Banning religions

divine law has nothing to do with religion. religions are just structures trying to define the divine light, (poorly in most cases). spirituality and religion are very different things.
one could ban religion all together and there would still be the percieved duality of right and wrong, good and evil, pure and jaded....ect.

 

My husband is Muslim, and he said he does not know what you are talking about that they worship a moon god. He said that Allah is what they call God, and that they also say that they do not know His true name, but they refer to Him as having 99 names, that His name is not important.
The only real difference we could find (other than foods and fasting) was the way we word the Virgin Birth. We call it the Immaculate Conception, and he said in their language that they don't really have a word for this, when we translate it back it translates into we are saying that God had sex with Mary, which to them is blasphemous. He said they do believe in Jesus and they do believe Mary was a virgin and they do believe that God gave her this miracle child, they just disagree with the way we word it.
When the Muslim faith first started, (forgive me, I am not an expert on Islamic faith so I can't remember names and dates of this, I have been meaning to find it again), I can't remember who it was, but someone that was Muslim was fleeing from an idol worshipping king. The king felt that the Muslim faith was a threat to theirs, and the government made money of the idols that were sold. So the king decided he needed to be imprisoned or killed (can't remember which), when he fled, he went to a land controlled by a Christian king. The Muslim group went to the Christian king and asked for protection from the idol worshipping king (IWK). The IWK had sent someone to the Christian king and said that this Muslims faith is a threat to both your and mine's religion (Christians and idol worshippers), well the Christian king asked what the Muslim faith was about and the Muslim told him, to which the Christian king replied the differences in our religions is small, and he gave him shelter.
We did start out on the same road, but our differences that seemed so small then, we made out to be bigger than they are. That along with interpretting what our faiths say have caused arguments.

""""A religion based on fear, like c/anity, is simply an emotional comforter as far as I can see. And it is wholly illogical in its structure."""""

Can't say a religion based on fear like Christianity. Not a branches of them are the same. The New Testiment does not teach aout fear, but forgiveness for our sins. What do I have to be afraid of?

As far as God being an emotional comforter, it is comforting to know that He is there for us. But not because I have to believe there is an after life. I mean say there is nothing when we die, then I will be none the wiser, so what does it matter? I do not need the idea of God to get me through my day, we're not all living in dream land ignoring the realities of this world thinking that all we have to do is get through this and then the after life will be great.

If we need God to be an emotional comforter, then couldn't we say that atheist need there to not be a God so that they can feel like the highest power and don't have to answer for their wrong doings?

 

Thankfully you dont live in the UK - I think organised religion may have outstayed its welcome there - We have had 2000 years of organised religion blowing us up, ordering us around, causing wars - were sick of it - yeah practice your religion - why not - just dont ask atheists to support your cause against each other- All I advocate now is that Britain revokes all former agreements with religious leaders - and while allowing religion to be practiced - do not let it be advertised ! in any way shape or form outside of the pulpit.
I do not flood peoples letterboxes with litterature of great philosophers or motor-racing drivers - why do they fill my hallway with their dogma?

I'll leave you with the best know exponent of atheism
Richard Dawkins
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins

In times of need fellow traveller - take comfort in these words -
and seek ye the atheism of love
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brights_movement

 

September 11th had nothing to do with religion. Just because a group of psychos did something stating that it was in the name of religion, does not mean that it is true. They were not all there. It was also a strike against our government. If it was a religious war, wouldn't they have attacked churches? Why government buildings like the pentagon, they were aiming for the white house, so why not the Vatican? Or other churches? It was towards us as AMERICANS not as a religious body. They are attacking American buildings in other countries as well. Along with allies of Americans. You don't hear them cursing those damn Christians, but rather death to Americans.

Why don't you spend some time researching what is going on over there in their world? I don't think you really care for truth and knowledge as you claim. You would rather take the easy way out and blame religion than think that the blame might be on people's actions. Then you half ass your claim against whether or not there is a God by saying there's no proof, he doesn't exist. Wow, that's deep. You claim that we're all jumping on the band wagon with our religious beliefs. Well, rather be part of the bandwagon that goes around and does charity work and helps the poor, than part of the lynch mob that's too lazy to do anything about society than point the blame elsewhere.

 

Pssst: Yahweh was a minor tribal god of war "adopted" by Moses...his name is an abreviation of Yahweh Sabaoth, meaning something along the lines of "he who musters armies". His original devotees identified themselves with the mark of the Tau "T" on their foreheads...see why the cross is so important?

 

osutuffy said :

No I dont think so and neither do you. - You know those bombers believe they were going to heaven - stop defending all religion just for the sake of saving its neck - its over ! Its had its time - humans are moving on without it

perhaps you should ask yourself what "truth" really means and knowledge - what is knowledge - because those two very questions have constantly been at the forefront of, politics, science, religion, and philosophy, for over 3000 years
its called epistemology - the study of knowledge
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology
truth
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth

what, exactly, are you claiming to know? How do you know it? - More pertinently, why should I accept it as "the truth"? - what evidence will you bring in support of your arguments?
I am offering you the chance of a rational argument !

No - my position is this: I cannot prove there is no god - I have looked and didnt find one - it doesnt mean god does not exist - all YOU have to do is show me the evidence god exists - if I cannot deny your knowledge and truth I will accept there is a god. Now - since I live in a society where there is growing tension amongst atheists and theists - I think it would be pertinent if christians could prove their case or we will all side with reason and throw religion out - once we have done that the rest of the west will follow I am fairly certain. The British are good at exporting their culture for their own protection. The majority of the world speaks English - the greatest of our exports - ! Now all we have to do is get our arguments across

 

""No I dont think so and neither do you. - You know those bombers believe they were going to heaven""
They may have believed that, but that is not religions fault. Again look around you and accept some of the blame.

You are not offering the chance at a rational argument. You are demanding proof like a spoiled brat. Just because you can not see air, does not mean it is not there. Ever seen pluto in person? While I am not saying it is not there, how do you know it is there? How do you know any pictures of the planets are not hoaxes? Could be like crop circles? Churches came together in a conspiracy to make people pay them money. How do we know the government does not have a conspiracy with space? Our taxes go to scientific funding and medical research, and other studies funded by the government. How do we know what it is used for other than that they tell us?

Just because you do not have faith, does not mean we shouldn't. You say you found no proof that there is God. Well, so I am supposed to think you have supreme knowledge and used all powers of the universe and have absolute proof that there is not a God. What scientific evidence do you have? You can't see Him. Why is it that just because you say there is no proof and that there is no God do I have to drop my beliefs and do as you say? Why can't it work the other way around and since you have no proof that there is not a God, that you can't drop it and believe?
There is no scientific proof either way. What makes you so powerful that the rest of the world has to believe you? I am not on the atheist forum harrassing people and posting that they are stupid and saying prove it. I am not trying to preach the word of God to anyone on the atheist forum. You, guys think it is all fun and games to come in and post things irrelevent to the post.
You're supposed to be adults.

""Elton John recently came out with the statement that religion should be banned. He cited bigotry and war as the reasons. He's right about the reason part but I don't really think banning them would do any good. Who would we make fun of then?""

Who the hell is Elton John that I should care what he thinks? There are atheists out there that are bigots, wars that have started over land. The wars in the US when settlers first landed here did not fight over religion. They fought over land and then fought Britain for freedom from the King and freedom to do as they wanted.

As far as who would you make fun of? Well, who are you going to make fun of next? The crippled? Other races? Great set of morals you have. Let's use the education I recieved in college, maybe a little psychology, and form a conclusion that maybe someone was picked on in school. You're too old to be a bully. Grow up.

You say we attack for religious purposes and start wars for religious purposes. Well, one of your fellow atheist wants to attack just for fun.
The argument you use that there is no proof that there is no God, is the same argument that we say that there is no proof that there is not one. What makes you better than me that I do not have the right to believe what I want? I think you just want to feel powerful and feel like there is nothing higher than you.

 

-edited-

 

No, but our constitution allows it. So, I guess you will just have to put up with people practicing religions as well as we have to put up with you.

 

yes, rational proof !

but we can see air ! we can get some air and break it down into its constituent components - put it back together again and see all that happening in about 20 different ways

Yes at an observatory

They have a massive telescope out in space attatched to a sattelite

I have seen them through my own telescope

They havent created any planets and to my knowledge the government leaves it to the universities to produce scientific evidence

They have full time accountants and keep vast records of it on computers which you can access at any time in the UK and USA

No I just told you - I have not got proof that god does not exist

I havent said theres no proof

Oh right why didnt you just say so

Soi are you - so why isnt your post more rational?

No the state calls in the church when it wants to persuade us that something is good to go to war for - not atheists theyre generally on the side of pacifism are atheists - not warmongering against the infidel - its the reason that the far right in the USA is christian. Elton John is one of the queens of england!

No I dont believe in making fun of people who are mentally incapacitated or crippled in some way and I dont think youre much of a psychologist

I didnt say theres not a god - I said - Just because I havent found a god - it DOES NOT mean one doesnt exist - if you say there is a god - show me some proof - arent you supposed to show non believers the evidence as a good christian?

 

Wait a minute.

You admit that it can't be proven whether or not there is a god (neither athiesm nor thiesm can be proven to be true), but you are comfortable legislating against the belief in a god?

Reason in and of itself is not an arguement against the existence of a deity, reason is only a tool, one that can be (and is) used by theists and atheists.

So how do justify using "reason" to ban theistic belief?

 

well spotted - yes thats correct -
I cannot prove there is not a god -
I have looked - my family looked for 2000 years I have tons of documents handed down to me and not one of us found a god - not once
but that doesnt mean there is no god - we just havent found it
now theists could end this debate by showing that
1) they are rational people
2) they are not liars
an the way they can do this is to show god exists - they say there is a god - prove it !
#if they cannot then either they are not rational or they are liars
either way it makes no sense to base a state on their word unless they can show god exists - why should I pay taxes to irrational people so they can build church schools that fill kids with irrational beliefs - suppose these kids become suicide bombers or worse, a pope
EXACTLY which bit of religion is rational ?
the ten commandments form our law I accept that - but thats man - not gods law

 

Flawed logic


turn around:

I cannot prove there is/isn't a god -
now atheists/agnostics could end this debate by showing that
1) they are rational people
2) they are not liars

an the way they can do this is to show god does not exist
if they cannot then either they are not rational or they are liars
either way it makes no sense to base a state on their word unless they can show god does not exist - why should I pay taxes to irrational people so they can build materialistic schools that fill kids with irrational beliefs - suppose these kids become mass murderers or worse, a unabomber
EXACTLY which bit of atheism is rational ?






That is a statement of belief, not fact.

Again you can't prove god does exist and you can't prove god does not exist, in what way is that a reasonable arguement for the banning of theistic belief?

The same arguement could be made in support of the banning of atheistic belief.

If you can not prove the non-existence of a deity, then you using your belief to justify getting your way, not reason, not science.

How is using force and/or coercion to promote atheism(a belief/theory that can not be proven) any different than using force and/or coersion to promote theism(a belief/theory that can not be proven)?

seems a bit irrational, doen't it?

 

You cannot prove something does not exist

I dont want to go through all this again - but just for your sake shane - as I do respect that YOU generally dont post unless youre interested - so I will put this to you:

OK - I tell you now that I know where you live - and further to that I may or may not have placed a thimble within a mile of your house. You have to prove it doesnt exist
now you could search for 10,000 years and not find that thimble - however it may still be within a mile of your house - I say its there - you say "prove it" all I have to do to prove it is show you where it is - but you could spend a million years looking and still not prove it - I may have hidden it 1/2 a mile away buried 300 ft down
you could spend near to infinity and not find it but its not to say it dont exist - all I have to do is prove it does exist by showing youy it does

so it is not incumbent on those who negate the existence of something to show its true - its up to those who assert existence to prove it

you see now ! thats the very logical position that atheism meets with theism - no we dont have proof - if you christians dont have proof who does?

 

In a philosphical debate, maybe(though i would still saying that the difficulty of proving a statement to be false doesn't shift the burden one way or the other, it's either true or false and if you can't prove it either way then you can't really claim one view to be true and one to be false, there still remains the possibilty that the theist is correct and the atheist is not correct and vice versa, as long as that possibilty remains you can't claim "truth", you can only claim belief )

Not in regard to legislating personal belief.

If neither one of you can prove what you state to be true than why should either one of you be able to dictate how, when, and under what circumstances each of you should be able to proclaim your unproven truths?

And I would still like an answer to:

 

Ok, you have a telescope that shows you where pluto is. Fine, I tell you what, from now on, all government research money goes to finding out if there is a God. WE will spend millions of your tax dollars to prove it, no matter how long it takes. I think the same amount of time in proving there are other planets, how many planets there are, and what they are made up of that was spent through the years along with all the money spent proving that these things are facts should be spent. And I mean from the beginning of astrology. So, you will have your proof. However, since you will die before then, I'll let you find out for yourself.

However, I think this sums is up:
Atheism

In it's most basic terms, atheism is the belief that God does not exist. The word "atheism" is made up from two parts: "a" which indicates something negative and "theos," a form of the Greek word that means "god." Used together, these two parts build a word that means "no god."

The Principles of Atheism

People who believe in atheism usually agree on a few basic principles such as:

God does not exist
Only the world/universe exists
The concept of "god" is an invention of human beings.
So an atheist is a person who takes the position that the universe is all that exists. A true atheist also believes that no god exists anywhere within the universe or beyond and that the universe is all that there ever was, all that there is and all that there ever will be. When it comes to subjects like religion and spirituality, atheists commonly explain the existence of religious beliefs by saying that the religions of the world were all invented by human beings to help give life meaning and to help people cope with things like fear, guilt and anxiety.

Of course, people who do believe in the existence of God have responded to these objections with a few objections of their own over the years. For example, we said earlier that the idea that God does not exist is one of the basic principles of atheism. Some have responded to this atheistic belief by saying, "But how do you know that God does not exist?" You see, in order for someone to realistically hold the position that God does not exist, that person must find some way to prove God's non-existence. This presents the serious challenge of trying to prove that in all places and in all times, God does not exist. So you can see that this is a very difficult position to support because it is essentially trying to say that "something" (God) is really nothing (non existent) and has never been anything.

But there's another problem too. The problem for atheists is that God, by definition, is a being who is infinite and unlimited. Human beings however, are finite which means that they are limited in their knowledge, ability and experience. This means that the person who claims that God absolutely does not exist must have all knowledge in order to really make that claim successfully. But a limited, finite human with all knowledge wouldn't be a limited, finite human being anymore- they would be God! That's pretty self-defeating for someone who claims that God doesn't exist!

Agnosticism

Another objection to God's existence is known as agnosticism (pronounced "ag-naa-st-cism"). While atheism says that God absolutely does not exist, agnosticism takes a somewhat different approach. An agnostic doesn't say that God does or doesn't exist. An agnostic believes that human beings either can't or don't know if God exists.

The word "agnostic" literally means "without knowledge" and like the word atheism, the word "agnostic" starts with the prefix "a" which indicates a negative position. Following this prefix is a form of the word gnosis (pronounced "no-sis"), a word that means "knowledge." When these parts are taken together, they create a word that describes someone who believes that there is "no knowledge" of God. So in general, an agnostic is someone who believes that there is not enough evidence to prove or disprove the existence of God.

The Principles of Agnosticism

As we've already mentioned, people who are agnostics are commonly divided into two separate groups. The first group of agnostics is made up of those who believe that we don't know whether or not God exists. The second group consists of others who say that we can't know whether or not God exists.

Now a person who doesn't know if God exists might be someone who is open to looking at the evidence for God's reality. So this is not really a bad position to hold if someone is truly interested in considering the case for God's existence. However, the person who says that we can't know if God exists has a problem. You see, the person who says that we can't know if God exists knows at least one thing about God's existence: we can't know if God exists! It also requires far more knowledge than limited human beings possess to say that we absolutely cannot know if God exists. Like the atheist who says that God absolutely does not exist, this type of agnosticism is self-defeating.

Now it's true that finite human beings cannot possibly understand everything about an infinite God. However, it's still possible to know some things about God even if we can't have a complete, total understanding of Him. There is a big difference between knowing some things about God and saying that we can't know if God exists at all.

 

not advocating force or coercion - just a drop in funding and a serious look at the status of religion within education and all other state funded activities

Good question its the reason in other threads I have said i no longer support the idea of enforced abandonment (I only did here because someone raised comments I made which did once condone enforced abandonment) My predicament is this - why would I pay taxes to pay for church rooves when christians are a minority - why would I pay for their kids education in christianity when I believe it is a false religion and one which is dangerously irrational? same for muslims etal:

since god doesnt exist how is it possible to know anything about god?
furthermore you are talking about atheism as though it MUST say god does not exist - I dont say that - I say "I dont know if god does not exist" but I will know if you can prove that god exists because youy merely have to prove it. If you cant you are irrational ! why believe something you cant prove? If I believe god does not exist I merely act as though god does not exist - you act as though god exists but you are not certain - how can you be certain? If you pray but have no proof you are praying to anything - thats irrational - further more its irrational for me to pay for christian teachers to teach christianity
Its not what you say thats irrational - its what you do !

 

My position:


You can believe whatever you want to believe, as long as you don't use force and/or coersion to impose you belief on me as an individual.

Banning a set of beliefs in favor of another set of beliefs would qualify as force and/or coersion.

 

That is something i can agree on with you.

Free association.

But, i'm anti-state, so i don't see either one (state sponsered atheism, state sponsered theism) as optimal.

Maybe i didn't read enough into the thread...

Is the topic Banning religion(s) or stopping funding to religion(s)?

 

Well there are many things our government pays for that I disagree on. But I still have to pay.
There are other minority groups that we pay for besides religions.
The church uses it's money on charity and helping others. I know there are some corrupt people out there that may be using the money illegally for their own purposes, but that happens everywhere, government, corporations, etc. Doesn't make it right, but doesn't mean that the money does not go for the greater good. Churches are there to help the community.