Religion thread

Mly wrote:That belief only puts a proxy on the age old question of what created the supposed creator of the universe, because now you're asking "what created the thing that created the thing that created the universe?"

BladeTheHedgehog wrote:i guess that seems right that its outdated, maby they just need to update it or something, keep it relevant to this century

Mly wrote:It's especially noticeable when you look at retellings of old religious stories dealing with non-Christian religions that don't have a central good god/king god and a central evil god, though that's more "Hijacked by Jesus." The Christians really screwed good old fashioned literature up.

And I'd rather believe this rather depressing belief than follow what some book said Hoping it's right, And I've looked through history and religion and All It leads to are lies and unverifiable Claims.

Independence76 wrote:Religion is not to be confused with the Church.


The church has humiliated the faith many times in the last 1,000 years. And today, people place the church as what religion is based on, which is why many people throw it out as "outdated."

Philosophically, if you say there is no God or no religion is real, you immediately throw off right and wrong as nonexistent figures. Without a guide to tell us what is right or a guide to tell us what is wrong, we have no goal that's worth it.

Allow me to clarify my point. It seems that religion is failing us not in the aspect of defining right and wrong, but in the aspect of preventing that defined as wrong and increasing quantity of that defined as right. I do believe that certain things are right and that certain things are wrong, but that religion (and the church, by your implied definition of it) has outdated ideas of right and wrong based upon the definitions that "wrong" is that which harms society and "right" is that which helps it, (neutral of course being that which does neither) which I personally believe is the only way to go in terms of right and wrong.

Just name any society or political movement, and ask them why they believe in something, they'll say "because we believe it's right." Then, if we ask them "how do you know?" the entire situation changes.

That is because that question is unanswerable, seeing as there is no infallible proof that a belief is right. About the only thing that can be taken for fact is that the observer exists because of "I think, therefore I am." It's sort of sad, really, because it gives no proof that what we perceive is real.

Not to mention, we can make reasons for things we want to know about, but how do we know that our "reason" is true according to universal definition? With no religion, supreme being, or universal guide, we are worthless and "objective morals" do not exist.

Now you're just saying that people without religion in their lives are lawless, evil people in a fancy way.

With no reason, faith, or comparisons left to use without philosophical counter-evidence, you must ask yourself: "with so many subjective views, is anything actually WORTH fighting for? And even then, how do I really KNOW?"

The problem with the question of "what's worth fighting for?" is that every answer can be perceived as right. This is why we have corrupt politicians slowly killing America, Canada, and the EU. At this point, religion certainly isn't stopping these things.

If you use proper anti-religion logic, you will come to the conclusion that Adolf Hitler and Mother Teresa are no different in the "good or bad" they have done in the world. To say one is good and one is bad would be a flaw in the atheistic view.

One can have criterion for what it good and what is bad and not have a religion. You're confusing religion with philosophy. Religions can have philosophies, but some philosophies (Confucianism, as an example.) stand alone.

Many people confuse religion as being a comfort zone of a life after death. This is far from the actual case.

The only remaining religions after philosophical arguments that can be considered "true" offer doctrine that states if you do not believe in what you are supposed to, you will burn in hell for all eternity. Not very comforting, is it?

And, as an educated Christian, I did not come to my views upon being raised. I left the faith for a while, then came back, not because I wanted to believe, but because it was the only thing I could see believing in. I am not comfortable with my faith (the wrath of God is a scary subject for the public), but I am comfortable with the solid basis that it has throughout multiple arguments and subjects.


For all of those who believe that a spiritual world does not exist, please answer this question:

"Is it wrong to kill people?"

Death should be used as punishment for doing severe wrongs, but aside from that, yes. I of course interpret wrong as "harmful to society."

And I'd rather believe this rather depressing belief than follow what some book said Hoping it's right, And I've looked through history and religion and All It leads to are lies and unverifiable Claims.

The Holy Bible is meant to be taken as a historical document, and it has yet to have faults found within the records when AD ("anno domini" / in the year of our Lord) first began. "Hoping it's right" isn't good enough, which is why there is an entire philosophical backing.

And, how do you know this? Even the statement you just made could be accused of being an unverifiable claim.

Mly wrote:
Allow me to clarify my point. It seems that religion is failing us not in the aspect of defining right and wrong, but in the aspect of preventing that defined as wrong and increasing quantity of that defined as right. I do believe that certain things are right and that certain things are wrong, but that religion (and the church, by your implied definition of it) has outdated ideas of right and wrong based upon the definitions that "wrong" is that which harms society and "right" is that which helps it, (neutral of course being that which does neither) which I personally believe is the only way to go in terms of right and wrong.

That is because that question is unanswerable, seeing as there is no infallible proof that a belief is right. About the only thing that can be taken for fact is that the observer exists because of "I think, therefore I am." It's sort of sad, really, because it gives no proof that what we perceive is real.

Now you're just saying that people without religion in their lives are lawless, evil people in a fancy way.

The problem with the question of "what's worth fighting for?" is that every answer can be perceived as right. This is why we have corrupt politicians slowly killing America, Canada, and the EU. At this point, religion certainly isn't stopping these things.

One can have criterion for what it good and what is bad and not have a religion. You're confusing religion with philosophy. Religions can have philosophies, but some philosophies (Confucianism, as an example.) stand alone.

Death should be used as punishment for doing severe wrongs, but aside from that, yes. I of course interpret wrong as "harmful to society."

Mly wrote:
A Freudian slip, methinks.
@i76:
1: Religion should not reflect the morals of a society, nor should it remain static for all time. It should reflect the morals that are most prudent to the advancement of society. For example, my post about masturbation and homosexuality. Those were forbidden for a good reason thousands of years ago: they detracted from the population growth when more people were always a plus. Now we have a bit too many people, and they might as well be happy screwing willing participants of the same sex or themselves, seeing as increasing the population of the world at this point would only hurt us.
2: What difference will any human impact in the present make on Earth when the last humans are dead? Either none or a barely noticeable one that will fade a way in, at best, a million years. By your logic and the logic that we'll all die eventually, (which we will, due to the fact that the universe will eventually be unable to support life due to heat death) absolutely nothing is worth fighting for.
3: And why is your religion exempt to this rule?
4: It's because people say they believe in something, then don't follow what they say they believe in. It's present from coast to coast, from border to border, in the poorest neighborhoods of Chicago right up to god-damned Gate's house, not to mention that it's just as present in every other nation of the world.
5: If you mean the conclusion of what is right and what is wrong, I come to the conclusion that all that harms society is wrong, and all that helps it is right. I don't know that it's correct or that it's worth fighting for. I can only assume and offer that I think it to be only logical that we consider that which harms society wrong and the opposite right.
6: Well, something that lowers population happiness is harmful, I believe, based solely on my belief that the main goal of life is to be happy. There may be a few possible exceptions to this, though. For example, if all the governments of the world were to rip the global economy to shreds and disband all militaries to build a machine that makes everyone on the earth happy, that would be unacceptable in my opinion. This is because the economy and military of a civilization are crucial to maintaining happiness. What good would the happiness machine do us if an asteroid hit the earth the day after we built it and destroyed all humans? We wouldn't have the economy to build something to direct it away from Earth. What if aliens invaded and tried to take the machine? Ordinarily, seeing as the technology to get here from even the nearest star would be great, we would stand a minimal chance of defending it with our military, but without it, we could do absolutely nothing. Additionally, such a machine would be like a drug, in that it would make us happy and take away our motivation to do things. Without our motives, we would eventually die of crumbling infrastructure and dwindling food. With our motives, we would last much longer, and be able to defend what joy in the world we have, and the like. Longevity is also important, I suppose.