Does religion still serve a purpose in our modern world?

XxAtillaxX · 2017-02-21 20:56:15

Tomahawk wrote:

^^ This thread is now Atilla vs. anyone with a more moderate opinion.

Not really, there's plenty of theists that will desperately clutch onto anything to, ironically, bring purpose to their religion when they proclaim it to be the other way around. Apologists out of ignorance.

Abelysk · 2017-02-21 20:57:45

N1KF wrote:

Do you have any sources or evidence for this?

I have sources but am too lazy to look them up.

It's the reason why different tribes exist in Native American culture. It's the reason why countries are separated. Not everyone has similar views. This results in a separation of people forming groups that can be viewed as individual people with different opinions on various beliefs and issues.

Tomahawk · 2017-02-21 21:45:28

XxAtillaxX wrote:

Tomahawk wrote:
^^ This thread is now Atilla vs. anyone with a more moderate opinion.
Not really, there's plenty of theists that will desperately clutch onto anything to, ironically, bring purpose to their religion when they proclaim it to be the other way around. Apologists out of ignorance.

That's not a moderate opinion.

A common characteristic of most atheists is a rock solid conviction that their outlook is correct, which transitions easily into shouty anti-theism. My point was simply that you're not promoting a respectful and non-subjective debate, especially by calling religious people mentally unstable.

N1KF

XxAtillaxX · 2017-02-21 22:10:39

Tomahawk wrote:

A common characteristic of most atheists is a rock solid conviction that their outlook is correct, which transitions easily into shouty anti-theism. My point was simply that you're not promoting a respectful and non-subjective debate, especially by calling religious people mentally unstable.

I calls it like I sees it. A person saying, "I hear voices in my head telling me to do things!" is typically deemed mentally unstable, although when that voice is their God, suddenly they're completely normal.

Raphe9000, some woman

mcfx2 · 2017-02-26 23:01:36

shadowda wrote:

Yandax wrote:
ZeldaXD wrote:
Weak people needs something to tell them what to do.
Seriously? Weren't you ever taught to respect the regions of others? I have a couple things to say about this statement.
First, good job insulting yourself. A blanket statement like that means that anyone who listens to people telling what to do is weak. For the rest of your life you will listen and hopefully obey someone. Weather it's your parents, boss, spouse, or physician, it'll happen.
Second, you just insulted about 80% if the world. I did a quick google search on that so that should be reasonably correct.
Third, many of the world's greatest mind have a religion.
Fourth, religion helps people. I've never seen atheism or evolutionists turn druggies and alcoholics turn into normal, nice, sober people.
I kinda added that last point to make a point for this entire topic.
its been shown atheists are actually nicer people on average then religions people. becasue we dont need a god to tell us to be good people. and we don't expect everlasting happiness is we are nice.
When religious people do "good things" they are often doing so in conditioned response to an ethereal reward/punishment set of beliefs. When non-believers do "good things" its because they want to do them.
[First post, cant do links]

ik this is outdated but I feel obligated to point out that this article doesn't say non-religious people "are nicer on average" but instead it only says that the motivation for charity between the two tends to differ.

--

XxAtillaxX wrote:

Tomahawk wrote:
A common characteristic of most atheists is a rock solid conviction that their outlook is correct, which transitions easily into shouty anti-theism. My point was simply that you're not promoting a respectful and non-subjective debate, especially by calling religious people mentally unstable.
I calls it like I sees it. A person saying, "I hear voices in my head
telling me to do things!" is typically deemed mentally unstable, although when that voice is their God, suddenly they're completely normal.

It's not really a matter of people hearing voices mostly.
In fact, I know few if any religious people who have 'heard voices telling them what to do'.

Instead, they feel a connection to a higher power that guides them. Non-religious people can think of it as intuition.

modedit: don't double post

Gosha · 2017-02-26 23:08:38

lol, mcfx2 registered on this forum only to discuss religion topic

Swarth100 · 2017-02-27 11:19:23

XxAtillaxX wrote:

Tomahawk wrote:
I see no logical reason why a sudden onslaught of atheism would cause some kind of widespread loss of morals, but as a huge amount of good (e.g. charity) is done by peaceful practisers of religion then it's probably better that it doesn't happen.
There are plenty non-religious charities, and science has saved more lives than religion ever will and ever could.

Without disagreeing with everything said above, can I suggest that religion and science are not contraddictory? No religion that I know of denies science.

(There are few select extremists, such as flat earth believers or creationists, that forcefully want to force religion to make scientific statements. Such individuals should not be considered as the average-religious-man, as they are a very distinct extremist minority).

Abelysk · 2017-02-27 17:27:15

My Christian mom once said a voice in her head told her to stop doing chores and to pray.

XxAtillaxX · 2017-02-27 19:06:30

Swarth100 wrote:

Without disagreeing with everything said above, can I suggest that religion and science are not contraddictory? No religion that I know of denies science.
(There are few select extremists, such as flat earth believers or creationists, that forcefully want to force religion to make scientific statements. Such individuals should not be considered as the average-religious-man, as they are a very distinct extremist minority).

They aren't a religious minority.

It's clear that the vast majority of religious people make claims unsupported by evidence, completely contradictory of science.
For example, claiming that the Earth was created by their god, which is against scientific consensus. Case in point.

No true Scotsman. No true "average-religious-man".

Norwee · 2017-02-27 20:49:39

XxAtillaxX wrote:

Swarth100 wrote:
Without disagreeing with everything said above, can I suggest that religion and science are not contraddictory? No religion that I know of denies science.
(There are few select extremists, such as flat earth believers or creationists, that forcefully want to force religion to make scientific statements. Such individuals should not be considered as the average-religious-man, as they are a very distinct extremist minority).
They aren't a religious minority.
It's clear that the vast majority of religious people make claims unsupported by evidence, completely contradictory of science.
For example, claiming that the Earth was created by their god, which is against scientific consensus. Case in point.
No true Scotsman. No true "average-religious-man".

A better argument against religion=
Since there exists an endless amount of religions, both big and small, all claiming to be the only correct way... then that means either 99% of religions are wrong, or all religions are wrong. Hence there can only be one or no "correct" religious belief. Thus the conclusion is that most, if not all religions are wrong because by their own words, no religion other than theirs can exist and be correct at the same time.

Tomahawk · 2017-02-28 01:36:19

XxAtillaxX wrote:

It's clear that the vast majority of religious people make claims unsupported by evidence

Oh the irony.

As a certain someone seems to have it in for any non-atheist, it's worth me pointing out another difference - this time between theism and deism. A theist believes in a deity which created everything and continues to take part, while a deist believes in a creator who does not interfere. If the deist does not read scripture, pray, attend church or display any more religious inclination than an atheist would, is he also insane? If so, congratulations. That makes you superior to a good 75% of the world's population.

Aside from the proposition that the existence of a deity cannot be proven nor disproven, it's simply wrong to generalise any large collection of people, especially under such an ambiguous adjective as "religious". Do yourself a favour and prove your understanding of the word "debate" by saying something vaguely rational.

WMWMWMWMWMWMWMWMWMWM · 2017-02-28 02:52:23

There is no god. People believed in him for so long yet no evidence. In school I ask why people go to church and why they belive god exist. They tell me that god does exist but they never explain. I ask how god was created, and one of them said "god created himself". This sounds the same as the big bang theory, where nothing created something.

Raphe9000 · 2017-02-28 02:58:43

One time, I asked someone if the church has ever been wrong. Like 99% of Christians, they said no. "So the sun revolved around the Earth?"
Always stops them in their tracks.

N1KF · 2017-02-28 03:02:14

WMWMWMWMWMWMWMWMWMWM wrote:

There is no god.

Why is that such a popular atheist comment? You can argue that there is little evidence for god(s), or that the existence of one or more is unlikely. Claiming you actually know, however, acts as if you know it as a fact. There are countless potential god(s), yet this single sentences shuts them all off in exchange for a single biased and attention-grabbing claim. Humans need to accept that they can't fully understand the universe.

I ask how god was created, and one of them said "god created himself". This sounds the same as the big bang theory, where nothing created something.

That doesn't seem like a satisfying answer to me. I think a more fitting one would be the idea that God always existed, as God wouldn't follow the laws of thermodynamics unlike the Big Bang. Unless you assume the Big Bang is supernatural, but I don't think that's an idea held by many atheists.

Raphe9000 wrote:

One time, I asked someone if the church has ever been wrong. Like 99% of Christians, they said no. "So the sun revolved around the Earth?"
Always stops them in their tracks.

Their view doesn't really hold much biblical water. Why would anybody ever assume that the Church is correct in all cases? There are massive amounts of contradictory teachings of different parts of "the Church" so to act as if it's a perfect hive mind is really silly. If 99% of Christians do believe that to be the case (based on your massively limited one-person sample size), that's really concerning for Christianity.

Raphe9000 · 2017-02-28 03:18:55

N1KF wrote:

Their view doesn't really hold much biblical water. Why would anybody ever assume that the Church is correct in all cases?

Ask the Christians.

N1KF wrote:

If 99% of Christians do believe that to be the case (based on your massively limited one-person sample size), that's really concerning for Christianity.

To clarify, I've asked other Christians but only have used that once. I also live in the Bible Belt.

N1KF · 2017-02-28 03:21:45

Raphe9000 wrote:

I also live in the Bible Belt.

That explains it. People don't bother questioning views that are popular around them.

Raphe9000

Ratburntro44 · 2017-02-28 03:45:05

Raphe9000 wrote:

One time, I asked someone if the church has ever been wrong. Like 99% of Christians, they said no. "So the sun revolved around the Earth?"
Always stops them in their tracks.

Raphe9000 wrote:

I also live in the Bible Belt.

do the protestants care a whole lot about the catholic church being wrong about something? (leaving other issues aside)

2017-02-28 13:12:52

Christianism is pretty varied, (personal experience) most Catholics aren't practicing and just hold their family tradition, while Protestants (especially Pentecostalism) do base their entire lifestyle around their religion. There are also all the spiritual people and all their Eastern stuff trying to get out of their mid-life crisis.

I don't care tbh (I stand somewhere between agnostic and atheist), I do have seen a few extremely ignorant blockheads and some controversial conservativism but in the end people choose what to do with their lives.
If it's that what brings them inner peace or a feeling of purpose, why ban it, because you're obviously the genius who's too smart for this world and all the sheeples so people better live how you tell them to!!!?

XxAtillaxX · 2017-02-28 16:49:56

Tomahawk wrote:

XxAtillaxX wrote:
It's clear that the vast majority of religious people make claims unsupported by evidence
Oh the irony.
As a certain someone seems to have it in for any non-atheist, it's worth me pointing out another difference - this time between theism and deism. A theist believes in a deity which created everything and continues to take part, while a deist believes in a creator who does not interfere. If the deist does not read scripture, pray, attend church or display any more religious inclination than an atheist would, is he also insane? If so, congratulations. That makes you superior to a good 75% of the world's population.
Aside from the proposition that the existence of a deity cannot be proven nor disproven, it's simply wrong to generalise any large collection of people, especially under such an ambiguous adjective as "religious". Do yourself a favour and prove your understanding of the word "debate" by saying something vaguely rational.

Irony? I cited an example as to why directly below my statement, if only you were capable of reading.

I despise all religions equally for their shared adulation towards faith, which has undeniably led to the deaths of hundreds of millions of people across the world and throughout history and still, in modern times.
I don't 'have it in for any non-atheist'. I hate the disease, not the people burdened with it. I'm very aware of deism, and it still idolises faith, which has an everlasting history of unprecedented damage and oppression.

It cannot be dis-proven, however the burden of proof lies upon the one who affirms, not the one who denies.
If you are going to believe in a magical sky daddy, you should be mocked equally as the person who believes in a magical sky spaghetti monster.

Tomahawk wrote:

it's simply wrong to generalise any large collection of people, especially under such an ambiguous adjective as "religious".

It isn't 'simply wrong' to name a collection of people whose beliefs rest in faith as religious.
I'm sorry, you don't get to decide what is 'simply wrong'. Maybe I should have used a trigger warning?

Tomahawk wrote:

Do yourself a favour and prove your understanding of the word "debate" by saying something vaguely rational.

You aren't the arbiter of rationality, either.

You should realise that 'simply' because you disagree doesn't mean I'm irrational or lack an understanding of what a debate is.
I think it would be fair to ask you to prove your maturity by acting like a grown-up would and drop the ad-hominem shtick.

N1KF · 2017-02-28 17:42:33

XxAtillaxX wrote:

If you are going to believe in a magical sky daddy, you should be mocked equally as the person who believes in a magical sky spaghetti monster.

Wow. I knew you were strongly against religion but I didn't know you would resort to such an unoriginal insult. If you're going to insult something at least be creative with it instead of making yourself sound like an insult-repeating robot!

Tomahawk · 2017-02-28 18:20:09

XxAtillaxX wrote:

It isn't 'simply wrong' to name a collection of people whose beliefs rest in faith as religious.
I'm sorry, you don't get to decide what is 'simply wrong'. Maybe I should have used a trigger warning?

By wrong I mean incorrect, illogical, infeasible, unrealistic; the generalisation that anyone religious is insane only boils down to the contempt you hold towards someone you disagree with strongly. All atheists could just as easily be insane to someone adamant about the existence of god, so - burden of proof notwithstanding (and only mentioned now) - I call your view irrational because what you've said hasn't been rationalised.

There's no ad hominem shtick; you're the only one here to have this judgement so I'm criticising only your view. While you may know what a debate is, the fact remains that you've given a proposition with no argument behind it. 'Anybody religious is insane' - well, why? The "magical sky daddy" ridicule only works with the prerequisite that one is already critical of religion, so until you attempt to justify that claim of insanity with something like the 'Problem of evil', all you've done so far is flame, not debate.

XxAtillaxX · 2017-02-28 18:33:29

Tomahawk wrote:

XxAtillaxX wrote:
It isn't 'simply wrong' to name a collection of people whose beliefs rest in faith as religious.
I'm sorry, you don't get to decide what is 'simply wrong'. Maybe I should have used a trigger warning?
By wrong I mean incorrect, illogical, infeasible, unrealistic; the generalisation that anyone religious is insane only boils down to the contempt you hold towards someone you disagree with strongly. All atheists could just as easily be insane to someone adamant about the existence of god, so - burden of proof notwithstanding (and only mentioned now) - I call your view irrational because what you've said hasn't been rationalised.
There's no ad hominem shtick; you're the only one here to have this judgement so I'm criticising only your view. While you may know what a debate is, the fact remains that you've given a proposition with no argument behind it. 'Anybody religious is insane' - well, why? The "magical sky daddy" ridicule only works with the prerequisite that one is already critical of religion, so until you attempt to justify that claim of insanity with something like the 'Problem of evil', all you've done so far is flame, not debate.

I have no contempt for those who have been indoctrinated on the premise of indoctrination alone.
If they aren't actively advocating for oppression and violence, and condemn the vitriolic aspects of their religion, they are fine with me.
Nonetheless, anything that posits belief in mysticism and mythology should be regarded as delusional.

N1KF · 2017-02-28 18:36:03

Tomahawk wrote:

XxAtillaxX wrote:
It isn't 'simply wrong' to name a collection of people whose beliefs rest in faith as religious.
I'm sorry, you don't get to decide what is 'simply wrong'. Maybe I should have used a trigger warning?
By wrong I mean incorrect, illogical, infeasible, unrealistic; the generalisation that anyone religious is insane only boils down to the contempt you hold towards someone you disagree with strongly. All atheists could just as easily be insane to someone adamant about the existence of god, so - burden of proof notwithstanding (and only mentioned now) - I call your view irrational because what you've said hasn't been rationalised.

I think his point got buried in his long words—what he's been trying to say is:

Faith has caused people to do bad things
Religion demands faith
Therefore, religion is harmful

soniiiety · 2017-02-28 23:21:07

you guys dont respond to my answer got jw.org and look up the answer there is no short answer i will say this again Every religion will have a purpose for themselves but there is only one religion that will always have a purpose no matter what people do it will stay Jw.org it's the best way to answer life questions and etc click on your own risk btw no offense but other religions and churches and clergy men don't care about the truth there is only one purpose for humans to live on earth in paradise forever no sickness death or killing just peace and happiness
--
Btw and a resurrection of all the dead loved ones of the good and the wicked https://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesses/faq/ https://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesses/faq/ https://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesses/faq/

Tomahawk · 2017-03-01 00:25:11

@soniiiety:

If you look on your keyboard, two keys to the right of 'M', there's a key with a little dot underneath a sideways v, and when you press it you get this: . For the love of god please use that key. Are you 6!?

EDIT: Also so I don't get pwned for spam, the state of omnipotence is a paradox which can be illustrated by the question, "Can god create a rock he cannot lift?" Either answer results in a god that isn't omnipotent, and is therefore not a god.
(Yes ik that's just a semantic based on a widely held interpretation of the word 'omnipotent', but I had to invent something on the spot. ^^)

Official Everybody Edits Forums

#51 2017-02-21 20:56:15

Re: Does religion still serve a purpose in our modern world?

#52 2017-02-21 20:57:45

Re: Does religion still serve a purpose in our modern world?

#53 2017-02-21 21:45:28

Re: Does religion still serve a purpose in our modern world?

#54 2017-02-21 22:10:39

Re: Does religion still serve a purpose in our modern world?

#55 2017-02-26 23:01:36, last edited by hummerz5 (2017-02-28 01:38:34)

Re: Does religion still serve a purpose in our modern world?

#56 2017-02-26 23:08:38

Re: Does religion still serve a purpose in our modern world?

#57 2017-02-27 11:19:23

Re: Does religion still serve a purpose in our modern world?

#58 2017-02-27 17:27:15

Re: Does religion still serve a purpose in our modern world?

#59 2017-02-27 19:06:30

Re: Does religion still serve a purpose in our modern world?

#60 2017-02-27 20:49:39

Re: Does religion still serve a purpose in our modern world?

#61 2017-02-28 01:36:19

Re: Does religion still serve a purpose in our modern world?

#62 2017-02-28 02:52:23

Re: Does religion still serve a purpose in our modern world?

#63 2017-02-28 02:58:43

Re: Does religion still serve a purpose in our modern world?

#64 2017-02-28 03:02:14, last edited by N1KF (2017-02-28 03:30:03)

Re: Does religion still serve a purpose in our modern world?

#65 2017-02-28 03:18:55

Re: Does religion still serve a purpose in our modern world?

#66 2017-02-28 03:21:45

Re: Does religion still serve a purpose in our modern world?

#67 2017-02-28 03:45:05

Re: Does religion still serve a purpose in our modern world?

#68 2017-02-28 13:12:52

Re: Does religion still serve a purpose in our modern world?

#69 2017-02-28 16:49:56

Re: Does religion still serve a purpose in our modern world?

#70 2017-02-28 17:42:33

Re: Does religion still serve a purpose in our modern world?

#71 2017-02-28 18:20:09

Re: Does religion still serve a purpose in our modern world?

#72 2017-02-28 18:33:29, last edited by XxAtillaxX (2017-02-28 18:33:55)

Re: Does religion still serve a purpose in our modern world?

#73 2017-02-28 18:36:03

Re: Does religion still serve a purpose in our modern world?

#74 2017-02-28 23:21:07

Re: Does religion still serve a purpose in our modern world?

#75 2017-03-01 00:25:11, last edited by Tomahawk (2017-03-01 00:32:28)

Re: Does religion still serve a purpose in our modern world?

Board footer