Does Religion Have Any Good Side?

deise go deo

In another thread someone was makeing the argument that religion has no redeaming features and that no athiest he knows can see any good side to it, As that thread is not about that topic I have decided to open a new thread,

Personally I believe it has its problems and its fair share of bad people but on the whole is a positive influence on the world.
Now I understand that most people here wont agree with that but what I want to know is if people here can see any good side to it wether or not they see it as good or bad on the whole.

I see several good sides to it, for example

Charitable work,
Bringing people within a given community together
Promoating a sence of morality and right and wrong,and encourging people to live good lived

I would like to hear your opinions on this

Ickle Magoo

I don't think religion offers the world anything that the world couldn't get elsewhere. You can argue about charity work, community and some form of moral code but none of those things would fail to exist if religion was wiped off the face of the planet in the morning - and I suspect would all exist had religion never existed.

If you consider some kind of panacea for people who are scared and need there to be something bigger out there looking out from them and answering all the questions they can't as a good side, then religion certainly fills that void.

Denerick

Does religion have a good side? The real question you need to ask is whether people have a good side. Religion brings out the good in some people, the bad in others. Just like how a friend might suddenly become a control freak if he gets promoted to manager. Lots of issues motivate people either positively or adversely. The bottom line is that people are people.

Blackhorse Slim

em, it helps to protect cows in India..?

Dinner

Sure, religion has a good side. Not necessarily because of god or religion directly, but more the side effects of these, mainly bringing people together as a community. But there are plenty of other things that offer the benefits of building a community without any of the drawbacks of religion. The ICA and the Tidy Towns for example as well as any number of local clubs and groups.

The only 'benefit' not offered by the church that is not offered by the ICA and the like is that there is something after death (although I've never been to an ICA meeting so ye never know :pac: ). And whether this is a benefit at all depends on the person. I don't think it is. Many people seek comfort in religion by allowing it to give them the easy answers without having to really look for it. It might allow them to cope with death better by believing that 'there is something more'. But again, I don't see that as a benefit.

deise go deo

Blackhorse Slim wrote: »

em, it helps to protect cows in India..?

Actually on QI, A Fact based comedy show hosted by Stephen Fry
They said that cows are one of the few animals that arent sacred in India:D. Dont know if its true but anything they said that I checked up on(they make some interesting claims from time to time) has checked out.

checkyabadself

deise go deo wrote: »

Personally I believe it has its problems and its fair share of bad people but on the whole is a positive influence on the world.
Now I understand that most people here wont agree with that but what I want to know is if people here can see any good side to it wether or not they see it as good or bad on the whole.

I see several good sides to it, for example
Charitable work,
Bringing people within a given community together
Promoating a sence of morality and right and wrong,and encourging people to live good lives

I voted no.

-The best charities are secular, organizers have no pretenses and no party policy. Also the aid is not conditional as religous charities are.

-People can, did and will continue to have a sense of community outside of religion.

-I think the sense of morality preached by religions (main religions) is sexist homophobic and barbaric. I frankly couldn`t dream up a worse code of morality than the biblical one.

The Mad Hatter

deise go deo wrote: »

Actually on QI, A Fact based comedy show hosted by Stephen Fry
They said that cows are one of the few animals that arent sacred in India:D. Dont know if its true but anything they said that I checked up on(they make some interesting claims from time to time) has checked out.

I think it was just that the Hebrew religion doesn't really have a concept of "sacred," which is an Abrahamic idea.

deise go deo wrote: »

Charitable work,

While it's true that most large, organised charities are religious ones, I don't see any reason why atheists can't do charitable work too. See Non-Believers Giving Aid (formerly Atheists Giving Aid), for instance.

Bringing people within a given community together

And yet, here we are in an atheism forum. Lots of things bring people together: arts, interests, loves. Religion is the only thing that tells them how to live while they're there.

Promoating a sence of morality and right and wrong,and encourging people to live good lived

There's a lot of evidence to the contrary of this, to be honest. While there is good stuff in religious texts, there's a lot of bad stuff in there too. Religion can encourage people to do pretty horrific things, though. This study on Israeli schoolchildren was quoted in The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins, and makes for pretty distressing reading.

Some blog I found on Google, citing Dawkins wrote:

One of the best is the study done by the Israeli social psychologist, Tamarin, who asked a thousand Israeli schoolchildren to answer questions on an account of the battle of Jericho (Joshua 6:24). The story is that Joshua invaded Jericho, burning the city to the ground and killing all its inhabitants. Tamarin asked the children whether they approved these actions. 70% of them approved and only 30% disapproved. The comments given by the children are pretty horrifying too. They include things like “Joshua was right to exterminate the people. It was bad, since the Arabs are impure and if one enters an impure land, one will also become impure.” Indeed, a lot of the comments showed a repulsion towards racial mixing. The control group of Tamarin’s study, meanwhile, consisted of Israeli children who read the same passage, but in their version the word ‘Joshua’ was replaced by ‘General Lin’ and ‘Israel’ by ‘Chinese Kingdom.’ Only 7% of children in the control group approved of General Lin’s actions and the rest characterised them as genocide.

Blackhorse Slim

deise go deo wrote: »

Actually on QI, A Fact based comedy show hosted by Stephen Fry
They said that cows are one of the few animals that arent sacred in India:D. Dont know if its true but anything they said that I checked up on(they make some interesting claims from time to time) has checked out.

Well in that case.... no. There is no good side.

bryaner

If your into war well then yes!!

Memnoch

This poll is missing an option:

I think religion MAY have had some benefits in the past, but is largely redundant in the modern world.

liamw

I guess religion has influenced a lot of wonderful architecture and art, but perhaps we would have had all that anyway...

deise go deo

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

I think it was just that the Hebrew religion doesn't really have a concept of "sacred," which is an Abrahamic idea.

Yes they cought Alan Davis with that one thinking back. Well I think the point was that there is no cow daiety.

While it's true that most large, organised charities are religious ones, I don't see any reason why atheists can't do charitable work too. See Non-Believers Giving Aid (formerly Atheists Giving Aid), for instance.



And yet, here we are in an atheism forum. Lots of things bring people together: arts, interests, loves. Religion is the only thing that tells them how to live while they're there.

Well I dident say that religion is the only thing capable of doing these things, But just because other organisations do these things dosent take away from the fact that it is a good aspect of religion.

There's a lot of evidence to the contrary of this, to be honest. While there is good stuff in religious texts, there's a lot of bad stuff in there too. Religion can encourage people to do pretty horrific things, though. This study on Israeli schoolchildren was quoted in The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins, and makes for pretty distressing reading.

Well I did say religion has its bad points. However I would argue that that is more a problem of people misuseing religion for political ends.

Dr. Loon

I think if religion had never existed, we'd have men on mars, and all sorts of fantastic things, such has been (IMO) the detrimental effect religion has had on society since it began. I believe it has prevented mankinds progress in numerous ways and continues to do so.

Dr. Loon

Dr. Loon wrote: »

I think if religion had never existed, we'd have men on mars, and all sorts of fantastic things, such has been (IMO) the detrimental effect religion has had on society since it began. I believe it has prevented mankinds progress in numerous ways and continues to do so.

Reminds me of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watching_Trees_Grow

The Mad Hatter

deise go deo wrote: »

Yes they cought Alan Davis with that one thinking back. Well I think the point was that there is no cow daiety.

I don't think you intended it, but great pun

eblistic

None of those options seem to cover those of us who may accept that religion has a potential for good which is sometimes realised but also the potential for harm which is also sometimes realised (see "hazards" thread). Maybe a "some good but harmful overall" option might have helped?

Zillah

Blasted secret polls! Who isn't toeing the line!?

The Mad Hatter

Zillah wrote: »

Blasted secret polls! Who isn't toeing the line!?

As atheists, we should shirk from time to time the voice of authority.

That's why I didn't vote.

Dr. Loon

bluewolf wrote: »

Reminds me of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watching_Trees_Grow

Looks like a good read.

Pygmalion

Charity work is done by non-believers too, although generally they're secular organisations and not specifically atheist ones.
Too many "charities" are too conditional with their aid due to faith, or even worse, they spend people's donations on churches and religious education, instead of actually trying to provide a better quality of life.
Of course there are good and bad of both, I'd look into any charity before trusting it with my money, but to say that charity work is better performed by the religious is outrageous.
Let's not forget the Church-sponsored "charity" work based around teaching people of the evils of contraception.

Can't deny it brings people together, but tbh I'd prefer to join a club, at least then we have common interests and hobbies and not just common beliefs :P.

As for morality and a sense of right and wrong, I've never seen a single religion which I would consider in any way an example of morality.
I'm not exaggerating here, almost every major church seems to be against homosexuality, women's rights and scientific progress.
It's only in recent years that many of them are embracing equality between races, and not all of them at that.
If you base your morality on teachings from thousands of years ago, I think you'll find that you're thousands of years behind the rest of us when it comes to morality.

I voted no on the poll, because any possible good that could come from religion (and I honestly don't see any that couldn't easily be gotten elsewhere) is more than countered by all the bad.

magicbastarder

Pygmalion wrote: »

I voted no on the poll, because any possible good that could come from religion (and I honestly don't see any that couldn't easily be gotten elsewhere) is more than countered by all the bad.

so you admit that religion has a good side, but choose to ignore it because of the bad stuff? is that not dishonest, given the purpose of the poll?

Truley

Memnoch wrote: »

This poll is missing an option:

I think religion MAY have had some benefits in the past, but is largely redundant in the modern world.

When you say modern world do you mean in current times or in current times and places where people are econonomically or circumstantially well off?

While I know myself that the idea of religion is daft, I would be loathe to turn to a young woman in Haiti or Darfur who just lost all of her children, and think that she was being silly for believing in a heaven or that they will be reunited in an afterlife. At the same time I wouldn't judge alot of modern western people in times of distress, for example serious illness and death, and they feel they 'need' something to cling on to and give them hope. The idea of heaven and the afterlife can give that hope in a way few 'real world' things can't.

I think it's easy for someone like me to say whether something has a place in the world, if the idea of it helps other people I wouldn't begrudge them that. Thankfully I've never been in a situation where prayers were all I had.

deise go deo

Pygmalion wrote: »

Charity work is done by non-believers too, although generally they're secular organisations and not specifically atheist ones.
Too many "charities" are too conditional with their aid due to faith, or even worse, they spend people's donations on churches and religious education, instead of actually trying to provide a better quality of life.
Of course there are good and bad of both, I'd look into any charity before trusting it with my money, but to say that charity work is better performed by the religious is outrageous.
Let's not forget the Church-sponsored "charity" work based around teaching people of the evils of contraception.

Can't deny it brings people together, but tbh I'd prefer to join a club, at least then we have common interests and hobbies and not just common beliefs :P.

As for morality and a sense of right and wrong, I've never seen a single religion which I would consider in any way an example of morality.
I'm not exaggerating here, almost every major church seems to be against homosexuality, women's rights and scientific progress.
It's only in recent years that many of them are embracing equality between races, and not all of them at that.
If you base your morality on teachings from thousands of years ago, I think you'll find that you're thousands of years behind the rest of us when it comes to morality.

I voted no on the poll, because any possible good that could come from religion (and I honestly don't see any that couldn't easily be gotten elsewhere) is more than countered by all the bad.

Right there seams to be some confusion with the poll.
The first option is for those who can see no good in religion whatsoever.

The second option is for those who can see that it has good points but that overall for what ever reason they can not beleive in it weather that steams from b view that it those more harm than good overall or from not beleiving in god/gods

The last option is for those who can see somp failings with religion but on the whole feel it is a positive influence on the world.

I brought this topic up because as I have said another thread was being draged of topic to debate this. In this thread a poster made the claim that to be atheist ment that you must hate religion, not simpily disagree with it as I suggested.
As for charitable work, I gave trocaire as an example, to which he responded 'Dont make me laugh' Personally I found this to be a rather narrow minded view so I started this poll to see how widely it is held.
I have never suggested that only religious are capable of doing charity, mearly that religious do charity work and that this surely is a positive.

PeterIanStaker

checkyabadself wrote: »

I voted no.

-The best charities are secular, organizers have no pretenses and no party policy. Also the aid is not conditional as religous charities are.

-People can, did and will continue to have a sense of community outside of religion.

-I think the sense of morality preached by religions (main religions) is sexist homophobic and barbaric. I frankly couldn`t dream up a worse code of morality than the biblical one.

Well said. I'd add that religion is a great excuse for starting wars, far more than any natural resource or territiorial claim.

deise go deo

PeterIanStaker wrote: »

Well said. I'd add that religion is a great excuse for starting wars, far more than any natural resource or territiorial claim.

Name a single war that was started for religious more than political reasons.

Mark Hamill

deise go deo wrote: »

Well I dident say that religion is the only thing capable of doing these things, But just because other organisations do these things dosent take away from the fact that it is a good aspect of religion.

But if other non-organisations do these things, then surely they are just good aspects of humanity, that people sometimes do in a religious context?

Kooli

checkyabadself wrote: »

-People can, did and will continue to have a sense of community outside of religion.

This is the bit I'm not sure about.

I can't see of a secular equivalent to the church which is as good at providing a sense of community. I said it in another thread - it's a place where old people, lonely people, newly arrived foreigners, people who are 'a bit weird' can find somewhere they belong, and are given a role. I don't see where these people could go instead?

checkyabadself

Kooli wrote: »

This is the bit I'm not sure about.

I can't see of a secular equivalent to the church which is as good at providing a sense of community. I said it in another thread - it's a place where old people, lonely people, newly arrived foreigners, people who are 'a bit weird' can find somewhere they belong, and are given a role. I don't see where these people could go instead?

I would argue that sporting events, concerts, exhibitions, festivals have a better sense of community than any church could ever provide. All of the aforementioned events also tend to be non-denominational, which clearly marks them down as providing a BETTER sense of community to a wider audience.

Mark Hamill

Kooli wrote: »

This is the bit I'm not sure about.

I can't see of a secular equivalent to the church which is as good at providing a sense of community. I said it in another thread - it's a place where old people, lonely people, newly arrived foreigners, people who are 'a bit weird' can find somewhere they belong, and are given a role. I don't see where these people could go instead?

Sports clubs, reading clubs, gaming clubs (poker, warhammer etc), online forums. The same as what people do when they aren't partaking of the religious stuff (and very very few people only partake of the religious stuff without any other hobbies).
Besides, the only "role" you are given in a religous sense (a christian sense anyway) is that of sinner, and a community of sinners isn't exactly a good thing is it?

Shenshen

deise go deo wrote: »

In another thread someone was makeing the argument that religion has no redeaming features and that no athiest he knows can see any good side to it, As that thread is not about that topic I have decided to open a new thread,

Personally I believe it has its problems and its fair share of bad people but on the whole is a positive influence on the world.
Now I understand that most people here wont agree with that but what I want to know is if people here can see any good side to it wether or not they see it as good or bad on the whole.

I see several good sides to it, for example

Charitable work,
Bringing people within a given community together
Promoating a sence of morality and right and wrong,and encourging people to live good lived

I would like to hear your opinions on this

I have to say I disagree with all of the above.
Charity existed long before religion, and will continue existing no matter what people believe.
Bringing communities together by doing what? By making a clear point that everybody who doesn't join in doesn't belong. To me that's more of a way of separating people rather than actually bringing them together.
As for morality, please see what I wrote about charity. Religion isn't required for people to behave in a moral way, but it tends to twist inate moral understanding.

That said, I think religion does have a good side. It provides comfort to a lot of people who would feel overwhelmed by life without it.
It's not for me, but I do recognise that it's necessary and useful for others.

PeterIanStaker

deise go deo wrote: »

Name a single war that was started for religious more than political reasons.

The Crusades?

Kooli

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Sports clubs, reading clubs, gaming clubs (poker, warhammer etc), online forums. The same as what people do when they aren't partaking of the religious stuff (and very very few people only partake of the religious stuff without any other hobbies).
Besides, the only "role" you are given in a religous sense (a christian sense anyway) is that of sinner, and a community of sinners isn't exactly a good thing is it?

No I'm talking about a regular meeting place that ANYONE can attend. Most of the people I mentioned before (the old, the lonely, the new foreigners and the 'weird') wouldn't use any of the stuff on your list. But if they went to a church they could get involved.

Festivals and sporting events also don't give a sense of community in the sense that I mean - like actually getting to know people, and feeling like you belong to a group of people. I enjoy Africa Day and Electric Picnic as much as the next person, but I don't think a one-off event is going to give you a support network of people in your community. A sports club would, but only if you are someone who plays sports or is into sports.

And I'm not sure if you're being obtuse about the 'role' thing, but I mean that they can be involved in community centre events, given a role during mass etc.

I would love to see the church gone, don't get me wrong. But I am not convinced we have a secular equivalent yet. I'm not interested in warhammer, poker or sports, so where would I go if I was isolated?? Luckily I'm not so I don't need any of that stuff, but there are a lot of people who do. I'm talking about a support network.

Ickle Magoo

There is no reason why the end of religion or no religion would mean community centres or halls would cease to exist. I know many community centres that have no religious affiliations.

sonicthebadger*

Kooli wrote: »

This is the bit I'm not sure about.

I can't see of a secular equivalent to the church which is as good at providing a sense of community. I said it in another thread - it's a place where old people, lonely people, newly arrived foreigners, people who are 'a bit weird' can find somewhere they belong, and are given a role. I don't see where these people could go instead?

Try motorbikes.

Mark Hamill

Kooli wrote: »

Festivals and sporting events also don't give a sense of community in the sense that I mean - like actually getting to know people, and feeling like you belong to a group of people. I enjoy Africa Day and Electric Picnic as much as the next person, but I don't think a one-off event is going to give you a support network of people in your community. A sports club would, but only if you are someone who plays sports or is into sports.

That covers quite a lot of people actually (as many people are into many types of sports, just look athe sports sections of boards). And there are many more alternatives (look athe arts section of boards for examples of diffeent subjects).

Kooli wrote: »

And I'm not sure if you're being obtuse about the 'role' thing, but I mean that they can be involved in community centre events, given a role during mass etc.

No different than sports or arts.

Kooli wrote: »

I would love to see the church gone, don't get me wrong. But I am not convinced we have a secular equivalent yet. I'm not interested in warhammer, poker or sports, so where would I go if I was isolated?? Luckily I'm not so I don't need any of that stuff, but there are a lot of people who do. I'm talking about a support network.

Are you saying there are a lot of people who would have no support withour religion? That these people have zero interests outside their religion, that there is not a single non religious group that people could go to? I mentioned poker and sports just off the top of my head, but you could have (and do have) groups that could be represented by nearly every single individual forum here on boards (thats easily a hundred, if not more).

Look, I get what your saying, religions can give people a sense of community. But people can get this same sense from most other activities too (hell, you get while you are in school). Its not unique to religion and they certainly didn't invent it.

deise go deo

PeterIanStaker wrote: »

The Crusades?

Origionaly posted by Denerick:
The first crusade was not a religious war. At least its origins were not over religion.

Pope Urban II received a plea for help from the Byzantine Emperor Alexius Comnenus who was in danger of being over-run by the Turks. The battle of Manzikert in 1071 destroyed the military-civilian complex that had been such an established force in Near Asia for centuries. Byzantine manpower had suffered dramatically in the region and the war was the final nail in the coffin. The Byzantines thus retreated to major fortresses and port cities, abandoning the interior in effect to the marauders.

Urban seized an opportunity to put an end to centuries of internecine warfare in Europe. It is unclear what his real motivation was but originally he had been asked to organise a small organised expedition from some Christian Prince, to aid the troubled Byzantines. What they got was in effect a human migration of epic proportions. Urbans motivation was not to conquer the Turks but instead it was a grand adventure for the papacy - the ultimate objective being above all to assert the primacy of Rome, reunite the church with the east, and to marshal the Princes of Europe under the banner of the church.

I may be cynical, but the religious element was primarily aimed at the uneducated peasant. Thousands upon thousands joined up and most of the poorest travelled with Peter the Hermit on a doomed trek east, where they met their calamitous fate on the outskirts of Nicea.

Calling the Crusades a religious war is only valid if you consider that the war was over one group hoping to achieve religious supremacy - not the political supremacy that was so obviously the primary objective of all of the Princes and of the Pope.

Religion may be used to justify wars or gain support from the masses but to say the reason for a war is not the same as it being a factor in a war.

Pygmalion

magicbastarder wrote: »

so you admit that religion has a good side, but choose to ignore it because of the bad stuff? is that not dishonest, given the purpose of the poll?

If there was a poll option for that I would've chose it, but both the other options seemed to be far more positive that I liked, and further from what I believe.
The reason I mentioned what I chose in my post was to avoid dishonesty, at least now people are free to pretend I voted otherwise if they interpret the options differently.

Denerick

deise go deo wrote: »

The first crusade was not a religious war. At least its origins were not over religion.

Pope Urban II received a plea for help from the Byzantine Emperor Alexius Comnenus who was in danger of being over-run by the Turks. The battle of Manzikert in 1071 destroyed the military-civilian complex that had been such an established force in Near Asia for centuries. Byzantine manpower had suffered dramatically in the region and the war was the final nail in the coffin. The Byzantines thus retreated to major fortresses and port cities, abandoning the interior in effect to the marauders.

Urban seized an opportunity to put an end to centuries of internecine warfare in Europe. It is unclear what his real motivation was but originally he had been asked to organise a small organised expedition from some Christian Prince, to aid the troubled Byzantines. What they got was in effect a human migration of epic proportions. Urbans motivation was not to conquer the Turks but instead it was a grand adventure for the papacy - the ultimate objective being above all to assert the primacy of Rome, reunite the church with the east, and to marshal the Princes of Europe under the banner of the church.

I may be cynical, but the religious element was primarily aimed at the uneducated peasant. Thousands upon thousands joined up and most of the poorest travelled with Peter the Hermit on a doomed trek east, where they met their calamitous fate on the outskirts of Nicea.

Calling the Crusades a religious war is only valid if you consider that the war was over one group hoping to achieve religious supremacy - not the political supremacy that was so obviously the primary objective of all of the Princes and of the Pope.

Religion may be used to justify wars or gain support from the masses but to say the reason for a war is not the same as it being a factor in a war.

Plagiarism!

Ickle Magoo

I thought the crusades were to recapture the holy lands from being overrun by muslims which is why Alixius I deliberately appealed to the head of christianity rather than heads of states. Military campaigns against the enemies of the church...seems predominantly religiously motivated to me. I also thought the primary motivation behind the first crusade was to heal "the great" schism and take back jeruselum from those who had "stolen" it? Again, religiously motivated.

Do you think if there was no such thing as religion there would be more or less wars? Or the same number just down to political reasons?

What about the french religious wars? Or Israel/Palestine? Or Taiping?

Kooli

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

There is no reason why the end of religion or no religion would mean community centres or halls would cease to exist. I know many community centres that have no religious affiliations.

I would hope that would be the case, and I'm glad to hear you know of such places - that gives me hope!

The only community centres I'm aware of are run by the parish.

I guess I was thinking that it's hard to find a sense of community that doesn't revolve around a hobby, which wouldn't suit everyone.

I'm thinking of a lot of elderly people I know whose main social support network is their local parish. Things will be different when our generation are old as there won't be nearly as many believers so I wonder what we'll replace it with. I guess I'll have to take up bridge or something...

Ickle Magoo

I've lived in the highlands & islands of scotland where even tiny wee villages have a community centre or hall, even if they don't have a church. Ireland is still a hugely religiously dominated country but alternatives certainly exist and thrive elsewhere. :cool:

deise go deo

Denerick wrote: »

Plagiarism!

Ya I ment to credit that to you, my bad.:D
Now are you happy

strobe

Kooli wrote: »

No I'm talking about a regular meeting place that ANYONE can attend. Most of the people I mentioned before (the old, the lonely, the new foreigners and the 'weird') wouldn't use any of the stuff on your list. But if they went to a church they could get involved.

ANYONE that is part of that particular religion, or is willing to pretend they are.


How about community centres instead? There is one on almost every area in Dublin. I used to use the pool table in the one in the area I grew up in. Depending on the time of the day it would be full of the local elderly playing bingo or just sitting in the common room chatting. Other times there would be a group of special needs children and their parents. Once a week they had a "celebrating diversity" thing where the Africans, Bosnians etc from the area used to come down and mix with the long time locals.

Religion in this country has had a few hundred years to build up a near monopoly on the creation and running of community activities so naturally they have an infrastructure already in place.

I think the question we should be asking is; "If the religious orders hadn't have set up bingo games and day trips for the elderly and meet and greets for foreigners new to the area would those things never have come to be?" I thinks it's crazy to suggest a religious influence was nescesary for any of those things to come into being.

So then the next question I would pose is; "Would community services have been better, worse or the same if they had of come into being devoid of religious oversite?" I would argue they would have been better and more inclusive of the whole community. How many muslim or hindu immigrants avoided availing of the services because they had overt Catholic overtures? How many Catholics didn't go to the local bingo games because they had terrible dealings with priests in the past and didn't want to have to associate with the ones that ran the games? Or bring thier children or granchildren along to activities that were being run by the church?

To suggest communtiy activities officiated over by a particular religion would be more inclusive than community activities with no extra definer other than it was run by the community for the community makes no sense to me.


For me it is the same argument that says one of the good things about the Cathoilic religion is that they built and run the primary schools in the country. The fact is without the church they would have been built and run all the same. Schools get built in every country not just ones where the RCC exist. I think it's pretty obvious they would be more inclusive and better run without the church having ever become involved.

Noreen1

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Do you think if there was no such thing as religion there would be more or less wars? Or the same number just down to political reasons?

Obviously, I can't speak for religions that I don't have any great familiarity with - but certainly, if the teachings of the Christian Churches were adhered to, there would be more peace - "Love thy neighbour." "Thou shalt not kill." etc.

I think the primary reason for wars is greed, and/or desire for power.
People with said motivations are not above misusing Religion, and conveniently forgetting the primary teaching of said religion/s to attain those ends, though!

Noreen

strobe

Noreen1 wrote: »

Obviously, I can't speak for religions that I don't have any great familiarity with - but certainly, if the teachings of the Christian Churches were adhered to, there would be more peace - "Love thy neighbour." "Thou shalt not kill." etc.


Noreen

But what about when God tells one of the Abrahamic religious leaders of the world to commit a genocide on some of thier neighbours as he's prone to do on occasions?

Kooli

strobe wrote: »

ANYONE that is part of that particular religion, or is willing to pretend they are.


How about community centres instead? There is one on almost every area in Dublin. I used to use the pool table in the one in the area I grew up in. Depending on the time of the day it would be full of the local elderly playing bingo or just sitting in the common room chatting. Other times there would be a group of special needs children and their parents. Once a week they had a "celebrating diversity" thing where the Africans, Bosnians etc from the area used to come down and mix with the long time locals.

Religion in this country has had a few hundred years to build up a near monopoly on the creation and running of community activities so naturally they have an infrastructure already in place.

I think the question we should be asking is; "If the religious orders hadn't have set up bingo games and day trips for the elderly and meet and greets for foreigners new to the area would those things never have come to be?" I thinks it's crazy to suggest a religious influence was nescesary for any of those things to come into being.

So then the next question I would pose is; "Would community services have been better, worse or the same if they had of come into being devoid of religious oversite?" I would argue they would have been better and more inclusive of the whole community.

To suggest communtiy activities officiated over by a particular religion would be more inclusive than community activities with no extra definer other than it was run by the community for the community makes no sense to me.

I would absolutely agree that community activities or community centres that are not run by a particular religion would be better for the whole community. I just didn't think many of these existed - who runs them? Who funds them?

I know there's a community centre down the end of my road where you can go to weight watchers, or pilates, or table tennis, but this is just a hall being rented out by various parties who then charge for classes. I'd love if it had all the stuff you describe above in your community centre, but I can't see who would organise all that stuff unless it was paid staff. And then whose going to fund that?

Mark Hamill

Noreen1 wrote: »

Obviously, I can't speak for religions that I don't have any great familiarity with - but certainly, if the teachings of the Christian Churches were adhered to, there would be more peace - "Love thy neighbour." "Thou shalt not kill." etc.

Moot. If the teachings of any religion are universally adhered to, then there would be more peace. Few religion advocate the killing of their own believers when they are doing what they are told.

Noreen1 wrote: »

I think the primary reason for wars is greed, and/or desire for power.
People with said motivations are not above misusing Religion, and conveniently forgetting the primary teaching of said religion/s to attain those ends, though!

Noreen

I think that the primary reason for religions are greed and the desire for power. Eventually, when your desire brings you across people who don like you, it will up with violence.

Noreen1

strobe wrote: »

But what about when God tells one of the Abrahamic religious leaders of the world to commit a genocide on some of thier neighbours as he's prone to do on occasions?

Like I said, I can't speak for anything other than Christian religions - I simply do not have the understanding of their faith that would be required. Neither do I have the in-depth knowledge of History.

Christian faith, however, does not condone, or promote, genocide in its teachings.

Noreen

Ickle Magoo

Noreen1 wrote: »

Obviously, I can't speak for religions that I don't have any great familiarity with - but certainly, if the teachings of the Christian Churches were adhered to, there would be more peace - "Love thy neighbour." "Thou shalt not kill." etc.

I think the primary reason for wars is greed, and/or desire for power.
People with said motivations are not above misusing Religion, and conveniently forgetting the primary teaching of said religion/s to attain those ends, though!

Noreen

Others conveniently forget the paragraphs relating to stoning, pillaging, raping and murdering in order that their religion appear to be a peaceful one as well though, to be fair...

Noreen1

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Moot. If the teachings of any religion are universally adhered to, then there would be more peace. Few religion advocate the killing of their own believers when they are doing what they are told.

Christian faith does not advocate the killing of those who are not believers, either.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I think that the primary reason for religions are greed and the desire for power. Eventually, when your desire brings you across people who don like you, it will up with violence.

I think some people misuse religion for those purposes, yes. I also think it's a truly horrendous thing to do.
I don't believe that is the primary reason for the existence of religions. Certainly, my religion has never brought me either any financial gain, or power. Nor do either of those elements have any bearing on why I believe what I do.

Noreen