Something that has been bugging me...

[Xhaka Can’t]

Religions develop to allow a small group of (almost exclusively) small men control the rest of the people.

That is equally true of Internet message boards

[Sirjackofwilshere]

I believe that you are getting the cart before the horse. I would posit that religions incorporate the moral fundamentals of the society of the day to further reinforce them, rather than religions providing the morals.

Looking at modern Europe the enlightment only happened a few hundred years ago, besides even then womans rights, minority rights and a whole host of other civil rights where only "secured" in the last century. Religious fundamentals have been around for thousands of years.

Good one.

Ibn Sina, Al-Khwarizmi, Al-Farabi...the Islamic golden age, Thomas aquinus etc etc ..

[WMUG]

The fact that you have morals doesn't negate the need for religion. You live in a society whose moral underpinings are derived from religion, no matter how secular, non-religious it is...your athiesm is dependent on religion for its foundations...ironic.

And this idea that anyone should be able to form and hold a set of moral belief is rubbish. You are insinuating that the morals that have been subject to debate for thousands of years, by the greatest minds history has known are essentially self-evident. What about the unintelligent? The new generations of peoples? What about the changes that humanity and civilizations are subject to?? What determines that morals will be the same ones as they are now, forever?

That is why religion is important...besides the other spiritual, intellectual, economic benefits.

You seriously believe that, don't you? *sigh*
Even if it were true, you think Christianity has the answers? It's one of the religions that has caused women to be seen as second class citizens, the remnants of which still exist today. It's one of the religions that forbids people marrying the man they love simply because they also have a Y chromosome. And if you want to follow the Christian moral code, you'd better take off that multi-fabric shirt you're wearing. Ever eaten a prawn? Repent now! And Christians are told to try to live a godly life, yes? Your God spends his entire life eternally torturing those who don't agree with him. Fuck that shit.

And my atheism does not depend on religion in any way. If religion didn't exist I'd be an atheist, but no one would call it that, it would just be 'reason'.

[The Wengerbabies]

It's one of the religions that has caused women to be seen as second class citizens, the remnants of which still exist today. It's one of the religions that forbids people marrying the man they love simply because they also have a Y chromosome.

These were good aspects of Christianity tbf.

[Toronto Gooner]

Looking at modern Europe the enlightment only happened a few hundred years ago, besides even then womans rights, minority rights and a whole host of other civil rights where only "secured" in the last century. Religious fundamentals have been around for thousands of years.

I am not certain what you are trying to say here. Are you saying that women's "rights, minority rights and a whole host of other civil rights" were secured a long time after the "religious fundamentals were incorporated (or espoused) in the various religious tracts? If so, then you are making a strong case for the fact that the so-called religious fundamentals no longer reflect the morals of human society, and thus religion is a pointless endeavour.

But seriously, I do not contest the fact that the so-called religious fundamentals have been around for millennia. Where you and I differ is the origin of those fundamentals. You seem to believe that they have been handed down from some all-seeing, all-knowing being that created the earth and the universe. I, on the other hand, believe, that they reflect the moral fundamentals of the society at the time and were incorporated into the religious tomes written by men to ensure the compliance of the populous.

[Sirjackofwilshere]

But seriously, I do not contest the fact that the so-called religious fundamentals have been around for millennia. Where you and I differ is the origin of those fundamentals. You seem to believe that they have been handed down from some all-seeing, all-knowing being that created the earth and the universe. I, on the other hand, believe, that they reflect the moral fundamentals of the society at the time and were incorporated into the religious tomes written by men to ensure the compliance of the populous.

But lets look at the ancient Greek philosophers for example. The belief then was that people who where intelligent had more worth to society then those who weren't ergo the unintelligent were dispensable and killing them was justified. If religions incorporated what the status quo was then why does this belief go against most divine religions who deem people superior based on their piety, compassion and righteousness and see humans as equals. Divine revelations revolutionised the societies they were introduced to and gave rights to people who were oppresed and freed them from the shackles of cultural and historical decadence.

[Niall_Quinn]

Common sense means what people commonly see as sense. A mad man's idea of sense would not represent the common man.

On the contrary, the common man appears to be more insane than the most stricken lunatic. Excusing insanity because it is "the norm" does not remove the insanity. Religion is the least of our worries when you look at the other shit inflicted on mankind such as democracy and the global banking system. Surely tackling these two fundamental horrors is more important than victimising those who wish to retain a spiritual aspect to their lives? Surely live and let live is a sound philosophy? Which is of course why democracy and the global banking system must be eradicated. Has anyone watched the news recently? If you think religion is insane then what do you have to say about economics? I bet some of you don't even question it, you just assume everything handed down to you is valid, in much the same way as those of faith would do. At least religion is not evil by default.

[Niall_Quinn]

Religions develop to allow a small group of (almost exclusively) men control of the rest of the people.

Agreed. 100% but without the feminist twist (which was another control mechanism organised by men). That's what organised religion is, a control structure. Whereas religion was segmented and secured merely majority control of mankind its amoral successor, the global banking system, is absolute in its influence. Mankind has never faced a greater evil and yet, religious people remain mostly silent as this classic definition of an anti-christ walks among them. This tells you all you need to know about organised religion and who directs it.

Personal religion is a different thing. Does anyone here begrudge a person his beliefs provided they are not forced down the throats of another?

[mandela]

Does anyone here begrudge a person his beliefs provided they are not forced down the throats of another?

Absolutely.


Especially when it's fuckin' stupid, like religion.

[mandela]

The fuck did my paedo post go to?

Fuck sake.