Does religious indignation manifest more bad than good? Would an ethically educated athiest or agnostic be likely wage war against members of an opposing viewpoint? Has religion become a substitute for ethics? Do people understand the difference between the two?
2006-07-08 08:03:26 · 21 answers · asked by ghettoliberty 2 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Religious fanatics are blind! They are enormous dangerous!
2006-07-08 08:07:13 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
1. Neither - someone with a psychological problem is more likely to carry out violent acts.
2. Religious indignation? Big words - righteous anger is not necessarily violent. True righteous anger is not paired with arrogance, supremacy, or other negative emotion. Righteous anger is directed to correct a grave injustice.
3. See #1 - psychological problems are non-denominational and supercede religious boundaries.
4. No, you can be non-religious and ethical. Morality is different, is that what you were referring to? A religious individual, most likely, would have differing views of morality from an atheist or agnostic.
5. Yes.
Great question a thinker - like those ones!
God bless you!
2006-07-08 15:16:11 · answer #2 · answered by bri 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Religion is a man made substitution for a real and enduring personal relationship with the Living God.
People carry out all kinds of evil acts in the name of religion, politics, gangs, clubs, nationalism, pride and arrogance, school colors, race, sexual orientation, etc..
You must understand the difference. Blaming God for your personal choices is a lie. Hatred is hatred.
God, the Creator of all things, is a loving and compassionate God and wants us to be the same.
Don't believe everything you read in the newspaper, see on television, or learn in the secular humanist government indoctrination centers (public schools). Investigate with an open mind and you will find the enduring Truth.
2006-07-08 15:12:07 · answer #3 · answered by steve 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Compare Jerusalem or the U.S., both very religious countries, to England or Canada, both with populations that either admit to not practicing their religion or confess to atheism. The more violent ones are the more religious. If you compare the wars of the past, most were triggered by religion. WWII was Hitler's belief that Judaism was inferior, the American Revolution was a revolt against the crown fought by religious dissenters... etc etc etc
2006-07-08 15:09:16 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Historically, it's clear that religious beliefs are behind many of the most violent act and events that have occurred. So it is logical to conclude that those with strong religious beliefs are more prone to carry out violent acts.
My opinion on this is that people are so wrapped up in beliefs that cannot be proven and that are often illogical that they cannot listen to reason. Reason, imo, ultimately leads to understanding, and less violence.
2006-07-08 15:14:23 · answer #5 · answered by maypoledancer 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Good question! It seems like you've answered it yourself! There's a difference between ethics and religion, although they are often intertwined. Violence erupts between people with highly dogmatic views, regardless of their religion or whether they believe in God at all. There might be a statistical correlation between strong or fundamentalist religious beliefs and violence, but it is not a cause and effect relationship.
2006-07-08 15:11:37 · answer #6 · answered by Dr. Rob 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Most likely to INSTIGATE violent acts are people with strong political beliefs - hunger for power. They then twist whatever doctorin needs twisting to expiate their own agenda. Unfortunately there are way too many under-educated people on this planet who follow blindly. I'm not sure Pol Pot had any strong religious beliefs when he ordered the inoculated arms to be cut off the thousands of children that Unicef had vaccinated against his wishes.
2006-07-08 15:20:15 · answer #7 · answered by J 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Religious people have a harder time diferentiating between right and wrong so they seek out the church to do it for them.
In a situation where the church is not there to decide (often in high stress situations) religious people have been known to kill their own children, wives, husbands or parents.
It is also true that most wars are based on religious bias.
2006-07-08 15:10:42 · answer #8 · answered by viewable m 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Honestly, I think the basic foundation of violence and the need for control lies in mental illness, childhood experience and role model types, and, on a larger scale (war, politics) -- pure, unadulterated greed and power trips. People will use religion to try to rationalize their deeds and make them justifiable, but their religiious beliefs really aren't the issue -- those are just ammo for continuing violent behavior.
2006-07-08 15:16:30 · answer #9 · answered by Honeybee 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
in today's society it is unfortunately that often times religion dictates ethics, but as far as who is more likely to carry out violent acts I would say the athiest because there is less of a punishment in their eyes. to them it's just the punishment of law etc. but to a religious person there is the eternal punishment, although however they do feel they have a method of forgiveness.
2006-07-08 15:07:54 · answer #10 · answered by thirteen_fox 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Someone with ethics and virtues is less likely to carry out violent acts, regardless of their religious beliefs or lack thereof.
Best wishes.
2006-07-08 15:06:38 · answer #11 · answered by K M 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋