Is Religion Generally a Good Thing?

[Profesco]

Unless you view other cultures as "primitive" then I see no reason to dismiss religion as "primitive" or "obsolete".

The word primitive didn't show up anywhere in the post, so why the quotation marks? =0

But for the sake of boredom, weren't the examples he gave not merely of other cultures, but of earlier cultures, and, granted that, wouldn't the general, elastic understanding of the definition of "primitive" be applicable to what he was implying anyway?

*shrug*

 

[bel9]

The word primitive didn't show up anywhere in the post, so why the quotation marks? =0

I am referring to the words. I guess underline would be more appropriate.

He seems to be collectively referring to the whole group of stories/myths/legends as one giant religion, which is wrong. The Greek religion(s) were not all just one collective mythology.

EDIT: I don't like the way I said that last bit. All religions contain mythology. However, the mythology is not the religion. Does that make more sense?

But for the sake of boredom, weren't the examples he gave not merely of other cultures, but of earlier cultures, and, granted that, wouldn't the general, elastic understanding of the definition of "primitive" be applicable to what he was implying anyway?

I wouldn't call them primitive. I don't like the word, and feel primitive is connected with negative connotations. It comes from early anthropologists, who often claimed indigenous people to be primitive. The word is also a very vague and open term. It is defined on the online dictionary as:

A person belonging to a preliterate, nonindustrial society or culture.

Relating to, denoting, or preserving an early stage in the evolutionary or historical development of something

I think it is better to just use a word like "earlier" as you did or just be more specific with time periods.

 

[GhostAnime]

There are companies that would have something to lose with further advances in stem cells. You can bet they would try to debate against them. As for the basic argument, we honestly don't know.

That makes a heck lot more sense than some of the arguments from theologians.

If we're going to have a debate, at least don't have religion as your premise; that's the first step to a logical world.

 

[N!ck]

I see three type of religious people: the casual, the brainwashed, and the extremists.

The casual religious person is open to ideas and will not try to impose their religion on others, but still go to religious gatherings and have their belief.

The brainwashed tend to be children or people who are overly religious. During conversations, they are likely to recite religious phrases to back an argument. Although not bad people, they're devotion to their religion can be annoying to people who are not of their religion.

The extremists are people who are believe that their dreams are visions of the future, and some are serial killers who justify that they heard their God tell them to do their crimes.

Religion strikes people in different ways.

 

[Malanu]

There are companies that would have something to lose with further advances in stem cells. You can bet they would try to debate against them. As for the basic argument, we honestly don't know.

Let's say theoretically that there was never a religion that influenced our culture... We can't be certain that our culture would be pro gay rights. As Steele said, people love making divisions. Homosexuals would still be a minority and people may be fearful of them and against them obtaining rights, just as people have been fearful of other minorities and against their rights.

Ahhh yes, the old 'birds with machine gun' debate!

New religious beliefs came along to displace those. The Greeks had a shrine built to what they referred to as "the unknown god". It wasn't that hard for Christianity to spread.

Furthermore mythology is just another part of religion. You act as if religion automatically falls into mythology, when in fact many religious traditions continue on when they synchronize with a new religion. Unless you view other cultures as "primitive" then I see no reason to dismiss religion as "primitive" or "obsolete".

All religions have myths and folklore.

As far as I'm concerned it does. I just watched a NatGeo show about Noah's ark. Turns out, the Sumerians once again have a near identical story to the bible. There is a story in their "mythology" of a Man who made a boat to save his family and farm animals from a great flood. So not only is the bible full of myths... it's full of other religion's myths!

 

[bel9]

Ahhh yes, the old 'birds with machine gun' debate!

As far as I'm concerned it does. I just watched a NatGeo show about Noah's ark. Turns out, the Sumerians once again have a near identical story to the bible. There is a story in their "mythology" of a Man who made a boat to save his family and farm animals from a great flood. So not only is the bible full of myths... it's full of other religion's myths!

Nice completely ignoring all the other posts I made on this subject. Like I stated earlier, mythology is a part of religion. The Greek mythology was a part of religion, but it was not the religion itself. If you want to believe that all religion is mythology, it seems like you're making a pretty big and uneducated statement about both religion and mythology. Furthermore, as previously stated a few posts ago, there are these things called cultural diffusion and synchronization. Basically cultures share their cultural beliefs and ideas, especially some religious practices and mythologies. The story of a flood, let alone a boat isn't that new, so it probz got passed around a bit. You can say stole, but pretty much every other religion has "stolen" a myth too. Another example would be Israelites in Egypt. Historically, there were not Israelites as slaves in Egypt like the bible claims at the time the bible claims. However, it is more likely they had ancestors who were at one time captive to Egypt and made an escape. A story wih as this would of course be passed down for generations and was eventually passed to the Israelites. For the sake of pride and the mythos, thy refer to the characters as Israelites.Tbh I would have preferred you to just say tl;dr since you skipped a bunch of my posts that explain this

 

[Malanu]

Nice completely ignoring all the other posts I made on this subject. Like I stated earlier, mythology is a part of religion. The Greek mythology was a part of religion, but it was not the religion itself. If you want to believe that all religion is mythology, it seems like you're making a pretty big and uneducated statement about both religion and mythology. Furthermore, as previously stated a few posts ago, there are these things called cultural diffusion and synchronization. Basically cultures share their cultural beliefs and ideas, especially some religious practices and mythologies. The story of a flood, let alone a boat isn't that new, so it probz got passed around a bit. You can say stole, but pretty much every other religion has "stolen" a myth too. Another example would be Israelites in Egypt. Historically, there were not Israelites as slaves in Egypt like the bible claims at the time the bible claims. However, it is more likely they had ancestors who were at one time captive to Egypt and made an escape. A story wih as this would of course be passed down for generations and was eventually passed to the Israelites. For the sake of pride and the mythos, thy refer to the characters as Israelites.Tbh I would have preferred you to just say tl;dr since you skipped a bunch of my posts that explain this

You have great points, and the stealing of stories from one another kinda makes my point. Which story of a family in a boat was the original & which story of a being decending came first.

If the argument is that it's in the bible then it must be true, then rules of Plagiarism would suggest that the bible is not true. (About the Israelites... Where did you find that? I'd like to read up on that.)

Mind you At one point those 'Myths' were part of religions. A myth is just story from a religion that is no longer followed.

http://www.myths-and-mythology.com/articles/religion-mythology/index.php

By this outlook, I am right in referring to the 'bible stories' as Myth. The worshiping of god is religion the stories of Jesus and the Apostle exploits is Mythology, and therefore just as true as the stories before them.

The point I keep seeming to miss is that if we see bible stories as fact and not Myth then all the myths were once/if not still, just as much truth as the bible. Drawing the question to, 'Which religion is the true one?'

My position is aimed more at the "in the bible it's true" folks Bel, you seem to see a more broad interpretation and I feel we are arguing the same position, just differently.



tl:dr? Sorry I haven't heard this one outside this forum...