The concern was "development and progression", ofcourse the development that took place several hundred years ago would be based on the the ideas and concepts relative to that era - similarly, several hundred years from know you could also argue that twentieth century Europeans had a definition of "science technology and development" quite different from what is accepted at that time.
Definitely, and thats why the definitions of progress and development are continually evolving in European societies, unlike the Arab world where they have remained constant due to rigid rules imposed by religion.
Thats a flawed argument - The Muslim world, as a religious society, was at the cutting edge of science and technology and development - that debunks the idea that religion is incompatible with being progressive. Now obviously something happened to derail path the Muslims were on, but that is a different discussion.
It debunks the idea that religion was against development of
medieval science and technology.
That obvious thing is that while the rest of the world moved on, the Muslims kept playing by the old rules.
I am not saying that being conquered is what was to blame for certain societies progressing and others not, but that there are a lot of complex factors involved - inter tribal tensions, culture, conquests, corruption, regional upheaval etc. To determine why different societies went in different directions would require exhaustive study of all possible influences on those societies. To cherry pick religion and blame it as you have done is a dishonest argument.
Definitely, but religion has been one of the "prime movers" in most countries with problems.
Also, why are South Korea and Israel so much more advanced than India? They have all existed for about the same amount of time - India claims for itself a secular status, while Israel was created for "Jews" - there are obviously very many factors involved.
South Korea~~~~~Liberal Democracy
Israel~~~~~~Liberal Democracy
Those are the main factors involved. You are right, there are various other factors like ethinic conflicts, casteism, regionalism, lack of civil society etc etc.
India cannot be compared with Israel since Israel is homogenous, very tiny, and has got a very talented population.
Compare India with its neighbours, and then perhaps we can have a better view.....
Having done that, you realize that the prime reason India is doing better than its neighbours is its secular principles.
You are digressing from the issue, belief in God and religion does no preclude the possibility for democracy, indeed they can flourish side by side quite well , and continue to in several countries -
ONLY in those countries which can manage to somehow keep back fundamentalists and prevent clerical interference in the state.
of course some interpretations do not allow for compatibility, but that again is a failing of humans in not reasoning properly and seeing where the long term benefits lie, and not a failing of religion.
Religion is the creation of humans. I don't see why it is needed in the first place. Why give something a pedestal that it doesn't deserve?
It has been shown that "modern society" is existing in harmony with religious beliefs in several societies, all the things you ascribe to modern society, as if they were the sole construct of atheistic thinking, are appreciated and by rational believers as well.
Modern society was built brick by brick, solely by atheistic and agnostic thinkers.
Most, if not all, principles of the modern society and thinking were laid by those who opposed religion or were apathetic towards it.
The majority of people as you say, simply "appreciate" it. They find it difficult to step outside the bounds of religion and think.
You keep missing the point about the power hungry - several examples have been given that a lack of "religion or God" did not prevent humans from committing some of the worst atrocities the world has ever seen. To simply argue against something because it "might" be used as justification is flawed reasoning - since the lack of "religion" has also resulted in millions dying, your logic can also be used to deny people the right to be atheists or secular.
I am not arguing that it
might be used as justification. I am arguing that it
is being used,
has been used since time immemorial, and
will be used in the future, for irrational acts of violence and irrational laws, crimes, ideologies, power.
The "lack of religion", as you put it, was never a deciding factor in any of the millions dying that you ascribe to it.
Lack of religion is not a panacea, but religion is a destructive force, thats all.
My logic cannot be used to deny the people the right to be secular, because secularism has never been used as a justification for crimes against humanity.
Same with atheism. There are no "interpretations" of atheism that encourage medieval thinking.
Whether people prefer to have faith in a deity or not is their own business, it is not up to us to tell them whether they need it or not.
I totally agree. But Abrahmic religions are public religions. It is very important to ensure that your neighbor worships the same god in these religions.
The "realities" of religion are, as I have maintained, a matter of perception, in your and Samudra's case they are case of "misperceptions".
If the majority of the people of a religion believe in something irrational that they claim to derive from their religion, they are to be taken seriously.
The realities of religion are the true face of religion, and nothing can change that. It hasn't changed for a thousand years and is unlikely to change now.
But you digress once again, you claimed that my hypothetical religion wasn't one, that is not true, the definition of religion indicates my religion to be in perfect harmony with it. What you think religion should be defined as is not what is being discussed.
I argued that religions as they are practically applied (and thus are the true religions, unlike your imaginary ones are by definition misused by politicians and fanatics alike.
It doesn't matter how ideal and brilliant your idea of a religion is, because it will never become a religion.
If we are to get into a discussion over Islam, I would prefer we do it in a different thread, so as to not confuse the discussion even more. Also, as I indicated earlier, I do not believe the Hadith to be infallible and a "contaminated" source of guidance. I would prefer if we stick with the Quran for making any points.
The Hadiths are used nevertheless, and nothing is gonna change that. By discarding the parts that you don't like, you are simply being fanciful.
Islam, Christianity et al are described by their actual practices on the ground, and not by some dreamed up version of them that noone believes in.
Also, your featureless "religion" cannot be proved to be against modern society for precisely the reason that it
doesn't have any of the salient features of a religion:
1. Priests
2. Rigid Rules and Rituals
3. Religious leaders
4. Iron clad rules to distinguish believers from non-believers
5. Fabulous rewards in this life and the next, for those who believe.
6. Eternal damnation to those who don't.
Quaint traditions are not the reasons for war - the reason is that humans utilize religion, tribe, race, belief system as a vehicle for hate. The fault is once again that of the person who cannot reason or think rationally enough, or chooses not to, to understand the sin of his actions.
Exactly, people are taught and trained to think like idiots by following irrational concepts throughout their life.
Religion, tribe, all form part of the belief system that discourages modern rational society.
Once Religion is out of the equation, people will look for atheistic explanations for their condition, which are far more robust and encourage rational thought.
So once again, religion is a prime culprit, if not the only culprit.
Yes religion has been used as a political tool. That is important, people have done this to religion, not the other way around (though of course there are cults out there that do preach evil).
Religion itself, by virtue of itself, is a political tool. If you look at a hammer, you can clearly see that it can be used to drive nails into a wall. Similarly, if you look at religion, its quite crystal clear that it is the perfect tool to further the political interests of the few smart a*sses who realize this.
Even if we do suppose for a moment that religion has been misused. Why do we need it in the first place? Why encourage something that can even potentially be misused, when it has no advantages whatsoever?
