How Can Religion Exist After Darwin? Is It Bound To Die?

[SweetDee 0]

I will try and restate what I was saying. I was referencing this:People's beliefs have consequences. A bunch of guys flew a plane into a building because they believed allah compelled them to do so, but hey man, live and let live! Who are we to interfere with their religious beliefs?What I was saying with my child molester thought line was that much like radical Muslims, child molesters are not the norm. It's not indicative of the whole. If a man molests a child we don't try and eradicate men, we focus solely on the actual molesters. So, to throw out 9/11 and then flippantly state "live and let live" like millions of Muslims worldwide wouldn't actually love nothing more than just to live and let live is just a denial of the facts. The majority of Religions worldwide just want a peaceful life to worship whatever God it is that they choose, overwhelming majority. Of course, that doesn't make news and it certainly doesn't ruffle feathers, so why look at that angle?

[SweetDee 0]

Right, that's why you don't sign up at atheist sites and I don't sign up at christian sites. But we're both signed up at a poker site, talking in the "religion" forum, which is why people are making you defend your positions. So...you know...I don't see why us being here talking about our opinions is any difference than you being here talking about yours. I gave my example of a good person, there's really no need to go beyond that. If my buddy doesn't make it into your version of heaven, there's a glitch in the system, and it doesn't matter if one or one billion people fall into that glitch. Yes, I can imagine a being whose definition of good differs from mine. That doesn't mean I'm going to worship him when he sends my buddy to BURN FOR ETERNITY. Sorry man, but your "maybe god thinks differently from us" argument is grounded in...well, nothing. Maybe the Flying Spaghetti Monster sends all people that love to dance to BURN FOR ETERNITY, and I say good for him, as I also tend to dislike people that love to dance a little too much....

Maybe we can just both agree that this site is largely just a waste of time? And, if you have ever seen Footloose you KNOW how the Lord feels about the dancing. As far as "maybe God thinks different than us" I don't see how the most powerful being in the entire universe couldn't be thinking on a much different level. I just see that as a given.

[vbnautilus 48]

I will try and restate what I was saying. I was referencing this:People's beliefs have consequences. A bunch of guys flew a plane into a building because they believed allah compelled them to do so, but hey man, live and let live! Who are we to interfere with their religious beliefs?What I was saying with my child molester thought line was that much like radical Muslims, child molesters are not the norm. It's not indicative of the whole. If a man molests a child we don't try and eradicate men, we focus solely on the actual molesters. So, to throw out 9/11 and then flippantly state "live and let live" like millions of Muslims worldwide wouldn't actually love nothing more than just to live and let live is just a denial of the facts. The majority of Religions worldwide just want a peaceful life to worship whatever God it is that they choose, overwhelming majority. Of course, that doesn't make news and it certainly doesn't ruffle feathers, so why look at that angle?

You are saying that I shouldn't care whether or not people believe in religions. I could argue the specific example I used, but really I find it hard to believe that you think that people's religious beliefs have no consequences for anyone else. Do you really think that?

[SweetDee 0]

You are saying that I shouldn't care whether or not people believe in religions. I could argue the specific example I used, but really I find it hard to believe that you think that people's religious beliefs have no consequences for anyone else. Do you really think that?

I do think that there are consequences but I also find it statistically irrelevant, meaning, we are afforded many freedoms that at some point could effect others in some way. Like, pretty much everything we do effects others, and yet we still do, well, everything we do. If I buy the last bunch of grapes at a store there is a ripple effect, it's not going to stop me from buying grapes. If I buy the second to the last SUV on the lot that last SUV is most likely going to cost that buyer a pretty penny, especially if there happens to be two more buyers come in that same day looking for that same SUV. Our actions have all kinds of ripples which we pay no attention to. In the scheme of life, why should this area receive any more focus than others, given that everyday, millions of religious people harm no one? Based on a numbers game I would be surprised if even 1% of religious people worldwide have ill intentions.

[BaseJester 1]

Like, pretty much everything we do effects others, and yet we still do, well, everything we do.

I suggest that you start using condoms.

[speedz99 145]

As far as "maybe God thinks different than us" I don't see how the most powerful being in the entire universe couldn't be thinking on a much different level. I just see that as a given.

You're right, that's not such a stretch, I just think it's funny that you use this as a way to explain any ridiculous or inconsistent parts of your religion. It's an easy failsafe to have at your disposal. But, like the idea of god (or the FSM) itself, impossible to disprove.

Based on a numbers game I would be surprised if even 1% of religious people worldwide have ill intentions.

I guess that depends on how you define "ill intentions". If it's "flying an airplane into a building", maybe. If it's "do harmful things to people that disagree with me" then you're way off.

[vbnautilus 48]

One need not have "ill intentions" to have ill effect. The religious folks in Kansas who tried to replace the teaching of evolution in science classes with creationism thought they were doing the right thing.

[SweetDee 0]

One need not have "ill intentions" to have ill effect. The religious folks in Kansas who tried to replace the teaching of evolution in science classes with creationism thought they were doing the right thing.

Sure. Now think of it in these terms- while many in Religion would agree with the idea, how many would actually take action and try to change the classroom? A very, very small portion. I believe the math is on my side with this.

[BaseJester 1]

Sure. Now think of it in these terms- while many in Religion would agree with the idea, how many would actually take action and try to change the classroom? A very, very small portion. I believe the math is on my side with this.

I think your observation is correct, but I also think it's the wrong question to ask. To measure the affect of religion or lack thereof, we have to ask not only what percentage of adherents to a given religion flies a plane into a building but also what percentage of those who fly planes into buildings are of a religion. Likewise, we should ask those questions for whatever behaviors we consider positive.

[speedz99 145]

Sure. Now think of it in these terms- while many in Religion would agree with the idea, how many would actually take action and try to change the classroom? A very, very small portion. I believe the math is on my side with this.

1. I don't think it's as small a portion as you think, but fair enough.2. The fact that your religious leaders let a small vocal minority dominate in so many ways isn't exactly a positive aspect of the religion either.

[vbnautilus 48]

Sure. Now think of it in these terms- while many in Religion would agree with the idea, how many would actually take action and try to change the classroom? A very, very small portion. I believe the math is on my side with this.

Given that almost everyone in this country has some sort of religious belief, the math is quite against you. Remember, you are making the argument that atheists should not care that religious people believe in god. In order for this to be true, there would have to be no consequences of believing in god. Why believe if there are no consequences? People draw on their religion to affect us in all kinds of ways: banning stem cell research, working against abortion rights, railing against gay rights, poisoning science education, spreading STDs by removing condoms in favor of abstinence, the list goes on and on. It's really quite far-fetched to say that religion doesn't affect us. Not to mention the kind of progress we could make if all those minds which are hypnotized by religion were instead fueled by rational thought. Or the people who might kill us all in the name of their religion. Religion is a mental disability that affects a large portion of the population, and I see no reason to be complacent about it.

[speedz99 145]

I'm about to hop a plane to Cali to hump your brains out.

[vbnautilus 48]

I'm about to hop a plane to Cali to hump your brains out.

Good, you can join my cult.

[speedz99 145]

Good, you can join my cult.

Oh, yeah, no thanks, just the quickie and then I'll be on my merry way.

[SweetDee 0]

Given that almost everyone in this country has some sort of religious belief, the math is quite against you. Remember, you are making the argument that atheists should not care that religious people believe in god. In order for this to be true, there would have to be no consequences of believing in god. Why believe if there are no consequences? People draw on their religion to affect us in all kinds of ways: banning stem cell research, working against abortion rights, railing against gay rights, poisoning science education, spreading STDs by removing condoms in favor of abstinence, the list goes on and on. It's really quite far-fetched to say that religion doesn't affect us. Not to mention the kind of progress we could make if all those minds which are hypnotized by religion were instead fueled by rational thought. Or the people who might kill us all in the name of their religion. Religion is a mental disability that affects a large portion of the population, and I see no reason to be complacent about it.

You are missing what I am saying. Yes, plenty of religous people believe that abortion is wrong, the majority in fact. How many actually rally against abortion? Very few. Pick your issue, and while they may believe in something they also believe in your right to have your own way of life, and they do absolutely zero to impede you. So, for every 1000 christians that may show up at some type of rally, however many millions are doing absolutely nothing and never will. For every christian that doesn't use a condom many more don't because its feels better. Think about this way- what's the stat, every 3 minutes or so a women is sexually assaulted. So even if we just take US numbers that's 151 million some odd women every 3 minutes that are NOT sexually assaulted. I would venture your ratio of politically active to non active religous is about as insignificant.

[Greatest I am 0]

You're right, that's not such a stretch, I just think it's funny that you use this as a way to explain any ridiculous or inconsistent parts of your religion. It's an easy failsafe to have at your disposal. But, like the idea of god (or the FSM) itself, impossible to disprove.I guess that depends on how you define "ill intentions". If it's "flying an airplane into a building", maybe. If it's "do harmful things to people that disagree with me" then you're way off.

If I may but in and ask SweetDee thinks or what she thinks God would think of those who lie to children by telling them that there is a hell waiting for most humans and that they have to follow a genocidal maniac for them to escape torture and fire that never ends. RegardsDL

[Greatest I am 0]

One need not have "ill intentions" to have ill effect. The religious folks in Kansas who tried to replace the teaching of evolution in science classes with creationism thought they were doing the right thing.

Some of the statements that the judge made in that case indicated that the Christians knew that they had distorted the truth and in some cases had lied outright and plagiarized some of the information that they had presented. If I recall correctly, even their lawyer was chastised for forgetting a few points.Dover Trial - Intelligent Design Get's It's Day In Court #1http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAnIoXPLMdo...FCD&index=0RegardsDL

[Greatest I am 0]

1. I don't think it's as small a portion as you think, but fair enough.2. The fact that your religious leaders let a small vocal minority dominate in so many ways isn't exactly a positive aspect of the religion either.

One up for speed.If I may bolster your point and ask Sweet Dee,-------What would look better for Christianity, for them to shut up the types of actions you see in this link or are Christians better off letting non believers show that their morals are better?

RegardsDL

[SweetDee 0]

1. I don't think it's as small a portion as you think, but fair enough.2. The fact that your religious leaders let a small vocal minority dominate in so many ways isn't exactly a positive aspect of the religion either.

What are they going to do? People will be who people are, if someone wants to rally against abortion or do some idiotic display at a funeral that's up to them. Let me tell you a fact- not once have I ever heard a sermon on abortion. Not once. Most of the things that you see covered by the media never even come up during a service because frankly whether or not the U.S. legalizes abortion or not has nothing to with whether me personally, or you, get to heaven. Nothing. The small vocal minority has it's voice because they have coverage. If the only white people the media covered were klansmen things would look pretty ****ed up.Greatest I am, no. I have no interest in trading blows with your kind of crazy.

[Greatest I am 0]

What are they going to do? People will be who people are, if someone wants to rally against abortion or do some idiotic display at a funeral that's up to them. Let me tell you a fact- not once have I ever heard a sermon on abortion. Not once. Most of the things that you see covered by the media never even come up during a service because frankly whether or not the U.S. legalizes abortion or not has nothing to with whether me personally, or you, get to heaven. Nothing. The small vocal minority has it's voice because they have coverage. If the only white people the media covered were klansmen things would look pretty ****ed up.Greatest I am, no. I have no interest in trading blows with your kind of crazy.

I do not blame you one bit. There would only be to hits. I hit you and you hit the floor.Stay in the juniors. You are not ready for the pros.RegardsDL

[speedz99 145]

Think about this way- what's the stat, every 3 minutes or so a women is sexually assaulted. So even if we just take US numbers that's 151 million some odd women every 3 minutes that are NOT sexually assaulted. I would venture your ratio of politically active to non active religous is about as insignificant.

So, to take your comparison one step furthur, we shouldn't bother trying to prevent sexual assault against women. You're saying that we shouldn't bother being active about refuting religious views because religion doesn't really affect us, and your main point is that realistically only a few religious people are a pain in our ass. Then you're using stats about sexual assault to back up your point that vocal minorities can be extreme minorities while still in the forefront. So, I totally agree, we'll stop pointing out how ridiculous religion is, and everyone can stop bothering to worry about sexual assault. Because, after all, most religious people aren't a problem for us, and 151 million women are NOT sexually assaulted every 3 minutes.

[vbnautilus 48]

Not to mention that it simply isn't true that the effects of religion are limited to the behavior of a vocal minority. Almost of half of our country is in favor of restricting abortion rights on the basis of their religious views. The same for gay marriage. There are over a billion catholics in the world and one of the tenets of their religion is that one must not use birth control, to the point where their infallible leader favors the spread of AIDS over the use of condoms. Billions of muslim women are forced to hide their faces because of religion. It's simply preposterous for you to suggest that religion should not be of concern to non-believers.

[Balloon guy 158]

One need not have "ill intentions" to have ill effect. The religious folks in Kansas who tried to replace the teaching of evolution in science classes with creationism were doing the right thing.

[Balloon guy 158]

Not to mention that it simply isn't true that the effects of religion are limited to the behavior of a vocal minority. Almost of half of our country is in favor of restricting abortion rights on the basis of their religious views. The same for gay marriage. There are over a billion catholics in the world and one of the tenets of their religion is that one must not use birth control, to the point where their infallible leader favors the spread of AIDS over the use of condoms. Billions of muslim women are forced to hide their faces because of religion. It's simply preposterous for you to suggest that religion should not be of concern to non-believers.

Untrue.Reasonable people can argue that a baby in the 8th month of pregnancy is a full human child because it can live outside the womb and therefore should be protected from having its brains scrambled with a metal scissor, without resorting to any reference to the Bible.Its not a religious based view to think scrambling a baby's brain when the baby is viable is wrong.

[vbnautilus 48]

Untrue.Reasonable people can argue that a baby in the 8th month of pregnancy is a full human child because it can live outside the womb and therefore should be protected from having its brains scrambled with a metal scissor, without resorting to any reference to the Bible.Its not a religious based view to think scrambling a baby's brain when the baby is viable is wrong.

Theoretically true, but in practice people are basing this opinion on their religious views. http://www.lifenews.com/2010/09/20/nat-6706/On the issue of abortion, 26% overall say religion is the most important influence on their opinion, including 45% among abortion opponents.