first of all, i’m glad this hasn’t developed into something far worse than it could have. most wars ever fought have had some type of religious component, so obviously there had better be something to this. personally, i believe that whoever tries to be a good person and believes that there is a god, will get their version of heaven. if you don’t, no big deal. it can be argued either way, i guess maybe i shouldn’t have started in on this, but really, let’s just all agree to disagree. i’m too tired to be thinking straight, so i’m just going to stop before i ramble too much more.
The funny thing is:
If god exists, does it then matter what the people “personally” think?
If god exists, does a divine truth exists? Does that include universal laws of adoration?
So, does this “i believe in God because it does me nothing bad, and just in case i will then be on the safer side” count as true faith?
That’s not it at all. That was simply a response to someone who thinks that believing in God is a waste of time. :(
believing in god is not necessarily a waste of time, because i know plenty of believers who dont practice in any way. i think what it is is a false hope. like many false hopes, its not necessarily a bad thing, but it can prove to be one of the worst things there is.
Grigory said:
most wars ever fought have had some type of religious component
how true it is. one of many examples is the crusades, which cost thousands (im sure more, but i dont want to overestimate) of lives.
the islamic terrorist groups are examples as well. true, they are not the true representation of an islamic person, as it is a peaceful religion, but they are acting in the name of god (or allah) none the less.
ill leave with this thought.
while religion can be a very good thing, bringing joy, wonder, and meaning to people’s lives, and inspiring them to be good, honest people, it can also be a terrible thing, bringing pain and suffering, and inspiring mass slaughters, and countless “holy” wars. while you can see this as a regretful occurence, but think the benefits outweigh them, i think that religion of any kind, when practiced on any kind of large scale only leads to problems, and i think that belief in god is one thing, while religion is something truly different. if you choose to believe in god, that is all well and good, but it should be a private thing. if there truly is a god, i seriously doubt that it would require sacraments and rituals to be considered a “good, decent person” who belongs in heaven, or your belief equivalent. i think that religion should be abolished everywhere
i think that religion should be abolished everywhere
ahhh yes. To do away with all of the hospital and prison chaplains i’m sure would improve the lives of patients and prisoners, as well as their keepers - nurses, doctors, prison guards everywhere . . . .:roll:
And how would we “abolish religion”? Where and who would be first? Do we destroy the churches with worshippers in them, or afterwards? And how do we amend that whole “freedom of religion” thing? I guess it’s easy to have freedom of religion if there is none, of course, but you appear to be forgetting the basis for the founding and settling of your country.
For me, i am nhappy to not negatively affect others by the practice of my religion - which nicely fits into the auspices of my religion . . . .
Exactly CC, I was just at the hospital and I walked right by the chapel. That made me think about how important it is to some people, and (whether you can factiously prove it or not) I guarantee you that it improves the quality of life for a patient if they are able to pray to their God before they go in for that major operation. Aren’t religious? Don’t pray. But don’t try to take it away from all of us.
theres a difference between prayer and religion. you can believe in a god, and pray to a god, but not practice a religion. as i was saying, private belief in god is fine, many people privately believe in worse things. this can include prayer. you can still pray, even if religion is abolished.
theres a difference between prayer and religion. you can believe in a god, and pray to a god, but not practice a religion. as i was saying, private belief in god is fine, many people privately believe in worse things. this can include prayer. you can still pray, even if religion is abolished.
so how do you abolish religion without abolishing everything that is important to religious and spiritual people?
well i could give you a lot of answers for that.
Id say its pretty much a combination of all three, Im sure it could be done, even if werent too popular. But I think its pretty much unimportant. Because like most of my grandiose ideas, I realize it will probably never come to pass.
that was me, sorry, i forgot to log in
I’ve missed a lot in this thread since I had to leave for while. Can someone fill me in on what has happened since I left?
@Anonymous:
well i could give you a lot of answers for that.
- Im an idea man, I dont do the details (true in some cases)
- It doesnt matter if that occurs (the end justifies the means)
- Removing religion is one of those things that may not be possible. Even if you think its a good idea, like I do, you may have to accept the possibility that it wont be accepted
Id say its pretty much a combination of all three, Im sure it could be done, even if werent too popular. But I think its pretty much unimportant. Because like most of my grandiose ideas, I realize it will probably never come to pass.
so how would this all benefit you if it came to pass? And have you considered the consequences on religion’s adherents?
If you think that getting rid of religion would solve the world’s problems, then its really time to take your head out of your a$$. People are going to be mean, rude and ugly to each other, and if they can not do it under the banner of a religion, then they will do it under the banner of a principality, ruler, money, or just plain orneryness. It’s like blaming Van Halen for some punk killing someone who loves rock and roll.
interesting comparison CC, but its not quite the same. actual wars have been conducted in the name of religion, as have terrorist acts. while i see where you are coming from, dont even try to compare it to the van halen scenario you posed, they are not at all the same. if you think that i think it will solve all the worlds problems, then you should take your head out of your own a$$. no one thing could solve all the world’s problems, there are too many of them, and many of them are unrelated. but lets not digress. you asked how this would benefit me, well it wouldnt necessarily, but it doesnt have to. there could be a direct benefit to me, other than me being happy that religion is gone, but i think it is just a good idea, so i dont need any direct benefit from it
Janus1 wrote:
… actual wars have been conducted in the name of religion, …but for the sake of power
the terrorists like al qaeda are conducting a jihad in their eyes. they are fighting a holy war, in the name of religion, and about religion as well. they are seriously screwed up in their interpretation of the religion, but that just further serves my point
But anyone can abuse any institution, idea, event, or person. In fact, taking something inherently good and defacing it with violent action is even more reprehensible (IMO) than random jerk-ness. So what do we destroy after religion is gone, in order to remove another way for people to be evil? The Van Halen example was just to demonstrate that not only may people act evil-ly no matter what they claim to follow/believe in etc., but people are quick to point at the vehical as the problem. In fact the violence of the person is the problem, and religion is simply bastardized.
So: For what reason would getting rid of religion be a “good thing”? and
Why would this make you happy?
I can see where you are coming from CC, often I would find myself agreeing with you. But in the case of religion, Im not blaming it for all the problems, like so many people are so quick to do with rock music, and violent videogames (though you may have gotten that impression). What I mean to say is, religion is clearly the cause of many specific acts of war and violence, and bloodshed, and terror. The overwhelming majority of it is not a bad thing, unless you dont like people feeling good about themselves. But there is also another kind of bad with religion. The religious fanatics, who instead of going to war with others, try to force others to follow their beliefs, through political means, and that applies sometimes to atheists as well (namely, the morons trying to ban the pledge of allegiance because the word “god” is in it). Again, these people are part of the minority. But religion, above all other things, is something which inspires great emotion in people, be it good or bad. Be it hope, anger, happiness, whatever. I think for individual people, religion is often one of the best parts of their lives, or at least a great thing for them to have in it. But when you look at people as a group, religion more often than not is a bringer of problems and conflict. Would people truly be better off without religion? Maybe, maybe not. I personally think so, because anything that inspires great emotion can be a wonderful thing, or a terrible thing, and the line is paper thin. All of this will probably amount to nothing more than rhetoric anyway, as I think it is unlikely that there will ever be a widely accepted attempt to remove religion. If it ever is abolished, more likely it will be the will of some dicatator, or authoritarian government, rather than a popularly accepted practice. If it happens that way, than it will not be truly representative of how it could be, as it will have been taken forcefully from people.
I can see where you are coming from CC, often I would find myself agreeing with you. But in the case of religion, Im not blaming it for all the problems, like so many people are so quick to do with rock music, and violent videogames (though you may have gotten that impression). What I mean to say is, religion is clearly the cause of many specific acts of war and violence, and bloodshed, and terror.
Here is one place where we disagree. Men’s evil and tendency to violence is clearly the cause of many specific acts of war and blah blah blah. Religion may be the battle-cry, but so is “king and country”, patriotism, money/diamonds, power, hatred, revenge, righteousness (the allies in WW II committed war, violence, bloodshed and terror) and violence itself.
The overwhelming majority of it is not a bad thing, unless you dont like people feeling good about themselves. But there is also another kind of bad with religion. The religious fanatics, who instead of going to war with others, try to force others to follow their beliefs, through political means, and that applies sometimes to atheists as well (namely, the morons trying to ban the pledge of allegiance because the word “god” is in it). Again, these people are part of the minority. But religion, above all other things, is something which inspires great emotion in people, be it good or bad. Be it hope, anger, happiness, whatever. I think for individual people, religion is often one of the best parts of their lives, or at least a great thing for them to have in it. But when you look at people as a group, religion more often than not is a bringer of problems and conflict.
I was agreeing with much of what you said until this last point here. I would suggest that people’s reasonability and lack thereof, brings problems and conflict. People of different religions really do not need to be in conflict with each other. If they are, it is usually because:
Would people truly be better off without religion? Maybe, maybe not. I personally think so, because anything that inspires great emotion can be a wonderful thing, or a terrible thing, and the line is paper thin. All of this will probably amount to nothing more than rhetoric anyway, as I think it is unlikely that there will ever be a widely accepted attempt to remove religion. If it ever is abolished, more likely it will be the will of some dicatator, or authoritarian government, rather than a popularly accepted practice. If it happens that way, than it will not be truly representative of how it could be, as it will have been taken forcefully from people.
Well, it may well never be more than repressed. “The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church” is a well known line in religious history circles. Look at the places where a religion was being stamped out - The early church in the Roman Empire (pre-Constantine), the Mennonites/Anabaptists in Holland, Germany, Switzerland, etc., communist countries - i.e. USSR, most formerly eastern block, China . . . . I know of many Christians persecuted in the former USSR but never gave up their faith, imported bibles, went to prison, Siberia, and “other places” rather than give up their God.
The only thing that will stamp out religion will be the end of time.
Janus1 wrote:
… actual wars have been conducted in the name of religion, …but for the sake of power
the terrorists like al qaeda are conducting a jihad in their eyes. they are fighting a holy war…
Did you notice that i might have cut my quote that way, that the notion of terrorists attacks is kept out?
And please explain: how is this “holy war” not about power? How is it not a war against the power of the USA esp. and the west in general??
@cystic:
Men’s evil and tendency to violence is clearly the cause of many specific acts of war and blah blah blah. Religion may be the battle-cry, but so is “king and country”, patriotism, money/diamonds, power, hatred, revenge, righteousness (the allies in WW II committed war, violence, bloodshed and terror) and violence itself.
The religious fanatics, who instead of going to war with others, try to force others to follow their beliefs, through political means, and that applies sometimes to atheists as well (namely, the morons trying to ban the pledge of allegiance because the word “god” is in it). Again, these people are part of the minority. But religion, above all other things, is something which inspires great emotion in people, be it good or bad. Be it hope, anger, happiness, whatever. I think for individual people, religion is often one of the best parts of their lives, or at least a great thing for them to have in it. But when you look at people as a group, religion more often than not is a bringer of problems and conflict.
I fear the fanatics of “economic laws are natural laws” much more, with “profit”, “efficiency”, “profit” and “shareholder value” as battle cries. There power and money (and fear of being punished by their fellows) inspires a whole lot of things, mostly bad.
And, why do you accept the “group” notion, action and responsibility here, in contrast to the “guilty of being white?” thread? There all is a question of individuals. here it isn’t. Please explain how you can judge “guilt by religion” for groups and “guilt by society” by indivuals only?
@CC:
I would suggest that people’s reasonability and lack thereof, brings problems and conflict. …
- they are unreasonable, quick to violence, or have some other character flaw
- their religion commands it. Jews and Christians, i am quite certain, have no commands to commit violence on other people (the opposite, in fact). The same, i believe, is true of Hindus and Buddists
- a religious figure takes advantage of people’s ignorance, devotion and/or ability/willingness to commit violence.
Don’t forget that Islam also preaches peacefulness, IMO as much as Judaism. Buddhists surely are more peaceful, as they don’t have “eye for an eye” (like Jews) nor “spread the word” like Christianity or Islam.
For the first, you forgot one thing that is the only thing which i could accept against religions:
If you start from some assumptions (no matter wether they are "right or “wrong”), and firmly believe in them, so firmly that you cannot doubt them,
then you may the totally reasonable (in your frame then), and still commit acts that others (who don’t believe those assumptions) would see as violent, criminal, unreasonable.
