Crosswords0 min ago
Should religion be dumped?
45 Answers
As the existence of a god was thought up in more primitive times to explain things that people were unable to understand at that time, is it not time that we all agreed that we have outgrown it, and put it behind us with all the other superstitions?
Is there any other unprovable theory that does not bring derision down on its followers?
Is there any other unprovable theory that does not bring derision down on its followers?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by gilipollas. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
To the Village Idiot:
Using children as pawns to support ones chosen delusions is the lowest form of outrage against humanity and that which raised us up from our trembling knees in fear over an act of nature only the virtue of reason had the power to explain. Go worship your stinking volcano or better yet sacrifice yourself to your ignorance rather than your children and ours.
Using children as pawns to support ones chosen delusions is the lowest form of outrage against humanity and that which raised us up from our trembling knees in fear over an act of nature only the virtue of reason had the power to explain. Go worship your stinking volcano or better yet sacrifice yourself to your ignorance rather than your children and ours.
Oh dear, Waldo, I hadn�t realised the general purpose of the Q was to reply with playground clich�s. If only you had said that all Catholics are paedophiles you would have the complete box set.
If, as you are inferring, all blame for all things wrong in the world lay at the feet of religion, then ergo, it is to suggest that if religion ceased to exist then this would all stop. This verges on naivety and a vagary of the imagination, if not delusion. People cause wars and carry out murder, not religion. Show me a war based on religion, and I�ll show you a war of ambition, power, greed and territory.
I would presume therefore from the 3 stars above, that this question is a loaded one and primarily aimed at ridding the world of Christianity & Islam. And you wonder why debate is stifled!
If you wish for debate you do need to set aside the one-dimensional view of religious intolerance and somehow accept that people have different beliefs and views which you may or may not understand but are afraid to admit. Simplified condemnation of religion is evidence of your own religious intolerance and merely closes debate.
If, as you are inferring, all blame for all things wrong in the world lay at the feet of religion, then ergo, it is to suggest that if religion ceased to exist then this would all stop. This verges on naivety and a vagary of the imagination, if not delusion. People cause wars and carry out murder, not religion. Show me a war based on religion, and I�ll show you a war of ambition, power, greed and territory.
I would presume therefore from the 3 stars above, that this question is a loaded one and primarily aimed at ridding the world of Christianity & Islam. And you wonder why debate is stifled!
If you wish for debate you do need to set aside the one-dimensional view of religious intolerance and somehow accept that people have different beliefs and views which you may or may not understand but are afraid to admit. Simplified condemnation of religion is evidence of your own religious intolerance and merely closes debate.
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
"Oh dear, Waldo, I hadn�t realised the general purpose of the Q was to reply with playground clich�s."
Which of the actions I attributed to religion is untrue? If by clich�, you mean to acknowledge these things happen with sufficient frequency to become clich�s, then I concur.
"If only you had said that all Catholics are paedophiles you would have the complete box set."
Close but no cigar. Not only have I not at any point ascribed any of the actions to 'all' members of a religion, (I wouldn't ascribe them to 'most', but to 'some') but neither would I ascribe a priest's paedophillia to their religious beliefs, hence I didn't include it.
"If, as you are inferring, all blame for all things wrong in the world lay at the feet of religion, then ergo, it is to suggest that if religion ceased to exist then this would all stop."
It's extremely lucky for me that I did no such thing then, isn't it?
"This verges on naivety and a vagary of the imagination, if not delusion. People cause wars and carry out murder, not religion. Show me a war based on religion, and I�ll show you a war of ambition, power, greed and territory."
Yes. Where each side's religious views about the absolute rightness of their views, and their 'chosen people of god' status is a crucial factor in determining that it's okay to kill the other side, take their resources and territory. It's just as naive as you accuse me of being to not understand the elementary psychology of these factors.
I have assumed the rest of your response is to the OP. Hope this is correct.
Which of the actions I attributed to religion is untrue? If by clich�, you mean to acknowledge these things happen with sufficient frequency to become clich�s, then I concur.
"If only you had said that all Catholics are paedophiles you would have the complete box set."
Close but no cigar. Not only have I not at any point ascribed any of the actions to 'all' members of a religion, (I wouldn't ascribe them to 'most', but to 'some') but neither would I ascribe a priest's paedophillia to their religious beliefs, hence I didn't include it.
"If, as you are inferring, all blame for all things wrong in the world lay at the feet of religion, then ergo, it is to suggest that if religion ceased to exist then this would all stop."
It's extremely lucky for me that I did no such thing then, isn't it?
"This verges on naivety and a vagary of the imagination, if not delusion. People cause wars and carry out murder, not religion. Show me a war based on religion, and I�ll show you a war of ambition, power, greed and territory."
Yes. Where each side's religious views about the absolute rightness of their views, and their 'chosen people of god' status is a crucial factor in determining that it's okay to kill the other side, take their resources and territory. It's just as naive as you accuse me of being to not understand the elementary psychology of these factors.
I have assumed the rest of your response is to the OP. Hope this is correct.
mibn2cweus: I take no offence to your comment, although I suspect the vitriolic nature of the posting might suggest that this was your intent. Actually, you reminded me of an event a few years ago.
A local Protestant minister of an independent church asked me if I could assist him by preaching at his church one Sunday. He was planning to be out of the country and as I had preached there a couple of times in the past, the local congregation and I knew one another. I was pleased to help out. I could just finish up my own services, then rush to his church just in time. No problem at all.
This was immediately following the Tsunami that struck the Indian Ocean regions in 2004. My children and I worked at Heathrow that day, distributing emergency items to passengers who came off flights from the area � some of them in nothing but swimwear.
In my homily that Sunday, I spoke of the science of our planet � that this earth we live on is a living, breathing thing that is still young and is constantly adjusting itself. And I mentioned how unfortunate it is that we tend to ignore this fact � even defy it, by building our homes on the waterfront, or building our hospitals on top of geological faults. And then, when the earth breathes, we have the audacity to raise our voices to the heavens demanding to know �why.�
It was my thought that this homily would be suitable for the church I would visit next Sunday and that it would inspire thought and reflection.
Continued:
A local Protestant minister of an independent church asked me if I could assist him by preaching at his church one Sunday. He was planning to be out of the country and as I had preached there a couple of times in the past, the local congregation and I knew one another. I was pleased to help out. I could just finish up my own services, then rush to his church just in time. No problem at all.
This was immediately following the Tsunami that struck the Indian Ocean regions in 2004. My children and I worked at Heathrow that day, distributing emergency items to passengers who came off flights from the area � some of them in nothing but swimwear.
In my homily that Sunday, I spoke of the science of our planet � that this earth we live on is a living, breathing thing that is still young and is constantly adjusting itself. And I mentioned how unfortunate it is that we tend to ignore this fact � even defy it, by building our homes on the waterfront, or building our hospitals on top of geological faults. And then, when the earth breathes, we have the audacity to raise our voices to the heavens demanding to know �why.�
It was my thought that this homily would be suitable for the church I would visit next Sunday and that it would inspire thought and reflection.
Continued:
Part 2
The Saturday before I was to preach, I was approached by two women on our local high street. They told me how pleased they were that I had agreed to come back to preach again at their church and they thanked me for my willingness to share the time with them. I thanked them for their kind comments and mentioned that I was trying to get back on schedule since the sad events of the Tsunami.
One of the women perked up at this and said �Isn�t it all so sad. Pastor Bob preached about it last week. He told us that if those heathens had come to God instead of all their non-Christian idol worshipping, God never would have punished them the way He did.� The other woman added in earnest �Yes, Pastor Bob lead us in prayer for these godless people that they come to their senses and find Jesus in their hearts.�
I suppose after too many years of hearing the most unimaginable things, I�m rather adept at using what we call a �preacher face.� The look is a frozen composite of nurturing attentiveness and care,� which we sometimes instinctively use whilst we are hurriedly trying to absorb what we�re hearing.
But in this instance, my protective devices must have failed me. I sputtered. Before I could say a thing, the smallest of the two women added how we all need to work harder to �spread His love.� By that time, I think my blood had begun to flow again. All I said was �I look forward to seeing you all tomorrow.� And I walked on down the street.
Continued:
The Saturday before I was to preach, I was approached by two women on our local high street. They told me how pleased they were that I had agreed to come back to preach again at their church and they thanked me for my willingness to share the time with them. I thanked them for their kind comments and mentioned that I was trying to get back on schedule since the sad events of the Tsunami.
One of the women perked up at this and said �Isn�t it all so sad. Pastor Bob preached about it last week. He told us that if those heathens had come to God instead of all their non-Christian idol worshipping, God never would have punished them the way He did.� The other woman added in earnest �Yes, Pastor Bob lead us in prayer for these godless people that they come to their senses and find Jesus in their hearts.�
I suppose after too many years of hearing the most unimaginable things, I�m rather adept at using what we call a �preacher face.� The look is a frozen composite of nurturing attentiveness and care,� which we sometimes instinctively use whilst we are hurriedly trying to absorb what we�re hearing.
But in this instance, my protective devices must have failed me. I sputtered. Before I could say a thing, the smallest of the two women added how we all need to work harder to �spread His love.� By that time, I think my blood had begun to flow again. All I said was �I look forward to seeing you all tomorrow.� And I walked on down the street.
Continued:
Part 3:
The reason I share this is that I�m concerned you may have a rather abstract view of anything that is based upon spiritualism, religion, or possibly even the science of psychology. Not everyone who follows their spirituality is a Bible thumping, dogma-drunk obsessive. However, grant you, there�s certainly an abundance of them.
Those who see the Bible as a schematic to personal growth, embrace it with the knowledge that what �we� use today � the books assembled by King James, are fractions of its entirety. Their foundations were to guide us. Not, as unfortunately man has so often done, to intimidate and frighten us, and oppress our free will and ability to think and grow.
But there are also individuals who, for whatever reason, become lost in its words. Partly this can be the fault of their religious leaders � the same can happen with other faiths as well. Additionally, we must recognise there are socio-psychological issues that can play an integral part of that equation. Some who come for counselling have clearly been swimming in the deep end of the Freudian-Jung pool. And the waters become even deeper when you add the weight of religious dogma to the pool.
I don�t quite understand what has prompted your acerbic response. Surely, I am as entitled to my thoughts as you are yours. And I�m sure AB�s readers are intelligent enough to assimilate all that is offered here in order to make their own decisions.
Thank you for your contribution.
Fr Bill
The reason I share this is that I�m concerned you may have a rather abstract view of anything that is based upon spiritualism, religion, or possibly even the science of psychology. Not everyone who follows their spirituality is a Bible thumping, dogma-drunk obsessive. However, grant you, there�s certainly an abundance of them.
Those who see the Bible as a schematic to personal growth, embrace it with the knowledge that what �we� use today � the books assembled by King James, are fractions of its entirety. Their foundations were to guide us. Not, as unfortunately man has so often done, to intimidate and frighten us, and oppress our free will and ability to think and grow.
But there are also individuals who, for whatever reason, become lost in its words. Partly this can be the fault of their religious leaders � the same can happen with other faiths as well. Additionally, we must recognise there are socio-psychological issues that can play an integral part of that equation. Some who come for counselling have clearly been swimming in the deep end of the Freudian-Jung pool. And the waters become even deeper when you add the weight of religious dogma to the pool.
I don�t quite understand what has prompted your acerbic response. Surely, I am as entitled to my thoughts as you are yours. And I�m sure AB�s readers are intelligent enough to assimilate all that is offered here in order to make their own decisions.
Thank you for your contribution.
Fr Bill
-- answer removed --
I have never suggested that religion should be bannned; that would be as monstrous as banning astrology or flat-earthism. I merely agreed with the questioner that we should have put it behind us as we have other superstitions.
And Whiffey Santa's Christmas Eve journeys are also not rational; neither is the turning of pumpkins into carriages or frogs into princes. But I can assure you that not believing in such irrational things does not make my life either desperate or 'pointless', whatever the latter means.
And Whiffey Santa's Christmas Eve journeys are also not rational; neither is the turning of pumpkins into carriages or frogs into princes. But I can assure you that not believing in such irrational things does not make my life either desperate or 'pointless', whatever the latter means.
mib I think that was a little out of order.
V V - I did not say spirituality - I said faith.
Faith says "trust me, I give you no evidence, trust me"
Faith is the enemy of reason.
Reason an Science has been extrordinarilly sucessful in explaining the way the Universe works and faith extraordinarilly unsucessful.
I take it you don't take archbishop Usher's date of the Earth or think that the Universe was literally created in 7 days
You can dress it up anyway you like but you simply seem to be offering the same old "God of the Gaps" - to suggest that faith must fill the gaps science does not answer is an elementry false dichotomy
I'm surprised you think Galileo remained a good Catholic - generally writing books caricaturing the pope as a fool isn't typical of a "good Catholic".
V V - I did not say spirituality - I said faith.
Faith says "trust me, I give you no evidence, trust me"
Faith is the enemy of reason.
Reason an Science has been extrordinarilly sucessful in explaining the way the Universe works and faith extraordinarilly unsucessful.
I take it you don't take archbishop Usher's date of the Earth or think that the Universe was literally created in 7 days
You can dress it up anyway you like but you simply seem to be offering the same old "God of the Gaps" - to suggest that faith must fill the gaps science does not answer is an elementry false dichotomy
I'm surprised you think Galileo remained a good Catholic - generally writing books caricaturing the pope as a fool isn't typical of a "good Catholic".
jake-the-peg, In light of your superior explanation (so typical of you) I accept your admonishment.
Regarding children's welfare, abuse of a physical nature, which has only recently come to light, is fortunately almost unanimously regarded as an outrage. What is unfortunate is the blind eye that appears to totally disregard the mental and psychological abuse that routinely takes place throughout the religious sphere of human activity.
To suggest that 'God' whatever lacks the capacity or the will to speak for him/its- whatever -self and yet sees fit to speak through his/its whatever appointed mouthpieces is utterly absurd (to put it mildly). 'God' fortunately does not speak to me. Perhaps some believe that this might be due to the fact that if he/it whatever did I would tell him/it whatever to go to hell where he/it whatever belongs.
I have no problem with what adults chooses to believe and/or do with themselves or each other in the privacy of their own bedroom or within their own thoughts but 'teaching' children that reason has its limits and that those limits are imposed by 'God' so that his spokespersons can fill in the missing pieces as they see fit, should take no back seat to the physical form of abuse that is rightfully and openly condemned with a none too loud voice.
Therein lies the explanation albeit not an excuse for my previous outburst. For those unable to distinguish the difference, I must appear equally as guilty as VillageVicar of exploiting the emotive response provided by our genuine and worthy regard for the welfare of children.
My apologies to VillageVicar for the cheap shot, who in spite of a busy schedule and mutual frustration with some peoples views finds time to respond civilly . . . or just shuts up!
Regarding children's welfare, abuse of a physical nature, which has only recently come to light, is fortunately almost unanimously regarded as an outrage. What is unfortunate is the blind eye that appears to totally disregard the mental and psychological abuse that routinely takes place throughout the religious sphere of human activity.
To suggest that 'God' whatever lacks the capacity or the will to speak for him/its- whatever -self and yet sees fit to speak through his/its whatever appointed mouthpieces is utterly absurd (to put it mildly). 'God' fortunately does not speak to me. Perhaps some believe that this might be due to the fact that if he/it whatever did I would tell him/it whatever to go to hell where he/it whatever belongs.
I have no problem with what adults chooses to believe and/or do with themselves or each other in the privacy of their own bedroom or within their own thoughts but 'teaching' children that reason has its limits and that those limits are imposed by 'God' so that his spokespersons can fill in the missing pieces as they see fit, should take no back seat to the physical form of abuse that is rightfully and openly condemned with a none too loud voice.
Therein lies the explanation albeit not an excuse for my previous outburst. For those unable to distinguish the difference, I must appear equally as guilty as VillageVicar of exploiting the emotive response provided by our genuine and worthy regard for the welfare of children.
My apologies to VillageVicar for the cheap shot, who in spite of a busy schedule and mutual frustration with some peoples views finds time to respond civilly . . . or just shuts up!
. . . cheap shot
V Vicar - You're obviously an intelligent man, and I admire many of your observations, but I also think that perhaps because you're replying from a personal point of view which others might not agree with - then it leaves them as "the fallen ones" in your estimation. You're no more correct in what you say, than others might be with THEIR opinions, because until we leave this mortal coil, no one has any idea of what happens. You have strong beliefs, but so do those who don't believe in religion at all - and who's to say which of you are right? I know all sorts of people, from pagans to priests (well - one of the latter!), and all of them have different ideas of what's what. This is the beauty of debate, so that we can assess the opinions of others and discuss against our own. When my children weren't baptized, it caused a few raised eyebrows within the family, but my belief is that so long as they have a varied grounding on ALL beliefs, then they're able to take their chosen paths when they're older. I remember being "lectured" about the sanctity of marriage by a 14 year old girl who was a Jehovah's Witness. She merely repeated hand-pat what she'd been told by her elders - to which I calmly told her she had absolutely no idea of what she was talking about. Religions indoctrinate, and this is what I find hard to accept, particularly as these ideas & teachings are so varied. I think religion, as I said before, is a personal thing, as are all beliefs. I'm certainly not a bad mother just because I didn't want my children welcomed into the bosom of a particular faith. If I died tomorrow, my children would be well cared for by the family, and nothing'd be forced upon them in terms of religious teaching, apart from that which they learn at school (which is thankfully varied).
Cont.....
Cont.....
Latest Posts
Crosswords4 mins ago
Why Would A Young Woman Do This To...
Beauty11 mins ago
Rwanda Threat Not Working? Right Oh!
News12 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.