Religion, Do you think it hinder potential?

Has anyone seen this video about the little Muslim girl ?

@king_saturn: Yeah I saw that, Didn't like it. I'm Christian but I don't denounce the existtance of other religions.

It's sad that Islam would allow this to happen on their watch though... with these kids being forced to marry older men as their duty. That's some Bullsh!t.

Yeah people corrupt religion do doubt about it, Something that was meant for good, got turned into an excuse for war, murder, etc. Even Malcolm X, a Muslim admitted this in his biography that religion was used an excuse for the slave trade.

Well religions are Man Made... I mean Corruption was only a process that would have to seep into Religious practice sooner or later... more than likely sooner considering it seems as far as you go back with Religion the more brutal practices that you see along with these belief systems... Well some of them at least.

@king_saturn: I mean it's arguable if they're man-made (at least the religion part such as gods, etc. Institutions and religious text, yes), but I think you get the point I was trying to make.

Humans are naturally corruptible so it does make sense, that would follow through with religion.

Sad though, When religion is used for good it can turn an ex-con into a respectable member of society, when it's used for bad, it just creates extremists (terrorists, the KKK, etc).

I agree with you about the God part to some extent though we do know that some Religions do create at least the ideas or constructs of what their God is like ( Judaism, Christianity, Islam all do this ) though it's possible that a Creator does in fact exist. As far as Religious Texts, there is no question that some Bronze Age Men wrote the Bible as well as the Quran and any other Religious Text. Now is it possible that they could have been inspired by a Deity to do so ? Eh, maybe. The Churches are also Man Made at least in the sense of the Buildings themselves... we built them.

That's Right

Well Religion can be used for Good... but it's Origins may show us that it may not have been. Considering you have some of the Older Religions like Judaism that have some very brutal rules that are to be carried out as part of the Tradition and Law. Granted I do think punishment is needed. But killing folks because you found out they are Gay or not Virgins on their Wedding night ? Eh, I don't think so. That's not even touching on the Laws about Slaves either.

@king_saturn: Yeah there's definitely religions who create the picture of what their God is supposed to look like, a pastor even said in a sermon he went to an Asian church and saw an Asian Jesus.

Yeah now that's what you call a corrupt religion. People will twist any belief to fit their needs/wants. Look at King James, or the Anglican Church itself.

Though Jews made those laws centuries ago, Civilization wasn't as developed as it was now. Even without religion, humans would've still found more things to go to war about.

That's Interesting... Asian Jesus

That's Right

Truth, but that was the Foundation of the Religion itself... that and the encounters that they had with Yahweh initially at least.

@king_saturn: So essentially they used the connection they had with Yahweh, to suit their own personal needs?

Perhaps... though it's vice versa from a Bible Perspective.

LOL

@king_saturn: Interesting, I still use the Bible as a connection to God, but I use my common sense also. I know good is good, wrong is wrong.

With humans, there's a good and bad to everything, religion happens to be one of them. That's just what we do.

Guys, the Bible was written during the times that every unexplained phenomena was attributed to a mystical being allowing it to happen.

LOZ, at the Asian Jesus.

I can top that, there is a Pastor who's place of residence he claimed is the Door Way to Heaven and it is for SALE.

If he said that then he is contradicting his Church own teachings.

There is no such thing as a "Pure" person if you apply the definition in the BIBLE.

Yes, it obviously has. Western society was forged from Greek philosophy and Roman bureaucracy. After Rome fell and thechurch was given an increased role in government, we witnessed about a millennium of stagnant growth on scientific, political, and social issues. Nearly all major achievements in modern society can be attributed to secular thought (separation of church and state, equal rights for all, the scientific method, etc.). When you take superstition out of the equation you can do almost anything with science but it can also make society a lot scarier.

Exactly. Religion isn't naturally bad. People corrupt it and interpret it for their own needs and purposes.

@the_pain: The quotation marks are there for a reason.

Also to the person who spoke of the dark ages ( the fall of time to the renaissance; sorry that I can't quote you as I am on my phone), the dark ages featured such slow development due to many things. One such thing was the abysmal literacy of the population. Without Gutenbergs printing press, most books were ONLY available in churches/monasteries where monks kept the records and read. At the time, ONLY the rich could actually afford books and even fewer could afford an education.

What's more, the church actually helped preserve such books as well as passing on stories with its stained glasses (albeit, religious ones.)

Then there's also the monarchs of the time. The bloodlines and feuds (many of which were unrelated to religion, and more about land, money, power etc) slowed much progress, especially the feudal system, which bad an appalling number of serfs that worked the land for almost nothing.

I'm sure it can also be argued that the stagnancy refers only to Europe and not other continents in the world.

Are religious organization paying taxes?

As far as I know, no.

The sole benefit of religion is the obedience it creates in society, it often makes it easier to control mass populations and grow government. My point is that religion is one the biggest reasons serfs often complied with their feudal lords, because the church granted kings with divine right and a life of constant sacrifice was considered a holier path in those times.

Lets not pretend that the church wasn't involved with the corruption of the Middle Ages. They were heavily involved in the justice system and influenced on the laws at the time. The church held on to such documents so that they could blend their ideas into the secular texts they preserved. Thomas Aquinas essential picked his favorite ideas from Aristotle and fused it with Christianity.

@dngn4774: To my knowledge, the only person the Church outright appointed as king and a person chosen by God was Charlemagne. Every other ruler could either accept the idea or reject it.

The reason serfs were so numerous is simply because of the feudal system. Either you're born rich, appointed a lord of the land (who were usually friends of the monarch to begin with), made a knight, or you're poor. It's much easier (even in today's time) for one to be poor than to be rich. For the most part, religion didn't have much to do with it.

Yes, the church was corrupt. However, it was only because of the church that literacy remained alive and the books did remain.

Seriously, what does it take to @ reply someone? This is clearly in response to me -- thank you, @mrdecepticonleader to bringing this to my attention.

First off -- the religion is what these "people" and "terrorists" turn to to carry out their crimes. Text is pretty clear and easily found and referred to.

Give me a religion that states, unequivocally, that all human beings are equal and say so on the pulpit? Unless you are purposefully ignoring homosexuals and how women are considered half a man or how women can't be ordained ministers and that someone who murders but repents gets into "paradise" but someone who doesn't believe goes to hell. Pretty simple.

Your assumptions are painful. You have no idea what I do or don't do. If you truly believe in equality, make noise in your place of worship or discuss it with your religious leader. If not, your claims of equality mean nothing.

What? You don't do anything because it creates division? Oh well, out of everything you shared, that appears to be more genuine. I am not discussing theists/atheists, I am talking about religion. An organized grouping of people who believe in specific tenets in regards to how people should live life -- what they should, shouldn't do. I am all about people doing whatever they want -- of course -- but when someone believes in treating other people like garbage, I don't.

This is about religion -- not about the belief in a "god(s)".

Are you asking us or are you asking religion?

@oblivionknight: Religion itself is not evil but it gets inevitably corrupted when its mixed with social classes or political rule. Even if the church didn't directly appointed kings to power, it allowed kings to claim divine right, making it a lot harder for serfs to rebel. On the subject of progress, I understand that without the preservation Greco-Roman culture modern culture would not exist in the same way it does today but keeping a book in a vault is not a sufficient achievement towards human progress. In fact, western religion hasn't really made much progress since the fall of Rome. The preservation you speak of is the exact opposite of progress since it relies on regurgitating the same ideas rather than creating a new philosophy. Literacy was always linked to bureaucracy, the true reason why nobles needed to keep a written language and would have continued with or without the church's existence. If the church had not abused it's power there wouldn't have been a reformation, an inquisition, or the centuries of wars that followed in the wake of both events. Trying to solve problems with logic rather than tradition beliefs (i.e. Secularism) is the primary reason for human progress.

No -- literacy was guarded used as a form of control over the masses during medieval times. This is well documented. Let's keep things as close to historically accurate as possible.

Yep. It's been pointed out earlier in this thread but curiously ignored. Your last comment is important to note as well -- I agree.

@lykopis: No problem :) It irritates me when people aren't direct with me so I figure other people get annoyed with it too. Just bridging that gap so people can actually gauge in conversation.

@lykopis:

Well I also have a life too. I really don't have time to play freedom fighter for every problem the world has. Besides, I'm sure there's police handling religious hate groups (KKK, etc.)

Yes it's what they turn to to carry out their crimes, but that was their choice, everything is everyone's choice. People would still commit crimes without religion. Humans are naturally corrupt, I'm sure we would've found something else to cause war about even if there wasn't religion. Should we just eliminate money, because some people in the ghetto kill themselves over it?

Muhammad specifically said not to fight for Allah but humans will always misconstrue that.

Well I didn't study the religious text that much to get far about that, but at least from what I know being in church, my pastor sees women as equal (We have women who are ordained pastors/ministers), and doesn't believe murderers would go to heaven. Personally I always interpreted Jesus saying to love everyone as that including homosexuals also.

The fact that you said I have no idea what you do or don't do already proves you don't do anything but discuss it on the internet otherwise there would be no harm in mentioning that you are doing something about this situation.

Exactly, and it's still going to lead to more arguments. Exactly why I'm getting hesitant to discuss this with you because I can tell my the way you're writing this is starting to turn hostile.

Oh and there's a difference in organized religion and just religion. Belief in Christ would definition wise make me a follower of a religion.

Churchs, institutions are organized religion.

But no point in arguing this anymore. One thing I realized is rarely do you ever come to conclusions with arguments on the internet.

That's taking an extreme route -- you don't have to do battle with every problem the world has. It's not all or nothing but if that's your take on it, so be it. Not everyone thinks like you.

Of course people will commit crimes without religion -- who claimed otherwise? The rest of your comment is again, very far-fetched and nothing to do with the topic of the thread. Not everything is so extreme.

Ask your pastor about homosexuality. And murderers will get into heaven, as long as they repent.

No idea what your roundabout comment about doing/not doing anything means. Again, assumptions.

No arguing -- my stance (a substantiated one) is that religion has hindered potential, as it the topic of this thread. Not hostile at all, sincerely, I am not. It was you who failed to engage me in conversation and further to that, decided to throw in strawman arguments. Which is of course, completely your right to. Have a great day.

@lykopis: I really can't do nothing about it. Religion is a worldly thing. Trying to change it could end in war.

Just saying you can't blame what human beings fight for, but blame the ones who are fighting for it.

Probably will about both of those things. Pope even said ahtiests to get to heaven so it's sketchy

I enganged you in conversation by quoting?

@jnr6lil:

Woah -- that's a lot of editing in your original post. While I certainly appreciate your interpretation of what Jesus meant in regards to homosexuality -- your religion disagrees with you.

One thing you kept uniform is your edited post is a reliance on extreme assumptions. Islam did call -- many times -- for its people to go to war. To kill. It's hard reading assertions like yours when they are untrue.

You regard religion as not being organized. Duly noted. Continued conversation is a waste of both our times.

@lykopis: I never said it wasn't organized but religion is a broad term and it can mean a lot of things.

But there's no point in discussing with you if you're going to keep judgemental. Just another one of those insecure atheists.

@lykopis: No, much of the population was illiterate but not simply as a form of control (although it definitely gave the literate more power.) Books were made how?

By writing them, which was a ton of work and time for a SMALL section of society who could actually translate or write down information. It wasn't until the printing press in the 1500's that they became a lot easier to get a hold of. So, yes, as a by product it certainly gave the church more power, over the illiterate masses, but this is not why books and literacy were so scarce. You can claim the only reason books were scarce is because the church wanted to control everyone, but it's a fact that books took a very log time to create, were very previous and rare (in comparison to today's time), and an emphasis on literacy wasn't as present.

@dngn- Say I have $100. I want someone to use it wisely in a way that many other will benefit from its use (maybe it's for a party or something.) Would it make more sense for me to give it to a stoner, high school drop out or a Harvard graduate? The point is that books were incredibly scarce. If they were given out to the public in such a way (a public that has almost no idea what to do with them in an efficient manner) the books wouldn't be here now.

@oblivionknight:

The only books being produced were religious ones (mostly) and only accessible by gaining permission. That is a form of control. The lack of emphasis on literacy was because education and knowledge were for only the rich (also the Church). This is a big reason for why society stagnated for so long (at least in Europe during medieval times). I haven't said anything that isn't true -- and while of course it was difficult to create books -- it's not so hard to write your own and that was not allowed.

You keep editing your posts after the fact. If you are calling people insecure and judgmental when they are being neither reflects badly on you. Our conversation is done with, no idea why you felt you had to edit your post just to be offensive.

@lykopis: Cool story bro

@lykopis: as you said, both religious texts and non religious ones were being created. The main religious books was the bible, while many secular documents were kept.

Of course the books were only accessible by permission: the church owned them, kept care of them, and creates them. Why would they let an illiterate person tarnish the only records of what was occurring?

And you've also proved another point of mine: education was for the rich.

And the last part is just utterly wrong. How could the population write a book IF the population didn't know how to read or write?

So, yes, the church kept a vast majority of the books (some went out to nobleman, lords, and monarchs) but they also maintained, created, and studied books. They kept that information alive in a time where such knowledge wasn't so widely coveted.

@oblivionknight:

The population were not allowed to read or write. Anything written and shared publicly was against the law -- only what the Church allowed.

As for an illiterate person tarnishing records, that's pure conjecture. In fact, it was during this time that many scholars argue great portions of the bible were rewritten to suit the Church. Another example where religion was used to hinder progress by preventing knowledge. Keeping people ignorant is one of the most powerful ways of keeping people in line. Where are we disagreeing?

@lykopis: I have never seen that information. I'm sure the church retaliated in some way if blasphemy or slander were done, but I've never heard that somebody was NOT allowed to read or write.

Well, the bibles were written by the church, so who knows if they did such a thing. And I said what I said because if they were uneducated, they certainly wouldn't have been educated in the handling of books. I think it's also important to note that people who couldn't attain the Bible had it read to them in churches.

Once Rome fell, Europe was just disorganized. You had the Vikings rampant and the loss of a powerful, domineering entity. To say the least, the church kept information and records alive. Later into the dark ages, they were also the ones to fund the construction of universities. Keeping information safe so that it may be used effectively later is incredibly important,

At this point, it seems we are only referring to the Catholic Church?

What's funny is I'm not entirely sure where we are disagreeing. I have stated (although I doubt you saw) that I agree religion has hindered human progress, along with other things. The establishment of powerful entities like the church have often veered people away from the original purpose of their faith. I believe where we are disagreeing at is the church's purpose during the dark ages.

If you're agreeing what's the argument?

@jnr6lil: I'm disagreeing with some of the facts and reasons people are giving. I believe religion has done more good than bad, but it has limited potential; many things have.

@oblivionknight: Ah

Will say religion has saved people's lives though. Did wonders for Malcolm X

@oblivionknight: Ah

Will say religion has saved people's lives though. Did wonders for Malcolm X

@oblivionknight: Ah

Will say religion has saved people's lives though. Did wonders for Malcolm X

@oblivionknight:

I think so too (about where we are agreeing/not agreeing with) and I did read you stating religion has hindered progress in tandem with other things. I was only discussing your take on the Church's stranglehold on literature.

None of us can ever truly know if any other transcripts outside of the bible were kept or destroyed, but yes, I do agree the Church was responsible for keeping transcripts (at least as they pertained to the Church) alive and with that, historical accounts which would have been arguably otherwise lost. There was no governing body in place to ensure these records (and others) were kept free of tampering or outright destroyed but stating that doesn't mean they were. We have only stories of people being tortured and ridiculed for claims like the world not being flat or Earth not being the centre of the Universe to make us inclined to think it was a possibility.

I think its safe to say the condition of the Catholic Church during that time isn't the religion's best representation. Different Christian religions branched out not just because of King Henry's addiction to wives, but also because of the debauchery and corruption found in the Vatican so at least something good came out of it in recognizing that at the time.

It's funny too because most of the scientists prosecuted for their claims, actually were religious people who wanted to prove God was real through science. Galileo, Newton, etc.

It is more likely that such scientists were religious due to the fact religion was alot more prominent back then just a product of their time. I mean Newton was a creationist.

Newton was Christian. He wasn't orthodox Christian though. He didn't believe that Jesus Christ had any relation with God. But he still believed that the Christian God existed. In fact he's written his own interpretations of the bible. In one of them, he was writing about prophecy and literally said he was chosen by god. In other words, he was Christian and believed in the bible, he just didn't believe in the trinity that included Jesus.

Well, I've had a personal grudge against religion ever since it took my foreskin. That's all. Eh, Goodbye.

Yes! Just look at the Intelligent Design Movement and the Pro-Creationist Legislature that being pushed by members of Congress.

lol Intelligent Design make me laugh every time I hear it.