Is religion bad for society?「Yes or No」

[Prusmia]

Well, that truly depends on the circumstance. Religion and the belief in a higher power is one of the main reasons humanity got this far as it allows us to combine larger groups under a common cause. it is also a tremendous morale booster as of the thought of that when you die you would go somewhere instead of the truth of the endless abyss of nothingness that awaits... Simply put, the idea of religion is good for society and it's a building block of it. However, in truth, we are all lead into falsehoods of our own design. And I'm starting to sound like I'm a psychopath aren't I.

[Socialist States of Ludistan]

Religion can hurt society, and it has. But there’s so many different religions, and so many different ways to believe those religions. So I would say that religion kinda hurts society a tiny bit, but it helps a lot in other ways.

[The Alma Mater]

It used to be. Christians were indeed highly motivated to research things "to get closer to God/understand Him better".
Nowadays, with the rise of creationism ? Not so much. Now it is "muh bible haz da facts, you muzt adjust yurz !"

Those beliefs are still a tiny minority. You can't judge all of Christianity by them.

Are they ?
Let us look at two things that used to be "core values" of christians: humility and being willing to admit one was wrong.
Both have been incredibly important for humanity - as I argued before one can even make a case for them being required to develop the scientific method.

Now look at the current US elections. Both candidates. Both groups of supporters.

Sorry, but not. It is not a "tiny minority" - it is the overwhelming majority that has abandoned the concepts that made christianity good for humanity.

[Sanghyeok]

Those beliefs are still a tiny minority. You can't judge all of Christianity by them.

Are they ?
Let us look at two things that used to be "core values" of christians: humility and being willing to admit one was wrong.
Both have been incredibly important for humanity - as I argued before one can even make a case for them being required to develop the scientific method.

Now look at the current US elections. Both candidates. Both groups of supporters.

Sorry, but not. It is not a "tiny minority" - it is the overwhelming majority that has abandoned the concepts that made christianity good for humanity.

What do those elections have to do with Christianity as a whole?

[The Alma Mater]

Are they ?
Let us look at two things that used to be "core values" of christians: humility and being willing to admit one was wrong.
Both have been incredibly important for humanity - as I argued before one can even make a case for them being required to develop the scientific method.

Now look at the current US elections. Both candidates. Both groups of supporters.

Sorry, but not. It is not a "tiny minority" - it is the overwhelming majority that has abandoned the concepts that made christianity good for humanity.

What do those elections have to do with Christianity as a whole?

I look at the most powerful christians on the planet and judge their behaviour.
True, in other countries christians may still believe in modesty and humility - but let's be fair: they have zero influence.

[Lost Memories]

Sanghyeok has a good point, the circlejerk of US politics doesn't hold much value for christianity globally.

But Alma Mater also raises a good point that religion in the US is a shame to look at. But how much of that can be pointed at religion, and how much of it to US culture?

I look at the most powerful christians on the planet and judge their behaviour.

This sentence is also quite funny
Or for "powerful" did you mean being influential in local politics?

Though again, as much as this forum is mainly used by US citizens, the US isn't the center of the world, nor religion.
So any example taken from the US, applies to the US, and little to none to anywhere else.

[VoVoDoCo]

You must admit they're a large minority, to be fair.

Not really. A loud minority, maybe.

24% is pretty large. That’s the percent of people that believe that the Bible is the literal word of God. Now that doesn’t necessarily imply creationism, but there’s more. Depending on how you asked the question, anywhere from 18% to 35% can explicitly support creationism.

[The Gold Mines]

Well, yes and no.
Everyone has their belifs. I respect that.
But sometimes religious people don’t realize that their religion can be used for fear. And that those people are being used for conflict between other religions

[Geneviev]

Those beliefs are still a tiny minority. You can't judge all of Christianity by them.

Are they ?
Let us look at two things that used to be "core values" of christians: humility and being willing to admit one was wrong.
Both have been incredibly important for humanity - as I argued before one can even make a case for them being required to develop the scientific method.

Now look at the current US elections. Both candidates. Both groups of supporters.

Sorry, but not. It is not a "tiny minority" - it is the overwhelming majority that has abandoned the concepts that made christianity good for humanity.

Those are still the core values of Christianity, even from the most extreme groups. They did distort them, yes. But they're still extremely important.

Not really. A loud minority, maybe.

24% is pretty large. That’s the percent of people that believe that the Bible is the literal word of God. Now that doesn’t necessarily imply creationism, but there’s more. Depending on how you asked the question, anywhere from 18% to 35% can explicitly support creationism.

That's not how I interpreted those. First, Biblical literalism isn't creationism necessarily. Second, the difference in results is because the tiny minority can intimidate the majority.

[VoVoDoCo]

Are they ?
Let us look at two things that used to be "core values" of christians: humility and being willing to admit one was wrong.
Both have been incredibly important for humanity - as I argued before one can even make a case for them being required to develop the scientific method.

Now look at the current US elections. Both candidates. Both groups of supporters.

Sorry, but not. It is not a "tiny minority" - it is the overwhelming majority that has abandoned the concepts that made christianity good for humanity.

Those are still the core values of Christianity, even from the most extreme groups. They did distort them, yes. But they're still extremely important.

24% is pretty large. That’s the percent of people that believe that the Bible is the literal word of God. Now that doesn’t necessarily imply creationism, but there’s more. Depending on how you asked the question, anywhere from 18% to 35% can explicitly support creationism.

That's not how I interpreted those. First, Biblical literalism isn't creationism necessarily. Second, the difference in results is because the tiny minority can intimidate the majority.

Creationism is one of the Toxic fruits of biblical literalism. It’s not real common For people to believe in a literal 7day creation, but go on to believe that the Bible makes extensive use of metaphor or that it’s writers were capable of being of error in their authorship. So yes, they are not synonyms. But one does necessarily lead to the next.

The difference in results, as explained by the source I provided, Was due to the question format. They found that the one question format led to less people identifying with the creationist movement Your interpretation has been wondering the following:
-Who is the minority in your claim? The people asking the questions? The creationists?
-Who is the majority in your claim? The question was posed to Americans. At what point were the Americans intimidated by creationists to skew the results for this one singular poll? And are Americans that are intimidated into taking up the literalist positions any less a literalist than ones that came to that position through “reason?”
-Do you have any evidence to back up what you are saying?

Also your claim about The statistics being skewed by intimidation actually makes no sense to me. Can you expand on it?

[FutureAmerica]

It's bad for society if there's no separation of religion and state. Otherwise it is very good for society.

[Geneviev]

Those are still the core values of Christianity, even from the most extreme groups. They did distort them, yes. But they're still extremely important.


That's not how I interpreted those. First, Biblical literalism isn't creationism necessarily. Second, the difference in results is because the tiny minority can intimidate the majority.

Creationism is one of the Toxic fruits of biblical literalism. It’s not real common For people to believe in a literal 7day creation, but go on to believe that the Bible makes extensive use of metaphor or that it’s writers were capable of being of error in their authorship. So yes, they are not synonyms. But one does necessarily lead to the next.

The difference in results, as explained by the source I provided, Was due to the question format. They found that the one question format led to less people identifying with the creationist movement Your interpretation has been wondering the following:
-Who is the minority in your claim? The people asking the questions? The creationists?
-Who is the majority in your claim? The question was posed to Americans. At what point were the Americans intimidated by creationists to skew the results for this one singular poll? And are Americans that are intimidated into taking up the literalist positions any less a literalist than ones that came to that position through “reason?”
-Do you have any evidence to back up what you are saying?

Also your claim about The statistics being skewed by intimidation actually makes no sense to me. Can you expand on it?

Sure. But the people who believe in Biblical literalism can't be associated with creationists necessarily, and you did try to put them together. It says nothing about creationism.

The question format had an effect for a reason. Your source speculated that it might be because "they are uncomfortable placing themselves on the secular side of a cultural divide". That, from what I know, could be just creationist (the minority) tactics. Calling people who accept evolution, who are the real majority, lukewarm Christians, or accusing them of not having faith in God, is intimidation in my view and would make people hesitant to express any other position unless they can simultaneously "prove" that they are really Christians. And that is what I think contributed to that disparity, and overall to the fact that not all Christians who accept evolution with openly disagree with creationists.

Regardless, Christianity shouldn't be judged based on what creationists believe.

[Baloo Kingdom]

Woah, this thread when on a lot longer than I anticipated it would, guess thats Sang's work

[Sanghyeok]

Woah, this thread when on a lot longer than I anticipated it would, guess thats Sang's work

I think I actually changed my opinion through it, to be honest.

[New haven america]

It's neutral.

It's people using religion to control society that's bad.

[Sanghyeok]

It's neutral.

It's people using religion to control society that's bad.

Thank you for your opinion, Kaguya-san!

[Neanderthaland]

It's neutral.

It's people using religion to control society that's bad.

I have a hard time taking that view seriously because - while it is true that religion tends to be shaped by the people who comprise it - it's also definitely the case that the underlying beliefs matter somewhat.

It's an extreme example: but if you really think that the sun will not rise without a daily human sacrifice... there are going to be a lot more still-beating hearts plucked from chests then there would be otherwise. And you can't just round that up to people "using religion."

"Using religion" in this case would be trying to have your political opponents sacrificed, or maybe convincing your people to declare war on some other country to get sacrifices. But the fact of sacrifices happening is down to the religion itself.

[Nihon no Tengoku]

Depends on which one

[Salus Maior]

This is really inaccurate to Christianity's relationship with scientific inquiry.

It used to be. Christians were indeed highly motivated to research things "to get closer to God/understand Him better".
Nowadays, with the rise of creationism ? Not so much. Now it is "muh bible haz da facts, you muzt adjust yurz !"

If you're an Evangelical Fundamentalist, sure.

Haven't really come across any Catholics, Orthodox, Anglicans, etc. who think that way when it comes to science.

[New Steuben]

People look for faith

they usually find it in Religion or the State

[KITTENPUPPYLAND]

I think religion has flaws, but overall it benefits society in a way we can not receive in any other form. Whether we want to believe it or not, religion is at the core of our world. No matter where you go or what religion you believe, it effects how we act, what we eat, wear, say, live! Whether that is good or bad, that is up to you to decide. The major flaw religion plays in our world is its ability to find itself in our government. Separation of church and state is one of the most important concepts we could have, yet it tends to be one of the more difficult ones to follow. Religion gives us something to believe in. Something bigger than ourselves. Despite which religion if any you deem correct, everyone needs something to believe in.

[Shin-Mutsu]

I think religion has flaws, but overall it benefits society in a way we can not receive in any other form. Whether we want to believe it or not, religion is at the core of our world. No matter where you go or what religion you believe, it effects how we act, what we eat, wear, say, live! Whether that is good or bad, that is up to you to decide. The major flaw religion plays in our world is its ability to find itself in our government. Separation of church and state is one of the most important concepts we could have, yet it tends to be one of the more difficult ones to follow. Religion gives us something to believe in. Something bigger than ourselves. Despite which religion if any you deem correct, everyone needs something to believe in.

I would disagree with your last statement: some people are find without believing in any religion their whole lives.

[Kernen]

I think religion has flaws, but overall it benefits society in a way we can not receive in any other form. Whether we want to believe it or not, religion is at the core of our world. No matter where you go or what religion you believe, it effects how we act, what we eat, wear, say, live! Whether that is good or bad, that is up to you to decide. The major flaw religion plays in our world is its ability to find itself in our government. Separation of church and state is one of the most important concepts we could have, yet it tends to be one of the more difficult ones to follow. Religion gives us something to believe in. Something bigger than ourselves. Despite which religion if any you deem correct, everyone needs something to believe in.

I would disagree with your last statement: some people are find without believing in any religion their whole lives.

And how. Religion is not necessary for a fulfilling life. Religious belief isn't even necessary absent a discernible religion.

[Baloo Kingdom]

Woah, this thread when on a lot longer than I anticipated it would, guess thats Sang's work

I think I actually changed my opinion through it, to be honest.

The power of debate is both surprising and immense

[Sanghyeok]

I think I actually changed my opinion through it, to be honest.

The power of debate is both surprising and immense

Indeed, especially when you keep an open mind. Personally, I find myself not holding views of religion too stubbornly, unlike other areas.