Is Religion at fault

View this not as from a specific view from any religion or belief, rather observe the points as a human being on this planet.

Has religion been at fault for if not many, all of the conflicts in our time or those previous? While mixed with everyday life, militarism, and feudal governments, religion spawns argumentative difficulties in every area.

While there are opposite ideals, such as that religion is uniting and brings us together in times of peace, those ideals are shattered when violence is at hand. Much of the war on this Earth comes from differences in opinions, these of which are formed by opposing mindsets set forth by traditionally frictional beliefs that all stem from religious tension.

If you're not following, religion brings people together as long as their views are equal, but when arguments begin, astronomical problems arise. Is this true? If so, why is this? How can it be solved?

Please just share your general thoughts on what I've said, and anything relating. Do NOT make this a thread where religion is debated or argued upon.

 

[Noam]

That last sentence of yours isn't clear. Do you mean particular religions, or whether religion in general is beneficial to society or not?

Somewhere on here I have already shown statistical proof that religion is not the number one motivating cause behind all deaths, but I don't seem to be able to find it right now.

 

It's not the largest. Just - is it a large factor, how could it be prevented, your general opinions, etc.

 

[~Explicit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades
http://markhumphrys.com/christianity.killings.html

Though I will say that Christianity as a whole has killed its fair share of people in this world (In a symbolic sense, God has inspired more killings then any being, if you consider him to be that), but it would be quite petty to hold a religion at odds for something that was done in the 1700's.

 

[Ivy Bridge]

Every time one of these type threads gets posted, tons of religious people flock in with their flame suits on. Fair warning.

I personally believe that religion has been a hindrance all throughout history. Religion has suppressed scientific discovery for thousands of years. Religion as a whole has claimed more lives than any other singular ideal in all of history. Religion separates, not brings people together. The majority of religions are ignorant to any other religion's ideals, and shun anyone who doesn't agree with their own beliefs. Religion fills people with a false sense of hope for something better. Morality is another thing that religion makes this huge claim out of, which I have never been able to understand. I do not need religion to be a moral person. The way many theists preach it, it seems that if it weren't for their religion they would have no reason to be a moral person. Why, I ask, do they need to feel like they have to impress their God by being moral? Isn't it better to go on being a moral person without obligation?

In summary, yes, religion is at fault for many of the problems of the world today and has held back both social and scientific evolution for far too long.

 

[Gurtaton]

Every time one of these type threads gets posted, tons of religious people flock in with their flame suits on. Fair warning.

I personally believe that religion has been a hindrance all throughout history. Religion has suppressed scientific discovery for thousands of years. Religion as a whole has claimed more lives than any other singular ideal in all of history. Religion separates, not brings people together. The majority of religions are ignorant to any other religion's ideals, and shun anyone who doesn't agree with their own beliefs. Religion fills people with a false sense of hope for something better. Morality is another thing that religion makes this huge claim out of, which I have never been able to understand. I do not need religion to be a moral person. The way many theists preach it, it seems that if it weren't for their religion they would have no reason to be a moral person. Why, I ask, do they need to feel like they have to impress their God by being moral? Isn't it better to go on being a moral person without obligation?

In summary, yes, religion is at fault for many of the problems of the world today and has held back both social and scientific evolution for far too long.

Wrong. Read this: http://sythe.org/showpost.php?p=9199904&postcount=111

Now, watch this video: [youtube]fJiPTCtAPAY[/youtube]

Also: "Science without Religion is lame, Religion without Science is blind." - Albert Einstein

 

[Kabal]

It's just a reason that is used. Humans are flawed, if it weren't religion then there would still be fighting for land/resources.
One of the greatest things that divides the world isn't religion, but language. Language is a huge barrier, but hell people will pick any reason to fight.

 

[Gurtaton]

It's just a reason that is used. Humans are flawed, if it weren't religion then there would still be fighting for land/resources.
One of the greatest things that divides the world isn't religion, but language. Language is a huge barrier, but hell people will pick any reason to fight.

This is true, but I believe languages bring more diversity to cultures, and that's what makes life more interesting.

 

[danieldyer29]

I don't know if religion is completely at fault and is to blame, but I bet it does take a part in world conflicts, as for how it can be solved, I'd have no clue, and i doubt anyone else does either, considering if there was a logical explanation for why it is that way, it WOULDN'T be that way.

 

[Noam]

Every time one of these type threads gets posted, tons of religious people flock in with their flame suits on. Fair warning.

I personally believe that religion has been a hindrance all throughout history. Religion has suppressed scientific discovery for thousands of years. Religion as a whole has claimed more lives than any other singular ideal in all of history. Religion separates, not brings people together. The majority of religions are ignorant to any other religion's ideals, and shun anyone who doesn't agree with their own beliefs. Religion fills people with a false sense of hope for something better. Morality is another thing that religion makes this huge claim out of, which I have never been able to understand. I do not need religion to be a moral person. The way many theists preach it, it seems that if it weren't for their religion they would have no reason to be a moral person. Why, I ask, do they need to feel like they have to impress their God by being moral? Isn't it better to go on being a moral person without obligation?

In summary, yes, religion is at fault for many of the problems of the world today and has held back both social and scientific evolution for far too long.

Here is where you are quite wrong. While Christianity has hindered the progress of science, many other religions have bolstered it as well. For example, the ancient Egyptians' priests, especially those who mummified others, had such a vast knowledge of anatomy that the medical technology and knowledge was unbelievably high for the time. In addition, during the 9-12 century, in the middle east, there was an explosion of scientific thought and Ideas, partially driven by the recently established Muslim faith.

 

[Ivy Bridge]

Here is where you are quite wrong. While Christianity has hindered the progress of science, many other religions have bolstered it as well. For example, the ancient Egyptians' priests, especially those who mummified others, had such a vast knowledge of anatomy that the medical technology and knowledge was unbelievably high for the time. In addition, during the 9-12 century, in the middle east, there was an explosion of scientific thought and Ideas, partially driven by the recently established Muslim faith.

All religions have contributed at least something to social and scientific evolution. This does not mean that in the grand scheme of things they haven't also hindered it in other ways. My main target was Christianity though. All I was trying to say in my post is that every good thing that has ever come out of religion can be found elsewhere.

Wrong. Read this: http://sythe.org/showpost.php?p=9199904&postcount=111

Now, watch this video: [youtube]fJiPTCtAPAY[/youtube]

Also: "Science without Religion is lame, Religion without Science is blind." - Albert Einstein

Read above. I never denied that religion has had advances in its own right. My opinion is that the cons outweigh the pros, especially when you consider that every good thing that has ever spawned out of religion can be found elsewhere. Unfortunately I did not watch the video. If it had been under 15 minutes, I would have, but I simply don't have the time to spend 1.5 hours or however long it was atm. Maybe sometime this weekend when I don't have things like school. Also, I fail to see how Albert Einstein's opinion should effect mine. He was a brilliant man, but his opinion is of no more value than mine when it is not based on facts/evidence. Either way though, I would agree with him. Just because my opinions of religion are not positive doesn't mean that I would pretend they aren't there. If I could, I'd make religion/philosophy my minor in college, but again I don't have time in between all of my other subjects.

 

[Gurtaton]

Read above. I never denied that religion has had advances in its own right. My opinion is that the cons outweigh the pros, especially when you consider that every good thing that has ever spawned out of religion can be found elsewhere. Unfortunately I did not watch the video. If it had been under 15 minutes, I would have, but I simply don't have the time to spend 1.5 hours or however long it was atm. Maybe sometime this weekend when I don't have things like school.

You will need to go into detail. How do the cons outweigh the pros? How does religion hinder science, when some of them actually encourage it?

Einstein never believed in a Personal God. My point was, religion and science can co-exist, but should not be mixed. The reason most Westerners have a misconception of religions is because of the mass media.

Yes, don't forget to watch the video. Hopefully, you'll change your views on things.

 

[Ivy Bridge]

You will need to go into detail. How do the cons outweigh the pros? How does religion hinder science, when some of them actually encourage it?

Einstein never believed in a Personal God. My point was, religion and science can co-exist, but should not be mixed. The reason most Westerners have a misconception of religions is because of the mass media.

Yes, don't forget to watch the video. Hopefully, you'll change your views on things.

The pros/cons are a matter of opinion. For me, the list of pros is quite short if any at all. Any feelings/experiences that can be found in religion can be found elsewhere if you look at things from a different perspective. The cons would include things like being delusional, needing something to latch onto, encouraging ignorance, encouraging prejudice, etc. Not to mention that religious influence has had a direct effect on many of the wars throughout history, whereas I'm pretty confident in saying that science has never really been the center of a war. Things like the race to building the nuclear bomb might be an example, but I don't believe the war was built around that. Religious purges like the holocaust and the crusades however, had direct ties to religion. Many scientists have either had their work snuffed out or been put to death because their findings didn't agree with their ascribed religion. Signs of this can still be felt today in issues such as abortion and stem cell research. The science is sound, but people are not willing to separate their religious ideals from their logic and reasoning.

To be clear, I'm thinking of religions in a broader sense. The two most common religions in the world, Islam and Christianity are prime examples. The teachings may be sound (although that is arguable as well, but that is not the point) but the followers, at least in my own experience, do not look at the real meanings of anything. Everybody interprets things differently, and the general consensus seems to be that if you're not with them, you're against them. I hate to generalize like I am, so I will again just reiterate this is just my opinion coming from personal experiences, and I welcome the idea that the rest of the world is not like this.

 

[r4mmstein]

http://www.newscholars.com/papers/Killing, Christianity, and Atheism.pdf

 

[Ivy Bridge]

http://www.newscholars.com/papers/Killing, Christianity, and Atheism.pdf

That article makes no sense. It uses examples like the holocaust against atheism, even though the holocaust wasn't atheistic in nature. It was a religious purging. It ties into religion, if anything.

 

[Gurtaton]

The pros/cons are a matter of opinion. For me, the list of pros is quite short if any at all. Any feelings/experiences that can be found in religion can be found elsewhere if you look at things from a different perspective. The cons would include things like being delusional, needing something to latch onto, encouraging ignorance, encouraging prejudice, etc. Not to mention that religious influence has had a direct effect on many of the wars throughout history, whereas I'm pretty confident in saying that science has never really been the center of a war. Things like the race to building the nuclear bomb might be an example, but I don't believe the war was built around that. Religious purges like the holocaust and the crusades however, had direct ties to religion. Many scientists have either had their work snuffed out or been put to death because their findings didn't agree with their ascribed religion. Signs of this can still be felt today in issues such as abortion and stem cell research. The science is sound, but people are not willing to separate their religious ideals from their logic and reasoning.

How can it be found elsewhere? The atheistic belief is that when you die, your consciousness completely disappears. Some men may find comfort in trying to achieve certain a goal with the limited time they have, but not all.

Blaming wars on religions is just terrible. As Kabal said, wars would still occur, for different reasons, and different nations would have very different ideals. Some religions have put strict laws on wars, disallowing the burning of libraries, disallowing the harming of children and women who were not involved, etc.

Another thing you must think about. Did religion tell man to start these wars, or did man use these religions as an excuse to start war?

To be clear, I'm thinking of religions in a broader sense. The two most common religions in the world, Islam and Christianity are prime examples. The teachings may be sound (although that is arguable as well, but that is not the point) but the followers, at least in my own experience, do not look at the real meanings of anything. Everybody interprets things differently, and the general consensus seems to be that if you're not with them, you're against them. I hate to generalize like I am, so I will again just reiterate this is just my opinion coming from personal experiences, and I welcome the idea that the rest of the world is not like this.

There will always be black sheep in every community. You should not look at them, but rather the more sensible followers. Do you look at Western terrorists and criminals and generalize the West that way?

 

[Ivy Bridge]

How can it be found elsewhere? The atheistic belief is that when you die, your consciousness completely disappears. Some men may find comfort in trying to achieve certain a goal with the limited time they have, but not all.

Blaming wars on religions is just terrible. As Kabal said, wars would still occur, for different reasons, and different nations would have very different ideals. Some religions have put strict laws on wars, disallowing the burning of libraries, disallowing the harming of children and women who were not involved, etc.

Another thing you must think about. Did religion tell man to start these wars, or did man use these religions as an excuse to start war?

There will always be black sheep in every community. You should not look at them, but rather the more sensible followers. Do you look at Western terrorists and criminals and generalize the West that way?

Everything is about perspective. An atheist does not believe in an afterlife, so the pursuit of one is not of relevance. I meant any positive thing/feeling that can be found in the rational world can be experienced in ways other than religion. It's all a matter of opinion, if you can't be happy with your life given the notion that there is nothing better beyond life then you're a weak minded person. Even as a pantheist, which for the purposes of this discussion is not much more than a spiritual atheist, I do hope for some sort of afterlife. I'd like to think we go on to something greater, although nothing like any human can grasp and nothing like any book on this Earth will ever come close to describing. That being said, I can also accept that the likelihood of this is not very high without my life being ruined.

I never said all wars were rooted in religion, that would be foolish. However, many of the wars throughout history have had direct religious influence and have therefore directly caused the deaths of an innumerable amount of people. Any example I have ever seen regarding killing in the name of atheism is usually a blatant lie. Example: Countless people have tried to tell me that because Hitler and Stalin were not religious that they did the horrible things they did because they were not religious, when this was obviously not the case. Since I am unable to find any evidence pointing to this, it would be paramount to assuming that just because a person has AIDS, they are gay. It doesn't matter if the religions ascribe these laws if no one follows them.. the Bible says murder is a sin, yet many Christians have committed murder (even if with no direct link to their faith) and quite a few even commit murder in the name of God.

I have already recognized that it is not the religions themselves that are the direct cause of wars/killings throughout history. There's just no practical application for religion in the pure nature of humanity. Communism in concept is like Utopia.. but does it work in practical application? No. Religion fuels large scale ignorance to scientific fact/discovery, discourages further scientific/social progress (Catholicism banning condoms, many religions banning abortion, homosexuality, stem cell research, etc) and is just toxic in general. I don't need some book telling me how to live. I can find how to be a good person on my own and with the help of my elders. I can have a family and enjoy my life while I have it, rather than wasting it on an age old ideal that has been shaken to its very foundation by the vast amounts of data that make that likelihood of any of it actually being true a statistical improbability of astronomical proportions.

And that concludes my highly pretentious essay. I just want to point out that while I have strong opinions about religion, I have said that I do enjoy learning about it and do consider it relevant, any opinions are exactly that: opinions, not meant to offend.

 

[Jimmy]

Also: "Science without Religion is lame, Religion without Science is blind." - Albert Einstein

Nonsense.

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

My point was, religion and science can co-exist, but should not be mixed.

While this proposition may sound good in theory, it doesn't work when actually implemented. The issue is, people such as Zakir Naik (the man who's video you posted) deny facts that we've come to know through the application of the scientific method.

http://www.newscholars.com/papers/Killing, Christianity, and Atheism.pdf

What a credible source for information. Perhaps the author could be taken serious if he didn't

• equate communism with atheism
• call Nazi Germany atheistic
• assume the amount of people killed during the Middle Ages (a time of much lower population and technological progress) could be compared to those of modern times simply through their numerical values
• forget to cite a source for the numbers killed in the Christian events he lists
• make completely unqualified statements about how faith in Jesus is a remedy for all evils

In short, I can't take this article seriously because the author doesn't even have a remote grasp on the subject which he's writing about.

 

[Gurtaton]

Nonsense.

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

I have already stated this. My point, do not bash religion just because you do not believe in a personal God.

While this proposition may sound good in theory, it doesn't work when actually implemented. The issue is, people such as Zakir Naik (the man who's video you posted) deny facts that we've come to know through the application of the scientific method.

Such as?

 

[Noam]

That article makes no sense. It uses examples like the holocaust against atheism, even though the holocaust wasn't atheistic in nature. It was a religious purging. It ties into religion, if anything.

It is actually not religiously driven. I think it is important to highlight this because this is something you should be aware of.
While Nazi Germany was mostly christian, the reason the holocaust existed was because of Scientific Racism, or the use of "science" to make racist claims about certain groups. This was the main reason Hitler started killing people

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_racism