Certain people don't want to give religion any credit when the good things associated with religion come to mind. These same people want to give religion pretty much all the credit when it comes to the bad things, though. This is certainly an unfair imbalance. Amirite?

certain people refers to religious and irreligious people people favor their own beliefs but with other religions will lay all the "bad credit" and not the "good" credit and irreligious people do the same but with pretty much all the religions instead they favor lack of religion

by Anonymous 10 years ago

I bet Mr. Z would say "I am not certain of anything" in reference to my last sentence "This is certainly an unfair imbalance" maniac

by Anonymous 10 years ago

I am not certain what I would say.

by Anonymous 10 years ago

ohhh but "somewhat certain versus absolutely certain"

by Anonymous 10 years ago

He among you is the wisest who, like Socrates, knows that his wisdom is really worth nothing at all. (Apology 23b, tr. Church, rev. Cumming) - That the wisest of you men is he who like Socrates has learned that with respect to wisdom, he is truly worthless. (tr. Tredennick) - He, O men, is the wisest who, like Socrates, knows that his wisdom is in truth worth nothing. (tr. Jowett)

by Anonymous 9 years ago

Probably just another example of confirmation bias.

by Anonymous 10 years ago

This is so true

by Anonymous 10 years ago

The same could also be said for some religious people towards atheists or non-affiliates. the bias goes both ways.

by Anonymous 10 years ago

I didn't say it didn't I was focusing on religion and since atheism isn't a religion...

by Anonymous 10 years ago

i realize that, i just think people should be aware that one group is not entirely at fault

by Anonymous 10 years ago

but I blamed both religious and irreligious groups when I defined "certain people" that covers everyone pretty much either way I see your point because you pointed out another combo

by Anonymous 10 years ago

When I see the positive outcomes of religion (which do not outweigh the liabilities by any means) I also observe that those same positive outcomes can be easily obtained in a secular way. There isn't some secret form of happiness and good that comes from religion and religion only.

by Anonymous 10 years ago

and you're doing what my post says there isn't some kind of negative that comes from religion and religion only "which do not outweigh the liabilities in any way" disagree

by Anonymous 10 years ago

It depends on how specific you get on this topic. I could say that religious wars are caused by religion and religion only, and you would respond by saying that there have been plenty of other wars for non-religious reasons. About your last statement there, what are the benefits of religion?

by Anonymous 10 years ago

most wars are secular so still not religion and religion only just like you said I'd say and even in "religious wars" there was the reason for wanting land, resources, etc. so still not religion and religion only the benefits vary from person to person google it I don't want to share my own for reasons I don't know how to word the duties have had physical, mental, emotional, etc. benefits for me

by Anonymous 10 years ago

security

by Anonymous 9 years ago

You've given me a new perspective on the negativity of religion. I still think, however, that a world with no religion would be better. Yet, it would also be more boring to an extent.

by Anonymous 10 years ago

I'd argue that it's just as common to give religion credit for good things and when it causes bad things to just push the religion aspect aside. I mean how often do you hear people speak of terrorists or the Westborough Baptists and hear them say "They're not //real// [religious people]."? That to me doesn't make sense. I agree that someone who sees only the bad in something they don't like is unreasonable, but it goes both ways, and it happens with so many different things, to say that it's unfair on religion isn't something I agree with.

by Anonymous 10 years ago

It differs among individuals, whether they have ever felt the influence of religion or not.. Take me for instance, I have an immense BELIEF in my religion, and even in bad times, it is this belief that fosters my movement, and never lets me step back. And to me it has always worked. Religions are just a "belief" that there is SOMEONE who's making sure you get the best you deserve out of life. So even when you get what doesn't look good to you, it turns into something better if your belief doesn't fail... It's not a fairy tale.. As much as some people fail to agree with, this always applies to my life..

by Anonymous 9 years ago

Many seem to blame religion as the root of all evils... but I think evil exists regardless of religion.

by Anonymous 9 years ago

Sadly, we will never know

by Anonymous 9 years ago

Nonreligious people surely do bad things. I think we do know.

by Anonymous 9 years ago

ah - a neutered dog will still hump your leg - but if there was a world in which all dogs were born sexless would one still hump your leg? In a world with religion, non-religious people do "bad" things - mostly because religion defines what is "bad". We will never know if "badness" would exist in a world where there never was any religion to define "bad".

by Anonymous 9 years ago

Religion isn't the default position though. People generally figure out what's bad without religion through experiences. Yes, morals would be different but some would most likely be the same because they aid in our survival as a species.

by Anonymous 9 years ago

I totally agree. My point being: we will never live in a society in which religion is completely absent, so we will never know, //for sure// if evil would still exist. It might but there is no way to test that theory,

by Anonymous 9 years ago

Id say its EXTREMELY likely we'd still have morals. Other animals probably aren't religious and they have their own moral codes. But I guess there's no way to KNOW for sure

by Anonymous 9 years ago

Yep. But also - morals =/= evil. Can you have morals and also //not// have "evil"? telling lies, adultery, lechery, etc. might be "immoral" but, are they //evil?// I asked before, what is evil?

by Anonymous 9 years ago

We've talked about this before and agreed, I think, that there is no objective morality. Everyone has a different moral code. Evil includes the things that go against one's code I guess. I don't think lies are inherently immoral. Others do.

by Anonymous 9 years ago

Not to re-hash old conversations, but... to me "evil" is a noun not an adjective. I do not think it exists. It certainly cannot exist without religion to provide the (opposite noun) good. When juxtaposing the objects good/evil :: god/devil you need one to have either and when you have one you have both

by Anonymous 9 years ago

Good and evil don't exist objectively, but subjectively. Subjective good and evil would exist without religion. The good and evil in all religions are subjective actually. Yes, you need one to contrast the other for either to exist subjectively or objectively.

by Anonymous 9 years ago

Lets start a village in absence of religion and completely isolated from everyone else. M. Night Shyamalan's "The Village" style, but without the crazy.

by Anonymous 9 years ago

Lol

by Anonymous 9 years ago

i think evil exist because we already have the basic idea of good and evil

by Anonymous 9 years ago

science, religion, how about philosophy?

by Anonymous 9 years ago