Is religion harmful to society?

[charles brough]

It would seem to me that the rate at which any religion is "growing" should be expressed in terms of the overall population growth of the planet.

 

So, if the planet is adding people at, say, 100 million a year, then the Planetary Growth Rate (PGR) would be 100/6000 or 1.67% per year, then we could say that Christianity is growing at 1.1 times the PGR (which would be 1.83% per year); or at only 90% of the PGR (which would still be an increase, but smaller than the population as a whole).

 

Yes, that is the way it would have to be done. All we would need to know is how many more Christians there are from one year to the next. I doubt there is a way to get that figure other than an informed estimate. It is a subject I am not an active expert in so I have to rely on what others write.

[HydrogenBond]

If you took the average atheist and the average religious person, which uses the most resources per capita ? One of the two is using up the world resources at the fastest, per capita rate, speeding up the time until there is a shortage that will affect the entire world. That one is harmful to the earth.

 

Religion is strong in the poorest countries. The atheists do better where there is higher resources usage. This might help the math.

 

If you look in terms of evolutionary theory, selective advantage is often equated to breeding rates which is a reflection of fitness. Does the higher potential growth of population in poor religious countries reflect a natural selective advantage? This means good and not harmful according to evolution.

 

In poor countries, the increasing population also means more mortality. But from a dispassionate point of view, it also means the population that remains is getting genetically stronger, since the weakest becomes part of mortality. If there was a natural disaster, which genes have the best chance of survival, the greenhouse orchid or this tough weed? Mother nature constantly trains the weed to survive, through an attrition process. These are the one's religion cultivates. They are closer to mother nature and evolution.

 

Religion may be a threat to atheist culture but it is a friend to the earth since it dances better with mother nature.

[Moontanman]

If you took the average atheist and the average religious person, which uses the most resources per capita ? One of the two is using up the world resources at the fastest, per capita rate, speeding up the time until there is a shortage that will affect the entire world. That one is harmful to the earth.

 

Religion is strong in the poorest countries. The atheists do better where there is higher resources usage. This might help the math.

 

Obviously you have a preconceived notion of the answer, I would say atheism is more likely to support the use of birth control and therefor is less of strain on the environment. Just because there are more people using the same resources does not make them better for the earth or even for people in general.

 

If you look in terms of evolutionary theory, selective advantage is often equated to breeding rates which is a reflection of fitness. Does the higher potential growth of population in poor religious countries reflect a natural selective advantage? This means good and not harmful according to evolution.

 

No, this higher growth rate is not a selective advantage, it results in less resources for everyone and a weaker population more likely to get disease and nutritional problems, not to mention war and other conflicts detrimental to the population.

 

In poor countries, the increasing population also means more mortality. But from a dispassionate point of view, it also means the population that remains is getting genetically stronger, since the weakest becomes part of mortality. If there was a natural disaster, which genes have the best chance of survival, the greenhouse orchid or this tough weed? Mother nature constantly trains the weed to survive, through an attrition process. These are the one's religion cultivates. They are closer to mother nature and evolution.

 

No this is not true, an increasing population doesn't mean a stronger gene base, more individuals do not necessarily mean stronger gens, in fact in the case of limited resources it will result in weaker sicker individuals not stronger.

 

Religion may be a threat to atheist culture but it is a friend to the earth since it dances better with mother nature.

 

Religion is threat to the Earth it promotes more people fewer animals and a less diverse ecosystem populated only by people and no other animals. Religion often allows humans to over populate resulting in a much weaker ecosystem, weaker humans more prone to disease and conflict. Religion is not necessarily a friend to the Earth or to humans either.

[charles brough]

All three "religions of the Book" lack any concern over the fate of mankind and/or the Earth. All three also promote the concept of fertility and reproducing. That is why the population of the world keeps growing and the fanatical faithful are so adamant against abortion, the death penalty, even birth control.

 

We all know that the continued rise in population is crowding us and the Earth so that we are polluting it and depleating it. Yet, you find nothing in TV, newspapers, books, magazines anywhere about that, the it is real problem, because it is religiously "politicfally incorrect." IN other words, it offends the faithful.

 

We Free Thinkers have always been a minority and will continue to be in the future. The only way we can end this over-population dividing an increasingly smaller pie is by finding a way to take over and impose on these people a more advanced way of thinking. There is no way this can be done gently. The long term for the human race is a population crash as in all the rest of the biological world. We need a new and advanced ideology to unite us and save us all from the Armageddon the religious fanatics would eagerly push us into.

[Thunderbird]

We Free Thinkers have always been a minority and will continue to be in the future. The only way we can end this over-population dividing an increasingly smaller pie is by finding a way to take over and impose on these people a more advanced way of thinking. There is no way this can be done gently. The long term for the human race is a population crash as in all the rest of the biological world. We need a new and advanced ideology to unite us and save us all from the Armageddon the religious fanatics would eagerly push us into.

Charles, I was with you until this statement underlined above. “imposing on a new and advanced ideology” on “these people”

Paradigm shifts of tolerance and understanding come from the realization that we are all personally responsible to leave the world a better place than we found it.

Division, cynicism and domination is our #1enemy in this stage of evolution of civilization.

It waste energy and time.

Populations Numbers are not the problem, its utilizing our energy more productively and efficiently.

A perfect example of this is the religious rights obsession with abortion. They say they are concerned with the life of the unborn and use their time money and rhetoric to demonize a group that see it as a personal choice.

If they would use all that energy by volunteering to help unwed mothers and or support sex education in school the abortion level would drop considerably. Instead they would rather “impose their ideology” By force. This only reflects ego, fear, hate and waste energy by creating conflict.

[Moontanman]

I have to agree with T-Bird, any attempt to force anything on practically anyone will result in them pushing back. Religion is infamous for being willing to die to prevent their religion from being marginalized. It's easy for us to see the damage religion is fostering on society and the world around us but getting them to see this problem is probably next to impossible. It has been suggested that a new religion should be started that embraces a more enlightened policy of population control but again the established religions would almost certainly oppose this to the point of violence if not open war fare. We need an approach that is subtle and non confrontational, I honestly do not know what it will be but it's the only viable option I can see.

[REASON]

I also agree with T-Bird regarding the notion of *imposing* a more advanced way of thinking. Consider how religion is spread. It is not imposed upon the populace (at least not currently in this country). People choose to listen to a community leader that stands in the pulpit preaching an ideology or set of values. It is a form of education or indoctrination that works because people develop their beliefs around what they know and what makes sense based on what they are exposed to.

 

If in every community there were weekly lectures given by the likes of Daniel Dennett, Richard Dawkins, or Sam Harris, what would be the effect on the attitude and beliefs of the populace (assuming there was a desire to regularly attend their presentations)?

 

The key to creating the awakening we would like to see, Charles, is through education, and the willingness of reasonable people to step up if the face of powerful religious interests, and bring powerfull counter arguments to established mystical religious information, and let a more educated people decide what to believe.

 

But there will always be those who prefer to believe what they want over what is real or true. The goal is to let them become the minority.

[litespeed]

DS

 

The Roman Catholic Church near single handedly preserved Western Civilization in the early middle ages; it was the ONLY unifying force. That, in turn, enabled Europe to resist Islamic Conquests on several occasions.

 

Accordingly, you need to weigh that good against a list of particulars on the others side of the balance

[charles brough]

We who are Free Thinkers are not NOW in any position to force anything! Believers of the old "spirit"-based religions are not giving up their mythology and there is no indication they ever will as long as we stay disunited and "in the closet" like gays used to have to do. Piping out in these forums is not escaping the closet either. Our ineffectual atheist, agnostic, deist, secular humanist, misc. organizations are not escaping either. They are in no way "turning the tide." We are kept out of the media except in the letters to the editor. Even then, you might get vandalism at your home if you are too active.

 

In "Destiny & Civilization," I show the reader the simple format religions follow and that make them successful. The format has nothing to do with myths, miracles and spirits. It is a way to bring unity to people so they can cooperate to achieve something better. The old religions are now obsolete. They need to be replaced so we can doing the things we need to do to survive long into the future.

 

Replacing the old faiths will not be easy. It will take decades and even centuries.

They don't care about the long term survival of the human race nor about its future. They see it as pictured in Revelations. They see and care about nothing but what is in their scriptures. It is up to us to take over and treat them like wayward children. They have to be molded into new ways . . .

 

To do that, we have to modify our old-religion-compromised secular belief system.

That is why you are so over-steeped in "tolerance" and tolerant of any and all "opinion." You play into their hands with that way of thinking. As long as it survives, so will they.

 

But religious reaction is a deadly thing to a civilization. Look at world history and how it brought down every one of the older civilizations. I don't want it to bring down ours, but if it does, there is nothing to replace it with now. .

[litespeed]

CB - I think you are a dangerous person. Specifically, you wrote: "...It is up to us to take over and treat them like wayward children. They have to be molded into new ways . . ."

 

I have heard that before. I just can't quite remember WHICH failed totalitarian regime yours would resemble most. Or perhaps you are in some sort of False Flag operation? You ARE something of a cartoon.

[pamela]

There is a new trend that I have seen in modern Christianity, that very well may lead to it's downfall. There has been a widespread movement of what has been termed as "relevant" and "emergent" churches. The relevant trend is leading more towards current humanistic ideologies and away from biblical scriptures of sin and wrath. The emergent trend deals more with cultism.Belief in strange and mystical experiences as well as an army being formed to literally take over this country. All of this is posed under the guise of Christianity, but is a detraction from that faith. This will lead to a division in the church and possibly it's downfall.

Rick Warren, who will be present at the inauguration, is a part of the relevant church movement. With this type of trend, I am worried that Church and State may somewhat mingle on common ground and the walls of separation may become nonexistant.

[litespeed]

CB

 

I've GOT it! The Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. The TALIBAN! Your very own Religious Police.

[litespeed]

Pam - You wrote: "...an army being formed to literally take over this country."

 

I truely hope you are being a satarist, and are not simply deranged.

 

 

Pamela - You wrote: "an army being formed to literally take over this country."

 

Right. And I am Jesus Christ of the Second Comming.

[pamela]

actually, i can post a link if you like. Its called Joel's Army, and the likes of which that are involved are Todd Bentley and friends.

It is a Christian Cult and very dangerous.

Your derogatory comments towards Charles are wrong and unkind

[Moontanman]

Litespeed, Pamela is correct, I've heard it talked about by fundamentalist people and alluded to in sermons from the pulpit of those churches. Most of it it is quite covert but in same places it's very mush overt and out in the open. It's been talked about her before, but there is a congregation in Florida that is absolutely nuts in the direction of forcibly converting everyone and taking over the government. You should be careful about comparing what Charles says to Afghanistan, Christianity in the US has only one thing that stops it from being every bit as domineering as Islam under the Taliban, it's called separation of church and State. Without it even your beloved Christianity can and would become the devils delight. It happened with the Catholic Church during the dark ages and far from preserving civilization the "church " delayed and stunted it's growth, even now religion is holding civilization back, causing over population and denigrating the very thing that has the ability to save us from ourselves, science, science is what we need not more insane mythological twaddle. At one time religion was indeed a force for good but those times were over way before what we see as religion now came to be. Religion now is just a power play , an excuse for a few to control the many. I think it's a testament to the innate good in humanity that religion does the good it does now.

[litespeed]

Pamela - You wrote: "Your derogatory comments towards Charles are wrong and unkind."

 

The man specifically suggested coercive methods to impose his own ideology. It is not unkind to point that out. It is an obligation.

[litespeed]

Pamel and Moontan - Re Rick Warren.

 

First, I would be about the last person to call myself a Christian. Be THAT as it may, I visited my California Sister this last holiday. She has been a member of Warren's SaddleBack church for about 20 years. We attended a remote Christmas service where I heard my first sermon from the man. Have either of YOU heard any of his sermons? Apparently Obamma has.

 

He is about as inoccuous and harmless a televangelist that EYE ever heard. Far less a danger to liberty then the likes of Charles and his imagined religous police.