If you had the power ...

[Rowain]

I really think that's a rather myopic view of European history, Dr. D. There were many causes of the "dark ages," the Church was only one part.

In the beginning a lot of wisdom was preserved by the curch but several parts of science were hindered especially later. Additional the church lateron favored Aristoteles so anything that contradicted him was banished.

It took till 1992 until Galileo Gallilei was officially rehabilitated. The theory of Evolution is still not accepted by the Church.

[Bigger]

This is BS.

religion has not stopped the various slaughters/genocides that happened in Europe in the past (starting with Charlemagne vs Saxons to the catholics vs protestants or catholics vs anglicans wars, the witch hunts the progroms vs Jews throughout the middleages etc etc)

The big difference is In the 20th century there are a) a lot more people to kill b) easier masskillings thanks to advanced methods and c) better documentation.

I'm absolute convinced that a religious fanatic who believes he goes to heaven if he dies for his religion is far more dangerous with an A-bomb (Iran/ Taliban) than any atheist (Kim from NK) who only has this world to live in.

Best example your 9/11 would not have happened without the religious background.

I'm not convinced of your last statement, but thats unimportant. Where did I ever say that religion would ever or could ever prevent war? That isn't even its purpose. I simply said that most (not all) wars are not started by religion, and that there would be plenty of wars still without religion.

I'll repeat: what religious leader, or group, led to more death and destruction than Hitler OR Stalin did? Yes, they had technology on their side (rather, hitler did, the soviets were pretty backward heh), but still...

[Bigger]

In the beginning a lot of wisdom was preserved by the curch but several parts of science were hindered especially later. Additional the church lateron favored Aristoteles so anything that contradicted him was banished. .

so? Aristotle is wonderful goodness, this seems smart to me

the Catholic church is a human institution, and like every single human institution ever, it has made mistakes. I personally think the Church, and christians in general, is a lot more effective at what it was created for when it does not have any political power. The "dark ages" were dark for the Catholic Church as they were for science. (ugh, indulgences.. for shame ).

Power corrupts, as they say, and absolute power....

But to infer from this that religion naturally hinders progress is a very weak logic

[Twinkletoes89]

To perhaps save this discussion - I would change this and say that I would get rid of

Fundamentalism in all its forms.

This discussion of religion is tarring a lot of different people and things with the same brush. There is little danger in religion when it is taken in moderation, when it is people using teachings to guide their own lives and no others.

It is fundamentalism, not religion in itself or any other ideology such as nazism/communism etc that causes this suffering as it is taking the ideology and trying to force it upon others who do not want it.

[Rowain]

so? Aristotle is wonderful goodness, this seems smart to me

I happen to disagree. I would be interested in what you think is so great from Aristoteles .

But to infer from this that religion naturally hinders progress is a very weak logic

It doesn't need to but it is easy to use to. As soon as holy scriptures are taken literally they do happen to come to cross purpose with science.

[Rowain]

This discussion of religion is tarring a lot of different people and things with the same brush. There is little danger in religion when it is taken in moderation, when it is people using teachings to guide their own lives and no others.

It is fundamentalism, not religion in itself or any other ideology such as nazism/communism etc that causes this suffering as it is taking the ideology and trying to force it upon others who do not want it.

[scooter]

Wow, a discussion on religion on an internet forum that's civil. This is why I like RB.

One of the main reasons has been brought up here (conflicts) but there is another thing i'm amazed nobody seems to notice: the restrictions placed on free thoughts and development.

Well maybe being a European i'm a bit more aware of it but without catholics ruling Europe for many centuries a lot of knownledge would have prevailed (i.e. medicine) or discoveries would have been made a lot earlier (i.e.America).

I don't think I ever understand this train of thought when it comes up. The first paragraph is nearly always backed up with the second paragraph when it comes up, but the connection is just really weak to me. I don't think the fact that "religious" people abused their powers centuries ago has much relevance here. Or at least, it has no relevance in proving your first point - that it somehow inhibits "free thought" which is kind of a vague statement. I guess I don't understand this sentiment (and Zakalwe's) that tries to form some sort of dichotomy between religion/faith and the ability to be rational. It's often set up in a manner that implies you choose one or the other, and I believe that's a false dichotomy. Yes, centuries ago some religious people abused their religion to cause a lot of harm. However, carrying over that example and implying that it's all religion does today is quite a leap.

Then why try? Doesn't thinking 'they are misguided' work for you? I expect that the very same thought works for the religious.

I cannot understand why people feel threatened when other people have a different believe system.

+1.

Outworkings of a belief system (ie pogrom / jihad / crusades) are a different kettle of fish.

Agreed, and I'd also loosely apply this to it:

The undeserved importance people place on extremely unlikely possible events.

Not quite the same, but the point remains that putting too much emphasis on extreme outliers is a mistake.

[Rowain]

Yes, centuries ago some religious people abused their religion to cause a lot of harm. However, carrying over that example and implying that it's all religion does today is quite a leap.

Centuries ago? Intelligent Design beeing pushed to be tought in school instead of evolution (or at least parallel) has happened during the last decades.

Again Religion in and of itself is not to blame. But people (deliberatly) misunderstanding holy scriptures - reading them without the context etc are a problem if they get power.

[Ilios]

I don't really understand how this theory handles WWII Europe. In that era you had 2 governments, one cultist/semi-atheistic (nazi germany), and one 100% atheistic (stalinist Russia) that each were responsible for the slaughter over 20 million of their own people (that's not even counting the millions that died on the battlefield from all 3 sides in the war). Similar things happenned in communist china, fascist Italy, and fascist Spain - although on a much smaller scale. Really, the 20th century should be a wake up call to how dangerous a civilization without any religion can be.

There we go again, the Nazi/Communist defense.

In my book, Nazism and Communism were religions.

[scooter]

Centuries ago? Intelligent Design beeing pushed to be tought in school instead of evolution (or at least parallel) has happened during the last decades.

Again Religion in and of itself is not to blame. But people (deliberatly) misunderstanding holy scriptures - reading them without the context etc are a problem if they get power.

Not sure what even that has to do with "free thought" and how religion supposedly hampers it. That's the argument I'm disagreeing with.