Religion – your views

[stan423321]

Unlike the kitchen knife, religion doesn't serve any useful purpose (anymore).

Would you like to remove x86 processors from all the new computers just because CISC doesn't serve any useful purpose anymore?

[Tobbe]

No, because as far as I know, it doesn't cause millions of people to carry irrational hatred for each other.

[Zay-el]

About human intervention: The only useful course of action to stop humans from killing each other is to exterminate the human race. Since this is obviously not an option, we should go for the next best thing, and take away one of the main reasons and excuses for people to kill each other; religion. Comparing religion to a kitchen knife has one fundamental flaw imo: Unlike the kitchen knife, religion doesn't serve any useful purpose (anymore). As long as it's only causing bad things, we would obviously be better off without it. I would like to repeat the infamous R.A. Weatherwax quote for a third time, this time with a slight alteration:

"You do not need religion to justify love, but no better tool has been invented to justify hate."

You can quote all you like, but that won't win you an argument, sadly.

Killing is by all means, forbidden, even in most religions. To take away a life, is one of the greatest crimes possible. Religion is NOT an excuse, only to those who either can't find a meaning for their actions, or want to blame something else. Also, by all means, one should NEVER assiociate a religion with those who are the 'leaders' of it. Never does the Bible say that one must believe every word the Pope says. In the past, there were stupid ones, but the actions of several idiots does not make a religion improper altogether.

For a clearer example, let's check what religion DID give. Just go back all the way to cavemen and their shamans! Even that's a religion, and it certainly didn't make them any stupider. Another thing is that in a time where everyone went for whatever they needed, killing even, if necessary, religion made borders to that. Until some sort of religion stated that one should not kill, no one cared about taking another person's life. Religion gave humankind morals, which was obviously needed for future development.

[spiraldoor]

If Islam did not exist, would 9/11 have happened?

[Zay-el]

With as many theories exist about what exactly happened there, I wouldn't say it never would have happened.

Especially concerning the U.S.A. often provoked attacks, so that it could start/join a war.

[Tobbe]

Killing is by all means, forbidden, even in most religions.

I agree. Killing is bad. Sadly, the various religions' holy books (Bible, Qur'an etc.) don't share this opinion. Billions of people supposedly base their morals on ancient scriptures with plenty of passage telling people to kill all unbelievers, or kill people who lift a finger on a Sunday or whatever.

Religion gave humankind morals, which was obviously needed for future development.

Bullshit. Our morals come from evolution. The human race would never have survived long enough to even ask themselves the question "How was the World created?" if we didn't have them.

[spiraldoor]

With as many theories exist about what exactly happened there, I wouldn't say it never would have happened.*

Especially concerning the U.S.A. often provoked attacks, so that it could start/join a war.**

* What theories are you referring to?
** They didn't provoke Pearl Harbour. Are you saying they provoked 9/11?

[Zay-el]

@Tobbe:

You know...if you'd just take the time to further check it, you'd know that's been disapproved already.

For example, while the Bible might state about killing, the original 10 laws state that one should not kill. If this isn't enough for you, then there's the part when a cheating woman was to be stoned, but Jesus stated that only those who have NO sin at all, should punish her. ;3

And to be honest, what you say about evolution, is not true. Humanity does NOT have it inherently in them that killing one of their own is something they shouldn't do at all. While there are countless animal species which would never kill their brethren, humans would do so simply to get money, or other possessions.

@Spiraldoor: For instance, many say Bin Laden originally has his knowledge because he was trained in America, though you'll likely find a hundred, if you just type it in Google.

On the contrary though, they KNEW something was coming their way, at the even of Pearl Harbor. And if you want provocations *cough* Lousitania *cough* 'nuff said.

[Xenon]

About human intervention: The only useful course of action to stop humans from killing each other is to exterminate the human race. Since this is obviously not an option, we should go for the next best thing, and take away one of the main reasons and excuses for people to kill each other; religion. Comparing religion to a kitchen knife has one fundamental flaw imo: Unlike the kitchen knife, religion doesn't serve any useful purpose (anymore). As long as it's only causing bad things, we would obviously be better off without it.

By exterminating religion you're also wiping out Christian charity groups (Christian Aid being the most significant), and therefore the Third World would suffer greatly. Hospitals, night shelters and many other vital health agencies will also diminish from lack of donations from religious groups. Come on, there's everything to lose. And essentially nothing to gain; removing religion wouldn't alter aggressive human traits at all... morality, as you said, isn't really connected to religion, but to the evolution of human intelligence.

If Islam did not exist, would 9/11 have happened?

That's a typical case of atheism laying harsh blame on Islam. As I and many others have said, the catastrophe was a result of human idiocy and nothing else. It is human psychology. Neither God nor Allah are tools for destruction.

[spiraldoor]

About human intervention: The only useful course of action to stop humans from killing each other is to exterminate the human race. Since this is obviously not an option, we should go for the next best thing, and take away one of the main reasons and excuses for people to kill each other; religion. Comparing religion to a kitchen knife has one fundamental flaw imo: Unlike the kitchen knife, religion doesn't serve any useful purpose (anymore). As long as it's only causing bad things, we would obviously be better off without it.

By exterminating religion you're also wiping out Christian charity groups (Christian Aid being the most significant), and therefore the Third World would suffer greatly. Hospitals, night shelters and many other vital health agencies will also diminish from lack of donations from religious groups. Come on, there's everything to lose. And essentially nothing to gain; removing religion wouldn't alter aggressive human traits at all... morality, as you said, isn't really connected to religion, but to the evolution of human intelligence.

If Islam did not exist, would 9/11 have happened?

That's a typical case of atheism laying harsh blame on Islam. As I and many others have said, the catastrophe was a result of human idiocy and nothing else. It is human psychology. Neither God nor Allah are tools for destruction.

Still, the question remains:

If Islam did not exist, would 9/11 have happened?

[Zay-el]

...do you ever think about what we've written, BEFORE you make a new reply?

[Tobbe]

@Tobbe:

You know...if you'd just take the time to further check it, you'd know that's been disapproved already.

For example, while the Bible might state about killing, the original 10 laws state that one should not kill. If this isn't enough for you, then there's the part when a cheating woman was to be stoned, but Jesus stated that only those who have NO sin at all, should punish her. ;3

In the 10 commandments, the correct translation of the 6th commandment (or whatever, you know which one I mean) is: You shall not murder. The implied meaning of this is: You shall not kill a fellow (innocent) Jew. Pretty limited, eh? Apparently god doesn't mind killing infidels, as he commands his chosen people to do on numerous occasions.

And to be honest, what you say about evolution, is not true. Humanity does NOT have it inherently in them that killing one of their own is something they shouldn't do at all. While there are countless animal species which would never kill their brethren, humans would do so simply to get money, or other possessions.

*sigh* At least open a textbook on evolution before you make a fool of yourself. All proper studies of this has shown that morality came before religion, and not the other way around.

By exterminating religion you're also wiping out Christian charity groups (Christian Aid being the most significant), and therefore the Third World would suffer greatly. Hospitals, night shelters and many other vital health agencies will also diminish from lack of donations from religious groups. Come on, there's everything to lose. And essentially nothing to gain; removing religion wouldn't alter aggressive human traits at all... morality, as you said, isn't really connected to religion, but to the evolution of human intelligence.

Touché, good point. Yet, I have never said that religion should be immediately exterminated. Letting go of god should be a gradual process that would span several decades at best. Religion should be fazed out of modern society (this process has come relatively far in Western and Northern Europe) in such a way that society can comfortably adapt to the changes.

[MLII]

Guys?
I just read something in New Scientist. (My brother reads it.)

It was also about rreligon, and it stated that a 10-year-old girl, Madeline something, died from diabetes. Why? Because her deeply religous parents prayed instead of taking her to hospital. Tell me that isn't religous irresponsibility.

[Cairnie]

That really fucking annoys me when someone refuses to be treated in hospital just because of their religion. It's one thing if you've been badly handled by a doctor, but it's another to be a Jehovah's witness and let yourself or others die because they think that being saved artificially is wrong.

[MLII]

Me too. She's their daughter. How can you stand back and watch your daughter die, 'cos of some stupid rumor?

[Xenon]

@ spiraldoor: I state that without humanity, the world will become rid of all malevolence. Do you suggest annihilating every single human being?

Touché, good point. Yet, I have never said that religion should be immediately exterminated. Letting go of god should be a gradual process that would span several decades at best. Religion should be fazed out of modern society (this process has come relatively far in Western and Northern Europe) in such a way that society can comfortably adapt to the changes.

Even under a gradual dealing, you're still depriving the world of Christian-related organisations. So considering the effects you plan to impose, it would make no difference if the process was accelerated. The outcome will be the same. And since you seem to have retracted your 'religion has brought nothing good to the world' argument, I've automatically won.

Guys?
I just read something in New Scientist. (My brother reads it.)

It was also about rreligon, and it stated that a 10-year-old girl, Madeline something, died from diabetes. Why? Because her deeply religous parents prayed instead of taking her to hospital. Tell me that isn't religous irresponsibility.

Irresponsibility, yes. Religious irresponsibility, no. Again, a classic case of human psychology that has little to do with the roles and purpose of religion.

[Tobbe]

@ spiraldoor: I state that without humanity, the world will become rid of all malevolence. Do you suggest annihilating every single human being?

Touché, good point. Yet, I have never said that religion should be immediately exterminated. Letting go of god should be a gradual process that would span several decades at best. Religion should be fazed out of modern society (this process has come relatively far in Western and Northern Europe) in such a way that society can comfortably adapt to the changes.

Even under a gradual dealing, you're still depriving the world of Christian-related organisations. So considering the effects you plan to impose, it would make no difference if the process was accelerated. The outcome will be the same. And since you seem to have retracted your 'religion has brought nothing good to the world' argument, I've automatically won.

I have not retracted that argument, no. Some Christians or Muslims do good things, and some atheists do bad things. This does not automatically mean that religion is good and atheism is bad. And using your own argument; Christian charity groups don't necessarily exist as a result of their founders' Christianity. Who knows, maybe these organisations would have existed in a world free of religion as well.

And by 'giving society time to adapt', I mean that these foundations that are in some way connected to religion would, as religion is gradually fazed out, morph into or be replaced by other, secular organisations. So the results of an extremely rapid removal of religion and a gradual removal would not be the same.

[Xenon]

you seem to have retracted your 'religion has brought nothing good to the world' argument

I have not retracted that argument, no.

Some Christians or Muslims do good things

Then you've contradicted yourself.

Some Christians or Muslims do good things, and some atheists do bad things. This does not automatically mean that religion is good and atheism is bad. And using your own argument; Christian charity groups don't necessarily exist as a result of their founders' Christianity. Who knows, maybe these organisations would have existed in a world free of religion as well.

True, there are of course other charities that aren't at all related to Christianity, or indeed religion at all. But I was referring specifically to Christian charities, and without Christianity, these charities would not exist as the prime donation group would be, well, non-existent.

And by 'giving society time to adapt', I mean that these foundations that are in some way connected to religion would, as religion is gradually fazed out, morph into or be replaced by other, secular organisations. So the results of an extremely rapid removal of religion and a gradual removal would not be the same.

That's an incredibly hard proposal to stick to. How can you possibly be sure secular organisations will (fully) replace religious ones? Whichever way you look at it, the loss of religion is the loss of all the good it brings, and 'gradual fading' wouldn't prevent these losses from occuring. Allowing society to adapt to changes? Come on, what difference would that make? The suggested outcome would be the same.

[Tobbe]

Some Christians or Muslims do good things

Then you've contradicted yourself.

No.
Christian people who do good things will do good things because they are good people, not because they are Christians.

To stop this nonsense and get back to the real discussion, let me add an appendix to my statement:

'Religion has brought nothing good to the world' - Obviously some good must have come from religion, it is inevitable after so many years of it being present on Earth. However, since the amount and magnitude of good things that have come as a direct cause of religion is so small compared to the amount and magnitude of bad things, it's not worth mentioning. It's like comparing the concentration of OH- (Hunch, how do you superscript letters??) to the concentration of H30+ (and subscript??) in a saturated solution of HCl. It's there, but it's not worth mentioning. You have already said that you hate all sciences, so I don't know why I bother using this metaphor. This appendix is starting to get way too long... ^^

How can you possibly be sure secular organisations will (fully) replace religious ones?

Give me one good reason why they wouldn't.

I presume you would want to answer that, but I suggest that we should stop this organised religion discussion in the near future and focus on the real topic of this thread: Does god exist, and if no; why do people still believe in him?

[Xenon]

No.

So you think the religious charity groups we have been talking about have brought nothing good? What about the timeless artwork Zay-el mentioned? You still support what you said?!

Christian people who do good things will do good things because they are good people, not because they are Christians.

Not necessarily, they might choose to do good to serve their God.

Give me one good reason why they wouldn't.

Well, the sheer quantity would be almost irreplaceable. Religious charities gain an accumulative amount of something like £50m each year.