Religion - Good or Bad?

[Lewis]

Hi. It's a question I've beginning to wonder --- (This is nothing to do with god, just every religion in general)

Does religion really do a lot of good? It does some good, but in the end religion ends up in fights, deaths and so on. Many bad things and horrific things have happened and it's all because of religions. Of course good things happen to...
So whether god is real or whatever someone believes in or if they don't believe in it, is religion really worth all the fighting, arguing, trolling and actual violence in real life. So... do you think religion is really worth all the bad things, but let's not forget the good things...

(Please don't argue what you believe about god or something, unless it has something to do with religion violence. thx)


>Sorry if this has already been posted not long ago<

[lawrawrrr]

Religion gives people an EXCUSE to be violent. Oh, he insulted my religion, oh he said that etc. It's such an exclusive society it's hardly surprising people do this; in almost every exclusive society people end up doing shocking things...

...but the way the News portray events, such as terrorist bombings, where they say 'Muslims did this' 'Sikhs did this' is not right either because it's not everyone. Some Muslims, most muslims in fact are NOT terrorists and should not be portrayed that way.

I am a liberal member of a religion, but I refuse to be defined by it. I will never do something because other people will, no matter in society or because of what I believe in and I'd never be violent if someone offended my beliefs.

[Special]

bad

empty hope, violence, greed, terrorism

i cannot think of one positive thing what religion has brought to the world

[Mathew]

Before the debate escalates into a fierce spiral, and people end up making themselves appear extremely narrow minded, let's be clear that extremist groups do not equal religion. A religion is a lot more than just a simple belief, and I think we should concentrate on accepting the various forms of religion: one man's opinion can be no more valid than another.

[Johnathan]

bad

empty hope, violence, greed, terrorism

i cannot think of one positive thing what religion has brought to the world

Nuff said. Agreed.

[Inseriousity.]

Religion is neither good nor bad. It is simply there and always will be regardless of your opinion on it because faith transcends knowledge. Hope always wins. I suppose my question to those who say it's bad is that if those things they accuse it of causing, would they still happen if religion was non-existant? The answer is yes, they will be. We'll just find another excuse to maim and kill each other.

[dbgtz]

Religion is a reason for some to manipulate for their own, selfish desires. Religion itself is neither, but it's down to the people who follow it. I think it can be a reason to hate, but there would just be another reason should religion not have been there.

[Munex]

I have only read the title - I don't want other posts to bias my answer.

I think religion, like many things, has good and bad sides. Many religions teach rules that promote peace, but then there are a few extremists that take things a bit too far.

Religion is great for the rules it offers; it's pretty much the law, but instead of prison, you are damned to hell. The rules aren't always right though, I can think of many 'sins' that are very outdated in today's society.

Another good side to with religion is the hope it offers to people. Who else do you turn to when you are going through a difficult time, and it seems that you have lost everything? God's 24/7 protection must feel pretty great as well.

I think people need to find a balance between religion and the 21st century. I don't think people should force others to obey their religion, but rather live their own life how they want to live it.

[-:Undertaker:-]

The notion that religion is a force for evil or is not needed to some degree is ridiculous, and can be easily disproved with historical examples and modern day examples. The truth is, our western values are Christian-Judeo and are the reason why the west (in general) has advanced more so than any other area of the world. Indeed, the break with the Roman Church under Henry VIII and creation of the Church of England are an example of a better faith within a broadly Christian faith - from which England, later Great Britain, went on to develop a democratic and accountable system of government which you will find less of within Catholic countries and virtually non-existant in non-Christian countries around the world. Had we remained Pagan or had other forms of faith, then events which shaped our culture and constitution would never have occured (the Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights) - all founded on Christian principles with the King having divine rights but with the notion that the King ought to be constained by Christian values fought for over many hundreds of years. The pattern is there for all to see.

If you want examples of why a society needs a coherant form of faith and why ours happens to be the best, take a look at the Aztec Empire and Incan Empire who did not have an Abrahamic religion and practiced the likes of human sacrifice - something their values taught them was completely moral and fine but which is repulsive to us. Even today you can see examples of this with tribes living in Indonesia/former French Indochina and in South America - they still carry out human sacrifices which include burying alive young children - not because they are 'evil' but because that is simply their moral code.

Indeed, whilst many might not exactly be fans of Islam - I shudder to imagine Arabia without it. I'd also add, that often when we think of the great benefits of the British Empire and other smaller European colonial empires, we forget what is one of the greatest gifts that we gave to the African continent - the spread of Christianity. Because like with Arabia, I shudder to think what Africa would be like today without the Christian religion left by the Empires.

I'd also add, I used to thoughtlessly bash religion as its just the culturally popular thing to do - until I sat down and thought about it using case studies. Is religion perfect, infallible and causes no trouble? no, but name me something that is. Besides, most of the conflicts around the world are based around politics and cultural differences.

[FlyingJesus]

Is religion perfect, infallible and causes no trouble? no, but name me something that is.

Me

But yeah, religion itself is neither good nor bad, it's what people do with/for/because of their faith that matters

[GommeInc]

Neither. It's those who follow it and their individuals merits. It's like asking "Is Government bad" when it really depends who makes up the Government and their individual uses, rather than the Government in general. In modern day society religion has pretty much held our hands in shaping our morals and laws. Whether we still need religion now in this country is another matter, judging by the slow decline it could be argued no, but judging by the behaviour of some people perhaps a religious, moral compass could help them :P

[A4R0N]

religion is the main cause of the worlds problems

[Empired]

Got no problem with religion as long as people keep it to themselves and are passive about it. I agree with France banning all religious clothing. It just seems to cause arguments and attacks to be honest.

If it makes you happy, I've got no problem with you going to church or wherever and praying and stuff, but at the same time I don't appreciate being told I'm going to go hell because I'm such a deadly sinner every time I pass Barclays in town. Yeah, like that's really gonna motivate people to want to join your religion.

[Ardemax]

religion is the main cause of the worlds problems

It's funny how narrow minded people can be. I don't see Buddhism being the most immediate threat to the worlds financial stability, do you?

I think people are interpreting "religion" as "those arab blokes who go round blowing themselves up" which, quite frankly, is rather a load of tosh *insert posh laugh here*.

I think the fact that religion offers morals to live by is an example of how it can't be the "main cause of the worlds problems", however much you think it to be true. I believe that people are the main cause of the worlds problems, we are all idiots in the grand scheme of things.

[A4R0N]

It's funny how narrow minded people can be. I don't see Buddhism being the most immediate threat to the worlds financial stability, do you?

I think people are interpreting "religion" as "those arab blokes who go round blowing themselves up" which, quite frankly, is rather a load of tosh *insert posh laugh here*.

I think the fact that religion offers morals to live by is an example of how it can't be the "main cause of the worlds problems", however much you think it to be true. I believe that people are the main cause of the worlds problems, we are all idiots in the grand scheme of things.

i'm not interpreting religion as terrorism if that's what you're suggesting but if you look at the majority of the worlds problems these days religion will play some part in it

[Ardemax]

i'm not interpreting religion as terrorism if that's what you're suggesting but if you look at the majority of the worlds problems these days religion will play some part in it

Ok the majority of the worlds problems, sure. Like the Europe crisis, that was that Sikh's bloke fault right? Ohhh I get you, the banking crisis, that was carried out by those mad Christian fellas.

Or do you mean world problems like poverty? We all know Christian Aid and Islamic Aid just take from the poor to give to the rich right...

Climate change on the other hand, it's all those Buddhists going mental and melting the ice caps with their foreheads.

---

Sorry if I sound like an idiot (which I do/am), it's just I don't believe it's religions fault, I believe it to be the deluded people of religions who give that religion a bad name in the media.

I guess you're gonna bring up how all wars are religiously motivated? Sure you can say some are, but religion doesn't teach "thou must bomb thou's neighbour" (surprisingly) and I would say money and greed are way more involved in the worlds problems than religion.

[Kardan]

I am very non-religious, so I don't believe in any religion, and have never seen the benefits in doing so - however, if people wish to have a religion, then fair enough, and I totally disagree in saying that all the worlds problem go back to religion.

Religion is not bad, and for me personally, it isn't good either, but I'm sure it is for the people that wish to have one.

[The Don]

It was good before we understood science, unfortunately it is no longer needed and is holding us back from progressing

[Ardemax]

It was good before we understood science, unfortunately it is no longer needed and is holding us back from progressing

Sir Isaac Newton and Einstein seemed to have coped fine with it ;)

[The Don]

Sir Isaac Newton and Einstein seemed to have coped fine with it ;)

How about Darwin? ;)

[Charz777]

Firstly, I don't agree that people saying it's bad are narrow minded. We've grown up in a world were religious groups have performed terrorist acts, where people have hidden behind their religion and used it as an excuse for their own errors and misjudgments. I can't accept anyone doing something bad and saying 'It's a part of my religion,' or someone finding and excuse because 'it's against my religion.'

Fair enough, there are genuine people out there who have a strong faith, who are good. Who do follow the rules of their holy text meaning they don't sin. And yes, that is good. Religion has done good when people behave according to the law, respectfully and in peace.

But no, people ARE NOT narrow minding for simply noticing that terrorism came mainly from religion and for realising that religion has caused a lot of badness in our world. I think that people must be ignorant not to see and accept that. The people being called narrow minded for saying religion is bad are really just being realistic about the world.

Religion can be both good and bad. But I can't deny that it is my belief that were there to be a world war 3, it would not be due to land, money, government, monarchy, but religion. People taking it too far and believing that their actions are in the name of their god. What Deity would have terrorists kill the people he/she created? Those people are hiding their own crimes behind their religion and that is what's bad. It mocks the true meaning of religion and all those genuine, innocent and decent people who have it.

[Ardemax]

How about Darwin? ;)

As far as science is concerned, Einstein/Newton are like the Gods and Darwin is the one playing the harp. Still badass nonetheless.

[The Don]

As far as science is concerned, Einstein/Newton are like the Gods and Darwin is the one playing the harp. Still badass nonetheless.

Still backs up my point

[dirrty]

i'm not interpreting religion as terrorism if that's what you're suggesting but if you look at the majority of the worlds problems these days religion will play some part in it
human nature is the cause of world problems. since the beginning of human existence, competition, greed and power flows through mankind like a leaf in the wind. yes, religion has been used as an excuse for extremist behaviour, but its power that dictates how society (and individuals) operates. the majority of the world problems have been constructed, not through religious belief, but for own personal gain (whether that gain is in a micro, or macro level).

all religions are a neutral playing field which can influence negative, but also positive behaviour; it just depends on how one interpretes whatever they read. afaik, christianity is embedded into our legal system. religion, in general can better individuals in giving them hope for the future. just because some people aren't religious, doesn't mean that those who are, are blinded, silly, etc. if religion guides individuals to being in a better place, and therefore a better citizen in our society, then why should it matter? people's opinions on religion are basically dictated upon how extremists interprete their own religion. for the most part its harmless. it's the individuals themselves who are good or bad, not religion itself.

[Johnathan]

religion is the main cause of the worlds problems


It's funny how narrow minded people can be. I don't see Buddhism being the most immediate threat to the worlds financial stability, do you?

I think people are interpreting "religion" as "those arab blokes who go round blowing themselves up" which, quite frankly, is rather a load of tosh *insert posh laugh here*.

I think the fact that religion offers morals to live by is an example of how it can't be the "main cause of the worlds problems", however much you think it to be true. I believe that people are the main cause of the worlds problems, we are all idiots in the grand scheme of things.

People do cause most of the worlds problems. Religion wouldn't exist without people. I agree with your post Adremax.

[Teabags]

Think Napoleon best described this. He indicated a utilitarian view of religion. "Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet."; He also said: "Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich"

[Invent]

There's no need for religion in modern society. Its sole reason for existence is to give the weak-minded a sense of purpose, a reason for why they're here. It helps good people do bad things, scams people out of their money, delays the advancement of science (even in this day and age - e.g. blocking stem-cell research), encourages people to interfere with other peoples lives and their personal choices (anti-gay, pro-life, etc agendas all backed up using religious doctrine), false sense of morality (if you need a book to tell you not to commit murder, you have issues) and more.

Believe all you want, I'll never be against people believing what they want to believe but I am against the idea of religion/theism. We no longer have any need for it and in my opinion the bads outweigh the goods.

[Ardemax]

There's no need for religion in modern society. Its sole reason for existence is to give the weak-minded a sense of purpose, a reason for why they're here. It helps good people do bad things, scams people out of their money, delays the advancement of science (even in this day and age - e.g. blocking stem-cell research), encourages people to interfere with other peoples lives and their personal choices (anti-gay, pro-life, etc agendas all backed up using religious doctrine), false sense of morality (if you need a book to tell you not to commit murder, you have issues) and more.

Believe all you want, I'll never be against people believing what they want to believe but I am against the idea of religion/theism. We no longer have any need for it and in my opinion the bads outweigh the goods.

I'm guessing this entire post is opinionated as your first line doesn't seem to suggest. And if people believe in a higher power (majority of the world), you're essentially saying a huge portion of that figure are weak-minded. Are you suggesting that leading figures in the field of science who have a religion are weak minded? I don't think so.

The bit I've put in bold is a bit of a statement itself... I'm sorry but a huge generalization like that in this day and age is quite frankly outrageous. Replace "book" with "law" and it's the same thing, therefore you're suggesting you have problems if you listen to "the book of the law".

I'm sure a lot of people agree with you, but people with any ability to be open to other ideas would be slightly confused as to why you believe there is no need for their beliefs in modern society (first line).

[Invent]

I'm guessing this entire post is opinionated as your first line doesn't seem to suggest. And if people believe in a higher power (majority of the world), you're essentially saying a huge portion of that figure are weak-minded. Are you suggesting that leading figures in the field of science who have a religion are weak minded? I don't think so.

As I said, religion exists to try and provide people with a reason for their existence. That is why countries with very low income/poverty are very religious, a lot of people want to know they're not here for no reason. That is why I do find scientists who are believers to be weak-minded. They are surrounded by facts and reason in their careers and yet they are worried about the afterlife so they choose to believe something without any evidence, simply because they cannot accept they are likely here by an accident and not designed by a creator. If you have to believe something like that because you can't accept the opposite (the more likely truth) then yes, I think you are weak-minded.

Also, who are these leading figures (alive and working in the 20th+ century, please) that are religious?


The bit I've put in bold is a bit of a statement itself... I'm sorry but a huge generalization like that in this day and age is quite frankly outrageous. Replace "book" with "law" and it's the same thing, therefore you're suggesting you have problems if you listen to "the book of the law".

No, law and religion are completely different things. I don't commit murder because I have morals. I didn't get these morals from a god; they were part of me when I was born. I don't need a book of law (like religious people need the bible/10 commandments) to tell me not to hurt others, but we do need them to exist to punish those who can't follow their own morals and remove them from civilized society until they are fit to rejoin.


I'm sure a lot of people agree with you, but people with any ability to be open to other ideas would be slightly confused as to why you believe there is no need for their beliefs in modern society (first line).

I was once a Christian when I was a child. I then grew up, learnt about science, evolution, facts and grew out of it. Because I believe that there is no need for religion doesn't make me unable to be open to other ideas, that's stupid. I love science. If I wasn't open to new ideas, then I couldn't because science is all about accepting new ideas and learning new things.

[GommeInc]

I went into Ipswich in Suffolk on Friday and visited the St. Mary-le-Tower Church, and I was shocked to see how accepting they are of gay, lesbian and transgender men and women. They openly accept anyone and everyone, pray for those who have been discriminated against and their aim is to make other churches and people accept them. I was really expecting them to suggest homosexuality could be healed with prayer and that it is wrong because the Bible says so, but to them they want to change the views of the church rather than the views of the gay men and women.

Completely mind blowing to read the leaflet on it, and see what action they are taking. It's the first time I had seen a Church with such an open mind and admit that maybe the way the Bible is interpreted is wrong.

[-:Undertaker:-]

It helps good people do bad things, scams people out of their money, delays the advancement of science (even in this day and age - e.g. blocking stem-cell research), encourages people to interfere with other peoples lives and their personal choices (anti-gay, pro-life, etc agendas all backed up using religious doctrine), false sense of morality (if you need a book to tell you not to commit murder, you have issues) and more.

Actually, you do. We all do.

Our entire culture, laws and traditions are based on the Bible and without it, our morality would be completely different to the one we have now. I touched upon this earlier, compare the pre-Christian Pagan British Isles with the Christian Kingdoms and Empires which followed. In the same way compare Christian nations of the west with the Incan and Aztec Empires where sacrifice was widespread and considered a good, moral thing. Or for a more modern example you can find instances of south American tribes who still bury their young children alive as a ritual - that is their moral outlook, whereas we in a Christian culture consider that cold blooded murder.


I went into Ipswich in Suffolk on Friday and visited the St. Mary-le-Tower Church, and I was shocked to see how accepting they are of gay, lesbian and transgender men and women. They openly accept anyone and everyone, pray for those who have been discriminated against and their aim is to make other churches and people accept them. I was really expecting them to suggest homosexuality could be healed with prayer and that it is wrong because the Bible says so, but to them they want to change the views of the church rather than the views of the gay men and women.

Completely mind blowing to read the leaflet on it, and see what action they are taking. It's the first time I had seen a Church with such an open mind and admit that maybe the way the Bible is interpreted is wrong.

The Bible and thousands of years of Christianity are clear on disapproval of homosexuality, no matter how certain Churches wish to talk their way around this. There is a difference between calling for respect of individuals and then the strange approval of homosexuality by Churches when its clearly considered an immoral act by both the Bible and thousands of years of Christian tradition.

[Ardemax]

As I said, religion exists to try and provide people with a reason for their existence. That is why countries with very low income/poverty are very religious, a lot of people want to know they're not here for no reason. That is why I do find scientists who are believers to be weak-minded. They are surrounded by facts and reason in their careers and yet they are worried about the afterlife so they choose to believe something without any evidence, simply because they cannot accept they are likely here by an accident and not designed by a creator. If you have to believe something like that because you can't accept the opposite (the more likely truth) then yes, I think you are weak-minded.

Also, who are these leading figures (alive and working in the 20th+ century, please) that are religious?

Yeah because America is in deep poverty...
Sure they're surrounded by facts like how a star is born or even the Big Bang, but historically speaking (and there's no theory here) the person that was Jesus Christ existed and attracted huge crows wherever he went, as documented in the Bible. I'm not one who overly-believes the stories such as Noah and the Ark, but the discovery of a huge ship around Russia (I think?) which dates back to that time period was certainly eye-opening.

I don't see how religion and science can't be as one with each other? Religion tells us why, science tells us how and all that. Until there is rock-solid proof there is no God, it would be impossible to simply get rid of religion.

Here's a list, obviously there are more but these are very specific scientific fields:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_thinkers_in_science#2001.E2.80.9 3today_.2821st_century.29
(Also it's only a list of Christians, not Jews/Muslims etc.)


No, law and religion are completely different things. I don't commit murder because I have morals. I didn't get these morals from a god; they were part of me when I was born. I don't need a book of law (like religious people need the bible/10 commandments) to tell me not to hurt others, but we do need them to exist to punish those who can't follow their own morals and remove them from civilized society until they are fit to rejoin.

Who taught you these morals? Who taught them? I'm sure you weren't born and your first sentence condemned robbers and rapists.


I was once a Christian when I was a child. I then grew up, learnt about science, evolution, facts and grew out of it. Because I believe that there is no need for religion doesn't make me unable to be open to other ideas, that's stupid. I love science. If I wasn't open to new ideas, then I couldn't because science is all about accepting new ideas and learning new things.

Sure you learnt facts like how the universe was created from an explosion of matter that somehow magically got there, facts like that. I love science too, I'm not a closed-minded Bible-Belter and no-where in the Bible does it mention the methods of the creation of the universe or the creation of humans. It's not that specific.

[GommeInc]

The Bible and thousands of years of Christianity are clear on disapproval of homosexuality, no matter how certain Churches wish to talk their way around this. There is a difference between calling for respect of individuals and then the strange approval of homosexuality by Churches when its clearly considered an immoral act by both the Bible and thousands of years of Christian tradition.
Christianity is a mess of a religion with too many Bibles and no approved and agreed upon text. If a Church wants to reinterpret and realise that sexuality doesn't make a person bad then let them. It's far more noble to look at a person and judge them for who they are, not look at people and judge them for what they may be.

[Invent]

Actually, you do. We all do.

Our entire culture, laws and traditions are based on the Bible and without it, our morality would be completely different to the one we have now. I touched upon this earlier, compare the pre-Christian Pagan British Isles with the Christian Kingdoms and Empires which followed. In the same way compare Christian nations of the west with the Incan and Aztec Empires where sacrifice was widespread and considered a good, moral thing. Or for a more modern example you can find instances of south American tribes who still bury their young children alive as a ritual - that is their moral outlook, whereas we in a Christian culture consider that cold blooded murder.

Actually, no, I don't. I follow a simple philosophy: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you". Now, that may stem from religion teaching from hundreds/thousands of years ago but it's something I've followed long before reading the bible; thus I don't see religion as being a requirement anymore.


Yeah because America is in deep poverty..

I didn't say America was in poverty? I said "That is why countries with very low income/poverty are very religious", which is true..

Yes, a lot of America is very religious, particularly the south but the west isn't that religious at all (speaking from personal experience). A lot of people from the south also just by chance happen to be racist and homophobic so I don't think we should take too many lessons from there.


Sure they're surrounded by facts like how a star is born or even the Big Bang, but historically speaking (and there's no theory here) the person that was Jesus Christ existed and attracted huge crows wherever he went, as documented in the Bible. I'm not one who overly-believes the stories such as Noah and the Ark, but the discovery of a huge ship around Russia (I think?) which dates back to that time period was certainly eye-opening.


The bible isn't evidence so don't say it's not a theory that he attracted huge crowds (not unless you can prove it outside of the bible). There is no first hand evidence of Jesus even existing.

Also, there have been dozens of "arks" discovered, one recently in 2010 (in Turkey) which has never been tested AFAIK. There generally isn't any point testing it anyway as if the dates returned do say it comes from a date range the Christian scientists want - then how come we can't use the same methods of dating to show the earth is a hell of a lot older than the bible says (not to mention dinosaurs, etc)?



I don't see how religion and science can't be as one with each other? Religion tells us why, science tells us how and all that. Until there is rock-solid proof there is no God, it would be impossible to simply get rid of religion.

By all means believe what you want but as I said, religion only serves to give people a reason for their life. I don't need to have a reason to live my life. I don't need to believe that an all-mystical being is going to take me to heaven when I die. I'm perfectly comfortable with living my life to the fullest and then dying. I don't need religion and I don't think it's needed anymore.



Here's a list, obviously there are more but these are very specific scientific fields:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_thinkers_in_science#2001.E2.80.9 3today_.2821st_century.29
(Also it's only a list of Christians, not Jews/Muslims etc.)

Not many (if any) of those people are classed as "leading" scientists..



Who taught you these morals? Who taught them? I'm sure you weren't born and your first sentence condemned robbers and rapists.


Explained earlier in this post. No one really taught me them (I guess you could say my parents did when I was a very young child) but I definitely didn't get them from a jesus figure ;). It wasn't until much later in my life that I bought in to the scam that is religion.



Sure you learnt facts like how the universe was created from an explosion of matter that somehow magically got there, facts like that. I love science too, I'm not a closed-minded Bible-Belter and no-where in the Bible does it mention the methods of the creation of the universe or the creation of humans. It's not that specific.
It tries to explain the creation of the universe (earth/sun/etc) and it does mention the creation of humans (Adam & Eve and Cain & Abel)..

[Ardemax]

Actually, no, I don't. I follow a simple philosophy: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you". Now, that may stem from religion teaching from hundreds/thousands of years ago but it's something I've followed long before reading the bible; thus I don't see religion as being a requirement anymore.


I didn't say America was in poverty? I said "That is why countries with very low income/poverty are very religious", which is true..

Yes, a lot of America is very religious, particularly the south but the west isn't that religious at all (speaking from personal experience). A lot of people from the south also just by chance happen to be racist and homophobic so I don't think we should take too many lessons from there.

I know you didn't say America was in poverty, you were suggesting that MEDCs have all somehow out-grown religion and that it is ludicrous to believe anything of the sort, which is of course not the case.


The bible isn't evidence so don't say it's not a theory that he attracted huge crowds (not unless you can prove it outside of the bible). There is no first hand evidence of Jesus even existing.

Also, there have been dozens of "arks" discovered, one recently in 2010 (in Turkey) which has never been tested AFAIK. There generally isn't any point testing it anyway as if the dates returned do say it comes from a date range the Christian scientists want - then how come we can't use the same methods of dating to show the earth is a hell of a lot older than the bible says (not to mention dinosaurs, etc)?

Ok sure we can argue the Noah's ark thing for all we want to (I don't believe it personally), but it is a historical fact that Jesus existed, there are hundreds if not thousands of written records about him (and a lot from the people who opposed him like the Romans). I'm not sure if a lot of atheists know this or not though.


By all means believe what you want but as I said, religion only serves to give people a reason for their life. I don't need to have a reason to live my life. I don't need to believe that an all-mystical being is going to take me to heaven when I die. I'm perfectly comfortable with living my life to the fullest and then dying. I don't need religion and I don't think it's needed anymore.

Sure that's totally acceptable to believe, but it's wrong to say that someone who is religious should stop believing it and "ban" it.


Not many (if any) of those people are classed as "leading" scientists..

How do you define a "leading" scientist? I'm thinking of the likes of Einstein who was famously quoted by saying "science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."



Explained earlier in this post. No one really taught me them (I guess you could say my parents did when I was a very young child) but I definitely didn't get them from a jesus figure ;). It wasn't until much later in my life that I bought in to the scam that is religion.

That's what I'm getting at, your parents taught you right from wrong and you learn a lot on this mostly until 10 years old or so. If we were "born" with morals, then why are you not liable for criminal offences until you are 10 years of age?


It tries to explain the creation of the universe (earth/sun/etc) and it does mention the creation of humans (Adam & Eve and Cain & Abel)..

I think you and I both know it hardly goes into detail about creation. The main focus of the Bible is not creation at all and for people to ignore everything else and point out "DERS NO DINOS" in an attempt to flaw it doesn't cut it with me (obviously they say more than that).

[FlyingJesus]

The Bible and thousands of years of Christianity are clear on disapproval of homosexuality, no matter how certain Churches wish to talk their way around this. There is a difference between calling for respect of individuals and then the strange approval of homosexuality by Churches when its clearly considered an immoral act by both the Bible and thousands of years of Christian tradition.

Thousands of years of bigotry yes, the Bible itself not necessarily. The one and only point of the entire text that mentions homosexuality is in Leviticus, the laws of which are Jewish Mosaic laws and not Christian ones, as any Christian who actually knows anything about their religion will know that with the sacrifice of Jesus a New Covenant was introduced which casts Levitical/Deuteronomical law as being null and void (hence no more sacrificing of animals, the ability to wear polycottons, and many more things), as stated in the New Testament and by just about every Christian scholar since. Even with this aside, it's actually widely believed now by Jewish authorities that in many instances (ie: if you're not a priest) gay sex is not a problem (http://lazersilberstein.tumblr.com/post/24418135500) and is preferable from a religious point of view to a life of misery.

I know that you love to believe that if something's happened for a long time it must be right, and fair enough if that's the way you want to define "good morals", but you can't make scriptural claims that are false

[Invent]

I know you didn't say America was in poverty, you were suggesting that MEDCs have all somehow out-grown religion and that it is ludicrous to believe anything of the sort, which is of course not the case.

No, I said that religion serves to give people a reason for their existence. People in poverty unfortunately don't have much in their current life so they want to believe there will be more in the afterlife. It's a perfectly valid statement.


Ok sure we can argue the Noah's ark thing for all we want to (I don't believe it personally), but it is a historical fact that Jesus existed, there are hundreds if not thousands of written records about him (and a lot from the people who opposed him like the Romans). I'm not sure if a lot of atheists know this or not though.

Obviously Athiests know about the written stories of Jesus. We also know that all of these records were written at least 60 years after the fact. There is no first hand evidence of Jesus existing, just hearsay from decades after the (alleged) events. The theory that someone named Jesus existed is far from a fact, so please don't say that it is.



Sure that's totally acceptable to believe, but it's wrong to say that someone who is religious should stop believing it and "ban" it.
I've never said it should be banned, I actually said you can believe whatever the hell you want. Just don't expect me to support it when it's absolutely ridiculous.



How do you define a "leading" scientist? I'm thinking of the likes of Einstein who was famously quoted by saying "science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
Albert Einsten was Agnostic. He did not believe in a personal god. He was definitely not anything close to a Christian and was in fact closer to my belief system than yours.



That's what I'm getting at, your parents taught you right from wrong and you learn a lot on this mostly until 10 years old or so. If we were "born" with morals, then why are you not liable for criminal offences until you are 10 years of age?

Because children are still learning. The law stretches out further than our morals. It's not morally unacceptable for me to take Cocaine, but it's a stupid decision so the law prohibits it. Children don't always know these distinctions and so we protect them until they have a good mind and can understand these things. Kind of a silly question.



I think you and I both know it hardly goes into detail about creation. The main focus of the Bible is not creation at all and for people to ignore everything else and point out "DERS NO DINOS" in an attempt to flaw it doesn't cut it with me (obviously they say more than that).
It goes as far as they could guess at the time it was written. If the book is truly infallible then the absence of such important things as dinosaurs, etc is definitely a worthy topic of discussion.

[Ardemax]

No, I said that religion serves to give people a reason for their existence. People in poverty unfortunately don't have much in their current life so they want to believe there will be more in the afterlife. It's a perfectly valid statement.

And I agree, it's just you were making it out like they knew no better and that we are more advanced than them. If I've got this wrong, apologies.


Obviously Athiests know about the written stories of Jesus. We also know that all of these records were written at least 60 years after the fact. There is no first hand evidence of Jesus existing, just hearsay from decades after the (alleged) events. The theory that someone named Jesus existed is far from a fact, so please don't say that it is.

Ok then you can have it your way. Read here: http://www.gotquestions.org/did-Jesus-exist.html. There is nothing "far from a fact" about him existing.


I've never said it should be banned, I actually said you can believe whatever the hell you want. Just don't expect me to support it when it's absolutely ridiculous.

Ok


Albert Einsten was Agnostic. He did not believe in a personal god. He was definitely not anything close to a Christian and was in fact closer to my belief system than yours.

But in many ways he was far from being an atheist. Who else are leading scientists? Newton? Edison?


Because children are still learning. The law stretches out further than our morals. It's not morally unacceptable for me to take Cocaine, but it's a stupid decision so the law prohibits it. Children don't always know these distinctions and so we protect them until they have a good mind and can understand these things. Kind of a silly question.

I'm confused. I thought you were saying you can't be taught morals? :S


It goes as far as they could guess at the time it was written. If the book is truly infallible then the absence of such important things as dinosaurs, etc is definitely a worthy topic of discussion.

Taken literally, yes. Though the majority of Christians and some Jews don't take the literal text as it is. For example the "6 days" thing could mean any amount of a given time period. Is the absence of dinosaurs really important in the grand scheme of things? Are they that significant to the main point of the Bible which is, of course, Jesus Christ?

[FlyingJesus]

Just to end one small part of the Ardemax/Invent argument, the nonexistence of dinosaurs in the Bible is only as relevant as not mentioning ocelots and koala bears in the text - if modern bestiaries can't name all the animals that exist on the planet then there's no chance that a 3000 year old book that mostly concerns itself with human law will do it, and absolutely no need for it to do so. Also since it's generally accepted that Moses wrote nearly all of the Torah/Old Testament it's not like he'd know about dinosaurs anyway, being somewhat less than 64,000,000 years old when he wrote it.

[Invent]

Ok then you can have it your way. Read here: http://www.gotquestions.org/did-Jesus-exist.html. There is nothing "far from a fact" about him existing.
Haha, citing a Christian website as a source because that won't be biased at all. Again, the bible isn't evidence.



But in many ways he was far from being an atheist. Who else are leading scientists? Newton? Edison?
Newton was also a pretty strange guy who was heavily interested in Alchemy, not to mention born almost 400 'friggin years ago. Oh and Edison was a deist, far from religious..


I'm confused. I thought you were saying you can't be taught morals? :S
I'm confused. I thought I said there was a difference between morality and law :S



Taken literally, yes. Though the majority of Christians and some Jews don't take the literal text as it is. For example the "6 days" thing could mean any amount of a given time period. Is the absence of dinosaurs really important in the grand scheme of things? Are they that significant to the main point of the Bible which is, of course, Jesus Christ?
If the earth is really only 6,000 years old, as the bible says, then dinosaurs were a pretty significant part of the earth's timeline and pretty worthy of at least a namedrop in my opinion.

[Ardemax]

Haha, citing a Christian website as a source because that won't be biased at all. Again, the bible isn't evidence.

Sure it may be religious-based, but the articles written there are pretty accurate. I don't see how a bias can be made of that. It's exactly the same as an atheist website detailing reasons why Jesus didn't exist?

Ok then, if Jesus didn't exist, then why do we separate time from his birth? (BC and AD)



Newton was also a pretty strange guy who was heavily interested in Alchemy, not to mention born almost 400 'friggin years ago. Oh and Edison was a deist, far from religious..

I wasn't saying they were religious I'm pointing out you haven't specified what a "leading" scientist is.


If the earth is really only 6,000 years old, as the bible says, then dinosaurs were a pretty significant part of the earth's timeline and pretty worthy of at least a namedrop in my opinion.

Like FlyingJesus has pointed out, it's like saying the Bible should give a shout out to the ocelots. It's not important or relevant to what is written.

[deathbot20.v2]

look the bible has been translated and rewritten so many times, that we cannot be certain of its truth anymore.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Christianity is a mess of a religion with too many Bibles and no approved and agreed upon text. If a Church wants to reinterpret and realise that sexuality doesn't make a person bad then let them. It's far more noble to look at a person and judge them for who they are, not look at people and judge them for what they may be.

The standard throughout history for Christianity, agree with it or not, has been against homosexuality and although Churches may wish to slither around the issue - it doesn't change those historical facts. Again, I think there's a clear line between thinking it to be wrong (as the Bible states) and then those who call for stonings and all the rest as a method of punishment.


Thousands of years of bigotry yes, the Bible itself not necessarily. The one and only point of the entire text that mentions homosexuality is in Leviticus, the laws of which are Jewish Mosaic laws and not Christian ones, as any Christian who actually knows anything about their religion will know that with the sacrifice of Jesus a New Covenant was introduced which casts Levitical/Deuteronomical law as being null and void (hence no more sacrificing of animals, the ability to wear polycottons, and many more things), as stated in the New Testament and by just about every Christian scholar since. Even with this aside, it's actually widely believed now by Jewish authorities that in many instances (ie: if you're not a priest) gay sex is not a problem (http://lazersilberstein.tumblr.com/post/24418135500) and is preferable from a religious point of view to a life of misery.

I know that you love to believe that if something's happened for a long time it must be right, and fair enough if that's the way you want to define "good morals", but you can't make scriptural claims that are false

I'm not arguing whether it is right or not (my personal views on this aren't important), i'm simply arguing that Christian morality teaches against homosexuality - that is just a historical fact as I mentioned above. I'm not saying the Bible isn't contradictory either as well as having many silly parts.

But a quick search will show its been condemned throughout many passages http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_homosexuality - agree with it or not.

[GommeInc]

The standard throughout history for Christianity, agree with it or not, has been against homosexuality and although Churches may wish to slither around the issue - it doesn't change those historical facts. Again, I think there's a clear line between thinking it to be wrong (as the Bible states) and then those who call for stonings and all the rest as a method of punishment.
Like I said, Christianity is a mess of a religion, with many different types. If a Church wants to become liberal then let it. It's very narrow-minded of the Church in general to assume homosexuality is evil, when the Bible itself doesn't even know why it is other than "it is". It usually describes what homosexuality is, then discredits it without really knowing itself why it's evil. Assume the Bible is primary legislation, and each denomination is a type of Court - the different Churches create secondary legislation based on their needs and social values. They distort the original legislation to suit their very needs. Discarding traditional views isn't bad, especially when homosexuality as a general concept has no bad or good qualities - it's down to the individual homosexual and their merits, and the prejudice of those looking at them.

[FlyingJesus]

The massive majority of Christian denominations (including Roman Catholicism and Conservative Protestantism) are supersessionist, so scripturally they have quite literally no reason to denounce homosexuality other than possibly calling on the letters of Paul which were badly translated from words that don't actually exist in English

[RandomManJay]

Personally I see religion as a dangerous institution which teaches us to be ignorant of our lives and the lives of others, as well as teach us to not question our possible origins, whatever they may be. When used correctly, it can provide many comforts, hopes and a focus in which to live. When used incorrectly, it teaches us to accept fallacy are true without question, and provides an escape from morality, both societally and personally defined. It creates the delusion that what you do in this world does not impact anyone else enough to place responsibility, and that you are not ultimately responsible, or should take responsibility for your actions.

I believe that at a time religion was a dominant and influential factor in our societal development, and should be regarded as such in our history. But in today's world it hinders it, and tries to force society to regress to the time in which it was dominant. Everything that religion claims to provide or achieve can be achieved independently of religion. Regardless of religion, there will always be those who are good and those who are bad. Society, and those within society, should define those people, not a supposedly all-knowing deity(ies) who(se) perception of our world and its conflicts is not in line with ours.

This being said, I would never look negatively at someone who is religious, unless their views conflict with my morality, at which I look down on the person for their morality, and not the religion which may have influenced it.

[dggood]

I am not a religious person and i don't believe that religion is as important in this day and age. I do believe it has its moments, it has created some horrific fights and wars and deaths. But i also do believe it has prevented some as well, there are some angry people out there that have stopped their violence because of religion, there would also be some people that the only reason they aren't mugging, fighting, bullying you is because of religion.
I think we should just look to more spiritual religions these days, like Buddhism and Zen. =]