First off, I just want to say that this is my opinion, and I don't mean to offend anyone. But anyway...

I'll be honest, I've thought religion (in general) was a stupid and pointless concept. But over the past couple of years, I've come to formulate the opinion that the purpose of religion is to provide comfort for it's followers. I guess it's that whole "man created god so god could creat men" kind of thing. The comfort of knowing that god put us here for a reason and that he loves us and that he'll be waiting in heaven for us, etc. I should add that I only really have experience in Christianity, but I'm going to assume that most religions offer these sorts of comforts.

As an atheist, I believe that when you die, you're gone forever, and this depresses me. Or that your soul is kind of like a computer and it gets erased once you die and is used in a new baby. Not reincarnation, exactly, because your 'data' is erased. Either way the point is that you're gone forever once you die.

I wish that I could believe in a heaven, but I just can't. But there are some people who can believe and take comfort in this, and that is why religion is around.

In my opinion, this is the only useful purpose religion serves. It gives people hope.

So, what do you guys think?

PS: I know this is more than likely a very unoriginal thought, but since I'm just coming to this conclusion on my own, I find it kind of interesting.

Segregation.

Once people are divided they are much easier to control. And what better to use for division than giving the people hope?

[This message has been edited by Holy Martyr (edited 01-18-2007).]

I’ve noticed that all religions work like scams. They convince you that there is something wrong with you and that only they have the solution.

Christianity says you’re all sinners and that only God can help you and make you happy, Buddhism says everyone suffers and that only their eightfold path can save you, Scientology says everyone is covered in Thetans and that only they can help you, etc. etc. etc.

Religion is a natural part of mans instinct to try and explain the unknown. Now that we have science, though, we don't need to invent gods.

But, we still do, and sadly, we probably always will.

quote:Originally posted by Sick_Boy:



As an atheist, I believe that when you die, you're gone forever, and this depresses me. Or that your soul is kind of like a computer and it gets erased once you die and is used in a new baby. Not reincarnation, exactly, because your 'data' is erased. Either way the point is that you're gone forever once you die.

I wish that I could believe in a heaven, but I just can't. But there are some people who can believe and take comfort in this, and that is why religion is around.



I have the same feeling. The thought of going to heaven and having eternal happiness is amazing, but I'll never truly believe it.

I think religion was created as a way to control the masses.

quote:Originally posted by Kooper0:

I think religion was created as a way to control the masses.

Exactly.

Religion is a lie which is exploited to control people.

When people doubt the lie and ask for an explanation as to how it works, religious fanatics invent another bigger lie to explain the previous lie. So-on and so-forth and fuck God.

People cannot deal with the fact that they cease to exist once they die. So instead of handling it rationally, they create some father figure like God. This way they think they are going to somewhere after they die, rather than returning to oblivion. I can see why, as realizing the clock is ticking will get rather depressing.

quote:Originally posted by Mendocino:

People cannot deal with the fact that they cease to exist once they die. So instead of handling it rationally, they create some father figure like God. This way they think they are going to somewhere after they die, rather than returning to oblivion. I can see why, as realizing the clock is ticking will get rather depressing.

That's the reason for believing in an afterlife and God, not the reason for a religion.

I agree with you that that is one of the reasons (there are more), and I think religions exploit this belief to entice people into them.

I think they are intended to act as a guide to a better life.

I'm not saying they are successful, but I think that is the essence of a religeon.

Why are you depressed that there is no afterlife?

Look a the amazing thing that is the world and universe and YOU and all the amazing things you can do in the world and a lifetime is more than enough to enjoy it. make the most of now and you dont need let alone want an afterlife for eternity.

your local humanist association is a perfect alternative if you want the comfort and moral support. Fuck religion

1. To comfort one in the fear of death

2. To rid one of feelings of excess guilt

3. To provide answers to the currently unexplainable

4. To give the weak hope, in that their life is not ultimately meaningless and that they exist to serve some higher purpose

5. As a means to control the masses due to fear of excessive punishment

/just off the top of my head

edit: The most prominent religions today go hand in hand with the afterlife and the existence of a higher power, so that's what I based my conclusions on.

[This message has been edited by bung (edited 01-21-2007).]

Right now the purpose of several organized religions is to control and manipulate the people of the Earth, in combination with economic systems, education systems, world trade and social structures.

But, if you were to look past all the Dogma, and all the greed and manipulation of the ages, religions all begin to intertwine, and have similar roots. Religion is simply people trying to understand reality. And it makes sense when looked at from the right perspectives.

But unfortunatly, the religions of modern times seem to do quite the opposite. After thousands of years of combining different peoples ideas, changing words, adding and losing stories, and manipulating the masses against each other, most of the real meanings have fallen below the surface. You gotta dive deep to see the light.

Some, like certain Native American, East Indian and Tibetan beliefs, have suffered less change and distortion. They offer a guideline to stick close to while exploring all the beliefs, but only a guideline.

The real answers sleep in your mind. Or it might be better to say a little above it.

Nobody seems to note any positive points of religion:

It is often used as a way to teach people morals from an early age.

Religions are used to bring communities together. Many forerunning nations were entirely held together by religions and beliefs.

Religion gives people a reason to be good people, and to generally help their society move forward. Think about this one the most. A lot of god-bashers will scream that when you die nothing happens, that there is no "greater plan", or no higher power. Then whats the point? A belief structure helps a society by giving them something more to live for than just what they see in front of them.

quote:Originally posted by cakezone:

Nobody seems to note any positive points of religion:

It is often used as a way to teach people morals from an early age.



Morals do not come from religion, or do not need to come from religion, anyway. The laws of today have been established over time to attempt and create the most livable society possible based upon some generally agreed upon principles (no murder, rape, etc., and the golden rule, 'Treat others like you want to be treated').

Religious followers pick and choose which verses from the bible they wish to follow and which they wish to take literally and which they wish to not take literally based upon the currently agreed upon principles of present day society. Does one deserve to be stoned to death for adultery? Obviously not, but the bible states otherwise, though today we see how absolutely absurd this law is and choose not to follow it.

Edit: And even if religion did do any of the things you stated it did, which I believe on certain levels to be grossly inaccurate, that doesn't say whether or not it's actually true. One could argue that the point is not truth, but comfort, hope, and happiness--then that's fine (in some ways), he is one who seeks those things. Save for happiness, I personally seek none of those things, but instead choose to seek truth, which is often a driving force behind the questioning of religion.

[This message has been edited by bung (edited 01-22-2007).]

quote:Originally posted by bung:

Morals do not come from religion, or do not need to come from religion, anyway. The laws of today have been established over time to attempt and create the most livable society possible based upon some generally agreed upon principles (no murder, rape, etc., and the golden rule, 'Treat others like you want to be treated').

Look in the teachings of any religion.

There will be ethics. The significance of ethics from religion over those forced upon people by laws is that people learn right from wrong on a different level when it is presented to them in the ways a religious community can provide. Obviously this isn't the only way people learn ethics, but it's a big example. Ethics don't just come from religious scripture saying "ok, do this". The communities that form from around sorts of religions have a huge part in it as well, which is what you're overlooking.

quote:Edit: And even if religion did do any of the things you stated it did, which I believe on certain levels to be grossly inaccurate...

Prove it.

quote:...that doesn't say whether or not it's actually true. One could argue that the point is not truth, but comfort, hope, and happiness--then that's fine (in some ways), he is one who seeks those things. Save for happiness, I personally seek none of those things, but instead choose to seek truth, which is often a driving force behind the questioning of religion.

Nothing I said ever implied that all people followed religion because they all thought that everything their religion said was 100% true, nothing more, nothing less. There are many people who question certain aspects their faith, or form their own opinions about it, yet stay with the church for various reasons.

Plus, actually trying to disprove anything anyone says in this thread (unless it was completely ridiculous) is pointless, as nobody here can conclusively say that their idea is the one true reason a religion exists. These are all just examples of reasons people might practice a religion, which is as close as you'll get.



[This message has been edited by cakezone (edited 01-22-2007).]

Religion is to control people.

This has pros and cons.

A pro is that it keeps crazy hillbillies with nothing to live for from shooting me.

quote:Originally posted by cakezone:

Nobody seems to note any positive points of religion:

It is often used as a way to teach people morals from an early age.

Religions are used to bring communities together. Many forerunning nations were entirely held together by religions and beliefs.

Religion gives people a reason to be good people, and to generally help their society move forward. Think about this one the most. A lot of god-bashers will scream that when you die nothing happens, that there is no "greater plan", or no higher power. Then whats the point? A belief structure helps a society by giving them something more to live for than just what they see in front of them.

Its an illusion that religion gives people good morals. How many people in prison right now are christian? Infact in todays world the atheists are far less likely to do crime. Maybe its because of the fact that christians can do wrong, confess there sins and there back on the way to heaven. And subconciosly there mind sees god murdering and killing people so in turn they do the same.

Atheists on the other hand feel accountable for there own actions, its not god doing these things, its THEMSELVES.

quote:Originally posted by Jester_420:

Religion is to control people.

This has pros and cons.

A pro is that it keeps crazy hillbillies with nothing to live for from shooting me.

This is true. But those hillbillies pave the way for fundamentalists to try and change laws and impose there religion on the rest of us.

[This message has been edited by boozehound420 (edited 01-22-2007).]

As a religion major I am lucky enough to study different aspects of world religions. However I also dont believe in a God nor do I agree with organized religion. Still most of the conflict going on in modern times is primarily based in religious doctrine. In my mind if you want to understand the dark side of modern society and the world you need knowledge in their religion.

It is only in religion that people will listen to a group of men in funny hats in the Vatican and believe their cause is just, no matter the consequences. Or in the middle east, fudamentalists meet reactionaries and Jihad gets a meaning other than that of intellectual journey/search/mission.

To me religion is a mix of beautiful tradition, the occult, ancient histories and excuses.

quote:Originally posted by boozehound420:

Its an illusion that religion gives people good morals. How many people in prison right now are christian? Infact in todays world the atheists are far less likely to do crime. Maybe its because of the fact that christians can do wrong, confess there sins and there back on the way to heaven. And subconciosly there mind sees god murdering and killing people so in turn they do the same.

Atheists on the other hand feel accountable for there own actions, its not god doing these things, its THEMSELVES.

This is such a horrible, worthless example. First off, nobody ever said that ALL religious people had certain morals. Go to a prison and there will be Atheists, Christians, Jews, Muslims, even Buddhists. Secondly, "Feeling accountable for your own actions" is not a staple of Atheism, it's just a generalization you made up. It would be completely reasonable to say that most people, religious or not, don't hold god accountable for all of their actions.

quote:Originally posted by bung:

1. To comfort one in the fear of death

2. To rid one of feelings of excess guilt

3. To provide answers to the currently unexplainable

4. To give the weak hope, in that their life is not ultimately meaningless and that they exist to serve some higher purpose

5. As a means to control the masses due to fear of excessive punishment

/just off the top of my head

edit: The most prominent religions today go hand in hand with the afterlife and the existence of a higher power, so that's what I based my conclusions on.



All of which can be dealt with in ways other than religion.

But that's the thing; Feeling down? Too many problems and not enough time?

Join a religion!

I swear the government targets it's inflation periods to condition people to join religion.

"Christianity does not have all the answers".

quote:Originally posted by One_way_mirror:

"Christianity does not have all the answers".

"Neither does anything else"

Atheism takes just as much blind faith as any religion does.

quote:Originally posted by cakezone:

Atheism takes just as much blind faith as any religion does.

Strong atheism, yes, weak atheism (agnostic-atheism), no.

quote:Originally posted by cakezone:

This is such a horrible, worthless example. First off, nobody ever said that ALL religious people had certain morals. Go to a prison and there will be Atheists, Christians, Jews, Muslims, even Buddhists. Secondly, "Feeling accountable for your own actions" is not a staple of Atheism, it's just a generalization you made up. It would be completely reasonable to say that most people, religious or not, don't hold god accountable for all of their actions.

Atheist, non believers, humanist, freethinkers etc. Try and make this life as enjoyable as possible, were not worried about an afterlife.

Hers some prison stats for you, This is USA by the way

Catholic 29267 39.164%

Protestant 26162 35.008%

Muslim 5435 7.273%

American Indian 2408 3.222%

Nation 1734 2.320%

Rasta 1485 1.987%

Jewish 1325 1.773%

Church of Christ 1303 1.744%

Pentecostal 1093 1.463%

Moorish 1066 1.426%

Buddhist 882 1.180%

Jehovah Witness 665 0.890%

Adventist 621 0.831%

Orthodox 375 0.502%

Mormon 298 0.399%

Scientology 190 0.254%

Atheist 156 0.209%

Hindu 119 0.159%

Santeria 117 0.157%

Sikh 14 0.019%

Bahai 9 0.012%

Krishna 7 0.009%

Atheists are 8-16% of the USA population, and aer only .209% of the prison population

[This message has been edited by boozehound420 (edited 01-22-2007).]

quote:Originally posted by boozehound420:

Atheist, non believers, humanist, freethinkers etc. Try and make this life as enjoyable as possible, were not worried about an afterlife.

Hers some prison stats for you, This is USA by the way

Catholic 29267 39.164%

Protestant 26162 35.008%

Muslim 5435 7.273%

American Indian 2408 3.222%

Nation 1734 2.320%

Rasta 1485 1.987%

Jewish 1325 1.773%

Church of Christ 1303 1.744%

Pentecostal 1093 1.463%

Moorish 1066 1.426%

Buddhist 882 1.180%

Jehovah Witness 665 0.890%

Adventist 621 0.831%

Orthodox 375 0.502%

Mormon 298 0.399%

Scientology 190 0.254%

Atheist 156 0.209%

Hindu 119 0.159%

Santeria 117 0.157%

Sikh 14 0.019%

Bahai 9 0.012%

Krishna 7 0.009%

Atheists are 8-16% of the USA population, and aer only .209% of the prison population



Wonderful. Guess what the primary religion in the United States is.

Why don't you check the prison records for a country where the majority of the population follows a different belief, you'll probably find that a majority of the prison population follows the same belief. Prison statistics have no bearing in this argument, because:

1. Most religions don't condemn things like wire fraud and drug trafficking, or a lot of things people go to prison for.

2. When the majority of a population follows a certain belief, then the majority of a sample taken of that population (your prison stats) will also follow that belief. It's simple statistics.

quote:Atheists are 8-16% of the USA population

Actually, it's about 3-5%.

1% according to the census in 2000. Then some research groups inflated the number to account for the last 6 years, but it was based on a lot of speculation and factors that can't really be proven.

quote:Strong atheism, yes, weak atheism (agnostic-atheism), no.

Not really. Essentially religious people believe in the unfounded belief of whatever their religion teaches, and atheists of any type follow the unfounded belief that there is no god.



[This message has been edited by cakezone (edited 01-22-2007).]

quote:Not really. Essentially religious people believe in the unfounded belief of whatever their religion teaches, and atheists of any type follow the unfounded belief that there is no god.

Burden of proof is upon the theist for evidence. If I were to tell you there was a pink elephant floating around the sky, you'd be mad to believe me without me providing evidence. Scientifically, we might all be agnostic about the elephant, but really, we'd all be atheists.

quote:Originally posted by Hare_Geist:

Burden of proof is upon the theist for evidence. If I were to tell you there was a pink elephant floating around the sky, you'd be mad to believe me without me providing evidence. Scientifically, we might all be agnostic about the elephant, but really, we'd all be atheists.

That would only prove that I didn't believe in a pink elephant. I could still chose another religion.

quote:Originally posted by Hare_Geist:

Burden of proof is upon the theist for evidence. If I were to tell you there was a pink elephant floating around the sky, you'd be mad to believe me without me providing evidence. Scientifically, we might all be agnostic about the elephant, but really, we'd all be atheists.

In a random eternal one-off type scenario, it may be that YOU are the only one who can see the pink elephant, and instead everyone else IS mad.

Funny things happen when you apply chance to 'eternity'.

A guy I know once said "Organized religion is crowd control."

I think that pretty much sums it up.

quote:Originally posted by cakezone:

"Neither does anything else"

Atheism takes just as much blind faith as any religion does.

Complete utter tripe.

quote:Originally posted by Kooper0:

Complete utter tripe.

I agree with this opinion.

Looking over the various types of religion - albeit christianity and shintoism did involve faith being used as a weapon, i have yet to see any real 'zeal' from the atheist perspective.

Surely blind faith is rather 'zealious (sp)'

quote:Originally posted by cakezone:

Look in the teachings of any religion.

There will be ethics. The significance of ethics from religion over those forced upon people by laws is that people learn right from wrong on a different level when it is presented to them in the ways a religious community can provide. Obviously this isn't the only way people learn ethics, but it's a big example. Ethics don't just come from religious scripture saying "ok, do this". The communities that form from around sorts of religions have a huge part in it as well, which is what you're overlooking.

You are completely overlooking my "cherrypicking" argument of picking and choosing which biblical laws to follow. Godless societies function just fine without religion because religion is unnecessary as a morality code/law-making device in the current day.

As for your argument that religion teaches right from wrong on a "different level," well, that sounds pretty much complete bunk to me. You need to specify what you mean by that phrase, as it is entirely to vague. As an atheist, I know not to steal, not to rape, not to murder, etc.., not because of religion, but because of the society in which we live and the idea of general human decency, which is the value that needs to be instilled in people.

My entire argument is that religion is essentially a "middle-man" and thus, can be eliminated with no dire consequences, in fact, my personal belief would be that it would be for the best.

quote:Prove it.

One could write an entire thesis paper on this explantion, and I feel no need nor desire to delve into it here. Instead, I direct you to read the The God Delusion (specifically chapter 8) which speaks my position quite well, and if you've already read it and still disagree, then I know not what to say because I find it a very compelling and convincing viewpoint.



quote:Nothing I said ever implied that all people followed religion because they all thought that everything their religion said was 100% true, nothing more, nothing less. There are many people who question certain aspects their faith, or form their own opinions about it, yet stay with the church for various reasons.

Plus, actually trying to disprove anything anyone says in this thread (unless it was completely ridiculous) is pointless, as nobody here can conclusively say that their idea is the one true reason a religion exists. These are all just examples of reasons people might practice a religion, which is as close as you'll get.



Agreed.

quote:Originally posted by cakezone:

That would only prove that I didn't believe in a pink elephant. I could still chose another religion.

It isn't designed to prove anything. You can't disprove the existence of leprechauns, fairies, the flying spaghetti monster, pink invisible elephants, or anything like that. It's an analogy with the idea being to provide enough evidence to make it almost irrefutable one way or another, or at least enough evidence to make a very educated guess. You would have to be an idiot to believe in leprechauns based on what we know today, but one can never say with 100% certainty that they do not exist. Still, it would be pretty silly to go around saying, "Well, I'm sure leprechauns exist. I can just feel it in my gut. They have to exist! I just know it!," in the face of all the hard evidence against their existence.

The same thing can be said for god, and, when it comes down to it, belief in god is entirely based upon faith (the same force behind believing in leprechauns), or the belief with the lack of evidence, which is where the entire argument for god falls apart.

[This message has been edited by bung (edited 01-22-2007).]

quote:Originally posted by bung:

The same thing can be said for god, and, when it comes down to it, belief in god is entirely based upon faith (the same force behind believing in leprechauns), or the belief with the lack of evidence, which is where the entire argument for god falls apart.



People believe in a higher power because they do not believe that the world they live in was created simply for nothing. If you're talking about the Christian god, then yes, there is substantially more evidence against that. But I'm speaking about religion in general.

Not believing in something just because you don't know it exists does take as much blind faith as believing that a higher power created our world. It's all about perspective. An atheist might say that since there is no proof of a higher power, there is no point in believing in one, whereas a person who believes that some higher order exists could say that since there is no proof that the universe and it's scientific laws were created for no purpose, and no explanation as to why scientific laws are the way they are, there is no point in believing that nothing created us, or that we are here because of a random occurrence.

quote:My entire argument is that religion is essentially a "middle-man" and thus, can be eliminated with no dire consequences, in fact, my personal belief would be that it would be for the best.

Thats fine. But I'm talking about the purpose of religion, not about it's importance in modern-day society. Many of the communities and societies that came before us and layed the foundations for human morals were often brought together by a common religion. Logically, religion would have been a good way to teach people right from wrong. Obviously, it's not the only way people could have learned morals, but it would have been a very effective way.



[This message has been edited by cakezone (edited 01-23-2007).]

quote:Originally posted by cakezone:

Many of the communities and societies that came before us and layed the foundations for human morals were often brought together by a common religion. Logically, religion would have been a good way to teach people right from wrong. Obviously, it's not the only way people could have learned morals, but it would have been a very effective way.



Also a good way to impose power over the people, And justify murder

Ow and people had good morals long before religion

[This message has been edited by boozehound420 (edited 01-22-2007).]

quote:Originally posted by One_way_mirror:

I agree with this opinion.

Looking over the various types of religion - albeit christianity and shintoism did involve faith being used as a weapon, i have yet to see any real 'zeal' from the atheist perspective.

Surely blind faith is rather 'zealious (sp)'

That doesn't really have much to do with why following a particular religion takes more faith than atheism. You're also forgetting that the major religions have been around forever. They've had plenty of time for people to come along and exploit the majority of it's followers' beliefs in order to gain something, for the religions to gain mass followers, and coincidentally, become significantly altered. On the other hand, atheism has a relatively small following, and the amount of people that are spoken atheists was even smaller in previous generations. Atheism has the potential to change and have the same effect on society that many anti-religious people complain about.

Also, atheists can be some of the most zealous people, and they can be some of the most indifferent. The same can be said about anyone of any race/religion/nationality.

quote:Originally posted by boozehound420:

Also a good way to impose power over the people, And justify murder

Ow and people had good morals long before religion



Again, it's not the end-all be-all of answers. It's just a reason religion might attract people or have become widely established. i.e. the thread topic...

And I'd like to see some proof of that last statement.



[This message has been edited by cakezone (edited 01-22-2007).]

quote:Originally posted by Sick_Boy:



As an atheist, I believe that when you die, you're gone forever, and this depresses me. Or that your soul is kind of like a computer and it gets erased once you die and is used in a new baby. Not reincarnation, exactly, because your 'data' is erased. Either way the point is that you're gone forever once you die.





Taking a 'position', as you seem to be doing in labelling yourself and making definitive satements that present beliefs as facts, seems IMHO to be the failing of the churches, beware of falling into the same trap. There is only constant change, from your earliest memory to now, do you see yourself as the same person? Do you have the same personality? The same interests?

Who is the I? Where is it located in one's body? Can you take an imaginary scalpel and disect this body to find the I? Is one's whole body the I? What if one removes, say a leg, is it still the same I?

There is much to know http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif) and one wonders if it matters, in the context of eternity, whether an identifiable soul, or such, matters, or whether it may in fact be a case of as eternal beings we do not wish to live in the past. Remembering the recent past of this lifetime is often painful enough, imagine if one could remember the pain of countless past lives? Is it better that life be fresh and new each time?

Regarding God and atheism:

quote:

strictly speaking, atheism does not mean asserting that there is no God. It is rather an assertion that the theistic understanding of God has become unbelievable.

.....

I am a believer who is not a theist. Some people mistakenly assume that an atheist is the same thing as a non-theist. Nothing could be further from the truth. If anything, I am a god-intoxicated human being, perhaps even a mystic. I experience God as 'Other,' as 'Transcendence,' as 'Depth,' and as the ultimate meaning of life. I believe that humanity and divinity are not separate categories, but represent the eternal spectrum of human experience. Divinity is the depth dimension of humanity. I see this God presence lived out in the human life of Jesus of Nazareth. I search the Scriptures to find images of God that transcend the theistic images of the childhood of our humanity; the old man in the sky with the magic power that permeated primitive religious thought. I find it in the unwillingness of the ancient Jewish writers of our sacred story to have the name of God spoken by human lips since no human mind can embrace the reality of God sufficiently to speak the divine name. I see it in the Jewish commandment that we are never to make an image of God since nothing made with human hands or constructed by the human mind can finally be big enough to capture the Holy God. Yet religious people constantly think that the human creations of scripture, creeds and doctrines have somehow embraced the wonder of the holy. These are nothing more, however, than verbal "graven images." I find the Bible in some places is reduced to defining God in impersonal images because the personal ones become so false when literalized. So God is defined in what I call the minority voices of the Bible as like unto the wind, the rock and even as the power and source of love.

When human beings talk about God, all they are really doing is talking about their human experience of God. When that truth is faced, certainty of expression disappears but the experience of God does not.

quote:, I ask whether or not a moth or an insect can tell you what it is like to be a bird. Can an insect escape the frame of reference in which an insect lives in order to describe a whole new level of reality? Can a horse tell another horse what it is like to be a human being? Can a horse step outside the realm of a horse's consciousness to describe a realm of being they have no way of understanding? Can a human being escape the limits of our humanity to describe God? What makes us think God can fit into a human consciousness? Is that not why all our pictures of God wind up being an expanded human being? It was a Greek philosopher named Xenophanes who said, "If horses had Gods, they would look like horses!" John Shelby Spong

Peace http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

quote:Originally posted by cakezone:

Again, it's not the end-all be-all of answers. It's just a reason religion might attract people or have become widely established. i.e. the thread topic...

And I'd like to see some proof of that last statement.



Its tricky when trying to supply proof. 1 is if you follow the christian/muslim/jewish god then you believe he created everything.

We only started recording detailed history after religion was established, religion that predates the old testemant that is.

Around 200 000 years ago is the estimate for when modern humans evolved in Africa. By observing other intellegint animals in the wild, chimpanzes, elephants, whales etc. They show strong morals. We can assume humans are the same way, especialy with comparying us to our couzin the chimp.

It is also believed that morals are derived through our emotions. Wich religion has no part of, its nature.

[This message has been edited by boozehound420 (edited 01-22-2007).]

quote:Originally posted by cakezone:

That would only prove that I didn't believe in a pink elephant. I could still chose another religion.

The pink elephant was an analogy that applies to all religions.

quote:Originally posted by One_way_mirror:

In a random eternal one-off type scenario, it may be that YOU are the only one who can see the pink elephant, and instead everyone else IS mad.

Funny things happen when you apply chance to 'eternity'.

Hence the scientific agnosticism part.

quote:Originally posted by boozehound420:

Its tricky when trying to supply proof. 1 is if you follow the christian/muslim/jewish god then you believe he created everything.

We only started recording detailed history after religion was established, religion that predates the old testemant that is.

Around 200 000 years ago is the estimate for when modern humans evolved in Africa. By observing other intellegint animals in the wild, chimpanzes, elephants, whales etc. They show strong morals. We can assume humans are the same way, especialy with comparying us to our couzin the chimp.

It is also believed that morals are derived through our emotions. Wich religion has no part of, its nature.



Thats hardly proof. Humans are significantly different than the animals we evolved from, and we have more decisions to factor in when deciding right from wrong, as we have more abilities.

But I don't think you're getting my point. You keep acting as if religion couldn't possibly do any of the things I said it does, which is ridiculous, as I've given perfectly logical arguments to back it up and nobody can disprove that religion could serve the purposes I've mentioned.

quote:The pink elephant was an analogy that applies to all religions.

I was thrown off by this:

quote:Scientifically, we might all be agnostic about the elephant, but really, we'd all be atheists.

[This message has been edited by cakezone (edited 01-22-2007).]

Religion was a way for ancient man to explain known truths that couldn't/can't yet be explained with science. It was also a way of controlling the populace and the spread of disease. It provided the first written codes of conduct for human beings. We are homocidal by nature and religions were what original convinced people that killing another person was wrong.

Religion has served a lot of purposes.

Cheers,

Lost

quote:I was thrown off by this.

It's a definition for atheists, who believe in none of the religions that involve supernatural ideas such as God that all require proof and have none and are non-falsifiable.

quote:Originally posted by cakezone:

Thats hardly proof. Humans are significantly different than the animals we evolved from, and we have more decisions to factor in when deciding right from wrong, as we have more abilities.

But I don't think you're getting my point. You keep acting as if religion couldn't possibly do any of the things I said it does, which is ridiculous, as I've given perfectly logical arguments to back it up and nobody can disprove that religion could serve the purposes I've mentioned.

Its enough proof to show humans could do without religion.

Yes religion can do these things for people. I dont think fear is a good incentive to get people to do anything thought (regarding the main religions).

I appose religion because it commonly gets taken out of context and leads to extremists. Religion may have given humans a jump start out of bad times, (murder, less respect for others) But in todays world its holding us back.

quote:Originally posted by boozehound420:

Its enough proof to show humans could do without religion.

Yes religion can do these things for people. I dont think fear is a good incentive to get people to do anything thought (regarding the main religions).

I appose religion because it commonly gets taken out of context and leads to extremists. Religion may have given humans a jump start out of bad times, (murder, less respect for others) But in todays world its holding us back.

That's like apposing Nietzche because some people are too stupid to understand it. I mean, you can't ban perfectly decent things because some people are stupid and use it as an excuse to do bad things.

Cheers,

Lost

A nice big social club for geriatrics and those who don't like pubs and a money making excersise for businessmen.

quote:Originally posted by cakezone:

Nobody seems to note any positive points of religion:

It is often used as a way to teach people morals from an early age.

Religions are used to bring communities together. Many forerunning nations were entirely held together by religions and beliefs.

Religion gives people a reason to be good people, and to generally help their society move forward. Think about this one the most. A lot of god-bashers will scream that when you die nothing happens, that there is no "greater plan", or no higher power. Then whats the point? A belief structure helps a society by giving them something more to live for than just what they see in front of them.

I sign with the above.

I do not have proof that god does or doesn't exist. I don't have a gut feeling nor have I been visited or instructed to choose my belief. I do not visit a Catholic church because I'm Catholic, as I'm neither Catholic, Christian or anything else you care to name.

I just belief because 'I want to', that belief makes me happy, makes me want to be a better person and gives me hope.

I'm not interested in the facts or science behind religion, which is where most of you go wrong.

You could disprove religion, but it wouldn't stop people from believing in God. Work that one out.

quote:Originally posted by LostCause:

That's like apposing Nietzche because some people are too stupid to understand it. I mean, you can't ban perfectly decent things because some people are stupid and use it as an excuse to do bad things.

Cheers,

Lost

I never said ban anything.

And the smart, in contrast to the "stupid" people are just as fucked up for letting people twist there own religion. Why arent there christian groups strongly apposing things like Jesus camp? Why do christians stand by why other christians put things like the 10 commandments on coart property, imposing there religion on others?

The muslims let the extremists work for too long and now there afraid to step forward and oppose there fellow muslims. Is christianity going down the same path?

quote:Originally posted by cakezone:

Not believing in something just because you don't know it exists does take as much blind faith as believing that a higher power created our world.

*Sigh*

No, it does not.

My beliefs are not based on faith, but evidence. Once again, I direct you to the pink elephant argument, which you don't seem to understand.



[This message has been edited by bung (edited 01-22-2007).]

quote:Originally posted by bung:

*Sigh*

No, it does not.

My beliefs are not based on faith, but evidence. Once again, I direct you to the pink elephant argument, which you don't seem to understand.





Maybe you missed the second half of that paragraph. You know, the part explaining the half that you pasted.

Part of your beliefs are based on evidence. However, there is no evidence that there is no god, therefore, by believing that there is no god, you believe in something unproven. Which takes faith. I don't know how you personally define the word.

The elephant argument doesn't do anything but prove that the believers do just the same thing.



[This message has been edited by cakezone (edited 01-22-2007).]

Religion is the illusion of order in are world. Just think about it, humanity always has the need to latch onto something "real". Which is ironic since we are unable to completely define what is real, and what is fake.



Isn't everything we believe, everything we try to find the meaning of, just a search for something real ? Some proof that we don't die alone. Maslow's hierarchy of needs has belonging and self-esteem needs under it. Doesn't it all tie in with this notion of the existence of a "god".



Religion, science, drugs, love, money, friendships, We don't know if these are real. All we can really understand for sure is what we believe/have experienced, and even that becomes hard at times.



Every religious mantra, scientific theory or even divine prophesies, is a search for a purpose in the chaos. A search for something optimistic in life, just another way to justify are suffering.



They say the first time you feel lonely is when your left alone for the first time as a baby. From that point on, you crave human contact, some proof that your not alone. Countless examples of this surround us daily, the most common being the search for a god

quote:Originally posted by cakezone:

Maybe you missed the second half of that paragraph. You know, the part explaining the half that you pasted.

Part of your beliefs are based on evidence. However, there is no evidence that there is no god, therefore, by believing that there is no god, you believe in something unproven. Which takes faith. I don't know how you personally define the word.

The elephant argument doesn't do anything but prove that the believers do just the same thing.



Exactly! Of course I don't believe in something that hasn't been proven! That is the whole argument. Why would someone believe in something that has absolutely no evidence for it's existence, but so much against it? The same reasoning is applied to leprechauns, fairies, and the invisible pink elephant--none of them can ever be proven to not exist, but it is incredibly absurd to believe that they do.

You simply do not understand the argument, clearly.

The burden of truth lies in the person asserting the claim; in this case: god exists. That is another concept I think you need to understand. If someone said, "I can bend this spoon with my mind," you obviously wouldn't just believe them, but would want some type of proof. Logically, it's just simply foolish not to.



[This message has been edited by bung (edited 01-23-2007).]

quote:Originally posted by bung:

Exactly! Of course I don't believe in something that hasn't been proven! That is the whole argument. Why would someone believe in something that has absolutely no evidence for it's existence, but so much against it? The same reasoning is applied to leprechauns, fairies, and the invisible pink elephant--none of them can ever be proven to not exist, but it is incredibly absurd to believe that they do.

You simply do not understand the argument, clearly.

You don't get the other side of what I'm saying. You do believe in something that there is no proof for, because when theres no proof one way or the other, you obviously have to believe in something that you're unsure of if you pick a side. Whether or not a god exists has yet to be proven, therefore, whether a person believes in god, or believes there is no god, they believe in something that there is no proof for. A person who truly believes there is no god has to have faith that there is no god, because there is no proof to support their claim.

I understand the argument completely. You somehow can't get it through your head that the "no proof" argument works equally both ways. There is evidence against the theory of creationism, not against a higher deity.

quote:The burden of truth lies in the person asserting the claim; in this case: god exists. That is another concept I think you need to understand. If someone said, "I can bend this spoon with my mind," you obviously wouldn't just believe them, but would want some type of proof. Logically, it's just simply foolish not to.

[/B]

If someone said "there is no god and everything that exists has no higher meaning", it would be perfectly reasonable to want some type of proof for that as well.

[This message has been edited by cakezone (edited 01-23-2007).]

Cakezone, here's Bertrand Russell putting it a better way. Hopefully now you'll understand it.

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.

And Dawkins:

The reason organized religion merits outright hostility is that, unlike belief in Russell's teapot, religion is powerful, influential, tax-exempt and systematically passed on to children too young to defend themselves. Children are not compelled to spend their formative years memorizing loony books about teapots. Government-subsidized schools don't exclude children whose parents prefer the wrong shape of teapot. Teapot-believers don't stone teapot-unbelievers, teapot-apostates, teapot-heretics and teapot-blasphemers to death. Mothers don't warn their sons off marrying teapot-shiksas whose parents believe in three teapots rather than one. People who put the milk in first don't kneecap those who put the tea in first.

Atheism is not a belief, it's an absence of a belief and it makes more sense than believing in one of the numerous Gods that are non-falsifiable and probably man made.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by boozehound420:

Why arent there christian groups strongly apposing things like Jesus camp?

Because there's nothing wrong with Jesus camp as long as no one gets molested.

Why do christians stand by why other christians put things like the 10 commandments on coart property, imposing there religion on others?

Because the US was founded on Christian values therefore they technically can argue that they have the right to put it there. Frankly, I think they should go one way or the other with it. They should either just say "This is a country founded on Christian values." and take all the legal perks out of marriage and shit or they should knock of the Christian shit altogether.

The muslims let the extremists work for too long and now there afraid to step forward and oppose there fellow muslims. Is christianity going down the same path?

The problem is thus: The squeaky wheel gets the grease. The extremists make the biggest show of things, therefore they get more attention and consequencely they get their way more. You want to make a change? Go stand with your picket sign in front of the white house like they're doing.

Cheers,

Lost

Lost,

have you seen the jesus camp documentary, were not talking some week long sunday school here. These fuckers are training young children to be christian soldiers to counteract the extremist islamics teaching there children to wage a jihad on the west. Both sicken me.

I'm canadian and as far as I learnt through school and personal research the US was not founded as a Christian nation, it was founded as a FREE nation, free everything, freedom of religion, which includes freedom from religion. The simple way to counteract that would be for every religion to put there own monument next to the 10 commandments, Like the humanist life stance. If they reject that, its discrimination which is unconstitutional, both in Canada and the US. The Summum religion did that somewhere in UTAH, the christians decided to remove there 10 commandments instead of letting the Summum put there version up

quote:Originally posted by Hare_Geist:

Cakezone, here's Bertrand Russell putting it a better way. Hopefully now you'll understand it.

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.

And Dawkins:

The reason organized religion merits outright hostility is that, unlike belief in Russell's teapot, religion is powerful, influential, tax-exempt and systematically passed on to children too young to defend themselves. Children are not compelled to spend their formative years memorizing loony books about teapots. Government-subsidized schools don't exclude children whose parents prefer the wrong shape of teapot. Teapot-believers don't stone teapot-unbelievers, teapot-apostates, teapot-heretics and teapot-blasphemers to death. Mothers don't warn their sons off marrying teapot-shiksas whose parents believe in three teapots rather than one. People who put the milk in first don't kneecap those who put the tea in first.

Atheism is not a belief, it's an absence of a belief and it makes more sense than believing in one of the numerous Gods that are non-falsifiable and probably man made.

You're not getting it, I understand that argument already. This "absense of a belief" still fails to be completely supported by proven fact though. Therefore, anyone following atheism must take some amount of faith into it.

quote:Originally posted by cakezone:

You're not getting it, I understand that argument already. This "absense of a belief" still fails to be completely supported by proven fact though. Therefore, anyone following atheism must take some amount of faith into it.

No, based on probability and admitting there is a possibility that you are wrong - i.e. agnostic atheism - does not rely on faith.

Does it take "faith" to believe that such a stupid and utterly self-contradictory concept as an invisible pink unicorn isn't real? No, because there's nothing in the universe to suggest that an IPU exists and has an interest in humanity. Gods are no different; If I have "faith" that there are no gods, then I have faith that Captain Kirk isn't real, and that King Arthur isn't coming back to save Britain, and so on and so forth.

Rational minds don't believe in things that exist for which there is no evidence. There is no evidence for your god or any other; in fact there is ample evidence that they were made up by men in the distant past. Only the brainwashed from birth or the weakest of wills would be so gullible in this day and age.

Choose to believe in a religion, or choose not to, but keep your decision and your arguments otherwise to yourself.

End of story.

quote:Originally posted by Hare_Geist:

No, based on probability and admitting there is a possibility that you are wrong - i.e. agnostic atheism - does not rely on faith.

I never said it relies on faith, I said it takes faith. Admitting there is a chance you are wrong just means that you are open to other things, pending evidence. But the fact that you think one way or another about a higher deity (a concept which has no logical argument against it that significantly outweighs an argument for it.) requires belief in something unproven. A form of faith.

quote:Does it take "faith" to believe that such a stupid and utterly self-contradictory concept as an invisible pink unicorn isn't real? No, because there's nothing in the universe to suggest that an IPU exists and has an interest in humanity. Gods are no different; If I have "faith" that there are no gods, then I have faith that Captain Kirk isn't real, and that King Arthur isn't coming back to save Britain, and so on and so forth.

Rational minds don't believe in things that exist for which there is no evidence. There is no evidence for your god or any other; in fact there is ample evidence that they were made up by men in the distant past. Only the brainwashed from birth or the weakest of wills would be so gullible in this day and age.

You're getting too specific. If I were arguing for creationism, or another specific theory of creation, then that would apply. There is no evidence that there is no higher deity, and there is no evidence that there is. Obviously you haven't understood any of the posts I've made.

And I'm not Christian. I'm just open minded.

No, it doesn't take faith to believe that an invisible pink unicorn created us. But that is because logical thought would tell us otherwise. Believing that there may be a higher power, or that something may have defined the laws of the universe however, has no logical argument against it, as I said above.

If rational minds don't believe in things that exist for which there is no evidence, then they would not straight out believe that there is no higher being, as there is no evidence for that either. Essentially what you're saying is "Because I haven't seen it, it doesn't exist."

It does not make someone irrational to be open minded to things that are unproven.



[This message has been edited by cakezone (edited 01-23-2007).]

quote:Originally posted by Fear:

Choose to believe in a religion, or choose not to, but keep your decision and your arguments otherwise to yourself.

End of story.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4fQA9mt-Mg

"why atheists care about religion"

or why they should care

[This message has been edited by boozehound420 (edited 01-23-2007).]

quote:Originally posted by cakezone:

If someone said "there is no god and everything that exists has no higher meaning", it would be perfectly reasonable to want some type of proof for that as well.



It's so glaringly obvious you've never taken any type of logic course. I feel embarrassed for you.

quote:

ht tp://www.y outube.com /watch?v=w 4fQA9mt-Mg (http: //www.yout ube.com/wa tch?v=w4fQ A9mt-Mg)

"why atheists care about religion"

or why they should care



That video just proves why people should respect atheists' decision to be atheists, and explains certain issues in government where religion hasn't been completely separated. Not why certain atheists feel the need to ridicule other people's religions.

[This message has been edited by cakezone (edited 01-23-2007).]

quote:Originally posted by bung:

It's so glaringly obvious you've never taken any type of logic course. I feel embarrassed for you.

If you had any competent argument against what I've said, you would have presented it. Obviously you realize you're wrong and have degraded this thread into slander.

That logic is perfectly acceptable. It follows the thought of asking for proof of something unproven.

quote:Originally posted by cakezone:

That video just proves why people should respect atheists' decision to be atheists, and explains certain issues in government where religion hasn't been completely separated. Not why certain atheists feel the need to ridicule other people's religions.



By saying ridicule you mean saying that its not true? well tough luck. I see and here shit about the christian god and jesus everyday.

quote:Originally posted by boozehound420:

By saying ridicule you mean saying that its not true? well tough luck. I see and here shit about the christian god and jesus everyday.

No, I mean slandering people for believing one way when their personal beliefs don't affect you at all.

Telling Christians they're wrong just to get you off doesn't help you, or any other atheist. If you wanted to make good use of your time and try to change some of the problems mentioned in that video, that would be a different story.

quote:Originally posted by cakezone:

No, I mean slandering people for believing one way when their personal beliefs don't affect you at all.

Telling Christians they're wrong just to get you off doesn't help you, or any other atheist. If you wanted to make good use of your time and try to change some of the problems mentioned in that video, that would be a different story.

Find me 1 christian who wouldnt tell me god exists.

You obviosly havent met that many people. I've met alot of people through work, school, friends and family and your pretty picture of this christian who doesnt bother anybody else and try and convince people god exists is very rare

quote:Originally posted by boozehound420:

Find me 1 christian who wouldnt tell me god exists.

You obviosly havent met that many people. I've met alot of people through work, school, friends and family and your pretty picture of this christian who doesnt bother anybody else and try and convince people god exists is very rare

If you ask them if god exists, then yes, obviously they will tell you there is a Christian God. I never said all Christians don't bother anyone, I said that bashing them does absolutely nothing. And most people, be it atheist, Christian, Muslim, or anything else, will not just go out and rip on other people for believing a certain way. The ones that do are extremists, and they are a minority.

I'm talking about atheists who bash christians for no real reason at all. And yes, there are christians that do the same thing to everyone else, but the point is that when you just ridicule someone it doesn't get anything done. Instead of complaining about Christians for no reason, they should go out and actually try to get those problems fixed.

By just telling them they suck, all you're doing is reciprocating the hate that other extremists put on people.



[This message has been edited by cakezone (edited 01-23-2007).]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by boozehound420:

Lost,

have you seen the jesus camp documentary, were not talking some week long sunday school here. These fuckers are training young children to be christian soldiers to counteract the extremist islamics teaching there children to wage a jihad on the west. Both sicken me.

So you saw a documentary about one jesus camp. May be two or three were covered in the documentary. That was a single documentary filmed by someone who probably skewed it to his point. Talk about brainwashing... You think you're so enlightened just because you saw a documentary about some bad summer camp counselors. Who hasn't seen Rights Of Summer...

I'm canadian and as far as I learnt through school and personal research the US was not founded as a Christian nation,...

Whatever it was, it couldn't've been much if you still use the word "learnt" like a redneck hick.

it was founded as a FREE nation, free everything, freedom of religion, which includes freedom from religion.

False. The pilgrims came here to escape the religious tyranny of The Church Of England. But, they were just as puritanical (even worse so) than the Christians in Europe. They moved here to escape things like divorce and premarrital sex. They wanted things stricter. And yes is say "freedom of religion" but that only applied to them being free to practice their religion. It didn't apply to everyone. Just like "All men are created equal" didn't count women or black people. Don't be so naive.

Cheers,

Lost

[This message has been edited by LostCause (edited 01-23-2007).]

quote:Originally posted by LostCause:

So you saw a documentary about one jesus camp. May be two or three were covered in the documentary. That was a single documentary filmed by someone who probably skewed it to his point. Talk about brainwashing... You think you're so enlightened just because you saw a documentary about some bad summer camp counselors. Who hasn't seen Rights Of Summer...



False. The pilgrims came here to escape the religious tyranny of The Church Of England. But, they were just as puritanical (even worse so) than the Christians in Europe. They moved here to escape things like divorce and premarrital sex. They wanted things stricter. And yes is say "freedom of religion" but that only applied to them being free to practice their religion. It didn't apply to everyone. Just like "All men are created equal" didn't count women or black people. Don't be so naive.

Cheers,

Lost



Naive? the pilgrims didnt found your nation. Your nation wasnt its own country untill it went to war with britian, and won. Thats when they got to sit down and decide how the land of the free should be governed.

If you wanna say that wasnt when a the country was founded.Then both canada and united states were founded as a capatilist country. The first people who came here, came for buisness.

And heres the trailer for jesus camp http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_EKHK1C2IE

I dont feel enligntend, I feel sickend. Treating childres like your personal puppets is child abuse. Its not one jesus camp its happening all over the US. Its scary. Evangelicals are taking over your country. If you refuse to believe that, then have fun when your country goes down the fucken shitter.

[This message has been edited by boozehound420 (edited 01-23-2007).]

quote:Originally posted by Sick_Boy:

First off, I just want to say that this is my opinion, and I don't mean to offend anyone. But anyway...

I'll be honest, I've thought religion (in general) was a stupid and pointless concept. But over the past couple of years, I've come to formulate the opinion that the purpose of religion is to provide comfort for it's followers. I guess it's that whole "man created god so god could creat men" kind of thing. The comfort of knowing that god put us here for a reason and that he loves us and that he'll be waiting in heaven for us, etc. I should add that I only really have experience in Christianity, but I'm going to assume that most religions offer these sorts of comforts.

As an atheist, I believe that when you die, you're gone forever, and this depresses me. Or that your soul is kind of like a computer and it gets erased once you die and is used in a new baby. Not reincarnation, exactly, because your 'data' is erased. Either way the point is that you're gone forever once you die.

I wish that I could believe in a heaven, but I just can't. But there are some people who can believe and take comfort in this, and that is why religion is around.

In my opinion, this is the only useful purpose religion serves. It gives people hope.

So, what do you guys think?

PS: I know this is more than likely a very unoriginal thought, but since I'm just coming to this conclusion on my own, I find it kind of interesting.

Wow! Are there any threads in this forum that don't get hijacked by atheists?

Sick_Boy, why do you say you can't believe in heaven? Why do you believe that there is no god or afterlife?

I think organized religion is used to control the masses. I also think that you can have a connection to god without organized religion.

quote:Originally posted by Sick_Boy:

First off, I just want to say that this is my opinion, and I don't mean to offend anyone. But anyway...

I'll be honest, I've thought religion (in general) was a stupid and pointless concept. But over the past couple of years, I've come to formulate the opinion that the purpose of religion is to provide comfort for it's followers. I guess it's that whole "man created god so god could creat men" kind of thing. The comfort of knowing that god put us here for a reason and that he loves us and that he'll be waiting in heaven for us, etc. I should add that I only really have experience in Christianity, but I'm going to assume that most religions offer these sorts of comforts.

As an atheist, I believe that when you die, you're gone forever, and this depresses me. Or that your soul is kind of like a computer and it gets erased once you die and is used in a new baby. Not reincarnation, exactly, because your 'data' is erased. Either way the point is that you're gone forever once you die.

I wish that I could believe in a heaven, but I just can't. But there are some people who can believe and take comfort in this, and that is why religion is around.

In my opinion, this is the only useful purpose religion serves. It gives people hope.

So, what do you guys think?

PS: I know this is more than likely a very unoriginal thought, but since I'm just coming to this conclusion on my own, I find it kind of interesting.

QFT. i always thought that myself, except for the part where peoples souls get erased and stuff.

still though, it really isn't worth it. if religion wasn't around there would be so, so much more peace and people would ultimately live happier lives due to lack of religious oppression and the freedom to do what they want.

The Universe existed for billions of years without me, I suspect my experience will be the same after I die; meaning that I won't have any experience because I'll cease to exist.

If that scares you, I suggest you get your priorities straight. Everybody dies, what matters is what you do before you shove off.

quote:Originally posted by Surak:

what matters is what you do before you shove off.

Does it?

Well, if you want it to. You don't have to do anything with your life if you don't want to; but you only get one shot so... hey, why not, right?

quote:Originally posted by Surak:

Well, if you want it to. You don't have to do anything with your life if you don't want to; but you only get one shot so... hey, why not, right?

Gotta like that vulcan logic

quote:Originally posted by boozehound420:

Naive? the pilgrims didnt found your nation. Your nation wasnt its own country untill it went to war with britian, and won. Thats when they got to sit down and decide how the land of the free should be governed.

If you wanna say that wasnt when a the country was founded.Then both canada and united states were founded as a capatilist country. The first people who came here, came for buisness.

And heres the trailer for jesus camp ht tp://www.y outube.com /watch?v=y _EKHK1C2IE (http: //www.yout ube.com/wa tch?v=y_EK HK1C2IE)

I dont feel enligntend, I feel sickend. Treating childres like your personal puppets is child abuse. Its not one jesus camp its happening all over the US. Its scary. Evangelicals are taking over your country. If you refuse to believe that, then have fun when your country goes down the fucken shitter.



I'd just like to make the point that it wasn't actually America that won that particular war against Britain, it was in fact France.

I'd also like to point out that despite having several hundred years to get rid of all the fuck ups from their little colony, they still were mostly populated by them in George Washington's time.

And finally I'd like to point out that any american fundamentalists are technically putting their souls at risk, according to the bible, god's highest representative on earth is the monarch. Your monarch should be Queen Elisabeth II and if you don't support being her subject as all citizens of those territories should then you are a heretic and a traitor to God's will.



[This message has been edited by jb_mcbean (edited 01-24-2007).]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by boozehound420:

Naive? the pilgrims didnt found your nation. Your nation wasnt its own country untill it went to war with britian, and won. Thats when they got to sit down and decide how the land of the free should be governed.

How did the pilgrims not found the nation? Were they not the first ones here from Europe to lay the building blocks of Western European society? Sure, it wasn't made official until the Revolutionary War, but the pilgrims absolutely founded the country.

If you wanna say that wasnt when a the country was founded.Then both canada and united states were founded as a capatilist country. The first people who came here, came for buisness.

That would also be correct. Accept for they really came to escape the tyranny of religion and government in Europe.

And heres the trailer for jesus camp ht tp://www.y outube.com /watch?v=y _EKHK1C2IE (http: //www.yout ube.com/wa tch?v=y_EK HK1C2IE)

I dont feel enligntend, I feel sickend. Treating childres like your personal puppets is child abuse. Its not one jesus camp its happening all over the US. Its scary. Evangelicals are taking over your country. If you refuse to believe that, then have fun when your country goes down the fucken shitter.

Again. Bad summer camp counselors. That doesn't mean shit other than that they should lose they're jobs. And Evangelicals are not taking over our country - that's insane. They're a small loud mouthed group of extremists and they have very little to do with the actual way things are run in this country. Moreover, this country is already in the shitter and it has nothing to do with religion.

Cheers,

Lost

This tyranny of religion you speak of. Is exactly why christians shouldn't be aloud to impose there religion on others. Its what the pilgrams were escaping when they fled to the netherlands, then eventually the americas.

And not everybody was escaping the fact that it was the law to attend church the way the church of england saw it. Most were looking for power and wealth. What better way to do that then colonize an unclaimed land.

People always say this nation was founded on CHRISTIAN values, like what?

killing, raping, enslaving, abusing the Natives. It is said that even the few pilgrims took part in this, as did the british, french, spanish, and smaller colonies all at the same time.

quote:Originally posted by boozehound420:

This tyranny of religion you speak of. Is exactly why christians shouldn't be aloud to impose there religion on others.

So you're talking about censorship. This particular group of people shouldn't be allowed to voice their opinion or their beliefs because you don't agree with it. Sounds pretty fascist to me.

And not everybody was escaping the fact that it was the law to attend church the way the church of england saw it. Most were looking for power and wealth.

The main reason people came here was to escape religious tyranny. Most of the settlers who came here that weren't pilgrims were explorers and convicts, not wealthy people. People did not come here because they had whole lot of money lying around and since no one really knew what they were getting into and all they really knew about America was that lots of people died in the settlement out here I highly doubt there were lots of people eager to come here for all the money, power, wealth. Considering there was evidence of any yet.

People always say this nation was founded on CHRISTIAN values, like what?

killing, raping, enslaving, abusing the Natives. It is said that even the few pilgrims took part in this, as did the british, french, spanish, and smaller colonies all at the same time.

I'm not going to sit here and defend Christianity nor all the atrocities of the Christian church. We all know what happened to the natives and we all know it was horrible.

Cheers,

Lost

^^good job twisting my words and my opinions to suit your views, and not understanding history

The use of religion varies from person to person. For me, I use it to empower myself, since my life has taken a turn for the worse, and learn respect for others, since Allah is the best judge.

quote:Originally posted by boozehound420:

^^good job twisting my words and my opinions to suit your views, and not understanding history

I'd like a second opinion on this: who thinks I twisted his words and who thinks his words are just twisted?

Cheers,

Lost

quote:Originally posted by LostCause:

I'd like a second opinion on this: who thinks I twisted his words and who thinks his words are just twisted?

Cheers,

Lost

You forgot the not understanding history part, wich you so quikly deleted from the quote. A quik lesson on how to do research.

Go to wikipedia, search colonization north america. read that and write down all the different groups coming to america. Then search that group and you get more detailed information. And so on and so on.

quote:Originally posted by boozehound420:

You forgot the not understanding history part, wich you so quikly deleted from the quote. A quik lesson on how to do research.

Go to wikipedia, search colonization north america. read that and write down all the different groups coming to america. Then search that group and you get more detailed information. And so on and so on.

If you got your information from wikipedia, then this is a prime example of how wikipedia can be very wrong.

The Dutch were the first people to come to what is now the United States. They came for trade and set up New Amsterdam, and the Spanish came for gold, and explored the west Indies. So theres a large group of Europeans that colonized the Americas for profit reasons as well.

The puritans were the ones who came from England in order to escape religious oppression. However, the puritanical system was arguably as controlling as the Church of England. They were also all wealthy. Nobody else could have afforded to charter ships to come to the Americas. In fact, they even went to France first. Evidence of this lies in the writings of John Smith, who was among a handful of laboring-class people and below, who they brought along in order to get work done.

So there you go.

He didn't twist your words around at all, or lack a knowledge of history.

quote:Originally posted by cakezone:

If you got your information from wikipedia, then this is a prime example of how wikipedia can be very wrong.

The Dutch were the first people to come to what is now the United States. They came for trade and set up New Amsterdam, and the Spanish came for gold, and explored the west Indies. So theres a large group of Europeans that colonized the Americas for profit reasons as well.

The puritans were the ones who came from England in order to escape religious oppression. However, the puritanical system was arguably as controlling as the Church of England. They were also all wealthy. Nobody else could have afforded to charter ships to come to the Americas. In fact, they even went to France first. Evidence of this lies in the writings of John Smith, who was among a handful of laboring-class people and below, who they brought along in order to get work done.

So there you go.

He didn't twist your words around at all, or lack a knowledge of history.

What you just said is what I said. The main reason why people colonized america was for Buisness=work,trade,investments,claiming land etc. wich also inluded the dutch, spaniards, britians, and the french (the main groups)

Lostcause claims the first people to come were the pilgrims (wich was only a couple 100 people by the way) and they came for religious freedom. Wich is true in there case, but it is not the same for the majority of the colonies

[This message has been edited by boozehound420 (edited 01-27-2007).]

quote:Originally posted by boozehound420:

What you just said is what I said. The main reason why people colonized america was for Buisness=work,trade,investments,claiming land etc. wich also inluded the dutch, spaniards, britians, and the french (the main groups)

Lostcause claims the first people to come were the pilgrims (wich was only a couple 100 people by the way) and they came for religious freedom. Wich is true in there case, but it is not the same for the majority of the colonies



I think he was referring to whats currently the United States though. Well, actually, looking back on the post. I dont know.

But anyways, the main point is that the puritans were highly religious people, and the entire legal system up through the United States as we know it today takes ideas based on laws they set up upon arriving, which followed their puritanical beliefs.

edit: I think I may have misread the quote/response thing.



[This message has been edited by cakezone (edited 01-27-2007).]

just like the point of science, to know.

To know that, we do infact have a super being.

To know where we are from

To know our fate.

To know if our existance is lonely.

quote:Originally posted by cakezone:

I think he was referring to whats currently the United States though. Well, actually, looking back on the post. I dont know.

But anyways, the main point is that the puritans were highly religious people, and the entire legal system up through the United States as we know it today takes ideas based on laws they set up upon arriving, which followed their puritanical beliefs.

edit: I think I may have misread the quote/response thing.



QFT.

Cheers,

Lost

You have to consider the possibility that God does not like you. He never wanted you. In all probability, he hates you.

Religion is the opiate of the masses.

Neither of the previous statements are my own...but I do believe them. Especially the second one.

quote:Originally posted by l33t_looser:

just like the point of science, to know.

To know that, we do infact have a super being.

To know where we are from

To know our fate.

To know if our existance is lonely.

You mean, to guess.

Sick_Boy: It depends on you definition of religion.