Can religion be blamed for any grievance in society?

Hi, recently I had a discussion with an atheist friend of mine.
He claimed that religion is a root of ignorance and evil in this world.
He also said that once humanity managed to get rid of religion separation of people will disappear.

I personally say that the term religion stands for ideologies just like many others.
Ideologyies can be both dangerous and good.
Islam is probably a great example. While most muslims are peaceful people salafists tend to be the enemies of democracy, which is a dangerous threat.

What’s your thought?

People naturally tend to cruelty, that is a well-known fact. Religion is just what people use to give theirselves a moral justification for evil. But I dont think religion would TRIGGER such tendence. In fact, quite by the contrary: If you ask me, religion can give people hope. Hope for a better world. A cause to fight for.

PS: I am not talking about any specific religion here( In fact, give me a specific, well-known religion, and I will tell you in how many levels, exactly, it is freaking wrong… ), but religion as a concept.

1. We need a set of morals to not live in anarchy.
2. Throughout history, religion was THE giver of morality, just face it.
3. As ANY other social system, religion can be USED for selfish causes, which has nothing to do with that religion itself – and has many similar examples of abuse outside the scope of “religious”.
4. Atheism IS a religion, as in “a systematic belief (in scientific method’s superiority in this case), with a set system of morals (humanism, you know), that requires its adherents to conform to some dogma (uncheckable science, don’t argue on that)”.
5. Whatever… This thread is as pointless as all others of this type.

Originally posted by somebody613:

1. We need a set of morals to not live a life of anarchy.
2. Throughout history, religion was THE giver of morality, just face it.
3. As ANY other social system, religion can be USED for selfish causes, which has nothing to do with that religion itself.
4. Atheism IS a religion, as in “a systematic belief (in scientific method’s superiority in this case), with a set system of morals (humanism, you know), that requires its adherents to conform to some dogma (uncheckable science, don’t argue on that)”.
5. Whatever… This thread is as pointless as all others of this type.

As for 1/2: Are you saiyng it is impossible for one to follow a code of morality motivated not by the desire of serving a greater FORCE, but rather a greater cause?
3: Completely agree.
4: … Accoding to your definition, nazism is a religion, capitalism is a religion, and any kind of ideology is a religion…

Originally posted by egotheredundant:
He claimed that religion is a root of ignorance and evil in this world.

Root: no.

cause/excuse in some cases: Yeah.

Originally posted by axlkoegoskyeg:

As for 1/2: Are you saiyng it is impossible for one to follow a code of morality motivated not by the desire of serving a greater FORCE, but rather a greater cause?

Yeah, he does that a lot.

4: … Accoding to your definition, nazism is a religion, capitalism is a religion, and any kind of ideology is a religion…

Imma go make a church of fundamentalist vegans now.

axl
More than often, YES.
Not in the “conventional” sense, but more in ideological.
People VERY often adhere to ideology by “believing” it.
OK, maybe what I mean isn’t “religion” but rather “lifestyle/worldview”, but the terms are nearly equal.
Religion ISN’T about what name you call your deity, it’s much more about how you LIVE your life as the result of adhering to that “religion”.
And with this in mind, YES, most ideologies (or ALL?) are “religions”.
…
What constitutes a religion:
1. A set of rules of behavior.
2. A certain rule-giver who decides WHAT those rules are.
3. A group of followers that adhere to the rules unconditionally.
ALL of this is present and effective in any ideology.

Atheism is a religion? Yeah, just like not smoking is an addiction.

Religion is mostly a good thing, but yes it spawns ignorance. Religion is a brainwashing process, but like I said it can be good so it’s not necessarily bad. But people should look at things logically and decide what they believe in.

Originally posted by somebody613:
ALL of this is present and effective in any ideology.

Not really, no.

The problem with religion isn’t that they believe things without proof, its that they hate people for not believing what they believe.

Not all religions hate people for not believing what they believe, but most do.

Religion is the belief there is a set purpose or reason for the creation of the Universe. Buddhism, for example, is an Atheistic religion. But Atheism by itself is not a religion.

Originally posted by somebody613:

axl
More than often, YES.
Not in the “conventional” sense, but more in ideological.
People VERY often adhere to ideology by “believing” it.
OK, maybe what I mean isn’t “religion” but rather “lifestyle/worldview”, but the terms are nearly equal.
Religion ISN’T about what name you call your deity, it’s much more about how you LIVE your life as the result of adhering to that “religion”.
And with this in mind, YES, most ideologies (or ALL?) are “religions”.

… Well, normally, religion kinda implies on the belief in some sort of greater, non-physical force. I admit there are situations where the line is indeed thinner( Such as Buddhism, for a example ), but considering atheism is, by definition, the belief there is no such thing as a greater force( Not me saiyng that: The dictionary is ), I would say atheism is as much of a religion as bald is a color of hair…

As for your little edit: As I said before, you are forgetting to mention that mostly, by definition, religion implies in the belief of some sort of greater force, am I correct?

indy
ALL ideologies “brainwash” their adherents, including the adherents of “scientific method”.
(DR is a good example of how a person is bent on “scientification” – not that it’s necessarily bad, but it’s still being “brainwashed”.)
Also, “logic” and “belief” are self-contradicting, when CONVENTIONALLY used.

axl
They BELIEVE there’s nothing to BELIEVE in. :D
They don’t KNOW it – that would be impossible for a limited human being.

Originally posted by somebody613:

indy

Okay, so by your definition, you have been brainwashed into believing the exact opposite of what he believes.

Originally posted by somebody613:
They BELIEVE there’s nothing to BELIEVE in. :D

Alright, I’m going to stop feeding my addiction of not smoking, then.

They don’t KNOW it – that would be impossible for a limited human being.

…What?

Originally posted by somebody613:

indy
ALL ideologies “brainwash” their adherents, including the adherents of “scientific method”.
(DR is a good example of how a person is bent on “scientification” – not that it’s necessarily bad, but it’s still being “brainwashed”.)
Also, “logic” and “belief” are self-contradicting, when CONVENTIONALLY used.

Yes, what group doesn’t have an amount of brainwash? Science does not acknowledge a reason for the universe, and thus why religion and science are separate. Science is also seen as fact, unlike religion which is belief.

Indy
Is Big Bang a FACT?
Have anyone been there to see it?
FACTS are either repeatable or at least witnessable events.
Science is replete with “dogmas” that are held for “facts”, which they aren’t.
Technically, even applicable science is using a whole bunch of unwitnessable stuff, just that they make it work.
To say it the funny way – have you ever SEEN gravity?
Touched, licked, smelled, heard? Only its EFFECTS, right?
That’s my point – it’s not a fact, but it’s taken for such due to its obvious effects.
But can we be SURE, we even understand the thing right – or it’s that our USAGE of it is working, which proves nothing about the NATURE of the thing.
You see, to CLAIM to KNOW, you must understand the THING itself, not just its EFFECTS.
(Why am I sure, that nobody will understand my point?)

The big bang is a theory, I’ve never heard a scientist call it fact, and if they are then they are wrong. There is no way of knowing that if I throw an apple that it will always fall to the ground, or that this is even “reality”. You just have to look at things logically and assume some things. I’m assuming that if I dance I won’t blow up the moon, but you can’t prove it won’t.

Originally posted by somebody613:

Indy
Is Big Bang a FACT?
Have anyone been there to see it?
FACTS are either repeatable or at least witnessable events.
Science is replete with “dogmas” that are held for “facts”, which they aren’t.
Technically, even applicable science is using a whole bunch of unwitnessable stuff, just that they make it work.
To say it the funny way – have you ever SEEN gravity?
Touched, licked, smelled, heard? Only its EFFECTS, right?
That’s my point – it’s not a fact, but it’s taken for such due to its obvious effects.
But can we be SURE, we even understand the thing right – or it’s that our USAGE of it is working, which proves nothing about the NATURE of the thing.
You see, to CLAIM to KNOW, you must understand the THING itself, not just its EFFECTS.
(Why am I sure, that nobody will understand my point?)

Of course you cant see gravity, for the same reason you cant see intelligence, for a example. Gravity isnt a object, but a propriety of matter. Now, it is true the scientists cant explain WHY does matter tends to attract more matter. But it definitively happens, and it is a conclusion they reached based in evidence. The ability of doing that is the very definition of logic, and therefore, according to YOUR logic, it cant be a belief.

Originally posted by somebody613:

Indy
Is Big Bang a FACT?

It’s more of a fact than “God did it.”

Have anyone been there to see it?

Does that really matter?

FACTS are either repeatable or at least witnessable events.

Provable*

Science is replete with “dogmas” that are held for “facts”, which they aren’t.

Like?

Technically, even applicable science is using a whole bunch of unwitnessable stuff, just that they make it work.

Like?

To say it the funny way – have you ever SEEN gravity?

Have you ever seen air?

That’s my point – it’s not a fact, but it’s taken for such due to its obvious effects.

…

…

I can’t believe you could get this stupid.

But can we be SURE, we even understand the thing right – or it’s that our USAGE of it is working, which proves nothing about the NATURE of the thing.

What?

You see, to CLAIM to KNOW,

So do you.

you must understand the THING itself, not just its EFFECTS.

Therefore, there is no God.

(Why am I sure, that nobody will understand my point?)

Probably because you’re not presenting it in a way that would make sense. Or that the thing itself would make sense.

Indy
Wordplay again.
FACT – is what people argue to be 100% truth, as in “how can you say it’s wrong – it’s a FACT”.
You can call it theory or hypothesis or whatever – as long as people look at it the way DR said “it’s the best option we have”, it’s similar to simply calling it a “fact”.
Cause it’s what people take for granted, “as a fact”.
And this implies they take it for TRUTH of the final level, which is again the same as naming it a fact.
So, all this scientific wordplay is basically nonsense, as long as the topic is what people BELIEVE as FACTS.

tenco
I have no wish to waste my time on arguments with YOU.
It’s not personal – it’s due to us being TOO DIFFERENT.
We just don’t speak the same language.
Not that many others here do speak my language, but some at least try.
You try too – but you just can’t.
No one’s fault – but for our both sakes, let’s drop it.

Originally posted by tenco1:

Originally posted by somebody613:

Indy
Is Big Bang a FACT?

It’s more of a fact than “God did it.”

Have anyone been there to see it?

Does that really matter?

FACTS are either repeatable or at least witnessable events.

Provable*

Science is replete with “dogmas” that are held for “facts”, which they aren’t.

Like?

Technically, even applicable science is using a whole bunch of unwitnessable stuff, just that they make it work.

Like?

To say it the funny way – have you ever SEEN gravity?

Have you ever seen air?

That’s my point – it’s not a fact, but it’s taken for such due to its obvious effects.

…

…

I can’t believe you could get this stupid.

But can we be SURE, we even understand the thing right – or it’s that our USAGE of it is working, which proves nothing about the NATURE of the thing.

What?

You see, to CLAIM to KNOW,

So do you.

you must understand the THING itself, not just its EFFECTS.

Therefore, there is no God.

(Why am I sure, that nobody will understand my point?)

Probably because you’re not presenting it in a way that would make sense. Or that the thing itself would make sense.

Actually, the Big Bang itself is a perfect example of that. While it DO explains the expansion of the universe, it breaks more laws of science then I can even begin to count. To begin with, the concept of such a thing as the creation of time. Well, time cant have been created, for for that to be true, first time would have to do not exist, and then time would have to exist. What would demand the concept of a before and a after. What would demand the existance of time…

It is fact that there is gravity, this can’t be argued. What can be argued is how it is there, or why. This is religion, it gives reasoning behind facts.

axl
Hehehe, so science is near the “invention” of Creation, right? :D

Indy
The HOW actually means WHAT.
As in, we have no clue about the thing’s nature, we just are able to USE it.
But my “target” isn’t the applicable science, but rather the one which no one ever experienced, yet is held as 100% true, “until scientifically proven otherwise”, even though it’s scientifically impossible to do, unless you invent a time machine.
This is where science introduces BELIEF.

Science doesn’t disprove religion though. Science will believe there is no point in the Universe unless proven otherwise, but it is not as much as Science says there is no point but that they just ignore that as that would make things too complicated.

Originally posted by somebody613:
I have no wish to waste my time on arguments with YOU.

But you don’t mind wasting your time with other people, right?

It’s not personal – it’s due to us being TOO DIFFERENT.

You have a default avatar, while I do not.

We just don’t speak the same language.

Not the same first language, at least.

Not that many others here do speak my language, but some at least try.
You try too – but you just can’t.

And how about you try and speak our language, then?

No one’s fault – but for our both sakes, let’s drop it.

Then why do you keep posting here?

Indy
This isn’t the only point (hehehe, POINTS all over).
Science-adherents (like our friend DR here) often accept only “scientifically proven” stuff, even though a whole section of events in our life CAN’T be put into that category.
Anyways, my key point is, that 99% of our life is made up of BELIEFS, of a whole variety of scales, from believing that something is healthy or harmful (effects, sure; facts, not quite) to believing we have a tomorrow (how do you know it?).
We live a lifetime of belief, but so love to call it facts.
It helps us to feel more stable, cause we believe that pretending to actually know something is helping to make it stronger.
It’s a very helpful belief and a one everyone adheres to – but a belief nonetheless.

tenco
I’m not only talking to YOU, you know. :D
Also, I meant that OUR discussion would lead nowhere exactly for the aforementioned reason.
This doesn’t necessarily apply to others, especially those that I don’t have a vast experience talking to (unlike yourself).