I had been doing a lot of thinking in regards of religion and it’s effect on society. I was under the belief that if a religion doesn’t hurt anyone, why should anyone do anything to try to change it, but that idea has come under a lot of personal scrutiny. My conclusion to all this is that religions biggest problem (imo) is that it’s based on a foundation of lies. That in itself isn’t the biggest problem though. The biggest problem is that when you teach children about a magical universe about a big genie that protects him and makes everything better in the end. You establish a very sensitive blanket over them that latter in life will create, in many cases, a great deal of hostility over anyone who tries to contest their beliefs. It has been my experience that most Atheist and Agnostics are really open to various possibilities, so long as the claim has some evidence to prove it, and that if something disproves their current beliefs, they are willing to adapt to the better information. This though, is unlike people who do believe in a God like overseer. You more often cannot reason with people like this because every logical conclusion that you show them actually becomes a threat to everything they believe in. So, in life they continue with their outdated beliefs and never progress to anything beyond them, because essentially, they have stopped thinking for themselves when they hit five years old.
I was under the belief that if a religion doesn’t hurt anyone, why should anyone do anything to try to change it…
The rest of your post shows that religion does hurt people, even when they and the accomodationists among us believe it does no harm. At its most benign religious belief teaches people to believe stuff without evidence simply because it makes them feel good. Churches often play an important social role, but it is impossible to separate religion and church. The religious aspect dilutes the positive contributions churches make to society. Religion is a parasite on humanity.
My conclusion to all this is that religions biggest problem (imo) is that it’s based on a foundation of lies.
And in the end, that’s the single biggest problem. A problem which is only trumped by the fact that it’s adhearants believe it to be true and act on it.
An example would be to point to the sheer numbers of lonely old women who died horribly because of a belief in witches, and that’s just for starters. Would anybody like to tally the body count from all the pogroms, persecutions, inquisitions, crusades, jihads, final solutions and ethnic cleansings? (And all of that based on and justified by “Harmless” beliefs!)
Here we go again. Witch trials were in most cases driven by political and economic reasons. Religion and superstition were used to justify the trials, but they were not their cause.
I took a medicinal chemistry course that included a lecture about why witches ride broomsticks. Let’s just say it was a very interesting lesson on drug delivery systems.
It screws up one’s thinking which inevitably leads to bad decisions. I got a small reminder of that this past weekend, speaking to someone who is very close to me and who is still embroiled in christian-fundy-think. This wonderful elderly man is convinced that bad things had happened in his family in the past (death, illness, and tragic accidents to family members) because of HIS refusal to follow god as a younger man. So in his mind, his god punished innocent members of his family for things that he had done (or failed to do.)
Is that messed up or what? And what a burden to carry to the grave. So much for the “freedom” of Jesus, huh.
It screws up one’s thinking which inevitably leads to bad decisions. I got a small reminder of that this past weekend, speaking to someone who is very close to me and who is still embroiled in christian-fundy-think. This wonderful elderly man is convinced that bad things had happened in his family in the past (death, illness, and tragic accidents to family members) because of HIS refusal to follow god as a younger man. So in his mind, his god punished innocent members of his family for things that he had done (or failed to do.)
Is that messed up or what? And what a burden to carry to the grave. So much for the “freedom” of Jesus, huh.
Here we go again. Witch trials were in most cases driven by political and economic reasons. Religion and superstition were used to justify the trials, but they were not their cause.
In the 16th and 17th centuries in Europe, religion and politics were so closely entangled as to be virtually indistinguishable. There’s still a faint echo of this in the British parliamentary system, where Archbishops of the Anglican Church are automatically guaranteed a seat in the House of Lords - more or less equivalent to the U.S. Senate.
Here we go again. Witch trials were in most cases driven by political and economic reasons. Religion and superstition were used to justify the trials, but they were not their cause.
In the 16th and 17th centuries in Europe, religion and politics were so closely entangled as to be virtually indistinguishable. There’s still a faint echo of this in the British parliamentary system, where Archbishops of the Anglican Church are automatically guaranteed a seat in the House of Lords - more or less equivalent to the U.S. Senate.
Theflyingsorcerer.
I don’t understand what you’re trying to imply here.
Here we go again. Witch trials were in most cases driven by political and economic reasons. Religion and superstition were used to justify the trials, but they were not their cause.
Here we go again. Witch trials were in most cases driven by political and economic reasons. Religion and superstition were used to justify the trials, but they were not their cause.
In the 16th and 17th centuries in Europe, religion and politics were so closely entangled as to be virtually indistinguishable. There’s still a faint echo of this in the British parliamentary system, where Archbishops of the Anglican Church are automatically guaranteed a seat in the House of Lords - more or less equivalent to the U.S. Senate.
Theflyingsorcerer.
I don’t understand what you’re trying to imply here.
Seems simple enough to me; simply that “political and economic reasons” and “religious and superstitious” reasons, couldn’t really be distinguished, back then. Separation of Church and State hadn’t been thought of.
Typically, suppose the crops failed or a cow died; then a reclusive, friendless old woman who just happened to live near the village would be accused of being in league with the Devil and throwing hexes around. Thus, economics and religion all mixed up together. Things weren’t quite as clear-cut as you seem to think, George.
Well, there is obviously a lot more to witch trials than old women and dead cows. That’s where you start, but eventually move up to accusing rich and influencial men and Protestant priests. Things were a lot more clear-cut than you may be aware of.
Religion and superstition were used to justify the trials, but they were not their cause.
Perhaps in more recent times but the excuse is still there and the people fall for it because they believe it. Take religion out of the equation and you may not stop some excesses, but you have to find another excuse that “The Sheepul” will buy into.
The bottom line is that if you take religion out of the picture you have no more witches nor warlocks. Religion is the catalyst and without this excuse the seizure of land and powerful positions would be nothing more than naked agression. No more “god and my right” by divine rule, just “my right” by means of sucessful agression. Then you’d have to have deep pockets to keep the loyalty of your nobles. That works too however, see Machiavelli.
