Crosswords2 mins ago
Religion Causes No Harm
199 Answers
In discussions on R&S both here and elsewhere one often hears questions like
Why are you bothered?
Why don't you just let people believe what they want?
What harm does religion do?
This is one example of the harm religion can do.
http://
and it's one of the reasons atheists never shut up about religion.
Why are you bothered?
Why don't you just let people believe what they want?
What harm does religion do?
This is one example of the harm religion can do.
http://
and it's one of the reasons atheists never shut up about religion.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by chrisgel. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
emmie; //millions [killed] in the name of Crusades, Inquisitions over the centuries. // These numbers are insignificant compared to deaths caused under secularism ; Mongol hordes, Napoleon, British expansionism, National Socialism, Communism etc. - a near endless list of murder and destruction without any connection to religion whatsoever.
@Khandro.
The difference between the death toll due to the crusades, the auto-da-fe, the schism between sunni and shia muslims,protestants and catholics, the attempted ethnic cleansing in places like Darfur and the Balkans, the tit for tat deaths in Nigeria between Christian and Muslim communities - all these deaths were mandated by holy order - the divinely authorised pogroms in the name of their particular flavour of god. Of course, it is likely there was political calculation there as well, at least in part, but at the vanguard were the zealots, waving the flag and shouting death to unbelievers or whatever.
The deaths you ascribe to atheism on the other hand, are no such thing. None of those leaders who initiated the wars did it in the name of atheism. The leaders and soldiers were not crying out death to believers, or I kill you in the name of my lack of a god. Indeed, as far as National Socialism is concerned, they were very much of the opinion that "Gott mit uns".
Would ending religion overnight remove the motivation for all wars,ever? No, of course not. But, could we actually remove religion overnight, then it would definitely remove one major cause of division in the world.
The difference between the death toll due to the crusades, the auto-da-fe, the schism between sunni and shia muslims,protestants and catholics, the attempted ethnic cleansing in places like Darfur and the Balkans, the tit for tat deaths in Nigeria between Christian and Muslim communities - all these deaths were mandated by holy order - the divinely authorised pogroms in the name of their particular flavour of god. Of course, it is likely there was political calculation there as well, at least in part, but at the vanguard were the zealots, waving the flag and shouting death to unbelievers or whatever.
The deaths you ascribe to atheism on the other hand, are no such thing. None of those leaders who initiated the wars did it in the name of atheism. The leaders and soldiers were not crying out death to believers, or I kill you in the name of my lack of a god. Indeed, as far as National Socialism is concerned, they were very much of the opinion that "Gott mit uns".
Would ending religion overnight remove the motivation for all wars,ever? No, of course not. But, could we actually remove religion overnight, then it would definitely remove one major cause of division in the world.
LG; //But, could we actually remove religion overnight, then it would definitely remove one major cause of division in the world.// Probably, but only to be replaced by something else I assure you, and as usual you continually dwell on the negative aspects of religion and fail to see the positive because sadly for you, it is beyond your grasp.
Regarding your comments about atheists [your introduced word] -secular does not mean atheist. The annihilation of Jews under national socialism and other agents was not conducted for inter religious reasons but racial ones,
and 'Gott mit uns' predates National Socialism and was used on buckles of WW1 German soldiers, and in fact it goes back at least to Roman times . The Waffen SS, the actual Nazi Party military force instead wore "My Honor Is Loyalty" (Meine Ehre heißt Treue) on theirs.
Regarding your comments about atheists [your introduced word] -secular does not mean atheist. The annihilation of Jews under national socialism and other agents was not conducted for inter religious reasons but racial ones,
and 'Gott mit uns' predates National Socialism and was used on buckles of WW1 German soldiers, and in fact it goes back at least to Roman times . The Waffen SS, the actual Nazi Party military force instead wore "My Honor Is Loyalty" (Meine Ehre heißt Treue) on theirs.
I think it's possible to see the positives of religion but feel that they are vastly outweighed by the negatives. In particular, since most religion is based on a false premise (that there is a God or Gods), one big negative is that it's wrong. Then all of the rest follows as either good, but at least partly for the wrong reasons, or bad and unnecessary.
That patronising rubbish about "beyond our grasp" (directed at LG, but by extension me for agreeing with him), is just that -- rubbish. Also, just because it's likely that humans will find yet another excuse to be horrid to others if religion were removed doesn't mean it's not worth trying to do something about such a major cause of division. If nothing else, it's one fewer excuse people can have -- and maybe eventually such people will run out of excuses.
That patronising rubbish about "beyond our grasp" (directed at LG, but by extension me for agreeing with him), is just that -- rubbish. Also, just because it's likely that humans will find yet another excuse to be horrid to others if religion were removed doesn't mean it's not worth trying to do something about such a major cause of division. If nothing else, it's one fewer excuse people can have -- and maybe eventually such people will run out of excuses.
@Khandro Yadda Yadda
Your argumentation leaves a lot to be desired.Personal insult just does not cut it if you wish to impress with your debating skills. The OP was quite clear; Those who support religion, those who promote it here and in the real world more often than not gloss over the very real harms that zealous interpretation of gods word brings to people.
You on the other hand seem to want to gloss over the negative aspects of religion,favouring this wishy washy unproveable "spiritual benefit" that poor benighted atheists like me cannot even begin to imagine. Insulting and wrong.
And you can "assure me" all you like that humanity would find something else to squabble over- What else can you imagine, original and different to already given reasons to kill each other beyond what they already do? Sorry, but your assurances are worth nothing as evidence. Why should we trust your assurances? What makes you think you have some special wisdom that I or others do not share? The unassailable fact that you and others who attempt to defend religion attempt to ignore is that, were we miraculously able to surgically remove religion from the body of humanity, it would be one major reason less for people to find reasons to kill each other - the other reasons remain, of course, as i pointed out in my previous post.
And I do know what secular means, thank you very much. If your point you were attempting to make was that man can be bloody to other men without the need for religion - well whoop de do! Who- anywhere in this thread- has tried to claim otherwise? That spectacularly fails to address the point of the OP and the points raised by others here.
It is co-incidentally the same list of conflicts that the religious (and, I am pretty sure, yourself) often cite as being inspired by or carried out under the flag of atheism, which is most certainly not a fair assessment.This sort of empirical reduction of the argument of which is more violent, atheism or religion, by offering up some kind of body count is absurd. Religion cannot be all that bad, goes the apologists refrain - look at all those bodies piled high on the alter of atheism!
Which is both absurd, and frankly a pretty offensive one too.
nd the point I was trying to make about the Gott mit uns badges addresses that, at least in part, but also addresses the wider issue; I was not trying to claim that National Socialism invented the badges, or that they were carrying out their actions expressly and specifically for religious reasons.
Rather, I was trying to point out that, in almost all conflicts, even those waged solely for political and/or economic reasons, leaders will very often attempt to cloak their cause in the veneer of rightness by invoking god - So that not only would it be unpatriotic to question such warmongering by the public, in would be heresy as well. Indeed by using god you can invest such actions with a false legitimacy, as well as having the ridiculous spectacle of 2 sides in resolute opposition to each other claiming holy mandate from the very same god in support of their cause!
Steven Weinbergs quote remains true an apposite to this thread.
"Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."
Your argumentation leaves a lot to be desired.Personal insult just does not cut it if you wish to impress with your debating skills. The OP was quite clear; Those who support religion, those who promote it here and in the real world more often than not gloss over the very real harms that zealous interpretation of gods word brings to people.
You on the other hand seem to want to gloss over the negative aspects of religion,favouring this wishy washy unproveable "spiritual benefit" that poor benighted atheists like me cannot even begin to imagine. Insulting and wrong.
And you can "assure me" all you like that humanity would find something else to squabble over- What else can you imagine, original and different to already given reasons to kill each other beyond what they already do? Sorry, but your assurances are worth nothing as evidence. Why should we trust your assurances? What makes you think you have some special wisdom that I or others do not share? The unassailable fact that you and others who attempt to defend religion attempt to ignore is that, were we miraculously able to surgically remove religion from the body of humanity, it would be one major reason less for people to find reasons to kill each other - the other reasons remain, of course, as i pointed out in my previous post.
And I do know what secular means, thank you very much. If your point you were attempting to make was that man can be bloody to other men without the need for religion - well whoop de do! Who- anywhere in this thread- has tried to claim otherwise? That spectacularly fails to address the point of the OP and the points raised by others here.
It is co-incidentally the same list of conflicts that the religious (and, I am pretty sure, yourself) often cite as being inspired by or carried out under the flag of atheism, which is most certainly not a fair assessment.This sort of empirical reduction of the argument of which is more violent, atheism or religion, by offering up some kind of body count is absurd. Religion cannot be all that bad, goes the apologists refrain - look at all those bodies piled high on the alter of atheism!
Which is both absurd, and frankly a pretty offensive one too.
nd the point I was trying to make about the Gott mit uns badges addresses that, at least in part, but also addresses the wider issue; I was not trying to claim that National Socialism invented the badges, or that they were carrying out their actions expressly and specifically for religious reasons.
Rather, I was trying to point out that, in almost all conflicts, even those waged solely for political and/or economic reasons, leaders will very often attempt to cloak their cause in the veneer of rightness by invoking god - So that not only would it be unpatriotic to question such warmongering by the public, in would be heresy as well. Indeed by using god you can invest such actions with a false legitimacy, as well as having the ridiculous spectacle of 2 sides in resolute opposition to each other claiming holy mandate from the very same god in support of their cause!
Steven Weinbergs quote remains true an apposite to this thread.
"Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."
Yes, all very well and nice LG, bit long-winded for me but we all know that that quote is virtually bollux, as money and power have the same effect.
I wonder why it is cliched so much AB R&S? Because it makes people feel better and absolves them of any social responsibility for al the ills of the world? Pah! And the argument about death by numbers (don't mention the crusades!) was introduced by an antitheist above.
I wonder why it is cliched so much AB R&S? Because it makes people feel better and absolves them of any social responsibility for al the ills of the world? Pah! And the argument about death by numbers (don't mention the crusades!) was introduced by an antitheist above.
Yes, this is the hard fact to non believer : To end wars, end warmongers. To end famine, end profiteers. To end pollution, end polluters. To end crime, end criminals and the conditions that spawn them. To end the immoralities that destroy families and breed disease, end the practicers of immorality.
No more than you can have peace on earth with evildoers and atheiste infesting it. God’s permission of wickedness will end by his removal of all others who insist on practicing it.
LG-Did you know many Bible writers even recorded their own faults and foolish mistakes—something rarely seen.
No more than you can have peace on earth with evildoers and atheiste infesting it. God’s permission of wickedness will end by his removal of all others who insist on practicing it.
LG-Did you know many Bible writers even recorded their own faults and foolish mistakes—something rarely seen.
@ Octavius.
I think the quote holds.What morally good person would do evil for money? By definition, were they to do an evil act they would no longer be morally good, would they? The point about religion is that it can be used as a moral justification for evil, as you well know.
The argument about relative death by numbers is always introduced by the theist apologists. Point out, quite rationally, the sheer number of deaths consequent upon religiously inspired pogroms, and you will always get some one snivelling and whining and pointing to the number of deaths inspired by secularist motives, or depending on just how zealous the defender, atheists.
This completely and utterly misses the point, which is that, if religion were not around, it would be one significantly less factor for slaughter and for people to be not excellent to one anther. Divisive and dangerous. And none of you theist apologisers can challenge that - the best you can do is come up with some lame "well we would replace it with something else" - Well, what else? Come on, lets see something specific that is original -not already being used- to justify, well shunning and social division at its lowest level of harm, mysogyny and patriarchy, bigotry over sexual orientation and race at the medium to serious level of social harm, and death, slaughter, war and mobs rioting in the street over cartoons and burning of books at its worst?
What other motive not already in use could replace the religiously inspired nonsense that is still our legacy today?
I think the quote holds.What morally good person would do evil for money? By definition, were they to do an evil act they would no longer be morally good, would they? The point about religion is that it can be used as a moral justification for evil, as you well know.
The argument about relative death by numbers is always introduced by the theist apologists. Point out, quite rationally, the sheer number of deaths consequent upon religiously inspired pogroms, and you will always get some one snivelling and whining and pointing to the number of deaths inspired by secularist motives, or depending on just how zealous the defender, atheists.
This completely and utterly misses the point, which is that, if religion were not around, it would be one significantly less factor for slaughter and for people to be not excellent to one anther. Divisive and dangerous. And none of you theist apologisers can challenge that - the best you can do is come up with some lame "well we would replace it with something else" - Well, what else? Come on, lets see something specific that is original -not already being used- to justify, well shunning and social division at its lowest level of harm, mysogyny and patriarchy, bigotry over sexual orientation and race at the medium to serious level of social harm, and death, slaughter, war and mobs rioting in the street over cartoons and burning of books at its worst?
What other motive not already in use could replace the religiously inspired nonsense that is still our legacy today?
There are many honest, compassionate, responsible people who are not attracted to religion.
But most people in Christendom believe that God requires obedience. They go to church to gain God’s favour, either through rites conducted by a priest or through guidance provided by a preacher. Of course, many are aware of the hypocrisy in religion.
Even back in the very early days of Christianity, people were warned of the dangers. But people need to believe in something and even if they don't fully believe it, they will follow it because the majority do and they don't want to stand out as being different.
Clergymen use religion to elevate themselves, they like the honour, glory and worship that comes along with their position. In the poorer countries, the priest is almost God himself and they will starve themselves to make sure the church doesn't suffer.
As a Christian myself, although I believe strongly in God Almighty, I still depend on the expertise of the medical profession.
But most people in Christendom believe that God requires obedience. They go to church to gain God’s favour, either through rites conducted by a priest or through guidance provided by a preacher. Of course, many are aware of the hypocrisy in religion.
Even back in the very early days of Christianity, people were warned of the dangers. But people need to believe in something and even if they don't fully believe it, they will follow it because the majority do and they don't want to stand out as being different.
Clergymen use religion to elevate themselves, they like the honour, glory and worship that comes along with their position. In the poorer countries, the priest is almost God himself and they will starve themselves to make sure the church doesn't suffer.
As a Christian myself, although I believe strongly in God Almighty, I still depend on the expertise of the medical profession.
Latest Posts
Film, Media & TV2 mins ago
News3 mins ago
This Will Put The Cat Amongst The...
News3 mins ago
Body & Soul4 mins ago
Film, Media & TV5 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.