Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

As an Atheist, I view religion in one light only. It is most certainly good, when used in moderation.

Any religion taken to it's extremes is bad, no matter the local. When practiced in a moderate manner, with intent to provide respect to your fellow man, then there is nothing wrong with it, and in my opinion can be a great thing.

I think I will slightly revise my statement, as I've done a bit more thinking on the subject....


Throughout the Middle Ages, and on up through to the early-mid 20th century, Religion had the benefit of bringing and binding society together... If it weren't for many religious holidays, most farmers, ranchers or people in general would have no reason to gather and enjoy human company (which also has the added affect of allowing people to meet, fall in love... marry and create offspring to continue the cycle in a few years)

Now in the 20th century, I think that religion has largely lost that particular "power" as we've seen the rise of professional sports, secular holidays (independence days, veterans and memorial days, labor days, etc).

So, like many things throughout history, I think that this aspect of our society may be seeing signs that we're "outgrowing" the need for religion. The problem with that of course, is that religious bodies don't want to disappear completely, and have jumped more and more into areas where they shouldn't be (the classroom, politics, etc)

 Ninjacommando wrote:
Religion is a Tool, and just like any tool it depends on who wields it.

So, believing in, uh, a bunch of supernatural stuff is a tool? No. A hammer is a tool. A scientific theory is a tool. A religion will be a tool the day we will be able to make stuff work out of “the power of prayer” or some gak like that.
[edit]Or, if you do not believe in it, you can use it as a tool to influence and control others, yes. I am pretty sure that is not a good thing.[/edit]

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Ninjacommando wrote:
Religion is a Tool, and just like any tool it depends on who wields it.

So, believing in, uh, a bunch of supernatural stuff is a tool? No. A hammer is a tool. A scientific theory is a tool. A religion will be a tool the day we will be able to make stuff work out of “the power of prayer” or some gak like that.
[edit]Or, if you do not believe in it, you can use it as a tool to influence and control others, yes. I am pretty sure that is not a good thing.[/edit]

Is it wrong if I can't help but find this statement very entertaining from an icon that is a SoB?

The small bit of western civilisation that resides outside the USA does not have the problems to which you alluded, yet we have plenty of religion.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Ninjacommando wrote:
Religion is a Tool, and just like any tool it depends on who wields it.

So, believing in, uh, a bunch of supernatural stuff is a tool? No. A hammer is a tool. A scientific theory is a tool. A religion will be a tool the day we will be able to make stuff work out of “the power of prayer” or some gak like that.
[edit]Or, if you do not believe in it, you can use it as a tool to influence and control others, yes. I am pretty sure that is not a good thing.[/edit]

....

Tool: Noun

Definition 2c: a means to an end

Merriam-Webster,

Now is this good or bad? It depends on the Ends the people who are in control desire.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The small bit of western civilisation that resides outside the USA does not have the problems to which you alluded, yet we have plenty of religion.

Or at the very least, the movements are still there, but are quite definitely in the minority of the population as a whole. I certainly wasn't aware that denial of global warming was propagated by religion, anyone I've met who denies it has used any excuse possible to justify their claims.

Anyway, I think religion is neither good nor bad. The effects on society depend on those who use it.

Without targeting any specific race, ethnicity, etc., there are several popular "movements", for lack of a better word, in the US whose ideologies are based primarily in skin color, and which I view as detrimental to our culture, and I will explain why.

The "white power" movement. This aims to insert counter-scientific truth claims into a settled area of science. In as much as this has succeeded, it places our youth at risk of not understanding an entire branch of science and history, and its actual and possible benefits to society. This actively seeks to deny equal rights to fellow citizens.

On the other hand... I'm white and I have black friends. And in many cases, indispensable black friends.

So, my question is, are white people in general a net benefit or a net detriment to western society?

Not insulting you so much as making a point. These 'fill in the blanks' questions are ultimately pointless. You can replace 'religion' with any number of things, and get a rather similar result out of it. Is it 'good' is a fruitless endeavor. You're really only affirming your own opinion or drawing opposition into a circular argument where all that's going to happen is lots of silly arguments and nonsense. EDIT: What I'm saying is that your premise is so broad, there's not really any discussion to be had, especially when the premise itself is loaded.

 Ninjacommando wrote:
Religion is a Tool, and just like any tool it depends on who wields it.

In the hands of the right people it can do a lot of good and help a lot of people.

In the hands of wrong people it can cause violence (Which it does while in "their" hands)

This is pretty accurate.

The church, despite a belief that it is violent, tends to cause the softening of a country. This can be seen in the Roman Empire where the country went very well and started to crumble only when christianity became widespread.

Something similar can be seen in america, and in many colonist states of europe. There's a call to support those who were under rule and are less fortunate or simply don't have the same tools as we do (hence the west's involvement in africa and southern asia).

It is worth noting that every atheist who draws on a western moral code is drawing on a christian moral code. Indians, Chinese, and even less-anglicised people like russians and turks thing very, very differently to us. As much as we may like to think we've evolved past the need for religion, religion will always be core to our morals.

Whether that means we need our morals in a book of anecdotes or not? That's another story. Western religion as a whole has been beneficial in developing a western identity, no matter what Richard Dawkins wants you to believe.

For those who wish to note, I cite myself as being irreligious; I don't believe in a god, but I refuse to associate with any group that is so outspoken in their hatred for another group - hence I do not identify as either 'christian' the larger group, or 'atheist' whatsoever.

It strikes me that one of the prerequisits to being an atheist is to be adamantly set on disturbing other people's beliefs, and that's just not right for anyone to do.

Church is bad. People corrupt something that used to be good. Ihaven't met a single "religious" person that wasn't a worthless person that would have been better off growing up without it.

yellowfever wrote:
Church is bad. People corrupt something that used to be good. Ihaven't met a single "religious" person that wasn't a worthless person that would have been better off growing up without it.

Replace the word religious with the word black and you have racism, this is no different as a sweeping generalisation that is completely uncalled for.

yellowfever wrote:
Church is bad. People corrupt something that used to be good. Ihaven't met a single "religious" person that wasn't a worthless person that would have been better off growing up without it.

*Slow hand claps*

I don't much like religion but our two best friends are regular church attendees and are the nicest, warmest, helpful and caring people you could wish to meet. Obviously - the rest are scum - but, you know........

Personally I think the whole 'centuries of scientific stagnation' thing skews the case heavily against religion, we could be zipping about on jetbikes by now if it wasn't for those meddling priests.

I dunno, we get sundays off - all official like.

 dæl wrote:
Personally I think the whole 'centuries of scientific stagnation' thing skews the case heavily against religion

But what of all the scientific discoveries and promulgation by those who were religious?

 Mr. Burning wrote:
I dunno, we get sundays off - all official like.

Well there is that, so its swings and roundabouts really.

 Ahtman wrote:

 dæl wrote:
Personally I think the whole 'centuries of scientific stagnation' thing skews the case heavily against religion

But what of all the scientific discoveries and promulgation by those who were religious?

It could be argued that someone else would have discovered them, much like the whole calculus being discovered in two places at once, once an ideas time has come then it will be discovered. Or, it could be argued that those people would have discovered such things without their religion, a religious nature isn't really needed for the hard sciences, I can understand it would influence someone's philosophical work, but their work in physics or chemistry should remain unaffected.

 dæl wrote:
It could be argued that someone else would have discovered them, much like the whole calculus being discovered in two places at once, once an ideas time has come then it will be discovered. Or, it could be argued that those people would have discovered such things without their religion, a religious nature isn't really needed for the hard sciences, I can understand it would influence someone's philosophical work, but their work in physics or chemistry should remain unaffected.

So we'll blame religious people for holding science back but not give religious people that advanced science any credit. Seems reasonable.

 Ahtman wrote:

 dæl wrote:
It could be argued that someone else would have discovered them, much like the whole calculus being discovered in two places at once, once an ideas time has come then it will be discovered. Or, it could be argued that those people would have discovered such things without their religion, a religious nature isn't really needed for the hard sciences, I can understand it would influence someone's philosophical work, but their work in physics or chemistry should remain unaffected.

So we'll blame religious people for holding science back but not give religious people that advanced science any credit. Seems reasonable.

Not at all, Columbus found America, therefore he deservedly gets credit for doing so, but if he hadn't found it then somebody else would have. Anybody who made a scientific discovery deserves credit for doing so. But it is very telling that so many discoveries were made during the Enlightenment, once rationalism was embraced.

I am a peaceful Dudeist and a follower of the church of the flying spaghetti monster, and if you don't agree with me, i have to torture and kill you, but you soul will float to heaven to eat meatballs and go bowling.

I don't really get the question, to be honest. Religion is just a thing humans do, it's innate to much (most) of the population.

So what is 'good'? Good is people doing what they want with their own lives. If someone wants to get up early on Sunday and sit on a wooden bench thinking about life, morality and whether or not he can really justify buying one of the brownies in the cake sale afterwards, well there doesn't need to be any more good or purpose to the act other than that's what that purpose wants to do.

Now, we can debate whether individual parts of religion have had an impact on society. Obviously the anti-scientific bent running through a lot of religion right now is a negative, but when you consider it isn't across all religious people, that science and religion have gone hand in hand for much of history, and that there's plenty of anti-scientific thought in the rest of the community, I don't really see the point in trying to weight that up against the whole of religion.

Seems all that would do is isolate Christians who don't like the anti-scientific part of their faith, but who would be compelled to defend Christianity as a whole once you start making it an attack on the value of the organisation as a whole, make an enemy out of someone who really is on your side for everything that matters (unless what matters is bashing religion).

 dæl wrote:

Not at all, Columbus found America, therefore he deservedly gets credit for doing so, but if he hadn't found it then somebody else would have. Anybody who made a scientific discovery deserves credit for doing so. But it is very telling that so many discoveries were made during the Enlightenment, once rationalism was embraced.

This in and of itself is not a valid answer to the question proposed.

Many of the founding beliefs within logic, many of the terms we use today and yes, that term you just used - rationalism (which I might add is at odds with the scientific method in some ways, since the former uses reason over empirical evidence, and vice versa) come from religious entities.

Some topics should just be banned on Dakka <.<

Religion in itself is an extremely worthwhile thing to have as it provides support, help and other services to those that need it - and this is valid for all religions, be it Christianity, Neo-Pagans or others.

Such as every single other institution, it can be abused and not fulfill its intended purpose. That is not religion's problem, however, the problem is the people behind it.

It's a good thing to have for a lot of people and it's responsible for a lot of positive modern values we have nowadays.

I'm a very laidback atheist.

If it makes people happy and they're not hurting anyone with it they should be free to worship whatever they wish. I personally don't count myself as a believer as I don't see any convincing evidence for the supernatural or believe that any conception of it that humanity has produced would be at all accurate, but it's generally harmless enough.

What I am against however, is fanatacism. Be it militant atheism or fundamentalist religions. If people are killing and dying for it that's generally not a good thing.

No, it's not. Science has provided answers for almost all the eternal questions that humans have pondered and assumed were divine design for thousands of years. I'll give organized religion another two centuries, maximum, before it falls out of practice and is replaced with technoworship or some other modern form of faith that revolves around ideas that don't originate in the fertile crescent three thousand years ago.

And now I'm ducking out before the flame wars begin.

 Captain Fantastic wrote:
No, it's not. Science has provided answers for almost all the eternal questions that humans have pondered and assumed were divine design for thousands of years. I'll give organized religion another two centuries, maximum, before it falls out of practice and is replaced with technoworship or some other modern form of faith that revolves around ideas that don't originate in the fertile crescent three thousand years ago.

Wrong. Science can only describe but can't answer the "why" question. The answers to the latter cannot be given by science and therefore remain unanswered still.

I think religion, on the whole and at its core, is a good thing. Not because of any great change it can bring to the world, or anything like that, but simply because the core values of most religions teach people to be Decent People.

I'm not a follower of any religion myself, but I still hold by the belief that the moral codes found in religion that generally teach you how to be a good person will result in life being better, both for the religious themselves and those they come into contact with. The kindest, most generous and supportive people I've known have been religious, and I don't think that's coincidence. Regardless of the merits of the belief system itself, when the end result is more good people in the world, that can't be a bad thing.

There's also the other benefits- organised religion often leads to organised charity on a local or larger level, it brings people together, and contributes to society. So yes, it is a good thing.

 Scipio Africanus wrote:

 dæl wrote:

Not at all, Columbus found America, therefore he deservedly gets credit for doing so, but if he hadn't found it then somebody else would have. Anybody who made a scientific discovery deserves credit for doing so. But it is very telling that so many discoveries were made during the Enlightenment, once rationalism was embraced.

This in and of itself is not a valid answer to the question proposed.

Many of the founding beliefs within logic, many of the terms we use today and yes, that term you just used - rationalism (which I might add is at odds with the scientific method in some ways, since the former uses reason over empirical evidence, and vice versa) come from religious entities.

There wasn't a question posed.

So we'll blame religious people for holding science back but not give religious people that advanced science any credit. Seems reasonable.

My response is perfectly apt, those who discover things deserve credit, but had they not, someone else would have. Also, religion had little influence on the hard sciences, which flourished as the Church's hold on society weakened.

The founding beliefs of logic stem from Athens which, like many Greek things, Christianity took for itself. Logic has as little to do with the Abrahamic religions as it does to the Greek pantheon. Could you please explain how rationalism comes from religious entities? I fail to see how burning astronomers is particularly rational.

 jasper76 wrote:
Without targeting any specific religion, denomination, etc., there are several popular "movements", for lack of a better word, in the US whose ideologies are based primarily in religious doctrines, and which I view as detrimental to our culture, and I will explain why.

(a) The "teach the controversy" movement. This aims to insert counter-scientific truth claims into a settled area of science. In as much as this has succeeded, it places our youth at risk of not understanding an entire branch of science and its actual and possible benefits to society.
(b) The "protect marriage" movement. This actively seeks to deny equal rights to fellow citizens.
(c) The "pro-life" movement. This actively seeks to place medical decisions under state control.
(d) The "climate change denial" movement. This introduces popular confusion into the issue of climate change, which has potentially catastrophic consequence for the habitability of the entire planet.

On the other hand...charity. And in many cases, indispensable charity.

So, my question is, is religion in general a net benefit or a net detriment to western society?

I think it is within reason. It guides moral, philosophical and ethical debates as well as challenging secularism/humanism.
Group a) are nutters, however though they might have some legitimate and genuine questions these tend to get diluted out by the sheer nuttiness
b) it depends how you define marraige etc and considering that marriage has been a largely societal concept it is more of a social issue than a religous one. Especially considering that there's bigger things to worry about than if god likes gays or not.
c) I disagree, protecting the unborn is something all states should do.
d) that global warming brigade has lost a lot of credibility so again I don't blame them.

You seem to be describing the popularist view of 'liberal, left wing anti-conservative-christians/muslim' which is a bit of a boring cliche to be honest. The thing that bugs me is the supposed fixation on gays and pro-life etc while ignoring the murder rape and pillage going on elsewhere ,the appealing human rights issues in North Korea or China for example.

If religion is the stick to keep people from going off the rails, that's a good thing.
Aesop's Fables offer a lot of the lessons found in parables and other religious teachings, but they're not religious themselves.

But, if religion used as a means to a personal end, it's lost its usefulness.
Not that fanatics and conmen need religion, they just get to use it as an excuse for their actions.