I am not narrowminded just because I disagree with you!
Kant showed that ethic principles cannot derive from a religion, while philosophy prooves exactly the same thing. Religions, at first a compilation of rules, they were primarly applied in order to boost the prosperity of a social team even at the cost of the annihlation of another; and History shows exactly how the religions were constanlty used, and still are used nowdays, for this purpose.
So you dissagree that the people are unable to be decent and moral without having a religion?
Originally posted by black beetleTry to focus.
I am not narrowminded just because I disagree with you!...
You are narrow minded because you condemn without sufficient reason ALL religion. It has nothing to do with agreeing with me or not. Thats the definition of narrow minded. Many religious people are similarly narrow minded and condemn other people without cause. You are probably worse in that you are condemning the religious beliefs of several billion people.
Originally posted by black beetleDo you have any empirical evidence on this?
...So you dissagree that the people are unable to be decent and moral without having a religion?
Or is "Kant said. .... " all you have?
Is there some period in history that we can refer to where most of the world was devoid of religion? No.
So essentially your guess is as good as mine. The nearest to the truth we can come to is to look at countries which banned religious activity and see how they turned out. I am familiar with Cuba which banned all religion around 1960. It was only in the 90s some churches were reopened and people allowed to worship. Cuba is rife with corruption at all levels and most of the women in Havana are potential prostitutes. I dont think removing religion in Cuba did anything positive for the people.
There is not the slightest evidence that "God" exists, and I personally cannot be satisfied with such a delusion; on the other hand, when we debate over, i.e., politics, you estimate that it's allright to seek for evidences backing up our opinion, however you appear to believe that it's at least needless to seek for evidences when we debate over the concept of religion. Therefore I am not condemning the religious beliefs of several billion people. I simply claim that "religion" is the best excuse for the people to act like monsters in the name of the "god".
In addition, banning the religions is meaningless: people must be free to make their own choise -and here we could maybe agree that the citizens are brain washed since their childhood in order to become "goo Christians/ good Muslims" etc. Poor kids never stand a chance, they merely walk somebody else's way;
But faith, this is the real power. Without faith we can achieve nothing, and I don't need a religion in order to have faith my friend. All I need is common sense and a deep respect for Life;
Originally posted by black beetleWhich is exactly why I don't.
OK, lets have a word or two about Christianism too:
A decent Christian wants us to believe that:
-- About 2.000 years ago a man was born from a virgin mother, without the participation of a biological father;
-- That fatherless man told to a dead friend of his, who was dead for several days, "wake up dude", and the dead guy, Lazarus -who was stin ...[text shortened]... d the bread becomes his body);
...And now we are supposed to get Christianism seriously🙂
Originally posted by black beetleSo you have faith ... in something.
....But faith, this is the real power. Without faith we can achieve nothing, and I don't need a religion in order to have faith my friend. All I need is common sense and a deep respect for Life;
You have common sense.
You have a deep respect for life.
Therefore you dont need religion.
So you extrapolate and assume that all people have these qualities.
THerefore mankind does not need religion.
Correct ?
Originally posted by Rajk999You seem to admire him for his rationality. And that is the only person who you admire. Especially here.
So you have faith ... in something.
You have common sense.
You have a deep respect for life.
Therefore you dont need religion.
So you extrapolate and assume that all people have these qualities.
THerefore mankind does not need religion.
Correct ?
Originally posted by scherzoHey scherzo!
You seem to admire him for his rationality. And that is the only person who you admire. Especially here.
It's easier to attack each other instead of having a decent debate, particularly when we are talking about religions, but then the debate goes down the drain; we can all of us strongly disagree with each other yet still enjoy a fruitful debate. And if we are lucky, thanks to that debate we may even change our mind regarding an issue or two simply coz nobody sees everything correctly from his personal point of view. Rajk prefers the concept of Christianism and you look towards Islam, while I have no religion. BTW, rajk has totally different opinion than me and he does not appear to admire that much mine🙂
Just a question now: wouldn't it be better if the countries could keep the religions away from the politics? Since 1776 Jefferson knew very well how important is to keep the state separated from the church, but still nowdays people are thinking that "religion" is not even an issue for a debate -just see what goes on in some deep Islamic countries... Even today the women are treated like trashes over there -Nigeria, Afghanistan etc; from this piont of view, many so called Muslims are living in the past. Also, in Christian countries the priests are men, never women...
Or not?🙂
Originally posted by black beetleWell, admittedly, yes, although you exaggerate the destruction of Muslim governments.
Hey scherzo!
It's easier to attack each other instead of having a decent debate, particularly when we are talking about religions, but then the debate goes down the drain; we can all of us strongly disagree with each other yet still enjoy a fruitful debate. And if we are lucky, thanks to that debate we may even change our mind regarding an issue or t ...[text shortened]... ing in the past. Also, in Christian countries the priests are men, never women...
Or not?🙂
I am not Muslim; I'm atheist, just like yourself, but I realize that Muslims have been taking a lot of hate from the West recently, and Rajk is a big supporter of such anti-Islam and anti-Arabism and Orientalism.
I also recognize the importance of a separation of church and state, being in the US. Several court cases have been fought over this, and secularism has always (happily) won in government against Creationism, especially in the Dover v. Board of Ed case of 2005 concerning ID.
But that's another story.