RELIGION! Good or Bad?

[Barringtonia]

Religion, despite it's many faults, has inspired great artists to make works that convey both emotion and analytical thought from the effects of religion and their own faith. What would this world be without Paradise Falls? Without The Last Supper? Without Michealangelo's Pietà?

Infinitely poorer.

Who knows, the rich would have still commissioned artists to commemorate something, we could have had greater art. What did we lose due to religion, where art was so constrained.

[Ramenasia]

It can be replaced, it's like saying cigarettes have a great deal of value for relaxation and socialability.

Inspiration does not work like that.

Religion, despite it's many faults, has inspired great artists to make works that convey both emotion and analytical thought from the effects of religion and their own faith. What would this world be without Paradise Falls? Without The Last Supper? Without Michealangelo's Pietà?

Infinitely poorer.

Yes, religion made people creative, but I'd trade those great paintings away if it meant that people weren't killing each other over their beliefs. Wouldn't you?

[Grave_n_idle]

Your opening gambit seems to lack substance.

What do YOU think?

What do I think? I think that regardless of whether or not a/any deity/deities exist he/she/it/they are doing a terrible job, and are therefor not worth worshiping. I am also an Agnostic.

Now I showed you mine so you need to show me your's.

I'm a pro-religion Atheist. I think it serves a number of very essential purposes.

[Conserative Morality]

Who knows, the rich would have still commissioned artists to commemorate something, we could have had greater art.

To commemorate 'Something'.

I'm sorry, but 'Something' really has no emotional pull. At all. Things that evoke the kind of emotion the leads to great works of art in some will lead to violence or oppression in it's name in others. Furthermore, the destruction of this motivation means those works would be lost, that art would be lost. Art is not a matter of "Well, Goessart's Portrait of a Merchant is 50% better than Michealangelo's David", every piece of art is utterly unique, and every piece of art destroyed or not created is a terrible loss for mankind as a whole.

What did we lose due to religion, where art was so constrained.

Religion was hardly the cause, more a scapegoat. When religion is used for the sake of Earthly power, it becomes a tool for oppression, but a tool is not a free agent. One does not blame a hammer for smashing in a man's head, and one does not give credit to a hammer for building a house. Keep religion's faults as religion's faults, don't assign blame to religion for everything done in it's name. The worst you can use for that is that religion is an easy excuse, an easy justification.

It is not religion that is at fault here, it is power-hungry individuals enabled by a fluke of history.

[Conserative Morality]

Yes, religion made people creative, but I'd trade those great paintings away if it meant that people weren't killing each other over their beliefs. Wouldn't you?

No, I would not, even if religion was truly the cause. You think people didn't kill each other before religion became a popular excuse? The Romans killed for Rome or for their general, the Greeks for their city-state, the Macedonians for Alexander. Even during this period, religion was not the only force of violence. The English fought the Scottish, not for the sake of religion, but for the sake of power. That's all it's ever been about. Religion doesn't change this, it only provides the occasional excuse.

[Apostledom of chaos]

I want to know your opinion on religion.
I want you to contradict each other and argue.
I want you to ask questions of each other.

Please do not use self referential material as proof of your deity/religion (I.E. the bible).

HAVE FUN!

Religion is a double-edged sword. It is one of many paths that people take in pursuit of happiness, moral guidance, and getting the most out of life in general. It is also responsible for many conflicts that have claimed countless lives.

I don't see why you're asking for proof though. Religion is based on faith, not factual evidence.

thats for those people that feel the need to sit there and say my 'god' is better than your 'god' because it is.

[Barringtonia]

Religion was hardly the cause, more a scapegoat. When religion is used for the sake of Earthly power, it becomes a tool for oppression, but a tool is not a free agent. One does not blame a hammer for smashing in a man's head, and one does not give credit to a hammer for building a house. Keep religion's faults as religion's faults, don't assign blame to religion for everything done in it's name. The worst you can use for that is that religion is an easy excuse, an easy justification.

It is not religion that is at fault here, it is power-hungry individuals enabled by a fluke of history.

I'm not talking about the destruction of art, I'm talking of the limitations in terms of what art could portray due to the hold of religion. Art exploded in style once those shackles were loosened.

[Syracuseia]

Besides the parts about God, I like it.

[Conserative Morality]

I'm not talking about the destruction of art, I'm talking of the limitations in terms of what art could portray due to the hold of religion.

Then you didn't read my post. It's not due to religion, it's due to the corruption of religion as a tool by people in power. I was also working on the assumption that you are advocating religion being destroyed/not existing, which would lead to those works never being created, which I wrote about in that post.

Art exploded in style once those shackles were loosened.

Pardon?

[Terrasricas]

Religion was hardly the cause, more a scapegoat. When religion is used for the sake of Earthly power, it becomes a tool for oppression, but a tool is not a free agent. One does not blame a hammer for smashing in a man's head, and one does not give credit to a hammer for building a house. Keep religion's faults as religion's faults, don't assign blame to religion for everything done in it's name. The worst you can use for that is that religion is an easy excuse, an easy justification.

It is not religion that is at fault here, it is power-hungry individuals enabled by a fluke of history.

I'm not talking about the destruction of art, I'm talking of the limitations in terms of what art could portray due to the hold of religion. Art exploded in style once those shackles were loosened.

I guess that's a matter of taste. Personally, I think the bulk majority of art since 1900 sucks.

[Conserative Morality]

I guess that's a matter of taste. Personally, I think the bulk majority of art since 1900 sucks.

I'm not much for most modern paintings, but other forms of 20th/21st Century art are amazing.

[Terrasricas]

I guess that's a matter of taste. Personally, I think the bulk majority of art since 1900 sucks.

I'm not much for most modern paintings, but other forms of 20th/21st Century art are amazing.

I agree, in terms of musical and literary arts at least.

[Conserative Morality]

I agree, in terms of musical and literary arts at least.

Music, Literature, Film, Photography, Theater...

The list goes on and on.

[Apostledom of chaos]

What do I think? I think that regardless of whether or not a/any deity/deities exist he/she/it/they are doing a terrible job, and are therefor not worth worshiping. I am also an Agnostic.

Now I showed you mine so you need to show me your's.

I'm a pro-religion Atheist. I think it serves a number of very essential purposes.

such as?

[Unhealthy2]

I wouldn't call it evil so much as incredibly silly.

[Grave_n_idle]

I'm a pro-religion Atheist. I think it serves a number of very essential purposes.

such as?

Social cohesion. Inspiration, artistic and cultural. Perpetuation of knowledge. Preservation of order. Not to mention the psychological benefits of giving people an alternate reality to enable them to tolerate shitty treatment in THIS one, giving an excuse for the crappy stuff that happens and the evil people do, allowing people to overcome fear of death, etc.

[Tsa-la-gi Nation]

Organized religion can be very bad. Faith can be very good.

People of faith, in my opinion, are generally the best people on this earth. However, once structure & hierarchy leeches itself to faith, the sort of people who seek power end up in control of such an institution. And again, in my opinion, generally people who seek power are the worst people on this earth.

[Unhealthy2]

Social cohesion. Inspiration, artistic and cultural. Perpetuation of knowledge. Preservation of order. Not to mention the psychological benefits of giving people an alternate reality to enable them to tolerate shitty treatment in THIS one, giving an excuse for the crappy stuff that happens and the evil people do, allowing people to overcome fear of death, etc.

I take it you're intellectually comfortable with Plato's noble lie?

[Grave_n_idle]

Social cohesion. Inspiration, artistic and cultural. Perpetuation of knowledge. Preservation of order. Not to mention the psychological benefits of giving people an alternate reality to enable them to tolerate shitty treatment in THIS one, giving an excuse for the crappy stuff that happens and the evil people do, allowing people to overcome fear of death, etc.

I take it you're intellectually comfortable with Plato's noble lie?

Intellectually comfortable, sure. I think Plato overthinks it, though - I don't think it's necessary to invent a lie and project it - I think people will fill a vacuum, themselves.

[Norstal]

I want to know your opinion on religion.
I want you to contradict each other and argue.
I want you to ask questions of each other.

Please do not use self referential material as proof of your deity/religion (I.E. the bible).

HAVE FUN!

Organized religion is bad, as it can turn into a psychotic dictatorship under an invisible sky fairy that drowned the Earth some thousands of years ago. And it almost always turns like this.

Religion in general, probably not.

[Unhealthy2]

Intellectually comfortable, sure. I think Plato overthinks it, though - I don't think it's necessary to invent a lie and project it - I think people will fill a vacuum, themselves.

This actually makes me feel ill. It's dishonest, it's elitist, it's Machiavellian. What's GOOD about the noble lie? It's an affront to truth. It's an affront to human potential.

[Barringtonia]

I'm not talking about the destruction of art, I'm talking of the limitations in terms of what art could portray due to the hold of religion.

Then you didn't read my post.

You're right, I was multi-tasking and skimmed.

It's not due to religion, it's due to the corruption of religion as a tool by people in power. I was also working on the assumption that you are advocating religion being destroyed/not existing, which would lead to those works never being created, which I wrote about in that post.

The nature of religion makes corruption very easy, if not necessary in order to preserve that religion in the face of so many contradictions. I get that this is a symptom of man rather than religion per se but then I could not envisage a rational, coherent, consistent religion anyway.

[Rhodmhire]

A mix of the two: it is not entirely good and it is not entirely bad. Much good has been done in the name of religion. Much evil has also been committed using religion as a primary tool.

Those who think that religion is all good or all bad probably don't know all that much about religion in the first place, I would think.

I am an atheist, but I am not hellbent on promoting or destroying religion. Those atheists who are hellbent on destroying it, in my opinion, are only doing harm to the atheist community in general and should knock it off, in my opinion.

I'm sure that cancer or starvation or influenza each kill more people a year than religion anyways.

[Norstal]

Intellectually comfortable, sure. I think Plato overthinks it, though - I don't think it's necessary to invent a lie and project it - I think people will fill a vacuum, themselves.

This actually makes me feel ill. It's dishonest, it's elitist, it's Machiavellian. What's GOOD about the noble lie? It's an affront to truth. It's an affront to human potential.

Hold on, are you guys talking about organized religion or religion in general? Don't bash good religions like Zen Buddhism. There should be a clear distinction between the two.

[Valtieres]

I despise religion with a burning passion. While I find Eastern spiritual philosophy far more tolerable, it's the Judeo-Monotheistic bullcrap that makes me boil down into a kettle of steam. I see it as something far less productive than useful, and I'd probably prefer reject Monotheistic religion any day over Paganism. Personally, I'm an Atheist, but I've developed a tolerance for other beliefs, but not belief "systems". People who claim to be of a religion usually follow a different path than that defined in scripture/oral tradition. It is from that path they walk that I judge them. And I'll damn fucking well judge the Christians that live in my neck of the woods, because they're all deranged lunatics who sleep to the tune of Bill O'Reilly fapping over the "Liberal Agenda", or even sleep to the sight of Ann Coulter.