Religion - Productive or Destructive?

[DeletedUser]

Regardless of age, gender or culture, we all have an opinion on religion and we have all encountered it at some point in our life. For some it is integrated into every day life, for others it is a meaningless tradition, yet there is no denying that it has influenced the human race immensely and has been fabricated by many actions and ideas that even the strictest Atheists will have adhered to on a moral level.

What has religion offered the human race? Perhaps religion is a mere template by which moral standards have been laid down, offering personal enforcement of courtesies that we now accept as commonplace. Maybe the strength of a person's faith increases their resilience and ultimate trust in an entity that may or may not be, a guidance from within a person's psyche. It has helped shape culture and architecture, sparking grand cathedrals, mosques and the like. It has inspired artists and pioneers to go out of their way to create new and innovative creations.

Is it all good, however? Religion has provoked conflicts across the world, throughout history. Back to the crusades and beyond, others have attempted to force their views on others or to actively erase opposing ideologies, all the way to present era of fanatical terrorism and the Gaza conflict. Some feel that religion restricts the borders of science and equality, treading on gay marriage and the rights for a female to become a bishop.

What do you think? Has religion made man what it was, what would man be without it and do the benefits outweigh the drawbacks?

Note: Please bear in mind that this is a very personal topic to a lot of people, please do not post anything extreme, aggressive or generally unsavoury. This is a debate and not a flame war, please treat it as such.

 

[DeletedUser]

I think humankind would have been better of had it not been for religion. Before I continue with my post, bear in mind that this is my opinion and I'm not attacking anyone personally. I have no problems with the belief in a deity, but it's organized religion (and it's involvement in the government) I have problems with.

So let's start with the most topical argument, the church should be 100% separated from the government. Just because something is described as a sin, e.g. gay marriage, does not mean it should be made illegal. Religious values should not be forced upon other individuals in the country. Laws should be forged by politicians, lawyers/judges, engineers, economists and scientists who understand what the law is about and how it will affect the country, not by thousands-year old religious books which have no credibility whatsoever.

Secondly, like Pushty said, religion has caused some of the most high death tolling wars in history, like the crusades. Religion may preach peace but tends to promote fighting amongst people of different religions or no religion at all. Now before you respond with the obligatory, ATHEISTS HAD WARZ TOO !!!1!!1, think about what you say. t may be true that atheists have started wars, but it wasn't because of their atheism. Whether or not they were atheists is irrelevant. Hitler may have been an atheist, but he didn't start the war because of his atheism. Hitler's belief was that the Germans were superior, a result of his belief in Evolution. But even if Hitler were motivated by evolution, evolution is not atheistic. The very large part of people who accept evolution are, in fact, religiously inclined.
While the statement that the Nazis were repressive of religion may be true in regards to the holocaust, it completely ignores the fact that most of the Nazis were catholics. That the Nazi government collaborated with the catholic church and that German soldiers had "Gott mit uns" printed on their belts. That many senior Nazis believed in some for of paganism. Even though Hitler may have been an atheist himself, the Nazi government was definitely not an atheistic one, and religion definitely played a significant role in WWII.

Now in regards to society, is religion actually beneficial? I don't think so. Reason is one of the main reasons mankind has come this far. It helped us survive. If a person needs something, he must use his reasoning mind to establish the best and most efficient method of obtaining what he needs. He can't just sit there and wait, that won't work. This is how life works, this is how reality works. [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif, x-small sans-serif]Existence exists independent of our mind and opinions. All the arguments for the existence of a deity are fundamentally flawed, and go against reason. On top of that, religion dogma gives people a haven for social ignorance. Even if we assume that the theological premises of religion are true, the epistemic foundation for religious gnostic arguments are still open to interpretation. Knowledge obtained through empirical reasoning and evidence, however, is not, and can be independently repeated by analysing data or observations yourself.

Having said all this, I do believe that religion has done good things for people, like giving people hope, or bettering people who will then believe they will end up in some kind of paradise after they die. But I think that it could easily be replaced with something less destructive than religion. And once again, believing in a deity is fine, organised religion is the problem, imo.[/FONT]

 

[DeletedUser5554]

An argument can be made either way and there's drawbacks and advantages to both. Being Christian myself I obviously believe religion has been more productive. When you think of things like the Crusades you have to understand it wasn't really religion driving that fight. The Byzantine Empire was collapsing the the Turks and in response to the weakened western powers the Pope scapegoated a caliph in Jerusalem as an excuse to "take back the Holy Land" whenever Europe became rowdy or the knights were acting up they often called for new crusades as it was a good way to keep the peace in Europe and safe guard the Continent... As well as maintain control over the masses. However this was not religion's fault just the people in charge of the organization.

What i'm saying is religion isn't the cause of wars...Its the men and woman behind religion. Take a ultra conservative man who thinks Islam is the scum of the earth and that all wars against Islamic nations are right...That shouldn't represent everyone as a whole considering the other side of this would argue against this to the death. So my point is religion is not bad. People who can't use their better judgement are bad.

 

[DeletedUser]

Agreed with Nodcrush totally, you cannot blame the religion for the peoples bad use of it. (If that makes sense )

 

[DeletedUser]

Depends on the religion, surely the phrase "an eye for an eye" exists in several, and surely you people should know, especially self-aclaimed Christians : )
The most obvious would be within The Old Testiment.
However, with certain religion, such as Buddhism, where there are no punishments for you actions, things seems to be different, I love the saying: "You will not be punished because of your anger, but you will be punished by your anger". Yes, religion do differ, and certain religion do seem to be notably more open minded and civilized than others...

It's very well recognized that hard-core faithful Christians or the likes, actually know less about the history of Christianity and the Bible than they claimed or act.

 

[DeletedUser]

Secondly, like Pushty said, religion has caused some of the most high death tolling wars in history, like the crusades. Religion may preach peace but tends to promote fighting amongst people of different religions or no religion at all. Now before you respond with the obligatory, ATHEISTS HAD WARZ TOO !!!1!!1, think about what you say. t may be true that atheists have started wars, but it wasn't because of their atheism. Whether or not they were atheists is irrelevant. Hitler may have been an atheist, but he didn't start the war because of his atheism. Hitler's belief was that the Germans were superior, a result of his belief in Evolution. But even if Hitler were motivated by evolution, evolution is not atheistic. The very large part of people who accept evolution are, in fact, religiously inclined
While the statement that the Nazis were repressive of religion may be true in regards to the holocaust, it completely ignores the fact that most of the Nazis were catholics. That the Nazi government collaborated with the catholic church and that German soldiers had "Gott mit uns" printed on their belts. That many senior Nazis believed in some for of paganism. Even though Hitler may have been an atheist himself, the Nazi government was definitely not an atheistic one, and religion definitely played a significant role in WWII.

The same argument could be made in the opposite direction. Although Pope Urban II started the Crusades, it doesn't mean that his religion was the motive for starting them. In fact, Pope Urban II most likely initiated the Crusades for completely different reasons. Why? Simply because of land disputes. At this time in history, the Arabic Empire was creeping up on Catholic controlled land. (See map below)

In an attempt to save his land, he convinced the Eastern Christians to help him in waging a "Holy War" against the "Muslim threat". Just as Hitler used the "science" of Eugenics to push his war, Pope Urban II used Christianity to push his. Religion was simply used as an excuse to the populous, if religion had not existed in Western Europe during the time another excuse would have been formulated. The Crusades were an inevitability, it should be thought of more as two empires colliding than two religions colliding.

Now in regards to society, is religion actually beneficial? I don't think so. Reason is one of the main reasons mankind has come this far. It helped us survive. If a person needs something, he must use his reasoning mind to establish the best and most efficient method of obtaining what he needs. He can't just sit there and wait, that won't work. This is how life works, this is how reality works. [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif, x-small sans-serif]Existence exists independent of our mind and opinions. All the arguments for the existence of a deity are fundamentally flawed, and go against reason. On top of that, religion dogma gives people a haven for social ignorance. Even if we assume that the theological premises of religion are true, the epistemic foundation for religious gnostic arguments are still open to interpretation. Knowledge obtained through empirical reasoning and evidence, however, is not, and can be independently repeated by analysing data or observations yourself.

Religion does not always have a negative impact on free-thought and oppression. If religion was only considered to include the Catholic Church during the Dark Ages then I may agree, however many religious movements have had profound impacts on the development of science and technology. The Protestant reformation, for example, opened parts of Western Europe to a new era of free thought and innovation. The Catholic Church believed that only priests and people who could afford to be taught Latin should be allowed to read and interpret the Bible, however Martin Luther challenged this idea. He translated the Bible from Latin to German allowing the Bible to be read by a much higher number of people. Luther's push caused literacy, and as such scientific advancements, to explode in Western Europe.
---- I need to go, will be continued later.

 

[DeletedUser18132]

In an attempt to save his land, he convinced the Eastern Christians to help him in waging a "Holy War" against the "Muslim threat".

You are wrong there. When Constantinople was getting attacked, the Greek patriarch and emperor asked the pope if he could send some troops over. The pope said no. The Crusaders also sacked Constantinople, which was one of the reasons the city fell.

 

[DeletedUser]

This discussion is central to the impacts of religion, its existence is irrelevant to the purposes of this thread.

 

[DeletedUser]

You are wrong there. When Constantinople was getting attacked, the Greek patriarch and emperor asked the pope if he could send some troops over.

Hmm, seems I was wrong about who asked whom to send troops over. Seems as if it was actually the Byzantines who asked the Catholics for assistance. However, that's a small detail that doesn't matter much. The main reason for the Crusades was a land dispute, nothing more.

The pope said no. The Crusaders also sacked Constantinople, which was one of the reasons the city fell.

No, Pope Urban II said "yes"! He had as much of a problem with the Arabic Empire as the Eastern Christians did!
Here
If you don't like Wikipedia...

Also, I'm not sure how it related at all, but The Crusaders themselves sacked Constantinople only for personal monetary gain, they were not ordered to do so by superiors.

 

[DeletedUser]

Surely it depends on the religion? How can one talk of religion as a whole when every single one is so diverse and different. People will often refer to Christianity (Mainly Catholicism) and Islam in this thread as they are the two leading religions at this time, but it's important to remember that there are thousands of religions.

I just disagree with mass organised religion, mainly Catholicism. As someone has also said I don't believe in religion having a say in government either like in many Arab countries they have to abide by Sharia Law even if they are not Muslim? This blatant disregard of other's culture and preference will get society no where. It's blind conservatism in my books, of an outdated religion too.

I don't understand how Jesus's (If he existed) simple behavior and clothing stemmed into something as grand and flashy as the Catholic Church. This is where Protestantism came from, they believed that Catholics had lost the true word of God and are not following the bible. This in itself caused massive death and destruction.

In the end it's hard to define Religion as a definitive term of words and measure it's influence when there is so much to consider and when there is good and bad done on both sides of the spectrum.

 

[DeletedUser6029]

I thought long and hard before responding to this message, but sadly
I could not resist

I think it isn't Religion proper that causes wars, starts wars or even perpetuates wars. I think it is the variables behind the leaders of religion. Most religions of the day are not what they started out as, they have been distorted from the message each religion started with. Back in the day religion was used as a method to control the masses...specifically by the Catholic Church. It left the message of the gospels and became a political entity....intending to rule its territory with the iron fist similar to many of the Muslim factions of today. However, you can't say that the "church" is responsible for the various conflicts, but rather the extremists factions IN each religion.

Personally I think a greater cause for war in the world is greed. Who is greedy and for what they are greedy for are the two major factors in the causes of war.

 

[DeletedUser]

Skully pretty much 100% covered what I believe. Religion has been used as an excuse for leaders to do whatever they please for thousands of years now. As far as religion being productive I honestly can't think of one productive thing that has come from it. People don't need religion to teach them how to act, being morally sound has nothing to do with being religious. On the contrary religion can make people blindly hate people from other religions, race, gender, or sexual orientation for no other reason than the religion/religious leaders said to.

 

[DeletedUser]

This is one of the best debates we could have. I believe that religion is meant to give people peace at mind, but the only thing it actually seems to do in the real world is cause wars and genocide.

 

[DeletedUser]

This is one of the best debates we could have. I believe that religion is meant to give people peace at mind, but the only thing it actually seems to do in the real world is cause wars and genocide.

As far as religion being productive I honestly can't think of one productive thing that has come from it.

Really? Not a single thing?

At numerous points in history, religion has inspired and aided in the creation of profound scientific, artistic, and musical works!

Counter Examples:

Spoiler

I think your own personal beliefs are skewing things a bit...

--


See my earlier post in this thread for more information.

 

[DeletedUser]

If religion did not exist things such as that would still be created, just as people do not need religion to guide them to be good people. There is many buildings, art, and amazing structures created in the world that are not related to religion.

 

[DeletedUser]

One of the worst conflicts that has been going on for quite awhile in the middle east is caused by religion. All fought over who controls Jerusalem and such. Fighting for thousands of years, pointless conflict.

 

[DeletedUser18132]

No, Pope Urban II said "yes"! He had as much of a problem with the Arabic Empire as the Eastern Christians did!
Here
If you don't like Wikipedia...

Also, I'm not sure how it related at all, but The Crusaders themselves sacked Constantinople only for personal monetary gain, they were not ordered to do so by superiors.

Hmm, you're right about Urban II, now that I double-checked. And yes, you are right about #2 too, but what I meant is that even though they weren't ordered by the pope, the leaders of the 4th Crusade were still pretty high up there. Anyway, when the crusade came back, the pope accepted the stolen items and accepted the crusaders back into the church, so it's not like he was angry at them for a long time...
Since you love wikipedia....

 

[DeletedUser]

If religion did not exist things such as that would still be created, just as people do not need religion to guide them to be good people.

I'm not sure that's entirely true. Without proper funding and support, those grand structures simply would not have existed. Do you think people would have given funding to create such costly architectural pieces without proper motivation?

Essentially, prove your supposition with facts or some form of reasoning that doesn't include "I said so".

There is many buildings, art, and amazing structures created in the world that are not related to religion.

Good job creating a sentence, although it was completely irrelevant to what I said...

Hmm, you're right about Urban II, now that I double-checked. And yes, you are right about #2 too, but what I meant is that even though they weren't ordered by the pope, the leaders of the 4th Crusade were still pretty high up there. Anyway, when the crusade came back, the pope accepted the stolen items and accepted the crusaders back into the church, so it's not like he was angry at them for a long time...
Since you love wikipedia....

Your nitpicking no longer has anything to do with my point. If you want to discuss the precise historical aspects of the Crusades, private message me.

One of the worst conflicts that has been going on for quite awhile in the middle east is caused by religion. All fought over who controls Jerusalem and such. Fighting for thousands of years, pointless conflict.

Yes, religion has caused quite a bit of suffering and war to the world. The topic up for debate is whether or not religion has had an OVERALL productive or destructive impact on the world?

As you can name an example or the destructiveness of religion, I can just as easily name an example of the productiveness of religion.

 

[DeletedUser17088]

Religion doesn't kill people, people kill people.

Religion and its values/beliefs are productive, people make it destructive

 

[DeletedUser]

I agree with Jarp here, religion is productive. Society is all based on laws and morals of religions, whether you live in Saudi Arabia or the USA. A good example of this is religious scriptures (both religions) ruling on the number of wives allowed, and it is law in its prospective country. (America=1 wife, Saudi Arabia=4 wives) Also other things from religion are universal such as dates, this year is 2012 (In western countries) and for clarification that is 2012 AD, where AD stands for "After Death," meaning the believed date of Jesus's death. To split church from state would mean revising all dates to a different format, as well as a total revision as to what is a crime, and what is not. Tbh i think total separation is impossible.

The productivity of religion on society is also partly judged by the eye of the beholder, as for example a Muslim extremist might view blowing up a bus as productive, (for his/her society) but to others its not. (first example i could think of)

Anyway yea im super tired so i apologise if im off topic or you cant understand it