• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Why religion terrifies me.

Aasimar

Atheist
If my boss says that it is company policy to be at work by 8:00 am, so then I punch someone for showing up late, can I then claim that my boss told me to punch him? Of course not.
No he didn't, but why did you punch him? You're own personal anger at him being late, or your belief in your bosses policy? Are there varying stories in your bosses policy? Does one chapter of your bosses policy say "If an employee shows up late, thou shalt punch him in the face, that he may not do it again, that *******." But another says, "Don't hit people, it's bad." Which leaves you room to interpret whichever you wish?
The point is, while many religious people don't incite violence, by basing a belief on anything without proof, violence is incredibly easy to justify. Faith (Religious faith) does not leave room for other factors, such as the guy was stuck in traffic so he couldn't get here on time, his wife was in labor." No no, if he disobeys "X," Enact punishment "Y," for I am the lord of everything, and my word is indisputable.

I guess my major gripe with god is that he's basically got all the characteristics of a human tyrant without the benefit of being challenged. I mean, Hitler was a ******* by any moral standard, we don't have to dodge around his philosophies to say, Hitler was an idiot, his policies have no morality, he has no leg to stand on. But God, god you have to attempt to prove that which is unprovable in order to question his doctrine.

The bible as a "Choose your own adventure book"

Page 1 -
You caught a wretched non-believer worshiping Krishna today.

To smite him as god teaches you, turn to page 89
To treat him kindly as you believe you should, turn to page 118

Page 90 -
You stone the Krishna worshipper to death, god welcomes you into heaven. Krishna worshipper goes to hell, wretched non-believer.

Page 118 -
You gently inform the Krishna worshipper that you don't believe in Krishna. After a few kind words and exchanging of culture, you walk away. God kinda says that we should be nice, but he said I should kill that dude, but I decided you follow the nice idea. Since you followed God's law, kinda, you go to heaven. Krishna worshipper still goes to hell, wretched non-believer.

Let me put it in a very simple example. I have a magical flower in my back yard. This fact cannot be disputed, because it told me so via a few books it created by telling my greatx56 grandfather on a mountain all alone where no one else could see him, and 70,000,000,000 people over 2000 years have attested to this fact, though not one of them were there. this flower is magical. This flower can also talk to people, but it hasn't in recent history, but it did tell my greatx56 grandfather that thou shalt love everyone. But should they ever wear Tommy Hilfiger jeans, or make an "L" symbol on their forehead with their thumb and forefinger, or worship anything other then it, you should kill them, without mercy, in the streets. Scientific evidence points to the fact that Tommy Hilfiger jeans are in fact just jeans, and in no way taint the soul, and the L symbol does nothing harmful to passerby in reality. But that doesn't matter, the flower told my greatx56 grandfather that these were evil, so they are. period, no debate. I dont' care what evidence points grossly to the opposite, Tommy hilfiger jeans are evil. L symbol users are blasphemers, worth of death. I however, feel my morals won't allow me to kill people who use the L symbol, or wear TH jeans. However, I'm gonna teach my kid this book is divine, inspired by the flower, though it may be wrong a bit. He's like, hmm dad says I shouldn't kill people, but this book that he says is holy says I should. Now I'm confused. Should I believe daddy, or the book that he says the flower wrote? The flower is infallible, so I guess it must be true. I'm gonna go kill people who don't believe me. What, where is my proof this flower is magical, who needs proof to justify my homicidal method, I have faith in my flower. You can't argue with my faith, and how dare you question it. That's rude. My faith is sacred, you can't disclaim it as ridiculous just because I have no grounds to support it, no evidence. In fact, I believe that castration is a healthy practice for little boys, it's in the tenents of my faith that all young boys be castrated at age 23. We've decided to not do this, even though the book says I should, but you can't question my faith in this book, even though I have chosen specific parts to follow and ones not too.

My suggestion to religion.

Teach the good ideas, that me as society have believed are good ideas, leave the bad ones out, and absolutely do not ever request blind faith of someone. Critical thinking makes people make good decisions, learn from mistakes. Blind faith gives you a set of ideas to follow without your own judgement, and that is bad. The bible was not written by god, or inspired by god, it was written by men, in a time of turmoil, with an agenda. It has good ideas, it has bad ideas. It has no proof of any of it's claims. Take the good lessons and learn from them, take the bad lessons and throw them away. And be your own judge, never assume some higher being thinks it's a good idea. If it seems like a stupid idea, it probably is. Do a little research on your own, using your own mind, with input from others. Leave the magical, divine, holy, whatever made up crap out of it. If there is life after death, we will find out soon enough.

As was absolutely beautfully quoted in the movie "The Kingdom of Heaven."

Hospitaller: I put no stock in religion. By the word religion I have seen the lunacy of fanatics of every denomination be called the will of god. I have seen too much religion in the eyes of too many murderers. Holiness is in right action, and courage on behalf of those who cannot defend themselves, and goodness. What god desires is here
[points to head]
Hospitaller: and here
[points to heart]
Hospitaller: and what you decide to do every day, you will be a good man - or not.

If you think that by using that quote I think you should please god, I do not. The proper God is just a word for our ideal. Make your ideal moral in every way, realistically. Use your own head, use evidence and logic and reason. When you think, "Oh my god, that man has had sex with a horse!" He's evil! Think about why you think this is evil. Yes it's gross, I agree. But did any harm come of it to anyone other than possibly the man? Even if he got a horrid disease, and passed it on to his next human sex partner, what was the actual evil act, getting the disease or having sex with another human knowing that you could hurt them with the act? And always, always, always make your opinions justifiable and debatable. Who knows, you might actually be wrong, lord knows I have been many a time in my life. So learn the lesson of experience and move on. Do not ask an invisible man for guidance, ask the tangible world around you, if you don't have the answer, look for it.
 
http://www.freepress.org/columns/display/3/2004/942
http://www.counterpunch.org/floyd06302003.html
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article317805.ece
http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2005/10_october/06/bush.shtml
http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=2052712005

To establish “George talks to the Lord” http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3485-2005Jan12.html

The White House denies that Bush said that god told him to invade – the same white house that said there were WMDs in Iraq and all the other lies. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4317498.stm

I would believe Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas long before I would believe denials by the White House. I KNOW the WH lies and I have less reason to doubt the Palestinian Prime Minister than I do my own president – a sad state of affairs.

I have to admit that I am stunned by the crude generalizations here.

I hope that you will someday have more experiences with the church and people of faith that show you the tremendous amount of charity, solace, and support that often comes from religion.

Thank you for your concern. I have nearly seventy years of “experience with the church and people of faith”. That is exactly what shapes my attitude. I have seen some evidence of charity, solace and support. However, I have seen far more evidence of intolerance of competing belief systems and of people who refuse to worship “properly”.


It seems as though the righteous come to believe themselves superior to non-believers and to justify atrocious action. Evidence is presented in the religious approval of George’s War and the killing of great numbers of Iraqi citizens (including children) as though “collateral damage” is perfectly acceptable.

George’s War and the killing of civilians has been going on for longer that WWII lasted and just now are the citizens of this “Christian Nation” beginning to realize that perhaps our armies should not be occupying a foreign nation where they are not welcome.

I cannot judge whether he is condemned or not, but I can classify his religion.
You can “classify” his religion? Do you mean that you can assign him to a religion? Or do you mean that you can evaluate the merits of his religion? Or do you mean that you can determine his religious beliefs?

How, exactly, does one “classify” the religion of another?
 

Runlikethewind

Monk in Training
The point is, while many religious people don't incite violence, by basing a belief on anything without proof, violence is incredibly easy to justify. Faith (Religious faith) does not leave room for other factors, such as the guy was stuck in traffic so he couldn't get here on time, his wife was in labor." No no, if he disobeys "X," Enact punishment "Y," for I am the lord of everything, and my word is indisputable.

My faith (religious faith), that is Catholicism, does leave room for mitigating circumstances. I can't speak for all religion but as far as the Catholic Church goes Your interpretation does not apply.

Aasimar said:
I guess my major gripe with god is that he's basically got all the characteristics of a human tyrant without the benefit of being challenged. I mean, Hitler was a ******* by any moral standard, we don't have to dodge around his philosophies to say, Hitler was an idiot, his policies have no morality, he has no leg to stand on. But God, god you have to attempt to prove that which is unprovable in order to question his doctrine.

That is because you seem to be interpreting God's doctrine in a way that makes him look like a human tyrant. The Catholic interpretation of God's doctrine does not make God out to be a tyrant. I guess that one has to know what God's doctrine is before one can question it and so the difficulty is not in the doctrine but in trying to understand what that doctrine is. Your gripe is not against God but against your understanding of what his doctrine is. And I would say that if your understanding of God's doctrine leads you to the conclusion that God is a tyrant then you are mistaken in your understanding of that doctrine. But I would also agree with you that to a certain extent the belief in what God's doctrine is, is based on faith and therefore inherently unprovable by the modern acceptable standards of proof based on empirical evidence. Faith will always have a certain amount of uncertainty.

Aasimar said:
Let me put it in a very simple example. I have a magical flower in my back yard. This fact cannot be disputed, because it told me so via a few books it created by telling my greatx56 grandfather on a mountain all alone where no one else could see him, and 70,000,000,000 people over 2000 years have attested to this fact, though not one of them were there. this flower is magical. This flower can also talk to people, but it hasn't in recent history, but it did tell my greatx56 grandfather that thou shalt love everyone. But should they ever wear Tommy Hilfiger jeans, or make an "L" symbol on their forehead with their thumb and forefinger, or worship anything other then it, you should kill them, without mercy, in the streets. Scientific evidence points to the fact that Tommy Hilfiger jeans are in fact just jeans, and in no way taint the soul, and the L symbol does nothing harmful to passerby in reality. But that doesn't matter, the flower told my greatx56 grandfather that these were evil, so they are. period, no debate. I dont' care what evidence points grossly to the opposite, Tommy hilfiger jeans are evil. L symbol users are blasphemers, worth of death. I however, feel my morals won't allow me to kill people who use the L symbol, or wear TH jeans. However, I'm gonna teach my kid this book is divine, inspired by the flower, though it may be wrong a bit. He's like, hmm dad says I shouldn't kill people, but this book that he says is holy says I should. Now I'm confused. Should I believe daddy, or the book that he says the flower wrote? The flower is infallible, so I guess it must be true. I'm gonna go kill people who don't believe me. What, where is my proof this flower is magical, who needs proof to justify my homicidal method, I have faith in my flower. You can't argue with my faith, and how dare you question it. That's rude. My faith is sacred, you can't disclaim it as ridiculous just because I have no grounds to support it, no evidence. In fact, I believe that castration is a healthy practice for little boys, it's in the tenents of my faith that all young boys be castrated at age 23. We've decided to not do this, even though the book says I should, but you can't question my faith in this book, even though I have chosen specific parts to follow and ones not too.

You make a good argument against the strong form of Sola Scriptura the protestant doctrine that the Bible alone contains the tenants of faith. The strong form of this sees the Bible as being the literal word of God. Under this view all one needs is to read the book and if is says to kill well then the book said it and one can do it. That is one reason why the Catholic Church rejects Sola Scriptura. The word of God and the teachings of God where entrusted to the Church and some of that was put down in writing. But if there is a dispute or question, for example is killing good or bad in this circumstance, one does not go to the Bible one goes to the Church.

Aasimar said:
My suggestion to religion.

Teach the good ideas, that me as society have believed are good ideas, leave the bad ones out, and absolutely do not ever request blind faith of someone. Critical thinking makes people make good decisions, learn from mistakes. Blind faith gives you a set of ideas to follow without your own judgement, and that is bad. The bible was not written by god, or inspired by god, it was written by men, in a time of turmoil, with an agenda. It has good ideas, it has bad ideas. It has no proof of any of it's claims. Take the good lessons and learn from them, take the bad lessons and throw them away. And be your own judge, never assume some higher being thinks it's a good idea. If it seems like a stupid idea, it probably is. Do a little research on your own, using your own mind, with input from others. Leave the magical, divine, holy, whatever made up crap out of it. If there is life after death, we will find out soon enough.

You would make a good Catholic. And could you clarify this part that I have put in red. It seems that you are saying religion should teach what you think is good. I can't imagine that is what you meant but it does seem that way.

Aasimar said:
If you think that by using that quote I think you should please god, I do not. The proper God is just a word for our ideal. Make your ideal moral in every way, realistically. Use your own head, use evidence and logic and reason. When you think, "Oh my god, that man has had sex with a horse!" He's evil! Think about why you think this is evil. Yes it's gross, I agree. But did any harm come of it to anyone other than possibly the man? Even if he got a horrid disease, and passed it on to his next human sex partner, what was the actual evil act, getting the disease or having sex with another human knowing that you could hurt them with the act? And always, always, always make your opinions justifiable and debatable. Who knows, you might actually be wrong, lord knows I have been many a time in my life. So learn the lesson of experience and move on. Do not ask an invisible man for guidance, ask the tangible world around you, if you don't have the answer, look for it.

This also where the development of doctrine comes into play. We learn and gain a better understanding and a more clear picture of God's teachings over time as we learn from our mistakes and failures to live up to it. The Church has thought a great deal about sexual morality on a philosophical as well as scientific level and concluded that bestiality is wrong. The conclusion was reached not based on what the book says but based on a well reasoned justifiable opinion based on the nature of sex, the nature of man, etc. I can't speak for other Churches but as far as I can tell your objections to religion do not amount to the religion as taught by the Catholic Church.
 

Runlikethewind

Monk in Training

Now I am not one to defend the President or his actions in Iraq. But I don't think it is a very strong argument to say that Bush said X because somebody else says that Bush said X. I read through these links and There is no direct quote from Bush, its all second hand. Abbas said that Bush said one thing and the White House denies it. If one supports Bush they will believe the WH claim that Abbas is wrong and if one does not support Bush they will believe Abbas is right. Now again I am not trying to support or defend Bush on this point either way. I am only trying to point out that there is some weakness to these sources as proof that Bush believes God told him to attack anyone.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
There was an exceptionally good "Frontline" documentary on this subject, and in it there is no mistaking Bush's comments as related to his 'mandate from God'. Unfortunately the whole Frontline documentary is not available on line, but I have seen it, and I have seen Bush making such statements on camera, in it.

Here is some info: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/jesus/
 
Isn't it wonderful that our country has a Christian leader to help insure that our nation behaves with fairness and goodness and equality toward all -- loving our neighbors -- particularly in Iraq . . . . .

It looks like we're about to love the people in Iran next.

Maybe we can force the Muslims to become Christians and to have democratic government -- just like us -- or kill them because we are afraid of them --
 

DeepShadow

White Crow
There was an exceptionally good "Frontline" documentary on this subject, and in it there is no mistaking Bush's comments as related to his 'mandate from God'. Unfortunately the whole Frontline documentary is not available on line, but I have seen it, and I have seen Bush making such statements on camera, in it.

Here is some info: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/jesus/

Very disturbing. The question is, was he just styling himself as a far-right candidate, or does he really believe God told him to do this? There would be political advantages to claiming inspiration. Those who think Bush is a scheming despot ought to question whether this is merely another lie in a whole series. As LeMaverick said, this is the same White House that tried to sell us all on WMD's. Bush might say anything to galvanize followers.
 

Mister_T

Forum Relic
Premium Member
Isn't it wonderful that our country has a Christian leader to help insure that our nation behaves with fairness and goodness and equality toward all -- loving our neighbors -- particularly in Iraq . . . . .

It looks like we're about to love the people in Iran next.

Maybe we can force the Muslims to become Christians and to have democratic government -- just like us -- or kill them because we are afraid of them --
Although I am very displeased with our current powers-that-be, I don't recall hearing about any Muslims converting to Christianity as a result of the Iraqi war (although I'm sure it's happened). Nor have I heard the President say that evangelism was a motivating factor or part of the plan.
 

Aasimar

Atheist
that me as society have believed are good ideas
that was actually a type, I meant we as a society

The Church has thought a great deal about sexual morality on a philosophical as well as scientific level and concluded that bestiality is wrong.
Wrong by what standard? Does beastiality add to human suffering? Or not even beastiality, what about homosexuality, does it cause more suffering than happiness? That should be the standard of ethics, suffering caused vs. happiness gained.

And as far as the literal truth thing, this one always drives me nuts? If the bible is too be believed literaly, God is a terrible tyrant. If it's not to be believed literally, what is it? A morality tale? What should faith be based on then, the church? They don't have any proof either. Why is belief without proof a good thing? I think it's a terrible, misguided thing. I believe that circles have 4 sides. I base this on what I feel in my heart, doesn't that just sound ridiculous? That is called metageometry btw , new branch of science I just invented :) Claiming knowledge without proof is irresponsible.
 

Aasimar

Atheist
I don't recall hearing about any Muslims converting to Christianity as a result of the Iraqi war
I imagine you were only talking about American Muslims. If I lived in a Muslim country, I wouldn't convert either, the punishment for converting away from islam is death.
 

Runlikethewind

Monk in Training
that was actually a type, I meant we as a society

Thanks for the clarification I figured that it was just a typo or something.

Aasimar said:
Wrong by what standard? Does beastiality add to human suffering? Or not even beastiality, what about homosexuality, does it cause more suffering than happiness? That should be the standard of ethics, suffering caused vs. happiness gained.

It is not about suffering, pleasure or happiness. The Church bases its teachings on sexual morality on the understanding that sexual union was created by God to be a mirror of His own love. Sex is a physical expression of God's love. So the Church doesn't see sex in terms of its causes or its effects but it is seen as something distinct in its own nature serving a specific purpose. So I might freely admit that homosexual or bestaility can result in happiness, pleasure, and does not cause suffering. But I would argue that it is a misuse of sex as God created it.

Aasimar said:
And as far as the literal truth thing, this one always drives me nuts? If the bible is too be believed literaly, God is a terrible tyrant. If it's not to be believed literally, what is it? A morality tale? What should faith be based on then, the church? They don't have any proof either. Why is belief without proof a good thing? I think it's a terrible, misguided thing. I believe that circles have 4 sides. I base this on what I feel in my heart, doesn't that just sound ridiculous? That is called metageometry btw , new branch of science I just invented :) Claiming knowledge without proof is irresponsible.

I would say yes faith is to be placed on the Church which uses the Bible as a tool to express and interpret God's message. And I would also agree that neither have 'proof' in the sense that it is most often seen today as empirical or objective evidence and facts. Faith is based on subjective proofs, no one can give you faith, no one can prove faith objectively. That is the nature of faith belief in spite of unprovability and in spite of uncertainties. Belief without proof is essential for the way I understand God's purpose in creating us. If God created humans out of love in order that we should return that love in kind then true love cannot be forced and if we could prove that God exists it would infringe on our ability to freely choose to love him. So as difficult as it is we can't have objective proof because it would infringe on God's purpose for creating us in the first place. But I might agree that claiming that I believe in God does not equates to I know God exists, this is a irresponsible. On the flip side I might say that I don't believe in God does not equate to I know that God does not exist. Both claims are unprovable. If you believe either way it is a belief and not knowledge.

I think Dr. Lawrence Krause (physicist and astronomer)said it best:
Dr. Lawrence Krause said:
I can say for me there is no evidence whatsoever of design or purpose in the universe based on my study of cosmology. That is a fine scientific statement for me to say. But for then for me to say therefore there was no design or purpose, that is a metaphysical statement or a philosophical statement, that I am entitled to make. But I am not being a scientist when I make it. I think we have to recognize it is beyond the limits of science to go that far.
 

Mister_T

Forum Relic
Premium Member
I imagine you were only talking about American Muslims. If I lived in a Muslim country, I wouldn't convert either, the punishment for converting away from islam is death.
I was refering to Iraqi Muslims, which is what I thought the person I replied to was refering to as well.
 

Aasimar

Atheist
It is not about suffering, pleasure or happiness. The Church bases its teachings on sexual morality on the understanding that sexual union was created by God to be a mirror of His own love.
That was my point. Homosexuality is evil because some people think god thinks it's evil, based on no proof. Therefore homosexuals are persecuted and shunned, religious laws are put into place in a country where church and state are supposed to be separated. To claim homosexuality is evil because an unprovable being thinks it is is irresponsible and inhumane. I have seen homosexuals who loved each other, and in no way is that bad. In a responsible society, creating laws based on myths and legends is ridiculous.

Faith is based on subjective proofs, no one can give you faith, no one can prove faith objectively. That is the nature of faith belief in spite of unprovability and in spite of uncertainties.

And that is why faith is evil. The nature of faith is belief in spite of unprovability, which leads to irresponsible behavior, doctrine, and tendencies. Only man is responsible for what man does to one another. Religion turns a blind eye to truth, to the detriment of all.

But I might agree that claiming that I believe in God does not equates to I know God exists, this is a irresponsible. On the flip side I might say that I don't believe in God does not equate to I know that God does not exist. Both claims are unprovable. If you believe either way it is a belief and not knowledge.

Agnostic, I don't believe in any god or gods but do not discount the fact that there is a infinitesimally remote possibility that one exists, it is unknowable. I also believe Atheism is irresponsible, because you cannot know. It's kinda a ridiculous subject when you think about it. Religion claims to know something about the unknowable.

Heres the thing, I wouldn't have such a chip on my shoulder about religion if it didn't permeate reality. I believe in this unprovable whatever, and it influences the way I interact with reality. People actually die because other people believe invisible men in the sky think they should kill them. Faith is the enemy of reason, and of civilization. The tribalism must end, or we will all probably die because of it.

Believing in something without proof is ignorant and irresponsible. Speculation is fine, faith is not.
 

Aasimar

Atheist
False. It is not possible to know that something doesn't exist, it is possible to know that is does. __________________

It is impossible to know if an unprovable thing exists or not. Knowledge requires proof. Therefore you cannot responsibly claim to know an unprovable thing exists or doesn't exist.
 

TashaN

Veteran Member
Premium Member
It is impossible to know if an unprovable thing exists or not. Knowledge requires proof. Therefore you cannot responsibly claim to know an unprovable thing exists or doesn't exist.

Do you think human beings are perfect enough to be aware of everything in this life?
 

Mister Emu

Emu Extraordinaire
Staff member
Premium Member
It is impossible to know if an unprovable thing exists or not. Knowledge requires proof. Therefore you cannot responsibly claim to know an unprovable thing exists or doesn't exist.
What would an "unproveable" thing be? Though I try, I find it hard to envisage such a thing...

Edit:Here I am differentiating between a thing/object/being/etc., and a thought/idea/etc. I agree there can be unprovable ideas, claims, and such...
 

michaelm

Member
The problem with scientific proof is that it requires observation and measurement. This requires the use of the senses. To become aware of 'God/the Divine/ Supreme Consciousness or whatever term you like' is beyond the senses.
The senses are limited, and of limited reliability.
I know, for many, this sounds silly, but if you want to rely on scientific 'proof' you need only go to the quantum physists to get some amazing beliefs. The will tell you that there is the world of the sub atomic particle, that is governed by one set of rules, the world as we live which is governed by another (Newtonian) set of rules and the universal which is governed by another set. They are still seeking a unifying law to make sense of it all.
If we limit ourselves to the world of our senses, then it is all nonsense - including quantum physics. Perhaps that indicates the limit of our sense-world?
 

Runlikethewind

Monk in Training
Aasimar said:
And that is why faith is evil. The nature of faith is belief in spite of unprovability, which leads to irresponsible behavior, doctrine, and tendencies. Only man is responsible for what man does to one another. Religion turns a blind eye to truth, to the detriment of all.

I think your logic is flawed here. Faith does not always lead to irresponsible behaviors, doctrines, or tendencies. It is a very common story that someone who already behaves irresponsibly, criminals for example, stop behaving in irresponsible ways after they find religion/faith/God/etc. Stories like "I did drugs and robbed houses until I found Jesus now I give talks on the evils of drugs" are very common.

According to your logic, that faith leads to irresponsible behavior, doctrines and tendencies therefore it is evil, one could argue that science is evil. Science can lead to death and destruction since in the pursuit of understanding the universe scientists have unlocked the power of the atom (a-bombs) and to continue the pursuit of knowledge of the universe might lead scientists to tear a hole in space-time ending existence as we know it. Therefore since science leads to a-bombs, chemical weapons and all kinds of other bad things, and since it has the potential to lead to all kinds of far worse things, science is evil. This kind of logic is flawed, science is not evil but someone could possibly use it for evil purposes. Faith is not evil but it could possibly be used for evil purposes. In your own words "Only man is responsible for what man does to one another" not faith and not science but man.

Aasimar said:
Heres the thing, I wouldn't have such a chip on my shoulder about religion if it didn't permeate reality. I believe in this unprovable whatever, and it influences the way I interact with reality. People actually die because other people believe invisible men in the sky think they should kill them. Faith is the enemy of reason, and of civilization. The tribalism must end, or we will all probably die because of it.

Do you really think people would stop finding reasons to kill one another if there was no religion? Do you really think that tribalism is caused by religion? I could think of a number of scientists who would readily explain tribalism as the result of our early primate ancestors need for survival and that tribalism is a result of evolution and has nothing at all to do with religion. I am willing to bet that people would be just as selfish and unreasonable without religion than with it. I believe that countries would still go to war over natural recourses with or without religion. You say that we will all probably die because of religion. I say we are all going to die period, it is a fact of reality. And I believe that religion is responsible for saving more lives and doing far more good than the evils that you continue to express. And these evils done in the name of religion are real, but they are in the minority. The vast majority of religious people have good ethical and moral values and your blanket statement that faith leads to bad behavior is only true in a very very small number of cases. And I might also add that faith is only the enemy of reason for people who see it that way. I use faith and reason in all aspects of my life and I see no conflict.
 
Top