Is Religion DEAD?

289 posts • Previous  
  • 1
  • ...
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • ...
  • 8
  •   Next
    Sorry about not being in yesterday.



    I am speaking only of the logical consistency of two competing non-falsifiable ideas.

    I must have taken you out of context somewhere. I need to re-read what I write--I'm trying to explain something but I'm not quite getting at it. So let me see if I can clarify what I mean since obviously what I'm saying isn't making sense.

    I have come to the opinion that the answer to any question of any kind of God is unknowable. I would probably have to qualify this with the admission that this is only true for the near future and probably during my lifetime. Neither one of us can foresee what may happen in the future that may change this.

    I have read/heard/seen nothing written in any manner that can either prove or disprove either way. Your point is that one side is more parsimonious. It's not a point to argue. Because the simpler solution is that nothing exists versus that something (or anything) exists where there is no evidence.

    In fact, you have tacitly implied that you agree with me by acknowledging your belief in something less than every single God
    Let me clarify that, I DO agree with that.

    I was going to argue but then I realised that you were making your point clearly I mine was fuzzy and that I have not / do not disagree with you on what you have said (as far as the logical consistency of two competing non-falsifiable ideas).

    As far as The "atheism as a religion" I had already corrected myself when I found what I was defining as atheism to be incorrect as to the accepted view. I may have misinterpreted your atheism for ATHEISM--someone who claims to "know" there is no God. Your logic is rationale and correct in what you have said and you obviously don't fall into that belief.

    I must admit that I haven't been keeping close tabs on this thread so I may have attributed incorrect things or thinking to what you were saying. So I will close by saying I believe that religion IS doomed to live in the "gaps" of science and I don't see how the gaps could "close" anytime soon.


    To put it simply, did the police say he should not have survived? Did they say it was impossible to survive such an accident? If they did, you just saw a miracle. And, you should believe, because maybe God was trying to get your attention, and that's the only shot you get. It would be a bummer if you turned aside from it!

    Well levitron, you can also chalk that one up to luck as well. And I don't think everything that is lucky is a miracle from god, otherwise gamblers who happened to put their money on the right color and got "lucky" were actually being helped by god.



    I was hoping we wouldn't have to go down this path, again....

    When I have the certainty of God and His promises, I don't need anything as flaky and flimsy as "luck." In fact, I don't even believe in "luck."

    There certainly isn't anything scientific (help me out, underthumb) about "luck." It requires as much faith as religion, if I may be so bold!

    There is a scientific explanation for luck, its called PROBABILITY in Math circles. Sure there might be a 1000000:1 chance that you will survive a crash or win the lottery, but there is still that 1 chance.

    The law of extremely large numbers can be used to state that sooner or later even the most unlikely outcomes will occur albeit that may take what seems like forever to a human mind, but it will happen.

    Some people happen to call these unlikely occurrences luck, but being a Math guy I know that it isn't luck, it is called playing the odds.

    You can apply this to the car accident, sure that same accident might kill 99 out of 100 people, but when that 1 person lives is it because of the hand of god? I doubt it, it is simply the law of large numbers in action.


    Oh and underthumb I just re-read your last post and one thing about my point on religion being worth studied that I didn't get...

    [quote]But hey, many people have believed in God, so that means it's a credible idea? Fallacy of ad populum[\quote]

    [quote]Also, what do you consider necessary for the teapot question to simply be "asked"? [\quote]

    It is not just because a lot of people believe or any "law of large numbers" or being a "credible idea". Religion is a phenomenon that many cultures experience. It is documentable that religions have/do exist in many cultures and have and do change over time. They are a uniquely human phenomenon (as far as we know). Isn't this subject something worth investigating? Whether or not scientific analysis would be able to add much to certain aspects of the debate is argueable. Religion (in some form or other) is discussed/studied in Psychology, anthropology, history and geography to name a few. I think you may be inferring something else because you said yourself:

    [quote]I am of the opinion that religion is an unfortunate evolutionary side effect born of our Pleistocene ancestors who were selected for overly anthropomorphic minds. Addmitedly, it all became a great deal more complex beyond that point, but its origin seems telling as to its place.[\quote]

    So in some matter of form we do agree on that. Personally I have a similar view. I might also add that I believe early primitive religions probably helped create a sense of order out of the unexplainable but that is nothing new either.

    I hope this clears up things a little more. I can only write so much in one post, I don't want to get fired

    edit: I was going to fix the quotes, but f'it I'm just not firing on all 8 this week...

    [This message has been edited by micromonkey (edited November 19, 1999).]

    so, to answer your question - no, not dead yet
    Ok. Is it dying? Does it have less power by percentage of population? I think it is dying. A Western Civ teacher I had, a Quaker minister and one of the better teachers I ever had, agreed with me. Just so you know this is not a view limited to the Atheistic crowd.
    I think it depends on where you live and what are the major cultural influences.

    Here in Colorado Springs, as I mentioned before, it seems as if there is a church around every corner, with more opening up every day. Focus on the Family, headed by Dr. Dobson, is a main tourist attraction, bringing in busloads every day. Our town is predominantly Christian. With a large Hispanic population, there's quite a few Hispanic Catholic congregations, and of course, the Southern Baptist churches that are the primary spiritual cornerstone of Black folks. In addition, there's our Buddhist community center, which I belong to. I feel that in smaller, more insular cities and towns, there's more of a community feel for spirituality.

    I don't get that feeling in a lot of larger cities, which Colorado Springs is rapidly becoming. The sense of community that once centered around a common spiritual center in our society has been replaced by a sense of self worth and belonging centered around the covenants of the housing development, how well all of the lawns are kept and what devices we own to "enhance our lives".

    As our nation has become more affluent, the need for spirituality has become secondary, being replaced by the need for material wealth. Spirituality has been reduced to a superfluous need for comfort only in times of crisis or significant life events, birth, marriage, or death. Our technology has accelerated our lives to inhuman levels, regulated by cpu speeds, the time clock, deadlines, instantaneous stock trades, microwave ovens, cathode ray tube baby sitters (TVs and computers), and commutes from the suburbs punctuated by the incessant drag race from stop light to stop light, trying to gain 5 seconds in which to experience more frustration because you can't make it on time. We have no time for spiritual matters, all of our time is spent keeping to the beat of an electronic metronome, reducing civility and communication to the use of the latest trendy communication device, further isolating us from each other in superficial gadgetry.

    Our gods and heroes are the ones that make millions playing recreational sports, our teachers are left to fill in the gaps of moral and social upbringing that we can't provide for lack of time after trying to pay the bills, complaning all the while about our tax dollars and the school district budget, and we wonder why Johnny can't read. Millions try to emulate the appearance of whomever is on the cover of a magazine at the supermarket checkout line, and spend billions trying to attain the superficial trappings to appeal to the opposite sex, with a cynicism that overshadows any hope for a happy and fullfilling relationship. This is how millions live their lives.

    IMHO, religion does not exist for the sake of filling in the gaps of science, but for filling the gaps in our lives, something that science and technology has held the promise to do, but instead has turned us into mindless lab rats pressing that lever again and again for another dose of endorphins. My spiritual beliefs at least allow me to stop and smell the roses, and reflect on truly positive ways that I can enhance my own life in a sea of chaotic silicon.

    I apologise if this sounds like an accusatory rant, but this is the way I see the proper place for religion and spirituality.

    Heh, I wonder if the second coming of Christ will be preceded by an EMP?

    Um. Science never claimed to be able to tell you wether or not it was moral to drop the A-bomb for any given reason. It can give you an idea of it's praticality, but not tell you wether or not people will feel guilty enough over the next hundred years to cancel out the direct effects.

    That particular incident had nothing to do with god, or luck either for that matter. You see, my friend was the first person in the world to crash a new Volvo S80 T6. If anyone should have the credits for saving his life, it should be the engineers at Volvo. Rumor has it, that they cheered when they heard about it.

    And I don't think that god wanted my attention, what really happened was just that - an unfortunate car accident. If Robert (my friend) had been driving a little bit slower on that curvy road, nothing would have happened.

    [This message has been edited by Wolfmoon (edited November 21, 1999).]

    GWTech: I guess I agree with you mostly. People use all sorts of things to fill the gaps in their lives, whether it be food, religion, science, etc.

    What I don't see is how religion is necessarily a better substitute for the missing ingredient X than technology or anything else. You are trading gadgetry for brainwashing. Either way it seems to be a messy patch for the symptoms of an underlying problem.

    So what are people missing in their lives that they need to resort to these things? I am afraid I can't relate to either using technology or religion as a crutch. Perhaps I am just lucky my psyche is intact :-) I am pretty much an everage joe, nothing too extraordinary has happened in my life one way or another. Not rich, not poor, smart about some things, dumb about others. I have computers and tvs, but have never been into gadgetry as a whole. I like nature and animals and whatnot, but I am not a big tree-hugger :-) I don't have LOTS of friends of either sex, but I have enough.

    I have pretty much the same life most other people have (in the US at least). So what is missing from everyone else's lives? Some were abused, some were brainswashed, but what are everyone else's excuses? Seems to me THAT is what we should be working on. Religion and sports and technology aren't solutions to the problem, they just mask the problem in a socially accpetable way.

    But what exactly IS the problem?


    I am not brainwashed, and I don't have any problems.

    If anything, I have a problem with you saying that religion is a crutch, and that if I need it I have a problem. I don't think so!

    Hey i don't know if there are any physics geeks out there but a physicist called Michio Kaku wrote something interesting in his book "Hyperspace" (I suggest you buy it's good read for even non-technical people!)
    The theological proof is even more persuasive. It states that there has to be a first designer. For example, imagine walking on the sands of Mars, where the winds and the dust storms have worn even the mountains and giant craters. Over tens of millions of years, nothing has escaped the corrosive grinding effect of the sand storms. Then to your surprise, you find a beautiful camera lying in the sand dunes. The lens is smoothly polished and the shutter mechanism is delicately crafted. Surely, you think the sands of Mars could not have created such a beautiful peice of craftsmanship. You conclude that's _someone_ intelligent must have made the camera. Then after wandering on the surface of Mars some more, you come across a rabbit. Obviously the eye of the rabbit is infinitely more intricate than the shutter and lens of the camera. The rabbit's eye is similar to your own, there fore the maker must be much more advanced than you are. Therefore, the maker of the rabbit, and yourself, must be god.

    Now imagine the machines of earth. There is no question that these machines were made by something even greater, such as humans. There is no question that a human is infinitely more complicated than a machine. Therefore, the person who created us must be infinitely more complicated than we are. So therefore God must exist.

    Now to see what the members of the athiest/agnostic/non-belivers come up with to dis-prove this.

    Ender, this excerpt confuses me. I don't see it as a proof of anything. Mostly I see it as a restatement of the original assumptions. The underlying implicit postulate of the argument is that anything that can't be explained by the most mundane and rundamentary forces of nature (shifting sand on Mars) must have been made by a higher intelligence. Of course you are going to be able to prove the existence of God if you are going start your argument by stating that everything complicated was the product of some intelligence.

    I have a lot of other problems with this argument. Particularly its trivialization of the physical forces (none of which are truly understood, to be honest) thought to participate in the evolutionary process. I'm sorry, but soil erosion is a very poor analogy to the complexities of genetics and biochemistry.

    But who made the First Maker? You are back to the chicken and the egg problem, without benefit of being able to bring a proto-chicken into the equation. :-)

    Leavitron: You can of course think what you will about religion. But my post was not directed at religious people, but directed more at GwT's specific post about Religion, among other things, filling voids in people's lives. We all know people who use material wealth or food or plastic surgery to fill voids in their lives. I think religion is probably another manifestation of the same problem, whatever that problem is.

    Although, Ender, if you have "found God," then think about what sort of being it would take to create that!

    We're talking an ultra-intelligence.

    This is another argument of escalating irrelevancy. If something is complex, something intelligent made it. God is complex, so something intelligent made God. And so on, ad infinitum.

    Edit- Arg. Slare beat me to the punch.

    [This message has been edited by underthumb (edited November 22, 1999).]

    Hmmmm, I guess I should have said "to explain, deal with and comprehend" the gaps in peoples' lives. If you view religion as a methodology to *comprehend* life, it's not a crutch, but a tool.
    de sade - to answer your question - I think religion of the masses, as practiced since the founding of the USA (in a religious forum by a theological leader of some type with a particular lesson for that day/time/year/etc.) IS getting smaller. Not dying, but getting smaller. I think as people continue to interlace ideas and thought, organized religion (such as it is) has taken a smaller role in people's lives. It's not that people don't think about or try to find meaning in their lives, it's that increasingly the answers they find are more personal than some of the broad sweeping strokes one sees in a church or synagogue.

    I also think organized religion as a source of leaders has faltered. Who comes now from the church or synagogue to lead that is brimming with religious dogma of some kind? Our leaders are increasingly technocratic lawyers, deriving power from nuances of technicalities that are our laws. Religion is not the force driving the state any longer.

    But does this make it dead? No - we're here debating religion right now, aren't we?

    Jeff - good call. I believe it's rather like the circular argument that one can't call God God because to call "IT" God limits it and therefore makes it not God. Although, any good Taoist will tell you that nothing truer was ever spoken...

    Hey I forgot to say something. I was performing an experiment. Hell no I haven't found god. I wanted to find out if you all would come to the same conclusion as the guy from the book. Basically you did. Just because something is complex doesn't mean that a more complex being made it. we as human's assume that everything was _made_ the same way we make things. Science tells us that rather than complex organisms being made they are evolved.

    And I'm still a science beliving, unbelieving, athiest agnostic, faith destrying bastard!

    GwT: While one can use even the worst logic and yet stumble upon the truth, it is generally not the recommended method for doing so :-) Using religion to understand life is like using pliers to hammer in a might be able to use it sometimes, but it just doesn't work very well.

    There is at least enough questions about religion's validity in general to make an open minded person have doubts, if not reject it outright. How can you not call knowingly using a probably bogus belief system to understand the world a crutch?

    And besides that, what exactly is there to comprehend? Why do people search for the meaning of life? Why do they even think there IS meaning in life? Why do so many refuse to even admit the possibility that there might not be any meaning to it?

    Its like they have a compulsive need to have some sort of purpose given to them. It might be to worship God, to acquire money, or diet until they die. It seems to me to be all symptoms of the same problem. What you said the FIRST time, intentional or not, was a lot more accurate than your revised version, IMHO.

    Anyhow, that's my feeling on the matter. I'd be curious to hear comments on the meaning of life tho, or lack thereof. For example, what has your faith/religion helped you to comprehend about the world, GwT?


    Instead of going out of your way to openly deride those who disagree why not try and understand.

    Perhaps that "compulsion" you speak of is just this: It is God (well, the Holy Spirit) within each and every one of us. God wants to have fellowship with us. He uses that "compulsion" to bring us to Him.

    Cut us some slack!


    I feel no such "compulsion." Besides, it is all to easy to say that any such hypothetical desire happens to be the product of your God and not someone elses God.


    However, there is no other God but my God! Therefore, it cannot be another.

    Man, I'm sorry I missed this. I just found this messageboard due to the ArtX dilemma. But now I'd rather take part in this discussion.

    Is Religion dead? No, not by a long shot, I don't think it's dieing either. But, I'm here to side with Leavitron on most if not all opinions (Sorry, I don't really have the time to read through this entire discussion, so I apologize if I state something that has already beened discussed and is done with).

    First of, there is only one God, and as for Him needed His own maker, God was never created. He always was, and always will be. It's just that our imperfect human minds can't comprehend what that really means.

    As for the "meaning of life", I'd like to know what people mean by that myself. All I know is that Jesus died on the cross and took the punishment for my sins, and because of his infinite love for me, I have devoted my life to his service, in hopes that I can save others. Now, you're probably thinking "'brainwashed' religious lunatic,", but don't be so quick to judge. I'm simply stating my _FAITH_. One reason why science will never prevail over religion is simply because of the faith that believers across the world have. You can say that we are wrong in believing in an insane "messiah" born in a manger, but that will never sway us because of our faith, because we have the strength of The Holy Spirit with us.

    Here's an example of just how alive religion (well, the Christian religion, the one-true religion IMO, no offense personally to anyone). Anyone here heard of See You At The Pole? Mid September, all across the world, millions of Christian high school students met at their schools flag poles (or whatever woudl substitute for a pole) and prayed for their schools, teachers, friends, and administrations. This whole ordeal was completely organized by Christian teenagers, and is a globally expanding event. Is religion dead? I don't think so, and it never will be.

    As for religion being a crutch. A crutch for what? When people are feeling depressed, as if the world's weight is bearing down on them, do they use religion as a crutch? I don't think so. It's much harder to admit that you cannot go one without a true friend to confide to who loves you no matter what you do, who took the ultimate sacrifice for you, than to run off to the nearest bar and drown your misary with some hard licquer. I don't say I believe in Jesus, I don't pray, "in case" the religion is right, I don't say I believe or pray only when things seem to hard to go on, and anyone who does do that is not a real Christian (Christianity is the only true religion, IMO, so that's why I say that, no offense to anyone, that's just my faith), for they obviously don't believe with their hearts what Jesus did for them was true. They are using it as a crutch, but misusing it, and only hurting themselves more.

    Sorry for rambling, I tend to do that often.



    And thus many people died.

    I put my faith in science.
    See Carl Sagan's _Candle in the Dark_ for a good consideration of these and other issues.

    frankly, I have no problem with religion, mostly because I can't help but ask questions. I have much more of a problem with the various forms of pseudo-science that still run free.

    new thread- 'Astrology- what is it good for?'

    Responding to the post:


    Well, at least in MY world it is, and for $20 I'll tell you all about it at my next sermon.

    Until then, try not to wake the Elder Gods.



    You know, there are certain arguments that upset me not only by what they purport to be true, but by the very nature in which they are stated. This happens to be one of them. I find it to be of the utmost convenience that any far-flung Christian argument can be excused with 'our puny human minds.'

    The irony is that it is more likely that our 'puny human minds' brought about the supposed existence of God.


    You have the strength of something, but I'm not sure if I would call it a 'Holy Spirit.' You have the dubious strength of certainty, a strength clouded by absolute subservience to non-falsifiable beliefs. The danger is when any of said beliefs suddenly become falsifiable. What then? What are you to do? Perhaps you could follow those in the church before you and burn evidence to the contrary. Or you could simply 'remove it' ala Kansas.




    Oh, sure. It is much harder to think yourself as among the 'saved.' Believing that when you die you will spend eternity in paradise with a perfect, loving deity? Are you kidding me? Thinking of yourself as the bearer of absolute truth that no one can dispute? Thinking that you have the very key to the universe itself?

    Besides, as I understand it, most (but certainly not all) Christians are raised Christian. It's easy to accept just about anything as a child, which somewhat negates the supposed difficulty in later life.

    '¦I don't say I believe or pray only when things seem to hard to go on, and anyone who does do that is not a real Christian'¦for they obviously don't believe with their hearts what Jesus did for them was true.

    It seems that I cannot have debates with Christians without being told who the 'real' Christians are. That's right--after the whole sinners, worthiness and judgment talk, they go on to judge large portions of the populace. If I site an example of stupidity, it can be dismissed with 'well, that person wasn't a 'real' Christian.' So tell me, Andrew, what, by your own religion, gives you the right to judge? Do you 'know the hearts' of these people? Or are you simply judging them on the surface, thinking yourself more pious? Perhaps you are not a 'real' Christian.

    In the end, your status as a Christian is not of interest to me, but you should note the infuriating nature of your arguments when they are directed back at you.

    Slare, as underthumb knows, I'm a practicing Nichiren Shoshu Buddhist, and so was he for a decade or so. I respect your opinion, and am glad that so many have been able to voice theirs in a similar manner. Posts on religion can be such a volatile subject, and opinions on religion, taken in the wrong context can often blossom into animosity. Sort like in the "real world"

    Now, speaking from personal, and ONLY personal experience, I have been able to use the tools and knowledge based on one belief system to literally drag myself out of the gutter and transform my life, and as a weapon to attack the problems that I face inside myself on a daily basis. I don't consider it a crutch, but I am humble enough to ask for help when I need it. Case in point, I don't know the first thing about raising children, and I'm going to need a LOT of help! I firmly believe that religion, in its most benevolent social manifestation, is based upon a compassion to help another human being to help themselves. In its most malevolent form, it is the means to control the lives of millions. I have been able to use the knowledge gained through the practice of Buddhism as a tool to see inside myself and to identify the stumbling blocks within my own psyche and to change my life for the better.
    Buddhism forces you to accept responsibility for your life, and not to look outside oneself or to a deity for a cause for ones suffering. Through a combination of active meditation (chanting a mantra) and discussion with others, I have been able to see what kind of crap that I'm capable of manifesting in my life, and also how to change it. Now, one can argue that modern psychoanalysis and psychiatry, as well as several "new age" philosophies can achieve the same results, but what amazes me is that the same things were figured out centuries ago.
    Humankind has not changed one iota over millenia, and the fundamental nature of humankind has not changed either. We still operate exactly the same as when we lived in caves, searching for food, shelter and a mate to reproduce with. Only now, we have supermarkets, condos, 1-900 numbers and AOL chat rooms. I think that religion brings about the possibility that humans can act as something more than intelligent animals, and can act to improve our mental and spiritual well being and the ways that we deal with each other instead of reacting to fundamental, instinctual animalistic drives. What is warfare but the the most vulgar display of animality? What is the soaring divorce rate but an expression of selfishness and the preservation of the individual ego above all else, and "society be damned, I'm the most important person in my universe" attitude? I also feel that religion gives an individual a moral foundation on which to act upon in the absence of a coherent societal gestalt, which all of us has the Constitutional right to choose which one to follow, but the "cult of the individual" has replaced traditional religious and social conventions.

    The problem as I see it, is that many resent the efforts of religious people to "impose" their views upon them or on society at large as in the case of removing evolution from a school currriculum and imposing creationism. As underthumb knows, my particular religion was more zealous than Jehovah's Witnesses at one time, but has changed drastically in the past decade on a worldwide organisational level. It is my firm personal belief that that it's not a good thing to try to force a religious belief onto the masses, that's why we have a Constitution that allows us religious freedom. I have a problem with religion in any form imposed upon our public schools. I have a problem with me and my friends and family being told that we're going to burn in hell because we're Buddhist, Pagan, Moslem, athiest, Wiccan, another sect of Christianity, non-white or gay. I have a problem with living in a Constitutional Republic with a pluralistic society and being told that "this is God's country", and if I don't like it, I should move to Japan, and the debate becomes whether or not America is an exclusively white and Christian nation. I have a problem with the lack of mutual respect in our nation among differing points of view, always vieing for a moral or philosophical higher ground, primarily for political gain. I'm not much for comparing science and religion; sociology and anthropology is more my speed.

    Is religion a solution? Only on an individual basis. As for this individual, it's the solution that I choose, because I've made it work for me.


    two things, quickly:

    -You forget that I wasn't "raised Christian", period. (I love to be an exception to the rule! )

    -Andrew_F came here to contribute to the poll. He is here as a newcomer. Some welcome to (attempt to) tear him to shreads! I don't think it was called for. Perhaps you need to cruise over to the Religion poll, where we are discussing who is the most/least tolerant. I dare say you are a shining example that the religion of evolution is not tolerant!

    (What is good for the goose is always good for the gander.)


    I find it endlessly amusing that certain religious individuals go out of their way to attempt to make science or scientific principals look "religious."

    If you do not understand the difference between science and religion, perhaps you have not been reading this thread very carefully.

    Pardon me whilst I return to my "religion of evolution" and my "religion of germ theory," right along with my "religion of Newton's laws."


    And when, pray tell, did Andrew F do that???


    There is a reason that my previous post was addressed to you. I was talking about you. I never said Andrew did any such thing.

    And your point is???
    I'll readily admit my knowledge of buddhism in general ends with the general academic knowledge...I have little experience with the more practical day-to-day aspects of it. Thus I appreciate you reply greatly GwT!

    Now correct me if I am wrong, but what you describe seems to more to be more of a philosopical approach to life, rather than a religious one. You used tools and knowledge to take responsibility for your own situation and improve it. I see a distinct lack of gods/afterlives/supernatural elements that generally are present in religion. I don't think this could hardly be considered the crutch that I was referring to.

    You mention that religion gives people a sort of moral underpinning when society has no common set of morals. But lets face America at least, religion bascially means Christianity/Judaism. Unlike your 'religion', they look to external sources for help...whether it be a bible of some sort, God, the leader of the congregation, the evangelist on TV. This is the exact opposite of what you did. Relying on external sources to tell you what to do or help you out is a crutch. You are no longer taking responsibility for your own actions when you have such a belief system. How can this possibly be a positive thing?

    I do agree with the cult of individualism, in general. It certainly exists. But I have to take exception to the divorce thing. While sometimes they are certainly ugly and bad, a large percentage of them are benefical to both parties. Sometimes you just realize after a while that you are no longer happy together. There is no point in continuing the marriage after that point. Its not beneficial to anyone. And oftentimes the divoced couple become better friends after all is said and done than they were before! :-)


    Anyhow, lost my train of thought, had to answer some DSL/ISDN questions. Lets see if I can pick this up again...

    I guess that was pretty much what I had to say. I agree religion should be decided on an individual basis, there is no point in forcing it on anyone. But that doesn't mean it is useful or good necessarily.


    My point is, (as should have been obvious) what I have only said five or six times. Science, evolution, or what have you, is not a religion. Telling me I am from the "religion of evolution" is a distortion. So don't. That's all.

    I just have a couple questions for you religious people. Since there are so many different religions, how do we know which one is 'right'? If I am of a particular religion and am faithful to my god(s) and fail to acknowledge the existence and/or authority of your god(s), am I punished by your god(s)? Will I go to my heaven, or to your hell? As for those who are only exposed to my 'wrong' religion for their entire lives and never learn about your 'right' one, they must go to your hell for not being faithful. Is that fair of your god(s)? No. Do I believe in any god(s)? No.
    erm.. i'm of the opinion that all issues are easily resolved, only if you ask the right questions. since this discussison is well into the sixth page, maybe the right question isn't being asked. so, what do you mean by 'religion' when you ask 'is religion dead?' i think the word is so tainted by things ascribed to the category 'religion' that a precise definition is necessary in order to know what exactly you're asking. since someone mentioned the term 'science' in this discussion, a word just as vague and nebulous as 'religion', i take that as proof that people are unknowingly confused by what you're asking.
    289 posts • Previous  
  • 1
  • ...
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • ...
  • 8
  •   Next