The debate "How can religion be so bad when it sets morals for us to follow and be a better person" was started by
July 16, 2014, 12:15 pm.
86 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 83 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
Michelle_M posted 1 argument, chickenwingedwin posted 1 argument, river93x posted 2 arguments to the agreers part.
Mr_Anonymous posted 2 arguments, TheDentedHelmet posted 1 argument, Edward posted 1 argument, MACE posted 1 argument, amwright posted 1 argument, mdavis1309 posted 1 argument, SpiritofDeath posted 1 argument, Mikey2k posted 1 argument, I_Voyager posted 4 arguments, Luapo posted 1 argument, epoche posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.
alexgrabham95, wmd, Michelle_M, kennediharris515, LC_CU_Cat_Catt, Amirah_Husna, Vigilante, chickenwingedwin, Steven9001, Portia_Yov, Wantonjon, Vivinary, CodeGonzalez, krusty, Gurkavitch, Intellect, Noyd, Dbass24, username_gracie, river93x, BabyT14, project_mayhem, Biotic, Cody, rcmcmurray, Scottie, Getmurked, PathwayHomeFan, WhyNot and 57 visitors agree.
Rave, Mr_Anonymous, TheDentedHelmet, lakly, Disasterology, Edward, Socrateezus, MACE, ChubbyBunny, Flimpy, KaterinaVinther, amwright, muslim, sophistry, mdavis1309, SpiritofDeath, cocky_queen, marxist4life, JonL, Sosocratese, sickboyblonde, Mikey2k, Preploukus, I_Voyager, liamjosephcash, Blindness, Luapo, TheWrath, daddytone716, epoche, Devinc25, Cormi98, Mastermind, stormshy, daddyfantastic, transfanboy, skyfrancois_97, countrybumpkin and 45 visitors disagree.
I should add, the reason I brought up "Does god exist?" was because I thought I was posting this in another debate thread, not this one but the "does god exist?" one. My bad. Had I realized I was in this one instead I may have presented that differently.
Now, even a scientist will say, he doesn't want you to believe in science. His whole position is that nothing should be believed in - you should accept a thing because it is evident. That is to say, because it can be perceived, written down into data and that data/experiment can be reproduced anywhere and produce the same results. After that, with regard to theory, they don't want you to believe in it. At best, they want you to think of a thing as plausible or probable, and to at a moment's notice, change your view because new data has presented itself, but to scrutinize that new data.
It's actually quite important to be educated in religion too, because it's such an important topic in this world and to not have an opinion on it is folly, and only good opinions are sourced from education. I've gone out of my way to read numerous religious texts. I encourage everyone to do the same. Read the bible, read the quran, read the old testament. But please, don't stop there. Read ancient Greek literature, read Gilgamesh, read King Arthur. Read ancient literary works. The only thing they'll do is make you a better person. It doesn't mean it's good to believe in ANY of them as true. But dear god, read them, criticize them, take something away from them about the human condition.
There are some people here making tough remarks, but overall I think we're presenting valid criticisms of religion when we do. I don't see why that's wrong. Belief in religion won't disappear because I argue against it, but I love truth and knowledge and personally see religion as being in opposition of this. I usually only debate in places for debate regarding the topic. And I see no reason why this conversation shouldn't be had, although the one good argument made so far is that humans are too stubborn to change their mind, and so won't.
Yeah, there are a million wars with a million causes, and few of the declared causes were ever the right and true cause. For our fathers, our sons, our gods or our fun, we truly fight for land, wealth and power. It takes something which can be believed in, and which tells you it is necessary to fight for that belief, though, to move armies of men to that cause. There are three things I think which can be this: faith in your nation, faith in your history, or faith in your religion. Usually they're always a lie or an exaggeration, but the power centers never care, so long as they can move people to fight. In the west today it's faith in duty and democracy and media which are the lies that spurs global war and slavery.
Religion and science clearly co-exist, and all human ideas mix and mingle. There's transhumanist Mormonism for example. But does god exist? Science says nothing to confirm it, but says many things which religion would have not thought to say, or many things which are different than what religion says. Religion has adapted by changing it's self-perception to re-interpret their various texts to fit the science, when it could, and opposes it when it can through the media, spreading propaganda that halts the research of certain sciences on moral grounds - although, underneath it's almost always an economic ploy, the manipulation of some power center, which goes back to what I was saying before.
As for corruption, there appears to often be corruption everywhere. Science has within it liars. But the scientific method is powerful, and far more often than not it's false theories are viciously uprooted and discarded and the scientists become disgraced. Yeah, there's almost certainly certain units of science which are biased or purely lies. But it'll be less common than with most other institution-types in which corruption matters (unless that science is a high-money science, like pharmacy. Human greed, ugh.)
I suppose some people need an external source of morality while others realize and express their own internal moral compass.
Back when the Bible was written, then edited, then rewritten, then rewritten, then re-edited, then translated from dead languages, then re-translated, then edited, then rewritten, then given to kings for them to take their favorite parts, then rewritten, then re-rewritten, then translated again, then given to the pope for him to approve, then rewritten, then edited again, the re-re-re-re-rewritten again...all based on stories that were told orally 30 to 90 years AFTER they happened.. to people who didn't know how to read or write... so...basically everything in the bible is unverifiable and the oldest game of telephone. Fairy tails
Easily - by assigning for us inferior medieval moral systems. If you apply the wrong action to achieve a goal and fail frequently, you need to change. Religions don't let you change. They tell you that no matter how hard we try we will fail, therefore, only try as hard as you want to, but don't stray from the book. Without that religion we could create more adaptive and flexible moral philosophies.
I know their are typos in that last one but bare with me lol
you know I've bin on here a few times and I'm starting to think that this is just a place for people with and without faith to argue, hate bashing on religion mostly. Now all that said religion offers a moral belief system that many of us rather or not we believe can abide by. Ultimately though we follow what morals we as individual's dean acceptable in our life's anyway. So morally the bible is neither here nor there so your debating something completely irrelevant anyway. To those of you that seem to think religion is the only thing wars have bin fought over need to go back to school, cause to simply say that religion is bad because people fight over it is ignorant wars have bin waged over things land, politics, hell even even the city of relic any burnt to the ground over a woman. Fact of the matter is life sucks and nothing is without its corruption including science something that is partly fueled by greedy men in high places willing to cross any line for a better product. Nothing is without its corruption and as far as the scientific limitations, those are voted upon so the church does matter. And hay even the Vatican said E.T. could be out there so they believe in science to. What's wrong with an educated belief in both science and religion???
Search Deuteronomy 21:14-10 Argument destroyed
Why cant people set their own morals without the help of a book that another human wrote?
Everyone's morals are different and religious differences are a major part of that. But these different sets of morals for different religions often contradict and that is where the conflicts occur. People get so defensive over their religion that they are willing to go to Paris and brutally murder 14 people. Religion was the base of that attack and many others like it. So, religion may have set some morals, but I guess I would rather have no morals and no murders. That's why I am strongly against religion.
People should be able to have morals without religion. Religion holds back the scientific community, creates war and avoidable conflict, and makes a certain population lazy in terms of further universal discovery.
morals are lies within themselves,because peoples perceptions are different
They apply it to others because their religious text 90% of the says to
Every religion has its own moral standard and quality that attracts people to believe. The problem arises when you try to apply your standards to other people, letting yourself on a moral high ground to judge other people, therefore becomes arrogant, thinking other is useless scum. To solve this is easy. Always remember that you should only apply high moral standard to yourself and do not judge people who dont have the same moral standard as yours.
At least we learn the important stuff, like the proper way to treat our slaves, and that saying someone's name in vein after stabbing your toe is unforgivable, but rape and murder are forgivable. And also how we should stone out children to death and dash the enemies children against the rocks as well as take all the unwed women of our enemies for spoils. Couldn't have learned all these wonderful things without the Bible :)
Exactly, and extremists want to push the "morals" violently unto others.
Its morals are horrendous 90% of the time
Religious zealots make religion bad - making suicide bombers, women being subservient to men, etc are cons. The morals and values are pros though. Like anything else, moderation is key.