Buffman

There are at least 10,000 distinct religious groups within which there are 33,830 Christian denominations. One would be required to know the principles/tenets/ dogmas/etc. of each and every one of them before being able to respond to your generalized question with any hope of providing a meaningful answer that could be supported by verifiable evidence. That is one reason why I have elected to label myself a "Non-Supernaturalist" even though I detest labels. I did so based primarily upon what I believe is the most detrimental aspect of faith belief religions...an unverified belief in and worship of the unknown masked by the creative anthropomorphism of the human mind as interpreted and manipulated by others.

WCH

I would be unable to say that all religious groups are bad. In fact, I've had positive interaction with such Christian denominations as the Mennonites, who run many extremely beneficial charities, including restorative justice programs for which we have a real need (the Mennonite Central Committee is apparently the only group that's willing to take responsibility for the rehabilitation of repeat sexual offenders, for instance).

I also have experiences with very reasonable believers from various upbringings (Anglican, Christian Missionary Alliance, Hindu, Muslim, etc) who have impressed me with their almost empirical approach to religion.

However, for every one believer who is intelligent, reasonable and selfless, there are a dozen more who are backwards, bigotted and ultimately harmful to society. Is all religion bad? Are all religious people bigots? Of course not, but enough of them are for me to take a stand against religion in general.

JCS

Originally Posted by Biff the unclean
Do you mean Santa Claus? That jolly old elf fills the criteria you just expounded on, Albert
I see what you mean, you just can't deal with the answer, yes a pity. Joel the traditonal atheist.

Yahzi

Faith is universally bad. If your religion requires faith (and most do), then it is bad.

"As long as men believe in absurdities, they will commit atrocities" - I forget who said thi, but it'st true.

Buffman

http://www.lucidcafe.com/library/95n...ire.html#books

Though I have not personally tracked this quote to a verified source document, I suspect it can be located among Voltaire's "Collection of Letters on the Miracles" (1767).

If you'd like to get "The Portable Voltaire" through the IIDB, click here

Ojuice5001

It was indeed Voltaire in his "Collection of Letters on the Miracles." But the actual quote is a little different than Yahzi's version: "Anyone who has the power to make you believe absurdities has the power to make you commit atrocities." There's a significant difference there; because the actual quote only applies to people who base their faith on authority. And even if authority is involved, it says only that the authorities in question have the power to make people commit atrocities. In other words, it leaves the possibility that someone will have the power to make people believe absurdities, and although he has the power to make them commit atrocities, he doesn't use this latter power.

The version Yahzi quoted is commonly found, but mine is the one Voltaire actually said.

Shven

It doesn't take belief in absurdities to get people to commit atrocities. They get commited anyway. While I will agree that organised religion can set up the power structures that help this to happen, these power structures can be found in many other places. Large corporations, governments, the list is endless.

Care to justify your position that faith is bad or is it just a gut emotional response?

Shven

Shven

The belief is verified to the believers - most of them anyway. It is just verified in a way you dont recognise as evidence.

Shven

Buffman

I guess you have just answered your own query.--- Faith's definition of verified evidence is universally "bad" (inaccurate). I have faith that the Gods of Olympus exist...and I have ample evidence that they did/do. So why don't most religionists believe in them? Perhaps we need to arrive at an agreed definition of what is/is not evidence...whether it is recognized or not.

Umbrae

Here is one, I am not sure if it has been posted yet as I skipped some posts.


WHY, does the universe need to be governed by physics?

To expand on this...why does the universe need to be the only plane of existance, and if there are other planes or things beyond the boundaries of our universe, why then must they follow the same rules that we observe in our universe. Furthermore if they do not follow these same rules, what is to keep there from being a certain overlap in rules or an influence of one plane or region of being on another.

Of course this all seems far fetched and may even trivialize the idea of "God" if it was true, but it presents a problem that atheists can never seem to answer. And that is, if there is if more than you know exists, how do you understand it.

The existance of different planes of reality, or boundries beyond those of our known universe (wether that means somewhere in what we consider the universe that we cannot reach or something so radically different it cannot be catagorized as part of the universe) is actually more possible from an atheistic point of view than a theistic view because there is nothing defining the boundries of existance for you.

What I find appalling about atheism, is that it claims that something is true through ways that it would hold as insufficient in other instances, for example ignorance is not a proof that skeleton x did not belong to animal y, it must remain an option until ruled out. That is why I believe if I ever lost my faith that God exists I would have to join the not sure crowd not the no crowd.