My Objection to Religion

Kagom

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 16, 2006
Messages
2,161
Reaction score
141
Points
48
Location
Vicksburg, MS
I would first like to say I did not type this. I wish I could claim it as my own, but I cannot. However, I felt it is worth posting and I did cite the writer and the site it was originally writ. Happy reading.

My Objection to Religion

First of all, I would like to clarify exactly what I object to. I object to the adamant belief in supernatural gods and the rejection of evidence which inevitably ensues. I object to the strife caused by contradicting beliefs, and the wars that follow. I do not, object to the use of the term “god” as a metaphor to nature. This metaphor does not attempt to explain natural phenomena through supernatural explanations, nor does it attempt to justify or condemn people’s actions through ecclesiastical authorities.

Furthermore, I would like to clarify that though much of the following will use Christianity as an example, the following is not solely directed at Christians. It is directed at all religions which match the criteria given above. I use Christianity as an example because as an American I have been exposed to Christianity more than any other religion, and therefore I am more knowledgeable on Christianity than any other religion. I would also like to state that I do not claim to be an expert on any religion or the doctrine they follow; my assertions below are based principally on the observations I have made.

Religion should not survive an elementary education, yet it does. Why? Because society grants religion an undeserved immunity to criticism. Certain ideas are labeled “holy,” and once they receive that label you are not to question them. If someone’s political views do not coincide with your own, you are allowed to argue with them, but when someone says “I’m not allowed to make my bed on Sunday,” you must respect that.

The burden of proof lies with the theist, not the skeptic. It is not sufficient to say, “You can not disprove this, therefore this is how it is.” This idea is demonstrated by Bertrand Russell’s teapot analogy. Russell states:

If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.
An impartial look at religion will reveal its absurdity. Unfortunately, most people are incapable of impartiality towards religion because the process of their proselytization began at their birth. Does the idea of a man being swallowed whole by a whale and being regurgitated alive three days later not strike people as ridiculous? What about the geocentric view of the universe that the bible preaches? Not only should we repudiate evolution, should we also revamp the entire theory of gravity to conform to the bible? I pray we never take such inane actions. Fundamentalists frighten me.

Most contemporary theists classify themselves as a bit more moderate than fundamentalists. Religious moderation is a consequence of a few factors: a significant increase in the education level of the common man, and partial ignorance to one’s own scriptures. Moderates interpret parts of their religion literally, and parts of their religion figuratively so it does not openly contradict what is generally considered scientific fact. This is not inherently a bad idea. Such an interpretation does not reject facts, and continues to offer people spirituality which science can not. Religious moderation puts up a façade of being the perfect compromise, however, when put in practice, an allegorical interpretation of holy texts is not only regressive, it is also conceited.

Fundamentalists will often view moderates as impious. Instead of excoriating such unjustifiable, obstinate opinions, religious moderation often inadvertently advocates the contrary and strengthens such view points. It appears that many fundamentalists erroneously argue that because so many people have been exposed to god that he must exist. The moderate’s belief in god affirms the fundamentalist’s feeling of superiority and righteousness. Without the plethora of moderates the fundamentalist’s belief system would slowly degenerate and be replaced with an overwhelming majority of people who decided to follow reason and logic when juxtaposed with faith alone.

Religious moderates also follow a much more personal interpretation of holy text. You will rarely find two moderates who share all the same tenets, even if they attend the same church. Many of these moderates will insist on their beliefs as vehemently as some fundamentalists. Since almost all moderates interpret the bible differently from each other, in essence what they are saying is that they themselves have the ultimate authority in declaring how the universe works and what moral standards people should follow. This is the pinnacle of arrogance. If there are a million different metaphorical interpretations of the bible, most likely this means there are a million different flawed interpretations of the bible. Expecting others to conform to your interpretations is obtuse.

While a figurative interpretation of religious text is more rational than a literal one, it is still dubious. This view is still partially based on faith where it is not merited. Though this faith may not dispute empirical data directly, no evidence exists to legitimize this faith; therefore one should still consider it a puerile theory at best.

Faith, though in most cases fallacious, is perpetuated by many factors. Children are inoculated with their parents and societies’ dogmatic beliefs before maturing enough to question those conjectures. When a child has a set of beliefs ingrained in his mind, the process of separating the child with those beliefs is difficult, and in certain cases impossible. As the child gets older, he will have an emotional connection to his childhood beliefs, which will render him incapable of objectively questioning his beliefs. If he is able to look at his beliefs objectively, he may continue to live under the pretense of faith for fear of being alienated from his community. He will also see many people that he is exposed to sharing his beliefs, which will reaffirm his faith. This process is then systematically repeated over the next generation.

My disillusionment regarding religion does not stem entirely from my incredulity towards people having faith in asinine conjectures, it also stems from the violence done in the name of religion, and from observing the extent that people are willing to go to impose their beliefs upon others.

Numerous crimes against humanity have been committed in the name of religion, and range in magnitude from harassment and persecution of dissenters to genocide. At one time, intellectuals such as Galileo were imprisoned for advocating theories which contravened religious dogma. Slowly, the public began to embrace the era of enlightenment. As intellectuals gained favor with the public, classical methods of persecution were abandoned, only to be replaced by more acceptable methods. This cycle continues to manipulate society in modern times. While legal oppression of the intellectual is nearly obsolete, he is often heavily belittled by society for heresy. Einstein was a victim of this sort of persecution. When Einstein stated that he does not believe in the conventional God, he received many outrageous replies, such as one from the founder of the Cavalry Tabernacle Association of Oklahoma:

Professor Einstein, I believe that every Christian in America will answer you, "We will not give up our belief in our God and his son Jesus Christ, but we invite you, if you do not believe in the God of the people of this nation, to go back where you came from." I have done everything in my power to be a blessing to Israel, and then you come along and with one statement from your blasphemous tongue, do more to hurt the cause of your people than all the efforts of the Christians who love Israel can do to stamp out anti-Semitism in our land. Professor Einstein, every Christian in America will immediately reply to you, "Take your crazy, fallacious theory of evolution and go back to Germany where you came from, or stop trying to break down the faith of a people who gave you a welcome when you were forced to flee your native land."
Of course there are far more heinous crimes than religious persecution that are carried out in the name of religion. The most obvious example, the malicious attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, opened up Pandora’s Box. America was left in shock, and The Middle East is arguably more devastated than ever before. Sadly, the extremist terrorists who attacked the United States believed that their actions were justified by their religion. The Ku Klux Klan justified lynching through the bible. Many more examples of crimes in the name of religion exist. The evidence required to claim that religion engenders barbarism and tyranny is pervasive.

In America, religion plays an indisputable role in both domestic and foreign politics. Though America is a leading nation in a civilized era, I find America’s aversion to putting a non-Christian in the oval office unfathomable. There are certain laws passed whose only basis lie in Christianity. Other laws, again only justified by Christian tenets, prevent the progressiveness that America strives for. Opposition to abortion, gay marriage, and stem cell research almost lies solely with the religious right.

Christian influence is also evident in the rhetoric George W. Bush uses in his attempts to justify the war in Iraq, such as when he calls any Iraqis opposed to the American forces “evil-doers.” He even goes as far as saying that god told him “go and end the tyranny in Iraq.” Many people interpret his reference to “evil-doers” as referring to all Muslims, and end up mocking Islam as a whole, furthering the already increasing estrangement between Muslims and Christians. This only leads to more violence. The reason behind going into this war remains in question, but it is steadily spiraling into a war based on ideological differences.

History teaches us that the most virulent situations rise from ideological differences, not from a struggle over land, resources, or other tangibles. What possesses a man to arm himself with the branch of a tree and a few stones, and charge at a tank? Only quintessential hatred will drive a man to such an extreme, and this type of hatred comes from religious discord. People will do anything to assert the validity of their religion. Too many men have died in the name of religion, and these unnecessary deaths will continue until people realize that religion is fictitious. The extent of influence faith has exerted throughout history is appalling, especially considering that many times facts are ignored for faith.

In order to ensure the continued existence of humanity in a nuclear era religion must be subdued. History evinces religion as the catalyst to the bitterest wars. Though this has always been an inane peculiarity of human culture, in the past it was tolerable as the destruction was limited to a locality. However, if a religious war were waged between two nuclear powers the result would be Armageddon. The destruction would be pandemic, quite possibly resulting in the annihilation of the human race. Ending religion will not nullify the inexorable threat of nuclear war; however, it will discernibly reduce the possibility of such a war because nothing in human history has been as divisive as religion. On nearly every other issue the possibility of compromise exists; religion is absolute.

However, it is religion’s attempt to cross into the realm of science which I find most aggravating. It does this mainly two ways: through the legal system, and through the classroom. Recently, in America, there has been a movement to teach “creation science” in science classes in the public school system. Creationism seeks to teach alternative explanations to currently accepted scientific theories by introducing the idea of a deity. It is highly grotesque to try to pass creationism off as a science. First of all, creationism attempts to explain natural phenomena through supernatural causes, therefore it can not, by definition, be a science. Science is based on palpable evidence rather than blind faith. No evidence exists to substantiate the ludicrous arguments purported by creationists, while a myriad of evidence directly refutes them. It is fatuous to controvert observable fact on the basis of blind faith. Furthermore, though many proponents of creationism emphatically claim otherwise, creationism is strongly influenced by the Bible. America generally considers the intervention of the state in matters of faith illegal. Teaching creationism in school would transgress this principle. Most importantly, teaching creationism at school would misinform the minds of impressionable children, and would be horrifically regressive. Over the next few paragraphs, I would like to briefly address the major ideas behind creationism.

The main claim of creationism asserts that life did not evolve on Earth by natural selection, but that a divine entity designed and created life in its present state. Creationists generally mean common descent when they use the term ‘evolution.’ Creationists insist that their claim is as valid as evolution because evolution “is just a theory,” and since it is just a theory it should be removed from class, or all opposing theories should be given equal time in the classroom. The problem here arises from their interpretation of the word ‘theory.’ In American vernacular the term insinuates uncertainty; in the context of science the term is used to describe a group of propositions that explain a natural phenomenon. Gravity, for instance, is a natural phenomenon. There have been many proposed theories to explain the phenomenon, such as Newton’s classical theory, or Einstein’s general theory of relativity, however the fact that two massive bodies will attract each other has remained constant. Similarly, common descent is a natural phenomenon. The theory of evolution explains this phenomenon. It is possible that one day our current theory may be replaced by something else; however that will not change the fact that species are related by common descent.

As an aside, I would like to point out that the current theory that explains gravity has far more opposition in the scientific community than the theory of evolution. Why, then, are creationists not discontent with it being taught in the classroom?

Many people who argue against evolution cite a “missing link,” fossilized evidence which should be a requirement of proof according to some creationists, in the lineage of the human race. I have heard this argument many times. I find it somewhat ironic that though many people will use this as a key point to their argument, this missing link remains esoteric in the sense that no one seems to know exactly what, when, or where this missing link is. This is a moot argument, however. If a missing link exists, it does not refute the theory of evolution. Evolution does not entail a direct fossilized record from ancestor to descendant. Fossilized evidence is contingent on the geological forces of the earth, and is coincidental when found. It supports the theory of evolution. Fossilized evidence is not a requirement for ascertaining the theory’s validity.

Another central argument of many creationists is that the Earth and universe are between 6,000 and 10,000 years old. These creationists generally have a literal view on the bible’s historical accuracy. There is, of course, no real basis for these claims. They are off by a factor of approximately a million. It would be equivalent of saying that San Francisco is 30 feet from New York.

There are a multitude of methods for measuring the age of the Earth, the most common being radiometric dating. This method approximates the age of the earth at 4.5 billion years, along with other independent methods of dating. Creationists often question the legitimacy of radioactive dating. They base their doubt on relatively few examples. Any tool when misused will give inaccurate results, which is generally the case for the basis of creationist’s claims. The fact that independent radiometric techniques, along with other techniques such as Milankovitch cycles, luminescence dating method, and relative dating methods are consistent should be apodictic evidence that should lay to rest any doubt on the validity of radiometric dating.

Since the age of the earth is 4.5 billion years old, it logically follows that the age of the universe is also greater than 4.5 billion years old. This has also been proved by various methods.

Religion is a valid expression of human emotion. Unfortunately, the majority of the people want to aggrandize it into literal truth, which it is not. Such aggrandizement is a threat to the progressiveness of society, a threat to the human species itself, and blinds people from seeing the naturally beautiful truth. At one point in time, religion was not nearly as harmful as it is today, but in the age of reason, religion is antiquated, and does not deserve a place in modern society.
This piece was written by mjordan2nd and can be found at http://zelaron.com/forum/showthread.php?p=568932#post568932
 

glockmail

VIP Member
Joined
Aug 31, 2006
Messages
7,700
Reaction score
436
Points
83
Location
The beautiful Yadkin Valley
[1] I object to the adamant belief in supernatural gods and the rejection of evidence which inevitably ensues. [2] I object to the strife caused by contradicting beliefs, and the wars that follow.
1. Where is your/ his evidence that there is not a supernatural God?
2. How has the legitimate practice of Christianity caused wars?
 
  • Like
Reactions: dmp

theHawk

Registered Conservative
Joined
Sep 20, 2005
Messages
27,326
Reaction score
7,201
Points
280
Location
Arizona
Religion should not survive an elementary education, yet it does. Why? Because society grants religion an undeserved immunity to criticism.
LOL wow. Society grants religion 'immunity' to criticism. How is it then this person is able to write an article criticizing it?


A religion is simply a set of beliefs, it doesn't matter if one worships God, Jesus, Allah, himself or nothing at all. Most of these people that claim they aren't "religious", such as the clown that wrote that above piece, are in fact subscribers to their own belief system. And their agenda is to stamp out all oposing schools of thought so they can impose their own on everyone else.

Darwinism is a belief system too, as is secularism.

This proves my point:
I find it somewhat ironic that though many people will use this as a key point to their argument, this missing link remains esoteric in the sense that no one seems to know exactly what, when, or where this missing link is. This is a moot argument, however. If a missing link exists, it does not refute the theory of evolution. Evolution does not entail a direct fossilized record from ancestor to descendant. Fossilized evidence is contingent on the geological forces of the earth, and is coincidental when found. It supports the theory of evolution. Fossilized evidence is not a requirement for ascertaining the theory’s validity.
Here the writer is flat out admiting that his belief system, Darwinism, also requires a "leap of faith" in that it does not require any physical or scientific evidence to prove the theory as fact. Sounds alot like religions he attacks with his "teapot" analogy doesn't it?

Kettle meet teapot.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dmp

Avatar4321

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2004
Messages
82,275
Reaction score
10,107
Points
2,070
Location
Minnesota
The writer has the fundamental assumptions wrong. He is assuming one can never know for oneself. That there is no evidence.

Quite contrary there is lots of evidence. But its easy to dismiss the issue claiming there is no evidence by completely ignoring it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dmp

Avatar4321

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2004
Messages
82,275
Reaction score
10,107
Points
2,070
Location
Minnesota
LOL wow. Society grants religion 'immunity' to criticism. How is it then this person is able to write an article criticizing it?


A religion is simply a set of beliefs, it doesn't matter if one worships God, Jesus, Allah, himself or nothing at all. Most of these people that claim they aren't "religious", such as the clown that wrote that above piece, are in fact subscribers to their own belief system. And their agenda is to stamp out all oposing schools of thought so they can impose their own on everyone else.

Darwinism is a belief system too, as is secularism.

This proves my point:

Here the writer is flat out admiting that his belief system, Darwinism, also requires a "leap of faith" in that it does not require any physical or scientific evidence to prove the theory as fact. Sounds alot like religions he attacks with his "teapot" analogy doesn't it?

Kettle meet teapot.
His teapot analogy is assine as it is. No one in support of religion will be like "Well i dont have any proof, just believe it" Quite to the contrary there are books upon books written by people offering evidence of their faith.

He might not like the evidence or find it unconvincing, but its evidence and to pretend as if there is not is intellectually dishonest.
 
OP
Kagom

Kagom

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 16, 2006
Messages
2,161
Reaction score
141
Points
48
Location
Vicksburg, MS
1. Where is your/ his evidence that there is not a supernatural God?
mjordan2nd from Zelaron said:
Please refer to paragraph 4, and Russell's teapot analogy.

I have no proof that god does not exist. By the dictionary definition, I am not an atheist, I am agnostic. However, if that is the case, I am also agnostic about fairies, unicorns, Russell's teapot, and the flying spaghetti monster. I am as sure about the nonexistence of god as I am about anything. When I am asked if I am an atheist, I nod an affirmation. Why? If someone were to ask you if you believed in unicorns and you answered with anything but a resounding no, it would be social suicide. Why should this not apply to god as well? Nearly everyone today is an atheist about Zeus or Thor. Can their existence be disproved? No. But that does not mean that anyone is going to take them seriously. I simply extend this logic and apply it to an Abrahamic god.
2. How has the legitimate practice of Christianity caused wars?
mjordan2nd from Zelaron said:
How can I possibly answer this question? I don't know what a legitimate practice of Christianity is. In fact, most Christians can't agree on what a legitimate practice of Christianity is. Catholics will assert their legitimacy, Baptists will assert their's, and Mormon's will follow suit. I suppose that if Catholicism were considered the legitimate practice of Christianity, then I could cite plenty of references, however this is not the case. That question is like asking, "Why is a unicorn hollow?" The question does not really have an answer. I will, however, do my best to answer based on some presuppositions.

The only practice of Christianity that I will consider leigitimate comes from the Bible itself. Now the Bible is a violent book. For instance, consider Deuteronomy 13:6-10
More responses to come.
 

90K

Rookie
Joined
Oct 23, 2006
Messages
1,204
Reaction score
65
Points
0
Location
in the back of GW in foggy bottom
Kagon,
I hope you find peace in the future because that post written is from a complete nutjob. You really need to look around and look at our world from atop a mountain. Man is the only f-cked up element of life. And about wars and all of that. For the record they have been happening since the beginning of time. And reading a history book can be equally as vile and violent as the Bible. So I say this source it totally lost in a time warp. Another hint is this: Religion is man made so get away from religion and you'll find peace. I'm not judging you but I'm saying beware of wolves in sheeps clothing.
 
OP
Kagom

Kagom

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 16, 2006
Messages
2,161
Reaction score
141
Points
48
Location
Vicksburg, MS
Kagon,
I hope you find peace in the future because that post written is from a complete nutjob. You really need to look around and look at our world from atop a mountain. Man is the only f-cked up element of life. And about wars and all of that. For the record they have been happening since the beginning of time. And reading a history book can be equally as vile and violent as the Bible. So I say this source it totally lost in a time warp. Another hint is this: Religion is man made so get away from religion and you'll find peace. I'm not judging you but I'm saying beware of wolves in sheeps clothing.
I am away from religion. I have personal beliefs and that's good enough for me. I only posted this out of interest.
 

Nienna

VIP Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2005
Messages
4,515
Reaction score
334
Points
83
Location
Ohio
First of all--slightly off-topic---what a fat and glutted people we are! Casually debating the EXISTENCE of God from the luxury of our computers in warm rooms in the free nation that was founded by the struggle, blood, and sweat of people who devoted their lives to the PRACTICE of worshipping God!

"Science is based on palpable evidence rather than blind faith. No evidence exists to substantiate the ludicrous arguments purported by creationists, while a myriad of evidence directly refutes them."

So says he. Leading evolutionsists disagree.

Evolution [is] a theory universally accepted not because it can be proven by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible. (D.M.S. Watson, biologist)
We take the side of science (his definition of science) in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfil many of its extravagant promises of health and life, and in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine foot in the door. (Richard Lewontin, geneticist)
"Children are inoculated with their parents and societies’ dogmatic beliefs before maturing enough to question those conjectures. When a child has a set of beliefs ingrained in his mind, the process of separating the child with those beliefs is difficult, and in certain cases impossible. As the child gets older, he will have an emotional connection to his childhood beliefs, which will render him incapable of objectively questioning his beliefs. If he is able to look at his beliefs objectively, he may continue to live under the pretense of faith for fear of being alienated from his community. He will also see many people that he is exposed to sharing his beliefs, which will reaffirm his faith. This process is then systematically repeated over the next generation."

As opposed to humanism? I mean "objective" humanists should have the right to trump parents' beliefs about what faith to pass on to their children. :rolleyes:

I am convinced that the battle for humankind's future must be waged and won in the public school classroom by teachers who correctly perceive their role as the proselytizers of a new faith: a religion of humanity that recognizes and respects the spark of what theologians call divinity in every human being. These teachers must embody the same selfless dedication as the most rabid fundamentalist preachers, for they will be ministers of another sort, utilizing a classroom instead of a pulpit to convey humanist values in whatever subject they teach, regardless of the educational level-- preschool day care or large state university. The classroom must and will become an arena of conflict between the old and the new--the rotting corpse of Christianity, together with all its adjacent evils and misery, and the new faith of humanism...

It will undoubtedly be a long, arduous and painful struggle replete with much sorrow and many tears, but humanism will emerge triumphant. It must if the family of humankind is to survive. (J. Dunphy, author for The Humanist, a periodical)
 
  • Like
Reactions: dmp

theHawk

Registered Conservative
Joined
Sep 20, 2005
Messages
27,326
Reaction score
7,201
Points
280
Location
Arizona
Another hint is this: Religion is man made so get away from religion and you'll find peace.

You mean like North Korea, and other states that have outlawed 'religion'?

Was there no violence and war in mankind before the creation of philosophy and religions?

Humans will always create their own belief systems, we can call it a religion, philosophy, doctrine, ideology, convictions, theory, values, mythology among many other things. The point is people will subscribe to some type of school of thought, and there will always be those that use their beliefs as justification for their actions, such as violence and war. Yes there will always be Jihadists or religious exteremists, but to believe that getting rid of organized religion is going to get rid of violence and bring about peace is absurd. Look at how much death and oppression the communists have caused.
 

Hobbit

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 25, 2004
Messages
5,099
Reaction score
421
Points
48
Location
Near Atlanta, GA
Just watch one of the recent episodes of South Park. I like their take on it, personally. In the future, everyone's an atheist, but nothing has changed. They swear on science instead of God, and the three warring factions are constantly killing each other over what turns out to be a very trivial matter.
 

90K

Rookie
Joined
Oct 23, 2006
Messages
1,204
Reaction score
65
Points
0
Location
in the back of GW in foggy bottom
You mean like North Korea, and other states that have outlawed 'religion'?

Was there no violence and war in mankind before the creation of philosophy and religions?

Humans will always create their own belief systems, we can call it a religion, philosophy, doctrine, ideology, convictions, theory, values, mythology among many other things. The point is people will subscribe to some type of school of thought, and there will always be those that use their beliefs as justification for their actions, such as violence and war. Yes there will always be Jihadists or religious exteremists, but to believe that getting rid of organized religion is going to get rid of violence and bring about peace is absurd. Look at how much death and oppression the communists have caused.
Well I won't jump on the Kim Jung Bung wagon about religion in N. Korea, but a fact we have only left and right and like my faith it is either right or wrong, by my interpretation. And when dominations or sects get involved it can and has gotten messy and folk have gotten hurt. So my point is merely find what ever it maybe and if you aren't swayed then maybe you are in the right place, because time will only tell after you gain knowledge. Thus I used the old saying of beware of wolves in sheep’s clothing.
 

ScreamingEagle

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2004
Messages
13,399
Reaction score
1,706
Points
245
:lalala:

Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind....Albert Einstein
 
OP
Kagom

Kagom

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 16, 2006
Messages
2,161
Reaction score
141
Points
48
Location
Vicksburg, MS
LOL wow. Society grants religion 'immunity' to criticism. How is it then this person is able to write an article criticizing it

A religion is simply a set of beliefs, it doesn't matter if one worships God, Jesus, Allah, himself or nothing at all. Most of these people that claim they aren't "religious", such as the clown that wrote that above piece, are in fact subscribers to their own belief system. And their agenda is to stamp out all oposing schools of thought so they can impose their own on everyone else.
Incorrect. A belief is something that is not based on evidence. Everything I have presented in my article is based on evidence. The possibility exists that our theories are incorrect, as I have already stated, but they are based on observable facts, unlike religions. If I drop an apple from the air, it is not a belief that it will fall under normal circumstances, it is a fact in every sense of the word. Of course the possibility exists that the apple may simply suspend itself from the air by magic, but it would be ridiculous to assume that, and even more ridiculous to spend time learning about that possibility.


Darwinism is a belief system too, as is secularism.

This proves my point:

Here the writer is flat out admiting that his belief system, Darwinism, also requires a "leap of faith" in that it does not require any physical or scientific evidence to prove the theory as fact. Sounds alot like religions he attacks with his "teapot" analogy doesn't it?

Kettle meet teapot.
You obviously have no understanding of evolution, and apparently an underdeveloped grasp of the English language as well. Nowhere in that paragraph do I imply that believing in evolution is a leap of faith. I only state that fossilized evidence is coincidental to evolution, not consequential as is commonly believed. There is a massive amount of evidence that supports evolution that is consequential to evolution, however fossils do not match that criteria.
 

Bonnie

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 30, 2004
Messages
9,476
Reaction score
669
Points
48
Location
Wherever
:lalala:

Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind....Albert Einstein
Yes :)

What's interesting about this person's posting about their "problem with religion" really once again shows us the lengths those who do not believe in God will go thru to make themselves feel better about not believing.

My unsolicited advice...If not belieiving floats your stuff, then hey go nuts, and leave the rest of us who do in peace, stop trying to secularize the world to suit you :)
 

Bullypulpit

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2004
Messages
5,849
Reaction score
381
Points
48
Location
Columbus, OH
Yes :)

What's interesting about this person's posting about their "problem with religion" really once again shows us the lengths those who do not believe in God will go thru to make themselves feel better about not believing.

My unsolicited advice...If not belieiving floats your stuff, then hey go nuts, and leave the rest of us who do in peace, stop trying to secularize the world to suit you :)
I would offer the same advice, but from a different perspective. For those who believe, great, I'm happy for you that you have found something which provides you a measure of comfort and guidance. So leave those of us who don't believe alone. Stop trying to proselytize the rest of the world.
 

Bonnie

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 30, 2004
Messages
9,476
Reaction score
669
Points
48
Location
Wherever
I would offer the same advice, but from a different perspective. For those who believe, great, I'm happy for you that you have found something which provides you a measure of comfort and guidance. So leave those of us who don't believe alone. Stop trying to proselytize the rest of the world.
Most of us don't attempt to convert anyone, and are busy with their own lives doing the best we can at practicing our faith...I apologize if leading by example makes the non believers uncomfortable, but trying to make us disappear from public life is NOT going to alleviate that.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Top