In the past I have been accused of attacking religion or a religion when I was not but this time I am.
Religion is evil. Religion is bad. People may gain benefits from religion but that sword cuts both ways. There are many ways religions hurts people and society. It Breeds ignorant by convincing people to take things by faith and, convincing people to find answers in a stupid book or a mythological father figure instead of searching for the answer through logic and evidence. It create artificial deviations in society and elevates the group the individual is a member of as smarter (were right and your wrong!) or in some way special about them.
But those are not why I'm writing this rant.
This rant is inspired by the bombings in London, not just the bombings but who might have done it, doctors. This is what religion can do intelligent people. When you surrender your morality to a deity. When you take morality out of you mind and out of philosophy, logic and thought and put it in the hands a mythological deity. When God is the source of your morality, what ever you think that god wants become right. It dose not madder what it is, it could be impaling baby's and using them as urinals , it could be killing you own child as a sacrifice to God or flying a plain into a ****** building.
"But thats only Islam, Christianity is not like that"
No. No, no, no, no. Just look at the past. All the people kill in fights between Protestant and Catholics, all the people burned to death for "being witches", all the people killed for being gay, having premarital sex or being Jewish.
It doesn't matter what religion it is, when some god is the source of your morality anything that you think God wants to happen or you to do (no madder how bad it is) it is right, just and good.
"He, he, he. Stupid atheist. With out god there is no morality. If there's no God than I could go out and rape, steel and kill and it wouldn't be wrong"
But no one wants those things to happen to them so why can't people, as a society agree not to do that to each other? But wait! That would be morality. So with god you still have morality.
Jesus supposedly said "Do on to others what you would have them do to you" but Siddhārtha Gautama (Buddha or Gautama Buddha ) said it better and long before Jesus "Do not do to other what you don't want them to do to you" but I can beet them both. Do not do to others what they do not won't you to do to them and do to them and do to them what you would have them do to you unless they do not won't you to do that to them. And thats from an atheist! And it beats both Jeusus's and Gautamas quotes.
You don't need a god to have morality all you need thought, logic, debate and a sense of right and wrong. Thats all that is needed.
When you give up your morality to God, when you use some dick who claims to here the be the voice of God or some book that supposedly come from God you corrupt and defile the very meaning of morality and turn it into a justification for evils.
[quote="The Conspirator"]
I can beet them both. Do not do to others what they do not won't you to do to them and do to them and do to them what you would have them do to you unless they do not won't you to do that to them. And thats from an atheist!
[quote]
That's understanding more than the normal non-atheist! Say, that statement is infact divine. I guess you just went from atheist to god-mode in an instant! And I mean it. Time to erase that athetist label, so say?
[quote="spinout"][quote="The Conspirator"]
I can beet them both. Do not do to others what they do not won't you to do to them and do to them and do to them what you would have them do to you unless they do not won't you to do that to them. And thats from an atheist!
| Quote: |
That's understanding more than the normal non-atheist! Say, that statement is infact divine. I guess you just went from atheist to god-mode in an instant! And I mean it. Time to erase that athetist label, so say? |
Huh? How did you come to that conclusion? [quote="The Conspirator"][quote="spinout"] | The Conspirator wrote: |
I can beet them both. Do not do to others what they do not won't you to do to them and do to them and do to them what you would have them do to you unless they do not won't you to do that to them. And thats from an atheist!
| Quote: |
That's understanding more than the normal non-atheist! Say, that statement is infact divine. I guess you just went from atheist to god-mode in an instant! And I mean it. Time to erase that athetist label, so say? |
Huh? How did you come to that conclusion? |
Well, simple, just read your brilliant text!!!!!!!!!! This text has the biggest meaning/message I've ever seen in this forum, by far...
Say, where did you get the inspiration?
This can't be done by an atheist, so say?
mathematically:
If there is a loving God then God thinks bombing others is not what he wants -> you also writes that very clear - god is probably a good friend of yours...
If there not is a God then you write as a loving god would do -> U just went divine to the spectators!!!
UPON that you pointed out greater wisdom than Jesus n buddha!!!! Smarter than the most un-atheists.... Also a 'special thing' was pointed out -> mathematically you described that not only you but also the other agrees on what happens. This is holy mathematics inserted into the common understanding/world!!!! Wow!!!!
Well the attacking of the religions is also divine - if there is a loving God... you just left Gods message... A loving god don't want bad religion.
Again, if not the existance of a GOD, you just went divine!!! Wow, I don't think I've ever been this confused in my life! Between the unorganized rampage and the horrible spelling from both members before me (not making fun, I do assume you are both not American or English) I can barely understand what you are getting at. Maybe I can sort it out here...
Okay, so you, Conspirator, say that all religion is the cause of immorality? That God is actually the source of all evil? That without God and religion all of humanity will be much better off and much more peaceful? Okay, if that's what you're saying, lets got through an imaginary world without God or religion:
| No-God's-Land wrote: |
| With no God (and that means that Atheists would be right about evolution), the teens that would be in Youth Groups for their church will be on the streets. That raises the level of violence. Without religious charity groups, a lot of homeless people would have nowhere to go and would just die on the streets, which would raise the death rate. With no God, there would be much much more sex, which means that there would be a much larger spread of S.T.D.s, also raising the death level. Without God, there would be no religious charity hospitals to take in sick who can't afford regular hospitals, many would die from various diseases because they don't have care. Without God, the wars of the ancient times would not have happen, thus slowing the advancement of weapons. Without God, America would not have been formed, so the odds of Democracy, Communism, etc. coming into power would be low, which means there would still be kings which would rule the world. And since the people would still have that want of freedom, they would rebel against their kings. You say that the world could form a giant treaty to be peaceful? Who says everyone would agree? They would rebel against that. What are you going to do? Force them? That's not very moral... |
So you see, religion isn't the cause of everything bad, no matter how much you want to believe that. Just getting rid of God and religion wouldn't solve all the problems of the world. If it would, you think we'd still be here? Someone way beyond your knowledge would have figured it out before you and moved to kill all of us. Just like Hitler. He tried to get rid of Jews to "try and make all the problems better", but he did it by killing all of them...
Is that moral? No.
God bless 
,
Pampoon spinout: First, why do you keep saying "mathematical" when you have not used math? Secondly, I was making a point, you don't need God to have morality.
pampoon: first. Do not put words in my mouth! I said "When you use God as the source of your morality, what ever you think that God wonts become morely right not matter how bad that is. Sacrificing children, suicide bombing people, if you think thats what God wonts, that become merely right"
Secondly, that quote is complete bullshit.Where ever you got that from, never go there again cause its nothing but lies. Charity existed long before you mythological Messiah, there is far more for teenagers to do than Church related crap and if you won't teenagers to have sex, teach abstinence.
I apologize if I "put words into your mouth", but as I said, I had or horrible time trying to understand what you were trying to say.
And no, if you follow a religion that has certain moral beliefs, you can't just make something moral because you think God wants it to be. You would know it was wrong if you believed in what the church taught.
That quote was just a separation of thought. I made that up entirely myself, and I take pride in it. But I think you read it wrong. See, it clearly says | the quote wrote: |
| Without God, there would be no religious charity hospitals to take in sick who can't afford regular hospitals, many would die from various diseases because they don't have care. |
Not: "Without God, there would be absolutely no charity hospitals at all."
And the Church was the first to teach abstinence. So without God, abstinence wouldn't exist. Plus, even though Christianity has preached abstinence for, what seems like, ever, people still have sex before marriage. Oh, and I never said anything about teenagers.
I'm sure there are a lot of other things for them to do, but not everyone would find something else. Maybe the Youth Group kept someone from trouble. If there's not Youth Group, guess what they're going to do.
God bless ,
Pampoon | pampoon wrote: |
I apologize if I "put words into your mouth", but as I said, I had or horrible time trying to understand what you were trying to say.
And no, if you follow a religion that has certain moral beliefs, you can't just make something moral because you think God wants it to be. You would know it was wrong if you believed in what the church taught. |
Morals are taught to you by your surrounding peers. Whether they have beliefs in religions or not is up to them. You can still be moral without a religion. You just need a mind. Carl Sagan is an example of such.
| Quote: |
That quote was just a separation of thought. I made that up entirely myself, and I take pride in it. But I think you read it wrong. See, it clearly says | the quote wrote: | | Without God, there would be no religious charity hospitals to take in sick who can't afford regular hospitals, many would die from various diseases because they don't have care. |
Not: "Without God, there would be absolutely no charity hospitals at all." |
Correction: Without the belief in God, there would be no religious hospitals. I'm sure without a religion like Christianity the people that were there would still be philanthropists and try to help out those in need.
| Quote: |
| And the Church was the first to teach abstinence. So without God, abstinence wouldn't exist. Plus, even though Christianity has preached abstinence for, what seems like, ever, people still have sex before marriage. Oh, and I never said anything about teenagers. |
Without a belief in God, abstinence would not exist for a little longer. Eventually logic would crawl up upon people and abstinence would be taught.
| Quote: |
| I'm sure there are a lot of other things for them to do, but not everyone would find something else. Maybe the Youth Group kept someone from trouble. If there's not Youth Group, guess what they're going to do. |
There are many other things than youth groups. They'd have to live in a ghetto do have to resort to anything violent, and even then they'd be violent already due to their surroundings. | The Conspirator wrote: |
spinout: First, why do you keep saying "mathematical" when you have not used math? Secondly, I was making a point, you don't need God to have morality.
|
I am actually using only math but in the written word. If you don't see it then don't mind the term 'mathematically' - but I truely insure that I use it.
Second - my point is that, in other words, you actually claim religions to have bad morality - 'mathematically' hehe hehe also god does (if he 'mathematically' hehe is the ever loving one!). So extract God from religions combined with morality!!!
Third - 'Mathematically' hoho the only question God ever have was 'Who am I?' - well without morality we can't get the answer. Right now U are in the holy league telling God is not worthy the bad religions that is here today. | pampoon wrote: |
Wow, I don't think I've ever been this confused in my life!...<snip>
| No-God's-Land wrote: | | With no God (and that means that Atheists would be right about evolution), the teens that would be in Youth Groups for their church will be on the streets. That raises the level of violence. Without religious charity groups, a lot of homeless people would have nowhere to go and would just die on the streets, which would raise the death rate. With no God, there would be much much more sex, which means that there would be a much larger spread of S.T.D.s, also raising the death level. Without God, there would be no religious charity hospitals to take in sick who can't afford regular hospitals, many would die from various diseases because they don't have care. Without God, the wars of the ancient times would not have happen, thus slowing the advancement of weapons. Without God, America would not have been formed, so the odds of Democracy, Communism, etc. coming into power would be low, which means there would still be kings which would rule the world. And since the people would still have that want of freedom, they would rebel against their kings. You say that the world could form a giant treaty to be peaceful? Who says everyone would agree? They would rebel against that. What are you going to do? Force them? That's not very moral... |
Pampoon |
Sorry, but I can't just let that set of falsehoods go unchallenged...
First, the idea that if teens are not in youth groups for the church then there will be more violence in the streets. Where's the evidence? In a society which is run on logical and just morals, why would the teens not find something else useful to do rather than just fight? The original poster is saying that most people are basically good and naturally moral; in a society where people are not pushed into religious groups maybe they would not end up fighting in the streets.
| Quote: |
| Without religious charity groups, a lot of homeless people would have nowhere to go and would just die on the streets, which would raise the death rate.... |
Why? Perhaps if society was run on a more moral basis, then there would be more people actually going out and helping those worse off than themselves, rather than discussing the situation on church committees and the like. Maybe the teens who didn't go to youth groups to get indoctrinated could actually go and do something useful and productive for these homeless people instead. Islam actually is stronger in it's requirements on its followers to give than many other religions; but the same effect is seen in many parts of the world in many religions. Many of the worst offenders in the world (mainly major corporations) who are the most money-grabbing are actually based in the strongly Christian parts of the US. Yes there are great curch charities that do a lot of good, but it would be better to work to prevent these huge inequalities rather than try to provide some minimal charity support after the events which left these people destitute.
| Quote: |
| With no God, there would be much much more sex, which means that there would be a much larger spread of S.T.D.s, also raising the death level. |
What's wrong with sex? If people were more tolerant of it then teens and youngsters would not have to hide their emerging sexuality, and so could experiment more openly. They could ask advice and guidance without fear of castigation. They would probably not indulge so much in unsafe acts behind sheds and bushes. The evidence from countries which have open and accepting societies with proper sex education is that the rate of STDs and early pregnancy is much lower than in places like the UK and US. Young people simply ARE going to have sex - there is no hiding from that. We should do our best to be as open and supportive of good practices as possible. And what's with the hang-up about death anyway?
| Quote: |
| Without God, there would be no religious charity hospitals to take in sick who can't afford regular hospitals, many would die from various diseases because they don't have care. |
What? Why on earth should these sick people have to rely on religious charities for health care? This should be everybody's inalienable right. This is the job of all of society, organised by government etc. Maybe it's the crazy private health insurance system in the US that is to blame. Have a look at the sums and work out where the money is coming from (who pays) and who takes the profits (and how much). I think you will find that te system is hugely unjust. Again, the charities do great good, but it would be better to address the basic problems. This is nothing to do with religion or God.
| Quote: |
| Without God, the wars of the ancient times would not have happen, thus slowing the advancement of weapons. |
Actually that sounds like a really strong advantage. The world would be a safer place without them. It's a bit like the argument that everybody should have the right to carry weapons to protect themselves from everybody who is carrying weapons. If nobody had them, then nobody would need them.
| Quote: |
| Without God, America would not have been formed... |
Actually, America is a piece of land. There were indigenous people there long before the Europeans invaded and stole the land from them. Or do you mean the wider concept of America, including concepts of the constitution, democracy, etc?
| Quote: |
| ...so the odds of Democracy, Communism, etc. coming into power would be low, which means there would still be kings which would rule the world. |
And that would be worse than now because??? Actually, there is no evidence that the rise of democracy would not have happened anyway. It's been around for thousands of years.
Or have I just cmpletely misjudged your posting and it was actually intended in a sarcastic tone... | spinout wrote: |
| The Conspirator wrote: | spinout: First, why do you keep saying "mathematical" when you have not used math? Secondly, I was making a point, you don't need God to have morality.
|
I am actually using only math but in the written word. If you don't see it then don't mind the term 'mathematically' - but I truely insure that I use it.
Second - my point is that, in other words, you actually claim religions to have bad morality - 'mathematically' hehe hehe also god does (if he 'mathematically' hehe is the ever loving one!). So extract God from religions combined with morality!!!
Third - 'Mathematically' hoho the only question God ever have was 'Who am I?' - well without morality we can't get the answer. Right now U are in the holy league telling God is not worthy the bad religions that is here today. |
Ok I do not understand most of this post. Ill address the only two thing I do understand from it.
I did not say religions are morality bad,I said
| I wrote: |
| When you use God as the source of your morality, what ever you think that God wonts become morely right not matter how bad that is. Sacrificing children, suicide bombing people, if you think thats what God wonts, that become merely right |
You don't need morality to answer the question "Who am I" thats a philosophical question not a morel one. And if its God asking it, isn't he supposed to be omniscient? | make_life_better wrote: |
Sorry, but I can't just let that set of falsehoods go unchallenged...
First, the idea that if teens are not in youth groups for the church then there will be more violence in the streets. Where's the evidence? In a society which is run on logical and just morals, why would the teens not find something else useful to do rather than just fight? The original poster is saying that most people are basically good and naturally moral; in a society where people are not pushed into religious groups maybe they would not end up fighting in the streets. |
Maybe they would, but that only includes a certain percentage. That's the point I've been trying to get across. Not all problems are caused by religion (as The Conspirator suggested). I've never tried to push that religion causes everything to happen, I'm just saying that religion does have some effect on things and if it disappeared, some things would go with it.
| make_life_better wrote: |
| Why? Perhaps if society was run on a more moral basis, then there would be more people actually going out and helping those worse off than themselves, rather than discussing the situation on church committees and the like. Maybe the teens who didn't go to youth groups to get indoctrinated could actually go and do something useful and productive for these homeless people instead. Islam actually is stronger in it's requirements on its followers to give than many other religions; but the same effect is seen in many parts of the world in many religions. Many of the worst offenders in the world (mainly major corporations) who are the most money-grabbing are actually based in the strongly Christian parts of the US. Yes there are great curch charities that do a lot of good, but it would be better to work to prevent these huge inequalities rather than try to provide some minimal charity support after the events which left these people destitute. |
Again, I do not say that without Christianity all charities would be gone, but a lot would be. And I used to be in a Youth Group and I remember going to the nursing homes, having fund raisers for the local shelters, raising money for people in foreign countries, etc. We did a lot for others that wouldn't have happened if the Youth Group hadn't been there.
| make_life_better wrote: |
| What? Why on earth should these sick people have to rely on religious charities for health care? This should be everybody's inalienable right. This is the job of all of society, organised by government etc. Maybe it's the crazy private health insurance system in the US that is to blame. Have a look at the sums and work out where the money is coming from (who pays) and who takes the profits (and how much). I think you will find that te system is hugely unjust. Again, the charities do great good, but it would be better to address the basic problems. This is nothing to do with religion or God. |
Exactly, so you just went off-topic. That has nothing to do with it. I'm saying that if the religious charity hospitals didn't exist, many people (at least Americans) would have no care because they can't afford regular hospitals.
| make_life_better wrote: |
| Actually that sounds like a really strong advantage. The world would be a safer place without them. It's a bit like the argument that everybody should have the right to carry weapons to protect themselves from everybody who is carrying weapons. If nobody had them, then nobody would need them. |
Eventually someone would illegally make weapons and use them, even if they aren't allowed in the world. So war would still happen no matter how much you try to stop it. Everyone wants rights and wants to be able to protect themselves. It would be extremely difficult to change the minds of over 6 billion people.
| make_life_better wrote: |
| Actually, America is a piece of land. There were indigenous people there long before the Europeans invaded and stole the land from them. Or do you mean the wider concept of America, including concepts of the constitution, democracy, etc? |
Picky, picky 
. I mean America, not North America (which is the land).
| make_life_better wrote: |
| And that would be worse than now because??? Actually, there is no evidence that the rise of democracy would not have happened anyway. It's been around for thousands of years. |
Again, I said that the odds would be lower. I didn't say there was absolutely no possible way of it happening. Please read my posts clearly...
God bless ,
Pampoon | Quote: |
| That's the point I've been trying to get across. Not all problems are caused by religion (as The Conspirator suggested) |
I did not say that!
What is it with you theists? Every time some one criticises religion, you put words in there mouths trying to make people think they said something they didn't to attacked there credibility. Stop it!
I did not say "religion is the cause of all problems" I said When you use God as the source of your morality, what ever you thing God wonts become merely right even if its sacrificing your children , committing genocide or flying plains into buildings. Thats what I said!
Get that straight or do not post in this topic again.Even if I may have some langual problems; I understood that the Conspirator did NOT mean that religions are the cause of all problems. I never suggested that either.
So the Conspirator: I'm very happy you attacked religions - KEEP doing that!!!!
| spinout wrote: |
Even if I may have some langual problems; I understood that the Conspirator did NOT mean that religions are the cause of all problems. I never suggested that either.
So the Conspirator: I'm very happy you attacked religions - KEEP doing that!!!! |
pampoon did say that and he was who my previous post was aimed at.
I try not to attack religion cause that lend credence to those who say people like me do attack religion and we don't (well there are a few who do but not that much) but I do try to point out problems.I so tried to stay out...
[quote="make_life_better"]
| No-God's-Land wrote: |
| With no God (and that means that Atheists would be right about evolution), |
Actually, without God there would be no theory of evolution (or it would have taken longer to develop); it took a Christian exploring the world to put it together...
| Quote: |
| Sorry, but I can't just let that set of falsehoods go unchallenged... |
What set of falsehoods? Going pedantic for a moment, "falsehoods" are usually limited to statements presented as factually true, not opinions. in other words, you are trying to disparage the poster, trying to tear his case down with slander, rather than building your own case.
| Quote: |
| First, the idea that if teens are not in youth groups for the church then there will be more violence in the streets. Where's the evidence? |
Crime stats. Generally speaking, the less spiritual a child's upbringing, the more likely that he is to be a violent offender, as he is more likely to belong to gangs or other violent groups.
| Quote: |
| In a society which is run on logical and just morals, why would the teens not find something else useful to do rather than just fight? |
It's called testosterone. The natural state of boys is to fight; note that most religions use some form of martial arts in order to deal with the situation (the Eastern philosophies are obvious; boxing and some forms of dueling form the Christian side).
You're also not answering where these morals would have come from. If not for the morals from religion, it could be argued that morals would never enter the picture. Even atheists tend to take pointers from religion; at least, those that consider themselves moral ones...
| Quote: |
| The original poster is saying that most people are basically good and naturally moral; in a society where people are not pushed into religious groups maybe they would not end up fighting in the streets. |
Ah, the Noble Savage concept. Too bad there's no actual backing for the concept...unless you consider cannibalism, rape, and xenophobia good...
| Quote: |
| Quote: | | Without religious charity groups, a lot of homeless people would have nowhere to go and would just die on the streets, which would raise the death rate.... |
Why? Perhaps if society was run on a more moral basis, then there would be more people actually going out and helping those worse off than themselves, rather than discussing the situation on church committees and the like. |
The problem is that society itself is not run on a moral basis, and in fact morals are generally disdained as being weak and limiting. Ironically, given that you are attempting to show atheists as moral beings, this looking down on morals usually comes from atheists...
| Quote: |
| Maybe the teens who didn't go to youth groups to get indoctrinated could actually go and do something useful and productive for these homeless people instead. |
So volunteering in soup kitchens, building homes, and raising money for the homeless doesn't help the situation? Weird...
| Quote: |
| Islam actually is stronger in it's requirements on its followers to give than many other religions; but the same effect is seen in many parts of the world in many religions. Many of the worst offenders in the world (mainly major corporations) who are the most money-grabbing are actually based in the strongly Christian parts of the US. |
So, yet again, religion encourages charity? Also, you'll note that the corporations you decry as money-grubbing also give lots to charity. Admittedly, a lot of it is self-serving (scholarships for potential employees, tax deductions, and so forth), but it was worth noting that only a Christian-based belief system would make it a good thing financially to donate in the first place.
| Quote: |
| Yes there are great curch charities that do a lot of good, but it would be better to work to prevent these huge inequalities rather than try to provide some minimal charity support after the events which left these people destitute. |
However, homelessness is a far more complex problem than just making sure people don't become homeless. You have too many of the homeless that like being off the radar, and being homeless does provide a decent initiation experience. Note that I'm not trying to glamorize it, just trying to point out that, even if the basic underlying problems were taken care of, you would still homelessness.
| Quote: |
| What's wrong with sex? If people were more tolerant of it then teens and youngsters would not have to hide their emerging sexuality, and so could experiment more openly. They could ask advice and guidance without fear of castigation. They would probably not indulge so much in unsafe acts behind sheds and bushes. The evidence from countries which have open and accepting societies with proper sex education is that the rate of STDs and early pregnancy is much lower than in places like the UK and US. |
You're misunderstanding the statement. Nothing is intrinsically wrong with it; rather, it's that sex leads to other complications. BTW: What are these mystical countries you speak of? You tend to have four basic attitudes:
a) Limited Sex Education + High Amounts of Sex: Usually in underdeveloped countries, this leads to overpopulation and a plague of STD's, especially AIDS.
b) Lots of Sex Education + High Amounts of Sex: Yeah, they wear rubbers, but STD's are usually present in high numbers, and instead of overpopulation you have lots of single mothers.
c) Limited Sex Education + Low Amounts of Sex: More of a possibility; usually limited to Arctic Wastelands...
d) Lots of Sex Education + Low Amounts of Sex: STD's are limited in spread, and the population is under control. Ironically, this is where the US is...
It should be noted that a lot of countries (such as Japan) fall under B; however, the irony of such countries is that, even though homosexuality is much more a part of the culture, it is also discouraged outside of the privacy of your own home. It's weird that the US is viewed as being homophobic, but is also much more open about gay relationships on the whole (in other words: Yes, we still have homophobic organizations, but being gay isn't considered a sign of immaturity or actively discouraged).
| Quote: |
| Young people simply ARE going to have sex - there is no hiding from that. We should do our best to be as open and supportive of good practices as possible. And what's with the hang-up about death anyway? |
Um. Duh. But, it should be encouraged to be in a caring relationship, where if the female gets pregnant odds are good that they will both be willing to take care of the child, and the likelihood of STD's drops. Which is something that, ironically, religion encourages...
Also: Are you saying that we should encourage the spread of STD's so that more people are killed? Weird...
| Quote: |
| What? Why on earth should these sick people have to rely on religious charities for health care? This should be everybody's inalienable right. This is the job of all of society, organised by government etc. Maybe it's the crazy private health insurance system in the US that is to blame. Have a look at the sums and work out where the money is coming from (who pays) and who takes the profits (and how much). I think you will find that te system is hugely unjust. Again, the charities do great good, but it would be better to address the basic problems. This is nothing to do with religion or God. |
Agreed. At the same time, universal health care is a more complex problem than just saying that the government should handle it. It doesn't help that Americans tend to have a fear of organized health care, thanks to HMO's, but there are also issues involving that parts shouldn't be universal (note British teeth).
| Quote: |
| Quote: | | Without God, the wars of the ancient times would not have happen, thus slowing the advancement of weapons. |
Actually that sounds like a really strong advantage. The world would be a safer place without them. It's a bit like the argument that everybody should have the right to carry weapons to protect themselves from everybody who is carrying weapons. If nobody had them, then nobody would need them. |
Actually, it could be argued that had religion been stronger, the ancient wars would NOT have happened, and that if it did, it would not have been as long or as gruesome.
| Quote: |
| Quote: | | Without God, America would not have been formed... |
Actually, America is a piece of land. There were indigenous people there long before the Europeans invaded and stole the land from them. Or do you mean the wider concept of America, including concepts of the constitution, democracy, etc? |
See, this is why people don't like atheists; you tend to go pedantic at the worst moments, and blow any credibility you would have had with statements like this...
| Quote: |
| Quote: | | ...so the odds of Democracy, Communism, etc. coming into power would be low, which means there would still be kings which would rule the world. |
And that would be worse than now because??? Actually, there is no evidence that the rise of democracy would not have happened anyway. It's been around for thousands of years. |
Actually, no. Democracy died with Greece, and didn't really happen again until the founding of the USA. Although it is likely that a democracy would have formed, it would have been much later, especially given that it took the American democracy to encourage the others (even the French Revolution wouldn't have happened if not for American one; thousands of uprisings previously hadn't led to a democracy, after all).
| Quote: |
| Or have I just cmpletely misjudged your posting and it was actually intended in a sarcastic tone... |
And again with the slander...
The big question is: If not from religion, where would the morals have come? Any nation that has tried to completely get rid of religion has so far been rendered moral-less (note the pogroms, corruption, and overall Machivellian tactics of Communist Russia and China). Also note that primitive peoples are not generally the best examples of morals, especially as rape, cannibalism, and not treating outsiders as equals is pretty much standard behavior.
So where they have come from?
HM | The Conspirator wrote: |
| but I do try to point out problems. |
The problem is that you not only point out the problems, but encourage atheism as an answer, without acknowledging atheism's issues or history. In essence, you're doing the same thing you point out that religions do.
Also, when you do attack religions, you don't admit that you do, choosing a more general "throw everything you can, hope something stick" approach. So when someone says that you attack religion, there is some definite credence to the idea...
HM | Quote: |
In the past I have been accused of attacking religion or a religion when I was not but this time I am.
Religion is evil. Religion is bad. People may gain benefits from religion but that sword cuts both ways. There are many ways religions hurts people and society.
|
Religion itself is not "evil" first of all. Those who want to use it as a tool for manipulation of some population could be considered so, but I doubt that anything inanimate with no will to decide could be considered "evil"... Abuse of said object or idea, yes. The object or idea itself, no.
| Quote: |
| It Breeds ignorant by convincing people to take things by faith and, convincing people to find answers in a stupid book or a mythological father figure instead of searching for the answer through logic and evidence. |
Not many people take religion to that kind of extreme. Some do, but not many. To hold all religion in general responsible for a few heretics would be unfair, much as it would be unfair to hold all atheists accountable for WWII and Hitler. Catch my drift?
| Quote: |
It create artificial deviations in society and elevates the group the individual is a member of as smarter (were right and your wrong!) or in some way special about them.
|
Science and logic does the same thing, my dear. In fact, you're doing it now. You're holding your nose up to all theists and attacking their beliefs and way of life, holding pratical, everyday theists responsible for extremeists. You're stereotyping religion into one large group by saying that all religion is responsible for "breeding ignorance" when in fact that is not the case. Many religions promote good healthcare with modern medicine, support evolution, ect. And don't go back and say, "I didn't say ALL religion promotes ignorance," because I can easily quote you again.
| Quote: |
But those are not why I'm writing this rant.
This rant is inspired by the bombings in London, not just the bombings but who might have done it, doctors. This is what religion can do intelligent people. When you surrender your morality to a deity. When you take morality out of you mind and out of philosophy, logic and thought and put it in the hands a mythological deity. When God is the source of your morality, what ever you think that god wants become right. It dose not madder what it is, it could be impaling baby's and using them as urinals , it could be killing you own child as a sacrifice to God or flying a plain into a ****** building.
|
Again, your placing blame on religion when in reality, it's the lunatics that twisted a particular religion to their own wants. You can take just about anything to so deep of an extreme and corrupted version of what it actually is and make it bad. You can say, "It's wrong to kill," and let your great grandfather suffer in terrible, terrible agony, begging for death, with nothing to help for the pain, and not pull the plug because it's wrong to kill. Just like I could blame the entirety of atheism for Hitler, but that's twisting something into a corrupted extreme. And we don't want to do that, now do we?
| Quote: |
No. No, no, no, no. Just look at the past. All the people kill in fights between Protestant and Catholics, all the people burned to death for "being witches", all the people killed for being gay, having premarital sex or being Jewish.
It doesn't matter what religion it is, when some god is the source of your morality anything that you think God wants to happen or you to do (no madder how bad it is) it is right, just and good.
"He, he, he. Stupid atheist. With out god there is no morality. If there's no God than I could go out and rape, steel and kill and it wouldn't be wrong"
But no one wants those things to happen to them so why can't people, as a society agree not to do that to each other? But wait! That would be morality. So with god you still have morality.
|
Again, those are power corrupted manics that are twisting religion into what THEY want it to be, not what it's actually meant for. These people screwed it up and starting saying, "They don't worship in the same manner that we do; that makes them devils so let's kill them." WRONG. That's like an atheist corrupting atheism to say, "These children have been born retarded, and therefore have no purpose, so we'll kill them."
Bob the Atheist: But, but, that's not the purpose of atheism.
Me: So? Killing in the name of God isn't the purpose of religion either, but you corrupted it to be that way.
Bob: But you CAN have morals without religion.
Me:And you can have religion and not go around killing people for it or taking it to extremes.
| Quote: |
| Jesus supposedly said "Do on to others what you would have them do to you" but Siddhārtha Gautama (Buddha or Gautama Buddha ) said it better and long before Jesus "Do not do to other what you don't want them to do to you" but I can beet them both. Do not do to others what they do not won't you to do to them and do to them and do to them what you would have them do to you unless they do not won't you to do that to them. And thats from an atheist! And it beats both Jeusus's and Gautamas quotes. |
That's debateable... >_<
| Quote: |
| When you give up your morality to God, when you use some dick who claims to here the be the voice of God or some book that supposedly come from God you corrupt and defile the very meaning of morality and turn it into a justification for evils. |
You don't have to listen to someone who claims to be the voice of God, for example, the Pope, in order to believe in God. You don't have to believe in the Bible to believe in God either. | HereticMonkey wrote: |
| The Conspirator wrote: | | but I do try to point out problems. |
The problem is that you not only point out the problems, but encourage atheism as an answer, without acknowledging atheism's issues or history. In essence, you're doing the same thing you point out that religions do.
Also, when you do attack religions, you don't admit that you do, choosing a more general "throw everything you can, hope something stick" approach. So when someone says that you attack religion, there is some definite credence to the idea...
HM |
I don't advocate atheism, I advocate logic, reason and critical thought. The fact that these lead to atheism or agnosticism says more about theism than anything else.
I do not throw out arguments and hope some sticks, I have never done that. All my arguments are logical and valid. This is the first tine I wen out and attacked religion, all I have ever done before is point out problems, problems which theists love to ignore.
And I'd ask you to point out the "problems and history" but I've heard them all and they have all been debunked or fallacious.Whatever, Conspirator. Your rather long record speaks for itself...
| The Conspirator wrote: |
I don't advocate atheism, I advocate logic, reason and critical thought. The fact that these lead to atheism or agnosticism says more about theism than anything else. |
I'm confused: So what about Einstein's quotes? Oppenheimer? Darwin? Your "fact" is on pretty shaky ground. And that almost all science and reason are based on religious thought or come from religious roots, and that science causes scientists to believe in some form of spirituality pretty much kills it...
| Quote: |
| I do not throw out arguments and hope some sticks, I have never done that. All my arguments are logical and valid. |
The problem is that it's fine to take the road that religion has its problems and it could do better, or to question religion in general. It's quite another to take the stance that religion is bad and needs to be eliminated. Once you take that stance, and combine it with the fervor that you have demonstrated on multiple threads, you lose a certain objectivity, and your logic becomes tainted.
| Quote: |
This is the first tine I wen out and attacked religion, all I have ever done before is point out problems, problems which theists love to ignore.
And I'd ask you to point out the "problems and history" but I've heard them all and they have all been debunked or fallacious. |
Actually, you've yet to be able to debunk some of my arguments against atheism, and you have been caught on the attack before. You're pretty much a fox that keeps going in the henhouse, and forget that people have seen you exit with an actual chicken...
Argue what you want; just don't claim to be innocent when you have feathers on your face...You continually lose credibility by doing so.
HM Try to explain that scientifically... JK
I just wanted to note my view on religion and spirituality are two different things, I do believe in God/Universe, but I don't believe that God's intentions are acted out in todays religions. Actually I don't believe God has intentions other than our own, but that's a thread of a different color.
Basically what I have to say is yes Religion has not done the world justice, I believe all religion began as an attempt to control others and has gone horribly wrong by the wide spread misinformation passed off as Truth.
And so we have all these poor humans confused about what God wants, because it is really what some human wanted passed off as God's desire.
Just a shame really that we all so confused, and that I can't articulate very well tonight, because I might be able to make some sense if so.
I recommend the series of books called "Conversations with God" by Neale Donald Walsch, sheds light on how confused we really are, whether or not you believe that Neale spoke with God (which in fact I do).
Personally, I think that "religion began as control" is one of the greatest atheistic urban legends, right up there with "religion starts war". Religion began as a way to make sense of the universe; because of the initial curiosity, we have all of our sciences.
I'm not trying to say that religion hasn't taken on the reigns of power; however, priests that have reached too far have been thrown down, and that applies all the way back to cavemen. This isn't to say that priests haven't advised kings, but it is a profession that requires a certain amount of wisdom, as well as studying a lot of words from former wise men; that would be a resource that would be foolish to ignore.
At the same time, however, any priests that have looked for temporal power have usually been either denied it or been eventually overthrown. Even the Catholic Church ran into this problem, causing a number of schisms as they attempted to rule through its rulings. Even The Inquisition eventually got slammed because it was no longer useful and was starting to go after the wrong people.
Religion may be the opiate of the masses, but it's hardly the leash; to say so is to ignore history...
HM
| HereticMonkey wrote: |
| The Conspirator wrote: |
I don't advocate atheism, I advocate logic, reason and critical thought. The fact that these lead to atheism or agnosticism says more about theism than anything else. |
I'm confused: So what about Einstein's quotes? Oppenheimer? Darwin? |
Scientists are human and there will be scientists who will believe in ghosts, UFOs (alien UFOs not just an object that is unidentified), alien abdication astrology and so on. Even though these have no basis in reality.
[quote]Your "fact" is on pretty shaky ground. And that almost all science and reason are based on religious thought or come from religious roots, and that science causes scientists to believe in some form of spirituality pretty much kills it...[/quuote]
If you believe that, you have been lied too and believe the lie.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historiography_of_science
| Quote: |
| Quote: | | I do not throw out arguments and hope some sticks, I have never done that. All my arguments are logical and valid. |
The problem is that it's fine to take the road that religion has its problems and it could do better, or to question religion in general. It's quite another to take the stance that religion is bad and needs to be eliminated. Once you take that stance, and combine it with the fervor that you have demonstrated on multiple threads, you lose a certain objectivity, and your logic becomes tainted. |
I have no fervor. But you are right about one thing, I do think it needs to be eliminated. You can find answers in science and philosophy, you can find hope in better things, its based on faith which breeds ignorants and superstition It is useless and it brings bad things especially the big one which has more problems.
| Quote: |
| Quote: | This is the first tine I wen out and attacked religion, all I have ever done before is point out problems, problems which theists love to ignore.
And I'd ask you to point out the "problems and history" but I've heard them all and they have all been debunked or fallacious. |
Actually, you've yet to be able to debunk some of my arguments against atheism, and you have been caught on the attack before. You're pretty much a fox that keeps going in the henhouse, and forget that people have seen you exit with an actual chicken... |
False and false. Ive heard them and debunked them and have not attacked before this post.
| Quote: |
| Argue what you want; just don't claim to be innocent when you have feathers on your face...You continually lose credibility by doing so. |
Practise what you preach, show me where I have done what you claime. | The Conspirator wrote: |
| Scientists are human and there will be scientists who will believe in ghosts, UFOs (alien UFOs not just an object that is unidentified), alien abdication astrology and so on. Even though these have no basis in reality. |
Unfortunately, we're actually find some science behind ghosts, UFO's have yet to be totally disproved (and make a certain degree of sense; as we've found life in some of the strangest places, why not outer space?), and even astrology has a certain unassailable logic about it (people born at the same time are bound to have some similar traits, and psychology, as many things, seem to come in cycles).
Just because you don't believe in it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist...
| Quote: |
| If you believe that, you have been lied too and believe the lie. |
What lie? It's pretty much accepted that much of our science came from religious exploration of the universe.
| Quote: |
| http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historiography_of_science |
Worst written Wikipedia article EVER.
| Quote: |
| I have no fervor. But you are right about one thing, I do think it needs to be eliminated. You can find answers in science and philosophy, you can find hope in better things, its based on faith which breeds ignorants and superstition It is useless and it brings bad things especially the big one which has more problems. |
a) Your fervor is pretty much proven. If you didn't have some fervor, then why do you keep trying to prove something wrong?
b) Faith, in and of itself, doesn't breed ignorance (there is too much empirical proof otherwise). A tendency towards conservatism does, however; as knowledge brings change, there is good reason to fear it (change being something too many people fear).
| Quote: |
| False and false. Ive heard them and debunked them and have not attacked before this post. |
Actually, there was the Christmas argument. And then there's the "Religion creates war" myth you keep trying to raise. You've also repeatedly called Faith a bad thing (see above for the newest proof of this).
As for the debunking: You were unable to prove that Jesus didn't exist. Your argument against the first twenty verses or so of Genesis came down to you just not believing it. You were totally unable to show that religion caused war. And your proof that religion wasn't responsible for most of our science came down to a very poorly written article that only covers from the 17th century on. That's 0 for 4.
| Quote: |
| Practise what you preach, show me where I have done what you claime. |
I think I did a decent job of that...
HM | HereticMonkey wrote: |
| The Conspirator wrote: | | Scientists are human and there will be scientists who will believe in ghosts, UFOs (alien UFOs not just an object that is unidentified), alien abdication astrology and so on. Even though these have no basis in reality. |
Unfortunately, we're actually find some science behind ghosts, UFO's have yet to be totally disproved (and make a certain degree of sense; as we've found life in some of the strangest places, why not outer space?), and even astrology has a certain unassailable logic about it (people born at the same time are bound to have some similar traits, and psychology, as many things, seem to come in cycles).
Just because you don't believe in it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist... |
Ghosts I can understand but no basis in reality, UFOs being alien, no, no way they are not astrology is insanity. These things are false. Everything thing about ghosts has been explained away, everything. UFOs are not in any way shape or form alien, people like to jump to that conclusion but no and even those UFOs that are not hoaxes and have not been explained away aliens is one of the least likely explanations. And astrology, dude think about it, the stars and planets can effect a persons personality. Its insane, astrology is beond illogic its insanity.
http://skepdic.com/ghosts.html
http://skepdic.com/ufos_ets.html
http://skepdic.com/astrolgy.html
These things have no basis in reality. This is not an opinion, it is a fact.
| Quote: |
| Quote: | | If you believe that, you have been lied too and believe the lie. |
What lie? It's pretty much accepted that much of our science came from religious exploration of the universe.
| Quote: | | http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historiography_of_science |
Worst written Wikipedia article EVER. |
No, it is a lie. Pure lie.
| Quote: |
| a) Your fervor is pretty much proven. If you didn't have some fervor, then why do you keep trying to prove something wrong? |
I'm trying to get people to see reality. To look at things critical and with logic and reason, to use evidence based reasoning instead of emotional and faith based reasoning. Not to do so is bad. This goes way belong religion, this goes into politics medicine, education belief.
| Quote: |
| b) Faith, in and of itself, doesn't breed ignorance (there is too much empirical proof otherwise). A tendency towards conservatism does, however; as knowledge brings change, there is good reason to fear it (change being something too many people fear). |
Faith in and of it self is bad, there is nothing good in it. It is belief with out evidence logic and reasoning, that has no positive attributes what so ever. There is nothing positive about it and no evidence of anything positive.
| Quote: |
| Quote: | | False and false. Ive heard them and debunked them and have not attacked before this post. |
Actually, there was the Christmas argument. And then there's the "Religion creates war" myth you keep trying to raise. You've also repeatedly called Faith a bad thing (see above for the newest proof of this). |
No there is no fervor what so ever
Religion can, has and dose start wars. many things start wars, politics can start wars, philosophy's can starts wars the only difference is religion is unnecessary and brings other bad things.
| Quote: |
| As for the debunking: You were unable to prove that Jesus didn't exist. Your argument against the first twenty verses or so of Genesis came down to you just not believing it. You were totally unable to show that religion caused war. And your proof that religion wasn't responsible for most of our science came down to a very poorly written article that only covers from the 17th century on. That's 0 for 4. |
1. I never said Jesus didn't exist. Besides its not on me to disprove him its on the one calming he exists to prove it. Thats called burden of proof.
2. They do not match in any why shape or form what the evidence says.
3. I did show how it can. If you believe God wonts it, if you believe that blah people are evil cause your religion says it, to convert people and save there souls.
4. You can't disprove the article so you attack how its written. typical.
| Quote: |
| Quote: | | Practise what you preach, show me where I have done what you claime. |
I think I did a decent job of that...
HM |
No you realy don't. | The Conspirator wrote: |
| Everything thing about ghosts has been explained away, everything. |
Well, except for the cold areas, numerous anomalous happenings, and the appearances. But, yeah, besides that ghosts have been safely explained away. Heh.
| Quote: |
| UFOs are not in any way shape or form alien, people like to jump to that conclusion but no and even those UFOs that are not hoaxes and have not been explained away aliens is one of the least likely explanations. |
Actually, they would prefer not to jump to that conclusion. And only a small fraction of UFO's have been explained away. In other words, not a lot of people believed Project Bluebook or the military's explanation for Roswell.
| Quote: |
| And astrology, dude think about it, the stars and planets can effect a persons personality. Its insane, astrology is beond illogic its insanity. |
Had you bothered to actually read what I had posted, you would see that I agree with you. Nonetheless, there does seem to be something to it.
| Quote: |
| These things have no basis in reality. This is not an opinion, it is a fact. |
You know, you keep throwing that around like it means something. Most scientists agree that there are no "facts", just best opinions. Even the so-called "Law of Gravity" can been explained away (JS Bell), even if it was just to show that we don't properly understand everything in the universe.
| Quote: |
| No, it is a lie. Pure lie. |
You keep saying this. Too bad history disagrees with you...
| Quote: |
| I'm trying to get people to see reality. To look at things critical and with logic and reason, to use evidence based reasoning instead of emotional and faith based reasoning. Not to do so is bad. This goes way belong religion, this goes into politics medicine, education belief. |
Except that...you're ignoring reality itself. To argue that something didn't exist even though we have witnesses and we have the documentation is the mark of a fanatic. You tend to forget that most religion is based in truth, and that not only are most of our sciences based on religious research, but sponsorship from the Catholic Church or the various other deities involved in knowledge; even today, the various religions still support science. Heck, a number of medical advances have come just from studying folklore (such as penicillin) and various proscriptions (the Christian Scientist issue about accepting blood from others led to a ways to save patients who need transfusions when there is no blood, as well as decreased the amount of blood needed for operations). It's easy to say that religion hates science; unfortunately, there just isn't to back that BELIEF...
| Quote: |
| Faith in and of it self is bad, there is nothing good in it. It is belief with out evidence logic and reasoning, that has no positive attributes what so ever. There is nothing positive about it and no evidence of anything positive. |
You really aren't up on your current science, are you? Faith has been shown to expand life expectancy, allow someone to deal with a crisis easier, and makes the person more psychologically balanced. On what basis are you saying that it has nothing positive?
| Quote: |
| No there is no fervor what so ever |
Yeah; you think that. Your posts say otherwise.
| Quote: |
| Religion can, has and dose start wars. many things start wars, politics can start wars, philosophy's can starts wars the only difference is religion is unnecessary and brings other bad things. |
Could you possibly have said something more generic?
| Quote: |
| 1. I never said Jesus didn't exist. Besides its not on me to disprove him its on the one calming he exists to prove it. Thats called burden of proof. |
Indi and you attempted one Christmas to show that He didn't exist. It came down to that it was impossible to prove that He didn't exist, it was just as impossible to show that He did exist. (There was no direct proof that He actually existed, but there were a number of statements that He had existed.)
| Quote: |
| 2. They do not match in any why shape or form what the evidence says. |
In your opinion. It's rather easy to match how The Bible says things happened with what we believed happened (even geologists point out that it's a best guess).
| Quote: |
| 3. I did show how it can. If you believe God wonts it, if you believe that blah people are evil cause your religion says it, to convert people and save there souls. |
You were able to show that it could. However, you were unable to back yourself with historical data (although a handful of battles were fought between religious sects, that's pretty much the extent of your "religion starts war" thing...).
| Quote: |
| 4. You can't disprove the article so you attack how its written. typical. |
Actually, I attacked how it only covered science from the 17th century on, and even then only Newton and Einstein (pointing out that yet again you aren't paying attention to what I'm saying). Ignoring, of course, that the church backed alchemy and astrology (which led to chemistry and astronomy, respectively), medical advances, the beginnings of genetic science, and that math got a a major jump because religious zealots were looking for mysticism in the details.
| Quote: |
| No you realy don't. |
Whatever. I at least listen to what you say; you don't even bother showing that basic respect to anyone else...
HMBoy is this a sloppy thread.
Anyway Conspirator, your idea has long been disproven as has your logic. The most destructive and immoral societies in modern times have been atheist.
Jesus didn’t say the ‘do unto others’ quote. That’s the ‘golden rule.’ I dose do to show what you know about what you are attacking though. If you knew anything about Jesus’ or Buda’s teaching you might hold your tong….
Your concept of religion is rudimentary and sounds based on things you’ve heard people say.
Religion is the search for the ultimate truth. Man has a hunger to reach this truth. When he gets a taste of it, the feeling is enormously. When perverse teachings are tied to religion, such as suicide bombing, it’s easy for a person to be highly motivated to do these unconscionable things. This is not the fault of the search for truth but of the perverters; like building a virus instead of a calculator.
You’re wrong about the spread of ignorance as well. A person who listens in to a religious service will hear certain ruless preaches, yes. But sincere followers spend much time studying their ‘stupid books’ and understanding how these rules came to be; with the use of LOGIC. Some followers simply choose to follow the rules; like some users simple click on icons. It works for them.
Inherently, certain social rules also tend to hitch a ride along with religious rules. This is fine. The search for truth and the best way to live doesn’t consist only of reading ‘stupid books.’
Example: Smoking is a sin. Did Jesus say so? No. Does the Bible say so? No. But according to the teachings, the money spent on cigarettes is better spent on the needy. Also, smoking damages the body reducing its ability to serve.
Religious groups set us schools that stood as the only place of learning, outside military schools, until only recently.
Your concept that religion teaches not to question and to only believe things based on feeling and faith is a symptom of your misunderstanding, due much to religious people who feel threatened, and is a cheep tactic of the religion of atheism – used to attack other religions.
If what you call religions didn’t exist or disappeared, it would be replaced with new religions such as Darwinism and atheism. The same perversions would accompany these institutions, as they do now, that currently accompany Christianity and such God based religions.
And Conspirator, try something new in this thread. Instead on chopping my post up and ant attempting to counter (debate) each argument with your own; try understanding why I think this way. Maybe do a bit of research. This is what I try to do.
horseatingweeds: Although I agree with your post in general, two quickies:
1) A number of churches believe that smoking, because it damages the body, and your body is supposed to be your temple (which you're not supposed to damage), then smoking is a sin.
2) Jesus is the source of The Golden Rule. Other religions have their version (such as karma), but the Golden Rule itself is a direct quote...
For what it's worth...
HM
*intermission time*
couldn't bother reading the previous posts. Sorry for the spam.
You might be right but you could be wrong.
Some people need to believe in something, they were brought up with insecurities; beliveing that someone out there is looking after them helps them get through life. Peeps need to change the way they bring up their children. It is changing but will take very long.
Megatron shall rule the earth.
| HereticMonkey wrote: |
1) A number of churches believe that smoking, because it damages the body, and your body is supposed to be your temple (which you're not supposed to damage), then smoking is a sin.
2) Jesus is the source of The Golden Rule. Other religions have their version (such as karma), but the Golden Rule itself is a direct quote... |
By 'temple' I assume such groups mean a tool of God. Damaging it makes it less able to do the work of God's people, producing miracles. Also, I think the way they say it is 'your body is Jesus' temple.'
I've read the New Testament a few times and have never read anything close to directly quoting the golden rule. It's not really what he taught anyway. He taught a much more advanced form. He teaching is that you should care for orphans and widows and that doing so effectively is caring for him. He taught to always forgive. He taught to love your enemies and not return their insults with insults. A better summary would be, 'do unto others as though others are Me.' The golden rule is good for little kids, but not for advanced people.
A rich man, for example, can follow the golden rule and never help anyone. So some people are starving down the street. How does the rich man interpret the Golden Rule? Would he not give them money because he would not want them to give money to him? Would he give them food because if the situation where turned he would want them to feed him?
Jesus was quoted as telling a rich man to give away all he has. You must read this in context but by following this example, the rich man would likely develop a program to feed his neighbors and get them back on their feet. A miracle. | Jaan wrote: |
*intermission time*
couldn't bother reading the previous posts. Sorry for the spam.
You might be right but you could be wrong.
Some people need to believe in something, they were brought up with insecurities; beliveing that someone out there is looking after them helps them get through life. Peeps need to change the way they bring up their children. It is changing but will take very long. |
i can't speak for Conspirator, but i can say that it is my opinion that there is nothing inherently wrong in believing whatever you want - such as that there is some omnipotent over-being with a personal interest in your sex life watching over you.
However, where religion goes from a harmless emotional crutch to a serious social issue is when the belief changes from a personal belief to one that motivates the individual to affect changes in their environment. This is what causes all the problems that Conspirator wrote about. If you want to believe that (for example) Jews are subhuman dogs, go for it. But the moment you let that belief affect the way you interact with the rest of the world... that's when the problems start.
And that's not just true for "bad" beliefs like antisemitism. Even apparently "good" beliefs are problematic. If a person believes by virtue of their religion that (for example) psychology is misguided because mental problems are caused by spirits, then they will - with the best of intentions - discourage people from getting real help that they need in favour of some kind of faith-healing. You will find that religious folk will argue with that last point by pointing out that believing that mental problems are caused by spirits is a silly idea with no basis in reality... completely oblivious to the hypocrisy of that defence.
Conspirator's beef was with moral judgements, but i think his points extend to any judgements that a religion forces its believers to impose on the world. Whenever there is a rational reason to believe something, surrendering the basis for that belief to a religion is wrong. And as he correctly points out, religion perverts the very meaning of concepts like "moral" in order to suit its own ends... and i say that applies just as well to other concepts like "rational", "faith" and more.
| Jaan wrote: |
| Megatron shall rule the earth. |
Unicron will eat it.If that's the case Indi, we can remove religion from the conversation. Any idea with an agenda involved with it will have such problems.
Also, what religions have to say about sex is only a small part. Jesus didn't concern use much with it. His main message was to care for each other. Acting on this belief is quite good.
Not acting on belief is insincere. The example you sight with antisemitism is a perversion of Christian teaching and the mental illness example is a stretch. The Bible is more of a bible shelve than a bible, and I don't think there is a book on how to fix mental illness on it.
A better argument here is that human nature is bad. Religion, as many things and ideas, are abused by man and his selfish nature; the nature Jesus taught to fight.
| Indi wrote: |
However, where religion goes from a harmless emotional crutch to a serious social issue is when the belief changes from a personal belief to one that motivates the individual to affect changes in their environment. |
Any fanaticism is unacceptable. Even if it's fanatic atheism.
| Quote: |
| If a person believes by virtue of their religion that (for example) psychology is misguided because mental problems are caused by spirits, then they will - with the best of intentions - discourage people from getting real help that they need in favour of some kind of faith-healing. |
Except that sometimes the faith healing can be more effective than mere therapy. Sometimes it can be important to show to the person that they are part of society, and not disconnected from it, and that immersion into the group's belief can at least calm some of the effects.
Note that I'm not saying that therapy for major problems should be avoided; but for minor issues it works out okay.
| Quote: |
| Conspirator's beef was with moral judgements, but i think his points extend to any judgements that a religion forces its believers to impose on the world. Whenever there is a rational reason to believe something, surrendering the basis for that belief to a religion is wrong. And as he correctly points out, religion perverts the very meaning of concepts like "moral" in order to suit its own ends... and i say that applies just as well to other concepts like "rational", "faith" and more. |
And this is usually where we have a problem. Religion is an excellent way to teach basic morals, as well as, to a degree, enforce them. Religion in, and of itself, isn't the issue; the vast majority of worshippers are great people. Rather, it's that some people tend towards fanaticism in anything that they do, and it's usually those worshippers that everyone judges the religion by. It's like judging atheists based on the fanatics you encounter on forums; are they all that intense?
HMI have so many thoughts I'd like to share, some of my opinions are already on here in the form of my fiance's (IceCreamTruck) post.... but alas I've been up all night again replying and reading I'll have to come back to this one.
Faith is not "bad", believing that God would want us to hurt each is bad. If you ask me everytime we hurt each other, we hurt ourselves, that is the reasoning behind treating each and every soul as ourselves, they are pieces of the whole that is ALL GOD.
People have been confused forever, and developed myths around creation, but I think it will turn out to be very simple and yet complex at the same time.
Faith is not bad but misleading I find. Being true to oneself has much higher value.
'Holier than thou' is what many religions preach.
I believe in Science; my "religion" if you must call it so.
If everyone believes in something different, in turn which tells them what way to behave, so we end up with billions acting differently, and that's when we have clashes of beliefs.
It's a wonder we're still here.
It is very very difficult to write down my exact thoughts. One day I'll get it right.
Hey Jann
That gives me an idea. If you want to get rid of something that divides, oppresses, and kills people; we need to get ride of your religion of science.
| horseatingweeds wrote: |
| If that's the case Indi, we can remove religion from the conversation. Any idea with an agenda involved with it will have such problems. |
Agenda? What agenda? And how does what i wrote apply to any belief with an "agenda"?
| horseatingweeds wrote: |
| Also, what religions have to say about sex is only a small part. Jesus didn't concern use much with it. His main message was to care for each other. Acting on this belief is quite good. |
You're joking, right? The Tanakh goes into great detail about how and when to go about having sex, including what to do before and after. And don't even get me started on Hinduism and sex.
That Jesus said very little about sex is hardly a noteworthy point. It still doesn't explain why God is so fascinated by human sex, because allegedly it was the same god that wrote the old testament.
| horseatingweeds wrote: |
| Not acting on belief is insincere. The example you sight with antisemitism is a perversion of Christian teaching and the mental illness example is a stretch. The Bible is more of a bible shelve than a bible, and I don't think there is a book on how to fix mental illness on it. |
*sigh* ^_^;
Ok, try that again. Except, this time, instead of simply trying to defend your religion while disparaging other people's religions, try to look at it objectively and see what's hypocritical about your statements.
And if you didn't catch the BIG hint i just gave you there (on top of the hint that was in the post before).... ^_^;Well Indi, I've stuck to Christianity in this thread just because I know it thoroughly. I'm familiar with other forms as well but I can't sight many specifics. Most of the anti-religionists here are referring to Christianity.
The Bible, like many religious texts, contains TRUTH. This truth is profound and motivates people. Some people take this profoundness and get carried away sometimes. Realizing there is a loving God is one thing. Reading the Bible as if it was written by God himself to be applied with our social understanding, and calling the mentally ill demon possessed is a whole other.
Sex is a significant element in religion, yes, but not the primary thing. I think people focus too much on it and I think they do because the simple rules are hard to follow. Most religions just require a man and woman to marry and stay that way.
Some people stretch things out and use it to oppress homosexuals, some oppress women. But if you take Jesus’ teaching, the ones I know best, this is not right.
As for agenda, everything has one. Any idea that becomes popular doesn’t do so just because it’s cool. Let’s take something arbitrary – the belief that carbohydrates make you fat. This idea has a number of agendas behind it. Book sales, keeping people healthy, making people look more attractive (thin), etc.
Let’s corrupt it now. Pass a law banning carbs. Fin people for being fat.
Go the other way. Attack it for being an unhealthy philosophy because it is contrary to the social traditions of eating farmed food, because it causes an increase in killing and eating animals, or because it has not gone through medical trials totally proving it’s validity – which is contrary to the medical profession’s agenda.
Nothing’s pure and agenda free Indi, especially science.
Well, I guess I'll just start from the most dated post and work my way to the most present...
| Quote: |
| I have no fervor. But you are right about one thing, I do think it needs to be eliminated. You can find answers in science and philosophy, you can find hope in better things, its based on faith which breeds ignorants and superstition It is useless and it brings bad things especially the big one which has more problems. |
People place faith in many things, not just religion. If you were diagnosed with cancer tomorrow you would have faith that when the doctor when to remove the operable cancer he wouldn't slip up. Would the fact that there is a possibility that the doctor might slip up and cut a huge hole in your brain and kill you stop you from going through with the surgery? More than likely not.
Not to mention that in a previous topic, you attemted to prove that aliens could've created the universe. This is unlikely in the fact that you've assigned a particular creator. "Aliens created the universe..." Well, ALIENS in this case is the specific that makes the theory unlikely. So you're basically believing this theory based on faith, since there is no scientific or philosophical way to prove it.
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
| Quote: |
i can't speak for Conspirator, but i can say that it is my opinion that there is nothing inherently wrong in believing whatever you want - such as that there is some omnipotent over-being with a personal interest in your sex life watching over you.
However, where religion goes from a harmless emotional crutch to a serious social issue is when the belief changes from a personal belief to one that motivates the individual to affect changes in their environment. This is what causes all the problems that Conspirator wrote about. If you want to believe that (for example) Jews are subhuman dogs, go for it. But the moment you let that belief affect the way you interact with the rest of the world... that's when the problems start.
And that's not just true for "bad" beliefs like antisemitism. Even apparently "good" beliefs are problematic. If a person believes by virtue of their religion that (for example) psychology is misguided because mental problems are caused by spirits, then they will - with the best of intentions - discourage people from getting real help that they need in favour of some kind of faith-healing. You will find that religious folk will argue with that last point by pointing out that believing that mental problems are caused by spirits is a silly idea with no basis in reality... completely oblivious to the hypocrisy of that defence.
Conspirator's beef was with moral judgements, but i think his points extend to any judgements that a religion forces its believers to impose on the world. Whenever there is a rational reason to believe something, surrendering the basis for that belief to a religion is wrong. And as he correctly points out, religion perverts the very meaning of concepts like "moral" in order to suit its own ends... and i say that applies just as well to other concepts like "rational", "faith" and more. |
I think you and I are attempting to say the same thing. Anything taken to an extreme has potiental problems. That includes religion AND atheism. It's simply wrong to point out the fanatics that a certain group has had and say, "Bob killed a baby! He's an atheist! All atheists must be bad!" or, "Lucy beats children and makes them eat dog shit when if they don't believe in God! And she's a Christian! All Christians must be bad!"
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
Horseatingweeds,
I think you should focus on religion in general instead of Christianity itself (seeing as how it seems that's what The Conspirator is referring to). Not to mention that you're taking words from The Bible and the "laws" of Christianity or whatever religion you are as the set rules for all religion. | horseatingweeds wrote: |
| Well Indi, I've stuck to Christianity in this thread just because I know it thoroughly. I'm familiar with other forms as well but I can't sight many specifics. Most of the anti-religionists here are referring to Christianity. |
So far the people i've seen bringing Christianity into these discussions in almost all cases are Christians. Non-Christians occasionally mention Christianity, but usually only as an example of a larger argument against religion in general - and in most cases, they mention it in passing with other religions. i see no evidence to support the claim that the "anti-religionists" are singling Christianity out. Are you sure this perceived persecution actually exists, and that you are not simply taking everything personally as an attack against your own religion?
| horseatingweeds wrote: |
| The Bible, like many religious texts, contains TRUTH. This truth is profound and motivates people. Some people take this profoundness and get carried away sometimes. Realizing there is a loving God is one thing. Reading the Bible as if it was written by God himself to be applied with our social understanding, and calling the mentally ill demon possessed is a whole other. |
See now, you should really be more careful making statements like that. As long as you say things like "i believe in Jesus" or "i believe that the Christian bible is true", no one can challenge you.
But when you say that the bible is actually literally true... well, you had best be ready to defend that claim against some fiery objections. Because unless you have been living in cave your whole life, you must be aware that there are many parts of the Christian bible that are hotly contested. Making such a statement is little more than inflammatory, because you know as well as i do that you cannot possibly defend it. Or you'd better know that, anyway. You may be comfortable shrugging off the difficulties and relying on faith, and that's fine for you, but you can't seriously expect anyone else to because that's simply wholly irrational. Which means that you must be aware that if anyone raises an objection to the claim, you don't intend to argue it rationally.
Now, as to the other issue i've been trying to get you to see, i direct you to this statement: "Some people take this profoundness and get carried away sometimes."
Now i'll say this again. Stop and think about it. Get the chip off your shoulder and quit trying to "defend" your religion again "anti-religionists". This is not about being a good "onward Christian soldier" marching onto jihad against those who speak against your beliefs, this is about rationally understanding the nature of what you believe - not the content of what you believe, the nature of what you believe - and how far your rights with regards to that belief goes.
(Even though this is repeating myself, i will say this again because it doesn't seem to be sinking in. This has nothing to do with Christianity. Nothing. It has nothing to do with whether you're Christian or not, or i am, or how either of us feel about the religion. It has nothing to do with whether Jesus' tomb was first visited by one woman, or two women or a troupe of old-fashioned circus freaks of indeterminate gender - it doesn't even have anything to do with whether Jesus existed or not. All of that is irrelevant to this issue. So get it out of your mind.)
Here is the problem, from the top. It has been claimed that religion (not your religion, all religion) is bad. The proof given is that there are religions that have dangerous beliefs. Your counter-argument is that they "go too far" and get "carried away".
Now, i've told you twice already and this is the third time: there is something wrong with your counter-argument. It is flawed. Step back and analyze it objectively and see if you can see what.
Here's yet another hint: try to consider the same kind of argument against something else. Suppose i had said that all agricultural genetic modification was bad because some of it produced dangerous crops. Your counter-argument would