My thoughts on Religion: Christianity

[Mr Camel]

As easy as it is to prove religion is wrong and is a plague to the human race as we know it, you have absolutely no chance of convincing a follower otherwise when they have used it to turn their own life around, allegedly, for the best. Religious belief is very self-centred in this manner. My argument for Religion is this: Do we Atheists, Agnostics and Secular Humanist’s have any right to attempt to rid them of their clearly misguided yet beneficial beliefs? It’s been proven very much so, that religion is not needed to change and benefit one’s own life. But this doesn’t mean someone is wrong and utterly corrupt because they found religion to do this for them. Religion is quite capable of changing someone’s life, even ask one of the participants. I have. But I don’t need to because I see it in my friends. Most of my friends are devout Christians and could never be more proud to say so. What’s more is that they don’t fear those who wish to prove them wrong because they are so happy with who they are and what they believe they are on this Earth for.
So Christianity has the power to change people’s lives. You may think this is wrong, heck in a way I do, but who are we to attack them in any way shape or form. Personally, I believe everything to do with religion is in our incredible mind. Consciously, we have the power to comfort ourselves and to feel more confident. I believe religion is one way of interpreting this, the other being reason and logic. Which way we stride is solely reliant on how we’re brought up and I stand by this resolute.
I, a Secular Humanist, believe religion is unhealthy to those who wish to live their life by reason and justice. It has been proven to corrupt one’s own perception and cloud their way of reasoning. I do not agree science and religion can coexist simply because science teaches you to ask questions and to pursue challenges. One who follows science does not disregard fact for a second, nor do they centre their life on a single, clearly injudicious book, full of malignantly ill-advised “morality”. Those who follow the Bible have either read it and interpreted it wrongly or they haven’t read it at all. Do not think for a second that I’m saying it’s wrong to interpret sources in your own way, but to indoctrinate others with what you just construed is simply unacceptable. I’d like to add that I strongly believe Christianity is not centred on the Bible, at least, not anymore. It’s only used to this day by means of tradition. And if you’re a Christian and deny these accusations of mine then you are only condemning yourself to further hate by the community and you have clearly not read your much loved Bible properly. I say this in your favour because you’re not injudicious, you’re not malignant and your morality is not ill-advised.
I have a deep and consuming passion for history yet a dire one for modern history, so in year 11, I chose to study Ancient History. It seemed only reasonable. The teacher, whom I am extremely grateful for receiving, taught me not only to study history itself and how it has progressed, but to determine a reliable source from a biased one. He taught me how to interpret sources and how to seek out the best and most reliable. This is how I discovered the Greek historian, author and philosopher, Thucydides. As I learnt more and more about Thucydides, I began to respect him for his methods and his interpretation of morality and reality. Thucydides was a man of integrity, and reading about him truly amazed me. He has inspired me to write from the heart and to be suspicious of even remotely biased sources and to never rely on them when writing about history, or for that matter, writing full stop. This further escalated and now I live my life everyday in utter rejection of bias of any nature. I do not look kindly on those who live on bias. It peeves me fairly close to insanity when people rely on bias when judging, especially when judging character. These people do not deserve leadership, they are the kind who corrupt other’s perspective. Relying on bias is extremely unreasonable and I will not be convinced otherwise.
I stand in full support of Richard Dawkins’ argument concerning raising children, in his book: The God Delusion
You do not have the right to indoctrinate your own children with your beliefs. Furthermore, the labelling of children by their parents doctrine is unacceptable and should make anyone cringe when heard – ie. Christian child, Muslim child, Catholic child. Young children who are labelled this way are simply not old enough to have decided whether or not to follow their parents’ religion. “Do not indoctrinate your children; teach them how to think for themselves, how to evaluate evidence and how to disagree with you” as quoted by Richard Dawkins.
When religion comes to mind, it’s not the belief itself which makes me cringe, it’s what it has the potential to do to people and what it can turn them into, people who centre their reasoning on superstition and those who deny fact upon retrieval. Doesn’t that make them feel uncomfortable? I know if I immediately dismissed fact, I’d feel very uncomfortable and regretful very quickly. I personally wish it was easier to choose reason as one’s “saviour”. I did and I don’t regret it at all. I don’t believe in Hell, therefore I don’t fear it; therefore fear does not lead my life for me. Reason requires no commitment, just the obligation to never doubt logic and reason. With reason, it’s a lot easier to love thy neighbour.

[Samson]

Hello Scott, I do agree with some of what you say, but not all of it.

I don't believe many of the Atheist on this forum, and not personal Atheist friends of mine would argue the point of the Christian faith helping some people do a little better in their life. Regardless of how simple and misguided we acknowledge that to be.

It's not those types of people who choose the Christian faith as a type of, hope or crutch, that many non-believers have issues with. It is Christians who take the Bible literal on it's every word that you will find the most extreme cases of inhumanity, but with Biblical rationalization. The problem is if we have to have religion around, then the, so called, taking the good with the bad comes into play. However, in this case, the bad far outweighs the good.

And because of the pure hatred that comes from those who take the Bible literal, is the reason I would rather this world wash it's hands of it and move on.

Do I see that happening anytime soon....No...
Do I ever see it happening at anytime...yes..but I'm sure not in the way I would hope for.....But at least if there is a Happy medium, then it would be far better than what we currently have in place.

[Secularone]

[font=Arial]My argument for Religion is this: Do we Atheists, Agnostics and Secular Humanist’s have any right to attempt to rid them of their clearly misguided yet beneficial beliefs? It’s been proven very much so, that religion is not needed to change and benefit one’s own life. But this doesn’t mean someone is wrong and utterly corrupt because they found religion to do this for them. Religion is quite capable of changing someone’s life, even ask one of the participants. I have.

Scott, it is not that I object to a Christian having a belief or even benefiting from it. And no, it doesn’t mean someone is wrong and utterly corrupt because they found religion to do this for them.

The objection is that these folks simply cannot be satisfied unless they succeed in giving their beliefs the force of law. In doing so, they are trampling the rights of others who do not believe as they do. There is a big difference in these two concepts.

Since many lives are being damaged by them, I clearly have a right, indeed, an obligation to try to rid them of their clearly misguided beliefs. I would do that with education if possible, never by force.

And yes, most of them will not entertain evidence, so any effort to educate them is futile. Therefore, the focus of educational outreach must be those who still have a little objectivity left. I have found a few Christians still searching with an open mind.

When religion comes to mind, it’s not the belief itself which makes me cringe, it’s what it has the potential to do to people and what it can turn them into, people who center their reasoning on superstition and those who deny fact upon retrieval.

Yes, and what it turns them into is fascist.

[Mr Camel]

Yep I agree with both of you.
I firmly believe the only civil way to rid ourselves of them is through education. But we're shooting blanks with most mature Christians because they have already chosen their path and you can understand how they wouldn't see very kindly on us for attempting to rid them of this. Whether or not we think it is wrong for them to try shove doctrine down our throats, we simply cannot assume the right to do anything but tell them they're wrong. Unless of course, they begin taking the Bible literally in their own defence and what not.

Ok, we have the obligation to rid ourselves of this plague. But the only real course of action is through education in schools. Children have the right to be taught the controversy and not to be indoctrinated by their parents. If they wish to choose religion then it's up to them. But as time progresses, those numbers will fall as they will realise they're alone and what they believe in doesn't agree with the rest of their education. Parents who manipulate their own children to believe their own confusing and contradictory doctrine clearly don't know what they're doing to their children. This is a world of reason and logic, not superstition. We as a race have no hope of prosperity if this keeps up. Yes, we have an obligation to fix this but we have to remember, we have to do this civilly or things may not turn out the way we wish them to.

[fr0d0]

It is not the purpose of Christianity to become the law. That's scaremongering.

What you describe as unhealthy and unjust is the unfashionable moral absolutes.

You cannot prove religion is wrong, otherwise you take a step into incredulity as much as anyone who claims to know absolutely that God exists.

Christians are anti superstition and pro facts. You choose to accept different facts perhaps. Learned people debate those facts. It'd be foolish to state that the Christian has to be in error.

Yours is the fashionable view, with church attendance less than 6% in the UK. So I don't get why you feel the need to preach from your soap box. Secularism is the religion here.

[Samson]

Children have the right to be taught the controversy and not to be indoctrinated by their parents.

Scott, are you talking about having ID taught in Science class along side the actual "Science"??

[Ryft]

Holy Christ in heaven, this Scott fellow has contradicted himself so many times in two posts I don't even know where to begin responding! Behold what atheism hath wrought. Another mind laid waste.

[Mr Camel]

I'm not contradicting myself, you're just not understanding me. Please open your mind a little more and leave room for new perspective.

Btw, when I say wrong.. I mean unjust. Sorry, I should have been more vigilant with my vocabulary.

I am in full agreement with Agnostic belief which states religion cannot be proved nor can it be disproved.
But it's clearly unjust in many ways, this is fact. But I don't expect you to take fact seriously.

---

Children have the right to be taught the controversy and not to be indoctrinated by their parents.

Scott, are you talking about having ID taught in Science class along side the actual "Science"??

Yes Samson, exactly, and then some.

[rjh4 is back]

Which way we stride is solely reliant on how we’re brought up and I stand by this resolute.
I, a Secular Humanist, ...

So you are a secular humanist because you were brought up (indoctinated) that way. How dare your parents teach you to be that way. They had no right. Consider what Richard Dawkins said:

“Do not indoctrinate your children; teach them how to think for themselves, how to evaluate evidence and how to disagree with you”

If your parents had done this, you would be a Christian right now.

BTW, I'll bet Richard Dawkins would indoctrinate his children to think like him, regardless of what he says, and I personally think he has a right to do just that regardless of what I think of his position.

When you say "unjust", what do you mean? Based on whose perspective? An absolute perspective or a subjective perspective?

[Mr Camel]

HAHA! I chose to follow reason dude. My parents educated me the controversy. My Mum is Catholic and my Dad is Atheist.
I define "unjust" as partial.

Hang on, did you just say I'm religious? Sure, but not according to today's perspective.