We do not allow discrimination here based on race, gender, sexual orientation, nationality, age, economic status, or if you do or do not eat okra. It should go without saying that making fun of other religions is not allowed.

That is from the respect part two thread, and I would like to point out some flaws in it. I will try to be as respectful as I can though.

The list of discriminatory topics has absolutely nothing to do with religion. I can't choose to be born a certain race, sex, etc. I can only control my economic status or nationality to a certain degree. If you are born into poverty, there is very little one can do to escape it, even in America.

Now comes religion. You have every chance to CHOOSE religion or not choose it. Just b/c it is so indoctrinated these days does not mean it comes without choice.

My argument starts here, attacking the choices someone has made in life, based on the data available, is FAIR GAME. I will never attack someone's ethnicity, race, age, etc b/c they have had no choice in the matter. On the other hand when someone willfully gives up control of themselves for a higher power the gloves come off.

I have made the argument before of someone believing in an absurd logic. A book, that has no roots in empirical evidence. Essentially a collection of stories on "how to live" (and not even live well if you take it literally) now governs a large percentage of the world's population.

Would anyone ever take me seriously if I wrote a book and said in it that there was an alien living on the moon that created the earth and will hold you accountable for your actions when you die, then decide weather you can live on the moon with him in peace, or if you did one little thing wrong you will suffer by living on Venus for all time? But he still loves you and all you have to do is submit to his ever whim. When I say him, I mena my bc I wrote the book, and you can never actually meet the alien, but TRUST ME, he is there, i just know it.

Yeah I am knocking on scientology a bit here, and I think it is a good idea to scrutinize it. It is a recent religion that gives proof that man can and does create religions for whatever reasons he deems fit. 2000 years from now is scientology going to be the new big world religion? Using current events in religious evolution to deduce why we have a book like the bible seems like a good way to understand our history/religion intertwine.

You can use the data available to make the most informed guess about how the world works. Science can't explain everything, but one can make a pretty solid set of rules based on observation of the known world and the mathematic we base our rules on. I am here to make the argument that using empirical evidence should stand head and shoulders above ANY non-empirical data. There were MANY historians alive at the time jesus supposedly existed and there is not one note in the history books about him. If someone was traveling around coming back from the dead and causing a ruckus, don't you think that would be worthy to note?

I don't mean to attack any specific religion with this argument, all are at fault equally. If you trace back religion you will some to find that the Egyptians pretty much 'wrote the play book'. See this page for the parallels between chrisianity and the egyptian story.

Parallels between the lives of Jesus and Horus, an Egyptian God

Religion had/has a purpose in the history of man. It helps explain the unexplainable and it keeps everyone pacified for the most part, until someone disagrees with it then holy cow look out. Crusades, sacrifices, burning people alive.... all bets are off when the enemy of religion is involved.

To conclude, I think it is wrong to allow someone to willfully choose a way of life that is not based in fact. Would you not try to teach someone that the world is round if they believed it was flat? I am sure no one here would respect that claim, and it is just as bold and evident-less as the existence of god or a higher power. I will not respect opinions that are not based in common logic, I will respect people's choices when they are logical or at least based on "reasonable" assumptions.

A book where I have to read between every line, that is thousands of years old, that has no empirical evidence for the bold claims it makes is FAR from a reasonable assumption to base decisions from.

Thank you for reading this far, and I hope to not have offended anyone person with my logical civilized points.
eggrole1 Reviewed by eggrole1 on . Why it is wrong to NOT attack religion We do not allow discrimination here based on race, gender, sexual orientation, nationality, age, economic status, or if you do or do not eat okra. It should go without saying that making fun of other religions is not allowed. That is from the respect part two thread, and I would like to point out some flaws in it. I will try to be as respectful as I can though. The list of discriminatory topics has absolutely nothing to do with religion. I can't choose to be born a certain race, sex, etc. Rating: 5