Is religion a force for good in the world?

[Simon]

Excluding the existence of any supernatural powers, or any comment whatsoever on the fallacy or truth of religious belief, and based only what we have seen [i]as a direct result of religion in this world[/i], can we see that religion is a positive or negative influence on the world as we know it?

Thoughts and feelings, questions, queries, doubtful points, moans, groans, itches, bitches, theories, queries, unwanted pregnancies; all is welcome here. Spill your mind into text.

:)

[Joel Schama]

OK. I don't mean to get personal, but If you truly are a nerdfighter you would realize the non-logical aspects of what you are espousing!

1)It's called a flock because the people are a bunch of sheep who follow orders and DO NOT think for themselves. For example, "God created everything and always existed...do not question this or consider any empirical evidence to the contrary."...Chruch goer "Oh. OK." Brain shuts down.

2) You must have a very different definition of "charity" than most people. Religious organizations do give, but like everyone else (some exceptions) they also take, and more than they should. Why should other peoples money go towards diseminating erroneous information? It's absurd. 

3) Therefore ALL church contributions ARE NOT charitable. They are in fact, as I previously stated, deleterious!! I know an ex-missionary very well who told me I was unfortunately correct that when they go to other places around the country to preach the "good" word, they insist that the children be raised Catholic, or, guess what...no food or shelter for them. That's generocity?  Were you ever a missionary. Unless you were you need not comment on the validity of this. She is, by the way, an atheist now (obviously).

4) You're right, you don't know what other pastors or priests drive. I've seen them, a hell of a lot nicer than what I have. Which by the way is nothing right now.

5) You are seriously out of touch. You think the Vatican robes and sundry garments and paraphenalia was all purchased over 200 years ago? Seriously? Even someone with an inkling of common sense could see that's not true. And if you've ever read the Bible (which I doubt) Jesus would have severely disiplined the vatican and it's followers for being overly pious and showy just like the Pharocies. Moreover, it doesn't matter when they gained their wealth, they could sell it now, live more like Jesus did and feed the entire world with the profits (slight hyperbole), but why don't they do that???? One does not need a trillion dollar estate to pass along the word. Did Jesus???? NO!!!!

5) Are you serious? Really? You do realize the Bible is man made don't you?? You do realize that there are differences between the Christian Bible and the Catholic Bible that contains more books? Right? You do realize this could only be possible if it was not truly the word of God, but rather man (hence the inconsistances that abound within the text itself)? In other words, Emperor Augustine changed the Bible to include priests not being able to marry for the above stated reasons. That is why it appears in the Bible you hold in your hand. Not very difficult to accomplish. No magic required. Change a few words (hence the different types of bibles), and republish. Deed done!

6) As far as people giving donations. Please refer to the tax laws within the U.S. at least. Churches are banned from making "donations" to political parties (i.e., separation of church and state (might have heard of it)). Therefore, any church offering (as they DEFINITELY do) funds to politicians are to have their tax-exempt status removed (in the tax law itself.) I don't know how they get away with it. Oh, wait, yes I do. They control the f&%king country. Which is why people still cannot say "GOD DAMN!" On network television. Well, GOD DAMN. There's my free speach in action. Perhaps one day the rest of society will free itself from the shackles of religion (literal interpretation=return to bondage).

 

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

It's called a flock because the people are a bunch of sheep who follow orders and DO NOT think for themselves. For example, "God created everything and always existed...do not question this or consider any empirical evidence to the contrary."...Chruch goer "Oh. OK." Brain shuts down.

 

No, check your biblical history. It is called a flock because on repeated occasions in the Bible, we see the metaphor being used of Jesus as a shepard caring for his people. I think for myself regularly and have all kinds of different ideas about God's creation of the world. Do not generalise so very blantently.

 

You must have a very different definition of "charity" than most people. Religious organizations do give, but like everyone else (some exceptions) they also take, and more than they should. Why should other peoples money go towards diseminating erroneous information? It's absurd.

 

Give an example of how they "take" exactly. The only taking I see is in ensuring that they have a building of their own. The rest of their effort is spent either in helping people's spiritual needs or their physical needs, and the physical needs is the only one of those two that is given any significent ammount of charitable money.

 

I notice you've singularly failed to admit your mistake with regard to church organisation, and the fact that your source's example of St Albans is completely wrong.

 

Therefore ALL church contributions ARE NOT charitable. They are in fact, as I previously stated, deleterious!! I know an ex-missionary very well who told me I was unfortunately correct that when they go to other places around the country to preach the "good" word, they insist that the children be raised Catholic, or, guess what...no food or shelter for them. That's generocity?  Were you ever a missionary. Unless you were you need not comment on the validity of this. She is, by the way, an atheist now (obviously).

 

I've known dozens of missionaries and have seen and read accounts of their lives, and have never ever seen any evidence of this kind of behaviour. I am loathed to believe it because it goes against pretty much everything the Bible teaches on the matter of giving.  

 

You are seriously out of touch. You think the Vatican robes and sundry garments and paraphenalia was all purchased over 200 years ago? Seriously? Even someone with an inkling of common sense could see that's not true. And if you've ever read the Bible (which I doubt) Jesus would have severely disiplined the vatican and it's followers for being overly pious and showy just like the Pharocies. Moreover, it doesn't matter when they gained their wealth, they could sell it now, live more like Jesus did and feed the entire world with the profits (slight hyperbole), but why don't they do that???? One does not need a trillion dollar estate to pass along the word. Did Jesus???? NO!!!!

 

I'm no fan of the Vatican, and I agree they are very Pharisee like

 

Are you serious? Really? You do realize the Bible is man made don't you?? You do realize that there are differences between the Christian Bible and the Catholic Bible that contains more books? Right? You do realize this could only be possible if it was not truly the word of God, but rather man (hence the inconsistances that abound within the text itself)? In other words, Emperor Augustine changed the Bible to include priests not being able to marry for the above stated reasons. That is why it appears in the Bible you hold in your hand. Not very difficult to accomplish. No magic required. Change a few words (hence the different types of bibles), and republish. Deed done!

 

Contary to popular opinion, the Bible has not been significently, if at all, alterered. When we found the dead sea scrolls they contained copies of Isiah and other books of the Bible that were 1000 years older than the pervious oldest copies we had, and apart from grammar changes that do not affect the meaning of words, they were exactly the same as current copies. No change, in 1000 years. Many men have tried to change the Bible, but they have always failed. Yes I know the Catholic bible has extra books, but the point still stands that it is known from hisotircal archives and proofs that the Levites did not marry. That is where that tradition comes from.

 

As far as people giving donations. Please refer to the tax laws within the U.S. at least. Churches are banned from making "donations" to political parties (i.e., separation of church and state (might have heard of it)). Therefore, any church offering (as they DEFINITELY do) funds to politicians are to have their tax-exempt status removed (in the tax law itself.) I don't know how they get away with it. Oh, wait, yes I do. They control the f&%king country. Which is why people still cannot say "GOD DAMN!" On network television. Well, GOD DAMN. There's my free speach in action. Perhaps one day the rest of society will free itself from the shackles of religion (literal interpretation=return to bondage).

 

Erm...check US law. There is no restriction on this. Anyone can make donations as long as it is apropriately transparant. Seperation of Church and State is simply a law that says that the government will not make any law establishing a particular church, IE it will respect freedom of religion. Also, restriction of profanity is not lack of freedom of speech.

[Abreo]

OK. I don't mean to get personal, but If you truly are a nerdfighter you would realize the non-logical aspects of what you are espousing!

 

Oh my god, I'm sorry for responding but that was just hilarious. What a childish retort, as if this group in all seriousness honestly attempts to define itself. Shockingly enough any person can be a nerdfighter, even the stupid ones. 

[Christie Suyanto]

It's more of a neutral thing, I guess. I mean, it can help you to do good and make the right choices. But then again, you don't have to be a member of a religion to do the right stuff.

[Sophie]

Religion is, in my opinion, a thing to fall back for certain people. Some people turn to something supernatural to solve their problems, they search for help. That is the actual meaning of it.

Of course, there are some believers who want to force their religion to other people: by war, violence, and stuff, of Jehovah-witnesses of course. These humans are taking the 'Holy Book' waaaay to serious.And then they think they're doing the right thing. So yes, in some ways it is a poor excuse for doing 'good things'.

[Fake Crowley]

Which they'd still believe if they were religious...I mean, it's not like religion goes against luck, except in rare cases.

[Joel Schama]

To Abreo. Childish? In what sense? I think if you actually read the entirety of my post you would realize it was anything but childish. Nevertheless, you're right...even the stupid ones (now that's childish.) Odd that I couldn't directly reply to your reply only to others. Hmmm.

[Joel Schama]

Odd. I can no longer leave a reply to Vertigo One's responses. There's no "reply" link button. Very odd. Nevertheless, I suppose I'll have to reply here. We are obviously on two different pages. So let us make this simple. You believe in God and that he created everything, and always existed and the Church is a wonderful place that only makes charitable contributions. Well, offer me some proof of this! Of course you cannot because their is NO proof that God exists. And unfortunately you have the fictional upper hand, because logical one cannot prove a negative, e.g. I cannot prove god doesn't exist, just Like you cannot prove that faries don't exist. Nevertheless you are VERY wrong about missionaries, they do only exchange their services for those who adopt their faith (what you've been told is a lie). And you're fictions about the Bible not being tampered with are ludicris. Of course it's been tampered with. Why are there missing books in the Chrisitan Bible? Uh, someone removed them. As far as not priests not marrying, how difficult do you really think it would be for Emporer Augustine to make sure priests don't marry to ensure the wealth remains within the Chruch. Not difficult at all. There is proof of that. Have you seen the actual scrolls themselves. If not, you have nothing more to say on the issue. It's all just who controls the writen history. There are "proofs" that the universe is here because of quantum flucuations (see Stephen Hawking and others more qualified than I). Moreover, please don't insult my intelligence by using BS statements about the Bible referring to followers as sheep because Jesus looked out for them. We both know followers are called a flock metaphorically because, like the word implies, it means "following without question."

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

Nevertheless you are VERY wrong about missionaries, they do only exchange their services for those who adopt their faith (what you've been told is a lie).

 

You have the account of one missionary. I have accounts of dozens that I have known. I have known people run schools that accept anyone and everyone (Christians, Muslims etc) out in other parts of the world, set up by missionaries for people's benefit. I've known people go out to Peru and help street Children regardless of their state of faith. Unless there is some kind of massive conspiricy that means that many of my friends would be lying to me directly, I don't really see how what you are suggesting is the case. I have no doubts that there are some unscrupulous and unpleasnt missionaries out there who will do the things you claim, but they are the exception, not the rule. Short of your one example, I have many. And you simply insisting they are a lie, is not evidence.

 

Why are there missing books in the Chrisitan Bible? Uh, someone removed them.

 

The so called "missing" books of the bible were written more than 200 years after the events they describe, by people who had absolutely no direct contact with Jesus or anyone else.  

 

There is proof of that. Have you seen the actual scrolls themselves. If not, you have nothing more to say on the issue.

 

Question, why is it when you cite "scrolls" it is somehow perfectly valid and historical, and when I cite the Bible, it is tampered with and cannot be believed?

 

There are "proofs" that the universe is here because of quantum flucuations (see Stephen Hawking and others more qualified than I).

 

Firstly, no. Stephen Hawking has mistaken descriptions of the universe's fundamental laws for agency.

http://inayatscorner.wordpress.com/2011/04/25/a-fine-response-to-st...

 

Secondly, appealing to saying "Stephen Hawking said it, so it must be true" is an appeal to authroity, and is not a valid argument.

 

Thirdly, when Stephen Hawking is talking about God, he is not being a scientist any more, and thus his expertise are not in that field and thus he has no qualifications to speak on the matter.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ervin-laszlo/stephen-hawking-god_b_73...

 

Moreover, please don't insult my intelligence by using BS statements about the Bible referring to followers as sheep because Jesus looked out for them.

 

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

 

Do some research.

[Joel Schama]

Actually the first references to Jesus have no earthly domain. The ones that were written hundreds of years later are the only ones that speak of him in "human" terms. So no one really knows what happend.

I sited the scrolls only to appeal to your sense that these are somehow acurate discriptions of what REALLY happend. Do you not think fiction was around at that time? Do you not understand that when it was writen, there existed people who wanted to control the lives of others (yes there were slaves back then, and women couldn't vote). And by creating the concepts contained in the man made bible it ensured an everlasting bondage to the word of a nonexistant deity and a bondage to those who controled their lives.

Forget about Stephen Hawking for a moment, and any erroneous information deseminated by the others in order to negate true facts concerning quantum physics. I could list a plethora of sites for you that back up the data. Data that in fact has been varified over and over again, that quantum flucuations exist. There is no true "vacuum." While it may be an appeal to authority by logical standards I was doing so because it saved the time of having to write a 500 page disertation on the subject myself.

Moreover, when Stephen Hawking or others like Richard Dawkins for instance begin talking about God, they are in FACT utilizing science as a means of proving that one cannot prove God's existence. There is NO empirical evidence for his existence AT ALL. And it's actually funny that you made my point for me, if Stephen Hawking is not being scientific anymore while discussing the God concept then you readily admit that the concept of a deity or God is utterly unscientific and cannot be discussed logically. Thank you VERY much for proving my point for me.

You're using wikipedia as a reference. Really? You do understand that wikipedia is not a REAL source of information. It is user created, anyone can write anything there and it is not usually corrected ever.

I will take your missionary information into account, however, and admit that it may be possible that some are not as evil as others. And if they do actually help others, than I certainly can not fault them for that, that is absolutely wonderful that there are people willing to help like that. But it is not the only source of help in the world. My brother, a born again Christian told me that I (as an atheist) was more like Jesus than anyone he'd ever known. Funny that. Since I go one step further and do not harm any living creature like most Christians do, i.e., they can eat animals because God said so.

The story of the sheep from the questionable source of wikipedia even states it is a parable, i.e., not to be interpreted LITERALLY. Parable:  a simple story used to illustrate a moral or spiritual lesson, as told by Jesus in the Gospels. (from the Oxford English dictionary, NOT wikipedia). NOT to be taken literally. Sure Jesus might have existed, just like buddha might have existed hundreds of years prior to him telling the same story of peace (though not quite as peaceful since Jesus espouses the belief in eating and enslaving other living creatres for one's own amusment. And that's NOT evil?

I'm sure you've probably seen this, but just for a refresher: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFsmmMTMCHU

 

 

[Joel Schama]

At least I have one person on my side. Actually there are quite a lot of people that feel that way. Yes, there are some organizations that do good deeds, but there is no need for them to be affliated with a religion, the added religious aspects just makes the world a worse place. It removes all sense of reason and logic. As an atheist, I derive my morals from within not from without (i.e., the Bible, or God).

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

As an atheist, I derive my morals from within not from without (i.e., the Bible, or God).

 

Here's the problem with doing this. It makes you God. To put it in another context, what happens when the morals you decide are ok for yourself conflict with the morals another decides for themselves, and they do something to you which they think is moral and you do not. You might ask them to apologise, but they see that they have done nothing to apologise for etc.