Why You Should Respect Religion

[Thorgasm]

That's true. But the atheists do it bit by bit instead of one at a time.

What is the difference between, "bit by bit" and "one at a time"?

 

[Axismaster]

What is the difference between, "bit by bit" and "one at a time"?

What I mean to say is that atheists stick there points in in a little court decision here and there, while Christian conservatives start a huge nation-wide ruckus, kind of like they are doing with that show, The Book of Daniel.

 

[Apostle13]

You cannot deny that radical Evangelical Christians like Pat Robertson have massive political clout and large followings.

Just because you describe him as a radical does not make him as such. Although, I'm sure some here would agree. Others see him as a kinda revolutionary. His statements are controversial yes, but also construed/taken out of context for the most...Yet he is without a doubt a fundamentalists.
Did you meet the kids? http://cbnworld.com/indexFrameset.asp?home=true
Massive political clout..? Or moral aptitude..? = Large follwings
The answer depends on who's equating.

 

[Thorgasm]

Just because you describe him as a radical does not make him as such. Although, I'm sure some here would agree. Others see him as a kinda revolutionary. His statements are controversial yes, but also construed/taken out of context for the most...Yet he is without a doubt a fundamentalists.
Did you meet the kids? http://cbnworld.com/indexFrameset.asp?home=true
Massive political clout..? Or moral aptitude..? = Large follwings
The answer depends on who's equating.

No, it is the crap that spews out of his mouth that makes him a radical.

 

[Engimo]

Just because you describe him as a radical does not make him as such. Although, I'm sure some here would agree. Others see him as a kinda revolutionary. His statements are controversial yes, but also construed/taken out of context for the most...Yet he is without a doubt a fundamentalists.
Did you meet the kids? http://cbnworld.com/indexFrameset.asp?home=true
Massive political clout..? Or moral aptitude..? = Large follwings
The answer depends on who's equating.

No, the guy is a ****ing nutcase. I don't care if he is a Christian or not, the guy is just terrible.

I think "one man, one vote," just unrestricted democracy, would not be wise. There needs to be some kind of protection for the minority which the white people represent now, a minority, and they need and have a right to demand a protection of their rights.

God considers this land to be his. You read the Bible and he says 'This is my land,' and for any prime minister of Israel who decides he is going to carve it up and give it away, God says, 'No, this is mine.' ... He was dividing God's land. And I would say, 'Woe unto any prime minister of Israel who takes a similar course to appease the E.U., the United Nations, or the United States of America.' God says, 'This land belongs to me. You better leave it alone.'

I'd like to say to the good citizens of Dover: If there is a disaster in your area, don't turn to God, you just rejected him from your city. And don't wonder why he hasn't helped you when problems begin, if they begin. I'm not saying they will, but if they do, just remember, you just voted God out of your city. And if that's the case, don't ask for his help because he might not be there.

 

[Apostle13]

No, the guy is a ****ing nutcase. I don't care if he is a Christian or not, the guy is just terrible.

Originally Posted by Pat Robertson
I think "one man, one vote," just unrestricted democracy, would not be wise. There needs to be some kind of protection for the minority which the white people represent now, a minority, and they need and have a right to demand a protection of their rights.

God considers this land to be his. You read the Bible and he says 'This is my land,' and for any prime minister of Israel who decides he is going to carve it up and give it away, God says, 'No, this is mine.' ... He was dividing God's land. And I would say, 'Woe unto any prime minister of Israel who takes a similar course to appease the E.U., the United Nations, or the United States of America.' God says, 'This land belongs to me. You better leave it alone.'

I'd like to say to the good citizens of Dover: If there is a disaster in your area, don't turn to God, you just rejected him from your city. And don't wonder why he hasn't helped you when problems begin, if they begin. I'm not saying they will, but if they do, just remember, you just voted God out of your city. And if that's the case, don't ask for his help because he might not be there.

I'm not saying I agree with him or disagree... These examples you give from a biblical perspective are fundamentally true. Well at least the last two paragraphs. He bases his moral principles from his own biblical interpretations and there are those who fully agree, those who regard him as you, and they that are more centered and reserved in their judgement (that's me:2wave.
What I have observed is that it is the atheists/non-christians that are more to the quick to bash him.

 

[George_Washington]

I've never seen one, much less one with any political power. You cannot deny that radical Evangelical Christians like Pat Robertson have massive political clout and large followings. I can't think of any comparable atheists or atheistic organizations.

I don't think Pat Robertson and his organization really has that much political power. If that were true, than abortion would be illegal. Remember when he tried to get that anti-sodomy law passed? It was turned down by the Supreme Court.

 

[Engimo]

I don't think Pat Robertson and his organization really has that much political power. If that were true, than abortion would be illegal. Remember when he tried to get that anti-sodomy law passed? It was turned down by the Supreme Court.

That's because it was unconstitutional. That doesn't mean that he doesn't have millions of people that are swayed by him. Believe me, between him and the Christian Coalition, they have a tremendous amount of sway.

 

[George_Washington]

That's because it was unconstitutional. That doesn't mean that he doesn't have millions of people that are swayed by him. Believe me, between him and the Christian Coalition, they have a tremendous amount of sway.

Hmmm, I just don't think the Christian Coalition really wields the kind of power that corporations do. I would say that our big media companies and Hollywood has influenced a lot more people than they have. I'm not saying this is a bad thing (I don't bash Hollywood like some conservatives do). I just don't think Christians really hold that much political power in this country anymore. I realize most politicans are Christians but if you look at the amount of people who actually go to Church on a regular basis, the figure is low.

 

[Engimo]

Hmmm, I just don't think the Christian Coalition really wields the kind of power that corporations do. I would say that our big media companies and Hollywood has influenced a lot more people than they have. I'm not saying this is a bad thing (I don't bash Hollywood like some conservatives do). I just don't think Christians really hold that much political power in this country anymore. I realize most politicans are Christians but if you look at the amount of people who actually go to Church on a regular basis, the figure is low.

The actual figure is 44% (that attend church at least once a week), in case you were wondering. I agree, though, corporations have massive political influence, but in terms of movements within the voting populace, the Christian groups clearly have the largest influence.

 

[Apostle13]

That's because it was unconstitutional. That doesn't mean that he doesn't have millions of people that are swayed by him. Believe me, between him and the Christian Coalition, they have a tremendous amount of sway.

Ah yes... "The Christian Coalition"
Also bible-based principle. Strength in numbers that must pertain to the first paragraph;

Originally Posted by Pat Robertson
I think "one man, one vote," just unrestricted democracy, would not be wise. There needs to be some kind of protection for the minority which the white people represent now, a minority, and they need and have a right to demand a protection of their rights.

 

[George_Washington]

The actual figure is 44% (that attend church at least once a week), in case you were wondering. I agree, though, corporations have massive political influence, but in terms of movements within the voting populace, the Christian groups clearly have the largest influence.

That's true. Although I think in terms of Pat Robertson and the Christian Coalition, most of his support comes from the south, which is the poorest region of the country. I would say that he tends not to influence the upper classes as much. I might be wrong but I just think that other Christian groups are more prevalent among the wealthy. Although some people say that the rich are the least religious. And the rich have far more power than the poor, so I would say that Robertson's power is limited by the kind of demographics from where he draws the largest support.

 

[hipsterdufus]

Every aethist I know seems to have this overwhelming desire to go out and tell the world about the great lie that is faith. They laugh at the pope, they constantly reference inconsistencies in the bible, and are always keen to convert others.

The Bible and The Koran both contain mountains of gibberish that has lead to our current war on terror (Christian v. Islam) and millions of deaths throughout the world just in the past 10 years.

35% of Americans take the Bible literally when some of the basic tenets wouldn't hold up to scrutiniy in a 6th grade science class. How can anyone in the 21st century believe that Jesus was born of a virgin, cheated death, and that his bodily form can be eaten in the form of a cracker and some burgundy? It flies in the face of reason.

How could Noah get every species onto a boat, and repopulate the world with 8 people?

These are just two small examples.

What these people have forgotten is that without religion as a tool for humanity, none of us would be here today.

There is no proof for that. I could just as easily say that the internet would have been invented in 1652 if it wern't for the Inquisition.

Rewind 200 years. You are a slave in America. You were born into bondage. Every day is spent working until your hands bleed for nothing more than food and water. You are less than a human being. When a man wants to, he can beat you. You are bred like an animal. Your children will be sold when they are old enough to work. You will never see your son after his 6th birthday.

So why live at all? Where is the hope?

Enter faith.

You are told, and you BELIEVE that if you lead an ethical life based on a set of rules you will go to a better place. A place where you can see your family again. A place of eternal bliss and happiness.

Again, there is no rationale for that statement. I don't save someone from drowning, or pull them out of a burning building because of a belief in the afterlife or for a reward in the afterlife. I do it because of my own personal values and morals.

Suddenly things are not so bad. Life is hard with little reward, but in the end you BELIEVE that things will get better. You BELIEVE in a God that will reward you for all you have worked for in your life.

Rewind to the Inquisition - heretics were burned alive or tortured if they did not believe in God. Or look at all of the millions of people that have died for the name of religion just in the past 10 years.

Throughout history faith has been used by humanity as a psychological defense mechanism against hopeless situations. Some animals when caged refuse to eat and die. They cannot see the hope of their situation. They have no religion to make them keep on living.

What about prisoners going on hunger strikes? The will to survive has nothing to do with faith.

Some argue that faith simply leads to conflict, but I disagree. Religion is only the excuse different people use for killing each other. It is very easy to say that the crimes you commit against a person are in the name of God, taking responsibility off yourself (reference Bin Laden), but I would argue that these crimes would have happened anyway: religious excuses or not.

How do you know that these crimes would have happened anyway? The Koran teaches believers to kill the infidels. The Bible, when read literally, says pretty much the same thing.

As an aethist myself I do not believe in God. But I have profound respect for those who do, and I understand that religion is humanity's greatest weapon in the face of despair.

I believe that the only way mankind will survive is to do away with religion altogether. I don't respect religions that in their texts berate the religions of others: religions that claim they are the one true voice of god.

A faith that teaches its followers to blow themselves up and to take out as many infidels as you can does not deserve my respect.



The pope is also believed, by Catholics to be infallible.
46% of Americans believe in creationism.

Then we have this quote:

If your brother, the son of your father or of your mother, or your son or daughter, or the spouse whom you embrace, or your most intimate friend, tries to secretly seduce you, saying, “Let us go and serve other gods,” unknown to you or your ancestors before you, gods of the peoples surrounding you, whether near you or far away, anywhere throughout the world, you must not consent, you must not listen to him; you must show him no pity, you must not spare him or conceal his guilt. No, you must kill him, your hand must strike the first blow in putting him to death and the hands of the rest of the people following. You must stone him to death, since he has tried to divert you from Yahweh your God. . . .(Deuteronomy 13:7–11)

That's a scary proposition.

 

[shuamort]

Every aethist I know seems to have this overwhelming desire to go out and tell the world about the great lie that is faith. They laugh at the pope, they constantly reference inconsistencies in the bible, and are always keen to convert others.

Small circle of friends then. I know plenty of atheists that don't that.

Now's the fun part. You've made a lot of claims that you're putting out there that you believe to be true. Of course, since I'm a skeptic, you'll have to prove these claims. If you fail to provide unequivocable proof, you lose the claim. Fair enough? Good. Remember, the onus is on you to prove your claim since you're the one who proffered it:

What these people have forgotten is that without religion as a tool for humanity, none of us would be here today.

Some argue that faith simply leads to conflict, but I disagree. Religion is only the excuse different people use for killing each other. It is very easy to say that the crimes you commit against a person are in the name of God, taking responsibility off yourself (reference Bin Laden), but I would argue that these crimes would have happened anyway: religious excuses or not.

The crusades were not about religion, they were about a land dispute and cultural domination. Do not blame the Bible for wars, blame the people that use it as an excuse to kill.

If your life was completely hopeless and you were giving in to despair, it is likely you would kill yourself to escape it. A religious person would try his or her hardest to live through the ordeal and survive.

You would fail and die where a person of faith would succeed. That, in my opinion, makes them stronger and more deserving of respect than you.

Respected religions promote good ethical behavior over survival, although survivial in the face of overwhelming despair is one of its benefits.

Having no respect for religion just goes to show that something in your past made you hate and disrespect it. Disrespecting religion doesn't come from logic, it comes from past experiences.

 

[HU-210]

Some argue that faith simply leads to conflict, but I disagree.

How dishonest an argument. Faith by definition does not lead to conflict, certain kinds of faith do. The kind of faith in a deity that says "Kill for me, and you will know eternal glory", like that of the islam, per example.

Don't simplify the statements of your opponents, it looks silly, and none of us want that.

Mr U

 

[Axismaster]

More people have died in the name of religion than over some piece of gold or land.

 

[oracle25]

What I mean to say is that atheists stick there points in in a little court decision here and there, while Christian conservatives start a huge nation-wide ruckus, kind of like they are doing with that show, The Book of Daniel.

Did you watch that show? It's the most blatantly anti-religious propaganda show i've seen in a long time. Not only that, the director has adopted the "if you don't like my show your close minded" argument.

And do you think the ACLU (Anti Christian Lawyers Union) is forcing there beliefs on people in small ways?

 

[Engimo]

Did you watch that show? It's the most blatantly anti-religious propaganda show i've seen in a long time. Not only that, the director has adopted the "if you don't like my show your close minded" argument.

And do you think the ACLU (Anti Christian Lawyers Union) is forcing there beliefs on people in small ways?

Let me refer you to the first hit in a Google search for "ACLU defends Christians":

September 20, 2005: ACLU of New Jersey joins lawsuit supporting second-grader's right to sing "Awesome God" at a talent show.

August 4, 2005: ACLU helps free a New Mexico street preacher from prison.

May 25, 2005: ACLU sues Wisconsin prison on behalf of a Muslim woman who was forced to remove her headscarf in front of male guards and prisoners.

February 2005: ACLU of Pennsylvania successfully defends the right of an African American Evangelical church to occupy a church building purchased in a predominantly white parish.

December 22, 2004: ACLU of New Jersey successfully defends right of religious expression by jurors.

December 14, 2004: ACLU joins Pennsylvania parents in filing first-ever challenge to "Intelligent Design" instruction in public schools.

November 20, 2004: ACLU of Nevada supports free speech rights of evangelists to preach on the sidewalks of the strip in Las Vegas.

November 12, 2004: ACLU of Georgia files a lawsuit on behalf of parents challenging evolution disclaimers in science textbooks.

November 9, 2004: ACLU of Nevada defends a Mormon student who was suspended after wearing a T-shirt with a religious message to school.

August 11, 2004: ACLU of Nebraska defends church facing eviction by the city of Lincoln.

July 10, 2004: Indiana Civil Liberties Union defends the rights of a Baptist minister to preach his message on public streets.

June 9, 2004: ACLU of Nebraska files a lawsuit on behalf of a Muslim woman barred from a public pool because she refused to wear a swimsuit.

June 3, 2004: Under pressure from the ACLU of Virginia, officials agree not to prohibit baptisms on public property in Falmouth Waterside Park in Stafford County.

May 11, 2004: After ACLU of Michigan intervened on behalf of a Christian Valedictorian, a public high school agrees to stop censoring religious yearbook entries.

March 25, 2004: ACLU of Washington defends an Evangelical minister's right to preach on sidewalks.

February 21, 2003: ACLU of Massachusetts defends students punished for distributing candy canes with religious messages.

October 28, 2002: ACLU of Pennsylvania files discrimination lawsuit over denial of zoning permit for African American Baptist church.

July 11, 2002: ACLU supports right of Iowa students to distribute Christian literature at school.

April 17, 2002: In a victory for the Rev. Jerry Falwell and the ACLU of Virginia, a federal judge strikes down a provision of the Virginia Constitution that bans religious organizations from incorporating.

January 18, 2002: ACLU defends Christian church's right to run "anti-Santa" ads in Boston subways.

Yeah, they must really ****ing hate Christians if they're defending Jerry Falwell for free. Bastards.

 

[Deegan]

I guess I would answer the question, because when our judges, presidents, congressmen, senators, and right down to your average citizen in any court of law, puts his or her hand on the bible, and swears to tell the truth, or make any number of promises, or commitments, this book of religion is obviously one that demands respect. Sorry for the run on sentence.

 

[Stace]

I guess I would answer the question, because when our judges, presidents, congressmen, senators, and right down to your average citizen in any court of law, puts his or her hand on the bible, and swears to tell the truth, or make any number of promises, or commitments, this book of religion is obviously one that demands respect. Sorry for the run on sentence.

Only problem with that is...it's not mandatory to place your hand on the Bible. Most people do it simply because they don't want to raise a fuss. I'm not sure when or why or how the practice actually started (though I do know that as far as Presidential inaugations are concerned, it started with George Washington, who brought his own Bible), but I do know that it is not mandatory. You still have to swear to tell the truth and all that, but the Bible and the "so help me God" part cannot be enforced if the person swearing in objects.

 

[Axismaster]

Let me refer you to the first hit in a Google search for "ACLU defends Christians":



Yeah, they must really ****ing hate Christians if they're defending Jerry Falwell for free. Bastards.

Well, I suppose the ACLU is not the problem then. It is more of the Michael Newdows of the world.

 

[Deegan]

Only problem with that is...it's not mandatory to place your hand on the Bible. Most people do it simply because they don't want to raise a fuss. I'm not sure when or why or how the practice actually started (though I do know that as far as Presidential inaugations are concerned, it started with George Washington, who brought his own Bible), but I do know that it is not mandatory. You still have to swear to tell the truth and all that, but the Bible and the "so help me God" part cannot be enforced if the person swearing in objects.

The fact that 99.9% of the folks do not choose to refuse, this speaks volumes, and certainly demands respect. So to say, "the problem with that" does not apply, I see no "problem" unless you have something relevant to add?

 

[Alex]

If you think you already have a perfect viewpoint on everything, it's nearly impossible to think outside of the box. That's why so many creative people in the past have also been religious. They've had faith in what they think is true. Faith is not irrational.

Faith is very much irrational. It is based on emotions, and it is not uncommon for emotions to be wrong and mislead people.

Faith is what drives us to go on living and to achieve great things. For people who have no faith, it's harder to grow and change.

It is actually the other way around. Faith in religion leads to a brick wall. Religion is a set of standards to live by. Like a guide through life. When this exists, there really is no point in trying to do anything else outside this guide for fear of punishment. This keeps religious people too focused to change. Atheists do not have this problem. We are our own guides. We are not bound by any set of rules. This allows us to go outside the norm and discover new ways to grow and change.

 

[Stace]

The fact that 99.9% of the folks do not choose to refuse, this speaks volumes, and certainly demands respect. So to say, "the problem with that" does not apply, I see no "problem" unless you have something relevant to add?

Many people do not refuse simply because they do not want to make a scene.

Me personally, I don't place that much respect upon a book.

You can respect religion and the Bible all you want. The fact remains that many people do not.

 

[Thorgasm]

The fact that 99.9% of the folks do not choose to refuse, this speaks volumes, and certainly demands respect. So to say, "the problem with that" does not apply, I see no "problem" unless you have something relevant to add?

I don't know what court rooms you operate in. But many don't even bother with the bible option. They shouldn't. It would bias a jury if someone refused to swear on a bible.