My Objection to Religion
 

First of all, I would like to clarify exactly what I object to. I object to the adamant belief in supernatural gods and the rejection of evidence which inevitably ensues. I object to the strife caused by contradicting beliefs, and the wars that follow. I do not, object to the use of the term “god” as a metaphor to nature. This metaphor does not attempt to explain natural phenomena through supernatural explanations, nor does it attempt to justify or condemn people’s actions through ecclesiastical authorities.

Furthermore, I would like to clarify that though much of the following will use Christianity as an example, the following is not solely directed at Christians. It is directed at all religions which match the criteria given above. I use Christianity as an example because as an American I have been exposed to Christianity more than any other religion, and therefore I am more knowledgeable on Christianity than any other religion. I would also like to state that I do not claim to be an expert on any religion or the doctrine they follow; my assertions below are based principally on the observations I have made.

Religion should not survive an elementary education, yet it does. Why? Because society grants religion an undeserved immunity to criticism. Certain ideas are labeled “holy,” and once they receive that label you are not to question them. If someone’s political views do not coincide with your own, you are allowed to argue with them, but when someone says “I’m not allowed to make my bed on Sunday,” you must respect that.

The burden of proof lies with the theist, not the skeptic. It is not sufficient to say, “You can not disprove this, therefore this is how it is.” This idea is demonstrated by Bertrand Russell’s teapot analogy. Russell states:

An impartial look at religion will reveal its absurdity. Unfortunately, most people are incapable of impartiality towards religion because the process of their proselytization began at their birth. Does the idea of a man being swallowed whole by a whale and being regurgitated alive three days later not strike people as ridiculous? What about the geocentric view of the universe that the bible preaches? Not only should we repudiate evolution, should we also revamp the entire theory of gravity to conform to the bible? I pray we never take such inane actions. Fundamentalists frighten me.

Most contemporary theists classify themselves as a bit more moderate than fundamentalists. Religious moderation is a consequence of a few factors: a significant increase in the education level of the common man, and partial ignorance to one’s own scriptures. Moderates interpret parts of their religion literally, and parts of their religion figuratively so it does not openly contradict what is generally considered scientific fact. This is not inherently a bad idea. Such an interpretation does not reject facts, and continues to offer people spirituality which science can not. Religious moderation puts up a façade of being the perfect compromise, however, when put in practice, an allegorical interpretation of holy texts is not only regressive, it is also conceited.

Fundamentalists will often view moderates as impious. Instead of excoriating such unjustifiable, obstinate opinions, religious moderation often inadvertently advocates the contrary and strengthens such view points. It appears that many fundamentalists erroneously argue that because so many people have been exposed to god that he must exist. The moderate’s belief in god affirms the fundamentalist’s feeling of superiority and righteousness. Without the plethora of moderates the fundamentalist’s belief system would slowly degenerate and be replaced with an overwhelming majority of people who decided to follow reason and logic when juxtaposed with faith alone.

Religious moderates also follow a much more personal interpretation of holy text. You will rarely find two moderates who share all the same tenets, even if they attend the same church. Many of these moderates will insist on their beliefs as vehemently as some fundamentalists. Since almost all moderates interpret the bible differently from each other, in essence what they are saying is that they themselves have the ultimate authority in declaring how the universe works and what moral standards people should follow. This is the pinnacle of arrogance. If there are a million different metaphorical interpretations of the bible, most likely this means there are a million different flawed interpretations of the bible. Expecting others to conform to your interpretations is obtuse.

While a figurative interpretation of religious text is more rational than a literal one, it is still dubious. This view is still partially based on faith where it is not merited. Though this faith may not dispute empirical data directly, no evidence exists to legitimize this faith; therefore one should still consider it a puerile theory at best.

Faith, though in most cases fallacious, is perpetuated by many factors. Children are inoculated with their parents and societies’ dogmatic beliefs before maturing enough to question those conjectures. When a child has a set of beliefs ingrained in his mind, the process of separating the child with those beliefs is difficult, and in certain cases impossible. As the child gets older, he will have an emotional connection to his childhood beliefs, which will render him incapable of objectively questioning his beliefs. If he is able to look at his beliefs objectively, he may continue to live under the pretense of faith for fear of being alienated from his community. He will also see many people that he is exposed to sharing his beliefs, which will reaffirm his faith. This process is then systematically repeated over the next generation.

My disillusionment regarding religion does not stem entirely from my incredulity towards people having faith in asinine conjectures, it also stems from the violence done in the name of religion, and from observing the extent that people are willing to go to impose their beliefs upon others.

Numerous crimes against humanity have been committed in the name of religion, and range in magnitude from harassment and persecution of dissenters to genocide. At one time, intellectuals such as Galileo were imprisoned for advocating theories which contravened religious dogma. Slowly, the public began to embrace the era of enlightenment. As intellectuals gained favor with the public, classical methods of persecution were abandoned, only to be replaced by more acceptable methods. This cycle continues to manipulate society in modern times. While legal oppression of the intellectual is nearly obsolete, he is often heavily belittled by society for heresy. Einstein was a victim of this sort of persecution. When Einstein stated that he does not believe in the conventional God, he received many outrageous replies, such as one from the founder of the Cavalry Tabernacle Association of Oklahoma:

Of course there are far more heinous crimes than religious persecution that are carried out in the name of religion. The most obvious example, the malicious attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, opened up Pandora’s Box. America was left in shock, and The Middle East is arguably more devastated than ever before. Sadly, the extremist terrorists who attacked the United States believed that their actions were justified by their religion. The Ku Klux Klan justified lynching through the bible. Many more examples of crimes in the name of religion exist. The evidence required to claim that religion engenders barbarism and tyranny is pervasive.

In America, religion plays an indisputable role in both domestic and foreign politics. Though America is a leading nation in a civilized era, I find America’s aversion to putting a non-Christian in the oval office unfathomable. There are certain laws passed whose only basis lie in Christianity. Other laws, again only justified by Christian tenets, prevent the progressiveness that America strives for. Opposition to abortion, gay marriage, and stem cell research almost lies solely with the religious right.

Christian influence is also evident in the rhetoric George W. Bush uses in his attempts to justify the war in Iraq, such as when he calls any Iraqis opposed to the American forces “evil-doers.” He even goes as far as saying that god told him “go and end the tyranny in Iraq.” Many people interpret his reference to “evil-doers” as referring to all Muslims, and end up mocking Islam as a whole, furthering the already increasing estrangement between Muslims and Christians. This only leads to more violence. The reason behind going into this war remains in question, but it is steadily spiraling into a war based on ideological differences.

History teaches us that the most virulent situations rise from ideological differences, not from a struggle over land, resources, or other tangibles. What possesses a man to arm himself with the branch of a tree and a few stones, and charge at a tank? Only quintessential hatred will drive a man to such an extreme, and this type of hatred comes from religious discord. People will do anything to assert the validity of their religion. Too many men have died in the name of religion, and these unnecessary deaths will continue until people realize that religion is fictitious. The extent of influence faith has exerted throughout history is appalling, especially considering that many times facts are ignored for faith.

In order to ensure the continued existence of humanity in a nuclear era religion must be subdued. History evinces religion as the catalyst to the bitterest wars. Though this has always been an inane peculiarity of human culture, in the past it was tolerable as the destruction was limited to a locality. However, if a religious war were waged between two nuclear powers the result would be Armageddon. The destruction would be pandemic, quite possibly resulting in the annihilation of the human race. Ending religion will not nullify the inexorable threat of nuclear war; however, it will discernibly reduce the possibility of such a war because nothing in human history has been as divisive as religion. On nearly every other issue the possibility of compromise exists; religion is absolute.

However, it is religion’s attempt to cross into the realm of science which I find most aggravating. It does this mainly two ways: through the legal system, and through the classroom. Recently, in America, there has been a movement to teach “creation science” in science classes in the public school system. Creationism seeks to teach alternative explanations to currently accepted scientific theories by introducing the idea of a deity. It is highly grotesque to try to pass creationism off as a science. First of all, creationism attempts to explain natural phenomena through supernatural causes, therefore it can not, by definition, be a science. Science is based on palpable evidence rather than blind faith. No evidence exists to substantiate the ludicrous arguments purported by creationists, while a myriad of evidence directly refutes them. It is fatuous to controvert observable fact on the basis of blind faith. Furthermore, though many proponents of creationism emphatically claim otherwise, creationism is strongly influenced by the Bible. America generally considers the intervention of the state in matters of faith illegal. Teaching creationism in school would transgress this principle. Most importantly, teaching creationism at school would misinform the minds of impressionable children, and would be horrifically regressive. Over the next few paragraphs, I would like to briefly address the major ideas behind creationism.

The main claim of creationism asserts that life did not evolve on Earth by natural selection, but that a divine entity designed and created life in its present state. Creationists generally mean common descent when they use the term ‘evolution.’ Creationists insist that their claim is as valid as evolution because evolution “is just a theory,” and since it is just a theory it should be removed from class, or all opposing theories should be given equal time in the classroom. The problem here arises from their interpretation of the word ‘theory.’ In American vernacular the term insinuates uncertainty; in the context of science the term is used to describe a group of propositions that explain a natural phenomenon. Gravity, for instance, is a natural phenomenon. There have been many proposed theories to explain the phenomenon, such as Newton’s classical theory, or Einstein’s general theory of relativity, however the fact that two massive bodies will attract each other has remained constant. Similarly, common descent is a natural phenomenon. The theory of evolution explains this phenomenon. It is possible that one day our current theory may be replaced by something else; however that will not change the fact that species are related by common descent.

As an aside, I would like to point out that the current theory that explains gravity has far more opposition in the scientific community than the theory of evolution. Why, then, are creationists not discontent with it being taught in the classroom?

Many people who argue against evolution cite a “missing link,” fossilized evidence which should be a requirement of proof according to some creationists, in the lineage of the human race. I have heard this argument many times. I find it somewhat ironic that though many people will use this as a key point to their argument, this missing link remains esoteric in the sense that no one seems to know exactly what, when, or where this missing link is. This is a moot argument, however. If a missing link exists, it does not refute the theory of evolution. Evolution does not entail a direct fossilized record from ancestor to descendant. Fossilized evidence is contingent on the geological forces of the earth, and is coincidental when found. It supports the theory of evolution. Fossilized evidence is not a requirement for ascertaining the theory’s validity.

Another central argument of many creationists is that the Earth and universe are between 6,000 and 10,000 years old. These creationists generally have a literal view on the bible’s historical accuracy. There is, of course, no real basis for these claims. They are off by a factor of approximately a million. It would be equivalent of saying that San Francisco is 30 feet from New York.

There are a multitude of methods for measuring the age of the Earth, the most common being radiometric dating. This method approximates the age of the earth at 4.5 billion years, along with other independent methods of dating. Creationists often question the legitimacy of radioactive dating. They base their doubt on relatively few examples. Any tool when misused will give inaccurate results, which is generally the case for the basis of creationist’s claims. The fact that independent radiometric techniques, along with other techniques such as Milankovitch cycles, luminescence dating method, and relative dating methods are consistent should be apodictic evidence that should lay to rest any doubt on the validity of radiometric dating.

Since the age of the earth is 4.5 billion years old, it logically follows that the age of the universe is also greater than 4.5 billion years old. This has also been proved by various methods.

Religion is a valid expression of human emotion. Unfortunately, the majority of the people want to aggrandize it into literal truth, which it is not. Such aggrandizement is a threat to the progressiveness of society, a threat to the human species itself, and blinds people from seeing the naturally beautiful truth. At one point in time, religion was not nearly as harmful as it is today, but in the age of reason, religion is antiquated, and does not deserve a place in modern society.

True, religion instigates war, disputes, ect. but people need something to keep them human. If they believe they will be rewarded in the 'afterlife' they'll be good little civilians. If everyone was intolerant to God, we'd all be dead. If everyone is fanatical about God, we'd all be dead. We need a balance to keep us in line.

I myself have drifted from the Catholic perspective I've been (and being) raised with. I have no fucking clue what's right. And I hope I nnever do learn. I'd be dissapointed if there is a God and I'd be dissapointed if there isn't. Burning in 'hell' or ceasing to exist? Tough choice, and we don't get to decide.

Humankind seemed to do just fine before the concept of religion...

People are human. We aren't given a choice in that matter, nor can we change it.

I strongly disagree with this statement. Religious people are as likely to commit a crime as secular people. In fact, religion often drives people to commit crimes. Furthermore, a lack of belief in god does not imply a lack of morality. I consider myself be as moral of a person as religious people, however I get to pick and choose my morals based on observation rather than having them told to me from a book.

Again, there is no reason a moral society can't exist without god.

Even the neanderthals had some concept of spirits and a sort of religion.

If ever they were ill they went to the Medicine Man, who thought that they had a bad spirit in them, and so cut a hole in their head to let the spirit out (trephining or trepanning. Either or depending on personal preference). He was also thought of as the way to contact the spirit world.

Proof of all this comes from not only the study of cave paintings and early human skeletons, but also the study of the Aborighines in Australia - they're thought to be extremely similar to the early "cavemen" in their practices.

-----

I completely agree with all you say about religion, mj. The majority of the worlds problems have been, and still are, caused by it.

There's also a great quote, can't remember who said it, though, about Man and God:

"And the sixth day God created Man. On the seventh day Man returned the favour."

Very well written, by the way. Very good 'article', I suppose you'd call it.

-----

EDIT: I was thinking this as I was reading your post.

I don't know about America, but it's definitely true for [at least] my year at school, maybe even my age group across the country - very few people are religious. Many think the idea of a God is absurd, and quite a few will argue to the death about it.

It may just be that England and Britain as a whole is less religious and more of a multi-culture society, or it may be that as you get older you start to question everything more. It's true to say that a lot of schools, unless they're religious schools, won't 'force' pupils to be religious. They still teach RE and so on, but it's not drummed into us as it may be over the pond.

Thank you.

It is quite different in America, especially at my university.

From my experiences, I have come to a conclusion which seems to contradict common sense. It would seem natural that as one gets older he questions things more, but from what I've seen it is the other way around. Younger children tend to have a lot of questions on the world, but as people grow older they grow more accepting of answers provided to them by authority.

Public schools here don't really teach religion, except from an academic perspective.

Lies, thats like saying im not addicted to WoW.

No, it's true. As much as I joke otherwise, I do consider myself to be a moral person. That doesn't mean my morals are immutable or conventional, but there is a standard that I live by.

[/QUOTE]Religion is a valid expression of human emotion. Unfortunately, the majority of the people want to aggrandize it into literal truth, which it is not. Such aggrandizement is a threat to the progressiveness of society, a threat to the human species itself, and blinds people from seeing the naturally beautiful truth. At one point in time, religion was not nearly as harmful as it is today, but in the age of reason, religion is antiquated, and does not deserve a place in modern society.[/QUOTE]

there is a reason for religion and there is a place for it in this world

but with so many fake religions its hard to determine the real one the one that actually tells the truth

for example:if you go and talk to the pope and tell him "whats the name of god?" he'll gladly tell you Jehova or Yave
but during the reunions these popes do not say the name at any moment
and if they do the rarely use the bible to show it to you

theres a perfect example of a fake religion, basically a religion is to teach someone about god and his purposes for life, therefore in search of power
such as the catolics did during ancient times, fake religions are born
atracting people into fake teachings which will in time control their lifes

of course not all people let religion control them and are free to do as they please, but another trick religions use is the fact that they ARE free and completely of your choosing, which gives people freedom and makes them come(wow my first coherent paragraph i'm so happy)

Under the assumption that one religion does tell the absolute truth, there is no way of determining which one it is. Religion is based entirely on faith. 'Determining' which religion is the correct one would require certainty based on proof, the antithesis of faith.

What makes anything about that "fake," from your perspective?

Do those two seemingly unrelated trains of thought have some obscure relationship, or is that just a horrid run-on?

Again, I disagree. Refer to paragraph 10. (Faith, though in most cases fallacious . . .) Most people do not choose their own religion, they are born into it. Yes, people may change, but to even start thinking apostatically is heavily condemned, and most people never reach this point since they have lived by one religion all their life. I hardly call that a choice.

True even though we lack religious beliefs I still consider us to be less of an asshole in comparison with most other people in the US.

it can be a choice, it just that its hard to determine without actual proof(i agree with you)
but mostly what the bible says is happening right now which is a strong influence with religions.

Such as?

As someone who enjoys studying mythology and religion, I see so much truth in your posts. Religion does seem to incite suffering, hate, war, etc., but you have to remember it's not the religion itself, it's the people who interpret the faith they are with. Islam by itself is not a dangerous religion nor is it a very violent one (I'm still studying Islam through the help of a friend who is Shi'a Muslim), but the extremists who follow Islam use the faith as an excuse to carry out the evils that we see going on in the world. Christianity had been the same way and still is to a much lesser degree now.

I still see a lot of fanatical Christians who would murder and mutilate you because you aren't Christian. They really don't get the core message of "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" as well as Christ's message "Judge not lest ye be judged." They seem to think some of that doesn't apply when they deal with nonbelievers.

But great post, mj. Very well-thought out and quite accurate.

lets take aborting as an example(correct me if i'm wrong i'm translating from french)is a way some women get rid of their child so they wont have to take care of them.
the bible says in psalm 139:13-16:" you Jehova kept me covered in protected form in the woov of my mother. your eyes saw even my enbrion an din your book all her parts were writen."

according to the bible god considers even an infant life who has not yet been born sacred and doing an abort is a serious sin, yet women still go through it. as you can see the bible basically says hundreds of years ago that aborting is a sin and yet its 1 of the methods of avoiding pregnancy that is used most oftened.

1. Where is your/ his evidence that there is not a supernatural God?
2. How has the legitimate practice of Christianity caused wars?

dude i agree with the fact that god exists
and christianity doesn't cause war
the bible said (not directly) that war would occur in this time and theire happening

i highly doubt its a coincidence

Wait wait wait. Kyerru... Why because the pope doesn't say Yaweh make Catholicism fake? And the bible I believe to be a bunch of bullshit. Even though I may be inherently Christian the bible is 'God working through the writer' which to me is leaving too much room to someone thinking they are being told by God. Don't quote the motherfucking bible. It's not a valid source. This coming from a practicing Roman Catholic, the bible isn't to be taken as fact and quoted.

My questions were not directed at you, so please don't try to answer them. They were for mjordan2nd to answer. Thanks.

Also, the Bible is full of shit.

A lot of the more fanatical Christians may choose to ignore Christ and live by what the Old Testament says. In comparison with the NT, the OT really is calling for the blood of everyone who isn't a hardcore believer.

-----

Thanks to Religion, Science has had to take a course that not only fits in with the Christian beliefs, but a course that is dictated by the Christian Church.

Now I'm going purely off European and English History here (America was naught but a myth in these times) - first take the Greeks. They were advanced, they even allowed dissection. No qualms there. Then the Romans; pretty much the same... until Christianity popped up.

I don't expect people to know who he is, but Claudius Galen was to medicine as Aristotle and Hippocrates are. He wrote so much on the subject, contributed by the donkey-drawn wagon load. But, ultimately, he ideas were wrong.

The Roman Empire collapses, Europe (and the known world at the time) sink into the Dark Ages, Religion takes hold. Yet in Asia, Islam is prevailing, and with it come some of the most advanced scientific minds the world had seen. Sure, they took Galen's ideas and believed them (same with the ideas of the old Greek philosophers), but they didn't take them on as the standard. Rather they took them and improved them.

Yada yada, Crusades. Christians come along, kill the "devils". Sack cities, burn great libraries to the ground, butcher the genii. And salvage the oild works of Galen. Whoop-di-doo. The Christian Church decides that these ideas are correct, that they fit in with their beliefs. Thanks to this religion, which took these books and writings, and preserved them (nice thing to do, though) the teachings were taught in medical schools, out of the books, until Andreas Vesalius, William Harvery and Ambroise Pare come along and cause an uproar by not only speaking out against Galen, but by proving him wrong (yes, Paracelsus was doing this a hundred years earlier, but he was a crackpot German who got pissed in pubs with the peasants for the crack of it). Well over a thousand years after Galen died, his teachings were finally making way for something else... but not until the Church had had its way.

Sorry for the brief course in the History of Medicine, but throughout the annals of time Religion (namely the Catholic Church) has supressed science to suit it's own needs. Even now it opposes ground-breaking research on stem cells and cloning, simply on age-old principles.

In this day and age there should be no need for Religion to be as deep-rooted in society as it is. Its influence is still far too much - War on Terrorism, Iraq, Afghanistan, Cloning=no-no, Stem Cell Research is bad.

And I've forgotten what the original point was... nevermind.

Agreed. Religion should not be the cause for suffering. Cloning equaling no-no, though... Is a give-in in my mind. If we try and make more of people, it goes against the old, 'everyone is special ' routine. also, I would like to think that we're better off without it. The only people to get cloned for medical emergency would be those rich enough to afford it. And why would you want the bastards who run this god-forsaken world life?

Stem-cell research isn't labeled bad for the sole reason Christianity deems people as having the right to life, but because the morals, untampered by religion, say taking life is wrong. I know that not every kind takes life, but the ones that do don't have the right to do that. Ukkh I don't want to get into the subject of parent's rights to kill their child because they aren't convenient.

Religion, politics, they shouldn't mix.

Sorry, Please delete this post, accidentally double clicked.

Cloning and Stem-Cell Research go hand-in-hand.

When someone thinks of cloning they will instantly think of making an exact copy of a human. Only half right. You don't really make a copy, but rather grow the cells twice - with Dolly the Sheep they took some cells from an embryo, put them in an unused egg, and started off the process of the embryo growing into a foetus, and so on. Even if we do get to the stage where we clone humans without any faults (Dolly aged faster and developed premature arthritis, for example), it will still take decades for them to grow. Also, appearance doesn't make you "special". It's the way you think, the way you act, speak, your personality. Not even a clone can be the same because they will develop under different circumstances, and go through different experiences. If appearance DID make you special, then what can you say about identical twins?

As for Stem-Cells. You cannot take life until life has been given. Stem cells are basically cells that can develop into ANY type of cell - brain cell, skin cell, hair cell, gamete. They are taken from embryo's.

Embryo's are not alive. I would argue that a foetus is not alive until 21 weeks - when it can survive outside the womb. Not necessarily on it's own, just outside the womb. I think Christianity (or Islam) states that life starts after 120 days or something. Until the time the foetus is "alive", you can't "kill" it. If it were unhampered then we'd have efficient ways of extracting the stem cells and cloning them without destroying the embryo by now. As it is, these methods are only just being developed.

I can get argumentative about this, sorry.

A foetus is not theoretically a child until it has been born. I'll accept 21 weeks or older, but only because that is when it can survive outside the womb. Until then it is not alive and so cannot be killed. Which is why abortion is allowed up until 21 weeks (24 on the absolute outside).

---

And, yes. Anyone who mixes religion and politics should be shot.

Fine. The parent's right to annihilate their fetus. Which in my eyes is wrong because it would inevitably develop into a child.


Sorry for getting off topic...

MJ, if there was to be a wholly atheist society, the outcome would be communist to an extent, as you would not have freedom of religion. America would be fine as long as we didn't have religious battles with oil-rich countries and integration of religion and our leadership.

1. atnas your signature scaresm e
2. The bible says waaay to many things that occure exactly has they're written in real life, and now its highly doubtfull that its all coincidence
the bible is not bull shit is the mind of god and there ar emore reasons that the pope is part of a fake religion i mean, he tells you many things wihtout reciting the bible 2. he says "dont this or don't do that" but then you catch him in a bar doing exactly what he said not to do

it shows much of fake religion, religion s are based on the bible
even other religions base theyre beliefs in other bibles
wihtout bibles religion has no basis
bible is the basis, the way god communicates with humans
because his glory would kill you if he showed himself to you or communicated directly with you.

Brainwashed much? I smell a fundamentalist.:)

Judaism->Catholicism->then Protestants.

So if we are so false, why is it you have the same faith, but as a 'religious moderate' as MJ nicely puts it? You've modified a religion to make it based on a book. Human error abounds within books, even if it is the bible.

So, you are not one to call any religion fake based upon the fact it is not your own religion. Mine could be fake as well, but that would just mean that yours is totally off, now wouldn't it?. We cannot know.

Anyway, the thread was about how religion is a false pursuit. Back on topic time. XD

Almost everything you said is just speculation or bullshit unsupported by facts. Try again.

I don't know much about Islam. I have read very little of the Qur'an. That said, what I do know is that certain people justify bringing terror upon people by that religion, which makes Islam a dangerous religion. Faith is, of course, personal, and interpretations will vary. That does not necessarily make one wrong, even if it is a violent interpretation. Most Islamic extremists have studied the Qur'an far more than us, which, in my opinion, makes their interpretation of the Qur'an more valid than our own.

Again, interpretations vary on a personal basis. Some people act out of ignorance, but their are those who have studied the Bible in depth, and continue their fanatic behavior.

Thank you.


Abortion has been an issue since people have known the methods of aborting. But, I agree, abortion is still a relevant issue.

Abortion is not a method of avoiding pregnancy, it is a method of ending it. As far as I know, it is the only method we know that intentionally ends a pregnancy.

Please refer to paragraph 4, and Russell's teapot analogy.

I have no proof that god does not exist. By the dictionary definition, I am not an atheist, I am agnostic. However, if that is the case, I am also agnostic about fairies, unicorns, Russell's teapot, and the flying spaghetti monster. I am as sure about the nonexistence of god as I am about anything. When I am asked if I am an atheist, I nod an affirmation. Why? If someone were to ask you if you believed in unicorns and you answered with anything but a resounding no, it would be social suicide. Why should this not apply to god as well? Nearly everyone today is an atheist about Zeus or Thor. Can their existence be disproved? No. But that does not mean that anyone is going to take them seriously. I simply extend this logic and apply it to an Abrahamic god.

How can I possibly answer this question? I don't know what a legitimate practice of Christianity is. In fact, most Christians can't agree on what a legitimate practice of Christianity is. Catholics will assert their legitimacy, Baptists will assert their's, and Mormon's will follow suit. I suppose that if Catholicism were considered the legitimate practice of Christianity, then I could cite plenty of references, however this is not the case. That question is like asking, "Why is a unicorn hollow?" The question does not really have an answer. I will, however, do my best to answer based on some presuppositions.

The only practice of Christianity that I will consider leigitimate comes from the Bible itself. Now the Bible is a violent book. For instance, consider Deuteronomy 13:6-10

There is no ambiguity in that. Not only does that advocate killing your wife or child, it specifies how. It would be a gross misrepresentation of what is said in the Bible to attempt to interpret this metaphorically. If this was intended to be figurative, then nothing in the Bible can be interpreted as truth, because it is entirely too vague. If this were meant to be taken figuratively, then the Bible serves no purpose as a religious text. A legitimate practice of Christianity would include carrying out the acts advocated by Deuteronomy 13:6-10. Considering this, we should be asking how is it possible that a legitimate practice of Christianity hasn't caused more wars, not the other way around.

I will respond to the rest of the posts tomorrow. It's 3:30 AM and I'm tired.

Hahahahaha.

Completely, and utterly wrong.

The Bible is in no way the "mind of God". No Holy book of any religion is the "mind of God".

True, the Qur'an was given to Muhammed by God, dictated even, and so can be said to be the true "words of God", but not mind.

The Christian Bible, on the other hand, has sweet FA in it that has anything to do with the "mind of God". It is a book written by mortals, with no divine link to their God. It is a book that gives accounts of historical events - whether factitious events or complete fiction. It is just a book.

---

Oh, ever heard of a chap called "Nostradamus"? Yeah, he was a crackpot who supposedly prophesised this that and the other. But wait! His prophecies were so obscure that with the right imagination, and being able to assume things about events in the past, people can interpret any of his prophecies to be true.

One such 'prophecy' talked about "the eagle crumbling in flame". Let's see:

Flame...flame... oooh! Fire!
Eagle... lots of things have an Eagle for a Symbol - Hitler used an eagle on German medals on his standards (flag poles). Ooooh, whaddya know, America like eagles too!!
Crumbling can mean any number of things... in this case I shall assume it is talking about, say...oh what could it be? The Twin Towers!

With imagination, knowing past events, and being able to interpret things my way, I have proven that Nostradamus, when he spoke about "the eagle crumbling in flame" he was obviously prophecising about the destruction of the Twin Towers.

Come on, give us an example of the Bible prophecising something, not vaguley like Nostradamus, but to the absolute letter.

Let it be known I'm posting these on behalf of people who want to play from the outside.

I could have predicted that the human race would still wage wars 2000 years ago as well, however it is quite impressive that the Bible predicted this, because I have seen no such passage in the Bible that would suggest that. Please explain to me what passage predicts the wars in 2006?

Should we kill the second-born identical twin to preserve the first-born's "specialty?"

Perhaps this would be an accurate portrayal of the world immediately after cloning goes mainstream, but it is possible that the cost of cloning will go down substantially in the future, and its benefits will be extended even to the common man.

A lack of religion will not make a society communist. Communism is an economic system. You can have a society that practices religion and communism at the same time, or a society that is wholly atheist yet capitalist. However, I am not promoting a society in which you are forced to be an atheist. I would personally find such a society repugnant. What I would like to see is more people basing their lives off of reason rather than faith by choice, not by force.

I will get to the rest after my next class.

Yes, lets make a BBQ out of it.

I was being sarcastic when I said everyone is special. Forgot to Italicize, sorry.

Such as what? We're not talking about relevance anymore, we're apparently talking about prophecies, so the abortion example has no bearing. I'm not sure what you mean, so you want to provide some examples?

If there is a God, the Bible is certainly not his mind.

What?

Then he most certainly can not be omnipotent, can he?

KagomJack, why don't you bring these people inside?

Zelaron does not accurately represent society as a whole. Zelaron consists mainly of teenagers and men in their early 20s who are predominantly atheists or agnostics. If I were to post this on a more mainstream forum, I would be severely chastised due to the subject of my article, not because of any flaws in the article itself. I can not think of a better paradigm to portray the concept of immunity to criticism.

Incorrect. A belief is something that is not based on evidence. Everything I have presented in my article is based on evidence. The possibility exists that our theories are incorrect, as I have already stated, but they are based on observable facts, unlike religions. If I drop an apple from the air, it is not a belief that it will fall under normal circumstances, it is a fact in every sense of the word. Of course the possibility exists that the apple may simply suspend itself from the air by magic, but it would be ridiculous to assume that, and even more ridiculous to spend time learning about that possibility.

You obviously have no understanding of evolution, and apparently an underdeveloped grasp of the English language as well. Nowhere in that paragraph do I imply that recognizing the theory of evolution is a leap of faith. I only state that fossilized evidence is coincidental to evolution, not consequential as is commonly believed. There is a massive amount of evidence that supports evolution that is consequential to evolution, however fossils do not match that criteria.

I gave them a link, but it's their choice to click it and go here.

Out of sheer curiosity, are these just random friends of yours, or what?

or just figments of your imagination?

Friends on another (conservative) forum.

No no, those stay in my head.

well then hope it goes well(if anything at all)