|
|
ReligionTheistic religion is, in my mind, the worst thing to ever befall humanity. This article will be written from an atheistic, spectator point of view. This will not be negative towards any specific religion unless it is negative towards all religions on the same level. Basically, this is meant to be an intelligent and well thought-out article, not just an anti religious rant. So back to my original statement now. I do believe theistic religion is a horrible tool of humanity. Yes, a tool. How many crimes have been justified in the name of religion or committed in the name of religion? The Crusades, 9/11, and The Holocaust are only a few examples of the atrocities that were committed in the name of religion. Millions of people have been killed, slaughtered, tortured, exterminated, and alienated based on idealogical belief. Is that right? Regardless of your religion, would you really agree to following an organization that influenced the government to the disadvantage and unfairness of others who refuse to believe what you believe? An organization that has cost the lives of millions and has been used as a scapegoat for the slaughter of many more? An organization that has even rejected tested and proven scientific discoveries, advancements, and ideas that eventually served mankind for good? There are many religions that have done those very things. Religion is the most hypocritical movement to ever sweep the world. Some claim their god is merciful and just, yet their holy book has stories of plagues and murders inflicted upon innocent children and civillians. Some claim that their god is the only true god, yet reject other gods due to the absurdity of the believed appearance and idea of these gods. Religions are contradictory, hypocritical, lying ideas that are spread by the masses in order to aquire more followers just so their sick ideas don't die out. Now that we've covered the major faults of religions, lets analyze the people who follow religions themselves. I can say from personal experience that people who have been brought up in a very strict, religious family are more likely to stereotype other religions as statanic and dark full of freaks and wierdos. These people will also put religion, a mere belief, before science when it cannot be proven. No matter how much evidence supports the scientific theory in question, religion will dominate until proven wrong. It is also true that many people will blindly follow their religion, yet know very little about it. The earth was claimed to be the center of the universe. The very fact that is revolves around the sun negates any pheasable chance of that ever being true. The claim is often made that religions help give people hope, self esteem, and make them more sociable. For atheistic religions (which are generally philosophies and lifestyles more than religions), this is often quite true. Instead of trying to force gods, afterlives, and other bogus theories with no backing or support on the person, they merely give guidelines for life and let you follow them if you so choose. Theistic religions on the other hand, try to scare people into doing things (a prime example is Hell as it is often used as a tool to frighten people from atheism and sinning) and try to project some grand promise land as a reward for following their religion. This is plain wrong. These people who try to convert people are not devising a philosophy and asking people to live by it, but are using places, beings, and events (ie: hell, God, torture) to persuade people to live how they want people to live. People should live how they want, not make others live how they want. I'm apologize that I couldn't quite touch on all subjects and attributes of religion and that I failed to properly cover the parts I did get to. I had writer's block to the tenth degree, so this is far from my best work. However, I am hoping this could spark some debate and intelligent discussion.
(For the record, this was written long before the heated debate started in the other thread.)
Last Edit: Sept 26, 2006 1:40:06 GMT by Lucifer
|
|
|
|
|
I'm a sucker for religious debate.  In response to the wars: Many wars have been caused for things other than religion. Perhaps the largest wars had religion involved, but even those were not entirely religious based. The Holocaust was largely based on a simple want for control and to create a perfect "race," just because Jews didn't fit into Hitler's picture doesn't mean that the whole war was over them. The Crusades were over a piece of land in two different cultures, the differences of culture are mainly caused by religion I must admit though. I am not deeming religious wars acceptable though. In fact I am not deeming any war acceptable. According to the religous teachings that I follow, if a religion does more harm to the world then the world is better off without it (too lazy to find the quote). You say that atheists simply follow morales for the sake of it. I ask you though, where do you think those morales came from? Did humans one day decide that we should stop stealing from our neighbors? Unlikely. Humans are naturally beings searching to survive in this world, religion attempts to give spiritual survival, even over physical. Sorry for this being short, but I don't really feel like writing a huge response right now.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm a sucker for religious debate. In response to the wars: Many wars have been caused for things other than religion. Perhaps the largest wars had religion involved, but even those were not entirely religious based. The Holocaust was largely based on a simple want for control and to create a perfect "race," just because Jews didn't fit into Hitler's picture doesn't mean that the whole war was over them. The Crusades were over a piece of land in two different cultures, the differences of culture are mainly caused by religion I must admit though. Actually, I wasn't talking about the fact that Hitler killed the Jews, but rather that he justified his crusade by claiming it was in the name of God. There's a quote somewhere which I'll find if you want. My specifications were in vain.  I went back and made sure to note that I meant theistic religions were bad and that atheistic religions (not just Atheism, mind you, but Satanism, Buddhism, etc) are mere philosophies. What makes them so different is that A) theistic religions like to think of themselves as weak without their god, thus resulting in weak-minded people and B) wars are wars, but when they're fought in the name of a supreme being that others can relate to, that's when they become much bloodier and more emotional.
|
|
|
|
|
Actually, I wasn't talking about the fact that Hitler killed the Jews, but rather that he justified his crusade by claiming it was in the name of God. There's a quote somewhere which I'll find if you want. Nevermind then. It is not that theists believe that they are weak without God, it is that they believe that they are stronger with God. Are you suggesting that some of the greatest thinkers in the world were weak-minded? Intelligence in this world is not defined on whether you are a theist or not. People's ability to think is not limited by their religious beliefs unless they choose to let them do so (once again delving into specific religions). By the way, the many sects of Buddhism have varying beliefs on the existence of gods, meaning that not necessarily all of them are atheist. Some even believe that they can become gods. The difference between religious wars and non-religious wars is that in non-religious wars the opposing side is looked at in a non-human way. You sort of missed what I was saying. The very morals that we base our society upon come from religion.
|
|
|
|
|
hmm... so much to say  First of all, define what you are refering to when you say religion. Are oyur efering to the belief itself? or the religion as a whole? I am not disagreeing with that Some people are jsut stupid when it comes to that. They will come into an argument like this with nothing to back their statements up, because they don't even know their own beliefs >_< Could you be more specific when you say "atheistic religions" because there are many that believe in an afterlife of some sort. Where do i start with this <_< You must be refering to the hypocritical people when you say that, because hell isn't suppose to be a threat, its suppose to be a consiquence. And the people who use it as a "scare" factor, need to rethink their stredegy. Furthermore, some people don't even evangulize for the right reasons! Some do it because they want to look good, or because they feel its one of those thing that christians(not trying to be specific ) do. It clearly states in the bible that we're suppose to evangulize because we want to share our happiness with others, and because we want to save others because we care for them. It doesn't say anywhere to scare people with an "or ELSE!" type of additude. tisk tisk! What fi we put that statemen in an article talking about law? Your basically saying that you shoudln't have any guidlines to live by, or morals. sorry if i got you wrong there, but thats what it seems like. And i think i'm done for now
|
|
k
|
|
|
|
|
It is not that theists believe that they are weak without God, it is that they believe that they are stronger with God. Are you suggesting that some of the greatest thinkers in the world were weak-minded? Intelligence in this world is not defined on whether you are a theist or not. People's ability to think is not limited by their religious beliefs unless they choose to let them do so (once again delving into specific religions). By the way, the many sects of Buddhism have varying beliefs on the existence of gods, meaning that not necessarily all of them are atheist. Some even believe that they can become gods. The difference between religious wars and non-religious wars is that in non-religious wars the opposing side is looked at in a non-human way. You sort of missed what I was saying. The very morals that we base our society upon come from religion. If there are branches of Buddhism, then they do not follow what true Buddhism was. I'm guessing it's sort of like how Catholocism could be called "true" Christianity and that the rest (Lutheran, Mormon, etc) are branches (not completely true, but hopefully you understand what I'm getting at). Also, I know intelligence is not based on your religion. However, to believe that the only reason you are smart is because of some higher being's intervention is what makes people ignorant. Now notice I'm not debating whether or not a higher being makes them smarter, but that they think it does. As for wars, they tend to be more passionate when religion is involved. This leads to bloodier wars. Plus, religions are scapegoats and can be used to "justify" what would otherwise be seen as an atrocity (such as cooking people alive to get information for the Church). I do not believe, however, that our beliefs are from religion. I think it is the other way around. Religion is a man-made invention and idea, so the principles set forth by a religion are that of man, not god or religion. So, I believe that, though religion has influenced how our society was made, it would've turned out the same way without it. Religion just makes it easier. People want answers, so you give some to them. When you do that, you can say virtually whatever you want and people will listen. If someone thinks that God created the universe, and it makes sense, and they believe it, they'll follow that religion. Now they read that God gave them 10 commandments way back when. If they believe in God, they have to believe in the commandments.
What's the difference? I'm rather unaware of an atheistic religion that believes in an afterlife. It's not really an atheistic religion if it does. I know a certain Buddhist sect does, but I'm almost positive that was not part of original Buddhism. What's your point? People use religion as an excuse, they evangelise regardless of if it's wanted or not, and they use threats. The Bible also says Thou Shalt Not Kill, but people kill in the name of God all of the time. The Crusades! You took that quote out of context. I was referring to the fact that people should be able to live how they want, not how your religion says to. Obviously, they must abide by the rules set down by their country, but that doesn't mean they can't be gay, have sex for pleasure, hate people, and whatever else a religion may not condone. My point is that it doesn't matter what you believe, what matters is what I believe. You have no right to force your beliefs on me.
Last Edit: Sept 27, 2006 0:57:11 GMT by Lucifer
|
|
|
|
|
|
fredy, Christians are not supposed to proselytize their faith. I'd find the quote, but again too lazy.
Luci, I've never met someone who thought that the reason they were smart is because of God. Maybe they thought that God gave them intelligence, but not that without him they would be lacking it.
Can we truly know what the original message from Buddha was? Non-theists love to claim that the Bible could have many flaws because of time and human writing. Do you deny the same for other religions? The chances that the message was confused are far greater than those from Christianity.
You put religion in a position of controlling people, yet for the most part you follow the same principles, no? You claim it is a tool used by the power-hungry, but the original point of religion was to find enlightenment, not salvation. It is simply those who are confused who seek salvation. You present religion as an answer to the currently unknowable, but once again religion was not simply an answer but also a path of life.
Cooking people for the church, the government does similar acts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
We would all be better off if religion never came into existence. I'm talking about the polytheistic ones of yore as well.
But the thing is, it isn't non-existent so the only way to coexist with it is to ignore it completely. Don't convert. Don't bash those that believe/or not in God. Just ignore it.
Dude1: "Hey, I'm Catholic!"
Dude2: "K"
Dude1: "You?"
Dude2: "Nah I don't believe in God."
Dude1: "Cool"
DUde3: "Hi I'm Jewish."
Dude2: "Cool"
Dude1: "K"
Dude4: "DURKA DURKA MUHAMMED JIHAD!"
That is what conversations about religion should be like.
|
|
|
|
|
fredy, Christians are not supposed to proselytize their faith. I'd find the quote, but again too lazy. Luci, I've never met someone who thought that the reason they were smart is because of God. Maybe they thought that God gave them intelligence, but not that without him they would be lacking it. Miswording on my part, perhaps. Basically, Wisdom is a gift from the Holy Spirit. That is absolutely rediculous. Wisdom is something gained through experience and through your own personal accomplishments or failures. To say that the Wisdom you've gained is not because of your own work, but because the Holy Spirit gave it to you is like saying you wouldn't have Wisdom if it weren't for that higher being. Not only is that extremely arrogant on behalf of the deity, but it is also infering that people could not become decent (for lack of a better word) without his/her help. Yes, we can. Sidartha (sp?), the original Buddha, lived around...the 400 or 1400 year range (I don't remember for sure). He lived in a time of recorded history, we know who he is, we know about his life, etc. I am not positive on the original message (well, the message I am, but not the entire theology behind the religion), so perhaps I'm wrong in that respect, but that is merely one atheistic religion of many. My point remains valid. 'Original' being the keyword. I'm talking about now (or events in history), not the exact starting point of religion (which has been around for centuries). Now it is used as a means in which to not only control people, but as a scapegoat. You know why the Pope used to be the most powerful man in Europe rather than a king? Because of religion. Examples? Last time those things happened, it was generally when the Church had more power than the State.
We would all be better off if religion never came into existence. I'm talking about the polytheistic ones of yore as well. But the thing is, it isn't non-existent so the only way to coexist with it is to ignore it completely. Don't convert. Don't bash those that believe/or not in God. Just ignore it. Dude1: "Hey, I'm Catholic!" Dude2: "K" Dude1: "You?" Dude2: "Nah I don't believe in God." Dude1: "Cool" DUde3: "Hi I'm Jewish." Dude2: "Cool" Dude1: "K" Dude4: "DURKA DURKA MUHAMMED JIHAD!" That is what conversations about religion should be like. As akward and goofy as that is, I completely agree. I've got no problem with religions themselves. There are many I don't agree with and that I think are just wrong, but as long as they're not affecting or influencing me, I don't care if people believe in them. It's the fact that they do affect me that makes me hate it.
Last Edit: Sept 27, 2006 2:45:11 GMT by Lucifer
|
|
|
|
|
|
Do you mean that our ability to learn is granted by God? That without God we wouldn't have sentience? It's not that we only believe that, but that we wouldn't be here without God. In no way by believing that either makes someone weak-minded. You have no evidence to support the claim you made, it simply is made up support for your argument.
Siddhartha Gautama (have to study many other religions in mine) was born and died before Christ, not after.
You believe that religion was invented as a tool. Invented refers to originally. Even now you base your evidence on very specific religons with investigating all of the theistic religions. The pope has very little power now.
Governments do hideous acts to get information, especially prisoners of war. Just because you don't see these things happening in the daily world around you does not mean they don't occur.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Just because people are sinners doesn't mean that God doesn't exist. Humans can think they are following God when they aren't, it is possible that Hitler was deceived. People dieing in the name Christianity is no way any evidence that God doesn't exist.
This makes me angry. Religion, "a mere belief". If I have a relationship with the God of the universe and I chose to believe in him rather then "Science" that doesn't mean I'm being silly.
And the question isn't religion vs science. Its science vs. science. There is lots of scientific evidence behind the bible, and there are plenty of Christian scientists.
"No matter how much evidence supports the scientific theory" - I could say the same about Christianity. I've given lots of evidences for the bible which I've found and you think they are completely disproven by a few sentences of logic. From my perspective you know very little on the subject. And if the theory you are talking about is evolution, well that just sick. By science's standards evolution isn't even worth being called a theory. I have never seen a scrap of evidence worth thinking about for Evolution.
Honestly, are you just waiting for some perfect proof to come up. I see no evidence in what you wrote, just an opinion. Well I have an opinion too. I think you are foolish and enjoy writing up pages of simple logic and crap taken from other stuff you've read just to prove to yourself that you're right.
This argument will never end, and it won't get anywhere on a forum. Why don't you look around in the real world. Talk to a real Christan. Not some punk from highschool, an adult Christan. Have you ever talked to someone who knows what they are talking about? A pastor? A youth pastor? An elder? I doubt it.
Just like godlessbasterd.com he talks to and confuses random Christians and thinks that it proves there is no God. If its possible in your mind for millions of Christian to be deceived then its possible for millions of Atheists to be as well.
I don't think I will comment on this subject again...
|
|
enalia.proboards92.com/index.cgi
|
|
|
|
|
Do you mean that our ability to learn is granted by God? That without God we wouldn't have sentience? It's not that we only believe that, but that we wouldn't be here without God. In no way by believing that either makes someone weak-minded. You have no evidence to support the claim you made, it simply is made up support for your argument. Wrong, I heard it in Church. Wisdom is the gift of the Holy Spirit. As a matter of fact, today we said a prayer which asked for God to grant us Wisdom, Intelligence, Courage, and other characteristics. I don't need a God to give me those things, I can manage just fine on my own and gain those things on my own. People are weak if they think they can't. Arguably more of an opinion than fact, but the entire article is merely an opinion. Perhaps it was 400 BC then. I just remember it having a 400 in it...but again, it's irrelavent and my point still remains valid. Poor specification on my part. I'm talking about current religions. Old polytheistic, pagan religions were not forms of control (as far as I know), but just to answer the unexplained. Religions still do this, but I feel that the more modern religions (Judaism, Hinduism, Islam, Christianity, among others) were also made as a way to control people. If you give people answers, they'll believe. If they believe, you can control them. An atheistic religion gives you a philosophy and lets you choose whether or not to accept it. There is no deal, promise, or consequence for choosing or not choosing to follow it. Theistic religions on the other hand, give you heaven, hell, gods, etc. These things to either bribe or scare you into believing, while still explaining what science can't. This is how they gain support. The rules that go along with the religion is the philosophy aspect of it. By getting people to believe in a religion with the other stuff, they can get people to believe in a philosophy. That is why it's a tool. Governments do it for the sake of the military and/or country, not to preserve a church.
Just because people are sinners doesn't mean that God doesn't exist. Humans can think they are following God when they aren't, it is possible that Hitler was deceived. People dieing in the name Christianity is no way any evidence that God doesn't exist. It is still a scapegoat. Give me an example of what could be used as a scapegoat in a case like that which could gain the support of millions other than religion. I'm debating the concept of religion, not whether or not God exists. That is why this is a seperate article from the one Aaron wrote. Indeed, logic triumphs over illogical assumptions when there is no backing or proof--which there wasn't. Also, there is PLENTY of evidence of Evolution. You appear to me as one of the kids who just sleeps in science class. I can find you a load of webpages containing information if you are genuine in saying there is no evidence worthy of your thought. Exactly, it was an opinion article, not a scientific article. Also, I don't need "perfect proof". People that did turned to religion. I know what science tells me. The rest I don't, but I'm not making up theories and treating them as fact. I'm treating them as theories. I'm not in the position to start a religious debate with a member of the Church such as a priest, but if I knew someone who'd be willing to debate in real life (ask Kahless, I've been trying to get in contact with a few people he knows so I can debate), I'd be more than happy to. Millions of atheists? First of all, atheists are the minority. They make up about 3% of the population in America. Second of all, the argument is not "you're wrong, we're right", so deception has nothing to do with it. It's the fact that atheists turn to science where religious folk cling to the same belief with no backing whatsoever. If you want to continued this debate (even though you said you didn't), post it in the other thread. Why? Because I am not debating God's existence, I am debating the morality of religion. The concept, not the idealogies.
Last Edit: Sept 28, 2006 1:46:03 GMT by Lucifer
|
|
|
|
|
|
The belief of one very specific sect is not the belief of all of them. You didn't answer the part about the fact that you just made up that it makes people stupid.
Even currently practiced religions were intended to find enlightenment. I didn't just mean "some" religions, I mean the largely practiced religions were all originally intended to find "nirvana."
You say that they were created as a tool for control, yet for several years they were the ones being punished and persecuted. A great method of control to invent. Why would you invent it if it doesn't instantly give you control? Would they really sacrifice themselves to give future people that they don't know a tyrannical control (which you have heavily exaggerated).
I see no difference.
|
|
|
|
|
The belief of one very specific sect is not the belief of all of them. You didn't answer the part about the fact that you just made up that it makes people stupid. I didn't say it makes people stupid, I said it makes them weak-minded. They live under the assumption that God is granting them their strengths rather than believing in themselves. Not necessarily. Find me proof if you can (I'd like to learn), but I'm almost positive that there is no information on when Judaism started. Who started it? When? Where? You don't know that the stories in the Bible are 100% accurate, or that the original intention was control, or whatever. But the fact that they are used to control gives more sway to the idea that that was the original intent, not solely to find "nirvana". Keep in mind that I don't mean specific countries or what have you. Christianity did for a time because of the Pope, but the rest of the religions have control only within their religion rather than on the world. But, it's control nonetheless. I never once said tyrannical and hardly insinuated it. Control was one example of why theistic religion is bad, but the parts that could be seen as "tyrannical" are entirely separate examples. They do work together sometimes, but I didn't mean it always which is why I left them apart. As for the persicution, refer to the above paragraph. We don't know how a religion started. Likewise, persecution could've happened after its foundation. Where does it say that once the religion was implemented, they were persecuted? If you get enough believers, the persecution is on the believers, not the one who started it (in most cases). The former is for the better of the people, the latter is for selfish gains and preservation of personal ideas. If an idea threatens to destroy (in a figuritive sense) the Church, it isn't hurting anybody. If a terrorist threatens to literally destroy the country, that is hurting people. The former case has no reason to implement torture and violence.
|
|
|
|
|
Still has no justification or support. Abraham started the Hebrew race, which in turn became Judaism. How does it give more sway? It's a personal belief with no evidence to support it. The abuse of clergy today does not mean the same was true yesterday. You never said tyranny, but what you were explaining was just that. You have implied many things, just because you didn't say the word doesn't mean it isn't there. Persecution always happens to the founders. Perhaps you should take a look at some of the more recent religions which have extensive written histories, such as the Bahai Faith (Book: The Dawn Breakers). In our eyes spiritual death is worse than physical. I'm not justifying it, but I am just saying that you are making religion look like the only culprit and you are trying to justify the government's use. It would not be just if one group was given the ability and another was not. You have stated a lot of biases and opinions, with no support whatsoever. Yes I know this is an opinionated article, but none the less you have no backing for your claims besides that the wars may be a little bit worse, but that does not mean that religion is the worst, rather the clergy. The two should not be mixed. Sure some of my arguments don't have support, but the ones that don't are simply responses to yours that don't. Mod Edit: Fixed your quotes.
Last Edit: Sept 28, 2006 23:46:51 GMT by Lucifer
|
|
|
