Is religion evil?

[Windu Chi]

How is that so? Religion helped Europe through the Dark Ages, and some extremely compassionate people have been followers of it. Mother Teresa, for example. She committed many good deeds, in the name of religion. It's given many people a faith to look up to, and there are countless cases about the good works priests, nuns, etc have done.

 

I'm not saying everyone should go to church or believe in God, but I'd be fooling myself if I believed it's done more harm than good.

 

Wait a minute!

You suppose to be an atheist, right?

Why are you defending religion so strongly?

This seem like a contradiction.

Or do you have doubts present, in you belief ?

Why do care what the hell I say about religion?

Devon!

[Emperor Devon]

You suppose to be an atheist, right?

 

So? Just because I don't believe in religion doesn't mean I don't like it. Either way, it's helped people out. And that's what matters.

 

The Romans, for example, advanced civilzation hundreds of years ago. I'm not a Roman, but I appreciate what they did. The same goes for religion.

 

Besides, the facts I've listed have been proven time and time again. I'd be an idiot to deny them.

[SkinWalker]

Just because someone is an atheist doesn't mean he automatically has a disdain for religion or the religious. That's a common misconception among those that believe in the gods of christianity. It doesn't seem that his defense of religion is all that strong, he seems only to be saying that the net result of the influence of religion on humanity has, to date, been positive.

 

I'm about as atheistic as they come, but even I would have a hard time arguing with that assertion. I'm fine with religion and the religious until they make factual claims that cannot be supported or their superstitions begin to influence public policy. They have my respect and tolerance up to either of those points.

[Samnmax221]

Mother Teresa, for example. She committed many good deeds, in the name of religion.

She took the millions of dollars donated to the Missionaries of Charity and built Churches instead of Hospitals. She also Baptised dying (and unwilling) Hindus and Muslims into the Catholic Church. Not to mention her crummy social views.

 

EDIT: Thats right, you got nothing, nothing.

[Nancy Allen``]

Just because someone is an atheist doesn't mean he automatically has a disdain for religion or the religious.

 

Unfortunetly that's the view some atheists put across. Much like how Islam is considered terrorism. That's so much horse **** but people like Al Qaeda do their level best to demonise it by saying their religion is one of Jihad and intolerance.

[Emperor Devon]

She took the millions of dollars donated to the Missionaries of Charity and built Churches instead of Hospitals. {snip}

 

Yes, she did some very good and bad things for the world. Some parts of it would have been different, for good or ill, without her. On a lesser scale, that's like religion. Religion has done some good and bad things. Ultimately, humanity wouldn't have been the same without it. It might've been best this way.

[Samnmax221]

Yes, she did some very good and bad things for the world. Some parts of it would have been different, for good or ill, without her. On a lesser scale, that's like religion. Religion has done some good and bad things. Ultimately, humanity wouldn't have been the same without it. It might've been best this way.

She scammed private citizens and world powers out of millions of dollars to promote her religeon. She did nothing good, and yet children in school are taught about what a great person she was.

[Nancy Allen``]

Much like Americans are taught what a great man Abraham Licolin was despite slavery. Much like Islamic children are taught how evil Jews and the West are.

[Windu Chi]

Just because someone is an atheist doesn't mean he automatically has a disdain for religion or the religious. That's a common misconception among those that believe in the gods of christianity. It doesn't seem that his defense of religion is all that strong, he seems only to be saying that the net result of the influence of religion on humanity has, to date, been positive.

 

I'm about as atheistic as they come, but even I would have a hard time arguing with that assertion. I'm fine with religion and the religious until they make factual claims that cannot be supported or their superstitions begin to influence public policy. They have my respect and tolerance up to either of those points.

Can you elaborate on what positive influence religion has done to society.

 

Religion today is still a major hinderance to scientific progress.

Since our modern civilization today depends so strongly on scientific progress to keep it together, religion remains a major obstacle to scientific discovery and society evolution.

 

I see, I have to still remind people that 800 years was wasted in Europe, because of the Catholic Church and the Inquisition negative influence on scientific progress.

 

I see, people who still defend religion don't care about that time period of the reign of Igorance.

Because, Religion has apparently have had postive influence in those 800 years of Stupidy.

 

Science is evil, says the "Roman Catholic Church".

Also is having positive influence now.

Stem Cell treatment is evil, says Christianity.

"People must die and go to heaven or Hell and like it; no complaints".

"People must suffer from ailments and trust God; no complaints"

 

I see the defenders of Religion might be defending Buddhism and Hinduism, those are the religions that have had positive influence in Earth's society in the past.

Well if you are talking about Philosophy contributions, then yes I will have to agree.

[Nancy Allen``]

Can you elaborate on what positive influence religion has done to society.

 

Certainly. First and foremost religion and Gods are something for people to build hopes around. A lot of people are given a positive impression by thinking of some higher being watching over them. For another religions when they are not currupted by the teachings of those who have been currupted, those who use them to justify terrorism would be an example, put across a positive message and means of guidence. The Bible for example instructs not to kill and to forgive those who mean you harm, certainly noble acts. Other religions have similar teachings. And because religion is dominently used for good, not ill, those who follow it are mindful of their actions and choose to act in a way that would please their religious brothers and sisters. You see Muslims seeking Jihad, this is based on what they believe is Islam, which in reality had been twisted around to justify terror. That is a very small minority compared to those who practice true Islam, who practice all religion.

[Jae Onasi]

Religion today is still a major hinderance to scientific progress.

Since our modern civilization today depends so strongly on scientific progress to keep it together, religion remains a major obstacle to scientific discovery and society evolution.

I see, I have to still remind people that 800 years was wasted in Europe, because of the Catholic Church and the Inquisition negative influence on scientific progress.

 

I see, people who still defend religion don't care about that time period of the reign of Igorance.

Because, Religion has apparently have had postive influence in those 800 years of Stupidy.

 

I suppose the collapse of the Roman Empire and the Black Death which wiped out around a third of Europe had nothing to do with the problems that people in the Middle ages faced, then? If you're just trying to survive and eak out an existance on a piece of land, you're not going to be too concerned about learning philosophy, Latin, and science. Losing a third of the population meant losing a third of doctors (such as they were at the time), skilled laborers, shopkeepers, educated people, teachers, farmers, and so on. If you lose an entire third of your knowledge base, it's going to have a huge impact on the development of anything, much less science. In fact, it's likely we lost entire sections of knowledge that had to be re-learned. In addition, the science at the time was geared towards those things that were necessary to survival--things like agriculture and medicine. Organic chemistry and quantum physics don't matter in a society that's trying to produce enough food to make it through the winter.

The Church kept education going in spite of the tremendous difficulties medieval Europe faced.

The monasteries were about the only places where any kind of serious document preservation was going on in Europe during that time. The church had schools to teach reading and writing because there was no organized widespread government agency to take care of that sort of thing. There may have been some local lords, but it wasn't something very well organized.

The great university centers in the medieval Europe were Church based, not secular. Some of the great scientists of that day (e.g. Roger Bacon) where also men of the Church. To extend out further in the world, in Muslim centers of learning, Arabs were making huge strides in mathematics/algebra, astronomy, and even optics during this time.

Saying that the Church suppressed education in the Middle Ages is simply incorrect. There were specific incidents where the Church did some dumb things, but overall the Church is one of the reasons why you and I are sitting at our computers typing instead of out in fields trying to survive. Without the education centers and monasteries preserving documents so we didn't have to re-invent the wheel, we'd be far less advanced than we are now.

 

 

Stem Cell treatment is evil, says Christianity.

"People must die and go to heaven or Hell and like it; no complaints".

"People must suffer from ailments and trust God; no complaints"

Well, considering Job complained to God about what was happening to him, I think God can take a few complaints.

 

Stem cell research--I have no issue with adult stem cell research, which has done far more for medicine than embryonic stem cell research. I think life begins at conception and it should be respected, regardless of religion type. They're making strides in ways to get embryo stem cells without killing the embryo. I have no issues with embryonic stem cell research that does not kill an embryo. That's not necessarily a Christian thing though it is an issue that's raised in Christian circles. It's a respect for life thing.

[igyman]

I strongly agree with the poll statement. Religion may not be evil, but in this modern world of today I don't think it's very good for us. There have been times throughout history when religion provided some comfort and gave some hope, but there were also times when atrocities were commited in its name. Today religion is simply unnecessary and in my opinion slows down our progress (or evolution) as a species. In my book science and technology are the way, religion is obsolete.

[Nancy Allen``]

I had a thought. Pretty much all of us would be Star Wars fans, right? Well if the Jedi is not a religion then I think it's very much based on religion, having this high moral ground and all. Maybe an understanding of certain scriptures can lead to a greater understanding of some of the Jedi ways. There's bound to be some aspects of it (not giving in to anger for example) that are similar.

[toms]

 

Sorry...

[edit] ps/ don't look at the feet if you are little..

[Nancy Allen``]

What the fruck?

[The Source]

Is Religion Evil?

I had to think about this question for a while, for 'Religion' is something that defines a catergory and not a specific group or sect. Depending on the 'religion' it could be evil. Satanicism is a 'Religion', and that is clearly evil. When it comes to Christianity and Judahia (sp?), I believe that it depends on the believer. I believe that people make Christianity and Judaha (sp?) evil.

 

Otherwords, mankind can make the most 'civilized religion' be evil.

[SkinWalker]

Just curious: what makes satanism evil? Can anyone really say that a superstition, largely created by christian patriarchy to keep membership in line, is "evil?" It doesn't even exist by and large, and those that *do* claim membership appear to be only rebellious christians seeking attention from their peers and societal leadership.

 

There certainly haven't been any wars started by santanism; no "santanist inquisitions;" no witch burnings conducted by santanists; no santanistic scam artist faith healers; no televangelist santan-worshipers stealing money from old ladies; no santanist missionaries holding food and supplies ransom for proselytizing to the impoverished and desparate; no santanists attempting to codify their superstitions on government; nor santanists attempting to replace science with superstition.

 

No... santanists would seem to be the least of mankind's worry when it comes to religious people.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

When you say so, it's interesting that when a Christian or Muslim blows something up based on interpretation of their scripture, apologists claim scripture's not to blame but the people acting on it, á la "guns don't kill people, people kill people".

 

Yet when Satanists burn churches because they believe Satanism demands it of them, the same apologists apply double standards and brand Satanism "evil".

 

If Satanism gets Stave Churches burned, does not Christianity and Islam get abortion clinic doctors shot and skyscrapers rammed by aircraft, respectively?

[SkinWalker]

Yet when Satanists burn churches because they believe Satanism demands it of them, the same apologists apply double standards and brand Satanism "evil".

 

Which churches are these that were burned by "santanists?" Lets not forget, we're talking about a largely made up term when we say "satanist."

[Nancy Allen``]

Wash and repeat my comments on Islamic facism and apply it to any religion.

 

I look at September 11 and those responsible and think 'they hijacked planes, used them to destroy the Trade Centre and tried to destroy the Pentagon and whichever target they had in mind for Flight 93, they killed thousands of innocent people, have declared war on the world, have followed up with further attacks in Indonesia, Egypt, Spain, England...wait, they're Islamic? Nup, I never noticed, I was too busy thinking of their actions rather than their religion.'

[Elijah]

When you say so, it's interesting that when a Christian or Muslim blows something up based on interpretation of their scripture, apologists claim scripture's not to blame but the people acting on it, á la "guns don't kill people, people kill people".

 

Yet when Satanists burn churches because they believe Satanism demands it of them, the same apologists apply double standards and brand Satanism "evil".

 

If Satanism gets Stave Churches burned, does not Christianity and Islam get abortion clinic doctors shot and skyscrapers rammed by aircraft, respectively?

 

Firstly any Christian blowing somthing up in the name of God is acting out of their own feelings and emotions and not the teachings of the scriptures, because never in the bible does it make any such statements or demands.

 

Secondly Christians dont get abortion clinic doctors shot, who ever is responsible for that has once again taken scripture entirely out of context.

 

The bible is an incredibly vast book, with many many teachings, some that even counterdict others, which can be quite confusing if not carefully taken into account the context in which they are writen... Because so many people claim they have the bible all figured out, it is impossible to call all christians the same... just because you read or understand parts of the bible, or even practice some of it, does not in any ways make you the same as me, or any other chrisitan.

[Jae Onasi]

Just curious: what makes satanism evil? Can anyone really say that a superstition, largely created by christian patriarchy to keep membership in line, is "evil?" It doesn't even exist by and large, and those that *do* claim membership appear to be only rebellious christians seeking attention from their peers and societal leadership.

 

I'd agree for the most part with the last sentence--it seems to me to be more of an excuse to have some wild parties, though I'm sure there are some that take it far more seriously than that. Looking at it from a religious point of view, something that promotes abject, total hatred of God is evil. However, I've seen a whole 2 lines out of their book, and that was about 15 years ago, so I'm hardly qualified to discuss that in any depth. I can't currently evaluate whether the practices outlined in their religious text are beneficial or detrimental.

 

What in the world do you think we talk about in church? I don't know about other places, but in ours we look at the Bible, take the time to understand the historical/political/ethnic of the time a particular book was written, and then work on potential applications to better ourselves and the community around us. The notion that the leadership in our church is doing something like spouting how to hate different groups to 'keep the membership in line' is very odd, especially given the fact that anyone can leave at any time if they don't like the message or the messangers.

There certainly haven't been any wars started by santanism; no "santanist inquisitions;" no witch burnings conducted by santanists; no santanistic scam artist faith healers; no televangelist santan-worshipers stealing money from old ladies;

 

It's a numbers issue. There haven't been enough of them with significant enough of a power base to be able to pull off these things. If there'd been a large enough group of satanists who wanted to control a certain piece of land or wing of the government, I'm sure that would have happened by now. I have a couple Wiccan friends who feel it's important to be politically active in order to advance a more positive view of Wicca.

 

Edit: Not meaning to imply Wiccans are Satanists, btw, they're 2 separate groups.

 

My experience is that people use religion as an excuse for activities it was never intended to be used for, and if there were enough satanists, there would be satanic power struggles in Congress and satanic televangelists and 'faith healers' stealing money from the gullible.

 

On a tangent--the placebo effect works about 30% of the time (I can go dig for a reference if you want), so it doesn't surprise me that faith healing, herbalism, meditation, reiki, laying on hands, acupuncture, and a host of other 'non-Western medicine' alternatives work at least part of the time, though some are more effective than others.

 

no santanist missionaries holding food and supplies ransom for proselytizing to the impoverished and desparate;

 

Please inform me which missionaries are doing this so that I may report them to their respective mission boards so they're recalled from the field and fired for this appalling behavior.

 

Our church supports missionaries financially and physically--we have a couple trips every year to different places, primarily to do things like build medical clinics, homes, or schools (or repair existing structures). I have never once seen evidence or heard rumor of withholding food/supplies to 'get the Word out'. Not to mention it's just stupid--hungry and sick people are hardly in a position to learn much of anything.

 

Several of our missionaries are medical workers in countries were they are specifically prohibited from proselytizing Christianity. They work there because the human need is that great.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

Firstly any Christian blowing somthing up in the name of God is acting out of their own feelings and emotions and not the teachings of the scriptures, because never in the bible does it make any such statements or demands.

Which may have more to do with the fact that explosives had yet to be inveted at the time:p.

 

But yes, there is some rather sick Scripture telling you to do ditto things. Not all Christian terrorists need to take things out of context. The fanatical groups in India massacring innocents in villages are well within their rights, Scripture-wise, to do so as the Bible tells them to kill whoever want them to worship other Gods than Yahweh.

 

Secondly Christians dont get abortion clinic doctors shot, who ever is responsible for that has once again taken scripture entirely out of context.

Yes, Christians get abortion doctors shot. They get courthouses (one, at least) blown up. The people who do these things are Christians, as much as the people behind 9/11 were Muslims. To say that they're "not true Christians" constitutes a "True Scottsman" fallacy.

[Nancy Allen``]

Do we ban video games because they have, or are suspected to have, been the cause of evil? From Columbine being the result of Doom to people thinking terrorists trained on Flight Simulator to Grand Theft Auto being used as an excuse to murder they have been a scapegoat. No. People would like to, but everyone is worried about the millions of video game players out there and no one's concerned about that one nut who would be influenced by them to the point where they'd do something. Same with religion, everyone goes off about why it's wrong but it's the people who are either using it as an excuse to have an axe to grind or are just ****ed in the head to begin with that we should concern ourselves with.

[The Source]

Do people know who Ba'al is?