The Freedom of Religion Thread

[Rush Limbaugh]

Well we have the anti relgion thread and the pro religion thread. I figured Id start one for those of us in the middle. While I have little use for organised religion as such. I do find that religion is a positive thing if applied only to ones self. I think everyone should be free to believe what they like. We cant decide what we believe. You either believe it or you dont. I neither support nor oppose organised religion . I do support individual and personal religion.

As soon as you say yours is the only way or the only truth Im done with you.

[Atheist Peace]

I fully support freedom of religion. I do want to eradicate religion, but not by force, I just want to eventually convince the religious that they're all wrong.

[Hub'ite]

I fully support freedom of religion. I do want to eradicate religion, but not by force, I just want to eventually convince the religious that they're all wrong.

Good luck with that.

[Removed_user_012521]

I fully support freedom of religion. I do want to eradicate religion, but not by force, I just want to eventually convince the religious that they're all wrong.

Its hard to convince someone against a heart-felt conviction. Religion has been around for thousands of years, do you really think it can be eradicated?

[RZZZA]

Wait, I agreed with everything Rush said, why is he in the middle and I'm on an extreme side?

Theres no need for an "in the middle" as both the pro-religious group and the anti-religious group accepts moderates from both sides of the aisle. The only reason you'd want to be unaffiliated, is because you dont wanna join no stupid internet group and thats cool, its just that based on religious ideas, both groups accept moderates.

[Last Roman]

The only reason you'd want to be unaffiliated, is because you dont wanna join no stupid internet group and thats cool, its just that based on religious ideas, both groups accept moderates.

Or maybe because its that you dont accept either side and so you make your own in the middle.

[Atheist Peace]

Good luck with that.

I'm not saying that I literally want to convince every religious person to change. What I mean is that religion should be eradicated through convincing people, not by trying to force them or outlaw their beliefs.

Its hard to convince someone against a heart-felt conviction. Religion has been around for thousands of years, do you really think it can be eradicated?

It eventually will be. Free thought has been encouraged more and more throughout recent history, and more and more people are becoming secular and/or atheists. Religion will be eradicated, unfortunately not in my lifetime though.

edit: goddamnit, I double posted again

Not to fear, I love merging double posts!

[Hub'ite]

I'm not saying that I literally want to convince every religious person to change. What I mean is that religion should be eradicated through convincing people, not by trying to force them or outlaw their beliefs.

How are you planning on doing that? What you want to do will never happen. Religion has been around since the dawn of time.

[Atheist Peace]

How are you planning on doing that? What you want to do will never happen. Religion has been around since the dawn of time.

Lol, no it hasn't.

Wait, you're joking, right?

[Removed_user_012521]

Free thought has been encouraged more and more throughout recent history, and more and more people are becoming secular and/or atheists. Religion will be eradicated, unfortunately not in my lifetime though.

I firmly believe that that rejection of religion as false is just an excuse for many to just... well.... be sinful. No offence but I also atibute the gradual morale degredation of modern society to the rise of secularism.

[Kanaric]

No not really: its still wrong to commit adultury, its still wrong to steel, its still wrong to murdure, ect. Just now people don't think of morales anymore.

For non religious people those are the same with their morals. Atheists and secular people have the same beliefs in this regard.

The only difference is regarding, for example, going to church. Besides that atheists are the same. Its not an excuse to be immoral, lol. That is a BIG misconception that some people have which stems from the "old days".

So your morals are better than those of other people? Why?

Ironically his morals are probably identical to yours.

edit: Besides some religious issues of course, like going to church or abortion.

I'm sure Atheists think murder, stealing, adultury, etc are all immoral.

[Kanaric]

I want to know what Evan means by "degredation of morals". I want to know what morals he thinks are degrading.

Divorce, how people dress, what is on TV, and abortion are the only issues that come to mind that he MAY think of. IDK what his opinions are on those issues.

Personally i agree with religious people on MOST of those issues. However I think society solves most of those themselves. Divorce is the only "moral" issue i see as being a real problem for society.

How people dress changes constantly, it goes back and from to and from conservative and liberal stlyes, IMO a lot of the crap on TV IS outragous like many of those reality TV "get married and win money" shows, etc.

[Kanaric]

No, I base my morales mainly on those of 50 years ago, now I know there can be some leeway in how some people regard there morals, I really don't care if your a pious christian or not, but some morales have never changed: It has always been wrong to commit adultury for instance. (or atleast to my knowledge).

The morals of like 50 years ago weren't that good either. Rascism wasn't considred immoral, woman working wan't considered moral, etc. Hell when my Grandma grew up she said it wasn't proper for a woman to drive a car, reminds me of Saudi Arabia. At least they gave her an option though.

Some morals from back then are good, acceptable, and should come back. Others are DEFINATELY not.

Morals like taking care of the family, staying with a woman, respecting others, etc were all good. Corporations took care of people, it wasn't uncommon for someone to work at a job for 40 years. That was something you could RESPECT.

Also with women, now a days the way life works you HAVE to have two people working. If both of my parents didn't work we would of been evicted from our home and have to life in the ghetto, literally. You can't survive on one paycheck anymore if you have a family. You can blame the government and corporations for the loss of family values.


edit: Thinking back on the morals of yesteryear are nostalgia, they weren't all that great and is simply something that people THINK is great.

[Atheist Peace]

The morals of like 50 years ago weren't that good either. Rascism wasn't considred immoral, woman working wan't considered moral, etc. Hell when my Grandma grew up she said it wasn't proper for a woman to drive a car, reminds me of Saudi Arabia. At least they gave her an option though.

Some morals from back then are good, acceptable, and should come back. Others are DEFINATELY not.

Morals like taking care of the family, staying with a woman, respecting others, etc were all good. Corporations took care of people, it wasn't uncommon for someone to work at a job for 40 years. That was something you could RESPECT.

Also with women, now a days the way life works you HAVE to have two people working. If both of my parents didn't work we would of been evicted from our home and have to life in the ghetto, literally. You can't survive on one paycheck anymore if you have a family. You can blame the government and corporations for the loss of family values.


edit: Thinking back on the morals of yesteryear are nostalgia, they weren't all that great and is simply something that people THINK is great.

All of that is your opinion.

[Kanaric]

All of that is your opinion.

Perhaps, but it makes sense.

Rascism is wrong, that is certainly not an opinion. Unless you say "well the KKK or nazis think....", you can't decide a race is "acceptable or not".

Shows where the winner "gets married and wins 1,000,000", ARE ridiculous, though that is an opinion.

Corporations taking :wub: on their loyal and capable employees just to build a lower quality but cheaper product is wrong, not an opinion unless your the one doing it. I guess that would make it an opinion then, heh.

Having to only rely on one income to stay above poverty was good, not an opinion. EVERYONE would agree with this!

And yes I would of lived in a ghetto if it weren't for two incomes, that for one is FACT.

How is what I say an opinion anyways? Most normal people would agree with this. Nobody wants to have 3 or 4 wives on purpose, everyone wants a steady job with a friendly corporation, everyone would like to only rely on one paycheck to have a family, I know YOU agree rascism/sexism is bad, etc.

What did I say that YOU disagree with? I'm guessing the TV show thing, as some believe you should be able to show anything. I'd agree with that, doesn't mean what they should would be "moral" though.

Dont just use "extreme" cases, like "someone who thinks murder is ok, so that is a moral". Extreme cases do not judge society as a whole or facts. I can believe the sky is green, doesn't make it true.

No sane person will say "murdering people for fun is good and moral".

[IamthePope]

I do support individual and personal religion. -Rush Limbaugh

Wow, sounds alot like protestantism to me. The idea that the metaphysical universe is relative to the individual is as ludacris as the idea that the physical universe is relative to the individual.

Can we decide if gravity is real or not? neither can we dictate the nature of reality based on our own wishes. There is a single true nature of the metaphysical reality just as there is a single physical nature of reality.

The idea that you can dictate your own version of the cosmos is called religious relatavism and its a bunch a Protestant BS. Here's a hint to the most likely candidate for the true nature of the universe: it's the one with the most adherants ( Christianity = 2 billion adherants ,Catholism = 1.1 Billion adherants ).

I love ya rush but i cant agree with you here. keep up the good work on the forum though

[Rush Limbaugh]

Wow, sounds alot like protestantism to me

Actually I was brought up Roman Catholic. I dont care for protestants nor any other organised religion to tell the truth. I feel god is inside us all. You just have to look for him. People find him in different ways. The idea is to find him. I doubt if there is a "God " he cares what religion you are . I would think he was above all that.

If I were to venture a guess I would go along with christianity. But then as I said im prejduce having been brought up that way.

There is a single true nature of the metaphysical reality just as there is a single physical nature of reality.

Not so. Much of what we once saw as physical reality turned out not to be so.

I love ya rush but i cant agree with you here

It would be a boring place here if we all agreed.

[mongoose]

I'm with you, Rush. Though I simply couldn't resist joining S.A.A.D. :laughing:



IamthePope

I think what Rsuh is saying is that you shouldn't need to connect to human organizations to connect with God. This makes sense, no? I think God will respect you more if you do your best to understand what he would want you to do, rather then blindly obeying the will of other HUMANS and what they say about God.

At anyrate, I think that it's arrogant to think that you have correct version of God, and that it makes the most sense to just live your life according to your morales as much as possible, and to just hope that God is reasonable.

[Habelo]

Well, good things about religions: Some people are happy being ignorant, yopu dont have to be afraid of death, you have big comfort of seeing mommy back in heaven again and so on.
Bad things: Many people becomes sheeps and listens to the "wisest" whatever hes saying, this becomes a tool of the wisests wiches... Some people wastes their life entirely to religion, instead of being happy of the life you got, you want to be happy in the life after... But what happends if there is no life after...? Waste!

[Ahiga]

Confusing.

Freedom of Religion is something I hope the rest of the world will follow suit in, but I also hope that we will find ourselves being free of religion flavoring our Government. When one cites 'I cannot separate my personal faith from my decision making', I feel it is a cop-out. Just as we would expect..or hope, for those in power to put aside their public opinions in favor of a decision that would be best for their country, so should they put aside their religious beliefs..or, failing that, place the mantle of authority onto a secular individual, so that their own beliefs do not become broadcast onto others.

If their religion is so important a part of their lives, then I think they should choose to not be in a position of power where that will radiate out to others. It doesn't seem as simple as a conservative ruling over liberals or a liberal ruling over conservatives - What if we had an Islamic president who felt women must cover up like in the Middle-east? Is there a rule citing freedom of dressing the way you want? What if we had an Iranian or North Korean (not born there, but second generation immigrant) president who chose to keep us from responding to an attack or threat by their ancestral nation?

Wouldn't that be as poor a quality in leadership as religion guiding their decision and favoring the beliefs of their own religion?