Should religion be eliminated

[Cecilie1200]

Good thing I am neither.

I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me.

Because you’re a weak individual.

ALL people are weak in some way and at some point in time. To require yourself to be completely strong, all the time, all by yourself is to set yourself up for failure by setting an impossible standard to meet.

Every relationship we have in life is intended exactly for the purpose of providing a support structure for those times when we cannot function and achieve individually. Why would our relationship with God be different?

You're weak too, apparently, so you invent in invisible being that you thing give a shit what you do. Totally deluded. And without foundation.

Was there some part of the sentence "All people are weak in some way and at some point in time" that was difficult for you to understand?

If you're trying to tell me that you are perfectly strong and perfectly self-contained at all times, then your weakness is that you're a pathological liar.

I don’t need to lean on a ghost.

Yes, we can all see what a shining example of human development you are all by your lonesome.

 

[BreezeWood]

Breeze has a hard time understanding that Christianity and God are not automatically responsible for the evil that humans choose to do, simply because the humans attempt to hide behind them.

your religious platting is showing through ...

and yes the distortion of the 1st century by christianity is responsible for the evil it has attracted and bread through the centuries to this day.

 

[well named]

I find it interesting that you conveniently cut off the part where I mentioned other cultures with other religions so that you could present them as though they were some sort of refulation.

Try again with a post that honestly addresses what I said, because I won't be dignifying dishonesty any time soon.

Hmm, I can see that I should have quoted the rest of your post. I apologize for that, I was in too much of a hurry because I was doing too many things at once. However, I think your response is essentially conceding the argument that ding was trying to make, at least as I understand it. The "religious" institutions of many non-Judeo-Christian cultures are distinct enough that it already establishes the point I was trying to make, as I said. If your view is that a Zen Buddhist Sangha can provide the same type of culture resources as (for example) the Catholic Church then it clearly follows that a Secular Humanist organization (to pick an example) could in theory do the same. Anthropologically, this issue is pretty settled.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Apparently. But now I am strong.

No, you’re still a weenie who need a religion crutch.

And you're still an emotional cripple trying to make yourself be something you can't be, are not designed by nature to be. Again, you have my sympathy, because you are so much less than you could be, and you can't even see it.

Ya, because insulting people randomly gives you strength?

I didn't insult you, dear (and if I had, it wouldn't have been random). I made an observation. The fact that you don't like the observation doesn't make it an insult.

You should buy yourself a dictionary.

Brilliant comeback. Are you sure you don't want to tell me you're rubber and I'm glue, while you're at it?

 

[Cecilie1200]

If no God exists, then there is no accountability to God. Do you agree with this logic?

So their belief that God exists - in and of itself - does not make them accountable. Do you agree with this logic?

So maybe you are trying to say something else.

Why would one have to be accountable to god?

If God exists, then one would be accountable to Him because He made the universe and everything in it, including you.

Therefore, the post is saying that people choose not to believe in God because they do not wish to be accountable for their actions.

Where is the proof that we are accountable to an invisible being?

You are really struggling with this reading comprehension thing today, aren't you?

Tell you what, hon. Go back, read my post again, and then think really hard about it for ten minutes or so before you attempt to post one of your "devastating" rebuttals. Possibly the meaning of the word thingies will sink in if you give it a little time.

Ya, like that was proof.

*sigh* It wasn't intended to prove anything (what you actually think you demanded proof of is anyone's guess). It was intended to point out that your post makes it obvious you didn't understand what was said. And you apparently still don't.

 

[Cecilie1200]

There's quite a bit of opposition to religion here. I am just wondering how many of you people believe religion should be eliminated. It's been tried before and failed, but don't let that deter you in your quest.

Learn from their mistakes and give it another try.

Why the Soviet attempt to stamp out religion failed | Giles Fraser: Loose canon

I am truly sorry that the people you listen to have convinced you that liberals hate the christian god and want to destroy christianity.
LOTS of liberals ARE practicing christians. MOST Atheists merely don't believe in god and don't care if you do or not. Part of the problem is that when liberals try to deny conservatives the right to impose their religion on every one conservatives claim it is persecution. I am not actively trying to destroy religion. I am actively ignoring it.

Yes, lots of Christians are liberals. No argument there.

I hear a lot of people say that conservatives want to oppose their religion on them but I don’t see that. What I do see are citizens exercising their civic rights in a secular society.

No one is forcing religion on you. That’s an emotional statement.

And lastly the vast majority of militant atheists are liberals.

"No one is forcing religion on you. That’s an emotional statement."

There are elements of the evangelical community called DOMINIONSTS. They actually exist. They believe they should have dominion over the country, the government and the people. Newt Gingrich said (back in the 1990s) "we must change the laws of the land to reflect our religious beliefs and see to it that they can never be changed again". Mike Pence said "I am a christian first, a conservative second, and a republican third"....Never mentioned his patriotism. If he has any.

Because you are emotionally stunted and the truth scare you you can't admit the truth.

Keep trying!

And how did those two men - or anyone else - "impose" anything on you?

Keep trying!

There's quite a bit of opposition to religion here. I am just wondering how many of you people believe religion should be eliminated. It's been tried before and failed, but don't let that deter you in your quest.

Learn from their mistakes and give it another try.

Why the Soviet attempt to stamp out religion failed | Giles Fraser: Loose canon

I am truly sorry that the people you listen to have convinced you that liberals hate the christian god and want to destroy christianity.
LOTS of liberals ARE practicing christians. MOST Atheists merely don't believe in god and don't care if you do or not. Part of the problem is that when liberals try to deny conservatives the right to impose their religion on every one conservatives claim it is persecution. I am not actively trying to destroy religion. I am actively ignoring it.

Yes, lots of Christians are liberals. No argument there.

I hear a lot of people say that conservatives want to oppose their religion on them but I don’t see that. What I do see are citizens exercising their civic rights in a secular society.

No one is forcing religion on you. That’s an emotional statement.

And lastly the vast majority of militant atheists are liberals.

"No one is forcing religion on you. That’s an emotional statement."

There are elements of the evangelical community called DOMINIONSTS. They actually exist. They believe they should have dominion over the country, the government and the people. Newt Gingrich said (back in the 1990s) "we must change the laws of the land to reflect our religious beliefs and see to it that they can never be changed again". Mike Pence said "I am a christian first, a conservative second, and a republican third"....Never mentioned his patriotism. If he has any.

Because you are emotionally stunted and the truth scare you you can't admit the truth.

Keep trying!

And how did those two men - or anyone else - "impose" anything on you?

Keep trying!

"And how did those two men - or anyone else - "impose" anything on you?"

Silly conservative. Please try to focus and don't make up lies. That is trumps job.

I NEVER said they DID impose on me.

I merely pointed out that THEY SAY THEY WANT TO!

If a muslim said he wanted to impose sharia law in the USA (though practically impossible to happen) wouldn't you worry about that muslim?

And if lots of powerful muslims in a powerful political group felt and said the same thing wouldn't you be concerned?

Of course!

and rightly so!

I'd be concerned WITH YOU!

SO when I see that powerful people in politics espouse dominionism I worry.

DO you?

Would you want the bible used as the source of law?

Like this;

Roy Moore in 2005: 'Homosexual conduct should be illegal' - CNNPolitics


Senate candidate Roy Moore in 2005: 'Homosexual conduct should be illegal'

I stopped reading at "Trump", because that's always a signal that the meds wore off, and anything following that will be disjointed babble.

Come back and see me again after the orderlies bring your nightly dose.

 

[Cecilie1200]

There is no ‘opposition to religion’ on USMB.

No one advocates for religion to be ‘eliminated.’

If it is bad as everyone says it is the logical conclusion would be to eliminate it. Right? Am I missing something?

For me the question is the vulnerable nature of our species, more specifically human psychology. Talk about eliminating religion and/or statism is beside the point. It’s aspects of psychology ( especially mass psychology) that make our species vulnerable to the control/ brainwashing of both organised religious and state authority that are the central problem. Instance, the yogi meditating in a mountain cave is a threat to nobody, popes and dictators are. Take for instance an extreme example, the teaching of Islam on the rewards to be gained in heaven for martyrs and the power this gives organised militant Islam.

Sweetie, I know you need to flatter yourself that atheists are somehow less susceptible to "brainwashing", but trust me, self-flattery is all it is.

The truth is that humans are built to need to believe in something larger than themselves. If it's not religion, it's going to be "look how much smarter I am than the primitives around me".

"The truth is that humans are built to need to believe in something larger than themselves. If it's not religion, it's going to be "look how much smarter I am than the primitives around me".


Primitive humans may need to believe in something larger than themselves but SUPERIOR SPECIMENS of humanity don't. However I would never deny YOU your right to believe in allah and I expect you to defend my right to disbelieve WITHOUT CONSEQUENCES. I think children using their imagination is a delightful thing!

I'm sorry if it offends you but there is, indeed, a touch of ""look how much smarter I am than the primitives around me". Or more rational and reasonable.

And, if you NEED to believe in something bigger than yourself, couldn't you invent a NICE god instead of a rotten one?

This time, I stopped reading at "superior specimens", because I was laughing too hard. It's amazing how conceited and self-satisfied religiophobes are, given how very little basis they have for it.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Breeze has a hard time understanding that Christianity and God are not automatically responsible for the evil that humans choose to do, simply because the humans attempt to hide behind them.

your religious platting is showing through ...

and yes the distortion of the 1st century by christianity is responsible for the evil it has attracted and bread through the centuries to this day.

As usual, I stopped reading at "1st century".

If I wanted mindless repetitions, I'd buy a parrot.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I find it interesting that you conveniently cut off the part where I mentioned other cultures with other religions so that you could present them as though they were some sort of refulation.

Try again with a post that honestly addresses what I said, because I won't be dignifying dishonesty any time soon.

Hmm, I can see that I should have quoted the rest of your post. I apologize for that, I was in too much of a hurry because I was doing too many things at once. However, I think your response is essentially conceding the argument that ding was trying to make, at least as I understand it. The "religious" institutions of many non-Judeo-Christian cultures are distinct enough that it already establishes the point I was trying to make, as I said. If your view is that a Zen Buddhist Sangha can provide the same type of culture resources as (for example) the Catholic Church then it clearly follows that a Secular Humanist organization (to pick an example) could in theory do the same. Anthropologically, this issue is pretty settled.

How can I concede someone else's argument? What ding says or believes is on him.

My point was, and is, that Western Civilization derives its moral structure from its Judeo-Christian foundations, and that non-Judeo Christian cultures certainly have moral teachings, but they derived them from their own primary religious foundations.

 

[BreezeWood]

Breeze has a hard time understanding that Christianity and God are not automatically responsible for the evil that humans choose to do, simply because the humans attempt to hide behind them.

your religious platting is showing through ...

and yes the distortion of the 1st century by christianity is responsible for the evil it has attracted and bread through the centuries to this day.

As usual, I stopped reading at "1st century".

If I wanted mindless repetitions, I'd buy a parrot.

.

As usual, I stopped reading at "1st century".

you demonstrate again your ignorance for a period of history used by your 4th century religion of the roman empire to distort its message to perpetuate a corrupt and deceitful regime by persecuting and victimizing the very innocents it was meant to invigorate.

all three desert religions have proven throughout history their incompetence as opposed to the Religion of Antiquity as prescribed by failing to accomplishing its simple message to Triumph against evil.

 

[Taz]

I didn't know we were keeping it alive.

I'm for eliminating all deductions including charitable and for a flat tax that is based on balancing the budget. That ought to get the talking monkey's attention. The churches will be fine.

Our town's little church that has been around since the 1830's can barely pay the minister and keep oil in the furnace. A tax and the nix on charitable deductions would completely wipe out our church. I have a feeling ours wouldn't be the only one.

So you're saying that only poor people (or is it cheap people?) go to church?

No, she's saying that taxing churches, which by definition are non-profit, would end up wiping many churches out of existence.

So nobody goes to churches so they're closing even with tax exempt status. Good plan.

I fail to see what church attendance and taxing or not taxing non-profits have to do with each other. Pick a topic, please.

Churches can’t survive even with tax exempt status because people are giving up on religion.

 

[Taz]

I didn't know we were keeping it alive.

I'm for eliminating all deductions including charitable and for a flat tax that is based on balancing the budget. That ought to get the talking monkey's attention. The churches will be fine.

Our town's little church that has been around since the 1830's can barely pay the minister and keep oil in the furnace. A tax and the nix on charitable deductions would completely wipe out our church. I have a feeling ours wouldn't be the only one.

I don’t believe it would. There is no tax on gifts less than 10k. People would still give.

Yeah, but taxing the church would have the result that the church wouldn't get to keep what they give.

And if people couldn't deduct it on their taxes as a charitable donation, some wouldn't give, or would give less.

Churches need to save up for the inevitable sex crime payouts.

Wow, more random crap-flinging. I wish I could say I'm surprised, but wild, flailing attacks and hatred are your modus operandi, aren't they?

The truth hurts... little children.

 

[Taz]

Smart people have eliminated religions and have simply gone on a personal spiritual path. Simpletons still cling to the myths and folly.

I just heard, "I need atheism to make me feel smart, because I have nothing else."

It must suck to have to work so hard at feeling smart. I wouldn't know, having been ACTUALLY smart my whole life. You have my sympathy.

Next time you go to church, look around, it's a bunch of simpletons, like you.

Next ime you go near a mirror, look in it, and ask yourself what grounds you have for feeling intellectually superior to anyone.

Literally the only claim you have, or have ever had, to being smart is "Well, I think religion is stupid, because that's what all the smart people think."

Even among the religiophobes, you make the most vapid, nonsensical arguments. If you're looking to criticize and shame my religious beliefs on the basis of intelligence, you have the wrong target and you are DEFINITELY the wrong person to be aiming.

Thanks for proving my point.

First, I challenge any notion that you have a point, or ever really have a point, other than "Oh no, a religious thread! I must immediately rush in and spam it with posts about how much I hate religion, because that's the only topic I can ever allow!"

Second, you can post until your fingers drop off that religiophobia is proof that you're smarter than me, and it's still not going to convince anyone. Not that you're smarter than me, not that you're smart, and not that hatred of religion is prima facie evidence of intelligence.

The cold, hard truth is that I look at myself, and then I look at you, and if anything, I become that much more convinced that I'm right where I want to be.

... in a fantasy world.

 

[Taz]

You mean like God Lite. All the good and none of the accountability. Makes sense.

Yes, we can look at our society, drifting aimlessly with no moral underpinnings to anchor it, and see the results of all these pseudo-smart people and their God-substitutes.

The US is "One nation under god". How's that working out?

See above, re: vapid and nonsensical.

Also, “in god we trust”. Doing ok yet?

Also, your pseudo-point doesn't get less meaningless and silly with repetition.

So you admit that I have a point. Good for you.

 

[Taz]

Because you’re a weak individual.

ALL people are weak in some way and at some point in time. To require yourself to be completely strong, all the time, all by yourself is to set yourself up for failure by setting an impossible standard to meet.

Every relationship we have in life is intended exactly for the purpose of providing a support structure for those times when we cannot function and achieve individually. Why would our relationship with God be different?

You're weak too, apparently, so you invent in invisible being that you thing give a shit what you do. Totally deluded. And without foundation.

Was there some part of the sentence "All people are weak in some way and at some point in time" that was difficult for you to understand?

If you're trying to tell me that you are perfectly strong and perfectly self-contained at all times, then your weakness is that you're a pathological liar.

I don’t need to lean on a ghost.

Yes, we can all see what a shining example of human development you are all by your lonesome.

Thank you, it's about time you admitted it.

 

[Taz]

Why would one have to be accountable to god?

If God exists, then one would be accountable to Him because He made the universe and everything in it, including you.

Therefore, the post is saying that people choose not to believe in God because they do not wish to be accountable for their actions.

Where is the proof that we are accountable to an invisible being?

You are really struggling with this reading comprehension thing today, aren't you?

Tell you what, hon. Go back, read my post again, and then think really hard about it for ten minutes or so before you attempt to post one of your "devastating" rebuttals. Possibly the meaning of the word thingies will sink in if you give it a little time.

Ya, like that was proof.

*sigh* It wasn't intended to prove anything (what you actually think you demanded proof of is anyone's guess). It was intended to point out that your post makes it obvious you didn't understand what was said. And you apparently still don't.

I'm still waiting for your real proof.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

There is no ‘opposition to religion’ on USMB.

No one advocates for religion to be ‘eliminated.’

Ah.... no. That would be incorrect. I have had 2 specific individuals that openly advocated to ban religion.

Given the existence of 2 people that supported such a move, I would be willing to guess there are more than that. How many more, I don't know.

No, it is correct.

You don't "know" anyone on an anonymous message board.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

They are still accountable to a god if they believe one exists especially if they believe in heaven and hell.

If no God exists, then there is no accountability to God. Do you agree with this logic?

So their belief that God exists - in and of itself - does not make them accountable. Do you agree with this logic?

So maybe you are trying to say something else.

Because a generic god doesn’t care what u do? That’s true

I don’t know what you mean by generic. I believe all people pray to the same God. Logically there is only one. They may have a different perception of who God is and I don’t see anything wrong with that. I believe our Founding Fathers got that part right.

In the context of what you are discussing the question is whether God is a personal or impersonal God. For all our sakes I pray he is a personal God.

Just because there's only one God doesn't mean everyone is automatically praying to him.

How do you know there's only one god?

Or any "god" at all, for that matter.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

There is no ‘opposition to religion’ on USMB.

No one advocates for religion to be ‘eliminated.’

If it is bad as everyone says it is the logical conclusion would be to eliminate it. Right? Am I missing something?

Yes, you're missing the fact this fails as a straw man fallacy.

 

[anynameyouwish]

There's quite a bit of opposition to religion here. I am just wondering how many of you people believe religion should be eliminated. It's been tried before and failed, but don't let that deter you in your quest.

Learn from their mistakes and give it another try.

Why the Soviet attempt to stamp out religion failed | Giles Fraser: Loose canon

I am truly sorry that the people you listen to have convinced you that liberals hate the christian god and want to destroy christianity.
LOTS of liberals ARE practicing christians. MOST Atheists merely don't believe in god and don't care if you do or not. Part of the problem is that when liberals try to deny conservatives the right to impose their religion on every one conservatives claim it is persecution. I am not actively trying to destroy religion. I am actively ignoring it.

Yes, lots of Christians are liberals. No argument there.

I hear a lot of people say that conservatives want to oppose their religion on them but I don’t see that. What I do see are citizens exercising their civic rights in a secular society.

No one is forcing religion on you. That’s an emotional statement.

And lastly the vast majority of militant atheists are liberals.

"No one is forcing religion on you. That’s an emotional statement."

There are elements of the evangelical community called DOMINIONSTS. They actually exist. They believe they should have dominion over the country, the government and the people. Newt Gingrich said (back in the 1990s) "we must change the laws of the land to reflect our religious beliefs and see to it that they can never be changed again". Mike Pence said "I am a christian first, a conservative second, and a republican third"....Never mentioned his patriotism. If he has any.

Because you are emotionally stunted and the truth scare you you can't admit the truth.

Keep trying!

Research the founders beliefs on natural law and get back to me.

yawn.

Don't need to.

I've been following the antics of conservative fascists christians since roger ailles put limbaugh on radio stations all over the country back in the late 1980's.

We appear to be talking about people imposing their beliefs on everyone. SOME people DO want to impose their religion on EVERYONE and it is not my fault that you are either unaware of it (no doubt you watch too much conservative misleading/lying news stations) or you're too obtuse to see it.

Did I mention roy moore? conservative, christian, republican, just lost out on a senate run?
He said he would legislates from his bible and he would criminalize gays,

THAT is IMPOSING your bible.

Would YOU vote for moore?