Lets Bash Religion...or Not

[RexoftheFord]

If you really think about it god is the universe and the universe is god. God can exists without being intelligent at all, people are made up of elements and those of atoms which are the building blocks of matter and energy right? It's been a while since I've tries to use science, so thats what I have to say. If thats true what ever force controls the most basic of basic would be considered a god because from him everything is created, when most people picture god they think of another human only more powerful and if they're really advanced a ball of light. What if god did exist but was a force rather then a being all on its own what if god couldn't think but only act as a natural component in of itself to help shape life. Like I said before not that good with science only speaking what I can see with my own eyes and only using my imagination to create what I'm saying.

I think you've come onto something that many people in this thread have overlooked. Very intelligent and well thought out mate. I'd like to talk to you more about this, so I'm going to add you if you don't mind.

You know whats high-larious about this. It goes right back to our discussion. Its only a matter of word games. When you sit down and define things in a mathematical way, most arguments dissolve. If he defines that as God, then he is simply relabeling the thing that science is already trying to prove. Making it a moot point. An interesting one, but still moot.

This relates back to the issue I was talking about earlier about the philosophical issue of language and arguing on two different terms.

I bet you science and some religions are really discussing the same idea but on two different terms.

Mind if I add you as well mate so we can discuss this further?

 

[The Mick]

If you really think about it god is the universe and the universe is god. God can exists without being intelligent at all, people are made up of elements and those of atoms which are the building blocks of matter and energy right? It's been a while since I've tries to use science, so thats what I have to say. If thats true what ever force controls the most basic of basic would be considered a god because from him everything is created, when most people picture god they think of another human only more powerful and if they're really advanced a ball of light. What if god did exist but was a force rather then a being all on its own what if god couldn't think but only act as a natural component in of itself to help shape life. Like I said before not that good with science only speaking what I can see with my own eyes and only using my imagination to create what I'm saying.

I think you've come onto something that many people in this thread have overlooked. Very intelligent and well thought out mate. I'd like to talk to you more about this, so I'm going to add you if you don't mind.

No not at all go ahead. What you really need to think about is what religious people constantly say "Open you mind to the possibilites." really what they mean is if you think about it I'm right. But if you take it literally it does mean open your mind and you can think of amazing things, your imagination works just as well as anyone elses all you have to do is think.

 

[The Mick]

It might be a more scientific way to explain god but everything no matter how small can be and has to be explained and at this moment science is our best way of doing so. Explaining god the largest thing ever of all time has to be done at some point, and explaining it scientifcally is only one way to do so. You can explain it from an artists point of view as well, saying that god is a source of beauty, connection, and enlightenment; god can be explained in anyway and religion is really just a base for people to connect with a higher plane to understand that the universe is a big place and there place in it is very small. It's a way to get to know them selves from outside who they are with help from something bigger then them.

 

[Mad World]

That's horrible logic. They still have to go and confess to someone else, obviously.

What do you mean, exactly?

Christians, at least, only believe they need to confess their sins to God - not anyone else.

New Covenant

"Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone."--Jesus

Yet when you confess and repent your sins are removed. Thus any priest or religious figure is automatically without sin.

I think Jesus meant that whoever is completely and utterly perfect may cast the first stone. While we can ask for forgiveness, we are still considered imperfect; we have sinned before, and we will sin again.

 

[The Mick]

what Jesus meant is that no man is with out sin that no matter how religious you are you still have original sin. And if not original sin you will still commit sins just like every other man has, no man is better then the other we are all equal. And as such as a whole we all carry our own sins.

 

[The Mick]

Really what this all boils down to is that we all want to be right and the only way to be right is to prove everyone else wrong. But thats not true two people with entirely different ideals and put into a different context they can mean the same thing or prove the other right.

 

[RexoftheFord]

Really what this all boils down to is that we all want to be right and the only way to be right is to prove everyone else wrong. But thats not true two people with entirely different ideals and put into a different context they can mean the same thing or prove the other right.

Well, perhaps we're all wrong and to try to prove eachother wrong is just as foolish as trying to prove to a dog that it's really a human being.

I've come to realize that I really don't know anything about the universe, and that any knowledge I have is really rather uncertain.

Notice how many people in here have proclaimed their knowledge with absolute certainty of its truth. When they can't be certain. Even with all the evidence our world has to provide, you can't be certain it will be uniform throughout the entirety of the universe.

If you put all the knowledge Earth has to provide into one man, he still will know only a the most microscopic bit of a percentage of what the Universe could provide.

 

[Yanarix]

http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=1653#comic



ah but really, dont stone people. its just about the worst way imaginable to die.

 

[Skeleon]

I obviously arrived too late to properly add to this thread, so let me just say this in response to the OP:

Yes, I dislike extremists of any kind, too, and I don't like it when threads get out of hand and devolve into mindless flaming.
But no, I don't think we should avoid religious (and even anti-religious) threads as long as they're civil and not a flame war.

Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it should be stopped.
I don't like all those threads about guns, but I'm not petitioning against them.

However, when such a thread ends up with flames and aggressions flying around, either a mod has to step in and clean it up or close the thread. We have moderators for a reason, let them moderate.

It's always the argument when a religion thread opens up that "this'll end in flames" but, funnily enough, often it does not happen. And sometimes, when it happens, it's because of the people saying it'll end in flames. They're fulfilling their own prophecy.

So let's just keep it civil, continue our discussions and let the moderators handle it.

 

[Mad World]

What do you mean, exactly?

Christians, at least, only believe they need to confess their sins to God - not anyone else.

Well, why would a priest be devoid of sin because people confess their sins to him? That's simply not logical. It's like saying a man has no secrets because other people tell him theirs. They're actually unrelated events. Every Christian should repent their sins, regardless of position.

So, priests confess to other priests.

I don't agree with Avykins; I don't believe a priest would be devoid of sin just because people confess their sins to him.

I apologize; I think I misunderstood you. I thought you were saying priests have to confess their sins to people in order to be forgiven, but you were just trying to point out Avykins' fault, correct?

Sorry about that.

Though, here is something to note: I believe Avykins was talking about priests or religious figures being momentarily without sin immediately after asking God for forgiveness. I don't think he was referring to them being without sin solely because others came to them for forgiveness.

 

[The Mick]

Yes what we have to learn is even if we don't agree it's always insightful to see how others view things you oppose to get a new perspective and a better outlook. Becoming angry with someone over such things is horrible to begin with, everything should be balanced and calm if you want to continue foreward. When one person does something wrong all those who are connected effected as well, remeber that when posting; everyone can hear you and is giving you a chance don't abuse that. Never forget it is you who has come here for commerce and to exchange ideals not to fight over things like this.

 

[The Mick]

What priests are there for is to bare your sins so that you don't have to, they are there to show you a physical connection wth god. So that when you've done wrong you can make it wright by admitting you were at fault, its more or less there to make you feel better about yourself and make you a better person because of it. Priests have sin like the rest of us, it can never be washed away as long as it lives in your memories but the weight on your shoulders can be lifted by merely admitting to yourself you did something wrong. Because most people can't do this on there own there are priests to help you, like a theropist or a psychologist.

 

[RexoftheFord]

I obviously arrived too late to properly add to this thread, so let me just say this in response to the OP:

Yes, I dislike extremists of any kind, too, and I don't like it when threads get out of hand and devolve into mindless flaming.
But no, I don't think we should avoid religious (and even anti-religious) threads as long as they're civil and not a flame war.

Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it should be stopped.
I don't like all those threads about guns, but I'm not petitioning against them.

However, when such a thread ends up with flames and aggressions flying around, either a mod has to step in and clean it up or close the thread. We have moderators for a reason, let them moderate.

It's always the argument when a religion thread opens up that "this'll end in flames" but, funnily enough, often it does not happen. And sometimes, when it happens, it's because of the people saying it'll end in flames. They're fulfilling their own prophecy.

So let's just keep it civil, continue our discussions and let the moderators handle it.

Well, I don't disagree with you. Which is why I said this is a free speech area. I don't think anything should be discounted from discussion at all, because we can all learn from eachother. Flaming happens when a person is intentionally trying to cause a fight, and it's usually cause they feel some sort of sense of power when doing it. Which means they're usually a bit insecure.

 

[Tdc2182]

I don't quite understand this.

What's not to understand? Just talk. You can bash religion if you want. You can support religion if you want. You can support a moderation. Or you can just sit out.

This is an area of free speech. I've merely offered my view.

No this is not. Go to a different website, you don't make the rules here.

 

[13lackfriday]

It seems that religion threads have replaced the political threads recently.

Those are my only thoughts on the topic.

You're about as opinionated as the US Census Bureau.

 

[Pegghead]

Y'wanna hear my stance on religion? Well no, you probably don't. I'm a raised Catholic, baptism, education the works. With the many religious debates on this site I've thought long and hard about Religion and Atheism. Thousands of years ago, people couldn't understand just why the sun rose every morning, or why it sometimes rained so they figured an almighty presence named God did it all, in accordance with this, people assumed that if they pleased their God, kept him happy then he may be kind enopugh, to give them good rain, keep them free of disease etc and thus religion was born. As it progressed, they assumed that their God would not like it if people fought, or committed crimes, so things such as the ten commandments and the Qur'an were established, to make sure people lived out good morals under fear that their God may enduce his wrath upon them. Fastforward thousands of years later, most things that people once thought Godly forces controlled such as weather and disease were discovered to be scientifically feasible without the aid of an almighty force...such as a God. But they figure "Well, the very basis for religion has just been disproved, and deep down everyone knows that their most probably is no almighty, Godly force. But look at what we've established, we teach people about living good wholesome lives through things such as service and our holy books. With things such as prayer people have structure and order in their lives. So how 'bout we keep religions going, in order for the many people who follow our religions to have guidance". So sure, there probably isn't a God but who cares, religion gives us many good things, like guidance and structure. Some nutsos take it too far, some people use religion as an excuse to wage war, some people think their religion is the only right way so they go around treating members of other faiths as they would piles of dog doo on their front lawn and some people judge a man (Or woman...) by the faith he (Or she) follows rather than by his (Oh fuck this shit) character. On the occasions when idiots do things as afforementioned, it gives religion a bad but false name, causing many to turn from it (Among other reasons). And personally, I think most atheists choose that lifestyle as they believe there is no God, fair enough, but like I said before, it doesn't matter if there's no Gods, not mighty powers because Religions have brought so many people together in unity, given them guidance in times of struggle and a sense of belonging, God or not, why should someone defy that? Oh and by the way, sorry to have sounded really preachy and long-winded here, considering my faith and this website, I've wanted to say all that for a looooong time.

 

[Skeleon]

Well, I don't disagree with you. Which is why I said this is a free speech area. I don't think anything should be discounted from discussion at all, because we can all learn from eachother. Flaming happens when a person is intentionally trying to cause a fight, and it's usually cause they feel some sort of sense of power when doing it. Which means they're usually a bit insecure.

Then what's there to discuss about?
Any reasonable person knows that anything taken to its extremes is crap.

 

[juriel]

religion is crap because its based on fear, people fear what will happen to them in the afterlife so they pray to the good guy...etc... so religious ppl are just cowards. And do not give me that "i pray because i like to think there is someone out there listening to me"...if it it SHOW IT TO ME !!! . THE SECOND U SHOW ME "GOD" (or w/e deity) IN THAT SECOND I START TO BELIEVE !!!

 

[Tdc2182]

Haha, you said "But please provide some solid evidence"... Was that intentional? Did you do that on purpose? Sneaky, sneaky.

It's intentional. I don't want a pointless flame war. I want intelligent discussion, which I know is a long shot on the internet

Really? I think we have come and passed the bridge of pointless flamewar when you said "lets bash religion"
Honestly, I want to know where you get whatever you are smoking.

 

[Calatar]

I think it's kind of stupid to purposely bash religion constantly, considering a lot of great things have come out of religious principles.

But please provide some solid evidence.

I tend to disagree that a lot of "great" things have come out of religious principles.
And even if that were true, there are factually "bad" things that have come out of religion, ex: religious terrorists, religious-based genocides (examples), restricting blasphemous truths (Galileo) to name a few.

Given the many bad things that have been wrought in part because of these ideologies, do you really think that religion should be criticism-free because it had some positive results too?

That's like saying you can't criticise smoking because it helps with inflammatory colitis. Maybe you are drawing some arbitrary pedantic distinction between "criticising" and "bashing"; I don't know. But when you tire of listening or reading criticism, the best method is to stop reading. Declaring that religion should be free is silly.

Religions, all religions, make outlandish claims. Some claims are falsifiable ("And all things you ask in prayer, believing, you will receive."=FALSE, or arbitrarily nobody is believing unless they get what they ask for.), others are not(God exists but is in such a state that He is inherently undetectable to humans by any means unless He wills it). Rarely do they have "solid evidence" supporting them, and as such they are unproven statements about reality. All of Christianity relies on the core of the Holy Bible, but people take issue with actually looking in detail at parts of it. When you analyze it objectively, you do find that it makes many many contradicting claims, both in OT and NT, so you don't get off scot-free by saying, "nuh-uh, old-testament doesn't count!" You find that it contradicts its own alleged moral claims (which I might note, most Christians view as objective), and many of those claims are also morally repugnant (ex: Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ.)

So then, many valid criticisms of Christianity, the religion I am most familiar with. Judaism is naturally guilty of many of the same problems, as it contains much of the same material. Islam also makes many contradicting claims about destroying enemies of the religion yet being non-violent. (some contradictions)

So we find that religion in general makes specific claims regarding the nature of reality, yet is not even logically consistent within itself. It fails rigorous examination of truth, as it can only be considered true by elaborate justification of its claims (no no, 6 days really means like, a lot of time, so that part works/6 GOD-days, man), ignoring clear contradictions, and ignoring false claims about reality (pretending disease is caused by evil spirits, in contrast to germ theory, among other things).

So, I conclude that religions consist of sets of beliefs based on false information.

Science on the other hand is designed in such a way so that it is designed to uncover the truth. All statements it makes can and must be falsifiable, empirically proven, or heavily supported by empirical evidence. In cases of contradictions, the claims are changed so that every bit of science is a better description of reality. This is in contrast to religion, who in the face of contradicting evidence takes one of 3 options:
a. Ignore the evidence, continue to hold a factually incorrect belief (Creationism, in contrast to geology and evolution)
b. Argue semantics (days=/=days, days means like, billions of years)
c. Pretend that part of your religion just doesn't exist. (slavery is A-OK! so long as the slaves treat their master like Jesus Christ)

Science can and does explain the origins of life, our universe, sentience, and morality. The answers it arrives at are either sufficient, or require more study to eventually find our way closer to understanding the nature of reality. People who cling to religion and the idea of a creator forming all of existence just find it easiest. Big Bang Theory is complicated, seriously so. As we study the methods of subatomic interacting in the Large Hadron Collider, we learn more about the interdimensional subatomic particles that make up all of reality. We live in 3 dimensions. Quantum mechanics is so difficult to comprehend that Einstein himself rejected several of the ideas when he discovered them, even though they were shown to be mathematically and empirically true. The nature of our universe is anything but simple, and "God" in the sense of any major religion simply does not help explain anything. It is merely a crutch for those who do not wish to burden themselves with understanding the strange nature of the world we live in.
Once you begin redefining God, such as in terms of guiding the submechanics of quantum interactions, you cease any meaningful connection to any religion. God becomes just another arbitrary (used that word a lot, haven't I?) concept, that you sculpt to fit whenever and wherever you find there is something you do not understand.

Religion by no means should be given a permanent free pass. It is an illegitimate view of reality wrought from customs, culture, a human need for explanations, and a limited human mind that prefers simpler explanations.

EDIT: Whew, that was bigger than I would have liked. Now nobody will read it. Well, you did ask for a detailed and intelligent discussion, so that is what I have to contribute, with a smattering of examples.