Religion

[Jaime Lannister]

By that logic, politics shouldn't be accepted either

 

Religion isn't all negatives, many people actually take comfort in religion, in believing that a higher power exists.

Finding comfort in something doesn't make it true.  I'd think that would be more important.

[Quasar]

Finding comfort in something doesn't make it true.  I'd think that would be more important.

But does it make it wrong?

[Natinator]

Finding comfort in something doesn't make it true.  I'd think that would be more important.

That is true. However, many find comfort in religion because they BELIEVE it is true. It's all about free will, and the right to make your own choices and have your own beliefs.

[Jaime Lannister]

But does it make it wrong?

Depends on what you mean by wrong.  Its wrong factually but not wrong in any moral sense.  As long as they aren't forcing these beliefs on anyone else that is.  Including their children. 

 

That is true. However, many find comfort in religion because they BELIEVE it is true. It's all about free will, and the right to make your own choices and have your own beliefs.

They certainly have that right though I personally don't really understand the choice.  It must be such a bother to have to worry what your personal deity thinks of your every act and thought. 

[WISD0MTREE]

Call me a bigot if you like,

 

but I don't believe that religion is something that should be accepted by any society. Not with all the pure lies, deceit, ignorance and backwards opinions that come along with it. It shouldn't be okay for some people to convince others that there is a god, a heaven and hell, and that the world was made in seven days (and similar nonsense). It's pure deception, and it's morally wrong. Religion, and especially organized religion, destroys ourselves by inhibiting our actions and decisions, by exerting fear upon us, and by making us believe in complete, utter falsehoods. It needs to stop, and crapping on religion is the least I can do.

Bigot. 

 

And ban politics with religion. If you like your healthcare plan... 

 

That's a complicated line. As children, many of us took comfort in believing in the existence of Santa Claus. I have no problem with having been told fantastic stories as a kid but if someone told me now they could make me believe that Santa is real, I'd decline their offer. I'd rather know the truth, even if it's less comforting than the fiction.

Some people turn to drinking. Others are too young to know where the liquor cabinet key is. 

[Peter Quill]

People have a tendency to attribute what cannot be explained scientifically with supernatural attributes, like how lightning and thunder was the work of the gods. All that happens is that science and knowledge progress, we learn about the real forces behind such things, and supernaturalism falters. Astral projection is no different, even though we can't explain it with science now, it's only a matter of time, and attributing anything divine or supernatural to it, is nothing but wishful thinking.

 

Call me a bigot if you like, but I don't believe that religion is something that should be accepted by any society. Not with all the pure lies, deceit, ignorance and backwards opinions that come along with it. It shouldn't be okay for some people to convince others that there is a god, a heaven and hell, and that the world was made in seven days (and similar nonsense). It's pure deception, and it's morally wrong. Religion, and especially organized religion, destroys ourselves by inhibiting our actions and decisions, by exerting fear upon us, and by making us believe in complete, utter falsehoods. It needs to stop, and crapping on religion is the least I can do.

*Sighs*

This is one of the reasons why I stopped being an atheist. Their lack of respect to people of religion is just disgusting. 

Also, what about the Lluvia de Peces? Who knows, it might be the work of a supernatural being.

 

P.S.: I do believe in the Big Bang Theory, even if I'm a devout catholic.

[Jaime Lannister]

*Sighs*

This is one of the reasons why I stopped being an atheist. Their lack of respect to people of religion is just disgusting. 

Also, what about the Lluvia de Peces? Who knows, it might be the work of a supernatural being.

 

P.S.: I do believe in the Big Bang Theory, even if I'm a devout catholic.

 

Wait, you find that some atheists don't respect people who believe in a religion which you don't like so you decided to start believing in a god yourself?  I really don't see how that follows.

[Peter Quill]

Wait, you find that some atheists don't respect people who believe in a religion which you don't like so you decided to start believing in a god yourself? I really don't see how that follows.

Well, that isn't the only reason. But I'd rather not share those reasons because they're very personal.

[Big Brother]

*Sighs*

This is one of the reasons why I stopped being an atheist. Their lack of respect to people of religion is just disgusting. 

Also, what about the Lluvia de Peces? Who knows, it might be the work of a supernatural being.

 

P.S.: I do believe in the Big Bang Theory, even if I'm a devout catholic.

 

The possibility of something being real is not in any way enough to justify belief in said possibility as if it were real. A great many things could be possible (who knows), that doesn't mean we should jump the gun and live our lives as if everything that is possible, is actually real. Yes, the Lluvia de Peces might be the work of a supernatural being. It is a possibility. Does that mean that I'm going to go ahead and believe that the Lluvia de Peces is the work of a supernatural being before it has been proven to be true beyond reasonable doubt? No, that doesn't make any sense. Why you and so many others think it makes sense to think that way about god, is beyond me.

 

There are many things within the framework of our reality that we know beyond any doubt to be true and real, going beyond these things, we can only speculate and hypothesize. And to believe in and live your life by a hypothesis, a mere possibility, is nonsense everyone should have abandoned long ago.

 

As for respecting religion, you must understand that from my viewpoint and according to my moral compass which I cannot escape from, the influence religion has on society and individuals, is something inherently wrong. You might find my lack of respect for religion to be disgusting, but I find the impact of religion on our world to be far worse.

[Spite]

Religion has several aspects which are lumped together. In order of least to potentially most harmful:

 

1. Spiritualism. This is generally an inward and reflective aspect of religion. In other words it's about living your own life in a certain way and doesn't effect anyone else MOST of the time. Unless there's a war and you're a conscientious objector or something.

2. Belief systems. This can be harmful if you try to externalise these/impose on others. For example biblical laws about gay marriage or pretty much all of islam are non-compatible with most western legal systems.

3. Organised religion. This is the actual political framework that supports believers.

 

Most people look at (3) and then reflect that as being the great evil, especially when it supports (2). However you have to bear in mind that (3) is a political thing. Organised religion is basically a political philosophy backed by a organised political body. Like all human institutions it has its good and bad moments. Saying organised religion is bad because of the crusades is like saying communism is bad because of Stalin or Capitalism is bad because of United Fruit Corporation or whatever. Any organisation which is political and full of humans is going to have bad moments. 

 

I'm just pointing this out because although most people are happy to pick holes in religious beliefs, the actual beliefs aren't what bothers them, it's the structure around those beliefs. Really people just don't like the fact that for the most part, humans are c****.

[Ibrahim (Banned)]

Pretty much all of islam are non-compatible with most western legal systems.

 

Muslims believe Allah (God) is the only legislator & not man. So you could say Islam is not compatible with any legal system outside the Shariah Law.

 

And I think if you ask any "none atheist" they will tell you that what they feel is harmful is secularism being imposed on them by force.

 

It's a matter of perspective, Spite, and i don't think you quite get that. 

[Ibrahim (Banned)]

Atheism has several aspects which are lumped together. In order of least to potentially most harmful:

 

1. The belief that nothing brought the universe into existence. This is generally an inward and reflective aspect of Atheism. In other words it's about living your own life in a certain way and doesn't effect anyone else MOST of the time. Unless there's a war and you're a conscientious objector or something.

 

2. Atheist dogma. This can be harmful if you try to externalise these/impose on others. For example Atheists complete disregard for human life as being nothing more than a random formation of matter and death as a mere rearrangement of matter (which in that case shouldn't matter ) or the fact that pretty much all of Atheism is non-compatible with most of the Shariah Law.

 

3. New Atheism. This is a radical, proselytising, political and fast growing ideology within Atheism that supports believers (which is what they are ironically).

 

When you look at (3), it is blatantly obvious that this is the greater evil, especially when it supports (2). Saying Atheism is bad because of the atheist regimes of Stalin who killed millions of his own people and Mao Zedong who starved millions to death (to name but two), would be perfectly correct.

Edited September 8, 2015 by Ibrahim

[Solomon]

Atheism has several aspects which are lumped together. In order of least to potentially most harmful:

 

1. The belief that nothing brought the universe into existence. This is generally an inward and reflective aspect of Atheism.

...

If the "Big Bang" explanation of the universe is correct - and it's certainly the one with the most supporting evidence - then it is clearly neither inward nor reflective.

[Ibrahim (Banned)]

If the "Big Bang" explanation of the universe is correct - and it's certainly the one with the most supporting evidence - then it is clearly neither inward nor reflective.

 

The big bang theory is correct but why do you believe it was "nothing" that caused the big bang, and thus brought our universe into existence?

 

Your belief in this "nothing" is rather extraordinary. Last time i checked "something" can not come from "nothing", as "nothing" comes from "nothing". 

Edited September 8, 2015 by Ibrahim

[Kyubnyan]

The big bang theory is correct but why do you believe it was "nothing" that caused the big bang, and thus brought our universe into existence?

 

Your belief in this "nothing" is rather extraordinary. Last time i checked "something" can not come from "nothing", as "nothing" comes from "nothing". 

Everything in the universe we know today was in a small condensed ball that eventually imploded on itself due to the build up of pressure in the center.

[Ibrahim (Banned)]

Everything in the universe we know today was in a small condensed ball that eventually imploded on itself due to the build up of pressure in the center.

 

How did it come into existence? That is the question.

 

All scientists agree that space, matter, and time all came into existence with our universe; which means they did not always exist.

[Ibrahim (Banned)]

All the possible answers you could give for that question:

 

1) Nothing brought the Universe into existence. 

 

Something can not come from nothing. Nothing comes from nothing.

 

2) The Universe brought itself into existence. 

 

Something that does not exist can not bring itself, or anything else for that matter, into existence.

 

3) Something brought the universe into existence.

 

Only logical answer ^ and that something must have always existed due to the absurdity of the infinite regress of causes.

 

What is an infinite regress of causes?

 

1) Say I want to purchase an ice cream and that I am at the head of a queue that stretches for infinity behind me.

 

2) Before I am allowed to purchase the Ice cream I have to ask the person behind me permission to do so.

 

3) Then the person behind me has to ask the person behind them for permission. 

 

4) And then that person has to ask the other person who is behind them to give me permission.

 

5) And this goes on for infinity.... will I ever be able to purchase my ice cream? The answer is simply no.

 

Similarly if the thing that caused the Universe was caused by something else, we have to ask what caused that other thing? And what caused that other thing, that caused that other thing, that caused that other thing which then caused our universe to come into existence etc etc for infinity.... this is what's known as the "absurdity of the infinite regress of causes", if this was the case will our universe have ever been created? The answer again is no. So the thing that created our universe must have always existed, and it had to have been all powerful enough to bring our universe into existence.

 

I'll leave what you wish to call it this all powerful being, that has always existed, up to you but it makes sound logical sense. 

Edited September 8, 2015 by Ibrahim

[Spite]

Atheism has several aspects which are lumped together. In order of least to potentially most harmful:

 

1. The belief that nothing brought the universe into existence. This is generally an inward and reflective aspect of Atheism. In other words it's about living your own life in a certain way and doesn't effect anyone else MOST of the time. Unless there's a war and you're a conscientious objector or something.

 

2. Atheist dogma. This can be harmful if you try to externalise these/impose on others. For example Atheists complete disregard for human life as being nothing more than a random formation of matter and death as a mere rearrangement of matter (which in that case shouldn't matter ) or the fact that pretty much all of Atheism is non-compatible with most of the Shariah Law.

 

3. New Atheism. This is a radical, proselytising, political and fast growing ideology within Atheism that supports believers (which is what they are ironically).

 

When you look at (3), it is blatantly obvious that this is the greater evil, especially when it supports (2). Saying Atheism is bad because of the atheist regimes of Stalin who killed millions of his own people and Mao Zedong who starved millions to death (to name but two), would be perfectly correct.

 

I'm catholic, I was making a defence of religious people, you just missed the point. Your arguments above actually make religious people look stupid.

[Ibrahim (Banned)]

I'm catholic, I was making a defence of religious people, you just missed the point. Your arguments above actually make religious people look stupid.

 

I must have missed the "defence" part amidst all the attack but okay.

[Spite]

You obviously just don't understand that most of the attacks on religion are in fact attacks on human nature, in that all organised religions are staffed and managed by fallible humans who make mistakes.

[Ibrahim (Banned)]

You obviously just don't understand that most of the attacks on religion are in fact attacks on human nature, in that all organised religions are staffed and managed by fallible humans who make mistakes.

 

I agree but i wouldn't call it human nature per se; they are given a bad image usually by bad (not very practising) people who happen to identity themselves with a particular religion. What people shouldn't do is judge a religion based on the actions of it's followers but rather on it's religious teachings. Otherwise it's like judging a car based on the driver... it won't do you much good.

 

Religion's should also be judged individually based on their own merit rather than with a collective brush just because you happen to have a bad opinion of one (most atheist's only know about Christianity and use that as a reference point to attack all religions for example) - even if those reasons are justified. 

 

However, what I do disagree with is calling religion a "political philosophy" and referring to it as a "political institution".

Edited September 8, 2015 by Ibrahim

[Jaime Lannister]

Well, that isn't the only reason. But I'd rather not share those reasons because they're very personal.

 

That is fine, a personal reason would be much preferable to me then that someone just saying "religion is stoopid" was all it took to change your mind.

 

Atheism has several aspects which are lumped together. In order of least to potentially most harmful:

 

1. The belief that nothing brought the universe into existence. This is generally an inward and reflective aspect of Atheism. In other words it's about living your own life in a certain way and doesn't effect anyone else MOST of the time. Unless there's a war and you're a conscientious objector or something.

 

2. Atheist dogma. This can be harmful if you try to externalise these/impose on others. For example Atheists complete disregard for human life as being nothing more than a random formation of matter and death as a mere rearrangement of matter (which in that case shouldn't matter ) or the fact that pretty much all of Atheism is non-compatible with most of the Shariah Law.

 

3. New Atheism. This is a radical, proselytising, political and fast growing ideology within Atheism that supports believers (which is what they are ironically).

 

When you look at (3), it is blatantly obvious that this is the greater evil, especially when it supports (2). Saying Atheism is bad because of the atheist regimes of Stalin who killed millions of his own people and Mao Zedong who starved millions to death (to name but two), would be perfectly correct

 

I had hoped the religious dumped these talking point long ago.  Atheists disregard human life?  Stalin and Mao acted in the name of atheism?  These are so absurd I didn't think it was possible to maintain a straight face while saying.

[Ibrahim (Banned)]

I had hoped the religious dumped these talking point long ago.  Atheists disregard human life?  

 

"Atheists generally believe that human life is a random formation of matter and that death of a human being is just another rearrangement of matter."

 

Does the above statement falsely represent your beliefs: Yes or No? If no... how so (please elaborate)?

 

Stalin and Mao acted in the name of atheism?  

 

Edited September 9, 2015 by Ibrahim

[Kyoko]

Gods above everyone in this thread is hopeless, or around 14 and edgy as !@#$ *cough Ibrahim cough*

 

Stalin and Mao were most likely Atheists, authoritarian communists tend to be atheist but its not like there is organized doctrine behind it. They acted in the names of their own revolutions, not in the name of Dick Dorkins or anything like that, and Religion was hardly a meaningful target for them. They just wanted to dismantle the power the churches held over the people.

 

I personally follow the traditional Maya faith, or what little my family still knows about it. I just have a little shrine-like space in my room, occasionally I leave little offerings there. There is nothing in the way of organized congregation for us, and I don't follow it with any particular zeal. AMA

[Kyubnyan]

Agnostic is the only way to go seeing as there is no proof for or against the existence of god.