Latest News Article

[ErasmoGnome]

Actually, I fully agree with the fact that it is sometimes the organized church that is detrimental. Gandhi and Douglass were both quoted as saying something along the lines of "I love your Christ, but not your Christians". The idea of Christianity is amazing: Following God, loving others, helping your neighbor, giving to the poor. Many people just take it and do bad things with it.

[MiracleMouse]

Dr_Axe, on 21 December 2012 - 10:43 AM, said:

Sorry, please explain the good ones?

You honestly asked what are the good points of religion?  Stop posting right now.  Just stop it.   I tease.

But its pretty obvious there are good points.  No I will not look anything up for you and no I will not give examples.  If you cannot figure out the answer to your own question then you honestly have no place in this discussion.  I am not saying that to be rude or mean, just in honesty.  I will admit, I troll a lot, so I know one when I see it.  Take that for what you will good sir.

Religion has its place in society for various reasons.  Most of the people who cry foul are the general minority and they feel oppressed.  I feel oppressed I can't slap a woman who punches me...  But hey, I live, I breath and I move on.

Religion is also responsible for many of the advancements we have today.  Sure one can argue that "hur hur, someone else would have made them too..."  But One can just as easily counter, "Hur hur, if the entire world was religious, someone would have still made them."

The biggest problem is that when the greater majority of you people think of religion you default to Christianity.  Christianity is not religion my friends.  It is "a" religion.  So saying that religion is solely negative is just as ignorant and simple minded as those who profess belief in rainbow printed unicorns as the demiurge of all things.  Probably even more so.

[Yarsil]

Religion's led to a lot of things, indeed, but wether they were good or bad, is up to you to decide. First of all, define good and bad for yourself. What does it mean to you? Only then you can judge the religions we're talking about.

The followers of those religions do what they think is good, for theirselves or others. I could judge actions that follow this way of thinking as good. You may not, or vice versa. But I believe in things by myself, and if people go against my way of thinking, I may judge them as good or bad. They may, on the other hand, believe that their actions were the right thing to do, at that moment.

[abpop]

Religion obviously does more harm than good. I am not denying that is is a good thing on occasion, but overall, it is harmful.

[MiracleMouse]

abpop, on 22 December 2012 - 06:58 PM, said:

Religion obviously does more harm than good. I am not denying that is is a good thing on occasion, but overall, it is harmful.

Obviously?  How so?

[abpop]

Well, as I have mentioned MANY times before, a huge amount of resources are allocated to religious institutions and religious activities. They could have been used in a more productive manner. Also, religion often causes people to be intolerant, sometimes even hateful.

[Dr_Axe]

MiracleMouse, on 22 December 2012 - 05:00 PM, said:

If you cannot figure out the answer to your own question then you honestly have no place in this discussion.

You do realize why us humans discuss, right? Mostly because we want to hear the answers.

MiracleMouse, on 22 December 2012 - 05:00 PM, said:

Religion is also responsible for many of the advancements we have today.  Sure one can argue that "hur hur, someone else would have made them too..."  But One can just as easily counter, "Hur hur, if the entire world was religious, someone would have still made them."

I'm not asking for religious inventors and whatnot, I'm asking what religion in itself brings to the human and society. All I can think of is brainwashing and ignorance. The only thing I can think of that religion has brought us is maybe Aquinas and he wasn't all that useful.

MiracleMouse, on 22 December 2012 - 05:00 PM, said:

The biggest problem is that when the greater majority of you people think of religion you default to Christianity.  Christianity is not religion my friends.  It is "a" religion.  So saying that religion is solely negative is just as ignorant and simple minded as those who profess belief in rainbow printed unicorns as the demiurge of all things.  Probably even more so.

I use multiple religions in my past rebuttal and I'm a big advocate of Buddhism and sometimes unorganized religion, if both are done correctly.

[Xapakas]

Pros: Christmas
Cons: Bloodshed, Ignorance, Hatred, Discrimination against gays, Slowing down scientific discovery, and the fact that it can easily destroy us all (Ever played Halo?)

[abpop]

Xapakas, on 22 December 2012 - 10:47 PM, said:

Pros: Christmas
Cons: Bloodshed, Ignorance, Hatred, Discrimination against gays, Slowing down scientific discovery, and the fact that it can easily destroy us all (Ever played Halo?), Republicans too

Unfortunately, religion plays a role in politics here in the USA, despite the fact that we are a secular nation. We have a congressmen who is on the board of Science and Tech (If I'm right about the name of it) who called evolution and the Big Bang 'lies from the pit of hell'... And that is just scary to me...

[Machiavel]

I don't understand why ignorance is such a recurring theme in the discussions here. The Catholic Church, specifically, has been home to some of the greatest artists, thinkers, and educators in history; some of the best schools in the world are funded and operated by the Catholic Church and its intermediate orders (The Christian Brothers and the Jesuits being the most famous.)

I weep for the fact that such bold creation took place under the Church's direction:



Man, in all his glory, rendered for the viewership of the faithful and as a tribute to God's own divine genius. Humanism, that most virtuous of thoughts, has its intellectual roots and soil within the Church; today we must distinguish some humanists as being "secular" because the term already has so many religious connotations to it. It's ironic, actually, the term "secular humanist" was made so that atheists wouldn't have to be understood in relation to the religious, and yet even this term falls within that same purview.

And I'm simply speaking of a particular Church here; I want to make it a point, again, to say that religiousness is one of the oldest traditions in humanity's existence. To try and judge a fabric of such length, breadth, and variety, and to try and do it as a whole, is ridiculous. When we say that religion has had a "net" anything on the human race we're already failing in the high scientific standards we set for the proof we expect from the religious; we become hypocrites.

If we want to say, even in general terms, that religion as a whole has done anything we need to pour through inhuman amounts of data, anecdotes, and historical texts. I believe Hitchens, ironically, popularized this sentiment best when he was often quoted as saying that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence,"

[MiracleMouse]

Machiavel, on 23 December 2012 - 12:17 AM, said:

I don't understand why ignorance is such a recurring theme in the discussions here.

Its due mostly to the idea that they want to have something to be angry or mad at.  They are upset at religion (christianity being the first target) so they don't want to see the good that can and has and still does come from it. Take Dr. Axe's rebuttal for example.  Clearly biased and misinformed.

If you read the rebuttals of most of the people who are anti religous you will notice the same patterns you find even with Dr Axe's post, they are all repeative in nature and when presented with truth their only reply is "nuh uh" religion is bad.

They fail to see they are just as zealous as those fools at Westboro Babtist, just on the opposite side of the fence.  Its motovated by anger IMO.

[Drunkenp0wNeR]

Religous and secular society suffer the same major flaw. The people in them are human. Put a perfect text on how to live your life and deal with others in front of a group of 1000 people and ask them to read it. They will collectively misinterpet the first few pages at least 1000 times within an hour.

Just look at the U.S. constitution. Written in plain, modern language, and people argue constantly over what it really means, taking positions that completely contradict a plain reading of the text.

[Dr_Axe]

MiracleMouse, on 23 December 2012 - 12:59 AM, said:

If you read the rebuttals of most of the people who are anti religous you will notice the same patterns you find even with Dr Axe's post, they are all repeative in nature and when presented with truth their only reply is "nuh uh" religion is bad.

You say it like you've already disproved my viewpoint. How am I misinformed and deluded when you haven't told me how I'm misinformed and deluded? Please, resort to ad hominems when you've actually answered and disproved my viewpoint.

[abpop]

MiracleMouse, on 23 December 2012 - 12:59 AM, said:

Its due mostly to the idea that they want to have something to be angry or mad at.  They are upset at religion (christianity being the first target) so they don't want to see the good that can and has and still does come from it. Take Dr. Axe's rebuttal for example.  Clearly biased and misinformed.

If you read the rebuttals of most of the people who are anti religous you will notice the same patterns you find even with Dr Axe's post, they are all repeative in nature and when presented with truth their only reply is "nuh uh" religion is bad.

They fail to see they are just as zealous as those fools at Westboro Babtist, just on the opposite side of the fence.  Its motovated by anger IMO.

Please, back up your claims. You have no argument until you do so. Why are we SO WRONG and you SO RIGHT? This is not a thread for just stating opinions. It is for debating, and discussing the effect religion has on society...

[Kargoneth]

Machiavel, on 23 December 2012 - 12:17 AM, said:

I believe Hitchens, ironically, popularized this sentiment best when he was often quoted as saying that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence,"

It was Carl Sagan, not Christopher Hitchens.

Drunkenp0wNeR, on 23 December 2012 - 03:21 AM, said:

Just look at the U.S. constitution. Written in plain, modern language, and people argue constantly over what it really means, taking positions that completely contradict a plain reading of the text.

Of course. Only fools read texts literally. These texts must be understood allegorically and metaphorically...

Spoiler:

... I said, sarcastically.

Still, even a literal meaning is impossible to ascertain if there is ambiguity. I can take two different literal meanings from the establishment clause, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion":

Meaning 1:
"Establishment" as a verb:
"Congress shall make no law respecting [the creation/imposition of (a government) religion]"

Meaning 2:
"Establishment" as a noun: (in the same way that "establishment of food"/"food establishment" can refer to a "restaurant" (the building, staff members, and/or policies/practices)):
"Congress shall make no law respecting [a religious building, its membership, and/or its policies/practices]"



I think the second meaning makes more sense given that the accompanying free exercise clause does not really make sense for the first meaning.

"or prohibiting the free exercise of."

Meaning 1:
"or prohibiting the free exercise of said created/imposed (government) religion."

versus

Meaning 2:
"or prohibiting the free exercise of said religious building and its membership."

[MiracleMouse]

Dr_Axe, on 23 December 2012 - 11:23 AM, said:

You say it like you've already disproved my viewpoint. How am I misinformed and deluded when you haven't told me how I'm misinformed and deluded? Please, resort to ad hominems when you've actually answered and disproved my viewpoint.

abpop, on 23 December 2012 - 02:52 PM, said:

Please, back up your claims. You have no argument until you do so. Why are we SO WRONG and you SO RIGHT? This is not a thread for just stating opinions. It is for debating, and discussing the effect religion has on society...

Prove what?  That religions have had positive effects on societies since their conceptions?  No need...  If you do not see this on your own, then there is nothing I can say or care to say to show you.

As far as the ad hominems, its clear they are accurate, especially in your regards Axe.  You've displayed extreme bias towards any argument supporting the positives of religions regardless of accuracy.  There comes a point in which the observer realizes that they are arguing with a metaphorical wall.

But, I am bored, so I will answer your question with one of my own, this will prove one if not both of my point assuming you answer.

Axe...

Do you believe that any of the below religions have had ZERO positive effect on society or an individual?  Buddhism, Taoism, Wicca, Christianity, Satanism, Judaism, Mormonism, Islam, Folk Religions, Confucianism, Shinto, Sikhism, Unitarian Universalism, Baha'i' Faith, Cheondoism , Hinduism, there are more but those will suffice.

Please, a yes or no will suffice.  Ahh, to heck with it,  Its Christmas, I'll explain the trap.  If you say yes then you prove me right in saying that you are allowing your bias to overrule your logic as ALL of these religions have had some sort of positive social and personal impact at one point or another.  Yes all of them.  Its obvious, painfully.  Second, if you say no, then you contradict yourself.

Bottom line, it is painfully obvious to see the positive and negative that has come from religious movements since the concept of religion.  Denying either is just silly and absurd.

[JDawgMillenium]

Religion is only toxic if you are told to drink some Cool-Aid.


/end thread

[Machiavel]

Kargoneth, on 23 December 2012 - 06:53 PM, said:

It was Carl Sagan, not Christopher Hitchens.

Ugh.

I know, that's why I was careful to say that he simply "popularized" that sentiment and that he was simply "quoted" as saying it often; I never said that he coined the phrase.

[abpop]

MiracleMouse, on 23 December 2012 - 07:24 PM, said:

Prove what?  That religions have had positive effects on societies since their conceptions?  No need...  If you do not see this on your own, then there is nothing I can say or care to say to show you.

As far as the ad hominems, its clear they are accurate, especially in your regards Axe.  You've displayed extreme bias towards any argument supporting the positives of religions regardless of accuracy.  There comes a point in which the observer realizes that they are arguing with a metaphorical wall.

But, I am bored, so I will answer your question with one of my own, this will prove one if not both of my point assuming you answer.

Axe...

Do you believe that any of the below religions have had ZERO positive effect on society or an individual?  Buddhism, Taoism, Wicca, Christianity, Satanism, Judaism, Mormonism, Islam, Folk Religions, Confucianism, Shinto, Sikhism, Unitarian Universalism, Baha'i' Faith, Cheondoism , Hinduism, there are more but those will suffice.

Please, a yes or no will suffice.  Ahh, to heck with it,  Its Christmas, I'll explain the trap.  If you say yes then you prove me right in saying that you are allowing your bias to overrule your logic as ALL of these religions have had some sort of positive social and personal impact at one point or another.  Yes all of them.  Its obvious, painfully.  Second, if you say no, then you contradict yourself.

Bottom line, it is painfully obvious to see the positive and negative that has come from religious movements since the concept of religion.  Denying either is just silly and absurd.

Are you blind? Or do you just see what you want to see? I have stated SO MANY TIMES BEFORE ON THIS THREAD that religion has had positive effects, but overall it is detrimental to society... Ugh I keep having to post this... I have never said religion has never done any good... I doubt Dr_Axe has either. It would be biased and silly.

[MiracleMouse]

abpop, on 23 December 2012 - 09:00 PM, said:

Are you blind? Or do you just see what you want to see? I have stated SO MANY TIMES BEFORE ON THIS THREAD that religion has had positive effects, but overall it is detrimental to society... Ugh I keep having to post this... I have never said religion has never done any good... I doubt Dr_Axe has either. It would be biased and silly.

First, I never accused you of have said anything.  However in regards to Axe, perhaps you should take your own advice and see what is, rather than what you want to see.

When asked: "Why do we always have to check the bad points of religion?Why not the possible good ones?"

Dr_Axe, on 21 December 2012 - 10:43 AM, said:

Sorry, please explain the good ones?

and

Dr_Axe, on 22 December 2012 - 10:38 PM, said:

I'm asking what religion in itself brings to the human and society. All I can think of is brainwashing and ignorance. The only thing I can think of that religion has brought us is maybe Aquinas and he wasn't all that useful.

My post was less for you than dear Dr. Axe.  However I am curious, that if you agree with my post in that its is just a foolish to say that religions have no contributions as it is to say they can not be counter productive, then what did you mean by:

abpop, on 23 December 2012 - 02:52 PM, said:

Why are we SO WRONG and you SO RIGHT?

As I never called you wrong.  Only axe.