|
The Debates: Issue #1 - Religion (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Vivid Boy |
religion was the first building blocks of guvernment....they dropped the first building blocks of rules...the 10 commandments...laws are something to control a large group of ppl with...
religion = first guvernment
i believe in something i just dont know what yet |
|
|
| Thor |
How to put this the right way... Hmmmmmm.......
Well firstly I'm agnostic, I also have a great deal of trouble believing in a 'supreme being' ... There have been so many religions, some with many gods, some quite out there.
I feel that religion is there to fill a void for so many people (not all), and that churches/ceremonies are there to re-inforce belief into people. I won't say that most religions are cults, but if you truly look at a cult and mainstream religion you'll see that often its the dedication to the religion that differs.. In fact I've often considered Jahova's to be quite close to a true cult, and Mormons are not far off either. I say this having grown up with friends in both, and in both cases I've had friends in these religions say this to me.
Religion had its place long ago, it tought people that there were consequences to your actions, the bible as I see it was a book of law/order. It also made people feel better to know that when they died, they would be rewarded for their faith with an afterlife. What better to control people ;) .. Considering the average life span around the birth of Jesus Christ was 30 yrs, its not surprising Religion flourished.
When you look at history you'll see that the Church formed not as a spiritual sanctuary for people, but often as a icon of power. The power of religion was huge in those days, and as we all know absolute power corrupts absolutely, so its not strange that the church often abused its power.
The holy wars/crusades were wars being fought under 'gods' name, no different from Roman invasions of other countries. Yet to their own people they wrote it off to 'helping' bring people to their god..
I think that people should be brought up without being tought religion, give every person a chance on their own to decide what they want to believe. It doesn't seem to bother anyone that children aren't given the right to choose religion, its already been decided for them before they grow old enough to think for themselves.
Religion is smart, they know how to keep people religious, christmas, weddings, funerals, babtisms, christenings, sunday church/school, confirmations... I mean when you go through life as a child being tought God, how can you ever really have an open mind to other possibilities?
My simplified version of religion. Thousands of years ago 'holy men' emerged from the earliest tribes of mankind, because of age these men were also called 'wise men' since they explained all the crazy things primitive man saw: floods, lightening, red moons, falling stars, STARS, the sun, etc...
I mean if you could explain those things with something simple, as primitive man did, of course religion would flourish from that.
Religion went from alleving fears for primitive man, to the age of the glorious Roman empire when Religion became a weapon of power.
I find the story of "The lord of the flies" to be a perfect example of how people isolated invent religion out of fear and uncertainty. That book I think the children represent mankind when we were young 0 - 500 BC.
But I don't want people to think I don't respect belief in a god, if you feel it makes you better somehow I think thats great. I in fact read bhuddist philosophy, I find their beliefs which are mostly about self-improvement of the self, facinating.
God was created in mankinds image, religious people have it backwards, we created religion to comfort us. One day far into the future we will be looked at by future civilizations as primitive beings who worshiped supreme beings and built weapons of mass destruction. If nothing we will be a popular read for historians in the future :D |
|
|
| Devbert |
| quote: | Originally posted by Thor
[B] The holy wars/crusades were wars being fought under 'gods' name, no different from Roman invasions of other countries. Yet to their own people they wrote it off to 'helping' bring people to their god..
|
Yeah, I always enjoy pointing that out. Well a principle element of Christianity is "Thou Shalt Not Kill," Christianity is responsible for millions of deaths. The crusades wiped out millions, all because beliefs differed.
Religion should be about mutual respect, not forced belief. |
|
|
| davinox |
| religion is like society, except instead of as a byproduct of our intellegence, it is a byproduct of our emotions. |
|
|
| Lost |
there are two issues here. one is the reliability of the media, or in this instance HBO, and the actions of the people portrayed.
first of all i agree with firestarter in that the media likes to sensationalize things. the media is not necessarily about information but about what sells. so it leads to a misrepresentation that all Christians are "nutbars" (from this point to be referred to as misinformed as nutbars is an emotionally charged word which does not lend itself to objectivity during a debate) when in actuality very few are. the media will focus on these groups acting out becasue it will create viewership (if that's a word) that will bring in more advertising that will bring in more money. no one wants to watch the news about how the everyday Christian goes through life because it won't create the emotionally charged response to draw you to watching it. although misinformed Christians do exist and do outlandish things which are not condoned by Christianity, i do not believe that they constitute a majority, or even a healthy amount, of practising Christians despite what the media would have you believe.
second there is the problem of the misinformed Christians and this goes hand in hand with biznology's reference to the flawed institution of religion. i agree with biz that the insitution of religion (church) is flawed but that religion (Christianity) is not. for example with myself, i feel it is important to go to church in order to learn more about God's word but i am not going to take the pastor's word at face value. it is not that the pastor is deliberately trying to deceive me but that he is a man and prone to mistakes and misinterpretations just like anyone else. therefore i'll listen to what he has to say and think about it and i'll read the Bible myself to see if it coincides with his teachings. now if my pastor said that God does not like abortion then i would agree with him. but if he said let's go out and bomb abortion clinics because this is God's will then i have a problem. the question arose then who is right: the pastor or myself? this was a problem even back in the early church with people coming in and professing this and that and the apostle paul warned everyone to test the prophets to see if what they were sayin was true or not. and the way you test the prophets is see how their message coincides with Christ's teachings. if they coincide then the teaching can be considered reliable but if they do not coincide then the teaching can be considered false. nowhere does Christ condone killing so therefore it could not be the will of God to bomb abortion clinics and that teaching would be false. unfortunately some people don't put the work in to read the word of God for themselves and completely rely on the pastor which sets them up for being led astray with false teachings.
hope that made sense. will try to clarify on points if need be.
lost |
|
|
| Lost |
sorry. a lot has been posted since is started writing that one. need to get back to work though. will check back.
lost |
|
|
| Piet |
| quote: | Originally posted by Devbert
"Many people who believe in their religion rely not on logic but on faith. Therefore no matter how many powerful logical problems are shown to exist, it should not matter because ones faith is untouched."?
If I have faith that a UFO will fly me to an alien world where I will reign king, I'm crazy.
If I believe that an invisible man lives in the sky and is watching all of us, no matter what we do, 24/7/365 until we die, I'm on the right path.
And there is more conclusive evidence of UFO's then of God.
|
thanx for your reply Devbert.
I stand by my origional post with an addition.
You point out that someone who believes in something without concrete evidence is often considered eccentric or even crazy unless it happens to be part of an organized religion. This suggests maybe it is somewhat strange or illogical to believe in Jesus or Zeus or whichever organized religion they are part of. This is one of the many many logical problems that can be brought against organized religion. However my point was that someone who is already religious and who has faith is not likely to be very affected by these logically based problems because they probably rely on faith and not logic.
Their faith comes from being taught as a child to believe(culture, society), and or from wanting to believe in something, and or from feeling gods presence or thinking that they feel gods presence. Logic doesn't apply to these things which was my first post.
For me personally there is no debate, becuase if i were religious and had faith, logic would not persuade ME, and if i did not believe in religion, people of faith would not be able to show ME the way, especially because of all the logical problems. I would say this is true for many other people as well. One side is often unable to be persuaded by the other sides argument because they are based on different things, one on logic, the other on faith.
My addition is this: There are a number of people who do leave their religion and others who join after never having been religious so not everyone is like me and there is reason for debate. |
|
|
| Thor |
| quote: | Originally posted by Devbert
Yeah, I always enjoy pointing that out. Well a principle element of Christianity is "Thou Shalt Not Kill," Christianity is responsible for millions of deaths. The crusades wiped out millions, all because beliefs differed.
Religion should be about mutual respect, not forced belief. |
Religious people often claim they love all people, etc.. But why then does relgion breed such 'group think' where anyone outside of your religion isn't someone you can fully respect.
I mean if Religion was about what many claim, why then do most religions stick to only marrying in the same religion. Why then do we have holy wars, why then do we have so much hatred brought about differences in relgion like in N. Ireland, middle east..
I feel that we few agnostics in this world are much like those who thought the world was round when the vast majority thought it was flat. I feel one day religion will slowly dissapate, especially when we one day start to travel space and discover life on other planets.
I guess my biggest problem with religion is, that humans are where we are today because of our curiosity.. We see fire and wonder how it works... Thats how we became the dominant species on this planet, simple as that. But I find religion goes against this entirely, like in the case of how did we get here, questions about death, about the universe.. Religion has answered all these, and its all cop-out answers :) I mean I want to know the origins of man, this universe, I feel modern science is not far from proving both. In fact some may argue that the big bang theory is locked up.
I just am weary of religion because they answer questions like, why does it rain, well son its because God is crying... I know thats from 1000's of years ago, but lets not kid ourselves we still hear all kinds of answers that baffle logic.. Why does God let both my parents die and leave me all alone? its in Gods plan :D Love those ones... |
|
|
| Devbert |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lost
first of all i agree with firestarter in that the media likes to sensationalize things. the media is not necessarily about information but about what sells. so it leads to a misrepresentation that all Christians are "nutbars" (from this point to be referred to as misinformed as nutbars is an emotionally charged word which does not lend itself to objectivity during a debate) when in actuality very few are. the media will focus on these groups acting out becasue it will create viewership (if that's a word) that will bring in more advertising that will bring in more money. no one wants to watch the news about how the everyday Christian goes through life because it won't create the emotionally charged response to draw you to watching it. although misinformed Christians do exist and do outlandish things which are not condoned by Christianity, i do not believe that they constitute a majority, or even a healthy amount, of practising Christians despite what the media would have you believe.
second there is the problem of the misinformed Christians and this goes hand in hand with biznology's reference to the flawed institution of religion. i agree with biz that the insitution of religion (church) is flawed but that religion (Christianity) is not. for example with myself, i feel it is important to go to church in order to learn more about God's word but i am not going to take the pastor's word at face value. it is not that the pastor is deliberately trying to deceive me but that he is a man and prone to mistakes and misinterpretations just like anyone else. therefore i'll listen to what he has to say and think about it and i'll read the Bible myself to see if it coincides with his teachings. now if my pastor said that God does not like abortion then i would agree with him. but if he said let's go out and bomb abortion clinics because this is God's will then i have a problem. the question arose then who is right: the pastor or myself? this was a problem even back in the early church with people coming in and professing this and that and the apostle paul warned everyone to test the prophets to see if what they were sayin was true or not. and the way you test the prophets is see how their message coincides with Christ's teachings. if they coincide then the teaching can be considered reliable but if they do not coincide then the teaching can be considered false. nowhere does Christ condone killing so therefore it could not be the will of God to bomb abortion clinics and that teaching would be false. unfortunately some people don't put the work in to read the word of God for themselves and completely rely on the pastor which sets them up for being led astray with false teachings.
hope that made sense. will try to clarify on points if need be.
lost |
I'm sorry, but I can't call them "misinformed." To be misinformed is to be given the wrong information. They believe it is the correct information. People who are "misinformed" realize it, and once given correct or more accurate information, drop anything believed from the "misinformation."
And I don't believe that all Christians are nutbars, nor does the media try to make it seem this way. The media only runs stories about the nutbars because they do create more viewership. But I don't think Christians have become stereotyped as nutbars. Only a small portion of them are, it's just that people think that there is only one "waco" like group, when in actuality, there are lots more.
The word of God is another point of debate. The realiability of the bible as factual evidence, and not as creative interpretation that has transcended milleniums. It can't be proven to be completely accurate, nor can it be disproven. However, that doesn't justify belief in it.
Just my opinion. Let the flames begin. |
|
|
| Thor |
What also I find rather silly, is that the original text of the Bible has some rather outrageous things. Basicly we know that women were spoken of like property, in the Bible there was a passage that said women who cheated on their husbands should be taken to the outskirts of the village and stoned to death :)
I mean if the Bible is the word of god, why are there 'new testaments' , does God update the publishing companies with new versions of his original bible? I know that sounds mean, but come on if you believe in something how can you accept people revising the bible to meet modern beliefs.
Seems as if anything in the bible is proven wrong, they just get out the old eraser and change it to meet new standards.
Acchams Razor - We were created by a supreme being that gave life to this planet and created the universe ..... OR ..... There is no god, the universe has existed for a long time and we were created 'naturally' by the elements not by a being.
"For people who have a real concern that I'm going to hell: If I lived a moral and just and good life, and (God) still wanted to send me to hell, why would I want to believe in him?"
"By all dogmatic and biblical accounts, he (God) is a sexist, racist, malign thug. He bullies the people he loves, kills the people who disagree with him and condemns those who think on their own volition." |
|
|
| Devbert |
Thor, let us tread lightly. We are moments away from the flamewar of the century...
Get out the flame-retardent $hit suits :D |
|
|
| Thor |
Tip toe.... :D
Here's something interesting, about one of my least favorite people George Bush. I imagine his son is the same in his beliefs...
The following exchange took place at the Chicago airport between Robert I. Sherman of American Atheist Press and George Bush, on August 27 1987. Sherman is a fully accredited reporter, and was present by invitation as a member of the press corps. The Republican presidential nominee was there to announce federal disaster relief for Illinois. The discussion turned to the presidential primary:
RS:
"What will you do to win the votes of Americans who are atheists?"
GB:
"I guess I'm pretty weak in the atheist community. Faith in God is important to me."
RS:
"Surely you recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of Americans who are atheists?"
GB:
"No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."
RS:
"Do you support as a sound constitutional principle the separation of state and church?"
GB:
"Yes, I support the separation of church and state. I'm just not very high on atheists."
UPI reported on May 8, 1989, that various atheist organizations were still angry over the remarks.
The exchange appeared in the Boulder Daily Camera on Monday February 27, 1989. It can also be found in "Free Inquiry" magazine, Fall 1988 issue, Volume 8, Number 4, page 16.
On October 29, 1988, Mr. Sherman had a confrontation with Ed Murnane, co-chairman of the Bush-Quayle '88 Illinois campaign. This concerned a lawsuit Mr. Sherman had filed to stop the Community Consolidated School District 21 (Chicago, Illinois) from forcing his first-grade atheist son to pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States as "one nation under God" (Bush's phrase). The following conversation took place:
RS:
"American Atheists filed the Pledge of Allegiance lawsuit yesterday. Does the Bush campaign have an official response to this filing?"
EM:
"It's bull."
RS:
"What is bull?"
EM:
"Everything that American Atheists does, Rob, is bull."
RS:
"Thank you for telling me what the official position of the Bush campaign is on this issue."
EM:
"You're welcome."
After Bush's election, American Atheists wrote to Bush asking him to retract his statement. On February 21st 1989, C. Boyden Gray, Counsel to the President, replied on White House stationery that Bush substantively stood by his original statement, and wrote:
"As you are aware, the President is a religious man who neither supports atheism nor believes that atheism should be unnecessarily encouraged or supported by the government." |
|
|
|
|
