I am an Atheist. I don't believe in God. Or other religions, for that matter. They were all written by MEN thousands (or perhaps hundreds, or less) of years ago to explain the unexplainable. But now, there is a thing called science, which has actual proof. Yet, for some reason, people can't seem to let go of Religion.

This thread is for all of the non-religious people out there to state their opinions on religion, and such (although, everyone is welcome to say whatever they want, really). I would like to know how others feel about religion (which i personally hate, although i do not hate religious people), death, and so on.


Religion: Way to long to say here. But briefly: I don't like it, and I will be the first to say that it is a bunch of man-made crap. Not going to go on much longer about it, because many, many people will start screaming about how i am wrong, blah, blah, blah. But I would like to say that I am not in anyway hateful towards relgious people, and I do not perform (or condone) acts of hate against religous people.

On death: I believe that when we die, we rot in the ground. We have no souls. The only thing that makes us unique is our brain. Yet, I am not scared of dying. Sure, I don't like pain, and many ways of dying are painful, but death itself isn't that scary. I also don't believe in reincarnation, or afterlife, or anything. It just seems too irrealistic.

Anyways, I would like to here other peoples' opinions, particularly why they do or do notlike religion, and what they think about death.

[ October 10, 2005, 19:01: Message edited by: Saber the Arsonist ]

I'm not an atheist; if anything, I'm nominally a Uniting Church Christian. Essentially, I like the core ideas of just about every religion (the whole "be-nice-to-each-other" stuff) and believe very strongly that without a spiritual dimension to life, things tend to lose meaning outside of a purely utilitarian perspective. That's no way to "live" - it's a way to survive.

I don't agree with the exclusivity granted to humans by some religions; I think that in the end, we're mostly just meat, bones, chemicals and a few volts running around in search of a purpose. It's that last part - and the whole element of abstract thought - which makes religion (of some kind) so important, in my view. A human being is not really a person without some spiritual dimension, IMO. Whether that's God or someone/something else is up to them.

My gripe is with organised religious hierarchies and the misuse of corresponding spiritual authority. Like you, I am concerned at how it has been abused over the ages. I won't reiterate on that; I've said my piece before and will let it rest. I would also like to add at this point that there are many ideologies (read: secular religions) which are every bit as poisonous as you seem to believe mono- or polytheistic doctrines to be.

Anyways, I would like to here other peoples' opinions, particularly why they don't like religion, and what they think about death. Umm... you're not exactly setting the table for a frank discussion with this comment, Saber. But I could be proven wrong, I guess.

I'm agnostic (or weak atheist, depending on who you ask; I actively disbelieve in the religions I've been exposed to, but don't completely discount the notion of some deity or other), but all I have to say is...

I've never understood the need to attack religion that seems to drive so many of my fellows. If anything, I have a great deal of respect for those of faith (fundamentalists of all stripes excepted).

I mostly agree with Saber's comment, but, I am yet to truly experience religion or live with it, seeing as though I am 13.

But I feel that God is not real, there are no souls, or reincarnation or anything. Although, I don't *care* what people believe in as a religion, but I won't think of them any differently or shun them.

Chalk me up in the Agnostic category, I believe that some divine may exist, however I am certain that most any religious beliefs found on earth are but a shallow attempt to create a system use able for human goals. An individual may truly believe what he says he does but the organization is a different story.

Ah, I am sorry for what I said: I did not mean what people don't like about religion, i meant why they do or do not like about religion. Excuse me for that.

I'm on the opposite side of the debate you propose to start. I'm quite heavily religious and find the notion of no God and no governing Ethics to be an extremely foreign concept. Perhaps as unimaginable as my beliefs may seem to those that identify themselves as atheists...

Strongly agnostic. I have moments where I feel there's a god, and moments where I feel the opposite. I bought the Satanic Bible to summarise an atheist point of view, which is very interesting, and I've read the Bible in the past. Not sure yet which was the most persuasive.

@ Saber:
Judging from your perspective, you might find the Satanic Bible very interesting. :) It's a book about why the existence of religion is wrong literally and morally, and that people should be re-educated into behaving as they are, rather than as the church wants them to. (Just to be clear, Satanism and devil-worship are completely different)

Hmm, I was going to make a thread with my thoughts on agnosticism/atheism and such, but here's a better place.

Recently I've decided to just throw away the agnostic label entirely and go for all out atheism. The common attack on atheism being 'oh, it's just as much as a faith/belief as a religion' is, IMO, bull****. If someone came up to you and said 'Oh, there are purple monkeys living in craters on the moon' you'd (hopefully) not believe them. Religion is the equivilant of that, and I don't really see any reason to keep an open mind about it any more.

Satanism is a very interesting philosphy and I take a few ideas from it ('You are your own God' is a brilliant concept). Have a look at www.churchofsatan.com (http://www.churchofsatan.com) and ignore the front page as much as possible, as it looks like the site of a dodgy 80's heavy metal biker gang band or something...

Atheist here, although i'm not even sure if i like that stigma. I just don't believe in fairytales, that's all. :D

Cultural background definently Christian but probably qualified as an agnostic these days. I've got no big problems with religion in itself but I don't like it when religion has a great influence in legistlation or politics, that is against my view of a separation between church and state.

Religion to me is a personal thing. A relationship between an individual and a god. The problem comes when you start organizing it to churches and have the one priest saying what's the correct way to follow god, and it can be easily abused and it has been abused so many times. Organized religion is not necessary bad though, if the priests have enough tolerance, open mindness and understanding to see beyoned their own faith, too often however they don't, which leads to conflict and trouble.

My mother is Jewish and my father is Salvation Army/Church of England. Neither are strong practitioners of their faith and allowed my sisters and I to be educated in both faiths and able to choose are own paths.

The older of my sisters has become Catholic which suits her narrow-minded all things are black or white nature.

My younger sister is mainly agnostic but still has CoE tendencies and she's happy with that.

I on the other hand became a cynic at the age of 12, which is when I realised that high school education is not actually meant to teach anything but to pigeon-hole people for what type of job they should do; further education is actually where you learn. Religion was used by their heirarchies as a means to control people. Both of these archaic methodologies are breaking down because the flow of information which they used to control has broken down and is easily available (the net, tv, papers) although not necessarily accurate.

I read philosophy extensively when I was younger particularly eastern and as a result would say that my belief system is sort of Zen-Daoist, which negates the belief in a judeo-christo-islamic diety/trinity etc.

There's atheists and there's non-religious folks, which can be separate things.

There are Buddhists, Taoists and other religions which have no god or gods, though some members of those religions do believe in some sort of god. Buddha never spoke of any sort of god at all. Nevertheless, Buddhism is considered a religion.

I suppose you could say there are theists who are not the least bit religious.

Atheism is simply lack of belief in any sort of god. It doesn't necessarily mean they are existentialists, nihislists, satanists, selfish hedonists, etc. That's up to them, and such philosophies and outlooks on life have been around probably since man crawled out of a cave, looked around and started thinking about this crap.

Also, lack of belief in God doesn't necessarily mean a lack of morals or ethics. As Nietzsche said, we need morality because there is no God.

Rock-hard atheist here. Said this on another board a little while ago I will say it again: religion is much like a fairy tale, except that it is the adults that believe into it. They had their place in the past as a "bringer of comfort", but nowdays that job is done better by psychologists and such. Religion, at most, hinders modern development with misplaced morals and restricting ethics.

People want comfort and a nice way to evade the inevitable, hard question of what happens to them in the end. I believe ("believe" and "believe") the same as Saber; there will be only oblivion and thus it's pretty logical that many people don't want to understand this. After all, the idea of dying and rotting is hardly as comfy as dying and living in another form is.

[ October 11, 2005, 14:52: Message edited by: Wirhe ]

Ah, morgoroth, i agree with you. America was built (not entirely, but at least somewhat) on the separation of church from state. Yet, today, there are many laws that are influenced by religion (gay marriage, for one). If you want a fair country, remove religion from politics.


And as Aikanaro said: people commonly say atheism is a religion, which blows my mind. We don't believe in a god, or an afterlife, or any of that which makes a religion a religion (and i say 'we' because it makes for a more compelling argument than 'I', even though not all atheists necessarily believe what i just said).


Now for something a little different (and more radical, perhaps): Religions have screwed this world over.
In old times, religions started wars and took money from people. Leaders killed people for not believing in something that makes no sense whatsoever (the world made in seven days, come on..., etc).

Today, they corrupt governments. In some cases (obviously not all), people kill because their god told them to (suicide bombers).

People thank their god for things that are obviously done by man (such as thanking god for putting food on their plates, etc: who made the money? YOU. who bought the food? YOU. who cooked it? YOU. I don't see any god whipping out a frying pan and frying fish for you.)

Plus, when something happens that they think they can't explain, they say "The Lord works in mysterious ways." That is one of the stupidest things to say ever. How about figuring out why something happened instead of placing the explination on your god?

Separation of church and state doesn't mean that whatever a religious group believes is wrong should automatically be allowed. This line of reasoning goes like this:

Christians believe abortion is wrong, ERGO if we ban it, we are enforcing Christianity, ERGO to non-enforce Christianity, we need to allow abortion.

But Christians also believe third degree murder is wrong. So do we need to legalise third degree murder if we don't want to enforce Christianity?

No. Separation of church and state means politicians don't write the dogma and clerics don't administer the country or make its laws.

Neither does separation of church and state mean religion has to disappear from public life. That would actually violate the very core of separation of church and state by enforcing an atheistic view, which is, of itself, and taken to such an extreme, a quasi-religious faith (atheism is as much of a faith as Catholicism or Judaism is). Outlaw religion or drive it into catacombs and you end up enforcing a secular religion, an atheistic belief, soon to come up with his own quasi-deities, quasi-clerics, quasi-saints, quasi-holidays and a collection of dogmatic tenets. ;)

Religions have screwed this world over.
In old times, religions started wars and took money from people.You're welcome to have your opinion but if you want it to be taken seriously, you'd better come up with something tangible to back such claims.

Leaders killed people for not believing in something that makes no sense whatsoever (the world made in seven days, come on..., etc).Leaders have killed people for coming into their way, first of all, and the biggest killers so far has been those who actively hated and fought religion (Nazis, commies).

Next, why does seven days make less sense than big bang if you can't really evaluate the likelihood without being a professional physicist or similar? What difference does it make in your life? Well, part of the problem is taking the seven days too literally, of course.

But if only one religion believes in abortion, we should allow it. I'm pretty sure the majority of people are opposed to it. If everyone believes in something, it should be considered to be a law (depending on the situation). If only one group believes in it, perhaps not.

You're welcome to have your opinion but if you want it to be taken seriously, you'd better come up with something tangible to back such claims.
You want something tangible? Look in some history books about the Roman Church selling indulgences, or perhaps about the Crusades. Evidence. Common knowledge. Whatever you call it, there it is.

Leaders have killed people for coming into their way, first of all, and the biggest killers so far has been those who actively hated and fought religion (Nazis, commies).
I wasn't talking about the biggest killers, i was talking about the most common killers (not necessarily at this time, but earlier). Plenty of rulers killed because of heresy or blasphemy or whatnot. But it isn't blasphemy in the victims' eyes, now is it? So do they deserve to die? No. And even if they did commit blasphemy, is that a reason to kill them? I don't think so.


And another thing on abortion: Abortion is doing you a favor. It is killing a parasite. A parasite is something that benefits from you while you suffer. It uses your blood, your food to grow. It causes you pain. An unborn child is a parasite. Period.

That's an old and long refuted bogus theory made up by a less than stable "expert". Basically, you are claiming that you were a parasite yourself, someone would have done your mother a favour by aborting you away from her womb and that you have no right to live. Why not kill yourself to make things right? Not saying you should, but this is where your logic leads.

Well, i'm not a parasite now, or at least not directly. I don't actually leech off my parents for food (although, if you ask them, i'm sure they would say otherwide, hah), and i don't harm them by doing it. But at the time when a baby is in the mother's womb, they are a parasite. And if i had been aborted, so be it.

@chev:
An unborn child is a parasite. But Saber's already born, so he's fine now. :D Though, strictly speaking, all humans are parasites, leeching off of Mother Nature's resources and doing damage to her. Oh, to wipe this scourge from the planet would be a joyous thing indeed. :hahaerr:

I prefer rationalism to atheism. The question of God or any other divine entity is outside reason and plays no part in rationalism, therefore you don't have to waste your time either attacking or defending.
My views on death are; since I haven't died, as such (well, there was this one time...), I have no idea what happens - from the perspective of the deceased, of course.

@Saber:
The existence of souls is based on faith, not hard facts, therefore I cannot say whether or not souls exist.

[ October 10, 2005, 22:06: Message edited by: Lost Meme ]

Meme, we obviously know you aren't dead, but do you think that when we do, we just rot in the ground, or do our so-called "souls" go somewhere? Do we live on in another place?

I just don't believe in Vatican's church; when I was in catechism, the priest told us to give money for pour people and all that babling and one time when I asked why the Vatican has such wealth while Jesus wasn't that rich; or when the priest forced us to go church on sundays while in the Book Jesus tell us that the church is our own heart and we don't need to go to any special place for God to listen to us, etc., the only answer that I always had was a priest leading me outside the class telling me that I don't have to do such questions and gave me penitence...
Is my humble opinion that this particular church (the Vatican) is a big contradiction.
I remember a song by Genesis:
"...Won't find me practising what I'm preaching
won't find me making no sacrifice
but I can get you a pocketful of miracles
if you promise to be good, try to be nice
God will take good care of you
just do as I say, don't do as I do..."

Precisely! Why should the church be rich and extravagent, when what they practice tells them to be humble?
Why do you need an intermediary for you and god?

Of course, that is what Martin Luther (not MLK) said, so he created Lutheranism. There are also a bunch of other religions that are not like the church, but still, i don't like any of them.

No. Separation of church and state means politicians don't write the dogma and clerics don't administer the country or make its laws. I suppose I'll have to say that our view of separation of church and state are very different then. Basically I agree with you though, it's just that I think we put the point when the church adminsters the country in a different place. As I've said earlier I think that politics and religion should stay as far from each other as possible.

Hmmh... As a sidenote I wonder if anyone has written a book about how to best secure your place in the afterlife I mean with that what kind of a lifestyle one should have to cover as many religions as possible and have the greatest odds of reaching a good afterlife. That would be quite an idea for a book if no one has written about it allready. ;)

I guess I could best be described as a strong agnostic. I won't go quite as far as to categorize myself an atheist, although possibly a weak atheist. Basically, I have no idea whether or not any god or gods exist, and moreover that such information is unknowable.

A couple of months ago, I had a bit of a spiritual moment. I realized that, upon my death, I will lose the ability to ever make another choice. But that does not mean that the choices I have made will stop effecting the universe. Every choice I have ever made has cascading repercussive effects that will propagate through the universe until the end of time! Upon making my first choice, the fact that I have existed will always be thereafter true and the universe will continue to be shaped by me long after my death!

I am graffiti that cannot be painted over and my "was here" will be visible forever.

Not to burst your bubble or anything, but nothing is eternal. Eventually, everyone will be forgotton (unless you do something reeeally big and important, such as taking over the world, or something). If you just live your life normally, without doing anything monumental, you will be forgotton. So, if you want to be remembered forever, I suggest you go do something really important.

Saber: if you are really so interested in why people continue to pray, go to church, worship God, read the Bible, follow the Ten Commandments, etc., I personally think you could do better than ask a group of mostly adolescent to late-twentyish computer gamers. Maybe you can ask a teacher, a peer, a professor, or just someone who has these same interests on what to read in order to expand your views.

I think The Brothers Karamazov is a pretty good read, or maybe something from Nietzsche (death of God and such). I would recommend Brave New World too, as odd of a choice that would be.

Although I think the most important is to keep an open mind. It's easy to seek out people and books that reinforce your own view, but I think it is more rewarding to seek own ones that challenge it, or simply to read something for the sake of exploring a new idea.

I agree with Oaz here. Furthermore I would say that you shouldn't ask us why we do or do not believe, you should ask yourself.

People have many different reasons to believe, or not to believe, and even though I many a time have stated both to others and myself that I am an atheist, I have found myself praying...

If you just live your life normally, without doing anything monumental, you will be forgotton. So, if you want to be remembered forever, I suggest you go do something really important.Which could easilly be one reason to believe. TO give a meaning to the often seemingly meaningless.

I've asked plenty of people, I just want to hear what the wonderful people of SP believe. I enjoy hearing what they have to say, and discussing things with them. It's interesting to find who is similar to me (at least in the spiritual aspect of life).

@Saber:

You want something tangible? Look in some history books about the Roman Church selling indulgences, or perhaps about the Crusades. Evidence. Common knowledge. Whatever you call it, there it is.Alms giving is a nice way of both giving the rich guy some penance and having the poor guy fed and clothed. That's how it worked in the ancient times and middle ages. Indulgences are always connected with confession, which includes penance. Supporting a good cause materially, even financially, can be a good act as much as putting your organic work in it. As such, it can also be a penance for your sins. It can go directly to some such cause or to a charity that supports such cases. When the bad thing begins is when money buys you the way. No one in the church has the authority to absolve a sinner who doesn't regret. Every single priest in the church would have had the power to absolve Hitler of his sins a second before his death, should he have asked for it, regretted, wanted to repent. But none has the power to absolve of a sin not regretted. A priest can be deceived or even bribed but God can't. In short, there's no buying a ticket to heaven. In fact, bribery in sacred things is a mortal sin called simony (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14001a.htm). No authority in the church can absolve a person of a sin not yet committed, either.

As for crusades, do a search in this forum section. I've answered this one in a couple of threads already.

As for common knowledge, it's no evidence of anything. It's just a convenient excuse. It's a big sack where everything goes, all personal experience and all things you've heard. It appears to you the only logical way and the only way things could be or be seen, but it's not the same way for other people. In short, if you want to have anything more than rumours and dubious accusations, you need to dig deeper than what seems obvious to you. Many things seem obvious until you actually look up and check them.


@Morgoroth:

I suppose I'll have to say that our view of separation of church and state are very different then. Basically I agree with you though, it's just that I think we put the point when the church adminsters the country in a different place. As I've said earlier I think that politics and religion should stay as far from each other as possible.It makes sense until one realises that atheism is a faith and that even the most passive kind of agnosticism is still a certain point of view, a certain philosophy. By pushing traditional religions away, the state is no longer neutral but it finds itself on the same side with atheistic movements and secular philosophical systems which don't differ from religions that much. Separation is supposed to bring independence. If the state, however, were meant to take opposite views to those that religions take, it would still create dependence. Opposite-dependence, forced opposition or however you call it, but it would still limit the state and defeat the original purpose. The state is not supposed to be an enemy of religion.

Hmmh... As a sidenote I wonder if anyone has written a book about how to best secure your place in the afterlife I mean with that what kind of a lifestyle one should have to cover as many religions as possible and have the greatest odds of reaching a good afterlife. That would be quite an idea for a book if no one has written about it allready.But most religions preclude one another, so if you combine those with others, you're cooked. ;)

I wasn't talking about the biggest killers, i was talking about the most common killers (not necessarily at this time, but earlier).Hmm? It's not a biggest killer contest. Basically, you say religion breeds genocidal despots. History teaches anti-religious despots coincidentally beat religious despots in kill count. Especially if Christianity is concerned.

Whatever you call it, there it is.For you, yes, but for others? You believe it, you think it's true, but you can't really prove it, can you? The point is, you're still taking something on faith.

Plenty of rulers killed because of heresy or blasphemy or whatnot.Plenty of, whatnot etc. How about you give some names and numbers and real reasons of killing people?

But it isn't blasphemy in the victims' eyes, now is it? So do they deserve to die? No.Not like I would kill people for blasphemy, but that logic is flawed. Often a crime is not a crime in the perpetrator's eyes. Should we set him free then? Take a Nazi who has killed hundreds or thousands of "subhumans". He doesn't believe he's ever really killed a *human* being. Has he committed no murder whatsoever, by that kind of logic?

By pushing traditional religions away, the state is no longer neutral but it finds itself on the same side with atheistic movements and secular philosophical systems which don't differ from religions that much. I'm not talking about pushing religions away in any way, I'm talking about the political and religious institutions knowing their places and staying in them. Religion has no job jumping around in politics and politicians have no job in banning faiths or restricting religious activity. Of course the perfect balance is difficult if not impossible to reach.

But most religions preclude one another, so if you combine those with others, you're cooked. Yeah I know but some religions might have some sort of backdoors to salvation which would not actually require active worship of their god/higher principle/pink dragon, just following some nice principles of life which conveniently fit into another religion which requires active worship. :p

*sigh*

Chev, I will not argue with you anymore. I have argued enough, and no matter what I believe (or don't), you will try and prove me wrong.

But, just for the heck of it:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Whatever you call it, there it is.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For you, yes, but for others? You believe it, you think it's true, but you can't really prove it, can you? The point is, you're still taking something on faith.
I said that it was evidence, or common knowledge, or whatever you want to call it. It being whatever you want to call evidence. So, what you said doesn't even pertain to what I said.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Plenty of rulers killed because of heresy or blasphemy or whatnot.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Plenty of, whatnot etc. How about you give some names and numbers and real reasons of killing people?

I said whatnot because I could not find another way of saying blasphemy or heresy.


But, in any case, Chev, I don't feel like fighting with you, I just want to hear what other Atheists, or non-relgious people have to say about their beliefs. Also, I'm fighting a losing battle because I don't have the time right now to go out and find you tons of proof to back up my statements, and I apologize for not being able to do that right now.

and @olimikrig:
I know what I believe. I just want to hear what other people believe. Its just curiousity...

Anyways, I would like to here other peoples' opinions, particularly why they don't like religion, and what they think about death.
Personally I have mixt thoughts ,i really don't belive in the institution of church , it gives people power that they should not have , I don't know for sure if there is a god , or if a religion is true , probably when I die I will know
What I think about death ? well i was one step from death a few times and the weeks after were some of the most calm periods of my life , I don't know why
On the other hand i have seen the power of faith in some man and i can say that I envy them

And another thing on abortion: Abortion is doing you a favor. It is killing a parasite. A parasite is something that benefits from you while you suffer. It uses your blood, your food to grow. It causes you pain. An unborn child is a parasite. Period Well you see that parasite is carrying its mothers genes , it is the reason why she lives ,it is the reason why all creatures live and I really have no idea why



Hmm? It's not a biggest killer contest. Basically, you say religion breeds genocidal despots. History teaches anti-religious despots coincidentally beat religious despots in kill count. Especially if Christianity is concerned
Well yeah but Christianity teaches love , forgiveness....you get the point .

i am an atheist, and i think mostly in facts, numbers, and such that being said i have a really bad sense of seeing others peoples emotions, and sensing my own , wich is a very big problem for me, i also dislike poetry and that sort of things

back on topic, i belive in sience not mythology.

Oh wow, I forgot to mention science. Although, i guess it was apparent, considering that I don't believe in relgion (or mythology as Balle calls it :) ). But, I love science, because not only can it be proven using experiments that we can see, hear, smell, etc, but it has always been around.

Science has been here forever, we just haven't discovered all of it yet. It was here long before the Bible, and will stay long after it is gone (which, i hope it will). Science is eternal, and can be used to explain the things that religion tried to explain.

And, I'm not arguing this point anymore, so please, Chev, don't start picking apart what I say, analyze it, and bash it.

Thank you.

A couple of examples for chevalier:
- The fall of Constantinople. I don't know the kill count, but the crusaders pretty much destroyed the entire city.
- Galileo Galilei, a scientist who the church accused of blasphemy and threatened him with death - he could only squirm out of it by publicly denying his life's work searching for the truth.
- The ancient Romans persecuting Christians - not a point against Christians, per se, but it was a *religious schism*, the Romans and their faith vs Christians and their faith, and it resulted in many deaths.

These things all are covered in many history books, if you bothered to look them up. You don't expect people to quote entire chapters from books on these forums, do you?

Feel free to dissect and disagree.

Thank you susipaisti, for backing me up (you were backing me up, weren't you?). At the time of the request/demand for examples, I did not have time to look up examples. So again, I thank you.

And I forget exactly (I never really studied Galileo): how did he die? I believe it was related to the blasphemy charges, no?

Ultimately, the incidents you pointed out were not caused by religion itself, but rather abuse of religious authority. Were it not for religion, they'd need some other mask to hide their greed and pride behind...

Ultimately, the incidents you pointed out were not caused by religion itself, but rather abuse of religious authority. But who gave these people authority? I can understand allowing them into the faith (to not do so would be downright crazy), but how did such "abusers" get into high positions? You would think that an organization that preaches love and forgiveness would have an IA division or something to prevent the freaks from getting into a position where they could do such horrible things. Having no safeguards simply points to incompetence, and I, for one, would not want risk being held to the whim of a madman simply because noone opposed his rise to power.

I'd rather think for myself and not be tied down to some rules that a delirious starving man hallucinated in the mountains. For the record, I used to refer to myself as atheist (for lack of a better description), until I found out what an agnostic was. Now I'm proud to be an agnostic.

I'd rather think for myself and not be tied down to some rules that a delirious starving man hallucinated in the mountainsHahaha, so true, so true. As I said earlier, this religion stuff was created by man, whereas science is just being proven by man.

And, just to clarify (so that I can make sure of which category I am in), agnostics believe that there is no way to prove god's exsistence, correct?

Cause if so, I am a mix - I don't believe that we can prove the exsistence of a god, but I also don't believe in one either. Or do those go hand in hand...?

Crap, i've confused myself. In anycase, I don't believe in religion, their "hope", or their men with beards.

Over the last two thousand years, the Roman Catholic Hierarchy has become increasingly political, thus you have politicians running spiritual affairs. When some pope in 1095 decrees that Christian nations ought to rule the holy land, it's no different than George W sending troops into Iraq in 2005. When politics trump spiritual concerns, is it still truly religion?

By way of contrast, in 2004, two members of the Quorum of the 12 apostles passed away. There was NO speculation amongst the membership as to who would be the new members of the Quorum of the twelve, and the new apostles were announced at the next General conference as scheduled.

Well, in America, in case you haven't noticed, there is (supposed) separation of church and state, as there should be.

When some pope in 1095 decrees that Christian nations ought to rule the holy land, it's no different than George W sending troops into Iraq in 2005How is it no different, please explain. A pope decreeing that Christians should rule a holy land, and George Bush sending troops to fight in Iraq... what is the connection...?

@Saber:
You're probably an atheist if you believe that there is no God. Agnostics accept it as a possibility (ranging from "remote possibility" to "definite possibility") that there might be (a) devine being(s), but believe that there is currently no way to know for sure. There's also no way to know what he/she/it(/they) might be like if there were one (or more). Basically, it's a big question mark with a happy ending. :grin:

Though I don't know how everyone deals with it, I personally have faith that everything is as it's supposed to be; the specifics don't matter much to me.

It's not a connection, but the same charge. Both were motivated by pride and arrogance (at least most on SP claim that was George W's motives).

My point is that the crusades were, in truth, less about spirituality, and more about politics. At what point does it ceace to truly be about religion?

They were all written by MEN thousands (or perhaps hundreds, or less) of years ago to explain the unexplainable. But now, there is a thing called science, which has actual proof. Yet, for some reason, people can't seem to let go of Religion.I can't help but point out how easily this can be switched around from the opposite perspective; science can precisely in some cases explain (pardon the oversimplification) the where, the what, the when, etc., whereas religion focuses on explaining what science has failed to touch; the why. You won't commonly find the answer to "why am I here?", should such a thing concern you, in science books...and for many, that's the most important question of all. This is the reason why "some people can't let go of religion" from a personal view.

My point is that the crusades were, in truth, less about spirituality, and more about politics. At what point does it ceace to truly be about religion? I believe the cutoff point is the reason. The reason given for the Crusades was religious in nature. The fact that the one giving the orders simply made it up does not matter. What matters is the religion/cult behaviour of the soldiers believing such ridiculous orders and slaughtering people "in God's name". You can't blame God for it if he didn't order it, but you can sure as hell blame the organization that did. Though the current organization should not be blamed for the mistakes of a past one, it still will be. Such is the nature of the human need for revenge; just take your lumps and apologize. ;)

So you blame one church, don't hold that against the rest of us. I would argue that this was the orders of the hierarchy at the time, and would even ask that the modern RCC not be accountable for actions of 910 years ago...

just stepping into this thread...
i'm not an agnostic, i would say that i'm a gnostic. and no i'm not making up that term haha. (message me if your curious about it).

concerning death, i know from my own experience that there's more after death. I know for a fact that human beings can exist seperately from their bodies, which implies that your existance doesnt end w/death. Anyone can see this for themselves by trying out astral projection/out of body experiences.

so there's my 2 cents about that!
later,
-PT

You won't commonly find the answer to "why am I here?" Well, the obvious answer would be because Daddy got overexcited and forgot pasting Mommy's belly is preferred.


What you are silently positing is this: Presupposing there is a point to my existence...

Indeed George W and the medieval pope may or may not have had similar motives on a personal level, that can never be known by any of us. The important issue is that the crusaders believed they were fighting for a just cause, exactly as extremist Palestine suicide bombers do. They do the things they do because of their faith, and the rest of the world gets to suffer because of it.

Devout believers may now argue that the faith of above examples is misplaced, misguided, etc. But it *is their faith.* Arguing that their faith is "wrong" and claiming your own faith is "right" just proves my point.

My point wasn't that we should burn down the catholic church - that would make me just as bad the fundamentalists. I'm trying to point out that as long as there are organized religions, they will clash and fight for power - whether territories or converts - and cause great harm in doing so. Yet, what can be done about it? Can we deny someone's faith, in other words, tell them what they should believe - be that a religion or atheism?

It would make me very happy to see a world without organized religion. Where people could accept the fact that they can't *know* what happens when they die, and still live their lives without a constant nagging fear of what's beyond - accept the *possibility* that there may indeed be nothing at all. Live and let live. But I'm not about to try to force that idea of a harmonious utopia down anyone's throat, because 1) It's not right to do that 2) I don't think it's ever gonna happen.

All I can do is try to point out things and provoke thoughts, by means of a civilized discussion, exchanging of thoughts and so forth. I get a little heated up sometimes, but I try not to.

On a side note, to be clear, I'm an agnostic leaning towards the "very remote possibility" type of thinking. And I personally believe that religions are man-made.

And I feel like a tree-hugger right now.

The concept of God only even enters my thoughts when I'm visiting the AoDA. Here, the only person who's view of God I have felt predisposed to is Rally.

I used to describe myself as an Atheist until watching Johnathon Miller, "A History of Disbelief" http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcfour/documentaries/features/atheism.shtml
His description of his own beliefs mirrored mine fairly accurately. Because being "anti" means there is actually something there to be anti about, he dislikes the designation of atheist as it gives too much credence to theism.

Put me down as a non-believer who is against religious parties being allowed to dictate to the rest of us.
If you want a particular label, then possibly a "secular humanist" would be the best description, though that's only after I had a brief look at wiki so I don't know if it truly marries my beliefs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanist

concerning death, i know from my own experience that there's more after death. I know for a fact that human beings can exist seperately from their bodies, which implies that your existance doesnt end w/death. Anyone can see this for themselves by trying out astral projection/out of body experiences Can you explain how you know that human beings can exist separately from their bodies?

Where people could accept the fact that they can't *know* what happens when they die, and still live their lives without a constant nagging fear of what's beyond - accept the *possibility* that there may indeed be nothing at all. Live and let live. I am not afraid of dying (sure, it'll hurt if I die by unnatural causes, by what the heck, too bad for me), and I accept that there may be nothing left. That's life (or death, rather), and I'll live my life happily.

Put me down as a non-believer who is against religious parties being allowed to dictate to the rest of us.
If you want a particular label, then possibly a "secular humanist" would be the best description, though that's only after I had a brief look at wiki so I don't know if it truly marries my beliefs.
Hmm, your insight (or his) has caught my attention. I don't like continually changing what I say I am (it gives people reason to not trust what I say as plausible, i guess), but it is true: I do not believe in religion. I guess I only used atheist because it is a more common term. In any case, no matter the term, i do not believe in religion, or their 'god(s)'. Call it what you will.

[ October 15, 2005, 00:14: Message edited by: Saber ]

I use the word agnostic to describe my personal belief a lot. Because I can't really dismiss something I have or have not experienced.

[ October 15, 2005, 02:09: Message edited by: Zurga ]

But Religion should not be about power, but rather about personal salvation and doing good for society. It is just to preach the tennet of your religion according to your faith, but no single faith has the right to dictate the laws of the land. No church has the right to send the faithful into military action, but they are expected to support the laws of the land. The wisdom in the Bible is lost when compared to the attrocities ordered or committed by those that took the Name of God to justify their own vain ends...

quote: me: concerning death, i know from my own experience that there's more after death. I know for a fact that human beings can exist seperately from their bodies, which implies that your existance doesnt end w/death. Anyone can see this for themselves by trying out astral projection/out of body experiences

saber: Can you explain how you know that human beings can exist separately from their bodies? As i said, anyone can see it for themselves by trying out astral projection/(out of body experiences. Its something that anyone can do with enough effort. try googling it or something, theres tons of info on it out there. or message me or something if you want i guess.
-PT

Hmm, interesting. I still don't believe that we have souls or anything, but whatever, believe what you will.

I find it hard to believe anything. The big bang for example. Something very small suddenly expands and becomes the universe. How? How can almost nothing expand and become everything just like that? And how did that very small something come to exist? How can something have no beginning? This applies to gods and whatnots aswell. How can something just have existed forever?

Still I wonder sometimes, when I am sick or in extreme pain, if god or whoever is punishing me for "thinking the wrong way", and I wonder if I can cut a deal with him/her/it, like if god takes away my pain immedietly then I will start believing. Then, of course, I start thinking that if he/she/it exists then he/she/it probably wont take away my pains or illnesses because it is realy a test to my faith...

It's a vicious cycle...

[ October 15, 2005, 10:52: Message edited by: Bahir the Red ]

But Religion should not be about power, but rather about personal salvation and doing good for society. It is just to preach the tennet of your religion according to your faith, but no single faith has the right to dictate the laws of the land. No church has the right to send the faithful into military action, but they are expected to support the laws of the land. The wisdom in the Bible is lost when compared to the attrocities ordered or committed by those that took the Name of God to justify their own vain ends...Practically all religions *are* about personal salvation and doing good. They just can't accept other views of it. And that is the problem. Most religions involve attempting to convert people, which, if done peacefully through civil conversation and accepting "no" if it comes to that, is not such a bad thing. But when there are several conflicting religions all trying to do that, not accepting each other, and preaching their tennets rather forcefully, they clash and nothing good comes of it.

And because there really is no definite way of knowing which religion is right (if any), it's not not such a valid argument to say who got it wrong and took god's name in vain and so forth.

Many religions justify themselves via a chain of conclusions such as this one: "This faith is right because God said so. We know God said so because it's documented in this holy book. We know this holy book is accurate because it's the holy book of this faith, and this faith is right because God said so..."

In other words the holy book, be it of christianity or islam or any other, is "right because it says it is right."

So how exactly do you know *this* specific religion is right (insert your faith of choice), and *that one* is wrong? (insert one you don't believe in)

What if there indeed is a God, and on that fateful day when you die, he tells you you should've read some *other* holy book, followed some other tenets, and sends you to Hell for having lived your entire life as a heretic?

How do you know which faith to follow, when they all say they are right, making the same chain conclusion arguments proving it?

I find it hard to believe anything. The big bang for example. Something very small suddenly expands and becomes the universe. How? How can almost nothing expand and become everything just like that? And how did that very small something come to exist? How can something have no beginning? This applies to gods and whatnots aswell. How can something just have existed forever? Fission. Large atom (large for an atom, that is) is split by a fast moving small particle. It breaks and release huge amounts of energy. Repeat the process a bunch of times, and there you go. Almost nothing expands into becoming alot.
And it didn't just become everything all at once. It took billions of years (for the world to make itself fit for life.)


Many religions justify themselves via a chain of conclusions such as this one: "This faith is right because God said so. We know God said so because it's documented in this holy book. We know this holy book is accurate because it's the holy book of this faith, and this faith is right because God said so..."
They justify by saying that their holy book is right. But their holy books were all written by men. Not a deity.

So how exactly do you know *this* specific religion is right (insert your faith of choice), and *that one* is wrong? (insert one you don't believe in)

What if there indeed is a God, and on that fateful day when you die, he tells you you should've read some *other* holy book, followed some other tenets, and sends you to Hell for having lived your entire life as a heretic?

How do you know which faith to follow, when they all say they are right, making the same chain conclusion arguments proving it? Susipasti, IMO there is no ABSOLUTE right or wrong when it comes to religion. Religion - in its purest, non-political form - is all about man's attempts to reconcile himself to the Infinite. There are myriad definitions, from the gods of Mt. Olympus and Valhalla to the one God of Israel (no matter what name you use) to Brahman to the Buddha and beyond. Depending on how each person views the Infinite and his/her place therein, one of these religions will be more comfortable than all the others for defining how that person worships. That's what makes any religion "right" for any individual.

Note that I don't grant anyone the right to say "This is what's right for me, therefore it must be what's right for everyone else, too." As far as I'm concerned, God is more concerned with the simple fact that humans come to some sort of reconciliation rather than the strict format of what that reconcilaition IS.

What sort of mysticism are you invoking with this statement?

is all about man's attempts to reconcile himself to the Infinite. I assume the Infinite is a proper noun since you have capitalized it. So is it a person or a place or a specific event?

hehe, yes.

As a decidely finite thing, I won't attempt to define the Infinite. All I know is that it IS. How each individual defines and relates to the Infinite is the basis for that individual's personal theology.

So, apparently what you are saying is that God (is that the Infinite?) is undefinable, and He wants us to reconcile the undefinable.

In other words, accept that as an individual I cannot know everything, and learn to live with it. And that is what God wants? To try to accept this?

Great, I accept it.

I can't know everything.

So I can't prove God doesn't exist.

That doesn't make the supernatural exist you realize.

And rather than throw around Voodoo laced words such as Infinite, you can instead just say "I can't know everything." Voodoo laced words tend to have an influencing effect upon children and emotionally/intellectually weak adults, so try not to take advantage of them.

I am making my small contribution to this topic. I am an atheist, and I am proud to be. I am the own master of my life, and answer to life's questions aren't found in a black book with a "holy" symbol on it. Unfortunatly, in times of trouble, humans regress back to the stade of "magic thinking" that some "holy force" will see them through. :bs: .

I am proud to be godless. Atheists, rise and shine. Religion is a plague that has controlled the world for way, way, too long time. It's more than time to trash this :bs: .

Just my 0,02$.

I am making my small contribution to this topic. I am an atheist, and I am proud to be. I am the own master of my life, and answer to life's questions aren't found in a black book with a "holy" symbol on it. Unfortunatly, in times of trouble, humans regress back to the stade of "magic thinking" that some "holy force" will see them through. .

I am proud to be godless. Atheists, rise and shine. Religion is a plague that has controlled the world for way, way, too long time. It's more than time to trash this .

Just my 0,02$ Absolutely beautiful, New Order, beautiful. I couldn't have said it better myself. And in fact, the religion being a plague is what I tried to say, and then got bashed into the ground by Chev and the religious fanatics. So bravo, good man.

I am glad that you agree, Saber. And I am also glad to know that there are similar-minded people on here.

I will not jump in the debate about religion. I will stand firmly by me belief that all religion is a plague that should be completly sweeped out of existance. Religion has never made the world a better place. It has just blackened and bloodied out history.

I am not afraid of getting bashed by Chev, or by anyone else. Bash on me as much as you want, I WILL stick to what I beleive in, that is, Nothing. Beleiving in superior powers is just magic thinking. Only you control your life.

Many religions justify themselves via a chain of conclusions such as this one: "This faith is right because God said so. We know God said so because it's documented in this holy book. We know this holy book is accurate because it's the holy book of this faith, and this faith is right because God said so..."There's more too it than that. For the truly faithful, they have certain spiritual experiences that confirm to them personally that this is true. It is these experiences which keep religion alive and well. It sometimes saddens me that people will close themselves off to this because it sounds wierd or hokey.

Unfortunatly, in times of trouble, humans regress back to the stade of "magic thinking" that some "holy force" will see them through.But how do you explain the comfort that they feel from it? That is not :bs: , but a personal reality for them.

Religion is a plague that has controlled the world for way, way, too long time. It's more than time to trash thisAnd you ***** about Religious people trying to tell you how to live your life and waht you shouldn't be doing. Yet you want to tell me how to live my life and what I should not do? You call yourself an Aetheist, I apply the term Hypocrite...

Absolutely beautiful, New Order, beautiful. I couldn't have said it better myself. And in fact, the religion being a plague is what I tried to say, and then got bashed into the ground by Chev and the religious fanatics. So bravo, good man.You preach hatred of something very close to our core being, how do you expect us to react? This is nothing compared to what you'd get compared to other such core things. Try spreading White supremesist :bs: at an NAACP convention and see if they nail you to the cross before you burn it...

I will not jump in the debate about religion. I will stand firmly by me belief that all religion is a plague that should be completly sweeped out of existance. Religion has never made the world a better place. It has just blackened and bloodied out history.

I am not afraid of getting bashed by Chev, or by anyone else. Bash on me as much as you want, I WILL stick to what I beleive in, that is, Nothing. Beleiving in superior powers is just magic thinking. Only you control your life. The moral statements you have made are repulsive to me. The works you trash talk about love to our fellow humans, and a fraternal or sororal bond with all our fellow humans. You bash teachings of integrity and peace. Not only do I agree with these teachings, I reject the hatred that you seem to spew forth.

Religion is not a plague, it is simply a human way of rationalizing that which we do not yet understand. The true plague of which you speak is lack of knowledge, which necessitates something to fill the void. Religion has done a damn good job for thousands of years, and will continue to do the job until it is unnecessary (though deeply-held beliefs are hard to break, so it may last longer or even persevere altogether).

But just because you have no need for the consolation offered by religion does not mean you can ridicule (or outright attack) those who do. Just as they have no right to ridicule you for your lack of imagination and faith, not to mention your small-mindedness about others' beliefs. There are two sides to every coin, my friends.

Now both of you get civil before the mods notice. :nono:

And you ***** about Religious people trying to tell you how to live your life and waht you shouldn't be doing. Yet you want to tell me how to live my life and what I should not do? He isn't telling you how to live, he is saying that a part of the way you live shouldn't have ever existed. By saying that religion is a plague and should be removed, he is not telling you to do something.


And a question in general: does the bible tell you that gay people are bad? I (never read the bible) have heard they had...

But if so, then those works of love toward fellow humans also teach hate towards certain humans.

I'm not completely sure about my previous statement, because i have never read the bible, but I'm pretty sure it implies, if not says, that homosexual people are evil.

while i respect the opinions of athiests, their arguement for their view is somewhat lacking, if not arrogant, in my opinion.

Most athiests would say that they do not believe in god, or that human beings have souls. Why? Because there is no proof. Well, let me ask you this, what proof do you have that these things don't exist? I will be willing to bet that most athiests have no proof that god/souls/whatever else don't exist.

Also, something that really bothers me is when people say that god or whatever doesn't exist, because science says it doesn't. They will regard sciences as the truth. What is wrong with this type of thought is that science itself doesn't presume that it knows everything, it is constantly trying to learn more. Even more so, people who study science will soon realize that the more they know, the less they know, and the more questions they have. What is more, science and religion are not at all contradictary to one another. Science tells us that at the deepest subatomic level all matter is the same (i.e. protons/neutrons/elections). A.k.a. the oneness of everything that eastern religion has been talking about for thousands of years. And also how science tells us that most of what we see isn't actually there (its all just energy/electrons). aka. the eastern concept of maya (illusion) as well.
". I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
-Albert Einstein.

And another thing about the existance of "souls", for lack of a better term. The modern trend is to view the brain as the center of awareness and/or personality, and that everything that every thought/emotion we experience can be traced to some chemical reaction in the brain. Scientists have been able to electrically stimulate specific parts of the brain to produce the physiological manifestations of many human emotions. This, however, reveals the brain to be nothing more than a sophisticated switchboard capable of being activated by a variety of external sources, and perhaps even by one's own "soul", with its own energy output. What is more, it is a well-documented fact that human beings can be aware outside of their body, as evidenced by out of body experiences/near-death experiences/astral projection. Although psychologists might think that these experiences are just self-protective hallucanations of the mind, it is not that simple. While experiencing these things, many people are able to accurately view their body from an external perspective, or even bring back information about another location that they would have had no prior way of knowing. They contain their self-awareness/personal identity even though their bodies are unconscience. What is more, anyone can learn to do this, theres tons of info about it online. Once you do it, you will know withought a doubt. The proof is out there waiting to be found.

So, I hope that this post has been enough to perhaps get some of you to guys question this odd notion known as "athiesm" (the mentality that you think there is no such thing as god/souls/afterlife, just because you have not seen proof), and reality (from your point of reference). Just because something hasn't been proven (to you) doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Did the "law of gravity" exist before it was "proven"? Was the earth flat before it was "proven" to be round? The one thing that I will believe in before before all else is the value of personal experience for yourself of anything that is god/divine/infinite, not what other people tell you to believe. That is why i would not necessarily recomend religion, but, IMO, to emrace atheism is much worse. At the very least, i hope some of you athiests out there will consider agnosticism after thinking about these things.

Ok, thats all
-PT

I would like to ask you something.

Suppose you're right. That religion, God, and faith are all superstitious bosh, that their unexistences are true. But people, as it were, are generally part of a herd. They continue to take religion, scientific and historical proof to the contrary, as it is because it offers some meaning to their lives. The rest, however, who are atheists, realize some higher, scientific, perhaps philosophical truth - there is no God.

Would that mean that you should impose a new order, or, say, destroy religion - turn churches into schools, turn Bibles into cardboard boxes, and so on? For you are right, and should the thousands who are right guide and shepherd the thousands of millions who are blind and wrong? Should these thousands who are right take away the option of choosing religion, faith, and, yes, superstition and magic, and instead present a single, monolithic idea of atheism and science? And if the majority of millions continue, as it were, to shelter their religious beliefs and faith, holding small churches and questioning this new age of atheism, stubbornly clinging onto their old ways, would you have to present mystery and authority as the option? Would you have to tell them that it is not the free will, not the love of the single person that matters, but that one obeys the mystery and authority of atheism, that the thousands who are right may continue unhindered guiding the masses?

Okay, that was long. If it sounds familiar, it's because I didn't just make that up. It's from the parable of the Grand Inquisitor - a story that has helped me understand the idea of belief and choice quite well.

Absolutely beautiful, New Order, beautiful. I couldn't have said it better myself. And in fact, the religion being a plague is what I tried to say, and then got bashed into the ground by Chev and the religious fanatics. So bravo, good man.Hm -- this sounds a touch shallow. There appears to be no personal bashing in this thread, and you're mighty quick to label those attempting to shed light on a different perspective as a "religious fanatic." Surely you knew you'd get a wide range of opinions when you opened up this thread. ;)

religion has never made the world a better place.This is simply untrue. As a present-day example, it's not hard to see that charitable motives flourish through religious organizations. If you can't see this, then you're choosing not to.

While I pretty much agree with the 'religion is unnecessary and harmful' thing - you guys do sound pretty damn fanatical ranting and pointing your finger...

Not that fanaticism is necessarily a bad thing (just usually...) - but in your case it might just be a bit hypocritical.

Fission. Large atom (large for an atom, that is) is split by a fast moving small particle. It breaks and release huge amounts of energy. Repeat the process a bunch of times, and there you go. Almost nothing expands into becoming alot.
And it didn't just become everything all at once. It took billions of years (for the world to make itself fit for life.)

Yes, but where did those atoms come from? What made them move?

As a present-day example, it's not hard to see that charitable motives flourish through religious organizations. True. This is a case of religion being used to help people. Flip the coin, and you've got religion being used to kill (jihad, crusade, inquisition, whatever you want to call them and whichever trappings you give them, they're all the same). You can't say that "religion makes the world better" or "religion is making the world worse", because (unfortunately) fanaticism is not an easy thing to discard or get rid of.

Yes, but where did those atoms come from? What made them move? That's the typical trap people who get excited about science fall in. Every time we think we've got an answer to one question, we're left with 10 new unanswered questions. It's easy to turn science into a religion, but then you find yourself in the same situation again: you cannot explain (to quote Douglas Adams) Life, the Universe, and Everything.

I do not consider myself an atheist. At one point I did, got quite agressive, and directed this against religious people. A few years ago I would have flamed someone religious (nothing personal chev :D ) and probably would have got banned for it. I used to idolize science as the solution to everything. Then I got into science, and realized it wasn't the New God some people want it to be. I'd call myself agnostic now: I don't know if there's a God, an Answer, or whatever, and for the moment I don't care (or, more accurately, I'm trying not to care). I want to enjoy life and my research. I've got no morals, but I do have a strong sense of ethics (which is completely arbitrary without a religion backing it up, but I don't care, and neither do people around me anyway). I'm not religious, but I think I'm spiritual. That's enough for me.

I for one don't wish to force any particular idea on someone. Also I don't wish to get other people's ideas shoved down my throat. I wish to keep discussion civil, because if we who don't believe start ramming our ideas into the heads of those who do believe, we're doing the very same thing we dislike about organized religion. Much like Oaz said.

I'd like to make the seemingly small notion that I think there's a big difference between a personal faith and organized religion. If it gives you peace of mind to think there's a higher power out there, nothing wrong with that. As long as you don't force your own view on other people.

Organized religions often have a strict set of rules based on old books written by men. These I don't agree with. What some Mid Eastern pilgrim thousands of years ago saw fit to include in their lawbooks, doesn't need to be implemented today. The Bible for instance, the Books of Moses in the Old Testament to be specific, includes a vast amount of "purity rules" about food and sexual issues, that have no relevance whatsoever today.

Many faiths involve restraining yourself from pleasure. Apparently the idea is that if you punish yourself enough in *this* life, the next one will be great. Another thing that makes no sense to me. Throughout the world religions have had a devastating effect on people's sexuality, especially women's. That it's somehow dirty and wrong to feel desire and pleasure. Maybe the Bible, for instance, wasn't as harsh as that in its original wording, but that sure is how it's been implemented.

A common argument made by religious people is that without religion there would be no morals. I find that incredibly wrong. I don't need a holy man telling me not kill people. I have a conscience, and I don't need people telling me it's there because a god planted it there. In a serious relationship I wouldn't sleep around, but not because a religion forbids it - rather out of love, loyalty and respect for that person. I don't need *religion* to be able to treat people around me with fairness and dignity.

On science as a new religion: some people indeed "believe" in science as a neo-religion. But something that religious people forget (and some non-religious too) is that science is an ongoing process. The idea is not "bam, here it is. The whole truth and nothing but the truth. The be-all-end-all of all that can ever be known." Science is about proving things conclusively: A happens because of B, now let's investigate B. Science accepts that there's plenty of things we don't, at least not yet, know.

Yet, I find no reason to believe something's there until it's proven. Also I've no reason to passionately un-believe and outright refuse the possibility. But it makes no sense to me to base my ethics and views and indeed my very existence on a "maybe."

Many religions justify themselves via a chain of conclusions such as this one: "This faith is right because God said so. We know God said so because it's documented in this holy book. We know this holy book is accurate because it's the holy book of this faith, and this faith is right because God said so..."They justify by saying that their holy book is right. But their holy books were all written by men. Not a deity.That's pretty much what I tried to say. The way I put it is from philosophy books: a chain conclusion that attempts to justify itself by referring to itself, doesn't make sense. That's why "holy books" in general don't make sense to me - their supposed holiness can not be proven, and hence the holiness is all in the eye of the beholder, so to speak. Subjective. Not based on facts, but a gut feel. Like religion in general.

Note that I don't grant anyone the right to say "This is what's right for me, therefore it must be what's right for everyone else, too." As far as I'm concerned, God is more concerned with the simple fact that humans come to some sort of reconciliation rather than the strict format of what that reconcilaition IS.Rallymama, if only more people thought like that, I wouldn't mind at all. The thing is, the most well-known and widely spread holy books paint a much more harsh picture. The Bible plainly states that anyone who doesn't believe in Jesus, goes to hell. Many religions, sadly, *are* very concerned with following their strict format. And most religions' ideas of those formats conflict rather strongly. That's why I posed the question of how you're supposed to tell which faith to follow.

I agree that some religions are harmless. I believe a peaceful, personal faith of some kind can be beneficial at least to a person's own peace of mind. (On a side note, I myself don't have one.) But *organized* religions have caused great harm and will probably continue to do so. Hence I believe the world would be a better place without them. Yet this does not mean I wish to stomp them out of existence.

I am *not* *****ing believers out there. Beleive in what you want, as long as you don't preach it to me.

Some of you see my views as extreme, and you're welcome to think so. I do *not* believe in the existance of a god, whatever it is, and I don't believe that religion has made the world a better place. What you choose to believe in is your own damn choice. But I prefer to be the master of my own life rather than being the puppet of some "holy force".

@TNO: I, too, prefer to be the master of my own life. Believe it or not, some people have found it possible to believe in God without becoming a puppet.

I agree that religion has not made the world a better place, h...
/me dodges Chev's coffee mug and Gnarf's pitchfork :p
HOWEVER, religion can have a beneficial effect on some who otherwise would not be as kind. It is the people themselves, though, who should be credited for their good deeds. There is still the issue of those who use its 'power' for their own uses, but overall I think it balances quite nicely. Neither a good thing nor a bad thing (unless you count the diversity it brings; which is a good thing, IMHO).

EDIT: (Big cat, you're CN too, right?) :roll: Damn squiggly, I am. :grin:

[ October 16, 2005, 21:09: Message edited by: Felinoid ]

You have a point, Fel. If worshipping some so-called "holy force" has a beneficial effect on people who do... then good for them, but I will never agree with that. But then again, everyone is free to make their own choice. I believe in free will and free choice. (Big cat, you're CN too, right?)

If someone decides to be religious, by all means, go ahead. I, personally, will never have a positive outlook on religion.

OK. Enough breaking the rules and calling other members things like "religious fanatic." This thread has degenerated quite a bit and, if it continues on with rhetoric like that, it will be closed. You can state your point without taking shots at other members. Also, you may not like organized religion, but to say that it has done NO good is complete bunk.

To just stay entirely on-topic: Please tell me there are more Atheists out there...

can't say I can tell you that, dutch(!) theist here (Cristian that is :) )

DMC, i apologize, I will re-adjust myself:

I don't believe in a god, or a religion. I am in agreement with The New Order (in all respects, so far). I don't like religion, or the idea of one. However, I do not hate religious people, as long as they do not impose their beliefs on me, or try to condemn me for not believing in their religion.

In my point of view:
Christianity teaches hate (against homosexuals in particular).
Christianity is didactoral: It tells people how to live, and how not to live, and punishes (or promises punishments) those who don't follow it.
Christianity takes rights away from people: Freedom of speech is taken away. If you say something against your religion, even in desperation or a burst of anger, they (the church) tell you you are commiting blasphemy and punish you.

Thats it, I've said what I need to say. I am not bashing anyone, and if I did in the past, I apologize profusely.

Saber: valid points, and I agree. Also, you kept it civil. Thumbs up all around, I say.

As an added bonus, you kept it short. Something I so far haven't been able to do...

To all: I also extend apologies if my words have offended someone. I only wish to exchange thoughts in a peaceful manner.

EDIT: Please keep posting counterpoints.

[ October 17, 2005, 01:09: Message edited by: Susipaisti ]

I have pretty much said it all in my former posts. If I have somewhat offended someone, that wasn't my goal at all. Religion is a red hot topic, and it creates a lot of controversy.

SO! Let's sum this up:
1- I do not believe in the existance of any "God" or whatever "Holy Force"
2-I do not hate believers. What they choose to believe in is their own damn choice. As long as they don't preach it to me, or throw their "god" in my face.
3-I do not and never will have a positive opinion of religion.
4-I prefer to be the master of my own life rather than placing my faith in something that doesen't exist.
5-You do not have to agree with me. Just respect my point of view and I will respect yours.

[ October 17, 2005, 01:29: Message edited by: The New Order ]

He isn't telling you how to live, he is saying that a part of the way you live shouldn't have ever existed. By saying that religion is a plague and should be removed, he is not telling you to do something.Is this not an invitation to abandon that way of life? Not only is that doing precicely what he complained that we do, but doing so rather rudely.

And a question in general: does the bible tell you that gay people are bad? I (never read the bible) have heard they had...It is not a statement of hatred towards Gay people directly, but rather a strongly worded prohibition of homosexual behaviour. We are (under Christian Theology) sons and daughters of God, and as such He loves us, no matter what. However, just as a parent loves their child, they do not like it when the child disobeys them or misbehaves. By having homosexual relations, we are disobeying God...

The Bible for instance, the Books of Moses in the Old Testament to be specific, includes a vast amount of "purity rules" about food and sexual issues, that have no relevance whatsoever today.I disagree. The laws given about sexual purity are just as relevent today. Adultery causes hurt feelings for the betrayed spouse. Sexual promiscuity leads to the transmission of disease amongst those who engage in it. Science has shown that Incest is very dangerous to any prosepctive offspring. Animal rights activists would not approve of beastiality. My own religion teaches that the greatest joys are to be found within the family. Homosexuality does not promote the family...

Many faiths involve restraining yourself from pleasure. Apparently the idea is that if you punish yourself enough in *this* life, the next one will be great.Actually, I look at this as holding ourselves to higher standards than seem natural. To consider the greater good over selfish pleasures. That, rather than simply self denial, is what leads to greatest blessings, both here and in the worlds to come.

In a serious relationship I wouldn't sleep around, but not because a religion forbids it - rather out of love, loyalty and respect for that person.Why do you think Religion forbids the practice of adultery in the first place? It is these commandments that show the way to love and respect others.

Many religions, sadly, *are* very concerned with following their strict format.That problem was rampant in the times of the old testament. When Christ came, he taught the higher law, which clarifies the older laws. The great commandments are to love God and your fellow men. The original commandments throughout the Old Testament were primarily given to train you in how to behave. Christ came to explain why we are to behave that way, and how to go the extra mile. Some of the criticism that Saber pointed out stems from people that took the prohibition on Homosexuality so seriously that they forgot about the emotions of those that struggle with that temptation. When thoise people face that condemnation, they do not feel the love and support from the faithful, and thus do not gain the strength to resist that temptation...

But I prefer to be the master of my own life rather than being the puppet of some "holy force". We ARE the masters of our own life, but according to my religion (I realize that you don't believe that, but I do), we are asked to seek to do the will of God. I still must CHOOSE to do it. I am no puppet, but do what I do because I believe it to be right.

/me dodges Chev's coffee mug and Gnarf's pitchfork Note to self: He dodges quickly. Maybe throwing a split second after Chev will hit him next time... :banana:

religion can have a beneficial effect on some who otherwise would not be as kind. It is the people themselves, though, who should be credited for their good deeds.Had I not returned to the faith I was baptized into as a teenager, I would still be :beer: :beer: :beer: and :beer: some more, and seeking apathy wherever I could find it, even into drugs. It is feeling the Love of God that gave me something beyond my own selfish desires to think about. I wouldn't have come to that on my own...

Christianity teaches hate (against homosexuals in particular).No, it doesn't. It just teaches that certain things are sins. Just because your parents told you that you can't watch that 'R' rated movie when you were 5 doesn't mean that they hate you. They were only looking after your best interests. Religion takes a similar view. God is portrayed as a spiritual father, and His rules are, ultimately, for our best interests.

Christianity is didactoral: It tells people how to live, and how not to live, and punishes (or promises punishments) those who don't follow it.Do you mean Dictatorial? The Bible contains the laws of God, and sets out punishment for the violation of those laws, but it also sets out the conditions of Mercy. The core teaching is that Jesus Christ, who was perfect, came to this earth, ministered unto the people, and was put to death in a gruesome, painful manner. This death, for no crime at all, paid the price for all sin of those that will be forgiven. This mercy is granted unto all who will confess and forsake their sins and seek to live as Christ counselled them.

Christianity takes rights away from people: Freedom of speech is taken away. If you say something against your religion, even in desperation or a burst of anger, they (the church) tell you you are commiting blasphemy and punish you.We still retain the right to decide for ourselves, but they lay out the expectations and consequences. We are expected to (but not forced) obey the commandments. But while we are free to choose out actions, we are not free to choose the consequences of those actions. We will be able to rejoice in the blessings that stem from right choices, and suffer under the yoke of afflictions brought upon us by bad choices. But ultimately, we make our choices...

To all: I also extend apologies if my words have offended someone. I only wish to exchange thoughts in a peaceful manner.When these thoughts are on things so deeply personal and on a topic that seems so adversarial for differing points, this may seem impossible, and likely to fail when due care is not taken. I assume that I've left numerous trampled toes in my wake here on SP. I cannot condemn you for anywhere where you've come up short in your desires...

2-I do not hate believers. What they choose to believe in is their own damn choice. As long as they don't preach it to me, or throw their "god" in my face.One area of conflict between you and I is that I believe that I am commanded of God to speak on these matters, to share the Gospel of Jesus Christ with my fellow men. By preaching, I fulfill that requirement. You are still free to reject this, but then that's not my fault. I don't go out and wrestle someone onto a Baptismal font, hold them under the water, recite the prayer and then bind them to a chair to confirm them. They concent to these ordinances of their own free will...

5-You do not have to agree with me. Just respect my point of view and I will respect yours.That is the hardest of all to do. Especially when some of these views seem to directly conflict with mine. When some spoke that Religion ought be outlawed or never have existed int he first place, that is seen as an attack on what I hold mose personal...

I don't seek to piss people off, but speaking my piece on these matters is bound to leave a trail of trampled toes behind me as I go...

Gnarfflinger, you are now making more sense to me than ever before, but I'm afraid I still disagree in many points.

By the purity laws I mentioned I didn't mean incest, animalism or things like that. I mean the "spend 7 days outside the camp and you're pure" type of parts. And if a woman gets raped in an inhabited place but no one hears her crying out for help, according to the Bible she must be killed. On some instances of rape the book offers that the rapist marries the victim as some kind of a solution.

I've read the Bible enough to know what I'm talking about, but can't remember the chapters. There's also a "ritual" to investigate whether a woman has commited adultery, that basically involves making her drink dirty water. There are laws that plainly state a woman's word has no weight or merit if her husband says otherwise. If a woman assists her husband in a fight by grabbing his opponents private parts, the law states her hand must be hacked off.

Also while the commandment says "though shalt not kill", the Old Testament orders a death sentence via stoning for quite numerous crimes, such as speaking ill of or repeatedly disobeying your parents. If you read the Books of Moses more thoroughly, you'll find a lot of interesting things.

Jesus indeed redifines some things said in the Old Testament, but leaves a large number of things well enough alone. He says nothing of gay people. The Old Testament offers a death sentence for that.

You seemed to suggest that I've been offensive when stating my views. I don't see how much more polite I can be without agreeing with you - my posts are filled with "I think", "it seems to me" etc, whenever I'm not simply repeating what I've read in encyclopedias, history books or indeed the Bible.

It should also be noted that I'm not against christianity exclusively. I've made points about major religions clashing and those clashes causing great harm. No one has disputed that so far - I was expecting people to offer some arguments. Nobody's said a word about the medieval church putting a halt to scientific research or burning heretics.

I've stated these things as arguments why I myself don't believe. I'm not trying to convert, merely wish people would think more independently. Fortunately you seem to have done so. Yet there are many Christians, such as some of my family members, who only go to the chruch for weddings and funerals, express a faith in a god only when it's convenient, never seem to think about things thoroughly, yet they pay taxes to the church they belong to.

On a final note, if your faith helped you with your drinking problem, I'm genuinely glad.

Good points there on the religious side - however then I have to think after the 'there must be choice' thing - well, Gnarf opposed gay marriage. Isn't this (by legally restricting someone) screwing with their freedom to choose sin?

Religion, like pretty much everything, is a tool for experiencing life. The biggest problem I have there is that after that part of life is thoroughly experienced, the wonder achieved, etc. - the rest of life remains unexperienced because the religion restrains them. If I could make myself genuinely believe in some spiritual force for a bit - I think I would to experience the wonder, beauty, and so such of it: but after that, more fuel for the fire of life is needed.

Though maybe for some people religion is a continuous fuel - from what I've seen people seem to continue with it long after it's burnt up and close their mind to new ideas/fuel.
... Is that what true belief is?


Edit: Oh, and something that annoys me is people who pick and choose the parts of the Bible to believe in saying 'Oh yeah, it's influenced by the culture of the time' - is it or is it not the Word of God?

@Aik: IMO, no, the Bible is not the direct word of God. It was recorded by humans and therefore subject to all sorts of editing and interpreting along the way. It's history and allegory - you have to interpret the messages it leaves in the context of both the time when it was written, and the time in which it is being read. Trust me, if people still behaved in accordance with the Bibilcal stuff that Susipaisti cites, I wouldn't be a believer, either. Even the most Orthodox of Jews don't act in strict accordance with every literal word of the Torah, it's the meaning behind the words that matters. If those words don't have meaning for you, fine, but to expect a "Yes" or "No" answer to your question while palnning to pounce on that answer is nothing but trickery. It's a cop-out of the highest order, similar to the question of "Since all religions conflict, how can any one of them be right?" BOth of those are STARTING POINTS for debate and thought, not endpoints in and of themselves.

@LNT: Forgive me for trying to live up to my own philosophy of inclusiveness by using language that doesn't limit my description to any one set of beliefs. :rolleyes: If that's what you call "voodoo" so be it. But I have to wonder, who do you think I'm trying to manipulate or convince when I say that there's accomodation for all types of belief and religious practice? I thought you'd know me better than that by now.

Even the most Orthodox of Jews don't act in strict accordance with every literal word of the Torah, it's the meaning behind the words that matters. If those words don't have meaning for you, fine, but to expect a "Yes" or "No" answer to your question while palnning to pounce on that answer is nothing but trickery. It's a cop-out of the highest order, similar to the question of "Since all religions conflict, how can any one of them be right?" BOth of those are STARTING POINTS for debate and thought, not endpoints in and of themselves.I posed it as a question, didn't I? I *was* expecting debate and thought. But most counter-arguments were pretty much "I just know."

I agree on most things on your post though, Rallymama. Whether others feel this way or not, I think it fits the "an independent faith on a personal level can be a good thing"-kind of thinking pretty well.

I've been dissecting the Bible so much because the organized (the key word here again) version of Christianity is based on it, yet it has so many contradictions. Many things that are wrong with the world today are based on people interpreting the words in different ways - such as over-population in catholic countries in South America. If the pope had interpreted those words a little differently, those people would be using birth control.

To Gnarf I'd like to say that sure, some, maybe even most of, those commandments might have been made for very good and noble reasons. But ordering a death sentence or promising eternal damnation for breaking them defeats the point.

There are people who follow those rules not because they feel it's the right thing to do, but because they're scared of the punishment. That's why I said I don't need to read a holy book to learn morals. I'll rather use common sense and trust my own conscience, which may or may not be in agreement with the tenets of a particular faith.

All in all this discussion is starting to seem pretty fruitless. Some comments made by some people have actually made me a bit more tolerant towards faith - applied sensibly and without preaching and passing judgement - so I guess it hasn't been a total waste.

It is feeling the Love of God that gave me something beyond my own selfish desires to think about. I wouldn't have come to that on my own... Nay. I feel much the same thing on the very rare occasions when I go to church as a favor to my father. (Father's Day, usually; he refuses to give up on returning me to the flock. :rolleyes: ) But I am secure in my own beliefs, and choose not to rejoin. You are the one who chose to embrace it; you are the one who chose your kinder path. And for that, you deserve the credit. :)

Once the scribes and Pharisees of ancient Israel took hold of the commandments, they went beyond the commandments and were thus subject to error. I was thinking more along the line of forbidding adultery, homosexuality, fornication and the other perversions. I believe that the Law of Chastity is for our own good.

What I took offense to was the idea that religion was a plague or something that should never have been.

Good points there on the religious side - however then I have to think after the 'there must be choice' thing - well, Gnarf opposed gay marriage. Isn't this (by legally restricting someone) screwing with their freedom to choose sin?By opposing the legalization of gay marriage, I am stating that the Government ought not show any form of approval of such greivous sins.

Though maybe for some people religion is a continuous fuel - from what I've seen people seem to continue with it long after it's burnt up and close their mind to new ideas/fuel.
... Is that what true belief is?When you look at it, there is so much to learn with religion that you cannot learn it all in one lifetime. Further, the Love of God is eternal, and you, by continuing to partake and worship, continue in feeling it.

To Gnarf I'd like to say that sure, some, maybe even most of, those commandments might have been made for very good and noble reasons. But ordering a death sentence or promising eternal damnation for breaking them defeats the point.Damnation is only for those that will not repent and seek to do the right. If at the last day they still feel no remorse for the sins that they commit, then they will only face damnation. The concept of a death sentence denies an opportunity to repent, and ought only be used in the most extreme circumstances. Back in Ancient Israel, they still had the stories of the sins of Sodom and Gamorah, and they didn't want to invite that destruction upon themselves, and thus may have sought to kill the more extreme sinners in hopes that the Lord wouldn't destroy them too.

There are people who follow those rules not because they feel it's the right thing to do, but because they're scared of the punishment. That's why I said I don't need to read a holy book to learn morals. I'll rather use common sense and trust my own conscience, which may or may not be in agreement with the tenets of a particular faith.Those that only obey out of fear only do so because htey have not been taught well enough. If taught from the example of Jesus Christ, they ought to learn why they are to do as they do. They know the way to avoid sin, but have not learned to go that extra mile that is required of true Christianity...

You are the one who chose to embrace it; you are the one who chose your kinder path. And for that, you deserve the credit.But until I actually felt that divine love, and couldn't deny its truthfullness, there was no reason to choose that path. It is not the words of man that convert people from one faith to another, but the Spirit of God. John 14:15 states that "if ye love me, keep my commandments." Until you feel that love, there is no reason to obey...

Good points there on the religious side - however then I have to think after the 'there must be choice' thing - well, Gnarf opposed gay marriage. Isn't this (by legally restricting someone) screwing with their freedom to choose sin?By opposing the legalization of gay marriage, I am stating that the Government ought not show any form of approval of such greivous sins.So the government should support *your* morals, and not those of someone else? Isn't there supposed to be something called freedom of religion, in the constitution? By restricting people's rights to do something that *isn't harming anyone else*, based on *your* faith, you're in effect forcefully imposing your own ideas on someone else.

Something that struck me as odd about this whole thread, and this occured to me just now: At first I said organized religion is harmful, accepting personal, non-preaching faith. Others wanted proof and examples of said harm. When I presented examples such as Constantinople, Galilei, terrorism, overpopulation, forcing one's own view on others etc.(maybe I was lucky not bringing up the child-molesting priests), people did not address those points at all - instead they started telling about their own personal faith, how it helped them get through etc., which I already stated several times I don't have a problem with even though I don't have one myself.

Can it be that the people here really just do not see the difference between organized and personal faith that I see plainly? No one's really stood up in defense of *organized religion* which I argued against. Everybody defended their personal faith and (at least somewhat) tolerant views, which I didn't really attack in the first place. A moderator said that "saying organized religion has done no good at all is bonk", but offered no examples either.

Would it be so hard to admit that organized religion has caused harm? Or harm *as well as good*, and then state some examples of that good?

Gnarfflinger, about those death sentences in the Old Testament: you seem to suggest yourself that those laws were made my man, instead of coming to Moses directly from God. Again, I don't think you don't need to read the book at all to have some kind of a faith of your own. But using that book, with all its contradictions, to widely tutor people on how to "live right", doesn't seem right to me.

So when I say the medieval church burned heretics, I'd expect arguments about the good things the church of today does in Africa, for instance. Convince me the good outweighs the bad (sure I might come up with counter points again, but that's discussion). Let's try to be constructive here.

I really, really don't get this 'not the direct word of God stuff' - how do you tell what is the direct word of God then and what is it? Or is it you who are letting the culture of our time change the meaning of God, rather than theirs? (and let's face it: People back when the Bible was written seemed to have a lot more direct contact with God than we go if scripture can be believed).

So if you can't trust what's written to be true, how do you know if any of it is? Aren't you twisting the 'Word of God' to suit your own lifestyle and culture?

One of the articles of faith given by the Mormon church states that the Book of Mormon is the word of God, unsullied by any "editorial" influences. The Bible on the other hand is the word of God to the extent that it has been translated correctly. So the belief here is that the Bible contains kernels of the truth, but some things have been lost in the translations and editorial work over the centuries.

As to how I know this. I used to attend the Mormon church, but some negative experiences in the church (which I don't interpret as a reflection on all Mormons), and other things going on in my life, I left it for good at some point in my life. My primary identity, and value system, are now derived from being part of the native community.

However, I just wanted to clarify for Gnarff where he's coming from before this little stampede builds momentum. :)

Okay, so it's all fine and good for Mormons - but for everyone else - how do you decide what's a 'kernel of truth' and what's BS that someone came up with for whatever reason?

Put me down as a non-believer who is against religious parties being allowed to dictate to the rest of us. (Myself)

I don't know if this was a response to me, but was very shortly after my post and I believe I'm the only one to use "dictate" previously.

but no single faith has the right to dictate the laws of the land. (Gnarf)

And more recently.

By opposing the legalization of gay marriage, I am stating that the Government ought not show any form of approval of such greivous sins. (Also Gnarf)

By opposing the legalisation of Gay marriage and wishing homosexual behavious to be classed as "grevious sin" you are dictating your views onto the rest of the population.

Having been a person whom has substituted chemically induced exhilaration with spiritual exultation, and then having found nothing but a different variety of insanity, I have instead decided to try to accept reality, even if it is uncomfortable and disappointing. I believe that one day science will show "spiritual" thinking is actually "spiritual" feeling of a sort very similar to that as caused by drugs and alcohol: stimulation of the reward centers of the brain; although I imagine the effect will most likely be triggered from a different area, perhaps by the instinctual portion responsible for infants enjoying the love of their parents. As animals, we tend towards reward-seeking behavior, and is it not coincidental that those whom avoid sexual rewards are the very same whom seem to substitute with a ravenous indulgence in the "spiritual"?

Have you ever watched a room full of nuns worship a picture of Mary hanging on the wall? Looking at their faces, looking at their eyes, with all honestly, wasn't the addiction plainly obvious?

Wow, there's a lot of stuff here. Ok, hard-core christian (baptist), here. Whole Revelation, rapture, end of the world thing gets me excited. Love God and everything about him. First, let me cover some basics.
Science does not, has never, and does not attempt to disprove God, gods, or religion of any kind.
Science is not this perfect, absolute truth that explains everything. Science is a guess by humans that seems to be true most of the time. Science is continually finding out that science was wrong and needs to be corrected. If we were wrong ten years ago, what makes you think we can't be wrong now?
History does not disprove God. On the contrary, many events in history absolutely defy science, logic, statistics, and all the reasoning of man, suggesting, but not proving, that there is some supernatural element to the universe. Science often does the same.
Religion is not a 'plague on the universe that has never made the world a better place'. How many charities are there that are atheistic? How many hospitals are named after Nietzsche?
Yes, many wars have been started in the name of religion and many people have been killed for 'blasphemy', but the VAST majority of these incedents used religion as an excuse and completely, or partially, ignored the religious teachings they claimed to uphold.
Lets not use Catholicism as an example, people, there are so many things wrong with (roman) catholocism that it makes me embarassed that some people call it christianity.

Ok, now for the real stuff.
Phone_Tools: You're a gnostic? You believe that you have been granted a private knowledge from God? You think that the material is inherrantly sinful and that only though is holy? Wow, I thought they died off in 100 something AD. Maybe we're talking about different kinds of gnostic. Love the Einstein quote, though.

Whoever asked it: The Bible does not say gays are evil or bad, just sinners like the rest of us. The Bible says that homosexuality is a sin just like lying and murder. The Bible also tells us to love and forgive sinners, not to hate them. Hope this has clarified a few things.

Disciple of the Watch and Saber: Ok, I respect Saber's differentiation between religion and religious people quite a bit. I'm confused, though. If you all believe that there is no God, when we die we just die, and your own morality is the only one that maters, or whatever, why do you even care if other people believe something else or not. Not wanting to hear more about it is ok, but actively attacking it, and drawing out people's opinions on the issue? That doesn't make sense to me.

As for what I believe and why, I belive in God, the Trinity, Jesus Christ, that sort of thing. The thing you may not understand is that I don't believe a lot of the 'traditional christian dogma' :bs: that has infiltrated the church. I believe what the Bible and God ACTUALLY SAY.
When we die, the soul, sinner and saved alike, 'sleeps' until the day of judgment at the end of the Tribulation. The sinner then are cast into hell and the saved are, well, it kind of skips to the new heaven and new earth here, but there's a 1000 year kingdom on old earth in between, so I don't know what happens to them then.
Satan does not rule over hell, it is as much a punishment for the demons as it is for people. Satan rules over the earth in rebellion to the legitimate rule of God.
There is no unforgivable sin. If you repent and call on the name of Jesus, anything and everything is forgiven.
Life is not perfect because people are not perfect and we live in a fallen world (see Satan above). God lets bad things happen because they are a part of free will. Free will requires something to choose besides good/God. That, by definition, is evil, there's no other choice. The consequences of our actions are part of the whole free will thing again.
Hmm, that's about it for the moment. if I think of any others, I'll post them.

Oh, I believe in God because He has made His pressence and concern unquestionably aparent to me several times. As I have said in other posts, at least one, God talks to me.

[Edited out rules violation] - dmc

[ October 19, 2005, 00:04: Message edited by: dmc ]

As far as I know UNICEF has nothing to do with religion. I'm not sure about the Red Cross, because it's so old in origin. There are some in my country that I wouldn't blame you for not having heard of - for example one protecting children's rights, it's named after a former Finnish president called Mannerheim.

One thing that drives people to express their negative opinions of religion is that certain religious people spend so much time trying to convert us. A friend of mine gets these Jehova's witnesses knocking on his door on a monthly basis and he's sick of it. I've been given pamphlets just sitting in the park enjoying a brew. One was titled "The Bread of Death", another had a chimp on the cover eating a banana and a text "Forefather?"

I'm really fed up with that sort of thing. And since religious people think it's okay to preach their views to others, what's wrong with non-religious ones stating their views in turn?

Are we bringing *THAT* back up again?!? Let me reiterate ONE MORE TIME:

1-Beleive in WHATEVER YOU WANT, as long as you DON'T BOTHER ME!
2-I will NEVER have a positive opinion on religion. I stand by my beliefs that it's a *plague*, and if you don't like, then