Is religion hampering the progress of humanity? (page 4)

Yerusalyim

Simple fact for ya Dave, in this century many more millions, have been killed by those seeking to abolish religion than those killed "in the name of religion" Read the facts.

hippikon

Yerusalyim: Sorry my history is a bit week but I don't know of any athiests who started any wars recently? Can you fill me in?

Depends on what you mean by recently? The Chinese and Veitmanese were going at it pretty good not too long ago, and they are both officially athiests. Lenin-Adropov of the Soviet Union were responsible for the deaths of hundreds of millions. Mao's death count itself reaches that same number. Hitler was responsible for at least 60 million deaths.

Before you start waving the "Inquisition" at me, go and get facts. While I don't discount the fact that the Spanish Inquisition was HORRID, still, less than 3000 were executed in the whole history of the Spanish Inquisition (Stop reading Lea, he's biased, and had no facts to back up his claims).

hippikon

You do have a point but religion hasnt stopped these people coming to power so whats to say the absence of religion will increase the incidence of political fanaticism. As one wise person once said and I think it was Dave religion is just to just stop stupid people from deleted on park benches.

Edited by - Englishman on 9 December 2002 12:14:9

gumby

yeru,

The gnostics had religious tolerance at least. They allowed freedom of belief. It wasn't until the Christian Church started with constantine that atrocities against others began." Wipe out ALL pagans and enforce Christianity OUR way". That's history....that's the facts!

Christianity caused more bloodshed than pagans of it's time.

seven006

hippikon,

The exact quote is: Religion is good for one thing only, it keeps stupid people from deleted on park benches.

Dave

Edited by - Englishman on 9 December 2002 12:15:5

rem

Is religion hampering the progress of human...

Yes.

Yeru,

Remember that atheism is only a lack of belief in gods. Atheists can be just as religious as deists and theists. A religion doesn't always have to be centered around god, but can include socio-economic philosophies, worship of men/government, cults of men and personality, and basically any other irrational belief.

Atheism isn't a cure-all. Religion of all types have been hampering the progress of man. When people are willing to commit suicide for their cause (and not just self defense), then there has to be some irrational belief there. Whether it be some type of afterlife or the honor of men, there has to be some irrational motivation to make men behave that way.

rem

Yerusalyim

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. We'll never know the answer anyhow.

happysunshine

First rate posts all! Forgive me if I dont address all the posts, but I really have to get back to work! One request- lets keep the personal attacks to a minimum. There may be some other stuff going on I dont know about, but in this thread I felt like Yarusalem was getting unfairly personally attacked. Rip into ideas all you want, but not people.
Anyway, MYOHNSEPH wrote something that leads to a most interesting question:

One of the biggest problems I see with religion, especially in the twenty-first century, is that it takes a system of beliefs and elevates it to a station of absolute truth and infallibility, to be reverenced and without question. Once an individual embraces any system of beliefs as such, they will all too often sacrifice logic and common sense upon it's altar. They no longer seek truth, they seek support for and validation of their religion. In that pursuit, real truths are distorted and information is manipulated to support and conform to their religion. I believe that, indeed, does hamper the progress of humanity. Any philosophy which restrains clear and free thought and objectivity is certainly outdated, in my opinion.

I agree with this. However, this leads to some other questions: What really is "logic" and "common sense" "clear and free thought" "objectivity"? These terms sound solid, but I dont think they are. They shift. If I understand correctly, philosophers have been arguing for hundreds of years and will probably continue for hundreds more about what exactly "logic" and "common sense" are. And "clear and free thought" and "objectivity"? Who decides what is clear thought? What is the system of measurement for these terms? Who is truly objective, and what exactly is it? And "seeking support and validation"- that seems to be a necessity of existence, something that gives us personal identity and cohesiveness of mind and society.
JT said:

i fully agree with you because by DEFAULT a belief system must demand acceptance THAT IT IS THE ONY TRUTH
for if not-- then it is no more better than the rest sorta like a Ford dealer telling you that Chevys are just as good Duhhhhhhh

Maybe. I remember some hippy telling me that the different beliefs were like a patchwork, and when you step back, you see the face of god. Even the black parts are part of the picture. One example came to mind about exclusivity (or lack of). Shinto is the native religion of Japan, roots beyond recorded history. Buddhism was introduced 1500 years ago from China. The two religions generaly melded without much hassle, one reason often cited being that neither belief has a one jealous God idea. Buddhism viewed Shinto as a manifestation of Buddha-hood, and they tried to complement each other. They also specialized in different areas, Buddhism dealing with death-like matters (funerals, etc) and Shinto with life stuff (weddings, etc). To this day, they coexist without conflict, while still maintain distinct identities. I realize that many religions cant do this, but Im trying to show that belief in something does not have to mean you think its better than others. Even many converted Christians from like 450 years ago were able to worship both Christianity and Buddhism and Shinto.
Yarusalem said:

Logical,
You said,
get rid of religion and get rid of a vast majority of evil.
You mean the evil of Godless men like Stalin, Pol Pot, Ho Chi Men, Hitler? These men are prime examples of what we face with the absence of Religion.

Yarusalem has a point here (except with Hitler). I remember looking at Maos little red book when I was in China, and even after his death it was still looked at by many with the reverence of a Chinese Bible. I think people do worship political systems like religions. I later found out about the Red Guard stuff that happened in the 70s, where even loyal Maoists that just happened not to have a copy of the book on them at the wrong time were often beaten to death by mobs.
BA2002 said:

Even today religion is the centerpiece of propaganda used to wage wars and maintain control over billions of people and their lives. For example, just yesterday, when apologizing to the Kuwaiti people for his invasion of their country in 1990, Saddam Hussein attempted to use religion to incite other Arab people to his cause.
...
Or you could sit and discuss the religious differences of Jews and Muslims as the Palestinians and Israelis continue to slaughter one another over "holy land."
or you could go back in history and discuss the Holy Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, even enslavery of the Africans (who were deemed savages who needed saving and conversion to Christianity) etc.

Excellent points BA. I do have a lingering doubt though about religion being the cause. I wonder if its more of a lightning rod effect. If religion were removed, would something else take its place?
Again I think of the Communists ideology. Im not well read on the subject, but I do know that the Chinese routinely 'liberate' ethnic groups from their culture by incorporating them, by force if necessary, into the Chinese provinces. This can mean crushing their belief system and delegating them to a subservient position to Han Chinese.

Also, Japan ruthlessly stamped out Cristianity shortly after it came. It is often said that this was because it challenged Emporor Worship in Shinto. The reality is that the Jesuits and Franciscans were competeing for Christian converts and one group told the Empororer that the other group was using Christianity as a tool to gain public support and eventualy topple the Japanese government and gain a colony, as they had done in other contries. The emporor freeked out and executed everybody Christian and foreign, banning all normal contact with the outside world for centuries. So it wasn't really a 'religious' conflict, its just easier to say that. What about other 'holy wars', including today?
Another challenge is that history can be selective. Documented accounts like the Inquisition are often cited, but what of unrecorded history? Archeological digs occasional find mass graves, but no one knows why. Or current atrocities get unreported for some reason. Dantheman, I also hope the voice of history is not cheating us.
Donkey said:

Religion is a collective insanity.
 Mikhail Bakunin

Good quote! I also think that when an individual acts weird, its called mental illness. But when a group acts weird, its called a social problem.
Dantheman said:

I don't know if religion is the problem as much as the "True Believer" mentality is. Stalin, Hitler and Pol Pot were fanatics as much as Osama is, but their fanaticism was centered around utopian political/social ideologies. The utopia that Hitler & Stalin dreamed of is the same sort of utopianism at the heart of religious extremism.
Though they seem at opposite poles, fanatics of all kinds are actually crowded together at one end. It is the fanatic and the moderate who are poles apart and never meet. - Eric Hoffer
The avowed aim of all utopian movements is to put an end to history and to establish a final and permanent calm. - Ludwig von Mises

These are fine quotes. I wonder, though, how we can tell when we are being moderate or just wishywashy, unproductive, and useless? It reminds me of a quote by Helen Keller:
"Life is either a great adventure or nothing."
And again I loop back to the original issue raised, namely: How do we define terms like objective, clear thinking, free thought, and common sense? These will be different to a child starving in Africa, a major political leader, some guy standing in the middle of Afghanistan right now, you, or me. Also, who judges what? For example, today, here, child sexual abuse is one of the most dispicable crimes. However, in some cultures sex with children was an acceptable cornerstone of a moral society, as it is now in some cultures. And again, if religion was eliminated would something completely different, but equally good/bad take its place? Any comments?

Edited by - happysunshine on 9 December 2002 19:33:8

JT

the comment was made that wars and killing has been done in the name of religion - so to counter that the comment was made:

"Stalin, Ho Chi Min, Mao, Hitler, they didn't act in the name of religion."

____________-

now stop and think about how much sense does it make- to make such a comparison??

in other words the poster is trying to miniumize the number killed by religion by pointing out how many were killed by those not religious

now think about this, based on most religious belief systems do they not teach that you would EXPECT those who don't believe in god to be out killing and cutting up

so why then are those who are relgious out killing-

this mindset reminds me of wt - where they say "Well we don't moleste any more kids than other relgions-- well would you not expect jw who claim to be the only true faith NOT BE OUT MOLESTING ANYWAY

Why would one who claims to be a reflection of god want to compare their behavoir to children of satan by saying WE MIGHT BE BAD- BUT WE AIN'T AS BAD AS THEY ARE-

Is religion hampering the progress of humanity?

Share this