Religions - Your Opinion

[Rainbow4vr]

Totally agree loner-kid, organized religion is not my thing. I get really confused about some of their beliefs. Im a lesbian and well i get ALOT of shit for it from all these religious people saying im going to hell and all that, i dont get where in the bible it says that gays are going to hell, the only thing in the bible that they might get that from is where it says -there are two woman in a bed, one will live one will die. and there are two men in a field one will live one will die. (not exact words so dont quote me) in the time that this was written sisters slept in the same bed and men farmed. i dont get how that means gay people are going to hell. also doesnt it say to forgive. and what i wonder is why if god hates gays so much did he make gay people???????

[vevuxking102]

Organized religion is really only bad when it gets too big, as is the case of most "Christianity" today in the world. Giant mega churches, with lying preachers and priest who want your money and everything you own. I always refer back to the story of Paul and Simon the sorcerer in the book of Acts, when Simon asked Paul if he could have his secret for religion, in exchange for huge stashes of money, in which Paul tells him (free translation) you and your money can go to Hell. That's what I'd tell most Christians here.

[melibita]

I'm an atheist, believing in no deities. I believe that while people do many good things in the name of religion, they also do many bad things in the name of it, often becoming hypocritical and sometimes outright liars about what their sacred texts/teachings really are saying. I believe people can do the right thing regardless of what religion they are, and shouldn't use it as an excuse to feel superior or do horrible things while only justifying it to themselves. In the end I feel people have every right to believe what they want as long as they are informed about the true shortcomings of the fairy tales they believe in.

[Heartless Angel]

I'm personally athiest. ALot of people say you just inherit religion frm your parents. Not me. I was raised Christian, even went to a Christian elementary school. I was always one of those kids who'd respond to anything you told me with, "Why?" This is how it all began...

I want through the firs several years of my life believing without question. Then I became obsessed with learning how and why everything happened. I was kicked out of a Christian Academy in 1st grade, for constantly questioning the bible, weighing it against fact. Apparently they didn't like that, because not only did they never answer my questions, but they kicked me out. After this I was left questioning, why? Did God just not tell them the answers to my questions? Did the answer not exist? I couldn't believe that was it, or they could've just said they didn't know. Then it hit me, they didn't like the fact that my questions made other kids ask questions. This is when I was certain the answers to my questions did not exist. At least not answers involving a God. this is when I first looked toscience for real answers.

Unlike the religion to which I once held on to, science actually had answers for everything. And for those that weren't answered completely, they said so, and continued looking for the answer, rather than just accepting everything without question.

As I continued to develop, I only came up with more and more questions that made religion seem like nothing more than a tory full of plotholes. Like...

• If God was a benevelont being that loves all his children, why did he only bother to appear to less than a third of them to make his existance know, thus damning the rest of the planet to eternal hellfire?
• God, being omniscient would obviously know that only teaching half of the world of his existance would leave the rest to come up with their own dieties to believe in, which would inevitably cause conflict. He lvoes us so much, he let us all murder each other because he didn't feel like talking to the rest of the world? God sounds like an ass if you ask me.
• Why is it that miracles stopped happening the very instant the camera was invented?
• Why were people supposedly "appointed by god" basically con artists ripping people off in the middle ages? Y'know, that Holy guy with the big hat, he was selling tickets to heaven when the church was running low on cash.
• If the world was created in 7 days, and man existed on the 7th, why is it science has proven that dinosaurs existed millions of years before the first man?
• Why has religion persecuted so many scientists who dared to question "why", only to later agree with them? Like the whole Geocentric vs. Heliocentric thing, (though both turned out to be wrong) or the world being flat. At one point in time, you were a heretic if you suggested that the earth orbitted the sun and that the world was round. Now you're a dumbass if you suggest anything else.

While religion came up with some ridiculous story to cover up for any inconsistancy a person could find, science actually goes and answers questions when raised. By this point in my life, I was completely athiest, no turning back.

Another thing I began to consider after that, was the time that religion began. And it explained perfectly well why people were so willing to accept it without question. Because at the time, there was no science. Nobody else could tell you why anything happened. So people eagerly accepted any information someone could offer that provided an answer to their questions. Think of it this way, had religion not existed before today, and we still knew everything we did about science, and I suggested to everyone that in spite of what we already know, the universe was ACTAULLY created by an invisible super-being that nobody can see in 7 days, and this super-being only talks to me in my head, and that I met his son, born of a woman who never in her life had sex, and that all we had to do is follow whatever he said to me, and we'd live forever in a utopia after we died... do you think the world would see the light, or lock me in a padded room and throw away the key? I can't speak for you guys, but I'm betting on the latter.

Thoguh I have mainly bashed on Christianity here, it's only because that's the religion that I grew away from, I have nothing against Christians, people have a right to believe whatever they please. I apologize if anybody has been offended by this.

[KainsBro]

I am a Christian. I do not believe in judging others or criticizing others on their personal belief, because its personal. Nothing to do with me. I believe there has to be a God or a Supreme being, what ever you wish to call him or her is your business. In science its is known that Nothing can come from nothing, meaning for the universe to exist, someone or something had to set everything in motion. If there was nothing in the beginning, then nothing is all we get. There had to be a beginning for us to even be here, so what existed before the thing we call time? Who started the clock ticking? If not a man, then something superior had to. At least, that is my opinion. Just thought I'd drop in my idea, hope everyone has a great day!

[Heartless Angel]

I often considered that as well. uBut in the end, that believe changes nothing, that creator would've had to be there from the beginning to, no matter how you slice it, something had to come from nothing. Least that's the way I see it, no disrespect.

[KainsBro]

Maybe, but we judge creation as we see it, how does a deity see it? Does time even flow for a God? We cannot even know how long the universe has been around, so time must be created thing. I better stop, I think I'm confusing myself.

[Furore]

In science its is known that Nothing can come from nothing, meaning for the universe to exist, someone or something had to set everything in motion.

Not really. An unbiased scientific approach would think that maybe it did come from nothing, maybe it did from something. Until the technology exists that allows us to make a credible theory (if it ever does) and we test it extensively, how could we ever know?

I'm a Christian myself, but I see i as being a matter of faith. Some men of science strongly believe things happened another way without the neccesary evidence, and they too are relying on faith, but an unbiased man of science would admit that he doesn't know how things came to be and would look to discovering this using scientific techniques.

HeartlessAngel's view, while opposite of my own is one I can strongly respect, because he more or less based it on what is actually known to him rather than requiring faith. I might not think some of the questions he asked himself are that useful (some can be answered in some way), but the main part is fairly solid.

[Heartless Angel]

HeartlessAngel's view, while opposite of my own is one I can strongly respect, because he more or less based it on what is actually known to him rather than requiring faith.

That's pretty much why I believe what I believe. I can't stand trusting in something I can't test lol. Until someone shows me a video recording of the beginning of time, I accept no theory as fact. Not even my own.

[Exxdeath666]

I personally don't care for religion one bit. The reason being that every single major religion is a corrupt organization, created by corrupt governments to brainwash and control the masses. Then, the minor religions which people tend to ignore, say that they're not corrupt, but they discrimination against people of other religions is still there. So they're basically saying that it's alright to discriminate.

Many of the wars in history have been fought over some type of deity, and myself being a peaceful entity, I feel obliged to decline every single one. They're violent, distasteful, and not worth the effort.

Don't get me wrong, just because I severely hate religion, doesn't mean that I have anything against spirituality. Quite frankly, people who follow religion, aren't spiritual. They're taking somebody else's belief, and claiming it as their own belief. In order to have spirituality, you have to have your own set of personal beliefs and morals.

Alright, I see where you're getting at here, and personally, I agree with you. A large percentage of wars have been centered around religion, and it seems to be about all anyone cares about these days. In short, it is understandable that you would blame religion for that...

However...

I also believe that it is a bit unfair for one to broadly point the finger at religion. I do not think that war or conflict would immediately disappear if religion did. This is why: being human, we also want to be right because it gives us a sense of accomplishment, even if it occasionally makes us look like a complete douchebag. We don't care. At least our idea was correct.

The truth of the matter is, if our own morals or beliefs were all that existed, we'd have no foundation to back it up on. The world would plunge into chaos, confusion, and anarchy, and no belief would firmly be the "correct" one because there would be no evidence to back it. Murdering for one person may be more "morally correct" than the other one. Lack of proof leads to lack of organization.

[sonicisrad]

I've always been fascinated by Buddhism and the ways in which Buddhist find their inner-peace. Buddhism would be a high priority of things to accomplish in my life, to become one myself, and to discover exactly how amazing the religion of Buddhism really is.

[Sinister]

I've always been fascinated by Buddhism and the ways in which Buddhist find their inner-peace. Buddhism would be a high priority of things to accomplish in my life, to become one myself, and to discover exactly how amazing the religion of Buddhism really is.

Buddhism is an interesting study. And it is quite capable of indefinitely changing how you view yourself. Zen Buddhism in particular.

And though Buddhism contradicts very little with Taoism, I still find Taoism the easier path. But essentially they have many of the same values and themes. I merely chose Taoism because I was far too lazy to bother with Buddhism. lol


-Sin

[Led Zeppelin]

If you're a Christian, you love Mel Gibson and hate Jews.

I was brought up Christian, so some of those beliefs and values that stem from that religion still hold true with me, but I found it better to follow no religion, in order to eliminate all the sentimental and stereotypical bullshit that comes with belonging to any religion.

Dr Egon Spengler I don't understand the quote about Christians love Mel Gibson and hate Jews because Jesus was a jew (My nanny told me this ^^) ...If you're Christian wouldn't you like them because of that fact...

And it's true if you're apart of a religion you do get stuck with stereotypes and some religions put up rules that people aren't aloud to brake but the "god" is aloud to?? So in some ways most religions they don't make sense :]

[Rydia Lover]

I have another question, why is atheism considered a religion?

even believe in nothing is still the beliefe in something

[Govinda]

(Before this Gypsy Elder asked why athiesm is considered a religion)

even believe in nothing is still the beliefe in something

Athiesm isn't a religion. It shouldn't be given a capital letter when found in the middle of a sentence.

There is no belief involved. Athiests don't 'believe in nothing'; we just don't believe. At all. At least, real athiests do, and for them it is always a personal thing; it isn't organised, it isn't structured. It's just individuals looking for their own answers.

Athiests who begin by telling other people that they are wrong are the ones I was talking about before. Hypocrites who always assume intellectual superiority. They are the ones who make athiesm look like a religion, who give it a capital letter in the middle of a sentence, and I hate that I am bundled in with them. I'm thinking of establishing my own meerkat-orientated variety of athiesm so that I can be alone. Just need a name. Maybe I could say that I believe in meerkats but go no further. Unsure.

But it's not a religion. The theory of evolution is not religious.

It's hard being an athiest these days. **** Richard Dawkins. Seriously.

[Walter Sobchak]

even believe in nothing is still the beliefe in something

Not at all.

Atheism is often given characteristics by the religious that do not really apply to the daily life of said atheist. Driven by Hollywood and other deathly hallows, the modern atheist is believed to break with the God that they originally believed in, often in a dramatic way. While this may be the case for the individual raised in a religious environment, it is not necessarily so.

Would anyone prescribe the word atheist to an infant or an animal? Some may, but more than likely they would be mocked. The belief is that, since these creatures possess no cognitive ability to make the decision, it is moot. This is where religious types trip over themselves answering whether Yahweh, Jesus, Allah, or Michael Jordan would allow the uninitiated into Heaven given that they were not given the opportunity to believe.

Atheists, for the most part, simply live in the state of mind that the uninitiated does. Some people would incorrectly call this agnosticism, but those people are roundly known as busybodies, so why bother?

One previous poster astutely pointed out that atheism is just disbelieving in one extra religion. After all, there have been thousands of religions, from the tribal to the commercial, since the dawn of human civilization. Statistically, the religious man is almost just as likely as I am to end up in some religion's Hell.

However, this logical point must be taken farther. The religious sects in this country frame the debate, and unfortunately the moderates follow. How else can you explain the repetition of the imaginary phrase "Evolutionism"? I imagine that Sasquatch is paid each time he uses the phrase by some creationist institute, and for that I applaud him for finding a way to feed him and his family (I refuse to accept the alternative, that one would fight the battles of someone else. It may be naivete, but it is willful). However, why does the phrase get used by people who are not the Billy Mays of the subject? Ignorance is part of it, fear is another, and placation is the end result. Too often the level-headed attempt to reason, and this is illogical. Modern medicine has been developed to deal with a plethora of emotional and psychological deficiencies because we know as a society that they cannot be reasoned with the way you might bargain with a meat vendor, a blacksmith, or a conductor of rail-based transportation.

Getting back to the reality of the religious framing the debate, let's look at atheism in context. Is Govinda called an atheist for not believing a swallow can carry a coconut? Is Alpha called an atheist for refusing to accept a world where a fox eats his own intestines? Of course not, because we all do not believe these things, and a label that includes everyone defeats the point. To an atheist, Jesus walking on water, Moses parting the sea, or Mohammad ascending to the sky are all equally laughable, and science dictates that they are so. Atheists are just being practical, while the religious are basing their beliefs on faith. It is the religious who deserve a label, just like in every other facet of life.

[Furore]

How else can you explain the repetition of the imaginary phrase "Evolutionism"?

Correct me if I'm wrong here (it's quite possible as most of my knowledge relies on internet research and books published prior to 1995 which are all I could find locally), but isn't Evolutionism as a term describing those who believe in the theory of evolution acceptable within the scientific community so long as one is debating Creationism vs Evolutionism? I have noticed a trend among newer sources (mostly Creationist as Evolutionists have a majority in the scientific community and as such seem to collectively believe the term anachronistic, even if not everyone agrees) to retain usage of the term.

And even if that isn't so, the term would be used incorrectly rather than it being used imaginatively as the word Evolutionism did have roots in 19th century science as people had theories on the evolution of several material things. I do recall reading some of that and finding it quite interesting, even though with today's knowledge some of it seems almost comical.

One thing I am curious about though, is this. Do you believe there is any chance of a creator or something that could have created the Earth, or do you believe there is nothing that could have created everything? I've always wondered about Athiests' thoughts on the matter, and have heard some interesting theories from some of the people I've asked including a few that seemed plausible (with a bit of faith). Others though decided to change their stance to Agnostic, believing a creator of some kind could exist, they just don't believe in anything as specific as those who follow a religion.

[Walter Sobchak]

Correct me if I'm wrong here (it's quite possible as most of my knowledge relies on internet research and books published prior to 1995 which are all I could find locally), but isn't Evolutionism as a term describing those who believe in the theory of evolution acceptable within the scientific community so long as one is debating Creationism vs Evolutionism? I have noticed a trend among newer sources (mostly Creationist as Evolutionists have a majority in the scientific community and as such seem to collectively believe the term anachronistic, even if not everyone agrees) to retain usage of the term.

And even if that isn't so, the term would be used incorrectly rather than it being used imaginatively as the word Evolutionism did have roots in 19th century science as people had theories on the evolution of several material things. I do recall reading some of that and finding it quite interesting, even though with today's knowledge some of it seems almost comical.

One thing I am curious about though, is this. Do you believe there is any chance of a creator or something that could have created the Earth, or do you believe there is nothing that could have created everything? I've always wondered about Athiests' thoughts on the matter, and have heard some interesting theories from some of the people I've asked including a few that seemed plausible (with a bit of faith). Others though decided to change their stance to Agnostic, believing a creator of some kind could exist, they just don't believe in anything as specific as those who follow a religion.

The word evolutionism, as you mention, is anachronistic. It is used by creationists to incite images of a religion, as Sasquatch has admitted. Evolutionism would be a correct term if it was a controversial theory in the scientific community, but since we have universities and testing to weed out people who are unable to accept basic scientific facts, the science is accepted and therefore the term is silly. Do we use the term heliocentrism (the theory that the Earth revolves around the Sun, versus geocentrism, the reverse) to discuss scientists? Of course not, because anyone who subscribes to geocentrism is a quack.

As someone who has seen beyond the playground of the formative years of my existence, I see no need or usage in incorrectly using words as some sort of insult system. I call a creationist a creationist, rather than the perhaps more correct term, like lunatic.

I guess there is a chance of some sort of creator. I also may buy something from a television commercial one day. With both, neither has sufficiently convinced me. The problem with the term agnostic is that they are atheists. You either believe in a God or do not. To say you are not sure is redundant, because no one is sure. Agnostics correctly understand that there is more stigma in calling oneself an atheist, while churches will let agnostics use their Wi-Fi on Saturdays.