Why I think religion is inherently bad. [POLL ADDED]

[Sentinel XV]

I'm really not sure what you're claiming, anymore. You have more flip-flops than Romney. One second you're arguing that Christians are the ONLY religion killed for their beliefs, then that they only one of many. Then you claim that proof is based on sight, and now you're claiming that it's not.

Proof is based on sight. I think Mav was saying sight is unbiased so I agreed. I never flip flopped on that, it was a typo.

Ah, I see. My apologies, then.

However, sight is unbiased, but that is not all that goes into the formation of proof and science as a whole. We can deduce things that we cannot physically see. How do you think we know of such things as particle physics and celestial objects like black holes.

[Tlaceceyaya]

I'm really not sure what you're claiming, anymore. You have more flip-flops than Romney. One second you're arguing that Christians are the ONLY religion killed for their beliefs, then that they only one of many. Then you claim that proof is based on sight, and now you're claiming that it's not.

Proof is based on sight. I think Mav was saying sight is unbiased so I agreed. I never flip flopped on that, it was a typo.

Proof is not based on sight. It is based on evidence. Evidence can be gathered through sight, or through the use of instruments.

[Suidwes-Afrika]

Proof is based on sight. I think Mav was saying sight is unbiased so I agreed. I never flip flopped on that, it was a typo.

Proof is not based on sight. It is based on evidence. Evidence can be gathered through sight, or through the use of instruments.

Quite. For example, how did we know that Earth was round before we could fly into space and photograph it as such? Could the average human 'see' the Earth's roundness as much as perceive it through other means?

[Ordya]

Proof is based on sight. I think Mav was saying sight is unbiased so I agreed. I never flip flopped on that, it was a typo.

Ah, I see. My apologies, then.

However, sight is unbiased, but that is not all that goes into the formation of proof and science as a whole. We can deduce things that we cannot physically see. How do you think we know of such things as particle physics and celestial objects like black holes.

To come to unbiased result when sight is not possible, both sides involved must be able to reach similar conclusions--as with the scientific method.

[The New World Oceania]

No, it's not, that is my point.

I'm really not sure what you're claiming, anymore. You have more flip-flops than Romney. One second you're arguing that Christians are the ONLY religion killed for their beliefs, then that they only one of many. Then you claim that proof is based on sight, and now you're claiming that it's not.

There are too many potential good quotes to fit right here.

[Valkmar]

Ah, I see. My apologies, then.

However, sight is unbiased, but that is not all that goes into the formation of proof and science as a whole. We can deduce things that we cannot physically see. How do you think we know of such things as particle physics and celestial objects like black holes.

To come to unbiased result when sight is not possible, both sides involved must be able to reach similar conclusions--as with the scientific method.

Ordya you can't base sight as fucking fact. Go do a shitton of acid, shrooms, and heroin, let me know how many unicorns you saw shooting flying squirrels out of a rainbow-cannon.

[Sentinel XV]

Ah, I see. My apologies, then.

However, sight is unbiased, but that is not all that goes into the formation of proof and science as a whole. We can deduce things that we cannot physically see. How do you think we know of such things as particle physics and celestial objects like black holes.

To come to unbiased result when sight is not possible, both sides involved must be able to reach similar conclusions--as with the scientific method.

So we have reached the conclusion that proof is not limited to what you can see. I believe some progress has been made.

[The New World Oceania]

To come to unbiased result when sight is not possible, both sides involved must be able to reach similar conclusions--as with the scientific method.

Ordya, you can't base sight as fucking fact. Go do a shitton of acid, shrooms, and heroin, let me know how many unicorns you saw shooting flying squirrels out of a cannon.

Mormons don't use perception-altering drugs, but a number of us have still seen God. Works, eh?
And alright, sure, you could rearrange "LDS..."

[Tlaceceyaya]

Ordya, you can't base sight as fucking fact. Go do a shitton of acid, shrooms, and heroin, let me know how many unicorns you saw shooting flying squirrels out of a cannon.

Mormons don't use perception-altering drugs, but a number of us have still seen God. Works, eh?
And alright, sure, you could rearrange "LDS..."

That just strengthens his point. Even without psychoactive drugs, people see things that aren't there.

[Cameroi]

all religions are not the same. that is really a much too wide of a brush. all fanatacism is evil certainly. but christianity and islam are by far the worst (and anyone who claims to love either of those two, while hating the other, is more ignorant of both then they can imagine). pretty much everything else is mostly harmless by comparison. even at its worst, buddhism or even hinduism is mostly harmless by comparison. taoism, shinto, and the keeping of indiginous traditions are the most honest and honorable. personal beliefs are the most honest and decent. even neo-paganism is somewhere near the middle.

[Menassa]

Mormons don't use perception-altering drugs, but a number of us have still seen God. Works, eh?
And alright, sure, you could rearrange "LDS..."

That just strengthens his point. Even without psychoactive drugs, people see things that aren't there.

Like the wind.

[The New World Oceania]

Mormons don't use perception-altering drugs, but a number of us have still seen God. Works, eh?
And alright, sure, you could rearrange "LDS..."

That just strengthens his point. Even without psychoactive drugs, people see things that aren't there.

What defines existence, then?

[Suidwes-Afrika]

That just strengthens his point. Even without psychoactive drugs, people see things that aren't there.

What defines existence, then?

Something that occupies a definite place at some point in space and time?

[The New World Oceania]

What defines existence, then?

Something that occupies a definite place at some point in space and time?

I'll be damned. Define meta-existence.

[Menassa]

all religions are not the same. that is really a much too wide of a brush. all fanatacism is evil certainly. but christianity and islam are by far the worst (and anyone who claims to love either of those two, while hating the other, is more ignorant of both then they can imagine). pretty much everything else is mostly harmless by comparison. even at its worst, buddhism or even hinduism is mostly harmless by comparison. taoism, shinto, and the keeping of indiginous traditions are the most honest and honorable. personal beliefs are the most honest and decent. even neo-paganism is somewhere near the middle.

You forgot to mention Judaism.....

Just making sure everyone gets included.

[Conserative Morality]

A ridiculously oversimplified view of conflict from the OP.

[Conserative Morality]

all religions are not the same. that is really a much too wide of a brush. all fanatacism is evil certainly. but christianity and islam are by far the worst (and anyone who claims to love either of those two, while hating the other, is more ignorant of both then they can imagine). pretty much everything else is mostly harmless by comparison. even at its worst, buddhism or even hinduism is mostly harmless by comparison. taoism, shinto, and the keeping of indiginous traditions are the most honest and honorable. personal beliefs are the most honest and decent. even neo-paganism is somewhere near the middle.

Also not particularly familiar with the history of the orient.

[Suidwes-Afrika]

Something that occupies a definite place at some point in space and time?

I'll be damned. Define meta-existence.

Doesn't the definition vary by philosophical interpretation?

[Khodoristan]

Popular science.

Who believes in popular science just because they have 'faith' in it?

Considering most of science is theoretical *gasp*, I would say...most people, actually.

[Sentinel XV]

Who believes in popular science just because they have 'faith' in it?

Considering most of science is theoretical *gasp*, I would say...most people, actually.

Scientific theory is based on observation. We cannot quantify gravity the way we can quantify water, so we explain it using the best technology and knowledge we have available. But, unlike God, gravity doesn't care whether you believe in it or not: having faith in gravity doesn't qualify it. It's a natural force.

[Obamacult]

I think the OP was claiming that 809 million were killed by religious people, he doesn't approve of religion and he was arguing that religious people were the most prolific killers in history. But I agree with you that many of these killings are really religious groups getting victimized or persecuted. So yeah, it sucks to be criticized and attacked because you are getting gassed or executed by atheists.

1. This really gets me quite angry that you only say atheists do this, do you forget the crusades or did that just slip your small insignificant mind?

2. On a side not, your nations name is Obamacult, which instantly discredits any claims you make.

Come on dude, do you really need to insult me? And seriously, I never said that atheists are the only ones doing the killing so chill. What I do say is that your figure of 809 million is just plain fantasy, not the Earth is 4000 years old fantasy, but it is in the category of 9/11 was an inside job type fantasy. Really, rogues will use whatever excuse they can to rile up people to hate their neighbors so they can get money, ass, power, ego, and land. And Jesus was non-violent, so you can hate on people who MISREPRESENT religion, but don't hate the religion when its icon is completely non-violent.

Check this out, there is some wisdom in the Bible, it is an oldie, but a goodie even if you don't believe in God. Jesus said some pretty cool stuff that everyone should read. Like "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be the children of God" Now who can criticize that? Also, there are some pretty cool quotes in other books like Ezekiel 33-13 about redemption and hypocrisy, read it. I wouldn't mind hearing any other passages that folks think are profound and important. And remember this is one of the oldest and most read books in history. Don't fight it, but try to understand it from an objective clear minded view. I would also like to hear other people's favorite passages in the Koran or other religious works. Maybe someone can start a thread designed to increase awareness of the good in certain religions. I mean they must have some positives that even non-believers like myself can appreciate. It is better to build bridges with other cultures rather than put up fences and point swords.

Just saying.

[Euronion]

Why shouldn't they? Because they want to bash all religions claiming them false if they don't any evidence to support that, even if there is no god. Honestly, it shakes me to the core when Athiests want to ban everything relligious. I mean, just leave them alone with their beliefs and leave yourself alone with yours.

What actions are being taken to ban religious stuff? And leave them alone and everyone will get together? Seriously?

While I don't think religion is inherently bad, this kind of reaction does get to me.

Atheists are the LEAST trusted group in the US. Of any demographic, atheists are trusted the least, at the same level as rapists. Does this make sense to you? And there is constantly a push to get creationism into science classes, God into schools, if you don't thank God constantly, your career as a politician is SEVERELY limited.

This isn't a case of atheists pushing and religion fighting back... without a doubt, this is religion pushing, and secularists fighting back. Playing the victim card doesn't support the case.

"stuff" is a very broad term. I know that in the UK, where half of the population is atheist, a court recently ruled that a woman did not have the right to wear a cross on her neck to work because it was offensive to others. Also in the UK, a business owner was told that displaying Bible verses in his shop was illegal. There seems to be a corroboration between a large atheist populations and lack of civil rights and liberties. North Korea, China, the USSR, Vietnam, The Reign of Terror in Revolutionary France, Myanmar, you can dig back further and more extensively if you wish. In the USSR churches were burned, priests were quartered and killed, and everyone was forced to practice atheism.

Perhaps atheists are the least trusted group in the US because you complain about EVERYTHING. "EVERYTHING is imbued with religion", "ALL references of God must be purged", "anyone who is not atheist is stupid", "people who believe in religion have a disease", "all public displays of religion or religious affiliation should be banned", the list of quotes from everyday atheists goes on and on and on. Then you have the Freedom from Religion Foundation going around and funding billboards around Christmas time with a nativity background and with such messages as "You know it's a myth, accept the truth." These are all reasons why Americans get pissed at atheists, this is why the religious get angry, this is what irritates us.

Every religion, no matter how . . . anything, has one common factor; there is a deity. The justification used to convert one person from one religion to another is "your worshiping the wrong God, our God is the true God, you have merely been mislead." Atheism however, goes around saying, "you're all wrong, there is no God, you are all going to turn into dust, you have no soul, there is no proof, I don't care what you have to say, you are wrong, I am right, if you cannot see that, you are stupid." When I created a thread polling whether atheists and/or agnostics supported a movement of extreme secularism to the point of stripping away the rights of the religious and mockery of one's views to the point of violence and persecution of the religious, most atheists said yes. I was shocked by this as I thought most atheists were not advocating going that far. When you go around telling people that they are all wrong, and that you alone, that your point of view and only your point of view is correct and call all others stupid for holding that view, call on extreme legislation against those of religious belief, are intolerant to those of religious belief, tell the religious that no matter what they do, they are all doomed to poof into nothingness, not only is insensitive to those of religious beliefs everywhere, it is also childish. Every atheist I have spoken to except for my History Teacher, I regard as a child, not because of their belief that there is no God, but simply the way they have managed to insult me, my religion, my beliefs, call me names, and say that I have a disease or mental illness seems to me the way a egotistical pimple-faced 14 year old behaves and does not reflect the behavior of an adult functioning member of society. Then you have the audacity, after all this, to turn around and whine about how you are not accepted and not trusted. Treat people how you would like to be treated, I don't go around telling all atheists they are wrong, mentally incapacitated, stupid, diseased, or that they should be exterminated and in return I expect the same treatment. I have no quarrels with Atheism, believe in God or don't believe in God, that is your choice, I personally choose to believe in God, that is my choice, I do not attack you for your choice, you do not attack me for mine.

As for your other points, I am a devout Catholic and I believe in evolution, so do practically all the Christians I know. Science and religion are, as I like to say, like the gateway to the west. Though separate at the bottom, they join together at the top. Science and Religion constantly try and beat each other down, Scientists claim they can disprove God, which is impossible since God is unfalsifiable, and Religion tries to beat science down which is also impossible. However they share the common goal which is to understand the world around us and the Universe. I am studying science and I accept it, I go to Church and I accept the word of God, I pray every night and have unwavering faith in God, that does not inhibit my ability to examine scientific evidence, create and assess hypothesizes, observe the natural world, or anything else that science entails. The implication that all Christians want creationism taught is misdirected

Sources:
The Nurse Incident
The Atheist Billboard I was referring to
Several other interesting cases of UK discrimination against Christians
Here the UK government claims says that Christians can either practice their religion or find other employment, the article comes with two videos taking place before the European Court of Human Rights.

I trust I do not need to provide the various and numerous sources that show China's discrimination, North Korea's abuses, or any other totalitarian or authoritarian regime, nor do I think you require sources to confirm that Revolutionary France was pretty bad. The quotes I listed by atheists are not unique to one case, you can find many of these people on NS or by doing a quick Google Search. My thread on religious intolerance can be found here on NS as well.

Leave me alone, keep your hands of my rights, and then maybe I'll start trusting you to protect them.

[Mavorpen]

Check this out, there is some wisdom in the Bible, it is an oldie, but a goodie even if you don't believe in God. Jesus said some pretty cool stuff that everyone should read. Like "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be the children of God" Now who can criticize that? Also, there are some pretty cool quotes in other books like Ezekiel 33-13 about redemption and hypocrisy, read it. I wouldn't mind hearing any other passages that folks think are profound and important. And remember this is one of the oldest and most read books in history. Don't fight it, but try to understand it from an objective clear minded view. I would also like to hear other people's favorite passages in the Koran or other religious works. Maybe someone can start a thread designed to increase awareness of the good in certain religions. I mean they must have some positives that even non-believers like myself can appreciate. It is better to build bridges with other cultures rather than put up fences and point swords.

Just saying.

No thank you. I can live without hearing rehashed philosophies that are simply applied to a being that has no evidence.

[Khodoristan]

Considering most of science is theoretical *gasp*, I would say...most people, actually.

Scientific theory is based on observation. We cannot quantify gravity the way we can quantify water, so we explain it using the best technology and knowledge we have available. But, unlike God, gravity doesn't care whether you believe in it or not: having faith in gravity doesn't qualify it. It's a natural force.

God is. That's it, he just is. There's no other human way to describe God other than he is...being. I would say that God does not care that you don't believe in him (if I did, I'd be lying), but belief or not, I could say the same thing for God as I could for science. He is a natural force. A force science cannot explain.

[Tlaceceyaya]

Scientific theory is based on observation. We cannot quantify gravity the way we can quantify water, so we explain it using the best technology and knowledge we have available. But, unlike God, gravity doesn't care whether you believe in it or not: having faith in gravity doesn't qualify it. It's a natural force.

God is. That's it, he just is. There's no other human way to describe God other than he is...being. I would say that God does not care that you don't believe in him (if I did, I'd be lying), but belief or not, I could say the same thing for God as I could for science. He is a natural force. A force science cannot explain.

Science explains what is real. If science can't explain god, then he may as well not exist, or you have defined him in such a way that you're just being annoying about it, like Bluth.