The Saudi dictator hates religion? lol The whole country is defined by religion
All of the countries i mentioned practice Sharia law, their society is based on Islam, hence they all have laws against apostasy amongst other things.
Anyway i go back to my original point. It's sad that in this day and age there are still people who believe in bronze-age myths, post-darwin there really isn't much of an excuse.
"God Is Not Great"
I think it is sad in this day and age of rampant militarism if people don't see the value of religion to some other people. Most religions advocate peace.til661 wrote:Anyway i go back to my original point. It's sad that in this day and age there are still people who believe in bronze-age myths, post-darwin there really isn't much of an excuse.
Religion's advocate whatever you want them to advocate. Peace, war, dictatorship, love, charity, greed. You can get what you want out of the book.Mandy wrote:I think it is sad in this day and age of rampant militarism if people don't see the value of religion to some other people. Most religions advocate peace.til661 wrote:Anyway i go back to my original point. It's sad that in this day and age there are still people who believe in bronze-age myths, post-darwin there really isn't much of an excuse.
Just because i disagree with it doesn't mean i don't understand it. People take comfort from it, it gives them structure etc....doesn't make it any less ridiculous. I'd rather have truth than comfort.
Unfortunately science doesn't have all the answers .. and religion steps in.
Also, if people decide to adopt a religion because they believe in it's moral position, then why is that more wrong than someone saying they are conservative, or labour, or socialist or communist ?
Think of religion as like another "party" or corporation.
e.g. Scientology .. is it a religion, party, a corporation ?
Also, if people decide to adopt a religion because they believe in it's moral position, then why is that more wrong than someone saying they are conservative, or labour, or socialist or communist ?
Think of religion as like another "party" or corporation.
e.g. Scientology .. is it a religion, party, a corporation ?
Science has considerably more answers than religion and will continue to expand the breadth of human knowledge whereas religion holds it in stasis.Mandy wrote:Unfortunately science doesn't have all the answers .. and religion steps in.
Also, if people decide to adopt a religion because they believe in it's moral position, then why is that more wrong than someone saying they are conservative, or labour, or socialist or communist ?
Think of religion as like another "party" or corporation.
e.g. Scientology .. is it a religion, party, a corporation ?
If they believe it's no more than a moral position then why do they need the religion? just take the moral actions that suit you, there is no need for invisible men or holy books.
scientology is a cult.
What about following a rule book or a book of law ?til661 wrote:If they believe it's no more than a moral position then why do they need the religion? just take the moral actions that suit you, there is no need for invisible men or holy books.
People are bound to want to put on paper what they believe and what they believe morally. As such, if people decide to sign on to a specific moral book (call it religion or political party or legal system), what's wrong with that ?
At least that makes clear to all what they believe in .. and even allows discussion of their viewpoints.
I am far more worried about "secret" societies or religions where it isn't clear what they believe in.
It doesn't allow for "discussion" because they believe that their books are the infallible word of god. It stifles debate not encourages it.
Political parties and legal systems are ideally built on rationality not blind faith, that is the difference.
Do you advocate stoning homosexuals? non-believers? because that's what would happen if we led our lives according to the bible
Political parties and legal systems are ideally built on rationality not blind faith, that is the difference.
Do you advocate stoning homosexuals? non-believers? because that's what would happen if we led our lives according to the bible
Hmmm. I'm always wary of straying down the road of thinking "look at how beautiful and complex this flower/snowflake/cellular structure is, surely it must have been created by a higher being" because the science of evolution, natural selection and how things came to be is so complicated that I don't want to discount it just because I don't understand it.
I think it's perfectly possible for the natural world to have developed through evolution, and that whole question of "how can all of this possibly have happened by chance?" doesn't wash with me, because it's exactly because all of the factors were by chance correct for life on the planet to develop that we are even able to ask the question.
On all the other billions of planets that didn't have the right "settings", there isn't life, so there is no one to ponder it. So why, just because this planet is one in a billion billion, should we look at nature and say "There has to be a God"?
Think of it like this - if someone wins the lottery it's by chance, not because a higher being visited the win upon them, but because the odds against are so high it would be understandable for the winner to think "Wow, I've been blessed", but really it had to happen to someone, and if it wasn't them then whoever else it was would be the one holding the ticket and pondering about how such a miracle could be.
I think it's perfectly possible for the natural world to have developed through evolution, and that whole question of "how can all of this possibly have happened by chance?" doesn't wash with me, because it's exactly because all of the factors were by chance correct for life on the planet to develop that we are even able to ask the question.
On all the other billions of planets that didn't have the right "settings", there isn't life, so there is no one to ponder it. So why, just because this planet is one in a billion billion, should we look at nature and say "There has to be a God"?
Think of it like this - if someone wins the lottery it's by chance, not because a higher being visited the win upon them, but because the odds against are so high it would be understandable for the winner to think "Wow, I've been blessed", but really it had to happen to someone, and if it wasn't them then whoever else it was would be the one holding the ticket and pondering about how such a miracle could be.
I don't agree. I think putting down what one believes in clarifies and allows discussion of the issues.til661 wrote:It doesn't allow for "discussion" because they believe that their books are the infallible word of god. It stifles debate not encourages it.
People have a way to adopt to changing times even if religious.
In the extreme, they change religion (jump ship). Possibly like Old Testament to New Testament.
Last edited by Mandy on Thu May 17, 2007 3:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Because of this [idolatry], God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error
Any references for where this came from ?til661 wrote:Because of this [idolatry], God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error