Religion - Good or Bad?

[Charz777]

Firstly, I don't agree that people saying it's bad are narrow minded. We've grown up in a world were religious groups have performed terrorist acts, where people have hidden behind their religion and used it as an excuse for their own errors and misjudgments. I can't accept anyone doing something bad and saying 'It's a part of my religion,' or someone finding and excuse because 'it's against my religion.'

Fair enough, there are genuine people out there who have a strong faith, who are good. Who do follow the rules of their holy text meaning they don't sin. And yes, that is good. Religion has done good when people behave according to the law, respectfully and in peace.

But no, people ARE NOT narrow minding for simply noticing that terrorism came mainly from religion and for realising that religion has caused a lot of badness in our world. I think that people must be ignorant not to see and accept that. The people being called narrow minded for saying religion is bad are really just being realistic about the world.

Religion can be both good and bad. But I can't deny that it is my belief that were there to be a world war 3, it would not be due to land, money, government, monarchy, but religion. People taking it too far and believing that their actions are in the name of their god. What Deity would have terrorists kill the people he/she created? Those people are hiding their own crimes behind their religion and that is what's bad. It mocks the true meaning of religion and all those genuine, innocent and decent people who have it.

[Ardemax]

How about Darwin?

As far as science is concerned, Einstein/Newton are like the Gods and Darwin is the one playing the harp. Still badass nonetheless.

[The Don]

As far as science is concerned, Einstein/Newton are like the Gods and Darwin is the one playing the harp. Still badass nonetheless.

Still backs up my point

[dirrty]

i'm not interpreting religion as terrorism if that's what you're suggesting but if you look at the majority of the worlds problems these days religion will play some part in it

human nature is the cause of world problems. since the beginning of human existence, competition, greed and power flows through mankind like a leaf in the wind. yes, religion has been used as an excuse for extremist behaviour, but its power that dictates how society (and individuals) operates. the majority of the world problems have been constructed, not through religious belief, but for own personal gain (whether that gain is in a micro, or macro level).

all religions are a neutral playing field which can influence negative, but also positive behaviour; it just depends on how one interpretes whatever they read. afaik, christianity is embedded into our legal system. religion, in general can better individuals in giving them hope for the future. just because some people aren't religious, doesn't mean that those who are, are blinded, silly, etc. if religion guides individuals to being in a better place, and therefore a better citizen in our society, then why should it matter? people's opinions on religion are basically dictated upon how extremists interprete their own religion. for the most part its harmless. it's the individuals themselves who are good or bad, not religion itself.

[Johnathan]

religion is the main cause of the worlds problems

It's funny how narrow minded people can be. I don't see Buddhism being the most immediate threat to the worlds financial stability, do you?

I think people are interpreting "religion" as "those arab blokes who go round blowing themselves up" which, quite frankly, is rather a load of tosh *insert posh laugh here*.

I think the fact that religion offers morals to live by is an example of how it can't be the "main cause of the worlds problems", however much you think it to be true. I believe that people are the main cause of the worlds problems, we are all idiots in the grand scheme of things.

People do cause most of the worlds problems. Religion wouldn't exist without people. I agree with your post Adremax.

[Teabags]

Think Napoleon best described this. He indicated a utilitarian view of religion. "Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet."; He also said: "Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich"

[Invent]

There's no need for religion in modern society. Its sole reason for existence is to give the weak-minded a sense of purpose, a reason for why they're here. It helps good people do bad things, scams people out of their money, delays the advancement of science (even in this day and age - e.g. blocking stem-cell research), encourages people to interfere with other peoples lives and their personal choices (anti-gay, pro-life, etc agendas all backed up using religious doctrine), false sense of morality (if you need a book to tell you not to commit murder, you have issues) and more.

Believe all you want, I'll never be against people believing what they want to believe but I am against the idea of religion/theism. We no longer have any need for it and in my opinion the bads outweigh the goods.

[Ardemax]

There's no need for religion in modern society. Its sole reason for existence is to give the weak-minded a sense of purpose, a reason for why they're here. It helps good people do bad things, scams people out of their money, delays the advancement of science (even in this day and age - e.g. blocking stem-cell research), encourages people to interfere with other peoples lives and their personal choices (anti-gay, pro-life, etc agendas all backed up using religious doctrine), false sense of morality (if you need a book to tell you not to commit murder, you have issues) and more.

Believe all you want, I'll never be against people believing what they want to believe but I am against the idea of religion/theism. We no longer have any need for it and in my opinion the bads outweigh the goods.

I'm guessing this entire post is opinionated as your first line doesn't seem to suggest. And if people believe in a higher power (majority of the world), you're essentially saying a huge portion of that figure are weak-minded. Are you suggesting that leading figures in the field of science who have a religion are weak minded? I don't think so.

The bit I've put in bold is a bit of a statement itself... I'm sorry but a huge generalization like that in this day and age is quite frankly outrageous. Replace "book" with "law" and it's the same thing, therefore you're suggesting you have problems if you listen to "the book of the law".

I'm sure a lot of people agree with you, but people with any ability to be open to other ideas would be slightly confused as to why you believe there is no need for their beliefs in modern society (first line).

[Invent]

I'm guessing this entire post is opinionated as your first line doesn't seem to suggest. And if people believe in a higher power (majority of the world), you're essentially saying a huge portion of that figure are weak-minded. Are you suggesting that leading figures in the field of science who have a religion are weak minded? I don't think so.

As I said, religion exists to try and provide people with a reason for their existence. That is why countries with very low income/poverty are very religious, a lot of people want to know they're not here for no reason. That is why I do find scientists who are believers to be weak-minded. They are surrounded by facts and reason in their careers and yet they are worried about the afterlife so they choose to believe something without any evidence, simply because they cannot accept they are likely here by an accident and not designed by a creator. If you have to believe something like that because you can't accept the opposite (the more likely truth) then yes, I think you are weak-minded.

Also, who are these leading figures (alive and working in the 20th+ century, please) that are religious?

The bit I've put in bold is a bit of a statement itself... I'm sorry but a huge generalization like that in this day and age is quite frankly outrageous. Replace "book" with "law" and it's the same thing, therefore you're suggesting you have problems if you listen to "the book of the law".

No, law and religion are completely different things. I don't commit murder because I have morals. I didn't get these morals from a god; they were part of me when I was born. I don't need a book of law (like religious people need the bible/10 commandments) to tell me not to hurt others, but we do need them to exist to punish those who can't follow their own morals and remove them from civilized society until they are fit to rejoin.

I'm sure a lot of people agree with you, but people with any ability to be open to other ideas would be slightly confused as to why you believe there is no need for their beliefs in modern society (first line).

I was once a Christian when I was a child. I then grew up, learnt about science, evolution, facts and grew out of it. Because I believe that there is no need for religion doesn't make me unable to be open to other ideas, that's stupid. I love science. If I wasn't open to new ideas, then I couldn't because science is all about accepting new ideas and learning new things.

[GommeInc]

I went into Ipswich in Suffolk on Friday and visited the St. Mary-le-Tower Church, and I was shocked to see how accepting they are of gay, lesbian and transgender men and women. They openly accept anyone and everyone, pray for those who have been discriminated against and their aim is to make other churches and people accept them. I was really expecting them to suggest homosexuality could be healed with prayer and that it is wrong because the Bible says so, but to them they want to change the views of the church rather than the views of the gay men and women.

Completely mind blowing to read the leaflet on it, and see what action they are taking. It's the first time I had seen a Church with such an open mind and admit that maybe the way the Bible is interpreted is wrong.