I think we should all worship pie barms. Because nothing else provides quite the same warmth and happiness inside.

This place needs a MFC GHZ-style Marble Garden theme.

I think religions are far too polarizing in modern society, and far too easy for their leaders to sway their followers to their personal agendas.

And while it seems like less of an issue here in Britain, from what I've heard from American shows Atheists are the least trusted group of people, yet it's on the rise over there.

I think religions are far too polarizing in modern society, and far too easy for their leaders to sway their followers to their personal agendas.

And while it seems like less of an issue here in Britain, from what I've heard from American shows Atheists are the least trusted group of people, yet it's on the rise over there.

I was aiming for the first serious post in the topic >=D

Anyway, I greatly dislike the idea behind organized religion mainly because I consider spirituality to be a personal thing and is not something to be enforced upon someone. No excuses. I'm perfectly fine with someone being spiritual, but the idea behind religion irks me :/

And by spiritual, I mean yes, you can be a christian. Just take into account your interpretations instead of being a sheep and only repeating what your pastor tells you. That's how I feel anyway. I probably fall in line as a Gnostic :/

The thing about religion is that it takes into account what, at least I feel, is a way for humans to try and grasp what we do not know, what we cannot perceive beyond the physical. Even as science marches on, and more discoveries are made about life and the universe itself, the discoveries unlock more questions for each answer given (and sometimes, that answer ends up being wrong years later; see geocentrism).

I do think religion itself, at least in today's society, seems polarizing because it stands against the idea that we can know everything empirically.

However, I do think the diatribe against the idea of 'organized religion' is somewhat odd; I do believe that one's religious experiences can (and should) affect you on a personal level, but why should that be a strike against those who have an extensive order involved? As a religion grows, the chance of deviation from what is taught and believed by the faith itself grows. True, there needs to be constant vigilance on part of the congregation themselves to see that the clergy (interchange 'congregation/clergy' with whatever strikes your fancy) does not abuse their authority, but it's a simple matter of fact that people can get things wrong, resulting in schism and the splintering of a faith itself; given the high emphasis on peaceful unity by many religions, this can be seen as somewhat problematic. Plus, the benefits of 'organized religion' (which of course varies depending on what religion you speak of; organization for an Abrahamic faith would probably be vastly different from organization for a Buddhist faith) include a support structure for people in need of guidance, a vast repository of historical knowledge, a richness in culture and community, and the simple understanding that there are others like you in the world, whom you share some common ground with...and that's just on the top of my head.

True, one must objectively decide what a particular religion seems aimed for, along with the hows and whys (in particular, things along the lines of human sacrifices and other unpleasant things). But a large part of religion is faith...much of it in the unknown, in that which humankind cannot understand as of this point in time (and possibly never, but who knows).

Religion is such a wide subject that it's difficult to cover all bases in one post. But for starters, I find it interesting and sad that the religious nuts get the most coverage, while the agnostic (i.e. those who have their heads screwed on fairly straight) are increasing in number, yet are never seen. It's probably because they're well-behaved and humble, to an extent, and the well-behaved rarely make news.

I'm not saying that being religious makes you crazy; in fact I was raised in Episcopal and Lutheran churches, and was and still am grateful for the stability during my impressionable teenage years. Having a church family can be the best thing in the world (as long as they're not crazy or a cult, of course). It's like a club.

My personal stance on religion is that we would be better off if everyone was humble and admitted to not knowing everything about God, the infinite universe, the afterlife, or even if any of these things exist. There are things that humanity might not be meant to discover, and it irks me so much when a person becomes big-headed enough to claim knowledge of all the correct answers, and to make matters worse, the person leads others in this belief. Also, I think religion has hurt too many people by alienating those who, by common sense, should be allowed to live their lives the way they feel compelled to. I'm talking about homosexuality, of course. If God is defined as love, then why should two people be forbidden to fall in love? Certain religions can't seem to understand this common sense.

But that's a different topic. 😛 Bottom line, I guess, is that I wish the more strict religions would give way to simply being spiritual and understanding, rather than pushing alienation. And some religions really are understanding, like the Unity Church, and I admire them for honoring all faiths. The fix-all, I believe, is being humble, and getting rid of the "us vs. them" mentality.

Excuse my rambling... I look back now and realize that this post bears no resemblance to a linear essay. XD Also, hi, Ultra!

Are you the one formerly known as ShoeHedgie?

Indeed I am. Sorry for going away for so long. :3

Well hello again! The Dr. Eggwoman avatar was my clue; I remember the thread where you showed it off as a cosplay.

Okay, this is all sounding like excerpts from Bill Maher's "Religulous" so far. Who are we to tell people what religion and beliefs should be about? As a non-believer, who am I to tell anyone that what they believe is wrong or misguided? For all we know, they can be right?

I also do not associate bad behavior or murder, or any of that nonsense, with religion. People that say there would be no war in the middle east, or no murder or judging, or all these terrible things, with religion out of the picture are just foolish. Firstly, define religion. It's something that we believe in and live by. And even if you don't follow the teachings of any specific organized religion, we all have SOMETHING that we believe in or live by. Even if that belief is that we don't know what's out there.

And another point is that crazy is crazy. Sure, there are people who commit tyranny and murder in the name of religion. But then again, Hitler was an Athiest. There are crazy people, there are stupid people, and there are smart people. All three of which can be found in any religion, or lack of, which is why I personally find it hard to link any positive or negative behavior on the existence of religion alone.

As long as no one is being harmed, people should always have the right and respect to explore their beliefs and search for answers.

I think everyone in this thread so far has been right.

you guys are way too cute.
you can't even debate right .. i guess that's a good sign.

Religions are popular cults. :[

Ultra Sonic 007:

"The thing about religion is that it takes into account what, at least I feel, is a way for humans to try and grasp what we do not know, what we cannot perceive beyond the physical. Even as science marches on, and more discoveries are made about life and the universe itself, the discoveries unlock more questions for each answer given (and sometimes, that answer ends up being wrong years later; see geocentrism).

I do think religion itself, at least in today's society, seems polarizing because it stands against the idea that we can know everything empirically.

However, I do think the diatribe against the idea of 'organized religion' is somewhat odd; I do believe that one's religious experiences can (and should) affect you on a personal level, but why should that be a strike against those who have an extensive order involved? As a religion grows, the chance of deviation from what is taught and believed by the faith itself grows. True, there needs to be constant vigilance on part of the congregation themselves to see that the clergy (interchange 'congregation/clergy' with whatever strikes your fancy) does not abuse their authority, but it's a simple matter of fact that people can get things wrong, resulting in schism and the splintering of a faith itself; given the high emphasis on peaceful unity by many religions, this can be seen as somewhat problematic. Plus, the benefits of 'organized religion' (which of course varies depending on what religion you speak of; organization for an Abrahamic faith would probably be vastly different from organization for a Buddhist faith) include a support structure for people in need of guidance, a vast repository of historical knowledge, a richness in culture and community, and the simple understanding that there are others like you in the world, whom you share some common ground with...and that's just on the top of my head.

True, one must objectively decide what a particular religion seems aimed for, along with the hows and whys (in particular, things along the lines of human sacrifices and other unpleasant things). But a large part of religion is faith...much of it in the unknown, in that which humankind cannot understand as of this point in time (and possibly never, but who knows)."
It would seem that the only positive benefit to religion that you've demonstrated is community. Community, however, can be had without religion; this forum and others like it are a demonstration of that, as well as many other organisations and networks of people gathering together with no religious overtones. Can you demonstrate a positive benefit to religion that cannot be also provided by secular means?

Crystal Toad:"Religions are popular cults. :["
That or "cult" is the label that the big religions put on the little religions to assert their superiority over them, when they are no more in touch with reality themselves.

I am so sorry that i am late!!!

I understand religion, lol!!!

Who cares what they believe, As long as it isn't harmful to them or to others.
Scientology must die.

Silv wrote:

---

I also do not associate bad behavior or murder, or any of that nonsense, with religion. People that say there would be no war in the middle east, or no murder or judging, or all these terrible things, with religion out of the picture are just foolish. Firstly, define religion. It's something that we believe in and live by. And even if you don't follow the teachings of any specific organized religion, we all have SOMETHING that we believe in or live by. Even if that belief is that we don't know what's out there.

That's a valid definition of religion (and the one Einstein would use) but an unhelpful one, because it's not what people mean when they say religion. As Ultra pointed out, the word religion implies faith or ideology. Any belief that assures someone that their ideals are right and correct without any need for logic or evidence is harmful; it forces a person to sacrifice their own reason. This at very least is a waste of potential and at worst very dangerous, and it is indeed the cause of the religious conflicts in the Middle East, Northern Ireland, and others through the ages.

Silv wrote:

---

And another point is that crazy is crazy. Sure, there are people who
commit tyranny and murder in the name of religion. But then again,
Hitler was an Athiest. There are crazy people, there are stupid people,
and there are smart people. All three of which can be found in any
religion, or lack of, which is why I personally find it hard to link any
positive or negative behavior on the existence of religion alone.

Well, Hitler's religious ties are debatable. He often spoke highly of his Catholic faith, and his antisemitic ideals drew inspiration from Martin Luther and Jesus Christ (cherry-picked, of course, to support him). But he also spoke quite disparagingly toward the whole of religion, especially toward the end of his life. But even if he was an Atheist, what does that prove? Did he commit the atrocities he did in the name of Atheism? No, because for one, Atheism isn't really an ideology, but a refusal of one. Hitler's regime took the form of dogmatic, unquestionable faith that he was correct and that all dissent should be silenced. This is religion in all but name.

Ultra Sonic 007 wrote:

---

But a large part of religion is faith...much of it in the unknown, in that which humankind cannot understand as of
this point in time (and possibly never, but who knows).

The unknown is certainly important to faith, because if we knew everything we wouldn't have to pretend we did.

>>

<<

*trollface*

you guys are way too cute.
you can't even debate right .. i guess that's a good sign.

Religions are popular cults. :[

ó_o
...
Oh, I see what you did there, CT.

Anyway, this isn't as insightful as everyone else, but there was a quote on Bash.org that sums up my thoughts on the matter quite well (Possible NSFW warning): http://bash.org/?937078