask them too, be it about conversion to a religion, conversion from religion or the weather.

If you are incapable of both reading what I said and speaking with civility, then there's no point in me speaking to you any further. If you would like to speak with me however, kindly show some respect, like the respect that I've shown you. Thankyou.

I'm sorry if you feel I haven't respected you. I do. I feel you've argued well and reasonably, even if we don't agree. You've got my respect. And I have read everything you've posted. Not gonna say I couldn't have been oblivious and missed something, but I don't believe I have.

[Death]

I am capable of reading what you said, but you still haven't explained it properly.

Then I'll explain below.

And I'll show respect towards you when you show respect to other people.

I have respected you. I have not insulted you in any way. If you feel otherwise, could you pehaps quote me instead of just calling what I say bullshit?

You're the only person who I won't respect because of your personality that you give off on this website.

So you're basically one of these people who can't handle having your views counter-argued. If you can't debate without insulting those who disagree with you, why are you doing it? Come on, grow up.

I have. I'm still not seeing it.

The reason I said that is because I always believed that religion is a personal thing which people shouldn't try to enforce onto others. It can be discussed however, but not enforced. TBH, I don't have a problem with Jehovah's Witnesses if they accept that they cannot have it their way and stop when you ask, but this isn't always the case, and it's when they pester you, which is when I feel that selflessness becomes selfishness. But heck, that's just my opinion.

We seem to have a misunderstanding there. I meant I wasn't alone in not seeing how you feel it is selfish. I apologize for not making myself clearer.

And I apologise for misunderstanding you.

So you don't feel you're right? I'm sorry that what I said came across as harsh, as that was not what I intended. However, I would like a clarification of what you believe, if you're saying you don't believe you're correct.

Basically, I believe that I am saying is probably correct (although I accept the probability of me being wrong), but I do not necesarrily believe that everyone else is wrong; we all have our opinions. Sorry if that sounded complicated.

If I insulted you, I apologize. I don't intend to insult. Just to say what I see.

Don't worry, I'm not offended. Not by you at least. So, apology accepted. I also apologise if you feel what I said was innapropiate.

Those I've met, have. Most people I know don't see them as a problem (and that includes my atheist friends). At worst, they're usually seen as a joke, not a problem.

I can accept that. But the fact that they're thought to be a joke suggests that they may be doing something they shouldn't. I'm not saying that they are evil or immoral or anything, I mean if they want to express their opinion and religion, then fine. It's just that sometimes I think they go about it wrong, as in they wake people up and don't always stop when asked. But I'll accept here and now that this isn't always the case.

Well, I suppose we know different people. And I was bringing a relevant counterpoint. You can't show religion as evil for trying to convert people while atheists do the same thing.

I don't think religion is evil. I may not agree with the way some religious people (and even atheists - yes, I agree with you on that) do, but that doesn't mean I hate the religion.

I'm sorry if you feel I haven't respected you.

Again, don't worry. To be honest, ATM, I think you have respected me.

I feel you've argued well and reasonably, even if we don't agree. You've got my respect.

Thankyou. The feeling is mutual.

[Perseus]

Then I'll explain below.



I have respected you. I have not insulted you in any way. If you feel otherwise, could you pehaps quote me instead of just calling what I say bullshit?



So you're basically one of these people who can't handle having your views counter-argued. If you can't debate without insulting those who disagree with you, why are you doing it? Come on, grow up.




No, I'm not talking about myself. You obviously don't see what I'm talking about, so I'll just stop.

[Death]

Funny, I could have sworn that you said that I was the one who you wouldn't respect and that I'm the one with the agenda. But if you say so, then I'll accept that.

[ZzKingz]

Faith is good because it gives hope to people and it gives them something to cling to when all is lost.

What I strongly object to is blind faith and the unjustified bigotry that comes with it.
Have you seen the loud screaming protests against gay marriage because "God hates fags"? What about abortion? What if a 15 year old is raped? she has full right to abort a 50% rapist baby.

The bible was written 2000+ years ago, and how do people think its correct? It only represents the limits of human knowledge 2000 years ago and therefore can't be correct.

Some examples:

Genesis: The bible claims that the universe was created in six or seven days, and makes no reference to anything scientifically justified.

Noah's Ark: The bible tells us that noah took two of each animal on the planet, put them on a big boat, to safe the world from a flood.

There are more. Despite solid evidence against these stories, some will believe them to their death.

I really hate those people.

http://stufffromthelab.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/wtc-9-11.jpghttp://www.queeried.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/anti-gay-protest-signs1.jpghttp://4.bp.blogspot.com/_EgWG8AEk_YM/RymflhNmseI/AAAAAAAABbA/aN4un6AHWUI/s400/wbaptist.jpghttp://tychoselk.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/wbc.jpghttp://projectmiddlepassage.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/holocaust060707_468x3911.jpg
Tell me how this is productive.

[Death]

It isn't. Simply believing may not be wrong (morally wise - I'm not talking for your mind), but when people start taking it to the extreme, then religion becomes humanity's downfall. So it depends on the person and their interpretation of the religious texts.

[Perseus]

Funny, I could have sworn that you said that I was the one who you wouldn't respect and that I'm the one with the agenda. But if you say so, then I'll accept that.

Fuck, I forgot the "not" in my sentence.

[Iron Man]

It does terrible things. It caused 9-11, the wars between Jews and Palestinians, so called "Holy Wars", Westboro Baptist Church, alQueda, The Holocaust, and many more... I think that EVERYONE is wrong. If God existed, he wouldn`t have let the Jews die in the Holocaust, the Westboro fuckers would all have died in a plane crash for being cruel to people, and Radical Muslims would be praised for killing people.

[Death]

Fuck, I forgot the "not" in my sentence.

Oh, so you are one of these people who can't handle being refuted. Right, thanks for informing me.

It does terrible things. It caused 9-11, the wars between Jews and Palestinians, so called "Holy Wars", Westboro Baptist Church, alQueda, The Holocaust, and many more... I think that EVERYONE is wrong. If God existed, he wouldn`t have let the Jews die in the Holocaust, the Westboro fuckers would all have died in a plane crash for being cruel to people, and Radical Muslims would be praised for killing people.

But that's only when taken to the extreme. The majority of religious people are not going to be extremists, and simply believing isn't wrong. But, I must say that if you didn't have religion, then the extremists in question wouldn't exist, so maybe the world would be better off without it after all. But part of me can't help thinking that they'll just find something else to fight over.

[Sith Lord 13]

But part of me can't help thinking that they'll just find something else to fight over.

Exactly. People will always find a reason to fight. ALWAYS. Religion is just a convenient excuse.

[Perseus]

Oh, so you are one of these people who can't handle being refuted. Right, thanks for informing me.





Fuck a duck. I have failed extremely hard. I'm not one of those people who can't handle being refuted. I have messed up somewhere in those posts. Lol, my bad, man. I can handle being refuted, but my post wasn't about anything being refuted. There, I hope this clears all things up.

[Amnesiac]

Religion has been an important contributor to human development in the past, but it seems that humanity has "outgrown" religion as the world's modernized. People don't need the guidance of a "higher power" anymore, or an old set of morals to rely on since society's created a newer, more appropriate list. Religion is just dragging progress down in modern times as its influence prevents many different fields of science from moving forward.

However, statistics show that more people are moving towards non-religion and atheism (two different things, by the way). Slowly but surely, but it'll be a long time before a majority of people are irreligious.

No, I'm not joining into this intense quote debate. Just answering the OP.

[Death]

Fuck a duck. I have failed extremely hard. I'm not one of those people who can't handle being refuted. I have messed up somewhere in those posts. Lol, my bad, man. I can handle being refuted, but my post wasn't about anything being refuted. There, I hope this clears all things up.

You know, I've done that before, so I'll forgive you. :rolleyes: Thankyou at least for the clarification.

Religion has been an important contributor to human development in the past, but it seems that humanity has "outgrown" religion as the world's modernized. People don't need the guidance of a "higher power" anymore, or an old set of morals to rely on since society's created a newer, more appropriate list. Religion is just dragging progress down in modern times as its influence prevents many different fields of science from moving forward.

I can see why you would say that. Unfortunately, if two parents (and possibly even if only one is, but this is less likely) are religious, the child will most probably also be religious. Now, I don't mean this in a rude way, but Richard Dawkins described religion as being like a certain virus; it affects the young when the parents have it and stays with them. Although I'm not saying that religion is bad, this does appear to be accurate to me. Therefore, although you might expect people to get over religion, at the same time, there's a reason why you wouldn't.

However, statistics show that more people are moving towards non-religion and atheism (two different things, by the way). Slowly but surely, but it'll be a long time before a majority of people are irreligious.

It's interesting that you should say that because a lot of Christians I know (not sure about other religions, but they'll probably agree) say that religion will never go. In fact, some of the more fanatical ones (no offence) say that in time, everyone will turn to God. Obviously, I couldn't agree less with this.

One question for you though. What would yuo define the difference between non-religious and atheist as being? Personally, I'd say that being non-religious is simply not considering religion whereas atheism is actively believing that there is no God. I was wondering if you agree or have your own definitions.

[Amnesiac]

I can see why you would say that. Unfortunately, if two parents (and possibly even if only one is, but this is less likely) are religious, the child will most probably also be religious. Now, I don't mean this in a rude way, but Richard Dawkins described religion as being like a certain virus; it affects the young when the parents have it and stays with them. Although I'm not saying that religion is bad, this does appear to be accurate to me. Therefore, although you might expect people to get over religion, at the same time, there's a reason why you wouldn't.

That's completely correct, I would say the main reason religion is still such an enormous part of society today is because it's drilled into the heads of children at such incredibly young ages. However, unlike in the past, children have access to a much greater array of information that can convince them to shed their parents' religion. In the past children were taught religion at home and at school, there was no third party providing alternate views. Now, with schools being secular and sources like the Internet widely available, there are.

It's interesting that you should say that because a lot of Christians I know (not sure about other religions, but they'll probably agree) say that religion will never go. In fact, some of the more fanatical ones (no offence) say that in time, everyone will turn to God. Obviously, I couldn't agree less with this.

It's true religion will never go. In society ideas never fully disappear, they may decline in popularity but will still always be around. Heck, there are still people who believe the Earth is flat. (http://theflatearthsociety.org/cms/)

One question for you though. What would yuo define the difference between non-religious and atheist as being? Personally, I'd say that being non-religious is simply not considering religion whereas atheism is actively believing that there is no God. I was wondering if you agree or have your own definitions.

There are plenty of non-religious people who are indifferent to religion. They simply ignore religion and live their lives without thinking about it. They neither oppose religion nor believe in it, they just don't care.

Atheists, however, hold the belief that there is almost certainly no God. Therefore, they have a position on religion that non-religious people don't have.

[Death]

That's completely correct, I would say the main reason religion is still such an enormous part of society today is because it's drilled into the heads of children at such incredibly young ages.

This would make sense since children instinctively do and believe as they're told in order to survive. If a parent tells their child who can understand to stay away from the cliff or road, they can't start demanding for an intelligent explaination, since by then, they could be dead.

However, unlike in the past, children have access to a much greater array of information that can convince them to shed their parents' religion. In the past children were taught religion at home and at school, there was no third party providing alternate views.

To me, that's criminal. No wonder so many people believe today. Part of me wonders if they didn't allow third parties because they were afraid that people may not believe it, or if they were just ignorant.

Heck, there are still people who believe the Earth is flat. (http://theflatearthsociety.org/cms/)

Now that is disturbing...

There are plenty of non-religious people who are indifferent to religion. They simply ignore religion and live their lives without thinking about it. They neither oppose religion nor believe in it, they just don't care.

Atheists, however, hold the belief that there is almost certainly no God. Therefore, they have a position on religion that non-religious people don't have.

I can agree with that. BTW, +Rep for your insightful views.

[biboy96]

Religion starts off as a good thing, but humans spoil it...
Religion has nothing to do with politics... Mix the two, and hell on earth breakes loose... *cough* Middle east*Cough*

[Amnesiac]

BTW, +Rep for your insightful views.

Thanks!

Hopefully it'll be fixed soon.

[Sage]

Religion starts off as a good thing,
No it doesn't.

but humans spoil it...
It's already spoiled from the get-go. Prove otherwise.

Religion has nothing to do with politics... Mix the two, and hell on earth breakes loose... *cough* Middle east*Cough*
Are you kidding me? Religion has everything to do with politics. Look at the medieval era. Look at the modern tea party movement. Look at any place in the world at any point in time.

[Amnesiac]

Religion starts off as a good thing, but humans spoil it...
Religion has nothing to do with politics... Mix the two, and hell on earth breakes loose... *cough* Middle east*Cough*

I don't think humans can spoil something that they started. People just twist religion to fit their own opinions, by ignoring some parts of scripture while upholding others. You can say religion, ironically, "evolves" as it is split up into over 9000 different congregations that all have opposing views on how to read the same book.

I would say religion is a political system. It has a power structure, with "leader" figures, and laws. Why do you think so many politicians, modern and historical, try to base their governments off of religion? It's practically a government with God at the helm.

[darkwoon]

I would say religion is a political system. It has a power structure, with "leader" figures, and laws. Why do you think so many politicians, modern and historical, try to base their governments off of religion? It's practically a government with God at the helm.
Except that, as in many modern monarchies, the "god(s) at the helm" is/are mere figureheads in the organization of their church. Actually, in most religions, the cult was not even organized by the deity, but structured itself around the first groups of fidels, often long after the divinity ceased to interfere in human affairs.

Note that I don't think most religions are political systems. But on the other hand, most [i}churches[/i] (the organization managing the temples, the theological authorities, etc) are.

Why do so many politicians seek support from churches? Simply because a church represents a strong moral authority, often perceived as way better than the one of the government, often represented as corrupted and manipulative. Emperor Constantinius Ist is the perfect example of such a symbiosis between the Temporal and the Spiritual politics.

[Amnesiac]

Note that I don't think most religions are political systems. But on the other hand, most [i}churches[/i] (the organization managing the temples, the theological authorities, etc) are.

Well, religions are in a way crafted to keep authority over the masses, much like a system of government. I guess you could call religions, unmodified when it comes to scripture, the original political systems, with different churches changing parts of the original religious teachings to create their own systems.

Why do so many politicians seek support from churches? Simply because a church represents a strong moral authority, often perceived as way better than the one of the government, often represented as corrupted and manipulative. Emperor Constantinius Ist is the perfect example of such a symbiosis between the Temporal and the Spiritual politics.

This brings up an interesting point: as humans progress, morals have changed dramatically. No longer do a large majority of people support religious morals, because they aren't in touch with modern society. As we see new generations come in, they seem increasingly liberal. Could this possibly be a threat to the influence of religion on governments and domestic politics in the future?

[darkwoon]

Well, religions are in a way crafted to keep authority over the masses, much like a system of government. I guess you could call religions, unmodified when it comes to scripture, the original political systems, with different churches changing parts of the original religious teachings to create their own systems.
Not at all. A religion is nothing more than a philosophical current involving the existence of one or more deities. They are not necessarily 'designed' with the idea of establishing an authority in mind. For written religions, the reference texts are often little more than stories teaching the reader what is good, proper behavior. Sometimes, there isn't even such a guide, and there is a mere explanation of the influences deities have over the world, in the hope that the follower can take it into account to improve its own life.

Now, churches are the organisational side of things. It is them that create supplementary rules to ensure that the philosophy they believe in is spread without deviances as much as possible, to provide support for the fidels, etc. For the most part, churches do not really change the original message, but offer a specific reading of it, as a way to unit its members and have a more solid, long-lasting implementation of the faith.

This brings up an interesting point: as humans progress, morals have changed dramatically. No longer do a large majority of people support religious morals, because they aren't in touch with modern society. As we see new generations come in, they seem increasingly liberal. Could this possibly be a threat to the influence of religion on governments and domestic politics in the future?
If you believe a large majority of people do not support religious morals, then you are not watching the news enough. Shall we speak about crap like Scientology? What about the Bible Belt and its Creationnists and their Intelligent Design? Who are all those million people who are sometimes crossing half of the world to see the Pope or to do the Hajj?
People are still as religious as ever - but the religions they worship, and the way they follow them, have sometimes changed a lot.

Even in the western democracies where churches are not really ruling the government anymore, the influence of their morale beliefs is still very strong: the debate about abortion or euthanasia is so strong in many European countries now precisely because it goes again the dominant life philosophy, one that directly draw its roots in the Christian faith.

And of course, there would also be a lot to say about neo-religions, like believing in the ETs that will save/destroy us all, or the "government secret plot against citizens": although loosely organized, those, for the most part, are damn close to religions in disguise, as they offer an set of beliefs you have to have blind faith in, a code of life and behavior, and a great share of supranatural/supratechnological events.

So no, I definitely believe that religions still play a major role in the story of mankind, and will continue to do so for any foreseeable future.

[Amnesiac]

Not at all. A religion is nothing more than a philosophical current involving the existence of one or more deities. They are not necessarily 'designed' with the idea of establishing an authority in mind. For written religions, the reference texts are often little more than stories teaching the reader what is good, proper behavior. Sometimes, there isn't even such a guide, and there is a mere explanation of the influences deities have over the world, in the hope that the follower can take it into account to improve its own life.

I wouldn't say religions are merely "guides" to proper behavior, since they do threaten retribution for those who don't follow them. Punishments such as hell, stoning, ect. make it sound more like a judicial system than just a collection of morals. I guess this applies differently to religions like Christianity compared to Buddhism though, so not all religions really function in the same way.

Now, churches are the organisational side of things. It is them that create supplementary rules to ensure that the philosophy they believe in is spread without deviances as much as possible, to provide support for the fidels, etc. For the most part, churches do not really change the original message, but offer a specific reading of it, as a way to unit its members and have a more solid, long-lasting implementation of the faith.

I'd have to agree that for many churches they don't really fully change the message, but there are still groups who do. I believe this is done to merge religion and political views, especially on topics like homosexuality, so that people will think "these people say my religion says this, maybe I should believe them" and go on to support their efforts.


If you believe a large majority of people do not support religious morals, then you are not watching the news enough. Shall we speak about crap like Scientology? What about the Bible Belt and its Creationnists and their Intelligent Design? Who are all those million people who are sometimes crossing half of the world to see the Pope or to do the Hajj?
People are still as religious as ever - but the religions they worship, and the way they follow them, have sometimes changed a lot.

The media likes to focus on right-wing crazies. They're pretty much guaranteed to reign in viewers, since their religious-fueled ranting is so controversial in the United States as compared to other Western nations. People are becoming increasingly irreligious, but seemingly only in developed countries such as the U.S., Australia, and most of Europe. It is true that people in undeveloped nations such as parts of the Middle East, Asia and Africa are steadily religious and, in some cases, increasingly religious, but it's indisputable that in Western countries the number of non-religious is growing dramatically.

Even in the western democracies where churches are not really ruling the government anymore, the influence of their morale beliefs is still very strong: the debate about abortion or euthanasia is so strong in many European countries now precisely because it goes again the dominant life philosophy, one that directly draw its roots in the Christian faith.

I have to agree. Religious morals are the historical foundation for modern moral beliefs, and ideals such as "do not kill", simple at first, have expanded to cover a number of modern political topics.

And of course, there would also be a lot to say about neo-religions, like believing in the ETs that will save/destroy us all, or the "government secret plot against citizens": although loosely organized, those, for the most part, are damn close to religions in disguise, as they offer an set of beliefs you have to have blind faith in, a code of life and behavior, and a great share of supranatural/supratechnological events.

So no, I definitely believe that religions still play a major role in the story of mankind, and will continue to do so for any foreseeable future.

I also agree that religion will have an enormous impact on the future. It may not necessarily be positive, but it will be as large as it has been before. However, religion seems to be growing weaker as the world becomes more secular and free-thinking, and while this doesn't mean in any way that religion will be destroyed, its influence on future development may not be as great as it has been on past developments. Oh, and +Rep for a good debate.

[dreamland]

Whether you agree with it or not, it's not selfish, it's actually selfless. All they're trying to do is save you from what they believe will happen if you die without converting. It's like shouting at someone through a window to wake them up when you see smoke coming from the house. Maybe the house is on fire. Maybe someone's BBQ-ing in the back. They're trying to be nice, even if they did interrupt your nap.

thank you. i'm not a witness but if ever I'm gonna convert to ANY religion it's Jehovah's Witness .. I think they are misunderstood by a lot of people but they are actually very nice people. (just an opinion)

[Commander Thor]

Please don't bump old threads.
-Locked-