What if?

[ QUOTE ]
The last statement seems to fit well with the facts, the first doesn't. A common philosophy is a big help to a society, but it can be quakers, zen buddhists, taoists, secular humanists, etc, the benefit is not dependant on a belief in a personal-intervening-god.

[/ QUOTE ]

Forgive my wording. I should have said higher morality, not higher being.

[imported_luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
Forgive my wording. I should have said higher morality, not higher being.

[/ QUOTE ] ok, then we are saying very related ideas then. A social structure that the population has adjusted to and of their own volition, that they value, is likely as key as any other factor.

I do live in America, and I was thinking mostly about this this country when I wrote. However, I think what I argued still applies to the majority of societies in the world. Europe may be the only one that is ready to surpass religion, if they haven't already. It also took them many years to get to the point they are at. I think we need to look at it in terms of individual cultures rather than humanity as a whole. That is, European society may be ready to survive without a higher religious concept, but American society is not.

[imported_luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you honestly believe that religion causes men to commit barbaric, evil, and monstrous deeds? If so how do you explain Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Hussien, and Jong?

[/ QUOTE ] Nope. What religion does is put an powerful tool in the hands of treacherous leaders ( or leading groups) that makes acheiving their goals a lot easier. Any given group in power may be montrous or not, religion or not. Stalin or the Taliban, those crimes were gov vs it's own citizens.

Religion is much more effective in getting the average citizen motivated against it's neighbours, with or without goverment guidance. It's an easy base to build a We-they hate on, look around the current world or any past one. It's not religions fault directly but the 'chosen people' view of cults and most religions does create an unlevel playing field and so supports intolerance or persecution, gov directed or in society in general.

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
Nope. What religion does is put an powerful tool in the hands of treacherous leaders ( or leading groups) that makes acheiving their goals a lot easier. Any given group in power may be montrous or not, religion or not. Stalin or the Taliban, those crimes were gov vs it's own citizens.

[/ QUOTE ]

The wheel is also a powerful tool in the hands of treacherous leaders. Are you vehemently against wheels too? Of course not, the beneficial ultility of wheels outways any harmful use of them.

[ QUOTE ]
Religion is much more effective in getting the average citizen motivated against it's neighbours, with or without goverment guidance. It's an easy base to build a We-they hate on, look around the current world or any past one. It's not religions fault directly but the 'chosen people' view of cults and most religions does create an unlevel playing field and so supports intolerance or persecution, gov directed or in society in general.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't agree with that. We persecuted Italians simply because they came from Italy, Mexicans simply because they came from Mexico, and Poles simply because they came from Poland. As human beings have a tendency to look down upon or distrust people who are not part of our group. Take your quote above and substitute "religion" with "Nationalism/nationality" or "race" etc. It still holds true.

Stu

[Stu Pidasso]

You basically say that religion is effective in getting people to behave in a certain way. I believe religion is/was helpful in preventing the spread of STDs and preventing some unwanted pregnancies. Its an example mans good use of religion.

You say religion should not rule an individual's life. I assume you mean at present. How about in the past. Should religion have ruled the life of a man who lived around 1000AD. If so why?

Stu

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Improve, unless you ignore all the barbaric, evil and monstruous deeds that have been made, and still are made, in the name of religions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you honestly believe that religion causes men to commit barbaric, evil, and monstrous deeds? If so how do you explain Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Hussien, and Jong?

Stu

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes I do, and those mentionned are tyrants in the same ways that there exists religious tyrants. Religion lends itself to be abused by power mad individuals because it is based on beliefs (the non-rational) which makes it more adept than mere politics at manipulating masses.

[ QUOTE ]
I believe religion is/was helpful in preventing the spread of STDs and preventing some unwanted pregnancies. Its an example mans good use of religion.
Stu

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong, do a search on this forum. There were a number of posts with cited sources that contradicts your statement.

[imported_luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
The wheel is also a powerful tool in the hands of treacherous leaders. Are you vehemently against wheels too? Of course not, the beneficial ultility of wheels outways any harmful use of them.

[/ QUOTE ] cheeesh. Let's say we could settle to our total satisfaction your question about wheels. what possible bearing would that have on the question about religion? You can't decide things by analogy, an analogy is a pointing device, a conceptual aid even, not a congruency.

To go along with it though, any worthwhile advantages that arise out of religion have been shown to be easily acheived by other methods, so if those methods can be put in place then dispensing with religion is a plus. If we could replace the utility/benefit of wheels with a transportation method that was as effective but reduced carnage then yes, I'd be very against the continued use of wheels.

On my We-They statement-
[ QUOTE ]
Take your quote above and substitute "religion" with "Nationalism/nationality" or "race" etc. It still holds true.

[/ QUOTE ]
And this makes my claim less true how? Your We-They examples are valid, which strengthens my point, but some of them are harder to get worked up over without some historical grievances to help inflame them. Canada/US is a good example. Very mild historical/political reasons for hatred, but if one was a muslim country and the other xtrian with the same political history as now, that religious difference would be an easy one to build some serious animostity on. Even now the theocratic trend in the US is starting to create a divide between the two countries that wasn't there 30 years ago.

You say you don't agree that religous differences between neigbouring countries or competing factions in a country is a problem because it's an easy basis for we-they anymosity? That a sad blindness to have when you look arond the current or past world situation. Does it contribute to the problem in Iraq? Ireland? Bosnia? etc, etc, .. gawwwwlie.

[chezlaw]

I guess that religon is neutral.

Some say people are religous because they are stupid, if so then they would still be stupid without religon.

Those that do bad things in the name of religon would still do so in the name of something else.

Those that do good things in the name of religon would still do so in the name of something else.

chez