これで冗談を死なせてくれませんか



I like turtles

kazelee Wrote:これで冗談を死なせてくれませんか

ええぇぇぇぇーっ　分からない　:o

ご冗談を止めてくれて頂いてどうもありがとうございましす

どういたしまして
又そんなご冗談を。あなたお上手ね

Religion: does more good than harm or more harm than good?

If the latter, then for utilitarian objectives, should the world ban it?

As a net, probably more harm than good. The amount of good that's done in the world because of religion while not minuscule, is much smaller than the amount greed, hate, crimes, etc., done in it's name. Though in general most of religion's effect is benign and doesn't affect people one in a bad or good way.

Religion is like a gun, put it in the hand of someone evil it can become a tool for evil, put it in the hand of a loon and it can become a tool of mass destruction, put it in the hand of hero and it can become a tool salvation. Sadly there's always more loons and evil people than heroes. The majority either have that gun in their closet and rarely or never use it, or have it on their wall as a collector's item to show with pride to anyone they may meet.

Banning religion worldwide would also be on the net bad also. The amount of pain and bad that would come from banning it would probably be worse than the current amount of bad resulting from having it.

How can you say religion does more harm than good?

If you are arguing that people who belong to a religion do bad things then that is natural because most people in the world have a religion. But you could also argue that people who have children do more harm than good for the same reason (i.e. most people in the world have children).

If you are arguing that religion *causes* people to do bad things then I think you have been misdiagnosing the causes of too many of the worlds wars and catastrophes. (Not your fault as this is the way the US and other media likes to portray things. "Oh those mad fanatical Arabs etc. etc. etc.")
In the whole vista of history, rarely do people do bad things exclusively in the name of a religion (as distinct from tribe, race, nation, civilization etc.) And even then there is usually some other, more real, cause lurking in the background. (Call it the Fourth Crusade syndrome)

In fact, the institutions in modern times that caused the most horror for the most people, i.e. the British, Belgian, Nazi, Soviet, Japanese, American, and other Empires, were never acting in the name of a religion. (There may have been occasional, marginal, sporadic bits propaganda that suggested they were but this is not important.)

Not sure if you were responding to me. But my personal view is that a religion can't make you do bad. But you can do bad/their own gain things in the name of it and/or use it to manipulate people.

Its just that people who use it for bad outnumber the ones of who use it for good. And the ones who don't use it for much outnumber both of them. I think religion is a tool that can be used for evil, like nationalism.

blackbrich Wrote:Not sure if you were responding to me. But my personal view is that a religion can't make you do bad. But you can do bad/their own gain things in the name of it and/or use it to manipulate people.

Its just that people who use it for bad outnumber the ones of who use it for good. And the ones who don't use it for much outnumber both of them. I think religion is a tool that can be used for evil, like nationalism.

I suppose I was responding to you.
Yes, of course you are right that religion can be used for evil ends.
But nowadays blaming religion seems to be a useful way for huge swaths of the bourgeois to avoid understanding complex conflicts and issues, both foreign and domestic, both now and in the past.
And your assertion: "Its just that people who use it for bad outnumber the ones of who use it for good." Very subjective. Could be argued either way.
Your other assertion: "the ones who don't use it for much outnumber both of them" I agree with completely. Which is why I am saying what I say.
So anyway, I don't think we really have an argument here (as much as I tried).
Otsukaresan!

blackbrich Wrote:Banning religion worldwide would also be on the net bad also. The amount of pain and bad that would come from banning it would probably be worse than the current amount of bad resulting from having it.

Interesting. Could you detail how you think the bad from banning religion would outweigh the good?

raharney Wrote:How can you say religion does more harm than good?

If you are arguing that people who belong to a religion do bad things then that is natural because most people in the world have a religion. But you could also argue that people who have children do more harm than good for the same reason (i.e. most people in the world have children).

Funny you should bring that up because of the link between religion and reproduction. "Go forth and multiply" so that the population of our religion is greater than other religions and we are stronger (we can force our lifestyle on them, because we're the majority).

Anyway, having more children probably is doing more harm, but that's a religious issue as well as separate issue (mainly relating to natural resources and the caring capacity of Earth).

raharney Wrote:If you are arguing that religion *causes* people to do bad things then I think you have been misdiagnosing the causes of too many of the worlds wars and catastrophes. (Not your fault as this is the way the US and other media likes to portray things. "Oh those mad fanatical Arabs etc. etc. etc.")
In the whole vista of history, rarely do people do bad things exclusively in the name of a religion (as distinct from tribe, race, nation, civilization etc.) And even then there is usually some other, more real, cause lurking in the background. (Call it the Fourth Crusade syndrome)

Well, I suppose you could say that rarely do people do bad things exclusively in the name of religion but I would argue that religion is commonly supplementary to people doing bad things.

raharney Wrote:In fact, the institutions in modern times that caused the most horror for the most people, i.e. the British, Belgian, Nazi, Soviet, Japanese, American, and other Empires, were never acting in the name of a religion. (There may have been occasional, marginal, sporadic bits propaganda that suggested they were but this is not important.)

How about a compromise: We ban religion AS WELL AS nationalism?

raharney Wrote:But nowadays blaming religion seems to be a useful way for huge swaths of the bourgeois to avoid understanding complex conflicts and issues, both foreign and domestic, both now and in the past.

I thought it was the bourgeois who use religion to control the plebeians?

qwertyytrewq Wrote:

blackbrich Wrote:Banning religion worldwide would also be on the net bad also. The amount of pain and bad that would come from banning it would probably be worse than the current amount of bad resulting from having it.

Interesting. Could you detail how you think the bad from banning religion would outweigh the good?

Even if you completely discount the ethical or moral issues involved in banning religion, just from a practical standpoint, religion is something that is so important to so many people that any attempt to completely ban it would result in protest, unrest, and violence. The key is open religious freedom, not a ban on religion.

How can you say "In the whole vista of history, rarely do people do bad things exclusively in the name of a religion"? It seems that your "whole vista of history" is limited to the last 300 years. I doubt you can generalize how people rarely suffered because of their religion.

Otherwise, idc

Aspiring Wrote:How can you say "In the whole vista of history, rarely do people do bad things exclusively in the name of a religion"? It seems that your "whole vista of history" is limited to the last 300 years. I doubt you can generalize how people rarely suffered because of their religion.

Otherwise, idc

You are being highly elitist here since it seems you are equating people "having" a religion with people "suffering" from a religion on the grounds that people who have a religion are different to you and so must be worst off than you.

qwertyytrewq Wrote:

blackbrich Wrote:Banning religion worldwide would also be on the net bad also. The amount of pain and bad that would come from banning it would probably be worse than the current amount of bad resulting from having it.

Interesting. Could you detail how you think the bad from banning religion would outweigh the good?

raharney Wrote:How can you say religion does more harm than good?

If you are arguing that people who belong to a religion do bad things then that is natural because most people in the world have a religion. But you could also argue that people who have children do more harm than good for the same reason (i.e. most people in the world have children).

Funny you should bring that up because of the link between religion and reproduction. "Go forth and multiply" so that the population of our religion is greater than other religions and we are stronger (we can force our lifestyle on them, because we're the majority).

Anyway, having more children probably is doing more harm, but that's a religious issue as well as separate issue (mainly relating to natural resources and the caring capacity of Earth).

raharney Wrote:If you are arguing that religion *causes* people to do bad things then I think you have been misdiagnosing the causes of too many of the worlds wars and catastrophes. (Not your fault as this is the way the US and other media likes to portray things. "Oh those mad fanatical Arabs etc. etc. etc.")
In the whole vista of history, rarely do people do bad things exclusively in the name of a religion (as distinct from tribe, race, nation, civilization etc.) And even then there is usually some other, more real, cause lurking in the background. (Call it the Fourth Crusade syndrome)

Well, I suppose you could say that rarely do people do bad things exclusively in the name of religion but I would argue that religion is commonly supplementary to people doing bad things.

raharney Wrote:In fact, the institutions in modern times that caused the most horror for the most people, i.e. the British, Belgian, Nazi, Soviet, Japanese, American, and other Empires, were never acting in the name of a religion. (There may have been occasional, marginal, sporadic bits propaganda that suggested they were but this is not important.)

How about a compromise: We ban religion AS WELL AS nationalism?

raharney Wrote:But nowadays blaming religion seems to be a useful way for huge swaths of the bourgeois to avoid understanding complex conflicts and issues, both foreign and domestic, both now and in the past.

I thought it was the bourgeois who use religion to control the plebeians?

You're depiction of religion is cartoonish.
The whole "go forth and multiply" isn't a breathing program conspiracy. It comes from the Old Testament, the book of Judaism, a religion that does not actively seek new members. It is God talking to the first humans. What was he meant to say, "don't bother reproducing because in a few millennia you will have some bourgeoise college boys who will conveniently blame the ravages of capitalism on overpopulation and religion".

As for banning religion, well, they've done that in North Korea. I don't think it has made them really any more happy.
(And if you start going on about how the cult of Kim Il Sung is really a religion then you have lost the argument).

raharney Wrote:

Aspiring Wrote:How can you say "In the whole vista of history, rarely do people do bad things exclusively in the name of a religion"? It seems that your "whole vista of history" is limited to the last 300 years. I doubt you can generalize how people rarely suffered because of their religion.

Otherwise, idc

You are being highly elitist here since it seems you are equating people "having" a religion with people "suffering" from a religion on the grounds that people who have a religion are different to you and so must be worst off than you.

Relax, man. I wasn't trying to attack you or religion, just your generalization.
But uhhh yeah... I find your generalizations curiously oversimplified. I apologize.

"In the whole vista of history, rarely do people do bad things exclusively in the name of a religion"

^That sentence bothers me.

"Otherwise, idc"... about the other arguments
Sorry if that seems elitist. I truly believe that religion is difficult to rationalize or debunk with strangers on the internet.
Peace, and love!

Aspiring Wrote:

raharney Wrote:

Aspiring Wrote:How can you say "In the whole vista of history, rarely do people do bad things exclusively in the name of a religion"? It seems that your "whole vista of history" is limited to the last 300 years. I doubt you can generalize how people rarely suffered because of their religion.

Otherwise, idc

You are being highly elitist here since it seems you are equating people "having" a religion with people "suffering" from a religion on the grounds that people who have a religion are different to you and so must be worst off than you.

Relax, man. I wasn't trying to attack you or religion, just your generalization.
But uhhh yeah... I find your generalizations curiously oversimplified. I apologize.

"In the whole vista of history, rarely do people do bad things exclusively in the name of a religion"

^That sentence bothers me.

"Otherwise, idc"... about the other arguments
Sorry if that seems elitist. I truly believe that religion is difficult to rationalize or debunk with strangers on the internet.
Peace, and love!

Actually, IDC moi aussi. Peace and love etc.