Name something good religion has caused

Religion, is not a person and can not act on its own, and means NOTHING without people....

Are you really saying that a religion is the sum of its parts? Religion is an entity that takes on an existence of its own, I am not being anthropomorphic but there is a clear difference between the religious ethos and it's components.

Besides, you are being a hypocrite....you say religion has caused wars...but people cause wars and create the action.....if that's okay with you for that...... then it most certainly should be okay with you in my

I haven't argued that religion causes wars, I have argued that religion is used as an excuse or justification for wars, masking the true cause, greed. It is a problem with religion that it facilitates this. Religion creates absolutism and it is this absolutism that is the cause of the justification.

In your case, religion is attributed as the cause, used as the justification, but this masks the fact that it is simply empathy that leads people to conduct such acts...
 
AnyOldIron said:
Religion, is not a person and can not act on its own, and means NOTHING without people....

Are you really saying that a religion is the sum of its parts? Religion is an entity that takes on an existence of its own, I am not being anthropomorphic but there is a clear difference between the religious ethos and it's components.

Besides, you are being a hypocrite....you say religion has caused wars...but people cause wars and create the action.....if that's okay with you for that...... then it most certainly should be okay with you in my

I haven't argued that religion causes wars, I have argued that religion is used as an excuse or justification for wars, masking the true cause, greed. It is a problem with religion that it facilitates this. Religion creates absolutism and it is this absolutism that is the cause of the justification.

In your case, religion is attributed as the cause, used as the justification, but this masks the fact that it is simply empathy that leads people to conduct such acts...
Click to expand...

But what you call "simply empathy" is sparked in "some" more than others, evident in this case where the religious people felt a calling to ACT on this empathy....

hey! maybe "Something" inside of them vs. others, sparked them to commit to this action of helping to "right" a "wrong"? Being "religious" for these particular people is what probably gave them the strength to battle this issue.... Ya never know? :)

----------------------------------------------------------------

have you read any Myan Prophesy?
 
But what you call "simply empathy" is sparked in "some" more than others, evident in this case where the religious people felt a calling to ACT on this empathy....

Are you claiming that empathy is higher amongst the religious?

Religion might be used post-facto as the justification but it empathy that drove the act.

hey! maybe "Something" inside of them vs. others, sparked them to commit to this action of helping to "right" a "wrong"? Being "religious" for these particular people is what probably gave them the strength to battle this issue.... Ya never know?

As I said, post facto justification. If only religious people demonstrated empathy and acted on it, you might have a point....
 
have you read any Myan Prophesy?

I don't put any stock in prophesy, unless they can validly demonstrate how they came about the prophesy.

Most are self-fulfilling, or based on the probability of actions occurring...
 
AnyOldIron said:
But what you call "simply empathy" is sparked in "some" more than others, evident in this case where the religious people felt a calling to ACT on this empathy....

Are you claiming that empathy is higher amongst the religious?

Religion might be used post-facto as the justification but it empathy that drove the act.

hey! maybe "Something" inside of them vs. others, sparked them to commit to this action of helping to "right" a "wrong"? Being "religious" for these particular people is what probably gave them the strength to battle this issue.... Ya never know?

As I said, post facto justification. If only religious people demonstrated empathy and acted on it, you might have a point....
Click to expand...
In more cases than not, they do Anyold, you just don't want to give credit to this faith that they have....you are too busy looking at the noisy false prophets out there and too closed to thinking there is something beyond oneself and earth.... maybe because you have seen so many hypocrites over the years, maybe because you never really understood it, and nor did your Pastor.... :(, maybe because it is just not your time to believe yet... :D,

but whatever it is....it all is so very real to me, even though it is not touchable.... crazy, I really know that.... but it still is the situation.... there is nothing that will change me..... it is seared in me... and I use it daily... not by flipping through the good book, but because I was raised and taught right from wrong, from parents that got their guidance and knowledge on right from wrong from their God or their Church, or their parents
who learned their reasoning on Justness from the Bible which determined right from wrong FOR THEM....

And pretty much as you said, people do not have to believe to have compassion or empathy for your fellow human beings, or to just KNOW what is right and just, and what is wrong and unjust....

but know that this is NOT DISCARDED by the Bible, the Bible says that He seared that knowledge of right from wrong in ALL mankind, whether religious or not, we all have a conscience, unless ill perhaps.... now that does not mean that we don't choose the wrong path, many times over, just that we KNOW when we are doing wrong...
 
AOI, a religion is the sum total of its believers, just as you are the sum total of your thoughts. Their actions is how religions can be and are judged. Any other way is disingenuous tripe attempting to explain away their actions. The Atheists didn't band together to get that done, it was Christians in various shapes and forms.
 
Damocles said:
AOI, a religion is the sum total of its believers, just as you are the sum total of your thoughts. Their actions is how religions can be and are judged. Any other way is disingenuous tripe attempting to explain away their actions. The Atheists didn't band together to get that done, it was Christians in various shapes and forms.
Click to expand...

a religion is the sum total of its believers
//

Absolutely.
 
AnyOldIron said:
have you read any Myan Prophesy?

I don't put any stock in prophesy, unless they can validly demonstrate how they came about the prophesy.
Most are self-fulfilling, or based on the probability of actions occurring...
Click to expand...

i believe the Myans believe they did do just that.... it's wild, and qite unique and all tied in to TIME....
 
Religion has created fear of eternal retribution for a transgression. It would be naive to say that religion alone has not at least once prevented a murder or theft.

Now whether or not that is negated by the negative effects of religion can be debated but that isn't what was asked.
 
IHateGovernment said:
Religion has created fear of eternal retribution for a transgression. It would be naive to say that religion alone has not at least once prevented a murder or theft.

Now whether or not that is negated by the negative effects of religion can be debated but that isn't what was asked.
Click to expand...
Religion, in the institutional sense, is a social adaptation. It has a function and the very fact that it has survived as long as it has indicates that it has fulfilled that function. It may not be the best possible solution, but it works.

That's evolution. ;)
 
The morality teachings of all religions are basically good for society, what is not good is the powermongering structure of the priests of the official religious hierarchy.
 
OrnotBitwise said:
Religion, in the institutional sense, is a social adaptation. It has a function and the very fact that it has survived as long as it has indicates that it has fulfilled that function. It may not be the best possible solution, but it works.

That's evolution. ;)
Click to expand...


Ingroup morality is an evolved trait in many social species of animals. Religion is an expression of that. I know that truth messes up your simplistic little dichotomy, though. Deal with it.
 
The morality teachings of all religions are basically good for society.

That's a broad statement. Many of the moral decisions of religion could be considered bad for society. Good and bad are subjective descriptions, dependent on the person doing the judging.

What one person might find as good from religious morality (for example most religion's anti-gay stance) another might consider bad.
 
Ingroup morality is an evolved trait in many social species of animals. Religion is an expression of that. I know that truth messes up your simplistic little dichotomy, though. Deal with it.

Religious morality is an attempt to find straight lines and absolutes when there are none innately. It has a use in chaotic societies, but as an actual moral code, the absoluteness makes it difficult to defend.
 
AnyOldIron said:
Ingroup morality is an evolved trait in many social species of animals. Religion is an expression of that. I know that truth messes up your simplistic little dichotomy, though. Deal with it.

Religious morality is an attempt to find straight lines and absolutes when there are none innately. It has a use in chaotic societies, but as an actual moral code, the absoluteness makes it difficult to defend.
Click to expand...

Agreed, It has a stabilizing effect, but is a problem within itself. It is not a cure but is just substituting it's own set of problems.
 
AssHatZombie said:
Ingroup morality is an evolved trait in many social species of animals. Religion is an expression of that. I know that truth messes up your simplistic little dichotomy, though. Deal with it.
Click to expand...
And this is different from my postulate exactly how? :rolleyes:

Religion is one of many mechanisms humans have evolved to promote social cohesion and submission to authority. It's not the only one -- redundancy is one of the hallmarks of evolutionary adaptation -- but it is one of the more effective ones.
 
OrnotBitwise said:
And this is different from my postulate exactly how? :rolleyes:

Religion is one of many mechanisms humans have evolved to promote social cohesion and submission to authority. It's not the only one -- redundancy is one of the hallmarks of evolutionary adaptation -- but it is one of the more effective ones.
Click to expand...


I think you already said that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top