The Destruction of Religions

[bedub1]

I believe that religion and it's ignorance is bad for human civilization. As such I believe that as humans we would be much better off without religion. I feel it is important we live in reality, not fantasy land. I happily look forward to the destruction of all religions.

According to this article, the self-destruction of Christianity might already be in progress.

http://www.alternet.org/belief/155462/h ... age=entire

How the Christian Right's Homophobia Scares Away Religious Young People
The Christian right is increasingly out of step with how Americans feel about gay rights. This issue might be the one that destroys them in the end.

[thegreekdog]

I believe that religion and it's ignorance is bad for human civilization. As such I believe that as humans we would be much better off without religion.

Why?

[Sniper08]

I believe that religion and it's ignorance is bad for human civilization. As such I believe that as humans we would be much better off without religion.

Why?

religion held back and persecuted those who studied science for centuries and pretty much anyone who didnt conform to their beliefs and way of thinking, we would be more advanced as a species if religion never existed.

[thegreekdog]

I believe that religion and it's ignorance is bad for human civilization. As such I believe that as humans we would be much better off without religion.

Why?

religion held back and persecuted those who studied science for centuries and pretty much anyone who didnt conform to their beliefs and way of thinking, we would be more advanced as a species if religion never existed.

I think I need some more explanation here as to what specific advancements were hindered by religion.

[bedub1]

I believe that religion and it's ignorance is bad for human civilization. As such I believe that as humans we would be much better off without religion.

Why?

religion held back and persecuted those who studied science for centuries and pretty much anyone who didnt conform to their beliefs and way of thinking, we would be more advanced as a species if religion never existed.

Imagine where we would be without the Dark Ages.

[Sniper08]

I believe that religion and it's ignorance is bad for human civilization. As such I believe that as humans we would be much better off without religion.

Why?

religion held back and persecuted those who studied science for centuries and pretty much anyone who didnt conform to their beliefs and way of thinking, we would be more advanced as a species if religion never existed.

I think I need some more explanation here as to what specific advancements were hindered by religion.

astromony for one is a easy one , many people were burned at the stake for their ideas like Giordano Bruno and Michael Servetus. there are many other fields taht they held back not just astronomy.

[thegreekdog]

I believe that religion and it's ignorance is bad for human civilization. As such I believe that as humans we would be much better off without religion.

Why?

religion held back and persecuted those who studied science for centuries and pretty much anyone who didnt conform to their beliefs and way of thinking, we would be more advanced as a species if religion never existed.

Imagine where we would be without the Dark Ages.

I don't know where we'd be, that's why I'm asking.

What I do know is that the Dark Ages were not caused or perpetuated by religion; and some would say that religion caused the Dark Ages to be somewhat less dark.

[thegreekdog]

I believe that religion and it's ignorance is bad for human civilization. As such I believe that as humans we would be much better off without religion.

Why?

religion held back and persecuted those who studied science for centuries and pretty much anyone who didnt conform to their beliefs and way of thinking, we would be more advanced as a species if religion never existed.

I think I need some more explanation here as to what specific advancements were hindered by religion.

astromony for one is a easy one , many people were burned at the stake for their ideas like Giordano Bruno and Michael Servetus. there are many other fields taht they held back not just astronomy.

Okay, I guess a couple of things:

(1) Astronomy - who cares? I don't mean this to be an asshole and (2) plays a factor, but why would the free-er study of astronomy as early as the 16th century have advanced society?

(2) Astronomy did pretty well for itself despite the perceived exhortations of the Catholic and Protestant Churches.

(3) Bruno was executed for pantheistic beliefs. Servetus was executed for similar religious-type violations (i.e. John Calvin hated him). Neither man was executed because they were astronomers or due to their scientific beliefs.

What I'm wondering here is this - if Bruno and Servetus were not executed, what would they have done differently or better? How would astronomy have advanced if they had lived? How would astronomy's advancement helped society? And, finally, was astronomy really held back by religion or is that just a popular theme to bring up in casual conversation to make it seem like religion is this horrible thing that hinders scientific advancement?

[Nola_Lifer]

Yall need to learn the difference between, religion, people in power trying to keep power, and extremist. Then learn how they relate and affect each other.

[thegreekdog]

Yall need to learn the difference between, religion, people in power trying to keep power, and extremist. Then learn how they relate and affect each other.

QFT.

I think you'll find, in the study of European history, wars and atrocities were committed for reasons other than "Because God/religion told me." Reasons like "I want to keep my power, wealth, and prestige." So, perhaps you mean that you want to call for the destruction of power, wealth, and prestige.

[bedub1]

I believe that religion and it's ignorance is bad for human civilization. As such I believe that as humans we would be much better off without religion.

Why?

religion held back and persecuted those who studied science for centuries and pretty much anyone who didnt conform to their beliefs and way of thinking, we would be more advanced as a species if religion never existed.

I think I need some more explanation here as to what specific advancements were hindered by religion.

Are you aware this is a bull-shit question? Regardless, I'll give you a bull-shit answer. Hooverboards. If it wasn't for religion we'd have Hooverboards.

[Nola_Lifer]

Yall need to learn the difference between, religion, people in power trying to keep power, and extremist. Then learn how they relate and affect each other.

QFT.

I think you'll find, in the study of European history, wars and atrocities were committed for reasons other than "Because God/religion told me." Reasons like "I want to keep my power, wealth, and prestige." So, perhaps you mean that you want to call for the destruction of power, wealth, and prestige.

Sounds good. Where do we begin?

[Haggis_McMutton]

Okay, I guess a couple of things:

(1) Astronomy - who cares? I don't mean this to be an asshole and (2) plays a factor, but why would the free-er study of astronomy as early as the 16th century have advanced society?

(2) Astronomy did pretty well for itself despite the perceived exhortations of the Catholic and Protestant Churches.

(3) Bruno was executed for pantheistic beliefs. Servetus was executed for similar religious-type violations (i.e. John Calvin hated him). Neither man was executed because they were astronomers or due to their scientific beliefs.

What I'm wondering here is this - if Bruno and Servetus were not executed, what would they have done differently or better? How would astronomy have advanced if they had lived? How would astronomy's advancement helped society? And, finally, was astronomy really held back by religion or is that just a popular theme to bring up in casual conversation to make it seem like religion is this horrible thing that hinders scientific advancement?

> admits religion killed people for bullshit reasons
> argues religion isn't really that bad

... ?

It's simple really, Any irrational belief that can potentially lead one to change one's behaviour is dangerous, because in the long term its results are unexpected, no matter how noble the intentions might be.

Do we really need to go into specifics here? Missionaries caring more for converting the native populations than any kind of aid. "Houses of the poor" being basically places where the poor are brought to die righteously, rather then them getting actual treatment. Condoms condemned because after all what's a little HIV compared to going to hell? and so on and so forth.

[thegreekdog]

Okay, I guess a couple of things:

(1) Astronomy - who cares? I don't mean this to be an asshole and (2) plays a factor, but why would the free-er study of astronomy as early as the 16th century have advanced society?

(2) Astronomy did pretty well for itself despite the perceived exhortations of the Catholic and Protestant Churches.

(3) Bruno was executed for pantheistic beliefs. Servetus was executed for similar religious-type violations (i.e. John Calvin hated him). Neither man was executed because they were astronomers or due to their scientific beliefs.

What I'm wondering here is this - if Bruno and Servetus were not executed, what would they have done differently or better? How would astronomy have advanced if they had lived? How would astronomy's advancement helped society? And, finally, was astronomy really held back by religion or is that just a popular theme to bring up in casual conversation to make it seem like religion is this horrible thing that hinders scientific advancement?

> admits religion killed people for bullshit reasons
> argues religion isn't really that bad

... ?

It's simple really, Any irrational belief that can potentially lead one to change one's behaviour is dangerous, because in the long term its results are unexpected, no matter how noble the intentions might be.

Do we really need to go into specifics here? Missionaries caring more for converting the native populations than any kind of aid. "Houses of the poor" being basically places where the poor are brought to die righteously, rather then them getting actual treatment. Condoms condemned because after all what's a little HIV compared to going to hell? and so on and so forth.

Governments killed shit-tons of people. Shall we do away with them?

The only one of your examples that holds any water is the condom condemnation. And even for that one, I would be willing to bet my house that the number of people who get veneral diseases because they didn't use a condom because their religion told them not to is less than 2%. The other two "bad things" would have happened had religion been involved or not. Natives die from disease regardless of the presence of missionaries. Poor people die regardless of whether religion intervenes or not.

Okay, so now that those are out of the way - "Any irrational belief that can potentially lead one to change one's behavior" - I agree that beliefs (rational or not) can make one change his or her behavior. I don't agree that because the belief is irrational it is dangerous. Further, we can apply the "belief changes behavior" concept to pretty much anything and see positive and negative results.

My point here is that religion, alone and by its nature and by its impact on peoples' behaviors, does not have an overwhelmingly negative or an overwhelmingly positive effect on society. People like to point to religion or religious beliefs as the reason for bad things happening simply because they want to point to the irrationality of the entire concept of religion. Instead, we should be examining the rational reasons why religious people do what they do - power and money - and determine whether we should do something about those items rather than saying we should abolish religion. If we abolish religion, there will still be people against gay marriage and condoms and socialized healthcare; there will still be people who want to blow other people up.

[Neoteny]

I mean, I'm no fan of religion, but the dark ages argument amuses me. Religion (the Muslims) was as important to preserving and advancing science during the middle ages as it was (Christianity) restricting it. I think the main issue with religion is that it's a force for stasis. I think more recent ideologies are more fluid (hence Islam's flourishing during the decline of Christendom, and the burst of advancement brought on by the Reformation [this also explains why Islam and various protestant groups, having aged, now serve as the protectors of the status quo; I think a reformation in Islam would do some good, but with the fracturing of Christianity, I think we're all doomed on that front.]), which allows for advancements in multiple fields, not just science and theology.

[thegreekdog]

I mean, I'm no fan of religion, but the dark ages argument amuses me. Religion (the Muslims) was as important to preserving and advancing science during the middle ages as it was (Christianity) restricting it. I think the main issue with religion is that it's a force for stasis. I think more recent ideologies are more fluid (hence Islam's flourishing during the decline of Christendom, and the burst of advancement brought on by the Reformation [this also explains why Islam and various protestant groups, having aged, now serve as the protectors of the status quo; I think a reformation in Islam would do some good, but with the fracturing of Christianity, I think we're all doomed on that front.]), which allows for advancements in multiple fields, not just science and theology.

The Dark Ages argument amuses me because religion had little to do with the dark ages being dark. And as I referenced above, Islam and Christianity in the British Isles helped save writing, mathematics, etc. simply because they were societal institutions. So, what I mean by that is that religious institutions because they were institutions helped; not because they were religious.

[Neoteny]

I mean, I'm no fan of religion, but the dark ages argument amuses me. Religion (the Muslims) was as important to preserving and advancing science during the middle ages as it was (Christianity) restricting it. I think the main issue with religion is that it's a force for stasis. I think more recent ideologies are more fluid (hence Islam's flourishing during the decline of Christendom, and the burst of advancement brought on by the Reformation [this also explains why Islam and various protestant groups, having aged, now serve as the protectors of the status quo; I think a reformation in Islam would do some good, but with the fracturing of Christianity, I think we're all doomed on that front.]), which allows for advancements in multiple fields, not just science and theology.

The Dark Ages argument amuses me because religion had little to do with the dark ages being dark. And as I referenced above, Islam and Christianity in the British Isles helped save writing, mathematics, etc. simply because they were societal institutions. So, what I mean by that is that religious institutions because they were institutions helped; not because they were religious.

I wouldn't say religion had little to do with the dark ages. It was an important tool, but not necessarily the or a cause. I think religion made the dark ages a little darker, but not much.

[Maugena]

I believe that religion and it's ignorance is bad for human civilization. As such I believe that as humans we would be much better off without religion. I feel it is important we live in reality, not fantasy land. I happily look forward to the destruction of all religions.

I agree with this.

[saxitoxin]

I happily look forward to the destruction of all religions.

Religion is a thin, wire lock holding 6 billion violent inmates from charging out of the asylum and gang-raping you. The educated class on this planet is too small of a percentage of the overall population to make civilization functional without the psychological lever of religion. It will be hundreds of years before it's safe to get rid of religion. That's my issue with activist atheists.

Gravity has killed many people and caused much suffering. I don't think we should get rid of gravity.

[Haggis_McMutton]

Governments killed shit-tons of people. Shall we do away with them?

We should acknowledge them as problematic anyway. Isn't that what this whole libertarian anarcho-capitalistic thing is partly about?

The only one of your examples that holds any water is the condom condemnation. And even for that one, I would be willing to bet my house that the number of people who get veneral diseases because they didn't use a condom because their religion told them not to is less than 2%. The other two "bad things" would have happened had religion been involved or not. Natives die from disease regardless of the presence of missionaries. Poor people die regardless of whether religion intervenes or not.

I'm not saying religion is fully responsible for shit like that, I'm just saying it's part of the problem, not the solution. When people donate money trying to help and that money is collected and used by other people who spend a significant portion of their lives trying to help you would expect some positive benefit will come. Instead you get nothing because the way they're trying to help isn't grounded in reality, but in fantasy and the people they're trying to help die pretty much as before.

Okay, so now that those are out of the way - "Any irrational belief that can potentially lead one to change one's behavior" - I agree that beliefs (rational or not) can make one change his or her behavior. I don't agree that because the belief is irrational it is dangerous. Further, we can apply the "belief changes behavior" concept to pretty much anything and see positive and negative results.

The problem with irrational beliefs, that aren't grounded in reality is that they're not accountable to anything, they're not falsifiable they don't make predictions, they just sort of float around mutating randomly. This makes them dangerous.

If I believe X is good from a scientific viewpoint, I will be able to be convinced X is not good, or at the very least be ridiculed for not accepting the truth about X if I'm stubborn.
If I believe X is good from a religious viewpoint, that's it, there's no recourse.

My point here is that religion, alone and by its nature and by its impact on peoples' behaviors, does not have an overwhelmingly negative or an overwhelmingly positive effect on society. People like to point to religion or religious beliefs as the reason for bad things happening simply because they want to point to the irrationality of the entire concept of religion. Instead, we should be examining the rational reasons why religious people do what they do - power and money - and determine whether we should do something about those items rather than saying we should abolish religion. If we abolish religion, there will still be people against gay marriage and condoms and socialized healthcare; there will still be people who want to blow other people up.

I don't know if it's overwhelming or not. I'm definitely not saying religion is our biggest problem or anything, but I do see it as part of the problem, not the solution.

[thegreekdog]

We should acknowledge them as problematic anyway. Isn't that what this whole libertarian anarcho-capitalistic thing is partly about?

Yes and no. Yes, governments are problematic. No, most people aren't calling for the destruction of government. The mantra of this thread (the title) is "the destruction of religions."

I'm not saying religion is fully responsible for shit like that, I'm just saying it's part of the problem, not the solution. When people donate money trying to help and that money is collected and used by other people who spend a significant portion of their lives trying to help you would expect some positive benefit will come. Instead you get nothing because the way they're trying to help isn't grounded in reality, but in fantasy and the people they're trying to help die pretty much as before.

So you don't think the money collected by religious institutions and used (ostensibly) for charity is helping anything at all? That seems cynical and inaccurate. I know that my church (religiously based) collects money from parishioners and uses it to directly benefit the poor and infirm (paying for care, food, etc.). That is a positive benefit. So I don't agree that people get nothing. Maybe in your poor house example that is the case, but it's not making anything worse and it's certainly not causing anything. So, I wouldn't deem it to be part of the problem (certainly not part of the solution either).

The problem with irrational beliefs, that aren't grounded in reality is that they're not accountable to anything, they're not falsifiable they don't make predictions, they just sort of float around mutating randomly. This makes them dangerous.

If I believe X is good from a scientific viewpoint, I will be able to be convinced X is not good, or at the very least be ridiculed for not accepting the truth about X if I'm stubborn.
If I believe X is good from a religious viewpoint, that's it, there's no recourse.

The problem with your equations is that they discount anything other than religion or science. For example, actions (whether positive or negative) must be taken with respect to X before anyone in society is affected. If I believe enslaving people is good from a religious viewpoint, I must enslave people before a negative reaction happens to society. Further, if I believe enslaving people is bad from a scientific (or economic or other) perspective, I have to refrain from enslaving people, which I may not want to do for various reasons (i.e. it's good for me from a scientific perspective). Again, that's one of my overarching points. Religion, by itself, has no negative or positive consequences. Religion with an action can have negative or positive consequences. My other overarching point is religion is used to justify actions but is not the root cause of actions; power, wealth, control, etc. is the root cause (I believe).

I don't know if it's overwhelming or not. I'm definitely not saying religion is our biggest problem or anything, but I do see it as part of the problem, not the solution.

I really don't think it's part of the problem at all. Gay marriage is seen by many to be a religious issue. I don't think it is a religious issue. I think it's a cultural issue and an economic issue. Without religion, would gay marriage be legal? I don't know.

[Phatscotty]

Answer: PEOPLE are fucked up! If there wasn't religion, there would still be fucked up people doing crazy shit in the name of something else.

And I am more worried about how the government holds our children back on their education today than how religion might have held back advancement centuries ago.

Did you ever consider it was not so much about holding people back as it was about increasing their power? And what was the reason to seek an education in the 13th century?

[Army of GOD]

I'm curious, does anyone know the influence of religion on early human civilizations?

From what I understand, all early civilizations were heavily religious...Babylonians, Egyptians, Chinese, Indian all had strong religious beliefs as a whole. I'm asking because I don't know, but I feel like religion might have been vital at least for the start of humanity as we know it.

I don't know about its current impact, but it's absolutely ridiculous to say we'd be better off with/without religion because it's all god damn speculation anyway.

[PLAYER57832]

I believe that religion and it's ignorance is bad for human civilization. As such I believe that as humans we would be much better off without religion.

Why?

religion held back and persecuted those who studied science for centuries and pretty much anyone who didnt conform to their beliefs and way of thinking, we would be more advanced as a species if religion never existed.

I think I need some more explanation here as to what specific advancements were hindered by religion.

astromony for one is a easy one , many people were burned at the stake for their ideas like Giordano Bruno and Michael Servetus. there are many other fields taht they held back not just astronomy.

Actually this is not factually correct. There was some oppression, yes, but it was not as widespread as commonly thought. Further, while the church did limit some people, it also provided a haven of research, promoted literacy and study in other formats. A lot of nasty things happened in this period, but it very much laid the foundation for advancements that came after.

A good foundation often begins with a hole.

[PLAYER57832]

I believe that religion and it's ignorance is bad for human civilization. As such I believe that as humans we would be much better off without religion. I feel it is important we live in reality, not fantasy land. I happily look forward to the destruction of all religions.

According to this article, the self-destruction of Christianity might already be in progress.

http://www.alternet.org/belief/155462/h ... age=entire

How the Christian Right's Homophobia Scares Away Religious Young People
The Christian right is increasingly out of step with how Americans feel about gay rights. This issue might be the one that destroys them in the end.

Your referral to "religion" is far too broad. The fact is that religion is just a term for any broad system of being/morality, etc.