All-Purpose Religion Thread

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

Hogwash, it ain't perfect but secular countries (with better education, more opportunities for women, therefore less influence of religion) have become increasingly less violent, crime has (generally) gone down, and overall they show that through education a better society can be achieved.

 

Wherever there is shit education and less opportunities (inner city slums, for example) there is more crime, and I wouldn't be surprised (although I haven't seen any evidence of this, but I doubt anyone would do a study on it, lest it creates a shit storm) if religious belief was stronger in those communities.

 

So no, humans may well be shit and violent creatures, but they can better themselves and the society around them through abandoning bollocks fairy tales and engaging their brains.

[Mantis]

Hogwash, it ain't perfect but secular countries (with better education, more opportunities for women, therefore less influence of religion) have become increasingly less violent, crime has (generally) gone down, and overall they show that through education a better society can be achieved.

 

Wherever there is shit education and less opportunities (inner city slums, for example) there is more crime, and I wouldn't be surprised (although I haven't seen any evidence of this, but I doubt anyone would do a study on it, lest it creates a shit storm) if religious belief was stronger in those communities.

 

So no, humans may well be shit and violent creatures, but they can better themselves and the society around them through abandoning bollocks fairy tales and engaging their brains.

 

Depends what you mean by "secular". Are you talking about countries where there is a strong separation of church and state or are you talking about countries where there is less religiosity in general? There's a big difference there. Saying that less religious countries tend to be better off because they're less religious is jumping to one hell of a conclusion, and completely ignores a number of other factors in play. Most crime has got **** all to do with religion anyway, so any link is likely to be pretty weak. Generally, crime tends to be lower the wealthier (per capita) a country gets, and there's a much stronger link there.

 

Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if it was the opposite. Rural areas tend to be more religious, at least that's what I've heard. Besides, there are once again a whole number of different factors in play. It's also worth noting that inner cities tend to be poorer. Do you honestly believe that richer areas with higher religiosity would have higher crime rates than poorer areas with lower religiosity?

 

One can believe in a religion (or what you so crudely refer to as "bollocks fairy tales", which is purely your own opinion) and "engage their brains" at the same time. Problems do arise yes when a society is organised and governed around a religion, but I don't think anyone here is arguing for that. Religion isn't the problem here, it's people who want to force their will upon others, that's when violence occurs.

 

Edited July 23, 2013 by Mantis

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

1. Depends what you mean by "secular". Are you talking about countries where there is a strong separation of church and state or are you talking about countries where there is less religiosity in general?

2. Saying that less religious countries tend to be better off because they're less religious is jumping to one hell of a conclusion

3. Most crime has got **** all to do with religion anyway, so any link is likely to be pretty weak. Generally, crime tends to be lower the wealthier (per capita) a country gets, and there's a much stronger link there.

 

1. It follows that once church/state separate, religiosity goes in a (albeit slow) decline. There is a difference but you'd be hard pressed to find a country that has managed to separate church & state and become more religious as a result.

 

2. That wasn't my argument. I'll elaborate

 

3. Indeed, and the wealthier a country gets, the better the education, the more choices people have, the more 'atheistic' a society becomes, largely because religion has no role to play in their every day lives. Not the case in poorer countries, where it has a larger role to play.

 

There may not be a link between crime/religion, but wealth & crime go hand in hand, so too wealth (we are talking national wealth, not personal) & religion. So it follows that wealth goes up, crime & religion go down.

 

4. Do you honestly believe that richer areas with higher religiosity would have higher crime rates than poorer areas with lower religiosity?

 

4. No, and it isn't my argument at all. I don't know how you came to that conclusion.

 

What I said was I wouldn't be surprised if religious belief was stronger in communities with poorer education and poorer choices. I don't know if there has been a study into this, it is merely based on observation.

 

The post I responded to suggested that if religion was  gone and the world was 'atheist' it wouldn't be any better. He suggested that war and violence was a human problem. Fair enough, but my post (perhaps badly) pointed out that with better opportunities and wealth, crime goes down, and those countries in which that is the case are secular and have more 'atheists'. It follows that there is a link between wealth, less religion and crime. Which brings me to

 

6. Religion isn't the problem here, it's people who want to force their will upon others, that's when violence occurs.

 

6. Forcing ones will on others is at the heart of religion. Religions are institution, they are man made, they are horrid. If they didn't force their will on people they would have died on their arse in the desert. Religious people put a wedge between man and religion, but you can't, religion was not created by an external force.

 

So we come to the heart of the matter - religion was developed in a time before wealth, education and (most importantly) a greater understanding of the world around us. It would not be created today because would not serve a purpose. We don't need religion, and a world without it may still be violent, and dangerous, because people are that way, but they are considerably less so in countries in which there is wealth and opportunity, and these countries just so happen to be less religious.

 

So it follows that a world without religion would be a world with greater opportunity and better education, and therefore less crime.

 

 

 

[Mantis]

3. Indeed, and the wealthier a country gets, the better the education, the more choices people have, the more 'atheistic' a society becomes, largely because religion has no role to play in their every day lives. Not the case in poorer countries, where it has a larger role to play.

 

There may not be a link between crime/religion, but wealth & crime go hand in hand, so too wealth (we are talking national wealth, not personal) & religion. So it follows that wealth goes up, crime & religion go down.

The only thing this tells us is that wealth and crime are related, which most people know anyway. I'm not entirely sure that there's any kind of direct link between wealth and religion either.

 

4. No, and it isn't my argument at all. I don't know how you came to that conclusion.

 

What I said was I wouldn't be surprised if religious belief was stronger in communities with poorer education and poorer choices. I don't know if there has been a study into this, it is merely based on observation.

 

The post I responded to suggested that if religion was  gone and the world was 'atheist' it wouldn't be any better. He suggested that war and violence was a human problem. Fair enough, but my post (perhaps badly) pointed out that with better opportunities and wealth, crime goes down, and those countries in which that is the case are secular and have more 'atheists'. It follows that there is a link between wealth, less religion and crime. Which brings me to

I actually agree with you that crime/violence would go down if the the whole world was atheist - purely because religious belief is one of the thing that divides people (along with a number of other things). If the whole world didn't believe in any kind of religion (and thus all held the same views on the subject) then yeah violence would go down because it's one less thing for people to fight over. On the flip side, I think violence would probably go down if everyone believed in the exact same interpretation of a religion because again, everyone agrees on that particular issue and thus have no reason to fight each other.

 

Look at the Paul Lambert thread. In the middle of last season when things weren't going well there were a lot of heated discussions about him and whether he should remain at the club. Now that things have gotten a lot better there really aren't any arguments over him anymore - because virtually everyone has the same general opinion of him (that he's a good manager). Same goes for McLiesh as well. Don't seem to recall that many arguments over him because everyone agreed he was shit, yet there were loads of arguments over Houllier who split forum opinion right down the middle. I know it's a bit of an odd comparison but you get my drift here - divisions are what helps cause conflict. If we all believed the exact same things about everything then I expect the world would be a lot more peaceful, but I'm not sure I'd want to live in a world where everyone thought the same.

 

6. Forcing ones will on others is at the heart of religion. Religions are institution, they are man made, they are horrid. If they didn't force their will on people they would have died on their arse in the desert. Religious people put a wedge between man and religion, but you can't, religion was not created by an external force.

 

So we come to the heart of the matter - religion was developed in a time before wealth, education and (most importantly) a greater understanding of the world around us. It would not be created today because would not serve a purpose. We don't need religion, and a world without it may still be violent, and dangerous, because people are that way, but they are considerably less so in countries in which there is wealth and opportunity, and these countries just so happen to be less religious.

 

So it follows that a world without religion would be a world with greater opportunity and better education, and therefore less crime.

That's a bit of a generalization really. It depends. Some sections of religions are exactly as you describe them but others are not.

 

Actually, I have absolutely no doubt that religion would still be created today. As easy as it is to just dismiss it as a tool for controlling others or what have you there are a lot of people who follow a religion because they don't believe that life is all completely meaningless or that everything came into being randomly. We all think differently and some people will always believe (either because they want to or because they find it most logical) that there is a meaning to life.

 

As I said above, there isn't really that strong a link between religion and crime/wealth.

 

Again, I go back to my original point about divisions. Yes I think there would be more opportunity and less violence in a world without something which people disagree strongly on (in this case religion). However, I think the exact same thing could be said about politics. If the entire human population agreed on a single way to organise the state and society then again there would be more opportunities and less violence. However, I don't think diversity of opinion is a bad thing. The real problem, and one that I fear will never be solved, is the human tendency to try to force others to conform to their own set of standards. If that was removed then you'd never see any kind of violence over religion, politics, sexuality, hell even football because we'd all be able to accept our differences.

Edited July 24, 2013 by Mantis

[MessiWillSignForVilla]

If people want to brainwash their kids, they can do it on their own time at their own expense.

 

As someone who was raised Catholic, is Catholic-ish (I wouldn't consider myself that religious) and went to a Catholic primary school, I have to say it really annoys me when I see comments like this claiming to "Brainwash" kids. Just like any other school it depends on the quality of the school/teaching.

 

At my primary school we had prayers during assembly, before lunch and at the end of the day, and had 1 RE lesson per week (I assume this is the same as other schools, as my non catholic secondary school was the same. The lessons I mean, not the prayers). That is it in terms of religion. Other than that we got taught the same as other schools, maths, english, science bollocks*, history etc. with little emphasis on religion. My best friend at primary was atheist when he joined and atheist when he left, because religious schools don't "brainwash" kids, they teach them the same way but with prayers during the day. If a school is not very good then it'll most likely focus more on religion to make up for it's lack of teaching ability, but you wouldn't want to send your kid there, even if you are religious. If the school is good then the religious aspect really doesn't come into it as they're more focused on teaching the kids than "forcing" religion on them.

 

Despite all this I do agree that state and religion should be separate and the government shouldn't fund religious schools, it should be done by the dioceses' and the like.

 

*By "bollocks" I mean this piss-poor excuse for science teaching in this country, it's my belief that what you are taught at GCSE level should be basic knowledge by that time.

Edited July 25, 2013 by MessiWillSignForVilla

[mjmooney]

One lesson a week of RE - if it is teaching a specific theology, as if it were "truth", of equivalent value to factual subjects - is one too many as far as schools go.

 

Teaching comparitive religion, as part of a study of ethics/philosophy/psychology/sociology/history OTOH, is a good thing.

[AVFCforever1991]

I had RE about 3 times a week, actually served a purpose in me realising it's a loads of shite...

[Wainy316]

The RE I studied in high school was more centred around learning about different religions and cultures rather than the actual mantra of these religions as if they were based on fact.

It was quite interesting.  

[mjmooney]

The RE I studied in high school was more centred around learning about different religions and cultures rather than the actual mantra of these religions as if they were based on fact.

It was quite interesting.  

 

Exactly. I voluntarily did two years of that in the 6th form as one of our 'general studies' courses. It was one of the best things I ever did at school.

[MessiWillSignForVilla]

One lesson a week of RE - if it is teaching a specific theology, as if it were "truth", of equivalent value to factual subjects - is one too many as far as schools go.

 

Teaching comparitive religion, as part of a study of ethics/philosophy/psychology/sociology/history OTOH, is a good thing.

 

At my primary school it was just learning about religions as far as I can remember, with comparison to Catholicism and how they relate and are similar, not God created the earth 6000 years ago and that is fact, mainly because the teachers just didn't believe it, even the christian ones.

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

We were taught arse all about Protestants, nevermind Muslims, Jews, Buddhists etc.

 

We got taught about Martin Luther and the Reformation, and about how they didn't believe in a Virgin Mary etc, but not much more than that. They were different to us and they were happy to leave it at that.

 

I don't remember ever having a lesson on Islam, or any other religion.

 

But I did skip most of the 6th form classes, because I didn't choose RE and I couldn't be arsed listening to a priest going on about babyjeezus.

[mjmooney]

We were taught arse all about Protestants, nevermind Muslims, Jews, Buddhists etc.

 

We got taught about Martin Luther and the Reformation, and about how they didn't believe in a Virgin Mary etc, but not much more than that. They were different to us and they were happy to leave it at that.

 

AFAIK protestants DO believe in the virgin birth. They just don't make quite such a big deal about Scary Mary as the Catholics do.

 

I find it interesting that Americans (especially) tend to say things like "Christians or Catholics", as if they don't consider Catholics to be Christian - despite the fact that Catholicism is arguably the default version of Christianity.

[MessiWillSignForVilla]

 

I find it interesting that Americans (especially) tend to say things like "Christians or Catholics", as if they don't consider Catholics to be Christian - despite the fact that Catholicism is arguably the default version of Christianity.

 

 

That does annoy me when someone asks if I'm christian and I reply "Yeah, i'm Catholic" to get the response of "So your not christian then?"

Edited July 25, 2013 by MessiWillSignForVilla

[mjmooney]

 

 

I find it interesting that Americans (especially) tend to say things like "Christians or Catholics", as if they don't consider Catholics to be Christian - despite the fact that Catholicism is arguably the default version of Christianity.

 

 

That does annoy me when someone asks if I'm christian and I reply "Yeah, i'm Catholic" to get the response of "So your not christian then?"

 

 

I never quite know whether it's meant as a deliberately provocative thing, or they genuinely don't realise what Catholicism is.

[MessiWillSignForVilla]

 

 

 

I find it interesting that Americans (especially) tend to say things like "Christians or Catholics", as if they don't consider Catholics to be Christian - despite the fact that Catholicism is arguably the default version of Christianity.

 

 

That does annoy me when someone asks if I'm christian and I reply "Yeah, i'm Catholic" to get the response of "So your not christian then?"

 

 

I never quite know whether it's meant as a deliberately provocative thing, or they genuinely don't realise what Catholicism is.

 

 

A lot of the time it genuinely is ignorance, I often have to tell people that all Catholics are Christians but not all Christians are Catholics, and there are different denominations within christianity. Normally to get educated in why what I know about my religion is wrong and Catholics aren't christians, although I think this part is the majority of the time as a wind up, but it normally starts as genuinely not knowing.

[mjmooney]

I once found myself (as an atheist) having to explain the history of Christianity to a street evangelist. Ironic, or what?

 

I kept it simple, but I was quite willing to get down to the details of The Council of Trent and the Counter-Reformation if required.

Edited July 25, 2013 by mjmooney

[MessiWillSignForVilla]

I have to admit I had no idea what the Council of Trent was, but I've never really been interested in history so didn't take it any further than year 9. Never really got taught history of religion either, just the origins of it.

 

I do find it funny that a lot of religious people, mainly Christians, can be so condemning of everything around them and dispute scientific and historical facts, yet know so little about there own religions history.

[mjmooney]

I have to admit I had no idea what the Council of Trent was, but I've never really been interested in history so didn't take it any further than year 9. Never really got taught history of religion either, just the origins of it.

 

I do find it funny that a lot of religious people, mainly Christians, can be so condemning of everything around them and dispute scientific and historical facts, yet know so little about there own religions history.

 

I agree. And the corollary is that we atheists should know about religion, its origins and history.

 

Comes in very handy at times.

[TrentVilla]

I kept it simple, but I was quite willing to get down to the details of The Council of Trent.

 

I asked you not to keep bringing  that up.

[Risso]

Do we all have to get naked and have it off with Trent then set fire to the compound and have a shoout out with the Feds?  If so, then count me in.  You're not having 10% of my income though.