Is Religion a Bad thing?

[haas mark]

And what about paganism? WHich simply discourages organized religion...

Actually paganism depending on what variant you are referring to can be a VERY organised religion, they merely lack the monotheistic and church-defined ideals of western christianity leading to these generalisations.

Wicca and Witchcraft in general...but a fundie can actually say that any religion outside their own is paganism...so there! *sticks tongue out at you rudely*

[Nick]

My rules for sensible religion (as coined, umm, a coupla days ago in another thread):

1. Reality wins. If belief and observation come into conflict, then modify the belief (note that this does not mean ideals must be suborned by practical concerns - but the practical concerns should be confronted, rather than ignored).

2. Don't be an annoying prat. Live and let live. Respect other's views (unless they're breaking rule 1, in which case feel free to lay into them for being stupid if they insist on airing their views in a public forum).

[weemadando]

And what about paganism? WHich simply discourages organized religion...

Actually paganism depending on what variant you are referring to can be a VERY organised religion, they merely lack the monotheistic and church-defined ideals of western christianity leading to these generalisations.

Wicca and Witchcraft in general...but a fundie can actually say that any religion outside their own is paganism...so there! *sticks tongue out at you rudely*

Gaaaargh! FUNDIE LOGIC! *begins brutally attacking monitor*

[haas mark]

Actually paganism depending on what variant you are referring to can be a VERY organised religion, they merely lack the monotheistic and church-defined ideals of western christianity leading to these generalisations.

Wicca and Witchcraft in general...but a fundie can actually say that any religion outside their own is paganism...so there! *sticks tongue out at you rudely*

Gaaaargh! FUNDIE LOGIC! *begins brutally attacking monitor*

Fundamentalist -- Anyone with the deep-seeded idea that someone, somewhere might be having fun.

[IRG CommandoJoe]

If the world had never had religion, it wouldn't have inspired composers to write a lot of classical music. That's not a good thing...at least to me.

[haas mark]

If the world had never had religion, it wouldn't have inspired composers to write a lot of classical music. That's not a good thing...at least to me.

Ditto that one.

[lgot]

Religion or dogmatic belief has lead to some of the most tragic and beneficial events in human history.

How can you write it off as a nothing?

Look at the world trade center you!

Yeah, I look and see the result of a radicalism, intolerant, destructive group and religion is just a excuse for this as the USA intervention there used the "morality" to excuse this. The man, the group is the evil, not the set of writings.
Religion is a cultural product like any other. Radicals can do evil in the name of politic, religion, economy, soccer team, music taste, etc.
In the end all this stuff is nothing, just a excuse to those things.
Close to ignorance and radicalism , religion is nothing, just a reflex of those societies.

And how do you counter the fact that many of today's religions are the society? Defined and accepted as the society?

I am so tempted to let you have it.

Culture is defined as religious beliefs in many lands today.

I do not understand your first phrase. Even in the most radical teocracies, Religion is not the society just a part of it. There is religious societies, but they are just a part of the bigger scenario...

If they define this they are either

a - wrong because religious beliefs are a derivation of a society and a reflex of that culture
b - making a reference to artist production perhaps, which can be limited only to religious themes. Which does not mean they do not show something extra or that art is the only cultural aspect of any society.

[Jack Lain]

"Yeah, I look and see the result of a radicalism, intolerant, destructive group and religion is just a excuse for this as the USA intervention there used the "morality" to excuse this. The man, the group is the evil, not the set of writings.
Religion is a cultural product like any other. Radicals can do evil in the name of politic, religion, economy, soccer team, music taste, etc.
In the end all this stuff is nothing, just a excuse to those things.
Close to ignorance and radicalism , religion is nothing, just a reflex of those societies."

I do not understand your reply. You say in your initial post that
"religion is just one more cultural product of human societies. Human societies can be evil or good. Religion is just nothing, a pale reflex of a society" I counter with the fact that religion is the society of cultures today and in the past. The society did not create the religion, the religious beliefs created the society. Modern day Islam shows this. If we look back in history we can look to the Aztecs, Jews, Early Greeks, Egyptians, Indus Valley and American Indians and show that there is no separation between the religious beliefs and the practices of the society. You seem to have missed the point of my reply to you. I think that you have read to much Marx.

For your not understanding my second post. I think I just answered it above. But I will say it again. Religion and Society are the same entity in our time. There are many examples of past times that also fit. To claim that religion is somehow grown as an amorphous thing out of society is wrong. You are ignoring massive amounts of history with that comment, not to include the recent attacks on the US. Which are terrorist operating under a religious system of belief. Their religion allows them to act this way. Not the reverse. The society or culture actually condemns their behavior. The religion celebrates it.

This is the point of my post in reply to your original post. To claim that society somehow spawns religion is wrong. If you reverse it, that religons can spawn societies, sure. I agree with that. But you are incorrect with your first post. There are too many societies that exist both today and in the past to make a statment that even suggests that somehow Religion is the opium of the masses. Marx was wrong.

As for beneficial results of religion, the name Mother Teresa should be enough for you. To see her as anything other than a religiously inspired person who did good is false. She did not give her life to helping people because society or culture told her to. In fact, the opposite is much more easily argued. She gave her life to helping others because of her religious beliefs. Another person has stated something similar about music. You cannot aruge this point.

I can argue effectively that the culture is a product of the religious beliefs of a region or religous beliefs of a group of people. Not the reverse as you have stated in your second post. Do you really believe that a bunch of folks sat around a fire one night and said, "Hey joe, lets call ourselves jews."
And joe answered "Sure why not?"
Tom stood and said, "Listen up everybody, from this day forward we are jews!"
Bullshit, they were brought together by their religious beliefs first and the Jewish tradition developed from the belief set. Not the reverse.

You state that the writings are good, but the people are bad? Find a fault with this: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. If people followed this fundamental rule of behavior, would we see any atrocity?

Religion is not a societal byproduct. In many many cases, the society is the byproduct of the gathering of people who believe in the same god, dogma and system of behavior. Religion came before laws. Hamurabi had a god, before he had a codex. Religion across this globe and throughout history has spawned both society and culture. Not the reverse. Of course we will see the opposite, Marx. But that is not nearly as prevelent as the former.

Finally, I would love to see this; Please try to explain the crusades as a result of culture or society and not a religous belief. If you can do that, I will concede. Your best bet here will be to examine trade and money as your opening and try to tell me that economics is the reason for the crusades, not a call against the heretics.

[Mr Bean]

Sigh hate to bring the bearer of bad news fokes but here we go, Oh but its not the writings fault? When refering to Christinaity/Judasim thats the biggest load of bull-shit ever concived

Let me go line by line as this is a little cursade of mine

Yeah, I look and see the result of a radicalism, intolerant, destructive group and religion is just a excuse for this as the USA intervention there used the "morality" to excuse this. The man, the group is the evil, not the set of writings.

The same group of writings which Condon Radsisim, raciest, Murder and Inceset?
How can you call them not evil? Oh and I'll have examples below

I do not understand your first phrase. Even in the most radical teocracies, Religion is not the society just a part of it. There is religious societies, but they are just a part of the bigger scenario...

Iran, all the Laws are directly concived from the Koran, The goverment is religious leaders. The Philopines, Many of the laws are from the Koran, Europe and the US, the fact most business are open only from 1:5? A Christian Infulence, Infact many of our *moraility laws are thanks to Chrisitanity

As for beneficial results of religion, the name Mother Teresa should be enough for you. To see her as anything other than a religiously inspired person who did good is false. She did not give her life to helping people because society or culture told her to. In fact, the opposite is much more easily argued. She gave her life to helping others because of her religious beliefs. Another person has stated something similar about music. You cannot aruge this point.

Mother Teresa... Intresting example, she along with many others are the reason millions are diying from AIDS because of her *religion
Sure she helped maybe all told a million people. But because of her and those like her over fourty million people will die in the next five years....



I'll combine these two

You state that the writings are good, but the people are bad? Find a fault with this: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. If people followed this fundamental rule of behavior, would we see any atrocity?

Finally, I would love to see this; Please try to explain the crusades as a result of culture or society and not a religous belief. If you can do that, I will concede. Your best bet here will be to examine trade and money as your opening and try to tell me that economics is the reason for the crusades, not a call against the heretics.

I'll just use these handy quotes....

Exdos 15:3
The LORD is a god of war: the LORD is his name

Exdos: 21:17
And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death

Exdos
22:18 Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.

22:19
Whosoever lieth with a beast shall surely be put to death.

22:20
He that sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the LORD only, he shall be utterly destroyed.

Exdos: 21:24
Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,

Leviticus 20:10
And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.

Leviticus 24:14
Bring forth him that hath cursed without the camp; and let all that heard him lay their hands upon his head, and let all the congregation stone him.

24:15
And thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel, saying, Whosoever curseth his God shall bear his sin.

24:16
And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of the Lord, shall be put to death.

Deuteronomy 3:3
So the LORD our God delivered into our hands Og also, the king of Bashan, and all his people: and we smote him until none was left to him remaining.

3:6
And we utterly destroyed them, as we did unto Sihon king of Heshbon, utterly destroying the men, women, and children, of every city.

Deuteronomy 7:2
And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them:

7:3
Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son.

7:4
For they will turn away thy son from following me, that they may serve other gods: so will the anger of the LORD be kindled against you, and destroy thee suddenly.

7:5
But thus shall ye deal with them; ye shall destroy their altars, and break down their images, and cut down their groves, and burn their graven images with fire.

Deuteronomy 13:1
If there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth thee a sign or a wonder,

13:2
And the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spake unto thee, saying, Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them;


13:3
Thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams: for the LORD your God proveth you, to know whether ye love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul.

13:4
Ye shall walk after the LORD your God, and fear him, and keep his commandments, and obey his voice, and ye shall serve him, and cleave unto him.

13:5
And that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death; because he hath spoken to turn you away from the LORD your God, which brought you out of the land of Egypt, and redeemed you out of the house of bondage, to thrust thee out of the way which the LORD thy God commanded thee to walk in. So shalt thou put the evil away from the midst of thee.

13:6
If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers;

13:7
Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth;

13:8
Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him:

13:9
But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people.

13:10
And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the LORD thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage.

13:11
And all Israel shall hear, and fear, and shall do no more any such wickedness as this is among you.

13:12
If thou shalt hear say in one of thy cities, which the LORD thy God hath given thee to dwell there, saying,

13:13
Certain men, the children of Belial, are gone out from among you, and have withdrawn the inhabitants of their city, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which ye have not known;

13:14
Then shalt thou enquire, and make search, and ask diligently; and, behold, if it be truth, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought among you;

13:15
Thou shalt surely smite the inhabitants of that city with the edge of the sword, destroying it utterly, and all that is therein, and the cattle thereof, with the edge of the sword.

I hope I've proven my point, The Bible and Tora are FILLED with examples of Genocide, Racsiem and other nasty things, If you want I can drag up my new testmate examples to or get my Koran examples

Is it nessary for you to grasp the point?

[Darth Wong]

For your not understanding my second post. I think I just answered it above. But I will say it again. Religion and Society are the same entity in our time. There are many examples of past times that also fit. To claim that religion is somehow grown as an amorphous thing out of society is wrong. You are ignoring massive amounts of history with that comment, not to include the recent attacks on the US. Which are terrorist operating under a religious system of belief. Their religion allows them to act this way. Not the reverse. The society or culture actually condemns their behavior. The religion celebrates it.

Religion and society are not synonymous. It is possible to have a society which is not religious. Similarly, it is possible to have a religion that spans many cultures (Christianity, the great chameleon-faith, is proof of that). These facts disproves your assertion.

This is the point of my post in reply to your original post. To claim that society somehow spawns religion is wrong. If you reverse it, that religons can spawn societies, sure. I agree with that. But you are incorrect with your first post. There are too many societies that exist both today and in the past to make a statment that even suggests that somehow Religion is the opium of the masses. Marx was wrong.

No. Organized religion cannot exist without a societal structure to propagate it. Its boundaries tend to be the boundaries of that society, unless the religion alters itself to suit whatever society it encounters (see Christianity, the great chameleon-faith).

As for beneficial results of religion, the name Mother Teresa should be enough for you. To see her as anything other than a religiously inspired person who did good is false. She did not give her life to helping people because society or culture told her to. In fact, the opposite is much more easily argued. She gave her life to helping others because of her religious beliefs. Another person has stated something similar about music. You cannot aruge this point.

Yes you can. Mother Theresa was a bitch. Most of the money she took was spent on proselytizing, not medical care. Her "clinics" had almost no medical equipment; they were full of nuns and people who would "attend" to the dying by trying to make them convert before the end. She took 3 million dollars of S&L money in return for making an entreaty to the President of the US for a pardon and refused to give it back when the California District Attorney informed her that it was stolen. The people under her "care" died in squalor but when she had health problems herself, she jetted off to the finest medical facilities in the world. The "Mother Theresa is a saint" myth is nothing more than pop culture bullshit and lemminglike, uncritical celebrity adoration.

I can argue effectively that the culture is a product of the religious beliefs of a region or religous beliefs of a group of people. Not the reverse as you have stated in your second post. Do you really believe that a bunch of folks sat around a fire one night and said, "Hey joe, lets call ourselves jews."
And joe answered "Sure why not?"
Tom stood and said, "Listen up everybody, from this day forward we are jews!"
Bullshit, they were brought together by their religious beliefs first and the Jewish tradition developed from the belief set. Not the reverse.

Wrong. A disassociated group of people do not COINCIDENTALLY come up with the same belief system on their own. They are already a tribal unit, and their collective belief system becomes an organized religion. How do you think a religion propagates without a pre-existing social unit in which it will spread? Do you think a hundred thousand people all had the same revelation about the same God and the same Scriptures and decided to get together for that reason?

You state that the writings are good, but the people are bad? Find a fault with this: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. If people followed this fundamental rule of behavior, would we see any atrocity?

Yes, if those people believe that it's possible to "love" someone while killing them, which is what they think God does in the Old Testament.

Religion is not a societal byproduct. In many many cases, the society is the byproduct of the gathering of people who believe in the same god, dogma and system of behavior. Religion came before laws. Hamurabi had a god, before he had a codex. Religion across this globe and throughout history has spawned both society and culture. Not the reverse. Of course we will see the opposite, Marx. But that is not nearly as prevelent as the former.

Nonsense. A religion cannot exist without a society to spread its beliefs. No two people will independently come up with the same religion.

Finally, I would love to see this; Please try to explain the crusades as a result of culture or society and not a religous belief. If you can do that, I will concede. Your best bet here will be to examine trade and money as your opening and try to tell me that economics is the reason for the crusades, not a call against the heretics.

The crusades were obviously caused by religion. But I think you're seriously off-base with your strange assertion that societies spring from religion and not the other way around. Most religions spring from individual assumptions and/or hallucinations (usually caused by malnutrition, narcotics, or sleep deprivation, such as one might experience by wandering out into the desert and fasting for weeks), but they become ORGANIZED religions because of societal activity. They cannot form without a pre-existing society.

[Kelly Antilles]

If the world had never had religion, it wouldn't have inspired composers to write a lot of classical music. That's not a good thing...at least to me.

Granted, music that is considered classical has its basis in religious music, do you truly think that music would not have developed if it had not been for religion and the "need" for music during religious ceremonies? Granted, it has been 15 years since I took Music History, but I do remember that Gregorian chant originated with the monks. They thought to say the scriptures in a sing-song manner. Had it not been scripture, they probably would have started telling stories the same way. At least that's my opinion.

But, there is a lot of music written for religious ceremonies that are quite beautiful.

[LordShaithis]

Writers and painters are writers and painters. Without religion as a subject, they'd have just thought of something else to write and paint about.

[Kelly Antilles]

Writers and painters are writers and painters. Without religion as a subject, they'd have just thought of something else to write and paint about.

Exactly. Artists as a whole, with or without religion, would have done what they were doing to begin with.

[XPViking]

Religion and society are not synonymous. It is possible to have a society which is not religious. Similarly, it is possible to have a religion that spans many cultures (Christianity, the great chameleon-faith, is proof of that). These facts disproves your assertion. - Darth Wong

Do we have examples of societies that exist without religion? Are you referring perhaps to prehistoric man? Perhaps you mean here societies with a noticeable lessing of religious influence. The modern example that springs to mind would be the former Soviet Union.

XPViking

[IRG CommandoJoe]

But, there is a lot of music written for religious ceremonies that are quite beautiful.

Precisely my point. But even if some of their music had nothing to do with religion because there weren't any lyrics to it doesn't mean the composers weren't inspired to write it because of religion. Nearly all great composers believed in God and and some believed it was their obligation to compose beautiful music in the name of God, whether it had lyrics or not. From what I understand, composers like Mendelssohn, Bach, Handel, and Liszt had deep religious faith and it inspired a lot of their music.

[Darth Wong]

It is possible to have a society which is not religious.

Do we have examples of societies that exist without religion?

False dilemma. I said you can have a society which is not religious, and you are polarizing it into a society that is completely devoid of religion. There are no societies in which religion has been purged completely, but that doesn't change the fact that many societies around the world (particularly in Europe) are basically irreligious, ie- religion plays no significant role in public life.

PS. Do not attempt to cast aspersions on all secular societies by bringing up the example of the Soviet Union. Such "guilt by association" arguments are fallacious in the extreme.

[IRG CommandoJoe]

There's tons of societies that aren't religious, but I think it is interesting to ask if there are any current societies devoid of religion. I never thought about it. Are there any?

[IronicTwist]

Is fire good or bad?

It brings light and warmth to places without either. Fire allows the purfication of minerals, the making of medicines, and the generation of electricity. These are good things, so fire is good.

But, wait. Fire destroys homes, kills children, and enables dangerous weapons. A lot of suffering has happened, and fire is to blame. How can fire be good? It must be bad.

Which is it?

Neither.

Fire is neutral. Fire can be put to good use and help many people. It can also be put to evil use by the mailcious or the careless.

[IRG CommandoJoe]

Good analogy.

[Darth Wong]

Fire is neutral. Fire can be put to good use and help many people. It can also be put to evil use by the mailcious or the careless.

"False analogy" fallacy.

Fire has no preachings or agendas. Many religions (particularly the Judeo-Christian-Muslim triumvirate) do. To argue that religion is morally neutral is to argue that religion says nothing about morality (like fire). This is blatantly untrue; the aforementioned three religions spend a great deal of time preaching various views on morality.

I don't recall the last time that the chemical process of combustion promoted any viewpoints on morality.

[Master of Ossus]

Do we have examples of societies that exist without religion? Are you referring perhaps to prehistoric man? Perhaps you mean here societies with a noticeable lessing of religious influence. The modern example that springs to mind would be the former Soviet Union.

Another example would be the Hawaiian Islands, for a brief period of time. They destroyed their own gods in an effort to appease Christian Missionaries that they knew would be coming soon.

[IronicTwist]

To argue that religion is morally neutral is to argue that religion says nothing about morality (like fire). This is blatantly untrue; the aforementioned three religions spend a great deal of time preaching various views on morality.

That wasn't actually my intent. I had more to say, but I cut it down for brevity's sake.

I don't think this question has an answer. How can you rationalize two people reading the same religious book and coming away with two totally different ideas about that religion? One person tries to go out and help his fellow man, asking nothing in return. The other thinks it's his duty to convert by the sword. They can't both be right. How can I make a generality about the religion when good things and bad things have both happened as a result of it?

[AdmiralKanos]

I don't think this question has an answer. How can you rationalize two people reading the same religious book and coming away with two totally different ideas about that religion? One person tries to go out and help his fellow man, asking nothing in return. The other thinks it's his duty to convert by the sword. They can't both be right. How can I make a generality about the religion when good things and bad things have both happened as a result of it?

Good and evil are not positive and negative numbers; they don't cancel out. The Bible contains some good. It also contains much evil. That fact is indisputable. You are trying to cloud the issue by arguing that some people can read a book full of hatred and ignore the hatred in favour of the nicer parts. This is a bit like saying that the movie "Saving Private Ryan" is quite peaceful when there's no blood and gore on the screen.

[XPViking]

False dilemma. I said you can have a society which is not religious, and you are polarizing it into a society that is completely devoid of religion. There are no societies in which religion has been purged completely, but that doesn't change the fact that many societies around the world (particularly in Europe) are basically irreligious, ie- religion plays no significant role in public life.

PS. Do not attempt to cast aspersions on all secular societies by bringing up the example of the Soviet Union. Such "guilt by association" arguments are fallacious in the extreme. - Darth Wong

Firstly, to clarity, are we saying here that a society that is not religious is a society in which religion has none or almost no influence upon public life?

Secondly Darth Wong, that wasn't my intent, and as you can see subsequently I did say (which you omitted)

Perhaps you mean here societies with a noticeable lessing of religious influence. - XPViking

In other words, I acknowledge that societies have different degrees of religious influence. It seems that the definition needs to be clarified.

The "Soviet Union" remark was merely a dramatic example of a society in which the role of religion was nearly non-existent, as you well know. Never did I imply that all secular societies resemble the Soviet Union. Don't try to put words into my mouth.


XPViking


Edit: I added a question mark and cited a quote.

[lgot]

I counter with the fact that religion is the society of cultures today and in the past. The society did not create the religion, the religious beliefs created the society. Modern day Islam shows this. If we look back in history we can look to the Aztecs, Jews, Early Greeks, Egyptians, Indus Valley and American Indians and show that there is no separation between the religious beliefs and the practices of the society. You seem to have missed the point of my reply to you. I think that you have read to much Marx.

I have never studied anyone that said Religion and Society are the same thing.
For once, Societies come before Religions. Religions are just a reflex of the beliefs a group had and what they used to explain they social conducts and nature events. So, its needed the social group to exist first, as Darth Wong pointed out.
Second you look those societies and you see there is no separation between religion and governament. That is what is called theocracy. But that is not the origem of those societies.
To have a society you need basically of security, economy (trade and agriculture), territory and moral rules. The Egypts had their society because there because the Nilo, not for belief of Set, Ra or watever (as anyone can tell, the religion kept changing) and their gods and veneration to for example, crocodilles come from this. They had a territory to preserve and to secure, which gave then unity and they had a set of moral rules. That made then a society. The religion was a trait they develop to justify all that.
You seem to think reading Marx is bad. I do not see why. He have a lot of points which are still valid until today.

But I will say it again. Religion and Society are the same entity in our time. There are many examples of past times that also fit. To claim that religion is somehow grown as an amorphous thing out of society is wrong. You are ignoring massive amounts of history with that comment, not to include the recent attacks on the US. Which are terrorist operating under a religious system of belief. Their religion allows them to act this way. Not the reverse. The society or culture actually condemns their behavior. The religion celebrates it.

Do you notice that the problem of terrorism is motivated by politics and USA's imperialism in first place ?
Do you notice that others members of islamism condem and not support the terrorism which is praticed by a reduced member of this religions ?
The terrorists are to blame by the society they live, they are bigoted and use the religion as excuse to fight against the imperial dominant power ?
And I am not ignoring amount of history, because history shows us that religion is a product of society and we can have societies without religion and all religions are only organized in a already existent social group.

To claim that society somehow spawns religion is wrong. If you reverse it, that religons can spawn societies, sure. I agree with that. But you are incorrect with your first post. There are too many societies that exist both today and in the past to make a statment that even suggests that somehow Religion is the opium of the masses. Marx was wrong.

Societies spawns religion. Did you notice the christianism is posterior to hebrish society and to roman societies, which are from it come ?
How, I pray tell you, saying that Christianism did not come from the society can be wrong ?
And I wish to know how showing the big number of religions systems prove Marx was wrong about this ? You know, he is right about this, since religion was and is used to blind people and control them as you can see clearly in the terrorism or in the Catholic control of Europe in the past.

As for beneficial results of religion, the name Mother Teresa should be enough for you. To see her as anything other than a religiously inspired person who did good is false. She did not give her life to helping people because society or culture told her to. In fact, the opposite is much more easily argued. She gave her life to helping others because of her religious beliefs. Another person has stated something similar about music. You cannot aruge this point.

For once, it was a result of GOOD PERSON acting. God, which does not exist to do so, did not come and did anything, she did. There is plenty of good acts of atheists as well, which is enough to prove you that to make good is not needed religion.

I can argue effectively that the culture is a product of the religious beliefs of a region or religous beliefs of a group of people. Not the reverse as you have stated in your second post. Do you really believe that a bunch of folks sat around a fire one night and said, "Hey joe, lets call ourselves jews."

No. culture is something that belongs to society which include the arts, religions, sports. There is plenty of cultural product without the touch of religion in the world as you must know, there is plenty of writers, painters, movie makers that are atheists and do not profess religion in their works.
In many societies, yes, the religion influences of the cultural production in almost complete, but that does not mean all the culture in the world are in this way.
Do you believe that God come and made them ?
The Biblie is a fictional book of legends and myths which was written way after the formation of hebrish society. Actually the book claims the religion to be founded by Moses and the good book ask a long time to show the formation of hebrish people happening before Moses come and are basead in places they lived, the product they made, etc. Even the Bible shows the society having formate before the religion.
The Book is a set of rules, not given by God, since he does not exist, so from where it comes ?
From the costumes and moral rules of the groups that already are there. Only if you believe in the God , and not in the scientific way that societies are formated, saying the rules are ready , made by him to a upcoming social group would make sense.

You state that the writings are good, but the people are bad? Find a fault with this: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. If people followed this fundamental rule of behavior, would we see any atrocity?

Eh ? One this is a good writing, isnt ?
But tell me, you think how many time this writing, which is not a religious creation, but the basis of all ethics, was read by Bin-Laden ? I bet he found it a thousand times. And Madre Teresa ? A lot also. But what the writing did ? Nothing, because the person acted as they wish. The person is responsable for their acts, not some book,videogame or movie. And the Bible is just a book, a writing. It does nothing. The man does.

In many many cases, the society is the byproduct of the gathering of people who believe in the same god, dogma and system of behavior.

So you really believe the lost people was walking in the desert then found a dude who just said "Be my people, be Jews. Here, I have the care to determine the new set of rules for you to follow then. Forget about eating pigs, I will demand what I want".
I do not, There is not God to make it, so only a human would do it. But a lonely human does not makes rules to affect a society, do not decide the moral all will follow.It is born of the interaction and they development of society and how they found and solve their problems. Then they need to get together, form a group, found what they will rule about then develop the cultural products like religion.

Hamurabi had a god, before he had a codex. Religion across this globe and throughout history has spawned both society and culture. Not the reverse. Of course we will see the opposite, Marx. But that is not nearly as prevelent as the former

Do you realize that all laws before being written have origem in the oral tradiction ? Do you realize that when the Code of Hamurabi was written that was only the expression of the already accpet laws and costumes and that when that was done when there is already a society there (and even worse, the code is not a religious source).

the crusades as a result of culture or society and not a religous belief. If you can do that, I will concede. Your best bet here will be to examine trade and money as your opening and try to tell me that economics is the reason for the crusades, not a call against the heretics.

For once, religion is part of culture, so if I say it caused by religion i will be just saying that was caused by culture.
Second, those heretics are there and remained there. Did you noticed ? All the crusades history - which have religion as motivation to fight as much we have the nationalism as excuse to fight in the first WW - we have the fight between the powerhouses of europe for their supremacy (the third one was just the Lion Heart King of England showing this chivalary ideal and that him and therefore all england are superior to the French King Philipe, or that they actually attacked the Byzantines or christians territories in their path just because are controled by catholic rivals to see that the Cruzades are something else than just religious belief. (How many of the leaders returned home to take care of their kingdom or when they lost the main position in the leading army shows well that the leaders -if not the communers - had temporal and political interests before religious as well. And the cruzades are a expansionism of the europe in the search for new markets and land, how can be that denied ?