Forums → WEPR → Why Follow Religion?

Since when do I bash those who believe in a deity? I only remember bashing their religions.

True, but sometimes you do speak as if all people of that religion go by the worst guidelines that the religion has to offer. At least that is what I get from it.

So your god is a beer then? No, a beer doesn't require you to have a moral code relevant to what it believes. A beer would be better in this situation.

This is EXACTLY what I mean by bashing religion! You make me out to be some sort of fool, and then you insult my beliefs!? This is ridiculous. You don't have an iota of respect for anyone who believes in a God or their beliefs. You paint a picture to make it look like we are all fools who don't think for ourselves and just blow our nose as science! We ARE capable of making our own choices. We ARE capable of making our own completely non-related code of morals and ethics, but we just CHOOSE to do it the way we believe, and if you can't accept that than you have some serious issues.

(sigh) this is what I get for talking with 314d1.

in this order:

So you follow your own rules? That defeats the whole purpose for using it as a guideline. If you don't do that, then it just your own morals projecting themselves and pretending to be divinely inspired.

guidelines are different from rules. rules imply a punishment for not following. I said I used the religion's principles as a basis for my own moral code, I didn't say I followed the religion like a dogmatic extremist.

Here, let me give you an example. Lets say you are living in a colony, abundant in resources but largely ignored by the far-away homeland with no representation. Then the leader gets into some trouble and needs some money, so he taxes the @#!*% out of the poor little colony. The arm over your colony is small, it would be easy to shove off, and the nation isn't invested enough to fight a real war. Shoving off the oppression would allow you to have a much better life. What would you do?

the above paragraph before this quote just said I wasn't dogmatic. I can personally tell you that if such a situation arised, I would break off and send the people into a new level of prosperity.

How does that logic work? Being a good person is all well and good, but do you really need to be told not to boil a lamb in it's mothers milk to not do it?

sometimes you need to be told not to do something, told the reason why, and punished for doing it before you actually learn. some people are stubbornly ignorant, and sometimes feeling the repercussions for such ignorance is needed. if you are a good person, and learn the first time, then there should be no real reason to be punished for not learning when you clearly did.

I would say the opposite is true. How about "Though shalt not kill", this is so rigid it is completely useless, not to mention completely gone against in almost every chapter. So what if your in a position where you would need to kill someone, soldier, police officer, or just self protection? Flexible morals would say "Yes, if someone is attacking your wife and kids, shoot them." while your morals would say "No. It says no." Starving and need food? Thought shalt not steal. Flexible morals allow you to not starve to death. And those are two of the almost half decent examples in the bible, as opposed to all the crazy ones like "Thought shalt not suffer a witch to live".

is "thou shalt not kill" really useless? it's basicly the same meaning as thou shalt not murder in cold blood. It's fine for cases of self-defense, or defense of property/family, but thats it. it was put as thou shalt not kill because the lord wanted to prevent people from acquiring the desire to kill. thats irrelevant though. also, I said earlier I wasn't dogmatic, in other words, I can tell when something in that book is out of date, and won't follow it just because the bible says to.

on a final note, 314d1, you are indeed a flamer, and it gets very annoying at times. you don't need to do everything in your power to crush somebody's beliefs. I don't because I know for a fact stuff like that has repercussions. if you read one of my previous paragraphs, I told you that such stubborn ignorance has repercussions. I don't bash other people's religions (except that one time with odinism) for just that reason.

there is my reply, feel free to oppose.

-Blade

So it makes you feel special. Good for you. You waved your hands and said "Alacazam" and now you have done something with out actually contributing.

You know what really helps with healing? Modern medicine. Its really great stuff. Why not just console your friend/family member, it will make them feel better, at least you would be doing more than casting a spell.

My grandfather almost DIED from a heart attack! YES WE SENT HIM TO A HOSPITAL! BUT WE ALSO PRAYED! WE SPENT TIME WITH HIM IN HIS DARKEST MOMENTS! We did not just blindly pray and do nothing else! You have some major issues if you cannot respect the beliefs of other people! How do you expect to get a job if you are required to most likely work with people who have religion, and then you go and bash it like you are bashing religions now! WHAT IS YOUR FREAKING PROBLEM WITH RELIGION!

WHAT IS YOUR FREAKING PROBLEM WITH RELIGION!

I believe I can answer that one.

He is logically based, and sees anything that doesn't follow logic as a waste of time, and those who believe in it a waste of humanity. he sees it as his job to "teach" people the way the world "really" works by cutting down every single support that holds a person's religious belief together.

you could say he sees it as his mission.

-Blade

Or Stalin or Hitler. Really, anyone who tells you what to do. But does that make them better?

That's actually assuming you can come up with a set of moral codes that is better than what anyone has. Furthermore, I trust as a rational being, most people know how to separate the idiotic parts of what religion teaches and accept those that aren't.

And, even if you wanted a moral code, wouldn't something else be just as sufficient? Really, any philosophical ideology, code of honor, military code, or just following your own moral would be far better, more relevant to modern times, and more flexible than religion would be.

The Spartan military code was to train from youth till adulthood, kill off any child that appears weak, and practice slavery. Would you follow that? Or are you generalizing?

So why not give it directly to those who need instead?

Not all churches ask for tips, again don't generalize.

I would say the opposite is true. How about "Though shalt not kill", this is so rigid it is completely useless, not to mention completely gone against in almost every chapter.

So you are justifying killing now?

So what if your in a position where you would need to kill someone, soldier, police officer, or just self protection?

It is assuming that if everyone follows reliigon, or finds peace, there would be no need for killing. Hence the commandment makes sense despite being wrought with naivity and idealism.

"Thought shalt not suffer a witch to live".

If you lived in the Middle Ages, and the Black Plague kills off half your village in a week, you find explanations. Cruel, but you find explanations.

So your god is a beer then? No, a beer doesn't require you to have a moral code relevant to what it believes. A beer would be better in this situation.

There you go, twisting people's words again. I frankly find it insulting that you compare someone's beliefs to a beer.

I'm pretty sure the way of life we have now is far better, and has far better things that you could occupy fulfilling yourself with.

Do you have to hunt to feed yourself? No. By using a past context to justify your modern day world, it just brings in absurdity to your argument.

So it makes you feel special. Good for you. You waved your hands and said "Alacazam" and now you have done something with out actually contributing.

As said earlier, don't twist words. It doesn't make him feel special, it just comforts him.

Witch is done with hands, not prayers.

For the majority of the Earth's population, praying for someone shows care. They do it with their hands, but they pray for their souls too. I don't see why they are mutually exclusive.

That's actually assuming you can come up with a set of moral codes that is better than what anyone has.

Since morality is subjective, by definition you will come up with a better one.

Furthermore, I trust as a rational being, most people know how to separate the idiotic parts of what religion teaches and accept those that aren't.

Oh really? People still get burned as witches today. People have gotten burned in the past. How is that an example of people separating the idiotic part from any small portion you could find that is decent?

The Spartan military code was to train from youth till adulthood, kill off any child that appears weak, and practice slavery. Would you follow that? Or are you generalizing?

So monks and nuns that "train to adult hood....and past that", killing off anyone who appears to be weak (in "faith&quotand practicing slavery is all part of the religion. And I wouldn't follow that.

I was more looking for a general thing, maybe something more along the lines of Chivalry or Bushido or similar codes. But really, even the Geneva Convention is better for morals than religion.

Not all churches ask for tips, again don't generalize.

Really? I have never seen one that hasn't.

So you are justifying killing now?

Yes. Are you saying that killing is never justified?

It is assuming that if everyone follows reliigon, or finds peace, there would be no need for killing. Hence the commandment makes sense despite being wrought with naivity and idealism.

Oh really? Care to state where it says that?

There you go, twisting people's words again. I frankly find it insulting that you compare someone's beliefs to a beer.

Why so? Beer created the world as we know it, giving many places a reliable way to store wheat and similar products for years, rather than having it spoil, as well as being safer to drink than much the water at the time. The beer is far better than the religion.

Do you have to hunt to feed yourself? No. By using a past context to justify your modern day world, it just brings in absurdity to your argument.

I'm saying we are living in a much better world then our ancestors had, why would we copy our ancestors in something like their way to achieve fulfillment?

For the majority of the Earth's population, praying for someone shows care. They do it with their hands, but they pray for their souls too. I don't see why they are mutually exclusive.

Interesting what they can do with things that don't exist. And I was referring to the fact that work gets done with the hands, not the prayers, it is the doctors that are getting the work done, not you. You are just pretending to help, and that is kind of sick.

I'm saying we are living in a much better world then our ancestors had, why would we copy our ancestors in something like their way to achieve fulfillment?

We arn't copying our ancestors. Religion has changed. The protestant revolution and the catholic revolution are a big sign of that.

Interesting what they can do with things that don't exist. And I was referring to the fact that work gets done with the hands, not the prayers, it is the doctors that are getting the work done, not you. You are just pretending to help, and that is kind of sick.

How is that sick?

"I'm sorry grandma, I'm not a docters so I won't pretend like I can do anything for you. Or that you'll still be alive. In a few days your life will be over"

It seems that is what you'd rather have people say. You don't even need religion to hope your grandma will get better, and its definitely not sick to make a dieing person feel loved, cared about, that's all they're doing. Its the same thing regular people do without religion, and it nice.

Since morality is subjective, by definition you will come up with a better one.

Morality is subjective, but the subjectivity is limited. Murdering, looting, raping is clearly out of the question. Your argument has no link to your conclusion by the way. Just because it is fluid, does not mean anyone can come up with a better one.

Oh really? People still get burned as witches today.

You can't take a minority and then supplant that image onto everyone. That's generalization.

So monks and nuns that "train to adult hood....and past that", killing off anyone who appears to be weak (in "faith&quotand practicing slavery is all part of the religion. And I wouldn't follow that

.

The difference is that a military code is a military code. Comparing nuns and monks to soldiers? You might want to take a look at the analogy section in your mind. Furthermore, practically everyone practised slavery in the past, and the Church had a big role in stopping it. Furthermore, nuns and monks don't ''kill off the weak''.

But really, even the Geneva Convention is better for morals than religion.

The Geneva Conventions comprise rules that apply in times of armed conflict and seek to protect people who are not or are no longer taking part in hostilities. It doesn't directly teach you to respect others, to be non-violent, etc etc.

Yes. Are you saying that killing is never justified?

In an idealised world yes, killing is never justified. In a utopia, no one will turn criminal, hence there will be no intention to kill, and hence no death penalty.

Oh really? Care to state where it says that?

One of Christianity's goals is to convert the entire world to Christ's words. The Bible teaches that one shouldn't kill fellow Christians.

Why so? Beer created the world as we know it, giving many places a reliable way to store wheat and similar products for years, rather than having it spoil, as well as being safer to drink than much the water at the time. The beer is far better than the religion.

Beer is made of millet and what not. Religion isn't. Beer is a liquid, religion isn't. If you are going to pull out certain characteristics and compare the two without considering the bigger picture, then that's an argument with large holes in it.

E.g: Your picture is red. An apple is red. Therefore you are an apple since both of you share one of the same characteristics.

Just because beer is an outlet for people to use wheat, and provides a good drink, it's better than religion? You're not comparing them on the same level, by the same standards.

E.g: Drugs provide recreational fun for people. Therefore drugs are better than you.

Do you see how you aren't even comparing similar characteristics, and how fail your analogy is?

I'm saying we are living in a much better world then our ancestors had, why would we copy our ancestors in something like their way to achieve fulfillment?

Do we? A large proportion of people are still starving, live in war zones, and lack basic sanitation.

Interesting what they can do with things that don't exist. And I was referring to the fact that work gets done with the hands, not the prayers, it is the doctors that are getting the work done, not you. You are just pretending to help, and that is kind of sick.

Prayer is a source of comfort to many. It isn't used by many anymore as a cure, even Christians go to hospitals, just to let you know -Sarcasm-. My point is that prayer and helping is not mutually exclusive. Furthermore, what can an everyday Joe who doesn't have a medical degree do? He just prays whilst his friend is being treated, and by that action of compassion, his friend knows he cares.


Furthermore, you cannot prove that God does or does not exist. You can only prove that the Bible or any Holy Text is false but you can't do the former, since it is non-falsifiable.

We arn't copying our ancestors. Religion has changed. The protestant revolution and the catholic revolution are a big sign of that.

This has nothing to do with the conversation that was going on. The string of words this came from was "...fulfillment to do things according to the way my ancestors did years and years ago.", so..... yeah.

How is that sick?

Sick? "Don't worry Timmy, I am protecting your dog with a magical spell. There is no way he could die!", pretending your helping without doing anything is sick on many ways. First, you are pretty much using their issue to make yourself feel better, second giving someone a false since of hope has it's own cruelty, and third it is just sick to pretend to do something when you had nothing to do with it.

It seems that is what you'd rather have people say. You don't even need religion to hope your grandma will get better, and its definitely not sick to make a dieing person feel loved, cared about, that's all they're doing.

Of course you don't need a religion, but saying things like "I love you grandma" would have a greater effect to her than shouting "ABRAKADABRA!" and waving your hands around.

Sick? "Don't worry Timmy, I am protecting your dog with a magical spell. There is no way he could die!", pretending your helping without doing anything is sick on many ways. First, you are pretty much using their issue to make yourself feel better, second giving someone a false since of hope has it's own cruelty, and third it is just sick to pretend to do something when you had nothing to do with it.

They don't hold any pretensions that they have casted a magical spell. I wonder if you can see the difference? A prayer is just a wish, or a hope that things will go right.

Furthermore, if you haven't actually prayed for someone, don't accuse people of doing it just to feel better.

and third it is just sick to pretend to do something when you had nothing to do with it.

Next time someone you know falls ill, don't wish them well and good luck then. Prayers are roughly the same.

Morality is subjective, but the subjectivity is limited. Murdering, looting, raping is clearly out of the question.

Many civilizations thought history haven't had much a problem with it, and not even the people in your bible seem to have to much a problem with it when it is to their enemies.

Your argument has no link to your conclusion by the way. Just because it is fluid, does not mean anyone can come up with a better one.

Yes it does. Since you make your own, and your own is the base for your morality, that means your own morality is perfect to you.

[quote]You can't take a minority and then supplant that image onto everyone. That's generalization.

No it isn't. It is a statement. People still burn witches today. That is a fact. Without religion, people wouldn't burn witches. Or believe in them, in all likely hood.

Comparing nuns and monks to soldiers? You might want to take a look at the analogy section in your mind

A Spartan soldier and a nun/monk? Both give their life up to the cause at an early age. Both hold high statuses. Both devote their lives to it. How are they different?

Furthermore, practically everyone practised slavery in the past, and the Church had a big role in stopping it.

No. No it didn't. Actually, it had a great role in keeping it in place, according to most historians. Where are you getting this fact?

Furthermore, nuns and monks don't ''kill off the weak''.

Really? Shunning or stoning dissenters, fighting holy wars on other religions, and generally getting rid of anyone who doesn't share their faith isn't killing off the weak (remember, of "faith&quot?

The Geneva Conventions comprise rules that apply in times of armed conflict and seek to protect people who are not or are no longer taking part in hostilities. It doesn't directly teach you to respect others, to be non-violent, etc etc.

It tells you not to shoot people in certain ways, what weapons are OK to use, not to shoot people who have surrendered and not to shoot doctors. It may not be relevant to many people, but it is a better moral guideline than a Bible.

In an idealised world yes, killing is never justified. In a utopia, no one will turn criminal, hence there will be no intention to kill, and hence no death penalty.

Great. In an alien planet, Oranges are red. We don't live in a utopia so that is not relevant. Morals need to fit the world you live in, not the world you pretend to live in.

One of Christianity's goals is to convert the entire world to Christ's words. The Bible teaches that one shouldn't kill fellow Christians.

And to kill everyone else with stones. But even then, it also teaches that the world will end in a fireball, so that goal will never be accomplished, according to the bible, until the world ends.

Beer is made of millet and what not. Religion isn't. Beer is a liquid, religion isn't. If you are going to pull out certain characteristics and compare the two without considering the bigger picture, then that's an argument with large holes in it.

I don't see how that is relevant in stating beer is better than your religion.

E.g: Your picture is red. An apple is red. Therefore you are an apple since both of you share one of the same characteristics.

I'm saying beer would be better, having the other things. It would be more like saying an apple and a piece of wood are both edible, but an apple does the job better.

Just because beer is an outlet for people to use wheat, and provides a good drink, it's better than religion? You're not comparing them on the same level, by the same standards.

Oh, really? Beer works to create a false since of temporary happiness, much as you state religion does. Except it does it without starting any wars, stoning people, or suppressing people, so it does the job better.

E.g: Drugs provide recreational fun for people. Therefore drugs are better than you.

I don't recall stating that my primary purpose was being fun for people. You, however, pretty much put religion on the same level as beer by claiming they do the same things. So it is fair game.

Do we? A large proportion of people are still starving, live in war zones, and lack basic sanitation.

Yes, we do. Even if they are starving, living in a war zone, and lacking basic sanitation, they still have it better off than our ancestors who where constantly in a state of warfare, starving, and lacking any sanitation other than moving the next day. Even the poorest man on modern earth had it better than the richest man in the best fur tent, not having to follow the mammoth herd to be able to eat tomorrow.

Prayer is a source of comfort to many.

Beer does the job better, remember? When you say it can do the same job beer can, then beer is better.

It isn't used by many anymore as a cure, even Christians go to hospitals, just to let you know -Sarcasm-

Some do. Some stay home, preferring to pray instead, often ending in a lawsuit. Some don't get treatments like blood transfusion because that would go against their religion. The few that do realize that modern science is far better than their prayers. Doesn't that pretty much mean that they admit science is better than their god?

Furthermore, what can an everyday Joe who doesn't have a medical degree do? He just prays whilst his friend is being treated, and by that action of compassion, his friend knows he cares

How about telling him he cares instead of making circles with a laser pointer?

They don't hold any pretensions that they have casted a magical spell. I wonder if you can see the difference? A prayer is just a wish, or a hope that things will go right.

Which is supposed to be able to move mountains. Immediately and without fail. Sounds like a spell to me, and from seeing how poorly it works, a bad one.

Furthermore, if you haven't actually prayed for someone, don't accuse people of doing it just to feel better.

I did. Back when I was a Christian. Realizing that prayer didn't work was one of the things that turned me into an atheist.

Next time someone you know falls ill, don't wish them well and good luck then. Prayers are roughly the same.

I don't recall ever literally wishing someone well or good luck. That would be like saying "goodbye", I am not actually playing like I have an effect on the actual parting of the person.

Many civilizations thought history haven't had much a problem with it, and not even the people in your bible seem to have to much a problem with it when it is to their enemies.

That was in the past. Does the Church still condone killing now?

Yes it does. Since you make your own, and your own is the base for your morality, that means your own morality is perfect to you.

Which means that if Hitler thought Jews were sub-humans, and it was morally right to him, then the whole thing was alright. Yeah right. Think a little before posting.

No it isn't. It is a statement. People still burn witches today. That is a fact. Without religion, people wouldn't burn witches. Or believe in them, in all likely hood.

That's not even relevant. Yes it is a fact, BUT I am going to reiterate my point. Do all Christians practise burning? No. Isolated incidents, which cannot be slapped onto all Christians.

That's like saying, since some black people still commit murder, ALL black men commit murder.

A Spartan soldier and a nun/monk? Both give their life up to the cause at an early age. Both hold high statuses. Both devote their lives to it. How are they different?

A spartan solider goes to war. A nun/monk preaches. Both gave their lives up, but for DIFFERENT causes.

A terrorist gives his life up as well. Are you going to compare a Spartan to him?

Really? Shunning or stoning dissenters, fighting holy wars on other religions, and generally getting rid of anyone who doesn't share their faith isn't killing off the weak (remember, of "faith&quot?

Do they do that today? No. As stated earlier, if you are going to use a different context to justify the situation today, then you are misled.

It tells you not to shoot people in certain ways, what weapons are OK to use, not to shoot people who have surrendered and not to shoot doctors. It may not be relevant to many people, but it is a better moral guideline than a Bible.

So a shooting guide now has morals in it? Wow. The Bible teaches non-violence as well if you didn't know.

Great. In an alien planet, Oranges are red. We don't live in a utopia so that is not relevant. Morals need to fit the world you live in, not the world you pretend to live in.

We don't live in a Utopia yet, it is a dream or hope of people that we one day will.

And to kill everyone else with stones. But even then, it also teaches that the world will end in a fireball, so that goal will never be accomplished, according to the bible, until the world ends.

Any mention in the Bible of stoning EVERYONE? Furthermore, I don't see how the last part of the Earth dying in a fireball as relevant. It just prophesies how the world will end, which it will anyway.

I don't see how that is relevant in stating beer is better than your religion.

My point was to break down your argument, and show how you only pull out certain charactersistics and compare both on the basis of just a few characteristics.

I'm saying beer would be better, having the other things. It would be more like saying an apple and a piece of wood are both edible, but an apple does the job better.

Nope, because you compared based on what beer could do, such as giving humans another use for wheat, and how beer is another beverage.

Religion is not another use for wheat, nor is it a beverage. By comparing with characteresitics that religion doesn't posseses your argument isn't logical.

Beer does the job better, remember? When you say it can do the same job beer can, then beer is better.

Alcohol in excess causes various medical problems and societal ills. So yes, it definitely is better.......right???

The few that do realize that modern science is far better than their prayers.

And do you have statistics that only a few Christians go to hospitals? Nearly 85% of Americans are religious. They have over 5700 hospitals, don't tell me that religious people don't go to hospitals.

How about telling him he cares instead of making circles with a laser pointer?

When he prays, he shows care, and the ill know it. I don't even see how the laser pointer point comes in.


And the point that the Church supported slavery? Yes, some of them did, as did most of society. But who started the anti-slavery movement proper? A group of religious folk.

In 1787, a group of twelve men, mostly Quakers and Anglicans founded the Committee for the Abolition of the Slave Trade. They included the veteran anti-slavery campaigner Granville Sharp and Thomas Clarkson who devoted his life to the cause. They recruited the MP for Hull, William Wilberforce, to lead the campaign in the House of Commons. Within twenty years of the establishment of this group, the slave trade had been abolished.

The 1688 Germantown Quaker Petition Against Slavery was the first protest against African American slavery, made by a religious body in the English colonies.

The Society for the Relief of Free Negroes Unlawfully Held in Bondage was the first American abolition society, formed 14 April 1775, in Philadelphia, primarily by Quakers who had strong religious objections to slavery.

The abolitionist movement was strengthened by the activities of free African-Americans, especially in the black church, who argued that the old Biblical justifications for slavery contradicted the New Testament.

In fact, there were various splits amongst the Churches that denounced slavery and those who accommodated it. Whilst one cannot say that the entire Church didn't support slavery, a large portion of them didn't.

Which is supposed to be able to move mountains. Immediately and without fail. Sounds like a spell to me, and from seeing how poorly it works, a bad one.

As mentioned earlier, that was the context in the past.

Realizing that prayer didn't work was one of the things that turned me into an atheist.

Well, that's in your case. When I prayed, I just prayed for the wellbeing of the people I care for, and not cast spells.



Well, if you're so confident of Atheism, as mentioned earlier, are you able to argue that God doesn't exist, other than the flaws in the Bible?