First, do no harm

[Gob]

A bigger share of Australians than respondents in most other countries think religion does more harm than good in the world, new polling has revealed.

But we are also more comfortable with religious diversity than the international average.

The survey of more than 17,000 people across 23 countries by polling firm Ipsos found opinion is evenly divided about the influence that religion has in society.

It showed 49 per cent of respondents across all countries agreed with the statement "religion does more harm in the world than good".

But the proportion of Australians agreeing with that statement was well above the international average at 63 per cent.

"Australia is one of the more negative countries regarding the perceived harm that religion does," David Elliott from the Ipsos Social Research Institute said.

Only Belgium (68 per cent) had a higher proportion than Australia who agreed religion does more harm than good, while Germany and Spain were on par with Australia.

[RayThom]

"religion does more harm in the world than good."

I second that motion. You'll get no argument from me.

So many Gods... so little time.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Rather facile observation as well as inaccurate. "Religion" actually does neither good nor harm; it is a much debated descriptor of a major aspect of human or cultural behavior.

Humans do more harm than good in the world?

Nations do more harm than good in the world?

Is that what the Australians mean?

Hum after ho

I found this discussion interesting

https://www.thoughtco.com/what-is-religion-250672

Here's a bit of it, about the problems of definition:

Definitions of religion tend to suffer from one of two problems: they are either too narrow and exclude many belief systems which most agree are religious, or they are too vague and ambiguous, suggesting that just about anything and everything is a religion. Because it's so easy to fall into one problem in the effort to avoid the other, debates about the nature of religion will probably never cease.

A good example of a narrow definition being too narrow is the common attempt to define "religion" as "belief in God," effectively excluding polytheistic religions and atheistic religions while including theists who have no religious belief system. We see this problem most often among those who assume that the strict monotheistic nature of western religions they are most familiar with must somehow be a necessary characteristic of religion generally. It's rare to see this mistake being made by scholars, at least anymore.

[Burning Petard]

I heard a sermon many years ago on the topic 'What is your religion?' It sort came down to what is your personal ground of being? What do you think about when you are not thinking about anything in particular? My own definition is that everyone has their own personal religion which I define as one's personal first principle, what do you assume is the explanation for the basics: why am I here? why is the universe? I accept for some this religion is a shrug and a honest statement that "it does not matter to me."

snailgate

[Bicycle Bill]

My own definition is that everyone has their own personal religion which I define as one's personal first principle, what do you assume is the explanation for the basics: why am I here?

Because you're not all there?

-"BB"-

[RayThom]

[ex-khobar Andy]

One of my father's favorite sayings: "A little less religion and a little more Christianity would go a long way."

[Gob]

Rather facile observation as well as inaccurate. "Religion" actually does neither good nor harm; it is a much debated descriptor of a major aspect of human or cultural behavior.

Religion is the cause of much harm, those who are facile enough to need a big oogha boogah in the sky, use it to justify their prejudices, and to control others.

While I recognise your pretence that "religion" itself is blameless, anyone of an atheistic bent will surely agree we would be better off without it, as it is put to harmful use.

Religion gives us ISIs, Palestine vs Israel, IRA vs the British, gay prejudice, and the KKK southern states of America, for some random examples.

To try and pretend it is blameless is silly.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Religion Humanity is the cause of much harm, those who are facile enough to need a big oogha boogah in the sky [and] uses it any excuse to justify their prejudices, and to control others.[/s]

While I recognise your pretence that "religion" itself is blameless, anyone of an atheistic bent will surely agree we would be better off without it humanity, as it is put to harmful use.

Yeah, I hear Josef Jugashvili and Mao had that kind of bent.

Religion gives us ISIs, Palestine vs Israel, IRA vs the British, gay prejudice, and the KKK southern states of America, for some random examples.

Oh, you speak of the wrong religions! Well, that's all right then!

[Gob]

Yeah, I hear Josef Jugashvili and Mao had that kind of bent.

I'm not rubato, I didn't claim any exclusivity to religion's harm

Religion gives us ISIs, Palestine vs Israel, IRA vs the British, gay prejudice, and the KKK southern states of America, for some random examples.

Oh, you speak of the wrong religions! Well, that's all right then!

[rubato]

"Religion" is an abstract concept "Religions" are extant human organizations. And the source of more harm than good.


I do not say that all evil comes from religions but only religions have tortured and murdered people for 'thought crimes'. For their beliefs.


Being more tolerant of different religions is a direct result of thinking they are all made-up stories and thus not all that different. The least religious tolerance comes from the most orthodox believers.


yrs,
rubato

[Gob]

I do not say that all evil comes from religions but only religions have tortured and murdered people for 'thought crimes'. For their beliefs.

Never heard of Josef Stalin then?

In the 1920s and 1930s, 2,000 writers, intellectuals, and artists were imprisoned and 1,500 died in prisons and concentration camps.

God you're dumb.

[rubato]

I do not say that all evil comes from religions but only religions have tortured and murdered people for 'thought crimes'. For their beliefs.

Never heard of Josef Stalin then?

In the 1920s and 1930s, 2,000 writers, intellectuals, and artists were imprisoned and 1,500 died in prisons and concentration camps.

God you're dumb.

Stalin did not kill them for what they thought. He killed them for what they did.


yrs,
rubato

[Gob]

Stalin did not kill them for what they thought. He killed them for what they did.

Stalin purged everyone who he thought was an enemy of the state, he killed indiscriminately and without evidence of any crime. Anyone who he thought was harbouring anti-communist tendencies, was sent to the Gulag.

Orwell was inspired to write 1984 on the back of Stalin's purges, and coined the term "thought Crime" as a consequence.

[Lord Jim]

only religions have tortured and murdered people for 'thought crimes'. For their beliefs.

Stalin did not kill them for what they thought. He killed them for what they did.

I know that at this point I should no longer be at all surprised by rube's displays of staggering historical ignorance, but wowsers...

That one goes on the list with "there was no genocide before Christianity", "The Poles weren't victims of the Nazis", "Buddhists have no history of violence" and my personal favorite, "The British have had a fourth rate navy since the American Revolution" among many others...

[Gob]

We should have them published; "THE ABSOLUTELY ENORMOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA OF RUBATO'S IGNORANCE"