Ha. So what, you think humans need an excuse to be evil and violent and without religion they would lack the excuse and love each other? How childlike and naive of you.

Posted by jeepdave Ha. So what, you think humans need an excuse to be evil and violent and without religion they would lack the excuse and love each other? How childlike and naive of you.

I would prefer to hear tekriter's more eloquent response, but this one is too easy.

No, getting rid of religion would not get rid of all evil and violence. That would be a ridiculous claim. Getting rid of religion would only get rid of most evil and violence.

Posted by jeepdave Ha. So what, you think humans need an excuse to be evil and violent and without religion they would lack the excuse and love each other? How childlike and naive of you.

Religious zealots and institutions make it nearly impossible to have a rational ethical discussion about the wellbeing of other humans.

Consider this: If I said I could increase your lifespan by fifty years by urinating on you, you likely would still not let me piss on you, and people would laugh at me. However if I said that I could survive my own death and converse with long dead relatives - because it was my FAITH, but few people would feel comfortable laughing at me because we, as a society, have made it taboo to mock stupid ideas if they are religious based. (both assertions have about the same likelihood of being true)

The church places itself in the position of claiming to the only source of morality, when in fact it is the last place we should look to for advice on how to best treat our fellow humans and animals.

Take the doctrine of protecting the kiddie diddlers in the catholic church, anything that Fred Phelps says (and I guarantee he knows the bible better than you), the religious right's (wrong's) anti-ethical policy on contraception use in sub-saharan africa or the retarded debate on stem cell research.

This needs more explanation: the bible literalist fools and neo cons would prefer that millions of real actual people should suffer rather than allow the most promising medical line of inquiry since the discovery of penicillin because of thier foolish notion that an imaginary "soul" enters a sixty cell blastocyst (with no capacity for sensing pain, or anything else) at conception.

The god of abraham is too stupid to know that slavery is wrong, but his book is still put forth as a cannon of morality?

People are actually suffering and needlessly dying in agony right now because of ideas you share and have done nothing to stop because of your religion.

ha.

WHAT!?
This was (was) fun, and I still believe that you guys are quite intelligent, but if that’s true, then maybe on selected topics you’re intentionally ignorant, or intentionally lying.

Posted by MutantMandias Getting rid of religion would only get rid of most evil and violence.

Man-made religions WILL produce evil, because, well, it’s man made, agreed there. (And those are outside this scope.) Course, we all see how much better a job communism and comparable isms handle human rights – I’m so impressed.

Posted by tekriter … allow the most promising medical line of inquiry…

Fetal stem cells ARE NOT as beneficial as adult stem cells, but they are cheaper and give opportunity to the lucrative abortion market (I assume that’s what you’re referring to – course depends on who you believe, you probably are 100% behind global warming, or cooling, or whatever they call it now…and don’t start with taking that over the top, I AM an environmentalist, just not a leftist wacko one).

Posted by tekriter The god of abraham is too stupid to know that slavery is wrong…

And since you know your bible, are you being intentionally disingenuous, because you know that He condemns it and created a law requiring they be freed every seventh year? While condoning it, much like condemning but condoning divorce, there are defined laws protecting slaves. Why not force man to disallow slavery? Forcing man to do anything doesn’t work so well, does it? Sometimes it is unfortunate that god allows for free will, but knowing that no good deed we can do provides access to “heaven”, I think our time on earth is more of a demonstration of who is His and who isn’t (especially those that do evil in “His Name”, including slavery). I doubt there will be any child molesting priests in heaven, not because they sinned that sin, because their actions demonstrate they didn’t know God in the first place.
http://www.allabou...y-in-the-bible.htm

Posted by tekriter People are actually suffering and needlessly dying in agony right now because of ideas you share and have done nothing to stop because of your religion.

I’m thinking JD is an evangelical – what faith or non-faith has built more schools, hospitals, relief agencies, or sent more people and money?
Shall JD and I compare the amount of time we volunteer and or the percentage of income we donate with you?
(Hey, that reminds me of an awesome video I made http://www.youtube...atch?v=G_-sB3L5r4Y)

I still contend, based on the topics you choose to argue & those you choose not to, the recycling of arguments that are responded to, etc. that it is your goal only to stifle conversation by other members in these forums, intimidate and harass, and to hide your hatred and anger behind condescension (OK, so it’s not really hidden). Prove I’m wrong by starting an atheist’s forum and abstain from this one for only 6 short months.

Belief is faith if there’s not conclusive evidence, and yours is still a religion…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion
…especially is not exclusively. It is your faith regarding the cause of the cosmos.

I’ve wasted too much of my time already – it was a trap – and I fell into it (well, I knew it was – and must remember that the point of these posts weren’t to convince you, but to allow you to demonstrate to other readers that you are not the “free thinker”, you are the intimidator and harasser.)

Anyway, no offence intended – just my impression.
If I’m right you’re chuckling silently to yourself, if I’m wrong, again, my apologies.

Posted by NotLost then maybe on selected topics you’re intentionally ignorant, or intentionally lying.

such as? (most people, past pre-school actually explain thier arguments, not just say "no. your wrong and your a poo-head.)

Posted by NotLost Man-made religions...

Such as zoroasteranism, christianity, islam, scientology, mormonism......

Posted by NotLost Fetal stem cells ARE NOT as beneficial as adult stem cells, but they are cheaper and give opportunity to the lucrative abortion market

That's a pretty bold sweeping statement. Care to explain?

Oh, wait: No. You are wrong. Look it up.

Okay, I'll explain my objection yo your assertion:

They both have very promising lines of research. The only one that can't be researched/funded in the US is embryonic because of RELIGIOUS objections. You americans don't know how good it might be cuz you are not allowed to look into it.

Lucrative abortion market? Really?

Posted by NotLost And since you know your bible, are you being intentionally disingenuous, because you know that He condemns it and created a law requiring they be freed every seventh year?

WTF? Seriously? Your argument that the bible condemns slavery is based on that? How about I beat you with a stick, but only for seven years? It's not a beating then.

Here is your passage:

If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year. But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him. If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. But the slave may plainly declare, 'I love my master, my wife, and my children. I would rather not go free.' If he does this, his master must present him before God. Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the slave will belong to his master forever. (Exodus 21:2-6)

(i underlined some of the clues. Sorry can't find the "god condemns this" part)

It still says you can have slaves!!!!! Rule only applies to jews (don't know why, I don't know - hey didn't they kill the jesus?) And he can also keep him if he mutilates his ear before god.


Also Read this (they are from the bible):

However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46)


When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21)

Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. (Ephesians 6:5 )


Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them. (1 Timothy 6:1-2 )


The servant will be severely punished, for though he knew his duty, he refused to do it. "But people who are not aware that they are doing wrong will be punished only lightly. Much is required from those to whom much is given, and much more is required from those to whom much more is given." (Luke 12:47-48)


What part condemns slavery? How about a quote or even a reference or how about saying NT or OT?

Posted by NotLost While condoning it, much like condemning but condoning divorce, there are defined laws protecting slaves. Why not force man to disallow slavery? Forcing man to do anything doesn’t work so well, does it?

The pyramids were built by slaves. They are still there. Quality construction.

What about our rule of law that forces people to behave or forfeit thier freedom? Crime rates are dropping, we live in a demonstrable safer society than, say Somalia.

Posted by NotLost Sometimes it is unfortunate that god allows for free will, but knowing that no good deed we can do provides access to “heaven”, I think our time on earth is more of a demonstration of who is His and who isn’t (especially those that do evil in “His Name”, including slavery).

Please explain how god a) exists, and b) allows anything including free will.

I'll concede that we have free will, to an extent, but why does the cause have to be god allowing it?

You assert there is a "heaven". Please state why you believe there is such a place.

Posted by NotLost I doubt there will be any child molesting priests in heaven, not because they sinned that sin, because their actions demonstrate they didn’t know God in the first place.

Except they were priests! And don't they just have to ask forgiveness and then get to go to heaven? I'm iffy on the process here...

Posted by NotLost I’m thinking JD is an evangelical – what faith or non-faith has built more schools, hospitals, relief agencies, or sent more people and money? Shall JD and I compare the amount of time we volunteer and or the percentage of income we donate with you?

We could do that (but I'm sure it would be tedious and mostly pointless, and my question was rhetorical), but I doubt you could demonstrate the same level of dedication that I have, but let's just say I concede your good acts are equal or greater than mine. Good work out there. Who is a better person: one who acts for their fellow man out of concern for their fellow man, or one who acts for promised rewards in an afterlife, or because thier imaginary friend told them to?

Posted by NotLost I still contend, based on the topics you choose to argue & those you choose not to, the recycling of arguments that are responded to, etc. that it is your goal only to stifle conversation by other members in these forums,

1. Identify the lines of inquiry you want me to address and I will.

2. Your contention is incorrect. Rather than stifle conversation, I seek to elevate it to a higher level of discourse on our common goals and problems. One with a higher respect for evidentiary requirements and reason. If you lack the equipment to play at this level you might feel stifled.

Posted by NotLost Prove I’m wrong by starting an atheist’s forum and abstain from this one for only 6 short months.

Ummm, no. Not even if you triple dog dare me. How would that prove anything?I'm interested in religious issues, not the lack of religious issues - a state which exists in very few places in reality.

Oh, and you can't just win a game by asking a better player to go play on a different court. Come on really? Prove I'm right. Why don't you start a forum for people that agree with everything you say, and never question your beliefs?

Posted by NotLost Belief is faith if there’s not conclusive evidence, and yours is still a religion… http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion …especially is not exclusively. It is your faith regarding the cause of the cosmos.

Wow. Nice link, but did you read it all? The nature of belief is much different than faith. Because I believe thing that I have no personal knowledge of does not make it faith. I choose the things I believe if there are good reasons to do so. There are many good reasons to believe in the fact of evolution. There is no good reason to believe that some sky dude designed your penis, or that he cares what you do with it.

Calling atheism religion is like calling bald a hair colour. Think about it.

Simply being skeptical of unreasonable ideas is not a system of beleifs, and atheism specifically rejects the idea of faith being the end of inquiry.

What exactly to you believe is my faith in the "cause of the cosmos"? I suppose the most applicable meaning of cosmos, in the HP Lovecraft and Douglas Adams view, then there doesn't really need to be a cause for the cosmos, now does there?

Posted by NotLost I’ve wasted too much of my time already

Yes you have. But you can fix that with a little honest inquiry into the reasons that you believe some of the things you do, and some intellectual honesty.

Oh, you mean in this thread. Is this the part where you take your ball and go home?

Posted by NotLost (well, I knew it was – and must remember that the point of these posts weren’t to convince you, but to allow you to demonstrate to other readers that you are not the “free thinker”, you are the intimidator and harasser.) Anyway, no offence intended – just my impression.

You can't just make an ad hominem attack and call me names and then add "no offense" to make it a cogent argument. Poo head. (no offense, obviously)

And don't mistake a healthy dose of sarcasm as me being mean. Have you read any of the rest of this forum? If you can't take the heat...

Posted by NotLost If I’m right you’re chuckling silently to yourself, if I’m wrong, again, my apologies.

again, apology accepted.

Oh, notlost,

You could just ignore the last bit. I think it's pretty simple for anyone with a dictionary and dial up internet access to see where you went wrong.

(of course feel free to refute any of my claims or try to answer my questions)

Instead, we could start a new debate. It'll be easier to follow without all the poo-head stuff (still no offense).

1) Do you believe in the power of prayer. Discuss.


2) How do you react to the following bible passage:

I Corinthians 14:34-35

Let women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted them to speak, but to be subject, as also the law saith. But if they would learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is a shame for a woman to speak in the church. — Paul

Posted by tekriter 2) How do you react to the following bible passage: I Corinthians 14:34-35 Let women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted them to speak, but to be subject, as also the law saith. But if they would learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is a shame for a woman to speak in the church. — Paul

It certainly explains why religious men enjoy spending so much time at worship service, away from their nattering wives.

So it doesn’t appear I took by ball and went home, I’ve started a new thread:

http://www.uer.ca/...d=1&threadid=86596

Will be a few days before I have a chance to actually post anything myself, (or reply to anything else) but thought we’d get it started.

Posted by jeepdave Ha. So what, you think humans need an excuse to be evil and violent and without religion they would lack the excuse and love each other? How childlike and naive of you.

Of course not. I quote Steven Weinberg:

With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religionAnd Christopher Hitchens' challenge:

Try to think of a good act performed by a person in the name of God or religion that would not have been performed by a non-believer.

Now, try to think of an evil act carried out by a person (or group) solely in the name of God or religion that would not have been carried out by a non-believer.


My personal belief, naive as it may be, is that religion can make individuals do good things. It is when groups of believers get together that they are more likely to do evil.