• Are we too hard on Religion?
    629 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Sickle;34670512]90% of what you just said is wrong, or just the negative of what he just said. It's quite clear religion is a tool used to control the masses, and nothing more. How you evolve the concept in your own mind has fuck all to do with the original concept.[/QUOTE] Christians were hunted down for the first 300 years of Christianity's existence and were considered a cult until Rome adopted Christianity as its official faith, doesn't seem to me like it was invented purely for world domination but I guess it was since you cited all of your sources and your argument is airtight.
I'm a christian, and as of now, I never judge people by their meanings, but sadly it usually goes to flaming on Facepunch. Being called a idiot, fucker, dumbass or what not doesn't realy mean anything to me.
Some people in this thread disappoint me.
Religions should be treated just like any other false information.
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;34670611]By control the masses I hope you aren't saying its some conspiracy made just for the sake of control. The people at the head of a religion (most anyways) do believe in what they are preaching and only a small amount are actually using it for personal gain.[/QUOTE] It is a conspiracy made for the sake of control and the head people in the religions don't believe in the shit they preach and use it for personal gain all of the time. [editline]13th February 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Funcoot;34670650]I made two points, one of which you disagreed with. That would be 50%. Religion when it was created is not as it is today and it is not used as a device of control today. It was used as such for a brief period in history.[/QUOTE] It would be 45%. It was created to allow for an easier method of subverting masses and attacking other kingdoms. The end. It has no 'spiritual' value what so ever. It is an amazing means of keeping stupid people under your control.
[QUOTE=Sickle;34673134]It is a conspiracy made for the sake of control and the head people in the religions don't believe in the shit they preach and use it for personal gain all of the time.[/QUOTE] Yeah I think you could say jackoffs like [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Falwell]Jerry Falwell[/url] were in it for the money. I think most other people like the Pope are just delusional.
[QUOTE=Persious;34671722]I'm a christian, and as of now, I never judge people by their meanings, but sadly it usually goes to flaming on Facepunch. Being called a idiot, fucker, dumbass or what not doesn't realy mean anything to me.[/QUOTE] You're given me no reason to not respect you so we bros :v:
[QUOTE=Noble;34657117]As far as respecting religion goes, I've said many times I don't need to respect someone's beliefs that involve me going to hell because I don't share their views. I think everyone should have the right to think what they want, but that doesn't mean I need to respect what you think. I think there's nothing wrong with debating religion in the right time and place. Honestly I even get tired of places like r/atheism, where you see some Facebook post of someone saying "god bless your heart" or something, followed by someone going on a 2000 word rant about the horrors of religion, which no one is even going to read.[/QUOTE] I think when you take the route of debate and intelligent discussion, a certain level of compassion needs to be used. The point of a debate is to expose the person to new ways of thinking, and to be exposed yourself. You can't do this when you come from a place of hostility. You have to remember that people see the world differently than you. If you want someone to come to your line of thinking, you have to expose them to it in a non-hostile fashion. You must also be ready to put on the shoes of the person you are debating and try to understand how and why they view the world the way they do. When atheists come from such a level of hostility where they feel the need to belittle and attack the religious, it causes the religious to become further entrenched in their own views, and close themselves off from other ways of thinking. The reverse is also true. How do you feel, as an atheist, when you hear a pastor condemning you to hell, or George Bush Sr. saying that atheists cannot be patriotic citizens? It certainly makes me angry. In fact it gives me a small amount of hate for the religious in general for having someone so horrible on their side, even if I know that he is just an individual saying something stupid.
nope
No. I don't think so anyway. Organized religion is responsible for some of the worst atrocities on mankind, and stopping the human race from progression. Where religion falters is when it becomes massive and organized. It should be a private system of belief if anything, when it starts becoming a form of controlling and influencing a population, that's where it starts to slide down the slippery slope.
It's interesting how people here think that religion was a way of controlling people, however about a thousandish years ago lots of bishops and people in power started using their money to fund universities and research. This made them influential over both science and religion, allowing them to choose who got funding for their research and to shape what was taught to the next generations both religiously and scientifically. However you try to justify it both religion and science, while at their foundations aren't control mechanisms have been used by people in power as such. Furthermore it seems that a lot of people in this thread see religion and science as mutually exclusive, but science is only explaining simple observations, it doesn't explain how or why they happen. For example no one knows why the laws of physics etc exist. Also science, because of this still cannot explain how the universe came into existence and instead just refer to energy instantaneously appearing and creating the universe, which just seems like an explanation from genesis, just using more up to date terminology.
[QUOTE=JaegerMonster;34676978]No. I don't think so anyway. Organized religion is responsible for some of the worst atrocities on mankind, and stopping the human race from progression. Where religion falters is when it becomes massive and organized. It should be a private system of belief if anything, when it starts becoming a form of controlling and influencing a population, that's where it starts to slide down the slippery slope.[/QUOTE] Hey guess what: People have motivations OTHER than religion to do horrible things! And you know what? Some people actually do GOOD things because of religion too!
[QUOTE=kaine123;34659559]I feel that a lot of Facepunchers are unaware of the fact that it's OK for people to hold different ideas than them.[/QUOTE] Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. You are entitled to your own opinion, and the people around you are entitled to their opinion. If you don't want people to share their opinion about your opinion, the only respectful thing to do is to shut the hell up.
[QUOTE=kaine123;34659559]I feel that a lot of Facepunchers are unaware of the fact that it's OK for people to hold different ideas than them.[/QUOTE] Oh dude shut up, just because people have opinions does not mean that we can't dislike those opinions. Sure, people can have them, doesn't mean we like them.
[QUOTE=Erasus;34678211]Oh dude shut up, just because people have opinions does not mean that we can't dislike those opinions. Sure, people can have them, doesn't mean we like them.[/QUOTE] I think I know what he means. I don't think he's talking about people disliking another's views, it's more about not being able to understand the other person's opinion, dismissing it as invalid, or telling them that they should have a different opinion. I think he's talking generally, not just about religious discussions. It's the difference between "That's you're opinion, but I disagree" and "You're wrong". You also see this attitude a lot when people discuss anything opinion-based: games, music, films... I think that people get so tied up in their own opinion, that they can only understand people agreeing with them or directly opposing them. I also think that some people don't understand that their opinions [i]are just opinions[/i], they think that because the opinion in question is held by a lot of people, that it's actually a fact.
[QUOTE=Lilyo;34656893]Why would "any mature person accept another's beliefs"? That's a pretty childish way of going about doing things isn't it? Sure, I can accept your [I]decision[/I] towards having your own beliefs, but why would I have to be content with accepting your beliefs? That's quite absurd. If you believe that a giant man in the sky created the universe and everything in it and that he's responsible for all the good and bad things in the world and that he listens to your thoughts and gives you strength to persevere through hard times, and I believe something different than it would be pretty silly of me to simply say "oh ok, i might have a different belief than you but yours are just as dandy, have a great day and btw don't hate me cause I have different beliefs than you". How would we ever progress as a civilization if we don't accept debating each other? If my beliefs are different than yours and you genuinely think that your beliefs hold meaning over mine then I would expect you to fight for those beliefs, not just go about your life and ignore all debate... "Don't openly question other people's beliefs or bring up debates in hopes of the other person doing the same" is just an ignorant way of thinking about things. I [I]want[/I] you to debate my beliefs. I'm not content with sitting idle just because you feel your beliefs are too personal to be worth debating, as if religious beliefs are any more important or prominent than something such as politics. Religion should never be given a free pass over debate or criticism.[/QUOTE] Have you ever tried arguing with a radical Christian? It never ends in compromise, it will either end with them walking away muttering about how [I]damned[/I] you are or you walking away while they smile triumphantly and scream [I]JESUS LOVES YOU[/I]. There is no debate in religions. Neither can prove their point, and neither can convince the others otherwise. It becomes a shit storm on whatever outlet it's hosted on and mostly serves to piss people off. That's why I just accept the fact that I can't make a difference and let them live in their bubble. If I debate it, it's just going to go around in circles. It's stupid.
[QUOTE=nask;34669795]So, we can't debate about religion? It is debate proof concept?[/QUOTE] As long as we're still fighting over it then yes some people are being too hard on it, and some are too zealous about it.
[QUOTE=mjbrooks194;34679857]Have you ever tried arguing with a radical Christian? It never ends in compromise, it will either end with them walking away muttering about how [I]damned[/I] you are or you walking away while they smile triumphantly and scream [I]JESUS LOVES YOU[/I]. There is no debate in religions. Neither can prove their point, and neither can convince the others otherwise. It becomes a shit storm on whatever outlet it's hosted on and mostly serves to piss people off. That's why I just accept the fact that I can't make a difference and let them live in their bubble. If I debate it, it's just going to go around in circles. It's stupid.[/QUOTE] Okay, religious apologists talk about how hardcore, angry, atheists condescend to religious types, this is some fucking condescension right here. [I]Oh, they're simply too stupid and irrational to accept what we have to say. Don't fret their soft little minds. Let them enjoy their delusions, for they are ineffectual, like children.[/I] Fuck that noise.
The problem with religion is that they can't all be correct and true. People will start wars just to somehow prove that they are the correct ones with a true religion. Science on the other hand attempts to accept all ideas until they can be proven wrong using experiments and complete observation. This is also a flaw with religion. In religion not many things are accepted because everything we would learn and follow would be from some old book or numerous old books in other cases. Therefore any studies or knowledge is probably thousands of years out of date. Science is ever-changing and Religion is ever-aging. Though debating with any religious person is just a waste of time because you can't prove that their gods don't exist. They can't prove that they do on the other hand.
I hate people that force you to believe in something, especially parents. I came from orthodox jewish family and left the house at the age of 16 just because they wanted from me to be disconnected from the rest of the world, from technology, science, drugs, video games etc. I moved in with a guy that I got to know from a metal concert and had to work and study to pay the rent. Since then I havent spoke to my parents (for 4 years now). I also have seen the news today and a bunch of muslims ruined today some ancient asian Buddha statue from the 12th century, damn savages.
[QUOTE=sintwins;34677881]it doesn't explain how or why they happen. For example no one knows why the laws of physics etc exist. [/quote] Actually, science's who purpose is finding why these things happen. The problem is that science is an ongoing thing, no one has all the answers. That doesn't mean it isn't trying it's hardest. [quote]Also science, because of this still cannot explain how the universe came into existence and instead just refer to energy instantaneously appearing and creating the universe, which just seems like an explanation from genesis, just using more up to date terminology.[/QUOTE] Well, the big difference would be that we can actually observe this sort of stuff happening. We have found out that particles come into existence in a vacuum, which totally breaks a lot of laws. Technically a big bang could happen, given enough time, which is exactly what an empty universe has a lot of.
[QUOTE=sintwins;34677881] Furthermore it seems that a lot of people in this thread see religion and science as mutually exclusive, but science is only explaining simple observations, it doesn't explain how or why they happen. For example no one knows why the laws of physics etc exist. Also science, because of this still cannot explain how the universe came into existence and instead just refer to energy instantaneously appearing and creating the universe, which just seems like an explanation from genesis, just using more up to date terminology.[/QUOTE] Slightly off topic, but scientists actually have some pretty good ideas (though not solidly proven as say, evolution for example) of those things. You should check out the book "The Grand Design" by Stephen Hawking.
[QUOTE=sintwins;34677881]It's interesting how people here think that religion was a way of controlling people, however about a thousandish years ago lots of bishops and people in power started using their money to fund universities and research. This made them influential over both science and religion, allowing them to choose who got funding for their research and to shape what was taught to the next generations both religiously and scientifically. However you try to justify it both religion and science, while at their foundations aren't control mechanisms have been used by people in power as such. Furthermore it seems that a lot of people in this thread see religion and science as mutually exclusive, but science is only explaining simple observations, it doesn't explain how or why they happen. For example no one knows why the laws of physics etc exist. Also science, because of this still cannot explain how the universe came into existence and instead just refer to energy instantaneously appearing and creating the universe, which just seems like an explanation from genesis, just using more up to date terminology.[/QUOTE] How do you explain what happened to Galileo then?
[QUOTE=PvtCupcakes;34686397]How do you explain what happened to Galileo then?[/QUOTE] Scientifically illiterate people were afraid of the implications and possible consequences of some things science had figured out. Remember that Galileo was originally funded by the Catholic Church. The church had a lot of interest in the science and arts. The problem is when that science can challenge the things the church had been teaching for centuries. Science and religion can co-exist peacefully, but there are times where the relationship between the two can get a little bumpy.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;34687791]Scientifically illiterate people were afraid of the implications and possible consequences of some things science had figured out. Remember that Galileo was originally funded by the Catholic Church. The church had a lot of interest in the science and arts. The problem is when that science can challenge the things the church had been teaching for centuries. [B]Science and religion can co-exist peacefully, but there are times where the relationship between the two can get a little bumpy.[/B][/QUOTE] They should not have to. A fictional belief should never have so much power in the modern world.
[QUOTE=Sickle;34687848]They should not have to. A fictional belief should never have so much power in the modern world.[/QUOTE] "Fictional beliefs" shaped the world as you see it. For every act of savagery performed in the name of god, there were countless sacrifices and good deeds you don't hear about. Same thing with acts of good vs acts of evil in the modern news. Good things are boring for the media. You don't hear about every robbery where a bystander saves the victim. But you sure as hell hear about every serial killer or cat murderer. And it doesn't have nearly as much power as it use to have.
The people who say "religion breeds ignorance" really need to just be quiet. I hate atheists because atheism breeds hatred and the belief everyone who is a theist are bad people. See, I can do it too.
[QUOTE=Sottalytober;34687929]"Fictional beliefs" shaped the world as you see it. For every act of savagery performed in the name of god, there were countless sacrifices and good deeds you don't hear about. Same thing with acts of good vs acts of evil in the modern news. Good things are boring for the media. You don't hear about every robbery where a bystander saves the victim. But you sure as hell hear about every serial killer or cat murderer. And it doesn't have nearly as much power as it use to have.[/QUOTE] I definitely agree with this. Religion can cause a lot of people to do good things they might not have otherwise. Like a good friend of mine who back in high school was a huge pothead and just partied all the time until a Christian friend of his changed his life by getting him involved with the religion. Now he goes out like every other day and takes homeless people out for food and stuff. I go with him sometimes and it's actually a really awesome experience.
Yes, most certainly. I've repeatedly seen posters try to elaborate as to how Religion itself is inherently bad. Usually using logic like this: [QUOTE=Retardation;34618329]Religion is responsible for countless of atrocities throughout history. Just because it did some good stuff too doesn't mean shit, and it's above and beyond everyones right to bash it.[/QUOTE] Which is wrong. If you're going to cite historical precedent than try to actually know history. Let me elaborate, and in the process try to debunk one of the most common Atheist arguments against religion. The crusades are the most frequently cited episode of Religiously founded war. I could go into why that's a drastic oversimplification, but I'm going to try and provide a different counterpoint. That point is this: Crusades have been fought for wholly secular reasons, despite them having the fervor and moral justification that is most often associated with the Crusades. I present to you the case of the French Revolutionary Wars. Now immediately this seems like an odd case, especially since these wars started after the radicalization of the Revolution and the increasing frequency of attacks against Religion and the clergy by the Revolution. But it is one of the best cases of Secular reasons for tremendous irrationality and tremendous brutality. While in 1790 the National Assembly had sworn never to wage a war of aggression, increasingly in 1791 they were moving more and more towards aggressive war. In fact, in 1792 they did just that, launching wars of aggression around Europe. The rhetoric of the Deputies (members of the Assembly) took on a distinctly religious tone, the best example being writing and oratory of Jacques Pierre Brissot: [QUOTE=Jacques Pierre Brissot on December 30, 1791] Remember those crusades in which Europe, [took] up arms for a few superstitions... The moment has come for a new crusade, and it has a far nobler, and holier object. It is a crusade for universal liberty.[/QUOTE] Brissot calls Religion "superstition" (a word used for religion by atheists on these forums and indeed in this very thread) and in the same breath calls for a holy crusade against tyranny. The French used their cause of Liberty to justify the extermination and inhuman treatment of their enemies: [QUOTE=Bertrand Barère in 1794] "National hatred must sound forth. Young French republicans must suck hatred of the name of Enlishman with their mother's milk... they are a people foreign to Europe, foreign to humanity. They must disappear.[/QUOTE] The National Convention endorsed this when it issued a decree forbidding French commanders from giving quarter to English soldiers. These men, men of the Enlightenment, men who considered themselves rational and above the excesses of Religion, were in fact falling prey to the ones most commonly railed against. The argument and prevailing Atheist philosophy that Religion is unique in it's ability to drive peoples to bigotry and hatred falls apart when faced with evidence like this. These men believed in a very real, very secular idea. That the peoples of the world should be free from the tyranny of forced faith and the tyranny of kings. This secular idea drove them to the same extremes that are so commonly exemplified when Atheists attack religion on that basis.
[QUOTE=Sottalytober;34687929]"Fictional beliefs" shaped the world as you see it. [B]For every act of savagery performed in the name of god, there were countless sacrifices and good deeds you don't hear about.[/B] Same thing with acts of good vs acts of evil in the modern news. Good things are boring for the media. You don't hear about every robbery where a bystander saves the victim. But you sure as hell hear about every serial killer or cat murderer. And it doesn't have nearly as much power as it use to have.[/QUOTE] Explain that to the children that were molested by those priests. The mere fact that it has done bad outweighs the entirety of it's good. I don't care about the history behind it. In the modern world, it should not have as much power as it does. It is simply a belief. It has no basis whatsoever, and has lead to atrocities in the name of it's belief. It. Should. Not. Have. Power. You should be allowed to believe in whatever bullshit you want in the comfort of your home, organized religion needs to go.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.