My Objection to Religion

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.

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.

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.

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

Such as?

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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

Thank you.

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."

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

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.

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.

1. Where is your/ his evidence that there is not a supernatural God?

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.

2. How has the legitimate practice of Christianity caused wars?

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

If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers; Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth; Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the LORD thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage.

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.

LOL wow. Society grants religion 'immunity' to criticism. How is it then this person is able to write an article criticizing it? A religion is simply a set of beliefs, it doesn't matter if one worships God, Jesus, Allah, himself or nothing at all. Most of these people that claim they aren't "religious", such as the clown that wrote that above piece, are in fact subscribers to their own belief system. And their agenda is to stamp out all oposing schools of thought so they can impose their own on everyone else. Darwinism is a belief system too, as is secularism. This proves my point: 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. Here the writer is flat out admiting that his belief system, Darwinism, also requires a "leap of faith" in that it does not require any physical or scientific evidence to prove the theory as fact. Sounds alot like religions he attacks with his "teapot" analogy doesn't it? Kettle meet teapot.

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