The things they do in the name of religion

[whisperFFW06 0]

Baron, did you bother reading my answer?

Quote[/b] ]I suspect you don't actually see what the problem is.  Your sentence suggests that people in some way need religion to know the difference between good and evil; insinuating that people without religion would not know the difference.

As I explained, the sentence never suggested that people need religion to know the difference, but that religion might help them to know the difference. Religion is not a requirement.

Quote[/b] ]The age of persecution, war, hatred, extreme sexism, the inquisition, witch burnings, oppression and the time when the catholic church gained as much land as it could.

A little "cliché" question : you're from USA?

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

As I explained, the sentence never suggested that people need religion to know the difference, but that religion might help them to know the difference. Religion is not a requirement.

As I explained, YES IT DID.

And further, as I already said: why do you think it is necessary (FOR THEM)?

Quote[/b] ]

A little "cliché" question : you're from USA?

No.

A little question: You didn't do history in school?

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

Ok, here's my responses to your Q's Baron. Note that you don't have to believe them to be 'answers', as you were making statements, not actually asking honest seeking questions.

Please answer the questions instead of moralising about the social implications of them.

[IceFire 0]

You know, all this talk about proof of god and religion and all brings up an interesting topic.

There have been many ghost sightings in the present and past. It may be the only way of proving "scientificly" the existence of god and religion.

The existence of ghosts or spirits would prove the existence of god, and therefore christianaty.

There have been many studies on this subject with many inconclusive results.

But if the funding for research of such paranormal sightings such as "ghosts" continues. We may one day have "scientific" proof that christianity is right.

[denoir 0]

There have been many ghost sightings in the present and past.  It may be the only way of proving "scientificly" the existence of god and religion.

There have been many 'sightings' of Bigfoot, the Lochness Monster, Little Green Men from Mars and WMD in Iraq. That doesn't mean that those things exist!

Quote[/b] ]The existence of ghosts or spirits would prove the existence of god, and therefore christianaty.

Why christianity? Why not islam? And how do you know that ghosts and spirits would have anything to do with god, should they exist?

Quote[/b] ]We may one day have "scientific" proof that christianity is right.

Or the other way around. We may one day have proof that the bible was written for entertainment for a Roman brothel....

[shinRaiden 0]

Ok, fine. to do to do, now that I have explained why, the what.

1) What can be done? Nothing. Either he has his personal liberty of thought or no. I can no more compel you to remove the shackles of willful ignorance than you can compel me to deny what I have experienced. You could attempt to degrade our subject as sub-human or similarily mentally deficient, and therefore managable by the society for the greater good, and where would that end? Back at Buchenwald.

2) Now our subject has gone beyond his internal gratification, and seeks others to gratify himself. When it moves into the public arena from internally private, it has an impact on society at large, resulting in the neccessity of a broader strategic plan.

Establishing commercial relationships with foriegn aliens without proper legal structuring is going to be illegal, for the purposes of providing for uniform regulation, protection under law of laborers, fair taxation, etc.

Societies can also determine that adult-oriented enterprises are a detriment to the society at large, as the vast majority of sexual offenders cite pr0n addictions as a significant motivation factor - encouraging believed deviant behavior would inhumanely jeapodize the safety and liberty of the populace at large. But as it is currently legal in certain jurisdictions for organizations to incorporate as a legal entity for the express purpose of making money of people's misery, those aberritions in law would first need to be corrected and made uniform, before the blight could be purged.

For example, The US government sued the Tobacco industry for marketing a deadly product to the populace. That was a frivilous lawsuit, and actually should have been counter-prosecuted under the RICO act. That said, had the DOJ actually been concerned about the health effects to the populace, they could have regulated the product out of existance via the FDA, and criminally prosecuted the corporations, instead of a civil extortion attempt.

This case of Alien-babe-o-rama is specific in the example you cited. Most religious denominations do not practice cult incest and supreme-leader-makeout-mania-mudwrestling. Most religious organizations of any size anywhere use the financial contributions in outreach programs, often in non-religous settings like food banks, books for impoverished schools, urban rescue missions, etc.

The whole historical development of modern hospitals and associated branches of medical sciences existed under the patronage of Western churches, because of the concious belief in the responsibility and obligation to care for and assist the less-fortunate. Look at East Asia. Hospitals and medicine only recently started to enter there, and it's because the Christian churches took hospitals there, and taught by example that people are to be loved and cared for, not abused like excess chattel.

3) By the time that a practice is used as a elementary foundation of teaching, it has become so pervasive through out the culture at large that it would require a foundational change of individual and societal change of heart and the related follow-through of actions. I can be an example to my friends, support my family, be active in my community, and seek to make a better community, rather than look for opportunities to to seek self-gratification.

Direct self-centeredness is like dope, you never stay high and you're always out in orbit compared with those around you. Religions in general tell you to keep your feet on the ground, and look outside yourself. Why should God have to do everything for us lazy ingrates, when we could be doing the work ourselves?

[whisperFFW06 0]

As I explained, the sentence never suggested that people need religion to know the difference, but that religion might help them to know the difference. Religion is not a requirement.

As I explained, YES IT DID.

And further, as I already said: why do you think it is necessary (FOR THEM)?

Quote[/b] ]

A little "cliché" question : you're from USA?

No.

A little question: You didn't do history in school?

Wait, wait , wait ...

This was an explanation?

Original sentence :

"It is obvious to me that religions help draw the line between good and evil, that one of their primary objectives is to try to make us live together."

Our explanation : "Which in no way means that you can't draw this line without religion. Religion helps. And you feel insulted? Sorry, I don't see how..."

"As I explained, the sentence never suggested that people need religion to know the difference, but that religion might help them to know the difference. Religion is not a requirement."

Your explanation : "Your sentence suggests that people in some way need religion to know the difference between good and evil[...]" See above... "[..]insinuating that people without religion would not know the difference" Where is it "insinuated"? It is not.

Why do I/us think it is necessary for them? But we do not think it is NECESSARY! We think it can helps. You see the difference?

To your 2nd question : No, I avoided every history courses. I only got to science courses....

...

Of course I did history!

Now, you either missed or avoided the end of my post, so I'll repost it, making sure you didn't miss that :

Quote[/b] ]We repeated that religion (religion as opposed to atheism) helps answering questions like "what will happen after I'm dead" and "why am I here? Why this silly world? Is there a meaning behind it?". Science would answer... not really much. Appart from "don't know", "probably nothing". Accepting the existence of a god permits to see somthing after your death, some kind of mind behind the world's schemes. It helps certain people to accept living in this world.

Unless science disproves the existence of a God (something I'm not aware of), why refusing religion?

From what I see : What you refuse is the use and abuse of some religions by some people. You deny the right of a belief to avoid misuse of this belief by a certain portion of the believers. But the real issue is not the belief (scientifically not disproven) but the misuse (scientifically debatable).

Food for though...

[brgnorway 0]

We can argue logically untill we are blue in the face - it won't help because this is Fspilotism at it's worst  

One of the main points of FSBaron is that human intelligence can decide what is moraly right and wrong. However, to say that Kant's categorical imperative have remained unchallenged would be more than a slight understatement. Here's another good example of how human intelligence fail to establish ethics - in the name of science:

Quote[/b] ]The astonishing story of genetic research on humans, which took 10 years to uncover, is likely to shake the world of anthropology to its core, according to Professor Terry Turner of Cornell University, who has read the proofs.

"In its scale, ramifications, and sheer criminality and corruption it is unparalleled in the history of anthropology," Prof Turner says in a warning letter to Louise Lamphere, the president of the American Anthropology Association (AAA).

The book accuses James Neel, the geneticist who headed a long-term project to study the Yanomami people of Venezuela in the mid-60s, of using a virulent measles vaccine to spark off an epidemic which killed hundreds and probably thousands.

Once the epidemic was under way, according to the book, the research team "refused to provide any medical assistance to the sick and dying Yanomami, on explicit order from Neel. He insisted to his colleagues that they were only there to observe and record the epidemic, and that they must stick strictly to their roles as scientists, not provide medical help".

The book, Darkness in El Dorado by the investigative journalist Patrick Tierney, is due to be published on October 1. Prof Turner, whose letter was co-signed by fellow anthropologist Leslie Sponsel of the University of Hawaii, was trying to warn the AAA of the impending scandal so the profession could defend itself.

Although Neel died last February, many of his associates, some of them authors of classic anthropology texts, are still alive.

The accusations will be the main focus of the AAA's AGM in November, when the surviving scientists have been invited to defend their work. None have commented publicly, but they are asking colleagues to come to their defence.

One of the most controversial aspects of the research which allegedly culminated in the epidemic is that it was funded by the US atomic energy commission, which was anxious to discover what might happen to communities when large numbers were wiped out by nuclear war.

While there is no "smoking gun" in the form of texts or recorded speeches by Neel explaining his conduct, Prof Turner believes the only explanation is that he was trying to test controversial eugenic theories like the Nazi scientist Josef Mengele.

He quotes another anthropologist who read the manuscript as saying: "Mr. Tierney's analysis is a case study of the dangers in science of the uncontrolled ego, of lack of respect for life, and of greed and self-indulgence. It is a further extraordinary revelation of malicious and perverted work conducted under the aegis of the atomic energy commission."

Source

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

Why do I/us think it is necessary for them? But we do not think it is NECESSARY! We think it can helps. You see the difference?

But why do you think it helps?

Quite obviously, a great number of people live without needing it's help. So, I ask you AGAIN, as you cannot answer the question, why do you think religion is 'needed' to help these people?

If they don't need it, then what is the use of it, and how do you know its actually religion that is showing them the difference beween right and wrong and not their own ethics and morality?

Quote[/b] ]

To your 2nd question : No, I avoided every history courses. I only got to science courses....

...

Of course I did history!

Doesn't seem like it if you don't know what the dark ages were or the effect religion had on society at the time.

Quote[/b] ]

Now, you either missed or avoided the end of my post, so I'll repost it, making sure you didn't miss that :

Quote[/b] ]We repeated that religion (religion as opposed to atheism) helps answering questions like "what will happen after I'm dead" and "why am I here? Why this silly world? Is there a meaning behind it?". Science would answer... not really much. Appart from "don't know", "probably nothing". Accepting the existence of a god permits to see somthing after your death, some kind of mind behind the world's schemes. It helps certain people to accept living in this world.

But its NOT TRUE.

I'll post this again in case you missed it:

False hope is worse than the truth

Quote[/b] ]

Unless science disproves the existence of a God (something I'm not aware of), why refusing religion?

For the hundreds of reasons already stated in this thread? Can't you read?

Quote[/b] ]

From what I see : What you refuse is the use and abuse of some religions by some people. You deny the right of a belief to avoid misuse of this belief by a certain portion of the believers. But the real issue is not the belief (scientifically not disproven) but the misuse (scientifically debatable).

Food for though...

'Scientifically not disproven' ffs. How many times do you need this explained to you? THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON THE BELIEVERS.

[brgnorway 0]

Quote[/b] ]Doesn't seem like it if you don't know what the dark ages were or the effect religion had on society at the time.

Well, neither do you it seems as you are making comparisons between our modern society and the middle ages. Ever heard about history being judged on it's own historical periods premisses? Do you know what historism is? Obviously not.

One more crucial point is that the concept of "the dark ages" has been abolished years ago - because there were no dark ages at all! The concept itself stems from neo-classic period when the current opinion was that the classical heritage got lost somewhere in the middle ages - that civilisation somehow "lost" it's knowledge thus man took one step back in evolution. That has been proved wrong long ago.

So what did we have in the middle ages? Independent city states in Italy that launched the renesaince period in all it's glory. Architecture in southern Europe that was indeed classical - and not gothic like in our northern area. Literature with Boccacio, Dante etc.

Who exactly do  you think took care of science of the antique period during the middle ages? Oh, could it possibly be the churc?

What did you learn in history class may I ask?

[Pathy 0]

Baron, religion when used correctly, as religion should (ie, not like rouge muslim clerics preaching destruction of the western world), it offers hope and meaning to life that some people just wouldnt find otherwise. It may be your veiw that this is false hope, but you dont know that for sure, and whats more, if it helps them get through their life, provides comfort hope and reasoning where all else fails, then why would you want to take that away? To plunge people into misery?

And religion provides a set of guidelines to live to. The main religions follow these same guidelines. Our legal system is based upon these same guidelines. Religion and ethics are different, and i dont know which came first, but one thing i do know is religion helps "enforce" these ethics, or at least educate people in them.

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

Baron, religion when used correctly, as religion should (ie, not like rouge muslim clerics preaching destruction of the western world), it offers hope and meaning to life that some people just wouldnt find otherwise.

Sorry, but I don't see any evidence for that. How do you know they wouldn't find meaning otherwise? Because of what the religious claim? That's not in their interest at all, is it

I do not think that religion is necessary to give people hope or meaning in their lives (since I have both without religion, and so does 90% of the people I know)

Quote[/b] ]

It may be your veiw that this is false hope, but you dont know that for sure,

Yes, I do. ('sure' being as sure as I am that the Earth orbits the sun - it *could* be wrong.... but it isn't)

Quote[/b] ]

and whats more, if it helps them get through their life, provides comfort hope and reasoning where all else fails, then why would you want to take that away? To plunge people into misery?

Why do you think it would plunge people into misery? IMO it's remove misery and make people feel better and act better towards each other.

Again, though, I reiterate (so many people cannot read, apparently) : I do not want to bother any religous people who keep their ideas to themselves IRL.

Quote[/b] ]

And religion provides a set of guidelines to live to. The main religions follow these same guidelines. Our legal system is based upon these same guidelines.

No, legal systems are built upon a code of laws that was determined by humans using their intelligence. The only places where legal systems are based on religious laws are places under a theocracy, like pre-war afghanistan, Iran, etc.

Quote[/b] ]

Religion and ethics are different, and i dont know which came first, but one thing i do know is religion helps "enforce" these ethics, or at least educate people in them.

Religion helps enforce religious ethics, which are not nessesarily the same as those of the society (eg in a multicultural society like the UK, demanding to cut off the hand of a thief is not an ethical thing to do)

[Placebo 12]

After my Father died I have no doubt that my Mum's faith helped her to get through it. I don't know what's out there if anything, but knowing that her faith is what helped her get though suffering two heart attacks, serious medical conditions and then the death of her husband of 27 years, then I'm more than happy for her to be "delusional", "stupid" or whatever you or anyone else want to throw at her for having her faith.

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

I'm sorry your father died, but that isn't really a good argument. Taking refuge in imaginary worlds helps some people get through trauma. Still, that isn't considered healthy for them and councillors will usually discourage it. Unless it's one specific type, of course.....then it's ok.......?

[Pathy 0]

Actually Baron, the laws of most countries are originally based upon, and have evolved from, the ten commandments, which, you cannot deny, are religious.

How do you know they will find meaning otherwise? Your just answering questions with questions and never plumping for an actual answer, because you dont have one, your just trying to force your views.

A person who believes that no matter what happens, if they live a good life, they will go to heaven, your telling me, is worse off in terms of finding hope and meaning, than someone who believes it doesnt really matter what happens in this life because there is no heaven   Don't be naive, religion is an incentive at the very least for people to behave in a way which is unselfish and deemed good (do unto others and all that....)

And by removing the very thing that provides comfort and hope (ie, the promise of going to something better when this life is up, ect) to alot of people, you are saying theyd be better off?

And what then would most of the worlds population look forward to after thier deaths?    Oblivion....wow, thats a cheery though, bound to give people hope and comfort as they struggle though life.

Im not religious, but i respect the values, the comfort and hope that religion can give to people, you should too, instead of stating religion is worthless, which is what you seem to enjoy doing....

Oh and one last thing, what makes you SO sure no god exists.... You will say "prove god DOES exist", i will answer like you have been answering others questions, by asking the opposite question in return, "prove god DOESNT."

So what proof either way do you have. I am not saying god does or doesnt exist, i have no proof either way. I want to know what proof your basing your opinion on.

Oh and you cant make a comparison between a fact ("earth orbits the sun") and an opinion ("I dont think god exists"), that just doesnt figure.....

[EiZei 0]

Oh and one last thing, what makes you SO sure no god exists.... You will say "prove god DOES exist", i will answer like you have been answering others questions, by asking the opposite question in return, "prove god DOESNT."

So what proof either way do you have. I am not saying god does or doesnt exist, i have no proof either way. I want to know what proof your basing your opinion on.

Usually I tend to believe that something does not exist unless convinced otherwise, do we really need to go back there again?

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

After my Father died I have no doubt that my Mum's faith helped her to get through it. I don't know what's out there if anything, but knowing that her faith is what helped her get though suffering two heart attacks, serious medical conditions and then the death of her husband of 27 years, then I'm more than happy for her to be "delusional", "stupid" or whatever you or anyone else want to throw at her for having her faith.

What is there more to say!

[Placebo 12]

Plenty according to Baron *shrugs*

[Acecombat 0]

Pathy did i hear you use the word 'hope' ....

What is 'hope' according to Baron it also isnt provable , its nothing its just a fantasy our brain cooks up to calm us down and feel better nothing more

So any hopes you guys have better give them up for the sake of coming to grips to reality and instead learn Maths and start doing probabilty equations to find out how much of a chance your hope has of fulfilling itself.

[m21man 0]

Quote[/b] ]You will say "prove god DOES exist", i will answer like you have been answering others questions, by asking the opposite question in return, "prove god DOESNT."

Does and doesn't are very different here. It's like if I said "Hugh Hefner is really a closeted homosexual." I could prove that he is by looking for him in gay bars, installing cameras in his mansion and seeing what he does with male guests, etc. I could not prove that he isn't a homosexual. I could offer evidence that he is a heterosexual (And there's plenty of evidence), but because we can't read minds then we'd never really be sure of his preferences.

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

Actually Baron, the laws of most countries are originally based upon, and have evolved from, the ten commandments, which, you cannot deny, are religious.

Actually, no.

The ten commandments (apart from the ones only relating to Yahweh) were based on laws already existing. Hammurabi's code of laws already had all the concepts in the ten commandments, and they were only a modification to existing laws (now lost.)

Quote[/b] ]

How do you know they will find meaning otherwise? Your just answering questions with questions and never plumping for an actual answer, because you dont have one, your just trying to force your views.

I know they can find meaning otherwise because athiests and other irreligious people do. I keep asking questions because I want you to think for a second. I know that comes hard to some people. Far better to make you realise things yourself instead of telling you, I'm realising.

Quote[/b] ]

A person who believes that no matter what happens, if they live a good life, they will go to heaven, your telling me, is worse off in terms of finding hope and meaning, than someone who believes it doesnt really matter what happens in this life because there is no heaven

Holy strawmen arguments batman!

Nobody believes it doesn't really matter what happens in this life, except maybe nihlists.

Someone who knows they only have one chance at life, is far more likely to make this world as good as possible, instead of just putting up with everything because they think they will get a better life later. It's called the opiate of the masses for a reason: it makes people docile, mindlessly obeying sheep.

Quote[/b] ]

Don't be naive, religion is an incentive at the very least for people to behave in a way which is unselfish and deemed good (do unto others and all that....)

hahah. I'm naive.... right. I've yet to meet a Xian who acts like that, or evem, TBH, better than any athiests I know.

Quote[/b] ]

And by removing the very thing that provides comfort and hope (ie, the promise of going to something better when this life is up, ect) to alot of people, you are saying theyd be better off?

Is a mental patient better off when they are cured than when they believe they are a teapot?

Quote[/b] ]

And what then would most of the worlds population look forward to after thier deaths? Oblivion....wow, thats a cheery though, bound to give people hope and comfort as they struggle though life.

More strawmen. Hows about the worlds population looks forward to improving their life, their friends life, and that of their children.

Quote[/b] ]

Oh and one last thing, what makes you SO sure no god exists.... You will say "prove god DOES exist", i will answer like you have been answering others questions, by asking the opposite question in return, "prove god DOESNT."

READ

THE

THREAD

TOOL.

Quote[/b] ]

Oh and you cant make a comparison between a fact ("earth orbits the sun") and an opinion ("I dont think god exists"), that just doesnt figure.....

Two facts, each as well established as the other. Yes, I can.

Here's another example:

Cheese Goblins do not exist.

Neither do god(s) /godesses.

[Placebo 12]

READ

THE

THREAD

TOOL.

Ok you've been warned enough and still refused to alter your tone and manner, hopefully a WL+ and 48hrs cooling off will help you come back with more respect for your fellow forum members.

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

bgrnorway- very interesting posts  

Quote[/b] ]We can argue logically untill we are blue in the face - it won't help because this is Fspilotism at it's worst  

Fun isnt it.

Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX- Thank you for the prompt reply

Quote[/b] ]I said-"though in relation to matters such as a gods existence or life after death it is not verifiable here one way or the other)"

BHIIX-Not verifiable yet.  The fact remains, however, that its mind bogglingly unlikely to be true.

Yet? Can you tell me of any way being pioneered to verify that a god does not exist or that some kind of continuation of the self does not occur after death in any unspecified form? After death it is rather too late for our purposes dont you agree?

Those concepts are mind bogglingly unlikely to you then, but that does not make it any kind of fact or truth. It is simply your evaluation based on your experiences. So the fact remains, >in your opinion< it is mind bogglingly unlikely. There is no new method I know of calculating the likelihood of a god existing.

Quote[/b] ]Do you not think that false hope is a bad thing?

I think that false hope is a bad thing compared to true hope but potentially a much better thing than a lack of hope. Especially in a circumstance where the false hope is not totally apparent as such, in other words where false hope may be considered simply 'hope' (hope implying by itself a certain possibility great or small of non-fulfilment, a risk), and i am even more favourably disposed to the concept of religious hope when its capacity to do harm seems limited as in the example of the elderly people near death.

Hope is one of the things that make human life bearable. It appears possible to find hope without religion but it is scarcely possible to have true religious belief without some form of hope (even if manifested in a trust in something negative as in certain religions and cults). Hope as an offshoot of faith is one of the central attractions of religious belief and just because when faced with the inevitability of death you or others may find enough hope and meaning in attempting to materially improve the world it doesnt follow that others who dont (living in different possibly harsher circumstances) are comparable to idiots or mental patients any more than that your strict adherence to what is observable and measurable makes you comparable to the creatively or emotionally retarded (please read carefully and let no one interpret this as a flame). Different people have different life experiences and so may possess different requirements for meaningfulness or hope. It is perhaps no accident that religion tends to appear more sensible and inviting in extremis.

Quote[/b] ]I said-...Is pleasure only to be derived from 'simple truth'? Surely a photograph is more objectively 'true' and 'accurate' yet many people may get more pleasure and even find more meaning in a less verifiably accurate more interpretative painted representation...

-But that is a misrepresentation of my position.  It is a good question, though.  Perhaps you'd like to make a new thread about it?

The question might be better phrased as 'Is truth more likely to benefit others than falsehood?'

I appreciate the idea of a new thread but i suggest that this is quite relevant to the matter at hand. Here we see the same stark duality that you (Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX) have maintained throughout. Religions tend to be concerned especially with quite specific types of truth. In remains the case that some things we cannot certainly know the truth of one way or the other (arguably everything we experience) and it is especially in these areas when these questions seem most important that religions hold most appeal. There is no absolute truth of meaning or explanation for our lives that can be discovered except subjectively. There can only be a judgement of more or less likely concepts.

Quote[/b] ]Religion was useful in previous times.  It is just no longer useful.  It's like despotism: an OK way to rule, but there are better ways (think CIV)

Good can come from it.  But overall I think it does more harm than good nowadays.  But then, remember that I'm not advocating some extreme measures of eliminating it or anything.  I'd just be happy if people started thinking, instead of believing.  I'd like to reduce the amount of children brainwashed by it (think of the aliens example) but, I repeat, I'm not going to mount a campaign to eradicate it or anything.

Your assertion that religion is no longer useful could be conceived of as somewhat selfish given your admittance that it can do good (novel though that is) . Your assertion that it does more harm than good is both arguable and hard to separate from your perspective as an atheist (as i am). As an atheist you are not seeing the full benefits of religion for the believer, religious belief being at all times at least as concerned with the internal as it is external (and thus its full impact and meaning being extremely hard to pass judgement on) and so predisposing atheists towards identifying the harms more easily than the good.

I agree with you that critical thought is vitally important but your implication that it must be totally opposed to or even eliminate belief again betrays your atheistic fervour. Is it not possible for critical thought and a level of belief to coexist? Apparently not in the mind of Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX, but others appear able to find a happy union. You say you are not waging any campaign but one seems to detect a certain level of self denial in this.

Quote[/b] ]But why do you think it helps? (-religion-)

Quite obviously, a great number of people live without needing it's help.  So, I ask you AGAIN, as you cannot answer the question, why do you think religion is 'needed' to help these people?

Because everyone lives in different circumstances and with different life experiences and thus the need that people feel for religious belief varies (there is also the possibility of genetic predisposition). The fact that one person or a great many people feel no need for something does not necessarily have any bearing on a great many more who do feel such a need.

Most people do not spend their time testing or attempting to refute widely held scientific theories, in fact most people accept them quite blindly, often without really trying to understand them. They too could be called docile sheep ( your assertion anyway that religion turns people into docile sheep seems greatly odds with many observable facts, in fact it would seem more logical for you to argue that true religious belief makes people -less- docile and orderly based on its purportedly irrational nature). Either we must hold all knowledge and all truth claims in constant doubt, or we must accept a degree of trust and belief (the issue then becoming a question of the degree).

In your new example, if someone perceives evidence causing a judgement that they are Napoleon reincarnated (one could call this a strawman metaphor) , if it gives them a level of hope and meaning in their life that they previously could not attain and if it encourages them to live decently then perhaps it is not such a bad thing to have a few Napoleons around rather than attempting to medically "cure" people of their beliefs and hopes. I would agree that a religion that does not give meaning or hope or does not encourage people to live decently is not so useful, yet all our judgements on usefulness come of we who are not convinced users. If usefulness is even the relevant word.

Anyway, let the believers speak up for their various

beliefs. Clearly i have said quite enough.

[Apollo 0]

Quote[/b] ]You will say "prove god DOES exist", i will answer like you have been answering others questions, by asking the opposite question in return, "prove god DOESNT."

That's a rediculous argument in the context of the debate.

What if one day a man would come to you and say that actually the universe is encapsulated in a large orb carried on the back of a tortuse ,and because this tortuse has to stand on something he stands on an even bigger tortuse ,and under that increasingly larger tortuses in infinety.Sure that may sound rediculous ,but can you prove it to be wrong? No you can't.

In fact i could state that God regulary carnite's as a lesbian in a red light district where he/she works and noobody could prove the opposite.But i can tell you , if one day a nutcase manages to escape from a nuthouse where he had gotten in the first place because he claimed to be God or Jezus ,i'm sure the police that is searching for the nut won't argue that from their position they are unable to decide who's god and who's not and thus morraliy not qualified to arrest this man ,no they will arrest this man anyhow even if there is theologicly a remote chance that he is actually god ,Jezus or a new messiah.

I compiled some question's for christian people on this thread:

1) Do you take Religious dogma's literaly or symbolicly?

if literaly:

-In youre oppinion did God create the world as described in the bible ,contradicting certain proof made in the fields of quantummechanics and bioligy?

-Did the following story's in youre oppinion really happened:

The flooding of the world for Noah.

Mozes splits the red sea.

Mozes initiate's the plague's

Jezus walks on water

Jezus feeds a whole town on a measel rantion of fish and bread.

-Do you believe in hell ,and will you folow certain morality dogma's of religion to avoid being send to it?

Are you of the oppinion that a seperation of "good" and "evil" is logical within the overall dogma's of christianity?

Do you believe in an good and an evil withought nuiancations between them?

Can God as the abstraction of "good" be vengefull?

What is in youre oppinion the threshold of number's of sin's that can be commited withought being sent to hell ,or are you of the oppinion that either any sin will send you to hell or that an infinite amount of sin's can be commited withought being send to hell as long as you confess them?

Is their a grade for Sins and a point system how to calculate when you hit treshold ,for ex would murder send me 5 points closer to hell while not respecting my father only 2 points towards hell ,or are all sins of same manitude?

Can a person that is gennetacly born to commit certain "sins" be send to hell for that? (Scientiests have about proven Homosexuality to be genetacly ,serrial killers are often a product of socialogical enviroment or sheer genetical insanity)

Do you see anticonceptia as sinfull product's ,even in places like South Africa where they can solve a enormous humanitarian problem? Do you see abortion as sinfull ,even if a 14 year old gets pregnant by a rapist?

Are you of the oppinion that overall christianity has and had a good effect on the evolution of humankind ,even taking into account historical phenonema like the Crusade's ,the Inquisition and witchburning?

if symbolicly:

-Where do you draw the line between symbolism and reality.Can God itself be a symbol from that perspective rather than a fact?How can we decide within the teaching's of christian religious what is within the boundaries of symbolism and what's to be taken litterally ,especially when it come's to the practization of certain moral codes?

-When religion on itself is symbolicly ,isn't it then just a certain form of moral code rather than a true spiritual fenonema ,and possibly not a perfect form of moral code?

[Acecombat 0]

Quote[/b] ]In youre oppinion did God create the world as described in the bible ,contradicting certain proof made in the fields of quantummechanics and bioligy?

What proof?

They dont even know how big the universe is or where it came from or whether it even has corner or edges or anything.

Quote[/b] ]Did the following story's in youre oppinion really happened:

The flooding of the world for Noah.

Mozes splits the red sea.

Cant saay about others as i havent studied them but yeh sure these did happen? Why not when a God makes a full bloody universe how difficult is it for him to part a sea in to two?

Quote[/b] ]Do you believe in hell ,and will you folow certain morality dogma's of religion to avoid being send to it?

Yes but the morality is not bound to religion , second you dont get send to hell for not following a religion its about faith in God and living a good life thats it , pretty simple or is it too tough ?

Quote[/b] ]What is in youre oppinion the threshold of number's of sin's that can be commited withought being sent to hell ,or are you of the oppinion that either any sin will send you to hell or that an infinite amount of sin's can be commited withought being send to hell as long as you confess them?

LET me tell you one thing from my muslim POV , no human being can tell you this as to whether you go to HELL or PARADISE for any mentioned sin , there might be a good which youve done the significance of which you dont know , its a completely blind subject here no one can tell where you go only in the end when your book is opened and deeds laid before you will you know what happen. Humans havent been given a Deed-O-Meter to measure such stuff and making presumptions about them is STUPID.

Quote[/b] ]Is their a grade for Sins and a point system how to calculate when you hit treshold ,for ex would murder send me 5 points closer to hell while not respecting my father only 2 points towards hell ,or are all sins of same manitude?

Yes i believe there are some but in the end as i said it doesnt matters lots of variable between here and the end ,if you sincerely repent it who knows God might forgive it all?

Quote[/b] ]Can a person that is gennetacly born to commit certain "sins" be send to hell for that? (Scientiests have about proven Homosexuality to be genetacly ,serrial killers are often a product of socialogical enviroment or sheer genetical insanity)

Genetically born? I dont think thats the case here i dont remember any scientific evidence pointing that out th last i heard they were saying it was because of a hormonal disorder which needs treatment and this is for the genetic ones and i do believe GOD will compensate for that , after all its his creation. Social problems are our own and the faults of which lies on US not anyone else however there is always the Forgiveness factor , no one can be sure on that. Shee genetic problems are not applicable they are all FORGIVEN for it IMO , anyone who isnt capable mentally of thinking on his OWN is forgiven by DEFAULT for every thing he does , because hes like a child basically and every child is free of the shackles of sin and so only when you reach the age of puberty or when your mind is capable of thinking about right or wrong does the sin/virtue game begin.

Quote[/b] ]Do you see abortion as sinfull ,even if a 14 year old gets pregnant by a rapist?

No circumstances change , you need to do whatevers best for you , LET THERE BE NO COMPULSION IN RELIGION. Its better to abort there from a islamic perspective your allowed to do it.

Thats my opinion. And i am a muslim so its not the christain perspective you perhaps wanted but a religious one nevertheless you got