Religion

[Anonymous No.2743027]

What is your point of view on religion?
Are you religious? , If so why? if not why?
If you are unsure which side do you lean towards? if neither think about it.

I personally cannot believe in anything with 100% confidence to be true based on "faith", the closest I get to this is a belief that my memories are true, and even this I would say is somewhere under 100%, which is why I cringe whenever I hear someone say I am 100% confident in the existence of a none prove-able being of unlimited power who is male and the only one of his kind and has been so since all eternal and therefore his gender is in the end pointless other than a representation of male supremacy.

Whether or not you think religion is a good or bad thing is completely different to what you think is true or false, but you may discuss this if need be.

[Anonymous No.2743076]

>What is your point of view on religion?

It is useful to those minds so weak they cannot conceive their own morality and therefore need to borrow someone else's dated teachings and live by them instead. A strong mind will always assemble their ideas of what is 'right' from different sources to form what they consider the most 'ethical'.

>Are you religious? , If so why? if not why?

It's not really something you can rationize or justify; people generally are religious or they are not and it's a matter of faith, upbringing, and exposure to different ideas in the world.

[sage No.2743091]

Usually I'm tolerant of religious people, but sometimes I just get the feeling they must be absolute fucking retards for believing in an afterlife and a creator watching over them. I was raised a christian myself, but turned atheist as soon as i developed some rational thought at puberty.
My opinion can be summed up with something like this; "There is absolutely nothing in this world which points to the existence of a creator, therefore assuming his existence would be utterly illogical".

Also, sage for not science.

[Anonymous No.2743132]

I think the word "religion" gets misapplied a lot. In fact I'd go so far as to say that the mainstream understanding of the term is part of a recent cultural move to demean certain types of beliefs as being bad and grouping them all under the name of "religion", IOW the common definition is wrong as it is based on psychological defense mechanisms. /sci/ is perhaps the most thoroughly "religious" board of them all, the "religion" in question being scientism, whose wikipedia def. doesn't go far enough to explain all the intellectual errors inherent within.

[Anonymous No.2744763]

Found this on a /b thread. Pretty spot-on.

Atheism is pure stupidity. First, the notion that atheists dont condone pure evil is absurd. They should want to kill all life, in effect they are nihilists, but are hiding behind Judeo-Christian morality too afraid to face the fact that what they want to do is wanton rape, murder, child sacrifice, you name it. Anyone who suggests otherwise is just trying to be a Dawkins-worshiping hipster.

[Anonymous No.2744769]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x6HwSq3sp8o
THIS VIDEO EXPLAINS IT ALL

[Anonymous No.2744775]

>>2744763

0/1000

[Anonymous No.2744780]

>>2744763
/b/ is just jealous of god

[Anonymous No.2744781]

>>2743027

I'm a Satanist. Why do you ask?

[Anonymous No.2744785]

>What is your point of view on religion?
Depends which religions, i have no problem with non-theistic religions such as Taoism. I don't even have a problem with people who think there is a creator. However I have a massive problem who believe in a theistic dogma. I find it extremely hard to empathize with such people, and i often find myself thinking they are inferior in intelligence since they cannot be rational about seemingly the most important features of life.

>Are you religious? , If so why? if not why?
Because there is no evidence to suggest their is such a god, and until there is it doesn't deserve a second thought. There have been countless amounts of gods throughout time, they all restrict open thinking and opportunities.

If i saw a vision of an angel or something, i would not have the shear arrogance/audacity to think it was real. I would question if i was seeing something real, my sanity first. Human testimony is extremely weak evidence for religion, especially when every religion has it's own members who would give counter examples.
It's a flaw in human thought, that we link cause to effect. And most of the time that is fine, but people must be aware that the events may be not related at all and the link is simply a coincidence. (I.e. praying and getting it to happen or clapping and it starts to rain etc)

As a person trying to finish a doctorate in philosophy specifically ethics, i wish it was as simple as a god existing thus giving universal ethical laws. But it isn't, and anyone who thinks the world is that simple is ignorant. The bible specifically has a pathetic account for morality and preaches pseudo-equality.

/rant
Pic related

[Anonymous No.2744790]

>What is your point of view on religion?
Depends which religions, i have no problem with non-theistic religions such as Taoism. I don't even have a problem with people who think there is a creator. However I have a massive problem who believe in a theistic dogma. I find it extremely hard to empathize with such people, and i often find myself thinking they are inferior in intelligence since they cannot be rational about seemingly the most important features of life.

>Are you religious? , If so why? if not why?
Because there is no evidence to suggest such a god or power exists, and until there is it doesn't deserve a second thought. There have been countless amounts of gods throughout time, they all restrict open thinking and opportunities, and none have lasted or been proven.

If i saw a vision of an angel or something, i would not have the shear arrogance/audacity to think it was real. I would question if i was seeing something real, my sanity first. Human testimony is extremely weak evidence for religion, especially when every religion has it's own members who would give counter examples.
It's a flaw in human thought, that we link cause to effect. And most of the time that is fine, but people must be aware that the events may be not related at all and the link is simply a coincidence. (I.e. praying and getting it to happen or clapping and it starts to rain etc)

As a person trying to finish a doctorate in philosophy specifically ethics, i wish it was as simple as a god existing thus giving universal ethical laws. But it isn't, and anyone who thinks the world is that simple is ignorant. The bible specifically has a pathetic account for morality and preaches pseudo-equality.

/rant
Pic related

[Anonymous No.2744964]

>>2744790

>There have been countless amounts of gods throughout time

True.

>they all restrict open thinking and opportunities

In what way?

>and none have lasted

I dunno; the five major religions have all existed for millenia and are still very much alive and well the last I checked. It's true that many of the ancient cults died out because they were tied to a particular tribe or nation that went extinct.

>If i saw a vision of an angel or something, i would not have the shear arrogance/audacity to think it was real. I would question if i was seeing something real, my sanity first.

As do I. I certainly don't buy Jimmy Carter's claim that God talked to him in his living room after drinking strychnine.

>i wish it was as simple as a god existing thus giving universal ethical laws

Seems to me that all the major religions have the same basic ethical laws.

[Anonymous No.2744992]

My view?

Only the most uproarious laughter you could EVER imagine!

Human kind is a horde of fucking RETARDS, and religion is my ultimate argument.

-Suck a dick, cuntstain!

[Anonymous No.2744993]

What is your point of view on religion?
I don't really have one.
Are you religious? , If so why? if not why?
No, because I'm terrified of being wrong
If you are unsure which side do you lean towards? if neither think about it.I don't lean towards any side (again, terrified of being wrong).

[Anonymous No.2745025]

>>2744964

Religions unquestionably restricted thinking, they aren't refereed to as the dark ages for nothing.
Examples:
-The world is 2000 years old.
-Men are superior, women don't get equal rights
-Slavery is justified
-Homosexuality is sin
-Certain elasticities are sin
-Evolution
The stories of religious texts are taking as universal truth, thus canceling out other possibilities. That is not free thinking, that is programming.

Free thinking has always been dangerous to religions. For example :What if the devil actually wrote the bible and is tricking us?

Religious beliefs restrict thinking in so many ways, but one of the most devastating is the separation of other creatures. When you believe that people can be possessed or that the soul is what gives life, anyone who differs to you is automatically evil.
Religious beliefs generally claim humans are superior to animals, the bible specifically mentions them as tools to us. And although many people will argue with me saying 'we are superior', there is no real evidence to say so (don't bother trying to give some)

>Seems to me that all the major religions have the same basic ethical laws.

Sort of, but that certainly doesn't make them truthful.

[Anonymous No.2745034]

>>2744964

Religions unquestionably restricted thinking, they aren't refereed to as the dark ages for nothing.
Examples:
-The world is 2000 years old.
-Men are superior, women don't get equal rights
-Slavery is justified
-Homosexuality is sin
-Certain races/creeds are sin (in certain dogmas)
-Evolution was infamously denied by religion etc
The stories of religious texts are used as universal truths, thus canceling out other possibilities. That is not free thinking, that is programming. Especially when they are wrong.

Free thinking has always been dangerous to religions. For example :What if the devil actually wrote the bible and is tricking us?

Religious beliefs restrict thinking in so many ways, but one of the most devastating is the separation of other creatures. When you believe that people can be possessed or that the soul is what gives life, anyone who differs to you is automatically evil.
Religious beliefs generally claim humans are superior to animals, the bible specifically mentions them as tools to us. And although many people will argue with me saying 'we are superior', there is no real evidence to say so (don't bother trying to give some)

>Seems to me that all the major religions have the same basic ethical laws.

Sort of, but that certainly doesn't make them truthful.
Sure, some of the laws put forward by religion are useful and are basic formations for society, but they certainly don't do a proper job for morality.
"Don't do that, don't do this"

[Anonymous No.2745070]

>>2745034

Just to emphasize the point, when you are taught that god is the reason for everything that happens, obviously it restricts the explanations of events.
Woman in the middle east where blamed for an earthquake because they angered god.
In New Zealand a priest claimed that the Christchurch earthquake was caused by homosexuality.
When in reality it was tectonic movement and it doesn't take sides on morality. And the continental and oceanic plates don't have free will.

[Anonymous No.2745098]

>>2745034

>Religions unquestionably restricted thinking

Because as we all know, atheistic communist nations were such pinnacles of freedom and independence of thought.

>-The world is 2000 years old.

Nobody except cranks believes that.

>-Men are superior, women don't get equal rights

Yeah, Muslims are like that.

>-Slavery is justified

The Bible never says "Thou shalt keep slaves". Mormons once tried to use that same excuse to justify polygamy.

>-Homosexuality is sin

It's certainly not healthy behavior or good for a society.

>-Evolution was infamously denied by religion

Most Christians didn't object to evolution in of itself, they objected to it being used as a weapon by atheists.

>The stories of religious texts are used as universal truths, thus canceling out other possibilities.

I've never blindly believed every single thing I read. Perhaps you do, but not me.

>Religious beliefs generally claim humans are superior to animals, the bible specifically mentions them as tools to us.

It says "God gave man dominion over the animals". I think it implies that we're intended to take good care of nature and utilize it responsibly.

>Sort of, but that certainly doesn't make them truthful.

How so? What's untruthful about stuff like "Thou shalt not steal"?

>but they certainly don't do a proper job for morality.

Then what does?

[Anonymous No.2745106]

>Are you religious? , If so why? if not why?

No.

We are a self-replicating molecule, competing with our own progeny for replication resources. We are floating around on a speck of dust in the cosmos that will likely be destroyed by simply bumping in to another speck of dust, whatever it may be.

Apparently, living, moving, thinking matter is a consequence of circumstance and the laws of nature, nothing more.

If the chemical signals in your brain are telling you that you are FEELING an emotional connection to a sky wizard, and you believe those signals without looking deeper at the cause of them, then that's your prerogative.

I think the true story of nature is much more interesting. I don't understand people who don't.

[Anonymous No.2745109]

>>2745070

There's cranks everywhere. I don't believe for a second that the Haitian or Japanese earthquakes were God's judgement on them. I mean, I'm not Pat Robertson.

[Anonymous No.2745137]

>>2745098
Communist nations still thrived under an instilling of theocratic idealism in its leaders. The populace was basically handed to USSR heads and deified them.

[Anonymous No.2745147]

The problem with this debate is that no matter which side you are on, you have the ability to justify being 100% correct about your stance. Obviously, atheists and agnostics can stake their on mountains of physical evidence and scientific knowledge. And in reciprocation, religion uses the most well-established case of circular reasoning known to man.

I was a student leader in a born again christian organization until i was fifteen, and never once in those many years of witnessing and worshipping did I ever doubt that there was an all-encompassing love for me sent down from on high by a benevolent God who was willing to die for my transgressions. It just made sense. I couldn't picture a world without it. That was my paradigm, Jesus became more important than the observations required to prove him. So consequently, every bit of information I absorbed was filtered through this adapted thought process first. It was amazing how neatly all the scientific evidence stacked up in favor for a fundamental Christian God back then.

But now, as a university student, I can take an objective look at Christianity, and see that it is just an ancient fairytale blown out of proportion. It feeds on peoples' needs and creates a very unique and interesting social disorder. The same could be said for every popular religion; it is there out of the necessity created by it's followers.

And the genius of it is that no matter how ridiculous something might seem to the casual observer, once you adopt the basic train of thought that all religion dictates, you can justify anything. It's fascinatingly tragic, really.

[Anonymous No.2745151]

>Scientific facts supporting religion: 0
Call me when they find soul particles, and god energy.

[Anonymous No.2745160]

I think religion works pretty well as a personal philosophy to live by, but never as something to take literally as to hold as the one true belief or philosophy among all others. Then again, no religious/philosophical/political/personal beliefs work when you treat them like such.

[Anonymous No.2745177]

>>2745147
well said.

[Anonymous No.2745196]

>>2745098

>Because as we all know, atheistic communist nations were such pinnacles of freedom and independence of thought.

Richard Dawkins addresses this strawman.
The atheist leader you are referring to (Stalin) did not do the atrocities he did in the name of atheism.
He did not repress the people in the name of atheism or its beliefs, he did so to maximize his power.
On the other hand, religious atrocities such as genocide/terrorism/wars are constantly done in the name of god.
Science accepts that anything is possible, religion doesn't.

>It's certainly not healthy behavior or good for a society.
Keeps population down, gives pleasure to the users. Certainly has more benefits than weaknesses.

>Most Christians didn't object to evolution in of itself, they objected to it being used as a weapon by atheists.
That may be the case today, it wasn't 200 years ago.
Geology, paleontology and many more only started to come of age when people started to let go that the world wasn't 2000 years old.


I am not going to bother explaining why morality isn't as simple as the 10 commandments as you must be trolling.

[Anonymous No.2745203]

>What is your point of view on religion?

I think atheists fail to understand how much a part of civilization religion is.

>Are you religious?

I am, although I'm a very independent-minded person who never blindly believes what I'm told. I don't believe as atheists do that science negates God, because if he's is not part of the physical world, science can't tell us anything about him.

Have great cruelties been committed in the name of religion? Certainly they have, but then I look at how shitty atheistic communist nations were. I can't say that anyone ever built a religion-free society that was worth anything.

One reason I'm not an atheist is because they always seem to be such unhappy, miserable people. I imagine they're jealous of the peace and solace that Christians have. They'd probably like to be able to have this comfort, but can't bring themselves to believe for social reasons or because atheism sounds more manly or whatever.

[Anonymous No.2745243]

>What is your point of view on religion?
I don't normally have a problem with it, as long as it stays peaceful (pfft) and generally out of most of my business, i couldn't care less.

>Are you religious? , If so why? if not why?
I have a respect for it, mostly because of my father, but otherwise, I'd like to believe a god exists, just to know there's someone fucking with everyone.
I liked the way it was portrayed in Futurama, and if i had my way, that's how it would be.

[Anonymous No.2745247]

>>2745196

>The atheist leader you are referring to (Stalin) did not do the atrocities he did in the name of atheism.
He did not repress the people in the name of atheism or its beliefs, he did so to maximize his power.

"Religion is the opiate of the masses"

"Atheism is a natural and inseparable part of Marxism"

"Our program necessarily requires the propagation of atheism"

-- Lenin

>On the other hand, religious atrocities such as genocide/terrorism/wars are constantly done in the name of god.

In this day and age, there's pretty much only one religion that's killing people and blowing stuff up, and it sure ain't Christianity.

>Certainly has more benefits than weaknesses.

Homosexuality is a violent, self-destructive, narcissistic way to live that also spreads disease. When you hear stories of gay men needing adult diapers because they can't hold their dook in, you'll realize. No sane society would encourage or hold up that kind of behavior.

>Geology, paleontology and many more only started to come of age when people started to let go that the world wasn't 2000 years old.

Ah, but even in the 18th century people were starting to believe the Earth was 70,000-80,000 years old rather than a couple thousand years.

[Anonymous No.2745254]

>>2745137

Yes, because it's human nature to worship something. Dawkins had to turn atheism into a religion of sorts to attract followers.

[Anonymous No.2745260]

>>2745247
"Religion is the opiate of the masses"

--Marx

way to do research christfag...nm forgot who i was talking to

[Anonymous No.2745272]

>>2745260

I had heard Lenin said that, but whatever. Same thing. My point is that I'm willing to acknowledge that cruelties have been committed in the name of religion, while atheists apparently don't have the balls to admit that 100 million people were killed by their compatriots.

[Anonymous No.2745297]

>>2745247
>>2745247

You realize there is a huge difference between Marxism and communism. The only people who think they are the same are brainwashed western society members. You quoted Marx, he would have been ashamed at the way his ideas were twisted to produce the opposite world he pictured.

>In this day and age, there's pretty much only one religion that's killing people and blowing stuff up, and it sure ain't Christianity.
I don't think any middle eastern country who has been invaded or occupied with American troops would agree with that.

>Homosexuality is a violent, self-destructive, narcissistic way to live that also spreads disease.
Free-will, people can do what they want.
Religion is a violent, self-destructive, narcissistic way to live that also spreads devastation.

>Ah, but even in the 18th century people were starting to believe the Earth was 70,000-80,000 years old rather than a couple thousand years.
Why do you think that was dumbass?
It was because the tight grasp of religion was being foiled for what it was. People started to realize it was nothing but trash.

[Anonymous No.2745307]

>>2745272

Because Lenin and Stalin and whoever else you want to call tyrants didn't commit the atrocities in the name of atheism.
That simple.

I'm not denying some atheists are bad people, obviously there has been and still are.

[Anonymous No.2745320]

Whatever caused the Big Bang is my God.

Why? It's the best we've got evidence for.

[Anonymous No.2745319]

>>2745247
>In this day and age, there's pretty much only one religion that's killing people and blowing stuff up, and it sure ain't Christianity.
>"Religion is the opiate of the masses"

>"Atheism is a natural and inseparable part of Marxism"

>"Our program necessarily requires the propagation of atheism"

>-- Lenin
You are ignoring facts, yes Lenin DID state the atheism as his reason to be opressive, but it was actually to gain more power regarding his own nation, you can't take all of the "evilness" and murders that Lenin did and regard them as the objective of every atheist, most atheist want a peaceful society with a high interest in technology and science to improve as a human being.

If you do that, then the Crusades, the Witch Hunt, the invasion by the Roman Empire and then "Holy" Roman Empire had quite a few deaths and this will be regarded as a "omgthiswassoamazing" thing on the theist circles, which it isn't. Besides, we didn't say that Christianism was wrong, we said that a theist community is better than a religious one, in terms of goals and aspirations.

No comments as for homosexualism, don't care.

>Ah, but even in the 18th century people were starting to believe the Earth was 70,000-80,000 years old rather than a couple thousand years.
Yes, but People try to find truth in these arguments, if people aren't content with "the earth is 2000 years old, and that's that", then they are free to try to find the truth and take it as their own knowledge, this is freedom of thought, something that (as clearly shown with the Witch Hunt) is wrong on the eyes of the church.

[Anonymous No.2745325]

>>2745254
Wrong. It is human nature to seek understanding. It is human nature to seek security in things that he can't understand. Both of these cultivate in the quick-fix delusion that is religion.

Please don't try to compare those who are seeking the truth with integrity to those that sit in the pews lazily accepting lies.

[Anonymous No.2745335]

>>2745297

>I don't think any middle eastern country who has been invaded or occupied with American troops would agree with that.

We're not there to spread Christianity.

>Free-will, people can do what they want.

But don't try to claim that certain behaviors are healthy for you.

>Religion is a violent, self-destructive, narcissistic way to live that also spreads devastation.

Ad-hominem.

>It was because the tight grasp of religion was being foiled for what it was. People started to realize it was nothing but trash.

Aside from the fact that you appear to be suffering a severe mental breakdown here, I would like to point out that most people then still literally believed in the Creation and Flood accounts. Remember; this was still before Darwin.

[Anonymous No.2745346]

>>2745247
>implying Russia is still an oppressive red force to be reckoned with
>implying the religion that is responsible for the most violent acts of hatred in recent years isn't Christianity's Abrahamic sister religion, Islam

[Anonymous No.2745364]

>>2745335
>We're not there to spread Christianity.
No, you spread Christianism all over the country and the world, but not by invading little middle-easterns countries.

>But don't try to claim that certain behaviors are healthy for you.
Healthy or not, it is still a choice, such as drinking wine and smoking, they bot are much unhealthier than homosexualism, yet you don't condemn smokers and drinkers.

>pic related

[Anonymous No.2745365]

>>2745319

>You are ignoring facts, yes Lenin DID state the atheism as his reason to be opressive, but it was actually to gain more power regarding his own nation, you can't take all of the "evilness" and murders that Lenin did and regard them as the objective of every atheist, most atheist want a peaceful society with a high interest in technology and science to improve as a human being.

I'm not saying that every atheist was universally bad, but you cannot deny that there's a connection between atheism and left-wing politics. The more socialistic a nation becomes, the less religious it becomes, a fact that history has consistently proven again and again.

[Anonymous No.2745380]

>>2745365
I didn't say that Lenin was a nice person, but you can't judge every atheist as being a Lenin, As much as I can say that every German person is a Himmler.Well, the more religious a nation becomes, it has an undenyable need and hunger for expansion (at least on it's own beliefs).

[Anonymous No.2745388]

>But don't try to claim that certain behaviors are healthy for you.

As examples i have already given, it has more benefits than weaknesses. Homosexuality does not simply mean anal sex, and that was the only negative you could point out, yet alone how isolated that example is. And don't claim solely homosexuality spreads disease, that can apply to any straight person too.

>I would like to point out that most people then still literally believed in the Creation and Flood accounts. Remember; this was still before Darwin.

I am very much aware of this, Darwin wasn't the creator of atheism....
There were many people around the time of the renaissance who were starting to question the church.
Religion became significantly weaker with excellent thinkers such as Thomas Hobbes.

[Anonymous No.2745394]

>>2745346

>implying Russia is still an oppressive red force to be reckoned with

Did I say it was?

>implying the religion that is responsible for the most violent acts of hatred in recent years isn't Christianity's Abrahamic sister religion, Islam

Irregardless, Islam != Christianity, and Jesus was not a warlord who married a 9-year old girl.

This is a pathetically bad argument I've heard before. When you bring up Islam (which atheists are usually afraid to touch anyway), they say "Oh, but but but it's almost the same thing as Christianity."

No it's not. Christians don't fly planes into buildings, they don't have suicide bombers, they're not calling for the destruction of Israel, they don't have sharia law, and they don't have polygamy.

[Anonymous No.2745395]

>>2745365
>Roman Empire
>Became religious
>Declined partly due to socialism

Shut the fuck up, thanks.

[Anonymous No.2745399]

>>2745365
American detected.

try learning politics outside your own country.

[Anonymous No.2745411]

>you cannot deny that there's a connection between atheism and left-wing politics. The more socialistic a nation becomes, the less religious it becomes, a fact that history has consistently proven again and again

Oh what a fucking coincidence, the more free a country gets the less religious it gets.
There is unquestionably a link between free thinking and atheism.

Authoritarian governments may have also endorsed atheism, but not for the same reasons atheists do. It's simply easier to control people when you have completely control.
You cannot have such control when there is a god or priests who talk to god.

Time and time again, throughout history, the rulers have control over the religious heads.
Roman Emperors where also the Pontifex Maximuses
Look how closely the monarchies of the world are tied to the churches.
How can you rule a country if the ideology can rule against you.

[Anonymous No.2745415]

>>2745388

>Homosexuality does not simply mean anal sex

And oral sex and S&M and NAMBLA and various other unpleasant behaviors.

>I am very much aware of this, Darwin wasn't the creator of atheism

Never said he was.

>There were many people around the time of the renaissance who were starting to question the church. Religion became significantly weaker with excellent thinkers such as Thomas Hobbes.

There were some atheists and socialists in the 18th century, but they never had that significant of an impact. During the French Revolution, they tried to get rid of organized religion, but it didn't last too long and Napoleon (after becoming emperor) realized that "religion is great stuff for keeping the common people quiet". Most of the more mainstream Enlightenment thinkers (Voltaire et al) were deists or else believed that all religions were valid as long as they promoted peace and brotherhood.

Remember too that a lot of anti-clerical sentiment in Europe was due to the churches being used as a political weapon.

[Anonymous No.2745425]

>>2745411

>Oh what a fucking coincidence, the more free a country gets the less religious it gets.

More like the state takes the place of God. And it seems to me that the more socialist a nation becomes, the less free it is.

[Anonymous No.2745434]

>>2745395

The RE declined for many reasons, one of the big ones being that it had long, nearly indefensible borders in Western Europe. Plus its political system was an unworkable mess.

[Anonymous No.2745447]

Socialism isn't an ideal society, just because it enhaces mediocricy (I hope it is well written), but in other terms, socialism has a bad image because of the leaders of the movement, Lenin and Stalin as a great example, a free socialism is really free with no opression, but it would be nearly impossible to achieve.

[Anonymous No.2745460]

Why atheism is unhealthy for children and other living things.

[Anonymous No.2745496]

>>2743076
> people generally are religious or they are not and it's a matter of faith
It's not faith to not be religious any more thanit's not faith to not believe in Santa Claus

[Anonymous No.2745528]

I'm jewish. I try to stay as religious as possible, yet I don't necessary believe in any of the stories in there. I do it because it gives me a set of ethics and rules to follow

[Anonymous No.2745530]

QualiaSoup covers this pretty well.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNDZb0KtJDk

tl;dw It depends on the claim.

[Anonymous No.2745550]

>>2745447
techno-anarchist here. What's going on?

[Anonymous No.2745559]

Japan seems to be doing fine. >>2745460

[Anonymous No.2745561]

>What is your point of view on religion?
It's one of the worst shit ever
Are you religious?
No
If so why? if not why?
Because I have a brain and I use it sometimes

[okay.jpg No.2745564]

>What is your point of view on religion?
don't know and don't think it matters further than (easily) giving people a moral code
>Are you religious?
No, used to be but I couldn't and still haven't felt anything from being a christian, going to church, etc. It all felt(and still feels) fake to me


I don't really know what side I lean towards, I never believed in hell as a christian because unending punishment should not exist, as it is inequivalent to anything you could possibly do aside from creating a hell (infinity != infinity and all that jazz)

this sort of supernatural stuff really bothers me because its costing me my relationship with my girlfriend....i'd marry her if this weren't such a big problem for us (she's a really big believer and came back from wanting to kill herself a few times through her faith)

i couldn't even sleep last night, i hate how this is affecting our relationship

[Anonymous No.2745567]

>>2745425
Don't forget the countries with the highest standards of living have the least religious populations.

[Anonymous No.2745570]

>>2743027
My POV on religion: There are good religions and bad religions. There are good variants, and bad variants.

Some religion is good for you. But you have to take it very moderately, even if the religion advocates for extremism or fundamentalism. Religion without science is blind. Science without religion is lame.

[Anonymous No.2745579]

>What is your point of view on religion?

It's a terrible idea and I am surprised it's legal to teach it as a serious idea to kids, or anyone else.

>Are you religious? , If so why? if not why?

No, agnostic would probably be most fitting. There is nothing leaning towards there being a God, but there might be one. I've never seen any evidence of it, so if there is a God I ignore it for now. Would be nice to have somewhere to hang when I die, but these questions can't be answered with my toolbox so it's not worth spending time on it.

[Anonymous No.2745581]

Atheist because I was never introduced to religion by my parents.

Even still I'm quite annoyed by how modern society treats religion. Islam is about all thats left un cherry picked and when they do follow their religion correctly by stoning gays or punishing woman for being raped we say they're radicals and have hijacked the religion.

[Anonymous No.2745584]

>>2745570
I agree about bad religion, but I've never heard about good religion

[Anonymous No.2745599]

>>2745584
lols were had

[Anonymous No.2745605]

Religion has had far more impact on our society than Science has.

[Thom Yorke !jrIwNCejKQ No.2745608]

>>2745584

[Anonymous No.2745613]

>>2745605
and society is such a great thing? And how can you even say that? Science 500.000 years ago was making fire. And they had to re-invent it again and again. Not like they went to college for it.

[Anonymous No.2745627]

>>2745584

I suppose if you're that bigoted and close-minded...

[Anonymous No.2745631]

>>2745559

You haven't been watching the news lately, have you?

[Ặɳѻɲᴇxus !!qMPplrvyJzF No.2745632]

>What is your point of view on religion?
Some people are overly into it and wayyy too radical
to be running for government or any other position
regarding politics.
>Are you religious?
Yes
>Why?
I was born and raised a Catholic. My priest isn't
radical (thank goodness), is an awesome guitar
player and doesn't dismiss evolution.

I think the idea of religion is in someways
ridiculous as well, but the Bible is a pretty good
book of morals, can't debate with that.

My priest said don't believe everything in the Bible
and don't take everything in it for facts and such.

So I just see Catholicism as worshiping God. If
he's real, well then hooray maybe I'll get into
heaven, if not, well fuck I wasted 2 hours of my
life worshiping a non-existent being, and I waste
more than 2 hours on 4chan so I don't really give
a shit since I need some time to be away from
here and hang out with friends.

[Anonymous No.2745635]

Atheist here,
I see religion as a something we had to develop and use to get us where we are now.

However I think were well beyond the point where we need religion for anything other than persuasion on political issues.
In fact I believe it's holding us back, mostly because it breeds this ignorance that seeps into the publics opinion of science and rots it from the core.

It's starts off with religious issues like gay marriage/ abortion and ends up demonizing science on a much larger scale.
Like stem cell research, nuclear power.
Basically a misconception of science that can easily be lobbied with emotional ties to a religion.

Religion in itself doesn't bother me that much, it's the fact that people use the emotional attachment religious people have to it to manipulate them in which I find repulsive.

[Anonymous No.2745638]

>>2745034
"although many people will argue with me saying 'we are superior', there is no real evidence to say so "

One could argue that humans are intelligent enough to comprehend the idea of God, where other animals are not. From a christian point of view that has different meaning than an atheist point of view. I don't want to go and say animals are tools but sometimes I think people are ashamed to call them selves human.

[Anonymous No.2745640]

>>2745632
>but the Bible is a pretty good
book of morals, can't debate with that.

>implying your morals come from the bible
lol

[Anonymous No.2745644]

Have you ever considered a different denomination?

[Anonymous No.2745648]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5FYXbXu45AQ&feature=fvsr

[Anonymous No.2745652]

>>2745640

>implying your morals come from the bible

Maybe not directly, but it all traces back there.

[Ặɳѻɲᴇxus !!qMPplrvyJzF No.2745657]

>>2745652
This isn't
>>2745632
Notice I am the tripfag.

Anyways, most of my morals do come from the
Bible. Also,

>>2745640
Your green text blows.

[Anonymous No.2745667]

>>2745657

Your parents probably taught you morals originally, but the Bible is certainly a good reference book on them.

[Anonymous No.2745668]

>What is your point of view on religion?
A memetic expression of in-group/out-group dynamics founded on faith based assumptions/conclusions about natural phenomena and a "life after death". The entire concept helps people deal with uncertainty of the natural world in a very superficial sense, helps them deal with fear and uncertainty surrounding death and in many cases helps abolish self blame.

>Are you religious? , If so why? if not why?
No. I don't believe in imaginary friends and I find the entire notion not only silly, but unjust, ludicrous and disgusting.

>If you are unsure which side do you lean towards? if neither think about it.
I'm only unsure in the sense that we can't be 100% certain of anything and that you can't "prove a negative" so to speak. Otherwise, I'd consider myself an atheist (but if you want to be technical then agnostic, whatever, I'm fine with either label).

[Ặɳѻɲᴇxus !!qMPplrvyJzF No.2745679]

>>2745667
Good point, yeah probably worked that way.

[Anonymous No.2745681]

>morals come from the bible
Wtf am I reading.png

Implying the morals in the bible weren't influenced by social
Concepts for darwinian reasons.

Humans are social beings which rely heavily on others to live and transfer their genes.

It's not hard to see that what's good for the pack is generally good for the individual.
If you fail to see that you might as well need a religion to spoon feed it to you.

[Anonymous No.2745684]

>>2745679
>>2745644

[Anonymous No.2745687]

>What is your point of view on religion?
People preach, yet do not act on their own beliefs, what happened to love thy enemy? Also, Fundamental any religion is typically ignorance.
>Are you religious? , If so why? if not why? Yes I am Buddhist, when I read the words of Buddha, it spoke to me in a way I thought about constantly; especially the "question everything" part, and put my already existing beliefs into a religious system.

[Ặɳѻɲᴇxus !!qMPplrvyJzF No.2745703]

>>2745684
No.

[Anonymous No.2745713]

>>2745559

Japan has been in an economic malaise for years.

[Anonymous No.2745735]

>What is your point of view on religion?
Are you religious? , If so why? if not why?
If you are unsure which side do you lean towards? if neither think about it.

I'm not because I don't waste my team dealing with the metaphysical (this includes philosophy and religion). It's not a particularly fun or useful exercise dealing with things which don't physically exist.

[Anonymous No.2745738]

>>2745631
I take from the news that which isn't full of shit. Other than that...
Japan is doing fine.

[Anonymous No.2745751]

>>2745713
>>economic stagnation in rich countries...
Japan's GDPPP has been steadily increasing for some time. Just because their GDP remains constant, you assume that means they haven't been growing. Also, their yen is in fine shape to say the least...