Is Religion doing more harm than good?

[Riverwolf]

that's the point though isn't it? religion should not exist because there is no proof.

Not a very good argument. That's like saying stories shouldn't exist because they're not real.

and i understand that belief without evidence happens a lot, i agree, but that's not what i'm arguing, I'm saying that if someone believes something without being able to prove it, then they are allowing them selves to be mislead and when it comes to religion the reasons that they usually do this is to make them selves feel better about what they can't possibly comprehend anyways.

I'm a theist who prays to Lord Ganesha. Why do the prayers work? Because of the placebo effect.

It doesn't really matter who or what I pray to. But I don't intend to stay like this forever. It's the phase I'm in right now. For now, Lord Ganesha is my teacher. Like any earthly teacher, I will eventually leave him and move on to his father, Lord Shiva.

It is through such practice, as well as study, that I wish to learn who I am, and experience the complete oneness of all things. Not to mention I want to eventually break away from attachment. (Though that can be achieved through the Eightfold Path.)

 

[Quagmire]

that's the point though isn't it? religion should not exist because there is no proof.

Religion exists because there is no proof. If there were proof, religion would be unnecessary.

and i understand that belief without evidence happens a lot, i agree, but that's not what i'm arguing, I'm saying that if someone believes something without being able to prove it, then they are allowing them selves to be mislead

Not true at all. If you were walking in the woods and saw a squirrel with two tails, you wouldn't be able to prove it unless you caught it and had it to show other people.

Does that mean you should stop believing you saw what you saw? If you continue to believe you saw what you saw, are you being mislead?

and when it comes to religion the reasons that they usually do this is to make them selves feel better about what they can't possibly comprehend anyways.

People have all kinds of reasons for believing what they do.

 

[Riverwolf]

Oh, and Pure-Truth, if you seriously want to be taken seriously, please spend some quality time with this:

Strunk, William, Jr. 1918. The Elements of Style

 

[Humanistheart]

I love facts so,
Based on the following thread which BTW involves many Posters who advocate to many different religions, what can be said about religion?

Sample of religious Posters

Yeah not so pretty, when we consider this is an extremely small sample at this point in time, please note I make reference to that threads Posts posted before this Threads creation .. As any Posts there after the creation of this thread may be suspect to a response by this Threads revelations, which I can say is good for you in respects to reasoning capacity if such an endeavour is acted upon..

Moving on,
Granted some attributes referred to by Religions are with a Positive, but after we consider the Negative, is all that - "that is fictitious being treated as fact" doing any good or not?

I highly recommend one reads that last statement with due care, as much the same results as the above mentioned thread may be repeated here..

Maybe a CAREFUL revise to ones reasoning is in order? yes?

Now let us move on to a partial reason for this thread.. **NOTE** "Take due care here"

This thread is an attempt to point out various levels of reasoning capacity, it's the third stage based upon previous threads created by me, oh if you are interested here are those other threads..

Thread
Thread
and the above thread
Thread

And now with the following statement/s by Posters who with knowing it, will provided Information that well, rather than I spell it out and ruin the evidence - lets move on to more evidence supporting why religions are so negative rather than Positive..

Oh and please, PLEASE!, lets all be civil to each other..:sad:
To those of you who are clear on what has - in the above threads transpired, I request you keep your higher reasoning to your self and if I may call upon your input.

For those who don't have a Clue, be rest assured this thread means no malice, also I would like to repeat, if I have offended you, please consider my delema in that sometimes we need to take action that we normally don't care to..
Almost over looked the apology to those that has them reasoning this thread oozes with pure dibble, to which may I bid you 2~Duh~Loo!

Cheers to all others,

Pete..

I think the category is too broad to give a serious answer to. If you asked if, for example, the abrahamic religions were doing more harm than good it would be an easy yes. Still, the top 25 healthy countries are all one which have more organic athiesm in them. It would seem that the further one gets from religion the better life becomes, so I guess the answer really is Yes, yes religion is doing more harm than good.

 

[Humanistheart]

Religion exists because there is no proof. If there were proof, religion would be unnecessary..

Proof concerning what?

 

[Quagmire]

Proof concerning what?

Since we seem to be focusing on the religions that recognize an anthropomorphic God, that.

Of course you could extend that to any religion that believes in an afterlife, or basically anything "supernatural".

 

[Riverwolf]

I think the category is too broad to give a serious answer to. If you asked if, for example, the abrahamic religions were doing more harm than good it would be an easy yes. Still, the top 25 healthy countries are all one which have more organic athiesm in them. It would seem that the further one gets from religion the better life becomes, so I guess the answer really is Yes, yes religion is doing more harm than good.

Better how, exactly?

 

[Humanistheart]

Better how, exactly?

Higher rates of literacy, more proficient education programs, better health care, more gender equality, lower rates of homicide, etc etc.

http://www.pitzer.edu/academics/faculty/zuckerman/Ath-Chap-under-7000.pdf

 

[Humanistheart]

Since we seem to be focusing on the religions that recognize an anthropomorphic God, that.

Of course you could extend that to any religion that believes in an afterlife, or basically anything "supernatural".

I didn't see anything in this thread that suggested it was focusing on the anthropomorphic god concepts, but I only skimmed page 2. Which religions were you refurring to?

 

[Quagmire]

I didn't see anything in this thread that suggested it was focusing on the anthropomorphic god concepts but I only skimmed page 2. Which religions were you refurring to?

I may have been assuming too much, but it would follow that if we're discussing religions based on concepts that can't be proven, deity and some concept of an afterlife would almost be a given.

 

[mr.guy]

I didn't see anything in this thread that suggested it was focusing on the anthropomorphic god concepts, but I only skimmed page 2. Which religions were you refurring to?

Well, you could have a gander at the OP. No tits, though.

 

[Riverwolf]

Higher rates of literacy, more proficient education programs, better health care, more gender equality, lower rates of homicide, etc etc.

http://www.pitzer.edu/academics/faculty/zuckerman/Ath-Chap-under-7000.pdf

:biglaugh:

Have you SEEN the education system around here? It SUCKS!!! Facts are shoved down kids' throats with no concern for their ability to think critically. Not to mention, budget cuts go straight for the arts, which is my trade of choice. As for literacy, sure it's higher if that simply means more people CAN read, but that doesn't mean much, when you consider how popular junk like (though I am thinking of a very specific book that is very popular, I shall not name it for fear of fanboy/fangirl repercussion *SPARKLY*) is. As for gender equality, come back when young girls aren't encouraged to be sex-objects.

Better health care and homicide rates are really the only ones that are sort of better.

As for that link, why would I listen to biased propaganda?

 

[Humanistheart]

:biglaugh:

Have you SEEN the education system around here? It SUCKS!!! Facts are shoved down kids' throats with no concern for their ability to think critically. Not to mention, budget cuts go straight for the arts, which is my trade of choice. As for literacy, sure it's higher if that simply means more people CAN read, but that doesn't mean much, when you consider how popular junk like (though I am thinking of a very specific book that is very popular, I shall not name it for fear of fanboy/fangirl repercussion SPARKLY!) As for gender equality, come back when young girls aren't encouraged to be sex-objects.

Better health care and homicide rates are really the only ones that are sort of better.

As for that link, why would I listen to biased propaganda?

First of all you should clarify what you mean by 'around here'. I'm from the US so without further clarification I assume that's what you mean (and you're own location was merely listed as 'earth' which a rather obvious statement). And you are correct, we have horrible levels of violence, hommicide, bigotry, etc. And the US is one of the most highly religious countries in the world. Which proves my point, you know, the one you completely missed. Did you even read my post, or the article listed? I'm guessing not if you made the mistake of thinking the US isn't a religious country.

And that 'propaganda' has a very long list of resources and cited studies. In other words, you have nothing to defend your position so your going to make a bunch of wild assertions with nothing to back them up. I have fact, you have opinion. Unless your religious, the facts are going to carry more weight. Get back to me when you have something valid to back up your claims. Why would I listen to some unfounded opinions you can't back up with anything? Particularly when I have have actual fact behind me?

 

[Humanistheart]

I may have been assuming too much, but it would follow that if we're discussing religions based on concepts that can't be proven, deity and some concept of an afterlife would almost be a given.

Well, you asserted that because there is no proof we have religion. What did you mean by this?

 

[Humanistheart]

Well, you could have a gander at the OP. No tits, though.

What?

 

[Riverwolf]

First of all you should clarify what you mean by 'around here'. I'm from the US so without further clarification I assume that's what you mean (and you're own locations was merely listed as 'earth' which a rather obvious statement).

Yes, I did mean the U.S., but the reason my location is listed as "Earth" is because of my own refusal to acknowledge political boundaries beyond what I need to.

And you are correct, we have horrible levels of violence, hommicide, bigotry, etc. And the US is one of the most highly religious countries in the world. Which proves my point, you know, the one you completely missed. Did you even read my post, or the article listed? I'm guessing not if you made the mistake of thinking the US isn't a religious country.

No I did not read it. I said as much. lol

And that 'propaganda' has a very long list of resources and cited studies. In other words, you have nothing to defend your position so your going to make a bunch of wild assertions with nothing to back them up. I have fact, you have opinion. Unless your religious, the facts are going to carry more weight. Get back to me when you have something valid to back up your claims. Why would I listen to some unfounded opinions you can't back up with anything? Particularly when I have have actual fact behind me?

grr....

I'll get you next time, Gadget. Next time...
:bkcat:

 

[Morse]

What?

He was referring to what many people call the OP (Original Post), yes, the very first one in this thread. If you would scroll up to page one then you can see there is indeed a first post in this thread posted by Pure-Truth.

The tits part was referring to the fact (Pure-Truth loves them so) that everything posted by Pure-Truth is absolute trash, and having lupus would be far more preferable than reading another one of his poorly composed threads.

Regards and Best Wishes,
Morse

 

[Humanistheart]

He was referring to what many people call the OP (Original Post), yes, the very first one in this thread. If you would scroll up to page one then you can see there is indeed a first post in this thread posted by Pure-Truth.

The tits part was referring to the fact (Pure-Truth loves them so) that everything posted by Pure-Truth is absolute trash, and having lupus would be far more preferable than reading another one of his poorly composed threads.

Regards and Best Wishes,
Morse

I knew what he meant by OP, but thanks for the explanation just the same, for all you knew I had no idea. But yeah, it was how the 'tits' fit into it that I couldn't figure out, lol. I didn't know if he meant it in the english sence, like no dummies, or the ones found on a woman's chest, lol.

 

[blackout]

I knew what he meant by OP, but thanks for the explanation just the same, for all you knew I had no idea. But yeah, it was how the 'tits' fit into it that I couldn't figure out, lol. I thought maybe he meant it in the english sence, like no dummies.

And I thought maybe the thread was finally gunna get interesting.:flirt:

No such luck.

 

[Morse]

And I thought maybe the thread was finally gunna get interesting.:flirt:

No such luck.

Don't worry UV, I'm still here


Oh, and I forgot to Multi-Quote, but the second half is towards HumanistHeart.

Sorry I had to drop to elementary school level, but I menshuned Pure-Truth in my post. Ottomatickly hampres smartness. Bussare isnt it?