CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
I am hesitant to say that "the world would be better without ALL religions", but then I do not claim to have the authority or knowledge to choose which should go and which should stay.
However, religion has many things associated with it that I am opposed to. Faith being presented as knowledge. A tendency to fight with and even destroy those of other beliefs. A reluctance to accept new information. Occasional political motivations. And on and on.
On the other side, I see no proof that religion has any indelible advantage that can not be obtained through other sources. So it does seem reasonable to me that the world would be better off without them, yes.
On the other side, I see no proof that religion has any indelible advantage that can not be obtained through other sources. So it does seem reasonable to me that the world would be better off without them, yes.
Through what sources then? Religious laws are what determine morals of societies. So are you saying without God that humans would develop morals. I am intrigued to see what theory you have for morality without religion.
First off, a truly immoral society would not be stable one. All of the morals that keep turning up over and over in societies regardless of religion foster cooperation and successful group interaction. Simply put, they are better than the alternative, more logical, keep you on people's good side, and most (although obviously not all) people know this. Its not too hard to imagine wise folk in the ancient tribes showing people exactly how their immoral behavior is making things worse.
I do see a point in people who say that religion was valuable as a placeholder for gaps in scientific knowledge. The problem was that religion didn't merely keep the seat warm for scientists; it often actively opposed scientific progress. Religion had its use, but it was hardly the best tool for the job. Some sort of inner tranquillity and ambition that allowed a person to accept that they knew very little about the world, and drive them to discover more, would be far better. It would accomplish the same job but without feeding people false ideas, restricting people's urge to question and test their beliefs, or providing fuel for zealots to spread hatred and violence.
Today, religion still helps explain the unexplained, e.g. "Does life have intrinsic meaning?" "What happens after death?" It's also useful for providing moral and emotional guidance. But again, it's hardly irreplaceable. Religious tenets like the Ten Commandments help you to live a moral life, but you can easily be moral without religion. Similarly, religion is not necessary to find your life meaningful or to get over hurdles like bereavement.
If everyone's religious beliefs could be removed and replaced with a superior secular alternative, I would say that would make the world much better. (I also think it's doable, but it will take time.) But a world in which religious beliefs are simply sucked out leaving a vacuum behind would leave far too many people psychologically stranded, like taking away a lifejacket from someone who can't swim.
If everyone's religious beliefs could be removed and replaced with a superior secular alternative, I would say that would make the world much better.
The secular alternative is anarchy and there is no morals or governmental rule. Without the laws of God, no one would care about anyone else. Murder would be acceptable as well as sexual crimes and theft. God is the one who gave us morals. Most humans would give into the temptations and do evil things.
Empirical data shows that governments can be religiously based, but do not need to be. Many countries in the world have entirely secular governments. And even in countries that don't, the government still attempts to delineate clearly between church and state - e.g. the US and UK governments. So far there is little sign that secular government results in anarchy, or that non-religious people have no morality. Plenty of philosophical stances on moral issues are not based on religion.
Religion is not the cause for the violence there, its just a bunch of stupid people who use religion as an excuse, if they didn't use religion they would use science as an excuse wahtever they could think of
Religion is not the cause for the violence there, its just a bunch of stupid people who use religion as an excuse, if they didn't use religion they would use science as an excuse wahtever they could think of
That article doesn't prove anything.You simply confirmed the argument that you were disputing.
Maybe you didn't read it all the way, but he was recently assassinated by Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan because he was, according to them, a blasphemer. Sectarian violence brought to us thanks to religion.
Just because the man is Catholic doesn't mean he was killed for it. He criticized a political policy put in place not because of religion but rather as a political move to exercise greater control over the people. The political view was criticized and threatened so they killed him.
Just because the man is Catholic doesn't mean he was killed for it. He criticized a political policy put in place not because of religion but rather as a political move to exercise greater control over the people. The political view was criticized and threatened so they killed him.
He was killed for blasphemy. The assassins stated that outright. Blasphemy is a religious crime, it has no other purpose.
Shahbaz Bhatti (9 September 1968 – 2 March 2011)[1] was a Pakistani politician and elected member of the National Assembly from 2008.[2] He was the first Federal Minister for Minorities[1] from 2008 until his assassination on 2 March 2011 in Islamabad.[3] Bhatti, a Roman Catholic, was an outspoken critic of Pakistan's blasphemy laws and the only Christian in the Cabinet.[4] Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan claimed responsibility for his killing and called him a blasphemer of Muhammad.[5]
The answer can be found easily simply by looking into the past. Besides the male ego, what caused 90% of all wars in the history of mankind? You guessed it, religion. The holocaust, the crusades, the inquisition. Doing nothing but causing suffering and pain, and killing millions, if not billions, of innocent people. I understand that many people found comfort in religion in times of hardship, but it must be understood that man fears what he does not understand. In order to stem that fear, he created religion, as an explanation to the unknown, but now science and technology has advanced to the point that we can explain the things with science that religion used to. Without religion, there would be far less racism, sexism, prejudice, and violence in the world. We are holding on to an obsolete psychological opiate, without religion we would be able to experience our full potential as a species.
The Crusades were not motivated by purely religion, they were used for many different reasons, the Pope was a religious and political figure. In this case the people of Europe were violent, they attacked each other, in an effort to redirect the violent people and in order to gain political power the Pope called for a crusade, the people who went did not go for purely religious reasons, many went for wealth and power, particularly the leaders of the armies. Ex. When the Christians captured Edessa they killed other christians in order to gain wealth and power. Also the looting of Constantinople.
I agree that the leaders of the armies were in it for the money but without religion they won't have volunteers to have their war. The pay wasn't good for the normal soldier.
When looking back in time many wars where fought over religion. Much blood was spread and many lost all they had. Some would say without religion than the average person would not care for another and things such as murder would be okay. But is this true? No i don't believe so because i myself am an atheist and i do not desire to kill people or hurt anyone and either does the many atheists i know. Having no religion would take away many criticisms that there are and take away the wars that are fought over them. Many people get upset if another person does not believe what they do, but we where born with our own way of thinking so we cannot always help this and it leads to many problems. This can even lead to little things such as a child not being able to date another child or one another not being allowed to communicate with a individual because the parent does not accept this person. Religion has been causing problems with people not liking each other, we don't focus on it but it is just like the discrimination of color. Which is a big problem the world focuses on. I find that religion has caused many problems in our world. Even though some of humans have become closer because of religion and it has helped people do the right thing i believe it has caused more suffering and damage to our race
While not religious, I have come to view religion as an evolutionary device that has helped mankind get to where it is today.
Religion brings people together, and was instrumental in our transition from Nomads to City-Dwellers. A non-religious tribe might have trouble networking with other tribes, making a city more difficult to establish or keep.
Religious Ceremonies brought the community together, created a command structure for our first leaders, and were a place to socialize and meet new friends and even potential mates. Its fairly common for a member of a religious Youth Group to make a chastity promise, then break it with another member of the group that made the same promise!
Furthermore, religion was a great placeholder for science! I like to think this conversation happened once in Man's primitive times:
"Where did the Sun come from?"
'A man in the sky! Now lets to hunt so we can EAT"
Without religion to hold science's place, we might not have been able to cope with some of the more frightening aspects of this world, why do you think the most memorable gods from the past and present are Shiva the destroyer, Zeus the Lighting God, Osiris the God of the Afterlife? Man had a hard time with these issues, and still does.
Now that Science is catching up and pulling its own weight, you might say Religion is useless, as it tends to start more wars then it ends. I think religion gets a bad wrap though. Its used as an excuse more often then a valid reason. For example, Hezbollah doesn't really hate Israel because its Jewish. Hezbollah hates Israel because Israel is on the land Hezbollah wants. They CLAIM its because they're Jewish,and they're fighting a religious war, but since Jews and Muslims live together fairly peacefully in other regions, this can't be true. Its just that "We want to kill them for their land" doesn't sound so appealing to potential new recruits..
The truth is, religions still give tremendous amounts of money and food to those in need. I remember watching South Park, an early episode where Starvin' Marvin is running from the Christian Missionaries in Africa, because they want Marvin to read the Bible before they give him food his people desperately needs. While I admit that does sound like blackmail, really, who else was there, willing to dish out free food?
The Bottom Line is this: I think, overall, people are Decent. Not great, but slightly more caring then hating. This is true of both religious and non-religious people. However, I think religions are a better network resource then anything available to non-religious people, and that allows religious people to make a bigger impact on the world. And, over a long enough time line, I think all religions will do more good in the world then evil, and any tool that brings good into this world should stay. Even if its only slightly, its still worth having.
"Religion brings people together, and was instrumental in our transition from Nomads to City-Dwellers."
Actually, I'm pretty sure that it was agriculture that helped us make that transition. It is true, however, that the religious leaders played a role in the development of the first settled civilizations. But they had been doing that well before agriculture had made it possible to stay in one place throughout the year.
"Furthermore, religion was a great placeholder for science!"
I completely concur. I believe this is precisely where religion came from, and I have often referred to it as an "intellectual placeholder" for early man. But now that science has come to disprove long-held religious tenants, some religious folk try to hold back the tide of knowledge, and I find that to be detrimental to society. I feel that faith has outlasted its usefulness.
"For example, Hezbollah doesn't really hate Israel because its Jewish. Hezbollah hates Israel because Israel is on the land Hezbollah wants. They CLAIM its because they're Jewish,and they're fighting a religious war, but since Jews and Muslims live together fairly peacefully in other regions, this can't be true. Its just that "We want to kill them for their land" doesn't sound so appealing to potential new recruits.."
If you are right, then the last sentence would seem to indicate that religion is indeed creating a problem (more new recruits). Basically, it is not so much that the religion itself is the cause of the problem, but rather that religious fervor can exacerbate the problem. People who wouldn't do evil things normally could be convinced to do so if presented with religious justification. Indeed, they might be convinced that it is their duty. Anything that can be easily used to reinforce differences between groups should be scrutinized for validity and necessity.
"While I admit that does sound like blackmail, really, who else was there, willing to dish out free food?"
Secular humanists. And they don't blackmail in the process. Granted there aren't as many of them, but it could become a growing movement in a world where more people were motivated to do the right thing without religious lures.
Agriculture made it possible, but religion is identified as one of the greatest factors in convincing Nomads to settle in the cities and create a sense of community. Take this excerpt about temples from Wikipedia's Uruk page (Uruk was one of the worlds first real cities):
"There are different interpretations about the purposes of the temples. However, it is generally believed they were a unifying feature of the city. It also seems clear that temples served both an important religious function and state function"
"Secular humanists. And they don't blackmail in the process. Granted there aren't as many of them, but it could become a growing movement in a world where more people were motivated to do the right thing without religious lures."
I'd say thats true, there are many caring Secular humanists out there. But like you said, there are less Secular Humanists, and they are less organized. Can you name me one Secular, non-government agency that responds as quickly or as powerfully to a disaster as say, The Salvation Army? One of the first agencies to react to the 9/11 and the 2004 Tsunami, it spends millions of dollars a year to feed shelter and clothe the needy of all races and religions, despite being a hard-line Christian program.
The point is, wishing you could help is one thing, having the infrastructure to help is something else. religion still provides that basic infrastructure, and while I've seen some great secular charities, like Child's Play, they don't yet reach the scope of religious charities. Might Secular charities someday reach that level? Maybe, only time will tell. But right now, they don't even come close.
"Agriculture made it possible, but religion is identified as one of the greatest factors in convincing Nomads to settle in the cities and create a sense of community."
Most of what we know about the ancients is based around their religions. Through such a lens, we can identify religion as being one of the most important factors of anything they did. To an extent this would be true, religion did shape their lives immensely. But the thing is, a settled life is easier once you start figuring out how to do it, especially if you come across really fertile land. Having to constantly be on the move all the time has got to be hard on the young and sick (I'd say the elderly too, but there probably weren't too many truly old folks back then.) Always being exposed to the elements, having predators constantly on your heals, never knowing if there is any game to be hunted over the next hill. The oldest societies had been tool users for quite awhile, making structures would have been possible well before they settled down. But the kicker was understanding the basics of horticulture and animal husbandry. Once they realized that they could increase the land's yield noticeably, they started understanding that the hard life they had always known could be mostly put behind them. Religion certainly formed the center of the new society, but I doubt the average folks needed too much convincing once the smarter members of the tribe showed them the possibilities.
As far as a sense of community: you don't think that traveling through rough conditions all year long with small group of people (many of whom are related to you) would foster community? Humans are social creatures, as were the apes we descended from. It almost certainly played a huge role in our success as a species. We can form bonds with people just because we're sitting next to them on a bus. Its a part of our nature, and religion is just one of the aspects it takes. I'm an atheist and I have no problems forming deep, meaningful relations with people from all aspects of my life, irregardless of their spiritual preferences. I barely know most of the people in my neighborhood, but I would stand by them in an emergency. And I'm pretty sure they'd do the same for me.
"Can you name me one Secular, non-government agency that responds as quickly or as powerfully to a disaster as say, The Salvation Army?"
Several corporation donated trucks, supplies, and money during Katrina. Many corporations open up voluntary funds that their employees can contribute to during national and international emergency.
Your point about the infrastructure is a pretty good one though. These organizations have put a lot of time and effort into getting these responses efficient. They are quite well established and a lot of people find it easy to support them financially and as volunteers, no matter the religious preference of the volunteer. I've worked with church led organizations myself. But if religion suddenly disappeared, or stopped supporting these actions, I think there are plenty of secular groups who would figure out a way to pick up the slack.
Before I say anything I am a christian. Furthermore, I dont beleive christianity is a religion, but a relationship.
"Where did the Sun come from?"
'A man in the sky! Now lets to hunt so we can EAT
I hope your not implying that only atheists have brought us to where we are today in science. Because that would be far from true. And the man who proved that the earth revolved around the son was christian. Also the bible does not say the sun revolves around the sun so this is a mere human flaw.
"Furthermore, I dont beleive christianity is a religion, but a relationship."
Then you are a rarity. Most of Christianity's adherents and critics agree that it is a religion.
"And the man who proved that the earth revolved around the son was christian."
And then the Pope had Galileo put under Inquisition. He refused to deny the mathematical and observed proof, so the Church placed him under house arrest until the day he died.
There are many examples of Christians who have practiced good science. Why did you pick one of the most famous examples where Christians in power punished them for it?
And then the Pope had Galileo put under Inquisition. He refused to deny the mathematical and observed proof, so the Church placed him under house arrest until the day he died.
Not religion but political, Pope wanted to keep political power he believed that science threatened his power. Religion is not the source of bad things, people are.
And how many good Christians sat by and watched this and many similar events happen without trying to do anything about it? How many people who really believed that the Church's authority came directly from God accepted it as God's will? How many good Christians sat by and allowed the witch hunts to occur without lifting a finger? How many rounded up their own neighbors and family because the preachers ramped up their insecurities and superstitions into a boiling turmoil of fear and rage? Fear and rage that only seemed justifiable from their religious mindset. How many times did this kind of thing have to happen all throughout the world before some courageous people organized and fought to rein in religious authority?
And if religion is truly a way to learn morality, a bastion of goodness and grace that should stem back the tide of evil, then why do evil people keeping managing to take hold of it and hoodwink good people into supporting evil deeds time and time again? How many atrocities do you have to rationalize before you start to wonder if religion is really doing what its supposed to?
Because it is the one that is used most often against religion. What I am saying is that it is a mere human flaw not a flaw of religion. The church during that time was flawed. If they truely were to be true followers of christ they would know to respect all peoples rights and freedoms. They are hypocrites themselves for they do not even know how to practice good disernment. It was a pride issue. The church during that time agreed upon the fact that the sun revolved around earth. Im sure the leaders who set that foundation were highly respected during that time. Now for some scientist to come along and try and prove them wrong hurt the pride of the leaders. This is a mere human flaw not a flaw of religion. Yes I am repeating myself. I want to get this clear.
"What I am saying is that it is a mere human flaw not a flaw of religion."
This is true. However, after you take a stroll through history, you have to use this justification numerous times. Galileo, the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, Witch hunts, the murder of abortion doctors, the skirmishes between the Catholics and the Protestants in Ireland and N. Ireland, and on and on and on. And several other religions have a just as many dark spots in their history. At the least, its hard to see any moral ground gained by religion. But it gets worse than that.
Some of these events were motivated more by greed and politics than by religion itself. But the otherwise good folks at the bottom of the chain don't really realize what's going on. They were duped. They didn't want their faith to get questioned, they allow their preachers to fan the flames of fear, and eventually got caught up in mob mentality. Religion isn't the only thing that does this, I know. But it can make an already bad situation worse.
People who represent themselves as christian may not truely be christian. To beleive in something is one thing but to beleive in something that is more important then your life is another thing. Who you are is not what you do. Its who you are at heart. The first thing to prosper should be in you. For example alot of religions center itself around power and influence. Using your religion for these motives is disaterous and horrific to the human soul. A true beleiver in christ lives for God/Jesus same thing, and for others. Humility comes before honor. I am going to the navy and I hold that in my heart. I fasten it around my arm. You cannot have honor if you do not have humility. Also according to revelation their will only be 7 churches that are true to God and God fearing. 7! Let me ask you how many churches are their in the world? What does this tell you? That the truth is the % of chrisitans in America are alot lower then what we claim it to be. In conclusion, statistics arent the judge for the human heart. Their is only on judge who truely knows where your heart lies. Jesus christ.
And now we get to the next stage of rationalizing: "They are not true Christians." The definition of what makes a "true Christian" ends up being highly subjective and biased towards one's personal beliefs. Somehow, the person making the claim feels that the very specific set of beliefs they have is the obvious choice, and yet only their specific branch, out of the billion or so Christians, has access to that wisdom. If the Bible is the Word of God, if the teachings of Christ were universally true, if there truly is a beacon of light that can put you on the right path, how could it be so divisive? How so many branches be getting it wrong? How could so many people who read the Bible miss something so universally true? How can this religion of peace and humbleness inspire so much violence and desire for power if it really is something more than words on a page?
I agree with some of what you say. "The first thing to prosper should be you." I'm not sure if I would use the word "prosper," but I do agree that one needs to get their act together before they can be a benefit to the world around them. And I believe in living for others. I think the most obvious and honorable path is one that makes the world a better place. I don't, however, believe that living for Christ is necessary. People around the world who have never been exposed to His teachings still do good for their communities and the greater world. Many Buddhists dedicate themselves to this. Many Secular Humanists do this too, not for religion, but because it is the right thing to do. I try my best to do this, living humbly and graciously and for the world around me before myself. And yet that wouldn't be quite enough would it? I would have to believe in some stories that my brain tells me can't possibly be true, would have to accept an illogical and culturally restrictive notion that wouldn't, apparently, say anything about my character (since apparently not even very many Christians get it right.) I have to accept Hell, because of some sins that I haven't committed or have worked very hard to make right can't be cleared until I do some arcane, ambiguous soul ritual, when I can't even be presented with evidence that a soul actually exists? Standing from an outsider's perspective, can't you see how this is a bit off-putting? The sheer divisiveness of it all simply reinforces my distrust, and makes it hard to see where any benefit is coming from.
Good on you for going into the Navy though. My dad was a sailor.
You got two extremes here Atheism and christianity. Both are hard to swallow whouldnt you say? Because if life has no meaning, then what is the point of doing these deeds for your community, for the world, if you have nothing to fight for. And beleive me fighting for yourself isnt enough. I think you do realize this. Im sure their are parts of you you would like to change. Im sure of you had the choice you would choose to be the smartest, the strongest, the best person on this planet. But can you imagine a God who loves you dearly for who you are? Thats something to fight more. That is a weight off your sholders. That is a burden that has now been taken off. That my friend is something to fight for. A greater destiny. A greater meaning. A greater picture. He made you purposefully the way you are. Every detail. You were made for love. You were made to love.
How can so many people get it wrong? Because people are by nature lost creatures with no light. God gives us himself and what do his people do? Rely on themselves to do the tasks at hand. And when we rely on ourselves, sadly that is where evil steps in. And it will jerk you around and flip you over like a pancake. Things can change so fast, you cannot beleive it. And what do people do? Blame the creater! If you plant a seed and nurture it and take care of it, do you expect it not to grow? If I plant a seed of pride in me and water what will I expect? For it to disapear? Its like a virus taking control of its host. Do you think it will be done over night?lol
This is called longterm effects.
Second we cant do it alone. It is, sry to say impossible. We cannot accomplish perfection, because we cannot even define the word perfection. We cannot comprehend it. It really sadens me to see people who think they know what perfection is. For example, the navy tells me that they will make me a better person. ?? What is better? Stronger, faster, smarter, more confident? And then next thing you know my recruiter is checking how women anywhere he goes, and he has a wife. :/ Is this the better person I want to be? Aboslutely not. Swear like a sailor sure does apply as well. Doesnt this bother you?
Now imagine, the burden of sin being lifted off your shoulders. It feels soo good. The thing that we all long for! And it is reality! Can you imagine! Jesus died for us, he carried the cross, and all of our sins were put on him. Our sins can be forgiven and we can be made new, because of what he did for us. OF course this doesnt agree with our natural selves. We are destined to kill our natural selves. TO dig are way out of the cacoon, that binds us and takes us away. The devil will urge you to beleive this is nonsence, and to stay in our shells. So he can open us up in hell. JESUS DIDNT COME TO JUDGE US! BUT TO SAVE US! Amen.
"You got two extremes here Atheism and christianity."
I don't know if this would or even should change anything in your mind, but I am an agnostic atheist. I don't believe in God, but I don't claim that there definitely is no God. I simply accept that the supernatural cannot be dealt with using science, but also that metaphysical investigations don't yield conclusive results. And logic isn't helpful either as a truly omni-everything entity could arguably exist beyond logic, indeed such a being would probably have to. So at the end of the day, I don't think we can know definitively if such a being exists, much less what such a being would actually be like. So you should know that I am just as hesitant towards extreme atheism as I am theism. To me the most humble and realistic course of action is to accept that you don't know the truth, and be skeptical of those who claim they do. Yes, I do find both extremes hard to swallow, which is why I prefer to be neither.
If I'm right, then every religion is at least a little wrong, and since they all claim to be absolutely true, and typically consider themselves mutually exclusive to the others, none can be what they claim. The way I see it, if a God exists, all I can do is be the best person I can be. I can't do it on my own terms, but I can observe the world around me and logically conclude what the best overall course of action is within the range of options I have. I can't see how a God who created sentient beings with free will can expect us to do any different.
"Because if life has no meaning, then what is the point of doing these deeds for your community, for the world, if you have nothing to fight for."
I don't claim that life has no meaning, I claim that life has no intrinsic meaning. I do view us as little more than an extremely temporary collection of chemical reactions with virtually no real importance in the grand scheme of things. But I'm not really capable of conceiving the grand scheme of things and I do have emotions, so meaning turns up all around me. I am here, and as long as I am, I want my fellow humans to be as happy and healthy as they can be. And if I can do something to foster that, I will. Who cares if it will all fade away into nothing in a hundred years, right now is the only time I can do anything about anything so I will do my best. No need for intrinsic value. I don't even usually think about it.
"Im sure their are parts of you you would like to change."
Absolutely. That is what I am dedicated to. I know I will never be perfect, but that just means I will always have some goals to strive for, some things I could always be better at.
"But can you imagine a God who loves you dearly for who you are?"
Not really. But I know my parents do. And a bunch of my friends do. My cat does. And I love myself for who I am. I don't need to imagine any of this, I see it every day.
"He made you purposefully the way you are. Every detail."
Then he should have a problem with nobody. Regardless of if they accept him, regardless of their sexuality, regardless of if they become evil, he did it. None should have to go to Hell for that. None should be admonished for not believing. If he made every detail of me, he made a man who cannot accept his existence. Not my fault, apparently.
"Because people are by nature lost creatures with no light."
If that is the case, and if Christianity is the only way towards the light, and if we are so lost that even most people who are Christians get it wrong, then we should see evil reigning completely unopposed by good everywhere where Christianity hasn't landed. There would be no good people who hadn't read the Bible. You wouldn't have Hindus who give to the poor. You wouldn't have Mongolians taking a deathly sick stranger into their home. Aborigines would have no reason not to kill each other all day long.
"And what do people do? Blame the creater!"
Or blame other people.
"Second we cant do it alone. It is, sry to say impossible"
Which is one reason why we form groups. And we've been doing that long before any of today's Gods were even conceived.
"Now imagine, the burden of sin being lifted off your shoulders."
Nobody can make up for my faults but myself. Also, imagination can lead us to realities that don't exist. That can be either detrimental or beneficial. If its one that can realistically exist and is better than what we know, it is something to try to make real. If it is one that we only rely on to feel better about the world around us, it can go bad at worse, and be a holding pattern at best.
I agree with you, But no where in the Bible says anything about Christianity as a separate religion But as a relationship with God. This guy is not a rarity actually, and nowhere in the Bible does it give any one particular person/persons such a ridiculous amount of power (The Pope). In Fact the Bible is against such things. The Pope is basically a god in his own right, as whatever he say flaw or not, is true, whether it adheres to the Word that he claims he follows or not. A Christian is a follower of Christ. Not the follower of an earthly human being that isn't saying what God is saying In the Book that they are supposed to be following. The Bible clearly states that everyone is free of will, and that you shouldn't force anyone into anything. Which most 'Christians' are doing. The Bible never said anything such as The Sun orbits the earth, Or the Earth is flat with Jerusalem in the middle. Humans did. and they were pompous about it. You may say that since the representatives did such evil, that must mean the relationship/religion must be wrong. But you must understand that they weren't following the Bible in the First place. BTW I Know some very friendly, Kind hospitable Muslims. They Know i am of a different ... Relationship, But they understand and respect my views and I do theirs, In fact one of them has converted... merely because their perceived God is said to have 99 names with Love( not sexual, but pure love for fellow man) not one of them. Christianity believes that God does everything out of Love. And that no other religion is completely wrong. But those who deny such a thing as His existence, are right about many things, (shown in the book Ecclesiastes). Right about things such as finding out things for yourself. Somethings cannot be known without experience. Many Christians have no reason, no driving force for their faith. And that is what I Like to Call Blind. If someone was to ask me why I am a christian right now I'd give them some very interesting events, with no scientific explanation that happened in MY life that i was a witness of. Scientific professionals and tools ( doctors,surgeons, X rays) could not explain what was wrong with the person involved with the events in question.
having a relationship between Jesus christ is the foundation of the whole entire bible. And you tell me I am wrong? I am just tlling you is speaking in me. John 10:27 "MY sheep listen to my vioce; they know me and they follow me". I am speaking not out of my own self, I am speaking what my heart trusts. What comes out of that is Jesus christ living in me. Their is so much power in the word of God. So much Love. Having a relationship with Jesus christ the son of God, and beleiving who he is will set you free. Trust is the key word here. Eternal life is found in him. Therefore Christianity is more of a relationship then a religion, therefore it is a relationship.
Very true.But is impossible to communicate with a person who has not accepted Christ.Not saying that I haven't.If You do the opposite you simply stress yourself Out.
It is not impossible. What do you think I am doing on the webcite? I am completely prepared to be persecuted. But I am still here. I will in the name of Jesus open up my hands to those who need it, for the rest of my life.
"I agree with you, But no where in the Bible says anything about Christianity as a separate religion But as a relationship with God."
A science fiction book wouldn't have to claim to be a science fiction book for the story inside to be science fiction. A religion is an organized system of beliefs, associated with a community and reliant on faith. While not always a part of the definition, religions always have some explanation regarding what happens after we die, generally invoking some non physical portion of our consciousness. Christianity has all of these features. If individuals prefer to take a more solitary approach and distance themselves from the organization and community of Christianity, then I suppose I could accept them as being spiritual as opposed to religious. But if they have faith in Christ and the Holy Bible, than their spirituality is intrinsically tied to the religion, even if they themselves are not an active part of it.
"nowhere in the Bible does it give any one particular person/persons such a ridiculous amount of power (The Pope). In Fact the Bible is against such things."
I'm pretty sure you are totally right about this. Certainly, that's what Martin Luther taught. But even in Protestantism there is a level of organization, a hierarchy where someone is given either explicit or implicit authority over the "flock." Of course, this is natural. This is just how humans work, and the organization makes things a heck of a lot easier. Its why political parties, the military, universities, corporations or virtually any group with a common goal and/or resources arrange themselves in such patterns. The problem is, spirituality is so deeply emotional and transforming that it can be used by anyone in power to manipulate the followers if they desire. Even if they don't claim to have authority from God, their teachings and preachings still end up being praised as the Gospel truth by their followers. The faith itself can and does blind a lot of people as to what is really going on. It can obfuscate the real issues. And you don't need a Pope to get that ball rolling.
"But you must understand that they weren't following the Bible in the First place."
This is a hard judgment to make. The Bible says MANY things, not all of which are objectively compatible. Some are pretty vague, and many Christians agree that at least parts of it are parables. So it pretty much requires interpretation, and with so many stories being told within it, not to mention all the translations it has gone through and the vast cultural changes that have occurred since it was written, an extremely wide range of interpretations can be drawn. As a result, almost any group of Christians can claim that they are the only ones actually following the Bible, and that all others are getting it wrong. Objectivity becomes very difficult within religion.
"I Know some very friendly, Kind hospitable Muslims."
So do I. I don't judge people based on their spirituality. I have friends from several different faiths. My objection is to their beliefs, not the person themselves.
"Scientific professionals and tools ( doctors,surgeons, X rays) could not explain what was wrong with the person involved with the events in question."
That does happen from time to time. We don't know everything. But occasional failures by the scientific community are no reason to judge against in it, especially with all the benefits the scientific method has brought to humanity. And the idea that these failures automatic create a natural/supernatural dichotomy is illogical.
Ah Hah, We all Know That Science is fallible, and yes, I will tell you there wasn't any 'automatic' anything. Im not saying because they couldn't solve it is why there was something supernatural. Im saying that it was a factor to why there was logical evidence to some extent as to why there is more to the world than the Natural.
I do believe you know of a sect called Freemasonry?
"Im saying that it was a factor to why there was logical evidence to some extent as to why there is more to the world than the Natural."
It totally depends on what kind of evidence you are talking about. But I must point out that almost everything that has been shown by science to be naturalistic in origin was once thought to be supernatural. Just because something seems supernatural, does not mean it is.
"I do believe you know of a sect called Freemasonry?"
Palsm 93:1 ""the world is firmly established, it cannot be moved." As the Sun rises and sets, and the Bible says the Earth does not move, then technically your right, it doesn't say the Sun revolves around the Earth, but it sure implies it.
Furthermore, you're also right that Galilio, a christian, did prove the Earth revolved around the Sun. And he spent 12 years of his life under house arrest for his discovery.
Anyway, the point I was trying to make, is that religion was a way for humans to have an answer for something they couldn't prove yet. Before Geometry or Astrology, we needed to know why the Sun set at night, and it was easier to say that the Sun was Helios as he rode his chariot of fire across the sky, then to admit we had no idea.
Ah but you see the earth revolving around the sun actually makes perfect sence according to the word of God. The sun represents God and we represent earth. We revolve around the sun. Without the sun we cannot live. IF you have read the bible you would know that persecution is what you will go through as a christian no matter what the circumstance. Who so you think God was living in? Galilio? or the popes?.............................
Before I say anything I am a christian. Furthermore, I dont beleive christianity is a religion, but a relationship.
You could say that you believe Christianity is a mountain but that doesn't have any bearing on the definition of religion. You believe in a magical being, and that this magical being communicates with you. That is a religion.
I hope your not implying that only atheists have brought us to where we are today in science. Because that would be far from true. And the man who proved that the earth revolved around the son was christian. Also the bible does not say the sun revolves around the sun so this is a mere human flaw.
He is implying that creationism and religious stories are made up from the imaginations of ancient peoples. Also, you are wrong about the sun orbiting the Earth, in that it is clearly implied in the bible, with verses repeatedly insisting that the Earth does not move, and that the sun moves.
I would advise you to be careful when using Bible verses to theologists. The verses you are referring to are PSALMS. In other words, songs, poetry etc.
Logic would tell you that for poetic purposes that these psalmists, would say such a thing, not as a Fact, But in the name of music.Your statement is greatly invalid.
Using strong words such as 'insisting' and 'imaginations' 'ancient' does not change the implications YOU have made of being ignorant of what the Bible says at least in this area.
"The rising sun la la la"
If i put that in a song does that mean I think that the Earth stays still? no it doesn't. It means i'm artistic.
I would advise you to be careful when using Bible verses to theologists. The verses you are referring to are PSALMS. In other words, songs, poetry etc.
Ha Ha here we go again. when i say psalms i did not say the Book of psalms. Psalms in the Bible are not only found in The Book of Psalms.
The majority is tho. and even so clearly you can see that they are speaking of the solid earth itself. Not the Whole body.If parts of the earth shake that does that mean the Earth shakes?
OK my body parts shake.
But does that mean that my body shakes as a whole, together?
that's the same thing with flooding.
In a part of the Bible it says he'll never flood the earth again.Clearly you see there are still Floods? The Bible indicates the WHOLE complete earth, In this example and this one as well(if you are taking it literally).
Ha Ha here we go again. when i say psalms i did not say the Book of psalms. Psalms in the Bible are not only found in The Book of Psalms.
That was not a poem, it was a story. The bible repeatedly references an immobile earth, in addition to suggesting it is flat, with certain stories which could only take place on a flat earth.
This is really making me mad. Explain yourself! I just see bits and pieces of scripture flying all over the place. Daniel? Upon my bed this is what i saw? you didnt even finish what the scripture was saying!
This is really making me mad. Explain yourself! I just see bits and pieces of scripture flying all over the place. Daniel? Upon my bed this is what i saw? you didnt even finish what the scripture was saying!
These are relevant portions which describe situations where a flat earth must be the case.
I dont see how this scripture realtes to anything regarding that.
On a spherical Earth no tree or mountain could be tall or high enough for what was described. A sphere prevents the bottom half from seeing that tree, or the mountain from seeing the bottom portion's civilisations. A flat Earth, however would permit what happened in the bible.
Well, I'm leaving the site today. It was nice talking with you these months.
alright man piece out. Same to you. To bad we didnt look into this further. lol I dont find a point in responding to this sence your leaving. I hope the best for you. :)
Well let me say this. The tree you were using as an example represents the growing of the spirit that lives in us. Strength, prosperity of the tree of life grows in us who beleives in him.
the imaginations of ancient peoples. Also, you are wrong about the sun orbiting the Earth, in that it is clearly implied in the bible, with verses repeatedly insisting that the Earth does not move, and that the sun moves.
the imaginations of ancient peoples. Also, you are wrong about the sun orbiting the Earth, in that it is clearly implied in the bible, with verses repeatedly insisting that the Earth does not move, and that the sun moves.
Remember that this is a very old text. Heliocentricism was barely conceived of just 2000 or so years ago. The bible is between 2000 and 3000 years old. We didn't have a mathematical model of Heliocentric theory until about 500 years ago.
Why would you expect such old texts to predict something barely conceived of then? If you are reading texts of a culture in a period when it was believed that the sun orbited the Earth, why would you impose your knowledge onto it?
SHow me the verses
1 Chronicles 16:30
tremble before him, all the earth.
The world is firmly established; it shall never be moved.
Psalm 93:1
The Lord is king, he is robed in majesty;
the Lord is robed, he is girded with strength.
He has established the world; it shall never be moved;
Psalm 96:10
Say among the nations, ‘The Lord is king!
The world is firmly established; it shall never be moved.
Most of the bible is symbolic. You just use the earthly kind of eyes. The bible is full of deep wisdom and knowledge. When you dip your hand in water you assume the water is shallow. But the water is very deep! Full of love and life!
That's saying something. Quite a revelation, in fact.
Furthermore, I dont beleive christianity is a religion, but a relationship.
I'm afraid Christianity fits all the criteria for being defined as a religion.
I hope your not implying that only atheists have brought us to where we are today in science.
One observes that the those theists who first practiced natural philosophy came to doubt their religious beliefs as they learned more of the world. Isaac Newton is a famous example.
And the man who proved that the earth revolved around the son was christian.
It does not revolve around the son (of either God or anybody else), it revolves around the sun.
Also the bible does not say the sun revolves around the sun so this is a mere human flaw.
I really do worry about you. Ill pray for you. I hope that one day you choose to provide yourself with a new pair of eyes. And i hope one day Jesus will open them for you.
Is it really religion that is the problem or is it rather the diversity of religion. Religion gives humanity all of the improvements you described but because of our diversity our respective religions are at war with each other. Essentially its a clash of cultures based on interpretations of what is sadly not a credible source, I am referring to the collected gospels known as "the new testament." Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are all feuding over this document that has changed millions of peoples lives yet hardly anyone questions where it came from. The gospels we know today we're formed around 40 years after the death of "Christ" but they were not written by his disciples but more over they were local interpretations of Jesus. It wouldn't be 200 years later until a bishop chooses those most beneficial to the church. Wars are started over sentence structure of this orally passed down document. I hold nothing against religion but it is similar to communism, looks great on paper but destroys what makes us human in application.
Just look at how ppl are together with you in this debate, or the way they are together in any other debate that involves that damned word... or the way they are together in life...
I'm not a religious person, but I hate the arguments against religion.
The arguments against religion tend to be as stupid as the atheists claim religion is.
Religion doesn't cause many problems at all. It's people who wish to dominate and are intolerant who cause the problems and use religions as an excuse. Even worse is the fact that this trend of using religion for their own means was more prevalent from the birth of Judaism than any other time, which tends to give a bad image of all religions and not specific ones.
Well put religion is not the underlying cause rather it is the justification, interestingly the religions that these violent people claim to follow generally don't promote such action, so the cause is most likely not religion but rather religion is the justification.
You got two extremes here Atheism and christianity. Both are hard to swallow whouldnt you say? Because if life has no meaning, then what is the point of doing these deeds for your community, for the world, if you have nothing to fight for. And beleive me fighting for yourself isnt enough. I think you do realize this. Im sure their are parts of you you would like to change. Im sure of you had the choice you would choose to be the smartest, the strongest, the best person on this planet. But can you imagine a God who loves you dearly for who you are? Thats something to fight more. That is a weight off your sholders. That is a burden that has now been taken off. That my friend is something to fight for. A greater destiny. A greater meaning. A greater picture. He made you purposefully the way you are. Every detail. You were made for love. You were made to love.
How can so many people get it wrong? Because people are by nature lost creatures with no light. God gives us himself and what do his people do? Rely on themselves to do the tasks at hand. And when we rely on ourselves, sadly that is where evil steps in. And it will jerk you around and flip you over like a pancake. Things can change so fast, you cannot beleive it. And what do people do? Blame the creater! If you plant a seed and nurture it and take care of it, do you expect it not to grow? If I plant a seed of pride in me and water what will I expect? For it to disapear? Its like a virus taking control of its host. Do you think it will be done over night?lol
This is called longterm effects.
Second we cant do it alone. It is, sry to say impossible. We cannot accomplish perfection, because we cannot even define the word perfection. We cannot comprehend it. It really sadens me to see people who think they know what perfection is. For example, the navy tells me that they will make me a better person. ?? What is better? Stronger, faster, smarter, more confident? And then next thing you know my recruiter is checking how women anywhere he goes, and he has a wife. :/ Is this the better person I want to be? Aboslutely not. Swear like a sailor sure does apply as well. Doesnt this bother you?
Now imagine, the burden of sin being lifted off your shoulders. It feels soo good. The thing that we all long for! And it is reality! Can you imagine! Jesus died for us, he carried the cross, and all of our sins were put on him. Our sins can be forgiven and we can be made new, because of what he did for us. OF course this doesnt agree with our natural selves. We are destined to kill our natural selves. TO dig are way out of the cacoon, that binds us and takes us away. The devil will urge you to beleive this is nonsence, and to stay in our shells. So he can open us up in hell. JESUS DIDNT COME TO JUDGE US! BUT TO SAVE US! Amen
You got two extremes here Atheism and christianity. Both are hard to swallow whouldnt you say?
One is an assertion and the other is a rejection of that assertion. Atheism does not involve swallowing anything; rather refusing to swallow it.
Because if life has no meaning, then what is the point of doing these deeds for your community
Because life can be fun without a spiritual meaning. In fact, without a spiritual meaning or an afterlife, it makes more sense to enrich the lives of the community one lives in.
But can you imagine a God who loves you dearly for who you are?
Not if one were a homosexual; His love is conspicuously absent in that case.
How can so many people get it wrong?
Because they are gullible idiots. Case example: religion.
Because people are by nature lost creatures with no light.
There is a single light of science and to brighten it anywhere is to brighten it everywhere.
God gives us himself and what do his people do? Rely on themselves to do the tasks at hand.
When was the last time God swept the floor for you?
Do you think it will be done over night?lol
If the motive force (God) is omnipotent, I expect it to be done instantaneously.
Second we cant do it alone.
Do what?
We cannot accomplish perfection, because we cannot even define the word perfection.
"Without flaw".
It really sadens me to see people who think they know what perfection is. For example, the navy tells me that they will make me a better person. ?? What is better? Stronger, faster, smarter, more confident?
Better does not imply perfection, and the navy does not assert that this is the case.
And then next thing you know my recruiter is checking how women anywhere he goes, and he has a wife.
Checking out women is quite different to cheating on one's lover.
Is this the better person I want to be? Aboslutely not. Swear like a sailor sure does apply as well.
That's a strange form of anecdotal evidence in which he who presented it did not experience the situation described. I believe this is more accurately described as "bullshit".
Now imagine, the burden of sin being lifted off your shoulders.
Removing that burden is as easy as saying "there is no sin, because there is no God".
One is an assertion and the other is a rejection of that assertion. Atheism does not involve swallowing anything; rather refusing to swallow it.
Atheism is when a person believes that there is no god(s) or spiritual existence of any kind. Because you cannot disprove the existence of god(s) or a spiritual existence, you are indeed swallowing a belief, just a different kind. If you wanted to say you're not swallowing anything, you would be an considered an agnostic.
In fact, without a spiritual meaning or an afterlife, it makes more sense to enrich the lives of the community one lives in.
Some people have no sense of community, and want only what's best for themselves. When they have a stick (hell) and a carrot (heaven) they may be better motivated to act in a manner which benefits others.
Not if one were a homosexual; His love is conspicuously absent in that case.
It is a common misconception that the Cristian God hates homosexuals. Most Christians believe that God hates the actions themselves, but not the person.
Because they are gullible idiots. Case example: religion.
So your case is that 2/3 of the world populations is just plain crazy?
There is a single light of science and to brighten it anywhere is to brighten it everywhere.
Science is only useful when things can be proven or disproven. You cannot prove or disprove the existence of the supernatural.
When was the last time God swept the floor for you?
If there was a God, do you really think he would do your daily tasks?
If the motive force (God) is omnipotent, I expect it to be done instantaneously.
Unless said god has a plan that involves more time, which again, you cannot prove or disprove.
That's a strange form of anecdotal evidence in which he who presented it did not experience the situation described. I believe this is more accurately described as "bullshit".
I believe the point being made was that people have different opinions about what is good or better.
So does homosexual intercourse, I understand.
Not to a straight person, which also demonstrates the difference in opinion as to what is good or better.
Because you cannot disprove the existence of god(s) or a spiritual existence, you are indeed swallowing a belief, just a different kind.
We are rejecting an unfounded and wildly preposterous claim. The bible, for example, is described as the inerrant word of God, but has been proven to conflict with modern understanding in multiple instances. As the God in question cannot hypothetically be wrong, we must either accept that the bible is correct and contradict many established scientific laws (for one, Archimedes' principle of floatation), or reject it as a work of man, to which no more significance can be attached than to any other unfounded, impossible claim.
If you wanted to say you're not swallowing anything, you would be an considered an agnostic.
One cannot "swallow" one's own conclusion. Observation of the world shows the existence of any asserted deities to be highly improbable and unnecessary, as well as contradictory to scientific laws. I have encountered almost every argument in favour of a deity's existence and have defeated them all. Stripped of all logical validity, the proponents always fall back to "you can't disprove it".
The end conclusion is that while we have never disproved the existence of the supernatural, we have shown every particular assertion of supernatural existence to be impossible or highly improbable.
Some people have no sense of community, and want only what's best for themselves.
It is not the responsibility of those who do not participate in a community to seek its betterment. And this has no relation to atheism whatsoever.
When they have a stick (hell) and a carrot (heaven) they may be better motivated to act in a manner which benefits others.
I would consider the use of a lie to motivate the persons in question to be immoral.
It is a common misconception that the Cristian God hates homosexuals. Most Christians believe that God hates the actions themselves, but not the person.
The Christian God is allegedly incapable of hate. And homosexuality being a part of existence, existence being God's creation; either homosexuality or the capacity for being a homosexual must be a creation of God.
Aside from that, if this God is so pathetically narrow-minded and bigoted as to hate a harmless sexual act, then it is quite simply not worthy of human worship. If it existed at all, that is.
So your case is that 2/3 of the world populations is just plain crazy?
The word was gullible.
Science is only useful when things can be proven or disproven.
What cannot be measured or observed has no physical or energetic manifestation and is therefore irrelevant to a material existence.
You cannot prove or disprove the existence of the supernatural.
There is no scientific standpoint to be taken besides neutrality. The logical extrapolation is that the scientific verifiability of the existence of the supernatural is entirely irrelevant to human beings.
If there was a God, do you really think he would do your daily tasks?
Why would it not?
Unless said god has a plan that involves more time, which again, you cannot prove or disprove.
I am not in the business of accommodating every unfounded proposition, and make no exception for theism. And for an omnipotent being to require time to bring a plan to fruition is impossible.
I believe the point being made was that people have different opinions about what is good or better.
There was no point. The fool merely created a meaningless fabrication and based his conclusion upon it.
Not to a straight person
I'm sure vaginal sex would not appeal to a homosexual. That doesn't make it morally wrong or evil.
We are rejecting an unfounded and wildly preposterous claim. The bible, for example, is described as the inerrant word of God, but has been proven to conflict with modern understanding in multiple instances.
You are rejecting it based on the belief that it is a wildly preposterous claim. Not evidence. I could say that someone who believes in Santa Clause follows a wildly preposterous claim, but I couldn't disprove it because Santa Clause is a supernatural figure, and the supernatural can't be tested. All I can really say about it is that it sounds ridiculous to me.
The end conclusion is that while we have never disproved the existence of the supernatural, we have shown every particular assertion of supernatural existence to be impossible or highly improbable.
Probability relies on a quantifiable knowledge of things and events. The supernatural is not quantifiable through natural means.
I would consider the use of a lie to motivate the persons in question to be immoral.
Be that as it may, it can still be useful.
What cannot be measured or observed has no physical or energetic manifestation and is therefore irrelevant to a material existence.
If god did exist in the way many religions believe him to, would he be irrelevant?
There is no scientific standpoint to be taken besides neutrality.
Which is considered agnosticism.
The logical extrapolation is that the scientific verifiability of the existence of the supernatural is entirely irrelevant to human beings.
Again, If god did exist in the way many religions believe him to, how would he be irrelevant?
Why would it not?
There could be many reasons. For example, if you have children, do you do everything for them? If you did, they would never learn to do things for themselves.
And for an omnipotent being to require time to bring a plan to fruition is impossible.
Yes it is. But that is not what I meant. I was postulating that a longer time could have been planned, not that it was required.
There was no point. The fool merely created a meaningless fabrication and based his conclusion upon it.
Then I will make that point. Occasionally, people require unification to get things done. Historically, religion has been very effective at unifying large groups of people.
I'm sure vaginal sex would not appeal to a homosexual. That doesn't make it morally wrong or evil.
Suicide may seem appealing to a severely depressed person, but just because an action seems appealing doesn't mean it's right to do it.
You are rejecting it based on the belief that it is a wildly preposterous claim. Not evidence.
The teachings conflict with principles supported by evidence and experimentation. It cannot be taken in parts, as the religion teaches that it is inerrant. If it is wrong in any way, it must be a work of man and therefore is just a preposterous claim.
I could say that someone who believes in Santa Clause follows a wildly preposterous claim, but I couldn't disprove it because Santa Clause is a supernatural figure, and the supernatural can't be tested.
Again, his existence conflicts with scientific principles, upon which basis he can be dismissed as preposterous. It is entirely acceptable to dismiss hypotheses which conflict with such verified principles and do not provide any counter-evidence; crying "magic" doesn't give them any more credibility.
Be that as it may, it can still be useful.
Well, you are a republican.
If god did exist in the way many religions believe him to, would he be irrelevant?
Yes. Only irrational people can truly believe in a deity. For them the case is closed and appeals to reason simply do not work, as their beliefs are not founded upon reason. The other stances; apatheism, agnosticism and atheism would according to these teachings prevent us from being "saved" (from what, I cannot conceive).
It is therefore entirely irrelevant whether it exists or not; belief cannot come through reason and it cannot be faked. One is either born gullible, or one was born rational. Beyond that, all discussion is futile.
On the other hand, if the deity is all-loving, belief is irrelevant.
Which is considered agnosticism.
Have a shiny star.
There could be many reasons. For example, if you have children, do you do everything for them? If you did, they would never learn to do things for themselves.
If I were omniscient and all-powerful, I'd simply create them with the knowledge I wanted them to possess and then do everything in my power (which is everything) to make them happy. It's obscene for a being which could right all wrongs with the flick of a finger to create us with the capacity for wrong and then blame us for that capability's manifestation. It is also rather disturbing that a being who allegedly loves us to watch us, say, wash the floor when it could wash the floor instantly and without any inconvenience to itself; probably doing a better job.
I like to use the sausage roll analogy. Imagine you were walking down the street with a bag of six sausage rolls, all for yourself. A starving dog presents itself and begs for food. If you had any scrap of humanity about you, a sausage roll would you tender unto the dog.
Now picture God; a being with no appetite who possesses a bag containing an infinite supply of sausage rolls. Below him are billions of his children who are hungry and who possess no food. No moral being would watch billions of its loved ones starve and refuse to feed them, saying "I have a plan".
Yes it is. But that is not what I meant. I was postulating that a longer time could have been planned, not that it was required.
If this is a plan, it is a diabolical one.
Occasionally, people require unification to get things done. Historically, religion has been very effective at unifying large groups of people.
So has Nazism.
Suicide may seem appealing to a severely depressed person
Sex is incomparable to suicide.
but just because an action seems appealing doesn't mean it's right to do it.
You have no comprehension of what motivates people to kill themselves. I'll thank you to keep your ignorance to yourself.
Gods love is not absent if you are a homosexual you clearly know very little about God, if science is such a wonderful light then how come science is the cause of so much suffering and death, nuclear bombs etc. God doesn't do things instantaneously because i don't think much could be learned if it was instantaneous. People don't change over night they have to make good decisions consistently to make that happen. Checking out a women is not different. Jesus taught that if you even look at a women in lust you have already committed adultry in your heart. That is why every thought must be taken captive so that evil thoughts cannot grow in your mind. I dont know if you have ever experienced guilt but i think homosexual intercourse can cause that feeling trumping any good feelings you might have. Amen means so be it, and it doesn't need to be used here i agree that is boulderdash in this context.
Gods love is not absent if you are a homosexual you clearly know very little about God
On the contrary, I know that if you strike me down I shall become more powerful than you can possibly imagine.
if science is such a wonderful light then how come science is the cause of so much suffering and death, nuclear bombs
The total death toll for all the nuclear weapons detonated since their invention stands at about 200,000, 99.99% of which is accounted for by the Fat Man and Little Boy gun-type fission weapons dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan, on August 6th and 9th respectively, 1945.
Conversely, the number of people saved through the use of the antibiotic Penicillin and other medicines is incalculable, running into the tens and possibly hundreds of millions. There is simply no rational foundation to the notion that science is not a net contributor to the betterment of mankind.
God doesn't do things instantaneously because i don't think much could be learned if it was instantaneous.
Learning is impossible for the deity itself, if it exists. Learning for any of its creations is unnecessary and irrelevant, as eventually they die and are reposited in either heaven or Hell.
Fortunately, the above reasoning is only valid if a deity exists, which is unlikely.
People don't change over night they have to make good decisions consistently to make that happen.
Religion is not necessary for this.
hecking out a women is not different.
Human beings have evolved to reproduce sexually. "Checking out" a woman is entirely natural for males and there is absolutely nothing wrong with it.
Jesus taught that if you even look at a women in lust you have already committed adultry in your heart.
Jesus lied.
That is why every thought must be taken captive so that evil thoughts cannot grow in your mind.
That policy is called thought crime. It is evil.
I dont know if you have ever experienced guilt but i think homosexual intercourse can cause that feeling trumping any good feelings you might have.
How would you know? Perhaps you should ask a practising homosexual?
Science is not the cause of suffering and death; it is people who use the knowledge of Science as a weapon that cause these atrocities. Nuclear bombs do not exist naturally, thus the discipline of Science is not the "cause" of suffering.
While I am certainly not a church goer, I am a believer, and I believe religion is a genuinely good thing. It gives people a moral compass and a reason to lead good lives. Imagine if we never had the Ten Commandments. Imagine if no one had ever said the words, "do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Imagine if people thought life was meaningless. We would live in an even crazier world.
Now, religion does have a dark side. It can create extremists, oppressive theocratic regimes like the Taliban and dictators. I believe religion is like alcohol. In moderation it can make you feel good, but too much can, and does kill. Religious zealots leave nothing to interpretation and tend to believe their way is the only way, not just for them, but for everyone. And because of this, they also tend to condemn those who don't share their views. For instance, I was raised Catholic, but I am pro-choice, as have taken more flack for that than I care to remember from fellow Catholics as well as the religious right. That brings me to another issue. Religion, especially in America, has become unbelievably politicized. The Christian right are America's Taliban. They believe in the legitimacy of killing and/or intimidating people (like Dr. George Tiller), and would gladly see America discard the constitution and become nothing less than a theocracy.
So, religion... Good. Religion politicized and corrupted... NOT GOOD!!! But be that as it may, I'm glad religion exists, and would not want to live in a world without it.
Religion has given society many things. Some very good arguments have been made that society itself is the product of religion and I think the biggest proof of such is modern Western society. It is founded upon Hebrew/Greek/Celt roots. Our laws, customs, morals and world view were heavily influenced by the religions of these ancestors. The 10 commandments is the corner stone of Western law.
More so people need a belief of some sort greater than their own interests to form a cooperative society. Religion is in almost all societies that very glue. That reason we put self interest below the needs of others. Without it society cannot survive.
Another interesting element of this argument is that people treat organized Atheists like they were not a religion. Many religions including the worshipers of the Null God as I call them have no deity or so many deities that you might as well not have one. Religion can be defined by a set of beliefs and code of conduct held above all other activity. Patriotism if taken too far becomes a form of religious worship of nation. Many a cult has been created worshiping kings based on this very concept. Organized religion is merely religion of many people which includes dogma associated with the religion, usually places of worship and a culture that comes with membership in that religion.
Null Godders have dogma. For example they believe that war is caused by religion. That is one of their greatest arguments against religion. Yet many of the wars they claim are religious are in fact more mundane. The Crusades for example. Inspired by a Pope who was tired of seeing the Christian world torn apart in petty feuds and who sought out a common enemy to unite Christians and give Europe's war like tendencies a constructive outlet. Led by nobles who went more for the land and wealth they could wrest from the holy lands than for any sense of religion, opposed by Muslim leaders who defended not holy lands but lands they kept because it enriched them. Fought mostly by people who went because they were ordered to do so. A few crusades like the childrens crusade really were religious but overall the crusades were just a giant land grab for both sides.
Other things religion has contributed has indeed been science. In fact more than one scientific discovery has been made by monks trying to prove points in their religious beliefs through scientific methods. Science itself can be a religion to some. This was especially common around 1900 when many at the time worshiped science.
Hospitals and medical care came to exist primarily because of religion. It has been religious institutions throughout history which practiced most medical care.
It has been religious institutions that gave us history. Europe for example would have no history if not for monks having transcribed them and Muslims having preserved European history during the dark ages of Europe. In Asia again it has been primarily monks who served as historians.
Without religion, Christian religions especially there'd be no charity. No support system for the poor, for the disabled or the injured.
It was Christian groups who mostly battled unsanitary conditions in US cities leading to revolutionary changes in how cities ran saving the lives of 100s of millions over the last 200 years.
Religion has it's bad side. Prohibition is a great example of how excesses in religion can create far more damage than the ill they seed to redress. When you balance the sum however religion has contributed far more good than bad.
No, religion not only gives us something to believe in, but a sense of community. While we are all challenged to "believe" in a religion someone else feels is the "only" religion", we are really challenged to be part of a global community.
If we participate in a global community, we must realize that this community may have multiple roots and multiple branches.
If we didn't have religion then people wouldn't argue and fight over it, however most of the wars arnt really about religion, they're about other things, so religion should be left as it is, because it keeps some people going in life, and ives people something to belive in, so when times are bad, they can belive that there is someone who can make it betterrrrrr =]
People would be all the same, they wouldn't have a god that made them different. ;D
Religion isn't just following a deity it is your beliefs and the way you live your life your customs and your traditions.
people will always have a different belief to the person next to them.
If everyone was the same religion then we would still have different say christian then there are loads of denominations and even in the same denomination there are diiferent sectors depending on where they live their parents and how strict their church is.
No. There are religions that enable people to retain hope during desperate situations. They provide a moral structure for these people, in addition to fostering charity for those so inclined.
As we see humanity evolve, we see religion die. But, that does not mean that humanity is evolved enough to completely eliminate religion.
Religion was necessary in the past to help in establishing morals and explanations for people who didn't have any. As well, religion has, over the years, been a spiritual comforting for people who would be hopeless without it.
As science progresses we are able to create explanations and ethics. This does not, however, completely eliminate the need for religion. I can't say what exactly will need to be structured in order for religion to not be necessary, anymore, but we will know when Atheism/Agnosticism and anything NOT religious is dominant (like Deism and shit like that).
Religion was necessary in the past to help in establishing morals and explanations for people who didn't have any. As well, religion has, over the years, been a spiritual comforting for people who would be hopeless without it.
It never established morality, and the way we can deduce this is simple: from where do religious morals come from? The culture which fostered and codified these beliefs. Religion would therefore not be a source of these morals, but a means to codify what was already established.
I would also argue that religion can and has existed to oppress people and offer them no comfort, to keep them subjugated and helpless as rigid class structures were made to be accepted as immutable.
As science progresses we are able to create explanations and ethics. This does not, however, completely eliminate the need for religion. I can't say what exactly will need to be structured in order for religion to not be necessary, anymore, but we will know when Atheism/Agnosticism and anything NOT religious is dominant (like Deism and shit like that).
The west is experiencing this now, we are nearing the end of western Christianity and that is why evangelicals and the Catholic church are so desperate to recruit.
That's the tricky thing. What we have is a range of beliefs, the extreme non-belief end is atheism, but in the middle there are lots of irreligious people out there who say they believe in god but hate organised religion. If you combine these two then the population is definitely larger than the fundamentalist minority which is desperate for a return to the dark ages. It is probably also larger, or rivaling the size of the population which believes in oraganised religion.
As I've said, when religion is no longer needed, we will see it through a natural process.
Religion is the monster under the bed that our parents tell us will devour us f we don't go to bed. It's necessary but it can't fill it's promises. How rarely do we see a man struck down after committing a sin. Moreover we're told that if we commit a sin we will go to purgatory unless we ask for forgiveness which is up to whoever can say they we're called by god to do a job. Americans are in the stage where the intellectuals are finally starting to see the necessity for going to sleep and not needing a scary monster to force them. They know they need the sleep and they know the monster isn't real, or doesn't effect them. Of course there are still remnants in the easily persuaded and That's scary. These people believe in the monster but their interpretation of its ideals are twisted. Basically, they base their sense of right and wrong on something that will forgive them as long as they listen to a man prattle about his personal thoughts once a week.
2 of which Americans are 14.3 trillion dollars in debt to because they have more self control than us. You can't say that a country is evil because they disagree with democracy. Communism can be very efficient so long as you're working towards a cause that everyone believes in. In fact many would argue America has communist aspects primarily welfare. The idea behind communism is very benevolent as well. It's a community of people supporting every member. You do this in America when you pay taxes that go to people on welfare. The only difference in communism is that everyone is on welfare and all your money goes to welfare. This is appropriate in some places. I being an objectivist (take the time to look it up it's not what it sounds like) dislike the idea of serving a purpose in life other than pursuing my own happiness free of the burdens of others.
I'm not into religion at all, but I don't think we'd be better off without it. If we didn't have religion...can you imagine a life where no one followed a religion? It would be complete a catostrophe. There'd be nothing to look forward to, nothing to really believe in, no faith, no hope of any kind. We wouldn't really have any idea of why or how we got here or anything. There would be a lot of lose ends on everything. That's just my opinion though.
I believe a world without religion is a suicidal world. Without religion, people would be impulsive and not care about anything. I have morals and values that my religion helps me stay focused on. Without it, I'd be suicidal.
Nope...Cz religion is not just worship more likely a way of Life!!! To do wat is right and wat is wrong, well that also differ from religon to religion, But A life with no Religion means no RULES and Chaos and people are Lost!! Life with religion creates more war and does not settle diffrence, Since religion teaches you to not to discriminate etc...(You know the drill) Its chaos is better than the chaos of NO RELIGION AT ALL!! cz u have something to settle things with, and rules of respect to follow.
If you have nothing to believe in, then what's the point? Why would you be a good person in life if you didn't believe that it would pay off in the end? Religion isn't the only thing that causes war. Differing political ideologies too. Would the world be better without those too? There's more than one way to skin a cat.
in the beginning there was anarchy.then came a system devised so cleverly as topromote peace.it was als designed to allow people of different races,backgrounds and culture relate peacefully.over time,more uses have emanated from it.it has been seen to bring love to a broken family,to bring joy to the lonely man and to give hope to the orphan children.it is an invaluable part of society which must never be rejected.
in the beginning there was anarchy.then came a system devised so cleverly as topromote peace.it was als designed to allow people of different races,backgrounds and culture relate peacefully.over time,more uses have emanated from it.it has been seen to bring love to a broken family,to bring joy to the lonely man and to give hope to the orphan children.it is an invaluable part of society which must never be rejected.
