Has Religion Done More Good Than Bad?

[Skynstein]

I was very anti-religion for a while, but then came to realize I don't understand the hate towards it.

It's unreasonable to say the values of people who lived millennia ago were universally bad because they didn't have the tools to know any better than they did. Civilizations require order to function, and religion provided just that. Marriage for example was grounded on religion but it had always been pretty much strictly a legal contract, one with prominently political implications. Religion simply provided the justification.

Just take a look at the Ten Commandments. Every single one of them is designed to maintain order in society and prevent strife. Chastity was stimulated and enforced so people wouldn't go around having sex with everyone and getting diseases because of it. Older societies such as the Ancient Greeks were more liberal, but the monotheistic societies are considered a development of politheistic ones for many reasons. For one, the Greeks and Romans liberally enslaved people and weren't known for their kind treatment of women (though, to be fair, women had usually had it hard everywhere). Meanwhile, Christianity in its beginning had a strong social component, as its raison d'être was basically that Judaism had lost its way and a prophet appeared to expose it.

Since I'm a pragmatist, what I don't like are the rituals. To me, going to the mass is useless. I used to sleep during the priest's speeches. I prefer to relate to religion in a more academic way. Most people's hatred of religion stems from being forced to endure that stuff, as well as an overglorification of science.

Edited May 25, 2017 by Cerberus87

[Shoblongoo]

12 hours ago, eclipse said:

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.

Religion perpetuates underdevelopment and underdevelopment perpetuates religion; its  a two-way-street. Look to the Palestinian Territories to today see the clearest example of it. 

The people live in shit-and-squalor, poor and sick and hungry, because they have elected to be governed by religious fanatics whose founding creed--and this is an exact quote--reads: Israel exists and continues to exist until Islam annihilates it. The day of judgment will not come until the Muslim fights the Jew, killing the Jew. The Jew will hide behind rocks and trees. And the trees will say 'Oh Muslims--oh Great Ones--there is a Jew behind me! Come and kill him!' A government that, consequently, dumps almost the entirety of its foreign aid and operating budget into weapons smuggling and intafada, while failing to invest in agriculture or infrastructure or market growth.

...likewise...

The people continue to believe that the greatest thing they can achieve in life is martyrdom--death fighting for the glory of Islam against the "Zionists and the Crusders"--because they're poor and sick and hungry, and live in shit-and-squalor.

Its a vicious cycle.      

[SullyMcGully]

Alright, so I'm a Christian. And I'd like to make an... interesting proposition.

Suppose that there really is a single true religion that, as the greatest force in the world, guides millions of people to live better lives and treat those around them with respect and dignity. In that hypothetical world, wouldn't you expect the thing most detrimental to humankind to be a perversion of that religion? Something that masquerades as the true religion, and then, taking advantage of people's ignorance, applies the zeal that would be rightly applied to the true religion to more carnal, harmful acts?

I think that's exactly what we see today. Look at ISIS. Most Muslims I've met were truly kind, generous people, and one of the things that contributes to that is their devotion to their faith, which inspires a lot of their good deeds. However, in Iraq and Syria, you have people who are also devoted to their faith. But because someone exploited their anger and ignorance, they are now fighting for a cause that is not really validated by the Quran or other generally respected Islamic teaching. The same could be said of Middle-Ages Roman Catholicism. Christian principles are based around charity and grace, but during medieval times, the so-called "Christians" showed anything but! 

11 minutes ago, Shoblongoo said:

Religion perpetuates underdevelopment and underdevelopment perpetuates religion; its  a two-way-street.

I wouldn't say this is universally true. There are a lot of truly brilliant people in the world who are also religious. Several religions can be (at least partially) scientifically validated, and there are many people (like myself) who believe in a religion due to well-founded logical conclusions. True, in Palestine, many people are religious and they are also idiots. However, in Saudi Arabia, the people believe in the same religion, yet are very far ahead in development. Just look at all the people on Forbes 400 who are Christians, Muslims, and Jews. I think the concept that religious zeal is born purely of underdevelopment or lack of education can be dismissed. 

[Shoblongoo]

10 minutes ago, SullyMcGully said:

Suppose that there really is a single true religion that, as the greatest force in the world, guides millions of people to live better lives and treat those around them with respect and dignity.

What you describe, I believe, is something that religion by its very nature is antithetical to and can never achieve.

If such a worldwide force of betterment, respect, and dignity exists; it is a form secular humanism which posits that there is no higher purpose then human betterment, respect, and dignity.

With no contravening interests in piety or divine authority or spiritual reward. And a strictly empirical account of what is and is not in the human interest. 

Edited May 25, 2017 by Shoblongoo

[Jotari]

4 hours ago, Cerberus87 said:

Since I'm a pragmatist, what I don't like are the rituals. To me, going to the mass is useless. I used to sleep during the priest's speeches. I prefer to relate to religion in a more academic way. Most people's hatred of religion stems from being forced to endure that stuff, as well as an overglorification of science.

I don't know about that. Seems like a good community can be built around going to mass. Like when else are you going to see your neighbors? Not just your friends but the people in your community your not all that fond of either. Seems like a social gathering not based around some kind of media interest could be plenty beneficial. Course it shouldn't be forced and preferably should be fun like those stereotypical black mass. Also note as someone who's basically never participated in a religious ceremony, I'm playing Devil's Advocate here.

[Skynstein]

1 hour ago, Jotari said:

I don't know about that. Seems like a good community can be built around going to mass. Like when else are you going to see your neighbors? Not just your friends but the people in your community your not all that fond of either. Seems like a social gathering not based around some kind of media interest could be plenty beneficial. Course it shouldn't be forced and preferably should be fun like those stereotypical black mass. Also note as someone who's basically never participated in a religious ceremony, I'm playing Devil's Advocate here.

The community aspect for me was zero because due to cultural shift in recent times the average age of people who go to mass is increasing, so there was nothing there for me to enjoy and no one else to talk to.

[eclipse]

18 hours ago, Shoblongoo said:

Religion perpetuates underdevelopment and underdevelopment perpetuates religion; its  a two-way-street. Look to the Palestinian Territories to today see the clearest example of it. 

The people live in shit-and-squalor, poor and sick and hungry, because they have elected to be governed by religious fanatics whose founding creed--and this is an exact quote--reads: Israel exists and continues to exist until Islam annihilates it. The day of judgment will not come until the Muslim fights the Jew, killing the Jew. The Jew will hide behind rocks and trees. And the trees will say 'Oh Muslims--oh Great Ones--there is a Jew behind me! Come and kill him!' A government that, consequently, dumps almost the entirety of its foreign aid and operating budget into weapons smuggling and intafada, while failing to invest in agriculture or infrastructure or market growth.

...likewise...

The people continue to believe that the greatest thing they can achieve in life is martyrdom--death fighting for the glory of Islam against the "Zionists and the Crusders"--because they're poor and sick and hungry, and live in shit-and-squalor.

Its a vicious cycle.      

History says otherwise.

Religion is one of those subjects that needs to be approached carefully, since your audience can range from the rabid atheist to the Sunday-only Christian to the authoritarian religious person to someone whose religious journey is deeply personal.  I'm trying to think about how your generalizations help to make the world a better place, and I'm drawing a gigantic blank.

[TheWill]

If it accounts for anything, the mental health of people who practice weekly religion are much higher than those without. This is likely due to the social-aspects, such as coming together, communicating with people regularly (in person - much more important than online relationships) and the like. 

I'm not religious, nor do I have any sentimental value towards it, but if it can help make people feel better about their lives, I feel that's extremely positive. 

[Res]

3 hours ago, SlipperySlippy said:

If it accounts for anything, the mental health of people who practice weekly religion are much higher than those without. This is likely due to the social-aspects, such as coming together, communicating with people regularly (in person - much more important than online relationships) and the like. 

I'm not religious, nor do I have any sentimental value towards it, but if it can help make people feel better about their lives, I feel that's extremely positive. 

It'd be interesting to see how 'mental health' was qualified.

Googling for articles draws the conclusion that the effect religion has upon mental health is largely individualistic - it helps some, and hurts others, which makes sense. Many later studies have drawn the conclusion that there's negligible difference in mental health between religious and non-religious people. Here's a paper from 2016 which aimed to have a more inclusive sample population (since many previous studies failed to specifically seek out non-religious participants, or, in the U.S., specifically focused on Christians). 

Often there are cultural/religious barriers to people seeking medical assistance for mental health, too. Personally I've felt my mental health improve upon becoming non-religious (I actually find this common amongst the non-religious women I know, though I can't speak for men, and I wonder if it's partly to do with many religions seeing women as inferior), not that I don't still have problems, but I've found it easier to discuss them and to seek help. 

There are other situations where it's a lot more complex: For example, I've seen how my mother's religious community has helped her hugely through her divorce, I can't deny its positive impact there. On the other hand, if she hadn't been so religious she most certainly would've broken off her engagement and never been married in the first place (she admitted as much to me) and she wouldn't have put up with 30 years of abuse (even at the end she never sought divorce - my dad left her in the end, and was able to file for divorce after two years of separation, when the UK only requires one party to instigate divorce). So who knows? It's kind of impossible to say whether it's helped or hindered her more in the end. 

[Skynstein]

5 hours ago, SlipperySlippy said:

If it accounts for anything, the mental health of people who practice weekly religion are much higher than those without. This is likely due to the social-aspects, such as coming together, communicating with people regularly (in person - much more important than online relationships) and the like. 

I'm not religious, nor do I have any sentimental value towards it, but if it can help make people feel better about their lives, I feel that's extremely positive. 

In my case the people were detrimental to my mental health. ;)

But that's all it comes down to. The people.

[Shoblongoo]

10 hours ago, eclipse said:

History says otherwise.

Religion is one of those subjects that needs to be approached carefully, since your audience can range from the rabid atheist to the Sunday-only Christian to the authoritarian religious person to someone whose religious journey is deeply personal.  I'm trying to think about how your generalizations help to make the world a better place, and I'm drawing a gigantic blank.

I do not  purport to make the world a better place; only to answer the call of the question has religion done more good than bad? If my answer strikes you as overly generalized or at odds with your understanding of history, then please, allow me to elaborate.

The overarching impact of religion on a societal level—and this is not to say that it cannot be individually helpful to persons who find strength and comfort in their respective faiths—is that it today serves as a restraint on human advancement, by positing that there is inherent virtue in judging things the way they have always been judged and doing things the way they have always been done. And, conversely, inherent wickedness in deviation therefrom. This restraint is such that less religious cultures advance further and faster than more religious ones, while more religious cultures regress and stagnate.

That is also not to say that religion has never done anything good, or be dismissive of religion’s historic role in how we got to where we are today.

Religion in its hayday was a marked advancement over what came before it—i.e. Stone Age level social organization of cavemen beating each other over the heads with rocks and sticks, fighting over caves and hovels and generally murdering and raping whomever they pleased. Religion was a force of order and direction where none had previously existed.  It was our first great institution. And before we advanced far enough to develop modern institutions, religion did their work for them as best as it could.

Granted; as best as it could involved the messy business of establishing unquestionable dogma, making it proof against reason or mundane critique with claims of divine authority, and vigorously suppressing ‘heresy’ whenever someone posited conflicting ideas.  And it became apparent to free-thinkers as early as Socrates and Confucius that this was…problematic…

But this was still infinitely better than cavemen beating each other over the heads with rocks and sticks, fighting over caves and hovels and generally murdering and raping whomever they pleased. And so it was an advancement.

…You, Ms. Eclipse, cite specifically to the historical example of religion as a force of education and scholarship in medieval times...

  Here we have religion as a force of education and scholarship at a time when higher institutions of education and scholarship did not yet exist.  We had not yet advanced to the level of developing public universities, national endowments for the arts and sciences, government labs, commercial research facilities, peer-review--our whole modern system of education and scholarship.   

The church had all the resources. The church had all the power. The church was the only institution of sufficient power and prestige that COULD provide some manner of access to scholarship and education. And the church performed that function as best it could, within the scope of its religious nature. Which consequently involved:

1)  Ensuring that all scholarly ideas put forth were acceptably aligned with established church doctrine.

2)  Brutally suppressing any new idea that was too overtly heretical, in light of established church doctrine.

3)  Punishing any scholar that promoted “Heresy” and destroying their works.

This was—again—problematic. It caused societies to regress and stagnate. And it wasn’t until we advanced past the idea of education and scholarship being bound to the church and got well into the Age of Enlightenment that we began to lurch forward into the Modern Age with all these incredible new ideas and inventions: mechanization, the electric power-grid, humanist/utilitarian moral theory, constitutional law…

It was only by so diminishing the influence of religion that it no longer had a complete stranglehold on scholarship and education + establishing institutions of scholarship and education independent from the Church that the modern world was able to advance beyond the medieval development level.

…which brings us to today…

Today we are not cavemen beating each other over the heads with rocks and sticks, fighting over caves and hovels and generally murdering and raping whomever we please. Nor are we at a complete loss for institutions of societal order and at immediate risk of regressing to that state, in the absence of religious institutions running our societies and telling us how to live our lives.

We have modern institutions of law, government, academia, industry. The nature of these institutions is that they are empirical in their assessments and operations. They are subject to review and reorganization. Their word is not dogma. They are not beyond critique because what they say was said in heaven, and so it must be done.

Religion as an institution of social organization and power exists as a relic of an older, more primitive age. And to the extent it seeks to influence modern institutions and limit their operations to what religion says is acceptable, it is holding them back.

In the most extreme cases (i.e. Palestine. ISIS.), the social organization and power of religion completely supplants modern institutions. Giving rise to societies steeped in medieval level expressions of religious violence, and devoid of the modern humanistic ethics which posit that it wrong to do things like kill and torture people because their way of living is said to displease Almighty God.   

Most cases are not that extreme.  But it’s at the extremes that the example is laid forth most plainly, and so such examples are instructive.

If you as an individual find comfort in religion and it helps you live a good life—that is how you live your life, and I would not be so brazen as to tell you you’re doing it wrong.

I am not speaking to the individual experience. I am speaking to the aggregate effect of religion on the human condition.

And for the above stated reasons, I find such effect to today be a negative one.

 

Edited May 26, 2017 by Shoblongoo

[Flee Fleet!]

even though I don't want to act like someone who correct something about their religion in a forum (I find it okay on youtube and e.t.c. I guess), but I mean, I have to.

 

On 5/25/2017 at 6:29 PM, Shoblongoo said:

The day of judgment will not come until the Muslim fights the Jew, killing the Jew. The Jew will hide behind rocks and trees. And the trees will say 'Oh Muslims--oh Great Ones--there is a Jew behind me! Come and kill him!'

this is an actual hadith- saying of the prophet of Islam. But it's not stating a law, it's stating a event that will happen when the day of Judgement (and iirc, by the time Dajaal AKA the Anti-Christ, appears) comes. Also, the hadith does not mention Israel, at all.

Of course, this doesn't mean I don't believe there are Muslims that use this hadith to try to give a reason as to why Israel, or Jews in general, should be hated. 

Sorry if this post was unecessary, or that I seemed "triggered".

[Shoblongoo]

1 hour ago, Flee Fleet! said:

this is an actual hadith- saying of the prophet of Islam. But it's not stating a law, it's stating a event that will happen when the day of Judgement (and iirc, by the time Dajaal AKA the Anti-Christ, appears) comes. Also, the hadith does not mention Israel, at all.

The quote I posted was taken directly from the Hamas Charter.(i take it you know  what Hamas is)

Evidently, the Hamas charter has some doctored Hadith.
 

Edited May 26, 2017 by Shoblongoo

[Flee Fleet!]

1 minute ago, Shoblongoo said:

The quote I posted was taken directly from the Hamas Charter. (i take it you know  what Hamas is)

Evidently, the Hamas charter contains some doctored Hadith.

I see. Sorry my misunderstanding.

I know what Hamas is, but I didn't know it had a charter.

[Shoblongoo]

4 minutes ago, Flee Fleet! said:

I see. Sorry my misunderstanding.

I know what Hamas is, but I didn't know it had a charter.

It was written in like 1987 IIRC. To date, I still don't think they've disavowed it.

No problem! Glad we got that cleared up.

Edited May 26, 2017 by Shoblongoo

[Jotari]

Reports from the Gulags say that those with fanatical religious beliefs faired a lot better than those without...Though I'm not sure if that's a point in favor or against mental health...Still point of interest right?

Edited May 26, 2017 by Jotari

[eclipse]

12 hours ago, Shoblongoo said:

I do not  purport to make the world a better place; only to answer the call of the question has religion done more good than bad? If my answer strikes you as overly generalized or at odds with your understanding of history, then please, allow me to elaborate.

. . .and you've just negated the effort you put into the rest of your post.  On one hand, you're honest about your intentions, and I'm extremely grateful for that.  On the other hand, you're in a subforum with a stricter set of rules.  I'm gonna grab a snippet out of the Serious Discussion Forum Sticky, with the most relevant bit in bold.

Quote

- Serious Discussion is not your personal soap-box to come to for validation, do not hope nor expect to "preach to the choir". You will be interacting with others, many of whom may not share your viewpoint. If you cannot handle disagreement in a respectful and mature fashion, this is not the place for your post.

My issue with your last post was with its tone.  Instead, you chose to latch on to the link.  Even that bit that I quoted you shows that you missed the point.  By stating "at odds with your understanding of history", you're telling me that:

1. I don't know my history
2. But you're willing to correct that, implying superiority

I do not want to see a reply to the above list in this topic, from you, or anyone - that is grounds for a warning.  Instead, I want to you think long and hard about how you come across to others.

[André The kid]

Well, if i had to say , i'd say it did more harm than good. To be fair, Religion joined us together in one society, "upping" its game, for example, Europe. It was all unified due to religion, and this is something you really cannot deny.
Unfortunately, Religion came to slow down progress. If we study religion carefully, we can actually see that it did a lot of harm. 
If we analyze the countries that are now "Powerful/industrialized/Rich", we can actually see that most of them either cut their ties with religion, or never endorsed it in the first place. England and Japan are examples that come to mind in this regard, both countries that outlawed christianity (Yes, i Know that England only separated themselves from Rome,  but Religion just kept losing power over the years).

And if we compare those countries to the ones that were extremely religious (Portugal, Spain, Italy), it's a night and day comparison. For some Reason, these three countries are in economic recessions, while the other two who cut ties with religion stand tall and proud.

I wonder Why?

Well, To answer the question , Inquisition.

The only three countries which held inquisitions (that i can think of), are Portugal, Spain and Italy. Coincidence! 

While in countries Like England, we saw Industrial and Agricultural Revolutions, in Portugal , Spain and Italy, we saw people getting burned alive for trying to fly. Comes to mind a portuguese Priest named "Bartolomeu de Gusmão" who created a flying machine called the "passarola" which could actually fly (Somewhat).  He got burned alive , and everyone who helped him did too. 
In this fashion we see Religion halting technological progress. Might seem fishy, but it's true. Portugal for example, went from being one of, if not the richest country in the world to an economic recession (Multiple ones) , due to wasting all their money on Churches to please the inquisiton, and Rome. Not only this, but the king "D. João IV" Wasted most of Portugal's money in offerings to the church and to the pope. 

Religion was used as a way to manipulate countries around Italy. After all, Why do you think that the richest man on earth in the 1500's was the Pope? Even after he had vowed to live in poverty?

Open to criticism.

PS: i do not judge anyone's beliefs, and accept everyone, so please don't flame me. 

[Shoblongoo]

13 hours ago, eclipse said:

. . .and you've just negated the effort you put into the rest of your post.  On one hand, you're honest about your intentions, and I'm extremely grateful for that.  On the other hand, you're in a subforum with a stricter set of rules.  I'm gonna grab a snippet out of the Serious Discussion Forum Sticky, with the most relevant bit in bold.

My issue with your last post was with its tone.  Instead, you chose to latch on to the link.  Even that bit that I quoted you shows that you missed the point.  By stating "at odds with your understanding of history", you're telling me that:

1. I don't know my history
2. But you're willing to correct that, implying superiority

I do not want to see a reply to the above list in this topic, from you, or anyone - that is grounds for a warning.  Instead, I want to you think long and hard about how you come across to others.

I am admittedly new to this community and unfamiliar with the manner in which you run it, so please bare with me while I learn the ropes.  My apologies if I misunderstood your intent in your last post. I thought we were having a debate, and that by posting the link you posted, you were refuting a point I had previously raised and inviting me to refute your own.  

For clarity's sake--if I again may be honest about my  intentions--I was not telling you that you don't know your history or purporting to "correct" you. I was telling you in greater detail than I had in my previous post why I believe history does not support the argument that religion does more good than harm (you had stated previously that my prior post was too 'generalized,' which I interpreted as a request for more specific information). Your understanding of history tells you that it does and my understanding of history tells me that it does not--that is not to say that either of our understanding's is superior or inferior, or that one of us is right and the other is wrong. That is to say that we have a disagreement.

It was my intention only to flesh out and discuss our points of disagreement--i.e. I tell you why I think your position is wrong and set forth a narrative in support of my counter-position, then you tell me why you think my position is wrong and counter my narrative, and so-on-and-so-forth. In a manner where we disagree without being disagreeable and have an open exchange of ideas.

If that was not evident from my words, I apologize for not choosing my words more wisely.

And if that is not what we're supposed to be doing here, I further apologize for misunderstanding the purpose of this thread. I thought we were supposed to be engaging in argumentation of this kind.

If however you are interested in having such a discussion. I extend an open invitation for you to explain why anything I have previously posted in this thread is substantively wrong.

Edited May 27, 2017 by Shoblongoo

[eclipse]

13 hours ago, Shoblongoo said:

I am admittedly new to this community and unfamiliar with the manner in which you run it, so please bare with me while I learn the ropes.  My apologies if I misunderstood your intent in your last post. I thought we were having a debate, and that by posting the link you posted, you were refuting a point I had previously raised and inviting me to refute your own.  

For clarity's sake--if I again may be honest about my  intentions--I was not telling you that you don't know your history or purporting to "correct" you. I was telling you in greater detail than I had in my previous post why I believe history does not support the argument that religion does more good than harm (you had stated previously that my prior post was too 'generalized,' which I interpreted as a request for more specific information). Your understanding of history tells you that it does and my understanding of history tells me that it does not--that is not to say that either of our understanding's is superior or inferior, or that one of us is right and the other is wrong. That is to say that we have a disagreement.

It was my intention only to flesh out and discuss our points of disagreement--i.e. I tell you why I think your position is wrong and set forth a narrative in support of my counter-position, then you tell me why you think my position is wrong and counter my narrative, and so-on-and-so-forth. In a manner where we disagree without being disagreeable and have an open exchange of ideas.

If that was not evident from my words, I apologize for not choosing my words more wisely.

And if that is not what we're supposed to be doing here, I further apologize for misunderstanding the purpose of this thread. I thought we were supposed to be engaging in argumentation of this kind.

If however you are interested in having such a discussion. I extend an open invitation for you to explain why anything I have previously posted in this thread is substantively wrong.

The absolute fastest way to figure out a subform's purpose is to read what it says directly below its heading.  For Serious Discussion:

Quote

Serious topics should be discussed here. Be very careful of your actions here, breaking the rules will be taken VERY seriously in here.

Debate is welcome, but it needs to be done with the other person in mind.  No two people will truthfully agree on everything under the sun, so disagreement isn't inherently bad.  How that disagreement is aired is the crux of the issue.  I have the fun job of balancing the very tricky topic of religion, complete with an audience that runs a giant gamut of positions.  It's one thing to have two completely different positions about a subject - for example, religion has a giant laundry list of things done wrong.  Yet there's also things that religion has done right.  For a discussion to work, both of these facts must be acknowledged.  Does Catholicism's contribution to literacy outweigh the Crusades/whatever else the church has messed up?  That's not as clear-cut IMO.

This isn't about being correct, because the very foundation of faith can't be measured.  The best that can happen are points and counter-points, with the goal of broadening your own understanding.  If you finish the current thread, and learn nothing, that's a truly failed discussion.

Not really interested in a discussion, since I barely have time to moderate.  I'm behind in a lot of areas in my life, and debating the finer points of history and religion is really low in my list of priorities.  My apologies.

[Skynstein]

18 hours ago, André The kid said:

Well, if i had to say , i'd say it did more harm than good. To be fair, Religion joined us together in one society, "upping" its game, for example, Europe. It was all unified due to religion, and this is something you really cannot deny.
Unfortunately, Religion came to slow down progress. If we study religion carefully, we can actually see that it did a lot of harm. 
If we analyze the countries that are now "Powerful/industrialized/Rich", we can actually see that most of them either cut their ties with religion, or never endorsed it in the first place. England and Japan are examples that come to mind in this regard, both countries that outlawed christianity (Yes, i Know that England only separated themselves from Rome,  but Religion just kept losing power over the years).

And if we compare those countries to the ones that were extremely religious (Portugal, Spain, Italy), it's a night and day comparison. For some Reason, these three countries are in economic recessions, while the other two who cut ties with religion stand tall and proud.

I wonder Why?

Well, To answer the question , Inquisition.

The only three countries which held inquisitions (that i can think of), are Portugal, Spain and Italy. Coincidence! 

While in countries Like England, we saw Industrial and Agricultural Revolutions, in Portugal , Spain and Italy, we saw people getting burned alive for trying to fly. Comes to mind a portuguese Priest named "Bartolomeu de Gusmão" who created a flying machine called the "passarola" which could actually fly (Somewhat).  He got burned alive , and everyone who helped him did too. 
In this fashion we see Religion halting technological progress. Might seem fishy, but it's true. Portugal for example, went from being one of, if not the richest country in the world to an economic recession (Multiple ones) , due to wasting all their money on Churches to please the inquisiton, and Rome. Not only this, but the king "D. João IV" Wasted most of Portugal's money in offerings to the church and to the pope. 

Religion was used as a way to manipulate countries around Italy. After all, Why do you think that the richest man on earth in the 1500's was the Pope? Even after he had vowed to live in poverty?

Open to criticism.

PS: i do not judge anyone's beliefs, and accept everyone, so please don't flame me. 

This was not exclusively due to religion... Portugal's administration of its colonies was not on the level of the empire it once held.

[The_antithesis]

I can see two questions developing here.

1) Has religion done more good than bad in history?

and 2) Is religion doing more good than bad right now?

To answer 1: Yes. Otherwise, we wouldn't have it in the first place. Back when humanity was tribal, some tribes were secular and some were religious. The secular tribes were quickly lost to history, however, as everyone acted for themselves at the cost of others, leading to fighting and eventually death. Meanwhile, the religious tribes were united in prayer. This allowed them to cooperate and form communities with rules and incentives. This led to the tribes working as whole units and spreading to become the humanity we are today. A million years of Darwinian evolution later, and we only see the religious tribes, as those tribes were stronger, and created the ethnicities we see today. Sure, religion had a hand in starting wars, but it also ensured that said wars only had two sides, and that innocent lives were spared as much as possible.

To answer 2: I don't know, but it isn't worth getting rid of. Humanity is now bound by trade and law, and we are forced to cooperate with others through obedience, rather than altruism. While this has its own issues -- which would probably make a decent new thread -- it does mean that we work for the good of society, for the most part. This has somewhat removed religion's original purpose of unification, rendering it somewhat redundant. However, it is often churches and mosques that spawn charities, not companies, and religion can still make us help where we would otherwise sit idly by. As for the current terrorist outbreak in the Middle East, there may be a religious conflict, but there is also oil in the area, which a lot of people want for their own gain. However, even if religion were causing more harm than good, it isn't worth taking effort to get rid of it, as this leads to genocide. The communists learned this the hard way.

So, overall, I think we should keep religion. Not because it is inherently good, but because it is so integral to the foundation of society that we have to rely on it.

[Skynstein]

I think we in the West are rightfully scared of terrorism. But when there are so many unrelated people with similar backgrounds engaging in terrorist activity you can't help but feel whether there's a systematic issue in our society rather than simply religious fanatics having a go at Western infidels. The guy who bombed the Ariana Grande show was born and raised in Britain. Hard to simply wash your hands and blame it all on Muslim terrorist in such case.

Another problem is that ISIS reminds me a lot of that Blue Whale thing. I don't think the Daesh's tentacles extend much beyond their borders, but their ideology and values are out there online for anyone who searches hard enough. Someone who lives a dysfunctional life and has some relation to ISIS, however loose it is (it may be just a case of following the same faith), may find this stuff, be influenced by it and easily become a "lone wolf", as they're being portrayed.

All these groups such as skinheads, ISIS and other ones, they all feed on the neglected ones in society. They have an allure that our society doesn't. These are, effectively and literally, marginalized people. And I think it'll only get worse because there hasn't ever been a single civilization grounded on equality, so these people will keep appearing, and new ideologies will continue to be created to draw these people in and dispose of them to serve their nefarious means.

[Raven]

I'm pretty sure religion is the sole reason for a lot of unwarranted deaths in the world, and has been for thousands of years. So the answer should be fairly obvious, regardless of whatever good may have come from them. As a human race, we'd be better off without such things.

[André The kid]

9 hours ago, Cerberus87 said:

This was not exclusively due to religion... Portugal's administration of its colonies was not on the level of the empire it once held.

Fair enough, but the fact that religion had a hand in it is something you just cannot deny.

 

8 hours ago, The_antithesis said:

I can see two questions developing here.

1) Has religion done more good than bad in history?

and 2) Is religion doing more good than bad right now?

To answer 1: Yes. Otherwise, we wouldn't have it in the first place. Back when humanity was tribal, some tribes were secular and some were religious. The secular tribes were quickly lost to history, however, as everyone acted for themselves at the cost of others, leading to fighting and eventually death. Meanwhile, the religious tribes were united in prayer. This allowed them to cooperate and form communities with rules and incentives. This led to the tribes working as whole units and spreading to become the humanity we are today. A million years of Darwinian evolution later, and we only see the religious tribes, as those tribes were stronger, and created the ethnicities we see today. Sure, religion had a hand in starting wars, but it also ensured that said wars only had two sides, and that innocent lives were spared as much as possible.

To answer 2: I don't know, but it isn't worth getting rid of. Humanity is now bound by trade and law, and we are forced to cooperate with others through obedience, rather than altruism. While this has its own issues -- which would probably make a decent new thread -- it does mean that we work for the good of society, for the most part. This has somewhat removed religion's original purpose of unification, rendering it somewhat redundant. However, it is often churches and mosques that spawn charities, not companies, and religion can still make us help where we would otherwise sit idly by. As for the current terrorist outbreak in the Middle East, there may be a religious conflict, but there is also oil in the area, which a lot of people want for their own gain. However, even if religion were causing more harm than good, it isn't worth taking effort to get rid of it, as this leads to genocide. The communists learned this the hard way.

So, overall, I think we should keep religion. Not because it is inherently good, but because it is so integral to the foundation of society that we have to rely on it.

While i understand your point, i'll have to disagree on point 1. While it created "Rules" for those who had nothing else, this was just in the really early times of humanity. Once religion and society started evolving, and looking for technological progress, religion basically stopped it. Why do you think that the middle ages (approx: 5th Century to 15th century) , there was no advancement not only in technology, but mathematics, writing, whatever you want to bring up, it had no development during these ages.

And is it a coincidence that in the middle ages, life was centered around Religion? I Think Not! 

Not only are we centuries behind in technology due to religion, a lot of men who could have revolutionized our way of thinking or maybe a certain cience , all died in the fire? 

Religion was used as a way to control the countries that did abide by it. I'll ask again, why do you think the industrial revolution happened in England while the other countries were still focused on agriculture? The advancement in Technology and Culture happened in those countries who distanced themselves from religion.

Point 2. The Answer to this question is irrelevant. The fact that Human rights say that people have the right to believe in whatever deity they want, banishing it entirely is impossible.

Your answer to the question is intriguing though. I liked the analisis, but the fact is that as much as people want you to believe it, The cold war Never ended.  It is still ongoing in fact, With Russia supporting The government and America supporting the rebels. (Yes, i know it's not that Black and white, but let's keep it simple).

The Fact that the war in Syria is still going on is because there are too many interests behind it. Turkey wants Oil, Russia wants a puppet government in Syria, due to to its geographical location, Amongst other interests here that would just get off topic.

 

 "The communists learned this the hard way."
Well said Kind sir, Have a cookie!

Edited May 28, 2017 by André The kid