We Would be Better off without Religion

[Richard B Riddick]

On a personal level, I think if I didn't believe in a God or if I didn't believe that it was worthwhile to try to be a decent and respectable person, my life would be much more negative.

If people did something that offended me, I would probably try to get revenge. I know a lot of people try to be evil up to a certain point. I don't think I would walk that line. If I didn't feel morally inclined to treat people well on a religious basis, I think I would straight up try to destroy people.

I wouldn't be fair nor moral or ethical about it. I wouldn't content myself with making dead baby jokes in a webchat or spewing profanity. I could imagine myself waiting outside of pplz places of employment I didn't like with a ski mask waiting for them to finish work so I could beat the !@#% out of them.

Likewise, a lot of the people I see who try to pretend they're "evil" and "badasses". I could easily imagine myself finding a way to drag them into an alley and showing them they're nowhere near as "evil" or "bad" as they may think.. And, that they shouldn't joke about some things or take pleasure in the suffering of others & be more respectful.

That's how I feel in my heart & the natural reaction I have to a lot of things.

Maybe I have borderline psycho tendencies... and religion is more or less the only reason I don't act upon them.

But, I do tend to think that a lot of people vastly underestimate the value of religion and the positive influence it has.

 

[Will Graham]

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.

This is pretty much totally irrelevant to whether or not we would be better off without religion

On a personal level, I think if I didn't believe in a God or if I didn't believe that it was worthwhile to try to be a decent and respectable person, my life would be much more negative.

If people did something that offended me, I would probably try to get revenge. I know a lot of people try to be evil up to a certain point. I don't think I would walk that line. If I didn't feel morally inclined to treat people well on a religious basis, I think I would straight up try to destroy people.

I wouldn't be fair nor moral or ethical about it. I wouldn't content myself with making dead baby jokes in a webchat or spewing profanity. I could imagine myself waiting outside of pplz places of employment I didn't like with a ski mask waiting for them to finish work so I could beat the !@#% out of them.

Likewise, a lot of the people I see who try to pretend they're "evil" and "badasses". I could easily imagine myself finding a way to drag them into an alley and showing them they're nowhere near as "evil" or "bad" as they may think.. And, that they shouldn't joke about some things or take pleasure in the suffering of others & be more respectful.

That's how I feel in my heart & the natural reaction I have to a lot of things.

Maybe I have borderline psycho tendencies... and religion is more or less the only reason I don't act upon them.

But, I do tend to think that a lot of people vastly underestimate the value of religion and the positive influence it has.

I am going to assume you subscribe to one of the Judeo-Christian faiths, in which case vengeance is outlined as the correct course of action.

"Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe." Exodus 21:24-25

 

[Richard B Riddick]

This is pretty much totally irrelevant to whether or not we would be better off without religion

Theists say God exists.

Atheists say the opposite.

No one can prove anything.

Could religion or the idea that God exists be any worse than its polar opposite? Probably not.

The entirety of the atheist argument against religion is... "lots of faceless, nameless, anonymous, people throughout history used religion as an excuse for bad things".

Well... big deal.

You don't eliminate war or anything negative by eliminating religion.

Atheists are known for using atheism to justify evil as well. Joseph Stalin and his attempted purge of religion is one example. Kim Jong and other atheist communists are guilty of the same religious oppression and intolerance as the church of england.

No single group nor demographic has a patent or monopoly on stupidity, intolerance, ignorance or evil. Nor is any group exempt from those things. To pretend that religion is the sole source of evil or only reason people commit evil, as atheists do, is ignorance.

If people didn't use religion to justify war, they'd use something else. Its not a question of what real causes of things like war or suffering are. But, rather which is the most expedient and convenient lever to influence people towards some desired end.

Common sense.

Or not so common considering how often I've heard this before....

I am going to assume you subscribe to one of the Judeo-Christian faiths, in which case vengeance is outlined as the correct course of action.

"Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe." Exodus 21:24-25

Laws and ideals change to suit circumstances.

Things that were legal or illegal centuries ago, wouldn't necessarily be valid in the current age.

To give you an example...

Killing someone is considered unethical.

But, if it occurs as a result of self defense, many might consider that to be ethical, even though its still killing.

Is it a contradiction? No.

In one era, it was ideal to have an eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth, justice system.

In another era, it was not ideal.

During world war 2, both allied and axis powers intentionally bombed civilian targets. Germany pounded britain for months on end. The United States nuked japanese civilian targets twice.

Later we had the geneva convention & today we consider targeting civilian targets to be immoral.

America adopted a policy of bombing civilians during world war ii, then changed its stance to one of not bombing civilians. Does that look like a contradiction to you? [:

Its a logical fallacy to assume its acceptable to judge previous eras within the context of the present.

A fallacy atheists seem determined to abuse repeatedly...

 

[Will Graham]

Theists say God exists.

Atheists say the opposite.

No one can prove anything.

Could religion or the idea that God exists be any worse than its polar opposite? Probably not.

The entirety of the atheist argument against religion is... "lots of faceless, nameless, anonymous, people throughout history used religion as an excuse for bad things".

Well... big deal.

You don't eliminate war or anything negative by eliminating religion.

Atheists are known for using atheism to justify evil as well. Joseph Stalin and his attempted purge of religion is one example. Kim Jong and other atheist communists are guilty of the same religious oppression and intolerance as the church of england.

No single group nor demographic has a patent or monopoly on stupidity, intolerance, ignorance or evil. Nor is any group exempt from those things. To pretend that religion is the sole source of evil or only reason people commit evil, as atheists do, is ignorance.

If people didn't use religion to justify war, they'd use something else. Its not a question of what real causes of things like war or suffering are. But, rather which is the most expedient and convenient lever to influence people towards some desired end.

Common sense.

Or not so common considering how often I've heard this before....

Stalin is not the same as say, the leaders of the Crusades. Stalin wanted power and control over Russia, he did not do this due to his disbelief in God telling him to. The leaders of the Crusades, for the most part, believed that God wanted them to burn heretics and bring religious teachings to the heathens.

Yes a lot of evil is done because people are evil and probably use religion as an excuse, but that is just a subset of all the evil in the world. The Holy Wars that would disappear are the ones where people really believed God wanted them to destroy the infidels etc.

Or are you telling me all religious wars were just people saying, "oh yeah, ehhhhhhhhhhhhh God told us to do it, it's not about power and money or that"? That no war has been fought due to a belief that some higher power wanted you to do this?

Laws and ideals change to suit circumstances.

Things that were legal or illegal centuries ago, wouldn't necessarily be valid in the current age.

To give you an example...

Killing someone is considered unethical.

But, if it occurs as a result of self defense, many might consider that to be ethical, even though its still killing.

Is it a contradiction? No.

In one era, it was ideal to have an eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth, justice system.

In another era, it was not ideal.

During world war 2, both allied and axis powers intentionally bombed civilian targets. Germany pounded britain for months on end. The United States nuked japanese civilian targets twice.

Later we had the geneva convention & today we consider targeting civilian targets to be immoral.

America adopted a policy of bombing civilians during world war ii, then changed its stance to one of not bombing civilians. Does that look like a contradiction to you? [:

Its a logical fallacy to assume its acceptable to judge previous eras within the context of the present.

A fallacy atheists seem determined to abuse repeatedly...

Human laws decided by humans are not the same as the laws laid down by God. We are humans so we can change our laws as we see fit, only God can change the laws he set down. If humans could change the law of God as they wanted, then why would we ever listen to them in the first place?

I am going to assume you follow the bible, or at least base your faith off it even if you do not class yourself as part of any organised religion. As such you should be more familiar with the text that outlines your beliefs

Your example of eating pork is a great one to use in order to prove my point. If you eat pork you are committing a sin, as eating pork is an abomination. If that had changed then God would have told you, you can't decide that by yourself as

the Scripture cannot be broken John 10:35 b

You might think the the because the Bible was written so long ago, how we interpret it should evolve, but

Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. 2 Peter 1:16-20

If the Bible is out of date then the only way it could be updated is if God spoke directly to humanity. Of course this has not occurred, he has been silent for nigh on two thousand years apparently

This means that Christian morality has not changed because God wanted it to be changed (it says as much in the bible, which claims it is infallible). It has changed because humans are governed by some kind of underlying morality, that says some things are simply not ok

 

[Richard B Riddick]

Stalin is not the same as say, the leaders of the Crusades. Stalin wanted power and control over Russia, he did not do this due to his disbelief in God telling him to. The leaders of the Crusades, for the most part, believed that God wanted them to burn heretics and bring religious teachings to the heathens.

Yes a lot of evil is done because people are evil and probably use religion as an excuse, but that is just a subset of all the evil in the world. The Holy Wars that would disappear are the ones where people really believed God wanted them to destroy the infidels etc.

Or are you telling me all religious wars were just people saying, "oh yeah, ehhhhhhhhhhhhh God told us to do it, it's not about power and money or that"? That no war has been fought due to a belief that some higher power wanted you to do this?

Whether an excuse for war is imaginary-invisible-wmds, communism, imaginary-invisible-terrorism, religion, atheism, gold, land, resources, /other makes no difference.

To claim religion is the only excuse used for such things is a fallacy.

Science is most responsible for the holocaust and forced sterilizations of that era. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_eugenics

Nero was a roman emperor who was perhaps known for persecuting christians on the basis of religious differences.

Does this mean we would be better off without science or atheism simply because someone can cite a historical event which occurred thousands of years ago in which someone used them as excuses to commit wrongs?

...

Contrary to popular belief, those who instigated the Crusades didn't do it for free. The arabs of that era were filthy rich and the crusaders looted and plundered their valuables. To suggest that it was solely motivated by God and that material gain had absolutely nothing to do with it is a bit inaccurate, imo.

I think both the crusaders and Stalin knew an opportunity for monetary and political gain when they saw it & both took advantage of the opportunity.

On the topic of the crusades being a "major evil"....

How many people died during the crusades? Probably less than a million.

So, thats a million casualties blamed on religion.

Ok, now how many people did an atheist named Stalin starve to death during his reign?

He starved near to 20 million people until they died.

Then, you have another atheist named Mao Zedong who starved near to 50 million chinese until they died.

And, the late deceased atheist Kim Jong is well known for starving more than 1 million north koreans until they died, also.

So, tell me, based on the practices of the 3 atheists named above in terms of how they run their government would you want to live in their country?

Also, how is it that atheists constantly bring up historical events like the crusades which resulted in less than a million fatalities and completely ignore the actions of atheists in government which led to 70 million or more fatalities?

You can take the typical route and claim that Stalin didn't do what he did because of atheism.

I think Stalin being an atheist who did not believe in an afterlife or divine punishment played a major role in him being able to starve 20 million people to death without thinking a God or creator might punish him for it.

Perhaps if Stalin and Mao Zedong believed there was a hell waiting for them where they would be repaid for their crimes against humanity, they wouldn't have engaged in the inhuman and immoral treatments they're responsible for as noted by history.

In that - religion can be a positive influence. And, can perhaps curb some of the more sadistic tendencies evidenced by some of the more immoral and cruel atheists.

If you want more historical footnotes - the fall of the USSR occurred under the administration of Mikhail Gorbachev(atheist).

Australia passed internet censorship recently when an atheist became prime minister.... Etcetera, etcetera.

Judging by the behavior of Nero, Mao Zedong, Pot Pol, Stalin and other atheists, perhaps the world would be better off without atheism?

Human laws decided by humans are not the same as the laws laid down by God.

Whether laws are written by man or God doesn't imply laws are static constants.

The Pope admitted there was good evidence for evolution, years ago. Acknowledging evolution illustrates people have an influence upon church policy & religion, maybe.

Eating pork was considered abominable in previous eras.

Possibly do to trichinosis:

Trichinosis, also called trichinellosis, or trichiniasis, is a parasitic disease caused by eating raw or undercooked pork or wild game infected with the larvae of a species of roundworm Trichinella spiralis, commonly called the trichina worm. There are eight Trichinella species; five are encapsulated and three are not.[1] Only three Trichinella species are known to cause trichinosis: T. spiralis, T. nativa, and T. britovi.[1] The few cases in the United States are mostly the result of eating undercooked game, bear meat, or home-reared pigs. It is common in developing countries where meat fed to pigs is raw or undercooked

Now that our knowledge has advanced to a point where trichinosis is no longer much of an issue, perhaps things are different.

You might think the the because the Bible was written so long ago, how we interpret it should evolve, but

It does 'evolve' to suit specific circumstances.

Example - old testament -> new testament. There are fundamental differences between the two which may illustrate that biblical precepts do change over time to suit circumstances rather than embody imperative, static, constants.

If the Bible is out of date then the only way it could be updated is if God spoke directly to humanity. Of course this has not occurred, he has been silent for nigh on two thousand years apparently

This means that Christian morality has not changed because God wanted it to be changed (it says as much in the bible, which claims it is infallible). It has changed because humans are governed by some kind of underlying morality, that says some things are simply not ok

Remember, the Bible is 'divinely inspired'.

More divine inspiration should be sufficient to update it?

 

[Marquis of Granby]

Whether an excuse for war is imaginary-invisible-wmds, communism, imaginary-invisible-terrorism, religion, atheism, gold, land, resources, /other makes no difference.

agreed

To claim religion is the only excuse used for such things is a fallacy.

i dont think anyone has ever claimed that. religion incites hatred and war far more because it says "we are the good people for believing and the rest are just filthy infidels who will go to a terrible place when they die unless they love and worship x/y/z".

Science is most responsible for the holocaust and forced sterilizations of that era. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_eugenics

incorrect. adolf hitler was a roman catholic and believed he was doing the work of god - clearing out the jews. the nazi scientists presumably shared his views, or maybe they were just mental, who knows? but it was his central view that he was doing the bidding of god that allowed these people to what they did. the fact that they used scientific methods to achieve their goals doesnt make science evil. no more than you would blame your tv for so called televangelists. they use television to get the message out, but presumably if they love jesus and god so much they would still be preaching regardless of whether or not we had television.

Nero was a roman emperor who was perhaps known for persecuting christians on the basis of religious differences.

Does this mean we would be better off without science or atheism simply because someone can cite a historical event which occurred thousands of years ago in which someone used them as excuses to commit wrongs?

well romans were not typically atheists, so i wouldnt imagine that nero was himself. you cant blame non belief in a deity for this one. also science and atheism arent the same thing. one is a system for explaining things through observable evidence, the other is just a lack of belief.

Contrary to popular belief, those who instigated the Crusades didn't do it for free. The arabs of that era were filthy rich and the crusaders looted and plundered their valuables. To suggest that it was solely motivated by God and that material gain had absolutely nothing to do with it is a bit inaccurate, imo.

yes yes, religious people can be greedy too. thats not something new. just look at the catholic church and its billions (if not more). all that proves is that we know religion and the idea of god is a good way to make the moola. for some.

How many people died during the crusades? Probably less than a million.

So, thats a million casualties blamed on religion.

Ok, now how many people did an atheist named Stalin starve to death during his reign?

He starved near to 20 million people until they died.

Then, you have another atheist named Mao Zedong who starved near to 50 million chinese until they died.

And, the late deceased atheist Kim Jong is well known for starving more than 1 million north koreans until they died, also.

So, tell me, based on the practices of the 3 atheists named above in terms of how they run their government would you want to live in their country?

Also, how is it that atheists constantly bring up historical events like the crusades which resulted in less than a million fatalities and completely ignore the actions of atheists in government which led to 70 million or more fatalities?

You can take the typical route and claim that Stalin didn't do what he did because of atheism.

I think Stalin being an atheist who did not believe in an afterlife or divine punishment played a major role in him being able to starve 20 million people to death without thinking a God or creator might punish him for it.

Perhaps if Stalin and Mao Zedong believed there was a hell waiting for them where they would be repaid for their crimes against humanity, they wouldn't have engaged in the inhuman and immoral treatments they're responsible for as noted by history.

In that - religion can be a positive influence. And, can perhaps curb some of the more sadistic tendencies evidenced by some of the more immoral and cruel atheists.

the argument that they did not do this because they were atheist stands. the crusades - killing and stealing in the name of god. god said and so we will do. we see it all around the world. peoples' interpretation of what god says differs so much, but still they do these things in his name. the crimes against humanity that youre blaming on the lack of belief in a deity doesnt make sense. they arent acting based on their belief that there is no god. they have other agendas. i can say that you, or any other person (of an organised religion) will do "god's will", however it is you choose to interpret that, and you will do it because your god says you should. but i cant say that stalin starved x million people to death because he thought "there is no god so i can do what i like". his religious beliefs or lack thereof are beside the point because he didnt carry out those actions in the name of his supposed lack of belief in a deity.

Australia passed internet censorship recently when an atheist became prime minister.... Etcetera, etcetera.

again, this action wasnt based on the lack of belief in a deity. religion itself has been censoring science and fact since dot, almost always because it contradicts their holy scripture or what they believe their god tells them. they did it in the name of their god.

Judging by the behavior of Nero, Mao Zedong, Pot Pol, Stalin and other atheists, perhaps the world would be better off without atheism?

well we already know the answer to that. no. because we've had such a long period where non believers were silenced and even killed simply because they did not believe. or even because they believed the wrong thing. and again in the name of a god. religion and god arent trivial things like santa claus and the tooth fairy. i say that not because i believe in a god or subscribe to a religion, but no one ive heard of starts wars, stones people to death, rapes, steals, condemns people to hell based on their belief of santa claus or the tooth fairy - two things which make kids happy when theyre young. and then they grow out of it when their parents tell them "i put that money under your pillow" or "i drank the milk and ate the cookies and put the presents under the tree". im not saying you kill and rape and steal in the name of your religion - i doubt you do - but there are those that do. and the question is would we be better off without religion?

Whether laws are written by man or God doesn't imply laws are static constants.

The Pope admitted there was good evidence for evolution, years ago. Acknowledging evolution illustrates people have an influence upon church policy & religion, maybe.

not every christian accepts the pope's authority. church policy is not necessarily the same as the word of god. if your god says you shouldn't eat pork, then you shouldn't eat pork. if you eat pork then you are defying your god. unless your god comes back and says "actually this stuff's munchin, you should try it" or something to that effect then pork is off limits.

Eating pork was considered abominable in previous eras.

Possibly do to trichinosis:

Trichinosis, also called trichinellosis, or trichiniasis, is a parasitic disease caused by eating raw or undercooked pork or wild game infected with the larvae of a species of roundworm Trichinella spiralis, commonly called the trichina worm. There are eight Trichinella species; five are encapsulated and three are not.[1] Only three Trichinella species are known to cause trichinosis: T. spiralis, T. nativa, and T. britovi.[1] The few cases in the United States are mostly the result of eating undercooked game, bear meat, or home-reared pigs. It is common in developing countries where meat fed to pigs is raw or undercooked

Now that our knowledge has advanced to a point where trichinosis is no longer much of an issue, perhaps things are different.

this sounds like an argument for religion having been man made, not against it. if god knew, and presumably he would since he is all seeing and all knowing, that bacteria in pig meat might be harmful, he might have just said "2 hours at gasmark 5 lads" instead of "ITS AN ABOMINATION!!!!!!!!". either hes a fucking idiot that isnt all seeing and all knowing (sounds a bit like a human doesnt he?) or hes just very dramatic.

Example - old testament -> new testament. There are fundamental differences between the two which may illustrate that biblical precepts do change over time to suit circumstances rather than embody imperative, static, constants.

Remember, the Bible is 'divinely inspired'.

More divine inspiration should be sufficient to update it?

ahhhhh yeds, the rebranding of god, as my great irish pal put it. from a nasty, hateful creature, to a less nasty, less hateful creature. but youre all still born into sin and if you dont repent, you'll go to hell.

but surely, again, if god is all seeing and all knowing he would already have foreseen that we dont deem it necessary to stone adulterers to death, or to stone homosexuals, or the infidel, or this, or that, or the next thing. he would already know how all our societies have developed and so he lied to ancient tribesmen who were a kick in the arse off of cave dwellers. he lied to them for thousands of years, and only now does he see fit to say "well ok. maybe we dont like the gays but we dont have to kill them.". it sounds like what youre saying is that the rest of society refuses to accept that kind of behaviour and religion has had to change, not because god said it, but because we said it. at least in the western world.

i dont think religion is entirely bad. i know it isnt. but the kind of fanatacism it incites is mad and dangerous. we do need something that encourages us to do unto others, but we need it without the idea of infidels, and the fear of an eternal torture after we die. to say that we could never be kind or generous or "moral" without these ideas is insulting quite frankly. we might just be a cunthair off of chimpanzees but we owe ourselves more than that.

 

[Ohri-Jin]

http://abcnews.go.com/m/story?id=10243784
Scientists discovered moral codes are imprinted in the brain.
Spirit molecule in the brain that can take you to other state of mind. Perhap other dimensions.
Studies on several ppl meditating or enchanting shows sections of the brains working way differently.
Your brain will show you evil things when you are in a place with strong magnetic flows.

Chi can be focused and channeled etc.

These has been proven, but scientists couldnt explain all of the enigmas.
What if God has made a lot of hidden messages in our brain?
Or in the universe?

What if the soul really exist and our bodies are mere vessels. Your soul will be in countless vessels till its time to return.

What if our mind/brain is receptive for some type of signals?
Maybe there is a higher being out there. But we are not ready to engage it.

Without religion would we be creative? Would we be openminded?
If you dont think there is a higher being out there, you will never be spiritual.

Religion can be spiritual and I believe in spirituality.
Karma is an aspect of religion as well.

Religion is important on its own. But humans make it theirs.
Believe in things you cant necessarily see. So imo without religion many ppl wouldnt have elevated their state of mind.





The brain such a mysterious item.

 

[Will Graham]

That is not the point of that article at all, they just used the magnets to knock down certain brain signals which are usually active when making a moral judgement. That is simply the part of your brain that processes decisions that'd be seen as morality. the magnets were a special tool, magnetic fields in nature would have nothing to do with it.

"It's less about a 'moral center in the brain' and more about how we infer another's mental state when making judgments about their actions – and mis-infer … after transient disruption of the RTPJ," says Kristina Visscher, assistant professor at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.

It says absolutely nothing about the brain having pre-programmed morals or focussing chi

 

[Richard B Riddick]

i dont think anyone has ever claimed that. religion incites hatred and war far more because it says "we are the good people for believing and the rest are just filthy infidels who will go to a terrible place when they die unless they love and worship x/y/z".

Hmmm.. Not sure.

incorrect. adolf hitler was a roman catholic and believed he was doing the work of god - clearing out the jews.

America ran a forced sterilization program of its own during that era.

The most significant era of eugenic sterilization was between 1907 and 1963, when over 64,000 individuals were forcibly sterilized under eugenic legislation in the United States.

(a few paragraphs down)

When Nazi administrators went on trial for war crimes in Nuremberg after World War II, they justified the mass sterilizations (over 450,000 in less than a decade) by citing the United States as their inspiration.[75] The Nazis had claimed American eugenicists inspired and supported Hitler's racial purification laws, and failed to understand the connection between those policies and the eventual genocide of the Holocaust.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics#United_States

A scientific theory called eugenics claimed mass sterilizations were justified to prevent the human gene pool from becoming contaminated.

It was science, not religion, that was mainly responsible for the holocaust and mass sterilizations of the era. The concept of a 'master race' is based on eugenics theory which was considered valid science during that time...

well romans were not typically atheists, so i wouldnt imagine that nero was himself. you cant blame non belief in a deity for this one. also science and atheism arent the same thing. one is a system for explaining things through observable evidence, the other is just a lack of belief.

I think every atheist, communist, government in history has been horrible.

That's not necessarily an isolated statistic.

yes yes, religious people can be greedy too. thats not something new. just look at the catholic church and its billions (if not more). all that proves is that we know religion and the idea of god is a good way to make the moola. for some.

lol very true

Even non profit groups associated with christianity manage to exploit loopholes allowing them to own private jets and drive bentleys.

the argument that they did not do this because they were atheist stands. the crusades - killing and stealing in the name of god. god said and so we will do. we see it all around the world. peoples' interpretation of what god says differs so much, but still they do these things in his name. the crimes against humanity that youre blaming on the lack of belief in a deity doesnt make sense. they arent acting based on their belief that there is no god. they have other agendas. i can say that you, or any other person (of an organised religion) will do "god's will", however it is you choose to interpret that, and you will do it because your god says you should. but i cant say that stalin starved x million people to death because he thought "there is no god so i can do what i like". his religious beliefs or lack thereof are beside the point because he didnt carry out those actions in the name of his supposed lack of belief in a deity.

God said to go to war to claim jerusalem? When? Where?

again, this action wasnt based on the lack of belief in a deity. religion itself has been censoring science and fact since dot, almost always because it contradicts their holy scripture or what they believe their god tells them. they did it in the name of their god.

It may have been based upon the belief they could starve millions of people to death and get away with it, which atheism would seem to advocate.

well we already know the answer to that. no. because we've had such a long period where non believers were silenced and even killed simply because they did not believe. or even because they believed the wrong thing. and again in the name of a god. religion and god arent trivial things like santa claus and the tooth fairy. i say that not because i believe in a god or subscribe to a religion, but no one ive heard of starts wars, stones people to death, rapes, steals, condemns people to hell based on their belief of santa claus or the tooth fairy - two things which make kids happy when theyre young. and then they grow out of it when their parents tell them "i put that money under your pillow" or "i drank the milk and ate the cookies and put the presents under the tree". im not saying you kill and rape and steal in the name of your religion - i doubt you do - but there are those that do. and the question is would we be better off without religion?

It helps if you understand politics.

Politics is about influencing people and getting them to do what you want without them realizing it. The way you achieve this is by targeting demographics.

If 90% of a population is religious and 10% is atheist, you influence people by convincing them "god" wants them to do something.

If 10% of a population is atheist and 90% is religious, you influence people by appealing to things atheist demographics consider important.

Leaders and politicians talking about "god" has absolutely nothing to do with an actual God, and moreso to do with it being a means of appealing to a majority religious demographic.

The crusades were about monetary and material gain. Most of those alive were religious, hence it makes sense to publicize religious reasons for war.

It has more to do with circumstances in general than it does religion being blameworthy for something. Any lunatic can say they're doing something in the name of god or atheism. It doesn't necessarily mean such is the case.

not every christian accepts the pope's authority. church policy is not necessarily the same as the word of god. if your god says you shouldn't eat pork, then you shouldn't eat pork. if you eat pork then you are defying your god. unless your god comes back and says "actually this stuff's munchin, you should try it" or something to that effect then pork is off limits.

Not every atheist accepts Richard Dawkins authority, yet he does exert an influence upon many.

Its not so much about whether or not something affects everyone...

It has more to do with whether people exert an influence over religion.

this sounds like an argument for religion having been man made, not against it. if god knew, and presumably he would since he is all seeing and all knowing, that bacteria in pig meat might be harmful, he might have just said "2 hours at gasmark 5 lads" instead of "ITS AN ABOMINATION!!!!!!!!". either hes a fucking idiot that isnt all seeing and all knowing (sounds a bit like a human doesnt he?) or hes just very dramatic.

If God warned people cell phones and airport scanners can give them cancer, they'd probably use them anyway.

Atheists are fond of saying they don't need God to hold their hand or offer wisdom as they believe they've matured beyond the point where they need the guidance of a deity.

If you don't need the guidance of a deity, why criticize God for what you perceive to be a lack of guidance?

ahhhhh yeds, the rebranding of god, as my great irish pal put it. from a nasty, hateful creature, to a less nasty, less hateful creature. but youre all still born into sin and if you dont repent, you'll go to hell.

but surely, again, if god is all seeing and all knowing he would already have foreseen that we dont deem it necessary to stone adulterers to death, or to stone homosexuals, or the infidel, or this, or that, or the next thing. he would already know how all our societies have developed and so he lied to ancient tribesmen who were a kick in the arse off of cave dwellers. he lied to them for thousands of years, and only now does he see fit to say "well ok. maybe we dont like the gays but we dont have to kill them.". it sounds like what youre saying is that the rest of society refuses to accept that kind of behaviour and religion has had to change, not because god said it, but because we said it. at least in the western world.

i dont think religion is entirely bad. i know it isnt. but the kind of fanatacism it incites is mad and dangerous. we do need something that encourages us to do unto others, but we need it without the idea of infidels, and the fear of an eternal torture after we die. to say that we could never be kind or generous or "moral" without these ideas is insulting quite frankly. we might just be a cunthair off of chimpanzees but we owe ourselves more than that.

Religion doesn't incite fanaticism.

There's a reason we distinguish between muslims and muslims extremists.

Its generally to acknowledge not all religious individuals are fanatics and that religion itself isn't a major source of fanaticism.

 

[Ohri-Jin]

That is not the point of that article at all, they just used the magnets to knock down certain brain signals which are usually active when making a moral judgement. That is simply the part of your brain that processes decisions that'd be seen as morality. the magnets were a special tool, magnetic fields in nature would have nothing to do with it.



It says absolutely nothing about the brain having pre-programmed morals or focussing chi

My first 4 sentences have to be judged on seperately. Only on the first sentence and link you might be right. However deep down we usually know whats wrong or right and I thought maybe because it was imprinted somehow.

Those 4 subjects/sentences are 4 different aspects.

I should have posted solid links of articles at each sentence/subject.

I havent read the article myself, but just googled it. I should have put up something concrete.

I could have sworn I read a article where it stated feeling of good or evil might be imprinted in the brain. I guess I posted the wrong link.


About the Chi is something I saw in FIGHT SCIENCE and maybe people from Tibet. They tested a man which had a spear under his troath and it didnt pierce him. They couldnt explain why.

Also there is a dutch dude which can withstand extreme cold temperatures for extended times. Apparantly because of meditating.

There are more things than just those things we can see. Spirituality baby!

 

[Will Graham]

Hmmm.. Not sure.

You need to accept the fact that there have been Holy Wars where people went to war solely based on religious ideology. Cases where they were not just using religion as an excuse. Also your last example of Nero persecuting the Christians was a great one, considering Nero was a believer. He even believed that God wanted him to sack the temple in Jerusalem.

America ran a forced sterilization program of its own during that era.



A scientific theory called eugenics claimed mass sterilizations were justified to prevent the human gene pool from becoming contaminated.

It was science, not religion, that was mainly responsible for the holocaust and mass sterilizations of the era. The concept of a 'master race' is based on eugenics theory which was considered valid science during that time...

Well first of all of the presidents of USA and I am sure most of it's politicians and congressmen are religious, not atheists. So I am not sure why you see that as a rebuttal.

Your second point is much more worrisome, science does not preach anything, science did not advocate anything. The men who were using science (most of whom were also religious) are the ones who decided to cull the population. They abused science, which before you say it, is not the same as abusing or misinterpreting religion. It would be like saying maths or the alphabet are responsible for a crime.

I think every atheist, communist, government in history has been horrible.

That's not necessarily an isolated statistic.

The only two that I know of that hit both of those are Russia under Stalin and China, which is not surprising. To admit you are an atheist in any other kind of governmental process is political suicide, unless you are a dictator (in most cases). Not to mention Franco, Mussolini, Hitler, and Salazar being religious men.

God said to go to war to claim jerusalem? When? Where?

He did not as far as I am aware, but people believed that he did

It may have been based upon the belief they could starve millions of people to death and get away with it, which atheism would seem to advocate.

Atheism is the belief that there is/are no God/s of any description, it advocates nothing at all, and teaches nothing at all. To be honest that comment sounds like baiting or scare-mongering at best, and ignorance at worst.

It helps if you understand politics.

Politics is about influencing people and getting them to do what you want without them realizing it. The way you achieve this is by targeting demographics.

If 90% of a population is religious and 10% is atheist, you influence people by convincing them "god" wants them to do something.

If 10% of a population is atheist and 90% is religious, you influence people by appealing to things atheist demographics consider important.

Leaders and politicians talking about "god" has absolutely nothing to do with an actual God, and moreso to do with it being a means of appealing to a majority religious demographic.

The crusades were about monetary and material gain. Most of those alive were religious, hence it makes sense to publicize religious reasons for war.

It has more to do with circumstances in general than it does religion being blameworthy for something. Any lunatic can say they're doing something in the name of god or atheism. It doesn't necessarily mean such is the case.



Not every atheist accepts Richard Dawkins authority, yet he does exert an influence upon many.

Its not so much about whether or not something affects everyone...

It has more to do with whether people exert an influence over religion.



If God warned people cell phones and airport scanners can give them cancer, they'd probably use them anyway.

Atheists are fond of saying they don't need God to hold their hand or offer wisdom as they believe they've matured beyond the point where they need the guidance of a deity.

If you don't need the guidance of a deity, why criticize God for what you perceive to be a lack of guidance?



Religion doesn't incite fanaticism.

There's a reason we distinguish between muslims and muslims extremists.

Its generally to acknowledge not all religious individuals are fanatics and that religion itself isn't a major source of fanaticism.

I am just going to take this all in one go, as you seem to keep ignoring the same points again and again, perhaps it is because I am not explaining them simply enough, if so I apologise.

You base your beliefs on the Bible, everything you know about God and morality comes from there, agreed? That is what you have told us over the last few posts

You then go on to say that your morals and interpretations of the bible have evolved, or at least humanity's has, so yours has as well

This is where the illogicality appears

How can you pick and choose which parts of the Bible you think are good, and which you think are bad? That implies that you think some parts of the Bible are wrong, in which case how can you be sure that any parts of it are correct?

Now even if you can get around that somehow

The Bible says it is infallible, that is not an idea, that is a fact that it states. It says you cannot have any private interpretation of scripture, and that scripture can NOT be broken. So there is no way to rationalise eating pork, you are breaking scripture, simple as

Please explain this, and don't just say it was written in a different time. If the Bible is really the word of God, then it is the word of omniscience so it should always stand. If it is not the word of God, then why would you pay it any mind? As that would mean it is only written by men and has no input from God

If your faith has evolved then does that mean that people in the past were wrong in the way they interpreted the Bible? So they are all going to hell for not having an advanced understanding of it like you?

Dawkins is an atheist just like us, so we can understand his thoughts and arguments. He is not a leader of atheists he is just a well known and outspoken one. Atheists do not have any kind of organised structure, you cannot lump them together as one group.

You are not just like God, so what gives you the right to interpret the rules handed down by an infinitely intelligent and powerful being?

What is the worst thing a fanatical atheist has done?

Please answer these questions for me, keeping in mind that your trichinosis argument has shown to time and time again be irrelevant.

 

[Marquis of Granby]

Hmmm.. Not sure.

you're not sure? of what? that religion incites hatred? that it says "we are good and they are bad?". obviously that isnt your interpretation of it but whenever someone does something and justifies it with a quote from their holy scripture(s) they are doing it in the name of their god. if you have been indoctrinated to believe that god is loving you will have a different interpretation to someone who has been indoctrinated to believe that god is a fearce, angry tyrant. though you may both be reading the same scripture you can "justify" your own interpretation by picking and choosing other parts of the scripture that fit your interpretation of god.

America ran a forced sterilization program of its own during that era.

A scientific theory called eugenics claimed mass sterilizations were justified to prevent the human gene pool from becoming contaminated.

It was science, not religion, that was mainly responsible for the holocaust and mass sterilizations of the era. The concept of a 'master race' is based on eugenics theory which was considered valid science during that time...

thats fine, but if you look at the quote i responded to you specifically mentioned nazis.

I think every atheist, communist, government in history has been horrible.

That's not necessarily an isolated statistic.

but again, none of them justified their actions based on their lack of belief in a deity. whereas a religious person a la adolf hitler would (and did) specifically say that he was carrying out god's will. god commanded him. he carried out his actions in the name of god. the fact that many christians would disagree with his interpretation of the scripture is beside the point. you have a holy book which is so vague it allows all these different interpretations. you have...who knows how many different denominations of the same religion. sub religions. thats how vague your holy text is. that is why it allows some people to spread the love in the name of god and others to kill millions in the name of god. and that is dangerous.

lol very true

Even non profit groups associated with christianity manage to exploit loopholes allowing them to own private jets and drive bentleys.

im glad we agree.

God said to go to war to claim jerusalem? When? Where?

apparently he didnt say it was ok to eat pork either. you just have it on the word of a jew who claimed to be his son.

It may have been based upon the belief they could starve millions of people to death and get away with it, which atheism would seem to advocate.

atheism doesnt advocate anything. nor does it preach anything. it is simply the lack of belief in a deity. which obviously sounds strange to you because without god you would be murdering and raping and stealing all day long. somehow - without god - i am succeeding in not doing that.

It helps if you understand politics.

Politics is about influencing people and getting them to do what you want without them realizing it. The way you achieve this is by targeting demographics.

If 90% of a population is religious and 10% is atheist, you influence people by convincing them "god" wants them to do something.

If 10% of a population is atheist and 90% is religious, you influence people by appealing to things atheist demographics consider important.

Leaders and politicians talking about "god" has absolutely nothing to do with an actual God, and moreso to do with it being a means of appealing to a majority religious demographic.

The crusades were about monetary and material gain. Most of those alive were religious, hence it makes sense to publicize religious reasons for war.

so religion is bastardised by the politicians. thats nothing new. the religious leaders do nothing about that. thats nothing new. religion is a method for controlling the masses. again nothing new.

It has more to do with circumstances in general than it does religion being blameworthy for something. Any lunatic can say they're doing something in the name of god or atheism. It doesn't necessarily mean such is the case.

nothing is done in the name of atheism. it is the lack of belief in a deity. you would have to want there to be a god to say "im doing this because there is no god". it implies that you cant help yourself. you need a god to stop you. maybe thats what youre trying to get at? that i need god to stop me from killing and raping and stealing? well guess what. here i stand. innocent of all those charges. with no god on my side.

i dont think that muslim extemist suicide bombers are lunatics. they are muslims who have been taught the interpretation of a fearce, angry tyrant of a god who wants the infidels dead. and you can bet any amount of money that they truly believe that, just as you believe the opposite. they are doing the will of their god.

Not every atheist accepts Richard Dawkins authority, yet he does exert an influence upon many.

Its not so much about whether or not something affects everyone...

It has more to do with whether people exert an influence over religion.

there is no leader of atheism. obviously you misunderstand the concept. it is just the lack of belief in a deity. there is no atheist scripture that tells us how to live our lives, and what we should eat, and how we should have sex and when. it doesnt exist because atheism isnt something you subscribe to. its what you get when you dont subscribe to religion or the idea of a deity.

If God warned people cell phones and airport scanners can give them cancer, they'd probably use them anyway.

god would only ever say that after scientists had discovered it.

Atheists are fond of saying they don't need God to hold their hand or offer wisdom as they believe they've matured beyond the point where they need the guidance of a deity.

thats a very pretentious statement to make and i dont think i've heard anyone make it yet. atheists are fond of saying "we cannot see any evidence for the existence of a god therefore we do not believe in a god". that is the only thing of relevance to this discussion that any one atheists will have in common with another atheist. they will share the lack of belief in a deity. i certainly wouldn't ever make that statement because if i did i would be accepting that we, as humans, needed a deity at one point. and i dont believe we ever did.

If you don't need the guidance of a deity, why criticize God for what you perceive to be a lack of guidance?

because its part of this discussion. because it is logical. if your god is all seeing and all knowing as your religion claims it to be why would he not just say "make sure you cook the pork properly" instead of calling its consumption an "abomination"? he would already know that it would cause illness and that if cooked properly it would be fine so why, unless he was particularly dramatic and stupid (again sounds a bit like a human) would he call it an abomination?

Religion doesn't incite fanaticism.

There's a reason we distinguish between muslims and muslims extremists.

Its generally to acknowledge not all religious individuals are fanatics and that religion itself isn't a major source of fanaticism.

it does incite fanaticism. it carries the concept of infidels and hell. we can see not just in islam, but in christianity too theres a wide range of interpretations of god and the scripture. scripture that allows that is dangerous. it doesnt say what it means, it expects you to interpret it. the reason we differentiate between muslims and muslim extremists is that the latter follow their holy text to a t. they take it all literally. they are muslims carrying out the will of god just as you are a christian carrying out the will of god, just as westboro baptist church is carrying out the will of god. the only way to avoid so many interpretations of holy scripture is to do as the muslim extremists do. follow it to a t. take it all literally. that most definitely would (and did in the past) make the world a not very nice place to live in. but collectively as humans we do not accept that behaviour. we do not accept the stoning of adulterers and homosexuals. we do not accept human sacrifice as the christians do. for as savage as we are, we can tell that is wrong.

 

[Richard B Riddick]

You need to accept the fact that there have been Holy Wars where people went to war solely based on religious ideology. Cases where they were not just using religion as an excuse. Also your last example of Nero persecuting the Christians was a great one, considering Nero was a believer. He even believed that God wanted him to sack the temple in Jerusalem.

What makes wars "holy"? Does that differ from violence or wars initiated by atheists?

Nero was a stoic epicurean which many consider to be atheist.

Well first of all of the presidents of USA and I am sure most of it's politicians and congressmen are religious, not atheists. So I am not sure why you see that as a rebuttal.

Your second point is much more worrisome, science does not preach anything, science did not advocate anything. The men who were using science (most of whom were also religious) are the ones who decided to cull the population. They abused science, which before you say it, is not the same as abusing or misinterpreting religion. It would be like saying maths or the alphabet are responsible for a crime.

The majority of US politicians being religious doesn't detract from eugenics science being majority wise most responsible for the holocaust and mass sterilizations of that era.

If science says: masturbation is natural and healthy, is that preaching?

If science gives a surgeon generals warning on smoking cigarettes is that advocating something in terms of health?

It seems you may be stuck in denial mode where you simply deny the existence of anything you dislike..

The only two that I know of that hit both of those are Russia under Stalin and China, which is not surprising. To admit you are an atheist in any other kind of governmental process is political suicide, unless you are a dictator (in most cases). Not to mention Franco, Mussolini, Hitler, and Salazar being religious men.

I think, there's also: Cuba(Fidel Castro), North Korea(Kim Jong), Cambodia(Pol Pot), Venezuela(Chavez) & others I can't think of or haven't heard of.

Basically, whenever you have a massive douchebag in government its almost always an atheist with a communist arrangement.

BTW. This Mussolini?:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benito_Mussolini#Atheism_and_anti-clericalism

He did not as far as I am aware, but people believed that he did

That's not enough to blame a deity for it?

Atheism is the belief that there is/are no God/s of any description, it advocates nothing at all, and teaches nothing at all. To be honest that comment sounds like baiting or scare-mongering at best, and ignorance at worst.

Yeah, yeah. Every atheist in the world has said that a million times, already.

Atheism advocates many things and attempts to indoctrinate people with certain views.

To pretend it exists in a vacuum & has zero influence over ppl or the decisions they make is ridiculous.

How can you pick and choose which parts of the Bible you think are good, and which you think are bad? That implies that you think some parts of the Bible are wrong, in which case how can you be sure that any parts of it are correct?

There are billions of women in the world.

How can you pick and choose which woman you think are good and which you think are bad?

There are trillions of bands in the world.

How can you pick and choose what types of music you like and which you don't like?

Since when was there ever an alternative to people making choices and decisions about things? And why should that be considered a negative?

Like I said, I don't think parts of the Bible are wrong. They're simply different laws for a different era and a different set of circumstances.

Laws and the way people view things change over time. Its a basic and fundamental concept & doesn't imply that previous traditions or ways of thinking about things were flawed.

Your criticism is the equivalent of criticizing caveman for walking everywhere and not driving a car to get where they wanted to go. Cars didn't exist back then. Police didn't exist. Geneva Conventions didn't exist, either.

The way people thought about the world and related to it were different and can't necessarily be compared to the current era. Therefore, in thinking about things historical context plays a significant role.

The fact that things like slavery and other negatives mentioned in the bible may have been prevalent throughout certain eras of human history doesn't imply they were a flawed practice, nor that the bible was incorrect in advocating such things.

Its a question of whether circumstances were valid in dictating something as being ideal within a historical context..

Now even if you can get around that somehow

The Bible says it is infallible, that is not an idea, that is a fact that it states. It says you cannot have any private interpretation of scripture, and that scripture can NOT be broken. So there is no way to rationalise eating pork, you are breaking scripture, simple as

It doesn't say private interpretation is bad.

What do you think "scripture cannot be broken" means?

Dawkins is an atheist just like us, so we can understand his thoughts and arguments. He is not a leader of atheists he is just a well known and outspoken one. Atheists do not have any kind of organised structure, you cannot lump them together as one group.

You are not just like God, so what gives you the right to interpret the rules handed down by an infinitely intelligent and powerful being?

What is the worst thing a fanatical atheist has done?

Please answer these questions for me, keeping in mind that your trichinosis argument has shown to time and time again be irrelevant.

Myself not being part of any denomination - I don't have an organised structure, either.

By advocating a lack of belief in God, you may well be interpreting the rules handed down by an infinitely intelligent and powerful being. Its called having an opinion - its a normal and healthy thing.

Stalin as a fanatical atheist murdered and killed christians and shut down churches in his attempt to wipe out religion in Russia. There have been atheists in the news who walked into churches with shotguns and gunned people down. Its there if you bother to look for it.

And, what's "irrelevent" about my trichinosis argument? You didn't bother to offer anything to the contrary... Yet, you say its "irrelevent"... Heh.

you're not sure? of what? that religion incites hatred? that it says "we are good and they are bad?". obviously that isnt your interpretation of it but whenever someone does something and justifies it with a quote from their holy scripture(s) they are doing it in the name of their god.

If people were incapable of telling a lie or misleading others, it would be done in the name of a deity.

Not the case.

if you have been indoctrinated to believe that god is loving you will have a different interpretation to someone who has been indoctrinated to believe that god is a fearce, angry tyrant. though you may both be reading the same scripture you can "justify" your own interpretation by picking and choosing other parts of the scripture that fit your interpretation of god.

Picking and choosing is an integral part of politics, religion, life. Everything.

In terms of religion, everyone has to make a choice as to how to interpret things and which things to follow and which not to.

Its the same with atheism, buddhism, etc.

What's wrong with picking and choosing?

thats fine, but if you look at the quote i responded to you specifically mentioned nazis.

Doesn't detract from the point I was trying to make..

but again, none of them justified their actions based on their lack of belief in a deity. whereas a religious person a la adolf hitler would (and did) specifically say that he was carrying out god's will. god commanded him. he carried out his actions in the name of god. the fact that many christians would disagree with his interpretation of the scripture is beside the point. you have a holy book which is so vague it allows all these different interpretations. you have...who knows how many different denominations of the same religion. sub religions. thats how vague your holy text is. that is why it allows some people to spread the love in the name of god and others to kill millions in the name of god. and that is dangerous.

Basic politics 101.

If 80% of your population is religious and 20% are atheist you don't claim to do things in the name of atheism.

The fact that politicians claim to follow God's will has to do with demographics.... not honesty.

apparently he didnt say it was ok to eat pork either. you just have it on the word of a jew who claimed to be his son.

Nor did he say it was not ok to eat pork.

atheism doesnt advocate anything. nor does it preach anything. it is simply the lack of belief in a deity. which obviously sounds strange to you because without god you would be murdering and raping and stealing all day long. somehow - without god - i am succeeding in not doing that.

Who says a lack of belief in a deity is any better than its polar opposite?

For a lack of belief in God to be justified, requires God's non-existence.

You're arguing for the non-existence of a deity indirectly, even if you're unwilling to say it straight out.

so religion is bastardised by the politicians. thats nothing new. the religious leaders do nothing about that. thats nothing new. religion is a method for controlling the masses. again nothing new.

Atheist politicians bastardise more than any other demographic on earth. Atheists leaders are the most inhumane, unfair and oppressive. Atheism is a means of controlling the masses, also.

Look at how many atheists copy and paste things from Richard Dawkins and atheist websites without bothering to understand them. They don't bother to think or research issues for themselves. They simply allow atheist doctrine to brainwash them into thinking things blindly.

Everything you've said here are the exact same things I've heard from other atheists. In theory, you're supposed to be individuals and free thinkers. In reality, all of you would seem to copy & paste your arguments from others.

nothing is done in the name of atheism. it is the lack of belief in a deity. you would have to want there to be a god to say "im doing this because there is no god". it implies that you cant help yourself. you need a god to stop you. maybe thats what youre trying to get at? that i need god to stop me from killing and raping and stealing? well guess what. here i stand. innocent of all those charges. with no god on my side.

i dont think that muslim extemist suicide bombers are lunatics. they are muslims who have been taught the interpretation of a fearce, angry tyrant of a god who wants the infidels dead. and you can bet any amount of money that they truly believe that, just as you believe the opposite. they are doing the will of their god.

Trivializing religious beliefs is done in the name of atheism.

Demonizing creationists also done in atheism's name.

Viewing religion as being a cause of fanaticism also a form of dehumanization atheists often promote.

Its possible atheists are known for being extremely intolerant and abusive towards differeing belief systems without justification.

North Korea as a majority-wise atheist state has its own 'death squads' or suicide attackers. Atheists do suicide bombing, too.

If you know what world war II is, how do you explain japanese kamikaze attacks?

Suicide bombing is not something exclusive to religion despite what you might think.

there is no leader of atheism. obviously you misunderstand the concept. it is just the lack of belief in a deity. there is no atheist scripture that tells us how to live our lives, and what we should eat, and how we should have sex and when. it doesnt exist because atheism isnt something you subscribe to. its what you get when you dont subscribe to religion or the idea of a deity.

There are no clear cut leader of religion, either.

Richard Dawkins is like a prophet of atheism as are Carl Sagan and others.

The claim of morality is within itself a form of scripture. You claim to be moral and to follow a moral code. You simply don't have it written down.

god would only ever say that after scientists had discovered it.

God gave you a brain and free will so he wouldn't have to say it.

Your brain is a built in redundancy if you choose to use it. Remember - free will!

thats a very pretentious statement to make and i dont think i've heard anyone make it yet. atheists are fond of saying "we cannot see any evidence for the existence of a god therefore we do not believe in a god". that is the only thing of relevance to this discussion that any one atheists will have in common with another atheist. they will share the lack of belief in a deity. i certainly wouldn't ever make that statement because if i did i would be accepting that we, as humans, needed a deity at one point. and i dont believe we ever did.

You cannot see any evidence that we're not living in a matrix simulation.

Does that mean you're going to believe we're living in the wachowski brother matrix and the machines have took over?

There are limits to what can and can't be proven, and limits to what evidence can and can't be collected for...

Can you read between the lines there?

because its part of this discussion. because it is logical. if your god is all seeing and all knowing as your religion claims it to be why would he not just say "make sure you cook the pork properly" instead of calling its consumption an "abomination"?

Because people need to learn to think and make decisions for themselves.

Like I said... Atheists are fond of bragging about how they don't need a deity to make good choices or be moral.

If you don't need a deity, why constantly criticize a deity for what you perceive to be a lack of guidance?

You don't need guidance from a deity, remember?

it does incite fanaticism. it carries the concept of infidels and hell. we can see not just in islam, but in christianity too theres a wide range of interpretations of god and the scripture. scripture that allows that is dangerous. it doesnt say what it means, it expects you to interpret it. the reason we differentiate between muslims and muslim extremists is that the latter follow their holy text to a t. they take it all literally. they are muslims carrying out the will of god just as you are a christian carrying out the will of god, just as westboro baptist church is carrying out the will of god. the only way to avoid so many interpretations of holy scripture is to do as the muslim extremists do. follow it to a t. take it all literally. that most definitely would (and did in the past) make the world a not very nice place to live in. but collectively as humans we do not accept that behaviour. we do not accept the stoning of adulterers and homosexuals. we do not accept human sacrifice as the christians do. for as savage as we are, we can tell that is wrong.

Religion doesn't incite fanaticism. Nor is it the only source of fanaticism. As stated earlier, japanese kamikaze pilots = fanaticism. North Korea submarine suicide bombers = fanaticism.

Anything can be used to justify it and religion definitely doesn't have a monopoly or patent on it like atheists mistakenly claim.

There's nothing dangerous about scripture. Atheists simply reject it as a kneejerk reaction due to it differing from their own perspectives..

 

[Will Graham]

I am done after this unless you bring new arguments to the table, see it as me giving up if you want. I am sure anyone who reads this 'debate' will have no such illusions

What makes wars "holy"? Does that differ from violence or wars initiated by atheists?

Nero was a stoic epicurean which many consider to be atheist.

No he is generally considered a pagan of some sort, and it is the leading belief that he believed God wanted him to destroy the temple


Let's see, in Belfast they were, and still are somewhat, massacring each other over whether or not you are a Protestant or a Catholic. Israel and Palestine as well started over a religious disagreement. That is two examples out of hundreds

Bolivia
Bombay
Belgrade
Baghdad

I didn't even have to leave the Bs

Now religion is not the only cause in those places, but it has inarguably poisoned and exacerbated the situations massively

The majority of US politicians being religious doesn't detract from eugenics science being majority wise most responsible for the holocaust and mass sterilizations of that era.

If science says: masturbation is natural and healthy, is that preaching?

If science gives a surgeon generals warning on smoking cigarettes is that advocating something in terms of health?

It seems you may be stuck in denial mode where you simply deny the existence of anything you dislike..

These religious men guided by their morals (which come from God apparently) decided that eugenics was the best policy. Science is pure logic, breeding superior humans is logical but completely divorced from all human emotion or morality.

If masturbation is healthy then it is healthy, it is up to you to do with that what you want. Science dictates nothing, it gives us information, which we wield how we see fit

These men of God saw fit to cull the population

which brings me to another point, how do you decide what is the morally correct action in a situation that is not covered in the bible? After all, your morals come from there apparently.

I think, there's also: Cuba(Fidel Castro), North Korea(Kim Jong), Cambodia(Pol Pot), Venezuela(Chavez) & others I can't think of or haven't heard of.

Basically, whenever you have a massive douchebag in government its almost always an atheist with a communist arrangement.

BTW. This Mussolini?:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benito_Mussolini#Atheism_and_anti-clericalism

The Catholic Church was fully behind Mussolini, and most dictators actually enjoy divine status in their countries

The church also never excommunicated the Nazi leaders bar one, when he married a protestant or something equally silly

Yeah, yeah. Every atheist in the world has said that a million times, already.

Atheism advocates many things and attempts to indoctrinate people with certain views.

To pretend it exists in a vacuum & has zero influence over ppl or the decisions they make is ridiculous.

I hear atheists eat their babies and steal chickens

Atheism is the lack of belief in a god, the direct opposite of theism. It advocates nothing by itself, if you believe that then you do not understand what the word means.

I do not believe in God so you call me an atheist, I don't believe in Santa but I am not called an asantaist, I do not believe in fairies but I am not called an afairiest

I am an atheist because there is no evidence for or against God, so why should I believe in him? If I believe in God with no evidence for or against, then why shouldn't I believe the entire world is inhabited by invisible untouchable, undetectable, purple giraffes all of whom are call Simon

I put this in a spoiler so the page wont stretch

Spoiler

There are billions of women in the world.

How can you pick and choose which woman you think are good and which you think are bad?

There are trillions of bands in the world.

How can you pick and choose what types of music you like and which you don't like?

Since when was there ever an alternative to people making choices and decisions about things? And why should that be considered a negative?

Like I said, I don't think parts of the Bible are wrong. They're simply different laws for a different era and a different set of circumstances.

Laws and the way people view things change over time. Its a basic and fundamental concept & doesn't imply that previous traditions or ways of thinking about things were flawed.

Your criticism is the equivalent of criticizing caveman for walking everywhere and not driving a car to get where they wanted to go. Cars didn't exist back then. Police didn't exist. Geneva Conventions didn't exist, either.

The way people thought about the world and related to it were different and can't necessarily be compared to the current era. Therefore, in thinking about things historical context plays a significant role.

The fact that things like slavery and other negatives mentioned in the bible may have been prevalent throughout certain eras of human history doesn't imply they were a flawed practice, nor that the bible was incorrect in advocating such things.

Its a question of whether circumstances were valid in dictating something as being ideal within a historical context..

Oh dear, I really thought I might have explained this clearly last time

You cannot judge the bible in the same way you judge other things, it is not a human creation or at least it is not supposed to be

Scenario A] The bible is the exact word of God

If this is the case, then it does not matter what time it is written in, because it is dictated by a being who is omniscient. Omniscient here meaning that he can see all events that have ever occurred or will occur all at the same time. So he why would he dictate something that would go out of date when he can see all of time?

In this case you would not be able to choose what morals you liked, because they are all chosen as the correct beliefs by your divine creator. If he did not mean you to follow them all, why would they all be in the bible?

Scenario B] It is written by men, in which case everything you know about your God was written down by men. So how do you know anything in the bible is correct, why believe it over any other book?

It doesn't say private interpretation is bad.

What do you think "scripture cannot be broken" means?

It says not to do it, it could not be more explicit

I'd imagine it means scripture cannot be broken

Myself not being part of any denomination - I don't have an organised structure, either.

By advocating a lack of belief in God, you may well be interpreting the rules handed down by an infinitely intelligent and powerful being. Its called having an opinion - its a normal and healthy thing.

Stalin as a fanatical atheist murdered and killed christians and shut down churches in his attempt to wipe out religion in Russia. There have been atheists in the news who walked into churches with shotguns and gunned people down. Its there if you bother to look for it.

And, what's "irrelevent" about my trichinosis argument? You didn't bother to offer anything to the contrary... Yet, you say its "irrelevent"... Heh.

So that means you agree with the motion, we would be better off without religion. Not without God, but without religion. Capital

I will not look them up, granted I never knew about that, but I will believe they exist. However that person is probably a psychopath, in the same way a sole religious fanatic would be psychotic (some of the time). However you cannot blame legions of people killing each other over religion as everyone being psychotic.

If people were incapable of telling a lie or misleading others, it would be done in the name of a deity.

Not the case.



Picking and choosing is an integral part of politics, religion, life. Everything.

In terms of religion, everyone has to make a choice as to how to interpret things and which things to follow and which not to.

Its the same with atheism, buddhism, etc.

What's wrong with picking and choosing?

The Bible never says pick and choose, not once does it say that. It is basically a set of rules.

Considering the bible does not say choose what morals you think are good, that means you must have a pre-existing set of morals dictating which morals contained in the bible are ones you want to follow and which are ones you don't want to follow.

So when you said the bible was the only thing stopping you showing people how 'bad' they are in dark alleys, you must have been incorrect

Nor did he say it was not ok to eat pork.

Leviticus 11:7-8
"And the swine, though he divided the hoof, and be clovenfooted, yet he cheweth not the cud; he is unclean to you.
"Of their flesh shall ye not eat, and their carcass shall ye not touch; they are unclean to you."

Deuteronomy 14:8
"And the swine, because it divideth the hoof, yet cheweth not the cud, it is unclean unto you: ye shall not eat of their flesh, nor touch their dead carcass

Oh dear, it seems he did

Your trichinosis argument is wrong for the following reasons

1. The Bible says it is infallible and scripture cannot be broken, so by eating pork you would be breaking scripture

2. If The Bible is infallible and dictated by God, he could easily say not to eat pigs due to disease, he just flat out bans them. As an omniscient God he would know some day we would sort trichinosis out, and could have planned ahead saying we could eat pork when we got rid of said sickness

3. If the Bible is fallible then either God is fallible or it was written by fallible men. In which case why pay attention to the bible when you can't gauge its integrity?

Who says a lack of belief in a deity is any better than its polar opposite?

For a lack of belief in God to be justified, requires God's non-existence.

You're arguing for the non-existence of a deity indirectly, even if you're unwilling to say it straight out.

I don't think there is a God but I am not certain there isn't one as the evidence is not there. Your belief in a god is not much different to the following

The only difference actually is that you hear about God in ancient texts, since that is the only information you have on God, why not believe in Hinduism, Judaism, Islam, or hundreds of others?

 

[Richard B Riddick]

I am done after this unless you bring new arguments to the table, see it as me giving up if you want. I am sure anyone who reads this 'debate' will have no such illusions

Look here, sonny. i'll have you know atheism is a mere lack of belief.

Atheism does not preach or offer views - it doesn't exert an influence on how people think or view the world!!.

Why look here at richard dawkins proving my point!:

Oh, shit. wait. Hm. This complicates things, yes.

I call h4x. Yeh!

Damn those conspiracy theorists!!

 

[Stoic Hero]

Nathan Drake I find that hilarious, really. Not the same situation, but, it's true, dogs may have the ability to speak english. We don't really know, do we?

All the more reason to have faith in someone more powerful and knowledgable than us.

 

[Shu]

I would like to remind folks to stay on topic please, if you have nothing to contribute in your post, it will be deleted.

Thanks, and Sorry.

 

[IlluminaChaos]

The title came from the topic of an Intelligence Squared debate among people who are more knowledgeable about the subject than I am, and while I'm not using it to support my argument, and the result may have been in favor of being without religion, I just thought it was an interesting discussion. You can see the debate in the link down below. Be warned that it's rather lengthy though, so if you don't have time to watch it, try doing it when you actually get the time for it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jmn-RFiKpRk&playnext=1&list=PL165C36A119835436

Anyways, this is actually a response to someone posting in a different thread, but I figured it would be better to create a separate thread for this, and because I think it makes for a good discussion anyways.

Now generally, (and I am just repeating what I said in the other thread), I think we would be better off without religion. There's lots of harm that religion has done, and while I agree some good things have come about because of it, one cannot consider the good it has done without considering the harm it has done, and if it disappeared tomorrow, it would not bother me at all.
I would be happier without religion because religion teaches people to be happy with beliefs they cannot confirm, and I do not think it is a healthy way of thinking, if we were to care about the truth (which I do).
I don't deny that religion brings some people happiness, but it should only bring them happiness in a way that it does not harm other people, which generally means that it should stay out of the public sphere, and should have no influence over the government or society. If you want to pray in a church, you are free to do so. If you want to pray at dinner, you are free to do so. But I don't want to see people dragging other people to church against their own will, I don't want to see people condemning homosexuals or fighting against abortion quite simply because their religion tells them to, and I don't want to see people pushing for religious ideas being taught in a science class. I'm aware that there will still be some people against abortion or condemning homosexuals, even if religion didn't exist, but if that were the case, they'd have their own reasons for it; they'd have one less excuse they could use. I can't claim to know how many people would think that way, and even if they inherently did, that wouldn't make them right anyways.
If the only thing religion is good at is giving people the illusion that everything is okay, then that's the only thing it should be doing, and only for the people that find it comforting.
Yes, I know that people find religion comforting, and they attribute art and lots of things in entertainment and culture to religion. I'm aware that events organized by religious organizations bring people together and maintain some level of affection. But are you somehow saying that we can't have art or entertainment without religion? There is certainly a lot of secular art and secular entertainment out there. And there are also events organized by secular people that are just as good at bringing people together and bringing about some affection too. 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. If religion didn't exist, it doesn't mean we wouldn't have art or entertainment, or events that are fun and bring people together. Sure they'd be different, but they'd still exist.
I also dislike that people are using religion as the excuse to be offended. Now we can't talk about something and discuss it like grown up people because they'd rather say they were offended than talk it through and reach an understanding. And I find this appalling because we don't give politicians or celebrities any special treatment over this. The same can be said about science or any other subject. Whenever politicians or celebrities get offended, we still keep making fun of them. Why is it that we can make fun of politicians or celebrities (which may include criticizing them), but we can't do the same with religion? It's just special pleading. That people would rather be offended and not come to an understanding or simply agree to disagree is blatantly "shut up, that's why". Without religion, we would not have an excuse to be offended.
Now I'm aware there are some people who would rather not talk about this at all. They are free to exclude themselves from the discussion. I'm not going to force them to stay. But to say that we cannot talk about religion at all in public simply because people might get offended is absurd.

Now to answer specific points from the recent post in the other thread:

That a parent chooses not to bring their child to a doctor can be blamed on religion. You may say it is their choice, but no one who knows what a doctor does would avoid seeing one if they were sick, unless they were personally traumatized by it. They believe that they can be cured by simply believing in prayers and god, and that by praying, they would get better. Now this mentality isn't actually all that uncommon. You do see people who pray for their friends or family, in the hopes that they will get better (and they really believe god will help them). But just because it's a common mentality doesn't mean that it's right, or that it's even based on a good reason. Studies have shown that people who have been prayed for don't fare any better then people who don't. That people would believe in something this absurd could only be because they believed in something as ridiculous as religion. Praying doesn't harm people though; avoiding the doctor based on the belief that prayer has more power than science does. And this can be traced logically to religion, which is all the more reason why I blame it.
There was actually another point I wanted to make. This actually has more to do with the Christian religion specifically, because I agree that other religions are effective at giving people the illusion that everything's okay (and I'll admit I haven't studied them in much detail, so I don't know if they'll have similar problems, but people are free to bring them up if they notice them), but in Christianity, this feeling is induced by scapegoating Jesus. That there is always someone who will take responsibility for everything you do wrong, and because this topic has been done to death, I will only say that I don't think feeling comfortable at the expense of being irresponsible is really a good idea. If criminals get this feel good feeling by believing they don't have to take any responsibility, then what do you think happens to them? Do you think sitting in jail really means they're going to learn their lesson?

We would not know what a world would be like without religion. That it has influenced us for better does not mean that we could not have good things without it. If you are going to claim that religion is only one source of bad things happening, then I can also say that it is only one source of good things happening. Good and bad things can happen for reasons other than religion. I just happen to think we would do better without ideas that are grounded on nothing more than blind faith (that's the difference), and it's all because I care about the truth.

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

For starters,I view religion as a means to control large quantity's of people in a given area.
There will be those who believe in it and those who question it.Religion has been the point of countless conflicts throughout history.
Its also based of an assumption of the existence of a deity or deity's ,so fundamentaly a leap of faith is required basicaly causing one to set aside logic and embrace that lack of rationale.
Another thing about religion is that it is the base of society as we know it.
There are many who use it as an escape from reality or security blanket as well as those who use it as an excuse to do what "god" tells them to no matter whom it may affect.
It is divisive in nature thus the conflicts arise,humankind should have been so much more by now,alas we have been hindered by alot of idealism from religious dogma and those who have been affected(brainwashed?) by it,now this is not to say that there arent any positive attributes associated with religion,I dont bash religion outright and utterly.
Some religions do bring families and friends together of all walks of life,which I do like alot.
But many sects are strict about who is allowed to be apart of their religious group I.E. Islam, which seems to toute the most intolerance while harboring a mob mentality.
It also skews perception of reality towards a dualistic mindset where all things are inherently either bad or good as made by the creator,which IMO is quite narrow minded when it comes to reality.
I dont think for a sec that religion in THE source of morality in humankind,it is but one gateway to nurture morals which is another positive attribute of it.
We could have been better off without it,but there simply had to be those smart early men who thought up the basic structure of religion and how to control the leaders of tribes through superstitous beliefs.It comes down to a power lust at some point.
To those who this may offend,I do apologize,Im merely expressing my own opinion.

 

[AuronX]

I think we have to define our terms. 'Religion' is a word that gets thrown around a lot to mean a lot of different things. Some people use it just to mean an individual's idea of truth--which we all have. Even if your idea of truth is that there's no absolute truth at all, that is itself an absolute truth statement. So that sort of idea isn't a better-with/without scenario. It's just part of reality and each of us, no escaping it. Then there's also 'religion' in the sense of something that someone is personally dedicated to--something which transcends that person him/herself which has to actually be practiced; it's not automatic. A regular schedule of prayer, for example. Then there's also 'religion' in the organized sense--large groups of people sharing a collective viewpoint on the three key questions of life: 1) where did we come from, 2) what is the purpose of existence, and 3) where do we go after we die. Then there's also another sense closely tied to that one, but still different: 'religion' in the sense of factual belief systems with their own specific titles, terms, leaders, etc--the religions we actually hear about, not that just exist in definition alone.

As you can see, it starts out very small and personal and builds up to a massive scale. So it's very important to distinguish each level. It's pretty much foolish to paint something like religion with so broad a brush as to say that it's entirely beneficial or entirely detrimental. Certain elements of it are inescapable and others are freely selectable/rejectable. And try as you might, you can't really be alive without being involved with religion, and you can't be involved in religion without doing some selecting, and you can't do some selecting without simultaneously doing some rejecting. The bottom line (which I'm sure many will disagree with--and that's fine, but discussing it is not what this thread was started for, so keep it on topic please): there can only be one truth in each of our minds, and that is our religion.

So is religion beneficial? That depends on you. If your idea of truth--your religion--lines up with reality, then absolutely yes. All the other levels of religion fall into place when it is set straight on the personal level, and life in general is more peaceable and happy. And the flipside is also true: if your idea of truth is skewed from reality, then what you believe will naturally not work out on a practical, personal level--it's not based on reality, so it doesn't work in reality. And as a result all the higher levels of religion get thrown out of place and life in general does, too. It may sound really obvious, but nobody ever gets it right all the time, and when we don't, we're essentially believing in a non-reality. Likewise the idea of a world without religion is a non-reality, so the question of if we'd be better off without it or not should really be referring to specific religions or levels of religion, if you ask me.

/end controversial opinions

 

[Harlequin]

Better or worse is a matter of opinion.

That people would believe in something this absurd could only be because they believed in something as ridiculous as religion.

An insight into this poster's attitude towards religion and contempt for others' opinions. How very tolerant.