Religion is for cowards and pedophiles of childrens minds

Great reason in itself to separate atheism and agnosticism into seperate threads.

 

I'm not arguing against the U.S government and it's practices of killing brown skin people to further the needs of it's citizens,(at least not in this thread)

I'm arguing the point that to introduce a fact less ideology that worships death over life to an innocent child is pedophilia of the mind.

Thanks for your opinion though.

 

With the statement that teaching ancient religions that preach superstition and bigotry to children should be considered child abuse?

Sure,

With not teaching a child what the meaning of ownership of property is for the same reason?

Nope.

 

And this answers my question how? Or are you still just avoiding the question of when it was proved that God doesn't exist? Maybe you're still working on that?

 

Im lost.........how does religion teach children that death is the ultimate goal over life ?
Sunday School teaches children about Jesus and his teachings , death isnt mentioned unless they are learning about Jesus dying for their sins.
I tought my class all about the Love of Jesus and we focused on the wonderful things God gave us in this life , on this Earth.

 

Can you prove it does?

The creation of the Universe is still a mystery to me, you however think it was created by an invisible all knowing sentient being.

If you try to take the tactic of using facts to give credit to a Deity I would assume that the burden of proof would be yours to carry.

 

Most religions in the west claim that after you die you go on to "live" again in a kingdom that is far more grand than anything found here on Earth.

They seem to hold death in a higher respect that life, a death cult.

 

Maybe you should start?

I love how indifferent you are to the subtleties of human language. Fun fact: Child abuse and paedophilia are not the safe thing.

Your argument amuses me. Fair enough, you're identifying what you see as a problem with humanity. But you offer no solution at all, and just to compound matters, when someone mentions that the problem might be bigger than you think, you just declare that what they're citing is Different for some insignificant reason. I mean, don't get me wrong, you'd be a great asset to our current Tory front bench, but other than that, I'm not sure why you're bothering.

 

They might seem that way to someone who knew very little about the specifics of religion. But to anyone with a bit of knowledge, that is a total non sequitur.

Most religions that I'm aware of are fairly clear that they don't approve suicide, murder, attrition, and just about everything else you've claimed they are not only totally fine with but actually promote. I don't expect you to retract your position, but can you at least accept that just because a religious person does something in the name of God/Allah/Krishna/whoever, this does not mean that they automatically represent the views of everyone in that religion? I mean, what's more likely? That a few people misread their holy text to tell them to commit suicide, or that everyone else in the religion misread their holy text to tell them to not kill themselves?

The truth is, you're arguing from a position of ignorance of your chosen subject. This is glaringly obvious to anyone who has bothered to research it. The tragedy is that you seem to either not know or not care how little you know about a subject with which you appear totally obsessed.

That is, assuming you are ignorant of these things, and are not just outright lying.

 

man, this thread makes me cringe.


ouch.

 

I was under the impression you were opposing any belief in the supernatural, and labelling any teaching of belief in that which cannot be proved as child abuse. Is that not accurate?

I have not said that children should not be taught a concept of ownership.

All I have said is that, if you oppose the teaching of that which cannot be proved as fact, and since you have been unable to prove ownership by virtue of anything other than the fact that a lot of people believe in it, you should be opposed to concepts of ownership as based on little more than mutual belief and (in your example violent) negative reinforcement.

In other words, your position on religion is inconsistent with your position on language and ownership. You hold it to a harsher standard, and you have yet to explain why.

I did think, for a moment, that you understood this: your definitions of religion and ownership implied that you understood that they both operated in a similar way. I am still bewildered as to why you think that religion should be singled out just because it gives a name to its imaginary forces, rather than just deriding those who don't accept them as fact.

My position on this is and has always been that there are too few absolute truths in the world for human beings to function as anything above the level of bacteria. While this notion of higher or lower "levels" is a human invention in itself, I still believe it's naïve to imagine that we can get by on objectivity. Certainly, in the societies you and I inhabit, basic functionality would be impossible without vast proofless assumptions.

 

They have misinterpreted there "holy" texts, they take them as literal.

Many cults have had mass suicides thankfully they are few and far between, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the post I'm quoting you from was in some way a response to the statement I had made earlier citing that most mainstream religions are death cults.

I call ANY religion that claims that there is an afterlife that includes knowledge and joy that cannot be found on Earth as being a cult of death.

They preach the sanctity and comfort of death (heaven) over the cruelty of life.

They go on to say that this peaceful death is only obtainable through personnel sacrifice and to ignore these requests means torment everlasting.

Religion was man kinds answer for questions beyond our understanding in the infancy of recorded history, to continue to put faith or trust into such claim is to continue to believe that the earth is flat.
(yes some people still do) http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm

 

And after the supposed Jesus of Nazareth is sacrificed what do you teach them?

I believe it's of interest to note once again that the claims of a divine afterlife and eternal punishment are not mentioned until Jesus tender and mild shows up.

 

Yes, but we've already established that you know fuck all about any religion and are prone to sweeping statements and sensationalist hyperbole. So you're no great respected authority on this.

Actually, most of them teach that you should make life better, and that sanctity and comfort after death will be your reward for doing that. Christianity teaches that sloth (inaction) is a sin specifically because if it didn't, Hell would be no incentive to do good, merely to avoid doing bad.

In other words, it is a long way from this to promoting suicide.

Not sure that that's actually true of most religions. Concepts of Hell (or of an afterlife equivalent to it) aren't actually that common. A lot of religions talk about people being "left behind" when the righteous go to Heaven, or having to atone for their sins after death. Not that eternal damnation is never mentioned, but it seems like a flimsy basis to declare religion to be comprised of "death-cults".

That's inaccurate. We know what shape the Earth is. We can prove it without too much difficulty, and we have demonstrated it for those who weren't convinced by going into space and checking.

While I don't personally believe the answers of any religion to be correct, I don't have better answers, let alone ones I can prove. While there is technically nothing wrong with me shooting my mouth off about how dumb they are for believing something, I'd consider myself rather churlish if I openly mocked someone else for getting "the wrong answer" when I don't have even the first clue whether they do or not.

How much do you know about the Flat Earth Society, out of curiosity? I think you're mistaken if you think that they are the same kind of people who (supposedly) believed the Earth was flat in the Middle Ages.

 

So, to believers, Christ's sacrifice is not permission for anyone to commit suicide.

 

What is it exactly that would prove either one of us knows dick all about religion?

Are you claiming that you are an authority on the subject of the proliferation of religious superstition through the gullibility of children?

How many religions that preach of an afterlife can you mention that at one time did not also include mentions of a place of torment for those who would oppose it's ridicules teachings?

And furthermore how successful were those religions?

Atheism is not the groundwork for moral correctness, something that religion claims to be, it is however another step forward for mankind.

To argue this and in it's place continue to teach and argue for a divine benevolent dictatorship in the sky is the sign of not only fools but also skilled con-men.

 

As much as I wish it weren't true for his followers at times, your right on this. :rofl:

 

If you are talking about using factual evidence to prove the Earth is round couldn't the same methods be used to prove to many people that so called miracles in divine texts and religious propaganda never happened and in fact were the work of fiction?

It can and does, it's called science.

 

No, of course not. I am simply stating that you are criticising religion without really knowing that much about it. You've been called on sweeping generalisations, factual errors and weak logic on numerous occasions throughout this thread. I am not claiming to be an authority, but I think it's a sad lookout when someone who knows less than I do about religion feels they have the right to claim it should be abolished or that it is the reserve of fools. You really need to stop trying to put words into my mouth and get your facts straight, because it's just embarrassing. You're acting every bit as foolishly as any religious zealot, with the primary difference being that people actually can prove you wrong some of the time. You might not think you need a broad base of knowledge of several religions in order to decry religion as whole, but you're wrong.

Uh... Judaism?

EDIT: Also Mormons, Buddhists, some sectors of Christianity (e.g. those who believe in the rapture)... do you really want me to go on embarrassing you like this? I mean, you should be embarrassed already, but...

Mankind has shown itself perfectly capable of being amoral with or without religion. And a "step forward" is a totally subjective thing. Some would argue that advances in technology are a "step forward"; others would cite the huge number of problems caused by advances in technology as evidence that that whole notion of "forward" and "backward" is flawed. Atheism takes us in a direction. That direction is "towards atheism". Anything beyond that would be purely hypothetical.

Fool.