Body & Soul2 mins ago
Religion Causes No Harm
199 Answers
In discussions on R&S both here and elsewhere one often hears questions like
Why are you bothered?
Why don't you just let people believe what they want?
What harm does religion do?
This is one example of the harm religion can do.
http://
and it's one of the reasons atheists never shut up about religion.
Why are you bothered?
Why don't you just let people believe what they want?
What harm does religion do?
This is one example of the harm religion can do.
http://
and it's one of the reasons atheists never shut up about religion.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by chrisgel. 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.
Well, here's one who was just 11 years old.
http://
http://
LG; Wow!! I can't address all that outpouring without repetition, but I'll just take;
"Religion cannot be all that bad, goes the apologists refrain - look at all those bodies piled high on the alter of atheism! Which is both absurd, and frankly a pretty offensive one too." Well.. what is offensive about that? It is absolutely true, witness Tibet.
You appear to get high on the heady fuel of iconoclasm, but I think you should consider whether that which you wish to pull down is as wholly valueless as you pretend it is, and whether you have anything as remotely good to replace it with.
Religion, whether you believe it to be literally true or not, has provided and still provides people with a place to ask the questions humanity needs to ask, eg. Gauguin's inscription on one of his paintings "Where do we come from? What are we? Where are we going?" to which can be added; how should we live? and how can we be good? Atheists argue that these questions can be equally answered by reading poetry or studying philosophy, well perhaps, but how many people who would have once congregated in a place of worship now gather on philosophy courses, and why are not poetry books selling in record numbers?
Before you tear down the edifice of religion you should ponder the words of Arthur Schopenhauer; "Truth may be likened to water, it needs a vessel to carry it."
"Religion cannot be all that bad, goes the apologists refrain - look at all those bodies piled high on the alter of atheism! Which is both absurd, and frankly a pretty offensive one too." Well.. what is offensive about that? It is absolutely true, witness Tibet.
You appear to get high on the heady fuel of iconoclasm, but I think you should consider whether that which you wish to pull down is as wholly valueless as you pretend it is, and whether you have anything as remotely good to replace it with.
Religion, whether you believe it to be literally true or not, has provided and still provides people with a place to ask the questions humanity needs to ask, eg. Gauguin's inscription on one of his paintings "Where do we come from? What are we? Where are we going?" to which can be added; how should we live? and how can we be good? Atheists argue that these questions can be equally answered by reading poetry or studying philosophy, well perhaps, but how many people who would have once congregated in a place of worship now gather on philosophy courses, and why are not poetry books selling in record numbers?
Before you tear down the edifice of religion you should ponder the words of Arthur Schopenhauer; "Truth may be likened to water, it needs a vessel to carry it."
Khandro, //Religion, whether you believe it to be literally true or not, has provided and still provides people with a place to ask the questions humanity needs to ask ....."Truth may be likened to water, it needs a vessel to carry it."//
The ultimate contradiction. You can ask the questions - but religion doesn't provide truthful answers. If it did, all religions would carry with them the same doctrine - and that doctrine would be indisputable. Truth is not what you want it to be. Truth is truth.
The ultimate contradiction. You can ask the questions - but religion doesn't provide truthful answers. If it did, all religions would carry with them the same doctrine - and that doctrine would be indisputable. Truth is not what you want it to be. Truth is truth.
Well Paul said: Faith is not a possession of all people. (2 Thessalonians 3:2) The same can be said of the truth. Even when confronted with truth based on the Bible, many people deliberately ignore it.
And yet, Jesus said: You will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.—John 8:32.
Something you will never experience.
And yet, Jesus said: You will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.—John 8:32.
Something you will never experience.
Depends on what you mean by "truth", really. In Stephen Hawking's view, the truth of Science, for example, is that we will only ever have models of reality that gradually become better and better, but never complete. To insist that there is only one "truth" is, perhaps, inaccurate in this way of thinking.
At any rate it's a matter of philosophy, rather than necessary fact, that either there is only one overall truth -- or at least, that we will ever know what that whole truth is. People who say otherwise are usually religious.
At any rate it's a matter of philosophy, rather than necessary fact, that either there is only one overall truth -- or at least, that we will ever know what that whole truth is. People who say otherwise are usually religious.
@ Khandro We neither need nor require religion to explain the ineffable or the currently unknown; natural curiosity, harnessed into an rational search for the explanations is all that is needed.
Defending religion on these grounds comes at far too high a cost for us to want to keep such superstition.
@Octavius. You are the one that says the quote does not hold; Down to you to define "evil" it seems to me and explain exactly why it does not, with examples - otherwise it seems a pretty obvious rhetorical cop-out to me.
I lose track of how often this has to be said. When considering the harms that religion brings, as the OP talks about, it is perfectly fair and legitimate to highlight the mass slaughter, the ethnic cleansing and all the other unpleasantness that religion brings, throughout the ages. It is no good you apologists trying to claim otherwise.
To then try, as you all do, to attempt to mitigate the offence - to say, in effect " Oh look, religion is not so bad - just look at all the slaughter that has gone on in the name of secularism, or more hilariously, atheism" - As if by adding up the totals that makes religion less bad. That's not a reasonable debating point, that's a joke; Religion cannot be that bad cos we only killed a couple of thousand more or less than secularists? What kind of message of hope is that?
The point still stands; Religion has been the cause of incalculable human misery - a social blight for thousands of years, and the legacy lives on even today. Pastors like those mentioned in the OP. Parents like the ones I highlighted, allowing their children to die from medically preventable disease. Patriarchal Misogyny. Violent threats and reprisals to threats, perceived or real, against their faith. Restrictive cultural practices, enshrined by virtue of a stone age holy book. The list is endless.
Fortunately for all of us, religion seems in a gradual decline. Its just a pity the decline is not quicker.
Defending religion on these grounds comes at far too high a cost for us to want to keep such superstition.
@Octavius. You are the one that says the quote does not hold; Down to you to define "evil" it seems to me and explain exactly why it does not, with examples - otherwise it seems a pretty obvious rhetorical cop-out to me.
I lose track of how often this has to be said. When considering the harms that religion brings, as the OP talks about, it is perfectly fair and legitimate to highlight the mass slaughter, the ethnic cleansing and all the other unpleasantness that religion brings, throughout the ages. It is no good you apologists trying to claim otherwise.
To then try, as you all do, to attempt to mitigate the offence - to say, in effect " Oh look, religion is not so bad - just look at all the slaughter that has gone on in the name of secularism, or more hilariously, atheism" - As if by adding up the totals that makes religion less bad. That's not a reasonable debating point, that's a joke; Religion cannot be that bad cos we only killed a couple of thousand more or less than secularists? What kind of message of hope is that?
The point still stands; Religion has been the cause of incalculable human misery - a social blight for thousands of years, and the legacy lives on even today. Pastors like those mentioned in the OP. Parents like the ones I highlighted, allowing their children to die from medically preventable disease. Patriarchal Misogyny. Violent threats and reprisals to threats, perceived or real, against their faith. Restrictive cultural practices, enshrined by virtue of a stone age holy book. The list is endless.
Fortunately for all of us, religion seems in a gradual decline. Its just a pity the decline is not quicker.
Sorry LG, but you’ve just gone to extensive lengths to repeat what has already been said. Yes an enormous amount of atrocities are inflicted on the world in the name of religion. And some are just borne out of mans greed and hunger for power. So where now? Just perpetuating this nonsense quote that makes all the atheists of the world feel better under a banner of ‘not in my name’? That seems a a pretty obvious rhetorical cop-out to me.
jomifl - are you a puppet?
LG, for good people to do bad things takes all sorts of things as I have said, hence why the quote is meaningless. You still haven't defined your notion of evil in context to the quote that you introduced, if evil is bad and thus the opposite to good, then that does not require religion in order to manifest.
Its a bit like saying 'for good people to do nothing, that takes atheism', which is equally nonsense I think you would agree.
LG, for good people to do bad things takes all sorts of things as I have said, hence why the quote is meaningless. You still haven't defined your notion of evil in context to the quote that you introduced, if evil is bad and thus the opposite to good, then that does not require religion in order to manifest.
Its a bit like saying 'for good people to do nothing, that takes atheism', which is equally nonsense I think you would agree.
@Octavius You know fine well the quotation does not mean that, but good luck with your rather desperate attempts to rubbish the quotation.
The author knows very well that people can commit acts that could be described as evil for all sorts of motivations; that is implicit in the quotation itself.
He makes the salient point that it takes religion, exclusively to allow otherwise good people to justify to themselve acts that would otherwise be objectively described as evil.
No surprise you dislike the quotation really. but keep telling yourself that it is just an atheistic rhetorical device if it makes you feel better.
The author knows very well that people can commit acts that could be described as evil for all sorts of motivations; that is implicit in the quotation itself.
He makes the salient point that it takes religion, exclusively to allow otherwise good people to justify to themselve acts that would otherwise be objectively described as evil.
No surprise you dislike the quotation really. but keep telling yourself that it is just an atheistic rhetorical device if it makes you feel better.
Latest Posts
Crosswords9 mins ago
Well At Least Sir Kier Is Topping One...
News12 mins ago
Crosswords14 mins ago
Crosswords18 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.