We Would be Better off without Religion

[Ultima-Griever]

Religion may have been necessary in ancient times so that people could explain how things worked. Ancient Greeks had their mythology: Zeus, Hades, Poseidon, all those gods with different functions that made the world what it was. But we know that this mythology is over. Why? Because there were curious people who were not satisfied with this explanation and found another. They used to believe that the sun rose and set because of Helios: now we know that the sun rises and sets because of the rotating movement of the Earth. Same with everything else. People needed religion to settle down.

Now that we live in a civilization, we shouldn't need religion to do what's right. I'm an atheist and never did drugs, never stole from anybody, never killed anybody, never took my friend's boyfriend, never insulted my parents, never betrayed my boyfriend. And I didn't need God to do all these things. I do good deeds because it's healthy for myself and others, not because I'm afraid of divine retribution or because I want my spot on heaven. I don't need religion to have a sense of humanism, and no one else should.

Religion (especially Christianity) preaches that we are all sinners and bad and only God's path is the true path and anyone who deviates from this path will burn in hell. So, a good person who does good things for him/herself and for others but doesn't believe in God deserves hell? Don't be fooled, I read the Holy Bible, I still read it for study purposes, and, contradictions aside, there are many horrible things written there that left me scandalized. Here's one example:

]- About rape
"If a man happens to find a virgin woman who pledged to be married and rapes her, both are to be sent to the city gates and stoned to death - the woman because she didn't scream for help and the man because he violated another man's wife. You must purge the evil among you.

But if out in the country a man finds a woman who pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man is to be stoned to death - the woman commited no sin deserving death. This case is like that of someone who attacks and murders a neighbor, for the man found the young woman out in the country, and though the betrothed woman screamed, there was no one to rescue her.

But if a man happens to meet a virgin woman who isn't pledged to be married, he must pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must then marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her for as long as he lives." (Deuteronomy 22:23-29)

This is only a little part of what your holy bible preaches. Is this the "greater good" that there is on the basis for your whole belief system? Treating women as property of a man, whether her father or her husband, and I still haven't mentioned the Book of Leviticus yet. That one which teaches you to hate homosexuality and anyone who practices it because God abhors it.

Mutual respect can be achieved and is achieved without religion. However, it can't be achieved with religion, because there are still some who shove their religion down your throat, regardless of how much you try to reason with them. And there is one more thing: I'm unable to believe in a book whose contents were heavily altered over the centuries so that the Church would have greater influence over people and 55% of which are locked up at the Archivio Segreto Vaticano.

 

[Roland_Deschain]

Religion may have been necessary in ancient times so that people could explain how things worked. Ancient Greeks had their mythology: Zeus, Hades, Poseidon, all those gods with different functions that made the world what it was. But we know that this mythology is over. Why? Because there were curious people who were not satisfied with this explanation and found another. They used to believe that the sun rose and set because of Helios: now we know that the sun rises and sets because of the rotating movement of the Earth. Same with everything else. People needed religion to settle down.

Not everyone feels this way though. I am not religious, but rather augnostic. Just because people know "more" about how the world works, how the sun and planets orbits, does not mean we know "everything", and countless theories have been proven wrong before. There was a span of almost 500 years when everyone "knew" that the world was flat. We may know that the earth rotates, but we should not be as arrogant to say we "know" exactly why it does, and how it began before we were even around to judge.




Now that we live in a civilization, we shouldn't need religion to do what's right. I'm an atheist and never did drugs, never stole from anybody, never killed anybody, never took my friend's boyfriend, never insulted my parents, never betrayed my boyfriend. And I didn't need God to do all these things. I do good deeds because it's healthy for myself and others, not because I'm afraid of divine retribution or because I want my spot on heaven. I don't need religion to have a sense of humanism, and no one else should.

However it does not seem ethical to judge how others obtain their morality, and honestly it is not always the case that people are "afraid" of retribution. The great majority of people these days practice religion not out of fear, but out of the aspect that there is something greater then themselves, and the love that god brings. Do you agree that morality in itself has many paths of discovery, and that people should be able to choose for themselves. Its bold to say that we should all only think "inside" of the box with only what we already know. Its easy for you raised in a stable family to find morality, but what of the people who were abandoned by their's, and became addicted to drugs and alcohol, or even lived on the streets, or in a third world country....like the majority of the worlds population...try and convince those people to build morality from the sense of pureness around them.

Religion (especially Christianity) preaches that we are all sinners and bad and only God's path is the true path and anyone who deviates from this path will burn in hell. So, a good person who does good things for him/herself and for others but doesn't believe in God deserves hell? Don't be fooled, I read the Holy Bible, I still read it for study purposes, and, contradictions aside, there are many horrible things written there that left me scandalized. Here's one example:

Like I said I am not a christian and I do not follow a particular religion. However I will say that these contradictions and dark things in the bible, are the things that people are not preaching so much to these days. You have to realize that the bible is not all god's word, but the accounts of many different men, some of them had their own flawed beliefs before they discovered the light of god, and just as any other men in this day and age, they had their weaknesses.


This is only a little part of what your holy bible preaches. Is this the "greater good" that there is on the basis for your whole belief system? Treating women as property of a man, whether her father or her husband, and I still haven't mentioned the Book of Leviticus yet. That one which teaches you to hate homosexuality and anyone who practices it because God abhors it.

As mentioned above the bible is the word of god spoken through the voice of man. And it seems you take much of the old testament into consideration. If you are an actual christian then you would acknowledge the whole aspect of the new testament and of Jesus. Jesus died for forgiveness of all kinds of sins through the love of god. You must only view the bible as a looking piece or a story book to a greater power, not take each line literally. When you speak of equality between sex, you must consider what the world was like when the book was written.

Mutual respect can be achieved and is achieved without religion. However, it can't be achieved with religion, because there are still some who shove their religion down your throat, regardless of how much you try to reason with them. And there is one more thing: I'm unable to believe in a book whose contents were heavily altered over the centuries so that the Church would have greater influence over people and 55% of which are locked up at the Archivio Segreto Vaticano.

I agree that mutual respect can be acheived without religion, for that is my belief and how I live. But I disagree when you say it cannot be found through religion. You would have to tell that to the great many christians I know who are very respectful people, people have the right to find morality as they see fit. When it comes to shoving religion down peoples throat you have to understand that not everyone does this. Religion is a tool, no different then a gun. It can be used to feed yourself, or to kill others. However we can not let the people who would mistrue the meaning ruin the aspect of something for all of those who do not. Just like I feel I have the right to own a gun, even if other people use them to kill. I do not believe in Christianity, but I believe that people shoving athiesm down other peoples throat can potentially be just as dangerous.

People should be free to believe what they want in my opinion, who is to say you, them, me or any of us are right.

 

[asm]

Pick up a world history book. From the Asians to the Arabics and Egyptians, their religion was not only the power to enforce laws but also inspired the worlds most famous historic pieces. For example, it was through religious belief that Egyptian pharaohs forced lower Egyptians to create the pyramids. If not for the belief of an afterlife and gods they would have never created these tombs. As you and I know... those Egyptian tombs provide great historic information. It told us of ancient capabilities of such civilizations, those tombs/other historic facts show us their science capability, their capability of enforcing laws, keeping people in check... even how they held themselves in warring times... many many things that lead us to realize why Egypt was powerful. Egyptian artifacts, pyramids, hieroglyphics did quite a lot for picking up the developing fields of science and history during the 18-1900s.

So, while no one can really show proof that the world would "be the same" without religious views pushing us. I can undoubtedly tell you right now, if Egyptians did not have a religion, they would never have left what they did.

Of course, I'm not a History book, you either learned of these facts or you didn't.

No one claimed the world would be the same.

You in essence, are arguing something completely nonsensical and pointing out something pretty specific (pyramids and/or other landmarks) to correlate with everything. Why not go all the way and argue there wouldn't be art without prostitution, since prostitution has always existed? Or better yet, you could say religion(s) inspired murder and slavery because religion has always existed since culture in general has existed? Either way, it's a mindbogglingly absurd thing to say.

 

[der Astronom]

I guess I don't deserve a response, der Astronom?

So just because I choose to be away for some time means I'm deciding not to respond to you at all. That's a nice conclusion.

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.

I'm not doing it here because it's not the scope of this thread. If you want to know how I justify morality, you are free to ask through PMs or post a thread up about it. The reason why religious people are typically asked to prove their claims is because they are typically the ones making positive assertions. And if they make positive assertions without providing significant evidence, I think it's only fair to point out that they haven't got good justification for it. And I think that's what a lot of non religious people and other people who see the absurdity of making claims that aren't backed up end up doing on threads like these.

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?

Well, look at it this way. I think we can agree that people who are trying to evade taxes should be put to jail. We should do something about people who try to kill others or steal from people. Does that mean we are forcing people to stop stealing? Sure, it decreases crime rates, but that doesn't mean people don't have the choice to steal or kill; they still can. We just discourage most people from doing it because it harms society.
I don't have any right telling people what they have to believe. If I were them, I wouldn't believe some of the things they believe. I might not draw the same conclusions as them. But I'm not, so they can believe what they want about it.

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.

"Shut up, that's why" occurs when you try to prevent people from making arguments by excusing them away for no good reason. Since I'm asking you to provide justification for your arguments, I can't see how that's stifling you from creating your arguments. Asking you to post irrelevant arguments on a different thread is not stifling them; I just think there's a more appropriate place for them. And if you don't think they're irrelevant, please explain why you think they aren't. I'm inviting you to explain your arguments. I'm not asking you to shut up and go away because I think your arguments are worthless. They would be if you are unwilling to justify them.

And pointing out that you're trying to stifle this entire argument because we don't know enough isn't shut up, that's why. That's YOU doing the shut up that's why. And if that's not what you're getting at, then you'll just have to be content with the fact that we are arguing from a position where we won't have access to knowledge or an understanding of everything. I just think it's unreasonable to assume we have to have knowledge of everything at our disposal in order to make a proper argument.

Who says Ja?

As Unadulteredawesome pointed out, I prefer "ja" over "yeah" because it's shorter. Now the semantics for "yeah", "yes" or "ja" are irrelevant, so long as we can agree we know what they mean. It's not as if my grammar in general were so incomprehensible that you don't understand what I mean. Ohterwise, you're picking at semantics, and it's really not that important. If you're bothered by that, I'm sorry but that's just my style, and not everyone you debate with has to have a writing style you have to like.

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

I made point-by-point rebuttals to almost every response you gave me, so it's nearly impossible for me to have missed something you said. In fact, I asked you lots of things about them. So you're going to have to be specific when you say I contradicted myself. I'm obviously not seeing it since you're not willing to point out where I made that mistake.

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

Neither, and since that's unimportant relative to the point I'm trying to make, I would consider that a red herring.

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

In other words, you're either too lazy to make the argument, or you can't be bothered because you don't have one. I'm sorry, but saying you can't be bothered to make an effort to explain something is not a good argument here. And if you're willing to concede that, then I'm afraid I'm just not going to be convinced. You don't have a chance in convincing me (and I believe anyone else) unless you provide me an actual argument and back it up.

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.

I only agree with that up to the point it interferes with someone else's right to say and do what they want.

But that's not what I was getting at. What I was trying to say is that the ideas in science and religion have the ability to influence what we say and do. That's why I brought up that example of the guy who wanted to be a scientist under Gould, but chose religion instead. That he chose religion over science is because of the ideas he believed in from religion. And that we use the scientific method and arrive at results that are generally consistent from mutual perspectives encourages us to keep using it and to keep coming up with exciting new discoveries. It influences us to care more about the truth and opens our minds up to lot of things.

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

If that's true, then you'll agree that religion cannot say anything about the real world, as it pertains to the shape of the Earth, its size, its age, and anything else about the universe that can be measured. And if it does say anything about these things, it is not to be trusted on the grounds that it is simply stated in a holy book.

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

I'm not doubting that. I'm not doubting there will be a better future out there that recognizes and respects people who aren't heterosexuals better than they do now. I just mentioned the Enlightenment as an example, and now you're saying I think it's the best thing that ever happened. I brought that movement up, not because I thought it was the best thing that ever happened, but because change that brings us more rights and freedoms (which some of us take for granted) don't have to happen because of religion. I am reading the exact context under which I posted this, months after I wrote it, and nowhere in there can I see how I was trying to say I thought the Enlightenment was the best thing that ever happened. Thanks for the strawman argument.

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.

That IS shut up, that's why in a nutshell. If you don't see what's wrong with that, then you obviously don't see what's wrong with religion in the first place. I happen to think criticism of religion is a good thing because nothing is sacred, and because it's a good thinking exercise. Lots of good things can come about from criticism. It's the same reason good artists always want to get criticism for their artwork. It helps them improve. Criticism of religion helps people see what harm it has caused.

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

I should point out that "should" is not as definite as saying "all" or "is" (as in, not including that modifier at all). "Should" means I feel obligated to point out something, or else I feel I'm not getting my point across, or that my position or rebuttal might not be well justified. Or it is something I think you should do if you want to make a good argument. I'm not saying you can't disagree, only that I think you are missing the point when I use the word "should", especially since I occasionally add "I think that..." or "I feel that..." to make it obvious that this is just what I think. I'm not denying that there are better solutions. I am using should in the present as it is with the current knowledge and understanding I have right now. Anything else is just grasping at straws, which is why I think it's pointless for you to say we're talking about nothing worth talking if you think it's pointless to be talking about issues we are not well equipped to deal with just because we have no knowledge or understanding of humanity in the future because it could potentially be better.

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

Well, do you have a better argument? I have opinions about these things, and I'm not doubting there are better approaches or solutions. But instead of complaining that there might be better ones, why not make that argument itself?

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.

And why does that matter in this debate?

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.

Or they can doom them to fear of hell forever, and their sense of rationality is crippled because of it. There's a difference between a little spank and childhood indoctrination. There's a difference between believing in Santa Claus and not being forced to believe it for the rest of your life and believing in god and being forced to believe it every day of your life because of the ridiculous fear of hell that gets instilled into people and because of being ostracized by family members and friends just because you might choose not to believe.

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.

I am only concerned with the principal harm it does; not how it might be implemented in practice. I'm sure it would be an interesting topic, but just saying it's hard doesn't mean we don't care or that we shouldn't even try. I think the best thing we can do is inform people by having debates like these, tuning into TV shows like the Atheist Experience (I heard they recently won some sort of award for being the most popular local TV show), writing articles and books about the subject, and promoting good parenting practices. And I know it's working. With the advent of the Internet, people writing plenty of humanism books and articles on atheism, as well as the formation of various atheist groups all over, people are losing religion. Church attendance is dropping. It's happening, slowly but surely. Please remember that all the things I described above are not stealing away anyone's free will to decide whether or not they want to be religious. Being exposed to secular literature or the promotion or informing people of atheism is not forcing anyone to change what they believe. If people see these things and decide to lose their religion, they do so because they CHOOSE it. There are people who see these things and remain religious. They might just be less disrespectful or prejudiced against atheists and humanists.

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?

I just happen to like German. But since you understand what I mean when I use the term "ja", it detracts from nothing I have already stated. It's not even a part of my arguments.

I did read your post. what... do you want me to get back to every word you said? No. I gave my two cents on the topic... and the topic was we would be "better off" without religion. I gave my views and I stand by them. But sure. I can get back to every single line of your post.

No, you're not obligated to respond if you don't feel like it. Just because I respond doesn't mean you have to. If you do, it's because you want to, or you have something to respond with.

I think you're wrong. See what I did there?

Yes, and I don't care because you don't care to provide me with a particularly good reason why I should care.

And lots of harm people in general have done.

I'm not doubting that. But that still doesn't change the fact that religion has caused harm.

Agreed. But how about you start doing that about everything in the world that does bad, like trying to force your views on others when we see otherwise?

Because that wouldn't be the scope of this thread. If you can explain specifically what these bad things are that have anything to do with being (or not being, since that's what you believe) better off without religion, please do so. Otherwise, feel free not to respond.

And I am not forcing my views on you. I am simply providing justification for why I think that way. You are free to remain unconvinced if that's how you feel about it. But since this is a debate thread, an exchange of ideas is expected. Complaining about the fact that I'm sharing ideas in a debate thread and mistaking it for shoving ideas down your throat is missing the point completely. People who knock on your door at 9AM in the morning demanding you go to church and read the bible are forcing you to do something. Sharing ideas that you happen not to agree with for which you are not obligated to respond to or even read is not forcing you to agree with anything.

Cool. Glad to hear that. I'm just gonna be over here wishing how cancer and murderers were gone instead of something that is a positive in a lot of people's lives.

Some people who have cancer are worse off because they believe a faith healer is more effective than their medically qualified doctor, who knows what he's doing. Some people murder people in the name of religion (9/11, anyone?). If religion were gone, we'd have some chance of saving all the people who might have been killed by people claiming jihads, and all the people who might have believed in a faith healer and threw away all their medication have a better chance of surviving by seeing their medical doctor.

And me and 5 billion others are happier in our lives for having religion while 1.1 billion people are less happy because something that makes 5 billion others happy exists.

Thanks for assuming I'm unhappy just because I care about the state of minds of the people who don't see what's wrong with religion.
I'm actually quite happy that I don't have to bow down and please god by kissing his feet every morning. I'm quite happy I don't have to fear hell by doing something god doesn't like. I'm quite happy all the friends I know I have are real and exist. I'm quite happy that I'm not afraid of gay people because I don't think they're evil. I'm quite happy that I can be friends with people who are religious and also not religious. I'm quite happy about a lot of things. That I care about the people who don't understand why religion causes harm is almost nothing in the grand scheme of things.

Nor can you deny or prove false. I can confirm that the happiness I gain through religion exists. It is confirmed to me every day I wake up and every night I go to sleep.

I'm not contesting that it makes you happy, or that you had that experience. Alcohol makes a drunk person happy. Drugs make addicts happy. It makes them see things that don't exist. But that doesn't mean it's a good thing.

I am a healthier person, both spiritually and physically, for my faith in God. I can undoubtedly confirm that. Can you prove I'd be any happier without religion?

I didn't say we'd be happier without religion, I just said we'd be BETTER without it. There's a difference. You can be happy but that doesn't mean you're a better person because of it. I'm sure people who are drunk feel all giddy and might be happy, but they make for terrible drivers, they take no responsibility or control over their actions, they get really thirsty, and their liver dies a little because of it. They're NOT better because they were happy.

I don't think you can. For if you think you can then it appears you believe yourself to be some kind of all knowing being. In which, if you do believe yourself to be powerful enough to know something about how someone feels/thinks(as if they have no thinking mind of their own) then it appears you have not a problem with religion but a problem with the fact that you aren't some powerful being yourself unlike the God you're so dead set on fighting. :/

Too bad I wasn't concerned about whether or not you were happy. I was only concerned about whether or not it was a good idea to be happy off of religion when the things you believe in might not be real, or have good justification.

I care about the truth too.

John 8:32
"Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”

So apparently, you think the truth is contained in an ancient tome written by barbarians from the bronze age, altered heavily throughout history, contains numerous contradictions, inaccuracies about the Earth and the universe, and is considered to be a big book of multiple choice (in other words, it says what I want it to say, while it says something else to someone else).

That should be all that matters. But to you, sadly, it isn't.

I'm terrified of clowns and think the world would be better off without them, but would I force them to be gone? No. Why? Because to other people clowns make them happy. My needs and how I feel isn't greater than anyone else... why can't we just let it be. The world isn't coming to an end for us feeling and thinking differently, is it?

Well, here's the problem. If religion disappeared, and some people were disappointed by it, I think they should just get over it. Later generations will learn to get used to it. If people who are coping with it now can find no joy in life without religion, then I'm sorry, but I think they have serious problems. There's more to life without religion, and there's plenty of ways of looking at life and the world that doesn't involve religion. People just have to find them. We all went through that process. Atheists do this because they don't rely on religion to guide their lives, and they don't see any good reason why religion has to be a part of their lives.

"you're opinion hurts me. Get rid of it"

I've probably stated this more than enough times, but being offended and using religion as an excuse does not count. When I speak of "harm", I am talking about real, physical and mental damage. Being offended is not mental damage. Being indoctrinated from an early age and stifling the growth of your ability to reason and think rationally is. Being killed because you're not a Muslim, or because you stopped being one is physical damage.

Why? Because YOU say so?

Actually, it's not because I said so; it's because the separation of church and state is part of the constitution in the States. I happen to agree with it. If you disagree, I'd like you to explain why it's not a good idea.

Which it doesn't.

And if religion is so great, do you think it should? Why or why not?

Why? Because you don't like other people being happy in a club that doesn't include you?

No, because people being happy in a club doesn't mean everyone else excluded from it has to be ostracized or constantly be watched and told they're going to hell for not believing, or be pressured to go to church. If being religious is just a fad like fashion, then it's not a big deal. But it's not. It's more than that.

As God gave me the right to do.

Are you saying you're not going to do something because your god won't let you? That makes you happy?

... thank you for giving me permission to pray.

Actually, it's not god that gives you permission to pray. It's the constitution. It tolerates all religions, so long as it has nothing to do with running the government. You wouldn't be able to do this in Muslim countries if you're doing it as a Christian.

Hmm, I live in the Bible belt of America and I've never seen this happen. Where do you reign from again?

You mean you never see reluctant children kicking and screaming because they'd rather watch Sunday cartoons than go to church? You've never heard of people who lose their faith and get hounded by religious people who tell them they have to go to church even though it's clearly none of their business what they choose to do on a Sunday morning?

Actually, it really doesn't matter if you've never seen it happening, even if you claim to be from the bible belt. Just because you haven't seen it doesn't mean other people who live there don't see it happening. That you don't see it happening is testimonial evidence at best, and it's not good evidence.

As do I. Thanks to my religion teaching me that any hate is wrong, I have the morals to understand how painful and wrong it is, so I won't.

So are you saying that hate is wrong only because god said so? What if god told you to kill your children (if you had any)? Would you do it? Are you so sure that he's not going to ask you something like that and play a cruel joke just to test you?

It's left to God whether or not they're sinners or in the wrong. I am no where near as all knowing or powerful as God to think he's doing his job wrong. If they're gonna get judged(as I will) it's up to God what he judges them for. Not me.

And you don't have to be; a bit of logic and critical thinking is enough for anyone to declare that god does things that would be considered immoral. Heck, maybe a bit of empathy, which normal people have would be good enough. Consider for a moment the above scenario where god plays the cruel joke of commanding you to kill your children without actually meaning it. It is not only cruel; it's immoral. Anyone who has the slightest bit of empathy can see that. It hurts people to kill the people they love.
Or that he has to have his son tortured and killed just so that people don't have to be considered evil (which I disagree with). It's also cruel and completely unnecessary. Again, anyone with even a bit of empathy can see that.

The plain and simple fact is, we are all capable of making judgments in our lives about various things. There's no denying it. Just simply saying you're going to leave it up to god to make those decisions sounds rather defeatist to me.

But (and I have no idea how many times I've had to say this) you can go on believing god has to make your judgments for you. That's not my problem if that's what you want to believe.

Much like how I wish people would stop mocking people's beliefs. Whether sexual orientation or right to action, you are still belittling people for something they feel or believe in, much like being gay or wanting an abortion.

See, this is a common misconception. Mocking people's beliefs and mocking people themselves are two separate things. I can respect people who happen to be religious without respecting the things they believe in. I can be friends with people who like a flavor of ice cream I don't like. I have plenty of respect for Newton and all the other scientists who discovered a lot of things in science in spite of their religion. I just happen not to have any respect for their religion because it's not well deserved.
And if you can't learn to separate criticism of religion from criticism of a person's character, please just grow up about it. I really don't know how else to say it, but they aren't the same, and I'm sorry if you fail to see it.

But you want to force religion out of people's lives? That's one heck of a train of logic you got there.

Just because religion isn't in public school doesn't mean you aren't free to enjoy your religion elsewhere. Like at home or at your church. And not wanting religion around doesn't mean I'm trying to force people to stop being religious. I'm happy with bus ad campaigns, atheist and humanist writers promoting their works and atheist groups providing support to fellow atheists and information for the general public about who atheists are and our views about religion.

What's the difference? A reason's a reason.

If religion was the only reason for supporting something, then those people would no longer be supporting it. There is something particularly dangerous about using religion as justification for something, which is fundamentally different from using justification for other personal reasons, which can change through experience and discussions with other people. But not so for religion; religion is this special excuse because you can't criticize it (as that's what you seem to be trying to get me to stop doing), but you can criticize politics, science and anything else under the sun. Religion gets away with it because it's not falsifiable. It's just this "armor" as Greta Christina puts it so nicely that almost nothing works against it.

So, as I said above, the best weapon we have against it is free speech. Which we do just fine with books and bus ad campaigns.

Just like trying to tell people their belief in something you(and others) can't grasp means they shouldn't as well. Just because you don't get it, doesn't mean everyone else has to live around you. Just like being gay or having an abortion. Rights are rights are rights. They have the right to be gay, have an abortion, and I have the right to believe in a God and have faith.

Okay, I don't understand what it's like to be gay. I don't understand what it's like to have an abortion. But that doesn't mean I don't have a reason to support them. However, I'm supporting them because I see no good reason why they have to be condemned just because they love differently from the rest of us, or because they have health problems, and can't bear children. It's got nothing to do with whether or not I understand them. Ironically, more atheists know about the bible and religion than religious people do because they have to make decisions. They have to decide honestly whether or not they want to believe what it is religion is telling them. In fact, it seems that there are religious people who haven't even read the bible at all.
However, saying that religion is wrong and forcing people to stop believing are two entirely different things. I am expressing the view that religion says things that are wrong because I think not enough people are realizing it. What they choose to do with that information is entirely up to them. I don't care if you stay religious or not after you've heard my views about religion. I am just using free speech. Nothing more.

You sure are preaching this train of thought, but you yourself aren't truly acting on it, seeing how you want to take away a right people have.

No, I am expressing what I find so vile and repulsive about religion, and you are free to agree or disagree with it. I don't care either way.

illusion? Mine's for real, bud.

You do know your religion is based off of a bronze age book written by some barbarians that's been heavily altered by monks throughout the ages, it's got more than one version and numerous contradictions? I have serious doubts.

And it is. I'm sorry, maybe I was hiding under my bible too long to realize there were people being rounded up and forced to believe or be shot? D:

But that is happening. And it has happened. Heathens in the medieval ages were tortured and killed. Muslims now who leave their religion in the Middle East get killed or tortured. And this is made possible because people give a single book too much credit without even bothering to care about whether or not the book itself makes sense or has any sort of credibility.

So... what if I was?

Secular arts do exist. And art realism was secularly inspired.

Then why is it bothering you so much?

Because people like to make arguments about how we wouldn't have art or music if it weren't for religion. Which is only half true; we'll still have them. They'll just be inspired by something else.

Says you. Look at the world prior to religion.

I've looked at civilizations where religion stayed out of the way, and they're general successful. Classical Greece has been a pretty big influence on our sciences, and even arts. And their achievements weren't all religiously inspired. Same with the Golden Age in the Middle East. All the scientific and mathematical pursuits were made possible because their religion didn't prevent them from doing it.

People will remain un-offended if people within the discussion manages to keep a calm and respectful perspective of the conversation in whole. Which, hardly ever happens.

It's not my problem you choose to make strawman arguments.

Ever saw a show called South Park? Or a moving called "The Invention of lying"? I don't think anyone prevented those practices of freedom of speech, did they?

Actually, the Trapped in the Closet episode had to be pulled from the air because Tom Cruise was offended by the fact that they were making fun of Scientology. Isaac Hayes made a big fuss about it, and stopped doing the voices for Chef. If religion weren't that big a deal like politics and celebrities aren't, then he wouldn't be offended enough to quit the show.

Wait... what? I get offended by other things. Like, a nonbeliever calling me a prude or "unfun" for not sleeping around. Offensives will exist no matter what.

Yes, but religion is generally not a good reason to be offended for something. I refer back to the argument about the religious "armor". This is usually something along the lines of, "if you don't like it, then don't watch it, don't buy it and don't support it." But instead, religious people feel they have to be offended enough that Harry Potter has to be banned, non Christians can't celebrate Christmas (which is rather ridiculous anyways, considering the original roots of Christmas), and that we can't draw Mohammed at all. I know you'll probably disagree about the last one, but no Muslim is obligated to look at any drawing I make, even if I post it online publicly. I can at least put up a disclaimer telling them it might be offensive, but the fact that they might be offended is no reason to void our free speech.

... Soooo, lemme guess, along with religion you want traumatized victims to vanish as well? I mean, either way they have their own personal opinion to not go see that doctor, so in your mind, they appear to be on the same level.

No, what I'm saying is that it's unreasonable to avoid seeing the doctor because religion says so. Not seeing the doctor because you've had bad experiences with one is understandable. It's probably something that can be changed easily, as you can go and see a different doctor, or someone else might help you cope with it. But not so for religion. Because of the way religion encourages people to use faith and not critical thinking, it is harder for people to realize that not seeing the doctor is hurting them. It's not even as if they've had bad experiences with the doctor because they've either never seen them before or never had bad experiences anyways. You don't actually know if going to a doctor is going to make your health worse or not; you only have faith that it does, and as a rationally thinking person, that bothers me.

Heaven forbids they seek help and happiness in something that you can't comprehend.

Yes, because everyone knows that the cancer patients and the crippled people who can't walk went to see a faith healer, stood up for one second, or felt happy for this one moment, threw out their medication and died the next day, or couldn't ever walk again. I'm sure they were really happy to have died so soon or stay crippled forever when they actually had a chance to live even a few more years or be able to walk again, thanks to the merits of medical sciences and technology.

Well, me no understand math, therefor me banish math. That logic isn't right, man. :/

Yes, I really can't understand why someone would rather be happy for this one second on the stage with all the adrenaline going on, and possibly die or suffer more afterwards than to appreciate medical sciences and technology and be happy for the rest of their lives. Yes, I can't understand the highs and happiness people experience from getting drunk or doing drugs, become addicted, and in so doing, ruin their social lives and health. Or that a bunch of Jihadists might be happy by killing themselves in a plane crash into some towers in the States. Right.

Just like being a nonbeliever.

Actually, atheists are a minority. You can't be an atheist just for social reasons; it's still not something that people would like to openly admit to other people yet. If you're an atheist, I think you'd at least have to have given it some thought at some point. At least if you live in the States anyways. If you think there isn't a good reason for being a nonbeliever, I'd like to hear it.

hahaha, are you kidding me? Okay... who in the name of all that is sweetly delicious in the world conducted these studies?

Not taking me seriously, are you?

Well, here are some studies:
http://www.ahjonline.com/article/PIIS0002870305006496/abstract
http://www.dukehealth.org/health_library/news/9136

They're done by scientists, and I don't see a problem with that because they are being peer reviewed by the rest of the scientific community, and if they were biased in any way at all, the other scientists would complain about it.

And no, I don't buy the argument that scientists don't know anything about prayers. Some scientists are religious too, you know.

Why are you calling me ridiculous?

I'm not calling you ridiculous; I'm calling the beliefs ridiculous. We all believe in silly things at some point in time in our lives, but that doesn't mean that we're stupid in general. People can be stupid about some things while being smart about others.

I'm sorry you feel that way, then. But it's a person's God given right to decide on whether or not they'd go to a hospital to get cured. I can assure you, from my strongly Catholic family, that my grandparents go see doctors and medical help if there's ever a problem.

I'm not concerned about you; I'm concerned about the mentality (once again, testimonial evidence is useless). The freedom to do and say what you want is not a god given right; free speech is provided by the US constitution, and free will has nothing to do with god. If you want to hurt yourself by not going to the hospital, you are free to do so. I just wanted to point out that you would be hurting yourself, and it would be hard to stop doing it if it were for religious reasons. This is actually not as serious as not bringing a child to see the doctor when they have a problem because they are unable to make that decision for themselves, and you are harming them because of your religious beliefs for doing so.

So now on top of everything else you said, now you're generalizing people. What's next? :/

I didn't say all Christians refuse medical treatment from well qualified doctors; I just meant that religious ideas are dangerous because they allow people to think it's okay not to see a doctor, and are less likely to care if that's true or not because they believe it on faith.

Surprise, surprise. I really had no idea.

Scapegoating Jesus? Really now?

Well, I mentioned it all throughout the other debate threads. You hadn't noticed?

You don't know much about Christianity, then, do ya? :/

Well, let's see here. Apparently, according to your religion, Jesus died on the cross for your sins (or shall I add that god planned it) so that you can go to heaven, and if you pray to him, god will overlook your sins. Which is scapegoating to me because instead of being responsible to the people you did bad things to, you just have to pray to Jesus, nevermind that you still did something wrong to someone else, and you still get to go to heaven, regardless of whether or not you make up with the guy you wronged.

And if I didn't get that right, what can I say; your bible is the big book of multiple choice. You can have it say anything you want.

However, it doesn't do you any good to complain that I don't know anything about Christianity if you can't demonstrate how I'm wrong.

Just like I don't think forcing beliefs or opinions is really a good idea either. D:

So somehow, suggesting what I think is a good or bad idea means I'm forcing people to believe certain things. I really don't know how you manage to misconstrue almost everything I'm trying to say.

We're all God's children. Whatever sin a person commits is between them and God. I needn't show the ignorance to act as though I know more than God or as much as God.

Ja, but that's still rather irresponsible. If that were so, why do we even care to have government and laws in society like we do now? Are you saying we should just leave that all up to god and not have rules at all?

Like I said above, that's not what Christianity is about. And if you think that way then no wonder you have such a skewed version of it. :/ I'm sorry you didn't understand the true meaning behind Christianity.

There is no true meaning behind Christianity. Big book of multiple choice, remember? Christians can't agree consistently on a definition of god, they don't agree about details in the bible, they read different bibles, and they have different opinions about going to church, how they treat gay people and everyone else not in their religion, and they have different opinions about Jesus and god too.

Hey, after you're finished with your time machine and situation altering gadget allowing you to see how things could be without subject a.) can I borrow it so I can go see Elvis once?

I'm not saying I know anything about what would happen to art and music if we did not have religion. I'm countering the idea that art and music would not exist if we did not have religion by pointing out that no one knows what art and music would be like without religion.

I too care for the truth. However, that doesn't mean I'm gonna shove my opnion down your throat, like you want to do to the rest of the world.

Strawman argument. And if you cared about the truth, you'd have a hell of a time doing it if it were based on faith.

This demonstrates to me that you refuse to counter anything I said or acknowledge it in hopes your skewed perception of religion and Christianity remains the same, all because you want to be all knowing when you're not.

On the contrary; I'm posting a point by point rebuttal to everything you have said so far. And it seems to me that it mostly consists of pointing out strawman attacks on my character because you can't pick up on the fact that I'm using words that indicate a possibility for something, or that it's just my opinion, and not an absolute.

Secondly, you have made no attempts whatsoever in explaining why your version of Christianity speaks for the myriads of other Christian denominations, who no doubt will disagree with you on some details about Christianity. In fact, I recall someone recently in this thread who professes to be religious, yet he/she agrees with most of the points I've been making so far.

No really?

Which they are.

Well, it isn't true that religion doesn't lie about some things, or gets some things wrong. It gets a lot of things where science is concerned wrong. I personally think religion gets a lot of the justification for morality wrong too, and fails to take into consideration the basic compassion and empathy we have for each other, which is good enough for many morals that are justified in religion through fear of hell or some other supposedly powerful deity.

Doesn't condone it either.

Yes it does. It has specific passages on how to treat slaves, such as tagging them, keeping them as property and how to punish them--what business does a book have with telling people how to deal with slaves if it doesn't condone it?

It doesn't? That's why we have two major female figures within our religion(not counting Eve)

Those figures are only special cases. Every other woman has to be submissive to their husband, they are only allowed specific roles, and they are treated as if they only exist for reproduction. Who cares if only two of these figures aren't treated this way; what matters is what the bible says about women in general.

Uh, yeah it does, bub. What the heck Bible did you read?

The Old Testament. There are plenty of verses about treating heathens like shit. There's even a commandment about not worshipping false idols. And if it's not happening now, we have the constitution to thank for freedom of religion.

It doesn't support sodomy, it just so happens that's how gays practice sexual acts.

And I don't see a problem with this. Gay anal sex isn't any less unhealthy than heterosexuals having sex.

No it does not. It teaches people to own up to their wrongdoings but that even if they fall short, their Heavenly father will always love them. Jesus isn't a scapegoat, he's a savior. A savior that represents love, hope, peace, and happiness. A savior that gave his own life in order for us to have a chance at eternal life in heaven. A savior that continuously teaches us to become better people.

You see, I don't buy the crap about having Jesus killed and tortured. Please explain to me what he saved people from by having to die on a cross. You know, instead of simply just living on and healing people like he's always supposedly been doing in the bible before he got killed. If god were omnipotent, then he didn't have to die. I do not recall anywhere in the bible saying that you have to be responsible to the people you wrong. There is a verse in the bible where you have to throw away your family for Jesus.

And I can have love, hope, peace and happiness just fine without Jesus. I don't see how having him killed and tortured in any way represents love, hope, peace or happiness. It's bloody and sickening that someone has to be tortured and killed just so that you get to enjoy an eternity in paradise. God's an asshole for planning all that. There's nothing I find particularly good or just about that. Actually, I think it's immoral that he has to have someone killed just to "save" us, when he has all the power in the world to save us with his own hands anyways.

We're sinners, we're always going to mess up, the difference is, Jesus teaches us how to learn from our mistakes and do better next time.

Learning from mistakes is a pretty natural process. You don't need Jesus for it. Maybe you just believe you do.

Why so much negative attitude? it's a little rude. How about you actually read and comprehend what the Bible says instead of going off of a false perception. Because from what you're spewing to everyone on this forum, you never touched a bible before. And if you think any of us(Christians/Catholics that is) believe you did, you're dead wrong.

Because the bible is a big book of multiple choice. Even if I had read it, I can't guarantee that I'd make the same conclusions as you would about it. And frankly, it's a bit presumptuous to think that I'm going to reach the same conclusions as you are just for reading the book. Now I'll admit I haven't read it in its entirety, but I have read enough chunks of it to know some of the things it has said. However, to discredit anything I say just because I haven't read it is an ad hominem argument, and it doesn't help your argument. If you still think I'm wrong, you can use a different argument.

Just say you can't argue against the argument. It looks less... childish.

Which I would glady do, since hitting a strawman instead of the real thing looks childish.

In case you didn't get it, a strawman argument is an argument that makes it seem like you have a point, but in actuality, fails to address the actual point I'm trying to make by saying false things about the argument I actually presented.

First off, dude, man. You REALLY have to tell me how you became this all knowing being? How can you prove any of what you're saying?

You don't have to be all knowing to know any of that. Consider all the things Galileo was studying. Consider what his contemporaries were studying. They made groundbreaking discoveries about the nature of the universe and the Earth's true orbit. Yet, nobody accepted these discoveries because the religious leaders said they were wrong (and they had no good reason for it). It wasn't until much later that their works stopped being banned.

Or how about the work that Archimedes did on a parchment that got scrubbed off because a monk had to use something for his prayer and didn't respect the fact that there was valuable information he was erasing. We needed advanced technology to find out there was something important written on one of those parchments.

Or all the work the Greeks did. The religious folks from the Dark Ages did not respect their science. They burned and destroyed or plundered their libraries and replaced the books with their own. Archaeology accounts for most of our findings of their works.

These are only but a few examples of religion getting in the way of scientific discovery. Is it no coincidence that the Renaissance occurred at a time when the Catholic church was becoming unpopular?

Secondly, we don't blame Jesus. I don't even know where you got that from. If there was a doubt in my mind about whether or not you really read the bible, you surely just killed it with that claim. I mean, anyone who's ever read the bible knows that no one blames Jesus.

You are blaming him in the sense that you feel you are relieved of anything you do wrong by merely praying to him. Which I find awkward because I feel relieved of what I do wrong to someone by making up with that person directly; not by praying to someone I don't even know exists anymore. If you want to believe that's the right thing to do, then sure, go ahead and believe it. I just find it hard to believe you got that from the big book of multiple choice, and that you simply just didn't have any empathy yourself for doing something wrong to someone else.

Thanks once again for making presumptions about what people must believe if they've read the bible. I'm sure there are plenty of other atheists on here who have read the bible and don't agree with you, if their own arguments are any indication of it.

We are to blame for our sins, only us. Jesus, however, lends us a hand to redemption and a pathway to happiness and a better life.

So you believe we don't have to pray to him. That's nice to know. Because I don't think I feel any happier or better for praying to someone I don't know exists.

what were you saying?

You seem to think everything I have to say must be an absolute, do you? No wonder you get confused about what I'm trying to say.

I did, I read it twice, sug. Guess what, I've heard everything you typed in your original post a thousand times before and I'll hear them a thousand more times. Doesn't change my opinion, my views, or what I said. Because what I said in my first post here still stands.

So, that's it? Your view is that everyone who thinks we'd be better off without religion should just buzz off and eat dust? That's some kind of an argument. It's not really worth discussing because you sound like you can't be bothered to explain your point. Which is strange that that one sentence there was included among all your other arguments.

You know what I say?

The world would be a better place without the lawyers covering up for people being pedophiles, without people being killed over drugs/gang wars, without the kind of greed health care companies/doctors/ have when they keep sick people from getting better, or without people forcing their views on others all because they can't comprehend religion, and forcing people to feel as if they are less for having faith in something bigger than them.

Not the scope of this thread. You can get rid of all those, but it won't change the fact that the pope is simply reshuffling the pedophiles around in the church, that people are ill-informed enough to believe that their religion will save them, and they don't have to see the doctor when they get sick, or the greed of the church, or any other amount of harm caused by religion.

We could go back and forth, but really, it's just childish. And, sug, pedophiles, greed, deaths will exist with or without religion.

I'm aware of that. However, I did not say that getting rid of religion means pedophiles will stop existing, or that greed or murder won't. It just means there will be one less source of it. And a rather dangerous one, I might add.

Whoa, how did you come to discussing this again? In other words, when nonbelievers force their views on the religious they(the religious) lose all rights as people with valid opinions because some nonbeliever deems their opinion more fit over anyone else.

Atheism in Finland, Sweden or Germany aren't being forced on anyone. They still have churches, but they are more like historical landmarks rather than religious institutions riding off of not paying taxes under the pretense of being non-profit. In fact, I ran into a church in Göttingen on a Sunday morning, looking for a washroom, and the attendance was abysmal. I don't think the people in the church were being pressured to leave, nor did I feel everyone else outside was being pressured to stay outside of church because they were forced to be atheists. If these countries had more atheists, it is most likely because people that live there feel less pressured about openly being unreligious, and their laws support it. There is nothing about being pressured to not be religious; there are religious people there too, and they are not being discriminated against.

I don't doubt that some religious people are humanists. I actually don't really care that they're religious; I only care about what they have to say. And I think those countries I mentioned treat religious people the same way as well.

Math is real. As we use it in everything we do. Much like we can't see God, they both exist.

Abstract concepts are not real. Math is an abstract concept. It is not real. You can't see the number "1" or any other number; it is just a concept we use to describe quantities of things. You can use an abstract concept to do something or understand something, and it doesn't have to exist in reality. The point, however, is that just because something doesn't exist doesn't mean it's not worth spending time on.

You didn't understand what I was doing with that part of the post, did you sug? :/

Just like I can't "prove it" you can't prove it isn't happening.

I am drawing on things that have happened historically, things that are happening right now, and stuff I am noticing that is happening or has happened. How is that not evidence enough? I admit the conclusion I am drawing is my own, but it is at least based on that evidence.

And if you're content with not being able to prove anything, why do you even bother putting up an argument at all in the first place?

 

[Jquestionmark]

Harlequin

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

By what standard? A moral system that discourages health seems like a problematic system to me. Maybe I'm mistaken, though. Maybe harming health is a good thing, morally speaking. What leads you to this conclusion?

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.

Actually, I thought the things he was saying were very relevant. It's good to see that though I vanished for a bit off the forum people are just as tolerant and interested in discussion as when I left. Oh... Wait...

As he tells you, if you're not interested in debating, take it to PMs or take it elsewhere.

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?

So it's unnacceptable for people to have quirks in the way they speak? Someone's desire to write out their verbal ticks makes them less intelligent? By your logic, should I assume that you're an idiot because you misuse quotation marks? I'm curious to know.

Ultima-Griever

This is only a little part of what your holy bible preaches. Is this the "greater good" that there is on the basis for your whole belief system? Treating women as property of a man, whether her father or her husband, and I still haven't mentioned the Book of Leviticus yet. That one which teaches you to hate homosexuality and anyone who practices it because God abhors it.

I love when people bring up those super fun parts of the Bible and the morality it suggests. You, ma'am, are a boss.

c a l i l i l y

And lots of harm people in general have done.

This excuses religion for the wrong it has unleashed? Should we be opposed to removing a disease because other things have also caused harm?

And me and 5 billion others are happier in our lives for having religion while 1.1 billion people are less happy because something that makes 5 billion others happy exists.

Is it bad to be unhappy that there's a force that inspires people to harm others? Anyone that keeps up on news coming out of modern Muslim countries (or is familiar with many historical events inspired by Christianity) I should think would be unhappy about religion.

I care about the truth too.

John 8:32
"Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”

You care about truth because an ancient, poorly written, self-contradicting book tells you to? I'm just confused now.

That should be all that matters. But to you, sadly, it isn't.

I'm terrified of clowns and think the world would be better off without them, but would I force them to be gone? No. Why? Because to other people clowns make them happy. My needs and how I feel isn't greater than anyone else... why can't we just let it be. The world isn't coming to an end for us feeling and thinking differently, is it?

For context of what I'm about to say, der Astronom had said "I don't deny that religion brings some people happiness," so that we're clear.

You are comparing religion to clowns. This is just silly (get it). Lets come up with a better comparison. Lets say there's a savage murderer, going about killing people. Now, lets say there are some rather twisted people that find this entertaining, and it makes them happy. Shit, the murderer is probably pretty happy about what they're doing. Is that group of people being happy all that matters, even though others are being harmed? That's a rather twisted outlook if you ask me.

As God gave me the right to do.

The government and society give you the right to pray in a church (or anywhere you like, really). I don't rely on magical creatures for my rights.

Much like how I wish people would stop mocking people's beliefs. Whether sexual orientation or right to action, you are still belittling people for something they feel or believe in, much like being gay or wanting an abortion.

Being gay isn't a belief. Don't compare it to religion. But more importantly, belittling religion and belittling the people that believe in it are very different things. If we were bashing believers instead of the beliefs, the mods would hopefully step in and remind us to act like adults.

What's the difference? A reason's a reason.

I'd say that reasons based in reality are very different from those based on outdated fiction books.

I'm sorry, maybe I was hiding under my bible too long to realize there were people being rounded up and forced to believe or be shot? D:

It's not that funny when that sort of thing really does happen, even if you're unaware of it.

Originally Posted by der Astronom
"The fact is, I can't see any difference between religiously inspired art or secularly inspired art, or events organized by either religious or secular organizations."
Then why is it bothering you so much?

Because if that's a major defense for religion (religion being responsible for art), and it's not actually required for the making of art, then it's no defense at all.

We're all God's children. Whatever sin a person commits is between them and God. I needn't show the ignorance to act as though I know more than God or as much as God.

Like I said above, that's not what Christianity is about. And if you think that way then no wonder you have such a skewed version of it. :/ I'm sorry you didn't understand the true meaning behind Christianity.

I'd say der Astronom's view is pretty solid and consistent. Speaking as someone who was raised Catholic but thankfully got away, the information der Astronom is presenting it right on the money. Having an outsider's viewpoint actually helps make more clear sense of it.

_________________________________________

Honestly, while I think that religion is most certainly a harmful disease at best, I have to wonder how different things would be without it. Since religion is a fictional set of ideas and distinctions, I wonder if a different set of secular ideas would have filled in the gap if it had never come to be. The evil and monstrous acts cause by religion can ultimately be traced back to humanity, as they made up religion in the first place. Has mankind matured enough that without such a construct we would be doing better, or would we be just as terrible for different reasons? I'd like to think that mankind could do better without religion, finally shaking off the chains that we have dragged with us from barbaric days past, but I'm not sure I can give us that much credit.

 

[Harlequin]

Maybe harming health is a good thing, morally speaking. What leads you to this conclusion?

So it's unnacceptable for people to have quirks in the way they speak? Someone's desire to write out their verbal ticks makes them less intelligent? By your logic, should I assume that you're an idiot because you misuse quotation marks? I'm curious to know.

when the fuck did i say any of that shit read it again lmao

 

[Jquestionmark]

when the fuck did i say any of that shit read it again lmao

If you need, I could possibly find some primary school resources that explain the difference between implying and stating directly.

More to the point, though, if you were not actually implying that morality is irrelevant to health in your moral code, as I gathered from your statement "The 'healthier' option doesn't necessarily make that option the moral one." I'd appreciate it if you'd explain. That would facilitate the debate more than one line responses and irrelevant pictures.

I took your line of "Were this in real life it could be excused as pronunciation but it's not" to mean that you were not accepting of der Astronom's use of "ja" in place of yes. How is this not an example of you being less than tolerant of the written form of a verbal tick?

 

[Harlequin]

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

Is similar to:

"The bigger guy doesn't always win the fight."

Oh what so the little guys always win? No. It's just an inaccurate hypothesis to make.

 

[Jquestionmark]

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

Is similar to:

"The bigger guy doesn't always win the fight."

Oh what so the little guys always win? No. It's just an inaccurate hypothesis to make.

I'm afraid I don't see how that's a good analogy for moral systems. Or relevant to what I said... See, I'll break it down nice and simple for you:

I'm implying that health should be a primary feature in a moral system.

Whether or not I hold this view in reality is irrelevant; I'm challenging you to explain why causing harm/reducing health would be a more moral act.

Then, the issue becomes one of if poisoning society with a disease that also has some benefits (maybe, it's debatable) is the moral and right thing to do.

So, I'll ask you straight up: how would causing harm/reducing health be a more moral thing to do?

 

[Naoto Shirogane]

...Why the hell are we fighting over a VERBAL TICK?

Ja=German for yes/Yeah. Don't like? Deal with it. It's easier than saying yes.

Anyway. To the point at hand: I am torn really. If you look straight at Religion. you will see a somewhat harmless way of life. if you keep looking you get this deranged psychotic insider view(those who are basically: I WILL NOT STAND FOR THIS BECAUSE GOD BLAH BLAH BLAH)

Yet when you look at the non-Religious community. We see this insane and unorthodox way of living. yet when we look at it more closely. We see a calm and quiet community of people. Just waiting for when all the damn ruckus is over.

Religion and Non- religion Are in short a intertwined species. one can live without the other. However the world seems off without the other half there.

can we live without religion? Yes, and rightly so. Does it matter if we live without it? somewhat. It creates big changes to the majorly religious countries. yet for the others it's like nothing happened.

Let's reverse the question: Can we live without..."non-Religion" We certaintly can. Does it matter if we do. Very much so.

the world can move on without religion. it can also move on with religion controlling the planet.however I can see more problems arriving with a purely religious planet. Problems still arise with a Non-Religious planet. But not nearly as many.

In conclusion: Would we be better off without religion? I really have no clue. while the problems we might have with a non-Religious planet. Religion is the "other half" To our planet. We can move on without it. But it will cause A lot of problems(abeit less than a purely religious planet). While my above statement leans more towards the destruction of religion. I believe that We NEED religion. Weather we support it or not. But our world is just warped without it. People have the right to believe in things. We shouldn't take it away from them. Yet we might be in the long run better off without it.

List of pro's/cons.

Pros of a Fully Religious planet:
-able to work under one religion helps mold us together and unite us.
-Our countries will be run but people who will help the country based on religion.

Cons of a fully religious planet:
-no more birth control. D:
-Homosexuality is wrong? GTFO!
-Forced opinions. What do you mean i have to worship this!
-Riots
-Mass hysteria

Pros of a non-religious planet:
-Freedom of speech
-Democracy

Con's of a non-religious planet:
-...What do you mean i can't worship my god anymore?
-riots
-Yo bibles be buuuuuuurned.
-Forced to leave your religious life.
-...Small mass hysteria

(You can add more)

 

[Harlequin]

I'm afraid I don't see how that's a good analogy for moral systems. Or relevant to what I said... See, I'll break it down nice and simple for you:

How about I break it down nice and simple for you. Someone said science could be applied to morality by factoring in health. I didn't state the opposite to be true, I merely challenged the hypothesis.

It's not necessarily evil to be clinically obese, etc...

So, I'll ask you straight up: how would causing harm/reducing health be a more moral thing to do?

Not something I said. If you don't understand that stop giving me notifications.

 

[Jquestionmark]

How about I break it down nice and simple for you. Someone said science could be applied to morality by factoring in health. I didn't state the opposite to be true, I merely challenged the hypothesis.

It's not necessarily evil to be clinically obese, etc...

I'm saying that your challenge is inadequate. If you're unable to present a situation where an action that causes harm/reduces health is more moral than alternatives, then your challenge is pointless. I'm proposing that health should be a primary in a moral system, you have stated "The 'healthier' option doesn't necessarily make that option the moral one." and I want to see you back it up. Why is a healthier option not necessarily a more moral option?

Note: I realize it's not evil to be obese, but how would that make it moral if one intentionally did that to oneself? Not being evil does not inherently make something moral.

Not something I said. If you don't understand that stop giving me notifications.

You did say: "The 'healthier' option doesn't necessarily make that option the moral one."

I am aware you did not literally state: "causing harm/reducing health would be a more moral act." - this is something I wrote.

You may be unaware, but when you say things, there are certain implications and conclusions that can be drawn as a result. So when you state "The 'healthier' option doesn't necessarily make that option the moral one." you imply the following thing:
-In a moral system (potentially your own, though not necessarily), there are actions that could cause harm/reduce health and be more moral than actions which maintain status quo/improve health.

If you did not intend to imply that, please explain that your actual intention was.

If you did intend to imply that, please provide an example of when this would be true.

______________________________________________

...Why the hell are we fighting over a VERBAL TICK?

Ja=German for yes/Yeah. Don't like? Deal with it. It's easier than saying yes.

Intolerance of the way others wish to express themselves concerns me, so I pointed it out.

Anyway. To the point at hand: I am torn really. If you look straight at Religion. you will see a somewhat harmless way of life.

I'd say that depends on the time period. Religion (especially the Christian varieties in Europe throughout the ages) has killed a significant number of people over all sorts of matters, and I'm sure they'd feel it's anything but harmless.

In conclusion: Would we be better off without religion? I really have no clue. while the problems we might have with a non-Religious planet. Religion is the "other half" To our planet. We can move on without it. But it will cause A lot of problems(abeit less than a purely religious planet). While my above statement leans more towards the destruction of religion. I believe that We NEED religion. Weather we support it or not. But our world is just warped without it. People have the right to believe in things. We shouldn't take it away from them. Yet we might be in the long run better off without it.

I certainly agree that people have the right to believe in things, and I find individual beliefs are personal ways of viewing the world (unlike organized religions, the vast viruses that they are), but there's still matter for concern. When you introduce a set of ideas that aren't directly tied to reality, and have people that believe in them so strongly they are willing to die for them or kill for them, you have threats to the safety of everyone else.

I don't believe we need religion, I believe it endangers us.

List of pro's/cons.

Pros of a Fully Religious planet:
-able to work under one religion helps mold us together and unite us.
-Our countries will be run but people who will help the country based on religion.

Cons of a fully religious planet:
-no more birth control. D:
-Homosexuality is wrong? GTFO!
-Forced opinions. What do you mean i have to worship this!
-Riots
-Mass hysteria

Religious Pros:
-I'm trying to think of some... really...

Cons:
-Religious Wars/Jihads
-Religious inspired hate crime
-Racism
-Sexism
-Attempted thought control (Christianity frowns on though-sin, thinking about doing sinful things)
-Attempted breeding control
-People will refuse eachother aid on basis of religion
-Genital mutilation

Pros of a non-religious planet:
-Freedom of speech
-Democracy

Con's of a non-religious planet:
-...What do you mean i can't worship my god anymore?
-riots
-Yo bibles be buuuuuuurned.
-Forced to leave your religious life.
-...Small mass hysteria

(You can add more)

I find it unlikely Bibles would be burned - too many works of literature contain references, and a source is helpful for full comprehension. We don't burn copies of other fiction books even though we know they're just fiction.

Non-religious Pros:
-Scientific progress unhampered by mythology

Cons:
-Potential for nationalism to replace religion
-People will still be idiotic and irrational

Unfortunately, governments could too easily replace the church as far as attempting to control speech, though, breeding, and opinions on just about anything. A non-religious planet would have greater POTENTIAL for good, but there are no guarantees.

 

[Harlequin]

You may be unaware, but when you say things, there are certain implications and conclusions that can be drawn as a result. So when you state "The 'healthier' option doesn't necessarily make that option the moral one." you imply the following thing:
-In a moral system (potentially your own, though not necessarily), there are actions that could cause harm/reduce health and be more moral than actions which maintain status quo/improve health.

If you did not intend to imply that, please explain that your actual intention was.

If you did intend to imply that, please provide an example of when this would be true.

Neutrality perhaps? Subjectivity?

Health is a matter of science. Morality is not. What you deem to be moral can differ greatly from what another person sees as such. Physical health doesn't work in the same way.

Population control, Euthanasia, Abortion, Legalised drug use, the list of examples goes on and on where the application of morality isn't necessarily consistent with medical theory.

Not to mention when someone challenges a hypothesis they don't have to prove a negative they just have to prove that the hypothesis isn't wholly consistent. A neutral example will suffice. Preventing people from smoking would certainly be the healthy choice for example, but it impeaches on their freedoms. I'm not making a definite comment on the moral element in that example because it differs from person to person. But I would suggest that case doesn't fit the hypothesis in question.

 

[Jquestionmark]

Neutrality perhaps? Subjectivity?

Health is a matter of science. Morality is not. What you deem to be moral can differ greatly from what another person sees as such. Physical health doesn't work in the same way.

Population control, Euthanasia, Abortion, Legalised drug use, the list of examples goes on and on where the application of morality isn't necessarily consistent with medical theory.

Not to mention when someone challenges a hypothesis they don't have to prove a negative they just have to prove that the hypothesis isn't wholly consistent. A neutral example will suffice. Preventing people from smoking would certainly be the healthy choice for example, but it impeaches on their freedoms. I'm not making a definite comment on the moral element in that example because it differs from person to person. But I would suggest that case doesn't fit the hypothesis in question.

Thank you, that was all I really wanted. I appreciate you humoring me and providing an example.

This raises a different avenue of discussion: given the subjectivity of moral systems, are we left without any way to assess if we'd truly be better off without religion? Does our inability to objectively measure how religion impacts the world around it make it impossible to decide if it's truly a good or bad thing (since good and bad are subjective and differ from person to person anyways)?

 

[Pajama_Pants]

Lots of interesting views here, but my answer would be no, the world would not be a better place without religion, because without it, this thread or the people alive now would not exist. It is what it is.

 

[Will Graham]

Lots of interesting views here, but my answer would be no, the world would not be a better place without religion, because without it, this thread or the people alive now would not exist. It is what it is.

How do you know that? Maybe you are right and we wouldn't be, but how does that mean we are better because of it? Maybe if religion didn't exist and we didn't either, other humans would have been born. Kinder, more intelligent, more beautiful, more compassionate humans. "It is what it is", is apathy of the worst kind.

 

[Pajama_Pants]

How do you know that? Maybe you are right and we wouldn't be, but how does that mean we are better because of it? Maybe if religion didn't exist and we didn't either, other humans would have been born. Kinder, more intelligent, more beautiful, more compassionate humans. "It is what it is", is apathy of the worst kind.

The answer is quite simple, Nathan Drake. How does someone know about something that does not exist? They don't, that's why in this case, if religion didn't exist, we would not possibly know about religion, therefore why would we talk about it?

You see, you already know this but the present exists because of the past. It is a procedural and on-going process, but if we were to trace our origins to the first human beings with any sort of prototype morals, and say we can create an alternate copy and edit that alternate copy of that world, and expunge morals, that would also make religion not exist. As a matter of fact, a major part of morals is based on working together and having mutual if not benefit for the entire group of a species. So take the working together, help, kindness, all that stuff out and what do you get? Physically violent beings programmed to just feed and reproduce. Wouldn't be different from say, tigers, lions, bears and sharks, n'est ce pas? Human beings are the only ones that possess an advanced form of morals, I'm more inclined to say we're the only living organisms on this planet to have morals. What is moral, anyways? It's not just one thing, but a collection and combination of things.

One particular thing I noticed with the way this conversation was heading towards at the end was the usage of the word "evil". There is no good nor evil, or right or wrong in actuality: those are things that moral gave birth to, people who invented what is good and bad as a survival aid in the beginning, and later to place themselves in a luxurious status amongst their own kind. It's all based on value. Some of the ancient tribes today for example would not care about what Forever 21 is, or what Pac Sun has because 1) They don't know what is it and 2) They don't play a value on those things like further-advanced.

But I apologize, I am straying off topic. However, I must say, everything is inter-connected, there is no such thing as a useless or meaningless thing in this planet, galaxy, whatever, there is some sort of function and level of practicality to everything.

When I said "It is what it is", it wasn't a form of apathy, nor the worst of anything that you so judged. Maybe you just don't understand how people work, and how religion works.

The few reasons without me bringing every single subject known to man-kind and more to make a novel into why I think religion brings something to the table, and not necessarily "better"ing the world, is this: It adds more elements to life. Like others have already mentioned, Science has taken from religion in the form that, they wanted to prove that some of the supernatural elements were not real. In turn, Religion has taken from Science too. Proof? You see Christians and people of any other religion using technology. Cell phones. Computers. Whatever. For saying that science is evil, they're using every bit of that evil to their advantage too. But I digress, that would be the extreme form of it, although I would hope that if someone claims they're Christian, or whatever, they stick to it and go live under a rock and keep to themselves. Oops, my opinion slipped. Anyways, I've seen contrary to "what should be" religious nuts. You'll see everything from very faithful religious people to loose religious people. A great example would be some Catholic girls who who claim they're every bit innocent and nice and sweet, but are pretty much doing the opposite of what they say. I know some of these people personally, I don't give them shit for it but inside my head, I always tell myself this: People will take what they want out of something, twist and mold it to their liking, and drop it when they have no more use of it.

I think I saw someone on here say people are evil by nature, but I don't 100% agree with that. I think people are people by nature: we do things that will benefit us or aid us in our own survival. Moral judgement and other labeling comes afterwards depending on that person's upbringing and personal value, on a complete case-by-case, individual basis. This is what I meant by "It is what it is". People are people: We will do what we like. We will do what we have to to survive. And if people were to have gotten this far to the point where we are posting on an online public forum about religion, then we've already been there, done that. Religion, for better or for worse, has already made it's contribution and course in human being's life and infrastructure, and ultimately, if I have to give you my honest opinion, it gives people something to play with. You get a choice. Of what you want in life, to benefit yourself and those you deem worth benefiting. It sort of goes along the whole movie of what the Matrix trilogy series saying the problem is choice, although that also is not completely correct. It is not one thing that makes one thing, but a collection of things making one thing. You see lots of hollywood and even some great literature mentioning the whole "all is one, and one is all" concept. And it all boils down to control. Human nature is all about control. And no, I am not trying to sound like a control freak, and if you tweak those gears of yours in your brain a bit, you will see that people trying to control other people will not work, because ultimately it results in conflicts. As a matter of fact, that is happening a lot in today's world. So it's really choices, and controlling ourselves and making the choices that also contributes to religion. As it is, since religion exists already, what is the point of wondering if the world would have been a better place without it when we already have lots of benefits and problems stemming from religion. Why can't we take what is good from religion, and eliminate the problems it causes?

Oh, by the way, I am Atheist and I don't believe in a god or whatever, I believe in human beings and the things we choose to do. I believe in fine-tuning and controlling our primal urges to create a better living being, to become better people. I don't even really like calling myself an Atheist, because that's a label, kind of like how Socialists in the Sociology department include I believe it was Carl Marx (?, the guy who is often related to Marxism, incorrectly as a matter of fact) is deemed one of the greatest sociologist ever, but he himself claimed that he is not a sociologist. People depend on labels too much, as much as it is a very important part of people's intelligence and education, people often forget that not one thing can be generalized at all, rather nothing should be generalized. Religion, although I do no believe in it, has given me ideas to play with and evidence to me that there is no God, religion is all in the head, a human creation, but we will never be able to eliminate it from the human being's society. It will only disappear when we disappear.

/end rant.

 

[Will Graham]

I do not like the idea of picking apart every sentence of a person's response, so I will simply focus on your main points.

The answer is quite simple, Nathan Drake. How does someone know about something that does not exist? They don't, that's why in this case, if religion didn't exist, we would not possibly know about religion, therefore why would we talk about it?

I have no idea what you are talking about here, yes if religion did not exist we would probably not know about it. Astute observation

You see, you already know this but the present exists because of the past. It is a procedural and on-going process, but if we were to trace our origins to the first human beings with any sort of prototype morals, and say we can create an alternate copy and edit that alternate copy of that world, and expunge morals, that would also make religion not exist.

This is so staggeringly wrong, it could be used to stun an elephant. The main problem is that you seem to think that religion and morality are the same. This is a barely understandable and completely inexcusable mistake. No one is talking about removing morals, it is about organised religion. Morality is totally separate from spirituality

What do you mean by the first humans? Do you mean homo sapiens? There are many steps in our evolutionary spectrum. If we were not moral then why did we not massacre each other before religions became organised? Why did mothers not devour their children? This is somewhat patronising, so I will give you some better examples of why attempting to call religion and morality the same thing is ridiculous. I am doing this, to show you that excising religion from the past would not mean expunging morals.

I will take Roman Catholicism (as I am most familiar with it) here, but I am certain similar comparisons can be drawn for the other three major religions. Catholics believe in Christ and follow the Bible, that is their belief system in a nutshell. Their morals therefore, are outlined in the Bible, namely the King James version. In the Book of Deuteronomy stoning is advocated for numerous crimes. Then later in the Bible, Jesus (the apparent son of God) is completely against stoning. So either the bible is contradicting itself or it is wrong.

People say the Bible is a great source of morality, yet it openly advocates killing sinners. Nowadays the Catholic church is completely against that, meaning their morals have changed and developed. How can this be possible? God has pretty much been absent from the Earth since the time of Jesus i.e. there have been no modern prophets in a thousand or more years. So how have morals changed? They have changed because humanity has decided that some things are simply not ok. This means humans decided to go against established 'religious morals'. Meaning morality is a human trait, not a product of religion

That is one of a myriad of reasons why trying to tie morality to religion is beyond foolish.

As a matter of fact, a major part of morals is based on working together and having mutual if not benefit for the entire group of a species. So take the working together, help, kindness, all that stuff out and what do you get? Physically violent beings programmed to just feed and reproduce. Wouldn't be different from say, tigers, lions, bears and sharks, n'est ce pas? Human beings are the only ones that possess an advanced form of morals, I'm more inclined to say we're the only living organisms on this planet to have morals. What is moral, anyways? It's not just one thing, but a collection and combination of things.

This thread is about not having religion. Not about not having morals, so this paragraph is meaningless

One particular thing I noticed with the way this conversation was heading towards at the end was the usage of the word "evil". There is no good nor evil, or right or wrong in actuality: those are things that moral gave birth to, people who invented what is good and bad as a survival aid in the beginning, and later to place themselves in a luxurious status amongst their own kind. It's all based on value. Some of the ancient tribes today for example would not care about what Forever 21 is, or what Pac Sun has because 1) They don't know what is it and 2) They don't play a value on those things like further-advanced.

I didn't want you to think I missed this bit, it's just that it's totally unrelated to the title, 'We Would be Better off without Religion'

But I apologize, I am straying off topic. However, I must say, everything is inter-connected, there is no such thing as a useless or meaningless thing in this planet, galaxy, whatever, there is some sort of function and level of practicality to everything.

I am going to assume your point here, is that even Religion has a point and a purpose. It probably does, but that in no way means it is a good thing. If having purpose means something is good, then what about genocide, rape, child abuse, radioactive disasters, or the Kardashians?

When I said "It is what it is", it wasn't a form of apathy, nor the worst of anything that you so judged. Maybe you just don't understand how people work, and how religion works.

"It is what it is", the rallying cry of a scientific mind

The few reasons without me bringing every single subject known to man-kind and more to make a novel into why I think religion brings something to the table, and not necessarily "better"ing the world, is this: It adds more elements to life. Like others have already mentioned, Science has taken from religion in the form that, they wanted to prove that some of the supernatural elements were not real. In turn, Religion has taken from Science too. Proof? You see Christians and people of any other religion using technology. Cell phones. Computers. Whatever. For saying that science is evil, they're using every bit of that evil to their advantage too. But I digress, that would be the extreme form of it, although I would hope that if someone claims they're Christian, or whatever, they stick to it and go live under a rock and keep to themselves. Oops, my opinion slipped. Anyways, I've seen contrary to "what should be" religious nuts. You'll see everything from very faithful religious people to loose religious people. A great example would be some Catholic girls who who claim they're every bit innocent and nice and sweet, but are pretty much doing the opposite of what they say. I know some of these people personally, I don't give them shit for it but inside my head, I always tell myself this: People will take what they want out of something, twist and mold it to their liking, and drop it when they have no more use of it.

None of this is an argument for the world being better because of religion. All you have said is, the world is not better because of religion but it is different. I have no idea where you were going with your thrilling tale of catholic girls, but I assure you it had me on the edge of my seat.

Science has disproved phenomenon attributed to God or religion
Religious people make use of technology

I have no idea why you have made this juxtaposition

Why can't we take what is good from religion, and eliminate the problems it causes?

The only good part of religion are a few of the cherry picked morals, that is it. Effectively moral secularism

Oh, by the way, I am Atheist and I don't believe in a god or whatever, I believe in human beings and the things we choose to do. I believe in fine-tuning and controlling our primal urges to create a better living being, to become better people. I don't even really like calling myself an Atheist, because that's a label
/end rant.

I don't give a fuck if you are Siddhartha Gautama

a·the·ist   [ey-thee-ist] Show IPA
noun
a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

It is a word that says you do not believe in God, I have no idea why you would be against having a label like that. If I set you on fire would you be uncomfortable labelling yourself as on fire?


I realised I have not stated explicit reasons why we would be better off without religion, simply why nothing you posted is a remotely good argument for saying we'd be better with it

 

[Richard B Riddick]

You know...

The topic of religion is wayy too clouded by peoples emotions and popculture urban myths.

I think this is an accurate & unbiased analogy of religion in the current era...

Does God exist?

Is a similar statement to....

Is our existence real?

There's no way to determine if the things a person experiences are real.

Or, if their body is plugged into a matrix type computer which simulates reality.

Just as there is no way to determine whether or not God exists...

Therefore...

A.) To ask that someone prove God exists is like asking someone to prove we are or are not currently plugged into the matrix. It can't be proven nor disproven. Asking the question shows someone doesn't understand the context present.

B.) Criticizing someone for being unable to prove God exists, is like criticizing someone for being unable to prove whether or not we're in the matrix. It can't be proven - its impossible. Criticisms may well be considered unjustified.

 

[AerithG]

Personally, I don't know where I would be without religion, and I can say the same for other people that I know personally. My religion has not hurt me in anyway. It's always been a positive thing. It's kept me in line, it's gave me something to look forward to. It's made me a better person. What's the harm with that? You can argue, "What if God isn't real, won't you be hurt?" No. I won't be. Why? Because in my heart I truly believe in Him and love Him immensely, and to me that will never be a waste. For people who believe and trust in something so much, I'm sure you can say the same. I feel this way about my religion. My boyfriend has become a more positive person thanks to becoming a religious person. He had such a low self esteem, and when he found God he had just flunked out of college and was very depressed and thought of suicide. Religion helped him to see there was another path and that even if there are dark days, every cloud has a silver lining.

I'm not here to have a silly religious debate, because no matter what you try to shove into my mind, you'll never be able to. I fully believe in my religion with my entire being, and I'm proud of it, just as you all proud of whatever it is you're proud of.