What has religion done for humanity?

[Resilient Acceleration]

“Look at the atheist who shot up Muslims in Chapel Hill.

Atheism is bad and kills.”

What about Mehmed-i-Feth (May God be pleased with him), HHDI. Was religion bad then?

The 15th century and the 21st century are not the same. When your health deteriorates, is it a science or a religious book that saves you.

Then again, if we're talking strictly about observable impacts, all complex ideologies—nationalism, communism, New Left, today's modern liberalism vs Trumpist conservativism (populism?), all of them are basically exactly the same as religion. America's political polarization for example is practically exactly the same as a religious conflict, which has been very common and mainstream throughout human history.

[Kilobugya]

I fully agree with this. But my point is it isn’t the religion’s fault.

I'm more mitigated about that. There are many religious people I've a lot of respect for, and you're right that some atheists can be fanatical too (ie, Stalinism). But I do think that the religious way of thinking, that makes you accept things "through faith" without sufficient proof, that makes you accept that a given book contains the truth just because it says it does, is harmful and leads more easily to fanaticism.

[Resilient Acceleration]

how do U know.

Because I'm a good boy. Good boys don't lie.

Disagreed. Good boys lie strategically in the interest of the proletariat's unstoppable advance towards global communism.

[Cereskia]

I always thought that it's the main culprit behind wars, such as Afghanistan, Israel and Palestine. I thought they only tear shit up between countries, am i right?

[Insaanistan]

“Look at the atheist who shot up Muslims in Chapel Hill.

Atheism is bad and kills.”

What about Mehmed-i-Feth (May God be pleased with him), HHDI. Was religion bad then?

The 15th century and the 21st century are not the same. When your health deteriorates, is it a science or a religious book that saves you.

“Why not both?” said everyone in the Islamic Golden Age.

[Cekovia]

I always thought that it's the main culprit behind wars, such as Afghanistan, Israel and Palestine. I thought they only tear shit up between countries, am i right?

no . you Arent . because religion also fosters unity between differing Peoples. an ethiopian orthodox christian and i, an american episcopalian, have completely and totally different cultures, and yet we both already understand a part of each other because we both believe in the divinity of our Savior.

[Hakinda Herseyi Duymak istiyorum]

I mean, Mehmet is a controversial case if you looked at it from Western viewpoints, but well.....

Though to be fair, ideologies/ideals, whether they are religious or secular in nature can be used as justifications to oppress the others.


I'm not going to say that this early , but hopefully it can be......as productive as it can be, like the other controversial thread.

Yeah, but I know HHDI reveres Sultan Mehmet as a great figure.

Yes, a commander we take as an example. but I wonder how religious radicals dared to take the name Fatih Sultan Mehmet into their mouths. Radical believers should take people like Vahdettin as an example, because he is a person who suits radical religious people very well. Radically religious people think only of themselves. The sovereignty of Muslims and those who want to live their other beliefs freely is under the guarantee of secularism.

[Resilient Acceleration]

I always thought that it's the main culprit behind wars, such as Afghanistan, Israel and Palestine. I thought they only tear shit up between countries, am i right?

In Afghanistan's case, people tend to overlook the role of Pakistan. Pakistan's large (and unstable) Pashtun areas are historically and culturally linked far more to Afghanistan, and a strong Afghanistan is a potential geopolitical disaster for Pakistan—thus a vested interest to keep them as a failed state. If you think the CIA is terrifying, wait until you read about ISI's machinations and how they anime outsmart the US to act in their interests. Taliban was originally trained directly by Pakistan, among other things. Of course, the thing about terrorists is that they don't actually care about 'geopolitical interests', and they have often become Pakistan's detriment, not to mention the international isolation Pakistan received as a karma to her actions.

[Cereskia]

I always thought that it's the main culprit behind wars, such as Afghanistan, Israel and Palestine. I thought they only tear shit up between countries, am i right?

In Afghanistan's case, people tend to overlook the role of Pakistan. Pakistan's large (and unstable) Pashtun areas are historically and culturally linked far more to Afghanistan, and a strong Afghanistan is a potential geopolitical disaster for Pakistan—thus a vested interest to keep them as a failed state. If you think the CIA is terrifying, wait until you read about ISI's machinations and hoe they anime outsmart the US to act in their interests. Taliban was originally trained directly by Pakistan, among other things. Of course, the thing about terrorists is that they don't actually care about 'geopolitical interests', and they have often become Pakistan's detriment, not to mention the international isolation Pakistan received as a karma to her actions.

What about Pakistan, Bangladesh and India?

[Aguaria Major]

It has done some good and as an atheist I will admit that. It has been one of the biggest vectors for morality over the years of the past.

But millennia of jihads, holy wars, Crusades, religious terrorism, the history of the Catholic Church in general (I say this as someone raised Catholic), insertion into politics and the subsequent genocides and persecutions based on faith which continue to this day, all outweigh the good thanks to the sheer number of deaths these phenomena have resulted in;

Religion as a whole has probably killed more than most of history's deadliest diseases.

Plus, as of right now thanks to the wide availability of information, religion is becoming less and less necessary for the foundation of moral and ethical values, which make any positive value it did have obsolete.

So, to recap: its negative values which already outweighed its positives are still going strong while its positive values are now worthless.

We are much better off without religion.

To be fair, the Catholic Church is the only meritocratic (as opposed to purely dynastical) large institution that exist in Europe in their heydays. If you have a big brain, there isn't really a better career option than the church. A big and unignoreable chunk of scientific and humanistic developments and universities that house them are sponsored by the church's influence and money. The same also goes for many religious institutions, such as during the Islamic golden age. Obviously, dogmatism (which is always bad, no matter the belief or ideology—think Lysenkoism) came in and also hinder innovation, seen most clearly following the end of the Islamic golden age with books of scientific scholars being burned by fundamentalists and whatnot.

I'm not denying that history. I'm merely focusing on all the Game of Thrones-esque political manipulation the Catholic Church engaged in so that it could act as the de-facto ruler of Europe and make everybody pay ridiculous tributes for it to hoard in the Vatican. It was an extremely corrupt organization that didn't follow its own teachings 90% of the time, and given the instability it wrought, had its hand in both sides of every major European conflict for over a millenium. Personally, I think all that outweighs the contributions to scholarly achievement it is responsible for.

[Insaanistan]

Yeah, but I know HHDI reveres Sultan Mehmet as a great figure.

Yes, a commander we take as an example. but I wonder how religious radicals dared to take the name Fatih Sultan Mehmet into their mouths. Radical believers should take people like Vahdettin as an example, because he is a person who suits radical religious people very well. Radically religious people think only of themselves. The sovereignty of Muslims and those who want to live their other beliefs freely is under the guarantee of secularism.

What did the dividing up of Anatolia have to do with “Islamic” extremism?

[Kilobugya]

“Why not both?” said everyone in the Islamic Golden Age.

And during the Islamic Golden Age, that was a valid way of thinking.

In the modern world, when we understand the inner working of the universe (a set of immutable, universal, simple mathematical laws that apply blindly since the "big bang"), of biology, evolution, neurology, geology, ... that way of thinking appears quite contradictory to me.

And more importantly, we know have a strong foundation for epistemology. A robust method for progressively improving our understanding of reality, with very strong theoretical basis (such as Bayesian induction) and social processes. Religion encourages a way of thinking (believing things without sufficient proof, accepting a book to contain truth and never questioning it) that's not compatible with it.

That doesn't mean people can't do good science even if they believe in a religion - people tend to be quite good at compartmentalizing their thinking process. But it's not perfect isolation. And there are whole field of inquiries which are blind spots for religious people. Overall I think the religious mindset is holding humanity back in the modern age.

[Cereskia]

So are terrorists just overzealous people?

[Hakinda Herseyi Duymak istiyorum]

The 15th century and the 21st century are not the same. When your health deteriorates, is it a science or a religious book that saves you.

(Image)

“Why not both?” said everyone in the Islamic Golden Age.

Science has always been superior to the Quran and the Bible. Accept this, we are the rulers of this world. we give you your freedom to believe. religion is only the cigarette of humanity and anyone can smoke as long as they do not interfere with my life and my rules.

[Genivaria]

The 15th century and the 21st century are not the same. When your health deteriorates, is it a science or a religious book that saves you.

“Why not both?” said everyone in the Islamic Golden Age.

I mean, did they obtain their knowledge and invention from holy books or the application of science?

[Insaanistan]

In Afghanistan's case, people tend to overlook the role of Pakistan. Pakistan's large (and unstable) Pashtun areas are historically and culturally linked far more to Afghanistan, and a strong Afghanistan is a potential geopolitical disaster for Pakistan—thus a vested interest to keep them as a failed state. If you think the CIA is terrifying, wait until you read about ISI's machinations and hoe they anime outsmart the US to act in their interests. Taliban was originally trained directly by Pakistan, among other things. Of course, the thing about terrorists is that they don't actually care about 'geopolitical interests', and they have often become Pakistan's detriment, not to mention the international isolation Pakistan received as a karma to her actions.

What about Pakistan, Bangladesh and India?

Pakistan was created because many Indian Muslims felt they’d be over looked in a Hindu majority India. It’s founder Muhammad Ali Jinnah (also called “Qaid-e-Azam”) himself opposed discrimination against minority faiths in Pakistan, as he believed an Islamic Republic didn’t mean a republic that only cared about Muslims. That doesn’t mean religion persecution doesn’t happen in Pakistan: it does. Not just against Hindus, Sikhs, and Christians but against Shiā and Ahmadi Muslims. However, ethnic bigotry often plays a larger role. Balochis against Punjabis, Punjabis against Pashtuns, Pashtuns against Sindhis, Sindhis against Kashmiris, Kashmiris against Siddis and it goes on and on and on.

[Resilient Acceleration]

In Afghanistan's case, people tend to overlook the role of Pakistan. Pakistan's large (and unstable) Pashtun areas are historically and culturally linked far more to Afghanistan, and a strong Afghanistan is a potential geopolitical disaster for Pakistan—thus a vested interest to keep them as a failed state. If you think the CIA is terrifying, wait until you read about ISI's machinations and hoe they anime outsmart the US to act in their interests. Taliban was originally trained directly by Pakistan, among other things. Of course, the thing about terrorists is that they don't actually care about 'geopolitical interests', and they have often become Pakistan's detriment, not to mention the international isolation Pakistan received as a karma to her actions.

What about Pakistan, Bangladesh and India?

The Kashmir has always been portrayed as a religious question, but then China invaded the area in 1962 and kinda reveal the reason why everyone is so fixated at the place. Northern India is a vulnerable open plain and military threat that opens directly to India's population centers, while Kashmir and its surroundings areas are the source of Pakistan's main water source, the Indus river. Amid climate change and desertification, a rapid reduction of the river's water supply can arguably be country-ending.

Of course, religion undoubtedly play an integral part that cannot be dismissed, the entire Indian partition being a thing. But so does its mixture with geopolitics, and also nationalism, as worst seen during the horrific 1971 Bangladeshi genocide committed by Pakistan.

[Salus Maior]

A lot more than can be said in a pithy NSG post.

[Insaanistan]

“Why not both?” said everyone in the Islamic Golden Age.

I mean, did they obtain their knowledge and invention from holy books or the application of science?

Sometimes both.

[Aguaria Major]

Truth is justified unto itself. Religion is not true and that is all that matters.

how do U know.

If I may field that answer: because there is currently absolutely no scientific evidence which backs up the existence of a supreme being. Of course, the universe is a vast place and I can't say with absolute certainty that one doesn't exist, but here's the thing: science is not a mere body of knowledge. The knowledge it generates is a mere product of the process of science itself.

That process, to avoid jumping to false conclusions, always requires that its community of practitioners be skeptical of new claims made about the nature of the universe until one can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt using the logical conclusions of the scientific method that their claim is valid.

And right now, no such evidence to back up the claim of a supreme being exists. So if one is to be truly scientific in their analysis of the question of a supreme being, they must be skeptical based on the current evidence. Anything else would be, by its very nature given that science is based upon logic, illogical.

Morality is a completely different story and is certainly extremely important to human existence, so I'm not making an argument against the moral aspects of religion. But morality is borne out of humans' evolutionary nature as a pack species. We have a need, as a species, for codes on how to treat other members of it because we are stronger toegether.

That being said, we don't need to believe in a magical omnipotent being to be moral, and the idea that we somehow do, otherwise humans won't behave, is very condescending.

[Cekovia]

no . you Arent . because religion also fosters unity between differing Peoples. an ethiopian orthodox christian and i, an american episcopalian, have completely and totally different cultures, and yet we both already understand a part of each other because we both believe in the divinity of our Savior.

I believe in the health and gratification of eating a bit of meat. I share that with even more people than you share a Savior with.

World peace ... but wait. Some religions are fussy about what kind of meat. Some have rules about how it should be prepared. OK, chicken then. Practically everyone like a bit of chicken ... and there still ain't no world peace.

what even is your point LOL im not arguing the existence of religious beliefs brings about world peace (because it transparently hasnt)

[Cekovia]

how do U know.

If I may field that answer: because there is currently absolutely no scientific evidence which backs up the existence of a supreme being. Of course, the universe is a vast place and I can't say with absolute certainty that one doesn't exist, but here's the thing: science is not a mere body of knowledge. The knowledge it generates is a mere product of the process of science itself.

That process, to avoid jumping to false conclusions, always requires that its community of practitioners be skeptical of new claims made about the nature of the universe until one can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt using the logical conclusions of the scientific method that their claim is valid.

And right now, no such evidence to back up the claim of a supreme being exists. So if one is to be truly scientific in their analysis of the question of a supreme being, they must be skeptical based on the current evidence. Anything else would be, by its very nature given that science is based upon logic, illogical.

first of all, he confidently asserted that religion is not true, not just that it's impossible to reject the null hypothesis of it not being true, which are subtly different in tone but EXTREMELY different in meaning. second of all, and probably more importantly, virtually ALL scientists of any field agree that the paranormal is outside the purview of science. i'm sorry, but the argument you're making is so transparently wrong in so many ways that it would have you laughed out of a room of any but the most dogmatically atheist scientists (and that's genuine scientists, not the armchair internet logicians that this forum so attracts).

[Aguaria Major]

I always thought that it's the main culprit behind wars, such as Afghanistan, Israel and Palestine. I thought they only tear shit up between countries, am i right?

no . you Arent . because religion also fosters unity between differing Peoples. an ethiopian orthodox christian and i, an american episcopalian, have completely and totally different cultures, and yet we both already understand a part of each other because we both believe in the divinity of our Savior.

You are both right, actually.

But there are other ways to understand people from other cultures. Why do you require belief in a supreme being to be able to understand another being which shares 99.9% of your DNA and operates based on the same pyschological principles? You don't really need to talk that long with someone from a distant land to realize that regardless of where you come from, you find joy and annoyance in similar things;

I am an atheist, yet one of my best friends is a Jain from Bangalore (we met in college thanks to India's reciprocity with my university), and religion hardly ever comes up between us. It certainly didn't the first day I met him. We bonded over our mutual love of billiards and the fact there was a pool table in the basement of our building. I didn't even know what religion he was until 2 years after I met him.

[Cekovia]

no . you Arent . because religion also fosters unity between differing Peoples. an ethiopian orthodox christian and i, an american episcopalian, have completely and totally different cultures, and yet we both already understand a part of each other because we both believe in the divinity of our Savior.

You are both right, actually.

But there are other ways to understand people from other cultures. Why do you require belief in a supreme being to be able to understand another being which shares 99.9% of your DNA and operates based on the same pyschological principles? You don't really need to talk that long with someone from a distant land to realize that regardless of where you come from, you find joy and annoyance in similar things;

I am an atheist, yet one of my best friends is a Jain from Bangalore (we met in college thanks to India's reciprocity with my university), and religion hardly ever comes up between us. It certainly didn't the first day I met him. We bonded over our mutual love of billiards and the fact there was a pool table in the basement of our building. I didn't even know what religion he was until 2 years after I met him.

of course religion is not the sole avenue towards cultural unity between differing peoples, but it certainly is an important one.

[Resilient Acceleration]

If I may field that answer: because there is currently absolutely no scientific evidence which backs up the existence of a supreme being. Of course, the universe is a vast place and I can't say with absolute certainty that one doesn't exist, but here's the thing: science is not a mere body of knowledge. The knowledge it generates is a mere product of the process of science itself.

That process, to avoid jumping to false conclusions, always requires that its community of practitioners be skeptical of new claims made about the nature of the universe until one can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt using the logical conclusions of the scientific method that their claim is valid.

And right now, no such evidence to back up the claim of a supreme being exists. So if one is to be truly scientific in their analysis of the question of a supreme being, they must be skeptical based on the current evidence. Anything else would be, by its very nature given that science is based upon logic, illogical.

first of all, he confidently asserted that religion is not true, not just that it's impossible to reject the null hypothesis of it not being true, which are subtly different in tone but EXTREMELY different in meaning. second of all, and probably more importantly, virtually ALL scientists of any field agree that the paranormal is outside the purview of science. i'm sorry, but the argument you're making is so transparently wrong in so many ways that it would have you laughed out of a room of any but the most dogmatically atheist scientists (and that's genuine scientists, not the armchair internet logicians that this forum so attracts).

To provide some data (admittedly it's pretty old):

We found little change from 1914 for American scientists generally, with 60.7% expressing disbelief or doubt. This year, we closely imitated the second phase of Leuba's 1914 survey to gauge belief among “greater” scientists, and find the rate of belief lower than ever — a mere 7% of respondents.

...Our chosen group of “greater” scientists were members of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS). Our survey found near universal rejection of the transcendent by NAS natural scientists. Disbelief in God and immortality among NAS biological scientists was 65.2% and 69.0%, respectively, and among NAS physical scientists it was 79.0% and 76.3%. Most of the rest were agnostics on both issues, with few believers. We found the highest percentage of belief among NAS mathematicians (14.3% in God, 15.0% in immortality). Biological scientists had the lowest rate of belief (5.5% in God, 7.1% in immortality), with physicists and astronomers slightly higher (7.5% in God, 7.5% in immortality.

https://www.nature.com/articles/28478