Discussion on How Religion is Inconsitent and Harmful

[Cthulhu-versailles]

ABOVE TITLE USED TO LURE YOU INTO THE THREAD SO DON'T BE OFFENDED
I just want to know why exactly is it that some people believe so completly and total in there religion yet even in doing so do not adhere to what is said in their own religion books.

I am not going to name specifics but religion has created the largest problems humanity has ever had. Wars, pointless slaughter of others who haven't believe in that religion... beliefs taken to far where horrible acts where commited. Ie Salem with the killing of all these women who were thought to be witches or when abortion clinics where bomb. Not only has religion created alot of violence it has given people reasons to believe there actions are absolutly right. How can people believe so highly and speak so proudly of something that has caused so many problems?

...Even if you only consider the supposedly civile present times we live in, religion is still creating dangerous feuds between other. As well as violence, hatred and violation of rights, not to mention wide scale discrimanation and terroism.

So Please tell me why is religion considered to be such a good thing when it has clearly done more harm then good ?


I have some questions about the inconsistency I believe exist in religion.

Weren't religious books continously changed and modifed in the passed, when the most pratical method of communication was verbal and not written.

Also don't the level of inequalities between the sexes and races shine thorugh in religion books.

Don't religions books basical promote a type of attitude that gives most of the power to men.

Doesn't it seem as though religion was modified and changed by people "men" in power to properly equate with the times.


Aren't the passages in these religions books written by people and not higher beings.

Also why is it that people who are religions will follow some beliefs in these religions books swearing that your going to hell if you don't. Yet they themselves are ignoring a lot of others things within these books.

------------
One more thing I was chiristian until about 13, and then became an athetist, so I need to ask all the christians since the bible is the only one of "the religions books I have real knowledge of" have you ever read and compared passages in the bible and seen just how inconsitent alot of things are. Not to mention that in general alot is basically interatation more so then clear actions that have been written down.

Ps Haven;t alot of religion actually originated from other religions.. which in reality then means that some religions are entirely man made and the small link that exist between the profet and God is nullified.

DON'T FLAME
-I just want to know why human beings are so devoted to religion.

[earthshine]

frankly, humans are teriffied of being alone. we are scared that our destiny actually is in our own hands, and that there wont be anybody to clean up all the messes we have made. humans always have the desire to rely on somthing else, luck, a brother/sister, parents, fate, all to take responsibility off of themselvs. somthing bad happens, it was gods will, it was bad luck, it was just fated to happen. besides that, people belive in religion becouse they dont know anything else. this is like the very fabric of their world, its what they where rtaised on. it gives them rules to live by, standards of right and wrong, and it gives them the feeling that, even if they mess up, a higher being will be there to make evrything okay again.

[The Space Cowboy]

Cross posted in the other thread to make sure you get to read it.

May I point out that the wholly secular philosophy of communism is probably responsible for more deaths than the Crusades, and the Mohammedan conquest of the Middle East that occurred earlier combined (What a nice gulag you have Joseph).

With that said...

Being a member of the "Christian" faith, I will not pretend to be able to answer all your...questions about religion. I'm not sure you're really even asking them--it sounds more like you're asking people to disprove or assent to a very generalized set of assumptions.

I'll post later when I have more to say on this matter.

[therealultimatepower]

Stalin's communism was a ploy for everyone to worship and fear him by eradicating every other possible belief system (God did a good job of sitting on his as$ on that one, huh?). He did not go on his purge with the sole intent of creating a secular society. And besides, if there was no religion, there'd be 1 less thing to be persecuted for by that wacko. Communism is not synonymous with atheism. Atheism is merely the lack of belief in a higher being. Communism is a political view. The ideal society would be a democratic and secular one, like Britain or France.

Basically, I'm against all types of organization that gains power through exploiting the masses and condoning fanaticism, whether that be from totalitarian dictatorships or the Church.

[Near]

There is nothing wrong in believes. Its people that abuse the power by creating hierarchy religion based systems.

[Edgecrusher]

Human nature is the cause of wars. It's not as if we had no religion it'd be a utopia. We would just find something else to fight over. It's not the cause of belief, it's the cause of human weakness.

[OtacontheOtaku]

Weren't religious books continously changed and modifed in the passed, when the most pratical method of communication was verbal and not written.

Yes, they in fact were and still are. The New King James, International, and New Life versions of the bible are altered and updated by the Jesuit society in conjunction with the approval of the Catholic Church relatively frequently.

Also don't the level of inequalities between the sexes and races shine thorugh in religion books.

Quite so indeed. The Torah and Quaran both shine God's favour upon their respective races. Christianity and Catholicism both are arrogant relgions who's sects are constantly warring over who is right while deeming all who don't accept Yeshwah (Jesus; properly translated Joshua) as their savior hethans who are going straight to (the completely fictional) hell.

Don't religions books basical promote a type of attitude that gives most of the power to men.

Yes, almost all mainstream religious texts are extremely mysogynistic. In Levitacus 27 "God" sets the value of women at 50 to 66 percent of that of men. In 1 Timothy 2:11 it speaks how they are not to hold higher positions than men. The Bible and Torah also find no fault when Abraham and Isaac knowingly gave away their wive for sexual use. These of course are only several examples. So yes, the Bible is a vast expansion of mysogeny left and right.

Doesn't it seem as though religion was modified and changed by people "men" in power to properly equate with the times.

This is exactly what happened. Most of the stories of the Old Testament come from Ancient Sumeria. They had been passed down by the people and eventually adapted into what became the first religious texts.


Aren't the passages in these religions books written by people and not higher beings.

Right again. The passages were, even according to myth, not written down by those telling the story. A scribe had to record the accounts as per relayed through the story-teller. Thus we end up with a massive game of telephone where the message ends up being horribly distorted by the time it's ready for mass-induction.

Also why is it that people who are religions will follow some beliefs in these religions books swearing that your going to hell if you don't. Yet they themselves are ignoring a lot of others things within these books.

Because organized religion is all about two things, money and ego. If people truly were following their religions then they wouldn't condemn as they do, they would try and spread a message of love and peace. Do they though? Of course not. Though, not to say this is non-existant but, as a whole the world of organized religion is extremely fucked up.

[Scorpio3.14]

The amount of people who have been helped by a church, religious organization, religous family, etc... over the years far far far out number the people who are hurt by perversions of religion.

For every person hurt by an abortion clinic bomber, thousands more women are being helped with the birth of their children by religious organizations. For every person who uses religon to justify acts of hatred, there are thousands more who use religion to justify acts of love, compasion, and hope.

Religious organizations are out there every single day, feeding the poor, helping the hurt, sending money to people in need, giveing people a place to sleep, helping them turn their life around from addictions, giving moral support to people going through hard times. Every single day religous groups do these things and no one really notices. Then every so often you hear of some religious nut bombing an abortion clinic or beating up some homosexuals and they all go "Wow, look at how hateful and harmful those religous people are"

In fact, most studies done on the issue of religion on crime and delinquency show that they have an inverse relationship. The more religious a person is, the less likely they are to commit crimes. http://www.biu.ac.il/SOC/cr/courses/951/sifrut.pdf (if you dont feel like reading, skip to the conclusion on the bottom of page 14)

Whether you like it or not, religion is a part of life for most people in the world and most people in the world are good people. Religion can be harmful just like everything else, but most of the time its helpful. You are judgeing the many on the actions of a few.

[skunkworks]

Yes, almost all mainstream religious texts are extremely mysogynistic. In Levitacus 27 "God" sets the value of women at 50 to 66 percent of that of men. In 1 Timothy 2:11 it speaks how they are not to hold higher positions than men. The Bible and Torah also find no fault when Abraham and Isaac knowingly gave away their wive for sexual use. These of course are only several examples. So yes, the Bible is a vast expansion of mysogeny left and right.

I'm about to start studying the part in the Torah regarding appraisal, and "value".

The part about Abraham is a misconception. He knew that her beauty would stir up the evil inclinations of the Egyptians, so he asked her to pretend to be his sister. They knew that if she did this the Egyptians would spare him, but if they knew she was his wife, they would most likely kill him. Pharoah himself takes Sarah by force, what can one man do against a Pharoah? Sarah saves Abraham's life, how is this misogyny?

If the Torah was truly misogynistic Jewish women would have practically no rights, yet it's the complete opposite.

There is no question that in traditional Judaism, the primary role of a woman is as wife and mother, keeper of the household. However, Judaism has great respect for the importance of that role and the spiritual influence that the woman has over her family. The Talmud says that when a pious man marries a wicked woman, the man becomes wicked, but when a wicked man marries a pious woman, the man becomes pious. Women are exempted from all positive commandments ("thou shalts" as opposed to "thou shalt nots") that are time-related (that is, commandments that must be performed at a specific time of the day or year), because the woman's duties as wife and mother are so important that they cannot be postponed to fulfill a commandment. After all, a woman cannot be expected to just drop a crying baby when the time comes to perform a commandment.

http://www.jewfaq.org/women.htm

It's easy to bash something when you don't completely understand it.

[Nerwyn]

The amount of people who have been helped by a church, religious organization, religous family, etc... over the years far far far out number the people who are hurt by perversions of religion.

For every person hurt by an abortion clinic bomber, thousands more women are being helped with the birth of their children by religious organizations. For every person who uses religon to justify acts of hatred, there are thousands more who use religion to justify acts of love, compasion, and hope.

Religious organizations are out there every single day, feeding the poor, helping the hurt, sending money to people in need, giveing people a place to sleep, helping them turn their life around from addictions, giving moral support to people going through hard times. Every single day religous groups do these things and no one really notices. Then every so often you hear of some religious nut bombing an abortion clinic or beating up some homosexuals and they all go "Wow, look at how hateful and harmful those religous people are"

In fact, most studies done on the issue of religion on crime and delinquency show that they have an inverse relationship. The more religious a person is, the less likely they are to commit crimes. http://www.biu.ac.il/SOC/cr/courses/951/sifrut.pdf (if you dont feel like reading, skip to the conclusion on the bottom of page 14)

Whether you like it or not, religion is a part of life for most people in the world and most people in the world are good people. Religion can be harmful just like everything else, but most of the time its helpful. You are judgeing the many on the actions of a few.

Yeah, go Scorpio! I'm tired of people bashing on religion (especially Christianity) when they don't even know what they're talking about and/or try to persuade others using personal agendas without giving the entire point of view. Which, usually, is a point of view that they can't understand as they've never held it. (I'm not picking on this thread in particular, as I've been debating this same thing in a couple of other threads.)

Imagine debating the existence of light with someone who's been completely blind his entire life. Others say that light exists, but the blind person can't prove it for himself and therefore because it isn't "logical" that it exists, then he feels that he has to right to convince others that it doesn't exist either.

I'm about to start studying the part in the Torah regarding appraisal, and "value".

The part about Abraham is a misconception. He knew that her beauty would stir up the evil inclinations of the Egyptians, so he asked her to pretend to be his sister. They knew that if she did this the Egyptians would spare him, but if they knew she was his wife, they would most likely kill him. Pharoah himself takes Sarah by force, what can one man do against a Pharoah? Sarah saves Abraham's life, how is this misogyny?

If the Torah was truly misogynistic Jewish women would have practically no rights, yet it's the complete opposite.

http://www.jewfaq.org/women.htm

It's easy to bash something when you don't completely understand it.

Exactly. :wink

[Sands]

there are those who are very serious about their religion and those who are more relxed about it. of course it is easy to bash what u don't understand.if u understand the other religions better then u will understand their actions although not all are understandable

[skunkworks]

C'mon, a secular world wouldn't exactly turn out much better. There are assholes on both sides, we should be pinning the blame on people, not religion. Stalin wasn't religious, and he killed tons of people in the name of communism.

[Sands]

C'mon, a secular world wouldn't exactly turn out much better. There are assholes on both sides, we should be pinning the blame on people, not religion. Stalin wasn't religious, and he killed tons of people in the name of communism.
true.because people might use religion to give reasons for actions that cannot be understood.

[Tehol Beddict]

Yeah, go Scorpio! I'm tired of people bashing on religion (especially Christianity) when they don't even know what they're talking about and/or try to persuade others using personal agendas without giving the entire point of view. Which, usually, is a point of view that they can't understand as they've never held it. (I'm not picking on this thread in particular, as I've been debating this same thing in a couple of other threads.)

Imagine debating the existence of light with someone who's been completely blind his entire life. Others say that light exists, but the blind person can't prove it for himself and therefore because it isn't "logical" that it exists, then he feels that he has to right to convince others that it doesn't exist either.


Or, imagine someone who can't see the sun, so decides that the light comes from the gaping mouth of a giant rainbow bunny. You've even read about it in a book and heard about it from your parents. Imagine that if you do not believe in the giant bunny on the other side of the earth providing you with light and nourishment apparently for naught else but his own amusement, you will be burned eternally. People live and serve this bunny in fear for their entire lives but you seek to find the truth behind the bunny. You begin to realize that the texts of this mighty bunny are highly falsified, created from fear of the unknown, and meant to lead the ignorant around by inducing a false sense of placement and comfort. When you realize that all of things in the bunny book can't coincide with what you've discovered on your search, you attempt to share your knowledge with others so that they might be educated and make decisions armed with knowledge rather than mere unbacked superstition about an angry bunny. You spend the rest of your life belittled and rediculed by the same people who claim that the bunny that will set you on fire loves you and is kind and their goal is to spread knowledge and love of the bunny. And you never tried to convince anyone it didn't exist, merely justified why you didn't believe and tried to stop you from convincing more that it did without them having heard the other side of the argument.

You are a hypocrite, btw. What right have you to determine what rights the rest of us have while you try and convince others that they will be cast into a lake of fire if they don't blindly accept your word for it and worship a god they can't know exists?

[metalanime]

religion, IMO is 100% crap used for deception, conditining the flock and separation of different people to prevent unity across the world because people will fight and kill for thier beliefs. That is not divine power, that is human stupidity greed and egoism and belittlement simultaneously at its height. I personally believe that to say there is a higher being is the same as saying I am trash and that people should be responsible through thier own actions and strenthen themselves and believe in thier own power, rather than saying that they are weak and praying for power from a fictional deity. I dont care if anyone else is religious as its none of my concern. I accept people for what they are and I never force my views.

Seriously, people believed long ago we were dug from the ground by pigs, some people believe were were from ears of corn, some people believed man was created out of clay by a higher being and that being created women from mans rib. Do any of these 3 things really make any more sense than the other 2?

"You are your own God, I am my own God" Vehemence - God Was Created

[bozic]

There are many people that use religion as a tool for their own personal benefits. Suicide bombers are often brainwash that what they do is what god what wants and that they will go to heaven.

It has alwasy been fighting between different religions. In some places entire
ethnic group has been exterminated, just because they were of a diffrent religion.

I personally think that some ,not all religion ,as it is now should be must change.

[skunkworks]

IMO, Islam is in desperate need of some change. They (not all of them of course) are still stuck in that medieval mentality.

[WayfarerStrife]

There are many people that use religion as a tool for their own personal benefits. Suicide bombers are often brainwash that what they do is what god what wants and that they will go to heaven.

It has alwasy been fighting between different religions. In some places entire
ethnic group has been exterminated, just because they were of a diffrent religion.

I personally think that some ,not all religion ,as it is now should be must change.

IMO, Islam is in desperate need of some change. They (not all of them of course) are still stuck in that medieval mentality.

Well, the Muslims are usually a peaceful group of people ... the reason why suicidal bombers arises is due to their background ... most of these people are from war torned countries with very little education, who believe that there is Holy war going on between them and the West, and that by killing "bad" people you go to Heaven ... and with this wrong views in their mind, they do about killing people in fits of lunacy ... :tem

[ninja_in_the_night]

honestly...i think people should do some reasearch and find their way back to the 13 origions of religion...and trace those back to the 1 origional religion and find the truth behind it all...

[Nemesis]

The ideal society would be a democratic and secular one, like Britain or France.
QUOTE]

Actually i think i should point out that Britain is not a secular country.

[quote]
In the United Kingdom, there are two state-approved churches. The Church of Scotland is Presbyterian while the Church of England is Anglican. The king or queen must promise to uphold the rights of the Presbyterian church in Scotland and the Anglican church in England. He or she is the Supreme Governor of the Church of England, holding the title of Defender of the Faith, but an ordinary member of the Church of Scotland. Neither church receives direct funding from taxation. State schools must provide religious instruction and regular religious ceremonies, though parents may withdraw their children from either; the choice of religion left up to the school governors, but in the absence of an explicit choice it is by default "broadly Christian"; the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church operate many state-funded schools and there are a small number of Jewish and Muslim ones. Senior Church of England bishops have a right to sit in the House of Lords, the upper chamber of the Parliament of the United Kingdom.


In other words the Church of england and christian beliefs must be put forward in state schools (even though that tits optional for kids to attend) not really something a secular state would put forward

[SublimeTruth]

Wow.. some of you can write a load of balony...
Let me ask a few questions here, and set things straight.

To people who say God doesnt exist, I ask this: Why do you say God doesnt exist? If ur answer is "there is no proof of his existance", then I ask you this: Do you know everything? If you answer yes, you need to take it easier on the pills. Then I ask you: Do know half of everything? Let suppose you did, dont you think theres a very big possibility that God could exist in the other half?

To most of you I ask this: Let say that God didnt exist, who/what created the universe? The "Big Bang"? Seriously folk, can i laugh at you now or later? Did you know the evolution theory has absolutly NO evidence which supports it? Ok, most of you have heard this about this rediculious thing called the Geological Column right? Now, what if I told you that thing doesnt exist, except in one place : Textbooks. Listen to this nonsense: When you ask any Geoligist "how do you tell the age of a fossil?", his answer will be:
"By the Geological plates". Then you say, oh really, thats interresting, and how do you tell the age of the Geological Plates? His answer will be :" by the fossils it contains" Now folks, anyone not catching that, thats called "Circular Reasoning". If anyone tells you that they tell the age of a fossil by CarbonDating, then my friend, i must inform you that that person is without a doubt lieing. You see, the "Geological Column" was "invented" in that 18 hundreds i think it was, by not some Genius Proffesor of Science, but a laywer, but what i found most interresting is that, at that time, there was no such thing as CarbonDating or any of the other proccesses we have today. Now how exactly did he know how old they were? Folks, he invented numbers. If you still dont believe me, let me ask you this: Have you seen petrified trees before? Now Im sure you have, at least once, or at least heard about it. Now what if I told you that some of those trees go not only through 1, but THREE plates? Folks that would mean that tree would have standed there dead for about 13millions years. Dont you think it would have rotten away in that time, even a little? Heres another one: If those plates are differnt ages, then why do they fit on top of each other so perfectly? No traces of erosion between them? So you are telling me it never rained ONCE in that age? Or any animals walked on that spot?
Folks there are endless cases of evidence disproving Evolution. I could write a 500 page Post here, but i doubt you guys would read through it all.

Now. if u really wanne know the truth, visit this site : www.drdino.com and I can tell you, ALL the answers are on there people.

Now, doesnt that prove that there HAS to be a God? A Creator. A Devine Designer. Yes folks, it does. I know who I believe to be God, whereas some differ from me here, but that is your own choice.

As to the "Danger" in Religion, I say that there is only one dangerous Religion : Evolution. And if you dont believe me, read up on that site i listed.
All the people you guys mentioned were nuts, it had nothing to do with religion.

Now, I will tell you what IS dangerous. People, some of you have been so indoctrinated and brainwashed that you cant ask simple questions about events going on around you. Like this good one: "Who told the Air Force to stand down on 9/11?" or this one: "Why were there BOMBS planted in the Trade center?" Folks, open your eyes. If you wanne see how much you have really been decieved, go here: www.wingtv.net along with the other site i mentioned. Its scary people, I implore you: Inquire and THINK for yourselves.

Now that all being said, i suspect i'll most likely get kicked of NF, the one speaking truth always gets silenced somehow. Oh well, if theres at least one of you out there who opens their eyes after this, then mission accomplished. Id do it again and again and again.

That all from me. Flamers, I bid thee: Cometh hither and doeth thy worst.

[Cthulhu-versailles]

Wow.. some of you can write a load of balony...
Let me ask a few questions here, and set things straight.

To people who say God doesnt exist, I ask this: Why do you say God doesnt exist? If ur answer is "there is no proof of his existance", then I ask you this: Do you know everything? If you answer yes, you need to take it easier on the pills. Then I ask you: Do know half of everything? Let suppose you did, dont you think theres a very big possibility that God could exist in the other half?

To most of you I ask this: Let say that God didnt exist, who/what created the universe? The "Big Bang"? Seriously folk, can i laugh at you now or later? Did you know the evolution theory has absolutly NO evidence which supports it? Ok, most of you have heard this about this rediculious thing called the Geological Column right? Now, what if I told you that thing doesnt exist, except in one place : Textbooks. Listen to this nonsense: When you ask any Geoligist "how do you tell the age of a fossil?", his answer will be:
"By the Geological plates". Then you say, oh really, thats interresting, and how do you tell the age of the Geological Plates? His answer will be :" by the fossils it contains" Now folks, anyone not catching that, thats called "Circular Reasoning". If anyone tells you that they tell the age of a fossil by CarbonDating, then my friend, i must inform you that that person is without a doubt lieing. You see, the "Geological Column" was "invented" in that 18 hundreds i think it was, by not some Genius Proffesor of Science, but a laywer, but what i found most interresting is that, at that time, there was no such thing as CarbonDating or any of the other proccesses we have today. Now how exactly did he know how old they were? Folks, he invented numbers. If you still dont believe me, let me ask you this: Have you seen petrified trees before? Now Im sure you have, at least once, or at least heard about it. Now what if I told you that some of those trees go not only through 1, but THREE plates? Folks that would mean that tree would have standed there dead for about 13millions years. Dont you think it would have rotten away in that time, even a little? Heres another one: If those plates are differnt ages, then why do they fit on top of each other so perfectly? No traces of erosion between them? So you are telling me it never rained ONCE in that age? Or any animals walked on that spot?
Folks there are endless cases of evidence disproving Evolution. I could write a 500 page Post here, but i doubt you guys would read through it all.

Now. if u really wanne know the truth, visit this site : www.drdino.com and I can tell you, ALL the answers are on there people.

Now, doesnt that prove that there HAS to be a God? A Creator. A Devine Designer. Yes folks, it does. I know who I believe to be God, whereas some differ from me here, but that is your own choice.

As to the "Danger" in Religion, I say that there is only one dangerous Religion : Evolution. And if you dont believe me, read up on that site i listed.
All the people you guys mentioned were nuts, it had nothing to do with religion.

Now, I will tell you what IS dangerous. People, some of you have been so indoctrinated and brainwashed that you cant ask simple questions about events going on around you. Like this good one: "Who told the Air Force to stand down on 9/11?" or this one: "Why were there BOMBS planted in the Trade center?" Folks, open your eyes. If you wanne see how much you have really been decieved, go here: www.wingtv.net along with the other site i mentioned. Its scary people, I implore you: Inquire and THINK for yourselves.

Now that all being said, i suspect i'll most likely get kicked of NF, the one speaking truth always gets silenced somehow. Oh well, if theres at least one of you out there who opens their eyes after this, then mission accomplished. Id do it again and again and again.

That all from me. Flamers, I bid thee: Cometh hither and doeth thy worst.

wow I so thought this thread was dead but lagasp it's not. Um right away within the first pargraph of ur post you just told everyone that God exist and if you don't believe he does your wrong, because you don't have any reason to say God doesn't exist. Umm dude what makes you so sure he does. Don't go around stating absolutles when there are no absolutles on the topic of God. Neither side has any justification for what they believe, they just do. God and religion need not be associated, I believe in neither but I am specifically disgusted with how people submit to religion like mindless ants. Furthermore unlike the topic of God there is proof about how religion and how it has been tainted and used by humans.

...Second- I never mentioned 911 as being a result of religion, 911 is a bad example because it is twisted individuals that perpatrated an act of violence- thus there is no connotation between religion and those particular terroist acts. A better example of religion and violence going hand in hand are the many wars going down in africa.

If you look at history, beside attributing everything to the nature of man, as some of you like to do, the secondary cause of both conflict and death has been the predominant rain religion has had on society. Many pratices and beliefs were acted out and religion was used as the striving force behind that actions...(the excuse and holy justification)

-Why did europians think it was okay, actually it was cool to take slaves.. because some jack ass said it was within the bible that blacks were not humans, that slaves should be taken.

-Why were women oppressed and without rights for so long.. A key aspect is religion. Back before man had been a sedientary society Women were very much as equal and generally more respected then there male counter parts. The height of this was when homosapiens had grasped how babaies where born but still did not have a huge wide scale function group of cities.

Women at that time were worshipped and important due to there fertility.

-----Yet strangely enough around the turn of what was it the um 12 century( i forogt) when organizes religion finally came into play and the role of men was beginning to become somewhat subdue- religion made a forefront to the top of the food chain and with it cascaded women down to the bottom.

-Organized religions during wars use to kill those who were considered HERETICS or even those who had a diffrent religion. -I so wich I remeber exact dates and names because I would be able to give easily 10 wars that were fought in the name of religion and that killed millions.

- In canada and other place in the world when immigrants first came over the first thing that was used as a reason why they were nothing, but low level primatives was that they were of a diffrent religion.

Organized religion has done nothing but convert more people towards it cause- while still continuing to mainatain it prejedices wrapped in a shroud of old english and pretext- thus few even know what the hell there reading and have been "brainwashed" since there children to configure to whatever there parents have taught them.

ONE more thing I now relaize that generalizing to all religions is a mistake, so I will say this any religion that utilizes the same principles as buddism is exempt from my coments- if you know anything about buddism u'll know why I say this.

Ps: err the above my be highly unorganize because I respond while being very annoyed, after being subjected to read such clear hypocracy.

[skunkworks]

wow I so thought this thread was dead but lagasp it's not. Um right away within the first pargraph of ur post you just told everyone that God exist and if you don't believe he does your wrong, because you don't have any reason to say God doesn't exist. Umm dude what makes you so sure he does. Don't go around stating absolutles when there are no absolutles on the topic of God. Neither side has any justification for what they believe, they just do. God and religion need not be associated, I believe in neither but I am specifically disgusted with how people submit to religion like mindless ants. Furthermore unlike the topic of God there is proof about how religion and how it has been tainted and used by humans.

...Second- I never mentioned 911 as being a result of religion, 911 is a bad example because it is twisted individuals that perpatrated an act of violence- thus there is no connotation between religion and those particular terroist acts. A better example of religion and violence going hand in hand are the many wars going down in africa.

If you look at history, beside attributing everything to the nature of man, as some of you like to do, the secondary cause of both conflict and death has been the predominant rain religion has had on society. Many pratices and beliefs were acted out and religion was used as the striving force behind that actions...(the excuse and holy justification)

-Why did europians think it was okay, actually it was cool to take slaves.. because some jack ass said it was within the bible that blacks were not humans, that slaves should be taken.

-Why were women oppressed and without rights for so long.. A key aspect is religion. Back before man had been a sedientary society Women were very much as equal and generally more respected then there male counter parts. The height of this was when homosapiens had grasped how babaies where born but still did not have a huge wide scale function group of cities.

Women at that time were worshipped and important due to there fertility.

-----Yet strangely enough around the turn of what was it the um 12 century( i forogt) when organizes religion finally came into play and the role of men was beginning to become somewhat subdue- religion made a forefront to the top of the food chain and with it cascaded women down to the bottom.

-Organized religions during wars use to kill those who were considered HERETICS or even those who had a diffrent religion. -I so wich I remeber exact dates and names because I would be able to give easily 10 wars that were fought in the name of religion and that killed millions.

- In canada and other place in the world when immigrants first came over the first thing that was used as a reason why they were nothing, but low level primatives was that they were of a diffrent religion.

Organized religion has done nothing but convert more people towards it cause- while still continuing to mainatain it prejedices wrapped in a shroud of old english and pretext- thus few even know what the hell there reading and have been "brainwashed" since there children to configure to whatever there parents have taught them.

ONE more thing I now relaize that generalizing to all religions is a mistake, so I will say this any religion that utilizes the same principles as buddism is exempt from my coments- if you know anything about buddism u'll know why I say this.

Ps: err the above my be highly unorganize because I respond while being very annoyed, after being subjected to read such clear hypocracy.

It seems like your beef is with people, not religion so much.

[Dark Schneider]

Wow.. some of you can write a load of balony...
Let me ask a few questions here, and set things straight.

To people who say God doesnt exist, I ask this: Why do you say God doesnt exist? If ur answer is "there is no proof of his existance", then I ask you this: Do you know everything? If you answer yes, you need to take it easier on the pills. Then I ask you: Do know half of everything? Let suppose you did, dont you think theres a very big possibility that God could exist in the other half?

To most of you I ask this: Let say that God didnt exist, who/what created the universe? The "Big Bang"? Seriously folk, can i laugh at you now or later? Did you know the evolution theory has absolutly NO evidence which supports it? Ok, most of you have heard this about this rediculious thing called the Geological Column right? Now, what if I told you that thing doesnt exist, except in one place : Textbooks. Listen to this nonsense: When you ask any Geoligist "how do you tell the age of a fossil?", his answer will be:
"By the Geological plates". Then you say, oh really, thats interresting, and how do you tell the age of the Geological Plates? His answer will be :" by the fossils it contains" Now folks, anyone not catching that, thats called "Circular Reasoning". If anyone tells you that they tell the age of a fossil by CarbonDating, then my friend, i must inform you that that person is without a doubt lieing. You see, the "Geological Column" was "invented" in that 18 hundreds i think it was, by not some Genius Proffesor of Science, but a laywer, but what i found most interresting is that, at that time, there was no such thing as CarbonDating or any of the other proccesses we have today. Now how exactly did he know how old they were? Folks, he invented numbers. If you still dont believe me, let me ask you this: Have you seen petrified trees before? Now Im sure you have, at least once, or at least heard about it. Now what if I told you that some of those trees go not only through 1, but THREE plates? Folks that would mean that tree would have standed there dead for about 13millions years. Dont you think it would have rotten away in that time, even a little? Heres another one: If those plates are differnt ages, then why do they fit on top of each other so perfectly? No traces of erosion between them? So you are telling me it never rained ONCE in that age? Or any animals walked on that spot?
Folks there are endless cases of evidence disproving Evolution. I could write a 500 page Post here, but i doubt you guys would read through it all.

Now. if u really wanne know the truth, visit this site : www.drdino.com and I can tell you, ALL the answers are on there people.

Now, doesnt that prove that there HAS to be a God? A Creator. A Devine Designer. Yes folks, it does. I know who I believe to be God, whereas some differ from me here, but that is your own choice.

As to the "Danger" in Religion, I say that there is only one dangerous Religion : Evolution. And if you dont believe me, read up on that site i listed.
All the people you guys mentioned were nuts, it had nothing to do with religion.

Now, I will tell you what IS dangerous. People, some of you have been so indoctrinated and brainwashed that you cant ask simple questions about events going on around you. Like this good one: "Who told the Air Force to stand down on 9/11?" or this one: "Why were there BOMBS planted in the Trade center?" Folks, open your eyes. If you wanne see how much you have really been decieved, go here: www.wingtv.net along with the other site i mentioned. Its scary people, I implore you: Inquire and THINK for yourselves.

Now that all being said, i suspect i'll most likely get kicked of NF, the one speaking truth always gets silenced somehow. Oh well, if theres at least one of you out there who opens their eyes after this, then mission accomplished. Id do it again and again and again.

That all from me. Flamers, I bid thee: Cometh hither and doeth thy worst.

Wait wait...how does that make the bible the "right" doctrine to believe. So your basically implying that the bible is more credible then hundreads of years of experiments and research?

First we have to ask are selves what is science exactly ( taken from dictionary.com)

Science: The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena

What really irks me off, is that creationists never provide any evidence to support their claims. All they do is, dismiss evolution. Wow, that really is convincing.

Yes, science cannot explain everything...but you know what it explains more then religion. Before something is announced as fact, lengthy experiments, are conducted. New discoveries, are debated for long periods of time, before they are excepted by the scientific community. Scientific theories, are never set in stone, they are always changed/improved with time. Whereas religious doctrines remain the same for thousands of years. Science is modern, religion is not for the most part.

Tell me though O wise one, how is Zeus or any other Greek/Roman God different from the God now? Really, there isn't any evidence to confirm their existance. So you know what I'd rather believe in Zeus, because he some serious ass.

This idea, also leads me to my next point. I think I'm going to create my own religion. Where everyone must worship the almighty cat. Of course I don't need to show proof that such a cat exists. I'll write my own doctrine of course, and in a thousand years or so. I'll have masses of people following it.Why didn't I think of this before? If "blind faith" is all you need then, this theory is fool proof ;)

[SublimeTruth]

Wait wait...how does that make the bible the "right" doctrine to believe. So your basically implying that the bible is more credible then hundreads of years of experiments and research?

First we have to ask are selves what is science exactly ( taken from dictionary.com)

Science: The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena

What really irks me off, is that creationists never provide any evidence to support their claims. All they do is, dismiss evolution. Wow, that really is convincing.

Yes, science cannot explain everything...but you know what it explains more then religion. Before something is announced as fact, lengthy experiments, are conducted. New discoveries, are debated for long periods of time, before they are excepted by the scientific community. Scientific theories, are never set in stone, they are always changed/improved with time. Whereas religious doctrines remain the same for thousands of years. Science is modern, religion is not for the most part.

Tell me though O wise one, how is Zeus or any other Greek/Roman God different from the God now? Really, there isn't any evidence to confirm their existance. So you know what I'd rather believe in Zeus, because he some serious ass.

This idea, also leads me to my next point. I think I'm going to create my own religion. Where everyone must worship the almighty cat. Of course I don't need to show proof that such a cat exists. I'll write my own doctrine of course, and in a thousand years or so. I'll have masses of people following it.Why didn't I think of this before? If "blind faith" is all you need then, this theory is fool proof ;)

Hey hey hey gentlemen, you need to be able to READ before you can actually reply.

First off, quoting from the dictionary doesnt prove Jack, my friend. Words change and along with them, meanings of those words, let take one, the word "refill", which nowadays means to "fill again", whereas a few hundred years it meant simply "to fill". So if you wanne quote from something, quote from something thats CONSTANT.

Secondly people (seriously.... READ), i clearly said : "There is a God, I know who MINE is, whereas some people DIFFER (meaning boys and girls, that they have someone ELSE they worship) from me in this respect.

And no proof for the Creation theory? Did you even go to the link i gave?

AS to the 9/11 thing i mentioned ppl. I never said it had anything to do with religion? I SAID: "Now Im going to tell you what is dangerous", didnt I?
But I cant blame you ppl, your so bloody brainwashed, you cant even think about this kinda stuff.

And lastly Murals: Me saying that your supposed hundreds of years of "scientific" research is a load of balony? Yes, Im saying exactly that. If u have a problem with that, then enjoy worshipping your "cat" god (Oh btw, your a few hundred years to late, theres already a cat god). And like i said, your whole bloody Evolution theory is based on the "works" of a Laywer? o.0
Seeing as you people dont like looking at a site for yourselves, I guess I'll have to feed it to you like babies:
http://www.drdino.com/articles.php?spec=73 <-- On the subject of Carbon dating
http://www.drdino.com/articles.php?spec=84 <-- Evolution in a nutshell
http://www.drdino.com/articles.php?spec=41 <-- Have a look for yourself
http://www.drdino.com/articles.php?spec=95 <-- Things that make Evolutionists look stupid
And the one you all crave so desperatly: http://www.drdino.com/articles.php?spec=7 <-- Evidence of Creation

Next person that responds: READ what was said, and for Pete's sake, VISIT the links would you? The links contain the facts, boys and girls. READ up before you wanne take me on on this, okay?

[Tehol Beddict]

All that's left now is to decide who gets to take care of this ^ :laugh

It's a juicy opportunity [maybe too juicy :shifty] but I am rather sleepy so I'll let it pass and in the morning I'll laugh at the response of whoever does decide to give it a twist.

I'd would like to point out one thing that I just can't leave sitting, though:

Are you, by any chance, aware of the irony that occured when you screamed at people to think for themselves, yet when furnishing what very minimal backup for your statements that you did manage to provide, you pull links to some ppv cult-extremist websites that indoctrinate only those of the absolutely weakest minds? One man's idea on the subject is still that, it doesn't change just because you believe what they told you about it, and I'd bet dollars to pennies you didn't think up god all by yourself :amuse You might have with the rest of the shit you said though because I see absolutely no substantiation behind any of your arguments, if they can be labeled as such.

And I gave you a chance; even though I was fully aware of what would be found, I went to those two links you provided, just to allow you due process. There was no proof there, and nothing resembling it. Unfounded crackpot sentiments of an ignorant mind's denial is all. To truly believe the things you say and think the way you do you must be A: Retarded B: Fucking with everyone or C: ...Retarded. Or you might need some sort of psychological treatment. I hope for your sake that you're just trolling for trolling's sake.

There are so many...things...lol, but I must forbear any further discussion on the matter. I have a goal that I must attend to before I can go to bed, and as tired as I am right now, sleep is imperative in the immediate future. At least I can rest comfortably knowing that there are about seven people here that can take care of this at least as well as I can. Actually, there are a few who's technical knowledge on the subject far surpasses my own, but I meant on on idealogical level. Either way would be fine, actually, but I lack the education on the subject necessary to delve too deeply into the other side of the coin.

Whatever the case may be, and whoever might take that case on in the absence of Judge∙I┼☼, I wish you well because I desire to awaken to the sweet smell of humor in the morning :laugh

[edit]

ah, I see things were edited in while I was typing this. No matter, I still intend to sleep well.

Oh...yeah, if you want to take the debate in that direction [which has already been done in a more eloquent fashion by someone with more knowledge on the subject than yourself, I might add] this is not the thread for it.

[SublimeTruth]

Oh Mightiest of Judges, with thy high ways in the art of the English language, before I fall before thy knees and succumb to thy reasons and be swept away by thy most profoundest of wisdoms, I again just wish to point one or two things out.

What I meant by think for yourself is : Read what I provide (And Oh Judgy, if u did that in what… an odd 20 minutes? Then I truly salute you, for then you are the fastest reader I have ever met. Really) and THEN decide for yourself whether you wane believe it or not.
And, just to let you know, if u actually took some time out of talking and spreading out all that vile gas, otherwise known as your ego, and actually read what I provided, then you would see that everything is based on facts my dear friend, whereas yours are based on a Lizard giving birth to a Bird (If u don’t know what im talking about, then I suggest you get a life and read a little more).

NOW: as you have said, I may not be an exact expert, BUT, the people I refer you to ARE. As for elegance my friend: That went out the door when you crackpots came up with these REDICULIOUS, UNFOUNDED and plain STUPID theories.

Now if u have any more egotistical and idiotic comments, you can PM, as ive got a life to return to this next week, and wont have time to read your garbage until then. (Or just keep this thread alive until then, doesn’t matter to me either way).

[Dark Schneider]

Hey hey hey gentlemen, you need to be able to READ before you can actually reply.

First off, quoting from the dictionary doesnt prove Jack, my friend. Words change and along with them, meanings of those words, let take one, the word "refill", which nowadays means to "fill again", whereas a few hundred years it meant simply "to fill". So if you wanne quote from something, quote from something thats CONSTANT.

Secondly people (seriously.... READ), i clearly said : "There is a God, I know who MINE is, whereas some people DIFFER (meaning boys and girls, that they have someone ELSE they worship) from me in this respect.

And no proof for the Creation theory? Did you even go to the link i gave?

AS to the 9/11 thing i mentioned ppl. I never said it had anything to do with religion? I SAID: "Now Im going to tell you what is dangerous", didnt I?
But I cant blame you ppl, your so bloody brainwashed, you cant even think about this kinda stuff.

And lastly Murals: Me saying that your supposed hundreds of years of "scientific" research is a load of balony? Yes, Im saying exactly that. If u have a problem with that, then enjoy worshipping your "cat" god (Oh btw, your a few hundred years to late, theres already a cat god). And like i said, your whole bloody Evolution theory is based on the "works" of a Laywer? o.0
Seeing as you people dont like looking at a site for yourselves, I guess I'll have to feed it to you like babies:
http://www.drdino.com/articles.php?spec=73 <-- On the subject of Carbon dating
http://www.drdino.com/articles.php?spec=84 <-- Evolution in a nutshell
http://www.drdino.com/articles.php?spec=41 <-- Have a look for yourself
http://www.drdino.com/articles.php?spec=95 <-- Things that make Evolutionists look stupid
And the one you all crave so desperatly: http://www.drdino.com/articles.php?spec=7 <-- Evidence of Creation

Next person that responds: READ what was said, and for Pete's sake, VISIT the links would you? The links contain the facts, boys and girls. READ up before you wanne take me on on this, okay?


Firstly it was very late, secondly, I skimmed through your post and it seemed like a bunch of redundant bullshit.

As for your websites...can I say what a load of bull again? Another biased evangelistic website, which tries to discredit the merits of science.
Now that we've gone through that, can you provide me some objectional websites which are not saturated by people who only try to descredit science. Thats the problem with you neo creationists. Never any evidence to support your claims, but always jumping the gun on science. I don't see how that supports creationism.

Once again I'll say science is not perfect, but damn it's more credible then this.

So provide me evidence supporting creatonism. Keep in mind this does not include websites that only try to descredit science

Edited to add: My definition of science, was simply there, so that you'd have an idea what science is--because you damn well don't.

[Tehol Beddict]

I think you mean be open minded then, not think for yourself.

And yeah, I read the links in about five minutes, actually, maybe between five and ten. I had to type the post as well, you know. I apologize if the basis of your knowledge of reading speed is derived from a group of blind and illiterate elderly folks in an institution somewhere, but I know many people here on the forums that can read just as fast as I can and who would have no problem taking out those four or five articles in a matter of minutes.

Thank you for noticing, I am quite fond of my bloated hubris actually ^^ And your sarcasm failed heavily as I was not in any way attempting to inundate you with an overwhelmingly impressive vocabulary [not that you've made it terribly difficult for someone to do so].

Luckily for you someone who does know what they are talking about and how to articulate that knowledge [baconbits. I don't agree with him, but he provides good info for the most part and debates his points very well] shares your pov, in the most general of senses, of course. It has been discussed to death and as I said before, this isn't the thread for it.

This discussion no longer has anything to do with its original subject matter, therefore I declare it dead.

[Sesha]

Make something into politics, then everything can be bad and bring pain. End of discussion.

[rimpelcut]

atheist is a religion. You sir are harmfull.
religion is a sort of gathering plays for the crazy. I don't mean that they all are crazy, just that crazy people gather into religion and mythology and such. I say crazy because I truly understand how confusion because of past events can lead to a search of truth to a question that doesn't exist.
Like skunk said there are assholes on both sides. Also I agree with you philosopher that there are inconsistencies in the bible if you take it literely. I don't and I see great profound meaning in the books but the meaning I see is not that of most religious people.
I would like to see religion as a institute for philosophy and investigation into our life instead of a collection of historians and pleasure seekers. Something more close to ourselfs then to mysticality. Seriously, man hasn't come any further with religion then a 1000 years ago. I thought In those days it was a gathering of smart moble men, scientists, writers, poets. Or maybe not.

[.Naptha]

Religion has and always will be a scapegoat for people who cant face the reality that all things come to an end.

+ everything that snack attack mothafucker just said

[AestheticizeAnalog]

The threadstarters reasoning for creating this thread is the main reason why i do not believe in organized religion. Nearly all of the death, and war that the human race has experienced has been very minor differences in religion. All major religions rules and ideas are based on one principle, treat others the way you want to be treated. So then why does a person need to believe in one religion, I believe in most morals of christianity, shintoism, buddhism amd judaism. But i do not follow them. I believe there is a greater force out there however most religions are based upon stories that helped the human race explain birth, life and death. Which is not necessarily a bad thing however over time when differences in religions surfaced people began to kill each other over nothing.

[rimpelcut]

nah in the past religions were together with the government and they had the most power. They held the monetary system in their pockets and fought other temples and such to keep their domain. You can imagine how lying went really wel back then.

[Razgriez]

Its good because it gives man a desire to succeed and try and live a honest and filling life under their teachings.

Its still total bullshit though.

[Kineas]

Religion is a way whereby which people are given a code to live their lives by. Religion was important in the past where education was unavailable to the masses, and still the ruling elite needed to instruct their masses how to live their lives without descending into a state of anarchy.

More importantly, it is the human ego that buys into the concept of religion so eagerly and refuses to give it up for any price.
The human ego renders an individual unable to percieve themselves as no more than a hairless ape bestowed with more intelligence than the rest of the animal kingdom. (Evolutionary or otherwise)
The human ego, combined with a natural self-centered worldview tempts the individual to think that we are unique and special, and our life is meaningful.
The human ego tempts us into being greedy for a longer life, as those appreciating living would not want to die. Thus a strong belief in the afterlife is born, in the insistance of our ego that "Death shouldn't be the end of it all, because I don't want it to be."

Religion feeds our ego and sells the individual a pre-packaged set of "Reasons Why Your Life Is Meaningful"
With religion, there is no need to think, no need to ponder over life, but just to live life according to the percepts and rules of the individual's adopted/chosen religion.

Religion is elitist by nature. The people who determine what goes into the holy book, and how to interpret a rule or passage in it belong to a small cadre of religious elites who are usually trusted with absolute authority on their word.

To claim that one is a proponent of free thought, free speech and liberalism and yet to be highly religious at the same time is usually a hypocritical statement. You just can't have the best of both worlds when both worlds are entirely different.

[batanga]

Its good because it gives man a desire to succeed and try and live a honest and filling life under their teachings.

Its still total bullshit though.
Truth in a nutshell :amuse

To most of you I ask this: Let say that God didnt exist, who/what created the universe? The "Big Bang"? Seriously folk, can i laugh at you now or later? Did you know the evolution theory has absolutly NO evidence which supports it?
You have an age old book that has been edited many times over, parts left out and parts rewritten, all by a bunch of men.

Big bang is a THEORY, no one says it´s the absolute truth (unlike religious people). That´s where science and religion differ, science is willing to change as more things are experimented, found out, researched etc..

[Tsukiyomi]

And, just to let you know, if u actually took some time out of talking and spreading out all that vile gas, otherwise known as your ego, and actually read what I provided, then you would see that everything is based on facts my dear friend, whereas yours are based on a Lizard giving birth to a Bird (If u don’t know what im talking about, then I suggest you get a life and read a little more).

Alright, you've just lost any an all right to comment on the theory of evolution....EVER, or atleat until you actually pull your head out of your ass and learn about the theory.

No one has ever said a species will suddenly give birth to another species, no ape ever gave birth to a human. What happens is micro-evolution takes place which is some species can take place over a few weeks (micro evolution would be if the environment suddenly changed to make it almost impossible for a member of a species without black hair to hide and survive, the species would eventually only have black haired members left, that is micro evolution).

The same thing can happen with skeletal structures, eyes, muscular systems, limbs teeth etc, the hardest thing to change are digestive and reproductive systems.

2,000,000 years of micro-evolutionspiling on top of one another would eventually result in species that don't resemble what they originally were at all. Imagine 2,000,000 years of slowly changing limbs, flesh, muscles, eyes and skeletal structures. Would that creature even remotely resemble the creature it was 2,000,000 years ago? Of course not.

Not to mention bacteria and viruses which we KNOW for a FACT evolve into other strains. If you deny that bacteria and viruses evolve then you sir are truly lost.

NOW: as you have said, I may not be an exact expert, BUT, the people I refer you to ARE. As for elegance my friend: That went out the door when you crackpots came up with these REDICULIOUS, UNFOUNDED and plain STUPID theories.

HAHAHAHA! Ridiculous? Yeah, a species slowly adapting to fit the needs of survival in its environment, thats ridiculous, but a virgin woman giving birth to a man-god who rose into the clouds makes perfect sense.

Species that do not evolve slowly dying out as they can no longer meet the needs of their environment, yeah thats just stupid, how could I have overlooked the stories written by mysoginistic men in tents thousands of years ago about how samson had superhuman strength until he lost his hair.

The universe being created over billions of years through the shifts of space particles and energy, thats just unfounded, I mean how can we overlook all the concrete evidence and eye-witness accounts of god creating the earth in 6 days, and then (for some reason) having to rest for a day (despite being infinetly powerful he needs to rest?).

[AestheticizeAnalog]

[QUOTE=Tsukiyomi]


HAHAHAHA! Ridiculous? Yeah, a species slowly adapting to fit the needs of survival in its environment, thats ridiculous, but a virgin woman giving birth to a man-god who rose into the clouds makes perfect sense.

Species that do not evolve slowly dying out as they can no longer meet the needs of their environment, yeah thats just stupid, how could I have overlooked the stories written by mysoginistic men in tents thousands of years ago about how samson had superhuman strength until he lost his hair.

The universe being created over billions of years through the shifts of space particles and energy, thats just unfounded, I mean how can we overlook all the concrete evidence and eye-witness accounts of god creating the earth in 6 days, and then (for some reason) having to rest for a day (despite being infinetly powerful he needs to rest?).[/QUOTE/]

I agree with you on everything you said, but i wanted to add that there is evidence that people who wrote the bible were experimenting with mushrooms at the same time. Which could bring light to all the miracles that the messiah did.

[skunkworks]

I definitely believe in evolution, but I have to say that science is being abused in the way religion is/was.


Species that do not evolve slowly dying out as they can no longer meet the needs of their environment, yeah thats just stupid, how could I have overlooked the stories written by mysoginistic men in tents thousands of years ago about how samson had superhuman strength until he lost his hair.

The universe being created over billions of years through the shifts of space particles and energy, thats just unfounded, I mean how can we overlook all the concrete evidence and eye-witness accounts of god creating the earth in 6 days, and then (for some reason) having to rest for a day (despite being infinetly powerful he needs to rest?).

Gd didn't rest, just stopped interfering with the world.

[Tsukiyomi]

I definitely believe in evolution, but I have to say that science is being abused in the way religion is/was.

How, how is science being "abused" the way religion is? I see science finding cures for diseases, I see science trying to explain the world around us without persecuting those who disagree. I see science giving people answers without asking anything in return, we have grants where we just give money to science for the good of knowledge and humanity (and yes of course in many cases to make money).

I'm curious how science is being abused.

Gd didn't rest, just stopped interfering with the world.

Then he made the world in 6 days, they should drop the 7 day STORY.

[Bshj]

GAH, i hate creationists, its all a load of bullshit trying to masquerade as real science.
Now theres some people who believe the bible is pure fact, i think this is crazy but i still respect them for having a real belief.

Creationists on the other hand know that the bible is full of crap, but they still try to justify by changing the bible to fit the world, and even more so, changing peoples world view to fit the bible. Its one thing to have your own crackpot ideas but when you start attacking real science just to justify certain events in the bible. It really makes me angry.

[Beren]

GAH, i hate creationists, its all a load of bullshit trying to masquerade as real science.
Now theres some people who believe the bible is pure fact, i think this is crazy but i still respect them for having a real belief.

Creationists on the other hand know that the bible is full of crap, but they still try to justify by changing the bible to fit the world, and even more so, changing peoples world view to fit the bible. Its one thing to have your own crackpot ideas but when you start attacking real science just to justify certain events in the bible. It really makes me angry.

I think u r very mistaken... ur just randomly diffrentiating between "people who believe the bible is pure fact" and creationists. These are generally the same ppl.

Do u mean ppl who believe in "Intelligent design"? Those ppl are more lax on the interpretation of religious texts.

[Scorpio3.14]

Why was this thread revived? Isnt there already enough religion bashing threads around already? I know religion bashing is seen as the "cool" thing to do around here now a days but let dead threads rest.

Anyways, my post on the first page stands. Religion does more good in the world every day then anything harmful any nut has done in the name of religion.

[Tsukiyomi]

Why was this thread revived? Isnt there already enough religion bashing threads around already? I know religion bashing is seen as the "cool" thing to do around here now a days but let dead threads rest.

Anyways, my post on the first page stands. Religion does more good in the world every day then anything harmful any nut has done in the name of religion.

Let people just say what hey have to say. I believe we don't need religion to help people find meaning in their lives, and by getting rid of it I think we could solve a lot of problems.

[Brandt]

I don't have any problems with religion. It's a few bad apples that give religion a bad name, and because of that, you can't blame an entire religion for these bad apples. In my opinion, I don't care what religion a person is. Just don't force your religion down my neck and govern the way a country should be run. It's great that you have a religion, but keep your religious beliefs to your religion. That's my take on religion for you all.

[Megaharrison]

The complete elimination of all religion would obviously be of benefit for the world. We would avoid so many conflicts and senseless arguments. Obvious benefits such as stem cell research and cloning would go ahead un-hindered by fanatics. But this needs to be a very very slow (centuries long) process in order not to avoid mass chaos.

The Islamic world and middle America though is actually becoming more religious rather then less, this is worrying.

[Scorpio3.14]

Let people just say what hey have to say. I believe we don't need religion to help people find meaning in their lives, and by getting rid of it I think we could solve a lot of problems.

and I think getting rid of religion will cause more problems then it solves and you wont be addressing the problems directly. You are just useing religion as a scape goat. Ignorance, hate, greed, racism, sexism, descrimination, violence, jealousy, etc... are all secular things even if some choice to hide behind a vail of religion to try to justify their actions. Getting rid of religion wont solve anything, its like saying we should get rid of guns because they kill people.

[Brandt]

Some people need religion in their lives. Personally, whatever religion they want to believe in is fine by me. As I hope religious people don't come barging through my door and shoving the Bible down my throat, I don't tell religious people to stop believing. I'm indifferent towards religion, but I seriously hate it when religion makes its way into the government.

[Tsukiyomi]

and I think getting rid of religion will cause more problems then it solves and you wont be addressing the problems directly. You are just useing religion as a scape goat. Ignorance, hate, greed, racism, sexism, descrimination, violence, jealousy, etc... are all secular things even if some choice to hide behind a vail of religion to try to justify their actions. Getting rid of religion wont solve anything, its like saying we should get rid of guns because they kill people.

Explain please. Explain how getting rid of system which condemns people who choose to not to believe in the invisible man in the clouds would cause more problems.

[Bshj]

I think u r very mistaken... ur just randomly diffrentiating between "people who believe the bible is pure fact" and creationists. These are generally the same ppl.

No i'm not mistaken, intelligent design is just part of creationism, creationists believe (or say they believe) that creationism is based on scientific evidence. The church dosent generally believe in creationism, if you take the bible literally then it dosent HAVE to make sense scientifically.

I think you meant those people who belive the bible isnt always meant to be taken literally, i dont know what theyre called, but i suppose its a bit better. Still daft though.

[Bshj]

Discrimination is secualr? have you even read the bible?
One passage even says that if somebody talks to you about another religion then you should kill them with your bare hands.

[Scorpio3.14]

Explain please. Explain how getting rid of system which condemns people who choose to not to believe in the invisible man in the clouds would cause more problems.

When more then half the world's population believes in said "invisible man in the clouds"? (why arnt you all high and mighty demening people's god *rolls eyes*)

If you want more tolerance in the world, why not start by tolerating other people's religion and not saying it should be whiped of the face of the earth because you dont agree with it? I dont go to buddists and call buddha "that funny looking fat guy".

[sadated_peon]

May I point out that the wholly secular philosophy of communism is probably responsible for more deaths than the Crusades, and the Mohammedan conquest of the Middle East that occurred earlier combined (What a nice gulag you have Joseph).
Communism does have a god, it’s called the state.

In fact, most studies done on the issue of religion on crime and delinquency show that they have an inverse relationship. The more religious a person is, the less likely they are to commit crimes. http://www.biu.ac.il/SOC/cr/courses/951/sifrut.pdf (if you dont feel like reading, skip to the conclusion on the bottom of page 14)
Really?
Because this study shows that the more religious a society is the more crime there is
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1798944,00.html

I guess you can use studies to prove anything.

To people who say God doesnt exist, I ask this: Why do you say God doesnt exist? If ur answer is "there is no proof of his existance", then I ask you this: Do you know everything? If you answer yes, you need to take it easier on the pills. Then I ask you: Do know half of everything? Let suppose you did, dont you think theres a very big possibility that God could exist in the other half?
Here it is, the most illogical hypocritical narcissist of all theistic arguments against atheist.

You in whatever faith you have DENY THE EXISTANCE OF ALL OTHER GODS. The atheist says that all faiths wrong, YOU say all but ONE faith is wrong. You have the same reasoning for discounting a god as fictional as an atheist.

o most of you I ask this: Let say that God didnt exist, who/what created the universe? The "Big Bang"? Seriously folk, can i laugh at you now or later? Did you know the evolution theory has absolutly NO evidence which supports it?
did you know that the big bang has nothing to do with evolution?
Guess not?

Did you know that there are in fact mountains of evidence supporting evolution.

Ok, most of you have heard this about this rediculious thing called the Geological Column right? Now, what if I told you that thing doesnt exist, except in one place : Textbooks. Listen to this nonsense: When you ask any Geoligist "how do you tell the age of a fossil?", his answer will be:
"By the Geological plates". Then you say, oh really, thats interresting, and how do you tell the age of the Geological Plates? His answer will be :" by the fossils it contains" Now folks, anyone not catching that, thats called "Circular Reasoning".
you’re an idiot who has been trained by idiots to be and idiot.

The geological column exists all over the world, if you as a geologist how old is a fossil he will tell you to see a paleontologist. A paleontologist will tell you to date a fossil you must rely on many different techniques as to ascertain, as must information about the fossil, which includes radiometric dating/the geologic column and many other methods, all depending on the fossil.

A geologist does not rely on fossils to date the rock.

If anyone tells you that they tell the age of a fossil by CarbonDating, then my friend, i must inform you that that person is without a doubt lieing.
That depends on the fossils, as carbon dating only goes back around 50,000 years. Past that you use other forms of dating.

You see, the "Geological Column" was "invented" in that 18 hundreds i think it was, by not some Genius Proffesor of Science, but a laywer, but what i found most interresting is that, at that time, there was no such thing as CarbonDating or any of the other proccesses we have today. Now how exactly did he know how old they were?
back then dating was done with other methods, but in actuality accurate dates where few in before the time of radiometric dating and was done by less sophisticated means.

Folks, he invented numbers. If you still dont believe me, let me ask you this: Have you seen petrified trees before? Now Im sure you have, at least once, or at least heard about it. Now what if I told you that some of those trees go not only through 1, but THREE plates? Folks that would mean that tree would have standed there dead for about 13millions years. Dont you think it would have rotten away in that time, even a little?

Easy answer for this one, THEY DON’T.
Tree roots grow DOWN through layers, and not all layers represent millions of years. There are times when strata layers are laid down quickly and cover trees.

Heres another one: If those plates are differnt ages, then why do they fit on top of each other so perfectly? No traces of erosion between them? So you are telling me it never rained ONCE in that age? Or any animals walked on that spot?
plates don’t land on top of each other they are build up over millions of years, the erosion means that the plates are uneven, which they are.

Folks there are endless cases of evidence disproving Evolution. I could write a 500 page Post here, but i doubt you guys would read through it all.
please go right ahead. So far you don’t even seem to know what evolution IS let alone have an proof that it is incorrect.

So go ahead and make a fool of yourself.
Now. if u really wanne know the truth, visit this site : www.drdino.com and I can tell you, ALL the answers are on there people.

Now, doesnt that prove that there HAS to be a God? A Creator. A Devine Designer. Yes folks, it does. I know who I believe to be God, whereas some differ from me here, but that is your own choice.
No it proves idiots like to agree with other idiots.

There is a reason why the scientific community has called these people frauds…. Because their frauds.

As to the "Danger" in Religion, I say that there is only one dangerous Religion : Evolution. And if you dont believe me, read up on that site i listed.
All the people you guys mentioned were nuts, it had nothing to do with religion.
Evolution isn’t a religion.


Now, I will tell you what IS dangerous. People, some of you have been so indoctrinated and brainwashed that you cant ask simple questions about events going on around you. Like this good one: "Who told the Air Force to stand down on 9/11?" or this one: "Why were there BOMBS planted in the Trade center?" Folks, open your eyes. If you wanne see how much you have really been decieved, go here: www.wingtv.net along with the other site i mentioned. Its scary people, I implore you: Inquire and THINK for yourselves.
Lol, and here I was actually taking you seriously.

nd no proof for the Creation theory? Did you even go to the link i gave?
yea, that isn’t proof. That is BS.

http://www.drdino.com/articles.php?spec=73 <-- On the subject of Carbon dating
it is not based on assumption it is based on observations.
And most fossils are not dated with carbon dating, but these idiots don’t even know that.
http://www.drdino.com/articles.php?spec=84 <-- Evolution in a nutshell
NO that is not evolution, you don’t even know what evolution is.
http://www.drdino.com/articles.php?spec=41 <-- Have a look for yourself
???
look at what? A person who has absolutely no understanding of science….
http://www.drdino.com/articles.php?spec=95 <-- Things that make Evolutionists look stupid
????
wtf? Take a science class once in your life, the difference in layers is causes by the COMPRESSION where over time rock is compressed together, the differences is caused by the different conditions of the area at the time. Sudden climate shift causes distinct differences in layers, and gradual shift causes gradual changes.
http://www.drdino.com/articles.php?spec=7 <-- Evidence of Creation
That isn’t evidence of creationism, not in the slightest. It gave a single example which is easily identifiable as being causes rapidly and in no way can be applied to the rest of the planet because of the condition of the rock.

And most, 99% of scientists, believe that young earth is innocent.

[rimpelcut]

:) Science is like a religion often. They don't tell you the things they meisured only how they interpeted it nowadays. Also not a day goes bye where they discover that what was good is now bad. Not disputing that there are facts in science ofcourse. It's the theory part that makes it religious.


Ow and St, From a philisophical point of view that does not look at god in the way that lets say christians do, god may or may not exist. People can't simply agree on the PROOF. This is because it is no proof. hahaha, he look it's a flying monkey this means there is a god:amazed . It;s only funny ofcourse if the person saying that wasn't beeing serious or otherwise it would just be sad.

[AestheticizeAnalog]

Why was this thread revived? Isnt there already enough religion bashing threads around already? I know religion bashing is seen as the "cool" thing to do around here now a days but let dead threads rest.

Anyways, my post on the first page stands. Religion does more good in the world every day then anything harmful any nut has done in the name of religion.

Than you are sadly mistaken if you think religion does more good than bad. Why did Hitler try to commit genocide against the jews? Because from what he interpreted from the bible, and the situation between the jews and jesus, made him hate them so much. That he believed they no longer deserved to live. I am not saying that the bible is antisemetic but it is so easy to interpret in different ways. It is full of violence, vengeance and mysoginy. So we wonder why a right wing religious leader like Bush goes to war so easily. The bible is not anti violent at all, those who are determined to be heretics are said to deserve to die.

What do you mean religion bashing, so people should not be able to voice their opinion if it does not fit in with your beliefs. Religion itself is not to blame for the violence, but when you put those ideas into such a weak race as humans there is bound to be issues. Humans cannot interpret most religious texts in a healthy and that is why religion leads to hate and segregation. Any person can use religion to justify nearly any crime.

[rimpelcut]

you knew hitler? :amazed

[Tsukiyomi]

When more then half the world's population believes in said "invisible man in the clouds"? (why arnt you all high and mighty demening people's god *rolls eyes*)

If you want more tolerance in the world, why not start by tolerating other people's religion and not saying it should be whiped of the face of the earth because you dont agree with it? I dont go to buddists and call buddha "that funny looking fat guy".

My apologies, I just have a problem with any group that tries to tell me what to think and do, and tells me that if I don't do and think what they say that I'm going to suffer for all eternity.

Now, I've seen numerous people in this thread demean evolution. Why is it ok to demean evolution and science, but not religion? Atleast science will explain to you how it got all its answers, try to get that from religion. Religion simply says "this is how it is, believe it or else".

[AestheticizeAnalog]

haha snack attack. I was just repeating his reason for the jews persecution, which are well known.

[rimpelcut]

yeah that guy gives jezus a bad name

[AestheticizeAnalog]

That he does.

[rimpelcut]

probable not on purpose tho

[Masaki]

Wow, Sublime, do you even know what you're talking about?

My position saying "until NASA takes a picture of an old man in space with flowing white robes I won't believe in any god" still stands. I stopped believing in God about the same time as I stopped believing in Santa and the Tooth Fairy (how did my parents sneak into my room and put the money under my pillow?)

Anyway, reasons why religion has caused nothing but suffering:

- Christians were the ones who supported Black slavery (Voltaire, I think his name was, spoke against this and was ex-communicated)
- The Holocaust started because everyone hated Jews
- The KKK were mostly protestant; they killed Jews and Catholics as well as blacks
- Salem Witch Trials
- The current war in Iraq and the suicide bombings
- Perhaps anti-semitism was the reason we didn't rescue Jews from concentration camps sooner.
- The Hindu religion created social classes of which one can never be brought up, only down. The lowest were Pariahs, who one of a higher class may never talk to or shame will come onto you. Chances are, you'd become a Pariah, too. Former Pariahs make up current day Indian beggars. Even my liberal aunt is still prejudice, or so says my grandpa.

And how, Sublime, can you possibly not believe in fossils? Do you have any justified proof that they're fake? And not just something taken from a guy who's read nothing but the Bible in his entire life?

And what has religion done for illnesses? Nada. What has science done for illnesses? More than we could ever have imagined. Penicillin, other antibiotics, a medicide that allows even people with AIDs to live long, and vaccines.

The days where we believe in some being we have no proof exists is over.

(By the way, Jews, Christians, and Muslims all worship the same god. How can Christians believe they're right when they're not the original, and not the most recent?)

[AestheticizeAnalog]

^^haha.. Christians are the forgotten middle child. I agree with everything else that you said.

[rimpelcut]

yeah but the same can be said about politicians, your grandmother and lets not forget, truckdrivers. It's the beliefs in general that do the trick. It really doesn't matter if you have one person stating the crazy or a organized monestary; the fluffy bathrobe coard your neighbour wares around his neck could be tomorrows newest fad.

[Scorpio3.14]

Really?
Because this study shows that the more religious a society is the more crime there is
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1798944,00.html

I guess you can use studies to prove anything.

lol I cant believe you used that particular "study". Did you actually read it? Anyone with ANY backround in science can make a list of things wrong with that study, it wasnt scientific in the least and the logic is flawed. I thought you were a man of science?

Than you are sadly mistaken if you think religion does more good than bad. Why did Hitler try to commit genocide against the jews? Because from what he interpreted from the bible, and the situation between the jews and jesus, made him hate them so much. That he believed they no longer deserved to live.

Wow, you really need to review your facts. The holocaust and Hitlers motives were very little religously motivated if any and very secular. Some would even say that Hitler was hostile against the Christian Church in Germany during his reign.

Any person can use religion to justify nearly any crime.

Any person can use Darwinian ideas to justify nearly any crime, survival of the fittest and all. That means absolutly nothing however.

My apologies, I just have a problem with any group that tries to tell me what to think and do, and tells me that if I don't do and think what they say that I'm going to suffer for all eternity.

Now, I've seen numerous people in this thread demean evolution. Why is it ok to demean evolution and science, but not religion? Atleast science will explain to you how it got all its answers, try to get that from religion. Religion simply says "this is how it is, believe it or else".

I dont think anyone should be demeaning evolution either. Its ok to not believe in evolution however and to state why same way its ok to not believe in God and state why. There is a difference though in being civil and saying stuff like "Munkes becumin human? u must b crAZy maaan." and "Dem peeps still believe in dat magical man in da sky? hahaha, how stoopid are dey M I rite??/?"

Also its not good to sterotype all Christians as the fire and brimstone, you are going to hell unless you do what I say!!! type. Because they are the loudest it often surprises people how few and far between those people really are. Also remember that everything is relative. You might be offended that I believe you are going to hell when you die, but I may be just as offended that you think Im going to rot in the ground when I die. Heck, some people are offended that you and I eat meat (im of course assumeing you eat meat, if you dont I appoligize :P). Just because something offends you dosnt mean it should be whiped off the earth.

[AestheticizeAnalog]

Wow, you really need to review your facts. The holocaust and Hitlers motives were very little religously motivated if any and very secular. Some would even say that Hitler was hostile against the Christian Church in Germany during his reign.







.

True enough about Hitler's specific case, for him it was because of not getting into the vienna art school (run by jews). However if you listen to his speeches, he used the bible as another way to scapegoat the jews, it might have not been his reason to hate them. But among other things he blamed them for, it helped him gain a great deal of supports. Of course he would have been hostile to the church, he was a paranoid dictator who was afraid of anybody who might be able to gain power. Also during his reign in europe christians were generally not fond of those of the jewish faith. When people in other nations found out he was placing the jews in ghettos, they did nothing to stop it. All I am saying is because of the background of the bible, and how it has been interpreted in an anti semetic way allowed Hitler to come power very easily. His group may have not believed in the bible but they were willing to use the average christian in germany's prejudice to advance them. The christians from all nations during the crusades would burn through jewish areas killing all. As did the muslims. The interpretation of the bible allowed them to rationalize this act even if it is not religiously supported. The true reason for those acts was because usery was a sin for christians. Usery- lending of money for profit through interest. However usery was not against the jewish faith so they became the bankers of europe and quite wealthy. Thus the jealousy grew to cause such horrendous acts. Just like Hitler, the holocaust was not religiously motivated necessarily, but allowed for him rationalize what he had done to uneducated but faithful people.

[Tsukiyomi]

Any person can use Darwinian ideas to justify nearly any crime, survival of the fittest and all. That means absolutly nothing however.

Use Darwinism to justify robbery, rape, torture, destruction of property, arson, sale of heroin, assault on a minor etc....

Darwinism isn't the current model of evolution, simply where it started. Also darwin wasn't he person who coined the phrase survival of the fittest. It was herbert spencer.

Someone can bomb an orphanage and say it was "the will of god", I can't see someone bombing an orphanage and justifying it with "survival of the fittest" or "it was the will of darwin". We have passages in the bible where people are ordered to rape and kill, humans are the only species on earth who rape, we invented it, who knows religion could have invented it, so its not like rape is needed for evolution.

I dont think anyone should be demeaning evolution either. Its ok to not believe in evolution however and to state why same way its ok to not believe in God and state why. There is a difference though in being civil and saying stuff like "Munkes becumin human? u must b crAZy maaan." and "Dem peeps still believe in dat magical man in da sky? hahaha, how stoopid are dey M I rite??/?"

Scroll up a bit, you'll find a guy ripping into evolution for being "ridiuclous".

I simply believe in looking for proof, I believe no grown adult should accept something just because they're told without being presented with some kind of proof. Thats all religion and "faith" are. Faith is belief without proof.

Now I'll acknowledge a leap of faith is needed occaisionally, but religion is a way to base your entire life on a leap of faith, that is simply not acceptable in my mind. A child can base their entire world on faith, an adult shouldn't, they should think for themselves.

Religion promises punishment for non-believers.

Also its not good to sterotype all Christians as the fire and brimstone, you are going to hell unless you do what I say!!! type. Because they are the loudest it often surprises people how few and far between those people really are. Also remember that everything is relative. You might be offended that I believe you are going to hell when you die, but I may be just as offended that you think Im going to rot in the ground when I die. Heck, some people are offended that you and I eat meat (im of course assumeing you eat meat, if you dont I appoligize :P). Just because something offends you dosnt mean it should be whiped off the earth.

Did I say it should be removed because it offends me? As an artist I think everyone has the right to offend whoever they want. I think it should be removed because it encourages people put themselves on pedestals over the beliefs and ideas of others, "my god has a bigger dick than your god".

I can't believe so many people put absolute faith into a book that has been proven time and time again to have been altered, added to and had sections removed from it (when the original source wasn't all the great coming from a long game of telephone), then translated again and again which would only make it less accurate. I could never have faith in such a book, not even as fiction.

I can't think of any theistic religions that don't promise rewards to the believers and punishments to the non-believers.

[Spunoff]

Humans are stupid..and the fact that we get molded when we are children doesn't help. If you grow up raised in a religious influence, you most likely will be very religious.

[blacklusterseph004]

Scorpio makes a good point on the previous page. Even if religion is removed, evil people will still find other ways to jutsify evil deeds.

[Scorpio3.14]

Well I've made my case for religion. There is no doubt religion has played a vital part in shaping our world, for better and worse, and I contend that religion is neither inherently good nor inherently bad, its what people use it for. Getting rid of religion would be like getting rid of alchohol because some stupid people drive drunk and kill people. Some warp religion and use it for evil things, others take religion and use it to do good things and thats the way everything is. Even science has been used for some horrible things when its been warped by people, I dont see anyone wanting to get rid of science.

I think it should be removed because it encourages people put themselves on pedestals over the beliefs and ideas of others, "my god has a bigger dick than your god".

Funny, you've been doing a perfectly good job putting yourself on a pedestal over the beliefs and ideas of others without a belief in God. Whether you mean to or not, you come off as having a real superiority complex over people who are religious, atleast to me you do. I have no problem with people not believing in my God but they shouldnt think they are superior then me because I believe in some "invisible man in the sky". I will leave it at that.

[Beren]

great rational argument scorpio, couldn't have said it better myself.

[sadated_peon]

lol I cant believe you used that particular "study". Did you actually read it? Anyone with ANY backround in science can make a list of things wrong with that study, it wasnt scientific in the least and the logic is flawed. I thought you were a man of science?
Yea, I read it, it compared the amount of crime vs the religiosity of the state.

Your studies examined previously done studies and selectively choose which studies to look at based on the author’s opinions on which studies were viable. It also only took indication from children and did not examine in any way the actions of adults. Even in their own study they admit that it is incomplete, and based on flawed research.

As I said before
“I guess you can use studies to prove anything.”

[Beren]

Yeah, studies like that can establish a statistical correlation, but not causality. U can't definitively assert that religion causes more crime, since it can be argued that more crime can also cause a society to become more religious. There are many intrinsic biases in that "study."

[Tsukiyomi]

Funny, you've been doing a perfectly good job putting yourself on a pedestal over the beliefs and ideas of others without a belief in God. Whether you mean to or not, you come off as having a real superiority complex over people who are religious, atleast to me you do. I have no problem with people not believing in my God but they shouldnt think they are superior then me because I believe in some "invisible man in the sky". I will leave it at that.

I atleast give reasons why I think my way is better, religion says its the better way because god says its the right way. Well if you are an athiest that means less than nothing.

[Scorpio3.14]

I atleast give reasons why I think my way is better, religion says its the better way because god says its the right way. Well if you are an athiest that means less than nothing.

and if you are a religious person your "reasons" may mean less then nothing to them. That dosnt make them any worse then you, or you and worse then them. Just different.

Basically what you are saying is that you dont like religion and think it should be removed from the world because it teaches people to feel superior to others because of their beliefs, but you somehow are superior to religious people because you believe your beliefs and ideas are right and you have "reasons" for feeling so? How is that different then a religious person feeling superior over another religious person of a different faith? Oh ya, you have "reasons".

Do you honestly not see the hypocracy here? I dont think anyone should feel that they are superior over others because of personal beliefs, that includes people of science looking down on people of religion. As a Christian AND a studying scientist, I encounter this prejudice all the time. Its like Im somehow stupider for having a different world view then them.

Yes, there are quite a few religious people out there that look down on others because they dont share their faith. That is wrong. However, that dosnt make it right for non religious people to look down on religious people in general, which there are also quite a few of those aswell. Thats like saying since there is a lot of Black crime in my neighborhood its ok to dislike Black people or look at them as inferior to me. Religious tolerance, and tolerance in general, works both ways my friend.

Yea, I read it, it compared the amount of crime vs the religiosity of the state.

Your studies examined previously done studies and selectively choose which studies to look at based on the author’s opinions on which studies were viable. It also only took indication from children and did not examine in any way the actions of adults. Even in their own study they admit that it is incomplete, and based on flawed research.

As I said before
“I guess you can use studies to prove anything.”

Useing the same logic used in that "study" I can prove that minorities cause crime. A quick look at my city will reveal that some areas of Pheonix has higher number of minority residents then other areas. I map out those different areas and rate them on increaseing number of minority population. I now look up city crime records for the last decade and I notice that areas with greater minority population have generally higher crime rates. OMG!!! I just proved minorities cause crime, minorities must be bad lol

If you cant see what is wrong with the above hypothetical "study" and the one you posted then you really shouldnt be posting stuff like this lol The logic behind it just isnt sound. The studies I posted were MUCH more scientific, although even I will admit they can prove no causality, but they are a hella a lot better then what you posted.

[blacklusterseph004]

Do you honestly not see the hypocracy here? I dont think anyone should feel that they are superior over others because of personal beliefs, that includes people of science looking down on people of religion. As a Christian AND a studying scientist, I encounter this prejudice all the time. Its like Im somehow stupider for having a different world view then them. This is so true. The tone some atheists and agnostics adopt is that a person who follows a particular religion, or has faith in an unseen God, is somehow incapable of contributing anything to soceity. Like somehow being religious has completely destroyed your ability for scientific thought, or makes you a major stumbling block to progress. Enter the superiority complex...

[Tsukiyomi]

Basically what you are saying is that you dont like religion and think it should be removed from the world because it teaches people to feel superior to others because of their beliefs, but you somehow are superior to religious people because you believe your beliefs and ideas are right and you have "reasons" for feeling so? How is that different then a religious person feeling superior over another religious person of a different faith? Oh ya, you have "reasons".


I think it should be removed because it is unnecessary and over its course has been the cause of immeasurable suffering. I do not deny it has also been the cause of much good and still is the cause of much good, but this good can easily exist without the unnecessary existence of religion.

I think it should be removed because its messages are so vauge and ambiguous that they can be used to justify anything, you can find a biblical passage to justify anything you want to do, anyone you want to hurt.

Do you honestly not see the hypocracy here? I dont think anyone should feel that they are superior over others because of personal beliefs, that includes people of science looking down on people of religion. As a Christian AND a studying scientist, I encounter this prejudice all the time. Its like Im somehow stupider for having a different world view then them.


What if I were to tell you I found a 2,000 year old book buried in my back yard, a book that was written by men who lived in tents in my backyard 2,000+ years ago which told tales of a magical gerbil who went around healing the sick and performing miracles, and the book says this gerbil man promises an eternity of happiness to anyone who follows him and his beliefs.

What would you say?

My guess is that you would ask me for proof of my claims, but no one ever seems to question the bible or god for proof. That is my main gripe with religion, the fact that its based on the idea of doing what you're told because you are told to feel that way. Anything the religion is against you must also be against without forming an opinion on the subject yourself, if the church hates homosexuality, you to must be against it.

No intelligent being should stand for that, you should ask for justification and proof for each and every thing they ask you to believe and do.

[Razgriez]

Well Tsu as much as I agree with you that the world would be better off with religion its simply impossible for such a thing until science further advances and discovers more about how the universe came to be.

So theres no use over griping over and and you mine as well accept other people's beliefs and let them believe in whatever they want to believe and drives them to succeed in our trieless and meaningless lives of repetative boredom and political bullshit.

[Tsukiyomi]

Well Tsu as much as I agree with you that the world would be better off with religion its simply impossible for such a thing until science further advances and discovers more about how the universe came to be.

So theres no use over griping over and and you mine as well accept other people's beliefs and let them believe in whatever they want to believe and drives them to succeed in our trieless and meaningless lives of repetative boredom and political bullshit.

Who said anything about feasibility? I know its not possible, I'm speaking ideally.

[Razgriez]

Who said anything about feasibility? I know its not possible, I'm speaking ideally.
Yeah I sometimes do that too.

[sadated_peon]

Useing the same logic used in that "study" I can prove that minorities cause crime. A quick look at my city will reveal that some areas of Pheonix has higher number of minority residents then other areas. I map out those different areas and rate them on increaseing number of minority population. I now look up city crime records for the last decade and I notice that areas with greater minority population have generally higher crime rates. OMG!!! I just proved minorities cause crime, minorities must be bad lol
first of course you example is flawed in the fact that “minorities” are only “minorities” in certain areas, so you lose any kind of semblance of application to being general, which in these kinds of studies is the point.

If you cant see what is wrong with the above hypothetical "study" and the one you posted then you really shouldnt be posting stuff like this lol The logic behind it just isnt sound. The studies I posted were MUCH more scientific, although even I will admit they can prove no causality, but they are a hella a lot better then what you posted.
I can see what is wrong with the study I posted, and with the study you posted, which is why I said
“I guess you can use studies to prove anything.”

But both of these studies show correlation and not causation, as well as their many other problems. Saying yours is better is like saying that a dead body with one bullet wound is more alive than a dead man shot with 50. Both men are dead, and both studies prove both sides so they prove nothing.

I never posted with an attempt to claim that the study was right or even better as I have said 3 times now and will keep saying it until you actually acknowledge it.

“I guess you can use studies to prove anything.”

[blacklusterseph004]

What if I were to tell you I found a 2,000 year old book buried in my back yard, a book that was written by men who lived in tents in my backyard 2,000+ years ago which told tales of a magical gerbil who went around healing the sick and performing miracles, and the book says this gerbil man promises an eternity of happiness to anyone who follows him and his beliefs.This a strange comparison to make. It implies that Christianity along with the Bible came out of nowhere

No intelligent being should stand for that, you should ask for justification and proof for each and every thing they ask you to believe and do.I metioned in another thread, that this is something I believe all Christians should do. The Bible warns that there will be false prophets, and no man understands the Bible in its entirety. These are strong cases for any Christian to not just simply soak in everything they hear, but to investigate instead. A young guy in our church once said that faith doesn't require knowledge, but knowledge is necessary to deepen one's faith.

[Cthulhu-versailles]

Isn't the old saying, that a true man of science, after searching and searching, without answers, eventually formulates there is a higher being.

Why does believing in God and religion need to be directly associated? Granted one tends to foster the other. However, say there was no religion, people may, likely would, still create a belief in "God."-a higher power. It justs that there wouldn't be all this clout, and elitism. It would like- this life, is stage 1-the next life is stage two- and they'd have no connections. So basically you act decent in life 1, because being decent is all you should need. (MY BELIEF)

-I just think that, there is clearly way to many inconsicientancy in religious texts, for there to be whole organizations, namely people devoted to them. ARGH! Sounds arrogant but say religion was elimnated (not sure how) that wouldn't elminate beliefs, or the search for meaning people have. It would essentialy just force each person to find there own and Imo it would be true postmodernism.

-The whole evil people, do evil stuff. Okay! But I think it was from the anglo saxon period to he restoration where we can see action/violence, is justified 1. because people were considered brutes and 2. because since they were brutes, in that they lacked the proper culture (religion, secular stuff) they needed to be civiled. Thus, points to imperilasm and colonialization... as why religion is harmful.

-also wonders, why this thread had a sudden ressurection... it's been dead for months.

[Tsukiyomi]

This a strange comparison to make. It implies that Christianity along with the Bible came out of nowhere

Actually it doesn't imply that, I said in that text where the book came from, men 2,000 years ago living in tents in my back yard.

I metioned in another thread, that this is something I believe all Christians should do. The Bible warns that there will be false prophets, and no man understands the Bible in its entirety. These are strong cases for any Christian to not just simply soak in everything they hear, but to investigate instead. A young guy in our church once said that faith doesn't require knowledge, but knowledge is necessary to deepen one's faith.

Knowledg is necessary to deepen one's faith? Eloquent, but incorrect. A child can have a total lack of knowledge and have unshakable faith in something, the strongest faith can also come from shear ignorance, ignorance and a refusal to accept anything that truly challenges that faith.

[blacklusterseph004]

A child can have a total lack of knowledge and have unshakable faith in something, the strongest faith can also come from shear ignorance, ignorance and a refusal to accept anything that truly challenges that faith.True, that's why I mentioned that faith doesn't require knowledge. However, neither a child nor an ignorant person, could explain to you why they believe what they do. Their belief isn't clear in their own mind.

[Tsukiyomi]

True, that's why I mentioned that faith doesn't require knowledge. However, neither a child nor an ignorant person, could explain to you why they believe what they do. Their belief isn't clear in their own mind.

It seems to me most people of faith I've met couldn't explain to my satisfaction why they feel the way they do. Thats why phrases like "god works in mysterious ways" were invented.

The problem with religion is it can't be disproven because there are excuses for every inconsistency, every logical flaw, excuses that don't answer the question but rather seek to invalidate its importance.

[Fear The Mullet]

Comenting on the original point of the thread:

Whether or not Religion is Inconsistent and Harmfull.

Yes, religion is very inconsistent. But i challenge you to tell me, or show me, how religion in and of itself hurt someone in some way.

Yes, fanatics have taken religious teachings out of context, and used this as a base for their very dehumanizing goals. Religion itself, whether it is scripture from Judaism/Chirstianity or Islam, or Buddhism, or anything, is a neutral entitiy whos main point is: love of one another.

TO address inconsistencies in the Catholic bible: The Old Testament, and New Testament have seperate mesages. its easy to point the finger and say "This book is inconsistent, it is therefore backwards upon itself, and false" when we don't understand the POINT of the inconsistency.

The Old and New Testaments are portrayed together, because the Christian belief is that, God had first come to his chosen people with his Covenant to free them from opression, and get them to their new land. Jesus is believed to come down, from God, and close that covenant and start a new one with the world, one of compassion. Showing, you've gotten your land , you've worked for your freedom, now spread the "good News", as they call it.

This is the whole reason for the "inconsistency" in the Bible. It is a book containg two seperate idealogies and beliefs. From two seperate eras!

Its easy not to understand why something is, and mis interpret it. WHich brings me back to the original point: is religion harmful.

No. It never has been. Religion is merely put down in whatever form it happens to be in as a guide to people live their lives by. When someone comes and misrepresents it as something else, thats when you get all these problems: crusades, condemnations, and all the mess over the last few cneturies.

In the New Testament, it is NOWHERE written that one should strike down those who do not believe your religion. Jesus' teachings preach of compasion and respect to all.

The Old Testament, yes it did teach a view more skewed to forcing ones views on others, but that convenant is closed and the new one with Jesus has opened.

Or thats how they put it.

THe New Testament does not support the views you all refer to.

That being said, I am not a practicing Catholic, hell I don't think I'm even Christian. I'm 18, so right now i'm at that time in life where I'm open to anything. I love science and I think it is a very interesting thing.

[skunkworks]

Comenting on the original point of the thread:

Whether or not Religion is Inconsistent and Harmfull.

Yes, religion is very inconsistent. But i challenge you to tell me, or show me, how religion in and of itself hurt someone in some way.

Yes, fanatics have taken religious teachings out of context, and used this as a base for their very dehumanizing goals. Religion itself, whether it is scripture from Judaism/Chirstianity or Islam, or Buddhism, or anything, is a neutral entitiy whos main point is: love of one another.

TO address inconsistencies in the Catholic bible: The Old Testament, and New Testament have seperate mesages. its easy to point the finger and say "This book is inconsistent, it is therefore backwards upon itself, and false" when we don't understand the POINT of the inconsistency.

The Old and New Testaments are portrayed together, because the Christian belief is that, God had first come to his chosen people with his Covenant to free them from opression, and get them to their new land. Jesus is believed to come down, from God, and close that covenant and start a new one with the world, one of compassion. Showing, you've gotten your land , you've worked for your freedom, now spread the "good News", as they call it.

This is the whole reason for the "inconsistency" in the Bible. It is a book containg two seperate idealogies and beliefs. From two seperate eras!

Its easy not to understand why something is, and mis interpret it. WHich brings me back to the original point: is religion harmful.

No. It never has been. Religion is merely put down in whatever form it happens to be in as a guide to people live their lives by. When someone comes and misrepresents it as something else, thats when you get all these problems: crusades, condemnations, and all the mess over the last few cneturies.

In the New Testament, it is NOWHERE written that one should strike down those who do not believe your religion. Jesus' teachings preach of compasion and respect to all.

The Old Testament, yes it did teach a view more skewed to forcing ones views on others, but that convenant is closed and the new one with Jesus has opened.

Or thats how they put it.

THe New Testament does not support the views you all refer to.

That being said, I am not a practicing Catholic, hell I don't think I'm even Christian. I'm 18, so right now i'm at that time in life where I'm open to anything. I love science and I think it is a very interesting thing.

Christianity was essentially just another Jewish sect. Jesus probably had no intention of starting a new religion. The Hebrew Bible was ment for the entire world, not just Jews. Christianity seemed to abolish the Torah, yet Jesus and all of his followers were observant Jews.

Although, the NT is very shaky to begin with. A few things would be the inconsistent portrayls of the religious Jewish community, as well as the author's seemingly complete lack of knowledge regarding the Sanhedrin (Jewish high court) procedures and such.

[Insipidipity]

But i challenge you to tell me, or show me, how religion in and of itself hurt someone in some way.
Depends how you define in and of itself. Any individual religion or the concept of religion itself?

In terms of individual religions:
Would you agree that theism has caused people to become content with ignorance and things simply being "beyond them"?

In terms of the concept of religion:

Well thats pretty much impossible to say having any sort of belief system can be harmful. Or saying Math or Philosophy or Politics can be harmful. As a concept, it is completely inert, it is simply a category, its what that category contains, much like politics with Liberals/Conseratives, that can be harmful.

I believe certain types of religions are far more susceptible to overzealousness than others. Mainly theistic ones that seem to provide a scapegoat. So its more aspects related to religion than "religion" in of itself that are harmful in my view.

I think if you took deities, faith, and the afterlife out of the equation, I think problems could be solved.

The whole concept of "love/compassion/kindness" for one another is perhaps its most commendable trait, but other things aren't and allow for more leeway for personal agenda's to find their way in.

I believe the Dalai Lama had it right, Kindness, in of itself, practiced zealously, is the only "religion" we really need. In fact, remove the concepts of "punishment" and "revenge" and "sin" and replace them with "worldly betterment" and we'd be on a better track that currently exists.

[Fear The Mullet]

Christianity was essentially just another Jewish sect. Jesus probably had no intention of starting a new religion. The Hebrew Bible was ment for the entire world, not just Jews. Christianity seemed to abolish the Torah, yet Jesus and all of his followers were observant Jews.

Although, the NT is very shaky to begin with. A few things would be the inconsistent portrayls of the religious Jewish community, as well as the author's seemingly complete lack of knowledge regarding the Sanhedrin (Jewish high court) procedures and such.

I agree, it wasn't meant to spring off on its own. Once again this was caused later on, probabbly through others misrepresentation. And or misunderstanding of waht Jesus actual intent was.

Jsut from the Catholic perspective, Jesus is seen as the closing of one covenant and opening of a new one. But the first 5 books of the Old Testament I believe are from the Torah, almost completely. Since the two religions are tied together.

Depends how you define in and of itself. Any individual religion or the concept of religion itself?

In terms of individual religions:
Would you agree that theism has caused people to become content with ignorance and things simply being "beyond them"?


No, I would disagree. Maybe the way theism was put in place, it may ahve come out in this result. The people who explained it, would probabbly have explained it in such a way that it came out supporting th ignorance of whats happening.


In terms of the concept of religion:

Well thats pretty much impossible to say having any sort of belief system can be harmful. Or saying Math or Philosophy or Politics can be harmful. As a concept, it is completely inert, it is simply a category, its what that category contains, much like politics with Liberals/Conseratives, that can be harmful.


Exactly. Religion is, by itself, as an ideal, or belief system, neutral.


I believe certain types of religions are far more susceptible to overzealousness than others. Mainly theistic ones that seem to provide a scapegoat. So its more aspects related to religion than "religion" in of itself that are harmful in my view.


Interesting obsercation, I do agree that many religions are susceptible to fanatacisms as well.

I think if you took deities, faith, and the afterlife out of the equation, I think problems could be solved.

[quote]
The whole concept of "love/compassion/kindness" for one another is perhaps its most commendable trait, but other things aren't and allow for more leeway for personal agenda's to find their way in.


Here is where, I myself, disagree. There is no indication in the texts itself for personal gain. The overriding message, and main point is the love everyone. You can construe the religion to make it seem like it suports your cause, but you can also construe any written text, or law, to fit your needs.

Just the same as people abuse, and stretch out laws to fit their needs, finding the slightest loop hole in a piece is easy. Its not so much the aspects of religion that are prone to being "pulled apart" that are the fault in the religion, more so the people who take that vulenrability and exploit it. They taint the belief system through their actions, and not through the ideals depicted by the religion itself.


I believe the Dalai Lama had it right, Kindness, in of itself, practiced zealously, is the only "religion" we really need. In fact, remove the concepts of "punishment" and "revenge" and "sin" and replace them with "worldly betterment" and we'd be on a better track that currently exists.


Although I do agree that kindness is all we really need, the parts of religious texts addressing morals are a good thing to have too. Obviously no bodies perfect, and really it doesn't matter whether you are. Even the "pious" die afterall. You can still be more at peace with yourself if you ahve guidelines that suggest what good behavior is. I, myself, like to draw on parts of all sacred scriptures from many religions. It gives you a broader pallette of what one can do with his life to be good. Or, it gives you some ideal or goal to fullfill. Much like Ghandi, who practiced most all faiths. Yes he was from India, but Hinduism was not where his search for spiritual healing ended. He was avidly interested in Budhism and Christianity.

Religions, if practiced without fanatacisms, are alone great guides to life. But like any institution, are easily manipulated into whatever one wants.

[Insipidipity]

Although I do agree that kindness is all we really need, the parts of religious texts addressing morals are a good thing to have too. Obviously no bodies perfect, and really it doesn't matter whether you are. Even the "pious" die afterall. You can still be more at peace with yourself if you ahve guidelines that suggest what good behavior is. I, myself, like to draw on parts of all sacred scriptures from many religions. It gives you a broader pallette of what one can do with his life to be good. Or, it gives you some ideal or goal to fullfill. Much like Ghandi, who practiced most all faiths. Yes he was from India, but Hinduism was not where his search for spiritual healing ended. He was avidly interested in Budhism and Christianity.

Religions, if practiced without fanatacisms, are alone great guides to life. But like any institution, are easily manipulated into whatever one wants.
I think it gives a false sense of understanding morals and setting guidelines in an unpredictable world.

I think all cases should be decided case by case rather than some rule book dictating what to do in every scenario.

I think logic is the best moral compass. Doing whats best overall in the long run. I mean pure pure logic, not the relativist "he did it because it was logical for him", I mean there are logical rules that should be constructed and taught just like math so that people can come across the same truth for "moral guidance" rather than enumerating a handful of classes of an infinite number of situations, give a logical structure to find the rules that are most beneficial to everyone. While this takes a lot more mindfulness and thinking, in the long run, its far more beneficial.
I've always hated those who tell you to do something, then when you ask why, they respond "Because I said so". Its such a childish way. While you might or might not come across the same solution if you logically thought about it, it is far better to have the reason to do something than merely following blindly. Even in the case of common beliefs such as "no killing" there are even circumstances where those become unfeasible. However if you understood the cost benefit and consequences of killing, you could arise at the result that it is bad, rather than the "common sense"(which is really just another word for "generally agreed upon prejudice") rules religions share.

Unfortunately, if people are unable to follow their own logic to determine such things, courts and whatnot and a legal system could be created for determining such to help them decide.
While it seems like this relies on the theory of logical/moral absolutism, its really not. Logic is universal, the only problem is having the knowledge and proper amount of analytical skills available to truly come across the best solution.

If non religious people can discover common moral rules, then a guidebook for such is unnecessary. Einstein said it well:
"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeeded be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death."

[Fear The Mullet]

I think it gives a false sense of understanding morals and setting guidelines in an unpredictable world.

I think all cases should be decided case by case rather than some rule book dictating what to do in every scenario.

I think logic is the best moral compass. Doing whats best overall in the long run. I mean pure pure logic, not the relativist "he did it because it was logical for him", I mean there are logical rules that should be constructed and taught just like math so that people can come across the same truth for "moral guidance" rather than enumerating a handful of classes of an infinite number of situations, give a logical structure to find the rules that are most beneficial to everyone. While this takes a lot more mindfulness and thinking, in the long run, its far more beneficial.
I've always hated those who tell you to do something, then when you ask why, they respond "Because I said so". Its such a childish way. While you might or might not come across the same solution if you logically thought about it, it is far better to have the reason to do something than merely following blindly. Even in the case of common beliefs such as "no killing" there are even circumstances where those become unfeasible. However if you understood the cost benefit and consequences of killing, you could arise at the result that it is bad, rather than the "common sense"(which is really just another word for "generally agreed upon prejudice") rules religions share.

Unfortunately, if people are unable to follow their own logic to determine such things, courts and whatnot and a legal system could be created for determining such to help them decide.
While it seems like this relies on the theory of logical/moral absolutism, its really not. Logic is universal, the only problem is having the knowledge and proper amount of analytical skills available to truly come across the best solution.

If non religious people can discover common moral rules, then a guidebook for such is unnecessary. Einstein said it well:
"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeeded be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death."

My post may have been jumbled slightly. But I didn't mean to take the sacred scriptures of different religions as the be all and end all for any given situation, but as a place to start if one is confused, or doesn't know the way.

I agree morals are the best direciton to go, logic and all that. But if one isn't sure, one can always look to these teachings for advice.

My post isn't trying to say one should, or must, at all. But if one is lost on the matter, one has options. Thats all I'm saying. I'm not saying these things are absolute or anything.

[Insipidipity]

Unfortunately, the only way to isolate such guidance from overzealousness that exists now is to dissolve the religion and start it from scratch with only those parts. As long as those parts exist, the guidance will always be able to be ignored while other parts emphasized that aide oneself. With only the guidance, it would be virtually impossible to abuse, and on top of that, it would make it far more evident the key part to keep in mind(compassion/love) so it would have a doubly good effect. It would remind people to be good, and prevent people from taking advantage.

But otherwise, as it stands, I have a saying: Even if you give someone a dozen roses, if its attached to a bomb, its still not a good thing.

[Fear The Mullet]

Unfortunately, the only way to isolate such guidance from overzealousness that exists now is to dissolve the religion and start it from scratch with only those parts. As long as those parts exist, the guidance will always be able to be ignored while other parts emphasized that aide oneself. With only the guidance, it would be virtually impossible to abuse, and on top of that, it would make it far more evident the key part to keep in mind(compassion/love) so it would have a doubly good effect. It would remind people to be good, and prevent people from taking advantage.

But otherwise, as it stands, I have a saying: Even if you give someone a dozen roses, if its attached to a bomb, its still not a good thing.

I have to disagree here. Its not about eliminating the poitns that were construed and abused by fanatics, it would only make sense to eliminate the fanatacism. Is this not kind of the objective with everything?

If cancer attacks the body, you don't eliminate the body and start again. You eliminate the cancer to free the body form it, do you not?

That is just an example. The problem with religion is not the religion, or any isngle part, but the way its interprted by certain people. If you are not willing to try and eliminate the real problem : fanatacism, then even restructuring the religion will not heal it. Because fanatacism will still exist. I'm not saying to kill fanatacis, but education never hurt.

Although, we may disagree on how to fix the problem, and what the problem exactly is. I think its safe to say we both agree there is a flaw somewhere, and that the flaw must be eliminated for any good to happen.

Like I said, the ideals themselves promote, for the majority, the good. Whereas individuals will twist it to represent "their good".

Overall though, I think we both reached an understanding of the topic at a certain level.

And at least for a little while, no one was flamed. An odd occurance on a forum, indeed.

[Insipidipity]

I have to disagree here. Its not about eliminating the poitns that were construed and abused by fanatics, it would only make sense to eliminate the fanatacism. Is this not kind of the objective with everything?

If cancer attacks the body, you don't eliminate the body and start again. You eliminate the cancer to free the body form it, do you not?

That is just an example. The problem with religion is not the religion, or any isngle part, but the way its interprted by certain people. If you are not willing to try and eliminate the real problem : fanatacism, then even restructuring the religion will not heal it. Because fanatacism will still exist. I'm not saying to kill fanatacis, but education never hurt.

Although, we may disagree on how to fix the problem, and what the problem exactly is. I think its safe to say we both agree there is a flaw somewhere, and that the flaw must be eliminated for any good to happen.

Like I said, the ideals themselves promote, for the majority, the good. Whereas individuals will twist it to represent "their good".

Overall though, I think we both reached an understanding of the topic at a certain level.

And at least for a little while, no one was flamed. An odd occurance on a forum, indeed.
Well thats the goal, unfortunately, its become too embedded in the religion that the only feasible way to remove it is to remove everything and start from scratch. If you have a really bad virus on your computer, you backup the good parts, and you reformat it, and bring back just the good things. Fanaticism will exist as long as people have goals in the afterlife or believe in a deity.

You may not necessarily destroy the body and start anew, but you at least don't simply kill the virus, you have to leave antibodies to prevent it from regrowing. In this case, the antibody is removing the elements that provide the potential for abuse. Simply removing the abuse will not prevent it from coming back. Unfortunately, outside the structure of compassion and morality/ethics, virtually everything is open for abuse.

So it becomes a question of whether it would be more efficient to try to slowly phase out each potentially harmful element, or to start over from scratch. In my opinion, tryiing to fix it would be like trying to separate needles from a haystack, so why not start over with what you know works? Its like, if you mess up a program bad enough when coding, its usually far more effective to start from scratch using what you know rather than sifting through code for hours finding the mistakes. Take my school's class registration system, they've spent 6 years trying to figure out whats wrong and debug it and get rid of all the kinks because it can only hold 175 users at a time in a school of more than 10,000 people. My friend and I could start from scratch and fix it in 6 months tops.

You might notice my CS major side coming out because I usually analogize things to programs and algorithms

Anyways, I'm just saying that if you construct a religion purely out of kindness and compassion...well then...fanaticism wouldn't be so bad now would it? :)
The more things added in and the more complex it is, the more chance that it can be misinterpretted and screwed up. Its much like a mathematical proof. You want to leave it in its most elegant form, not something so muddled up in other beliefs that the most crucial and fundamental part is subsided by lesser parts. If you leave it in its simplest form, its almost impossible to mess up.

[mUcHo LoCo]

i agree... many people have died from fighting for their religion like the holy land and jerusalem er w.e

[AiYummi]

i personally don't really like religeons, i mean look, they are all evil! in some middle eastern countries, they are killing women and they call that "honor killing" huh....i don't see what's so honorable about killing a inocent woman. that's a sin!!

[AestheticizeAnalog]

^^^You dont like religions? But you just called something a sin. Hypocracy?

[AiYummi]

^^^You dont like religions? But you just called something a sin. Hypocracy?

well there's a religeon that's believed to all " money makes the world go round" that's the only thing i believe in. i dislike religions because they are sins themself

[AestheticizeAnalog]

If you are not religious you should not consider things sin. You could consider religions to be unnecessary and that it causes evil. But to call religion a sin does not make any sense whatsoever.

[Sesha]

It seems to me most people of faith I've met couldn't explain to my satisfaction why they feel the way they do. Thats why phrases like "god works in mysterious ways" were invented.

The problem with religion is it can't be disproven because there are excuses for every inconsistency, every logical flaw, excuses that don't answer the question but rather seek to invalidate its importance.
And they should so why? That is one of the main points that separates faith from reason. A certain amount of one's mind is reason, and the rest is faith, no matter if that faith is religious or not.

For example, if you read The Da Vinci Code, or Holy Blood, Holy Grail, two books that contain many inaccuracies and flaws, and you percieve it as true, what part of yourself do you think directs that?

And as for logical flaw. Please name a philosophy that does not contain some kind of logical flaw. I'm not saying that religion is perfect, however, not every person put equal importance of certain aspects of their life.
Everyone, or most people at least, percieves what they believe in as being true.
Can you fully explain something you believe in? Can you trace the entire history of one of your beliefs and justify it? Do you yourself, for example, sincerely believe that you follow a mindset based on complete and full truth?