SoulPancake / Conversations / If religion is responsible for many past and present world atrocities, should we fight to outlaw all religion?

Jump into a Conversation about Life's' Big Questions

PplHelpinPpl

- 3 years ago

Feature
0
Like
Follow

If religion is responsible for many past and present world atrocities, should we fight to outlaw all religion?

This question truly poses several questions. Is religion the cause of numerous world atrocities? If so, are these atrocities true evil, and then, shouldn't we commit ourselves to the destruction of evil? Are these failings the fault of religion or simply the fault of the misguided man? Most importantly, Is religion dangerous?

Recent Discussed Liked

First level responses second level responses

yep, let's just follow communism as it has shown how well that has worked out for other countries! it is NO ONES business what i believe and if it is outlawed then i will be moving to a non-communistic country! some people are so devoid of knowledge but the truth is that you have no freedom with out knowledge. that is why when people owned slaves they would not allow them to learn or go to school. lack of knowledge = lack of freedom = banning rights = my religious rights.

@Griz Religion is already on its way to being banned from society. Our government has already starting at the most important place, Schools!! The future of America, the children in public schools are not subject to the harmful teachings of religion for a very good reason! Religion can make people do crazy things because it assists with detaching an individual from reality, reason, and logic. People who feel they need to do something because of a higher power/divine judgment, or message from God told them too are C.R.A.Z.Y!! How come back in the day when the bible was written, those who spoke to God and heard the voice of God in their heads were seen as prophets and leaders, where today if people hear voices in their head they end up in the Looney bin??? ummmm it's because their nuts... The U.S. government does not always do the right thing, but the best thing it ever did was a Supreme Court ruling to keep factual un-bias curriculums in the school which taught about evolution (Ahh truth never sounded so good), not bible teachings about FALSE/made-up reasons like creationism nonsense about Adam and eve. Thank goodness for the U.S. Governments understanding of how harmful religion can be to young absorbent minds and went forward with separating church & state. Soon enough religion will be seen as nothing more than traditional “out-dated” ways of looking at the universe around us and beyond us.

If guns are responsible for many past and present world atrocities, should we fight to outlaw all guns? If hammers are responsible for many past and present world atrocities, should we fight to outlaw all hammers? If knives are responsible for many past and present world atrocities, should we fight to outlaw all knives? If "love" gone wrong is responsible for many past and present world atrocities, should we fight to outlaw all love? Are all these things not also "dangerous"? Do they not have potential for great destruction if misused? Don't outlaw the tools. Look instead to change the user of the tools. None of these things "caused" (ie, were responsible) for the atrocities. By themselves they are just there. It's how we choose to use them. When we try to use them to exert ourselves over others (to exclude), the atrocities occur. When we use them to try to help others (to include), great good has been the result. Are we still so juvenile a race that we are STILL scapegoating the tools, rather than taking a good hard look in the mirror??

Blaming religion for the atrocities by those who claim to be devout, is something akin to blaming science for nuclear weapons? And historically, politics might rightly be blamed for many more deaths than religion, should we fight to outlaw that as well? The notion is absurd. Religion, politics, society, economic, are NOT responsible for evil, humans are. Perhaps we should abolish the human race? As for the question, is religion dangerous? The atheists would like to argue that it is, but I assure you that without we would not have come this far and our history would have bee far bloodier.

Huh? "Can we fight to reduce the control of religion?" How would that work? You can fight ignorance, intolerance, greed, corruption, etc., but why would you fight to control something that benefits and guides the majority of humanity? The power of religion is manifest both in it's ability to uplift and guide people to better lives and it's potential for terrible misuse. If you are keeping score however, secular leaders (Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot just for three) have outdone all killings done in the name of religion for the past several generations. I say lets reduce the control of secularism!

Religion was only responsible for those atrocities because it was used to justify actions which we now consider terrible. It's possible to do the same thing with secularism, and this proposal is an example of how it could be done.

Religion is a culprit insomuch as it creates justification Once one feels justified in a particular ideology, whatever it is, the atrocities will soon follow.

Perhaps rather than outlawing religion we should shun world leaders from claiming that a high power is standing behind what they're doing when they wage war, particularly here in America. Bush claiming that God was on his side makes both Bush and God look bad...

there *is a sliding scale between atheism and theism, but not in terms of evidence.

I understand your uppitiness. :) I like Dawkins as well, and I believe that many people put him at the forefront of the post modern athiest movement. I was probably presenting a bit of a staw man when saying that he believes that religion is the root of all major conflict, but he would agree with some form of that idea. It was on that, that I wanted to engage debate. I have this discussion with almost every pure atheist I talk to. I'm agnostic as far as the question "Is there a God?". I understand the literal implications of this. There is no sliding scale between theism and atheism. But this simply means that agnosticism applies to everyone on the scale. However, people have FEELINGS that lay somewhere on that scale. Do I believe in God? That seems to me a much more complicated question. Which I will get into if you desire, :).

Hey, one has to believe in something. By active belief, we are doing all the fighting necessary.

"Religion" isnt really the cause of wars. Money is.

Religion must be the cause of unity. If it be the cause of disunity, it is better to have no religion at all. But not all religion is the cause of disunity. Extremist religion is. I say end extremism, and embrace the bounties and beauties of what the non-extremist can offer.

Is religion responsible for war? Yes, but so is greed (etc.). Is religion to blame for hate? Yes, but so is racism. Is religion dangerous? Yes, but so is skydiving. Is religion malicious? Yes, but so are politicians. Point being, yes, religion often encourages hatred, murder, racism, sexism, war, xenophobia, homophobia, exclusion, maliciousness and selishness... But (ignoring all the potential goods religion can bring) until you figure out how to outlaw personal inclination such as racism or outlaw free speech, you're not going to be able to legislate religion down, even if you wanted to. Plus, they have all the guns. We p***y liberals wouldn't stand a chance if a revolution broke out. PS: this is dangerous rhetoric, bro. Leave the law out of it (I like the constitution just fine), and fight the battle elsewhere.

As I see it, true religion is not the cause of atrocities. The perversion of religion is. In cae someone is interested, the Baha'i Faith is one of the few religions to explicitly forbid religious warfare.

Certain people twist religion. And are mislead into it. That goes for all religions. I think that ultimately, it would cause more atrocities if people tried to fight it then if they tried to education the misguided man. Even though that may not work, which could cause conflict. But on an occasion, it would work.

As an athiest myself, I still prefer free choice. Liberty above all else.

Misguided people are responsible.

I don't think that outlawing religion would do any good. If anything, religious people would fight against it, whether through violence or not, and it would just lead to even more bloodshed. What should be done instead is to create a sense of tolerance and understanding.

@PplHelpinPpl Tallahassee, FL

Follow Message

More Conversations from PplHelpinPpl

How do we win a war of ideas? 13 Responses Will robots take over the world? 16 Responses

Show More ↓

SoulPancake

PplHelpinPpl

If religion is responsible for many past and present world atrocities, should we fight to outlaw all religion?

dbestseller

Dpworld88

Griz

mcdermid

malcentered

PopeJaimie

Religion was only responsible for those atrocities because it was used to justify actions which we now consider terrible. It's possible to do the same thing with secularism, and this proposal is an example of how it could be done.

applegrass

Religion is a culprit insomuch as it creates justification Once one feels justified in a particular ideology, whatever it is, the atrocities will soon follow.

Mistral

Perhaps rather than outlawing religion we should shun world leaders from claiming that a high power is standing behind what they're doing when they wage war, particularly here in America. Bush claiming that God was on his side makes both Bush and God look bad...

PplHelpinPpl

there *is a sliding scale between atheism and theism, but not in terms of evidence.

PplHelpinPpl

northstop

Hey, one has to believe in something. By active belief, we are doing all the fighting necessary.

chantarella

"Religion" isnt really the cause of wars. Money is.

Sara

Religion must be the cause of unity. If it be the cause of disunity, it is better to have no religion at all. But not all religion is the cause of disunity. Extremist religion is. I say end extremism, and embrace the bounties and beauties of what the non-extremist can offer.

krillinhazuki

Alvah

As I see it, true religion is not the cause of atrocities. The perversion of religion is. In cae someone is interested, the Baha'i Faith is one of the few religions to explicitly forbid religious warfare.

JohnCusack

StopPartisan

As an athiest myself, I still prefer free choice. Liberty above all else.

Tea

Misguided people are responsible.

Arjuna

I don't think that outlawing religion would do any good. If anything, religious people would fight against it, whether through violence or not, and it would just lead to even more bloodshed. What should be done instead is to create a sense of tolerance and understanding.

If religion is responsible for many past and present world atrocities, should we fight to outlaw all religion?

Religion was only responsible for those atrocities because it was used to justify actions which we now consider terrible. It's possible to do the same thing with secularism, and this proposal is an example of how it could be done.

Religion is a culprit insomuch as it creates *justification* Once one feels justified in a particular ideology, whatever it is, the atrocities will soon follow.

Perhaps rather than outlawing religion we should shun world leaders from claiming that a high power is standing behind what they're doing when they wage war, particularly here in America. Bush claiming that God was on his side makes both Bush and God look bad...

there *is a sliding scale between atheism and theism, but not in terms of evidence.

Hey, one has to believe in something. By active belief, we are doing all the fighting necessary.

"Religion" isnt really the cause of wars. Money is.

Religion must be the cause of unity. If it be the cause of disunity, it is better to have no religion at all. But not all religion is the cause of disunity. Extremist religion is. I say end extremism, and embrace the bounties and beauties of what the non-extremist can offer.

As I see it, true religion is not the cause of atrocities. The **perversion** of religion is. In cae someone is interested, the Baha'i Faith is one of the few religions to explicitly forbid religious warfare.

As an athiest myself, I still prefer free choice. Liberty above all else.

Misguided people are responsible.

I don't think that outlawing religion would do any good. If anything, religious people would fight against it, whether through violence or not, and it would just lead to even more bloodshed. What should be done instead is to create a sense of tolerance and understanding.

What's Next?

Religion is a culprit insomuch as it creates justification Once one feels justified in a particular ideology, whatever it is, the atrocities will soon follow.

As I see it, true religion is not the cause of atrocities. The perversion of religion is. In cae someone is interested, the Baha'i Faith is one of the few religions to explicitly forbid religious warfare.