Why All This Talk About The Good Or Harm Religion Does?

[Skoob]

[ QUOTE ]
If you want to stop those things your only hope is to persuade people that what they believe is not true. Period.

[/ QUOTE ]
Do you realize it's this same sentiment that drives zealots to cause harm?

They're just taking it a step further. If you won't believe what they believe, they will do you harm.

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
All that matters is whether a particular religion is accurate...

If you want to stop those [violent/otherwise bad] things your only hope is to persuade people that what they believe is not true. Period.

[/ QUOTE ]
The answer to your lead-in is, "Because whether religion is good is almost as important as whether it's true." If religion does more good than harm, we probably shouldn't want to demonstrate that it is false - even if it is.

For instance, suppose you could conclusively prove all religions false, such that absolutely everyone would be convinced. If you did this, do you think it would reduce or increase the violence, including suicide, in America's prisons?

(In case you're inclined to dismiss this as a minor consideration, note that about 2 million American men are imprisoned at any given time out of a population of 150 million (males only), and about ten million customers per year cycle in and out of American prisons and jails. Not counting staff.)

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
All that matters is whether a particular religion is accurate.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not the accuracy that's the main problem, it's their wanting to impose the inaccuracies on the rest of us. Restrict our expansion of knowledge and aid to humanity. If they stayed in a village in the Blue Hills, I really wouldn't care. It's them camping in the White house that's the problem. Accuracy Smaccuracy.

[ QUOTE ]
If you want to stop those things your only hope is to persuade people that what they believe is not true. Period.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think I'll leave Jerry Falwell alone, try and fight his legal power and work to prevent the spread of his poison to youngsters. Your impatience is showing. This is a struggle for the next generation(s), where there is some chance it can be won or held at bay at least.

Similarly, I don't have an issue with moderates that keep their religion in their pants. Unfortunately, to avoid a slip back into the dark ages at this stage it's important to establish the right to oppose the validity of their "god said it so I'm right, all in favor say aye".

luckyme

[Tomatoes]

Does participating in a discussion on whether or not religions are accurate or not give legitimacy to the question? This is a discussion that can never be resolved to the satisfaction of both sides because the two camps will, forever remain divided into the faithful and the logical. There of course will be some that will switch camps, so maybe this is a valid way to tackle the problem, but maybe another approach would be better. I'm not sure what that would be but consider this:

'Eighteenth-century historian Edward Gibbon wrote of the Antonines' Rome: "The various modes of worship which prevailed in the Roman world were all considered by the people as equally true; by the philosopher as equally false; and by the magistrate as equally useful. And thus toleration produced not only mutual indulgence, but even religious concord." (Edward Gibbon, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, 3 vols., (New York: The Modern Library, 1995), 1:22.)'

Just a quick comment on the last point in the above quote:
Religious concord may on the surface seem like something worthwhile (or at least better than discord), but "When you believe in something that you don't understand, you suffer" (from Stevie Wonder's "Superstition").

[revots33]

[ QUOTE ]
If you want to stop those things your only hope is to persuade people that what they believe is not true. Period.

[/ QUOTE ]

Probably true but as the hundreds of threads here can attest it's virtually impossible to convince someone that their religious belief is untrue.

I think people take the secondary approach of attacking the religion's harmful results, when they realize no amount of debate or reasoning will ever convince a believer to not believe. It's easier to point out the cruelty of the Inquisition than to convince someone their god does not exist.

[David Sklansky]

I'm already on record as saying that I think most people benefit from their religion more than it harms them, and in fact the world probably does too. The occasional war, act of terrorism, prejudice, or whatever, might even be a price worth paying to keep people from being hopeless. (Every atheist I'm aware of leads a way more than average interesting life so they may not get this.)

But that is all irrelevant when it comes to this forum. Here we seek truth. If you want to talk about that other stuff, you should probably be on the politics forum.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you want to stop those things your only hope is to persuade people that what they believe is not true. Period.

[/ QUOTE ]

Probably true but as the hundreds of threads here can attest it's virtually impossible to convince someone that their religious belief is untrue.

I think people take the secondary approach of attacking the religion's harmful results, when they realize no amount of debate or reasoning will ever convince a believer to not believe. It's easier to point out the cruelty of the Inquisition than to convince someone their god does not exist.

[/ QUOTE ]
persuasion is surely not the answer, education is the antidote to religon. Not anti-religon education just high quality education - that's what leads to a more secular society and its one of the reasons why the particularly silly religous strains are anti-education.

Educated people are less religous period - always have been.

The other thing we can do is foster an environment which doesn't drive the moderates into the arms of the fundementalists.

chez

[arahant]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm already on record as saying that I think most people benefit from their religion more than it harms them, and in fact the world probably does too. The occasional war, act of terrorism, prejudice, or whatever, might even be a price worth paying to keep people from being hopeless. (Every atheist I'm aware of leads a way more than average interesting life so they may not get this.)

But that is all irrelevant when it comes to this forum. Here we seek truth. If you want to talk about that other stuff, you should probably be on the politics forum.

[/ QUOTE ]

The benefits or detriments of religion are a sociological and psychological question.

Sociology and psychology are usually viewed as 'science'.

So...?

[arahant]

[ QUOTE ]

For instance, suppose you could conclusively prove all religions false, such that absolutely everyone would be convinced. If you did this, do you think it would reduce or increase the violence, including suicide, in America's prisons?


[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with you, but this is a terrible 'for instance'.

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
Here we seek truth. If you want to talk about that other stuff, you should probably be on the politics forum.

[/ QUOTE ]
Then you should remove the word "philosophy" from the name of this forum, since politics is a branch of philosophy.