Religion good or bad?

Pages: 1 2 3 4

Index »
Community »
Debate and Serious Talk »
Religion good or bad?

2009-05-11 15:07:35

Pug: UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate; +652|6856|Texas - Bigger than France

oug wrote:
Pug wrote:
How about your Mom goes to a doctor for treatment and you walk your fat ass down the street to get some italian?

So I guess for you we need a Magic God.

Wow, you are really ignorant. It doesn't work that way. LOL

Hopefully you understand my point, since I don't really think you're an idiot.
Actually if you want to be serious for me we don't need a god at all. But please do tell. What point is that?

Also if you care to explain how evidence can be combined with faith.

I have a point...it's a worthy discussion. I do believe in God, but I also disagree with much of organized religion (I don't believe in heaven or hell, for one). Sorry if my point was harsh, but it's meant to mean:

My thought is inherent within the original question - what evidence do you need? My belief is that if a magic bullet to absolutely prove the existence, wouldn't you use science to explain it away?

If a doctor fixes the cancer, will you attribute the healing to science completely? Isn't the doctor's act a "miracle" in some respects? Is it a "miracle" that there's a place serving lasagne down the street?

Is lasagna a "miracle"? After all, what makes up lasagna? Minerals converted from star matter, all of which has been combined over eons to feed an individual who miraculously prefers lasagna and is coincidentally able to eat lasagna. All of which are developed from living things, that somehow got to where they are now. What are the chances of that?

People will never agree on what is or is not a miracle or "influenced by God". There are little miracles all around us. Almost all can be explained by science.

The point I'm making is perhaps aspects of religion aren't "magic" by granting wishes like a djinni. And for some, there's evidence all around...you can explain it through science.

But like FEOS is saying...it's all in what you believe is evidence. Hence, "ok, what evidence do you want?" And "wow you are an idiot" - to illustrate the main point - people have differing opinions and at no point can either side "prove" anything, because no one agrees to what to base the argument on.

2009-05-11 15:32:49

Pug: UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate; +652|6856|Texas - Bigger than France

Home wrote:
FEOS wrote:
Home wrote:
It's not necessarily either. People would do the good they do whether religion was there to encourage them or not, it's a natural human tendency. If it was gone, something else would be there to fill the void.
Or the exact opposite of that.
You really think people wouldn't do good if religion didn't exist? How do you explain atheists doing charity work, then?

Home's right. Atheists have morals, just like some deists are going to burn.

There's plenty of google crap on that one.

2009-05-11 15:34:00

blademaster: I'm moving to Brazil; +2,075|6960

Dilbert_X wrote:
FEOS wrote:
And that's all well and good. But mocking those who hold a belief and saying they are backward for doing so is essentially doing the same thing as telling someone they are wrong for not believing in the God you do.
Lowing meet FEOS
FEOS meet lowing

Now you're acquainted I'll leave you to it.

hahaha yeah I know rite

I say its good, you gotta believe in something, plus there are miracles to prove so its like there is no evidence.

2009-05-11 17:41:45

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6725|'Murka

Braddock wrote:
FEOS wrote:
Braddock wrote:

No, that's a fair enough point FEOS. I don't really agree with rubbishing a person's beliefs because of my own opinions and I certainly don't do that in everyday life but if they want to engage me in serious discussion on the issue I'm not giving them a free pass just because they believe in angels.
Nor should you expect a free pass simply because you don't. Because, when you get right down to it, both science and religion are attempting to do the same thing: explain the (initially) unexplainable...both attempt to explain the "why" associated with the "what".

But when you ask "why" enough, you get to the same point: something we can't explain. Thus, the two are not mutually exclusive as they meet at some point.
But FEOS you can't deny that atheism does not ask you to assume the existence of anything without any evidence, religion does.

When you get right down to it religion is on the same side of the fence as the tooth fairy, Sasquath and Santa Claus and hence it deserves to be dealt with in the same way... no free passes remember.

As does string theory and quantum theory. If it's not proven, then it must be fantasy...right?

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2009-05-11 17:55:21

S.Lythberg: Mastermind; +429|6761|Chicago, IL

FEOS wrote:
Braddock wrote:
FEOS wrote:

Nor should you expect a free pass simply because you don't. Because, when you get right down to it, both science and religion are attempting to do the same thing: explain the (initially) unexplainable...both attempt to explain the "why" associated with the "what".

But when you ask "why" enough, you get to the same point: something we can't explain. Thus, the two are not mutually exclusive as they meet at some point.
But FEOS you can't deny that atheism does not ask you to assume the existence of anything without any evidence, religion does.

When you get right down to it religion is on the same side of the fence as the tooth fairy, Sasquath and Santa Claus and hence it deserves to be dealt with in the same way... no free passes remember.
As does string theory and quantum theory. If it's not proven, then it must be fantasy...right?

but string theory and quantum theory have been mathematically proven, and the physical consequences of that are used daily (the blu-ray disc is dependent on the validity of quantum mechanics).

2009-05-11 18:39:38

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6725|'Murka

Ei Em wrote:
FEOS wrote:
..., both science and religion are attempting to do the same thing: explain the (initially) unexplainable...both attempt to explain the "why" associated with the "what".

But when you ask "why" enough, you get to the same point: something we can't explain.
What? This is not true at all. Science is trying to find an aswer to that "why" all the time and won't stop untill we have "the answer". In science there is no such thing as "we can't explain". Maybe science can't explain it now but some day it will.
Only thing blocking science answer to that "why" is low advanced science.

Religion, on the other hand, doesn't seem to be trying to answer that "why" other than, "God did it", or "it just is the way it is". Religions (theist) already have the One (or more) who is behind this all. That "why" is already answered - God/god's know it - and it/they will tell if "necessary".

You're on crack. Of course there is such a thing in science as "we can't explain". There's far more that can't be explained in science than can be.

Science and religion both attempt to answer "why". Religion answers with God (or Gods). Science answers with hypotheses, theories, and laws.

The flaw in the argument is that religion = no pursuit for scientific answers. That is simply not the case. Religion and science are not mutually exclusive...they seek the answer to the same question.

2009-05-11 18:41:22

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6725|'Murka

S.Lythberg wrote:
FEOS wrote:
Braddock wrote:
But FEOS you can't deny that atheism does not ask you to assume the existence of anything without any evidence, religion does.

When you get right down to it religion is on the same side of the fence as the tooth fairy, Sasquath and Santa Claus and hence it deserves to be dealt with in the same way... no free passes remember.
As does string theory and quantum theory. If it's not proven, then it must be fantasy...right?
but string theory and quantum theory have been mathematically proven, and the physical consequences of that are used daily (the blu-ray disc is dependent on the validity of quantum mechanics).

If they have been proven, they wouldn't be theories. Aspects of quantum mechanics have been shown to be repeatable, but there is still much more we don't understand about quantum physics than that we do.

2009-05-11 18:46:03

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6725|'Murka

Pug wrote:
Home wrote:
FEOS wrote:

Or the exact opposite of that.
You really think people wouldn't do good if religion didn't exist? How do you explain atheists doing charity work, then?
Home's right. Atheists have morals, just like some deists are going to burn.

There's plenty of google crap on that one.

It would appear Home's post got deleted. Perhaps he re-read what I posted and then understood the point that was being made.

2009-05-11 19:18:37

13rin: Member; +977|6794

The other religion is inherently evil.

Time in again the above claim is made by religions directed toward other religions. Hence, only one conclusion can be made:

All religions are inherently evil

I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something. - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.

2009-05-11 22:37:41

Shahter: Zee Ruskie; +295|7090|Moscow, Russia

wtb a new discussion topic, pst.

if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.

2009-05-12 09:32:48

loubot: O' HAL naw!; +470|6893|Columbus, OH

[TUF]Catbox wrote:
Religion is good
the perversion of Religion is bad

2009-05-12 09:36:41

Christbane: Member; +51|6549

nerf religion! it's so unbalanced!

2009-05-12 09:56:04

Lai: Member; +186|6465

Christbane wrote:
nerf religion! it's so unbalanced!

No way, they have already limited the number of Gods one carries to one, and the recoil on conversion is unreal!

2009-05-13 07:38:05

Ei Em: Member; +7|5804

FEOS wrote:
Of course there is such a thing in science as "we can't explain". There's far more that can't be explained in science than can be.

I'm not talking about present moment. I'm talking about future. Of course, if you know what will happen, in what direction we will evolve and what will we know, it's all cool. Save the time and tell me/rest of us now how it everything goes if you know it. If you don't know, then don't bother saying that science can't explain.
There's an answer before question. Question roots from answer. Not knowing the answer doesn't meant there isn't one.

FEOS wrote:
Science and religion both attempt to answer "why". Religion answers with God (or Gods). Science answers with hypotheses, theories, and laws.

The flaw in the argument is that religion = no pursuit for scientific answers. That is simply not the case. Religion and science are not mutually exclusive...they seek the answer to the same question.

I made a terrible mistake when saying "religion can't" (even though I added "theism") because not every religion relies on higher being or rule. Some religions believe in cycle of life. Everything is as it is, and will happen as will happen. That's why whole question "Religion good or bad?" is very bad to start with.

Anyway. If religion (theism) is trying to pursuit for scientific answers what makes religion a religion? Shouldn't religion(s) pursuit answers for that "why" instead of trying to pursuit a way to scientific "why"? Where does religion need that scientific "why" if they already know they have the origin of that "why" which is opposing the way of scientific "why"?

No time to write more/better now...

2009-05-13 16:08:22

Zefar: Member; +116|6964|Sweden

FEOS wrote:
If they have been proven, they wouldn't be theories. Aspects of quantum mechanics have been shown to be repeatable, but there is still much more we don't understand about quantum physics than that we do.

*Sigh* Here we go again with a "Theory" part that Religious people just don't handle so well.

Ok listen. There are TWO types of Theories.

One for making a normal guess on how things work.

One is a Scientific Theory backed up by information and tests. Gone through a peer review and let others people inspect it. If all goes as it should be, it's accepted. The other also test it too. In various ways too.

Gravity is a theory and EVERYONE accept that one. Evolution is a theory too and it's the most backed up theory in the world. Even Gravity have less information than evolution.

In science, scientist prefer not to use "Fact" as that's in math. But still most theories that scientist have are pretty much correct.

Btw about the Scientist can't explain everything part. Actually they can explain A LOT. They made quite some achievements there. Still I remember seeing a picture with stars and there was a note on it.

Apparently they found a galaxy that was so large that it technically shouldn't exist. They are pretty curious about it thou. Lost the picture btw. >.>
Oh and Black hole seems to be disrupting the laws of nature too.

2009-05-14 19:23:28

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6725|'Murka

Ei Em wrote:
FEOS wrote:
Of course there is such a thing in science as "we can't explain". There's far more that can't be explained in science than can be.
I'm not talking about present moment. I'm talking about future. Of course, if you know what will happen, in what direction we will evolve and what will we know, it's all cool. Save the time and tell me/rest of us now how it everything goes if you know it. If you don't know, then don't bother saying that science can't explain.
There's an answer before question. Question roots from answer. Not knowing the answer doesn't meant there isn't one.

What are you on about? I'm not talking about the present or the future. I'm talking about how science has evolved to where it is today, and why it started. The reason for science is the same as the reason for religion: man trying to explain "why".

If you think we will EVER get to a point where science explains everything, you're not half as scientific as you think you are.

Ei Em wrote:
FEOS wrote:
Science and religion both attempt to answer "why". Religion answers with God (or Gods). Science answers with hypotheses, theories, and laws.

The flaw in the argument is that religion = no pursuit for scientific answers. That is simply not the case. Religion and science are not mutually exclusive...they seek the answer to the same question.
I made a terrible mistake when saying "religion can't" (even though I added "theism") because not every religion relies on higher being or rule. Some religions believe in cycle of life. Everything is as it is, and will happen as will happen. That's why whole question "Religion good or bad?" is very bad to start with.

Anyway. If religion (theism) is trying to pursuit for scientific answers what makes religion a religion? Shouldn't religion(s) pursuit answers for that "why" instead of trying to pursuit a way to scientific "why"? Where does religion need that scientific "why" if they already know they have the origin of that "why" which is opposing the way of scientific "why"?

Who said religion was "trying to pursuit for scientific answers"? Certainly wasn't me. Science is a route to gain answers. So is religion. The main fallacy with the anti-religion crowd is they think the two are mutually exclusive. They aren't.

Religion, by and large--especially today--does not "oppose the way of scientific 'why'". Many of the most respected scientists and critical thinkers throughout history have been devout practitioners of their religion.

2009-05-14 19:27:04

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6725|'Murka

Zefar wrote:
FEOS wrote:
If they have been proven, they wouldn't be theories. Aspects of quantum mechanics have been shown to be repeatable, but there is still much more we don't understand about quantum physics than that we do.
*Sigh* Here we go again with a "Theory" part that Religious people just don't handle so well.

I'm not a "religious person".

Zefar wrote:
Ok listen. There are TWO types of Theories.

One for making a normal guess on how things work.

One is a Scientific Theory backed up by information and tests. Gone through a peer review and let others people inspect it. If all goes as it should be, it's accepted. The other also test it too. In various ways too.

Gravity is a theory and EVERYONE accept that one. Evolution is a theory too and it's the most backed up theory in the world. Even Gravity have less information than evolution.

In science, scientist prefer not to use "Fact" as that's in math. But still most theories that scientist have are pretty much correct.

Btw about the Scientist can't explain everything part. Actually they can explain A LOT. They made quite some achievements there. Still I remember seeing a picture with stars and there was a note on it.

Apparently they found a galaxy that was so large that it technically shouldn't exist. They are pretty curious about it thou. Lost the picture btw. >.>
Oh and Black hole seems to be disrupting the laws of nature too.

Gee thanks for explaining that to me. Couldn't have possibly already learned all of that when I went through electrical engineering for my undergrad degree. I'm pretty sure that was fairly scientific.

Condescension ftl.

Science explains a lot. Religion explains a lot.

Bottomline: does it really fucking matter? Why does a scientist care if a religious person puts their faith in their God? Does it somehow hurt the scientist? It's wrong for a religious person to press their views on others, but perfectly acceptable for the non-religious to mock those who believe. Yet another double-standard.

Last edited by FEOS (2009-05-14 19:27:45)

2009-05-15 04:49:01

Ei Em: Member; +7|5804

Wrong to use term religion but I'll stick with it too. As I think you assume religion has something to do with God.

FEOS wrote:
What are you on about? I'm not talking about the present or the future. I'm talking about how science has evolved to where it is today, and why it started. The reason for science is the same as the reason for religion: man trying to explain "why".

If you think we will EVER get to a point where science explains everything, you're not half as scientific as you think you are.

And man made fire isn't possible. In no way it is possible.

"Not possible" means nothing. Not knowing doesn't mean it isn't. If you're able to question something there's also an answer to that. And if there's an answer to everything why would we not be able to know answers to everything?

It's unthinkable for human to think that we could know everything but that doesn't mean we would never know everything.

Also, does God or Gods know everything?

FEOS wrote:
...you're not half as scientific as you think you are.

How scientific I am - or how scientific I think I am?

FEOS wrote:
Who said religion was "trying to pursuit for scientific answers"? Certainly wasn't me.

FEOS wrote:
The flaw in the argument is that religion = no pursuit for scientific answers. That is simply not the case. Religion and science are not mutually exclusive...they seek the answer to the same question.

Unless you can explain me what you mean.

FEOS wrote:
Religion, by and large--especially today--does not "oppose the way of scientific 'why'". Many of the most respected scientists and critical thinkers throughout history have been devout practitioners of their religion.

Well for example still religions oppose stem cell research. Mainly theistic religions. As for science stem cell research is just one way to go out and seek answers. If we can't answer to questions that stem cell research will put in front us, then how would we be able to seek answers to everything? If we can't seek answers for everything, why would we bother asking that "why" either? Surely we should know everything before knowing the answer to end everything.

Now, above I base religion on dust.

FEOS wrote:
Science is a route to gain answers. So is religion. The main fallacy with the anti-religion crowd is they think the two are mutually exclusive. They aren't.

What's the route religion is using? (Theism)

Edit: there might be huge amount of typos and such. My time is always on card. I have to seek answers after all...

Last edited by Ei Em (2009-05-15 04:50:09)

2009-05-15 05:16:08

Spark: liquid fluoride thorium reactor; +874|6989|Canberra, AUS

S.Lythberg wrote:
FEOS wrote:
Braddock wrote:
But FEOS you can't deny that atheism does not ask you to assume the existence of anything without any evidence, religion does.

When you get right down to it religion is on the same side of the fence as the tooth fairy, Sasquath and Santa Claus and hence it deserves to be dealt with in the same way... no free passes remember.
As does string theory and quantum theory. If it's not proven, then it must be fantasy...right?
but string theory and quantum theory have been mathematically proven, and the physical consequences of that are used daily (the blu-ray disc is dependent on the validity of quantum mechanics).

Um? String theory at the moment has no observational, experimental or inferential evidence to back it up. Its main feature is neatness and mathematical elegance (as far as I can tell no other theory can derive general relativity)

Ok listen. There are TWO types of Theories.

One for making a normal guess on how things work.

One is a Scientific Theory backed up by information and tests. Gone through a peer review and let others people inspect it. If all goes as it should be, it's accepted. The other also test it too. In various ways too.

Gravity is a theory and EVERYONE accept that one. Evolution is a theory too and it's the most backed up theory in the world. Even Gravity have less information than evolution.

In science, scientist prefer not to use "Fact" as that's in math. But still most theories that scientist have are pretty much correct.

Btw about the Scientist can't explain everything part. Actually they can explain A LOT. They made quite some achievements there. Still I remember seeing a picture with stars and there was a note on it.

Apparently they found a galaxy that was so large that it technically shouldn't exist. They are pretty curious about it thou. Lost the picture btw. >.>
Oh and Black hole seems to be disrupting the laws of nature too.

Theories are based on convenience of usage by and large. The way we think of gravity usually is fundementally flawed (Newtonian gravity as being defined as an attractive force between two objects), and a better explanation can be found in a theory which explains the same phenomena in a completely different way (general relativity - an object exerts an influence on others through its effect on the curvature of spacetime), but even that's an incomplete definition (divide-by-zero lulz).

None of this to say that that the theories are wrong. Just incomplete.

Apparently they found a galaxy that was so large that it technically shouldn't exist. They are pretty curious about it thou. Lost the picture btw. >.>
Oh and Black hole seems to be disrupting the laws of nature too.

There have been a couple of observations recently that, if confirmed, could mean a completely new theory of a lot of things are required. For example, if the existance of a tetraneutron is confirmed, then it spells real problems for the Standard Model and everything derived from it (which is a lot). Dark matter and dark energy are two more.

Even if we disregard observation and just look at the mathematics, we have issues. QFT, the Standard Model need renormalization which is one of the dumbest, most irrational mathematical processes every dreamed up (generally you SHOULDN'T ignore infinities in equations because they're a sure sign that something's gone wrong), yet doing it yields astonishingly accurate results. This is a rather disconcerting result. (EDIT: Oops, mistake - renormalization is specific to QFT)

Again, not saying the theories are wrong, but there are issues.

As I think you assume religion has something to do with God.

Who said it had to?

Well for example still religions oppose stem cell research. Mainly theistic religions. As for science stem cell research is just one way to go out and seek answers. If we can't answer to questions that stem cell research will put in front us, then how would we be able to seek answers to everything? If we can't seek answers for everything, why would we bother asking that "why" either? Surely we should know everything before knowing the answer to end everything.

The Big Bang was proposed by a Catholic Priest (Lemaitre) - not just any priest either. This guy wasn't a crackpot either, he was one of THE scientists of the day and the first to do what seemed the obvious thing and put Hubble's observations with Einstein's theory.

Last edited by Spark (2009-05-15 05:21:30)

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
^{~ Richard Feynman}

2009-05-15 05:25:43

-Whiteroom-: Pineapplewhat; +572|6973|BC, Canada

in theory religion is good
organized religion however is bad

Religion seems to have a lot to do with the after life and when you control that, or at least give people the perception that you control it, it gives you absolute power over their after lives, and through that their lives. And as they say, absolute power corrupts absolutely.

2009-05-15 09:34:09

Ei Em: Member; +7|5804

Spark wrote:
The Big Bang was proposed by a Catholic Priest (Lemaitre) - not just any priest either. This guy wasn't a crackpot either, he was one of THE scientists of the day and the first to do what seemed the obvious thing and put Hubble's observations with Einstein's theory.

And?

Me wrote:
As I think you assume religion has something to do with God.

Spark wrote:
Who said it had to?

Wording was bad. My whole post is written badly.

But,

FEOS wrote:
The reason for science is the same as the reason for religion: man trying to explain "why".

this and many of the later replies doesn't fit in most non-theistic religions.
That is why I said what I said. I just used bad wording and made assumption of FEOS' assuming while not meaning it. So just a mistake.

2009-05-15 21:31:00

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6725|'Murka

Ei Em wrote:
Wrong to use term religion but I'll stick with it too. As I think you assume religion has something to do with God.

Name a religion that doesn't have something to do with a God or Gods. There isn't one.

Ei Em wrote:
FEOS wrote:
What are you on about? I'm not talking about the present or the future. I'm talking about how science has evolved to where it is today, and why it started. The reason for science is the same as the reason for religion: man trying to explain "why".

If you think we will EVER get to a point where science explains everything, you're not half as scientific as you think you are.
And man made fire isn't possible. In no way it is possible.

"Not possible" means nothing. Not knowing doesn't mean it isn't. If you're able to question something there's also an answer to that. And if there's an answer to everything why would we not be able to know answers to everything?

It's unthinkable for human to think that we could know everything but that doesn't mean we would never know everything.

Where the hell are you coming from? What you just typed made no sense in the context of what I said.

Maybe there is a language issue...

Ei Em wrote:
Also, does God or Gods know everything?

I don't know. I'm not God/Gods

Ei Em wrote:
FEOS wrote:
...you're not half as scientific as you think you are.
How scientific I am - or how scientific I think I am?

How scientific you think you are. Which is far more than--it appears--you actually are.

Ei Em wrote:
FEOS wrote:
Who said religion was "trying to pursuit for scientific answers"? Certainly wasn't me.
FEOS wrote:
The flaw in the argument is that religion = no pursuit for scientific answers. That is simply not the case. Religion and science are not mutually exclusive...they seek the answer to the same question.
Unless you can explain me what you mean.

Re-read what I wrote. It's perfectly clear. You are making an inference I did not imply.

Ei Em wrote:
FEOS wrote:
Religion, by and large--especially today--does not "oppose the way of scientific 'why'". Many of the most respected scientists and critical thinkers throughout history have been devout practitioners of their religion.
Well for example still religions oppose stem cell research. Mainly theistic religions. As for science stem cell research is just one way to go out and seek answers. If we can't answer to questions that stem cell research will put in front us, then how would we be able to seek answers to everything? If we can't seek answers for everything, why would we bother asking that "why" either? Surely we should know everything before knowing the answer to end everything.

Now, above I base religion on dust.

That made no sense whatsoever...particularly in the context of what I was saying.

Ei Em wrote:
FEOS wrote:
Science is a route to gain answers. So is religion. The main fallacy with the anti-religion crowd is they think the two are mutually exclusive. They aren't.
What's the route religion is using? (Theism)

Edit: there might be huge amount of typos and such. My time is always on card. I have to seek answers after all...

Why does it matter what route religion is using? It's simply a way for people to gain comfort by getting answers that satisfy their needs. Science does the same thing in its own way.

2009-05-15 21:43:16

AussieReaper: ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°); +5,761|6467|what

God Hates Winners

Be Your Own God

2009-05-16 00:41:54

Shahter: Zee Ruskie; +295|7090|Moscow, Russia

FEOS wrote:
Name a religion that doesn't have something to do with a God or Gods. There isn't one.

Jediism? :p

if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.

2009-05-16 09:50:00

Ei Em: Member; +7|5804

FEOS wrote:
Name a religion that doesn't have something to do with a God or Gods. There isn't one.

Strong answer. I would google Atheism and start finding non-god believing religions.

African tribe religions, such as belief in nature. In Africa, there's HUGE amount of religions that has nothing to do with god's, existence or anything that is not seen. They can believe in rat and its holiness but it still isn't god. It is just rat.

Religions based on Qi. There's HUGE amount of religions believing in some form of Qi. Some religions have the essence to believing that everything has no start nor end. It is just flow of Qi.

Bad thing with internet is that it's difficult to find religions without God/Gods because everything seems to be explained for western/modern people. Getting information about religions that has nothing to do with deities is very difficult unless you travel in Africa, China, India, Nepal, Laos, Cambodia, etc. It's all because of western people who believe that every religion has something to do with deities. After reading one 100 page book with elephant sized letters, that some western fat ass wrote, we go and write in Wikipedia how we know everything about Laozi and his doings.

FEOS wrote:
If you think we will EVER get to a point where science explains everything, you're not half as scientific as you think you are.

FEOS wrote:
Where the hell are you coming from? What you just typed made no sense in the context of what I said.

Do you believe that your upper quote is true? Do you KNOW that people will never know everything?

EDIT:

FEOS wrote:
Of course there is such a thing in science as "we can't explain". There's far more that can't be explained in science than can be.

Basically I want to know that if you really believe (or even better if you KNOW) this to be true.

FEOS wrote:
How scientific you think you are. Which is far more than--it appears--you actually are.

I asked you because you said that I am not half as scientific as I think I am. So I thought you would to know how scientific I am... I'd like to know it too.

FEOS wrote:
Re-read what I wrote. It's perfectly clear. You are making an inference I did not imply.

But can you explain anyway, as I obviously don't understand. Take it as a test, can you teach stupid goon (me) to understand what you mean.

FEOS wrote:
That made no sense whatsoever...particularly in the context of what I was saying.

Basically that religions (theistic) does not approve scientific methods of explaining that "why". And it can be quite hard to explain everything if we don't even know it all. "Why" is the very last question to answer, before that we should know everything else.

FEOS wrote:
Why does it matter what route religion is using? It's simply a way for people to gain comfort by getting answers that satisfy their needs. Science does the same thing in its own way.

Doesn't really. I just want to know what route religion is using.

FEOS wrote:
Maybe there is a language issue..

Might very well be. This is my 4th needed language and I have hard time placing commas, prepositions and create fluent text.

Last edited by Ei Em (2009-05-16 09:53:30)

Pages: 1 2 3 4

Index »
Community »
Debate and Serious Talk »
Religion good or bad?

Board footer

Jump to

BF2S Forums Religion good or bad?

oug wrote:

Pug wrote:

Home wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Home wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Braddock wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Braddock wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Braddock wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Ei Em wrote:

FEOS wrote:

S.Lythberg wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Braddock wrote:

Pug wrote:

Home wrote:

FEOS wrote:

[TUF]Catbox wrote:

Christbane wrote:

FEOS wrote:

FEOS wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Ei Em wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Ei Em wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Zefar wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Zefar wrote:

FEOS wrote:

FEOS wrote:

FEOS wrote:

FEOS wrote:

FEOS wrote:

FEOS wrote:

S.Lythberg wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Braddock wrote:

Spark wrote:

Me wrote:

Spark wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Ei Em wrote:

Ei Em wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Ei Em wrote:

Ei Em wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Ei Em wrote:

FEOS wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Ei Em wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Ei Em wrote:

FEOS wrote:

FEOS wrote:

FEOS wrote:

FEOS wrote:

FEOS wrote:

FEOS wrote:

FEOS wrote:

FEOS wrote:

FEOS wrote:

FEOS wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Board footer