What form of religion isn't harmful?

[Questioninggeller]

In response to reading "musclemans" post about which is the most harmful belief, I thought let's reverse the question in order to "answer" his question. I thought it would be a good thought experiement to see what people consider harm, bad, good, ect.

And so,
What form of religion isn't harmful?

[Man of jade]

Is religon even harmful?
Religon for the most part promotes good values, and it doesnt seem to tear away at society much, if any.

[Tricky]

Quote:

Originally posted by Questioninggeller
In response to reading "musclemans" post about which is the most harmful belief, I thought let's reverse the question in order to "answer" his question. I thought it would be a good thought experiement to see what people consider harm, bad, good, ect.

And so,
What form of religion isn't harmful?

"Harmful" is a difficult thing to define.

My wife is Pagan and their primary principle is "If you are harming no one, do what you will". They are very tolerant of all sorts of beliefs, even my atheism. They are also very Earth centric, and care very much for the environment and the future of the human race, so by that token, they are one of the most harmless of religions.

On the other hand, they are susceptible to the most bizarre of "woo woo" thinking and believe all sorts of new-age garbage, including homeopathy, auras and a host of other unsupportable phenomena. As such, they become prey to the most shameless of huxters, so in that sense, their "open-mindedness" has the potential to be very harmful to themselves, especially if they opt to use "herbal" cures instead of seeing a doctor, as many do.

However, it appears that they are mostly harmful to themselves, so I give them high marks for being mostly benign to others.

What form of religion isn't harmful?

Mine.

Flick

[Yahzi]

Questioninggeller

Quote:

What form of religion isn't harmful?

One that submits itself to reason and empricism. Buddhism, in its most refined form, does this - although they still believe in reincarnation, they are committed to accepting science's verdict on the matter.

Man of jade

Quote:

Religon for the most part promotes good values, and it doesnt seem to tear away at society much, if any.

A comment that can only be made by a person of complete ignorance, both historical and contemporary.

I'll confine myself to a single issue and a single religion: slavery and Christianity. Do you think slavery is a good value? Do you think that the Civil War was not "tearing away at society much?" Do you realize that the Christian Bible condones slavery? Do you realize the Southern Baptist Convention was created to defend the South's practice of slavery by Biblical means?

A simple look around the world would give one ample reason to suggest that religion is still an oppressive force that fuels wars and terrorism. Do you even read newspapers? Were you off-planet during 9/11? Are the words "Pakistan," "India," and "nuclear weapons" in your vocabulary?

Do the words "Crusade," "Jihad," "Inquisition," ring even a tiny bell in your vaccuous skull?

You are like an idiot in a cave with a sleeping bear who says, "well, he hasn't eaten anyone in the last 5 minutes, so he must just be a nice cuddly pillow."

Your stupidity would be shocking if it weren't so utterly common.

[Marquis de Carabas]

I would say the form of religion that is least harmful, if at all, is the tolerant, non-fundie kind. That really applies more to individuals, I think, than to religions as a whole. There are many Christians I consider perfectly harmless (hell, I live with one) because they're not busy pushing their beliefs on everyone else. On the other hand, there are many Christians I consider quite harmful [Falwell, I'm looking at you]. And I could say the same about nearly any religion.

With apologies to the NRA, Religions aren't harmful to people. People are harmful to people. Often with religion.

[c4ts]

Anything Eastrern, except Islam.

[dsm]

Quote:

Originally posted by Questioninggeller
What form of religion isn't harmful?

That's a trick question like:

What type of gun isn't harmful?

The answer is:

The one no human practices (with).

[c4ts]

Quote:

Originally posted by dsm


That's a trick question like:

What type of gun isn't harmful?

The answer is:

The one no human practices (with).

Squirt guns aren't harmful. Neither are potato guns.

[neutrino_cannon]

Quote:

Originally posted by dsm


That's a trick question like:

What type of gun isn't harmful?

The answer is:

The one no human practices (with).

no no, if it's cocked, there can still be mechanical failure that leads to the release of the firing pin, sendin lead hurtling...

I give all time highest marks for most harmless to the aboriginal tasmanians. If we discound harm to themselves, because I don't know if they were into tht sort of thing. I'm not really sure how they could hurt anything, as they had no weapons. Heck, they couldn't even start a fire.

Totaly tootheless, Totaly isolated on an island. Totaly unique. South Pacific. totaly wiped out. Moas anyone?

[Skeptical Greg]

Quote:

Originally posted by c4ts


Squirt guns aren't harmful. Neither are potato guns.

Guess you haven't seen my Cyanide filled ' SuperSoaker ', or the comatose victim of an Idaho White, that has been propelled from an 80mm mortar..

[Man of jade]

*sigh* i meant "present day". Religon, in my opinion, is doing more good than bad, its just the extremists that make the other 98% look bad.

[Akots]

Quote:

Originally posted by Man of jade
*sigh* i meant "present day". Religon, in my opinion, is doing more good than bad, its just the extremists that make the other 98% look bad.

Well then, the question woudl be "Which Religion most encourages it's followers to be the most destructive or harmful."

Internally, i'd stick with Scientology; the psychological damage from the escapees are literal horror stories.

For external damage, I'm really not sure... was Stalin's regime of a religious nature, or fueled by religious fervor?

[Franko]

Quote:

What form of religion isn't harmful?

Any dogmatic belief system is ultimately harmful.

Ergo, the only non-harmful belief systems (and a "Religion" is simply a belief system regarding "Metaphysics" (regarding the nature and origin of "reality")) are belief systems which strive to be free of Dogma.

Dogma = a belief based on tradition, revelation, hearsay, or eyewitness testimony, but not on logic or personal (empirical) observation.

----
I'll confine myself to a single issue and a single religion: slavery and Christianity. Do you think slavery is a good value? Do you think that the Civil War was not "tearing away at society much?" Do you realize that the Christian Bible condones slavery? Do you realize the Southern Baptist Convention was created to defend the South's practice of slavery by Biblical means?
----


Oh please. Slavery was around long before Christianity. Some of the founders of the USA enjoyed having slaves.

Here is a strawman: You'd probably say these founders were Christian when talking about their slaves, but you'd probably call them Deists if you were talking about how great they were.

Quote:

Originally posted by c4ts


Squirt guns aren't harmful. Neither are potato guns.

Can these toy guns be likened to "toy" religions? The IPU is my favourite (forgive me my Lady, I only jest. May your hooves never be shod), and the Church of the SubGenius.

Of course, a bb (pellet) gun is a toy too, and we all know that you can put your eye out with one of those.

[Skeptical Greg]

Quote:

Originally posted by Whodini


Oh please. Slavery was around long before Christianity. Some of the founders of the USA enjoyed having slaves.

Appeal to popularity?


Did Yahzi suggest that slavery was invented by Christians?

It doesn't occur to you that a stand against slavery, might have put Christianity in a better light..

I'm sure Yahzi can add more to this...

[CJW]

Quote:

What form of religion isn't harmful?

just 2 cents from a lurker...

It would seem to me that any religion that includes spreading its message and conversion is inherently harmful. I believe that Xtianity and Islam both have converting non-beleivers as one of their major missions. I think this polarizes practitioners into an Us vs. Them mentality where the opinions and beliefs of non-beleivers are not respected.

Chris

[Akots]

To a certain degree, Religion is intended to proliferate; if you assume that your faith is a benefit to all mankind (which, ideally, it should be) then you are morally obligated not to deprive others of the benefits.

Of course, this "proliferation" should always take the form of a respectful, open-minded and informative discussion, and a genuine sense of tolerance towards other faiths, and those of no faith. Not pamphlets and brimstone.

[Skeptical Greg]

Quote:

Originally posted by Akots
To a certain degree, Religion is intended to proliferate; if you assume that your faith is a benefit to all mankind (which, ideally, it should be) then you are morally obligated not to deprive others of the benefits.

Of course, this "proliferation" should always take the form of a respectful, open-minded and informative discussion, and a genuine sense of tolerance towards other faiths, and those of no faith. Not pamphlets and brimstone.

Of course they need to proliferate.. But not to make the world a better place.
Any respectable religion does not want an informed, educated and well-fed following.
It tends to deplete the coffers.

Christianity (and other religions) has/have a tradition and vested interest in keeping
the poor and ignorant right where they are. This is the bulk of their body count.
As people become more prosperous they tend to move away from religion,
as a significant influence in their life. Because they realize it is their hard work
that brings success. Not, giving what little you have to some Bible Thumper or
person in a silly costume,and praying to an invisible being for things to get better.

[Yahzi]

Man of jade

Quote:

*sigh* i meant "present day". Religon, in my opinion, is doing more good than bad, its just the extremists that make the other 98% look bad.

Present day fascism isn't doing a lot of harm, either. Mostly because they don't run any countries. Should we nevertheless conclude that fascism is no longer evil? Or should we conclude that fascism was only evil because of a few bad eggs?

So you want to define religion as excluding extremists. Every wicked act performed by religion is to be disregarded, as it's not "true" religion. "True" religion is only that which is not harmful, thus making your claim a tautology, thus making you an idiot.

I can say with a straight face, "slavery is good for people!" because I define slavery as "paying people lots of money and letting them do whatever they want," and good as "not killing them instantly with an axe." Isn't word taffy fun?

Your logical fallacies are so common as to be boring.

Diogenes

Quote:

I'm sure Yahzi can add more to this...

Not really. I have Whodini on /ignore. I don't debate with $cientologists.

What form of democracy isn't harmful?

Are you still having sex with the neighborhood dogs?

Yahzi,


----
Not really. I have Whodini on /ignore. I don't debate with $cientologists.
----


All the better for me (even though I know you DO read what I post).


Because someone isn't against religion A, doesn't mean they are a member of religion A.

[Akots]

Quote:

Originally posted by Diogenes


Of course they need to proliferate.. But not to make the world a better place.
Any respectable religion doe not want an informed, educated and well-fed following.
It tends to deplete the coffers.

Christianity (and other religions) has/have a tradition and vested interest in keeping
the poor and ignorant right where they are. This is the bulk of their body count.
As people become more prosperous they tend to move away from religion,
as a significant influence in their life. Because they realize it is their hard work
that brings success. Not, giving what little you have to some Bible Thumper or
person in a silly costume,and praying to an invisible being for things to get better.

Certainly many religious communities have those connotations, and in cases it is well deserved, but I've never experienced that from within my own faith. An informed, educated and well fed following is something my faith is striving for.

But of course, as a fanatic zealot, I'm merely tooting my own horn in an attempt to continue my self delusion... my personal experiences with others of my faith are clearly not valuable testimony.

EDIT: I'd like to add that the idea that ALL religions MUST exist soley to facilitate the exploitation of the masses is about as well thought out as any of franko's comments.

[Man of jade]

Yahzi:

Quote:

So you want to define religion as excluding extremists. Every wicked act performed by religion is to be disregarded, as it's not "true" religion. "True" religion is only that which is not harmful, thus making your claim a tautology, thus making you an idiot.

I never said i was excluding extremists. If you apply common logic to this statement...
Religon, in my opinion, is doing more good than bad, its just the extremists that make the other 98% look bad.
If it makes the rest of the people look bad, that implies that the extremists were included in the figure. Therefore, the above italicized statement means the same as saying "Extremists, being part of religon, makes the rest of religon look bad." I nevre said only "True Religon" should be regarded.


Stop putting words where I have not, and debate logically. Try using what I say, instead of using a phrase of mine, intrepreting it the wrong way, and then start throwing claims left and right based on that.

[Nova Land]

I haven't had time to do many posts of a serious nature the last couple of days (though I hope to do some late tonight) but glanced in on this thread. Akots expresses my own feelings well.

Quote:

Originally posted by Akots

Certainly many religious communities have those connotations, and in cases it is well deserved, but I've never experienced that from within my own faith. An informed, educated and well fed following is something my faith is striving for.

Ditto on that for me. I would also include "open-minded", "questioning", and "intellectually honest", as things my religion encourages me to strive for.

Quote:

Originally posted by Diogenes


Of course they need to proliferate.. But not to make the world a better place.
Any respectable religion doe not want an informed, educated and well-fed following.
It tends to deplete the coffers.

Christianity (and other religions) has/have a tradition and vested interest in keeping
the poor and ignorant right where they are. This is the bulk of their body count.
As people become more prosperous they tend to move away from religion,
as a significant influence in their life. Because they realize it is their hard work
that brings success. Not, giving what little you have to some Bible Thumper or
person in a silly costume,and praying to an invisible being for things to get better.

Huh. The U.S. is the most prosperous, informed, educated, and well-fed nation of all time. How strange they don't fit your theory about moving away from religion.....

[Skeptical Greg]

Quote:

Originally posted by LukeT


Huh. The U.S. is the most prosperous, informed, educated, and well-fed nation of all time. How strange they don't fit your theory about moving away from religion.....

Good point..

I suppose I could refine it ( my theory) a bit..

I am looking at countries where there is a strong religous influence in the government, and a high level
of poverty, such as Mexico( .. other South American countries), India and the Islamic states..

I believe, in such countries, if the population were to manage to move upward economically and educationally,
the religious factions would face a drastic reduction in their influence.

[Franko]

Quote:

Diogenes:

I am looking at countries where there is a strong religous influence in the government, and a high level
of poverty, such as Mexico( .. other South American countries), India and the Islamic states..

In other words, he is counting the 'Hits", but not the "Misses".

... with "Logic" like that, I can prove John Edwards really does talk to dead people ...

[Akots]

If these religions truly exist to benefit all mankind, as is often the claim, they would be trying to relieve poverty; not close up shop because of it.

It's important to look at the leaders ofcults... if you took away all their credibility in the eyes of their followers (an dtherefore removed their ability to profit from them), would they move on, and follow a decent lifestyle? Or would they just find another way to scam people?

[Skeptical Greg]

Quote:

Originally posted by Akots
If these religions truly exist to benefit all mankind, as is often the claim, they would be trying to relieve poverty; not close up shop because of it.

It's important to look at the leaders ofcults... if you took away all their credibility in the eyes of their followers (an dtherefore removed their ability to profit from them), would they move on, and follow a decent lifestyle? Or would they just find another way to scam people?

Luke T made a good argument against my hastily reached conjecture..

What you say, puts a similar perpective on what I had in mind..

There is no profit in providing savation, only in dangling the hope of it.




added:

Quote:

EDIT: I'd like to add that the idea that ALL religions MUST exist soley to facilitate the exploitation of the masses is about as well thought out as any of franko's comments.

Wow! You really know how to hurt a guy...


I should qualify my position by saying something like:

" I generally find that .... "

So there you are...

I recognise that some(a lot in some ways) good, gets done in the name of religion, but it doesn't do a very good job of
distinguishing itself as an instrument of enlightenment.

[Akots]

Quote:

Originally posted by Diogenes
Wow! You really know how to hurt a guy...

Deepest apologies... i was far, far too harsh!

Quote:

I should qualify my position by saying something like:

" I generally find that .... "

So there you are...

I recognise that some(a lot in some ways) good, gets done in the name of religion, but it doesn't do a very good job of
distinguishing itself as an instrument of enlightenment.

Sorry i jumped the gun there; Simple misunderstanding.

Also, it's important to define who is responsible for a religion's "evil deeds." Having a religion that specifically supports violence or racism shouldn't get any brownie points... the good done in it's name is likely the actions of individual followers. Just as much as a purely good religion can't really be blamed for isolated acts of individual violence.

Actually, that's a tricky one... if a religion is supposed to work towards peace, and it has a history of violent members, who's to blame...?

[Yahzi]

Man of Jade

http://www.guardian.co.uk/child/stor...902269,00.html

Would you characterize this week as "present-day?"

Would you characterize dividing a nation as "tearing at society?"

Would you characterize the Cardinal of Nicaragua and the entire Catholic hierarchy as "extremists?"

Would you characterize forcing a nine year old rape victim to carry her baby to term as "more harm than good?"

How about female circumcision, or destroying historical statues, or publishing the Blood Libel in the state-run paper during Passover?

How about escalating tensions between two nuclear armed nations?

These are not the actions of a few extremists; they are the policys of large groups.

Because the Xian religion is not, at this moment, killing people in the USA, you issue the fatuous opinion that religion does more good than harm. You ignore the religiously inspired violence in North Ireland and the entire Middle-East. You are apparently unaware of suicide bombings in Israel - clearly the work of more than a few extremists, since they've had close to one a day for god knows how long. The Hindu/Islamic troubles of India and Pakistan don't even register on your limpid consciousness, no matter how many temples they burn down or mosques they fire. The role of Xian priests in the Rwanda genocide never even made it to your attention. You ignore the history of Xianity to incite violence, even in this country: I warrant the riots of Philidelphia (where Protestants fired cannon at Catholics) are utterly unknown to you. The Civil war, and its attendant religious views of slavery, pass off your back like water off a duck.


But trust me; I know how you feel. It is ever so difficult to pontificate when some boor drags in facts.

[Yahzi]

Quote:

The U.S. is the most prosperous, informed, educated, and well-fed nation of all time. How strange they don't fit your theory about moving away from religion.....

I've got a theory about that...

http://members.cox.net/mcplanck/essays/policy.html

[Akots]

By blaming the concept of religion itself for this crime, you remove the burden of guilt from the people that are commiting these acts. By saying Religion causes evil, you are saying that individual humans cannot be held responsible for their actions when whipped into a frenzy.

We could argue for weeks about wether TV causes violence or not.

EDIT: I am most certainly not defending religion here; I am simply accusing humans hiding behind their twisted concept of a vengeful, sadistic god. To see an entire government hiding behind such a delusion makes my stomach turn.

[hammegk]

Quote:

Originally posted by c4ts


Squirt guns aren't harmful.

Ink? Or maybe h2so4?

Quote:

Neither are potato guns.

Ever seen a potato go though 3/8 plywood?

On topic, with especial compliments to Yahzi, Religions are not harmful. Fanatical humans of every persuasion often are.

[DanishDynamite]

LukeT:

Quote:

The U.S. is the most prosperous, informed, educated, and well-fed nation of all time.

(I might agree with you on the last bit, though).

[Skeptical Greg]

Quote:

Originally posted by Yahzi

I've got a theory about that...

http://members.cox.net/mcplanck/essays/policy.html

Thanks Yahzi..

I made a lucky ( intuitive?) guess... I guess.

[dsm]

Quote:

Originally posted by hammegk

On topic, with especial compliments to Yahzi, Religions are not harmful. Fanatical humans of every persuasion often are.

Exactly the point of my answer to the question.