[Bulbasaur]

In the past it's uses were very important to the development of mankind in a way. It restricted people's freedoms and could be seen as preventing anarchy etc, to the point where it actually helped us develop. Obviously the flipside to that is nowadays (and in the past too) science, what's actually important, is being greatly impeded by corrupt morals which sprout from religion. The same can be said for society and politics. Religion has served its purpose and now it's time for it to go.

I couldn't be much further from being a Marxist, but the man himself hit the nail on the head when he said that religion was the opium of the masses. Rehabilitation is long overdue.

[Spaz Man]

Tut tut tut ridiculous levels of bias detected.

[SnoochToTheBooch]

both. It has made a lot of people behave themselves that might not otherwise have done so throughout history, but this is the 21st century and we should be past that now, we're not savages anymore for the most part. We should behave ourselves purely because it makes our lives and our world a better place if we do, not because of the threat of everlasting torture in a lake of fire if we don't. Would the morals we abide by today have came about without religion? I don't know which came first.
For all the positive things religion has given us though, it's got a lot of damaging aspects too, and I believe a life lived under the inhibitions & guilts religions impose (eg. sex/sexual feelings being something shameful, mind-expanding chemical use being frowned upon) is a flawed and unfortunate life to live. As it is we've got billions of people basing their lives on false assumptions, living by arbitrary, restrictive, unnecessary rules, and forcing them on other people/their children. It's holding us back now. Imagine what this world could be like without all the drama that comes from people's religious beliefs

[MonkeySee]

OH COME ON

do you realllly need to ask such an obvious question

[ExMuslim]

Take a look at Somalia. That country was already ****ty, but religion came in and exasperated the problem. That seems to be the overall pattern with religion, if it doesn't cause the problems it sure does make them worse lol.

[nicatre]

I think it's neither a force for either but just like any thought system, tool or collective of people can be manipulated or applied for positive or negative reasons. People often criticise religion on the grounds of the wars and trouble it "causes" yet they acknowledge neither the peace and comfort it brings a lot of people nor the fact that the people not the religion did the harm.

[overninethousand]

(Original post by Xotol)
Can you guarantee that every religious person who gives, say, charity would do the same if they weren't religious?

While I agree that atheists can do good in the same way religious people can, it may well be possible that the reason some religious people do good (i.e. give charity) is based on their religious teachings - and that they would not give to charity without this (and I imagine this is the case for some people). Thus, religion has technically has contributed some good - even if it's not that major and does not 'outweigh' the bad as stated in the OP.

can you guarantee that they woudnt?
i would argue that people who give to charity give primarily due to their empathy and not ancient dogma. overall i think religion would not have a significant effect on charity if any. a good example of this is that bill gates, buffet and zuckerburg (among others) are all non believers and atheists and have given basically all their wealth (% wise) to charity - or plan to.

if you are an atheist you know people only have 1 shot at life which highlights that we need to be good to each other right now, whereas in religion there is less of a need to help the poor as not only is poverty often regarded as a good thing (ie jesus teaching you to get rid of all your wealth etc and god will look after you and blessed are the poor stuff) but poverty is also only temporary ie your are poor for a few years on this earth but once youre dead you have eternity in luxury. basic opium of the people stuff - religion covers your eyes to the terrible conditions on this earth in the hope of life after death but under atheism you recognize the urgency to help people now. so i would argue religion has a detrimental effect on charity overall

[DaveSmith99]

Some good, mostly bad. We would be better off rid of it.

[Politricks]

(Original post by Steevee)
It's both. But I'll go back to my old analogy.

Religion is like a dangerous dog. It's a warm, loving, comfort to those who know it, seek it and embrace it. However it has a tendancy to bite a lot of people a lot of the time. And no matter how much someone loves a dog, no matter how many people love a dog, if it's always biting people, it has to be put down.

Amazing, I might have to steal that for future use

[Lord-Voldemort]

Unfortunately, the negatives MASSIVELY outweigh any positives that religion has or will provide to human society.

[Etreble]

It's a thing that takes people's minds off what they could be doing to provide for their families and onto singing and chanting to try and get something to happen.

It's also an excuse for violence i.e. "God allowed me to do so, so it must be right." or "God has chosen for him to die at such a young age."

[PianoKeys4]

As I'm a Christian, I'm going to comment from a Christian point of view.

(Original post by overninethousand)
can you guarantee that they woudnt?
i would argue that people who give to charity give primarily due to their empathy and not ancient dogma. overall i think religion would not have a significant effect on charity if any. a good example of this is that bill gates, buffet and zuckerburg (among others) are all non believers and atheists and have given basically all their wealth (% wise) to charity - or plan to.

Although many people may give to charity out of empathy and compassion (which I greatly agree with), I would personally say that there are other reasons why people give to charity, guilt being one of them. Many religious believers will give to charity because they believe it is something they should do as a duty, or because they believe it is good or right to do so. Yes, atheists can give to charity, but this doesn't negate the effect that religious belief can have on giving to charity (of course, religious belief doesn't negate the effect of atheists giving to charity either).

if you are an atheist you know people only have 1 shot at life which highlights that we need to be good to each other right now

When you say '1 shot at life' are you refering to belief in reincarnation or belief in an afterlife? I agree that you only only have once chance in this earthly life, but I do believe in an afterlife. The brevity of this earthly life (especially in comparison to eternal life) and the inevitable death at the end of it is more than acknowledged in Christian teachings. The fact that we will die and have only one chance for salvation makes all that we do now more urgent[I]

James 4:14 Why, you do not even know what will happen tomorrow. What is your life? You are a mist that appears for a little while and then vanishes.

Hebrews 9:27-28 Just as people are destined to die once, and after that to face judgment, so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many

Acts 17:30-31 The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent, because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed; and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead.”

Personally, knowing that I have a short earthly life isn't the only that makes doing good more urgent for me: knowing that is it God's will and that it is right and compassionate also makes such things more urgent. Also, salvation isn't something earned by works, but freely given as a gift of God's grace. Thus good deeds are, for me, something that come with faith and as a result of faith (I am incredibly thankful that salvation isn't something earned) rather than to 'get into Heaven'.

Just out of honest curiosity, can I ask why would an atheist believe that we need to do good to each other 'right now', if he believes that there is only one life? Of course atheists can do good deeds and agree with doing them, but why the urgency if they don't believe that there are any lasting consequences beyond this life?

whereas in religion there is less of a need to help the poor as not only is poverty often regarded as a good thing (ie jesus teaching you to get rid of all your wealth etc and god will look after you and blessed are the poor stuff)

It's necessary to distingish between different religions' teachings and beliefs: there is no homogenous belief about these things that you can describe as 'in religion'.

There is a lot of emphasis on compassion, love and treating others as your neighbour in the Bible, and as a Christian I try to relieve the suffering of others. Although poverty is never pleasant, it is something that will often have to be tolerated. Is it not regarded as a 'good thing' like kindness or patience are regarded as 'good things', but it is not necessarily regarded as intrinsically evil either.

Philippians 4:12-13 I have experienced times of need and times of abundance. In any and every circumstance I have learned the secret of contentment, whether I go satisfied or hungry, have plenty or nothing. I am able to do all things through the one who strengthens me.

God will look after the poor and He will provide for His people. Instead of constantly worrying about earthly wealth, we are taught to seek out God's rightousness and to store our treasures in heaven.

II Corinthians 9:10-11 Now God who provides seed for the sower and bread for food will provide and multiply your supply of seed and will cause the harvest of your righteousness to grow. You will be enriched in every way so that you may be generous on every occasion, which is producing through us thanksgiving to God,

Matthew 6: 25-34 “Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink; or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothes? Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they? Can any one of you by worrying add a single hour to your life?
“And why do you worry about clothes? See how the flowers of the field grow. They do not labor or spin. Yet I tell you that not even Solomon in all his splendor was dressed like one of these. If that is how God clothes the grass of the field, which is here today and tomorrow is thrown into the fire, will he not much more clothe you—you of little faith? So do not worry, saying, ‘What shall we eat?’ or ‘What shall we drink?’ or ‘What shall we wear?’ For the pagans run after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them. But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well. Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own.

Matthew 6:19-21 “Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moths and vermin destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moths and vermin do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.

but poverty is also only temporary ie your are poor for a few years on this earth but once youre dead you have eternity in luxury.

Regardless of whether you believe in life after death, poverty always ends. The Bible doesn't give that many details on what Heaven is like, so whether it is 'luxury' or not I do not know. However, I do know that Heaven will be a much better place for believers, and that believers will be in God's presence and dwell with Him forever.

It is important to remember that many people will not reach Heaven. So it doesn't make sense to say that giving to the needy isn't so urgent as there is eternal life, because many people (poor people included) will not accept salvation and will thus not go to Heaven.

Matthew 7:13-14 “Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.

basic opium of the people stuff - religion covers your eyes to the terrible conditions on this earth in the hope of life after death but under atheism you recognize the urgency to help people now.

As a Christian, I find that my belief opens my eyes to suffering. People's suffering is something that can be found all the way through the Bible and God sent His own son to suffer and die for our sakes. I am able to see how much wrong there is by comparison with God's righteousness. I try to follow God's law (which is absolute morality), but I know how much I (and the world) come up short because of His law, not in spite of His law.

so i would argue religion has a detrimental effect on charity overall

With all due respect, your arguments don't really support each other and your conclusion isn't supported by them either. You've said that you believe atheists have more need to be charitable now and theists less need, but it doesn't follow that religion has a detrimental effect. Having or lacking reasons to do something doesn't change whether or not that something is done (although it might affect the likelihood of it).

[joker12345]

Religion defines morals and gives us a reason to choose right rather than wrong, all atheist have to inspire morality is history/environment. Of course atheists can be 'good', but what reason do they have? Not burning in hell is a pretty valid reason ...
(I'm an Atheist.)

[Xtrapolation]

Religion cat says,

[Scienceisgood]

Well;

I believe the idea of a God is a place of hope for people.
However, building a belief structure around it is just plain stupid. Religion is DANGEROUS because people put TOO much faith in it and follow it blindly even if it conflicts with their own personal beliefs.

Example:
(Numbers 31:7-18 NLT)

" They attacked Midian just as the LORD had commanded Moses, and they killed all the men. All five of the Midianite kings – Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur, and Reba – died in the battle. They also killed Balaam son of Beor with the sword. Then the Israelite army captured the Midianite women and children and seized their cattle and flocks and all their wealth as plunder. They burned all the towns and villages where the Midianites had lived. After they had gathered the plunder and captives, both people and animals, they brought them all to Moses and Eleazar the priest, and to the whole community of Israel, which was camped on the plains of Moab beside the Jordan River, across from Jericho.

Moses, Eleazar the priest, and all the leaders of the people went to meet them outside the camp. But Moses was furious with all the military commanders who had returned from the battle. "Why have you let all the women live?" he demanded. "These are the very ones who followed Balaam's advice and caused the people of Israel to rebel against the LORD at Mount Peor. They are the ones who caused the plague to strike the LORD's people. Now kill all the boys and all the women who have slept with a man. Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves."

Basically - They killed all the men and women who were not virgins in the name of "God", don't forget, a lot of virgins back then would probably have been around 12 if not YOUNGER.

[ipoop]

Both. Has been good and bad, it's Sunday so, I don't really want to go further into this.

[charliecrucis]

(Original post by Inverse)
Religion is/was a good way to control the simple minded of a civilization, but did/does so through obscene acts and fear mongering.

This was posted from The Student Room's Android App on my HTC One X

Exactly. Why can't people see that religion would just fall flat if it wasn't for the threats of hell. I think Hitchens puts it better here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ddsz9XBhrYA

[The Owl of Minerva]

It is interesting to note how the most votes have gone to the extreme ends of the spectrum of opinion.

Very few people have decided they tread the middle path on this.

[MrHayden]

(Original post by The Owl of Minerva)
It is interesting to note how the most votes have gone to the extreme ends of the spectrum of opinion.

Very few people have decided they tread the middle path on this.

I didn't give a middle path in the poll, people had the same options but also the opportunity to state whether they were religious or not - and it's no surprise that most theists say that it's a force for good whilst most atheists disagree.

[x_Natalie_x]

A stupid question. It implies that religion has any autonomy by itself. What really matters is how religion is applied by believers; how it is used; how it is interpreted. Religion is neither a force for good or evil - and the responsibility for how it is applied lies with humanity.

In fact, let's look at this from a different angle. Atheism - good or evil? Say, in the Soviet Union, repression of believers of all kind was encouraged; intimidation, violence, and under Stalin, mass murder were all used to persecute believers and propagate atheism. Would you like me to say from that, that atheism was inherently evil? Of course you would answer that atheism was applied in an evil way by humanity. The same applies to religion.