Forums → WEPR → [necro] The overall effect of religion on the world
| 126 | 33247 |
I've seen a lot of threads talking about religion in this section of the forums, and it seems that some people think it has a bad effect on the world and we should try to get rid of religion, whereas others believe religion hhas an overall good effect on the world.
In this thread, my aim is to discuss these two views, because I want to know what people think, and why they think what they think
Now I've created a very short survey here and would love it if you could take a couple of minutes answering it. Just answer as many questions as you want.
In a few days, I'll publish the results and we can discuss them. I hope I'll get plenty of participants
- 126 Replies
Signed the petition, MRWalker. I did a tour in southern Afghanistan and saw the effects of religion on a very first hand basis. That was the experience that solidified my hatred of religion. Having said that, I do not hate the idea of religion, I hate the abuse and twisted thing it can and has become.
I'd like to recommend that people read [url=http://www.fstdt.com[/url]FSTDT] for a collected ton of fundamentalist craziness.
Mhh, since this seems to be turning into a gallery of facts about extremism, let me answer with the same type of arguments.
In the 20th century alone, more than 150 million were killed by atheist regimes (I'm talking of a democide here, no war-related deaths), compared to the 2 million killed by Christian regimes in the previous 20 centuries... How's that for a bloody fact?
NB: Sources can be found in my post on page 4 of this thread. Also, I know this is not a Christianity vs Atheism thread (since I created it^^), but I thought these were interesting numbers nontheless.
Depends on how people look at their religion. Not all muslims are extremists, only some chose to be because they feel it is their duty to do these things for Allah or something.
If you look at it my way, all religons are the same thing if you break them down to the bare basics:
1. Worship your god
2. Respect others
3. Do not kill or steal
I'm surprised people start wars or feuds over religon when they're the same thing!
Ironically, religous zealots are breaking their own rules when they murder believers of different faiths.
In the 20th century alone, more than 150 million were killed by atheist regimes
Find me just one regime that kills on the basis of their lack of faith in deities. Nevermind, I can tell you how many there are. None.
There is a difference between having a belief AND killing, and killing BECAUSE of your belief. I think that is a concept that is not being grasped here.
1. Worship your god
2. Respect others
3. Do not kill or steal
For the most part, but not all fit all these criteria.
Ironically, religous zealots are breaking their own rules when they murder believers of different faiths.
Many of the biggest religious texts support killing for many reasons. So the zealots really do have scripture they can point to and say God supports there actions.
n the 20th century alone, more than 150 million were killed by atheist regimes
wtf..
do you mean China and Korea putting down dissident? But I doubt the numbers are that high.
There is a difference between having a belief AND killing, and killing BECAUSE of your belief. I think that is a concept that is not being grasped here.
I agree that there is a difference. My point was that under religious regimes, there are far less civilian deaths than under non-religious regimes, even if under religious regimes they might be related to religion whereas under non-religious regimes they will probably not be related to religion.
On another point, there ARE some regimes who kill(ed) people professing a religion...
But I doubt the numbers are that high.
Well look it up in any study of democides you can find, and you will see that I am not lying (if anything, the numbers will be higher).
I agree that there is a difference. My point was that under religious regimes, there are far less civilian deaths than under non-religious regimes, even if under religious regimes they might be related to religion whereas under non-religious regimes they will probably not be related to religion.
Might I point out that this makes NO SENSE at all? Seriously. Oh, and I found your 'statistics' page that was used. How interesting that it comes from a Christian Apologetics site... sounds biased to me
Might I also point out that in the vast majority of cases, theocracies (religious states) typically have a vast majority population of the same belief as the ruling party. There is no need to kill millions when only 10,000 disagree with you. Yet the most common occurrences of democide are in these theocratic states, or states with a state religion. Although the numbers are much smaller than in Communist nations. Russia and China combined had a startling majority of the 'atheist regime' numbers tallied, and we know that was due to ethnic cleansing, rebellion, and the institution of Communism.
If you really want to see some startling statistics, look at the percentages of atheists in relation to violent crime, divorce, and abortion, just for starters. You will find that even though atheists make up the 3rd largest 'religious denomination' in America, they are by far the minority in each of these, as well as many other areas where theists profess that 'a lack of God leads to immorality'.
Might I point out that this makes NO SENSE at all? Seriously.
It makes perfect sense.
It's infinitely harder to blame atheism for a death than it is to blame theism.
If a theist kills and says "I am doing God's will," then the death is considered to be a religious death.
If an atheist kills and says "I killed because I wanted to, there is no God," chances are you're going to blame the death on some disorder while excluding it from deaths caused because of atheism. Even if we did include this kind of event as one caused by atheism, most atheists are probably not going to tell everyone that they killed because there is no God. They will not use faith or their lack of faith as reasoning, or at least they won't admit it.
People who kill in the name of God are no different than those who kill to preserve their race. They are taught that those who are different from them are evil and must be destroyed.
On a side note...
If I remember correctly, the removed picture was that of Muhammad.
Anyway, back on track, it's easier to find the bad caused by religion when the good caused by religion works behind the scenes of every day life. You may here about a war fought in the name of some God, but you never hear about the families who used religion to fix their relationships with each other or the people who used religion to gain confidence within themselves. These are the kinds of things you can hardly see unless you actually know these people in person.
Those who follow religion in a peaceful way tend to be passive, which means their deeds will not be as obvious as those who are radical, which the radicals are generally the ones who use religion for evil.
Oh, and I found your 'statistics' page that was used. How interesting that it comes from a Christian Apologetics site... sounds biased to me
Geez thanks for letting me know that the site of the University of Hawaii is a Christian Apologetics website.
More seriously, all those numbers are taken from works by R. J. Rummel, a recognised worldwide expert in the field of democides. I am currently reading through 'Power Kills' and complied a few facts... Challenge my sources again if you want, but then we can enter in a circle of denial... that will lead nowhere.
Might I point out that this makes NO SENSE at all? Seriously.
Let me put it in simpler terms for you. Suppose you've been banned from your home country with the choice between two alternatives:
-a country lead by a religious leader who kills his enemies because 'God told him to' and has killed 15000 people in the past decade;
- a country lead by a humanitarian leader who prones liberty and does not profess any religion, but has executed 500000 people in the past decade for various reasons;
Where will you go?
My point is that if the humanitarian leader was a religious man, maybe he'd kill less people. My numbers show that when a religious person is in power there are less casualties than when an atheist/ non-religious person in power.
So religion might be cause for some massacres, but an absence of religion leads to more massacres...
So religion might be cause for some massacres, but an absence of religion leads to more massacres
What? You can't be serious, are you?
If the person you were talking about(atheist leader) was a religious man, he probably would have executed those people anyway. And could you have picked a shittier example? You just said that a religious man who killed 15000 people because god told him to is better than someone who just up and did it for political gains.
There has to be a reason for why he did it and most likely it's not because he was an atheist! At least the atheist in this argument makes his intentions clear (he wants land,money,power,extermination of a certain group because he doesn't like them of people or simply that he's just bat shit insane). He doesn't need to hide behind the mask that is religion(a tool that can be used for good and evil) to carry out his deeds.
Geez none of you seem to get my point...
What I'm saying is that statistics show that under religious leadership there are less civilian casualties than under non-religious leadership.
At least the atheist in this argument makes his intentions clear (he wants land,money,power,extermination of a certain group because he doesn't like them of people or simply that he's just bat **** insane).
So you're fine with mass murder as long as it's not done because of religion.
Thread is locked!