@ charfa I define religion as a written set of laws that a follower should obey and an institution that governs those laws.

I definitely agree with you there. I think it's an excellent point.

Abortion debate, why do you guys all think it's christians forcing abortions? There are many non-believers who disagrees with abortion (but you are right, the bible condemns abortion) I won't debate on the "fetus are considered as non-persons" ruled by the supreme court of Canada (i'm not sure about USA, but abortions in Canada is legal). HOwever, many Asian countries, like Thailand, abortions are illegal (even Thailand isn't considered a Christian country)

@ RvW Another factor which might play a role is the kind of "environment" you're used to. If religion is one of the corner stones, the foundation even of your believe system, you're probably used to reading the Bible, or going to church and listening to sermon, having the (unquestionable) truth explained to you.
If, on the other hand, you're a "scientific" person, you're probably used to sitting in class, being encouraged to ask questions, and every once in a while have the teacher admit he/she doesn't know something or even to correct him/her on an error. It really drives home the point (even if subconsciously) that "nothing is absolutely certain, nobody is always right". That's a very good attitude to have going into a discussion, much better (and I hope this doesn't offend anyone) than being used to perfect answers and absolute truth.

I'm actually both. I'm a university student, thus I do have basic scientific knowledge (not complete ignorant). I chose to believe in the bible, because I personally think the bible is more believable. Or maybe, i just don't have enough Biology knowledge.

I find (in general), there are two main types of persuasive techniques pastors use to "buy" non-believers.
1) They say, believe in God, and you will be blessed. You will receive everything you ask for, and you will live in happiness. Now, essentially, what they are saying is correct. However, audiences tend to have a misunderstanding. They will think God is their servant, that they should pray for this, and for that, and God, will grant these to them. However, God is not their servant, and their actions will only offend God.
2) They say, believe in GOd, or perish. Again, essentially, what they are saying is correct. HOwever, audiences will tend to misunderstand. They will think the Christian God is a cruel God, killing innocent simply because they do not believe. They will likely be offended by this statement, and thus, attack Christianity.
Both these techniques in my opinion are flawed. They do not show the whole picture of God, and do not present an accurate discription of him. Even if they do manage to get people to believe, these people are not believing a christian God (at least not the complete). They believe in only partial traits of this God, which is essentially too insignificant to be considered believing (accroding to Math, you need at least 50% to round up).

That is an excellent post Aqua. I am curious to know, what church are you a part of? (I'm not sure if you already have stated this and I've forgotten it in this 162 post discussion, or if the assumption built into my question is incorrect, but yeah.)

I see religion as a way for insecure people to live their life by the rules of a "higher power." I mean no insult, but aren't you secure enough about yourself, to make decisions without consulting the bible, or the quaran? We as, humans should be pure enough to do whats right. Me? I'm going to do what is my definition of right. I know I'm not not perfect, but I'm secure enough to make my own decisions.

How is consulting the bible any different than consulting advice from your friends or past experiences? They are all methods used to determine a course of action. Also, that's like saying a person doing math problems shouldn't consult a math book that contains the formula on how to solve a problem. Sure you have the possibility of correctly solving the problem without resorting to looking up the formula, but why not? Especially, if it is a truly perplexing problem or situation.

Also, like I said earlier, the very root of the matter is does God exist or not? If God does not exist, then you are correct that acting upon religion is merely a mental crutch. But if God does exist, then how does relying upon an actual entity that is indeed higher than you an expression of insecurity rather than a valid action? Basically, every single religious argument is founded upon whether or not God exists. In which case, it is really not a matter of insecurity, but rather an incorrect foundation of thinking, or vice versa.

I disagree.

@Ironheart:
What does "atheist aren't very trusted in america" even mean...?

---

@Aqua:
|> I'm a university student, thus I do have basic scientific knowledge (not complete ignorant).

Whoa, one moment, I did not use the word "ignorant", and I didn't mean to imply it either (nor, by the way, did I even think it)!

Actually, I know that being a Christian and being a scientist are by no means mutually exclusive properties. Ignoring the USA for a moment (where there seems to be a strong expectation from "society" that everyone should be Christian) and just looking at the Netherlands (where, especially among the younger generations, the number of religious people is rapidly declining). My university has three religious and/or Christian associations. When I first started studying, I was surprised when I learned about the first one, imagine my astonishment when I found out about the others.
I don't know the exact number of members each of them has, but one of them has a picture on their site showing an event for their members which looks to have at least 50 people present (there's no reason to assume that's all their members). On a total student population of approximately 7000 (and over a hundred associations of all kinds fighting for members and attention :p ), that's actually quite big. Also, it by no means implies just 1% of our students is Christian; it means at least 1% is Christian *and* considers that to be a very important part of their life/identity. [For comparison, statistically speaking there should be roughly 350 students who are gay or lesbian; the gay/lesbian student association was terminated a few years ago because the last two or three members just couldn't run the association any longer.] While it's extremely difficult to guestimate how many Christian students we have, I *am* sure it's by no means negligible.
Most of them are perfectly reasonable people, who you can have a discussion with just fine and aren't judgemental or closed-minded or anything (and they make great pancakes! (that joke will be lost on anyone who isn't from my university though :p )). Whether or not they're *right* about God existing? Who knows, I don't, they don't, nobody does. But I have no intention of trying to convert them; I'll explain my reasons, listen to theirs and (with very high likelihood) at the end of the night we'll go home "agreeing to have different ideas" (I don't think "disagree" is the right word).

I'd like to bump the thread, but I don't feel like reading all the posts :P

Gay Catholic Atheist here.

My culture is Catholic but I don't believe in (any) god. I have been raised as a Catholic and have read most of the bible and part of Qran.

I think religions (at least in this point in history) are pernicious and dangerous, and do not do any good. But they aren't equally dangerous some of them are more than others. My top 10 of the worst religions are the following:

1- Islam
2- Christianity
3- Buddhism
5- Hinduism
6- Shintoism

However I find Judaism quite cool. At least they don't try to convert anyone!

can you explain why each is dangerous i disagree with some i don't get why buddhism which is more of a way of life than religion is even on the list.(So sure somechinese buddhist set themselves on fire in protest against the government but they are fighting for their human rights and not killing others).
And i bet you used stereotypes to determine your own list after all not all muslims are terrorist or force their religion on you and are nice people most are peaceful.Shinto is more of a way of life to their believers and i don't know much about shinto and why's its dangerous.
Your list is not even backed up with a reason
why this religions are dangerous.

For those of you interested in debating religion I can recommend a good book called "the God delusion" by Richard Dawkins. Dont know if this has been mentioned earlier, didnt read through all the posts.

Those of you who like to read have probably heard of the book. Its very well written and easy to read. The only negative thing I have to say about it is that Dawkins ridicules religios people a bit. But the book is a good counterweight to religious literature.

religions are dangerous to societies and religious people for various reasons, not only violence. religion retards cultures in the fields of science and technology as well as justice systems, and sometimes art.

also, people are born into religion, they rarely choose their religion, and being brought up in a religious way can damage people.

so when he means islam is dangerous he isnt referring to the very minor issue of terrorism, but things such as the subjugation of women.

ps not every buddhist is a xiaolin showdown ninja monk cuddly non-violent protestor. they perpetrate a caste system in india - that's apartheid.

I love these hating posts that get revived. You gotta attack christianity to win... lemme just say who here thinks they were made by randomly exploding gases... thats straight, not

I'd like to jump in here as well (kind of sad I didn't see this when it first appeared). You could say I'm an atheist, but I *do* realise that a god can exist... it's just that the odds are so stacked against that possibility, in my view, for it to be a plausible theory.

I find religion to be a purely limiting part of our culture. It doesn't offer anything and only imposes rules and regulations on our every day lives. More and more people nowadays are realising that those restrictions are not requirements for a healthy and prosperous life, thereby relieving our society of the tensions between sects and beliefs. The shift is very intriguing to me and I'm excited to live in that transitional period.

Of course, there are still those parents thinking they are doing the best for their children by imposing their beliefs on them, something I vehemently oppose.

I like talking about religion in general (as opposed to one in particular). Most of my criticism applies to all flavours of religion and therefore it's a little unfair to single them out.

I'm pretty saddened by "proofthatgodexists.org", especially when I went for "absolute truth does not exist" and was subsequently confronted with two independently contradicting choices...

Anyway, I read most of the thread and I'm impressed with the points laid out by RvW (a clearly experienced logician) and devilnis. Not digging Lykus' comments though. He could have gone about his arguments in a very different way.

@wm x
sure there are issues in some religions but it is not a reason to insult people of faith.Plus religions are not harmfull to society and help society many religions believe in giving to charities and many religious charities exist.Plus being born into a religion is not dangerous the parents brought the children to life and teaching them morales which religion gives and ideas is not a bad thing however many people on into a religion as they are independent they have a choice to stick with it or dump it.
now please don't use the word retard to insult people and need to call people idits now lets be civil and exchange opinions or let this die again.

@agaynondanishprince:

You can't post a list like that without giving the slightest bit of reasoning behind it...!

---

@x:

|> also, people are born into religion, they rarely choose their religion, and being brought up in a religious way can damage people.

Then where did the first religious people come from? Or, how did religion ever get so big? I also fail to see how it can "damage" people.

|> so when he means islam is dangerous he isnt referring to the very minor issue of terrorism, but things such as the subjugation of women.

Where did you learn about Islam? For instance, Turkey is an Islamic country (granted, by and large they're pretty "mild", but still Islamic) where men and women have equal rights.
(Besides, singling out Islam is unfair; Christianity isn't much better than Islam on this subject. It started with twelve out of twelve apostles being male, and even today women are still not eligible to become pope.)

|> ps not every buddhist is a xiaolin showdown ninja monk cuddly non-violent protestor. they perpetrate a caste system in india - that's apartheid.

I have to admit not knowing the details of the caste system, but are you sure it deserves a label as bad as "apartheid"? That's a pretty serious accusation...

---

@1st Marine Division:

|> lemme just say who here thinks they were made by randomly exploding gases

If you're asking who believes in the Big Bang and evolution, \*raises hand\*. You can ridicule it all you want, but please keep in mind the creationist version of the story can be ridiculed at least as badly as the scientific version.

---

@ericleb010:

|> I find religion to be a purely limiting part of our culture. It doesn't offer anything and only imposes rules and regulations on our every day lives.

It can offer people (some amount of) peace of mind when they're going through a difficult time (losing a loved one, being very ill themselves, ...). Now, the question whether that peace of mind (afterlive, heaven) has any relation with reality is a different question (which is as unanswerable as "Does God exist?"), but it seems to help anyway. I'd say that counts as "offering something".

|> Of course, there are still those parents thinking they are doing the best for their children by imposing their beliefs on them, something I vehemently oppose.

In all fairness, I don't think it's possible to raise a child without imposing at least a fair bit of your own beliefs on them. And I don't just mean that raising a child without religion is just as much "imposing your beliefs" as raising them with some religion (even though that too seems a valid argument), it goes much further than that.
For instance, I've always loved travelling abroad..., ever since my parents took me on vacation ever summer holiday. I know the words sound pretty stupid in this context, but technically, they "imposed" their believe that travelling is great on me. There is a very real chance that if we'd stayed at home every holiday, I would love going camping in my own country.
This illustrates two things. First, it's impossible *not* to let your own believes at least "rub off" on your children (or, to a lesser degree, on your friends). Second, this is not necessarily a bad thing.

|> I'm pretty saddened by "proofthatgodexists.org", especially when I went for "absolute truth does not exist" and was subsequently confronted with two independently contradicting choices...

I know how you feel; it started out okay, looked promising..., then all of a sudden turned hopelessly "I am right and you are wrong and I'll explain you why in the most condescending way I can possibly think of". Pity...

|> Anyway, I read most of the thread and I'm impressed with the points laid out by RvW (a clearly experienced logician) and devilnis.

Thank you. I'm a computer science student; we had a course on formal logic in our very first semester, so I'd better be good at it! :p

What you call imposing your beliefs, they call teaching their children. If a parent believes something to be true, telling him not to tell his child about it is pretty ridiculous.

"What you call imposing your beliefs, they call teaching their children. If a parent believes something to be true, telling him not to tell his child about it is pretty ridiculous." - francisco vile

I'm not saying anyone should or should do anything. (However, I personally would not impose any views on my children, and would try to promote knowledge, understanding, and making decisions for yourself.) I agree with you, people instill their beliefs in their children regardless of the belief, whether it be racism, politics, religion, music tastes, etc.

However you must further make the observation that some of these learned behaviours have a negative impact.

----

"I have to admit not knowing the details of the caste system, but are you sure it deserves a label as bad as "apartheid"? That's a pretty serious accusation..."

Yes. From birth, people are in one caste, and there is no mobility. The lowest caste are called 'The Untouchables'. Go figure. And I suggest you not make accusations about my accusations in admitted ignorance.

----

"Then where did the first religious people come from? Or, how did religion ever get so big?"

I don't know what in my post merits a demand for a history of religion. Religion originated at the dawn of humanity, when hominids started to become truly human, with art and suchlike. Parents passing on things to their children is common in the animal kingdom. Social learning theory.

It's sad when a master logician tries to use a kind of cosmological argument to dispute such a basic claim. :( Maybe you might like to explain to me why children of muslim parents so often turn out to be muslims rather than jews, and vice versa?

----

"I also fail to see how it can "damage" people."

To quote just a single example from the God Delusion, a woman brought up in christianity wrote to dawkins telling her how when she was a child, another child she knew died, and she was informed by those "morale teachers" (to quote ironheart) that the dead child, a heathen, would be going not to Heaven but Hell.

If you want a general case, many religious people will be taught that various natural human things are sins - homosexuality, masturbation, eating seafood, sex before marriage etc etc. A gay teenager being brought up under Leviticus: do you have the empathy to be able to understand how that might be damaging?

----

"Where did you learn about Islam? For instance, Turkey is an Islamic country (granted, by and large they're pretty "mild", but still Islamic) where men and women have equal rights.
(Besides, singling out Islam is unfair; Christianity isn't much better than Islam on this subject. It started with twelve out of twelve apostles being male, and even today women are still not eligible to become pope.)"

Yeah, the monotheistic religions aren't dissimilar. I was picking a single example, I'm no Islamophobe. And I wasn't suggesting that all muslims discriminate against women.

You give an example of a religious country where the genders are relatively equal. You then give another example of inequality ingrained in the structure of a religion. I don't believe it's difficult to understand that progress in femininism occurs *despite* religion. Organised religion makes it incredibly difficult to make the genders equal, and it sometimes actively fights progress. In the first world, in the 21st century, there's still a debate over whether women can be clergy in one of the more progressive strands of christianity. Atheists don't impose social orders that make women inferior. The general public doesn't do that anymore. They try to break down such cancerous frameworks. But religious people are working to preserve them. Maybe if these people weren't so confident in their gods and holy books, it would be easier for them to see how retarded they are (yeah, I said it, misogyny is retarded).

You can say that although most religious people retard cultures, some help cultures progress. A religious person invented algebra, another religious person sentenced Galileo to house arrest. The Old Testament contains Ecclesiastes, as well as Genesis and Leviticus. But religion as a whole sets us backwards.

You might also say that it is humans who are good or bad, and that they are good or bad irrespective of religion. I would agree. But the people in Saudi Arabia banning women from driving and leaving the house without a male companion ain't atheists.

---

"now please don't use the word retard to insult people"

tee hee hee. "retard" is also a verb, go find a dictionary.

---

I don't know why I wasted my time writing any of this. I was just trying to defend the good prince. Sorry for going all Gui on everyone.

Note: I'm amoral, so my uses of "good" and "bad" pertain to your basic utilitarian standards.

However, as we all know, the driving forces of humanity (according to Bentham), pain and pleasure, are felt by us thanks to natural selection, which knows no morality. Obviously, the release of serotonin isn't "good", nor are feelings of pain "bad", since both help us to survive. And surviving isn't "good" or "bad", and those genes aren't selfish, they're just doing the only thing that they can. It's simply a law of nature: your desire to survive is no different to gravity pulling you downwards.

(Hint: I'm trying to take this thread to new, more interesting places)

Preachers, keep on preachin', teachers, keep on teachin', trolls, keep on trollin', haters, keep on hatin', 'cause it won't be too long (oh no).

"I also fail to see how it can "damage" people."

Struggling to comprehend this. "Hey kid, let me tell you about this man in the sky. Once there was a guy with an awesome life, so he killed all his children, wife, and livestock, and servants, and destroyed all his posessions, and gave him all kinds of diseases, to see if the guy would still believe in him afterwards. Once, he killed a whole bunch of people who didn't believe in him. Once, he told this old guy to kill his little boy, to see if he would do it! He stops some bad things from happening, but he also lets other bad things happen. Also, he knows everything you say, do, and think. If you don't say, think, and do the correct things, after you die, you will live in horrible pain forever!" Yeah, can't imagine how that isn't awesome for young children to believe in.

Well I just spent 25 minutes I'll never get back reading this posts. I've com to a solid conclusion.

THIS IS AN ONLINE FORUM FOR WAR GAMES. NOTHING YOU SAY/DO/THINK WILL CHANGE ANYONE ELSES OPINION. PLEASE STOP THINKING IT WILL. ATHEISTS WILL KEEP BEING ATHEISTS AND RELIGIOUS PEOPLE WILL KEEP ON PRAYING. DEAL WITH IT.

Seriously, this is getting a bit old guys.

playing warlight wont change the world either. doesnt mean you shouldnt do it. its not my intention to convert anyone to atheism, i just enjoy arguing sometimes.