I believe that depends on what language we are referring to: The original language of the Bible or the many languages it has been translated into. From my understanding, based on some people I know that have studied the Bible in its original text, there has been some problems translating the Bible into languages like English due to difficulties in translating certain words or phrases. Institutions such as the Catholic Church have traditions that stem from the Bible and also due to difficulties of the times (such as the tradition that is usually carried out for the Sacrament of Penance). But the Catholic Church studies scripture in its original language.

Dont allow religious debates, not directly anyway.
It just causes trouble, and flame wars etc etc etc.

Be that as it may, but I'd say you'd do just as well handling reality without the use of old myths.

People will always be judged by their actions, not their ideals. Besides, what true evidence would you say there is to all of it?

Now you're just putting words into my mouth. I have about too many flaws, and I know them all too well, but they are not relevant to this discussion. There have been countless of atrocities committed in the name of Christianity, and I'm just stating that there hasn't really been that much to be particularly proud about. And what am I exactly preaching about here? I'm only advocating that people should think for themselves, rather than being told what to do and what to believe.

Well how can one discuss about intangible things without invoking beliefs?

People can be just as good without religion, but to quote something along these lines:

"For good people to do bad things, it takes religion."

And that's because when and if people take their fate too literally, they can think it's justified to do anything as long as it's sanctified by their beliefs.

Well you can't really cherrypick and ignore the bad ones. Sure none of us have any real way of knowing for certain what went on in those times, since history is always written by someone, and that someone may or may not be a biased party, so everything should be taken with a grain of salt.

Suffice to say I'm pessimistic towards everything by default unless proven otherwise, and like in this case, there just isn't any solid proof around.

Woodsprite:

Atheism doesn't tell you to do anything, it's simply rejecting the idea of religion itself. What kind of logical connection is there in Atheist doing something bad, that can be attributed to the person being an Atheist? It's like saying men with mustaches do bad things, just because Stalin had a mustache.

Where are the old myths in my reasoning?

Actions? Let's see, we've got 900 years ago the crusades, 400 years ago the Inquisition and 5 years ago churches making social work along with charities. Which part should I take more in count?

You're free to pick whatever information may support your posture, but don't ignore the rest of the facts when trying to make a truthful approach.

Well, as long as you're in any kind of association, and not only of the religious kind, you'll be determined by your environment, receive a certain education, be told what things you should and shouldn't do, follow patterns,...

Being a freethinker is almost impossible as long as you're a social being. However, there are degrees: thus there are more liberal or closed minded people, even in religious organizations. I myself have been discussing with a Catholic priest, and enjoyed it: there are real people beneath the cassock.

Invoking the perspective of a certain religion on a certain point, not religions themselves. Collectivizing leads to prejudices.

Hey, I know; I don't follow any kind of religion and believe I'm a good guy. There are values outside religion: I only state that it's easier to learn them in a traditional context rather than by trial and error.

Anywho, I agree that blind-faith followers that act according to their books literally are most of times mistaken. There might be good values in there but pick the wrong verse or misinterpret it, and you've got burkas for example.

You can't either cherrypick and ignore the good ones; however, judging for what they did is useless and you may lack the information to bring something true.

Judge them for what they do now. Go to a church and see what Masses look like, visit a mosque and ask them to show you what aid projects they are currently working in, get into a synagogue and discuss with a rabbi,...

It's not all what you've been shown on TV, or through the screen of your PC.

Sure, let me just go on a killing spree here for a few weeks, and then just go do some charity work, and all is automatically forgiven...

It's never either black or white, but I'd say it's pretty dark gray as a whole.

We are all shaped by our experiences, and that's why religion is sort of in an unfair position. Why do we raise children into the same religion as their parents for example? Why do we teach religion as a mandatory subject in schools? I've had my fair share of religious upbringing, and I can tell none of it has been for any good, quite the opposite exact, because children are highly susceptible to superstitious ideas, same as fairy tales and other stories.

It's only when people are grown up, should they be presented with the opportunity to learn about religions if they so choose. But that would mean religions would have to endanger their position, and they sure as hell ain't gonna do anything of the sort.

Well how can they be open minded, if they still claim to follow their ages old rigid rules of their religions, that are highly incompatible with the modern world?

Sure, that's like saying Germany is the devil at the present moment, because of Hitler.

Thing is that the people who tortured and slaughtered for believing the Earth went round the Sun is currently food for the worms.

Someone had just forgotten religion is greatly traditional... *whistle*

Why do we teach English Language to our sons? It's an influence in the education of our sons, Wittgenstein proved that: language is the tool of logic -the more precise it is, the better a person will think. So why not Korean, Spanish, Finnish or Tagalog?

Also, is religion that harmful?

Well, again, there are people beneath the cassocks. Not all priests, imams or rabbis are the same, some follow their faith blindly, some like scientific progress, some accept gay marriage and some adore Jimi Hendrix.

The difference is that Hitler isn't around anymore, but religion as an institution is still very much here.

Long time ago or not, but religions do not change, because the old scriptures and whatever holy texts they are based on do not change on their own either.

Well if something is a tradition, it doesn't necessarily make it a good thing.

We have to be able to communicate somehow, and since we have gone past the barking and grunting stage, we have come up with a little more sophisticated methods of communicating. Language is merely a tool, and the more universal the tool is, the more useful it is. If you have a certain type of screwdriver, and if majority of the screws in the world are that type, you'd be a pretty well equipped to handle screws.

Now languages go by the same logic, when the majority of people speak English, then they are pretty well equipped to handle most situations that require communication between various individuals.

And religion is harmful in a sense, that if you raise a child to believe that fairy tales are absolutely true, then the child will run into problems when confronted with controversies when real life doesn't mach up with the lessons of the stories. Now most people grow apart from their religious teaching and leave them at their fictional value, but some people never realize that they are not the truth, and thus we have our suicide bombers and other religious extremists. I'd say that there would be much less trouble if religions weren't around, but then again humanity has an infinite amount of capacity for destruction no matter what.

But they all don't, and that's the problem. Because when you have a large base of something, you have to tolerate all aspects of it, even if most of it is harmless anyways. The casual basis of religions gives soil the extremist behavior, since one cannot criticize religious values, because then one would end up offending the harmless majority.

I didn't mean it like that. Atheism, in some cases, gives rise to the thinking, "If there's no god, who's in charge? Must be us." The state has the right to rule the people by their own will. Without any given religion or belief in a higher power, any government can dictate whatever they wish because they have their own right.

The U.S., for example, was founded in the assumption that God gives rights, not man. Thus the declaration and constitution were both written by the founders, of whom most were God-fearing, thus writing up an established law to protect the people in case the government went bad (which is happening right now).

Now, I'm not in any way asserting that U.S. law is superior to other countries, but think about it in the early run. Pretty much every revolution that happened from the late 1600s to the mid-1800s resulted in failure, or else worse rulers (the French revolution comes to mind). Places like the U.K. and... Switzerland, and other countries (mostly European, but not excluding anything) are doing just as well (a lot of 'em, especially England, are currently in better shape) than the U.S. is.

But such is the result usually from learning from mistakes, and you can't deny the fact that countries make mistakes from time to time. In my humble opinion, from America's start to present, the country didn't have nearly as many tumbling blocks to maneuver through during its existence as much as other countries have.


But I'm seriously off-topic with this as it is already. :embarrassed:


EDIT: HNM, if you're going to edit my post, do so with the courtesy of not saying something like "Keep that **** to yourself." It's terribly unlike me, and just comes off as a lack of communication skills, which I know is not true about you since you usually put yourself so well in other posts. Please do the same while moderating. :) Thank you...

Isn't it sort of sad only to behave decently in fear of punishment from higher authority? Why must we be controlled and ordered to be good, when we can be good without any of that, if we only wish so? Then again I'm not exactly the right person to say such things, even though I do not exactly consider myself mean, but I still have many undesired qualities when it comes to coexisting with people.

It is a sad thing... but not really if you actually want to do something, not only because you know a god told you not to, but also because you enjoy doing it, which makes it all the easier. :)

But I agree about... doing something that you don't want to do, but was "ordered to" indirectly I guess... that'd be the only drawback I'd agree with you on concerning religion. But I just think about the consequences, as in, the result of the consequence determines the value of the action.

Well if you want to do something, you usually don't need extra encouragement to do so, or vice versa. It's sort of excess psychological assurance, that makes you more comfortable with your actions, when you feel you have a backing of third party when making decisions. Same effect could be achieved with pretty much anything, so your presumed god is rather redundant in that matter.

We can never fully predict the consequences of our actions, simply because we lack the necessary amount of insight and knowledge from all possible points of view.

I haven't been really following recently the rest of conversation, but right at this moment if I could tell you what I really wanted from religious discussion, is not debate, but to find others whom sincerely want to talk about God, the joy and agony of loving Him/Her or by whatever perception you percieve and name the Divine by. To want to deepen in their love and faith and belief and just willing to participate with others whom want to have these types of higher discussions for no other reason than to affirm and lift their own spirits and find greater meaing in their lives. Life is suffering and only faith hope and belief are what carry us through .. does it really matter then the differences of religion, when what we are really wanting is the comforting prescense of assurance and certitude that something greater LOVES us?

Any maybe this thought didn't belong here on this thread but to explain why I'm responding the above ... I was having this profound moment ... I found my self grieving .. for losses that haven't happened but could eventually .. and then this comforting prescense came and I was overcome with this realization of why faith was so important .. to be there to fill any void that might come in my life, to that I wouldn't be overcome with emptyness again. It was so beautiful and so powerful .. but here it was 10pm at night .. and I so wanted to talk about it with someone .. and I couldn't at this late time of night just call some one up here from my faith community and ToS is the only other community I have (noting that I have never been on a forum until A.F. .. which now I have moved soley to ToS). To me it was no different than having a profound or moment of insight about Avatar .. and I just wished I could share it and that others would share/support reflect upon it with me and provide their own insights from whatever faith/spiritual/religious belief system they come from. To me that's the harmony the joy the light that each of us can bring and shine. That those beliefs no matter the lamp can be affirming to each other, can bring greater understanding to things that really for all of us are a mystery.

Quoting a speech here:
'It won't matter when you're out there on the frontline, it won't matter about race, or what name they call god. They're your brothers, your sisters, they're all in this with you. Together.'
we're all people! Why do you care what others think? Just so you can attempt to prove them wrong? It doesn't matter!
That's why I dont want a debate on religion, because there's nothing to debate, we can't prove anything.

This thread has really become a debate on religious debate. I'm surprised it still hasn't been moved to the debate section...

Eltu's napping on the job.

No... Eltu's on something else.

What? Doesn't change at all? Let's take for example Catholic church: Second Vatican Council, more than 2500 bishops from all over the world debating on what aspects of religion should be kept and which need to be renewed.

Scriptures may not change but it is how they interpret them what changes the institutions. Or are there still bonfires?

First. Anything -even regular education- shapes you in a way you don't consciously des¡re, but you go for it anyway because of social pressure ("everyone else do it, do it yourself as well"); because is the "mediocrity tax" you've got to pay to stay in a group.

Now, what's needed is not to remove education but teach people to question their education. You won't know why 2 and 2 are 4 until you try it out yourself, everything will be just something from the textbook until you know it's something real; the same can be applicable to physics, language and religion.

However not all people are intelligent neither curious, thus most of them just want to be part of a society and become "mass persons", people who is OK being just like "everyone else". And they won't make up their minds to "free" themselves, because it's too difficult and what they've got already works for what they expect and want.

You can't force people to believe in what you believe. Not only religious people oppose to gay marriage, not only religious people dislike Jimi Hendrix.

Again, there's no need to criticize; but questioning is vital to make a change.

However, and unless you've got something better than the answers they've got; don't go around saying the world would be a safer and comfier place without religion. Everyone has their personal utopia and thinks the world would work better with it, including Muslims -everyone being Muslim-, Christians -everyone believing in Christ- or Atheists -a world without religion-; but none of them work in theory because you cannot suppress freedom of thought.

Tolerate the intolerant, question values and traditions and if you've got something better to offer, show it to them with respect and reasonableness.

That is about the most insightful post I've seen in the last 3 months. This quote... I apply this every day to myself and my beliefs.

You've earned a spot in my signature. :)

Or they should just realize that if their scriptures are that half-assed, maybe they simply aren't divine inspiration or origin after all.

Well a child is most receiving for education at the stage where he/she is usually not ready to judge what will be necessary to learn and know, so regular education is sort of blanket way of trying to prepare children with the necessary tools to handle life and so on. This is all just an estimate by those who usually have most experience on these matters, but at pretty basic level, they can be quite accurate if they so choose.

But how do you try and learn by empirical method if religion is right or wrong? Religions are like politics, they are only opinions, not facts. Same as we don't associate children with political parties, we shouldn't associate them with religions either. And seeing as religions are usually quite absolute, so that they would be immune to questioning.

Well neither of us can know if there are those kind of people, and how many, and so on. We are all different in many ways, but trying to categorize how, usually ends up failing when it comes to decent accuracy. We all want more or less to be part of something, seeing as we are pack animals, and for some that instinct driven value might be greater than for others, so we get a various different levels of this "mass person" based on how much they want to follow "everyone else".

Since when was I forcing others to accept my ideas?

Questioning and criticizing go pretty much hand in hand, because if you question and criticize a valid ideal, it will retain it's integrity no matter what. Just as you could criticize people for helping others out, it will have no effect, since no one will agree with you on that, because they see it as a good cause, usually. Criticism only works when it hits the right place, and religion has lot to be criticized about, and it shouldn't act all innocent and helpless about it.

I don't care about the world, I only rot here in my little hole and argue against any ideals that are just plain fail. Only fools think they can change the world with fair methods, because it's only the cruel and oppressive power using methods that will ever change anything, religion for example. And while you can't suppress freedom of thought, you can quite easily kill the infidels.

The basic downfall of tolerance is to tolerate the intolerant, because in the end, that will only end up badly, because eventually they are no people left who would tolerate that "different" behavior. I do not have anything to offer, I'm simply against institutionalized religions and their indoctrinations.

Ironically, this thread has turned into a debate.