BF2S Forums Would the US be a better place without religion?

Berster7 wrote:

jonsimon wrote:

Not even flaws in communism, just economic turbulence and coincidental mismanagement.

I don't know about that. The collapse wasn't because of communism. Communism is a sound idea in principle but it doesn't work when you bring human nature into the equation. People who work more successfully deserve more, communism doesn't reward productivity as much as capitalism, which is why a capitalist model is always the best one.

It's not that simple. Communism could easily work, the only problem with it is lack of precision in economic analysis. Human nature is often incorrectly cited as a reason for the failure of communism, because when thinking about communism many employ simplified models and incomplete understandings of the real-world implementations we have to make observations from.

Communism fails, in general, because policy makers are incapable of making accurate judgements based upon inaccurate economic observations and measures. If economic markets were not so complex, it would be possible to accurately predict aggregate demand and aggregate supply as well as other economic factors and thus, it would be possible to better make macroeconomic decisions than the consumers and producers that make up market forces.

Discretionary fiscal policy in the US is an example of balancing capitalistic market forces against communistic economic control to more effeciently make economic decisions than market forces alone.

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

Until religion stays the fuck out of peoples bedrooms and lives, religion will always be a point of contention.  Gays and lesbians are people too.  I'm hetero, but because my better half and I are not officially married I have broken several laws of this state.

Ironchef, you may have been here for a short period of time, but I live here.  The church rules this state.  If there is a bill that lawmakers think may run against what the church thinks, everything is run before the church before it even comes to a vote.  We have idiots that church members vote into power that think there is a gay agenda handbook.  They think that gays are out to convert everyone.  They honestly think that in teaching evolution they think we came from monkies. 

My dad recently became Catholic, but because of extended family and their Italian heritage they think Adam/Eve and Nohas ark were actual/factual happenings rather than fableistic stories meant to prove a point. At what point do you draw the line.  At what point does having religious beliefs and putting every little bill that may run afoul of a religious organization cross the line.

When the fuck will religious pundits stay the fuck out of lives and bedrooms.  If some one believes, they will believe.  Trying to legislate morality had never had success, and has always lead to destruction in one form or another.

First order of business, try to post without calling those you oppose idiots and without "fuck".  It will make your post much more convincing.

Second, Utah is a little different than the rest of the country.  Mormons do rule that whole state from what I've heard from those who have grown up there.  In contrast, no church rules any other state.  Whatever the case, majority rules is how our country works.  Religious people of any faith have just as much right to mobilize and vote for their beliefs as anyone else.  If you're are against a bill, vote against it.  If you're for it, vote for it. 

Third, religious people have not come into anyone's bedroom and told them what to do.  Everyone is still free to have sex with anyone they want.  No one is being prosecuted for any consentual act between adults.  Some have forced the issue by coming out of their bedroom to parade their lifestyle and demand society embrace their choices.  Huuuge difference.  I have no problem with people doing whatever the heck they want in their own home, just keep it out of the public eye. 

Lastly, not all religious people believe the gays are trying to convert everyone, but you cannot deny the vocal minority in the gay community does have an agenda to gain complete acceptance of their lifestyle.  If you want to criticise of Adam and Eve and Noah's Ark please start a separate thread, I'll be glad to discuss that with you elsewhere, stay on subject.

Last edited by Stingray24 (2006-11-18 11:49:31)

KylieTastic wrote:

DesertFox423 wrote:

No matter what anyone says, it is a religious affiliation.

Atheism isnt a religion, it is a belief. BIG differnce!
Also, Its not the same kind of belief as religious ones, its more like the belief that the sun will come up in the morning.

Well, I'm atheist myself, and I would say that it does require a sort of faith.  It requires you to assume that there is no god.  No one can conclusively prove god's existence or disprove it.  So, it does take a certain amount of faith (albeit not much) to assume there is no god.  Faith is generally defined as belief in something unprovable but not disprovable.

Agnostics don't require any faith for their affiliation, because they don't make any assumptions about the divine.  It's difficult to remain completely neutral though.  I used to be agnostic, but I switched to atheism after just being fed up with pretending like I actually believed god was a possibility.

I completely agree with xintegrityx, btw.

Last edited by Turquoise (2006-11-18 16:00:56)

i voted no, i think religion is a good thing even if im not that religious, its the churches and establishmet in religion that make it a bad thing. the beliefs in most religions are good standards to live by. particularly the "do onto others as you would have them do onto you." as soon as you have an establishment with power involved, then it goes down the tube. also the fanatical extremes in any religion, moderation is the key.

edit: sorry i missed the US part of the question, i was refering to world religion.

Last edited by Nicholas Langdon (2006-11-18 16:18:37)

The trouble with religion or politics (or most things) is quiet simply people.

Its always just a few people that just happen to call themselves something and use something else as the excuse for there actions.

Last edited by KylieTastic (2006-11-18 16:33:09)

IG-Calibre wrote:

xintegrityx wrote:

Religion is a psychological response to the fact that we live in a chaotic, random, seemingly meaningless or uncaring universe. I think it's human nature and it's not going away anytime soon. As science explains more and more about our universe, it might seem that religion is antiquated, but it provides many other benefits to those who follow it: relief of that psychological stress, a sense of community, a foundation of morality (albeit sometimes because of the threat of an unpleasant afterlife). Unfortunately that sense of community can evolve into an "us vs. them" mentality - we saw that in Waco - and at that point, religion is getting away from what I believe is its true goal, which is to provide a guideline for being a decent human being through allegory and parable.

So would the US be better off without religion? I'm thinking no, as long as we follow a libertarian ideal when it comes to religion: do what makes you happy, as long as you're not hurting anybody else. When religion becomes involved in politics, or affects others in a negative way, it's not good for the country.

according to you we - "live in a chaotic, random, seemingly meaningless or uncaring universe."  Do you not think it interesting that no matter creed,colour,race, mankind as a whole seems to have some internal mechanism that makes them think about God? .  One thing we can say about religion is they are all God given.  To say faith comes from some kind of psychological response, may or may no be true. A more interesting question would be why does that psychological response exist in the first place. why is it that mankind appears almost genetically programmed to think about God?  even in denying Gods existence, you are in some way thinking about what God isn't, but first you must still think about what God is to Deny God.  Even as eminent a scientist as Albert Einstein Believed in God, he didn't sacrifice his faith on the alter of science, but then he was a smart man and understood how do you measure God? It all comes down to faith.

Very interesting point.  +1

KylieTastic wrote:

IG-Calibre wrote:

xintegrityx wrote:

Religion is a psychological response......

according to you we - "live in a chaotic, random, seemingly meaningless or uncaring universe."  Do you not think it interesting that no matter creed,colour,race, mankind as a whole seems to have some internal mechanism that makes them think about God? .  One thing we can say about religion is they are all God given.  To say faith comes from some kind of psychological response, may or may no be true. A more interesting question would be why does that psychological response exist in the first place. why is it that mankind appears almost genetically programmed to think about God?  even in denying Gods existence, you are in some way thinking about what God isn't, but first you must still think about what God is to Deny God.  Even as eminent a scientist as Albert Einstein Believed in God, he didn't sacrifice his faith on the alter of science, but then he was a smart man and understood how do you measure God? It all comes down to faith.

Thats the crux of the difference between reloigious and non-religious....
Regligious people take any of the percieved things that seem too amazing to have a natural process and credit them to God (as proof of God).... Non-Religious dont make that jump (leap of faith).

The last I read no such traits such as Belief (or any similar psychological processes) are credited to Genitics (thats just religion miss-using a science they normally have a go at)

If it was genetics or a psychological process given by a God then dosnt that break most religions free will mandates.

Oh and the "...still think about what God is to Deny God...."  So what? If you read my earlier post you thought about fairies, elves, Santa, pixies, and the 20 meter tall green bunny (probably only for a split second) are you now closer to belief in them?

Lastly so Albert Einstein Believed in God....so what? The fact he was raised very very religiously so its no surprise that he didnt change the life long belief for what was a huge minority view at the time.

In fact it is my belief is its because of how you are raised that is so important (family, local area and county) that has given rise to so many religious people compaired to non-believers. Most that change belief either dont have strong views from the start or have a crisis in there lifes (makes people join and leave)
Thus the change in the percenatges of believers wil only change very slowley.

My point is, you have to really think about what God is to deny God. Most people declare they are atheists without ever deeply thinking about what it is they are rejecting.  You could say God is an old bloke with a white beard I don't believe he exists so I am an atheist.  Is that really comprehending what God is though? is that really an acquired deep understanding and rejection of the concept of "God", Which all Cultures in humanity in some form or other believes in?  Do you think a conviction of Faith is an easy thing carried? do you suppose that Einstein didn't struggle with his faith? as does any of the faithful.  a man of such great intelligence wasn't allowed the freewill to not have faith because of the shackles of his up bringing?

Last edited by IG-Calibre (2006-11-19 11:56:39)

IG-Calibre wrote:

My point is, you have to really think about what God is to deny God. Most people declare they are atheists without ever deeply thinking about what it is they are rejecting.  You could say God is an old bloke with a white beard I don't believe he exists so I am an atheist.  Is that really comprehending what God is though? is that really an acquired deep understanding and rejection of the concept of "God", Which all Cultures in humanity in some form or other believes in?  Do you think a conviction of Faith is an easy thing carried? do you suppose that Einstein didn't struggle with his faith? as does any of the faithful.  a man of such great intelligence wasn't allowed the freewill to not have faith because of the shackles of his up bringing?

I guess I'm having trouble deciding if the following qualifies me as being atheist or agnostic...

I really don't give enough of a shit to even spend much time thinking about the divine.  It just seems like complete speculation with no empirical evidence whatsoever.  Therefore, out of practicality, I just apply Occam's Razor and say, "there is no god until I can empirically determine he/she/its existence."

Granted, I realize there is a certain irony to applying a principle defined by a monk for the purpose of intellectually removing any possibility of belief in the divine.

IG-Calibre wrote:

Good for you that's the spirit..

I'm curious though...  You seem to be religious yourself.  What inspired you to believe in something, and how did you decide which religion to believe in?  You have a lot of choices before you, and it seems rather arbitrary as to which one is worth believing in....

On the one hand religion does do a whole hell of a lot for charity.
On the other hand they often get people to believe a whole lot of stupid things (anti gay rights, anti evolution, anti sex education etc.).

"There are better ways of ensuring moral motivation than scaring the crap out of people" Patricia Churchland

World - Religion = Paradise

I say that religion is responsible for most of the horror in this world, Christians being the first and Muslims being the second. Take away religion from the world, it would be a much better place.

Stingray24 wrote:

So the world would be a better place if there were no moral values restraining our selfish nature?  I believe all people are capable of doing good, but only because of the influence of moral values.

I do hope your not equating religion or even just the belief in a higher power, being linked to having morals!?