I only had a short time to post in my previous post and I want to pick it up and go further with it. Since my posts are on two different pages, I'll quote my previous post here for convenience.

The same is true with the Crusades as well. Jerusalem was a very important and strategic trading center, so it would have been fought over regardless. Again, the motivation could have easily been racially based.

People keep saying religion is inherently bad because of how it has been used in things such as wars. Let's apply the same kind of logic to science. Is it not science and technology that gives us more deadly and efficient ways to kill each other? Ancient things from swords, bows, and shields, to more modern things such as bombs, rifles, and tanks. So because of these things and any misuses of them, we should label science as bad?

Truth is, neither religion nor science is inherently bad. It's how it's used. I know in Utah the LDS Church has done some wonderful things. They are a big donater to charities, and are in fact one themselves. They run businesses where people come in, donate clothes, books, furniture etc, and they resell them to the public(usually the poor who couldn't otherwise afford these things) for ridiculously cheap prices. I don't think they are even making much of a profit if any at all. They also have set up adoption services for giving help to people that put children up for adoption and people that are adopting.

The irony in the behavior of some atheists is astounding. They look at religion, get a "holier-than-thou" mentality, start pointing out nothing but misuses of religion and going so far as to use it to justify them saying religion is an inherently bad thing and the world would be a better place without it. They're arrogance is only surpassed by their condensing view of others. They become so much like the evangelicals they look down upon.

Wrong. People often believe they are doing what is good and right when it is really wrong, and religion is by no mean the only thing that leads people to believe that.

The negative thing about organized religion is that you get one special group or one special person telling a whole bunch of other people how to behave.
It almost seems like they believe: "Do what you are supposed to do because this higher ranking and higher knowing person says that this is what you are supposed to do."

I consider the Bible to be true, and every one else can go climb a light pole for telling me something that isn't in that book. It's not about a Pope or even a local pastor, its just about my relationship with God.

Richard Dawkins doesn't seem to like religion, and I could agree with that. I don't like what people have made religion out to be, either. Mindless following of tradition without questioning.

Its like he misses the personal relationship with God/Jesus that exists on a one on one level outside of what all the other fish in the school are doing.

God gives people hope, joy, peace, humbleness, patience, etc.
Can an atheist have those things? Sure.
Someone that is truely close to God will be nothing like an atheist, though. They won't do the things that everyone else does, and they'll look like weird.
"What, you don't smoke, or have sex, or boast, or lie, or get drunk, etc??"

Man is naturally evil. Religion is not the root cause of mans evil, and Richard Dawkins will never find a eutopian atheist society that practices selfess love or kindness.

I'm just ranting my opinions, so please, be kind in your responses!

Ah good. At least I know I have company in this aspect. I think we are all rotten to our core but taught to ignore said rottenness for the benefit of the species. But I bet you, if you all ignored your morals/ethics, you can do some pretty damning things.

I'd just like to point out that is not specifically a negative thing about organized religion. It can be a negative aspect of any organized system, whither it be religion, government, media, etc etc.

I've thought about doing things that I would never ever do, and each time I cringe when I thought "What am I thinking?".

The fact alone that I could think something so horrid makes me feel guilty (Mainly things like murder)

Yeah. At the end of the day, barring brains, morals, and consequences, we are still just animals.

No offense to you, but the "we are just animals" thing strikes me as an argument of the pseudo-intellectual crowd. It's always struck me as an incendiary statement (though, in modern times it's lost much of it's fire) intended to piss people off. Less people are offended by it these days. But although I agree that bad stuff is the fault of people, I do not believe it is the result of human constructs (religion, various states, political ideologies), but just the fact that humans constructed them, if you take my meaning.

But all those things have good and bad sides to them. This has lead me to the conclusion that man is neither inherently good or bad, but is fundamentally conflicted.

DOT

It's not an argument. It's a fact. We are animals. The genetic difference between a human and a chimpanzee is smaller than the genetic difference between an African elephant and an Indian elephant.

Uh, what the hell are you talking about? We're obviously animals. I don't see how that's supposed to be an "incindiary" comment. It's not as though I'm calling something that isn't what I am an animal. I don't think I came across as saying something bad about you. You know, with me being a person(read: animal) as well. We're all animals. We're just smarter than most of the other ones.

You know, except for Dolphins and white mice.

That's my point. You aren't offended by it. 200 years ago in Christian England saying people are animals got you shunned form the local pub (oh god no...). Even around the turn of the century, a normal person could have been upset by that.

For some reason it always seemed to come from people who wanted to piss those people off. Again, like I said, I'm not saying thats how you were saying it, I was just offering a commentary on the phrase. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

Damn. I didn't know that. Doesn't that seem sort of silly when you think about it, though?

We have all the common characteristics of an animal. You know... Being alive, having motor functions, etc... Why would people believe we are somehow "above" something along the lines of... say... a pig. We're very similar in internal anatomy to a common farm pig. Most of our muscle structure is also very similar. We just have a more functional brain. Kinda strange when you think about it.

Human taxinomy

Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Order: Primates
Family: Hominidae
Genus: Homo
Species: H. Sapiens

We are animals.

And Dalf comes in and wins the discussion.

I used to think in the "humans are just animals" mentality, but I've come to my own conclusion that we have something more. We're one of the very *VERY* few animals that have a sense of self-actualization (example: we know that we see ourselves and not another human in a mirror. Only some primates, dolphins, and possibly pigeons possess this... funny thing is that we have something in common with each of them) and we possess things like morals and inner-thoughts. We don't just express our feelings, but we dwell on them. We ponder the meanings of things instead of just let them go.

I don't think Dawkins was saying that somehow human nature would make a snap change over night just by giving up religion. We already fight over plenty of things as it is. But religion has little to no basis in reality, helps to ensure divides and justifies the abuse of various groups of people. For example, I really don't think you'd see the level of abuse towards homosexuals if it weren't for several ancient books telling us it's icky and the sky-daddy hates it. The problem is that people are still taking these books and stories seriously and oft-times literally.

I'd describe myself as a strong atheist but religion doesn't particularly bother me until it intrudes on the lives of others. I think my university has the best example of where the split is between benign, generally helpful religion and divisive religion. We have three Christian societies here: Christian Focus, the Christian Union and CathSoc.
CF is mostly a charitable group and their evangelism extends to inviting people to church. I get on well with these guys and I'm living with a couple of them next year. On the other hand the CU gets in your face, bugs you into filling out questionnaires, refuses women access to the higher levels of its committee due to scriptural reasons and while claiming to represent all Christians on campus has a statement of beliefs that you must sign in order to join that totally excludes Catholics (hence the formation of CathSoc).
It's the religious people of the CU's nature that worry me, not the average gets-on-with-his-own-life religious person.

Oh and the whole animals thing... Personally I'd be more insulted if someone called me a plant, fungus, protist or prokaryote!

Yooouuu prokaryote!

.

How does being sentient exclude us from being animals? Nowhere in the definition of animal does it say that they must not be sentient.

Why is it that the religious tend to think mankind is naturally evil? Hell, even atheists seem more optimistic to me most of the time. Naturally evil? FFS, are you kidding...?

That's one of the things I don't like about a lot of religious people. Nature is very chaotic, and mankind brings order to that chaos with buildings that are perfect shapes, canals that straighten the rivers, etc.

Just a thought I had. I suppose you could still be evil while bringing order to things, but this order is also giving people homes which is a good thing... gah



You know what I meant. Sentience is what seperates us from most other animals, thinking outside the box and using tools to accomplish things.

[quote=Glyde Bane]We're one of the very *VERY* few animals that have a sense of self-actualization[/quote]

Yeah. Fits right next to the sense of self-destruction.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_n_UBK_Ex8&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fprofile%2Emyspace%2Ecom%2Findex%2Ecfm%3Ffuseaction%3Duser%2Eviewprofile%26friendID%3D160868684

That's a pretty interesting video. It's funny how the mass media paints atheism in such a bad light.

I don't necessarily think man is evil. I think it is based on how man is usually concerned about the 'self' first. Meaning they will do whatever it takes to achieve success, power, survival, etc. So it comes across as evil.

Religion is big on keeping the focus on others

My 2 cents

I'm not all that religious. I just have a low opinion about H. Sapiens. Seriously, I think we're a backward, twisted species.

Man is both noble and cruel. Thats what sets him apart from the animals, in my opinion.

Sorry, I thought that I was going to get a reaming that I called a mental disorder, that of being bipolar, a state of mind. This would then proceed to what a horrible and foul human I am for making that mistake, how that destroyed every ounce of credibility I may or may not have had, and that I should crawl under a rock to die a solitary and miserable death. Hey, you know people extrapolate like that and I was annoyed that was possibly going to happen and didn't feel like getting into a big side debate. So yes, that's what got sand where the sun don't shine.



That's rather harsh. There are sinister individuals but on the whole the human race is just benign. Any evil done by humanity is always perpetuated by a smaller fraction of the whole. I mean, that's why society is able to function, because we all aren't just itching to stab each other's backs.

As far as the higher functions of humans, alot of that is learned later on. For example, recognizing yourself in the mirror. Those with Alzheimer's disease LOSE that ability. They are still human, but it's not an inherent trait. Babies and toddlers don't realize that people exist outside of their visual world, thus why they like peek-a-boo (in other words, it's a milestone of development to feel empathy. Some actually don't reach it). A great deal of what we are we learn later on from the world around us so it's hard to say man is 'inherently' good or evil. Going against the old saying, heroes and villains are made, not born.



When I say "bad" I don't just mean evil, but also lies. That however is greatly subjective but I think on the whole the premise of most major religions is based on thin air (or faith as is said). I wouldn't want my children learning that we live on top of a giant beanstalk perched on a pea, kinda the same thing. If they later on want to believe that, more power to them, but I don't like perpetuating something that has no basis in reality.

Wait how? Animals are both noble and cruel.

The idea that man can never achieve a peaceful utopian society without religion is the most depressing thing i've ever contemplated.

Here's a far more likely possibility:
Man can never achieve a peaceful utopian society whilst religion is still around.

With or without religion, man will never achieve a eutopian society.

Unless it's all one religion that involves strict honesty and caring. None of this slightly different ideals crap.

Utopia is impossible in the same way that heaven is impossible. The concept in itself is riddled with inherent contradictions.

None of this believing different stuff?

OMG GLYDE IS A COMMUNISM!

Because you obviously know whether or not there's an after life. What'd you do, ask a dead guy?

What contradictions are there? I can't think of a single one.

Well as I understand it, everyone is supposed to be infinitely happy for all eternity in heaven right? So you would be unable to do anything which would infringe upon anyone else's bliss. A complete loss of freedom which would in turn make you unhappy.

Not to say that I believe in a world view which separates things simply into good and evil but I think at some level you need to contrast good with evil in order for good to exist. Without a range of emototions wouldn't happiness just revert to neutral? Furthermore does boredom not exist in heaven? It supposedly lasts for all eternity so that could be a problem.

Basically (as glide implies about utopia) for heaven to exist everyone would have to be completely brain dead and uniform. What if my idea of bliss is different from yours? Do we each get our own little self centered heaven then?

How the hell aren't human's animals? Animal doesn't mean "stupid" or "inferior." It means organic non-plant. Are you saying we're not organic and non-plant, Glyde? What kind of a superiority complex do you have?

Heaven really isn't worth debating because most religions don't define it well to begin with because it's something we probably can't understand. Basically, if you believe in Heaven you're trusting that you will be happy for eternity and don't worry about the mechanics of it.

(Though I do sometimes worry about eternity. That's a long time.)

Unless, you know, you live in a different heaven-state. I assume the news won't suck up there so you don't have to put up with stuff you don't like. Unless CNN is God's word. OMG



That's the point of being here. You get to be miserable so you know what being happy is like. Or, thats some people's view.



Maybe. But I think you are imposing your own restrictions and ideas on something that, even if it does/will exist, probably exists outside of our realm of understanding and rules.

Explain how every member of our species is backward. They aren't backward simply because they don't do things the way you would. Present your case.

Yeah but compared to an infinite afterlife this life would be infinitely insignificant. Also, how would that work in relation to hell?



Bah, if gods word is outside human comprehension then he would sure be a douche to send me to hell for not believing it. What kind of god (that wants faithful believers) designs people that are incapable of believing in him.