Notices
Results 1 to 21 of 21

Thread: The importance of religion

  1. #1 The importance of religion 
    Forum Freshman youdiehard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    16
    I'm not a religious person and i don't believe in much of what religious people say, but i believe that people need religions.

    Why do we need religions? Look around you, look at China. They don't have religions there that's why they are being abusive. They are over fishing... they fish outside their territories. They smuggle humans.

    Maybe for us smart people we don't need religions. Ordinary people can only give importance to their conscience if you make them believe into something.

    Believe me, we need religion.

    i have not much time left, i have friends who can defend their religion.
    i'll invite you guys in RFP <- click it. It's a religion forum in the PI.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,416
    The classical "belief in belief" ^^,

    Well, perhaps a little different. You say that we need religion to control the masses. But why should it be religion? Why can't they have belief in the system? I don't think religion makes people less abusive. As long as people can they will.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    44
    Please read if you wish to have a conversation:

    How do you know the grass is green, stripes dont match dots, and walking alone in an ally at night is dangerous, and Chineese over-fish the environment?

    Because someone told you.

    The same is true for religion. People do not one day say OMG there's a god he spoke to me. People who are rel. usually grow up on rel households. The "traditions" are passed down. Why would someone dispute a religion that is a world wide national holiday such as Easter?

    Did you ever dispute that the grass is not green? It sounds like a silly question, but you do not see with your eyes you see with your brain. The color you see may not be the same color someone else see's as "green". A small percentage of the population cannot even see the color green.

    So back to your post:

    Flaw 1 china does not have religion: China is a country run by a government. There are apx 1 BILLION budasts in china, that is about 3x the current US population. And various other religous sects as well.

    Flaw 2 Lack of religion leads to abuse: Abuse comes with power. Catholic priests abuse children, Jim Baker is in jail for stealing from his worshipers, David Koresh thought he was jesus, and prisons are filled with the born againers.

    Flaw 3 regarding fishing and smuggling: Again how would religion change anything? Remember the crusaides?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    134
    Just because someone says they are a Christian doesn't make them one.

    Just because something is done in the name of Christ, doesn't mean He endorses it.
    If we disagree then you must be right...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    44
    Just because someone is religous does not make him or her a better person or nation such as the opening post implied.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Masters Degree geezer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    london
    Posts
    544
    the most peaceful countries are the secular ones.
    so religion is actual an incitement to violence.
    "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense - Buddha"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    44
    Quote Originally Posted by geezer
    the most peaceful countries are the secular ones.
    so religion is actual an incitement to violence.
    What statistics are you comparing and how did you reach your conclusion?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Masters Degree geezer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    london
    Posts
    544
    Quote Originally Posted by scotty
    Quote Originally Posted by geezer
    the most peaceful countries are the secular ones.
    so religion is actual an incitement to violence.
    What statistics are you comparing and how did you reach your conclusion?
    by these links
    http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_atheist.html
    http://www.vexen.co.uk/countries/best.html
    http://sizzlingizzards.blogspot.com/...eem-to-be.html
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programme...od/3518375.stm
    and the fact that the more religious a country the more likely they are at war with somebody.

    just run your eyes down this list, these people dont go to war.

    heres a small part
    Sweden
    Vietnam
    Denmark
    Norway
    Japan
    Czech Republic
    Finland
    France

    with the exceptiom of vietnam which is communist, the rest are non warring, non violent societies.
    "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense - Buddha"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    927
    its true, norway give away the nobel peace price.
    when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth
    A.C Doyle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    927
    its true, norway give away the nobel peace price.
    well. at least to a degree.
    we do have some christian movements around here, and a christian political party called "KRF" (kristelig folkeparti, or christian people's party)
    although AP has been the strongest for several years (worker's party)
    when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth
    A.C Doyle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,416
    I don't think religion has any significant purpose at all. At best, it would be neutral.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12 GEEZER YOUR WRONG!!! 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    44
    Quote Originally Posted by geezer
    Quote Originally Posted by scotty
    Quote Originally Posted by geezer
    the most peaceful countries are the secular ones.
    so religion is actual an incitement to violence.
    What statistics are you comparing and how did you reach your conclusion?
    by these links
    http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_atheist.html
    http://www.vexen.co.uk/countries/best.html
    http://sizzlingizzards.blogspot.com/...eem-to-be.html
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programme...od/3518375.stm
    and the fact that the more religious a country the more likely they are at war with somebody.

    just run your eyes down this list, these people dont go to war.

    heres a small part
    Sweden
    Vietnam
    Denmark
    Norway
    Japan
    Czech Republic
    Finland
    France

    with the exceptiom of vietnam which is communist, the rest are non warring, non violent societies.
    Warring and violent socities are 2 differnt things. To go to war takes money, army, strong centrealized goernment, and a governments desire to war on it's neighbor regardless of it's people's feelings. Where as a violent society is an individuals choice to wage war on his neighbor so to speak... So lets look at the violent societies you claim.

    First Sizzling lizzard, come on guy step it up. That is a blog without any statistical analysis, and starts off with "In sum, countries"... So I had a hard time taking anything it said with any validity?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._homicide_rate

    List of violent crime rates globally.

    According to your supplied site for percentage of athiest/ agnostic with some pretty huge discrepencies like sweeden 46 to 85% that's from less than half to almost everyone! But I can play with you and your aweful statistics.... http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_atheist.html


    Canada 70% religous = violent crime rate of 2.01
    Australia 74% religous = violent crime rate of 1.28
    Ireland is not listed probably everyone is IRISH CATHOLIC but, violent crime rate = 0.91
    PAKISTAN is not listed but I doubt you will be stating it's an agnostic nation violent crime rate = 0.05
    Kuwait who's not a muslum??? = 0.99
    Sweeden is at the top of the athiest list and has a violent crime rate of 2.39
    Russia which is nuber 12 on your top most athiest nations is the highest among the listed nations in both of the surveys with a violent crime rate of 19.8
    Iran's violent crime rate is 2.3 which is lower than that of the USA of 2.8


    THESE FINDINGS ARE NOT CONSISTENT WITH YOUR STATEMNTS THAT RELIGOUS SOCITIETS ARE MORE VIOLENT!

    If you wish to continue please post facts and not links.

    PS
    EDIT
    I notice you left out Germany and Japan from your list of athiest countries that don't go to war.... oh yeah, there was that one, I mean 2, well for germany like 6 times...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    792
    In Ireland, most people (not all!) claim to be catholic but most are not practising, religion isnt considered a big issue at all.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14 Re: GEEZER YOUR WRONG!!! 
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,893
    Quote Originally Posted by scotty
    I notice you left out Germany and Japan from your list of athiest countries that don't go to war.... oh yeah, there was that one, I mean 2, well for germany like 6 times...
    Careful, there. During WWII both Germany and Japan were very religious. Germany was overwhelmingly Christian (Hitler made a special point to persecute certain Christian denominations that he considered heretical), and the Japanese worshiped their emperor as a divine living god. Any yeah, under those circumstances they were very violent. You'll notice that since they became atheistic, they haven't been nearly as belligerent. If anything, these would appear to be examples of a country going from warlike to peaceful when they lose their religion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    44
    My original point was that war is not the test of a violent society, but rather it's a government diplomacy issue. A violent society is one with violent crimes!

    Second, he is not stating current wars, but rather war like societies (which is over time). You will have a hard time presenting many cultures that historically did not have some form of religion. Athiesm/agnostic is only recently becoming more socially acceptible. However, my point is that HE DID LEAVE IT OUT was skewing data to mine his point and not facts. And if you said germany does not have a warlike history you would be laughed at right to the grave!

    Next, isn't it the least bit possible that it was the government changes that diluted the violence in society and NOT the religious ones? People did not say day 3 after WW2 I don't believe in god anymore lets be cival...

    Lets not forget the countries that were not allowed to have a military after WW2... probably decreases their ability to wage war on thy neighbor.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16 Re: GEEZER YOUR WRONG!!! 
    Forum Masters Degree geezer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    london
    Posts
    544
    Quote Originally Posted by scotty
    Quote Originally Posted by geezer
    Quote Originally Posted by scotty
    Quote Originally Posted by geezer
    the most peaceful countries are the secular ones.
    so religion is actual an incitement to violence.
    What statistics are you comparing and how did you reach your conclusion?
    by these links
    http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_atheist.html
    http://www.vexen.co.uk/countries/best.html
    http://sizzlingizzards.blogspot.com/...eem-to-be.html
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programme...od/3518375.stm
    and the fact that the more religious a country the more likely they are at war with somebody.

    just run your eyes down this list, these people dont go to war.

    heres a small part
    Sweden
    Vietnam
    Denmark
    Norway
    Japan
    Czech Republic
    Finland
    France

    with the exceptiom of vietnam which is communist, the rest are non warring, non violent societies.
    Warring and violent socities are 2 differnt things.
    are they, well thats news, do people attack, is there clashes, is there a struggle, and is there bloodshed, in either waring or violent or both what do you think.
    Quote Originally Posted by scotty
    To go to war takes money, army, strong centrealized goernment, and a governments desire to war on it's neighbor regardless of it's people's feelings. Where as a violent society is an individuals choice to wage war on his neighbor so to speak... So lets look at the violent societies you claim.
    irrelevent.
    Quote Originally Posted by scotty
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._homicide_rate

    List of violent crime rates globally.

    According to your supplied site for percentage of athiest/ agnostic with some pretty huge discrepencies like sweeden 46 to 85% that's from less than half to almost everyone! But I can play with you and your aweful statistics....
    as can I, so lets play.
    "The 2004 United Nations' Human Development Report, which ranks 177 countries on a "Human Development Index," measures such indicators of societal health as life expectancy, adult literacy, per-capita income, educational attainment, and so on. According to this report, the five top nations were Norway, Sweden, Australia, Canada, and the Netherlands." taken from here
    http://www.secularhumanism.org/index...zuckerman_26_5
    "Irreligious countries had the lowest infant-mortality rate (number of deaths per 1,000 live births), and religious countries had the highest rates. According to the 2004 CIA World Factbook - http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook "
    Quote Originally Posted by scotty
    http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_atheist.html
    Canada 70% religous = violent crime rate of 2.01
    Australia 74% religous = violent crime rate of 1.28
    Ireland is not listed probably everyone is IRISH CATHOLIC but, violent crime rate = 0.91
    PAKISTAN is not listed but I doubt you will be stating it's an agnostic nation violent crime rate = 0.05
    Kuwait who's not a muslum??? = 0.99
    Sweeden is at the top of the athiest list and has a violent crime rate of 2.39
    Russia which is nuber 12 on your top most athiest nations is the highest among the listed nations in both of the surveys with a violent crime rate of 19.8
    Iran's violent crime rate is 2.3 which is lower than that of the USA of 2.8
    THESE FINDINGS ARE NOT CONSISTENT WITH YOUR STATEMNTS THAT RELIGOUS SOCITIETS ARE MORE VIOLENT!
    firstly taken from here http://www.secularhumanism.org/index...zuckerman_26_5 "Regarding homicide rates, Oablo Fajnzylber et al., in a study reported in the Journal of Law and Economics (2002), looked at thirty-eight non-African nations and found that the ten with the highest homicide rates were highly religious. Conversely, of the ten nations with the lowest homicide rates, all but Ireland were secular nations with high levels of atheism."
    and lets take a look at your list shall we there is a 1 in 6 chance you will be killed in karachi, and a 1 in 3 you'll get hurt, ( http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/31/3/581 ) however pakistan has the lowerest violent crime rate, is that right, oh I get it, the figure is worked out in regard to the whole population, ah well that explains it.

    perhaps the violence that happens on a daily basis, is just teddy bears at forty paces.
    this from here ( http://www.alertnet.org/printable.ht...les/PK_VIO.htm )"The violence in both Waziristan and Baluchistan has affected the civilian population, with growing numbers killed and thousands driven from their homes."
    perhap they cant get an accurate census, because they keep killing each other.
    Quote Originally Posted by scotty
    If you wish to continue please post facts and not links.
    and I suggest you do the same by looking up several sources before posting.
    Quote Originally Posted by scotty
    PS
    EDIT
    I notice you left out Germany and Japan from your list of athiest countries that don't go to war.... oh yeah, there was that one, I mean 2, well for germany like 6 times...
    japans the fifth one down, whats your point. the last time either warred was 60 years plus ago when they were highly religious countries.
    "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense - Buddha"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    44
    Guy I don't see any stats. Please post the stats you claim and do not make me read hundres of pages of internet links.

    you"japans the fifth one down, whats your point. the last time either warred was 60 years plus ago when they were highly religious countries."

    So the war ended and after year 1, 59 years ago they were a non religous society? No. What happened? Why were they still a religious sect but nonviolent since the end of WW2? It WAS NOT THE CHANGE IN RELIGION IT WAS THE CHANGE IN GOVERNMENT! We took away their right to have a military, but they want it back... They also were religious and nonviolent in 1950.

    Your link: http://www.alertnet.org/printable.ht...les/PK_VIO.htm
    What's your point? Yes it's a very sad story, but makes no mention that the current violence has anything to do with religion sects fueding. I can also point out that when kuwait was invaded, instead of fighting, they just left. Is there anyother less violent of an act than standing up from your home leaving when another is invading you?

    http://www.secularhumanism.org/index...zuckerman_26_5
    Secularhumanism.org??? You are using the quior to preach for you. Yes it's a step above a blog... but not much.

    https://www.cia.gov/library/publicat...ook/index.html
    Link you provided does not state as you claim "Irreligious countries had the lowest infant-mortality rate" And if it did does not support your violent society claim and would suggest Obstetric medicine practices.

    http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/31/3/581
    "Homicide, defined as fatal injuries inflicted by another person with intent to injure or kill,1 causes over 500 000 deaths per year worldwide. .... Karachi, Pakistan, between October 1993 and January 1996, 4091 people sustained violent injuries"

    Lets assume every violent injury resulted in a honoicide (although not true, I don't feel like reading the whole article)! It's a big jump but why not right? And lets assume that the hospital, and pre-hospital care has nothing to do with the outcome (again untrue but I'll let you work out the fuzzy math)...

    GUY THAT'S A GOOD PLACE TO LIVE!!! ONLY 0.08% of global violence occured there over a 3 year period. WHAT IS YOUR POINT? By the way read the title "Vulnerability to homicide in Karachi: political activity as a risk factor" NOT RELIGIOUS ONES...

    "Individuals who were killed were 13 times more likely to be an active member of a political party "

    EDIT:
    "KEY MESSAGES

    Prior studies in Karachi, Pakistan demonstrated that males aged 20–40 years were at greatest risk of becoming homicide victims.

    This study, conducted in a high violence neighbourhood in Karachi, found that homicide victims were much more likely to be politically active than controls of similar age and sex.

    This suggests that organized political violence contributes importantly to homicide in Karachi."

    NO RELIGIOUS MENTION.

    "35 victims were killed by firearms"

    PS Karachi, Pakistan has over 16,000,000 people living there.

    by contrast my home state of New Jersey (a state in the USA) had in 2004, 5, 6 apx 425 homocies in each year... times 3 years is 1275 and a population of 8 million.
    0.03% of the global killings assuming. Do you honestly think that those numbers show a religious offering of death??? is 0.03 cival and 0.08 outrageous?

    REALIZE I AM COMPARING A 3RD WORLD NATION'S CITY WITH AN AWEFUL HISTORY OF VIOLENCE TO A STATE IN A GLOBAL LEADER WORLD POWER WITH STATE OF THE ART MEDICAL TEAMS PREHOSPITAL CARE AND LEADING TECHNOLOGICAL MEDICAL EQUIPTMENT (to prevent that violent act from becoming a murder)! I am also looking at an entire state that is rural in many parts and not just the populated urban most violent areas in the entire nation such as karachi.

    http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/34000.html
    http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/200...isturbing.html
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Masters Degree geezer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    london
    Posts
    544
    Quote Originally Posted by scotty
    ( personal attacks removed )
    ok I'm converted, gawd dam you have converted me, no the truth is you cant debate civily.
    I'm not going to argue, but I will debate.
    these are sites for discussion, not anger.
    It's a common failing of the religious to get nasty when their position is weak.
    so heres something to watch it quite humerous and also quite fightening.
    www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZiZcKomzHaU
    bye.
    "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense - Buddha"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    44
    Quote Originally Posted by geezer
    Quote Originally Posted by scotty
    ( personal attacks removed )
    ok I'm converted, gawd dam you have converted me, no the truth is you cant debate civily.
    I'm not going to argue, but I will debate.
    these are sites for discussion, not anger.
    It's a common failing of the religious to get nasty when their position is weak.
    so heres something to watch it quite humerous and also quite fightening.
    www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZiZcKomzHaU
    bye.
    I'm an athiest. LOL. No really I am.

    If you were able to put a nail in my coffin of arguments you would have. Where was I nasty? When I said don't stand behind the bible like some redneck or when I insulted your IQ? Oh yeah but you responded since then...

    The truth is you cannot do any analysis of your data and all you can do is spew off links that don't even show the information you are claiming them to have. They offer other concise conslusions, but they are not good enough for you, you need to MAKE UP YOUR OWN CONCLUSIONS.

    Do you even read the links you post or is it from some other site that you just post here like some tool?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    the most peaceful countries are the secular ones.
    so religion is actual an incitement to violence.
    During WWII both Germany and Japan were very religious. Germany was overwhelmingly Christian (Hitler made a special point to persecute certain Christian denominations that he considered heretical), and the Japanese worshiped their emperor as a divine living god. Any yeah, under those circumstances they were very violent. You'll notice that since they became atheistic, they haven't been nearly as belligerent.
    This started out as a scientific question about the value of religion to a society and then it turned into a debate about which society is more aggressive. Would you also argue that a lion would be better off without his claws or a bee without its sting? How does a low infant mortality rate relate to survival of a society if the birth rate is below replacement level?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    44
    EDIT: fixing quote box
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    How does a low infant mortality rate relate to survival of a society if the birth rate is below replacement level?
    Be careful guy, I got flamed for poiting out so many errors in their crazy logic... Did you click the link? The information claimed isn't even there!

    Quote Originally Posted by scotty
    ... does not support your violent society claim and would suggest Obstetric medicine practices.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •