jump to last post 1-35 of 35 discussions (674 posts)

Is RELIGION Detrimental To The Whole of Society?

  1. gmwilliams profile image86
    gmwilliamsposted 2 years ago

    http://s2.hubimg.com/u/9053333.jpg
    So many people insist that Atheism is detrimental to society while religion enhanced society.  Hmmm, now let us see this objectively instead of subjectively.  Religions have been the source of wars and other types of divisions among humankind.  Religions have also been the source of prejudice and discrimination against those deemed to be so-called religious outsiders throughout history.   Religions have been responsible particularly for the oppression of women and those in the LBGT community.  Not to mention that religion has been primarily responsible for scientific illiteracy, especially in the United States.  Let's discuss this, shall we.

    1. bethperry profile image88
      bethperryposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      I don't see religion as fundamentally detrimental to society. Religion can, and has been, used to fuel human arrogance and greed, and it is often the crutch of the intolerant mind. To say, however, that religion is the stem from which all evils sprouts is in itself a crutch. It is the same as saying atheism is to blame for the Bolsheviks that murdered my grandmother's family. As simplistic as this may be, I can't do it. Those people had a choice, just as religious-minded people have the choice. This is not to say the institutionalization of religion isn't a compelling factor in examples of bad human behavior. Any institutionalized ideal has the natural tendency to have a sway over general social conduct. We have seen the unfortunate consequences of this time and again throughout human history. Yet, we have also seen that the most shining examples of wisdom and the call for tolerance arises out of the most depraved of conditions. If not for the intrinsic human capacity to make tolerant choices we would have had no Martin Luther King, no Gandhi, no Jeshua of Nazareth. I feel peace and tolerance is possible among any peoples. But as it is, too many want to give themselves over to institutionalized doctrine -whether it be religion, atheism or cultural mindset, ect.- simply because it is easier than assuming individual responsibility.

      1. 0
        Emile Rposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Nicely put.

        1. 0
          mbuggiehposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Can we STOP with the nonsense that Darwin's theories of evolution as posited in his writings---any of them, informed the National Socialist (Nazi) Movement that dominated Germany politics?

          If you had a shred of knowledge about "Nazi policy" you would know that it was neither derived from nor informed by Darwin.

          STOP reading the first 2 or 3 webpage articles you find when you type in the keywords "Darwin" and "Hitler" and presuming that they are the alpha and omega of knowledge and information!

          Historians have NEVER made this preposterous connection, because it does not exist.

          It is so-called advocates of "Intelligent Design" and "Creationism" that make this bogus claim.

          If you knew anything about Nazism that you did not read at Creationist webpages, then you would know the following: (a) Hitler was repulsed by the concept of evolution; (b) Hitler never read anything written by Darwin; (c) Hitler and those around him were uninformed and unschooled in anything even remotely related to what Darwin actually wrote AND had no more than the typical pedestrian knowledge of evolutionary biology---most of it wrong, that permeates anti-evolution circles.

          1. 0
            Emile Rposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            I'm sure you feel comfortable believing that. Unfortunately, I doubt you would find many who would agree eugenics wasn't an integral part of the formation of Nazi policy.

            1. 0
              mbuggiehposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              I did not say that eugenics---as a popular cultural movement of the 1920s did not inform Nazism as it emerged in the 1930s.

              What I said was that Darwin did not inform Nazism.

              Darwin is not a synonym for eugenics. In fact, Darwin's biological evolution---his theory of evolution, is the antithesis of eugenics as Darwin believes that NATURAL SELECTION not selective breeding allow for the survival of the most "fit" of any species.

              This is basic and simple stuff.

              If you are a Darwinist, then you believe nature can and will do the job of producing fit species.

              If you are a eugenicist, then you believe that nature cannot and will not do the job of producing a fit species, and therefore, human intervention is needed.

              Simple. Basic. Factual.

              But...in conflict with the agenda of Creationists who (a) have probably never read Darwin's extensive writings on evolutionary biology and who (b) need a bogey man to promote a Christian worldview that for some reason unknown to many requires adherence to the Creation myth offered in "Genesis".

              And that bogey man for the unread, uninformed, and Creationist crowd: Charles Darwin and his (apparent) disciple, Adolf Hitler.

              1. 0
                Emile Rposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Seriously. Are you saying that Darwin's writings didn't pave the way for eugenics?

                Whether Darwin approved of this rising from his work, or not (although since his son and cousin were eugenicists i think we can surmise he wasn't entirely averse to it) you can't effectively argue that his work didn't set the ball rolling.

                1. 0
                  mbuggiehposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  A bit of history:

                  Eugenics---selective breeding, PREDATES Darwin, and in fact, can be traced to the Middle Ages.

                  Stop reading Creationist websites that seem to have some inexplicable need to discredit Darwin in order to make Jesus credible.

                  As a Catholic, I know that each (Darwin/ evolution) and (Jesus/Christianity) can, and do, coexist. They are not mutually-exclusive.

                  1. 0
                    Emile Rposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    I'm so tickled to know you think your Catholic faith and evolution are not mutually exclusive. Perhaps, though, you could set aside your religious prejudices long enough to learn something about history. smile

          2. Chris Neal profile image83
            Chris Nealposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            That's funny (funny strange, not funny ha ha) because it's actually from PBS that I got the idea that Hitler was out to prove evolution and that Aryans were the most highly evolved race. I've never read or heard that he was repulsed by evolution before. That he knew little about it and got most of it wrong I would not find surprising.

            1. 0
              mbuggiehposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Why would you find Hitler's lack of information surprising?

              Let me repeat some simple facts:

              1. Some Creationists wrongly posit  that Adolf Hitler was inspired or motivated by a belief in evolutionary theory or that he subscribed to Darwin's basic evolutionary principles. It is obvious that the by working to conflate Hitler and the very idea of evolution that some Creationists think they've found THE ticket to discrediting evolutionary theory.

              2.  Hitler's belief in Darwinism is, at best, a supposition which cannot and has not been proven.

              3.  Insisting, as some Creationists do, that since Darwin's writing preceded Hitler's writing that therefore Darwin caused the Holocaust (or caused Hitler to embrace eugenics) is also an example of a "post hoc ergo propter hoc" fallacy---meaning that because Darwin's theory came into being before Hitler's racism and racist/Nazi theories, that the former necessarily caused the latter.

              4.  Even if Hitler read Darwin, any consequences of that readings are NOT the result of anything said in Darwin's work, but of Hitler's own PERVERSION of the work of another. Hitler also PERVERTED the Bible and German history to justify his actions. We have documentary proof of this, but we have no documentary proof of any direct perversion of Darwin.

              5.  The comments that Hitler makes in "Mein Kampf" are unrelated to Darwin, but can be clearly linked to Herbert Spencer's social Darwinism.

              And to further cloud your issue (your attempt to discredit evolution) with facts, some of Hitler's own words about evolution as Darwin understood it:

              "Where do we acquire the right to believe that man has not always been what he is now? The study of nature teaches us that, in the animal kingdom just as much as in the vegetable kingdom, variations have occurred. They've occurred within the species, but none of these variations has an importance comparable with that which separates man from the monkey — assuming that this transformation really took place."

              I would not call Hitler's statement above an endorsement of Darwin.

              BUT....Hitler was a Creationist and is documented to have said the following:

              "Whoever would dare to raise a profane hand against that highest image of God among His creatures would sin against the bountiful Creator of this marvel and would collaborate in the expulsion from Paradise."

              "The most marvelous proof of the superiority of Man, which puts man ahead of the animals, is the fact that he understands that there must be a Creator."

              Hitler also believed that Jesus himself was an Aryan and not a Jew AND that Germany had lost World War I because---and he was very specific on this, had turned its back on God and Christian morality.

              And he is documented as having noted:

              "Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."

              You might want to read "Mein Kampf".

              1. Chris Neal profile image83
                Chris Nealposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                All I said was that I saw it on PBS. I was unaware that PBS had become the mouthpiece for Creationists. I didn't even bother to reread all the stuff since you keep repeating over and over again. I just said one thing. Wow.

      2. jonnycomelately profile image86
        jonnycomelatelyposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Bethperry, I also like you way of thinking here.... trying to look honestly at both sides of the argument.

        As you rightly indicate, religion per see is not the problem.  Let's face it, religion is man-made.  It's a tool, a means to express something beyond our immediate finite experience.   It's also a "crutch," to bolster our joys, our sorrows, our desires, our pathos; and to give us hope when there seems to be nothing but despair in sight.

        It has given us a way expressing in art forms some of our deepest emotions.   Millions of people travel world-wide each year to view at these expressions, whether they be in music, theatre, paintings, cultural ceremony.  Even (especially) ancient art, as in East Asian, Australian, African, South American cultures, attracts enormous turnover of finances.  So, you could say that religion or at least the use of it helps the world go around.

        However, my main objection to the influence of the two most prominent religions is their concentration on the "afterlife."   Their focus is upon evil, obsessively, unreasonably.  When you can convince a person that the rewards of disobedience will be the worst you can imagine of punishment, for ever, unending, inescapably, then you have people "by the throat," Obey!  Or Else!
        It's manipulative, selfish, bullying.  Very little time and thought is given over to positive, uplifting concepts and realities, that would help people to experience a wonderful and beautiful life.

        The very belief in the existence of a life after death is what drives religious thought.  It's all a concept of escapism, taking our minds off the responsibilities of the Here-and-Now.  And in this respect I see the exploitation of religion as the big problem of our world and it this aspect to which I would say "Yes, the exploitation of religion is detrimental to society."  And it's Us Humans that make it a problem.

      3. Venkatachari M profile image83
        Venkatachari Mposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        A good consistent reply. Religion in itself is not bad or detrimental to society or development. People who follow any religion, can be broadminded and more tolerable to accept anything that can do good and justice to mankind. All religions should work for universal good and peace. If there are wars and conflicts and prejudices towards women and any particular group of people, it is not a religion's fault. It is the fault of the followers who are narrow minded and weak in controlling themselves.

        1. EncephaloiDead profile image60
          EncephaloiDeadposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          That's why those folks have religion, which teaches them to be closed minded and intolerant of others, hence the start of conflict and wars. Sure, we can say religions should work for universal good and peace, but they don't and most likely never will as these are not tenets of most religions.

          1. Venkatachari M profile image83
            Venkatachari Mposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            There have been instances when people tried to reform the religious beliefs and practices to grant equal status to all religions and all classes of people. But very little changed. Take the case of Swami Vivekananda of India. He tried to establish one single universal religion and he tried much in his short span of life to achieve it. Many people were enthralled by his perception and mission. But the mission remained unachieved as his life span was too much short and nobody took forward his mission with true dedication like him.

          2. wmhoward4 profile image79
            wmhoward4posted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Intolerence?  Not really. Jesus spoke of a Good Samaritan. Someone of a different culture and beliefs who was a better person because he did NOT succumb to prejudice. Later, he healed the servant of a Pagan Roman soldier when he did not have too. BUT, Christ wanted to again sho by example what it is to help ALL others.

            Faith practiced by deed is stronger than the faith of those who make buildings and rules to control others. That aside, just because some lay claim to righteousness is no reason to condemn the entire Church.

    2. Pink Phoenix profile image59
      Pink Phoenixposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      The idea that any one set system of beliefs could be detrimental or beneficial is, in my humble opinion, quite absurd. However, I do understand how the author could believe that religion may be suppressing society, as a whole, rather than allowing it to flourish. Here I must add, though, that there are two different uses for the word religion. One form of religion is the different groups and sub-groups that form or organizations, but another similar (yet entirely different) definition of religion is an individual's personal thoughts and beliefs.

      Though the modern world has grown, in leaps and strides, at becoming more individualized, I believe that religion is one aspect of society in which we still maintain a 'pack' mentality. It is this pack mentality that is really causing the issues. It causes people to cave into peer-pressure. It forces 'the one' to conform their ideas to match 'the whole.' Instead of one person judging someone from the LGBT-community based on their own personal experiences (i.e. this guy has never said anything mean, been rude, or given me any cause to dislike him), that person will draw from what the 'pack' is telling him:  that the LGBT-community is not to be tolerated.

      As a gay man myself, I find it silly that people automatically assume that I am Atheist. Once again, I can understand where they can get that idea. However, I have walked with Christ since my days as a child, and I have a personal relationship with Him! The only difference between myself and most Christians is the fact that others are not willing to question the 'pack.' Personally, I will eagerly pull a pastor/reverend/priest aside to talk about the scriptures. More often than not, we come to an agreement that it is impossible to know everything. All the questions that religion leaves unanswered will remain unanswered, because we can only give our best guesses.

      Oh dear, look at me blabbing on and on. I suppose that I should tie this off now. I hope that I made my point clear. Yes, organized religion can hurt society as a whole; no, spiritual religion is not necessarily a bad thing since it builds up a person's beliefs, including their morals, ethics, and perspective of the world. In short, let's all start being ourselves and leave any group-imposed ideas in the dust!

      1. 0
        Motown2Chitownposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        big_smile

        I like it.

      2. EncephaloiDead profile image60
        EncephaloiDeadposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Of course, if you are a Christian, you are automatically part of the pack and are a sub-group that forms that organization, whether you like it or not.

        Sure, believers will say they are not part of the organization and don't support it, but if not, then where did they get their beliefs if not from the organization? If they aren't part of the pack, then they would have to make up their very own religion, they wouldn't be Christians.

        1. 0
          mbuggiehposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Exactly!

        2. 0
          SassySue1963posted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Where did they get their beliefs? I don't know. Could be this thing called a brain. With thoughts, ideas and stuff like that unique to an individual.

          Are you saying all atheists are alike? All Democrats? All Republicans? All Independents? All black people? All white people? Because you know, even if you don't support them as a whole, you are at least a sub group or where did you get your race from? lol See how stupid that sounds?

          I find it funny that your only mention is Christianity, ignoring all the other religions of the world. Are you saying that all Muslims are radical terrorists then?

          All religions are made up of individual people. If their leadership is radical, then that is what people see and attribute to that religion. However, that doesn't make every member of that religion radical nor in support of the more radical fringes of their religion.

          1. 0
            mbuggiehposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            People identify with religions---regardless of denomination, for a reason.

            And you know one line I am REALLY (!) tired of:

            "Well, my church believes in X [fill in the blank], but I don't."

            Total crap. If you don't believe in X, Y, or Z beliefs or tenets of your church, then don't belong to the church.

            So, if you belong to ANY church of ANY denomination and the leader is radical, then yes and despite protests to the contrary, you are radical or at least tolerant of the radical message.

            1. 0
              SassySue1963posted 2 years ago in reply to this

              That speaks to a specific but the question is general. Certainly in a specific Church I understand what you're saying. The original comment though was a generalization.

              If so and so is a Christian and this Christian did that then they support that. Again I ask - why are we only speaking of Christianity here?

              There are a great many people who are Christian, believe in God but do not belong to a specific Church or denomination.

              1. 0
                mbuggiehposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                I specifically said ANY. I am not focused on Christianity. ALL religions have the potential to cause, and do cause, harm---past and present (and sadly likely) future.

                1. Venkatachari M profile image83
                  Venkatachari Mposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  If you believe that all religions are potential in causing damages or conflicts, then do you assume that if there is no religion, there won't be any damage, any wars or conflicts, no disgraces and disrespect of women and everything will be better in life?
                  I do not feel like that. Religion is not responsible for any thing that goes bad. It is the people. Their mentality and thinking attitude and intolerance with others. This will be always there, whether religion exists or not. Unless men are learning to love each other as a human being and possess tolerance to treat everybody equally with no preferences as to wealth,knowledge or profession, there won't be any thing going to be better.

                  1. 0
                    mbuggiehposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    There is no religion without people. Religion is a sociological institution created by people. There is no separation of people from the religions---as institutions, that they create and wield like weapons against so-called non-believers.

                    I am not stupid. I do not presume that the absence of religion would mark the presence of bliss.

                    But the total elimination of any institution that exists to divide and to control---and to exclude and manipulate OR to do anything other than facilitate a very Lockean (as in John Locke, Enlightenment, "Second Treatise on Government") natural law/social contract, regardless of the nature of that institution, would be a good thing.

              2. 0
                mbuggiehposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                The world is not a place in which much good comes from sectarianism of any kind.

                Religion hinges on the exclusivity of one set of beliefs---regardless of the set of beliefs.

                This exclusivity results in exclusion, alienation, discrimination, bigotry---all forms of harm.

                The sooner we---as a world, dispense with all religion, the better off we will be.

                1. 0
                  SassySue1963posted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  I disagree and I believe the proof is out there right now to be found.

                  We've made every attempt to strip any mention of God & prayer and religion from our everyday - out of our schools, meetings and even our everyday lives because people are trying to make it taboo.

                  Are we a better society? Are our children better behaved? Are our schools safer? No on all counts.

                  Crime runs rampant, our schools are battlegrounds and our government becomes more corrupt every day. If you take the time, you can trace this back to when all the hoopla began about a simple school prayer or prayer before a public meeting the atheists war on religion and their deadset design to destroy any trace of it.

                  Certainly there are aspects of religion that need to be more flexible and not so rigid as to not accept change in any form. But your proof of how much better off we'll be without it does not exist and in fact, an argument can be made to the opposite based on the decline in morals, values, safety and simple respect of another person.

                  1. EncephaloiDead profile image60
                    EncephaloiDeadposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    But, we also no longer burn witches, go to war or torture people into believing in God & prayer.

                    I am to understand from Muslims, though, that Islam is the religion of peace, so would it be perhaps a good idea to introduce it into our schools and teach our children? Kids would have to pray 5 times a day, so we would have to change the school scheduling somewhat, but just think how peaceful our children would be.



                    Sorry, but are you actually saying things would be peaches and cream if we had our kids pray in school? Do you actually know anything about our history prior to 1962?

          2. EncephaloiDead profile image60
            EncephaloiDeadposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            All Christians got their beliefs from Christianity and the Bible, where else would they get them?



            Yes, I certainly can see that, it's because those are fallacies called "Strawmen".



            If you can show me where I said that and what that has to do with anything other than the fact you present yet another fallacy.



            You now appear to be talking about something completely different.

        3. Boots Iacono profile image83
          Boots Iaconoposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          The overall message comes from the 'pack' as it were, but when you don't agree with something, like, say, the whole gays going to hell theory, you follow your conscience... Obviously, homosexuality is a sin... but then again, saying 'god dammit' is, too... do I believe I'm going to hell for saying it? no, I don't... I also don't believe gays are going to hell for being gay... so I do not believe everything the church says.  The church was put together by man... man is imperfect... enough said.  But as a Roman Catholic Christian, and knowing that God made man flawed gives me the sense that I must follow my own heart to God... not all the church's rules.  If my church told us all that we must cleanse society by killing homosexuals, I'd notify the FBI... and I'm anti-government... but when torn, one follows the path he believes to be right... "What would Jesus do?"

          1. 0
            Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Why is homosexuality obviously a sin? It seems to appear naturally in many walks of life. Just because some male slave owners a few thousand years ago said it was a sin doesn't mean we should think it is. These same guys said it's more unclean to give birth to girls than boys and that we should kill disobedient children.

            1. Boots Iacono profile image83
              Boots Iaconoposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              When I said 'obviously' I meant according to 'church law' ... nothing more.

              I don't know... I guess it was seen as "using something for a purpose for which it was not intended." maybe it was another reason.  My point is, we are smarter now than we were then... we have a more exact quality of language now than we did then... and like I said, just because the church says something doesn't mean I believe it.  I don't believe in Adam and Eve as it is written, I believe in it as a metaphor to describe the difference between the sexes.  Its a wonderful story, but its a story and nothing more... any historical accuracy to events that actually happened are just the parts that made it through the oral telling of the story for the thousands of years before it was written down.

              And here's something that's gonna ruffle some feathers, but I don't care... I do not believe in all the miracles Jesus did... I don't even believe he was God's actual son.  I believe they called him the son of God because of his wisdom in his teachings.  I think the miracles got added to the stories later to add on to a wonderful person to make him God-like.

              1. 0
                Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Okay, but there is a big difference between "obviously" and "according to church law".

                Telling people what our intentions are rather controlling. It's like saying we shouldn't get in airplanes because we don't have wings.

                Sure, that's reasonable for sure. It's also reasonable that all of the stories in the OT are complete fabrications in order give a tribe of people entitlement. People were inventing Gods are that time. This group invented a God that said they were a result fallen Gods and his chosen people. Wouldn't you say?

            2. Rai Micheal profile image59
              Rai Michealposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              The difference is that in the bible it clearly states that a women was made for man, not the other way around, or that man was made for man, think about it. There's absolutely nothing a man can do for a man that a women can't. So the real problem lies in the person.

              1. 0
                Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Sure that's what the bible says, but the bible says lots of stuff about all kinds of stuff we know to be wrong. For instance we know it's wrong to have slaves and beat them with clubs.

                We also know from science that the first male didn't appear before the first female.

                You are also completely wrong about homosexuality. One can't force someone to love someone they aren't attracted to. Could you be forced to love someone of the same sex? What do we find happens when people attempt to do just that? They wreak the lives of many.

                1. Chris Neal profile image83
                  Chris Nealposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  And of course you can produce example after example of Jesus saying to beat our slaves with clubs, right?

                  1. 0
                    Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    Did I say Jesus said that? I did say the bible says it and can provide the scripture and I can provide the scripture that says Jesus said he wasn't there to change the OT.

                  2. Link10103 profile image80
                    Link10103posted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    He said nothing about Jesus, he said slavery and beating slaves was in the Bible. If you count the bible as the words of Jesus, then yes Jesus said to beat and own slaves.

                    I am looking at a few passages right now that okay the beating of slaves in fact.

          2. EncephaloiDead profile image60
            EncephaloiDeadposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            What would Jesus do? He would promptly tear down to the ground the Roman Catholic Church and give all of it's wealth to the starving. At least, that is what I would expect Him to do. smile

            1. Boots Iacono profile image83
              Boots Iaconoposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              You're probably right.  The RCC has been too rich for too long, and has, in many ways, lost their path.

              1. 0
                Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Sorry, it's not just the RRC. Religion has become a business. You can start a church in your house, have a few people over on the weekend, collect money and enjoy the tax free exemption on property tax and collections.


                http://s2.hubimg.com/u/9062537_f248.jpg

                1. Chris Neal profile image83
                  Chris Nealposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  It's obviously not that easy or more people would do it. And the vast majority of these (basically) Bible-study coffee klatsches are exactly that, get-togethers. Not church services.

            2. 0
              Motown2Chitownposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              That's what I'd expect him to do as well.  Sigh.  I keep praying for the pope to do just that. 

              Seems that if he wants our praise and for us to worship him, he'd be all about our caring for each other.

      3. 0
        mbuggiehposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        What does this mean---really: "I have walked with Christ since my days as a child, and I have a personal relationship with Him."

        What constitutes a "personal relationship" with someone that you have never met and is presumed to be a deity?

        1. Pink Phoenix profile image59
          Pink Phoenixposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Hello!

          Simply put, it means that I am not following the edicts set forth by religious organizations, but I do follow Christ. While that might be a difficult concept to grasp, I would say to imagine Christ as the zenith of morality, the utmost standard for ethics, and a role-model for us during the most trying times.

          As for a previous post, when you say that automatically claiming to be a Christian makes you a part of a pack, I would have to say that your point is obvious. However, you are taking it out of context. It would be like judging a person because they are American. So, because you can be categorized into a certain group, you are immediately judged based on flimsy stereotypes.

          I am a Christian, but I am not like every other Christian. I am an American, but I am not like every other American. I am a human, but I am not like every other human.

          1. 0
            mbuggiehposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            You only know Christ from secondary sources---which often conflict with each other as to the nature and deeds of this man.

            You are placing trust and faith in secondary sources---texts written years after the man died.We know, basically, nothing of what he really said or did other than the few comments and events in the Roman historical records.

            As such, how can you possible claim that Jesus is the alpha and omega of morality or ethics?

            1. Pink Phoenix profile image59
              Pink Phoenixposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Awesome!

              Have you ever noticed a small kid looking up to his dad? That kid places his dad in the highest esteem. Everything that the dad does sets an example for the child. As a good parent, it is necessary to set the correct model for the kid to follow. A parent must show a great amount of higher morals and ethics, and they must teach the children that it is not right to harm other people. Yet, we all know that parents are not perfect. It is the idea of the perfect parent that sets the child on the right path. It is the standards that the parent projects to the child that leads them on a path that veers away from harming people.

              In the same manner, it is the simple idea of a person so outstandingly perfect that gives us all a role-model to set as the standard. Perhaps our relationship with Christ, as a person, is indirect, but I am certain that the lessons that we can learn from the 'idea' of Christ is quite direct. It is for this very reason that I believe society is better off with Christ as a standard for morals and ethics. Even Atheist should understand and empathize with the 'idea' of Christ. If we put our understanding of Him on a pedestal, and we all try our best to set those ideals as our standards, then society can only benefit from an extraordinary amount of love, compassion, and willingness to help one another!

              1. EncephaloiDead profile image60
                EncephaloiDeadposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                But, since that particular ideology has failed miserably due to other issues of Christianity, do you think it's time we let go of it and moved on? It seems we humans have managed to figure out much better morals and ethics ourselves that work a whole lot better than anything Christianity has to offer.

                1. 0
                  mbuggiehposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  Exactly!

                2. wilderness profile image94
                  wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  That has been common for centuries.  The world moves, growing and improving it's moral/ethical concepts, and religion is drug kicking and screaming into the future with it.  It generally seems to take around 50 years or so before the gods recognize and accept the morality that secular society finds improved, but it DOES happen.

    3. Chris Neal profile image83
      Chris Nealposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      So the one and only source of those evils throughout the whole history of the world has been religion, and if we could somehow enter the Wayback Machine and kill everyone who started a religion so that no religion ever existed, the history of the planet would be one of peace, love, brotherhood and live and let live?

      1. EncephaloiDead profile image60
        EncephaloiDeadposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        The world would definitely be a different place without religion and it's enslavement over mankind, we certainly could have done without the suppression of education and knowledge and the propagation of ignorance and hatred religions have offered these many past thousands of years. You could be very right about that. smile

        1. Chris Neal profile image83
          Chris Nealposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Yes, the suppression of education which happened because of cultural, not religious, reasons (aka the Dark Ages) would definitely have never happened if there had been no religion. Once again, the sheer logic and knowledge of history overwhelms me.

          1. EncephaloiDead profile image60
            EncephaloiDeadposted 2 years ago in reply to this
            1. Chris Neal profile image83
              Chris Nealposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Just curious, did you read the whole Wikipedia article or just cherry-pick the parts that 'support' your point?

              1. EncephaloiDead profile image60
                EncephaloiDeadposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Uh, I had plenty of time to read it, did you?

                Of course, if there are parts in there that do support my point, is that a problem? Is there anything there that supports your point that religion was not a part of it?

                1. Chris Neal profile image83
                  Chris Nealposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  Yes, of course I did. And although there may be parts in there that seem to support your point if taken all by their little lonesomes, as part of the greater whole they don't. In other words, no, it wasn't Christian and Muslim culture that suppressed education in the 'dark ages,' (which of course is your sneaky way of trying to re-assert that it was religion, even though it wasn't.) In fact, in many places it was religious institutions (usually monasteries) that preserved the Roman culture and Greek and Roman thought while the Germanic tribes were busy sacking and destroying it in Rome.

      2. 0
        mbuggiehposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Clearly, religion is NOT the only source of the world's problems, but it should be very obvious that sectarianism---particularly in the 21st century, is at the core of much of the horror of the world in which we live.

        It is time for human beings to take another evolutionary step and dispense with creation myths, gods, saints, demons, etc. as explanations of the hows and whys of our world and RETURN to reason and to science and to secularism.

        1. Chris Neal profile image83
          Chris Nealposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Return to secularism? At what point in human history was secularism so overwhelmingly dominant that if there were truly a major shift away from the living God, as well as other religions, that we would be 'returning' to secularism?

          1. 0
            mbuggiehposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            The Enlightenment; the movement in human history that informed the American Revolution and the subsequent founding (with the ratification of the US Constitution) of the United States of America.

            But, of course, you will deny this and insist as Christians are apparently instructed to do, that America's founders were all deeply Christian men and that the US is a Christian nation.

            1. Chris Neal profile image83
              Chris Nealposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Wow. Don't assume much about people you clearly know little about, do you?

              1. 0
                mbuggiehposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Whatever.

                1. Chris Neal profile image83
                  Chris Nealposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  Very telling reply.

                  1. 0
                    mbuggiehposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    I'd hope so.

            2. Chris Neal profile image83
              Chris Nealposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Just to be clear, the 'enlightenment' was not so widespread that religion of any kind was in any danger of going away. Even the number of leading thinkers who were truly secular was rather small. Deism (and whether the American Founding Fathers were overwhelmingly deist or not is up for debate) is still not the same as atheism or even secularism. And no, I'm not one who claims that America was founded specifically as a theocracy (which is what is often implied by both sides, those who think that the US was founded as a Christian nation and those who deride such claims.) But, that does not mean that the intention was for America to be religion-free. There are paths that go between those two extremes.

              1. 0
                mbuggiehposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Read the First Amendment. Read the clause in the larger body of the Constitution that makes clear that there would be no "religious tests" for office-holding in the new republic.

                Then, read Madison's notes on the Constitutional Convention.

                You might understand after doing this that the founders---at least the one's who actually were present at the Constitutional Convention and who actually wrote the document, were focused on creating a secular republic; a "commercial republic" to quote exactly the words of Alexander Hamilton whose essays in "The Federalist Papers" laid out the argument for ratification of the constitution.

                The intention was for the United States---the formal entity that is the republic and its government to be, THANKFULLY, religion free.

                We have no state religion. We have no religious tests for office-holding. We have essential separation of church and state---this is why churches pay no taxes.

                1. Chris Neal profile image83
                  Chris Nealposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  You have some points which, if you and I had interacted more you would know I agree with. But don't make the mistake of thinking that because America was specifically designed to not have a STATE religion (as opposed to England, France and German, among others, which all did) that American was designed to have NO RELIGION AT ALL. Even if the Founding Fathers were all deists (and again, that's debatable,) such a thing would never have occurred to them. Even Franklin, no religionist he, favored a Christian understanding and Jefferson literally sent missionaries among the Native Americans at the expense of the federal government.

                  Do you know where the phrase "separation of Church and State" first appeared? Do you know what it actually meant? It certainly did not mean that there should be no religion in the country.

    4. yeahitsme profile image59
      yeahitsmeposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      I'm an unbaptised, non-church-going, questioning atheist and the way I see it, in many ways, religion is a paralyzing factor in human and scientific progression. However, like every group, there will always
      be the extremists but there will also be the ones promoting the love and acceptance that the bible talks about. It depends on your perspective, I guess. There are lot of people who grew up in hyper-religious homes who turn out to be the biggest NON-believers in society, and those like me, who grew up with no religious background at all and now I feel like I'll always be curious about the eons beyond our tiny speck of dust in the universe that we call Earth.

      1. gmwilliams profile image86
        gmwilliamsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        +1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000!

      2. 0
        mbuggiehposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        I think some of us evolve---intellectually and cognitively, away from religion as we come to learn not only more and more about religion itself (particularly in terms of what religions believe), but about the cosmological and physical reality of the world in which we live.

        In other words, some of us evolve out of religion just as we evolve out of believing in Santa Claus or the tooth fairy or the Easter Bunny.

    5. Quilligrapher profile image91
      Quilligrapherposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Hello Grace. How nice to run into you this evening. I hope all is well  with you and with yours.

      From my perspective, the OP statement claims to be aiming for objectivity but the claims about religion are not the least bit objective. To be objective, the first assertion in the thesis forces a comparison of death rates at the hands of both Atheists and religious.

      During the last century, a handful of godless, mainly atheistic regimes have been far more lethal to humanity than the estimated 4,200 religions in the world {1}. Governments, not religions, are responsible for six times more deaths in the world than all the foreign and internal wars of the 20th century. Being objective, therefore, leads to numerical proof that Atheism and governments controlled by professed atheists get the gold medal for murdering mankind. China (PRC), China (KMT), and the USSR, murdered 148 million people in the 20th Century alone and they account for 57 % of the world’s total democide. {2}

      In the end, a truly objective examination does NOT support the false impression that religions have been an extraordinary source of wars and other types of divisions among humankind.

      If you have different numbers then I do, Grace, please share them.

      Many thanks for starting this discussion. Enjoy tomorrow to the fullest.
      http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg
      {1} http://www.examiner.com/article/the-exa … is-unknown
      {2} http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/20TH.HTM

    6. Quilligrapher profile image91
      Quilligrapherposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Good evening, Grace.

      Q. Will the elimination of all religions actually end all prejudice and discrimination against “outsiders.”
      A. Absolutely not!

      Q. Is it is possible to eliminate 1) all religions or 2) all sources of prejudice and discrimination?
      A. Absolutely not!

      Q. Will the elimination of all religions have any noticeable impact on the levels of prejudice and discrimination in the world?
      A. Absolutely not!

      Q. Is prejudice and discrimination an important consideration when discussing the elimination of religion?
      A. _______________!

      The elimination of all religious intolerance would be far more productive than the elimination of all religions.
      http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg

    7. oceansnsunsets profile image88
      oceansnsunsetsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      I think we would have to look at a particular religion within a particular society to see if this is true or not.  In some, we see absolute detriment, and here is where I make the distinction that I think matters.  Does a given religion have teachings that support such a detrimental way of acting in a society?  I can think of one that does support it.  In that case, the people are in keeping with their religion to cause harm to societies.

      Most of the time however, I find that the examples given where people are having issues with the religious people, it isn't the religion that is causing the problem but people that are ignoring it or abusing their religion to do so.  In other words, they are having to go against their religion to cause any harm to others.

      On another note, we see a lack of religion in some even recent world issues, where we see a lack of religion NOT being some answer for harming some society.  In fact, in more recent history even we see examples shown where people are working out of a philosophy or mentality that gives no credence to any religion, and causes a TON of harm to a said society.  So in that case also, fair is fair.  There was nothing within that person's personal views that told them they OUGHT not to do anything wrong to others.   The "oughtness" matters in these cases sometimes, forgive the word usage there, lol.  If we ought not to harm anyone or any society, that is usually a belief held by most sane people.  Not all views uphold that idea however, so that when we see people deviate from it to hurt others, there is sometimes nothing within their held views that tells them to do otherwise.   You couldn't reason to that person that they ought not to do that, because why not?  Says who?

    8. cjhunsinger profile image69
      cjhunsingerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      The counter charge would be that Atheism, under such totalitarian rule, as Stalin who, arguably slaughtered 80 million of his own people is not complimentary to the cause of Atheism. The counter-counter would be that such rule is no less than secular theism. When a government becomes omnipotent it is no longer Atheistic, but a Man centered theocracy. As I define Atheism it is an embrace of the human capacity to reason and that such an adherence shuns any assertion of a spiritual or Man centered omnipotence.
      The quest to understand us began with the gods and it should not be demeaned. Without it we would not be here. Without those first questions and the groping for answers, which were our own,  no foundation would have been laid for the science of today. Now, this theism, is archaic. Tomorrow, today will be antiquated. Hopefully they will not scoff at our understanding of what is.
      Theism is dying, except for that which is being propped up to help to destroy the others. Atheism of itself says nothing, as does theism. They simply make statements. That we seek a freedom and peace is obvious and for some it is in the lap of a god and for others food stamps and an Obama phone, and Uncle Joe, both are wrong.

    9. amiebutchko profile image93
      amiebutchkoposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      I don't see religion so much as detrimental as the baser parts of our human nature tripping us up throughout history, perhaps twisting the idea of religion into opportunities to oppress others.  I can only speak for myself here, but religion has been such an unbelievable force in my life.  I wish I could more eloquently put how powerful spirituality can effect one's life and death when surrendered to.  No matter what "religion" you are, trusting in a greater power seems a sublime mercy in so many ways.

    10. Jared Liescheidt profile image61
      Jared Liescheidtposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      I don't think religion is detrimental to society, spirituality is actually a natural thing. With that said those who have spiritually awoken, Jesus for instance, teach and some people create religions based on these people, but is what was written the same as what was said? I would consider myself an atheist, and though the almighty does not exist in my reality I feel no urge to rape and pillage. I feel that what is detrimental to society is poor parenting. Maybe we should try harder not to use sex to sell things that are largely targeted at young people.

    11. TwerkZerker profile image93
      TwerkZerkerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      I guess I just don't understand the purpose of this thread--unless it's to flawlessly demonstrate a "tu quoque" fallacy.

      I'm a Christian. I have many Christian friends and several who aren't Christian. I can't think of a single one of them who categorically holds that atheism (by dint of being atheism) is a detriment to society (and that by extension, so are all atheists).

      Granted, I'm sure there are specific atheists who, by their actions, could be considered detriments to society. But this has nothing to do with atheism itself--any more than a random Christian pulled over for doing 20 over the limit is "speeding for Jesus".

      If what you're trying to establish is that all atheists have clean laundry, you're mistaken. People have done stupid things in the name of Atheism--just like people have done stupid things in the names of Christianity, Islam, saving Bambi, and getting laid. But pointing out others' dirty laundry doesn't make yours any cleaner.

      That's why there's OxiClean.

    12. 0
      christiananrkistposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      the who's more moral thing again? geeze. does this really prove/disprove anything. its incredibly easy to find bad behaviour in any race, religion, non- religion, culture, club, school, shoe company, or whatever. mainly because people as individuals do messed up crap. people always want to bring up how religion has created war and this and that and blah blah blah. do you honestly not see its people that start this. our culture always wants to blame this and blame that or blame this person. NOBODY wants to take personal responsibility for anything. youre probably the same person that would blame a video game for some violent act or blame a cartoon because some teen lit the house on fire. now i know religion has teaching that people abide by. but 1 you dont judge something on it misuse/abuse. 2 people tend to gravitate to what they find attractive. if a religion is teaching violence, the people who are against are most likely not going to become/stay in that religion. also, once again, lets start holding people/individuals accountable for their actions.

      1. TwerkZerker profile image93
        TwerkZerkerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Amen.

      2. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
        Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Right. All problems are caused by the mis-interpretation of religion. Such as: Church politics, dogmas, radical fanaticisms, injustices, tyrannies, gathering imaginary stars in imaginary buckets, witch hunts, proselytizing, psychological repressions or unusual punishments for nonconformists... NO religion advocates ANY thing on this list.
        What are the positives? ( -well, what could be the positives, if applied rightly...)
        A. Religion providing the foundation and basis of a church.
              1. Sharing the good news as revealed in Scripture.
              2. Providing a sense of the overall and true picture of life.
              3. Providing boundaries of proper behavior for the sake of peace       and happiness for all.
              4. Inspiration and encouragement.
              5. Positive thinking.
              6. Support for the needy in society.
              7. Support for families
              8. Support for teens
              9. Support/education for otherwise wondering people.
             10. Providing hope when hope is lost.

        1. EncephaloiDead profile image60
          EncephaloiDeadposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Thanks for sharing that. Well said. smile

          1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
            Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            EnchephloiDead
            I have reported what you did here. It was very wrong to edit what I wrote and misrepresent what I said. Maybe you were just being creative but it is a serious offense and you completely over-stepped the boundaries. I consider this dishonest.

            KATHRYN L HILL WROTE:
            "Right. All problems are caused by the mis-interpretation of religion. Such as:          ( Complete explanation EDITED OUT !!!)

                  1. Sharing the good news as revealed in Scripture.
                  2. Providing a sense of the overall and true picture of life.
                  3. Providing boundaries of proper behavior for the sake of peace       and happiness for all.
                  4. Inspiration and encouragement.
                  5. Positive thinking.
                  6. Support for the needy in society.
                  7. Support for families
                  8. Support for teens
                  9. Support/education for otherwise wondering people.
                 10. Providing hope when hope is lost."
            (to which EnchaloiDead responded:
            "Thanks for sharing that. Well said. smile")

            KATHRYN L HILL ACTUALLY WROTE:
            " All problems are caused by the mis-interpretation of religion. Such as: Church politics, dogmas, radical fanaticisms, injustices, tyrannies, gathering imaginary stars in imaginary buckets, witch hunts, proselytizing, psychological repressions or unusual punishments for nonconformists... NO religion advocates ANY thing on this list.
            What are the positives? ( -well, what could be the positives, if applied rightly...)
            A. Religion providing the foundation and basis of a church.
                  1. Sharing the good news as revealed in Scripture.
                  2. Providing a sense of the overall and true picture of life.
                  3. Providing boundaries of proper behavior for the sake of peace       and happiness for all.
                  4. Inspiration and encouragement.
                  5. Positive thinking.
                  6. Support for the needy in society.
                  7. Support for families
                  8. Support for teens
                  9. Support/education for otherwise wondering people.
                 10. Providing hope when hope is lost."

            1. Link10103 profile image80
              Link10103posted 2 years ago in reply to this

              I dont see how that is grounds for reporting someone, provided EnchephloiDead actually did that on purpose. Not going to say I tried very hard looking, but I cannot see that comment in this forum.

              Either way, quoting the entire or partial pieces of anything you say should not be ground for reporting. I would agree that it would be dishonest if EnchephloiDead's "edited" comment made any sense to begin with. Clearly that list is not filled with negatives, although I would have to wonder at the arrogance of 1-3 and 9, so what claim to did you actually file the report under?

              1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
                Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Well, if it happens to you, you'll know how it feels.

                It was clearly an injustice to me and intentionally so. How you cannot comprehend that fact, is a little confusing.
                Usually I say,
                Each To Their Own…
                But today I add:
                As Long As it Doesn't Hurt Others
                ... which in this case, it did.
                http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/122744?page=19

        2. 0
          christiananrkistposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          i dont know to which religions the majority of that lists come from. it doesnt matter anyway. a few things to say about them, is i doubt you completely understand the teaching in their full context. no offence,  i just find it unlikely that you know the full scope of every religion. its very easy to take a statement or two and completely take it out of context. people do that with the bible constantly. so yes, for the most part it is misinterpretation. it is people using these things to justify their own hate and hateful actions. it is people using these things for selfish gains. like my whole comment was about, we need to hold people individually responsible for their actions. the positives of religion is equally as pointless to talk about. people will gravitate to a organization doing positive things. there are a lot of people who associate with a certain religion and dont abide my much of what it teaches. which is why i stated you dont judge something by its misuse/abuse. the whole whos more moral thing is so pointless.

        3. 0
          mbuggiehposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          How long does the "we're just misinterpreting religion" claim hold water?

          How long before we own the fact that we are not "misinterpreting religion" at all, but seeing it for what it is?

          Churches are not independent of the people who construct and populate them. Churches are, in fact, the people who construct and populate them AND people who adhere to what they've constructed and populated.

    13. 0
      mbuggiehposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Back from my banishment for defending our constitutional right to freedom FROM religion in this forum, let me say this:

      Religion is, always has been, and shall continue to be a detriment to civil society so long as it is privileged over reason.

      Religion is a source not only of bigotry and institutionalized discrimination, but also a source of justification for such bigotry and discrimination---whether 19th century American Christians using the Bible to justify a continuation and expansion of slavery in the US or 21st century American Christians using that same Bible to justify continuation and expansion of violence against (now) all who are not subscribers to particular brands of religion.

    14. alancaster149 profile image87
      alancaster149posted 2 years ago in reply to this

      I would say to this that it was only Christianity in its more advanced form (from the Middle Ages) onward to the early 20th Century, and Islam in its tribal* stage that sought to oppress women.
      In Judaic belief you're not Jewish unless your mother is. In eastern Asian beliefs their women are equal, in the pre-Christian European creeds women were equal as well. I don't know where the notion came from that women were a danger to the creed, but it might have been Saul/Paul who was a bit of a misogynist.
      Among Scandinavian and Celtic tribes their women were entitled to own property, divorce husbands they thought had become effeminate. That emerges for example in the Icelandic 'Njal's Saga' where the eponymous Njal was divorced by his wife for wearing shirts that exposed his chest down to his nipples.
      Britain is largely sectarian these days, aside from devout followers of Islam and other creeds, although this shows in very varied forms in their communities. Most of our Christian immigrants from the West Indies and Africa don't seem to have taken on board the idea that their women should be worth less than the males.

  2. bBerean profile image61
    bBereanposted 2 years ago

    This counter thread took a lot longer to show up than I expected.

  3. Ladyd3ciph3r profile image60
    Ladyd3ciph3rposted 2 years ago

    Religion IS detrimental to the entire society.

    *There have been murders and wars for the sake of religion.
    * Religion narrows a persons point of view about life and doesn't allow the individual to be a free thinker.
    * Religion places power in others hands like the church pastor, preacher or priest etc. and takes away personal responsibility and power.
    * Religion forces you to think within their box and not expand your awareness of self
    * Religion Separates (where is the so called love of God in that)
    * Religion Teaches you to point fingers and condemn others if their beliefs are different
    * Religion is a CULT
    * Religion slows mans evolutionary process on many levels
    * Religion wants you to accept everything and question nothing
    * Religion teaches o be blind to reality and "just have faith"
    * Religion makes people bitter
    * Religion makes people self righteous
    * Religion contradicts itself countless times
    * Religion allows murderers, rapist and child molesters get a free pass as long as they are religious.
    * Religion Disconnect man from his spiritual self
    The worst crimes and torture are done in the name of Religion, So YES Religion is Detrimental to Society.

    .
    http://s1.hubimg.com/u/9053592_f248.jpg

  4. gmwilliams profile image86
    gmwilliamsposted 2 years ago

    Totally agree!

  5. 0
    mbuggiehposted 2 years ago

    I strongly suspect that religion and religiosity will become such divisive issues in the 21st century that each will become THE global security problem to be solved.

    Religion, I hope, will be replaced in the future by reason.

  6. Silverspeeder profile image59
    Silverspeederposted 2 years ago

    Lets just ban religion and obtain freedom that way......
    Oh hold on a minute that would be taking someone's freedom away wouldn't it?

    Yes, but it would be for the good of all mankind....................

    Then we could just fight over something else instead like FOOTBALL.............

    Oh no that doesn't work either.....

    1. 0
      mbuggiehposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      My hope is that as human mind/brain and its cognitive capacities continue to evolve, we will dispense with the superstitions that enable religion.

      To ban religion would only fortify it.

      1. Silverspeeder profile image59
        Silverspeederposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        It was my attempt at sarcasm mbuggish but you are right to ban it would be to fortify it.

        However I do think there are some humans who will never evolve to a level higher than their pets.

        1. 0
          mbuggiehposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          wink

        2. Pink Phoenix profile image59
          Pink Phoenixposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Hello!
          I find it extremely interesting to learn that you place 'religion' and 'evolution' in the same bucket. In essence, you are saying that a religious person is unrefined and barbaric, whereas the person without religious beliefs is sophisticated and evolved. I find this completely absurd.

          First of all, I am not sure how you define evolution, but I believe it to be the gradual change in a species in an attempt at giving the said species a better chance at survival (i.e. the beaks on the birds of various islands evolved over time in order to better hunt). Of course, I realize that there are evolutionary changes occurring in the human race today. Personally, and I know this may sound radical to some, I subscribe to the philosophy that homosexuality increasing is nature's way at reducing our population

          Religion, on the other hand, and I am sure you will disagree with this, is not something that repeatedly impacts our lives in negative ways. Yes, there were some extraordinary tragedies throughout history at the hands of religious organizations; yes, these same organizations are stuck in their archaic ways and refuse to change. However, we might need to ponder when the next holy crusade is going to take place. The answer is, more than likely never. What you are calling for is not evolution, but a change of mind. Religious people do not all have the same mindsets. That would be as absurd as assuming that I am an angry person because I wear red shirts, calm when I have something blue on, or envious when wearing green.

          I am a Christina, but I am gay. I definitely do not hate people, nor do I attempt to judge them. I know that I do not have all the answers. Yet, my belief system is something that I thought about, quite logically, for a long time. My answer to why I should subscribe to a religious philosophy is quite simple:  (1) it is only logical to assume that something created the universe, and I would say the organized chaos of it all point towards an intellectual being, (2) if there were no higher power, then what is our purpose... or were we simply an accident, and (3) the love and compassion shown throughout religion can outshine many of the events that were led by people that were spouting scriptures without following their meaning.

          1. 0
            Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            "I subscribe to the philosophy that homosexuality increasing is nature's way at reducing our population"

            Then why do we see homosexuality in other animals that are threatened?

            "Religion, on the other hand, and I am sure you will disagree with this, is not something that repeatedly impacts our lives in negative ways."

            You may not be saying that if you were a gay person living in Iran.

            "(1) it is only logical to assume that something created the universe, and I would say the organized chaos of it all point towards an intellectual being,"

            Please show me the logic.

            "(2) if there were no higher power, then what is our purpose... or were we simply an accident"

            Why do you think you need a higher purpose especially if you don't know what it is?

            "(3) the love and compassion shown throughout religion can outshine many of the events that were led by people that were spouting scriptures without following their meaning."

            The love and compassion shown by the Taliban? Does the few who follow scripture outshine the 80,000,000 or so kill in the name of scripture?

            1. Pink Phoenix profile image59
              Pink Phoenixposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Hello Again!

              I will try to make this one short and sweet. First, I believe it is logical to assume there is a creator, because I cannot fathom something as enormous,  grand-scale, and fairly perfect in design was created from chance. Of course, it would take just as much faith to believe that there was anything before 'the Big Bang,' but there obviously had to be something here to cause the 'BANG' to begin with.

              As for your statement about religion not being about love and compassion, I would counter by saying that you are looking at the extreme negatives. The Taliban are quite misguided. However, let's take Buddhists on the other hand. They truly believe that you shouldn't even harm a fly! Then again, Christianity not  only speaks of love, but it nearly screams for us to show compassion, love, and mercy to everyone. There are so many people out there that show that type of love; they build houses for the needy; they man the food kitchens for the homeless; they go overseas to share their wealth with those less fortunate. Yes, religion can have it's bad eggs, take the Westboro Baptist Church as one example. Their message of hate is completely outside of their religious texts!

              1. JMcFarland profile image92
                JMcFarlandposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                But your first point is nothing but the argument from ignorance fallacy.   I might as well say that I can't imagine this world without universe creating pixies - does that mean they must have done it?   Just because you can't imagine it doesn't mean it's not possible.   In the middle ages,  people couldn't imagine flying.   Now it is commonplace.   Do you see the problem with that kind of thinking?

                1. Pink Phoenix profile image59
                  Pink Phoenixposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  I suppose that the style of my wording could have been taken out of context. In matters of probability, it would be safest to assume that there was something 'then' that created the 'now.' Whether it was two eternal masses of chemicals colliding, which takes just as much faith to believe in the idea of matter that is eternal, or the idea that there was a higher power directing the show, it is obvious that something had to start the process that led to our universe.

                  Do you know how precise the universe is when it comes to humanity? The placement of the planets in our solar system gives us the perfect 'tug-o-war' between the Sun and the planets. This means that the gravity of the Sun won't pull us so close that we would burn, but the planets could not tug us far enough away to freeze us. Then there is the moon to guide our tides, and the very axis of the earth to dictate weather patterns. We are all on a planet that is spinning at breakneck speeds, which is inside of a solar system that is spinning, and that solar system is within a galaxy that is spinning, and that galaxy is within a constantly expanding universe.

                  In essence, things have happened too precisely for us to logically assume that it was all by chance. Even the smallest ecosystems, that of the ants of aphids, display an astonishing level of perfection that creates a balance in the 'circle of life.' Is it possible that this all happened by chance? Well, of course it is possible, but I daresay that it is not plausible.

                  1. JMcFarland profile image92
                    JMcFarlandposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    How do you calculate that?   What statistics do you use?   What equation?   We don't know how often life began and then stopped.   It only had to succeed once.   It's still the argument from ignorance to say that is more statistically probable that a god did it,  let alone decide on a specific one.

                    The fine tuning argument is no more convincing or conclusive in the several centuries it's been used by apologists,  and there are certainly a number of sites refuting it.   It doesn't work,  and appealing to accusing others of faith just because they don't draw the same conclusions doesn't work either.

                  2. EncephaloiDead profile image60
                    EncephaloiDeadposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    Of course, it's plausible. Why wouldn't it be? By simply stating you believe there is " an astonishing level of perfection" is not an explanation as to why you say it isn't plausible.

                    Of course, you also need to first define what it is you mean by "perfection"? Why do you believe the universe is perfect and by what standards do you make that comparison? Another universe?

                    The origins of a solar system are understood by observations of stellar nurseries, where massive clouds of hydrogen gas form stars and their surrounding planets, moons, asteroids, etc.  The solar systems were in motion when the they were still clouds of hydrogen gas and simply retained that motion (Newtons, Keplers Laws) over billions of years as they formed into planets, moons, asteroids, etc.

                    And of course, their orbits around the sun are not perfect, they vary all the time. Our moon, for example, used to be a lot closer to earth when it was forming, but over billions of years, it is moved further away and will continue to do so until some other large gravitational object randomly alters it's path or the earths gravity can no longer sustain the orbit. Is this perfection?

                    These are all just physical properties of the universe, there's no intent on perfection or anything else, it's just the laws of the universe in action over long periods of time. No big deal. smile

          2. Boots Iacono profile image83
            Boots Iaconoposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Wow... I been saying that for years... "Increase in homosexuals is nature's way of reducing the population... we're reproducing like a virus... and unfortunately, its the people who need gov't assistance who are reproducing at such a rate, and straining our economy." my exact words... I'm glad to see someone else believes in both God and Darwin... "The bible is not a history book, its a metaphorical book of God's wisdom inspired in man... Its a book of parables... While God made the Universe, I'm sure it took a lot longer than the Bible gave him credit for.  Besides, if we can see the evidence of evolution and still believe the children's stories, God would be shaking his head in his palm and ask himself, 'why do my special education team represent me so staunchly?' "

  7. grand old lady profile image89
    grand old ladyposted 2 years ago

    You can't lump all religions together because they aren't all the same. It's just like lumping all people of color together, or all females together. It's not an accurate presentation of religion.

    Faithless societies like communist societies, and societies like North Korea show horrible oppression. They destroyed churches and this enabled them to create horrible societies. Hitler was a Christian by name. His society didn;t encourage free religion and we ended up with the holocaust. A society without faith gives permission for the worst type of evil to be committed with no retribution.

    Nothing is more detrimental to society than a society with no faith, or where the government takes control of the churches. It gives them a free ticket to determine on their own ideas of right from wrong, and history has proven what happens when that happens.

    1. Ladyd3ciph3r profile image60
      Ladyd3ciph3rposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Hi Grand old lady,

      I do see your point but spirituality and religion are separate. Faith in self and the Universe to make good decisions and not harm anyone can also be achieved without religion, it's called self responsibility. I grew up in many religious settings and everyone felt that as long as they believed in God  and asked for forgiveness for their bad deeds they will be forgiven and find a resting place in heaven. So religion or not people still make bad choices but it's worse when they say they are committing horrendous acts in the name of religion that supposed to promote Love..

      The biggest fall of man is thinking that someone else is responsible for their fate. Why not just be kind to others and keep your mind focused on positiveness and have faith in Love? We don't need religion to learn that.
      Actually Christianity teaches you that everyone else is going to hell unless they believe in Jesus, that is an example of separateness and hate for anyone who is not a Christian and Christianity is not the only religion that teaches that absurd message. 

      If mankind wants to evolve then they have to make a personal choice to do so and find a positive path within themselves, not fall under a religious doctrine that teaches enslavement of the mind and lack of responsibility for the decisions they make in life. (the devil made me do it)

      Religion promotes fear not Love, rarely you find those who teaches that Love is the unifying antidote in life.

    2. EncephaloiDead profile image60
      EncephaloiDeadposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Why not? If we ask a Christian why their religion has over 40K registered denominations, they'll tell you the details they disagree are not important, because the core principles are still agreed upon by all Christians. So it goes with religions in general, they all have the same core principles, just different details.

      Btw, lumping all females together is a very accurate presentation of gender. smile



      Societies governed by faith show much more than horrible oppression, Christians and Muslims are killing each other over their faiths, far worse than just destroying places of worship.



      You might want to actually make yourself aware of what really happened in Nazi Germany.



      The opposite is true, a society with faith gives permission for the worst type of evil to be committed against others who don't share the faith, with no retribution.



      Except a society with faith. smile

    3. 0
      mbuggiehposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Grand Old Lady:

      The problems in the old Soviet Union or present-day North Korea have ZERO connection to any absence of religion.

      There was plenty of religion in the USSR and I suspect plenty of religion in North Korea.

      The problem was/is the incapacity of the public to overcome the defined and ingrained totalitarian state.

  8. AshtonFirefly profile image81
    AshtonFireflyposted 2 years ago

    I honestly think religion is harmless and it's none of my business who believes in it.

    A lot of people do unspeakable things "in the name of" religion, yes. However, that is their own personal choice. Interpretation of foundational documents such as the Quaran, Bible, etc. will vary, and each person will behave accordingly. It is the fault of the person, not the religion itself.

  9. 0
    SassySue1963posted 2 years ago

    Where to begin:
    1. Plenty of wars have been started and fought that did not have their foundation in religion.
    2. There is plenty of discrimination outside of religion. Atheists practice it all the time when speaking of anyone who dares to believe in a higher power.
    3. Your entire "scientific illiteracy" is a derogatory dig in itself.
    4. What scientific illiteracy are you speaking of? Are you aware that a recent scientific study states we shouldn't even be here? The entire universe should have blinked out of existence (according to all known science at this time) as soon as it was created. Hmm...isn't that interesting. Wonder why that didn't happen.
    5. I don't pretend to know everything about the universe or a higher power. The very designation of "higher power" means beyond our understanding. Who is to say that "7 days" was OUR 7 days?
    6. Climate change perhaps? Are you aware that science has already established that there was a major ice melt (just like now) 14000 years ago? And that it was never really "stable"? Or that core samples taken from both poles show that the Earth cools & heats in cycles throughout its existence? It is beyond arrogant to assume we are the be all & end all on this planet and control or cause everything.
    7. Atheists are more condescending, arrogant and degrading of anyone who disagrees with them (proven by the OPs post) than any other group of people I've come across.
    8. How arrogant and high & mighty is it to believe you are more knowledgeable and more right than 95% of the world's population? All of whom believe in a higher power.
    9. So we've had religion of some sort as far back as we can determine (when records that can be deciphered were kept) and we've managed to survive, advance and prosper. How detrimental can it be really. If it was so horrible as you are attempting to infer, we wouldn't be here today would we?

    Just my 9 cents.

    1. wilderness profile image94
      wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      True.  Does that mean that the wars started over religion didn't hurt society?

      Don't know about you, but I've never seen an atheist tell a believer they can't get married because of their religion.  Or hold any job they want (such as priest).  Or discriminate in any other way for that matter.

      Yet nearly all the far right ARE scientifically illiterate. 

      If true (and I'd have to see that) I wonder too.  But don't make an assumption it was a god that did it - that's part of that "scientific illiteracy" you mentioned.  Ignorance is not a reason to believe in a god.

      The writers of the Christian bible.  The ones, in other words, that postulated a god, Jesus and all the rest of the Christian trappings.

      Can't speak to your personal experience, except to not the karma often comes full circle.

      First, it's probably correct.  Second, not even half of the population believes in a real, live god out there that made the universe and the number drops significantly if only the more educated and knowledgeable first world is counted.

      Of course we would.  Unless we had already migrated to another planet around another star.  Something can be detrimental and harmful without causing total destruction, you know.

      1. 0
        SassySue1963posted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Does that mean the wars started by other than religion didn't hurt society? The only thing that proves is that war is detrimental to society.

        I've seen atheists call those who believe in a higher power stupid, childish, ignorant and a lot worse. What they tell them is worse than you can't get married. What they tell them is they have no right to believe what they believe. They tell them they can't pray. Anywhere. Ever. In public. They tell them they have no right to express their belief outside of their own private home. Isn't that the same as saying you can't get married? You can't express your love outside your own home? Yes it is.

        Now you are talking far right. The majority of those who believe in God are not the far right. Just because a certain type gets the press, does not make them the norm.

        Here is the link: http://www.forbes.com/sites/bridainepar … snt-exist/

        Now your own bias & prejudice shines through. Just because someone chooses to say it was a God or a higher power, you call it "scientific illiteracy". That is your opinion. You have no proof there isn't a God so to make the assumption that someone else who believes differently is scientifically illiterate is very bigoted.

        Bear in mind when I speak about 95% of the world's population, that isn't specific to any type of religion. Some believe it was a higher intelligence, some aliens even. Either way - they don't think it just went poof! and existed.

        Considering the importance that religion has played in nearly every aspect of all ancient civilizations, if it was so detrimental, no, we wouldn't be here nor have advanced, since, you know, everyone would be scientifically illiterate and all.

        Lastly - you've bought into the atheists great lie. That religion precludes any scientific knowledge or belief in science. Science is not the end all be all either. It is constantly changing and rearranging. What held true, what you would have called fact, a decade ago, has been disproved, proven again, and disproved again ten times over.

        Here is the truth no one likes: science is flawed because it is people who conduct experiments and people are flawed. Just as any religion will be flawed because it is people who are translating the meanings and such.

        1. AshtonFirefly profile image81
          AshtonFireflyposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          You pointed me to your response to wilderness, so I will respond in kind:

          "Does that mean the wars started by other than religion didn't hurt society? The only thing that proves is that war is detrimental to society."

          Hmmm...I think we already discussed this one.

          "I've seen atheists call those who believe in a higher power stupid, childish, ignorant and a lot worse. What they tell them is worse than you can't get married. What they tell them is they have no right to believe what they believe. They tell them they can't pray. Anywhere. Ever. In public. They tell them they have no right to express their belief outside of their own private home. Isn't that the same as saying you can't get married? You can't express your love outside your own home? Yes it is."

            I think I already addressed this, but Christians do the same thing, so...I'm not sure how we'd go about using this as a legit source of info. It's all relative to each person. It may seem worse than saying you can't get married, to you, but it may not be the case for someone else. Once again, it's subjective. I've never heard of an atheist not wanting a Christian to pray in public or express their belief outside of home, but you obviously have, so it will make an impression on you.
            I feel somewhat that the argument of how awful you claim atheists are isn't really proving anything at this point, concerning religion and its contributions or damage to society..it's just proving that you feel that atheism fosters more hate than Christianity does. It's all relative information...

          "Now you are talking far right. The majority of those who believe in God are not the far right. Just because a certain type gets the press, does not make them the norm.

          Here is the link: http://www.forbes.com/sites/bridainepar … ist/"

          I have absolutely no knowledge of this stuff so I won't even dare try to answer.


          "Considering the importance that religion has played in nearly every aspect of all ancient civilizations, if it was so detrimental, no, we wouldn't be here nor have advanced, since, you know, everyone would be scientifically illiterate and all."

          Again, I think this is somewhat of a fallacious causality argument. The fact that humanity has advanced does not mean that religion is detrimental or not to it. It could mean that religion WAS detrimental, but people succeeded at a much slower rate than they should have. OR it could mean that religion was not detrimental at all or even fosters intelligence and advancement. How you perceive this will depend on how you feel about religion in the first place. This argument also assumes that we all feel society has advanced, but that's somewhat of a tangent...

          "Lastly - you've bought into the atheists great lie. That religion precludes any scientific knowledge or belief in science. Science is not the end all be all either. It is constantly changing and rearranging. What held true, what you would have called fact, a decade ago, has been disproved, proven again, and disproved again ten times over."

          I think in determining truths, scientific research apart from any religious influence has proven to be the most helpful in understanding our world. I feel religion is only detrimental if it attempts to override or replace scientific observations and findings which have been based on legitimate research, with scripture or statements which may be interpreted completely different. (Such as when the Church claimed that the earth was the center of the universe based on a Scripture.) Religious interpretation of texts change as well, too. Sure, what science has to say about our world changes a lot, but is this not a better approach than staunchly believing something for the sake of it, instead of keeping an open mind to truth? That's the beauty of science. Until we find answers, we can only do the best we can do. Science never conflicts with religion until religion attempts to distort scientific findings by laying out Scripture. I honestly think that, if certain religious texts were interpreted correctly, we would find there's really no conflict whatsoever. It all depends on the person doing the reading and whether or not they think it conflicts. (For example, one may take the "7 day creation" literally. Others do not. Both theories are hotly debated in the church and not universally accepted.)

          "Here is the truth no one likes: science is flawed because it is people who conduct experiments and people are flawed. Just as any religion will be flawed because it is people who are translating the meanings and such."

          I can't think of a single scientist who would disagree with you. that's why scientific findings always change: because scientists know that it is flawed and do their best to find the truth about the world around us. Hell no they're not perfect and half the stuff we've discovered is wrong; but the point is, we've come a LONG way towards truth about the world around us. I think the point being made here is that religion typically calls for solid, unchanging faith. Science, however, is always changing and adapting to a perceived truth. Now granted, not all religions are completely inflexible in their interpretation of the world, but alot are, thus giving religion as a whole a bad rap. Science seeks truth. There's really no other motive. I don't think any scientist becomes a scientist simply to debunk religion. If they do, they don't need to be a scientist, because that's not science is about. It's about using logic, reason, and experimentation to come to better knowledge of our world.

          1. 0
            SassySue1963posted 2 years ago in reply to this

            The entire answer about atheists being derogatory and discriminatory was in response to Wilderness' statement that he never knew an atheist to discriminate like religion did to the LGBT community.

            Your link gave me a 404 error. sad

            1. AshtonFirefly profile image81
              AshtonFireflyposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              I believe that was your link. It was among the ones you provided. It happened to be at the end of your statement so when I put quotation marks around it, the computer thought that was part of the hyperlink.

              1. 0
                SassySue1963posted 2 years ago in reply to this

                ohh I thought you were giving me a link to something different - now I see what happened.

                I understand now - getting on my sleepy time. smile

                Of course, being slightly OCD I have to fix the link first.

                Alright - hey Wilderness! New link to fix broken one! Sorry!

                http://www.nbcnews.com/science/weird-sc … st-n138911

                1. 0
                  Emile Rposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  That article references one person's opinion. It probably isn't advisable to build a belief structure around it.

    2. AshtonFirefly profile image81
      AshtonFireflyposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Hi SassySue, and good morning. If you don't mind, I'd like to discuss some of the points you brought up...

      1. Plenty of wars have been started and fought that did not have their foundation in religion.
      True. However, I believe the point is that religion has been the cause of more wars than there would have been, had religion not existed. But who knows? Perhaps if religion had not existed, then there would have been other wars which would have been stifled by people adhering to a particular faith.

      2. There is plenty of discrimination outside of religion. Atheists practice it all the time when speaking of anyone who dares to believe in a higher power.
      There is. Religion does and can cause people to discriminate based on faith or beliefs alone--a discrimination which would not exist, should religion not exist. However, one may also argue that had it not been for religion, then people would be MORE discriminatory in other respects. (It depends on if you believe that religion helps or hinders discrimination.)

      3. Your entire "scientific illiteracy" is a derogatory dig in itself.

      Albeit I feel that was somewhat inappropriate to say in such a way, I think the intended meaning was that certain aspects of religion spread discouragement of trusting in scientific research and instead replacing it with a Biblical account which may or may not be backed up by science. Scientists may find this to be an obstacle to spreading scientific information to the masses. However, religion is not SOLELY responsible for this, in my opinion; it can and sometimes does hinder the spread of scientific information, but that does depend on what thinks about science in general, and whether or not it is trustworthy. I feel that religious circles in general are becoming more receptive to scientific research and adapting their own view of the world accordingly.

      4. What scientific illiteracy are you speaking of? Are you aware that a recent scientific study states we shouldn't even be here? The entire universe should have blinked out of existence (according to all known science at this time) as soon as it was created. Hmm...isn't that interesting. Wonder why that didn't happen.

      That is interesting research. However, it seems that lack of evidence for something, or a lack of information on how exactly it's possible we are here, does not necessarily suggest a deity. I could easily say, "oh. We shouldn't be here? I guess my theory that a large unicorn alien made us and then left us be, must be correct!" If one is inclined to believe in a deity, then one will definitely see this as evidence for their beliefs. However, it is "evidence" only in that case.

      5. I don't pretend to know everything about the universe or a higher power. The very designation of "higher power" means beyond our understanding. Who is to say that "7 days" was OUR 7 days?

      And that's the proper way to see things. Not all think that there must necessarily be a higher power, however. Or that higher power may mean something different to them, and not a deity.

      6. Climate change perhaps? Are you aware that science has already established that there was a major ice melt (just like now) 14000 years ago? And that it was never really "stable"? Or that core samples taken from both poles show that the Earth cools & heats in cycles throughout its existence? It is beyond arrogant to assume we are the be all & end all on this planet and control or cause everything.

      I think it is wise to not assume we are the end all be all and control or cause everything. This, however, does not necessarily indicate the presence of a deity. It simply means we don't have all the answers, and most of us are ok with that.

      7. Atheists are more condescending, arrogant and degrading of anyone who disagrees with them (proven by the OPs post) than any other group of people I've come across.

      Hmmm. I think this is simply a matter of perspective. This is based on your own experience. Mine tells me that religious people, in my personal life, fit those criteria more than atheists. Since this is strictly a very relative observation, it seems a little unstable to use it as a way to suggest that atheism is somehow more detrimental than religion. And again, pointing out that atheism is detrimental does not necessarily prove or suggest that religion is helpful.

      8. How arrogant and high & mighty is it to believe you are more knowledgeable and more right than 95% of the world's population? All of whom believe in a higher power.

      I'm not sure where this number comes from. I apologize. I...find it highly improbable that the number is this high, but do you mind if I ask what this percentile is based on?

      9. So we've had religion of some sort as far back as we can determine (when records that can be deciphered were kept) and we've managed to survive, advance and prosper. How detrimental can it be really. If it was so horrible as you are attempting to infer, we wouldn't be here today would we?

      Whether or not our society has survived thus far does not seem to be a very strong argument for its helpfulness or lack of being detrimental. This is a very tricky situation to describe because the religious person is given the burden of proving it is NOT detrimental. This is somewhat invalid and not really a fair proposition, to me. It's like asking someone to prove that God isn't real. The burden of proof lies not on the one denying something/someone's existence, but on the one proclaiming that something is true (e.g. that religion is detrimental.)The fact that we have survived and prospered is not necessarily an argument for religion's helpfulness or even its lack of being detrimental. It is simply a statement of what it has NOT done: killed the species or thwarted our progress. I can see where you're coming from: if it were so bad, wouldn't our society be a wreck? But that's just the point. Many people see some aspects of our society as a wreck (perhaps not in the areas of success and prosperity that you described) which can be attributed to religion chiefly or mostly.So it really depends on if you really see society as being prosperous, and what parts of society, exactly, one perceives as prosperous.


      Just my thoughts.

      1. 0
        SassySue1963posted 2 years ago in reply to this

        I think I've answered most of your questions in my answer to Wilderness post, if not, I'd be happy to address them again.

        The 95%, as I stated up above, is not about one religion. I believe an example of the UK & Australia were used as examples of countries who did not believe. However, that isn't accurate. One has to look at the questions and how they were asked. Actually there are even conflicting polls with conflicting results, which often happens in polls. The 95% is very generic and I did try to find the link for you (I had found it doing some research a while back) but google is not cooperating. It merely asked if they believed in any higher power or deity or supreme being. That could be God, Allah, Bhudda, etc.

        I'm pretty open minded about my beliefs but it is the approach that somehow believing in a higher power is illogical that I mostly take an issue with. To me, atheism is the more illogical approach. After all, if the atheists are correct, what have I lost? How am I hurt? I've chosen to follow guidelines designed for the greater good for the most part and perhaps given up an hour or two of my Sunday. Maybe I've volunteered somewhere to help someone. If there is no God, it does me no harm.

        But what if there IS a God? A Heaven & a Hell? The atheist then risks a lot - for eternity. So I guess to me, there is nothing illogical about choosing to believe in God, by whatever name you choose to call Him or Her.

        As for the wars, I think we have plenty of examples that show that even without religion, we'd find a reason to fight. Then we could even discuss if all wars are bad or are some necessary but that would be another forum topic smile

        Edit: I forgot. What I see from atheists is a desire to destroy religion. It isn't about not believing in a God. That is a personal decision. But so is faith. Someone even mentioned a hope that in the future we would not have religion. That is an outright warlike attitude towards something they proclaim not to believe in. To me that is far more detrimental.

        1. AshtonFirefly profile image81
          AshtonFireflyposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          I think I've answered most of your questions in my answer to Wilderness post, if not, I'd be happy to address them again."

          Sorry! didn't see it. (drh lol)

          The 95%, as I stated up above, is not about one religion. I believe an example of the UK & Australia were used as examples of countries who did not believe. However, that isn't accurate. One has to look at the questions and how they were asked. Actually there are even conflicting polls with conflicting results, which often happens in polls. The 95% is very generic and I did try to find the link for you (I had found it doing some research a while back) but google is not cooperating. It merely asked if they believed in any higher power or deity or supreme being. That could be God, Allah, Bhudda, etc."

          No worries, I'll look it up. It just seemed a little odd, or high, of a number, even for religion in general.

          "I'm pretty open minded about my beliefs but it is the approach that somehow believing in a higher power is illogical that I mostly take an issue with. To me, atheism is the more illogical approach. After all, if the atheists are correct, what have I lost? How am I hurt? I've chosen to follow guidelines designed for the greater good for the most part and perhaps given up an hour or two of my Sunday. Maybe I've volunteered somewhere to help someone. If there is no God, it does me no harm. "

          Understandable. Nobody wants someone else telling them they're stupid. I think we all are going to find different ways of thinking to be logical, because we're going to have different criteria for what will cause us to think one way and not another.

          "But what if there IS a God? A Heaven & a Hell? The atheist then risks a lot - for eternity. So I guess to me, there is nothing illogical about choosing to believe in God, by whatever name you choose to call Him or Her. "

          True. But remember, atheists feel bombarded by threats of hellish demise from all religions and it can get a little overbearing.Religion has kind of a bad rap when it comes to science, and unfortunately the less open-minded individuals in religion make it very difficult (it seems) on the open-minded, logical religious folks to be respected by their peers. However, is that not the atheist's choice whether or not he/she wants to take a supposed "risk"? Also, to the atheist, there is no more risk in choosing to not believe in a God or deity, than it is TO believe in a deity, because only if one actually BELIEVES it, will there be any notion of risk.

          "As for the wars, I think we have plenty of examples that show that even without religion, we'd find a reason to fight. Then we could even discuss if all wars are bad or are some necessary but that would be another forum topic smile"

          Yes definitely, we're all human. I think the wars being discussed were ones which had religious roots or undertones. However, who's to say what WOULD have happened?

          I'll check out your answers to wilderness.

          1. 0
            SassySue1963posted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Hi AshtonFirefly,

            Okay I did find it but I remembered the numbers incorrectly. Sorry about that!

            It is 95% of Americans, 51% of the entire population. Only 18% don't believe and 17% are unsure. It doesn't mention about the missing 14% though.

            1. AshtonFirefly profile image81
              AshtonFireflyposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Ok great, Thanks! smile

              This number (51%) for the entire population seems much more accurate.

            2. 0
              mbuggiehposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              I suspect that only 18% are brave enough to safe the truth: They do not believe.

              And just a few more (17%) brave enough to hedge around the truth: They do not believe.

              If you add the 18% and the 17% and let's say at least half of the "not sure" group (7%), then we come to 42% are non-believers. I strongly suspect this is much closer to some truth.

              I have NO idea (and I am understanding less and less everyday) how anyone in the 21st century could retain any belief in any god as described in Judeo-Christianity or Islam or any other world religion---particularly any belief system that requires acceptance of a Creationist worldview.

    3. jonnycomelately profile image86
      jonnycomelatelyposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      When religion ruled and before scientific learning became accepted as valid, very little advancement and progress was made.  Scientists had to confront religious dogma, often at great risk to themselves, before advancement could begin and allow us to prosper.

  10. David W Shanholtz profile image59
    David W Shanholtzposted 2 years ago
    1. 0
      mbuggiehposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      How exactly is a philosophy based on reason a "philosophy of death" as claimed in this article?

      The most absurd comment in the article:

      "This is why atheism is a zero-sum game, a philosophy of death that can offer nothing but death. This is why the rising tide of secularism in the Western world is fostering an indefatigable culture of death. Forged in a crucible of nothingness, we wander as cosmic orphans back to the yawning void from which we were so tragically ejected. In such a stark context, anything more than death, or on the side of life, or even minimally optimistic must be regarded with either pity or callous derision because it is obviously deluded, naïve, or dishonest."

      If atheism is a philosophy of death, then what is Christianity?

      Is not its promise of some "eternal life" AFTER death just a clever philosophy of death? Isn't the nonsensical claim that all that really matters is life AFTER death in and of itself contributing to a perverse focus on death?

  11. gmwilliams profile image86
    gmwilliamsposted 2 years ago

    A thousand applauses mbuggieh.  So many people belong to  a religion although they do not believe in its tenets.  That is the ultimate definition of hypocritical, don't you think, mbuggieh.  Why don't they just leave their religion?  Oh no, people want to believe in a religion for appearances sake, societal approval, and part of an afterlife insurance policy.

  12. 0
    Rad Manposted 2 years ago

    80,000,000 people were killed during the Muslim Conquest of the Indian Subcontinent.

    Between 4,000,000 and 17,000,000 killed by the Holocaust.

    3,000,000 died as a result of the Crusades.

    1. Chris Neal profile image83
      Chris Nealposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      The Holocaust was not religious in nature. Some of the people who acted within it did so for religious reasons, but at heart it was a racial extermination attempt, not a religious one.

      1. 0
        Emile Rposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Seriously, with all of the secular reasons to exterminate hundreds of millions over the last hundred years; blaming that moment on religion creates a nice comfort zone.

      2. gmwilliams profile image86
        gmwilliamsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        The Jewish Holocaust was an ethnic war.  According to Hitler and other National Socialists, the Jews were an ethnic/racial group, not a religious group.   Even Jews who were converted ended up in concentration camps.  One of them was Edith Stein, a German Jew, who converted to Catholicism and became a nun.  Sr. Stein ended up in Auschwitz where she died in the gas chambers.

        1. Chris Neal profile image83
          Chris Nealposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Thank you.

      3. 0
        Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        And what about the Muslim Conquest of the Indian Subcontinent? What about the Crusades?

        Hitler wanted to punish the Jews for killing Jesus, But lets say that's debatable, what about the other 83,000,000?

        To put that number in perspective the population of Canada is around 35,000,000.

        1. Chris Neal profile image83
          Chris Nealposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          What about them? I have been on record about Islamic conquests in the past.

          Try reading more history. Hitler used Christian language when it suited him, i.e. never ever in private and only when he was using it to sway other people. His own stated bias was against the Jewish race, as in ethnic Jews.

          I was correcting one point in your argument. If you want to say that the entire thing stands or falls based on every point being correct, I'm sorry.

          1. 0
            Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            In a forum entitled "Is RELIGION detrimental to the whole of society" I bring up the murder of about 100,000,000 people and all you do is say I can't count between 4 and 14 million of those people? That's all you've got?

            1. Chris Neal profile image83
              Chris Nealposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              I don't know, did you bother to read any of my other postings or put my response to you in context, or are you simply going to force one posting to fit into your particular desire for it, whether or not it actually does? Is that all YOU'VE got?

              1. 0
                Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                The murder of over 80,000,000 is not much to you?

                1. 0
                  Emile Rposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  It's estimated that 67,000,000 died under Mao. Yet, we don't blame all atheists for one man's crimes. How is Chris responsible for defending atrocities committed by Mahmud Ghazni?

                  1. 0
                    Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    Ahhhh, you may want to have a look at the title of this forum. It uses the word Religion, not Christianity.

                2. Chris Neal profile image83
                  Chris Nealposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  Why are you so stuck on that point? Of course it is. My point is that if you're going to cite history, cite it correctly. If you're going to say the Holocaust was caused by religion, I'm going to say that either you don't know what you're talking about or you just really dislike religion so much that you will take any opportunity to run it down. I never said the Holocaust was nothing, and if you ever attempt to make out like I have then shame on you and please get a life. If you don't, then we're cool.

                  1. 0
                    Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    I'm just trying to stay on topic here. I understand you don't think religion had anything to do with the Holocaust and that you think it was simply sold that way. Either was Religion was used as a weapon to kill all those people.

                    On topic, if more than 80,000,000 people in the wars and Holocaust are an indication if religion is good for society I'd have to say no.

      4. Boots Iacono profile image83
        Boots Iaconoposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        You also have to remember that everywhere the Jews went they considered themselves persecuted... Egypt, other places in the Middle East, all the Inquisitions... because wherever they went, they took over the economy and started screwing the people out of their finances.  I'm not being antisemetic by the way, I'm pointing out what history has shown.

        1. Chris Neal profile image83
          Chris Nealposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Well, yes. You are being anti-Semitic, and don't even bother arguing that you're not. But as long as we're discussing history...

          Historically speaking, Christians did not engage in lending practices because of Jesus' admonitions about giving to the one who has none. This was interpreted as "you are not allowed to charge interest on money you lend." The Jews, who for many reasons were often frozen out of economies wherever they went, did not have any such religious restrictions and therefor often were the only money lenders in any given community. Following basic economic models, if you're the only one lending money then any amount of interest you get back is going to allow you to slowly rise from extreme poverty to middle-class to rich. "Rich", of course, is a relative term. Rich to us usually means fabulous wealth but back in the Middle Ages rich might mean you have enough food to eat and an extra goat. In many places (like Medieval England) the land belonged to the lord of the land (the baron or the duke or whoever) and therefor all food was considered to be his as well. What we call today "food security" was rare among the lower classes. But I digress, the fact is that Jews were often frozen out of many sectors of the economy but they could and did lend money, and just like banks today are often seen as the bad guy (I'm talking the local bank, not the big Wall $treet mega-firms) by people who owe them money, so too were the Jews, who already had religious and ethnic strikes against them in many people's eyes, held as unscrupulous and money-grubbing. But they lent, they collected interest, and eventually they gathered wealth. Sometimes. I doubt that the Jews who suffered pogrom after pogrom in czarist Russia saw themselves as particularly influential, let alone conquering, in their local communities.

  13. flpalermo profile image24
    flpalermoposted 2 years ago

    This is where I have to give JOHN LENNON credit for his song "Imagine."
    He sang... "Imagine NO religion"...etc. Religion HAS indeed destroyed humanity. The god of this world has blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the glorious gospel (messege) of Jesus Christ should shine unto them. Deception is the greatest tool your enemy can use  to defeat  and eliminate you. From the very beginning  after Jesus death, ANOTHER gospel took root in Judea, and since then, all mankind has invented their own Christianity. Don't believe this invention of man, but search the Scriptures daily to see if those things are true.

    1. 0
      Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      So we simply disassociate ourselves from religion and claim those atrocities had nothing to do with our religion.

      1. flpalermo profile image24
        flpalermoposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        That's right. Disassociate your self from RELIGION. Look for yourself what God has for mankind, NOT religion.

        1. 0
          Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Which version of God are you speaking about? The Christian version?

          1. flpalermo profile image24
            flpalermoposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Since you believe that the only reason we are here on earth is "TO HAVE A GOOD TIME", and that's it, I don't think we could have reasonable conversation on this topic.

            1. 0
              Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              That's why we can't have a reasonable conversation?

              Perhaps you just don't like being questioned?

              I have to give you credit however for at least admitting the atrocities rather than defending them as so many do. Some will even defend slavery, can you imagine?

              1. Boots Iacono profile image83
                Boots Iaconoposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                A person can go to God without the Church... the Church is a business, however, and if they don't have more followers, they're shrinking, etc. etc. etc... yu do not need a church to be of faith.  I only go to church for confession.

  14. flpalermo profile image24
    flpalermoposted 2 years ago

    To find what I believe, check my profile.

    1. 0
      Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Right, sounds like a Christian to me.

      1. flpalermo profile image24
        flpalermoposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        I am a Scripturalist - not a "traditional" Christian.

        1. 0
          Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Huh, yet you made mention to scripture and Christ?

        2. JMcFarland profile image92
          JMcFarlandposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Do you rely on only one religions Scripture,  or do you accept all of them?

          1. flpalermo profile image24
            flpalermoposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Man ought not to believe in ANY Religions scripture or accept any, in place of God REVEALED knowledge which is given directly to YOU only. Your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men but on what your conscience accepts as truth. Your conscience can only receive conviction from a HIGHER source than yourself. An amoeba cannot contribute to your intelligence, nor impart you with love, the highest form of GIVING that there is. Traditional Christianity does not accept God’s REVEALED knowledge, but trust in men’s wisdom to establish “religion.”

            1. 0
              Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              God’s REVEALED knowledge?

            2. JMcFarland profile image92
              JMcFarlandposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              How can you be a scripturalist if you accept divine revelation and not Scripture?   That doesn't make any sense.

              1. flpalermo profile image24
                flpalermoposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                I do not accept the "INTERPRETATION" men give Scripture.

                1. JMcFarland profile image92
                  JMcFarlandposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  So how do you get your Scripture?   Direct revelation?  From which god?

                  1. flpalermo profile image24
                    flpalermoposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    I didn't mean to ruffle your feathers Julie.

  15. Link10103 profile image80
    Link10103posted 2 years ago

    Is the IDEA of religion detrimental to society? I dont necessarily think so. But when you introduce a god that would be pleased if you blew people up or silenced non believers, then obviously that is when religion becomes a plague on society.

    I cant really think of any terrible atrocities off the top of my head that were purely caused because of atheism. It does not make sense to say "Hitler/Stalin/Blue monkey was an atheist and ordered genocide because of that" when atheism is a state of non belief. There is no higher deity to kill for if you are an atheist, so it does not make sense to blame atheism for anything.

    With that in mind, I do not and will probably never see how atheism could ever be detrimental to society. I would think a good chunk of scientists are atheists and look at what they have done for the betterment of mankind over the years.

  16. Sed-me profile image82
    Sed-meposted 2 years ago

    I know these two posts were just the sharing of facts, but I found them to be very touching and powerful. Thank you for taking the time to share them, Quilligrapher.

    1. Quilligrapher profile image91
      Quilligrapherposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      You are welcome, Beth.
      http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg

  17. oceansnsunsets profile image88
    oceansnsunsetsposted 2 years ago

    The topic of elimination of all religion I see in this thread (beginning on page one even)  is an alarming idea to me, and very dangerous.  We have seen this in history and how detrimental it is.  Played out, it is horrifying, and not just offensive to anyone sensibilities, it has actually extinguished life and is an anti freedom type of mentality completely.  I wish people cared more about all people, and not just about the people with views that match their own. I think a view that thinks its ok to talk about the elimination of religion by any force, is to be found lacking in at least the morality department, if not logically.  It is very anti freedom, and very anti American and probably a lot of other things.  I think it mocks our veterans and heroes that died to ensure we don't have such repeats in history.  So I guess I am encouraging more deep thinking on the subject, and possible reassessing of each of our views.  The idea of forcing another view to not be allowed, is most often chosen by those that don't like their views to be not allowed.  The irony seen there is the answer to if its a good view or not.  The inconsistent and illogical view there, shows its not the best way, in my opinion.

    1. EncephaloiDead profile image60
      EncephaloiDeadposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      You make some good points. However, we have to look at the reasons why the elimination of religion in any given country or situation occurred. Was it a primary reason or one of many reasons.

      For example, prior to the 1917 Revolution, Russia was ruled by czar and church that held all the power and much of the wealth, living extravagant lifestyles while the people starved in abject poverty. The people had enough and they had to eliminate both king and church, which they did. Of course, each individual Christian or Muslim never gave up their beliefs, some died for it while most others saw it more practical to lie about it. Religion was never eliminated, it remained within the minds of most everyone and was passed down from generation to generation, and after some 70 years of being oppressed and persecuted, the churches reopened after communism disappeared and religions flourished once again.

      Jump to Cuba. Although, the reason for the revolution and communist platform was because of the dictator Batista abusing wealth while people starved, and that Castro happened to be a communist, it was mostly all political. And, although religious practices in public were restricted after Castro took power, Cuba is now just considered a secular state and people practice their religions openly once again.

      1. Prodio profile image60
        Prodioposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        So you find religion acceptable - but not while it is used as a tool to gain fortunes? Ha! What a waste it has been!

        1. EncephaloiDead profile image60
          EncephaloiDeadposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          I find freedom to be acceptable. If the practice of ones religion is eliminated, so are their freedoms. But, if that freedom is abused at the expense of others, it's no longer acceptable. Is that a waste?

          1. Prodio profile image60
            Prodioposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Perhaps it took a lot longer to reach that conclusion, than expected.

            1. EncephaloiDead profile image60
              EncephaloiDeadposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              But, things are changing, faith based mindsets and decisions are being over-ruled by the rights and freedoms we all share, and that's why it's taking so long.

              1. Prodio profile image60
                Prodioposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Agree. Meanwhile, some were just griping too much why God doesn't exist.

                1. EncephaloiDead profile image60
                  EncephaloiDeadposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  Why would you do that?

  18. lone77star profile image91
    lone77starposted 2 years ago

    No! Ego is detrimental to society. Ego perverts religion, science, government, business and more.

    The original aim of religion was that of bringing people together in a spiritual quest. This is an activity of altruistic Love. Ego doesn't like Love; but hungers for lust.

    Everything you and others cite as problems with sources in religion are actually sourced back to Ego.

    Get the target right. Ego is the problem; not religion.

    Illiteracy in Cambodia a few decades ago was a function of political ideology -- not religion. But if you look closely at that tragedy, it too was fueled by Ego.

    Yes, atheism is a problem, just as is someone who ignores gravity. Or just as is someone who ignores the true source of the problem -- Ego.

    The solution is Love and God is Love. If we receive the bounty of this world for selfishness sake, then we feed Ego, but if we receive these things for the benefit of others, then we correct Ego's selfishness to altruistic Love.

  19. Boots Iacono profile image83
    Boots Iaconoposted 2 years ago

    The problem doesn't lie with religion... however, the ORGANIZATION of it.  I'm considered Roman Catholic... and when the Cardinals and Popes start covering for priests didling with little boys, its time to bring the CHURCH down... not the believers.

    1. Sed-me profile image82
      Sed-meposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      How bout just bringing the leadership down of any and every organization that protect criminals and predators. Evil and crime should not be tolerated no matter what name is on the sign on the building.

  20. Rai Micheal profile image59
    Rai Michealposted 2 years ago

    You are so right, there trying to make a ww3 and it's based off religion. It's scary only because they leave the world bias to what isn't suppose to be. I like your hub

  21. Jerami profile image78
    Jeramiposted 2 years ago

    Atheism and religion are two necessary components of the balancing pole. 
    Remove either one and man falls of the tight rope.

    1. EncephaloiDead profile image60
      EncephaloiDeadposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Sorry, but there is nothing needed to balance atheism, faith based myths and superstitions do little more than hinder man.

      1. Chris Neal profile image83
        Chris Nealposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        The truth, however, will set you free.

        1. EncephaloiDead profile image60
          EncephaloiDeadposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Free from what? Religion only serves to enslave.

          1. Chris Neal profile image83
            Chris Nealposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Perhaps. But God frees.

            1. EncephaloiDead profile image60
              EncephaloiDeadposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              God only enslaves, he frees no one.

              1. Chris Neal profile image83
                Chris Nealposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                No, that's not true. He certainly freed me.

                1. JMcFarland profile image92
                  JMcFarlandposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  From what?   You're still alive.   Still struggling.   What did he free you from?

                  1. Chris Neal profile image83
                    Chris Nealposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    From fear of what would happen after I die. From the idea that what I've always done is the only thing I can always do. And honestly, in a way that I can't explain to your satisfaction, knowing He's there is a freeing thing, even though it does indeed put new rules and restrictions on my behaviors. Being of a more intellectual and artistic bent anyway, He certainly has given me a lot to chew over, so to speak. And yes, I'm still alive and still struggling. Death is not freedom per se. To coin a phrase, it ain't over when it's over. But He is there and it's not just knowing that if I do right (which I frequently don't) that I will be rewarded. It's the knowing that He's there and cares for me and helps me (which He certainly does) on a daily basis that frees me.

                2. EncephaloiDead profile image60
                  EncephaloiDeadposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  It sure doesn't look like it from where I stand, but if enslavement of the mind is freedom for you, who am I to say what floats your boat. smile

            2. JMcFarland profile image92
              JMcFarlandposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Can you prove this too, please?

        2. 0
          mbuggiehposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Truth?

          Religion is the space of myth, allegory, superstition. Religion has nothing whatsoever to do with truth.

          1. Chris Neal profile image83
            Chris Nealposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Passion is commendable, but conviction and truth are not always the same thing.

            1. 0
              mbuggiehposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Exactly.

              1. Chris Neal profile image83
                Chris Nealposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                There IS a God and Jesus DOES exist.

                1. JMcFarland profile image92
                  JMcFarlandposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  You say that's true,  but in order to decide that something is true convincingly you actually have to demonstrate that it's actually true.  You can't.   You can't even begin to.   So why should I just accept what you say for no reason?

                  1. wilderness profile image94
                    wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    You don't need to.  From the horses mouth, so to speak:
                    "Passion is commendable, but conviction and truth are not always the same thing."  There is little doubt of the conviction and passion, but the truth is not necessarily there, at least according to the author.

                  2. Chris Neal profile image83
                    Chris Nealposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    That is up for debate. In point of fact the way that most believers demonstrate the truth of their beliefs is by their life, and I don't just mean following Jesus' commands (although that is certainly paramount as you can't call yourself a Christian if you don't do as Christ commanded.) That I can't point at the Northern Lights or the Big Dipper or the Singularity and say, "See! Ultimate proof!" does not mean that I can't 'prove' it, although some wouldn't believe no matter what.

                2. EncephaloiDead profile image60
                  EncephaloiDeadposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  Wow, I think the embodiment of caps certainly does make your claim far more valid. wink

                  1. 0
                    Emile Rposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    lol

                  2. Chris Neal profile image83
                    Chris Nealposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    I assume that you hold as much for the person who I was responding to, who used caps in a similar fashion. I don't normally.

                    You don't? Oh dear, your slip is showing...

                  3. Chris Neal profile image83
                    Chris Nealposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    Look, ED. Caps! But I doubt that you would hold buggie to the same standard you hold me, eh?

  22. Michael Kismet profile image90
    Michael Kismetposted 2 years ago

    The bible is a thick book of plagiarized Egyptian stories and folklore.  A thousand years from now, mankind will look back on religion and think "what the hell we're we thinking"?!  Religion is the blind leading the blind.

    1. Chris Neal profile image83
      Chris Nealposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Perhaps a thousand years from now mankind will look back as they run for their lives while the angels come to defeat Satan and think, "What the hell were we thinking?"

      Might be sooner, might not be that soon.

      1. EncephaloiDead profile image60
        EncephaloiDeadposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        After two thousand years, it still looks exactly like any other given myth, so why should it not look like that in another thousand years?

      2. 0
        mbuggiehposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        There is NO Satan; there are NO demons and there are NO angels.

        Satan, demons, angels are myths and fantasies with zero connection to reality.

        In a 1000 years (or hopefully many fewer) human beings will evolve---cognitively and intellectually, and will finally and for once and for all let go out primitive thoughts; primitive thoughts that conjure up gods and angels and demons to explain that which they do not understand.

        Perhaps in 1000 years---and many fewer, we will all have evolved sufficiently to embrace science and reason as ways of knowing and discard myth and superstition.

        1. Chris Neal profile image83
          Chris Nealposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Well, as long as you're passionate about it...

        2. 0
          SassySue1963posted 2 years ago in reply to this

          I usually find you to be such a sane sort. I'm curious why this bothers you so much. I also find it disconcerting that you have decided YOU are right, only YOU are right and you must shout it from the mountain tops until everyone else shuts up and agrees.

          Why can you not say "I don't believe in this" and accept that others DO believe? Why do you feel the need to play the internet version of a shout down?

          I'm only curious about these things because it has been my experience (and I can only speak from my own experiences) that atheists act out of a fear of religion, more than a disbelief. This need to destroy it and banish it from humanity while at the same time condemning as inhumane and horrible the very same thing when religion acts that way towards homosexuals. ironic huh?

          1. Link10103 profile image80
            Link10103posted 2 years ago in reply to this

            If religion was kept behind closed doors and on private property, like it was intended to be, no one would be having any problems with it at all now would they?

            1. 0
              SassySue1963posted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Who says that was what was "intended"? Or are you dragging out the old "separation of Church & State" thing that is nowhere within the Constitution? Only 5 words written one time in a letter by one Founding Father.

              You should check out quotes from other Founding Fathers to really see what was "intended" and not intended.

              "Let it simply be asked, where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion." George Washington

              The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity. I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God - John Adams

              Without religion, this world would be something not fit to be mentioned in polite company: I mean hell - John Adams

              Suppose a nation in some distant region should take the Bible for their only law book and every member should regulate his conduct by the precepts there exhibited. . . . What a Eutopia – what a Paradise would this region be! - John Adams

              In the chain of human events, the birthday of the nation is indissolubly linked with the birthday of the Savior. The Declaration of Independence laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity - John Quincy Adams

              The great, vital, and conservative element in our system is the belief of our people in the pure doctrines and the divine truths of the Gospel of Jesus Christ - Congress, 1854

              Had the people, during the Revolution, had a suspicion of any attempt to war against Christianity, that Revolution would have been strangled in its cradle... In this age, there can be no substitute for Christianity... That was the religion of the founders of the republic and they expected it to remain the religion of their descendants. - House Judiciary Committee, 1854

              1. JMcFarland profile image92
                JMcFarlandposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Have you ever read the treaty of Tripoli?


                As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen [Muslims],—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan [Mohammedan] nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

                1. 0
                  mbuggiehposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  Exactly...but don't let us cloud the issue with facts.

                2. 0
                  SassySue1963posted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  Picking & choosing. Just like that one letter Thomas Jefferson wrote and ignoring everything else he ever said.

                  It was a routine diplomatic document. The religion clause necessary because of dissent between the two religions. Period.

                  In any case, that was 1796 - in 1854 Congress ruled otherwise. smile

                  1. JMcFarland profile image92
                    JMcFarlandposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    So you can pick and choose quotes that support your position,  but quotes that refute them aren't allowed somehow?   Interesting.

              2. cjhunsinger profile image69
                cjhunsingerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                SassySue
                You state that this country was founded upon the principles of Christianity. The Founding Principles are contained within the Bill of Rights. The principles of Christianity are the Ten Commandments. If you compare the two documents you will find that they are in contradiction to each other. One commands, under threat of hell, that you believe in a particular god. The other says 'no', you can believe or not. One says that you have free speech, the other says, 'no'. One says command, the other says, Rights.
                Europe lived under the Ten Commandments from 500CE and was thrust into we we now call the Dark Ages and I would recommend a reading here. The Council of Nicaea (324CE) would be a good place to start.
                Theism if allowed to go unchecked will, as a socialist mindset, invariably and inextricably evolve quite rapidly into a theocracy or totalitarian state, as did Europe under Catholic/Christian rule, as did Germany, Russia and others.
                The Bill of Rights are more to Atheist thinking then Christian, but then Atheism  of itself offers no real promise, only The Bill of Rights, a tenuous balance of freedom. 
                Arguably the Ten commandment were, supposedly, given at around 1200 BCE in writing,  but the Jews did not have a written language until 1000 or 800 BCE.

                1. 0
                  SassySue1963posted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  The argument was not that the country was founded on Christianity and the Ten Commandments. The argument was that religion was intended to be kept behind closed doors.

            2. 0
              Emile Rposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Do you honestly believe that? Or are you making it up as you go?

              Either way, that's some funny stuff.

              1. 0
                mbuggiehposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                If not made up entirely from nothing, then the words of men (and women) long dead and unable to respond are twisted and perverted and edited to make absurd points counter to anything that they believed or expressed.

                Words out of context are powerful tools with which to brainwash the masses....wink

                1. 0
                  Emile Rposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  I'm not 100% sure what that wink means.  He said 'If religion was kept behind closed doors and on private property, like it was intended to be, no one would be having any problems with it at all now would they?'

                  I don't know that anyone ever assumed that America was built on the assumption that people were supposed to keep religion behind closed doors and on private property. To wish that is fine; but don't present it as if it was what was intended to be.

                  Were our government to attempt to force people to keep their opinions about religion behind closed doors and on private property I would assume we had lost a very basic freedom.

                  1. 0
                    Lybrahposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    I agree with you 100%.  No one ever said anything about religion being made to be behind closed doors--Jesus sent his disciples to preach to the world about Him--that's not keeping religion on the down low.

                  2. 0
                    mbuggiehposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    Separation of church and state IS a founding American principle. Read the First Amendment.

                    Ever wonder why churches DO NOT pay taxes? Why clergy are tax-exempt?

                    It is one thing to express one's personal opinions about religion---and that is protected speech, but quite another for a church or minister to express opinions in the public sphere with the intent of influencing politics and reshaping the public and secular sphere.

              2. Link10103 profile image80
                Link10103posted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Why has gay marriage not been legalized throughout the United States yet? And yes this does pertain to what I said before you say I am going off topic and decline to answer, which I feel you might do anyway.

                1. 0
                  mbuggiehposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  Uh...Religious bigots with really bizarre ideas about homosexuality and self-interested politicians who want their money and exploit their bigotry in order to get their money???

          2. 0
            mbuggiehposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            No hate, no fear. Just very tired of lies and deceptions in the name of religion---everything from homophobia to sexism to science denialism to climate change denialism; very tired of anti-intellectualism and anti-knowledge posturing in the name of religion; very tired of efforts by "religious" people to impose their "values" on the public and political sphere.

            1. cjhunsinger profile image69
              cjhunsingerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              There is no evidence to indicated that Man is a significant factor in the climate of the planet. That to reject such an assertion is to be called a , 'denier' speaks to the religiosity and lack of foundation by government. Not to believe in a god and you are evil, a sinner. For the climate religion you are a denier.  We can discuss this if you like.

            2. 0
              SassySue1963posted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Your very words say otherwise.

              There is no evidence we are the major cause of any climate change. Studies show the climate of the planet has gone through such cycles for its entire existence. There is evidence of the climate changing - none that it is man made. It is very arrogant to believe we have that sort of effect and control on a planet this size and billions of years old.
              Yet - you denounce them. You can't accept that someone holds any belief outside your own personal circle. They must be something to you - a denier - a religious nut job - stupid - you see how that works? You are what you proclaim to hate - just from the other side.

              1. Link10103 profile image80
                Link10103posted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Climate change falls along the lines of harming the earth as a whole. Assuming that humans do not have an impact on the atmosphere, which I find arrogant to assume that we have no impact at all, do you disagree that humans are harming this planet almost beyond repair? Species of animals that were once bountiful are completely gone or near total extinction and environments are being devastated for industrial growth every day. If its plausible to believe we have such an obvious impact on our immediate environment, how is it so beyond consideration that mankind as a whole has an impact on the earth itself?

                You really would have to be a denier, a nut job, or stupid to believe that we dont in some way shape or form.

                1. 0
                  SassySue1963posted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  An impact of some sort, of course we do. The cause and end all, be all of climate change, no. I guess I didn't really state my point, which is we are not going to stop it. It is a natural reoccurring cycle of the planet.

              2. jonnycomelately profile image86
                jonnycomelatelyposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                If that is your primary reason for refuting man-induced climate change, it is very naive.   

                When you see huge traffic snarl-ups around your major cities, being repeated everyday of the week, churning out the products of combustion into the atmosphere.  When you see the huge piles of garbage being created that emit enormous amounts of methane and carbon monoxide.  When you see the huge number of planes and ships traversing the world to carry huge cargoes of human and merchandise, in order to feed our needs and our greed......  do you really, honestly think that our human domination does not effect our world?   

                I suggest your anti-climate change stance has been influenced by people you listen to, those you choose to listen to.  There is not much difference between the propaganda put out by mega churches and that put out by right-wing politics.  They are both driven by the love of money.

  23. Chris Neal profile image83
    Chris Nealposted 2 years ago

    To those whom this bugs, I am sorry, but some of my friends are on these forums and I can't contact them other ways. I put together an "album" of my demos (6 of them) and if you're interested here's where you can get a little more info:

    https://www.facebook.com/pages/Shank3/2 … e=bookmark

    1. 0
      Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      I can and would like to help with the logo. Send me an email describing your thoughts, like, dislikes and what you have in mind. Please include an explanation of the name.

      1. Chris Neal profile image83
        Chris Nealposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Thank you and I will do so.

  24. TwerkZerker profile image93
    TwerkZerkerposted 2 years ago

    Thank you Emile R for pointing out the proper meaning of "fear" in that context. As a Christian, I find this very refreshing.

  25. David W Shanholtz profile image59
    David W Shanholtzposted 2 years ago

    All you atheists should move to the atheist country of North Korea to see how your ideology works!

    1. JMcFarland profile image92
      JMcFarlandposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      And if you want a theocracy,  you should move to Iran.

    2. Link10103 profile image80
      Link10103posted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Why should they? And I do mean that as a legitimate question to you.

    3. 0
      Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      No thanks, I already live in a secular society. But if you don't like secularism perhaps consider a move to the middle east.

    4. jonnycomelately profile image86
      jonnycomelatelyposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      My atheist way of thinking and my perceptions of the world around me, looking for the logical answers, is not a ideology. 

      Anywhere in the world that you see some kind of ideology being promoted, pushing to the back seat any ideas that oppose the ideology, you find someone exploiting that to feather their own nest.

      In North Korea it seems there are a few elite individuals using ideals and politics to support their own power base.  The ordinary person is trodden underfoot and oppressed. 

      In North America you will find other elite individuals using the masses of "believers" to build economic and financial empires.  The ordinary person is controlled by the Mighty Dollar, and his/her natural desire for comfort, to be inspired and cared for,  is exploited to the nth degree.

      Don't imagine that the politico-religious climate of the USA is any better than the political and irreligious climate of North Korea.  Each is used for ulterior motive.

    5. TwerkZerker profile image93
      TwerkZerkerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      That comment is more than a bit uncalled for--and it's based on a false premise.

      North Korea isn't messed up purely because its leaders are atheists; it's messed up because of communism, mass-brainwashing via propaganda, the blind allegiance of North Korean citizens, the systematic oppression of anyone who doesn't offer blind allegiance, and their society's insistence that their leader be quasi-deified.

    6. 0
      Emile Rposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Wow. That kind of defeats the idea of freedom of conscience. It sounds like North Korea might suit you better than them.

      1. 0
        Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Thanks Emilie, Extremism happens. Let's not let it destroy good people.

        1. 0
          Emile Rposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          I don't think anyone on this site has found more ways to spell my name than you have.

          That to the side, if we can't live and and let live in peace...what's the point? The world would be a boring place if we all thought alike.

          1. 0
            Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            I do apologies. I do struggle with your name. It's nothing personal, It's just my dyslexic brain. Words with many consonants or vowels confuse me. Please remember I do my best with what I've been given and no disrespect was intended. I've come a long way and this place has help me greatly with communicating with my clients and that is why I'm here, I like the topic and it helps me communicating my thoughts to my clients.

            Please forgive me.

            1. 0
              Emile Rposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              No worries. I've grown accustomed. I'm like you though. This place is great for developing communication skills. I like the topic too.

    7. EncephaloiDead profile image60
      EncephaloiDeadposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Did you know that the Constitution of North Korea provides for freedom of religious belief event though the state of North Korea is officially atheist? What they don't allow are those who engage in proselytizing and evangelism.

      1. 0
        Emile Rposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Ummm, just because that guy might be considered out of line doesn't warrant making North Korea sound as if it is open to any belief or religious tolerance.

        Unless you are North Korean and simply want to spread some propaganda, this article might help enlighten. http://www.religioustolerance.org/rt_nkor.htm

        1. Sed-me profile image82
          Sed-meposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Kimism

        2. Sed-me profile image82
          Sed-meposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Kimism

          1. 0
            Emile Rposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Well, until they accept Emileism as a valid form of worship they don't qualify as truly enlightened.

            1. Sed-me profile image82
              Sed-meposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              I think the whole "followers/fan mail" thing has gone to your head. lol

        3. EncephaloiDead profile image60
          EncephaloiDeadposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          I did not make anything "sound" as you imagined it did.



          In 1988, for the first time since the Korean war, Christian communities were allowed to hold worship services in the open in churches. In this year three new churches, the Protestant Pongsu and Chilgol Churches and the Roman Catholic Changchung Cathedral, were opened in Pyongyang.

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_North_Korea

          1. 0
            Emile Rposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            The wikipedia link you offered also stated that people continue to be arrested and suffer either harsh penalties or are executed for practicing religion.

            But, hey. Throwing up a few buildings appears to be a great smoke screen. You seem to be buying it. smile

            1. EncephaloiDead profile image60
              EncephaloiDeadposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Buying what? Facts? Yes, I know you reject them.

              1. 0
                Emile Rposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Well, one fact you conveniently ignore is that North Korea does not allow religious liberties, or freedom of conscience. I have no idea why you are arguing this point. Not only does it not help in your zeal for atheism, it grossly hurts the cause. Anyone turning a blind eye to gross human rights violations in order to pretend that North Korea is, in any manner, supportive of freedom of conscience loses all credibility in the discussion.

                1. EncephaloiDead profile image60
                  EncephaloiDeadposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  Sorry, but I did not conveniently ignore anything.



                  As usual.



                  What cause? What do my comments have to do with zeal for atheism?



                  I have not turned a blind eye to anything, but most certainly, you sure love to make stuff up so you can argue with yourself. lol

                  1. 0
                    Emile Rposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    You have nothing of value here ATM. Please continue to believe that there is freedom of conscience in North Korea, as long as they don't evangelize. It's a foolish belief, but par for the course where your beliefs are concerned.

      2. Quilligrapher profile image91
        Quilligrapherposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Hey there, Enceph. I am just popping in to say your claim is only half true and you left out the most important part.

        The Constitution of North Korea provides for freedom of religious belief BUT not freedom of religion!

        “Autonomous religious activities now almost nonexistent; government-sponsored religious groups exist to provide illusion of religious freedom”{1}

        "In North Korea, the practice of Christianity is illegal, even though Article 68 of the North Korean Constitution guarantees the freedom of religious practice".{2} 

        It appears that your post AND the government of North Korea are out to create a false impression.
        http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg
        {1} https://www.cia.gov/library/publication … os/kn.html
        {2}http://www.charismanews.com/world/41941-public-executions-highlight-religious-freedom-issues-in-north-korea

        1. EncephaloiDead profile image60
          EncephaloiDeadposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          In North Korea, the Constitution provides for "freedom of religious belief", but the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is an atheist state.

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_North_Korea

  26. grand old lady profile image89
    grand old ladyposted 2 years ago

    Religion is definitely not detrimental to society. History has shown that the most oppressive societies had no religion. Today, North Korea is a prime example of that. Their Constitution allows it for show, but Christians are oppressed -- not only Christians, but their families as well, including pregnant women and little children.

    China is another example. They allow religion, but it falls under the government, in essence, making the government more powerful. Christian churches under the government deliberately distort the bible to suit government agenda. Access to bibles isn't allowed, not even pages of bibles. Genuine Christian cell groups are captured, tortured and jailed indefinitely.

    Under Russian communism Stalin enforced famine in the Ukraine leading to some 7 million deaths. Churches were torn down and kind of inhumanity that reigned under the USSR is well known and documented. 

    Hitler, a Catholic by name, ruled faithlessly and we ended up with the holocaust. If you go to Auschwitz you will see the kind of evil man is capable of committing, and you will come to understand why we need God in our lives.

    1. Sed-me profile image82
      Sed-meposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      +1

    2. jonnycomelately profile image86
      jonnycomelatelyposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Even if what you have said is true (I say if, without implying that I agree, but respect others that do), I feel you would need to search much more deeply into each case you have mentioned.

      The entire history of those German states, going back at least 1000 years, influenced the lead up to Hitler's Holocaust.  There was much human psychology involved.  People were wanting a "saviour" for their country.  Propaganda was used to the nth degree to convince the people of their best hopes for the future.  You cannot blame it all onto a lack of religion. 

      We cannot blame anything onto "religions" without remembering that it is crowd-paranoia that often drives the consequences.  This is true of our own time as well, of course.   We even witnessed it here in Australia, in 2004, when crowds gathered to inflict horror upon Lebanese people and anyone with darker-than-pink skin.  When people get it into their minds that certain others are their enemy, it takes a lot to change such minds.  The same applies to anyone with a religious bias, which in itself can be the main problem.

      1. grand old lady profile image89
        grand old ladyposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Totalitarian societies in general want to eliminate religion. They say that religion is the palliative of the people, but it is because religion gives people conviction and loyalty other than to the totalitarian government and this usurps the amount of power that they want. Religion is their biggest threat and when it's gone, it's a free ride for them.

        There have been other cases of government rule which took away people's freedoms but allowed religion. One example is martial law in the Philippines under President Marcos. I dislike Marcos, but he was a practical man and he knew that the Catholic religion is powerful and he had to collaborate with it.  However, he also allowed a lot of Christian evangelical groups into the country because he hoped this would help to lessen the power of the Catholic church. I am so amazed when I read of the horror of society under Hitler, North Korea and the like. For them, Marcos would have been a blessing in comparison. He could not be a total despot though he came VERY close, because religion was viewed as higher than the government.

        What I'm saying is, you can usurp power and still allow religion, and in the end, especially if the society is  not a closed society, there is a limit imposed on torture.

        This is because of religion. Man isn't perfect, so there will be wars and there will be government takeovers and there will be terrorists and there will be religions that aren't perfect. But they are better than none. What is truly needed is something even more important than what religion is supposed to uphold, which is faith.

        The most peaceful revolution in history was that of Jesus Christ, He wasn't a political leader that the Israelites expected. He was a spiritual leader. He saw that man tortures and harms man. By changing ourselves, we can do better. We will never be perfect as long as we are human, but a man of true faith, genuine faith, will not kick a dog, while a man like Nicolae Ceausescu will think nothing of bulldozing 40,000 homes which led today to a ratio of one feral dog for every three human beings.

        1. EncephaloiDead profile image60
          EncephaloiDeadposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          While you provide some skewed versions of what actually occurred, I find it rather surprising that you would think atheists prefer to live under those kind of regimes. Guess what? We don't. We also don't want to live under theocracies, where the religious make the decisions based on their beliefs. So, we have secular societies where everyone has the same rights.

          The problem is that the religious abuse these rights or wish to take away the rights of others. They want to have their cake and eat it, too. This is where you'll usually find the origins of conflicts and wars.

          1. jonnycomelately profile image86
            jonnycomelatelyposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            So --- how do we promote balance and harmony?  How do we encourage acceptance of each other's point of view without wishing to dominate?   

            In the context of the Question, "Is RELIGION Detrimental To The Whole of Society?"  We could say "Only when it is forced on everyone else, regardless of personal choice."

            IMHO

            1. grand old lady profile image89
              grand old ladyposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Johnny Come Lately, the answer to promoting balance and harmony has to come with time and more blood, sadly will be shed along the way, not only through religious intolerance but because man is by nature an imperfect creature. This would happen even if you try to eliminate faith completely. The idea here is to become more educated. The world is getting smaller, cultures have to mix together more, and over time there may be understanding if not acceptance. Acceptance and integration can come with younger generations. It's a matter of enlarging our decision to try our best to accept people for who they are and what they believe in, and it may take generations before it happens. But to suppress faith is promote a lie because there are so many people of faith. When you have to promote a lie, you open the door to non acceptance.

              The saddest part of all is, the world may not last long enough for that day to come, because some faiths have not evolved as quickly with the changing world as others. But if people have genuine faith, they would be more willing to see the commonalities among their differences, at the same time accept and appreciate each other's differences. And that includes accepting atheists, too. for example, I'm sure Christians and Atheists both like good food and sports, etc. Focus on how you are similar, and appreciate how you are different. This is a dream, but I think this is the best way for it to happen.

              1. EncephaloiDead profile image60
                EncephaloiDeadposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                More faith is not the answer, logic and reason is the answer. Faith only leads to conflict and intolerance. Yes, getting educated is the right idea, but you must realize, the more education people acquire, the less likely they are to embrace religious faith.

              2. oceansnsunsets profile image88
                oceansnsunsetsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                I think you are a very wise woman, and I hope to see more of your comments coming in the forums!

                1. Sed-me profile image82
                  Sed-meposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  +1

              3. wilderness profile image94
                wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                "But to suppress faith is promote a lie because there are so many people of faith. "

                You do understand that that is a logical fallacy?  That no matter HOW many people believe that it is no indication of truth?  After the entire world at one time believed the earth was flat and the sun went around it. 

                And beyond that, you will find more people in this world that do NOT believe the Christian myth (or any other specific belief system); they must all be false, then, by your reasoning.

            2. EncephaloiDead profile image60
              EncephaloiDeadposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              We don't cram our religious faiths down other peoples throats, but instead, practice our faiths in the comfort and privacy of our homes.  We don't refuse the rights of others just because our faith deems others not worthy of those rights. That would encourage balance and harmony in a secular society.



              That's pretty good, Jonny. smile

          2. grand old lady profile image89
            grand old ladyposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Which is what happens in an atheistic society, as history has shown. The quasi deism of Kim is no evidence of religion, but of a totalitarian government that applies all ends to perpetuate itself, including twisting elements of faith for their own purposes when the leader himself is an atheist, knows he is not a god, but carries on with the lie to forward his agenda. All things are possible when there is no moral guidance provided by faith of the genuine sort.

            My answer here is to the person who referred to Kim's government as an quasi-theist government. There is nothing theist about it at all.

            1. EncephaloiDead profile image60
              EncephaloiDeadposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              But, you are once again providing a skewed version of what's going on. You aren't talking about an atheistic society, you are talking about one person's control over an entire society, a dictator, who in most cases is insane. Many people within that society are indeed religious and haven't changed their minds or their faiths, even though they say the opposite in front of Kim.

              Certainly, the vast majority of people in North Korea are probably as normal and decent as anyone else. Many of them most likely detest Kim and his dictatorship. Most atheists would never want to live under his rule, either.

              1. grand old lady profile image89
                grand old ladyposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Encephalo, in your own argument you are pointing out that while Kim may be a madman, the people have faith despite the tremendous risks involved. This proves that faith is important to many people. And it isn't the Christians driving their faith down the people's throats, it's the atheist Kim driving his agenda down the people's throats with far greater consequence than mere irritation on the part of the Christians for being people of faith. That alone must tell you something.

                We have to be more accepting of all faiths and people without faith rather than try to censor faith. It's part of freedom of speech, of belief, of things expressed in the US constitution.

                1. Link10103 profile image80
                  Link10103posted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  The point I think EncephaloiDead was trying to get across is that as it stands now, faith needs to be censored (at least in the States). Does it need to be completely rid of? There are times where I certainly wouldn't mind it, but to have it completely gone is unrealistic. If all faiths cannot be represented equally, then faith in general should belong behind closed doors. To accept/promote one but deny others is just asking for trouble. There are times and places in the public domain where faith can be practiced no problem, but to have people banging on your door at the crack of dawn trying to convert you to -this religion- or to have people in government trying to pass laws from a 2000 year old bible is insane.

                  I am all for people believing and doing whatever their faith tells them to, its their right, but once it starts to affect people of other/non faiths personally is when something needs to be done about it.

                  1. jonnycomelately profile image86
                    jonnycomelatelyposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    Well said, in my opinion, Link10103

                  2. 0
                    SassySue1963posted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    I understand completely what you are saying here and can agree completely as well. I just don't think that the Ten Commandments posted outside or inside a public building affects someone personally. Or a prayer at a public meeting or a picture of Jesus (an art project where the student picked the subject matter) hanging in a school.
                    I would not take it personally if it were a picture of Bhudda, or if it was a Jewish prayer (or any other type) or a list of laws from the Quaran even as long as it did not promote violence towards another. It would not have any personal affect on me or my beliefs or lack thereof.
                    As for people knocking on your door, no one says you have to open it or talk to them and I've not known them to come calling at the break of dawn as you claim.

                2. EncephaloiDead profile image60
                  EncephaloiDeadposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  It can also prove religions and faith are indoctrinated into people.



                  Yes, and I have already explained that to you, Kim is an insane dictator.



                  We are, because we live in a secular society, in which you and everyone else have the same rights and freedoms, it is the society atheists prefer to live, as well.

                  Do you understand the differences yet? If so, you may want to also understand that your religion is not accepting of others. So, before you go off riding that high horse, there is a necessary backyard that requires a whole lot of tidying. smile

        2. cjhunsinger profile image69
          cjhunsingerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Some interesting points are made here and I would like to interject a different perspective. It would seem that theism is either blamed for the woes of humanity or that it is the answer to the human quandary.
          Theism and theistic practice is a mandate to believe in a certain god and is usually accompanied by dogma to conduct ones life accordingly. These are called theocracies and as history demonstrates a formula for totalitarian rule. Such was Europe with the collapse of Rome, The Dark Ages and too, with the rise of Islam in the 5th century. And as history repeats itself, Islam again rises to enslave.
          The belief in a god or gods will fade unless accompanied by a sword, especially in a world that is answering questions of the universe that have heretofore been privy only to the Creator.
          Of Communist N. Korea, China or the old USSR they were and are no more or less than secular theism's. By this, I mean, a theocracy predicated upon the omnipotence of a government with dogma similar to that of a theistic  belief, strict and absolute adherence under threat of punishment.
          We all speak of those freedoms that are forbidden by secular totalitarian forms of government, but I would ask of the freedoms that were and are forbidden under theocratic totalitarianism. Freedom of religion was forbidden, as too, speech and most everything that we now have in the western world. Although here in  America we are seeing an erosion of those freedoms. I digress.
          Using the American Bill of Rights, as an example; it is a contradiction to theistic belief and practice, as  one is free to believe in a god,  any god or no god. One is free to blaspheme or not. The practice of these freedoms would have been punished by death when the Catholic Church and later Protestantism-Christianity-controlled Europe and the initial colonies in America. This is, of course, still the practice of Islam; barbaric, but no  less than Christianity was and secular totalitarianism is today.
          Theism was a very important factor in the maturing of Man and in many ways a positive factor. But, as we,"--put away childish things" we must learn to accept  the responsibility of living, not of dying, not of dependence on a promised salvation, whether by some spiritual or secular entity. Freedom is ours, but I do not think that we are matured enough to understand it or achieve it and we will continue to look for the promised land.

  27. mike44moore profile image61
    mike44mooreposted 2 years ago

    Faith in what tho, Grand ol Lady?? Blind faith is something that can destroy the whole world, and is IMHO. Faith itself is never bad. Faith in you, in myself, in a higher power... but when we allow that faith to be fed to us by power hungry individuals, you get what we have today.

    1. grand old lady profile image89
      grand old ladyposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Mike, I agree with you that blind faith is bad. And, I agree with you that faith in itself is never bad.

  28. coolchic profile image77
    coolchicposted 2 years ago

    Religion for a while has intrigued and frightened me. This happened cause of the underlying thought that if you do wrong you die. If you refuse to follow this book your life is doomed. The truth is your thoughts, feelings, choices, make co create your life . Rarely have I felt at home in church due to the threatening nature and the greed that seem to circulate in the church. I believe in what ever works. After all it's pretty much psychology. Stories told and retold to give guidelines about appropriate behavior  or not.It is awful when anyone gives up their will for another.My feeling is if there is anything uplifting in any literature whether it be ancient or recent use it .Understand that these leaders are equal to you they are in search of answers as well . Quite honestly no one has it completely figured out!

  29. alancaster149 profile image87
    alancaster149posted 2 years ago

    Belief in itself is not harmful. It's when a belief is institutionalised and turned into a weapon of mass destruction that problems arise.
    Christianity started off as a minority creed, and through its self-proclaimed 'innocence' acquired more adherents.
    Eventually it became stronger, more powerful, and began to take on a new 'persona'. It became a threat through some of its senior members. First the Inquisition was formalised by Rome and sent out to 'correct the understood message'. The Church of Rome became so powerful it directed kings and emperors to pursue its dogma, through executions, burnings. Heretics were uncovered and wars against its many enemies prosecuted.
    In the Far East Christianity was banned because of its reputation for war-mongering and pursuit of rival beliefs.
    Then the Reformation weakened Rome's hold. In desperation it thrashed around like a shark in shallow water. The new Churches began to prosecute their own wars and clashed over the way the others read the scriptures. Now, because fewer parishioners visit churches, and some experiment with other, less aggressive belief systems, the Churches are finally 'toothless'. They have to rely on goodwill to get believers through their doors. They can't resort to force any more.
    What do we do on Sundays now? Watch the football, the baseball in the park, cricket, go to the park.
    Makes you almost sorry for them, doesn't it?

  30. sunil kumar misra profile image61
    sunil kumar misraposted 2 years ago

    Religion is never detrimental but the outlook of religious people is not correct. They  take much more interest in preaching others than to follow the preachings.

    1. 0
      mbuggiehposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      One cannot separate people from religion as religion is a human construct.

      One cannot argue that religion is good, but that its followers are bad.

      Any religion is its followers; any religion is the people who comprise it.

      Religion does not exist exclusive of its members.

      1. wilderness profile image94
        wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Good point.  People make religion as they see fit, and really ARE the religion.  Not the other way around.

      2. cjhunsinger profile image69
        cjhunsingerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Well stated.

    2. cjhunsinger profile image69
      cjhunsingerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      I find it interesting that you can sit in judgement over other theists and demean their interpretation of their godly calling. What great insight or communication do you have with this god that other theists do not? Is this not the cause of religious war, and hatred. As there are more Muslims than Christians; do we defer to a majority rule, in terms, of the truth of a god?

    3. Chris Neal profile image83
      Chris Nealposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      That depends both on the person and the religion. I can only speak as a Christian and don't presume to speak for other religions or the followers of other religions, but Jesus did tell us to go and tell others about Him. Yes, it's very important to follow His teachings, and it's certainly not any good if you tell others how they should live without following your own advice.

      1. 0
        Emile Rposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        I would disagree to the claim that you were instructed by Jesus to tell others about him. Not everyone is an apostle. He didn't make that mandate to the crowds he taught to, nor did he make any statement implying he thought he should have.

        1. Chris Neal profile image83
          Chris Nealposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          By that reasoning, He was basically saying that when the Apostles died, so would all knowledge of Him and whoever wasn't saved, oh well. Tough luck for them.

          1. 0
            Emile Rposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            No. They elected apostles to replace apostles. I realize they couldn't simply keep electing, but not everyone was an apostle, or is one. Telling every person, however affiliated they are, that they are mandated to preach the good news does more harm than good. Most of everything shared couldn't remotely be classified as good news.

            1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
              Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              -name the bad stuff:
              -curious.

              1. 0
                Emile Rposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Seriously? If I have to enumerate the reasons the evangelical perspective hurts others I doubt you'd understand how bad their news is.

            2. Chris Neal profile image83
              Chris Nealposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              The Good News is that the Messiah came (which the Jews were expecting.) The Good News is that because He died to take away our sins, we are forgiven by God. I completely (completely!) understand that for people who don't think they need that, it isn't good news. Nevertheless, understanding that, whether you like it or not, God does exist and also that, whether you like it or not, He holds you to a certain standard does indeed make it good news when you lean that the impossible is within your grasp.

              1. 0
                Emile Rposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                You forgot to add your concept of hell in that post. Please, do share that now so we can all understand what you think good news entails.

                1. Chris Neal profile image83
                  Chris Nealposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  Ah, I understand now. It's not whether we can boil the message down to it's basic element, it's whether we can successfully inject or deflect the greatest amount of cynicism into it.

                  1. 0
                    Emile Rposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    I consider Christian philosophy cynical.  I think they interpret in a manner to be solely in their best interests. To hell with the rest of humanity.

                    I don't see that philosophy as good news. As long as that is the message, it doesn't qualify as good news

            3. bBerean profile image61
              bBereanposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Emile, where did you get the idea that they perpetually elected new apostles?  Because they replaced Judas or ???

              1. 0
                Emile Rposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                I didn't say they perpetually elected new apostles. I apologize if you understood it that way. My point was that not everyone was, or is, an apostle. Jesus didn't call the masses to be apostles. I have no idea why everyone wants to be an apostle.

                1. bBerean profile image61
                  bBereanposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  I always considered Apostles limited to those who were discipled directly by Jesus, which in spite of it being after His resurrection, would include Paul.

              2. Quilligrapher profile image91
                Quilligrapherposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Greetings, bBerean. It is a marvelous summer night here in the big apple.

                Perhaps, just perhaps, Emile got the idea from the prominent early church historian J. N. D. Kelly, a deacon in the Church of England, who wrote the following about Apostolic Succession:

                "[W]here in practice was [the] apostolic testimony or tradition to be found? … The most obvious answer was that the apostles had committed it orally to the Church, where it had been handed down from generation to generation... Unlike the alleged secret tradition of the Gnostics, it was entirely public and open, having been entrusted by the apostles to their successors, and by these in turn to those who followed them, and was visible in the Church for all who cared to look for it"{1}

                Apostolic Succession is the line of bishops stretching back to the apostles. In the Catholic Church, all bishops are part of a lineage that goes back to the original apostles. This continuity is not always found in Protestant denominations many of which do not have bishops.

                However, more germane to your question, the first apostles did indeed elect their own successors. For a scriptural reference try 2 Tim. 2:2.

                It is summer, keep cool, bBerean. cool
                http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg
                {1} Kelly, J. N. D.. Early Christian Doctrines. p.37 http://bookdirectory.net/?p=464844

                1. Chris Neal profile image83
                  Chris Nealposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  The Apostles replaced Judas but that was it. In reality, you could say Jesus replaced Judas (with Paul) and then there were no more Apostles.

                  1. wilderness profile image94
                    wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    If I read Quill correctly, the Catholic Church changed the name, so to speak, from "apostle" to "bishop" and are still producing both.  The question then is which has a better handle on religious matters; the Pope or Chris Neal?

                  2. Quilligrapher profile image91
                    Quilligrapherposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    Hello, Mr. Neal. I thank you for your comment.

                    However, your two sentence reply is not clear.

                    1) Are you trying to define “Apostle” as only those who where taught by Jesus, (“then there were no more Apostles”), or
                    2) Are you disputing Emile’s belief that the original Apostles designated their own specific replacement(s) according to 2 Tim 2:2?

                    Sorry, but I am confused by your statement and could use your help before I can not reply.
                    http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg