Religions

[Fika[F]]

[RO]Claudiu, I'll just say your not as smart and wise as you think, you just like to act in that way... now you can stop -.-


*no offense*

[Bonzy]

Again, I agree with Fika. Claudiu, your examples are low-intelligent, and you seem like a low-intelligent person, judging by your low-intelligent arguments. Could you please stop making low-intelligent posts?

[Cen]

That was indeed quite a fail comparison..

[KonK]

The biggest problem concerning religions, imo, is the institution "church". I am taking as argument what happens here in Brazil. We have 2 big religions here Catholics and Protestants.
It is all over the news that some catholic priests have been found to be pedophiles. And for what protestant church is concerned, they normally steal a lot of money from faithful people, they claim that, if you want to get a place in heaven you need to donate 90% of your salary. I consider myself agnostic because I don't think that a religious institution should be run by human beings, as they can be sometimes corrupted =/

Even though my whole family is Catholic, I didn't follow their lead, ever since I started studying History in school, and found out that the popes used to conceal all books from people and they also used to sell your own land in heaven =/ I think this is totally preposterous.

[^ILoveMyWallet^]

lets take 2 examples.

non-religious person

religious person


both of them have a desire to fly from the age of 5 years .

the religious one prays hard , becomes a monk of the highest rank and dedicates his life to worshiping God so that his prayer may come true.

and the other one becomes a helicopter pilot/astronaut/skydiver/etc. and makes his own wish come true.

monk wasted his life for nothing he even died with his virginity.... but , at least he will fly in heaven after he is dead.

What if that monk studies some special art 'X bla bla bla' and he gets to fly over a field of wheat (I saw this in reality with my own eyes, in China, it was a budist monk or smth like that)? and it wasn't an illusion or things like that ..
The non-religious needs smth to be able to fullfit his dream but the monk doesn't :O:O:O? Nasty right?

another example.

both of them wish long life and health ..

the religious one prays for health and long life but also smokes and has other unhealthy habits .

the non-religious studies nutrition, fitness , health-care and increases his chances of having a long healthy life by applying the knowledge he has obtained.


which of them will live longer ? btw dont say things like the non-religious gets hit by lightning cuz he didnt pray . thats just retarded.

This example is ridiculous... what monk smokes and goes for an unhealthy habit?
Over the internet there are tons of movies with monks (budist etc etc.) that are able to do unnatural things with their bodies ( Smashing bricks with their heads and shit like that... even moar).. I think you need a nice health condition to do that.. so it's another fucked up example...
And btw mostly the 'non-religious' persons tend to make sins, have unhealthy habits,drug themselves , get drunk, smoke weed and shit...

Poll: with or against [ro]claudiu!!!

[Bonzy]

@lfmbstyle Ye, , you're right, but there is a difference between religion and church. I think church is mostly one big crap, but most of the religions make good points. Religions are much like laws, it's just that religions say you will be punished in afterlife for not obeying laws of the religion, and laws say you will be punished in this life for not obeying them. In earlier history, religions were very useful because people feared of supernatural power more than power of human-written law, so they didn't do some bad things, f.e. killing or betraying. If there was no religious law back in history, it would be an anarchy, because the system was not strong enough to protect innocent and catch criminals. So, actually, religions did help civilizations progress.

If you ask me, I believe some supernatural power(which is usually called god) exists. It is an opinion close to agnosticism. Agnosticism says that existence of god can't be proven, and I say the same, I just believe, and believing actually means thinking there is a chance. As I believe that god exists, I also believe that god doesn't exist, which means that I think that there is a chance that god doesn't exist. Believing doesn't equal knowing.

I don't put myself in any religion, I think god can turn out to be a christian god, pagan god or totally different from god of any religion, but I believe god exists in some form.

[KonK]

And btw mostly the 'non-religious' persons tend to make sins, have unhealthy habits,drug themselves , get drunk, smoke weed and shit...

I disagree with that, I am not religious and i am not involved with drugs or unhealthy habits, as most of 'non-religious' people

[Bonzy]

There is no rule about that, both religious and non-religious people take drugs, kill, cheat, steal etc.

[Fika[F]]

Learn to ask yourself questions, try to answer them in yourself TRUTHFULLY, from the experiences you had and from the knowledge you have, don't just believe your eyes or believe other people, follow the flow of your common sense and logic.
When you answer yourself these questions in this sense, you will realize that human kind cannot reveal the secret's behind those questions in any way, we do not have anything close to any real proof for any options of answers for these questions. It's something like a blind man telling what color is the car in front of him, without having any hint's...
It is just pointless, try to understand, you cannot KNOW anything, you can eventually believe in some of today's religions, but for me this is for people that can't think for themselves and are slaves of a religion that is imposed to them.
Imagine just this, the same baby born in a Muslim country and grew up in such environment would end up Muslim - now that same baby actually born in a Christian country with Christian environment and influences, he would become Christian.
So don't let your origin limit your right to answer these questions by yourself not by imposed statements and influences of your environment.

[Akhe]

So, actually, religions did help civilizations progress.

that is true in some way, but false in other. I give the example of Galileu Galilei.

[Bonzy]

that is true in some way, but false in other. I give the example of Galileu Galilei.

It was done by an institution called church, not by a religion.

[Fika[F]]

If anything religions only caused harm on mankind, so much wars, so much books burned, scientists killed, technology's forbidden, people misled... those are facts...

[Cen]

Is there the absolute truth?

[[RO]Claudiu]

Again, I agree with Fika. Claudiu, your examples are low-intelligent

to match those who read them ..... i tried to put it as simple as possible cuz not every1 is a genius like you.


tbh i'm bad at explaining , my idea didn't get thru.

anyway .... i don't acknowledge the existence of gods because i don't have any use for them.

Man made God, in his own image, he loves you if you are his slave and he sends you to hell if you are disobedient.

[Bonzy]

If anything religions only caused harm on mankind, so much wars, so much books burned, scientists killed, technology's forbidden, people misled... those are facts...

Is there a big religion that calls for war? It's people that caused wars interpreting religions the way it suits them, religion was never a true reason, true reason was always territory, power, money. For books burned and scientists killed it's not religion that is guilty, but, I say again, church which was interpreting religious views the way it suited them and the way they could preserve their power. Again, church is not a religion, can't you fucking understand?

If religion didn't exist, people would find the other place to drag reasons from for wars and all that shit.

@claudiu you also need to notice a difference between religion and church.