I am probably asking for it for posting this but here goes.

I have spent most of my time here lisserning to people say religon is evil and how it has caused all the problems in this world but i was at mass today and they were talking about hope. This got me thinking. I came to the conclusion that religion's SOLE purpose is to give hope. Hope to those in bad situations that they will get better. Hope to the sick and dieing that there lives are not in vain. Hope to those left behind that there loved one is happy and they will see them again.

I cant see anything wrong with this

Then i thought that just maybe the problems in the world ARN'T caused by religion but by peoples fears and hatreds of those different from themselves.

This means that if the world got rid of religion the problems would still exist but without the hope that religion can provide.

Thoughts?
(please i don't want this thread to turn into a debate on what religions better or wether god exists):confused:

Good and bad depend on what you're trying to accomplish. Religion is counter-productive to the goals of some people, and essential to the goals of other people.

People who have a goal of feeling hopeful and who find that death makes them feel unhopeful may find religion important in getting to their goal.

I agree that many things attributed to religion would've happened without it, and simply latch onto religion for convinience. Also, there's a difference between saying that organized religion is bad compared to saying that belief in a god is bad.

I don't think there is because some people NEED a prist and comunity to help them through their lives

I dont think there's ANYTHING wrong with religion. In fact, I think its great. It gives people hope, and something to look forward to. Its saved many people from killing themselves, giving them something to live for. True, its caused many wars, but this isn't because of the religions, but because of the people that practice them. I think with a bit of thought, religion and science can happily co-exist. But we should, in no way, turn our back on science. Religion may give us a reason to live, but science keeps us alive. I'm a dork.:bugeye:

PS- "something to look forward to" = an afterlife, usually...

Edited for: inserted PS

i agree. of course it depends on what the religion teaches. if the religion teaches hope, prosperity and of morality or of things of this nature, than this religion of course can be good for people. however if another religion with the same concept exists but is taught that anyone found with a birthmark is considered demoniac and therefore should be burned at the stake, this religion may be giving off the wrong impression to society and i would give this religion and thumbs down hehe.

I don't believe that religion in itself is bad. I've found that a belief in God is essential to building one's character: The majority of atheists I know are either "slow in the head" or just really shallow. I also believe that going to church is a good way to keep yourself in check, and develop some kind of relationship with your God, however you perceive him.

What some people fail to do, however, is realize that they are individuals, and that there is more to life than religion. This is fanatisism. It causes people to accept the problems of today instead of trying to fix them, because "God wants it like that." It gives them a feeling of immense love, yet often leaves them stranded.

My mom said the other day that, ever since I was born, she knew I wasn't hers, and that I was just on loan to her from God. I told her that was the stupidest thing I've ever heard, and I became pretty offended that she doesn't consider her only child to be "hers". Like, wtf, I AM her kid. Where else did I come from, you know?

Religion would be more widely accepted by atheists and would not be looked down upon if everybody kept things on the level. Remember: Everything in moderation. It's these fanatic freaks of religion that screw it all over for the rest of us.

Welcome, <b>xelius00</b>, to Sciforums!

My brother once told me that I was the master of over-generalizations! Sheesh!


The majority of atheists I know are either "slow in the head" or just really shallow.

I take it this does not include yourself? That statement is one heck of a blanket assumption about nonbelievers. Do you mean to say that all mentally retarded people are, by default, atheist? Or that all atheists are mentally retarded? You might be able to argue that atheists are religiously retarded, but not spiritually. Being spiritual and being religious are two different things.

How do you mean shallow, though? Do you mean that it is impossible to build character without a belief-set grounded in God? Is it building character more by getting through the difficult times in life by acknowledging them and trying to work through them, rather than saying that God is punishing/rewarding according to the trial? For instance, say your house is devastated via tornado, would you be more apt to say that you were sinful or that you built your house in a section of land that's been systematically ravaged by the elements?

If by "slow in the head" you mean that atheists just can't get the concept of a loving God into their respective minds, well then you could be right. Ever wonder why getting that concept into their heads would be a slow-going process?


Religion would be more widely accepted by atheists and would not be looked down upon if everybody kept things on the level.

Unfortunately, it is precisely religion that breeds the freaks and extremists. Many fundamentalists see it as their God-given right to punish others that are wayward or are blatantly disobeying the commandments of God. Personally, I think they realize that God isn't lifting a finger either way and so they take it upon themselves to act in his behalf. Hence, homicidal zealots, charlatans, and various evil-doers.


I also believe that going to church is a good way to keep yourself in check ...

Why do you need someone else to keep you in check? Isn't self-mastery a basic tenet of most religions? Wouldn't being able to control yourself and keep yourself in check be much more courageous than allowing others to do so?

Well, hope this didn't come off as derisive so much as just putting in my two bits.

Thanks!

prag

well heres my 2 cents worth. I feel religion is a good thing, as it gives a person something to believe in. Something that is bigger than they are and can create a sense of belonging to a community of people that feel the same way they do.

But its what people do with religion that is the bad part. A good example of this is the middle ages, when the church was at its most powerfull point. Corruption and violence were rampant in the church, and even today people have used God and religion to justify murder, war, genocide and all types of crimes.

So I do feel that religion in its purest form as taught by Jesus Christ, Muhamed and others is a good and inspiring ideal. Its what we do with those ideas that determines if its good or bad.

Please no judgements on any paticular religon (its done enough in other threads) i am only talking about religon as a generalistic no spacific religons, ok

xelios:

I've found that a belief in God is essential to building one's character: The majority of atheists I know are either "slow in the head" or just really shallow. I also believe that going to church is a good way to keep yourself in check, and develop some kind of relationship with your God, however you perceive him.

Not needing to believe in imaginary punishments hardly harms morality. Simply because you haven't the balls to live ethically without your imaginary friend dosen't mean that I can't.

Of course, my imaginary friend Cthulhu is cooler.

Haf'hrdn Asguard, et alia:

I don't think religion is a bad thing per se. For instance, in medieval Europe, the Catholic Church subsidized orphanages and hospitals.

The problem is when people like xelius use it as a crutch. Instead of living thier lives well, they spend life fearing an imaginary man in the sky. Instead of basing thier moral system on duty and rationality, they base it on the fear of a nonexistant punishment. I think this harms ones ability to live ethically, to truly live ethically.

Religion gives many people a hope of an afterlife. This is a good thing. So, I think that religion can be good or bad, depending on what it inspires in its followers.

Asguard,

There is nothing wrong with having hope that things will improve. However, the downside to religion is that the primary mechanism proposed to translate hope into real solutions is to have faith in a deity or a second life. These are passive and inactive processes that we have seen from experience as being of little to no value.

Quality of life has come through direct action not through prayer or wishful thinking.

I have met too many religious people whom when faced with difficult situations simply say that their god will see them through it. When instead they could solve the problems themselves by making an effort.

The essential danger of all religions is that they promote a fatalistic attitude to real solutions; that sense that they are powerless to make a difference and that only a supernatural solution is the answer.

Having real hope based on actual directed practical solutions is fine. Hope based on fantasies offer only false hopes.

Religions can have no long term value since too many people use them as an excuse to not make an effort to solve real problems for themselves.

Cris

What about situations they have no conrol of.
Example: cote death, or a miss carage

Some people can deal with these, some brake down and some chose to put there faith in a plan.

Who are you to say they are wrong when it maybe the only thing that alows them to move on

Asguard,


What about situations they have no conrol of.
Example: cote death, or a miss carage

Some people can deal with these, some brake down and some chose to put there faith in a plan.

Who are you to say they are wrong when it maybe the only thing that alows them to move on. I agree that people can escape the effects of reality by believing in a fantasy, the effects are real. What is needed, and would be of greater value would be a support system based on reality. Unfortunately after thousands of years being dominated by religions the human race has not yet provided itself with any type of widespread support system that can replace the fantasy effects of religions.

Cris

Cris what i am asking for in this thread is for people NOT to push what they belive. You calling it fansy is as counter productive as Azrael or xelius00 pushing that god is real. You will notice i haven't said wether or not I belive in god because its iralevant. I want people to look are religon as an istitution with out judgements on its belifes. You can't prove that a god DOSN'T exist so either argument is still valid but please argue about it somewhere else.

Asguard,


Cris what i am asking for in this thread is for people NOT to push what they belive. A noble objective, but it’s a fine line, and I think impossible. You may have a point, concerning hope, at a very superficial level, but whether religion is bad or not will eventually depend on whether the tenets of a religion are true or not.

As social institutions religions can be seen as beneficial but despite your suggestion that is not their SOLE purpose.

The hope issue comes down to being effective if religion represents a truth or dangerous false hope if religion is a fantasy.


Then i thought that just maybe the problems in the world ARN'T caused by religion but by peoples fears and hatreds of those different from themselves.I think that there is a lot to this. It has been shown that couples who look like each other make the best marriages. In most parts of the world people are suspicious of different racial groups and different customs. But religious beliefs tend to be among the most deep felt and when such beliefs are combined with politics, as with Islam, then that will tend to polarize differences between groups of different religions.

We could then argue that not all religions can be true and perhaps none are true. So we know that some conflict is going to be inevitable simply because of the existence of some religions. That to my mind makes religion bad, and in this case it doesn’t matter whether one of them is true or not, conflict will result regardless.


This means that if the world got rid of religion the problems would still exist but without the hope that religion can provide. A difficult hypothetical. Given that most religions are untrue except perhaps one then that indicates that humans need to create something in which to believe whether true or not. So I suspect that even if religions disappear humans will find something else to give themselves hope.

Cris

What about budast monks. Wether there religon is right or wrong they are the most peaceful and kind people in the world. you can't tell me that their religon isn't good for the world

Buddhist monks are people just like anyone else. They are no different that Catholic priests. Or did you not see the news story a few months ago of a Buddhist monk in Thailand being arrested for raping an Australian tourist?

I agree they are not perfect but they come closer than most institutions. They (for the most part) actually follow there Philosophy of peace. Which is closer than most Christans, Jews, Athists (i added you because you are no more peacefull), or Muslams

Damn right I'm not peacful/pacifistic. Pacifists die. Violent people at least can save their own lives and other lives. Survival often requires violence. Philosophy is for survivors. You won't hear any philosophy from dead people.

what a sad situation when the world requires that. That is one of the reasons i wanted to die.:(

It's not a sad situation at all. It's nature, and it rocks. Lion kills and eats zebra. Lion's family survives, and maybe some day their descendents will develop very interesting philosophies. While it isn't that nice to see the zebra get killed, overall it's quite a beautiful picture.

Asguard:

No more peacefull? You take that back or else!

Admit that athiests are more peacfull or I will make you a knuckle sandwich! ;)

Cris: I hate to quote Jesse Ventura, but, I agree with him that "Religion is a crutch for the weak"

I've gotten over death as an athiest, I've resisted temptations and I've done all the things that are supposed to be impossible without religion. I think they would have been easier if I believed in a afterlife, which is why I agree with Ventura.

Some are not strong enough to function without thier imaginary friend. And as long as they do not burn me, subvert my Constitution , attack my rights, or wake me up at 9 am on a saturday the religious are best left alone.

The problem is that they do.

Actually when religons clash its because of politics NOT religon (i challenge ANYONE to prove me wrong about that).

I belive its the scientific way that a hypothosis stands untill there is prof its wrong. Some people belive that god exists some don't. As it is impossable to find evidance either way both are equally valid.

Adam:

it is a sad situation, If the only way we (with our surposidly higher intelects) can live is as parisites on our world then it is VERY sad

Not to hyjack, but I am an athiest simply because it is more logical not to believe in God than to believe in God.

Also, the idea of a loving, omnipotent God allowing suffering to exist offends my sensibilities.

As for why religions clash, I don't think it is purely politics or purely theological bigotry. It is probably a bit of both, with different people having different reasons.

For instance, the Catholics had no monetary reason to murder Giordano Bruno. But they did have a monetary reason to persecute the Hugenauts.

can you please give a little more info on those people (i don't have clue who you are talking about)

Asguard: Google rocks (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=Huguenots&spell=1)

Oooh, sorry! :o

Giordano Bruno was a brilliant scientist and mystic and philosopher who was utterly hot and intelligent and....right. He was a Italian scientist who wrote a lot about mystical magical things, and was one of the first people to predict the existance of planets outside our solar system.

The Catholic Church burned him alive at the Campo della Fiora in Italy on Febuary 17th, 1600. Nobody really knows why, either because he was a scientist who believed that the earth orbited the sun or because of his mysticsim.

The Huguenauts (http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/3809/Huguen.htm) were French Protestants. They were sporadically persecuted by the French Catholics, mainly because they had money that the Church wanted...if you kill heretics, you get thier money, see?

You are talking about the hight of the church's power. not only spiritual but then the church was a political power as well. As much as i would wish it wasn't the persiution of prodistants and scientests wasn't because it was wrong but becaused it weakend the churches power base.

Lets face it the whole purpose of religion is to prevent people from question the established truth. As a result it causes stagnation. We would be alot farther along technologicaly and socially without religion.

Greetings:

I'm new to sciformus, but like what I've seen so far! It looks as if there are some intelligent people here. Anyway, I don't mean to come across too strong, but I have a different view on religion than most of what I've seen in this thread. The question "Is Religion REALLY so bad?" to me invokes an instant response of "Yes, it is!" Why? For many of the same reasons people have mentioned that it is good. For instance, "it gives people hope". Now, on first glance this may appear as a valuable asset, to give people hope, and we hear it again and again, so much so that it has become an accepted cliche. "You've got to have hope". Hope in what? Giving people hope in something that doesn't exsist causes great damage, it's like living in a fantasy world. People begin to live for some 'other-worldly' exsistence and all their values become misplaced. "Just believe and everything will be alright". Believe in what? Some fairly tale? Personally, I'd rather not. This kind of mentality generates an aloofness to this world, the one we *know* is real. It shifts the center of focus away from the here and now, the day to day struggles and realities of our lives. It may be pacifying to some, but the better option would be to take a good look at your life as it is. If there is alot wrong, and this causes you pain, take responsability and fix it. Don't get on your knees and pray, leaving the resolution of your problems in someone elses hands (God, the priest, imam, rabbi, etc). DO something about it! Be strong! We all have it within ourselves to overcome our problems. False hope blocks us from doing so. Just my two cents worth :)

~Noktvs

Ok for one minute i will forget that i think you are TOTALY wrong and say ok theres no higher power. Would you lie to a dieing person to ease their pain?

Ok for one minute i will forget that i think you are TOTALY wrong ...
How very nice of you Asquard. Well I can appreciate the fact that we all have different opinions and that is one of the reasons I love discussion formuns, so I can gain an expanded awareness of other perspectives, if I agree with them or not.


Would you lie to a dieing person to ease their pain?

I see where your comming from with this question, but no I wouldn't. Don't get me wrong, I'm not some cold hearted machine. I do care about people, but I don't think lying to them to appease their quilt and fear is the right thing to do, even if they're facing death. In fact, it is *one* of my objections against most forms of organized religion. (the idea that you can live your life in total contradiction to it's principles, but then when your on your death bed you can all of a sudden have a change of heart and be "forgiven" for all your "sins"). Honesty is always best, especially in this type of situation. Yes, I would try to comfort them, but not by making up stories. Rather, I would remind them of the type of life they have led, the relationships they created and the joy they have brought into other peoples lives. I would let them know how much they mean to me, tell them I love them and that they will not be forgotten. I would ask them if there was anything in particular they have left unresolved that I could help them with. But to feed them lies to appease their pain just doesn't sit well with me.

Honesty is the last refuge of scoundrels!

Take care, and welcome to Sciforums ;)

I was watching a tv program where the mans fionce was dying. He knew she was dying but he was telling her how good the weding was going to be and stuff

this is what im talking about

But if you read "What do You Care What other People Think" by Richard Feynman the doctors thought his fiance had about a year to live. Her family insisted on lying about it but Feynman eventually told her and she was relived because she had figured out that everyone was lyig to her but wasn't sure what the truth was.

True story, was your TV program true?

Note: She was actually misdiognosed and lived for five more years

Asguard,

I was watching a tv program where the mans fionce was dying. He knew she was dying but he was telling her how good the weding was going to be and stuff
To me that's a sad approach to reality. Lying to others just to make them feel better? For instance, if I was at a party and my fly was open, I would MUCh rather have someone tell me, so I could fix it and not go walkling around all night with my fly open.

and on the same note:

Neutrino_Albatross,

...the doctors thought his fiance had about a year to live. Her family insisted on lying about it but Feynman eventually told her and she was relived because she had figured out that everyone was lyig to her but wasn't sure what the truth was
Man, if I was going to die and others knew it, I would want them to tell me. It would completely change the way I lived for my remaining time.

Greetings all:

Another reason I feel that "religion is bad":

I just came back from my nephew's Baptism into the Roman Catholic Church. He just had his 1 year birthday a few weeks ago. As I was sitting there in the pew, listening to the Priest explain to us all what this ritual means, I couldn't help but think that the whole thing was very coercive in nature. I mean here was ten kids, ranging in age from new-born to 2 years old, none of which had any idea of what was being done to them, no say in the matter and no way to disagree. The Priest went on with his explanation, telling us that once these children went through baptism, it was irreversible, that they would be born again into Christ and into the Church. He explained to the parents and godparents that it was their duty to raise these children up in Christ. He emphasized the fact to not wait until they were 5 or 6 when they begin to develop their own thoughts and question things. He said the parents and godparents must start now, to tell these children each night how to pray and so on. I happened to be sitting their with my son (who just turned 8 in March). He asked me if he was baptised, and I told him no he wasn't, and explained why. I said that me and his mother decided a long time ago that we were going to leave it up to him which spiritual path (or lack thereof) that he wanted to pursue. He seemed to understand and smiled real big at me. So I quess what I'm saying is that I object to the fact of "forcing" any child into a particular religion or denomination. We have laws protecting them from this type of under-handedness in other areas of life, but it seems when it comes to religon, people let their own prejudices overcome them and disregard the right to free-choice of our sons and daughters. I'm looking for comments on this issue.

First off i don't think it was real (and this person had no chance of life because they had no guts, they were squished)
she had about 2 minutes to live and died in his arms

Second do parents ask if there child wants to adoped the parents ethical code? (i know my parents and i STILL dissagree on matters of ethics and they will throw in that thats not how they raised me)

Asguard wrote:

do parents ask if there child wants to adoped the parents ethical code? (i know my parents and i STILL dissagree on matters of ethics and they will throw in that thats not how they raised me)
Ethics and Religion are two different things. This thread is about Religion, and if it's bad or good. But since some people's religion defines their ethical code, this is one of the reasons they force that particular religion on their children. Other reasons seem to be tradition, fear, guilt, and sometimes just general concern for the childs 'salvation' depending on the religion. BTW, I was lucky enough to be raised by parents who left it up to me to decide what spiritual path (or lack thereof) to take, and I am greatful for this, but it does not mean they didn't teach me how to be ethical or moral. It is a common misconception that atheists are a-moral or immoral. This is usualy based on the fact that religonists tend to harp on the 'sinfulness' of humanity and think that we cannot be moral without the aid of some god or other supernatural being. There are many people today who prove this a false doctrine by living a moral life, and not beleiving in god. My main point concerning the Baptism example is that I feel each individual should be allowed to come to their own understanding and form their own beliefs when it comes to spirituality. They should at least be of the age of reason, where they can decide for themselves and not be coerced into whatever tradition their family has followed. We don't own our children, they are not our property, but they are individuals. Teach them ethics/morals, yes, this is necessary for their own welfare and that of societies as a whole, but religion?? Let them make their own decison on that one. Just my opinion. :)

All i was talking about was your camment saying if it was anything else that was forced on a child it would be wrong

This is simply not true

Ethics, morals and behavier are forced to start with
School is forced (at least here it is)
what a child can do as far as sports and stuff are not chosen by the child but the parents

Asguard,

All i was talking about was your camment saying if it was anything else that was forced on a child it would be wrong
I never said that *anything* else being taught to a child is wrong. In fact, I said

Teach them ethics/morals, yes, this is necessary for their own welfare and that of societies as a whole, but religion?? Let them make their own decison on that one
My point of contention comes with the fact that parents force their own religion on their children, and I just don't agree with this. Ethics and morals are somethng completely different. They are mandatory to living a quality life, not walking all over other people, not raping, killing and so forth. That's just showing respect for yourself and others, but religion is in a class by itself. For instance, let's assume that there is some kind of absolute truth. Let's say (for example's sake) that Islam turns out to be the one and only true path to God. All those children that were baptised that day are now damed to hell, because they are Christian and in Islam, if you worship any being besides Allah, and Allah alone, you are going to hell. Christianity worships a trinity (father, son and holy ghost). Those little kids, whose parents made them become Christian through that ceremony have damed them forever. My point is that each individual should be able to decide for themselves, when they attain the age of reason, what path they are going to take. Regardless of religious beleifs though, all of humanity should be taught basic ethics and morals.

I agree although i dissagree with being told what my higher morals are (by higher i mean more complicated, example on abortion, i think that the girl makes a dission to have sex, the unborn child dosen't, so i think abortion is wrong, mum on the other hand thinks im a sexest prick, difference of opinions)

I think most things should be left up to a child with there parents only giding

Another example is politics, mum is a labor surporter and dads a libral (although he is more likely to chose the best person than vote a paticular party), so i have learned (by lisserning to them argue) that politics is firstly important and tgo chose carefully, most people my age chose a guy they like rather that the guy with the best policys (for them OR for others)

Well it appears this thread has just come down to you and I, brother Asguard :D

Ohh well, that's cool, I'm still enjoying it.

i dissagree with being told what my higher morals are
I do too. I think, though, that parents have a responsability to teach *basic* human morals. You know, the Golden rule and all that. But it does get tricky, because when you are a parent, you tend to want to teach your children how *you* feel about everything (politics, religion, philosophy, etc). This is where I feel most parents go wrong. We have to remember that we are all individuals, with our own minds, tastes and personal perspectives (even children). I only have one child, and I love him dearly. Sure, in the back of my mind I sometimes think "I want him to be like me" :D , but that's just my ego talking. In reality, I try to guide him to stay out of danger and trouble, but I don't try to teach him how to think like me, or hold the same opinions as me. If I wanted that, I would have built a robot! lol. I do explain to him where I'm comming from but then try to guide him to find the answers for himself. If more parents took this approach, I think there would be less conflict between them and their siblings. Open, two-way communication is the key to *any* good relationship, whether it's a business partner, lover, child or friend.

I think most things should be left up to a child with there parents only giding I totally agree!

You know you killed the thread

You agreed with me

You cant do that

We have nothing to debate now:D

You know you killed the thread. You agreed with me

Damn! I hate when that happens!!


We have nothing to debate now
Ohh, I'm sure we can think of something. Give me a day or two.:p

Ok. If I understand you correctly, you have been trying to argue that religion really isn't that bad. I have been trying to argue that it is bad. So, here are some more reasons I feel this way:

1) the Inquisition
2) Jihad
3) promoting fanatical intolerence of other religions/ways of life
4) repression of social progress
5) repression of natural instincts in humanity
6) promotion of obedience to a hiearchy
7) use of fear and guilt to control the masses
8) stunting of creative expression

I'm sure there's more, but you get my point.

Yes you have it right

Some reasons its good

It promotes hope
promotes understanding
promotes forgiveness and tolerance
even helps promote help of poor and those less fortunate

yes bad things have been done in the name of religion but most of them were done to preserve a PERSONS power. Most of the time "religiouse" wars are purly political not religiouse at all

"It promotes hope
promotes understanding
promotes forgiveness and tolerance
even helps promote help of poor and those less fortunate"

First of all... What the hell are you talking about promotes tolerance??? Don't quote scripture here, show us actual real life examples! Religion has hindered tolerance. How are the gays making out in the U.S.? Who thinks they shouldn't have equal rights? The Christians! So much for tolerance.


Second of all, hope and understanding. Religion definetly gives hope to people. The sad part is, religion definetly gives hope to people. I'm a firm believer that if you're using religion as your hope, religion is a crutch. You should be able to find hope and understanding without religion.

Well, in theory some churches promote tolerance of other beliefs and such. In reality, or in practice, many promote ignorance of all philosophies other than their own. I'm sure the christian bible, for example, contains many passages regarding how bad it is to worship others.

Originally posted by noktvs I'm new to sciformus, but like what I've seen so far! It looks as if there are some intelligent people here. Anyway, I don't mean to come across too strong, but I have a different view on religion than most of what I've seen in this thread. The question "Is Religion REALLY so bad?" to me invokes an instant response of "Yes, it is!" Why? For many of the same reasons people have mentioned that it is good. For instance, "it gives people hope". Now, on first glance this may appear as a valuable asset, to give people hope, and we hear it again and again, so much so that it has become an accepted cliche. "You've got to have hope". Hope in what? Giving people hope in something that doesn't exsist causes great damage, it's like living in a fantasy world. People begin to live for some 'other-worldly' exsistence and all their values become misplaced. "Just believe and everything will be alright". Believe in what? Some fairly tale? Personally, I'd rather not. This kind of mentality generates an aloofness to this world, the one we *know* is real. It shifts the center of focus away from the here and now, the day to day struggles and realities of our lives. It may be pacifying to some, but the better option would be to take a good look at your life as it is. If there is alot wrong, and this causes you pain, take responsability and fix it. Don't get on your knees and pray, leaving the resolution of your problems in someone elses hands (God, the priest, imam, rabbi, etc). DO something about it! Be strong! We all have it within ourselves to overcome our problems. False hope blocks us from doing so. Just my two cents worth

That is what most Indians felt about Hare Krishnas but were afraid to speak out. Let me explain: When Chaitanya started his movement, he attracted a lot of lazy people who ignored all their responsibilities to family and society and joined the cult. A lot of families lost their bread winning capabilities. The cult first turned into a cult of beggers that operated on parasitic principles. Today, the cult probably have evolved into a main stream society...

IMHO, religion grew out of ignorance and darkness. Science is slowly peeling the layers towards knowledge and light... but has some ways to go....(not all the answers)

So, is religion really so bad? The answer is same as "is ignorance bliss?" Depends on your POV, I suppose....

First off i have NEVER quoted sciptur. I once quoted the caticisam of the catholic church because it was relivant to the topic

Real life examples

er

Hate to push how good i am but ME maybe
i was brought up catholic and i am tolerant

Yes gays can't recive communion and we are not surpost to use contraception but that will change eventully

Im sorry to quote this but its what i try to live by

Love thy nabor as thy self

I could never live up to that but i try

Asguard,

"It promotes hope
promotes understanding
promotes forgiveness and tolerance
even helps promote help of poor and those less fortunate "

On hope, see my initial post in this thread

On understanding, my question is understanding of what? The dogamtic opinions of the Church Fathers, Preachers, etc?

On tolerance, I have to agree with Tyler here, religion absolutely hinders the promotion of tolerance. It breeds hatred and distrust of all those who do not believe the same as you. And agian like Tyler stated, what about gays? You admit that the Church doesn't allow them to take communion but that it will "change eventually" Don't you think 2000 years is long enough?

On charity. Ok, I'll give you this one. Religion does promote charity, but charity exsists without religion as well. Think of all the work humanist organizations have done in this field.

~Noktvs

All i want to ask is if religion is the root of all evil then why am I not evil?

Asguard,

By me answering yes to your questoin "is religion REALLY so bad?" does not mean I feel it is the "root of all evil". I have brought up various points concerning religion that I feel are negative aspects of it. *Maybe* because of your religous nature you tend to see things in the context of absolute good and absolute evil? I see things differently. It's not that cut and dry. And this is another point about religon that I dislike. It promotes a mentality of "Us and Them". Very dualistic. Heaven and Hell, God and Satan, Believer and Infidel. There's generally no room for shades of grey. I was just debating a Christian on another forum who claims that before Judaism there was no religion. Now that's not only closed minded, but it's just straight up ignoring the facts of history. I asked, what about Shamanism, Hinduism, Taoism, Voudo, Egyptian religion, Sumerian religion? He had no response. The point is that because of his religious beliefs, he is unwilling to even consider any of the paths that fall outside of the tradition he practices as valid, or that they even exsisted. Just goes to show yet again how religion breeds intolerance. I'm not saying that you are doing this, but I'm using it as another example of a person coming from a religious perspective that I have seen before and it's another reason why I think religon is "bad", especially any form of fundamentalism.