Religion is not evil

[Nicole Friedman]

Ah so you are going for the 'meaningless definition' get out.

What do you actually mean by 'higher intelligence' and how is it a 'God'.

What 'very definition' of God are you referring to?

If it's unknowable it doesn't exist, by definition.

A higher intelligence is just that. God is just a name that people use to explain the unexplainable. If there is anything out there, I recognize that I have no clue what it could possibly be.
By scientific standards of course it can't be proven- but that does not mean God does not exist. Science as of now is limited to our senses. Certainly you can aknowledge that there is more to the universe than our bodies are capable of observing with our 5 senses. Granted that alone does not prove that there is a God, but it does show that we do not possibly know everything.

 

[westprog]

I don't think people don't care per say, but they don't want to see it. It allowed things like the Holocaust to happen. I think seeing it means that they have to recognize that it's happening, which would make them feel uncomfortable.

I think Reagan perfected the concept of simply telling people the things they wanted to hear, and just ignoring what he didn't want to think about. (Though it's a technique not confined to one particular political grouping).

 

[Nicole Friedman]

Atheism doesn't have to be the belief that God does not exist. Atheism can be the lack of belief that god exists.

That's semantics; the lack of a belief is a belief that something is not there.

 

[RedRatSnake]

Oh yes, one of those irregular verbs.

I provide objective information, you attempt to persuade people, he brainwashes.

By reading all the posts you have made to protect religion, i can tell you are already to far gone from the brainwashing, God good luck.

Edit : to say, this topic is just as crazy as those nut balls that think there is a Bigfoot Running around the world.

 

[Resume]

If someone said those words to my husband's face I would punch them out- because taking away a person's hope is just as evil if not more so

She says "let people believe what they want" and that is immediately translated into "you want to punch us in the face".

Sometimes on this forum it's as if the posts are from very simple word recognition scripts.

You're right of course. Punch out instead of punch in the face.

 

[Mudcat]

How is it wrong unless you're being forced by gunpoint to believe in it? Last I checked, mosques, churches and synagogues have a door. What's wrong with people making up their own minds about what to believe or what not to believe? If you don't like what a religion has to say, walk out the door.

A point of contention if I may. What makes you think I would be there in a first place?

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

You're generalizing beliefs which is preposterous; are you going to argue with an 8 year old who still believes in the tooth fairy? Some beliefs are extremely harmful- eradicate those. But others simply are not. Or they're in a "gray" area. If someone chooses to debate with you go ahead- but the idea that you need to eradicate all beliefs that YOU feel are wrong makes no sense.

So you weren't generalising beliefs when you said 'what's wrong with letting people have their beliefs?'

At least you now seem to be conceding the point that it's wrong to just let people have some beliefs.

Nobody here wants to eradicate beliefs that they simply feel are wrong but some beliefs do cause harm and need to be challenged. Some of these beliefs are rooted in religion.

Generally (there's that word again) the God beliefs that religions peddle are harmful. Even if you balance that with some proposed benefit that comes from religion there is very little justification for maintaining the negative aspects of their beliefs.

There is no additional benefit from peddling a God that created the Universe, and loves everyone, and wants us to be nice to each other AND just happens to think that being gay is bad. Or that just happens to also be offended by life-saving medicine.

Why not simply stick with a God that created the universe, loves everyone blahblahblah and doesn't have a problem with gays or medicine?

Even if you think religion is mostly good, accepting a God that is even mostly good but 10% a complete **** that does horrible things is just unnecessary. Bearing in mind that the religions themselves have invented and embraced the ****ish parts just as much as the good parts. To what end?

Either you believe the nonsense that some ancient people had a direct line to the mind of a higher intelligence that communicated his pet peeves to them or you accept that the churches are maintaining these negative aspects of their religions because they are simply nasty ****s.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

 

[Mudcat]

A higher intelligence is just that. God is just a name that people use to explain the unexplainable. If there is anything out there, I recognize that I have no clue what it could possibly be.

By this alone we can rule religion irrelevant if not evil. Any race, civilization or individual being that sufficiently more advanced than us we couldn't have any meaningful kind of contact with them now, never mind 5,000 years ago.

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

A higher intelligence is just that. God is just a name that people use to explain the unexplainable. If there is anything out there, I recognize that I have no clue what it could possibly be.
By scientific standards of course it can't be proven- but that does not mean God does not exist. Science as of now is limited to our senses. Certainly you can aknowledge that there is more to the universe than our bodies are capable of observing with our 5 senses. Granted that alone does not prove that there is a God, but it does show that we do not possibly know everything.

'A higher intelligence' could mean anything.

If Bob next door is smarter than me is he a God?

If an alien race with advanced technology created the Earth are they Gods?

Am I God to next door's cat?

God is not simply a name that people use to explain the unexplainable. Some god are entities that some people claim to understand the preferences of for example.

If you are simply going to define God as 'something' then you are merely creating a meaningless concept. If you want to work with your concept of God fine, but you render all religions meaningless as there is simply nothing that can be derived from 'God is something', there is no 'and so...' that follows from this definition.

As far as I am aware, there is no significant religion on this planet that teaches that there may be 'something' in the universe that we do not know anything about but we have no way of knowing anything at all about it and therefore we shouldn't draw any conclusions about it or what it did or didn't do or does or doesn't want or how its existence or non-existence might or might not impact on our lives.

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

How is it wrong unless you're being forced by gunpoint to believe in it? Last I checked, mosques, churches and synagogues have a door. What's wrong with people making up their own minds about what to believe or what not to believe? If you don't like what a religion has to say, walk out the door.

Religion has influence beyond the doors of the church. I can't believe you seriously think the answer to unpleasant ideas is to let the people who believe them just get on with it unchallenged.

 

[Humes fork]

Simply because you say atheism is not a believe does not make that statement true. Until science can prove that God does not exist, atheism is a belief.

Archeological and historical evidence point toward that the exodus is a mythical event that never took place in history. What do you make of that?

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

. My point is that this harm can be addressed without destroying the good things that religion provides.

If that is truly the case then can you explain to me why religions have not done so? In most cases they have had multiple centuries to get their houses in order. Why should it be beholden on non-theists to work out some compromise position whereby we can tether the negative aspects of religion when they are not prepared to do so themself?

Or to put it another way, if someone brings me a sandwich every morning and kicks me in the nuts before leaving is it really necessary that I negotiate with them to ease up on the nut-kicking? If I ask them to stop the nut kicking and they continue to do so at what point do I conclude that nut-kicking is just part of the deal and tell them I don't want their sandwiches any more?

 

[tsig]

Just save your breath. It has become more than obvious that the bunch of hostile atheists who can't think straight, as evidenced around here, is not up to anything else than attack religion with primitive weapons. Those folks just found religion a target to compensate for their personal failures. Anything can be abused and that obviously includes religion. So what do you expect that the atheistic fundies would gather around to urinate on?

You don't grok the water sharing ritual, bro?

 

[Mudcat]

Archeological and historical evidence point toward that the exodus is a mythical event that never took place in history. What do you make of that?

Further there is no verifiable evidence for Abraham, Moses, Sarrah, Issac, Cain, Able, Adam, Eve... well to make the list much shorter, all signs point to pretty much every single character in the Torah as being entirely non-existent.

 

[tsig]

Ewww

I used to call the "average church" come-and-go cults because people don't have to stay "on the compound" in order to be under the influence and control. They can still go to Vegas on vacation and stay indoctrinated.

Yep, once they're infected with the brainworm you can allow them out among the populace hopefully to infect others.

 

[Limbo]

Further there is no verifiable evidence for Abraham, Moses, Sarrah, Issac, Cain, Able, Adam, Eve... well to make the list much shorter, all signs point to pretty much every single character in the Torah as being entirely non-existent.

OK when people think that looking at archaeological historical evidence to prove or disprove God is a good idea, then I know that they have absolutely no idea what religion and myth actually are. Unfortunately, that's most people.

 

[Pup]

Unfortunately many atheists feel that because religion doesn't provide comfort to them, or that they believe that it provides "false" comfort, then religions are automatically irrelevant. First of all, no one can honestly say that religions provide false comfort, for unless you're actually dead, how can you know what exists or doesn't exist after death? Would you go up to a person and tell them that their father who recently died didn't go to heaven or somewhere else, that they're really gone forever? If someone said those words to my husband's face I would punch them out- because taking away a person's hope is just as evil if not more so than some of the things people on this board are accusing religion of.

If someone came up to me and told me that a dead loved one was in heaven, that person also would not know what exists after death, for the same reason. That person would also be trying to take away the comfort I feel in accepting death immediately, rather than going into denial where I'd need to drag out the stages of grief.

Unfortunately, many theists think that because atheism wouldn't provide comfort and closure to them, then the way I as an atheist deal with grief must be irrelevant and worthy of no respect.

Do you think theists usually avoid telling an atheist that his recently-deceased loved one is in heaven?

Do you think I would be justified in punching a theist in the face, if they did tell me that?

Or are only theists allowed to silence others with violence, when they feel like it?

 

[tsig]

The idea of a a higher intelligence anywhere in this universe. And it has not been disproven because the very definition of God means that it's unknowable with our limited human senses. No

Yet, you know about it, how is that?

 

[Nicole Friedman]

A point of contention if I may. What makes you think I would be there in a first place?

It's obvious you wouldn't, but other people obviously would and do.