|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Wed Jul 20, 2011 4:16 am
Working from the point of view, if I agree or not, that religions are false, gods do not exist etc, and are convinced that the world needs to change....
What do you propose to replace religion with? It's a big part of a lot people's lives, and simply telling them that they have to stop, but offering nothing to replace religion with would harm a lot of people.
Given these values, what should people do?
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 20, 2011 4:53 am
I myself am not a religious person so i guess id say replace that with science?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 20, 2011 4:57 am
clockwerksentinel I myself am not a religious person so i guess id say replace that with science? That would imply that people cannot live with both science and religion. How would science give people morals, or provide them with the comfort they need to live in a harsh world? (Not trying to be mean, but I think topics like this need to be discussed.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 20, 2011 4:59 am
i bet there is a science-y reason for being good vs being bad, but then again im to tired to think...at all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 20, 2011 5:03 am
clockwerksentinel i bet there is a science-y reason for being good vs being bad, but then again im to tired to think...at all. From a science-y point of view, what matters is results, not what you do to people obtain them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 20, 2011 7:56 am
Who says you need religion to have morals? If you rely on archaic literary travesties written by toga-wearing solipsists on acid as your primary source for morality, then your sense of right and wrong is skewed. People should form their worldviews by opening their eyes and seeing what's around them, and making their own informed decisions, rather than by blindly subscribing to the supposed words of a mass delusion perpetuated by ignorance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 20, 2011 9:17 am
LabTech Kestin Who says you need religion to have morals? If you rely on archaic literary travesties written by toga-wearing solipsists on acid as your primary source for morality, then your sense of right and wrong is skewed. People should form their worldviews by opening their eyes and seeing what's around them, and making their own informed decisions, rather than by blindly subscribing to the supposed words of a mass delusion perpetuated by ignorance. Ignoring what people thought of as right and wrong back in the toga days isn't an act of willful ignorance?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 20, 2011 11:05 am
Honney Boy LabTech Kestin Who says you need religion to have morals? If you rely on archaic literary travesties written by toga-wearing solipsists on acid as your primary source for morality, then your sense of right and wrong is skewed. People should form their worldviews by opening their eyes and seeing what's around them, and making their own informed decisions, rather than by blindly subscribing to the supposed words of a mass delusion perpetuated by ignorance. Ignoring what people thought of as right and wrong back in the toga days isn't an act of willful ignorance? No, it shows the common sense required to acknowledge that the right and wrong of yesteryear aren't necessarily the be-all-end-all for today's society.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 21, 2011 8:45 am
LabTech Kestin Honney Boy LabTech Kestin Who says you need religion to have morals? If you rely on archaic literary travesties written by toga-wearing solipsists on acid as your primary source for morality, then your sense of right and wrong is skewed. People should form their worldviews by opening their eyes and seeing what's around them, and making their own informed decisions, rather than by blindly subscribing to the supposed words of a mass delusion perpetuated by ignorance. Ignoring what people thought of as right and wrong back in the toga days isn't an act of willful ignorance? No, it shows the common sense required to acknowledge that the right and wrong of yesteryear aren't necessarily the be-all-end-all for today's society. Completely tossing out anyone's point of view, if even only as a history lesson, as you said, is not an act of education.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 21, 2011 6:01 pm
Honney Boy LabTech Kestin Honney Boy LabTech Kestin Who says you need religion to have morals? If you rely on archaic literary travesties written by toga-wearing solipsists on acid as your primary source for morality, then your sense of right and wrong is skewed. People should form their worldviews by opening their eyes and seeing what's around them, and making their own informed decisions, rather than by blindly subscribing to the supposed words of a mass delusion perpetuated by ignorance. Ignoring what people thought of as right and wrong back in the toga days isn't an act of willful ignorance? No, it shows the common sense required to acknowledge that the right and wrong of yesteryear aren't necessarily the be-all-end-all for today's society. Completely tossing out anyone's point of view, if even only as a history lesson, as you said, is not an act of education. Take any positive step towards a more civilized culture -- slavery abolition, women's rights, you name it. Why did it come about? Because people looked at the pervading point of view and decided, "You know what? This is wrong, and we need to move past it instead of letting it continue to drag us down."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 21, 2011 6:07 pm
However the Atheists do it. They seem fine.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 21, 2011 6:21 pm
How does it harm them?
If they'll like... kill themselves without religion or something they can still go ahead and believe whatever they want, even if they know it's not true. I'd just like for their beliefs to stop affecting other people.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 21, 2011 8:18 pm
Who said that religion needed to be replaced? The validity/existence of a god only matters to those who actually care. As in, if an Atheist wants to prove the non-existence of a god, then that person cares enough to disprove. While believers, will use miracles and other 'acts of god' to validate the existence. It only matters to those who wish to prove themselves of his or her belief.
Back to topic. Religion isn't just going to disappear. Proving 100% of the world that there is (or isn't) a god isn't possible. (Read: culture.) Are you asking in a hypothetical fashion?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 21, 2011 9:14 pm
Honney Boy clockwerksentinel I myself am not a religious person so i guess id say replace that with science? That would imply that people cannot live with both science and religion. How would science give people morals, or provide them with the comfort they need to live in a harsh world? (Not trying to be mean, but I think topics like this need to be discussed.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 22, 2011 2:23 am
Mickeymoot Who said that religion needed to be replaced? The validity/existence of a god only matters to those who actually care. As in, if an Atheist wants to prove the non-existence of a god, then that person cares enough to disprove. While believers, will use miracles and other 'acts of god' to validate the existence. It only matters to those who wish to prove themselves of his or her belief. Back to topic. Religion isn't just going to disappear. Proving 100% of the world that there is (or isn't) a god isn't possible. (Read: culture.) Are you asking in a hypothetical fashion? Of course. I am not a silly cow. I'm a happy camper.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
