Religious Discussion and Q&A Thread

[Akainu]

well, last I was informed he's not God for Christians either, then again can't say it that much generalized since at diffrent points in time for diffrent people it was diffrently laid out. if someone knows more about that - I think it has to do with the holy trinity and how it prevailed over Arianism? - feel free to tell us.

anyway, growing up with figures of Jesus on the cross I have a hard time thinking about it elseway. do you have any more info on that? even the most cited conspiracy theory in tv (cf. Dan Brown) assume that he was crucificated but then drugged to appear dead etc.

as for vicarious atonement, you mean this "Jesus died for our sins" thing? because that's quite diffrently seen yet again, but not as a carte blanche as far as I know.

[Josef K.]

I think many people are obsessed with the Death of Jesus, rather than his life, no matter how many try I think even the most ruthless critics of religion all agree that Jesus was in no way a bad person. Plus when you look how some praise other moral leaders, people who speak of ethics and such, and modern ethical and moral views do not disagree in any case. The thing is, however they disagree on the part of God, meaning people can be moral without a God. But I think the debates over moral are ridiculous, when you take into consideration the vast WORTH of the Holy Bible as such, it is a literary, philosophical, religious book that has all the wonderful worth even if one does not believe in any of it.

The thing about critics of religion is that, mostly, they tend to focus on Christianity, and surprise, surprise, Christianity was and still is a driving force in the Western World, a world that is scientifically and technologically advanced. The thing is that even scientist believe in God, not all, but I think in the words of the great Nikola Tesla, this sort of thing can be seen and explained in the best possible way: "I did not INVENT anything, God had already made everything, I just DISCOVERED it!".

My point is that people do not focus on all of the aspects of religion because it does not benefit their whole theory system, they really focus on values and morals, which are key when discussing culture. Because the critics know that the people are the weakest when divided. All theories about race, religion and nationality are based in the same theory of a certain group being right and other wrong. But I think even scientist can be called a group, and they can do whatever they want but I find it really hateful when people attack religions and say they can because they are backed by science and "the modern rational man", what happens when science overlaps religion you say? Well guess what you have a brand new religion: SCIENCE. Yeah, praise it, hail it, people do that now btw. That to me diminishes the basic freedom of religion which I really hold dear. United under one or no religion will always fail.

But I digress too much, my point was that to fully have a critique on religion is to see all perspectives, because otherwise it tends to be religious bigotry.

If talking about Christianity, I think you may be thinking of the Holy Trinity and how they are all God but that God shows himself in the form of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit and how that itself is one thing called - God.

And as for my early talking about the life of Jesus, I wanted to take both aspects of the life and death(rebirth) of Jesus. Looking at his life, it is evident that he was a man that in modern terms would be seen as "hanging out with the worst in society", at that time at least, people like thieves who focus on material things or people like liars who focus on a social psychological basis for their actions. It is not a surprise that Jesus, today would be in the company of pedophiles, prisoners and serial killers. Try to chew on this aspect of Jesus to see his true merit. He will be with them, as he so often cites "To help them", I find this interesting since Jesus does not think that the priests and religious leaders will reach heaven, but in contrast those that are lost and find their way via religion and faith, mostly the faith in weaker in these people. I find this paradox intriguing and could do for some good research on the life of Jesus. And Mary Magdalen being the central figure of his life aspect by so many modern ways of thinking further invites to that debate.

[k-dom]

well, last I was informed he's not God for Christians either, then again can't say it that much generalized since at diffrent points in time for diffrent people it was diffrently laid out. if someone knows more about that - I think it has to do with the holy trinity and how it prevailed over Arianism? -

In fact it is the contrary he his no god for Arianism and some other early christian sects (although it is more complicate than that, he is god but not on the same level as the father) but he is for most of the bigger religion (at least Orthodox, Catholic, Protestant). In fact now that I think about it, this trinity concept is one of the thing I have the harder time to believe in. It makes it as if Christianism was not really a monotheism

[earthforge]

I think many people are obsessed with the Death of Jesus, rather than his life

I think this is an awesome point. I think a lot of people who claim to be Christians are simply obsessed with the grandeur of Jesus and his death, when it was his life that mattered most. I think this is because people want to self-identify with Jesus, and in turn become Jesus, so Jesus becomes a figurehead of bigotry. It is really sad.

The thing is that even scientist believe in God, not all, but I think in the words of the great Nikola Tesla, this sort of thing can be seen and explained in the best possible way: "I did not INVENT anything, God had already made everything, I just DISCOVERED it!".

There are scientists who do believe in God, particularly in physical science and math. But the way I view it is that our universe has been forming for millions of years, and as scientists, our job is "to find the laws of nature and apply them". The laws of nature are everchanging, but they have been developing over time. I hesitate to say God made everything, because that assumes an initial condition for everything to develop from. How do we know there was such an initial condition? There could be much more from where our universe developed from. In that sense, attributing it to a single entity seems like a desperate attempt to understand it. But like how the planets revolve aroud the sun, we keep discovering that we are not the center of the universe.

My point is that people do not focus on all of the aspects of religion because it does not benefit their whole theory system, they really focus on values and morals, which are key when discussing culture.

I agree about cultures and history, but...

But I think even scientist can be called a group, and they can do whatever they want but I find it really hateful when people attack religions and say they can because they are backed by science and "the modern rational man", what happens when science overlaps religion you say? Well guess what you have a brand new religion: SCIENCE. Yeah, praise it, hail it, people do that now btw. That to me diminishes the basic freedom of religion which I really hold dear. United under one or no religion will always fail.

Science is not really comparable to religion, in my opinion. Science is a process to understand the physical world that exists. Religion is a way of understanding what we don't know exists. People who have a poor understanding of science tend to use it to imply that God cannot exist, because what we know is all we will ever know. People who have a poor understanding of religion use it to imply the knowledge gained through science is false, because we already know all we will ever know. But that is antithetical to the nature of science, which is always developing.

When it comes down to it, both atheism and belief in God require a last leap of faith. The answer will probably be a strange mix of the two.

And as for my early talking about the life of Jesus, I wanted to take both aspects of the life and death(rebirth) of Jesus. Looking at his life, it is evident that he was a man that in modern terms would be seen as "hanging out with the worst in society", at that time at least, people like thieves who focus on material things or people like liars who focus on a social psychological basis for their actions. It is not a surprise that Jesus, today would be in the company of pedophiles, prisoners and serial killers. Try to chew on this aspect of Jesus to see his true merit. He will be with them, as he so often cites "To help them", I find this interesting since Jesus does not think that the priests and religious leaders will reach heaven, but in contrast those that are lost and find their way via religion and faith, mostly the faith in weaker in these people. I find this paradox intriguing and could do for some good research on the life of Jesus. And Mary Magdalen being the central figure of his life aspect by so many modern ways of thinking further invites to that debate.

My father remarked that if Jesus was alive today, he'd be with the Occupy movement, condemned as one of those hippies. It's kinda funny.

I largely agree. I don't think religion can move forward if it allows itself to be held back by attempts to make it useful, like how the story of Mary Magdalene became twisted with other women brought up, and went from the woman who was the closest to Jesus, to a slut. Not really for any reason other than people who couldn't believe that such a woman would be near Jesus if she wasn't repenting for bad behavior, and because she was a woman, the bad behavior had to be sexual.

[shaheer]

well, last I was informed he's not God for Christians either

i agree, after i read the Bible i couldnt find a single verse in it which Jesus was quoted to say that he was almighty

anyway, growing up with figures of Jesus on the cross I have a hard time thinking about it elseway. do you have any more info on that? even the most cited conspiracy theory in tv (cf. Dan Brown) assume that he was crucificated but then drugged to appear dead etc.

hmm the concept is plainly an old one to be honest, the first century writings dont ever have mentioning of Jesus, the only source are some of the gospels cannonized or apocriphal ones, interestingly NONE of the disciples were present in the even of crucifiction.
only in the Gospel of John its said that the disciple was there but its accepted by most scholars (even the conservatives) that gospel of John was not written by John of zebedee
Raymond Brown probably the biggest authority on the gospel stated that the gospel was developed in atleast 4 stages
there are multitudes of texts in the apocriphal writings which states otherwise
some writings states that simon the cyrene was crucified
my point is historically speaking we cant prove it to be the case, rather the crucifiction and ressurection is more of a faith conviction
There were many christian groups prior to the great council who believed otherwise
The Basilidans believed that someone else was substituted for him. The Docetae held that Christ never had a real physical or natural body, but only an apparent or phantom body, and that his Crucifixion was merely apparent, not real. The Marcionite Gospel (about A.C. 138) denied that Jesus was born, and merely said that he appeared in human form. The Gospel of St. Barnabas supported the theory of substitution on the Cross.
One branch of Gnosticism, called Docetism (a name taken from the Greek verb ‘to seem’) argued that Christ, being good, could not also be human; he only seemed to have a physical body. The Docetists contended that as God’s true son, Christ was wholly spiritual, ascending to heaven while leaving another’s body on the cross. Although we as Muslims cannot totally agree with this statement but it shows that not all of the early record of Jesus agree on the point of crucifiction
we did find a huge library of Nag Hammadi on the Gnostic scrolls which are really old and goes back a lot
ofcourse today the orthodox view about the even is otherwise

Interestingly all 4 gospels dispute on who went to the tomb, what did they saw there and who was the first to see Jesus, so the exact narration as to the specifics is not known to us. There are disputes with who actually carried the cross what actually Jesus said on the cross, Y didnt Jesus fulfil the sign of Jonah that he himself said that he will(as he was dead,allegedly while Jonah was alive in the belly of whale)
The New Testament says Jesus Barabbas (meaning Jesus son of the father/ Servant of God) was RELEASED. {Barabbas In the Christian narrative of the Passion of Jesus, Barabbas, according to Greek texts Jesus bar-Abbas and Aramaic Bar-abbâ, means "son of the father") the Palestinian Syriac lectionaries and some of the manuscripts used in the 3rd century, all support the fact that Barabbas' name was originally Jesus Barabbas "Bar-Abbâ" could also be a polite way to refer to a boy whose father's name was not known (who is born without a father particularly Miraculously), though no contemporary usage of this kind has been identified. Hyam Maccoby and some other scholars have averred that Jesus was known as "bar-Abba", because of his custom of addressing God as 'Abba' in prayer, and referring to God as Abba in his preaching. Benjamin Urrutia, co-author with Guy Davenport of The Logia of Yeshua (the Sayings of Jesus) agrees completely with Maccoby and others who aver that Yeshua Bar Abba or Jesus Barabbas must be none other than Jesus of Nazareth.
ofcourse the King of Jews was condemned but in one verse in the Bible
John 21
“Do not write ‘The King of the Jews,’ but that this man claimed to be king of the Jews.” instead Jesus denied the charge by saying in John 18:36 Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world.’’

so if you ask me what is my point shotting all different kinds of loose ends
my point is we cant ascertain what actually happened
Matthew actually says a number of ppl was resurected and walked to city(paraphrased) no such historical narrative is seen in any secular sources

Further more for some one who knows that he was to die would never have said : eli eli lama sabachtani , Oh God Oh God Y has thou forsaken me

further more if you translate Yeshua the real name of Jesus i got to know it means : one who is saved
and we see it in the gospels
“And he said, Abba, Father, all things [are] possible unto thee; take away this cup from me: nevertheless not what I will, but what thou wilt.” – Mark 14:36.
“Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done.” – Luke 22:42.

According to Jesus’ own teaching, God must answer his request and deliver him. He said: “If a son shall ask bread of any of you that is a father, will he give him a stone? or if [he ask] a fish, will he for a fish give him a serpent?” (Luke 11:11; Also see Mark 7:10). “And I say unto you, ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you” (Luke 11:98; Also see Matthew 7:7). “But I know, that even now, whatsoever thou wilt ask of God, God will give [it] thee” (John 11:22).
So things dont add up (Muslim view) we opt that the whole thing(crucifixion) is a later addition
and we do get some proof in that if you check the latest Bible which goes to the earliest source that is the Codex sinaticus you will see that the event of ascention after resurrection has been deleted from the 2 gospel that it occurred
nd the more is excavated we might get more accurate news of what might have happened
though bearing in mind that none of the gospel are eyewitness account
as the earliest one is Mark after that came matthew, to which its said that he copied from Mark(non eye witness) and Q(non conformable source) then Luke(not an eye witness) John (again this time no one knows who really wrote it), and of course the acts is generally attributed to the author of the Gospel of Luke
The whole concept of Jesus being saved is a miraculous event, a faith conviction on our part
“God raised him up unto Himself” (Quran 4:158)
In some way it coincides with some Jewish prophecies that i know in the TaNaKh

nd as for Jesus life,
st Paul is keen on the resurrection and crucifixion more
in all his writings you never see important teacihngs like Lords prayer or the parables yet you see
"but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles", 1 Corinthians 1:23
if you document all of Jesus sayings in the 4 gospels and cut out the duplicates it wont fill 2 columns of a news paper
try it if you dun believe me, a red letter edition will really do the job

think i did the best i could atm with the crucifixion now for the redemption of mankind
i dont think i need that much when it comes down to atonement in christianity
The Resurrection is the supreme vindication of Jesus’ divine identity and his inspired teaching. It’s the proof of his triumph over sin and death. It’s the foreshadowing of the resurrection of his followers. It’s the basis of Christian hope. It’s the miracles of all miracles.”(Strobel)
Strobel says: “As Jews in the Old Testament sought to atone for their sins through a system of animal sacrifices, here was Jesus, the ultimate sacrificial lamb of God, who paid for sin once and for all. Here was the personification of God’s plan for redemption.”

St Paul perhaps said it best: “And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins” (I Corinthians 15:17).
think the scripture is pretty clear when it comes to redemption
of course the gospels says it otherwise as seen in the earliest of the gospels
"Well, Master, thou hast said the truth: for there is one God; and there is none other but he: And to love him with all the heart, and with all the understanding, and with all the soul, and with all the strength, and to love [his] neighbour as himself, is more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices. And when Jesus saw that he answered discreetly, he said unto him, Thou art not far from the kingdom of God." Mark chap 12
so i guess its a mixure of 2
generally i ve seen when the ppl comes to convert me they assert on the sins are forgiven if i believe in crucifixion part
but when i tell them i ve read the bible and i start quoting back and forth they give me the verse from Mark saying that we have a lot in common nd the discussion ends.

BTW I do not mean any offense to any christian when i state things
its our belief and i do enjoy comparative study so i read things back and forth from the Bible and the Quran so i was alluding to the Bible as its more authoritative to ppl here
if i have offended any one i am sincerely apologizing, it wasnt my intention
nd sorry for typos

---------- Post added April 17, 2012 at 12:46 PM ---------- Previous post was April 16, 2012 at 11:26 PM ----------

I think you may be thinking of the Holy Trinity and how they are all God but that God shows himself in the form of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit and how that itself is one thing called - God.

think it is a bit more complex than that, correct me if i am wrong but God doesnt have diff form, in christian theology this 1 God in 3 changing forms is called Modalism nd it was routed out as a heretic idea.
it is more like 3 diff person each being God but in a way that there is only one God
i dun understand the thing if you ask me but i have a lot to understand of my own religion so i didnt venture much apart from reading some scholarly articles about anesthesian creed

[Josef K.]

I think this is an awesome point. I think a lot of people who claim to be Christians are simply obsessed with the grandeur of Jesus and his death, when it was his life that mattered most. I think this is because people want to self-identify with Jesus, and in turn become Jesus, so Jesus becomes a figurehead of bigotry. It is really sad.



There are scientists who do believe in God, particularly in physical science and math. But the way I view it is that our universe has been forming for millions of years, and as scientists, our job is "to find the laws of nature and apply them". The laws of nature are everchanging, but they have been developing over time. I hesitate to say God made everything, because that assumes an initial condition for everything to develop from. How do we know there was such an initial condition? There could be much more from where our universe developed from. In that sense, attributing it to a single entity seems like a desperate attempt to understand it. But like how the planets revolve aroud the sun, we keep discovering that we are not the center of the universe.



I agree about cultures and history, but...



Science is not really comparable to religion, in my opinion. Science is a process to understand the physical world that exists. Religion is a way of understanding what we don't know exists. People who have a poor understanding of science tend to use it to imply that God cannot exist, because what we know is all we will ever know. People who have a poor understanding of religion use it to imply the knowledge gained through science is false, because we already know all we will ever know. But that is antithetical to the nature of science, which is always developing.

When it comes down to it, both atheism and belief in God require a last leap of faith. The answer will probably be a strange mix of the two.



My father remarked that if Jesus was alive today, he'd be with the Occupy movement, condemned as one of those hippies. It's kinda funny.

I largely agree. I don't think religion can move forward if it allows itself to be held back by attempts to make it useful, like how the story of Mary Magdalene became twisted with other women brought up, and went from the woman who was the closest to Jesus, to a slut. Not really for any reason other than people who couldn't believe that such a woman would be near Jesus if she wasn't repenting for bad behavior, and because she was a woman, the bad behavior had to be sexual.

Well, I think that religion is helpful more on an ethical basis, which was also a tendency of late antiquity, it was to get more into the ethical basis of the world rather than the ontological, I think scientists are doing a good job finding details about all that makes all of the world(universe, space, stars, galaxies, everything go). So I think that scientists should not go around changing culture, even though I think science will be influential without a push from them. I get angry at the fact that people like Darwin before and Dawkins now are not pushing for the ontological question but rather are going for the ethical question when it comes to science and going against religion. It is just hard to chew on people going against all religion as much as it is when they are against one.

Indeed, I agree on Jesus, he is an ethical norm I think, anything that he said is applied in all of ethics under a different structure, but what he did is surely the top of all of it. He can not be topped when it comes to ethical understanding, religious or otherwise. Turn the other cheek, love your enemy as much as you do yourself, they are going far beyond some ethical standards of the 10 commandments for example, do not kill, commit adultery and such. Jesus really had a wonderful understanding that human interaction is key to everything in this world, as it is today.

[earthforge]

Well, I think that religion is helpful more on an ethical basis, which was also a tendency of late antiquity, it was to get more into the ethical basis of the world rather than the ontological, I think scientists are doing a good job finding details about all that makes all of the world(universe, space, stars, galaxies, everything go). So I think that scientists should not go around changing culture, even though I think science will be influential without a push from them.

Scientists are as diverse a group as anyone. I know a good few Eastern Orthodox Catholics in physics. There are a lot of evangelicals in medicine. "Science" is no more a religion than history. Whereas personal philosophy and ethics is something you decide for yourself, science is what is. You can't pick and choose science, because it is a reflection of physical reality. Unlike personal philosophy, science has no agenda. It is. To deny it would be to deny the computer in front of you, to deny the protocols that allow us to exchange information, to deny the complex algorithms that store this info for years.

I get angry at the fact that people like Darwin before and Dawkins now are not pushing for the ontological question but rather are going for the ethical question when it comes to science and going against religion. It is just hard to chew on people going against all religion as much as it is when they are against one.

Have you read "On the Origin of Species"? To be fair I haven't myself, but there is a record of Darwin conceding to the view of evolution being a property of life that God gave. He was not a "militant atheist", as some people term it (which I find a vitriolic term.) He wrote something scientific, but never said it was mutually exclusive from the existence of God.

As for ethical arguments versus ontological arguments being used by atheists: I think it's largely a reaction to the false moral superiority professed by the so-called faithful. Simply believing in God does not make you moral, and yet it is frequently assumed. I think that, largely because of this attitude, modern atheists act in opposition and are far more critical of ethical issues. So I think that atheists at the moment are indeed more ethical on average than theists, but it's a product of reacting against obvious ethical violations of people claiming their actions are defended by God and not because they don't believe in God.

Note I said "on average" - this means that there are a good number of theists who are ethical and atheists who aren't. But there are many more theists than atheists, and thus atheists are on the defensive and theists have much more variety and thus more bad behavior that occurs.

Jesus really had a wonderful understanding that human interaction is key to everything in this world, as it is today.

Very much so.

[shaheer]

well "Origin of Species'' isnt the only book Darwin authored you know

At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes. . . will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.

from "The Descent of Man", 2nd Edition

considering that its pretty racist, dont think any one who would coin God in to his statement will say these kind of things
nd as for God and moral, atheism has no epistemology for adhering to any sort of Morals
thus they incorporate social terms like social darwinism or humanism to adhere to some sort of belief or social norm
of course social darwinism being the worst kind of social stigma ever

[earthforge]

well "Origin of Species'' isnt the only book Darwin authored you know

from "The Descent of Man", 2nd Edition

considering that its pretty racist, dont think any one who would coin God in to his statement will say these kind of things

Okay, time for a little history. We would read that statement today and think it is racist (and in turn against God), but it was actually very acceptable and in fact supported by the Church in the 1800's. The earliest "hypothesis" of race was that there were three different races, European, Oriental and African, and each race was descended from a son of Noah. This was widely accepted, since it agreed with church dogma, and was instrumental in these societies deciding immigration, slave ownership and land ownership. Basically it was a license to oppress and "convert" backwards people.

But this was challenged over and over, especially with the myth of the moundbuilders. (The society, including the scientists cause they're people too, decided that organized mounds and artifacts they found couldn't possibly be from the native indian populations. So they proposed many things, like that the moundbuilders weren't human, or maybe they were a lost tribe of Israel, or maybe the people of Atlantis. It sounds absurd now, but the important thing is to realize that science is subservient to public opinion because scientists are as human as anyone else.)

During Darwin's time, degenerationism was still a popular hypothesis, though there was also small support of alternate theories, like monogenism and polygenism (suggesting all races came from a single source and climate causes racial decline, and all races came from different "Adams", respectively). Each of these theories still assume that other races are backwards. So here comes Darwin with his theory of evolution (and not the first one). Is he going to dismiss the widely accepted "scientific" hypothesis that races degenerate? No. He was a normal god-fearing man, being a scientist didn't change that. Thus he argued that his theory of evolution was tied to how Africans were subhuman, and we get this passage.

Again, stop attacking Darwin. He's your advocate fer cryin out loud.

nd as for God and moral, atheism has no epistemology for adhering to any sort of Morals

Atheism is the absence of belief in god, why would it need epistemology or liturgy? The idea of modern atheism is to look at the scriptures, look at the history and be decide that believing in god is not worth it and/or most certainly absurd. I would argue it's more ethical because modern atheists are continually challenged on their views, versus people who hide in religion when they are the most godless people on Earth. You see, modern atheists are intent on proving that they are more ethical than the church, so they do so by arranging charities. Compare against certain theists, who feel that they don't have to prove it and thus are devoutly obsessed with politics.

thus they incorporate social terms like social darwinism or humanism to adhere to some sort of belief or social norm
of course social darwinism being the worst kind of social stigma ever

Social Darwinism was not a Darwin invention. In fact, "survival of the fittest" was coined by Herbert Spencer, who applied a Lamarckian sense of evolution to sociology, not Darwin's description of natural selection. I am happy to address this common misconception.

[Josef K.]

Scientists are as diverse a group as anyone. I know a good few Eastern Orthodox Catholics in physics. There are a lot of evangelicals in medicine. "Science" is no more a religion than history. Whereas personal philosophy and ethics is something you decide for yourself, science is what is. You can't pick and choose science, because it is a reflection of physical reality. Unlike personal philosophy, science has no agenda. It is. To deny it would be to deny the computer in front of you, to deny the protocols that allow us to exchange information, to deny the complex algorithms that store this info for years.



Have you read "On the Origin of Species"? To be fair I haven't myself, but there is a record of Darwin conceding to the view of evolution being a property of life that God gave. He was not a "militant atheist", as some people term it (which I find a vitriolic term.) He wrote something scientific, but never said it was mutually exclusive from the existence of God.

As for ethical arguments versus ontological arguments being used by atheists: I think it's largely a reaction to the false moral superiority professed by the so-called faithful. Simply believing in God does not make you moral, and yet it is frequently assumed. I think that, largely because of this attitude, modern atheists act in opposition and are far more critical of ethical issues. So I think that atheists at the moment are indeed more ethical on average than theists, but it's a product of reacting against obvious ethical violations of people claiming their actions are defended by God and not because they don't believe in God.

Note I said "on average" - this means that there are a good number of theists who are ethical and atheists who aren't. But there are many more theists than atheists, and thus atheists are on the defensive and theists have much more variety and thus more bad behavior that occurs.



Very much so.

I guess I would blame some popularization of science, but I am not all against it, for example I love Carl Sagan and what he did for popularization of it, but I would argue that the tone in which we are presented with science should be to stick to the basis of science, facts, and thus make it more appealing. The reason why I do not want science to overthrow religions is because I love science as it is! It is exclusive, it is new, but by no means should it be abused. I like diversity and different perspectives above all.

Well, morally speaking yes, but that is individual morality, while modern society thrives for individuality, before bonds were more important, that of family, relatives, religions. It still is, today's world is so diverse, that I feel it would be taken away if we just start accepting standardizations in everything, I think science should not guide people morally, non-religious people turn to science when it has nothing in common with ethics i think. Simply the argument lies in: "I am a good person, and I do not believe in God." Yes, and no science is needed to prove that, if you are good, be good, it is excellent no matter what your view of the world is!

Also on Herbert Spencer, and some other sociologists, I think the very term SOCIOLOGY is filled with making society a science, personally most of the earliest sociologists as mentioned Spencer had quite extreme views, I think Spencer hated poor people because they do not contribute to society, and so on. Marx is both demonized and viewed as misunderstood, but I think his views are also up for debate as well as the whole of the basis of sociology, as a science, but that is another debate.

[shaheer]

Okay, time for a little history. We would read that statement today and think it is racist (and in turn against God), but it was actually very acceptable and in fact supported by the Church in the 1800's. The earliest "hypothesis" of race was that there were three different races, European, Oriental and African, and each race was descended from a son of Noah.

err yes i know that the church used to distinuish races on basis of the 3 childred of Noah and the curse of Caanan its there in Genesis
but i am not adherent to Church or Bible so that Hypothesis doesnt work for me, one of the Muazzin(one who calls for prayer, second most imp person after then Imam ie leader) in the time of the Prophet (saw) was a black, that kind of distiction with three child of Noah is not there in my faith so i quoted it as a reference, but i agree i needed to be a bit more candid abt my post. I generalized it a bit too much

The idea of modern atheism is to look at the scriptures, look at the history and be decide that believing in god is not worth it and/or most certainly absurd. I would argue it's more ethical because modern atheists are continually challenged on their views, versus people who hide in religion when they are the most godless people on Earth. You see, modern atheists are intent on proving that they are more ethical than the church, so they do so by arranging charities.

My point is there is no meaning to it if you look at it that way, i am not saying Atheist cant be moral or i am not saying they are not moral i am saying there is no reason for them to be Moral

Social Darwinism was not a Darwin invention.

never said that its Darwins invention i just said that in order to establish a social norm different kind of theories are put into practice one of them is social darwinism

[Josef K.]

http://redcresearch.ie/wp-content/up...sm-25-7-12.pdf

Religious and Atheism index 2012.^^

[Zehahaha]

Hmm good to see there's such a thread here
Well... This may be a bit controversial, but what do you think about Islam ?

P.S : I'm a muslim, by I just want a healthy debate here and see what you think

[silver_soul]

Salam. I too am a Muslim but I think you're gonna have to a bit more specific with your question. Which particular aspect of Islam do you wish to discuss?

[blai]

I'm not a fan of religions, be it Islam or Zoroastrian. I respect them, but I'm in no way a fan.