If you could somehow rid of religion altogether...

[LordCarlisle]

...Or, conversely, convince the entire world of the validity of your own religious beliefs, would you go so far as to do it? Keep in mind while making this decision that you alone are choosing the beliefs of others; one might say that you are taking their free will in deciding. Would you perform this action?

As an atheist I'm personally fairly conflicted with this question. On one hand, I strongly believe in freedom of belief, and as often as I use the First Amendment as an appeal to authority in my arguments on church/state separation, it would be the height of hypocrisy for me to turn around and completely undermine that to shape the world how I see fit.

On the other hand, so many societal issues would be solved. Opposition to gay marriage would be virtually nonexistent, church/state separation issues would not be a problem, people would be more open-minded towards abortion, and so forth. The lives one would save from the likes of faith healing and the militant religious are also worth taking into consideration. And of course, if you are religious and see some of my viewpoints as problematic, you would be able to make things "right" from your standpoint.

So would you force the world into adopting your beliefs, or would you rather let the divisive matter of religion persist for the sake of free will?

 

[Claire Diviner]

On the other hand, so many societal issues would be solved. Opposition to gay marriage would be virtually nonexistent, church/state separation issues would not be a problem, people would be more open-minded towards abortion, and so forth. The lives one would save from the likes of faith healing and the militant religious are also worth taking into consideration.

This about sums up why I'd rid the world of religion, if I could; stripping people of free will to believe be damned. I'm willing to bet our society and technology would be about 1500 years more advanced by now had there not been the oppression of the church, especially during the Middle Ages... But that's for another topic, I suppose.

 

[LordCarlisle]

This about sums up why I'd rid the world of religion, if I could; stripping people of free will to believe be damned. I'm willing to bet our society and technology would be about 1500 years more advanced by now had there not been the oppression of the church, especially during the Middle Ages... But that's for another topic, I suppose.

Oh, no, please, by all means, put your full viewpoint in this topic. Oppression by the church is certainly a reason to rid the world of religion; I wouldn't consider delving into detail on it off-topic, and I'd be fascinated to learn more about this had-been potential 1500 years of advancement.

 

[AlMawile]

I am a very religious person, but I 100% agree with the fact that many of our world's problems are due to religion. I am a Muslim, and I can list a ton of reasons. The reason this happens is thee lack of knowledge of the religion. We'll read some unauthentic source about religion, and then create an absurd that has nothing to do with the religion. Or we will take a valid religious source, and twist it's interpretation, creating many problems in the world. It is illogical for any intellectual religious person to say that religion hasn't caused problems in the world.

About making an ideal world where everyone follows religion, or getting rid of it, there is no point in doing so. It is the fact that not everyone follows a religion, some disagree, or some follow it strictly that religion or atheism has value. Why get rid of it? Or why force it upon everyone? If we have no religion, then we have no mental laws to keep us in check. We just have physical laws from the government, which don't work without faith in these laws. If we had just religion, we would have no government to control us. Life would not be interesting, and the point of religion would be worthless. it would lose its value. We shouldn't force religion nor remove it. We can preach it or disprove it, but the final decision should be left to the person.

I hope I was clear enough and we can have more discussion going.

 

[LordCarlisle]

Well, I already answered the question as to "why not" in the original post.
And if you're going to go so far as to say laws don't work without faith, which is strongly held belief that is not founded upon evidence, then you should support your claim further. Elaborate on that. You sort of just made the assertion and left it at that. Also, if we just had religion, we would have government; it would just be theocracy.

 

[AlMawile]

Unlike most people I see in these kinds of threads, I will accept I made an error in not providing evidence. Evidence for that is hard to find, since religion has been around since the beginning of civilization. It is more like a "common sense" judgment rather than a fact that can be proven.

if we just had religion, we would have government; it would just be theocracy.

That would mean religion itself is government, right? So why remove religion when it is basically government? It isn't the best form of government (no government is perfect) but still a government. Religion keeps order in society. Morals appeared due to religion (which is a whole debate itself)

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

I would refuse because those issue may or may not exist with or without religion.

Especially the abortion on.

This about sums up why I'd rid the world of religion, if I could; stripping people of free will to believe be damned. I'm willing to bet our society and technology would be about 1500 years more advanced by now had there not been the oppression of the church, especially during the Middle Ages... But that's for another topic, I suppose.

Would you say with confidence religion only has hindered science? What about with areas where religion has caused progress in some areas?

What about how war has caused large scale progress at the expense of millions of lives?

I do think in some areas religion has hindered science, but I sincerely doubt a lot of he claims to where we would be if it didn't exist.

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

Religion isn't the core problem behind problematic behavior that is stated to have a religious motivating factor.

 

[Sucumbio]

Religion is a scam like Oxy Clean miss that dude

 

[AfungusAmongus]

Religion isn't the core problem behind problematic behavior that is stated to have a religious motivating factor.

I agree to some extent. If everyone suddenly became atheist, they'd still be gullible and believe things for bad reasons. Culty, pseudo-sciencey beliefs are not exactly religions but still harm humanity with false promises. However, religion specifically causes or exacerbates countless evils: sectarianism, needless guilt, government interference in personal sexuality, etc. and so as an atheist I would prefer that people learn to think for themselves, but even without this I think the world would be better off without religion.

 

[Duck SMASH!]

Religion is merely a more powerful form of control over others.
Without religion other systems of control would take its place.
Do not think for a second that humans are capable of creating a utopia.
I mean, look at communism. They tried to supplant religion and the results are still not pretty.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

I believe in the natural progression, adaptation, growth, what-have-you, of humanity, and that as a consequence, meddling in people's beliefs in a forceful and global scale seems unnecessary and perhaps might be too soon by not having naturally taken place, having unforeseen results. Which isn't to say I wouldn't be tempted to answer by wiping it all out in the hopes of propelling mankind into, what I believe, to be a more healthy state of mind in regards to efficiency, independence, contentment, cultural and social interaction, etc. It would take a much more interesting/fantastical decision for me to betray my aforementioned conviction (an err of judgment from pathos).

 

[Deleted member]

Coming from a religious Jew, I definitely wouldn't force the rest of the world to become Jewish. Even without all the reasons why it wouldn't work with Judaism (such as how we don't seek converts, etc.), I don't see the point. It's such an insignificant topic; there are countless different religions and the only real issues that come from it generally stem from intolerance, which is a flaw with humans rather than a flaw with religious beliefs (as is shown by the existence of highly intolerant atheists, along with other things that people are intolerant of for no logical reason). Without the issue of intolerance of other beliefs people would still find something else unimportant to be intolerant of. Also, even if it did matter what the religious beliefs of other people are, if you're so certain your views are correct then you would debate with them and do other stuff to get your reasons for your beliefs out there, instead of just making them agree with you. Sure, it wouldn't convince closed-minded people right away, but change happens slowly, and at least people would agree with you for the right reasons.

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

Coming from a religious Jew, I definitely wouldn't force the rest of the world to become Jewish. Even without all the reasons why it wouldn't work with Judaism (such as how we don't seek converts, etc.), I don't see the point. It's such an insignificant topic; there are countless different religions and the only real issues that come from it generally stem from intolerance, which is a flaw with humans rather than a flaw with religious beliefs (as is shown by the existence of highly intolerant atheists, along with other things that people are intolerant of for no logical reason). Without the issue of intolerance of other beliefs people would still find something else unimportant to be intolerant of. Also, even if it did matter what the religious beliefs of other people are, if you're so certain your views are correct then you would debate with them and do other stuff to get your reasons for your beliefs out there, instead of just making them agree with you. Sure, it wouldn't convince closed-minded people right away, but change happens slowly, and at least people would agree with you for the right reasons.

It's ironic because Jewish communities tend to be somewhat insular, resulting in some amount of separatism from other niche groups and the general population. Hebrew school and strong parental encouragement for their children to meet and play with other Jewish children creates a niche of familiarity of comfort (support network), but also ends up resulting in them being recognized as a group that doesn't interact to a similar extent with other members of the general population. Because they are offer such a strong support network within the context of being a religious group, other sociopolitical groups develop a sense of tolerance when interacting with them because of the stigma that they are viewed as outsiders compared to insiders in the network.

Source:

Spoiler

But mah I just want to play stickball with the other boys!

 

[Maven89]

This about sums up why I'd rid the world of religion, if I could; stripping people of free will to believe be damned. I'm willing to bet our society and technology would be about 1500 years more advanced by now had there not been the oppression of the church, especially during the Middle Ages... But that's for another topic, I suppose.

The church actually kept education alive after the fall of the Roman Empire, you can't talk about their oppression without discussing their sponsorship of education as well.

I'm a Christian. If I could snap my fingers and make everyone a Christian I wouldn't. If I could snap my fingers and make everyone believe in Good and love it, and base their life around it,I would.

 

[TTYK]

...Or, conversely, convince the entire world of the validity of your own religious beliefs, would you go so far as to do it? Keep in mind while making this decision that you alone are choosing the beliefs of others; one might say that you are taking their free will in deciding. Would you perform this action?

As an atheist I'm personally fairly conflicted with this question. On one hand, I strongly believe in freedom of belief, and as often as I use the First Amendment as an appeal to authority in my arguments on church/state separation, it would be the height of hypocrisy for me to turn around and completely undermine that to shape the world how I see fit.

On the other hand, so many societal issues would be solved. Opposition to gay marriage would be virtually nonexistent, church/state separation issues would not be a problem, people would be more open-minded towards abortion, and so forth. The lives one would save from the likes of faith healing and the militant religious are also worth taking into consideration. And of course, if you are religious and see some of my viewpoints as problematic, you would be able to make things "right" from your standpoint.

So would you force the world into adopting your beliefs, or would you rather let the divisive matter of religion persist for the sake of free will?

YES! ANTI RELIGION NAZIS! lol!

 

[Lichi]

I would force my opinion on the world. I don't believe in any kind of god, nor do I follow any religion, but I do believe that everyone has the ability to be a good person without the threat of eternal damnation. Up to this point, I managed to live a very peaceful and tolerant life. Remember, you can have ethics and morality without religion.
Getting rid of religion would mean the end of a world wide debate over something that is neither worth nor useful discussing about.

 

[pokemario]

...Or, conversely, convince the entire world of the validity of your own religious beliefs, would you go so far as to do it? Keep in mind while making this decision that you alone are choosing the beliefs of others; one might say that you are taking their free will in deciding. Would you perform this action?

As an atheist I'm personally fairly conflicted with this question. On one hand, I strongly believe in freedom of belief, and as often as I use the First Amendment as an appeal to authority in my arguments on church/state separation, it would be the height of hypocrisy for me to turn around and completely undermine that to shape the world how I see fit.

On the other hand, so many societal issues would be solved. Opposition to gay marriage would be virtually nonexistent, church/state separation issues would not be a problem, people would be more open-minded towards abortion, and so forth. The lives one would save from the likes of faith healing and the militant religious are also worth taking into consideration. And of course, if you are religious and see some of my viewpoints as problematic, you would be able to make things "right" from your standpoint.

So would you force the world into adopting your beliefs, or would you rather let the divisive matter of religion persist for the sake of free will?

I would definitely get rid of religion if I could. While it has had many positive affects on many people, I think the negatives outweigh the positives. Religion is a very common reason for terrorism, for example, the recent Charlie Hebdo attacks. I also don't think people need religion to live happy lives. It has helped people, but I don't think someone needs blind faith in something to make them feel happy or to get them through life. If it was rid of, than the world would probably be a better place. Anyone can do without religion, it's just a tool for blind hope and to get people to follow a cultish routine.

I'm sorry if this has offended anybody, I really am.

 

[Someguyyoulikelydontknow]

As a christian man with some fairly out there thoughts on my own faith compared to that of other christians, I would say that no, I wouldn't impose my views on others. Like Lord Carlisle said, I myself am a huge advocate of equal rights, so I don't think I could live with being the biggest hypocrite on the planet. That said, his other point about how this would abolish some problems... I agree to an extent. My view on anything really, (not just religion) is that every group has its loudmouths who don't represent the rest of the group. Even though I'm christian, I've had gay friends before and you would never see me holding up hate signs on a street corner or anything like that. I didn't even know that church/state was an issue! As for abortion... I don't agree with it, but that's only because I believe in the conservation of life, and my opinion is not based on my personal religious view. Furthermore, as I said above, you wouldn't see me holding hate signs against abortion. I may not approve of it, but I won't try and forcibly stop somebody from doing it. I think that for every loudmouth christian there is, there and hundreds more (like me) who know how these guys give us a bad name. For every Muslim sect that kills some people for a stupid reason, there are more who would like to come out and preach peace, and let the world know that they don't wish to "kill the infidels" or something like that. Personally, if your beliefs and actions don't hurt yourself or others, be it physically, mentally, or emotionally, you're probably cool in my book. If you were a pansexual drug smoker who also happens to be an avid atheist, I may not like all of your life choices, but I won't bring them up unless you ask me about them. If we have stuff in common, you'll probably be my friend. So in short, no, I wouldn't impose my beliefs on others. Besides, I think that differences make everybody interesting. Who would want everybody to be the same?

 

[M15t3R E]

My biggest gripe with religion is the trend in some areas of parents and sometimes teachers replacing real education with teachings of their religion. As if the experts are wrong and their farfetched interpretations of their ancient book written by ancient people is correct.
THAT is what bugs the piss out of me.

 

[A-money2121]

We all have some good points here, but I personally think that the problem isn't religion, its the people who follow the religion.

I was born and raised in a Christian environment, and still follow and have faith in my religion to this day. I think most religions have very valuable information in them. The Bible tells us the 10 Commandments, if you know what that is, and those commandments has some very valuable information, that if we were to follow those commandments, then it would help us avoid trouble. Now do Christians today do that? Unfortunately, no. The Bible has great information to how to live in the real world, but I've even met several Christians who are complete jerks, and do rather bad, personal things.

Our Bible tells us to spread the word of God around. I remember traveling to a mission trip with my church and my mother a few years ago. One of the missionaries was literally forcing one of the villagers (we were staying at a village in Guatemala) to read and accept the word of God. Yes, FORCED her. Would God really do that? No. A loving person, shouldn't force you to do things you don't want to do, similar to how God doesn't force you to love him. Thats why there are many people in this world who don't believe in religion, not that there is a problem with that.

In fact, if you think about it, nobody is perfect. Even if your religion tells you to do this, its more than likely that people will rebel to that rule. Our Bible tells us a lot of information and great advice for living in this world. No lying, no killing, no stealing. Those things would really make the world a better place. But do we follow those directions? Some do, but the majority don't. I try the best I can to be polite, not get jealous, or don't create bad habits. This also ties in with many other religions. Their books tell them to do one thing, sometimes they do the opposite. Just goes to show you, that its not the religion, its the people. Sometimes people preaching the word of God cuss at you if you refuse to listen to them. Believe me, I saw someone do that once. Many people can be jerks.

You know Ghandi once said this one VERY true quote to support what I am saying. “I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.” If you read the books of Matthew --> John, Jesus really was a nice guy by the seems. The Bible tells us to be like that. Is anyone like that? No, but then again, God isn't expecting us to be Jesus himself. At least make an effort to not do disobedient things. Everyone has a good religion. The people who follow that religion though, are jerks.

I have great friends who are Atheists, Muslims, Jewish, etc. and we all respect each others beliefs. I'm not a person going around saying "your going to hell" to every non-Christian I meet. Thats very rude, and the Bible is totally against that. I decided to be a Christian because I find a lot of proof in it. I think Science is a great tool. Even the Bible tells us to explore science. In fact, there are many questions I could answer involving todays scientific beliefs. If you would like, I can answer a few questions you may have involving science and christianity. But I do not like criticism. Please avoid criticism. Anyways, sorry that this is longer than a paragraph... When I type things, sometimes new words come into mind. Anyways, bye!

 

[pokemario]

We all have some good points here, but I personally think that the problem isn't religion, its the people who follow the religion.

I was born and raised in a Christian environment, and still follow and have faith in my religion to this day. I think most religions have very valuable information in them. The Bible tells us the 10 Commandments, if you know what that is, and those commandments has some very valuable information, that if we were to follow those commandments, then it would help us avoid trouble. Now do Christians today do that. Unfortunately, no. The Bible has great information to how to live in the real world, but I've even met several Christians who are complete jerks, and do rather bad, personal things.

Our Bible tells us to spread the word of God around. I remember traveling to a mission trip with my church and my mother a few years ago. One of the missionaries was literally forcing one of the villagers (we were staying at a village in Guatemala) to read and accept the word of God. Would God really do that? No. A loving person, shouldn't force you to do things you don't want to do, similar to how God doesn't force you to love him. Thats why there are many people in this world who don't believe in religion, not that there is a problem with that.

In fact, if you think about it, nobody is perfect. Even if your religion tells you to do this, its more than likely that people will rebel to that rule. Our Bible tells us a lot of information and great advice for living in this world. No lying, no killing, no stealing. Those things would really make the world a better place. But do we follow those directions? Some do, but the majority don't. I try the best I can to be polite, not get jealous, or don't create bad habits. This also ties in with many other religions. There books tell them to do one thing, sometimes they do the opposite. Just goes to show you, that its not the religion, its the people. Sometimes people preaching the word of God cuss at you if you refuse to listen to them. Believe me, I saw someone do that once. Many people can be jerks.

You know Ghandi once said this one VERY true quote to support what I am saying. “I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.” If you read the books of Matthew --> John, Jesus really was a nice guy by the seems. The Bible tells us to be like that. Is anyone like that? No, but then again, God isn't expecting us to be Jesus himself. At least make an effort to not do disobedient things. Every has a good religion. The people who follow that religion though, are jerks. Including me.

I have great friends who are Atheists, Muslims, Jewish, etc. and we all respect each others beliefs. I'm not a person going around saying "your going to hell" to every non-Christian I meet. I decided to be a Christian because I find a lot of proof in it. I think Science is a great tool. Even the Bible tells us to explore science. There are many questions I could answer involving todays science beliefs. If you would like, I can answer a few questions you may have involving science and christianity. But I do not like criticism. Please avoid criticism. Sorry that this is longer than a paragraph. When I type things, sometimes new words come into mind. Bye!

I don't think the stories themselves are bad, but I think many of the moral values presented in these books can be bad. I think the morals that some people adapt is harmful and sometimes not even accurate to the original books. The books cause people to interpret different things. While I think your point on not liking the people rather than the book is good, the people get these values from the books and the way they interpret them.

 

[A-money2121]

I don't think the stories themselves are bad, but I think many of the moral values presented in these books can be bad. I think the morals that some people adapt is harmful and sometimes not even accurate to the original books. The books cause people to interpret different things. While I think your point on not liking the people rather than the book is good, the people get these values from the books and the way they interpret them.

You're right Pokemario, there are some rather sad stories in the Bible, such as the crucifixion, but, I think what really matters is what you get out of the story, and making sure that what you received was the right message. What can we learn from the crucifixion? Well, look at Christians today. They are being criticized for their beliefs, and its not fair. Many Christians feel miserable because they are rebuked and mocked almost all of their life, just because of their beliefs, similar to how Jesus felt during the crucifixion. Do you think Jesus wanted to die? No. Infact, he felt rather miserable. The Bible is telling us to be ready for the hatred. These people hated Jesus, and there are a lot of people who hate Christians. They're practically the Romans, while we are Christ. The Bible predicted that many Christians will be hated to this day. Is it true? Oooh, yeah. I am sure Christians today don't want to feel that same miserable feeling either. What can we learn from Adam and Eve? Well, we learn that you should follow and do as you are told. If your mom tells you not to eat cookies out of the cookie jar, then she ordered you to not eat those cookies, therefore meaning that it is YOUR responsibility to not eat the cookies. If your mom catches you eating cookies, then you need to face the consequences for not doing as you were told not to do. Adam and Eve were told NOT to eat an apple from a particular tree. They disobeyed, and had to face the consequences for not doing as they were told not to do.

Yes, there are a lot of sad stories in the Bible, but some of them have important messages that people need to figure out and follow. The story of Romeo and Juliet. It is a sad story, but it has a message about lying, such as Romeo and Juliet both lied to their parents about each other. Now look at the result of that... It also has a nice message about love. Most of the stories in the Bible, although some gruesome, have a nice message hidden behind. Its our job to look at the inside of what is says, and not the outside, like you stated.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

You ask for no criticism as if you don't know this is the Debate Hall.

 

[A-money2121]

You ask for no criticism as if you don't know this is the Debate Hall.

Yes, your right. Then, I am open to any form a criticism. What I meant was no rude or harsh feedback I suppose. I am totally open for criticism. Through criticism, people can learn new things and opinions about what peoples beliefs of several topics. My apologies. I suppose I didn't think of the right words..

 

[pokemario]

You're right Pokemario, there are some rather sad stories in the Bible, such as the crucifixion, but, I think what really matters is what you get out of the story, and making sure that what you received was the right message. What can we learn from the crucifixion? Well, look at Christians today. They are being criticized for their beliefs, and its not fair. Many Christians feel miserable because they are rebuked and mocked almost all of their life, just because of their beliefs, similar to how Jesus felt during the crucifixion. Do you think Jesus wanted to die? No. Infact, he felt rather miserable. The Bible is telling us to be ready for the hatred. These people hated Jesus, and there are a lot of people who hate Christians. They're practically the Romans, while we are Christ. The Bible predicted that many Christians will be hated to this day. Is it true? Oooh, yeah. I am sure Christians today don't want to feel that same miserable feeling either. What can we learn from Adam and Eve? Well, we learn that you should follow and do as you are told. If your mom tells you not to eat cookies out of the cookie jar, then she ordered you to not eat those cookies, therefore meaning that it is YOUR responsibility to not eat the cookies. If your mom catches you eating cookies, then you need to face the consequences for not doing as you were told not to do. Adam and Eve were told NOT to eat an apple from a particular tree. They disobeyed, and had to face the consequences for not doing as they were told not to do.

Yes, there are a lot of sad stories in the Bible, but some of them have important messages that people need to figure out and follow. The story of Romeo and Juliet. It is a sad story, but it has a message about lying, such as Romeo and Juliet both lied to their parents about each other. Now look at the result of that... It also has a nice message about love. Most of the stories in the Bible, although some gruesome, have a nice message hidden behind. Its our job to look at the inside of what is says, and not the outside, like you stated.

I guess I have to agree for the most part, the people who are extremists are just false in their interpretations.

All I have to say is this... It's not the stories themselves that tick me off, it's that to me, these books seem like propaganda. I get annoyed by blind believers who say dumb things. Here is a situation I made between an atheist, and a christian...

"How do you know the Bible is the truth?"
"Because the Bible says so."

You can't use statements from the book I am claiming to be false, there is some sort of term for that but I forget what it is.

I agree with you that some believers themselves are annoying. However, I think on another level, the Bible in itself is kind of screwed up, as I see it as a form of brainwash to get people to join a cult of sorts.

Not trying to offend anyone.

 

[Someguyyoulikelydontknow]

"How do you know the Bible is the truth?"
"Because the Bible says so."

That is a fair point as well. I personally believe that that to be religious, part of the process does have to involve trust and faith in God. The Bible does preach about how, if you want to find God, you have to actively be looking for him. If there was a scientific algorithm that proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that there was a higher power, who wouldn't believe in it? So I choose to believe, at least in part, in faith. Besides, you might be able to argue the same things about other theories about our universe.

"How do you know that the Big Bang is real?"
"Because this process that tells us how old plants, bones and rocks are implies it."

 

[Holder of the Heel]

The implications made by the universe are far more compelling and applicable to reality than the contents of one book, of many before and after it, filled with unsubstantiated claims, logic defying elements, proven false information, and barbaric acts that contradict our culture's sense of justice today.

I guess I have to agree for the most part, the people who are extremists are just false in their interpretations.

This is called the True Scotsman's Fallacy.

 

[pokemario]

That is a fair point as well. I personally believe that that to be religious, part of the process does have to involve trust and faith in God. The Bible does preach about how, if you want to find God, you have to actively be looking for him. If there was a scientific algorithm that proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that there was a higher power, who wouldn't believe in it? So I choose to believe, at least in part, in faith. Besides, you might be able to argue the same things about other theories about our universe.

"How do you know that the Big Bang is real?"
"Because this process that tells us how old plants, bones and rocks are implies it."

TBH, I don't believe in the Big Bang just yet, neither evolution.

I know nothing of the research, I'd like to see it to believe it.

I'm an atheist, not a darwinian or whatever word it is.

 

[Someguyyoulikelydontknow]

The implications made by the universe are far more compelling and applicable to reality than the contents of one book, of many before and after it, filled with unsubstantiated claims, logic defying elements, proven false information, and barbaric acts that contradict our culture's sense of justice today.

That is also a fair point. I will note that a process that tells us how old stuff is does prove slightly more than a book. I'd like to hear what has been proven false though. I won't outright claim certain events in the Bible to be "true", and many scholars do believe some of the stories in the Bible to be parables, but I'd like to see which parallels outright falsify parts of the Bible. As for barbaric acts that don't hold up today, I also have some troubles with that. Some of my views on Christianity are a bit different than those of many other Christians. Perhaps just because said acts were in God's name, doesn't necessarily mean they were what God wanted. The Bible does preach much about love, peace, and respect for your fellow man. Sometimes I look back at events like the Crusades, and imagine God looking down on his people and saying "Srsly u guise?".

 

[AfungusAmongus]

TBH, I don't believe in the Big Bang just yet, neither evolution.

I know nothing of the research, I'd like to see it to believe it.

Evolution
Big Bang

 

[pokemario]

Evolution
Big Bang

Thanks man.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

This is called the True Scotsman's Fallacy.

I never understood this fallacy and how it works completely.

I don't get how it can fill and cover any person you claims themselves to be something yet still entirely contradicts it but they still are because it's what they claim.

At what point does this stay valid then? I feel like this fallacy easily loses merit.

 

[Maven89]

No True Scotsman Fallacy only works if there is a clear set definition and the criteria used isn't related. Saying someone isn't a real American because they don't vote is a No True Scotsman. Saying someone isn't a true christian or muslim because they contradict the path they're supposed to follow is not a true scotsman fallacy, no more then saying someone isn't a democrat because they support all republican policies is a fallacy.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

No True Scotsman Fallacy means someone is applying a "special" definition of their invention to something broad to exclude a section or sections of people who identify with a belief or group. Double checking the rational wiki confirms this, and it even specifically mentions Christianity as a possible example.

That is also a fair point. I will note that a process that tells us how old stuff is does prove slightly more than a book. I'd like to hear what has been proven false though.

Did you know the Earth was NOT flat? Or that it's more than 6,000 years old? The internet has a much better memory than I do, just go to Google, it's a waste of time asking anyone when you can find out for yourself.

I won't outright claim certain events in the Bible to be "true", and many scholars do believe some of the stories in the Bible to be parables, but I'd like to see which parallels outright falsify parts of the Bible. As for barbaric acts that don't hold up today, I also have some troubles with that. Some of my views on Christianity are a bit different than those of many other Christians. Perhaps just because said acts were in God's name, doesn't necessarily mean they were what God wanted. The Bible does preach much about love, peace, and respect for your fellow man. Sometimes I look back at events like the Crusades, and imagine God looking down on his people and saying "Srsly u guise?".

I'm not talking about acts made in the books name, I'm talking about things God did in the book itself, especially the Old Testament.

 

[Someguyyoulikelydontknow]

Did you know the Earth was NOT flat? Or that it's more than 6,000 years old? The internet has a much better memory than I do, just go to Google, it's a waste of time asking anyone when you can find out for yourself.

There are a few bible verses seem to imply a round earth as well. Here's a passage from Isaiah chapter 40: "It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth".

Or, here's a quote that at the very least implies that the earth being suspended in space was common knowledge: "He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing."

 

[Holder of the Heel]

Yes, actually, I did know that. I learned that little revelation from a guy named ****e Sherlock. First name No.

Well there you go my friend.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

No True Scotsman Fallacy only works if there is a clear set definition and the criteria used isn't related. Saying someone isn't a real American because they don't vote is a No True Scotsman. Saying someone isn't a true christian or muslim because they contradict the path they're supposed to follow is not a true scotsman fallacy, no more then saying someone isn't a democrat because they support all republican policies is a fallacy.

Hmm, so it only works is specific situations, vs someone being a giant hypocrite like "I am a democrat but I support all Republican stances and attend their meeting?"

Something like that?

 

[Maven89]

The generic example (and where the name comes from ) is two Scottish people are eating porridge, when one says "No Scotsman puts sugar in his porridge". The other says "But my cousin Angus puts sugar in his porridge", so the first goes "Well, no true Scotsman puts sugar in his porridge". It's basically moving the goal post to try and redefine a term to fit the original definition

 

[Nino Rybicki]

...Or, conversely, convince the entire world of the validity of your own religious beliefs, would you go so far as to do it? Keep in mind while making this decision that you alone are choosing the beliefs of others; one might say that you are taking their free will in deciding. Would you perform this action?

As an atheist I'm personally fairly conflicted with this question. On one hand, I strongly believe in freedom of belief, and as often as I use the First Amendment as an appeal to authority in my arguments on church/state separation, it would be the height of hypocrisy for me to turn around and completely undermine that to shape the world how I see fit.

On the other hand, so many societal issues would be solved. Opposition to gay marriage would be virtually nonexistent, church/state separation issues would not be a problem, people would be more open-minded towards abortion, and so forth. The lives one would save from the likes of faith healing and the militant religious are also worth taking into consideration. And of course, if you are religious and see some of my viewpoints as problematic, you would be able to make things "right" from your standpoint.

So would you force the world into adopting your beliefs, or would you rather let the divisive matter of religion persist for the sake of free will?

It seems like a good idea in theory, but...

If there's no religion, people are going to find other problems to bicker about. Racism will still be there, since not all racism is religion-based. Look at the Gypsies, who are usually the same religion as the people around them (usually, they're Christian, though many in the Balkans and Turkey are Muslim) and face severe racism. Certain countries hating each other will not be resolved. Economic problems won't be resolved, crime won't go away, and much of Africa, Asia, and Latin America will still be poor. Even sexism won't completely go away.

Also, many people in communist countries like China, Vietnam, and North Korea are atheists and there's very little support for gay marriage there.

I am against getting rid of religion since religion matters to a lot of people, even ones with socially liberal views. Plus I think religious and nonreligious people can get along. I'm Catholic, but I love my atheist friends. I can't imagine a world without religion. I am against forcing beliefs on others, and a would without religion would be forcing people to not have religious beliefs. (Every system of belief has loopholes - no exceptions.)

Not to mention, what will we do with the millions of religious buildings that dot the world?