Hello, i am a real Christian

[tackattack]

---

I'll just leave it at I'd rather have society guided by principles of acceptance, tolerance and a sense of morality dictated by doctrine (not whim) than a skeptical, sinical society ruled by limted vision and science.

"A sense of morality dictated by doctrine"?



First of all, do you really think we need some magical man in the sky to come down and tell us that we shouldn't hurt, kill or steal? These are things that have been mores in human society since there have been humans. I'm sure that cavemen punished someone who stole from, hurt or killed another member of the community.

And, secondly, WHERE is this universal moral doctrine? Because believers can't even agree among themselves what is moral and what is not. Devout believers come down on both sides of issues like capital punishment, abortion, gambling, drinking, assisted suicide, etc....

---

1- No I don't think we need some "magic man" in the sky or God to tell us what's moral. I don't believe I ever said that.
2-I don't believe I said "universal" doctrine at all either. Why don't you ( and those who kudo'd that) just tell me what I'm saying and we'll call it a day. I'd like it if there was a universal doctrine, but since religion is so subjective it's very hard to come up with the "axiom of morality" everyone is looking for. It's not for lack of trying, mind you. They've rewritten the Bible numerous times to keep it relevant with today's society; and that's just one segmented religion's doctrine. I do however have a personal belief of my morality and I chose a doctrine that coresponds to what comes naturally to me morally.

---

I'll just leave it at I'd rather have society guided by principles of acceptance, tolerance and a sense of morality dictated by doctrine (not whim) than a skeptical, sinical society ruled by limted vision and science.

Ever heard of ethical philosophy? You can have moral principles that aren't on a 'whim' without a load of religious bullshit attached to it y'know. Ethical philosophy actually thinks about ethics and studies it, as opposed to just agreeing with whatever is written in ancient scripture you happen to take a liking to.

There is nothing that religion gives you that's positive that you can't have without it - in secular society. However, there is a lot of bullshit in religion indeed - and if believed it can be merely an irrational placebo at best, and dangerous irrational bullshit at worst IMO.

EvF

---

[irony] I agree that the relgious bs attached to it like respect and reverence are unnecessary. Who needs to show respect anyways? [/irony]So what you're saying is that as long as the books they study in ethical classes aren't the bible it's ok? Or are you saying that as long as we don't flat out agree without any thought as to why relgious takes on ethics are ok?

I agree that there's nothing exclusive to religion that you can't find in secular society. That's because religion is a honing tool, that when used properly, can help elevate society's standards. I would not go as far as to say that nothing positive comes from religion which is what you imply here. Fanatacism in any form, I agree, is dangerous at best.

---

Let's just say it's possible to abolish all organized religion what would be left with as a society? I think a lot less good things, IMO.

No more suicide bombings and children dying because of the power of prayer would be a good example. Perhaps kids getting fucked by members of the church and genital mutilation practices would be abolished as well. And maybe we can even get rid of Sharia Law and make sure girls who get raped don't get punished for it.

But a lot less good things...yea.

I'll just leave it at I'd rather have society guided by principles of acceptance, tolerance and a sense of morality dictated by doctrine (not whim) than a skeptical, sinical society ruled by limted vision and science.

Then go live in Iran or Tribal Afghanistan - they have everything you listed. Everything that you enjoy today is because of modern science - based on skepticism and doubt. Don't feed me this garbage that the world needs religion to behave. It's demonstrably false. It's no secret that the least religious nations are doing the best economically and developmentally, not to mention they give more to charities than their more religious counterparts.

---

1. Don't forget the holy wars, dark ages, the inquisition, Hui Minorities' War, the 30 years war, Hitler, ritual suicides and human sacrifices, etc. Or are you going to target only one or 2 religions. Modern Paganism, buddhism, shinto, Din-i-Ilahi, Confucianism, Bön, Māori religion, non-denominational Christianity, etc. are all religions that I believe teach tolerance of others and haven't started any wars, done any ritualistic killlings, mutilate their genitals, or hold child molestation seminars. Let me ask, is it fanatacism and intolerance you want to abolish or religion?
2. I'm not knocking on science, I love innovation and scienific principles. Just as the bible thumpers could use a lot less holier-than-thou attitudes; A lot of atheists I've spoken with could use anti-supr-smarmy pills. The world doesn't need religion to behave, but I'm not just going to throw it away. If we threw away all religions based off of small groups or singular people misguiding others against the doctrine's of their religion, why not get rid of the entirety of the house and senate. By percentage, I'd wager there was a lot more corruption in Govt. than in the entirety of religion.
3. Do you mind citing some references for your statement "It's no secret that the least religious nations are doing the best economically and developmentally" and "they give more to charities than their more religious counterparts." I'd like to do some of the reading on that.