Religion is for cowards and pedophiles of childrens minds

Most religion are death cults, for example any religion that states life after death will be more enjoyable than it is here on earth is a death cult.

This would include all Christians.

In essence they would hold there death to a higher standard than there life.

Making it all the more easy to trivialize the lives of others as well as there own.

You do know what a suicide bomber is right?

Its not just a guy with a bomb strapped to his chest, it's also the complete submission to the fantasies and lies told in whatever holy book the fool happened to have been reading his whole life.

 

You've obviously never encountered the British abroad.

 

As has been asked over and over and over again, if you think that religion causes these people to kill themselves, how do you explain why it doesn't cause so many other people to kill themselves?

Your assertions about the "death cult" completely failed to address the demonstratable truth that, despite supposedly being brainwashed with an ideology that tells them death will be better than life, most people's survival instinct is not overridden by religion, and the VAST MAJORITY will not kill themselves.

I mean, seriously, if you do nothing else, explain how you justify claiming a causal link between religion and suicide, when the suicide rate among the religious is statistically insignificant by just about every standard I know of.

Judging something on its merits doesn't mean that you pretend it has no faults, dumbass. But even if I was advocating that, it would be no worse than your decision to selectively ignore anything positive that belief contributes to the world and just focus on the tiny minority who blow themselves.

I believe that if you truly followed through on your stated belief consistently, you would hurt a lot of people and probably get beaten up regularly. So I would imagine that you are lying to yourself if you think that you practise what you preach.

I don't "live my life" by any one conscious ideological code. That would be stupid. But I would think that, more often than not, I and most others do not attempt to prevent negative effects of the actions of others that are out of their control.

However, I concede that you have every right to complain about bad things before they happen. Just don't expect anyone to give a shit.

I have made it pretty clear why. If you can't see this then maybe you need a little help with your comprehension.

To clarify, because you seem to be confused: I am not attacking language as a diversionary tactic. You mentioned subjectivism earlier, which is what gave me the first clue that you didn't understand what I was arguing.

Because I feel you are framing something perfectly normal and relatively harmless in a needlessly negative light purely because you happen to have a bee in your bonnet about it. You've consistently cited minority examples as a means to attribute monstrous characteristics to religion, while by contrast you've been perfectly willing to dismiss the atrocities and lies perpetrated by language as coincidental to its nature or a product of the individual using it.

You have not offered any explanation of why language is an acceptable unprovable thing. You have merely insisted that belief in another unprovable thing (the supernatural) is "just wrong", "just worse", etc.

The questions you've asked me have largely ignored the substance of what I've been saying, or been pointless attempts to gain knowledge of my personal beliefs despite their irrelevance to the discussion of your original statement.

All I have asserted is that to criticise religion for the reasons that you claim to criticise it - that it is based on the unprovable and that it is imparted to children before they are old enough to understand it with negative reprisals if they fail to agree with what they're being taught - makes as much sense as to criticise people for teaching their child a language using the same methods. You and I and everyone else was taught to communicate by this method, and yet you find the notion that language should be considered a form of child abuse weird and confusing. Please explain why the notion that religion is a form of child abuse is NOT weird and confusing to you.

 

Can you name a moral action that could only be attributed to a believer in faith that could not also be done by an atheist?

Can you name an amoral action that could only be attributed to someone of faith?

Killing in the name of a deity.

Genital mutilation.

Bigotry based only on religious superstition.

Without religion the world would still be a horrid place, but we would have one less reason to hate and butcher one another.

Is a little false peace of mind really worth the proliferation of the supreme lie that has crippled the middle east been the cause of countless deaths in history and to this day slows science by condemning stem cell research?

If the human race manages to survive for 2000 more years do you truly believe the "modern" religions will be looked at with anymore seriousness than we look at Zeus or Mithra?

Why defend something that isn't true?

Would you feel comfortable discussing your personal beliefs?

I myself am an atheist and from your posts I am unable to determine if you are agnostic or an atheist with sympathy towards those who feel a higher power is the only chance at happiness they will ever have.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z2G5Y4dSfAk

 

He's here to help you, Hoatzin.

 

Actually this forum from what I can understand is about atheism and agnosticism, I don't believe Hoatzin needs help, I was asking him if he subscribed to either of the belief systems.

In my opinion I believe agnostics and atheist (or anti theists to be more precise) should be split into two separate threads.

Thanks for your input Neo, maybe next time you can add something of your own to the discussion instead of just misinterpreting what others have said.

 

Oh, and here I thought I was being sarcastic and simply posting to amuse myself.

From what I've seen, your opinion generally amounts to squat.

I find it ironic that you bring up "misinterpretation".

...well, I was going to expound on that, but I think that says enough on it's own right there.

 

Many people who commonly regard themselves as religious, including me, would find it difficult to accept that definition. The Encyclopedia of Religion describes religion in the following way:
"In summary, it may be said that almost every known culture involves the religious in the above sense of a depth dimension in cultural experiences at all levels — a push, whether ill-defined or conscious, toward some sort of ultimacy and transcendence that will provide norms and power for the rest of life. When more or less distinct patterns of behaviour are built around this depth dimension in a culture, this structure constitutes religion in its historically recognizable form. Religion is the organization of life around the depth dimensions of experience — varied in form, completeness, and clarity in accordance with the environing culture."
(Winston King, Encyclopedia of Religion, p 7693)

And yet most Chritians view suicide as a terrible sin, indeed some say the "unforgivable sin". Not long ago, suicides could not be buried in hallowed ground. Most Christians believe that life is a precious gift from God, that we are meant to be happy in this world as well as the next, and that although heaven is wonderful, our present existence is meaningful, too.

 

You have stated that before and yet you continue to quote me, you could always stop reading my posts if you don't want to discuss the topics in them.

 

A religion is a set of stories, symbols, beliefs and practices, often with a supernatural quality, that give meaning to the practitioner's experiences of life through reference to an ultimate power or reality.

The term supernatural or supranatural pertains to an order of existence beyond the scientifically visible universe
Supernatural themes are often associated with paranormal and occult ideas.

"Sin" is a supernatural term.

The reason they say suicide is an unforgivable sin is because those guilty of of it are obviously already dead, you would need to be a REAL nut to think that someone can come back from the dead!

I think it's interesting to note that it was not until Jesus Christ came around that the concept of hell was introduced.

 

Actually, it was introduced before Him, and the Parisees, though not the Sadduccees, believed in it. I think it came from Persia during the Hellenistic era. The Zoroastrian Book of Arda Viraf depicts a place of suffering for misdeeds in this life--not eterally, but until the triumph of Ahura Mazda. The Greeks also had the concept of Tartarus--a corner of Hades reserved for punishing the wicked. And the Egyptians and Sumerians had similar concepts, but the Hebrews resisted until late in their history.

 

Hoatzin, I must say, I may not always agree you you but you almost always have something interesting and well thought out to say.

 

I was referring to references of it in the new testament but if your implying that the concept of hell is an amalgam of many different religions I agree completely.

Of course those religions were also all just works of primitive human beings and not "divinely" inspired. iggy:

 

Like I said, I'm here for amusement.


I mean, clearly. Amusement.

 

Of course. But I think hell is still a useful metaphor to describe very real tendencies in the human condition. Like Heaven, Hell is a state of mind experienced in this world rather than in some afterlife. Hell is a bad attitude, or more accurately, a system of self-destructive bad attitudes, gridlocked in such a way as to leave the believer without hope of escape. In that sense, it's eternal. C.S. Lewis said that people stay in hell because they want to be there. I'd think instead that they don't know how to get out--because they meet the recovery groups' definition of insanity: going through the same counterproductive motions and expecting a different result. I've encountered people I think are in hell--some in these forums. They're prisoners of negativistic thought patterns that seem to be keeping them miserable. Some are victims of certain nihilistic forms of atheism; others are victims of Calvinistic versions of religious fundamentalism, sometimes inflicted on them by their parents. I'm thinking of some posts by young teens I've read lately, to the effect: "life sucks, then you die, so why not get it over with early". Or a young man who is convinced Satan must have made him because his wicked homosexual desires couldn't come from God. There must be some payoff for them in these ways of thinking, but I have trouble figuring out what it is. They could get out, but only by major cognitive readjustment that's hard to bootstrap. And I'm sure that if anyone tried, others would say it's all relative, who are you to try to impose your polyanna views on others? yada, yada, yada.

 

Of course. But I think hell is still a useful metaphor to describe very real tendencies in the human condition. Like Heaven, Hell is a state of mind experienced in this world rather than a place you go to in some afterlife. Hell is a bad attitude, or more accurately, a system of self-destructive bad attitudes, gridlocked in such a way as to leave the believer without hope of escape. In that sense, it's eternal. C.S. Lewis said that people stay in hell because they want to be there. I'd think instead that they don't know how to get out--because they meet the recovery groups' definition of insanity: going through the same counterproductive motions and expecting a different result. I've encountered people I think are in hell, or are headed there--some in these forums. They're prisoners of negativistic thought patterns that seem to be keeping them miserable. Some are victims of certain nihilistic forms of atheism; others are victims of Calvinistic versions of religious fundamentalism, sometimes inflicted on them by their parents. I'm thinking of some posts by young teens I've read lately, to the effect: "life sucks, then you die, so why not get it over with early". Or a young man who is convinced Satan must have made him because his wicked homosexual desires couldn't come from God. There must be some payoff for them in these ways of thinking, but I have trouble figuring out what it is. They could get out, but only by major cognitive readjustment that's hard to bootstrap. And I'm sure that if anyone tried, others would say it's all relative, who are you to try to impose your polyanna views on others? yada, yada, yada.

 

By hell are you implying a difficult time in someones life that a supposed god has put them through because they are living below his intended means?

A hell on Earth type of approach?

I'm interested in what you have to say but could you make your point a bit more clear for me?

Sorry but I'm stupid. :tongue:

 

Yes, I'm talking about Hell on Earth, but I think in most cases people put themselves there by their attitudes. The Seventeenth century political philosopher, Thomas Hobbes, used the concept of the State of Nature to describe a hypothetical lawless condition outside of civil socitey characterized by a "war of all against all", where life is "nasty, brutish and short." I see hell in similar terms. It describes a hypothetical condition similar to Hobbes State of Nature, in which everyone is free to pursue desires for wealth, status, power, and sensual indulgence without the restraint of law and morality. And there would be a "war of all aginst all' and life would be "nasty, brutish and short". Of the kingdom of Heaven, Jesus said it's everywhere around us but people do not see it." Same goes for Hell.

 

Yes, I'm talking about Hell on Earth, but I think in most cases people put themselves there by their attitudes. The Seventeenth century political philosopher, Thomas Hobbes, used the concept of the State of Nature to describe a hypothetical lawless condition outside of civil socitey characterized by a "war of all against all", where life is "nasty, brutish and short." I see hell in similar terms. It describes a hypothetical condition similar to Hobbes State of Nature, in which everyone is free to pursue desires for wealth, status, power, and sensual indulgence without the restraint of law and morality. 'Nothing is true, everything is permitted'. And there would be a "war of all aginst all' and life would be "nasty, brutish and short". Of the kingdom of Heaven, Jesus said it's everywhere around us but people do not see it." Same goes for Hell.

 

I'm here for teh lulz.