Why is faith good?

[OMGAKITTY]

Hard-Headed Atheists + Religious Fanatics = Intelligent' date=' Tolerant, Well Thought Out Discussions

 

 

Oh wait, I think I did my math wrong.

[/quote']

 

I resent being called a fanatic.

 

Otherwise your comment's pretty spot on.

[Dark]

Add a "blinded" in front of religious and put a ^2 after intelligent and I think your equation works out.

[Felix]

This poor kid got screwed over by his religion.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xddhKQje41M&feature=PlayList&p=75746F24051C1D65&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=3

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EVAIQwVvcvk&feature=PlayList&p=75746F24051C1D65&index=4

[¶nÇØGn¶TØ]

This poor kid got screwed over by his religion.

 

 

As do most Saints. I remember What Rambo said:

 

"Live for nothing or die for something"

 

^ This statement always makes me think:)

[EocDragon]

But where did this idea really come from? Look at animals in nature: they will kill and steal' date=' anything to make sure they (and their offspring...usually) survive. When did mankind decide that this was not OK? Why? Joe has food. I need food. I kill Joe, I now have his food. >_>

Somewhere down the line, someone figured out this was not acceptable. It was probably a religious figure. And you simplify it a bit much. The only two rules in life is to not kill and not steal? Hardly.[/i']

And where did they learn it? It all has to lead back to somewhere...

 

But animals don't kill randomly do they? They do for their own survival. Also animals will try not to kill to get food since that puts them selves at risk' date=' they will simply try to steal, same goes for basic humans. As time passed we were able to becomes more powerful and were able to gain manipulate the earth and so the need to kill and steal from others decreased all the while our intelligence increased. As that happened we simply realized that their is no reason to take the life or food from some one else since we already have and so these practices became frowned upon. And yes these people could have gone on to become religious figures, but even so the fact that others so easily agreed to it shows that they found these ideas logical and shows the advancement of the species and even with out the figure we would have reached that point on our own.

 

Also I'm not really over simplifying. Hell you can say killing other is theft since you are "stealing" their life. And again those are two of the most fundamental laws. There are others.

 

[/quote']

 

Depending on your definition, I suppose animals don't kill randomly, but their choices are always based on the optimal way of survival. For example, when a male lion mates with a female, he first kills all the females cubs. Why? The cubs are not physically threatening to the male, nor are they competing for food nor mates. The male kills them simply because it gives his offspring a greater advantage.

 

You could apply the same basic principles to humans. If you have a nice home, a supply of food, perhaps excess money, such things would be beneficial to my survival and would provide a benefit to my genetic lineage, what is stopping me from killing you and taking it? You could pretend perhaps that your size or strength, or perhaps even your cunning would make it impossible, but in all reality, I could obtain the resources to make such a thing happen.

 

So what then prevents me from taking your resources? The next logical answer would of course be the law. But if you consider it, laws are simply a manifestation of the beliefs of the people. A law that goes against the beliefs of the majority is usually overrulled or ignored. So then by simple thought progression, we can assume that I will not kill you because my beliefs tell me otherwise.

 

So if we have established that my beliefs govern my actions, then the next logical step is to determine where my beliefs came from. An obvious answer would be my parents, however, such an answer is empty and unsupported, as then where did their beliefs come from? You could say that we humans are inclined to behave in this way, yet we have already established that it is beneficial for me to go ahead and take your resources, and such an inclination would represent a conflict between natures.

 

Therefore, my beliefs must have come from an outside source, the most obvious one being religion. When you believe in a higher being that establishes a sense of morality, that is, a sense of right and wrong, you then have a reason for me not to kill you, that being that to kill you would be wrong and by doing so I would incur a higher being's wraith.

 

To answer the origional question, you can argue the validity of having religious faith all you want, but that faith was the basis of order and law in society, and thus protects you.

[Dark]

This poor kid got screwed over by his religion.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xddhKQje41M&feature=PlayList&p=75746F24051C1D65&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=3

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EVAIQwVvcvk&feature=PlayList&p=75746F24051C1D65&index=4

 

No, he really was gay. I don't care if anyone is gay, but they are morons if they rant about it. :/

[Static]

This post is Off Topic!

 

This poor kid got screwed over by his religion.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xddhKQje41M&feature=PlayList&p=75746F24051C1D65&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=3

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EVAIQwVvcvk&feature=PlayList&p=75746F24051C1D65&index=4

 

No' date=' he really was gay. I don't care if anyone is gay, but they are morons if they rant about it. :/

[/quote']

 

If believing that Gay Marriage is wrong made him stop being a homo, more Gay people need to be convinced that Gay Marriage is wrong.

[Dark]

Ehh... yes, it was off topic. :/

 

Also, that guy was an idiot. Gay marriage is not wrong, nor will it ever be wrong, nor has it ever been wrong. It is one's own choice to get married to another of the same sex, therefore the government has no issue in stopping said marriages. Gay marriage is not hurting anyone, and those who think it is not moral or not right are either ignorant on said subject or believe too blindly in the Bible that they cannot form their own opinions.

 

If I want to go get married to my best friend John (it's ironic how I have so many friends, but none of them are John), why should the government have any right to stop me? As long as I can find a preist to do it, they have no say in anything.

 

However, I do admit that people who rant about gay rights are kind of stupid. Ranting about it just attracts more attention to yourself, and then them Republican's get in your grill and start going all Bible on you, inwhich you have no comeback because these people are too illogical.

 

Static, no offense for the above paragraphs. Not directly intended at you.

[Static]

Ehh... yes' date=' it was off topic. :/

 

Also, that guy was an idiot. Gay marriage is not wrong, nor will it ever be wrong, nor has it ever been wrong. It is one's own choice to get married to another of the same sex, therefore the government has no issue in stopping said marriages. Gay marriage is not hurting anyone, and those who think it is not moral or not right are either ignorant on said subject or believe too blindly in the Bible that they cannot form their own opinions.

 

If I want to go get married to my best friend John (it's ironic how I have so many friends, but none of them are John), why should the government have any right to stop me? As long as I can find a priest to do it, they have no say in anything.

 

However, I do admit that people who rant about gay rights are kind of stupid. Ranting about it just attracts more attention to yourself, and then them Republican's get in your grill and start going all Bible on you, inwhich you have no comeback because these people are too illogical.

 

Static, no offense for the above paragraphs. Not directly intended at you.

[/quote']

 

I'm not a Conservative, I don't give a f-ck what people do behind closed doors.

 

Gay Marriage is wrong, however, when the populous believes it to be so. When a people make decisions in this Democratic State, it is the majority that decides what is wrong and right. In a Theocratic State like Iran, it is the Religious Texts that decide whether or not a certain action is right or wrong, in this case, that Gay Marriage is wrong.

 

You cannot say that Gay Marriage has been right and always will be, because in Iran right now, it is against the fundamentals of Islam, and in Iran, the fundamentals of Islam override any general opinion that disagrees with them.

 

You cannot say that someone's opinion is wrong because it is ignorant.

 

You ask why SHOULD the government have any right to stop you; well, because that's what the government exists to do. The government exists to prevent people from doing things that the public deems as "unacceptable." They exist to control and this control is necessary. Personally, the more control over freedom of religion, the better. Fundamental difference is the cause of a good many of societies problems.

 

If a populous believes that Gay Marriage is wrong, it should be barred. Justice MUST come before ALL of man's freedoms.

[Dark]

Never mix religion and government.

 

Peace out.

[Static]

Never mix religion and government.

 

Peace out.

 

Never put Freedom before Justice.

 

/politics

[Dark]

And refusing gay couples the right to marry is justice?

 

I'm sorry, but your point of view makes no sense to me. owait, this is a debate, ain't it?

[Static]

And refusing gay couples the right to marry is justice?

 

I'm sorry' date=' but your point of view makes no sense to me. owait, this is a debate, ain't it?

[/quote']

 

In a society that views Gay Marriage as wrong, it would be justice.

 

Just because you believe in individual freedom to do what you want if it doesn't hurt anyone else does does not mean that the rest of the world does.

 

And don't go off about me talking about a point of view, what I responded to originally was your POV concerning Gay Marriage, which you made very evident.

[Dark]

So now Republican's (and some Democrats) become society as a whole. Wonderful, just chuck 40% out the window, it's okay.

 

If I go up to someone and shoot them, I am hurting SOMEONE ELSE. That should be against the law.

 

If I go up to someone (assuming they are also willing) of the same sex and as them to get married, I AM HURTING NO ONE. The fact that other people have opposite opinions doesn't mean that should be against the law.

 

I am an atheists. All religion people should be thrown in jail. Or even the other way around. That would be an "lolno".

[The Dark One]

But where did this idea really come from? Look at animals in nature: they will kill and steal' date=' anything to make sure they (and their offspring...usually) survive. When did mankind decide that this was not OK? Why? Joe has food. I need food. I kill Joe, I now have his food. >_>

Somewhere down the line, someone figured out this was not acceptable. It was probably a religious figure. And you simplify it a bit much. The only two rules in life is to not kill and not steal? Hardly.[/i']

And where did they learn it? It all has to lead back to somewhere...

 

But animals don't kill randomly do they? They do for their own survival. Also animals will try not to kill to get food since that puts them selves at risk' date=' they will simply try to steal, same goes for basic humans. As time passed we were able to becomes more powerful and were able to gain manipulate the earth and so the need to kill and steal from others decreased all the while our intelligence increased. As that happened we simply realized that their is no reason to take the life or food from some one else since we already have and so these practices became frowned upon. And yes these people could have gone on to become religious figures, but even so the fact that others so easily agreed to it shows that they found these ideas logical and shows the advancement of the species and even with out the figure we would have reached that point on our own.

 

Also I'm not really over simplifying. Hell you can say killing other is theft since you are "stealing" their life. And again those are two of the most fundamental laws. There are others.

 

[/quote']

 

Depending on your definition, I suppose animals don't kill randomly, but their choices are always based on the optimal way of survival. For example, when a male lion mates with a female, he first kills all the females cubs. Why? The cubs are not physically threatening to the male, nor are they competing for food nor mates. The male kills them simply because it gives his offspring a greater advantage.

 

You could apply the same basic principles to humans. If you have a nice home, a supply of food, perhaps excess money, such things would be beneficial to my survival and would provide a benefit to my genetic lineage, what is stopping me from killing you and taking it? You could pretend perhaps that your size or strength, or perhaps even your cunning would make it impossible, but in all reality, I could obtain the resources to make such a thing happen.

 

So what then prevents me from taking your resources? The next logical answer would of course be the law. But if you consider it, laws are simply a manifestation of the beliefs of the people. A law that goes against the beliefs of the majority is usually overrulled or ignored. So then by simple thought progression, we can assume that I will not kill you because my beliefs tell me otherwise.

 

So if we have established that my beliefs govern my actions, then the next logical step is to determine where my beliefs came from. An obvious answer would be my parents, however, such an answer is empty and unsupported, as then where did their beliefs come from? You could say that we humans are inclined to behave in this way, yet we have already established that it is beneficial for me to go ahead and take your resources, and such an inclination would represent a conflict between natures.

 

Therefore, my beliefs must have come from an outside source, the most obvious one being religion. When you believe in a higher being that establishes a sense of morality, that is, a sense of right and wrong, you then have a reason for me not to kill you, that being that to kill you would be wrong and by doing so I would incur a higher being's wraith.

 

To answer the origional question, you can argue the validity of having religious faith all you want, but that faith was the basis of order and law in society, and thus protects you.

Except our moral beliefs don't come from religion. They are a measure to protect the human race as a whole from itself and thus allow it to becomes more advanced and more quickly through CIVILIZATION. Without a concept of right or wrong, we are unable to coexist. This is an evolutionary trait explained in detail in Tribal and Game Theories through a process known in evolution as the Selfish Gene. Individuals are inherently selfish only up to a point. civil structures such as cities, countries, the human race as a whole, etc. tend to act as organisms in and of themselves. America serves America's interests, not the president's, and so on. (Of course, corruption is an obstacle to this sort of action, but an anticipated one. Corrupted individuals are called deviants in Game Theory, and are expected in any population.)

[EocDragon]

 

Except our moral beliefs don't come from religion. They are a measure to protect the human race as a whole from itself and thus allow it to becomes more advanced and more quickly through CIVILIZATION. Without a concept of right or wrong' date=' we are unable to coexist. This is an evolutionary trait explained in detail in Tribal and Game Theories through a process known in evolution as the Selfish Gene. Individuals are inherently selfish only up to a point. civil structures such as cities, countries, the human race as a whole, etc. tend to act as organisms in and of themselves. America serves America's interests, not the president's, and so on. (Of course, corruption is an obstacle to this sort of action, but an anticipated one. Corrupted individuals are called deviants in Game Theory, and are expected in any population.)

[/quote']

 

Perhaps I was too generalized, but you cannot resonably say that religion is not a basis of moral belief. Furthermore, your arguement of a understanding of right and wrong being essential for coexistance is extremely flawed. Nor can it be called an evolutionary trait, for, at least to the best of my knowledge, humans are the only species to have a basis of moral reasoning. Of the billions of species that inhabit the earth, only one species has a moral understanding, thus by your logic, all others must be in a constant state of strife. Yet some species, even those such as ants who have little cognitive ability at all, cannot survive without perfectly coexisting with their fellows.

 

I must admit though, some of your statements also make valid points. Morality can come from more than just religion, it really can come any kind of belief system, but it can also come from a sense of selfishness. I may choose not to kill you for your resources simply because of your ability to be part of a group is more beneficial towards my survival. However, such thinking would be limited to a small group, because the eventual need for resources would outway the potential benefit of numbers.

 

To restate my arguement, I am not saying that all moral belief comes from religion, or even that religion is a mainstay of morality today. I simply state that religion layed the foundation for moral understanding, that religion created a driving force to establish a moral code.

 

On another note, I would like to point out that I do not personally like Gay marriage, but I see no issue with it being legal. However, the true issue arises when a same sex couple attempts to adopt a child. While it would be within their legal right, I see it as currently being immoral because being in a family with a same sex couple puts the adopted child at a disadvantage due to the stigmas associated with Gay marriage that would be unfair to the child. In that way, Gay marriage could in fact hurt people who were never given the choice to associate with it.

[The Dark One]

 

Perhaps I was too generalized' date=' but you cannot resonably say that religion is not a basis of moral belief. Furthermore, your arguement of a understanding of right and wrong being essential for coexistance is extremely flawed. Nor can it be called an evolutionary trait, for, at least to the best of my knowledge, humans are the only species to have a basis of moral reasoning. Of the billions of species that inhabit the earth, only one species has a moral understanding, thus by your logic, all others must be in a constant state of strife. Yet some species, even those such as ants who have little cognitive ability at all, cannot survive without perfectly coexisting with their fellows.

 

I must admit though, some of your statements also make valid points. Morality can come from more than just religion, it really can come any kind of belief system, but it can also come from a sense of selfishness. I may choose not to kill you for your resources simply because of your ability to be part of a group is more beneficial towards my survival. However, such thinking would be limited to a small group, because the eventual need for resources would outway the potential benefit of numbers.

 

To restate my arguement, I am not saying that all moral belief comes from religion, or even that religion is a mainstay of morality today. I simply state that religion layed the foundation for moral understanding, that religion created a driving force to establish a moral code.

 

On another note, I would like to point out that I do not personally like Gay marriage, but I see no issue with it being legal. However, the true issue arises when a same sex couple attempts to adopt a child. While it would be within their legal right, I see it as currently being immoral because being in a family with a same sex couple puts the adopted child at a disadvantage due to the stigmas associated with Gay marriage that would be unfair to the child. In that way, Gay marriage could in fact hurt people who were never given the choice to associate with it.

[/quote']

 

1. I would say that actually. I admit, religion is the driving force behind the complex moral systems we see today, but initially, I think religions reinforced already existent social conditions such as a stigma against killing without cause, etc. In essence, they basically tried to create a reason for those conditions when the people of the time didn't really know it themselves (Evolutionary Theory and the concept of the Selfish Gene didn't exactly exist back then. ;) ) much as early religions explained just about anything else that wasn't understood at the time.

 

It's inaccurate to say that the trend I'm talking about isn't present in animals. Wolves hunt in packs. Zebras stay in groups. Ants are your example. Most mammals nurture the young of OTHER members of their species if they come across them. etc. These animals have evolved in such a way that cooperation is encouraged. that's basically all morality is, at its most simple level. You work better with others if you aren't killing or stealing or sleeping with their wife, etc. Religion definitely helped to streamline this basic ethical system found in nature (more-so in humans because we have complex societies) into something resembling the moral code of today. I'm not going to dispute that. But to say that it's entirely the source of morality is a bit inaccurate in my book.

 

Obviously the conscious decision to work together only goes so far. This is because it is only beneficial to YOU to a certain extent. Just the gene is already there, so you have a natural instinct to cooperate regardless. Why does the gene propagate when it isn't necessarily ideal for the individual's survival? Because if one individual mutates in such a way that encourages this trait, then does still manage to have offspring. We now have an entire family of people who are willing to make personal sacrifice to protect the others. Suddenly altruism is a self-protective gene, because one person will make sacrifice to heighten his family's chances of survival, thus protecting the gene that is now present in all of them. It spreads rapidly and over time mutates into a comprehensible system of ethics that is eventually guiding by culture and religion into recognizable moral codes.

 

Your stance on gays is actually somewhat sensible. I had a similar view when I used to be religious. The separation of church and state clearly does not allow for the banning of gay marriage.

 

However, I don't agree with your logic for the immorality of adopting a child. Children can be embarrassed by quite a few things. It's not necessarily going to be the end of the world for them. I don't think that they will be made fun of significantly more for having gay parents than they would for, say... playing Yugioh, or doing or being anything else which isn't a part of established culture. Most people who make fun of gays don't really know gay people personally. The same would apply here. Once children got to know the kid, they wouldn't really care whether or not his parents are gay. And frankly, if they did, more gays should be adopting children to make the concept less of an issue through saturation.

[~/Coolio Prime\~]

Hard-Headed Atheists + Religious Fanatics = Intelligent' date=' Tolerant, Well Thought Out Discussions

 

 

Oh wait, I think I did my math wrong.

[/quote']

 

I resent being called a fanatic.

 

Otherwise your comment's pretty spot on.

I wasn't referring to any specific person when I said fanatic, nor when I said hard-headed. It's just my general opinion on religious arguments over the internet or real life.

[¶nÇØGn¶TØ]

I see this thread had progressed.

 

It's very evident that even with same thoughts, we have different ideas/beliefs which led

to this very rich conversation/debate. But even if we say that we know what is right or whatever the scientists proves, we still don't know what will happen in the future. What is right now maybe wrong tomorrow. What is true today may become false after 100 years. We currently put our faith on what we believe which gives us hope. Hope that tomorrow brings you something good.

[Static]

So now Republican's (and some Democrats) become society as a whole. Wonderful' date=' just chuck 40% out the window, it's okay.

 

If I go up to someone and shoot them, I am hurting SOMEONE ELSE. That should be against the law.

 

If I go up to someone (assuming they are also willing) of the same sex and as them to get married, I AM HURTING NO ONE. The fact that other people have opposite opinions doesn't mean that should be against the law.

 

I am an atheists. All religion people should be thrown in jail. Or even the other way around. That would be an "lolno".

[/quote']

 

If society views it as wrong, it is justice. I'm not saying whether it is or not, I'm telling you that it can be justice to prevent Gay Marriage. In Iran, it is justice to kill people who would engage in that action. You can't judge their idea of justice because you're not part of that society. You can only shape the idea of justice in your own by having an idea of justice in this Democratic state.

 

Of course it should be against the law, I agree.

 

I know, but if people still don't want to allow it, why should it be allowed? If most people aren't happy with it, and we're talking about a Democratic society, why should it be?

 

It's not a "lolno," it only looks that way from a Secular point of view. Ideally, everyone in the world would believe in the same god through the same lense and worship him in the same way and anyone who would refuse the existence of the god that holds the peace of said society together would be removed. That's literally the structure of a Theocratic state; it relies on this and it works because of this. You can't say that something is wrong from another perspective just because you view it differently.

[HORUS]

And refusing gay couples the right to marry is justice?

 

I'm sorry' date=' but your point of view makes no sense to me. owait, this is a debate, ain't it?

[/quote']

 

In a society that views Gay Marriage as wrong, it would be justice.

 

Just because you believe in individual freedom to do what you want if it doesn't hurt anyone else does does not mean that the rest of the world does.

 

And don't go off about me talking about a point of view, what I responded to originally was your POV concerning Gay Marriage, which you made very evident.

 

You're saying that the popular opinion is always correct?

[Dark]

And refusing gay couples the right to marry is justice?

 

I'm sorry' date=' but your point of view makes no sense to me. owait, this is a debate, ain't it?

[/quote']

 

In a society that views Gay Marriage as wrong, it would be justice.

 

Just because you believe in individual freedom to do what you want if it doesn't hurt anyone else does does not mean that the rest of the world does.

 

And don't go off about me talking about a point of view, what I responded to originally was your POV concerning Gay Marriage, which you made very evident.

 

You're saying that the popular opinion is always correct?

 

If that is what he is saying, he automatically assumes God exists because most of the world agrees with that.

 

Ideally, everyone in the world would believe in the same god through the same lense and worship him in the same way and anyone who would refuse the existence of the god that holds the peace of said society together would be removed.

 

So it's pretty much "believe in the Wakamashinaiha God or I will shoot you", and I will convert most of the world in a short amount of time. Due to their fear of dying, they will believe in something that I made up last night in my dreams.

[OMGAKITTY]

And refusing gay couples the right to marry is justice?

 

I'm sorry' date=' but your point of view makes no sense to me. owait, this is a debate, ain't it?

[/quote']

 

In a society that views Gay Marriage as wrong, it would be justice.

 

Just because you believe in individual freedom to do what you want if it doesn't hurt anyone else does does not mean that the rest of the world does.

 

And don't go off about me talking about a point of view, what I responded to originally was your POV concerning Gay Marriage, which you made very evident.

 

You're saying that the popular opinion is always correct?

 

Within that society, actually, yes. "Good" and "Evil" are merely dictates of the majority.

[Static]

And refusing gay couples the right to marry is justice?

 

I'm sorry' date=' but your point of view makes no sense to me. owait, this is a debate, ain't it?

[/quote']

 

In a society that views Gay Marriage as wrong, it would be justice.

 

Just because you believe in individual freedom to do what you want if it doesn't hurt anyone else does does not mean that the rest of the world does.

 

And don't go off about me talking about a point of view, what I responded to originally was your POV concerning Gay Marriage, which you made very evident.

 

You're saying that the popular opinion is always correct?

 

Sad to say, but in a Democratic society, that is the case. When the majority is what "pushes" laws and regulations to be passed, then it is the opinion of the majority that is correct, because that is what the laws are formed around. Of course, I'm not trying to underestimate the power of the Corporation, the wealthy in this society either, but in the specific matters at hand, it's not too relevant.

 

 

---

And refusing gay couples the right to marry is justice?

 

I'm sorry' date=' but your point of view makes no sense to me. owait, this is a debate, ain't it?

[/quote']

 

In a society that views Gay Marriage as wrong, it would be justice.

 

Just because you believe in individual freedom to do what you want if it doesn't hurt anyone else does does not mean that the rest of the world does.

 

And don't go off about me talking about a point of view, what I responded to originally was your POV concerning Gay Marriage, which you made very evident.

 

You're saying that the popular opinion is always correct?

 

If that is what he is saying, he automatically assumes God exists because most of the world agrees with that.

 

Ideally, everyone in the world would believe in the same god through the same lense and worship him in the same way and anyone who would refuse the existence of the god that holds the peace of said society together would be removed.

 

So it's pretty much "believe in the Wakamashinaiha God or I will shoot you", and I will convert most of the world in a short amount of time. Due to their fear of dying, they will believe in something that I made up last night in my dreams.

 

I do not believe in the murderous, made-up conscious construct that so many people call god. I'm not arguing my own opinion when I'm arguing against the actual topic at hand. In Democratic society, the majority rules, and is thus right, in the boundaries of its reign.

 

However, once you tried to argue with a Secular perspective and use those assumptions as fact, I had to bring my Fundamentalist views into it. I only brought my Fundamentalist views into this because you brought your Secular views into it. I'm not saying that anyone should believe in any god specifically, but that ideally, everyone would believe the same thing, be it no god or some god or many gods or even something completely different. My political enemy is differences in fundamentals on the individual and legal level, that and the nationalists.

[Willieh]

Having faith is an extremely important thing. Without faith, you could spontaneously explode and catch your tits on fire.