Lets Bash Religion...or Not

[Pegghead]

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 !!!

Do you have any religious friends? Do they actually fear God? Your analysis is pretty crap, to be honest. You clearly don't understand religion or why people are religious. We don't want to show you God, because frankly, we don't care. You're set on not believing, so be it. You're got your stance, take it. We accept it. It'd be great if you could accept ours as well. I know a lot of Christians and some Muslims, and I've never heard of anyone fearing, and certainly never heard of anyone praying because they like to think someone is listening.

What you have there my friend, is pure ignorence. I can try to tell you some things, but only if you're willing to listen.

Pegghead, that was a wall of text, bit hard to read, but I think I'm similar to you. So I'd agree.

Well thankyou pwning dude, that's exactly my stance in a nutshell. And Juriel, you don't know anything about my religion so keep out of it (And proper grammar and punctuation for that matter).

 

[SonicKoala]

Why is every second thread on this website about religion? Why is everyone SO OBSESSED with talking about it? I don't really see what the point of these threads are - they never seem to accomplish anything, and they all descend into another pointless flame war between those who are so positive that they are right about how religion is bullshit, and those that are offended by such accusations.

Does anybody really think that by peddling off their stupid little theories as to why religion is/is not viable, they're going to change anybody's opinion? Fuck no. ALL it's going to accomplish is garner responses such as "oh yeah, right on, I totally agree" or "hey fuck off, you're an idiot for agreeing/not agreeing with me".

And whatever happened to the whole "search bar" complaint. Sure, the title of the thread is different, but this EXACT SAME FUCKING CONCEPT has been done over and over and over and over again. If it were up to me, religious threads would get banned. They add absoloutely nothing to the Escapist as a community. This is a fucking GAMING website - if you want to talk about religion, please go somewhere else. If it were up to me, religious threads would get banned from this site. They serve no purpose whatsoever, and they never generate any worthwhile debate or discussion. Why? Becuase literally NOBODY is "on the fence" about religion - they either ARE religious (at least to some extent - and nothing anyone says will change that), or they AREN'T religious (once again, people who's opinions will never change). So I say stop these silly threads. They're so painfully redundant - these same points have been made countless times before in threads that talk about the EXACT SAME THING.

Religion is a personal choice. If you're religious, keep it to yourself. If you aren't religious, once again, keep it to yourself.

 

[RexoftheFord]

Looks like you missed the last part of the title "..or Not" And it seems as though you've completely breezed over my OP. So thank you for being the ignorant 'tard that I've been happy to see only existed in a very small amounts in this thread. I'm sorry, but I can't stand people with a blatant disregard of their surroundings.

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

 

[RexoftheFord]

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.

I read it. And I would like to talk about it. I never said religion should be criticized, but I would prefer it if people used a form of criticism that didn't consist of just "religious people are stupid/retarded. Yay Atheism." That I've come to see as the common practice on most of the threads.

Two: All those bad things you've mentioned, I could argue that it's not the religious principles themselves that cause those things to arise and it's the stupidity of people or the manipulation of religious principles by PEOPLE for their own means. Which if you've read any of the previous discussion, we've already argued this out to a very fine degree.

The Old Testament is relevent, in that it provides a history and a contrast between the Old Covenent and the New Covenent. There are major changes between these two things. Old Testament isn't meant to be taken literally as many Christians try to, because Jesus comes with a new kind of message. And the Old Testament is definitely not supposed to be used for another agenda than this. Again, this is a problem with people, not the text.

Plus, slavery existed pre-Christianity, and I'd go so far as to say pre-religion. So it's not just Christianity that should be criticized here, but also...people.

Hmm..I could go into the rest of what you've written, but I think I should stop here with these holes I've shot.

 

[RexoftheFord]

Why is every second thread on this website about religion? Why is everyone SO OBSESSED with talking about it? I don't really see what the point of these threads are - they never seem to accomplish anything, and they all descend into another pointless flame war between those who are so positive that they are right about how religion is bullshit, and those that are offended by such accusations.

Does anybody really think that by peddling off their stupid little theories as to why religion is/is not viable, they're going to change anybody's opinion? Fuck no. ALL it's going to accomplish is garner responses such as "oh yeah, right on, I totally agree" or "hey fuck off, you're an idiot for agreeing/not agreeing with me".

And whatever happened to the whole "search bar" complaint. Sure, the title of the thread is different, but this EXACT SAME FUCKING CONCEPT has been done over and over and over and over again. If it were up to me, religious threads would get banned. They add absoloutely nothing to the Escapist as a community. This is a fucking GAMING website - if you want to talk about religion, please go somewhere else. If it were up to me, religious threads would get banned from this site. They serve no purpose whatsoever, and they never generate any worthwhile debate or discussion. Why? Becuase literally NOBODY is "on the fence" about religion - they either ARE religious (at least to some extent - and nothing anyone says will change that), or they AREN'T religious (once again, people who's opinions will never change). So I say stop these silly threads. They're so painfully redundant - these same points have been made countless times before in threads that talk about the EXACT SAME THING.

Religion is a personal choice. If you're religious, keep it to yourself. If you aren't religious, once again, keep it to yourself.

Uhh..are you trying to start a flame war? Have you not been here for about 170 messages? Have you not even read the discussions?

You must've breezed over the OP as well. This isn't a place to discuss to change people's opinions, or at least that's not its intention. And if you don't like it, take your advice..keep it to yourself. As you can see, most of us have been civil up until a few posts ago.

You look more like a pointless flamer here than anyone arguing out their views or points. This is place of trying to get a better understanding of the other view. That's why the thread was created. Not to bash Atheism or Religion. But to get both sides together to truly understand why the other believes their view.

Religious threads shouldn't be banned, because then they'd take away that whole Free Speech aspect. Control of the media is the first step to removing human rights. So you can go off and think 1984 is the way to go if you'd like, and I hope you reported this thread if you found it offensive to your delicate sensibilities. I like your sweeping generalizations though, like those aren't going to start a flame war.

This is a free speech thread, in an off-gaming topic forum. This may be tough for you to comprehend, but if you think the Escapist wants only gaming discussion going around, why would they even create this forum in the first place. But thanks for posting anyway.

 

[Calatar]

Two: All those bad things you've mentioned, I could argue that it's not the religious principles themselves that cause those things to arise and it's the stupidity of people or the manipulation of religious principles by PEOPLE for their own means. Which if you've read any of the previous discussion, we've already argued this out to a very fine degree.

I tried to read through everything, but as it is quite late and I am quite tired, I probably ended up skimming through and mostly forgetting what I just read.
Regardless, I thought I might try to respond to this before I go to sleep, as bad an idea as that is right now.
OF COURSE an ideology without people acting on it is mute. That doesn't mean that bad ideologies are not bad. Religion is so easy to manipulate with, because it is INCREDIBLY subjective. Every person who comes to a religion thinks about it in a different way, from the vague deists to the literalist evangelical creationists. The Bible can and does JUSTIFY innumerable wrongs. A religion BASED on a source which JUSTIFIES WRONGS is BAD when it does not redact those instances of immense immorality, but rather claims that from it stems the one and only source of morality and virtue.

(sorry for this section, but it is the easiest and most agreeably "bad" ideology identifiable)
Nazis perpetrated great wrongs in the name of their ideology. They were misguided people, with their own intents and purposes. Nevertheless, their guiding ideology is not freed from being morally wrong, because it was followed by fallible people.

The Old Testament is relevent, in that it provides a history and a contrast between the Old Covenent and the New Covenent. There are major changes between these two things. Old Testament isn't meant to be taken literally as many Christians try to, because Jesus comes with a new kind of message. And the Old Testament is definitely not supposed to be used for another agenda than this. Again, this is a problem with people, not the text.

Plus, slavery existed pre-Christianity, and I'd go so far as to say pre-religion. So it's not just Christianity that should be criticized here, but also...people.

A problem is that your view of the Old Testament is subjective and not widely held (at least in America, land of the biblical literalists). What evidence do you have that your subjective view is the RIGHT one for the religion? Because it happens to be a viewpoint that justifies fewer injustices? (the New Testament is by no means free of such things, though it is a significant improvement) And if the "wrong" viewpoint in your perspective ends up promoting atrocities, does that make the ideology blameless?

Regarding slavery, just because it predates the ideology does not excuse that ideology from embracing it. Christianity says nothing ill of this crime against humanity. Jesus, Son of God the Almighty, Creator of Heaven and Earth and responsible for All Things Good, didn't think to mention that this was a bad thing. I guess there was a limit to how much he was willing to go against the status quo.
Again there is no doubt that people are responsible for slavery. But again, since their religion justifies their actions as moral, it must also take some of the blame.

 

[RexoftheFord]

Two: All those bad things you've mentioned, I could argue that it's not the religious principles themselves that cause those things to arise and it's the stupidity of people or the manipulation of religious principles by PEOPLE for their own means. Which if you've read any of the previous discussion, we've already argued this out to a very fine degree.

I tried to read through everything, but as it is quite late and I am quite tired, I probably ended up skimming through and mostly forgetting what I just read.
Regardless, I thought I might try to respond to this before I go to sleep, as bad an idea as that is right now.
OF COURSE an ideology without people acting on it is mute. That doesn't mean that bad ideologies are not bad. Religion is so easy to manipulate with, because it is INCREDIBLY subjective. Every person who comes to a religion thinks about it in a different way, from the vague deists to the literalist evangelical creationists. The Bible can and does JUSTIFY innumerable wrongs. A religion BASED on a source which JUSTIFIES WRONGS is BAD when it does not redact those instances of immense immorality, but rather claims that from it stems the one and only source of morality and virtue.

(sorry for this section, but it is the easiest and most agreeably "bad" ideology identifiable)
Nazis perpetrated great wrongs in the name of their ideology. They were misguided people, with their own intents and purposes. Nevertheless, their guiding ideology is not freed from being morally wrong, because it was followed by fallible people.

The Old Testament is relevent, in that it provides a history and a contrast between the Old Covenent and the New Covenent. There are major changes between these two things. Old Testament isn't meant to be taken literally as many Christians try to, because Jesus comes with a new kind of message. And the Old Testament is definitely not supposed to be used for another agenda than this. Again, this is a problem with people, not the text.

Plus, slavery existed pre-Christianity, and I'd go so far as to say pre-religion. So it's not just Christianity that should be criticized here, but also...people.

A problem is that your view of the Old Testament is subjective and not widely held (at least in America, land of the biblical literalists). What evidence do you have that your subjective view is the RIGHT one for the religion? Because it happens to be a viewpoint that justifies fewer injustices? (the New Testament is by no means free of such things, though it is a significant improvement) And if the "wrong" viewpoint in your perspective ends up promoting atrocities, does that make the ideology blameless?

Regarding slavery, just because it predates the ideology does not excuse that ideology from embracing it. Christianity says nothing ill of this crime against humanity. Jesus, Son of God the Almighty, Creator of Heaven and Earth and responsible for All Things Good, didn't think to mention that this was a bad thing. I guess there was a limit to how much he was willing to go against the status quo.
Again there is no doubt that people are responsible for slavery. But again, since their religion justifies their actions as moral, it must also take some of the blame.

I'll give you all of that, but wouldn't that just mean that your view is equally subjective on the matter? This is an issue with most of the world's problems. People can't seem to agree on how science or religion should be conducted or viewed. Morality is a sticky issue.

Everyday I encounter more and more the realization that I'm completely uncertain as to what's right, wrong, knowledge, or ignorance. Relativity itself (or at least some of the things Einstein said about Light) seem to be completely thrown out now that you introduce Quantum Mechanics and Multiverse theory.

I'm not trying to be a dick or anything, I'm just trying to explore all aspects of this argument without all the bullshit certainty people claim to have.

 

[Calatar]

I'll give you all of that, but wouldn't that just mean that your view is equally subjective on the matter? This is an issue with most of the world's problems. People can't seem to agree on how science or religion should be conducted or viewed. Morality is a sticky issue.

Everyday I encounter more and more the realization that I'm completely uncertain as to what's right, wrong, knowledge, or ignorance. Relativity itself (or at least some of the things Einstein said about Light) seem to be completely thrown out now that you introduce Quantum Mechanics and Multiverse theory.

I'm not trying to be a dick or anything, I'm just trying to explore all aspects of this argument without all the bullshit certainty people claim to have.

Science unlike religion, is designed to be as objective as possible, as opposed to just claiming it is objective. It is designed to be arranged as a consensus of opinions from those who have studied and have great knowledge of the subject matter. That scientific method is oh-so-important here, it is a valid method of determining objective truths.

My subjective view that "slavery is bad" is one shared by the majority of the humans in the world, as far as I know. Morals do change with time and culture, yes at the time slavery was all fine and cool with everybody (including Jesus)(excluding slaves). Yes, in order for my last argument to be sound, you'd have to agree on the premise that slavery is bad. Usually people don't have a problem with that. Usually the religious people arguing for Christianity are moral objectivists, as that is what Christianity necessitates and demands. However by that metric, Christianity fails its own test, unless you acknowledge that slavery is fine.

Regardless, by my standards: if somebody tells me that slavery is okay, I tell them they're wrong. Christianity tells me that slavery is okay (and lays out rules for the proper way to do it).
I say Christianity is wrong.


Ragh, tired. More words some other time.

 

[Kinguendo]

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

Are you sure? You seem to have misunderstood... you said "But please provide some solid evidence" in a thread about Religion... See?

Even religion has evidence to support it that is scientific. Again, this is a stretch to try to get people to actually think.

On both sides of the spectrum.

No, no there isnt. Lets take Christianity. Founded 2000 years ago... thats 1200 years before the conception of what people could call "Modern Science".

They arent connected.

Even a relatively new Religion, Scientology, really struggles to have ANY scientific proof. It has some "Hey look, famous people follow this religion" proof...

But modern scientific principles can be used to explain possible phenomena that occur in scientific doctrine. Also, there is the evidence of historical doctrine. I also understand that all these things can be biased.

But yes, there can be evidence presented with religion despite where a religion was started y'know. But ok.

Often the scientific explanation for something in religious documents undercuts the entire "religious" aspect of it all... thats why ALOT of religious people arent strictly "fans" of science.

Oh and there is a reason they call it faith.

 

[Kinguendo]

No, no there isnt. Lets take Christianity. Founded 2000 years ago... thats 1200 years before the conception of what people could call "Modern Science".

They arent connected.

Even a relatively new Religion, Scientology, really struggles to have ANY scientific proof. It has some "Hey look, famous people follow this religion" proof...

Ah. Urm. Most modern science is based of theories and ideas that came from the Greeks well before Christ. In fact, one of the oldest forms of cartography is being used to map other planets.

Aristotle, for example, had all the making of Newton's Laws, but was never able to piece it together.

Some not ALL modern sciences, Galileo Galilei is the father of modern science and he was around 1500+ years after Christianity was introduced... and as I said even modern religions who could use some scientific proof dont.

P.S. Ah I just realised I put "1200 years before" in that quoted piece... I meant 1500... it was 3:30AM and mistakes where made.

 

[RexoftheFord]

No, no there isnt. Lets take Christianity. Founded 2000 years ago... thats 1200 years before the conception of what people could call "Modern Science".

They arent connected.

Even a relatively new Religion, Scientology, really struggles to have ANY scientific proof. It has some "Hey look, famous people follow this religion" proof...

Ah. Urm. Most modern science is based of theories and ideas that came from the Greeks well before Christ. In fact, one of the oldest forms of cartography is being used to map other planets.

Aristotle, for example, had all the making of Newton's Laws, but was never able to piece it together.

Some not ALL modern sciences, Galileo Galilei is the father of modern science and he was around 1500+ years after Christianity was introduced... and as I said even modern religions who could use some scientific proof dont.

P.S. Ah I just realised I put "1200 years before" in that quoted piece... I meant 1500... it was 3:30AM and mistakes where made.

But Galileo was a religious man as well.

 

[Pendragon9]

And I guess if you want to get REALLY technical, punching you in the FACE isn't the same as punching you in the NECK.

HINT.

Wow. You really need to calm down. I was merely trying to input some humor into the situation. No need to threaten me with violence.

 

[Pendragon9]

Wow. You really need to calm down. I was merely trying to input some humor into the situation. No need to threaten me with violence.

...
I am so sick and tired of saying this: I was just kidding.
Honestly.

I don't even remember what you said.

I promise you, I don't get angry that easily.

Well, next time, avoid threatening people. Whether or not you're kidding, there's no way for me to know that.

 

[Kinguendo]

No, no there isnt. Lets take Christianity. Founded 2000 years ago... thats 1200 years before the conception of what people could call "Modern Science".

They arent connected.

Even a relatively new Religion, Scientology, really struggles to have ANY scientific proof. It has some "Hey look, famous people follow this religion" proof...

Ah. Urm. Most modern science is based of theories and ideas that came from the Greeks well before Christ. In fact, one of the oldest forms of cartography is being used to map other planets.

Aristotle, for example, had all the making of Newton's Laws, but was never able to piece it together.

Some not ALL modern sciences, Galileo Galilei is the father of modern science and he was around 1500+ years after Christianity was introduced... and as I said even modern religions who could use some scientific proof dont.

P.S. Ah I just realised I put "1200 years before" in that quoted piece... I meant 1500... it was 3:30AM and mistakes where made.

But Galileo was a religious man as well.

So? I never said otherwise... I never said that scientist werent religious.

Everything that a religious person does doesnt become the achievements of their religion and their holy texts, Catholicism did not spawn Modern Science just because Galileo was Catholic.

Also, lets not forget what the Catholic Church did to Galileo for his achievements. He supported the Catholic Church but it certainly didnt support him.

 

[Pendragon9]

Well, next time, avoid threatening people. Whether or not you're kidding, there's no way for me to know that.

Why would I seriously threaten you?

Why wouldn't you? Internet anonymity makes people jerks all the time.

 

[skywalkerlion]

Can I just point out that yesterday, a Jew told me Catholiscism was obviously a scam because we had our own country.

Wait, what

Also, atheism isn't a religion.

No, spirituality is everything you listed above. A religion is a group of people who get together and decide what they all believe in. Twisting and changing text, and the basic principles that these types of spiritual people believe in.

I don't have a problem with spirituality, i have a problem with religious institutions that want power, so they can convert other people, and get more power.

Well how do you expect types of spirituality to spread without power spreading it?

Well, you DO have your own country. It's called the Vatican. But I don't see how that relates to a scam..at all.

 

[Calatar]

I guess then you'd have to ask, are any Christians telling you slavery is right? Like I said before, we do ignore parts that were correct at one point but are no longer relevent. It's like some of the stuff from Judaism and Islam; it's obviously in place because they were tribes in the desert, and stuff like the separation of food was made a religious law to make sure people didnt get sick as often. Any one who thinks that the Bible wasn't written by humans and influenced by humans is fooling themselves.

Would I have to ask that? Your religion's encyclopedia of conduct, and alleged path to holiness is saying bad things. You clearly don't swing that way. Others have in the past. Religion played a role, and it remains culpable for it. History doesn't cease to be relevant, particularly when religion hasn't even changed that bit.

My view: Religion is a tool for controlling humans, and it taps into inner desires of humans to do it. (Fear of death, desire to think of yourself as "good", acceptance by others...)
Government too is a tool for controlling people. The difference is: we hold government accountable for what it does, and what it makes people do. You are refusing to let your religion be accountable for its misdeeds, and continue to justify what is written as appropriate for the times. To further the government analogy, it's like saying "as long as nobody follows that law anymore, there isn't any problem." I think there's still a problem: that law shouldn't have ever existed. By extension: either clean up those parts in the Bible, and release it as a clarifying revision, specify which parts SHOULD be followed, or stop all religious claims to morality.

I hope you're not the sort of person who tries to define my faith for me. I've been told that I'm not a real Catholic because I don't think that the Pope is perfect. No-one can tell me what my faith is, especially not an atheist.

My personal view is that religion is about faith, which is why many people have trouble comprehending it; because they don't have it. And that's fine, I'm not asking you to have any. It makes no difference to me.

Organised religion has done some pretty terrible things. Organised religion has done same pretty awesome things too. Likewise, since people seem to think they're diametrically opposed, science has done some pretty terrible things and some pretty awesome things.

Upon saying that, religion receives an increasing amount of critisism for things that don't matter. Sure, bag out the Catholic stance on condoms; it's ridiculous. But don't hang shit on us because of things written in our books, books written by people, that we ignore. We ignore it for a reason. There's some messed up shit in the Bible, any sane Christian will admit that. But if we can ignore it, you lot should be able to.

Science brought us medicine and atomic bombs. Religion brought us charities and violent extremism. Nothing is perfect. Criticise the parts that deserve it, fine. But leave the faith out of it. It builds tension that doesn't need to be there. We are talked down to constantly.

A reasonable person of faith does not ask for religion to be given a free pass. That's illogical. But I get the feeling many people will bag religion for no other reason that to make their dick feel big. They don't understand it. If you ever wonder how people can believe in something, and no matter how hard you think, you can't understand why, please don't participate in discussion unless you're askin for it to be explained because you will add nothing until you understand what faith is and what it delivers.

A reasonable person does not believe in things without evidence (aka a reason to believe). That's illogical. This is why Science and Faith are diametrically opposed. One discovers truth, the other assumes truth.

What do you have faith in then? I used to be a person not dissimilar to you in my beliefs. I rejected what I deemed especially ridiculous portions of the Bible, and the Catechism I viewed as fallible and often incorrect, as I viewed the Pope. Yet I believed in the existence of God and the time and miracles of Jesus Christ.
As I learned more, I realized that the Bible was chock-full of obscenely immoral lessons and dictums, and I rejected it. Why should I believe that something full of such lessons has any claim to morality? Thinking about it, I wondered, "What reason do I have to believe ANYTHING in the Bible is true? There really isn't any evidence for it." Why should Jesus be God? Those writers could just have made that up! Their stories differ, and in several Jesus doesn't even mention that he's God. The Bible is a collected series of stories written and selectively chosen by the church, but they don't even maintain any continuity. What reason do I have to believe anything the Church says? Why should I believe anything the Bible says? All we've really got is a culture where we believe what others believe, and a DESIRE for there to be a God. A desire does not reality make (contrary to what The Secret has to say). So to bridge the gap between something we have no reason to believe and what we WANT to believe, we have faith.

In my experience, faith is supposed to be reassuring. The idea that there is a uber-powerful cosmogod watching over you, who loves and cares about you and your life; this is material to make you feel more comfortable, and make your life richer. Faith does not rely on anything other than your ability to believe the same thing, regardless of what happens.

You claim that faith delivers something into your life. How do you view faith, and what does it deliver into your life?

 

[Boxpopper]

All things in moderation. I'm a mildly religious man, not a saint or anything, but I believe in the basic tenants of Catholicism. I'm kind of annoyed by anti-theists constantly making blanket statements about my faith, especially when they have no fucking clue what they're talking about.

I'll step up and speak for my fellow athiests and say that A. Its true that most of them are blanket statements and I apologize if you have been offended and B. we untheists (just to give us all a general term) have for a long time been a threatened minority in the United States, and have almost no representation in government, and have been considered "heathens" and the such for the longest time, so please cut us some slack, ok?

I've given you an outlet to speak here. People keep distorting my intentions with this post. I just want some actual intelligent free speech debate and discussion.

But you can think I'm trying to start a flame war if you will.

I'm simply addressing the "they have no fucking idea what they are talking about" part of your post.

 

[Boxpopper]

B. we untheists (just to give us all a general term) have for a long time been a threatened minority in the United States, and have almost no representation in government, and have been considered "heathens" and the such for the longest time, so please cut us some slack, ok?

So...insulting and cheap-shotting Christians is like Atheist Affirmative Action?

Call it whatever you want, I just don't like to see Christians complaining like they are victims of some form of unjust cruelty.