Is religion evil?

[El Sitherino]

I've found religion to be a very scenario by scenario kind of thing.

 

For some it's simply a hope for something better. For others it's complete rule of life, to dangerous extremes.

[Nancy Allen``]

Exactly. Blowing away those who say something offensive against your religion is asinine. Being moderate, no just using your common sense, and not jumping down people's throats on every single religious misdeed makes the religion you follow, whatever it may be, better than how some choose to portray Christianity, Islam, ect.

[toms]

The way I see it, religion is used as an excuse to commit many atrocities.

 

True. In some ways. But at what point does it stop being "an excuse" and start being "a reason"?

 

I know everything with religions is down to interpretations.. but you could argue that the so called "extremists" are being more true to the words of the religion than the moderates. Moderates might claim they are being more true to "the spirit" of the religion... but since most of the official texts for the big relgions were written long ago, in much less forgiving and tolerant times the extremists might have a point.

 

The scary thing is that if the small print of the christian religion was adhered to as strictly as the muslim religion then christian countries would be almost identical to the way Iran is right now. (and iran is possibly one of the nastiest places on earth to live).

 

I'm all for the softhearted liberal influence that has tempered western religions and caused them to abandon a lot of their previously long held beliefs... but it almost seems like those that are true to the religion ARE the extremists... its just that the majority has decided to be more pracmatic and less faithful.

 

-

 

IMHO the simple solution to all the ills of religion is that religion should be an internal thing... between you and your god. It should govern how you live your live, how you strive to better yourself. It shouldn't matter if others follow the same religion or not. Unfortunately the religious teachings don't take this approach, infact some outright forbid it.

[Nancy Allen``]

That's a great idea, and as far as where the line is drawn between religion being used as an excuse and it becomes a reason, look at the core scripture and ask the religious experts, the priests and spiritual leaders. Not one religion preaches hatred and violence, not one. There are stories of violence in the Bible and Quran, even intructed to by God or Allah, but by and by religion in it's purest form does not preach the message of violence.

[toms]

I know i'm just being picky here, cos i understand exactly what you mean.. and agree with it, but anyway..

 

That's a great idea, and as far as where the line is drawn between religion being used as an excuse and it becomes a reason, look at the core scripture and ask the religious experts, the priests and spiritual leaders. Not one religion preaches hatred and violence, not one. There are stories of violence in the Bible and Quran, even intructed to by God or Allah, but by and by religion in it's purest form does not preach the message of violence.

 

The texts often DO preach hatred and violence. The priests and spiritual leaders are very varied in how they interpret them.

Spiritual leaders have always let their own views influence how they interpret the (often ambiguous) texts.. and those views are always shaped by the attitudes of their society and time.

 

African church leaders look at exactly the same texts as english and us church leaders, but interpret them in a much more traditional way, because their society and upbringing is much more traditional.

You could infact argue that they are being much more faithful to the texts, which were also written in traditional times.

 

For example, the anglican church has, over the last 20 years, become very mdern in its attitudes, feeling that it needed to update it's views and teachings to take account of a changed world. It is now much more tollerant of things likde sex outside marriage, homosexuality, other religions and so forth. However in the UK it's congregations have plumeted, and a lot of people see that as being due to the fact it has "wavered". In africa the anglican church has stayed true to it's traditional views and texts... and their congregations are growing. However their views are much closer to those of Iran than those of the UK in many ways.

 

People like their spiritual guidleines to be clear and unflinching.. not to adapt to a changing world.. which makes them feel uncertain and confused.

 

So in many ways it isn't that the extremists are extreme, its that the moderates have drifted away from their views. Which you prefer seems to depend on the kind of person you are.

 

there are definatley parts in the bible and the qur'an that are very intollerant and violent, and wouldn't be seen as acceptable to a lot of people today. But if they are your holy texts is it ok to revise them because they are no longer acceptable, or do you have to stick to them no matter what???

[Dagobahn Eagle]

Not one religion preaches hatred and violence, not one.

Funny, I thought nearly every single one did;).

 

Bible on when you are to stone someone to death.

[toms]

Aren't most of the extreme muslim laws based on the same thing as the christian ones? Since a lot of the early religion is identical?? I think the rules about stoning adulterers, rape victims, etc.. are identical between the religions.

[El Sitherino]

How he manages to stay civil with such ignorance is amazing. Maybe it's because he's an atheist. >_>

What I'm getting here is "He learned how to deal with ignorance from his own experience in practicing it".

 

Atheism is just as dangerous as groups worshipping some invisible compassionate asskicker.

[El Sitherino]

Aren't most of the extreme muslim laws based on the same thing as the christian/jewish ones? Since a lot of the early religion is identical?? I think the rules about stoning adulterers, rape victims, etc.. are identical between the religions.

You are correct sir.

 

Most of the declarations of attack on non-believers starts and is basically a repetition of what is also found in the bible (OT). Islam and Christianity take the old texts from the Jewish rulebooks and expand on them with their own mythos.

 

Often they're essentially the same thing. Just in one, Mary wasn't miracled ****ed by god.

[Nancy Allen``]

there are definatley parts in the bible and the qur'an that are very intollerant and violent, and wouldn't be seen as acceptable to a lot of people today. But if they are your holy texts is it ok to revise them because they are no longer acceptable, or do you have to stick to them no matter what???

 

I don't claim to be an expert or anything, but I think you have to obey the law of the land even if it conflicts with scripture. Case in point is how no uprising against Rome was supported even though it was barbaric and the tax collectors were out of control. To put things in a modern perspective a young man was found with drugs on him and put to death. When asked about this a church leader said 'he broke their laws', basically it didn't matter if killing, or murder, is something that is spoken against, the laws and penalties of the country taje presidence.

[toms]

The laws of man take precedence over the laws of god?? *surprised*

[Dagobahn Eagle]

Damnit, Nance, next they'll stop us from killing abortion doctors:mad:.

 

Atheism is just as dangerous as groups worshipping some invisible compassionate asskicker.

Why?

[rccar328]

Well, between Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot, atheistic Communism has killed more people than any religion...and you can probably throw in Hitler for good measure, too, since his "final solution" had more to do with his pseudo-Darwinian ideas of racial superiority...and add in the eugenics movement.

 

Atheism certainly has done a lot of damage.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

Atheism certainly has done a lot of damage.

No. Atheism wasn't the cause of any of the wars or atrocities you mention, as far as I know. The people responsible, minus Hitler, were atheists, but that does not not atheism is to be held responsible.

 

That's like saying that the love of dogs is responsible for World War II just because Hitler had a dog.

[TK-8252]

Well, between Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot, atheistic Communism has killed more people than any religion...

 

Religion has been around since ancient Egypt, so basically, for thousands of years people have been killing in the name of their god or gods. All the people in ancient China, Mesopotamia, Medieval Europe, etc.

 

The number of people killed by the "faithful" is no where NEAR the number killed in the name of Communism.

 

Plus, god flooded the world... killed everyone... right down to every last child... so yeah.

 

And you must not forget that Communism itself is much like a religion. Stalin, Mao, Lenin, Kim Jong-Ill, Castro; each Communist leader has established a cult of personality where they are literally worshipped like a god. Communism is not atheistic.

 

and you can probably throw in Hitler for good measure, too, since his "final solution" had more to do with his pseudo-Darwinian ideas of racial superiority...and add in the eugenics movement.

 

I'm not sure if you're serious here. Hitler was a Catholic, and feelings of racial superiority have been around forever.

 

Atheism certainly has done a lot of damage.

 

Communism has done a lot of damage. Not atheism.

[rccar328]

Communism is inherently atheistic - under communism, the government is essentially god. What's more, many of the deaths under the Soviets were Christians & Catholics who were killed or imprisoned for practicing their religion. Even communist China still today oppresses religious people who don't worship in the government-sanctioned churches.

 

As for Hitler, his Aryan racial superiority ideas were based more on his twisted interpretation of Darwinian natural selection than Catholicism. The same goes for the eugenics movement - Jews (or blacks, or gays, or gypsies, or the mentally disabled, or whomever you're prejudiced against) pollute the gene pool and should be eliminated in the interests of preserving said gene pool. Eugenics happens to be an evil interpretation of Darwinism.

 

 

 

The assertion that religion is evil because some religious people do evil things is inherrently flawed thinking. While there can be evil religions, religion as a whole cannot be evil. People can be evil, and evil people can twist religious scriptures, ideals, and values to get proponents of that religion to do evil things, but that does not necessarily make religion evil, because, as demonstrated by the eugenics movement, just about any ideal or belief can be twisted for evil.

 

Like Spider AL said, the root of all evil is self-interest. There are plenty of good religious people and plenty of evil religious people, just like there are good people who are athiests and evil people who are atheists. It's not about religion, it's about people. The fact that some religious people have turned out to be scumbags doesn't mean religion is evil, it means that those practitioners of that religion are scumbags.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

Communism is inherently atheistic - under communism, the government is essentially God. What's more, many of the deaths under the Soviets were Christians & Catholics who were killed or imprisoned for practicing their religion. Even communist China still today oppresses religious people who don't worship in the government-sanctioned churches.

Sad, that.

 

But it's still Communism that's at fault there, not Atheism.

 

As for Hitler, his Aryan racial superiority ideas were based more on his twisted interpretation of Darwinian natural selection than Catholicism.

Or for that matter atheism.

 

The same goes for the eugenics movement - Jews (or blacks, or gays, or gypsies, or the mentally disabled, or whomever you're prejudiced against) pollute the gene pool and should be eliminated in the interests of preserving said gene pool.

And none of that has to do with atheism, which simply states that there is no God (as opposed to "there's no God, so start a Nazi/Communist country killing all Christians and Jews and homosexuals you see").

 

National Socialism and Darwinism led to the slaughter of Jews, homosexuals, and Gypsies. Atheism did not.

[TK-8252]

Communism is inherently atheistic - under communism, the government is essentially god.

 

This is a contradiction. The government is god in Communism, therefore the people DO believe in a god. In the Soviet Union, pictures of Jesus were torn down and pictures of Stalin were put up in their places. It's simply trading one god for another.

 

What's more, many of the deaths under the Soviets were Christians & Catholics who were killed or imprisoned for practicing their religion. Even communist China still today oppresses religious people who don't worship in the government-sanctioned churches.

 

I know that, and it's sad. It's typically what happens when one group of religious nuts (Communists) come to power and overthrow the other group of religious nuts (Czar).

 

Speaking of Communist China, it's funny how Christians like Tom DeLay try to claim to be a persecuted minority in the United States, when there actually ARE Christians being persecuted around the world in China, Afghanistan, etc.

 

Quite sad indeed.

 

As for Hitler, his Aryan racial superiority ideas were based more on his twisted interpretation of Darwinian natural selection than Catholicism. The same goes for the eugenics movement - Jews (or blacks, or gays, or gypsies, or the mentally disabled, or whomever you're prejudiced against) pollute the gene pool and should be eliminated in the interests of preserving said gene pool. Eugenics happens to be an evil interpretation of Darwinism.

 

I suppose this is fair to say, but racial superiority has been around since, well, the Stone Age.

[Nancy Allen``]

Damnit, Nance, next they'll stop us from killing abortion doctors:mad:.

 

Sucks don't it? Sometimes I wish we had the right to kill who we wanted, but anyway, I could get the exact bits and pieces but there are parts where it says to obey the law, such as when Jesus was challenged on paying taxes even when they were grossly unfair.

[El Sitherino]

Why?

Why not? Atheism is the belief in the "fact" that a divine entity does not and cannot exist.

Religion is the belief in the "fact" a divine entity, or entities, exists.

 

 

 

Complete, unfounded faith in anything is dangerous, and it can lead to high levels of idiocy and extremist bull****.

[SkinWalker]

Sorry, Sithy, but you're wrong. Atheism is a lack of belief in supernatural agency, particularly gods. Nothing more. One can very easily be an agnostic atheist (as I am), and most probably are. This dictates that you have a lack of belief in a god or gods, since no good evidence has been shown to suggest one or more exists, but you acknowledge that knowing for a "fact" that there is no god is beyond your ability.

 

between Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot, atheistic Communism has killed more people than any religion...and you can probably throw in Hitler for good measure,

 

Atheistic communism has killed a lot of people. But I challenge you to back up your assertion than any religion. xianity alone has killed many millions. I won't assert any numbers, but since the claim is yours, let's see the stats, shall we?

 

And, as several have already pointed out, it wasn't atheism that killed these people, it was Marxist-Communism, which has a doctrine of classless society and collectivization that includes and inherent distrust of the bourgeoisie to the point of stifling dissent and preventing a middle class from forming. The "elite class" of these "classless" societies demanded power and worship from the commoners, which was obtained through fear. There is no evidence that atheism leads to Marxism; moreover, there is significant evidence that capitalism among atheists is strong.

 

On the flip side of your argument, there is much evidence of Christianity and Islam leading to evil acts.

 

** Flying planes into buildings and detonating vests of explosives on public buses are acts committed by those that believe in an afterlife guaranteed by religious dogma as reward for their actions.

 

** Exploding pipe bombs at clinics that kill innocent bystanders and shooting doctors because they perform legal abortions is an evil act committed by those that think their imaginary sky god will approve.

 

** Detonating a Ryder truck full of fertilizer at a government building is the evil of someone who, likewise, believes his religion dictates his action.

 

Drowning your children in a bathtub or chopping the limbs off of a toddler are the despicable acts done by women who hear their christian deities' voices in their heads.

 

** Murdering women in Salem, MA is an evil committed by the otherwise pious followers of Christ just to remove the "witches" of their lands.

 

Thomas Aquinas, in the 13th century said of "heretics" (those that didn't buy into the christian BS being forced upon them) that "they deserve not only to be separated from the Church by excommunication, but also to be severed from the world by death." Once convicted of heresy, those that dissented should be put to death. This sounds suspiciously like the restriction of dissent that existed in Marxist-Communism! If communists were guilty of learning their evil from anywhere, it was from the religious. There were plenty of examples of religious nutbars committing evil acts in the name of their dogma and to further their "causes," but none of atheists doing the same for communists to pattern their methods after.

 

The numbers murdered by christians during the Middle-Ages aren't clear, certainly not as clear as the numbers slain by Stalin and Pol Pot, but this referenced paper paints a pretty grim picture for the damage -the evil- that religion is capable of. Certainly, we cannot hold today's catholics responsible for the evil acts of their ancestors. Nor can we hold today's protestants responsible for the lynchings and racially motivated murder of blacks in the American South just a few decades ago.

 

But we must keep the fact that religion has a tendency to be used by elites for evil purpose. The dogma and tendency for members of religious cults to accept the words of their cult leaders without question -on "faith"- is just as serious a flaw in the religious paradigm as it is an advantage. Trust without evidence is called credulity, and a credulous person who believes what he does is for an imaginary god can be dangerous to the rest of the world.

 

The conflicts that still exist in Ireland today are based on protestant versus catholic. People are killing, raping, bombing, etc. All evil acts.

 

The conflicts occurring in Palestine today are between Muslim and Judaic cults. Terrorists on both sides are launching missiles that kill children, women on their way to work, farmers in fields, etc.

 

The conflicts in Iraq are largely due to evil acts being committed between two Islamic cults.

 

The conflicts that occurred recently in the former Yugoslavian region were between religious cults. Graves are still being discovered there where one cult committed mass-murder on members of another.

 

Religion in and of itself isn't evil. I agree with Nancy Allen. But it sure makes evil easy.

 

and you can probably throw in Hitler for good measure,

 

Hitler was a theist. He was born and baptized a Roman Catholic and there is evidence that his actions of genocide were inspired by Biblical genocides committed by mythical figures like Moses. Indeed, Article 24 of the Nazi Party Program calls for "positive Christianity." Clearly, Hitler abandoned his piety in favor of his own "divinity" as it were by the full height of the Third Reich, but his foundation was christianity.

[SkinWalker]

National Socialism and Darwinism led to the slaughter of Jews, homosexuals, and Gypsies. Atheism did not.

 

Darwinism had nothing to do with the holocaust. Darwinism states, simply, that life evolved by means of natural selection. The "survival of the fittest" fallacy that is often applied by the less enlightened is *not* Darwinian. Being the strongest, fastest, best looking, etc. don't necessarily imply fitness. Fitness is the ability of an organism to maximize its niche and adapt when the niche changes.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

Damn. "Pwned" by Skinny.

[Spider AL]

TK-8252:

 

This is a contradiction. The government is god in Communism, therefore the people DO believe in a god.

That's a nonsense. The government takes the PLACE of a mythical deity in communism, that doesn't mean that the government is a mythical deity. The old phrase "the party is god" is a metaphorical phrase, not a literal one.

 

I know that, and it's sad. It's typically what happens when one group of religious nuts (Communists) come to power and overthrow the other group of religious nuts (Czar).

And therefore this too is a nonsense. The communists were not "religious nuts", they were political hyper-zealots.

 

It's more and more a trend these days for people to split off into two camps, the: "our religion <insert religion here> is true and you must all live under our religious law" camp, and the "all religion is evil man, and all evils have their genesis in religion!!111" camp.

 

This is fundamentalism on the part of both camps. I hope none of you wish to fall into either camp. Because there is truth to be found in some religious books, and good moral principles. As long as you don't take these works literally or indeed too seriously, they can have a positive effect on you as a person. Moderation on both sides is needed, not one huge urinating contest.

 

Religion is NOT inherently evil, and yet it is NOT INHERENTLY GOOD. Religion can teach solid moral principles, and yet NO religion should rule your life.

[TK-8252]

TK-8252:

 

That's a nonsense. The government takes the PLACE of a mythical deity in communism, that doesn't mean that the government is a mythical deity. The old phrase "the party is god" is a metaphorical phrase, not a literal one.

 

And therefore this too is a nonsense. The communists were not "religious nuts", they were political hyper-zealots.

 

If you want to be politically-correct, yes, Communism being a religion is nonsense indeed. But this is only because they wanted to replace the heavenly god with an earthly one (Stalin, Lenin, Castro, Mao, etc.)

 

Many Communist regimes established cults of personality for their "dear leader", similar to how Christianity is a cult of personality for Jesus and Islam is a cult of personality for Mohammed.