I could not find one topic regarding this, and i even chekced the regulations to make sure religion is fine, and it said nothing about it, so I am somewhat surprised, Maybe the AD members aren't into certain debate areas But I am hoping you will empty your powder on this, as I would love to hear your opinions.


Some information not really related:
As most of you know 'In God We Trust' became the official U.S national motto after the passage of an Act of Congress in 1956. In 1957 the first paper money with the slogan was adopted. This slogan was also used on various coins off and on during periods (even a century before the motto ws adopted), but it is after 1956 Congress it truly became part of the monetary part and country motto for the U.S. (As a irrelevant note, this is also related to the Cold War as well as the Revolutionary War historically).

But I was hoping this would not be about religion or any gods specifically, but more, What do You think about the religiousness in the world?


The most advanced countries in the world, looking at the society as a whole, education, helthcare, understanding and even amount of aid given to others, are the most secular nations on the planet. They would be the 'best' by any objective definition.

As a completele opposite, the most religious nations are all inferior on most of these points. If you look at a western nation such as the U.S, where Christianity have a strong grip, it is the second lowest aid giver in the western world, but Japan, with a more liberal view being Shinto and Buddhism (More of a lifestyle then religion) is an enormous aid giver to. Is religion related to the poor performance and help the people of these nations are willing to give? Is it just a coincidence?


But try to see the big picture here. Not any specific nations, (other then using them as a reference). So, what do You think, Religion as a whole, in the world, is it good or bad? And why? (It would be prefered if you Include scientific data for your view).

You are making a post hoc fallacy. Nations that have strong governments tend to not need religion (in the stability sense) as much as nations that don't have strong governments. When the state takes over, religion takes a back door. So...nations that are more socialist tend to be less reliant on religion and the trend reverses itself as nations move away from depending on government.

Those who rely on the government more give more aid via the government. Those who don't give more aid privately. The US gives hundreds of billions of dollars in aid every year. How much does secular China give?

Like I said Mrs Pigpen, I pointed this out, Then you consider it is NOT religion that makes them such low aid givers. But that was not the question. What is your opinion about religion as a whole?



The Chinese people are not secular. The biggest aid givers are Norway, Sweden, Denmark etc with a 0.7% of GDP. The U.S give less then 0.7%, one of the lowest in the western world. But this was as well not the point, what about religion?

And I referred to Secular PEOPLE in the nation, not secular GOVERNMENT. When I say the most secular, i meant the country, as in, the people.


But on topic? I would love to hear your opinion?

That's a joke, correct? The Chinese Communist Party has stated that religious belief and membership are incompatible. Party membership is necessary to actively participate in government. That's about as secular as you can get.



Well, Warren Buffett is donating 37 billion, Bill gates 30 billion in his foundation. That's two American people. People in the US donate tens upon tens of billions through private aid every single year. You've cited government funding and then claim that you aren't referring to the government but the people. Okay, tell me, how much private giving do the people of Norway, Sweden, and Denmark do? How much private charity work do they do?



I have answered the topic question. Religion is an irrelevancy and has nothing to do with generosity unless you think that government funded generosity is the only kind of generosity there is (which seems to be the case). You haven't proven what you think you have. You are grossly incorrect if you think China is religious but Japan isn't by comparison. Those countries actually directly disprove your theory, but you obviously see what you want to see.

Mrs Pigpen, Chinese are Confucian, Taoist and Buddhism. It would be very hard to fins secular people in China in regular other then highly educated 'elite' and such, and they are still most likely spiritual.

I am very surprised that you did not know this. And once again, I explained to you that the GOVERNMENT is not its people. And, to make it even more clearer to you, I referred to THE PEOPLE when i mentioned nation.




Both Warren and Gates are Secular. This goes with Ingvar Kamprad (IKEA) as well. Once again, you are not keeping to topic and do not want to answer it and seem to want to stray with your flawed logic here. Why?

Like I said, 0.2% highest GDP givers, the U.S is less then 0.7%. This was just an example, So I dont know why you continue talking about it instead of talking about the main topic as I was really curious what peoples thoughts on this was. Could you try not to stray the topic to much?



My question was religiousness in the whole in the world. You have not answered at all. My examples still show that countries that are more religious give less. I showed you simple figures as well as gave you information, you came with odd statements that the Chinese people are SECULAR. Maybe you never been to China, or even Asia? You should go there and see this 'secular' view they have.

Could you answer the topic? Or is it that you cant, and therefore you trying to stray? Why not give someone else a chance to discuss the topic? You shown quite a deal of ignorance so far (Seeming not to understand the DIFFERENCE between religions, claiming the Chinese people are not religious(?) and use two people as the evidence that an entire nation are 'big aiders' when all the statistics has been shown you are wrong.).

Please? Topic?

That's a very broad question, so I'll just nibble at it around the edges. I'm not a religious person myself, though I did grow up in a church. There's good reason to believe that religion increases social capital (PDF link). If all the houses of worship in this country were to be disbanded and dispersed, we'd be much more isolated from each other, and poorer for it. Churches do a lot of good works. For all my criticism of Jeremiah Wright's AIDS conspiracies, I know his church has also been praised for its outreach to local victims of HIV/AIDS.

When secular Western folks defend Islamist organizations (e.g., Hamas, Hezballah), it's usually for similar reasons: they provide schools, hospitals, social capital. Of course, those Islamist organizations don't restrict themselves to charity, but usually have an armed wing dedicated to holy war. If they'd stick to building up their own communities and not destroying their neighbors, I wouldn't have any problem with them.

JamesEarl, I assume you've seen graphs like this one, showing the relationship between a country's religiosity and its wealth. (Graph taken from this Pew Survey, page 3). Note that the U.S. is quite an outlier -- way out in front in per capita GDP, but much more religious than the other rich countries. Not as religious as the poor African countries, but much more than Western Europe.

I'm obviously biased as an American, but I think we've got a pretty good balance in the U.S. Our churches do a lot of good for their communities, don't go to war with each other, and don't make life difficult for secular people like me. I worry that post-Christian Europe has lost something vital. The welfare state remains, but they've stopped having enough children to support it into the next generation. Therefore, they need mass immigration, which is mostly coming from countries that are much poorer and more religious. The European idea doesn't provide a sense of identity that's compelling enough to many new immigrants, so the fastest growing religion by far is the religion of their countries of origin -- namely, Islam.

Or maybe that's not the case. For many secular Europeans, environmentalism may be filling the role of a religion. (Green is the new God?) If that's true in a psychological sense, though, it doesn't seem to be true sociologically. Are there many "congregations" of like-minded greens who get together regularly and pool their time and money to do good works for their community? It seems to me they're much more about political action -- lobbying the government to force companies to change the way they use resources like energy and water.

On foreign aid: JamesEarl, you're still focusing entirely on government-given aid. Most of the aid coming from the U.S. is not governmental. Start here to find out about the rest:

You need to define this .7%. As Mrs. P states private donations are obviously not included. Nor is the “value” of US military protection, nor the value of the Peace Corps for example. The comparison is not a fair is it.

So, what do You think, Religion as a whole, in the world, is it good or bad? And why?

I am a religious person, but I do believe that when government is weaker, it is often the case that the leader will claim some kind of religious fiat in order to exercise and maintain authority in that country.

Religion has always been a mixed bag. Does the religion rationalize aggression or retaliation? Does it promote peace? Does it reinforce the authority of a dictator because "God" puts leaders in place over the people?

In our local newspaper, we read letters to the editor that decry the criticism of our leaders, particularly George W. Bush, because the Bible says that we are to respect and submit to the authority of our leaders and pray for them. And yet, this is the first country in known history to break away from the British king because our forefathers considered his rule oppressive and negligent. Now, which is it?

If religion serves only as a means to buttress our own point of view and grants us license to hurt other people or exercise control over unwilling subjects, it is not good. If religion compels us to be better people as evidenced by us treating our neighbors, domestically and internationally, as we would like to be treated ourselves, then it can be very good, very useful.

I think it ideal when those who are in government can exercise kindness and care without having to cite a particular religious tenet in order to justify that positive behavior. Morality that is generated from within and not dependent upon externals such as what other people might think is the best morality.

Let's look at a good, balanced article from Scientific American which makes reference to a study which compared the measurable degree of religiosity of a nation's population with measurable aspects of societal health.

Link



It's important to note here that this data applies only to "developed democracies." Secularism is of no benefit if a nation is a dictatorship or if its people are starving. We might also note here that, although this study is very suggestive, it is at least theoretically possible that secularism does not lead to a healthy society, but that a healthy society leads to secularism. It is also theoretically possible that both of these things are caused by something else entirely.

In any case, it is quite clear that a high degree of religious faith among the population of a free and prosperous nation is not necessary for societal health.

How, then, do we explain what might seem to be the paradoxical fact that Americans of faith are more charitable than Americans without faith?



All of this is very relevant to American politics, by the way.



The answer seems to be that religious faith is associated with individual generosity (just as it is unquestionably associated with individual acts of evil) but that it is not associated with a healthy society.



Thus, the best of all possible worlds (assuming you live in a place with a high degree of individual liberty and a reasonably good economy) would seem to be a relatively high degree of secularism among a nation's population, along with a modest degree of religious faith among a small but appreciable minority of the citizens. The religious rights of this minority must be respected, of course, but they must not be allowed to have any connection whatsoever with government. (And, of course, the government must not be officially anti-religious either.) Some developed democracies have reached this situation, more or less. (The influx of a substantial number of very religious immigrants into some of these nations may lead to problems, as headlines from Europe have told us.) The United States has a way to go yet, particularly the long and difficult job of plugging up the many holes that have been blasted in the wall between church and state. But I have hope in the progression of American society to a greater degree of secularism.

Link




As far as a healthy society goes, the sort of vague "spirituality" which is increasing among Americans will be more or less similar, in my opinion, to secularism. People who consider themselves "spiritual" without being "religious," from what I can tell, will be unlikely to toss firebombs at the wall between church and state, the way that we have seen some "religious" people do. This can only be for the good.

Dare I say that I have faith in the coming era of American secularism?

You would expect this rather poor analysis from SA. The real question is “what” is “religious belief” and does this correlate with religious practice? Lots of people say “they believe in a creator” but that is not the same imo as religious practice. Which, has health and longevity benifits.





“Aug. 9, 2000 -- Religion appears to soothe the body as well as the soul, as people who are highly religious tend to live longer than others, a review of more than 40 scientific studies has found.
In fact, overall, the people who were most involved in their religions were 29% more likely to be alive when the various studies were completed than were their nonreligious counterparts.
Exactly how religious involvement boosts health is unclear, the researchers say. But given the findings, they write, future research should focus on the precise way that religion extends life. The report was published in the journal Health Psychology.
"Some people believe that religious involvement instills healthy beliefs and behaviors," Michael E. McCullough, PhD, who did the research while at the National Institute for Healthcare Research in Rockville, Md., tells WebMD. For example, religious people tend to smoke and drink less, and may be slightly less obese than nonreligious people.”

http://www.webmd.com/news/20000809/religio...an-nonbelievers

Even at the govtl level and ignoring private or corporate charity, we give more to foreign aid than any nation of on earth--in total dollars. You are focusing on aid as a percentage of GDP. I guess that is relevant somewhere, but where I come from, I'd rather have 0.7% of $13 trillion than 1.2% of $1.4 trillion, for example. Even we stupid Americans can do the math.

Also, your measures of health, educ, etc., are not measures of anything relevant. In a free nation, people will both succeed and fail; our numbers therefore are lower on average because we allow people both to succeed and to fail, and this will lead to people with lower incomes, less education, etc., in some instances; but, a nation where everyone is driven to a consistent, socialist mediocrity, like Denmark, will have higher averages in many areas, but will not have the highest scores or the lowest.

For example, of the 10 top universities in the world, 8 are in the USA; two are in the UK. None are in these great bastions of socialism where the averages are good (Lake Wobegon??)--but the highest levels are not so high and the lowest levels are not so low. Isn't it amazing a nation so stupid and backward, like the USA, would have such strong universities? Where do New Zealand's universities rate (trick question)? We are focusing on getting the most from the best and brightest, and fostering competition, while nations like New Zealand (where my cousin lives) are focusing on having a nice, mediocre quality of life for everyone.

Top Universitites: http://ed.sjtu.edu.cn/rank/2004/top500(1-100).htm (as ranked by Shanghai Jiao Tong University, China)

JamesEarl:

That's interesting that you can suggest any specific number of secular people, since China can't even estimate the number of Protestants and Catholics:


SOURCE

I guess those who aren't registered with a state-approved Church in China are automatically secular. But wait. That would go against your suggestion that very few secular people exist.

If China wanted to do charity work, they could start in their own country by curbing the beating and torture of religious people that go against their state sanctioned religious facilities in their own country. No government cash donation necessary.

Nice to see they give to other countries, tho.

VictoriaSilverwolf

Sounds a lot like, "Put the religious people in a box, let them live, but have no effect on society. Well, unless they want to give charitably, which they're good at, and good on them if they do". Let's call a spade a spade - a religious minority is a cast out minority. Religious people aren't even respected when they're the majority. Want proof? Turn on your TV for one day without someone saying "God" instead of "gosh", or count the instances of "goddamnit" that are used. Christians and Jews find that highly offensive, and we're the majority. To suggest that an even more secularized society will be MORE respectful of religious people's beliefs in the near future is kind of ridiculous.

A secularized nation would be more interested in making "The Flying Spaghetti Monster" cartoon to be aired on the WB. Hey, why not? There's only a "modest degree of religious faith among a small minority of the citizens". I already see a disregard for people of faith, and I have no reason to believe that it will reduce - in fact, I see the hostility growing.

In essence, we're making a religion based on God into a religion based on sociology. People will inherently worship something. Be it God, the environment, a specific lifestyle, animals, themselves, a lifestyle without anything to worship, their money, their possessions, or themselves.

Religious people, by your own post, donate time and money because they believe it's part of a bigger cause. As a result, it's healthy - both for them and their health, and for the receiver - and society! I think we need more religious people and less secular to create that best of all possible worlds. It makes more logical sense to create a society of more givers than more receivers.

More importantly, I think we have a need for tolerance regardless of the level (if any) of religious belief. Religious people towards non-religious people, and vica-verca. I accept that religious people deserve some of the blame - Religion was never meant to be shoved down someone's throat, nor harassed, nor threatened with hellfire. My religious figure didn't do any of that. He offered life and salvation, and regardless of the answer, blessed and moved on. I apologize for some of my fellow adherents who refuse to accept that God isn't a drill sergeant. My God is a God of differences, tolerance, ethnic backgrounds, and gives everyone the ability to follow Him at whatever stage they are, and accepts every one regardless of their past. I wish some of my overzealous counterparts would emulate that stuff as much as they keep score of "how many people they saved" and "how many major sins they've NOT committed" and "how many people they brought to church". If that's the criteria to get to heaven, I'm in deep doo.

/am not considered a religious person by religious people
//I smoke and drink an occasional whiskey and coke
///instant disqualification/outcast
////and they don't like my religious humor
/////"Hey, I was praying and God gave me a message for you: **** off!"
//////that just never got laughs over coffee and donuts in the foyer

I'm a bit confused on this, I made a post early on that was closed for having religious references. It was more of a look at science based (end of times) scenarios but touched on religion a little. I remember being told it was not allowed, perhaps that has changed. Id like to know if any moderator knows what the take is on making religiously based post at this point. This was the post that was closed last year.........

http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...hl=science+save

If possible I wouldn't mind reposting it, if that rule has changed. I think debating religion would expand the site, and lead to more post although the post I did above was more science based.

But try to see the big picture here. Not any specific nations, (other then using them as a reference). So, what do You think, Religion as a whole, in the world, is it good or bad? And why? (It would be prefered if you Include scientific data for your view).

Wait, you want me to figure out if religion is good or bad using science?

That is impossible. Science by its first principles has no judgment of good or bad. We get light bulbs and nuclear bombs no matter what. Worlds are created and destroyed, and it just keeps on going until the end (if there is one) since the beginning (if there was one).

So the question to be debated has no meaning. Therefore, the answer must be as meaningless.

Religion is good or bad. Yes, that is the way it works.

Which is to say that religion can be good, it can be bad, or it can be neutral. It certainly depends on situations in a broader sense of, you know, freaking reality.

I see it as mostly mind control. But then there's this thing when I listen to the world, from the vantage point of this mountain. Among these sounds are taunting and tantalizing messages, to wit: You Don't Know Jack, Go Fish.

And so I fish, which has so many connotations.

Is religion good or bad? Yes it is. So? Is this different from anything else? Is sex good or bad? Is government, education, war, birth, death, politics, economics, the big best seller, the hot movie, love . . . well, love stinks. But it is good.

Hurts so good. Yep, sometimes life makes absolutely no logical sense.

Which can be lovely or horrible. Yes, that is the way it works.

Victoria... I like that you tried to present both sides of the case, but pray tell... where on earth did you get the idea that religion is unquestionably associated with individual acts of evil?

People can debate to no end about why people do things, but frankly I believe that religion is often a scape goat for people's evil tendencies. The Crusades, for instance, were really to take back land taken from Christians. Did Jesus tell them to do it? Of course not. Does the Bible incite people to do this? Nope.

I think what people tend to miss, is that in the US religions is different from many parts of the World. Christianity is proven to be the predominant religion and that at VS mentioned, of course the charitable giving is overwhelmingly done more often by religious people (particularly Christians- refer to her source, and if need be I can cite more.. but why clutter this post).

So, if we're using Science to decide if religion is good or bad, I think truthfully we have to consider that all religion isn't the same and that cultural and socio economic factors are very important in this discussion.

Protestant Society helped form who we are as Americans, and truth be told it's important to note that anywhere from 75-85% (dep on study) of Americans are self acclaimed Christians.

I believe that the debate should hinge upon how people use religion. Just like any other motivating factor, religion can be utilized in any fashion one sees fit.

I would also love to see how, in American society, religion fits into the picture. We're arguably different. I'd love to see in the US how affluence, health, longevity, etc are factored into people of Christian faith.
Are there studies out there like that?? I couldn't find them... but then again, I'm in NYC today in between meetings and don' t have 2 hrs to check... google away...

I think the difference - and it is a finely drawn one - is that this thread is exploring the effect of religiosity in the world, where yours, while it did invoke science, invited religious opinion. Two equally religious people with two different religions would likely have two different views. The idea that there would be a distinct "end of days" at all, while it has scientific and historic parallels, is essentially a religious one, certainly when you use that particular phrase. As such, the boards policy of avoiding religious debate (whether or not you agree with it) applies to your thread.

This thread is more about the effects of secularity vs religiosity. As such, the policy doesn't apply (though obviously it walks a closer line than threads about the Thai cyclone, Chinese earthquake, or Capital Gains Tax do).

While they often get confused, I think it important to remember that secularity is essentially about holding the view that religion/faith is or should be a private matter that should not take a central place in public or political life.

This idea is not exclusive for atheists or agnostics - there are some deeply religious secularists. Quakers, for example, don't set much store by public religious stances and don't generally campaign to have their religious views enshrined in law. Indeed, few non-proselytising (i.e. non-

And secularism does't just refer to the state not endorsing a particular religion.

Britain is not a secular state - the Head of State (the Queen) is also Supreme Head of the Church of England, and the C of E is the established (i.e. state sanctioned) religion. Yet the British people are deeply secular - while a majority still defined themselves as Christian, we have one of the lowest Church attendance records outside of former Communist countries (and, therefore, places where the official state position on religion was that it is all rubbish i.e. atheism). You cannot become an Member of Parliament without swearing loyalty not only to the monarch but to God. Atheist MPs, or adherents of non-Abrahamic religions (a Muslim or Jewish MP can swear allegiance to the Christian God without lying or hypocrisy because it's the same God) have to lie to take up their elected office.

Conversely, the Constitution of the United States specifically forbids the establishment of any religion while guaranteeing citizens that they have total freedom of religion (i.e. from the State's point of view, any or no religious views are acceptable). The State is constitutionally barred from interfering in matters of religion. It is hotly debated whether the reverse is or should be true - whether religion should be allowed to intefere in matters of State. As a general view, the Religious Right think this is not only appropriate but necessary, while the Left (religious or not) think it is neither necessary nor appropriate. That debate is not this one.

In summary, you have a secular state, enforced by the Constitution itself. Yet the American people are - in the developed world anyway - one of the most religious, as measured by Church attendance, polling, etc.

James Earl has specifically avoided discussion of states' secularism/religiosity and wants to concentrate on the people.

I must admit I'm at a bit of a loss to contribute directly to the debate itself, because the way James Earl has framed the debate seems to assume that secularism is more of a synonym for atheism/agnosticism/non-attendance at church than a specific term referring to the view that religion is essentially a private matter that should be left to individuals to decide, which is what I understand by the word "secular".

And most posters have engaged with him on this level.

But try to see the big picture here. Not any specific nations, (other then using them as a reference). So, what do You think, Religion as a whole, in the world, is it good or bad? And why?

I think there's a risk of gross oversimplification in this whole area. Some countries and peoples are, on balance, a force for good in the world; America is a religious country and a secular state and is a broadly a force for good, so - to a lesser degree - is France; Britain is a religious state and a secular country and is broadly a force for good; Japan is a secular state (I believe) and a secular country (I believe) and is broadly a force for good.

Other countries and peoples are, on balance, neither good nor bad, or marginal either way. Turkey is a secular state but a religious country, but makes little current mark on the rest of the world. Israel, Egypt, Poland, India, Indonesia and Brazil could all fit in the same bracket.

On balance the states and peoples that are or have been until recently a force for bad might include Saudia Arabia & Iran (religious state with religious population), Iraq (under Saddam, a secular state with religious population), and China (officially secular state where non-approved religions are at best tolerated and sometimes actively suppressed).

Their goodness or badness doesn't have much to do with the secularity of their state or their population.

You will notice that all of the nations and peoples I have categorised as broadly a force for good are all of prosperous, capitalist, internally peaceful, settled under the rule of law, long-established, and democratic.

Those that are neutral or bad overall cannot tick many, or any, of these boxes. Saudi Arabia is prosperous (all that oil money) but is only peaceful internally, if indeed it is, because of draconian state and religious police, is totally undemocratic and is a relatively new state anyway. Turkey, Indonesia and Poland can tick many more of the boxes, but neither are prosperous enough to be able to project their influence far outside their borders. India has only been an independent state for 60 or so years and is not yet universally prosperous. China is only now starting to tinker with capitalism and is not a democracy.

So a simple tick box analysis of whether the states themselves or the people in them are secular, and to what degree, does not inform how well or badly a particular state or people are likely to behave nearly as much as how wealthy they are, how democratic they are, how well-established their current model of statehood is, how little internal factional fighting there is, etc.

Without faith, you are resigned to some form of materialism and you have no hope beyond that short period of years when your body expires. If there is any credible evidence that God's gift has enabled you to exist in a better place, in some form, beyond your three score and 10, and all that is required of you to acquire this gift is faith, then I would have to say such a religion is unabashedly and unqualifiedly good, in this life and in the next.

I thought this was self-evident, given a quick reading of any daily newspaper, but I would be happy to list specific examples. These were found literally after a few seconds of searching.

Link



Link



And I seem to recall a certain event which drew a lot of attention on September 11, 2001 . . .

I don't see how it can be denied that religion is associated with these kinds of events. You may say that this isn't "real" religion, or that these people distorted religion into some grotesque parody of itself; fine. In any case, these people were absolutely certain that they were acting in the name of religion. (To make it clear, I offer no opinion here on the truth of any particular faith; I am only talking about how real people, in the real world, act because of their religious beliefs. Many do acts of kindness and generosity; a few do acts of extraordinary, almost unimaginable evil.)

So, as I said, a modest amount of religiosity in the population of a free and wealthy nation is a good thing, just as a little spice in a recipe can be just the touch that is needed. This doesn't mean that one looks down on persons of faith; on the contrary. The Amish, to give one example, are generally admired by the "English" who surround them as hardworking, honest folks; but very few people wish to convert to their faith. In a similar way, as the American population inevitably becomes less "religious" and more "spiritual" and "secular" (using those words the way that Americans use them to describe themselves, as the previously linked study shows), those who are part of traditional faiths may be admired for their positive qualities by those of us who are not part of them; but we won't to convert to their way of thinking. As the previous study shows, this is healthy for society as a whole.

Religion is like a beautiful, venomous snake. I quite like snakes, and I would surely not wish for them to disappear from the world. A deadly viper can be quite useful as a part of a ecosystem. Unlike some people, I don't rush to kill a rattlesnake when I see one; but I am very careful indeed to make sure that something so dangerous doesn't have a direct influence on my daily life.

It's a matter of balance. In the United States, the scales are tipped too far to the "religious" side, particularly with the numerous ways in which religion has infiltrated the government. (Just as a copperhead doesn't belong in the home, but has its proper place outside, the church doesn't belong in the Capitol, but outside it.)

I disagree completely. It is perfectly possibly to live a very moral life full of hope based purely on one's own philosophical outlook. There is no inherent continuum with materialism on one side and religion/faith on the other. The two are, in fact, mutually exclusive -- you can certainly have one with or without the other. There are many ways in which one's actions can live beyond one's life outside of religion, so I disagree completely with that aspect of this statement as well. Which isn't to say that religion isn't a good thing....

Religion as a whole, in the world, is it good or bad? And why? (It would be prefered if you Include scientific data for your view).

I think it is difficult to argue that religion per se is a bad thing. If you examine the central concepts of just about any religion, they are almost always universally 'good' things. Although, as I said, there are many other ways in which 'good works', thoughts, deeds, etc. can be accomplished, it gives people a framework in which to structure those concepts. That framework can be used in bad ways, though. History is replete with examples of religious conflicts/wars. Surely, those are 'bad' things. Does that outweigh the good that comes from it? I don't think so. To me, it is not religion that has caused all those conflicts, but the inherent nature of man--those conflicts would probably have occurred anyway, with another justification provided.

I would have to say that your post was very well thought out, and thought provoking. In your cited articles, I would have to say that the actions of a few don't represent the ideology of the whole, and I think you covered that quite well. The section of your post that I have quoted above is the section that I think needs more examination. I do agree that the vast majority of Americans are religious, but I don't know how religion has infiltrated the government. I think an argument can be made in that the government is infiltrating religion on some fronts. For instance, there are laws limiting when and where people are allowed to pray. Thankfully, those laws are not far reaching, but for a law to eliminate any level of opportunity is too far reaching, IMO.

I think religion is bad for some people because of the emotional pain of being let down after having expected safety, i.e., hurricane Katrina. Indeed there's been many after hurricane Katrina who quit believing in God and many more after an atheist on Larry King told viewers to quit believing in God because He didn't protect America during the 9/11 attacks.

Such a touchy subject.
Heres my view:
Religon gives people false hope. Praying to god to help things only increases the chance of not taking action yourself, waiting for god to save you.
Religon is in some ways the easy way out. Instead of working at a problem, you pray against it
Although I due see why people with illness pray, for hope. But I, and others, don't need hope or faith. What happens is what happens praying won't change anything.
Im not sure. Im a buddhist, so Im very open to everything, but praying has always stirred me a bit.