What do religious people positively contribute to the world that non-religious people can't?

[ppp]

True, but these people don't really believe in the Hereafter (even though they may present themselves as religious); otherwise they wouldn't support injustice.

What you are basically saying is that only people who agree with your personal beliefs are actually cable of believing in an afterlife. Everyone else is being dishonest. That is a narrow an self-centered view.

The fact is that your personal beliefs about an afterlife are just one version of a great, great many..

That being said, while we can battle this or that suffering (and indeed, when we can, we must), we can never vanquish suffering as such. Religions can help us have a more realistic approach to the world, and to 'lower our expectations', so to speak.

Religions retard progress on every front - education, social equity, medicine, the courts, etc.

 

[ppp]

Not 'our group' but a faith. Why the affront?

"A faith" is a group. Susan is of the [Dianic/Catholic/Baptist/Jain/Sunni/Greek] faith. All different groups. Why the subterfuge?

I didn't say that an atheist couldn't achieve amazing things. But rather, if you believe there is a God, you can break through barriers that otherwise would be impossible.

Empty words. That is certainly something that you claim. Fervently. But nothing you can demonstrate to be true.

 

[Ponder This]

This question is for anyone who is seriously concerned with making the world a better place, even through the most humble of acts of service in one's family or community. What religious folk positively contribute that a non-religious folk don't?

I see the answer as "nothing" because any non-religious person can become religious and thus contribute.
Perhaps, it can be said that non-religious people fail to contribute to religion itself (which appears to be vital to a society) until they become religious.
Why is religion vital to society? Because it provides a sort of essential glue that binds the disparate members of a society together into a cohesive group around higher values.
The word religion comes from religio meaning "obligation, bond, reverence", which comes from the religare meaning "to bind". In it's very essence, religion is about honoring obligation.

 

[Dawnofhope]

One of the things which keep people going, is hope. Not just any hope though, is most important, but hope with real meaning and purpose.
Many people don't find much meaning and purpose in their pursuits to a happier life or better world, but their whole outlook on life changes immensely at the prospect of a better world - a world where injustice, wickedness, sickness, suffering and death, will be a thing of the past, and living forever in peace in a paradise home will be their future.

This is one thing I see, religious people positively contribute to the world that non-religious people can't.

I agree that religious people can promote a vision of life that is hopeful and meaningful based on an understanding of a God who Reveals Himself and make His purpose known. They can promote such a vision the word and deed, both individually and through their communities Atheists and agnostics can't promote such view, not to the same extent. I believe they can promote a worldview that is hopeful and meaningful without any references to God. I would see all atheists and agnostics as nihilistic and hopeless. I also believe non-religious people can live moral as well as meaningful lives where they contribute to the community. However the foundation of those morals is quite different from Judaism, Christianity or Islam. Whether or not their contribution to the betterment of the world is greater or less or different is the focus of this thread.

 

[Dawnofhope]

I think maybe the question is too broad. A religious and non-religious person could have beliefs that range from anything to anything. So then I guess it's kind of like asking how the actions of people in blue shirts compare to those in red shirts

As said to another, its a challenge to come up with the perfect phrasing to explore an important topic. Your views are duly noted. Cheers.

 

[Dawnofhope]

I was thinking in terms of 'bettering the world'. Just because a person tells you he is, or thinks he is, doesn't necessarily mean he is. In the case of religious conversion, for example, the converter may well believe strongly that he's 'bettering the world'. But is he?

It's all ego really. The best any of us can do is try our best to make each day count. The world is full of narcissists and the like who exaggerate their own importance.

 

[Kenny]

Religions retard progress on every front - education, social equity, medicine, the courts, etc.

You would have a very hard time to substantiate that.

The United States has been, in the past, a very religious nation and yet has been on the forefront of progress on every sphere.

 

[Kenny]

QUOTE="Joe W, post: 6879290, member: 69459"]That's just one of those stories that people tell about their religion or political party or ethnicity.Something about your group is so very special that it imparted special powers do its members.[/QUOTE]


QUOTE="Joe W, post: 6880654, member: 69459"]"A faith" is a group. Susan is of the [Dianic/Catholic/Baptist/Jain/Sunni/Greek] faith. All different groups. Why the subterfuge?[/QUOTE]

OK... I thought you meant mine specifically although both Catholic and Baptist are Christian as well as Greek Orthodox.

But who said "about your group is so very special that it imparted special powers do its members"? All I said was, when one has a faith, it can break one's limitation. They don't have imparted "special powers"... just that He empowers.

 

[ppp]

The United States has been, in the past, a very religious nation and yet has been on the forefront of progress on every sphere.

That is like giving credit to Lou Gehrig's Disease for Hawking's accomplishments. Sorry, @KenS. The progress that the US has accomplished has been despite religion far more often than because of it. Religions vehemently oppose movements such as abolition, suffrage, civil rights, gray rights and trans rights until well after the population has been swayed away from extant religious doctrine, and t the religious institution is in danger of losing relevance and income. At which point, those religious institutions find an excuse to change their tune. A generation later, those same institution start trying to claim credit for the social progress that they opposed.

 

[chinu]

I see you have had a fair amount of criticism for this post. I too completely disagree with such a narrow definition of religion. I flatted with a couple of young people involved with the Tibetan Buddhist community many years ago. They would both spend many hours in meditation. As well as being poor flat mates that failed to collectively contribute to the running of the flat, they were a couple of the most unattractively self-absorbed people I’d ever met. So maybe their practice of religion felt good to themselves but they patently had no interest in others or the community as you describe.

Rivers enjoy very much falling into sea.
But, have you ever heard of — sea falling into any river ?

 

[ppp]

But who said "about your group is so very special that it imparted special powers do its members"? All I said was, when one has a faith, it can break one's limitation. They don't have imparted "special powers"... just that He empowers.

To "empower" literally means to impart with the power to accomplish a action or task. And to be empowered to do something that one cold not do normally means that the power is "special".

You: Makes a claim
Me: Points out that your claim is either false or undemonstrable.
You: You say that I misunderstood you, then make the same bad claim using synonyms for the works that you used before.

I didn't say that an atheist couldn't achieve amazing things. But rather, if you believe there is a God, you can break through barriers that otherwise would be impossible.

In order for that to be credible true, you would have to be able to demonstrate a measurable and tangible goal that is only achievable by a believer in some god.

 

[Ponder This]

I agree that religious people can promote a vision of life that is hopeful and meaningful based on an understanding of a God who Reveals Himself and make His purpose known. They can promote such a vision the word and deed, both individually and through their communities Atheists and agnostics can't promote such view, not to the same extent. I believe they can promote a worldview that is hopeful and meaningful without any references to God. I would see all atheists and agnostics as nihilistic and hopeless. I also believe non-religious people can live moral as well as meaningful lives where they contribute to the community. However the foundation of those morals is quite different from Judaism, Christianity or Islam. Whether or not their contribution to the betterment of the world is greater or less or different is the focus of this thread.

I would say that Buddhism has within it the concept of one's obligation or duty as well. It is the religious one who fulfills this obligation and the non-religious one who does not fulfill it.

Focusing on what theists do that atheists don't do, it comes down to one's obligation in regards to the Supreme.
When you say "betterment of the world", you'll have to say more explicitly what you mean. The meaning of "world" can refer to the "material world". You will have to say if you include the spiritual in your concept of the "world" and it's betterment. And if you include the spiritual, then what doesn't the atheist contribute to the spiritual well-being of the world?

And to answer that we have to unravel what you mean by "greater or less". If God is "the greatest", it seems that their failure to acknowledge the greatest lessens their contribution to society directly. Is it not better to aspire to the greatest and the best than to... not?

 

[Kenny]

That is like giving credit to Lou Gehrig's Disease for Hawking's accomplishments. Sorry, @KenS. The progress that the US has accomplished has been despite religion far more often than because of it. Religions vehemently oppose movements such as abolition, suffrage, civil rights, gray rights and trans rights until well after the population has been swayed away from extant religious doctrine, and t the religious institution is in danger of losing relevance and income. At which point, those religious institutions find an excuse to change their tune. A generation later, those same institution start trying to claim credit for the social progress that they opposed.

I'm sorry...you must be viewing the history revisionists.

It was Christians who were also at the forefront of abolition, suffrage and civil rights.... it certainly wasn't secularism in as much as there pretty much none in those days.

 

[Kenny]

To "empower" literally means to impart with the power to accomplish a action or task. And to be empowered to do something that one cold not do normally means that the power is "special".

You: Makes a claim
Me: Points out that your claim is either false or undemonstrable.
You: You say that I misunderstood you, then make the same bad claim using synonyms for the works that you used before.


In order for that to be credible true, you would have to be able to demonstrate a measurable and tangible goal that is only achievable by a believer in some god.

You have offered a viewpoint.

You haven't supported your claims that I am wrong and history doesn't support your position.

If thee is a God, why would we deny His ability to make a difference? Certainly there are billions who disagree with your position.

 

[nPeace]

I agree that religious people can promote a vision of life that is hopeful and meaningful based on an understanding of a God who Reveals Himself and make His purpose known. They can promote such a vision the word and deed, both individually and through their communities Atheists and agnostics can't promote such view, not to the same extent. I believe they can promote a worldview that is hopeful and meaningful without any references to God. I would see all atheists and agnostics as nihilistic and hopeless. I also believe non-religious people can live moral as well as meaningful lives where they contribute to the community. However the foundation of those morals is quite different from Judaism, Christianity or Islam. Whether or not their contribution to the betterment of the world is greater or less or different is the focus of this thread.

I think focusing on "the betterment of the world" is to create in one's mind, an illusion. Why?

The only way the world will become better, is when little girls and boys can go to sleep with a smile on their face, knowing that some sick minded person is not going to be touching them in intimate places, or worst - putting other things there.
Or our child can play in the park without us having to worry that we will turn our back for a moment, and turn around and not see them.

The only way the world will become better, is when women can feel save in their homes, not worrying that some perv is recording them, stalking them, harassing them, or violating them.

The only way the world will become better, is when a family man does not have to worry about if his wife is home taking care of the family's interest rather than in bed with someone else.... whom he would like to find, so he can take at axe to their head.

The only way the world will become better, is when everyone has a place to call home, because the fat greedy "hedgehog" hasn't despised them for their own selfish greed.

The only way the world will become better, is when people don't feel isolated, because people have a warped view of what a human is.

Oh dear. I'm exhausted.
I'd better stop Adrian, before I exhaust you.
You might think the world will become better when all the pessimistic people like nPeace die.

Many people, while optimistic that the hearts of all men will become childlike, maintain this optimism, not based on any data showing that an imminent reality, but simply because they hope for what is the core of our very existence.

Why then is it so elusive, and seeming more elusive than ever in the past?
The answer is not one you agree with. However, Revelation 12:7-12

Changing hearts however, is not up to human endeavors.
If that were so, the prophets would not have been killed. Jesus would not have been executed. Peter, James, and Paul would have died differently. Six million Jews would not have died in the 1940s. etc.

Changing hearts involves much more... but will all hearts be changed?
Not according to scripture - 2 Peter 2.

 

[ppp]

I'm sorry...you must be viewing the history revisionists.

It was Christians who were also at the forefront of abolition, suffrage and civil rights.... it certainly wasn't secularism in as much as there pretty much none in those days.

I am sorry, but you are just parroting the easy and self-congratulatory sound-bites that you have heard over the years. Christians were at the forefront of the opposition to abolition, suffrage and civil rights for almost 2000 years. It wasn't until the late 1700's that abolition began to be a significant movement. And that was only after the Industrial Revolution began to make slavery unprofitable and abolition politically convenient.

Women's suffrage in the US was almost completely opposed by the Christian churches in the mid 1800's. With some rare exceptions from fringe Episcopalian churches in Kansas, and iirc, several churches in Wyoming. Just as with gay rights, the greater body of Christian institutions did not start to make any moral progress until their moral turpitude started to cost them believers among the younger generations. Then, and only then, did we start to see any support from Christianity. I expect that, just as with Suffrage, in a generation or so, that the Churches will also start to claim that they were the moral force behind Gay rights, as well.

You don't know your own history. Pfui.

Now if you want to argue that there were Christian individuals and small groups that have held these positions for longer than most of the rest of Christians and Christian institutions -- I totally agree. But you don't get to pretend that that "most of the rest of Christians and Christian institutions" did not and do not exist.

 

[ppp]

You haven't supported your claims that I am wrong and history doesn't support your position.

You made a claim that believers had special powers and were able to do things that atheists cannot. Now you are trying to pretend that we have to assume that you are correct by default. No, @KenS You made the clam. You demonstrate that you are not just talking out of your butt.

 

[Kenny]

I am sorry, but you are just parroting the easy and self-congratulatory sound-bites that you have heard over the years. Christians were at the forefront of the opposition to abolition, suffrage and civil rights for almost 2000 years. It wasn't until the late 1700's that abolition began to be a significant movement. And that was only after the Industrial Revolution began to make slavery unprofitable and abolition politically convenient.

Hmmm..... you might want to update your viewpoint. Were there Christians who believed in slavery? Absolutely... who eliminated slavery? Christian.

Women's suffrage in the US was almost completely opposed by the Christian churches in the mid 1800's. With some rare exceptions from fringe Episcopalian churches in Kansas, and iirc, several churches in Wyoming. Just as with gay rights, the greater body of Christian institutions did not start to make any moral progress until their moral turpitude started to cost them believers among the younger generations. Then, and only then, did we start to see any support from Christianity. I expect that, just as with Suffrage, in a generation or so, that the Churches will also start to claim that they were the moral force behind Gay rights, as well.

Women's suffrage was opposed, basically, by everyone worldwide.

Who was at the fore-front of suffrage?

Susan B. Anthony (born Susan Anthony; February 15, 1820 – March 13, 1906) was an American social reformer and women's rights activist who played a pivotal role in the women's suffrage movement. Born into a Quaker family committed to social equality, she collected anti-slavery petitions at the age of 17. In 1856, she became the New York state agent for the American Anti-Slavery Society.

A Christian


And -
Frances_Harper\

Harper founded, supported, and held high office in several national progressive organizations. In 1883 she became superintendent of the Colored Section of the Philadelphia and Pennsylvania Women's Christian Temperance Union.

A christian

 

[Kenny]

You made a claim that believers had special powers and were able to do things that atheists cannot. Now you are trying to pretend that we have to assume that you are correct by default. No, @KenS You made the clam. You demonstrate that you are not just talking out of your butt.

Your viewpoint is based on that there is no God. If there is a God, obviously there is an impact that is beyond mankind.

So, what is your point?

 

[ppp]

Hmmm..... you might want to update your viewpoint. Were there Christians who believed in slavery? Absolutely... who eliminated slavery? Christian.

You don't get to assign the Christians credit for the 155 years of abolition without also assigning them blame for their 1,800 years of gleefully practicing slavery.

BTW, the Persian empire was actually the first to abolish slavery. IIRC that last about 250 years before they reverted. Of the 244 years that the US has been a country, we have only had abolition for 155.

Women's suffrage was opposed, basically, by everyone worldwide.

First, that is false. Second, everybody else was doing it is not an excuse.

Susan B. Anthony

Frances_Harper\

Again, you don't get to cite the minority of Christians who supported and pretend that the majority of people who stood in opposition were not Christians. They were. The vast majority of people who stood in opposition to suffrage were Christians and Christian institutions. That is never going to stop being true.