A Bit Of A Bonus? F.a.o. Sandy And...
News0 min ago
Religion, has it been a benefit?
158 Answers
Has religion been an overall to benefit to mankind or would we have been better off without it.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Father-Ted. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
sith // there are also many other people who kill each other who are of the same religion //
Nominally the same religion but they are not entirely the same are they? The Sunis and the Shi'ites hate each other. Catholics and Protestants have fought for centuries.
Those who worship the God of Greed have as many factions as their are adherents.
Any who adopt a philosophy without both intellect and conscience are vulnerable to despotism. The religious lack intellect and the self servers have no conscience. The leaders of religion fail on both counts.
Nominally the same religion but they are not entirely the same are they? The Sunis and the Shi'ites hate each other. Catholics and Protestants have fought for centuries.
Those who worship the God of Greed have as many factions as their are adherents.
Any who adopt a philosophy without both intellect and conscience are vulnerable to despotism. The religious lack intellect and the self servers have no conscience. The leaders of religion fail on both counts.
sith //But there are also many other people who kill each other who are of the same religion. You cannot just blame it all down on religion. //
Certainly not all of it but religon has long been a prominent justification for murder.
Pointing at the fascist behaviour of others does not absolve religion of responsibilty for the effects of its miserable primitive tenets.
Certainly not all of it but religon has long been a prominent justification for murder.
Pointing at the fascist behaviour of others does not absolve religion of responsibilty for the effects of its miserable primitive tenets.
jomifl, i am not declaring that //muslims are the kindest most caring of believers//. Many are not. What i am saying is that what these so called muslims follow is there own twisted version of the quran so it can fit their views. They misinterpret it. If you follow the quran properly than you will have a good life. Simple as. You may not believe it ( i doubt you do) but i am not here to change your beliefs. I am here to express my point which i have done.
So most governments or religion have generally set out with good intent. They have tried to serve for the benefit of the people. They have written constitutions containing fine ideals and principles. And yet, whatever their measure of success, governments everywhere today recognize that the human race is far from enjoying a world of security and peace. Why? God’s Word, the Bible, gives the answer and, far better, it gives the promise that the joyful living conditions of a united world are certain to come, by means of God’s own kingdom, his government for all mankind.
And false religion divides. It has caused, and is still causing, hatred and bloodshed. On the contrary, true religion unites. Jesus stated: “By this all will know that you are my disciples, if you have love among yourselves.” (John 13:35) The love that unites Jehovah’s Witnesses transcends the national, social, economic, and racial boundaries that divide the rest of mankind.
And false religion divides. It has caused, and is still causing, hatred and bloodshed. On the contrary, true religion unites. Jesus stated: “By this all will know that you are my disciples, if you have love among yourselves.” (John 13:35) The love that unites Jehovah’s Witnesses transcends the national, social, economic, and racial boundaries that divide the rest of mankind.
Good try goodlife, keep believing what you wish if it makes you a good and happy person!
Unfortunately your debating point, for atheists like me fails to convince. Quoting your christian bible is really one-line selection from a compendium of at least 2 books - the "old" and "new" testaments, which contradict each other. Although Jesus existed as a historical person the evidence is more in favour of an Essene anti-roman rabble-rouser than one with a "hot-line" to the "creator". Indeed Paul of Tarsus, (St Paul) a roman citizen, can be interpreted as the real "good Jesus" myth-maker, while Jesus' brother John and co., were violently anti-roman and were killed at Massada by the romans. Why from imaginary "gods" in all continents over the millenla should the christian one be apart? Your bible is only a collection of myths travelling down thro' greco/roman translations and probably transmutations to Europeans and their colonies.
In a religious debate, I think you shot yourself in the foot by quoting the aim of all govt's to do good - the aim of most is to gain power and wealth over the people - for themselves, their progeny and their clique of friends - not to act as the peoples' servants.
I believe similar applies to the all-powerful religions which are corporate businesses.
That said, I am not an atheist-evangelist and wish you well in your beliefs.
Unfortunately your debating point, for atheists like me fails to convince. Quoting your christian bible is really one-line selection from a compendium of at least 2 books - the "old" and "new" testaments, which contradict each other. Although Jesus existed as a historical person the evidence is more in favour of an Essene anti-roman rabble-rouser than one with a "hot-line" to the "creator". Indeed Paul of Tarsus, (St Paul) a roman citizen, can be interpreted as the real "good Jesus" myth-maker, while Jesus' brother John and co., were violently anti-roman and were killed at Massada by the romans. Why from imaginary "gods" in all continents over the millenla should the christian one be apart? Your bible is only a collection of myths travelling down thro' greco/roman translations and probably transmutations to Europeans and their colonies.
In a religious debate, I think you shot yourself in the foot by quoting the aim of all govt's to do good - the aim of most is to gain power and wealth over the people - for themselves, their progeny and their clique of friends - not to act as the peoples' servants.
I believe similar applies to the all-powerful religions which are corporate businesses.
That said, I am not an atheist-evangelist and wish you well in your beliefs.
goodlife //So most governments or religion have generally set out with good intent. ... God’s Word, the Bible, gives the answer and, far better, it gives the promise that the joyful living conditions of a united world are certain to come, by means of God’s own kingdom, his government for all mankind.
Both governements and religion make promises. Governements are notorious for making promises they don't keep. But let's take a look at the scorecard.
Religion promises a world without hunger and disease. What has it delivered of this promise? Absolutely nothing whatsoever.
Where have the advances in disease prevention, control and mangement come from? Science. How was the productivity of our farms increased many times over what nature could provide? Science.
Even governments have actually delivered on many of the things they promised. The progress towards world peace continues to be driven by governments.
Where is the contribution to world peace from religion? There isn't any. Abrahamic religions promise a world peace built upon their god's greatest slaughter where all those who do not accept the dogma of the church are massacred. This philosophy is exactly the same as the peace offered by Hitler who believed that by killing all the Jews, gypsies, homosexuals and anyone else who failed to conform to his vision of utopia, there would no longer be any conflict.
Abrahamic religions are firmly rooted in fascist idology and like all forms of fascism, they have nothing to offer us while science and man's governments continue to make progress toward the outcomes religion promises yet is completely unequiped to provide.
Both governements and religion make promises. Governements are notorious for making promises they don't keep. But let's take a look at the scorecard.
Religion promises a world without hunger and disease. What has it delivered of this promise? Absolutely nothing whatsoever.
Where have the advances in disease prevention, control and mangement come from? Science. How was the productivity of our farms increased many times over what nature could provide? Science.
Even governments have actually delivered on many of the things they promised. The progress towards world peace continues to be driven by governments.
Where is the contribution to world peace from religion? There isn't any. Abrahamic religions promise a world peace built upon their god's greatest slaughter where all those who do not accept the dogma of the church are massacred. This philosophy is exactly the same as the peace offered by Hitler who believed that by killing all the Jews, gypsies, homosexuals and anyone else who failed to conform to his vision of utopia, there would no longer be any conflict.
Abrahamic religions are firmly rooted in fascist idology and like all forms of fascism, they have nothing to offer us while science and man's governments continue to make progress toward the outcomes religion promises yet is completely unequiped to provide.
anyone citing incidents of personal kindnesses bestowed on them in the name of religion is actually adding to the argument against - that those people only did what they did beause their religion tells them too - i would far rather people did kind things because they wanted to of their own accord - not because they were ordered to, or for fear of going to hell etc...
i was told to do maths by teachers - and i had to do it - but i am not a mathmatician
i was told to do PE by teachers - and i had to do it - but i am not an athlete
i was told to do lots of things by lots of people - but i only did them because i had to - NOT because i wanted to
doing good things because you are told to does not make you a good person
the fact that you need to be told would imply you are the opposite
atheists do good things too.
mark - i am sure we would have a wealth of excellent arts with no religious input - same as we do now.
it is the artist that creates - not the subject... and you can get inspiration for a work from any source.
i was told to do maths by teachers - and i had to do it - but i am not a mathmatician
i was told to do PE by teachers - and i had to do it - but i am not an athlete
i was told to do lots of things by lots of people - but i only did them because i had to - NOT because i wanted to
doing good things because you are told to does not make you a good person
the fact that you need to be told would imply you are the opposite
atheists do good things too.
mark - i am sure we would have a wealth of excellent arts with no religious input - same as we do now.
it is the artist that creates - not the subject... and you can get inspiration for a work from any source.
sith- because 'but for religion' the wars would not happen - they happen in the NAME of religion.
creating a beautiful piece of art is not dpendant on religion - religion is merely a subject matter - just as a landscape or portrait, is or drawing a car or boat etc.
it also is not causing any harm to anyone or anything - nor is it against our sense of right and wrong as war should be.
war is abhorrent - art is not - trying to link the two is ridiculous and desperate.
if religion had never existed ever we would still have lots of talented artists and masterpieces - just without pictures of jesus and god etc.
i am an artist myself and see beauty and art in many places - none of my work is inspired by religion
i would also add that many of the masterpieces were commisioned as opposed to simply painted/created for love - i would paint a picture of a dog turd on toast if someone said they would pay me to do it... but it means nothing to me obviously....
creating a beautiful piece of art is not dpendant on religion - religion is merely a subject matter - just as a landscape or portrait, is or drawing a car or boat etc.
it also is not causing any harm to anyone or anything - nor is it against our sense of right and wrong as war should be.
war is abhorrent - art is not - trying to link the two is ridiculous and desperate.
if religion had never existed ever we would still have lots of talented artists and masterpieces - just without pictures of jesus and god etc.
i am an artist myself and see beauty and art in many places - none of my work is inspired by religion
i would also add that many of the masterpieces were commisioned as opposed to simply painted/created for love - i would paint a picture of a dog turd on toast if someone said they would pay me to do it... but it means nothing to me obviously....
sith //so how come when it is to do with war or killing its suddenly "religion supports it"? //
Bseo//Because religion explicitly justifies war in the name of the faith.//
yes as self defence. That is pretty reasonable i think.
Jom, someone said that religion inspires art work, design and all that etc, however they say that has nothing to do with religion when war does. That is a pretty one sided view. They both have something to do with religion. Islam supports education and art, hence why for a long period of time from around the 750s-1257 islam was one of the leading in art, design, science,exploration and all this. Only during the crusades did this get in decline which the muslims did not start.
http://
Bseo//Because religion explicitly justifies war in the name of the faith.//
yes as self defence. That is pretty reasonable i think.
Jom, someone said that religion inspires art work, design and all that etc, however they say that has nothing to do with religion when war does. That is a pretty one sided view. They both have something to do with religion. Islam supports education and art, hence why for a long period of time from around the 750s-1257 islam was one of the leading in art, design, science,exploration and all this. Only during the crusades did this get in decline which the muslims did not start.
http://
Beso//Because religion explicitly justifies war in the name of the faith.//
sith //yes as self defence. That is pretty reasonable i think. //
The devil is in the detail though. Many defend Islam against perceived threats that are no more than criticism.
Do tell sith, does the legitimate defence of Islam include taking violent action when someone burns the Koran or makes a caricature of Mohammed? What do you think should happen in these circumsrances.
Does the Koran not say that someone who leaves the faith should be killed?
sith //yes as self defence. That is pretty reasonable i think. //
The devil is in the detail though. Many defend Islam against perceived threats that are no more than criticism.
Do tell sith, does the legitimate defence of Islam include taking violent action when someone burns the Koran or makes a caricature of Mohammed? What do you think should happen in these circumsrances.
Does the Koran not say that someone who leaves the faith should be killed?
//Religion, Has It Been A Benefit?//
There is perhaps one benefit religion has offered at such times where dissent has not been successfully quashed, by provoking rational thought in those who remain capable and recognise the importance of dispelling and revealing the consequences of elevating myth to the status of truth. Whether such benefits are justified by the cost in human suffering inflicted by those who possess no such capability or choose not to exercise it is at the very least . . . debatable.
There is perhaps one benefit religion has offered at such times where dissent has not been successfully quashed, by provoking rational thought in those who remain capable and recognise the importance of dispelling and revealing the consequences of elevating myth to the status of truth. Whether such benefits are justified by the cost in human suffering inflicted by those who possess no such capability or choose not to exercise it is at the very least . . . debatable.
I notice no religionists or agnostics or others has answered my question (see above) as to why religious ikons or other pictorial images of Jesus, including stained glass portray him as a white european. He, like all the, then arabic, people, was coloured and, being part of a jewish tribe he would have had the genetically determined charactererised prominent nose shape.
Is this misrepresentation another of the religionist's attempt to woo or keep hold of potential or current "believers" i.e. con-trick them. Alternatively was any true interpretation of the image only acceptable to the churches or their believer sponsors? In other words why can we not see an unaesthetic face of jesus? It's a bit like TV where ugly people are only shown in their modern freak shows!
Is this misrepresentation another of the religionist's attempt to woo or keep hold of potential or current "believers" i.e. con-trick them. Alternatively was any true interpretation of the image only acceptable to the churches or their believer sponsors? In other words why can we not see an unaesthetic face of jesus? It's a bit like TV where ugly people are only shown in their modern freak shows!
