Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[superphilo]

Religion is a terrible thing.

Relegion shouldn't get the blame...If it is used by leaders or the authority, It may become a source of oppression.

[pjkeeley]

No, I think religion should get the blame. I'm not saying that without religion people couldn't be convinced to carry out evil acts (eg. Stalin).

HOWEVER, there are few more effective tools in place for social control, tyranny, torture, orchestrated violence, destruction and so on, than religion. All of the holy books of the major monotheistic faiths contain incitements to violence, discrimination and worse. In comparison to religion, secularism is founded on reason and enlightenment values and that is why some of the most atheistic countries (Scandinavian countries for example) are far more peaceful and prosperous than countries in which religion has a strong influence.

Even if religion is false (it is), examples all around the world show that it's still a bad thing.

[synapticattack]

religion is a bad thing, and should get the blame
religion is a bunch of people accepting "beliefs" and that's more faulty than sciences, when people accept one assumption and roll with it, but can create the defined conditions for a similar if not exact reaction
religion is led by a social dogma that is very limiting, i don't have an beef with their beliefs, as much as i can't stand the idea of people not thinking for themselves
there are some decent religions though, gentle religions, buddhism, for example, as much as i hate calling that a religion, is far less violent (violent being physically, mentally damaging, less marketed, etc.)
religion is false, it's not even a "what if religion was false" but i'd love to hope the "what if" was just included to make the post more objective
if religion was true, one religion would be true, and the rest would be false, and if there was a potential for a "true" religion, it would be considered heretic, and i doubt that humans have any capacity to understand a "god"

[kyle22]

What about the reverse: Would religion still be bad even if it were true?

[Patrarch]

In my opinion, based on all my research and observation, is that religion is the worst disease human kind has ever been infected with. We will never progress while it still exists, and unfortunately it doesn't look like it's going anywhere anytime soon.

To avoid making this post the length of an unpublished novel i'll be extraordinarily brief:

-Religion (and God himself quoted in the bible) causes more destruction and suffering than any other supportive element in humanity.
-Religion gives people an easy difference to find in each other
-Dogma blocks thinking and questioning
-Religion DESTROYS morality, not promotes or creates it.
-Religion has a goal of taking your eyes and mind off of this life and focusing on a supposed afterlife. When you do that you miss so much in this life, and it's the only one you've got.
-Monotheistic religions severely degrade women

These are just a few of the reasons. I have a lot more and could write a book justifying every single one.


Oh, and yes, kyle, whether religion would be true or false, it is irrelevent. Truth or falsity doesn't change the facts, properties, relations, effects and teachings of religions.

[woot]

Why would anyone lie to teach a truth? If you do not believe in something but believe in some of its teachings isnt it better to teach it as an example? When I was an athiest and later an agnostic I applied many teachings from the bible to my life that i felt were true.
It is for this willingness to overlook the truth that religion has the name hypocracy tied to it, anyone deliberatly willing to be placated rather then find the truth will make a fine door stop or paperweight but little else.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

I think that religions perform many helpful functions, even assuming the religion itself is false. However, I think those helpful functions are not inherently religious. In other words, a non-religious organization can also provide those helpful functions, and a religious organization could not provide them. Nonetheless, some examples of the helpful functions of religion include: social gathering, personal guidance, and community organizing.

[nirmals9]

A good question that could only be answered, I think, by taking a group of newborns and splitting them into three groups. Group 1: Don't learn anything about religion. Group 2: The common person, learns some. Group 3: The highly religious, learns everything. As they live you can compare how they interact within their own groups, then if you want you can have them interact with the others. It's inhuman to do something like that but I think it will show what religion can and can't do.
I just read something from ?Rosseau?, it said something like if God really doesn't exist, then it would probably be very necessary to invent it. I'm still thinking about that one.

hi friend it does not matter God exist or not why not you Activate personal frequency for cosmic uplink here god cant interfere

[coffeeprincess]

HELL YEAH nirmals9.

Now that's what I'm talking about.

Nothing makes me more angry than people who tell me I can't talk to God because of the choices I make. It's the choices I make that allow me to talk to God. **** idiotic fascist pencil-sellers.
Are we allowed to swear on this board?
If not, I meant to say friggin'

[ape]

I recently was told by someone that religion is a good thing even if it is false. He said that it's good because it brings people together and teaches morality. Is this true? Is religion good for people even if it isn't false?

Ape: No thing is true or false of itself, but thinking makes it so.
Romans 14:14 & Shakespeare.
Now, thinking works by words, words work by their opposites, and words and their opposites work by the word Love which loves all words and their oppositenemies.Matthew 5:44-45 & Shakespeare.
For example:
When we love ourselves as fake and as real, we are Love-real even when fakes, and doubly real when real.
2 Corinthians 12:9-10. When we hate fakes, we can't even be real fakes: we can only be fake fakes!:)

So even if any religion were false or fake, or even if anyone thought any religion were false, if there were real Love for opposites in that religion, then it wd still be real and wd be a real benefit, since because of the Reality and the Morality of Love, the members would have to also love the real truth and would speak that truth in Love of liars. Ephesians 4:15-16.
Example: Since God exists or most likely exists, atheism is a false religion. But if atheists loved God as not existing and as existing, that real Love would make that false religion true.
Counter Example: Since God exists or most likely exists, theism is a true religion. But if theists hated atheists, that Falsity of Hate would make their true religion false. 1 John 4:20. QED.

[Toronto]

I'd assume it would depend on how the good was defined and then would be dependent on the religion (as certainly if there are religions that teach "good", even if only by deceptions, it would stand to reason that there are other religions are "bad", or at least certain religions being "good" and "bad" in different respects).

Now I think your question is an important one, as it asks is there anything inherently "wrong" with the deception. And I should answer no, there is not.

But I still would not agree that religion is, in general, "good". I might agree that in certain respects religion might be "good", but in many it is "bad", and perhaps often, the "bad" outweighing the "good".

I agree that religion isn't inherently "bad", but not agree that religion is therefore "good". Religion can be "good" but it is often "bad".

[ape]

HELL YEAH nirmals9.

Now that's what I'm talking about.

Nothing makes me more angry than people who tell me I can't talk to God because of the choices I make. It's the choices I make that allow me to talk to God. **** idiotic fascist pencil-sellers.
Are we allowed to swear on this board?
If not, I meant to say friggin'

ape:
For instance, coffeeprincess's religion is true if she loves being angry and loves the people who tell her what she can't do as f.i.f.p.s. so that she could be angry in Love with them and so sin not as per Ephesians 4:26, and curse them in Love as God curses in Love. Leviticus 26 and Deuteronomy 28 and James 3:9-12.
If not, her religion is false as those who hate her, because of the Hate in both religions: 1 John 4:20.

[ape]

I'd assume it would depend on how the good was defined and then would be dependent on the religion (as certainly if there are religions that teach "good", even if only by deceptions, it would stand to reason that there are other religions are "bad", or at least certain religions being "good" and "bad" in different respects).

Now I think your question is an important one, as it asks is there anything inherently "wrong" with the deception. And I should answer no, there is not.

But I still would not agree that religion is, in general, "good". I might agree that in certain respects religion might be "good", but in many it is "bad", and perhaps often, the "bad" outweighing the "good".

I agree that religion isn't inherently "bad", but not agree that religion is therefore "good". Religion can be "good" but it is often "bad".

Good and bad are relative since each can be defined in terms of the other.
Therefore all good religions are also bad,
and all bad religions are also good.
In short, all religions are good and bad.

What makes any bad good is Love for the bad and good, which Love is what makes the good outweigh the bad.
What makes any good bad is Hate for the good and bad, which Hate is what makes the bad outweigh the good.

Nature deceives as in parallax, refraction, mirages, mimicry, etc but never maliciously, always in Love. This is why Einstein said this:
AE once said 'Subtle is the Lord but malicious He is not.'
When asked what he meant by that remark, AE said:
"Nature hides her secret because of her essential loftiness of Love,
but not by means of malicious ruse."
"Subtle is the Lord, but MALICIOUS He is not!" by Abraham Pais

[ape]

Relegion can do it and can build bridges between cultures.

Religion doesn't build bridges between cultures; it creates unnecessary conflict between them. How many wars have been fought in the name of religion? Centuries of warfare, some of which is still going on today.

Religion is a terrible thing.

It is the Religion of Hate in religions or in politics or in athletics or in the sciences or competition or in any fields that is the terrible thing that builds no bridges to whom it hates and burns those already existing bridges and fights wars over fights over words. It's no use rejecting religion while keeping the Religion of Hate for the religion of no religions: politics, government, etc.
It was the religion of Hate that made that 'loathsome combo of church and state.'
"Govt as well as Religion has furnished its schisms, its persecutions...
It has its hierarchy of emperors, kings, princes and nobles,
as that has of popes, cardinals, archbishops, bishops and priests....
Turning then from this loathsome combination of Church and State..."
TJ to Charles Clay, Jan 29, 1815.

The solution is the Religion of Love in all fields of endeavor from the individual to family to village to town to city to state to nation to the world to the universe.
What'dya say, pjkeeley?

[Invictus_88]

I recently was told by someone that religion is a good thing even if it is false. He said that it's good because it brings people together and teaches morality. Is this true? Is religion good for people even if it isn't false?

It's not a true/false sort of thing, it's an assertion and a viewpoint. If you wish to try and set measurable variables and predictable outcomes, feel free, but I suspect that this one will be difficult to prove.

Feuerbach is probably the source of your friend's view on this matter, but don't expect much reasoned debate about it online. With militant Islam, Christian bigotry and imprudent Zionist strategy so prominent in the media peoples' responses are likely to be emotionally skewed.