Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Misc Discussion Boards => Religious Debates & Threads => Topic started by: JasonH on November 09, 2006, 06:06:48 AM
-
Let's face it - in the modern society we live in today, religion has no place. Controversial I know, but no matter what religion you look at, it's policies, laws, doctrines and other rules simply have no relevance to modern life.
What good does religion do? It's been the cause of more wars, anger, deaths, bitterness, racism, arguments, and civil unrest than any other factor in human history. The very existence of God has never been proven so why do people believe in something which simply isn't there?
My point is, shouldn't something be done to make the world a better place for all and make any form of false idol worship illegal - that way, there should be no excuse for any more deaths as a result of religion.
There. I've said my piece.
Ban religion. 8)
-
Here are a few commandments from the Christian bible. You don't think they have "relevance to modern life?"
Respect your father and your mother
Do not commit murder.
Do not commit adultery.
Do not steal.
Do not accuse anyone falsely.
Do not desire another man's house; do not desire his wife, or his possessions
-
Yes, those are the basics and that's all fine - I agree with that but what about all the other non-fundamental things that people twist for their own benefits.
Also, that's only the bible you're referring to - a man-made book, just the same as all the other religions have books made by men.
Not worth the paper they're written on.
-
Here are a few commandments from the Christian bible. You don't think they have "relevance to modern life?"
Respect your father and your mother
Do not commit murder.
Do not commit adultery.
Do not steal.
Do not accuse anyone falsely.
Do not desire another man's house; do not desire his wife, or his possessions
Those directives can be found in just about any religion.
-
Those directives can be found in just about any religion.
From 2 to 5 in the list, islam only respects in relation to other muslims. To non-muslims these "rules" can be broken.
Before going off on one, prove me wrong, or don't reply at all.
-
From 2 to 5 in the list, islam only respects in relation to other muslims. To non-muslims these "rules" can be broken.
Before going off on one, prove me wrong, or don't reply at all.
Prove your self right first :P
-
Prove your self right first :P
Dhimmitude is the status that Islamic law, the Sharia, mandates for non-Muslims, primarily Jews and Christians. Dhimmis, "protected people," are free to practice their religion in a Sharia regime, but are made subject to a number of humiliating regulations designed to enforce the Qur'an's command that they "feel themselves subdued" (Sura 9:29). This denial of equality of rights and dignity remains part of the Sharia.
Sharia being the law dictated in the koran. Toxic once incorrectly stated that Sharia law has nothing to do with the koran, until Hedge shot him down.
I could go into each further later on if you wish for me to do so, but I'm busy ATM.
-
western dogmatic religions(ie xtians, jews, muslims) can be great cause 95% of the worlds population breaths through their mouth and needs a cause/effect scenerio (ie heaven/hell) to motivate them not to be shit heads
eastern religions are more concerned with spirituality, that is stripping the mind of subjectivity to see truth more clearly, to me this is the highest pursuit one can have
-
Yes, if there was any religion I were to follow, it would be one of the more intrinsic, spiritual ones - one that doesn't place a god at it's helm.
Nevertheless, I still think religion should be banned.
-
you shouldnt follow anything, thats why we refer to religious people as sheep
-
Baaa.
And Frank, don't think I didn't notice that I did not make your "list" >:( >:( >:(
-
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
HTH
-
Baaa.
And Frank, don't think I didn't notice that I did not make your "list" >:( >:( >:(
thats not true you are on the top of my todo list :D
lol .... seriously what list?
-
Let's face it - in the modern society we live in today, religion has no place. Controversial I know, but no matter what religion you look at, it's policies, laws, doctrines and other rules simply have no relevance to modern life.
What good does religion do? It's been the cause of more wars, anger, deaths, bitterness, racism, arguments, and civil unrest than any other factor in human history. The very existence of God has never been proven so why do people believe in something which simply isn't there?
My point is, shouldn't something be done to make the world a better place for all and make any form of false idol worship illegal - that way, there should be no excuse for any more deaths as a result of religion.
There. I've said my piece.
Ban religion. 8)
This has been attempted before, with disastrous consequences. Communist Russia banned religion. Where are they now?
-
you shouldnt follow anything, thats why we refer to religious people as sheep
According to the Satanic bible, Satan does not want us to follow him, or to follow anything at all, or to do his(Satan's) will.
Satan says "Do as thy will"
-
with the exception of the retarded cult rituals, satanism is one of the most utilitarian ways to live
-
this doesnt prove god, but no proof is depending on what proof you want, empiracal is what your seeking. meta-physics has the best arguments. but for your entertainment here are some quotes from well known scholars who are obviously ignorant because they beleive in a deity. and i never even mentioned einstein.
Fred Hoyle (British astrophysicist): "A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question." (2)
George Ellis (British astrophysicist): "Amazing fine tuning occurs in the laws that make this [complexity] possible. Realization of the complexity of what is accomplished makes it very difficult not to use the word 'miraculous' without taking a stand as to the ontological status of the word." (3)
Paul Davies (British astrophysicist): "There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all....It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe....The impression of design is overwhelming". (4)
Paul Davies: "The laws [of physics] ... seem to be the product of exceedingly ingenious design... The universe must have a purpose". (5)
Alan Sandage (winner of the Crawford prize in astronomy): "I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing." (6)
John O'Keefe (astronomer at NASA): "We are, by astronomical standards, a pampered, cosseted, cherished group of creatures.. .. If the Universe had not been made with the most exacting precision we could never have come into existence. It is my view that these circumstances indicate the universe was created for man to live in." (7)
George Greenstein (astronomer): "As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency - or, rather, Agency - must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?" (8)
Arthur Eddington (astrophysicist): "The idea of a universal mind or Logos would be, I think, a fairly plausible inference from the present state of scientific theory." (9)
Arno Penzias (Nobel prize in physics): "Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say 'supernatural') plan." (10)
Roger Penrose (mathematician and author): "I would say the universe has a purpose. It's not there just somehow by chance." (11)
Tony Rothman (physicist): "When confronted with the order and beauty of the universe and the strange coincidences of nature, it's very tempting to take the leap of faith from science into religion. I am sure many physicists want to. I only wish they would admit it." (12)
Vera Kistiakowsky (MIT physicist): "The exquisite order displayed by our scientific understanding of the physical world calls for the divine." (13)
Robert Jastrow (self-proclaimed agnostic): "For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries." (14)
Stephen Hawking (British astrophysicist): "Then we shall… be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason - for then we would know the mind of God." (15)
Frank Tipler (Professor of Mathematical Physics): "When I began my career as a cosmologist some twenty years ago, I was a convinced atheist. I never in my wildest dreams imagined that one day I would be writing a book purporting to show that the central claims of Judeo-Christian theology are in fact true, that these claims are straightforward deductions of the laws of physics as we now understand them. I have been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable logic of my own special branch of physics." (16)
Alexander Polyakov (Soviet mathematician): "We know that nature is described by the best of all possible mathematics because God created it."(17)
Ed Harrison (cosmologist): "Here is the cosmological proof of the existence of God – the design argument of Paley – updated and refurbished. The fine tuning of the universe provides prima facie evidence of deistic design. Take your choice: blind chance that requires multitudes of universes or design that requires only one.... Many scientists, when they admit their views, incline toward the teleological or design argument." (18)
Edward Milne (British cosmologist): "As to the cause of the Universe, in context of expansion, that is left for the reader to insert, but our picture is incomplete without Him [God]." (19)
Barry Parker (cosmologist): "Who created these laws? There is no question but that a God will always be needed." (20)
Drs. Zehavi, and Dekel (cosmologists): "This type of universe, however, seems to require a degree of fine tuning of the initial conditions that is in apparent conflict with 'common wisdom'." (21)
Arthur L. Schawlow (Professor of Physics at Stanford University, 1981 Nobel Prize in physics): "It seems to me that when confronted with the marvels of life and the universe, one must ask why and not just how. The only possible answers are religious. . . . I find a need for God in the universe and in my own life." (22)
Henry "Fritz" Schaefer (Graham Perdue Professor of Chemistry and director of the Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry at the University of Georgia): "The significance and joy in my science comes in those occasional moments of discovering something new and saying to myself, 'So that's how God did it.' My goal is to understand a little corner of God's plan." (23)
Wernher von Braun (Pioneer rocket engineer) "I find it as difficult to understand a scientist who does not acknowledge the presence of a superior rationality behind the existence of the universe as it is to comprehend a theologian who would deny the advances of science." (24)
Carl Woese (microbiologist from the University of Illinois) "Life in Universe - rare or unique? I walk both sides of that street. One day I can say that given the 100 billion stars in our galaxy and the 100 billion or more galaxies, there have to be some planets that formed and evolved in ways very, very like the Earth has, and so would contain microbial life at least. There are other days when I say that the anthropic principal, which makes this universe a special one out of an uncountably large number of universes, may not apply only to that aspect of nature we define in the realm of physics, but may extend to chemistry and biology. In that case life on Earth could be entirely unique." (25)
Antony Flew (Professor of Philosophy, former atheist, author, and debater) "It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design." (26)
and one last one would be from steve weinberg regarding some of the atheists "most people are not entitled to be atheists because they havent thought enough about the matter". you must provide evidence that atheism is correct for it to be a suple counterargument, saying matter is all that is without adressing some of the arguments is ridiculous.
-
the problem i see is that science deals with efficient causes while meta-physics, philosophy and thinking deals with final causes in which arguments can be made. i view science as a part of gods plan, so knowing god fully is to know his creation. athiesm is an abberation of the highest order, you must fight your general inclinations to be one, god is imprinted in your body, maybe as a grieving or coping mechanism but the general thought that someone "else" exsists is inherent, as cultures of varying geography show deity worship with no coercion. you must ask ontological questions to arrive at god or no god, something i dont think many people have done so they dont have the right to claim association with a particular sect. like christians who dont read the bible but say they are christian but dont know the ideals, they have no right to dilute the culture, much like alot of people. you may be qualified to speculate but to say there is no evidence when atheism sole mechanism for creation is chance has been shown to be improbable. both require faith, but alot of people dont see this, no proof for god but science, but yet why is the world rational and able to be deciphered at all? why do psychical researchers point to the supernatural? and many other questions. quantum physices shows that this world is mere probabilties until the obersever selects a particular one 'non-locality". many things point to god and many dont, i guess it boils down into what you accept as accurate and what you accept as untrue.
neo, if you would what are you thoughts on non-locality and quantum entanglement(not what it is, i know this, but what is your interpretation of the results). if no one wants to hear this shit i wont respond to the thread again. i have hijacked a few threads of religion with science so i apoligize to the people who want to argue christianity etc.
i dont know much about the bible, but isnt there alot of facts of science in it that are astounding, for instance doenst it imply that the earth is held by nothing and is round much before the discovery etc. loco might know something about this, i think prophecy is the best way to verify the bibles veracity overall.
-
if you cant make your point in a few lines youre probably rationalizing some bullshit :)
-
one point doesnt hold much water, but a bunch of points do. couldnt make it any shorter.
-
Here are a few commandments from the Christian bible. You don't think they have "relevance to modern life?"
Respect your father and your mother
Do not commit murder.
Do not commit adultery.
Do not steal.
Do not accuse anyone falsely.
Do not desire another man's house; do not desire his wife, or his possessions
people new this before the bible was written ::)
-
people new this before the bible was written ::)
but no matter what religion you look at, it's policies, laws, doctrines and other rules simply have no relevance to modern life.
This is what I was referring to BB. Did you read BigJ's first post?
-
This is what I was referring to BB. Did you read BigJ's first post?
no
if a post is more than 3 lines and i just guess what it's about :D
-
no
if a post is more than 3 lines and i just guess what it's about :D
OK then, I won't have to thrash you for using the rolling eyes smiley against me >:(
-
OK then, I won't have to thrash you for using the rolling eyes smiley against me >:(
;D
::)
-
>:(
-
: + : + ) = ::)
-
lol
stella is a bully!
-
this doesnt prove god, but no proof is depending on what proof you want, empiracal is what your seeking. meta-physics has the best arguments. but for your entertainment here are some quotes from well known scholars who are obviously ignorant because they beleive in a deity. and i never even mentioned einstein.
Fred Hoyle (British astrophysicist): "A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question." (2)
George Ellis (British astrophysicist): "Amazing fine tuning occurs in the laws that make this [complexity] possible. Realization of the complexity of what is accomplished makes it very difficult not to use the word 'miraculous' without taking a stand as to the ontological status of the word." (3)
Paul Davies (British astrophysicist): "There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all....It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe....The impression of design is overwhelming". (4)
Paul Davies: "The laws [of physics] ... seem to be the product of exceedingly ingenious design... The universe must have a purpose". (5)
Alan Sandage (winner of the Crawford prize in astronomy): "I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing." (6)
John O'Keefe (astronomer at NASA): "We are, by astronomical standards, a pampered, cosseted, cherished group of creatures.. .. If the Universe had not been made with the most exacting precision we could never have come into existence. It is my view that these circumstances indicate the universe was created for man to live in." (7)
George Greenstein (astronomer): "As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency - or, rather, Agency - must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?" (8)
Arthur Eddington (astrophysicist): "The idea of a universal mind or Logos would be, I think, a fairly plausible inference from the present state of scientific theory." (9)
Arno Penzias (Nobel prize in physics): "Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say 'supernatural') plan." (10)
Roger Penrose (mathematician and author): "I would say the universe has a purpose. It's not there just somehow by chance." (11)
Tony Rothman (physicist): "When confronted with the order and beauty of the universe and the strange coincidences of nature, it's very tempting to take the leap of faith from science into religion. I am sure many physicists want to. I only wish they would admit it." (12)
Vera Kistiakowsky (MIT physicist): "The exquisite order displayed by our scientific understanding of the physical world calls for the divine." (13)
Robert Jastrow (self-proclaimed agnostic): "For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries." (14)
Stephen Hawking (British astrophysicist): "Then we shall… be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason - for then we would know the mind of God." (15)
Frank Tipler (Professor of Mathematical Physics): "When I began my career as a cosmologist some twenty years ago, I was a convinced atheist. I never in my wildest dreams imagined that one day I would be writing a book purporting to show that the central claims of Judeo-Christian theology are in fact true, that these claims are straightforward deductions of the laws of physics as we now understand them. I have been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable logic of my own special branch of physics." (16)
Alexander Polyakov (Soviet mathematician): "We know that nature is described by the best of all possible mathematics because God created it."(17)
Ed Harrison (cosmologist): "Here is the cosmological proof of the existence of God – the design argument of Paley – updated and refurbished. The fine tuning of the universe provides prima facie evidence of deistic design. Take your choice: blind chance that requires multitudes of universes or design that requires only one.... Many scientists, when they admit their views, incline toward the teleological or design argument." (18)
Edward Milne (British cosmologist): "As to the cause of the Universe, in context of expansion, that is left for the reader to insert, but our picture is incomplete without Him [God]." (19)
Barry Parker (cosmologist): "Who created these laws? There is no question but that a God will always be needed." (20)
Drs. Zehavi, and Dekel (cosmologists): "This type of universe, however, seems to require a degree of fine tuning of the initial conditions that is in apparent conflict with 'common wisdom'." (21)
Arthur L. Schawlow (Professor of Physics at Stanford University, 1981 Nobel Prize in physics): "It seems to me that when confronted with the marvels of life and the universe, one must ask why and not just how. The only possible answers are religious. . . . I find a need for God in the universe and in my own life." (22)
Henry "Fritz" Schaefer (Graham Perdue Professor of Chemistry and director of the Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry at the University of Georgia): "The significance and joy in my science comes in those occasional moments of discovering something new and saying to myself, 'So that's how God did it.' My goal is to understand a little corner of God's plan." (23)
Wernher von Braun (Pioneer rocket engineer) "I find it as difficult to understand a scientist who does not acknowledge the presence of a superior rationality behind the existence of the universe as it is to comprehend a theologian who would deny the advances of science." (24)
Carl Woese (microbiologist from the University of Illinois) "Life in Universe - rare or unique? I walk both sides of that street. One day I can say that given the 100 billion stars in our galaxy and the 100 billion or more galaxies, there have to be some planets that formed and evolved in ways very, very like the Earth has, and so would contain microbial life at least. There are other days when I say that the anthropic principal, which makes this universe a special one out of an uncountably large number of universes, may not apply only to that aspect of nature we define in the realm of physics, but may extend to chemistry and biology. In that case life on Earth could be entirely unique." (25)
Antony Flew (Professor of Philosophy, former atheist, author, and debater) "It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design." (26)
and one last one would be from steve weinberg regarding some of the atheists "most people are not entitled to be atheists because they havent thought enough about the matter". you must provide evidence that atheism is correct for it to be a suple counterargument, saying matter is all that is without adressing some of the arguments is ridiculous.
This might indicate the existence of a "higher being", yet you do nothing to prove that a spesific religion is the "right one". In fact, it does nothing to help any religion.
Denying the possibility of a higher being is just as stupid as believing in one blindly.
Good post.
-
Too many fucking idiots out there who don't understand. They'd much rather except creation from supernatural beings, rather then being rational and seeing fact.
These are the same assholes who don't mind reaping the benefits of scientific advancement while still giving their loyalty away to supernatural figures.
A lot of people will not abandon their religion simply because they feel it's a part of their culture and to abandon it would be to abandon their culture.
-
camel jockey you are clearly ignorant do you know of the multiple nobel laureates and scientific giants that beleived in a god. you should do some reading and what "facts" are you talking about, this should be good. atheism rests on chance which is more then improbable, but theism rests on intuition an equally improbable position, i just think you have to read all the arguments and ask the ontological questions before you state the "facts"
tell me what ARE THE FACTS PLEASE.
debuessy, you are right, i think there is abundant evidence from, cosmology, philosophy, meta-physics and molecular biology pointing towards a god, but i dont think any religion truly reflects this god. i forgot to mention the rising field of parapsychology which will in a couple of years once greysons verifiable study on nde's is done finally put to be the naysayers. carl sagan an atheist even eluded to this field and said particular sections need to be taken seriously. the problem with it is is that the phenomenon happen, but we dont have a clue how memories could be stored while in comatose states or any perceptions for that matter etc. i believe there is a creator, just not the guy in the robe with a beard.
-
FACTS PLEASE!! ::)
-
Here are a few commandments from the Christian bible. You don't think they have "relevance to modern life?"
Respect your father and your mother
Do not commit murder.
Do not commit adultery.
Do not steal.
Do not accuse anyone falsely.
Do not desire another man's house; do not desire his wife, or his possessions
These are common values.
Don't make them out to be Christian, Muslim or whatever.
If you find a tribe out in the woods, you will see that these people also respect their mother and father, they do not steal, they do not fcuk around, et al.
Why? They are not part of some major world religion, still they are following rules that most of us recognizes. Again, why? Because these rules are most effiecient to make a society work.
YIP
Zack
-
These are common values.
Don't make them out to be Christian, Muslim or whatever.
If you find a tribe out in the woods, you will see that these people also respect their mother and father, they do not steal, they do not fcuk around, et al.
Why? They are not part of some major world religion, still they are following rules that most of us recognizes. Again, why? Because these rules are most effiecient to make a society work.
YIP
Zack
Zack, did you see the post to which I was responding?
Also, yes, these ARE a part of Christianity. Whether they are "common values" or not does not exclude them from being a part of Christianity.
-
Zack, did you see the post to which I was responding?
Also, yes, these ARE a part of Christianity. Whether they are "common values" or not does not exclude them from being a part of Christianity.
You brought up them as Christian commandments, in an argument about whether religions should be banned or not.
I pointed out that the rules would still exist whether or not Christianity existed.
The evidence being that those tribes uses similar rules without embracing Christianity.
I think you need to find better arguments, other than the ethical values (they clearly exists without religion), for religions to be allowed.
And I believe there are many, freedom of speech for one.
YIP
Zack
-
Controversial I know, but no matter what religion you look at, it's policies, laws, doctrines and other rules simply have no relevance to modern life.
The "relevance to modern life" was the part I was addressing.
-
camel jockey you are clearly ignorant do you know of the multiple nobel laureates and scientific giants that beleived in a god. you should do some reading and what "facts" are you talking about, this should be good. atheism rests on chance which is more then improbable, but theism rests on intuition an equally improbable position, i just think you have to read all the arguments and ask the ontological questions before you state the "facts"
tell me what ARE THE FACTS PLEASE.
This thread is about banning religion and not about banning people from believing in a supernatural creator.
How does atheism rest on something that's improbable? Truth is that atheism rests on something that is probable. It rests on the fact that there is no evidence of a supreme creator other then stories and fairytales; while theism just assumes that there must be one to answer the ultimate questions to life and the universe.The whole concept of theism and religon rests on pure speculation. While atheism rests on science and acknowledging what we know through science.
And stop telling people to dissprove God, can't dissprove something that has never been proven! Atheism has never seriously hurt anyone, it's just open-minded people who don't believe in god or supernatural forces, that's pretty much it. So why are you always out to attack atheists and agnostics? Show's that you're a dumbass who wants to enforce his false ideals on others.
Remember one thing, this thread is about banning religion, not belief in a supreme creator. The world would honestly be better off without the Abrahamic relions imo.
-
Camel Jockey you have pretty much summed up what I was trying to say when I started this thread - you are correct in everything you say in the above post (in my opinion at least).
I personally don't have a problem with people worshipping something / someone they see as supernatural or celestial or greater than themselves.
What I do have a problem with is people extending these beliefs and twisting them to such an extent that they are contorted beyond recognition in order to please their own views on life and empower themsleves over others. That's when the problems start and divisions occur in society. Hell, even practitioners of the worlds major religions cannot agree on some things - look at the differences between shia and sunni muslims, the differences betwen catholics and protestants. The list goes on.
People should be left to worship in their own personal and private way if they choose to do so. religion should remain just that - a personal and private thing and the world should not be governed by sets of principles, doctrines and rules which do nothing to help the world as a whole and its people come together.
Once again, ban organised religion or at the very least, reduce its contol or stranglehold over the worlds people.
-
This thread is about banning religion and not about banning people from believing in a supernatural creator.
How does atheism rest on something that's improbable? Truth is that atheism rests on something that is probable. It rests on the fact that there is no evidence of a supreme creator other then stories and fairytales; while theism just assumes that there must be one to answer the ultimate questions to life and the universe.The whole concept of theism and religon rests on pure speculation. While atheism rests on science and acknowledging what we know through science.
And stop telling people to dissprove God, can't dissprove something that has never been proven! Atheism has never seriously hurt anyone, it's just open-minded people who don't believe in god or supernatural forces, that's pretty much it. So why are you always out to attack atheists and agnostics? Show's that you're a dumbass who wants to enforce his false ideals on others.
Remember one thing, this thread is about banning religion, not belief in a supreme creator. The world would honestly be better off without the Abrahamic relions imo.
for one you dont even know what atheism is, it is a philosophy it juxtaposition to theism. it has nothing to do with science as so far in as theism does. you just think that science has proven no god based on your statements. you said there was FACTS, meaning it is a fact that god does not exsist, you are ignorant beyond beleif. you cannot prove the negative i never proposed that you did with your facts and you supplied none. my attacks are against people like you who think atheism is for open-minded people if you were truly open minded and looked are parapsychology, meta physics and philosophy and came out with your faith intact then i would take you more seriously. do you know that quantum physics, shows that everything is everywere and anywere all at once, that is there is only ONE, this is called quantum entanglement and can be proven over and over. this doesnt prove god but shakes reality for folks, especially since sentience is what selects the probabilities, in which life truly is. that is the observer makes wave functions of probabilty act as particles, as exemplified by the slit experiment.
what is outside the universe?
what made the big bang happen, what made it change?
why is there even something?
why can we make sense of the world? stop and think about this one before you make a stupid comment, if we evolved the brain power to make sense of the rational world then rationality was there before, why is this world rational
im asking meta physical questions, and logic answers them somewhat, but for the most part they are unanswerable by science, so enter atheism and theism both faiths to answer them, i say god you could say matter.
everything you said was wrong. how is atheism probable it has to deal with the same questions as theism, and has to answer these questions. science searchs for explanations and says everything has explanations, so what is the explanation, for say, what is outside the universe, this is a serious cosmological question people are trying to adress. time is a product of the universe, so outside it time may not exsist, hence no need for cause, if time doesnt exsist it is always, hence hawkings imaginary time,which is a farce.
thing is i have a idea what im talking about you dont even realize atheism is a philosophy. and linking it to science as can theism(which does a better job) ie consciousness, anthropomorphic arguments, shows your ignorance. i dont mind arguing with pantheist or monist because they have a better ground to stand on.
-
The great thing about religion in this country is it is purely voluntary. You don't have to attend church. You don't have to watch or listen to religious programming. You don't have to pay taxes to support religion. You don't have to put your kids in parochial school. You don't have to make charitable donations. You don't have to buy religious books, movies, etc. You can simply ignore it.
Or you can do all of the above (except for taxes). What's the big deal?
-
the big deal is that some people are ignorant and think that religion is a disease, when in fact it does much personal good and on an individual level promotes positive actions. groupthink may preside sometimes however causing people who are irrational to be irrational and have justification. i dont beleive in the bible however, i just beleive there is a creator, not of spinoza's fame however, a personal creator. but if anyone who beleives in the bible has solid evidence id love to read it.
-
atheism can be a offshoot of materialism i suppose but you can be a spiritual atheist in a sense, that is towards a personal god. but science has nothing to do with either position and to only study science as basis of your beleifs is like trying to get a hotdog stuck in a hallway. science is perhaps a part of it, but the smallest part by my estimation. antony flew WAS an ATHEIST PHILOSOPHER, atheism is a philosophy.
-
atheism can be a offshoot of materialism i suppose but you can be a spiritual atheist in a sense, that is towards a personal god. but science has nothing to do with either position and to only study science as basis of your beleifs is like trying to get a hotdog stuck in a hallway. science is perhaps a part of it, but the smallest part by my estimation. antony flew WAS an ATHEIST PHILOSOPHER, atheism is a philosophy.
Atheism is simply not believing in deities and the supernatural, it is not a philosophy.. Although there are atheist philosophers.
I guess if you are an atheist you can argue with materialistic views to make your points. I was using science to justify what I believe and don't belive, because I said I believe in things that can be scientifically proven. And so far to me and a lot of others god cannot be proven scientifically.
You go on and on about different scienctific theories, yet you can't explain how they prove the existence of a god. You say they shake your reality, but again they do not prove the existence of a fucking god.
The bottom line here is that you are still speculating and theorizing, and that my friend is not fact.
If you want to explain to us how god exists, then by all means do so. I am not closed to my view points being changed. This time please bother to explain just how these sciences explain the existence of a god. Okay?
I just happen to think meainstream religion is stupid, but I don't have a problem with spirituality or people believing in a creator.
-
awesome then i can work with it, i have already stated numerous times that i cannot prove empirically that god exsists, i can provide probable evidence, through quantum physics, like the tao of physics etc. i too am against organized religion, but there has to be divine intervention, either theistic or monistic. monism is hard to dispell, but i think atheism is wrong as i showed in the avant thread. but no i cannot prove through science, philosophy or metaphysics that god does exsist, a final leap of faith in theism or atheism is always necessary, but what is more likely. the anthropic principles if lectured by the right person are strong arguments for theism in science.
seriously if you want to read a book since you have an open mind about the topic pick up wonder of the world by varghese
nobel lauretes and the worlds most famous atheist hail it(he was converted by it) as the turning point in the debate.
http://www.thewonderoftheworld.com/Sections-print-article10.html
read it if you would like a great book that may change your outlook, you seem open minded, i am to also, i was an atheist then people gave me monist arguments which seemed better then i converged on thesim, but not religion per se. have an open mind about the book, it is a dialogue between varghese and a secular atheist(a real dialouge put in print) so it is a great style as he asks the questions from all arenas you would ask as an atheist.
anyway i cant prove it, but there is evidence for it, that book is the best place, i cant write them all out.
-
The very existence of God has never been proven so why do people believe in something which simply isn't there?
you say the existence of God has never been proven. prove to me he doesn't exist. I want you to convince me.
what as given you evidence which makes you believe He "isn't there". sometime in your life someone has told you God doesn't exist and you believed it. my question is why???
ban religion??? good luck.
i'm not religious, i just love God.
-
in the modern society we live in today, religion has no place.
simply have no relevance to modern life.
What good does religion do?
Ban religion.
BigJ,
What about Christianity's significant impact in the development of modern science?
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity#Development_of_Modern_Science
Development of Modern Science:
The biblical world view has had a significant impact in the development of science. Professor Mehdi Golshani connotates a connection between a belief in the Biblical God and scientific breakthroughs by stating that Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Boyle, Newton and many other founders of science were all devout Christians. Western Science was largely constructed within the framework of a Christian world view, and was influenced by the following Biblical concepts:
"The conception of an omniscient and omnipotent personal God, Who made everything in accordance with a rational plan and purpose, contributed to the notion of a rationally structured creation."
"The notion of a transcendent God, Who exists separate from His creation, served to counter the notion that the physical world, or any part of it, is sacred. Since the entire physical world is a mere creation, it was thus a fit object of study and transformation."
"Since man was made in the image of God (Gen.1:26), which included rationality and creativity, it was deemed possible that man could discern the rational structure of the physical universe that God had made."
"The cultural mandate, which appointed man to be God's steward over creation (Gen1:28), provided the motivation for studying nature and for applying that study towards practical ends, at the same glorifying God for His wisdom and goodness."
-
Let's face it - in the modern society we live in today, religion has no place. Controversial I know, but no matter what religion you look at, it's policies, laws, doctrines and other rules simply have no relevance to modern life.
What good does religion do? It's been the cause of more wars, anger, deaths, bitterness, racism, arguments, and civil unrest than any other factor in human history. The very existence of God has never been proven so why do people believe in something which simply isn't there?
My point is, shouldn't something be done to make the world a better place for all and make any form of false idol worship illegal - that way, there should be no excuse for any more deaths as a result of religion.
There. I've said my piece.
Ban religion. 8)
BigJ,
What about the hundreds of thousands of orphans, widows, homeless, poor, sick and catastrophe victims that have been fed, sheltered, rescued, helped, educated, comforted, consoled by the many Christian individuals, such as George Muller, and Christian organizations, such as the Salvation Army, throughout many many years?
Are you ready to tell these people "Religion is now banned, thus Christianity is now banned. Therefore, I'll be taking care of your needs from now on."?
What about the tsunami victims and the Katrina victims who were helped by Christians in the form of money, food, shelter, counseling? God forbid, one day you may find yourself a victim of a catastrophe and you will be the recipient of Christian help.
I personally know a Katrina victim who is not a Christian. She evacuated her home in the southern coast of the US because of Katrina. When she came back, the entire building where she lived was gone. Then entire building where she worked was gone. She was forced to move to the north of the US with her little girl where they experienced many hardships. Now she lives in an apartment, given to her and rent paid for by a Christian organization. She is now going to school so that she can get a good job and get back on her feet.
-
These people you mention are good people but not necessarily because religion has made them that way - they would still be good people regardless.
What about the tsunami victims and hurricane Katrina victims - they are helped by groups other than Christian associations - like Medecins sans Frontieres, the Red Cross, and Oxfam. These are charities which are not guided by religion.
If religion was banned like I want it to be, then these groups would still exist in numbers - maybe even more so, because their work wouldn't be clouded by their beliefs, because beliefs in Gods regardless of religion still produce prejudices and discrimination. The groups would just exist under a different name, in a different form. But they would still be there. Because genuine good people are drawn to these groups and there will always be volunteers regardless of what they believe in.
-
These people you mention are good people but not necessarily because religion has made them that way - they would still be good people regardless.
Far from the truth. Most Christians were not good people to begin with, but were transformed by the changing power of Jesus Christ. George Muller was a scum bag, no good for society until he became a Christian. Read this:
Before accepting Jesus Christ as his Lord and Saviour:
"A few solemn thoughts and desires to lead a better life came to him, but he continued to plunge deeper and deeper into sin. Lying, stealing, gambling, novel-reading, licentiousness, extravagance, and almost every form of sin was indulged in by him. No one would have imagined that the sinful youth would ever become eminent for his faith in God and for his power in prayer. He robbed his father of certain rents which his father had entrusted him to collect, falsifying the accounts of what he had received and pocketing the balance. His money was spent on sinful pleasures, and once he was reduced to such poverty that, in order to satisfy his hunger, he stole a piece of coarse bread, the allowance of a soldier who was quartered in the house where he was. In 1821 he set off on an excursion to Magdeburg, where he spent six days in "much sin." He then went to Brunswick, and put up at an expensive hotel until his money was exhausted. He then put up at a fine hotel in a neighboring village, intending to defraud the hotel-keeper. But his best clothes were taken in lieu of what he owed. He then walked six miles to another inn, where he was arrested for trying to defraud the landlord. He was imprisoned for this crime when sixteen years of age.
After his imprisonment young Muller returned to his home and received a severe thrashing from his angry father. He remained as sinful in heart as ever, but in order to regain his father's confidence he began to lead a very exemplary life outwardly, until he had the confidence of all around him. His father decided to send him to the classical school at Halle, where the discipline was very strict, but George had no intention of going there. He went to Nordhausen instead, and by using many lies and entreaties persuaded his father to allow him to remain there for two years and six months, till Easter, 1825. Here he studied diligently, was held up as an example to the other students, and became proficient in Latin, French, History, and his own language (German). "But whilst I was outwardly gaining the esteem of my fellow-creatures," says he, "I did not care in the least about God, but lived secretly in much sin, in consequence of which I was taken ill, and for thirteen weeks confined to my room. All this time I had no real sorrow of heart, yet being under certain natural impressions of religion, I read through Klopstock's works, without weariness. I cared nothing about the Word of God."
After accepting Jesus Christ as his Lord and Saviour:
"Now my life became very different, though not so, that my sins were all given up at once. My wicked companions were given up; the going to taverns was discontinued; the habitual practice of telling falsehoods was no longer indulged in, but still a few times more I spoke an untruth... I now no longer lived habitually in sin, though I was still often overcome and sometimes even by open sins, though far less frequently than before, and not without sorrow of heart. I read the Scriptures, prayed often, loved the brethren, went to church from right motives and stood on the side of Christ, though laughed at by my fellow students.
Greatest of all Muller's undertakings was the erection and maintenance of the great orphanages at Bristol. He began the undertaking with only two shillings (50 cents) in his pocket; but in answer to prayer and without making his needs known to human beings, he received the means necessary to erect the great buildings and to feed the orphans day by day for sixty years. In all that time the children did not have to go without a meal, and Mr. Muller said that if they ever had to go without a meal he would take it as evidence that the Lord did not will the work to continue. Sometimes the meal time was almost at hand and they did not know where the food would come from, but the Lord always sent it in due time, during the twenty thousand or more days that Mr. Muller had charge of the homes. "
http://www.wholesomewords.org/biography/bmuller2.html
-
Booo!
-
Let's face it - in the modern society we live in today, religion has no place. Controversial I know, but no matter what religion you look at, it's policies, laws, doctrines and other rules simply have no relevance to modern life.
What good does religion do? It's been the cause of more wars, anger, deaths, bitterness, racism, arguments, and civil unrest than any other factor in human history. The very existence of God has never been proven so why do people believe in something which simply isn't there?
My point is, shouldn't something be done to make the world a better place for all and make any form of false idol worship illegal - that way, there should be no excuse for any more deaths as a result of religion.
There. I've said my piece.
Ban religion. 8)
Good concept, but religion is too much of a big-money industry at this point. No one wants their cash cow killed, so they'll fight to the death to perpetuate it.
-
i dont know much about the bible, but isnt there alot of facts of science in it that are astounding, for instance doenst it imply that the earth is held by nothing and is round much before the discovery etc. loco might know something about this, i think prophecy is the best way to verify the bibles veracity overall.
Yes. At the time when these were written, people believed that the earth was flat and that it was held up by four elephants or by Atlas.
Isaiah 40:22
"It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:"
Proverbs 8:27
"When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth:"
Job 26:7
"He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing."
-
Wow, some of you get this im sure, but most seem to miss it- RELIGION DOES MORE GOOD THAN BAD! It has more to do with positive things, being a good person, helping the less fortunate, helping ourselves etc. Religion is not good, it's great, and without it this world would fall apart into chaos and mayhem. Look back at sodom and gomora! Do any of you realize just how incredibly fragile our "civilized" society is? Trust me, we are at all times on the brink of total disorder in society, look at what happened during the katrina crisis!
-
Wow, some of you get this im sure, but most seem to miss it- RELIGION DOES MORE GOOD THAN BAD! It has more to do with positive things, being a good person, helping the less fortunate, helping ourselves etc. Religion is not good, it's great, and without it this world would fall apart into chaos and mayhem. Look back at sodom and gomora! Do any of you realize just how incredibly fragile our "civilized" society is? Trust me, we are at all times on the brink of total disorder in society, look at what happened during the katrina crisis!
Good post!
-
Let's face it - in the modern society we live in today, religion has no place. Controversial I know, but no matter what religion you look at, it's policies, laws, doctrines and other rules simply have no relevance to modern life.
What good does religion do? It's been the cause of more wars, anger, deaths, bitterness, racism, arguments, and civil unrest than any other factor in human history. The very existence of God has never been proven so why do people believe in something which simply isn't there?
My point is, shouldn't something be done to make the world a better place for all and make any form of false idol worship illegal - that way, there should be no excuse for any more deaths as a result of religion.
There. I've said my piece.
Ban religion. 8)
It's a moot point in the United States given the Bill of Rights (for which you could never get political support to modify).
-
Wow, some of you get this im sure, but most seem to miss it- RELIGION DOES MORE GOOD THAN BAD!
How do you know?
A lot of wars are started and currently going on based on religion.
So what evidence do you have that religion does more good than bad?
Look back at sodom and gomora!
You know that there is no evidence that Sodom and Gomorrah existed, right?
-Hedge
-
How do you know?
A lot of wars are started and currently going on based on religion. I thought wars were based on oil and money? Suddenly it's religion? Noone has a straight answer, the crusades were the last religous wars that I can think of. MOst wars now are political.
So what evidence do you have that religion does more good than bad? Most childrens relief funds are christian based, and the US, a christian country, sends more food and other aid to failing countries than most other countries combined.
You know that there is no evidence that Sodom and Gomorrah existed, right? Uh yeah, God destroyed it. WHat do you expect, a granite monument out in the desert?
-Hedge
-
religious principles are the most good natured principles i can think of. secular humanism pales in comparison. people do bad things, and bad things in the name of religion, but true esoteric truth and religious teachings are pure. i could go kill my mother and say it was for jesus, that isnt bad religion, thats bad person. people keep getting the two mixed up, read some real religious teaching.
-
religious principles are the most good natured principles i can think of. secular humanism pales in comparison. people do bad things, and bad things in the name of religion, but true esoteric truth and religious teachings are pure. i could go kill my mother and say it was for jesus, that isnt bad religion, thats bad person. people keep getting the two mixed up, read some real religious teaching.
+1
-
I thought wars were based on oil and money? Suddenly it's religion? Noone has a straight answer, the crusades were the last religous wars that I can think of. MOst wars now are political.
Conflicts evolving around religion (current), naming a few: Sudan, Algeria, Sri Lanka, Indonesia, India-Pakistan, Tibet, Nepal, Israel/Palestine...
That's just on top of my head, I'm sure there are more.
And that's what's currently going on - between now and the crusades, there's been lots of religiously based conflicts.
BTW, I recommend a book called The Clash of Civilizations, by Samuel P Huntington, he predicted back in the 90's, that the conflict between Islam and the Western World would follow the East-West conflict.
-Hedge
-
Let's face it - in the modern society we live in today, religion has no place. Controversial I know, but no matter what religion you look at, it's policies, laws, doctrines and other rules simply have no relevance to modern life.
What good does religion do? It's been the cause of more wars, anger, deaths, bitterness, racism, arguments, and civil unrest than any other factor in human history. The very existence of God has never been proven so why do people believe in something which simply isn't there?
My point is, shouldn't something be done to make the world a better place for all and make any form of false idol worship illegal - that way, there should be no excuse for any more deaths as a result of religion.
There. I've said my piece.
Ban religion. 8)
The reasons why religion isn't banned is because it is a mix of too many contradictions and the world that exists is based on devilish doctrines and the end of spiritual evil is so far behind schedule that I still have not forgotten the uneventful year 2000 TWO THOUSAND ZERO.
Why should anybody keep counting the years after the first year 2000 since we are sitting in this late hate date in another new year of January :-\ :(
-
I believe that religion is like Mapquest. it can help guide you to get to spiritual equilibrium, but like Mapquest, you can take some wrong turns, because it not entirely 100% correct. Religion can be a good or a bad thing, it just relys on the hearts of men and women to make it either. It is Human beings due to their arrogance/ignorance factor , plus egotism that messes up Religion.
-
Wow, some of you get this im sure, but most seem to miss it- RELIGION DOES MORE GOOD THAN BAD!
No sir.
-
religious principles are the most good natured principles i can think of. secular humanism pales in comparison. people do bad things, and bad things in the name of religion, but true esoteric truth and religious teachings are pure. i could go kill my mother and say it was for jesus, that isnt bad religion, thats bad person. people keep getting the two mixed up, read some real religious teaching.
Good post!
-
We are in a time that was prophesied and soon enough the Author of this thread will soon have his wish.False religion has been a scourge on mankind,and the governments and authorities wont tolerate religious wars for too much longer..