NationStates Jolt Archive

I don't believe that Organised Religions serve any purpose other than to damage societies and governments. I also believe that while people have a right to be Spiritual, there is no sense in letting your 'religious' beliefs dominate your life/existence (the latter most likely true for most devout people). Don't give me that codswallop about Atheism being an organised religion because it certainly isn't...that's like saying 'dry' people are a breed of alcoholic. Just doesn't wash ;)

Anyway, if anyone here agrees with me that the benefits (if any..erm? Charity? Though non-religious people do that to) of Religion are far outweighed by the drawbacks (Theocracy, war, death etc.) then say so here! Is it Faith or Ignorance? You decide.

Religious opinions should be allowed the same as any other opinion, but they shouldn't have a special status like they do now.

Are you a fascist? Why would you deny people the freedom to meet and organize a religion? Even if it is a waste, and I agree it is, abolishing it is an evil just as real as any evil it has created.

Where's the option that says "I hate religion, but respect it all the same."

Hopefully organized religion will just die a nice quiet natural death.

No, I am a Meritocrat...which is partly why I have this big gripe with religion...anyway, I didn't say I'd be stripping them of their opinions. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but do we allow child pornographers to organise themselves into a group and worship a big picture of a naked baby? No. At the same time, why should we allow people to worship their God(s) in an outmoded way in superfluous buildings that suck money out of the country and pump ignorance into people's heads. I believe in freedom of speech and freedom of opinions, but religion needs to be stamped out before the rest of the world is blasted back to medieval times like America and Iran.

Hopefully organized religion will just die a nice quiet natural death.
I think along the same lines ... I may dislike organizd religions, but people have a right to be what they want to be ... I can only hope that the people decide they dont want them anymore

No, I am a Meritocrat...which is partly why I have this big gripe with religion...anyway, I didn't say I'd be stripping them of their opinions. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but do we allow child pornographers to organise themselves into a group and worship a big picture of a naked baby? No. At the same time, why should we allow people to worship their God(s) in an outmoded way in superfluous buildings that suck money out of the country and pump ignorance into people's heads. I believe in freedom of speech and freedom of opinions, but religion needs to be stamped out before the rest of the world is blasted back to medieval times like America and Iran.

But why should we prevent them? What harm has it done to you that they sit in a big stone building singing songs? Neither Iran nor the US are anywhere near medeival, you know that so why state somethings so far off base if you are attempting to argue seriously. If this whole thread was a joke then a statement like that could be funny but if you are trying to be serious a statement like that will get you no where.

I think we have to be proactive...I mean, in some countries it's no better than it was 1000 odd years ago. It's absolutely absurd. These people are so high on their faith they'd never let it die out...they indoctrinate their children, who indoctrinate theirs etc. Religion would have died out a long, long time ago if a few stalwarts didn't beat their children into the fold.

Be proactive, pass legislation or what-not to bring the buggering thing down.

Erm...Iran and the USA are theocracies...last time theocratism was popular was round about Charlemagne's time...seems to make sense to me. It has done me a great deal of harm, I have to pay taxes to support it, I have to put up with the repurcussions of wars (War in Iraq- Blair and Bush guided by their nutty religious views) that are driven by it!

I don't believe that Organised Religions serve any purpose other than to damage societies and governments. I also believe that while people have a right to be Spiritual, there is no sense in letting your 'religious' beliefs dominate your life/existence (the latter most likely true for most devout people). Don't give me that codswallop about Atheism being an organised religion because it certainly isn't...that's like saying 'dry' people are a breed of alcoholic. Just doesn't wash ;)

Anyway, if anyone here agrees with me that the benefits (if any..erm? Charity? Though non-religious people do that to) of Religion are far outweighed by the drawbacks (Theocracy, war, death etc.) then say so here! Is it Faith or Ignorance? You decide.
the net impact of religion may be negative, but prohibition simply doesn't work. remember that many religions (like Christianity) are based on martyrdom and a strong persecution complex, so trying to suppress them will only make them stronger. the key to treating superstition is to help treat the root causes...people who turn to religion have some need that is not being answered in their real life, and if we can help them to answer those needs on their own then they will not need religion any more. help to build a world where religion is unnecessary, and you will have far more success in "fighting" religion than if you try to meet it with repressive laws and open hostility.

That's very true, but the people in power in certain countries (e.g America) are Christian and they are going to go out of their way to leave those factors in place which force people to turn towards it. The thing is, that people are often indocrinated when they are very young and in some countries religion also has a culture of respect surrounding it. In addition to this, if you want to climb up the right ladders in certain societies you -do- have to adhere to some kind of acceptable religious faith. Christians have a Martyr complex, but they also seem to think that they have the right to evangelise and send missions to other countries...they get kicks out of their persecution, but they are hardly persecuted against (If any major religion is, it's Islam). All religions rely on the indoctrination of the young to sustain themselves, but I agree with you that there is something to be said for removing those things from our society which may encourage people to turn to religion.

I think we have to be proactive...I mean, in some countries it's no better than it was 1000 odd years ago. It's absolutely absurd. These people are so high on their faith they'd never let it die out...they indoctrinate their children, who indoctrinate theirs etc. Religion would have died out a long, long time ago if a few stalwarts didn't beat their children into the fold.

Be proactive, pass legislation or what-not to bring the buggering thing down.

Erm...Iran and the USA are theocracies...last time theocratism was popular was round about Charlemagne's time...seems to make sense to me. It has done me a great deal of harm, I have to pay taxes to support it, I have to put up with the repurcussions of wars (War in Iraq- Blair and Bush guided by their nutty religious views) that are driven by it!

The US is nowhere near a theocracy. Do you honestly believe Bush controls the US government? That would be news to him. Do you honestly belive that the majority of politicians who claim to be religious are? That they really let religion guide their actions? They let whatever will get them voted into office guide their actions. Getting voted into office means spouting a few catch phrases and waving your hands at a crowd.
A Theocracy is rules by a council of religious leaders who are not elected. You may think the US is very religious but saying it is a Theocracy is another over the top statement that makes your arguement look weak.
Stick to rational, moderate statments and your arguements will ahve a lot more creedence.

I am well aware that Bush's power on the home front is little more than the power to pursuade (a direct result of the separation of powers enshrined by your codified constitution) but at the same time I think that, yes, those politicians are religious and ARE guided by their actions. At the very least the USA is far from secular, religion has far too powerful a grip over the government both at state and federal level. It's very worrying, and reminds me of the Carolingian Empire to the extent which it evanglises and forces people into following Christianity.

Remember those election posters in the American south? "A vote for Bush is a vote for Christ." THAT is exactly what I'm getting at, and smells of loose theocracy to me.

That's very true, but the people in power in certain countries (e.g America) are Christian and they are going to go out of their way to leave those factors in place which force people to turn towards it.

perhaps, but in America there is a strong and steady trend toward secularism. secular/atheist/agnostic is the fastest growing "religious orientation" in America, and Christianity is falling as fast as secularism is growing. religiosity and education level are negatively correlated. as the country progresses, and the need for superstition diminishes, religiosity is gradually reduced. it's not going to happen over night, and there will be people who cling to religion with all their might, but banging at their hands with the paddle of your atheism won't make them want to let go...it will only make them grab on tighter.

The thing is, that people are often indocrinated when they are very young and in some countries religion also has a culture of respect surrounding it.

i agree that indoctrinating children into religion is cowardly and dishonest, since it preys upon impressionable minds, but i also believe that parents have the right to make that choice for their own children.

In addition to this, if you want to climb up the right ladders in certain societies you -do- have to adhere to some kind of acceptable religious faith.

it is true that secularists face serious prejudice, but so have blacks, women, Jews, and countless other minorities throughout history. we didn't solve these problems by making it illegal to be a white male Christian.


Christians have a Martyr complex, but they also seem to think that they have the right to evangelise and send missions to other countries...they get kicks out of their persecution, but they are hardly persecuted against (If any major religion is, it's Islam).

no argument here. i still can't get over the Christians who claimed they were "persecuted" this last winter because a department store put up "Happy Holidays" signs rather than "Merry Christmas" signs.


All religions rely on the indoctrination of the young to sustain themselves, but I agree with you that there is something to be said for removing those things from our society which may encourage people to turn to religion.
i have seen young people turn away from religion of their own free will, and i have seen many people break the cycle of indoctrination and superstition on their own. my lover was reared in a very religious atmosphere, attended religious private schools, and was even featured as the cover picture for a Catholic academy's advertising campaign...but he is now a vehement agnostic. we need only to work to open more doors to the religious, and i believe they will choose to walk through when they see what is on the other side :).

Christians have a Martyr complex, but they also seem to think that they have the right to evangelise and send missions to other countries...they get kicks out of their persecution, but they are hardly persecuted against (If any major religion is, it's Islam). All religions rely on the indoctrination of the young to sustain themselves, but I agree with you that there is something to be said for removing those things from our society which may encourage people to turn to religion.

?? incorrect. Though there are some, but your generalising.

Lots of American Evangelists help people of other nations. My country owes them a huge favour, for the schools they built, the thousands of people they fed, the hospitals they ran..

And when you talk about supressing and persocution, you've been swallowing too much of Fred's Phelps rubbish. Not all Christians are that ignorant.

Plus even to add irony to things, their abstinance and keep your virginity, 'True Love' waits programs is helping mantaining the spread of AIDS in poor towns and villages because getting condoms is simply too expensive.

Here a condom costs Rm7, thats about USD2. doesn't sound like much, but shit.. thats 2 days food, and in some poorer places thats a week or two's

-----------
Now, back to the initial question. Organised religion? Not in the Roman Catholic kind of way. People should be free to worship whatever they may so choose, I don't like organised religion, because it tells you what to do. You read whatever you want and you decide your spirituality.

But in most Western European countries the Secular are the majority now, not the minority...that's why I regard America as something of an anomaly...out of the most 'civilised' of countries it stands out because there's religiousity on a par with Iran.

I am well aware that Bush's power on the home front is little more than the power to pursuade (a direct result of the separation of powers enshrined by your codified constitution) but at the same time I think that, yes, those politicians are religious and ARE guided by their actions. At the very least the USA is far from secular, religion has far too powerful a grip over the government both at state and federal level. It's very worrying, and reminds me of the Carolingian Empire to the extent which it evanglises and forces people into following Christianity.

Remember those election posters in the American south? "A vote for Bush is a vote for Christ." THAT is exactly what I'm getting at, and smells of loose theocracy to me.

Sure, I have seen posters like that but there have been just as many pro-abortion, anti-religion, pro-feminism lefty etc. etc. posters put up in other places in the states. It is a 50/50 situation where one side of the equation never really gains the upper hand in a major way. Just because one side has won a couple of elections does not mean that the whole nation has forever become a . . .nation. Righties could easily have argued the US was a godless nation in the 60's. The pendulum swings, don't let one swing get you too worked up.

I think that people believe in heaven and the afterlife because they are afraid of death. They can't think of themselves as a cluster of chemicals that will eventually rot away under the ground. They always want to think that they will be there. Why do you think there are so many beauty and ageing treatment ads on TV? Because people want to be young forever, even if it means getting someone to cut your skin and stretch it over your face.
Religion only causes trouble - conflict of beliefs. And we have, near where I live (in the UK) the largest mosque in Europe. It's massive, and only about 300 people need to be there at any one time, so why is it about 200m x 200m? And it's about 20m - 30m high too. You been in one of them? They got pillars and marble and sh-t. I mean, wtf? Do you people REALLY need to pray in a room thats worth exactly, and no less than, $500,000 when you can pray at home, and, in fact, you do pray at home. So why the mansion to pray in when you only go there once a f--king week And you wonder where the money goes from Blair's government.
Religious wars, bombings that are caused by religious psychos.
Religion is like a solar-powered, underground train - useless.

Well, for me, I hold personal religious views. I definetly believe in a higher power, but I don't presume, or even hope, to know what the nature of that power is.

It seems to me, that a person who claims to have "faith", but has to validate that faith by going to a building a couple times a week and listen to another person ramble on about a centuries old book, or affiliate their own personal morals with that of a greater "whole" of people who's views "match" theirs...is on pretty shaky ground when it comes to the courage of their own convictions.

If you truly "believe" in anything, then praying and introspective thought in the privacy of your own home, with family and close friends if they agree in part or in whole with you, is all you should ever need.

Claiming millions of adherents just shows that you need that many more people to validate your own beliefs.

Schools which teach the Christian way I'll warrant Greedy Pig? Nope, evangelism is just WRONG. Tarnishing other people with your own beliefs is morally unforgiveable, they should all be hanged!

I associate religion with the old and secularism with the new. If we are to fully embrace our qualities as a species, then we really should leave religion behind. I realise some people need it to get by, but that's simply being weak-willed. Spiritualism is all well and good, but impressing your faith upon others as I've said is just wrong and THAT is the primary objective of most religions. Evangelism is just plain wrong, you're entitled to your beliefs in a higher power but scientists have shown that children don't grow up and suddenly go "OOH must be a higher power". It is impressed upon them.

i think religion causes far more problems than it sorts, having said that some people find comfort in it.... im just not one of them!

I take it they teach Religious Studies, or Education or whatever, in the states too.
It is stupid. I believe that something put us here, or we would not be here. What it is that put us here, and (if there's a reason) why is something no-one can find out. They claim that there is this "God" that moulded human beings to "his form" or something (yes, I've been fed this sh-t at school too). So where the f--- is he? He's supposed to be everywhere, but we can't see "him". Nothing can be invisible, nothing can mould humans. And why do things like 911 happen? Why doesn't "God" pay a little visit to anyone planning of doing wrong and tell them that they will go to "hell" if they do? To me, "hell" is just a suffix of "what the".

I believe that the biased towards Christianity in countries that aren't even that Christian is foolish as well. In the United Kingdom, there's a strong tendency to teach CHildren about Christianity when the strange thing is there are more practising muslims in the country than practising christians!

Oh, by the way, does this make the UK an islamic country? Are we now elligible to join the prestigious ranks of the axis of evil because we don't love God?

I hate general ignorance in all forms, but you have to let people believe what they want to believe. You can't force somesome into enlightenment.

it seems like christianity is the "dominant religion", but thats only because most of the figureheads in our country are christian. i dont if what you say about muslims in our country is true, but, if it is, its because half of our country are immigrants. the only members of my family born in this country are christian.
i'm born australian, so is my brother, my dad and his parents are south african born, my mum is english and so is my sister, but her dad is american, and my sister's au pair is romanian. and yet i call it "my country". sums up this country - full of fu--ing immigrants.
no wonder there are more muslims in the country, because they are the ones pouring through the channel tunnel (mostly under the trains), and everyone leaves this country because it sucks to live here.

We might as well call England "Indi-pakistan-iran-iraq-srilankaustraliandalltherest"

(and we are not saying that atheism is compulsory, just that religion is treated like lack of religion, without special privileges)

(lol prestigious ranks :D)

Most MPS are actually agnostic, Blair is a Christian but most of his cabinet? They're not Christian. The Queen is, but that's convention for you. I welcome immigrants from Eastern Europe, they work hard and tend to have a good head on their shoulders. Immigration isn't out of control YET, but we need to reorganise the way we deal with it.

Why are you all arguing? You all seem to have religion down as a masssive evil organisation bent on world destruction and complete conversion of every single person in the world when it is no such thing. You rant and complain about religious people influencing other people's views but that is what you are doing yourselves - influencing what other people think by expressing your own opinions. Religion above all gives hope to millions of people - it gives meaning and purpose to life and on the whole it preaches love, forgiveness and equality. It is a great leveller - the Queen's faith is no greater or worse than anyone else's. You get religious extremists - of course you do but you get extremists who are not at all religious - Hitler wasn't. And in the end we should always respect our heritage which in the West is mostly Christian and we should respect other people's right to choose what to believe and how to find peace and comfort with themselves and others in their lives.
So please all of you calm down and try to get things into perspective. We don't have a perfect world but don't take it out on religion.

Organized religion can be summed up in two words - "herd conformity." In the U.S., I'd say that most people are Christians merely by default, and I doubt that more than a small minority of said Christians have ever given the matter any real thought. Most of them have probably never read the bible cover-to-cover, but rather, they simply take their pastor's word on what is written within those pages. Therefore, all they can tell you about what the bible says is completely dependent on what the pastor chooses to preach about each week (which, interestingly enough, almost never fails to include something about tithing). That doesn't stop them from insisting that the bible is a "good book," inspired by God and 100% true. By this same faulty logic, they also like to insist that the bible should replace science textbooks in the public schools to explain the origins of life and the universe. :rolleyes:

If organized religion were abolished, people would be forced to actually think for themselves - a frightening prospect for many, I'm sure! Don't expect much support on that from the cud-chewing masses, by the way.

Why are you all arguing? You all seem to have religion down as a masssive evil organisation bent on world destruction and complete conversion of every single person in the world when it is no such thing. You rant and complain about religious people influencing other people's views but that is what you are doing yourselves - influencing what other people think by expressing your own opinions. Religion above all gives hope to millions of people - it gives meaning and purpose to life and on the whole it preaches love, forgiveness and equality. It is a great leveller - the Queen's faith is no greater or worse than anyone else's. You get religious extremists - of course you do but you get extremists who are not at all religious - Hitler wasn't. And in the end we should always respect our heritage which in the West is mostly Christian and we should respect other people's right to choose what to believe and how to find peace and comfort with themselves and others in their lives.
So please all of you calm down and try to get things into perspective. We don't have a perfect world but don't take it out on religion.

It is the fault of religion that we don't have a perfect world. ALmost every ill is excused by it, every ill propounded by it. It is a tumor on the great body of humanity, it is that one primative thing that holds us back. People aren't so pathetic that they need religion to keep them going, it doesn't preach equality at alll...for example, homosexuals are hardly equal in the eyes of a Christian and ever heard of the Mark of Cain? BS that religion preaches love and forgiveness. It preaches what it wants people to believe. It is one big evil force than creates ignorance.

my basic thought that religion is here for only two reasons. To make everybody well behaved because of fear of a mystical father figure that will give you eternal spanking, for your wrongs. and also through fear of death. Religion gives people a false hope that it doesn't matter if they die, because there is something after death.

It is the fault of religion that we don't have a perfect world. ALmost every ill is excused by it, every ill propounded by it. It is a tumor on the great body of humanity, it is that one primative thing that holds us back. People aren't so pathetic that they need religion to keep them going, it doesn't preach equality at alll...for example, homosexuals are hardly equal in the eyes of a Christian and ever heard of the Mark of Cain? BS that religion preaches love and forgiveness. It preaches what it wants people to believe. It is one big evil force than creates ignorance.
quite right

You abolish religion, people will find something else to justify themselves killing/looting/raping/gaining power from one another.

It's a waste of time, let nature run it's course, if it dies out, it dies out.

Schools which teach the Christian way I'll warrant Greedy Pig? Nope, evangelism is just WRONG. Tarnishing other people with your own beliefs is morally unforgiveable, they should all be hanged!

I associate religion with the old and secularism with the new. If we are to fully embrace our qualities as a species, then we really should leave religion behind. I realise some people need it to get by, but that's simply being weak-willed. Spiritualism is all well and good, but impressing your faith upon others as I've said is just wrong and THAT is the primary objective of most religions. Evangelism is just plain wrong, you're entitled to your beliefs in a higher power but scientists have shown that children don't grow up and suddenly go "OOH must be a higher power". It is impressed upon them.

LEt me ask you a question. Were you taught in a Christian school about Christianity? Are you a Christian now? Imo Most people I know who went to a convent school, most aren't practicing Christianity.

I for one disagree in schools should teach Christianity, but rather a more open discussion about world religions.

And whats wrong about Evangalism? Are you more worried about people getting Jesus or their dying of sickness and disease?

Plus religion gives people hope, religion of any kind. Some may say it's just a a mental factor that believing in a higher power is the reason that they get well. Positive thinking or some shit like that. But hey, are you more worried about people getting healed or knowing Jesus? Not everybody is feeling all fine and dandy, and have 3 meals a day.

And most Evangelist don't shove it down your throat like you think. Yeah, they may come up to you and ask if you want to know Jesus,. But honestly, living in a muslim nation like mine, if you force religion by calling them a sinner and so what not that their God Allah is a false God.. they'll fucking kill you. And most likely the government would agree that it's your fault.

You do realise that your a bigot for believing that any religion of any kind is the bane and the cause of all worlds problems do you? Your so willing to blame everything on religion, rather than the fact most people don't think for themselves any one way or another?

If you believe people think for themselves, then ask yourself, have you studied all other religions and made a definite choice to be a Atheist? Or are you just willing to blame it on that alone?

Organized religion can be summed up in two words - "herd conformity." In the U.S., I'd say that most people are Christians merely by default, and I doubt that more than a small minority of said Christians have ever given the matter any real thought. Most of them have probably never read the bible cover-to-cover, but rather, they simply take their pastor's word on what is written within those pages. Therefore, all they can tell you about what the bible says is completely dependent on what the pastor chooses to preach about each week (which, interestingly enough, almost never fails to include something about tithing). That doesn't stop them from insisting that the bible is a "good book," inspired by God and 100% true. By this same faulty logic, they also like to insist that the bible should replace science textbooks in the public schools to explain the origins of life and the universe. :rolleyes:

If organized religion were abolished, people would be forced to actually think for themselves - a frightening prospect for many, I'm sure! Don't expect much support on that from the cud-chewing masses, by the way.
also true. people are cows (i think sheep is a better analogy) and will folllow the flock through fear of being noticed as different

i was taught in a CoE school. it was God is this, god is that. this is all due to god, etc. i used to believe in god until i realised it was all fecal matter.

also true. people are cows (i think sheep is a better analogy) and will folllow the flock through fear of being noticed as different

This explains the Christian image of the followers as "sheep", namely dumb unquestioning animals that will do anything their told regardless of logic. I'd hope that this isn't true for the majority of people to follow this image but it likely is.

Still, religion should not be abolished, because doing so would result in atheists and agnostics (like myself) commiting the same crime we fear from the religious majority, namely forcing our beliefs on everyone.

LEt me ask you a question. Were you taught in a Christian school about Christianity? Are you a Christian now? Imo Most people I know who went to a convent school, most aren't practicing Christianity.

I for one disagree in schools should teach Christianity, but rather a more open discussion about world religions.

And whats wrong about Evangalism? Are you more worried about people getting Jesus or their dying of sickness and disease?

Plus religion gives people hope, religion of any kind. Some may say it's just a a mental factor that believing in a higher power is the reason that they get well. Positive thinking or some shit like that. But hey, are you more worried about people getting healed or knowing Jesus? Not everybody is feeling all fine and dandy, and have 3 meals a day.

And most Evangelist don't shove it down your throat like you think. Yeah, they may come up to you and ask if you want to know Jesus,. But honestly, living in a muslim nation like mine, if you force religion by calling them a sinner and so what not that their God Allah is a false God.. they'll fucking kill you. And most likely the government would agree that it's your fault.

You do realise that your a bigot for believing that any religion of any kind is the bane and the cause of all worlds problems do you? Your so willing to blame everything on religion, rather than the fact most people don't think for themselves any one way or another?

If you believe people think for themselves, then ask yourself, have you studied all other religions and made a definite choice to be a Atheist? Or are you just willing to blame it on that alone?

I am not a bigot...I believe that I am perfectly capable of deciding for myself what my beliefs are and I assume that's the same for everyone. Surely if Christianity/whatever was the right faith then people wouldn't need pushing and shoving? Surely it would naturally flourish without all this evangelism. It doesn't, it needs this evangelism and the spread of the word to sustain itself. The 'flock' follows religion because they don't know anything else, or haven't had the chance or time to comprehend other options. Religion in itself implies bigotry, because you're adhering to a belief which you believe superior to another. That's how we get Crusades and Jihads. Incidentally, as an Atheist I believe I'm about as non-judgemental as you get. I can take people having a faith and being spiritual, but regard all religions as bad. EQUALLY Obviously you consider Islam to be worse than Christianity...to me that makes you the bigot.

Still, religion should not be abolished, because doing so would result in atheists and agnostics (like myself) commiting the same crime we fear from the religious majority, namely forcing our beliefs on everyone.

True. If it's not Religion, it would be politics. Others etc etc.

IMO, abolishing religion would not solve anything.

Its educating people not only to be tolerant, but curious, to first understand, and see from others peoples point of views and why they think that way. Then from there you decide what you want to be, whether atheist or agnostic, or in some monotheistic or whatever religion you deem fit.

Keep on searching, and respect others.

There are extremists in every forms. Not only in religion. People are willing to fight and die for any reason. Not only religion, butpolitics, land, race, etc etc.

5,000,000,000 people out of the 6 bln are religious
/\
| that's a lot of zeros
|
|

religion is probably second on the list of what affects the world the most (the first is george bush)

i'm not saying that religion is evil, i'm not telling everyone not to believe what religion tell us, i'm not infecting (and i do mean INfecting) people by telling them what i think and i'm not trying to rid the world of relgion (although that would be nice). what i'm saying is - and quote me on this (if you're that sad) - i have a dream! no, that's not it. anyway - i just want religion not to get special treatment. are you saying that people who believe in ghosts that they saw in ghostbusters should have a "chillurch" or something where they can worship "casper"? when someone asks you what you're doing, you can never be doing "nothing". so, therefore, there is no way you can believe in "nothing". atheists believe in things too. they should get equal treatment to those who believe in islam, or christianity, or judaism, or whatever else (what have i missed?). but how can you build a centre of worship for people who believe in "atheism"? you can't, since people who are atheists are only atheists because they don't fit into the line of any major religion. so you must then take down these centres of worship for all the major religions to keep things equal.

Did you know that there was an internet campaign here in the UK for the last census to put "Jedi" as a religion: if only 1% more people in a certain region put "Jedi" as their religion, the government would, by law, have to build a church for them. This would outrage religious groups, but I can assure that the number of people who put "Atheist" or "No Religion" in the census would easily surpass the number required for a church to be built for that "religion". So why is it that "Christians" or "Jews" or "Muslims" get a church, but "Atheists" do not. I believe that places of worship are only showing people that we are stuck in a time where we still can't let go of the idea of going to church on Sunday, where we aren't open to new ideas, and where we are, quite simply, biased and ignorant.

What about freedom of association and freedom of conscience? I'd have to say the only way you can abolish religion is to trample on those.

I think that the teaching of religious studies is important. It helps you to understand and respect other cultures. It opens your mind and helps you to work out your own beliefs and not just blindly follow what your parents have taught you.
To get rid of organised religion would be a massive restriction of freedom. However i do think some of the methods used to recruit people to certain cults need to be stopped. e.g. brainwashing young children.

I am not a bigot...I believe that I am perfectly capable of deciding for myself what my beliefs are and I assume that's the same for everyone. Surely if Christianity/whatever was the right faith then people wouldn't need pushing and shoving? Surely it would naturally flourish without all this evangelism. It doesn't, it needs this evangelism and the spread of the word to sustain itself. The 'flock' follows religion because they don't know anything else, or haven't had the chance or time to comprehend other options. Religion in itself implies bigotry, because you're adhering to a belief which you believe superior to another. That's how we get Crusades and Jihads. Incidentally, as an Atheist I believe I'm about as non-judgemental as you get. I can take people having a faith and being spiritual, but regard all religions as bad. EQUALLY Obviously you consider Islam to be worse than Christianity...to me that makes you the bigot.
How's any religions word supposed to get out if people don't spread it? It's marketing. To say that a religion shouldn't exist because it doesn't spread naturally is like saying a product shouldn't be made because it doesn't get sold without advertising.

I am not a bigot...I believe that I am perfectly capable of deciding for myself what my beliefs are and I assume that's the same for everyone. Surely if Christianity/whatever was the right faith then people wouldn't need pushing and shoving? Surely it would naturally flourish without all this evangelism. It doesn't, it needs this evangelism and the spread of the word to sustain itself. The 'flock' follows religion because they don't know anything else, or haven't had the chance or time to comprehend other options. Religion in itself implies bigotry, because you're adhering to a belief which you believe superior to another. That's how we get Crusades and Jihads. Incidentally, as an Atheist I believe I'm about as non-judgemental as you get. I can take people having a faith and being spiritual, but regard all religions as bad. EQUALLY Obviously you consider Islam to be worse than Christianity...to me that makes you the bigot.

First of all, if you see where I live, It's Malaysia. And it's a fact. It has happened before, and it will happen again. I live among muslims. I have many many many friends who are Muslim. I do not despise Islam.

ANd let me ask you a question, without evangelism, how are you going to spread good news? I never said pushing and shoving is correct, Hence I absolutely do not agree with those Southern Baptists in US. People like Fred Phelps and his kind.

Plus do I believe Christianity is supirior? Of course, just like how you believe Atheism is supirior to all religions. If not we wouldn't believe in it in the first place.

But it's the first understanding that people need to know, that 'You don't know everything'. Once people realise that, they'll start searching and form their own believes themselves..

Your ideas on abolishing religion if put into action is no better than those trying to push their own religion on others.

The Buildings cost too much money, it's a burden on the tax-payer.

One can learn to respect other cultures without Religious Education, indeed the most open-minded, curious and explorative people I know are agnostics or atheists. It is the Christian ones who have problems with other cultures, not unusually islam.

HELLO? DID SOMEONE SAY "GET RID OF RELIGION".

I never said you should get rid of it, I said you should make people do their praying at home so we don't have to build 500 acre mosques in residential areas. I would still let the world believe in what it wants to, but make them do what they want IN THEIR OWN HOMES, rather than use Atheists' tax money to build religious centres for things that they will not visit.

How would you feel if you were in a class at school and there was a school trip that was optional. But even if you didn't go, you would still be charged as much as everyone else who did go. As the Americans would say " 'nuf said ".

First of all, if you see where I live, It's Malaysia. And it's a fact. It has happened before, and it will happen again. I live among muslims. I have many many many friends who are Muslim. I do not despise Islam.

ANd let me ask you a question, without evangelism, how are you going to spread good news? I never said pushing and shoving is correct, Hence I absolutely do not agree with those Southern Baptists in US. People like Fred Phelps and his kind.

Plus do I believe Christianity is supirior? Of course, just like how you believe Atheism is supirior to all religions. If not we wouldn't believe in it in the first place.

But it's the first understanding that people need to know, that 'You don't know everything'. Once people realise that, they'll start searching and form their own believes themselves..

Your ideas on abolishing religion if put into action is no better than those trying to push their own religion on others.


No. You're right, I am trying to abolish religion. This doesn't mean I get rid of the faith. In addition to this, the news is only GOOD in the minds of a Christian. To the rest of us it looks like Brainwashing.

Organized religion has brought us:

The YMCA
The Boy Scouts
World Vision
Habitat for Humanity
CCRDA
Adventist Development/Releif Agency
Baptist World Aid
Catholic Charities USA
ChristianAid
Christian Reformed World Relief Committee
Church of the Brethren Disaster Response
Lutheran Disaster Response
Salvation Army
Association of Gospel Rescue Missions
Boys Town

The list goes on and on. It would take many pages of text to list all major christian community service organizations. That is without even beginning to list Jewish and Muslim charities. Then we can begin counting the number of orphanages and homeless shelters with names like "Our lady of ____" or "Saint _____". Of course after that you have to start listing all of the minor organizations, ones that are very local and organized by just one or a few churches in the area.

The bottom line? Organized religion has been at the forefront of mobilizing the community to help in areas of need for many years. In the times of Jesus Christ, the commission was to help the orphans and widows (because women back then could not work, so a widow who could not quickly remarry was doomed to poverty). Today, its main causes are AIDS and poverty. Why would you want to ban something that has done so much good for the world?

I'm not against organised religion but can i just point out that the AIDS crisis would not be as bad if the catholic church was not so anti contraception.

lol, I've argued with overly religious Christians before, but I swear arguing with Atheists is the most annoying thing I've done in my life. The problem with this thread is it declares religion to be shit, whie only using extremist Christianism and Islam in its examples...
What I've found is that most angsty atheists come from some form of extreme religion based heavily on fear or coercion to get people to do what they want. Christianism in general is not this way.
First of all, a pretty damn big chunk of Americans aren't Christian... or religious at all for that matter (bring up that newsweek article and I'll stamp a big "bullshit" sticker over your mouth). The ones that get all the publicity are the more extreme ones that don't really get along with anyone. What you're saying about the US is just like what you critisize people for saying about the UK... it's just not so.
I'm agnostic, because I haven't found any form of organized religion that I feel works. I respect them all, though, and I see that you CAN stay logical and make good choices that aren't biased even if you are religious, because I've lived my life around religious people who are more open and accepting to things.
I would like to point out again that you are a jackass for blaming all the evils in the world on religion, because I think it's the most appropriate thing to say. Just because 70% of the world may be religious doesn't mean religion is THE problem...that's like saying because 50% of the people in the world may be black, all the evils in the world are caused by black people (I dare you to say it ;) ).
I'll tell you from experience that religion and faith when not taken to extremes or shoved down people's throats (something most religions don't do), can be a VERY wonderful thing. Many religious values (some excepted, mostly values that oppress peolpe), are actually very good to society. Think about it, if everyone did follow those 10 Commandments, the world would be a much better place :P
Banning religion is just plain stupid. People are happy when they believe in something, and in a world where some jerk is sending your family halfway across the world to kill same people that dress and talk funny, you need faith sometimes.
Let people who want and need faith keep it... your moaning and groaning will only make people who are quietly happy with it feel bad and those who are really gung-ho assholes (the people you're mostly referring to), be louder, stronger, and more gung-ho than before.
On a final note, most atheists I know come from hardcore religions like Catholicism and Islam...
I don't really know a single ex-Buddhist atheist. Slam the buddhists, won't you? they seem to be HORRIBLE people bent on world domination and taking over the world :P
teehee ^^

edit: also, religious orgs happen to DO shit in their communities, unlike jerks like you that just whine a lot about everything wrong with the world :P

I'm not against organised religion but can i just point out that the AIDS crisis would not be as bad if the catholic church was not so anti contraception.

I doubt that is true. It just doesnt make much sense because the Catholic church is also against sex outside of marriage. Therefore, logic would dictate that if you are going to go against your church's teachings by having sex outside of marriage, adding a condom to the mix isnt going to make much of a difference to you. Its difficult to imagine someone who would have no problem sleeping around despite their religions' teachings that such is a mortal sin, but refusing to wear a condom due to his religion teaching that such is a minor sin. Of course, you could be right, so if you would like to show some statistics which show this tendency then I could be convinced. Where did you get the information from?

*clip for length*
The bottom line? Organized religion has been at the forefront of mobilizing the community to help in areas of need for many years. In the times of Jesus Christ, the commission was to help the orphans and widows (because women back then could not work, so a widow who could not quickly remarry was doomed to poverty). Today, its main causes are AIDS and poverty. Why would you want to ban something that has done so much good for the world?
religious belief is not necessary for providing those services. yes, people have used religion to motivate, unite, and organize...but people have also used racism for the same purposes. just because religious people do many good things does not mean that religion itself is necessarily good.

as a parallel: many drug addicts do amazing things, and contribute huge ammounts to the world. however, that doesn't mean that drug addiction is a good thing, or that doing drugs will inherently make a person more likely to do great things for the world.

I doubt that is true. It just doesnt make much sense because the Catholic church is also against sex outside of marriage. Therefore, logic would dictate that if you are going to go against your church's teachings by having sex outside of marriage, adding a condom to the mix isnt going to make much of a difference. Of course, you could be right, so if you would like to show some statistics which show this tendency then I could be convinced. Where did you get the information from?
actually, it is quite true, because the Vatican is actively engaged in spreading lies about AIDS throughout the countries they infiltrate. the Church tells people that condoms cause AIDS, that AIDS passes through latex condoms, and that it is wrong for an HIV positive person to use a condom with their spouse to protect that spouse against infection. the WHO, World AIDS Project, CDC, and numerous other organizations have specifically identified Catholic missionary efforts as an obstacle to fighting the AIDS epidemic, and the Vatican-endorsed lies are even more dangerous when spread in thirdworld nations where people do not have access to accurate information.

I doubt that is true. It just doesnt make much sense because the Catholic church is also against sex outside of marriage. Therefore, logic would dictate that if you are going to go against your church's teachings by having sex outside of marriage, adding a condom to the mix isnt going to make much of a difference. Of course, you could be right, so if you would like to show some statistics which show this tendency then I could be convinced. Where did you get the information from?

BBC Documentary, CHannel four documentary. Random articles. No I don't remember the name of them.
Adding a condom to the mix could make a LOT of difference.

religious belief is not necessary for providing those services. yes, people have used religion to motivate, unite, and organize...but people have also used racism for the same purposes. just because religious people do many good things does not mean that religion itself is necessarily good.

as a parallel: many drug addicts do amazing things, and contribute huge ammounts to the world. however, that doesn't mean that drug addiction is a good thing, or that doing drugs will inherently make a person more likely to do great things for the world.

There is no parallel in your example. Religion is able to do all of these things because it not only promotes making the world a better place, but it has the organization in place to do so. It is the very fact that it is organized that allows it to do all of these things. If religion were a personal thing it would be extremely difficult for anyone to open an orphanage for example. Because religion is organized, it wasnt very difficult for the Catholic church to sponsor orphanages throughout the world. What this person proposes (abolishing organized religion), would make the creation of many of these organizations impossible. Individual drug addicts may do great things (although you have provided absolutely no evidence that in fact there are a large number of positive organizations founded by drug addicts), but as a group drug addicts do nothing. As a group, churches have done great things and continue to do so to this day.

I just don't see any arguments against religion in general... I see a lot of Christian this, CATHOLICISM this, Islam that, Judaism that other thing...edit: tiny creepy people cults too

If you want to discourage these 3, I'm all for it, but those three are NOT all there is to religion, nor is it valid to base your ENTIRE argument on them. ktx? :)

There is no parallel in your example. Religion is able to do all of these things because it not only promotes making the world a better place, but it has the organization in place to do so. It is the very fact that it is organized that allows it to do all of these things. If religion were a personal thing it would be extremely difficult for anyone to open an orphanage for example. Because religion is organized, it wasnt very difficult for the Catholic church to sponsor orphanages throughout the world. What this person proposes (abolishing organized religion), would make the creation of many of these organizations impossible.i fail to see how you have shown my parallel invalid. keep in mind that religion does NOT necessarily promote making the world a better place, does NOT necessarily promote organization, does NOT necessarily promote cooperation, and does NOT necessarily lead to over-all improvements in quality of life. some religions may do one or more of these things, but many do not...indeed, many directly preach against one or more of these things.

don't forget that "religion" does not mean "my particular brand of Christianity."

I actually know three people who have turned from Budhism to Atheism, one from Hinduism to atheism. Agreed, almost every atheist I know (including myself) comes from a Catholic background and many also from an extreme protestant background. The point is that I don't give a damn what these charities do EVEN IF THEY ARE MOTIVATED BY RELIGION (doubtful). To me, a lie is a lie. It causes more pain than it causes joy, trust me. Every war can be traced back to religion. Religion is the greatest lie, deception leads to ignorance.

I just don't see any arguments against religion in general... I see a lot of Christian this, CATHOLICISM this, Islam that, Judaism that other thing...edit: tiny creepy people cults too

If you want to discourage these 3, I'm all for it, but those three are NOT all there is to religion, nor is it valid to base your ENTIRE argument on them. ktx? :)
indeed. it's very irritating how people use "religion" to mean "Christianity, and maybe those other two religions that are like Christianity."

actually, it is quite true, because the Vatican is actively engaged in spreading lies about AIDS throughout the countries they infiltrate. the Church tells people that condoms cause AIDS, that AIDS passes through latex condoms, and that it is wrong for an HIV positive person to use a condom with their spouse to protect that spouse against infection. the WHO, World AIDS Project, CDC, and numerous other organizations have specifically identified Catholic missionary efforts as an obstacle to fighting the AIDS epidemic, and the Vatican-endorsed lies are even more dangerous when spread in thirdworld nations where people do not have access to accurate information.

Show me some evidence that the WHO, World AIDS Project, and CDC have identified catholic missionaries as an obstacle, and I will believe you. All three of those have a strong internet presence, so this shouldnt be difficult.

well see there's this whole thing with not being able to prove it or disprove it... so if you're referring to spirituality as the big lie or a higher being out there being a lie... you're about as hypocritical as a religion saying their god(s) are THE absolute truth :)

I actually know three people who have turned from Budhism to Atheism, one from Hinduism to atheism. Agreed, almost every atheist I know (including myself) comes from a Catholic background and many also from an extreme protestant background. The point is that I don't give a damn what these charities do EVEN IF THEY ARE MOTIVATED BY RELIGION (doubtful). To me, a lie is a lie. It causes more pain than it causes joy, trust me. Every war can be traced back to religion. Religion is the greatest lie, deception leads to ignorance.

Religion is about faith. Just because you don't have faith doesn't mean that to have it means believeing in a lie. There is no absolute proof either way.
You believe that there is no God. You, therefore, may be believing in a lie.

i fail to see how you have shown my parallel invalid. keep in mind that religion does NOT necessarily promote making the world a better place, does NOT necessarily promote organization, does NOT necessarily promote cooperation, and does NOT necessarily lead to over-all improvements in quality of life. some religions may do one or more of these things, but many do not...indeed, many directly preach against one or more of these things.

don't forget that "religion" does not mean "my particular brand of Christianity."

Yes, most religion does promote that. Christianity promotes that, as well as Islam, and to a lesser extent Judaism.

No, it's not hyprocrisy AT ALL to say that spiritualism is a lie and religion is a falsity...because I am an ATHEIST. Is that too hard to understand?

I don't believe that Organised Religions serve any purpose other than to damage societies and governments. I also believe that while people have a right to be Spiritual, there is no sense in letting your 'religious' beliefs dominate your life/existence (the latter most likely true for most devout people). Don't give me that codswallop about Atheism being an organised religion because it certainly isn't...that's like saying 'dry' people are a breed of alcoholic. Just doesn't wash ;)

Anyway, if anyone here agrees with me that the benefits (if any..erm? Charity? Though non-religious people do that to) of Religion are far outweighed by the drawbacks (Theocracy, war, death etc.) then say so here! Is it Faith or Ignorance? You decide.

That's nice. I believe my religion will get me into heaven (or... it has shown me what i must do to get to heaven). So when you say religion is worthless... i'm sorry, but it brought a chuckle.

ah, well... we'll all find out when we die, won't we?

Botro... it IS a hypocrisy if you base your entire argument on religion being crappy because it bases all its beliefs on faith. You base all your beliefs on faith after all, I don't see any quantum formulas in your post as to why there couldn't possibly be a god :P

No, it's not hyprocrisy AT ALL to say that spiritualism is a lie and religion is a falsity...because I am an ATHEIST. Is that too hard to understand?

You BELIEVE religion is a falsity and spiritualism a lie. I BELIEVE you talk out of your ass a lot.

but they are hardly persecuted against

Hardly persecuted against? (http://www.spectator.co.uk/article_archive.php?id=5882&issue=2005-03-26)

Yes, I have a huge giggle when people believe in Heaven or Hell and tell me that Homosexuality is a sin and the Mark of Cain means black people are predisposed to Sin??? Ok so how do you think that your mystery ticket into something that might not (in many people's eyes, does not) exist? I trust nothing without proof, which is why I'm an Atheist. To me, that there are so many religions, and that children brought up in non-religious conditions don't even think about it proves to me that there's no God and that Religion is simply prolonging its long defeat through evangelising third-world countries. That's why religion makes me laugh, it's like people who believe in Ghosts and monsters.

Yes, most religion does promote that. Christianity promotes that, as well as Islam, and to a lesser extent Judaism.
some sects of those religions promote that. not all.

I don't believe that Organised Religions serve any purpose other than to damage societies and governments. I also believe that while people have a right to be Spiritual, there is no sense in letting your 'religious' beliefs dominate your life/existence (the latter most likely true for most devout people). Don't give me that codswallop about Atheism being an organised religion because it certainly isn't...that's like saying 'dry' people are a breed of alcoholic. Just doesn't wash ;)

Anyway, if anyone here agrees with me that the benefits (if any..erm? Charity? Though non-religious people do that to) of Religion are far outweighed by the drawbacks (Theocracy, war, death etc.) then say so here! Is it Faith or Ignorance? You decide.
The only "ignorance" is coming from you; the only arrogance is coming from you and those like you; the only elitism is coming from those with whom you side.

That doesn't even make sense...there's no logic to what you're saying. Indeed, ignorance? Can be associated with religious people who look down on others (gays, blacks etc.) and arrogancE? WHY, surely the belief in your religion above all others and that you have the right to evangelise is supreme arrogance.

Yes, I have a huge giggle when people believe in Heaven or Hell and tell me that Homosexuality is a sin and the Mark of Cain means black people are predisposed to Sin??? Ok so how do you think that your mystery ticket into something that might not (in many people's eyes, does not) exist? I trust nothing without proof, which is why I'm an Atheist. To me, that there are so many religions, and that children brought up in non-religious conditions don't even think about it proves to me that there's no God and that Religion is simply prolonging its long defeat through evangelising third-world countries. That's why religion makes me laugh, it's like people who believe in Ghosts and monsters.

Actually they do think about it. Thats why there is religion in every society of one kind or another.

No, actually...psychologists have shown that the notion of god is an extra-conscious influence. Few children, if any, conceptualise it of their own accord.

Show me some evidence that the WHO, World AIDS Project, and CDC have identified catholic missionaries as an obstacle, and I will believe you. All three of those have a strong internet presence, so this shouldnt be difficult.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3176982.stm

http://hrw.org/backgrounder/hivaids/condoms1204/3.htm

http://www.boston.com/yourlife/health/diseases/articles/2003/12/01/vatican_defends_anti_condom_stand_on_aids_day/

http://www.elon.edu/pericleanscholars2006/position%20papers/corona_files/corona.htm

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=8534&Cr=&Cr1=

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=8534&Cr=&Cr1=

http://www.msu.edu/~bice/articles/articles/lying_for_god.htm

http://www.utne.com/web_special/web_specials_2003-10/articles/10902-1.html

http://www.utne.com/web_special/web_specials_2003-10/articles/10902-1.html

http://www.eubusiness.com/afp/031021093239.48w7n104

http://www.condoms4life.org/news/2003/12012003worldAIDSdayPR.htm

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3660727/

http://www.libchrist.com/std/vaticanlies.html




That ought to get you started.

More hate from the ignorant, telling me that I don't think for myself (actually, I have a strong independent streak), that I'm taking the easy way out (Ha! If only!), that I'm evil and bent on forcibly converting everyone to my views (even though I firnly believe that religious views can't be forced) and that I'm trying to usher in a Bush dictatorship (Kerry voter here). How 'bout we just let people believe, speak, and organize how they dang well please? But no, that wouldn't work for people who are intolerant, narrow-minded and hateful enough to want to use the law to force people into their religious views, or lack thereof.

Botrosox does for atheism what VoteEarly did for Christianity. :(

I don't believe that Organised Religions serve any purpose other than to damage societies and governments. I also believe that while people have a right to be Spiritual, there is no sense in letting your 'religious' beliefs dominate your life/existence (the latter most likely true for most devout people). Don't give me that codswallop about Atheism being an organised religion because it certainly isn't...that's like saying 'dry' people are a breed of alcoholic. Just doesn't wash ;)

Anyway, if anyone here agrees with me that the benefits (if any..erm? Charity? Though non-religious people do that to) of Religion are far outweighed by the drawbacks (Theocracy, war, death etc.) then say so here! Is it Faith or Ignorance? You decide. In my experience… sorry, I mean history's experience - atheists have committed atrocities as well as religios people… Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin, whoever.

Yes, the Catholic Church did damage a society/government. Was the Soviet Union, I believe.

I subscribe to the Spectator, and known Boris Johnson personally...So there we are. The article aims to produce one side of an Argument, and it is clear to me that just because a right-wing rag says that Christians are being persecuted against it doesn't mean they are.

I have 'faith' that God doesn't exist? No, I have faith that he doesn't and religion is my proof in a way. That something so evil, destructive etc. could be in his name is obviousy contradictory of what he's meant to stand for. In addition to this, Come on, how is it even possible he exists? All the experiences of my life point to the fact he does not.

Hitler wasn't an Atheist, Stalin was nurtured in a devout, Orthodox family...seems to me religion BREEDs these idiots.

I actually know three people who have turned from Budhism to Atheism, one from Hinduism to atheism. Agreed, almost every atheist I know (including myself) comes from a Catholic background and many also from an extreme protestant background. The point is that I don't give a damn what these charities do EVEN IF THEY ARE MOTIVATED BY RELIGION (doubtful). To me, a lie is a lie. It causes more pain than it causes joy, trust me. Every war can be traced back to religion. Religion is the greatest lie, deception leads to ignorance.

Um, I know quite a few people who turned from atheism and agnosticism to Christianity, including my own pastor.

As for charities motivated by religous beliefs, I know they exist. I work for such an organization.

As for charities motivated by religous beliefs, I know they exist. I work for such an organization.

Well, that's good. Even though I am an agnostic I support religous charities because they do good and represent what is beneficial about religion.

Okay - so you're telling me that God exists. Very well - like I said before - where is he? Why has he not managed to stop the world from becoming the shithole it has today? - he created it, so why is he not able to re-create it?, or change it to protect innocent humans and animals who are yet to be born from starving, as they will if we keep going on the way we are? Or is God going to "mould" them to be immune to disease, and without the need to eat?
I've got questions, and no-one can answer them without including "facts" that they have picked up from religious people.

You don't seem to need proof to say that God exists: you spread it to children too young to think for themselves, in schools, nurseries (and if anyone thinks I'm just saying that, I went to a "Salvation Army School" when I was three), so why do we need proof to say that God doesn't exist.

You set up places of worship that cost all taxpayers money (regardless of whether they believe in what is being "taught" in there) BASED ON A THEORY THAT SOME FUC-ER CAME UP WITH 2000 YEARS AGO.

You cost people who believe there is no "God" money to brainwash people too young to think for themselves into thinking that there is a higher being. This may make them behave themselves, but is it worth the cost of their fuc-ing mind being distorted.

Atheism is down in the dictionary as "The belief or theory that God does not exist". Religion is "The belief in a superhuman controlling power... ...a thing that one is devoted to". Now is it me, or did you notice the word 'belief' in both of those. This means:
----You have no proof, we have no proof----. WE ARE EQUAL. So why do you get to create these places to teach people that there is this "God", even when they are potentially unwilling to believe what you teach them? I thought we were equal.

Atheism is down in the dictionary as "The belief or theory that God does not exist". Religion is "The belief in a superhuman controlling power... ...a thing that one is devoted to". Now is it me, or did you notice the word 'belief' in both of those. This means:
----You have no proof, we have no proof----. WE ARE EQUAL. So why do you get to create these places to teach people that there is this "God", even when they are potentially unwilling to believe what you teach them? I thought we were equal.

If that bit was aimed at my posts i just want to say that i totally agree that they are both beliefs, what i didn't agree with was the statement that religion was a lie as there is no proof that it is. I also realise that there is no proof that it isn't.

Hey, this thread has exactly 666 views... I wonder if it's a message? :rolleyes:

That's because I kept refreshing it to see if anyone had replied to my post

And I wasn't aiming anything at anyone, but I wanted to prove a point (how ironic: 'prove'). If you had two people applying for a job, and they have the same qualifications, almost as if one was a clone of the other, why should you choose one of them? Surely you should choose both of them, or neither, since this would be unfair. This is the same in this context: if neither atheism or religion has any proof to confirm their beliefs are justified, then why should get funded support, and the other get fu-ked?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

So...

People should be prohibited from peaceably assembling to speak freely while reading printed documents in the name of excersizing religion?

And who decides what a releigion is? The government? The popular vote? Herr Fuhrur Botrosox?

And who decides what a releigion is? The government? The popular vote? Herr Fuhrur Botrosox?

I hope not. If that happens, things wil only get worse and worse.

Well, the popular vote...that would mean that most of the first world countries went Agnostic, or at least became religiously unbiased.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

So...

People should be prohibited from peaceably assembling to speak freely while reading printed documents in the name of excersizing religion?

And who decides what a releigion is? The government? The popular vote? Herr Fuhrur Botrosox?

What does the American Constitution have to do with the world? Nothing. I'd argue people don't have freedom of religion because Christianity in the US is so evangelical, anyway.

I'd argue people don't have freedom of religion because Christianity in the US is so evangelical, anyway.
And how is it that they are restricting our freedoms?

some sects of those religions promote that. not all.

No. The religions as a whole promote that. Some minor sects do not, but the religion as a whole promotes it.

And how is it that they are restricting our freedoms?

Evangelism indoctrinates...the American people have very little choice when it comes to what religious beliefs they adopt because it's either forced upon them by daft parents or by evangelical maniacs. That's hardly freedom of religion, is it.

Who gives a flying f-ck about the constitution?! All it does is restrict and constrain.
I'm not subject to the constitution, so we are probably free to make laws about whatever the f-ck we like here.
Anyway, why should we bring the constitution in to this when it doesn't affect religion as a whole, but only one nation, which hold 5% of the world population.
But the main point is that religion gets more respect than atheism, and even costs non-religious people money when there is no proof that this belief is either true or complete bullshit.

Evangelism indoctrinates...the American people have very little choice when it comes to what religious beliefs they adopt because it's either forced upon them by daft parents or by evangelical maniacs. That's hardly freedom of religion, is it.
That's odd, I was able to choose not to follow Christianity as soon as I was an adult. I always assumed everybody else was capable of simply no longer following a religion if they disagreed with it. From what you said, it appears that 'the American people' are robots that run on input and have no choice, so it appears I was wrong.

How singularly odd...

Evangelism indoctrinates...the American people have very little choice when it comes to what religious beliefs they adopt because it's either forced upon them by daft parents or by evangelical maniacs. That's hardly freedom of religion, is it.

Is it seriously that bad? You sound like they chased you down the road by a mob with burning sticks.

You need to get a grip. Plus Christianity ain't the only religion in the world.
And freedom of religion is the rights to practice anything you wish, may it be taoism, Islam, Christianity, norsican religions, dream spirits etc, as long as you don't disturb others.

Evangelism is merely coming to someone and telling them about Jesus and what he has done. Not forcefeed you and haggle you till hours on end. Those are stupid people honestly. If it weren't about Jesus, they'll do the same to you if their in sales.

Wasn't the point about the world and what may be outside of it, rather than the "world", which is the United States: there are people outside the US, you know.

Who gives a flying f-ck about the constitution?! All it does is restrict and constrain.
I'm not subject to the constitution, so we are probably free to make laws about whatever the f-ck we like here.
Anyway, why should we bring the constitution in to this when it doesn't affect religion as a whole, but only one nation, which hold 5% of the world population.
But the main point is that religion gets more respect than atheism, and even costs non-religious people money when there is no proof that this belief is either true or complete bullshit.

Stop making me pay money to Social Security and Welfare, then.
Since there is no definitive proof they actually help society...

Besides, freedom of religion is called a "human right". It's as fundamental as the right to vote and the right to speak your mind or the the right to live.

That's odd, I was able to choose not to follow Christianity as soon as I was an adult. I always assumed everybody else was capable of simply no longer following a religion if they disagreed with it. From what you said, it appears that 'the American people' are robots that run on input and have no choice, so it appears I was wrong.

How singularly odd...
They behave like robots...I mean, they contradict every trend in the western world. Secularism grows EVERYWHERE else, Christianity shrinks (western world we're talking) except in the USA...Unusual how that correlates with the levels of evangelism and aggressive preaching HMMM?

Originally posted by Bottle
no argument here. i still can't get over the Christians who claimed they were "persecuted" this last winter because a department store put up "Happy Holidays" signs rather than "Merry Christmas" signs.

A-MEN! And that is from an evangelical pastor.

Any Christian who was born and raised in the United States has no personal knowledge of persecution unless they have spent some time where there are those who actually are oppressed solely because of their faith.

Here, I think, is the American government's condition: It is too secular for most religious individuals and it is too religious for most secular individuals.

As far as religion itself, I don't think it will ever die. Christianity has been around for almost 2000 years, in which society has changed and 'improved' much. Christianity is still up an about.

As far as the building of places to worship God (We give them the name 'church,' but they are essentially temples.), this was a result of syncretism. Christians originally met in each other's houses. I honestly would have to agree that it is wrong for everyone to be forced to pay for the raising of a temple to anything they do not believe. The temple is not religion.

Sadly, we would not be having this discussion if Christians weren't so quick to combine their politics with their beliefs (Thanks a lot, Theodosian!). The Bible even tells that others will know Christians by their love for each other. I sure do have trouble finding that in many places.

That isn't to negate the belief. It just gives evidence to the shortcomings of us who follow the belief.

Is it seriously that bad? You sound like they chased you down the road by a mob with burning sticks.

You need to get a grip. Plus Christianity ain't the only religion in the world.
And freedom of religion is the rights to practice anything you wish, may it be taoism, Islam, Christianity, norsican religions, dream spirits etc, as long as you don't disturb others.

Evangelism is merely coming to someone and telling them about Jesus and what he has done. Not forcefeed you and haggle you till hours on end. Those are stupid people honestly. If it weren't about Jesus, they'll do the same to you if their in sales.

I don't live in America, so luckily it isn't that bad...but it's still happening all around us. Forget not that religion is all about indoctrination and spreading the word.

I don't live in America, so luckily it isn't that bad...but it's still happening all around us. Forget not that religion is all about indoctrination and spreading the word.
Not really. As an outsider it always seemed to me human religion was more about support and personal advancement. Let's not forget that a tenant of almost every major religion is to help and love others. Just because some people abuse it doesn't excuse your attack. There are bad eggs everywhere, and they ALWAYS find a way to hurt others.

They behave like robots...I mean, they contradict every trend in the western world. Secularism grows EVERYWHERE else, Christianity shrinks (western world we're talking) except in the USA...Unusual how that correlates with the levels of evangelism and aggressive preaching HMMM?
Funny, I would think that there would be more preaching because of there being more Christians, not the other way around.

Stop making me pay money to Social Security and Welfare, then.
Since there is no definitive proof they actually help society...

Well, this discussion is about religion. I don't agree with taxes on things that are not needed: religion is one, but there are many others - only thing is that we are having a discussion about religion. I never said that I agree with "Social Security" and "Welfare" (in inverted commas for a reason).

Besides, freedom of religion is called a "human right". It's as fundamental as the right to vote and the right to speak your mind or the the right to live.

Who calls it a "human right"? The constitution?
If we didn't vote, speak our minds, or live, then the nation wouldn't run. I can't say the same about religion.

Funny, I would think that there would be more preaching because of there being more Christians, not the other way around.

No...in actuality, Christianity (especially) and other religions have a complex. If they think they're going to die out, then they whack on the Preaching. In the USA, yes, there are more Christians. Not so in civilised countries.

Should Organised Religion be outlawed?
No. Ever heard of "religious freedom" or maybe "freedom of speech"?

No. Ever heard of "religious freedom" or maybe "freedom of speech"?

Yep, which Religion prevents through indoctrination and evangelism. Hence me thinking it should be abolished. (Note: We don't all live under the American Constitution, all you Americans out there.)

Wasn't the point about the world and what may be outside of it, rather than the "world", which is the United States: there are people outside the US, you know.

...

Yep, which Religion prevents (Free speech) through indoctrination and evangelism.

It does? SInce when did Religion prevent free speech? What strange country are you coming from? Taliban country?

...

You just replied to your post didnt you? :D

I don't believe that Organised Religions serve any purpose other than to damage societies and governments. I also believe that while people have a right to be Spiritual, there is no sense in letting your 'religious' beliefs dominate your life/existence (the latter most likely true for most devout people). Don't give me that codswallop about Atheism being an organised religion because it certainly isn't...that's like saying 'dry' people are a breed of alcoholic. Just doesn't wash ;)

Anyway, if anyone here agrees with me that the benefits (if any..erm? Charity? Though non-religious people do that to) of Religion are far outweighed by the drawbacks (Theocracy, war, death etc.) then say so here! Is it Faith or Ignorance? You decide.

I have always been amazed when people decide the best way to generalize about a group or groups is to look at its worst element. It's funny (though I'm not laughing) how atheist complain that people try to force (suggest they read the bible) religion on them but they are so comfortable forcing (outlawing religion) atheism on others. I don't know of anyone who has started a thread on here stating that atheism should be abolished and that everyone should become <place religion here>. Wars are fought for many reasons, to suggest that stability would exist without religion is naive to the point of being silly.

In short, if people like you are any sign, religious folks have more to fear from atheists than the other way around. Religious folks have no right to stomp on your personal freedoms nor do you have any right to stomp on theirs.

What makes you want this? Is it fear or ignorance (or both)? You decide.

You just replied to your post didnt you? :D

what's the :D about? i was reinforcing a point that THERE IS 95% OF THE WORLD OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. it seems that some people are forgetting it. now that's ignorance.

No, I am a Meritocrat...which is partly why I have this big gripe with religion...anyway, I didn't say I'd be stripping them of their opinions. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but do we allow child pornographers to organise themselves into a group and worship a big picture of a naked baby? No. At the same time, why should we allow people to worship their God(s) in an outmoded way in superfluous buildings that suck money out of the country and pump ignorance into people's heads. I believe in freedom of speech and freedom of opinions, but religion needs to be stamped out before the rest of the world is blasted back to medieval times like America and Iran.

The buildings are superflous. You manage to pump ignorance just as well on this forum.

If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we
don't believe in it at all. -Noam Chomsky, linguistics professor and
political activist (1928- )

Isn't extremism funny soemtimes?

"People must be proscribed from believing certain things so they can be free to believe whatever they want. Religious people are incapable of doing good, so we must prevent them from helping people by giving food and clothing and building homes and schools. Christianity must be abolished because Christians are intolerant and I just don't like having them around. Talking to someone about one's religious beliefs is a violent act. I hate it when Christians rant and rave about their beliefs. In fact, I'm so mad about it I'll rant and rave about it all day. In summary, we must tell people what to think in order to give them the freedom to think for themselves."

Double plus ungood.

Schools which teach the Christian way I'll warrant Greedy Pig? Nope, evangelism is just WRONG. Tarnishing other people with your own beliefs is morally unforgiveable, they should all be hanged!

I associate religion with the old and secularism with the new. If we are to fully embrace our qualities as a species, then we really should leave religion behind. I realise some people need it to get by, but that's simply being weak-willed. Spiritualism is all well and good, but impressing your faith upon others as I've said is just wrong and THAT is the primary objective of most religions. Evangelism is just plain wrong, you're entitled to your beliefs in a higher power but scientists have shown that children don't grow up and suddenly go "OOH must be a higher power". It is impressed upon them.

Wait, aren't you trying to "tarnish" everyone here with your beliefs? It's morally unforgiveable, but Jesus forgives you anyway. You just have to ask ;-).

(1928- ) wow - someone needs to shoot that guy. j/k

The buildings are superflous

Superflous? I'm heading to the dictionary again. Just a minute...

...okay - I think I agree (and you missed a "u", it's superfluous, probably a typo)

The buildings are "more than needed"/"needless" says the dictionary. There is a gathering of muslims somewhere every year that brings 10 million, yes - 10 million people, and they don't need to build somewhere for them to worship (or whatever they do there yearly) so why should 300 people get a 200m x 200m x 25m place right near where I live to "worship"? If they could justify who they are "worshiping" exists, then I have no problem with it, as long as the mosque is a little smaller. It IS superfluous.

Yep, which Religion prevents through indoctrination and evangelism. Hence me thinking it should be abolished. (Note: We don't all live under the American Constitution, all you Americans out there.)
If religion infringed on those rights, surely nobody within a religion would ever disagree with another member of that religion? Surely nobody would ever convert from one religion to another?

I would like you to tell me about how freedom of religion could ever be compatible with banning religion.

Also, I don't live under the US Constitution either, but I agree with those rights.

wow - someone needs to shoot that guy. j/k



Superflous? I'm heading to the dictionary again. Just a minute...

...okay - I think I agree (and you missed a "u", it's superfluous, probably a typo)

The buildings are "more than needed"/"needless" says the dictionary. There is a gathering of muslims somewhere every year that brings 10 million, yes - 10 million people, and they don't need to build somewhere for them to worship (or whatever they do there yearly) so why should 300 people get a 200m x 200m x 25m place right near where I live to "worship"? If they could justify who they are "worshiping" exists, then I have no problem with it, as long as the mosque is a little smaller. It IS superfluous.

Did you pay to build it? Why is it any of your business? Why don't you start complaining about Oprah's house? She doesn't even have any kids. The point is I don't really care if it has diamond windows if I didn't pay to build it. I do, however, believe that most churches are overdone and go against the teaching of Jesus, but I don't think that's your argument.

I think you could make one request of your government that would be fair. Religions should automatically be untaxed. They should be audited and required to show their charity like any other tax-exempt organization.

I am not a bigot...I believe that I am perfectly capable of deciding for myself what my beliefs are and I assume that's the same for everyone. Surely if Christianity/whatever was the right faith then people wouldn't need pushing and shoving? Surely it would naturally flourish without all this evangelism. It doesn't, it needs this evangelism and the spread of the word to sustain itself. The 'flock' follows religion because they don't know anything else, or haven't had the chance or time to comprehend other options. Religion in itself implies bigotry, because you're adhering to a belief which you believe superior to another. That's how we get Crusades and Jihads. Incidentally, as an Atheist I believe I'm about as non-judgemental as you get. I can take people having a faith and being spiritual, but regard all religions as bad. EQUALLY Obviously you consider Islam to be worse than Christianity...to me that makes you the bigot.

I call troll. No one is this ignorant.

Did you pay to build it? Not me personally, but it was paid for by the council, who collect council tax from the residents e.g. my parents Why is it any of your business? Because there used to be a dairy there - something useful Why don't you start complaining about Oprah's house? Who? She doesn't even have any kids. The point is I don't really care if it has diamond windows if I didn't pay to build it. I do, however, believe that most churches are overdone and go against the teaching of Jesus, but I don't think that's your argument.

I think you could make one request of your government that would be fair. Religions should automatically be untaxed. Sounds fair to me too They should be audited and required to show their charity like any other tax-exempt organization..

I call troll. No one is this ignorant.

I dont know...some people around here really are.

I dont know...some people around here really are.

I hope that that is not pointed in my direction.

Yes, I have a huge giggle when people believe in Heaven or Hell and tell me that Homosexuality is a sin and the Mark of Cain means black people are predisposed to Sin??? Ok so how do you think that your mystery ticket into something that might not (in many people's eyes, does not) exist? I trust nothing without proof, which is why I'm an Atheist. To me, that there are so many religions, and that children brought up in non-religious conditions don't even think about it proves to me that there's no God and that Religion is simply prolonging its long defeat through evangelising third-world countries. That's why religion makes me laugh, it's like people who believe in Ghosts and monsters.

If you trusted nothing without proof, you would be agnostic. Perhaps you should look up the term. Atheism is the belief there is no God without any proof either way. Agnosticism is the belief that we really have no idea if there is a God since there is no proof.

.

Oprah is very rich woman in America with a huge house. I was just saying why not just complain about everyone who takes up too much space.

Well, if it works that way in your country (taxes build churches/mosques/etc) then I think you have a basis for complaint. But if the mosque was built by donations from the people attending then it's really their problem, isn't it? As far as the dairy that used to be there, I hardly believe that the nation of Islam bulldozed the a viable dairy. My guess is the dairy was going to close anyway and a bunch of Muslims decided to build a mosque.

I hope that that is not pointed in my direction.

He says some people around here are ignorant and you immediately ask if he means you... curious. I wonder what that says about your view of yourself. I KNEW he wasn't talking about me. Why didn't you know the same thing, given it was just a generalization?

I hope that that is not pointed in my direction.

I wasnt pointing it in any particular direction, but if the shoe fits....

It have been tried by a number of communist countries, in their case replacing dogmatic religion with the dogmatic atheism of Marxism. However it never worked, the Russian church is still going strong and in China they have killed millions of innocent monks for nothing.
Now I do agree that it is a bad idea to follow somebody blindly, but that goes with everybody and not only the local pastor. So if we want to outlaw all forms of following something on bases of belief, we should start outlawing all organised forms of political ideologies and beliefs.
Also religion is not necessarily about a monotheistic god with some ancient law book, that is solely the western perspective on religion. Anybody going to Asia or examining some of the more unusual streams of western spirituality (some of them Christian in nature) will find that many religions are all about personal experience. A country such as India is full of religious Hermits seeking enlightenment.

Atheism: "The theory or belief that God does not exist"

Agnostic: "a person who believes that nothing is known, or can be known, of the existance or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena

some sects of those religions promote that. not all.

The poster didn't say ALL, they said MOST. You didn't say anything to refute that.

Religion especially Catholicism helped the European law system, helped with the plague and diseases, teaching, art, and other things through the medieval ages. It also led to the devolopement of guns.

I subscribe to the Spectator, and known Boris Johnson personally...So there we are. The article aims to produce one side of an Argument, and it is clear to me that just because a right-wing rag says that Christians are being persecuted against it doesn't mean they are.

I have 'faith' that God doesn't exist? No, I have faith that he doesn't and religion is my proof in a way. That something so evil, destructive etc. could be in his name is obviousy contradictory of what he's meant to stand for. In addition to this, Come on, how is it even possible he exists? All the experiences of my life point to the fact he does not.

Hitler wasn't an Atheist, Stalin was nurtured in a devout, Orthodox family...seems to me religion BREEDs these idiots.

Didn't you say you were nurtured in a devout family? Hmmmmm... what does that say?

i just want religion not to get special treatment. are you saying that people who believe in ghosts that they saw in ghostbusters should have a "chillurch" or something where they can worship "casper"?

If enough people want to worship "Casper", and they gather funds together, purchase land, and build a building, who's going to stop them?

but how can you build a centre of worship for people who believe in "atheism"? you can't, since people who are atheists are only atheists because they don't fit into the line of any major religion. so you must then take down these centres of worship for all the major religions to keep things equal.

In other words, you don't choose to build a building, so other people need to be prevented from building their own building for the sake of equality?

Did you know that there was an internet campaign here in the UK for the last census to put "Jedi" as a religion: if only 1% more people in a certain region put "Jedi" as their religion, the government would, by law, have to build a church for them.

That's a strong argument for American-style "separation of church and state" if I've ever heard one. That, or else it proves that there's a lot of people with way too much time on their hands.

I believe that places of worship are only showing people that we are stuck in a time where we still can't let go of the idea of going to church on Sunday, where we aren't open to new ideas, and where we are, quite simply, biased and ignorant.

Perhaps. Perhaps not. Christianity, particularly evangelical Christianity, is going through an adjustment phase as the culture (even here in the USA) is moving to a more pluralistic society. The idea of having a big ornate building is going out. Serving the community is gaining popularity. Sunday mornings are becoming negotiable. Restrictions on how one dresses are falling. Legalism has become a dirty word. Loving one's neighbor is a cool thing. I don't see traditional churches going away, but they're becoming less prominent, and Christianity will look radically different in 50 years.

It also led to the devolopement of guns.

Which REALLY helped the world!!

It says that I am one of the lucky ones, doesn't it. To have escaped Religion's evil clutches.

It says that I am one of the lucky ones, doesn't it. To have escaped Religion's evil clutches.

I believe Stalin would have replied exactly the same way.

You can't protect a freedom by denying the same freedom. It doesn't work that way, plain and simple (a lesson I wish some members of the US government would learn). Freedom of speech and freedom of thought is a right given to you by birth. Not all people use that freedom to be as hateful as the people you complain about or as hateful as you yourself are being. I doubt most people will ever again willingly allow their freedom of speech to be taken from them and I thank God for it (yeah, you heard me).

And what would you have to say of my pastor, who was raised in an agnostic home? (Sorry, can't resist.)

Atheism: "The theory or belief that God does not exist"

Agnostic: "a person who believes that nothing is known, or can be known, of the existance or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena

Thank you. Hopefully, Botrosox will read and learn those definitions.

If enough people want to worship "Casper", and they gather funds together, purchase land, and build a building, who's going to stop them?

lol I guess nobody can lawfully stop them

In other words, you don't choose to build a building, so other people need to be prevented from building their own building for the sake of equality?

No. It is impossible to build a building that houses Atheism, since it's content is so wide that there is no way you can teach it.

That's a strong argument for American-style "separation of church and state" if I've ever heard one. That, or else it proves that there's a lot of people with way too much time on their hands.

Probably the latter :D

Perhaps. Perhaps not. Christianity, particularly evangelical Christianity, is going through an adjustment phase as the culture (even here in the USA) is moving to a more pluralistic society. The idea of having a big ornate building is going out. But the old ones aren't being taken down. More are being built, even though this is an obvious sign of favouritism, since EVERYONE, even those who don't believe in the religion, pays for the religion's building Serving the community is gaining popularity. Sunday mornings are becoming negotiable. Restrictions on how one dresses are falling. Legalism has become a dirty word Is that an Americanism? - I never knew that was a word . Loving one's neighbor is a cool thing. Umm - cool? I don't see traditional churches going away, but they're becoming less prominent, and Christianity will look radically different in 50 years. I hope it will be different. .

That doesn't even make sense...there's no logic to what you're saying. Indeed, ignorance? Can be associated with religious people who look down on others (gays, blacks etc.) and arrogancE? WHY, surely the belief in your religion above all others and that you have the right to evangelise is supreme arrogance.
Well, actually I don't have a "religion," nor do I prosylitize, evangelize or harrangue. What was that about "arrogance" again??

.

First replying like that makes it difficult for people to reply to you and for it to make sense. Please seperate your quotes from your replies.

As you said, everywhere is not America and your country is not everywhere. Taxpayers don't pay to build churches in many countries. Your problem about having to pay for other belief systems is a problem with YOUR government and not religion in general. I think most religious people I know would agree that you as an atheist should not have to pay to build their church.

Oh, and, according to many atheists, every single scientific organization is a church of atheism as it promotes secularism and fights against "religious ignorance". I don't agree with this particular view since I am both a scientist and a Christian.

First replying like that makes it difficult for people to reply to you and for it to make sense. Please seperate your quotes from your replies.

Sorry

As you said, everywhere is not America and your country is not everywhere.

Exactly

Taxpayers don't pay to build churches in many countries. Your problem about having to pay for other belief systems is a problem with YOUR government and not religion in general. I think most religious people I know would agree that you as an atheist should not have to pay to build their church.

I never knew it varied, although I should expect that.

Oh, and, according to many atheists, every single scientific organization is a church of atheism as it promotes secularism and fights against "religious ignorance". I don't agree with this particular view since I am both a scientist and a Christian.

Nonsense - religion and science can mix and you are just one of the many examples of this. So these people are idiots.

And is it me, or are voting options 1 and 4 the same?

Nonsense - religion and science can mix and you are just one of the many examples of this. So these people are idiots.

I know you didn't say this. I was just bitching. I almost didn't include it in my post.

I hope that that is not pointed in my direction.
If you are paranoid enough to believe that, with no sign at all, he was referring to you, then you probably subconsciously think you are ignorant.

It says that I am one of the lucky ones, doesn't it. To have escaped Religion's evil clutches.
It may surprise you to learn that I am an atheist.

Atheism: "The theory or belief that God does not exist"
Actually, that is antitheism. Atheism is to neither deny nor accept the existence of God.

You know, I seem to be sensing a lot of support for the banning of religion. I wonder if the solution is actually a bit more subtle, though. Instead of outright banning organized religion, why don't we simply discourage memes? We could impose a tax on all organizations that fit the definition of a meme.

At the same time, we should encourage institutions and practices that fulfilled the same needs that memes provided to their adherents (but are not, themselves, memes). I believe this would be much more effective at phasing out the more harmful aspects of organized religion.

Religious opinions should be allowed the same as any other opinion, but they shouldn't have a special status like they do now.

To understand religions effects you must understand where they originated. You have a group of individuals who did not want to see society flouder, and also, wanted a method of control. Now, with severe lacking in education and much fear it was better to use fear to create the idea of faith. This is the exact same base for the religion of Egypt, Summer, Ur, Babylon. Simply a method of control of society based on a foundation which tenants could be manipulated.

I'm sure we all heard George Carlins HBO special where he knocks the 10 commandments down to 2. 1) Be honest and faithful to the provider of thy nookie 2) and try really hard not to kill anyone (unless they pray to a different invisible man than you do)

Noam Chomsky speaks on this aswell "...Man is not guided by reason but faith, and this naive faith provides nescessary illusion and emotionally potent oversimplification provided by the "myth maker" to keep the average human on course." Of course, he was talking about most ruling classes, since they all follow the same principle.

We might say that we are guided by reason and can make rational decisions. But if we could do that, we certainly wouldn't have the current crux in society where the rational people want one things and the faithful want another. Fear and self preservation (as the US government constantly makes national news so that you will be scared and constantly in fear, with the help of fear incuding commercialism) is the easiest method of control.

To get past fear "Faith" was created. Faith can be defined as "Accepting the word of another as a belief" Since you have absolutely no basis from which to derive the knowledge besides what they have told you. So, if they spoke to you while you were young about how to make magic from words and provided the foundational stories, you can base all you decision off the Egyptian gods and their stories and have faith that the Gods have a plan for you...

And so much hogwash is created into systems of power and control and the "institutionalization" of religion is formed. when we were cave men, running around we didn't have that, we simply had fear... So Faith, is better that total fear and chaos... I humbly admit that the introduction of religion provided a firm foundation on which to advance a culture. But as in Rome and Egypt, it is just a basis from where to stand politically, to get the most votes or get popular majority by some means. As an institution, religion kills more often than anything else I can think of.

If we want to reach the third age of man, (1st that we lived in fear, and didn't know what to do... 2nd that we live with the faith that things could be better and 3rd Understand and Reason our way through the situations that face us as a society.) Then we will forever be controlled by those who make it their wish to control us. Rational thought will always take a back seat to Fear and Faith.

Faith also can drive people to put aside their conscience and kill anyone or anything that this "different" than you. Fundementalist Christians, Islamics all place the same section of the Far Right. Militantly conservative to their own views and any deviation can lead to the indoctrinated mind to agree to horrible inhumane actions. Like, say... Killing other people who are not "like you".

The only way to be free of these institutions will be to dismantle them. I am not in favour of banning peoples right to believe, but I am all in favor of removing the controlling institutions who tell us who to murder and why, for no other reason than they have differences with us. Murder is never a solution unless it is in self preservation. Unfortunately, that self preservation instinct is constantly exagerated in a faith-based society.

In a rational society you can "just be", and count on injustices to be dealt with by the will of the people to not allow them to continue. We will all be judge how we treat our less fortunate, including our prisoners and our poor and our hungry.

Make heaven on earth and stop trying to reach it by dying.

It may surprise you to learn that I am an atheist.


Actually, that is antitheism. Atheism is to neither deny nor accept the existence of God.


I prefer Zen Buddhism... Being awake and aware of your surroundings and admitting you don't know if God exists or not, or heaven, hell or reincarnation... Because... well... How could you with any real certainty?

Perhaps. Perhaps not. Christianity, particularly evangelical Christianity, is going through an adjustment phase as the culture (even here in the USA) is moving to a more pluralistic society. The idea of having a big ornate building is going out. But the old ones aren't being taken down. More are being built, even though this is an obvious sign of favouritism, since EVERYONE, even those who don't believe in the religion, pays for the religion's building Serving the community is gaining popularity. Sunday mornings are becoming negotiable. Restrictions on how one dresses are falling. Legalism has become a dirty word Is that an Americanism? - I never knew that was a word . Loving one's neighbor is a cool thing. Umm - cool? I don't see traditional churches going away, but they're becoming less prominent, and Christianity will look radically different in 50 years. I hope it will be different. .

It's called "keeping the faith" and its to make people feel that the religion is relating to them. Fortunately the true believers don't need money to build things to represent waht they "believe". Believing (To make a choice or pick and answer and purport it as truth, even though you cannot prove it.) is itself, self-deliusion. You can't possibly know the answer, though you "bullshit" other to establish a "faith".

For example I could say "God exists in the Core of Jupiter where he existed since he carted off Atlantis..." It can't be possible that I could know this, but I purport it as truth, so you will all do what I say...

It's crap and has no use in a intelligent, technologically advanced society.

Like it matters how many angels can fit on a head of a pin...

It may surprise you to learn that I am an atheist.


Actually, that is antitheism. Atheism is to neither deny nor accept the existence of God.

Are we making up words now? Atheism is the belief that the universe is godless from the Greek origin ATHEOS - godless. Agnosticism is to neither accept nor deny the existence of a deity. So you either meant to say you're an agnostic or you don't understand your own made-up definitions.

EDIT: Oh, and anti- as a prefix means against, so ANTITHEISM would be against theism. Maybe Botrosox is an antitheist.

In other words, you don't choose to build a building, so other people need to be prevented from building their own building for the sake of equality?

No. It is impossible to build a building that houses Atheism, since it's content is so wide that there is no way you can teach it.

Again, that is your choice. I find it very difficult to swallow that I must not be allowed to build a building because you freely choose not to build a building.

That's a strong argument for American-style "separation of church and state" if I've ever heard one. That, or else it proves that there's a lot of people with way too much time on their hands.

Probably the latter

Probably more of the former. The U.S. government does not build churches, because the Constitution forbids it. People can build churches all they want, but the government isn't going to pitch in. The problem is with UK law, not religious people.

Perhaps. Perhaps not. Christianity, particularly evangelical Christianity, is going through an adjustment phase as the culture (even here in the USA) is moving to a more pluralistic society. The idea of having a big ornate building is going out. But the old ones aren't being taken down. More are being built, even though this is an obvious sign of favouritism, since EVERYONE, even those who don't believe in the religion, pays for the religion's building

Again, this is a European thing (I know that churches are also supported by the government in Germany and parts of France). I'm very much not in favor of such laws. Here, churches are only supported by the people who choose to support them.

Serving the community is gaining popularity. Sunday mornings are becoming negotiable. Restrictions on how one dresses are falling. Legalism has become a dirty word Is that an Americanism? - I never knew that was a word .

I'm not sure if it is an Americanism. It probably is a Christianism. It refers to having one's life and religion revolve around a strict set of rules. That's very much looked down with the Christians I associate with.

Loving one's neighbor is a cool thing. Umm - cool?

Yes. Cool. Gnarly. Bodacious. Rockin'. Like, fangoriously world-class and grand.

I don't see traditional churches going away, but they're becoming less prominent, and Christianity will look radically different in 50 years. I hope it will be different.

Me too. The church needs to change to stay relevent to the culture. That doesn't mean forsaking the Word of God, but many of the trappings of Sunday morning have become an obstacle to the Gospel. It's too easy to come in, sleep with your eyes open through the sermon, then go home and do nothing. Christ called us to do good things, not to form little social clubs and sit on our butts for an hour every week.

It's crap and has no use in a intelligent, technologically advanced society.

And here I was, thinking I had gotten mostly A's in school, thinking that the two I.Q. tests I've taken reported an I.Q. in the 130s, and thinking I was a database administrator and web application developer. But apparently because I'm "religious" I'm supposed to be dumb and technophobic. Fortunately, I'm also very much less weak-willed than these people take me for, so I don't have to submit to this sort of B.S.

Although I'm an Atheist and a Communist and am personally opposed to religion I certainly don't believe there should be any law against it and it is unacceptable in a democratic society to deprive someone of the right to practice the religion of their choice. I also however believe that irrational religions beliefs have, throughout history, been invented and used by the ruling classes as a means to suppress the people and they will therefore gradually wither away in the inevitable transition to Communism.

I don't believe that Organised Religions serve any purpose other than to damage societies and governments. I also believe that while people have a right to be Spiritual, there is no sense in letting your 'religious' beliefs dominate your life/existence (the latter most likely true for most devout people). Don't give me that codswallop about Atheism being an organised religion because it certainly isn't...that's like saying 'dry' people are a breed of alcoholic. Just doesn't wash ;)

Anyway, if anyone here agrees with me that the benefits (if any..erm? Charity? Though non-religious people do that to) of Religion are far outweighed by the drawbacks (Theocracy, war, death etc.) then say so here! Is it Faith or Ignorance? You decide.

Exactly how would you go about "abolishing" religion? There are more people in the world with religious beliefs than without. You'd be fighting a losing battle.

People will believe whatever they want to believe. Despite scientific evidence to the contrary, there are people out there that believe that Elvis is still alive, that McDonald's cheeseburgers are actually food, and that the Earth is flat.

Abolishing religion is a foolish pipe dream.

Is it Faith or Ignorance? You decide.

Just an interesting note:

It appears that human beings have "evolved" an innate since to worship. If you go into the deepest jungles, and find tribes of people that have never had any western influence whatsoever, you'll find that they have a religious system of some sort, a deity, supernatural being or even something natural that they worship. From my observations and studies it appears that "anti-religion" does not come naturally to a person unless it's embedded in their thinking from childhood, and even then I've noticed many cases where it appeared to be a struggle.

Faith or ignorance? I've seen some ignorant faith in my day, but it seems that the human being has a need for religion...I personally think that it's because that's the way we were created and after rebelling against the creator our since of religion and worship has become exceedingly warped.

Well, this discussion is about religion. I don't agree with taxes on things that are not needed: religion is one, but there are many others - only thing is that we are having a discussion about religion. I never said that I agree with "Social Security" and "Welfare" (in inverted commas for a reason).

I believe if we are, for some ludicrous reason, prevent people free excercise of their Type 1 rights, we should keep people from their Type 2 rights as well.
It's only fair.


Who calls it a "human right"? The constitution?
Pretty much every instuition worth its salt believes the right to worship is a basic human right. It wasn't first outline in the Constuition, either, but in Europe (since they guys who wrote the document WERE European)

If we didn't vote, speak our minds, or live, then the nation wouldn't run. I can't say the same about religion.
I see people being manipulate all the time when it comes to the political process. It seems people are, actually, LESS free in the political realm than the religious realm, because they are friggin morons.




It says that I am one of the lucky ones, doesn't it. To have escaped Religion's evil clutches.
:rolleyes: Proffessional sports are more evil than religion can ever hope to attain. Religion, at the very least, helped to establish modern government in Europe and led to some sort of unification in the Middle Ages following the fall of the Roman Empire.
What does proffessional sports have to its name? Nothing. As many ignorant people cling to some silly label (like the Cubs) as cling to a religious label. And both lead to the same rejection of the political process, which seems to be your beef with religion.
So, why not ban proffesional sports? Hell, baseball teams are getting $200 million in DC for a stadium, and that's with the school system in absolute disrespair!

Don't give me that codswallop about Atheism being an organised religion because it certainly isn't...that's like saying 'dry' people are a breed of alcoholic. Just doesn't wash ;)

I'd never say that it was an organized religion...but it definitely is a belief system one of the definitions of religion in websters is as follows

"a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith"

The atheists simply believe in themselves, and they have faith that they are right. They hold to the principle that there is no supernatural being that controls the universe and certainly doesn't hold them accountable. They're system of beliefs is usually quite humanistic, though some try to live moral lives just in case they're wrong, though I don't think any supernatural being would think to kindly of a person that spent their life denying his existance. ;)

As far as worship, even though it's not mentioned in that definition, the atheist worships himself, he sees himself as accountable to no-one but himself...ultimately he sets the rules of his life unless "forced" to do otherwise by society.

And I know that atheists come in all varieties, and then you throw in the agnostics which are a whole different breed (glorified atheists in my opinion but hey, my opinion doesn't mean much). I also know that atheists hate any religious terminology being associated with their beliefs, but of course that doesn't negate that it is a belief system. (Just ask them if they "believe" that there is no God...and you've got your answer.)

ramble ramble ramble......

You can't tell me what I can and can't believe in...

(since they guys who wrote the document WERE European)

Really? I'd be interested in knowing how many, and which ones were born in Europe.

You can't tell me what I can and can't believe in...

Very, VERY, true. A forcing someone to believe is definitely not right (or even biblical if anyone cares).

Being able to practice my religion is a basic right and freedom. I should be allow to do it. Outlawing organized religion is the same as outlawing freedom of speech. Some people don't like what some are saying, live with it.

I should be allow to do it. Outlawing organized religion is the same as outlawing freedom of speech. Some people don't like what some are saying, live with it.

Agree completely. As long as they do not attack/commit acts of violence or threaten other religions, they are fine with me. Outlawing it in favor of atheism is just as bad as imposing a theocracy and state religion.

Clearly, a government that espouses freedom of speech should be agnostic.

To understand religions effects you must understand where they originated. You have a group of individuals who did not want to see society flouder, and also, wanted a method of control. This is the exact same base for the religion of Egypt, Summer, Ur, Babylon. Simply a method of control of society based on a foundation which tenants could be manipulated.


This argument holds no water when you examine the origins of christianity. The first christians, the founders of the religion, were not in power when they founded it and never attained a position of power. In fact, most early writings point to the martyrdom of most of the founders of christianity. A brief study of the history of christianity proves that your logic cannot possibly apply to this religion because the people who created it were never in power and had control over no one.

Clearly, a government that espouses freedom of speech should be agnostic.

Not neccessarily true...while the members of the government should not try to force their religion on others, government needs "religious" people because most religions provide a basic moral foundation, a foundation that says murder is bad, stealing is bad, etc. etc. Those moral foundations are important in any government and if they are absent from a leaders personal life, he would feel less obligation to incorporate them into the ruling of a country.

Also religious people tend to (or should if they are truly religious) believe that they are ultimately held accountable for their actions in a much higher court...which should help them rule sensibly. (key word..."should")...alas, the trouble comes when those religious people believe that forcing their religion on their country is a good thing.

(note...a big difference between a forcing a religion on someone, and enforcing the moral principles a country is founded on)

This argument holds no water when you examine the origins of christianity. The first christians, the founders of the religion, were not in power when they founded it and never attained a position of power. In fact, most early writings point to the martyrdom of most of the founders of christianity. A brief study of the history of christianity proves that your logic cannot possibly apply to this religion because the people who created it were never in power and had control over no one.

Very true, nor did they desire to control it. In fact the teachings of Christ are teachings of servitude, and humilty. Alas, there were political leaders in later centuries that did see this as an opportunity to wrest power from the common people and did a lot of things in the name of christianity that were anything but Christian. (The Crusades, The inquisition, the refusal to print the Bible in the common tongue, even when the Pilgrims left England it was to escape persecution from "the church.")

Not neccessarily true...while the members of the government should not try to force their religion on others, government needs "religious" people because most religions provide a basic moral foundation, a foundation that says murder is bad, stealing is bad, etc. etc. Those moral foundations are important in any government and if they are absent from a leaders personal life, he would feel less obligation to incorporate them into the ruling of a country.

Also religious people tend to (or should if they are truly religious) believe that they are ultimately held accountable for their actions in a much higher court...which should help them rule sensibly. (key word..."should")...alas, the trouble comes when those religious people believe that forcing their religion on their country is a good thing.

(note...a big difference between a forcing a religion on someone, and enforcing the moral principles a country is founded on)

Oh, my God, you don't actually believe that atheists or agnostics believe that murder is acceptable, do you? Murder is bad. Stealing is bad. We know this without any interference by religion or religious individuals whatsoever. Leaders are held accountable here for the actions. They can be impeached and, if convicted, punished. It wasn't religion that taught many of the countries of the world that slavery was wrong or that women should be allowed to vote. It was reason, education, a basic understanding of the way human beings should be treated.

So should the government have a law that says no graven images or no god before the God and to keep the sabbath day holy? Do we just pick and choose from the commandments?

A government can have religious folks in it while the government itself is agnostic. The point is the government should give no preference to the existence or lack of a deity. No law should be founded on religious principle alone.

I've noticed that a lot of people seem to mistakenly believe that a code of ethics cannot arise from non-religious sources...

I've noticed that a lot of people seem to mistakenly believe that a code of ethics cannot arise from non-religious sources...


Yet one is somehow more or less valid?

I've noticed that a lot of people seem to mistakenly believe that a code of ethics cannot arise from non-religious sources...

Exactly. Or, even if those ethics are originally founded in a religious context, would throw the baby out with the bathwater, so to speak (throw out all ethics derived from religious foundation).

Amusingly, coveting is a necessary part of capitalism. The whole goal of advertising to make you covet your neighbor's ass (car), wife, etc.

Oh, my God, you don't actually believe that atheists or agnostics believe that murder is acceptable, do you? Murder is bad. Stealing is bad. We know this without any interference by religion or religious individuals whatsoever. Leaders are held accountable here for the actions. They can be impeached and, if convicted, punished. It wasn't religion that taught many of the countries of the world that slavery was wrong or that women should be allowed to vote. It was reason, education, a basic understanding of the way human beings should be treated.

So should the government have a law that says no graven images or no god before the God and to keep the sabbath day holy? Do we just pick and choose from the commandments?

A government can have religious folks in it while the government itself is agnostic. The point is the government should give no preference to the existence or lack of a deity. No law should be founded on religious principle alone.

Definitely not what was meant, nor hopefully implied. As for your last statement, I might reword it as such: "No law should be found on a specific religions principle alone." Any law that holds one religion above another is not good. The government need not be "agnostic" just not involved. :-)

I've noticed that a lot of people seem to mistakenly believe that a code of ethics cannot arise from non-religious sources...

The difference is this: When morals arise from a religion, there's the notion that if the moral is ignored, there's a higher authority to answer to. A.K.A. The moral foundation is separate from me as a person.

When morals arise from a person, it's like me saying that blue is better than red. To which the person who likes blue replies "Say's who?" And while I might be able to articulate some vastly intellectual reason on how it's good for our society, in the end the answer winds up being "Because I say so."

While Religious fanatics ruin alot, I believe that Religion itself is a good thing. Just don't use it as an excuse to kill people.

Definitely not what was meant, nor hopefully implied. As for your last statement, I might reword it as such: "No law should be found on a specific religions principle alone." Any law that holds one religion above another is not good. The government need not be "agnostic" just not involved. :-)

Dude, look up agnostic. And that's crap, so if two religions believe in it, then it's okay? No law should be founded on RELIGIOUS PRINCIPLES alone. Period. Christianity and Judaism both believe in the commandments (there are actually only ten if you arrange them as such) so can we make it illegal to covet?

The difference is this: When morals arise from a religion, there's the notion that if the moral is ignored, there's a higher authority to answer to. A.K.A. The moral foundation is separate from me as a person.

When morals arise from a person, it's like me saying that blue is better than red. To which the person who likes blue replies "Say's who?" And while I might be able to articulate some vastly intellectual reason on how it's good for our society, in the end the answer winds up being "Because I say so."

When morals arise from a society, you don't need what many consider to be an invisible man to enforce those morals (I believe in God) because you have laws that punish them here on earth.

Here's the conversation:

Me: Murder is bad
You: Why?
Me: because it's better for society and that society in order to protect itself will slap your ass in prison if you commit murder. It's part of societal agreement to not allow your actions to obstruct other people's right to life and liberty (that whole pursuit of happiness is bs).

So basically, it's because society said so. It's no worse of an explanation than my personal invisible man said so.

So basically, it's because society said so. It's no worse of an explanation than my personal invisible man said so.
So, what if society says it wants to kill all the homeless people? :)



Really? I'd be interested in knowing how many, and which ones were born in Europe.
You don't have to be born in Europe to be a product of European thinking. America didn't even have a philosophy until Emerson, and that was in the 1830's.
Until then, America was basically an extension of modern European thought.

So, what if society says it wants to kill all the homeless people? :)

Then you refuse to accept the ideals of society and accept the consequences of said action. It's a choice. What if your church suddenly told you to kill all homeless people? Same thing. The difference is that society has the power to inhibit your freedom if you violate its laws. No amount of believing in God is going to change that. Don't tell me you think theocracies don't promote these kinds of ideas, because I can spout examples till my fingers fall off from typing, Salem Witch trials (local government was essentially a theocracy), the Crusades, et all.

EDIT: What part of "It's part of societal agreement to not allow your actions to obstruct other people's right to life and liberty (that whole pursuit of happiness is bs)" did you not understand? Seems like killing all homeless people is a violation of that agreement.

I see people being manipulate all the time when it comes to the political process. It seems people are, actually, LESS free in the political realm than the religious realm, because they are friggin morons.
That is not my problem.
Most religious people are only religious through family, or early teaching of relgion.





So, why not ban proffesional sports? Hell, baseball teams are getting $200 million in DC for a stadium, and that's with the school system in absolute disrespair!
Not my problem either.

I'd never say that it was an organized religion...but it definitely is a belief system one of the definitions of religion in websters is as follows

"a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith"

The atheists simply believe in themselves, and they have faith that they are right. They hold to the principle that there is no supernatural being that controls the universe and certainly doesn't hold them accountable.
I believe that there is a supernatural being, or more like - lots of them, and I come under the definition in the Collins dictionary of someone who holds the "theory or belief that God does not exist". And only God, nothing more. Just because God does not exist, doesn't mean no-"one" else does.
As far as worship, even though it's not mentioned in that definition, the atheist worships himself, he sees himself as accountable to no-one but himself...ultimately he sets the rules of his life unless "forced" to do otherwise by society. You remind me of religion. How so? Because you have taken a theory, for which you have no proving evidence to support, and you have given it to me as "the atheist worships himself". Are we born worshipers? No. Just because we don't believe there is a God (we could believe, according to, I'm quite sure, any dictionary that there is a supernatural being, just that it is not the God that we were fed theories about in school.) Do you think that we atheists sit in a room and face towards the place we were born, and pray to ourselves? What the fu-k have you been smoking? You need to check all the definitions you're going to use, since atheism means something other than what it is to you.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And I could adhere to all of the ten commandments and still commit crimes.
I could be a masochist, someone who wishes pain among themselves. Say I wish to be beaten to near-death, but not murder or stolen from. I could go around "treating others as I would like to be treated", I "would not murder", and "would not steal", and the other 7 commandments do not seem to apply.
This obviously means that, even if the US, or the UK, or anywhere else was founded on religious commandments, it would not be what it is today (in terms of having laws against beating people up) without the basic knowledge that it is not nice to kick people. We don't need some fu-king whackos from 2 milleniums ago to tell us that we shouldn't kill people.

T
You remind me of religion. How so? Because you have taken a theory, for which you have no proving evidence to support, and you have given it to me as "the atheist worships himself". Are we born worshipers? No. Just because we don't believe there is a God (we could believe, according to, I'm quite sure, any dictionary that there is a supernatural being, just that it is not the God that we were fed theories about in school.) Do you think that we atheists sit in a room and face towards the place we were born, and pray to ourselves?....You need to check all the definitions you're going to use


I'll leave the first couple of sentances alone realizing that you have no idea how many atheists I've communicated with and how much research I've done on the matter.

As far as "worship." The word doesn't always refer to a "religious" act, such as bowing, praying or the like. The atheist worships himself simply by putting himself as the main object of esteem. Such is a definition of worship "extravagant respect or admiration for or devotion to an object of esteem" (Webster)

I look at all the arguments, even the ones that believe in "many gods" yet are still considered atheist...the central theme in all arguments is "I." On the other hand, to the genuine Christian (realizing the multitudes of hypocritical ones) "I" means absolutely nothing.

That is not my problem.
Most religious people are only religious through family, or early teaching of relgion

I believe that there is a supernatural being, or more like - lots of them, and I come under the definition in the Collins dictionary of someone who holds the "theory or belief that God does not exist". And only God, nothing more. Just because God does not exist, doesn't mean no-"one" else does.


What a load of crap. Atheist means literally not theist, you believe in a godless universe. If you believe there is some sort of supreme being(s) then you are a theist of some type or another. If the definition says the belief that God does not exist then your dictionary sucks. If it says the belief that no god exists (which is much more likely) that means no god, no gods, no deities of any kind. God is not the only god. Origin of the word is atheos - greek - godless.

Atheism - Merriam-Webster
1 archaic : UNGODLINESS, WICKEDNESS
2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity

a·the·ism - Dictionary.com
1a.Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
1b.The doctrine that there is no God or gods.
2.Godlessness; immorality.

Atheism -Oh, and what do you know, here is the Collins dictionary definition
1.rejection of belief in God or gods.

Now as far as the comparison of religion and politics, many people are born into their political affiliation as well. It's a silly argument. Anyone who accepts an idea just because their parents once they reach adulthood or even puberty is ignorant be it about religion, drugs, abortion or purple wallpaper. Again, you can't classify a group by only looking at it's most ignorant members, otherwise some people might have some pretty low expectations of this forum based on some of the people who have posted in this thread.

I'll leave the first couple of sentances alone realizing that you have no idea how many atheists I've communicated with and how much research I've done on the matter.

As far as "worship." The word doesn't always refer to a "religious" act, such as bowing, praying or the like. The atheist worships himself simply by putting himself as the main object of esteem. Such is a definition of worship "extravagant respect or admiration for or devotion to an object of esteem" (Webster)

I look at all the arguments, even the ones that believe in "many gods" yet are still considered atheist...the central theme in all arguments is "I." On the other hand, to the genuine Christian (realizing the multitudes of hypocritical ones) "I" means absolutely nothing.

You also show yourself to not know how to use a dictionary or you'd know a belief in many gods is not atheism. Strange for having done so much research. Not all people who believe in a godless universe worship the self. Some, in fact, believe that we are at exactly at the same level of importance as ever other being on the planet. They tend to define being selectively, however (all plants and animals, but no bacteria, viruses, etc. or only animals, no plants, bacteria, viruses, etc.). Have you come across this in your extensive scientific research? Oh, and if you're considering arguing that it's self-agrandizing to say we get to define it, religion does the same. You don't know for sure they're wrong and they don't know for sure you are.

As far as "worship." The word doesn't always refer to a "religious" act, such as bowing, praying or the like. The atheist worships himself simply by putting himself as the main object of esteem. Such is a definition of worship "extravagant respect or admiration for or devotion to an object of esteem" (Webster)

many atheists, agnostics, and secularists do not do this. there is nothing in the definition of any of those terms which requires the self-worship you describe.


I look at all the arguments, even the ones that believe in "many gods" yet are still considered atheist...the central theme in all arguments is "I." On the other hand, to the genuine Christian (realizing the multitudes of hypocritical ones) "I" means absolutely nothing.
you obviously have not looked at all the arguments, if that is the case. in fact, you pretty clearly have missed at least half the arguments, if not more, so i would advise you to go back to the drawing board with your theory.

I'll leave the first couple of sentances alone realizing that you have no idea how many atheists I've communicated with and how much research I've done on the matter.

As far as "worship." The word doesn't always refer to a "religious" act, such as bowing, praying or the like. The atheist worships himself simply by putting himself as the main object of esteem. Such is a definition of worship "extravagant respect or admiration for or devotion to an object of esteem" (Webster)

I look at all the arguments, even the ones that believe in "many gods" yet are still considered atheist...the central theme in all arguments is "I." On the other hand, to the genuine Christian (realizing the multitudes of hypocritical ones) "I" means absolutely nothing.

And that "I" means absolutely nothing is a load of crap too. Would you be willing to be condemned to Hell so that I might be saved? If the answer is no, then the "I" means something to you. Quote me chapter and verse where it says "I" mean absolutely nothing. Surely with all the research you've done, you can do so. Christians and multideists are equally likely to be concerned with the self, especially since we're not defining the specific kind of multideist. Vikings used to sacrifice themselves to their gods. I'd say that's a pretty good sign that they thought their god came before them. What's the sacrifice made by almost all Christians today? Put a little money in the plate and give up an hour a week to sit on their ass. Donate a little time at the homeless shelter. Hard to compare that to being so committed to your gods that you are willing to be burned alive.

I just reread some of my posts. The sarcasm is intended to just make my posts more amusing. Some of the other stuff is insulting and I could of and should of left it out. I apologize if anyone feels I insulted them specifically. Any sweeping insults were meant to be amusing and if you notice I didn't exclude myself.

I get frustrated with general sweeping statements about Christians, atheists, Jews, Muslims, multideists, Democrats, Republics, et all, based on stereotypes and propoganda rather than what these groups actually believe. It is equally ignorant to peg all Christians as being self-righteous fascists, all Muslims as being terrorists, etc. It's frustrating. I recommend to everyone that you actually try to see it from the side of members of these groups and speak of them the way you'd like to spoken of. If you're so certain any one of these groups is wrong, it should be equally easy to show their hypocrisy using their own rhetoric, rather than rhetoric from a group that hates them.

And that "I" means absolutely nothing is a load of crap too. Would you be willing to be condemned to Hell so that I might be saved? If the answer is no, then the "I" means something to you. Quote me chapter and verse where it says "I" mean absolutely nothing....Christians and multideists are equally likely to be concerned with the self, especially since we're not defining the specific kind of multideist....Vikings used to sacrifice themselves to their gods. I'd say that's a pretty good sign that they thought their god came before them. What's the sacrifice made by almost all Christians today? Put a little money in the plate and give up an hour a week to sit on their ass. Donate a little time at the homeless shelter. Hard to compare that to being so committed to your gods that you are willing to be burned alive.

First off, let me say that I agree with most of everything you said. Christians in this day live more for themselves than for the God they supposedly serve. There are many religions that show more self-sacrifice than many Christians do. The difference should be that every thing the genuine Christian does points the observer away from the Christian and to God. The preacher that revels in his own fame is sinning, the preacher who preaches week in and week out in order to point one soul to Christ is following Christ's example. (The most famous person I know that models this type of behavior is Dr. John MacArthur) I've seen "christians" do self-sacrificing acts, but if the reason they do them is to be noticed, then they're not doing as Christ taught.

As for "chapter and verse" allow me to show these to you:

There is a biblical example of desiring to be sent to hell so that another could gain entrance to heaven. Paul speaks concerning his jewish brethren:

Romans 9:3(ESV) For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, my kinsmen according to the flesh.

The reason I as a Christian should be willing to suffer is not to earn brownie points for me, but to point others to Christ, Paul writes:

2Timothy 2:10 Therefore I endure all things for the elect's[those who God will save] sakes, that they may also obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.

And

2Corinthians 11:7 Have I committed an offense in abasing myself that ye might be exalted, because I have preached to you the gospel of God freely?

Not to forget that as Christians we are to be "followers of Christ" and what was Christ's example? Going to the Cross so that men might be saved.

It's all about Christ...if it's about me, then I believe that somehow my "religiosity" will get me to heaven, but the Word of God is clear, "Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but by His mercy He saved us."

First off, let me say that I agree with most of everything you said. Christians in this day live more for themselves than for the God they supposedly serve. There are many religions that show more self-sacrifice than many Christians do. The difference should be that every thing the genuine Christian does points the observer away from the Christian and to God. The preacher that revels in his own fame is sinning, the preacher who preaches week in and week out in order to point one soul to Christ is following Christ's example. (The most famous person I know that models this type of behavior is Dr. John MacArthur) I've seen "christians" do self-sacrificing acts, but if the reason they do them is to be noticed, then they're not doing as Christ taught.

As for "chapter and verse" allow me to show these to you:

There is a biblical example of desiring to be sent to hell so that another could gain entrance to heaven. Paul speaks concerning his jewish brethren:

Romans 9:3(ESV) For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, my kinsmen according to the flesh.

The reason I as a Christian should be willing to suffer is not to earn brownie points for me, but to point others to Christ, Paul writes:

2Timothy 2:10 Therefore I endure all things for the elect's[those who God will save] sakes, that they may also obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.

And

2Corinthians 11:7 Have I committed an offense in abasing myself that ye might be exalted, because I have preached to you the gospel of God freely?

Not to forget that as Christians we are to be "followers of Christ" and what was Christ's example? Going to the Cross so that men might be saved.

It's all about Christ...if it's about me, then I believe that somehow my "religiosity" will get me to heaven, but the Word of God is clear, "Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but by His mercy He saved us."

None of those specifically says that the self does not matter. They are just alegorical examples of people who didn't hold the self as important as preaching. And also, typically, those are taken out of context. What if you feel that "religiosity" won't get you anywhere because there's nowhere to go? What then? What if I was willing to endure death to abolish religion from earth? Would that be holding the self important? I'm certain there are people who would be willing to be beaten nearly to death and then hung upon a cross to end all of the animosity they attribue to religious fundamentalism?

Christ's example? Didn't even Christ say, "Why ME, God?!?"

Also, if the Word of God is so clear how come it's arguably the most disputed text of all time? If the Word of God is clear why are there so many sects of Christianity?

Editor's note: I'd like to point out that I actually do believe Christ was divine and in God. I don't believe it is God's will for us to judge people in the way you are. I don't believe the Bible now looks anything like the original texts. I promise you, you haven't ever read a bible that wasn't in the hands of the Catholic church for a thousand years, at least. I believe that the relationship with God and Jesus is personal and for each of us to discover for ourselves.

The difference is this: When morals arise from a religion, there's the notion that if the moral is ignored, there's a higher authority to answer to. A.K.A. The moral foundation is separate from me as a person.

When morals arise from a person, it's like me saying that blue is better than red. To which the person who likes blue replies "Say's who?" And while I might be able to articulate some vastly intellectual reason on how it's good for our society, in the end the answer winds up being "Because I say so."

So basically what you're saying is that all the ethical philosophy that has arisen throughout history, from Aristotle on, which does not have a basis in religion can be considered invalid, that it's only personal opinion?

I just thought I would add something about legalism.

Legalism has become a dirty word, but it is not defined in Christology in quite the way that was explained. In the poster's defense, however, that is the more generally thought explanation.

The 'legalism' to which Christology most objects is the 'extra' rules that the churches have added into Christianity. Unfortunately, most people don't realize this and misuse the word all the time.

Legalism is, in many ways, like government. There is a strict set of rules that are to be followed. To completely eradicate rules, or this slightly off-kilter definition, would be to encourage self-government, which is fine if people are good by nature. I would assert, though, that most would not feel comfortable with no laws, as it gives them no rights in regards to anyone else, but I guess if everyone else is good, then there's nothing of which to be scared. :rolleyes:

The legalism that is objected to in theology is the addition of human laws to biblical laws and having them enforced as if they were biblical laws.

That was just a little look into Christianity. Hope my peephole shed a little light on what is professed (not always acted upon, unfortunately) by many Protestants.

No, I am a Meritocrat...which is partly why I have this big gripe with religion...anyway, I didn't say I'd be stripping them of their opinions. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but do we allow child pornographers to organise themselves into a group and worship a big picture of a naked baby? No. At the same time, why should we allow people to worship their God(s) in an outmoded way in superfluous buildings that suck money out of the country and pump ignorance into people's heads. I believe in freedom of speech and freedom of opinions, but religion needs to be stamped out before the rest of the world is blasted back to medieval times like America and Iran.

A meritocrat would not waste resources in this superflous thread.

None of those specifically says that the self does not matter. They are just alegorical examples of people who didn't hold the self as important as preaching. And also, typically, those are taken out of context. What if you feel that "religiosity" won't get you anywhere because there's nowhere to go? What then? What if I was willing to endure death to abolish religion from earth? Would that be holding the self important? I'm certain there are people who would be willing to be beaten nearly to death and then hung upon a cross to end all of the animosity they attribue to religious fundamentalism?

Christ's example? Didn't even Christ say, "Why ME, God?!?"

Also, if the Word of God is so clear how come it's arguably the most disputed text of all time? If the Word of God is clear why are there so many sects of Christianity?

Editor's note: I'd like to point out that I actually do believe Christ was divine and in God. I don't believe it is God's will for us to judge people in the way you are. I don't believe the Bible now looks anything like the original texts. I promise you, you haven't ever read a bible that wasn't in the hands of the Catholic church for a thousand years, at least. I believe that the relationship with God and Jesus is personal and for each of us to discover for ourselves.

You are unfortunately correct.

A meritocrat would not waste resources in this superflous thread.
buh?

The legalism that is objected to in theology is the addition of human laws to biblical laws and having them enforced as if they were biblical laws.

That was just a little look into Christianity. Hope my peephole shed a little light on what is professed (not always acted upon, unfortunately) by many Protestants.

Actually, the legalism in religion that I am concerned with is that which negates the reality that salvation(justification) is by grace through faith alone. There is nothing a human being can do to make themself worthy of pardon for sin. It is only the merits of divine love that can save.

Keeping the law is a response to that love and is not ever a means of earning salvation as "all our righteousness is as filthy rages." The implication that keeping any rules, man made or even the divine decaloge, can save someone is a huge misinterpetation of the teachings of Christ. That isn't in any way to belittle their importance or to suggest that they shouldn't be kept. I'm only saying that keeping them doesn't gaurentee anyone salvation.

I think organized religion is a waste. But thats no excuse to outlaw it.

outlaw religion? no no no, big mistake there is no trouble in religions. the only trouble lies in telling people that their religion is wrong without giving them a reason why. they take it as a personla insult and go and kill other people like in the isreal-palestine thing. dont outlaw religion!!!!!!!!!!!!! that is a sever sin against god. (by the way i am a roman catholic)

There is no "other" option... I think religion should be discarded but not outlawed. I don't think religion is any of the law's business anyway, until it starts harming people in major ways.

I voted no, although I'm atheist. That's because I'm a diehard Libertarian Expansionist. I believe in freedom of religion and, even though it doesn't always do good, people should be allowed to practice it anyhow.

There is no "other" option... I think religion should be discarded but not outlawed. I don't think religion is any of the law's business anyway, until it starts harming people in major ways.
well, religions is not the laws business in some ways, unless you mean that religion should be never seen with government. it is perfectly acceptable to put a statue of the ten commandments in a courthouse, as long as you do not ban people from putting the koran or torah in a glass case there too

well, religions is not the laws business in some ways, unless you mean that religion should be never seen with government. it is perfectly acceptable to put a statue of the ten commandments in a courthouse, as long as you do not ban people from putting the koran or torah in a glass case there too
I think governement and religion should be two totally unrelated subject. A politician's personal religious beliefs should be just that... personal. I don't think it's right for the government to impose any religion-based laws upon us. For instance, the local Alabama government recently outlawed (or tried to outlaw) any homosexuality-related material in public schools, including classic Shakespearean plays. The children are missing out on an important part of education because of a religion-based law. That, IMO, is wrong.

I support freedom of religion.

I also support freedom of suicide and self-harm.

I support freedom of religion.

I also support freedom of suicide and self-harm.
ROCK ON! *Screams, plays air guitar.*

No, I am a Meritocrat...which is partly why I have this big gripe with religion...anyway, I didn't say I'd be stripping them of their opinions. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but do we allow child pornographers to organise themselves into a group and worship a big picture of a naked baby? No. At the same time, why should we allow people to worship their God(s) in an outmoded way in superfluous buildings that suck money out of the country and pump ignorance into people's heads. I believe in freedom of speech and freedom of opinions, but religion needs to be stamped out before the rest of the world is blasted back to medieval times like America and Iran.

....... :D i agree...religeon holds back humanity...for instance, in some states in america it is elegal to teach things on evolution

Well in the end i think we've come to the base outcome that religion is a double-edged sword. It gives hope and faith to millions (Though i know many-a-people who say their religous and never do anything remotley religous cept when the issue of religion comes up) but to atheist and people of other peoples its a drain on the economy and a burden on society. They tried to seperate the church from the court in america, the 10 commandments, it didnt work because their were to many religous avocidates. Its the stars that makethe countries religion. I havent heard of a big atheist movie star. Modannas got kaballah, that dude who made the passions has christianity, so yea. Also i see how its helpful, i come from a deeply religous family and they hate me for turning away christianity (well they dont know, otherwise i'd be beaten) but it was ground into my throat and therefore i belived, i never woke up and said hey its a higher power, ill name him god and follow his everyword ^^. But as a great game once said "No army can conquer the galixy, but faith alone can change the universe." My view on the taxes, christians pay for christian churches, muslims pay for muslim churches, and atheist get tax breaks or an increase in the refund. (for my saying, religon be gone! :gundge: )

most britsh movie stars are aetheist

i will admit that religion has done good for people but it has done so much bad that can NOT be undone (do the witch hunts ring a bell) and sure religion and god and god and goddesses or watever are ok to believe in but stop making it have such an effct on the world i think that bibles and wat not ned to revised so that maybe there can be a freedom of religion with out having so many wars and wat not and kids that go to school in america wont be called a damned satanist just because they arent christion or they should have classes teaching religion and what the many different types are so kids have a choice and they know that people are free to be watever they wanna be then maybe orginized religions will be ok....this is why i made my own its a cool party religion hehe :)

The witch hunts? If you wanted to criticize religion, go with the jihads or something. The witch hunts killed a total of about 50 000 people altogether, not the 5 million of Dan Brown's imagination, and about 1/4 were men, not all women. In any case, it is absolutely foolish to say that religion should be abolished. To believe in God is reasonable, and the good it has done for countless people is something to be applauded. You want to destroy it because you don't agree with it. That is ridiculous. There are countless atheists who have done a lot of harm, why don't you ban atheism and we can all live in a sort of agnostic jello. The analogy of a dry person being a breed of alcoholic is a foolish thing, because them being dry means that they do belong to a certain group ofpeople, while alcoholism is another group of people. The belief in God shapes many of your beliefs, and the belief that there is no God shapes many of your other beliefs. Therefore atheism, in that respect, is very much like religion. The fact that so many voted to abolish religion shows complete and total ignorance. Kind of scary when I think about it.

The witch hunts? If you wanted to criticize religion, go with the jihads or something. The witch hunts killed a total of about 50 000 people altogether, not the 5 million of Dan Brown's imagination, and about 1/4 were men, not all women. In any case, it is absolutely foolish to say that religion should be abolished. .

the crusades?
in fact.....a hell of a lot of wars are about religeon....hmm....

The witch hunts? If you wanted to criticize religion, go with the jihads or something. The witch hunts killed a total of about 50 000 people altogether, not the 5 million of Dan Brown's imagination, and about 1/4 were men, not all women. In any case, it is absolutely foolish to say that religion should be abolished. To believe in God is reasonable, and the good it has done for countless people is something to be applauded. You want to destroy it because you don't agree with it. That is ridiculous. There are countless atheists who have done a lot of harm, why don't you ban atheism and we can all live in a sort of agnostic jello. The analogy of a dry person being a breed of alcoholic is a foolish thing, because them being dry means that they do belong to a certain group ofpeople, while alcoholism is another group of people. The belief in God shapes many of your beliefs, and the belief that there is no God shapes many of your other beliefs. Therefore atheism, in that respect, is very much like religion. The fact that so many voted to abolish religion shows complete and total ignorance. Kind of scary when I think about it.
your reference to agnosticism as "jello-like" is equally ignorant, so i would hold off on the preaching.

ok the reason i went with witch hunts
1.i was listening to a song talking about it
2.my family was in it
3.its the forst thing that came to my mind
and im so sorry that unlike you i dont know a whole lot of religios wars but either way people were killed in the witch hunts people were killed in the crusades hitler and every other religious war but i wasnt going to go off and list every single one ok..ok

They are just alegorical examples of people who didn't hold the self as important as preaching. And also, typically, those are taken out of context.

#1. None of the passages quoted was in what is refered to as "allegorical" text. The Bible is to be interpreted literally unless the text forces otherwise (prophetic text etc.)

#2. Please indicate how these passages were taken out of context? As a Bible student this is the possibly the worst accusation that I could have leveled against me, and I take it somewhat personally.

#3. Christ said "not my will but thine." John 17 records Christ's high priestly prayer where He spells out why He will go to the cross.

#4. Your claim that we hold no bible that has not been in the Catholics hands for a thousand years is a bit unfounded, and to assume that God, whom you say you believe, would allow his primary form of communication with us to be mishandled is a slap in the face of a sovereign God. First, the translations are taken from early manuscripts, of which there are thousands, some dating back to before the catholic church officially began. Second, these manuscripts are in the original language, and subsequent translations were made directly from these manuscripts. (Bible versions made from English translations are more paraphrases than translations ie. NIV) Third, with all the thousands of manuscripts found in the original language, there is very little discrepancy between them, most differences are punctuation, and none of the differences changes any doctrine found within the pages of the Bible. On a side note, there is more proof that the Bible is accurate, than there is for any of Aristotles, Plato's, or any other person of that era's work.

I've ranted enough for this post, but since the Bible is the foundation of my Faith in God, I take criticism of it quite personally.

I apologize if I offended anybody by calling agnosticsim jello-like. I did not mean it to be interpreted that way, as it was not meant to be offensive. I myself am sort of agnostic. And I never meant to be critical of your choice of witch-hunts as an example, they certainly were not a good thing, but it just was not the best of examples, as they never affected life much except in the countries at the height of the sectarian struggle. In Ireland, over 300 years of witch hunts, only 4 people were killed. I suggested the jihads because those wars were all about religion, whereas the crusades were called in response to the threat posed by the jihads, in fact called when Constantinople asked for help from Rome.

#1. None of the passages quoted was in what is refered to as "allegorical" text. The Bible is to be interpreted literally unless the text forces otherwise (prophetic text etc.)

#2. Please indicate how these passages were taken out of context? As a Bible student this is the possibly the worst accusation that I could have leveled against me, and I take it somewhat personally.

#3. Christ said "not my will but thine." John 17 records Christ's high priestly prayer where He spells out why He will go to the cross.

#4. Your claim that we hold no bible that has not been in the Catholics hands for a thousand years is a bit unfounded, and to assume that God, whom you say you believe, would allow his primary form of communication with us to be mishandled is a slap in the face of a sovereign God. First, the translations are taken from early manuscripts, of which there are thousands, some dating back to before the catholic church officially began. Second, these manuscripts are in the original language, and subsequent translations were made directly from these manuscripts. (Bible versions made from English translations are more paraphrases than translations ie. NIV) Third, with all the thousands of manuscripts found in the original language, there is very little discrepancy between them, most differences are punctuation, and none of the differences changes any doctrine found within the pages of the Bible. On a side note, there is more proof that the Bible is accurate, than there is for any of Aristotles, Plato's, or any other person of that era's work.

I've ranted enough for this post, but since the Bible is the foundation of my Faith in God, I take criticism of it quite personally.
That's your problem: you take a corrupted text as the foundation of your world instead of the real world and its history. And it does not matter what "translation" of the bible you use, when already the "original" texts were not telling what really happened 3500 years ago, and instead only gave a revisionist Israelite version of history. The bible has some accuracy when it comes to narrating some undenyable historic events, but the whole theological interpretation it renders of those events is just unfounded.

That's your problem: you take a corrupted text as the foundation of your world instead of the real world and its history. And it does not matter what "translation" of the bible you use, when already the "original" texts were not telling what really happened 3500 years ago, and instead only gave a revisionist Israelite version of history. The bible has some accuracy when it comes to narrating some undenyable historic events, but the whole theological interpretation it renders of those events is just unfounded.

A very interesting concept, false, but interesting. First off, I believe that the God of the Bible is more than capable to keep His primary form of communication with His creation from becoming "corrupted" as one might call it. If I don't believe that, I believe in a weak God who cannot control something simple like preservation of His Word. Second, down through the ages historians have tried to disprove the Bible by saying some city didn't exists, or that it was impossible for Moses to write down the law because writing hadn't been invented yet, or other things like that. But time after time the Bible has been right. The cities have been discovered, the code of Hammurabi was discovered (written hundreds of years before Moses).

The idea of "revisionist" history is just plain false.

A very interesting concept, false, but interesting. First off, I believe that the God of the Bible is more than capable to keep His primary form of communication with His creation from becoming "corrupted" as one might call it. If I don't believe that, I believe in a weak God who cannot control something simple like preservation of His Word. Second, down through the ages historians have tried to disprove the Bible by saying some city didn't exists, or that it was impossible for Moses to write down the law because writing hadn't been invented yet, or other things like that. But time after time the Bible has been right. The cities have been discovered, the code of Hammurabi was discovered (written hundreds of years before Moses).

The idea of "revisionist" history is just plain false.
And yet there still manages to be ambiguities and miscommunications and contradictions and translation errors in the bible ... amazing (I guess god was not powerfull enough to write down one clear and unarguable text)

Just becuase certain acient cities and other famous things such as the laws of bayalon are mentioned in the bible dose not make the bible true dose it.

it just means who ever wrote and then later complied the bible has access to sorces documenting these places.

And yet there still manages to be ambiguities and miscommunications and contradictions and translation errors in the bible ... amazing (I guess god was not powerfull enough to write down one clear and unarguable text)

Allow me to rephrase: There still manages to be people who claim to have found ambiguities, miscommunications and contradictions and translation errors....

Instead of writing a statement that is claimed by many that have never even read the Bible, nor know anything of the language or translation of the Bible, much less the interpretation of it, how about a few examples. I've heard of many, but none of which hold any water...perhaps you've found a new one.

Allow me to rephrase: There still manages to be people who claim to have found ambiguities, miscommunications and contradictions and translation errors....

Instead of writing a statement that is claimed by many that have never even read the Bible, nor know anything of the language or translation of the Bible, much less the interpretation of it, how about a few examples. I've heard of many, but none of which hold any water...perhaps you've found a new one.
Sure I will give it a shot ... but if you would like to learn more ask grave_n_idle he is one of our aramaic/hebrew/greek/latin speekers on the forum ... very intresting stuff

Now with the way I worded the origional I dont have to come up with actual ambigities ;) just ways that god did a poor job writing it down (and if he did in-fact inspire it he did a horrible job making it a cohesive work)

Here is one where there was a poor job recording who was at the tomb

Who was at the Empty Tomb? Is it:
MAT 28:1 In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.

MAR 16:1 And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him.

JOH 20:1 The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre.


Noah ... not two of EVERY animal as you think (depending on the version)

The number of beasts in the ark
GEN 7:2 Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.

GEN 7:8 Of clean beasts, and of beasts that are not clean, and of fowls, and of every thing that creepeth upon the earth, GEN 7:9 There went in two and two unto Noah into the ark, the male and the female, as God had commanded Noah.

How about translation of sins of the fauther

The sins of the father
ISA 14:21 Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers; that they do not rise, nor possess the land, nor fill the face of the world with cities.

DEU 24:16 The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.


Somehow the translaters/origional authors neglected to relize that rabits do not chew their cud

Rabbits do not chew their cud
LEV 11:6 And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.

Now I am sure you will come up with some arguements ... again remember not nessisarly trying to disprove the bible (even though I dont believe in its truth) but god must have done a horrible job protecting against ambiguities and translation errors

Religions are just tools to maintain control over population. Saying that they should work hard and obey till death to earn a better life after. It's a lie and it's just exploiting people credulity. Evrybody can believe in what he wants but religions must be banned because they impose their world's view which is dangerous, and not more likely than anyone else's :D

Just becuase certain acient cities and other famous things such as the laws of bayalon are mentioned in the bible dose not make the bible true dose it.

it just means who ever wrote and then later complied the bible has access to sorces documenting these places.

Word.

I could go and write a bunch of bull**** religious books and mention New York, Paris and Berlin as holy cities. 2000 years later, someone could discover my writings. Now, just because I mentioned those real cities, does it make my writings true?

Here is one where there was a poor job recording who was at the tomb


Noah ... not two of EVERY animal as you think (depending on the version)


How about translation of sins of the fauther


Somehow the translaters/origional authors neglected to relize that rabits do not chew their cud



First off, thank you for taking the time reply, especially when I look back at my post and could see how it could sound very arrogant and condescending. Not my intent, and my apologies if it was taken that way.

#1. The records of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John where (obviously) written by different people, and written from different perspectives. One analogy is that the gospels are like four men describing an elephant, one can see it's tail, one it's trunk, one it's foot, and one is riding it. Each description will be a bit different, but each one will be describing the elephant. Apparently Matthew, Mark (who was writing based on Peter's testimony), and John felt it neccesary to include Mary Magdelene in the narrative, yet only Matthew and Mark included the other Mary, and possibly Peter made a point of mentioning Salome so Mark wrote it down.

#2. The original language was the inspired language, so translations don't always communicate the best (and translations of translations are definitely not the greatest). The King James doesn't do this verse (Genesis 7:2) justice in this case. The ESV translates it as follows Gen 7:2 Take with you seven pairs of all clean animals, the male and his mate, and a pair of the animals that are not clean, the male and his mate, So, if their were seven pairs, then of course they would go in "two in two" or by pairs. Another possible interpretation is that there were 3 pairs of clean animals, and the seventh was meant for sacrifice.

#3. As far as Isaiah 14:21, allow me to quote Bible commentator John Gill for the iniquity of their fathers; they imitating and following them in their sins, partaking of them, and filling up the measure of their iniquities: Bascially, these offspring were no different than their ancestors, following in the same debauchery and wickedness against God.

#4. The most simplistic argument would be that this could be an animal that is now extinct. Another argument could be that since the rabbit continually moves it's mouth it looks like it is chewing it's cud, even though it is not a ruminent.

I liked your comment "even though I don't believe in its truth" coincidentally, the Bible is either truth or it's not. I know we live in an era of post-modernism where people try to assign the title "truth" to whatever they feel like, but that doesn't negate the fact that if something is "truth" it's truth, but if it isn't...it cannot be. Truth is something that is separate from the human, and cannot be changed or altered.

First off, thank you for taking the time reply, especially when I look back at my post and could see how it could sound very arrogant and condescending. Not my intent, and my apologies if it was taken that way.

#1. The records of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John where (obviously) written by different people, and written from different perspectives. One analogy is that the gospels are like four men describing an elephant, one can see it's tail, one it's trunk, one it's foot, and one is riding it. Each description will be a bit different, but each one will be describing the elephant. Apparently Matthew, Mark (who was writing based on Peter's testimony), and John felt it neccesary to include Mary Magdelene in the narrative, yet only Matthew and Mark included the other Mary, and possibly Peter made a point of mentioning Salome so Mark wrote it down.

Np

Alright #1 I can understand but again your claim is god made a perfect text that still portrays everything perfectly ... if it does so why did he allow a difference in recordings?

#2. The original language was the inspired language, so translations don't always communicate the best (and translations of translations are definitely not the greatest). The King James doesn't do this verse (Genesis 7:2) justice in this case. The ESV translates it as follows So, if their were seven pairs, then of course they would go in "two in two" or by pairs. Another possible interpretation is that there were 3 pairs of clean animals, and the seventh was meant for sacrifice.

I understand but were you not making the point that even after translation god has managed to make sure that everything was still correct? but now claiming translation error

#3. As far as Isaiah 14:21, allow me to quote Bible commentator John Gill Bascially, these offspring were no different than their ancestors, following in the same debauchery and wickedness against God.


But this is not implied as far as I can see in the text(that he was following the fauther)


#4. The most simplistic argument would be that this could be an animal that is now extinct. Another argument could be that since the rabbit continually moves it's mouth it looks like it is chewing it's cud, even though it is not a ruminent.

But again god did not make sure this error was caught

I liked your comment "even though I don't believe in its truth" coincidentally, the Bible is either truth or it's not. I know we live in an era of post-modernism where people try to assign the title "truth" to whatever they feel like, but that doesn't negate the fact that if something is "truth" it's truth, but if it isn't...it cannot be. Truth is something that is separate from the human, and cannot be changed or altered.

Ok then I do not find it as strict truth there are many errors ... I find it to be an alright moral guide with some fairly good teachings in the NT but so far not been proven to me to be objective truth (specialy in present form)

Now there are some more that I could go into ... such as the misrecording of joseph's liniage and so on ... differences in the creation myths (order of creation seems to be a big error)
But yeah

But again god did not make sure this error was caught

Now there are some more that I could go into ... such as the misrecording of joseph's liniage and so on ... differences in the creation myths (order of creation seems to be a big error)
But yeah

I feel we differ when it comes to the word "error" but I can see your point. I believe that the original texts were inspired by God. When interpreting the Bible many things have to be taken into account, such as the author's background, the intended audience of the book etc. The Bible was written over a period of over 1000 years, by over 40 different authors from different backgrounds with one similarity, God inspired them to write down His word, and the Bible as a whole is an amazing book, for the theme is consistent from Genesis through Revelation, Christ's redemptive work of mankind. Now...I don't believe that the "King James Version" is inspired, nor the ESV or any other version...these are translations. However, those who translate go back to the vast amount of texts and manuscripts and spend an enormous amount of time studying language, as well as the manuscripts to come up with the "best" translation. This is why when discussing the Isaiah passage, we go back to the original language if something doesn't make sense. And God has brought along many biblical scholars who have caught many errors in translation to keep the Word of God as pure as possible in any language it's been translated into.

As for Josephs lineage, remember what I said about the authors of the Gospels....Matthew wrote from the perspective that Jesus was a king, so his lineage comes down through the (step)father's line, Joseph. Luke, a doctor, wrote from the perspective that Christ was a man, and so he brings follows Christ's ancestry down through Mary's lineage, however Geneologies seldom mentioned the mothers name, unless accompanied with the father. This is a case of needing to understand the culture in which Luke was writing.

And the Genesis record, a very popular argument, is nonetheless no less accurate. Genesis 1 records the 6 creation days, Genesis 2 sums all this up, and spends extra time on Day 6. This again goes back to understanding the literary form that the author (in this case Moses) was using.

Ok then I do not find it as strict truth there are many errors ... I find it to be an alright moral guide with some fairly good teachings in the NT but so far not been proven to me to be objective truth (specialy in present form)


You give it more credit than most. But if it's really going to be a "moral guide" then there seems to be an impication that there's a set of morals we should be following. And if there's a set of morals that we should be following, then if any book is going to be a moral guide, what authority that book has to tell me so. If the Bible, Koran, the Book of Mormon, or even JCalvin's book of good living is going to "impose" moral guidelines, what "right" or authority do they have?

I feel we differ when it comes to the word "error" but I can see your point. I believe that the original texts were inspired by God. When interpreting the Bible many things have to be taken into account, such as the author's background, the intended audience of the book etc. The Bible was written over a period of over 1000 years, by over 40 different authors from different backgrounds with one similarity, God inspired them to write down His word, and the Bible as a whole is an amazing book, for the theme is consistent from Genesis through Revelation, Christ's redemptive work of mankind. snip

The bible is in no way consistant ... look at the difference between the OT vengefull god that punished for little discressions to the NT suposedly all forgiving god
(not to mention the differences in atonement)

And God has brought along many biblical scholars who have caught many errors in translation to keep the Word of God as pure as possible in any language it's been translated into.

Again I would have to argue but not being a translater myself I will have to deffer to grave_n_idle (he does translation work) he is much more equiped to see the differences


As for Josephs lineage, remember what I said about the authors of the Gospels....Matthew wrote from the perspective that Jesus was a king, so his lineage comes down through the (step)father's line, Joseph. Luke, a doctor, wrote from the perspective that Christ was a man, and so he brings follows Christ's ancestry down through Mary's lineage, however Geneologies seldom mentioned the mothers name, unless accompanied with the father. This is a case of needing to understand the culture in which Luke was writing.


MAT 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

LUK 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli.

This was not an error of different interpretation this time (nor omission)
They say SPECIFICALY different names


And the Genesis record, a very popular argument, is nonetheless no less accurate. Genesis 1 records the 6 creation days, Genesis 2 sums all this up, and spends extra time on Day 6. This again goes back to understanding the literary form that the author (in this case Moses) was using.

If the second was a sumation then they sumarized it incorectly


Here is the order in the first (Genesis 1), the Priestly tradition:

Day 1: Sky, Earth, light
Day 2: Water, both in ocean basins and above the sky(!)
Day 3: Plants
Day 4: Sun, Moon, stars (as calendrical and navigational aids)
Day 5: Sea monsters (whales), fish, birds, land animals, creepy-crawlies (reptiles, insects, etc.)
Day 6: Humans (apparently both sexes at the same time)
Day 7: Nothing (the Gods took the first day off anyone ever did)

Note that there are "days", "evenings", and "mornings" before the Sun was created. Here, the Deity is referred to as "Elohim", which is a plural, thus the literal translation, "the Gods". In this tale, the Gods seem satisfied with what they have done, saying after each step that "it was good".

The second one (Genesis 2), the Yahwist tradition, goes:

Earth and heavens (misty)
Adam, the first man (on a desolate Earth)
Plants
Animals
Eve, the first woman (from Adam's rib)
Because the order is messed up

You give it more credit than most. But if it's really going to be a "moral guide" then there seems to be an impication that there's a set of morals we should be following. And if there's a set of morals that we should be following, then if any book is going to be a moral guide, what authority that book has to tell me so. If the Bible, Koran, the Book of Mormon, or even JCalvin's book of good living is going to "impose" moral guidelines, what "right" or authority do they have?
And that ... is percicly why I do not follow the bible as a moral guide (I called it as such because some people follow it as such)
I dont trust the authorship and there is no real proof that god is the inspirer of that bible ...
If god is out there he understands me not wanting to follow something that I do not know is him ... being safe and not following a falce idle and all

If god is out there he understands me not wanting to follow something that I do not know is him ... being safe and not following a falce idle and all

Though more could be said in regards to the Genesis record, geneoligies and such, I really don't see the point in continuing debate. I marvel at the above quote however. It's not the first time I've heard it, nor will it be the last I'm sure. The question I want to ask is...if God is out there, how do you know what His thoughts are, and whether or not He'll "understand." It's an emotional responce to a much deeper question. If God is out there, how do you think He'd respond to a person who rejected every sign He placed in the world to point to Him? For example, if God and specifically the God of the Bible is out there, it will be a sad and shocking revelation when an evolutionists stands before Him. That's not an event I even want to imagine.

It's been great conversing with you. You're definitely a thinker, and I respect that. Perhaps we'll "go at it" again sometime soon. :cool:

Though more could be said in regards to the Genesis record, geneoligies and such, I really don't see the point in continuing debate. I marvel at the above quote however. It's not the first time I've heard it, nor will it be the last I'm sure. The question I want to ask is...if God is out there, how do you know what His thoughts are, and whether or not He'll "understand." It's an emotional responce to a much deeper question. If God is out there, how do you think He'd respond to a person who rejected every sign He placed in the world to point to Him? For example, if God and specifically the God of the Bible is out there, it will be a sad and shocking revelation when an evolutionists stands before Him. That's not an event I even want to imagine.

It's been great conversing with you. You're definitely a thinker, and I respect that. Perhaps we'll "go at it" again sometime soon. :cool:

Because if he did not respond in such a fassion he is not a person/thing I would want to be associated with

He may not ... and if so I dont care what he wants

Anyways nice talking to you