Religion

[PorkChopExpress86]

True. But one of the ten commandments that Christians are supposed to live by is "Thou shalt not kill," yet what of all the people killed in the name of Christianity? That, to me, shows that it's more something wrong with the people than the religion.

The real translation is "thou shalt not murder." the KJV is pretty flawed, being a translation of a translation of a translation. Also, check the post above it, i added a few quotes from the bible you might find interesting.

[Shinju]

I guess your right, that would depend on the definition of the Hebrew word used for murder. I never put much stock into the Bible, seeing as it flawed because it is written by man himself and not God or Jesus. It's basically a book about humans writing about their experiences with God, and seeing as humans are human and not infallible gods, their interpretations of such experiences are bound to contain grievous flaws, somewhat like how the news stations and papers always put a spin on what should otherwise just be unbiased information.

[Saitochan]

Oh, boy. I'm not really sure what the hell am I thinking by posting something concerning such a polemical issue, and it's not like I've studied the subject through (so feel free to correct me at any point), but here goes...

First, and answering the original issue of this thread: I don't see religion per se as something neither good nor bad, BUT (there's always a but) since it is deals with something so abstract and concerns so many people, it has the potential to be incredibly good, or terribly bad. And yet... remembering things like the crusades, the spanish inquisition and the witch-hunting, it's rather hard not to see all the goodness religion may bring eclipsed by the darkness and evil it has also spawned (hmm... that sounds like a quote from an epic anime or something).

But regardless of what evils religion may bring, people will always need something to believe in, call it Jesus, Allah or Cthulu (Hey, there's some pretty twisted people out there), and I'm fine with that, so long as they accept a NO for an answer when trying to convert me. Because, while religion is necesary for people, proselytism is not, and besides being the most annoying thing on minor scale, it's the kind of thing that leads to holy wars and the sort on a large scale. So, "no thanks, dear Jehova Witnesess, I most certainly don't want to waste neither your nor my own time, simply because, though I respect your beliefs, I'm just not interested in them". Does that sound hostile or offensive to you?

For some context, we were discussing the human rights granted to us by the Declaration of Independence and whether or not god was important/necessary/harmful to them.

Well, I do believe that religion has something to do with human rights, basically since the definition of right and wrong is established by each religion's moral, which obviously varies greatly from one religion to another. But, seeing the world is becoming more and more open, and the lines that separate the countries (in cultural, religious, and/or social aspects) are becoming blurred by the globalization, it's only natural for one religion's moral to rise above the rest. But my question is: Is that really a good thing? Would you like to throw away the beliefs of your ancestors just because another religion with a more appealing language or a friendlier god comes along? Do we really want to lose ourselves in a crowd where we can't be ourselves nor think on our own? (not to offend anyone, but blindly following a preacher's words as part of a herd isn't my cup of tea)

Your efficient cause argument is flawed in the same manner. There is no reason to beleive that the first efficient cause is separate from the universe itself. Unless you can demonstrate that the universe itself and your "god" are separable ideas then there is no reason to beleive in the god aspect. And if they are not separable, then you've essentially redefined god as the universe which is meaningless.

Your arguments are all using the same flawed logic. If it is plausible for your god to exist in itself and not owe its existence to anything else, its possible for the universe to do the same. The difference between you and I is that you claim to understand the reason and nature of the universe's existence while I do not. All of your arguments have been somewhat valid in postulating the nature of existence and the nature of movement. However, none of them require a deity to exist in the manner that you claim.

Hotness, nobility, and similar things are human constructs and defined by humans by things we have experienced. There does not need to be a perfect hotness, there only needs to be humans that have experienced heat in some way. Through out experiences we have now defined heat and temperature as a function of the amount of kinetic energy within the atoms or molecules of a specified system. Even this is simply an artifact of human experiences and not neccessarily an artifact of the universe. We use these ideas to organize the universe before us. They speak nothing to the existence of a divine being.

Well, I can't decide if I agree with this or not. Hmmm... maybe I should begin by saying that I do believe in god, but not as a being, sentient or otherwise, but as the "first cause", the creating force of reality, the Big Bang if you will. So, yes. In a manner of speaking, I believe God used to exist, but it's gone now. Who can tell me otherwise?

By the way, this talk about God being the supreme example of kindness, goodness and perfection just doesn't fit with what I've thought (correct me if I'm wrong). You see, if God created the universe along with everything in it (including evil) does that mean that there's evil in God too? If that's the case, then God couldn't possibly be the supreme example of goodness, since there's evil in him. But (and it's a big BUT) such a case could indeed make him perfect, since he balances his inner evil with his inner goodness. Isn't that what all mankind should strive for?

Actually, God only has non-falsifiable properties when science is applied, not philosophy. To say that in the 13th century people had little understanding of the universe is to show your own lack of knowledge. We know less now than we did then. Yes, yes, science has taken a lot of new turns and new advances, ect… but almost none of them have been factually proven. It's just a compilation of ideas based on other ideas, based on other ideas, which still cannot be definitively proven. When one of those is disproven, all the 'science' stacked upon it will come crashing down and send us back to the so-called 'dark ages'. But I digress. This is a philosophical debate, not a scientific one.

I believe that the only reason we know less (or seem to know less) about the world than we did in the XIII century is just because our world has grown inconmesurably since then. I once heard that in ancient times, one person could actually get to know everything there was to know about the world, and I felt terribly envious. Because, no matter how hard you try, or how much you study, today's knolwedge is just too great and varied, and each discovery produces a million more questions. When you look at it that way, mankind's search for knowledge is a never-ending quest. Never-ending, but not fruitless.

As for the part about disproving scientific facts and the dark ages... That just doesn't happen. The scientific method of research states that if one hypothesis works out, but has flaws, it stays ONLY until a new and better hypothesis is reached. That way, over a really long time, scientists (and pseudo-scientists too) have been complementing each other's work, making it run smoother, both based on logic reasoning and observation. If you really wanted to disprove scientifical 'fact', you'd have to, one: point out a mayor mistake in scientifical observation, for instance, by demonstrating empirically that something like gravity or the laws of physics don't apply where they're supposed to (good luck with that), or two: Demonstrate theoretically that basic scientifical precepts are wrong (In this case you'd have to study. *shivers* no, thanks), and if you succeeded in proving your point, another theory would pop up to fill in the gap you created. So, if you wanted to go back to the middle ages to swing a sword to anyone who gave you the evil eye, forget it (Though I would like that too, LOL)

I don't think religion is all bad, just the people who use it to manipulate others. Christianity seems to be the worst of religions (no offense to anyone out there that is a Christian). They are the ones who throughout history have made it their personal crusade to get everyone to believe as they do. Catholics and Mormons are the worst of the Christians. Those in power use God as a way to get people that follow them blindly to do what they want. I myself follow the Wiccan philosophy, and while researching this religion I read all of the horrible things Christians have done in the name of God. Wiccans were made out to be devil worshippers and slaughtered by the hundreds. In reality nothing could be further from the truth. The basic Wiccan philosophy is 'Do what thou wilt but harm none'. While they were being persecuted the Wiccans never once fought back. They believed that if they did it would give them bad karma.

I don't believe God exists, I know. I fear him. My personal belief is that if you're not afraid of God you're an idiot. He could just decide to poof you out of existence. But I guess everyone's personal view depends on their experiences. I remember some of my incarnations, and will never forget getting screamed at by God. I think you have to be REALLY bad to get screamed at, so very few souls will have that experience. If you want to know what I did, only ask if you have an open mind and won't mock me.

Ok, I've said my peace. You don't have to agree with me, just please don't treat me like I have the plague because of my views. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I can't make you believe what I do, and I'm not even going to try.

Sigh... proselytism again. Even though most of the times it's just plain annoying, when people use violence, lies (like that example with the Wiccans) or fear of God to convert people, it's more than just bothersome. It's downright unacceptable (at least for me it is. It should be for everyone, no?)

But, on a different note, say Greenwizard, what was it you did to have God scream at you? A friend of mine once dreamed that god kicked my teeth out. What did I do wrong? (LOL)

Abiogenesis and evolution work together. Without the first, there is no latter. I use the term evolution as a blanket term to cover both (for the purpose of this debate). The argument is based on actual science… I did not include the data because it was long, and would only be needed if someone contested it. I did not say that chaos can not produce order, but that it cannot produce information (see 'biological information).

The experiment established that flagella could not have evolved. It is an irreductably complex organ, and the life forms that depend on it could not survive without it. Other examples include the incredible system of transporting proteins within cells and the intricate process of blood clotting.

Well, if by abiogenesis you mean life generating espontaneously out of nothing, then I'm afraid that it truly IS impossible without divine (or at least external) intervention. However, as far as I'm concerned, while the earth was still cooling down after being created (according to the Big Bang theory... no, not the TV show) a lot of simple molecules and inorganic compounds were floating around in what then came to be the oceans. By chance or by design, those molecules and compounds stuck toghether to form bigger and more complex molecules, eventually forming organic molecules, such as nucleic acids, lipids, proteins, and membranes to hold all of that toghether inside, surely after a long time and a lot of failed attempts. So, if that's what you understand by abiogenesiss, then it does work toghether with evolution.

As for the cillia and flagella thing...of course they could have evolved! Evolution not only works at macrocellular levels you know. The genetical information a cell holds also dictates structural characteristics, like the prescence of cillia and flagella, so if they're a genetical trait, they can be passed on to the next generation, and participate in the evolution of a species. If you take two protozoon (or protozoans, I don't really know how it's written), one that can only move by pseudopods (a rather slow and rudimentary form of cell movement) and one that by beneficial mutations has acquired a rudimentary flagellum, the one with the flagellum will be able to move around more, gather food and stay alive more easily that the other cell, therefore, passing its genes onto the next generation thanks to the advantage its flagellum is. Same thing goes for the cillia, except that these organelles don't serve for movement as much as for gathering nearby molecules.

Finally, concerning:

"The Scientific Study of Prayer Under Controlled Conditions" and the study of Near-Death experiences,

I consider that, while it's a fine start to prove the NDE's and the effects of prayer on health and wounds, such experiments are not statistically relevant, due to the low number of patients studied, and need to have a stricter control over the variables that may affect the result (the medical treatment the patients are undergoing, the age group they belong to, their medical history, the doctor-patient relationship, etc. you never know)

Phew... that sure took some time. Such a long post... Yawn... it's time to sleep.

P.D. About this "Brain in a Jar" theory... am I too crazy if I consider everyone a product of my imagination, just because there's no way to prove their existence?

[Lost_Soul]

I was thinking about something, and it might be a good new topic. I was talking to someone about reincarnation and famous people. This person said everyone gets to be a famous person because we should all share the limelight.

My response to that was, we are all created for a purpose, and those souls that are in the histpry books are the ones who had the balls to do what needed to be done regardless of the difficuly and danger. I think that there are a few souls that are charged with these important things. I don't think the average person has it in them to lead a revolution. That isn't a bad thing. We are all made to fill certain roles.

Here's an example I can use of one of my memories. Say you're a dirt poor farmer's son in the mid 1800's, and as you reach puberty you realize that you're gay. You find a boyfriend somehow and sneak around. His brother catches you, and the guy you thought you loved betrays you and tells his brother you raped him to save his own skin.

You don't know about the betrayel right away. You go home and your dad confronts you about a rumor he heard in town. First you deny it, but then your concience gets to you and you confess everything. Strangely enough your parents are angry, but mostly because you lied to them.

While your father is yelling at you for being a lying ungreatful brat, your mother spots a group of young men. You know they're coming for you. Your father picks you up, throws you in a closet, and locks the door. He sends your little brother upstairs to hide. Then your parents tell the men that you aren't home. They don't believe them and slowly torture them to death to draw you out. Ironically, you're banging on the closet door and screaming, but no one can hear you over your parents' screams.

When your parents are dead and the men leave, your brother comes down from his hiding place and lets you out of the closet. Next you do the only think you can do, you go to your uncle's. He takes you in and takes care of you.

Then civil war breaks out. Your uncle is a geneal in the army and has to go. You go with him when the army holds a sign up, and you get to talking to a recruiter. You're not a fighter, but this man tells you there are other jobs you could do. So you decide to sign up as a nurse so you can earn some money and take care of your brother.

So, you're in the army. Your uncle isn't happy with you because he doesn't want you caught up in a war and put in harm's way, but he makes sure you're put in his regimen so he can at least keep an eye on you. But your reputation proceeds you. A few of your commrades have heard about what you supposedly did, and when your uncle's back is turned they beat you up.

The day of your first battle comes. The surgeon has trained you and the other nurses as best as he thought he could (though he is of the opinion that he is god's gift to the universe and you're an incompetant idiot). The fighting starts. You're trying to do your job with cannons going off, and the occasional bullet wizzing through the front lines and piercing your hospital tent.

While running for bandages, you see a soldier on the battlefield go down. He's right on the front line where all the gunfire is. He also happens to be one of the men who helped beat you up. What would you do....?

I asked you who this uncle was that you mentioned to have in your past life and YOU said General Meade. Okay, if that is the case then if I remember correctly and there is proof in what I am going to say is... General Meade never started out as a general when the Civil War broke out and was a Captain most of the war and earned his rank as a general later on. He also was already apart of the Volunteer in which he volunteered to join the war, not because he HAD to go as you state. I don't know how this has to do with anything Agaib has this post to be about the proof of God but I thought I say this in case you are unaware of this very fact about General Meade.

"At the outbreak of the Civil War, Captain Meade offered his services to Pennsylvania and was appointed as a brigadier general of volunteers. Like many American families during the Civil War, Meade's was also touched personally by sectional strife. His wife's sister was married to Governor Wise of Virginia who later became a brigadier general in the Confederate army." from General Meade's Biography, (taken from the U.S. governmental site) third paragraph down.

I rest my case....

[Saitochan]

Say Greenwizard, you never really told me what was it you did to have God scream at you? A friend of mine once dreamed that god kicked me in the face. What did I do wrong? (LOL)

[greenwizard]

*shrugs* I can't tell you what you did wrong. Only you can answer that question. Maybe nothing. Maybe your friend thinks you did something wrong.

Either way, I am removing myself from this topic. It seems that some are so desperate to discredit me that they will twist my words and attack examples rather than theory. I just really don't want any part of it anymore.

[Saitochan]

Either way, I am removing myself from this topic. It seems that some are so desperate to discredit me that they will twist my words and attack examples rather than theory. I just really don't want any part of it anymore.

Sorry to hear that. I really enjoyed debating with you. Oh, and by the way, I took that intelligence test, and got 91.7% as a result, but I still feel you're smarter. Either I got lucky, or my education did manage to span the gap between us, but just barely.

Nah... I just got lucky.

[Raphaella]

I personally love it when the Jehovah's Witnesses, or Mormons come a knocking. I like to look at them all straight-faced and tell them that I am a Branch Davidian…. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Branch_Davidian. I tend to not only take most things far less seriously than others, but I take great joy in doing so as well. Also I take great care to keep my personal beliefs a dark and mysterious secret. http://www.discordian.com/

[Avarion]

My view of religion can be summarised thus:

Violent, irrational, intolerant, allied to racism and tribalism and bigotry, invested in ignorance and hostile to free inquiry, contemptuous of women and coercive toward children: organized religion ought to have a great deal on its conscience. - Christopher Hitchens, 'God is Not Great'

Organised religions are utterly dehumanising and such outdated dogma deserves no place in a 21st century world.

[Saitochan]

My view of religion can be summarised thus:

Violent, irrational, intolerant, allied to racism and tribalism and bigotry, invested in ignorance and hostile to free inquiry, contemptuous of women and coercive toward children: organized religion ought to have a great deal on its conscience. - Christopher Hitchens, 'God is Not Great'

Organised religions are utterly dehumanising and such outdated dogma deserves no place in a 21st century world.

Organised religion can (and probably will) be hazardous to your health. XD

[Kanashii]

This is a really hard one to answer for the simple reason of this. Are we talking "Organized religion" or are we talking faith within a person, and that is a personal thing in itself?

If we are talking organized religion, which one?: (Islam? Hinduism? Buddihsm? Christianity? Judiasm? Paganism? Wiccan, Satanism, Deist? etc) even within THAT context there are perhaps 5-20 subsets within each so called religion-belief. (IE: There is no "Christianity" as a whole. Which one? Catholicism? Lutheran? Reformist? Protestant? Huegonot? Latter Day Saints? Evangelism? etc, etc) Same with Islam, Hindi, Buddhism etc. There is no "one" there are 10 subsects of Hindi, there are 8 of Buddhism (I may be wrong on that one) 3 of Judiasm etc...

If we are talking organized religion, than ever single one, has committed violence and crusades in the name of their own religion. (Yes, even those peaceful Buddhist monks). Heck, even the SAME religions cannot get along (Shiites vs Suni? Catholics vs Protestants? Orthodox Jews vs Non-Orthodox? Pagans vs Wiccans?)

Now, if you are talking SELF spiritualization and awareness, that is a difference. Self awareness and spiritualization means that we believe that there is/are things more important and greater than us. That we (as a human being) must also care about our fellow human being. In other words, basically following the Golden rule... (Don't kill, don't rob, don't cheat your neighbor, yada, yada, yada). We don't NEED a cleric, preacher, dali-Llama to tell us these things, someone who is "Self spiritual and aware" knows this. What happens between you and your choice of belief or diety (or non-diety) is your belief.

People can be in an organized religion and be VERY self UNAWARE. On the other hand, some who never go to an organized house of worship, or join a coven, or go to a mosque or temple can be VERY spiritually aware.

Personally, (and please...This is my personal belief and I am not forcing anyone to believe or accept it), I believe that faith is like the FORCE (yeah, that "Force" from Star Wars). It is ALL around you, every cell and atom is literally alive with power, electrons, etc. There is a light side and a dark side. Life and death, summer and winter, pain and health. Both keep things in balance...(Yin-Yang). WE as souls learn from our mistakes and become more aware an intune with that "force" that is all around us. (the earth, nature, the animals, our fellow human beings)...

We choose whether we want to smile at people that day and be someone who tries to respect others, give of ourselves, or we can choose to be axe-murderers. Everything balances out in the end. I believe more in a system of "Karma" than of "Heaven and Hell". But, in that token, I do not begrudge any religion. What may be someone elses spirituality may be someone elses "poison". I won't force my beliefs on anyone, at any time. However you asked, so I am simply sharing my opinion. I would not consider myself a Christian, nor a true wiccan. I fall more into a Zen-Taoist with Wiccan-like beliefs.

However, the fascinating thing is that nearly every religion (Organized ...) does have the same basic code. (The Golden Rule, the 10 commandments, The Creed whatever you want to call them) and nearly all of them read the same... (Respect your elders, harm none, don't steal, blah, blah, and blah.) Within ANY religion you will find hypocracy, zealots and people who are in it just for politics or money. "Bad eggs" are not exclusive to any one organized religion.

So, after this LONG ramble, (and I do apologize, be nice to me, I'm old ) What I am basically saying to Ag, is this. What you have to take into account when you speak of religion is that it can be very different than spiritualism. I have met some people who follow an organized religion that are not led "blindly" would never think of bothering anyone or converting anyone, etc. I have met some real jerks in organized religion who slaughter innocencts in the name of their religion, or commit truly heinous attrocities. (Genocide, etc). NO religion is better than another, but you need to seek wisdom within yourself. Do not worry and obsess what OTHERS do...If you are self aware, you only need to know to what is in your heart and what you wish to do with it.

Warmly,

Kanashii

[Kanashii]

Religion, simply, is good, bad, and ugly. Psychologically, certain human beings need to believe in religion to live happy lives. They need to believe that there is life after death, because as animals we are scared of the unknown, and it is also comforting to believe that there is someone in charge that is absolutely right. .

I just wanted to pipe in here, Shini... (and no, I am not picking on you)

Animals actually have NO fear of the unknown or their future. Thinking of the esoterical "What if" or "Is this all we are" or "What happens when we die" is only unique unto humans. This does not mean animals do not have spirits, or intellect.

An animal does not ponder if it is going to die, or when it will die, even when it is tied up and the gun is pointed between it's head. You can slap a dog 10 times in a row, call it to you, and it will come right up to you, tail tucked, wary, but not thinking "She's gonna slap me again, so I'm not coming up to you." Slap a human 10 times in a row, and it will expect that 11th slap, and hate your guts. An animal will forgive.

My example is merely to point out that ANIMALS are in fact often far more spiritual than humans can be. (I'm not talking organized religion, but merely the cosmic ebb and flow of life and death and the here and now.)

You did hit the nail on the head when you (and Porkchop and others) said that ORGANIZED religion is often the "opiate" of the masses, insofar as people as a mob/crowd often want to point a finger at someone when something goes wrong. (Riots, "woe is me" thinking).

However, hatred, genocide, killings have been going on from the time our Stone Age ancestors were fighting over Mammoth bones. They had "religion" too, after all. (Which God-Godess is better? The Sabertooth Tiger Godess, the Thunder God or the Mammoth God?) People singling out people to dislike based on skin color, region, religion or anything, is only something uniquely human.

There is no racism amongst animals. Get 10 horses of different colors and breeds together, and the Clydesdales won;t gang up on the Arabians or Andalusians. Collies won't fight Irish Setters, just because they are Irish Setters.

Philosophers have been mulling this shite around for untold millenia. Trust me.

Warmly,

Kanashii

[Saitochan]

This is a really hard one to answer for the simple reason of this. Are we talking "Organized religion" or are we talking faith within a person, and that is a personal thing in itself?

Well, I don't know about the rest of you people, but when I say "Organized Religion", what I really mean is any system of beliefs which dogmatizes their practices and rules. We are all different, and if I happen to find a way of connecting to my spiritual self, the minute I dogmatize my beliefs to pass them on to somebody else, they lose all spiritual value, simply because what works for me might not (and probably will not) help somebody else reach inner peace. I believe everyone should look for their own way instead of following a preacher like a herd of sheep. Oh well. I hope that helps clear the confusion.

Personally, (and please...This is my personal belief and I am not forcing anyone to believe or accept it), I believe that faith is like the FORCE (yeah, that "Force" from Star Wars). It is ALL around you, every cell and atom is literally alive with power, electrons, etc. There is a light side and a dark side. Life and death, summer and winter, pain and health. Both keep things in balance...(Yin-Yang). WE as souls learn from our mistakes and become more aware an intune with that "force" that is all around us. (the earth, nature, the animals, our fellow human beings)...

Well... I actually see 'faith' more like a mental discipline than a spiritual capacity. I like to think that, with the proper training, if you believe in something hard enough, you can make it happen. But... maybe I'm just mental...

[Psychostorm]

Looks like I missed all the good parts of the discussion oh well.

I'm an atheist and despise religion. The supernatural by very definition is undefinable, it is an intellectual dead end. The best thing about being an athiest is we don't have to have all the answers. There will always be mysteries out there to solve and unknowns to explore. We don't just answer every unknown with "God", and call it a day. The potential for intellectual development and scientific discovery is limitless. I have no respect for any religious belief, though I do respect the right people have to believe them, just as they have to respect my right to call them retards. Its give and take. Not that I hate people who believe, most of the friends I've had were of some faith or another.

At first I thought I was agnostic then came to realize that agnostics were incorrectly defining themselves and that they were really atheists. An atheist being one who professes a doubt as to weather there is a god/s or not, an agnostic being someone who belives that there can be no knowledge of a god or gods. There can even be agnostic theists. This can explain it better than I can really http://www.rationalresponders.com/am_i_agnostic_or_atheist

As for Christianity, I was raised Southern Baptist(NAZI) Christian and I don't understand how anyone can take the Bible seriously. Its full of contradictions, logical fallasies, and almighty Jehova is portrayed as a psychotic ego maniac. Even if the Bible were true, who the hell would want to worship such an obviously depraved God that thinks of humanity as just playthings really? Here, I'm sure everyone is familiar with the "good" bible verses, check this site out for the "dark" verses and read about God's insanity. http://www.nobeliefs.com/DarkBible/DarkBibleContents.htm

Also it buggs me how Christians can call the Bible the "Infalliable Word of God", but then cherry pick their morality and only go by what parts they agree with. I don't recall seeing a Christian stone a homosexual to death recently, or kill one of their children for being disrepectful(ok, i'm sure this happens occasionally but I chalk that up to mental instability, not a religious act) but if you are going to call the Bible the inflexible word of God and the basis for absolute morality then it is your God given duty to do such things. Also evidence points to the story of Jesus being largely embellished for Jewish political reasons, theres a ton of info on that so I don't feel the need to post any links.

I was going to get into the whole debate about Creationism and what not but I'll be lazy once again and just post a link to thunderf00t's youtube series "Why do people laugh at Creationists?" in which he uses logic and scientific fact to eviserate Intellegent Design. http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=AC3481305829426D

[Kurahieiritr]

Ahem.

First, I'll say I'm a Deist. That's somebody who believes that if there is a god, he doesn't have much to do with us.

I'd just like to say, if there is a God, what makes you think that He created Man in His image? No. If anything, we created Him on our image. If God created Man in his image, why does God have a penis? Its only purpose is reproduction. Ergo there must be a Mrs God, and also, all the little gods.

Godliness is relative. To Neathadrals (sp?) we would be like Gods. But when aliens come down from space, nobody calls them gods. People just scream and run.

Clapping my hands on this post. I think you meant Neanderthal in that comment. Humans made the written records in many religions and have elevated ourselves within the context that we mirror God(dess), a thought I do not prescribe to since that is the height of ludicrous. There are those people in all religions who commit atrocity on a massive scale, however, they are usually the minority.

On the mention in another post about Greek Mythology; it is also a Bible, however the domination of Judaic Christian religion refuses to allow any other holy writing the same grandiose validity as their own. IF the rest of the holy writings are only mythology, then so to is the Bible is my final answer to that specific can of worms. The tendency of those who want to become trillion dollar rich, such as the yearly offerings the Catholic Church rakes in gives proof that Scripture is too often taken out of context and abused for financial gain instead of used as it was originally intended. I come from a religious background and know that there are plenty of people who use it as a tool to control others which is something the Deities forbid unilaterally in every religion I have ever studied.

Having said my peace on the abuse spectrum of religion, I do not believe that science and Religion are so far apart on some things. Both have a rigorous discipline oriented structure system that can, once incorporated into one's daily life, provide good structures worthy of living by to promote personal stability. In this, both disciplines are not so far off in their core intention.

As to whether or not exists God: Belief is personal and should remain in that classification is my feeling. The Atheist is devoted to debunking most religions and does not bother to look at how religion has played such a huge role in promoting effective structures for living a harmonic life with the atmospheric/World at large stimuli surrounding each and every individual. Of course, plenty of people proclaim religion who refuse to live within the structure of the original religious discipline. When that happens, they are not actively following their religion, but practicing abuse in the name of faith which smacks of falsehood.

When the Atheist becomes as hide bound as the minority flake variety zealot butcher ready Militant Islamic, Muslim, or Christian, then they have indeed crossed into a type of religious zeal also. That is my opinion based upon this specific criteria: When anything gets too much obsessive compulsive zealot fever, it becomes destructive. Whether it is a religion based view, or a scientific experimentation advocate arguing their case ceases to matter. A line has been crossed where the Science buffs degrade others for having a belief not agreeable to their own I have found. Then they act and speak as viciously in many cases as the bible thumpers hell bent on converting another to their way of thinking. On facebook alone I see dozens of Atheist sites that do this regularly. It is not about scientific debate, it is outright attack. Even though I understand it comes from the overwhelming number of Zealot convert to my Religion or be called demonic, it still applies that some on both sides need to shut up and keep their insanity to themselves. Not saying such to offend anyone, but I do feel it should be pointed out that both sides tend to get out of control on this specific subject.

Quantum Theory and mechanics conduction experiments on atomic particle observation are actively proving religion specific theories that close to 300 very ancient shamanic class religions have believed for thousands of years. Yet priests by whatever title over all those millennium never thought to do scientific experiments to prove that God did or did not exist. That is one of the biggest quandaries I have with this whole debate. A handful of persons have for thousands of years been able to do unexplained things based upon a set of very deep seated and learned disciplines that have no supposed scientific measuring capabilities at this time.

Some religion oriented individuals are spouting that this specific group of scientists are stumbling upon the concrete evidence that has been purposefully hidden within several oral traditions for thousands of years. Perhaps in a few more decades science will find the final answers to the riddle of whether God(dess) or ghosts and a host of long held religious beliefs actually exist.

IS Quantum theory and Mechanics going to ultimately give the world irrefutable proof that ecstatic branch faiths have been exonerated in the theory of God(dess) existing? I have my personal opinion on that, but it is very provocative for both sides of this particular debate has been my experience.

On a final note: I understand the huge atomic accelerator in Europe has given Scientists reason to believe they are finding what they call the "God Particle." Since the Atomic accelerator is based upon Quantum sciences, perhaps it will answer the question once and for all in a few decades. In the meantime, I will cling to the disciplines of my particular faith and enjoy reading on about this never ending war between religion and Science. I also look forward to he day when both realize they both have a role in the evolution of human civilization and need to respect each other equally to promote peaceful solutions to the genuine troubles within our planet's confined sphere of existence.

[Kurahieiritr]

I would disagree with that because monotheistic religions incite violence and hatred with direct calls to forcibly convert the heathens or put them to the sword.

And Jesus spake saying:

Matthew 10:34

Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

Luke 12:51

Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division: For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three. The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

Revelation 19:11

And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.

And Allah doth reveal:

5:33

The only reward of those who make war upon Allah and His messenger and strive after corruption in the land will be that they will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land. Such will be their degradation in the world, and in the Hereafter theirs will be an awful doom.

4:89

They long that ye should disbelieve even as they disbelieve, that ye may be upon a level (with them). So choose not friends from them till they forsake their homes in the way of Allah; if they turn back (to enmity) then take them and kill them wherever ye find them, and choose no friend nor helper from among them,

8:50

If thou couldst see how the angels receive those who disbelieve, smiting faces and their backs and (saying): Taste the punishment of burning!

thanks to www.skepticsannotatedbible.com

I am aware of your well backed feeling on this, Porkchop. However, I wish to make a concrete point on this anti religion variety blanket argument: All the most blood thirsty religions to have ever existed all sprang from one specific geological region of the world. By the time I was nine years old I understood the Middle East has always been, and shall always be overflowing with extremely violent people who more or less still choose to live in the proverbial Dark Ages such as we saw during Europe's Burning times, and Crusades. Christianity if also founded on older religions from The Middle East. Hence it gets lumped into the same bloody history program because it is a revised continuation of the more blood thirsty ways of the predecessors.

I request that you not put those of us who do not share the same blood lust history into your blanket views of all branches of religion. All you have cited is the Middle East religions, and I for one do not subscribe to their views one iota. Those who follow "war" gods alone should be placed in this little blind box of violent religions with a known history of committing mass murder in the names of their blood thirsty God(s). Allah and Jehovah as Judaic Christian God is often called are both known "War" Gods.

There also exist religions which are historically peaceful, and therefore should not be lumped into the same blanket universe of being violent for their daring to exist. Many shamanic faiths had zero bloody history before Middle East influenced religious nut jobs put them to the sword so to say. All the slaughter I can think of off the top of my own head has been done in the name of "demonic possession cleansing" by the antiquated ancestors of the "True Faith." Such insanity has repeatedly been cited as justification for Middle East religions' zealot frenzy that leads to committing mass murder.

Shamanic ecstatic faiths do not have anything to do with gratuitous killing and consider it a deadly sin. The paraphrased law that is unshakable: "Only kill in order to insure your own survival within the balance of the area you live within at any given time because we do have to eat." That law automatically includes people, plants, and animals. Nothing exists to perpetrate wholesale slaughter against for any reason. It can unbalance the world harmonic that keeps life going being the most obvious reason for following such an iron clad law. Do not waste a damned thing about an animal you kill, or a plant you rip from the ground is a matter of disciplining ones self as a matter of decency. Use it all, or leave it alone to exist is an unshakable law in non violent religions. Such faiths believe we are part of the food chain, not the arrogant lord over it all with the right to do as we please to everything else.

Science buffs, and Religion nuts alike need to learn their appropriate places and stop trying to pigeon hole each other as stupid or whatever other flavor each chooses to spout from day to day. I believe in both having a valid place within this world. Society has religious moral codes and ethics built into its structural underpinnings to prevent certain unsavory behaviors in many parts of the world. Beautiful cultures have evolved thanks to both religious and scientific branches working together in a harmonic way within our world's past.

The Middle East specific religions have done much to damage the reputation of all religions of this world, and I do know this and understand your views. However, there are over one thousand religions in this world that have nothing to do with the Middle East, nor adhere to any such violent natures also. They are based on living within our literal means, and trying to uphold harmony with others. Are such religions perfect? Of course not. Each religion is only as good as the followers of the faith they feel gives them the best lifestyle model they can live within and make a positive impact upon their surroundings.

I have studied many religions in my lifetime and can only speak from my own life experiences. There are good frameworks and bad frame works in religion the same as within science. Both can be abused by the unethical and power mad.