Religion, Good or Bad?

[Federated Terran States]

Religion by itself can have some good qualities; However it fails the masses when it becomes the ruling force.
When any religion becomes the government then the first victims are the rights to free speech & dissent! Crime becomes a sin, and sins become crimes!

[Seshephe]

Bad. For any foreseeable reason, just bad. While I in no way agree with Stalin's genocide of the religious, had religion never been conceived, quite frankly he would have no religious people to slaughter. The Holy Ways never would've happened, I bet very much that WWII would've been very different, as far as the holocaust goes. Imagine a world where religion does not hold back the scientific development of humanity! Where people cannot be discriminated against for their religion, where homosexuals, undoubtedly, would be more free to be who they are, where race might not be as important of a factor as it has played in history! Where the scientists, like Galileo, would've been free to pursuit a life of intellectual marvel. Imagine the splendors!

No pyramids, no Stonehenge, no Parthenon...
Religion was probably necessary to motivate people to work together in groups larger than ~250 individuals in early hunter gatherer and farming societies. I'd think...

Also, you're vastly overestimating the negative effects of religion and underestimating how much is just an effect of human nature.

[Vazdania]

Hello everyone!! This is my first time posting a thread, and wanted to ask. What would the world look like without religion?

This is purely personal opinion.
If you make a statement (e.g. Religion is good) please make a reason and why its good (e.g. Religion is good, because...)
Try too keep this civilised and provide evidence of your beliefs.
Don't repeat your statements, these'll be regarded as spam and made not applicable.
Pictures are allowed if you so want them.

Religion: Very good

[Conkerials]

Bad. For any foreseeable reason, just bad. While I in no way agree with Stalin's genocide of the religious, had religion never been conceived, quite frankly he would have no religious people to slaughter. The Holy Ways never would've happened, I bet very much that WWII would've been very different, as far as the holocaust goes. Imagine a world where religion does not hold back the scientific development of humanity! Where people cannot be discriminated against for their religion, where homosexuals, undoubtedly, would be more free to be who they are, where race might not be as important of a factor as it has played in history! Where the scientists, like Galileo, would've been free to pursuit a life of intellectual marvel. Imagine the splendors!

No pyramids, no Stonehenge, no Parthenon...
Religion was probably necessary to motivate people to work together in groups larger than ~250 individuals in early hunter gatherer and farming societies. I think...

Also, you're vastly overestimating the negative effects of religion and underestimating how much is just an effect of human nature.

I'd be fine with the absence of all of the structures.

What is your logic for the early society assumption?

Without religion, discrimination would probably be a very small problem. Without discrimination, genocide would also be practically unknown. Hence, no Holocaust, no Crusades, no Jihads, etc.

[Xirtam]

It is the opium of the people.

Let's have the entire quote, from Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right:

Religious distress is at the same time the expression of real distress and the protest against real distress. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions.

For Marx religion is a symptom of a disease, not the disease itself. It express the material reality of " a heartless world" a world that needs a heart. Marx's problems with religion then is that lies that an opiate fails does not repair a physical injury, merely helps numb the pain. Religion does not address the underlying causes of people’s pain and suffering; it helps them forget why they are suffering and gives them a future without pain to look forward to. Marx, therefore, rejects religion because he wishes "real happiness" instead of "illusory happiness." Religion is a placebo, Marx demands a cure.

This is what I was trying to say in my original post (opium of the people), but I forgot the actual quote and the communist who said it.
Thanks for bringing this up.

[The Fraticelli Papacy]

Religion has done so much good, uniting so many peoples in one faith. Today, missionaries worldwide provide vital services to people all over the world. In Latin America, the Catholic Church maintains many health facilities and gives charitable aid to the poor. To tell these people that the people that are helping them are bad, are wrong? That in itself is horrible. Religion will always be first and foremost in determining morality, and I dream of a day that there won't be a religion: instead, everyone will worship the same God, go to the same type of churches, and live in harmony. It will not be an issue, there will be no 'religion' to speak of. It will be life, rather than just a part of it.

[The Transgender Punk Republic of Awesome]

religion is capable of both good and bad
t can help people in need while oppressing others

it all depends on how it is used

[Personal Freedom]

Hello everyone!! This is my first time posting a thread, and wanted to ask. What would the world look like without religion?

This is purely personal opinion.
If you make a statement (e.g. Religion is good) please make a reason and why its good (e.g. Religion is good, because...)
Try too keep this civilised and provide evidence of your beliefs.
Don't repeat your statements, these'll be regarded as spam and made not applicable.
Pictures are allowed if you so want them.

Religion is good is used correctly. See Universalism As a Baha'i I believe that religion is good when used to unite, but a terrible evil when used for discrimination.

[The Fraticelli Papacy]

No pyramids, no Stonehenge, no Parthenon...
Religion was probably necessary to motivate people to work together in groups larger than ~250 individuals in early hunter gatherer and farming societies. I think...

Also, you're vastly overestimating the negative effects of religion and underestimating how much is just an effect of human nature.

I'd be fine with the absence of all of the structures.

What is your logic for the early society assumption?

Without religion, discrimination would probably be a very small problem. Without discrimination, genocide would also be practically unknown. Hence, no Holocaust, no Crusades, no Jihads, etc.

There would have been no motivation whatsoever for ancient peoples to do anything. The reasons Romans and Greeks spread civilization? To prove their worthiness and go to the Heaven of their religion. Has religion had negative effects? Yes. Would we have civilization without it? Probably not.

[Flyover]

No pyramids, no Stonehenge, no Parthenon...
Religion was probably necessary to motivate people to work together in groups larger than ~250 individuals in early hunter gatherer and farming societies. I think...

Also, you're vastly overestimating the negative effects of religion and underestimating how much is just an effect of human nature.

I'd be fine with the absence of all of the structures.

What is your logic for the early society assumption?

Without religion, discrimination would probably be a very small problem.

I doubt that. Several cultures -probably most of them- think women are inferior to men. Without religion, that would not be different IE China. Same for racism (again, China.) You're trying to make religion out to be the source of discrimination when it simply is not. In fact, there are religious people in the world who are not baby-eating racist sexist totalitarian homophobic monsters. That may come as a shock to some, but its true!

'Sides, Jews weren't the only ones to die in the Holocaust. Ethnic and political groups were targeted, so the Holocaust would still happen. Unless you blame religion for the hatred of Communist somehow.

[Seshephe]

Religion has done so much good, uniting so many peoples in one faith. Today, missionaries worldwide provide vital services to people all over the world. In Latin America, the Catholic Church maintains many health facilities and gives charitable aid to the poor. To tell these people that the people that are helping them are bad, are wrong? That in itself is horrible. Religion will always be first and foremost in determining morality, and I dream of a day that there won't be a religion: instead, everyone will worship the same God, go to the same type of churches, and live in harmony. It will not be an issue, there will be no 'religion' to speak of. It will be life, rather than just a part of it.

wow...

[Brazilliberty]

religion is a culture of a people so its good

[Seshephe]

I'd be fine with the absence of all of the structures.

What is your logic for the early society assumption?

Without religion, discrimination would probably be a very small problem. Without discrimination, genocide would also be practically unknown. Hence, no Holocaust, no Crusades, no Jihads, etc.

There would have been no motivation whatsoever for ancient peoples to do anything. The reasons Romans and Greeks spread civilization? To prove their worthiness and go to the Heaven of their religion. Has religion had negative effects? Yes. Would we have civilization without it? Probably not.

Yeah, that's bullshit. The Greeks expanded for political and economic reasons, not religious ones. Same with the Romans. In fact, as tends to be the case with Polytheist religions, they were far more tolerant about other peoples maintaining their own religion than monotheistic religions are.

[Sahrani DR]

Religion has done so much good, uniting so many peoples in one faith. Today, missionaries worldwide provide vital services to people all over the world. In Latin America, the Catholic Church maintains many health facilities and gives charitable aid to the poor. To tell these people that the people that are helping them are bad, are wrong?

Oh, well. The same "missionaries" that "helped the poor" , as you said, didn't hesitate to side with brutal military regimes that left that same poverty unaddressed.

[The Fraticelli Papacy]

There would have been no motivation whatsoever for ancient peoples to do anything. The reasons Romans and Greeks spread civilization? To prove their worthiness and go to the Heaven of their religion. Has religion had negative effects? Yes. Would we have civilization without it? Probably not.

Yeah, that's bullshit. The Greeks expanded for political and economic reasons, not religious ones. Same with the Romans. In fact, as tends to be the case with Polytheist religions, they were far more tolerant about other peoples maintaining their own religion than monotheistic religions are.

No, you do not know how it was. To go to heaven in a Hellenic religion, you had to be a hero. Thus, the spirit of conquest was very much fanned by religion. Their growth would have been much more slight if religion had not been involved.

[Conkerials]

I'd be fine with the absence of all of the structures.

What is your logic for the early society assumption?

Without religion, discrimination would probably be a very small problem. Without discrimination, genocide would also be practically unknown. Hence, no Holocaust, no Crusades, no Jihads, etc.

There would have been no motivation whatsoever for ancient peoples to do anything. The reasons Romans and Greeks spread civilization? To prove their worthiness and go to the Heaven of their religion. Has religion had negative effects? Yes. Would we have civilization without it? Probably not.

I disagree. Culturally, I believe people would also be capable of uniting. Competition is also a hot subject, humanity has always played the "I'm better than you are" game. I believe this alone would be enough to unite the peoples together to accomplish magnificent feats, without religion. Sadly, you are right in that humanity, early on, would've undoubtedly produced some deity to explain the natural happenings of the world. With that being said, this is a hypothetical thread.

[Conkerials]

I'd be fine with the absence of all of the structures.

What is your logic for the early society assumption?

Without religion, discrimination would probably be a very small problem.

I doubt that. Several cultures -probably most of them- think women are inferior to men. Without religion, that would not be different IE China. Same for racism (again, China.) You're trying to make religion out to be the source of discrimination when it simply is not. In fact, there are religious people in the world who are not baby-eating racist sexist totalitarian homophobic monsters. That may come as a shock to some, but its true!

'Sides, Jews weren't the only ones to die in the Holocaust. Ethnic and political groups were targeted, so the Holocaust would still happen. Unless you blame religion for the hatred of Communist somehow.

I agree that not all discrimination stems from religion, but you can't disagree in that a very large portion of it does. I.E. Islam demeans women because the Qur'an teaches it. The Bible also breeds intolerance, which I am sure you also agree with. And yes, I agree that not all religious people who aren't total bigots, and religious people can be good people, however they are generally bigoted and ignorant.

"Good" religious people are general only in modern religion, because of its increasing liberalization, no doubt.

[Seshephe]

No pyramids, no Stonehenge, no Parthenon...
Religion was probably necessary to motivate people to work together in groups larger than ~250 individuals in early hunter gatherer and farming societies. I think...

Also, you're vastly overestimating the negative effects of religion and underestimating how much is just an effect of human nature.

I'd be fine with the absence of all of the structures.

What is your logic for the early society assumption?

Without religion, discrimination would probably be a very small problem. Without discrimination, genocide would also be practically unknown. Hence, no Holocaust, no Crusades, no Jihads, etc.

Because in all of the earliest civilizations that I know of what appears to arise first in terms of central organisation is a sort of priesthood ruling class. Göbekli Tepe is an excellent example and one of the oldest known. Why should a group of people trust the leadership of anyone, let alone someone that isn't part of your immediate family? Some kind of motivating factor is needed.

How do you figure that discrimination would be a small problem? It's fundamental to how we think. Discrimination is just human nature. What's so amazing is that we are able to overcome it at all.

[Ordysius]

OP, I'd like to hear your opinion on the matter!

Religion is not so black and white, it is bad for people to contextualize religion to purposefully create a war cause or any violence, however religion is not 'telling' the person to kill, in fact you can take a holy book any way you like, but the more caring and generous perceptions of religion are obviously better than the more aggressive hateful ones. Which is why the Crusades, Nazism, and Salem Witch trials were conducted by people stating the same religious book as the one that others use as a reason to give to the poor and help each other in the pursuit of success in life

Agreed.

Like all human constructs, religion can be good or bad. In fact, the whole good/bad dichotomy is a strictly human construct and thus entirely subjective.

Agreed.

religion is capable of both good and bad
t can help people in need while oppressing others

it all depends on how it is used

Agreed.

[4years]

There would have been no motivation whatsoever for ancient peoples to do anything. The reasons Romans and Greeks spread civilization? To prove their worthiness and go to the Heaven of their religion. Has religion had negative effects? Yes. Would we have civilization without it? Probably not.

Yeah, that's bullshit. The Greeks expanded for political and economic reasons, not religious ones. Same with the Romans. In fact, as tends to be the case with Polytheist religions, they were far more tolerant about other peoples maintaining their own religion than monotheistic religions are.

Of course polytheistic religions tend to be more tolerant of other beliefs: a polytheistic religion can acknowledge that other people have other gods without suffering a systematic crisis (if I have 12 gods, it only makes sense that you have 1 or 2 as well) whereas a monotheistic religion can't have even token acknowledgement of others gods (if there is only 1 god then you are worshipping a demon, committing idolatry, etc., etc.). Polytheists could easily add ever more gods to the pantheon with the stipulation that people have to pay lip service to the gods of the conquers (Rome used this model) while monotheists have to take the worship of other gods as a grave sin (the medieval church).

[Xirtam]

Religion has done so much good, uniting so many peoples in one faith. Today, missionaries worldwide provide vital services to people all over the world. In Latin America, the Catholic Church maintains many health facilities and gives charitable aid to the poor. To tell these people that the people that are helping them are bad, are wrong? That in itself is horrible. Religion will always be first and foremost in determining morality, and I dream of a day that there won't be a religion: instead, everyone will worship the same God, go to the same type of churches, and live in harmony. It will not be an issue, there will be no 'religion' to speak of. It will be life, rather than just a part of it.

To give charitable aid to the poor on the basis of religion spreads a poverty of the mind.
As long as religion is used to determine morality, morality will wither away and human suffering will increase.

[The Fraticelli Papacy]

I doubt that. Several cultures -probably most of them- think women are inferior to men. Without religion, that would not be different IE China. Same for racism (again, China.) You're trying to make religion out to be the source of discrimination when it simply is not. In fact, there are religious people in the world who are not baby-eating racist sexist totalitarian homophobic monsters. That may come as a shock to some, but its true!

'Sides, Jews weren't the only ones to die in the Holocaust. Ethnic and political groups were targeted, so the Holocaust would still happen. Unless you blame religion for the hatred of Communist somehow.

I agree that not all discrimination stems from religion, but you can't disagree in that a very large portion of it does. I.E. Islam demeans women because the Qur'an teaches it. The Bible also breeds intolerance, which I am sure you also agree with. And yes, I agree that not all religious people who aren't total bigots, and religious people can be good people, however they are generally bigoted and ignorant. But this is mostly in the modern religion, really.

Just because people use/used it as a system of discrimination does not mean that discrimination actually stems from it. Sometimes, the theologians compiling holy books would throw their own interpretations in, sometimes those led to discrimination. It's not as if God himself wrote the Bible, though he did allegedly write the Qua'ran, and even then Mohommad might have thrown in some of his own pagan beliefs.

[Seshephe]

Yeah, that's bullshit. The Greeks expanded for political and economic reasons, not religious ones. Same with the Romans. In fact, as tends to be the case with Polytheist religions, they were far more tolerant about other peoples maintaining their own religion than monotheistic religions are.

No, you do not know how it was. To go to heaven in a Hellenic religion, you had to be a hero. Thus, the spirit of conquest was very much fanned by religion. Their growth would have been much more slight if religion had not been involved.

No, you're thinking of the norse religion. And the Norse didn't spread their religion either, the way to become a "hero" as you put it was to go to war and kill people and die in battle. Not convert people.
Greek expansion was due to a population increase that the land couldn't sustain, thus causing them to establish colonies across the sea. To simply the matter to the extreme. It had nothing to do with religion whatsoever.

[The Fraticelli Papacy]

Religion has done so much good, uniting so many peoples in one faith. Today, missionaries worldwide provide vital services to people all over the world. In Latin America, the Catholic Church maintains many health facilities and gives charitable aid to the poor. To tell these people that the people that are helping them are bad, are wrong? That in itself is horrible. Religion will always be first and foremost in determining morality, and I dream of a day that there won't be a religion: instead, everyone will worship the same God, go to the same type of churches, and live in harmony. It will not be an issue, there will be no 'religion' to speak of. It will be life, rather than just a part of it.

To give charitable aid to the poor on the basis of religion spreads a poverty of the mind.
As long as religion is used to determine morality, morality will wither away and human suffering will increase.

There is literally no other system of determining morals than using traditional moral codes. If you had no knowledge at all of moral codes, and you used for feelings for all moral decisions, the world would be a much more chaotic place.

[4years]

I doubt that. Several cultures -probably most of them- think women are inferior to men. Without religion, that would not be different IE China. Same for racism (again, China.) You're trying to make religion out to be the source of discrimination when it simply is not. In fact, there are religious people in the world who are not baby-eating racist sexist totalitarian homophobic monsters. That may come as a shock to some, but its true!

'Sides, Jews weren't the only ones to die in the Holocaust. Ethnic and political groups were targeted, so the Holocaust would still happen. Unless you blame religion for the hatred of Communist somehow.

I agree that not all discrimination stems from religion, but you can't disagree in that a very large portion of it does. I.E. Islam demeans women because the Qur'an teaches it. The Bible also breeds intolerance, which I am sure you also agree with. And yes, I agree that not all religious people who aren't total bigots, and religious people can be good people, however they are generally bigoted and ignorant.

"Good" religious people are general only in modern religion, because of its increasing liberalization, no doubt.

Religion doesn't create discrimination, it preserves it and hands it down.