Religion - Good or Bad?

[-: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...1st_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...1st_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 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.