Evils of Religion

[samsara15]

I seem to draw attention from Muslims. They are very condescending, and cannnot seem to understand why everyone doesn't bend over backwards to support their religion. Christians are aggressive, sometimes, but Muslims always are. Or at least the Muslims who 'private message' me are. In a strange way, in that they simply do not understand why anyone could think differently from them. No Muslims seem to be posting on this board.

[Kuldeep]

Quote by: Athena How well do you understand, to a Christian you are a pagan? They stand in the way of what you believe is important, because they hold they only thing they need to do is worship Jesus and he will save them.

I may not understand Christain or anybody else better than you but, I am sure no religion can be evil but evil exist in human mind only.

If Christains worship Jesus whole heartedly why you call it evil. I am confident they would be rewarded as per their efforts and faith. Educate me, Has Jesus anywhere told worship him only and nobody else? If he has then he is not truly great. I think he must definitely not have said that.

They can be extremely prejudiced against other races or ethnically different people, and still believe when they get to the heaven, by some magic, they are made perfect beings fit for heaven.Their belief system just isn't compatable with what you are saying.

Here you are not mentioning Christainity as religion but Christain's human evil mind. Let everyone do all sort of evil jobs and the fooling himself that Jesus would save you...That is absurd... not at all possible, I can gaurentee for that. As you sow so shall you reap" can not be proved wrong, as it is a natural law.

Christianity does not lead to enlightenment. It leads to ignorance and superstition, and I will stand with this is an evil. When they war, they do so with the belief they are God's favor people. Evangalist believe it is necessary to wipe out the Muslims so the Jew can rebuild their temple, and Jesus will come and finally give them heaven. Yes the religion is evil.

Again this is not basics of religion but human prejuduice of evil mind you are referring to. Mistakingly basics of religion and evil human minds have amulgamated in one thing looking as religion only. If evil human mind is removed somehow, pious religious part would emerge out and your mind would be peaceful then onwards.

[Castle]

Quote by: Kuldeep Educate me, Has Jesus anywhere told worship him only and nobody else?

By 'him only and nobody else', I assume you mean Christianity (Christians worship the whole Trinity). If so, then yes:

Quote by: Matthew 22 "Teacher, which commandment in the law is the greatest?" 37 He said to him, "You shall love the Lord, your God, with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. 38 This is the greatest and the first commandment. 39 The second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. 40 The whole law and the prophets depend on these two commandments."

It's also the First Commandment.

[Alive]

To show that a religion, or religion as a whole, leads to evil, you must do more than show members of that religion or societies with that religion committing evil acts. You also have to show a real connection between the religion and those acts. And I just don't think this connection is as clear as all the people who blame religion try to make it out to be.

The vast majority of societies in the world have comitted many evils, and the vast majority of societies in the world have had very strong connections to one religion or another. But do less religious societies tend to be less evil? Soviet Russia seems to serve as a good counterexample. Modern day free societies are both more secular and perhaps better than earlier theistic societies, but are they better because they are more secular, or are they better because we have advanced as a culture and therefore become both more tolerant of religious dissent/secularism and more ethical in general?

It's interesting to note that, while Christianity was used to justify the Spanish Inquisition, American Catholics today seem like pretty benign, normal members of society. If it was Christianity that caused the Spanish Inquisition, why doesn't it cause similar things today in America? And it's interesting to note that all the witch hunts of modern time have been political. Japenese internment, McCarthy, the unpatriotic; hmm, seems that the witch hunt model doesn't require religion at all! So what do we have:

1. The same religion which is supposed to have caused evil in the past causes no similar evil today
2. Those same evils which the religion is supposed to have caused, continue in secular society, but with a non-religious basis!

Suggesting that religion has nothing to do with it! That witch hunts and inquisitions and crusades are cultural conditions which can be fueled by whatever beliefs the citizenry hold, whether political, social, or religious in nature. Religion isn't evil, cultures are evil.

[Castle]

Quote by: Alive You also have to show a real connection between the religion and those acts.

Sure, but this isn't as hard as you make it out to be. The Spanish Inquisition occurred because of religion. Without religion, there would have been no Spanish Inquisition. Whatever you want to say about cultural evolution and such, and there I generally agree, some nasty things in history would not have occurred had there been no religion. Religion is directly responsible for those things.

[Alive]

Quote by: Castle Sure, but this isn't as hard as you make it out to be. The Spanish Inquisition occurred because of religion. Without religion, there would have been no Spanish Inquisition. Whatever you want to say about cultural evolution and such, and there I generally agree, some nasty things in history would not have occurred had there been no religion. Religion is directly responsible for those things.

If the dominant culture of the age was non-religious, but all other social structures were the same, the Spanish Inquisition would still have happened. Dissidents from the prevailing worldview would still have been persecuted, not for their religious beliefs, but for other aspects of their beliefs/behaviour which were considered deviant/heretical. Therefore, religion is in no way to blame.

Of course, I have no way of proving that the above paragraph is true; we cannot create a controlled experiment of two Spanish societies; the only difference being religion. But it seems to me, for the reasons I put in my last post, that it is likely the truth. For if Catholism today does not cause inquisitions, it must have been something else besides Catholicism that caused inquistions then, and whatever that cause was would have used something else besides Catholicism to do what it wanted to do.

[Castle]

Quote by: Alive If the dominant culture of the age was non-religious, but all other social structures were the same, the Spanish Inquisition would still have happened. Dissidents from the prevailing worldview would still have been persecuted, not for their religious beliefs, but for other aspects of their beliefs/behaviour which were considered deviant/heretical.

Perhaps it is so that people merely persecute those different from themselves, and such differences do not neccessarily have to be religious. I do not know. However, at the very least, it cannot be denied that religion does add to those differences, and thus increases the situations in which such persecution might occur.

Quote by: Alive For if Catholism today does not cause inquisitions, it must have been something else besides Catholicism that caused inquistions then, and whatever that cause was would have used something else besides Catholicism to do what it wanted to do.

Perhaps Catholicism contributed to the Inquisition, but in today's culture is not strong enough to singlehandedly create one. Or perhaps Catholicism has changed over the centuries.

[Alive]

Quote by: Castle Perhaps it is so that people merely persecute those different from themselves, and such differences do not neccessarily have to be religious. I do not know. However, at the very least, it cannot be denied that religion does add to those differences, and thus increases the situations in which such persecution might occur.

Only if increased difference truly causes increased persecution of difference. It does not seem to me that more different societies are automatically more prone to persecution; if society is different enough then it is not possible for one group to get powerful enough to persecute other groups. Muslim Spain, after all, never had an inquisition, though it was arguably even more diverse than Christian Spain. And many of the people killed by the Inquisiton were in fact Catholics. Perhaps if religion was less of a focus of difference, the Inquistion would have focused more on some other feature to make it up.

In any case, even if Catholicism contributed to whatever degree to the Inquisition, it seems to me there is a much more direct and sensible topic for discussion than Evils of Religion, if we want to fight against inquisitons: Evils of Inquisitions. Of course, that wouldn't be as controversial and perhaps not as interesting. But it would be more reasonable, and more useful.

Perhaps Catholicism contributed to the Inquisition, but in today's culture is not strong enough to singlehandedly create one. Or perhaps Catholicism has changed over the centuries.

I would argue that yes, Catholicism has changed over the centuries. But it has not been through internal theological discussion that it has changed, rather, it has changed with external society. In evil, Inquisitory cultures, Catholisim tends towards Inquisitions; in tolerant cultures, Catholicism tends towards tolerance. But Catholism itself causes neither inquisitions nor tolerance. Religion can be used by any group to justify anything, therefore it tends to be used by societies to justify things they already believe, and change itself accordingly. We have to focus on the root if we want to change behaviour, and religion is not the root.

[Castle]

Quote by: Alive Only if increased difference truly causes increased persecution of difference

It seems to me that, for instance, the difference between Islam and...everyone else is causing some fairly violent terroristic type actions

But I generally agree with your point that religion manifests the culture of its society. But it seems to me that you utterly ignore and dismiss the possibility that society might be created by religion, rather than the other way around.

[shunyadragon]

Quote by: Athena Religion is good for war and war is good religion. But this is not the only evil of religion. Without doubt religions are full of superstition and myths that are taking for literal facts and this leads to many evils. Christianity has to answer for: the witch hunts the Spanish inquisition the crusades the wars between Catholics and Protestants and persecuations of both the pursecution of Jews displacing Palestinians with Israel the devastation of Iraq which is spreading to other countries Christianity has to answer for: parents who beat the devil out of their children and other abuses committed by superstitious parents driven by fear instead of love. People living in fear of two supernatural beings, God and Satan. People who commit terrible acts believing they are possessed. Retarding science and delaying the fulfillment of our human potential. Devastating the earth and denying the correctness of Native American belief that we must care for our planet as it is a living organism. Delaying medical progress by denying the correctness of the Eastern understanding of the mind body connection. Time and again religion has stood against truth. It is also blocking our the understanding of morals and ethics resulting from education for good moral judgement and this is devastating to our democracy. People are not bad because they born into sin. They become bad, because they are ignorant or abused. I fight against religious superstition, because it condemns us to hell on earth, and prevents us from achieving heavn on earth. It may even lead to the destruction of all life on earth, and no magical being can rescue us from that.

Religion is only a word, actually comming from a word meaning unity and the universal. It actually has more than one meaning, but a common thread exists through the definitions. The proper use of the word simply means what one or more than one person believes, Religion may be organised, disorganised, unorganised, and denied. But all people have a religion since the first human walked on the earth. Living in denial will not change reality regardless of our foolish intensions.

Words may used as stones, build walls or vehicles for violence, and become the most dangerous weapon in the world.

This and the other rants against using a word 'religion' represents the darker side of human nature where fightin' words are used as scape-goats, to lynch and tar and feather others because of a word, religion, race, or other such nonsense. It represents an interesting irony, similar to many 'religions' that deny they are a religon, such as Jehovah Witnesses and many Christian Churches as if this gives some sort of illusionary justification that what they believe carries the stamp of truth, because it is not a religion, ah . . . maybe organized religion is a more acceptable belief that lends more credibility. The word 'non-religious' would more correctly refer to other disaplines like science and history, and not some vaguely sanitizes way to justify ones own religion as safely non-religious.

By the way not all, ah . . . organized religions, such as the Unitarians and the Baha'i Faith, would fit the denigrating negitive diatribe presented above, and what was deficated in a number of other posts.

[bishop]

it isn't religion that is the problem, it's the hordes of humanity who can't think for themselves and who need to be led through life by the nose.. i'm not exactly sure what a theist is, although i do believe there's something greater than ourselves (that i've decided to call god)..

the same fools who went along with the anti-reformation movement, the witchhunts, wahabiism, etc., were no different than the fools who went along with colonialism and fascism.

[Alive]

Quote by: Castle But I generally agree with your point that religion manifests the culture of its society. But it seems to me that you utterly ignore and dismiss the possibility that society might be created by religion, rather than the other way around.

I didn't utterly ignore it, I showed very good evidence contrary to it in my first post, which I have subsequently repeated every post since: If religion creates society, then a similar religion shold result in a similar society. But over 2000 years of Christianity, united at least by the Bible and some basic Christian beliefs, Christian societies have been almost as different from one another as any human society is different than any other human society. That suggests that religion does not create society.

[alexGERMAN]

Quote by: Athena Devastating the earth and denying the correctness of Native American belief that we must care for our planet as it is a living organism

The native american belief???

Explain please how this is a 'native american belief' and not simply just the belief of every naturalist. Trust me, if the native americans had somehow inveneted the industrial complex that the europeans had, they would not have strayed from using it. The native americans didnt even have the WHEEL (I laugh) let alone an industrial complex. Infact, the 2 reasons the natives did not like what the europeans were doing to the land was A: Their religion was based around nature, and obviously not about the survival of their species, and B: Because what the europeans or should I say 'evil white man' did to the land (mine, cut trees, run factories that gave of alto of polution)gave him the tools and capabillity to walk all over the native. Of course the natives had no problem trading their beaver skins for the finished goods of the evil white mans machines. But no end of complaining.

And there biggest complaint today, esspecially in canada is "we were here first"

Who gives a rats flying @$$. When Napolean took over coutnry after country, did the inhabitants cry out "Leave foul demon, we were here first!" or even when Hitler took over central Europe, the last thing people were complaining was 'we were here first'. To this day the majority of them havent got it through there heads that this is the modern world and they insist on carrying a culture that only holds them back from being succesful enough to get a job (between government checks) and dragging there race out of the mud. but instead they would rather we all gave up wha ter are doing and join them down in the mud, like back in the good old days before white man showed up.

[Castle]

Quote by: Alive I didn't utterly ignore it, I showed very good evidence contrary to it in my first post

You're absolutely correct; sorry about that.

Quote by: Alive If religion creates society, then a similar religion shold result in a similar society. But over 2000 years of Christianity, united at least by the Bible and some basic Christian beliefs, Christian societies have been almost as different from one another as any human society is different than any other human society. That suggests that religion does not create society.

To me, that suggests that, like societies, religions change over time. The impact of Christianity on a society today is not going to be the same over 2000 years because the effects of Christianity on a society have changed. Christianity itself has fundamentally changed.

[Athena]

Quote by: Alive To show that a religion, or religion as a whole, leads to evil, you must do more than show members of that religion or societies with that religion committing evil acts. You also have to show a real connection between the religion and those acts. And I just don't think this connection is as clear as all the people who blame religion try to make it out to be. The vast majority of societies in the world have comitted many evils, and the vast majority of societies in the world have had very strong connections to one religion or another. But do less religious societies tend to be less evil? Soviet Russia seems to serve as a good counterexample. Modern day free societies are both more secular and perhaps better than earlier theistic societies, but are they better because they are more secular, or are they better because we have advanced as a culture and therefore become both more tolerant of religious dissent/secularism and more ethical in general? It's interesting to note that, while Christianity was used to justify the Spanish Inquisition, American Catholics today seem like pretty benign, normal members of society. If it was Christianity that caused the Spanish Inquisition, why doesn't it cause similar things today in America? And it's interesting to note that all the witch hunts of modern time have been political. Japenese internment, McCarthy, the unpatriotic; hmm, seems that the witch hunt model doesn't require religion at all! So what do we have: 1. The same religion which is supposed to have caused evil in the past causes no similar evil today 2. Those same evils which the religion is supposed to have caused, continue in secular society, but with a non-religious basis! Suggesting that religion has nothing to do with it! That witch hunts and inquisitions and crusades are cultural conditions which can be fueled by whatever beliefs the citizenry hold, whether political, social, or religious in nature. Religion isn't evil, cultures are evil.

Bravo, excellent argument!

How about a lie is evil. Is there agreement?

I could be wrong, but I think it is a lie that there is a God who has favorite people, and who rules by whim, breaking the laws of nature to punish or reward people as he sees fit. I do not believe there is a supernatural being of evil and demons, and do believe promoting a belief that leads to Satan worshiping or witch hunts is evil.

True we can create modern day witches and do repeat the errors of the witch hunts, without a religious bases for doing so. This does not change my opinion of a belief system the leads to superstition, and killing of innocent people.

Kuldeep is correct in saying most the errors are human. One could argue there was a good reason for not giving the commoners a copy of the bible. For sure science has reduced the superstition. For sure abundance and our lives of ease have made us comparitively better human beings. That is compared to those who live in harsh climates and lack schools and other benefits of the modern world, and still use harsh punishments, such as cutting off someone's hand for stealing, or beating the devil out of children.

Perhaps it is not the fault of religion that religious people think they are created separate for the rest of the animals, and living in sin is the result of what Eve ate. However, I think a lot of evil has come out of believing something that is not based on scientific thinking. I don't like what superstition does to our criminal or social justice systems. God rewards or punishes, but neither is teaching a person how to be better. Thousands of years of rotten child rearing, based on religious superstition is sad. We carry this same mentality with criminal justice. Knowing most sexual abusers were victims, we punish the victims. What sense does that make? How does this thinking make a society good? Is the God of Abraham really a good example for us to follow?

Is it good to be jealous, revengeful, punishing and fearsome? Sounds like the qualities of an abusive husband to me. How many biblical heros resolved problems with violence? How many biblical heros resolved problems non violently? How about only Jews can not be slaves, but they can own slaves?
How about the sexism of bible? Perhaps I need to be more detailed. Maybe I should slow down and do one biblical verse at a time? But I am in kind of rush to stop the warring that is based in religion.

[Athena]

Quote by: alexGERMAN The native american belief??? Explain please how this is a 'native american belief' and not simply just the belief of every naturalist. Trust me, if the native americans had somehow inveneted the industrial complex that the europeans had, they would not have strayed from using it. The native americans didnt even have the WHEEL (I laugh) let alone an industrial complex. Infact, the 2 reasons the natives did not like what the europeans were doing to the land was A: Their religion was based around nature, and obviously not about the survival of their species, and B: Because what the europeans or should I say 'evil white man' did to the land (mine, cut trees, run factories that gave of alto of polution)gave him the tools and capabillity to walk all over the native. Of course the natives had no problem trading their beaver skins for the finished goods of the evil white mans machines. But no end of complaining. And there biggest complaint today, esspecially in canada is "we were here first" Who gives a rats flying @$$. When Napolean took over coutnry after country, did the inhabitants cry out "Leave foul demon, we were here first!" or even when Hitler took over central Europe, the last thing people were complaining was 'we were here first'. To this day the majority of them havent got it through there heads that this is the modern world and they insist on carrying a culture that only holds them back from being succesful enough to get a job (between government checks) and dragging there race out of the mud. but instead they would rather we all gave up wha ter are doing and join them down in the mud, like back in the good old days before white man showed up.

Well 200 years is not a long success. Perhaps we should hold our judgement for another 200 years. I think a few problems are about to become very evident. Right now a big concern is we are killing the wealth of fish life in the ocean. In some places an even more urgent concern is the loss of water. Then there is the global warming concern. That we are looking at our planet scientifically now with the acceptence of the native America idea that the planet is one living organism, and may prevent some serious problems. Let's give things another 200 years and then talk about how smart we were when the majority thought God made our lives good and can save us from ourselves if we please him. I will stand on, it wasn't a good belief system.

[alexGERMAN]

lol, yeah, true enough, we are building our own coffin

[Alive]

Quote by: Castle To me, that suggests that, like societies, religions change over time. The impact of Christianity on a society today is not going to be the same over 2000 years because the effects of Christianity on a society have changed. Christianity itself has fundamentally changed.

Why has Christianity changed though? Is it something internally inside Christianity that has changed on its own, or has Christianity been forced to change by society?

One could perhaps argue that the Protestant reformation was a conflict within Christianity. After all, there are real, explicit, and major religious differences between Protestantism and Catholicism. It should be noted that other "Protestant" movements erupted before one caught on, but it wasn't until the outside social conditions were right that it was able to form as a serious opposition to Catholicism.

Once you get to Protestantism though...with the emphasis on literal interpretation of the Bible...why should there be so many changes within the Protestant movement? How can one book spark so many different interpretations unless there is some outside impetus?

What do you think usually inspires a change in a religion? A theological epiphany by an individual? Or some change in the outside? I think both are possible, but the epiphanies will only inspire real change if the social conditions are right, and the religious changes inspired by social changes do not require any epiphany. Take the gradual liberalization of views on homosexuality in the liberal churces; there is no huge change in the religion taking place, there has been no epiphanies, just a realization by the liberal churches that they do not want to reflect what is today seen as bigotry. It seems to me that this change in religion is clearly inspired by the change in society and not the other way around, especially because the gay civil rights movement preceded the gay religious rights movement. Same thing happened a while ago in regards to womens rights.

[Castle]

Quote by: Alive Why has Christianity changed though? Is it something internally inside Christianity that has changed on its own, or has Christianity been forced to change by society?

Internally, most notably, as you point out, by the Protestant revolution.

Quote by: Alive One could perhaps argue that the Protestant reformation was a conflict within Christianity. After all, there are real, explicit, and major religious differences between Protestantism and Catholicism. It should be noted that other "Protestant" movements erupted before one caught on, but it wasn't until the outside social conditions were right that it was able to form as a serious opposition to Catholicism.

I've never heard of these other movements; could you elaborate (or give me a link, or something)?

And also, the fact that outside social conditions were necessary for change in no way negates that change actually occurred.

Quote by: Alive Once you get to Protestantism though...with the emphasis on literal interpretation of the Bible...why should there be so many changes within the Protestant movement? How can one book spark so many different interpretations unless there is some outside impetus?

Why? Because for the first time, the Bible was really accessible to everyone. Everyone could read it, and everyone could interpret it differently. Those with too many differences started a new sect.

Quote by: Alive What do you think usually inspires a change in a religion? A theological epiphany by an individual? Or some change in the outside?

Both. Religions reflect society, yes, but they are more than simply a mirror for society as you wish to suggest.

Quote by: Alive Take the gradual liberalization of views on homosexuality in the liberal churces; there is no huge change in the religion taking place, there has been no epiphanies, just a realization by the liberal churches that they do not want to reflect what is today seen as bigotry.

Fine, but what happens if this liberal church moves to another area (this is hypothetical, so bear with me and my lack of specifics) that hates homosexuals? Isn't it possible that the presence of the church will start to change things.

[Athena]

Quote by: Alive Why has Christianity changed though? Is it something internally inside Christianity that has changed on its own, or has Christianity been forced to change by society? One could perhaps argue that the Protestant reformation was a conflict within Christianity. After all, there are real, explicit, and major religious differences between Protestantism and Catholicism. It should be noted that other "Protestant" movements erupted before one caught on, but it wasn't until the outside social conditions were right that it was able to form as a serious opposition to Catholicism. Once you get to Protestantism though...with the emphasis on literal interpretation of the Bible...why should there be so many changes within the Protestant movement? How can one book spark so many different interpretations unless there is some outside impetus? What do you think usually inspires a change in a religion? A theological epiphany by an individual? Or some change in the outside? I think both are possible, but the epiphanies will only inspire real change if the social conditions are right, and the religious changes inspired by social changes do not require any epiphany. Take the gradual liberalization of views on homosexuality in the liberal churces; there is no huge change in the religion taking place, there has been no epiphanies, just a realization by the liberal churches that they do not want to reflect what is today seen as bigotry. It seems to me that this change in religion is clearly inspired by the change in society and not the other way around, especially because the gay civil rights movement preceded the gay religious rights movement. Same thing happened a while ago in regards to womens rights.

I like your questions.

It would be great to talk about why Christians broke from Judaism, and why the Arabs followed Mohammed who barrowed from both Judaism and Christianity.

The frist split with the Catholic chruch would be

The Orthodox Church and Roman Catholic Church separated in 1054 AD over issues that included the Pope being the Supreme authority in the church and the addition to the creed of the “Filioque” clause. Eastern Orthodox Church - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It was the 1500 before the Protestant Reformation Movement caught fire. The Holy Roman Empire was the territory ruled by German kings from 962 to 1806. Obviously the power shifted back to Rome and the Germans led the break from the Catholic chruch based in Rome.

Once the Protestant break was achieved, the religion broke into several denomiations. Calivinism is very important to the evolution of Christianity especially in the US where capitalism really came into its own.

Newton had a powerful impact on Christianity, because his science meant the universe is ordered. Now this is paradoxical, because the God of Abraham is not controlled by universal laws, but like Bush, can do what He wants, when He wants. See the conflict between this God who rules by whim, depending on if he is pleased or not, and an a mechanical, ordered universe?

We also shifted from a God who is as a wise king, to an autocrat God. The autocrat God is powerful, like Bush. The autocratic God is more punishing and less forgiving.

I am saying cultures and circumstances influence our perception of reality and interpretation of the bible. A lot depends on if the young are taught by the Conceptual Method for abstract thinking and indpendent moral judgement, or they are taught to memorize and rely on authority, as is so for education for technology. Those educated for technology, focus on technological correctness and reliance on authority, and Hail Hitler. Sorry, I get bored saying the same thing, and the discussion never progressing, but being the same discussion everyone was having months ago. The point is a lot depends on how we train our young to think, not just what we teach them to think. I think the literal interpretation of the bible and superstitious belief or God and Satan leads to serious evil, and we have been educating for that since 1958, just as Germany did. Now we have Evangelist who backed our war President into a very bad war, because they are in a hurry for Armageddon, which is such an extreme, atheist are becoming very vocal in opposition.

Around the world today, polar opposits are pushing each other to extremes. We are lacking in the qualities that reduce conflict.