<p>"sempitern666"</p>
<p>thank you for your kind recognition, I really am touched.</p>
<p>"you don't know anything about seventh-day adventists; we don't do that ****..."</p>
<p>no, of course not you are a superior being(note the sarcasm) and are above criticism</p>
<p>I'm laughing my ass off; literally.</p>
<p>i love how religious debates are always like this. 1 person that believes vs. too many others that dont. the one that believes always gets pwned.</p>
<p>thats because the person that believes usually cant defend his/her arguments</p>
<p>I've only met one person able to do so and thats my AP English teacher who was a friar and got his Ba and MA from S</p>
<p>
[quote]
I'm laughing my ass off; literally.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>do you perhaps mean 'figuratively'?</p>
<p>
[quote]
fwiw, i'm equally disdainful of religion used as 'comfort'. i absolutely agree with forming meaningful relationships for support (my own family life has been chaotic though not violent), but i don't see how the irrational belief in a supernatural entity would be of any help. the most important thing is always to be strong in yourself without relying on outside sources (people, things, ideas) for support/stability, and to strive to improve any situation through your own ability instead of waiting for divine intervention. it's the only thing you can really rely on and it's much easier if you can manage to stay solid in your own self. i think that's much more beautiful than any religion.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You might be disdainful of finding comfort in religion, but you must also understand that it's a fundamental part of human thinking. Religion has helped many people become active, productive, and emotionally secure in life, and for this we should be thankful. Not everyone can be as logical as you, nor should you expect them to be.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Religion has helped many people become active, productive, and emotionally secure in life, and for this we should be thankful.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>so people should believe in things not because they are true but because they are 'useful'? many things have the power to help people become active, productive, and emotionally secure--art, music, and athletics are examples off the top of my head--but don't force you to sacrifice critical thought.</p>
<p>No I don't but apparently 97% of Americans do. Nothing wrong with either choice IMO.</p>
<p>Yes. Since religion's purpose is to better the individual and society, it doesn't matter whether it's true or not. What matters is if it works, and in this case religion has proven to be much more effective for many people than rationalism.</p>
<p>Remember, these are human beings. Not perfectly rational constructs. If everybody successfully adhered to the formula you described, perhaps they would benefit. But the thing is that many people aren't wired that way, and thus can't tolerate your belief system.</p>
<p>Just as you couldn't tolerate subscribing to religion.</p>
<p>Keep in mind the world's experience with Marxism, as well. Like you, Marx disdained religion; he felt that it was a mere "opiate of the masses" -- a drug used by society's elites to maintain power and control by dividing the proletariat class. In countries where Marxism was adopted, there was a purge of religion and an implementation of mandatory atheism.</p>
<p>This policies never worked, and in fact were a small (but contributory) factor to poor performance of Marxist states.</p>
<p>Clearly you can't impose atheism. People need to make that conclusion on their own.</p>
<p>I'm surprised that no one has brought up all of the horrible things that religion has been responsible for. Crusades? Inquisition? People who bomb abortion clinics? Wacko Fundamentalists trying to impose a theocracy? Hell, 9/11 was a "faith-based initiative."</p>
<p>Edit: Also, Marxism has never been implemented. All the countries you are speaking of have just been totalitarian states. Like the USSR: not communist, Stalinist.</p>
<p>I specifically mentioned Marx because of his disdain for religion. None of the states were truly Marxist, yes. But they were predicated (at least officially) on Marxist socialism, and many did enforce the Marxist religious line. My point being that where countries adopted his theories on religion, they weren't able to expunge it from the population.</p>
<p>As for your first point, you're inaccurately conflating religion with other aspects of humanity. The Crusades were very political in nature (as well as religious), and weren't especially evil or reprehensible. People who bomb abortion clinics aren't typically mentally stable in the first place, and would almost certainly vent their anger along another violent avenue were religion to disappear.</p>
<p>As to the Inquistion, it was fundamentally caused by human nature, not religion. Group identification is a base aspect of human nature, and it manifests itself according to the prevailing social system of the day. In previous centuries, that's been religion. Today, it's nationalism. Back then they condemned heretics; today, people of a different nationality.</p>
<p>And theocracy is just as abhorrent as, say, Stalinism. The difference being that there's a deity in the former and an ideology / cult-of-personality in the latter.</p>
<p>Let me reiterate my previous point: religion is a social construct and nothing more; it takes on specific attributes because of human nature, not vice-versa.</p>
<p>actually through studies, general rak, religion has been the worst thing to have become involved with human's lives. religion has caused more wars/deaths/killings/genocide than anything else. </p>
<p>i definitely disagree with "religion causes us to think". in the past, the church was so stringent that if u disblieved what they believed, u were condemned. copernicus, galileo, so many great thinkers and revolutionary persons were mocked by and shunned by the church. what great contributions has religion done for our society? </p>
<p>but i do agree that religion is needed in some people's life. there are those handful of people who without religion wouldnt know what to do with their lives, as a result, dedicate their lives to religion. religion is positive and a good concept in this scenario but this isnt a very common situation.</p>
<p>
[quote]
actually through studies, general rak, religion has been the worst thing to have become involved with human's lives. religion has caused more wars/deaths/killings/genocide than anything else.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Ahh... studies. Yet no citations to such studies. You also, as GDWilner, conflate religion with human nature. Religion does not cause war/death/killing/genocide: it's a pretext and a facade.</p>
<p>Again: religion has no special meaning beyond being a social construct. It does not magically elicit evil in people, it merely serves as a conduit for expressing base human instincts and psychology. The special importance that you attach to religion is, in the big picture, inaccurate.</p>
<p>
[quote]
i definitely disagree with "religion causes us to think". in the past, the church was so stringent that if u disblieved what they believed, u were condemned. copernicus, galileo, so many great thinkers and revolutionary persons were mocked by and shunned by the church. what great contributions has religion done for our society?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I hope you're not addressing that point to me, because I never said such a thing, nor would I agree with it.</p>
<p>
[quote]
what great contributions has religion done for our society?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I don't suppose you've heard of St. Thomas Aquinas.</p>
<p>alright, instead of "cause" the more appropriate word would be the basis. disputes in religion has been the basis/foundation for more wars in world history than any other.</p>
<p>just to name a few studies: ACLU, CSM, it was reported on 60 minutes last year, cited in Time Magazine, and there was special on the History Channel. Religion has always been a controversial debatable topic for many prints and media-specials. i dont remember the actual number but ACLU estimated a number of deaths through religion. </p>
<p>sorry, when you say "religion causes us to be proactive/active" it seems to infer that people are stimulated to think. guess not =P</p>
<p>Or Mother Theresa. Or the Red Cross. Or the knowledge preserved during the Middle Ages by the Catholic Church.</p>
<p>And being the first effort to instill ethics into people. That's not very important these days now is it.</p>
<p>and may i counter that wars are not caused by religion but rather by misguided religious leaders, who are influenced by inherent cultural differences. religion simply provided a good source of unity. and unity has been misused throughout history.</p>
<p>
[quote]
alright, instead of "cause" the more appropriate word would be the basis. disputes in religion has been the basis/foundation for more wars in world history than any other.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Before about 1648 (to use a landmark date), religion was the main social structure around which the world was organized. Once the organized state system was established, nationalism became the main social structure. Before 1648, wars had their superficial basis in religion. After 1648, wars had their superficial basis in power politics. The only thing that changed was the system of social organization. Human nature, the fundamental factor, did not. Consequently, the more things changed superficially, the more they remained the same. Religion was simply the system that happened to be prevalent during the first era, and nationalism during the second era. (That's not to say there aren't differences, as there certainly are. But the differences are not of such a degree that religion deserves to be placed in a position separate from all other systems of social organization.)</p>
<p>It's impossible to evaluate the quality and conclusions of the study without knowing any data or methodology. Reports published by advocacy groups like the ACLU are biased, and designed to be biased. They are not scholarly, and thus cannot be afforded deference.</p>
<p>I meant "active/proactive" in the sense that they achieved emotional stability and were able to lead socially active and economically productive lives. Being a great thinker is not an option or a wish for the vast majority of the population.</p>