Religion = Evil [RIP Dr. George Tiller]

[masta247]

^let's discuss honestly that quotation. We are being accused of judging, mocking and ridiculing, but all we are trying to do is enlighten. Honestly, that's all. Believe me, there is no greater frustration than knowing you are right and being unable to convince others of the truth.

That's the very same feeling that religious people feel in this discussion but atheists always seem to get more aggresive about it.
It also proves a lot.

And even IF religions are not real and IF it is like you think - getting happier by thinking about some higher being that does not exist - what's so bad about it? People have dreams which are false, kids watch cartoons which are as unreal as possible, people enjoy themselves by watching movies, listening to the music with dumb not real lyrics.
Looking at atheists that's how irrational religions seem to you. Should all of those methods of entertainment be banned because they are not real?
Do you hate them equally?
Religions keep much deeper values and bring more happiness on a higher level. Maybe that's being envious about not being able to take joy out of deeper, spiritual things and trying to destroy religions is just an outcome of envy? I can't find another explanaitions since religions do not harm you in any other way.
And that's only me trying to justify your point of view.

There's that thing about atheists that no matter what will you tell them they will always have their own opinion and repeat the same missed arguments all the time. There's not way to reach any agreement in this matter. It's just a pointless discussion that creates boundaries, wastes time and energy.

 

[Flipmo]

I have respect for a religious person that believes "in the notion of a God", but doesn't attach any certainties to that. If you believe in an ultimate Creator, whoever that may be and whereever he or she came from, FINE. I don't care. Hell, I don't even categorically *deny* the existence of such an entity.

Where it rubs me the wrong way, though, is when religious people start defying science with their bullshit. Creationism, that type of nonsense, I cannot have any respect for that. If you literally believe what some millennia old book said about fictional stuff, you're a cocksucker imo and you're holding humanity back.

If you just believe in a higher being and basically agree with the basis of whatever religion, without attaching fairy tale bullshit, you're okay in my book.

Props Dukey Pookey.

I personally believe in a 'higher being' or 'higher power', but not in creationism. What a lot of retarded people don't understand is that Christianity spawned out of Judaism, just as Islam. If you look at the holy scriptures for all 3, the old testament is pretty much the same.

Previous to the New Testament, Judaism didn't write down scriptures, all religious/traditional stories were passed down orally (without the bodily fluids), as much as I'm sure they wanted to keep the story straight, a story changes slowly with time.
Not trying to diss those who believe in Creationism though, I can see why people would appeal to it.
Looking at it in a human way, emotionally speaking... Would you rather believe you came into existance by the acts of a 'parent like figure' who is watches over you, or that you came into existance just by luck and coincidence? ...

Like I said, Creationism isn't for me, but I understand why some will fight till the bitter end to believe in it.

 

[Duke]

^ True. I'd also rather believe lightning originates from little fairy pixies that play footy in the skies, but apparently it's some stuff with electrons and whatnot


I draw the absolute line when religion interferes with proper science, even though the person believing that may be very friendly and kind and everything. I just cannot respect it.

But the smart believers say "Look, I believe in a higher being and that's it. How the world works, how we got here, that's for the Einsteins and Newtons on this world to figure out."


And touching on a slightly different subject: I never understood why diehard Creationismers (is that a word?) so stubbornly refuse the theory of evolution, shaping galaxies and everything. Couldn't have God created that too? But nooooo, we're gonna stick to our 6 day pottery class story.

 

[ill-matic]

people read genesis the wrong way. it's a metaphor of the degradation of humanitys values and priorities. it's symbolic of humanitys descent into corruption, and immorality which is contrary to the way of God.

the point of the story is to show 2 human beings, who start of pure, and are "living in god's kingdom". within god's kingdom there are beautiful things like the animals, nature etc. but despite this.. despite all these beautiful things... humanity is driven by desires to have more; hence the tainted apple.

so both adam and eve are expelled from "gods kingdom". but this isn't in a literal sense. god's kingdom is symbolic of a way of life free from corruption, temptations, desires etc etc. the fact that they gave into temptations etc is an illustration of how humanity has descended down this path of constantly wanting more to satiate their desires. thus, because of this level of corruption that exists, you are no longer "in god's kingdom".

all babies are born into original sin. why? because they are born into a world that is overwhelmed by corruption, temptations, deceit etc. the purpose of baptism is to "cleanse" the baby of all that shit. by baptising the baby, it's symbolic of bringing the child into god's kingdom and AWAY from that corrupt world.

these are STORIES people. when it was written, thousands of years ago, these were stories... parables even, to explain things. to get a point across...

 

[Duke]

people read genesis the wrong way. it's a metaphor of the degradation of humanitys values and priorities. it's symbolic of humanitys descent into corruption, and immorality which is contrary to the way of God.

the point of the story is to show 2 human beings, who start of pure, and are "living in god's kingdom". within god's kingdom there are beautiful things like the animals, nature etc. but despite this.. despite all these beautiful things... humanity is driven by desires to have more; hence the tainted apple.

so both adam and eve are expelled from "gods kingdom". but this isn't in a literal sense. god's kingdom is symbolic of a way of life free from corruption, temptations, desires etc etc. the fact that they gave into temptations etc is an illustration of how humanity has descended down this path of constantly wanting more to satiate their desires. thus, because of this level of corruption that exists, you are no longer "in god's kingdom".

all babies are born into original sin. why? because they are born into a world that is overwhelmed by corruption, temptations, deceit etc. the purpose of baptism is to "cleanse" the baby of all that shit. by baptising the baby, it's symbolic of bringing the child into god's kingdom and AWAY from that corrupt world.

these are STORIES people. when it was written, thousands of years ago, these were stories... parables even, to explain things. to get a point across...

You know, I know, Flip knows, but there a lot of folks that take the shit literally. That's where the problems start.

 

[Sebastian]

And even IF religions are not real and IF it is like you think - getting happier by thinking about some higher being that does not exist - what's so bad about it?

How can you not understand the problem?

If someone makes something up without giving a shit about facts, proof or logic, how do you convince him that what hes thinking is wrong? You just cant. He/She has made up his own rules.

"If it makes him happy". Yeah, so? To some nutcase its the greatest satisfaction to kill someone because he is convinced to follow an order given by the creator of the universe.

"If it makes him happy" is no measurement to give an idea the green light. Simply because there is the flipside of the coin and there is no way on this planet to convince a crackpot, by using arguments. They are immune to it.

Compared to the overall religious population of this planet, the kind of people that ive just described are the minority, yes. Still, to deny that there is a huge problem directly involved with religion/belief in god is just plain ignorant, if you take a look at this planet.

 

[masta247]

"If it makes him happy". Yeah, so? To some nutcase its the greatest satisfaction to kill someone because he is convinced to follow an order given by the creator of the universe.

You still fail to understand that people killing "in the name of God" are idiots themselves, it's not their religion that is wrong. He's been probably manipulated into doing so by other people who had some sort of interest into that said murder and found a stupid human being who is willing to do so if you tell him that his holy book ordered him to do so, even if it's not true. You could as well make up your own story and he would also follow but it's easier if there's already one that he believes in. Americans fall for their propaganda and they don't need any religion to go abroad to kill.

I also quoted you funnily and am not going to change it

 

[Sebastian]

Fuck me, its like arguing with a wall.

You still fail to understand that people killing "in the name of God" are idiots themselves, it's not their religion that is wrong

Wrong by what kind of definition?

 

[masta247]

Fuck me, its like arguing with a wall.


Wrong by what kind of definition?

It seems the same to me.

Wrong - in this case bad, evidently directly making people do things that are against the law or common morals.

 

[Jokerman]

Getting happier by thinking about some higher being that does not exist - what's so bad about it?

Let me give a sloppy and partial answer.

1. That belief usually comes part and parcel with a lot of other beliefs that are accepted on faith.

2. A belief moves almost everything else in a person’s life. Your beliefs define your vision of the world and dictate your behavior. As a man believes, so he will act.

3. Beliefs are not a private matter. They affect any or everyone. (See 2 for explanation)

4. Beliefs are logically related. You can’t just hold a belief in some higher being and that’s as far as it goes. One belief logically extends to others. For instance, God can hear and answer my prayers, If you take his name in vain, bad things will happen to you, etc. The list of beliefs that first one entails is countless. Your list will be different from others.

5. Believing in a higher being is saying something about the world. If a higher being can answer your prayers, he can affect the world. As long as religious beliefs claim to be about the way the world is, they must stand in relation to the world, and to our other beliefs about it.

What if a scientist’s belief in a higher being logically extends to the belief that scientists will never understand how the universe and life came to be because the ways of God are mysterious? Would he make much effort to understand those things? What kind of scientist would that make? Not the best kind, in my opinion, even if his research didn’t involve ultimate questions.

6. NicK Cannon better back the fuck up. (Sorry, I’m listening to that while writing this.)

7. How can one hold irrational beliefs in one area of life and not in others? That irrationality leaks over. Hence, you got Bush believing he was doing God’s work invading Iraq. (See 2,3, and 4)

I could go on but won’t. God might punish me. No, it’s time for lunch. But I hope that gives you some food for thought. See, nonbelievers have such a problem with beliefs of faith, because the simple belief in a higher being is not simple, it does affect us all in more ways than can be thought of. And, to turn your initial question around: what’s so bad about getting happier by not thinking about some higher being that does not exist? "It’s time we realized that we need not be unreasonable to fill our lives with love, compassion, ecstasy, and awe." (S. Harris)

 

[S O F I]

The simple fact is that religious people, despite how happy they may be, are still living in a pretend world and that makes their happiness detrimental to mine.

Keeping Jokerman's last post in mind while replying to this, I think it's safe to say that a believer's happiness IS NOT detrimental to yours. From your posts on this board, we have a good sense of where your lack of happiness stems from and there's nobody to "blame" but you.

 

[masta247]

2. A belief moves almost everything else in a person’s life. Your beliefs define your vision of the world and dictate your behavior. As a man believes, so he will act.

Yes but on this level everyone has his own beliefs. One doesn't have to be religious. Religious guy's beliefs are at least quite healthy.

4. Beliefs are logically related. You can’t just hold a belief in some higher being and that’s as far as it goes. One belief logically extends to others. For instance, God can hear and answer my prayers, If you take his name in vain, bad things will happen to you, etc. The list of beliefs that first one entails is countless. Your list will be different from others.

Obviously you don't understand some things since you probably were never religious. Various religions don't even have God whom you should pray to. I think that many atheists see any religious guy as a bible thumper. On the oher hand if someone prays with hopes that something will change in their life because of that is just selfish. People pray to show respect and be closer to God - by doing this they are feeling peace and joy, they start feeling less lonely. I don't see any bad consequences that it entails for any normal person.

5. Believing in a higher being is saying something about the world. If a higher being can answer your prayers, he can affect the world. As long as religious beliefs claim to be about the way the world is, they must stand in relation to the world, and to our other beliefs about it.

So? Even if there is a relation, what then?
Nobody knows if he can affect the world or not.
People believe that he did at least a few times in the past but we don't know if or will it ever change anything in the future. Why should he if he already created a balanced universe that works fine.

What if a scientist’s belief in a higher being logically extends to the belief that scientists will never understand how the universe and life came to be because the ways of God are mysterious? Would he make much effort to understand those things? What kind of scientist would that make? Not the best kind, in my opinion, even if his research didn’t involve ultimate questions.

You know that some of the most important scientists up to date were religious. Einstein believed in a higher being, Plancks, Mendel.. the list is really, really long. I don't want to say that most important scientists were religious because I don't know but it's quite possible.
At this point belief in a higher being does not interfere with science. It is possible that people who believe in that higher being would strive to discover as much about is as possible.

7. How can one hold irrational beliefs in one area of life and not in others? That irrationality leaks over. Hence, you got Bush believing he was doing God’s work invading Iraq. (See 2,3, and 4)

They are irrational from your point of view since you don't understand them. It's only normal that your main weapon is throwing names of those who claim to be religious and are idiots. You are an anthitheist.
Look at all great people who were religious.

 

[S O F I]

^Jokerman's posts stem from the belief (lol) that belief is a form of mental negligence. His argument only works for the extreme cases. It doesn't really work on the individual level for the peasant woman in Moldova.

 

[masta247]

Atheists make everything bad about religion stand out in the debates and you guys don't make anything good stand out about religion. I can't fight the fight for you because I'm kinda on the other side with the atheists lol but not nearly on the same tip as Casey and Euphanasia who get hard from talking shit about religion.

Sofi the Devil's () advocate.

 

[Glockmatic]

The most important scientist of our time wasn't religious at all. Charles Darwin.

 

[masta247]

The most important scientist of our time was an atheist. Charles Darwin.

You mean "the most important atheist of our time"?
He was a biologist and far from being an Einstein (more or less literally).

Yes, his theory pretty much pissed of Creationists which was a good thing.

 

[Glockmatic]

No, he was and still is the most important scientist. The theory of evolution has shaped our lives and understanding of the world more than Einstein's theory of relativity.

 

[Flipmo]

The most important scientist of our time wasn't religious at all. Charles Darwin.

Not entirely true.

In his youth he studied to be a Minister, at Cambridge University. He saw himself as a Christian, Anglican to be exact, I believe, but as years went by, after his daughter passed away tragically, his faith slowly started to diminish. Eventually seeing himself more of an Agnostic than a full-fledged Atheist.
He was known to be very accepting of other people's beliefs and enjoyed discussions over God and religion. He seemed to despise when science and religion went at each others throats though. He also was against forcing one's belief unto another, either it's religious or Atheistic. I've read some quotes of his which would make even the biggest scientist or creationist piss himself. Apparently, he was also very fond of Buddhism, so I've read that is.

He was an extraordinary person no doubt, but also seemed quite torn between 2 worlds as more information about his life keeps surfacing.

In other words, he was a pimp with a limp.

 

[S O F I]

That's a highly debated topic. I find it funny the confidence with which glockmatic states his opinion. Most "important and influential scientists" lists have Darwin as top 5 but I haven't seen him ranked first anywhere. But whatever..

 

[Flipmo]

Here are some of the good man's quotes.

[In conversation with the atheist Edward Aveling, 1881] “Why should you be so aggressive? Is anything gained by trying to force these new ideas upon the mass of mankind?” (Edward Aveling, The religious views of Charles Darwin, 1883)

"My theology is a simple muddle: I cannot look at the Universe as the result of blind chance, yet I can see no evidence of beneficent Design." (Letter to Joseph Hooker, July 12 1870)

“In my most extreme fluctuations I have never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God.” (Letter to John Fordyce, May 7 1879)

“It seems to me absurd to doubt that a man may be an ardent Theist & an evolutionist.” (Letter to John Fordyce, May 7 1879)

As you can see, he was pretty torn up, just as any Agnostic person. My friend is the exact same with his reasoning at times. I don't impose myself on him though, I let him find his own way, Atheistic or Religious.

Apparently there's a book on going to be published on it soon by some institution of Science and Religion in the states. Should be a good read if you ask me.