@Janus1:
I can see where you are coming from CC, often I would find myself agreeing with you. But in the case of religion, Im not blaming it for all the problems, like so many people are so quick to do with rock music, and violent videogames (though you may have gotten that impression). What I mean to say is, religion is clearly the cause of many specific acts of war and violence, and bloodshed, and terror.
Here is one place where we disagree. Men’s evil and tendency to violence is clearly the cause of many specific acts of war and blah blah blah. Religion may be the battle-cry, but so is “king and country”, patriotism, money/diamonds, power, hatred, revenge, righteousness (the allies in WW II committed war, violence, bloodshed and terror) and violence itself.
The overwhelming majority of it is not a bad thing, unless you dont like people feeling good about themselves. But there is also another kind of bad with religion. The religious fanatics, who instead of going to war with others, try to force others to follow their beliefs, through political means, and that applies sometimes to atheists as well (namely, the morons trying to ban the pledge of allegiance because the word “god” is in it). Again, these people are part of the minority. But religion, above all other things, is something which inspires great emotion in people, be it good or bad. Be it hope, anger, happiness, whatever. I think for individual people, religion is often one of the best parts of their lives, or at least a great thing for them to have in it. But when you look at people as a group, religion more often than not is a bringer of problems and conflict.
I was agreeing with much of what you said until this last point here. I would suggest that people’s reasonability and lack thereof, brings problems and conflict. People of different religions really do not need to be in conflict with each other. If they are, it is usually because:
- they are unreasonable, quick to violence, or have some other character flaw
- their religion commands it. Jews and Christians, i am quite certain, have no commands to commit violence on other people (the opposite, in fact). The same, i believe, is true of Hindus and Buddists
- a religious figure takes advantage of people’s ignorance, devotion and/or ability/willingness to commit violence.
There may be more, but i’m tired right now.
Would people truly be better off without religion? Maybe, maybe not. I personally think so, because anything that inspires great emotion can be a wonderful thing, or a terrible thing, and the line is paper thin. All of this will probably amount to nothing more than rhetoric anyway, as I think it is unlikely that there will ever be a widely accepted attempt to remove religion. If it ever is abolished, more likely it will be the will of some dicatator, or authoritarian government, rather than a popularly accepted practice. If it happens that way, than it will not be truly representative of how it could be, as it will have been taken forcefully from people.
Well, it may well never be more than repressed. “The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church” is a well known line in religious history circles. Look at the places where a religion was being stamped out - The early church in the Roman Empire (pre-Constantine), the Mennonites/Anabaptists in Holland, Germany, Switzerland, etc., communist countries - i.e. USSR, most formerly eastern block, China . . . . I know of many Christians persecuted in the former USSR but never gave up their faith, imported bibles, went to prison, Siberia, and “other places” rather than give up their God.
The only thing that will stamp out religion will be the end of time.
