Explain to me the cons of basing our culture off religion.

[O.J. da Juiceman]

@Tim the turtle: Prove that condemnation of homosexual actions is evil and that homosexual actions are morally acceptable. If you would be so kind, would you respond via PM? I don't want to spam up this thread.

Because condemning people for being how they were born, who's "homosexual actions" are no more damaging than "heterosexual actions" is justifiable how?

And please don't quote that fairy tail called Leviticus.

 

[Profesco]

@Profesco: Well dunk me in tartar sauce and call me a fish stick! What a terrible website! (Note non-serious twinkle in my eye)

Ahaha~ I usually use "butter my buns and call me a biscuit," but that was excellent. XD

Regardless of the strengths of their claims, the presuppositions they hold, or the accuracy of their arguments for God, the fact still stands that those who are already convinced that there can be no evidence for will not come to the conclusion that God exists. Also, pointing out the bias of the website does not help your case. They think there is objective proof that God exists. Thus that brings them to the same point as evolutionists. Both sides use statements about the universe (whether the statements are true are or not is a different debate) to support their religious views.

You can't say "regardless of the suppositions they hold," ShinySandshrew. Suppositions being preemptively held is the focal point of your linking to the site, and of my criticism of your linking to it. Pointing out the bias was precisely my case; my case being that using information/quotes from a website which is "baselessly convinced about something [and thus] will come to the conclusion they already hold, regardless of the evidence" in order to accuse the other side of the debate of being "baselessly convinced about something [to the point they] will come to the conclusion they already hold, regardless of the evidence" is a double standard.

Profesco, don't be guilty of intellectual snobbery.

But that and Pokemon snobbery are the only kinds of snobbery I'm any good at. Besides, it beats intellectual or academic dishonesty.

 

[GhostAnime]

Why a PM response? This is a public debate..

GhostAnime, I did not attack your bias, I pointed it out. In the same breath, you said that you can be open-minded, you go and make a closed-minded statement. Do you not see the inconsistency? Furthermore, in your post, you did not ask whether eternal punishment was good--you said you would question God to the point of calling Him, a sadist. If you want me to answer that question, would you be ok with a PM response?

YES, I have researched. Is calling him a sadist for it incorrect and "having my mind already made up"?

Please elaborate. Show me where I'm wrong or have little foundation. I want some criticism and feedback. Not ad homs. Is eternal punishment necessary or unnecessary? If you don't have a view of it, then let me know. It would be so much better than complaining about bias when I could easily say the same thing about anybody.

Seriously. How do you even intend to prove that I'm just being stubborn? Some random link isn't going to tell you that.

 

[O.J. da Juiceman]

No one is arguing with me... This must mean I'm right... Hehehe

 

[GetOutOfBox]

Wow, I left the Debate Forums for a couple of weeks, come back and this thread is still going? Rather than repeating the same thing over and over, why not just sum everything up into a list of facts:

1. The Bible is clearly homophobic, as the excerpts that have been spammed proves.
2. Despite this, a religion is a belief system and therefore it is flexible. If you want to hold a positive outlook on homosexuality, while maintaining most Christian beliefs, go ahead. Anglicans, Protestants, Mormons, etc are all branches of the Christian belief system, yet their patrons still consider themselves legitimate.
3. Homosexuality is a personal choice. No one has any right to decide or have a say in someone else's sexual preference.
4. Not all Christians are homophobic.
5. Christianity has no scientific or logical basis and it's beliefs relating to the creation of the world are unsound and cannot be proven. Regardless, just like sexual preference, there's nothing wrong with holding a belief that hurts no one.
   
   [*]Stating that because something can't be "unproven" is not evidence supporting it's existence, as this is in itself a logical fallacy.​
   [*]There is no point in posting sources that attempt to prove the existence of Christianity, as the entire basis of supernatural religions is faith, and therefore can not be proven in a logical debate. Most of the sources people are posting just seem to follow this pattern anyways:
   
   "Blah blah blah God. Blah blah blah his son. Blah blah blah you can't prove it doesn't exist. Blah blah blah big bang makes no sense ​
6. Just because the religious texts of many religions have obvious bias, and in some cases cruelty, doesn't mean all who believe in the religions follow them. Islam's Qur'an tells it's followers to stone adulterous women, but most Islamic people in stable countries do not practice this aspect of the religion (the frequent violence in Afghanistan is more likely due to the political turmoil that has been prevalent for the last 50 or so years, a lot of children were raised during very unstable periods of that country). Christianity's Bible tells it's followers to execute Gays. This isn't a common practice either. In fact, most people are completely unaware of the darker undertones of their religous texts, and have no issues with homosexuals, nor do they execute adulterous women.
7. Religion has been the figurehead reason of many wars, but it's doubtful that it is truly the cause. Humans are highly territorial and Xenophobic, fearing/despising differences in other humans, for no logical reason. This has nothing to do with Religion.
8. Religion provides a sense of community amongst it's followers, a feeling most people value.
9. Politicians unfortunately sometimes make poor choices based upon their religious views. Again, this is not specifically a fault for a religion, it's the fault in humans that we find making unbiased decisions difficult, and often allow our opinions to cloud our judgement, regardless if those opinions are religious or scientific.

Basically, people should be free to believe in a religion, as it's great in the fact of the unity it provides, but political or other important decisions should not be based upon religious belief.

 

[Sabonea_Masukippa]

whether or not eternal punishment is just?

The 'sins' an individual can commit during its life are finite, therefore eternal punishment for those sins is unjust.

 

[TheFightingPikachu]

Your Bias Is Showing

I believe the point I intended to make is clear, but in case of otherwise, choose any of the 'pot/kettle/black' or 'glass houses/throwing stones' phrases and consider it my endpoint.

You can't say "regardless of the suppositions they hold," ShinySandshrew. Suppositions being preemptively held is the focal point of your linking to the site, and of my criticism of your linking to it. Pointing out the bias was precisely my case; my case being that using information/quotes from a website which is "baselessly convinced about something [and thus] will come to the conclusion they already hold, regardless of the evidence" in order to accuse the other side of the debate of being "baselessly convinced about something [to the point they] will come to the conclusion they already hold, regardless of the evidence" is a double standard.

You know, I am absolutely sick of bias being considered a one-way street. Do you make the same statements about those who quote from openly atheistic/agnostic websites (i.e.,the Skeptic's Annotated Bible)? Will you stop any homosexuals wishing to justify homosexuality from a biblical perspective from citing a website called "GayChristian"?

 

[GhostAnime]

I don't see too many non-believers quote others, and if they do, it surely isn't ancient text or some random website about philosophy. Not to condone every site in the world but even skeptics is better wiki.

Profesco didn't say it was a one-way street, by the way. :\

 

[PokeJustice]

Isn't the potential for "unhappiness" beyond this life the backbone of religious moral code?

It is, but it should not be. A virtuous life is its own reward.

The 'sins' an individual can commit during its life are finite, therefore eternal punishment for those sins is unjust.

Exactly. Eternal punishment is only just if you ascribe to a mortal the ability to commit infinite evil, which is not within his capacity.
Even if it could be justified (which it certainly cannot,) it is not at all fitting with this notion of a God who is merciful. In what way is doling out the most severe punishment imaginable consistent with any definiton of the word "mercy"?

 

[Sabonea_Masukippa]

Exactly. Eternal punishment is only just if you ascribe to a mortal the ability to commit infinite evil, which is not within his capacity.
Even if it could be justified (which it certainly cannot,) it is not at all fitting with this notion of a God who is merciful. In what way is doling out the most severe punishment imaginable consistent with any definition of the word "mercy"?

Not only that, but an omniscient, omnipresent and all-powerful creator deity that let its own creation fall into sin, who also gave them reason and logic but demands that they believe an errant book on faith and punishes them eternally if they do not comes across as down right psychotic.

 

[O.J. da Juiceman]

Not only that, but an omniscient, omnipresent and all-powerful creator deity that let its own creation fall into sin, who also gave them reason and logic but demands that they believe an errant book on faith and punishes them eternally if they do not comes across as down right psychotic.

Well said.

The bottom line is:

1.) People are afraid to die because it is inexplicable.

2.) People want to believe in something that explains death and makes it less scary.

3.) People want to believe they are special, the "chosen ones." Pride won't let us believe we merely fade into oblivion.

4.) The more complicated something is, the more "rules" something has, the more believable it appears.

Thus people believe in religion because it encompasses all of the above. It is a selfish facade masquerading as a pillar of human unity.

 

[Profesco]

You know, I am absolutely sick of bias being considered a one-way street. Do you make the same statements about those who quote from openly atheistic/agnostic websites (i.e.,the Skeptic's Annotated Bible)? Will you stop any homosexuals wishing to justify homosexuality from a biblical perspective from citing a website called "GayChristian"?

Nope. That's your job, and you're exceptional at it.

I didn't say bias was one-sided, either. I returned a volley, I didn't serve. It just so happens that the volleys I return more frequently come from the other side of the net.

 

[Evil Quagsire]

I'll let my personal hero Carl Sagan take it from here, guys:

A fire-breathing dragon lives in my garage"

Suppose (I'm following a group therapy approach by the psychologist Richard Franklin) I seriously make such an assertion to you. Surely you'd want to check it out, see for yourself. There have been innumerable stories of dragons over the centuries, but no real evidence. What an opportunity!

"Show me," you say. I lead you to my garage. You look inside and see a ladder, empty paint cans, an old tricycle -- but no dragon.

"Where's the dragon?" you ask.

"Oh, she's right here," I reply, waving vaguely. "I neglected to mention that she's an invisible dragon."

You propose spreading flour on the floor of the garage to capture the dragon's footprints.

"Good idea," I say, "but this dragon floats in the air."

Then you'll use an infrared sensor to detect the invisible fire.

"Good idea, but the invisible fire is also heatless."

You'll spray-paint the dragon and make her visible.

"Good idea, but she's an incorporeal dragon and the paint won't stick." And so on. I counter every physical test you propose with a special explanation of why it won't work.

Now, what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there's no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists? Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true. Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder. What I'm asking you to do comes down to believing, in the absence of evidence, on my say-so. The only thing you've really learned from my insistence that there's a dragon in my garage is that something funny is going on inside my head. You'd wonder, if no physical tests apply, what convinced me. The possibility that it was a dream or a hallucination would certainly enter your mind. But then, why am I taking it so seriously? Maybe I need help. At the least, maybe I've seriously underestimated human fallibility. Imagine that, despite none of the tests being successful, you wish to be scrupulously open-minded. So you don't outright reject the notion that there's a fire-breathing dragon in my garage. You merely put it on hold. Present evidence is strongly against it, but if a new body of data emerge you're prepared to examine it and see if it convinces you. Surely it's unfair of me to be offended at not being believed; or to criticize you for being stodgy and unimaginative -- merely because you rendered the Scottish verdict of "not proved."

Imagine that things had gone otherwise. The dragon is invisible, all right, but footprints are being made in the flour as you watch. Your infrared detector reads off-scale. The spray paint reveals a jagged crest bobbing in the air before you. No matter how skeptical you might have been about the existence of dragons -- to say nothing about invisible ones -- you must now acknowledge that there's something here, and that in a preliminary way it's consistent with an invisible, fire-breathing dragon.

Now another scenario: Suppose it's not just me. Suppose that several people of your acquaintance, including people who you're pretty sure don't know each other, all tell you that they have dragons in their garages -- but in every case the evidence is maddeningly elusive. All of us admit we're disturbed at being gripped by so odd a conviction so ill-supported by the physical evidence. None of us is a lunatic. We speculate about what it would mean if invisible dragons were really hiding out in garages all over the world, with us humans just catching on. I'd rather it not be true, I tell you. But maybe all those ancient European and Chinese myths about dragons weren't myths at all.

Gratifyingly, some dragon-size footprints in the flour are now reported. But they're never made when a skeptic is looking. An alternative explanation presents itself. On close examination it seems clear that the footprints could have been faked. Another dragon enthusiast shows up with a burnt finger and attributes it to a rare physical manifestation of the dragon's fiery breath. But again, other possibilities exist. We understand that there are other ways to burn fingers besides the breath of invisible dragons. Such "evidence" -- no matter how important the dragon advocates consider it -- is far from compelling. Once again, the only sensible approach is tentatively to reject the dragon hypothesis, to be open to future physical data, and to wonder what the cause might be that so many apparently sane and sober people share the same strange delusion.

This is the most succinct summary of what I believe to be a rational approach to the question of the existence of any type of god.

 

[kaiser soze]

motion to rename this thread to "bash organized religion because it doesnt fit my opinions"

 

[Tim the turtle]

motion to rename this thread to "bash organized religion because it doesnt fit my opinions"

The horror of disagreement!

 

[Grei]

motion to rename this thread to "bash organized religion because it doesnt fit my opinions"

Not that anyone should expect any differently. This happens all the time every day. It's just that this topic was opened by a religious person, asking for non-religious people to come in and defend themselves. This is religion-bashing "heaven." (that has to be some sort of irony)

 

[Sabonea_Masukippa]

motion to rename this thread to "bash organized religion because it doesnt fit my opinions"

Hi welcome to the thread called 'Explain to me the cons of basing our culture off religion.' Hope you enjoy your stay.

 

[Byzantine]

People, religion is inherently flawed in one very simple way: it assumes we have a non-insignificant importance. But the thing is when you compare us to what God is supposed to be, all-knowing, all-powerful, all-good, and ageless we are absolutely nothing. And when you take it a step further you realize just ludicrous it is that he would care, in any way, what we choose to do if it doesn't hurt anyone.

I'm not against religion, I find too many of the ideas that every single major religion preaches to be either paradoxical or nonsensical. And mostly I don't see why any being that powerful would care at all, you might say that he is "personal" but if I knew you I wouldn't care, no one would, so why is he supposed to care about our intimate lives?

 

[Mewtwo_soul]

Personally, I once was a "proud" Christian follower, but have discovered one of the most important teachings of the bible.

In of itself, Jesus refers to the religious leaders as "venomous snakes" why? The king of Jews calls the Hebrew (AKA Jewish) leaders the most "vile of vile" beings. Again, I repeat, why?

Truth be told, religion is bad. The thing which the Bible itself mentions is bad is relgion, the book of Revelation even implies multiple times that Satan builds himself through followers leading everyone to believe he is a saint, and in doing so worship him to found a new religion.

The most overlooked passage I see in the bible is where Jesus plainly states "I am the light." The answer to those who follow religions with bibles (or holy books) making the same statement should see Religion is not the answer. Although it's hard to say that as we take "religion" as =worshipping religious things.

But really I think an adequate idea of religion is more "being led to worship"... Just like those "generation of vipers."

Man is greedy and will make use of anything to expand upon it. (From even a nonreligious view this is factual)

o Christianity teaches that God is both just and merciful. In the bible, God basically exploits a loophole in his own contract (His contract being his holy word, as God cannot lie or go against his own nature.)

I know this is a lopsided argument, but I do agree with what Christianity says on that. Personally as a human having bias judgement of course we are inclined to agree the negative statements over positive. We are all born cynical no matter how you look at it. (That's why negatives are easier to post than positives. You are driven in most instances)

However, humans lack understanding and as such, can our own judgement always be considered fully correct? We make our own base judgements but are constantly proven wrong. What I'm more or less trying to say is that by "human understanding" it is hateful, but possibly another source "high power" knows is quite different. (aside from some details are not even explained by the bible/holy books IE: Is heaven an alt. DI with its own rules?)

Personally I've always seen the figure of God played more of as a dad. You are punished when you do wrong, he loves you still but he has to set an example.

However, at the end BoR, that's when Jesus and God seem to become actually more violent and terrifying. Jesus starts a bloodbath through war and conquers nation after nation.The description of Jesus is actually far more disturbing than the whole "damnation" appearance.

Overall though, no matter what anyone thinks we are all faulty in our thinking one way or another and in the end, whichever "END" is true, that really is all it takes to screw us over in one way to another. What a concept,[the fruit of] Knowledge (which leads to such debates against religion) could be everyone's downfall.

----

On "gay" treatment:

I find it repulsive when any religion such as Christianity attacks such people, when in fact (although the bible damns them) it also says to treat one as you would have them treat you, to turn the other cheek.

People, they read one thing and then ignore the rest.

 

[GhostAnime]

Personally as a human having bias judgement of course we are inclined to agree the negative statements over positive.

Really? I'd say the opposite if anything. People spin bad verse into good verses all the time.