FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Religion: The Root of All Evil?





mind
What do you think the world would be like without Religion? Religion seems to causes nothing but hate and anger and it has done for many, many years. Just look at the following 9/11, Iraq, Afghanistan, Northern Ireland, Palestine, Israel, Bosnia, and Sri Lanka, all caused by religious differences.

Do you think religion in to blame or do you think tyrants use it as a cover to get what they want?
Zampano
It's preposterous to blame religion for anything of the sort.
Unless a religion openly preaches hate it cannot be blamed for the hate that stems from what it does.
People go to war inevitably, and religion is often blamed because it is (was) a relatively large part of peoples' lives and somea assume that the religion was the cause.
Divinaeon
That's called religious extremism. There's a difference between that and normal religion. Relgion is NOT the root of all evil.
Aredon
Divinaeon wrote:
That's called religious extremism. There's a difference between that and normal religion. Relgion is NOT the root of all evil.
Exactly! The religion its self can hardly be blamed for the people that may exploit it to gain followers, and then commit crimes against humanity.
rshanthakumar
"Live and Let Live"

We hardly do the second part. The second part can happen only when we are not worried about the other man's contradicting opinion. The rose in your neighbour's garden can also be beautiful as much as yours. A respect for the other person's opinion, even if it opposes you, is very hard to come by.

Until that happens, the second part will never happen. And when the second part doesnot happen, we may not have peace in this world. Religion is not the cause! It is the intolerance that is the cause.

Sri Lanka is not a religious problem. It is an issue of suppression. West Asia is not a religious problem. It is again land grabbing or suppression of the other people's interest. You create a new country grabbing land from some body elses. What do you expect him to do, stand and watch?

Kashmir is mistake of politics. So is Chechnya and all other locations. It is a question of human rights everywhere and not religion.
Jaan
Yeah all those liberal extremists overtaking new york. Pitiful, the way the businessman and the stockbroker have become one. While the brontosaurus waits, the evil lurks.
HereticMonkey
Actually, yes: Religion of all sorts (even humanism and atheism) is the root of all evil. A religious individual tends to use their religion as a crutch rather than as a tool of understanding, and thus it ends up being used to justify all sorts of beliefs. This applies even to atheists, who, without further exploring their atheism, tend to blindly treat anyone who sincerely believes in their religion as idiotic at best.

Your beliefs should be explored, in hopes of finding some sort of spirituality, even if it's one that denies all spirituality, and should at least allow that others have a right to their beliefs...

HM
Yantaal
effectivly, speaking in the theoretical sense, god created the angle tht tuenrd into the devil, so effectivly yesit is
The Conspirator
Religion is not the root of all evil. Religion is the cause of allot of problems (not atheism or humanism they are not religions nor dos they have the things that cause the problems (dogma, meaningless, pointless rules and the God excuse) but most of those problems are social and in the individual (see homosexuality). But there have been wars cause by religion (but most of those are caused by the arabic religions).
Revvion
If you think about it humans created religion so no, humans are the root of all evil
HereticMonkey
The Conspirator wrote:
Religion is not the root of all evil. Religion is the cause of allot of problems (not atheism or humanism they are not religions nor dos they have the things that cause the problems (dogma, meaningless, pointless rules and the God excuse)

Unfortunately, none of that defines a religion. All that you need to have a religion is some kind of belief in a higher power, even if that belief is in the negative. Humanism and atheism do have their own dogma (not as extensive, admittedly, but they do have a very specific dogma). And they may not have the "God Excuse", but they are just as prone to hubris, intolerance, and fanaticism as any deity-based religion.

And I don't see the Ten Commandments or Five Pillars (or the local equivalent) as being pointless, especially as they form the basis of almost every legal code on the planet, and even humanism and atheism to a degree.

In short, atheism and humanism have all the important hallmarks of religion, so why not call them that?


Quote:
But there have been wars cause by religion (but most of those are caused by the arabic religions).


There's also been wars caused by atheism. But that's a minor point: Religion hasn't caused that many wars, period. Politics, greed, and survival are usually the basis of wars. In fact, had most of what religion says to do had been followed, there would be no wars. Just an observation...

HM
The Conspirator
HereticMonkey wrote:
The Conspirator wrote:
Religion is not the root of all evil. Religion is the cause of allot of problems (not atheism or humanism they are not religions nor dos they have the things that cause the problems (dogma, meaningless, pointless rules and the God excuse)

Unfortunately, none of that defines a religion. All that you need to have a religion is some kind of belief in a higher power,

That leads to dogma, meeningless rules and the god exuse.

[/quote]even if that belief is in the negative. Humanism and atheism do have their own dogma (not as extensive, admittedly, but they do have a very specific dogma).[/quote]
No, they don't, atheism is simpkly the lack of belefe in a any god in any form. Thats it. And humanism is a ethical philosephy that aferms the dignity of life and the ability to determine right and wrong.
No dogma there.

Quote:
And they may not have the "God Excuse", but they are just as prone to hubris, intolerance, and fanaticism as any deity-based religion.

No, there not.

Quote:
And I don't see the Ten Commandments or Five Pillars (or the local equivalent) as being pointless, especially as they form the basis of almost every legal code on the planet, and even humanism and atheism to a degree.

"Thou shalt not have any other god other than me", "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.", "Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain;", "Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.", "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass", "[ I testify that ] there is no god (ilah) but God (Allah), and [ I testify that ] Muhammad is the messenger of God.", the five prayer per day and not to mention homosexuality being considered a sin, masturbation being considered a sin, eating pork being considered a sin and many many more.

Quote:
In short, atheism and humanism have all the important hallmarks of religion, so why not call them that?

No, atheism is a category of belief and humanism is a philosophy, it can work with the belief in god or not.

Quote:
Quote:
But there have been wars cause by religion (but most of those are caused by the arabic religions).


There's also been wars caused by atheism.

No, atheism has cause no war. And before you try and pull Stalin Mao or Hitler out, I destroyed that.
Captain Fertile
For years I believed that the world would be a better place without sex, money or religion because these three things alone cause so much strife in the world.

However on a personal level I found religion to be such a rich vien of inspiration in my own life and helped me deal with the other two 'evils' too.

My world is so much richer thanks to religion but as mentioned above extremisn really causes so much confusion about that grass roots religion is all about.
jaranda98
Like all things, religion is not inherently bad. However, some of those who participate in religions use the structure to commit violence and evil. Yet others, use the structure for good.

mind wrote:
What do you think the world would be like without Religion? Religion seems to causes nothing but hate and anger and it has done for many, many years. Just look at the following 9/11, Iraq, Afghanistan, Northern Ireland, Palestine, Israel, Bosnia, and Sri Lanka, all caused by religious differences.

Do you think religion in to blame or do you think tyrants use it as a cover to get what they want?
HereticMonkey
The Conspirator wrote:

No, they don't, atheism is simpkly the lack of belefe in a any god in any form. Thats it. And humanism is a ethical philosephy that aferms the dignity of life and the ability to determine right and wrong.
No dogma there.

They are still defined by their [lack of] belief in God; humanism is an attempt at creating a belief system (dogma) without God, and atheist is pretty much literally "without god"...

Quote:
Quote:
And they may not have the "God Excuse", but they are just as prone to hubris, intolerance, and fanaticism as any deity-based religion.

No, there not.

Heh.

Quote:
"Thou shalt not have any other god other than me", "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.", "Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain;", "Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.", "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass", "[ I testify that ] there is no god (ilah) but God (Allah), and [ I testify that ] Muhammad is the messenger of God.", the five prayer per day and not to mention homosexuality being considered a sin, masturbation being considered a sin, eating pork being considered a sin and many many more.

[Ignoring the silliness]

Past that: You're saying that I should be envious of someone, then?

Quote:
Quote:
In short, atheism and humanism have all the important hallmarks of religion, so why not call them that?

No, atheism is a category of belief and humanism is a philosophy, it can work with the belief in god or not.

So's Christianity then, as belief in a god isn't really that necessary. Just ask Deists...

Quote:
No, atheism has cause no war. And before you try and pull Stalin Mao or Hitler out, I destroyed that.

Not really...I'm still amused that jihad requires a particular deity, and doesn't apply to ANY other religion/philosophy...See my notes on hubris, above...

HM
The Conspirator
HereticMonkey wrote:
The Conspirator wrote:

No, they don't, atheism is simpkly the lack of belefe in a any god in any form. Thats it. And humanism is a ethical philosephy that aferms the dignity of life and the ability to determine right and wrong.
No dogma there.

They are still defined by their [lack of] belief in God; humanism is an attempt at creating a belief system (dogma) without God, and atheist is pretty much literally "without god"...

No, atheism is simply a lack of belief in god, thats it, it is a category of belief, for instance, Buddhism is atheistic, Taoism can be considered atheistic (though taoism is usually mixed with other philosophy's and even religions so it really depends) and humanism is not a dogma, its an ethical philosophy's and can be mixed with other philosophy's and religion. There is secular humanism and Christan humanism.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/humanism1.htm

Quote:
Quote:
"Thou shalt not have any other god other than me", "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.", "Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain;", "Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.", "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass", "[ I testify that ] there is no god (ilah) but God (Allah), and [ I testify that ] Muhammad is the messenger of God.", the five prayer per day and not to mention homosexuality being considered a sin, masturbation being considered a sin, eating pork being considered a sin and many many more.

[Ignoring the silliness]

Past that: You're saying that I should be envious of someone, then?

So you focus on one thing and ignore the rest?

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
In short, atheism and humanism have all the important hallmarks of religion, so why not call them that?

No, atheism is a category of belief and humanism is a philosophy, it can work with the belief in god or not.

So's Christianity then, as belief in a god isn't really that necessary. Just ask Deists...

First, deists believe in God, they just believe he dose not interfere in the world.
Second: Christianity is religion, under the category of theism just a Buddhism is under the category of atheism.

Quote:
No, atheism has cause no war. And before you try and pull Stalin Mao or Hitler out, I destroyed that.

Not really...I'm still amused that jihad requires a particular deity, and doesn't apply to ANY other religion/philosophy...See my notes on hubris, above...[/quote]
No war has been caused by or fought for atheism. If you disagree, show me one.
HereticMonkey
The Conspirator wrote:

No, atheism is simply a lack of belief in god, thats it, it is a category of belief, for instance, Buddhism is atheistic, Taoism can be considered atheistic (though taoism is usually mixed with other philosophy's and even religions so it really depends) and humanism is not a dogma, its an ethical philosophy's and can be mixed with other philosophy's and religion. There is secular humanism and Christan humanism.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/humanism1.htm

Buddha didn't exist as a supernatural being? And since when does Taoism exist without a Supreme Being? That's news, I'll bet, to those that believe in those religions.

If we're defining "dogma" as "This is how to believe", then how is humanism different than Christianity? They both believe in the sanctity of the individual, that society is merely a framework, and that the individual and society can work together to create a better world. There are books so that I can become a better humanist, and there are recognized people in the humanist sphere. How is that intrinsically different than The Bible and the prophets, outside of the age of Christianity?


Quote:
So you focus on one thing and ignore the rest?


Well, the rest were pretty silly. I mean, they only make sense in a true monotheistic sense. Which doesn't really apply...

Quote:
First, deists believe in God, they just believe he dose not interfere in the world.
Second: Christianity is religion, under the category of theism just a Buddhism is under the category of atheism.

Actually, Diests are considered atheists, and Buddhist (which is the teachings and describes the ascendancy of Buddha) is theist.

Quote:
No war has been caused by or fought for atheism. If you disagree, show me one.


I have. You just choose not to believe it because it's not convenient to your beliefs...

HM
Scott
There is no way religion is the root of all evil. Religion is a belief system, related to a higher power, but not neccesairily. The power could be "equal" or within yourself, depending on your beliefs. I fail to see how religion of this sort would cause any trouble. Personal spirituality and belief are really important to me, and help me to live a very satisfied life. Religion is a tool, and like any tool it can be used for good or evil. I think a more plausible "root of evil" lies in human nature. Greed, envy, self-rightiousness and anger are what cause evil.
The Conspirator
HereticMonkey wrote:
The Conspirator wrote:

No, atheism is simply a lack of belief in god, thats it, it is a category of belief, for instance, Buddhism is atheistic, Taoism can be considered atheistic (though taoism is usually mixed with other philosophy's and even religions so it really depends) and humanism is not a dogma, its an ethical philosophy's and can be mixed with other philosophy's and religion. There is secular humanism and Christan humanism.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/humanism1.htm

Buddha didn't exist as a supernatural being? And since when does Taoism exist without a Supreme Being? That's news, I'll bet, to those that believe in those religions.

Buddha was not a supernatural bing and even if he was, that dose not make him a god (see the [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deva_(Buddhism)]Buddhist Devas[/url]) and taoism is non theistic and taken on its own can be atheistic but like humanism is mixed with with other philosophy's and religions.

Quote:
If we're defining "dogma" as "This is how to believe", then how is humanism different than Christianity? They both believe in the sanctity of the individual, that society is merely a framework, and that the individual and society can work together to create a better world. There are books so that I can become a better humanist, and there are recognized people in the humanist sphere. How is that intrinsically different than The Bible and the prophets, outside of the age of Christianity?

Dogma:
1. A doctrine or a corpus of doctrines relating to matters such as morality and faith, set forth in an authoritative manner by a church.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/dogma

Quote:
Quote:
So you focus on one thing and ignore the rest?


Well, the rest were pretty silly. I mean, they only make sense in a true monotheistic sense. Which doesn't really apply...

Try this.
Quote:
"Thou shalt not have any other god other than me", "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.", "Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain;", "Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.", "[ I testify that ] there is no god (ilah) but God (Allah), and [ I testify that ] Muhammad is the messenger of God.", the five prayer per day and not to mention homosexuality being considered a sin, masturbation being considered a sin, eating pork being considered a sin and many many more.

Cubiting commandment removed. Now look at the ridiculous rules.

Quote:
Quote:
First, deists believe in God, they just believe he dose not interfere in the world.
Second: Christianity is religion, under the category of theism just a Buddhism is under the category of atheism.

Actually, Diests are considered atheists, and Buddhist (which is the teachings and describes the ascendancy of Buddha) is theist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism
Quote:
Buddhism is a dharmic, non-theistic religion, which is also a philosophy and a system of psychology.[5] Buddhism is also known as Buddha Dharma or Dhamma, which means the "teachings of the Awakened One" in Sanskrit and Pali, the languages of ancient Buddhist texts. Buddhism was founded around the fifth century BCE by Siddhartha Gautama, hereafter referred to as "the Buddha".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism
Quote:
Deists typically reject supernatural events (prophecy, miracles) and divine revelation prominent in organized religion, along with holy books and revealed religions that assert the existence of such things. Instead, deists hold that religious beliefs must be founded on human reason and observed features of the natural world, and that these sources reveal the existence of one God or supreme being.


Quote:
Quote:
No war has been caused by or fought for atheism. If you disagree, show me one.


I have. You just choose not to believe it because it's not convenient to your beliefs...

No, you have not, you haven't motioned any, the only thing you've mention is Hitler (who was not an atheist) Stalin and Mao and misrepresented there actions as being motivated by atheism when ion reality Stalin was a paranoid mad man and most of the deaths cause by Mao was not intentional but caused by his social-political programs that did not work.
rvec
If there where no religions people would find other reasons to make war. Religion is a much used reason becouse a lot of people have the same religion and would try to help you becouse they feel connected. Just like every American feels connected when fighting against terrorism.

The leaders who start a war just need followers, and by stating they fight for others(Americans, Muslims, Christians, ...) they will follow you. Except for those who do not want to fight for there religion and are not "connected" enough with the rest of the religion/country/group.
Aredon
HereticMonkey wrote:
Actually, yes: Religion of all sorts (even humanism and atheism) is the root of all evil. A religious individual tends to use their religion as a crutch rather than as a tool of understanding, and thus it ends up being used to justify all sorts of beliefs. This applies even to atheists, who, without further exploring their atheism, tend to blindly treat anyone who sincerely believes in their religion as idiotic at best.

Not to be mean but you basicaly said religion is the root of all evil becuase people make it that way. Something cannot be the root and have something else causing it, becuase then that something else is the root. So... you said that religion was the root of all evil and then gave reasons why people are the root of all evil.
rvec
Quote:
This applies even to atheists

So religion is the root of all evil but that also applies to atheists?
HereticMonkey
[quote="The Conspirator"
Buddha was not a supernatural bing and even if he was, that dose not make him a god (see the [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deva_(Buddhism)]Buddhist Devas[/url]) and taoism is non theistic and taken on its own can be atheistic but like humanism is mixed with with other philosophy's and religions.[/quote]
Here's the problem: Both religions profess that supernatural forces have at least some control over the person's life, and that there is a reward/punishment system. You can argue all the non-theistic BS you want, but they're still rooted in a supernatural mindset. Can you honestly be an atheist if you believe in force that punishes you for moral issues?

Quote:

Dogma:
1. A doctrine or a corpus of doctrines relating to matters such as morality and faith, set forth in an authoritative manner by a church.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/dogma

So, I can be a Christian, but not need to deal with dogma as long as I don't go to church? Or, I can have long-standing tradition, with a library to back it up, and a religious body, but it's not dogma as long as I don't call it a "church"? Or, can have dogma if I have a temple with a large number of scrolls?

The obvious point is that Buddhism is based on a temple structure, and those temples have libraries of nothing but religious doctrine. Heck, Buddhism even has a pope (the Dalai Lama), that fulfills the same duties. Why is it that they don't dogma even though they have karma?

[Can Karma really run over Dogma?]

Quote:
Cubiting commandment removed. Now look at the ridiculous rules.

Once you get past the cubiting commandment (there really was one?), there really aren't a lot of ridiculous rules.
a) The anti-homosexuality rules were in place to encourage population growth.
b) The "one god or else" rules were in place in order to get rid of the politics between different gods, as were the anti-magic rules.
c) The rest of the rules were pretty much common sense.

The punishments may have been nasty, but you need to realize that it was a different world back then...

Quote:
Buddhism is a dharmic, non-theistic religion, which is also a philosophy and a system of psychology.[5] Buddhism is also known as Buddha Dharma or Dhamma, which means the "teachings of the Awakened One" in Sanskrit and Pali, the languages of ancient Buddhist texts. Buddhism was founded around the fifth century BCE by Siddhartha Gautama, hereafter referred to as "the Buddha".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism
Quote:
Deists typically reject supernatural events (prophecy, miracles) and divine revelation prominent in organized religion, along with holy books and revealed religions that assert the existence of such things. Instead, deists hold that religious beliefs must be founded on human reason and observed features of the natural world, and that these sources reveal the existence of one God or supreme being.

So, in other words: I can have religion based on a person that becomes a supernatural entity and uses a supernatural force in order to keep people in line, but it's non-theistic. On the other hand, I can have a religion that rejects its theistic roots, but it's still theistic.

Interesting...

Quote:
No, you have not, you haven't motioned any, the only thing you've mention is Hitler (who was not an atheist) Stalin and Mao and misrepresented there actions as being motivated by atheism when ion reality Stalin was a paranoid mad man and most of the deaths cause by Mao was not intentional but caused by his social-political programs that did not work.

1) Hitler: Given a choice between how he acted and what he thought, we need to go with how he acted? Hitler has a number of personal writings that point out his issues with religion, as well as a number of those close to him that state his atheism, and yet you go with him wearing a cross as proof that he was a Christian?
2) Mao: How do you non-intentionally destroy temples while saying, over and over and over, that religion is bad?
3) Stalin: So, we have Christians that are insane, and act in accordance with Christian ideals, and they are examples of Christianity's abuses, but we have an insane Communist, who acts in accordance with Communist ideals, and he's on his own? How convenient is that?

HM
HereticMonkey
Aredon wrote:
Not to be mean but you basicaly said religion is the root of all evil becuase people make it that way. Something cannot be the root and have something else causing it, becuase then that something else is the root. So... you said that religion was the root of all evil and then gave reasons why people are the root of all evil.


Jerk response: There is a difference between religion and spirituality. In general, the problem in any religion comes from those that use the religion as a means to their own power rather than espousing the spiritual ideals of that religion.

Once people stop being religious and start being spiritual, it'll be interesting...

HM
Porcelain Trainwreck
I would say that religions were originally started to keep order and to better peoples' relationships within a society, but today our society is falling away from that. I wouldn't consider modern religion to be the root of all evil, but a result of evil, it has been warped from its true meaning. Now tyrants may warp it for their own advantage or it just may be the natural degrading of humanity reflected in our worship patterns. Humanity on its own can never make something good. When we try to take religion into our own hands we may tweak the message, either knowingly or not. It is important to obey the spirit of the message. In my experience, the only Message with a Spirit is in Christianity.
Indi
HereticMonkey wrote:
1) Hitler: Given a choice between how he acted and what he thought, we need to go with how he acted? Hitler has a number of personal writings that point out his issues with religion, as well as a number of those close to him that state his atheism, and yet you go with him wearing a cross as proof that he was a Christian?

The usual lies, still being spread.

Standard responses:
http://www.creationtheory.org/Morality/Hitler.shtml
http://atheism.about.com/od/isatheismdangerous/a/HitlerAtheist.htm
http://www.skepticwiki.org/wiki/index.php/%22Hitler_was_an_Atheist%22

Or, you know, just put the words Hitler and atheist in Google and see what pops up. i know doing actual research is a crazy idea, but, give it a shot and see how it turns out.

GOTT MIT UNS, WIR ATHEISTEN!... yeah... something's wrong with that sentence....
HereticMonkey
Porcelain Trainwreck wrote:
In my experience, the only Message with a Spirit is in Christianity.


Based on what exactly? I'd argue that any religion (even LaVey's Satanism and atheism) holds a piece of truth, and it's worth exploring that truth. However, too many people get stuck in the rules of their religion, and don't explore the others at all, or automatically assume that the others are to be ignored in favor of theirs...

Sorry, but if I'm going to slam people for religious intolerance, I'm not going to limit that to just atheists...

HM
The Conspirator
HereticMonkey wrote:
[quote="The Conspirator"
Buddha was not a supernatural bing and even if he was, that dose not make him a god (see the [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deva_(Buddhism)]Buddhist Devas[/url]) and taoism is non theistic and taken on its own can be atheistic but like humanism is mixed with with other philosophy's and religions.

Here's the problem: Both religions profess that supernatural forces have at least some control over the person's life, and that there is a reward/punishment system. You can argue all the non-theistic BS you want, but they're still rooted in a supernatural mindset. Can you honestly be an atheist if you believe in force that punishes you for moral issues?[/quote]
Supernatural dose not equal God.

Quote:

Dogma:
1. A doctrine or a corpus of doctrines relating to matters such as morality and faith, set forth in an authoritative manner by a church.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/dogma

So, I can be a Christian, but not need to deal with dogma as long as I don't go to church? Or, I can have long-standing tradition, with a library to back it up, and a religious body, but it's not dogma as long as I don't call it a "church"? Or, can have dogma if I have a temple with a large number of scrolls?

The obvious point is that Buddhism is based on a temple structure, and those temples have libraries of nothing but religious doctrine. Heck, Buddhism even has a pope (the Dalai Lama), that fulfills the same duties. Why is it that they don't dogma even though they have karma?[/quote]
You are using the words or the defenition to miss its point.

Quote:
Quote:
Cubiting commandment removed. Now look at the ridiculous rules.

Once you get past the cubiting commandment (there really was one?), there really aren't a lot of ridiculous rules.
a) The anti-homosexuality rules were in place to encourage population growth.
b) The "one god or else" rules were in place in order to get rid of the politics between different gods, as were the anti-magic rules.
c) The rest of the rules were pretty much common sense.

No, none of them make sence. Read them again.

Quote:
Quote:
Buddhism is a dharmic, non-theistic religion, which is also a philosophy and a system of psychology.[5] Buddhism is also known as Buddha Dharma or Dhamma, which means the "teachings of the Awakened One" in Sanskrit and Pali, the languages of ancient Buddhist texts. Buddhism was founded around the fifth century BCE by Siddhartha Gautama, hereafter referred to as "the Buddha".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism
Quote:
Deists typically reject supernatural events (prophecy, miracles) and divine revelation prominent in organized religion, along with holy books and revealed religions that assert the existence of such things. Instead, deists hold that religious beliefs must be founded on human reason and observed features of the natural world, and that these sources reveal the existence of one God or supreme being.

So, in other words: I can have religion based on a person that becomes a supernatural entity and uses a supernatural force in order to keep people in line, but it's non-theistic. On the other hand, I can have a religion that rejects its theistic roots, but it's still theistic.

Did you read what I posted? Siddhārtha Gautama is not a god nor did he become super natural, he found "enlightenment", he didn't become super natural nor dose he keep people in line.

Quote:
Quote:
No, you have not, you haven't motioned any, the only thing you've mention is Hitler (who was not an atheist) Stalin and Mao and misrepresented there actions as being motivated by atheism when ion reality Stalin was a paranoid mad man and most of the deaths cause by Mao was not intentional but caused by his social-political programs that did not work.

1) Hitler: Given a choice between how he acted and what he thought, we need to go with how he acted? Hitler has a number of personal writings that point out his issues with religion, as well as a number of those close to him that state his atheism, and yet you go with him wearing a cross as proof that he was a Christian?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler's_religious_beliefs
Quote:
Drawing on Higher Criticism and some branches of theologically liberal Protestantism, Hitler advocated what he termed Positive Christianity, purged of everything that he found objectionable. Hitler never directed his attacks on Jesus himself,[13] but viewed traditional Christianity as a corruption of the original ideas of Jesus, whom Hitler regarded as an Aryan opponent of the Jews.[14] In Mein Kampf he wrote that Jesus "made no secret of his attitude toward the Jewish people, and when necessary he even took the whip to drive from the temple of the Lord this adversary of all humanity, who then as always saw in religion nothing but an instrument for his business existence. In return, Christ was nailed to the cross." Hitler rejected the idea of Jesus' redemptive suffering, stating in 1927: "My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter."[15][16]

[edit]
Hitler's god and racism

Hitler did not believe in a "remote, rationalist divinity" but in an "active deity,"[17] which he frequently referred to as "Creator" or "Providence". In Hitler's belief God created a world in which different races fought each other for survival as depicted by Arthur de Gobineau. The "Aryan race", supposedly the bearer of civilization, is allocated a special place:

"What we must fight for is to safeguard the existence and the reproduction of our race ... so that our people may mature for the fulfillment of the mission allotted it by the creator of the universe. ... Peoples that bastardize themselves, or let themselves be bastardized, sin against the will of eternal Providence."[18]

Hitler was not atheist!

Quote:
2) Mao: How do you non-intentionally destroy temples while saying, over and over and over, that religion is bad?

3) Stalin: So, we have Christians that are insane, and act in accordance with Christian ideals, and they are examples of Christianity's abuses, but we have an insane Communist, who acts in accordance with Communist ideals, and he's on his own? How convenient is that?

Your equating Stalin with communism and you equate with atheism. These are fallacy's. Stalin was a mad man there were many, many, many other communist leaders who has done nothing remotely near as horrible as what Stalin has done.
And communism is not atheism! Communism is atheistic, communism is bad so atheism must be bad? That is a fallacy! Atheism is the lack of a belief in any god or gods, communism is a socio-political utopian ideology. Communism dose not even have to be atheistic, the point of communism still remains the same if it isn't.
HereticMonkey
The Conspirator wrote:
Supernatural dose not equal God.

I'm not trying to equate supernatural=God. I am trying to equate supernatural<>atheist. That is, if your belief system is based in believing that no supernatural agency is at work, can you still have that belief system if it's based on a supernatural agent?


Quote:
You are using the words or the defenition to miss its point.

I guess my point was that Christian's aren't the only one with a dogma; the concept of having a dogma applies to any religious entity.

Quote:
No, none of them make sence. Read them again.

From a strictly analytical perspective, most of the rules make sense. That is, there are very practical reasons for any of the rules, given the mindset of the time. Most of the rules in Deuteronomy and Leviticus, in fact, make sense even now (or does eating vulture meat sound particularly healthy?).

Quote:
Did you read what I posted? Siddhārtha Gautama is not a god nor did he become super natural, he found "enlightenment", he didn't become super natural nor dose he keep people in line.

Did you read what you posted? There are very specific miracles and events attached to Buddha, as well as deferential treatment from some very powerful beings, that are only possible if he were a supernatural being of some sort. He also became more powerful after his ascension.


Quote:
Hitler was not atheist!

You and historians are just going to have to agree to disagree. Hitler had some public beliefs, but those beliefs only applied while he was in public. As soon as he away from the public, however, he no longer believed in God. We have his personal writings that state that he had no such belief, witness statements that demonstrate his atheism, and even that he had published papers saying that a leader must act religious in order to maintain support.

Quote:
And communism is not atheism! Communism is atheistic, communism is bad so atheism must be bad? That is a fallacy! Atheism is the lack of a belief in any god or gods, communism is a socio-political utopian ideology. Communism dose not even have to be atheistic, the point of communism still remains the same if it isn't.

Given that I've never said that atheism is bad, you're using some pretty bad fallacies yourself.

The problem is that there is the fallacy that no one has been killed due to atheism, and that has been used to promote that concept that atheism is better than any other religion ("Our religion hasn't been used for genocide!"). Worse, you have argued that no one has fought in the name of atheism.

I'm just trying to put atheism on the same level. That is, if you can't separate a leader in a war from his religion, it applies just as well to atheism as it does Christianity. Just an observation...

TS
The Conspirator
HereticMonkey wrote:
The Conspirator wrote:
Supernatural dose not equal God.

I'm not trying to equate supernatural=God. I am trying to equate supernatural<>atheist. That is, if your belief system is based in believing that no supernatural agency is at work, can you still have that belief system if it's based on a supernatural agent?

Atheis is lack of belefe in God or gods! How many times do I have to say?! You can beleve in the supernatrel and paranormel and still be an atheist, you just don't beleve in any god or gods!


Quote:
Quote:
You are using the words or the defenition to miss its point.

I guess my point was that Christian's aren't the only one with a dogma; the concept of having a dogma applies to any religious entity.

I never said Christans where the only ones with dogma

Quote:
Quote:
No, none of them make sence. Read them again.

From a strictly analytical perspective, most of the rules make sense. That is, there are very practical reasons for any of the rules, given the mindset of the time. Most of the rules in Deuteronomy and Leviticus, in fact, make sense even now (or does eating vulture meat sound particularly healthy?).


"Thou shalt not have any other god other than me"
Why? Why would God care?

"Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth."
So if I make drawing of the stars and or constellations, or a carving of a fish, or an earth worm or any mythical creator living with in them that I might believe in, I'm sinning?

"Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain;"
So were not allowed to have freedom of speech?

"Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy."
Why? Whats so important about it? The day the omnipotent God rested? Why should that be important to me?

"Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass"
So I'm not allowed to wont something that my nature has? Why? I'm a human bing, I'm going to wont things I don't have.


"[ I testify that ] there is no god (ilah) but God (Allah), and [ I testify that ] Muhammad is the messenger of God."
Why? Why would God care? He's omnipotent and omniscient, why would he care what I or any one else believes?

the five prayer per day
Why? Why would God wont people to pray to him 5 times a day?

homosexuality being considered a sin,
Why would God care? There is no logical reason for homosexuality being a sin.

masturbation being considered a sin,
Why? Why would God care? There is no logical reason for it being a sin.

eating pork being considered a sin
Why? How is killing a cow for meet any deferent than killing a pig for meet?



Quote:
Quote:
Did you read what I posted? Siddhārtha Gautama is not a god nor did he become super natural, he found "enlightenment", he didn't become super natural nor dose he keep people in line.

Did you read what you posted? There are very specific miracles and events attached to Buddha, as well as deferential treatment from some very powerful beings, that are only possible if he were a supernatural being of some sort. He also became more powerful after his ascension.

So the answor is no. Where do you get your information from? Caus they are eather morons or lieing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism
Quote:
Buddhism is a dharmic, non-theistic religion, which is also a philosophy and a system of psychology.[5]


http://www.religionfacts.com/buddhism/beliefs/atheism.htm
Quote:
As seen in the Basic Points of Buddhism, one doctrine agreed upon by all branches of modern Buddhism is that "this world is not created and ruled by a God." {1}

According to BuddhaNet, a major Buddhist website:
There is no almighty God in Buddhism. There is no one to hand out rewards or punishments on a supposedly Judgement Day. Buddhism is strictly not a religion in the context of being a faith and worship owing allegiance to a supernatural being. {2}

The Buddha himself rejected metaphysical speculation as a matter of principle, and his teachings focused entirely on the practical ways to end suffering.


The only times when god (note, pleural gods as in polytheistic) is when Buddhism is mixed with other religions.

Quote:
Quote:
Hitler was not atheist!

You and historians are just going to have to agree to disagree. Hitler had some public beliefs, but those beliefs only applied while he was in public. As soon as he away from the public, however, he no longer believed in God. We have his personal writings that state that he had no such belief, witness statements that demonstrate his atheism, and even that he had published papers saying that a leader must act religious in order to maintain support.


Are you pulling a mike1reynolds and completly ignoring what I'm posting?
It looks like yes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler's_religious_beliefs
Quote:
Hitler’s private statements are more mixed. There are negative statements about Christianity reported by Hitler’s intimates, Goebbels, Speer, and Bormann.[10] Joseph Goebbels, for example, notes in a diary entry in 1939: "The Führer is deeply religious, but deeply anti-Christian. He regards Christianity as a symptom of decay." Albert Speer reports a similar statement: “You see, it’s been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didn’t we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion too would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?"[11] In the Hossbach Memorandum Hitler is recorded as saying that "only the disintegrating effect of Christianity, and the symptoms of age" were responsible for the demise of the Roman empire.[12]


Quote:
Positive Christianity

In contrast to other Nazi leaders, Hitler did not adhere to esoteric ideas, occultism, or Nazi mysticism, and possibly even ridiculed such beliefs in private.[citation needed] Drawing on Higher Criticism and some branches of theologically liberal Protestantism, Hitler advocated what he termed Positive Christianity, purged of everything that he found objectionable. Hitler never directed his attacks on Jesus himself,[13] but viewed traditional Christianity as a corruption of the original ideas of Jesus, whom Hitler regarded as an Aryan opponent of the Jews.[14] In Mein Kampf he wrote that Jesus "made no secret of his attitude toward the Jewish people, and when necessary he even took the whip to drive from the temple of the Lord this adversary of all humanity, who then as always saw in religion nothing but an instrument for his business existence. In return, Christ was nailed to the cross." Hitler rejected the idea of Jesus' redemptive suffering, stating in 1927: "My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter."[15][16]


Quote:
Hitler's god and racism

Hitler did not believe in a "remote, rationalist divinity" but in an "active deity,"[17] which he frequently referred to as "Creator" or "Providence". In Hitler's belief God created a world in which different races fought each other for survival as depicted by Arthur de Gobineau. The "Aryan race", supposedly the bearer of civilization, is allocated a special place:

"What we must fight for is to safeguard the existence and the reproduction of our race ... so that our people may mature for the fulfillment of the mission allotted it by the creator of the universe. ... Peoples that bastardize themselves, or let themselves be bastardized, sin against the will of eternal Providence."[18]

The Jews he viewed as enemies of all civilization and as materialistic, unspiritual beings, writing in Mein Kampf: "His life is only of this world, and his spirit is inwardly as alien to true Christianity as his nature two thousand years previous was to the great founder of the new doctrine." Hitler described his supposedly divine mandate for his anti-Semitism: "Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."


Sourses:
Quote:

^ The collection called Table Talk is questioned by some; while most historians consider it a useful source, they do not regard it as wholly reliable. Ian Kershaw makes clear the questionable nature of Table Talk as a historically valid source; see his Hitler 1889-1936 Hubris London, 1998, xiv. Richard Carrier goes further contending that certain portions of Table Talk, especially those regarding Hitler's alleged hatred of Christianity, are outright inventions: see his "Hitler's Table Talk, Troubling Finds" German Studies Review26:3 October 2003. However, although Kershaw recommends treating the work with caution, he does not suggest dispensing with it altogether. (The Holy Reich, p. 253)
^ Richard Steigmann-Gall, The Holy Reich, p. 252-253; Albert Speer, Inside the Third Reich, Orion Pub., 1997 ISBN 1-85799-218-0, p. 96.
^ Online copy of the Hossbach memorandum
^ Steigmann-Gall, p. 255
^ Steigmann-Gall, p. 257, 260
^ Cited in Norman H. Baynes, The Speeches of Adolf Hitler: April 1922-August 1939, Vol. 1, New York: Oxford University Press, 1942, p. 19-20 ISBN 0-598-75893-3. In a speech delivered on 12 April 1922, Munich
^ Hitler's religious beliefs and fanaticism with Selected quotes from Mein Kampf
^ Steigmann-Gall, p. 26
^ Steigmann-Gall, p. 26
^ Steigmann-Gall, p. 84
^ Steigmann-Gall, p. 260



Quote:
Quote:
And communism is not atheism! Communism is atheistic, communism is bad so atheism must be bad? That is a fallacy! Atheism is the lack of a belief in any god or gods, communism is a socio-political utopian ideology. Communism dose not even have to be atheistic, the point of communism still remains the same if it isn't.

Given that I've never said that atheism is bad, you're using some pretty bad fallacies yourself.

The problem is that there is the fallacy that no one has been killed due to atheism, and that has been used to promote that concept that atheism is better than any other religion ("Our religion hasn't been used for genocide!").

You said

Quote:
There's also been wars caused by atheism.


Quote:
Quote:
No, atheism has cause no war. And before you try and pull Stalin Mao or Hitler out, I destroyed that.



Not really...I'm still amused that jihad requires a particular deity, and doesn't apply to ANY other religion/philosophy...See my notes on hubris, above...


Quote:
1) Hitler: Given a choice between how he acted and what he thought, we need to go with how he acted? Hitler has a number of personal writings that point out his issues with religion, as well as a number of those close to him that state his atheism, and yet you go with him wearing a cross as proof that he was a Christian?
2) Mao: How do you non-intentionally destroy temples while saying, over and over and over, that religion is bad?
3) Stalin: So, we have Christians that are insane, and act in accordance with Christian ideals, and they are examples of Christianity's abuses, but we have an insane Communist, who acts in accordance with Communist ideals, and he's on his own? How convenient is that?


Quote:
Worse, you have argued that no one has fought in the name of atheism.

I'm just trying to put atheism on the same level. That is, if you can't separate a leader in a war from his religion, it applies just as well to atheism as it does Christianity. Just an observation...

Atheism has not cause war! Christianity Has! There have been wars fought in the name of God, the Christan God. You are taking people and using the fact that they were atheists to say that fought in the name of atheism, they did not. There have been people who fought in the name of Christianity.
If a person fights aware and or kills people, and they are Christan, that dose not mean the did it cause of Christianity but if they do it for Christianity, it is the cause. cause the doctrine, dogma and bible gives them the justifications to do so. There is no justification in atheism, to fight anything or kill any one, atheism is not believing in God(s). Thats it, no doctrine, no dogma, thats it, no holy text. There is justification in Christianity, the bible is the word of God and the bible is full of people killing for God and God tellling them to do so.
HereticMonkey
The Conspirator wrote:

Atheis is lack of belefe in God or gods! How many times do I have to say?! You can beleve in the supernatrel and paranormel and still be an atheist, you just don't beleve in any god or gods!


How? Atheism is the denial that a supernatural force, on any level, determines what you do or has had an effect on your life.

Put another way: Can you, as an atheist, believe in Intelligent Design on any level?

Quote:
I never said Christans where the only ones with dogma

Then why respond to my statements with a definition that defined dogma as specifically coming from a church, which applies only to Christianity?

Quote:
"Thou shalt not have any other god other than me"
Why? Why would God care?[/quote]
Why wouldn't he?

Quote:
So if I make drawing of the stars and or constellations, or a carving of a fish, or an earth worm or any mythical creator living with in them that I might believe in, I'm sinning?

Only if you worship said image...

Quote:
"Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain;"
So were not allowed to have freedom of speech?

Bear in mind that primitive societies believed that the name of something also helped control it. Thus, by speaking someone's or something's name, you could invoke the power that the entity represented.

Quote:
"Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy."
Why? Whats so important about it? The day the omnipotent God rested? Why should that be important to me?

If God needed rest, then so does man. This ensures that there is at least one day that people take it easy and recharge for the rest of the week...

Quote:
"Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass"
So I'm not allowed to wont something that my nature has? Why? I'm a human bing, I'm going to wont things I don't have.

Wanting is fine. Being envious to the point that you want to steal them or deprive someone of what he has earned, now that's a problem.

Quote:
homosexuality being considered a sin,
Why would God care? There is no logical reason for homosexuality being a sin.

masturbation being considered a sin,
Why? Why would God care? There is no logical reason for it being a sin.

Both of these discourage reproduction, was important at the time ("be fruitful", remember?). Also, bear in mind that people married at a lot younger age than today...

Quote:
eating pork being considered a sin
Why? How is killing a cow for meet any deferent than killing a pig for meet?

Pick your reason: Beef that has been cooked improperly doesn't kill. Pigs are in the same ecological status as humans (medium omnivores) and so it doesn't make sense to feed one or fatten one when the food could go to a human instead. Pigs require more water than any other animal (Does it make sense to make a wallow when the water will just evaporate? Isn't that a waste of water for a desert tribe?)

Quote:
So the answor is no. Where do you get your information from? Caus they are eather morons or lieing.

Or they practice the religion in question. What? Buddhists having a mythology not allowed?

[quote]http://www.religionfacts.com/buddhism/beliefs/atheism.htm
Quote:
As seen in the Basic Points of Buddhism, one doctrine agreed upon by all branches of modern Buddhism is that "this world is not created and ruled by a God." {1}

Instead, the universe as we know it is an illusion and therefore its creation doesn't matter.

Quote:
According to BuddhaNet, a major Buddhist website:
There is no almighty God in Buddhism. There is no one to hand out rewards or punishments on a supposedly Judgement Day. Buddhism is strictly not a religion in the context of being a faith and worship owing allegiance to a supernatural being. {2}

But there is allegiance to a universal force (dharma) and it does have its prophets as well.

Quote:
The only times when god (note, pleural gods as in polytheistic) is when Buddhism is mixed with other religions.

Actually, not so much. Even Buddha himself noted that dharma effects even gods on faraway planes. Note that I'm not saying that those gods are necessarily important, just that even Buddhism has its gods.

Quote:
Are you pulling a mike1reynolds and completly ignoring what I'm posting?
It looks like yes.

No: You are simply ignoring what you yourself are quoting, as well as ignoring history. Hitler rejected Christianity as too weak; he only accepted the parts of Christianity that he liked and ignored all other parts.

Interesting that he looked to Islam because of its supposed warlike nature. I wonder what Moslems think of that?

Quote:
There is no justification in atheism, to fight anything or kill any one, atheism is not believing in God(s). Thats it, no doctrine, no dogma, thats it, no holy text. There is justification in Christianity, the bible is the word of God and the bible is full of people killing for God and God tellling them to do so.

So why do so many Christians advocate against killing and so many atheists have no problem with the concept, preaching a "as long as you get something from it" philosophy?

HM
Aredon
HereticMonkey wrote:

Jerk response: There is a difference between religion and spirituality. In general, the problem in any religion comes from those that use the religion as a means to their own power rather than espousing the spiritual ideals of that religion.

Once people stop being religious and start being spiritual, it'll be interesting...

HM


Once again: "the problem in any religion comes from those [people] that use the religion...."
Therefore relgion could be a TOOL of evil, but not its root.
The Conspirator
HereticMonkey wrote:
The Conspirator wrote:

Atheis is lack of belefe in God or gods! How many times do I have to say?! You can beleve in the supernatrel and paranormel and still be an atheist, you just don't beleve in any god or gods!


How? Atheism is the denial that a supernatural force, on any level, determines what you do or has had an effect on your life.

Who ever your getting your information from are horrible, horrible lier's.
Atheism is, not believing in God or gods, that it. You can believe in a soul, you can believe in Karma, you can believe in Heaven and a hell and be an atheist as long as you do not believe in any god.

Quote:
Put another way: Can you, as an atheist, believe in Intelligent Design on any level?

Yes. So long as this intelligence is not a god. But its not science so I don't and there is no evadence of this "itelagence"

Quote:
Quote:
"Thou shalt not have any other god other than me"
Why? Why would God care?

Why wouldn't he?

Hes omnipotent and omniscient and we are animals with thumbs and big brains. And omnipotent omniscient bing would not give a damn about us.

Quote:
Quote:
So if I make drawing of the stars and or constellations, or a carving of a fish, or an earth worm or any mythical creator living with in them that I might believe in, I'm sinning?

Only if you worship said image...

Theres no asterisk, it says no where "if you blah, blah, blah" It says if you do any of those you are sinning.

Quote:
Quote:
"Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain;"
So were not allowed to have freedom of speech?

Bear in mind that primitive societies believed that the name of something also helped control it. Thus, by speaking someone's or something's name, you could invoke the power that the entity represented.

That would work if the commandments were man made but you believe them to come from God and God would know better.

Quote:
Quote:
"Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy."
Why? Whats so important about it? The day the omnipotent God rested? Why should that be important to me?

If God needed rest, then so does man. This ensures that there is at least one day that people take it easy and recharge for the rest of the week...

Since when is it God intrest to tell us which day to rest? Why notlet us make the desition when we wont to rest? And it says "keep it holy" Why?

Quote:
Quote:
"Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass"
So I'm not allowed to wont something that my nature has? Why? I'm a human bing, I'm going to wont things I don't have.

Wanting is fine. Being envious to the point that you want to steal them or deprive someone of what he has earned, now that's a problem.[/qutoe]
Envy is an emotion thats part of us. We can't deny our emotions and to do so is foolish an leads to psychological problems. Dose God wont us yo have psychological problems?

Quote:
Quote:
homosexuality being considered a sin,
Why would God care? There is no logical reason for homosexuality being a sin.

masturbation being considered a sin,
Why? Why would God care? There is no logical reason for it being a sin.

Both of these discourage reproduction, was important at the time ("be fruitful", remember?). Also, bear in mind that people married at a lot younger age than today...

In places where homosexuality is excepted, it dose not impede in any way the reproduction of humans, in fact, in ancient Greece homosexuality was more excepted than heterosexuality and there reproduction was not impeded and well its obvious that masturbation dose not ether.

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
eating pork being considered a sin
Why? How is killing a cow for meet any deferent than killing a pig for meet?

Pick your reason: Beef that has been cooked improperly doesn't kill. Pigs are in the same ecological status as humans (medium omnivores) and so it doesn't make sense to feed one or fatten one when the food could go to a human instead. Pigs require more water than any other animal (Does it make sense to make a wallow when the water will just evaporate? Isn't that a waste of water for a desert tribe?)

Beef when cooked improperly can harm you.
And pigs will eat piratically anything so left overs and the same grain you would feed a chicken or cow would be enough to feed a pig.

Quote:
Quote:
So the answor is no. Where do you get your information from? Caus they are eather morons or lieing.

Or they practice the religion in question. What? Buddhists having a mythology not allowed?

Buddhists have mtholigy, it has karma, reancarnation, [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deva_(Buddhism)]devas[/url] and other things but that mytholigy dose not include any God or gods

Quote:
Quote:
http://www.religionfacts.com/buddhism/beliefs/atheism.htm
Quote:
As seen in the Basic Points of Buddhism, one doctrine agreed upon by all branches of modern Buddhism is that "this world is not created and ruled by a God." {1}

Instead, the universe as we know it is an illusion and therefore its creation doesn't matter.

Thats true. Siddhārtha did say it was not important.

Quote:
According to BuddhaNet, a major Buddhist website:
There is no almighty God in Buddhism. There is no one to hand out rewards or punishments on a supposedly Judgement Day. Buddhism is strictly not a religion in the context of being a faith and worship owing allegiance to a supernatural being. {2}

But there is allegiance to a universal force (dharma) and it does have its prophets as well.
The only times when god (note, pleural gods as in polytheistic) is when Buddhism is mixed with other religions.

Actually, not so much. Even Buddha himself noted that dharma effects even gods on faraway planes. Note that I'm not saying that those gods are necessarily important, just that even Buddhism has its gods.


Quote:
Dharma (Sanskrit: धर्म) or Dhamma (Pāli: धमा) (Natural Law) (pronunciation (help·info)) refers to the underlying order in Nature and human life and behaviour considered to be in accord with that order. Ethically, it means 'right way of living' or 'proper conduct,' especially in a religious sense. With respect to spirituality, dharma might be considered the Way of the Higher Truths. Dharma is a central concept in religions and philosophies originating in India. These religions and philosophies are called Dharmic religions. The principal ones are Hinduism (Sanatana Dharma), Buddhism (Buddhadharma), Jainism (Jain Dharma) and Sikhism, all of which emphasize Dharma (the correct understanding of Nature) in their teachings. [1][2][3] In these traditions, beings that live in accordance with Dharma proceed more quickly toward Dharma Yukam, Moksha or Nirvana (personal liberation). Dharma also refers to the teachings and doctrines of the founders of these traditions, such as those of Gautama Buddha and Mahavira. In traditional Hindu society with its caste structure, Dharma constituted the religious and moral doctrine of the rights and duties of each individual. (see dharmasastra).


Quote:
Quote:
Are you pulling a mike1reynolds and completly ignoring what I'm posting?
It looks like yes.

No: You are simply ignoring what you yourself are quoting, as well as ignoring history. Hitler rejected Christianity as too weak; he only accepted the parts of Christianity that he liked and ignored all other parts.

Thats not atheism, you said Hitler was an atheist. He was not.

Quote:
quote]There is no justification in atheism, to fight anything or kill any one, atheism is not believing in God(s). Thats it, no doctrine, no dogma, thats it, no holy text. There is justification in Christianity, the bible is the word of God and the bible is full of people killing for God and God tellling them to do so.

So why do so many Christians advocate against killing and so many

1. The Christan doctrin of one God the source of morality and goodness, those who do not fallow the religion are damned for ever in hell and the many, many atrositys in the bible which gives justefacation for it.
Quote:
atheists have no problem with the concept, preaching a "as long as you get something from it" philosophy?

That is not true. Where do you get your information cause he's a lying moron. Atheism is a category of belief, atheists fallow many philosophy's. Most of these philosophies boil down too "do what you will but harm none" .
HereticMonkey
On the grounds that I'm getting a little bored of the silliness:

1) If you're not interested in the religion, then quit attacking it. If you don't like what Christianity stands for, then so be it. Quit looking for an argument, or realize that others have a different perspective. I appreciate that you may be looking to explore other religions, but the way you are doing it is coming off as offensive. Do some actual research; GET AWAY FROM WIKIPEDIA! The discussion on Buddhism points out that there are some gaps in your knowledge, and they're usually because you act if you are ignorant of huge tracts of Buddhist history and legendry.

2) I'm not really sure if you actually are a true atheist, Conspirator. True atheists are complete rationalists; that is, if something doesn't have a 100% scientific reason behind it, then it's simply not believable. Yes, Buddhist may be non-theist, but that doesn't make it atheist; it still has too much supernatural there. Have you thought that you may be agnostic?

HM
The Conspirator
Looking for an argument? I don't have to look, there all ready there.
As I've said I live in a country that is overwhelmingly Christan. And Christianity has mane, many, many problems, problems that are effacing the world in a very negative way.
The idea that faith is a good thing, Christan's believe that faith is a good things, its not, its a bad thing, it leads to ignorants, superstition, and to stupidity..
Fundamentalism, in any part of the would where religion is important, fundamentalism thrives, and we see that today under the disguise of evangelical Christianity. And fundamentalism is very, very dangerous.
The fundamentalist are trying to pus creationism into science class disguise of "intelligent design". Thar are using the wedge strategy they are trying to defeat evolution not by evidence but by trying to bury it.
It leads people to ignore the evidence (no matter how strong it is) and believe ideas such as creationism, the flood, that a virgin can get pregnant and that a man can return from the dead.
It teaches people to respect authoritative structures, if you tech children to fallow something with out question on faith, that will effect other parts of there life's and how they view people in positions of power. That why people fallow Pat Robertson, Ted Haggard and those other people who obviously are not in it for the religion but for the power and money.
The very nature of Christianity breed intolerance, God is good, God is the source of good, God is the source of morality, unbelievers go to hell for eternity, all you have to do is ask for forgiveness and you can get into heaven and the bible. All that breeds intolerance.
The bible, "Goods' word" breeds homophobia

Quote:
Leviticus 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
Leviticus 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

Deuteronomy 23:17 There shall be no ****** of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel. 23:18 Thou shalt not bring the hire of a ******, or the price of a dog, into the house of the LORD thy God for any vow: for even both these are abomination unto the LORD thy God.

1 Kings 14:24 And there were also sodomites in the land: and they did according to all the abominations of the nations which the LORD cast out before the children of Israel.

1 Kings 15:12 And he took away the sodomites out of the land, and removed all the idols that his fathers had made

1 Kings 22:46 And the remnant of the sodomites, which remained in the days of his father Asa, he took out of the land.

2 Kings 23:7 And he brake down the houses of the sodomites, that were by the house of the LORD, where the women wove hangings for the grove.

Isaiah 3:9 The shew of their countenance doth witness against them; and they declare their sin as Sodom, they hide it not. Woe unto their soul! for they have rewarded evil unto themselves.

Romans 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

Romans 1:31 1:31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: 1:32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

1 Timothy 1:10 For ******, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;

Jude 1:7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire. 1:8 Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities.


The bible, the "word of God" breeds sexism

Quote:

Genesis 3:16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee. 3:17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;

Genesis 7:2 Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.

Exodus 21:7 And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do. 21:8 If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her.

Leviticus 12:2 Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a woman have conceived seed, and born a man child: then she shall be unclean seven days; according to the days of the separation for her infirmity shall she be unclean.

Leviticus 12:4 And she shall then continue in the blood of her purifying three and thirty days; she shall touch no hallowed thing, nor come into the sanctuary, until the days of her purifying be fulfilled. 12:5 But if she bear a maid child, then she shall be unclean two weeks, as in her separation: and she shall continue in the blood of her purifying threescore and six days.

Leviticus 19:20 And whosoever lieth carnally with a woman, that is a bondmaid, betrothed to an husband, and not at all redeemed, nor freedom given her; she shall be scourged; they shall not be put to death, because she was not free. 19:21 And he shall bring his trespass offering unto the LORD, unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, even a ram for a trespass offering.

Leviticus 21:9 And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the ******, she profaneth her father: she shall be burnt with fire.

Deuteronomy 5:21 Neither shalt thou desire thy neighbour's wife, neither shalt thou covet thy neighbour's house, his field, or his manservant, or his maidservant, his ox, or his ass, or any thing that is thy neighbour's.

Deuteronomy 20:13 And when the LORD thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword: 20:14 But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the LORD thy God hath given thee.

Deuteronomy 22:13 If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her, 22:14 And give occasions of speech against her, and bring up an evil name upon her, and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid: 22:15 Then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel's virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate: 22:16 And the damsel's father shall say unto the elders, I gave my daughter unto this man to wife, and he hateth her; 22:17 And, lo, he hath given occasions of speech against her, saying, I found not thy daughter a maid; and yet these are the tokens of my daughter's virginity. And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city. 22:18 And the elders of that city shall take that man and chastise him; 22:19 And they shall amerce him in an hundred shekels of silver, and give them unto the father of the damsel, because he hath brought up an evil name upon a virgin of Israel: and she shall be his wife; he may not put her away all his days. 22:20 But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel: 22:21 Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the ****** in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.

Deuteronomy 22:23 If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; 22:24 Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you. 22:25 But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die.

Theres allot more but this post is getting long enough

It breeds anti intellectualism as they put there bible the "word of God" over the word of some one who is educated and researched a topic.
It breeds anti-science cause the evidence says things happened differently.
It allows for evil actions cause no matter what you do, if you believe and if you ask for forgiveness, you will be forgiven even if you drive cross country picking up hitchhikers the torturing and killing them, you will be forgiven so long as you believe and ask even if you know you will do it again.
Its very nature is the cause of the fundamentalists agenda to turn this country into a theocracy cause the bible is the "word of god".



I am an atheist, I don't beleve in any God or gods, I don't beleve in anything supernatrel or paranormel.
Again I say this. Atheism is a catyegory of belefe, the one and only prerequeset for being an atheist is, not beleveing in any God or gods. Thats it. Reminmber that.
HereticMonkey
At this point, I need to call a troll a troll. You are purposely ignoring what doesn't go with your belief in order to perpetuate a number of ignorant stereotypes.

Yeah, you can take a lot of stuff way out of context to prove your point; congratulations! You've taken the low road! Now, get on the high road. For a sexist religion, Judaism and Christianity have done a lot to help the feminist cause, and have been depended upon to act as a net for any that slip through the cracks. Religions in general have contributed a lot to charity, as well as the sciences: Sometimes forcing a doctor to deal with a religious tenet has actually been a good thing; just check out the advances in handling blood that have happened because of dealing with certain groups unwillingness to accept blood transfusions from others.

That's ignoring, of course, the sheer number of contributions to science from Christians exploring something or other: Genetics, astronomy, physics, math, medicine biology, etc. Even evolution is the fault of Christians. For a religion that is supposedly "ignorant", there have been a lot of contributions that have advanced civilization in general, both scientifically and spiritually.

You keep managing to feed the negative stereotype of atheism: Fanatically anti-religious, using The Bible as a weapon, and ignoring any actual facts that disagree with you. As such, please continue to troll...You're demonstrating the limits of atheist thought!

HM
The Conspirator
Now your posting fallacy's.
A person of a certain religion dose this, this is good thus the religions is good. False.
This is good, this religion has this, thus this religions must be good. False

Christianity has many problems and instead of trying to deal with and fix the problems you call me ignorant and a trol when I point them out. Typical religions response.
Bin Laden has given to charity, charity's that has helped people out, so did Al Copne, Hitler got Germany out of a depression. But those do not take away from the negative they have done.
HereticMonkey
I'm so tempted to call Godwin's Law into effect Rolling Eyes ...

I'm just getting tired of second-rate attacks backed by third-rate logic.

I appreciate that Christianity has its problems. At the same time, to look solely at the problems of one religion, while ignoring the issues of your own, is intolerance. I'm not trying to deny that some have used Christianity to fulfill their own agendas; at the same time, Christianity, like any other religion, has contributed far more than it may appear to have cost. It's going to be interesting to see what atheism is going to add to the mix; it's skepticism isn't a bad trait, as long as it's not taken to an extreme.

The problem is that most of the verses you are quoting have little to do with how Christianity is practiced. It's already a given that the next pope will bring in more reforms than Pope John Paul did; the current one is just one to make the conservatives happy. Pat Robertson is considered a joke or very scary, depending on who you ask.

The times are changing, and yet the opponents of the change aren't Christians, but those hate Christians. It's almost as if there is something to gain about Christians being mobilized and conservative. Wouldn't you rather them be quiet and liberal? Do you really want to annoy one of the biggest groups on the planet? Do you really want to put us in a corner? We've won a number of court cases, lost some, but have won far more than we've lost.

The bottom line is that I'm just tired of the stupid attacks. If ou have a grudge against Christianity, well, grow up, move one and find a new target. Admit the issues in your own beliefs, and leave mine alone.

Or do you intend to be nothing more than a cliche?

TS
The Conspirator
You didn't read what I said, instead you attack me again (typical)
This country's is overwhelmingly Christian and in this country religion is important to people that dose and has lead to fundamentalism. We have a fundamentalist in the white house, we have fundamentalists in the senate and Congress. we have fundamentalist pushing creationism into schools (a plan developed by the Discovery Institute (who developed the intelligent design scam) called the wedge strategy).
The bible according to Christan doctrine is the "word of God" thus when the bible says something homophobic and sexist, God says it and God is the source of Christan morality.
Faith is bad yet your supposed to except Gods existence by faith, worse, Christan's consider it a virtue. Its not a virtue, it leads to ignorants and stupidity. It should be considered immoral and even evil.
You your self have admitted Christianity has paradoxes, paradoxes usually (and in Christianity's case) mean there is something wrong with the it. Omnipotents paradox, omniscients paradox, problem of evil, problem of hell.

These problem permeate this county and as an effect (do to the power of this country) effect the would, in a bad way.
HereticMonkey
The Conspirator wrote:
You didn't read what I said, instead you attack me again (typical)

I did read it, and I'm getting of hearing "You didn't read me" when I disagree with you. You keep re-hashing the same illogical arguments, and saying that you were misunderstood. Nifty.

One of your biggies is war. War has a lot of different causes, of which religion is one of the least likely causes or reasons. It's usually tied to gaining resources, questing for glory, or population control, and something as basic as you've promised to do something for others (such as feudalism or treaty) keeps them at it. I think you would be hard-pressed to show that Vikings waged war due to religion when they had limited resources and a definite need for glory, even when their religion was based on the concept.

On the other hand, you are presented with a definite case when a "belief system" went on jihad against another, and, because it's yours, you deny that it happened that way. Mysteriously Christians and Jews ended up in gulags, and Chinese temples and churches were attacked and the monks/nuns killed, specifically because they were religious. Interesting that...


Quote:
This country's is overwhelmingly Christian and in this country religion is important to people that dose and has lead to fundamentalism.

I'm not sure if only 76% of the country being Christian counts as being "overwhelming", especially when the next biggest group is "none"....

Quote:
We have a fundamentalist in the white house, we have fundamentalists in the senate and Congress. we have fundamentalist pushing creationism into schools (a plan developed by the Discovery Institute (who developed the intelligent design scam) called the wedge strategy).

Bush's religion has been debated by pretty much everyone, but that's another issue. Past that: The Congress (which is made up of the Senate and House of Reps) are a diverse group, which is bound to have a few fundies in it. And the push for ID in schools hasn't been backed by every Christian, although it's not that hard to understand the push given the lack of respect given Christians of late.

In short: I'm not really sure of the relevance of this.

Quote:
The bible according to Christan doctrine is the "word of God" thus when the bible says something homophobic and sexist, God says it and God is the source of Christan morality.

Correction: Also, it's "The Bible" (note caps; it's a specific book). It's the "Living Word of God"; a not-so-minor point. As has been shown a number of times in the past, it is up to re-interpretation. As noted: It's not a matter of if, but when, when someone will make the point that the OT really is outdated and should be considered guidelines rather than rules.

Even then, however, the rules that are there are still great for telling us why people do the things that they do; after all you can't know where you are going without exploring where you have been. We need those historical landmarks to let us know how far we have progressed. And that we can discuss this without either of us being stoned is an interesting consideration...

Quote:
Faith is bad yet your supposed to except Gods existence by faith, worse, Christan's consider it a virtue. Its not a virtue, it leads to ignorants and stupidity. It should be considered immoral and even evil.

Faith, when combined with humility, gives you self-confidence, direction, and an enhanced ability to deal with crisis. I'd call that a good thing...

Quote:
You your self have admitted Christianity has paradoxes, paradoxes usually (and in Christianity's case) mean there is something wrong with the it. Omnipotents paradox, omniscients paradox, problem of evil, problem of hell.

As long as you've never heard of koans, sure...

Quote:
These problem permeate this county and as an effect (do to the power of this country) effect the would, in a bad way.

That's your opinion. Nonetheless, the democracy that we've spread, our ability to help others, and that we are looked to lead springs from that faith...

Yeah, I know I shouldn't feed a troll; I'm just tired of the attacks while claiming to be innocent...

HM
The Conspirator
HereticMonkey wrote:
The Conspirator wrote:
You didn't read what I said, instead you attack me again (typical)

I did read it,

No, you didn't, you attack me and you attack my argument by calling it illogical, when its not.
You'll notice how I have not called you anything nor have I called you arguments what they are not (illogical, stupid, and so on), I may think it, but to say it would be rood and thats not how you debate, when you debate, you debate the issues, you don't attack people, beliefs, arguments, you debate them.



Quote:
Quote:
This country's is overwhelmingly Christian and in this country religion is important to people that dose and has lead to fundamentalism.

I'm not sure if only 76% of the country being Christian counts as being "overwhelming", especially when the next biggest group is "none"....

Yes, that is overwelming.

Quote:
Quote:
We have a fundamentalist in the white house, we have fundamentalists in the senate and Congress. we have fundamentalist pushing creationism into schools (a plan developed by the Discovery Institute (who developed the intelligent design scam) called the wedge strategy).

Bush's religion has been debated by pretty much everyone, but that's another issue. Past that: The Congress (which is made up of the Senate and House of Reps) are a diverse group, which is bound to have a few fundies in it. And the push for ID in schools hasn't been backed by every Christian, although it's not that hard to understand the push given the lack of respect given Christians of late.

In short: I'm not really sure of the relevance of this.

Read it.
Religion is important to people in this country, when religion is important to people, fundamentalism thrives, and they are, and there are fundamentalists in positions of power. And we are now feeling the effects of this. We have fundamentalists trying to push evolutions (a science) out of science class and intelligent design (creationism, not a science) in to science class, we have fundamentalist trying to push homophobic laws, and many more bad things caused by fundamentalism.

Quote:
Quote:
The bible according to Christan doctrine is the "word of God" thus when the bible says something homophobic and sexist, God says it and God is the source of Christan morality.

Correction: Also, it's "The Bible" (note caps; it's a specific book). It's the "Living Word of God"; a not-so-minor point. As has been shown a number of times in the past, it is up to re-interpretation. As noted: It's not a matter of if, but when, when someone will make the point that the OT really is outdated and should be considered guidelines rather than rules.

Even then, however, the rules that are there are still great for telling us why people do the things that they do; after all you can't know where you are going without exploring where you have been. We need those historical landmarks to let us know how far we have progressed. And that we can discuss this without either of us being stoned is an interesting consideration...

You can only interpret parts that are interpretable and allot of things it says are not. And as it is "the word of Gos" when its says something sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, that is the word of God, God said it cause its the word of god, its not just a story, its not just a a history, its Gods word.
And the bible says the old testament rules still apply (Luke 16:17 Matthew 5:18-19 (of course there are the contradictions(Luke 16:16 Romans 6:14 Ephesians 2:15) but cause there are parts that say the old testament riles still apply and the fact that the old testament has parts that say there rules will apply forever (Leviticus 23:14,21,31 Deuteronomy 4:8-9 Deuteronomy 7:91 Chronicles 16:15 ()A thousand generations did not pass before Jesus was burn) Psalm 119:151-2 Psalm 119:160) in other words, it still apples))


Quote:
Quote:
Faith is bad yet your supposed to except Gods existence by faith, worse, Christan's consider it a virtue. Its not a virtue, it leads to ignorants and stupidity. It should be considered immoral and even evil.

Faith, when combined with humility, gives you self-confidence, direction, and an enhanced ability to deal with crisis. I'd call that a good thing...

Faith is believing something with out or despite evidence, that in no way can lead to anything good, the only possible out comes are ignorants, stupidity and superstition.

Quote:
Quote:
You your self have admitted Christianity has paradoxes, paradoxes usually (and in Christianity's case) mean there is something wrong with the it. Omnipotents paradox, omniscients paradox, problem of evil, problem of hell.

As long as you've never heard of koans, sure...

I don't see how koans could in any way deal with those paradoxes.
Omnipotents paradox "can God create a stone too heavy for him to lift? If yes, than there is limits to his power, if no, there is limits to his power thus ether way, he is not omnipotent", omniscience paradox "God is omniscient thus he knows whats going to happen before it happens, free will exists thus God can not know whats going to happen before it happens" Problem of evil "God is omnipotent and omnibenevolent but evil exists" problem of hell "God in omnibenevolent, God damns people eternally to suffer forever in hell, thus God is not omnibenevelint."

Quote:
Quote:
These problem permeate this county and as an effect (do to the power of this country) effect the would, in a bad way.

That's your opinion. Nonetheless, the democracy that we've spread, our ability to help others, and that we are looked to lead springs from that faith...

No thats a fact. This country is the richest and most powerful nation on the planet, the things that happen here can effect the world.

Quote:
Yeah, I know I shouldn't feed a troll; I'm just tired of the attacks while claiming to be innocent...

Again you attack me, you don't like my arguments, you can't beet them so you attack me. How civil.
HereticMonkey
The Conspirator wrote:
You'll notice how I have not called you anything nor have I called you arguments what they are not (illogical, stupid, and so on), I may think it, but to say it would be rood and thats not how you debate, when you debate, you debate the issues, you don't attack people, beliefs, arguments, you debate them.

But you have called my arguments illogical and worse. Even in your last post. It gets insulting when the best you can do is quote verses well out of context, or ignore entire arguments when it's not convenient to your point or apply arguments when they just don't apply to the situation...

Quote:
Quote:

I'm not sure if only 76% of the country being Christian counts as being "overwhelming", especially when the next biggest group is "none"....

Yes, that is overwelming.

So what would be a "whelming" number to you?


Quote:
Quote:

In short: I'm not really sure of the relevance of this.

Read it.

I did. That's why I am asking how it's relevant...

Quote:
Religion is important to people in this country, when religion is important to people, fundamentalism thrives, and they are, and there are fundamentalists in positions of power. And we are now feeling the effects of this. We have fundamentalists trying to push evolutions (a science) out of science class and intelligent design (creationism, not a science) in to science class, we have fundamentalist trying to push homophobic laws, and many more bad things caused by fundamentalism.

At the same time, we've seen remarkable progress in this country in the area of civil rights. That very progress is the issue, not necessarily the fundies. You have a lot of change happening, and some people are overwhelmed by it. Sometimes, a step back is needed in order to get a grasp on the problem.

Read: If fundamentalism is the problem, then what is causing the fundamentalism?

One of the weird parts about the civil rights movement is that you now have people still trying to make things better, but not realizing that they now need to change the mentality of the groups affected rather than the groups that were doing the oppressing, or, better yet, allowing for the mentality of the group. Consider for a sec that there aren't as many female managers as there are male ones; is it correct to say that it's the fault of men holding them back when most women just don't want the management positions (happy being wives, would rather be mothers, etc.)? I know there's always going to be some sexism, but is that a legitimate concern as it used to be?

Also, why is it acceptable to push any agenda, as long as it's not a Christian one? History teachers are being required to teach how minorities affected history, biology teachers aren't allowed to use frogs, and you're allowed to have "holiday parties" but no Christmas plays. I appreciate the need, but it's getting ridiculous. I can name ten black people that have had a major impact on American history just using the same history books every one else had access to, yet most black community leaders have forgotten the impact of even Frederick Douglass, George Washington Carver and Harriet Tubman. And don't get me started on the "the ancient Swahili warriors that celebrated Kwanzaa"...

That makes a lot of people feel threatened. Address that, and you'll see a lot less fundamentalism. Or is it just better to complain about the fundies?

Quote:
You can only interpret parts that are interpretable and allot of things it says are not. And as it is "the word of Gos" when its says something sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, that is the word of God, God said it cause its the word of god, its not just a story, its not just a a history, its Gods word.

I've never read the "the word of Gos", and therefore I can't really comment. However, "The Living Word of God" was originally written when homosexual really was a bad thing and when races competed for limited resources. [No offense, but when have women not been in charge? I'm guessing you've never been married...]

Quote:
And the bible says the old testament rules still apply.

Again, I haven't read this "bible"; I have read The Bible, and there is some legitimate debate as to the degree to which the OT still applies, especially when you read through Acts...


Quote:
Faith is believing something with out or despite evidence, that in no way can lead to anything good, the only possible out comes are ignorants, stupidity and superstition.

Not to mention some incredible artwork, a lot of great science and the need to explore, and some of the wisest men and women in the world. Or is evolution a bad thing?

Quote:
I don't see how koans could in any way deal with those paradoxes.
Omnipotents paradox "can God create a stone too heavy for him to lift? If yes, than there is limits to his power, if no, there is limits to his power thus ether way, he is not omnipotent", omniscience paradox "God is omniscient thus he knows whats going to happen before it happens, free will exists thus God can not know whats going to happen before it happens" Problem of evil "God is omnipotent and omnibenevolent but evil exists" problem of hell "God in omnibenevolent, God damns people eternally to suffer forever in hell, thus God is not omnibenevelint."

Now, you're just making stuff up to argue about...


Quote:
No thats a fact. This country is the richest and most powerful nation on the planet, the things that happen here can effect the world.

Duh. Now, if we are a basically Christian country, why is Christianity so bad from a practical viewpoint? What does atheism have to offer in that regard, especially looking at countries that have tried to enforce it?

Quote:
Quote:
Yeah, I know I shouldn't feed a troll; I'm just tired of the attacks while claiming to be innocent...

Again you attack me, you don't like my arguments, you can't beet them so you attack me. How civil.

I think I beat them pretty well. Anyone that attacks another because they feel that the other's religion is leads to nothing "good, the only possible out comes are ignorants, stupidity and superstition" is usually going to win. I've never attacked atheism because of its inherent issues; I've been trying to point out the problems of its more radical and fanatical believers...

HM
The Conspirator
HereticMonkey wrote:
The Conspirator wrote:
You'll notice how I have not called you anything nor have I called you arguments what they are not (illogical, stupid, and so on), I may think it, but to say it would be rood and thats not how you debate, when you debate, you debate the issues, you don't attack people, beliefs, arguments, you debate them.

But you have called my arguments illogical and worse. Even in your last post. It gets insulting when the best you can do is quote verses well out of context, or ignore entire arguments when it's not convenient to your point or apply arguments when they just don't apply to the situation...

1. I did not quote out of context. thats what it says. You don't wont it to say that? Look at difrent translationas or at difrent parts to find something that says difrent

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:

In short: I'm not really sure of the relevance of this.

Read it.

I did. That's why I am asking how it's relevant...

The relevances is clear. The important of religion leads to fundamentalism, and the fundamentalists are damaging this country.

Quote:
Quote:
Religion is important to people in this country, when religion is important to people, fundamentalism thrives, and they are, and there are fundamentalists in positions of power. And we are now feeling the effects of this. We have fundamentalists trying to push evolutions (a science) out of science class and intelligent design (creationism, not a science) in to science class, we have fundamentalist trying to push homophobic laws, and many more bad things caused by fundamentalism.

At the same time, we've seen remarkable progress in this country in the area of civil rights. That very progress is the issue, not necessarily the fundies. You have a lot of change happening, and some people are overwhelmed by it. Sometimes, a step back is needed in order to get a grasp on the problem.

That leads to conservatism, not fundamentalism. Fundamentalism rises when religion becomes important, religion is important in this country as a result fundamentalism thrives, you can see further evidence of this in the middle east, religion there is much more important to people than religion here and fundamentalism is far more prevalent there than here.

Quote:
Read: If fundamentalism is the problem, then what is causing the fundamentalism?

One of the weird parts about the civil rights movement is that you now have people still trying to make things better, but not realizing that they now need to change the mentality of the groups affected rather than the groups that were doing the oppressing, or, better yet, allowing for the mentality of the group. Consider for a sec that there aren't as many female managers as there are male ones; is it correct to say that it's the fault of men holding them back when most women just don't want the management positions (happy being wives, would rather be mothers, etc.)? I know there's always going to be some sexism, but is that a legitimate concern as it used to be?

Also, why is it acceptable to push any agenda, as long as it's not a Christian one? History teachers are being required to teach how minorities affected history, biology teachers aren't allowed to use frogs, and you're allowed to have "holiday parties" but no Christmas plays. I appreciate the need, but it's getting ridiculous. I can name ten black people that have had a major impact on American history just using the same history books every one else had access to, yet most black community leaders have forgotten the impact of even Frederick Douglass, George Washington Carver and Harriet Tubman. And don't get me started on the "the ancient Swahili warriors that celebrated Kwanzaa"...

That makes a lot of people feel threatened. Address that, and you'll see a lot less fundamentalism. Or is it just better to complain about the fundies?

Most people, most Christan's do not won't creationism in the classroom, they don't won't bible based laws, they don;t wont these things, ins the fundamentalist that are pushing these. Most Christens are not fundamentalists. I'm not saying this is a problem with Christianity, I'm saying its a problem with the country.

Quote:
Quote:
You can only interpret parts that are interpretable and allot of things it says are not. And as it is "the word of Gos" when its says something sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, that is the word of God, God said it cause its the word of god, its not just a story, its not just a a history, its Gods word.

I've never read the "the word of Gos", and therefore I can't really comment. However, "The Living Word of God" was originally written when homosexual really was a bad thing and when races competed for limited resources. [No offense, but when have women not been in charge? I'm guessing you've never been married...]

Homosexuality was never bad, it is only in Judaism, Christianity and Islam where its bad, in all other cultures it was excepted and in no other parts of the world was there all of "fighting between races for resorses".


Quote:
Quote:
And the bible says the old testament rules still apply.

Again, I haven't read this "bible"; I have read The Bible, and there is some legitimate debate as to the degree to which the OT still applies, especially when you read through Acts...

Given there are parts of the new testament that says the old testament rules still apply and parts of the old testament that says will always apply or will apply for a thousand generations it makes much more sense for them to still apply.


Quote:
Quote:
Faith is believing something with out or despite evidence, that in no way can lead to anything good, the only possible out comes are ignorants, stupidity and superstition.

Not to mention some incredible artwork, a lot of great science and the need to explore, and some of the wisest men and women in the world. Or is evolution a bad thing?

Faith dose not lead to grate works of any kind are any one to be wise, only ignorants, stupidity and superstition. Grate artistic work come from imagination and grate skill, not faith, faith goes against the very principle of science and to be wise you need knowledge, faith hinders , not helps which the acquiring of knowledge.

Quote:
Quote:
I don't see how koans could in any way deal with those paradoxes.
Omnipotents paradox "can God create a stone too heavy for him to lift? If yes, than there is limits to his power, if no, there is limits to his power thus ether way, he is not omnipotent", omniscience paradox "God is omniscient thus he knows whats going to happen before it happens, free will exists thus God can not know whats going to happen before it happens" Problem of evil "God is omnipotent and omnibenevolent but evil exists" problem of hell "God in omnibenevolent, God damns people eternally to suffer forever in hell, thus God is not omnibenevelint."

Now, you're just making stuff up to argue about...

No, do you not do any reserch?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_evil
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&client=opera&rls=en&hs=MRC&pwst=1&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=problem+of+evil&spell=1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_Hell
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&client=opera&rls=en&hs=qRC&q=problem+of+hell&btnG=Search
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence_paradox
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&client=opera&rls=en&hs=Q8W&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=omnipotence+paradox&spell=1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newcomb's_paradox
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&client=opera&rls=en&hs=fTC&q=omniscience+and+free+will&btnG=Search


Quote:
Quote:
No thats a fact. This country is the richest and most powerful nation on the planet, the things that happen here can effect the world.

Duh. Now, if we are a basically Christian country, why is Christianity so bad from a practical viewpoint? What does atheism have to offer in that regard, especially looking at countries that have tried to enforce it?

Christianity has a number of probloms, bad probloms, then theres the fundamintlists.
Secularism dose not have any stupid, pointless or evil religions laws and it has no fundamentalism.

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Yeah, I know I shouldn't feed a troll; I'm just tired of the attacks while claiming to be innocent...

Again you attack me, you don't like my arguments, you can't beet them so you attack me. How civil.

I think I beat them pretty well. Anyone that attacks another because they feel that the other's religion is leads to nothing "good, the only possible out comes are ignorants, stupidity and superstition" is usually going to win. I've never attacked atheism because of its inherent issues; I've been trying to point out the problems of its more radical and fanatical believers...

No, you haven't even dinted them, I have pointed out problems with Christianity that you have failed to deal with, evil in the bible, the "word of God" which you ether ignore, say "its debatable" or say I miss quoted it, when that is clearly what it says, problems with religion it self that you deny completely and the major problems of faith and you only pointed out things that faith leads too that faith has nothing or impacts negatively and deliberately posted falsehoods, saying Stalins and Mao's actions where caused by Atheism (which is a complete fallacy) and saying Hitler was atheism and then completely ignore the evidence that I post that disproved it.. Then you attack me, a typical tactic of the religions when they are up against a wall.
HoboPelican
mind wrote:
What do you think the world would be like without Religion? Religion seems to causes nothing but hate and anger and it has done for many, many years. Just look at the following 9/11, Iraq, Afghanistan, Northern Ireland, Palestine, Israel, Bosnia, and Sri Lanka, all caused by religious differences.

Do you think religion in to blame or do you think tyrants use it as a cover to get what they want?


I guess I don't blame religion for all the anger and hate in the world and it isn't all the tyrants either. I think it is man himself. Men don't need a tyrant or a priest to hate any given group of people. They may use our hate and channel it for their own purposes, but man the animal is always willing to hate and kill members of other tribes, be they political, religious, ethnic, sexual, geographic, etc.

BTW- Con and H Monkey, each of you guys are going on about how the other can't understand or is ignoring what you are saying. Did either of you ever consider that you just aren't that good at explaining yourself? No offense meant, but try taking a step back and consider WHY the other is not understanding your point. Instead of tossing out more and more words and arguing multiple points in each post, try focusing on one issue and clearly discuss that until you see where the dispute is. Neither of you are stupid, you just need to listen instead of ranting. (unless ranting is all you really want to do)
Again, no offense meant.
HereticMonkey
From my perspective, the problem is that Conspirator is describing Christianity as he perceives it to be, based on a literal reading of The Bible, as well as the conservative side of the religion. I'm trying to describe things as they are practiced by the majority of the worshippers For example, most Christians have no problem with abortion as long as a) it's necessary to save the mother's life, b) the mother is the victim of rape, or c) it's not used as the sole form of birth control (ie, condoms were used)).

For example, there are a number of things that are verboten in the OT, but are apparently okay in the NT. For example, burnt sacrifices (no longer necessary from when the merchants were chased from the Temple), stoning (Mary Magdalene), and a host of other things were changed in status.

Also, I'm trying to point out that, applying the same standards as applied to Christianity, atheism has the same problems (as practiced if not preached). I have no problem what a person believes; I am having a problem with the attacks Christianity garners, usually from atheists in general, and those that won't countenance any attack on atheism specifically.

In short: I have no problem if my beliefs are challenged, as long as they are respected as well. Ask questions on why I believe something; don't slam me because my beliefs are different than yours.

That said...
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:

In short: I'm not really sure of the relevance of this.

Read it.

I did. That's why I am asking how it's relevant...

The relevances is clear. The important of religion leads to fundamentalism, and the fundamentalists are damaging this country.[/quote]
You only get fundamentalism when it becomes politically expedient, or when Christians feel like they are under attack. Bush and is the best example of the first, and a lot of Christians are seriously debating his belief. Pat Robertson is an example of the latter, as a lot of Christians feel under attack.

Quote:
Most people, most Christan's do not won't creationism in the classroom, they don't won't bible based laws, they don;t wont these things, ins the fundamentalist that are pushing these. Most Christens are not fundamentalists. I'm not saying this is a problem with Christianity, I'm saying its a problem with the country.

I think that people are, in general, feeling the fiundies right now as a reaction to extreme political correctness; as PC'ness is hitting a certain level of silliness, people that are more conservative seek to halt it or slow it down. In that regard, I think creationism being allowed into schools is more symbolic than actually needed.


Quote:
Homosexuality was never bad, it is only in Judaism, Christianity and Islam where its bad, in all other cultures it was excepted and in no other parts of the world was there all of "fighting between races for resorses".

Actually, this isn't quite accurate. Native Americans had probably the best attitude (in that gay men could proclaim themselves as such), but even they required that gay men act as women. Japan has the more typical attitude, in that you can be gay, but only as long as you keep it hidden.

As a sidenote, gay behavior is acceptable for young men in Europe and parts of Asia (including a number of Moslem countries, especially Turkey), but they are expected to grow out of that stage.

Outside of Ancient Greece and Rome, there really hasn't been major acceptance for homosexuals prior to the last couple of decades. Lesbians are a different story, but that's because of harems...


Quote:
Given there are parts of the new testament that says the old testament rules still apply and parts of the old testament that says will always apply or will apply for a thousand generations it makes much more sense for them to still apply.

I have no problem agreeing to disagree, as long as you realize that most people tend to agree that OT rules just don't apply as much as they used to...

Quote:
Faith dose not lead to grate works of any kind are any one to be wise, only ignorants, stupidity and superstition. Grate artistic work come from imagination and grate skill, not faith, faith goes against the very principle of science and to be wise you need knowledge, faith hinders , not helps which the acquiring of knowledge.

No offense, but this flies in the face of History; you have far too many scientists and artists that were inspired to greatness and major discoveries by their faith.

Or is evolution truly backwards?


Quote:
Christianity has a number of probloms, bad probloms, then theres the fundamintlists.
Secularism dose not have any stupid, pointless or evil religions laws and it has no fundamentalism.

Apparently spelling is a secularist problem.Wink Oh, and attacking things that they refuse to understand...

Ever think that those laws that you don't like had a legitimate point at some time, and have been dealt with as they became pointless? We agree that slavery is evil now, but was it in Ancient Greece? And should we judge Ancient Greeks for their love of slavery and thus condemn them and their schools of thought?

HM
Aredon
It also appears as though this thread is drifting into an arguement about the ligitimacy of christianity. Which was not the original question of the thread. Lets get back on topic shall we?

I'll state my opinion:
Religion cannot be the root of all evil becuase it is used by people to cause evil. Therefore, conclusively, people are the root of all evil.

Now lets hear some arguements! Cool
HereticMonkey
It drifted acceptably....From the general to the specific Very Happy ....

I disagree, though, about people in general being evil: Although it seems that there some groups that do tend that way (like manufacturing execs, tobacco companies, and Hollywood lawyers), I think that most people commit the occasional sin, but in general are decent people...

HM
ratfungus
Love me - love my dogma. Unfortunately religion has to be taught (as does hatred). In order for it to be taught - someone has to teach it (almost invariably a man). Anyone aspiring to the position of teacher of religion must have some ambition (otherwise why not leave the teaching of religion to others). Anyone with this kind of ambition will put their own slant on the teachings of the religion they follow (either as a continuation and refinement (in the end - extremism) of what their 'great teacher' taught them - or because their teacher WAS WRONG - and they, in their greatness, know better (extremism)). It is my opinion that there would be none of these religious wars (or at least wars in the name of religion) if people followed the true word of their religion. The problem is, the people take their lead from their religious leaders as to what is the true word of their chosen religion and, in my opinion (and de fact from history) we all know where that too often leads. War. What happened when the Shah was overthrown in Iran - what was it now - I believe it was ten thousand people murdered by the Ayatollah Khomeini - that , as far as I'm aware is not allowed IN ANY RELIGION. Just for the record - I'm an atheist and that's not a religion.
The Conspirator
HereticMonkey: I don't feel like continuing the debate. Its gone on long enough.
Just to add one last thing, weather the bible is mint to be taken literately or not (and I never said it was, the best was is not to take it literately) Christan's (weather you add living onto it or not) consider it the word of God even when it says something sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, wrong, evil or what ever, it is God saying it and unless its "if you believe this than bad things will happen" and some parts do have that but for most its God saying "this" and some of it is bad, homophobic, xenophobic, sexist and so on.
The-Nisk
Any religion which forces it's views on people (in catholic schools you have to study christianity) or/and causes violence and terorism.
Should be renamed 'Terrorism' and not 'followers of god' and all that other rubish. Catholic church killed more people than any war we ever had! Most organised religions are evil. (Exception is budhism, although still not perfect) Religion is suposed to be something priate and not public like parades and 'Holy wars'. A World without religion would be much better because then one can make up his own mind, unaffected by major world religions. (some of which (i repeat) force their veiws on people from a young age, like Christianity(catholism)).
ratfungus
The-Nisk wrote:
Any religion which forces it's views on people (in catholic schools you have to study christianity) or/and causes violence and terorism.
Should be renamed 'Terrorism' and not 'followers of god' and all that other rubish. Catholic church killed more people than any war we ever had! Most organised religions are evil. (Exception is budhism, although still not perfect) Religion is suposed to be something priate and not public like parades and 'Holy wars'. A World without religion would be much better because then one can make up his own mind, unaffected by major world religions. (some of which (i repeat) force their veiws on people from a young age, like Christianity(catholism)).


Here here. And once these religious zealots get a critical mass (by that I mean a large enough following) then anyone who speaks out against them is for the chop - and I don't mean metaphorically, I mean literally in many instances. In effect they behave, de facto, like terrorists. Anyone disagrees and there's hell to pay - so to speak. These religious zealots, over hundreds and hundreds of years, have terrorised their own populations if they stepped out of line.
HereticMonkey
All right, I feel better now Twisted Evil ...

ratfungus: I keep saying that atheism is a religion because it has all bad things that are ascribed to most religions:
a) Fanatics that are willing to defend the faith no matter what.
b) The fanatics tend to slam the opposing religion no matter what, and any statements are basically: [Religion] is better than others because my religion doesn't [issue].
c) Fanatics don't let little things like facts get in the way.
d) And who said a god was necessary? Otherwise, how can Buddhism be a non-theistic religion?

In essence, it's a way to show that atheism, which is said to prevent so many things that religions are supposed to do wrong. To wit:

1) Religion=War: I think that I can make a stronger case that atheists create war, especially in the modern era. Religious groups are in fact usually the first ones to point out the evils of war, and to protest them. They are also usually behind the charities to make sure that people get food, money, and other things in order to get on with life.

2) Religion=Ignorance: Religion has inspired some of the greatest art on the planet, with even Love/Romance and Rebellion distant on the list. It has also been behind preservation of even the most heretical facts and has inspired investigation into corners of the world that would otherwise be ignored.

It's easy to condemn religion for Galileo, but I think that religion has done more for enlightening the world than it has done for darkening it. Again, I think that I can make a stronger case for atheism causing ignorance than I can religion, especially considering that the biggest book burnings and intellectual persecutions were under atheist regimes.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, is religion evil? No. Any organization can have examples of how it's an evil organization. Even environmental groups have those that they are less than proud of; consider Greenpeace's terrorism reputation and the Sierra Club's rep for less than savory tactics (such as staking).

In short, just because a group has members and events that they aren't proud of, doesn't mean that the organization is necessary evil...

HM
The-Nisk
HereticMonkey wrote:
All right, I feel better now Twisted Evil ...

ratfungus: I keep saying that atheism is a religion because it has all bad things that are ascribed to most religions:
a) Fanatics that are willing to defend the faith no matter what.
b) The fanatics tend to slam the opposing religion no matter what, and any statements are basically: [Religion] is better than others because my religion doesn't [issue].
c) Fanatics don't let little things like facts get in the way.
d) And who said a god was necessary? Otherwise, how can Buddhism be a non-theistic religion?

In essence, it's a way to show that atheism, which is said to prevent so many things that religions are supposed to do wrong. To wit:

1) Religion=War: I think that I can make a stronger case that atheists create war, especially in the modern era. Religious groups are in fact usually the first ones to point out the evils of war, and to protest them. They are also usually behind the charities to make sure that people get food, money, and other things in order to get on with life.

2) Religion=Ignorance: Religion has inspired some of the greatest art on the planet, with even Love/Romance and Rebellion distant on the list. It has also been behind preservation of even the most heretical facts and has inspired investigation into corners of the world that would otherwise be ignored.

It's easy to condemn religion for Galileo, but I think that religion has done more for enlightening the world than it has done for darkening it. Again, I think that I can make a stronger case for atheism causing ignorance than I can religion, especially considering that the biggest book burnings and intellectual persecutions were under atheist regimes.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, is religion evil? No. Any organization can have examples of how it's an evil organization. Even environmental groups have those that they are less than proud of; consider Greenpeace's terrorism reputation and the Sierra Club's rep for less than savory tactics (such as staking).

In short, just because a group has members and events that they aren't proud of, doesn't mean that the organization is necessary evil...

HM


Am I to understand that you are labeling me as Aitheist? Evil or Very Mad
I do not follow any religion but my own beliefs.

I won't deny that certanly christiany changed a lot over the years, but it's roots in the history are far from 'good'. However christianity today causes more good than evil, certanly(maybe they decided to repay for their sins?). Still you can't deny that Christianity WAS evil. You say it inspired great works of art? Maybe, it was a patron of arts yes, but i think it can't take any credit for the works produced (except funding it) that goes solomenly to the artist.
Christianity was corupt during the reneisance, popes bought their way into higher positions and murdered a good few people too. (Which is why Martin Luther tried to reform it).
I'm talking about the quest for the holy grail, how many people were killed by the church?
But here's the point that realy 'grinds my gears', you say it did more to illuminate the world than darken it?
Christianity destroyed anything that went against (their version of) the bible. Galieo got put under the house arrest just for saying that earth wasn't the centre of the universe. Infact Christianity oppresed science through out the ages! So what has it done to enlighten the world? (this question goes out only to the 'HereticMonkey')

I don't understand why people want to follow any religon at all? Confused
The very idea that someone is telling me what to believe and seting out morals for me (another form of brain washing) i find repulsive. I'd rather to keep not only my body but my mind and spirit free.
HereticMonkey
The-Nisk wrote:

Am I to understand that you are labeling me as Aitheist? Evil or Very Mad
I do not follow any religion but my own beliefs.

You label yourself. Read: No, I'm not labeling you. You label yourself.

Quote:
Still you can't deny that Christianity WAS evil.

Actually, I can and am.

Quote:
You say it inspired great works of art? Maybe, it was a patron of arts yes, but i think it can't take any credit for the works produced (except funding it) that goes solomenly to the artist.

How am I saying that by any stretch that the talent, skill and perseverance were the Church's? The funding was, but the experience, the skill, the technique were most definitely the artist's. The inspiration may have come from religion, but the artist was in charge of the brush.

If the Church paid for Michaelangelo to paint the church ceiling, why would they claim credit for his work? Wouldn't it be better PR to allow the artist the credit?

What was your logic on that?

Quote:
Christianity was corupt during the reneisance, popes bought their way into higher positions and murdered a good few people too. (Which is why Martin Luther tried to reform it).

But, if the Church was as corrupt as you say, then how did we ever hear of the guy? Why did he live to a ripe old age? Why not just kill him then and there?

Quote:
I'm talking about the quest for the holy grail, how many people were killed by the church?

None. It was a mythical quest. No real people were harmed in the telling of the tale...

Quote:
But here's the point that realy 'grinds my gears', you say it did more to illuminate the world than darken it?

Yep...

Quote:
Christianity destroyed anything that went against (their version of) the bible. Galieo got put under the house arrest just for saying that earth wasn't the centre of the universe.

We owe genetics and evolution to the Church. The expansion of mathematics, engineering, chemistry, and agriculture are all due to the efforts of the Church. There is not one science that has not been helped to some degree by religion; after all, it copied books and kept them safe.

And Galileo is arguably one of the best examples of corruption, but worst of how the Church denied science; after all, his books were published, BY THE CHURCH, just four years after his death. If he had not accidentally humiliated the pope at the time of his inquisition, odds are good that his views would have prevailed, and he would not have been forced into his villa. That he was even given a trial, and allowed to present his case by a pope that disagreed with him, says a lot about the Church's perspective on science.

Quote:
Infact Christianity oppresed science through out the ages!

And when did it do this "opression"? Generally, it was scientists and politicians doing the oppressing...


Quote:
I don't understand why people want to follow any religon at all? Confused
The very idea that someone is telling me what to believe and seting out morals for me (another form of brain washing) i find repulsive. I'd rather to keep not only my body but my mind and spirit free.

What you believe in is up to you. Our Founding Fathers demonstrated that you don't have to believe in an active god; you just needed to apply the principles. The US is formed on Christian beliefs; that's based on their writings, the records of the meetings, and even the proclamations made to the public and to King George IV.

Yet, separating Church from State was still important to them.

And here's the weird thing: You can eliminate The Trinity completely from The Bible (in terms of their deity status), and treat The Bible as a work of fiction, and you still have a functioning system of belief. Weirder, it's basic elements as put forth by Jesus, not the OT, can be found in the very religions that consider themselves non-Christian (with the exception of the La Vey satanists and cannibals). Christianity is very compatible with almost religion on the face of the planet.

[Oh, wait: I'm supposed to be brainwashed into pointing out that Christianity requires The Trinity. Um...Sorry? But then I'm guessing that at no point you've bothered trying to figure out why I chose Heretic Monkey, so I'm not feeling too bad...]

As for the other part: Some people just need the supernatural aspects of religion. And not just the so-called Religions of the Book; that applies to Buddhism, Hinduism, Shintoism, and paganism. It just fits with their worldview, and not everyone worries about the philosophic issues; not everyone needs to be philosophers.

If it helps...
HM
The-Nisk
HereticMonkey wrote:
The-Nisk wrote:

Am I to understand that you are labeling me as Aitheist? Evil or Very Mad
I do not follow any religion but my own beliefs.

You label yourself. Read: No, I'm not labeling you. You label yourself.

Quote:
Still you can't deny that Christianity WAS evil.

Actually, I can and am.

Quote:
You say it inspired great works of art? Maybe, it was a patron of arts yes, but i think it can't take any credit for the works produced (except funding it) that goes solomenly to the artist.

How am I saying that by any stretch that the talent, skill and perseverance were the Church's? The funding was, but the experience, the skill, the technique were most definitely the artist's. The inspiration may have come from religion, but the artist was in charge of the brush.

If the Church paid for Michaelangelo to paint the church ceiling, why would they claim credit for his work? Wouldn't it be better PR to allow the artist the credit?

What was your logic on that?

Quote:
Christianity was corupt during the reneisance, popes bought their way into higher positions and murdered a good few people too. (Which is why Martin Luther tried to reform it).

But, if the Church was as corrupt as you say, then how did we ever hear of the guy? Why did he live to a ripe old age? Why not just kill him then and there?

Quote:
I'm talking about the quest for the holy grail, how many people were killed by the church?

None. It was a mythical quest. No real people were harmed in the telling of the tale...

Quote:
But here's the point that realy 'grinds my gears', you say it did more to illuminate the world than darken it?

Yep...

Quote:
Christianity destroyed anything that went against (their version of) the bible. Galieo got put under the house arrest just for saying that earth wasn't the centre of the universe.

We owe genetics and evolution to the Church. The expansion of mathematics, engineering, chemistry, and agriculture are all due to the efforts of the Church. There is not one science that has not been helped to some degree by religion; after all, it copied books and kept them safe.

And Galileo is arguably one of the best examples of corruption, but worst of how the Church denied science; after all, his books were published, BY THE CHURCH, just four years after his death. If he had not accidentally humiliated the pope at the time of his inquisition, odds are good that his views would have prevailed, and he would not have been forced into his villa. That he was even given a trial, and allowed to present his case by a pope that disagreed with him, says a lot about the Church's perspective on science.

Quote:
Infact Christianity oppresed science through out the ages!

And when did it do this "opression"? Generally, it was scientists and politicians doing the oppressing...


Quote:
I don't understand why people want to follow any religon at all? Confused
The very idea that someone is telling me what to believe and seting out morals for me (another form of brain washing) i find repulsive. I'd rather to keep not only my body but my mind and spirit free.


What you believe in is up to you. Our Founding Fathers demonstrated that you don't have to believe in an active god; you just needed to apply the principles. The US is formed on Christian beliefs; that's based on their writings, the records of the meetings, and even the proclamations made to the public and to King George IV.

Yet, separating Church from State was still important to them.

And here's the weird thing: You can eliminate The Trinity completely from The Bible (in terms of their deity status), and treat The Bible as a work of fiction, and you still have a functioning system of belief. Weirder, it's basic elements as put forth by Jesus, not the OT, can be found in the very religions that consider themselves non-Christian (with the exception of the La Vey satanists and cannibals). Christianity is very compatible with almost religion on the face of the planet.

[Oh, wait: I'm supposed to be brainwashed into pointing out that Christianity requires The Trinity. Um...Sorry? But then I'm guessing that at no point you've bothered trying to figure out why I chose Heretic Monkey, so I'm not feeling too bad...]

As for the other part: Some people just need the supernatural aspects of religion. And not just the so-called Religions of the Book; that applies to Buddhism, Hinduism, Shintoism, and paganism. It just fits with their worldview, and not everyone worries about the philosophic issues; not everyone needs to be philosophers.

If it helps...
HM


Well thank you for clearing things up, i got the wrong impression. (I do label myself as 'me')

Okay you say you can, go for it, prove me that Christian church was indeed all good and only spread love and the word of god?

My only disagreement was that you said 'inspired by religion' then you corrected yourself 'might have been'. I wasn't trying to say church tried to claim credit for the works, i was trying to say that we do not know where insipiration came from! Certanly the works of art were about the religion (after all thats why the church paid them) but inspiration may have come from outside religion.

Probably because it was located in germany( i think) a good way away from Vetican in those times. and he gained a good few suporters before the news reached the church, I do not know.
But if you say the curch wasn't corupt, i sugest you read the history book, it says black on white '4 abuses in the catholic church' (i heading as far as I remember, having studyed history only briefly a few years ago, pardon me if my quoting was altered in expresion (but not meaning) ). And if the accepted history of the world is wrong you'll have to blame whoever passsed on the facts.
And if there was a need for reformation there must have been certanly something wrong that needed re-forming? Makes sense my friend?

I won't claim i have big knowledge of that, but from a tv show i have seen (it was about Holy Grail obviously) they said quite clearly that 'yes, it did hapen'. Evidence? a Castle built on top of some hill to guard the mountain passage (again excuse my lack of precision, but i was merely watchin the show because the was nothing else of interest to me on the other tv chanels, so as i'm sure you can imagine it didn't leave a deep mark in my memory) and a visual evidence of (suposedly) 'Holy Grail'(behind bulletproof glass, i remember that bit Smile ) in a hiden church somewhere. Maybe you'll do a bit of research my friend?

Okay, then prove it then, the evidence you gave is way too feeble and feels like it was 'altered'...

Quote:
We owe genetics and evolution to the Church

Do we now? And your proven evidence for that is?
Advances in mathematics and science were made by people who were hiding from the church and making discoveries, and church only accepted their findings after it could no longer supress people's opinions and believes in the subject.
Quote:
There is not one science that has not been helped to some degree by religion; after all, it copied books and kept them safe.

yeah after the accepted it yes, and even if not, they had to keep a record of what hapened, and they were sure no one but christian churc would ever lie eyes upon the 'records' which can in any way harm the church.

Quote:
And Galileo is arguably one of the best examples of corruption

I thought you said the church wasn't corupted?
I'm afraid you contradict yourself.
And the evidence of church controling and surpresing science is the fact that the held an inquisition jus because one man an found evidence that earth wasn't centre of the world.
So yes you are right it-
Quote:
says a lot about the Church's perspective on science.

I won't claim to have detailed knowledge of what has hapened at the inquisition and if Galieo did offend the pope (Even if the pope did get offended by galileo, surely he would forgive him as the church teaches and not put him to house arrest as un-moral tyrants do? Still no coruption?).

Quote:
Quote:
Infact Christianity oppresed science through out the ages!

And when did it do this "opression"? Generally, it was scientists and politicians doing the oppressing...

So according to you Scientists opress science? Confused Laughing
I'm afraid I have to say that i'm not going to be the only one who finds this statement.....puzzling.

Quote:
What you believe in is up to you.

I always stood for that.
And yet you contradict yourself,
Quote:
Our Founding Fathers demonstrated that you don't have to believe in an active god; you just needed to apply the principles.

So we don't have to believe, but we have to follow anyway? What if you believe in following your own ways?
So maybe thats what church's been doing? applying principles to control people?

Quote:
And here's the weird thing: You can eliminate The Trinity completely from The Bible (in terms of their deity status), and treat The Bible as a work of fiction, and you still have a functioning system of belief. Weirder, it's basic elements as put forth by Jesus, not the OT, can be found in the very religions that consider themselves non-Christian (with the exception of the La Vey satanists and cannibals). Christianity is very compatible with almost religion on the face of the planet.

And the point you are trying to prove is....?
Quote:
And here's the weird thing: You can eliminate The Trinity completely from The Bible (in terms of their deity status), and treat The Bible as a work of fiction, and you still have a functioning system of belief.

Confused that's like saying "If today we burn every single physics book, the planes we made yesterday will still fly..."?
What is your point? Confused

Quote:
[Oh, wait: I'm supposed to be brainwashed into pointing out that Christianity requires The Trinity. Um...Sorry? But then I'm guessing that at no point you've bothered trying to figure out why I chose Heretic Monkey, so I'm not feeling too bad...]

Since you only quoted my text, i'm taking you are talking to me, and I don't remember claiming that you have been brainwashed? Confused It was Silkmesh as far as I remember? I was merely agreeing with him that society is brainwashed in general. I don't see why you take personal offense and write responses with a trace of emotion behind them if this is simply philosophy we are discusing? I for one have no intentions to crush your beliefs or anything of the sort. i'm simply puting foreward my argument.

Quote:
As for the other part: Some people just need the supernatural aspects of religion. And not just the so-called Religions of the Book; that applies to Buddhism, Hinduism, Shintoism, and paganism. It just fits with their worldview, and not everyone worries about the philosophic issues; not everyone needs to be philosophers.

I see no reason to disagree.

Best regards,
Nick.
HereticMonkey
The-Nisk wrote:
Okay you say you can, go for it, prove me that Christian church was indeed all good and only spread love and the word of god?

Major clarification: Please note that I'm trying to point out that religion is more good in general than bad. As such, I see no problem pointing out that the Church, as a human institution that had been given a lot of temporal power, would be corrupt, at least at certain points in its history.

Quote:
I won't claim i have big knowledge of that, but from a tv show i have seen (it was about Holy Grail obviously) they said quite clearly that 'yes, it did hapen'. Evidence? a Castle built on top of some hill to guard the mountain passage (again excuse my lack of precision, but i was merely watchin the show because the was nothing else of interest to me on the other tv chanels, so as i'm sure you can imagine it didn't leave a deep mark in my memory) and a visual evidence of (suposedly) 'Holy Grail'(behind bulletproof glass, i remember that bit Smile ) in a hiden church somewhere. Maybe you'll do a bit of research my friend?

I did. all the research points to it being either an interpretation of a Celtic myth, or some serious Christian symbolism. Either way, it just doesn't exist.

Quote:
Quote:
We owe genetics and evolution to the Church

Do we now? And your proven evidence for that is?

Last time I checked, Linnaeus (the father of genetics) was a Christian monk, and Darwin was practically a fanatic Christian when we wrote about evolution (given some of the other stuff he uncovered, I'm surprised anyone took him seriously).

Quote:
Advances in mathematics and science were made by people who were hiding from the church and making discoveries, and church only accepted their findings after it could no longer supress people's opinions and believes in the subject.

Actually, mathematics (past the basic geometry) was seen as a way of finding God (especially for Islam). And bear in mind that alchemy was not just accepted by the Church, but encouraged.

How are you figuring that they were hiding from the Church?

Quote:
And the evidence of church controling and surpresing science is the fact that the held an inquisition jus because one man an found evidence that earth wasn't centre of the world.

Nope. You have two men disagreeing, one of them being a prick about it and the other having the power to seriously bitch-slap him. Guess what happened?

Quote:
I won't claim to have detailed knowledge of what has hapened at the inquisition and if Galieo did offend the pope (Even if the pope did get offended by galileo, surely he would forgive him as the church teaches and not put him to house arrest as un-moral tyrants do? Still no coruption?).

a) And why would I have mentioned that there was corruption if I didn't think it was possible?
b) Galileo had been a serious prick about it. Think: The worst flaming that you have ever seen, and then triple. Let's just say that I'm surprised the pope didn't have him killed.

Quote:
Quote:
And when did it do this "opression"? Generally, it was scientists and politicians doing the oppressing...

So according to you Scientists opress science? Confused Laughing
I'm afraid I have to say that i'm not going to be the only one who finds this statement.....puzzling.

No, silly: Scientists have been oppressing religion. I thought that would have been obvious....

Quote:
Quote:
Our Founding Fathers demonstrated that you don't have to believe in an active god; you just needed to apply the principles.

So we don't have to believe, but we have to follow anyway? What if you believe in following your own ways?

Then follow them. Given The Bible's preaching regarding free will, you are free to follow any path you wish.

Quote:
So maybe thats what church's been doing? applying principles to control people?

?

Quote:
And the point you are trying to prove is....?

Probably that you don't need a supernatural element to follow the philosophy (as opposed to the religion), and the philosophy and general advice is rather sound.

Quote:
Quote:
And here's the weird thing: You can eliminate The Trinity completely from The Bible (in terms of their deity status), and treat The Bible as a work of fiction, and you still have a functioning system of belief.

Confused that's like saying "If today we burn every single physics book, the planes we made yesterday will still fly..."?
What is your point? Confused

1) How would burning physics books stop planes from flying?
2) Again, that The Bible contains some good advice, and that you don't need the supernatural elements to take advantage of them.


Quote:
Since you only quoted my text, i'm taking you are talking to me, and I don't remember claiming that you have been brainwashed? Confused It was Silkmesh as far as I remember? I was merely agreeing with him that society is brainwashed in general. I don't see why you take personal offense and write responses with a trace of emotion behind them if this is simply philosophy we are discusing? I for one have no intentions to crush your beliefs or anything of the sort. i'm simply puting foreward my argument.

1) How do you not take philosopy personally?
2) That said, I'm probably getting tired of the brainwashing propaganda in this subforum...

HM
Immortals-L
To say that religion is to blame is a bit to far.
Religion itself has nothing to do with it, its allways the people.

people try to convince others that their religion explains it all.
That they believe in the one and only true religion, the one and only true god

its the same as the batle between science and religion, both trying to prove that they are correct,
but it's hard if both try to prove the same

religion will allways be one of the main discusions, until we learn how to live together,

if u can't talk about religion without having a fight, don't talk about it...

- kev -
Related topics
islam is...
when will the world end?
how many of the four cardinal virtues do you practice?
why i am not so sure about reigion
Talk between Muslim and Atheist.
A rant on God, religion and morality
Without religion, why not be evil?
Create a religion
Are there any limits to religion?
Is Capitalism Evil?
It is immoral to believe in God
Questions for Christians
why religion is necessary? what do u think?
Collection of JMI "troll" posts No. 1
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Philosophy and Religion

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.