Is Religion a good thing or a bad thing?

[fable]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fljotsdale Now this I entirely agree with, galraen! But I take into consideration that people BELIEVE in their gods as real people/entities/spirits/whatever,

True, they wouldn't be worshipers if they didn't.

Quote:

...and believe in the statements of their prophets as the very WORD of their gods;

Not the case at all, except in a very few religions. Which would be fine if you wanted to deal only with monotheistic literalists, but not if you're going to claim this is true of worshipers in general.

Quote:

...so we have to take it on face value that for believers the gods are real, not invented.

No, you have to take it on face value that the gods are real. For most believers, they simply are. More to the point, most believers aren't interested in proving any claims about their god/s. Problems arise specifically with a few religions that insist their beliefs are historically verifiable.

Unfortunately for us, we live in a time when a very few of those religions descended from one specific religious branch have a large number of adherents, and are very, very loud about in attempting to convince everybody of their truths.

Quote:

Even Buddhists have been known to fight each other!

The fault for not living up to our highest aspirations lies in ourselves, not necessarily our aspirations. Believe it or not, if you remove religion from the equation, people have been still known to go to war. A lot. All the time.

Quote:

Actually OBEYING the Ten Commandments/Sermon on the Mount or the moral codes of most other religions would produce a word population where there was no war, hunger, poverty, degredation, or harm to the environment. It'd be good.

No, they definitely wouldn't! Religions have absolutely nothing to do with relieving poverty, or hunger, or slavery. They are about how the relationship of an individual to a particular deity or deities is to occur. That's bottom line. The precepts of a prophet or a godly avatar are attempts to formulate standards by which humans may live with one another in societies, but these are separate from the religion as a whole. And really, this kind of advice is an aberration among religions, too. See above.

And those 10 commandments? There aren't 10, there are over 100. Those are only the first 10. And some of them...? Like stoning to death a person who wears cloth woven from two different kinds of thread...? Do you really think that would bring peace on earth? I'm thinking the codification of 4000 year old cultural laws of a renegade Babylonian herder tribe are that tribe's business. If they and their ideological descendants want to make it mine, then the fault doesn't lie with a god, but with the way people have since time immemorial thought they always knew what was best for their neighbors. And that's as true for atheists and agnostics as it is for worshipers.

[Fljotsdale]

Quote:

Originally Posted by fable Not the case at all, except in a very few religions. Which would be fine if you wanted to deal only with monotheistic literalists, but not if you're going to claim this is true of worshipers in general.

Primarily monotheistic. But that doesn't let out the others by any means! After all, what's the point of a priest or shaman if he/she isn't a direct link to the god?

Quote:

Originally Posted by fable No, you have to take it on face value that the gods are real.

Why? The existence/non-existence of a god or gods is totally unverifiable, so taking the existence of a god/gods on face value as real is a bit... unrealistic. Besides, there are so darn MANY of 'em! And a lot of 'em are THE ONE TRUE GOD in the view of their adherants.

Quote:

Originally Posted by fable For most believers, they simply are. More to the point, most believers aren't interested in proving any claims about their god/s.

True. They sit back and take the word of some human. It's easier than thinking...

Quote:

Originally Posted by fable Problems arise specifically with a few religions that insist their beliefs are historically verifiable.

This is also to a large extent true. Not totally, but to a large extent. Did you miss the point I made about Hinduism (as an example)?

Quote:

Originally Posted by fable Unfortunately for us, we live in a time when a very few of those religions descended from one specific religious branch have a large number of adherents, and are very, very loud about in attempting to convince everybody of their truths.

True. But how about the peoples the Aztecs slaughtered (for example) when they took over the land from the previous inhabitants? They were not affiliated with any Abrahamic religion, but they appear to have been just as murderous a lot as those the Hebrews took over from. Pagans are not always 'nice' either!

Quote:

Originally Posted by fable The fault for not living up to our highest aspirations lies in ourselves, not necessarily our aspirations. Believe it or not, if you remove religion from the equation, people have been still known to go to war. A lot. All the time.

True. Never said they didn't! Just pointing out that religion is/has always been, a huge factor in warfare.

Quote:

Originally Posted by fable No, they definitely wouldn't! Religions have absolutely nothing to do with relieving poverty, or hunger, or slavery. They are about the state of an individual and their relationship to a particular deity or deities. That's all.

Wrong. May be true of some religions, but the Sermon on the Mount teaches love for god and one's fellow men as primary, ahead of all other things. If you love people you do not let them starve, murder them wage war against them, steal from them. You place the care of your fellow creatures only second to your love of god and your obedience to him. Alongside that, you have to care for your environment, because your environment is what sustains the life of your fellow men, and besides which, in Genesis, the biblical god told man to CARE for the earth and the creatures of the earth.

Quote:

Originally Posted by fable The precepts of a prophet or a godly avatar are attempts to formulate standards by which humans may live with one another in societies, but these are separate from the religion as a whole. And really, this kind of advice is an aberration among religions, too. See above. And those 10 commandments? There aren't 10, there are over 100.

True. The Ten Commandments were a concise summary of the body of the Law.

Quote:

Originally Posted by fable Those are only the first 10. And some of them...? Like stoning to death a person who wears cloth woven from two different kinds of thread...? Do you really think that would bring peace on earth?

No. that's one of the things (one of many!) that made me start thinking the biblical god was a bit of a bastard!
Jesus Sermon on the Mount was much better. We are told that Jesus is the very personification of the god of the Hebrews. He ain't. Not by any means. But the Christianised Jews of the first century very quickly turned him into a Jahweh figure in Revelation. They really loved the idea, seems to me, of a nasty vengeful god who took pleasure in killing off his own creations.

Quote:

Originally Posted by fable I'm thinking the codification of 4000 year old cultural laws of a renegade Babylonian herder tribe are that tribe's business. If they want to make it mine, then the fault doesn't lie with a god, but with the way people have since time immemorial thought they always knew what was best for their neighbors.

And often what the god OUGHT to have done/thought, imo!

[fable]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fljotsdale Primarily monotheistic. But that doesn't let out the others by any means! After all, what's the point of a priest or shaman if he/she isn't a direct link to the god?

You're thinking about this anachronistically. In most religious traditions, priests aren't direct links to gods, but leaders trained in the rites necessary to purify themselves and contact the gods: a very different thing. (Shamans are usually holy crazy men, who trade community services in exchange for offering magic and insights.) And again, in most traditions, priests don't lead their communities. In fact, in some communities (for example, most Doric Greek worship) the priests and priestesses were community elected positions for a period of time, usually with no re-election of the same candidate immediately possible. Religious was seen as inseparable from the polis, and from the hearth, and the three were managed in at least some respects much the same way--because the temple, the city, and the home were all literally holy.

In fact, even among Muslims, the various schools of religious law differ greatly in their readings of some important teachings, and among Shi'ite Muslims the various Ayatollahs issue religious edifts that regularly contradict one another. They are not viewed as holy links to their god, but rather, as learned men attempting to interpret the word of their god properly.

Quote:

Why? The existence/non-existence of a god or gods is totally unverifiable...

Yes, yes, yes: I made a mistake in my sentence, there! When I wrote, "No, you have to take it on face value that the gods are real," I meant to write, "No, you have to take it on face value that to them the gods are real." That's all.

Quote:

Fable: For most believers, they simply are. More to the point, most believers aren't interested in proving any claims about their god/s. Fljotsdale: True. They sit back and take the word of some human. It's easier than thinking...

I was trying to point out that most believers simply don't think they need to convince you of what is a matter of faith to them, because it is 1) ultimately unverifiable physically, and 2) a matter of respecting you to arrive at your own conclusions of what works for yourself. You seem to have twisted this around, somehow.

Quote:

True. But how about the peoples the Aztecs slaughtered (for example) when they took over the land from the previous inhabitants? They were not affiliated with any Abrahamic religion, but they appear to have been just as murderous a lot as those the Hebrews took over from. Pagans are not always 'nice' either!

Um, yeah, and...? We also have plenty of wars over everything under the sun, from differences in currency to terrain resources to skin color to physical height to language. I guess all of those should be banished! -Or maybe the problem is simply humanity. Yeah, that sounds good.

Quote:

Fable: No, they definitely wouldn't! Religions have absolutely nothing to do with relieving poverty, or hunger, or slavery. They are about the state of an individual and their relationship to a particular deity or deities. That's all. Fljotsdale: Wrong. May be true of some religions, but the Sermon on the Mount teaches love for god and one's fellow men as primary, ahead of all other things. If you love people you do not let them starve...

But your thread is about religion, not about the cultural values of individual religious avatars. The religion, Christianity, is not about the Sermon on the Mount. It is about accepting a set of precepts that include Jesus Christ as one's personal savior, and as god. That's it. I'm not suggesting the values you mention are unimportant, but they don't actually define what sets apart the religion known as Christianity from, say, Judaism. After all, quite a lot of Jews also like and follow the instructions of the Sermon on the Mount, and quite a few atheists I know, too.

I wish we had one of the Ta Hiera folks or a Kermeticist to discuss their knowledge of Doric Greek and Late Kingdom Egyptian religions, respectively. They're modern worshipers, but many of them do have a very deep understanding of those respective polytheistic faiths. They might help provide an outside framework for challenging the modern Judeo-Christian ideas that are being discussed here as though they were representative somehow of all religions in all places and times.

[Fljotsdale]

Quote:

Originally Posted by fable You're thinking about this anachronistically. In most religious traditions, priests aren't direct links to gods,

Not your ordinary everyday community priest, no - or at least, not these days! But the High Priests/Priestesses of all religions that had 'em were seen as such. As for example (since it's the one I know best) the biblical High Priest was the only one allowed into The Holy of Holies to commune with god. I wonder what he really did in there...?

Quote:

Originally Posted by fable but leaders trained in the rites necessary to purify themselves and contact the gods: a very different thing. (Shamans are usually holy crazy men, who trade community services in exchange for offering magic and insights.)

But shamans are usually, even today, believed implicitly by their communities, because they hear the voice of god/s. Or so I understand. I haven't researched Shamanism, I only know the bits you pick up from reading and other media.

Quote:

Originally Posted by fable And again, in most traditions, priests don't lead their communities.

Again, not the ordinary clergyman in the local Western Christian church (although in times past the case was different, The local priest was a powerful man), but the Pope is supposedby his flock to be infallible, even if he contradicts the bible, so the flock obey (hopefully!) what he says. It is not the same for Protestant religions as a general rule, but The Greek and Russian Orthodox churches have a similar arrangement to Catholicism.

Quote:

Originally Posted by fable In fact, in some communities (for example, most Doric Greek worship) the priests and priestesses were community elected positions for a period of time, usually with no re-election of the same candidate immediately possible. Religious was seen as inseparable from the polis, and from the hearth, and the three were managed in at least some respects much the same way--because the temple, the city, and the home were all literally holy.

This is something I know virtually nothing about - only stuff picked up from classic literature and stuff. I bow to your superior knowledge in this.

Quote:

Originally Posted by fable In fact, even among Muslims, the various schools of religious law differ greatly in their readings of some important teachings, and among Shi'ite Muslims the various Ayatollahs issue religious edifts that regularly contradict one another. They are not viewed as holy links to their god, but rather, as learned men attempting to interpret the word of their god properly.

Then I wonder why they are are so good at inflaming the passions of some followers to the extent that they are willing to both kill and die for their GOD - not the ayatollah?

Quote:

Originally Posted by fable Yes, yes, yes: I made a mistake in my sentence, there! When I wrote, "No, you have to take it on face value that the gods are real," I meant to write, "No, you have to take it on face value that to them the gods are real." That's all.

okay.

Quote:

Originally Posted by fable I was trying to point out that most believers simply don't think they need to convince you of what is a matter of faith to them, because it is 1) ultimately unverifiable physically, and 2) a matter of respecting you to arrive at your own conclusions of what works for yourself. You seem to have twisted this around, somehow.

Um... no, I don't THINK I was twisting anything. Maybe just not understanding the point you were making.
But anyway, I have conversed at length with many professing and sincere believers (mostly Christian, Jewish, and Muslim I have to admit), and they are often perfectly willing to converse about their religion, and many (especially Muslims) try to convert me to their religion, and they only come out with that answer - "It's a matter of faith" - when they feel they are on shaky ground.

Quote:

Originally Posted by fable Um, yeah, and...? We also have plenty of wars over everything under the sun, from differences in currency to terrain resources to skin color to physical height to language. I guess all of those should be banished! -Or maybe the problem is simply humanity. Yeah, that sounds good.

Humanity? Yeah. I'd go with that. After all, we come from the same line as Chimps, and we have all seen tv footage of just how savage they can be...

Quote:

Originally Posted by fable But your thread is about religion, not about the cultural values of individual religious avatars. The religion, Christianity, is not about the Sermon on the Mount.

Really?! But what Jesus said in that sermon was absolutely central to his teaching! How can Christianity NOT be about the Sermon on the Mount? I grant you it ISN'T, but it certainly SHOULD be!

Quote:

Originally Posted by fable It is about accepting a set of precepts that include Jesus Christ as one's personal savior, and as god. That's it. I'm not suggesting the values you mention are unimportant, but they don't actually define what sets apart the religion known as Christianity from, say, Judaism.

But it does. Totally. This bit about "accepting Jesus as one's personal Saviour and God" is a bandwagon to easy entry to heaven for those too damn lazy to realise that following Jesus' teachings , not merely accepting his sacrifice, is damn hard work. That's like saying accepting a book of instructions on building a fence is the same as building the fence.

Quote:

Originally Posted by fable After all, quite a lot of Jews also like and follow the instructions of the Sermon on the Mount, and quite a few atheists I know, too.

Yeah, me too, and I'm an Antitheist.

Quote:

Originally Posted by fable I wish we had one of the Ta Hiera folks or a Kermeticist to discuss their knowledge of Doric Greek and Late Kingdom Egyptian religions, respectively. They're modern worshipers, but many of them do have a very deep understanding of those respective polytheistic faiths. They might help provide an outside framework for challenging the modern Judeo-Christian ideas that are being discussed here as though they were representative somehow of all religions in all places and times.

That would be really interesting. D'you know any you could con into visiting us?

[Bloodstalker]

It seems a little odd to me that religion is getting so much credit for war. The vast percentage of wars fought have historically had very little to do with religion. Even when they have had a religious element, such as the Crusades or the whole Middle East/terrorism thing, the primary motivations for the war are secular concerns wrapped up in a religious cloak. If you look at most wars, even most religious wars, you can find real political factors that motivate them and that wouldn't disappear simply because you take religion out of the equation. If it wasn't religion, it would be something else to further the cause in its place.

[endboss]

Quote:

Originally Posted by fable If your statement reads seriously, as it does here, and you don't use emoticons, then, well--draw your own conclusions. But really, most people don't know anything about Norse pagan worshiping patterns, so why should I assume you do? Hell, I didn't for the longest time, until I ran across some Norse revivalist neo-religion types and their recommendations for academic reading. And you'd better believe those revivalists of all stripes (Greek, Egyptian, etc) go into the scholarly stuff deep.

Well I figured that since in the previous paragraph I had just said how all religions are made up and ludicrous...

Anyways, I know exactly what you're talking about when they go deep. After abandoning Christianity I was a Hellenistic Reconstructionist for a little while. Ironically, they chastise the Abrahamic religions for ignoring the clearly immoral and ludicrous aspects of their faith while ignoring the parallels in their own. Religions today are led by very smart people doing very stupid things.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bloodstalker It seems a little odd to me that religion is getting so much credit for war. The vast percentage of wars fought have historically had very little to do with religion. Even when they have had a religious element, such as the Crusades or the whole Middle East/terrorism thing, the primary motivations for the war are secular concerns wrapped up in a religious cloak. If you look at most wars, even most religious wars, you can find real political factors that motivate them and that wouldn't disappear simply because you take religion out of the equation. If it wasn't religion, it would be something else to further the cause in its place.

It's because the infantry is recruited and the population convinced through the guise of religion, after religion has turned them into intellectual zombies. But actually I do think people take this "war of economics" view too seriously in an attempt to remove the blame from religions. Wealth has been a major factor of course, but religion has equally been so, and it clouds the minds of leaders and causes them to do unspeakable things that they can easily justify to themselves.

[Bloodstalker]

Quote:

Originally Posted by endboss It's because the infantry is recruited and the population convinced through the guise of religion, after religion has turned them into intellectual zombies. But actually I do think people take this "war of economics" view too seriously in an attempt to remove the blame from religions. Wealth has been a major factor of course, but religion has equally been so, and it clouds the minds of leaders and causes them to do unspeakable things that they can easily justify to themselves.

And if religion wasn't an available resource to use to cause people to flock to the cause, something else would be. Racial prejudice, differing systems of government and ideologies that have nothing to do with religion, class conflicts, and many other things serve the same purpose.The Greco-Persian Wars, Peloponessian War, Alexanders conquests, Punic Wars and most other Roman conquests, English- Scottish wars, 100 Years War, Napoleon, American Revolution, WW1, WW2, Korea, Vietnam and a long list of other wars that far outnumber religious conflicts all had very little to do with religion, including using religion as a recruiting tools as the primary means of filling the ranks.

I've also never really subscribed to the war of economics view. I tend to not subscribe to any theory that tries to tie a broad range of historical events with no real connection to each other together under a common theme simply to try to explain away why they happen. It's sloppy and lazy history in my opinion and usually winds up falling apart when you get into the aspects of individual events.

[endboss]

Yes, well there will always be wars, but religions cause extra wars than would be necessary, and they foster the most ridiculous reasons for all the killing. All the conflicts you listed had firm basis in reality and progress was actually made through them.

More than wars though, the biggest conflict religions cause is within societies. We we speak of religious wars, more often that not it seems we're speaking about the instability and prejudices that they cause on a daily basis.

[Ode to a Grasshopper]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fljotsdale I like the idea of a Pasta-farian!

Then ye be in fer a treat, ye scurvy seawench - ours be the best religion evarrr. RAmen.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fljotsdale Not your ordinary everyday community priest, no - or at least, not these days! But the High Priests/Priestesses of all religions that had 'em were seen as such. As for example (since it's the one I know best) the biblical High Priest was the only one allowed into The Holy of Holies to commune with god. I wonder what he really did in there...?

Small bo...No! Bad Odie - Thoughtful thread...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fljotsdale Humanity? Yeah. I'd go with that. After all, we come from the same line as Chimps, and we have all seen tv footage of just how savage they can be...

Ermm...sorry, you do watch/read the news right? I don't think we need to bring chimps into this, vicious little buggers though they are. No offence but in a thread about religion being a good/bad thing to point to chimps as proof of humanity being nasty pieces of work seems to be kinda superfluous.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fljotsdale Really?! But what Jesus said in that sermon was absolutely central to his teaching! How can Christianity NOT be about the Sermon on the Mount? I grant you it ISN'T, but it certainly SHOULD be!

One of the foremost pieces of eight...um, wisdom, my tender years have bestowed me is this: Should have, Would have, and Could have are all things that never happened. The world of Should/Would/Could and the World of Is can never be the same.

[fable]

Quote:

Originally Posted by endboss Yes, well there will always be wars, but religions cause extra wars than would be necessary, and they foster the most ridiculous reasons for all the killing.

So you're saying that if Culture A was next the very different Culture B, who had access to plenty of wealth, and Culture A was the same religion instead of different from Culture B, the former wouldn't attack the latter. Because they'd never have any reason to want seaports, or access to iron mines, or control over cities, or gold, etc.

Quote:

More than wars though, the biggest conflict religions cause is within societies. We we speak of religious wars, more often that not it seems we're speaking about the instability and prejudices that they cause on a daily basis.

If history shows us anything worth noting, it's that if you remove any differences between two peoples, they will very quickly find others that cause conflict and can be used to promote wars by their clever leaders. Caesar didn't even have religious reasons for his wars on the Franks: he acknowledges their religious similarities. His goal for battle? The might of Rome, and personal ambition. The two world wars, that killed more people than all other wars, combined? Not fought for religion. Prejudice takes infinite forms.

[fable]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fljotsdale Not your ordinary everyday community priest, no - or at least, not these days! But the High Priests/Priestesses of all religions that had 'em were seen as such. As for example (since it's the one I know best) the biblical High Priest was the only one allowed into The Holy of Holies to commune with god. I wonder what he really did in there...?

But again, you're thinking only of Orthodox Judaism and Christianity, and specifically of the various Catholic churches (of which there are several, though the Roman Catholics strongly outnumber the rest) in the latter. It's also true of some forms of Hinduism on the Indian subcontinent, where the pernicious practice of castes still remains a major issue. But in many other religions, the priest doesn't have the sole patent on communing with the god/s. The priest is the one with the time to learn and do all the rites necessary for the community, which is a fulltime job. But any individual can and usually does have a direct line to the deities. For example, in Ancient Rome, there were many temples--Romans prided themselves on their "tolerance"--but each home had its household gods, which included several in the temples, and several that weren't. Anybody could provide a quick gift to a god at home, pray to or commune with them, and hope for results. The temples were more for special civic rites, blessings upon the nation as a whole, auguries, etc.

Quote:

But shamans are usually, even today, believed implicitly by their communities, because they hear the voice of god/s. Or so I understand. I haven't researched Shamanism, I only know the bits you pick up from reading and other media.

Shamans aren't believed by everybody. Shamans are the slightly mad types who break down the vale between ordered culture and some other level of reality. They function differently in different cultures. But they are not cultural leaders, or heads of religions. They are isolated specialists.

[endboss]

Quote:

Originally Posted by fable So you're saying that if Culture A was next the very different Culture B, who had access to plenty of wealth, and Culture A was the same religion instead of different from Culture B, the former wouldn't attack the latter. Because they'd never have any reason to want seaports, or access to iron mines, or control over cities, or gold, etc. If history shows us anything worth noting, it's that if you remove any differences between two peoples, they will very quickly find others that cause conflict and can be used to promote wars by their clever leaders. Caesar didn't even have religious reasons for his wars on the Franks: he acknowledges their religious similarities. His goal for battle? The might of Rome, and personal ambition. The two world wars, that killed more people than all other wars, combined? Not fought for religion. Prejudice takes infinite forms.

All I said was that religion was a stupid reason for war, not that if we removed it it would eliminate all wars. I also said religious wars tends to be used as a blanket term for all the suffering religion has caused, not that it would eliminate all suffering. In fact, what you say I said is the exact opposite of what I was saying, and you're attacking a point I didn't even make.

[fable]

Quote:

Originally Posted by endboss All I said was that religion was a stupid reason for war, not that if we removed it it would eliminate all wars. I also said religious wars tends to be used as a blanket term for all the suffering religion has caused, not that it would eliminate all suffering. In fact, what you say I said is the exact opposite of what I was saying, and you're attacking a point I didn't even make.

When you wrote,

Quote:

Yes, well there will always be wars, but religions cause extra wars than would be necessary, and they foster the most ridiculous reasons for all the killing.

...it looks to me as though you're saying "religion causes extra wars than would be necessary," because that's what you said. You may have meant it some other way, Endboss, but I don't honestly see I could have otherwise taken it.

You also wrote that the reasons behind religious war are "the most ridiculous," because again, that's what you wrote. But the reasons behind religious wars are no more or less ridiculous than rulers sending tens of thousands of men to their deaths because they want an extra port, or free access rights to a trading town. Note, I'm not saying the reasons behind religious wars are good--just that the reasons for starting nearly every war (there are, regrettably, exceptions) is bad.

[endboss]

Quote:

Originally Posted by fable When you wrote, ...it looks to me as though you're saying "religion causes extra wars than would be necessary," because that's what you said. You may have meant it some other way, Endboss, but I don't honestly see I could have otherwise taken it. You also wrote that the reasons behind religious war are "the most ridiculous," because again, that's what you wrote. But the reasons behind religious wars are no more or less ridiculous than rulers sending tens of thousands of men to their deaths because they want an extra port, or free access rights to a trading town. Note, I'm not saying the reasons behind religious wars are good--just that the reasons for starting nearly every war (there are, regrettably, exceptions) is bad.

Yes, religion causes extra wars than would be necessary. I do feel they are the most ridiculous because at least when land or gold is seized there is a tangible benefit to one side. No, I am not saying wars are good or necessary, only that they serve a real purpose instead of an imagined one, and at least make some sense (even if it is very primitive and barbaric).

[Xandax]

Well - at the core, I do believe religion to be a "bad thing" (as understating as that term might be).
For me, religion is nothing more then a method of keeping the status quo, of keeping control. "Don't question your place, because you'll be rewarded in the afterlife" type control. Why rise up and demand better things when a book tells you to accept it. Why work to enhance yourself and your life, if that leads to suffering. And so on.....
Plus it is a weapon against those who're different.
Unfortunately though - it, like so many other bad things, seems to be a necessary thing for large portions of humans.

However, as many other things I view as "bad", I accept and can respect that other people have those needs/desires and as such feel the need/want to follow some religious dogma or what not - as long as they keep them private and do not use them to harm other people or as reason to do so.

But at the core, I can't view religions as anything positive because of all the evil things done in the name of them/with them as justification.
If there truly were God(s) out there they surely must be sadistic to allow what goes on.