Spectator N0 2651 By Fieldfare
Crosswords1 min ago
Religion, has it been a benefit?
158 Answers
Has religion been an overall to benefit to mankind or would we have been better off without it.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Father-Ted. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
We may be unique in personality but we are part of a community for the benefit of mankind. We learn from each other to enhance our uniqueness.
If there was no religion would jews still meet a bitter end ? Was it not religious officiates who gave Jews Israel & muslims Pakistan ? Didn't the Berlin Wall fall in the name of faith ? China is still locked to outside faiths but there is revolt stirring.
If there was no religion would jews still meet a bitter end ? Was it not religious officiates who gave Jews Israel & muslims Pakistan ? Didn't the Berlin Wall fall in the name of faith ? China is still locked to outside faiths but there is revolt stirring.
bert_h //For myself, I know perfectly well that "mankind without religion" is a contradiction in terms, but there's no way to convince the anti-religionists of that, so they'll carry on posting their prejudices. //
That sounds like a remarkably prejudicial attitude. This is typical of the religionists. They "know" what they believe without an ounce of evidence and are not interested in contemplating any alternative viewpoint.
The unbelivers by contrast have carefully considered the evidence provided by science and concluded it is far more plausible than the nonsense offered by religion.
That sounds like a remarkably prejudicial attitude. This is typical of the religionists. They "know" what they believe without an ounce of evidence and are not interested in contemplating any alternative viewpoint.
The unbelivers by contrast have carefully considered the evidence provided by science and concluded it is far more plausible than the nonsense offered by religion.
And while Beso was posting his answer I was writing this:
<<so they'll carry on posting their prejudices>>
Prejudice, Bert H? That's defined as "unconsidered opinion" or "unthinking hostility" in my dictionary.
I've read three posts by atheists and while they are clearly restating their attitudes (as asked for by the questioner), I think they each gave reasons for their attitudes. You may disagree with their conclusions, think their premises wrong, their reasoning faulty, that they are lacking in balance, or whatever, but the accusation of prejudice is unfair. Would you be kind enough to give your reasons why they are wrong and you are right?
<<so they'll carry on posting their prejudices>>
Prejudice, Bert H? That's defined as "unconsidered opinion" or "unthinking hostility" in my dictionary.
I've read three posts by atheists and while they are clearly restating their attitudes (as asked for by the questioner), I think they each gave reasons for their attitudes. You may disagree with their conclusions, think their premises wrong, their reasoning faulty, that they are lacking in balance, or whatever, but the accusation of prejudice is unfair. Would you be kind enough to give your reasons why they are wrong and you are right?
\\Didn't the Berlin Wall fall in the name of faith ?\\
Not as I recall!
As I recall the Soviet Union basically imploded from within, there were religious issues but they were incidental.
I don't recall seeing many priests knocking down the wall.
There are religous and non religious charities - just citing good work by religious charities is no validation of faith - I have no doubt that without religion those same people would be working for the Red Cross or for Oxfam or the NSPCC.
Or do you think they only do these things because they want to please their God and not because of their inherent desire to help those more needy than themselves?
Not as I recall!
As I recall the Soviet Union basically imploded from within, there were religious issues but they were incidental.
I don't recall seeing many priests knocking down the wall.
There are religous and non religious charities - just citing good work by religious charities is no validation of faith - I have no doubt that without religion those same people would be working for the Red Cross or for Oxfam or the NSPCC.
Or do you think they only do these things because they want to please their God and not because of their inherent desire to help those more needy than themselves?
(i) No, religion has hindered the progress of mankind for millenia. Yes we would have been better-off without it (notably see birdie1971).
(ii) How do you make out that "mankind without religion" is a "contradiction in terms"? It's not a very bright phrase but there is no contradiction in-built.
Mankind can live with or without religion. Mind you religion cannot live without mankind who invented it (to our sorrow).
(ii) How do you make out that "mankind without religion" is a "contradiction in terms"? It's not a very bright phrase but there is no contradiction in-built.
Mankind can live with or without religion. Mind you religion cannot live without mankind who invented it (to our sorrow).
//Religion has produced some stunning art, literature and music.//
Art, literature and music is produced by artists, writers and musicians, i.e. people, not religion . . . although religion admittedly inspired (and indeed had control over much of) the subject matter and themes addressed by much of what was produced during the period in which it had a stranglehold over the means of and financial rewards for production while destroying everything it could get its hands on which conflicted with it purpose and objectives.
Art, literature and music is produced by artists, writers and musicians, i.e. people, not religion . . . although religion admittedly inspired (and indeed had control over much of) the subject matter and themes addressed by much of what was produced during the period in which it had a stranglehold over the means of and financial rewards for production while destroying everything it could get its hands on which conflicted with it purpose and objectives.
bert_h - “... It was quite unfair of you to describe my brief initial contribution as 'pre-emptive criticism'.. it turns out I was completely correct... there's no way to convince the anti-religionists of that, so they'll carry on posting their prejudices....”
It would appear that you have done precisely what I said you had done – you initially posted a pre-emptive criticism of posts yet to come and have then proclaimed yourself to have been correct in doing so. How does that make my post 'unfair'?
And what 'prejudices' are you talking about? Are you talking about the fact that atheists criticise theists for not having an ounce of evidence with which to back up their claims for a supernatural deity? Or that atheists find it lamentable and laughably ludicrous that theists genuinely believe the kind of stories that seem utterly simplistic and implausible to most rational people?
When you read Islamic, Biblical or Judaic scriptures without the blinkers of faith, what you find is implausible stories piled upon absurdities. While most fictional stories are usually harmless, religious stories are anything but. On the strength of religious stories we have very real people carrying out and justifying the murder of other very real people – disembowelling innocent men before the eyes of their families; burning old women alive in public squares (for 'witchcraft'); and torturing scholars to the point of madness for merely speculating about the nature of the stars (to name but a few). It is interesting to note that Galileo, who was imprisoned by the Church in 1633 (for accurately deducing that the Sun is not at the centre of the universe) and who died in 1642, was not absolved of heresy until 1992.
I find it astounding that religious people such as yourself can call an atheist 'prejudiced' because we simply do not accept as true, the nonsense taught by religious scripture. You may want to refresh your memory on the meaning of the word 'prejudice'...
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/prejudice
It would appear that you have done precisely what I said you had done – you initially posted a pre-emptive criticism of posts yet to come and have then proclaimed yourself to have been correct in doing so. How does that make my post 'unfair'?
And what 'prejudices' are you talking about? Are you talking about the fact that atheists criticise theists for not having an ounce of evidence with which to back up their claims for a supernatural deity? Or that atheists find it lamentable and laughably ludicrous that theists genuinely believe the kind of stories that seem utterly simplistic and implausible to most rational people?
When you read Islamic, Biblical or Judaic scriptures without the blinkers of faith, what you find is implausible stories piled upon absurdities. While most fictional stories are usually harmless, religious stories are anything but. On the strength of religious stories we have very real people carrying out and justifying the murder of other very real people – disembowelling innocent men before the eyes of their families; burning old women alive in public squares (for 'witchcraft'); and torturing scholars to the point of madness for merely speculating about the nature of the stars (to name but a few). It is interesting to note that Galileo, who was imprisoned by the Church in 1633 (for accurately deducing that the Sun is not at the centre of the universe) and who died in 1642, was not absolved of heresy until 1992.
I find it astounding that religious people such as yourself can call an atheist 'prejudiced' because we simply do not accept as true, the nonsense taught by religious scripture. You may want to refresh your memory on the meaning of the word 'prejudice'...
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/prejudice
in some ways of course. It did spread not just the word of God, but education for many that would not have had access to it. That said i believe it has done more harm than good. Belonging is what seems to be the ethos of any religion, and anyone not adhering to the one faith, whatever that is, has been summarily ostracised, murdered on an industrial scale. You can cite The burning of witches, The Crusades, and never ending wars in the name of religion. Telling you what to eat, wear, how to think, who to marry seems a poor exchange for belonging.
Latest Posts
Crosswords8 mins ago
Bbc Admits Hamas ‘Civilian’...
News11 mins ago
Technology11 mins ago
ChatterBank15 mins ago
