Religion in world today

[Avlana Kiarunto]

*Nazis being 'catholic'

Isn't there an unwritten internet rule that if someone uses the argument that the Nazis were related to the thing they're arguing against (like in that case) to try to win the argument, they automatically lose?

[Iain Keers]

problem of evil

Meh. Despite what C.S.Lewis thinks, I don't think it has any bearing on whether God actually *exists* or not.
I don't suppose you have a really powerful argument for the necessity of God?

I think that a really powerful irresistible argument kind of defeats the point of faith tbh. Everyone has their own reasons for prescribing to a thought or belief.

[Avlana Kiarunto]

If it weren't for religion, millions more would kill themselves, millions more would murder, millions more would rape, millions more would steal and billions more would be unhappy. Religion provides solace, hope, a purpose and morals to billions of people. Just because it doesn't to you, it doesn't make it pointless, it doesn't make them weak or stupid.

[johnobrow]

*Nazis being 'catholic'

Isn't there an unwritten internet rule that if someone uses the argument that the Nazis were related to the thing they're arguing against (like in that case) to try to win the argument, they automatically lose?

Godwin's Law.

I was kidding. But seriously, you might find the subject silly, but its as annoying as someone who reads a popular science book lecturing the CERN team about how their latest project is bollocks. People devote their lives to studying theology and its always the same few emotive issues that come up. Any thread with religion in it bound to have the following points:
*You can't prove God exists
*The Bible has apparent inconsistencies in it
*AIDS in Africa
*Child molestation
*problem of evil
*Nazis being 'catholic'
Usually in that order. It's like a record stuck on the same track. It drives me mental. Most of the time if you actually read the other point of view in a book (not from someone like me who is trying to articulate something in 2 minutes on a forum) you'd understand the flaws in your point and come out with a more rounded response. And before you call me a hypocrite, I make sure I read most of the better anti-religion books so that I have a better understanding of the issues that non-theists take with the monotheistic religions. Personally I think it's inconclusive either way and boils down to a few very educated theologians arguing very politely with a raging horde of atheists calling believers retards on one side, and a raging horde of fanatics calling atheists infidels or whatever on the other side. Eventually this forum (which imo is predominantly browsed by anti-religious people) reduces itself to atheists calling believers thick in a variety of barely-veiled ways.

I seriously empathise. It's the same with communism.

[Darius J Pearlshire]

If it weren't for religion, millions more would kill themselves, millions more would murder, millions more would rape, millions more would steal and billions more would be unhappy. Religion provides solace, hope, a purpose and morals to billions of people. Just because it doesn't to you, it doesn't make it pointless, it doesn't make them weak or stupid.

I agree. I believe religion's purpose is to guide people to do the right thing, not to make people separated by each other by religion just because of cultural customs that are mixed in with the religion. If you take out the customs and traditions, all the major religions are pretty much just guidelines on how to live life properly.

[Avlana Kiarunto]

*Nazis being 'catholic'

Isn't there an unwritten internet rule that if someone uses the argument that the Nazis were related to the thing they're arguing against (like in that case) to try to win the argument, they automatically lose?

Godwin's Law.

Yeah, that.

If it weren't for religion, millions more would kill themselves, millions more would murder, millions more would rape, millions more would steal and billions more would be unhappy. Religion provides solace, hope, a purpose and morals to billions of people. Just because it doesn't to you, it doesn't make it pointless, it doesn't make them weak or stupid.

I agree. I believe religion's purpose is to guide people to do the right thing, not to make people separated by each other by religion just because of cultural customs that are mixed in with the religion. If you take out the customs and traditions, all the major religions are pretty much just guidelines on how to live life properly.

Woohoo, someone agress with me on something. \o/

[jack west jr]

If it weren't for religion, millions more would kill themselves, millions more would murder, millions more would rape, millions more would steal and billions more would be unhappy. Religion provides solace, hope, a purpose and morals to billions of people. Just because it doesn't to you, it doesn't make it pointless, it doesn't make them weak or stupid.

I dont think so, religion is more of something that answers questions, and gives us hope.

[Avlana Kiarunto]

If it weren't for religion, millions more would kill themselves, millions more would murder, millions more would rape, millions more would steal and billions more would be unhappy. Religion provides solace, hope, a purpose and morals to billions of people. Just because it doesn't to you, it doesn't make it pointless, it doesn't make them weak or stupid.

I dont think so, religion is more of something that answers questions, and gives us hope.

And in doing so does that

[Darius J Pearlshire]

^ What he said is what I say. That's also something they teach in the Baha'i Faith (one reason why I think that - the other is that it makes sense)

[KaisKais]

I agree with Iain partly here. I dislike the use of science in a religious argument because:
1. It's incomplete
2. The best scientists in the world haven't found the answer, so I doubt we can.

So religion generally boils down to opinion. Even religious nuts who believe they've found proof of a God can't find anything to indicate it's their God. Funny thing is, it's the right-wing religious nuts that tend to make their religions sound very generic.

If you believe there is no God because there's no proof, I find that a bit dull. What I want to believe is much more influential than evidence either way. I don't like the idea of God. Particularly the less abstract views some people have of God. It depends what you define God as.

[johnobrow]

I agree with Iain partly here. I dislike the use of science in a religious argument because:
1. It's incomplete
2. The best scientists in the world haven't found the answer, so I doubt we can.

So religion generally boils down to opinion. Even religious nuts who believe they've found proof of a God can't find anything to indicate it's their God. Funny thing is, it's the right-wing religious nuts that tend to make their religions sound very generic.

If you believe there is no God because there's no proof, I find that a bit dull. What I want to believe is much more influential than evidence either way. I don't like the idea of God. Particularly the less abstract views some people have of God. It depends what you define God as.

This is why I don't like debating the existence of God. Imho it's a waste of time.

[KaisKais]

I agree with Iain partly here. I dislike the use of science in a religious argument because:
1. It's incomplete
2. The best scientists in the world haven't found the answer, so I doubt we can.

So religion generally boils down to opinion. Even religious nuts who believe they've found proof of a God can't find anything to indicate it's their God. Funny thing is, it's the right-wing religious nuts that tend to make their religions sound very generic.

If you believe there is no God because there's no proof, I find that a bit dull. What I want to believe is much more influential than evidence either way. I don't like the idea of God. Particularly the less abstract views some people have of God. It depends what you define God as.

This is why I don't like debating the existence of God. Imho it's a waste of time.

I agree. Unless solid proof is found either way, no-one's going to be convinced by evidence. However, people are swayed by moral and logical aspects.

[Iain Keers]

The only person who can convince you to change your beliefs is yourself, whether I'm talking about ideology, religious belief or who is the best darts player

[KaisKais]

The only person who can convince you to change your beliefs is yourself, whether I'm talking about ideology, religious belief or who is the best darts player

But you can be influenced a lot by other things and people.

[Alex Green24]

i dont feel it is right for us to be having a debate about religion as everyone knows their own mind and has their own opinions. religion is not a debating matter but merely a light that can be used to help light your way when troubles come

[Avlana Kiarunto]

I think a book was written called 'The Existence of God'. It tries to prove the existance of God using equations etc.

[Bob the terrorist]

tries to prove the existance of God using equations etc.

Money = sqrt. evil
Money^2 = evil
Women = Time*Money
Time = Money
Women = Money^2
therefore
Women = evil.


That is all.

[Avlana Kiarunto]

tries to prove the existance of God using equations etc.

Money = sqrt. evil
Money^2 = evil
Women = Time*Money
Time = Money
Women = Money^2
therefore
Women = evil.


That is all.

Your point being?

[twaters]

tries to prove the existance of God using equations etc.

Money = sqrt. evil
Money^2 = evil
Women = Time*Money
Time = Money
Women = Money^2
therefore
Women = evil.


That is all.

This is wrong... It should be:

The love of Money = sqrt. all kinds of evil
(the love of Money)^2 = all kinds of evil
Women = People who have innate worth and ought to be respected in and of themselves.
Time = Money

...and therefore nothing works. But apparently that's not as funny.

[Bob the terrorist]

But apparently that's not as funny.