Teen Forums - Teen Chat, Teen Help, Teen Advice & Support

Exactly. I wouldn't say Religion is the "oppressor".
Humans are. With or without Religion and whatnot, the human race balances between good and evil.
We can't do anything else than cope with it.

Suddenly my eyes are open
Everything comes into focus, oh!
We are all illuminated,
Lights are shining on our faces
We are, we are blinded !
We are, we are blinded !

I have a long comment to right but I have to leave out for school so be ready for when i get home. I agree with Zach.

Lol you mustn't bother after the owning that just took place.

It's really the time for humanity to take a dump.

I'm somewhere in between the original poster and the people who responded to him. I view religion as a crutch; it isn't extremely good or extremely bad, its just something that some people use to fight insecurities and fears and that sort of thing. Yeah, a crazy person might be motivated by religion to kill people, but crazy people can be motivated by almost anything to kill people.

I personally believe that religion is a thing created by the government to promote order, but everyone has their opinions, I actually take RE & Ethics GCSE and take great interest into religion, but no - I see it's strengths and weaknesses and believe it to be a lie

My two cents (pennies are actually kind of big):

I think you're mistaking one of the characteristics of religion for religion itself. Religions have dogmas (in essence, a system) and that's what brings about the negative results you've mentioned (like war). The systematic environment set up by religions is what leads to grievances (e.g. Crusades -> Interest in trade with India -> Columbus setting sail -> Genocide of the Taino -> Interest in the New World -> Genocide of Native Americans -> &c., &c.). A systematic government set up by a government or another non-religious institute (here we assume that the government is not a theocracy) could just as easily accomplish the same things (see the Stanford Prison Experiment or the Rwandan Genocide). Unfortunately, governments provide unity and given the nature of variation, the amount of intelligent but kind people per capita in any given nation is not usually enough to offset the negative effects of a strict system. But, just to be fair, the one negative thing that I would attribute to religion (and not its systematic nature) is the belief in intangible divine powers because this sort of dogma leads to a rejection of contemporary education; this in turn leads to an uneducated mass that doesn't understand how the system abuses them (see the United States of America and how politicians misquote our beloved Constitution and "power to the people (hahahahahahaha)" because the majority of the people don't vote/give a damn about the tyranny of the system). Oh, another point for you (I guess). Blind religious fervor can "retard" the accumulation of knowledge, so maybe religion is a "retardant?"

Also, if you're going to view religion as a tool by which to control the masses, then you should understand that as a social species humans have been naturally selected to work together, so you should probably blame our inherent nature (which would be the source of religious fervor, if we are to view this topic from the OP"s point of view), not religion itself. Don't blame the pistol for murdering you, blame the murderer.

Ergo, religion is kind of like the social contract theory. There is consent involved. Trust me on this.

Although I may have minor quibbles with the rest of your argument (There seems to be a slight confusion in the sociology of it), I think this part in general must be examined more closely. I think it's important to figure out if this "rejection of contemporary education" is applicable to all religions or just some religions. If a religious society were to lead to a rejection of contemporary education, then, not only would the masses be uneducated, the society as a whole would not make progress in rational fields such as science and mathematics because they would simply have no need for it because the non-contemporary theories would indeed explain everything that is needed. However, I would argue that this trait is only inherent to some religions, not all. In fact, I would argue that some religions are actually the opposite and foster contemporary education, innovation, and reason. I would point to one example that would seem to do just this: Christianity. Now, since this is a forum post, I have no room to go through the whole argument and refute counter-examples and such, but I would say that The Victory of Reason by Rodney Stark (who is a brilliant sociologist, in my opinion) contains a pretty solid argument for exactly this: That Christianity and it's related institutions were one of the direct causes of the most significant intellectual, political, scientific, and economic developments and breakthroughs since it took stronghold in Europe. In fact, the early stirrings of capitalism and scientific experimentation happened within monastic settings. It was these undercurrents, encouraged by the "system" and culture of advancement that Christianity set up, that spread these important methods around the world. By pure virtue of creating a system of advancement throughout the Christian world, I would argue that, in fact, Christianity did not reject contemporary education but rather encouraged it and nurtured it. I would go as far as saying that some of the other major religions are the same way. I think that there is also sufficient evidence to suggest that Christianity for the most part was not a retardant to the accumulation of knowledge. So, I think, that it is not a aspect of religion itself but rather a construct of the beliefs of certain religions. As to your point about the tyranny of the system, I would argue that that is a result of human nature rather than religion. Plato puts out that argument in his Ship analogy in The Republic.

I forgot all about Gregor Mendel ^_^...

As for "retardant," I was using "blind religious fervor" loosely I guess, but it was supposed to refer to people who refuse to hold multiple beliefs in their heads (e.g. only science or only what the dogma states. Of course, I guess the people that fall under this category are mostly just a stereotype...)

The bit about "tyranny of the system" is derived from the fact that, as Americans, we're governed by a tripartite government in which we only really have input in one part (the legislative branch, which was originally set up so that only 1/2 of the legislative branch would be voted in by the public), which in itself isn't a bad thing... unless we take into account that it gives a lot of undue power to the elite (which seemed to work fine in America's early years, but look at what's going on today... the super-rich and the super-poor...). I just think it's unfair that the balance of American government relies on the good will of those in charge (especially because we're supposed to be a republic).

Ironically, I guess I mistakenly attributed some things to religion too...