GameBanshee Forums

Following a suggestion by Fable that I start a THOUGHTFUL thread on this topic!

My own personal opinion is that religion is, in many ways, a bad thing. It stifles thought and progress, it lives largely in the past and would prefer the laity to accept the tenets of the particular faith (or sect of a faith) without question.
I am not claiming that BELIEVERS are bad people; on the contrary, many believers are good and sincere people.

It is RELIGION, in and of itself, that is harmful, and the various gods mankind believes in are reprehensible. One only has to read holy books with open eyes, and examine the role of religion in history to see the harm it has done.

Granted, much of the harm caused by religion is because of the behaviour of corrupt or fanatical religious leaders; but in many cases the corrupt religious leaders have done nothing but follow the example set by their gods. (For example, the god the ancient Hebrews believed in told them to enter the Promised Land and driveout the inhabitants, and of the Amalekites "man, woman and little child" were to be killed off. In effect, they were ordered to commit genocide by their god).
And if the gods do bad things, can their clerics and those who listen to them be blamed?

Remember, this is to be a THOUGHTFUL thread!

Are we including Buddhism etc as part of this discussion, or sticking to the more (Western) traditional grounds of the Abrahamic Three (Judaism, Christianity, Islam)?
Only deistic religions (the above plus a few others, i.e. Hinduism)?
Wicca?
Paganism?
Cults?

I'm quite fond of the Baha'i faith as far as deistic religions go, but I'm an absurdist mystic myself and that's less religion than spirituality. As far as affiliated religions go I'm also a Pastafarian, but that's mostly for the great Heaven, loose morals, and pirate theme.

Same question as Ode, really...

To be honest... I don't think there's an easy answer to this question..
Religion has been the cause of many global conflicts, it is often used as a tool to repress others (particularly women), it has frequently stifled ideas and learning...
But still, I balk at coming out and saying religion is entirely a bad thing.... this line of thought can lead to paths I'm not really comfortable with.

Religions are only as bad, or good, as the people who invented it and those that administer it.

To say

the god the ancient Hebrews believed in told them to enter the Promised Land and driveout the inhabitants, and of the Amalekites "man, woman and little child" were to be killed off

and blame the god ignores the fact that the ancient Hebrews invented their god and put the words into his mouth. The blame lies with the inventors, not their invention.

So to say all religion is bad is, in my opinion, to say that all people are bad, and that I can't subscribe to. Religious people have been the cause of a great many of the worlds ills, and still are, but not all of them by any stretch of the imagination.

galraen wrote:Religions are only as bad, or good, as the people who invented it and those that administer it.

Sort of sums up my opinion rather nicely.

I'm personally an atheist, but I honestly don't care what people believe in; as long as they are decent, honest people, why would I care what part of their personality or brain tells them to be so?

I'm sure I have several posts on the boards in old topics about religion, I might dig them up later if I pull myself away from Dragon Age.

Religions are whatever you make them out to be, because they're entirely made up. They were a first attempt at describing and understanding the world. They are all inherently bad because in light of real knowledge they stifle free thought and skepticism as you are forced to place your belief in imaginary beings.

The only true religion lived and died with the Norsemen. Their mythology was purely allegorical, and great Odin looks down upon us even now with our silly genies and jihads and laughs as we take the worse stories from bronze age sheepherders and lazy princes and build our beliefs around them.

endboss wrote:The only true religion lived and died with the Norsemen. Their mythology was purely allegorical, and great Odin looks down upon us even now with our silly genies and jihads and laughs as we take the worse stories from bronze age sheepherders and lazy princes and build our beliefs around them.

If the Norse culture had only allegorical gods, their people sure built a bunch of allegorical temple areas, had quite a lot of warriors who went through violent allegorical rites of passage involving aligning themselves with one or another deity, and were buried in religiously decorated tombs with full allegorical dogmatic rites.

Sorry, but there's been a considerable amount of research done on Norse deities, including the excavation of religious burial mounds and temple areas (frequently within enormous multi-function dwellings). Their relationship to their gods was nothing like the Greco-Roman or Egyptian traditions, but they certainly did believe in and worship them. And many fled the country when their various rulers demanded they give up their old gods for the new Christian one. There was a quite a "cult" (in the old sense of the word) of worship of the Norse pantheon at one time, stretching across portions of modern France, and covering Great Britain as well as Scandinavia except for Finland.

Am I really that bad at being facetious?

endboss wrote:Am I really that bad at being facetious?

If your statement reads seriously, as it does here, and you don't use emoticons, then, well--draw your own conclusions. But really, most people don't know anything about Norse pagan worshiping patterns, so why should I assume you do? Hell, I didn't for the longest time, until I ran across some Norse revivalist neo-religion types and their recommendations for academic reading. And you'd better believe those revivalists of all stripes (Greek, Egyptian, etc) go into the scholarly stuff deep.

I'm going to go against the trend and ask what bad is, instead of "what is religion?"

If bad is to be interpreted as a severe ethical problem then I don't think religion always is bad.

If bad is anything undesireble, ranging from mildly annoying to a severe ethical problem then yes, I think it is.

I don't know if my idea of what a make a religion is accurate, so my guess is that it contains:
1. A moral code of some sort
2. A set of claims about the nature of the world
3. A faith in something spiritual

As far as I can se, number 3 is simply a delusion and number 1 and 2 are nesseccary, but preferably obtained from some kind of constantly ongoing process that is more dynamic and less arbitrary than what is usually the case with religions.

Now, if the size of number 2 is close to zero, and the contents of number 1 is functional then there might not be that much to worry about, but I think you could make a case for the notion that it is rare that religions have these properties and also preserves them over time.

Ode to a Grasshopper wrote:Are we including Buddhism etc as part of this discussion, or sticking to the more (Western) traditional grounds of the Abrahamic Three (Judaism, Christianity, Islam)?
Only deistic religions (the above plus a few others, i.e. Hinduism)?
Wicca?
Paganism?
Cults?

I'm quite fond of the Baha'i faith as far as deistic religions go, but I'm an absurdist mystic myself and that's less religion than spirituality. As far as affiliated religions go I'm also a Pastafarian, but that's mostly for the great Heaven, loose morals, and pirate theme.

Even Buddhists have been known to fight each other! My knowlege of this is derived entirely from Kim by Rudyard Kipling, but I have no reason to suspect the veracity of the claim they they fought each other using pen-cases as weapons. Of course he could have made it up!

But largely, the threee Abrahamic religions are the ones that have caused harm on the largest scale.
However, one cannot ignore the harm gone by centuries of the caste system which appears to be incorporated in the Hindu faith, nor can one ignore the violent natures of many of the gods in non-Abrahamic religions.
I know virtually nothing about Wicca - (the one Wiccan I have knowingly met being the filthiest human being I have ever encountered rather put me off, even though I am fairly sure she must have been an exception) - as for Paganism, there are/have been so many beliefs under that general heading that I can't really comment specifically, but surely pagans of all kinds have hated one another all through human history?

I like the idea of a Pasta-farian! :laugh:

dragon wench wrote:Same question as Ode, really...

To be honest... I don't think there's an easy answer to this question..
Religion has been the cause of many global conflicts, it is often used as a tool to repress others (particularly women), it has frequently stifled ideas and learning...
But still, I balk at coming out and saying religion is entirely a bad thing.... this line of thought can lead to paths I'm not really comfortable with.

Interesting comment. What paths do you have in mind, dragonwench? One that came to my mind, after reading your comment, if people in general turned against religion, might be the hunting down and slaughter of believers, as happened with 'witches' in the past - and still in a very few places even today.

galraen wrote:Religions are only as bad, or good, as the people who invented it and those that administer it.

To say and blame the god ignores the fact that the ancient Hebrews invented their god and put the words into his mouth. The blame lies with the inventors, not their invention.

So to say all religion is bad is, in my opinion, to say that all people are bad, and that I can't subscribe to. Religious people have been the cause of a great many of the worlds ills, and still are, but not all of them by any stretch of the imagination.

Now this I entirely agree with, galraen! But I take into consideration that people BELIEVE in their gods as real people/entities/spirits/whatever, and believe in the statements of their prophets as the very WORD of their gods; so we have to take it on face value that for believers the gods are real, not invented. Therefore, the statements of the prophets and described behaviour of the god ARE from the mouth of the god, and that therefore, as THE GOD is to be credited with the good that comes from obeying the WORD and conduct of the god, so they must also be blamed for the bad that comes from obeying the WORD and conduct of the god.

endboss wrote:Religions are whatever you make them out to be, because they're entirely made up. They were a first attempt at describing and understanding the world. They are all inherently bad because in light of real knowledge they stifle free thought and skepticism as you are forced to place your belief in imaginary beings.

The only true religion lived and died with the Norsemen. Their mythology was purely allegorical, and great Odin looks down upon us even now with our silly genies and jihads and laughs as we take the worse stories from bronze age sheepherders and lazy princes and build our beliefs around them.

I studied Old Icelandic when I was at university, so I read a great many books of Norse history and mythology, and I can tell you that those old gods were right gory buggers, Odin included! :laugh: I liked his ravens, though.

Dottie wrote:I'm going to go against the trend and ask what bad is, instead of "what is religion?"

If bad is to be interpreted as a severe ethical problem then I don't think religion always is bad.

If bad is anything undesireble, ranging from mildly annoying to a severe ethical problem then yes, I think it is.

I don't know if my idea of what a make a religion is accurate, so my guess is that it contains:
1. A moral code of some sort
2. A set of claims about the nature of the world
3. A faith in something spiritual

As far as I can se, number 3 is simply a delusion and number 1 and 2 are nesseccary, but preferably obtained from some kind of constantly ongoing process that is more dynamic and less arbitrary than what is usually the case with religions.

Now, if the size of number 2 is close to zero, and the contents of number 1 is functional then there might not be that much to worry about, but I think you could make a case for the notion that it is rare that religions have these properties and also preserves them over time.

I'm pretty much with you, Dottie.

A moral code is good. It's the only really good thing most religions ever produce. However, it is all too often overshadowed by other factors. Such as greed, expedience, corruption...

Take, for example, the Ten Commandments. Excellent code of conduct, and only improved upon by The Sermon on the Mount. But how many 'practicing' Christians have no real difficulty in stealing odd bits of office equipment, or office time on the internet? How many commit adultery or fornication? How may covet the possessions or partners of others...? There are murderers in prison who consider themselves good christians...

Actually OBEYING the Ten Commandments/Sermon on the Mount or the moral codes of most other religions would produce a word population where there was no war, hunger, poverty, degredation, or harm to the environment. It'd be good.

The other two factors you mention are the things that really overshadow the moral codes, and are the things we hate and kill each other for.

Fljotsdale wrote:Now this I entirely agree with, galraen! But I take into consideration that people BELIEVE in their gods as real people/entities/spirits/whatever,

True, they wouldn't be worshipers if they didn't.

...and believe in the statements of their prophets as the very WORD of their gods;

Not the case at all, except in a very few religions. Which would be fine if you wanted to deal only with monotheistic literalists, but not if you're going to claim this is true of worshipers in general.

...so we have to take it on face value that for believers the gods are real, not invented.

No, you have to take it on face value that the gods are real. For most believers, they simply are. More to the point, most believers aren't interested in proving any claims about their god/s. Problems arise specifically with a few religions that insist their beliefs are historically verifiable.

Unfortunately for us, we live in a time when a very few of those religions descended from one specific religious branch have a large number of adherents, and are very, very loud about in attempting to convince everybody of their truths.

Even Buddhists have been known to fight each other!

The fault for not living up to our highest aspirations lies in ourselves, not necessarily our aspirations. Believe it or not, if you remove religion from the equation, people have been still known to go to war. A lot. All the time.

Actually OBEYING the Ten Commandments/Sermon on the Mount or the moral codes of most other religions would produce a word population where there was no war, hunger, poverty, degredation, or harm to the environment. It'd be good.

No, they definitely wouldn't! Religions have absolutely nothing to do with relieving poverty, or hunger, or slavery. They are about how the relationship of an individual to a particular deity or deities is to occur. That's bottom line. The precepts of a prophet or a godly avatar are attempts to formulate standards by which humans may live with one another in societies, but these are separate from the religion as a whole. And really, this kind of advice is an aberration among religions, too. See above.

And those 10 commandments? There aren't 10, there are over 100. Those are only the first 10. And some of them...? Like stoning to death a person who wears cloth woven from two different kinds of thread...? Do you really think that would bring peace on earth? I'm thinking the codification of 4000 year old cultural laws of a renegade Babylonian herder tribe are that tribe's business. If they and their ideological descendants want to make it mine, then the fault doesn't lie with a god, but with the way people have since time immemorial thought they always knew what was best for their neighbors. And that's as true for atheists and agnostics as it is for worshipers.

fable wrote:

Not the case at all, except in a very few religions. Which would be fine if you wanted to deal only with monotheistic literalists, but not if you're going to claim this is true of worshipers in general.

Primarily monotheistic. But that doesn't let out the others by any means! After all, what's the point of a priest or shaman if he/she isn't a direct link to the god?

fable wrote:No, you have to take it on face value that the gods are real.

Why? The existence/non-existence of a god or gods is totally unverifiable, so taking the existence of a god/gods on face value as real is a bit... unrealistic. Besides, there are so darn MANY of 'em! And a lot of 'em are THE ONE TRUE GOD in the view of their adherants.

fable wrote:For most believers, they simply are. More to the point, most believers aren't interested in proving any claims about their god/s.

True. They sit back and take the word of some human. It's easier than thinking...

fable wrote:Problems arise specifically with a few religions that insist their beliefs are historically verifiable.

This is also to a large extent true. Not totally, but to a large extent. Did you miss the point I made about Hinduism (as an example)?

fable wrote:Unfortunately for us, we live in a time when a very few of those religions descended from one specific religious branch have a large number of adherents, and are very, very loud about in attempting to convince everybody of their truths.

True. But how about the peoples the Aztecs slaughtered (for example) when they took over the land from the previous inhabitants? They were not affiliated with any Abrahamic religion, but they appear to have been just as murderous a lot as those the Hebrews took over from. Pagans are not always 'nice' either!

fable wrote:The fault for not living up to our highest aspirations lies in ourselves, not necessarily our aspirations. Believe it or not, if you remove religion from the equation, people have been still known to go to war. A lot. All the time.

True. Never said they didn't! Just pointing out that religion is/has always been, a huge factor in warfare.

fable wrote:No, they definitely wouldn't! Religions have absolutely nothing to do with relieving poverty, or hunger, or slavery. They are about the state of an individual and their relationship to a particular deity or deities. That's all.

Wrong. May be true of some religions, but the Sermon on the Mount teaches love for god and one's fellow men as primary, ahead of all other things. If you love people you do not let them starve, murder them wage war against them, steal from them. You place the care of your fellow creatures only second to your love of god and your obedience to him. Alongside that, you have to care for your environment, because your environment is what sustains the life of your fellow men, and besides which, in Genesis, the biblical god told man to CARE for the earth and the creatures of the earth.

fable wrote:The precepts of a prophet or a godly avatar are attempts to formulate standards by which humans may live with one another in societies, but these are separate from the religion as a whole. And really, this kind of advice is an aberration among religions, too. See above.

And those 10 commandments? There aren't 10, there are over 100.

True. The Ten Commandments were a concise summary of the body of the Law.

fable wrote:Those are only the first 10. And some of them...? Like stoning to death a person who wears cloth woven from two different kinds of thread...? Do you really think that would bring peace on earth?

No. that's one of the things (one of many!) that made me start thinking the biblical god was a bit of a bastard!
Jesus Sermon on the Mount was much better. We are told that Jesus is the very personification of the god of the Hebrews. He ain't. Not by any means. But the Christianised Jews of the first century very quickly turned him into a Jahweh figure in Revelation. They really loved the idea, seems to me, of a nasty vengeful god who took pleasure in killing off his own creations.

fable wrote:I'm thinking the codification of 4000 year old cultural laws of a renegade Babylonian herder tribe are that tribe's business. If they want to make it mine, then the fault doesn't lie with a god, but with the way people have since time immemorial thought they always knew what was best for their neighbors.

And often what the god OUGHT to have done/thought, imo! :laugh:

Fljotsdale wrote:Primarily monotheistic. But that doesn't let out the others by any means! After all, what's the point of a priest or shaman if he/she isn't a direct link to the god?

You're thinking about this anachronistically. In most religious traditions, priests aren't direct links to gods, but leaders trained in the rites necessary to purify themselves and contact the gods: a very different thing. (Shamans are usually holy crazy men, who trade community services in exchange for offering magic and insights.) And again, in most traditions, priests don't lead their communities. In fact, in some communities (for example, most Doric Greek worship) the priests and priestesses were community elected positions for a period of time, usually with no re-election of the same candidate immediately possible. Religious was seen as inseparable from the polis, and from the hearth, and the three were managed in at least some respects much the same way--because the temple, the city, and the home were all literally holy.

In fact, even among Muslims, the various schools of religious law differ greatly in their readings of some important teachings, and among Shi'ite Muslims the various Ayatollahs issue religious edifts that regularly contradict one another. They are not viewed as holy links to their god, but rather, as learned men attempting to interpret the word of their god properly.

Why? The existence/non-existence of a god or gods is totally unverifiable...

Yes, yes, yes: I made a mistake in my sentence, there! When I wrote, "No, you have to take it on face value that the gods are real," I meant to write, "No, you have to take it on face value that to them the gods are real." That's all.

Fable: For most believers, they simply are. More to the point, most believers aren't interested in proving any claims about their god/s.

Fljotsdale: True. They sit back and take the word of some human. It's easier than thinking...

I was trying to point out that most believers simply don't think they need to convince you of what is a matter of faith to them, because it is 1) ultimately unverifiable physically, and 2) a matter of respecting you to arrive at your own conclusions of what works for yourself. You seem to have twisted this around, somehow.

True. But how about the peoples the Aztecs slaughtered (for example) when they took over the land from the previous inhabitants? They were not affiliated with any Abrahamic religion, but they appear to have been just as murderous a lot as those the Hebrews took over from. Pagans are not always 'nice' either!

Um, yeah, and...? We also have plenty of wars over everything under the sun, from differences in currency to terrain resources to skin color to physical height to language. I guess all of those should be banished! -Or maybe the problem is simply humanity. Yeah, that sounds good.

Fable: No, they definitely wouldn't! Religions have absolutely nothing to do with relieving poverty, or hunger, or slavery. They are about the state of an individual and their relationship to a particular deity or deities. That's all.

Fljotsdale: Wrong. May be true of some religions, but the Sermon on the Mount teaches love for god and one's fellow men as primary, ahead of all other things. If you love people you do not let them starve...

But your thread is about religion, not about the cultural values of individual religious avatars. The religion, Christianity, is not about the Sermon on the Mount. It is about accepting a set of precepts that include Jesus Christ as one's personal savior, and as god. That's it. I'm not suggesting the values you mention are unimportant, but they don't actually define what sets apart the religion known as Christianity from, say, Judaism. After all, quite a lot of Jews also like and follow the instructions of the Sermon on the Mount, and quite a few atheists I know, too.

I wish we had one of the Ta Hiera folks or a Kermeticist to discuss their knowledge of Doric Greek and Late Kingdom Egyptian religions, respectively. They're modern worshipers, but many of them do have a very deep understanding of those respective polytheistic faiths. They might help provide an outside framework for challenging the modern Judeo-Christian ideas that are being discussed here as though they were representative somehow of all religions in all places and times.

fable wrote: You're thinking about this anachronistically. In most religious traditions, priests aren't direct links to gods,

Not your ordinary everyday community priest, no - or at least, not these days! But the High Priests/Priestesses of all religions that had 'em were seen as such. As for example (since it's the one I know best) the biblical High Priest was the only one allowed into The Holy of Holies to commune with god. I wonder what he really did in there...?

fable wrote:but leaders trained in the rites necessary to purify themselves and contact the gods: a very different thing. (Shamans are usually holy crazy men, who trade community services in exchange for offering magic and insights.)

But shamans are usually, even today, believed implicitly by their communities, because they hear the voice of god/s. Or so I understand. I haven't researched Shamanism, I only know the bits you pick up from reading and other media.

fable wrote:And again, in most traditions, priests don't lead their communities.

Again, not the ordinary clergyman in the local Western Christian church (although in times past the case was different, The local priest was a powerful man), but the Pope is supposedby his flock to be infallible, even if he contradicts the bible, so the flock obey (hopefully!) what he says. It is not the same for Protestant religions as a general rule, but The Greek and Russian Orthodox churches have a similar arrangement to Catholicism.

fable wrote:In fact, in some communities (for example, most Doric Greek worship) the priests and priestesses were community elected positions for a period of time, usually with no re-election of the same candidate immediately possible. Religious was seen as inseparable from the polis, and from the hearth, and the three were managed in at least some respects much the same way--because the temple, the city, and the home were all literally holy.

This is something I know virtually nothing about - only stuff picked up from classic literature and stuff. I bow to your superior knowledge in this.

fable wrote:In fact, even among Muslims, the various schools of religious law differ greatly in their readings of some important teachings, and among Shi'ite Muslims the various Ayatollahs issue religious edifts that regularly contradict one another. They are not viewed as holy links to their god, but rather, as learned men attempting to interpret the word of their god properly.

Then I wonder why they are are so good at inflaming the passions of some followers to the extent that they are willing to both kill and die for their GOD - not the ayatollah?

fable wrote:Yes, yes, yes: I made a mistake in my sentence, there! When I wrote, "No, you have to take it on face value that the gods are real," I meant to write, "No, you have to take it on face value that to them the gods are real." That's all.

okay.

fable wrote:I was trying to point out that most believers simply don't think they need to convince you of what is a matter of faith to them, because it is 1) ultimately unverifiable physically, and 2) a matter of respecting you to arrive at your own conclusions of what works for yourself. You seem to have twisted this around, somehow.

Um... no, I don't THINK I was twisting anything. Maybe just not understanding the point you were making.
But anyway, I have conversed at length with many professing and sincere believers (mostly Christian, Jewish, and Muslim I have to admit), and they are often perfectly willing to converse about their religion, and many (especially Muslims) try to convert me to their religion, and they only come out with that answer - "It's a matter of faith" - when they feel they are on shaky ground.

fable wrote:Um, yeah, and...? We also have plenty of wars over everything under the sun, from differences in currency to terrain resources to skin color to physical height to language. I guess all of those should be banished! -Or maybe the problem is simply humanity. Yeah, that sounds good.

Humanity? Yeah. I'd go with that. After all, we come from the same line as Chimps, and we have all seen tv footage of just how savage they can be...

fable wrote:But your thread is about religion, not about the cultural values of individual religious avatars. The religion, Christianity, is not about the Sermon on the Mount.

Really?! :speech: But what Jesus said in that sermon was absolutely central to his teaching! How can Christianity NOT be about the Sermon on the Mount? I grant you it ISN'T, but it certainly SHOULD be!

fable wrote:It is about accepting a set of precepts that include Jesus Christ as one's personal savior, and as god. That's it. I'm not suggesting the values you mention are unimportant, but they don't actually define what sets apart the religion known as Christianity from, say, Judaism.

But it does. Totally. This bit about "accepting Jesus as one's personal Saviour and God" is a bandwagon to easy entry to heaven for those too damn lazy to realise that following Jesus' teachings , not merely accepting his sacrifice, is damn hard work. That's like saying accepting a book of instructions on building a fence is the same as building the fence.

fable wrote:After all, quite a lot of Jews also like and follow the instructions of the Sermon on the Mount, and quite a few atheists I know, too.

Yeah, me too, and I'm an Antitheist.

fable wrote:I wish we had one of the Ta Hiera folks or a Kermeticist to discuss their knowledge of Doric Greek and Late Kingdom Egyptian religions, respectively. They're modern worshipers, but many of them do have a very deep understanding of those respective polytheistic faiths. They might help provide an outside framework for challenging the modern Judeo-Christian ideas that are being discussed here as though they were representative somehow of all religions in all places and times.

That would be really interesting. D'you know any you could con into visiting us?

It seems a little odd to me that religion is getting so much credit for war. The vast percentage of wars fought have historically had very little to do with religion. Even when they have had a religious element, such as the Crusades or the whole Middle East/terrorism thing, the primary motivations for the war are secular concerns wrapped up in a religious cloak. If you look at most wars, even most religious wars, you can find real political factors that motivate them and that wouldn't disappear simply because you take religion out of the equation. If it wasn't religion, it would be something else to further the cause in its place.