religion definitely adds guilt to anything it defines as evil but of cours there's the fanatics who are all like 'do what my religion says or die!'
2006-10-04 07:21:17
·
answer #1
·
answered by mystique 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
Religion has been responsible, at least in part, for some of the worst conflicts in the world. The main problem with religion is that it calims absolute certainty for propositions that are actually extremely unlikely to be true (e.g. that there is a God etc). All the available evidience strongly suggests that there is absolutely no supernatural being overseeing/creating/engaging with the world. This fact, that at the root of most religions is a fiction, has led many people to base their entire world view on a fiction that consequently distorts their interpretation of subsequent events. Religion divides. It props up all sorts of prejudice. It pursuades people that life is less precious than it really is as it maintains that there is an afterlife (another claim for which there is no evidence supporting it but plenty against). For more discussion see Richard Dawkins very interesting recent book 'The God delusion'. http://www.amazon.co.uk/God-Delusion-Richard-Dawkins/dp/0593055489/sr=8-1/qid=1159989500/ref=pd_ka_1/026-3339242-5140469?ie=UTF8&s=books
2006-10-04 15:20:10
·
answer #2
·
answered by Fiercehairdo 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
Religion has no role as it presents itself today.
If there is a thread of truth that runs through all the organised religions of the world, then it is their duty to dissolve all their divisions and focus on understanding this truth in unity.
Secondly to maintain peace you must first possess it.
World peace is an idea not realised.
Therefore first produce it and then if need concern yourself about maintaining it.
2006-10-05 11:19:31
·
answer #3
·
answered by sotu 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
I think it depends on what religion you refer to, and whether or not the followers hold true to that belief system. Some religions do not teach peace, and yet there are peaceful followers. Some religions teach peace, and yet there are violent followers. I think if people truly held to what their various beliefs teach there would still be violence, self-centeredness, and conflict in the world. However, if the peace focused religions had solid followers I think the conflict would decrease to some extent. Unfortunately, this is not the case.
2006-10-04 15:28:36
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Religion CAUSES war in the first place. It has no role in world peace.
2006-10-05 03:23:03
·
answer #5
·
answered by Phlodgeybodge 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
I think the key to maintaining peace in the world is to enstill tolerance in people. Whether it be tolerance of a person's religion, political views, culture, etc... accepting people and respecting their beliefs will help stop hatred amongst people of different backgrounds. I think religion currently plays a huge role in stirring violence within today's society, and religious tolerance would significantly help our situation.
2006-10-04 14:20:56
·
answer #6
·
answered by amandalaine 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
There should be acceptance of each others beliefs in order to achieve world peace. But as this is utopian (see history and find out that all wars have been caused by an underlining religious belief) I leave posterity to come to their senses...
2006-10-04 17:47:04
·
answer #7
·
answered by usb 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
The way it has been lately religions role is keeping the wars going.
2006-10-04 14:18:24
·
answer #8
·
answered by Tired Old Man 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Greed and egoism are the causes of all the evils in the world.
Regardless of which religion, religion is only a problem when the irreligious pretend to be religious to persuade the religious to do what the irreligious want them to do.
2006-10-05 02:49:35
·
answer #9
·
answered by karlrogers2001 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
Unfortunately, it looks like religion is going to continue to be one of the main causes of religion in the world. There's definitely an irony there.
2006-10-04 14:15:45
·
answer #10
·
answered by John P 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
The historical purpose of religion is to construct moral behavior for the masses. Channeling mass behavior to benefit a ruling / elite class.
2006-10-04 14:32:41
·
answer #11
·
answered by Mark C 1
·
0⤊
0⤋