Religion good or bad?

2009-05-10 08:10:58

#26

Bell: Frosties > Cornflakes; +362|6799|UK

It's a scape goat for lazy ass part time pseudo intellectuals to park all the troubles and ills of society onto, without giving the subject any thought and relieve them of any obligation to make things better.

Personally, I think if you have an organisation that believes it can speak in place of God, for example John Paul the seconds comments on confession (don't go to God for forgiveness of sins, come to me, or something like that), then, in reality your looking for trouble. As far as am aware, Jesus didn't appear in the sky and tell us to go on the crusades......

As said, the scope, of religion, to take advantage of people, is very wrong, however, the likes of biblical Christianity, is nothing, like what we have today.

Infact, the churches etc, do, just about everything, they where asked not to do (worship idols etc).

Martyn

2009-05-10 11:07:24

#27

blademaster: I'm moving to Brazil; +2,075|6895

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

I agree well said, people are the ones who abuse religion and use it for their own purposes in order to satisfy their needs. thus region is not to blame.

2009-05-10 13:06:21

#28

Lai: Member; +186|6401

Religions are like guns,.. they don't kill people, people do.

2009-05-10 13:11:35

#29

Lai: Member; +186|6401

Bell wrote:
Infact, the churches etc, do, just about everything, they where asked not to do (worship idols etc).

That depends on how you define worship and how you define idols. I think it is silly how protestants and jehova witnesses accuse catholics and orthodoxs of idolatery. It testifies of the same narrow mind as of extremists and simple atheists. Any orthodox Christian will tell you an icon serves as a medium, to adress the essence of the saint depicted. It is like accusing someone on the phone of talking to plastic.

2009-05-10 13:13:25

#30

PureFodder: Member; +225|6536

Religion itself isn't either good or bad, it's what people do about it that's good or bad.

2009-05-10 15:48:00

#31

oug: Calmer than you are.; +380|6769|Πάϊ

Bad.

_ƒ³

2009-05-10 16:26:15

#32

unnamednewbie13: Moderator; +2,053|7022|PNW

jsnipy wrote:
thinking you understand the universe by your late teens is bad

Romans 11:34 - For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counsellor?

Interesting how a lot of Christians I've talked to seem to know everything about the universe and God's plans anyway.

2009-05-11 01:36:11

#33

Braddock: Agitator; +916|6540|Éire

Religion is perfectly okay when you keep it to yourself... the minute you start trying to impose your beliefs on others or demanding that other people change their ways to suit your beliefs it becomes very very bad.

2009-05-11 02:09:29

#34

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6661|'Murka

Braddock wrote:
Religion is perfectly okay when you keep it to yourself... the minute you start trying to impose your beliefs on others or demanding that other people change their ways to suit your beliefs it becomes very very bad.

The same can be said for atheism.

“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 02:32:05

#35

Braddock: Agitator; +916|6540|Éire

FEOS wrote:
Braddock wrote:
Religion is perfectly okay when you keep it to yourself... the minute you start trying to impose your beliefs on others or demanding that other people change their ways to suit your beliefs it becomes very very bad.
The same can be said for atheism.

On a personal belief basis yes, but on issues regarding serious scientific or academic discussion no - atheism does not assume the existence of something without evidence.

I wouldn't define myself as an atheist, I would define myself as a realist in that I deal with real things, not things that may or may not exist in different dimensions or on different spiritual planes.

2009-05-11 02:34:55

#36

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6661|'Murka

Braddock wrote:
FEOS wrote:
Braddock wrote:
Religion is perfectly okay when you keep it to yourself... the minute you start trying to impose your beliefs on others or demanding that other people change their ways to suit your beliefs it becomes very very bad.
The same can be said for atheism.
On a personal belief basis yes, but on issues regarding serious scientific or academic discussion no - atheism does not assume the existence of something without evidence.

I wouldn't define myself as an atheist, I would define myself as a realist in that I deal with real things, not things that may or may not exist in different dimensions or on different spiritual planes.

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.

Not saying that's what you do, Brad. Just for the record.

“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 02:37:42

#37

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,815|6356|eXtreme to the maX

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.

Fuck Israel

2009-05-11 02:45:03

#38

Braddock: Agitator; +916|6540|Éire

FEOS wrote:
Braddock wrote:
FEOS wrote:

The same can be said for atheism.
On a personal belief basis yes, but on issues regarding serious scientific or academic discussion no - atheism does not assume the existence of something without evidence.

I wouldn't define myself as an atheist, I would define myself as a realist in that I deal with real things, not things that may or may not exist in different dimensions or on different spiritual planes.
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.

Not saying that's what you do, Brad. Just for the record.

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.

2009-05-11 03:10:27

#39

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6661|'Murka

Braddock wrote:
FEOS wrote:
Braddock wrote:

On a personal belief basis yes, but on issues regarding serious scientific or academic discussion no - atheism does not assume the existence of something without evidence.

I wouldn't define myself as an atheist, I would define myself as a realist in that I deal with real things, not things that may or may not exist in different dimensions or on different spiritual planes.
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.

Not saying that's what you do, Brad. Just for the record.
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.

“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 06:53:35

#40

Braddock: Agitator; +916|6540|Éire

FEOS wrote:
Braddock 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.

Not saying that's what you do, Brad. Just for the record.
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.

2009-05-11 07:26:57

#41

Zefar: Member; +116|6899|Sweden

Lai wrote:
Religions are like guns,.. they don't kill people, people do.

A gun is just a weapon. Religion is about leading a life the way a certain book wants. If you think this book is real you'll live the way it tells you.

Something a normal gun won't do. It doesn't judge people it wounds them or kill them no matter where they come from.

Every religion we have on earth is most likely bad in some way where they say "WE are the GOOD people and they are the bad." There might be some exception.

But lets look at some major ones.

USA is the home of Christianity. Now like 60% of the people believe Noah's Flood happened. So what happened with common sense and some knowledge about geometry and physics on basic levels?

Islam being the center of where most terrorist acts pop up along with suicide bombers and honor killings(the thing where you kill your wife even if she was raped by 4 people just to regain your honor.) and generally wanna get their laws into everyone else country. So that the whole world could do the same thing they do. Hurray for ruining the world!

No seriously they WILL if they ever get hold of a country in Europe. The EU are so quick to bend over for these people and won't preserve our culture no matter what the price.

So religion is bad and should be banished. If people can't live without the thought that you get a reward at the end they must have quite low self esteem.

2009-05-11 07:40:17

#42

Pug: UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate; +652|6792|Texas - Bigger than France

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.

There are people who believe that evidence exists. FEOS' point is valid - evidence exists according to so, but you do not accept it.

So the "well then they are wrong" argument works both ways.

2009-05-11 07:51:45

#43

Braddock: Agitator; +916|6540|Éire

Pug 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.
There are people who believe that evidence exists. FEOS' point is valid - evidence exists according to so, but you do not accept it.

So the "well then they are wrong" argument works both ways.

Where is this evidence? I'd love to see it.

2009-05-11 07:56:48

#44

oug: Calmer than you are.; +380|6769|Πάϊ

Pug wrote:
There are people who believe that evidence exists. FEOS' point is valid - evidence exists according to so, but you do not accept it.

So the "well then they are wrong" argument works both ways.

If evidence exists then they should know about them. Believing in evidence makes no sense at all. And if that is the case, I'd sure like to see those evidence myself if you don't mind.

_ƒ³

2009-05-11 08:07:17

#45

Pug: UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate; +652|6792|Texas - Bigger than France

Okay, what evidence will suffice?

2009-05-11 08:09:37

#46

Ajax_the_Great1: Dropped on request; +206|6897

Most of what major religions say to do is good. Some is over the top but the general themes are usually good.

2009-05-11 08:19:23

#47

oug: Calmer than you are.; +380|6769|Πάϊ

Pug wrote:
Okay, what evidence will suffice?

Let's see now... My mom has bone cancer and my favorite food is lasagna... Two things at the same time shouldn't be a problem for him, but they'd be more than enough to convince me.

_ƒ³

2009-05-11 08:25:20

#48

Ei Em: Member; +7|5739

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".

2009-05-11 08:27:40

#49

Pug: UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate; +652|6792|Texas - Bigger than France

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.

Last edited by Pug (2009-05-11 08:28:42)

2009-05-11 14:21:44

#50

oug: Calmer than you are.; +380|6769|Πάϊ

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.

_ƒ³

BF2S Forums Religion good or bad?

[TUF]Catbox wrote:

Bell wrote:

jsnipy wrote:

Braddock wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Braddock wrote:

Braddock wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Braddock wrote:

FEOS wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Braddock wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Braddock wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Braddock wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Braddock wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Lai wrote:

Braddock wrote:

Pug wrote:

Braddock wrote:

Pug wrote:

Pug wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Pug wrote:

Board footer