The Discussion Corner

[Venexis]

However, I will say that I disagree with Ven's statement that this discussion has nothing to do with the effects of religion. The question of whether religion is beneficial or not has everything to do with its effects on us. How else do you define a religion to be beneficial or detrimental?

Late but I do actually agree with this. "Is religion beneficial to humanity?" could conceivably be interpreted as "Are the effects caused by an individual's/group's interpretation of religion beneficial to humanity?" or "Would humanity be better off if religion had never existed in any form?" Both have everything to do with the effects on us. In the first interpretation, the effects are caused by other people; in the second, the effects are caused by the nature and structure of religion itself.

I could argue either side of the first question, and many people in the thread already have. I chose to answer the second version simply because it's a much more fascinating topic to consider.

I think that religion by itself isn't bad. It's people who abuse it.

This is really the general consensus here now I think.

My entire argument has been based around shutting this down, lawl. People certainly have a great influence, one that can be good or bad. I've ignored this bit almost entirely for the sake of not rehashing the points everyone else has brought up so far, and jumped directly to the "religion by itself- yes or no" part.

I'm still sure of my opinion and answer- no.

[Doram]

EDIT:

Yes, I guess we all agree that religion isn't inherently bad. Original response bit inside: show

Well, I agree on a lot of things said in this thread, from the fact that many people use religion for the wrong things, like persecution, and the excuse for violence and war, to the idea that morality and religion are not one thing. I personally think that the Abrahamic religions especially (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) fail wholesale at falling prey to nationalism (as I previously discussed in this thread) and using religion as an excuse for violence, from the entire contents of the old testament - leading precipitously to the recent Israeli border issues, to the Crusades, to the hundred shades of jihad the western world is currently "enjoying". And that isn't even touching how the "institution" of the Catholic Church engineered the Dark Ages, or brought about the corruption or complete extinction of hundreds of native cultures around the world (Anyone met a Mayan recently? Didn't think so.).

As I have said before, many things can be viewed as tools, neither inherently good nor inherently bad. I was raised Roman Catholic, went through an agnostic phase, and am now a Pagan. I have redefined my connection to the divine in a way that satisfies my humanitarian ideals and my more reasonable code of morality. I know a number of decent people that have done the opposite and come to find some shade of Christianity a much better fit for their moral and spiritual fulfillment than the religion of their birth.

This begs the question - is there a perspective on global religious structure and substance that is being missed by people in any discussion on the topic? Why and how did this perspective come to be obscured?

And all that being said, aside from the external discussion about religion as a tool - being used for good or evil, I agree with Ven that the internal side of the discussion is equally valuable and interesting. As a personal tool for how you experience and interact with the universe, is religion useful? What does religion do to the way you make your decisions? What does religion do to the way you see people? Is it a framework that is useful only for interacting with other people, or is it useful for how you view yourself, and make decisions about what you do every minute of your day. Is it something that should be considered every one of those minutes, or only every once in a while?

Here are the most interesting questions to me: For those who have abandoned their native religions because of hypocrisy and oppressive violence, is there anything about having an established religion that you miss? Is there anything about the way you live your life now that is kind of like a religion? Do you see a difference between philosophy and religion as applied to everyday experience? And finally, at it's most fundamental, all concepts of religion and the divine come from humankind's innate desire for a connection to the unknown and unknowable mysteries of the universe around them. As science and philosophy have grown and matured, can they replace what religion has represented for us in that dark, but important little corner of our souls?

EDIT: I just realized that I just took us back to the first question of the thread. Well, at least it's a new angle on it...

[Harmless]

I don't think the Spanish explorers and crew were aware of the Native Americans or Mayans or Incans or whatever being that prone to diseases, due to limited technology. Unless if I'm wrong, which knowing Doram I probably am.

[NanTheDark]

This is the (maybe slightly biased) short story.

The Spaniards wanted to beat the other european countries in conquering America, so instead of gathering a nice expedition and whatnot they just grabbed a bunch of low lifes, thieves, criminals, and some actual soldiers maybe, and threw them to America. They got there, killed half of Latinamerica, raped the other half, and so we were born.

The Spaniards had no respect for the natives at all. No respect for their culture. No respect for anything really. They just wanted to conquer the land.

And so, a lot of the native culture was lost. Treasures were stolen. And other bad things.

Oh yeah, and there were a few missionaires here and there. They... tried to do their job. I guess.

...That's the story of Latinamerica. Edit: Except for Brazil, they were conquered by the Portuguese. I'm not sure of how that went, better ask Yuri or LF.

Now proceed with the discussion.

[Harmless]

This post by Harmless was thumbed up by:

NanTheDark (August 4th, 2014, 1:39 pm)

[lordpat]

This post by lordpat was thumbed up by:

Oranjui (August 23rd, 2014, 5:03 pm)

[*Emelia K. Fletcher]

Morality is subjective. Encapsulating morality is subjective.

[~MP3 Amplifier~]

This is an interesting one for me. Morality is subjective and what is 'right' and 'wrong' differs for every person. Some people, like me, have really strong personal values on what's right and wrong, and no matter how many times people would try to educate me on my values or convince me to change my mind, most of the time I can't actually be convinced, even if I tell you that I'm convinced, deep down I won't be. The only time I find myself easily convinced is when someone proves that my view on morality is destructive in some way towards other people.
I guess, the way I see it, no matter the culture or the time, I think it has always been wrong to hurt others. Abuse is wrong, it just is. Bullying is wrong, it just is. Some people might disagree though. Like, I think murder is always and will always be wrong. But what about capital punishment? Some people strongly believe that this is a good thing; you're killing the person who proposes a threat to the outer world, what bad is there? But to me it's just wrong. Even if that person was a serial killer, it still means that someone else, a completely innocent person, is going to have to become a killer in order to remove them from the world.

Going back to the original question, I think morality has existed as long or even longer than humans have been around. I mean, I'm pretty sure animals have morals. Why doesn't my dog just jump up on the table and eat our dinner when instinct is telling him to? Because he knows it's wrong, and he knows he'd be punished if he did. Why does he wait patiently beside the door for his dog treat instead of scratching our legs raw? Because he knows that's right. As for the purpose, I'm unsure. If morals vary for every person, then teaching your kids what is right or wrong even from an early age might not work. They'll go to school, meet new people, and change or adapt their morals to every day society.

I'm a pretty decent example from that, lol. My dad tried to educate me on his morals when I was young. When I grew up, I came to realise I don't agree with his, and instead I developed some of my own. This is probably why we have such a bad relationship.

[Harmless]

I'm at a complete brain fart.

What is morality again?

[Oranjui]

...That's just a formal definition, though. People have personal ideas about what's right and wrong. For instance, one person might think it's wrong to kill wild animals because that's interfering with nature, while another feels that it's perfectly normal for things to die and killing wild animals is no different than a natural death. Some people organize morals into different doctrines and religions, forcing them upon others. I don't think anything's inherently "right" or "wrong," though. Even dogs, chimpanzees, and about any other sentient thing which demonstrates anything resembling moral behaviour had to have learned it from somewhere. I'm no expert on psychology or anything, but in Amp's example with her dog, I would say that he's been conditioned to act that way. And the same goes for others. If Amp's dog had puppies or something, he would probably teach them the same morals, just as her dad tried to pass down his own morals. And religious groups pass their morals down to their followers. Someone has to come up with the idea. Someone's ideas might change or adapt with exposure to people with different morals, or they might remain unchanged. It depends completely on the person. As you guys have said, it's very subjective.

Of course, now that someone has come up with the idea of morality, right and wrong, in human culture, nearly everyone knows about it and has developed his/her own ideas. It's the same as what Ven said about religion, in that solely because it exists, everyone who knows anything about it has thought about it and come up with their own ideas, including those who think that religion or morality is a hindrance and should not exist. (Except morality is a generally good thing to have around so that people don't go around mercilessly slaughtering each other for the fun of it, whereas the whole religion debate seemed to conclude with the fact that mainstream organized religion is a liability to society; it should be a much more personal thing than it's made out and even advertised to be.)