Why a world without religion would be a better place

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

andy1984
 
Reply Thu 7 Jan, 2010 09:10 pm
@xris,
xris;118080 wrote:
We also see workers being excluded from certain positions because they are not of a certain faith. Why should any of us be asked our faith on a form? what purpose does it serve? who business is it but mine what god I do or dont believe in. Sorry but I am annoyed at the minority having so much power, its undemocratic and archaic.


I work in a very christian work place and I'm really judgemental of their values (privately, lol), so it goes both ways. They do just assume that everyone goes to church and seemed a bit weird about me not going. I think that if they only wanted to employ christians then this would be up to them - although I assume it would violate unfair discrimination laws if you have them in your country, I think we do have them here in NZ.

I'm a vegan and straight edge so I guess I am pretty religious even thought I don't believe in any god. I do have morals, even if they appear to be a bit fluid and change now and then.
 
Strodgers
 
Reply Thu 7 Jan, 2010 09:23 pm
@Jebediah,
Jebediah;118291 wrote:
Do they? Prove it.


Prove what? Who are 'they'? Too general, be specific.
 
Jebediah
 
Reply Thu 7 Jan, 2010 09:44 pm
@Strodgers,
Strodgers;118407 wrote:
Prove what? Who are 'they'? Too general, be specific.


I meant the bolded bit. Prove that scientists go around telling us 'This is definitely how the universe was made.'
 
Strodgers
 
Reply Thu 7 Jan, 2010 10:31 pm
@Jebediah,
Jebediah;118412 wrote:
I meant the bolded bit. Prove that scientists go around telling us 'This is definitely how the universe was made.'




Watch The Science Channel and The History Channel's "The Universe". They've said it often enough.
 
starfighter
 
Reply Thu 7 Jan, 2010 10:58 pm
@Strodgers,
Strodgers;118286 wrote:
Both from Dictionary (dot) com
-------

religion
-noun
a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

(and exactly what is a "superhuman agency", it doesn't necessarily mean a god)

atheist
-noun
a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


It appears to me that one doesn't need a God to be religious. All one would need is a belief. Today it seems that the biggest "Religious" group isn't one that believes in a god, but believes in science. Scientists go around telling us 'This is definitely how the universe was made.' yet they don't show proof. Prove black holes exist, bring me one or go to one close up. Prove the universe started as small as a pin head, I've heard a scientist say it began as an infinitely small point. You don't need a god or gods to be religious. The next big religious war might be between scientific beliefs. It wasn't the Theist who created eugenics. Having a belief in god isn't dangerous, having a belief period can be.
Anyone who wants to get rid of religion, two words - Good Luck -


wow.:eek::eek::eek:

---------- Post added 01-07-2010 at 09:05 PM ----------

andy1984;118404 wrote:
I work in a very christian work place and I'm really judgemental of their values (privately, lol), so it goes both ways. They do just assume that everyone goes to church and seemed a bit weird about me not going. I think that if they only wanted to employ christians then this would be up to them - although I assume it would violate unfair discrimination laws if you have them in your country, I think we do have them here in NZ.

I'm a vegan and straight edge so I guess I am pretty religious even thought I don't believe in any god. I do have morals, even if they appear to be a bit fluid and change now and then.


I can understand your belief system changing as you learn, mature, experience, but your morals? Your morality should be resolute...?
 
Fido
 
Reply Thu 7 Jan, 2010 11:52 pm
@Strodgers,
Strodgers;118418 wrote:
Watch The Science Channel and The History Channel's "The Universe". They've said it often enough.

Ya Ya...You just have to read into that, that it is theory, and no way to prove it...Yet some where, along the line, their knowledge does rest upon a proven fact of reality or two... The belief in God rests only on our desires for power and love...Religious people could stand some honesty...
 
Strodgers
 
Reply Fri 8 Jan, 2010 12:59 pm
@Fido,
Fido;118428 wrote:
Ya Ya...You just have to read into that, that it is theory, and no way to prove it...Yet some where, along the line, their knowledge does rest upon a proven fact of reality or two... The belief in God rests only on our desires for power and love...Religious people could stand some honesty...


And scientists don't? There is nothing honest about the idea of eugenics.
I doubt it will ever be possible to know how the universe began.

The belief of god is not based on the idea of 'I think I'll believe in God today', more like a very primitive form of science. "How does the water come down from the sky?", "What makes the ground shake?". Their best possible answers of the time. Some of the scientific ideas of today may transform into religious belief 200 years from now. I grant you mathematics is universal, but the knowledge of mathematics is local. In other words, our mathematics could be Elementary school like compared to someone 1000 light years away. How honest is that for scientists?
 
Fido
 
Reply Fri 8 Jan, 2010 02:47 pm
@Strodgers,
Strodgers;118537 wrote:
And scientists don't? There is nothing honest about the idea of eugenics.
I doubt it will ever be possible to know how the universe began.

The belief of god is not based on the idea of 'I think I'll believe in God today', more like a very primitive form of science. "How does the water come down from the sky?", "What makes the ground shake?". Their best possible answers of the time. Some of the scientific ideas of today may transform into religious belief 200 years from now. I grant you mathematics is universal, but the knowledge of mathematics is local. In other words, our mathematics could be Elementary school like compared to someone 1000 light years away. How honest is that for scientists?

The idea behind eugenics is sound, but the practice of it, designed to protect wealth, or political power clearly is unsound...I would prefer a feud society because it acted as a emetic... If you were not sound physically or mentally you were eliminated...War does the opposite, killing off the fit and leaving the failures...
 
Krumple
 
Reply Fri 8 Jan, 2010 04:23 pm
@ArthBH,
As much as I agree with the OP, I have to mention that for every individual the case could be made a little different. I have ran into some people who can't seem to grasp a secular way of right and wrong. For instance one was a believer from childhood and during his early twenties started to really question his beliefs. The interesting part was that he reverted back to his beliefs when he couldn't make the distinction between right and wrong without using his religious bias. He would make comments like, without god's judgment all actions are equal. But that is not true. So he would give examples of how abusing someone would be justifiable because there is no eternal judge for those actions only societal. If society accepted the abuse then no harm or foul. What he neglects to realize is that harm itself is par personal, not collective. For instance if you were to punch someone in the face on the street, it might be viewed as a crime, where as if you were to move the situation into an octagon it would be more acceptable. So despite your belief, it is not universal when the context changes. This is what he was trying to do when it came to right and wrong. He wants to stick to a solid and firm right and wrong, which in reality does not exist. Just because a lot of people accept something, it does not mean that it is the standard, nor right.

That is my long point, to say that religion itself has as its core the aim to do what it perceives to be right, but that doesn't mean it is right.
 
William
 
Reply Sat 9 Jan, 2010 03:00 am
@ArthBH,
ArthBH;117300 wrote:
Even if something only creates positives in terms of happiness, such as professional pornography as discussed in the last thread, religious people will condemn it and judge those that are in it or watch it as nothing but evil.


I doubt very seriously if you have any children. You probably are one yourself. If you ever do and you have daughters and you are passing their bedroom one day and their bedroom door is locked with a red light over it flashing and a sign that says QUIET: ON THE AIR", how proud you must feel that your daughter has found a profession that will make her rich.

Pat yourself on the back, what a good job you have done. There needs to be more fathers like you.

William
 
xris
 
Reply Sat 9 Jan, 2010 04:39 am
@William,
William;118773 wrote:
I doubt very seriously if you have any children. You probably are one yourself. If you ever do and you have daughters and you are passing their bedroom one day and their bedroom door is locked with a red light over it flashing and a sign that says QUIET: ON THE AIR", how proud you must feel that your daughter has found a profession that will make her rich.

Pat yourself on the back, what a good job you have done. There needs to be more fathers like you.

William
Your personal attacks William are becoming more and more distasteful.
 
ArthBH
 
Reply Sat 9 Jan, 2010 07:52 am
@William,
William;118773 wrote:
I doubt very seriously if you have any children. You probably are one yourself. If you ever do and you have daughters and you are passing their bedroom one day and their bedroom door is locked with a red light over it flashing and a sign that says QUIET: ON THE AIR", how proud you must feel that your daughter has found a profession that will make her rich.

Pat yourself on the back, what a good job you have done. There needs to be more fathers like you.

William


Hey William just to say I would prefer it if you didn't write on my threads any more because when I post threads I want to see intelligible responses, not see people such as yourself insulting others, especially not with such a strongly righteous sense of narrow minded prejudice.

Thanks,
Arthur.
 
William
 
Reply Sat 9 Jan, 2010 11:42 am
@ArthBH,
ArthBH;118795 wrote:
Even if something only creates positives in terms of happiness, such as professional pornography as discussed in the last thread, religious people will condemn it and judge those that are in it or watch it as nothing but evil.


William;118773 wrote:
I doubt very seriously if you have any children. You probably are one yourself. If you ever do and you have daughters and you are passing their bedroom one day and their bedroom door is locked with a red light over it flashing and a sign that says QUIET: ON THE AIR", how proud you must feel that your daughter has found a profession that will make her rich.

Pat yourself on the back, what a good job you have done. There needs to be more fathers like you.

William


xris;118781 wrote:
Your personal attacks William are becoming more and more distasteful.


ArthBH;118795 wrote:
Hey William just to say I would prefer it if you didn't write on my threads any more because when I post threads I want to see intelligible responses, not see people such as yourself insulting others, especially not with such a strongly righteous sense of narrow minded prejudice.

Thanks,


Sorry, guys you can PM each other and pat each other on the back all you care to, but when you post it in public domain for all to comment on, you will get just that.......................others who might differ. You two are trying to sell something here and I am just not buying it. Sorry!

The statement I did comment on and my response were a clear representation of the reality of what you are saying is.............in the real world. If you feel what I did say was offensive, then let's discuss the statement you made as to why you think my response is so offensive.

You want to censor me though and shut me up. Sorry, ain't going to happen. If those who oversee the forum ask me to leave because of it, I will gladly do so with no regrets...................I assure you and you can spread your notions and concepts all you want to.

I was just putting in to context what you did say and you are offended by it. Now we can discuss that because this is happening in the world of our young and I am repulsed by it. Now you may feel differently and that is perfectly acceptable; you have the right to say anything you want to. But to create an environment that will insure only those who agree with you participate is not what this domain is all about Arthur; and Xris you have been here long enough to know better. You and I have never seen eye to eye and you do all the name calling when we don't.

Your posts are not about religion or a twisted society, it's about justifying sexual mores and this reality or society has clear representations of those horrid consequences of what you call "fun sex" and your idea of "professional pornography" can issue to our young who are exposed to it. Sorry, you two, as far as I am concerned personally that dog just will not hunt and I have a right to express my views on the rhetoric you are putting out.

I will agree in the title of your thread and do agree this would be a much better world if all the religions did not exist for they have caused a lot bloodshed and I have stated many times why that is. But it has nothing to do with the context with which you are offering here. None.

Now if you care to take the time, everything I have ever offered is here and you can know all I have offered, but I doubt that you will do that if I am at all correct as the motives that initiate why you are "intelligibly" offering what you are offering now.

It is very evident that "fun sex" is important to you and there is absolutely nothing stopping you from having all the fun sex you want...........nothing! You can go into your own private domain and engage in any kind of sex you want to and as long as it stays there, no one will bother you. But when you bring it into the public domain you become subject to public scrutiny by others who may not agree. I just happen to be one of those and you want to "shut me up". No way Jose!

I have no idea of what "type" of sex you engage in and honestly it is not my concern if it does remain private. But that is not what you want here. You want permission. Sorry, if what I presume is correct, of which you say nothing as to what that might be and only paint with a broad brush as to pornography being a profession, I can imagine.

I've surfed the web to and know what is "out there". There is plenty of material out there for you to get all the ideas you want so you can engage in all the fun sex you choose to. No one is stopping you.

I just find it a bit sad that you can't find something else to bind your time with. That's all you have talked about since you have been here in the public forum and you only want those who agree with you to participate. Not going to happen young man.

Sorry to assume age, but it is my feeling I am a bit more versed in what the world is as I am a bit older than you possibly older than both you any your ally xris, combined. I have been ostracized for that and told I was old school, whatever that is supposed to mean, Ha! Perhaps that is so as I remember a different time when sex was not such a popular item and it was more intimate and really meant something that only two people shared, a man and a woman, getting to know each other and it was not for the public to know. There was a respect then that has all but disappeared from the public landscape and those who were present and paid attention to what was going one know it was a better time that than now indicating a downward spiral that those who were not present just do not see. You and xris are caught up in the midst of it as many are and that is exactly why I am here and give my perspective.

So to answer your request, I will not stop "writing on your threads" and if such a rule ensues that forbids anyone for doing such, I will be more than happy to take my views elsewhere. Gladly. But until then, Xris you can continue the name calling and Arthur you will just have to deal with it.

Oh, and by the way, intelligence has nothing to do with morality my friend; in more cases than not morality is intelligences nemesis. Those who think themselves so smart seem to think they can just talk their way out of it. I am so thankful...........................I am not..................so smart!:whistling:

William
 
ArthBH
 
Reply Sat 9 Jan, 2010 12:39 pm
@William,
William;118829 wrote:
Sorry, guys you can PM each other and pat each other on the back all you care to, but when you post it in public domain for all to comment on, you will get just that.......................others who might differ. You two are trying to sell something here and I am just not buying it. Sorry!

The statement I did comment on and my response were a clear representation of the reality of what you are saying is.............in the real world. If you feel what I did say was offensive, then let's discuss the statement you made as to why you think my response is so offensive.

You want to censor me though and shut me up. Sorry, ain't going to happen. If those who oversee the forum ask me to leave because of it, I will gladly do so with no regrets...................I assure you and you can spread your notions and concepts all you want to.

I was just putting in to context what you did say and you are offended by it. Now we can discuss that because this is happening in the world of our young and I am repulsed by it. Now you may feel differently and that is perfectly acceptable; you have the right to say anything you want to. But to create an environment that will insure only those who agree with you participate is not what this domain is all about Arthur'

William


This is not about people having different opinions, there are others on the thread that have opinions similar to yours, but I will not except such immature name calling. This is a site about philosophy, not insults.
 
xris
 
Reply Sat 9 Jan, 2010 12:45 pm
@William,
What a load of inane drivel. You constantly accuse me of sexual perversion, abuse and certain things im not quite sure of. When you accuse anyone of any deficiency's I suggest you can back your claims up. Instead of abusive rhetoric, point me to the times I have abused you and I have given you any reason for you to believe I support immoral sex. I dont think you are older than me, have you been happily married for forty years to the same women? I am really annoyed at your claims, that I indulge in unusual sexual practices and I support pornography. I suggest you spend a little time to research my posts and find evidence of your disgusting accusations or beg my forgiveness. You are prime example of those holy men who never practice what they so eagerly preach.

---------- Post added 01-09-2010 at 01:50 PM ----------

The paranoia is another subject you should seek help on. We are not even friends, as for private chats ask the mods, we have never spoken other than in public domain, grow up Will, your faults are becoming only too obvious.
 
jgweed
 
Reply Sat 9 Jan, 2010 01:55 pm
@ArthBH,
There is a difference between "putting things in context" and insulting another Member, even extending innuendos to his family, in front of this community, William, and I suggest strongly that you not only learn this difference, but practice it here at Philforum.
John
Adminstrator
 
William
 
Reply Sat 9 Jan, 2010 03:37 pm
@ArthBH,
Sorry you feel that way John. I stand behind every word I offered. I was not insulting and said "if" he had children............................, not that he did. That would be insulting. For if he did have children and then made such a statement, then I would have insulted him...........................big time.

We have agreed on many occasions John, but this time we do not.

William
 
xris
 
Reply Sun 10 Jan, 2010 04:15 am
@William,
William;118865 wrote:
Sorry you feel that way John. I stand behind every word I offered. I was not insulting and said "if" he had children............................, not that he did. That would be insulting. For if he did have children and then made such a statement, then I would have insulted him...........................big time.

We have agreed on many occasions John, but this time we do not.

William
The only thing you stand for is unfounded accusations, now get to the nitty gritty, prove your accusations. I have three children and if you insult us again I will require satisfaction.
 
William
 
Reply Sun 10 Jan, 2010 10:30 am
@ArthBH,
Xris, for your information in regards to "family", the post I offered was to Art in his glorification of pornography by using the word "professional". (post #33) You thought it a personal attack and it was to a degree, but not at you. You just sorta butted in and gave your opinion and why you are so offended because it could be assumed you thought it an attack on you because you agree. And perhaps you do. If you do then it could be that there are those who regard family with a little less dignity than some and why I created the scenario I did.

Just because someone says they have a family and have children doesn't mean in any respect that they are not abusive or neglectful of their children. John, realizes this and why it is confusing why he regarded it the way he did and why I disagreed with his summation.

Perhaps there are people who are using their children in the porn industry to profit in the world and it is "their profession". If that is the case, then my comment stands. If you are offended by it.........................................so be it! You will get no satisfaction from me.

William
 
xris
 
Reply Sun 10 Jan, 2010 10:51 am
@William,
William;118986 wrote:
Xris, for your information in regards to "family", the post I offered was to Art in his glorification of pornography by using the word "professional". (post #33) You thought it a personal attack and it was to a degree, but not at you. You just sorta butted in and gave your opinion and why you are so offended because it could be assumed you thought it an attack on you because you agree. And perhaps you do. If you do then it could be that there are those who regard family with a little less dignity than some and why I created the scenario I did.

Just because someone says they have a family and have children doesn't mean in any respect that they are not abusive or neglectful of their children. John, realizes this and why it is confusing why he regarded it the way he did and why I disagreed with his summation.

Perhaps there are people who are using their children in the porn industry to profit in the world and it is "their profession". If that is the case, then my comment stands. If you are offended by it.........................................so be it! You will get no satisfaction from me.

William
I really am tired of you William, you accuse me of supporting porn or soft sex and make assumptions my morals are great deal less than yours. You have never tired of being abusive and or making the most outrageous claims. I have constantly asked you to find any proof of your accusations and all you do is reiterate that the abuse is well founded. I think you have developed a real problem , I suggest you and I ignore each other.

I have never supported the idea of casual sex or porn but I find no reason to condemn others their choices in life. If you are an example of a caring christian society ,may your god help us all. May your god drive with you, lights or no lights. Bye William.
 
 

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 07/24/2021 at 03:16:38