• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

All Religion is Bad.

All religion is bad and causes harm

  • True

    Votes: 97 49.7%

  • False

    Votes: 98 50.3%
  • Total voters
    195
Yay... T'ai weighs in with his irrelevancies.

Some of the biggest philanthropists are atheists including Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, and Angelina Jolie- better yet, they don't make you believe crap to get the help. There are multiple secular groups and charities too... but just as groups don't advertise themselves as being non-scientolgists or non-stamp collectors they don't have a paradigm to rally around so they can get a tax break for their good deeds.

Since, he has me on ignore, I just want to point out that T'ai is our longest posting young earth creationist. Over 10,000 posts, and nary a clue in sight.
 
Gregoire said:
I am new to the Forum so I don't know how most people think, but like most questions using words like ALL, NONE, ALWAYS, or NEVER I cannot say "true".

Specifically, I can imagine situations where a belief that "bad things happen for a reason" etc could help someone get through a difficult situation.
Click to expand...

Welcome to JREF, Gregoire!

Just a few quick questions - bear with me here.

1. Are you an atheist?
2. Were you in the Army?
3. Did you train at Ft. Sill, OK, in the summer of '90?
4. Do you remember Waco Hill?

Thanks!
 
Z said:
Is Deism a religion? Is solipsism? What about anti-dogmatic religions, like some forms of paganism, which dogmatically eschew dogma? How about the Discordians?

I'm sorry, but I cannot agree that all religion is bad, nor that all religion causes harm.

In fact, given that the central tenant of the Universal Church of Truth and Light is to believe what you will, and do no harm, I'm not sure you can EVER say that all religion is bad. Even if you define 'causing harm' as 'promoting belief in nonexistant entities' - since some UCoTaLers choose solely to believe in the nearless endless wonders of the material universe.

So I have to vote that statement as false.

`The Rev.
Click to expand...

ME too! I clicked and was ordained. Oh wait... that was the "Universal life Church." I forget all about that. Damn, now I wish I could change my vote.
 
According to Encarta, the relevant definitions are:

1. beliefs and worship: people's beliefs and opinions concerning the existence, nature, and worship of a deity or deities, and divine involvement in the universe and human life

2. system: an institutionalized or personal system of beliefs and practices relating to the divine

Once you believe in the existence of divinity you have begun believing without evidence. This is bad.
 
articulett said:
And look. You used your 1000 post to not-vote on the poorly worded question.
And it didn't even have the planet X option. Good for you. Endorse the planet X option even when it's not there. It probably is the best way of dealing with the nonsense. Congratulations on 1000 posts!
Click to expand...

Thanks!
I hadn't realized I'd come to the 1000. And it wasn't a wasted post. I protest the most frequent error in thinking on these boards.

And here's that lovely planet!
PlanetX.JPG
 
That's such a blanket statement that of course it's false. Here are some examples of religion doing good:

Buddhism is quite homosexual, bisexual and transgender-friendly which is why countries such as Thailand are so accepting of LGBT people. Same could be said for Jewish synagogues that allow for same sex marriage and organizations like the Unitarian Universalists.

Jainists live a life of peace and serenity. They bother no one, don't cause any wars, don't abuse their own members, practise what they preach and foster a respect for nature and human life.

Islam- sells a lot of airplane tickets to Saudi Arabia.

Judaism- produced the coolest culture and most interesting population of people on Earth.
 
Roadtoad said:
No, not all religion is bad. At least, not until it contradicts the facts.

At that point, it becomes evil.
Click to expand...
Nope. In my opinion, the idea that religion can, at any time and at the whim of any believer, start contradicting reality with the full acceptance of the majority of believers, is enough to define the whole enterprise as "bad".
 
No. I'm frankly a bit suprised that so many agree with the statement. I haven't seen the inside of a church in over a decade (not counting old Japanese temples as a tourist) so I'm not an 'apologist.' But as stated, it's too much of a blanket statement. There are always caveats and exceptions. 'Religion' should be unambigiously defined, and I'm not fully satisfied with the given definition of 'bad.' Some things can cause both 'harm' and 'benefit.' And of course, we then have to consider exactly what counts as 'harm.' Is it objectively definable? Can we accurately weigh 'benefits' against 'harm'? Harmful to whom? The believer only, or someone else? Religion is too complicated a subject to make a pithy blanket statement about it.
 
articulett said:
...he has me on ignore ...
Click to expand...

As I said, Arti, in a post specifically directed to you today, I wouldn't ever put you on ignore. More lies...

Note me trying very hard to sway people in the vote, too.

Nice talking to you again.
 
Gregoire said:
I am new to the Forum so I don't know how most people think, but like most questions using words like ALL, NONE, ALWAYS, or NEVER I cannot say "true".

Specifically, I can imagine situations where a belief that "bad things happen for a reason" etc could help someone get through a difficult situation.
Click to expand...

I see this is still causing confusion and I don't see why.

The subject is deliberately worded and I think the word "all" is pretty unambiguous, no matter how much "religion" and "harm" are debated.

The premise is very simple - if you believe religion does some good, the answer is "false". If you believe there is no good in religion, the answer is "true".

It's a simple concept and Arti's campaigning well for votes.

I'm just interested to see where it ends up.
 
Puppycow said:
No. I'm frankly a bit suprised that so many agree with the statement. I haven't seen the inside of a church in over a decade (not counting old Japanese temples as a tourist) so I'm not an 'apologist.' But as stated, it's too much of a blanket statement.
Click to expand...

That's like saying that insisting that heroin is bad for you is "too much of a blanket statement".
 
Puppycow said:
Indeed it is too much of a blanket statement. Are you saying it might not be beneficial to a terminally ill patient in chronic pain?
Click to expand...

Pointing out how the benefits outweigh the harms under extreme circumstances doesn't eliminate the harms under more normal conditions.
 
JoeEllison said:
Pointing out how the benefits outweigh the harms under extreme circumstances doesn't eliminate the harms under more normal conditions.
Click to expand...

But the original question included the word 'all' without any caveats. Therefore a single exception to the rule is suficient to falsify the statement. 99.9% is not the same as 100%. I would probably have anwsered in the affirmative without the word 'all.'
 
Puppycow said:
But the original question included the word 'all' without any caveats. Therefore a single exception to the rule is suficient to falsify the statement. 99.9% is not the same as 100%. I would probably have anwsered in the affirmative without the word 'all.'
Click to expand...
I guess I wasn't clear. Benefits that outweigh the harms do not eliminate the harms. So, by that standard, religion is ALWAYS bad, even if there are also minor benefits.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom