Originally Posted by brendanp

i never said you can't have a charity without religion, or that religion is the reason people donate to charities. you said that nothing good comes from religion, i was just pointing out that there are a lot of charities that are started/funded by religious groups.

Yeah, and my point is that charities originate without religion, and so "the fact they have charities" doesn't really make religion itself good.

Originally Posted by A.Marlowe

Actually, the Red Cross isn't and wasn't a religious charity. It was started by a Swiss businessman who used a red cross because it was the inverse of the Swiss flag (a white cross on red background).

The Red Cross flag is often confused with the Flag of Switzerland which is the opposite of it. In 1906, to put an end to the argument of Turkey that the flag took its roots from Christianity, it was decided to promote officially the idea that the Red Cross flag had been formed by reversing the federal colours of Switzerland, although no clear evidence of this origin had ever been found[5].


Then again, I'm quoting Wikipedia. So take it with a grain of salt.

If we're going to determine whether religion is good or bad, we'll have to look at the history of religion.....


.....and THAT is a very bloody and violent affair. Just because there are religious charities extant in the modern world does not absolve religion of its past evil acts. In other words, I'm not willing to accept religion as a wholly good concept when I hear about the NINE Crusades of the Middle Ages. I'm not willing to "whitewash" history.

As I have already said, ideas can be morally blameworthy, so using the defense that "all suffering which has been brought about by religion was the result of human actions" does not suffice. If an idea incites people to harm others, then there is something fundamentally wrong and socially volatile about the idea.

We are all too capable of corrupting anything we put our hands toward. And that's what we've done with every good idea and ideal.
To put it shortly, humanity is depraved.

So you'd be hard pressed to make a case for religion not being culpable - and you'd have the same difficulty with any other thing. Obviously, the ones that have been around longer will have a longer trail of misdeeds. And the ideas coming into prominence today are also racking up their "record", so to speak.

Anyhoo, I'm not interested in talking about religion b/c I think it [pure religion] quickly devolves into rules established by the blind leading the blind. I'm waiting to see if this thread slides back to the topic of God. I'd rather talk about that =D, as my schedule permits me.

(ps. how do some MacInsiders posters find time to be on here so often? I'm only following this thread and its such a time killer)

Originally Posted by Shmowen

If an idea incites people to harm others, then there is something fundamentally wrong and socially volatile about the idea.

I agree. But I would argue that the human heart is the thing that is corrupt, not religion. The human heart takes any idea, any worldview, any religion and twists it for evil. Evil has been wrought by theists and atheists alike, by atheistic and theistic worldviews.

I will support this by using the example of Christianity. At the heart of the Christian worldview is a man who dies for his enemies. If wanton violence and bloodshed is purpotrated by supposed followers of this worldview, then obviously they don't really get the worldview.

The common denominator in all violence is people. I find it hard to believe that a worldview that says 'love your enemies' is a root of violence.

Originally Posted by Theophilus

I agree. But I would argue that the human heart is the thing that is corrupt, not religion. The human heart takes any idea, any worldview, any religion and twists it for evil. Evil has been wrought by theists and atheists alike, by atheistic and theistic worldviews.

I will support this by using the example of Christianity. At the heart of the Christian worldview is a man who dies for his enemies. If wanton violence and bloodshed is purpotrated by supposed followers of this worldview, then obviously they don't really get the worldview.

The common denominator in all violence is people. I find it hard to believe that a worldview that says 'love your enemies' is a root of violence.

Sorry but, is there a particular reason as to why you're using heart instead of mind/brain? The heart has nothing to do with what you're referring to. XD

(ps. how do some MacInsiders posters find time to be on here so often? I'm only following this thread and its such a time killer)

Honestly, I have NO life whatsoever. I'm on the computer more hours a day than you probably spend at school (or something equally as time consuming) XD

Originally Posted by Theophilus

I find it hard to believe that a worldview that says 'love your enemies' is a root of violence.

It's very very simple.

The "worldview" that says 'love your enemies' also says

Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age. (– Matthew 28:19,20)

So people insist on proselytizing, and it makes everyone mad that everyone else doesn't believe the same thing, and they get frustrated and kill each other and start wars.

Remove religion from the equation, and root of the problem (proselytism) along with it, and we would have a much more peaceful world.

Originally Posted by Kathy2

As I said before, the few benches that weren't written on with chalk already had people sitting on them.
Please read posts before replying. It makes this forum thing much easier.

I have read the posts. You could have just sat down at another bench and made a new friend. then you could know a tangible person personally.

Originally Posted by cocchiarella

I have read the posts. You could have just sat down at another bench and made a new friend. then you could no a tangible person personally.

Are you suggesting she sit on them?

Drop it already, please. You're clearly arguing just for the sake of it. If you really read her posts, I think you would understand that other benches were FULL.

How can a conversation going nowhwere last for so long.

Edit: @Taunton: thanks for the new word. xD

Originally Posted by Shmowen

If we're going to determine whether religion is good or bad, we'll have to look at the history of religion.....


.....and THAT is a very bloody and violent affair. Just because there are religious charities extant in the modern world does not absolve religion of its past evil acts. In other words, I'm not willing to accept religion as a wholly good concept when I hear about the NINE Crusades of the Middle Ages. I'm not willing to "whitewash" history.

As I have already said, ideas can be morally blameworthy, so using the defense that "all suffering which has been brought about by religion was the result of human actions" does not suffice. If an idea incites people to harm others, then there is something fundamentally wrong and socially volatile about the idea.

Well to be fair, it was the pope's instruction that allowed people do do that; religion as a conduit for state-sanctioned mass murder against muslims. People also killed each other for fickle reasons, they were douches back then because they were uneducated and backwards.. we know better now.
(although sometimes it doesn't seem that way..)

Originally Posted by Taunton

Remove religion from the equation, and root of the problem (proselytism) along with it, and we would have a much more peaceful world.

@^-That and the chairity point

"With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."-Weinberg

This so off topic now..

Regardless of whether there is a higher power/supreme being/god religion is a man made institution. religion is flawed because humans are flawed. How would we know if we got the interpretation correctly?

If we look at all the major religions there is a common theme/golden rule: treat other as you want to be treated.

I'm sure that it is the one common ground that we all can agree on.

Originally Posted by Taunton

Yeah, and my point is that charities originate without religion, and so "the fact they have charities" doesn't really make religion itself good.

again, i never said charities make a religion good, simply that they are something good that comes from religion

Originally Posted by lawleypop

Are you suggesting she sit on them?

Drop it already, please. You're clearly arguing just for the sake of it. If you really read her posts, I think you would understand that other benches were FULL.

How can a conversation going nowhwere last for so long.

Edit: @Taunton: thanks for the new word. xD

I think she is whining for the sake of whining. looks like we are at a stand still.

i actually laughed out loud when i read the "How can a conversation going no where last for so long"

*cough cough* All 23 pages of this thread... *slow clap*

Originally Posted by Taunton

It's very very simple.
So people insist on proselytizing, and it makes everyone mad that everyone else doesn't believe the same thing, and they get frustrated and kill each other and start wars.

Nothing in the worldview says 'kill people when you get frustrated.' If people start killing each other because they won't convert then they don't really hold the Christian worldview.

If there is nothing in the worldview that says to kill people if they won't convert, then where does it come from?

Originally Posted by Taunton

Remove religion from the equation, and root of the problem (proselytism) along with it, and we would have a much more peaceful world.

Ironically for everyone to come to agree with this it would require proselytism of that idea that proselytism is bad.

(oh by heart I didn't mean the anatomical definition but perhaps: "the center of the total personality, esp. with reference to intuition, feeling, or emotion." or maybe I meant human nature)

Originally Posted by cocchiarella

I think she is whining for the sake of whining. looks like we are at a stand still.

i actually laughed out loud when i read the "How can a conversation going no where last for so long"

*cough cough* All 23 pages of this thread... *slow clap*

There's a difference between debating about religion and telling someone to go sit on a different bench when she already said all benches were full.

You can debate about religion and enlighten people to your viewpoint, or even discover something about your own thoughts or beliefs.

As opposed to the bench topic, which we agree is at a standstill.