Is religion evil?

[Kurgan]

Toms, the same can be said of science in general. For every breakthrough that helps someone, there are countless side effects, misuses and abuses of that knowledge and technology. And yet we commonly think of it as "progress."

 

Some people think I should add a diabolical laugh here, but I think it bears repeating... just because something has potential bad effects does not rule out doing it for the good it could do (that doesn't mean everything is acceptable or we should make snap decisions, but the mere possibility of bad effects is not always fatal).

 

I'm not really a libertarian, but it could be argued that libertarians in general value freedom over safety. They actually advocate people's right to do things that are often harmful, because to them it's more important to let people assume their own risks than force them to do something/not do something that might be "safer" (though you could still try to argue "public good" they argue individual integrity and freedom).

[Jae Onasi]

Most of the 'religious' wars were/are not over religion. They're over control and conquest of people, places, or resources. Religion just happened to be a convenient excuse and/or recruiting tool. Do you really think the Crusades were over Christianity vs. Islam? I think it was for political control of the Middle East, physical control of trade routes, and recovering land lost to either side. I think that series of wars would have been fought whether or not religion existed.

 

There are billions of small good things that religion encourages that will never make the front page of the news because good things are not nearly as 'exciting' as the bad stuff. People feeding the destitute at soup kitchens and manning homeless shelters. People going to shut-ins' homes to help them with home and yard maintenance. People making meals for those who've had a birth or a death in the family. Missionaries working in hospitals, in countries where they are not allowed to preach anything Christian. Churches sending funds and people for building homes, schools and other buildings for others who've been through natural disasters. People who don't have much, but who share what they have left with someone. These are things repeated millions of times daily around the world, but you'll never see them publicized.

People from my church brought my family dinners for a couple weeks after I had my daughter by c-section and they picked up items I needed if Jimbo was at work. It wasn't earth-shattering in importance to anyone else but me and my husband. It showed us that people cared and it helped me physically because I just wasn't able to do a lot of things at that point (no driving, no stairs, no lifting anything heavier than the baby....). Making good meals or getting out to shop is a challenge after major surgery or when you have a newborn, and it's tremendously difficult if you have both. Their help made it much easier for us the first few weeks after I had the baby, and when Jimbo had to go back to work about a week after I had her, it put him more at ease knowing they were helping and were quickly available in an emergency.

An act of charity is an act of charity--I don't care how big or small it seems at the time. How do you quantify the little daily acts of a missionary doctor or nurse that ultimately result in saving the life of a sick child or an injured father? How do you quantify sitting with someone at the end of their lives to be a comfort to them?

There's no way to put a death allegedly from religion on one side of the scale and say 'ok, in order to balance that you have to have 18 funeral dinners, 16 meals for the homeless, and a mission trip to Sudan to set up a hospital for all those injured in the war, or in lieu of that the development of a world-wide charity'. There have been millions of bad acts, and there have been billions of good acts. I don't think Christianity and Islam would have had the explosive growth they've had without accomplishing a lot more good than evil. Sure, some people may have been 'converted by the sword', but I doubt most of those people gave much more than lip-service to their new religion. People don't continue to do things that don't have a benefit for them. A lot of people have joined and stayed in a particular religion and must be getting some tangible benefits (e.g. the example of my church bringing me dinners above). The fact that these good things don't make the history books is irrelevent--they're still good things.

[SkinWalker]

What does Bush's senseless denial of Global Warming have to do with the religion known as Christianity?

 

Probably very little. However, it could -potentially- be motivated by 'end times' superstition. Indeed, I've had several personal conversations with followers of christianity that have out-right said, "why bother with long-term environmental reform? None of it will matter once the rapture has occurred."

 

You can't be an evangelical christian and not buy into the 'end times' superstition. And such a person should not be a leader of the most powerful nation in the world.

 

It could be argued what the extent of Bush's superstitions are about his beliefs, but he *has* said he's a "born again" christian, AFAIK.

 

 

And if religion were magically eliminated, yes, the "bad" effects of religion would disappear, but then so would the good. So saying that once religion goes we'll have peace on earth is a naive fallacy.

 

And implying that the charitable works and good things that religion provides are *only* the domain of religion is likewise a naive fallacy. What good does religion provide that humanists cannot? What charity is impossible to be performed by those that simply don't believe in magical beings?

 

 

Using the same logic we can consider all sorts of things "evil" that we normally don't think of as evil, because they've resulted in thousands, even millions of deaths. Not just guns and cigarettes and alcohol mind you. Automobiles for example. And before you say "well not when they're used properly" I could say the same of religion.

 

Guns don't start wars with other guns because they don't like their 'caliber.'

 

 

Most of the 'religious' wars were/are not over religion. They're over control and conquest of people, places, or resources. Religion just happened to be a convenient excuse and/or recruiting tool. Do you really think the Crusades were over Christianity vs. Islam? I think it was for political control of the Middle East, physical control of trade routes, and recovering land lost to either side.

If they weren't over religion, they wouldn't be called religious wars. The crusades were ALL about christianity vs. islam. They were sanctioned by the Pope with the explicit purpose of recapturing the Holy Land. The thousands that joined the crusades from all over Europe were moved by their religiosity, not their desire to ensure free trade or even trade monopolies. The crusaders didn't try to capture trade routes into Egypt's Nile Valley, nor did they try to control Anatolian routes or Indus Valley routes. Their ultimate desire was control over the Levant region, where so-called holy sites are.

 

The Byzantine leaders in the first millennium asked Pope Urban II for help against the Seljuk Turks and the Pope called upon all christians to join a war to kill and die in exchange for full penance. After accomplishing their mission with the Turks, they drove on to Jerusalem where they completely massacred the population.

 

All about religion.

 

In fact, there are very few wars in human history that don't have something to do with religion.

 

Religion may not be evil, but it makes it very easy for people to do evil things. No doubt we would look for other excuses to kill, steal, rape, etc. -but without religion, it would be much harder for these people to justify those acts and hide behind their piety.

[MasterRoss08]

True insight there I guess SkinWalker you pretty much hit some major things on the mark there.

 

quote by Jae Onasi

There are billions of small good things that religion encourages that will never make the front page of the news because good things are not nearly as 'exciting' as the bad stuff. People feeding the destitute at soup kitchens and manning homeless shelters. People going to shut-ins' homes to help them with home and yard maintenance. People making meals for those who've had a birth or a death in the family. Missionaries working in hospitals, in countries where they are not allowed to preach anything Christian. Churches sending funds and people for building homes, schools and other buildings for others who've been through natural disasters. People who don't have much, but who share what they have left with someone. These are things repeated millions of times daily around the world, but you'll never see them publicized.

People from my church brought my family dinners for a couple weeks after I had my daughter by c-section and they picked up items I needed if Jimbo was at work. It wasn't earth-shattering in importance to anyone else but me and my husband. It showed us that people cared and it helped me physically because I just wasn't able to do a lot of things at that point (no driving, no stairs, no lifting anything heavier than the baby....). Making good meals or getting out to shop is a challenge after major surgery or when you have a newborn, and it's tremendously difficult if you have both. Their help made it much easier for us the first few weeks after I had the baby, and when Jimbo had to go back to work about a week after I had her, it put him more at ease knowing they were helping and were quickly available in an emergency.

An act of charity is an act of charity--I don't care how big or small it seems at the time. How do you quantify the little daily acts of a missionary doctor or nurse that ultimately result in saving the life of a sick child or an injured father? How do you quantify sitting with someone at the end of their lives to be a comfort to them?

There's no way to put a death allegedly from religion on one side of the scale and say 'ok, in order to balance that you have to have 18 funeral dinners, 16 meals for the homeless, and a mission trip to Sudan to set up a hospital for all those injured in the war, or in lieu of that the development of a world-wide charity'. There have been millions of bad acts, and there have been billions of good acts. I don't think Christianity and Islam would have had the explosive growth they've had without accomplishing a lot more good than evil. Sure, some people may have been 'converted by the sword', but I doubt most of those people gave much more than lip-service to their new religion. People don't continue to do things that don't have a benefit for them. A lot of people have joined and stayed in a particular religion and must be getting some tangible benefits (e.g. the example of my church bringing me dinners above). The fact that these good things don't make the history books is irrelevent--they're still good things.

(Sniff) beautiffly said there Jae. Gives proof that Religion is not totally evil.

 

quote by Skinwalker

And implying that the charitable works and good things that religion provides are *only* the domain of religion is likewise a naive fallacy. What good does religion provide that humanists cannot? What charity is impossible to be performed by those that simply don't believe in magical beings?

 

Truth there Skinwalker but, we mainly see these kind acts from people that DO believe in some religion. Religion teaches these things to people which is why we mainly see these acts from religious people. But its not to only religious people of course You can do this and not belong to a religion but, would people know about to do these things if there was no religion? religions only teach this because its what they want you to do. To love thy fellow neighbor and to gain life everlasting etc. (To love thy fellow neighbor and to gain life everlasting etc. thats from the relgion that i belive in that is.)

[TK-8252]

Truth there Skinwalker but, we mainly see these kind acts from people that DO believe in some religion. Religion teaches these things to people which is why we mainly see these acts from religious people. But its not to only religious people of course You can do this and not belong to a religion but, would people know about to do these things if there was no religion? religions only teach this because its what they want you to do. To love thy fellow neighbor and to gain life everlasting etc. (To love thy fellow neighbor and to gain life everlasting etc. thats from the relgion that i belive in that is.)

 

Yes, we mainly see religious people doing charity work because most people ARE religious.

 

And sure, Jesus had some nice things to say about loving other people and stuff.

 

But too bad the Bible also says to stone gays, kill non-believers, forcibly marry rape victims to their rapists, etc.

 

You get my point.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

Truth there Skinwalker but, we mainly see these kind acts from people that DO believe in some religion.

I doubt it. Well, OK, maybe in the US where "most people ARE religious" (thanks, TK), but I don't think that's a fair indicator.

 

Religion teaches these things to people which is why we mainly see these acts from religious people.

So atheists don't teach their kids to be nice to their fellow humans? Atheists don't learn about the importance of charity?

 

Not even remotely true.

 

would people know about to do these things if there was no religion?

Yes, obviously.

 

Religions, or mythologies if you will, were made by people. These people obviously believed in helping thine neighbour and so on, so yes, people knew about these things before religion. It's kind of a "what came first - the chicken or the egg?"-scenario, but that's how it is.

 

To be fair, it is very true that religion does good things for many people. It's equally true that most Muslims do not blow themselves up on the subway and most Christians do not bomb abortion clinics. But as SkinWalker said, it does not take religion to get these things done, even though it . To make an example, when religious people in many cases cope with death and grief (yes, here comes a grief rant from me again ) better than atheists, is it because religion inherently makes you better set for such things, or is it because atheists (heh, in Norway at least) are unparalelled at putting a big, fat "DON'T TOUCH"-taboo sticker on grief, not teach about it in school (like they teach about sex, cooking, physical education, and other important subjects), and in general just shove it under the carpet?

 

It's like a football team playing in sneakers against an opposing team who've set themselves up with those heavy-duty slalom ski boots*. You can't have a fair contest when one team for some obscure reason chooses to impose such a giant handicap on itself.

[MasterRoss08]

quote by Dagobah Eagle Religion teaches these things to people which is why we mainly see these acts from religious people.

 

So atheists don't teach their kids to be nice to their fellow humans? Atheists don't learn about the importance of charity?

 

Not even remotely true.

I was just making a Statement on what religions teach. I dont say that ONLY religions teach this.

 

quote by dagobah eagle would people know about to do these things if there was no religion?

 

Yes, obviously.

 

Religions, or mythologies if you will, were made by people. These people obviously believed in helping thine neighbour and so on, so yes, people knew about these things before religion. It's kind of a "what came first - the chicken or the egg?"-scenario, but that's how it is.

 

To be fair, it is very true that religion does good things for many people. It's equally true that most Muslims do not blow themselves up on the subway and most Christians do not bomb abortion clinics. But as SkinWalker said, it does not take religion to get these things done, even though it . To make an example, when religious people in many cases cope with death and grief (yes, here comes a grief rant from me again ) better than atheists, is it because religion inherently makes you better set for such things, or is it because atheists (heh, in Norway at least) are unparalelled at putting a big, fat "DON'T TOUCH"-taboo sticker on grief, not teach about it in school (like they teach about sex, cooking, physical education, and other important subjects), and in general just shove it under the carpet?

 

It's like a football team playing in sneakers against an opposing team who've set themselves up with those heavy-duty slalom ski boots*. You can't have a fair contest when one team for some obscure reason chooses to impose such a giant handicap on itself.

Yes true but I doublt it you would see it really mainstream as it is now thanks to religion.

[toms]

I can't imagine religious people are any more charitable than none religious people. Hardly anyone i know is religious, that doesn't stop them giving money to charity and helping people who need help. Infact the majority of charities seem entirely unconnected with religion.

 

Where charity IS part of an orgainised religion (like art, science, music and technology before it) it is often corrupted by that religion.. or at the very least used to further that religion's agenda.

 

I was amazed to learn recently that the medieval practice of tithing seems to still exist in the USA.. i have no idea on how widespread a level.. but I'd be very interested to know where all these 10%s of people's incomes go to. Building and maintaining churches i'd suspect.

 

I have yet to see any evidence that religion increases one's charity.. it often doesn't increase one's tollerance or forgiveness. I can't think of any major social reformations that have begun or been supported by organised religion.. infact they are usualy the ones trying to prevent such challenges to the status quo and their power. ANd i definately don't buy the whole "religion is just an excuse" for all the deaths and suffering caused in it's name. religion is an idea.. a belief. When that idea or believe motivates people to do something it IS because of religion, and it is harm that religion has caused.

[Nancy Allen``]

Tithing is still very much in effect in the church, to the point where it can frighten off members with how big a deal is made of it or the church itself abusing the tithing system, by bringing up the parable of a family who had only five dollars to buy food should put that five dollars to the church and trust God to provide for them. I tell you now that's bull****, the church should not expect you to give to them what you cannot afford. That's not to say to give God scraps, far from it. What you should do is give what you are able to, what you should do according to the scripture, when you can.

[Kurgan]

Probably very little. However, it could -potentially- be motivated by 'end times' superstition. Indeed, I've had several personal conversations with followers of christianity that have out-right said, "why bother with long-term environmental reform? None of it will matter once the rapture has occurred."

 

Potentially. However that's rather different than people claiming that the science is incorrect and it's not really happening.

 

You can't be an evangelical christian and not buy into the 'end times' superstition. And such a person should not be a leader of the most powerful nation in the world.

 

I'm not sure about that actually. The typically Evangelical Denominations don't all accept the "rapture theory." Yes, they all believe that eventually the world will come to an end, but the ones who are talking about it happening any day now, due to some crisis in the middle east are typically the more fundamentalist of the fundamentalists. My brother is an ardent Southern Baptist, and he doesn't seem to buy into the "end times are here my friend" brigade.

 

It could be argued what the extent of Bush's superstitions are about his beliefs, but he *has* said he's a "born again" christian, AFAIK.

 

Of course, many Christians oppose his actions, since they aren't the things that "a Christian would do" (yes, obviously, Christians have done these things and worse, but you get the picture).

 

And implying that the charitable works and good things that religion provides are *only* the domain of religion is likewise a naive fallacy. What good does religion provide that humanists cannot? What charity is impossible to be performed by those that simply don't believe in magical beings?

 

Obviously they aren't only the domain of religion. However many people apparently are encouraged to do charity because they think a big magical man in the sky will reward them if they do so.

 

I've talked to non-believers who basically flat out say they will only help people that have helped them or are related to them, not strangers. So religion can be a big motivator. Even from your point of view, if they are doing acts of charity for the "wrong reasons" they're still doing them. Does the guy getting the free meal necessarily care if you're doing it to increase your good karma, or because he honestly loves you purely out of human goodness?

 

Would all these religious people still do this stuff had they never been religious? Some people who "de-convert" continue to maintain their "charity habits" just because it's ingrained in them, even if they don't know why they do it anymore ("makes me feel good" but why?). And how many of them would stop if they deconverted? How many would start doing it only after they converted? Who knows? But there's far fewer secular atheists than religious of some stripe, so might as well mobilize the majority somehow, right? Hopefully for good...

 

If they weren't over religion, they wouldn't be called religious wars.

 

But you can call anything a "religious war" because it's done in hindsight or for political reasons (look at Bin Laden calling Bush's war on terror "a Crusade"). Didn't the Muslims win the Crusades?

 

The crusades were ALL about christianity vs. islam. They were sanctioned by the Pope with the explicit purpose of recapturing the Holy Land. The thousands that joined the crusades from all over Europe were moved by their religiosity, not their desire to ensure free trade or even trade monopolies. The crusaders didn't try to capture trade routes into Egypt's Nile Valley, nor did they try to control Anatolian routes or Indus Valley routes. Their ultimate desire was control over the Levant region, where so-called holy sites are.

 

I'm not historian, but I agree, the Crusades were about religion. Yes, it was about capturing land, but that land had little to no value without the religious element. Yes, stopping Islamic forces from capturing formerly Christian territory was important too, but again, neither side would have felt the need to capture that stuff without the religious element (sort of perhaps a medieval parallel to the Cold War... capture the world either for "democracy/capitalism" or for "communism").

 

In fact, there are very few wars in human history that don't have something to do with religion.

 

Ah but this "something to do" is pretty tenuous. You could argue just about anything. Again, since a world without religion doesn't exist for us to compare to, surely there's always a way. Were the wars waged by the Communists religious motivated? You could try and argue that they were fighting to "free people" from religion or that their opponents were religious, so therefore it was "about religion" and so forth, surely.

 

Religion may not be evil, but it makes it very easy for people to do evil things. No doubt we would look for other excuses to kill, steal, rape, etc. -but without religion, it would be much harder for these people to justify those acts and hide behind their piety.

 

Don't be so sure. I agree it does make it easy. However any excuse will do if it's what you want or have the power to do...

[Kurgan]

In fact, not to get further off topic, but aren't Bush and Cheney both Methodists?

 

When I hear "Evangelical Christian" I think many Baptists, some Lutherans and most Pentecostals. And before you say that his claiming to be "born again" makes him one, recall there are "born agains" in all manner of denominations. It's merely a personal distinction, that could basically mean anything (despite its classic usage in Western evangelicalism).

 

I think "Methodist" and I think "mainline Protestant" (most of whom seem to give the rapture theory and millennarianism short shrift)

[Jae Onasi]

Probably very little. However, it could -potentially- be motivated by 'end times' superstition. Indeed, I've had several personal conversations with followers of christianity that have out-right said, "why bother with long-term environmental reform? None of it will matter once the rapture has occurred."

 

They've obviously forgotten the verse that says no one knows when Christ will return. Could be 10 minutes from now, could be 10,000 years from now, we don't know.

 

From a strictly religious point of view, we're supposed to be stewards of what God gave us. Poisoning the environment is hardly being a good steward.

Which, on a tangent, reminds me of a conversation my very conservative brother-in-law and I had one time.

Brother: Too many EPA regulations restricts business and damages the economy.

Me: We're not going to have any business at all if we're all dead from pollution.

Brother: Well, you might have a point there....

 

You can't be an evangelical christian and not buy into the 'end times' superstition. And such a person should not be a leader of the most powerful nation in the world.

 

You most certainly can be an evangelical Christian and not buy into the idea that 'God's coming back next week, so I don't have to do anything responsible in the greater world'.

I'm an evangelical and believe strongly in social (and individual) responsibility. I think we need to look for more environmentally friendly energy sources, protect endangered species, and stop being idiots in taking care of our world. We're trying to work on recycling at home, make some environmentally friendly choices (we're not great at it, but we're working on it), and work on making our kids aware of the environment. We do some birdwatching and hopefully we'll be able to do Project Feeder Watch this year again. We've participated in the past in the Peregrine Patrol (we walked around the downtown area to make sure if the fledgling falcons landed in the middle of the road and they didn't get run over--we got to see the mama falcon make a pigeon kill and toss it to one of the fledglings, an unbelievable sight). My daughter is really into frogs, and we're learning about the effects of habitat loss on some of the poison dart frogs in South America.

 

It could be argued what the extent of Bush's superstitions are about his beliefs, but he *has* said he's a "born again" christian, AFAIK.

 

 

I believe he has said he's 'born again'.

 

 

 

And implying that the charitable works and good things that religion provides are *only* the domain of religion is likewise a naive fallacy. What good does religion provide that humanists cannot? What charity is impossible to be performed by those that simply don't believe in magical beings?

 

I'm most definitely not saying that atheists can't provide charity any more than I could say that all Christians are selfless. My aunt and uncle, who are agnostics, are some of the best examples of charity I can see. However, one of the consistent themes in a lot of religions is caring for fellow humans and going outside of oneself and one's family to contribute to the community. A group that is encouraged to perform charity and makes it an integral part of its culture is more likely to perform charity than a group that is not encouraged to do that. I honestly don't know if the atheist community has that same encouragement that the religious community has--that's not a slam, btw. I'm simply saying I really don't know, since I don't live in that community. Outside of more liberal organizations like the Sierra Club, I don't see a lot of non-religious volunteers. That could possibly be a reflection of religious/non-religious demographics, however.

 

If they weren't over religion, they wouldn't be called religious wars. (snipped)

 

In fact, there are very few wars in human history that don't have something to do with religion.

 

Were those wars really over purely religion? Or was it used as a veneer to make conquest more palatable to the average peasant? If your average lifespan at that point is 38 or so, you're going to die young either from battle or disease, and the Pope's just guaranteed you a free pass to heavan if you fight in the Crusades, yeah, you have added incentive to sign up.

However, I doubt Richard, Frederick, and Phillip II had such spiritual motives. If Richard had truly been motivated by purely religion, he wouldn't have made a truce with Saladin, he would have fought until one of them died.

 

Religion may not be evil, but it makes it very easy for people to do evil things. No doubt we would look for other excuses to kill, steal, rape, etc. -but without religion, it would be much harder for these people to justify those acts and hide behind their piety.

 

No, it wouldn't be much harder. Those who are bent on destruction will find any excuse. Stalin and Mao did just fine committing atrocities during their purges without any religion whatsoever.

Christianity/Judaism say specifically in the 10 commandments not to kill or steal or 'covet your neighbor's wife'. The problem is those rules don't get followed.

 

Sigh and I dont see anywhere in the Bible where it specifically states to do anything what you are saying. So you must be stating about the wrong religion.

 

It's in Deuteronomy 22:13-30 where marriage violations are discussed, if someone hasn't already quoted it by the time I post this. Obviously we don't stone people today....from a Christian point of view, Christ's sacrifice supersedes the Law, but that's an entirely different discussion.

 

I have yet to see any evidence that religion increases one's charity.. it often doesn't increase one's tollerance or forgiveness. I can't think of any major social reformations that have begun or been supported by organised religion.

 

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and the Civil Rights Movement? He came out of the Southern Baptist tradition. Gandhi was a Hindu, and I wouldn't call the changes that happened in India through his work trivial.

 

So here's a question for the non-religious--In an age where truth is relative, how do you determine right and wrong? What makes feeding the hungry good and stealing bad? For an extreme example, a man (or woman) might say "hey, it feels right to me to physically love a 10 year old boy/girl. And if it feels right, it must be good for me. Therefore, it's right, and anyone who says it's wrong is infringing on my rights to live life the way I want." So a. how do you address that and b. how do you handle moral relativism?

[Emperor Devon]

Were those wars really over purely religion?

 

The Crusades were started by religion or at least used it as an excuse, which must accept blame for the horrible sacking of Constantinople.

 

So here's a question for the non-religious--In an age where truth is relative, how do you determine right and wrong?

 

That question can be applied to all followers of religion as well. Just because Christians (as an example) believe good behavior is rewarded by spending eternity in a cloudy bliss doesn't mean they're going to do the right thing all the time. It comes down to our very earthly sense of ethics. If someone acts ethical only to get to heaven, does he deserve to, despite performing charitable acts?

[Jae Onasi]

That question can be applied to all followers of religion as well. Just because Christians (as an example) believe good behavior is rewarded by spending eternity in a cloudy bliss doesn't mean they're going to do the right thing all the time. It comes down to our very earthly sense of ethics. If someone acts ethical only to get to heaven, does he deserve to, despite performing charitable acts?

 

That's not quite what I'm asking. I'm asking how you decide your code of ethics/moral values. For a Christian, the Bible defines our morals, for the Muslim it's the Koran, etc. How do you decide what's right and wrong?

[Emperor Devon]

How do you decide what's right and wrong?

 

The same way everyone else does.

 

Just because Christians (as an example) believe good behavior is rewarded by spending eternity in a cloudy bliss doesn't mean they're going to do the right thing all the time. It comes down to our very earthly sense of ethics.

[Nancy Allen``]

Murder is wrong no matter what religion you follow, unless you're an extremist. Christians look down on sexuality, Jews have an aversion to eating pork, Muslims are very particular on the treatment of women. In the end all that really doesn't matter, as regardless of what faith you choose to follow the law overrides them all.

[Jae Onasi]

So who determines the laws and ethics? At some point you have to draw a line and say "This is wrong, and this is right". What guides your decision that little white lies might be OK, but the big honkin' lies are right out? What about medium sort of grey lies?

 

If I got to determine laws and ethics, I'd go for the general ones in use today, plus add in that every female shall be worshipped as the goddess that she is, complete with chocolates, a worshipful husband (if applicable), Carth Onasi, backrubs, hot baths, and maybe Orlando Bloom (or cutie du jour) now and then.

 

What if you decide that Carth is not meaningful for you and that you prefer Bastila bearing lemon blueberry cake instead of chocolates?

Whose ethics are right, then? Who decides whether it should be Carth or Bastila, cake or chocolate?

[Emperor Devon]

So who determines the laws and ethics?

 

The individual, and role models if need be. There are plenty of good people out there who can be examples. Telling right from wrong becomes fairly obvious anyhow as life goes by.

 

every female shall be worshipped as the goddess that she is, complete with chocolates, a worshipful husband (if applicable), Carth Onasi, backrubs, hot baths, and maybe Orlando Bloom (or cutie du jour) now and then.

 

Good gawd, you're worse than any Honored Matre!

 

Whose ethics are right, then? Who decides whether it should be Carth or Bastila, cake or chocolate?

 

That's something I've always wondered about all those different religions out there.

 

Jae, you really need to go to Hotel Asylum for a check-up, or at least get some sleep. Those were some unusual comparions.

[Nancy Allen``]

Also, the law as defined by your country, state or city defines the law. What they say goes regardless of religion, no matter how committed one is to their faith they are not above the law. That goes for Muslims who are arrested and prosecuted for attacking women because of the way they dress every bit as it does for Christians who are hanged for posession of narcotics. Don't like it? I don't either but that's how it stands.

[Windu Chi]

Why is Religion evil if we are not supposedly traveling the galaxy by now? Why is religion to blame for this?

 

I was giving an example of religion's influence in the so called, "Dark Ages" that started 1,530 yrs ago and ended in about 1000 A.D.E.

So, for about 524 yrs they punish and excecuted early scientists who was answering questions about the universe that went against religion's belief.

Also after the Middle Ages religion still had left over power that still allow igorance to reign.

If religion did'nt have such a strong influence back then we will probably be a galactic ferrying civilization right now. In my personal opinion!

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Ages

[MasterRoss08]

quote by windu6

I was giving an example of religion's influence in the so called, "Dark Ages" that started 1,530 yrs ago and ended in about 1000 A.D.E.

So, for about 524 yrs they punish and excecuted early scientists who was answering questions about the universe that went against religion's belief.

Also after the Middle Ages religion still had left over power that still allow igorance to reign.

If religion did'nt have such a strong influence back then we will probably be a galactic ferrying civilization right now. In my personal opinion!

I beg to differ alot of Scientists that have made many discoveries in science happen to have been religious people.

[MasterRoss08]

quote by Jae OnasiQuote:

Originally Posted by MasterRoss08

Sigh and I dont see anywhere in the Bible where it specifically states to do anything what you are saying. So you must be stating about the wrong religion.

 

 

 

 

It's in Deuteronomy 22:13-30 where marriage violations are discussed, if someone hasn't already quoted it by the time I post this. Obviously we don't stone people today....from a Christian point of view, Christ's sacrifice supersedes the Law, but that's an entirely different discussion.

Thank you for pointing that out Jae!

[Dagobahn Eagle]

It is a bit harsh to say it's thanks to religion we don't have TIE Fighters and Viper fighters today. There are a thousand other factors that play in, and there's just no way of knowing where we'd be today if there were no Dark Ages. We could be 500 years ahead, 1000 years ahead, or 2000 years behind. We just don't know.

[Windu Chi]

It is a bit harsh to say it's thanks to religion we don't have TIE Fighters and Viper fighters today. There are a thousand other factors that play in, and there's just no way of knowing where we'd be today if there were no Dark Ages. We could be 500 years ahead, 1000 years ahead, or 2000 years behind. We just don't know.

 

Well, thats your belief but I blame 90% on religion for ruining scientific progress that have put us behind in major advancement in technology.Today we are still slowly making up for 524yrs of severe igorance in society.

Also you may think that I am personaly attacking religion but for those hundrens of years of severe ignorance, religion's like the Christianity and Catholicism was in power of civilize countries that had good useful scientists, that could have done major progress in those 500 or 800 yrs opportunity, if they had the opportunity to do so.

They encourage and allow that ignorance to fester for centuries so they can control civilization.

I would like to blame 100% on religion but to be fair, 10% of the blame goes to stupidy of many people in those years of Dark Ages.

The result if religion was not in major power, the early progress of science would have benefit humankind greatly today.

 

So from 1000 A.C.E to 1800s science pitifully and slowing start making some damn but overdue, progress.

We may not only haven been had colonizing the Milky Way galaxy we will probably haven had been colonizing some galaxies today.

I really believe this would be the case, I don't care if no one else share my beliefs.

 

Religion is a major hinderance to society technological progress.

As I say again!

Society today would be better off if religion just die out.

It is about time !

 

Of course you can easily say, that there is uncertainly but look at how far we have come today, since the 1900s.

Over 103yrs our society with some hinderance, have went from horses to a space station.

Society today still have some hinderance in progress but that is blame on some laziness and fear of some peolple who don't want technology progress to be speed up.

Also those them who have fear of technology progress is about 60% religious.

[Emperor Devon]

With all due, respect I think you're wrong. I myself am an atheist, but even I don't think religion hinders us. Yes, it would be helpful if some of the more religious people in the world didn't speak out against abortion or kill innocents, but it helped preserve civilization through the Dark Ages and by no means has stopped us from colonizing other galaxies. The whole concept of religion being responsible for that, in my opinion, is the sort of thing that could be found in tabloids.