Now Im not asking if religion is right or if there is a God or anything like that, as they are completely different questions, but do you think that in general, the world would be a better place if there wasnt such a thing as religion?

hhmm- its a fine like- id like to think it would be because of all the wars and likking that goes on in the name of religion but i have a feeling the world might decend into anarchy if it wasn't for it!

O,dear .Whatever have you done?This should be good.;)

It gives a lot of people comfort and a purpose in life.
If you could make everyone who is religious the same religion, one that doesn't have instructions about killing anyone who doesn't agree with you, and make them all stick to it, I think that would be ok.

A lot of wars and persecutions are, have been and will in the future I expect, be conducted in the name of God, Allah or whoever. So in that respect, yes maybe we would be better off without it.
In that respect religion further serves to gives human beings another excuse to divide into groups and dispise one another.

Oh My God, yes! ;)

Agree with Nick's sentiments. Religion gives some people comfort through times of difficukty and gives them their faith.

However, God/Allah's name is too use easily when attacking other groups and religions. If the main man is watching he must be shaking his head in disbelief!

People need to learn to respect other religions but not preach about his/her own. In todays society they must also understand that not all of the bible/koran etc meets with todays happenings/needs.

Originally posted by Lee1979
A lot of wars and persecutions are, have been and will in the future I expect, be conducted in the name of God, Allah or whoever. So in that respect, yes maybe we would be better off without it.
In that respect religion further serves to gives human beings another excuse to divide into groups and dispise one another.

People would just use another excuse to butcher their neighbours if we didnt have religion. Its more a problem with humans in general I think.

Originally posted by scottf
because of all the wars and likking that goes on in the name of religion

wars and likking? I though that type of behaviour was frowned upon by most religions ;-)

I suppose religion and believing in the afterlife provides a huge comfort for anyone afraid of death, or for people worried that they have achieved nothing in life and look forward to something better.

I don't think all that much of religion when I turn on the tv and look at the weeks latest war/suicide bomb/genocide etc etc etc etc etc etc etc

Originally posted by nightrider
People would just use another excuse to butcher their neighbours if we didnt have religion. Its more a problem with humans in general I think.

yes. thats what i mean. its even more of an excuse and one that is hard to settle because essentially both sides are right.

I voted no after hovvering over yes for ages.

The world would be a better place without psychopathic megalomaniacs who use religious ferver as an excuse to gain personal wealth & power while being given a platform & protection from uber pc numpties. :loopy:

Religion is a usefull tool to comfort the weak of body, mind & soul.


And churches are nice for wedding photos.

Originally posted by spyro2000
Now Im not asking if religion is right or if there is a God or anything like that, as they are completely different questions, but do you think that in general, the world would be a better place if there wasnt such a thing as religion? have you ever heard of communism????

Let's get honest, forget religion, that's not the real issue.

The world (well, planet earth) would be a LOT better off without people.

Is religion the CAUSE or the EFFECT?

Does religion create terrorists or is terrorism just a manifestation of peoples feelings? People create religion, not the other way round.

The muslim extremists hate the west for what they did to them in the past.

What I'm saying basically agrees with Jamie's comment!

the more i study religions the more i am convinced that man never worshipped anything but himself

Originally posted by Jamie
Let's get honest, forget religion, that's not the real issue.

The world (well, planet earth) would be a LOT better off without people.

I agree with this point. For many people, it is their religion that teaches them to care for the poor and those in need, and to turn the other cheek. (Granted, there are many Atheists who do the same, and many who do not).

How do any of those who wish to see an end to religion expect to solve the problems of society? To put an end to the 'young, angry, unwanted' underclass walking the streets - many of whom are probably Athiests already?

Originally posted by deadgobby
the more i study religions the more i am convinced that man never worshipped anything but himself

I'm thinking the opposite, in that people who worship God would be less likely to hero-worship the latest celebrity.

Originally posted by Abdul
I agree with this point. For many people, it is their religion that teaches them to care for the poor and those in need, and to turn the other cheek. (Granted, there are many Atheists who do the same, and many who do not).

How do any of those who wish to see an end to religion expect to solve the problems of society? To put an end to the 'young, angry, unwanted' underclass walking the streets - many of whom are probably Athiests already?



I'm thinking the opposite, in that people who worship God would be less likely to hero-worship the latest celebrity. atheistism is the begining of knowledge ,when a young man see's the state of the world largely due to religions its natural to reject religion,and usely make an emotional decision and become an athiest.........and i never said worship celebrity....thats for the people who belive in the great god...pop music......i said self

Originally posted by deadgobby
atheistism is the begining of knowledge ,when a young man see's the state of the world largely due to religions its natural to reject religion,and usely make an emotional decision and become an athiest

But what of those disasters caused by factors other than religion, such as greed and selfishness? When I see examples of the 'young, angry, unwanted' underclass, or conversely, those with power, wealth and influence behaving selfishly, ignorantly and corruptly, it makes me cling even tighter to my faith.

Originally posted by deadgobby
and i never said worship celebrity....thats for the people who belive in the great god...pop music......i said self

OK, but don't you think that both the examples I give above are about people worshipping themselves?

Originally posted by Jamie
The world (well, planet earth) would be a LOT better off without people.

That's exactly what I was going to say!

I think I've made my position on this crystal clear in a variety of other threads, but anyway - yes, the world would be a much better place to live without religions.

Originally posted by Abdul
But what of those disasters caused by factors other than religion, such as greed and selfishness? When I see examples of the 'young, angry, unwanted' underclass, or conversely, those with power, wealth and influence behaving selfishly, ignorantly and corruptly, it makes me cling even tighter to my faith.

.....until you put the news on and see how many more people have been killed in the name of religion.

A world without religion would put me out of a job for a start!

Seriously though - religion, in my opinion, is a human invention - born from the need to feel purpose and meaning in our existence. I don't think this is necessarily designed for the weak - but for those that seek an other worldly explanation as to why we are born, then live, then ultimately die. Without some sort of sense of purpose, be it from a god or otherwise, is there really any point to our existence? I am jealous of people that have faith - I really am.

Religion was designed to both control and comfort and was sucessful for a very long time - however I can see organised religion ceasing to be in the not too near future as, we as a race, devolve further into ourselves to seek explanation for our being.

A group can only be successful for so long with an intangible leader... control will be sought and power abused and who better to "blame" than the person no one can actually see? This is exactly what I see happening in the world today.

So said the agnostic RE teacher.... :)

Originally posted by t020
.....until you put the news on and see how many more people have been killed in the name of religion.

Dear boy, you've avoided my question:

How do any of those who wish to see an end to religion expect to solve the problems of society? To put an end to the 'young, angry, unwanted' underclass walking the streets - many of whom are probably Athiests already?

Originally posted by Abdul
Dear boy, [/i]

I love the patronising way you address me. ;)


Originally posted by Abdul

you've avoided my question:

How do any of those who wish to see an end to religion expect to solve the problems of society? To put an end to the 'young, angry, unwanted' underclass walking the streets - many of whom are probably Athiests already?


More effective law enforcement. Besides, a lot of troublemakers are also religious. I bet you see your fair share of young whipper snappers that also regularly attend your local Mosque.

Originally posted by t020
I love the patronising way you address me. ;)

It'a term of endearment ;)

Originally posted by t020
More effective law enforcement.

Tony Blair came to power promising to be: "tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime." We're still waiting...

Originally posted by t020
Besides, a lot of troublemakers are also religious. I bet you see your fair share of young whipper snappers that also regularly attend your local Mosque.

Heh heh, somehow I can't see the respected Mosque elders hanging round on the street corners at night wearing hooded tops... except in the middle of Winter perhaps :D

Originally posted by Abdul

Tony Blair came to power promising to be: "tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime." We're still waiting...


Well, I think you already know my thoughts on our Labour government...

Originally posted by Abdul

Heh heh, somehow I can't see the respected Mosque elders hanging round on the street corners at night wearing hooded tops... except in the middle of Winter perhaps :D

You know I meant the youngsters.

Originally posted by Abdul
It'a term of endearment ;)

That's patronising endearment then Abdul, t020?

Sorry couldn't resist, butting out again ...

Originally posted by t020
You know I meant the youngsters.

Yes, I know you did, I just wanted to annoy you before I left for home. Forgive me.

I'll admit to not knowing whether the youngsters at the local Mosque are the same ones who are on the streets causing trouble, as I instead attend a Mosque a couple of miles away from my house.

And I don't really wish to associate with the local trouble causers just for the purposes of research...

Goodnight :D

Religious thought, from the most fervent believer to the struggling agnostic trying to make sense of it all, has given us some of the most beautiful writings, poetry, music and song in our history.
The poetry of the metaphysical poets like John Donne, Milton's Paradise Lost...even more contemporary novels by those influenced by their faith, like Graham Greene. They don't always reflect religion in a kindly light, but its existance, and their grappling with it makes for inspirational, even disturbing, reading.

I'm not a christian, but I love the musical tradition of the church from plainsong to the stirring hymns of the methodist tradition, and I still get the shivers on Christmas Eve when the carol service from King's College, Cambridge comes on the radio. I know you don't miss what you've never had, but I'm glad we've had this.

It seems religion cannot be blamed for the crimes of humanity - but people can. You do not have to be religious in order to commit a crime - but to say it is through your religion rather than just because you cannot stand someone seems a great cop out.

Religions will, unfortunately, always take the blame for the terrible acts carried out by a few people - a bit like all the violence caused by the religion of football.

About time people stopped using religion as a scapegoat and started blaming people for the crimes they commit.

Religions can and do bring about a great deal of happiness to those who would otherwise have nothing, and the rest has been said by others.

Freedom of choice - if you want to believe then do so. If you don't - don't.

Dragon

just wondered what the general public of Sheffield thought of religion?

Should we all goto church/mosque/Cinigog to praise god and save our soles?

or

Should religion be banned?

I think there is already a thread on this somewhere - if you use the search facility you will probably find it.

ok - ignor it then if its been done!

Mod Threads merged

A lot of wars and persecutions are, have been and will in the future I expect, be conducted in the name of God, Allah or whoever. So in that respect, yes maybe we would be better off without it.
In that respect religion further serves to gives human beings another excuse to divide into groups and dispise one another.

or in the name of democracy, communism, liberation, freedom, equality, human rights etc etc.
people will ALWAYS find a slogan for fighting their wars.

Z

or in the name of democracy, communism, liberation, freedom, equality, human rights etc etc.
people will ALWAYS find a slogan for fighting their wars.

Z i must agree

With religion being constantly blamed for war on this forum and cited as a reason religion is a *bad thing*, I was wondering if it genuinely does cause more war than other reasons (like peoples greed, national security ...).

A fair few wars (eg. Northern Ireland) are cited as being a result of religion where in fact it is often just a convenient way of labeling the 'sides' rather than the conflict having been caused by religion.

So I thought - lets compile a list of wars that were/were not caused by religion or had religion as a primary contributing factor.

Add names of wars to the thread with thought about what caused them and I'll edit the list in this post as we go.

Let's try and keep it civil :D

STOP!
Before you go off on one about religion ( :rant: ), I am genuinely interested in doing this so please can we avoid the pro/anti religion type arguments that crop on on so many forums? Let's try and remain impartial eh?

Religion was a big/main factor in causing:

Crusades - 1095–1291 sanctioned by the Pope to reclaim Holy Land. While many fighters on a personal level were fighting for wealth/glory, the declared cause largely religious


Religion was a minor or non-factor in causing:

WW1 - care to fill in details on cause for me? pretty sure it wasn't a religious thing anyway :)
WW2 - economic depression, Germany throwing it's weight about
American War of Independence
Falklands - Argie invasion of British owned Islands
Russian Revolution - Peasants revolt against ruling Tsars
Vietnam - USA/Russia test each other a bit during Cold War
Gulf war 1 + 2 - USA led regime change and/or securing of oil supplies. 'Liberation of Kuwait' from Iraqi's. Search for WMD.
Afganistan - US led invasion early 21st century. Al Queda [sp?] hunt post attack on World Trade Centre
Northern Ireland - Irish not liking English occupiers, Protestant/Catholic divide is convinient rather than causing factor
Napoleonic wars
Rwanda - late 20th century, Tutsis vs Hutu, economic/ethinic/tribal causes
Darfur 2003+ ethnic/tribal causes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darfur_conflict


Unsure / to be discussed:

Yugoslavia in 1990s - ethnicity, possibly some religious influence
Skirmishing around Gaza strip - Dispute over territory - due to religious significance of land?
30 years war in Europe - religious cause?
English Civil War - religion or democracy?
Korean war(s) during 1900s
French civil war
Spanish civil war
Iran-Iraq War (aka First Persian Gulf War) in the 1980s, certainly some religious influence here I think. Main factor?

With religion being constantly blamed for war on this forum and cited as a reason religion is a *bad thing*, I was wondering if it genuinely does cause more war than other reasons (like peoples greed, national security ...).

A fair few wars (eg. Northern Ireland) are cited as being a result of religion where in fact it is often just a convenient way of labeling the 'sides' rather than the conflict having been caused by religion.

So I thought - lets compile a list of wars that were/were not caused by religion or had religion as a primary contributing factor.

Add names of wars to the thread with thought about what caused them and I'll edit the list in this post as we go.

Let's try and keep it civil :D

STOP!
Before you go off on one about religion ( :rant: ), I am genuinely interested in doing this so please can we avoid the pro/anti religion type arguments that crop on on so many forums? Let's try and remain impartial eh?

Religion was a big/main factor in causing:
Crusades - 1095–1291 sanctioned by the Pope to reclaim Holy Land.

Religion was a minor or non-factor in causing:
WW2 - economic depression, Germany throwing it's weight about
Falklands - Argie invasion of British owned Islands
Russian Revolution - Peasants revolt against ruling Tsars
Vietnam - USA/Russia test each other a bit during Cold War
Gulf war 1 + 2 - USA led regime change and/or securing of oil supplies

Unsure / to be discussed:
Yugoslavia in 1990s
Skirmishing around Gaza strip - certainly seems to be religious base to it - anyone know the history?
WW1 - only hear because I can't remember causes right now - effected by Russian revolution?

Gaza - Jews believe land is theres, given to them by God (Story of Moses etc.
Loads of Jews turned into Christians and then Muslims, Muslims occupied the land for centuries along with Christians.
20th century - Britain helps Arabs defete the Ottoman turks and takes over this part of the middle east and decides to give a large and disproportionate amount of land to the Jews.
Muslims are driven out of their homes and off their land over the decades as rich Jews migrate to Israel.

Israel expands settlements over international borders etc. etc.

War goes on and isn't likely to stop.

WW1 had nothing to do with religion. On the other hand, between 1500 and 1900 there were about twenty wars in Europe which were explicitly about religion and nothing else. One of them, the Thirty Years' War, wiped out a large chunk of the population of northern Europe.


That'd skew your list a bit.

Sorry, my post was meant to imply that it is more about land rather then religion.

Word War one was actually started by the indie rock band Frank Ferdinand. How they got hold of the time travelling machine, I'll never know.....

Sorry, my post was meant to imply that it is more about land rather then religion.

it's about land...but is the land disputed because of it's religious significance? In which case we should put it in the religious wars group.

WW1 had nothing to do with religion. On the other hand, between 1500 and 1900 there were about twenty wars in Europe which were explicitly about religion and nothing else. One of them, the Thirty Years' War, wiped out a large chunk of the population of northern Europe.


That'd skew your list a bit.

I'm not too worried about 'skewing' the lists, just doing it for my own curiosity rather than trying to prove/disprove anything.

I guess I better go find some more info about European wars!

I'd argue that the Northern Ireland conflict was (is?) more about nationality than religion. The religious background is important to them and you can roughly divide sides on religious lines, but surely they were actually fighting about who was to rule them, Britain or Ireland?

How about the English Civil War? Was that about religion or democracy? If you've seen the recent series The Protestant Revolution you might be more inclined to put that down as a very religious based war.

religion does cause wars the religion being greed

Word War one was actually started by the indie rock band Frank Ferdinand. How they got hold of the time travelling machine, I'll never know.....

Maybe it was bequeathed to them by one of their descendants...

Word War one was actually started by the indie rock band Frank Ferdinand. How they got hold of the time travelling machine, I'll never know.....

Or even Franz Ferdinand... Bit harsh to blame them though, old bean - possibly more the fault of the bloke who killed them? :suspect:

Or it might have had something to do with the Kaiser Chiefs? Or maybe not :)

StarSparkle

I'd argue that the Northern Ireland conflict was (is?) more about nationality than religion. The religious background is important to them and you can roughly divide sides on religious lines, but surely they were actually fighting about who was to rule them, Britain or Ireland?

How about the English Civil War? Was that about religion or democracy? If you've seen the recent series The Protestant Revolution you might be more inclined to put that down as a very religious based war.

I've always thought of the English Civil War as essentially a religious war, I have to say, although it's very simplistic to suggest that wars are caused by one factor alone.

StarSparkle

PS Mathom - I've been very impressed with what I've seen of "The Protestant Revolution" - I didn't realise Martin Luther was such a fascinating man. I'm well taken with him, hence my new signature :)

... although it's very simplistic to suggest that wars are caused by one factor alone.

Absolutely, but with so many athiests using war as a fundamental argument against organised religions I thought I'd try and garner a feel for how that view comes about.

Absolutely, but with so many athiests using war as a fundamental argument against organised religions I thought I'd try and garner a feel for how that view comes about.

Fair enough.

StarSparkle

This is a very complicated topic, wars are rarely about just one thing. But it is fair to say that religion is definitely a factor in most wars in some way or another.

Believing in God does not make you more likely to kill than those that don't. You can be good or bad no matter what you believe, because it is not religion that makes people good. But, throughout the ages the religious have had a lot of power. With power comes influence and the ability to inflict pain!!

The Pope is human, he is not infallible as has been claimed and is not God's messenger. But people have followed his instructions to war because of some 'infidel' faith or just for land.

The reformation of Christianity into its many forms throughout history, including orthodox, catholic, protestant, reformist etc is responsible for a LOT of death in Europe. Some in wars. Some just because of persecution.

Israel and the middle-east is a generally messy situation, it would be a lot easier if different religions were not involved, but then there would probably be something new to fight over.

Organised religion has a lot to answer for, not because it instills a sense of faith in to people, but because it gives power to the undeserving. Just because someone is Catholic and has worked their way up the ranks to Pope does not mean that the person is more deserving of power. Power corrupts. And it doesn't seem to matter who the person is.

Word War one was actually started by the indie rock band Frank Ferdinand. How they got hold of the time travelling machine, I'll never know.....


Sometimes I want to kill Franz Ferdinand, just to see what would happen...

The fighting in a Israel is a war genuinely caused by religious, Jewish beliefs I think it's fair to say, but I think land ownership, money, disagreements, etc. causes more wars than religion.

Religion was a big/main factor in causing:
Crusades - 1095–1291 sanctioned by the Pope to reclaim Holy Land.

Religion was a minor or non-factor in causing:
WW1 - care to fill in details on cause for me? pretty sure it wasn't a religious thing anyway :)
WW2 - economic depression, Germany throwing it's weight about
Falklands - Argie invasion of British owned Islands
Russian Revolution - Peasants revolt against ruling Tsars
Vietnam - USA/Russia test each other a bit during Cold War
Gulf war 1 + 2 - USA led regime change and/or securing of oil supplies
Northern Ireland - Irish not liking English occupiers, Protestant/Catholic divide is convinient rather than causing factor

Unsure / to be discussed:
Yugoslavia in 1990s
Skirmishing around Gaza strip - Dispute over territory - dues to religious significance of land?
Napoleonic wars
30 years war in Europe - religious cause?
English Civil War - religion or democracy?The Napoleonic Wars were little to do with religion.

Vietnam was more about Communism than anything religious

Yugoslavia was more about territory than religion although certain religious groups held or wanted certain bits of territory.

Overall religion tends to get blamed quite a lot but the real reason wars are fought tends to be land/weath/commodities. (See gulf wars)

it's about land...but is the land disputed because of it's religious significance? In which case we should put it in the religious wars group.

It's like the fleas on the back of a dog, arguing over who owns the dog. Nobody owns land, if anything, we 'belong' to it (to the earth). At the end of the day all that counts (in terms of wars, and land ownership etc), is who has the biggest guns (stating the painfully obvious, I know).

The Napoleonic Wars were little to do with religion.

Vietnam was more about Communism than anything religious

Yugoslavia was more about territory than religion although certain religious groups held or wanted certain bits of territory.

Overall religion tends to get blamed quite a lot but the real reason wars are fought tends to be land/weath/commodities. (See gulf wars)

Actually I notice with regards to the Yugoslavia situation it was always referred to as an war regarding lines of ethnicity, when in fact it was also very much a war along religious divides. I think in the case of that situation it is very hard to split the religion and ethnicity apart from each other as they are intertwined very heavily.

Actually I notice with regards to the Yugoslavia situation it was always referred to as an war regarding lines of ethnicity, when in fact it was also very much a war along religious divides. I think in the case of that situation it is very hard to split the religion and ethnicity apart from each other as they are intertwined very heavily.Spot on, put much better than me

Actually I notice with regards to the Yugoslavia situation it was always referred to as an war regarding lines of ethnicity, when in fact it was also very much a war along religious divides. I think in the case of that situation it is very hard to split the religion and ethnicity apart from each other as they are intertwined very heavily.

One of the saddest ironies of this is that the two sides who became fundamentalist and zealous in their religious identities were named for their national groups (Serbs and Croats), while the group who remained the most unreligious and secular were labelled for a religion (Bosnian muslims). Generally speaking, the non-Serb non-Croat Bosnians absolutely hate being identified by a religion most don't even follow, they would rather be called Bosnijaks.

Yugoslavia was a federation of six republics even as one state, administratively dominated by Serbia (people used to call it Serboslavia). The break up was driven by economic and political factors, and resentments that had been suppressed rather than resolved under the communists. Religion became an obvious way of showing your cultural allegiance in terms of historic tribes, but it was not a war over religious dogma.

It irritates me when people try to define distinct categories as the cause of war. The only thing humans need for discord is a sense of them and us, however the them and us is defined.

One of the saddest ironies of this is that the two sides who became fundamentalist and zealous in their religious identities were named for their national groups (Serbs and Croats), while the group who remained the most unreligious and secular were labelled for a religion (Bosnian muslims). Generally speaking, the non-Serb non-Croat Bosnians absolutely hate being identified by a religion most don't even follow, they would rather be called Bosnijaks.

<snip>

It irritates me when people try to define distinct categories as the cause of war. The only thing humans need for discord is a sense of them and us, however the them and us is defined.

I don't disagree with this post at all, I was simply trying to say that in the case of Yugoslavia the reasons were entirely messy and I don't think religion can be ruled out, as I hope I didn't rule it in!

I don't think religion itself causes people to want to go to war, human kind go to war for any old reason that can be found to differentiate between 'us' and 'them'. Religion is just a very obvious way to justify a war. Especially when religious leaders and holy books provide 'justification' for the war.

On the reverse of that, if we removed God & religion from society I think we'd continue to war. We'd just find another reason to fight. Though without the promise of an after life I can't help but think that many people's hearts just wouldn't be in it!

Gaza - Jews believe land is theres, given to them by God (Story of Moses etc.
Loads of Jews turned into Christians and then Muslims, Muslims occupied the land for centuries along with Christians.
20th century - Britain helps Arabs defete the Ottoman turks and takes over this part of the middle east and decides to give a large and disproportionate amount of land to the Jews.
Muslims are driven out of their homes and off their land over the decades as rich Jews migrate to Israel.

Israel expands settlements over international borders etc. etc.

War goes on and isn't likely to stop.

I detect a theme in your examples.

I don't disagree with this post at all, I was simply trying to say that in the case of Yugoslavia the reasons were entirely messy and I don't think religion can be ruled out, as I hope I didn't rule it in!



You're right, it gets messy, and the blurs and overlaps between regional, cultural, religious influences always tend to get simplified. The religious/cultural/regional affinities also dictated which other countries tended to side with whichever former Yugo republics.

The fighting in a Israel is a war genuinely caused by religious, Jewish beliefs I think it's fair to say

I don't think it's fair to say. It completely ignores the fact of extreme religious belief on the Muslim side being used to encourage the conflict just as much as it is on the Jewish side.

If the religious elements had been removed from both sides then there would have been peace decades ago.

So who thinks that religion should be banned from schools, religious garments banned from the workplace, and a total separation of religion and state?

It serves no use, is outdated, and indoctrinates the weak minded.

Religion should be banned in schools, yes.

i wonder if who ever dreamed up religion ever thought of the trouble it would cause

Why would you want religion banned? I see no problem with religion and believe everyone should have a right to practice their religious beliefs without persecution.

As for it not serving any perpose, being outdated and for the weak minded, that is a matter of opinion.

I think kids should be educated and empowered to make up their own minds on these kind of things. They should have representitives from varous schools of thought (religions), giving talks to the kids, and then the kids are told that it's OK not to share the same view, and that you can come to your own conclusion, find your own truth, and that's just as valid as anyone elses.

Religion is just something else to keep people segregated.. Yet the PC brigade support religion as something marvellous.. :loopy:

Religion is great for many many things.

Controlling the dim witted for starters, the ignorant and the uneducated- thats what it was originally "Invented" for anyway, to control the pheasants who were kept thick and stupid and ignorant while the upper classes and the priests lived the life of
Riley.

Its also good for starting nice long, violent wars- "My gods better than your god so you must die!"

Its good also for keeping the downtrodden breeding and multiplying so the priests have more followers who are disgustingly poor but have to pour more money into the churches while the church leaders again, live the life of Riley.

Its good too, for destroying progress, if the scientists and what have you come up with a new theory, the priests clamour for it to be kept quiet in case it turns people away from their gods.

I could go on and on but... Think of this...
Religion is... a couple of thousand years old at the most.. Mankind has been wandering the Earth for over a couple of million years and they got on quite nicely before gods were invented so if the religious try to tell you that it helps mans place in the world, then theyre bull-pooing yet again.

Religion?

Plop-droppings.

It's a tool originally used to keep the masses in check now it's a crutch to help people through life. At some point in our future mankind will outgrow religion and put it away like all childish things.

Religion is just something else to keep people segregated.. Yet the PC brigade support religion as something marvellous.. :loopy:

Hahaha... wondered when the anti pc comments would start to appear :D

Hahaha... wondered when the anti pc comments would start to appear :D

Hahaha... wondered when the thread hijackers would start to appear :D

Religion is just something else to keep people segregated.. Yet the PC brigade support religion as something marvellous.. :loopy:
I don't support any form of organised religion. However, I see no problem in aspects of different faiths being taught at school. It's hardly indocrination as per that taught in faith schools (which I am against).

And yes, state and church should be totally separate. Our monarch should also not be head of the CofE either.

Hahaha... wondered when the thread hijackers would start to appear :D

Give me reason(s) why the 'pc brigade' would possibly think that religion is the bees knees?

Give me reason(s) why the 'pc brigade' would possibly think that religion is the bees knees?

Yes, it did seem an odd statement.:huh:

I personally believe that if someone holds beliefs, and these beliefs help them get through life, then thats fine, but I don't want it rubbed in my face and I don't want it in schools.

Schools should be about EDUCATION. And work environment should be about WORK. Why should religion come into any of it???

If you don't believe in evolution, fine, but school your kids at home instead of bleating at the rest of the world, let the rest of us actually learn the facts. I just think that there's too much emphasis on pleasing everyone at the moment, and you can't, so the emphasis should be on teaching kids the facts and preparing them for the working world / further education.

Religion in schools is a big bugbear of mine.

Here we go again.... :hihi:

'Religion' is such a huge subject with so many facets and impacts on our day to day lives why on earth wouldn't a child want to know about it?

If nothing else, learning that other people hold different views to yourself is a valuable lesson. Learn to respect the fact other people have different views to yourself.

To ban religion from schools because you don't believe yourself is lunacy IMO, that can only result in increased intolerence of behaviour different to ones own in our already intolerant society.

What is it good for - building strong social bonds and support networks, performing charitable deeds, making people happy. Of course there are many things it's bad for but like most things it has it's good points!

a world without religion may solve some problems, but would only create a whole new set of problems. as much bad as it does, it also keeps a lot of bad from being done. it's a double edged sword, you can't win either way

Sorry, just to be clear...

I don't beleive in banning things like RE, as long as it is taught in an informative and objective manner.

a world without religion may solve some problems, but would only create a whole new set of problems. as much bad as it does, it also keeps a lot of bad from being done. it's a double edged sword, you can't win either way

I don't agree with this.

There are many, many bad things that are done under the banner of 'I did this in the name of God/religion' that wouldn't get done if there was no religion.

But to suggest that there would be a lack of morality without religion is simply not true.

I don't see what bad things religion stops. Religion generally only affects those that follow it. To suggest that if we took religion away from them that they would suddenly become immoral people is a bit of a strong suggestion isn't it?

Someone mentioned on a TV thing the other night that a world without religion and with only science as its "Religion" for want of a better word would be a sterile, heartless, coldly logical place without charity, love or mercy.

Abolutely nothing. Say it again. Whooooar!

Oh no that's war isn't it? Sorry!

I saw something on TV the other day that suggested that a world where religion did exist and was a prominent feature in most peoples lives would be a world full of bloodshed, heartache and suffering.

What program I hear you ask?

The news.

having spent some time in various SE Asian countries, i can understand why people who basically live on a bloody-great active chain of volcanoes, who's lives are regularly threatened by tropical storms, landslides, eruptions etc are comforted by praying to their god when they or a close friend, family member etc have to travel any great distance.

I saw something on TV the other day that suggested that a world where religion did exist and was a prominent feature in most peoples lives would be a world full of bloodshed, heartache and suffering.

What program I hear you ask?

The news.

Agreed....

I saw something on TV the other day that suggested that a world where religion did exist and was a prominent feature in most peoples lives would be a world full of bloodshed, heartache and suffering.

What program I hear you ask?

The news.

I think you may find that's rather more to do with politics than religion per se

I think you may find that's rather more to do with politics than religion per se

Of course.

Lib Dem suicide bombers are everywhere.

i wonder if who ever dreamed up religion ever thought of the trouble it would cause

Religion started as a means for mankind to explain things they didn't understand like "What's that big hot thing in the sky?", "Come to think of it, what is that big blue thing I just named the sky?" or "What happens to me after that Sabretooth Tiger has finished eating me?".

To begin with it was an individual thing, more spiritualism than anything else, then people started talking to each other and agreeing to believe in the same things.

"What? Your God drinks an endless mug of beer and can make ducks tapdance on Tuesday? I like his style - count me in!"

Then some bloody bureaucrat came along and started putting down all these beliefs into a rulebook. And of course you had to have an umpire, who got to live in a bigger hut than everyone else, to decide if the rules had been broken. Hey presto - organised religion was born. That's when things started going downhill...

Lovely description Gibbon :thumbsup::hihi:

I don't agree with this.

There are many, many bad things that are done under the banner of 'I did this in the name of God/religion' that wouldn't get done if there was no religion.

But to suggest that there would be a lack of morality without religion is simply not true.

I don't see what bad things religion stops. Religion generally only affects those that follow it. To suggest that if we took religion away from them that they would suddenly become immoral people is a bit of a strong suggestion isn't it?

the fear of 'paying for their sins in an afterlife' i expect is a deterrent for a lot of people who are religious. also, most religious groups, at their core, preach only good. i suspect even had no one ever heard the word 'God' a lot of the conflicts blamed on religion would still have occurred as there are always underlying issues that, in my opinion, are the real triggers, such as racial tension, power struggles, boundary conflicts, economic issues, class issues etc etc. religion is just used as a 'front', and without it people may not be able to wage wars in the name of religion, but they would still wage wars. they would just give it a different name. and on top of that, there would be no 'reason' for people to act morally of they didn't feel like it, because there would be no repercussion (prison alone is not much of a deterrent these days as you will have probably noticed...). i just think the world would descend into total anarchy and, short of military actions to control everyone, there wouldn't be much that could be done about it. that's just my opinion anyway

just read my post, and i think i may be slightly over reacting with the "total anarchy" bit, let's just say "anarchy"... lol

Absolutely, people have a 'clumping' sheep-like tendency, where individual free-thinking is not the norm. We seem to find a security in belonging to a group, organised religion is an example of this dynamic.

Now, I wouldn't say it's all bad though; I think there's pros' and cons' with organised religion; for some people, living their life and following the tenets of a religion can help them to grow along the spiritual path, to develop a deeper sense of themself, a connection within, an abundance of love and energy. However, any form of rigidity can also hold you back, it can prevent you from the full experience of yourself, your own beauty and true magnificance. In this way, organised religion can, I think, be most UN-spiritual, as you become entrapped by the very thing that's supposed to set you free.

You don't need validation, or any intermediaries between you and the divine. You don't even need words, they just obfuscate the simple truth of the matter. You are god.

the fear of 'paying for their sins in an afterlife' i expect is a deterrent for a lot of people who are religious. also, most religious groups, at their core, preach only good. i suspect even had no one ever heard the word 'God' a lot of the conflicts blamed on religion would still have occurred as there are always underlying issues that, in my opinion, are the real triggers, such as racial tension, power struggles, boundary conflicts, economic issues, class issues etc etc. religion is just used as a 'front', and without it people may not be able to wage wars in the name of religion, but they would still wage wars. they would just give it a different name. and on top of that, there would be no 'reason' for people to act morally of they didn't feel like it, because there would be no repercussion (prison alone is not much of a deterrent these days as you will have probably noticed...). i just think the world would descend into total anarchy and, short of military actions to control everyone, there wouldn't be much that could be done about it. that's just my opinion anyway

Again I don't agree.

What you suggest is that if you took religion away from the religious people then they would all be immoral people. Is that what keeps them in check - the thought that they might be offending the big man in the sky and he might punish them?

Personally I don't act immoral because that is the kind of person I am.

I don't need to have a fear of a 'god' for me to be that way. Do you?

The generally accepted norms for right and wrong in this country I suggest were taken from a religious context.

The open athesism we see around us is quite a recent phenomena I imagine (ie. last 100-150 years) which has gained ground as science has become the new religion.

I say science is the new religion for many, as for a lot of people who have decided they prefer the teachings of science to organised religion have probably not read the literature that proves any particular theory but rather they have accepted science 'blindly'.

We have all met these people, they dismiss religion out of hand as following the word of someone else because they are told so, yet happily accept what they are told is scientifically correct even though they have not seen the evidence themselves that they critisise religions for lack of.

If organised religion had not put down the ground rules for what is and is not morally acceptable, would our ethics be different today?

I often get asked "what is actually wrong with religion" or "but it is all about peace" etc

My position is that religion -

- misrepresents the origins of humankind and the cosmos
- put "human good" in terms of attempts to reach/earn the afterlife
- demands unreasonable suppression of human nature, led to an unhealthy attitude to sex, and regards sexual love as somehow displeasing to the divine
- inclines people to blind submission to authority
(apart from Quakers, who are more like deists anyway)
- Belittles humanity as being inherently flawed and unworthy
- Belittles humanity in that anything morally good is meant to be of devine origin
- expresses clear hostility to free inquiry
- supports a mind set of "Them" and "Us"
- supports moral absolutism

and, specifically

- has led to some of the greatest moral and cultural obscenities in human history by its promotion of the concept of eternal punishment in the afterlife
- it has held back social and moral progress in the west, until its power was broken during the age of enlightenment
- it condones slavery, racism and misogyny
- encourages people to lie and distort the truth in order to promote an agenda

and - for a parting shot, about how come modern relgions may seem "nice"
- the current "feebleness" of the Bible is a result of the fact that until recently, Christians faced with arguments against the logic or factualness of the Bible could simply burn or silence those posing such "inconvenient" questions"

If organised religion had not put down the ground rules for what is and is not morally acceptable, would our ethics be different today?

Yes, there may have been laws against slavery 100 years early and free eduction in the UK 86 years earlier

If organised religion had not put down the ground rules for what is and is not morally acceptable, would our ethics be different today?
On what grounds do you claim that religion did any such thing?

Yes, there may have been laws against slavery 100 years early and free eduction in the UK 86 years earlier

How did religion hold back the slavery laws/prevent free education?

On what grounds do you claim that religion did any such thing?

Just random thoughts spewing forth from my head. :D


The generally accepted norms for right and wrong in this country I suggest were taken from a religious context.
<snip>
If organised religion had not put down the ground rules for what is and is not morally acceptable, would our ethics be different today?
Notice how my sentence starts with "if" as in, "if this is the case then..." for discussion.

How did religion hold back the slavery laws/prevent free education?

Slavery:
The African Negro slave trade - a far more infamous practice than slavery in the ancient world - was initiated, carried on and defended by Christian men in Christian countries. To quote H. A. L. Fisher, "It is a terrible commentary on Christian civilisation that the longest period of slave-raiding known to history
was initiated by the action of Spain and Portugal, France, Holland and Britain, after the Christian faith had for more than a thousand years been the established religion of Europe" (History of Europe, Ch. 23).

The abolitionist movement took its impetus, not from Christianity which had condoned slavery for centuries, but from the secular humanitarianism of the Enlightenment.

The attitude of most of the Churches towards abolition was in America actively hostile, and in Britain (to use Wilberforce's own words) "shamefully lukewarm". The Churches, of course, had no difficulty in citing scriptural authority for their attitude. The Old Testament sanctions slavery (cf. Leviticus, Ch. 25, 44-46); the New Testament contains no condemnation of it; and St. Paul told slaves to obey their masters

Free Education
Brief - in the 19th C the Bishops in the House of Lords blocked free eduction for all because it would mean the church losing control of education for the masses.

Someone mentioned on a TV thing the other night that a world without religion and with only science as its "Religion" for want of a better word would be a sterile, heartless, coldly logical place without charity, love or mercy.
Was the idiot who said that by any chance religious?

I really do pity those who's minds are so limited that they need to believe in a magic man who lives in the sky to give the world meaning.

Again I don't agree.

What you suggest is that if you took religion away from the religious people then they would all be immoral people. Is that what keeps them in check - the thought that they might be offending the big man in the sky and he might punish them?

Personally I don't act immoral because that is the kind of person I am.

I don't need to have a fear of a 'god' for me to be that way. Do you?


i think you chose either not to read or to ignore a lot of my post.
and with regards to everyone at once becoming immoral if religion was all of a sudden taken away from them, i didn't mean everyone. but i do think that would be the case with a lot of people, yes. those that blindly follow and need 'the handbook' (whichever one that may be!) to tell them how to act and what to do. and you can't deny those types of people exist because i think we all know they most certainly do.
so, even if just 1% of the 'religious population' abandoned all morals once they found out there was nothing to 'reach' for, that would still be a heck of a lot. and, as i said in my previous post, 'religious warfare' would just adopt a different name as the real reasons are often very apparently not religious at all.
as for your patronising question at the end, i think due to it's immature and ridiculous nature (ridiculous because if you had read my posts before you answered them you would have seen that i was in no way referring to myself when talking about decreased morality without religion), i'll leave that unanswered.

"What you suggest is that if you took religion away from the religious people then they would all be immoral people. Is that what keeps them in check - the thought that they might be offending the big man in the sky and he might punish them?"

you can be as patronising and condescending as you like, but the simple truth of the matter is, yes, offending the big man in the sky often does keep people in check

"It is a terrible commentary on Christian civilisation that the longest period of slave-raiding known to history
was initiated by the action of Spain and Portugal, France, Holland and Britain, after the Christian faith had for more than a thousand years been the established religion of Europe"
Thankyou Goose.

Though, as ever there is nothing to say that it wasn't simply man's greed rather than 'Christianity' that drove the slave trade.

Slavery was, I believe, about money.
The church had in my understanding always taught that money and greed were not really goals to aim for.

Therefore, the fact that slavery was going on when Christianity was the main religion does not nesecerily[sp?] mean that it is a Christian thing to do.

200 years ago rapes, robberies, murders were all happening. I'm not sure anyone would seriously suggest that these activities were encouraged by the church?

I don't mean to dismiss your text Goose, merely question wether it could have happened had we not been a religious country at the time. If the rich men of the time would have still taken part in the slave trade had we not been a religious country then can we blame religion?

Of course the same wealthy men that wanted to keep the slavery business would probably have been quite influential in the church descision making process....

A community meeting place.
The government should be encouragin such places, be they for whatever as long as the people using them are there of their own free will.

the fear of 'paying for their sins in an afterlife' i expect is a deterrent for a lot of people who are religious. also, most religious groups, at their core, preach only good. i suspect even had no one ever heard the word 'God' a lot of the conflicts blamed on religion would still have occurred as there are always underlying issues that, in my opinion, are the real triggers, such as racial tension, power struggles, boundary conflicts, economic issues, class issues etc etc. religion is just used as a 'front', and without it people may not be able to wage wars in the name of religion, but they would still wage wars.

While this is somewhat true, that religion is often mixed up with other issues and removing religion doesn't necessarily mean that wars wouldn't happen, its an unfortunate truth that religion can make wars worse or more likely than they would otherwise be. Many Muslims in the Middle East may have views on politics etc but it is religion (a minority extremist interpretation but still religion) that creates the suicide bomber. The Pope may have had envious eyes for the lands around Jerusalem and the prestige it would bring him but it took religious belief to get all those people to launch the Crusades in an attempt to get it.

And yes it is true that most religions at their core preach only good (although what is considered good is open to interpretation) but its also true that religion leaders will, when it suits them, tell their followers that there are exemptions to those supposedly unbreakable rules and that it is not a sin to kill, therefore removing the fear of punishment you mentioned. The Crusaders were told that it was ok to kill the heathens and that it would be doing God's work and would be rewarded in the Afterlife. Suicide bombers are told the same thing today. Without the influence of religion neither were likely to happen.

Religion isn't alone in making groups of people do things they wouldn't normally do. Nationalism, racism etc can all be used by the few to herd the majority into doing the unthinkable. Any force that can organise the masses has a potential for misuse.

"
you can be as patronising and condescending as you like, but the simple truth of the matter is, yes, offending the big man in the sky often does keep people in check

Yes - but it is a selective check - for example none of the 10 comandments says anything about respecting children

On this basis it is a fixed and useless morality - It talks about eternal punishments (and how much pain has that caused) - but what does it tell us about medical ethics, about corporate responsibility, about the environment?

It is fixed - and believers extrapolate their views on other issues at will - therefore we get the "infantile morality issue". ie ask a believer WHY they think homosexuality is "wrong" - they cannot answer, apart from to say "its against the bible".

Anything useful in religion - eg "treat others well" is just a lift from greek philosphy. People would be better served reading that!

I don't mean to dismiss your text Goose, merely question wether it could have happened had we not been a religious country at the time. If the rich men of the time would have still taken part in the slave trade had we not been a religious country then can we blame religion?
.

My point would be that enlightend humanists (like this goose :)) fought the slavery regeme, but the churches supported the status quo.

It is this issue - if you believe in a ancient text for morality, you can read into what you want.

Instead morality (and laws) should be based upon a rational examination of evidence - but with human good at its heart. Human good has to include freedom, apart from where it harms others and respect.

Many good things have been done in the name of religion:-

Education (have you seen the lengths people go to to get their children into faith schools)

Medicine (many religious orders have provided medical support / nursing / care)

Science (Galileo anyone)

Providing a moral / social framework. (although not exclusively)

A support system for the needy in society. (to a great extent now replaced by the state benefit system)

Standing up to oppressive regimes (amazing how religion survived 'underground' during Stalin, etc)

Of course on balance some terrible things have been done in the name of Religion. Wars have been perpetrated in the names of many 'Gods'; Wars which usually are more about money than faith.


The latest 'Religion' that seems to be growing in the West is that of Global Warming; oh sorry we don't use that term anymore, as the Scientists got it wrong; we have to use the term Climate Change don't we? Or have the Scientists got that slightly wrong also? as the Climate has always changed (During the Medeval Warm Period and Little Ice Age it actually changed at a far greater rate than it is now).

Sorry if the previous part of my post seems a little off topic; it's not. It's there to show that Science can get things wrong as well as religion. In a balanced World we really need both.

Science is but a tool; a looking glass that allows us to explore and postulate the universe around us. Science gave us nuclear, bilogical and chemical weapons; but that in itself doesn't make Science evil, it just sometimes allows evil men to do evil on a wider scale; just as evil men have carried out evil deeds for centuries in the name of Religion.

The Scientific amongst you look down on Religion, and you decry anyone who re-interprets the Bible to try and give it context in our modern society. Yet Science is allowed to revisit it's misinterpretations; to learn from them and advance.

We don't NEED religion to give us our moral bearings, just like we don't NEED school to learn the 3 R's. We can learn about morals and values from those around us. Like School, Religion can act as a catalyst for that learning; it can give us a moral framework to live within. Not all of us need that framework, but looking at the concerns the public have re knife crime, etc; some of us really could do with it.

My point would be that enlightend humanists (like this goose :)) fought the slavery regeme, but the churches supported the status quo.
The churches may have supported the status quo as they were heavily influence by the rich classes. Perhaps the uncorrupted church leaders should have spoken out more against slavery, in so doing would they have ended up destitute?

So I come back to the idea that it was not religion that caused/fueled the slavery trade but wealthy individuals with influence.

It is this issue - if you believe in a ancient text for morality, you can read into what you want.

Instead morality (and laws) should be based upon a rational examination of evidence - but with human good at its heart. Human good has to include freedom, apart from where it harms others and respect.

What I believe or not personally is my business ;)

Was the idiot who said that by any chance religious?

I really do pity those who's minds are so limited that they need to believe in a magic man who lives in the sky to give the world meaning.

Yeah he was funnily enough :D

And yes it is true that most religions at their core preach only good (although what is considered good is open to interpretation) but its also true that religion leaders will, when it suits them, tell their followers that there are exemptions to those supposedly unbreakable rules and that it is not a sin to kill, therefore removing the fear of punishment you mentioned

Religion isn't alone in making groups of people do things they wouldn't normally do. Nationalism, racism etc can all be used by the few to herd the majority into doing the unthinkable. Any force that can organise the masses has a potential for misuse.

this i do agree with 100%. religion is most definitely not alone in making groups of people do things, which is why without religion, i doubt there would be much of a difference. it is just the following i can not agree on...

The Crusaders were told that it was ok to kill the heathens and that it would be doing God's work and would be rewarded in the Afterlife. Suicide bombers are told the same thing today. Without the influence of religion neither were likely to happen.

i doubt a little thing like 'not having a good enough excuse' (i.e. religion) would have stopped both of these things you mention happening. these could have just as easily been made possible through, for example, fear mongering as through religious reasoning. religion is just used as a scapegoat for many things, something else would be used if not religion.

Science (Galileo anyone)
:huh: Oh come off it you've got to be kidding, are you seriously citing someone who was forced by the inquisition to publicly recant his scientific theories on pain of torture and even death as evidence for religion doing good :loopy:

Here's a good thing religion does, it sometimes gives us a giggle:
clicky (http://gizmodo.com/359540/jesus-switch-turns-on-off)

The Scientific amongst you look down on Religion, and you decry anyone who re-interprets the Bible to try and give it context in our modern society. Yet Science is allowed to revisit it's misinterpretations; to learn from them and advance.


This is the rub. Relgious texts are meant to represent the word of god - a super powerful, all knowing type.

However - given that he feels the need to say "don't wear mixed fibres" or "don't work on a sunday", don't you think he might just have slipped in "oh, by the way, slavery is a moral obscenity - stop it".

The reason is simple - the Bible et al are just human works, rooted in a human culture of the time. Nothing more, nothing less. On the basis, there are far, far better human moral sources to consult than this.

Here's a good thing religion does, it sometimes gives us a giggle:
clicky (http://gizmodo.com/359540/jesus-switch-turns-on-off)

brings a new meaning to the phrase "let there be light"

"What you suggest is that if you took religion away from the religious people then they would all be immoral people. Is that what keeps them in check - the thought that they might be offending the big man in the sky and he might punish them?"

you can be as patronising and condescending as you like, but the simple truth of the matter is, yes, offending the big man in the sky often does keep people in check

Yeah, well, you see I don't need that.

But I think it's very very sad that some religious people do.

Granted, we've already acertained that most religious people wouldn't become immoral without religion.

But some possibly would.

Did religion make them that way? If so, had they not been exposed to religion they may have been moral anyway, so is religion to blame for corrupting them?

Either way, by your examples the only people who would 'turn' immoral if religion was removed are religious people. What does that tell you?

This is the rub. Relgious texts are meant to represent the word of god - a super powerful, all knowing type.

However - given that he feels the need to say "don't wear mixed fibres" or "don't work on a sunday", don't you think he might just have slipped in "oh, by the way, slavery is a moral obscenity - stop it".

The reason is simple - the Bible et al are just human works, rooted in a human culture of the time. Nothing more, nothing less. On the basis, there are far, far better human moral sources to consult than this.

I sort of agree with you. The Bible is a collection of the written interpretations of mans understanding of the word of God (OT), and mans recollections of Jesus' teachings (NT). These writings are very open to interpretation, or even multiple interpretations as often Theologists of the same denomination can't agree.

However the basic moral codes they lay down are good. In no way am I saying that you can only obtain good morals and values from religion, and religious texts. What I'm saying is that as a nation (on the whole) we are more interested in helping oursevles than helping others. We place far too much emphasis on personal happiness than on the social and moral wellbeing of society as a whole.

Religion teaches us certain, fixed morals.

Sometimes our own moral compass can be affected by outside influences; Kids joining in with a bully at school, it's easier to fit in with the crowd rather than stand out and be bullied, it's wrong but it is easier.

Joining in with druken 'friends' when they make racist / sexist comments; instead of stopping them.

Turning a blind eye to the fat / disabled / coloured person being taunted by a bunch of 'yobs'.

None of the above really makes us a bad person; it's just that we could be a better person.

The moral framework that Religion provides can help us to be that better person. Many people will say that they can have that moral framework without Religion; and I agree with them. Moral values are not exclusively obtained through Religion / Religious texts. However moral standards have started to slip in our society; the evidence is all around us.

The real question is how do we improve the values / morals of our society? Can we improve them, or is it too late?

Can it be done by the state (one look at the amount of corruption / ineptitude our current Government has displayed should give you your answer to that)?

Can it be done in the Family unit (do we have family unit's anymore? or has our society already abondoned this structure)?

Can we leave it to individuals to find their own moral framework, or will that lead more and more to a cult of 'look after number one'?

Will Science find the answer? Is it even looking for the answer? Science is great in telling us how to advance our technology, but does it give us moral guidance as to when that technology should NOT be used?

Religion can't provide us with that framework, as that would require us all to open both our hearts and minds to it's teachings; not to blindly follow them but to actually listen to them and question them.

Perhaps what we need is another Gandhi like figure, a charasmatic leader who could sway our hearts and minds with his/her teachings. A leader who would be remembered centuries from now for his selfless nature and peaceful philosophy. Now where have I heard of someone like that ;)

brings a new meaning to the phrase "let there be light"

And coins the new one "Jesus has an oblong knob" :D

Many good things have been done in the name of religion:-

Education (have you seen the lengths people go to to get their children into faith schools)

Medicine (many religious orders have provided medical support / nursing / care)

Science (Galileo anyone)

Providing a moral / social framework. (although not exclusively)

A support system for the needy in society. (to a great extent now replaced by the state benefit system)

Standing up to oppressive regimes (amazing how religion survived 'underground' during Stalin, etc)


Education - It is true that religion has provided many with an education. It doesn't do this from the goodness of its heart however. All religions know by now that if you want to get someone to believe in something then you must catch them whilst they are young. Relatively few people become religious once they become adults as they are less easily influenced. As for faith schools, people send their kids there because they are said to be more disciplined or because they want their kids to be taught to believe what they themselves believe.

Medicine - What you've said is historically true. However it is true because for centuries the only people being educated were those in religious orders. Quite a few people who practiced medicine outside of religious orders were burned to death as heretics or witches.

Also in present times there is a religious movement, Creationism or Intelligent Design (it's the same thing), which is attempting to (and having considerable success in the US) surplant Evolution as the accepted explanation for the origins of life. This places future development of medicine at risk as most modern medicine is based on scientific research derived from our understanding of Evolution.

Science - I'm a bit puzzled by your example since the Church forced Galileo to recant what we now know to be true because it went against Scriptures.

Moral/Social framework - The core of this framework is actually universal across all societies regardless of religion. It's much more likely that this framework was developed to help us live in large social groups and was copied into the moral framework of religion.

A support system for the needy in society. Fair enough but again, not exclusively the provision of religion.

Standing up to oppressive regimes (amazing how religion survived 'underground' during Stalin, etc) In the case of Stalin, this was more a case of trying to survive than standing up to him.

The Catholic church didn't cover itself in glory when it came to the Nazi persecution of the Jews.

A number of oppressive regimes are run by and made oppressive by religions.



There's good, there's bad. That can be said about anything really can't it?

Yeah, well, you see I don't need that.

But I think it's very very sad that some religious people do.

Granted, we've already acertained that most religious people wouldn't become immoral without religion.

But some possibly would.

Did religion make them that way? If so, had they not been exposed to religion they may have been moral anyway, so is religion to blame for corrupting them?

well i'm glad you don't need that. i also don't need that. most people i know don't need that either. but there are clearly people that do

Either way, by your examples the only people who would 'turn' immoral if religion was removed are religious people. What does that tell you?

it tells me that religion has the ability to keep people who may be so inclined from committing anti social acts. i don't know if religion made them that way, whether they would have been that way anyway, i don't know. but there are plenty of stories about people 'going off the rails' after abandoning religion.

Was the idiot who said that by any chance religious?

I really do pity those who's minds are so limited that they need to believe in a magic man who lives in the sky to give the world meaning.

And maybe those who believe in a 'supreme being' in the sky may also pity those who think the world came into existance by itself from inanimate matter. Pasteur's experiment, which took place in the 19th century, is still standing. Through his sterilized soup, he proved beyond any doubt that life does not originate from inanimate material. The scientists of today are still unable to disprove his conclusion. ...

And maybe those who believe in a 'supreme being' in the sky may also pity those who think the world came into existance by itself from inanimate matter. Pasteur's experiment, which took place in the 19th century, is still standing. Through his sterilized soup, he proved beyond any doubt that life does not originate from inanimate material. The scientists of today are still unable to disprove his conclusion. ...
You clearly have no idea about what you are trying to debate, Pasteur disproved the theory that it was microbes spontaneously generating that caused decay in our current environment. That is a world away from proving that life could never originate from inanimate matter in any environment.

Not that their work really has anything to do with Pasteur but scientists have done a great deal of productive work on abiogenesis and have demonstrated how the natural working of environments as varied as deep space and earth billions of years ago can indeed produce complex organic chemicals.

And maybe those who believe in a 'supreme being' in the sky may also pity those who think the world came into existance by itself from inanimate matter. Pasteur's experiment, which took place in the 19th century, is still standing. Through his sterilized soup, he proved beyond any doubt that life does not originate from inanimate material. The scientists of today are still unable to disprove his conclusion. ...

I think you might find that you're a bit wrong there Baz.

Since when has the stuff of outer space been 'sterile'? Life on earth originated from simple chemicals/minerals/proteins/amino acids etc.

So you see we ALL have 'pond life' for relatives - and I thought it was just me!!

P.S.
As for 'religion - what is it good for? -- Huh -- Absolutely nothing - say it again -- Religion -- what is it good for -- absolutely nothing!
Hope nobodys already done that ^! (Old soul song for those who don't know)! Couldn't resist!!

Education Relatively few people become religious once they become adults as they are less easily influenced. As for faith schools, people send their kids there because they are said to be more disciplined or because they want their kids to be taught to believe what they themselves believe. I partially disagree with your reasons people want to get their children into faith schools; they want to get them in there primarily due to the academic records of such schools. We then have to look at why their academic records (in the most part) are so good. Could it be due to the discipline, and moral framework; the boundaries they provide? Faith schools have to take a certain proportion of children from outside of their core faith. The competition for those places is fierce. Some I know have even 'converted' to Catholicism to get their children accepted. As for adults not becoming religious; well I'd tend to say that more adults lapse from their faith, but a fair few are turning towards Religion to try and find something that seems to be missing from their lives.

Medicine - What you've said is historically true. However it is true because for centuries the only people being educated were those in religious orders. Quite a few people who practiced medicine outside of religious orders were burned to death as heretics or witches. Again I never claimed exclusivity for Religious orders in the area of Medicine.

Science - I'm a bit puzzled by your example since the Church forced Galileo to recant what we now know to be true because it went against Scriptures. If you have the time please have a read of this. It was only when Galileo started to push towards Thelogical issues did the Church take action against him. They supported both his, and Capernicus' Astronomical works.

http://www.catholic.net/rcc/Periodicals/Issues/GalileoAffair.html

Moral/Social framework - The core of this framework is actually universal across all societies regardless of religion. It's much more likely that this framework was developed to help us live in large social groups and was copied into the moral framework of religion. Whilst I accept that a core framework is present in the majority of societies, that framework can be diluted as the society grows in numbers, and can even become totally ignored by the members of that society. Giving that moral framework a defined structure, whether through Religion, or by introduction of some sort of legal code is paramount to the survival of the society. Once the individual places themselves above that code, with no fear of the consequences of breaking the code; then anarchy will prevail.

A support system for the needy in society. Fair enough but again, not exclusively the provision of religion. I never said it was. However sometimes a support system can go too far. This then leads to a section of society who see no reason to try and contribute to the overall good.

Standing up to oppressive regimes (amazing how religion survived 'underground' during Stalin, etc) In the case of Stalin, this was more a case of trying to survive than standing up to him.

The Catholic church didn't cover itself in glory when it came to the Nazi persecution of the Jews.

A number of oppressive regimes are run by and made oppressive by religions.



There's good, there's bad. That can be said about anything really can't it? In the case of Stalin, many Relgious folk stood up to him, and died for their beliefs. In fact he managed to reduce the number of active Russian Orthodox parishes to the low hundreds (best estimate) during the 1930's. The fact that it still survives and flourishes today is testimony to the way it stood against Stalin (although he did allow a resurgence of it as a 'patriotic' organisation during WW2).

I agree there were many elements of the Catholic Church that collaborated with the Nazis during WW2; but there were also many others who collaborated during those dark days.

I agree with you regarding the oppressive regimes, but there are plenty of non-religious regimes that oppress their populations as well.

As you say there is good and bad in everything, so I suppose you would agree that Religion is good for some things?

I partially disagree with your reasons people want to get their children into faith schools; they want to get them in there primarily due to the academic records of such schools. We then have to look at why their academic records (in the most part) are so good. Could it be due to the discipline, and moral framework; the boundaries they provide? Faith schools have to take a certain proportion of children from outside of their core faith. The competition for those places is fierce. Some I know have even 'converted' to Catholicism to get their children accepted. As for adults not becoming religious; well I'd tend to say that more adults lapse from their faith, but a fair few are turning towards Religion to try and find something that seems to be missing from their lives.

Or could it be that they invariably are in better areas, have more money and better resources and can afford to pay higher wages to teachers?

It depresses me, my cousin has just sent his 5 year old to a catholic school and she came back talking about the virgin mother, no joke. This is scary ****.

Also someone mentioned earlier that religious organisations held back the developement of education significantly in the 19th century. conflicts between CofE and Cathys meant that all amendments to the education system took absolutely ages. for example the 1843 factory bill, whcih stipulated headmasters must be CofE was obviously blocked by the others. There was much dispute over who could build all the new schools as the churches rushed to capture as much of the youth as they could.

Religion was good for education... it is now good for some peoples piece of mind, a way for them not to question their existance...

It serves no use, is outdated, and indoctrinates the weak minded.

That mite be your religion preacher man not the Islamic Faith

I think you might find that you're a bit wrong there Baz.

Since when has the stuff of outer space been 'sterile'? Life on earth originated from simple chemicals/minerals/proteins/amino acids etc.

So you see we ALL have 'pond life' for relatives - and I thought it was just me!!

P.S.
As for 'religion - what is it good for? -- Huh -- Absolutely nothing - say it again -- Religion -- what is it good for -- absolutely nothing!
Hope nobodys already done that ^! (Old soul song for those who don't know)! Couldn't resist!!

And how do we know that these chemicals existed in the first place?? Can that be proved?? Life cannot start without the aforementioned. It is impossible. And anyone who thinks otherwise is not thinking.

Or could it be that they invariably are in better areas, have more money and better resources and can afford to pay higher wages to teachers?

It depresses me, my cousin has just sent his 5 year old to a catholic school and she came back talking about the virgin mother, no joke. This is scary ****.

Also someone mentioned earlier that religious organisations held back the developement of education significantly in the 19th century. conflicts between CofE and Cathys meant that all amendments to the education system took absolutely ages. for example the 1843 factory bill, whcih stipulated headmasters must be CofE was obviously blocked by the others. There was much dispute over who could build all the new schools as the churches rushed to capture as much of the youth as they could.

Sunday schools began as schools for the poor. They were created in England around the year 1780. The schools provided rudimentary instruction to working people on their free day.

http://www.thewordsofeternallife.com/sunday_school.html


.

Religion started as a means for mankind to explain things they didn't understand like "What's that big hot thing in the sky?", "Come to think of it, what is that big blue thing I just named the sky?" or "What happens to me after that Sabretooth Tiger has finished eating me?".

To begin with it was an individual thing, more spiritualism than anything else, then people started talking to each other and agreeing to believe in the same things.

"What? Your God drinks an endless mug of beer and can make ducks tapdance on Tuesday? I like his style - count me in!"

Then some bloody bureaucrat came along and started putting down all these beliefs into a rulebook. And of course you had to have an umpire, who got to live in a bigger hut than everyone else, to decide if the rules had been broken. Hey presto - organised religion was born. That's when things started going downhill...

I think that is paganism you are talking about. Also there were the Druids, not to mention the ancient Greeks who had their own religion and since then there have been many more religions which as you say are all man-made. Because of that I don't count Christianity as a religion, but rather I think of it as the Christian faith.

well i'm glad you don't need that. i also don't need that. most people i know don't need that either. but there are clearly people that do.

Maybe. Or maybe without religion they would find some other way of being moral. But morality is built into us as social beings - it isn't brought out by religion.

it tells me that religion has the ability to keep people who may be so inclined from committing anti social acts. i don't know if religion made them that way, whether they would have been that way anyway, i don't know. but there are plenty of stories about people 'going off the rails' after abandoning religion.

And there are plenty of people who (in any normal persons eyes) go 'off the rails' after 'finding' religion.

And how do we know that these chemicals existed in the first place?? Can that be proved?? Life cannot start without the aforementioned. It is impossible. And anyone who thinks otherwise is not thinking.

Can that be proved? I'm not sure although I know scientists have tried and come up with theories.

Are theories good enough for some? Some yes.

What about those it isn't good enough for? Well they just invent something to make themselves feel 'safer'. Like a big man in the sky who put it all there for us. (Quite where he got it from and who put him there is not the point and is an inconvienient discussion).

Sunday schools began as schools for the poor. They were created in England around the year 1780. The schools provided rudimentary instruction to working people on their free day.

http://www.thewordsofeternallife.com/sunday_school.html


.


And as the quote from your site says they were created to :

'instruct pupils in reading and copying from the Bible.'

So they weren't set up for education per se, they were set up for RELIGIOUS education. A recruitment drive.

Religion is just a kind of comfort blanket for idiots.

I think that is paganism you are talking about. Also there were the Druids, not to mention the ancient Greeks who had their own religion and since then there have been many more religions which as you say are all man-made. Because of that I don't count Christianity as a religion, but rather I think of it as the Christian faith.

So are you denying that your religion is a religion?

Are you elevating your religion above religion by calling it the 'faith'?

Are you trying to avoid coming under the banner of 'All religions are bad' and 'Religion is the cause of all wars'. Pick a different name and hide from the shame eh?

Once again, Christian arrogance at work.

Religion is just a kind of comfort blanket for idiots.

Harsh but I agree.

A friend recently said that after his father died he thought his mother would be a complete wreck. She wasn't - because she simply said that she would be with him in heaven one day. That gave her great comfort.

But should we delude ourselves like this?

This same delusion is what drives suicide bombers to think that it's ok to murder innocent people in the name of religion as they will soon be in heaven with 72 virgins (which in all fairness is not a great thing to look forward to - imagine going to a concert and having to listen to a 72 piece orchestra that have never played any instruments before - it would be awful - I'd rather have 72 slappers but that's another story).

Maybe. Or maybe without religion they would find some other way of being moral. But morality is built into us as social beings - it isn't brought out by religion.



And there are lenty of people who (in any normal persons eyes) go 'off the rails' after 'finding' religion.

Yes, morality is built into us as human beings, but where did it originate from? As far back as we have been civilized, religion has played the most important part in our cultural development. Religion 'gave' us in a way the moral guidelines that we still have today, and which may have altered or changed or been embellished on over the years, but the the foundations were laid by religion. How do you think we would have developed without it? I'd take a guess at a lot less civilized, less caring for our fellow human being, less fair in economic matters and job opportunities etc. Our morality was created by religion, without it, would our morality go into decline?

I can't actually say I disagree with the second point. However this is more a sign of the crazy times we live in. I don't think anyone can make the assumption that abandoning all forms of religion would solve the worlds problems and not create any in itself.

Can I also just point out that I am not religious, so I don't have an agenda, they're just opinions

Harsh but I agree.

A friend recently said that after his father died he thought his mother would be a complete wreck. She wasn't - because she simply said that she would be with him in heaven one day. That gave her great comfort.

But should we delude ourselves like this?



Life is short, if it makes life easier and happier for people to believe that, then why not?

Life is short, if it makes life easier and happier for people to believe that, then why not?

Because of the second point I posted about people jutifying terrible actions by it.

Yes, morality is built into us as human beings, but where did it originate from? As far back as we have been civilized, religion has played the most important part in our cultural development. Religion 'gave' us in a way the moral guidelines that we still have today, and which may have altered or changed or been embellished on over the years, but the the foundations were laid by religion. How do you think we would have developed without it? I'd take a guess at a lot less civilized, less caring for our fellow human being, less fair in economic matters and job opportunities etc. Our morality was created by religion, without it, would our morality go into decline?

I can't actually say I disagree with the second point. However this is more a sign of the crazy times we live in. I don't think anyone can make the assumption that abandoning all forms of religion would solve the worlds problems and not create any in itself.

I disagree with your first point.

Studies (and I'm quoting a well known anti religious book) have shown that where morality tests have been given to 'tribes' that have no religion and that have had no exposure to religion, they act as morally as you and I. Morality existed before religion, not the other way round.

I disagree with your first point.

Studies (and I'm quoting a well known anti religious book) have shown that where morality tests have been given to 'tribes' that have no religion and that have had no exposure to religion, they act as morally as you and I. Morality existed before religion, not the other way round.

a well known anti religious book... not exactly neutral then is it. i can't say too much as i haven't read the book or the questions they asked these 'tribes', or more importantly the hierarchy and practices of the tribes. but given the source, i will take it with a pinch of salt.

Because of the second point I posted about people jutifying terrible actions by it.

a lot of good and a lot of bad comes out of it. but you have to remember these 'terrible actions' are committed by people. not religion. the terrible things done in the name of religion cannot be justified by any religion at its core, and assuming the people who commit them know their own religious teachings, they are aware of this too. yet it still happens. it is people who have twisted and turned it and manipulated others. without religion they would just find another way to justify it!

a well known anti religious book... not exactly neutral then is it. i can't say too much as i haven't read the book or the questions they asked these 'tribes', or more importantly the hierarchy and practices of the tribes. but given the source, i will take it with a pinch of salt.

It was quoting factual independant study, not their own findings.

a lot of good and a lot of bad comes out of it. but you have to remember these 'terrible actions' are committed by people. not religion. the terrible things done in the name of religion cannot be justified by any religion at its core, and assuming the people who commit them know their own religious teachings, they are aware of this too. yet it still happens. it is people who have twisted and turned it and manipulated others. without religion they would just find another way to justify it!

Whether they can be justified or not, a lot of bad things are done in the name of religion that wouldn't be done without it. Take the 7/7 bombings. An ordinary young UK father, 'finds' religion, takes it to it's nth degree, kills innocent people in the name of a god. Without religion he was highly unlikely to do that.

Even if you go back into 'old testemant times' there are stories of genocide done in the name of religion, and there have been many attrocities since where people have taken a gods word to mean something that allows them to act immoral.

Religion seems to be a pass for any number of immoral actions whether it be murder, segregation or bigotry, if you do it in the name of a god then it's all ok (only in their own minds of course).

And how do we know that these chemicals existed in the first place?? Can that be proved?? Life cannot start without the aforementioned. It is impossible. And anyone who thinks otherwise is not thinking.

I admit to often 'not thinking' Baz but not in this case.

Science has many ways of knowing that the basic building blocks of life existed millions of years ago and I'm sure that an open minded person such as yourself would easily be able to access literature that would convince you of this.

Get googling Baz!!

We then have to look at why their academic records (in the most part) are so good. Could it be due to the discipline, and moral framework; the boundaries they provide?
Giving that moral framework a defined structure, whether through Religion, or by introduction of some sort of legal code is paramount to the survival of the society.

I agree with you regarding the oppressive regimes, but there are plenty of non-religious regimes that oppress their populations as well.

As you say there is good and bad in everything, so I suppose you would agree that Religion is good for some things?

You seem to imply that only faith schools can deliver sound 'discipline and a moral framework and boundaries'. - Don't see why this should be so.
'Legal codes' cannot enforce morallity - any more than a watchful god can. (It seems)

It would be nice to think that religion could fill the gaping moral vacuum created mainly by the modern madness where worshiping wealth and hedonistic persuits comes above all else.

A caring and morally predisposed society is possible through other means than religion; - in fact religions, with their promise of heaven or hell, are more likely to produce a begrudging adherence to standards that are unnecessarily severe and ultimately impossible to keep, except perhaps, by devout fanatics, fundamentalists and the disenfranchised; (terrorists).

The great gods of commercial enterprise, worshipped in the church of avarice, have the hearts and souls of the world in the palms of their almighty hands.

Ask any kid, Christian, Muslim or Taoist what they would prefer for their birthday - a holy book or a pair of the latest Nike trainers - go on - ask.

You seem to imply that only faith schools can deliver sound 'discipline and a moral framework and boundaries'. - Don't see why this should be so.
'Legal codes' cannot enforce morallity - any more than a watchful god can. (It seems) I'm sorry i didn't mean to imply that. There are plenty of non faith schools that parents go to extraordinary lengths (move house, false address) to get their offspring into. As for a legal code trying to enforce morality, I think you'll find that the basic principles of most legal systems are morally based. Murder, Robbery, Rape etc are all amoral in my opinion, and as such are deemed to be illegal.


It would be nice to think that religion could fill the gaping moral vacuum created mainly by the modern madness where worshiping wealth and hedonistic persuits comes above all else.

A caring and morally predisposed society is possible through other means than religion; Again I agree with you, but as society expands the moral taboos that work so well with small, cohesive societies (many South American tribes for instance) are broken down, and a more structured framework is required. In the early days that framework was provided by religion, more modern secular socities have tried to either replace or add to that framework with their legislative systems, which now also seem to be failing as the punishment no longer fits the crime in most instances.


The great gods of commercial enterprise, worshipped in the church of avarice, have the hearts and souls of the world in the palms of their almighty hands.

Ask any kid, Christian, Muslim or Taoist what they would prefer for their birthday - a holy book or a pair of the latest Nike trainers - go on - ask. I couldn't agree more with you on this last point. People no longer fear 'going to hell' or even going to prison. Some are after instant, personal gratification; whether that be in the form of material posessions, or a hedonistic lifestyle.

Pandora's box is open and we can't close the lid.

Pandora's box is open and we can't close the lid.

Of course we can.

We could close the lid right now for all times sake.

It would only take one thing.

For God to appear in the sky and speak to us all, tell us there is a heaven, tell us there is a hell, tell us how to be.

It would take seconds. No sending his son to suffer. No tablets of stone. Just a few words, and we'd all believe, and we'd all follow.

But he doesn't.

And because of this, so many still suffer.

Why won't he do it?

I couldn't agree more with you on this last point. People no longer fear 'going to hell' or even going to prison. Some are after instant, personal gratification; whether that be in the form of material posessions, or a hedonistic lifestyle.

Pandora's box is open and we can't close the lid.

People don't fear going to Hell because there is no evidence of it existing!

People don't fear going to Hell because there is no evidence of it existing!

Prison exists; why don't (some) people fear going there?

People don't fear going to Hell because there is no evidence of it existing!

Is that not the whole point of hell though..If the was evidence you wouldnt be 'tested' on earth over which actions you are going to take...

Dont speak for all, there are people out there who wouldnt commit sin due to fear of hell...

as society expands the moral taboos that work so well with small, cohesive societies (many South American tribes for instance) are broken down, and a more structured framework is required......... which now also seem to be failing as the punishment no longer fits the crime in most instances.


Pandora's box is open and we can't close the lid.

Very true convert.

But I put a great deal of blame on societies where the art of marketing, through highly dubious and unrelenting advertising, is rampant and virtually unregulated.

Just take a look at the number and frequency of ads that assail us each day - many of which are aimed at children and the financially desperate.

Why is it seen as naive and even ludicrous to draw back from the brink of this insane consumerism at what many believe to be the 11th hour?

The coming few decades will test the very fabric of civilisation and the basic tenets of interaction between peoples and nations.

Good luck to us.

Prison exists; why don't (some) people fear going there?

For many reasons but not because of a lack of evidence of their existence. Apples and oranges my friend.

The whole notion of Hell reeks of laziness in the minds of the men who thought it up. 'Do as your told or be tortured forever'. Oh great sign me up for that religion. :loopy:

Give me Valhalla any day of the week. :thumbsup:

Very true convert.

But I put a great deal of blame on societies where the art of marketing, through highly dubious and unrelenting advertising is rampant and virtually unregulated.

Just take a look at the number and frequency of ads that assail us each day - many of which are aimed at children and the financially desperate.

Why is it seen as naive and even ludicrous to draw back from the brink of this insane consumerism at what many believe to be the 11th hour?

The coming few decades will test the very fabric of civilisation and the basic tenets of interaction between peoples and nations.

Good luck to us.

That's what doom mongerous were saying back in the 20s.

That's what doom mongerous were saying back in the 20s.

I think that you'll find that the advent of tv has had quite an impact on advertising and political propaganda, that can't remotely be compared to the 20s.

I think that you'll find that the advent of tv has had quite an impact on advertising and political propaganda, that can't remotely be compared to the 20s.

I didn't say that it hadn't. I said that religious folks have been prediciting the end of civilisation since the year dot. But what they don't realise is that history has shown us again and again that civilisations do fail. It is a progression of history and the human condition, nothing to do with an invisible sky fairy getting mad at us and shaking his fist in comical anger.

Whether they can be justified or not, a lot of bad things are done in the name of religion that wouldn't be done without it. Take the 7/7 bombings. An ordinary young UK father, 'finds' religion, takes it to it's nth degree, kills innocent people in the name of a god. Without religion he was highly unlikely to do that.

Even if you go back into 'old testemant times' there are stories of genocide done in the name of religion, and there have been many attrocities since where people have taken a gods word to mean something that allows them to act immoral.

Religion seems to be a pass for any number of immoral actions whether it be murder, segregation or bigotry, if you do it in the name of a god then it's all ok (only in their own minds of course).

ok i'm convinced

For many reasons but not because of a lack of evidence of their existence. Apples and oranges my friend. Both Hell and prison are given as examples of the consequences to be faced, and punishments to be taken as a 'reward' for ones actions. You may not believe in hell, but many do. Not everyone fears going to prison, but most law abiding, moral citizens do. We have, as individuals, to be aware of the effect our actions have upon society as a whole. Religion can no longer guide us all down that path, neither can our Governments. We need to lose political correctness, and look more towards the rights of society rather than the rights of the individual.

Perhaps a benevolent dictatorship is required. :D

Whether they can be justified or not, a lot of bad things are done in the name of religion that wouldn't be done without it. Take the 7/7 bombings. An ordinary young UK father, 'finds' religion, takes it to it's nth degree, kills innocent people in the name of a god. Without religion he was highly unlikely to do that.

Even if you go back into 'old testemant times' there are stories of genocide done in the name of religion, and there have been many attrocities since where people have taken a gods word to mean something that allows them to act immoral.

Religion seems to be a pass for any number of immoral actions whether it be murder, segregation or bigotry, if you do it in the name of a god then it's all ok (only in their own minds of course).

Spot on!

Excellent post!

Both Hell and prison are given as examples of the consequences to be faced, and punishments to be taken as a 'reward' for ones actions. You may not believe in hell, but many do. Not everyone fears going to prison, but most law abiding, moral citizens do. We have, as individuals, to be aware of the effect our actions have upon society as a whole. Religion can no longer guide us all down that path, neither can our Governments. We need to lose political correctness, and look more towards the rights of society rather than the rights of the individual.

Perhaps a benevolent dictatorship is required. :D

But the fundamental difference is that prisons exist and that hell can not be proven to exist.

I didn't say that it hadn't. I said that religious folks have been prediciting the end of civilisation since the year dot. But what they don't realise is that history has shown us again and again that civilisations do fail. It is a progression of history and the human condition, nothing to do with an invisible sky fairy getting mad at us and shaking his fist in comical anger.

No need to take on such a high handed patronising tone. You seem to have misunderstood my previous posts - if you read them at all that is.
Are you mistaking me with some american adventist fanatic?
Perhaps you could point out where and when I raised my, 'The End is Nigh' banner?

I'm not one of the 'religious folks' to which you refer. And though my knowledge of history wouldn't win me any degrees, I'm reasonably informed on recent human endeavours.

There has however, never been a comparable time in human history. We have no precedents to set beside the present.

The situation that we now face is open to any number of catastrophic outcomes - most of which are based on the mindless greed of an out of control consumerist ethic.

Nothing to do with angry gods - other than, as I said, the great God of Avarice; (may peace be upon him). Who most certainly will, 'Smite down with great anger and vengeance those who speak against him'.

The situation that we now face is open to any number of catastrophic outcomes - most of which are based on the mindless greed of an out of control consumerist ethic.

But isn't this the same reason why we have such as successful civilisation?

But isn't this the same reason why we have such as successful civilisation?

Your definition of success is at odds with mine Mercenary.

There has however, never been a comparable time in human history. We have no precedents to set beside the present.



Hmmmmm I have to disagree. We need to take out issues of technology and culture.

1. Despite the awful things that are hapening in the world, a secular world is general much safer and progressive
For example - many religious posters say "ahhh but atheists believe in science, and what has that given us; the atomic bomb" (etc)
My take is this - if say the atom bomb had been available in the year 1200, do you honestly say that the society of the time would have not used it??? Not on your nelly - weapons would have been used again and again, life was too cheap and there was always some justfication based in religion.

2. The consumer society - for most of recorded history there has been a huge proportion of people that-
(a) basically not had a clue about what was going on in the wider world, information was restricted and books limited to approved texts
(b) had a "know your place" mentality, instilled in them by religious power structures and
(c) often had a terrible quality of life.

Opening up the world does bring problems - some people will always get taken up by simple, short term fixes to happiness, often rooted in material issues. Even the ancient greeks know this. (Ironically you sig even supports this)
However, it is still true that in the UK more "printed words" are published now than ever before and more people visit "cultural attractions" than ever before.

The alternative - Ask yourself this - in which parts of the world do my three points above (under section#2) generally (and sadly) still apply??

Religion is great for many many things.

Controlling the dim witted for starters, the ignorant and the uneducated- thats what it was originally "Invented" for anyway, to control the pheasants who were kept thick and stupid and ignorant while the upper classes and the priests lived the life of
Riley.

Its also good for starting nice long, violent wars- "My gods better than your god so you must die!"

Its good also for keeping the downtrodden breeding and multiplying so the priests have more followers who are disgustingly poor but have to pour more money into the churches while the church leaders again, live the life of Riley.

Its good too, for destroying progress, if the scientists and what have you come up with a new theory, the priests clamour for it to be kept quiet in case it turns people away from their gods.

I could go on and on but... Think of this...
Religion is... a couple of thousand years old at the most.. Mankind has been wandering the Earth for over a couple of million years and they got on quite nicely before gods were invented so if the religious try to tell you that it helps mans place in the world, then theyre bull-pooing yet again.

Religion?

Plop-droppings.

yes -organised religion is a complete nonsense for ordinary folk.
Most of them are behaving themselves most of the time.

I would like to see the tax concessions to these lazy liers stopped.

Bearing in mind weve just had the most violent century in living memory
under christian governments.

Your definition of success is at odds with mine Mercenary.

How would you define it then? If I do as capitalism and advancing the individual then do you take more of a socialist / left view of success?

Hmmmmm I have to disagree. We need to take out issues of technology and culture.

1. Despite the awful things that are hapening in the world, a secular world is general much safer and progressive
For example - many religious posters say "ahhh but atheists believe in science, and what has that given us; the atomic bomb" (etc)
My take is this - if say the atom bomb had been available in the year 1200, do you honestly say that the society of the time would have not used it??? Not on your nelly - weapons would have been used again and again, life was too cheap and there was always some justfication based in religion.

2. The consumer society - for most of recorded history there has been a huge proportion of people that-
(a) basically not had a clue about what was going on in the wider world, information was restricted and books limited to approved texts
(b) had a "know your place" mentality, instilled in them by religious power structures and
(c) often had a terrible quality of life.

Opening up the world does bring problems - some people will always get taken up by simple, short term fixes to happiness, often rooted in material issues. Even the ancient greeks know this. (Ironically you sig even supports this)
However, it is still true that in the UK more "printed words" are published now than ever before and more people visit "cultural attractions" than ever before.

The alternative - Ask yourself this - in which parts of the world do my three points above (under section#2) generally (and sadly) still apply??


Just to be clear Mr Goose, I am not interested in ANY religion. And I am not defending ANY religion.

Why would we need to take out 'issues of technology and culture' for my assertion to have any credence? We are debating the usefulness, or otherwise, of religion in the present.
While I agree that a secular world SHOULD in theory be a safer world - the reality of such a situation is untested (globally) and your assertion is therefore a moot point.

Our world is decidely not secular - furthermore, the worship of material wealth, territory and personal power are doubtlessly as destructive and as pervasive as the worship of a god; if not moreso.

Your giant leap to the liklihood or otherwise of the ancients using modern weapons is just as moot for, of course they would use whatever weapons they had to hand - I fail to see where you could transpose any statement of mine that would make your statement pertinent or even necessary, in relation to my post.

The prospect of global warfare doesn't enter my mind.
When I say 'we have no precedents to compare' I am chiefly talking about the sheer immensity of the worlds population. (I trust you will agree that we have never had quite so many people on the planet as now).

The fact that world shortages of most resourses are beginning to be felt, is my point - and that 'any number of catastrophic outcomes' is directly attributable to this situation. ie. Disease - famine - genocide etc

Why is it 'ironic' that the greeks new about the pitfalls of materialism with regard to my sig?
Where does anything I have said invoke this 'irony'???????

And what has the number of publications being churned out got to do with ANYTHING that I said? O.k my reply to that comment - Harry Potter wouldn't impress Shakespeare - methinks. And Plato would have thought little of Jacky Collins' work.

It seems that you have used my post to 'reply' to points that I haven't made.
The few points that do relate to my post I have answered.
And, however strongly you may feel that your points are relevant, they mostly have little to do with anything I've said.

P.S.
Don't want to come across tetchy Mr Goose - I admit that some of the post that you replied to could be construed as somewhat off topic!

If there were no religion Songs of praise could not be on Tv every Sunday and they would but repeats of Allo Allo on instead.

If there were no religion Songs of praise could not be on Tv every Sunday and they would but repeats of Allo Allo on instead.

Was it Allo Allo that had a German character played by the F1 Boss? :confused:

Just to be clear Mr Goose, I am not interested in ANY religion. And I am not defending ANY religion.

It seems that you have used my post to 'reply' to points that I haven't made.
The few points that do relate to my post I have answered.
And, however strongly you may feel that your points are relevant, they mostly have little to do with anything I've said.

P.S.
Don't want to come across tetchy Mr Goose - I admit that some of the post that you replied to could be construed as somewhat off topic!

I will honk more in due course! I have just finished a work project and need to be in London in a few hours..... woes indeed

So who thinks that religion should be banned from schools, religious garments banned from the workplace, and a total separation of religion and state?

It serves no use, is outdated, and indoctrinates the weak minded.

Religion Should not be forced on children at schools !!

some Religions are the cause of Wars and fights!!!

Good call, we'll not teach kids about religions, then they wont fight, or grow up to cause wars. Perhaps if we dont teach them about drugs, they'll not use them, we could ban home economics so no one finds out what a knife is and gets stabbed, we can rule out science to get rid of disease, and not teach geography so no one fights over borders lol.

Isnt the very idea of education about providing informed choice? would it be better a child explore rudiments of religion in a class room setting, rather than being 'brain washed' by some one like my good self?

I think all religions/beliefs/faiths should be explored at school, including non-belief. Kids sometimes get confused as youngsters (lol and as adults!!) an di know the obvious comment is 'yes, so lets not confuse them more with religion you numpty!' but i'd rather my kids get the 'facts' of a belief in a classroom setting rather than playground banter where they find out muslims have to wear badages on their toes, jews can only eat pork if its topside, and christians have fish stickers on there cars because whales are to big. ok, yeah its an extreme example, but you see wot i'm getting at, right chief?

Religion Should not be forced on children at schools !!

some Religions are the cause of Wars and fights!!!


Yes masonsarms, religion should not be taught at school.

Christianity is a confusing mess. Thousands of Christians are in the army, navy, airforce, being trained up to kill, supported by battalion padre's etc.


These Christians are blissfully ignoring the their sixth commandment.

[Thou shall not kill]

Religion Should not be forced on children at schools !!

some Religions are the cause of Wars and fights!!!


but couldnt you say that football shouldnt be forced on children in schools. football causes lots of fighting.

but couldnt you say that football shouldnt be forced on children in schools. football causes lots of fighting.

No poor, there is a big difference between a footy punchup and a murderous war.


Yes masonsarms, religion should not be taught at school.

Christianity is a confusing mess. Thousands of Christians are in the army, navy, airforce, being trained up to kill, supported by battalion padre's etc.


These Christians are blissfully ignoring their sixth commandment.

[Thou shall not kill]:confused:

No poor, there is a big difference between a footy punchup and a murderous war.


Yes masonsarms, religion should not be taught at school.

Christianity is a confusing mess. Thousands of Christians are in the army, navy, airforce, being trained up to kill, supported by battalion padre's etc.


These Christians are blissfully ignoring their sixth commandment.

[Thou shall not kill]:confused:

oh so you think that the people who have been killed by football violence are worth less than those killed in wars?

oh so you think that the people who have been killed by football violence are worth less than those killed in wars?

Very poor,poor,nice sidestep tho'

I repeat, what are Christians doing in the armed forces being trained up to kill
en mass, supported by military padres. Completely ignoring their sixth commandment. [thou shall not kill]

Christianity IS a confusing mess. A religion that could never sought itself out
never mind tell the world what to do and how to live.

NO! It should not be taught to our children at school.

The bible has been sanitised that many times its not worth the paper its written on.

Very poor,poor,nice sidestep tho'

I repeat, what are Christians doing in the armed forces being trained up to kill
en mass, supported by military padres. Completely ignoring their sixth commandment. [thou shall not kill]

Christianity IS a confusing mess. A religion that could never sought itself out
never mind tell the world what to do and how to live.

NO! It should not be taught to our children at school.

The bible has been sanitised that many times its not worth the paper its written on.
not sidestepping at all, please answer my question.

Good call, we'll not teach kids about religions, then they wont fight, or grow up to cause wars. Perhaps if we dont teach them about drugs, they'll not use them, we could ban home economics so no one finds out what a knife is and gets stabbed, we can rule out science to get rid of disease, and not teach geography so no one fights over borders lol.

Isnt the very idea of education about providing informed choice? would it be better a child explore rudiments of religion in a class room setting, rather than being 'brain washed' by some one like my good self?

I think all religions/beliefs/faiths should be explored at school, including non-belief. Kids sometimes get confused as youngsters (lol and as adults!!) an di know the obvious comment is 'yes, so lets not confuse them more with religion you numpty!' but i'd rather my kids get the 'facts' of a belief in a classroom setting rather than playground banter where they find out muslims have to wear badages on their toes, jews can only eat pork if its topside, and christians have fish stickers on there cars because whales are to big. ok, yeah its an extreme example, but you see wot i'm getting at, right chief?

But why should they be taught? It is like teaching children that the Easter Bunny or Santa is real or about the Giant Sea Turtle that farted the universe into being. They are all without credit and evidence so why waste time with them? Unless you are proposing teaching children how to use reason and logic in relation to religion- that I can get on board with.

oh so you think that the people who have been killed by football violence are worth less than those killed in wars?

If a Christian kills anyone they are going against one of the 10 commandments. Unless otherwise stated to be allowed to do so in the Bible.

If a Christian kills anyone they are going against one of the 10 commandments. Unless otherwise stated to be allowed to do so in the Bible.
if anyone kills anyone else, they're breaking the law and taking a life. what does it matter if they have religion or not? either way it's wrong.

you dont nned religion to be a good or a bad person. i say good luck to people who have religion, providing they dont want to force it down my neck.

as for teaching religion in schools its probably a good idea providing kids are told that religion is what some people believe and some dont. and that we should accept that.

if anyone kills anyone else, they're breaking the law and taking a life. what does it matter if they have religion or not? either way it's wrong.

you dont nned religion to be a good or a bad person. i say good luck to people who have religion, providing they dont want to force it down my neck.

as for teaching religion in schools its probably a good idea providing kids are told that religion is what some people believe and some dont. and that we should accept that.

But you were talking about during a war. In which case killing is not illegal but still goes againts the 10 commandments.

But you were talking about during a war. In which case killing is not illegal but still goes againts the 10 commandments. nah mate i was talking about people being killed in general and saying that if someone says religion causes deaths then so does football so perhaps we should stop teaching that in schools as well, and that 1 life is worth the same as another no matter the reason behind the death.

nah mate i was talking about people being killed in general and saying that if someone says religion causes deaths then so does football so perhaps we should stop teaching that in schools as well, and that 1 life is worth the same as another no matter the reason behind the death.

Yes all life is precious but you seem to be confusing the huge amount of lives that are lost daily due to religious beliefs (not to mention the hundreds and thousands throughout history) to the small number of deaths attributed to football.

Yes all life is precious but you seem to be confusing the huge amount of lives that are lost daily due to religious beliefs (not to mention the hundreds and thousands throughout history) to the small number of deaths attributed to football.
what about the huge number of lifes lost daily due to disease and lack of food caused by the wests economic policies. surely they outnumber the number of deaths that some accuse religion of causing. worship of the god of money and wealth seem to me to be much worse than the worship of ancient gods.

not sidestepping at all, please answer my question.

Sorry poor, the opening post is about religion not football.

What is the value of 'organised' religion? could you please stay on topic.



Very poor,poor,nice sidestep tho'

I repeat, what are Christians doing in the armed forces being trained up to kill
en mass, supported by military padres. Completely ignoring their sixth commandment. [thou shall not kill]

Christianity IS a confusing mess. A religion that could never sought itself out
never mind tell the world what to do and how to live.

NO! It should not be taught to our children at school.

The bible has been sanitised that many times its not worth the paper its written on.

what about the huge number of lifes lost daily due to disease and lack of food caused by the wests economic policies. surely they outnumber the number of deaths that some accuse religion of causing. worship of the god of money and wealth seem to me to be much worse than the worship of ancient gods.

You use the word worship when you mean two different things. The worship of a diety is a belief in reality that is very hard to remove from an individual's mind, indeed, believers have been known to crash planes into buildings for it...

The worship of money is a different thing. It is greedy yes, but totally different from the above.

Sorry poor, the opening post is about religion not football.

What is the value of 'organised' religion? could you please stay on topic.



Very poor,poor,nice sidestep tho'

I repeat, what are Christians doing in the armed forces being trained up to kill
en mass, supported by military padres. Completely ignoring their sixth commandment. [thou shall not kill]

Christianity IS a confusing mess. A religion that could never sought itself out
never mind tell the world what to do and how to live.

NO! It should not be taught to our children at school.

The bible has been sanitised that many times its not worth the paper its written on.

opening post is about religion i agree. and many bad things have been done in the name of religion but so have many good things. many 3rd world conutries get a lot of support from religious organizations. lots of religious people give lots of money to charity, muslims during ramadan, cathlics during lent etc. these funds are used to help the poor around the world.

my statement about football was to show that there are lots of things that are taught in school that further down the line cause conflict. should we stop all these things from being taught or should we teach them along with a greater respect for others ond there believes. i was simply expanding the discussion to show this.

now i've answered your question would you be knid enough to answer mine .

You use the word worship when you mean two different things. The worship of a diety is a belief in reality that is very hard to remove from an individual's mind, indeed, believers have been known to crash planes into buildings for it...

The worship of money is a different thing. It is greedy yes, but totally different from the above.

please dont presume to tell me what i mean. some people do worship money and wealth in the same way that others worship a deity. i think saying that the 9/11 terrorists were acting only because of religion is simpitstic. there are far more factors than religion in the politics of the middle east. in fact money land and wealth might also be given as major factors in 9/11. again religion might be used as the scapegoat but it isn't the only driver behind these hostilities.

yo'ull be telling me that the troubles in N Ireland were all to do with religion next.

opening post is about religion i agree. and many bad things have been done in the name of religion but so have many good things. many 3rd world conutries get a lot of support from religious organizations. lots of religious people give lots of money to charity, muslims during ramadan, cathlics during lent etc. these funds are used to help the poor around the world.

my statement about football was to show that there are lots of things that are taught in school that further down the line cause conflict. should we stop all these things from being taught or should we teach them along with a greater respect for others ond there believes. i was simply expanding the discussion to show this.

now i've answered your question would you be knid enough to answer mine

. We dont have to be christian to be honest and law abiding.
Indeed, most people in my atheist country are law abiding and honest, and indeed, always were.

What is the value of christianity hmmmmm-negative-confusing-dishonest-barefaced
liers about creationism, dead man walking, immaculate conception.

Cooking the book- trying to fit a square peg into a round hole.

Hundreds of thousands of them around the world joining the armed forces
to be trained up to kill en mass, encouraged by military padres, completely
ignoring the 6th commandment[thou shalt not kill]

No sir, it should not be taught at school.:help:

We dont have to be christian to be honest and law abiding.
Indeed, most people in my atheist country are law abiding and honest, and indeed, always were.

What is the value of christianity hmmmmm-negative-confusing-dishonest-barefaced
liers about creationism, dead man walking, immaculate conception.

Cooking the book- trying to fit a square peg into a round hole.

Hundreds of thousands of them around the world joining the armed forces
to be trained up to kill en mass, encouraged by military padres, completely
ignoring the 6th commandment[thou shalt not kill]

No sir, it should not be taught at school.:help:

still havnt answered my question.

still havnt answered my question.

That's because as you well know, it's a stupid question.

Of course he doesnt' value a life taken by a religious fanatic any higher than one taken by a football hooligan, that would be madness. I can't say for definate his views but the fact he's chosen not to dignify you're idiotic question with an answer and i've had to come on to tell you so speaks volumes really.

some people do worship money and wealth in the same way that others worship a deity.

Which people, which people love money so much that they are willing to kill themselves and others for it? What money would they get? they'd be dead remember. Religion CAN and DOES inspire people to take their own life with the promise of reward in heaven.

Love of money does not lead to hatred of those who don't love money, or hatred of those who love a slightly different money.

Yes it does lead to suffering, prime example: arms dealers, selling guns en masse to war-torn countries. But these arms dealers, would they strap on a bomb and tell everyone to buy guns of of them or they'll blow themselves up? NO. Greedy people would not do this , almost by definition, they're too selfish to take their own life for any particular cause. They just want to be rich.

Love of God DOES (not always, but often) lead to hatred of those who do not love god, or love a slightly different god, or even those who love the same god but in a slightly different way.

And about Ireland, of course it wasn't just because of religion, but without religion it would be far harder to condemn any innocent person to death.

what say you to that mr poor?

Which people, which people love money so much that they are willing to kill themselves and others for it? What money would they get? they'd be dead remember. Religion CAN and DOES inspire people to take their own life with the promise of reward in heaven.

Love of money does not lead to hatred of those who don't love money, or hatred of those who love a slightly different money.

Yes it does lead to suffering, prime example: arms dealers, selling guns en masse to war-torn countries. But these arms dealers, would they strap on a bomb and tell everyone to buy guns of of them or they'll blow themselves up? NO. Greedy people would not do this , almost by definition, they're too selfish to take their own life for any particular cause. They just want to be rich.

Love of God DOES (not always, but often) lead to hatred of those who do not love god, or love a slightly different god, or even those who love the same god but in a slightly different way.

And about Ireland, of course it wasn't just because of religion, but without religion it would be far harder to condemn any innocent person to death.

what say you to that mr poor?

many capitalists love money so much that they dont care how there companys money is made. they dont mind the conditions in 3rd world swetshops and they have no morals. they dont care about anyone as long as they get rich. religious people might say that that is worship of false idles.

you are right that love of god can lead people to do terrible things, but that is usually because theyve been brainwashed by another man in the name of religion. money can have a similar effect, people work so hard and end up killing themselves with stress.

as for ireland i dont agree with you. the majority of the trouble there had nothing to do with religion, it was just a way for bully boys to feel important and get power / wealth and earn respect through fear.

as for my question about football and death, i dont think it was idiotic. it was trying to show that many things in life cause conflict and disagreement. i now know that you think it stupid and idiotic, and that you value 1 life as much as another one.

i still dont know what the other poster thinks as most of his posts are simple cut and paste jobs showing very little thought at all.

Hey Mercenary, thanks for your comment, i think it should taught, as whether you/i/we chose to believe in it, and whether we personally think its right or not, different faiths are still a large part of culture in the uk. I think i know more people who believe in 'something' rather than nothing, therefore i'd rather these topics be discussed in a class setting rather than any old mug 'informing' the kids, with me?
And yes, i you quite rightly put, showing the kids how to use logic, and explore the 'truths' of the religion / faith - for instance -as someone else pointed out - is it right for christians kill re 6th commandment etc - and i think it takes someone who knows there subject well to not be wishy washy but point out that 'to be true to THEIR (christian beliefs, this would not be acceptable...

Hey Mercenary, thanks for your comment, i think it should taught, as whether you/i/we chose to believe in it, and whether we personally think its right or not, different faiths are still a large part of culture in the uk. I think i know more people who believe in 'something' rather than nothing, therefore i'd rather these topics be discussed in a class setting rather than any old mug 'informing' the kids, with me?
And yes, i you quite rightly put, showing the kids how to use logic, and explore the 'truths' of the religion / faith - for instance -as someone else pointed out - is it right for christians kill re 6th commandment etc - and i think it takes someone who knows there subject well to not be wishy washy but point out that 'to be true to THEIR (christian beliefs, this would not be acceptable...
good post. i agree we need knowledge to make decisions.

many capitalists love money so much that they dont care how there companys money is made. they dont mind the conditions in 3rd world swetshops and they have no morals. they dont care about anyone as long as they get rich. religious people might say that that is worship of false idles.

you are right that love of god can lead people to do terrible things, but that is usually because theyve been brainwashed by another man in the name of religion. money can have a similar effect, people work so hard and end up killing themselves with stress.



And which idol are they worhipinng exactly? i really don't get it.

Yes there are selfish and greedy people out there who will manipulate people to the worst possible degrees to get rich eg sweatshops/arms dealers. However that is not a symptom of our new society that has happened since the dawn of civilizasion. The big guys have always completely screwed the little guys in order to get rich and live out extravagantly comfortable lives. Not just in the last couple of centuries of consumerism, but forever.


And did you just compare someone killing themselve from stress from working too hard to a suicide bomber? 'cause it sure seems like it. Someone who didn't harm anyone but himself through his overwork and died of a heart attack at age 40 or something to a 20 something young man who's just blown himself up on a train. Did you really mean that?

This guy is trying to say a few good things about religion..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ly62n36nn0k

Was it Allo Allo that had a German character played by the F1 Boss? :confused:

Well they gave him a fair crack of the whip.

still havnt answered my question.

mr poor, where is religion taking us?

lol, to church on sunday??? lol

lol, to church on sunday??? lol


There will be plenty of room, space, the last frontier.:love:

please dont presume to tell me what i mean. some people do worship money and wealth in the same way that others worship a deity. i think saying that the 9/11 terrorists were acting only because of religion is simpitstic. there are far more factors than religion in the politics of the middle east. in fact money land and wealth might also be given as major factors in 9/11. again religion might be used as the scapegoat but it isn't the only driver behind these hostilities.

yo'ull be telling me that the troubles in N Ireland were all to do with religion next.

Flamingjimmy has already replied with perfect sense so there is not much else to add to what he has said. I still don't think that you realise that people who 'worship' money do not do so in the same way theist 'worship' a diety. People want and desire money but they do not pray to it. Ireland has many complex factors streching back over centuries but religion does play its part.

Hey Mercenary, thanks for your comment, i think it should taught, as whether you/i/we chose to believe in it, and whether we personally think its right or not, different faiths are still a large part of culture in the uk. I think i know more people who believe in 'something' rather than nothing, therefore i'd rather these topics be discussed in a class setting rather than any old mug 'informing' the kids, with me?
And yes, i you quite rightly put, showing the kids how to use logic, and explore the 'truths' of the religion / faith - for instance -as someone else pointed out - is it right for christians kill re 6th commandment etc - and i think it takes someone who knows there subject well to not be wishy washy but point out that 'to be true to THEIR (christian beliefs, this would not be acceptable...

I agree. I went to All Saints RC School on Granville Road and our RE lessons consisted of what Catholics believed about abortion, euthanasia and things like that. Not once were crucial issues regarding the existence of a god or the historical facts surrounding Jesus, Mohammed etc looked at. If my children go to a RC School (which they probably will seeing as though they are way up in the league tables) then I'll certainly be willing to discuss such issues with them.

lol, oh my days!! some one agrees with one of my comments!!! its possible you've made my day lol
it has to be about education, not thrusting faith and belief at people, then people can do what they wish with the information thats been presented. nice one fella!

lol, oh my days!! some one agrees with one of my comments!!! its possible you've made my day lol
it has to be about education, not thrusting faith and belief at people, then people can do what they wish with the information thats been presented. nice one fella!

No problem! It makes total sense no? I can't see it going down well in religious schools though to be honest...

"Now, you've all had your science lessons but now I'm going to tell you how the world was actually created in just a few days by a nice person in the sky called God... what's that James? Where did God come from? Well James, he has always been there. What? What do you mean that's impossible and he must come from somewhere..?" etc etc etc

Sure, it wont be a big hit in religious schools, personally, i see them as a bit extreme though, i'd like to thing of stuff as being balanced, maybe thats appears a bit 'liberal' i dont know! I have a strong faith, and had the oppertunity to send my kids to a christian/ or faith school, but chose not to, as i felt the view pushed on them would be to one sided. However, for me, science and my faith go hand in hand, i dont see the problem some christains have with it! they sit quite nicely together for me, but hey, what would i know lol

No problem! It makes total sense no? I can't see it going down well in religious schools though to be honest...

"Now, you've all had your science lessons but now I'm going to tell you how the world was actually created in just a few days by a nice person in the sky called God... what's that James? Where did God come from? Well James, he has always been there. What? What do you mean that's impossible and he must come from somewhere..?" etc etc etc



The universe started off as a tiny point, yes? All the matter contained in that tiny point was everything thats in the universe now, just in another form... Yes?

Then it expanded and in under a billionth of a second it was eight times the size of the Solar system and still expanding... Yes?............................


http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?t=367313


Why do you ask where God came from but you never ask, assuming the universe started this way, where that tiny point came from?

.

http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?t=367313


Why do you ask where God came from but you never ask, assuming the universe started this way, where that tiny point came from?

.

I don't ask because no one has the answer.

I don't ask because no one has the answer.

Well that's fair enough. So you agree that to ask the question "where did God come from is the same as asking "where did the universe come from?"

Well that's fair enough. So you agree that to ask the question "where did God come from is the same as asking "where did the universe come from?"


It is not the same - we can see the universe all around us. It is a legitimate question to say "how can we explain all this?" - this is what science is trying to do.

Saying where did god come from is a different question - becauase the faiths say he created everything, even tho we cannot see any evidence of him, and indeed the evidence suggests that he does not exit, even tho it cannot prove this as a negative.

The bottom line is that we can say that god, the big bang or a quantum singluarity caused "everything", but the faith position is fixed, ie no matter the new evidence, eg superstring theory, they can just say "well god created that as well".

Therefore it is not an answer to a question, it is a get out clause. And these two things are different

Creating 18 million identical threads on Sheffield Forum!

Is that a use!?

It is not the same - we can see the universe all around us. It is a legitimate question to say "how can we explain all this?" - this is what science is trying to do.

Saying where did god come from is a different question - becauase the faiths say he created everything, even tho we cannot see any evidence of him, and indeed the evidence suggests that he does not exit, even tho it cannot prove this as a negative.

The bottom line is that we can say that god, the big bang or a quantum singluarity caused "everything", but the faith position is fixed, ie no matter the new evidence, eg superstring theory, they can just say "well god created that as well".

Therefore it is not an answer to a question, it is a get out clause. And these two things are different

In the beginning GOD and we see the evidence all around us.

When scientists find the origin of the cosmos I believe they will have found God. Until then we just can't say.

In the beginning GOD.



In the beginning CHAIR.

I win.

man, this is weird, i was having the same discussion with my mate jus the other day! he's not a christian, muslim or jew, he's a dude! he's a molecular biologist for a firm in sheffield, and he noted that some of his coleague 'found faith' through there role in science. one guy put it like this (and no, i'm a numpty so dont have the knowldege to back these statemtns up!! lol ) If you break an atom down to its smallest component you're left with a sound wave, now in genisis it go on about God talking into the world, i found that quite interesting in a geeky kinda way!
another guy put it like this, in hebrew txt, the closest translation to 'day' is 'a season of time' so if God did create the world in 7 days (no i dont know, i wasnt there!) it would be reasonable to say this was 7 seasons of time, how long is a season of time? i dont know, but perhaps long enough to support some scientfic theroys i've read about. Jus putting it out there guyz ; )

In the beginning GOD and we see the evidence all around us.
When scientists find the origin of the cosmos I believe they will have found God. Until then we just can't say.

But Grahame, people used to say the same thing about what causes stars to burn, what causes volcanoes, the variety of life on earth, what causes diseases etc etc.

If, say in a few years time we discover that the universe (or multiverse of different dimensions) was created by a perfectly natural issue -say something to do with multi dimension string theory - I am betting you would still say that "but god is outside normal reality" or "but god made the quantum singularity" etc etc - cant you see that "non-answers" based on untestable faith positions can be argued for any way like this????

While you can keep adding more unknowns, they do not actually have any more weight than me just making something up, right now; here we go-

"the universe was created in the eye of a giant astral squid called Zardax, he is undetectable by any science because he lives in the 28th dimension"

Can you see? This is another completely intestable suggestion that I could keep adding bits to..

man, this is weird, i was having the same discussion with my mate jus the other day! he's not a christian, muslim or jew, he's a dude! he's a molecular biologist for a firm in sheffield, and he noted that some of his coleague 'found faith' through there role in science. one guy put it like this (and no, i'm a numpty so dont have the knowldege to back these statemtns up!! lol ) If you break an atom down to its smallest component you're left with a sound wave, now in genisis it go on about God talking into the world, i found that quite interesting in a geeky kinda way!
another guy put it like this, in hebrew txt, the closest translation to 'day' is 'a season of time' so if God did create the world in 7 days (no i dont know, i wasnt there!) it would be reasonable to say this was 7 seasons of time, how long is a season of time? i dont know, but perhaps long enough to support some scientfic theroys i've read about. Jus putting it out there guyz ; )

I think you need to tell us what your mate actually said!

Elshadai said this:
“If you break an atom down to its smallest component you're left with a sound wave”

The Bible says this:
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(John 1 chapter 1)



Elshadai said this:
“in hebrew txt, the closest translation to 'day' is 'a season of time'”

Strong’s Hebrew dictionary says this:

Day
יום
yôm
yome
A space of time defined by an associated term, (often used adverbially): - age, + always, + chronicles, continually (-ance), daily, ([birth-], each, to) day, (now a, two) days (agone), + elder, X end, + evening, + (for) ever (-lasting, -more), X full, life, as (so) long as (. . . live), (even) now, + old, + outlived, + perpetually, presently, + remaineth, X required, season, X since, space, then, (process of) time, + as at other times.

.

thanks grahame, yer a sharper stick than me!! yeah, thats what i was getting at, but i think grahame has put it across in the technical terms you guyz like playing with ; )

This song tells you all you need to know;)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGxUIXBMorM

Elshadai said this:
“If you break an atom down to its smallest component you're left with a sound wave”

The Bible says this:
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(John 1 chapter 1)
.

Errrrrrrr quantum mechnics ACTUALLY hints at how electromagnetic radiation has features like both a wave AND a "particle" and that they are laden with "uncertainty" in terms of momentum and position.

This is not quite the same as saying "its smallest component you're left with a sound wave"

So your "the Word" is an appalingly poor metaphur, still, I bet it wont stop you thinking science supports the bible!

sorry mate, the sounds wrecked on my pc! wot tune is it? lol is it the one by The Blood Hound Gang??

lol, did you just use the word 'uncertainty'

But Grahame, people used to say the same thing about what causes stars to burn, what causes volcanoes, the variety of life on earth, what causes diseases etc etc..............


While you can keep adding more unknowns, they do not actually have any more weight than me just making something up, right now; here we go-

"the universe was created in the eye of a giant astral squid called Zardax, he is undetectable by any science because he lives in the 28th dimension"

Can you see? This is another completely intestable suggestion that I could keep adding bits to..

This is my personal view and Elshadai may not agree with me but I think you were nearer the mark in the first sentence in as much as the ancient people attributed the creative act to God who is all powerful and ever present. The beginning of the cosmos was a powerful act and matter is ever present, i.e. omniscient and omnipresent and they are only two of the qualities of God.

This song tells you all you need to know;)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGxUIXBMorM

That's very true, war is good for nothing, and man makes war, not God.

.

This is my personal view and Elshadai may not agree with me but I think you were nearer the mark in the first sentence in as much as the ancient people attributed the creative act to God who is all powerful and ever present. The beginning of the cosmos was a powerful act and matter is ever present, i.e. omniscient and omnipresent and they are only two of the qualities of God.

I see you ingored the whole other part of his post, what's the matter? Can't you disprove the Great Zardax? (bear in mind that your risking him smiting you with his extra-dimentional tentacle of doom)

i think i've met the Greta Zardax, sounds like an ex of mine lol, are you asking me to disprove Zardex over God, you see, in all fairness, i've never asked Zardex for anything, i dont understand who God works, i dont know how he is more tangable to some than others, i know that when i first 'came to faith' i was prayed over, and healed of psoraisis which cobered my legs and arms with in an hour. Now again , to be fair, these guyz weremt praying to Zardex, so yeah it may have been him who answered there prayers, its my personal view that i was healed by the God they were praying to....and yep, i think i'm ready for some sarcastic comments of how do i prove that etc etc lol

I see you ingored the whole other part of his post, what's the matter? Can't you disprove the Great Zardax? (bear in mind that your risking him smiting you with his extra-dimentional tentacle of doom)

Mr Goose admitted he made it up, the same as all religions and cults are made up and it carries about the same amount of weight, which is none.

By the way in case you didn't catch it first time round, for me Christianity is a faith not a religion.

.

yeah i can get with that, there is definetly a distinction between faith and religion, does that make us liberals lol

i think i've met the Greta Zardax, sounds like an ex of mine lol, are you asking me to disprove Zardex over God, you see, in all fairness, i've never asked Zardex for anything, i dont understand who God works, i dont know how he is more tangable to some than others, i know that when i first 'came to faith' i was prayed over, and healed of psoraisis which cobered my legs and arms with in an hour. Now again , to be fair, these guyz weremt praying to Zardex, so yeah it may have been him who answered there prayers, its my personal view that i was healed by the God they were praying to....and yep, i think i'm ready for some sarcastic comments of how do i prove that etc etc lol

Ok, so lets say they did pray and hours later you were cured (not sure i believe you anyway), there's so many different things that could have effected it. Plus what about the other millions of people suffering who've prayed and have not been answered? What about me? When i was young i used to pray for various things all the time, like Sheffield Utd winning for example (never happened)

And in any case one example is not enough, if they can cure diseases, why haven't they wiped out aids yet?

Since then, how many things that you've prayed for have happened? What's the success rate? All signs point to the fact that your prayers go unanswered. There have been a fair few studies into this and praying for stuff doesn't make it happen.

You could pray to win the lottery every week, fail for 20 years, then win, and it's a miracle, you're prayers were answered, wouldn't that mean all your other ones were ignored?

Mr Goose admitted he made it up, the same as all religions and cults are made up and it carries about the same amount of weight, which is none.

By the way in case you didn't catch it first time round, for me Christianity is a faith not a religion.

.

I caught it alright, but chose to ignore it as nonsensical babblings. Of course it's a religion, you silly billy!:hihi:

Also it would be wise to note that the fox sisters admitted making up everything about the ghosts in their house and that the strange noises were their ankle joints but it didn't stop the spiritualist movement growing to the extent where we have Derek Acorah hunting Ghosts on tv! And plenty of you good Sfers out there i'm sure buy into that nonsense.

yeah i can get with that, there is definetly a distinction between faith and religion, does that make us liberals lol

I think because of the way language has changed over the years and the way customs have changed as well, that this has caused the Bible to be misunderstood by todays generations.

The word "day" for example has introduced error into the church and has led Christians to believe in a young earth which is obviously untrue and it is such a shame this has happened.

I believe every word of the Bible is true and it is our understanding that is at fault. We need to take the advice of Timothy which was "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth."

.

again, they're very valid comments, and you're right you have no grounds to beleive me, but try and measure it by looking at any other lies you think i've told, you've already stated alot of this about evidence, but you know, i have nothing to prove really, just wanted to join in the discussion, i'm trying to make you thing the same as me! You're right to be sceptical, its all about balancing and waying up different opinions, i completly get with that, 9/10yrs back i would have been the last person on earth to beleive in any god, thats for sure!
I think i said, i dont know why God works diffrently for some people, i just dont know mate, i wish i had the answer, i guess if i did, we wouldnt be having this chat!! In terms of praying for the lottery, its a question i often ask myself, at what point do thinks 'just happen' and wot do i class as an intervention. Perhaps its not about self gain, having said that, you could argue that personal healing is selfish. Either way, yeah there are usually other factors, but an hour?? come on man,thats inpressive coinsidence by any ones standards! I'm also more than aware there are alot of idiots out there who claim to heal in the name of different beliefs and make a tidy profit!!! this wasnt at a big meeting, didnt cost me a penny of my hard earned cash, it was in house. Yeah i know i havent really answered you, but trying to be honest and not a 'lair' its cos i cant!!

sure thing grahame, there is a lot to be said for our interpritation and knowledge, i guess its kinda like if you'd never seen the colour black, or where you come from black is called fotab we could argue a point and still both be right, make sense?

another thing with interpritation, there's a bit in the bible where it says 'now what father would give there hungary son a snake' (or words to that effect) no in parts of south africa, a snake is a good dish to have man!!

I believe every word of the Bible is true
.

Why do you believe this?

EDIT: get your compass out quick!

I think because of the way language has changed over the years and the way customs have changed as well, that this has caused the Bible to be misunderstood by todays generations.

The word "day" for example has introduced error into the church and has led Christians to believe in a young earth which is obviously untrue and it is such a shame this has happened.

I believe every word of the Bible is true and it is our understanding that is at fault. We need to take the advice of Timothy which was "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth."

.

How do you reconcile your awareness of the changing nature of language with the idea that every word of the Bible is true? Which translation of the Bible to take to be the 'true' version, and why so? Do you accept that other people might read different versions of the Bible and have different interpretations, that might equally be 'true'?

Hey Jessica, thats a good question, is it a case of seeing how much an addition changes? i mean, you could take a good book, read it in several differnet languages and beaware that although the wording may differ in places, it holds true to your english copy, does that make sense?

Hey Jessica, thats a good question, is it a case of seeing how much an addition changes? i mean, you could take a good book, read it in several differnet languages and beaware that although the wording may differ in places, it holds true to your english copy, does that make sense?

Kind of. It depends on the idea that there was one 'true' 'original' copy, though. Is that the case with the Bible? I know very little about theological scriptural studies or whatever, but I did have the idea that textual Biblical scholarship is a contested area...?

yeah, i see what you mean! well there must have been one copy of the originals for them to get there in the first place. The old testament is made up of several different books, which to the jews i believe are 'book's in there own right called torah's i think (i'm no expert either!) and then you have the new testament, mainly a series of letters from 'church leaders' to other churches seeking encouragment, thats in very basic terms. There are arguments that some texts are missing, and some have been deliberatly removed, and suprisingly i find i have room for that argument having looked into it a little deeper. May be, if its something you're genuinely intersted in you'd not go far wrong looking into it in a better forum rather than listening to barstool theologans, who may all be wrong!! lol

yeah, i see what you mean! well there must have been one copy of the originals for them to get there in the first place. The old testament is made up of several different books, which to the jews i believe are 'book's in there own right called torah's i think (i'm no expert either!) and then you have the new testament, mainly a series of letters from 'church leaders' to other churches seeking encouragment, thats in very basic terms. There are arguments that some texts are missing, and some have been deliberatly removed, and suprisingly i find i have room for that argument having looked into it a little deeper. May be, if its something you're genuinely intersted in you'd not go far wrong looking into it in a better forum rather than listening to barstool theologans, who may all be wrong!! lol

If I was interested in theology beyond a barstool level I certainly wouldn't come to the Forum for advice :D

But I am interested in ideas about texts, generally speaking, and how we interpret them. I lean towards the 'there is never one definitive reading' of any text - so when it comes to things like Bible verses I'm even more intrigued, since so many people seem to have adapted them to suit various political purposes over the years.

lol, at the risk of seperating myself from the rest of the christian community, yeah, i think perhaps bits have been.... (arrrgh gotta chose my words careful here!)
Look, the best way to get someone to beleive something, or buy into it is throuogh fear, yeah? I my very humble opinion, the church of england (not to be confused with the early church in england /early christian movment) made some big mistakes. For example, christening is not biblical, but if your trying to set up a religous movment and tell everyone they'll go to hell if you're not christened, wot do you think the reponse will be/ its a no brainer isnt it?

and no, for me hell is not a big lake of fire!

Jessica23, this might help, i'm new to computers and dont have the technical know how to provide you a link, but if you go to google, and type 'origins of the bible' and then click on yer second hit, you might find some answers. There are lots of other sites but i've deliberatly reccomended this one so i'm not accused by other users as being bias, as this is written from a secular rather than christian perspective, but remember, the views on the site are only one of many!! i hope you find what your looking for.

http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?t=367313


Why do you ask where God came from but you never ask, assuming the universe started this way, where that tiny point came from?

.


Not from the arse of some mythical beardy git in the sky I can tell you THAT much! The god you know of is a fairy in the sky, a made up person, made up by some ignorant savage a long time ago when the idea of education was how to stop the neighbouring tribes from raping his tribes women.

Well that's fair enough. So you agree that to ask the question "where did God come from is the same as asking "where did the universe come from?"

No, because there is no evidence that God exists.

It's good for nothing until there is 'proof'.

And god can give us that proof.

He just needs to show himself.

It would only take a minute.

It would end so many troubles and pain.

So religious ones, or those of faith, please answer:

Why won't God give us proof?