apostle_ndr
Member
My previous thread became convuluted, but I still learned a few new things from my opponents. My motives for posting here was questioned because I said I was here only to learn.. when it may have seemed that I came here to harm or stir up trouble. This might belong in the Intro threads, but for the sake of the topic, I'm here to learn the arguments to my ideas so that I can revise my ideas towards perfection. With what I've learned and the mistakes I made in the previous thread, here is a more honed version. An immune system becomes better and better the more it is attacked.
The question, Would the world be better off without religion? It's been suggested that the question be made, Would the world be better off without religions that hindered social progress? The answer is in the question. Obviously something that hinders social progress should be abolished. So, the meat of this debate is, which religions should be discontinued and why, and I'll do my best not to offend Christians as individuals even though their religion is ripe with inconsistencies and reasons to be discontinued. Does attacking a government necessarily mean that you're attacking the citizens?
Why should I endorse some religions and not others
If anyone disagrees that religion is the number one cause of death in this world, say so now. Many of the world's current major religions create barriers between people of other religions, and even between people of the same religion who worship just a little bit differently. Each says the other is going to hell, each says, "I'm right and you're wrong and you'd better repent or you'll be sorry." Religions like Christianity, Islam, and Judaism tend to hold back scientific advancements, which is made evident today by the Bush administration who ban certain scientific practices due to religious beliefs. It was the freethinkers that convinced us that the Bible was wrong-- science showed us that we should sterilize our surgical tools, that mental illness was caused by chemical imbalances and not demons, that the earth was a sphere and not flat, that the earth revolved around the sun and not vice versa, that medicine cured illnesses and not the hand of God. Still today there are people who are so indulgent in their religious conviction that they INSIST that the world is flat. The photographs taken from outer space were faked. Homosexuals are doomed to hell unless they change. Illnesses are caused by demons and a faith healer can put his sweaty palm on your forehead to cure you of blindness. The list goes on and on how Christianity and related religions has muddied the scientific minds of the masses.
Certain religions do not hinder scientific progress or promote false teachings based purely on faith. Other religions do not hinder scientific progress, but they don't help either by being neutral and apathetic. Other religions support scientific progress to better mankind! This is why the religions which do no harm should be left alone, and the organized religions which alter the minds of the laity should be abolished.
Is this a better way to put my argument fellas?
Is my own conviction of atheism/irreligiousness based on faith?
The dictionary definition of faith is a belief not based on logic (paraphrased). The definition of logic is a belief not based on faith. The two cannot exist in unison because with faith, logic ceases to exist, and with logic, faith ceases to exist. There is no middleground between knowledge and belief, principle and hypotheses.
I've been told that science requires faith, and this is horribly untrue. Faith that which does not require logic has nothing to do with science that which does. "You have to have faith to believe in evolution," no. You have to have an understanding in genetics and natural selection and related evolutionary sciences. Stacks and stacks of evidence suggests to us that organisms made infinitesimal changes over large periods of time (millions and millions of years). To keep on the topic, if anyone wants to argue evolution, lets take it to another thread. A concept like God and belief in the Christian creation myth, however, has absolutely no evidence supporting it, thus requires faith and dare I say, that faith is blind. Therefore, religion and science is separate.
To answer the final question briefly...
It's not going to happen because there will always be devout followers of Christianity just as there will always be devout cultists. A mountain of evidence can never move a person who does not wish to move. Speculation is entertaining, though. Anyway, any religion that prevents us from improving our standard for living should be phased out for the same reasons cancer cells should be phased out. If you detect cancer early on, you can stop it. Wait too long, it will spread and you will suffer the consequences of your hesitation. These kinds of religions have been around since the dawn of man's imagination and the infection has spread much too far to be fully purged.
But why shouldn't we try? To not do anything, doesn't this make us part of the problem?
The question, Would the world be better off without religion? It's been suggested that the question be made, Would the world be better off without religions that hindered social progress? The answer is in the question. Obviously something that hinders social progress should be abolished. So, the meat of this debate is, which religions should be discontinued and why, and I'll do my best not to offend Christians as individuals even though their religion is ripe with inconsistencies and reasons to be discontinued. Does attacking a government necessarily mean that you're attacking the citizens?
Why should I endorse some religions and not others
If anyone disagrees that religion is the number one cause of death in this world, say so now. Many of the world's current major religions create barriers between people of other religions, and even between people of the same religion who worship just a little bit differently. Each says the other is going to hell, each says, "I'm right and you're wrong and you'd better repent or you'll be sorry." Religions like Christianity, Islam, and Judaism tend to hold back scientific advancements, which is made evident today by the Bush administration who ban certain scientific practices due to religious beliefs. It was the freethinkers that convinced us that the Bible was wrong-- science showed us that we should sterilize our surgical tools, that mental illness was caused by chemical imbalances and not demons, that the earth was a sphere and not flat, that the earth revolved around the sun and not vice versa, that medicine cured illnesses and not the hand of God. Still today there are people who are so indulgent in their religious conviction that they INSIST that the world is flat. The photographs taken from outer space were faked. Homosexuals are doomed to hell unless they change. Illnesses are caused by demons and a faith healer can put his sweaty palm on your forehead to cure you of blindness. The list goes on and on how Christianity and related religions has muddied the scientific minds of the masses.
Certain religions do not hinder scientific progress or promote false teachings based purely on faith. Other religions do not hinder scientific progress, but they don't help either by being neutral and apathetic. Other religions support scientific progress to better mankind! This is why the religions which do no harm should be left alone, and the organized religions which alter the minds of the laity should be abolished.
Is this a better way to put my argument fellas?
Is my own conviction of atheism/irreligiousness based on faith?
The dictionary definition of faith is a belief not based on logic (paraphrased). The definition of logic is a belief not based on faith. The two cannot exist in unison because with faith, logic ceases to exist, and with logic, faith ceases to exist. There is no middleground between knowledge and belief, principle and hypotheses.
I've been told that science requires faith, and this is horribly untrue. Faith that which does not require logic has nothing to do with science that which does. "You have to have faith to believe in evolution," no. You have to have an understanding in genetics and natural selection and related evolutionary sciences. Stacks and stacks of evidence suggests to us that organisms made infinitesimal changes over large periods of time (millions and millions of years). To keep on the topic, if anyone wants to argue evolution, lets take it to another thread. A concept like God and belief in the Christian creation myth, however, has absolutely no evidence supporting it, thus requires faith and dare I say, that faith is blind. Therefore, religion and science is separate.
To answer the final question briefly...
It's not going to happen because there will always be devout followers of Christianity just as there will always be devout cultists. A mountain of evidence can never move a person who does not wish to move. Speculation is entertaining, though. Anyway, any religion that prevents us from improving our standard for living should be phased out for the same reasons cancer cells should be phased out. If you detect cancer early on, you can stop it. Wait too long, it will spread and you will suffer the consequences of your hesitation. These kinds of religions have been around since the dawn of man's imagination and the infection has spread much too far to be fully purged.
But why shouldn't we try? To not do anything, doesn't this make us part of the problem?
