We Would be Better off without Religion

[Will Graham]

One thing I will note, is that a lot of religions are selective in donations based on creed and this is a thing not found in secular organisations usually, or at least much more rarely. A great example is that back during the great famine in Ireland, the protestants were on average far richer than Catholics. As such they were able to feed themselves easily even with the failure of the lompar potato crop. They had soup kitchens that only fed other protestants, or Catholics...provided they converted to protestantism.

 

[Roland_Deschain]

Well astronam I do not need so many words to reply.

I never said you should agree with others opinions, just that we should respect that others have different opinions than yours and mine

True we may have been to learn how to get along without religion, but who is to say we would have learned faster without?

I know not all science was derived from religion, or the ability to prove or disprove it, but that a lot of it was.

You seem to be putting alot of emphasis on the western religion, have you considered that there are a lot of religions that do not cause as much harm as you think? There is a very long list of religions, its hard to speculate on religions in countries you do not reside in. You say you wouldnt mind living in a world without religion as if it were a fact, but how do you know you would even be here in the first place to give this opinion if things had been different.

Like I said we do not know, because all that time has passed, but its very easy to speculate it would be better without something you don't like in the first place.

Perhaps you would prefer to not have a governing set of rules crafted by religion, in this day and age where people are much more free to state in their beliefs, but can you put yourself in the shoes of different races and religions and make different decisions and say that they would have been better ones. Every single person is different, I mean even both of us are not religious but look how much different our opinion is. Can you imagine the different perspectives of many different religions divided among many different countries and time, and honestly calculate that things would have been better without all of them? This is nothing more than a wander of the mind. It does not matter who is wrong or right because things have come to pass, and as far as you an me are concerned, it put us here in our countries living our lives for all we know.

I know the religion seperates and divides us, but I have no doubt it has also helped use to bind together as well. You have this amazing view of the flaws that religion cause with little regard or for what it has benifited.

I can not say for sure if it would be better or not, but I feel if I love the world I live in, I would want it no other way than than the way we created it. We have crafted the world from the the mind of men, and men had religion, it was not only fear but faith. If it were any other way than it would be a false place where the true nature of darkness from humanity was hidden instead of out in the open.

 

[Shaissa]

Ok, yes Religion has caused problems, no denying that, but how about this, we get rid of guns knifes swords bombs tanks anything that can explode, anything that can harm people, how about we take away words for that matter? To say that the world would be better without religion... Are you saying people that turned to religion to turn over a new leaf to change themselves from being a sinful person to try and help others is bad? I say if you get rid of religion people would fight over other things like the do anyways...

Like... food, water, supplies, land, oil, lets get rid of anything that causes war, and people then we wouldn't have any problems now would we?

 

[nomad]

Why not just turn over a new leaf, change themselves, and help others without religion?

 

[Shaissa]

Why not just turn over a new leaf, change themselves, and help others without religion?

I'm not saying people can't do it, but sometimes people need a hit of something really hard to do it... like religion... But if you also say we don't need religoin You are also saying that all Religions are false... Now I'm an atheist but I'm not going go around and tell everyone there all wrong when I don't know if there is a god out there or not.

 

[nomad]

I'm not saying people can't do it, but sometimes people need a hit of something really hard to do it... like religion...

Or jail.

But if you also say we don't need religoin You are also saying that all Religions are false... Now I'm an atheist but I'm not going go around and tell everyone there all wrong when I don't know if there is a god out there or not.

Saying we don't need religion is not the same as saying it's false. It's not worth our time to argue that it's false. Being an atheist means living without religion. Simple as that. I don't think about religion for months on end until I run into threads like this.

 

[Stoic Hero]

Now generally, (and I am just repeating what I said in the other thread), I think we would be better off without religion. There's lots of harm that religion has done, and while I agree some good things have come about because of it, one cannot consider the good it has done without considering the harm it has done, and if it disappeared tomorrow, it would not bother me at all.

You could replace "religion" with any other word and it would make just as much sense.

Now generally, I think we would be better off without soft drinks. There's lots of harm that soft drinks have done, and while I agree some good things have come about because of them, one cannot consider the good they have done without considering the harm they have done, and if they disappeared tomorrow, it would not bother me at all.

I would be happier without religion because religion teaches people to be happy with beliefs they cannot confirm, and I do not think it is a healthy way of thinking, if we were to care about the truth (which I do).

And since no scientific theory can ever be proven as undeniable fact, science asks us to do the exact same thing.

I don't deny that religion brings some people happiness, but it should only bring them happiness in a way that it does not harm other people, which generally means that it should stay out of the public sphere, and should have no influence over the government or society. If you want to pray in a church, you are free to do so. If you want to pray at dinner, you are free to do so.

Once again, so general. You could say the same about anything. You should really define "harm." I don't deny that being gay brings some people happiness, but it should only bring them happiness in a way that it does not "harm" other people, which generally means that it should stay out of the public sphere, and should have no influence over the government or society. If you want to be gay, you are free to do so.

But I don't want to see people dragging other people to church against their own will, I don't want to see people condemning homosexuals or fighting against abortion quite simply because their religion tells them to

Ahh. So this is what you mean by "harm." Haha.

"But I don't want to see people preaching about homosexuality and gay pride to other people against their own will."

It works both ways.

I also dislike that people are using religion as the excuse to be offended. Now we can't talk about something and discuss it like grown up people because they'd rather say they were offended than talk it through and reach an understanding. And I find this appalling because we don't give politicians or celebrities any special treatment over this. The same can be said about science or any other subject. Whenever politicians or celebrities get offended, we still keep making fun of them. Why is it that we can make fun of politicians or celebrities (which may include criticizing them), but we can't do the same with religion?

You're doing it right now. You're going OUT OF YOUR WAY to do it. You're obsessed with denouncing religion. Everyone gets offended. Everyone. Not just religious people.

Without religion, we would not have an excuse to be offended.

BAHAHAHAHAHA. Go call a black person a "******" and see if he even needs an excuse to be offended before he kicks your ass.

Now I'm aware there are some people who would rather not talk about this at all. They are free to exclude themselves from the discussion. I'm not going to force them to stay. But to say that we cannot talk about religion at all in public simply because people might get offended is absurd.

Who is saying this?

That a parent chooses not to bring their child to a doctor can be blamed on religion.

Lol. I think "stupidity" is a better answer, but okay.

You may say it is their choice, but no one who knows what a doctor does would avoid seeing one if they were sick, unless they were personally traumatized by it. They believe that they can be cured by simply believing in prayers and god, and that by praying, they would get better.

Only the most extreme religious zealots even hold close to this. Plus, even though prayers lead to healing, there's no reason to ignore modern medicine. If it works; it works.

but in Christianity, this feeling is induced by scapegoating Jesus. That there is always someone who will take responsibility for everything you do wrong, and because this topic has been done to death, I will only say that I don't think feeling comfortable at the expense of being irresponsible is really a good idea. If criminals get this feel good feeling by believing they don't have to take any responsibility, then what do you think happens to them? Do you think sitting in jail really means they're going to learn their lesson?

It's not about taking away responsibility. It's a constant growth of dealing with daily sins and problems. Too often people look at Christ's grace like a safety net, or a get out of jail free card, when in reality, Christ's gift is like a seed. It doesn't sprout up overnight. You have to water it, nurture it, and continue to work with it. Eventually, the tree will come and fruit will follow. But it's not something to take advantage of. That's not real faith, real love, or real friendship.

 

[Shaissa]

Or jail.

or family member dies or something else, just saying Religion is one thing that people turn to, in order to become a better then.

Saying we don't need religion is not the same as saying it's false. It's not worth our time to argue that it's false. Being an atheist means living without religion. Simple as that. I don't think about religion for months on end until I run into threads like this.

Kinda is, just saying "We don't need religion" Is saying you think there all false.
Most religions say "our god is the true god, you have to believe in him to go to heaven."
If you believe in a religion like that, then you think it is required to have "religion" to go to heaven. I'm not going say that everyone is false without proof that they are false.

 

[nomad]

Um, I'll say it again: Living without religion is not the same as saying it's false. If you don't live without religion/god, you are not an atheist. Saying it's false and consistently trying to prove it to others is not atheism, it's antitheism. People are antitheists for likely the same pathological reasons that a lot of people are theists.

 

[Valkyrur]

... scapegoating Jesus.

A random side note. I totally agree with this... And I'm Catholic. Feels that way, though religious texts explain otherwise... Out of topic.

I would be happier without religion because religion teaches people to be happy with beliefs they cannot confirm, and I do not think it is a healthy way of thinking, if we were to care about the truth (which I do).

I remember a quote from another movie... I forget what, but it's one of the Birthweek Voice competition... "You can't handle the truth!"

I'm Catholic, though not as devout as I used to be. Even then, I still think just having religion for the sake of having it, even if its all just a lie, is going to be more healthy for me. As far as I am concerned, my life has been more prayer - or as some could say, 'talking to myself' - than actual conversations. (Unfortunately)

In such a case as mine, I cannot fully agree with your reason.

I don't deny that religion brings some people happiness, but it should only bring them happiness in a way that it does not harm other people, which generally means that it should stay out of the public sphere, and should have no influence over the government or society.

I think of the Muslim countries, and I fully agree with this one. I believe in a secular government. There should be a clear distinction drawn between politics and religion - not saying that Muslim countries fail to distinguish between the two though.

But I don't want to see people dragging other people to church against their own will, I don't want to see people condemning homosexuals or fighting against abortion quite simply because their religion tells them to, and I don't want to see people pushing for religious ideas being taught in a science class.

Again, I agree. I never quite understood the difference between a Catholic, a Protestant and all, and sometimes, I get approached by some of this divisions' evangelists. They can get irritatingly persistent... Or actually, all the time.... But well, that's a personal view now.

It's an irony, that I'd rather have religion, but not follow what the religion would believe in. If I'm not wrong, the Roman Catholic church is against the use of contraception - abortion, and homosexuals... I think. Hell with abortion. I can relate to that, but not to contraception and homosexuality.

Those are choices. I don't like the idea of religion infringing on personal choices.

If the only thing religion is good at is giving people the illusion that everything is okay, then that's the only thing it should be doing, and only for the people that find it comforting.

I think that's just the point I'm driving at. A white lie. Sometimes, if nothing can really be done, then the least you could do is to provide that little bit of comfort, in my honest opinion.

I also dislike that people are using religion as the excuse to be offended. Now we can't talk about something and discuss it like grown up people because they'd rather say they were offended than talk it through and reach an understanding. And I find this appalling because we don't give politicians or celebrities any special treatment over this. The same can be said about science or any other subject. Whenever politicians or celebrities get offended, we still keep making fun of them. Why is it that we can make fun of politicians or celebrities (which may include criticizing them), but we can't do the same with religion?

Very thought provoking. When I imagine myself talking to someone who is blatantly insulting my religion, I see myself getting angry. I also know myself to be quite politically vocal, whether or not I choose to admit it - which I actually do, recently.

Ultimately, I think it may well be that the offense is to persons of different 'standing'. An insult to religion indirectly 'offends' that religion's God, I'm supposing - as opposed to an insult to an politician...

What are your thoughts? Do you believe we would be better off without religion? Why or why not?

A wall of text! I did attempt to read through it, and understand... Emphasis on 'attempt'.

Anyway. I'm honestly uncertain about a world without religion. What I do imagine is that there will be less of terrorism, less of religious slurs... There will be some immediate problems resolved... But what are some of the long term problems that may arise?

That is what makes me wonder. What would be different if the world was without religion?

At this point, it seems to me we're too rooted in religion to even imagine a world without it. I can give the reasons why I think the world will never be without a religion of some kind...

... But that's not appropriate for this topic. It is appropriate in explaining a little of why I would think we are better off with religion. It is a point brought up above: the white lie. I think what people just want is hope when all seems bleak. Sometimes in life, things can just get so dark and depressive. Religion may actually offer a way out of it.

 

[der Astronom]

You could replace "religion" with any other word and it would make just as much sense.

And that wouldn't be the scope of this thread. If you think there's something out there that is significantly hampering our growth and society that you feel needs to be expressed, feel free to make another thread about it.

Now generally, I think we would be better off without soft drinks. There's lots of harm that soft drinks have done, and while I agree some good things have come about because of them, one cannot consider the good they have done without considering the harm they have done, and if they disappeared tomorrow, it would not bother me at all.

And you could write an entire thread about it, if you feel your health and the health of others are at risk because of it. Or if you just think it's worth talking about anyways. However, that's not got anything to do with this thread.

And since no scientific theory can ever be proven as undeniable fact, science asks us to do the exact same thing.

Actually, it doesn't. Unlike religion, science does not ask anyone to believe anything based on no solid evidence. And even if that were the case, no one's forcing you to believe anything. Furthermore, because our knowledge of what is true and what isn't as obtained through science is always improving, it would be redundant to believe in something in the exact same way you believe something out of faith. The two are not the same. The expectations are completely different, and it seems a lot of people misunderstand this.

Once again, so general. You could say the same about anything. You should really define "harm." I don't deny that being gay brings some people happiness, but it should only bring them happiness in a way that it does not "harm" other people, which generally means that it should stay out of the public sphere, and should have no influence over the government or society. If you want to be gay, you are free to do so.

That doesn't mean it wasn't worth bringing up. Besides, there's lots of people ignorant of the harm religion does.

Ahh. So this is what you mean by "harm." Haha.

And there's been worse stuff happening in the past than this. I just thought to bring up more recent examples to show that it's still happening now.

"But I don't want to see people preaching about homosexuality and gay pride to other people against their own will."

It works both ways.

In general, you don't want to force people to do things against their own will. Those are ideas brought on by the Enlightenment, a secular movement, and it happened in spite of Religion.

You're doing it right now. You're going OUT OF YOUR WAY to do it. You're obsessed with denouncing religion. Everyone gets offended. Everyone. Not just religious people.

And I am doing it in spite of them anyways because I think people need to grow up. That's the whole point.

BAHAHAHAHAHA. Go call a black person a "******" and see if he even needs an excuse to be offended before he kicks your ass.

And just why would I go out of my way to insult a black person? If it's not for religion, why would I do it? I know that some people might do it anyways, but at least they'd have to be responsible for it, and not their religion.

Who is saying this?

Ecumenicalistic believers. If you don't know what they are, see here and here. It is a serious problem.

Lol. I think "stupidity" is a better answer, but okay.

Anyone who believes that prayer has more power than medicine wouldn't believe it's stupid.

Only the most extreme religious zealots even hold close to this. Plus, even though prayers lead to healing, there's no reason to ignore modern medicine. If it works; it works.

Actually, that's statistically untrue. People who have been prayed for don't heal any faster or better than people who aren't prayed for.

It's not about taking away responsibility. It's a constant growth of dealing with daily sins and problems. Too often people look at Christ's grace like a safety net, or a get out of jail free card, when in reality, Christ's gift is like a seed. It doesn't sprout up overnight. You have to water it, nurture it, and continue to work with it. Eventually, the tree will come and fruit will follow. But it's not something to take advantage of. That's not real faith, real love, or real friendship.

I don't see how that has anything to do with ignoring the people you harmed because you prayed to Jesus.

 

[Harlequin]

You've made a number of assumptions der Astronom.

First of all, you're speaking as if you are at position zero. As if equality and freedom are benevolent - universally speaking. You have absolutely nothing other than your point of view to argue your moral standpoint, yet you waffle on about how the onus is on the religious to provide proof.

You talk about freedom as if you're not imposing your own idea of it on others. "People should this... people should that", surely you're not blind to your own glaring contradictions?

In any case, Christianity is based around the teachings of Jesus. So you're suggesting his teachings are harmful? That they're a bane on humanity?

Science and Religion aren't the people that perpetuate their concepts, but the concepts themselves. Science belongs to the religious as much as it does the non religious just as religion, philosophy and mathematics do.

And seriously, fuck the Enlightenment. No one cares. There'll be another revolution in the future and they'll likely look back and laugh at the likes of you and I. Stop going on like you or your society has reached the pinnacle of human understanding. In this life no one wants to know what you think, what you believe and especially what you think is wrong with them. Rationale and logic are subjective, they differ from culture to culture. You can't discern who is more rational than the next, rationale is an abstract concept, it's intertwined with lifestyle.

Sure ban people from taking their children to Church because we're indoctrinating them, yeah but have their Science teachers condescend religion in class. What a tolerant society you're proposing.

 

[unadulteratedawesome]

You have absolutely nothing other than your point of view to argue your moral standpoint

That's all anyone has. If you're tired with debate, then you should leave rather than go "Nobody can be right! Everyone shut up!" Because that's exactly what you're doing.

Granted, depending on your view, science can be used to support moral arguments. But that's not very popular yet.

yet you waffle on about how the onus is on the religious to provide proof.

When two sides of an argument are presented, the side presenting the argument that something is has a greater burden of proof than the side presenting an argument that something isn't. If it worked the other way around then the standard logical view, when there is no available evidence, would be to believe everything until it's proven wrong. I hope you can see the problem with this.

You talk about freedom as if you're not imposing your own idea of it on others.

This is such a silly argument. It presupposes that the arguer gives a shit about conforming to anyone else's idea of freedom.

In this life no one wants to know what you think, what you believe and especially what you think is wrong with them.

If you really believe this, I suggest not entering into any debates. You're at the logical equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming "NA NA NA NA NA NA." If you don't care so much, then why are you caring so much?

And I'm going to refute the absolute you just claimed: I care about what people think is wrong about me. Sometimes it's actually correct, shockingly enough. In that case, it helps me.

Rationale and logic are subjective, they differ from culture to culture. You can't discern who is more rational than the next, rationale is an abstract concept, it's intertwined with lifestyle.

Holy Relativism, Batman! How can you know, like, if anything is correct, man? Like, what if we're all wrong and like... we're all right? No. That's wrong.

Given that you can show logical proofs that function like math, then no, I would say that logic and rationale are not subjective.

Sure ban people from taking their children to Church because we're indoctrinating them, yeah but have their Science teachers condescend religion in class. What a tolerant society you're proposing.

Why should I be tolerant towards things that cause harm? If you don't see a problem with parents essentially choosing what their child's religion is going to be, then that seriously bothers me. And science teachers should never be "condescending" towards religion because religion should never come up in a fucking science class!

Besides, you can't compare most religious education with science education. The Church is a magician that wants you to believe they really conjured a rabbit from a hat but won't explain how. Science is a magician that shows you how their tricks work.

And seriously, fuck the Enlightenment.

HA HA, YOU FUNNY MAN! I KILL YOU LAST.

 

[der Astronom]

You've made a number of assumptions der Astronom.

First of all, you're speaking as if you are at position zero. As if equality and freedom are benevolent - universally speaking.

What, and you don't think they are?
I don't know if I actually claim they are universal things that people must accept (I happen to think they should, but that doesn't mean I'm going to hold a gun up to your head if you don't; that would defeat the whole point of freedom in the first place), and I have no idea why you think I said that, but I agree they are benevolent characteristics. The interesting thing is that religion doesn't exactly support or encourage these values. If you think there's a good reason for it, I think you should explain it. If not, I agree with what Unadulteredawesome said, and you're just doing another "Shut up, that's why" argument.

You have absolutely nothing other than your point of view to argue your moral standpoint, yet you waffle on about how the onus is on the religious to provide proof.

Ja, that's right, I have nothing. I claimed nothing in the first place. All I offered was some opinions based on my lack of faith and rebuttals, but one hardly need not make a claim in order to make a rebuttal. But that's not just for religion either; that just happens to be the subject now. Any time anyone makes an assertion, they should justify it. If you think I made a claim about something that needs to be justified, and I didn't, or you don't like it, you should bring it up specifically rather than complaining in general.

You talk about freedom as if you're not imposing your own idea of it on others. "People should this... people should that", surely you're not blind to your own glaring contradictions?

Well ja, that's my opinion, and I'm entitled to it. However, as I said in the parentheses above, I'm not going to point a gun to people's heads if they don't agree. I have no idea why you missed that though because it feels as if I've been trying to explain that for that last few threads I've been posting in.

In any case, Christianity is based around the teachings of Jesus. So you're suggesting his teachings are harmful? That they're a bane on humanity?

If you think otherwise, feel free to point out why you disagree.

Science and Religion aren't the people that perpetuate their concepts, but the concepts themselves. Science belongs to the religious as much as it does the non religious just as religion, philosophy and mathematics do.

And these concepts can lead people to doing things that we would otherwise consider wrong. But here's the difference between science and religion. Science does not suggest that people have to believe anything. Religion inspires the fear of hell if you do not believe; it's a pretty strong motivation to believe whatever religion says. And while I don't doubt some people aren't actually serious about what they believe because they might be using it as an excuse or that they're just culling the masses, I think there are people that seriously believe it is all real, and that's why I can blame religion. It's the same reason why I brought up the guy who almost studied under Stephen Gould, but didn't because he'd rather be religious--I don't think he's using religion as an excuse not to study science, or that he's using it for his own selfish gains; he'd actually have a lot to benefit by discarding religion and going for a scientific career. But that he didn't can be attributed to religion.

And seriously, fuck the Enlightenment. No one cares.

Fine then. I hope you'll be happy with living in the 13th century in Europe. Because we wouldn't have all the privileges we enjoy now if it weren't for it.

There'll be another revolution in the future and they'll likely look back and laugh at the likes of you and I. Stop going on like you or your society has reached the pinnacle of human understanding. In this life no one wants to know what you think, what you believe and especially what you think is wrong with them. Rationale and logic are subjective, they differ from culture to culture. You can't discern who is more rational than the next, rationale is an abstract concept, it's intertwined with lifestyle.

I'm not doubting that it might be different in the future, but that doesn't mean we can't consider whether or not what we're doing might have been better than what we did in the past. Otherwise, this is like "shut up, that's why" and let's all be miserable and not care because there's a future out there we don't know anything about. However, I said nowhere in my post (at least I don't recall saying it) that we have reached the pinnacle of human understanding. I'm sure I posted somewhere saying that we don't actually know how to obtain world peace; we only have ideas that seem to work.

And I disagree that you think people don't care what I think. If they didn't care, they wouldn't have been pissed off enough to make that thread about the good religion has done for us. If they didn't care, theists wouldn't phone into an atheist TV show just to prove that god exists. They wouldn't even reconsider if their beliefs might just be wrong (which some religious people do). The debates such as the one I just posted (and there was an excellent one also done by intelligence squared about the Catholic church being a force for good; the results were stunning; there was a significant change in the number of people who agreed and the people who sat on the fence because of it. You can find it on Youtube as well.)

And if you really think nobody cares what you think, why do you expect me to care about what you have to say? According to you, you're lucky that I'm even responding because according to you, I don't care what you think.

Sure ban people from taking their children to Church because we're indoctrinating them, yeah but have their Science teachers condescend religion in class. What a tolerant society you're proposing.

It is not the job of any science teacher to say anything about religion in science class.

I don't know if I'd ban people from taking children to church per se, but I'd definitely ban people taking their children to church against their wishes. And if people think that children are too young to be making decisions, then parents making the decision for children to go to church is no better than parents refusing to bring their child to a doctor because they have this ridiculous notion that prayer has more power than medicine does. You may disagree with the harm it causes, but it's based on the same principle; that parents get to decide what their children have to believe in. And if anyone thinks that's wrong, just because children have no say over what their parents make them do, then think about how it's wrong for parents getting to decide they get to abuse their children.

 

[Harlequin]

That's all anyone has. If you're tired with debate, then you should leave rather than go "Nobody can be right! Everyone shut up!" Because that's exactly what you're doing.

Granted, depending on your view, science can be used to support moral arguments. But that's not very popular yet.

...what?

You're talking about something I wasn't.

And Science is understood universally (apart from by you it would seem) to be a method in which we quantify the natural world...not abstract concepts like morality. But go ahead and enlighten the rest of us on how we could go about supporting moral arguments with Science.

When two sides of an argument are presented, the side presenting the argument that something is has a greater burden of proof than the side presenting an argument that something isn't. If it worked the other way around then the standard logical view, when there is no available evidence, would be to believe everything until it's proven wrong. I hope you can see the problem with this.

Yeah... I understand the dynamic der Astronom put across and you've jumped to defend, but I was challenging her view on the abstraction of morality and treating her's as a definate whilst attacking religion for apparently pulling the same stunt. A blatant hypocracy.

Nothing to do with the legitimacy of what religion claims.

This is such a silly argument. It presupposes that the arguer gives a shit about conforming to anyone else's idea of freedom.

So why are you imploring me to conform to your idea of logic?

Holy Relativism, Batman! How can you know, like, if anything is correct, man? Like, what if we're all wrong and like... we're all right? No. That's wrong.

Lol what's with the scathing attack? If this was real life then fair enough but we're on an online forum... a Final Fantasy forum... in a debate section. You shouldn't take this shit too hard son.

HA HA, YOU FUNNY MAN! I KILL YOU LAST.

What hard drugs are you on?

You're going on as if I was even talking to you in the first place.

What, and you don't think they are?

Not the point I was making, it's irrelevant what I think especially since we've already agreed we base our morality on different references.

I don't know if I actually claim they are universal things that people must accept (I happen to think they should, but that doesn't mean I'm going to hold a gun up to your head if you don't; that would defeat the whole point of freedom in the first place),

Right steady on dA.

'Should' essentially means they must accept it. Making it law means they must accept it. How is law enforced if not holding a metaphorical gun to people's heads?

and I have no idea why you think I said that, but I agree they are benevolent characteristics. The interesting thing is that religion doesn't exactly support or encourage these values. If you think there's a good reason for it, I think you should explain it. If not, I agree with what Unadulteredawesome said, and you're just doing another "Shut up, that's why" argument.

I'm explaining my arguments but I'm not going to go on like you as if my morals are universal truths. If anything you're the one doing the "shut up that's why" arguing.

Ja,

Who says Ja?

If you think I made a claim about something that needs to be justified, and I didn't, or you don't like it, you should bring it up specifically rather than complaining in general.

I'm not complaining, I'm just explaining how you've contradicted yourself repeatedly. The examples are up there, stop trying to belittle me.

Well ja,

Seriously, either you're trying to condescend or you type as if you have a speech impediment.

If you think otherwise, feel free to point out why you disagree.

It would take too long, I'd rather leave you to your bitterness.

And these concepts can lead people to doing things that we would otherwise consider wrong.

Who cares about what you consider wrong? If they think it's right fuck what you think. Because quite frankly, they have as much right and freedom to do what they want as you do to do what you want.

But here's the difference between science and religion. Science does not suggest that people have to believe anything.

Science is a concept used to quantify. Religion isn't. Apples and Oranges.

Fine then. I hope you'll be happy with living in the 13th century in Europe. Because we wouldn't have all the privileges we enjoy now if it weren't for it.

The same can be said for every single revolution we've ever had. Take a look at the wider picture.

Otherwise, this is like "shut up, that's why" and let's all be miserable and not care because there's a future out there we don't know anything about.

More like a "it's not worth it, get on with your life and stop hounding religion at every opportunity, it's seriously unhealthy" argument.

However, I said nowhere in my post (at least I don't recall saying it) that we have reached the pinnacle of human understanding. I'm sure I posted somewhere saying that we don't actually know how to obtain world peace; we only have ideas that seem to work.

The point is you've introduced your arguments using language that states definite ideas. 'Should', 'proof', etc.

Humanity has been struggling with these concepts for years and you put your arguments across as if to completely ignore these crucial fundamentals.

And if you really think nobody cares what you think, why do you expect me to care about what you have to say? According to you, you're lucky that I'm even responding because according to you, I don't care what you think.

I was speaking very loosely there. You're right, I care about your input otherwise I wouldn't be here debating you, but in the grand scheme on things, I don't, I really really don't. And neither do you mine, and neither does anyone really. In the grand scheme of things, that's the way of the world. Loosely speaking.

I don't know if I'd ban people from taking children to church per se, but I'd definitely ban people taking their children to church against their wishes.

What about discipline? I doubt I child wants to be hit when their parents decide they're wrong but sometimes the situation calls for it. Similarly, Church can instill a crucial element of moral discipline in a child that is comparible only to social influences.

You may disagree with the harm it causes, but it's based on the same principle; that parents get to decide what their children have to believe in. And if anyone thinks that's wrong, just because children have no say over what their parents make them do, then think about how it's wrong for parents getting to decide they get to abuse their children.

That's inevitable. Unfortunately, we'll never be able to eradicate those particular aspects mainly because the monitoring it would take to even make a real attempt and doing so would impeach so heavily on so many non offenders it would be overwhelmingly undesirable.

 

[unadulteratedawesome]

You're talking about something I wasn't.

No, I was talking about exactly what you said. Your statement was equivalent to "Nobody can be right," which is usually used to put the brakes on a debate.

But go ahead and enlighten the rest of us on how we could go about supporting moral arguments with Science.

Our health is definitely a part of the natural world. We are a bio-cultural species, so our health is also directly tied to our culture. So then it is simply a matter of deciding which actions are healthy and which are not. That is within the realm of science, even if we can't do it right now.

but I was challenging her view on the abstraction of morality and treating her's as a definate whilst attacking religion for apparently pulling the same stunt. A blatant hypocracy.

The difference is from whence the morals are derived. Religious morals are drawn from the legitimacy of a god and its teachings and laws. I'm sure Astronom could explain his moral views whereas the reasons for morals religious in nature boil down to "because [deity/ies] said so".

Nothing to do with the legitimacy of what religion claims.

It has everything to do with it when that legitimacy is the source of religious morality.

So why are you imploring me to conform to your idea of logic?

Logic is math. It has nothing to do with what you or I think about how it works. There's a reason why they're called proofs.

Lol what's with the scathing attack?

You think that's a "scathing attack"? I was just mocking your silly relativistic statement.

You shouldn't take this shit too hard son.

...why do you think I am?

You're going on as if I was even talking to you in the first place.

It doesn't matter if you were talking to me, I'm replying to statements you've made in a public forum. Especially when you make statements as mind-bogglingly stupid as "Fuck the Enlightenment."

Who says Ja?

Someone who speaks German?

Seriously, either you're trying to condescend or you type as if you have a speech impediment.

Your obliviousness to your own ignorance is astounding. Frankly, I'm impressed.

Who cares about what you consider wrong? If they think it's right fuck what you think. Because quite frankly, they have as much right and freedom to do what they want as you do to do what you want.

If he thinks it's right, fuck what they think. This argument is asinine. People's beliefs directly influence what they do, and what they do directly influences other people. If their religious morals causes them to support a social law based in religion that restricts me from doing what I do, then yeah, that fucking involves me. That's plenty of a reason to care about what they think is right.

More like a "it's not worth it, get on with your life and stop hounding religion at every opportunity, it's seriously unhealthy" argument.

Certain religions are like a cancerous growth in the bodies of our societies - it's totally worth it. And you sound like you're assuming all Astronom does is hound religion. People have multiple facets, you know.

What about discipline? I doubt I child wants to be hit when their parents decide they're wrong but sometimes the situation calls for it.

Good analogy: Going to Church is like being struck. Religion is simply another form of social pressure to encourage certain behaviors. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, depending on what behaviors it encourages (as some of the behaviors are bad ones). But it also mandates beliefs in certain things. This is the biggest problem with it.

When a child is forced to go to church and is thus brain-washed or forced to believe in certain things, which have no evidence, that is a problem. Can you say a child really had a choice in what religion to follow if they've been taken to a Baptist church their entire life until adulthood, or were enrolled entirely in Catholic schools? You can't, and that's fucked up.

 

[Roland_Deschain]

Why should I be tolerant towards things that cause harm? If you don't see a problem with parents essentially choosing what their child's religion is going to be, then that seriously bothers me.

I'm sorry but I disagree with this statement a little, its a contradiction to the society we have built. Beer causes harm, yet are you willing to go out on a limb to force people to stop drinking? They tried that, it did not work. In their eyes teaching them that there is no lord is wrong, and it would be the same as pushing them to believe something unproven. There is no proof of a certain god, yet there is no proof that there is not a god, only billions of things we do not understand. And even if they go to church it doesnt mean that the parents themselves are teaching them to believe every little thing they hear.

Also most parents these days use church as a moral fabric to strengthen their families anyhow, I was raised Christian but I made my own choice not to follow it when the time came, and I don't regret being raised by it because I am an honorable dude, everyone is different. Not everyone who grows up to be non religious actually regrets being around it in the first place.

It does not cause harm to everyone and it can be traced back to the beginning of humans, as old or older then science. When people start forcing people how to follow their religion, thats when being an athiest will become just as dangerous as being christian.



ALSO - Nobody can be proven right in this debate, so it is a good argument. We are talking about thousands of years, hundreds of religions, and hundreds of cultures. Aside from your catholics, and christians, perhaps muslims, do you really know much about all the rest of them, how they affected society and changed the world as we know it? I don't know either. There are many religions passed through time and to say that the world would be better of without it, just because of problems it causes in our own lifetime is a little bold to state outright. Nobody can be right here

Do not get me wrong, I know you guys are just making a point that its more than houding religion, and I know we would probably be fine without religion in this day and age, but to insist that we would be better off without it the whole time is just too much unknown information to contemplate. putting ourselves in the shoes of millions of perspectives, philosophys and decisions made over thousands and thousands of years. Would you really be willing to roll the dice and gamble what would happen without it from the begninning? Lets not be so quick to disregard our own roots, its not a question of evil religion but of evil men, all religion, as well as their problems, can be traced back to the people abusing them. There would never have been a world without religion, it is the creation of man, not the creation of god.

Religion is slowely disappearing, I dont not believe it to only be the cause of peoples free thinking. I consider it to be the constriction from those around them relentlessly attacking their ways. Like I say religion regardles of it being being correct or not, can be used as a looking glass to the theory that there is actually a higher power of some sort (not to say we figured it out yet). The more people around us shut "ALL" religion down, even the ones we do not understand, is the moment when we close our minds to another potentially possible subject.

 

[Harlequin]

unadulteratedawesome

"Nobody can be right" doesn't slam the brakes on debate. If anything it blows it wide open. The idea of harm differs from person to person, ideology to ideology - hence the debate. We all have as much to work with as eachother when it comes to morality and our interpretations of harm.

The 'healthier' option doesn't necessarily make that option the moral one.

I don't care if you think my statements are mind-blogglingly stupidly silly and whatever other adjective you want to throw into the mix, I wasn't querying the subject matter, just der Astronom's handling of the subject matter. I was talking to her, I was asking for her opinion of her ideas. Nothing to do with you basically. Your input is both irrelevant and unwanted. Stop talking to me, you're like that third wheel on a date that won't get the message.

As for the German, if you think she's able to articulate that well in English yet is incapable of spelling 'Yes' then you're likely the ignoramus. Were this in real life it could be excused as pronunciation but it's not. And how about actually letting her answer the question posed to her rather than brown nosing?

 

[unadulteratedawesome]

Beer causes harm, yet are you willing to go out on a limb to force people to stop drinking?

I definitely see what you mean, and it's a good point, but there's a difference between the two. If you abuse alcohol and this goes on to affect other people, there is consequences for this. Alcohol can cause people to do very harmful things, but these things are not on the scale of passing legislation that infringes on another's freedoms on an entirely moral basis.

And, unlike alcohol abuse, I'm not arguing for laws to abolish religion. I just see it to be a societal ill that, through various social means, I can help abolish. I don't think these beliefs I have, no matter how much I think they're right, should ever enter into law.

There is no proof of a certain god, yet there is no proof that there is not a god, only billions of things we do not understand. And even if they go to church it doesnt mean that the parents themselves are teaching them to believe every little thing they hear.

Raising a child without a specific belief in regards to religion does not mean you are making them atheist. You are simply letting them choose what they want to believe more fairly than making them go to church every Sunday, even if you aren't telling them they have to believe what they heard.

Not everyone who grows up to be non religious actually regrets being around it in the first place.

Being brought up surrounded by religion is different than being brought up with a religion. I simply think it's fairer to not point your child in a specific direction when it comes to belief. I don't think it predisposes toward non-religiousness at all.

When people start forcing people how to follow their religion, thats when being an athiest will become just as dangerous as being christian.

I'm not sure what you mean by the latter part. Do you simply mean that if atheists force people to follow a religion a certain way or to raise their kids a certain way, they'll be just as bad? If so, I agree.

do you really know much about all the rest of them, how they affected society and changed the world as we know it?

Yup. Religious studies have always been fascinating for me simply because it's such a foreign concept.

but to insist that we would be better off without it the whole time is just too much unknown information to contemplate.

I agree. I think we've grown past it now, and that it's a bit of a roadblock to further progress, but it had its place in the past. Then again, the way religion influences people's lives and the way people worship has changed over time. Before, religion and the greater culture were inseparable. Now that most people are exposed to more than one religion, and have the resources to be able to find out about other religions, this has changed considerably.

Religion is slowely disappearing . . . from those around them relentlessly attacking their ways.

Actually, I'm not so sure about this. Atheism may be on the rise, but I don't think that means that religion is disappearing. And I would argue this change is in a greater wealth of information. Pretty much everyone was whatever the predominant religion of the culture they were in simply because that was the scope of their knowledge. Atheists and detractors of religion haven't really been able to be vocal about it until the last century, really.

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

"Nobody can be right" doesn't slam the brakes on debate. If anything it blows it wide open.

If that's what you meant it for, then I apologize. It is usually used to say a debate is pointless because nobody can be right. And I dunno, I disagree. It depends on whether you think there's moral relativism or not and what you value.

The 'healthier' option doesn't necessarily make that option the moral one.

I agree. It was simply an example to show that science isn't excluded from moral debate.

I don't care if you think my statements are mind-blogglingly stupidly silly and whatever other adjective you want to throw into the mix

That's good.

I wasn't querying the subject matter, just der Astronom's handling of the subject matter.

And I replied because it was posted in a public debate and I wanted to dispute your points.

her her her

I was using he/him/his in the gender neutral sense. Chillax.

Nothing to do with you basically. Your input is both irrelevant and unwanted. Stop talking to me, you're like that third wheel on a date that won't get the message.

Haha, wow. I'm not going to stop talking to you. Nope. So why not take it to PMs with Astronom rather than use a public forum? Or, I dunno... stop replying to me rather than getting your undies in a bunch?

As for the German, if you think she's able to articulate that well in English yet is incapable of spelling 'Yes' then you're likely the ignoramus.

I thought the use of 'ja' was intentional. 'Since most people know what it means. Like how I know 'chillax' isn't a word, but I chose to use it. Also, chillax.

And how about actually letting her answer the question posed to her rather than brown nosing?

HAHAHA, oh gosh. My posts don't keep Astronom from replying. You're making replies on a debate out to be some sort of internet love-triangle. I wouldn't mind a dramatic duel with pistols at dawn, though.

 

[asm]

"If religion didn't exist, it doesn't mean we wouldn't have art or entertainment, or events that are fun and bring people together. Sure they'd be different, but they'd still exist."
-Says you. Look at the world prior to religion.


lol

why don't you describe this to us, then?