Religion Causes No Harm

[chrisgel]

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://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23729684

and it's one of the reasons atheists never shut up about religion.

[sandyRoe]

No. They would have been encouraging concupiscence.
Incidentally, didn't Mothera Theresa help people near the end of their lives who, at that stage, had no need for contraceptive advice?

[vetuste_ennemi]

Concupiscence, eh? Well, I see: birth control = can avoid pregnancy = can have sex with any one without comeback = bad, therefore no birth control = good. Ho hum, back to Verdi.

[seadogg]

Don't forget the Wagner this evening, the masochist's Verdi!

[vetuste_ennemi]

Ah yes, Seadogg - Think Along with Brunhilde

[vetuste_ennemi]

Damn (says to himself thinking about Sandy), he's conned me into taking him seriously once again.

[Khandro]

//Has religion proved to meld us into a coherent society?//
Yes it certainly has, and it's interesting that society appears going to the dogs in an inverse proportion to the decrease in 'religion and spirituality'. What we need is; 'More family Bibles on the table, and more mothers singing "Rock of Ages Cleft for me"' (Commander Cody and the Lost Planet Airmen) :-)
Also; lots of knock-about stuff and evasion on here today, but still no answers to my morning questions.

[vetuste_ennemi]

I think that I can agree with fellow human beings a lot about how we should conduct ourselves both in our personal interests and those of society as a whole. Can you give me any example of any “good” thing you, Khandro, (or the JWs or the RCs or the Muslims who post on these threads) do which I without the benefit of your respective and contradictory rule books couldn’t. Meanwhile I can give you chapter and verse of “rules” in the sacred texts which I have read which mankind would have been OBVIOUSLY (sorry to shout) the better without. And atheism = anarchy. What an extraordinary conflation!
As for the final point, well, oh dear. As religion was man’s first attempt to explain the world in both the physical and the moral sense (and as its utility to the Alpha classes in the human packs was quickly observed) it is no surprise that all societies have been largely influenced by these false explanations and that behaviours that are generally approved are justified by various more or less crude appeals to the Divine Command theory (“Because I said so”). Now it may or may not be the case (as some argue) that religion was a necessary stage in man’s his search for explanation, but what can’t be denied is that that if human beings did not have co-operative instincts, the instincts to protect and nurture their young and so forth, there would never have been a Homo Sapiens to argue the toss on AB R&S. Put briefly, a form of morality is a necessary condition of our survival. Religion takes false credit.

[Khandro]

v_e; No,I'm unable to offer examples, because I lack knowledge of how you conduct your life, but I can say that where I live, the Church; -predominantly Catholic, and to which incidentally I do not 'belong' - provides an extraordinary amount of care and good work, for both the elderly and the young, far beyond anything I have seen provided by secular society. This is also mirrored within the Hindu and Muslim societies I have been privileged to witness in the UK and other countries.
I believe regarding religions, you continually make the mistake of being unable to see beyond the question, 'Is it true?' and by that you assume that to mean 'literally true' and if the answer is 'no', then that closes everything, but it does not. Just because something is not literally true does not mean that there is no truth or worth in it.

[vetuste_ennemi]

It's got nothing to do with "Is it true", Khandro. The examples you quote are decent people acting decently. Shuffle them up so they're born of different parents and the Hindu would be a Muslim doing good things, the Christian would be a Hindu doing good things and the Muslim would be a Christian doing good things. The labels are irrelevant. If they weren't then why would Muslims on the whole not be better than Hindus who worship idols and ought to be killed or at least robbed and enslaved if you take the Koran seriously (which the Muslims you cite, not the Wahabees who stroll through R&S occasionally, don't)? What I hate about religion (this is not hyperbole) is not that it makes all decent people bad, but that it's teachings when taken literally create division, intolerance and hatred. The extreme and nastiest form of this is the Islamist movement (see TV and News passim). Smoked salmon and a Sancerre call.
May your God go with you.

[Khandro]

[pixie373]

I think that's the last thing we need, khandro. We need to take more responsibility for ourselves and each other. I have strong morals, but no religion. So we clearly don't need religion to show us how to behave. I really don't think it "melds" us. I thought it was the cause of many wars and terrorism- or at least, the excuse.

[naomi24]

Khandro, if the church you mention carries out charitable works far beyond anything you have seen provided by any secular society, you need to look a bit harder. Without religion, that church wouldn't exist. On the other hand without religion the organisations listed below (which are just a few of those I could have included) would continue to exist not because a book tells those involved that they will personally benefit in an afterlife if they're charitable to others - but because they genuinely care about the plight of their fellow man.

Amnesty International
Oxfam
Medecins Sans Frontieres
WaterAid
UNICEF
Fairtrade Foundation
Red Cross

[seadogg]

I have been involved with saving souls most of my adult life, Naomi and I doubt if any member of the team ever mentioned they were doing it because of a personal religious belief. On the other hand, if churchgoers get together to act in a charitable manner, good luck to them

[naomi24]

Seadogg, exactly. Altruism does not depend upon religion, which is what Khandro is inferring. Without religion the world would not sink into a mire of selfishness and anarchy.

[Khandro]

Homily time; As the years slip by, I take less and less account of what people say, and more account of what they DO. I hear the cry (above) //we clearly don't need religion to show us how to behave// but in the freezing winter at 2:00am it is the Salvation Army (God bless them) giving succour on the streets of our big cities to the dispossessed and needy, seeking neither merit or approval.

[naomi24]

//As the years slip by, I take less and less account of what people say, and more account of what they DO.//

In that case you are blind. Yes, the Salvation Army do a wonderful job - and all credit to them for that - but let us not forget that on 9/11 it was the Red Cross, an organisation that is there first in practically any disastrous situation you care to mention, that was finding temporary shelter for people stranded by diverted flights; nor that in the wake of the 2004 Tsunami, it and similar organisations were the front runners in providing real and practical aid; nor that Oxfam works tirelessly to feed the hungry - and actually I don't see any of them seeking merit or approval either. How easy it is for you to ignore all of that - and why? Because you give credit where it is due only when it suits you. Religion, regardless of its reasons, doesn't have the monopoly on altruism! Far from it! Open your eyes!

[Khandro]

//Open your eyes!// Well you too, most of those you mention working "tirelessly" are in fact doing pretty well; 5 star hotels, fleets of Toyota 4x4's and most certainly in my experience "seeking merit and approval" plus handsome remuneration. Are you by the way yet another armchair charity worker?

[naomi24]

Khandro, what I am is not your business, but unlike you I will give credit where it is due.

//most of those you mention working "tirelessly" are in fact doing pretty well; 5 star hotels, fleets of Toyota 4x4's and most certainly in my experience "seeking merit and approval" plus handsome remuneration.//

Most? Really? Having witnessed the work that these charities do in some very inhospitable conditions, I can only assume that your experience is very limited indeed. When the churches, not to mention all the bible thumping evangelists, are in the business of accumulating wealth, how ironic that you attempt to undermine non-religious charities by mentioning money. I wonder how much the Vatican, with its untold fortunes, gives to that church you mention to aid its charity work? But that's not really the issue. The point is that when disaster strikes these organisations are there in the most hostile situations leading aid efforts - and if religion collapsed tomorrow, the world would not suddenly tumble into a hopelessly chaotic morass as you seem to think – life would go on and those organisations would still be doing exactly what they are doing now.