Religion

[Red]

Christianity, held us back in development for almost centuries.
All radical ideas, like the earth is round, were prohibited in the name of chruch, and you were punished for that.
I wonder, how advanced we would be now, if those never happened ?
We could be centuries ahead from now.

[Nice]

Exactly, you dont give a shit that's why it's difficult to debate with someone like you. Those that pursue wealth are greedy and they pursue it for luxury, which is a "no no" according to bible. Those that become wealthy because they had luck or invented something are definetly not greedy bastards, as long as they dont spend all their money on luxury and for themselves. And also not all poor are angels, obviously.

Except the Bible doesn't matter for billions of people who've come up with other religions for their spiritual needs. I don't give a shit about what some westerner says about how we should rule our life, because I care about people right now and not some hypothetical future.

No it doesn't, not for a religious person.

There lies the problem in debating with STUBBORN people. I know many religious people who can reconcile their faith with still valuing life here and now.

Let's face it: religion came about because life is hard. Too many people die young. When you're suffering, struggling to make ends meet, and dealing with the unfairness of life, it's easier to take heart in the belief that all your good deeds will be paid off.

My argument is - why take that chance? We have the ability to challenge the problems on earth that make many other people suffer, rather than selfishly let it continue to happen after you die and cease to care about anyone else.

I'm defending religion from religious point of view, you dont care what the bible says well that's too bad because the bible explains why you cant have a brand new car or a toy whenever you ask God. Sorry but you're kinda hard to understand here...First you rant about how religion and things work then you say that you dont care. So sorry if i'm not in-depth enough here, but it's hard to understand what exactly you want.

As to the last part of what you said:

First of all you dont find many of those people, i'm definetly not among them. I'm talking about the people that say "screw life, just wait for afterlife" I'm not saying that life is not important, i'm saying that there's more than just this life and every religious person is well aware of that. In religious views we werent brought on this world just so we can die and go to afterlife, we believe that this life was given so we could make something out of it, not just wait and die. Both of "lives" are important but which do you think is more? from a religious point of view...This one that lasts less than 100 years or the other one which lasts forever?

Why take the chance? who exactly is taking the chance here? Who is the one that actually can lose something here? You can treat life good and live happily here while believing in God, if you die and it just happens that there is no such thing you dont really lose anything, it's just blackness...Nothing you're not even aware that you were believing into something that doesnt exist. You're talking like being religious means cutting your heart out, stabbing and torturing yourself till you die. A religious person can live just as happily as a non religious one.

And speaking of taking chances, if you take the chance that there is no God and if it just happens that there actually is one. Well i think it's an worse experience than to a religious person that dies in a godless world.

You're missing the point. The question isn't whether it's corrupt, it's whether it's corruptible. Why should you place your faith in a system that can be exploited? And that thing about free will you mentioned is just comical because it supports my argument. If every man is free to do whatever he wants and God will not interfere in any way, then why trust the Bible? By that logic God had nothing to do with it, it was written by men and Jesus was not the messiah. Or do you mean to say that he interfered that one time long ago nobody remembers but doesn't want to anymore? Why?

There's not much left to discuss Bridge because i'm not a die hard follower of catholic ways. We fell into this argument because i defined the word "corrupt" different than you and didnt see what you meant. I agree that the church CAN become corrupt and i agree that it was corrupt. It is definetly corruptible but i'm just saying that at the moment it's far from being actually really "corrupt".

[Bridge]

There's not much left to discuss Bridge

I'm down with that.

[Your Computer]

Atheism is by definition a "negative assertion," therefore it cannot be the most logical position to take. (How is this a claim that theism is therefore the most logical? Hint: It's not making such a claim.) As a consequence, the term "delusional" becomes irrelevant and redundant, for if one side is delusional, then so would the other be.

People can be controlled through many means, like holding a donut in the air in front of them. Would that therefore make the donut corrupt or evil? And a gun, whose purpose is to either greatly inflict damage or kill the target of the weapon, is it therefore evil? Is not evil a product of intent? Is not intent a product of the conscious? How then can one claim that an unconscious thing (i.e. "religion") be evil or corrupt? (Assuming "evil" as an established term.) Indeed, you would have to therefore recognize that the claim, "religion is evil," is a falsely attributed claim. As a consequence, "merely a tool to control the masses" is also falsely attributed to religion. Likewise, "limiting scientific advancement" is a false attribution to religion. Even if we were to include the Catholic Church in the definition of "religion" (which would be a false thing to do), any one who has ever read the works of St. Augustine (one of the early fathers of the Catholic Church), you would be quick to recognize that he in no way urged believers to limit science to scripture, but allowed for re-interpretation of scripture based on new scientific findings. This is historical evidence and i have not found any counter evidence to this. Even the flat earth position wasn't promoted by any church authority. Most people here probably won't even be able to provide names of the ones that promoted a flat earth. Try Cosmas Indicopleustes. He had no authority in the Church, and people (including other Christians) even in his time knew better.

Many religious texts make many promises and greatly describe the personalities of their god(s). For that reason, even now, i don't see how any misconceptions of these things can exist. I can only assume the very reason for this is that many people spend more time hearing or reading things from random people than they do reading the religious texts or doing any scholarly research. Indeed, you would not think to yourself, e.g., "If God is all-loving, why is there evil in the world?" after reading the Bible. On the contrary, you would recognize that question doesn't make any Biblical sense. I won't, therefore, attempt to address any straw men on why, e.g., God would not fulfill the wishes of those who ask from Him.

[Alardem]

Indeed, you would not think to yourself, e.g., "If God is all-loving, why is there evil in the world?" after reading the Bible. On the contrary, you would recognize that question doesn't make any Biblical sense. I won't, therefore, attempt to address any straw men on why, e.g., God would not fulfill the wishes of those who ask from Him.

I like the holier-than-thou attitude you take, Spock. So I take it you can't answer that question yourself? :p

@Dogfood:

My stance is that my life - however long I have - is all I've got, and that the same applies for the rest of us. It's why I'm so adamantly opposed to death, and why I'm frustrated by those who say sacrificing our happiness for the sake of something after death is sensible. It's this bullshit that humans use to justify inequality - Hindu and Buddhist beliefs can be twisted so that people claim the suffering deserve what they get for bad karma in a previous life, and that the prosperous have been rewarded by past deeds. Christians, on the other hand, may claim that the suffering will be rewarded after they're dead - conveniently leaving those not helping them off the hook. What matters is making others around us happy now.

For what it's worth, that is what many churches and temples do now - provide material aid for those who need it, be it animal or orphaned/homeless/sickly people. There have been many religious people who've used their faith to strive for equality and happiness, like Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. I don't agree with making religion into a straw-man, because irregardless of my own beliefs a huge amount of people follow their own spiritual beliefs and it's immature to say they're all insane/wrong.

I'm atheist, but I'm perturbed by how many other atheists appear to still hold onto countless other biases and irrationalities that can make them seem less tolerant than a person with faith. Religion shouldn't necessarily be demonized, as any ideology can be twisted to an unpleasant cause.

[Bridge]

Atheism is by definition a "negative assertion," therefore it cannot be the most logical position to take.

Since when? Any atheist out there who says firmly "there is no possible way there is such a thing as a God" is making a negative assertion, and an idiotic one at that. However, the vast majority of atheists simply say: There is not compelling evidence to support this, therefore I doubt its validity. You insist on creating a false dichotomy between theism and atheism, where one side says it's so and the other side says it's not so, but atheism does not have to be an assertion of any kind. Atheism at its core is saying there is not enough evidence to tell whether it exists or doesn't exist, but they believe it probably doesn't exist and disregard it. In the absence of concrete evidence, this is quite a logical position to take.

As a consequence, the term "delusional" becomes irrelevant and redundant, for if one side is delusional, then so would the other be.

How so?

[Tiger]

Most people use the term 'atheist' when what they really mean is 'anti-theist'. How I see it, the term atheist is now just connected to fedora-wearing dumbasses who harasses religious people over the internet, so I'd rather just say I'm a non-believer or something like that when somebody asks me.

[Alardem]

Most people use the term 'atheist' when what they really mean is 'anti-theist'. How I see it, the term atheist is now just connected to fedora-wearing dumbasses who harasses religious people over the internet, so I'd rather just say I'm a non-believer or something like that when somebody asks me.

I'd associated with an atheist group, but left after they got into heated arguments over meetings and failed to notice that they were spewing the same arrogant, racist and sexist shit that they accused the religious of being. I suppose I'd care more if they did more socially-active things for charity like, say, the local churches did. :p

[Cuyir]

@Dogfood:

The thing with your example is that you're using your biases to tell us who is happier.

The atheist knows what to expect. If he/she hasn't found peace with that then he/she's not a very good atheist. How does this make him/her ''less happy''?

The christian person lives in an illusion that gives him/her faith. You then say this person wakes up in heaven and everything is perfect and golden. If a god exists, why wouldn't he accept the atheist in this strict scenario of yours? He/she's an atheist, not a child murderer. Why can't the atheist wake up in heaven too?

Point is: your scenario is highly biased by your belief system and you're TELLING us that the christian is happier because he/she's a christian.

And again, i'm not a chest thumping atheist. I have my own system of beliefs and thoughts that don't come from judeo-christian religions.

Being happy near death is being prepared and at peace; not having a card (so to speak) that says ''i'm a christian, everything is fine''.

[Paddy™]

Everyone here is an "atheist"; we don't believe in Thor, Mithras, Horus, Ra or unicorns, despite the inability we have to positively disprove their existence. The lack of belief we have in those things is the same lack of belief modern-day atheists have in the God(s) of Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, or whatever. That there's even a term to describe the state of not having faith-based belief in supernatural forces is bizarre.

Being vocally opposed to religion doesn't necessarily make you anti-theist, either. For instance, I'm against the influence of religious belief in science class (e.g. the teaching of Creationism/Intelligent Design alongside or in place of evolution). I'm against the level of influence religion has on our daily lives through the law (e.g. in southern Ireland you can be prosecuted for "blasphemy", gays are treated as second-class citizens and women are little more than designated reproduction chambers.). I'm against the tax-free status of religion, its seeming ability to operate outside the law the rest of us are subject to, etc. I don't give too much of a toss about what the Bible may or may not get right and find no value in arguing about it, to me that's like arguing about whether or not Grumpy the dwarf's grumpiness may have been an undiagnosed case of Asperger syndrome; it kinda overlooks the fact that it's fiction.