NationStates Jolt Archive

Following the latest wave of suicide bombings in Iraq and the recent activities of protestant paramilitaries in Northern Ireland, it is now obvious that religion needs to be rooted out of World Civilisation. In Iraq, Sunnis threaten the establishment of a true representative democracy while in Northern Ireland, religious differences has caused a 30 year war that now, despite a ceasefire of 7 years, looks like tragically restarting.

This is not a cheap dig at Christianity alone but is an expression of my most profound beliefs regarding all religion, which is; that religion corrupts citizens. For one thing, citizens gain self-satisfaction from attending church once a week; that is unjustly earned next to those who struggle to lessen the suffering of the poor and promote justice and tolerance around the world. For religious people, at worst suffering is excusable for those who do not share the same religion or at best, part of God's great plan. This shameful justification for human suffering is scandalous and intolerable. Surely any supreme being would prefer the citizen who helps their fellow man to the one who reads their bible and preaches to others how they are all going to hell.

Furthermore, piety cannot co-exist with reason, the fundamental tenet of a good citizen. Religion is like a telescope, alledgedly improving one's view of the world, whereas in reality it just just focuses on certain aspects of it while closing the rest of your mind to those outside. Therefore it influences a citizen's mind in a way that proves dangerous to the greater good; one must only look at the harmful, unsettling and divisive nature of the messages provided by men like Rev Ian Paisley and Abu Hamza.

Therefore I wish to pronounce that it is my belief that anyone professing to be of a religious background should be automatically denied the vote for the greater good of the nation and the world.

I agree immensely. You make a good point about religion being a motivator in a lot of tragic wars, such as those that you mentioned, as well as the crusades and many others.

Religion has also been the cause of much of the discrimination in the world.

Religion is like a telescope, alledgedly improving one's view of the world, whereas in reality it just just focuses on certain aspects of it while closing the rest of your mind to those outside.

Right on! Ban telescopes!

*sigh*

Do you have any idea what would become of the opiated masses if you took their drug of choice away from them!
It would be the worst withdrawl syndrome in the history of mankind!

Everyone needs an opiate: Let the great men use religion as a tool
And let's get the weak, nihilistic men out of positions of power within religious organizations.

Do you have any idea what would become of the opiated masses if you took their drug of choice away from them!
It would be the worst withdrawl syndrome in the history of mankind!

Everyone needs an opiate: Let the great men use religion as a tool
And let's get the weak, nihilistic men out of positions of power within religious organizations.
Well let 'em use real opium. It's more fun anyway.

I blame it on the telescopes. They make me sick. If humans were ment to see 50 zillion lightyears away, we would have been born with better eyes.

Well let 'em use real opium. It's more fun anyway.

I second that!

Well let 'em use real opium. It's more fun anyway.

Yes, but they wouldn't work.

Maybe not such a bad thing.

I’m not even sure this is worth replying to but let’s be brutally honest. Sure, religion leads to a lot of wars but exactly how do you plan on eliminating it? Through more war, through censorship and other fascist nonsense? This is a seriously convoluted pipe dream. You might as well eliminate science too.

Why bother. There's a good chance that it'll die out soon enough anyway.

There is not enough religion in the world to destroy religion.

Yes, religion must be destroyed, as it is the main cause of war, and source of intolerance.

I don't have a religion...but...Believe what u want to belive...I'm not stopping you. Neither is anyone else I hope.

So, you want to ban religion, huh? All I can say is good, fricking luck. The Soviets tried to, and China (as well as many other countries) is trying to ban religion, and what do you know? No luck. The Romans tried to ban Christianity, but in fact only helped to speed it. So, you're not the first to think this one up, and you won't be the last. But let me tell you right now; it ain't gonna happen.

I blame it on the telescopes. They make me sick. If humans were ment to see 50 zillion lightyears away, we would have been born with better eyes.

Amen.

:D

I totaly agree, Ive felt like saying that for years, religion is just as corupt as any crime sindicate but get away with it all as they are ''doing the will of god'' it promises hope, love and peace and causes war, greed and deceit

Following the latest wave of suicide bombings in Iraq and the recent activities of protestant paramilitaries in Northern Ireland, it is now obvious that religion needs to be rooted out of World Civilisation. In Iraq, Sunnis threaten the establishment of a true representative democracy while in Northern Ireland, religious differences has caused a 30 year war that now, despite a ceasefire of 7 years, looks like tragically restarting.

This is not a cheap dig at Christianity alone but is an expression of my most profound beliefs regarding all religion, which is; that religion corrupts citizens. For one thing, citizens gain self-satisfaction from attending church once a week; that is unjustly earned next to those who struggle to lessen the suffering of the poor and promote justice and tolerance around the world. For religious people, at worst suffering is excusable for those who do not share the same religion or at best, part of God's great plan. This shameful justification for human suffering is scandalous and intolerable. Surely any supreme being would prefer the citizen who helps their fellow man to the one who reads their bible and preaches to others how they are all going to hell.

Furthermore, piety cannot co-exist with reason, the fundamental tenet of a good citizen. Religion is like a telescope, alledgedly improving one's view of the world, whereas in reality it just just focuses on certain aspects of it while closing the rest of your mind to those outside. Therefore it influences a citizen's mind in a way that proves dangerous to the greater good; one must only look at the harmful, unsettling and divisive nature of the messages provided by men like Rev Ian Paisley and Abu Hamza.

Therefore I wish to pronounce that it is my belief that anyone professing to be of a religious background should be automatically denied the vote for the greater good of the nation and the world.

Where do you think the right to express your beliefs came from? If you are a United States citizen, what people founded this country & allowed for you to be able to express the beliefs you espouse? If it weren't for the beliefs entertained by the Christian founders of the USA, we just shoot each others sorry arses & take what whoever the strongest most well armed sum-o-britches wanted, what do you think Iraq was all about when governed by Sadamm, it wasn't religion it was i can kick your arse so you will do what i say.

Why bother. There's a good chance that it'll die out soon enough anyway.

Religions are never detroyed...just (unfortunately) replaced.

And how do you plan on banning all religion? Ban it in the middle east because it's causing war, but by banning religion you're taking away major civil liberties. And you say it's getting in the way of a true representative democracy, yet, that might not be what the people want. You can't force people to be free. And you don't think that by banning religion that it will start an IMMENSE backlash in just about every single country? You would be creating violence which you wish to destroy. I don't think that the equation adds up right...

If it weren't for the beliefs entertained by the Christian founders of the USA...
Seriously, since when did everyone decide that most of America's founders weren't deists anymore?

Just in case you don't know: Deism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism) and Christianity are different.

The funniest thing about people who say "Religion must die cause it caueses lots of wars an' stuff" is the fact that every war they point to as caused by religion wasn't actually caused by religion's existence, but it was caused by the struggle to stop another religion.
The European half of the Crusades (which, by the by, were a good thing because they introduced Europe to scientific, educational, and cultural advances that have helped further elevate humanity out of the muck that it started in) wasn't caused by people being Christian, but by other people being Muslim.
Example: No one said "OMGWTF!?! We're Christians? Lets go kill some peoples!!", they said "OMGWTF!?! They're not Christians? Lets go kill some peoples!!" (A notable exception would be the various wonderful pagan religions that had human sacrifice written in as part of the deal).
Now, taken by extension, that means that people who seek to abolish religion are, in fact, guilty of trying to cause the very religious wars that they claim to be seeking to prevent. Further, keeping religion out would require you to institute a regime that would make the Spanish Inquisition look mild in comparison.

Where do you think the right to express your beliefs came from? If you are a United States citizen, what people founded this country & allowed for you to be able to express the beliefs you espouse? If it weren't for the beliefs entertained by the Christian founders of the USA, we just shoot each others sorry arses & take what whoever the strongest most well armed sum-o-britches wanted, what do you think Iraq was all about when governed by Sadamm, it wasn't religion it was i can kick your arse so you will do what i say.

Bullshit. Religion in the US has promoted racism, mysogany and homophobia. The independence movement was born out of poltical frustrations eminating from a lot of rich Bostonians moaning about Tax. It had nothing to do with religion.

And how do you plan on banning all religion? Ban it in the middle east because it's causing war, but by banning religion you're taking away major civil liberties. And you say it's getting in the way of a true representative democracy, yet, that might not be what the people want. You can't force people to be free. And you don't think that by banning religion that it will start an IMMENSE backlash in just about every single country? You would be creating violence which you wish to destroy. I don't think that the equation adds up right...

Ban religious people from voting. That's the first step.

*sigh*

Beyond the First Amendment problems in the US and the millions of other reasons this is wrong, oppression of ideas is never the answer.

The principals of democracy, free expression, freedom of assembly, and freedom of conscience are strengths not weaknesses.

I direct you to the persuasive wisdom of Oliver Wendell Holmes in his dissent in Abrams v. United States (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/250/616.html ), 250 US 616, 630 (1919):

Persecution for the expression of opinions seems to me perfectly logical. If you have no doubt of your premises or your power and want a certain result with all your heart you naturally express your wishes in law and sweep away all opposition. To allow opposition by speech seems to indicate that you think the speech impotent, as when a man says that he has squared the circle, or that you do not care whole heartedly for the result, or that you doubt either your power or your premises. But when men have realized that time has upset many fighting faiths, they may come to believe even more than they believe the very foundations of their own conduct that the ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas-that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market, and that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes safely can be carried out. That at any rate is the theory of our Constitution. It is an experiment, as all life is an experiment. Every year if not every day we have to wager our salvation upon some prophecy based upon imperfect knowledge. While that experiment is part of our system I think that we should be eternally vigilant against attempts to check the expression of opinions that we loathe and believe to be fraught with death, unless they so imminently threaten immediate interference with the lawful and pressing purposes of the law that an immediate check is required to save the country.

As I said, we should rely on the market place of ideas and vigilant protection of freedom for all -- not upon oppression of those with whom we disagree.

The funniest thing about people who say "Religion must die cause it caueses lots of wars an' stuff" is the fact that every war they point to as caused by religion wasn't actually caused by religion's existence, but it was caused by the struggle to stop another religion.
The European half of the Crusades (which, by the by, were a good thing because they introduced Europe to scientific, educational, and cultural advances that have helped further elevate humanity out of the muck that it started in) wasn't caused by people being Christian, but by other people being Muslim.
Example: No one said "OMGWTF!?! We're Christians? Lets go kill some peoples!!", they said "OMGWTF!?! They're not Christians? Lets go kill some peoples!!" (A notable exception would be the various wonderful pagan religions that had human sacrifice written in as part of the deal).
Now, taken by extension, that means that people who seek to abolish religion are, in fact, guilty of trying to cause the very religious wars that they claim to be seeking to prevent. Further, keeping religion out would require you to institute a regime that would make the Spanish Inquisition look mild in comparison.

Slightly flawed argument there.

Ban religious people from voting. That's the first step.
And then we could shove all them damn niggers back out as well, they aren't like the rest of us non-god fearing decent folk. And those homos can just be handed away as well, sniffing pickles causes you to lose brain cells.
Yeah, I'd say with the kikes (and other religious fools), niggers, and homos sufficiently put down the remaining, say, 5% of the population can decide what is good for 'em.

EDIT: I do hope that everyone understands that this post is sarcasm. I also hope that the post I am replying to was sarcasm. I very much hope, in fact, that much of what is stated as fact on this board is sarcasm.

Where do you think the right to express your beliefs came from? If you are a United States citizen, what people founded this country & allowed for you to be able to express the beliefs you espouse? If it weren't for the beliefs entertained by the Christian founders of the USA, we just shoot each others sorry arses & take what whoever the strongest most well armed sum-o-britches wanted, what do you think Iraq was all about when governed by Sadamm, it wasn't religion it was i can kick your arse so you will do what i say.

OUR FOUNDERS WERE NOT CHRISTIANS!

THEY WERE DEISTS!

Freemasons, yeah remember them?

ARGGGGGHHHH!!!

Slightly flawed argument there.
In what way? Or are you just going to throw the line out and hope it works?

And then we could shove all them damn niggers back out as well, they aren't like the rest of us non-god fearing decent folk. And those homos can just be handed away as well, sniffing pickles causes you to lose brain cells.
Yeah, I'd say with the kikes (and other religious fools), niggers, and homos sufficiently put down the remaining, say, 5% of the population can decide what is good for 'em.

I think he's merely arguing the other way, that religion enforces steretypes and prejudice so your argument is slightly unfair to the guy.

It wouldn't matter if you destroyed religion, I give it 3-4 months before another Scientology springs up.

While we're at it, let's destroy Italy, after all, the ancient Romans did some pretty nasty things to us :rolleyes:

Therefore I wish to pronounce that it is my belief that anyone professing to be of a religious background should be automatically denied the vote for the greater good of the nation and the world.

Considering the fact that Communist regimes throughout the 20th century murdered millions of people, I belief that anyone supporting the ideas of communism or socialism should be denied the vote for the greater good of the world.. and for myself, 'cause that way, I can become dictata. Hehehe.

Oh, come on. You really think that you're going to sort out intolerance and hatred by removing religion? History should have taught you that humans can manage to be arses with or without religion equally well. Crusades, Inquisition, bombings. Also the Purges, Maoist China, Cambodian genocide, the Holocaust. So, maybe we should ban NON-belief in religions, as atheists do terrible things as well. Or not. :rolleyes:

Following the latest wave of suicide bombings in Iraq and the recent activities of protestant paramilitaries in Northern Ireland, it is now obvious that religion needs to be rooted out of World Civilisation. In Iraq, Sunnis threaten the establishment of a true representative democracy while in Northern Ireland, religious differences has caused a 30 year war that now, despite a ceasefire of 7 years, looks like tragically restarting.

This is not a cheap dig at Christianity alone but is an expression of my most profound beliefs regarding all religion, which is; that religion corrupts citizens. For one thing, citizens gain self-satisfaction from attending church once a week; that is unjustly earned next to those who struggle to lessen the suffering of the poor and promote justice and tolerance around the world. For religious people, at worst suffering is excusable for those who do not share the same religion or at best, part of God's great plan. This shameful justification for human suffering is scandalous and intolerable. Surely any supreme being would prefer the citizen who helps their fellow man to the one who reads their bible and preaches to others how they are all going to hell.

Furthermore, piety cannot co-exist with reason, the fundamental tenet of a good citizen. Religion is like a telescope, alledgedly improving one's view of the world, whereas in reality it just just focuses on certain aspects of it while closing the rest of your mind to those outside. Therefore it influences a citizen's mind in a way that proves dangerous to the greater good; one must only look at the harmful, unsettling and divisive nature of the messages provided by men like Rev Ian Paisley and Abu Hamza.

Therefore I wish to pronounce that it is my belief that anyone professing to be of a religious background should be automatically denied the vote for the greater good of the nation and the world.

Very few wars are actually caused by religion but many war-mongers use religion as an excuse. I believe the crusaders sacked Constantinopal (a Christian city) on their way back because they hadn't got enough loot and gold from the muslim cities. Most wars are actually caused by a desire for wealth and land.

Oh, and speaking as an atheist I'd just like to say: TROLL!

Banning religion won't stop anything, since those using religion as a basis to justify war clearly aren't religious at all. I know in Christianity there's the commandment "thou shalt not kill", I believe I heard Wiccan has something along the lines of don't harm others and no harm shall come of you (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong about that), and I'm quite certain other religions have their rules instructing against violence too.
What would be a good deal more benificial would be to find people who, for example, read "thou shalt not kill" and after that still think they can use Christianity to justify war and castrate 'em so they can't pollute the gene pool any more. Much more fair to those who actually stay true to their faith, too.

In what way? Or are you just going to throw the line out and hope it works?

Not at all, I'm not as stupid as you seem to be suggesting dear fellow.

Your supposition though rests on that "It is not religion that is a bad thing, just people being of a different religion and fighting about it". The fact remains, if there was no religion, then nobody could fight about differences in it.

I disagree with the poster's original point but am intrigued by the thread.

The fact remains that the crusades weren't actually to do with religion at all (at least in the minds of Pope Urban II who ordered them) so much as preventing his own lands in his native France being constantly crossed by rival, warring French nobles.

While we're at it, let's destroy Italy, after all, the ancient Romans did some pretty nasty things to us :rolleyes:
Destroying Italy? I'd have to say that we may have just discovered a plan we can all get behind (well, I suppose the Italians may protest a bit, but they can be made to see the light when they realize that those not agreeing to destroy Italy won't be evacuated).

I think he's merely arguing the other way, that religion enforces steretypes and prejudice so your argument is slightly unfair to the guy.
No, "Syawla" (Note, your name is in quotes, and this shows contempt) I'd say that assuming that the religious can't be trusted to vote is pretty stereotypical and prejudicial. Further, it puts the atheists and agnostics, a minority in the world, in charge over a substantial majority that choose to be religious.

Lots of good comments here.

But banning ideas is impossible (at least until they implant mind control chips in our heads, and i dont think you are advocating that).

Extremism is the culprit here. Extreme ideology, extreme greed, extreme ambition, extreme poverty...that cause wars.

No, "Syawla" (Note, your name is in quotes, and this shows contempt) I'd say that assuming that the religious can't be trusted to vote is pretty stereotypical and prejudicial. Further, it puts the atheists and agnostics, a minority in the world, in charge over a substantial majority that choose to be religious.

May I ask what I have done to earn your contempt, apart from merely pointing a few things out. The fact that I agree with a lot of what you say, without being as partisan, doesn't seem to matter to you.

Extremism is the culprit here. Extreme ideology, extreme greed, extreme ambition, extreme poverty...that cause wars.

This is the truth. End of discussion.

This is the truth. End of discussion.

You forgot extreme idiocy and arrogance (take not Fiddlebottom).

This is the truth. End of discussion. End of discussion? My dear sir, blind ignorance knows no bounds and will brook no end of discussion.

Not at all, I'm not as stupid as you seem to be suggesting dear fellow.
No, you need a comma before "dear fellow", you must be precise whilst being pretentious, my sweet.
Your supposition though rests on that "It is not religion that is a bad thing, just people being of a different religion and fighting about it". The fact remains, if there was no religion, then nobody could fight about differences in it.
It was his suppposition (and yours) that differing religions cause war. The wars between people of differing religions (when the wars are actually motivated by religion) happen because one group decides that anothers religion isn't of the right sort, and then follow through with the idea of conversion by fire. Banning religion is the exact same thing, using government power to stop people from being religious would have the same effect as using government power to make them a different sort of religious.
I disagree with the poster's original point but am intrigued by the thread.
I understand, I feel the exact same way about Bran muffins that are covered in mold. I don't like them, but they're just so bizarre that it is impossible for them not to hold your interest.
The fact remains that the crusades weren't actually to do with religion at all (at least in the minds of Pope Urban II who ordered them) so much as preventing his own lands in his native France being constantly crossed by rival, warring French nobles.
I didn't say that religion caused the crusades, the original guy did. Anyways, when I say "religious war" most people say "Crusades" and so I just followed the path of least resistance.

End of discussion? My dear sir, blind ignorance knows no bounds and will brook no end of discussion.

Are you calling me ignorant, calling humanity ignorant or asking me out on a date?

Where do you think the right to express your beliefs came from? If you are a United States citizen, what people founded this country & allowed for you to be able to express the beliefs you espouse? If it weren't for the beliefs entertained by the Christian founders of the USA, we just shoot each others sorry arses & take what whoever the strongest most well armed sum-o-britches wanted, what do you think Iraq was all about when governed by Sadamm, it wasn't religion it was i can kick your arse so you will do what i say.

Correction: Most of the founders of the USA were Deists. Jefferson once said that "In our nation's particular superstition of Christianity, I find no value whatsoever". Franklin, Washington, Hamilton, and Madison were also Deists, although none were as anti-Christian as Jefferson.

May I ask what I have done to earn your contempt, apart from merely pointing a few things out. The fact that I agree with a lot of what you say, without being as partisan, doesn't seem to matter to you.
Sorry, I'm just feeling a bit . . . perculiar. Take none of my insults sincerely, for I am as loving and cuddly as a sack full of kittens, and can't imagine how dark mine existence would be without thine eternal burning beauty shining on through the darkness of the Intarweb, illuminating all with a name that I really have no idea how to go about pronouncing.

Religions are never detroyed...just (unfortunately) replaced.

Mass execution of hateful preachers can change that.

Sorry, I'm just feeling a bit . . . perculiar. Take none of my insults sincerely, for I am as loving and cuddly as a sack full of kittens, and can't imagine how dark mine existence would be without thine eternal burning beauty shining on through the darkness of the Intarweb, illuminating all with a name that I really have no idea how to go about pronouncing.

S'alright. I understand that you're just a pedantic prick, dear fellow. (I hope that you can sleep better, now that I added that comma.)

Mass execution of hateful preachers can change that.
This is the funniest damn thing I have heard all day! You, my dearest one, are now my greatest love, sorry, Syawla, but this man possesses a comedic genius that I haven't seen in ages.
Unless, of course, you are being serious in which case I am very, very worried.

This is the funniest damn thing I have heard all day! You, my dearest one, are now my greatest love, sorry, Syawla, but this man possesses a comedic genius that I haven't seen in ages.
Unless, of course, you are being serious in which case I am very, very worried.

Why not? Turning people against their brother citizens deserves nothing but the maximum penalty.

Mass execution of hateful preachers can change that. I agree with Fiddlebottoms about the humourous content of this. Besides, for a "mass execution" you have to have a massive amount of people, and there aren't that many hate preachers in First World countries.

Why not? Turning people against their brother citizens deserves nothing but the maximum penalty.

OK, seriously someone needs to execute you!

I agree with Fiddlebottoms about the humourous content of this. Besides, for a "mass execution" you have to have a massive amount of people, and there aren't that many hate preachers in First World countries.

Just check this forum out and you'll know that is bullshit.

Religion isn't going anywhere. Like it or not, religion and religious extremists are the reality in Iraq, Ireland and elsewhere, and wishing away religion is a lot easier than, say, researching the conflicts and thinking about ways to resolve them.

You also ignore the positive aspects that can come with religion - the Salvation Army (ignoring those damn bells for a minute) or the liberation theology in places like El Salvador in the 1980s.

I'm an atheist, and I do agree that religious extremism is a major threat to peace and stability in the world, but to say it must be "destroyed" is, again, all too easy.

Why oh why do people allways blame religion for wars? thoughout history, war has been mainly over two things,,,


Money. Power.

ww1 , ww2 , cold war, roman empire , british empire, acw , i mean, example,

What sparked the american revoolution ? religion? no, power and money. Power because the uca (united colonys of america back then) wanted to rule itself = power, britian didt like that = power, and the uca revolted in the end due to taxes = money.

Religion is used a lot as an excuse, but anyone with a half brain can see round that.

In the english civil war, king charles told his men god was with them,,, Oliver Cromwell told his men exackly the same thing, the bible, a book, didnt start that war, it was over power, about the king giving a lot of his power to the english parliament.

Banning religion only gets rid of an excuse for war, all people will do is use political excuses for war (page 35 of the commie manifesto states that.......)


Its a stupis idea, and im sure you did this thread as a joke.

Just check this forum out and you'll know that is bullshit. Idiocy does not equal hate. Most of it isn't even idiocy. Also, I go to Mass every Sunday, and not once have I heard ANY hate preaching. Or maybe I'm not paying attention. Who knows.

I'll say this: Atheism is just as much of a religion as Christianity. Atheism makes the claim, "There is no God." That's a belief system in of itself, and is based just as much on faith as Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, or anything. You are making a direct claim about the status of supernatural beings: That there is no God. You have no proof of such things, nor do theists have proof that there is God.

And theism is not the only form of religion. What you're trying to fight against is a religous following of violent acts. But ALL violent acts are followed religously. That is their justification. If you seek to stamp out religion, how else are you going to do it except by using the violence that you claim to be against? Your justification for destroying religion violently will be a religion in of itself.

I like what one guy said earlier. Christianity didn't cause the Crusades, it was caused by men trying to stamp out Islam. Currently, the Muslims that are blowing themselves up are just men trying to destroy Christians and Jews. You understand the parallel? Religion doesn't cause wars, people trying to destroy another person's viewpoint, THAT is what causes wars.

To all those who hate Christians and other various religions, you're far more biggotted and hateful than your average theist.

I'll say this: Atheism is just as much of a religion as Christianity. Atheism makes the claim, "There is no God." That's a belief system in of itself, and is based just as much on faith as Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, or anything. You are making a direct claim about the status of supernatural beings: That there is no God. You have no proof of such things, nor do theists have proof that there is God.

And theism is not the only form of religion. What you're trying to fight against is a religous following of violent acts. But ALL violent acts are followed religously. That is their justification. If you seek to stamp out religion, how else are you going to do it except by using the violence that you claim to be against? Your justification for destroying religion violently will be a religion in of itself.

I like what one guy said earlier. Christianity didn't cause the Crusades, it was caused by men trying to stamp out Islam. Currently, the Muslims that are blowing themselves up are just men trying to destroy Christians and Jews. You understand the parallel? Religion doesn't cause wars, people trying to destroy another person's viewpoint, THAT is what causes wars.

To all those who hate Christians and other various religions, you're far more biggotted and hateful than your average theist.

Excellent post!

I like what one guy said earlier. Christianity didn't cause the Crusades, it was caused by men trying to stamp out Islam.

No they weren't.

Bah, troll.

Correction: Most of the founders of the USA were Deists. Jefferson once said that "In our nation's particular superstition of Christianity, I find no value whatsoever". Franklin, Washington, Hamilton, and Madison were also Deists, although none were as anti-Christian as Jefferson.

"I have found no more true code than the laws of Christ"
-Thomas Jefforson

Thomas Jefferson was agnostic, but he still respected Christianity. He went as far as to rewrite the entire Bible, subtracting all the miracles of Jesus, because he thought it was still worth something. Also, many founding fathers were Christian, such a s Benjamin Franklin, George Washington and others. Even so, they believed in religious freedom, not just for Chrisians. You my fellows, show more hate for many Christians than most Christians show back. We have the right to vote, we fought in WW2, and all American wars to protect America from her enemies, and you didn't see rabbid Protestants suicide bombing Mecca recently have you? :headbang: Learn real history too. The Freemasons aren't all deists, they encourage respect to all religions and encourage religios members to keep there faith. :)

No they weren't.

Explain.

I'll say this: Atheism is just as much of a religion as Christianity. Atheism makes the claim, "There is no God." That's a belief system in of itself, and is based just as much on faith as Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, or anything. You are making a direct claim about the status of supernatural beings: That there is no God. You have no proof of such things, nor do theists have proof that there is God.

Agh!

A religion tells you how to live your life. It has set belief codes, holy scripts et cetera.

Atheism is merely one thing. On every other matter, Atheists can and do disagree.

This (http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/atheismreligion.html) sums it up nicely.

Agh!

A religion tells you how to live your life. It has set belief codes, holy scripts et cetera.

Atheism is merely one thing. On every other matter, Atheists can and do disagree.

This (http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/atheismreligion.html) sums it up nicely.

Define religion. I bet you you cant define it with everyone agreeing with you , if you can define it with everyone agreeing, then youll be the greatest phiosopher since plato.

I guess we should get rid of Atheism too. Stalin was Atheist. :headbang: :headbang: :headbang:

I don't consider people who kill others over religion to be Christian. I agree that it is bad, but you want to remove religion? Stalin did that. He was Atheist. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :headbang: :headbang:

Why bother. There's a good chance that it'll die out soon enough anyway.

Well, your obviously an idiot! :headbang: :headbang:

"I have found no more true code than the laws of Christ"
-Thomas Jefforson

Thomas Jefferson was agnostic, but he still respected Christianity. He went as far as to rewrite the entire Bible, subtracting all the miracles of Jesus, because he thought it was still worth something. Also, many founding fathers were Christian, such a s Benjamin Franklin, George Washington and others. Even so, they believed in religious freedom, not just for Chrisians. You my fellows, show more for many Christians than most Christians show back. We have the right to vote, we fought in WW2, and all American wars to protect America from her enemies, and you didn't see rabbid Protestants ing Mecca recently have you? :headbang: Learn real history too. The Freemasons aren't all deists, they encourage respect to all religions and encourage religios members to keep there faith. :)

Yes! Finally someone who knows! :headbang: :headbang:

Besides, If you think Islam is all about boming places for Allah because what? .002% of the population wants to see everyone else (including other Arabs and Muslims) die, than CONGRATULATIONS!

You gave them a victory!

Explain.

Twas more to do with the economic closure of the middle east caused by the invasions of the Seljuk Turks in the early 11th century, disrupting the up til then lucrative trade between Europe and the middle eastern Muslim princes via Constantinople. When the Seljuks invaded the Eastern Roman Empire, the Byzantines lost their hold over the trade routes between the Syrian Coast and Iran (and on to India, China etc) and so they appealed for Western help in the name of Christ (despite the rather obvious fact that the Orthodox church of Byzantium and the Roman Catholic Church detested each other as much, if not more, than they each hated Islam) to get these financially very important lands back.

Pope Urban II exploited this call for help (some 15 years after the major Byzantine defeat at Manzikert which cost them the east of modern Turkey) to end civil wars in his native France which were in danger of enveloping onto his own lands. He offered salvation to noble (and particularly French) Christians for heeding his call. Hence, their religious aspirations (i.e. for Salvation) CAN be seen to have motivated these nobles to fight, rather than hatred of the infidel, although that was most certainly shown to be prevalent. It is this desire to end years of French civil war that is most certainly the reason for Pope Urban's call to arms rather than piety, for one thing, because he opposed a crusade organised by peasants in the same year.

Yes, religion must be destroyed, as it is the main cause of war, and source of intolerance.

Actually, territory is the greatest cause of war, seconded by economic greed. There are very few genuinely religious wars.

Agh!

A religion tells you how to live your life. It has set belief codes, holy scripts et cetera.

Atheism is merely one thing. On every other matter, Atheists can and do disagree.

This sums it up nicely.

Just different sects of Atheism, just like there are different sorts of Christians. Christianity by itself doesn't tell you how to live life. Christianity is simply the belief that Jesus Christ existed and sacrificed himself for the good of humanity. Theists disagree with each other all the time.

And besides that, certain parts of Atheism *do* tell you how to live your life. It's a denial of spiritual influence on the world, and a promotion of secularism, like science. It's basing everything off of scientific reality, just because it doesn't give guidelines about certain other aspects of life doesn't mean Atheism isn't a religion.

Just different sects of Atheism, just like there are different sorts of Christians. Christianity by itself doesn't tell you how to live life. Christianity is simply the belief that Jesus Christ existed and sacrificed himself for the good of humanity

What about the Ten Commandments?

What about the Ten Commandments?

The Ten Commandments is for the most part, basic morality (omit the crap about idols and names in vain) But technically, you don't have to follow the ten commandments. Satanists are still Christians. Christianity is simply a belief system, it doesn't tell you how to live your life.

The Ten Commandments is for the most part, basic morality (omit the crap about idols and names in vain) But technically, you don't have to follow the ten commandments

Er, what gives you that idea? The last I heard, the decalogue (the Ten Commandments) is a guideline on how to live a Jewish/Christian life.

Define religion. I bet you you cant define it with everyone agreeing with you , if you can define it with everyone agreeing, then youll be the greatest phiosopher since plato.

Religion, as defined by an Atheist:

A religion consits of moral guidelines. In other words, it gives guidance on how to live your life. Most religions have leaders (priests, shamans et cetera) that study any holy texts they may have (if they have none, then they may pass the stories and beliefs by telling them to the next generation). They then apply these studies by guiding followers of that religion.

That's my attempt. Care to disagree?

Er, what gives you that idea? The last I heard, the decalogue (the Ten Commandments) is a guideline on how to live a Jewish/Christian life.

The Ten Commandments tell you what is sin. It is your choice whether or not to actually sin. You follow the Ten Commandments IF you want to get into heaven. If I'm a Satanist (not a pagan which are incorrectly called satanists sometimes) then I simply believe that even though those things are sin, I'm going to defy God and not listen to them. Or in a less extreme manner, another Christian may believe that something that the Bible calls sin is no longer sin because of changing circumstances of history (Christian Homosexuals are an example of this)

EDIT: Noble, I disagree. I think that religion is a set of beliefs about the world. I don't see what makes you anymore right than me.

EDIT: Noble, I disagree. I think that religion is a set of beliefs about the world. I don't see what makes you anymore right than me.

I never said I was right.

The Ten Commandments tell you what is sin

Are you implying that only the Ten Commandments tell you what sin is?

I wouldn't stretch so far as to claim Satanists are really Christian...otherwise we might as well say Christians and Muslims are really Jews because they worship the same God...

Are you implying that only the Ten Commandments tell you what sin is?

I wouldn't stretch so far as to claim Satanists are really Christian...otherwise we might as well say Christians and Muslims are really Jews because they worship the same God...

No, I'm saying that the Ten Commandments only tell you what sin is. They say that you will be punished, but it's up to you.

The reason Jews and Muslims aren't the same is because they have a different belief set. Jews don't believe that Jesus was the son of God, and Muslims don't believe that he was either. Muslims differ from Jews in that they believe that Jesus was divinely inspired, just not the son of God.

No, I'm saying that the Ten Commandments only tell you what sin is. They say that you will be punished, but it's up to you.

Hang on there, no they don't. By themselves they're nothing but moral guidelines, and popularly recognised as so.

The Ten Commandments, or Decalogue, is a list of religious and moral imperatives

The reason Jews and Muslims aren't the same is because they have a different belief set. Jews don't believe that Jesus was the son of God, and Muslims don't believe that he was either. Muslims differ from Jews in that they believe that Jesus was divinely inspired, just not the son of God.

Yes, yes I know all of this. So why do you claim Satanism is a branch of Christianity? :confused:

It's still up to you whether or not to follow the Ten Commandments. You can simply believe that God is an asshole, so you don't listen to him. You're still a theist.

Satanism is a branch of Christianity because it believes all the things that Christianity says: That Jesus is the son God, that you should follow the Bible, and so on an so fourth. Satanists also believe these things. They just choose a different alignment, and instead of listening to God, they listen to Satan. They believe that "evil" is just a set of morals (or lack thereof) that God disaproves of, just as Christians do, but they believe that "evil" to be more pleasurable than "good".

It's still up to you whether or not to follow the Ten Commandments. You can simply believe that God is an asshole, so you don't listen to him. You're still a theist.

Satanism is a branch of Christianity because it believes all the things that Christianity says: That Jesus is the son God, that you should follow the Bible, and so on an so fourth. Satanists also believe these things. They just choose a different alignment, and instead of listening to God, they listen to Satan. They believe that "evil" is just a set of morals (or lack thereof) that God disaproves of, just as Christians do, but they believe that "evil" to be more pleasurable than "good".

Sorry, wrong.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/satanism.htm
http://www.religioustolerance.org/satanis1.htm
http://www.religioustolerance.org/satanis2.htm

Satanism is not about 'worshiping' anyone other than the individual Satanist themself. *shakes head*

Following the latest wave of suicide bombings in Iraq and the recent activities of protestant paramilitaries in Northern Ireland, it is now obvious that religion needs to be rooted out of World Civilisation. In Iraq, Sunnis threaten the establishment of a true representative democracy while in Northern Ireland, religious differences has caused a 30 year war that now, despite a ceasefire of 7 years, looks like tragically restarting.

This is not a cheap dig at Christianity alone but is an expression of my most profound beliefs regarding all religion, which is; that religion corrupts citizens. For one thing, citizens gain self-satisfaction from attending church once a week; that is unjustly earned next to those who struggle to lessen the suffering of the poor and promote justice and tolerance around the world. For religious people, at worst suffering is excusable for those who do not share the same religion or at best, part of God's great plan. This shameful justification for human suffering is scandalous and intolerable. Surely any supreme being would prefer the citizen who helps their fellow man to the one who reads their bible and preaches to others how they are all going to hell.

Furthermore, piety cannot co-exist with reason, the fundamental tenet of a good citizen. Religion is like a telescope, alledgedly improving one's view of the world, whereas in reality it just just focuses on certain aspects of it while closing the rest of your mind to those outside. Therefore it influences a citizen's mind in a way that proves dangerous to the greater good; one must only look at the harmful, unsettling and divisive nature of the messages provided by men like Rev Ian Paisley and Abu Hamza.

Therefore I wish to pronounce that it is my belief that anyone professing to be of a religious background should be automatically denied the vote for the greater good of the nation and the world.

If you took the time to actually study religion, you'd find that reason and religion co-exist. Religion is the what, science is the how. Those who truly follow religion do NOT feel self-satisfied at just going to church, hell, I sure don't.

Think of it, without religion, where would any form of morals come from? If we didn't believe that there was someone up there, why would we bother to be nice to each other? I think it is people like YOU who have a focused vision, and not a broad one. Religion OPENS compassion and caring in a person, regardless of which religion. Do you know how much church groups alone donate to Africa and other places? What about Katrina? Don't you know the huge effort that church groups are putting forward for that. Without any religion, why would people do that? There'd be no reason, there'd be no compassion or caring, everyone would just say "It's their problem, not mine."

At the same time, religion is a major part in any culture. By studying these varying religions, we also gain valuable insight into these cultures. And by studying past religions, we can also tell a great deal about PAST civilizations.

Only some religions say that those who don't believe are going to hell. There are some that don't. Several forms of Christianity don't believe that. While it is taken that those people will not receive FULL salvation, they will not suffer forever, rather a place in between of less suffering.

And lastly, the last war fought mainly over religion was fought a couple hundred YEARS ago. Since then, they have been over territory or political reasons.

In short, religion does the absolute opposite of what you say. You say that those with religious backing should be brought out of the political system? Well, I wouldn't want the voice of 300 MILLION in the hands of a few THOUSAND (American figures, may differ in reader's country), it simply doesn't represent the people as a whole. I think that if you study some religion more, not worship but STUDY, you'll find a whole different perspective of it.

And one last thing, Viva Revrend Paisley!!!!!

I’m not even sure this is worth replying to but let’s be brutally honest. Sure, religion leads to a lot of wars but exactly how do you plan on eliminating it? Through more war, through censorship and other fascist nonsense? This is a seriously convoluted pipe dream. You might as well eliminate science too.

Your reply suggests an erronious parallel between religion and science. Religious belief is a matter of faith, it doesn't require or ask for proof, and as such it can influence people to think and behave contrary to reason.
Science is systematic and methodical, it tests theories in order to prove or disprove them, and those proficient in science understand that the possibility always exists that a better theory could add to and even replace their current understanding of things.

Religion also tries to connect the authority of its supposed answers to questions about the physical world (namely the will of a divine being) to answer questions about morality. It presupposes that morality is a system built into the universe by a willful creator. Science doesn't try to answer moral questions, doesn't try to force moral judgement on people. Science tries to answer questions about how the universe physically works, and doesn't presume to tell people that its answers provide guidelines for behaviour. Science relies on people to use reason and logic to try and determine for themselves the best mode of behaviour.

Those who call for the abolition of religion (however difficult and unlikely that would be to accomplish) do so because they see it as a superstitious theory, constructed in ignorance by humans in order to explain the universe. They criticise it because it arbitrarily, irrationally turns people on one another resulting in human loss, and those who truly believe in a given religion contrary to any evidence that contradicts its doctrine cannot be persuaded otherwise. This makes religion dangerous in a way that science is not.

Science has never given people a reason to kill one another, though it might have yielded more effective ways to do it. And with religion, once people have used it to justify doing harm to others, they're hard-pressed to change their views.

I agree. Religion should be destroyed for the good of humanity.

While we're at it, we should destroy nations, because they foster nationalism, another cancer of humanity. Cities and organisations should be abolished, too, for they foster competition and strife over limited resources. Schools should be banned, because people might become aware that other people around them might be better them.

In fact, lets do away with humanity altogether. That'll nip that war n' conflict thing in the bud!

I agree. Religion should be destroyed for the good of humanity.

While we're at it, we should destroy nations, because they foster nationalism, another cancer of humanity. Cities and organisations should be abolished, too, for they foster competition and strife over limited resources. Schools should be banned, because people might become aware that other people around them might be better them.

In fact, lets do away with humanity altogether. That'll nip that war n' conflict thing in the bud!

Oh! Don't forget the internet!! That breeds games like this that pit people in endless political debates that causes competition!!! OHHHH!!! I know how to get rid of humanity!!! Let's have a WAR!!!

I agree. Religion should be destroyed for the good of humanity.

While we're at it, we should destroy nations, because they foster nationalism, another cancer of humanity. Cities and organisations should be abolished, too, for they foster competition and strife over limited resources. Schools should be banned, because people might become aware that other people around them might be better them.

In fact, lets do away with humanity altogether. That'll nip that war n' conflict thing in the bud!

Precisely the reason that I should never be allowed to get a major in Genetics / Genetic Manipulation. Because I would do it. Design a virus that would utterly wipe out humanity for the good of the world.

Precisely the reason that I should never be allowed to get a major in Genetics / Genetic Manipulation. Because I would do it. Design a virus that would utterly wipe out humanity for the good of the world.

That's right. Humanity must be destroyed if we are to save it.

That's right. Humanity must be destroyed if we are to save it.

That is actually the most intelligent line I've heard/read all day. It makes complete sense.

No sarcasm.

Well... lets think. Another major "reason" for war is culture and race. Should we eliminate them? Just because humanity uses something as an excuse to start a war doesn't mean said thing is evil or wrong or even unhelpful to us.

As for religion being the cause of war... this statement of course is indeed correct but often is misapplied. The war in Ireland has nothing to do with religion. The King of England was the head of the Anglican Church and when some irish converted it was at the sword or because of patriotism to the crown. For that "sin", lack of patriotism for Ireland, that they were and are being "punished". It's really a war of independence that uses terrorism to get it (though as a side note they do usually send messages to the public so innocents don't die... so I've been told by my British co-workers but maybe this is wrong). Another example was the crusades, yes some people want to "free the holy land" but mostly it was about a Europe that had too many nobles and not enough land. Before getting you panties in a wad remember I didn't say that the statement wasn't true I just said it's wrongly applied sometimes.

I think most people on this thread seem to understand the real problem is with humanity which I would hope leads you to realize that we DO need help from a higher sourse and that too often we don't seek it. If everyone was a true Buddhist (like my father in law) or Christian there wouldn't be any war. It's humans greed... envy ...etc that leads us into these problems not religion.

:sniper: <----- this might help to rid the world of the tunnel visioned religous freaks, and the people that want to ban telescopes....lol. anyway the whole point of a species to exist is to out-do its predecessor and telescopes are one of the many ways people have done that, BTW i`ve looked through a LOT of telescopes and still have not seen this GOD all these brain washed church going morons talk about . seriously , if it can be proven that the world and the "heavens" were created by one divine being then i want proof....so far the scientific approach holds a lot more water then the "god did it" thinking, just for the record i dont hate my country ...just the idiot(s) representing it :gundge:

I'll say this: Atheism is just as much of a religion as Christianity.
No it is not.
Atheism makes the claim, "There is no God."
No it doesnt.
That's a belief system in of itself, and is based just as much on faith as Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, or anything. You are making a direct claim about the status of supernatural beings: That there is no God. You have no proof of such things, nor do theists have proof that there is God.
You are of course incorrect.

Not believing in the existance of something is not the same as believing in the non-existence of something.

I'll say this: Atheism is just as much of a religion as Christianity. No it is not.

No it is not.

Atheism makes the claim, "There is no God."

No it doesnt.


Umm, You seem to have a flaw with your "Atheism is not a religious point of view" because IF it is not a religious ideology, it should NOT be protected by the First Amendment's Freedom of Religion clause and we can ignore the feeling of Atheist in Religious First Amendment disputes...

Obviously that was not you intention. Atheism IS a belief system as far as government recognition must go, or else they will be entirely ignored as a secular philosophy unworthy of protection.

Umm, You seem to have a flaw with your "Atheism is not a religious point of view" because IF it is not a religious ideology, it should NOT be protected by the First Amendment's Freedom of Religion clause
Actually this is a fallacy. The fact that the implications of a certain thing being true, may be undesirable, does not indicate anything about the truthfulness or otherwise of that certain thing.

and we can ignore the feeling of Atheist in Religious First Amendment disputes...
I doubt that would be the case, although I will happily read and consider any argument you make demonstrating that it would be the case.

Obviously that was not you intention.
My intention was to clarify that atheism is not a religion.

Atheism IS a belief system as far as government recognition must go, or else they will be entirely ignored as a secular philosophy unworthy of protection.
Really? Well politically decreeing (via legislation) that all people who have a name starting with K are considered by legal definition to be religious, would not make it true that all people who have a name starting with K are religious, it would simply mean that in political/legal contexts, it would be reckoned as though it were true.

Really? Well politically decreeing (via legislation) that all people who have a name starting with K are considered by legal definition to be religious, would not make it true that all people who have a name starting with K are religious, it would simply mean that in political/legal contexts, it would be reckoned as though it were true.


No. Perhaps an example will help: If they have a Cat Protection Act, you must be a Cat to apply for protection under the law. Simple enough, Since a Dog is not a Cat it cannot register a complaint under the Cat Act because a Dog is not a Cat and it is not protected by it.

If Atheism is not a Religion, nor a religious belief, then it cannot apply for first amendment religious clause protection.

However, the SCOTUS has long ago decided that for the sake of legality, Atheism WILL be considered a religious viewpoint worthy of protection.

No. Perhaps an example will help: If they have a Cat Protection Act, you must be a Cat to apply for protection under the law.
No if there is a cat protection law, anything legally considered to be a cat is protected by the provisions of the law.
Simple enough, Since a Dog is not a Cat it cannot register a complaint under the Cat Act because a Dog is not a Cat and it is not protected by it.
If there is a legislated definition then anything that meets the critieria of that condition would be entitled to the protections of the applicable law. Equally if there were a legal precedent that defined cat. The fact is if there were such a law and someone successfully argued in court that for the purposes of interpreting the law, a dog should be defined as a cat, then for the purposes of interpreting that law, a dog would indeed be a cat.

If Atheism is not a Religion, nor a religious belief, then it cannot apply for first amendment religious clause protection.
Really? That wouldnt change the definition of atheism.

However, the SCOTUS has long ago decided that for the sake of legality, Atheism WILL be considered a religious viewpoint worthy of protection.
'For the sake of legality, it will be considered'....not 'in actuality it is'. Big difference...

Really? That wouldnt change the definition of atheism.

'For the sake of legality, it will be considered'....not 'in actuality it is'. Big difference...

I hate to say it but he's correct. I would call it a religion in that fact that religion is a collection of beliefs about the supernatural world (does god exist, are their ghosts etc. some religions don't believe in God, some forms of Buddhism for example but are still a religion) but to argue that politics dictates it's a religion therefore it is one is not really good logic.

I hate to say it but he's correct. I would call it a religion in that fact that religion is a collection of beliefs about the supernatural world (does god exist, are their ghosts etc. some religions don't believe in God, some forms of Buddhism for example but are still a religion) but to argue that politics dictates it's a religion therefore it is one is not really good logic.
Atheism is not a set of beliefs. There is a difference between believing something doesnt exist, and not believing something does exist. Many atheists do not have a belief in the non-existence of a deity, anymore than they have a belief in the existence of a diety.

Atheism is not a set of beliefs. There is a difference between believing something doesnt exist, and not believing something does exist. Many atheists do not have a belief in the non-existence of a deity, anymore than they have a belief in the existence of a diety.

Yes, but the point is that that seems to be a position not protected by US law - which only focusses on freedom of religion.

As weird as this sounds... "Amen!"

I agree... religion has gotten out of hand.

I'm not religious in the least, but trying to ban religion goes against the basic principles of civil liberty. I don't want to live in the world where the government rigidly controls the lives of the citizens for some kind of twisted "greater good."

OUR FOUNDERS WERE NOT CHRISTIANS!

THEY WERE DEISTS!

Freemasons, yeah remember them?

ARGGGGGHHHH!!!

ok, Deists, & they were so powerful that they hid a map on the back of the Declaration of Independence, that shows where The Holy Grail is. Or am i mixing my novels. Folks whether you like it or not Christianity played a major role in the development of the USA. The point is; religion inspired the very freedoms that allow most of the world the ability to debate the points we are debating.

Yes, but the point is that that seems to be a position not protected by US law - which only focusses on freedom of religion.
So far as I can tell the point I was responding to was whether or not atheism is a religion. The constitution was only raised in an attempt to prove it is a religion (which it isnt). Whether or not atheists are entitled to protection X under law Y does not tell us whether or not it is a religion.

Religion lets people understand morals, socialize peacfully, and hold faith in that which they don't understand. Your suggestions and viewpoint reflect what happens with fundamentalism which is headed by finatic zealots.

Martin Luther didn't start a war although he did question a church. Most Arabs and Irishmen do not believe in a radical religious movement. They might dispute certain principles, but they do not condone violence.

The problem is that discipline is not taught correctly and most people are "sheeple". People perfer to take the simple and lazy way rather than exert effort to protect and preserve virtrues and dignifed practice. What could really solve all of this is if people were MORE aware of their world and took action aggressively.

Although I don't exactly follow the history of religions particularly closely, I still don't know of any Buddhist wars. They seem like nice enough people too.

Religion lets people understand morals, socialize peacfully, and hold faith in that which they don't understand. Your suggestions and viewpoint reflect what happens with fundamentalism which is headed by finatic zealots.

Martin Luther didn't start a war although he did question a church. Most Arabs and Irishmen do not believe in a radical religious movement. They might dispute certain principles, but they do not condone violence.

The problem is that discipline is not taught correctly and most people are "sheeple". People perfer to take the simple and lazy way rather than exert effort to protect and preserve virtrues and dignifed practice. What could really solve all of this is if people were MORE aware of their world and took action aggressively.
I agree with taht

Religion, as defined by an Atheist:

A religion consits of moral guidelines. In other words, it gives guidance on how to live your life. Most religions have leaders (priests, shamans et cetera) that study any holy texts they may have (if they have none, then they may pass the stories and beliefs by telling them to the next generation). They then apply these studies by guiding followers of that religion.

That's my attempt. Care to disagree?

Who said I am an atheist?

So, you want to ban religion, huh? All I can say is good, fricking luck. The Soviets tried to, and China (as well as many other countries) is trying to ban religion, and what do you know? No luck. The Romans tried to ban Christianity, but in fact only helped to speed it. So, you're not the first to think this one up, and you won't be the last. But let me tell you right now; it ain't gonna happen.
I am sorry but you are wrong. The Romans promoted CHristianity and used it as a way of controlling the minds of the peoples they were oppressing. If it wasn't for the Romans then christianity ( i refuse to capitalise the word! ) would have died out as the obscure Jewish cult that it really was.

If you took the time to actually study religion, you'd find that reason and religion co-exist. Religion is the what, science is the how.

Says you.



Think of it, without religion, where would any form of morals come from? If we didn't believe that there was someone up there, why would we bother to be nice to each other...

Your entire argument that religion somehow creates compassion and caring is absolute rubbish!

Religions did not exist on their own with these strict moral codes and then along came humans. Religions were created BY humans using their collective ideas on morality. So to say without religion you cannot have morals is absolute nonsense purely because the moral codes in religion are man-made, not independent entities, thus moral codes outside religion must be possible.

Why not be nice to people because you're a nice person rather than because you're religious? Or can you not comprehend that?

Who said I am an atheist?

I'm Atheist. I made a definition. Hence "Defined by an Atheist".

I'm Atheist. I made a definition. Hence "Defined by an Atheist".

Good, but I am not. I just hate religion, but that doesn't mean I cannot have a personal agnosticism.

I am sorry but you are wrong. The Romans promoted CHristianity and used it as a way of controlling the minds of the peoples they were oppressing. If it wasn't for the Romans then christianity ( i refuse to capitalise the word! ) would have died out as the obscure Jewish cult that it really was.


False, Christianity was the most rapidly growing religion of its time, even during the persecutions of Nero and his ilk.

Good, but I am not. I just hate religion, but that doesn't mean I cannot have a personal agnosticism.

Who said you were? Not me, that's for sure.

Good, but I am not. I just hate religion, but that doesn't mean I cannot have a personal agnosticism. I have to say that I loathe anarcho-capitalism. I still don't see the need to ban it. But I don't live under a bridge and bother billygoats.

Yes, religion must be destroyed, as it is the main cause of war, and source of intolerance.


Pure hogwash... this is ignorance, IGNORANCE!!!

But speaking more seriously, if you review the history of man and civilization, war is caused less by religion, more for a desire of land, power and wealth. Relgion is only used as a diversion, to help spur support because it is a convient tool. In reality, the ignorance of the masses leave them suseptiable to coersion on many fronts religion being just one. Their ignorance ( of the masses) will always allow them to be manipulated for the power.

The removal of religion will neither stop warmongering or the sread of intolerance. Afterall, it was Hitler who saw the Russians as inferior fit only to serve as his slaves in world conquest, and neither Nazi germany, or the Soviet Union were religiously oriented states. And in contrast, Hitler had the greatest respect for Britain and the English powers, who WERE religious (protestant).

To belive religion is the cause of war, is to yourself have fallen vicitim of the propoganda of the rich and wealthy.

Atheism is not a set of beliefs. There is a difference between believing something doesnt exist, and not believing something does exist. Many atheists do not have a belief in the non-existence of a deity, anymore than they have a belief in the existence of a diety.

I hate to tell you but if you study in a philosophy class thats exactly what it is though I am a bit confused why this bothers you.

Secondly, I think you are confusing atheism with agnosticism. Atheist say their is no god. Agnostics don't say either way but generally hold the idea as incorrect. The support the idea of individualism with your own belief system. Nehilism supports the idea that there is no truth. Now Nehilist could come the closest to saying they have no set of beliefs but in reality even they do. "There is no truth!" I say to them prove it lol.

Anyhow, I don't want to get off onto this subject it's irrelevent to this thread. I really don't see why saying Atheism is a set of beliefs is so disturbing to you. Besides which no self respecting athiest teacher would support you on this (at least none I know and I'm a teacher myself).

(Also last bit.. just look at you statement it's a contradiction just based on the language you chose in your statement... sorry)

I hate to tell you but if you study in a philosophy class thats exactly what it is though I am a bit confused why this bothers you.
What do you mean by bother? None of the philosophy classes I have taken have led me to believe that atheism is a belief system.

Secondly, I think you are confusing atheism with agnosticism. Atheist say their is no god. Agnostics don't say either way but generally hold the idea as incorrect.
I dont believe I am confusing them.

The support the idea of individualism with your own belief system. Nehilism supports the idea that there is no truth. Now Nehilist could come the closest to saying they have no set of beliefs but in reality even they do. "There is no truth!" I say to them prove it lol.

Anyhow, I don't want to get off onto this subject it's irrelevent to this thread. I really don't see why saying Atheism is a set of beliefs is so disturbing to you.
I dont see why you think it disturbs me.

Besides which no self respecting athiest teacher would support you on this (at least none I know and I'm a teacher myself).
Call to authority is a fallacious means of argument.

(Also last bit.. just look at you statement it's a contradiction just based on the language you chose in your statement... sorry)
It's not a contradiction at all.