Thread: Science says: Religion will be here forever!

Originally Posted by Mes Tarrant

^^ Heh. They're still the same religion.

I feel like whenever a person from any religion does something really dumb-ass, other people from that same religion just say, "Ohh don't worry about him, he's just a fundamentalist. We're not all like that." This is just the impression that I get. And maybe that's totally correct, but it does make me worry that these radical people are doing these things in the name of that religion.

Edit: Gah that was to psych student. Blaaah I'm not fast enough.

If I commit atrocities in the name of atheism, does that automatically invalidate your beliefs?

Originally Posted by psychology student

By the part of the bible that Christians follow has no violence. And I never meant that you speak for all athiests but your views, typically, should reasonably reflect those of athiests, being a moderate athiest.

Interesting. What is the point of the "other" part of the bible? (I don't mean that offensively, I'm only curious. Sometimes it's hard to portray things through text.)

Originally Posted by Xagaria

http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en-commons/3/39/Anthonis_van_Dyck_057.jpg

That's obviously a good point. The thing is, I've only ever come across people who do things in the name of their religion rather than in the name of the absence of belief, or atheism, or whatever. Just speaking from personal experience.

Originally Posted by psychology student

but your views, typically, should reasonably reflect those of athiests, being a moderate athiest.

Who said I was a moderate atheist? Actually I'm thinking of switching to anti-theist.

But everyone has their own will, and as long as the holy book doesn't explicitly inform violence or hatred, then how can the mainstream be blamed? The truth is there are bad people out there, with or without religion!


Edit for Mes tarrant: the other part of the bible, the old testament, is like context and history. Part of this is part of the Jewish holy book. I explained it previously. Jesus contradicted some of the old testament and changed everything, and this is Christianity.

Originally Posted by psychology student

But everyone has their own will, and as long as the holy book doesn't explicitly inform violence or hatred, then how can the mainstream be blamed?

See, that's why we can't have a conversation about this. You obviously don't know what's in the holy books you are defending. It gets tiresome pointing these things out. There's like a billion threads here talking about all the bad things in the bible, go read them.

(Hint: they do explicitly "inform" violence and hatred.)

The part the Christians follow, not the old testament.

Originally Posted by Mes Tarrant

That's obviously a good point. The thing is, I've only ever come across people who do things in the name of their religion rather than in the name of the absence of belief, or atheism, or whatever. Just speaking from personal experience.

I think the Atheists call to arms video is a pretty good example. Now, I realize that he does not actually call for violence to be done in the name of atheism, but he is calling for a form of attack against religion to be carried out in the name of atheism. Not only that, but it is an ignorant and misguided attack that should be directed at Christianity specifically, because it is meant to be a response to creationism, but throughout Dawkins refers to the 'enemy' simply as religion which would lead one to believe that he has equal hatred for Buddhism for instance, which does not refute evolution in anyway.

Should I disregard your views as an atheist, or even worse hate you, because Dawkins wishes to aim his misguided attacks at me?

You guys, really /sigh. I wish everyone would just accept that the bible is just some loose general concept to follow, that it is most definitely not completely inspired by people of good character (because obviously ever killing anyone (because they offend you with their actions that do not harm others) is not permissible, and neither is attacking them, and obviously hate is an abridge to loving others) and just move on with our lives. I've said it before and I'll say it again.

Most people have rise above religion, obviously no one commits the atrocities mandated by half of the populations holy scripture.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

I think the Atheists call to arms video is a pretty good example. Now, I realize that he does not actually call for violence to be done in the name of atheism, but he is calling for a form of attack against religion to be carried out in the name of atheism. Not only that, but it is an ignorant and misguided attack that should be directed at Christianity specifically, because it is meant to be a response to creationism, but throughout Dawkins refers to the 'enemy' simply as religion which would lead one to believe that he has equal hatred for Buddhism for instance, which does not refute evolution in anyway.

Should I disregard your views as an atheist, or even worse hate you, because Dawkins wishes to aim his misguided attacks at me?

I see your point completely. I don't quite understand what you said about Dawkins specifically because I didn't get past something like the halfway point of that video, but I'll make sure to watch the whole thing soon.

In any case, it sounds like Dawkin's "attack" is just his way of urging atheists to speak out. That's quite different from the things committed by theists in the name of religion.

You know, it might be a good idea to create a thread where we can list some of our personal experiences with theists or atheists, and how those experiences have shaped our views. What do you think?

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

I think the Atheists call to arms video is a pretty good example. Now, I realize that he does not actually call for violence to be done in the name of atheism, but he is calling for a form of attack against religion to be carried out in the name of atheism. Not only that, but it is an ignorant and misguided attack that should be directed at Christianity specifically, because it is meant to be a response to creationism, but throughout Dawkins refers to the 'enemy' simply as religion which would lead one to believe that he has equal hatred for Buddhism for instance, which does not refute evolution in anyway.

Should I disregard your views as an atheist, or even worse hate you, because Dawkins wishes to aim his misguided attacks at me?

The reason he says all religion is because he isn't fighting just christianity, he is fighting all illogical thoughts. And you can't deny that every religion is illogical. Most atheists are really agnostic in the respect that they will accept that just like the orbiting teapot (i love this one), unicorns, leprechauns, etc. we can't completely say that they don't exist, because who knows when you don't put them subject to reason and logic? Ironically logically if something is illogical in nature, you can't prove that it doesn't exist, however you can say with a most secured stance that you do not believe in spirituality.

Originally Posted by psychology student

I do speak for every Christian when I say that true Christians follow Christ, and not the old testament laws, (as this is Christianity).

You don't really seem to know this Jesus guy too well.

Matthew 5:17-18

17"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished

Therefore you, and "all Christians" should support the killing of Homosexuals, Children, Women, Rape Victims, Witches, Fortunetellers, Non-believers, Adulterers, Fornicators, False Prophets, Women who are not Virgins on their wedding night, Blasphemers, Infidels, and People who work on Sunday(the Sabbath).

You should also support Sex Slaves, Rape, Pillaging, Ritual Human Sacrifice, and Child Sacrifice.

Also you should not practice free inquiry nor socialize with non Christians.



Whats that you say? These aren't relevant anymore? They're open to interpretation? They're metaphors? the Old Testament is defunct because Jesus was the “lamb” to clear away its rules and regulations?


Well I say Bullshit. And so does Jesus

"It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid." (Luke 16:17 NAB)

"Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation, for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God." (2 Peter 20-21 NAB)

“...the scripture cannot be broken.” --Jesus Christ, John 10:35

“He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.” -Jesus (Matthew 15:4-7)

My love for cookies and baked goods in general will never fade.

Thank you, Elis D. I was so hoping psych student might actually do some reading so I wouldn't have to go thru this again, so I appreciate it.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

I think the Atheists call to arms video is a pretty good example. Now, I realize that he does not actually call for violence to be done in the name of atheism, but he is calling for a form of attack against religion to be carried out in the name of atheism. Not only that, but it is an ignorant and misguided attack that should be directed at Christianity specifically, because it is meant to be a response to creationism, but throughout Dawkins refers to the 'enemy' simply as religion which would lead one to believe that he has equal hatred for Buddhism for instance, which does not refute evolution in anyway.

Should I disregard your views as an atheist, or even worse hate you, because Dawkins wishes to aim his misguided attacks at me?

Xaq, I'm never going to understand why some people (specifically, you) defend every irrational viewpoint in the world, but the minute someone suggests that we use logic, reason, etc. as our system of understanding, you're all over them, and say they are "attacking" you, being ignorant, not being tolerant, etc. You've really got a complex. I know this question is going to offend and enrage you to no end, but how come you will defend any sort of ignorant religious ritual practiced by any human being at any time in history, but whenever someone suggests that maybe the human race could become educated and move beyond superstition and meaningless or harmful activities, you cannot tolerate it? I'd really like to know.

OK, I'll admit I don't know a lot about Buddhism, but isn't it considered more of a philosophy than a religion? Like your supposed try and get to the ultimate state of non-caring, or something? Maybe there isn't much difference between some philosophies and religions.

Originally Posted by Mark75

My love for cookies and baked goods in general will never fade.

With education, you can overcome this irrational feeling. Cookies is bad for you!

Yeah Buddhism is basically a philosophy, not a religion, however it could be classified as a religion. The Buddha did not want his followers to deify him.

There are however the people that take it to the extreme and worship Siddhārtha Gautama which turns it from a philosophy to a religion.

Originally Posted by Elis D.

Yeah Buddhism is basically a philosophy, not a religion, however it could be classified as a religion. The Buddha did not want his followers to deify him.

There are however the people that take it to the extreme and worship Siddhārtha Gautama which turns it from a philosophy to a religion.

The fact that Gautama was not a god does not automatically define Buddhism as a philosophy. The only people I've ever seen claim Buddhism is not actually a religion are people who don't actually follow it. All followers of Buddhism that I have ever met say that it is their religion, and all Buddhist literature that I have read presents it as a religion.

Originally Posted by Sandform

you can't deny that every religion is illogical.

Yes I can, that has been my main argument on this forum for a very long time.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

Xaq, I'm never going to understand why some people (specifically, you) defend every irrational viewpoint in the world, but the minute someone suggests that we use logic, reason, etc. as our system of understanding, you're all over them, and say they are "attacking" you, being ignorant, not being tolerant, etc. You've really got a complex. I know this question is going to offend and enrage you to no end, but how come you will defend any sort of ignorant religious ritual practiced by any human being at any time in history, but whenever someone suggests that maybe the human race could become educated and move beyond superstition and meaningless or harmful activities, you cannot tolerate it? I'd really like to know.

I really don't know what to say to you Moonbeam; it seems like you continue to purposely misunderstand and misrepresent my position because at this point you simply want to disagree with me.

When I argue against you, and many of the atheists on this forum, I am not defending the Mayan religion, Greek pantheism, Jainism, animism, etc. etc. etc. as all being the literal reality that we live in. When you direct your attacks at ALL RELIGION I am forced to defend the old with the new, the outdated with the current, the one's that I believe have merit and the ones that I believe have outlived their purpose. I am forced to defend my own personal beliefs alongside anyone's who is not specifically an atheist, only because you choose to attack everyone who is not exactly like you; all at the same time, in the same breathe and with the same labels.

I'm pretty certain that most schools of Buddhism classify as religion. Some incorporate unfounded supernatural claims like any other religion. Rebirth and karma are central principles that lack any evidence. Buddha is said to be born from the side of his mother, protected by deities. Like all other religions, traditional Buddhism has sexist tendencies, indirectly condemning the female birth canal and the bloody process of birth. Monks live in celibacy, because their religion tells them to. They'd probably like a piece of ass, but they can't. Buddhism makes unscientific cosmological claims.

With some good will you could probably consider Zen to be more of a practical philosophical system rather than a religion.

Originally Posted by psychology student

The part the Christians follow, not the old testament.

This argument is getting so old, there is visible mold growing around it.

The old testament is still being printed just as often as the new testament. When a bible is thumped, sworn upon, waved disapprovingly, or found in a hotel dresser, does it not always contain the old testament as well?

The usual practice in publishing is to include an errata sheet when a previous edition contained large mistakes. Where is our guide on what should be ignored? Doesn't the new testament reference the Old in several passages? (yes, it does). If a book is not to be followed, and another book follows it, does that not cast suspicion upon the second book?

The truth is that the division in the bible is not between old testament and new. It is between what is convenient and what is not. When that changes, we get things like Benedict XVI revising Limbo for babies.

See? Anyone can change Christianity. Time to revise the bible again.

Skysaw: this is not an argument, it is how it is, its what Christians do!

Ellis D: I hope you've heard of the Golden rule
Matthew chapter 7 verse 12 "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets."Luke chapter 6 verse 27: " Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you".
I dont see how the latter fits in conjunction with the pure speculation of Ellis D:


"Therefore you, and "all Christians" should support the killing of Homosexuals, Children, Women, Rape Victims, Witches, Fortunetellers, Non-believers, Adulterers, Fornicators, False Prophets, Women who are not Virgins on their wedding night, Blasphemers, Infidels, and People who work on Sunday(the Sabbath).
You should also support Sex Slaves, Rape, Pillaging, Ritual Human Sacrifice, and Child Sacrifice.
Also you should not practice free inquiry nor socialize with non Christians".





Ellis D also likes to misquote Jesus, thank God Jesus is such a loving person.
"Matthew 5:17-18

Quote:
17"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished"

First of all what do you think prompted such a statement? A belief that he had previously or was believed to aspire to abolish the law.

Ellis D didn't want to include the passage that follows his mis-quotation:

"Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven".

The Pharisees as a group of pre-christ Jewish religious leaders who uphold the law. Jesus is saying here that one must go beyond the law, beyond the upholders of the law (changing the law). It even could be interpreted that one who breaks the law will still be in heaven as long as they follow Jesus. The whole combined passages can be seen as satire on the Pharisees, the religious leaders who Jesus sees as hypocrites.

After this are a series of passages where he deliberately and explicitly changes the law:
Murder

21"You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not murder,(Exodus 20:13) and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.' 22But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, 'Raca', (shows contempt)' is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell.
23"Therefore, if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, 24leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to your brother; then come and offer your gift.

25"Settle matters quickly with your adversary who is taking you to court. Do it while you are still with him on the way, or he may hand you over to the judge, and the judge may hand you over to the officer, and you may be thrown into prison. 26I tell you the truth, you will not get out until you have paid the last penny.

Adultery

27"You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.'(Exodus 20:14) 28But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. 30And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell.

Divorce

31"It has been said, 'Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.'(Deuteronomy 21:4) 32But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery.

Oaths

33"Again, you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not break your oath, but keep the oaths you have made to the Lord.' 34But I tell you, Do not swear at all: either by heaven, for it is God's throne; 35or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. 36And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. 37Simply let your 'Yes' be 'Yes,' and your 'No,' 'No'; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.

An Eye for an Eye

38"You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.'(Exodus 21:24; Leviticus 24:20; Deuteronomy. 19:21) 39But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. 41If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 42Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

Love for Enemies

43"You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor(Leviticus 19:18 ) and hate your enemy.' 44But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

Yeah, I think he does change the law, and I don't think that he preaches hatred, in any way, but unreciprocal unrequited love.

And thats the way the cookie crumbles!

Psychology student, most christians follow the Old Testament.


Don't deny it, because they do.



There are no arguments or figures, maybe you're an exception but the vast majority do follow it.


Anyway, regardless of that, what makes you think your religion is right?


Why not Islam?

Why not Hinduism?

Why not Sikhism?

Why not Zeus?

Why not FSM?

How can most Christians follow the old testament, as in the laws, some of which are ridiculous, and completely unfeascible in any society but the archaic society of their origin, and most importantly, many of these laws were contradicted by Jesus; Christians follow Jesus. There are some stories in the old testament, that act like parables and offer some insight, like the story of Daniel, Elijah, Moses and Jonah, but the laws of the old testament are not followed by Christians.

And I never said Christianity was right nor did I say I was a Christian. I simply believe that everyone must be able to believe what they like, and that their beliefs should be immune from questioning. I also believe that religion should be a personal thing, out of the political and public sphere.

Originally Posted by psychology student

How can most Christians follow the old testament, as in the laws, some of which are ridiculous, and completely unfeascible in any society but the archaic society of their origin, and most importantly, many of these laws were contradicted by Jesus; Christians follow Jesus. There are some stories in the old testament, that act like parables and offer some insight, like the story of Daniel, Elijah, Moses and Jonah, but the laws of the old testament are not followed by Christians.

I know.
How can they follow both? I don't know. Ask them.

Anyway they aren't historically logical beings exactly.

Originally Posted by psychology student

that their beliefs should be immune from questioning.

Can they be questioned when they try to blow me up in the name of their God?

Originally Posted by psychology student

Skysaw: this is not an argument, it is how it is, its what Christians do!

Thank you for dismissing all of my points with such a magnificent wave of your hand. If Christians didn't follow the old testament, there wouldn't be any debate about evolution.

The plain truth is seen every day. Those who try to impose Christian values on the rest of us quote heavily from both testaments.

Skysaw: I said they don't follow the laws of the old testament, but they see it as history, context. I said this many times.

Christians don't "impose", they don't say "convert or we will kill you", they advise.

Carousoul: "blow you up", this is a very narrow view of religion. It does not apply to Christianity, and anyway, I don't advocate public religion, as I said, I think it should be a private thing. But I reaslise that American Christianity isn't as private as I see it.

Originally Posted by psychology student

Carousoul: "blow you up", this is a very narrow view of religion. It does not apply to Christianity, and anyway, I don't advocate public religion, as I said, I think it should be a private thing. But I reaslise that American Christianity isn't as private as I see it.

You said that ANYBODY's beliefs should be immune from questioning. You made that wide wide statement.

And I am asking now, should we not question people's beliefs when they drive the person to blow us up?