Why You Should Respect Religion

[Thorgasm]

Uh huh. Mr. moral atheist, who accuses Christians of lying, lies himself. Now isn't that interesting? The truth of that matter is that Mr. Newdow is very insecure in his beliefs and has inner emotional problems concerning his life and the life he had with his previous wife that have yet to be exposed.

I find it interesting that most atheists claim that Christians are hypocrites in that they're not very moral, when Mr. Newdow not only broke his marriage vows that he obviously never took seriously in that first place and then lied about his own flesh and blood. Can a man like that really be trusted?

I think not.

Wow! This is the perfect ad hominem attack/fallacy. I looked up ad hominem on the internet and this is where I was directed.:rofl

 

[Engimo]

Wow all you people are so angry for some reason.

All I said was that religion should be respected for its positive impact on humanity. It helped build our society. It gave us greater purpose when we had none.

I never said everyone has to believe in god to have ethics. I don't believe in any higher power and I would like to think I have good morals.

I just understand that the good aspects of religion have helped humanity a great deal in surviving through hard times.

I don't understand why some people feel the need to vilify religion.

For all the supposed good that you claim religion brings, it has historically been the direct cause of millions (if not billions) of deaths. Think of all the conflicts that have had religious causes at their roots:

The Spanish Inquisition, Witch Trials, The 30 Years War, Fighting in Kashmir, 9/11, All of the wars in the Middle East, Religious conflicts in Ireland, The Ku Klux Klan. The list goes on.

If we are evaluating religion simply by virtue of whether or not it has a net positive effect on the world, I don't think that it commands much respect. Religion has certainly been the greatest single cause of strife and bloodshed in history.

Yes and I wonder what your daughter and other children would think when we tell them that they're going to die and not go anywhere, the wicked will never be punished for their crimes, and that there is nobody outside of Earth that loves them. I wonder if they will simply agree or if their reason might get the better of them and they will think otherwise.

You know what this is called? Appeal to the Consequences of a Belief. It's a logical fallacy, buddy.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Yes and I wonder what your daughter and other children would think when we tell them that they're going to die and not go anywhere, the wicked will never be punished for their crimes, and that there is nobody outside of Earth that loves them. I wonder if they will simply agree or if their reason might get the better of them and they will think otherwise.

I wonder why they would be so weak as to need to pretend that someone imaginary loves them to keep going? What children need is the firm knowledge that their own parents love them and will be there for them. My children know this without doubt.

Some wicked people NEVER get punished for their crimes. OJ Simpson comes to mind. This is called life. Why lie to them about this?

You can't produce independent thinking adults by creating dependent deceived children.

 

[CaliNORML]

A faith that all will turn out ok, be taken care of, a better tomorrow, do these help us survive?

Yes, this attitude wards off depression, lowers the blood pressure, reduces stress induced by worry and all sorts of other physicals ills one's mental state can cause.

Beliefs such as these are indeed linked into our physical systems, and in some documented cases can over come them.

Certain parts and principles of religion are connected to our physical systems in such a complex fashion as to make this true.

KMS

 

[tecoyah]

A faith that all will turn out ok, be taken care of, a better tomorrow, do these help us survive?

Yes, this attitude wards off depression, lowers the blood pressure, reduces stress induced by worry and all sorts of other physicals ills one's mental state can cause.

Beliefs such as these are indeed linked into our physical systems, and in some documented cases can over come them.

Certain parts and principles of religion are connected to our physical systems in such a complex fashion as to make this true.

KMS

Thus.....Buddhism, which is not a religion in my opinion


This thread (you will note) has become something of a Christian justification extravaganza.....as virtually any such discussion eventually becomes. While I have no major issues with faith, I do think respect is something earned through action, and perception. If Christians wish to be respected as people, it might be helpful to refrain from telling everyone else they are wrong and destined to burn in the depths of some boiling cauldron of Satans creation. My point is simple....Many have no problem at all with Christianity, but take issue with Christians placing their own version of "God" above the others. Why does ANYONE need to be wrong, when debating something that is impossible to prove at this point. Why cant people just start every post with......"In My Opinion"......those three words make all the difference.

 

[CaliNORML]

The major factor in buddhism is that there is no transcendence. Nothing is "eternal", there is no "heaven".

The actions we do here are not judged, as such we are never "saving" anyone or ourselves to get to a permanent place. There is only here and I do good because my body requires me to.

Take the gay debate. I say, "could I not like men, as I am heterosexual?" Empathy, "how would I want to be treated?" Compassion, "either way we are both human," equanimity, and always respect.

By wanting him to change I am not saving him, by turning him away with hate I do not save myself. This way we both live free.

KMS

 

[tecoyah]

By wanting him to change I am not saving him, by turning him away with hate I do not save myself. This way we both live free.

KMS

Kinda makes ya' wish we were all Buddhist....*snif*

 

[CaliNORML]

Kleenex? Cheers Dude.

 

[hipsterdufus]

My 2nd favorite thing after using obsolete words that no one has used for 50 years in the english language is to say things that I know everyone will agree with so that people like me more.

Hold on a sec, I'm going to go make a thread titled "mean people are jerks".

What's your point? The Kansas Baptist Church that sponsors "God Hates Fags" wouldn't agree with me. I'll bet I could pick a few DP members that would be out there protesting with them if they had the chance.

 

[nkgupta80]

The major factor in buddhism is that there is no transcendence. Nothing is "eternal", there is no "heaven".

Uhh yeah there is. Its called nirvana. Its the state of transcendance an individual acheives when he can let go of all worldy desires and reach a state of nothingness, a state of enlightenment.

 

[CaliNORML]

Uhh yeah there is. Its called nirvana. Its the state of transcendance an individual acheives when he can let go of all worldy desires and reach a state of nothingness, a state of enlightenment.

Aye, the seeking of a place of unity with all, and the acceptance that everything is composite, and as such will fall apart, even our bodies. Overcoming that desire for permanent wants, immortality, and accepting that it will happen and going with that sorrow, frees a "soul."

The time I hear from Christians is; :" When the lion will lie down with the lamb" time will stop, all will be right, a permanent state.

Some say it will happen, the lion and the lamb, but the lion is gonna eat that lambie, it is the sorrow of life that feeds the cycle.

What one seeks to make permanent in a place and stop time, the other accepts, and moves on knowing it was a special moment, it did happen, and we know what always happens next. Thats right there is gonna be blood in life.

When nirvana is obtained it is in the physical form and mental thought process linking into one; however when our bodies fail and we die, we are in effect "snuffed out" we go no more, not to a place, there is nothing after that.

Obtaining that understanding is to be done now, not later at a pearly gate or in a book with my name way up yonder. No score cards, there is no later and a reward after we are dead. Then there is nothing.

KMS

 

[Tohoya]

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

Humans have this unique tool for survival that no other animal has.

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.

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.

Respect religion.

Except that the very situation you describe was done with the imprimatur of the bible, and without that justification, would have ceased to be long before the civil war. Frederick douglass, in his autobiography, describes the cruelest slave owners as also the most pious.

 

[CaliNORML]

Except that the very situation you describe was done with the imprimatur of the bible, and without that justification, would have ceased to be long before the civil war. Frederick douglass, in his autobiography, describes the cruelest slave owners as also the most pious.

I would quote that which gave me the right to go against the basic principle of humanity were I to commit those acts so blantly wrong too. After all it's the Bible, you want to argue you "unGodly Pagan?" See right here in black and white, never mind what you see. Take a chance at being burned at a stake? Not my idea of a "Hot Date."

KMS

 

[George_Washington]

Wow! This is the perfect ad hominem attack/fallacy. I looked up ad hominem on the internet and this is where I was directed.:rofl

Well, you know. Your so called, "rules of logic" that atheists so want to propagate are only mute. They must, logically, give way to truth and the nature of mankind. Psychology might not fit into your little rigid rules of debating but it is, in fact, the path to truth.

But of course you're not interesting in finding truth concerning Mr. Newdow and this issue.

And I don't know what you're talking about, about my post being associated with ad hominems in search engines. Anyway, I couldn't care less. There are so many different search engines nowadays, you could configure them to look up just about any kind of criteria. Duh.

 

[Engimo]

Well, you know. Your so called, "rules of logic" that atheists so want to propagate are only mute. They must, logically, give way to truth and the nature of mankind. Psychology might not fit into your little rigid rules of debating but it is, in fact, the path to truth.

Wanting to conduct in logical debate is not a desire exclusive to atheists, it's common to anyone that is rational.

And I don't know what you're talking about, about my post being associated with ad hominems in search engines. Anyway, I couldn't care less. There are so many different search engines nowadays, you could configure them to look up just about any kind of criteria. Duh.

rof He was joking. You know when someone says "If you looked up sexy in the dictionary, you'd find him." sort of thing. Obviously the person is not actually in the dictionary.

 

[George_Washington]

Wanting to conduct in logical debate is not a desire exclusive to atheists, it's common to anyone that is rational.

No, it's just you atheists constantly want to throw out terms like, "ad hominem" or other labels. It's true, you guys are obsessed with constructing everything into a rigid diagram, which can ultimately exclude truth. We should try to debate logically but it's not stupid and whatnot to interject psychology or point out hypocrisy.

Really though, I don't know what it is with you atheists and your terms. It's really kind of comical how after every sentence, you guys throw out some term. It's funny, really. I don't even think you guys actually think about them, I think you just pick something out of your bag of fallacies and throw it on the board. :rofl

 

[Engimo]

No, it's just you atheists constantly want to throw out terms like, "ad hominem" or other labels. It's true, you guys are obsessed with constructing everything into a rigid diagram, which can ultimately exclude truth. We should try to debate logically but it's not stupid and whatnot to interject psychology or point out hypocrisy.

...It really has nothing to do with atheism, unless you feel that only atheists like logical debate. An ad hominem attack is fallacious, that is something that has absolutely nothing to do with atheism. The rules of logic and logical debating have been around since the time of the Greeks, it's not anything new or solely in the realm of atheism.

Really though, I don't know what it is with you atheists and your terms. It's really kind of comical how after every sentence, you guys throw out some term. It's funny, really. I don't even think you guys actually think about them, I think you just pick something out of your bag of fallacies and throw it on the board. :rofl

Yeah, there's a reason they're called fallacies - because they're fallacious. They're wrong; bad logic, you see. Pointing out a fallacy in someone's argument is a sure-fire way to show that what they are saying is fundamentally flawed in its logic. Having taken courses in logic and critical reasoning, the fallacies are pretty easy for me to pick out at this point and I have no problem naming them and pointing them out - it's not a matter of randomness.

 

[George_Washington]

Yeah, there's a reason they're called fallacies - because they're fallacious. They're wrong; bad logic, you see. Pointing out a fallacy in someone's argument is a sure-fire way to show that what they are saying is fundamentally flawed in its logic. Having taken courses in logic and critical reasoning, the fallacies are pretty easy for me to pick out at this point and I have no problem naming them and pointing them out - it's not a matter of randomness.

I've had a course in logic, too, don't act like I'm uneducated. I have a bachelor's degree. Anyway, what I'm trying to say, is that these rules of logic you speak of were created by man and so they're not perfect. If you just stick solely to these rules in a debate, you leave out possiblities of discovering truth. You claim what I said about Newdow was an ad hominem. According to your, "rules," that might be true. But that doesn't mean what I said wasn't correct about him.

You see, these rules of logic were created by professors. But just because they're professors doesn't mean we have to follow them like a sheep to a shepard.

The thing is, nearly every atheist I've seen on this forum seems to follow these rules of logic blindly. Us Christians are more open minded and we are, incidentally, more in touch with our feelings.

 

[Engimo]

I've had a course in logic, too, don't act like I'm uneducated. I have a bachelor's degree. Anyway, what I'm trying to say, is that these rules of logic you speak of were created by man and so they're not perfect. If you just stick solely to these rules in a debate, you leave out possiblities of discovering truth. You claim what I said about Newdow was an ad hominem. According to your, "rules," that might be true. But that doesn't mean what I said wasn't correct about him.

The idea of an ad hominem is not that what you were saying about Newdow was untrue - it's that attacking his character is not relevant to the content of his argument. Yeah, Newdow might be a douchebag and a terrible person who is trying to destroy the fabric of American life or whatever, but what does that have to do with his argument? Nothing.

The thing is, nearly every atheist I've seen on this forum seems to follow these rules of logic blindly. Us Christians are more open minded and we are, incidentally, more in touch with our feelings.

Feelings have no place in logical discourse, my friend. Not only that, claiming that all atheists are more logical than the inherently emotional Christians is entirely untrue and is a brash generalization. Perhaps more atheists adhere to principles of logic than Christians, but that does not make it an inherent trait to the subscribers to either.

 

[George_Washington]

The idea of an ad hominem is not that what you were saying about Newdow was untrue - it's that attacking his character is not relevant to the content of his argument. Yeah, Newdow might be a douchebag and a terrible person who is trying to destroy the fabric of American life or whatever, but what does that have to do with his argument? Nothing.

It wasn't an attack on his character, at least not one without meaning. I was merely pointing out an act of immorality on his part, using his daughter to further his own political agenda. If you want to still say I committed a fallacy, go ahead, I don't care. But what I said held truth, you see.

 

[Engimo]

It wasn't an attack on his character, at least not one without meaning. I was merely pointing out an act of immorality on his part, using his daughter to further his own political agenda. If you want to still say I committed a fallacy, go ahead, I don't care. But what I said held truth, you see.

Oh, I agree with you. An attack on the morality of his actions is entirely justified, but if we were discussing the legitimacy of his argument - totally irrelevant. That is where the ad hominem comes into play. When you attack someone's character and try to extend a flaw in the character to a flaw in the argument, it is fallacious.

 

[George_Washington]

Oh, I agree with you. An attack on the morality of his actions is entirely justified, but if we were discussing the legitimacy of his argument - totally irrelevant. That is where the ad hominem comes into play. When you attack someone's character and try to extend a flaw in the character to a flaw in the argument, it is fallacious.

Yeah that's cool, man. And I wasn't trying to bash atheists, I was just kind of joking around because of a few atheists I've seen on this forum (not you). A lot of times I say things in a joking matter that aren't meant to be taken too seriously. :mrgreen:

 

[Engimo]

Yeah that's cool, man. And I wasn't trying to bash atheists, I was just kind of joking around because of a few atheists I've seen on this forum (not you). A lot of times I say things in a joking matter that aren't meant to be taken too seriously. :mrgreen:

You're one bad mother-

Watch your mouth!

I'm just talkin' about George.

We can dig it!

 

[Crispy]

You know?

One thing that I think has been missed in this whole discussion is the fundamental difference between Religious faith and Science. Religious faith, as I've always understood it, is the search for spiritual truth whereas Science is the search for physical truth both of which are critical for man's understanding of himself and the universe we live in.

I think both sides here are ignoring, and historically have ignored, this difference and its importance. Not all things "can" be explained through empirical evidence nor "should" all things be explained through religious assertions.

To those who write off religion as hokey mysticism, I submit that its not the physical evidence that "should" be the incentive to believe or respect religion but rather spiritual questions that religions seek to answer. The spiritual meaning that religion seeks to provide. We all believe things that can't be proven. Can you prove that you love your family? Is there some "reason" that we as humans have been endowed with the gift of "self awareness" and "reason?" Maybe, maybe not. But these are questions worth "trying" to answer and as humans we have just as much of responsibility to investigate these questions through spiritual or metaphysical means as we do through scientific means. We have just as much of a responsibility to search within our soul (so to speak) as we do searching outside ourselves in the world around us.

To those who embrace religion as truth, we all know the arguments of empirical evidence, yet those arguments never dissuade those who have "faith." And that "faith" isn't because its empirically proveable but because it is "not" proveable. Its because despite what you "see", you still believe. The point of religion is not to have empirical proof of the assertions of the religion but to have the "faith" that these assertions are true and this "faith" demands a different understanding and interpretation of "truth"

Both religion and science seek to answer questions we have about ourselves and our environment, and both if mis-used, lead to tragic consequences. The first step in understanding and respecting both is putting them in their proper context and understanding what gain is to be had from them. Otherwise we'll continue to make new "scientific discoveries" and formulate new "religious beliefs" that will lead to our demise.

 

[kal-el]

No, it's just you atheists constantly want to throw out terms like, "ad hominem" or other labels.

Once again, quite judgemental. And when have you ever read me say "ad hominem?" I think you are being less than honest here.

It's true, you guys are obsessed with constructing everything into a rigid diagram, which can ultimately exclude truth.

Dude, choosing to become an atheist does not necessarily involve evil actions. Please stop judging atheists. Thanks.

We should try to debate logically but it's not stupid and whatnot to interject psychology or point out hypocrisy.

I agree.

Really though, I don't know what it is with you atheists and your terms.

Judging. Your dead Jew wouldn't condone, or would he?

It's really kind of comical how after every sentence, you guys throw out some term. It's funny, really. I don't even think you guys actually think about them, I think you just pick something out of your bag of fallacies and throw it on the board. :rofl

O man, you sound sour that atheists can punch holes in your "supernatural" claims a mile wide, so you must resort to derrogatory tactics.:lol: