Thread: Does religion benefit society as a whole?

Originally Posted by Mario92

Dark Ages - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In short: the decline of advancements and knowledge following the collapse of the Roman Empire. It's mostly a joke.

You mean the time period where people's lives were more directly influenced by their lords and the concept of fealty than anything else, (including relgion?)

You mean a time period where people were ravaged by plague and poverty, not caused by religion, but instead following the collapse of the one establishment which held such a large influence over the world that it's collapse was bound to send entire nations plunging into a terrible and poverty ravaged anarchy?

A time period where Feudalism proved that people can blindly follow other people in an obviously flawed and oppressive/immoral government system because they have been manipulated? (Not like the anglo-saxons/countless ancient people groups hadn't already proven that...)

The Dark Ages being so crappy was not because of religion. Europe could have been full of staunch atheistic marxists, it wouldn't have prevented the structure of the entirety of Western/Southern Europe collapsing and thus invite unscrupulous individuals to take advantage of the worst depression in history to set up a system where the proletariat could not feasibly escape a life of slavery.

Anyway, it probably didn't last nearly as long as most people think it did. An economic fall of this sort is sure to cause lots of unrest, but the Roman Empire didn't fall in a day and depressions don't usually last many generations, so the graph is kind of pointless.

Originally Posted by spockman

I don't see why you should be sorry for offending anyone. I think the concern is well intended, but this is R/S. Everyone knows the stakes. So you aren't being a nuisance because your beliefs are different from the majority. That was why this sub-forum was made; so people could discuss reigion and debate their own view points and be comfortable about it. If anyone was really getting annoyed, they should have just left. Plus, this conversation seems perfectly on topic to me. The latest conversation is asking a basic question that has to be answered before any conclusion to the OPs question can be reached.





Sure. But I could say the same type of thing about political parties, major media stations, business organizations... I won't blame journalism for the desire to control people just like I won't balame any one thing for such a general problem, including religion. So, if religion does hurt society as a whole, it doesn't do so through mind-control, not directly at least. If anything, it enables other problems. But it isn't the cause of them.



See what I did thar? But seriously, making blanket statements about an entire type of thought because of some of it's apparent fruits is not going to be particularly objective. How many words can I fill in for the place of religion in your post and have people buy it as truth? As many institutions/schools of thought as there are people who have been negatively affected by whatever word I am using as a fill-in and have negative bias.

Well the argument and debate was getting out of hand and I didn't want to be labeled the perpetrator to this. I've actually been banned for this in another forum but luckily I was reinstated. I don't won't people seeing me as someone who just offends people for no reason(not saying there be needed a reason). I am actually interested in this topic and am willing to debate but I can see why people don't want to debate with me since I called a members post here "Dumb and Stupid"(Which I take back now seeing has it was totally uncalled for and just down right childish). It is actually getting off topic and would have even more had I not stopped. But I'll check the rules/ask a mod and see if this isn't "Hijacking a thread" which I've been banned for.

Thank you mario.

Originally Posted by Mario92

Yeah, sorry about blasting you there. I tend to get a bit carried away sometimes.

No need to worry I actually deserve parts of it if not all seeing has I did the same thing to a member who posted on this thread. Let bygones be bygones.

The Dark Ages being so crappy was not because of religion.

Well, yeah. That's why I said it was a joke, meaning the image. Derp?

But I'll check the rules/ask a mod and see if this isn't "Hijacking a thread" which I've been banned for.

ED is kinda pretty relaxed compared to most other forum modding.

Originally Posted by Mario92

Well, yeah. That's why I said it was a joke, meaning the image. Derp?



ED is kinda pretty relaxed compared to most other forum modding.

Ah, okay, I didn't read the page where you posted the image so I got your quote out of context.

Originally Posted by MrBlonde

Pretending? What do you mean? I asked for examples is that too much to ask? That right there is a downright lie. I mean to say "Is blind faith not the foundation of every large religious institution on our planet?" is stupid your saying that Religion doesn't bring facts which a lie because it does. Your just confusing yourself there.

Come again?

Originally Posted by MrBlonde

That is your opinion to think that. What you need to understand is that not everyone thinks that way. Besides unethical varies throughout culture and countries. What you find ethical here might be totally unethical somewhere else and vice versa.

Do you know what the great thing about my opinion is? I formed it under my own volition. You don't have an opinion on the matter, you have Christianitiy's opinion. I don't see how homosexuality could logically be considered unethical in any culture other than from dogmatic beliefs. Homosexuality isn't even an ethical issue. Murder is an ethical issue, rape is an ethical issue, stealing is an ethical issue, homosexuality is just a life choice which leaves the rest of humanity completely unaffected. I do believe there are a universal set of human morals which are derived from psychological factors inherent in all human beings, meaning those morals transcend any given religion.

Originally Posted by spockman

People always want to control people, regardless of the puppetmasters convictions. In the past ten years someone in France was fined for publicly stating his disagreement with the states limiting drug laws. That didn't have to do with religion. The U.S.S.R. had it's own propaganda against relgion, just as Christian's have propaganda for it. This is natural. Manipulating people's actions isn't nearly as satisfying as manipulating their thoughts- at least to many evil people. This isn't a religous thing. It's a power/intoxication thing. It isn't even really in line with Biblical doctrine. I know a Muslim who says the same thing, that the Quran encourages understanding ones reason for belief. It's interesting to look at the politics of religion, but wrong to blame non-religious specific faults on the concept itself.

You make a very valid point here. I always revert to this argument when somebody refers to any given system as "the root of all evil." Whether it be communism, capitalism, or religion, none of those things are the very root of evil. Human nature is the root of all evil, plain and simple. While I am a stauch critic of organized religion, I don't pretend like the world would be any better off without it. Human nature would remain intact and we would inevitably fill that void with something equally terrible. I don't think it is possible to eradicate religion, since it is essentially a part of human nature, so I guess it doesn't matter.

This reminds of a great quote from the book I am reading call Escape from Evil by Ernest Becker. It explores the psychological roots of all large scale evil perpetrated by human societies and it attempts to pin point the beginning of inequality in human culture. These things predate what we would consider "civilization." The quote goes like this:

"If the emergence of social privilege marks the Fall of Man, the Fall took place not in the transition from "primitive communism" to "private property" but in the transition from ape to man."

I can't say enough about how awesome that book is.

"I am sorry but this has got to be the most stupidest and utterly dumbest post I've read before. Here is few from the top of my head."

Mr. Blonde, I find it funny that you say that you should not call names in posts when you are clearly calling me the "most stupidest and utterly dumbest"(Grammar anyone?) person here by implication. At least I have a good foundation in English.

"If anyone really wishes hell on another being, I would say they deserve more punishment than the person who murdered his whole family."
^This is what I said.

"So with that rationale a good person who's been doing good all his life. One day is struck with tragedy by losing his daughter to a Killer who shows no remorse. The good man then says I hope you go to hell. By saying that and with your post. This Good man deserves a "Eternity" of hell(even though you said no one deserves it. Contradicting?) while the killer doesn't? God I hope your never a Jury member for murder case. We all know who you're siding with.Good luck with supporting Serial Killers/Child Rapists because I don't do that and never will."
^This is what you said.

Nowhere in my post did I say that "a good man" (By your definition mind) deserves hell. In fact I clearly remember stating that NO ONE does. I said that this so called "good person" deserves a worse punishment just for the act of wishing that amount of torment on another being. And what does my belief in spiritual punishment have anything to do with the justice system? If I were to be on a jury for a murderer or rapist (Mind you one that I truly believe is guilty, I will not condemn a person where there is no proof), I would most certainly condone life sentences and even capital punishment. And yes, these people are deranged and deserve a lot of pain, even in my opinion. But I would never wish hell on anyone, not even my worst enemy. Not even "HITER".

Your arguments against mine just showed your ignorance and inability to read OR write.

Originally Posted by VickDannon

"I am sorry but this has got to be the most stupidest and utterly dumbest post I've read before. Here is few from the top of my head."

Mr. Blonde, I find it funny that you say that you should not call names in posts when you are clearly calling me the "most stupidest and utterly dumbest"(Grammar anyone?) person here by implication. At least I have a good foundation in English.

Originally Posted by MrBlonde

but I can see why people don't want to debate with me since I called a members post here "Dumb and Stupid"(Which I take back now seeing has it was totally uncalled for and just down right childish).

If you had read my post from above you would see that I had made a mistake. Calling your post "Dumb and Stupid" was well....dumb and stupid of me. After taking a step back I realized I was wrong to call you "Stupid and Dumb". My Grammar is bad? I know that I make mistakes like every other Human being out there. I'm not perfect and I never will be but if you're going to bring up every single mistake I make and put it under scrutiny. (Spelling?) Then I think were going to have a hard time debating each other's posts.

Originally Posted by VickDannon

"If anyone really wishes hell on another being, I would say they deserve more punishment than the person who murdered his whole family."
^This is what I said.

"So with that rationale a good person who's been doing good all his life. One day is struck with tragedy by losing his daughter to a Killer who shows no remorse. The good man then says I hope you go to hell. By saying that and with your post. This Good man deserves a "Eternity" of hell(even though you said no one deserves it. Contradicting?) while the killer doesn't? God I hope your never a Jury member for murder case. We all know who you're siding with.Good luck with supporting Serial Killers/Child Rapists because I don't do that and never will."
^This is what you said.

Nowhere in my post did I say that "a good man" (By your definition mind) deserves hell. In fact I clearly remember stating that NO ONE does. I said that this so called "good person" deserves a worse punishment just for the act of wishing that amount of torment on another being. And what does my belief in spiritual punishment have anything to do with the justice system? If I were to be on a jury for a murderer or rapist (Mind you one that I truly believe is guilty, I will not condemn a person where there is no proof), I would most certainly condone life sentences and even capital punishment. And yes, these people are deranged and deserve a lot of pain, even in my opinion. But I would never wish hell on anyone, not even my worst enemy. Not even "HITER".

Your arguments against mine just showed your ignorance and inability to read OR write.

Now on to your post. You said "If anyone really wishes hell on another being". A good man (by anyone's definition) falls under the category of "Anyone". Am I mistaken with this?

Originally Posted by VickDannon

In fact I clearly remember stating that NO ONE does.

I responded with

Originally Posted by MrBlonde

This Good man deserves a "Eternity" of hell(even though you said no one deserves it. Contradicting?) while the killer doesn't?

You said no one deserves hell but at the same time said that one who wishes hell upon another deserves more punishment. I found this to be contradicting. If this was a exception then I could understand but you didn't state that unless am mistaken.

Originally Posted by VickDannon

If I were to be on a jury for a murderer or rapist (Mind you one that I truly believe is guilty, I will not condemn a person where there is no proof), I would most certainly condone life sentences and even capital punishment. And yes, these people are deranged and deserve a lot of pain, even in my opinion. But I would never wish hell on anyone, not even my worst enemy. Not even "HITER".

Then this comes down to my beliefs and yours. I believe someone like Hiter deserves hell and you believe no one does. I respect your beliefs (Though I don't agree with them I respect them) and am hoping you can do the same (not forcing you just hoping). It's been great and I hope I can debate with you some more. If I made a mistake in what I just wrote am sorry. I hope you can understand what I wrote and have no misunderstandings on my post. Thanks

Originally Posted by Caprisun

Come again?




Do you know what the great thing about my opinion is? I formed it under my own volition. You don't have an opinion on the matter, you have Christianitiy's opinion. I don't see how homosexuality could logically be considered unethical in any culture other than from dogmatic beliefs. Homosexuality isn't even an ethical issue. Murder is an ethical issue, rape is an ethical issue, stealing is an ethical issue, homosexuality is just a life choice which leaves the rest of humanity completely unaffected. I do believe there are a universal set of human morals which are derived from psychological factors inherent in all human beings, meaning those morals transcend any given religion.

I think we have a misunderstanding between us. Am not a Christian (my sig quote can tell you how much of a Christian I am). I do form my own opinion it just that religion agrees with my opinion. Again this my beliefs in which condones Homosexuality(which I agree with). I haven't been given any thing to make me believe that Homosexuality is right. Now if you can bring sources which proves your post right. Then I have no choice but agree with what your saying. But I haven't been given that yet.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

I do believe there are a universal set of human morals which are derived from psychological factors inherent in all human beings, meaning those morals transcend any given religion.

You do know that religion has brought some good morals too.

I am sorry Mr. Blonde, I had not read the post taking back the insult. That's my fault.

And as for the comment about deserving more punishment, I guess I was unclear of what I meant. I meant that a person who wishes hell on another deserves more punishment than that person deserves. I didn't mean more punishment than hell. I meant more punishment than a murderer or rapist truly deserves. Wishing an eternity of torment on another is no different, in my opinion of course, than being the one to CAUSE such torment. And if you really want to cause a person such a devastatingly severe amount of torture, than I think you should be the one to hold the whip for all eternity. I'm sure after even one year, you would no longer hold any desire to strike. To see another human being in that much pain, even one who deserves a great amount of pain is not an easy thing to bear.

And I think Hitler deserves at least this much of a defense. Those multitudes of innocents that he "killed" were not killed by his hands alone. Do you know how he got the German population to assist him in this genocide? It was not through fear or pain. It was through the mere speaking of words. They allowed themselves to be persuaded to commit such terrible crimes. I believe they are actually more base than he, for they could easily have said, "This is wrong, right?", but they didn't. His crime was persuasion. And I am not saying he isn't to blame. And I'm not saying he doesn't deserve fierce and painful justice. Of anyone in the world, (that I know of anyway. Not that knowledgable on crimes against humanity) I can't think of a person who deserves hell more than he. But since I believe that no one deserves hell, I would never condemn him to such a place. I would condone billions of years of pain and suffering long before I would condone eternity.

By the way. Religion hasn't brought any good morals. Those morals pre existed religion by millenia. Religion just claimed those morals as it's own. Moral choice is something that is innate in human beings. Belief in a God is not the same thing as religion. I believe in God, I even believe in the Bible. But I cling to no denomination (Not even non-denominational). I don't condone religion at all. A person should believe what they believe and follow what they believe simply because they believe it's right. No other reason. It seems to me that Christians betray their beliefs more than any other religion. I see people go straight from church on Sunday to restaurants to eat. You may not see this the way I do, but when your religion tells you that working on Sunday is wrong, why would you go to a restaurant and support those that do? That seems awfully hypocritical. Christianity teaches that judging people is wrong, yet Christians are the quickest to judge whether a person deserves to go to hell. They judge on a daily basis. Christianity is populated primarily by hypocrites. I say primarily because I know for certain that there are those few Christiance who follow the word of God and I commend them for their faith. I just think it's disrespectful to claim to a certain belief and not follow it. It's disrespectful to everyone you meet and above all, it's disrespectful to God. Again, I want to make it clear that this is just my opinion, one that was founded from my many observations. In no way am I saying that I am the authority on Christian people, indeed I have lived in St. Augustine most of my adult life, so I am unaware of how Christian people act elsewhere. Anyone reading my opinion should know that I am speaking only of the Christians I have met. As with everyone else, I can only account for what I personally have seen.

Originally Posted by VickDannon

By the way. Religion hasn't brought any good morals. Those morals pre existed religion by millenia. Religion just claimed those morals as it's own. Moral choice is something that is innate in human beings. Belief in a God is not the same thing as religion. I believe in God, I even believe in the Bible. But I cling to no denomination (Not even non-denominational). I don't condone religion at all. A person should believe what they believe and follow what they believe simply because they believe it's right. No other reason. It seems to me that Christians betray their beliefs more than any other religion. I see people go straight from church on Sunday to restaurants to eat. You may not see this the way I do, but when your religion tells you that working on Sunday is wrong, why would you go to a restaurant and support those that do? That seems awfully hypocritical. Christianity teaches that judging people is wrong, yet Christians are the quickest to judge whether a person deserves to go to hell. They judge on a daily basis. Christianity is populated primarily by hypocrites. I say primarily because I know for certain that there are those few Christiance who follow the word of God and I commend them for their faith. I just think it's disrespectful to claim to a certain belief and not follow it. It's disrespectful to everyone you meet and above all, it's disrespectful to God. Again, I want to make it clear that this is just my opinion, one that was founded from my many observations. In no way am I saying that I am the authority on Christian people, indeed I have lived in St. Augustine most of my adult life, so I am unaware of how Christian people act elsewhere. Anyone reading my opinion should know that I am speaking only of the Christians I have met. As with everyone else, I can only account for what I personally have seen.

I disagree I believe Religion has brought many good morals. For example Christianity says "Be good to your neighbor" which is good seeing has their were disagreements and arguments between men in pre-biblical times. Not just Christianity but many other religions such has Catholicism and Judaism and Islam and even Buddhism have brought many good teachings and morals that human kind has benefitted from. Not everyone is perfect and am sure the Christians you meant aren't either but it doesn't mean there not being "Good Christians". Besides the people who are working in restaurants are most likely Christians themselves they just need to work on Sunday (which there is nothing wrong with) to support their families. I don't believe it to be hypocritical to honest with you.

For example Christianity says "Be good to your neighbor" which is good seeing has their were disagreements and arguments between men in pre-biblical times.

Um...that's just requoting preexisting ideals, and religion hasn't solved that dilemma, either. There are disagreements, arguments, and misunderstandings all over the place. To quote another stereotype:

"Hey, neighbor, I need my leaf blower back."
"What leaf blower?"
"The one I lent you a couple months ago"
"I'm sorry, but I don't have it."
"Oh, I'm sure it's in your garage. I'll go have a look"
"HEY! I said I don't have it. Mind your own business."
"Hey! That's my leaf blower!"

Enter family feud. When you boil it down, religion really hasn't helped morality at all. All it has done is create the fictional punishment mechanism of hell, which doesn't work on the majority of people anyway.

Originally Posted by Mario92

Um...that's just requoting preexisting ideals, and religion hasn't solved that dilemma, either. There are disagreements, arguments, and misunderstandings all over the place. To quote another stereotype:

"Hey, neighbor, I need my leaf blower back."
"What leaf blower?"
"The one I lent you a couple months ago"
"I'm sorry, but I don't have it."
"Oh, I'm sure it's in your garage. I'll go have a look"
"HEY! I said I don't have it. Mind your own business."
"Hey! That's my leaf blower!"

Enter family feud. When you boil it down, religion really hasn't helped morality at all. All it has done is create the fictional punishment mechanism of hell, which doesn't work on the majority of people anyway.

True but I disagree when you look at pre-biblical times and compare it with after. You not only find that Religion has helped in morality but in many other cases as well. Such as Human rights, Charity, and many other. Fear can be used in good way you know. Its simple if you know what you're doing is wrong and have some sort of belief Hell can be avoided all you have to do is follow what God says. Its that simple actually people forget it sometimes. You do Good you get good. You do Bad You get bad. Simple sweet and to the point.

Originally Posted by MrBlonde

True but I disagree when you look at pre-biblical times and compare it with after. You not only find that Religion has helped in morality but in many other cases as well. Such as Human rights, Charity, and many other. Fear can be used in good way you know.

You know they had all sorts of religion in pre-biblical times, right? You can't just say that all morality suddenly improved with the advent of Christianity. If anything, what you likely saw was the spread of the western style of morality prevalent today. Christianity was only one vector by which it traveled. Charity can be accomplished quite nicely without the church, and human rights is coincidental at best (or would you like to go back to the oppression of homosexuals? How about the Catholic Inquisition?). Fear is a technique employed by cowards. I would personally argue that a person who does good to escape hell, rather than doing good because it is the right thing to do, is less virtuous. They act purely out of fear, rather than through their own conscious moral decisions. And trying to listen to god is a futile point in and of itself. There's no way to show that your "message from god" is exactly that. What's more, the bible has been rewritten throughout history, so even taking that at face value will get you nowhere. I argue rationality, not spirituality, is the cornerstone of morality.

Originally Posted by MrBlonde

I think we have a misunderstanding between us. Am not a Christian (my sig quote can tell you how much of a Christian I am). I do form my own opinion it just that religion agrees with my opinion. Again this my beliefs in which condones Homosexuality(which I agree with). I haven't been given any thing to make me believe that Homosexuality is right. Now if you can bring sources which proves your post right. Then I have no choice but agree with what your saying. But I haven't been given that yet.

What exactly is unethical about homosexuality? Keep in mind that "grossness" is not a factor here.

Originally Posted by MrBlonde

You do know that religion has brought some good morals too.

Not anything that didn't already exist.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

What exactly is unethical about homosexuality? Keep in mind that "grossness" is not a factor here.

You mean aside from not being able to reproduce and keep the life cycle going. Not to mention diseases which are believed to come from homosexuality (I said believed and am not saying it's a fact) but I don't have a source for this so I won't say more on it.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

Not anything that didn't already exist.

See the post I reply to with Mario.

You mean aside from not being able to reproduce and keep the life cycle going.

I'm happy to tell you that's a good balance to have The world is already way overpopulated, and it's only getting worse. So hey, you should stop by and thank them sometime.

Besides that it's also a pretty bad argument... it's not like everyone is gay, and as you see there's plenty of people to keep it going, actually way more than needed.

We have orphanages and adoption houses full of children that need homes. So instead of condemning homosexuals and restricting their rights, I say we embrace them and allow them to adopt. And who says they don't reproduce? They may not have children in the traditional sense, but gay men can still donate some genetic material, and lesbians are more than free to pick it up at their leisure.

Also when I think about it... what about straight people who do decide not to have children? It does happen. Are they also condemning the human race in the same way as homosexuals? And what about the people that consciously decide to go through surgery to get sterilized with the goal of also not having children, is that maybe even more unethical? Can't forget defects (infertility) that doesn't even allow some people to reproduce whenever they want to or not, not their decision, but maybe they should be judged based on that aswell. And also some good points pointed out above me ^

I don't see how you can say what's right or wrong in cases like this, it's just a part of nature, happens in the animal kingdom too. Whenever or not they fit with your views is another thing

Originally Posted by SomeDreamer

Also when I think about it... what about straight people who do decide not to have children? It does happen. Are they also condemning the human race in the same way as homosexuals? And what about the people that consciously decide to go through surgery to get sterilized with the goal of also not having children, is that maybe even more unethical? Can't forget defects that doesn't even allow some people to reproduce whenever they want to or not, not their decision, but maybe they should be judged based on that aswell. And also some good points pointed out above me ^

I don't see how you can say what's right or wrong in cases like this, it's just a part of nature, happens in the animal kingdom too. Whenever or not they fit with your views is another thing

Do you have a source? I've been hearing this quite a bit when discussing this topic. There are reasons you know has to why straight people don't have kids. Such has miscarriages, infertility, rape, STD's and many other situations. Even financial problems come into factor when your having a family.

Originally Posted by SomeDreamer

I'm happy to tell you that's a good balance to have The world is already way overpopulated, and it's only getting worse. So hey, you should stop by and thank them sometime.

Besides that it's also a pretty bad argument... it's not like everyone is gay, and as you see there's plenty of people to keep it going, actually way more than needed.

Do you have the stats showing the rate of homosexuality along side with the downward rate of the world population?

Originally Posted by MrBlonde

Do you have a source? I've been hearing this quite a bit when discussing this topic. There are reasons you know has to why straight people don't have kids. Such has miscarriages, infertility, rape, STD's and many other situations. Even financial problems come into factor when your having a family.

Also, just not wanting kids. I don't want any. I have no qualms with scheduling a vasectomy. Reproduction =/= moral righteousness. Also, infertile creatures are born in the plant and animal kingdoms all the time.

And for your population argument, homosexuals make up such a small percentage of the population that they don't have any noticeable impact on a large scale...yet. But you said it yourself. If they aren't reproducing and having families, then it naturally follows that they aren't contributing to overpopulation. Catholics and the devout with 17+ kids have that job wrapped up all on their own.

Also, I think you don't quite understand how data and sourcing works. you don't always need a source to back up common sense...or when a claim goes against your beliefs. The burden of proof actually rests on the person making the claim of improbability...which would be you. You implied the claims that homosexuality is a choice and that everyone who is straight wants children as long as they have the means and lack severe personal trauma. The burden of proof is on you, and I refuted the latter with my personal lack of desire for children. I'm financially secure, mentally sound, and perfectly happy. I simply do not want children. Is that so strange?