who believes religion is out dated (1 Viewer)

[MediterraneanM]

And yet the Deep South in the U.S. has some of the highest rates of teen pregnancy in the industrialised world. Coincidentally, the same region is also described as "the Bible Belt" of America because of the strong faith of all the people there.
So much for that idea

[/i]

What exactly makes you think that you're standing upon the moral high ground? Religion is not moral. It's not even amoral. It's just plain immoral.
Where's the morality in the Vatican's decision to preach that condom use is a sin in the AIDS ravaged continent of Africa?
Where's the morality in the Ayatollah of Iran issuing a fatwa upon Salman Rushdie's head for his publication of an anti-Islamic novel?
Where's the morality in the bombing of abortion centres and lynch gang attacks on gays for having an opposing view to their own?
Where's the morality in the millions of men, women and children who have died or been killed as a result of conflict over religion and which is the best?
Morality? What morality?
My question to you: How many people have died or been killed in the name of atheism and humanism?

Hi, Moll. Thanks for your reply.

Please re: read my post. Maybe due to the media utilised there has been a miscommunication of sorts.

I, at no stage, have or do profess to be of high moral ground.

In time, and with age, you 'may' come to realise that the "intent" of all the major religions were addressing the moral issues of their times (and some that are still issues today). e.g. most people have the notion that Islam promotes polygomy...when IN FACT, when the Qu'ran was being revealed, the practise at the time was for men to have a harem of wives. Islam actually worked at REDUCING the number of wives men acquired; and RECOMMENDS to have only 1 wife for a) it is impossible to treat them all the same; and 2) times of wars where battles meant women outnumbered men by the hundreds were no longer pertinent.

You may also come to realise that 'religion' is not bad, but the people who, whether intentially or unintentially, "DISTORT" the religion or its teachings which are the sources of many of the great ills of society.

Whether you believe in Jesus; Buddha; Karma; the Great Architect of the Universe; Allah etc, it is your "intent" that is the most important.

You mentioned the Southerners of the U.S., they may have the reputation of being more religious BUT it is one thing having the reputation OR touting your own piety, and it is another thing to actually practise what you preach or believe.

Personally, I believe that everyone should not just take on the religion of their parents, but should read up on all comparative religions and decide which they find most meaningful and with which they feel the most connection.

P.S. you cited various examples:
Fatwah on Salman Rushdie: although I believe in free speech, I found it interesting that blasphemy against Christianity is illegal in the U.K. but allow such actions against other religions.
In the U.S., you can criticise any religion EXCEPT the Jewish faith - you can actually be imprisoned!!

re: gays. To each their own. Everyone is responsible for their own actions and NOT of others. Personally, I feel that it is a biochemical thing for some people with which they grapple with. To me, as in children toys, a round cylinder block's only correct place is in a round hole mean't for procreation. If everyone was gay, and without genetical engineering, the human race would become extinct. For the gay culture, it is their own test of wills. But shouldn't be harmed.

re: abortion. I feel that it is a 'personal' choice of the parents. This topic could turn into a thesis.

re: religious wars. Yes, Crusades etc. But wars, in the main are for "resources", with religion used by the powerful as a tool incite its population to achieve the goal of resource acquision. Without religion, "man" would STILL find reasons for war.

It is NOT the religion...it is those that mistakingly or intentially distorit religion that is the problem.

 

[dolbinau]

But without any form of religion in any society, the 'base' ethical and moral structure with not be very strong. ESPECIALLY in today's largely IMMORAL society.

Don't flatter yourself, humans don't need religion to base ethics/morality on. And as far as today's society being 'immoral', I think this is a gross generalisation.

 

[MediterraneanM]

Don't flatter yourself, humans don't need religion to base ethics/morality on. And as far as today's society being 'immoral', I think this is a gross generalisation.

Why don't you try 'reading' the posts before you comment?

I merely stipulated the original 'intent' of religious revelations. Wasn't aware that such commentary of historical teachings were attributable to myself (as I am NOT nor touted myself as any divine being!!) or mean't that I was flattering 'myself'.

"read" and "think" BEFORE making outlandish statements.

 

[dolbinau]

I merely stipulated the original 'intent' of religious revelations.

Hardly..I agonisingly went back one page just to check and I don't see how that little quote is saying anything but "Without religion Humans would not have strong morals in today's society". Which I believe is not true at all.

 

[moll.]

Hi, Moll. Thanks for your reply.

Please re: read my post. Maybe due to the media utilised there has been a miscommunication of sorts.

I, at no stage, have or do profess to be of high moral ground.

How else is one expected to interpret the comment that without religion, there would be no morals or ethics?

In time, and with age, you 'may' come to realise that the "intent" of all the major religions were addressing the moral issues of their times (and some that are still issues today). e.g. most people have the notion that Islam promotes polygomy...when IN FACT, when the Qu'ran was being revealed, the practise at the time was for men to have a harem of wives. Islam actually worked at REDUCING the number of wives men acquired; and RECOMMENDS to have only 1 wife for a) it is impossible to treat them all the same; and 2) times of wars where battles meant women outnumbered men by the hundreds were no longer pertinent.

Don't patronise me. I certainly don't need a history lesson form you.
Yes, religions primarily respond to the moral and ethical backgrounds of the time and place in which they were formed. Which is an even greater argument for their abolition, as none of these conditions now exist and humanity has moved on to a more humanistic view of the world, taking to heart Matthew 7:12 "all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them".

You may also come to realise that 'religion' is not bad, but the people who, whether intentially or unintentially, "DISTORT" the religion or its teachings which are the sources of many of the great ills of society.

Whether you believe in Jesus; Buddha; Karma; the Great Architect of the Universe; Allah etc, it is your "intent" that is the most important.

You mentioned the Southerners of the U.S., they may have the reputation of being more religious BUT it is one thing having the reputation OR touting your own piety, and it is another thing to actually practise what you preach or believe.

Personally, I believe that everyone should not just take on the religion of their parents, but should read up on all comparative religions and decide which they find most meaningful and with which they feel the most connection.

People generally don't get reputations for something without at least a small measure of truth behind it. The Southerners are known to be religious because they are, despite what you may think. Spirituality is something measured by oneself alone, and no-one can tell you whether you are or are not religious despite your poor efforts to try and do this.

P.S. you cited various examples:
Fatwah on Salman Rushdie: although I believe in free speech, I found it interesting that blasphemy against Christianity is illegal in the U.K. but allow such actions against other religions.
In the U.S., you can criticise any religion EXCEPT the Jewish faith - you can actually be imprisoned!!

Don't be an idiot.
The British law would have dated back to the English Reformation and the authoritarian monarchies of Henry and Elisabeth, both of whom were paranoid about dissent. Being the head of the Church of England, any dissent against the Church was dissent against them.
Just because the law exists doesn't mean it's in use, and anyone who tried to use it would face massive backlash. There are laws in Australia against brothels, but most bureaucrats turn a blind eye to it because it serves an indirect community service.
As for the American example, that's a cultural thing, and not an actual law. The extreme political correctness that now has to be used in America to talk about blacks is a way of the public to try and skirt the real issue over their embarrassing past enslaving them. So too with this, as the American public feels guilty about not intervening sooner to prevent the Holocaust.

re: gays. To each their own. Everyone is responsible for their own actions and NOT of others. Personally, I feel that it is a biochemical thing for some people with which they grapple with. To me, as in children toys, a round cylinder block's only correct place is in a round hole mean't for procreation. If everyone was gay, and without genetical engineering, the human race would become extinct. For the gay culture, it is their own test of wills. But shouldn't be harmed.

Don't know about yours, but my anus is a round hole too. So by your own calculations, shouldn't it be natural for penises to be inside of it?

re: abortion. I feel that it is a 'personal' choice of the parents. This topic could turn into a thesis.

re: religious wars. Yes, Crusades etc. But wars, in the main are for "resources", with religion used by the powerful as a tool incite its population to achieve the goal of resource acquision. Without religion, "man" would STILL find reasons for war.

And have you stopped for a moment to think why the powerful would possibly have to justify their territorial wars? Because without justification, the public would not support the war effort and the government or the war would collapse. So yes, there really wouldn't be anywhere near the amount of wars there are now if religion didn't exist. After all, there's no greater justification for man's actions than through God's supposedly divine word.

It is NOT the religion...it is those that mistakingly or intentially distorit religion that is the problem.

I prefer the saying "It's not God i dislike, it's his fanclub."

 

[MediterraneanM]

Moll and Dolb.

You can 'attempt' to contort my posts to the best of your abilities but other more sensible readers can make their own judgements as to everyone's postings.

I guess when one enters into a discussion about politics and religion, one should realise that some people are set in their ways and want to read and interpret how they 'wish' your posts had intended.

 

[moll.]

Moll and Dolb.

You can 'attempt' to contort my posts to the best of your abilities but other more sensible readers can make their own judgements as to everyone's postings.

I guess when one enters into a discussion about politics and religion, one should realise that some people are set in their ways and want to read and interpret how they 'wish' your posts had intended.

"Hello Kettle! I'm Mr Pot. Guess what colour i am?!"

 

[chamelia]

I don't know Moll. I, I've never met Moll or had any contact with him, but - he is the greatest man to ever grace the threads of BOS.

 

[Ali -]

"Hello Kettle! I'm Mr Pot. Guess what colour i am?!"

You're a fuckwit, Moll. "How u like them apples?!"

 

[moll.]

You're a fuckwit, Moll. "How u like them apples?!"

Well if we're staying on topic, I didn't quite like them apples as much as Eve did. That selfish bitch.

 

[moll.]

I don't know Moll. I, I've never met Moll or had any contact with him, but - he is the greatest man to ever grace the threads of BOS.

 

[gibbo153]

religion will be relevant for as long as human's cannot avoid death.

the implications of death cause us to ponder whether each religion's claims surrounding death have credit

 

[moll.]

religion will be relevant for as long as human's cannot avoid death.

the implications of death cause us to ponder whether each religion's claims surrounding death have credit

I beg to differ.
Religion will be relevant until man ceases to fear death.
I do not fear death but am still going to die, and yet i have no need for religion in my own life.

 

[Ali -]

Well if we're staying on topic, I didn't quite like them apples as much as Eve did. That selfish bitch.

How about not just staying on topic but to also read people's posts properly, without bias, and stop being a condescending bastard?!

Mediterranean was making sensible comments and all you do is make smart arse comments and lap up the alleged admiration some other member has for you...plus the admiration you have for yourself you narcissistic prick!

Stop making personal attacks and stay on topic!

{Eve may have been a bitch...but you have been the Snake in this thread!}

 

[moll.]

How about not just staying on topic but to also read people's posts properly, without bias, and stop being a condescending bastard?!

Mediterranean was making sensible comments and all you do is make smart arse comments and lap up the alleged admiration some other member has for you...plus the admiration you have for yourself you narcissistic prick!

Stop making personal attacks and stay on topic!

{Eve may have been a bitch...but you have been the Snake in this thread!}

Well now who's making personal attacks?
I did read their post properly, and i found fault not only with the content but in the tone of the message, and i replied appropriately. Never once did i make a personal attack however.
And that joke at the end was just lame. Bad form, young lad.

 

[Ali -]

Moll, YOU are the one with the bad form. You make 'strategic' belittling comments regarding people that post then change tact and make the odd decent comment in a veiled attempt to cover your tracks.

You stop belittling people, and others will stop attacking you.

These threads are supposed to be a forum for people to express their views, and if you don't agree with them, fine. Just don't make smart arse comments.

 

[gibbo153]

I beg to differ.
Religion will be relevant until man ceases to fear death.
I do not fear death but am still going to die, and yet i have no need for religion in my own life.

man as a whole, not just you.

 

[moll.]

Moll, YOU are the one with the bad form. You make 'strategic' belittling comments regarding people that post then change tact and make the odd decent comment in a veiled attempt to cover your tracks.

You stop belittling people, and others will stop attacking you.

These threads are supposed to be a forum for people to express their views, and if you don't agree with them, fine. Just don't make smart arse comments.

Pretty sure you're the only one who is attacking me, buddy.
And no, these forums are also a place to discuss people's varying views with the eventual aim of creating a far more aware and knowledgeable constituency. So when someone comes on here and makes narrow-minded, self-righteous comments, like the claim that without religion mankind would have little to no morals and ethics, i will respond with outrage, ridicule and sarcasm, because such a person is obviously beyond help.

 

[moll.]

man as a whole, not just you.

Was just using myself as an example. Imagine that, but multiplied by 7 billion (and counting).

 

[Ali -]

Pretty sure you're the only one who is attacking me, buddy.
And no, these forums are also a place to discuss people's varying views with the eventual aim of creating a far more aware and knowledgeable constituency. So when someone comes on here and makes narrow-minded, self-righteous comments, like the claim that without religion mankind would have little to no morals and ethics, i will respond with outrage, ridicule and sarcasm, because such a person is obviously beyond help.

First of all, I'm NOT your buddy.

After reading through the entire thread, all that other guy did was to make a comment on the "history" of religion and the theologies behind it. He did not claim credits for such revelations etc.

Religion is a personal thing. If you have faith, it is up to you. If you don't have any faith, then again, it is totally up to you. Like he said, try reading the posts properly and apologise if you attack people's posts when you haven't even understood them OR taking them out of context.

It's fine when you attack a bloke who is not making any claims, and you enjoy the positive comments of a 'fan' of yours. But when others interject and pull you up for taking people out of context, you don't like it.

Pull your head in...continue making positive or negative comments in a 'constructive' manner, and we won't have any problems. Use your intellect to make a positive contribution to society...NOT a negative one.

Enough said.