In the best of all worlds

[Akots]

(Before you vote, this poll one rule... pick the uppermost vote that you can, however grudgingly, agree is remotely possible. If item #1 was "i cannot personaly verify there is NOT a barbie doll on the moon," or "if I flip a coin it could land balanced on it's edge" then I would expect everyone to vote for #1. And then post a smackdown on me, of course. when I say "X has the potential to achieve world peace", I mean it in the same way that "I could be hit by a meteor.")


I have a bad feeling about this... but here goes.

Can a beneficial religion exist? So many religions, cults and faiths have such stunningly negative connotations... and so many of them have been used to exploit and abuse. With the common human's need to believe in something, hateful zeal and blind determination are easily fostered. Even if you assume religion is inherantly divine in origin, and not a social development of the human race, religious corruption is so common as to be well near inevitable. And given all the hateful, harmful doctorine most religions cary around, any beneficial tennants would be long lost.

I believe that people hardly need religion to become mindless zealots... even if it is the most popular method. And I believe that religion was originaly intended for our benefit, but after so many years of passing the buck, things degraded into a power struggle.

Hey, we're only human.

Obviously, the idea of a tolerant, compassionate, even-handed and open-minded religion, one that encourages education, freedom, equality and critical thinking would change the world for the better. A religion without dogmatic baggage would have no need to overstep the bounds of science, and would make no outlandish, unverifiable claims as are common nowadays.

Here's the question; [B]Can human beings support a wholly beneficial religion? God based or not, verifiable or not, is religion inherantly corruptable?

I believe so. But then, most believers do, so that doesn't mean anything. I also believe that if the world was atheistic, world peace and unity could still be achieved; religion was merely meant to accelerate this process. And, obviously, somebody dropped the ball.... rather severely.

[whitefork]

I have not observed any thing or idea that is purely beneficial and I do not believe that there can be any such thing. If it exists, then it can be abused.

Sounds like another variation of the 3-O god debate to me.

Bring on the counterexamples.

[Akots]

Obviously, nothing is truly, purely beneficial...

I could just as easily post a poll about wether or not Military Organizations could be purely beneficial. If I believe strongly that war is evil, NO MATTER WHAT, then I must say they are incapable of good... even if i understand that Armies do not always cause war, i must still vote no. But if i beleive Military Organizations are essential for peacekeeping purposes, I would answer yes; no matter how corrupt they are, a purely beneficial Military Organization is possible.

----
"i cannot personaly verify there is NOT a barbie doll on the moon,"
----


Someone's a Randite.

Gee, I wonder how you voted ...


----
religious corruption is so common as to be well near inevitable.
----


So is any area of human activity.


----
And given all the hateful, harmful doctorine most religions cary around, any beneficial tennants would be long lost.
----


Especially if you ignore the beneficial parts.


----
Obviously, the idea of a tolerant, compassionate, even-handed and open-minded religion, one that encourages education, freedom, equality and critical thinking would change the world for the better. A religion without dogmatic baggage would have no need to overstep the bounds of science, and would make no outlandish, unverifiable claims as are common nowadays.
----


That's funny: You talk about "critical thinking" (skeptical agenda- are we surprised?), then say that there is not any dogmatic baggage!


----
Here's the question; Can human beings support a wholly beneficial religion? God based or not, verifiable or not, is religion inherantly corruptable?

I believe so.
----


Here's a hint: Try not to bias a poll next time.

[arcticpenguin]

You didn't include a poll option for:
People are pigs and we're going to hell in a handbasket.

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Akots,

Unfortunately, I don't agree with any of them. I don't think it is possible for a religion, or anything else, to be purely beneficial. Nor do I think that it is possible to fix all the World's problems.

Dr. Stupid

[Akots]

Originally posted by Whodini
----
"i cannot personaly verify there is NOT a barbie doll on the moon,"
----

Someone's a Randite.

Gee, I wonder how you voted ...


Actualy, i havent voted. Would you vote for yourself in a popularity poll? Rather besides the point...

----
religious corruption is so common as to be well near inevitable.
----


So is any area of human activity.


Yes. Yes it is. But Well Near Inevitable is neither Inevitable, nor Not Inevitable.

----
And given all the hateful, harmful doctorine most religions cary around, any beneficial tennants would be long lost.
----

Especially if you ignore the beneficial parts.


When a priest says that no, you shouldn't stone your daughter, and no, homosexuals arent really devil-spawn, and yes, we can all just get along, why is it that we see that as divergent from his faith?

Religion itself should facilitate good. The good that is done, is done by the individual, in the name of the religion, and of his own free will.


----
Obviously, the idea of a tolerant, compassionate, even-handed and open-minded religion, one that encourages education, freedom, equality and critical thinking would change the world for the better. A religion without dogmatic baggage would have no need to overstep the bounds of science, and would make no outlandish, unverifiable claims as are common nowadays.
----


That's funny: You talk about "critical thinking" (skeptical agenda- are we surprised?), then say that there is not any dogmatic baggage!


Pardon me for dabbling in the realm of "what if" wonderland of a dogma-free, mainstream religion. A truly beneficial religion wouldn't be at odds with science/CT/Etc.


----
Here's the question; Can human beings support a wholly beneficial religion? God based or not, verifiable or not, is religion inherantly corruptable?

I believe so.
----


Then did you vote for 3, or 4? or did you vote at all?



Here's a hint: Try not to bias a poll next time.

Point taken. To which option did I bias it? I'm not being sarcastic here.

[Akots]

Originally posted by Stimpson J. Cat
Akots,

Unfortunately, I don't agree with any of them. I don't think it is possible for a religion, or anything else, to be purely beneficial. Nor do I think that it is possible to fix all the World's problems.

Dr. Stupid

*sigh*

I think I was way to literal with this poll... I don't mean that any of the above could achieve a practical, reasonable solution to EVERYTHING.. just that it could be used to facilitate a better quality of life and such.

EDIT: I guess I assumed that religion's "purely beneficial results" would be to the extent tat religion can affect us. Obviously, if we were all religious, we wouldn't automaticaly have enough food to eat, clothes to war, shelter to live within, etc.

I guess for this vote, you'll have to set aside any doubt that the human race can become perfect. I doubt we ever will be, myself... this was just conjecture.

maybe next time i should think before I poll. Whodini's comments notwithstanding...

[c4ts]

Here are all the problems the removal of religion can solve:

Missionaries
Crusades
Bible Beaters
Cults
Stupid TV adds
Televangelism
Other scams and hoaxes
"True" Believers (in a religious sense only, since "True" Believer conspiracy woo woos and the like will still be around)

You will still have:
hate crimes
suicide bombings
warfare
Franko
genocide
general biggotry
and all the rest, but the reasons will become fanatically political instead of fanatically religious