Are you religious?

[Alex]

I don't think banning religion is a good idea, but neither do I think that religion should have any influence on the way the world is run.

[Tresh]

If the actions of the minority are significant enough to affect the indescriminate majority, then yes action should be taken to ensure that their actions are curtailed. In the UK those who practise their chosen religion are thesedays in he minority anyway.

 

All wars throughout history, are caused by individuals interpreting religion for their own ends, no religion would equate to much less conflict.

 

I am not arguing that is is feasable to ban the pratising of religion, it is merely an ideological standpoint - one which is far more virtuous than many others.

 

Agreed, science is by no means precise, with constantly changing opinion (backed up by evidence - something religion does not). Science does not require this ludicrous "leap of faith" which all religion requires - namely the belief in a supreme being.

[Guest Shenlong]

another thing that may not be possible, but how about just incarcerating those that cause such troubles and problems?

 

not all wars are caused by religion. case in point tkae the mongols who swept through the whole of asia and into eastern europe, theirs was just a war of conquest, as long as the countries they took over behaved and did not rebel they were quite happy to let them practice whatever beliefs that the chose to.

 

the romans, again fought wars of conquest to annexxe mroe land to feed it's people and become richer, religion did not come into it.

 

world war 2, people were persecuted for their religious beliefs but the cripply sanctions taken against germany and subsequent economic depression were the main factors for that war.

 

as for "Agreed, science is by no means precise, with constantly changing opinion (backed up by evidence - something religion does not). Science does not require this ludicrous "leap of faith" which all religion requires - namely the belief in a supreme being. "

 

you'd be surprised about how dogmaic and stuck in their beliefs the scientific commnity is, it easily rivals any dogmatic beliefs that religious people have. main cause of scientific opinion moving forward is when all the believers of the old school of belief die off! at which point the new idea put forward becomes the standard idea. e.g. one of the professors at cambridge/oxford til the day he died neevr believed in the theory of the big bag put forward by one of the stdents under him, stephen hawkings.

[Guest]

When I need to be.

[Alex]

QUOTE (Shenlong @ Apr 14 2004, 15:10)

the romans, again fought wars of conquest to annexxe mroe land to feed it's people and become richer, religion did not come into it.

The Romans, did persecute people of many differing beliefs. Not only that, they adopted religions to gain power, or annexed religions for similar reasons.

 

They are fairly responsible for todays Christianity and the problems it brings with it.

[Tresh]

WWII solely started by way of religion - Hitler's desire to create an Arian society by ridding the world of Jews. Our Involvement in it was merely subsequent to his refusal to remove troops from Poland - the causes of the war were undeniably religious.

 

The Mongols- Muslims- interpreting the Koran for their own ends to justify the invasion.

 

From my study of classics - the war by waged by Romans, whilst it was to build an empire, originally started by their desire to prevent any other form of religion being promugated throughout Europe, in particular Christianity.

 

Scientists can be dogmatic, and there will always be differing scientific opinion, which however is always based on documented evidence before them - there is no leap of fait involved.

[Tresh]

QUOTE (Alex @ Apr 14 2004, 15:20)

QUOTE (Shenlong @ Apr 14 2004, 15:10) the romans, again fought wars of conquest to annexxe mroe land to feed it's people and become richer, religion did not come into it. The Romans, did persecute people of many differing beliefs. Not only that, they adopted religions to gain power, or annexed religions for similar reasons.   They are fairly responsible for todays Christianity and the problems it brings with it. Spot on.

[Guest Jay]

QUOTE (Tresh @ Apr 14 2004, 13:36)

Hypocrite?

 

Never.

[Tresh]

QUOTE (Jay @ Apr 14 2004, 15:44)

QUOTE (Tresh @ Apr 14 2004, 13:36) Hypocrite?   Never. Always.

[Guest Jay]

QUOTE (Tresh @ Apr 14 2004, 16:17)

QUOTE (Jay @ Apr 14 2004, 15:44) QUOTE (Tresh @ Apr 14 2004, 13:36) Hypocrite?   Never. Always.   Always Never.     Last Word, turn around touch the ground, black magic

[Guest Jay]

No returns

 

 

phew

[Ginge]

Most people who say they're religious (oops, sorry...Religious) are either using it as a defencive or offensive trait.

 

Imagine if all God botherers were as bad as Ned Flanders.

 

[alasdairm]

QUOTE (Shenlong @ Apr 14 2004, 04:51)

...alasdair was mentioning the difference between personal "religion"/spirituality/whatever, and "Religion", organised mass religion stuff, like the catholic church.

exactly. a lot of people attribute problems/issues/etc. to religion/spirituality in general when the problem in question is caused by organised religion. i htink the two need to be decoupled if there's to be any sensible discussion.

 

alasdair

[Phil rr]

QUOTE (Jay @ Apr 14 2004, 13:32)

QUOTE (alasdairm @ Apr 14 2004, 04:06) religion Religion alasdair   worthwhile contribution once again.   Someone who does this sort of thing blatantly has no mates. possibly. but is an official instructor for snowboarding, and spends less time on CTW than you do. (which by your standards means he has more of a life than you)   And also doesn't expect the world to stop and be amazed at every one-liner he posts.   O.T.