Religion, It's for Dummies!

[Pro Life Nymph]

black_wing_angel

Pro Life Nymph

black_wing_angel

Pro Life Nymph

Old Blue Collar Joe

Doofi3

I don't like your approach to this topic, but I have to say that some of these reasons are why I am not a part of a "major religion." I'm still a part of a religion, but it isn't really an "established" religion.

Oh, and as far as number 2 goes: Not if you're an agnostic *insert religious identifier*.

I get a kick out of the claim that religion is for dummies made by people who can't grasp the fact that some things are beyond our knowing.

Proof that things are and always will be beyond our knowing

Humans have spent probably millenniums on trying to figure out "how" the universe began.

Despite this, we are honestly no closer to the answer today, than we were 1,000 years ago. All we have is something about a large explosion. That's it.

Yes. There are some things that we will never come to understand. Especially given our frailty, and subsequent limited expanse. We're going to go extinct, someday. And it's no stretch of imagination, to say that we'll still have many questions left unanswered, at that time.

Despite the optimist and science fiction fandom belief, humanity has its limits. Including in the interest of knowledge.

Some of us choose to entertain the thought that, while we have our limits, some kind of being in the universe, does not share this limitation. Or, at the very least, not to the same degree as us. We call ourselves "religious".

I, myself, am an unorthodox, non-denominational Christian. I've put my chips on Jesus Christ. That doesn't make me lack for intellect, or scientific reasoning. It just means that I fully acknowledge my human limitations, and simply prefer to think that Jesus Christ did not share them.

You offer conjecture when I ask for proof....
Proof or you're wrong

There is no proof. For either side.

It is equally unfounded to say that humans have no limits, as it is to say they we do. There is nothing to prove either way, without a doubt. Humans have certainly advanced, significantly. But that is not to suggest that we are without limits. And given that our existence has its own limit, well...

Each day, the limits of humanity expand as technology improves. Who's to say there is a limit.

[tuxkatz6]

Pro Life Nymph

severedDEATHelemental

I didn't expect much, considering your other threads, but goddamn, this is some nice work.

I aim to please

Definitely not good work; I doubt you even read most of what you "wrote".
If all you're going to do is copy & paste, at least cite the source in some way.

[Sanguarian Muffin]

Pro Life Nymph

black_wing_angel

Pro Life Nymph

black_wing_angel

Pro Life Nymph

Proof that things are and always will be beyond our knowing

Humans have spent probably millenniums on trying to figure out "how" the universe began.

Despite this, we are honestly no closer to the answer today, than we were 1,000 years ago. All we have is something about a large explosion. That's it.

Yes. There are some things that we will never come to understand. Especially given our frailty, and subsequent limited expanse. We're going to go extinct, someday. And it's no stretch of imagination, to say that we'll still have many questions left unanswered, at that time.

Despite the optimist and science fiction fandom belief, humanity has its limits. Including in the interest of knowledge.

Some of us choose to entertain the thought that, while we have our limits, some kind of being in the universe, does not share this limitation. Or, at the very least, not to the same degree as us. We call ourselves "religious".

I, myself, am an unorthodox, non-denominational Christian. I've put my chips on Jesus Christ. That doesn't make me lack for intellect, or scientific reasoning. It just means that I fully acknowledge my human limitations, and simply prefer to think that Jesus Christ did not share them.

You offer conjecture when I ask for proof....
Proof or you're wrong

There is no proof. For either side.

It is equally unfounded to say that humans have no limits, as it is to say they we do. There is nothing to prove either way, without a doubt. Humans have certainly advanced, significantly. But that is not to suggest that we are without limits. And given that our existence has its own limit, well...

Each day, the limits of humanity expand as technology improves. Who's to say there is a limit.

And whos to say one that, with that expansion of technology, we won't be able to prove the 'supernatural'?

Who's to say with the expansion of technology, the things we deem as magick, and hoaxes won't have scientific reasoning to back them up - And able to be replicated through science?

Who's to say that one day we'll be able to prove the existence of a God or Goddess - Or disprove, for that matter, without a shadow of a doubt?

[black_wing_angel]

Pro Life Nymph

black_wing_angel

Pro Life Nymph

black_wing_angel

Pro Life Nymph

Proof that things are and always will be beyond our knowing

Humans have spent probably millenniums on trying to figure out "how" the universe began.

Despite this, we are honestly no closer to the answer today, than we were 1,000 years ago. All we have is something about a large explosion. That's it.

Yes. There are some things that we will never come to understand. Especially given our frailty, and subsequent limited expanse. We're going to go extinct, someday. And it's no stretch of imagination, to say that we'll still have many questions left unanswered, at that time.

Despite the optimist and science fiction fandom belief, humanity has its limits. Including in the interest of knowledge.

Some of us choose to entertain the thought that, while we have our limits, some kind of being in the universe, does not share this limitation. Or, at the very least, not to the same degree as us. We call ourselves "religious".

I, myself, am an unorthodox, non-denominational Christian. I've put my chips on Jesus Christ. That doesn't make me lack for intellect, or scientific reasoning. It just means that I fully acknowledge my human limitations, and simply prefer to think that Jesus Christ did not share them.

You offer conjecture when I ask for proof....
Proof or you're wrong

There is no proof. For either side.

It is equally unfounded to say that humans have no limits, as it is to say they we do. There is nothing to prove either way, without a doubt. Humans have certainly advanced, significantly. But that is not to suggest that we are without limits. And given that our existence has its own limit, well...

Each day, the limits of humanity expand as technology improves. Who's to say there is a limit.

Physics.

And time.

[black_wing_angel]

Sanguarian Muffin

Pro Life Nymph

black_wing_angel

Pro Life Nymph

black_wing_angel

Pro Life Nymph

Proof that things are and always will be beyond our knowing

Humans have spent probably millenniums on trying to figure out "how" the universe began.

Despite this, we are honestly no closer to the answer today, than we were 1,000 years ago. All we have is something about a large explosion. That's it.

Yes. There are some things that we will never come to understand. Especially given our frailty, and subsequent limited expanse. We're going to go extinct, someday. And it's no stretch of imagination, to say that we'll still have many questions left unanswered, at that time.

Despite the optimist and science fiction fandom belief, humanity has its limits. Including in the interest of knowledge.

Some of us choose to entertain the thought that, while we have our limits, some kind of being in the universe, does not share this limitation. Or, at the very least, not to the same degree as us. We call ourselves "religious".

I, myself, am an unorthodox, non-denominational Christian. I've put my chips on Jesus Christ. That doesn't make me lack for intellect, or scientific reasoning. It just means that I fully acknowledge my human limitations, and simply prefer to think that Jesus Christ did not share them.

You offer conjecture when I ask for proof....
Proof or you're wrong

There is no proof. For either side.

It is equally unfounded to say that humans have no limits, as it is to say they we do. There is nothing to prove either way, without a doubt. Humans have certainly advanced, significantly. But that is not to suggest that we are without limits. And given that our existence has its own limit, well...

Each day, the limits of humanity expand as technology improves. Who's to say there is a limit.

And whos to say one that, with that expansion of technology, we won't be able to prove the 'supernatural'?

Who's to say with the expansion of technology, the things we deem as magick, and hoaxes won't have scientific reasoning to back them up - And able to be replicated through science?

Who's to say that one day we'll be able to prove the existence of a God or Goddess - Or disprove, for that matter, without a shadow of a doubt?

"The only constant in life, is uncertainty" - The Flaming Amarant, Final Fantasy IX

[Carbon Junkie]

The thread title is enough to end this topic.

3nodding

[black_wing_angel]

Carbon Junkie

The thread title is enough to end this topic.

3nodding

You'd like to think so, wouldn't you?

[Carbon Junkie]

black_wing_angel

Carbon Junkie

The thread title is enough to end this topic.

3nodding

You'd like to think so, wouldn't you?

Of course. There's really nothing else to say is there? I haven't read anything else in this thread.

If someone is arguing that [their] religion is good, I most likely disagree with them.

blaugh

[black_wing_angel]

Carbon Junkie

black_wing_angel

Carbon Junkie

The thread title is enough to end this topic.

3nodding

You'd like to think so, wouldn't you?

Of course. There's really nothing else to say is there? I haven't read anything else in this thread.

If someone is arguing that [their] religion is good, I most likely disagree with them.

blaugh

Like I said, you'd like to think so. But it's simply not so cut and dry. smile

[Victoria of Gallifrey]

It's perspective.

But just like some people submit themselves like thoughtless sheep to a religion, some join religion out of actually having made a personal discovery. And if there are holes in that discovery, they may find themselves content to fill those holes with donctrine, etc. But if they are free thinkers, they will in time condsider the doctrine they assume to be true.

And really, once they have made their conclusions, realisitically, they are left with a remaining margin of error. There is a certain amount of acceptance that what they believe is true.

The same often goes for science. We consider the facts in our possession, and fill the holes with what we believe is the most likely case. In time, we verify these holes to the best of our ability with as much measurable data as possible. In the course of religion, this is often measured in personal discovery. Arguably, this fulfills spiritual development.

Granted, science and religion are not completely compatible. People will tell me I am flawed for considering them in this regard, but hey, I am entitled to my own views as well. To me, data verifies science, and personal experience verifies religion. Data may validate some religious veiws, while personal experience may be used to validate certain sciences. There does exist some level of cross compatibility.

The OP has some very valid points here. However, it seems they succeeded more in upsetting people in different view sets. I think this could be averted in the future if the OP considered alternate possibilities in contrast, and it would have allowed for more open discussion. Thing is, once you've offended people, you kind of shoot yourself in the foot for enabling reasonable conversation... even if your point is valid.

Look at Richard Dawkins. The guy has pointed out a great deal of considerable data concernign religious views and practices. Too bad half his readers never existed because he offended them with his pungent anti-religious atmosphere.

There is a way to point out the 'potential flaws of religion'. But one cannot succeed in this by opening with the 'flaws of religion'.

Along the way it is important to compare the pros and cons, as well as variable data that considers functionality. Also, if there are multiple conclusions, to point out and contrast those as well, and not simply lock into the conclusion that most serves a given perspective.

Anyway, I could carry on like this for a while, but no ones probably reading this anyway. xd

[pockybot]

I still find it ultra lulz when religious people call folks like myself "conspiracy theorists" for our political beliefs. Actually that'd make a funny political cartoon.

[Major Lima Charlie]

Old Blue Collar Joe

Pro Life Nymph

Old Blue Collar Joe

Doofi3

I don't like your approach to this topic, but I have to say that some of these reasons are why I am not a part of a "major religion." I'm still a part of a religion, but it isn't really an "established" religion.

Oh, and as far as number 2 goes: Not if you're an agnostic *insert religious identifier*.

I get a kick out of the claim that religion is for dummies made by people who can't grasp the fact that some things are beyond our knowing.

Proof that things are and always will be beyond our knowing

What causes global warming, 100%, beyond any reasonable doubt, and 100% irrefutable.
What caused the big bang, and when did it actually occur?
Is there a 'gay gene', and is it curable?
And you're adding comments. Where did I say 'always be beyond our understanding'?
I didn't say that. You cannot disprove, or prove, God(s) exist. Neither can I. Belief is a matter of personal decision, and nothing more.
But to claim it is irrefutable that there is no higher beings? That is nothing more than willful, human arrogance, and one of our downfalls as a race.

Belief is to decide that empiricism is not expedient enough, and that assumption is better.

It is not.

[Pro Life Nymph]

Fact:
The majority of criminals in the US are religious, with the greatest majority of them following Christianity. Christianity, creating the criminal element since 1AD

[black_wing_angel]

Pro Life Nymph

Fact:
The majority of criminals in the US are religious, with the greatest majority of them following Christianity. Christianity, creating the criminal element since 1AD

Fallacy. There is no discernible connection. The reason most American criminals are of Christian background, is because most CITIZENS are of a Christian background.

But a nice try. *hands you an exploding cigar as a consolation prize*

[Pro Life Nymph]

black_wing_angel

Pro Life Nymph

Fact:
The majority of criminals in the US are religious, with the greatest majority of them following Christianity. Christianity, creating the criminal element since 1AD

Fallacy. There is no discernible connection. The reason most American criminals are of Christian background, is because most CITIZENS are of a Christian background.

But a nice try. *hands you an exploding cigar as a consolation prize*

How is that not a connection? Just look at the numbers, and they speak for themselves

http://holysmoke.org/icr-pri.htm

The Federal Bureau of Prisons does have statistics on religious
affiliations of inmates. The following are total number of
inmates per religion category:

Response Number %
---------------------------- --------
Catholic 29267 39.164%
Protestant 26162 35.008%
Muslim 5435 7.273%
American Indian 2408 3.222%
Nation 1734 2.320%
Rasta 1485 1.987%
Jewish 1325 1.773%
Church of Christ 1303 1.744%
Pentecostal 1093 1.463%
Moorish 1066 1.426%
Buddhist 882 1.180%
Jehovah Witness 665 0.890%
Adventist 621 0.831%
Orthodox 375 0.502%
Mormon 298 0.399%
Scientology 190 0.254%
Atheist 156 0.209%
Hindu 119 0.159%
Santeria 117 0.157%
Sikh 14 0.019%
Bahai 9 0.012%
Krishna 7 0.009%
---------------------------- --------
Total Known Responses 74731 100.001% (rounding to 3 digits does this)