Has Religion Done More Good Than Bad?

[Jotari]

49 minutes ago, FionordeQuester said:

While we're on the subject of whether Religion has done more harm than good...let's try something different.  Let's suppose for a moment that God IS real.  No really, the dude comes down to the White House the next morning, gives everyone on Earth signs that confirm him to be God, makes bread rain from the sky...basically does whatever he would need to do in order to prove that, yes, he is the real thing.

 

What are the implications of that?  What are the implications of that, based on how God behaves in both the Old and New Testament?  Would that be a good thing for you ("Yay, our Savior is here!  The world's gonna be awesome!")?  Or would your reaction be more like "Oh...shoot...that egomaniacal asshole [I'm still Christian; I'm just playing Devil's Advocate here] who killed women and children in the Old Testament actually DOES exist"?

 

Because ultimately, I think that's the question the thread is really asking.  It's not about whether or not Religion is false or true...it's about whether or not it's good.  What would your guys's responses be?

I'd be more peeved he decided to show up in America rather than somewhere more historically appropriate >.>

[Salamud]

1 hour ago, JJ48 said:

Ok, you're going to have to explain to me exactly how simply asserting something to be true debunks any claims to the contrary.

The Bible and other fairy tales claim that man was created. We have evidence of man descending from other creatures. Therefore, no creation of man.

Also, the scientific community relevant to this subject rejects creationism and respected historians reject mythological texts like the Bible as actual historical records. 

Edited March 22, 2017 by Salamud

[Tetragrammaton]

1 hour ago, FionordeQuester said:

While we're on the subject of whether Religion has done more harm than good...let's try something different.  Let's suppose for a moment that God IS real.  No really, the dude comes down to the White House the next morning, gives everyone on Earth signs that confirm him to be God, makes bread rain from the sky...basically does whatever he would need to do in order to prove that, yes, he is the real thing.

 

What are the implications of that?  What are the implications of that, based on how God behaves in both the Old and New Testament?  Would that be a good thing for you ("Yay, our Savior is here!  The world's gonna be awesome!")?  Or would your reaction be more like "Oh...shoot...that egomaniacal asshole [I'm still Christian; I'm just playing Devil's Advocate here] who killed women and children in the Old Testament actually DOES exist"?

 

Because ultimately, I think that's the question the thread is really asking.  It's not about whether or not Religion is false or true...it's about whether or not it's good.  What would your guys's responses be?

Don't know.

Maybe he'll kill all the Muslim.

[eclipse]

1 hour ago, FionordeQuester said:

While we're on the subject of whether Religion has done more harm than good...let's try something different.  Let's suppose for a moment that God IS real.  No really, the dude comes down to the White House the next morning, gives everyone on Earth signs that confirm him to be God, makes bread rain from the sky...basically does whatever he would need to do in order to prove that, yes, he is the real thing.

 

What are the implications of that?  What are the implications of that, based on how God behaves in both the Old and New Testament?  Would that be a good thing for you ("Yay, our Savior is here!  The world's gonna be awesome!")?  Or would your reaction be more like "Oh...shoot...that egomaniacal asshole [I'm still Christian; I'm just playing Devil's Advocate here] who killed women and children in the Old Testament actually DOES exist"?

 

Because ultimately, I think that's the question the thread is really asking.  It's not about whether or not Religion is false or true...it's about whether or not it's good.  What would your guys's responses be?

I'd ask Him why He's raining poison from the sky.

40 minutes ago, Salamud said:

The Bible and other fairy tales claim that man was created. We have evidence of man descending from other creatures. Therefore, no creation of man.

Also, the scientific community relevant to this subject rejects creationism and respected historians reject mythological texts like the Bible as actual historical records. 

No.

While you are in Serious Discussion, you WILL show respect for the other side of your stance.  Dismissing the Bible as "fairy tales" is extremely disrespectful.  If you are unwilling or unable to do this, then this isn't the topic for you.

If I have to repeat this sentiment for anything else you post in this subforum, it's a warning.  Read the "Read me first" sticky to see what qualifies as a proper post.

[Moblin Major General]

3 hours ago, Salamud said:

The Bible and other fairy tales claim that man was created. We have evidence of man descending from other creatures. Therefore, no creation of man.

Also, the scientific community relevant to this subject rejects creationism and respected historians reject mythological texts like the Bible as actual historical records. 

False. The so called "evidence" is not fact because what it supports isn't necessarily considered scientific law. Even if Darwin's theory somehow became scientific law, I would not reject my beliefs just to be accepted by society on the whole.

You said the "Scientific community relevant to the subject" not "Scientific Community as a whole." Those who are relevant to the subject in question are biased against religion as a whole, with significant anti-Christian (and possibly Anti-Semitic) undertones. Also, respected historians do not equate to reliable sources. Say what you will about the religious parts of the Bible, Kings, Chronicles, and Acts all have accompanying documentation in secular history. That's before mentioning the fact that the crucifixion of Jesus was widely documented by the Romans, both religious and secular. Finally, the Bible is not on the same level of fiction as the Vedas, Viking Sagas, or Arabian Nights. How is it not relevant if almost 2 out of every 7 people is a Christian in the modern day?

[blah the Prussian]

Evolution and Christianity aren't technically mutually exclusive. I mean, God could have started the Big Bang and then let evolution take its course, or something. In fact, that seems to basically match perfectly with Deism.

[Moblin Major General]

16 minutes ago, blah the Prussian said:

Evolution and Christianity aren't technically mutually exclusive. I mean, God could have started the Big Bang and then let evolution take its course, or something. In fact, that seems to basically match perfectly with Deism.

As long as Adam wasn't anything farther back in humanity's genealogy than Homo Erectus, I might be able to stomach that sentiment. I can believe "Let there be light" is the big bang, but not that people descended directly from apes as claimed by science. If Adam was a Neanderthal, that would be fine, but I have problems believing anything farther back than Homo Erectus could have the intelligence to farm or to have reasoning on the level of morality.

[Flee Fleet!]

6 hours ago, FionordeQuester said:

While we're on the subject of whether Religion has done more harm than good...let's try something different.  Let's suppose for a moment that God IS real.  No really, the dude comes down to the White House the next morning, gives everyone on Earth signs that confirm him to be God, makes bread rain from the sky...basically does whatever he would need to do in order to prove that, yes, he is the real thing.

 

What are the implications of that?  What are the implications of that, based on how God behaves in both the Old and New Testament?  Would that be a good thing for you ("Yay, our Savior is here!  The world's gonna be awesome!")?  Or would your reaction be more like "Oh...shoot...that egomaniacal asshole [I'm still Christian; I'm just playing Devil's Advocate here] who killed women and children in the Old Testament actually DOES exist"?

 

Because ultimately, I think that's the question the thread is really asking.  It's not about whether or not Religion is false or true...it's about whether or not it's good.  What would your guys's responses be?

If the God is the Merciful God I believe in, then He is my Savior.

otherwise it's a fake who might be Dajjal/the Anti Christ LOL. Maybe.

 

[blah the Prussian]

9 hours ago, Hylian Air Force said:

As long as Adam wasn't anything farther back in humanity's genealogy than Homo Erectus, I might be able to stomach that sentiment. I can believe "Let there be light" is the big bang, but not that people descended directly from apes as claimed by science. If Adam was a Neanderthal, that would be fine, but I have problems believing anything farther back than Homo Erectus could have the intelligence to farm or to have reasoning on the level of morality.

Morality is created by civilization. Morality happens because people don't have to be cruel in order to survive anymore. Homo Erectus certainly didn't have a concept of morality, but Homo Sapiens maybe did. I have this whole crackpot theory about this that is WAY off topic, so I'll leave it there.

[Res]

3 hours ago, Hylian Air Force said:

If Adam was a Neanderthal, that would be fine, but I have problems believing anything farther back than Homo Erectus could have the intelligence to farm or to have reasoning on the level of morality.

There are animals that farm.

Morality in animals is more contested; there are some scientists who do believe that there are animals with a sense of morality, although their views still tend to be considered controversial.

[FionordeQuester]

21 minutes ago, blah the Prussian said:

Morality is created by civilization. Morality happens because people don't have to be cruel in order to survive anymore...

Is there ever a time where cruelty IS an overall advantage?  I mean, the thing that really tends to get people far is cooperation; and cooperating with a trustworthy person is generally a lot more appealing than cooperating with a cruel person.  If I'm going to be trusting anyone, I'd rather it be someone who ISN'T going to off me the moment it's convenient...and if I'm going to be trying to convince folks to help me, that's gonna be much easier if they trust me than if they don't.  

 

Even from a pure survival standpoint, I don't see a lot of long-term good to being evil.  And that's not even getting into the emotional side of things, like the parts of your humanity that you'd have to numb in order to live with yourself.  Joy and sorrow both come from the same place; so if you cut off the part that makes you feel sorrow for your actions, you're also cutting off the part that brings you joy.

Edited March 22, 2017 by FionordeQuester

[Jotari]

18 minutes ago, FionordeQuester said:

Is there ever a time where cruelty IS an overall advantage?  I mean, the thing that really tends to get people far is cooperation; and cooperating with a trustworthy person is generally a lot more appealing than cooperating with a cruel person.  If I'm going to be trusting anyone, I'd rather it be someone who ISN'T going to off me the moment it's convenient...and if I'm going to be trying to convince folks to help me, that's gonna be much easier if they trust me than if they don't.  

 

Even from a pure survival standpoint, I don't see a lot of long-term good to being evil.  And that's not even getting into the emotional side of things, like the parts of your humanity that you'd have to numb in order to live with yourself.  Joy and sorrow both come from the same place; so if you cut off the part that makes you feel sorrow for your actions, you're also cutting off the part that brings you joy.

That really depend on what you can classify as cruel. The prey probably views the predators behaviour as quite cruel but the predator definitely needs to hunt in order to survive. Course you might say that's projecting human emotion onto non human entities but that just rolls right back round to the idea that morality is a concept created by humans.

[Res]

23 minutes ago, FionordeQuester said:

Is there ever a time where cruelty IS an overall advantage?  I mean, the thing that really tends to get people far is cooperation; and cooperating with a trustworthy person is generally a lot more appealing than cooperating with a cruel person.  If I'm going to be trusting anyone, I'd rather it be someone who ISN'T going to off me the moment it's convenient...and if I'm going to be trying to convince folks to help me, that's gonna be much easier if they trust me than if they don't.  

It all depends on how you define the 'advantage'.

The Arawaks were welcoming and friendly to Christopher Columbus (by his own admission); they shared what they had with him. They were murdered and enslaved by Columbus and his men and the tribe was entirely finished off by old world disease. Columbus, for all his cruelty, got to claim new lands in the name of Spain and returned with riches and gold and has and enduring legacy and a day named after him. He's just one example; there are dozens of instances in which it's paid to be the (cruel) conqueror.

[FionordeQuester]

Just now, Jotari said:

That really depend on what you can classify as cruel. The prey probably views the predators behaviour as quite cruel but the predator definitely needs to hunt in order to survive. Course you might say that's projecting human emotion onto non human entities but that just rolls right back round to the idea that morality is a concept created by humans.

To me, "cruel" isn't doing what you have to do in order to survive.  I mean, when people are at war with each other...there's gonna be a lot of really nice folks getting killed by other really nice folks in ways they absolutely do not deserve.  Does that mean that soldiers are being cruel, in that context?  I certainly hope not; they're just stuck in a really terrible situation, and want to come home to their families.

 

"Cruelty", to me, is just pointless meanspiritedness.  A "cruel" person is the sort of person who chop a man up BEFORE they actually killed them; the sort of person who would fill the skulls of their enemies up with water and chuck stones into it (this actually happened, btw).  Bad things being done for absolutely no good reason, except for making the aggressor feel better about himself.  And even then, said aggressor is likely to be struggling with all sorts of emotional baggage if they're doing what they're doing.

[Jotari]

2 minutes ago, FionordeQuester said:

To me, "cruel" isn't doing what you have to do in order to survive.  I mean, when people are at war with each other...there's gonna be a lot of really nice folks getting killed by other really nice folks in ways they absolutely do not deserve.  Does that mean that soldiers are being cruel, in that context?  I certainly hope not; they're just stuck in a really terrible situation, and want to come home to their families.

 

"Cruelty", to me, is just pointless meanspiritedness.  A "cruel" person is the sort of person who chop a man up BEFORE they actually killed them; the sort of person who would fill the skulls of their enemies up with water and chuck stones into it (this actually happened, btw).  Bad things being done for absolutely no good reason, except for making the aggressor feel better about himself.  And even then, said aggressor is likely to be struggling with all sorts of emotional baggage if they're doing what they're doing.

Well that's clearly not what blah is referring to since he specifically mentions cruelty under the heading of necessity. Most likely in prehistoric times before any sort of law where if somebody wants your stuff they'd just straight up murder you with no consequence. Where the biggest toughest people would prosper the most.

[FionordeQuester]

13 minutes ago, Jotari said:

Well that's clearly not what blah is referring to since he specifically mentions cruelty under the heading of necessity. Most likely in prehistoric times before any sort of law where if somebody wants your stuff they'd just straight up murder you with no consequence. Where the biggest toughest people would prosper the most.

What Blah's referring to, if I'm right, is the concept that "cruelty" is sometimes needed.  What I'm saying is, if things are so desperate that cruelty is supposedly needed; then it's not really cruelty at all.  That's just life sucking.  In fact, I feel like Proverbs 30:7-9 sums that up pretty nicely...

-------------------------------

7: O God, I beg two favors from you;
    let me have them before I die.
8: First, help me never to tell a lie.
    Second, give me neither poverty nor riches!
    Give me just enough to satisfy my needs.
9: For if I grow rich, I may deny you and say, “Who is the Lord?”
    And if I am too poor, I may steal and thus insult God’s holy name.

-------------------------------

To me, at least, that means that there's a good amount of leeway for those who are just stuck in a really terrible situation; or are still scarred from the horrors they experienced in said situation.  Can one really call their actions "cruel" in that circumstance?  I hope not; that means I could end up in big trouble if I start going through any hard times  ...

Edited March 22, 2017 by FionordeQuester

[JJ48]

14 hours ago, FionordeQuester said:

While we're on the subject of whether Religion has done more harm than good...let's try something different.  Let's suppose for a moment that God IS real.  No really, the dude comes down to the White House the next morning, gives everyone on Earth signs that confirm him to be God, makes bread rain from the sky...basically does whatever he would need to do in order to prove that, yes, he is the real thing.

 

What are the implications of that?  What are the implications of that, based on how God behaves in both the Old and New Testament?  Would that be a good thing for you ("Yay, our Savior is here!  The world's gonna be awesome!")?  Or would your reaction be more like "Oh...shoot...that egomaniacal asshole [I'm still Christian; I'm just playing Devil's Advocate here] who killed women and children in the Old Testament actually DOES exist"?

 

Because ultimately, I think that's the question the thread is really asking.  It's not about whether or not Religion is false or true...it's about whether or not it's good.  What would your guys's responses be?

Personally, I'd be rather confused about how His appearance fit in with the Rapture, Tribulation, Millenial Kingdom, etc.

 

Back on topic, though, I think whether or not it's good depends very heavily on whether or not it's true, at least in Christianity's case.  If it's true, then we have been offered the chance to be reconciled with God and have our sins forgiven, which is very good indeed!  If it's not true, though, then what's the point?  As the apostle Paul wrote: 

"If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised.  And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith.  More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised.  For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either.  And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins.  Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost.  If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied."  I Corinthians 15:13-19 (NIV)

[blah the Prussian]

14 hours ago, FionordeQuester said:

Is there ever a time where cruelty IS an overall advantage?  I mean, the thing that really tends to get people far is cooperation; and cooperating with a trustworthy person is generally a lot more appealing than cooperating with a cruel person.  If I'm going to be trusting anyone, I'd rather it be someone who ISN'T going to off me the moment it's convenient...and if I'm going to be trying to convince folks to help me, that's gonna be much easier if they trust me than if they don't.  

 

Even from a pure survival standpoint, I don't see a lot of long-term good to being evil.  And that's not even getting into the emotional side of things, like the parts of your humanity that you'd have to numb in order to live with yourself.  Joy and sorrow both come from the same place; so if you cut off the part that makes you feel sorrow for your actions, you're also cutting off the part that brings you joy.

Eh, fine, I sort of misspoke. However, if you don't have a steady supply of food, you don't have the luxury of not killing baby animals, for example. Maybe humans had moral concepts before civilization, but I can't see them acting on them before civilization.

[FionordeQuester]

18 hours ago, blah the Prussian said:

Eh, fine, I sort of misspoke. However, if you don't have a steady supply of food, you don't have the luxury of not killing baby animals, for example. Maybe humans had moral concepts before civilization, but I can't see them acting on them before civilization.

I wonder, does that sort of situation really count as cruelty?  I mean, if you're, say, Atilla the Hun, and you're looking for land...that's one thing.  But there are alternatives to that other than murdering the people whose land you want.

But in the scenario you posed, there's really no other choice.  Someone's gonna die ANYWAY; the only question is whether or not the wolf babies die, or whether your own kids die.  Not much of a choice there.

Edited March 24, 2017 by FionordeQuester

[blah the Prussian]

5 hours ago, FionordeQuester said:

I wonder, does that sort of situation really count as cruelty?  I mean, if you're, say, Atilla the Hun, and you're looking for land...that's one thing.  But there are alternatives to that other than murdering the people whose land you want.

But in the scenario you posed, there's really no other choice.  Someone's gonna die ANYWAY; the only question is whether or not the wolf babies die, or whether your own kids die.  Not much of a choice there.

Yeah, that's why I said I misspoke. Killing some wolves, or even wiping out a human tribe because they're competition, isn't moral but it isn't immoral either. Although it should be noted that cruelty has been observed in species such as Chimps, so it's likely that Cro-Magnons had it too.

[FionordeQuester]

2 hours ago, blah the Prussian said:

Yeah, that's why I said I misspoke. Killing some wolves, or even wiping out a human tribe because they're competition, isn't moral but it isn't immoral either.

Um, I agree with the first part...not so much the bolded part.  IMO, there's a world of difference between predatory animals and actual, real live human beings; especially since diplomacy is actually possible with them.  

Besides, any land that's SO hard-up for resources that plunder is it's only option...is probably not going to be very GOOD at war to start with.  You need technology, mighty warriors, agriculture, raw materials...basically the sort of thing you won't be getting if you can't even feed your own people right.

EDIT: Let's be clear here; I'm not saying that all prehistoric human beings should be absolved for whatever crimes they committed, or that "anything goes" is an acceptable way of thinking for tough times.  All I'm saying is that what's wrong in one scenario might not be wrong in other scenarios; that's all.  

Edited March 24, 2017 by FionordeQuester

[blah the Prussian]

1 hour ago, FionordeQuester said:

Um, I agree with the first part...not so much the bolded part.  IMO, there's a world of difference between predatory animals and actual, real live human beings; especially since diplomacy is actually possible with them.  

Besides, any land that's SO hard-up for resources that plunder is it's only option...is probably not going to be very GOOD at war to start with.  You need technology, mighty warriors, agriculture, raw materials...basically the sort of thing you won't be getting if you can't even feed your own people right.

EDIT: Let's be clear here; I'm not saying that all prehistoric human beings should be absolved for whatever crimes they committed, or that "anything goes" is an acceptable way of thinking for tough times.  All I'm saying is that what's wrong in one scenario might not be wrong in other scenarios; that's all.  

Humans pre civilization were apex predators. There are records existing of early human tribes fighting turf wars in the Ice Age; hell, that even goes back to Australopithecus with Lucy. When you're in an environment when you need literally all the food you can get, it makes logical sense to chase other tribes out of your territory, or absorb them and work together. However, that would usually necessitate conquest, or at least single combat between leaders. It really isn't until you have agriculture, when you have a surplus of food, that not removing competing predators in the form of other humans becomes viable, and even then nation states still went to war over farmland. My question to you is: you say that you don't think that ancient humans were cruel because they didn't have that luxury. However, evidence does exist of human tribes massacring each other, as well as Neanderthals. So, this being the case, how does cruelty not exist in nature, if you think that's cruel?

As for crimes committed by prehistoric humans? I don't think they should be punished, because laws hadn't been developed yet. I don't support punishing people for acts that are now illegal when they did them before that act was outlawed.

[Shoblongoo]

…I mean…

Religion had its historical purpose. And there were certainly moments in human history where the driving force of religious belief spurred us to achieve things we otherwise wouldn’t have achieved and invent things we otherwise wouldn’t have invented.

The great advances in mathematics and astronomy and medicine that came out of the Middle East circa 600-1100 A.D. happened because the spread of Islam opened geopolitical boundaries that had been closed since the days of Alexander the Great, allowing scholars across the region to share knowledge and build upon each other’s works.

Likewise, in Europe, the idea that education is something that should be provided to the general population as a public good rather than a privilege reserved for the ruling aristocrats and clergy began as the proposition: every soul in need of salvation should be able to read the Bible.

…that being said…

Its no coincidence, I would think, that the more advanced a society becomes the less religious it becomes. The more it turns to secular-legal ethics.  And that today, the areas of the world which cling most strongly to Old World religiosity also happen to be the most violent, underdeveloped, and politically unstable.  

So I do subscribe to the idea that humanity will only achieve its full potential in a purely secular state.

…that a culture of high-religiosity is the hallmark of an intelligent race in its infancy.

…that it is something we will eventually have to outgrow to reach the next level of human development.

…and that this is a process taking place over the long arch of human history—thousands and thousands of years—not something that can be forced over the course of a few generations.

Edited May 24, 2017 by Shoblongoo

[eclipse]

10 hours ago, Shoblongoo said:

Its no coincidence, I would think, that the more advanced a society becomes the less religious it becomes. The more it turns to secular-legal ethics.  And that today, the areas of the world which cling most strongly to Old World religiosity also happen to be the most violent, underdeveloped, and politically unstable.  

What if it's because being violent, underdeveloped, and politically unstable causes people to be religious?  Having some hope is better than none, no matter what your take on religion is.

[blah the Prussian]

16 hours ago, Shoblongoo said:

Its no coincidence, I would think, that the more advanced a society becomes the less religious it becomes. The more it turns to secular-legal ethics.  And that today, the areas of the world which cling most strongly to Old World religiosity also happen to be the most violent, underdeveloped, and politically unstable.  

At least in the case of the Middle East its more that radical Islam has made a comeback in a Fascistic manner due to the defeat of Arab states at war, economic domination, the perception of their leaders being puppets of the Americans or Soviets, and secular Arab Fascism failing.