Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ignoramus)
    Yes but it's entirely possible for religion to exist without it being responsible for peoples' deaths. The fact that History hasn't shown this is no reason why it shouldn't be true.

    Religion has its benefits which can exist independent of its detrimental effects on humanity. In my opinion Christianity should not give people reasons to kill each other (for example) and the fact that organised religion is responsible for death suggests to me that the way in which organised religion exists today is wrong. But that doesn't mean it can't exist in a form that's beneficial for people.
    As long as there is more than one mainstream religion proclaiming absolute truths, people will die.

    To try and pretend that bloodshed is not intrinsic to religion is foolish. History has shown many, many times over this, to such an extent that it's impossible to view it any other way. Inter-religious wars, the murder of scientists whose work went against the church's way of thinking, the denouncement of condoms spreading AIDS, these are just a few examples.

    As I have said, I have no argument with religion. People should believe whatever makes sense to them personally. But they don't need to be brainwashed at an early age into following the teachings of a corrupt organisation. That isn't religion. That's cultism.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gildartz)
    I guess you can't really blame religion for the deaths. I'd say that the blame lies with the religious believers who interpret their religion in their own way, and sometimes their interpretations lead to violent acts. However I guess the various contradictions in some religions don't help at all.
    You can't blame religion for their deaths? :lolwut:

    How about the crusades, funded by the Holy Roman Empire? How about areas present in practically all religious texts, which state that non-believers are evil?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Phalanges)
    As long as there is more than one mainstream religion proclaiming absolute truths, people will die.

    To try and pretend that bloodshed is not intrinsic to religion is foolish. History has shown many, many times over this, to such an extent that it's impossible to view it any other way. Inter-religious wars, the murder of scientists whose work went against the church's way of thinking, the denouncement of condoms spreading AIDS, these are just a few examples.

    As I have said, I have no argument with religion. People should believe whatever makes sense to them personally. But they don't need to be brainwashed at an early age into following the teachings of a corrupt organisation. That isn't religion. That's cultism.
    It depends whether "mainstream" religion endorses murder directly or indirectly. Religion does not have to involve bloodshed, the fact that it has largely done so in the past is irrelevant to the fact that it could easily exist today without endorsing murder. Bloodshed, particularly on a large scale, is never attributable to religion alone but is the result of religion being used as an instrument of political, racial or cultural propaganda to cause violence. This is wrong and is something organised religion should avoid.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elles)
    I think Helen & I certainly would consider those sorts of things as just being professional rather than especially compassionate!

    Doing core jobs in a compassionate & caring way is very doable & adds minimal time. But it's the patient/relative expectations & blurred lines of what they consider the doctors job to be at any specific moment & what we consider our job priorities that the grey comes in as to whether we're compassionate enough perhaps?


    So my examples:
    Preadmissions clinic
    - Patient: So now I'm going to find out & have re-explained everything about why i'm having this operation & what will happen while I'm in hospital. It's really important that doctor has lots of details about everything in my life. While I'm here I also want to ask the doctor about these other health things too...
    - Doctor doing preadmissions clinic: Are there anaesthetic issues at present? Is their drug chart complete?

    Hospital at night cover
    - Patient: Oh, I have a really itchy foot right now - why doesn't the doctor care enough to come & prescribe me my usual emollients right now?
    - Patient relatives: I'd really like to rediscuss all these complex issues with the doctors looking after my relative right now, just so it's all really clear to me, I can ask lots of questions and vent.
    - Nursing staff projecting their fears: Oh dear, this patient doesn't look very well at all. It says here in the notes from the Palliative Care Consultant that they're for 'palliative care and symptom control only'. They don't have any symptoms right now. But all their family are here. I should probably bleep the on-call doctor because they should do something.
    - Doctor doing night cover: I'm trying to keep patients, who are for have helpful medical interventions that we can offer, alive overnight. Then hopefully tomorrow any more subtle issues can be addressed by the regular team who know them, including specialists as appropriate, when the hospital has a vaguely sensible staffing level again. Oh - there goes the crash bleep again...
    :rofl: Sounds about accurate! An extra layer of fun was added in our hospital last month when they banned pretty much ALL visitors (except for critical/terminal patients) from the hospital. Cue lots of angry phone calls demanding "Why haven't you told me all my mother's test results and why aren't you calling me every day to keep me updated?" (Answer in more than one case: because your mother has full mental capacity to make her own decisions and has clearly stated that she does NOT want us to discuss her diagnosis with her relatives).

    Fortunately we don't have to do nights, but I can imagine it's just as bad if not worse than our evening on-calls and weekends. I'm norally quite a nice person, but there are still certain bleeps that will make my heart sink. Especially the ones involving relatives - I sympathise that we're not that accessible if you're at work all day, but please don't take out your frustrations on the poor on-call!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Phalanges)
    It's also caused far more tragedy, broken up far more families, and killed far more people both indirectly and directly than I ever will.

    So I dare say we're about even.
    Which specific tragedy are you talking about?

    Which families has it broken up?

    Which people has it killed, directly or indirectly?

    You need to read something more than the Daily Mail.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Phalanges)
    You can't blame religion for their deaths? :lolwut:

    How about the crusades, funded by the Holy Roman Empire? How about areas present in practically all religious texts, which state that non-believers are evil?
    the crusades can be blamed upon the religious believers and not the religion itself. Holy war is not recommended in christianity and is meant as a last resort should all else fail. Jihad in Islam is not meant to provide an excuse for terrorists to kill innocent people, yet terrorist believe that Jihad justifies killing innocents even if it goes against the core beliefs in Islam. So again, religious believers who twist the interpretations of religions to provide an excuse for their mindless acts of violence are at fault, not the religion itself.

    Can't really say whether there are parts in holy texts which state that non-believers are evil, however I do know that the mainstream religions promote the sanctity of life, so any act of taking human life is not condoned under mainstream religions, so it must the relgiious believers who are at fault.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by puddlejumper)
    Which specific tragedy are you talking about?
    I'm not talking about any tragedy specifically, but moreover the thousands of personal tragedies it's caused. Babies brought into this world when their mothers can't look after them (and can't have abortions), depression in individuals because they believe themselves to be steeped in sin, the murder of people with different views, the blinding of people to only be able to believe one set of rules rather than be allowed to think logically. These all count as tragedies.

    Which families has it broken up?
    Those in Northern Ireland. Those in Glasgow. Families anywhere around the world where two religions are popular and conflicting.

    Which people has it killed, directly or indirectly?
    Directly: Millions upon millions of people through holy wars.

    Indirectly: The murder of people contracting HIV due to not using condoms on religious grounds. Suicide from people who feel too ashamed of themselves due to living in sin to live.

    You need to read something more than the Daily Mail.
    I rarely read the Daily Mail. However, I was under the impression that it would support christianity, not be against it? I also wouldn't have thought it would try and tackle an issue as controversial as christianity when there are far safer scapegoats, such as immigration or binge drinking, that it can be spreading filth about.

    You need to read something more than the Bible, and appreciate the wider context surrounding religion.

    (Original post by gildartz)
    the crusades can be blamed upon the religious believers and not the religion itself. Holy war is not recommended in christianity and is meant as a last resort should all else fail. Jihad in Islam is not meant to provide an excuse for terrorists to kill innocent people, yet terrorist believe that Jihad justifies killing innocents even if it goes against the core beliefs in Islam. So again, religious believers who twist the interpretations of religions to provide an excuse for their mindless acts of violence are at fault, not the religion itself.

    Can't really say whether there are parts in holy texts which state that non-believers are evil, however I do know that the mainstream religions promote the sanctity of life, so any act of taking human life is not condoned under mainstream religions, so it must the relgiious believers who are at fault.
    (Original post by Ignoramus)
    It depends whether "mainstream" religion endorses murder directly or indirectly. Religion does not have to involve bloodshed, the fact that it has largely done so in the past is irrelevant to the fact that it could easily exist today without endorsing murder. Bloodshed, particularly on a large scale, is never attributable to religion alone but is the result of religion being used as an instrument of political, racial or cultural propaganda to cause violence. This is wrong and is something organised religion should avoid.
    My next point applies to both of you.

    There is no clear line between whose fault it is for the religion and the religious followers. This isn't an isolated incident where relatively few people have been killed and it has been blamed on a film, for example. It's a mass scale problem, where millions upon millions of people have died.

    And that's before you get onto the direct, often murderous, influence that the catholic church in particular has dealt with scientists opposing their views in the past.

    Religion and violence are unescapable. You cannot have one without the other. If there are two texts which both proclaim to be the sole truth there will always be violence. And bear in mind as well that the people doing the killing, the ones you are trying to pass the blame off on instead of religion, have often been enshrined in the religion from such as early age that they have effectively been brainwashed.

    For a case in point, just look at Buddhism. Theirs is the most peaceful religion, I think anyone will agree. And yet their followers are still persecuted and slaughtered because of conflicting views.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Phalanges)
    There is no clear line between whose fault it is for the religion and the religious followers. This isn't an isolated incident where relatively few people have been killed and it has been blamed on a film, for example. It's a mass scale problem, where millions upon millions of people have died.

    And that's before you get onto the direct, often murderous, influence that the catholic church in particular has dealt with scientists opposing their views in the past.

    Religion and violence are unescapable. You cannot have one without the other. If there are two texts which both proclaim to be the sole truth there will always be violence. And bear in mind as well that the people doing the killing, the ones you are trying to pass the blame off on instead of religion, have often been enshrined in the religion from such as early age that they have effectively been brainwashed.

    For a case in point, just look at Buddhism. Theirs is the most peaceful religion, I think anyone will agree. And yet their followers are still persecuted and slaughtered because of conflicting views.
    There is no reason why religion cannot reform itself to a) encourage independent thought b) preserve a moral code that is adhered to and reasonable c) produce autonomous followers who can contribute effectively to society, all without endorsing violence.

    Religion and violence are not inescapable. These things have been intertwined artifically by politics, history, culture and even in some cases by specific rules of the churches themselves. The situation in Tibet, for example, is not based around Buddhism, rather was highlighted because of the involvement of religious people. Because of this and other such events, religion has been highlighted as the source of blame. In fact, in the modern world religion is capable of reforming itself from malevolence to an institution that can provide benefit to society.

    Different religions can exist in tolerance of each other, just as today different political views and moral ideas stand in tolerance of each other. If we argued over all of our differences in society we'd be forever at war.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Phalanges)
    I'm not talking about any tragedy specifically, but moreover the thousands of personal tragedies it's caused. Babies brought into this world when their mothers can't look after them (and can't have abortions), depression in individuals because they believe themselves to be steeped in sin, the murder of people with different views, the blinding of people to only be able to believe one set of rules rather than be allowed to think logically. These all count as tragedies.



    Those in Northern Ireland. Those in Glasgow. Families anywhere around the world where two religions are popular and conflicting.



    Directly: Millions upon millions of people through holy wars.

    Indirectly: The murder of people contracting HIV due to not using condoms on religious grounds. Suicide from people who feel too ashamed of themselves due to living in sin to live.



    I rarely read the Daily Mail. However, I was under the impression that it would support christianity, not be against it? I also wouldn't have thought it would try and tackle an issue as controversial as christianity when there are far safer scapegoats, such as immigration or binge drinking, that it can be spreading filth about.

    You need to read something more than the Bible, and appreciate the wider context surrounding religion.





    My next point applies to both of you.

    There is no clear line between whose fault it is for the religion and the religious followers. This isn't an isolated incident where relatively few people have been killed and it has been blamed on a film, for example. It's a mass scale problem, where millions upon millions of people have died.

    And that's before you get onto the direct, often murderous, influence that the catholic church in particular has dealt with scientists opposing their views in the past.

    Religion and violence are unescapable. You cannot have one without the other. If there are two texts which both proclaim to be the sole truth there will always be violence. And bear in mind as well that the people doing the killing, the ones you are trying to pass the blame off on instead of religion, have often been enshrined in the religion from such as early age that they have effectively been brainwashed.

    For a case in point, just look at Buddhism. Theirs is the most peaceful religion, I think anyone will agree. And yet their followers are still persecuted and slaughtered because of conflicting views.
    You cannot soley blame religion for every act committed by individuals under the name of religion. Unfortunately those that have been brainwashed go on to brainwash others and slowly intolerance for the sake of religion spreads like a virus, even if it started out with individuals.

    In theory, violence is a natural impact of religion since there isnt a single religion which everyone follows and there will be individuals who believe that everyone has to follow their religion or die. But to say that violence cannot be avoided due to a difference in beliefs isn't true imo. There are various examples of people of different faiths co-operating with each other and living with each other as neighbours in various interfaith communities.

    If religion did not exist and everyone based their beliefs upon science then in theory there may be wars between people who believe in one scientfic theory and people who believe in other. Also, if everyone believes that there is no life after dying and everyhting simply ends when you die then they may be more tempted to commit horrific acts such as rape/murder as they don't believe that they will be judged in the afterlife.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    can people stop putting too much ad hominum into this debate and slating religion? yes it has its faults, i agree with that, (im an athiest btw) but i really think that it does a hell of a lot of good for this country. it gives people hope, purpose, and love. some of the nicest people i know are christians, and there are so many christian charities that do so much good. it provides the moral code for so many people, and inspires so much good work. i know that there is often quite alot wrong with extreamist religon, but please dont judge all of it because of some people who take things too far. also, you cannot bring the crusades into this debate, as this happened 1000s of years ago! thats worse than judging the current germans for the holocaust. dont be all dawkins-like on us :P
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by blonde-beth)
    can people stop putting too much ad hominum into this debate and slating religion? yes it has its faults, i agree with that, (im an athiest btw) but i really think that it does a hell of a lot of good for this country. it gives people hope, purpose, and love. some of the nicest people i know are christians, and there are so many christian charities that do so much good. it provides the moral code for so many people, and inspires so much good work. i know that there is often quite alot wrong with extreamist religon, but please dont judge all of it because of some people who take things too far. also, you cannot bring the crusades into this debate, as this happened 1000s of years ago! thats worse than judging the current germans for the holocaust. dont be all dawkins-like on us :P
    you've been infected with critical thinking :p:
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    I think I've said pretty much all I can on the subject, and any more and I'll just be searching for an eloquent way to describe the fact that I'm repeating myself. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree and leave it at that, religion is one of my intense hatreds so I'm not exactly going to be able to give the most reasoned debate to it all. :p:

    All I will say as a closing statement is that while you are saying that religion can't be held accountable for it's flaws, why in turn is religion accountable for it's successes? Surely these are just down to people's own interpretations and actions. And also by saying that without religion people would still kill over ideas, without religion it's entirely plausible that a lot of good things with still occur.

    I dunno. A lot of people say religion gives life meaning, a belief that this isn't just it. I personally prefer to believe that this life isn't just some sort of test.

    (Original post by blonde-beth)
    some of the nicest people i know are christians
    That phrase reminds me of the infamous "I can't be a racist, some of my best friends are black".

    Also, Ad Hom attacks are those where you attack the spaker's integrity. The only time this occurred was when I was told to stop reading the daily mail. The rest of this debate has had very little personal attacks in it.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    :eek: Surely I get a conclusion too!
    I'm also going to acknowledge the fact that I'm biased :p: I was brought up with, and upon careful consideration have chosen to retain, a theistic worldview. Despite this, I acknowledge that organised religion has its flaws in many areas and for complex reasons. My summation is:

    1. These flaws are not integral to the belief system and it is perfectly possible for religion to minimise or eliminate them without collapsing. The reason (in the Catholic Church) that this is not happening is the devolution of power towards the top of the hierarchy and the systemic over-reliance on tradition that is, in my view, slowly killing off what is otherwise a very meaningful religion.
    2. Events such as the Crusades, the situation in Tibet, Islamic extremism, religious wars of every kind have contributory factors other than religion that are much more relevant to their cause. Most people see religion as very abstract entity; in situations like the Crusades it's often corrupted by politics or culture in order to enable it to be used as an excuse for violence.

    Religion exists for many different reasons, but I will say that the benefits it provides would be better felt if religion had a more progressive spirit and if society was more accustomed to actually examining philosophy and spirituality as part of their daily lives.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Surely, we can make our points without any Blasphemy?
    I for one oppose euthanasia/mercy killing because the whole issue is far too complex to determing criterias for when it should be allowed/legal. Its true that there is great amount of lack of compassion in the NHS, (which is inevitable to some points) and this can prone patients into decisions which they wouldnt necessarily have made. How do you know the person isnt just making the decision so they dont feel much of a burden and so wit euthanasia they can "free up beds" - surely this treatment means youre just a number.
    Except for in this extreme cases, I commend the work of the majority of the doctors/nurses who do all within their capacity to give the uttermost patient-centered care - they do exist. However its impossible to expect even 90% compassion at all times as long as the overburden/overstretched issue still persists. No matter how much one tries.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: February 16, 2010
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.