Alright, I think I understand your position. It’s just that I may not agree 100%. I believe firmly that religion is the source of a lot of conflict and that this is a direct relationship. It’s the illness, not a symptom.
Daniel, because the question was whether or not human history had benefited from religion, and I maintained that we could never know if humanity would be where they are today without religion, because it is so fundamentally entwined into our history. I also countered that modern european history, which went on to encompass the entire world, was based upon Christianity, and asked him to point to an atheistic society which succeeded (and now I can’t remember why exactly. It seems irrelevant). He pointed to a philosophy with no back up for how it allowed society to succeed or the number of people who actually followed it.
What does it mean to be “based upon Christianity”? I’m not trying to be an ass, but I’m genuinely ignorant on the distinction between “based upon Christianity” and something that is based on something other than Christianity.
Christianity has a great many rules that have never been law. What does that mean?
Also, there’s no such thing as an “atheistic philosophy”, “atheistic society” or anything, group-wise, that can be considered “atheistic” based upon the definition of the word, which cannot be anything other than a personal lack of belief in a deity. If you want to consider group-wise aspects of a society, the word you’re looking for is “secular” and I’m quite certain that, if you’d do research, you’ll find many instances of secular societies.
I mean that it was built upon Christian institutions, i.e. the Catholic church largely. It provided the basis, through support or antagonism for many of the changes that shaped Europe into the most powerful force on the planet. I am fully aware of secular societies throughout history, although most in europe ended up swallowed up (i.e. poland) or were not truly secular (only allowed Christians, etc.). My point, and I feel I really shouldn’t need to repeat this, is that it is ignorant of history to claim religion to be some universal force for evil. History has shown that religion is just a tool for people to oppress others, and some of the most despotic regimes in history have had no religion. Religion has also provided, unwillingly sometimes, the basis for the modern world, and no one can say whether we would be where we are today without it.
I don’t really know who is claiming that religion is a “universal force of evil” but you have to admit that sometimes, religion is used as a weapon against others. Even today, it’s being used as such.
As for where we’d be today, if it weren’t for religion curtailing advances (e.g., Galileo), we’d probably be several centuries ahead of where we are now.
It’s far from a “universal force of evil” of course, but, like any tool, it can be abused by evil people. However, when it’s enshrined under the label of “goodness” or “morality”, some of the worst evils ever perpetrated can be done.
As the saying goes, “The road to Hell is paved with good intentions” and it’s not “bashing” a religion when we point this out.
I was responding to intooblvion’s consistent absolutes about the worthlessness of religion, and never intended to imply that it was a force for universal good or some such thing. I only put forward that religion is a central pillar of humanity since the first civilizations to a time not long ago, and as such, the removal of such, as put forward by oblivion, could result in an altogether worse world for humanity. We must remember that without Christianity, Europe would not have been at that same point of restricting Galileo, and it is a matter of chance whether this change would be for good or ill.
Really? Point to a place where intooblivion ever suggested such a thing.
You make it sound as if we should keep religion around even if it is a force for evil, just because it’s been tradition throughout human history and that it may cause some vague sort of catastrophe.
I realize you’re playing devils advocate to some degree, but some of the arguments you’re making in favor of it are quite a stretch.
The Bible says that Jesus said that all authority the men have is given by God. This was obviously used by Kings and other people with power during the Middle Age to maintain their power and rule society, and religion was used long before that to maintain the people under control. If there wasn’t Christianity or any religion, would there be obedience and ethics? Maybe today, but during the Middle Age and before that, that’s another story. Without control, society could turn itself into a complete anarchy. I think this is what “based upon Christianity” means.
It is possible that in a near future the world will be ready to stay religion-free, with people guiding themselves by their own humanity and moral, although I don’t think that is the case today because people are afraid of leaving their religion, among other things.
I have strictly been speaking of the past as a means of softening the absolutism I’m seeing on this forum. I do not believe that religion is a necessary part of society, and I believe that society would benifit, in all likely hood from its removal. Its a fairly meaningless question though, as it isn’t going anywhere for the foreseeable future.
You’re seeing absolutism? Where? Can you point it out?
Because all religion is a controlling force.
Shameless bump, but in my own personal opinion Someone, 95% of it is.
Religion says that the Earth is around 6000 years old. It requires that dinosaurs walked around with people (or that fossils were planted to fool us by an invisible man in the sky). Religion says that the most powerful being in the universe can’t pay for his own institutions. It’s book reveals that this benevolent being commanded the rape of women and children and the slaughtering of entire nations in their sleep. Religion says that it’s principles are absolute themselves, and that disobedience results in hell.
Fear. Falsities. There you go. There are exceptions, I’m sure. Some churches know this and malevolently fabricate their mythology around them to garner acceptance, such as the mormons. I for one am not using absolutism, I’m stating generalities here. maybe I’m stereotyping?
That is just some religions. Did you mean Christianity here?
Again, there is no one book of religion. I’m assuming you mean the bible…
I’m more upset about truth statements that come without evidence.
This thread is getting a long ways from a creation versus evolution debate.
The thought alone of all animals in the fossil record, whether it is on land, in the water or in the skies living together at the same time is just completely retarded. How deluded and misguided must you be to believe in such nonsense. Scary stuff.
I’m finding it amazing (if not amusing) that there’s no one here that is willing to try to defend creationism a tenth, a hundredth…a millionth as hard as evolution has been challenged.
Teach the controversy? Fine. Provide some controversy! Where is everyone?
cuz the creationists are far outnumbered on this forum. duh!
I wouldn’t let that stop you. I’d love to see some actual evidence for creationism, to be honest. If the evidence is undeniable, then it could easily BLOW evolution out of the water. I wonder why it’s not done.
Evolution has been ridiculed, tested, challenged, looked upon with scorn, bashed, and everything else that we’re accused of doing to creationism, why is it that it’s only wrong to “bash” creationism? Why isn’t evidence for creationism EVER provided?
because it doesn’t exist. and that large majority of christians are obviously just sooo discriminated against and oppressed in modern society! they have every right to complain because privilege was just made up in the mind of those evil atheists.
and because fancy pants is here. 