Agree or Disagree: Religion is needed to be a morally just person [or act as one].

Nothing needs to be edited out, i just quoted what he wrote, what he wrote can not be justified, it is a blatant attack on my religion.

And for your information RedOrange, no religion can inspire immoral acts, instead, religions are there to inspire and guide mankind, atleast i can speak for my religion, that is ISLAM.

Furthermore, no one should expect one to be calm and say nothing when one's religion is attacked blatantly and without a reason, like what JNC did here, i for one will not sit back and watch as my religion is disgraced for fun, i will RESPOND accordingly.

This is a religion we are talking about, not a football club.

You may want to re-examine your definition of "inspire" as there are multiple examples throughout history of religions and other belief systems inspiring violence and other immoral acts.

The biggest religions in the world (Christianity, Islam and Judaism) can all inspire terribly immoral acts if the believers of their respective holy books are dumb enough to take the stuff literally.

A religion disgraced for fun ? Who disgraced your religion ? I said several individuals of your religion committed terrorist acts and said it was a fundamentalist approach.

Did I generalize and say all Muslims did so ? Nope.

Did I say you were a terrorist because you were Muslim ? Not even close.

Did I say the Qu'aran tells people to be terrorists ? Find me where I did.

Did I insult anyone who is a follower of Islam ? You think so, but no I did not.

Keyzar, look for faults where there exists faults.

This is what I believe in, religion is the root of all evil. I am sorry if this insults any of you.

Raptorgunner wrote:


This is what I believe in, religion is the root of all evil. I am sorry if this insults any of you.

haha love this, I disagree. Religion isn't the source, it's our own faults as human beings for sucking at practicing it correctly in way that doesn't screw everything up.

MJGunner wrote:

Raptorgunner wrote:


This is what I believe in, religion is the root of all evil. I am sorry if this insults any of you.

haha love this, I disagree. Religion isn't the source, it's our own faults as human beings for sucking at practicing it correctly in way that doesn't screw everything up.

poor guy in the middle got it the worst. I do see what you are saying and I do agree with you.

MJGunner wrote:

Raptorgunner wrote:


This is what I believe in, religion is the root of all evil. I am sorry if this insults any of you.

haha love this, I disagree. Religion isn't the source, it's our own faults as human beings for sucking at practicing it correctly in way that doesn't screw everything up.

What constitutes practicing a religion the "correct" way? I'm guessing it's all about putting your blinders on for all the insane inaccuracies and contradictions in the religious scripture and just cherry pick the "good" stuff.

I guess it depends on each individual case, from person to person.

There are some people out there who feel like they need religion, and for them that is fine. There are others who don't care for it though, and aren't any worse as people by not having a religion.

Senor Penguin wrote:

MJGunner wrote:

Raptorgunner wrote:


This is what I believe in, religion is the root of all evil. I am sorry if this insults any of you.

haha love this, I disagree. Religion isn't the source, it's our own faults as human beings for sucking at practicing it correctly in way that doesn't screw everything up.

What constitutes practicing a religion the "correct" way? I'm guessing it's all about putting your blinders on for all the insane inaccuracies and contradictions in the religious scripture and just cherry pick the "good" stuff.

No one can follow every letter to a 't' in the texts and to expand on that point, when someone tries it puts a bad taste in everyone's mouths like in the three main monotheistic faiths there are sayings that generally translate to "Judge not lest ye be judged" and then there are statements that you should condemn people for this and that. I think the former statement overrides the latter. You get overzealous intolerant people when they obey the former and forget the latter. Through time things are changed, mistranslated and the original core is altered. That's happened too much. Some people are just ignorant though and will bend the rules to what suits them. That's a little of what I meant. Not offended, stimulated to converse, this is what the forums all about right?

MJGunner wrote:

Senor Penguin wrote:

MJGunner wrote:

Raptorgunner wrote:


This is what I believe in, religion is the root of all evil. I am sorry if this insults any of you.

haha love this, I disagree. Religion isn't the source, it's our own faults as human beings for sucking at practicing it correctly in way that doesn't screw everything up.

What constitutes practicing a religion the "correct" way? I'm guessing it's all about putting your blinders on for all the insane inaccuracies and contradictions in the religious scripture and just cherry pick the "good" stuff.

No one can follow every letter to a 't' in the texts and to expand on that point, when someone tries it puts a bad taste in everyone's mouths like in the three main monotheistic faiths there are sayings that generally translate to "Judge not lest ye be judged" and then there are statements that you should condemn people for this and that. I think the former statement overrides the latter. You get overzealous intolerant people when they obey the former and forget the latter. Through time things are changed, mistranslated and the original core is altered. That's happened too much. Some people are just ignorant though and will bend the rules to what suits them. That's a little of what I meant. Not offended, stimulated to converse, this is what the forums all about right?

So there's no "correct" way to practice these religions because they're full of contradictions, inaccuracies and open for (mis)interpretation?

That's one of the reasons I adore images like these:

Senor Penguin wrote:
So there's no "correct" way to practice these religions because they're full of contradictions, inaccuracies and open for (mis)interpretation?

That's the big question isn't it? IMO, and this is just me. I think the fundamentals of religion have been subject to change throughout history and peoples mindsets fluctuating have led to increased criticism of religion and skepticism. The only thing I am 100% sure of, (not talking about faith) is that there is a God. Religion is a whooole-nother headache to sift through because then it involves rules and restrictions and how people have affected them and yada yada yada.

MJGunner wrote:

Senor Penguin wrote:
So there's no "correct" way to practice these religions because they're full of contradictions, inaccuracies and open for (mis)interpretation?

That's the big question isn't it? IMO, and this is just me. I think the fundamentals of religion have been subject to change throughout history and peoples mindsets fluctuating have led to increased criticism of religion and skepticism. The only thing I am 100% sure of, (not talking about faith) is that there is a God. Religion is a whooole-nother headache to sift through because then it involves rules and restrictions and how people have affected them and yada yada yada.

I admire that you're being honest about the many flaws instead of quibbling about religion as too many people do, which is the very reason why it has too much influence in too many places.

Having said that ... how can you be 100% sure about God's existence when it's really a 50/50 case? And isn't the belief in a God a "faith"?

Senor Penguin wrote:

MJGunner wrote:

Senor Penguin wrote:
So there's no "correct" way to practice these religions because they're full of contradictions, inaccuracies and open for (mis)interpretation?

That's the big question isn't it? IMO, and this is just me. I think the fundamentals of religion have been subject to change throughout history and peoples mindsets fluctuating have led to increased criticism of religion and skepticism. The only thing I am 100% sure of, (not talking about faith) is that there is a God. Religion is a whooole-nother headache to sift through because then it involves rules and restrictions and how people have affected them and yada yada yada.

I admire that you're being honest about the many flaws instead of quibbling about religion as too many people do, which is the very reason why it has too much influence in too many places.

Having said that ... how can you be 100% sure about God's existence when it's really a 50/50 case? And isn't the belief in a God a "faith"?

Yeah, I'm not shunning religion, it does have positives for many people and I have my own beliefs but it's nearly impossible for a devout and pious person (not calling myself one) to convince someone of no faith and vice versa. I think faith is something you're not sure of, something you can doubt. It's something you have to go out on a limb to believe, I'm not saying whatever you believe isn't true, mind you, just that it's not tangible or that it doesn't confirm itself to be indisputably true.

God is just so far beyond my mind, the Universe's origins is all I need to know, because to me, I know that this isn't happenstance. I don't feel that I'm reaching, I think that there's no way that this just always was. and then I think a bit more and my head hurts lol.

MJGunner wrote:

Senor Penguin wrote:
So there's no "correct" way to practice these religions because they're full of contradictions, inaccuracies and open for (mis)interpretation?

That's the big question isn't it? IMO, and this is just me. I think the fundamentals of religion have been subject to change throughout history and peoples mindsets fluctuating have led to increased criticism of religion and skepticism. The only thing I am 100% sure of, (not talking about faith) is that there is a God. Religion is a whooole-nother headache to sift through because then it involves rules and restrictions and how people have affected them and yada yada yada.

First, I disagree with Senor, but I just want to address the part in red now. Now I can't speak for any other religion other than my own, so in Islam's case, the fundamentals have remained unchanged. There are 4 main مذاهب (doctrines) in Islam, and all 4 follow the same basics of Islam word for word. It's only the small details where the differences lie. Of course, this is only background information, I just posted this to say that the fundamentals have remained unchanged.

7amood11 wrote:

MJGunner wrote:

Senor Penguin wrote:
So there's no "correct" way to practice these religions because they're full of contradictions, inaccuracies and open for (mis)interpretation?

That's the big question isn't it? IMO, and this is just me. I think the fundamentals of religion have been subject to change throughout history and peoples mindsets fluctuating have led to increased criticism of religion and skepticism. The only thing I am 100% sure of, (not talking about faith) is that there is a God. Religion is a whooole-nother headache to sift through because then it involves rules and restrictions and how people have affected them and yada yada yada.

First, I disagree with Senor, but I just want to address the part in red now. Now I can't speak for any other religion other than my own, so in Islam's case, the fundamentals have remained unchanged. There are 4 main مذاهب (doctrines) in Islam, and all 4 follow the same basics of Islam word for word. It's only the small details where the differences lie. Of course, this is only background information, I just posted this to say that the fundamentals have remained unchanged.

Maybe I should rephrase, not exactly the core. My bad. I don't think Islam has been subject to change the way Christianity and Judaism have been, but the way in which it is practiced and the arising sects of every religion is what leads to different interpretations and thus slow change to the principles. That's what annoys me with everyone in Muslim sects, if you're a Muslim, follow the Qur'an and not a man or group. You know what I mean?

lol, or don't respond. But I had a thought today, why should it be in our genetic code not to want to harm others, it was said that it is supposed to ensure the survival rate and that other animals show this trait as well. But for example, it's common knowledge that dolphins tear each other apart for fun so it can't just be something like that. But why should we care? Is it just a principle of nature that has always been? Or could it be something from a higher force? I can never wrap my head around nature just becoming and having all-encompassing rules and just being basically.

MJGunner wrote:

7amood11 wrote:

MJGunner wrote:

Senor Penguin wrote:
So there's no "correct" way to practice these religions because they're full of contradictions, inaccuracies and open for (mis)interpretation?

That's the big question isn't it? IMO, and this is just me. I think the fundamentals of religion have been subject to change throughout history and peoples mindsets fluctuating have led to increased criticism of religion and skepticism. The only thing I am 100% sure of, (not talking about faith) is that there is a God. Religion is a whooole-nother headache to sift through because then it involves rules and restrictions and how people have affected them and yada yada yada.

First, I disagree with Senor, but I just want to address the part in red now. Now I can't speak for any other religion other than my own, so in Islam's case, the fundamentals have remained unchanged. There are 4 main مذاهب (doctrines) in Islam, and all 4 follow the same basics of Islam word for word. It's only the small details where the differences lie. Of course, this is only background information, I just posted this to say that the fundamentals have remained unchanged.

Maybe I should rephrase, not exactly the core. My bad. I don't think Islam has been subject to change the way Christianity and Judaism have been, but the way in which it is practiced and the arising sects of every religion is what leads to different interpretations and thus slow change to the principles. That's what annoys me with everyone in Muslim sects, if you're a Muslim, follow the Qur'an and not a man or group. You know what I mean?

Sorry for not responding ... Anyway, I get what you mean. In Islam there already are different interpretations, but most differ in small things. Will these different interpretations lead to a change in the most basic principles? I doubt it will happen aaaaanytime soon, but what you are suggesting is something to remain aware of. Good point.

MJGunner wrote:lol, or don't respond. But I had a thought today, why should it be in our genetic code not to want to harm others, it was said that it is supposed to ensure the survival rate and that other animals show this trait as well.

You can't see the logic behind social beings (like humans) wanting to keep their peers alive/healthy? If you were living back in the day without today's technological advancement and modern society, on your own, wouldn't it have been necessary for you to have friends/family close? I'm sure that those who didn't feel that way died very quickly and thus didn't procreate as successfully as those who sticked together and gradually understood/developed benefits from being in a social environment.

But for example, it's common knowledge that dolphins tear each other apart for fun so it can't just be something like that. But why should we care? Is it just a principle of nature that has always been? Or could it be something from a higher force? I can never wrap my head around nature just becoming and having all-encompassing rules and just being basically.

I've never heard of Dolphins tearing each other apart "for fun". I'd bet though that we need to learn a lot more about Dolphins, their behavior and their habitat before we can come to any proper conclusion(s).

A far shot would be that they do stuff like this because they feel threatened (could be because of a chemical reaction from all the crap we dump into the oceans, behavioral changes because of this has been seen with sharks - especially increased aggression!) or just deviate from normal/regular behavior because of a disorder (like psychopaths amongst humans).

Either way, I have difficulty seeing how our lack of knowledge or deviating behavior leads to the conclusion that there's a "higher force" or strengthens that belief. There's no need to settle at such a conclusion. In fact, the prospect of there being a malicious and sadistic "higher force" doesn't sound very charming.

These are also not "all-encompassing rules", either. Psychological science is pretty complex and there are of course certain boundaries you work within but likewise there are many exceptions across many different fields. Nature and its evolution is likewise very complex and difficult to predict.

Mostly, through everything I said, I was trying to underline the fact that everything can't just have happened just because and therefore can't have progressed as such. Everything that begins has a cause. It's not intellectually satisfying to state that natures rules exist and are obeyed because that's the way they are. Even if the rules promise proliferation of a species, why is it in our basic instincts to want to extend humanity's run?

MJGunner wrote:Mostly, through everything I said, I was trying to underline the fact that everything can't just have happened just because and therefore can't have progressed as such. Everything that begins has a cause. It's not intellectually satisfying to state that natures rules exist and are obeyed because that's the way they are. Even if the rules promise proliferation of a species, why is it in our basic instincts to want to extend humanity's run?

So basically your question is why we reproduce?

MJGunner wrote:Mostly, through everything I said, I was trying to underline the fact that everything can't just have happened just because and therefore can't have progressed as such. Everything that begins has a cause. It's not intellectually satisfying to state that natures rules exist and are obeyed because that's the way they are. Even if the rules promise proliferation of a species, why is it in our basic instincts to want to extend humanity's run?

Why does the answer have to be intellectually satisfying? Why can't it be intellectually infuriating? "Because it doesn't feel right..." is not a moral or scientific justification. It's simply an unwillingness to entertain a concept that contradicts what has been taught to us through culture and religious dogma.

That said, "the rules" you speak of do not promise proliferation (check out the Dinosaurs ). The promote proliferation out of necessity. Any mutation of a species that did not possess a VERY strong desire to reproduce, would not live long enough to do so. This would result in the extinction of that species, allowing those creatures that did possess the "getting it on" mutation to grow and continue to develop. In this case, whether or not you believe this happens because it happens; because a deity drives this process; because a deity set this process in motion; or because the giant spaghetti monster deemed it amusing is frankly immaterial.

MJGunner wrote:Mostly, through everything I said, I was trying to underline the fact that everything can't just have happened just because and therefore can't have progressed as such. Everything that begins has a cause. It's not intellectually satisfying to state that natures rules exist and are obeyed because that's the way they are. Even if the rules promise proliferation of a species, why is it in our basic instincts to want to extend humanity's run?

Also got to ask whether or not you believe it's intellectually satisfying to settle at the belief that there's a "higher force"? Because if you apply the rule that everything begins with a cause, it must mean that the "higher force" you speak of also has a cause and that the cause has a cause ... and so on and so forth. It loops into infinity.

donttreadonred wrote:

MJGunner wrote:Mostly, through everything I said, I was trying to underline the fact that everything can't just have happened just because and therefore can't have progressed as such. Everything that begins has a cause. It's not intellectually satisfying to state that natures rules exist and are obeyed because that's the way they are. Even if the rules promise proliferation of a species, why is it in our basic instincts to want to extend humanity's run?

Why does the answer have to be intellectually satisfying? Why can't it be intellectually infuriating? "Because it doesn't feel right..." is not a moral or scientific justification. It's simply an unwillingness to entertain a concept that contradicts what has been taught to us through culture and religious dogma.

That said, "the rules" you speak of do not promise proliferation (check out the Dinosaurs ). The promote proliferation out of necessity. Any mutation of a species that did not possess a VERY strong desire to reproduce, would not live long enough to do so. This would result in the extinction of that species, allowing those creatures that did possess the "getting it on" mutation to grow and continue to develop. In this case, whether or not you believe this happens because it happens; because a deity drives this process; because a deity set this process in motion; or because the giant spaghetti monster deemed it amusing is frankly immaterial.

I'll be getting this as a poster.

Hey, you don't believe, that's your prerogative. I find it easier to believe hat we were created rather than say there was nothing, then there suddenly was, then life suddenly became, then it decided to change through complex laws that just were. To me, Atheism is shaky ground to defend.

MJGunner wrote:Hey, you don't believe, that's your prerogative. I find it easier to believe hat we were created rather than say there was nothing, then there suddenly was, then life suddenly became, then it decided to change through complex laws that just were. To me, Atheism is shaky ground to defend.

Atheism doesn't really need defending because there's not much to defend. The stance is just that you don't believe in deities and religion.

The deal with atheists is that rely on science, which does its best to provide evidence based on the reality we live in and with the tools we have available. Relying on religion though, is somewhat relying on nothing. Because if you settle at the belief that someone/something created the universe and it's beyond our comprehension, you've basically done nothing and proved nothing.

You're stretching it a whole lot there. Religion provides answers science can't. I'm not going to go into why I think religion isn't what you've scorned it as because as much as I like being talked down to in condescending words like I'm a moron, it's not worth discussing as neither side will fold.