Film, Media & TV0 min ago
opinions please...
54 Answers
...does religion cause more harm in the world than good?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by greendog. 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.
Contd.
I'm not Catholic, never have been and have my own bones to pick with them... but I can't condemn the entire organization for actions of individuals. The Spanish Inquistion was certainly an example of the ideals and teachings of the originator of the Christian faith gone terribly wrong. The political power of the Church after the 3rd century is, generally, the best argument for separation of church and state. But... the love for ones neighbor, generosity to the unfortunate, caring for the sick taught by Yeshua are still the underlying principles by which many, if not most individual Christians aspire... Condemnation of the many for the actions of the few is patently ridiculous and is the basis for persecution, which the Body of Christ has also suffered greatly over the centuries...
We each have our own style in expressing our views... the phrase which seems to rankle you... "unique concept", is to me, to be a biting and sardonic personal commentary on another's presentation... without attacking ad hominem in my humble opinion...
I'm not Catholic, never have been and have my own bones to pick with them... but I can't condemn the entire organization for actions of individuals. The Spanish Inquistion was certainly an example of the ideals and teachings of the originator of the Christian faith gone terribly wrong. The political power of the Church after the 3rd century is, generally, the best argument for separation of church and state. But... the love for ones neighbor, generosity to the unfortunate, caring for the sick taught by Yeshua are still the underlying principles by which many, if not most individual Christians aspire... Condemnation of the many for the actions of the few is patently ridiculous and is the basis for persecution, which the Body of Christ has also suffered greatly over the centuries...
We each have our own style in expressing our views... the phrase which seems to rankle you... "unique concept", is to me, to be a biting and sardonic personal commentary on another's presentation... without attacking ad hominem in my humble opinion...
Can I suggest you actually look up what ad hominem actually is and the very specific circumstances in which a personal attack can in particularly be described as such. My simply saying I find you self righteous really does not fall into that catagory, it's merely a personal opinion, not an excuse to attack everything you say merely because it's you saying it. I do not believe any of my views are "unique concepts" at all, in fact I'd imagine they are more popularly held concepts than many of your own, perhaps that why it rankles me.I may be wrong.
In any event, you have chosen not to comment on any of the issues broached by my previous posts ( which you insisted you would successfully refute if I quoted accepted source) save for an isolated quote from Mein Kampf and a generalisation with no source material.Can we have a source for your beliefs that there were no significant religious reasons for WWII, as this is not the commonly taught belief in European History degree level teaching I can assure you.
So would you also, out of interest, compell an 11 year old girl to have a baby which was the product of her father raping her? I'd just like to know where you stand on that single issue. Should she be forced to have the child or not, if so how can you justify doing that to a child, and if not then why not since life is so sacred to you regardless of it's origins?
I'm sorry to press you, but this is the second time we have had a heated debate, where you have skirted every issue I've brought up.
I have never said all religion is evil, nor have I said all religious people are, I merely think that whatever it's ideals, any religion is only as good as it's members, and a lot of the most fanatical members of any religion are nothing short of a bloody menace to mankind.I await your answer with great interest.
In any event, you have chosen not to comment on any of the issues broached by my previous posts ( which you insisted you would successfully refute if I quoted accepted source) save for an isolated quote from Mein Kampf and a generalisation with no source material.Can we have a source for your beliefs that there were no significant religious reasons for WWII, as this is not the commonly taught belief in European History degree level teaching I can assure you.
So would you also, out of interest, compell an 11 year old girl to have a baby which was the product of her father raping her? I'd just like to know where you stand on that single issue. Should she be forced to have the child or not, if so how can you justify doing that to a child, and if not then why not since life is so sacred to you regardless of it's origins?
I'm sorry to press you, but this is the second time we have had a heated debate, where you have skirted every issue I've brought up.
I have never said all religion is evil, nor have I said all religious people are, I merely think that whatever it's ideals, any religion is only as good as it's members, and a lot of the most fanatical members of any religion are nothing short of a bloody menace to mankind.I await your answer with great interest.
"...A fallacy that attacks the person rather than dealing with the real issue in dispute..." so says McGraw Hill Glossary of Terms, which agrees with about seven other definitions of the term ad hominem. You're free to interpret it any way you wish, however, noxlumos. I can't find where I stated I would "...successfully refute if I quoted accepted source..." perhaps you could point me in the right direction.
I never argued with the fact that Hitler stated religious views as part and parcel of his rambling Mein Kampf. In fact, I stated exactly the opposite. I also stated there were many cultic aspects of the SS and probably other organizations. However, every historian I've read, European or otherwise, stresses the underlying causes, goals and aims of the Germany Axis piror to and during WWII as the nationalism and militarism I also referenced. Any religious aspect was teritiary, at best. No religious leaders promoted or acted in official capacity for the Reich. No one in the U.S. or other Allied Nations even knew of the Death Camps until near the end of the war. Almost as many Gypsies, homosexuals, mentally afflicted and other "non-desirables" were killed as were the Jews. All were seen as blots on the "Aryan" landscape and required elimination.
If this makes it a relgiously based war, your certainly welcome to that view...
Contd.
I never argued with the fact that Hitler stated religious views as part and parcel of his rambling Mein Kampf. In fact, I stated exactly the opposite. I also stated there were many cultic aspects of the SS and probably other organizations. However, every historian I've read, European or otherwise, stresses the underlying causes, goals and aims of the Germany Axis piror to and during WWII as the nationalism and militarism I also referenced. Any religious aspect was teritiary, at best. No religious leaders promoted or acted in official capacity for the Reich. No one in the U.S. or other Allied Nations even knew of the Death Camps until near the end of the war. Almost as many Gypsies, homosexuals, mentally afflicted and other "non-desirables" were killed as were the Jews. All were seen as blots on the "Aryan" landscape and required elimination.
If this makes it a relgiously based war, your certainly welcome to that view...
Contd.
Contd.
Strange that you ask the question concerning the eleven year old, since that is usually the refuge of those least able to defend the holocaust of nearly 40 million aborted babies. Fact is, many studies, including the Alan Guttamacher study already referenced (paid for by a pro-abortion organization, by the way) found that cases of rape or incest induced pregnancies constituted far less than one (1) percent of all abortions. Most were done for the convenience of the mother. But to answer directly, your question. There are extremely rare cases where abortion is necessary and this example could, easily, fall in that category. I would note, however, in any rape situation resulting in pregnancy, it's only one of the innocents involved that are killed, no? Studies have shown that even women having abortions due to rape often regret their actions.
I would ask you equally directly, if you found that your father had raped your mother, would that make you any less suitable for life than now? If you found that your wife was the product of incest, would you care any less for her or would she somehow be diminished?
As I said early on, we are not going to settle this issue nor will it ever e settled... but I will always err on the side of the only entity in the argument least able to argue for themselves. Which quote has more relevance... �Abortion is advocated only by persons who have themselves been born.� Ronald Reagan, or �The most merciful thing that a family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.� Margaret Sanger founder of the American abortion movement... I think the choice is clear... however, that probably makes me part of the anti-abortion "mob" in your view... Unique concept...
Strange that you ask the question concerning the eleven year old, since that is usually the refuge of those least able to defend the holocaust of nearly 40 million aborted babies. Fact is, many studies, including the Alan Guttamacher study already referenced (paid for by a pro-abortion organization, by the way) found that cases of rape or incest induced pregnancies constituted far less than one (1) percent of all abortions. Most were done for the convenience of the mother. But to answer directly, your question. There are extremely rare cases where abortion is necessary and this example could, easily, fall in that category. I would note, however, in any rape situation resulting in pregnancy, it's only one of the innocents involved that are killed, no? Studies have shown that even women having abortions due to rape often regret their actions.
I would ask you equally directly, if you found that your father had raped your mother, would that make you any less suitable for life than now? If you found that your wife was the product of incest, would you care any less for her or would she somehow be diminished?
As I said early on, we are not going to settle this issue nor will it ever e settled... but I will always err on the side of the only entity in the argument least able to argue for themselves. Which quote has more relevance... �Abortion is advocated only by persons who have themselves been born.� Ronald Reagan, or �The most merciful thing that a family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.� Margaret Sanger founder of the American abortion movement... I think the choice is clear... however, that probably makes me part of the anti-abortion "mob" in your view... Unique concept...
apologies for joining the debate so late in the day I apologise if my points have already been covered.
Regardless of whether Hitler was fighting a religious war or a racial war or whether ideological dogma equals religion it is apparent that any psycho working alone (jack the ripper) can achieve only a modest amount of wickedness compared to an organised group. You can argue the toss over Hitler's personal beliefs till the cows come home but he achieved his atrocities through the help of a willing and religious nation with help from the catholic church. A herd mentality is part of human nature and sophisticated politics can shape beliefs in this way we are not all responsible for our actions.
I take a view that all people are equal and with this in mind I have often wondered what my beliefs would have been if I were born in Saudi or Russia and i'm pretty sure that my beliefs would follow those of my countrymen. The counterview is that we are not all equal and we are born in a place of god's design. Thank god that I was born in a secular country. This highlights the folly of the "absolute truth" espoused by religions and ideologies the world over. Would Clanad accept that if he was born as Amir in Iraq he would be a committed muslim?Clanad may be correct in saying that most christians have good intentions (i think that is the gist). I happen to believe that most people have good intentions. I would seriously question anyone who claimed we need religion to be good people.
The German people were not all bad people yet the German nation inflicted those atrocities on outsiders because a structure was in place to convince those people that outsiders were their mortal enemies. Sound familiar?
Regardless of whether Hitler was fighting a religious war or a racial war or whether ideological dogma equals religion it is apparent that any psycho working alone (jack the ripper) can achieve only a modest amount of wickedness compared to an organised group. You can argue the toss over Hitler's personal beliefs till the cows come home but he achieved his atrocities through the help of a willing and religious nation with help from the catholic church. A herd mentality is part of human nature and sophisticated politics can shape beliefs in this way we are not all responsible for our actions.
I take a view that all people are equal and with this in mind I have often wondered what my beliefs would have been if I were born in Saudi or Russia and i'm pretty sure that my beliefs would follow those of my countrymen. The counterview is that we are not all equal and we are born in a place of god's design. Thank god that I was born in a secular country. This highlights the folly of the "absolute truth" espoused by religions and ideologies the world over. Would Clanad accept that if he was born as Amir in Iraq he would be a committed muslim?Clanad may be correct in saying that most christians have good intentions (i think that is the gist). I happen to believe that most people have good intentions. I would seriously question anyone who claimed we need religion to be good people.
The German people were not all bad people yet the German nation inflicted those atrocities on outsiders because a structure was in place to convince those people that outsiders were their mortal enemies. Sound familiar?
Hello again Clanad, the principle of ad hominem is not whether or not I personally attacked you, because I did, I find you self righteous, but I did not give that as the reason for my argument when refuting what you said, I relied on facts, not character assasination.As I've said, if you are ever right about anything I will in fact throw a party in celebration in honour of the event :)
The Third Reich is too elaborate for us to adequately argue the point here further than we have, but I will call you on the abortion topic.If I were the product of a rape ( and knowing my father that's a distinct possibility actually) then of course I would not be less suitable for life, however I would have understood had my mother decided to opt for an abortion, as I do not believe that any woman should be forced to carry a child to term if she has been atttacked, much more so if the the girl involved is a child or the if the baby she is carrying is the result of an incestuous union. I am not at all thinking of the future baby at this point, I am happy to acknowledge, but of the girl herself.How can she ever experience any wellbeing ever again if she were forced to go through that against her will every step of the way?
I agree with you that there are way too many abortions, I personally find the whole thing deeply upsetting, but Clanad, they are a necessary evil for women who find themselves in the situation where they feel unable to continue with a pregnancy. Adoption is not the answer for many. Many women almost go insane wondering what happened to their babies, is that any more fair or right? Life is not the only prize, quality of life counts too for both mother and child, or you create more social and emotional damage than you help.
The Third Reich is too elaborate for us to adequately argue the point here further than we have, but I will call you on the abortion topic.If I were the product of a rape ( and knowing my father that's a distinct possibility actually) then of course I would not be less suitable for life, however I would have understood had my mother decided to opt for an abortion, as I do not believe that any woman should be forced to carry a child to term if she has been atttacked, much more so if the the girl involved is a child or the if the baby she is carrying is the result of an incestuous union. I am not at all thinking of the future baby at this point, I am happy to acknowledge, but of the girl herself.How can she ever experience any wellbeing ever again if she were forced to go through that against her will every step of the way?
I agree with you that there are way too many abortions, I personally find the whole thing deeply upsetting, but Clanad, they are a necessary evil for women who find themselves in the situation where they feel unable to continue with a pregnancy. Adoption is not the answer for many. Many women almost go insane wondering what happened to their babies, is that any more fair or right? Life is not the only prize, quality of life counts too for both mother and child, or you create more social and emotional damage than you help.
If my wife were the product of incest I would love her every inch as much as I do now, but that is not the question at all. My argument with forced pregnancies is that it takes away the mother's rights over her own body. It's one thing to be raped, it's then quite another to be raped all over again by the church and government who almost uphold the notion, in forcing the pregnancy to continue, that it is ok for people to view a woman's body as not her own.That is a state and church sponsored attack on someone who is already a victim, and I'm sorry but personally distateful as I find it, I'm with Margaret Sanger on this.
Dawkins you are of course right in everything you say, just because a cause or movement is not officially upheld by the church does not mean the church does not support it and does not aid it. The Third Reich would have been nowhere near as effective without church support.Simple as.
Dawkins you are of course right in everything you say, just because a cause or movement is not officially upheld by the church does not mean the church does not support it and does not aid it. The Third Reich would have been nowhere near as effective without church support.Simple as.
I'm sure we've reached the end of an unwinable argument, but, in closing... I percieve that your an intelligent person so I ask... Since you don't see any reduction in a person's value due to the circumstances of their conception, isn't it arbitrary and capricious to devalue that same person before they're born based on the circumstances of conception? You know, here in the U.S., as I've stated we've experienced nearly 40 million baby deaths due to abortion since Roe v. Wade, some 25 or 30 years ago. As I also said, that's nearly an entire generation. I think it's entirely possible.... no, probable, that out of that number a child could have arisen to find a cure for cancer or heart disease or AIDS... but, based on the inconvenience (over which, the mother had total control, by the way) of that child's life he or she was destroyed. Stephen Hawkings, one of the greatest minds of the past 100 years if not more, is and has been dying of Lou Gehrig's disease (ALS disease amyotrophic lateral sclerosis) for his entire life. Most doctors believe it is herdeitary in nature and due to a genetic "flaw", if you will. Had his parents known of it's presence prior to his birth should he have been aborted due to the perceived lack of quality in his life? I think not! But... more importantly, is his life any more important than the average baby's?... again, I think not! So, my worthy, but misguided, Irish adversary... isn't your reasoning flawed? To consider that the life of a baby is expendable due simply because of the inconvenience placed on the mother (and, in the end, isn't that the overwhelming consideration in almost all cases?) or, in rare cases, the circumstances of one's conception isn't logical... forget the moral implications (which I can't). How many Hawkings, Einsteins, Jonas Salk's, et al have we lost? I dispair to consider the question on that basis alone...
Clanad, You offered valuable information that should be taken into consideration by someone facing the alternative of an abortion. It is also apparent that the quality versus quantity of a life should be taken into consideration. Raising a child to become a healthy happy human being is a profound responsibility and those who are unable to provide a proper upbringing unleash upon the world a lot of unhappiness and misery both for the child and the fabric of society. Ultimately this is a decision which should be made by the person/s who responsible for giving life to a child and carrying out this task to completion, the mother and a supportive spouse or other willing to take on this role.
The world is now sadly laden with children who could use a little care and guidance and have a greater likelihood of returning appreciation for the help that we could and should now provide them. Perhaps when we as a species have taken care of this need, the need to consider abortion by improperly raised children having children would not be as prevalent as it is today.
IMHO
The world is now sadly laden with children who could use a little care and guidance and have a greater likelihood of returning appreciation for the help that we could and should now provide them. Perhaps when we as a species have taken care of this need, the need to consider abortion by improperly raised children having children would not be as prevalent as it is today.
IMHO
Yes, Well put Mibn.
Basically it come down to choice. It is easy to see from this thread that abortion is the most emotive of issues. It is perfectly reasonable to protest peacefully for one's views; it is also fair to offer support to mothers who want to go through with their pregnancy and either bring the child up or give it up for adoption. However, it is imperative that we all respect the mothers' right to choose. It is a difficult decision for anyone but genuine choice gives the best chance of the right outcome.
Basically it come down to choice. It is easy to see from this thread that abortion is the most emotive of issues. It is perfectly reasonable to protest peacefully for one's views; it is also fair to offer support to mothers who want to go through with their pregnancy and either bring the child up or give it up for adoption. However, it is imperative that we all respect the mothers' right to choose. It is a difficult decision for anyone but genuine choice gives the best chance of the right outcome.
This has been a fascinating debate to read and although joining a little late I would just like to add my twopence worth.
I'm afraid Clanad that I am in agreement with Noxlumos all the way here and largely through personal experience.
I have a friend whose family is and always has been deeply religious. They are all committed christians and take their fairth in to every aspect of their lives. My friends's younger sister was 19 when she was gang raped. She became pregnant as a result (having been a virgin prior to the attack). She was, as you can imagine, severly disturbed and in utter turmoil. She wanted to have an abortion as the thought of having a child growing inside her which was the product of such a violent and horrific event was making her very very ill. Her church, and some members of her family pressured her and went on and on at her, telling her that having an abortion would make her more evil than her attackers and other such comforting words making her feel ever worse! At 6 months pregnant she had been in and out of the psychological wards of the hospital 4 times when she took her own and the baby's life.
My friend lost his sister as a direct result of the church's intolerance, dogma and complete lack of understanding. Clanad, you talk about taking the life of an unborn child but in this case, not doing so resulted in the ending of not one but two lives. She was a wonderful, intelligent, fun girl who suffered more than anyone ever should and it was only compounded by her religion.
In my eyes there is no justification for that.
I'm afraid Clanad that I am in agreement with Noxlumos all the way here and largely through personal experience.
I have a friend whose family is and always has been deeply religious. They are all committed christians and take their fairth in to every aspect of their lives. My friends's younger sister was 19 when she was gang raped. She became pregnant as a result (having been a virgin prior to the attack). She was, as you can imagine, severly disturbed and in utter turmoil. She wanted to have an abortion as the thought of having a child growing inside her which was the product of such a violent and horrific event was making her very very ill. Her church, and some members of her family pressured her and went on and on at her, telling her that having an abortion would make her more evil than her attackers and other such comforting words making her feel ever worse! At 6 months pregnant she had been in and out of the psychological wards of the hospital 4 times when she took her own and the baby's life.
My friend lost his sister as a direct result of the church's intolerance, dogma and complete lack of understanding. Clanad, you talk about taking the life of an unborn child but in this case, not doing so resulted in the ending of not one but two lives. She was a wonderful, intelligent, fun girl who suffered more than anyone ever should and it was only compounded by her religion.
In my eyes there is no justification for that.
HELLS YEAH IT DOES!
Most of the wars today is due to religion.
And every country is getting too P.C because of religion!
Presenters not allowed to show crucifixes on BBC incase it offends other religions... what crap!
I have colleagues in work who are quite willing to eat any meat, look at pornography, drink etc etc and then go praying during work time, have all this ramadam stuff and then when it comes to Christmas moan like hell because it offends. Well surely they came to this country, they should know what happens. But because my workplace is Government run, we have to cancel anything Christmas related (even turning the radio off) and give in to a 3% minority who moan.
Well they offend me with all this b*llocks!
Why can't people just forget religion and believe in themselves?!
Most of the wars today is due to religion.
And every country is getting too P.C because of religion!
Presenters not allowed to show crucifixes on BBC incase it offends other religions... what crap!
I have colleagues in work who are quite willing to eat any meat, look at pornography, drink etc etc and then go praying during work time, have all this ramadam stuff and then when it comes to Christmas moan like hell because it offends. Well surely they came to this country, they should know what happens. But because my workplace is Government run, we have to cancel anything Christmas related (even turning the radio off) and give in to a 3% minority who moan.
Well they offend me with all this b*llocks!
Why can't people just forget religion and believe in themselves?!
I may be a little late in joining this debate but i have been interested to read everybody's thoughts on this. I am not at all religious but both my children(aged 8 & 11) are aware of ALL religions and also the theory of Evolution! When a question is asked asked about religion or evolution my answer begins "Some people believe......". I would like them to make up their own minds about what is right for them.They have been taught to respect other people's views and not judge others because of their beliefs! When they are older and wish to follow a religion of any sort it will be an informed choice and not just because I(or anyone else )told them to.
Latest Posts
Crosswords4 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles5 mins ago
News10 mins ago
Hyundai I30 2017 - Windscreen Washer...
Motoring20 mins ago
