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.

what is humanity without science, spirituality, imagination and intellectual curiosity? denying any of these doesn't make sense. balance is an essential part of the good life.

Sadly, science, imagination and intellectual curiosity make spirituality impossible.

I am a europien christian and i agree Tacticus and [WM} x

P.S The first point he made and the one just above. (The points i agree with)

i don't think that can be found some proof about the existance of God, or things that can erase spiruality from people. religion is just a question of belief, u can believe in God, u can believe that God Doesnt exist or u have no beliefs and u admitt ur ignorance about everything that u dont know (agnosticism). i was agnostic for the last 8 years and this year i have found out into myself a real christian belief without any philosofical or scientifical researches (totally unuseful). dont know if u are aknowledged with cartesium theories but trust me even if someone scientifically demonstrate that every religion is a joke, this still wouldnt be a proof about the non existance of God. i think that nothing should be said about religion among serious people cos it is just an inner question of belief. most of the big arguments about religion were born for the fact that some people (religious or not) havent understood this simple fact (mainly cos i think that they have no respect of the other) and use religion just to demonstate their hate about a category of people (mostly the church). so if we want to discuss about church's faults or scientists' faults is a thing, but i still think that nothing can be seriously said about religion and God.

I think the religion is similar like the wine: the small amount can be medicine, but beyond a certain amount it become poison.

I born as christian, but I can say calmly that the Bible contains historical facts and fairytales too. People who take too seariously the religion lost their reality sense and become dummy fundamentalist.

This is our cultural heritage. Not just God, but Allah, Jahve, Ahura Mazda, Shiva, Visnu, Brahma, Krisna, Buddha, Zeus, Odin, Ra, Mithras, Manitu, Kilulu, etc., etc.

I cant imagine bigger nonsense that all of this guys just fabulous fictional characters, except one who seariously honestly a real existing human-like allmighty superguy. This is a weak joke.

@x:

|> (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.

Are you making a distinction between a "view" and a "belief"? Because if they're synonyms, you contradict yourself.

|> 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.

I only said calling something "apartheid" is a serious accusation; it was a request for clarification / confirmation, not a statement you were wrong to apply it.

|> |> |> 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.

|> I don't know what in my post merits a demand for a history of religion.

If people rarely choose their religion, "inheriting" it from their parents (and if we assume evolution, instead of creationism), then which were the first parents to teach their children religion?

The point was not to start a discussion about the origins of religion, the point was to show that apparently many people at some point *chose* to become religious, so it must have something to offer. (Sure, nowadays plenty of people choose *not* to be religious, so it's a valid question whether religion *still* has something to offer. However, I still disagree with your apparent believe that all religion is bad.)

|> 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?

That's a good point, but you seem to be only focusing on the bad sides.

I think you might misunderstand my point of view, so let's make it explicit:

- I'm not religious myself, but I don't like people flaming religion (or anything else for that matter) undeservedly. Some of my points may be me being "Devil's Advocate" (no pun intended; just don't know another name for the concept).
- I "dislike" (to put it mildly) the hardcore extremists just as much as you do. However, I think you are *also* taking it out on religious people who are far more "relaxed", following the core of their religion (be a decent human being, pray every once in a while, wear a cross necklace / headscarf / kacchera / whatever), without hurting anyone else.
Basically, people can teach about Heaven and how you have to be a good person to enter and only explain about Hell when asked "What if I don't go to Heaven?" (and including "But you have to be utterly horrible to go *there*, you shouldn't worry about it, you're a nice kid.").
If you don't know anyone like that, I assure you, they exist, there's a lot of them even. Go watch Dawson's Creek for an example (from fiction, but still demonstrating the point). The grandmother of Jenn (??) is strictly religious, but has a boy living in her house who turns out to be gay, which she is okay with. Can't remember the exact dialogue, but the gist of it was "God created him this way" and "Who are *you* to take it upon yourself to deliver God's punishment".

Btw, just out of curiosity, which religion forbids eating seafood? I do know that Christianity tells people not to eat meat on Fridays (??), but that actually caused people to eat seafood instead (the closest thing to meat that was allowed -- it's even been blamed as one of the reasons for the near-extinction of the beaver; because of the scales on its tail it counted as seafood, so people ate beaver meat every Friday... :s ).

|> 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.

My bad, I read that as an attack on Islam.

|> A religious person invented algebra, another religious person sentenced Galileo to house arrest.

Not sure about algebra, but did the invention have anything to do with religion? Or were the two properties "inventor of algebra" and "religious person" present in the same person without actually having anything to do with each other? Galileo getting sentenced to house arrest on the other hand *was* definitely very much related to religion.

|> But the people in Saudi Arabia banning women from driving and leaving the house without a male companion ain't atheists.

I've been told the Saudi air force employs female fighter pilots. Sure, they've got to be driven to work by their husband (Quran forbids women from driving a cart, and by extension a car), but it never said they can't fly a plane (that's what you get for writing your holy book a thousand years before the invention of the plane :p ), so piloting is allowed.

On a more serious note, a bunch of those seemingly-crazy rules of Islam actually made perfect sense *at the time they were invented*. This includes not eating pork (which indeed could get you sick, "back in the day") and the part about women not going out of the house alone (originally, the guy accompanied her *to protect her*, not because she was inferior or anything like that; if you and a friend of yours leave the bar in the middle of the night and you make a detour to walk her home, you're doing the exact same thing...).
I don't know any similar examples from Christianity, but wouldn't be surprised at all if there are.

---

@VaporX:

I hope this doesn't sound hostile (it's *not* intended to), but you are perfectly free to not read this thread, which even has a very descriptive title (we didn't hijack another thread to have this discussion).

---

@Urfang:

|> I think the religion is similar like the wine: the small amount can be medicine, but beyond a certain amount it become poison.

I refuse to delete all the text above I just wrote, even if someone just summed it (and the other 180+ posts in this thread) up in just over one line...

Shame on me, I didnt take the time to read all of this, but some thoughts to what I've read:

@x:
The very definition of a divine wonder is that it is rationally/scientifically spoken impossible. So I dont see the point of scientfical impossibility as an argument against the possibility of wonders, because wonders ARE a priori something impossible that is acclaimed to have actually happened. And after that believe or disbelieve strikes in. And disbelieve comes with the argument of rational possibility - without knowing actually the truth, but believing that the rational world view is correct and therefore out of rational reasons this acclaimed wonder cant have happened.
But it is mere believe to claim that the rational/scientific framing of what is allowed to happen and what is not allowed, has the absolute truth. So it is just believe against believe and neither strikes home with proof. In short: If the materialistic-naturalistic world view of science, in which science is like the bible and got a monopoly to all explanation, is wrong and there is a god, the argument with rational possibility would already be wrong before stated.

@Ace:
The point with all this suffering in this world is according to the bible that this world has itself parted from God by Adam's fall. The spirit that rules this world is Satan. He says as much to Jesus himself and Jesus does not deny that. It's just a very simple reason.
So you can view this world since Adam's fall as Satan's bonus. No man is free, but under that rule of Satan and of sin. And the effects of sin lead necessarily to death via suffering, because sin is sort of anti-love and unwise. And Jesus broke the spritual hegemony of Satan in this bonus to bring back the life and the love and the realm of God into this world to free his own and bring them back to the realm of their and his father which is God. But there are those who rather live under the rule of Satan and dont want to be freed from that. Thats the story in a nutshell.

|> But it is mere believe to claim that the rational/scientific framing of what is allowed to happen and what is not allowed, has the absolute truth. So it is just believe against believe and neither strikes home with proof.

When science says "mass attracts mass" (~= "gravity exists") you can simply say "I don't believe it", of course. Yet anyone can perform a demonstration. Anyone with at least a highschool education (and a semi-decent grade in physics) can even calculate just exactly how much two bodies attract each other.

When the Bible says "Jezus turned water into wine" or "Mozes parted the Red Sea" or any other miracle, there's not a person on this planet who can give you a demonstration.

Of course, I'm the first to admit that a *demonstration* is by no means a *proof* (and science cannot possibly proof anything, ever; Google "falsifiability" if you don't know what I'm talking about). On the other hand, a demonstration (or rather, countless demonstrations and not a single one demonstration of two masses not attracting each other, despite countless attempts) is at the very least a lot "closer" to a proof than "this story (first told two millennia ago, being retold and retold for centuries before being written down for the first time) says so, therefore it must be true".

way to go hamlet, reviving a 3 month old dead thread and re-started an age old debate..