Would the world be better off without religion?

[Green Gaia]

Atheism is not a religion it is a lack of religion

No, it is not. Atheism is denying the existence of deities, not a lack of religion. Not all religions require a belief in the supernatural. You only have to look to the Buddhists to see this is true. Would you claim that the Buddhist who is an atheist, is not religious?

 

[michel]

Part Quote=apostle_Ndr] .............."I had an elaborate response ready which was lost when my computer locked up. My motivation has been shot, but I'll do my best to recreate.".........................[Part Quote=apostle_NDR}

That's happened to me a few times; one of the penalties for being wordy - one suggestion:- write your post out on notepad, then cut and paste the post on the forum; many a time have I lost twenty minutes' worth.

 

[Darkdale]

I don't see how it ISN'T a problem of social institution. If religion is proven to be a problem among people, doesn't it prove coincidentally that religion is a problem as a social institution? Abolish it, which will never happen but it's always amusing to speculate the possibilities.. abolish it and only good can come.

Religion isn't the problem among people, people are the problem among religions, just as they are among governments, among companies, among circles of friends... families and so forth. You have yet to offer any evidence that religion itself is the cause of any actually problem... only you've demonstrated that it is only your way of viewing the universe which should be tolerated, which is basically the same thing fundamentalist Christians and Muslims do. So, how are you different?

 

[apostle_ndr]

No, it is not. Atheism is denying the existence of deities, not a lack of religion. Not all religions require a belief in the supernatural. You only have to look to the Buddhists to see this is true. Would you claim that the Buddhist who is an atheist, is not religious?

You're absolutely right, my mistake. I have grown accustomed to using "atheist" interchangeably with "irreligious".

The box I'm on is six years old. I'm living with my grandmother until my father gets his job back (no food, no cable, no net, no phone).. which is no better because my own computer is five years old! I couldn't amass the money to get a quality notebook PC to take to college with me, so I'm stuck with this junkpile which lags like mad and locks up every half hour! This place is so fun.

I'll be joining the Debate Team on campus despite my fear of public speaking. Being here is I think helping me. Usually (even when I'm writing anonymously to a forum) I'm shaking like crazy for fear that people might not like me. Clearly, some people here don't like me. I didn't come here to make friends with everyone, but I'm sure I will make friends with atheists and Christians and Buddhists and naturalists and Jedis... etc.. despite my ideas.

 

[Feathers in Hair]

I was going to respond, but I don't think I would actually be listened to. While I might love people infinitely, a topic such as this is not worth my becoming upset over.

If anyone feels their religion is being attacked, please use the 'report' feature. (PM me if you're not sure how to do it.) RF has higher standards of civility than other religious forums and I don't think it's 'okay' to be offensive when a simple change in wording could ask the same question without hurting feelings.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

To Jayhawker Soule:

Are you serious that nothing I've said counts as evidence? Or do you just want to ignore it all? And for the last time, I have no qualms over religions that don't hinder social progress. Atheism is not a religion it is a lack of religion.. like health is not an illness it is a lack of illness.

You argue that

• "the world would be better off without religion"

You write:

• "I have no qualms over religions that don't hinder social progress"

So your whole appeal to authority reduces to the assertion that

• 'the world would be better off without religions that hinder social progress'

Rarely have so many words and so little evidence been brought to bare against so shallow a strawman argument.

Atheism is not a religion it is a lack of religion ...

Read Maize. Also, you seem inherently incapable (or unwilling) to draw any conclusions from the existence of nontheistic Buddhism, Daoism, Pantheism, Religious Naturalism, and Religious Humanism, demonstrating a very good impression of someone no less blindly dogmatic than is your average KJV-only YEC.

And being an antichrist is just a convenient label, as I said earlier.

I do not believe you.

 

[apostle_ndr]

Religion isn't the problem among people, people are the problem among religions, just as they are among governments, among companies, among circles of friends... families and so forth. You have yet to offer any evidence that religion itself is the cause of any actually problem... only you've demonstrated that it is only your way of viewing the universe which should be tolerated, which is basically the same thing fundamentalist Christians and Muslims do. So, how are you different?

Darkdale, you're giving me the most enjoyment on this thread . I hope we can be friends? I have to say, without people there would be NO religions. If there were no people, there would be noone to argue the existence of God or morality. Same with the other social constructs, which would not exist without society. If I can sum my arguments up with a statement, and I thought I had been doing this all along, "Religion creates dissension among people." You can say that people create the discension among people, rather than religion.. but who creates the religion? An earlier post, someone mentioned 9/11-- one of many examples of how dangerous some religions are. Christians are seen as the good guys while Muslims are the bad guys, the suicide bombers, but Muslims are doing there thing because their religion (created by their ancestors and revised over centuries) told them to do it. The same reason why Christians were burning witches, invading infidel countries, and burning heretics at the stake. They stopped doing this not because of a grand realization, not because God himself came down and revised his teachings, but because the nonbelievers said, "Look, this is wrong and I won't stand for it."

I hate being self-righteous, but I have to be. I'm different from fundamentalists because my views are in the interest of helping people, not turning them against each other or causing dissent. I seek to enlighten like the Christian's messiah seeked to enlighten, or the Buddhist's Siddharta (I'm hazy on the exact spelling..) Goutama, or the Muslim's Mohammed, or the Mithraist's divine bullslayer. I don't expect my views to be tolerated anymore than Christians expect Muslims to tolerate their. But I have my views, and I'm voicing them in the interest of enhancing my own knowledge.

An interesting point I just remembered about Christianity. The name Lucifer means "Bringer of Light" (possible deviations aside). God wanted his creations to stay in the dark about knowledge.. he wanted his creations to remain ignorant and out of the know, but Lucifer came along to bring them light and knowledge. I'm not a satanist, but I think it's amusing how Christians describe the Bringer of Knowledge as a bad guy. Is this is why earlier Christians got such a kick out of torching scientists? I sound like I'm being sarcastic, but I just want a Christian to correct me or help me to understand.

 

[Green Gaia]

Religion creates dissension among people.

So does tunafish.

Show me one thing that does not cause disagreement among people in some fashion.

I seek to enlighten.

Perhaps you should start with understanding.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I hate being self-righteous, but I have to be.

Oy vey! :banghead3

An interesting point I just remembered about Christianity. The name Lucifer means "Bringer of Light" (possible deviations aside).

You would do well to further research the derivation before further embarrassing yourself.

apostle_ndr, permit me a recommendation. Let the thread die. Think about the various comments made and then, if you feel it useful, revisit the topic. As it is, you are doing yourself no favors.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I seek to enlighten.

Perhaps you should start with understanding.

:clap Exactly! :clap

 

[Darkdale]

Darkdale, you're giving me the most enjoyment on this thread . I hope we can be friends? I have to say, without people there would be NO religions. If there were no people, there would be noone to argue the existence of God or morality. Same with the other social constructs, which would not exist without society. If I can sum my arguments up with a statement, and I thought I had been doing this all along, "Religion creates dissension among people." You can say that people create the discension among people, rather than religion.. but who creates the religion? An earlier post, someone mentioned 9/11-- one of many examples of how dangerous some religions are. Christians are seen as the good guys while Muslims are the bad guys, the suicide bombers, but Muslims are doing there thing because their religion (created by their ancestors and revised over centuries) told them to do it. The same reason why Christians were burning witches, invading infidel countries, and burning heretics at the stake. They stopped doing this not because of a grand realization, not because God himself came down and revised his teachings, but because the nonbelievers said, "Look, this is wrong and I won't stand for it."

Non-Believers doesn't mean non-religious. You are obviously mostly acquainted with the Big Three religions right? Judaism, Christianity and Islam? There are hundreds of religions (if not thousands). Now, ask yourself why these three religions are so successful. Ask yourself what draws people to these religions. Believe me, they have changed a great deal since they began. Religion is fluid, always changing, adapting and incorporating the experiences of those who inherit it or discover it. There is no reason (no good reason) why Jews, Christians or Muslims should reject science, reason, justice or common sense. If they do, it isn't because religion made them, but because that is what they want to believe. Religion itself doesn't force anyone to believe anything, the dogmas and beliefs of various religions are created by Man (by people).

I hate being self-righteous, but I have to be. I'm different from fundamentalists because my views are in the interest of helping people, not turning them against each other or causing dissent. I seek to enlighten like the Christian's messiah seeked to enlighten, or the Buddhist's Siddharta (I'm hazy on the exact spelling..) Goutama, or the Muslim's Mohammed, or the Mithraist's divine bullslayer. I don't expect my views to be tolerated anymore than Christians expect Muslims to tolerate their. But I have my views, and I'm voicing them in the interest of enhancing my own knowledge.

Fundamentalists believe that their view are in the interest of helping people. You are comparing yourself to the fundamental figures of the major religions... which is a very fundamentalist thing to do. Your views, however, are based on a very limited understanding of Religion. Now, I'm not insulting your knowledge or your efforts at achieving knowledge, but it is obvious that you are not aquainted with the intricacies and worldviews of the myriad religions (there are so many different worldviews out there and you seem to be focusing on the Judeo-Christian worldview).

An interesting point I just remembered about Christianity. The name Lucifer means "Bringer of Light" (possible deviations aside). God wanted his creations to stay in the dark about knowledge.. he wanted his creations to remain ignorant and out of the know, but Lucifer came along to bring them light and knowledge. I'm not a satanist, but I think it's amusing how Christians describe the Bringer of Knowledge as a bad guy. Is this is why earlier Christians got such a kick out of torching scientists? I sound like I'm being sarcastic, but I just want a Christian to correct me or help me to understand.

Christians have done a lot of stupid things and have expressed a lot of evil, bigoted beliefs throughout history, but not because they are Christian. It was because:

1. The men leading "the people" were hateful, greedy, bigots &
2. People were ignorant, easily led and easily frightened, &
3. Wisdom, tolerance and compassion has always been rarity amongst Man.

 

[michel]

[PART QUOTE=apostle_ndr]

................"I hate being self-righteous, but I have to be. I'm different from fundamentalists because my views are in the interest of helping people, not turning them against each other or causing dissent. I seek to enlighten like the Christian's messiah seeked to enlighten, or the Buddhist's Siddharta (I'm hazy on the exact spelling..) Goutama, or the Muslim's Mohammed, or the Mithraist's divine bullslayer. I don't expect my views to be tolerated anymore than Christians expect Muslims to tolerate their. But I have my views, and I'm voicing them in the interest of enhancing my own knowledge.

An interesting point I just remembered about Christianity. The name Lucifer means "Bringer of Light" (possible deviations aside). God wanted his creations to stay in the dark about knowledge.. he wanted his creations to remain ignorant and out of the know, but Lucifer came along to bring them light and knowledge. I'm not a satanist, but I think it's amusing how Christians describe the Bringer of Knowledge as a bad guy. Is this is why earlier Christians got such a kick out of torching scientists? I sound like I'm being sarcastic, but I just want a Christian to correct me or help me to understand".................[/PART QUOTE]

Who is making you be like that ?

Let me get this right; this is all for your benefit ?

No comment; BTW, wshat are you 'on' ?:bonk:

 

[apostle_ndr]

I realize I was offensive. And maybe I intended to be. I'm a vocal and active member of antichrist.net and it's been my experience with the Christians who write to us.. not to like them. Too many death threats, wishes for illness and plagues, and "You're stupid" comments has trained me to distrust theists and lack tact when dealing with them. My ideas won't change because of this, but my demeanor on the message board will if everyone can forgive me for being rude.

The thread can die due to popular disagreement but the question will always remain in me, would the world be better off without religion. If so far my arguments don't make sense, no reason in continuing to justify myself or I'll come off as a nuisance .

Some topics that came up during this, I'll start a new thread. Like the idea of a superman, moral relativism, (utilitarianism?), the hardwiring for God, etc.

I'll leave by defending my derivation of Lucifer, which according to Wikipedia is derived from Latin lux (light) and ferre (to bring). You might mean that I'm mistaken in assuming Lucifer to be the name of the devil, which is debatable and depends on which version of the Bible you look at.

Isaiah 14:12 (NRSV)
How you are fallen from heaven, O Day Star, son of Dawn!

Isaiah 14:12 (KJV)
How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning!

I think the big controversy over calling Lucifer the Day Star is that it implies that he is Jesus Christ. The Old Testament calls Lucifer (the Latin name of the planet Venus) the morning star. The New Testament uses the morning star to describe Jesus.

2 Peter 1:19
You will do well to pay attention to this as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts.

I should probably throw this to a new thread because I've exhausted the topic of this one.. ideas?

-- Everyone should start with understanding, because no one does and if he says he does he's full of himself.

I'll also admit that my original argument keeps changing between abolishing religion and abolishing specific religions. Habit. I guess I'm too affixed with the validity of my arguments to agree that they are lightweight and baseless. Can you prove your point any more than I can prove mine? It's all subjective and the validity of claims is based on the audience..

I just had the urge to keep the thread going. Jayhawker Soule, since this thread has been rendered useless, I'll start a new one tomorrow with a revised position.

Last, I'd especially like to apologize to FeathersinHair, who I've obviously offended.

 

[Katzpur]

RF has higher standards of civility than other religious forums and I don't think it's 'okay' to be offensive when a simple change in wording could ask the same question without hurting feelings.

You must spread some Karma around before giving it to FeathersinHair again.

 

[Feathers in Hair]

Last, I'd especially like to apologize to FeathersinHair, who I've obviously offended.

Please don't feel that I've been offended. I simply don't like it when feelings are hurt, even if they're not my own. It's just a part of my nature, which I know at times isn't healthy... but it's the way I am. I appreciate the apology, though. Perhaps RF can provide you with examples of how lovely people can be to one another when they work toward understanding.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Jayhawker Soule, since this thread has been rendered useless, I'll start a new one tomorrow with a revised position.

I suggest that you give some thought to the lessons of this one before attempting to enlighten us anew.

 

[Malus 12:9]

Without religion, we are without threads like these

 

[karmel19]

Baha'u'llah said that religion should be the cause of love and unity. His son, 'Abdu'l-Baha had this to say on the subject:

Divine religion is not a cause for discord and disagreement. If religion becomes the source of antagonism and strife, the absence of religion is to be preferred. . . . if it [religion] be the cause of death to humanity, its nonexistence would be a blessing and benefit to man.

Think about this though: none of the divisions and differences in religion that exist today were created by the original Founders of those religions: Jesus told His followers, "If you believed in Moses, you would believe in me." And Muhammad began His revelation of the Qu'ran by saying something like, "Why have you not believed in Moses and in Jesus?" The differences are created afterwards by fallible human beings with egos, who want to be the "teacher's pet," so to speak. They want to think they are better in the eyes of God than other people around them, and so they pervert the teachings in order to make themselves look better, and sometimes, sadly, for material gain.

 

[Malus 12:9]

Baha'u'llah said that religion should be the cause of love and unity. His son, 'Abdu'l-Baha had this to say on the subject:
.

So, we are basing the concept of the world being better with religion because of what
someone may have said..again:banghead3

 

[Darkdale]

Think about this though: none of the divisions and differences in religion that exist today were created by the original Founders of those religions: Jesus told His followers, "If you believed in Moses, you would believe in me." And Muhammad began His revelation of the Qu'ran by saying something like, "Why have you not believed in Moses and in Jesus?" The differences are created afterwards by fallible human beings with egos, who want to be the "teacher's pet," so to speak. They want to think they are better in the eyes of God than other people around them, and so they pervert the teachings in order to make themselves look better, and sometimes, sadly, for material gain.

So Jews should believe in Jesus and Christians should believe in Allah? I'm sorry, I'm just missing your point.