Do you believe in a god?

god, yes
organized religion, no

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by F L E S H

It's funny, but whenever I read an atheist's point of view, it's always so much more peaceful, accepting, tolerant, loving, and ultimately good, than any religious person's point of view.

---

Yes thats true, but we should really look at how many atheists vs. people of religion who do good in the world, like devoting their lives to helping the poor, etc.. When people think of civil rights and peace activists who had the most impact on the world in the 20th century, people like Martin Luther King(VERY religious) and Gandhi(also believed in a higher power) or Mother Theresa come to mind. Of course, many religious people in power werent very nice people. But the ultimate question is whether an atheist or a person of God is more likely to do good in the world. Sure, a nun might think gays will go to hell, and be pro-life, but if she spends her entire life in Africa making sure kids have clean drinking water, does it really matter?

Mother Theresa ect just making up for dumb shit their religions did, like the crusades!

Man, people are people, whether they're religious or not.

I don't know guys...amsterdam has made some good points...

Quote:

---

torogs a dying breed?you must be outta your mind.seriously.

---

Quote:

---

be careful saying that around here,tons and tons of anti-religon finatics around here.

---

Quote:

---

victim?please.silly canadian.

---

Shit those are deep man, fucking deep.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mojavpa

Yes thats true, but we should really look at how many atheists vs. people of religion who do good in the world, like devoting their lives to helping the poor, etc.. When people think of civil rights and peace activists who had the most impact on the world in the 20th century, people like Martin Luther King(VERY religious) and Gandhi(also believed in a higher power) or Mother Theresa come to mind. Of course, many religious people in power werent very nice people. But the ultimate question is whether an atheist or a person of God is more likely to do good in the world. Sure, a nun might think gays will go to hell, and be pro-life, but if she spends her entire life in Africa making sure kids have clean drinking water, does it really matter?

---

I kind of have to crack up when somebody admits to admiring religous "do-gooders".

If your nuns in Africa, or the organization(s) they represent, deny the people in third world countries the right to have birth control, then they are contributing to the problems of poverty - and all of the diseases that could be prevented with condoms and safe sex. Condemning condoms is not "good" - it's stupid. Africa has, I believe, the highest Aids outbreak in the world. The Church could care less, and tells them to use abstinence.

Mother Theresa's homes for the dying were just that - she believed that people's afterlife was more important than life here on earth. She, however, flew around in jets and was wined and dined by rogues, dictators, and various scoundrels. She turned down a building that was offered to her, to be used as a hospital in NYC, because it had ELEVATORS - she did not believe in them!

The churches opposed most all of the scientific and medical discoveries in the world. It was the men of knowledge, not the superstitious idiocy of anti-human priests that made our life spans go from 20 something in biblical times to what it is today. Next time you need medical care, whom are you going to go to - a doctor or a priest?

Itâ??s the heretics, infidels and other freethinkers that make the world better â?? not the religious. All real progress in the world is outside of religion, not because of it.

Just my opinion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Breukelen advocaat

I kind of have to crack up when somebody admits to admiring religous "do-gooders".

If your nuns in Africa, or the organization(s) they represent, deny the people in third world countries the right to have birth control, then they are contributing to the problems of poverty - and all of the diseases that could be prevented with condoms and safe sex. Condemning condoms is not "good" - it's stupid. Africa has, I believe, the highest Aids outbreak in the world. The Church could care less, and tells them to use abstinence.

Mother Theresa's homes for the dying were just that - she believed that people's afterlife was more important than life here on earth. She, however, flew around in jets and was wined and dined by rogues, dictators, and various scoundrels. She turned down a building that was offered to her, to be used as a hospital in NYC, because it had ELEVATORS - she did not believe in them!

The churches opposed most all of the scientific and medical discoveries in the world. It was the men of knowledge, not the superstitious idiocy of anti-human priests that made our life spans go from 20 something in biblical times to what it is today. Next time you need medical care, whom are you going to go to - a doctor or a priest?

Itâ??s the heretics, infidels and other freethinkers that make the world better â?? not the religious. All real progress in the world is outside of religion, not because of it.

Just my opinion.

---

Yes, you make some good points, especially that the church contributes to the AIDS problem by denying condoms to people. However, I'm not talking so much about organized religion as those individuals who are motivated to do good in the world because of their faith, or inspired by figures in their religion, whether it be Jesus, Muhammed, Buddha, or a Hindu God. Many of these people may not adopt every principle of their religion, but still believe in God, and this drives them to help people.

Remember, I was raising the issue of atheists vs. those who believe in God, because someone wrote that an atheists point of view was more accepting and "good" than a religious person's.

BTW, I wouldnt say that all progress was made outside of religion. You totally discount those achievements by scientists and artists whose work was a result of their faith, such as Isaac Newton. We wouldnt live so long if it wasnt for his achievments in math and science, and look at Bach. Everything he wrote was in the name of God. Any kind of Western music we listen to was directly influenced by him.

I never said that religious people do more good than atheists. Atheists and infidels, in my opinion, ushered in the Enlightenment and were very important in their own right. But progress in the world has been in the sphere of religion and outside of it.

Think of people. Us. Think of us getting smaller and de-evolving until we are the first sign of life on Earth. You know, just thinking outside of the box for a minute, what if the Universe preceded God? (how can I say such a thing...?) So, we're back to the first sign of life, now we have to figure out who's the chemist?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mojavpa

Yes, you make some good points, especially that the church contributes to the AIDS problem by denying condoms to people. However, I'm not talking so much about organized religion as those individuals who are motivated to do good in the world because of their faith, or inspired by figures in their religion, whether it be Jesus, Muhammed, Buddha, or a Hindu God. Many of these people may not adopt every principle of their religion, but still believe in God, and this drives them to help people.

Remember, I was raising the issue of atheists vs. those who believe in God, because someone wrote that an atheists point of view was more accepting and "good" than a religious person's.

BTW, I wouldnt say that all progress was made outside of religion. You totally discount those achievements by scientists and artists whose work was a result of their faith, such as Isaac Newton. We wouldnt live so long if it wasnt for his achievments in math and science, and look at Bach. Everything he wrote was in the name of God. Any kind of Western music we listen to was directly influenced by him.

I never said that religious people do more good than atheists. Atheists and infidels, in my opinion, ushered in the Enlightenment and were very important in their own right. But progress in the world has been in the sphere of religion and outside of it.

---

If you do a google search of Isaac Newton, and the word Heretic, you'll get a lot of information. Newton hated organized religion (esp. the Catholic Church), and did not believe in the trinity. He had a lot of strange ideas, which was typical of almost everybody in those times (and ours as well). He was a genius, regardless of his religious beliefs (or lack of). These days, there is no excuse for actions based on theology - other than keeping it out of government.

Since there is no evidence that any "miracle" ever happened, that Christ ever lived (even as a "normal" man), or anybody was ever contacted by a "higher" power, then it is obvious that beliefs in theology and such are forms of mental illness. It is also apparent that the greatest threat to the very existence of the human race originates with the disagreements among the three big monotheistic faiths of Islam, Christianity, and Judaism. If rational thinking does not become more widespread, Iâ??m afraid that the future is not going to include our species at some point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mojavpa

Yes, you make some good points, especially that the church contributes to the AIDS problem by denying condoms to people. However, I'm not talking so much about organized religion as those individuals who are motivated to do good in the world because of their faith, or inspired by figures in their religion, whether it be Jesus, Muhammed, Buddha, or a Hindu God. Many of these people may not adopt every principle of their religion, but still believe in God, and this drives them to help people.

Remember, I was raising the issue of atheists vs. those who believe in God, because someone wrote that an atheists point of view was more accepting and "good" than a religious person's.

BTW, I wouldnt say that all progress was made outside of religion. You totally discount those achievements by scientists and artists whose work was a result of their faith, such as Isaac Newton. We wouldnt live so long if it wasnt for his achievments in math and science, and look at Bach. Everything he wrote was in the name of God. Any kind of Western music we listen to was directly influenced by him.

I never said that religious people do more good than atheists. Atheists and infidels, in my opinion, ushered in the Enlightenment and were very important in their own right. But progress in the world has been in the sphere of religion and outside of it.

---

No one can deny that smoe people have done great humanitarian deeds in the name of religion. However, as Breukelen pointed out, I think the progress made in the name Science far outweighs religious good deeds. Religious people will shelter and care for people afflicted with hunger, disease and poverty, but scientists will seek to eradicate these afflictions for good. And I think that in some perverse way, Religion seeks to prevent any sort of significant progress, because it wuold then become irrelevant.

Religion ultimately holds back any sort of real progress. Think back to any scientific breakthrouh since the 16th century and you will see that at every opportunity, religious leaders have inevitably opposed any progress of science, be it in the realm of astronomy, biology, economics, government, physics, you name it.