Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

Should we execute people that promote religion? watch

Announcements
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    No way, people should execute peeps like u
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Control)
    Religion is also about a ethical way to live your life, treating others with respect and helping those in need? Is that such a bad thing?
    But it's such a selective half-baked way, that's only ethical to the people that are part of it. Also, it's like putting together some really complicated furniture and only reading a third of the instructions, the way a lot of the word of God is often dismissed.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Control)
    I am a Christian and I don't want atheists to be executed for preaching the opinions/ beliefs. I don't understand where your hatred for religion comes from? You look at religion from a scientifice viewpoint, i.e how the world was made etc. Religion is also about a ethical way to live your life, treating others with respect and helping those in need? Is that such a bad thing?
    1) Atheists are using common sense and impartially looking at the evidence to come to conclusions; theists are basing their conclusions on faith and ignoring the evidence.
    2) Why should you have to rely on believing in the supernatural to live an ethical life? Why don't you just not believe in such supernatural entities, but follow a similar life style? A huge number of people must live an ethical life without following any religion.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chessaholic)
    I can quite honestly say that I am against the idea of religion and consider myself an agnostic. Believing in something when there is no evidence for it, ignoring logic and generally being ignorant of the scientific community is as far as I can see one of the worst things that I can find about mankind. Even worse is that way that these religions are spread through fear and education at such an early age before children are capable of understanding the more complex scientific theories and hence make their own decision.

    Although I recognise the part religion has played in our history, I honestly believe that the future world would probably be a better one without organised religions and if any theists still among us believed in supernatyral entities for more logical and understandable reasons.

    HOWEVER a religion is different from the religious people themselves. I do not in any way hate religious people because there is (usually) more to a person than their religious beliefs.

    I assume that you are an atheist/agnostic and are dead set against the idea of religion. However brutally killing anyone who declares themselves as a theist is simply not only morally wrong but will not even demolish religion anyway. All that is likely to happen is that you will increase the tension between believers and non believers and make progress in worldwide education and understanding of scientific principles (which is what people like you and me should be aiming for) even more difficult.
    That shows an incredible narrow mindedness when it comes to religion, science in no way disproves religion, science only tells us how, not why. Much of the Bible disagrees with science, e.g. Genesis, but remember that the Bible is NOT supposed to be the direct word of God, it was written by people who didn't have an understanding of science. Also, i believe Atheism is a far more closed minded view of the world than religion, and (being agnostic), find it impossible to say there is definitely no chance of there being some larger force.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jamesmor1)
    But it's such a selective half-baked way, that's only ethical to the people that are part of it. Also, it's like putting together some really complicated furniture and only reading a third of the instructions, the way a lot of the word of God is often dismissed.
    Actually the Bible teaches tolerance and the good treatment of EVERYONE in society. Also, the Bible is NOT God's word, and the new testemant, (the Jesus part, for anyone who doesn't know), is the part Christians are supposed to believe in, not the hellfire and eternal damnation of the old testemant.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by simon-leeds)
    Actually the Bible teaches tolerance and the good treatment of EVERYONE in society. Also, the Bible is NOT God's word, and the new testemant, (the Jesus part, for anyone who doesn't know), is the part Christians are supposed to believe in, not the hellfire and eternal damnation of the old testemant.
    But not of all of the animal kingdom which I find unacceptable. Whenever people try to argue against vegetarianism they so often use the 'God gave us the animals' speech which, I'm probably wrong, is from the old testament anyway?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jamesmor1)
    But not of all of the animal kingdom which I find unacceptable. Whenever people try to argue against vegetarianism they so often use the 'God gave us the animals' speech which, I'm probably wrong, is from the old testament anyway?
    That is from the old testament, and, as i said before, is merely the explanation of people who needed to eat meat to survive.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by simon-leeds)
    That shows an incredible narrow mindedness when it comes to religion, science in no way disproves religion, science only tells us how, not why. Also, i believe Atheism is a far more closed minded view of the world than religion, and (being agnostic), find it impossible to say there is definitely no chance of there being some larger force.
    1) This is not specific enough; the motion of theism, that a god created the world and those within it, has no real reason to exist as it has been shown that the organisms present as they are could have been created through evolution. Hence, the Intelligent Design theory falls down.
    2) What makes you think that religion is more equiped than science to answer why? Religion is based on faith rather than understanding; its naive to think that science cannot understand why things happen. The reason things happen in science, is that they are governed by nature.
    3) It is also naive to say that being atheist means that you are closed minded to the idea of there being a larger force. There is no way to say, at this time, that there is no larger force; it should be down to religion to prove there IS a God (Russel's teapot argument). You can be an atheist, yet believe that there is a small chance there is a larger force.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by simon-leeds)
    That is from the old testament, and, as i said before, is merely the explanation of people who needed to eat meat to survive.
    See what you mean here. But again, so so so many people who have tried to ridicule me for being veggie have been contemptuous with God giving them meat as their main argument, and my point is I don't like how they would easily dismiss the old testament when people are saying how crazy it is that God would send down loads of grizzlies to maul some teenagers a la II Kings 2:23-24 (http://cdn-www.cracked.com/articleim...g/badass3b.jpg :woo: ) or some other completely unacceptable thing yet when it suits them they so easily fall back on it.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ben_stretch)
    1) This is not specific enough; the motion of theism, that a god created the world and those within it, has no real reason to exist as it has been shown that the organisms present as they are could have been created through evolution. Hence, the Intelligent Design theory falls down.
    2) What makes you think that religion is more equiped than science to answer why? Religion is based on faith rather than understanding; its naive to think that science cannot understand why things happen. The reason things happen in science, is that they are governed by nature.
    3) It is also naive to say that being atheist means that you are closed minded to the idea of there being a larger force. There is no way to say, at this time, that there is no larger force; it should be down to religion to prove there IS a God (Russel's teapot argument). You can be an atheist, yet believe that there is a small chance there is a larger force.
    1) So you are saying that evolution disproves religion? It disproves Genesis, which is, as i said before, written by men and is merely a metaphor to explain something which people could not understand at the time.
    2) That is not what i said. All i meant was that science doesnt disprove some guiding force behind the laws of nature.
    3) I think that is just wrong, to be atheist is to say there IS no god, not that there is PROBABLY no god, that is called being agnostic.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jamesmor1)
    See what you mean here. But again, so so so many people who have tried to ridicule me for being veggie have been contemptuous with God giving them meat as their main argument, and my point is I don't like how they would easily dismiss the old testament when people are saying how crazy it is that God would send down loads of grizzlies to maul some teenagers a la II Kings 2:23-24 (http://cdn-www.cracked.com/articleim...g/badass3b.jpg :woo: ) or some other completely unacceptable thing yet when it suits them they so easily fall back on it.
    They are the kind of people who give religion a bad name (aswell as the fundamentalists, obviously).
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dannymccormick)
    I am a vehement Atheist, and even I think your comments are superficial and quite disgraceful. Just because religious ideas are now quite insignificant in a 21st century society, you can't prosecute people for trying to propogate what they truly believe to be right. It would just be as wrong as the church prosecuting Galileo during the renaissance, or the Major Generals washing out the Levellers in 1649. You can't stop people from expressing their opinions just because you personally believe them to be wrong.

    See, I'm comletely Atheist, but if I had one piece of evidence that was even more substantial than the evidence proving evolution, evidence that could fundamentally destroy religious faith in God around the world ... then still I would not reveal it. You have to consider that the hope these people have, of an afterlife for example, it's a good thing. I wish I could still believe in heaven because it's much easier than knowing the alternative; it personally took me a long time to fully come to terms with there being an eventual end to my conscience. Just let people have their faith, and stop being trying to play devil's advocate on a forum that much be home to many religious people. It's not particularly charitable of you!
    Excellent post, I pretty much agree with everything you said there.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by simon-leeds)
    1) So you are saying that evolution disproves religion? It disproves Genesis, which is, as i said before, written by men and is merely a metaphor to explain something which people could not understand at the time.
    2) That is not what i said. All i meant was that science doesnt disprove some guiding force behind the laws of nature.
    3) I think that is just wrong, to be atheist is to say there IS no god, not that there is PROBABLY no god, that is called being agnostic.
    1) Surely religion is a means to explain that which could not be explained at the time. My argument was, that Christianity is based on theism; that a God created the world and is still here overseeing his creation. As it has been proved that organisms were not put here in the state they currently are in, but have reached this state through evolution, the theist argument falls down. Hence, Christianity (and many other religions) being based on theism, also falls down.
    2) That is true we can agree on that
    3) Atheism is not as black and white as that, as you would see from the scale implemented by Dawkins in the God Delusion;

    1) Strong theist. 100% possibility of God. In the words of C.G. Jung, 'I do not believe, I know"
    2) Very high probability 'I cannot know for certain, but I strongly believe in God '
    3) Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. Technically agnostic but leaning towards theism.
    4) Exactly 50 per cent. Completely impartial agnostic.
    5) Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. Technically agnostic but leaning towards atheism.
    6) Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist.
    7) Strong atheist. 'I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung "knows" there is one.

    The idea of atheism, based on considering the evidence available, would be contridictory to the tiny, miniscule chance that such as God exists. There is no evidence disproving God, in the same way there is no evidence disproving the fairies at the end of your garden. However, you wouldn't live your life around the teaching of those fairies, would you? So where do you lie on the scale? I'm at 6), De facto atheist.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dannymccormick)
    See, I'm comletely Atheist, but if I had one piece of evidence that was even more substantial than the evidence proving evolution, evidence that could fundamentally destroy religious faith in God around the world ... then still I would not reveal it. You have to consider that the hope these people have, of an afterlife for example, it's a good thing.
    Are you joking? I'm not going to even mention all the 'evils of religion' that Dawkins would bring up here; the outstanding ignorance of what really happens in our universe would hold back human betterment tenfold; think of all the children growing up, roped into religion before they are old enough to defend their views, spending years of their life reading religious books which they are told is the truth. Purely because you believe that the hope of people, based on lies, is more important.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by simon-leeds)
    That shows an incredible narrow mindedness when it comes to religion, science in no way disproves religion, science only tells us how, not why. Much of the Bible disagrees with science, e.g. Genesis, but remember that the Bible is NOT supposed to be the direct word of God, it was written by people who didn't have an understanding of science. Also, i believe Atheism is a far more closed minded view of the world than religion, and (being agnostic), find it impossible to say there is definitely no chance of there being some larger force.
    *I know that science does not 'disprove' all religious ideas. However science has made believing CERTAIN beliefs almost comical, such as the extreme Christians believing the world to only be 6000 years old as an example. My main issue however was being ignorant of the scientific community and its theories- e.g people who claim that evolution is a lie when they do not even understand evolution in the first place.

    *I'm not entirely sure what you mean by science does not tell us why. This suggests that there has to be a why and I do not believe that there has to be. Life began and it evolved. I have never really seen 'why' as being important.

    *I agree that the Bible was written by people who did not have a modern understanding of science. To be honest I'm not sure why that was relevant as I didn't relate to this in my post and it has no bearing on the justification of believing in it today.

    *Atheism is not the belief that there is no God- it is the lack of belief that there is one. (Calling atheism a religion would be like calling bald a hair colour) I also don't see why you have brought this up as I clearly stated that I too am an agnostic. I disagree that atheism is closed mind. The majority of atheists that I know are much more prepared to listen to new ideas and learn about different points of views than the religious people I know.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Navras)
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/0..._n_244340.html



    Personally, I think the North Koreans are doing it right. But why they have to pussy-foot around it I don't know. Accusing them of 'spying' is just dumb. Why can't we just have a law that makes religion something personal? Anyone that publicises their faith should be given three strikes. Then execution.

    Agree or disagree? And give reasons.
    No.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    I look forward to offering my neck to some of the severely misguided folks on this thread, if they ever came to power. The problem is two fold: you can't frighten someone into submission if they don't see death as a threat, and, in even advocating this position, you are only demonstrating the ultimate bankruptcy of an atheistic politic. If you talk enough about religious people as 'deluded', as 'idiots', as lesser than you, as the cause of most conflict and war and bloodshed, as harbingers of an antiquated and outdated ideology, as possessors of texts of disgust, as different from the secular minority, as irrational and illogical, as the pushers of a dictatorial and oppressive worldview, then EVENTUALLY - if you are put into power - all this spiel will eventually find its way into your praxis.

    And friends, that is the beginning of executions and concentration camps and purges. Dawkins and Hitchens and many on this forum and even on this thread have echoed these talking points. I fear for any politic that emerges out of this new atheism that disgustingly has reared its head here as the desire to MURDER the religious.

    I know many intelligent, good atheists, and know of many more - if there's one thing I respect about the Enlightenment as an intellectual epoch, it was its emphasis on freedom of thought and expression. It seems some here wish to betray their intellectual forefathers in a desire to see blood. Quite shameful. You're not worthy of the secular title.
    Offline

    14
    (Original post by NathanL)
    And friends, that is the beginning of executions and concentration camps and purges. Dawkins and Hitchens and many on this forum and even on this thread have echoed these talking points. I fear for any politic that emerges out of this new atheism that disgustingly has reared its head here as the desire to MURDER the religious.
    I don't think it is right to bring Hitchens into this. He is big on civil liberties - he has written a book on Thomas Paine and the Rights of Man - which is, I think, why he moved to the US. Given that, I strongly suspect he would defend first amendment rights rather than run-over them.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ben_stretch)
    1)
    1) Strong theist. 100% possibility of God. In the words of C.G. Jung, 'I do not believe, I know"
    2) Very high probability 'I cannot know for certain, but I strongly believe in God '
    3) Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. Technically agnostic but leaning towards theism.
    4) Exactly 50 per cent. Completely impartial agnostic.
    5) Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. Technically agnostic but leaning towards atheism.
    6) Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist.
    7) Strong atheist. 'I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung "knows" there is one.
    I'm probably a 2/3, i don't believe in any of the mainstream religions, but I still find it very hard to believe that everything we know happened by chance.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kolya)
    I don't think it is right to bring Hitchens into this. He is big on civil liberties - he has written a book on Thomas Paine and the Rights of Man - which is, I think, why he moved to the US. Given that, I strongly suspect he would defend first amendment rights rather than run-over them.
    He is also a Trotskyite who isn't bothered by the Jacobin and Bolshevik anti-clerical massacres.

    "Amis had also made the mistake, in a letter to Hitchens, of urging his friend to turn his back on Trotsky because Hitchens’s “prophetic moralist” was really a “nun-killer.” Amis should have realized that an appeal based on sympathy for nuns was hardly the way to his friend’s heart, and Hitchens responded by mocking Amis for having a “special horror of Bolshevik anti-clericalism.” What Amis has a “special horror of” is eloquently described in his book: a regime that killed 2,691 priests, 1,962 monks, and 3,447 nuns of the Russian Orthodox Church in 1922 alone. None of this bloodshed bothers Hitchens, who has recently written that “Secularism ... only became thinkable after several wars and revolutions had ruthlessly smashed the hold of the clergy on the state.” Since the American Revolution did not produce a single executed clergyman, Hitchens is here singing the praises of the Jacobins and the Bolsheviks."

    - The American Conservative - The Purest Neocon
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.