You know, you may be the first atheist I've met that I can say genuinely seems to share this opinion with me. You have my respect.


I'm going to talk specifically about Christianity because I'm not the most familiar with other religions. Christianity has many different interpretations: Catholocism being one of the several official variations. I'm also certain there are some non-official versions of Christianity out there; mine possibly being one of them -- Gene's too. I have that freedom to determine my own faith in the matter -- which is probably something to be said is special about Christianity.

In this regard, I disagree with a lot of the aggressive Christians that shove Bibles in people's faces, expecting them to understand. It's somewhat disgusting even to me, a Christian. These are the kinds of people I'm referring to in one of my previous posts about stupid religious people. It's frustrating that other Christians, who don't agree with this method, get caught in the fire with these stupid individuals. It's an issue of representation.

I am my own person, even as a Christian. I personally prefer to keep my beliefs to myself unless I'm asked about it or attacked for it. To me, that's the best attitude to adopt to live humbly and be respectful of other people's beliefs, which is the kind of life I myself am intent on living. I've said it twice, and I'll say it again, I have nothing against atheists. Frankly, I don't know the truth, I only believe in what I think is the truth, and atheists could be right. I don't deny that. I do, however, have something against atheists that go out of their way to offend me, when I haven't done anything to warrant it. Both side are guilty of jumping the gun and being arrogant -- both sides, is what many people from both sides don't seem to understand. Which is why it's so difficult to have an openminded discussion about the topic. People blame religion or atheism for all the conflict, but it's really general human nature that is the major problem. The ideals themselves should be like you and I claim to be: to ourselves and observant.


There is one thing I feel I don't completely agree with, and that's about war. Religion is a popular thing to blame for war, and with good reason. But, in my opinion, war will happen regardless of religion... and in many cases, I believe religion is merely a tool or excuse to rationalize war. That isn't to say religious people use their religion as a vehicle to instigate war, but people in general, with an ulterier motive, would rely on religion to act as justification. Let's face it, conventional war is essentially only fought by goverments and soldiers; not the larger, more general public -- at least, not usually in a relatively physical form. In order to stage a war, you will want the general public to support you... And that's when religion can be used as a tool. In my opinion, religion doesn't cause wars; war's are an inevitable aspect of human life. People cause wars.

People of both religion and atheism have done some atrocious things. Atheism is considered a broader belief (oxymoronically), so when an atheist commits something horrible, it's less likely they'll be scrutinized for their atheism -- except probably from some religious people. However, when a religious person commits something horrible, their religion is more susceptable to criticism. As if simply claiming to be religious means you truly represent your religion. It's somewhat of a double standard.

I think it's unfair to hold me even remotely responsible for things like the Crusades or Spanish Inquisition because I believe in a religion. I wasn't alive to see them happen, and even if I were, I probably wouldn't be able to prevent them. And, one could argue that they never would have happened in the first place if religion didn't exist, but because conflict is part of human nature, that's bullshit.

In my opinion, the problem isn't with religion or atheism, it's with people's inability to respect and tolerate eachother.
 
--------------------
--------- 獅の炎 ----------

----------- 忍☯者 -----------

This is one of the major problems I have with some denominations. I cannot stand those that feel that they should come door to door /preach etc.

If I really wanted to become a full part of your religion I am sure I would be able to find information without them needing to tell me. I get hugely frustrated at people like that who are theoretically only doing 'something good' for their religion, however I can't help but think "I don't need to be sold your fucking religion".

As for whether there is or isn't a "God", I think its irrelevant anyway. There will always be those who believe and there will always be those who don't but more importantly religion helps to unite large groups of otherwise unrelated people to what could be described as a common good. Anti-religious people work together in an attempt to disprove religion, however once again it is still causing humans to move forward regardless (trying to prove theories such as evolution, the big bang etc.).
 
--------------------


Old awards wat
Most Mature & Most Honourable
Most Dedicated|IRC Freak|Best Emeritus
Placeholder lolz

The last time I lived like that I was 12. lol
Those were the days.

You should try it again

 
--------------------

The last time I lived like that I was 12. lol
Those were the days.

You should try it again

It's hard. Society expects things from me and stuff...
Otherwise, I'd be out catching lizards and riding my bike all day.
 
--------------------
--------- 獅の炎 ----------

----------- 忍☯者 -----------

The last time I lived like that I was 12. lol
Those were the days.

You should try it again

Screw this religion and science crap. I'm fucking gonna be 12 again! Dragonball Z time!
 
--------------------


Proud WG member since December 2003

I can agree with you, for the most part. Though, the way you put it seems somewhat lopsided: Why can't they be both? A potential tool and a legitimate faith; human maturity and religious belief?
 
--------------------
--------- 獅の炎 ----------

----------- 忍☯者 -----------

I've said it twice, and I'll say it again, I have nothing against atheists. Frankly, I don't know the truth, I only believe in what I think is the truth, and atheists could be right. I don't deny that. I do, however, have something against atheists that go out of their way to offend me, when I haven't done anything to warrant it. Both side are guilty of jumping the gun and being arrogant -- both sides, is what many people from both sides don't seem to understand. Which is why it's so difficult to have an openminded discussion about the topic. People blame religion or atheism for all the conflict, but it's really general human nature that is the major problem. The ideals themselves should be like you and I claim to be: to ourselves and observant.


There is one thing I feel I don't completely agree with, and that's about war. Religion is a popular thing to blame for war, and with good reason. But, in my opinion, war will happen regardless of religion... and in many cases, I believe religion is merely a tool or excuse to rationalize war. That isn't to say religious people use their religion as a vehicle to instigate war, but people in general, with an ulterier motive, would rely on religion to act as justification. Let's face it, conventional war is essentially only fought by goverments and soldiers; not the larger, more general public -- at least, not usually in a relatively physical form. In order to stage a war, you will want the general public to support you... And that's when religion can be used as a tool. In my opinion, religion doesn't cause wars; war's are an inevitable aspect of human life. People cause wars.

People of both religion and atheism have done some atrocious things. Atheism is considered a broader belief (oxymoronically), so when an atheist commits something horrible, it's less likely they'll be scrutinized for their atheism -- except probably from some religious people. However, when a religious person commits something horrible, their religion is more susceptable to criticism. As if simply claiming to be religious means you truly represent your religion. It's somewhat of a double standard.

I think it's unfair to hold me even remotely responsible for things like the Crusades or Spanish Inquisition because I believe in a religion. I wasn't alive to see them happen, and even if I were, I probably wouldn't be able to prevent them. And, one could argue that they never would have happened in the first place if religion didn't exist, but because conflict is part of human nature, that's bullshit.

In my opinion, the problem isn't with religion or atheism, it's with people's inability to respect and tolerate eachother.

First of all, I want to clarify something. I am not a positive atheist - meaning I don't assert that no god exists. In response to the major religions, who love to humanize god so that he is created in our oh sorry I mean he created us in his likeness, I am an atheist because I do not believe they can uphold their claims. In response to a god that Gene, my father, and others believe in that I can still only describe as "the force" (Star Wars nerd), I am truly more of an agnostic. But I think in the case of some vague "higher power", in my opinion, Ockham's Razor is applied because we simply do not need such a being or force in order for our lives to make sense or have meaning. But if it gives people hope or whatever they want from it then I don't have a problem, I just don't agree unless they impose their beliefs as I said before.

I disagree that human nature generally leads to wars. In the current state we are living in where we are so incredibly globalized that is indeed the case, and people are frightened of people who are not like them. However, human nature is not naturally one of conflict with those around them, unless they are forced to interact with each other because of overpopulation (say 6.5 billion people in the world might do it). This is not what we are talking about though so I will leave it at that. Again if you want to know where I'm coming from here - Daniel Quinn's Ishmael and Derrick Jensen's Endgame.

I agree war will happen without religion, but does that mean we should continue to let religion be one more reason those in power can use to make us get behind a war that we shouldn't even be involved in. Of course they will find other reasons, but why should we give them one more to use; let alone one that falls so close to many people's hearts and can easily be used to stir them up. I don't think your comment disqualifies things like The Crusades, Spanish Inquisition, or the problems between England and Ireland. Religion was not a motive for people in power to use to gain something they wanted in these examples - at least in my opinion. And even if they were, they had a great deal of public support, and indeed involvement (at least in the former 2) from people who were interested for purely reasons of their religious background. I do think religion was used in things like Iraq and Afghanistan though only as an excuse. Most of the times religion was directly at fault are hundreds of years behind us; the most prominent being Israel vs. entire Middle East nowadays.

I disagree that there is a double standard there. This is because most religions have a holy book. The holy book of a religion is usually considered either god's word itself or as close as it can come. Therefore whatever is written in it is eternal, everlasting, and ever-true. Contained in these books is usually some kind of moral code. This moral code contained in the holy books is then of course the word of god and to be obeyed. A moral code is implicit in every major religion I can think of today. Atheism, however, teaches no such moral code. The only thing that bonds atheists together is the lack of a belief in a god(s). Atheists are free to derive their morals however they see fit. So atheism cannot be attacked as a viewpoint because a couple atheists did some bad things. Religion can (although I'm not saying it should be) be attacked as a viewpoint when their members do bad things because all major religions include some kind of moral guideline. Of course there will always be extremists, but I see so many people that are against things (homosexuality being the first that comes to mind) purely because it says so in their holy book; ironically being the same one that says treat others as you would like to be treated. Of course there are those that consider themselves Christian but do not follow/believe in certain parts of the Bible. However, if we get into that, I have to eventually ask why you are a Christian/Muslim/Jew at all if you pick and choose what to believe in the Bible/Q'uran/Torah.

I'm sorry if you thought I was holding you responsible for those things though. While I think perpetuating institutions that have spawned so much hatred and insanity in the world is a bad idea,but of course I don't hold you responsible for events hundreds of years ago. Don't take anything I'm saying personally unless it is actually directed at you. It isn't that I don't like you; I don't like organized religion; that's what I'm arguing against.

Agreed with everything else.

Sum 41: You said that science requires faith just as religion do. That is completely bunk I have to say. Science is based on repeatability, controls, and if you can objectively prove something. Facts in other words. Religion is based on faith - a belief in something that has no evidence to support it. I'm not saying science is perfect or that it doesn't have problems - it does, but don't go around claiming that people who believe in facts like gravity or evolution have just as much faith as those who think the Tower of Babel is a factually correct story. That's complete bull.

You also claimed that scientists think there is a thing called dark energy/matter. That is correct, but it is not the same as believing in an invisible power. I heard Erkel (sp?) on that old show say something like that he couldn't understand why people don't believe in god because they can't see him, but they believe in atoms (or something) even though they can't see those. The simple reason is because we can observe and test the effects of atoms. We can also tell there is some force that we do not understand yet that is affecting gravity and the other universal forces. They are calling that dark matter/energy. Another analogy is a god whistle. We cannot hear it, but we can tell by blowing it and seeing the effects it has on dogs. This obviously does not require faith, even though it is something we cannot perceive with our own sense. You, however, cannot test the effects of god. Anything most people claim was caused by god can always be explained by material means, and even if it can't yet, the chances are it's just something we don't yet understand. Apply Ockham's Razor and we have no reason to believe in a god that produces no discernible effects.

If you are going to say that what we don't yet understand about the universe is god, then the god you believe in is ultimately equatable to the laws of physics and the universe, and then I don't really see why this debate even matters or why we are having it. It also renders the meaning of god (at least to me) totally meaningless.

Last thing. It is always claimed that there has to be a first creator to have started everything. If he created everything, then what created him.

tl;dr my own post.

Sorry for the long shit lol. I love debating politics/religion/just about anything, and it's a very complex issue. Religion had evolutionary reasons for being created too, but we won't get into that.
 
--------------------

This thread stopped being about Hawking and his new book after about the 2nd post.
 
--------------------

I can agree with you, for the most part. Though, the way you put it seems somewhat lopsided: Why can't they be both? A potential tool and a legitimate faith; human maturity and religious belief?

Perhaps. What I am saying is that we don't HAVE to be religious to be respectful to each other and mature. We can easily do so without it.
 
--------------------

I can agree with you, for the most part. Though, the way you put it seems somewhat lopsided: Why can't they be both? A potential tool and a legitimate faith; human maturity and religious belief?

Perhaps. What I am saying is that we don't HAVE to be religious to be respectful to each other and mature. We can easily do so without it.

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” - Seneca, Roman philosopher, mid 1st century AD

I think this is what Reg is getting at.
 
--------------------

I can agree with you, for the most part. Though, the way you put it seems somewhat lopsided: Why can't they be both? A potential tool and a legitimate faith; human maturity and religious belief?

Perhaps. What I am saying is that we don't HAVE to be religious to be respectful to each other and mature. We can easily do so without it.

I'm curious, how do you think Morality benefits our biologically evolutional process?
 
--------------------
--------- 獅の炎 ----------

----------- 忍☯者 -----------

That's an interesting quote... I can't quite figure out the depth behind "the wise" he's referring to. Is it known whether or not he was implying religion was false?
 
--------------------
--------- 獅の炎 ----------

----------- 忍☯者 -----------