Think nothing. I'm 30 years old and I've had a working set of eyes and ears for most of that time. But believe what you want to believe; I don't need to convince everyone I talk to of my "rightness". And anyway, sometimes people take a stand that all by itself lets you know you have no chance of making a dent.
Are you aware that almost 70% of Great Britain gives their religion as either "Atheist", "Agnostic" or "Non-Religious" when asked? The UK is the least religious country in the world besides China and by far the least religious country in the West. It's also one of the most powerful, influential and wealthy countries in the world. It also has a crime rate far lower than that of the US. That's percentage based crimes-per-capita by the way, not just a tally of numbers, so don't try to defend it with "the US has more people". The UK's economic crisis is also nowhere near as severe as the US'. It's also a far more "free" country in terms of legislative freedoms, with the debatable exception of the press, which is restricted by personal privacy laws. But yeah, the world would fall apart if most people didn't believe in God, right? The UK's about to crumble any minute now, those godless heathens. Any minute now. You just wait. Wait right here. Any second.
Actually Americans just have an unrivalled capacity for abuse. I said that elsewhere in this forum a while ago. But it's not just about being godless; it's about having something above you that you fear, whether that is strict parents, laws, or a higher being. God helps, that's all.
Which is entirely unrelated to the country's Christian leanings, right? I mean, all the best things about America are totally due to Christianity. All those bad things are nothing to do with it. Nope. God is unecessary. The law exists to stop people from killing and stealing. There would be far more thefts without the police, but would there be any more without religion? No. People don't need to be deceived into believing that they're going to be sodomised by demons with pitchforks for all eternity if they decide to go ahead and have sex before getting married. People need to think for themselves and decide what they want to do, not what their parents told them their priest told them what the bible told him what god supposedly told someone else.
I laughed when I read what you wrote there, Arkley. You sound so indignant, almost outraged. A belief in a responsibility to do good in life or a fear of consequence for not doing good has to be a good thing, no matter where it started and no matter what it's based on. If I truly convince someone that there is a million foot tall monkey named Gabo-Gabo that will crush their soul between his teeth if they haven't lived right or that they are themselves the next messiah and will lead all mankind into a new era and they end up being a good person because of it, then the human race is better off for it. Or are you also going to argue that good, decent people aren't a benefit to society? The bad thing is that you just hate the idea of God.... You seem thoroughly convinced of your intellectual superiority for not buying into this God-crap and extremely scornful of anyone who you think does, and that keeps you from seeing any discussion involving the Almighty in any way with a 20/20 perspective. The funny thing is that you have me pegged for one of those bible-beaters that you love to look down on, and I'm not. I don't go to church; I have no priest and no denomination. I'm just a guy with an open mind. I don't expect you to admit that I'm right about any of this, but that's okay. I don't need a confession.
I'm sorry, I can't help but notice that, like 99% of religious people, you've chosen to entirely overlook the point being made only to re-word and repeat something already dismissed as nonsense by your audience. Nomatter what you try to say about religion being a good force for the world, it is irrelevent. Yes, it's all well and good if people take their beliefs and become good people in accordance with them, but do me a favour, would you? Take a look at almost every major war in history. Remove the ones caused by territorial disputes, and what are we left with? About 500 wars caused by religious difference. Oh yeah, they're good people alright. Religion doesn't automatically make people into good people. It rarely does. As I pointed out before to your sound ignorance, the US is far more religious than the UK, and yet has a far higher crime rate. The scientific analysis of this would actually reveal that religion results in more crime, but hey, you're a god fearing man, right? Since when have you ever been interested in anything scientific? If religion worked out anything like you seem to think it does in your perfect fantasy world where men read the bible and it is magically a better deterrent for crime than a police force, then sure, you would be right. The only problem with your splendid theory is that we live on planet Earth and down here things are a little more complicated than you like to imagine. You may be surprised to know, sunshine, that I don't deny the existence of a God. Perhaps not one ever described in one of the books of hypocrisy, but to deny the possibility of the existence of a higher power would be just as ignorant as those who deny the possibility of God not existing. Hey, as soon as you say anything that's even remotely correct, I'll be the first to admit it. Unlike the world's religious population, I don't consider myself above being wrong. It's just that, also unlike the world's religious population, I'm almost always right.
Actually, I said several times that I'm not a religious person. Dunno why you keep referring to me as one. I suppose this statement of yours - "You know, I really hate people that think like that. It's remarkably ignorant.", being the first thing I read that you wrote, should have tipped me off about how this "debate" would turn out but I'm still learning. I swear - next time I'll know better. Yet I've learned a bit in my time.... and age and experience will teach you, among other things, that when someone takes an argument in a personal, insulting direction and/or when they're so emotional that it colors their statements the same shade of red as their face, they automatically lose. Or maybe they won't. But either way, I'm done witchaa. Shalom aleichem
Well, if there's one greater cop out than "God works in mysterious ways", I sure found it here. I might come across as aggressive when I debate, but that's just my style. Trust me, sunshine, I'm far more likely to be bothered by a potential Spice Girls reunion than I am by anything you could say. Not that you've been saying a great deal, besides repeating your flawed points and leaving gaping blanks were the logical arguments are supposed to be. Can't help but notice you failed to try to refuse my points in this post too, but rather opted for a overdue cop out with a piss poor excuse that took you 2ish paragraphs to rattle off. Plenty of room for a reasonable rebuttal in there, and I must say, I'm dissapointed. So far the only person I've found in this forum that has given me a good debate and hasn't folded under my somewhat aggressive style would be Nazze, who is, if I remember the age thread correctly, a 16 year old girl. If I were you, I'd be ashamed of being so easily outshone.
maybe someone has pointed this out, and i didn't read much else of your post, but... UK pop: 60,943,912 (July 2008 est.) US pop: 303,824,640 (July 2008 est.) maybe the higher crime rate is due to the 248,80,728 people that the US has that the UK doesn't? just a thought... and also, i am just curious as to what hypocrisy you are specifically referring to.
Nobody raised that point because I saw it coming and pre-countered it in an earlier post: Just off the top of my head, I think the most oft cited example would be the Bible stating the way of "an eye for an eye" as the way of the Lord, and then a few hundred pages later, saying "turn the other cheek". I can quote actual scripture if you like, contradicting paragraphs, but that's the most solid and obvious example. It's also virtually inarguable, unless you decide to start mincing words, which isn't advisable, given that the entire Bible has been minced so many times it's practically a Bible patty.
mmk. got it. The eye for an eye thing was a way of punishing people for wrongdoing as justly as possible; basically, what you have done to someone else, you deserve done to you. This, and other aspects of Hebrew law, was not only put into place in order to keep the peace, but also to show the Israelite's inability to do it right enough thus hinting their need of a savior. The old and new testaments basically mean the old and new covenants (or agreements). Under the old agreement we were completely accountable for every little thing we did, and these sins had to be made up for with either a sacrifice, or a specific of the law (i.e. eye for an eye). In the new agreement, God recognizes our need for a savior and sends Jesus. Now the punishment for sin still remains, as God's nature cannot change, however instead of having to use sacrifices as atonement, all we have to do is accept the fact that Jesus is our permanent sacrifice. So if this made sense to you, (and it may not have, I must admit, I am a crappy explainer) you can see that there is no hypocrisy or inconsistency with God's nature, he simply changed the way he did things so that we can have easier access to him. If that didn't make sense, don't persecute me, I can explain better later.
Actually, if you just explain it as "God changes his mind/his ways", it does make sense. However, there are still plenty of contradictions contained within the individual testaments. Just a few examples at an offhand browsing: Genesis 6:4 The Nephilim (Giants) lived on earth prior to the Flood. Genesis 7:23 Only Noah and his family, and the animals on the Ark, survived the Flood. Numbers 13:33 Long after the Flood, the Nephilim (Giants) still lived. - Genesis 9:3-4 God makes a covenant with Noah: Mankind will be permitted to eat the flesh of any living creature, as long as the blood is drained. Deuteronomy 14:7-20 God goes back on his word. - Exodus 4:11 God admitted He is the cause of blindness. deafness. dumbness. Isaiah 53:2 It is sometimes God's will to crush people or to cause them to suffer. Lamentations 3:33 Yet, God does not willingly cause grief or affliction. - Genesis 15:13.16 God fortold the enslavement of the descendants of Abram (Abraham). but said they would return in the "fourth generation". The return actually occured in the fifth generation--or the sixth. if you wish to count Abraham. The generations were: 1. Abraham: 2. Isaac (Gen 21:3): 3. Levi (Ex 1:3); 4. Kohath (Ex 6:16); 5. Aram (Ex 6:18): 6. Moses (Ex 6:20). Genesis 11:26.32 Terah lived 135 years after begetting Abraham. Acts 7:4 Abraham departed Haran when his father (Terah) was dead. Genesis 12:4 Abraham was 75 years old when he departed Haran. So, after living 135 years, Abraham was only 75 years old. - Exodus 20:4 Image-making forbidden. Exodus 25:18 Image-making commanded. - Exodus 20:13 Murder forbidden. Exodus 23:27 Murder commanded. - Leviticus 19:15 You must judge your neighbour. Matthew 7:1 Judge not your neighbour. - Let it be noted that some of these are "inconsistencies" rather than direct contradictions.
religion should be taught but only by like unbiased teachers, preferably athiest, so theyre not just looking to convert kids. Its important for people to know what its about but not be "brainwashed"
I agree that the only acceptable teachers of religion and culture in schools would have to be athiest, agnostic, non-religious or just impartial.
I definitely believe religion should be taught in school. At every school I've been to it has, but I disagree with athiests teaching it.
Having atheists/agnostics teach about religion is the only way to guarentee an impartial education in different religions. If you're looking for children to be taught that one particular religion is right and that others are wrong, you may wish to direct them to sunday school/hebrew school/Iran depending on what it is you want them to learn. Although I agree that agnostic would be better. Atheist teachers would risk a different kind of bias.
i had an atheist teacher for my humanities course and he told us on our first meeting that his lack of religion was probably what got him the job . it's really good to have a teacher that doesnt have a specific religion on a subject that has everything to do with it. he was always critical about discussing different religions and kept reminding us not to get to caught up with the discussions. when we got to christianity he always reminded us that there are alot of things that are going to contradict specifically in this religion but he was always speaking non biased - neither bashing the religion nor giving too much praise to it - he merely treated it the same as he treated any other religion as just a topic of discussion and not as an instrument of brainwashing.
Don't you mean agnostic? I know A LOT of very pushy athiests who will try and convert a Catholic or a Jewish person away from their religion by presenting the logical arguments as to why there is no God. I wouldn't want someone like that teaching religion, because that can often be a more biased view than an overly Catholic teacher.
Indeed. While I still feel an atheist teacher would be better than a teacher of a specific religion (because if they can still teach about what each religion "believes", even if they criticise all of them as wrong, they're likely to criticise them all equally) I completely agree than an agnostic teacher would be the best bet for an unbiased education in different religions.
I agree with you. I really think too that religions should't be taught in schools, mostly because nowadays, there are so many « foreign » (if I can say it that way) students. They come from everywhere in the world and do not necessary practice the same religion that the school teaches. And it would be way too complicated to teach many religions. Like classes for Catholicism, Anglican, Judaism, Shintoism, etc. But that's only my opinion.