The Queen v The Pope

I would have said the opposite, religion causes so much trouble because of the religous views held by a person/organisation, rather than people dissmissing religion

 

i would like to say the jews have been more harmful to the world than the catholic churchwell in the modern world anyway and who would you rather follow a religion which was made up pratically by a fat king who had many wifes but couldnt have a son or a religion that dates back to the time of christ easy answer

 

with out religion we would still be savages in my book because of religion the king of old like even before the kingdom of scotland was made stated in a treaty that all women and children should not b harmed during battle or conflicts it was religion that caused them to do this infact the main theme of the catholic religion is to forgive the jews say eye for an eye i dnt hate jews by the way

 

Judaism is a religion, thus, it's harmfull.

Judaism dates back to pre-Babylonian times

The roots of all these religions and more, is ultimatley superstition and recycled fairy tales.

 

We all know that Christ himself was a Jew.
How have the jews been more harmful ?

 

I'm not a practicing Christian, but I agree with you. The biggest thing that gets me angry is when atheists/agnostics feel it is their duty to attack the belief of normal, good, *-fearing people like yourself. To me, it smacks of jealousy that they don't have a crutch to fall back on in times of hardship. I think people know the arguments against organized religion, so at some point it becomes less about good-natured debating and more about yelling your point across.

 

Thats what i meant mate.

 

"We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one * further."
- Dawkins

"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring."
- Carl Sagan

And it becomes such when you don't make a debatable point, but resort to implying people who don't share your beliefs are not "normal, good" people.

 

Kennydal doesn't share my beliefs, and he was the one I called a normal, good person. Did you actually read my post?

Also, I'd argue the opposite on the Carl Sagan quote. Just because he's a smart guy on the way the universe began doesn't mean he's an expert on sociology. In fact, I'd say he fits the example of someone who is jealous he can't have a crutch to fall on in hard times. A lot of Christians I know like to separate science from religion. They know evolution exists, they know the big bang, but they just somehow are able to keep it separate. So that refutes Sagan's quote... they believe all the stuff he talks about but they also have faith at the same time.

 

So your saying people who don't believe in * are jealous of people who do? That's bollox , and I certainly don't. It's a rational choice not to believe in him, and if things are crap, I don't look at someone who believes in * and think, "*, I wish I did, look how brilliant it is, now nothing effects them".
And doesn't believing in * but also in evolution and the big bang contradict believing in *?

 

Misread.

It's a sad, sad look out for humanity if we need to create a fantasy to avoid the realities of life.

Of course, we don't need to. People are only conditioned to think we need to have a crutch that isn't actually there. It's a placebo, it doesn't really do anything. Just because you like the idea doesn't make it real.

It's 100% far more effective to go fix a problem than sit about waiting for * to do it.

No amount of logic can shatter a faith consciously based on a lie.

 

I don't think so, maybe it's because I'm an archaeologist/anthropologist and am fascinated by world religions and traditions and cultures. I just sense hypocrisy because it always seems to be Christianity, Islam, and Judaism that are attacked. What about Buddhists' belief in reincarnation? It is a source of comfort and something their religion is based around. However, either Einstein or Hawking once said that Buddhism is the closest thing to a cosmically accurate religion Earth has produced. I don't see a problem with any of this. Something like reincarnation can't be disproved, so who's to say it isn't real?

Placebos work, it's scientific fact. And the truth of the matter is, it's impossible to disprove. We can take science and physics back so far, but there gets to be a point where it's literally impossible to know what happened in the history of the universe/multiverse. Who's to say someone/thing didn't create that?

I agree... but I haven't met many people who sit around and do nothing because they expect * to do everything for them.

The fact is that people trying to spread Atheism are on different than Evangelical Christians or others like them. Eradicating religion won't solve our problems, people will latch on to different scientific "theories" and then fight over those. We'd be better off trying to train ourselves to abstain from violence and intolerance than we would religion. Both of those virtues are preached in most religions anyways... it's only charismatic leaders and demagogues who corrupt ancient traditions to suit their own desires.

 

so am i getting you on the right page here, you class some who SUPPORTS and DEFENDS 'imperialism and exploitation' of the lands of other people as the same as a 14 year old boy who was by law consripted and forced to join hitler youth.

you need to extend you horizens mate and learn what each of these leaders stand for before posting such an insulting post.

look forward to your reply...

 

can you please explain to me who does uphold or set the bar of 'principal and social growth' if not religion?

*edit* i realise you said Organised Religion... do you mean an Unorganised religion can set the standards of social growth?

 

I think for a few certain people, the act of repressing their sexual desires for an entire lifetime can lead to perverted acts. It's incredibly damaging on the psyche to live celibate indefinitely. The vast majority of pedophiles are people that typically have never been particularly articulate or successful with women, or are intimidated by the opposite *. That's why the target children. Saying that, it's obviously not done that for everyone, or even most, because the vast majority of priests appear to be good people. With that small fraction of others, it just might be enough to make them cross the line.

I just think it's a mistake to completely disregard celibacy as a factor in the recent abuse cases.

 

Organised religions have always taught, in one form or another, against modern changes in society, technology and science. Allowing these three things to grow and advance freely is essential to the growth and bettering of human society. It must teach that its traditions not change, because they are divine and sacred and so on, thus we inevitably find ourselves in more and more positions where this ultra-conservative, traditionalist viewpoint becomes more and more outdated.

Through the fact that they have always had major social influence in almost all cultures, organised religions have thus been able to enforce its belief in minimal social change. You only have to look at the persecutions of science centuries ago to modern religious opposition to new medical treatments to realise all this.

It is no coincidence that, as the power of human ingenuity and technology has taken off since the Renaissance, the power of religious authorities has continually declined. It is because more and more we realise that religion only fills the gaps we don't have adequate answers for.

A disorganised religion, a more personal religion, as daft as it is, at least less of a threat to the rest of us.

 

There's two types of pedophiles... those who are overactive in * and those that are underactive. The underactive act out against people who are less likely to be able to defend themselves, like little children. With priests, it's less about being rejected as it is putting themselves in a position where they aren't allowed to, but it's still a factor. And I'm not using it as the reason for all of the crimes that have been committed, but it is a factor. There are always many factors, but I believe it is one of them, because historically it has been a reason for sexual deviancy.

 

Name whatever religion you want, it all applies the same.

Closest does not mean it's actually close.

Lack of proof for something is adequate proof against it.

This is what I mean about a backward way of thinking.

We don't know, so it must be magic! No, it doesn't work like that. Just because we don't know doesn't automatically prove * did it. All it means is we don't know yet.

 

There is, however, a trend of the abused later becoming the abusers. Which makes one wonder.

 

If you think Buddhism is having a bad effect on the world, I'd suggest you do more research on it.

They wouldn't have referenced it unless they thought it was relatively close. Many physicists are known to be fairly spiritual people who are open to supernatural phenomena existing. I don't mean pseudo-sciences like all these "magic cures" like ionized water being the cure for cancer and AIDS, but they have a much more open mind than you do.

This is a surprisingly un-scientific statement from someone who's trying to be scientific. It's just a flat out untrue statement. Even your previously-mentioned Carl Sagan has called for further study on reincarnation. There are more than a few prominent scientists who have called for scientific study on this subject. They seem to counter your view.

Good job, you've just accused Michio Kaku, Steven Hawking, Albert Einstein, and even Carl Sagan of backwards thinking. Sagan specifically said that it was possible, because it was so difficult to disprove. You are confusing possible and probable. He did not say it was likely, he did not say he believed it, he said you can't refute it. You can not say anything is impossible unless you disprove it. However, it can be exceedingly improbable.

Also, who's to say it's magic? There could be a rational explanation for a creator. It's theoretically possible, if we have the physics right, to literally create a universe. We just don't have the technological wherewithal right now to do it. If someone in another universe did that then technically they'd be "our creator." You are guilty of exactly what you despise by assuming that something you don't understand has to be "magic."

And smiles don't add much to your argument, just to let you know.