I'd make an religion called true religion but its already a clothing line that doesn't even keep you warm
You seem to be a man of science, so it's fair to say you support science, right? Industrialization A-bomb H-bomb Nuclear missiles Agent Orange Things that science has supported and in some instances and circumstances still supports things such as these. But you would be very upset if I said you supported an idea that spreads death and destruction. I'm not going to do that because i can realize that science shouldn't be defined by those atrocities. Because of science we can benefit from hospitals and Television and many more things. So why do you only acknowledge the atrocities of religion? Why do you let them define what religions mean? Religions have benefits, too. As stated in a precious post on pg 14.
Believe me, I was equally appalled! It was totally unfair on all the victims. It should never have happened. It would never have if dealt with properly at the beginning. But the actions of those people are not to be equated to the actions of a religion. These are people who break the law. It is not a religion who breaks the law. These are people who abuse others. It is not a religion who abuses others. A common mistake people seem to make (not aiming this at you, Mud, I'm talking in general) is that the actions of a persom directly relates back to anyone else who believes in the same religion or is born in the same country. Obviously this isn't the case every single time but I hope you catch my drift. All religions and beliefs have negatives. They all have 'black marks' against their name. The question is, is it actually the religion that is the problem? Or is it a minority using religon as an excuse? Or is it a minority who break the law (for example) who happen to share the same belief? The current Catholic scandal was a total and utter disaster. It should never have been covered up the way it was and the leaders of the Catholic church are at fault for that. But it is the people at fault, not the religion. In this case, any way. I don't disagree that religion has caused and will continue to cause problems in the future. It's not always the religion at fault though, it is the people who twist and abuse religion. Remember: hate, stupidity and violence are not the characteristics of a religion. They are the characteristics of the human race. There are many people out there who abuse the concept of religion but that doesn't make it all bad.
Yes, they do Todd. But when interpreting religious books/documents/whatever, you need to interpret it remembering that we are in a different age and time to when it was created. What was acceptable behaviour then, might not be now. Which is the problem, it's all taken very literally.
Genocide? ..******? ..murder? ..****? ...killing infants? ..killing Animals? That was all acceptable?
I never said every thing in every single religion. A lot isn't acceptable to us now. But some things may very well have been when the text was created. I'm not familiar enough with religions to give a definite answer.
When I mentioned genocide, ******, etc etc I was referring to Christianity ...read the bible at one point "God" advocates it all
So God decided he was wrong and changed his mind? ..the Bible (old and New Testament) is the word of God right?
Did the Christian God tell you this? Or are you relying on the stories in the Bible written by man, translated by man, and edited by man? People often criticize Islam because the patriarchal interpretations of the Qur'an say that the oppression of women is ok. Islamic feminists among others are working to rediscover what's really in the Qur'an and what has been added over time by man. Thus, it's possible that what is in the Bible about genocide and such is incorrect. Which is why when you study a religion, you look at the roots of the religion and the main message rather than the words that aren't derived from that message.
You should read about King Charles the II of Spain. A whole royal line was killed off because of inbreeding and the necessity to keep the royal blood in the family. So yes, it was actually more acceptable then than it ever would be now. You have to read the religious texts in the contexts in which they were written. It was a different time with different rules and very different laws. Believe me I ain't advocating that religion isn't flawed, it certainly is. In lots of ways. And following every single written thing in the bible or other religious text is, quite frankly, a terrible idea (IMO). Times have changed and religion ought to change with it. It all comes down to interpretation and remembering that what's written in a religious text is not all there is to it because it was written in a very different time to today.
Exactly. It all comes down to interpretations. Everyone's interpretations are just that - opinions. They are not right or wrong. The problem starts when your interpretations leads to using it as an excuse for violence or to break the law. That is no longer religion.
Is everyone like Sweden? No, you think the world would be fine without religion? I doubt it, had religion never existed I'm the first place humanity would be more barbaric, times may have changed but human nature hasn't
Science doesn’t need support, Science just IS… Unlike Religion, Science doesn't need support nor will it implode without continued support or worship. Science just is man’s attempt to describe the universe around us, based on facts and observations or replicable experiments. It is incomplete and in spite of the many theories out there, there is still a lot we haven't mastered. Religion is unsupported wishful thinking. There is no shred of evidence that would hold up under the scrutiny that science endures. Religion makes extraordinary claims that need extraordinary proof. But there is no proof, not even ordinary proof… It is not because we don't understand something that this results in the existence of a supreme all knowing being. Saying the bible proves that a God exists is equally ridiculous to say that the Smurfs comic book proves the existence of little blue creatures that struggle with an enormous imbalance between males and females …
@Mudvet I don't feel like repeating myself. Here is me talking about "evidence." Not once did I say the Bible proves God's existence. Stop avoiding my points and attacking points that I don't bring up instead. That isn't how debate works.
You're wrist will end up hurting from all that typing, this debate will go on for years to come, and you're words won't mean a single thing
Oh but it did. I got Waz to understand Science a little bit better. But u are right in saying that there are plenty of people who claim “my god is the only God and I am right and u are wrong” and then cover their ears. Very immature, but in line with their susceptibility to the fairytales in their holy book of choice...
My belief is the right belief and yours is wrong... is that what you are trying to say many people do? Then cover their ears and not accept anything else? What I've heard from you is that science is right and all religions are wrong, and then you go and cover your ears to avoid hearing anything else about religion. You are a hypocrite and have no place in debates. I have never claimed that my beliefs and interpretations are the only true thing. In fact, I admit that I could very well be wrong. I have admitted that I probably don't know as much about science as you. But YOU, Mudvet, YOU are unbearable!