[Led ++]

Okay. Take the medieval society in Europe. Back then the idea of "state" or "government" was nonexistent. All the things we take for granted today in a democratic society (schooling, medial care, social aid, counseling) were not available for your average Joe the farmer and his 20 kids that happened to constitute the vast majority of the population.

They didn't have a government? Sure it's not the sort of democratic society we have now, but they did have a government. Lead by the ones claiming to act in the word of god. And you just didn't question that. Not if you wanted to live.

All those things weren't available for Joe the farmer because he was just a cheap/poor workforce. Constantly getting told everything would be alright once he get's into heaven where everyone is equal. The one who did actually benefit were once again the people with lots of money who could literally buy their way in, or the people who studied the word of god. They were the ones getting education (again, the word of god, nothing more), medical care, ...

The first schools for children were created by the church, with the intention of teaching kids to read the Bible, to sing songs, to memorize prayers, etc. Before that, schooling was only available to the nobles and they had to pay big money for it.

And who got to go to school? Not Joe the farmer or his 20 kids. With some luck some priest came to him and told him how wonderful god is and that he has a plan for everyone etc. In the meanwhile the educated could just profit more and keep the power.

Medical care for peasants? The church. Help for the poor? Church again. See where I'm getting at?

Great and at the same time you couldn't doubt the one they called god. Help the poor? The church made a great deal of money from the poor yeah.


Keeping people stupid but "comfortable" at the same time.

There is no incentive for people to organize themselves in a community. There is a "void" created within the system, and it is thanks to religion that this void is filled. People organize themselves in communities because of religion.

And what about all the non-believers? They have this void in their life? No. They live a normal life like anyone else. There are communities of every kind if type, religion is just one of many.

People don't act like douchebags with one another because of religion. If the state doesn't tell them not to act like douchebags, it's religion that does it. The state only guarantees human rights, there's no moral, no feeling of belonging to a community.

I don't act like a douchebag and I don't need to have someone (especially a jealous god) to tell me not to act like a douchebag. The state does tell em not to act like a douchebag, it's called the law. Does that mean in society there won't be douchebags? Ofcourse not, that's exactly the same with religion. You make it sound that if someone religious tells you not to act like a douchebag you wont act like one.

A state should make you feel like a community, you and me are both part of a community, it's called .. the state. No moral in the state? Didn't you say they all used the ten commandments? It's intelligence and experience that makes morality. And morality is dependent on the position you live in. Your morale would be very different if you lived in one of the execution camps during WW2. Do you think religious people wouldn't kill or steal in conditions that aren't perfect. Ofcourse they would, because they're human. Just like everybody else. And it's that humanity that makes our morale, be it by believing what your god has written on 2 stone tables, or be it your own experience, intelligence, ...

It leaves people the freedom to choose what moral they want, be it religious or not.

You don't choose a morale, it develops. If I was born in the USA I would have a totally different morale. I probably would be religious too.

If the state doesn't provide it they will go to religion, or invent their own morals. But most of the times, they happen to coincide with religious morals (don't kill, don't steal, etc).

Which basically means you don't need religion to have a good morale. And a religious morale doesn't guarantee no stealing, killing, raping, dancing naked in a fire, etc.

Religion explained phenomenons of nature back when no one gave a rat's ass about it, encouraging people to be interested in these phenomenons and later leading to research and even science (I like to think at least one scientist decided to study science one day just to piss the Church off). Religion gave life meaning. Religion helped develop art and cultures. Religion has shaped our society for hundreds of years and continues to shape it even today.

Oh come on. People (rleigious and non religious) have ALWAYS been fascinated by phenomenons they could not understand. And we will always be fascinated as we have a natural desire of understanding things. This is nothing t hat religion gave us, it's build in our brains.

You say religion gave life a meaning, thus that also means you know the meaning of life. I would certainly like to know what the meaning of life is. If anything it forced their meaning of life onto other people.
Religion indeed helped develop art and culture. Ofcourse when you only allow people to make 'god' inspired culture people would have to believe you're telling the truth yes? Huge amounts of men and women have been killed because they didn't agree and wrote/painted/whatever something that wasn't right in the vision of religion. Religion (and many other things) shaped our society for hundreds, thousands of years yes. And imo they held back our progression for hundreds of years.

You believe in something other people told you, be it religion, the state, your parents, your teachers, etc.

Which is obvious. We all grow up in a specific environment which has an impact on HOW we develop ourselves. That's the case for EVERYONE in this tiny world.

1. Tried to explain the world's origin and certain natural phenomenons

And when someone came along that told them they were wrong or it was someone else that created the earth, they got silenced.

2. Gave people a moral code so as to not kill themselves

The prehistoric man had morale. A very basic kind of morale so that humankind fortunately survived. They didn't have a priest saying that some man with a long beard in the sky created thunder and lightning.

3. Encouraged the development of art, culture, philosophical thinking, literature, etc.

Only if it had something to do with what they were constantly saying to people. Anything else was not done and was punished.

So... today, everything the state says (The Constitution) isn't law? (funny story: it is)

Today you have a saying in what happens in your country. It's democracy. You have the freedom of defending yourself or telling what you want. You have the right to get a trial (funny, again a law).

No it isn't. It's a part of our moral code. If you took a newborn baby and abandon it in the jungle to be raised by animals, it wouldn't know that killing is bad. Humans aren't born with morals. We learn morals from other people, from our parents, from school, from... religion?

Because it would connect killing with survival. As I said above, it depends on the situation you live in.

How do you explain that? If it's human nature not to kill ourselves, why DO we kill ourselves?

Ooooh so many reasons, religion being on of the many. Our morale isn't perfect. It constantly changes and adapts. Like I said, knowing that killing somebody isn't necessarily a good thing, doesn't mean you can't kill. Anyone can kill. You, me, Dupree. Anyone. Our constant greed to have more, to survive, to have power, to dominate, ...

Ever stop to wonder why all religions advocate almost the same basic principles as the 10 Commandments? Why they are all so similar?

Ever wondered why the first one is always that you WILL NOT believe in another god and that his words are always right?

Before you had your "common sense" to guide you, people used religion for that very purpose.

People could think before there was religion.

Education is the keyword here, not state or religion.

And education should be under the influence of the state, and not the main religion in that country. It should be based on science and facts.

I don't understand how you can make a bad thing out of religion and not at all blame society at the same time. Because todays society is lacking, too.

And I never claimed anything else.

Most, if not all of the time you can not blame the religion for it, but the people.

Because most religious core messages are about picking flowers and bringing peace? Yes I know that people also use it as a tool to justify their personal actions.

Yet my own choice - and many others like myself - are forgotten, yet I too pay taxes, I too work, I too pay for social security.

Well I don't think the government should allow any religion. It's kinda impossible with all the bad sectarian communities. But on the other hand I do agree that you should be able to choose to who you pay. I think in Spain and in France they have this system where you can select to which acknowledged religion (or humanitarian companies if you're not religious) that small percentage of your taxes go to. Our system is just plain stupid.

I won't go into the whole pedophile problems the church has in belgium these times cause that's well .. another discussion I guess. But I do agree. I also don't understand how it's possible that we have a new archbishop who says that being gay is a disease like anorexia. Or that aids is basically a punishment for being gay. And that's the sort of guy that represents our country? No thank you.

What seems to escape YOUR attention is the fact that all the things you mentioned here result from people's lack of understanding or bad interpretation of religion, or what they do in the name of religion, not the religion itself. Religion in and of itself is good. It's the people that interpret it in bad ways that makes it bad.

It wasn't bad interpretation, it's what those religions advertised themselves. It wasn't Joe the farmer that did bad things in the name of god.

You seem to have a personal grudge against religion since you refuse to believe it actually does anyone any good.

I'll never say religion never did anything good (and I don't think drizdt will either).

Maybe people back then actually believed illness was a punishment and intervening with destiny was wrong? It was a medieval society, what do you expect?

And from whom did they get those ideas that it was god punishing them for their sins? No worries, a copper coin or 2 and you're clean again.

Cause cutting open a man with unsanitary tools was such a great idea back then. Gee, maybe the church noticed that people cutting themselves open was kinda making them die, so to protect them they had to forbid it?

So we don't cut them open and just let them die anyway. You didn't cut open anyone because the body was a holy vessel. You can't deny that religion held back surgery. They still do.