Religion: what is it good for? Absolutely nothing! Huah!

[AltF4]

Religion's worst actions are what?

The Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, the KKK, Nazis, Pat Robertson, Salem Witch Trials, Middle Eastern Terrorists, Catholic Priests ****** young boys, Fanatic Cults in general, Stifling scientific progress (Copernicus, Galileo, etc..), should I keep going?

 

[Eor]

If you don't go into main things, the biggest problem is Bigotry. Religion does give people a sense of being better then others (God's chosen people, we worship Jesus while others worship demons who want to crush the world, things like that). So, for some people, that leads to bigoted actions (like the religious right!). I'm not against Religion, but I do believe that some people can't handle it. But then again, most of those people just end up being angry Atheist demanding the crushing of religion.

 

[commonyoshi]

I'm not going to argue with you there, Eor. If we asume that one religion is true (as most religious people believe is their own), then the one true religion's followers are right, and everyone else is wrong. I wouldn't call it bogotry in the sense that we hate the followers of the religion, but we definitely have an inclination to look down on what they follow.

I think I could probably quote a couple of passages about how Christians aren't supposed to look down on others, how we were still enemies of God when He first saved us, and all that stuff. But you'd still be right because, I'll admit, sometimes I do get a sense of superiority about it all even when the Bible says we shouldn't, and I really have to catch myself on that. It's natural for people of every religion to feel that way because they're right and everyone is wrong. If there really is one true religion then that supriority complex comes from human nature and not God.

 

[Zink]

The Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, the KKK, Nazis, Pat Robertson, Salem Witch Trials, Middle Eastern Terrorists, Catholic Priests ****** young boys, Fanatic Cults in general, Stifling scientific progress (Copernicus, Galileo, etc..), should I keep going?

The Crusades, more information. The inquisition was greatly exaggerated in its scope and power. What do the KKK and Nazis have to do with religion? Pat Robertson, that random nut? You put him up with the Crusades?
The Salem with trials, which were proposed to have been caused by a problem with the bread they ate?
You classify all ME terrorists as caused by religion? universally? just want to clarify here.
And of course, every single Catholic priest is a pedophile, right?
As for cults, you'll have to be way more specific here.
And if you're silly enough to bring out Copernicus, he was ENCOURAGED by the Church to spread his ideas.

 

[Jammer]

Not to mention that those things were done by religions that many people, like me, don't think are the true religion that God described in the Bible.

 

[Volrec]

Thank god for Smashboards having good debaters, I wish this topic was around when I had my religion debate in global class

whoops, did I just say thank god

 

[Keku]

The Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, the KKK, Nazis, Pat Robertson, Salem Witch Trials, Middle Eastern Terrorists, Catholic Priests ****** young boys, Fanatic Cults in general, Stifling scientific progress (Copernicus, Galileo, etc..), should I keep going?

You do realize that the inquisition was mostly the goverment's doing? And you can't really blame the religion specifically for all those things. I bet a whole lot of same kind of stuff would happen even if there was no religion. They'd simply do it in the name of an ideology. Most of the candidates on your list are just exaggeration. Nazis? Oh please.

 

[Kitten]

Religion is a pretty effective way of controlling people. I don't mean that in a lizard-men flat-earth cabal-of-jews kind of way. If you want to get across an ideology, personifying that ideology as a god makes it get through to people a lot more effectively. If you think that your god will be disappointed in you for sinning, then you'll avoid doing it and feel bad when you do.

AltF4, people are always going to be cruel and unjust. Sometimes they use religion to justify it, sometimes they justify it in other ways. Eliminating religion would probably do little to stop atrocities.

 

[ledhead]

The Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, the KKK, Nazis, Pat Robertson, Salem Witch Trials, Middle Eastern Terrorists, Catholic Priests ****** young boys, Fanatic Cults in general, Stifling scientific progress (Copernicus, Galileo, etc..), should I keep going?

It's not just Catholic priests that have been rapists. The number of Protestant ministers who did the same thing are similar. And not all of them are to begin with. Pat Robertson isn't even close to any of those things either. The Church didn't really stifle scientific progress, it was the Inquisition, a bit of a mistake caused by a good intention that got out of hand.

 

[Tryptomine]

Random Thought of the Day: I should legally change my name to God. That would keep me perpetually amused.

 

[commonyoshi]

Only if it's your last name. McLovin' should be the first.

And Zink, are you relgious? I seem to remember you stating that you weren't, and now I'm confused. >_>

 

[Zink]

Only if it's your last name. McLovin' should be the first.

And Zink, are you relgious? I seem to remember you stating that you weren't, and now I'm confused. >_>

you misquoted me as myself
Catholic here.

 

[AltF4]

Lol @ ppl taking the Pat Robertson thing so seriously. Didn't anyone catch the comedy in that? But seriously... he is a nut job... with his own television network.

Also:
Lol @ the KKK. I did a bit of a quick look up on their website, and as luck would have it, they sell all kinds of merchandise! You've got to see the Klansman ceramic statues they have. (Lynching set sold separately)

All the groups I mentioned are directly or indirectly associated with a religious faction. The KKK is a southern christian group, the Nazi's killed Jews for being Jews. Etc... I can't imagine how you can deny that. All terrible things done in the name of a religion.


That was just in response to blankuser who apparently was under the impression that religion has never caused anyone harm. More people have died in the name of god than for any other reason.

 

[KingJiggyWiggy]

That was just in response to blankuser who apparently was under the impression that religion has never caused anyone harm. More people have died in the name of god than for any other reason.

Yeah but what about ****?

Oh and have you seen the movie "The Messiah?" Its about a man in the US who takes about 15 wives and brainwashes them into thinking that he is God.

 

[A2ZOMG]

The Crusades, more information. The inquisition was greatly exaggerated in its scope and power. What do the KKK and Nazis have to do with religion? Pat Robertson, that random nut? You put him up with the Crusades?
The Salem witch trials, which were proposed to have been caused by a problem with the bread they ate?
You classify all ME terrorists as caused by religion? universally? just want to clarify here.
And of course, every single Catholic priest is a pedophile, right?
As for cults, you'll have to be way more specific here.
And if you're silly enough to bring out Copernicus, he was ENCOURAGED by the Church to spread his ideas.

Crusades, Christians are sanctioned to "liberate" the holy land, and by liberate, we mean senselessly killing those middle Easterns who don't believe in the savior Christ.

KKK, fanatical Christians who believe black people, Jews, pagans, etc must be eliminated. Definitely influenced heavily by religion.

Nazis killing Jews. JEWS. It's definitely a sentiment concerning religion.

I'm not quite on the rest of them. Just thought I'd clarify those ones though.

I'm also going to make a politically biased statement here. Spoilered if you don't want to read it.

Spoiler

I'm a Democrat keep in mind. The Republicans, much of their sentiment originates from the strict father figure family preached by the Puritans that came to America in the first place. The reason why they are making such hideous decisions in the middle East, wrecking social programs, screwing environmental programs, and giving back taxes thus creating a massive national debt, is because this mindframe of the Republicans currently in charge follows the strict father figure family style.

Let me explain what I mean by strict father figure. Basically, it's a family dominated by an unyielding father figure. It goes under the assumption that children are born evil, and must be punished to become good. A child will succeed if and only if he or she is good and obeys the father figure. People in this family style assume thus that people who are rich are good people who were hard working, and thus deserved the money they got. Tax breaks thus make a lot of sense, since they reward the "good" people, and take away money for social programs which benefit the "bad" people. Considering how our nation supposedly is the most powerful nation in the world, and considering what kind of president we have in office, I hope I get the point when I say you can imagine what our foreign policy is like. And let's not forget, this mindset has originated from, and still comes from religious beliefs as we speak today.

 

[cultofrubik]

I'll answer the question. Religion is why we're where we are today. Whether [lets take stereotypical Catholicism] it's correct or not, it has had its impact on the world and effected it both positively and negatively. Where our opinions may differ on the + or the -, it's undeniable that the United States [specifically, our particular country] would not have formed. That's what its good for. It's our past, present, and our future, whether you want it to be or not.

We're all entitled to our opinions. Boom. The mindset of a true Christian. While I personally think the majority of Atheists are irrational, I'm not going to try to point out why I'm not. [Hey look, I capitalized Atheists! Do I get brownie points?]

I don't see the purpose of debates on this subject anymore. They're pointless and they lead nowhere. What really matters is what YOUR life boils down to. Whether it's a new beginning or the end. If you don't have a purpose in life, then [johns-->] God help you. Unless you're willing to do something with your life for the good of humanity, even if it's not entirely self-less, you're as valuable as a Third-party Gamecube Controller. Sure you exist and have a few buttons, but S**T, you're worthless.

Actually the passage is pretty clear, it just mentions gay men... so does that mean lesbians are off the hook?! QFT?!

Whether you're a reverend or not:

AMEN ;D

Decided to pop this back in here, because some people seem to have neglected to read it and see my mindset.

Alt4, I believe you think I'm ignorant because you think I don't know the negatives?

It's quite on the contrary. I am certainly aware of all of the lost lives and the slowing down of science and blah, and blah, and blah. I took World History, I'm not stupid. Of course I know. The topic is "Religion: what is it good for?" : so the above [quoted] is the answer to that question in my particular opinion.

[That statement proves why I'm not really debating here. Lawl, holes in argument]

That was a bit arrogant though of you to assume that I don't know anything or that I'm not seeing the "full picture." A single post doesn't mean all that much, so you should, if you were to assume, prepare for the most, rather than trying to show how "dumb" I am.

EDIT: ^^ LAWL, did the exact same thing I thought you did in a way. Read the post, but miss the mindset.

The Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, the KKK, Nazis, Pat Robertson, Salem Witch Trials, Middle Eastern Terrorists, Catholic Priests ****** young boys, Fanatic Cults in general, Stifling scientific progress (Copernicus, Galileo, etc..), should I keep going?

:D

So the point isn't that religion is bad, but the way people interpreting it - causing mishaps. I won't completely disagree with you, because differences in opinion lead to chaos in some forms. I guess it's the organized religion idea that people truly have an issue with. Because you know, our country totally would have formed the way it did. "One nation, under God, indiv...." I think you know the rest.

But what about the full lack of religion? [OMG the Soviet Union] Worked well didn't it? ;D

And don't give me that bull**** that the Iraq war is justified. <-- Sorry, but just felt like it'd be fun to say.

The issue that you all [I know this is stereotypical, but oh wellz. "You all" refers to Atheists.] really have (besides the fact you don't believe in God) is Religion is used as the scapegoat of all scapegoats, correct? Maybe? Possibly?

If that's the case, then I understand your viewpoint. Because I'd agree, people aren't perfect, and yes, a lot of people aren't all that bright.

Hmmm, this post seems a lot more serious than it really is. Sorry about that, I didn't want to come across as a jerk or anything [maybe a moron? Who knows? ;P]. We all have differences of opinion, and I really hope that nobody decides to change their viewpoints based on this topic, because your viewpoint shouldn't change off something so simple. [THAT is ignorance]

Later peeps, fun discussion. ;D

~cult

 

[Tryptomine]

So the point isn't that religion is bad, but the way people interpreting it - causing mishaps. I won't completely disagree with you, because differences in opinion lead to chaos in some forms. I guess it's the organized religion idea that people truly have an issue with. Because you know, our country totally would have formed the way it did. "One nation, under God, indiv...." I think you know the rest.

But what about the full lack of religion? [OMG the Soviet Union] Worked well didn't it? ;D

I love how you say basically, "be upset with the people, not the ideology" then immeadiatly turn around and apply the exact opposite to the USSR.

 

[cultofrubik]

I love how you say basically, "be upset with the people, not the ideology" then immeadiatly turn around and apply the exact opposite to the USSR.

That's me realizing that my argument isn't an argument, but rather just an opinion that I'm having trouble trying to put into words. See the black? lol

I'm kind of ranting, without the angry part. Too many things that I'm not doing so hot in putting together. Oh wellz!

I'm also asking a lot of questions to try and understand Atheist points of view.

Agnostics are Atheists without balls.
~Stephen Colbert~

I have to say though, you Atheists do have balls [and if you don't have balls, then switch in "guts" for that]. I mean you guys are so sure that you're right, and if you are, nothing happens. And if you're not, you get to burn in Hell [or whatever the bad place is for the religion that happens to be correct]. I mean either way, you guys lose. And yet you keep to your principles. I take my hat off to you. There's your super credit. [That search for Truth thing? Yah, nowhere near as cool as being balsy] Kudos, kudos.

~cult, I have to get some sleep, because I have Church in the morning. Yeah, I have principles, too. ;D


Oh, and if anyone cares, I'm a pretty strong Liberal. And I'm Catholic. Yes, I think we should have scientific advancement, and yes, I [would] vote Pro-choice. Am I fan of abortion? No, it isn't the coolest thing in the world. But there are occasions when it's necessary. Stem cell research, yes we need to figure out medical achievements, so long as those achievements are necessary [which a lot of them would indeed be helpful], and the ways carried out in finding those achievements as morally correct as possible. [Because after all, if we do indeed, only get one shot at life, then wouldn't you want people to live them out?]

WOW, I am going all over the place, and I'm not sleeping.

 

[KingJiggyWiggy]

Weren't Nazi's more.... brainwashed than religious?

 

[Colino]

That's me realizing that my argument isn't an argument, but rather just an opinion that I'm having trouble trying to put into words. See the black? lol

I'm kind of ranting, without the angry part. Too many things that I'm not doing so hot in putting together. Oh wellz!

I'm also asking a lot of questions to try and understand Atheist points of view.

Agnostics are Atheists without balls.
~Stephen Colbert~

I have to say though, you Atheists do have balls [and if you don't have balls, then switch in "guts" for that]. I mean you guys are so sure that you're right, and if you are, nothing happens. And if you're not, you get to burn in Hell [or whatever the bad place is for the religion that happens to be correct]. I mean either way, you guys lose. And yet you keep to your principles. I take my hat off to you. There's your super credit. [That search for Truth thing? Yah, nowhere near as cool as being balsy] Kudos, kudos.

~cult, I have to get some sleep, because I have Church in the morning. Yeah, I have principles, too. ;D


Oh, and if anyone cares, I'm a pretty strong Liberal. And I'm Catholic. Yes, I think we should have scientific advancement, and yes, I [would] vote Pro-choice. Am I fan of abortion? No, it isn't the coolest thing in the world. But there are occasions when it's necessary. Stem cell research, yes we need to figure out medical achievements, so long as those achievements are necessary [which a lot of them would indeed be helpful], and the ways carried out in finding those achievements as morally correct as possible. [Because after all, if we do indeed, only get one shot at life, then wouldn't you want people to live them out?]

WOW, I am going all over the place, and I'm not sleeping.

I wish all catholics were like you.. Do you realize that no one is attacking you (well, no smart people are) but more like the people who are blinded by there ideals?

Let me give an example, I have been baptised.. why? Why would YOU (this is a question directed to you) enforce your (or better, your country's) ideal way of life upon a child, who has no way to decide for himself?

I was born and raised in Italy, and I have been atheist ever since I could think for myself. That was very early in my life, and many bad things happened during my childhood, most of them brought me to believe in no god, and realise what religion (or let's say religious people to follow your idea, which is correct IMO) were doing to what I BELIEVED in, science and progress.
That's why I'm a computer technician, and that's how I fulfilled my dream to work in the gaming industry.

Let me clarify that I am not one of those Atheist that became so because they were deluded in God or decided to not believe in him because He wasn't doing anything for them.
As a child I believed in a some form of super being, but nothing close to actual religion, I simply needed to believe that someone was looking after me (I don't want to rant about m hard childhood).

Overall I have nothing against christianity or religion in general, but I have alot to hate about religious people, or most of them

Weren't Nazi's more.... brainwashed than religious?

the situation of germany in those times is much much more complex than simple brainwashing. And that would be a whole different topic.

 

[Crimson King]

Nazis killing Jews. JEWS. It's definitely a sentiment concerning religion.

Jewish people are a race of people as well as members of a religion. Hilter saw them as an inferior race, nothing to do with religion.

 

[cultofrubik]

I wish all catholics were like you.. Do you realize that no one is attacking you (well, no smart people are) but more like the people who are blinded by there ideals?

Let me give an example, I have been baptised.. why? Why would YOU (this is a question directed to you) enforce your (or better, your country's) ideal way of life upon a child, who has no way to decide for himself?

I was born and raised in Italy, and I have been atheist ever since I could think for myself. That was very early in my life, and many bad things happened during my childhood, most of them brought me to believe in no god, and realise what religion (or let's say religious people to follow your idea, which is correct IMO) were doing to what I BELIEVED in, science and progress.
That's why I'm a computer technician, and that's how I fulfilled my dream to work in the gaming industry.

Let me clarify that I am not one of those Atheist that became so because they were deluded in God or decided to not believe in him because He wasn't doing anything for them.
As a child I believed in a some form of super being, but nothing close to actual religion, I simply needed to believe that someone was looking after me (I don't want to rant about m hard childhood).

Overall I have nothing against christianity or religion in general, but I have alot to hate about religious people, or most of them

That's very polite of you. Thanks. :D
I know what you mean about certain Religious people. Personally, I believe that the whole missionary clause is over, because everyone in the world should know by now of Christianity and therefore should be able to decide for themselves. I'm not going to deny my faith either. But when people (Christians) come to my door asking me to join their Church, I can't help but feel resentment. [Oh noes! Bad me! lol]

I'm hoping to go into the medical field, specifically neurology. [At least for now] So obviously, I won't be denying science in my life. In fact, I'll have to embrace it (which I do anyway, but you know).

Principles define who we are as people, and so long as you're doing something for the betterment of humanity, then your life is just as precious as anybody else's. Whether you're religion plays a part or not.

^^That's my two cents, my dogma. ;D

l8r: ~cult

 

[Colino]

Jewish people are a race of people as well as members of a religion. Hilter saw them as an inferior race, nothing to do with religion.

wrong, very wrong. Hitler considered the arian race superior to any other race, not just the jewish ones. Jewish people have been persecuted since the dawn of time not for there race, but for there religion, as scapegoats for the "murder" of your friend Jesus Christ. The end

 

[Zink]

wrong, very wrong. Hitler considered the arian race superior to any other race, not just the jewish ones. Jewish people have been persecuted since the dawn of time not for there race, but for there religion, as scapegoats for the "murder" of your friend Jesus Christ. The end

you do know CK isn't religous, right?
And he's actually correct. Hitler wanted the Aryan race to dominate. To that end, he tried to eliminate all others- including the Jewish race.

 

[DJ Napps]

Try a couple, see if you like it- if not, move on.

 

[Colino]

That's very polite of you. Thanks. :D
I know what you mean about certain Religious people. Personally, I believe that the whole missionary clause is over, because everyone in the world should know by now of Christianity and therefore should be able to decide for themselves. I'm not going to deny my faith either. But when people (Christians) come to my door asking me to join their Church, I can't help but feel resentment. [Oh noes! Bad me! lol]

I'm hoping to go into the medical field, specifically neurology. [At least for now] So obviously, I won't be denying science in my life. In fact, I'll have to embrace it (which I do anyway, but you know).

Principles define who we are as people, and so long as you're doing something for the betterment of humanity, then your life is just as precious as anybody else's. Whether you're religion plays a part or not.

^^That's my two cents, my dogma. ;D

l8r: ~cult

I can mostly agree with that, but the problems will come once your science will ask you to go against your religion, and you didn't answer my question about baptising

you do know CK isn't religous, right?
And he's actually correct. Hitler wanted the Aryan race to dominate. To that end, he tried to eliminate all others- including the Jewish race.

you know you just confirmed what I said right?

 

[Sliq]

Maybe I should explain this.
Traditional Lifespan:

Conceived
Born
Lives(I ASUUME people live some time after they were born.)

Depends on what your definition of born is. If a mother gave birth to a dead baby (i.e. the fetus was dead before exiting the womans body), then no, you're assumption would be faulty to a certain degree (a very small degree). Your assumption is still valid considering this is what occurs a majority of the time.

Dies(yes I am going to ASSUME people die. I guess I am an idiot?).

While you are an idiot, you aren't so because you assume people die. You see, your assumption has a little thing I like to call EVIDENCE fueling its validity. Every human that has ever lived has died at some point in their lives (unless you believe that The Highlander was real, in which case at least the majority of people that have lived have also subsequently died). Therefore your assumption isn't a baseless opinion, but an observation with empirical data behind it. The same for assuming that people that are born live a certain extent after which they are born.

With homosexuality, it is just sex.

Heterosexual people also have sex just for the sake of sex. But the church and most religious people seem to put an emphasis on discriminating against gays more so then those who use contraceptives.

Furthermore, you assume that the people in the homosexual relationship, had they opted to just choose not to be homosexual (operating under the ridiculous assumption that you can choose your sexual orientation), would have in fact had heterosexual intercourse and produced a baby. You can not see the future, therefore this point is irrelevant. Would it be OK if one dude had buttsecks with another dude, granted that you saw into his future and both of them died alone without any children?

There is a reason why purposeful unproductive sex is equated with murder. This is equivalent to contraceptives.

Except I don't see a God hates contraceptives website, but there exists a God hates ***s website.

I know that, according to the Bible, God doesn't like people just spooging all over the place without a baby being made. I get that. But homosexuality gets A LOT more flack then people that have sex without having a baby.

Currently, 62% of the world's population use contraceptives (source), while only a small percentage of people (roughly 1-10%) are gay(source).

With murder: One person dies during his lifespan. Therefore, we could have had another person live more unless he would have died that exact moment in time otherwise.

So what you are saying is, if someone shoots a man through the head as he is getting struck be lightning, this is more morally sound, since the man was 'destined' to die anyway? Why is it that a lot of your argument stems from predicting the future?

Also, I'd say that murder is far worse than never existing, considering the person being murdered may or may not have to experience the process of dying, and depending on the circumstances, this could be an EXTREMELY HORRENDOUS PROCESS. Never existing is at best neutral, while the process of dying can scale from neutral to grotesquely sickening. Living, or the events that unfold can scale from a positive 10 to a negative 10, while never existing has to fall on the 0 mark, falling on neutral.

With contraceptives/Homosexuality: One person that could have lived if the action was replaced by healthy heterosexual sexual sex. Therefore, we could have had another person live more unless he would have died that exact moment in time otherwise.

Great scott!

 

[Colino]

I quote exactly everything Sliq said..

But let me get this straight, there are people that consider contraceptives murder? How about the people that don't use them, don't abort because there country is against it, and end up throwing new born babies in trash cans or leave them to die in the most horrible ways? Is that better than being smart and using a condom or the (OMFG THIS IS SO ANTI RELIGOUS THE POPE WILL KILL ME) pill?

 

[cultofrubik]

Oops! Sorry Colino. Here...

Let me give an example, I have been baptised.. why? Why would YOU (this is a question directed to you) enforce your (or better, your country's) ideal way of life upon a child, who has no way to decide for himself?

Wow, my bad - completely neglected to respond to that. It's hard for me to take a stance on that, considering it isn't so much imposing "religion" on someone as it is "giving a bath in a church to a baby." To me, it's more of the parent's hopes for their children to follow in suit of them, as a sort of legacy/tradition so to speak.
While it seems fair to let a child choose for him or herself on religion, it will never be a "fair" choice for that child if religion is never in that person's life. Assuming science and religion are two separate entities (which I do), leads me to think the best choice, or at least the most "correct" decision on the matter is to be exposed to the reality of both sides. [I'll be honest: mind, I'm Catholic, and I believe in God/Jesus, so I'm never going to abandon my principles] There is a HUGE difference between learning the "truths" to both science and religion in their respective scopes than to look at them through one or the other.

The errors that I see occur when one looks at Religion and Science through a Religious-only viewpoint. You say God is good, bla-bla and bla, he's the Savior, the Almighty, family virtues, morality, acceptance of imperfection.. Then you look over at Science and say that Evolution never occurred, diseases are only God's wrath, sex is bad. [Wait, what? Sex is bad? Heck no!] Obviously, that is flawed judgement.

At the same time, looking at Religion and Science through a Science-only viewpoint is likewise flawed:

Yes, there have been corrupt Popes/Priests/Religious men altogether, yes a lot of people have died because of religion. Then you see Science: human advancement, truth, facts dictate all of reality. I'm sorry, but this too is flawed, because there's ignorance, too! You can't just look at Religion and say that it's 100% wholly unnecessary, because there is a lot more to it: and you should see everything before you decide to limit your viewpoints to one or the other.

If you understood everything I mentioned, then you would know that I think you've made the right choice if you did, indeed, look at Religion and Science in a Religious and Scientific viewpoint respectively. So if you have become Atheist this way, then kudos to you, you've formulated your own decision on a true basis. Otherwise, you may want to at least check out the "truth" of Religion for yourself, and see whether or not your choice is the "correct choice" for yourself.


I'll wrap up with some subject matter. I believe the morality behind not practicing contraception and abortion is the best way to go, I'm not going to deny them wholly. Abortion can be necessary, and even if this is the case, then that "child" if you were to call it a child in your opinion, would go straight to heaven in God's eyes, anyway, so it's not 1000% terrible, even if it does stop a possible life from being lived.
Sex, in my opinion, is [this is going to sound so awkward] supposed to be a good thing for humanity. Feels good when your making life, right? [lol?]

I guess the Church is making a point that sex just to have sex and never have children almost defeats the purpose. And to have premarital sex increases the likelihood of abortions on the whole. Scientifically, waiting till marriage would also slow the spreading of STD's, which I think would help the world in the long run, don't you?

Religion and Science don't have to completely contradict each other, either. As understanding both sides of the equation yields a better personal philosophy on the whole issue at hand.

For my profession: in response to facing the 'against my Religion' isn't as important as being against my own ideas/morals/principles. I'm not too worried.

 

[Colino]

If you understood everything I mentioned, then you would know that I think you've made the right choice if you did, indeed, look at Religion and Science in a Religious and Scientific viewpoint respectively. So if you have become Atheist this way, then kudos to you, you've formulated your own decision on a true basis. Otherwise, you may want to at least check out the "truth" of Religion for yourself, and see whether or not your choice is the "correct choice" for yourself.

That is pretty much my case. I took a look at religion and what it had done for me and to me, and the answer was "nothing" to both. I did not decide to be a non believer because religion harmed me. It's simply a matter of me not "deserving" a religion.

I would rather be an atheist than be a fake catholic like so many people are.

This is easy to make an example with.
In italy, when going through the holy comunion and another religous process that comes later on (around 18 years of age, sorry can't translate it in english) it is a tradition that family members of the young boy/girl that goes through these processes give him/her gifts (and try to make them as expensive as possible).

I can't blame them from where I stand, but I know a literal slew of people that go through this just for the gifts, having nothing to do with "enlightment" or their "search for God" [I capsed Him, do I get a cookie?]

I was indeed baptised, but I never got a holy comunion or the following process, and consequently didn't get married in church (it's not legal in italy unless both have gone through all of the processes).

I'd rather not believe in God than pretend to

Abortion can be necessary, and even if this is the case, then that "child" if you were to call it a child in your opinion, would go straight to heaven in God's eyes, anyway, so it's not 1000% terrible, even if it does stop a possible life from being lived.
Sex, in my opinion, is [this is going to sound so awkward] supposed to be a good thing for humanity. Feels good when your making life, right? [lol?]

I hate how the religious in general think that atheists and whatnot are against abortion because they have no respect in life.

Do you think I agree with abortion because I couldn't care less about a life that could have been?

That is not the point.

And sex.. the churches position on sex is by far one of the worst they have ever had on anything.

I guess the Church is making a point that sex just to have sex and never have children almost defeats the purpose. And to have premarital sex increases the likelihood of abortions on the whole. Scientifically, waiting till marriage would also slow the spreading of STD's, which I think would help the world in the long run, don't you?

Giving someone STD before or after marriage is pretty much the same thing.. I think distributing condoms and teaching how to use them would be much better.. oops.. I forgot the church is against condoms.. Ok.. let's let Africa kill itself mr.church. (just an ironic phrase, let's not start a debate on africa please).

Religion and Science don't have to completely contradict each other, either. As understanding both sides of the equation yields a better personal philosophy on the whole issue at hand.

For my profession: in response to facing the 'against my Religion' isn't as important as being against my own ideas/morals/principles. I'm not too worried.

But are you absolutely sure that one day religion won't bring you to not believe in something you are seeing, or vice versa science will bring you to deny something your religion taught you?

 

[SinisterLizard]

And sex.. the churches position on sex is by far one of the worst they have ever had on anything.

Do you even know what you're talking about?

1 Corinthians 7:3-5

 

[andymyersrocks]

I'm Chrstian, and I think that the point of religion is that someone is running all of this and it's God. If you don't believe in him, well, you'll be in a big b-b-q!

 

[Colino]

Do you even know what you're talking about?

1 Corinthians 7:3-5

I was referring to the church being against pre marriage sex and showing the act of sex for non procreation as a sin and a weakness. Read through everything instead of posting me bible links I could care less about. Give me your own answers, not the ones someone else wrote for your convenience.

And that brings me to another point I have against some catholics: blind faith in the bible.
As important as it may be to you, do you think it's correct to base your life on a book? Shouldn't the experiences you gain thorugh life make who you are? Or should we all follow the precise words of a book?

I'm not saying it's useles.. I have read much of the bible myself, and I find it to be a very instructing and interesting collection of moral tales and ideas, but I would never base my entire life on a block of paper, no matter what is written in it.

 

[Tryptomine]

I'm Chrstian, and I think that the point of religion is that someone is running all of this and it's God. If you don't believe in him, well, you'll be in a big b-b-q!

Ah, nothing worse then the brainwashed ones that don't even have the slightest clue about their own ignorance.

 

[choknater]

I was referring to the church being against pre marriage sex and showing the act of sex for non procreation as a sin and a weakness. Read through everything instead of posting me bible links I could care less about. Give me your own answers, not the ones someone else wrote for your convenience.

And that brings me to another point I have against some catholics: blind faith in the bible.
As important as it may be to you, do you think it's correct to base your life on a book? Shouldn't the experiences you gain thorugh life make who you are? Or should we all follow the precise words of a book?

I'm not saying it's useles.. I have read much of the bible myself, and I find it to be a very instructing and interesting collection of moral tales and ideas, but I would never base my entire life on a block of paper, no matter what is written in it.

I wouldn't reduce it to a simple book of words and papers if I were you. Though that's what it looks like, Christians (not just catholics) follow or strive to follow the Bible as law just as other people follow government laws. This implies many things, including authority and even punishment as a part of a Christian's life when living the word of the Bible.

"Give me your own answers, not the ones someone else wrote for your convenience."

He cited the Bible not for his convenience but perhaps because he couldn't think of any other way to put it than God himself. Remember that Christians also believe the Bible was written through God's inspiration and thus infallible.

As for "I would never base my entire life" on it... For the most part, Christians also see the Bible as all-encompassing. So why not follow it to the last?

Faith in the bible is anything but 'blind.'

You could care less about it? I could care less that you could care less.

 

[Tryptomine]

You couldn't care less about it? I couldn't care less that you couldn't care less.

/pet peeve

 

[Colino]

I wouldn't reduce it to a simple book of words and papers if I were you. Though that's what it looks like, Christians (not just catholics) follow or strive to follow the Bible as law just as other people follow government laws. This implies many things, including authority and even punishment as a part of a Christian's life when living the word of the Bible.

"Give me your own answers, not the ones someone else wrote for your convenience."

He cited the Bible not for his convenience but perhaps because he couldn't think of any other way to put it than God himself. Remember that Christians also believe the Bible was written through God's inspiration and thus infallible.

As for "I would never base my entire life" on it... For the most part, Christians also see the Bible as all-encompassing. So why not follow it to the last?

Faith in the bible is anything but 'blind.'

You could care less about it? I could care less that you could care less.

I never "reduced" it to a piece of paper, but that's what it is for a non believer.
You told me many things I already new, but it's good to know your opinion.

"Remember that Christians also believe the Bible was written through God's inspiration and thus infallible."

I'm sorry, but that's exactly what I don't like about itm and no one could ever change my mind on that.


"You could care less about it? I could care less that you could care less."

Then why did you post in the first place?
I couldn't care less about him quoting the bible for a reason, and that is because I don't believe in it.

Would you care to listen to an explanation in french if you didn't know any french at all and had no intention to learn it? That's almost the same thing, ALMOST.

I was liking the debate I pulled out with blankuser because he was putting everything on a level that permitted me to understand and somewhat accept what he was telling me, without the prejudice or pretention of being "rightous" and "in the name of the lord".

 

[NJzFinest]

Out of religion, I received a grasp of reality, hope, knowledge, and most importantly, happiness. It think this is the main reason why most religions are even made.

And I dont believe in God just because I want to go to heaven after I die. I look forward to it, but that's not why I'm a Christian. I'm a Christian because God is worth living for. That's the bottom line.

I truly wish more people thought this way. Many feel the need to follow God's word simply to be rewarded in the end, not necessarily a bad thing, but, doesn't it seem weird? Like, I'm getting the sense some people "feel forced" to follow him when they should in fact feel relieved. I'm not exactly sure of how to word this, but I hope those reading can see my point.

 

[Colino]

Out of religion, I received a grasp of reality, hope, knowledge, and most importantly, happiness. It think this is the main reason why most religions are even made.

I truly wish more people thought this way. Many feel the need to follow God's word simply to be rewarded in the end, not necessarily a bad thing, but, doesn't it seem weird? Like, I'm getting the sense some people "feel forced" to follow him when they should in fact feel relieved. I'm not exactly sure of how to word this, but I hope those reading can see my point.

I definitely see your point and totally agree with you, that's why I pointed out in one of my earlier posts how I disagree in forcing a child into a certain religion and whatnot.
How can someone believe in god if the only thing they taught him is to fear his Lord and his judgment?

 

[Jammer]

I was referring to the church being against pre marriage sex and showing the act of sex for non procreation as a sin and a weakness.

And that brings me to another point I have against some catholics: blind faith in the bible.
As important as it may be to you, do you think it's correct to base your life on a book? Shouldn't the experiences you gain thorugh life make who you are? Or should we all follow the precise words of a book?

Woah, those are some interesting ideas, Colino.

I don't think the Bible says anything like "sex is bad" or that it should only be done to make babies. There is a whole book (Song of Songs) where King Solomon talks about how awesome sex is. In many places, God talks about how sex is one of his gifts to mankind, and that we should enjoy it.

I'm not familiar with the Catholic religion. If they say that sex should only be used to make babies, I'd say they're wrong. That leads me to another thing about Catholics: they don't follow the Bible blindly. They hardly follow the Bible at all. They follow their "reverends" and the Vatican blindly.

You may be surprised to know that the Bible specifically and very clearly states that there should be no hierarchy in the church. There should be no centralized "government"--only individual churches which may interact with each other. Just by existing, the Vatican and the Pope violate that commandment.

The Bible also says to pray only to God through Jesus, yet Catholics pray to "the Virgin Mary" all the time. I could go on, but it would be at the risk of offending some people and just repeating a single point.

He cited the Bible not for his convenience but perhaps because he couldn't think of any other way to put it than God himself. Remember that Christians also believe the Bible was written through God's inspiration and thus infallible.

Christians, at least reasonable ones, don't believe that the Bible is infallible. I mean, it's been translated, passed down for thousands of years. I have a Bible right here in my house that says "Thou shalt commit murder." Of course, it's missing a "not" in there, but that doesn't mean I follow it blindly.

Take this example: The Greek word for "camel" is the same as the one for "thick yarn". There is a verse in the Bible that says that "It is harder for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven" (or something like that). Pretty much every version of Bible I know says "camel" there. Obviously, camels can't possibly fit through eyes of needles. But, thick yarn conceivably could. I personally believe that the original meaning was "thick yarn", not "camel".

Then there are other types of Christians who literally do believe that the Bible we hold in our hands is the actual, perfect Word of God, without mistakes. I was at a church where the preacher said he only used the King James Version. He looked down on all other versions. Obviously, the King James version of the Bible has many mistranslations and even some purposeful deceptions, considering how old it was and that it was produced for the needs of a human, with all that that entails. Yet there really are some people who believe that the King James version is the only right one.

Heh, I don't know why I got so deep on that one issue. I guess I'm just trying to show that some people don't think too hard.