NationStates Jolt Archive

Title is basically it, since the beginning of Modern religion, IE 1AD, has modern religion, harmed or helped more people? I leave it open to discussion

Religion itself has helped no one. God has helped persons through religion, though.

Neither some good some bad

I'd say overwhelmingly helped.

It was religion that prevented the utter devastation of the Dark Ages, reorganized central governments during the Middle Ages, and provided much of the capital and education for the people that crafted the Renaissance and its successor the Enlightenment. Religion also made significant advances in engineering, music, and the arts, which were three major fields nearly lost after the fall of the Roman Empire.

We would not be as advanced as we are today without the influence of religion. Our modern sciences all owe a massive debt to the religious scholars that laid the groundwork for the discoveries they make today.

Religion itself has helped no one. God has helped persons through religion, though.

surely religion has helped someone without Gods help though...maybe a guy who makes money selling baby Jesus statues?

surely religion has helped someone without Gods help though...maybe a guy who makes money selling baby Jesus statues?

:(

No, it harms him much more than it helps him.

First, there is the sin of having an image of God made. Then, there is the sin of making money off sin and meaning to do. And then, the sin of encouraging sin.

So, the man is much worse off spiritually.

It's too simplistic a setup. But both.
In Europe during the Dargages, for example, religion was very much the means by which the ruling minority turned the world to hell. Yet it also protected the sum of human knowledge from that minority.

I consider religion to be a delusion. Therefore, this is a bad thing. I contest that the triumphs of humanity can be attributed to intellegence, motivation, personal resolve, poeple helping one another and so on. Religion has nothing to do with man's success

So, the man is much worse off spiritually.

what if he spends the money on finding himself a wife and having lots of kids then spends some excess (he lives in Jerusalem) on an orphanage/school/church combo

Also your assuming that he would be a Christian

I consider religion to be a delusion. Therefore, this is a bad thing. I contest that the triumphs of humanity can be attributed to intellegence, motivation, personal resolve, poeple helping one another and so on. Religion has nothing to do with man's success

And religion has nothing to do with that? Nothing to do with men like Descartes or Newton, who considered their work to be in homage to God? Or Einstein, or Spinoza, or Galileo, or Copernicus? Deism was one of the underlying principles of the scientific revolution and the emergence of modern thought in the Enlightenment, to say nothing of the great thinkers who came before.

Society and religion have been intertwined for their entire history, and one often motivates the other to push beyond the boundaries of knowledge in to something more.

I consider religion to be a delusion. Therefore, this is a bad thing. I contest that the triumphs of humanity can be attributed to intellegence, motivation, personal resolve, poeple helping one another and so on. Religion has nothing to do with man's success

sanctuary? Religious teaching (well in a monk copying texts sense)? Monasteries spending donations on treating the sick (remember people don‘t donate much without the fear of hell ect)?

Edit: yes pointing these things out is my hobby

what if he spends the money on finding himself a wife and having lots of kids then spends some excess (he lives in Jerusalem) on an orphanage/school/church combo

Also your assuming that he would be a Christian

Wonderful, but he still sinned in those ways. Much better if he had never been selling Jesus statues. And it doesn't matter if he's Christian or not: sin knows no label.

God does (and has and will) use religion to do many things. But that does not mean that we can say that religion itself is good. You need only look to the Crusades and the modern jihadists to see that.

As for helpful, yes it is very helpful. Hitler used it to stir hate against the Jews.

Modern religion has helped, and modern religion has hurt the world.

An example of it helping: When the Muslims were the first to believe the Earth was round in thousands of years by using the Qur'an. This lead to them making accurate maps, helping future explorers.

An example of it hurting: The Spanish Inquisition. Need I say more?

Some good, some bad. Could you be a bit more specific?

Harmful.

Wonderful, but he still sinned in those ways. Much better if he had never been selling Jesus statues.

why :confused:

And it doesn't matter if he's Christian or not: sin knows no label.

kind of redundant if he's going to hell anyway no?

As for helpful, yes it is very helpful. Hitler used it to stir hate against the Jews.

also stopped him from forming a religion around Nazism and targeting groups like Catholics

And religion has nothing to do with that?

Nope. They did it all by themselves.

Almost exclusively harmful, because of its general authoritarian nature and its general tolerance of or active support for unjust social structures and myriad oppressions. It is very good at getting otherwise decent people to advocate the worst of atrocities - including some, like the sentence to eternal damnation of the majority of the human species for a failure to accept Jesus, that make the worst crimes of human beings look paltry by comparison.

At best, what can be claimed is that "religion" is generally an excuse, and the real motives of behavior are elsewhere - but then we are stuck with the fact that this invalidates the alleged benefits just as much as it invalidates the alleged harms.

sanctuary? Religious teaching (well in a monk copying texts sense)? Monasteries spending donations on treating the sick (remember people don‘t donate much without the fear of hell ect)?

Monks are among the dumbest people on the planet. Some of them are doctors but they all insist on praying for hours a day and preforming only mundane or near usless jobs. Charity does just fine without them.

And what does fear have to do with charity? I don't know anyone who gives money to charity because they fear god.

Harmful. And what of the Crusades? I do not believe THAT helped. Unless of course you believe that killing people off because you believe them to be "infidels" justifies that.

Nope. They did it all by themselves.

So, religion can profoundly influence their lives and motivate them to do these things in the first place, and yet they did it all by themselves? That sounds kind of delusional.

I am going to say that religion, when it isn't mixed up in government is a good thing. However, whenever religion becomes involved in government, atrocities will soon follow. We can look to the Spanish Inquisition, Crusades, Salem witch trials, and the modern day Middle East.

Some of them are doctors but they all insist on praying for hours a day and preforming only mundane or near usless jobs. Charity does just fine without them.

Proof? And do you believe sickbeds and medicine aren’t helpful? (I’d go as far to say that knowing someone is praying for you helps too)

I don't know anyone who gives money to charity because they fear god.

that’s because people never admit it face it if you don’t put that money on the collection plate you know where your going :)

Harmful. And what of the Crusades? I do not believe THAT helped. Unless of course you believe that killing people off because you believe them to be "infidels" justifies that.

just one action sadly everything is always a shade of grey in this reality :(

I am going to say that religion, when it isn't mixed up in government is a good thing.

Religion is always mixed up in government. Serious religion has always been and will always be political. Nothing that so profoundly influences people's moral judgments can be otherwise.

Some good, some bad. Could you be a bit more specific?

Would the world be a better place if modern relgion had never existed?

Monks are among the dumbest people on the planet. Some of them are doctors but they all insist on praying for hours a day and preforming only mundane or near usless jobs. Charity does just fine without them.

And you have evidence of this?

I seem to recall that Gregor Mendel, the father of modern genetics, was a monk. And it was monks that preserved the writings of the ancient Greeks and Romans, and who spread literacy during the Dark Ages when it was nearly wiped out due to the collapse of the educational system.

Would the world be a better place if modern relgion had never existed?

In the Dark Ages (and that's being generous).

So, religion can profoundly influence their lives and motivate them to do these things in the first place, and yet they did it all by themselves? That sounds kind of delusional.

Religion did influence their lives, but it DID NOT help them achieve anything of greater importance. Self motivation is a virtue that is independent of religion. I also do not appreciate being called delusional.

...prick

why :confused:

Clarification: I meant that he still sinned in selling the statues, etc., not that he sinned in doing all those (outwardly) good deeds.

The good deeds do not cancel or cover the evil ones.

kind of redundant if he's going to hell anyway no?

It is through those sins that he earns hell.

also stopped him from forming a religion around Nazism and targeting groups like Catholics

Hitler was already targeting Evangelicals: heard of the Declaration of Barmen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theological_Declaration_of_Barmen)? Most of those persons were put in prison or were forced to flee.
Catholics would not be far behind.

And you have evidence of this?

I seem to recall that Gregor Mendel, the father of modern genetics, was a monk. And it was monks that preserved the writings of the ancient Greeks and Romans, and who spread literacy during the Dark Ages when it was nearly wiped out due to the collapse of the educational system.

Yes I suppose dumb isn't a good word. I'll just stick to delusional. I'm sure its true that there are/were some cool monks out there. I geuss I just have a problem with their delusional lifestyle, but hey, whatever floats your boat.

Religion is always mixed up in government. Serious religion has always been and will always be political. Nothing that so profoundly influences people's moral judgments can be otherwise.

If certain religious people really believe that abortion or same-sex intercourse or the like are as bad as murder, it's ridiculous and unfair to expect them to do OTHER than protest as hard as they can against it, and that includes bringing the state on their side and "imposing their beliefs on others."

Better to honestly acknowledge the seriousness of their perspective - and then fight as hard as you can against them anyway.

Yes I suppose dumb isn't a good word. I'll just stick to delusional. I'm sure its true that there are/were some cool monks out there. I geuss I just have a problem with their delusional lifestyle, but hey, whatever floats your boat.

A delusion is only a delusion if it is demonstrably untrue.

But, for fear of hijacking this thread, like anything else, opinions are yours and yours alone so long as you don't force them on others.

A delusion is only a delusion if it is demonstrably untrue.

But, for fear of hijacking this thread, like anything else, opinions are yours and yours alone so long as you don't force them on others.

DELUSION is : a fixed false belief that is resistant to reason or confrontation with actual fact:

Ok, so monks pray for hours to a supernatural force. A force that has no evidence, and no scientific reasoning to support it. They believe this non-existent force is the key to all meaning and cause in the universe. However, there is no evidense that any communication is going on at all. In fact, their praying has no supernatural results to support their claims whatsoever.

None of that was opinion. I have proven that monks are delusional.

Would the world be a better place if modern relgion had never existed?
Damn... that's hard because of the mixed results of that. I'd go out on a limb and say depends. If we're talking about orginized religions, I'd say that it would have been better because too many time people get caught up in the orginzation rather than the reason and power within said orginzation becomes the goal.

If we're talking about belief in a higher power of somekind, or something outside the physical (Concepts included) then no. People have a need to believe in them, and the need to believe often times leads to insperation or strength.

But, given how interwined human belief is with humanity itself, it'd be like asking if things would be better or worse if humans were missing a body part.

more people die by the name of god than any other reason.

more people die by the name of god than any other reason.
How odd... I've always been told it's cardiovascular diseases that's the number one cause.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_death

I respect the rights of others to believe what they choose as per religion. People should be free and that includes what they choose to believe in. However I draw the line at the point where they try to force the morays and ethics of their particular belief system upon the masses of the country they live in whether those masses subscribe to the same belief system or not. Doing this infringes the freedoms of others.

Religion, and I don't take it to mean just christianity as a lot of people seem to, can be very beneficial as a set of common beliefs help bring communities together and aid social bonding. These beliefs of course need not necessarily be religious either.

Freedom of opinion and belief is supposed to be one of the corner stones of modern society therefore attempting to enforce ANYTHING on religious grounds is counter productive. What is right and wrong should, and must, be agreed upon by logical debate backed up by evidence and NOT based on dogma.

When religion is used as a weapon to bring everyone else into line rather than as a tool for building a community then it is harmful to society. Especially when it is used as justification for physical harm of others.

When you do that I believe you place the importance of the religion above the figure(s) it was developed to worship and by so doing you start to kill your own god(s).

Title is basically it, since the beginning of Modern religion, IE 1AD, has modern religion, harmed or helped more people? I leave it open to discussion
Had the Gnostics been quicker in taking Christ's message and using it to form a philosophy rather than a religion, the world would have been better off; no question. As for the effects of religious organisations, they have been of some use in spreading ideas but, at the same time, being regressive in their refusal to allow deviation from what they perceive as the single inalterable truth of the ideas they spread.

Politically, of course, they're a disaster in every respect, but that's a given.

more people die by the name of god than any other reason.
Urk!

*Perishes*

Religion itself has helped no one. God has helped persons through religion, though.


Well said.

Religion gives people hope and comfort. At it's best, it has helped to uplift the human spirit, preserved and expanded knowledge, and promoted mutual love and brotherhood among men.

On the flipside, it has caused inhuman and uncountable acts of brutality, murder, promoted sectarian violence and bloodshed and persecuted and murdered those who refused it - or even dared question it.

Religion, before the modern era (roughly, 1800 and on) was necessary. It provided a structure and form for society, and answers in a brutal and savage world.

Today? Religion is an anachronism, and one we would be better of consigning to the past. What good it did is past; only it's harm remains.

From a librarian's point of view, harmful. Extremely harmful.
Christianity has, over the centuries, been the reason for the loss of an enormous amount of older or profane literature. It's only thank to the Muslim world that many of these important works od classical times could be preserved.

As a humanitarian, I'd say it did slightly more harm then good. While it did promote charity to some extend, it also enforces rigid social sructures, discrimintaed unforgivingly against women, minorities, people of other faiths, it actively supported and promoted wars of aggression such as the crusades, the Reconquista in Spain, the Conquista in South America, it provided the basis for the Inquisition and various periods of fanatical witch hunts throughout Europe and America.

Harmful. It hijacked too much of human morality and spirituality; as a result it became a force for far more harm than good. And people should be into humanitarian aid for more than religious reasons.... So yeah. Organised religion is destructive.

Nope. They did it all by themselves.


I'll bet you blame the crusades and the burning of the library of Alexandria on religion as well :headbang:

I'll bet you blame the crusades and the burning of the library of Alexandria on religion as well :headbang:

I fail to get the point... the library at Alexandria was accidentally burned by Julius Ceasar. Hardly an overly religious person

I fail to get the point... the library at Alexandria was accidentally burned by Julius Ceasar. Hardly an overly religious person

The actual point was that this guy seems to think that religion can't motivate people to do good things. Yet I'm positive he'll point out the crusades. You can't claim it motivates the bad stuff without also motivating the good stuff.

According to my reading, The great library was destroyed in 643 AD. I can't exactly remember who though, as I read about it a long time ago.

Okay, better example, the Spanish inquistion.

Some blamed it on the Muslims, on that date (or thereabouts). Most likely though, it was just general conflicts that eventually destroyed the collection.

Some blamed it on the Muslims, on that date (or thereabouts). Most likely though, it was just general conflicts that eventually destroyed the collection.

Probably.

Religious or not, every power hungry leader knows the best way to gain control of a populace is to destroy all knowledge.

The actual point was that this guy seems to think that religion can't motivate people to do good things. Yet I'm positive he'll point out the crusades. You can't claim it motivates the bad stuff without also motivating the good stuff.

According to my reading, The great library was destroyed in 643 AD. I can't exactly remember who though, as I read about it a long time ago.

Okay, better example, the Spanish inquistion.

People never needed an excuse to do good things.
They did need excuses when doing harmful things, and religion often proides just that.

"Kill them all, god will know his own" comes to mind.

People never needed an excuse to do good things.
They did need excuses when doing harmful things, and religion often proides just that.

"Kill them all, god will know his own" comes to mind.

You will find that the words "excuse" and "motivation" are two seperate words. Not even synonyms.

Probably.

Religious or not, every power hungry leader knows the best way to gain control of a populace is to destroy all knowledge.

The libraries of Grenada, anyone?

A feeling of intellectual inferiority certainly contributed to the merciless way in which
the Christians treated the Muslims. In 1499 in Grenada, Cardinal Ximenes ordered 80
000 Arabic books to be publicly burned because Arabic was a language for a
"heretical and contemptible race".

Source (pdf) (www.temaasyl.se/Documents/Artiklar/Alhambra%20A%20Model%20For%20The%20European%20House.pdf)

Oh, and :

To avoid a naval combat, Caesar burnt 110 Egyptian ships at dockyards that enabled him to occupy Pharos, control the entrance to the harbor and establishing direct communication with his main forces across the sea. The fire extended to the city and the Great Library (Megale Bibliotheke), and a number of 40,000 books (400,000 in some sources) were burnt, with a tremendous loss of treasures and human heritage.

Source (http://www.arabworldbooks.com/bibliothecaAlexandrina.htm)

You will find that the words "excuse" and "motivation" are two seperate words. Not even synonyms.

I never claimed religion motivated people. In either direction.
It just provided moral excuses for otherwise obviously immoral behaviour, while at the same time condeming as immoral some forms of neutral moral behaviour.

The libraries of Grenada, anyone?



Source (pdf) (www.temaasyl.se/Documents/Artiklar/Alhambra%20A%20Model%20For%20The%20European%20House.pdf)

Oh, and :


Source (http://www.arabworldbooks.com/bibliothecaAlexandrina.htm)

I see, but of course the massive book burnings of Hitler and Mao, unmotivated by religion, and happenign in more "enlightened" times count for nothing right?

I never claimed religion motivated people. In either direction.
It just provided moral excuses for otherwise obviously immoral behaviour, while at the same time condeming as immoral some forms of neutral moral behaviour.


People can use ANYTHING as an excuse for immoral behavior.

I see, but of course the massive book burnings of Hitler and Mao, unmotivated by religion, and happenign in more "enlightened" times count for nothing right?

Again... I completely fail to get your point. Are you suggesting that I implied the Julius Caesar was religiously motivated??? :confused:

People can use ANYTHING as an excuse for immoral behavior.

No doubt. But they tend to use religions and pseudo-religions most of the time.

Again... I completely fail to get your point. Are you suggesting that I implied the Julius Caesar was religiously motivated??? :confused:

Oops. Didn't read the post properly, my mistake.

No doubt. But they tend to use religions and pseudo-religions most of the time.

That's because it's easy, if you claim what you're doing is in the name of a higher deity.

If sceince was less accessible to the general public, you would see the same atrocities happening with "Scientific enlightenment" as the excuse.

That's because it's easy, if you claim what you're doing is in the name of a higher deity.

If sceince was less accessible to the general public, you would see the same atrocities happening with "Scientific enlightenment" as the excuse.

No doubt that would happen when science was deified the way communism was. People who believe in greater truths are easily manipulated, generally speaking.

No doubt that would happen when science was deified the way communism was. People who believe in greater truths are easily manipulated, generally speaking.

It would seem the problem then, is not religion, communism, or any other ideology. Just power hungry tyrants and gullible morons.

I'm religious and I feel I am neither, so I'm just going to go to sleep now.

Religion is like a placebo - occasionally doing good through delusion - but there are no active ingredients.

It would seem the problem then, is not religion, communism, or any other ideology. Just power hungry tyrants and gullible morons.

I'm religious and I feel I am neither, so I'm just going to go to sleep now.

The problem is organised religions, theistic as well as atheistic ones.
Unfotunately, almost all "modern religions" are organised.

I'm not attacking religious people or faith here, mind. I'm attacking the concept of religion.

The problem is organised religions, theistic as well as atheistic ones.

an atheistic organised religion??? could you give an example? because i can't imagine anything that would fit that description.

an atheistic organised religion??? could you give an example? because i can't imagine anything that would fit that description.
In Soviet Russia, religion organises you.

an atheistic organised religion??? could you give an example? because i can't imagine anything that would fit that description.

Nationalsocialism.
Sovjet Communism.

Any philosophy can be turned into religion, really.

“Religion is a kind of spiritual gin in which the slaves of capital drown their human shape and their claims to any decent life.”

The problem is organised religions, theistic as well as atheistic ones.
Unfotunately, almost all "modern religions" are organised.

I'm not attacking religious people or faith here, mind. I'm attacking the concept of religion.
Why? What IS the problem?

Why? What IS the problem?

Ok, problem was maybe to strong a word. I was trying to point out that I see organised religion as having done more harm than good. And I wanted to make it clear that I was speaking about religion as such, not religious people.

Ok, problem was maybe to strong a word. I was trying to point out that I see organised religion as having done more harm than good. And I wanted to make it clear that I was speaking about religion as such, not religious people.
I disagree, I've seen it do a lot of help as well. The problem being that no one seems to notice it too much.

I consider religion to be a delusion. Therefore, this is a bad thing. I contest that the triumphs of humanity can be attributed to intellegence, motivation, personal resolve, poeple helping one another and so on. Religion has nothing to do with man's success

Absolutely. Remember galileo? Persecuted for being scientifically correct but not being in accordance with dogma. Finally killed for it. Fuck religion and the horse it rode in on. Anyone who believes in invisible friends and is over the age of six should be automatically barred for any meaningfull debate or policy making. Now take a look at global governments - is anyone else worried?:headbang:

Religion is like a placebo - occasionally doing good through delusion - but there are no active ingredients.

I bow before thy wisdom.

Sorry to revert back to the OP momentarily but you must distinguish between religion, official religions and spirituality surely.

As an atheist I can still see and understand that a sense of a 'higher power' helps many, many people come to terms with the essential meaninglessness of life.

However, religions in the sense of (and I know this is a stupid term to use) what some call 'organised' religions have, in my opinion, caused more than their fair share of war and conflict.

Long story short: Spirituality/religion on your own grounds or interpreted in your own way = good.

Religion as defined by a Priest/Rabbi/Imam/Preacher/Llama = mostly bad with flecks of goodness.......

I disagree, I've seen it do a lot of help as well. The problem being that no one seems to notice it too much.

Just taking Christianity as an example (as most posters here are most familiar with it) and looking at its 2000 years of history, I would still say the harmfull outweighs the helpful.
Yes, it did a lot of good. But it's also directly and indirectly responsible for incredible amount of harmful.

Sorry to revert back to the OP momentarily but you must distinguish between religion, official religions and spirituality surely.

As an atheist I can still see and understand that a sense of a 'higher power' helps many, many people come to terms with the essential meaninglessness of life.

However, religions in the sense of (and I know this is a stupid term to use) what some call 'organised' religions have, in my opinion, caused more than their fair share of war and conflict.

Long story short: Spirituality/religion on your own grounds or interpreted in your own way = good.

Religion as defined by a Priest/Rabbi/Imam/Preacher/Llama = mostly bad with flecks of goodness.......

That's why I wanted to make it clear that I'm talking about religion, not faith.

Atheism is a non prophet organization.

However, religion is a prophet organization.

The basic ideals of each religion revolves around the preaching of the prophet that it was based off of, and they appeal to different people. While religion may be seen as the cause, the motivations of the people are the main cause of the activities. People exploiting religion to their own use does not equate to religion telling them to do so.

But on another note, watch the South Park episode "Go God Go". You'll find that without religion we'll still have something to fight and kill each other about. :D

Just taking Christianity as an example (as most posters here are most familiar with it) and looking at its 2000 years of history, I would still say the harmfull outweighs the helpful.
Yes, it did a lot of good. But it's also directly and indirectly responsible for incredible amount of harmful.
Hospitals, orphanages, universities, schools, charities, sciences (Piecemeal, but there), end to slavery (While the focus has been on how the Bible was used to justify it, the Bible was also used to condemn it), etc.

Again, I respectfully disagree.

I also think that, given the intertwining with human history that religions have that such a question is next to meaningless. There's so many options and factors that you can't say, "It's ONLY because of religion that this happened!" in many events.

Just taking Christianity as an example (as most posters here are most familiar with it) and looking at its 2000 years of history, I would still say the harmfull outweighs the helpful.
Yes, it did a lot of good. But it's also directly and indirectly responsible for incredible amount of harmful.

I for one would like to see the evidance that shows this?

However, religions in the sense of (and I know this is a stupid term to use) what some call 'organised' religions have, in my opinion, caused more than their fair share of war and conflict.
Odd, I would have said fighting over resources has caused more wars and conflicts than religion has.

There's so many options and factors that you can't say, "It's ONLY because of religion that this happened!" in many events.

exactly, i doubt that there wouldn't have been "Hospitals, orphanages, universities, schools, charities, sciences (Piecemeal, but there), end to slavery (While the focus has been on how the Bible was used to justify it, the Bible was also used to condemn it), etc." without religion.
otherwise that would be extremely sad, like people can't help/love/respect eachother without religion.

exactly, i doubt that there wouldn't have been "Hospitals, orphanages, universities, schools, charities, sciences (Piecemeal, but there), end to slavery (While the focus has been on how the Bible was used to justify it, the Bible was also used to condemn it), etc." without religion.
otherwise that would be extremely sad, like people can't help/love/respect eachother without religion.
Two way street, many universities, hospitals (and so on) were founded by religious organizations (There are, IIRC a number in Belgium). If you're gonna say the good stuff happened without religion, then you must also admit that the bad stuff would have happened without religion as well.

Two way street, many universities, hospitals (and so on) were founded by religious organizations (There are, IIRC a number in Belgium). If you're gonna say the good stuff happened without religion, then you must also admit that the bad stuff would have happened without religion as well.

some of the bad stuff would undoubtly have happened without religion. the crusades would probably have been just another war based round power. i only think that religion was a very useful tool for the powerfull to persuade the people to follow them to "liberate the holy land", while they probably just wanted more power. It's can also be very easily used to make "the others" look like devils or subhumans because they don't follow the right religion.

i think think that religion is fine, as long as it isn't forced upon people, and as long as it doesn't become fanaticism (but this goes for almost everything)

and yes there are some catholic universities and hospitals in Belgium, along with non-religious organizations like that. iirc in the first half of last century there was a lot of trouble between religious and secular organizations (mostly schools)

Hospitals, orphanages, universities, schools, charities, sciences (Piecemeal, but there), end to slavery (While the focus has been on how the Bible was used to justify it, the Bible was also used to condemn it), etc.

Again, I respectfully disagree.

I also think that, given the intertwining with human history that religions have that such a question is next to meaningless. There's so many options and factors that you can't say, "It's ONLY because of religion that this happened!" in many events.

I'm not saying that religion was the reason behind events like the Conquista or even the crusades.
I am however saying that the Inquisition, the perception of women as property (which lasted into the 20th century, unlike slavery), social exclusion of Jews and various progroms all over Europe in all epochs, impeding progress in the medical and surgical fields as well as most other sciences, as well as imposing a neurotic system of sexual morality, denying women a sxeual identity and marginalising homosexuals entirely.

Christian churches managed even to be cruel in their charity. Ireland in particular the church not too long ago had institutions which forced unmarried mothers to have their children there, and then put them up for adoption without the consent of the mothers.

Again, I'm not talking about faith or religious individual. I've little doubt that faith does help a lot of peoples. But religious organisations are something I personally regard with a lot of suspicion.

Harmful. And what of the Crusades? I do not believe THAT helped. Unless of course you believe that killing people off because you believe them to be "infidels" justifies that.

You clearly missed a class or two if thats what you thought the crusades were about. It was territory, no more no less. It was made special by religion, but it was ultimately all a matter of "they have it, we want it" on both sides

Yes, the organisers of the Crusaders weren't motivated by religion, but I doubt without the religious reasons you'd have got nearly as many people to join and it would be much less likely to succeed.

However, religion is a prophet organization.

The basic ideals of each religion revolves around the preaching of the prophet that it was based off of, and they appeal to different people.

Not all religions.

The problem isn't religion, it's difference of opinion.

The problem isn't religion, it's difference of opinion.

Damn you, that's my line!:(

Religion is like a placebo - occasionally doing good through delusion - but there are no active ingredients.

Exactely! Stupid, violent people harm society. Smart, benevolent people help. Religion is a delusion. I do not blame religion for the holocaust. I blame the Nazis.

religion...stifles progress and encourages ignorance, religion is bad...

religion...stifles progress and encourages ignorance, religion is bad...

Muuwhahahahahahha! Realy?

Sooooo how do you know that?

Not all religions.

I know, like I said, it's a basic, but there are those that don't.

Exactely! Stupid, violent people harm society. Smart, benevolent people help. Religion is a delusion. I do not blame religion for the holocaust. I blame the Nazis.

Of course you can't blame the holocaust on religion, as apart from the fact that Hitler was persecuting Jews (and on an ethnic and racial level mind you) RELIGION WAS NOT INVOLVED IN IT AT ALL!!!