Does religion cause problems or supress it to the world?

[Smart_Guy]

Hello guys.

What do you think?

Let's take same statistics first. According to Wikipedia the non-religious are no more than 17% of Earth's human populace (so Martians are not included). At least Christians + Muslims make ~53%. Does that imply anything? I'm putting this just for the information here. I'm not going to participate for now.

What about the evolution of humanity? Did religion help or screw things up for it?

Looking forward to knowing your opinions and views in this. Thank you.

References:
List of religious populations - Wikipedia

 

[illykitty]

Hmm, well I'm not sure there's that high of an amount of Christians and other religious people, bearing in mind that some people never "officially" leave their religions, some label themselves as being X but really they may be simply theistic, group pressure, society, etc.

But either way, regarding the question, I can't answer it in a definite way, as a yes or no. It's more complicated than that. I can't make a blanket statement, for instance, there's more literal interpretations and there's metaphorical ones. There's religions which have no gods, ones that have many. Some religions focus more on the person's development, some extend it to society as a whole. There's religions that focus on nature and so on. There's vast differences on how these religions play out.

If we're talking about religions dependant on sacred scriptures as a basis, then I feel taking a literal interpretation, set in stone, seems to be more harmful than good. I feel often it leads people to behave in harsh ways, to condemn others, censor education and so on. It's especially bad when it's touted as the ONLY correct way and seeks to impose itself on others.

I don't like when ideas are shut down, when there's no opportunity to look at something in a different way and when there's no healthy debate. I think people should be free to have opinions and express what religion means to them. Maybe they hold a bad belief based on what they personally understand, but because everything is open, discussions happen and people can change their minds.

 

[Kirran]

I'd agree that religions that bind themselves by sets of doctrines and rules and cast themselves as the one true way are more harmful than good, in that we would be better off if they were replaced by those which did not. But despite their negative effects on the average, I'd still say religion overall is neutral-to-positive.

 

[Deathbydefault]

Does religion cause problems or supress it to the world?

The religion itself, or it's followers? I feel that the followers define the religion, along with it's founding documents and whatnot, but some like to make a distinction.

What do you think?

In the current world, I think it does more harm than good.
It's outlived it's old uses, the violent traditions are especially outlived and intolerable in today's world.
Hard to find a good reason for genital mutilation without a religion to back it up.

Let's take same statistics first. According to Wikipedia the non-religious are no more than 17% of Earth's human populace (Martians are not included). At least Christians + Muslims make ~53%. Does that imply anything? I'm putting this just for the information here.

I saw once that there were around 2 billion Christians, with half being roman catholic.
Whether or not that is true, I can't say.

Does it imply anything? Yes.
It implies that humans are prone to be religious, but that's based off of various factors.
If you know a bit about how the human mind works, it isn't terribly hard to get people to believe things, especially kids.
Once a belief is put in place it tends to stay there, even when faced with opposing views and opinions.

The world is wide and many humans are incapable and often unwilling to look at the much bigger picture.
People can be very stubborn with their views as well, when you start believe something is correct it's hard to stop.

So, when it comes to the majority of the world being religious, I say it's due to the foundation set many years ago.
Everything after that is just breeding and passing it down the line, of course the religious population would be so big.

What about the evolution of humanity? Did religion help or screw things up for it?

It very much helped, I can't deny that.
Religion is what used to push science, though not always in the best direction.
Lots of the worlds beautiful art and architecture was founded around religion.
Community hinged on it at various points, was lead by it entirely in many cases.

But, while I say that, I do not think it was at all necessary.
It helped but it also screwed things up.... Just like Africa (had to).

 

[Sonofason]

The religion itself, or it's followers? I feel that the followers define the religion, along with it's founding documents and whatnot, but some like to make a distinction.

In the current world, I think it does more harm than good.
It's outlived it's old uses, the violent traditions are especially outlived and intolerable in today's world.
Hard to find a good reason for genital mutilation without a religion to back it up.

I personally have no significant issue with the rest of your response, so I didn't include it here.

With regard to this particular comment, I know of no circumcised man who views his genitalia as having been mutilated. What I would call a mutilation would be when perfectly good and completely functioning male genitalia are destroyed and replaced with dysfunctional female genitalia and when perfectly good and functional female genitalia are destroyed simply because someone has what I believe to be a psychiatric disability resulting in an identity crisis.

I know of no person who has regrets of having been circumcised, although I recognize that there may indeed be atheists who do in fact regard such feelings.

 

[Kirran]

With regard to this particular comment, I know of no circumcised man who views his genitalia as having been mutilated. What I would call a mutilation would be when perfectly good and completely functioning male genitalia are destroyed and replaced with dysfunctional female genitalia and when perfectly good and functional female genitalia are destroyed simply because someone has what I believe to be a psychiatric disability resulting in an identity crisis.

I know of no person who has regrets of having been circumcised, although I recognize that there may indeed be atheists who do in fact regard such feelings.

My father does. He is very firmly against circumcision, regarding it as having a mutilation of his body. A circumcised penis is not completely functioning, there is a substantial loss in sensitivity due to exposure.

I agree with him, although I haven't had it done (which makes sense, when your dad's set against it!). If a man wants to do it when he's 16, let him. But chopping the foreskin off a newborn baby is messed up.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Hello guys.

What do you think?

Let's take same statistics first. According to Wikipedia the non-religious are no more than 17% of Earth's human populace (Martians are not included). At least Christians + Muslims make ~53%. Does that imply anything? I'm putting this just for the information here. I'm not going to participate for now.

What about the evolution of humanity? Did religion help or screw things up for it?

Looking forward to knowing your opinions and views in this. Thank you.

References:
List of religious populations - Wikipedia

Religions have their seasons. Spring, summer then autumn and winter when they wither and die and only the outward form and name exists but they fail to bear the fruits they did in their golden age or their summer season.

Religions are born, perform their function then decay and die. They advance civilisation to a new paradigm then die then the next religion continues on,

The people who have caused the problems have always been the religious leaders who have not wanted to move on but maintain control and power over their followers, so when a new religion did come along they opposed it and slowed down the progress off humanity.

 

[Augustus]

What do you think?

It both causes problems and prevents/mitigates them.

Religions are so integrated into our worldviews that it is very difficult to clearly separate the 'religious' from the non-religious.

Even most irreligious/post-religious worldviews are still significantly impacted by the influence of the religions of the societies that they evolved out of.

The harms/benefits of religions tend to relate to the flaws/boons of human nature though, so there is no reason to believe a non-religious world would be any better. Given that religions have evolved over time and are thus tested by experience, there is a reasonable possibility that a non-religious world would bring greater harms than benefits.

Either way though, there is absolutely no way to know what the long term future effects would be. Effects would be far too complex for our feeble minds to predict with any level of accuracy.

What about the evolution of humanity? Did religion help or screw things up for it?

It was likely essential. Society required building up connections between people who are not blood relatives. Tribes, religions and nations have been ways to do this.

I imagine that had there never been any religions we would be living a very primitive existence still as we would not have built up large enough coherent social groups which provide the excess wealth and labour required to develop sophisticated societies

 

[Jumi]

Mostly, I think religions do more harm than good these days because we live in a global society where people cause division with their religion and it spreads violence, hatred and fear. If we lived separated by borders with less religious and cultural differences inside borders... it would work better.

Don't get me wrong though, there are people who are not religious who cause problems and religious people who are making the world a better place. I just think the total is not as great. At least there should be some updates to the messages of religions, as people seem to get them wrong or interpret them in violent ways harming their own and others in the process.

 

[Smart_Guy]

Thank you for the input, guys.

Religion vs. the followers or a religion is a factor in forming view and opinion here indeed.

 

[Sunstone]

Religions tend to function like catalysts or enablers of both good and evil. You would certainly have both good and evil without them -- human nature being what it is -- but religions function to multiply both of those things. They tend to provide the resources, organization, and other means of doing much more good and evil in the world than would be likely or even possible without them.

Beyond that, they are sometimes the agents of introducing a particular good or evil into the world. That is, they are occasionally responsible for creating a good or an evil that otherwise would most likely not exist. But this happens far less often, in my opinion, than the role they play in multiplying already existing goods and evils.

 

[LuisDantas]

Does religion cause problems or supress it to the world?

Part of my definition of religion is that it should solve more problems that it causes.

On the other hand, that also means that religion as I understand it is considerably more rare than belief-based doctrines. Belief without the proper accompanying wisdom is very much a cause of serious problems.

What do you think?

Let's take same statistics first. According to Wikipedia the non-religious are no more than 17% of Earth's human populace (Martians are not included). At least Christians + Muslims make ~53%. Does that imply anything? I'm putting this just for the information here. I'm not going to participate for now.

For the moment, that tells me that most people have a significantly looser standard for calling someone religious than I do.

That is easily explained, of course. Most people mistake belief or even conformance for social expectations from peers for religion.

What about the evolution of humanity? Did religion help or screw things up for it?

Religion is by definition helpful in there. The expansion of the over-valuation of belief did IMO very much cause troubles and bloodshet, though. Far more we can in good conscience neglect. Among other reasons, because it keeps good people far too busy to actually become religious.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Hello guys.

What do you think?

Let's take same statistics first. According to Wikipedia the non-religious are no more than 17% of Earth's human populace (Martians are not included). At least Christians + Muslims make ~53%. Does that imply anything? I'm putting this just for the information here. I'm not going to participate for now.

What about the evolution of humanity? Did religion help or screw things up for it?

Looking forward to knowing your opinions and views in this. Thank you.

References:
List of religious populations - Wikipedia

It may have done well in the past before we had any tools to help us construct a society. Secularism and government are far more effective at social order than religion but I suppose having religion during antiquity would have been preferrable for social control and order than pure chaos.

But currently at this moment I don't think ti can be argued that it causes more harm than good. The only argumetn people can make is that it somehow is okay because they are right and the afterlife is worth it. But then that leaves the remaining "false" religions of that viewpoint to do exactly as I have stated.

It is most likely a side product of the evolutionary development of humanity. It may have been a necessary stage to get a higher point. I am not sure.

 

[Deathbydefault]

I personally have no significant issue with the rest of your response, so I didn't include it here.

With regard to this particular comment, I know of no circumcised man who views his genitalia as having been mutilated. What I would call a mutilation would be when perfectly good and completely functioning male genitalia are destroyed and replaced with dysfunctional female genitalia and when perfectly good and functional female genitalia are destroyed simply because someone has what I believe to be a psychiatric disability resulting in an identity crisis.

I know of no person who has regrets of having been circumcised, although I recognize that there may indeed be atheists who do in fact regard such feelings.

And I am one of them, it's one of many, many reason me and my parents don't get along.
Genital mutilation, to me, is when someone has parts of their genitals cut away or removed.

The biggest issue I have with it would be consent.
It should never be done to babies or children, ever.

Unless it has some amazing verifiable side effect, it shouldn't be forced on children.
Do it to adults, people who have the ability to consent to these things.

 

[Sonofason]

And I am one of them, it's one of many, many reason me and my parents don't get along.
Genital mutilation, to me, is when someone has parts of their genitals cut away or removed.

The biggest issue I have with it would be consent.
It should never be done to babies or children, ever.

Unless it has some amazing verifiable side effect, it shouldn't be forced on children.
Do it to adults, people who have the ability to consent to these things.

And what are your objections to this having been done to you, other than the fact that you were not asked? Are you offended that your parents let you live, as you were not consulted about that either? It was IMO done for your benefit. The fact that you do not see that is not a fault of your parents.

If it is to be done, it is never to be done after the age of 7 days. So you're right, it should never be done to children over the age of 7 days.

 

[Deathbydefault]

And what are your objections to this having been done to you, other than the fact that you were not asked? Are you offended that your parents let you live, as you were not consulted about that either? It was IMO done for your benefit. The fact that you do not see that is not a fault of your parents.

If it is to be done, it is never to be done after the age of 7 days. So you're right, it should never be done to children over the age of 7 days.

It's that I wasn't given a choice, and I would have chosen not to. I take huge issue with this.
What benefit did i gain? I'm not seeing the benefit. Tell me what benefit I gained from this.

What if the tradition were to gouge out the child's left eye? Take a pinky finger? Pierce the nose?
Would you advocate for those? How are they of any noticeable benefit?

Got to hurry and get it over with before the seven days are up. Denied.
People who harm babies in such a way belong in jail, good intentions or not.

 

[Sonofason]

It's that I wasn't given a choice, and I would have chosen not to. I take huge issue with this.
What benefit did i gain? I'm not seeing the benefit. Tell me what benefit I gained from this.

What if the tradition were to gouge out the child's left eye? Take a pinky finger? Pierce the nose?
Would you advocate for those? How are they of any noticeable benefit?

Got to hurry and get it over with before the seven days are up. Denied.
People who harm babies in such a way belong in jail, good intentions or not.

Usually the apples fall close to the tree. Sometimes they roll down the hill and get run over by a bus. I guess every apple is unique.

 

[Sonofason]

It's that I wasn't given a choice, and I would have chosen not to. I take huge issue with this.
What benefit did i gain? I'm not seeing the benefit. Tell me what benefit I gained from this.

What if the tradition were to gouge out the child's left eye? Take a pinky finger? Pierce the nose?
Would you advocate for those? How are they of any noticeable benefit?

Got to hurry and get it over with before the seven days are up. Denied.
People who harm babies in such a way belong in jail, good intentions or not.

Well, my wife works in a hospital, and she claims that from her experience, those who are circumcised have the advantage of better hygiene. Consider yourself lucky that it is easier for you to maintain good hygiene than it is for non-circumcised men. While I am not suggesting that non-circumcised men cannot have good hygiene, good hygiene is easier for us. She tells me she's had to clean out a lot of gunk from uncircumcised men, especially the more aged men. She also tells me that young children are less likely to maintain good hygiene, and so circumcision does seem to have benefits, whether or not you agree.

 

[Deathbydefault]

Usually the apples fall close to the tree. Sometimes they roll down the hill and get run over by a bus. I guess every apple is unique.

And sometimes the tree is dying and only one apple is half-decent.

Well, my wife works in a hospital, and she claims that from her experience, those who are circumcised have the advantage of better hygiene. Consider yourself lucky that it is easier for you to maintain good hygiene than it is for non-circumcised men. While I am not suggesting that non-circumcised men cannot have good hygiene, good hygiene is easier for us. She tells me she's had to clean out a lot of gunk from uncircumcised men, especially the more aged men. She also tells me that young children are less likely to maintain good hygiene, and so circumcision does seem to have benefits, whether or not you agree.

How nice, I get to skip another minute in the shower.
Great that part of my body got taken in exchange for that.

I guess children can't use soap and shampoo anymore, what type of hygiene are you talking about exactly?
Of course it has benefits, but do the pros outweigh the cons?

 

[Sonofason]

And sometimes the tree is dying and only one apple is half-decent.



How nice, I get to skip another minute in the shower.
Great that part of my body got taken in exchange for that.

I guess children can't use soap and shampoo anymore, what type of hygiene are you talking about exactly?
Of course it has benefits, but do the pros outweigh the cons?

Can you articulate some of the cons...perhaps I might get a better understanding of your feelings of betrayal. I am circumcised as well, and I don't have any of the ill feelings toward my parents as you do.

In fact I said to my wife, that I'm glad that I didn't have any boys, because I would have had to cross that bridge myself...But she said to me, don't worry, if you had a son, he would be circumcised whether you wanted it or not. She said its a matter of hygiene, and she would not allow any son of hers into the world without being circumcised. So I guess all is good here on the home front. Whats the trouble in yours?