Religion, Good or Bad?

[Imperiales Mexicana]

Religion is sometimes misused and given a bad name so Good leaning to neutral.

[Seshephe]

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.

Assuming that monotheistic religions are representative of all of religion is kind of... not a good idea.

[The Fraticelli Papacy]

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.

Norse religion is similar but not the same. Hellenics believed that heroes went to heaven. Norse believed a similar idea. It was not conversion that drove them, I agree, but in conquest of other nations that didn't share the same religion, many more people became soldiers for a chance of escaping the path to Hades.

[Arkiasis]

Both

[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.

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.

So you think that early nomad groups/civilizations ruled by a kind of "mandate of heaven"?

I figure it would be a small (or at least significantly smaller) problem because of the promotion of the sciences and philosophy, showing that people aren't really different from one another. I don't disagree with you that it would take time, but I think a more tolerant (less religious) society would be more willing to accept a common understanding of what it is to be human.

[Conkerials]

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.

Assuming that monotheistic religions are representative of all of religion is kind of... not a good idea.

I'm sorry, I can't think of any immediate references to polytheistic religions. But I know the Norse religion was a rather aggressive one, that taught violence and how to be a warrior. This is just as bad as any other religion, monotheistic or not.

[4years]

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.

1. 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 2. you used for feelings for all moral decisions, 3. the world would be a much more chaotic place.

1. That is just factually incorrect. New moral codes are invented all the time both through conscious effort and the blending of existing moral codes.

2. Why do you assume that people with no knowledge of existing moral codes would use feelings for all moral decisions?

3. Source?

4. Furthermore, religion is not a part of all existing moral codes and directly contradicts the tenants of many of them.

[The Fraticelli Papacy]

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.

So you think that early nomad groups/civilizations ruled by a kind of "mandate of heaven"?

I figure it would be a small (or at least significantly smaller) problem because of the promotion of the sciences and philosophy, showing that people aren't really different from one another. I don't disagree with you that it would take time, but I think a more tolerant (less religious) society would be more willing to accept a common understanding of what it is to be human.

Take early Islam for an example. They blended science and religion well, until the Ashari overtook the Mutari and decided that mohammad could ascend into heaven, and that god was actually talking to him directly.

[Seshephe]

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.

Norse religion is similar but not the same. Hellenics believed that heroes went to heaven. Norse believed a similar idea. It was not conversion that drove them, I agree, but in conquest of other nations that didn't share the same religion, many more people became soldiers for a chance of escaping the path to Hades.

No, the Greeks were not known for wanting to spread their religion. Their approach was usually to just accept whatever beliefs the natives had. "Oh, you have your own gods? Well we believe in lots of Gods to, your Gods are probably real as well. This one is kind of similar to one of ours maybe their actually the same (or maybe not) (but our gods are more powerful)."

Also, the Greeks believed in a bleak and boring afterlife for everyone. Regardless of how "heroic" you were. -_-

[Conkerials]

So you think that early nomad groups/civilizations ruled by a kind of "mandate of heaven"?

I figure it would be a small (or at least significantly smaller) problem because of the promotion of the sciences and philosophy, showing that people aren't really different from one another. I don't disagree with you that it would take time, but I think a more tolerant (less religious) society would be more willing to accept a common understanding of what it is to be human.

Take early Islam for an example. They blended science and religion well, until the Ashari overtook the Mutari and decided that mohammad could ascend into heaven, and that god was actually talking to him directly.

I don't follow. What is this relating to in my previous post? The mandate of heaven thing?

[Carto-Geography]

Ugh. Here comes the people that say "religion has killed so many people", when atheism, (U.S.S.R.,PRC,Pol pot,) has killed just as many.

Well, no.
See, when people are killed from religious persecution, it has to do directly with religion. Stalin didn't kill people because he was atheist, it had nothing to do with religion or lack of it. So, if there was no religion in the world, that would stop all the killing, For Religious reasons. Stalin would still kill people.
Point=Atheism has never killed people, because there is no reason to kill people because of Atheism.
Atheism is not a belief, it isn't anything, just a lack of something. You can not kill for a cause that doesn't exist.

http://ncronline.org/news/global/ban-religion-forced-albanians-pray-secret-one-womans-story A sad story of atheism and communism run amok. Atheism was compatible with the worldly obsessions of the Albanian Communists and religion wasn't. Prominent atheists openly supported the nation, which I would gladly rank as the worst on earth.

[Seshephe]

Assuming that monotheistic religions are representative of all of religion is kind of... not a good idea.

I'm sorry, I can't think of any immediate references to polytheistic religions. But I know the Norse religion was a rather aggressive one, that taught violence and how to be a warrior. This is just as bad as any other religion, monotheistic or not.

So you think that early societies should just have been lovey peacey and not have any warriors huh? I'm sure that would have turned out well for them...
How about the Hellenic religion?
Or Hinduism?
I don't think that any of those are completely good moral, ethical or... general guidelines by today's standard mind, but they certainly are very different from monotheistic religions.

[The Fraticelli Papacy]

1. 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 2. you used for feelings for all moral decisions, 3. the world would be a much more chaotic place.

1. That is just factually incorrect. New moral codes are invented all the time both through conscious effort and the blending of existing moral codes.

2. Why do you assume that people with no knowledge of existing moral codes would use feelings for all moral decisions?

3. Source?

4. Furthermore, religion is not a part of all existing moral codes and directly contradicts the tenants of many of them.

1. That's my point, you must use them even to create new ones.
2. What else would they use in a world without religion?
3. Consider one of the widely accepted symptoms for insanity is making decisions based on feelings alone.
4. "Religion" in general may contradict one another because there are many religions.

[The Fraticelli Papacy]

Take early Islam for an example. They blended science and religion well, until the Ashari overtook the Mutari and decided that mohammad could ascend into heaven, and that god was actually talking to him directly.

I don't follow. What is this relating to in my previous post? The mandate of heaven thing?

You said something about the problem of the promotion of sciences and philosophy.

[Personal Freedom]

1. That is just factually incorrect. New moral codes are invented all the time both through conscious effort and the blending of existing moral codes.

2. Why do you assume that people with no knowledge of existing moral codes would use feelings for all moral decisions?

3. Source?

4. Furthermore, religion is not a part of all existing moral codes and directly contradicts the tenants of many of them.

1. That's my point, you must use them even to create new ones.
2. What else would they use in a world without religion?
3. Consider one of the widely accepted symptoms for insanity is making decisions based on feelings alone.
4. "Religion" in general may contradict one another because there are many religions.

4. Not to a universalist.

[Conkerials]

I'm sorry, I can't think of any immediate references to polytheistic religions. But I know the Norse religion was a rather aggressive one, that taught violence and how to be a warrior. This is just as bad as any other religion, monotheistic or not.

So you think that early societies should just have been lovey peacey and not have any warriors huh? I'm sure that would have turned out well for them...
How about the Hellenic religion?
Or Hinduism?

I'm not educated very well in the two examples you provided. I don't think any religion should promote violent behavior. Period.

[4years]

1. That is just factually incorrect. New moral codes are invented all the time both through conscious effort and the blending of existing moral codes.

2. Why do you assume that people with no knowledge of existing moral codes would use feelings for all moral decisions?

3. Source?

4. Furthermore, religion is not a part of all existing moral codes and directly contradicts the tenants of many of them.

1. That's my point, you must use them even to create new ones.
2. What else would they use in a world without religion?
3. Consider one of the widely accepted symptoms for insanity is making decisions based on feelings alone.
4. "Religion" in general may contradict one another because there are many religions.

1. But you don't, that's my point. You could, if you chose, completely ignore all existing moral codes and create a new one from scratch.

2. Reason, a non-religious moral code, etc. and once again Religion=/= moral code.

3. That isn't a source.

4. You miss my point, having a religion at all, any religion, directly contradicts some moral codes.

[YellowApple]

I don't perceive any inherent "goodness" or "badness" in religion itself. The "badness" and "goodness" is dependent on the persons adhering (or at least claiming to adhere) to those religious faiths.

Religion is, however, mostly obsolete, at least when taken strictly; as religious explanations are disproven and/or replaced by newer scientific discoveries, it's important to prioritize the fundamental tenets of a religious faith than to get caught up in all the little details dictated by scripture.

[The Fraticelli Papacy]

So you think that early societies should just have been lovey peacey and not have any warriors huh? I'm sure that would have turned out well for them...
How about the Hellenic religion?
Or Hinduism?

I'm not educated very well in the two examples you provided. I don't think any religion should promote violent behavior. Period.

Religions usually don't. There's not much in the bible promoting violence. There's violence in the bible, yes, but there is nothing that says "also burn all the heathens". Part of being Christian is believing that people will convert themselves, given time. Just as one can't point to most communist countries and use it as an example of communism run amuck (or so communists always insist) you cannot point to medieval Christian rulers and say they represent what the religion really believes.

[Conkerials]

I don't follow. What is this relating to in my previous post? The mandate of heaven thing?

You said something about the problem of the promotion of sciences and philosophy.

Ah. Yes, I agree the the Islamic Empire was a very innovative empire, and a tolerant one at that. And if anything, I probably would prefer to live there rather than any other place at the time. However, had it been a more secular empire, one not promoting religious warfare, I would completely agree with you. Sadly, large scale secularism in government doesn't occur for many more centuries.

[Seshephe]

1. That is just factually incorrect. New moral codes are invented all the time both through conscious effort and the blending of existing moral codes.

2. Why do you assume that people with no knowledge of existing moral codes would use feelings for all moral decisions?

3. Source?

4. Furthermore, religion is not a part of all existing moral codes and directly contradicts the tenants of many of them.

1. That's my point, you must use them even to create new ones.
2. What else would they use in a world without religion?
3. Consider one of the widely accepted symptoms for insanity is making decisions based on feelings alone.
4. "Religion" in general may contradict one another because there are many religions.

1: What? Eeeeh, how about no.
2: Innate moral for one. We don't need religion to tell us that it's bad to kill, for example. People know that when they are born. In fact, in many cases religious morals are much worse than what people would just come up with on their own. It's no easier or more difficult to make a moral framework with or without a religion in the background, the religion is irrelevant except that it serves to conserve and force larger groups of people to adopt similar ethical and moral codes.
3: You wouldn't make a moral codes based on feelings alone. You would use a little thing called reason and prosocial/pro-societal attitudes.

[4years]

I'm not educated very well in the two examples you provided. I don't think any religion should promote violent behavior. Period.

Religions usually don't. There's not much in the bible promoting violence. There's violence in the bible, yes, but there is nothing that says "also burn all the heathens". Part of being Christian is believing that people will convert themselves, given time. Just as one can't point to most communist countries and use it as an example of communism run amuck (or so communists always insist) you cannot point to medieval Christian rulers and say they represent what the religion really believes.

You mean besides the entire Old Testament and the majority of the New Testament?

[The Fraticelli Papacy]

Religions usually don't. There's not much in the bible promoting violence. There's violence in the bible, yes, but there is nothing that says "also burn all the heathens". Part of being Christian is believing that people will convert themselves, given time. Just as one can't point to most communist countries and use it as an example of communism run amuck (or so communists always insist) you cannot point to medieval Christian rulers and say they represent what the religion really believes.

You mean besides the entire Old Testament and the majority of the New Testament?

Did you even read my post?

[Conkerials]

I'm not educated very well in the two examples you provided. I don't think any religion should promote violent behavior. Period.

Religions usually don't. There's not much in the bible promoting violence. There's violence in the bible, yes, but there is nothing that says "also burn all the heathens". Part of being Christian is believing that people will convert themselves, given time. Just as one can't point to most communist countries and use it as an example of communism run amuck (or so communists always insist) you cannot point to medieval Christian rulers and say they represent what the religion really believes.

Religions evolve, whether or not the bible specifically says "burn the witches" or even mentions witches, is entirely debatable. But that is what people seemed to have picked up from it, and that was what was enforced, therefore for many centuries that was Christendom, not just some backwards representation of what it's supposed to be.

[Personal Freedom]

Religions usually don't. There's not much in the bible promoting violence. There's violence in the bible, yes, but there is nothing that says "also burn all the heathens". Part of being Christian is believing that people will convert themselves, given time. Just as one can't point to most communist countries and use it as an example of communism run amuck (or so communists always insist) you cannot point to medieval Christian rulers and say they represent what the religion really believes.

You mean besides the entire Old Testament and the majority of the New Testament?

Yeah, the gospels are contradictory to Jesus with the amount of violence advocated.