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

[Unpredictable-Strategist]

Ah, finally caught up with this thread.

Firstly, I'd like to say that Christians believe that everyone is a sinner, no just non-believers, or gays, or whatever. I think Ethan hit on this, but I'm not sure if it was clear, and the discussion about it was focused on the OP's claim that non-believers are sinners. Even if you're forgiven, you're still going to sin according to Christianity.

Getting to the actual argument at hand though.............

Religion would most likely not succeed in promoting a happy and efficient society. There will always be someone who doesn't believe in a religion, and therefore someone who disagrees. If someone disagrees, they will likely be offended, because religion is a much touchier subject than the other issues we face. Religion attempts to answer the deepest questions most of us want answered: Who am I? Do I belong to a higher power? Why am I here? How did I get here? What happens after death?

Conclusively, there will be backlash if religion leads society.

 

[CSolarstorm]

I have the flu so I'm down for a while again...ugh. Anyway...en garde, TFP!

Thank you for pointing out something in the 4th Generation to prove that Pokémon is based on Shinto, despite the fact that you haven't shown that Shinto involves collecting spirits, and that Pokémon has been shown multiple times on these forums to be based on bug collecting.

First of all, the 2nd Generation. I expressedly mentioned Johto, where the monks of the Sprout Tower debut. Then I extended it to the 4th Generation where the Shinto references are extended with Arceus standing in the Shinto temple.

Kami, the spiritual force in Shinto, is conversely singular and plural; it is the worship of multiple spirits, and the underlying essense that makes those spirits. Please, read for yourself and determine whether or not Shinto involves paying tribute to a spiritual collection:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kami

Second, Shinto was one religion I was listing that Pokemon derives its inspiration from. Did you forget the actual point was that Shinto was one of the many religions I pointed out that the culture of Pokemon comes from? The weather trio are supposed to be the Hebrew Behemoth, Leviathan, and Ziz. (Source: Bulbapedia)

Zekrom and Reshiram are almost certainly Saturn and Jupiter from Rome, the astrological Greater Malefic and Greater Benefic, with of course allusions to Ying and Yang. I say bluntly that I don't have a source for this, but the analysis I made months ago has recieved good reception so far.

Spoiler: Reshiram and Zekrom are based on Jupiter and Saturn

I think Zekrom is based off of symbols revolving around the mythological Roman god and astrological attribute, Saturn. Reshiram, although not as obviously, could be based off of Jupiter.

Wikipedia quotes ahead.

Quote:
Saturn's color is black. The element associated with Saturn is lead.

We have a sort of Yin/Yang dynamic going on between Saturn and Jupiter, where Jupiter is the "Greater Benefic" that benefits and gives expansion and life and progress, while Saturn is the "Greater Malefic" which gives law and contraction, serenity and humility. This Western astrological dichotomy actually matches Yin/Yang quite well.

Quote:
Saturn's function is contraction, which gives Saturn (called since ancient times "The Greater Malefic") a somewhat polarized role against Jupiter (called "The Greater Benefic") in astrology. (...) This makes sense as Contracting is the opposite principle of Expansion, Jupiter's function.

Zeus/Jupiter is the god of the sky, which further supports him being an inspiration for Reshiram. The torch on his tail could tie into the myth of Prometheus, making Reshiram a deity who has fire, and any human (i.e. Team Plasma) who tries to use it being the one to try to take it.

The relationship between the black dragon and the white dragon sounds like the astrological relationship between Saturn and Jupiter, or the keeping-each-other-in-balance aspect that most legendary mascots have:

Quote:
Saturn is considered cold (slow) and dry (separate) whereas Jupiter is considered warm (speedy) and moist (inclusive). Where there is light Saturn brings darkness, where there is heat Saturn brings cold, where there is joy Saturn brings sadness, where there is life Saturn brings death, where there is luck Saturn brings misfortune, where there is unity Saturn brings isolation, where there is knowledge Saturn brings fear, where there is hope Saturn brings skepticism and stalling. However these effects are not always negative.

Bear in mind no legendary nor any Pokemon at all is supposed to be evil; Zekrom, even based on the forces of "darkness" is a necessary force of contraction to keep Reshiram's force of expansion at bay.

Quote:
Saturn's properties of contraction and crystallization are said to create solidness in the world and give lasting form to everything physical and principle.

The contrast between Saturn's contraction, and Jupiter's expansion, which gives everything solidness, is exactly what Team Plasma lacks; solidity. Plasma is trapped between form and formlessness. Plasma is a unique state of matter distinguished from a solid, liquid, or gas.

Saturn's symbols are said to be any shape involving six; hexagons, hexagrams, and cubes (which have six sides.) Saturn, the planet, literally has a hexagon etched into it for some reason:http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/ca.../pia09188.html

Zekrom is decorated with hexagrams over his shoulders, and his kneecaps are hexagrams.

Saturn culture is said to be the inspiration behind the reoccuring trend of buildings shaped like black cubes, since Saturn's color is black. Which reminds me of "Black City", which basicallly looks like a city full of black cubes and completely black square buildings.

Rings are also supposed to be one of Saturn's symbols; for obvious reasons. The planet Saturn has rings.

N has three square rings around one of his arms, a ring on the other arm, and a golden cube with a black center on a keyring; and he has a ringed planet on his necklace. It's not a black cube, although it has a black center, but it is a cube nontheless and matches his abundance of rings and the ringed planet necklace. (Editor's note: Is a Japan trademark Void Cube.)

Furthermore, the Roman reference is appropriate for Unova, since it is pivotal to the Western world, and Unova is based on New York City.

Even if one of these was incorrect, there's no basis to say that because Satoshi was inspired by bug collecting that Pokemon are based on nothing else besides bugs. As well, fiction often involves synthesizing ideas from multiple disciplines. As long as one of my claims about Pokemon being based on different religions is right, my point that Pokemon is based on a religion stands.

BTW, there's absolutely no problem with a woman president. I don't know where that came from. The Bible also reports that there were prophetesses (though there are no prophets male or female today).

The idea of male headship is nontheless sexist; address that point, not the auxillary points that I raised around them.

Allow me to activate the awesome power of my nutjob book; Everything You Know is Wrong.

Why Women Need Freedom From Religion - by Annie Laurie Gaylor

The New Testament continues the holy war against women's rights...
(I will simply provide links to these verses Gaylor cites.)

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+11:3&version=NIV
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1 Corinthians 14:34&version=NIV
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=I Timothy 2:11-14&version=NIV

The Bible wastes no time establishing women's inferior status, her uncleanliness, her transgressions, and her God-ordained master/servant relationship to men (all by the third chapter of Genesis). Women in the Bible, when they are mentioned, are appendages... Fathers own them, sell them into bondage, sometimes have sex with them (As with Lot...), and even sacrifice them, as in the cruel story of Jephthah and his nameless daughter.

The Bible sanctions rape under many circumstances and denies its existance under others, specifically ordaining the taking of virgins as war booty. Wives are subject to Mosiac-Law-sanctioned bed-checks as brides, and later...to deadly tests for faithfulness, as well as no-notice divorce. The Bible characterizes many women as "harlots" and "*****s"...when the Biblical Lord is displeased with a woman, it is referred to as "lewd"...The few Bible heroines to be found are generally glorified for their obedience.

Elizabeth Cady Stanton, the great nineteenth founder of the feminist movement, wrote: "The Bible and the Church have been the greatest stumbling blocks in the way of women's empanicipation."

After the organized women's movement was launched in the 1800's, Elizabeth Cady Stanton recalled how "the Bible was hurled at us on every side."

This quotes from Stanton collude my original point that athiests might take credit for feminism...it even adds to it that Christians were actively in the way of the feminism we take for granted today. She doesn't say that the radical Christians hurled the Bible at her. It came from every side, and according to her, it was the singular greatest opposition.

Now let's move away from Christianity, and explore other religions contributing to sexism. Now, we already know parts of Islam have the practice of covering women so as not to tempt men. This absolves men of all sexual responsibility and makes any advance upon the woman's beauty as the fault of the woman. It is rape apology. More on the issue by Gaynor:

The Koran, written some 700 years after Christianity began...advises "Marry as many women as you like, two, three, four" (Koran 4:3) The Koran states that women are worth half as much as men: "The male shall have the equal portion of two females" (4:11)

I won't go on about Islam; you don't like their policies any more than Gaynor does. And it's pretty obvious the misogyny in conservative Islam! The OP however, asks about religion, so I will feel free to cite disagreements with any religious texts I decide to.

Then there's the Greco-Roman Pandora, the first woman. Much like Eve, Pandora was the first woman. However, she was actively supposed to be a burden and a distraction. She was sent from the Gods to distract men and keep them from divinity, making a overarching and modern offensive statement about women. She was also given a dilemna, which she failed, and released all the ailments of man into the world by breaking her pythos, or, her jar, modernly seen as "Pandora's Box". There is a reoccuring element in religion that puts the blame of all the ills mankind on women.

As you can see, major religions have not given women respect in the way we are used to giving them today; another gap between modern standards and religious standards of old; to follow these religions we must either decide to doublethink, and hold conflicting standards, hold sexist ideology, or try and reconcile by liberally believing parts of the holy texts. You could say that it is just as liberal to insert a new interpretation or rationalization about how you can fill these gaps.

 

[Tim the turtle]

That title was selected specifically in response to Tim the turtle's express statement that he hates religion, coupled with his inaccurate statement about secondhand reports. It was not meant to imply more.

It was not an innacurate statement. You haven't shown that the Gospels were not second-hand at all, Q may be inferred but it is still the given scholarly explanation for the origins of the Gospels and makes the Gospels second hand by definition. Whether or not you think that's a bad thing is up to you, I guess. I normally would not have too much of a problem with second-hand sources (though they tend to be less accurate than first-hand accounts), but this is not an ordinary problem.

If you were to ask me I would say undoubtedly that Jesus existed. Lucian and other historians do confirm that. But that is not an extraordinary claim and so can be satisfied with ordinary evidence of which a second-hand source is. But the Gospels make extraordinary claims about Jesus, and so necessitate extraordinary evidence, which they most certainly are not, this is something that is made even less so by the fact that they are second-hand.


Of course, frankly I would still find it ludicrous to believe even if the sources were all first hand, so if you think that "second-hand sources" is somehow the root cause of my hatred of religion (you ignored everything else I wrote) then you are sorely mistaken.

 

[Ghostie]

First off, I am a follower of Jesus Christ. This would imply to most that I am a Christian, but I don't like that title because it is associated with so many terrible things which I have nothing to do with. I don't like to say I am a follower of any religion, and this is why.
--Christians are expected to attend church. Every church has a different belief system, even though they all claim to be the same religion. Every church claims that it has all the answers, and that the church down the street is doomed, and everyone is it is going to burn in Hell. Judgmental, and arrogant. Period.
--Christians, as a whole, are terribly ignorant and misinformed about their own religion. They think they know what the Bible is about, when they clearly don't because they haven't even studied the origin of the translations. In many, many cases there are mis translations in the Bible. Jesus himself said the book is not perfect. Most Christians today say it is. EVEN THOUGH it was written by humans, and EVEN THOUGH there are several accounts about what happened when Jesus died and was resurrected.
--I don't like to be told that I can't question what I'm reading. God said "Seek and ye shall find". How can I do that if it's forbidden? It's like everybody lives in the dark ages.
--I UNDERSTAND why people think Christians are too judgmental and that they shut everyone out. I don't see where they get some of what they say. They claim that so many things are evil without even looking at them, and they claim that everything is heresy. This is what makes it seem as if Christianity stifles progress. Why do they forget that many of the things that Jesus was doing in his day were considered evil? He was doing what was considered in many people's eyes to be MAGIC. And many called him a devil.
--I DO NOT like religion myself. Jesus did not come here to teach religion. He was trying to teach something that people today still don't get. He was trying to tell us how to live better, and how to treat each other. He wanted us to understand FAITH, too. He wanted us to understand that we limit ourselves by being human. Whatever we believe, is what is true. He wanted us to understand that we don't need doctors, because if we believe it, we won't even get sick at all. Faith is the hardest thing for any of us to get, even me.

Religion is a tool for control. Jesus came to free us all. But nobody understood, and they twisted what he came for into a religion. If you research it, you'll see that many things were translated so terribly that it changes the meaning of lots of the things he said.

 

[Fused]

Oh. I apologize, because I in no way intended to indicate that your statement was not mature (because it most defintely was mature), or that I actually keep a list. I apologize for not making my comment about sarcasm clear enough, and will edit that post to add a clarification (if the forums don't prevent it like they did yesterday when I tried to edit). However, I did not say what you quoted me as saying--I did not say you were on a list!

Although now, to immortalize this incident for humor and not for misunderstanding, I should actually make a list of worst debaters:
1. Ed, Edd, and Eddy
2. The guy from that "Is Cable Better than Gravity?" commercial
3. TheFightingPikachu (for epically failed sarcasm)

I think Ed, Edd and Eddy would count as three separate people.

So, basically, you admit to making a post that offered absolutely no merit or intelligent discussion directed towards me and really just made it to make a few ad hominem, condescending "jokes?" Well, at least you own up to it.

I do have one question for the Atheists, which is not meant to belittle you in any way. I just have always wondered this. Why, if there was even the slightest chance that you could be eternally happy forever, would you not take that chance?

Because we don't buy into the "if." Because we have suffered traumatic events that our faith cannot reconcile or heal. Because our faith does not satisfy us, spiritually. Because we hold a stronger belief in science and the like instead of faith. There are many reasons, and they are just as varied as why one would choose to be Buddhist instead of Muslim, or Christian instead of Jewish.

...You do realize that God teaches us that he'll love us no matter what, right?
It is essentially a Christian's staple lesson.

But of course, if you do this or do that and eat this and **** that then you're going to suffer for all eternity.

But God still loves you.

yet they seem to forget that all that religion carries is positive uplifting messages like this?

Positive? It also carries a message that I, along with thousands of others, will suffer until the end of time simply because of who we love. I forgot to put that on the "Positive" list.

Oh and Fused, your coming off very arrogant towards the religious here. I'm just saying.

I apologize for not shitting rainbows and butterflies, but how exactly am I being arrogant? If I come across as insincere or condescending, I do apologize, as I don't want this to devolve into immature crap-flinging, but arrogant... well, let's just say that I don't think highly of myself.

I'm just saying, if you don't believe in God,Allah, budda, ect, don't go out on a mission prove its wrong since it has nothing to with you.

I still do not think it is fair to assume that most atheists or scientists go out of their way to lead a crusade agaisnt religion. Likewise, I can't imagine that most religious people go out of their way to convert scientists and atheists. Other than that small implication, I agree - your religious beliefs, or lack thereof, are personal and shouldn't be made public domain in the hopes to destroy the beliefs of a different party, because that seems to be what is happening nowadays.

 

[Jb]

Somebody is butthurt, calm down.

I do like the way Ghostie put it, well said, it's nice to see thing from another view.

 

[Empoleon Bonaparte]

Somebody is butthurt, calm down.

that's not being butthurt

o_o

 

[CSolarstorm]

Somebody is butthurt, calm down.

I do like the way Ghostie put it, well said, it's nice to see thing from another view.

Fused is being angry, but so far he hasn't overtly attacked anyone - I would be angry if multitudes of people were calling my sexuality a sin, which it is inappropriate to say anything about someone's sexuality, and then acted innocent about it.

I think straightforward malice would be easier to cope with than a bunch of saccharine-sweet people calling you a sinner, saying you deserve hell, and then smiling and saying they forgive you. What the heck do you do with that?

I would not get emotionally involved in these forums, personally. But it is rather "butthurt" to pick on Fused just because he started swearing.

 

[Jb]

Ah very well, my bad.

Anyway im not one those people who bash someone because of their sexuality, mostly because regardless of who they like, it affect me in no way what so ever, as a christian it really pisses me off to see these large groups of people go out of their way to ban something/condem what has absolutely nothing to do with them.

 

[Fused]

Somebody is butthurt, calm down.

Again, I can't **** rainbows and butterflies.

Anyway im not one those people who bash someone because of their sexuality, mostly because regardless of who they like, it affect me in no way what so ever, as a christian it really pisses me off to see these large groups of people go out of their way to ban something/condem what has absolutely nothing to do with them.

See? That is a central component to this discussion, about why people dislike religion (although, I don't think it is exactly fair to hold religion accountable for the religious, as weird as that may sound, but you catch my drift) and I agree with this whole-heartedly (We agree a lot. Just saying.) - your religious beliefs, or lackthereof, are personal and should not be made public domain, mostly because we live in a diverse society and not everyone can accept your beliefs, just as you may not accept mine or I can accept my dog's.

I suppose that would be the biggest con of basing an entire society off of religion.

 

[ShinySandshrew]

Christians are expected to attend church.
Every church has a different belief system, even though they all claim to be the same religion. Every church claims that it has all the answers, and that the church down the street is doomed, and everyone is it is going to burn in Hell. Judgmental, and arrogant. Period.

My church doesn't do that. We've even had a special conference where two pastors from other churches came and spoke. Thus, not every church is guilty of what you accuse them of. Also, I've been to churches when i was away from home that are not guilty of what you accuse them of. Theory debunked.

--Christians, as a whole, are terribly ignorant and misinformed about their own religion. They think they know what the Bible is about, when they clearly don't because they haven't even studied the origin of the translations.

May I introduce you to Bruce Metzger, A.T. Robertson, and Daniel B Wallace? I think it's safe to say that these guys have done a lot of investigating of the origins of the Bible.

Jesus himself said the book is not perfect.

Simple question here: where? Why don't you show me that reference?

--I don't like to be told that I can't question what I'm reading. God said "Seek and ye shall find". How can I do that if it's forbidden? It's like everybody lives in the dark ages.

The Bible does not say to never question the Bible. As a matter of fact, Acts 17:10-15 tells of people who investigated what Paul was teaching to see if it was true. It even calls them noble. Furthermore, the people I mentioned above have done some questioning of the Bible and have not lost their salvation because of it.

He wanted us to understand that we limit ourselves by being human. Whatever we believe, is what is true. He wanted us to understand that we don't need doctors, because if we believe it, we won't even get sick at all. Faith is the hardest thing for any of us to get, even me.

Jesus never said that whatever we believe is true. He said "My words are truth" and "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life, no man comes to the Father but by Me."

Furthermore, where did Jesus say that we don't need doctors and that if we have faith, we won't get sick? I'd like to see where you find that.

Religion is a tool for control. Jesus came to free us all. But nobody understood, and they twisted what he came for into a religion. If you research it, you'll see that many things were translated so terribly that it changes the meaning of lots of the things he said.

Which things are you saying were so poorly translated? Furthermore, how do you know they were poorly translated? Are you a Greek scholar? Have you ever looked at the Greek text?

 

[Mariya Shidou]

All of these points have been addressed already, but this is still pretty disgusting.

Let's turn that statement around? What makes you think slavery and stoning of witches is immoral and homosexuality is ok? On what do you base these claims?

Have you thought about what is involved in slavery? And, for that matter, stoning of witches? Stoning of witches breaks the fifth commandment and could be seen as a form of religious triumphalism. At the very least, you're being a dick (and killing people, unless by "stoning them" you mean "offering them a joint").

Jesus forgives gays of their sin. Any and all. God let's everyone come to Him for salvation without having to change their behavior. They don't have to clean up their act to get saved. That doesn't mean He wants them to stay in the same state as when they were unsaved. On the contrary, Ephesians 2:3 and Titus 3:3 say that we should not commit the sins that we committed before we were saved.

So, gays are evil. For what? I can see why homosexual would be unfavorable at the time (have to keep the race alive), but today?

One can label things without being judgemental, Fused. Judgement is not always wrong. Neither is labeling.

"Judge not, that ye be not judged." (Matthew 7:1) i.e. "Judging others is wrong."

Really now? Why don't you take a look at these articles?

Exceptions, not the rule. Hinduism accepts Christianity as a path to moksha. Note also that your second link (I won't ride your *** about it being wikipedia this time) says "Hindu extremism in India." Emphasis on extremism

As a species, we've come too far to commit such retreads.

Oh, and I think most of you are forgeting that religion teaches us to respect and love one another. Not to "condemn" others for their faults. Now people try to prove that religion is wrong, and yet they seem to forget that all that religion carries is positive uplifting messages like this? Doesn't that all seem a bit wierd to you all?

Correction: it tries to. To be honest, my problem is not with all of religion, just with certain types of people. The people who believe I'm going to Hell because I don't agree with them, or who think that my gay friends, my bi friends, or I (as a bisexual) are going to hell for occasionally considering having sex with someone of the same gender, or that someone is gonna get roasted for using a condom, or that God sent a natural disaster to kill a bunch of abortionists... well, if they're right about religion, I'll let them share a lava pit with me, if you catch my drift. It's not really mature to make such arguments that basically boil down to "no u," but people who behave that way are trying to control others with fear and probably aren't good Christians/etc. To be sure, not all religious people are evil. I've known some pretty cool preachers. I've also met some real scum-of-the-earth types.

My problem with having a society based on religion is that it induces a bias for or against certain people and it does hold society back in some ways as a result. Don't try to tell me anything about how it engenders a society with morals -- morals can come from other places and not create biases toward or against people who have a different way of thinking about that which can never be known. That kind of bias is immoral anyway.

In short: it just doesn't work for me.

Religion is a tool for control. Jesus came to free us all. But nobody understood, and they twisted what he came for into a religion. If you research it, you'll see that many things were translated so terribly that it changes the meaning of lots of the things he said.

And really... this is kinda how I feel about the religion. Jesus had good ideas, but nobody. ****ing. GOT IT.

 

[evolutionrex]

i just found this thread, so I'm going to give my thoughts.

Do i hate religion? In fact, i don't. Religion has brought us great things in the past, and i am truly thankful for Christianity for making America. But i hate the fact that Christianity killed so many people in the past. Their are pros and cons. In my opinion, which I'm sure many won't agree, Athiesm should be counted as a religion. I don't hate or disrespect religion at all.

It's like fused said, just becuase I'm an Atheist doesn't mean i hate religion. I just simply don't believe in any God. Although i can't say that for Atheist. there are a number of Atheist who call themselves Atheist only becuase they hate a certain religion, and all they do is rebel.

I am a man of science. Science is the truth of the universe, so in my opinion religion should be be a lot more loose on their beliefs. People just have to open their minds a bit. Don't be stubborn and say things like "Evolution is the devil" when their is a massive amount of proof sitting right in front of you. If you find out that God isn't real, if their was any way to proof it, don't be stubborn and say the scientist are wrong, accept it. If i was proved that god existed, i would believe in god.

The world could work very well without religion. people could let scientist do their thing and actually help out with important stuff like Global Warming instead of arguing with religious people that Global Warming exist (believe it or not, that's still an issue). People should stop saying "Jesus will safe us!" becuase, in my opinion, he won't. People have got to let science help us. Science caused the problem, and, if people let it, it'll fix it too.

So, it's not that i hate religion, i in fact respect it very much, it's the people who can't adapt their religion with the science of modern day who i can't stand.

 

[Lbsweet96]

The world could work very well without religion. people could let scientist do their thing and actually help out with important stuff like Global Warming instead of arguing with religious people that Global Warming exist (believe it or not, that's still an issue). People should stop saying "Jesus will safe us!" becuase, in my opinion, he won't. People have got to let science help us. Science caused the problem, and, if people let it, it'll fix it too.

Well, I read the post. I read the paragraph. I read the sentence. I read the paragraph again. I read the post again. I could honestly only interpret this one way.

So people shouldn't express their opinion because you don't agree with it? Every opinion is valid, regardless of your feelings toward it. Every opinion can benefit a conversation, even if it's only to make your opinion look better =P Please tell me I misinterpreted this. For my sanity's sake, please.

 

[CSolarstorm]

This thread has become very understanding. I loved Ghostie's take on Christianity. The virtues of Jesus and his message as an individual is what keeps me a Christian. I liked that LDsweet96 brought up the vocal minority. People have really been on the ball in refuting bad claims like the homosexuality, stoning and slavery one, and the male headship claim, as soon as possible. We have had one or two people complain that humanity should be devoid of belief altogether, but generally, we all seem to be considerate about the existence of religion, and the freedom to hold opinions.

 

[Tim the turtle]

I have no qualms with anyone holding any sort of belief in some spiritual existence (as I have already stated), but it's very important that I have my own beliefs too, and I believe that religion is an evil thing in this world. Not belief in God, not belief in Jesus, not belief in Krishna or Allah or whatever, but religion itself is an evil thing. It's interesting, most people here are saying they're fine with religion but not with some religious people, whereas I'm actually fine with religious people, but not with the religion itself. I view most religious people as victims of religion, not the problem with it (at least, it's not their fault if they're a problem).

 

[Fused]

Everyone has their own varying need for spirituality and different faiths or different sciences satisfy different people. I have no problem with people following a religion, but I have a problem with them using that as a tool to reach their own ends, or using it to achieve political agendas (stop abortion, ban gay marriage, etc.) mostly because you cannot effectively control the public with a personal belief.

Not that I don't have any problems with religion in general. As I said earlier, my biggest problem with religion is that it presents itself as holy, flawless, and immaculate and therefore everyone fears changing it even slightly. However, no society can possibly survive if the rules never change. Everything else keeps on chaning - environment, people, attitudes, customs, beliefs, etc. - but the rules of religion never change to accomodate these things, therefore religion inhibits its own growth and automatically presents itself as an enemy to forementioned changes in society.

 

[kryn]

although, I don't think it is exactly fair to hold religion accountable for the religious

I have to agree with that, it is not the religion that is the problem, it is the religious leaders that want to have worldly power that is the problem.


Of course, many of the prohibitions was made with good intentions, but the reason have disappeared over time and therefore do not serve any purpose any more.

 

[minkachan]

I just found this thread, and I have to say, I'm quite impressed with the general lack of wank that usually follows religious discussion.

I'm an agnostic, not because I am shaky in my beliefs but rather because they are beliefs. What do I, or any of us, know about the ways of the universe? So I am more interested in focusing on our current world.

I have no qualms with anyone holding any sort of belief in some spiritual existence (as I have already stated), but it's very important that I have my own beliefs too, and I believe that religion is an evil thing in this world. Not belief in God, not belief in Jesus, not belief in Krishna or Allah or whatever, but religion itself is an evil thing.

While I don't know if I consider institutional religion to be evil (I don't think there is true evil or true good; there are psychoses, of course) I do know that religions have, time and time again, been the justification for war, classism, persecution and torture, among other heinous things.

The powerful continuously disenfranchise the powerless simply by appealing to their faith. Being powerless makes people cling to their beliefs, and that in turn makes them vulnerable to manipulation.

Right now, in the US, we have this super polarized society in which conservatives and liberals fight over silly wedge issues that deflect the real problems: corruption, war culture, corporatism, etc.

Religious people have given us great things, this is true. But religious belief is dangerous for free people in that it is likely to be exploited by greedy people willing to take a photo leaving church.

 

[Unpredictable-Strategist]

Before I say what I want to say, I'd like to thank all of these people who actually explain their distrust of religion. It's really made me think about being a Christian, and how anything that didn't come out of Jesus' mouth can and should fall under some scrutiny.

Obviously, the Bible has many flaws. It even says at one point that sex is a particularly bad sin (I'm sorry I can't give you the verses; I couldn't find any with all the crap people put on the internet clogging me up). Jesus spread the word mainly about how you treat others, as Ghostie said. I'm sure he didn't say anything about the "evils" of sex, nor did he condone this view. I can't speak for Jesus, but it seems like a man of love, peace, and kindness would want to further the human race, not inhibit it.

I wish Christians hadn't become associated with the view that everyone else is going to burn in Hell, but I can't do much to stop that. God (if he exists, which I believe he does), being an all-powerful and malevolent being, does not wish that anyone burns in Hell by definition. Everyone should be saved if there is a God like this, even if they don't believe. God would inherently wish it, and being all-powerful, he would make it happen.

Faith should be the main foundation of any religion. But those who twist and bend it are only using it to satisfy themselves. When I say this, I mean twist and bend, not healthily interpret. Looking to far into a religion is far too common, which leads to a lack of faith and an abundance of inaccurate hope. Hope is wanting something to happen, faith is believing it will happen (even without solid evidence).

Religion is, at its base, interpreting the message of a "holy" figure. Wherever there is translation and interpretation, there is bound to be error. Our society could not function on something that is inherently holy and flawed at the same time. Not to mention the fact that extremists are usually the vocal minority, so they stand a larger chance of ruling a religion-based society than those who question their religion.