-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Should religion be tolerated?
- Thread starter BaronVonKaiser
- Start date
Diederick
Active Member
Then in what other sphere do children get mutilated collectively?
Elessar
Well-Known Member
What about the Islamic East African tribes who continue to castrate their female children in direct contravention of Islamic (i.e., their own religious) law?
To be quite frank, I don't see circumcision as mutilation. My sons were both circumcised and not for any religion ritual either.
She is right, these things can happen even if there was never any religion at all.
I wholeheartedly agree with Storm with this quote.
She is right, these things can happen even if there was never any religion at all.
J Bryson
Well-Known Member
Good point. However, the Tuskegee experiments, Nazi experimentation, and various forced sterilization and eugenics programs were all carried out in the name of science...not that anyone asked science its opinion anymore than the Inquisitors asked for the opinion of Jesus, or the mutilators asked Mohammad. I'll rephrase my corollary: With few exceptions, there is no evil that has been done in the name of misguided religious sentiment that could not also be performed in the name of misguided rationalism, and no evil that could be done in the name of misguided rationalism that could not be done in the name of misguided religion.
Therefore, the problem is not mysticism, religion, or science. The problem is evil.
Did you read my post? There are people with flat EEG's, no brain activity, that have had NDE's. Are these people lying because of "social pressure?" You say you don't care about spirituality, and yet you care about what is real. Spirituality is quite real. Read some of these people's accounts, please do. To not acquaint yourself with these things is missing a whole argument for faith. Also, skeptics, in large numbers, have converted to faith after seeing incredible things. Are these people all thinking wishfully?
Diederick
Active Member
Isn't this still a religious atmosphere? Or do you think Africans do not count?
I am not really talking about the sterile, secular, hospital-circumcisions we have in the first world; I am talking about circumcision in a religious setting, and not just the one we're familiar with. I also am talking about the priest biting off the foreskin of a boy, and the women of some Islamic tribes that cut off the vagina of a young girl and sow the hole shut leaving hardly an opening to pee through - supposed to be torn open when the girl looses her virginity (probably at age 10).
Concerning things that are possible to happen without religion: it may be so that any madman could commit the crimes against humanity that religion submits, but nowhere, does this happen as systematically, collectively and with such pompous ignorance and arrogance as in religion. You only accept it, and I am only mildly tolerant toward it, for one simple reason: its size. A great comparison by Bill Maher:
"If you have a few hundred followers and you let them molest children, people will call you a cult leader, if a you have a billion they call you Pope. It's like: if you can't pay your mortgage you're a dead beat, but if you can't pay a million mortgages you are Bear Sterns and we bail you out. And that's what the Catholic church is; the Bear Sterns of organized paedophilia. Too big to fed."
To show how religion is kept up: "Volume, volume, volume!" Watch it here. Being popular doesn't make something true, let alone acceptable. For the record, the above quotation is meant to be an illustration to my point, not my actual point. (I'm sorry if this seems off-topic, I justed wanted to make the point.
Haha, oh dear... Yes, I read your post, remain calm. Let's have a look at this baby.
People with flat EEG's are dead, their near death experience must have killed them. People can really believe what they say, giving no special response to a lie-detector test, if that's what you're saying. I never said they were all lying.
Spirituality seems very unreal to me, at least far from being a fact of reality - simply because I demand some evidence before acknowledging facts. You are overlooking the fact that the human mind is much more complex than what you make it seem to be, it's all three influences I listed - probably more, that can explain why people think they witnessed something supernatural.
Last edited:
JustWondering
Jerk
Do you believe in aliens and flying saucers? Many people have claimed to have seen them.
Diederick
Active Member
I bet their EEG's are "flat" too.
I must ask you though, have you ever acquainted yourself with any of the accounts of these people? You say you demand evidence before acknowledging facts, and yet, do you even look for evidence? The human mind is complex, but that still doesn't explain the fact as to how it can be working when no brain waves are being registered!
misanthropic_clown
Active Member
If I am right in assuming that all we have is the authors word that no brain activity was present, I would hardly consider accounts of such experiences as compelling evidence. Particularly given how much money can be made out of them, given an eloquent enough author.
jacobweymouth
Active Member
Diedrick...
What good has humanism, or atheism done? I'm not say it did anything bad, and I'm not saying it didn't -what good has it done?
What good has humanism, or atheism done? I'm not say it did anything bad, and I'm not saying it didn't -what good has it done?
jacobweymouth
Active Member
Why'd ya have to bring this up? :no:
Storm, the Bill of Rights was a reaffirming what had always been part of English Common Law -and that law existed "The Enlightenment".
And what have they done for us?
gnostic
The Lost One
Religions should only be tolerated to an extent.
Take for example, the Christian priests or pastors, or whatever you want to call them.
If they hear confessions of serious crimes being committed (particularly murders or rapes or child molestation), then these clergymen should not hide these from the laws. The churches have sometimes knowing hide this from the police, particularly if they are priests themselves who have sexually assaulted women or children. Many of these church leaders have deliberately covered them up.
Such practices of ignoring the problems and covering up, only served these criminals, not the victims, and such things shouldn't be tolerated. If they do such thing, then the church deserve to compensate the victims for the trauma they themselves have caused, through their secrecy, cover-ups and denials.
In the case of some Muslim clerics, who preach violence, murders and terrorism, just because of what they perceived they have been wronged, also shouldn't be tolerated. They are as guilty as those who actually commit the deeds.
In both cases, these so called holy men or teachers deny responsibilities, then their religions deservedly be treated with contempt. They should be held accountable what they say and preach. If they don't think they don't, then they and their organizations don't deserve the protection of the law.
The other things shouldn't be tolerated is their interferences with politics, laws and educations.
Take for example, the Christian priests or pastors, or whatever you want to call them.
If they hear confessions of serious crimes being committed (particularly murders or rapes or child molestation), then these clergymen should not hide these from the laws. The churches have sometimes knowing hide this from the police, particularly if they are priests themselves who have sexually assaulted women or children. Many of these church leaders have deliberately covered them up.
Such practices of ignoring the problems and covering up, only served these criminals, not the victims, and such things shouldn't be tolerated. If they do such thing, then the church deserve to compensate the victims for the trauma they themselves have caused, through their secrecy, cover-ups and denials.
In the case of some Muslim clerics, who preach violence, murders and terrorism, just because of what they perceived they have been wronged, also shouldn't be tolerated. They are as guilty as those who actually commit the deeds.
In both cases, these so called holy men or teachers deny responsibilities, then their religions deservedly be treated with contempt. They should be held accountable what they say and preach. If they don't think they don't, then they and their organizations don't deserve the protection of the law.
The other things shouldn't be tolerated is their interferences with politics, laws and educations.
Last edited:
Jordan St. Francis
Well-Known Member
And let us not forget the Christian origins of humanism! We can't give humanism credit without giving a nod also to its foundations in the Christian gospel, despite the fact that, by and large, the Christian churches feuded fiercely with their child.
Diederick
Active Member
Humanism and Atheism are two different things. Humanism is also present in a non-secular form.
Jacob,
Atheism, is a lack of belief in a higher power, "it" doesn't do anything, because it represents nothingness. Atheism is, to me, an evasion of the religious or spiritual misguidance of reality, accidentally preventing the bad stuff from coming along as well. It is a mistake to think Atheism is like religion, but then without the God stuff. Atheism is not organized, it hasn't even got rules. An Atheist is solely a person who states there is no God.
In essence, under Atheism (read: with no religion or belief in God) the world would be a better place, simply because people would naturally come to terms with reality. People would be more likely to unite, people would recognize Altruism, people would not be afraid of scientific progress and people would be more aware of their place in this world.
I can't say Atheism would build cathedrals, or write great works, or do anything really. It is a lack of something; that in itself doesn't make it an active thing such as religion. Like a lack of smoking, doesn't do anything but decrease the risk of COPD and lung cancer.
It is a bit odd, this statement. Atheism is not a religion, at least 95% of the time. But the way you present here, it almost sounds like one. And it does have a rule- Don't believe in God (which is arguable) Religion does not have to be organized.
Last edited: