Is religion beneficial or harmful to society?

Discussion in 'Archive: The Senate Floor' started by Obi-Wan McCartney, Dec 1, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. DarthLowBudget Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jan 17, 2004
    star 5

    [image=http://www.sable-pro.net/WHERE_IS_YOUR_GOD_NOW.jpg]

    Somehow this seems frighteningly appropriate.

    But anyways, on topic, religion probably isn't overly beneficial or detrimental to a society, unless it veers strongly into fervent, blind, dogmatism, in which case we get stuff like the crusades and the inquisition.
  2. _Darth_Brooks_ Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Sep 27, 2000
    star 4
    "Note that ideology is just a grouping of views, whereas religion specifically focuses on the origin and purpose of the universe as a function of superhuman entities."

    I tentatively disagree.

    Then, you would be suggesting that Buddhism is not a religion, per se?
  3. Quixotic-Sith Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Jun 22, 2001
    star 6
    Depends on the type of Buddhism.
  4. GenAntilles Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 24, 2007
    star 4
    First off I would like to show this definition of religion, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion

    Note what the second is, a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices.

    Therefore any agrument over personal belief not qualifying as a relgion. Well if you want to go against the Merriam-Webster dictionary be my guest.



    Again your whole basis that religion has to have a central dogma, doctrines, core beliefs, sacred texts, governing philosophies, ect. is utter bull. None of those are nessecary for a relgion. To have a relgion all you need to do is believe something. Now whether it is an organized religion is another matter, but it is a religion. The best phrase I have seen to combat your form of thinking is this: "Believing not to believe doesn't count as believing."

    Christianity is a cutesy catchprahse produced by individuals who denigrate Christ. You've defined religion to fit something that even the Merriam-Webster dictionary disaggres with you. The only rhetorical stunts are coming from you. Beliefs+attitudes+practices=religon. We all have beliefs, we all have attitudes, and we all have practices. Therefore we all have our own religion.

    I think that all the religous people Stalin and Pol Pot killed might have some disagrements over it not being an "atheistic religious crusade." It's not like the medieval crusades were a "christian religious crusade." It was just a political thing.


    Wow, just wow. You have just overlooked millions of lives that were killed by maniacs in the name of social darwinism. I guess all those people deserved death, afterall the weak die to make room for the strong. That's what we learn in freshman level biology labs. Seriously the fact that you don't even acknowledge all those that suffered by the misuse of darwinism shows is mind boggling. Hitler justified most of his policies on Social Darwinism for crying out loud! Sure you may not see him as a true example of Darwinism, but I don't see Torquemada, of the crsaders as true examples of christians.


    So you won't mind if I start laughing now.


  5. _Darth_Brooks_ Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Sep 27, 2000
    star 4
    Q,

    Agreed. Which is why the qualifier 'tentatively'.
  6. Lowbacca_1977 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 28, 2006
    star 6
    Just to highlight this, your definition was "a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices" and not " a personal set or institutionalized system of attitudes, beliefs, and practices".

    The key word in there is what religious means, and your source defines religous as "relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity"

    There is no aspect of an ultimate reality or deity in atheism certainly, and I would argue not in Social Darwinism either. Though, I would highly recommend not dropping the word 'social' in that, as Social Darwinism has, I think, a clear meaning, whereas saying Darwinism is liable to be interpretted exactly as Quix did, based on people that think an acceptance of evolution is a matter of faith.
  7. GenAntilles Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 24, 2007
    star 4
    The ultimate reality is simply what you make it to be. The universe is ultimate reality.

    Atheists and Christians both have a name for someone who rejects reality, insane.
  8. DarthBoba Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Jun 29, 2000
    star 9
    The best part of that clip is that my name is Charles. So naturally, for a few weeks after that became widely known I got alot of shuuunnnnns :p



  9. nancyallen Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Nov 19, 2007
    star 4
    This whole idea of trying to portray religion as evil and dangerous is just stupid. What is to stop this very belief from being just as dangerous as religion?
  10. _Darth_Brooks_ Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Sep 27, 2000
    star 4
    NancyAllen,

    Well, religion is evil and dangerous. Christ pointed that out. ;)
  11. nancyallen Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Nov 19, 2007
    star 4
    On the other hand we have atheists trying to cause a revolution against religion. Same crap, different channel.
  12. SuperWatto Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Sep 19, 2000
    star 5
    I don't know anything about that Shun horse, but it looks like Nancy's going to beat it some more :D
  13. DarthBoba Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Jun 29, 2000
    star 9

    Here:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q5im0Ssyyus
  14. nancyallen Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Nov 19, 2007
    star 4
    The thing is, there seems to be the thinking that religion going on the warpath is bad, yet atheism going on the warpath is good. You can't have it both ways.
  15. DarthBoba Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Jun 29, 2000
    star 9
    Well, no, you can't, but I have yet to see any atheists in the US blowing up churches. Have seen more than a few "religiously"-minded people blowing up abortion clinics, however. ;)
  16. DarthLowBudget Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jan 17, 2004
    star 5
    "Atheism" can't go on the warpath. "Atheism" is not an institution with central organization. People who go on the war path may happen to be atheists, but that doesn't mean that some kind of maliciously organized institution of atheism is going on the warpath. Similarly, people who go on the warpath may happen to be Christians, but that doesn't mean that Christianity, the institution, is on the warpath. However, since there is no institution of "Atheism", there would be no way for "Atheism" to go on the warpath.
  17. _Darth_Brooks_ Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Sep 27, 2000
    star 4
    NancyAllen,

    "On the other hand we have atheists trying to cause a revolution against religion. Same crap, different channel."

    I agree with you on this point.
  18. Gonk Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Jul 8, 1998
    star 6
    The closest thing athiests have ever gotten to going on the warpath was Communism and the French Revolution.

    Communism was about a whole heckuva lot more than religion -- and not even the main point of the entire exercise.

    The Jacobins were just nuts.
  19. DorkmanScott Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Mar 26, 2001
    star 6
    As much as we frequently argue that atheism has no central tenets, I would say that true atheism and totalitarianism are diametrically opposed by their nature.
  20. nancyallen Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Nov 19, 2007
    star 4
    Alright, but Christians, Jews, Muslims, ect who attack beliefs are bad, but atheists who attack beliefs are good? Come on!
  21. DorkmanScott Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Mar 26, 2001
    star 6
    Who said anything about attacking beliefs being bad? Nobody's beliefs should be unassailable, they should always be required to back them up with reason, regardless of whether those beliefs be political, religious, or otherwise.
  22. Vader666 Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Mar 3, 2003
    star 5
    Well, I would argue that there is no logical path for atheists to do bad. Atheism does not tell you to do good things or bad things. Religion on the other hand does. If your holy book tells you to fight unbelievers or to veil your wife for example then that is a direct result of the Religion.
  23. Master_Starwalker Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Sep 20, 2003
    star 6
    Atheism isn't a moral teaching in the same way Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are. Atheism is simply the belief that there is no God. It's a heavily flawed comparison.
  24. nancyallen Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Nov 19, 2007
    star 4
    What percentage of theists have done wrong? Enough to condemn the innocent as well as the guilty?

    For that matter, is atheism and atheist teachings driving the same wedge through people that religion is claimed to?
  25. Master_Starwalker Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Sep 20, 2003
    star 6
    I don't condemn theism or religion. Heck, I'm not even an atheist. I'm simply saying your comparison is flawed because Atheism lacks the moral teachings which form the bedrock of the Abrahamic faiths and because there's no atheist equivalent to "the church." I'm not saying that theism or religion as a whole are inherently evil, they're not. I'm simply saying that the moral codes found in the Abrahamic religions can be more easily exploited than the concept that there is no God and reason must prevail can.

    I don't think it's atheism or religion inherently divide. However, people can use both to do so. Religion just has a more checked track record.


    Edit: Also, which "atheist teachings?" You mean science?
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.