Religion, Good or Bad?

[Maqo]

I think the effect of religion is best explained in graphs

(Image)

(Image)

(Image)

(Image)

(Image)

(Image)

(Image)

I could go on. Basically, none of it is good

I think you've got the causation messed up. What happens if you plot everything against education, rather than religion? Given the strong relationship between religion and education, the graphs would look quite similar I think. And if you play education against corruption or against GDP, or GDP vs QOL.
I think in reality, high religion is simply a side effect of low levels of education, rather than low education being due to high religion (subjects like evolution aside), and all the other things are based on the GDP+Education feedback loop (higher education-> higher gdp->higher education->...)


IMO, religion is good for individuals, but bad for society. Many people derive personal happiness and comfort from religion. If people could keep their religion to themselves, fine. But the moment you start trying to use religion to influence or guide other people's lives, it is a negative force.

[Cadomba]

I think it could go either way. It might be bad against education. It can also be bad for people who work because they get time off. It can be good for a spiritual uplift.

[Lahuland]

Atheism is neutral or like number zero. Religion can make positive effect like medicine or negative effect like poison. It depend on what that religion teaches.

(Negative Effect of Religion) - <<<<<<<<<< Atheism >>>>>>>>>> + (Positive Effect of Religion)

[Utceforp]

I think the effect of religion is best explained in graphs

(Image)

(Image)

(Image)

(Image)

(Image)

(Image)

(Image)

I could go on. Basically, none of it is good

I think you've got the causation messed up. What happens if you plot everything against education, rather than religion? Given the strong relationship between religion and education, the graphs would look quite similar I think. And if you play education against corruption or against GDP, or GDP vs QOL.
I think in reality, high religion is simply a side effect of low levels of education, rather than low education being due to high religion (subjects like evolution aside), and all the other things are based on the GDP+Education feedback loop (higher education-> higher gdp->higher education->...)


IMO, religion is good for individuals, but bad for society. Many people derive personal happiness and comfort from religion. If people could keep their religion to themselves, fine. But the moment you start trying to use religion to influence or guide other people's lives, it is a negative force.

Willful ignorance is always negative. You can be happy without imaginary friends.

[Maqo]

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

Without any religion? And nothing to replace it?

Most likely a technologically advanced civilisation. One much moreso than our current one: In fact, maybe one that could reach into space.

I hear this kind of thinking a lot, and I'm not really sure that it has much merit. The church was the major center of knowledge in Europe for hundreds of years; including preservation, teaching and research. Without the church doing these things it's very possible that we might be set back a number of centuries due to research that didn't happen or was destroyed.
Of course without a second Earth and/or a time machine it remains a complete hypothetical...

[Forty Twoania]

The overall history of religion points to the fact that it is bad. It has killed many through crusades genocides holy wars and persecutions. it has set back humanity socially and technologically. Galileo and Copernicus had to risk their lifes just to point out the obvious. Atoms which were predicted by ancient Greeks were repressed by the church. How many "witches" were also women right activists? How many were people burned at the stake for having progressive ideas that might started the Renaissance hundreds of years earlier? Their are countless other stories too of Darwin and Newton and Voltaire. Where would we be now if all these people didn't have to waste so much time on the trivial? If they didn't have to worry about death if they said any thing that contradicted Christianity? What other ideas could they have have thought of?

[Tyriece]

Both depending on the person.

[Benuty]

I think you've got the causation messed up. What happens if you plot everything against education, rather than religion? Given the strong relationship between religion and education, the graphs would look quite similar I think. And if you play education against corruption or against GDP, or GDP vs QOL.
I think in reality, high religion is simply a side effect of low levels of education, rather than low education being due to high religion (subjects like evolution aside), and all the other things are based on the GDP+Education feedback loop (higher education-> higher gdp->higher education->...)


IMO, religion is good for individuals, but bad for society. Many people derive personal happiness and comfort from religion. If people could keep their religion to themselves, fine. But the moment you start trying to use religion to influence or guide other people's lives, it is a negative force.

Willful ignorance is always negative. You can be happy without imaginary friends.

Depends on the definition "imaginary".

[Resawa]

The church took me in when I was a sad broken man with no home, job, or money
Take what you will from that

[Benuty]

The overall history of religion points to the fact that it is bad. It has killed many through crusades genocides holy wars and persecutions. it has set back humanity socially and technologically. Galileo and Copernicus had to risk their lifes just to point out the obvious. Atoms which were predicted by ancient Greeks were repressed by the church. How many "witches" were also women right activists? How many were people burned at the stake for having progressive ideas that might started the Renaissance hundreds of years earlier? Their are countless other stories too of Darwin and Newton and Voltaire. Where would we be now if all these people didn't have to waste so much time on the trivial? If they didn't have to worry about death if they said any thing that contradicted Christianity? What other ideas could they have have thought of?

Darwin was technically supported by the Church of England IIRC. The American Protestants were the ones who made the majority of the case against Darwin (thus spreading throughout the world and causing several court cases).

[Luepola]

The overall history of religion points to the fact that it is bad. It has killed many through crusades genocides holy wars and persecutions. it has set back humanity socially and technologically. Galileo and Copernicus had to risk their lifes just to point out the obvious. Atoms which were predicted by ancient Greeks were repressed by the church. How many "witches" were also women right activists? How many were people burned at the stake for having progressive ideas that might started the Renaissance hundreds of years earlier? Their are countless other stories too of Darwin and Newton and Voltaire. Where would we be now if all these people didn't have to waste so much time on the trivial? If they didn't have to worry about death if they said any thing that contradicted Christianity? What other ideas could they have have thought of?

Most of your references to Christianity were specifically to the Roman Catholic church of the Middle Ages, who in fact persecuted the Protestants (One example being John Huss, who was burned at the stake for his Protestant beliefs), and similar movements before the Protestant Reformation (John Wycliffe, who was burned at the stake for views that 'conflicted with the church'). It is also worth noting that some very notable figures in early modern science (Such as Robert Boyle, Isaac Newton, and Johannes Kepler) were also Christians. Just wanted to point that out.

It goes back to the fact that whether or not religion is good or bad isn't a white-or-black matter.

[Benuty]

The overall history of religion points to the fact that it is bad. It has killed many through crusades genocides holy wars and persecutions. it has set back humanity socially and technologically. Galileo and Copernicus had to risk their lifes just to point out the obvious. Atoms which were predicted by ancient Greeks were repressed by the church. How many "witches" were also women right activists? How many were people burned at the stake for having progressive ideas that might started the Renaissance hundreds of years earlier? Their are countless other stories too of Darwin and Newton and Voltaire. Where would we be now if all these people didn't have to waste so much time on the trivial? If they didn't have to worry about death if they said any thing that contradicted Christianity? What other ideas could they have have thought of?

Most of your references to Christianity were specifically to the Roman Catholic church of the Middle Ages, who in fact persecuted the Protestants (One example being John Huss, who was burned at the stake for his Protestant beliefs), and similar movements before the Protestant Reformation (John Wycliffe, who was burned at the stake for views that 'conflicted with the church'). It is also worth noting that some very notable figures in early modern science (Such as Robert Boyle, Isaac Newton, and Johannes Kepler) were also Christians. Just wanted to point that out.

It goes back to the fact that whether or not religion is good or bad isn't a white-or-black matter.

I would like to add that the Crusades initially started as defensive wars against Islamic caliphate aggression against the Byzantine Empire (The Emperor pleaded to the Western papacy to rally the Christian forces of Europe to help them deal with the threat. Looking at the battle maps of the crusades they mainly stay in Egypt, the Levant, and Asia minor. While the Crusades had their horrid moments they opened up much of Europe to trade and intellectual movements ( which had been lost when the Egyptian breadbasket and Intellectual capital of the classical era Syria was conquered).

[Des-Bal]

Religion is irrational, that's not an insult religion is fundamentally not based in rationality. It tells people "this is right this is not and don't question it" that's a bad thing in and of itself.

[Independent Canterbury]

No Religion is not bad,

But Atheism is.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/seant ... tally-ill/
http://church-of-illumination.com/atheists-vs-satanists
http://atheismexposed.tripod.com/atheismsatanism.htm

[Benuty]

Religion is irrational, that's not an insult religion is fundamentally not based in rationality. It tells people "this is right this is not and don't question it" that's a bad thing in and of itself.

I disagree since blind obedience is not present in every religion.

[Menassa]

No Religion is not bad,

But Atheism is.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/seant ... tally-ill/
http://church-of-illumination.com/atheists-vs-satanists
http://atheismexposed.tripod.com/atheismsatanism.htm

*god prefers men over women*
*blacks are not human*

GG.

[Benuty]

No Religion is not bad,

But Atheism is.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/seant ... tally-ill/
http://church-of-illumination.com/atheists-vs-satanists
http://atheismexposed.tripod.com/atheismsatanism.htm

Hmm...can we have some legitimate sources?

[Des-Bal]

I disagree since blind obedience is not present in every religion.

You have a religion that is demonstrably true?

[Menassa]

I disagree since blind obedience is not present in every religion.

You have a religion that is demonstrably true?

I wouldn't need that for a follow up, you've stated religion states to not question... that is disagreeable because not every religion states that.

[Utceforp]

You have a religion that is demonstrably true?

I wouldn't need that for a follow up, you've stated religion states to not question... that is disagreeable because not every religion states that.

If a religion tells you to believe in a deity without providing evidence for the existence of said deity or a method of proving or disproving the existence of said deity, it's telling you to accept it without skepticism, and therefore supports blind obedience.

[Benuty]

I disagree since blind obedience is not present in every religion.

You have a religion that is demonstrably true?

I was more or so attacking the notion that religion is "do as I say with no inquisitive nature whatsoever".

[Des-Bal]

I wouldn't need that for a follow up, you've stated religion states to not question... that is disagreeable because not every religion states that.

If a religion cannot be demonstrated by evidence to be true true but expects you to believe it it's telling you not to question.

[Menassa]

You have a religion that is demonstrably true?

I was more or so attacking the notion that religion is "do as I say with no inquisitive nature whatsoever".

As I stated.... which goes a long way for our relationship my friend.

[Benuty]

I was more or so attacking the notion that religion is "do as I say with no inquisitive nature whatsoever".

As I stated.... which goes a long way for our relationship my friend.

I did not see your above post when I decided to post my opinion .

[Menassa]

As I stated.... which goes a long way for our relationship my friend.

I did not see your above post when I decided to post my opinion .

You don't need to post your own opinions, I can do that for you!