Total Posts:20|Showing Posts:1-20
Jump to topic:

Religion is Good

shaddamcorrinoIV
Posts: 106
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2014 11:03:55 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
In my opinion I think religion is good. I draw my philosophy of religion from William James' Varieties of Religious Experience. In it he defined religion as "Whatever one considers divine" and he did not imply that the divinity was a monotheistic god. He also was not interested in all the creeds and conflicting dogmas of organized religions but of one's personal experience with the divine. He felt that religion could help people cope with life inevitable struggles, since religion, when regarded as a personal belief system and not an organized church to help one cope with the struggle of life is a good thing.
bulproof
Posts: 25,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2014 10:37:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Or you could just man up and face reality head on.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
gwynethtyt
Posts: 3
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2014 4:32:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/15/2014 11:03:55 AM, shaddamcorrinoIV wrote:
In my opinion I think religion is good. I draw my philosophy of religion from William James' Varieties of Religious Experience. In it he defined religion as "Whatever one considers divine" and he did not imply that the divinity was a monotheistic god. He also was not interested in all the creeds and conflicting dogmas of organized religions but of one's personal experience with the divine. He felt that religion could help people cope with life inevitable struggles, since religion, when regarded as a personal belief system and not an organized church to help one cope with the struggle of life is a good thing.

It may help some to cope with the, uh, "struggle of life" on the micro-level (individual), but it has brought more harm than good on the macro-level (society). Considering the overall impact on the greater population, including indoctrination and the various social manifestations religion has brought as a whole, it would be logical to conclude your stand is misguided.

Then again, it's your opinion, and here is mine.
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2014 4:48:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/15/2014 11:03:55 AM, shaddamcorrinoIV wrote:
In my opinion I think religion is good. I draw my philosophy of religion from William James' Varieties of Religious Experience. In it he defined religion as "Whatever one considers divine" and he did not imply that the divinity was a monotheistic god. He also was not interested in all the creeds and conflicting dogmas of organized religions but of one's personal experience with the divine. He felt that religion could help people cope with life inevitable struggles, since religion, when regarded as a personal belief system and not an organized church to help one cope with the struggle of life is a good thing.

How you define religion makes no difference to the fact that when religion is mentioned these days most people think of religious institutions and the idols they worship.

People can adopt good morals and philosophies in life without any religion or idolatry or considering anything to be divine. Life itself could be considered to be divine if you wish to idolize divinity. At least you can have a personal experience with life by living it. Those who struggle with life obviously need to come to terms with the fact that it is not always a bed of roses as they would like it to be.
mfcruncher
Posts: 4
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2014 12:31:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Religion is a response to god or to something spiritual. It has nothing to do with good and evil. If you define social performance under some standard, good becomes accepting that performance, bad becomes the rejetion of said standard. In the process of creating a social environment, people tend to borrow something from religion which was intended for a spiritual response, and call that activity good. It's a misapplication of religion for a secular agenda.

For this reason the skeptic(agnostic and atheist), quickly outwit the religious by saying they do not need religion to perform at the same moral level as Christians. The problem began with the Christian misapplying a performance which was not meant to define secular order but rather a response to God.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2014 12:52:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/15/2014 11:03:55 AM, shaddamcorrinoIV wrote:
In my opinion I think religion is good. I draw my philosophy of religion from William James' Varieties of Religious Experience. In it he defined religion as "Whatever one considers divine" and he did not imply that the divinity was a monotheistic god. He also was not interested in all the creeds and conflicting dogmas of organized religions but of one's personal experience with the divine. He felt that religion could help people cope with life inevitable struggles, since religion, when regarded as a personal belief system and not an organized church to help one cope with the struggle of life is a good thing.

I believe you have neglected to explain why you believe religion is good, nor have you given any examples of the proclaimed good, produced by religion.

Religion produces division, bigotry, persecution, hatred, war, an affinity for ignorance, judgement, and even bigotry in regard to gender.

What good does it do? How is it any more positive than any other falsely held belief?
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
shaddamcorrinoIV
Posts: 106
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2014 2:47:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/17/2014 12:52:08 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 8/15/2014 11:03:55 AM, shaddamcorrinoIV wrote:
In my opinion I think religion is good. I draw my philosophy of religion from William James' Varieties of Religious Experience. In it he defined religion as "Whatever one considers divine" and he did not imply that the divinity was a monotheistic god. He also was not interested in all the creeds and conflicting dogmas of organized religions but of one's personal experience with the divine. He felt that religion could help people cope with life inevitable struggles, since religion, when regarded as a personal belief system and not an organized church to help one cope with the struggle of life is a good thing.
I believe you have neglected to explain why you believe religion is good, nor have you given any examples of the proclaimed good, produced by religion.

Religion produces division, bigotry, persecution, hatred, war, an affinity for ignorance, judgement, and even bigotry in regard to gender.

What good does it do? How is it any more positive than any other falsely held belief?

haven't i explained that i fell religion is good because it helps us cope with life's struggles, as for an example, i knew a marine that because of his religious beliefs it helped him cope with what he experienced in the service, and in anticipation i can positively say that most wars are not started over religion but over a concept called population pressure. Was the Pelopennsian war started over religious grounds, was the Franco-Prussian war? Historically if you look even the crusades were started over population pressure, i.e. Ottoman Turks were encroaching on Byzantine territory and asked the West for help. Lastly, with what you said about religion causing bigotry tec. etc. your missing the entire point of James' philosophy, organized religion causes that yes, an individual person's beleifs no.
Mikal
Posts: 11,270
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2014 3:06:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/15/2014 10:37:50 PM, bulproof wrote:
Or you could just man up and face reality head on.

That statement is a non sequitur
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2014 3:11:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/15/2014 11:03:55 AM, shaddamcorrinoIV wrote:
In my opinion I think religion is good. I draw my philosophy of religion from William James' Varieties of Religious Experience. In it he defined religion as "Whatever one considers divine" and he did not imply that the divinity was a monotheistic god. He also was not interested in all the creeds and conflicting dogmas of organized religions but of one's personal experience with the divine. He felt that religion could help people cope with life inevitable struggles, since religion, when regarded as a personal belief system and not an organized church to help one cope with the struggle of life is a good thing.

It is only any good if it is the right one.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2014 4:16:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/17/2014 2:47:46 PM, shaddamcorrinoIV wrote:
At 8/17/2014 12:52:08 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 8/15/2014 11:03:55 AM, shaddamcorrinoIV wrote:
In my opinion I think religion is good. I draw my philosophy of religion from William James' Varieties of Religious Experience. In it he defined religion as "Whatever one considers divine" and he did not imply that the divinity was a monotheistic god. He also was not interested in all the creeds and conflicting dogmas of organized religions but of one's personal experience with the divine. He felt that religion could help people cope with life inevitable struggles, since religion, when regarded as a personal belief system and not an organized church to help one cope with the struggle of life is a good thing.
I believe you have neglected to explain why you believe religion is good, nor have you given any examples of the proclaimed good, produced by religion.

Religion produces division, bigotry, persecution, hatred, war, an affinity for ignorance, judgement, and even bigotry in regard to gender.

What good does it do? How is it any more positive than any other falsely held belief?

haven't i explained that i fell religion is good because it helps us cope with life's struggles
So does heroin.

as for an example, i knew a marine that because of his religious beliefs it helped him cope with what he experienced in the service, and in anticipation i can positively say that most wars are not started over religion but over a concept called population pressure.
If he was religious, why was he in the service?
Lies often help people to cope with realities they don't wish to address. If you had a fatal disease, and the doctor told you it was just a temporary vitamin deficiency which would go away after a couple of weeks taking vitamin supplements, it would help you cope with the discomfort of the symptoms. But it would also be a lie, and wouldn't be helping you to cope with the reality. Religion can be seen the same way; it might help you to cope, but that's because you're now coping with a lie, rather than a harsh reality. It comes down to whether you prefer to deal with the truth, or be horns-waggled into believing a lie. And let's not forget that it's not a harmless lie - far, far from it. It's a lie which produces great harm, and to a great degree.

Was the Pelopennsian war started over religious grounds, was the Franco-Prussian war?
One should remember that we usually have at least two factors at work when war is declared; we have the political reasons for the conflict, and the motivation of the combatants themselves. If you remove either component, you simply can't have a war. So let's take a look at the combatants of several contemporary wars, and see if we can glean an indication of what their motivation might be.

- Palestine (Jews v. Muslims)
- The Balkans (Orthodox Serbians v. Catholic Croatians; Orthodox Serbians v. Bosnian and Albanian Muslims)
- Northern Ireland (Protestants v. Catholics)
- Kashmir (Muslims v. Hindus)
- Sudan (Muslims v. Christians and animists)
- Nigeria (Muslims v. Christians)
- Ethiopia and Eritrea (Muslims v. Christians)
- Sri Lanka (Sinhalese Buddhists v. Tamil Hindus)
- Indonesia (Muslims v. Timorese Christians)
- The Caucasus (Orthodox Russians v. Chechen Muslims; Muslim Azerbaijanis v. Catholic and Orthodox Armenians)

Historically if you look even the crusades were started over population pressure, i.e. Ottoman Turks were encroaching on Byzantine territory and asked the West for help.
How do you suggest that torturing people until they claim to accept your religious beliefs for themselves, eases "population pressure"? You seem to have a very thin coat of white-wash, with which you're trying to change the color of the Crusades.

Lastly, with what you said about religion causing bigotry tec. etc. your missing the entire point of James' philosophy, organized religion causes that yes, an individual person's beleifs no.
And what is organized religion, other than the accumulation of individual beliefs?
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2014 4:17:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/17/2014 3:11:59 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 8/15/2014 11:03:55 AM, shaddamcorrinoIV wrote:
In my opinion I think religion is good. I draw my philosophy of religion from William James' Varieties of Religious Experience. In it he defined religion as "Whatever one considers divine" and he did not imply that the divinity was a monotheistic god. He also was not interested in all the creeds and conflicting dogmas of organized religions but of one's personal experience with the divine. He felt that religion could help people cope with life inevitable struggles, since religion, when regarded as a personal belief system and not an organized church to help one cope with the struggle of life is a good thing.

It is only any good if it is the right one.

And since there is no "right one", it limits the playing field considerably.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
rule2006
Posts: 6
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2014 7:03:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
religion is good? is that why kids are being molested by priests and monks? Stop believing in religion, turn to Illuminati, there is actual proof that they are real.
All eyes on me,
When i be poppin' the squat!
randolphk
Posts: 24
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2014 11:39:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/17/2014 7:03:53 PM, rule2006 wrote:
religion is good? is that why kids are being molested by priests and monks? Stop believing in religion, turn to Illuminati, there is actual proof that they are real.

Illuminati OP, Christianity = Child molest. rule 2006 is right, Illuminati superrace
bulproof
Posts: 25,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2014 11:57:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/17/2014 3:06:01 PM, Mikal wrote:
At 8/15/2014 10:37:50 PM, bulproof wrote:
Or you could just man up and face reality head on.

That statement is a non sequitur

How so?
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
shaddamcorrinoIV
Posts: 106
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2014 7:28:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
So does heroin.

my response to that is that heroin use over a long period can kill you. practicing religion won't.

Lies often help people to cope with realities they don't wish to address. If you had a fatal disease, and the doctor told you it was just a temporary vitamin deficiency which would go away after a couple of weeks taking vitamin supplements, it would help you cope with the discomfort of the symptoms. But it would also be a lie, and wouldn't be helping you to cope with the reality. Religion can be seen the same way; it might help you to cope, but that's because you're now coping with a lie, rather than a harsh reality. It comes down to whether you prefer to deal with the truth, or be horns-waggled into believing a lie. And let's not forget that it's not a harmless lie - far, far from it. It's a lie which produces great harm, and to a great degree.

your wrong in that no sane doctor would tell a cancer patient that, you have a faulty analogy.

One should remember that we usually have at least two factors at work when war is declared; we have the political reasons for the conflict, and the motivation of the combatants themselves. If you remove either component, you simply can't have a war. So let's take a look at the combatants of several contemporary wars, and see if we can glean an indication of what their motivation might be.

- Palestine (Jews v. Muslims)
- The Balkans (Orthodox Serbians v. Catholic Croatians; Orthodox Serbians v. Bosnian and Albanian Muslims)
- Northern Ireland (Protestants v. Catholics)
- Kashmir (Muslims v. Hindus)
- Sudan (Muslims v. Christians and animists)
- Nigeria (Muslims v. Christians)
- Ethiopia and Eritrea (Muslims v. Christians)
- Sri Lanka (Sinhalese Buddhists v. Tamil Hindus)
- Indonesia (Muslims v. Timorese Christians)
- The Caucasus (Orthodox Russians v. Chechen Muslims; Muslim Azerbaijanis v. Catholic and Orthodox Armenians)

I will break all of those down to show how these wars were started but I'll start with the Irish Protestants and Catholics, The Irish Republicans (mostly Catholic) want all of Ireland's counties united, the Unionists/Loyalists (mostly Protestant) want there counties to stay united with England. The conflict is only loosely tied with religion. In the Balkans, when the economy tanked regional leaders blamed other ethnic groups for the country's problems, it was over ethnicity, not religion, The Kasmir is a territorial dispute, the leader of the province wanted to stay with India but the population voted to stay with Pakistan, territory not religion. In Palestine, that was caused because the Jews argued for a autonomous nation to protect themselves
.for the conflict in Sudan, it wasn't over religion but started by land disputes between semi-nomadic livestock herders and those who practice sedentary agriculture and water access. The Eithopian conflict had nothing to do with religion, it was over a border dispute. The Sri Lanka conflict was caused by ethnic tensions exacerbated by British colonial rule, nothing to do with religion. And finally the Indonesian conflict was caused by political and economic instability. Wars are started an ended by population pressure.

How do you suggest that torturing people until they claim to accept your religious beliefs for themselves, eases "population pressure"? You seem to have a very thin coat of white-wash, with which you're trying to change the color of the Crusades.

I suggest nothing of the sort, a lot of bad things happened during the Crusades , stuff done in the name of Christ he teached against, but get the facts straight, the Crusades weren't started over religion.

Lastly, with what you said about religion causing bigotry tec. etc. your missing the entire point of James' philosophy, organized religion causes that yes, an individual person's beleifs no.
And what is organized religion, other than the accumulation of individual beliefs?

Yes, but can't someone have religious beliefs and not be part of an organized religion?
shaddamcorrinoIV
Posts: 106
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2014 7:35:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago

Then again, it's your opinion, and here is mine.

i'd just like to say thank you for the respectful tone in your post, you don't often get that here on the internet.
shaddamcorrinoIV
Posts: 106
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2014 7:38:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/17/2014 7:03:53 PM, rule2006 wrote:
religion is good? is that why kids are being molested by priests and monks? Stop believing in religion, turn to Illuminati, there is actual proof that they are real.

you are committing the fallacy of hasty generalization, because some priest molest ids does that make the religion on a whole bad? I'm surprised you would make that statement, you're illuminatti, doesn't your order teach logic to its initiates? and I won't join the illuminatti because of the very high dues.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2014 8:01:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/21/2014 7:28:10 PM, shaddamcorrinoIV wrote:
So does heroin.

my response to that is that heroin use over a long period can kill you. practicing religion won't.
And yet, it has killed more people than any other man-made philosophy.

Lies often help people to cope with realities they don't wish to address. If you had a fatal disease, and the doctor told you it was just a temporary vitamin deficiency which would go away after a couple of weeks taking vitamin supplements, it would help you cope with the discomfort of the symptoms. But it would also be a lie, and wouldn't be helping you to cope with the reality. Religion can be seen the same way; it might help you to cope, but that's because you're now coping with a lie, rather than a harsh reality. It comes down to whether you prefer to deal with the truth, or be horns-waggled into believing a lie. And let's not forget that it's not a harmless lie - far, far from it. It's a lie which produces great harm, and to a great degree.

your wrong in that no sane doctor would tell a cancer patient that, you have a faulty analogy.
No, it's not a faulty analogy. Who told you that an analogy has to precisely mimic an actual event? Tell then they're an idiot. This is very simple; there is less anxiety and worry involved in not knowing your situation is dire, than in knowing that it is. Can you please try to cope with that?

Your goal here is not to work with the concept, but to try to slap every argument down, just because you don't wish to believe that the outcome is true. Stop that.

Either develop an interest in truth, or don't bother responding. Is that too much to ask?

One should remember that we usually have at least two factors at work when war is declared; we have the political reasons for the conflict, and the motivation of the combatants themselves. If you remove either component, you simply can't have a war. So let's take a look at the combatants of several contemporary wars, and see if we can glean an indication of what their motivation might be.

- Palestine (Jews v. Muslims)
- The Balkans (Orthodox Serbians v. Catholic Croatians; Orthodox Serbians v. Bosnian and Albanian Muslims)
- Northern Ireland (Protestants v. Catholics)
- Kashmir (Muslims v. Hindus)
- Sudan (Muslims v. Christians and animists)
- Nigeria (Muslims v. Christians)
- Ethiopia and Eritrea (Muslims v. Christians)
- Sri Lanka (Sinhalese Buddhists v. Tamil Hindus)
- Indonesia (Muslims v. Timorese Christians)
- The Caucasus (Orthodox Russians v. Chechen Muslims; Muslim Azerbaijanis v. Catholic and Orthodox Armenians)

I will break all of those down to show how these wars were started but I'll start with the Irish Protestants and Catholics, The Irish Republicans (mostly Catholic) want all of Ireland's counties united, the Unionists/Loyalists (mostly Protestant) want there counties to stay united with England. The conflict is only loosely tied with religion. In the Balkans, when the economy tanked regional leaders blamed other ethnic groups for the country's problems, it was over ethnicity, not religion, The Kasmir is a territorial dispute, the leader of the province wanted to stay with India but the population voted to stay with Pakistan, territory not religion. In Palestine, that was caused because the Jews argued for a autonomous nation to protect themselves
.for the conflict in Sudan, it wasn't over religion but started by land disputes between semi-nomadic livestock herders and those who practice sedentary agriculture and water access. The Eithopian conflict had nothing to do with religion, it was over a border dispute. The Sri Lanka conflict was caused by ethnic tensions exacerbated by British colonial rule, nothing to do with religion. And finally the Indonesian conflict was caused by political and economic instability. Wars are started an ended by population pressure.

Doesn't matter. You're not addressing the point - you're EVADING the point. Do you not recognize the religious disparity between the combatants in each and every one of these examples? If you do, THAT'S the point. That serves as motivation to fight. It doesn't matter what motivation the political motivation of the leaders of those countries had. They aren't the ones fighting. If you want to keep people on the battlefield motivated to fight, you need to find a passionately held difference between the two sides, and you're guaranteed an enthusiastic fight with lots of blood, lots of casualties and lots of suffering. And the more blood, casualties and suffering you create, the more that feeds the motivation to fight.

Take away the religious difference, and the individual motivation among the combatants itself, is substantially reduced.

How do you suggest that torturing people until they claim to accept your religious beliefs for themselves, eases "population pressure"? You seem to have a very thin coat of white-wash, with which you're trying to change the color of the Crusades.

I suggest nothing of the sort, a lot of bad things happened during the Crusades , stuff done in the name of Christ he teached against, but get the facts straight, the Crusades weren't started over religion.

Lastly, with what you said about religion causing bigotry tec. etc. your missing the entire point of James' philosophy, organized religion causes that yes, an individual person's beleifs no.
And what is organized religion, other than the accumulation of individual beliefs?

Yes, but can't someone have religious beliefs and not be part of an organized religion?
Many people hold religious beliefs without belonging to a specific religion. Nearly all of them have adopted segments from organized religions. There are tons of people who believe in particular stories about a dead Jew from 2,000 years ago, yet don't belong to any Christian church. Do you suppose they wouldn't be defending Christians against atheists in debate? There is an automatic camaraderie based on their similarities, and that translates automatically into bigotry against those who don't share those similarities... whether you belong to a specific religion or not.

In fact, theists who have created their own gods, with their own names (few theists are that creative), are still going to tend to side with theists, rather than atheists, and will usually believe that there is something fundamentally wrong with the atheists, for not believing in any kind of god at all. And that is all that is needed for the bigotry to begin, and to grow.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
shaddamcorrinoIV
Posts: 106
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2014 8:25:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/21/2014 8:01:06 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 8/21/2014 7:28:10 PM, shaddamcorrinoIV wrote:

No, it's not a faulty analogy. Who told you that an analogy has to precisely mimic an actual event? Tell then they're an idiot. This is very simple; there is less anxiety and worry involved in not knowing your situation is dire, than in knowing that it is. Can you please try to cope with that?
Your goal here is not to work with the concept, but to try to slap every argument down, just because you don't wish to believe that the outcome is true. Stop that.
Either develop an interest in truth, or don't bother responding. Is that too much to ask?

So your going to tell me what I can and can't post now? You have no right! I earnestly thought that it was a faulty analogy, If someone was to take your analogy seriously there is no right answer to that it would be up to the doctor and how he viewed the Hippocratic oath maybe someone would want there doctor to lie to them, maybe somebody wouldn't, that's a case-by-case thing. By the way "there an idiot" is a ad homiemn fallacy, I disagree with you but I'm not calling you or anyone an idiot, learn some manners.

Doesn't matter. You're not addressing the point - you're EVADING the point. Do you not recognize the religious disparity between the combatants in each and every one of these examples? If you do, THAT'S the point. That serves as motivation to fight. It doesn't matter what motivation the political motivation of the leaders of those countries had. They aren't the ones fighting. If you want to keep people on the battlefield motivated to fight, you need to find a passionately held difference between the two sides, and you're guaranteed an enthusiastic fight with lots of blood, lots of casualties and lots of suffering. And the more blood, casualties and suffering you create, the more that feeds the motivation to fight.
Take away the religious difference, and the individual motivation among the combatants itself, is substantially reduced.

How am I evading the point? I addressed that some of the personal combatants might have religious reasons but your making the fallacy of composition, because those combatants might commit violence on religious grounds that does not mean they represent those religions on a whole.

Many people hold religious beliefs without belonging to a specific religion. Nearly all of them have adopted segments from organized religions. There are tons of people who believe in particular stories about a dead Jew from 2,000 years ago, yet don't belong to any Christian church. Do you suppose they wouldn't be defending Christians against atheists in debate? There is an automatic camaraderie based on their similarities, and that translates automatically into bigotry against those who don't share those similarities... whether you belong to a specific religion or not.

Dude, I'm talking about deism here, the christianity and deism have nothing in common, a lot of deists attack christianity.
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2014 8:45:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/15/2014 11:03:55 AM, shaddamcorrinoIV wrote:
In my opinion I think religion is good. I draw my philosophy of religion from William James' Varieties of Religious Experience. In it he defined religion as "Whatever one considers divine" and he did not imply that the divinity was a monotheistic god. He also was not interested in all the creeds and conflicting dogmas of organized religions but of one's personal experience with the divine. He felt that religion could help people cope with life inevitable struggles, since religion, when regarded as a personal belief system and not an organized church to help one cope with the struggle of life is a good thing.

Most of God's people were killed because of religion. Does that mean religion is good?