My Objection to Religion

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.

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.

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.

-----

but mostly what the bible says is happening right now which is a strong influence with religions.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Ukkh I don't want to get into the subject of parent's rights to kill their child because they aren't convenient.

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.

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).

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.

Sorry, Please delete this post, accidentally double clicked.

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

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.

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

Hahahahaha.

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

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.

religion kills people.