Majority Still Says Religion Can Answer Today's Problems.

communist is another form of opposing religeon ..... and 100% of them fcked and do not work .... fyi

aaaand..... Have u not heard some atheist bigots in america try their best to put down everything that is religion related .... even stole a nativity, chistmas tree ... just to piss other off.

Yes .... a Bigot in the name of atheist ..... so similar to some religious bigots .... and growing and trending like justin beiber rapidly ....

i'm sorry if i sound like a douche.

I agree, it works both ways... in reality people are the ass-holes.... but religeon/athiesm is yet more labels which devide and give these ass-holes a reason to have a go at eachother like the athiest bigot you mention.

I am athiest... pretty sure I live to a similar standard to the majority of religeous people (because they don't even meet their religeons demands.) buuuut. I can't believe in a so called "loving creator" that decides to make us so agressive towards different views, and then uses our lives as a test....

sound more like lab rats. "Lets make them all have random attributes and judge/punish them for it" .... I stay good so that we actually thrive as a species, not because I'm some mythical lab rat.

@MBirdy88: I can't believe in a so called "loving creator" that decides to make us so agressive towards different views, and then uses our lives as a test....

Have you ever sat down and studied religion? Perhaps read up on certain denominations within Christianity, for instance, to see what their belief system and history is all about? I think if you did, you'd see how callous that comment is. Just saying.

I am aware that there are many different views of any religion, and that just further's my perception that they lack credibility because of it. My statement won't satisfy the criteria or views of all Christians. so yes you can label it callous. but as I've pointed out, how can anyone even debate this when its perceived in so many different ways... which is correct? why is it correct? what is the evidence?

You can say there are as many denominations within Christianity, but and the end of the day... they fall under the same label to everyone else. and then the thousands of other alternatives that completely different from Christianity. Again, how can you tell me to study to avoid callous statements when even your own groups can't provide a consistent version?

I certainly think organized religion is outdated.. All too often it involves a single person preaching their views and the followers regurgitating the stuff like sock puppets.. Not to mention organizations like the Catholic Church still have women playing a minor role in the organization..

Because if you studied religion, Christianity we'll say, you would see how certain denominations came about as a result of splitting from the Church at different points in time (Protestants for example in the 1600's) and at that point they go off and define their own belief systems, etc.

I agree that no religion is consistent. But I don't think that lack of consistency is any reason to group them into a mythological category.

a man does the labour because they were gifted with extra muscle ...... you dont let a pregnant woman collect pile of rubbish.

Woman when given role tend to be like femen group, showing their assets to president putin and ect .... rather than making nice food for their kids

Then you're an idiot. That has been going on in the animal kingdom before humans even existed.

Stem cell research has not been banned in the U.S., federal funding of embryonic stem cell research is banned. There is still federal funding of adult stem cell research and most religious groups do not object to that, the Vatican has even donate money to adult stem cell research. And pretty much all the medical progress has come from adult stem cell research (including ips cells), not embryonic stem cells (which are too unsafe for human testing because they can cause tumors).

I do not know if the US is behind medically, from what I've heard American patients have the best medical results. Now there are some treatments available in other countries that aren't in the U.S. yet, but that is because they have yet to be approved by the FDA (the process takes time, the FDA has to make sure the treatments are effective and safe).

i'd say it's more stupidity than religion.. if you're killing in the name of your god, you're an idiot. full stop.

there's no better gold plated excuse to do harm and stop thinking than divine edict

Religion prides itself on being "divinely inspired". That divine being is also said to be omnipotent and omniscient. These infinite qualities imply perfection. If the religion inspired by this being are also not perfect, then it calls into question their validity.

If you want to define religion as a human creation, then sure, it wouldn't call into question it's validity, since humans are imperfect (especially those from 2000 years ago)... but wouldn't that just undermine the point of believing in a God?

My mistake, I meant the federal funding of it. And federal funding of it isn't even banned anymore. I've had multiple community college teachers tell me that the U.S. is far behind in stem cell research because of the lack of federal funding from when Bush was in office. Adult stem cell research has provided more progress, but that's because there haven't been the same limitations on the research associated with embryonic stem cells. Scientists believe that embryonic stem cells hold more potential, meaning that theoretically if not for all the opposition against embryonic research, we could have medical procedures that could potentially help a lot more people than what adult stem cells are capable of.

Essentially, beliefs rooted in the past are stunting are potential reach towards the future.

The benefits of religion definitely do not outweigh the harm it does.

They aren't religious, you dumb shit. That's the entire point. You're criticizing religion for using the threat of violence/death/injury in order to achieve behavioral modification, and I'm telling you that religion didn't cause that "problem". That's what lions are doing when they growl at you, that's what harmless animals are doing when they mimic venomous animals. When a rattlesnake shakes its rattle at you, that is literally what it is doing: changing your behavior by telling you that it will kill your ass if you don't comply. For you to think that religion created this problem is for you to think that no animal has ever discovered that its ability to kick ass lets it change the behavior of other animals through threats. Hell, dude, do you think that religion is responsible for common street thugs mugging people at gunpoint? The dude knows he has leverage, after all, he has a freaking gun. Are you telling me that he wouldn't be able to see such a clear imbalance of power without evil religion poisoning his mind?

In the grand hierarchy of things, biology reigns supreme and then religion is somewhere down a bit lower on the list. This is precisely why none of the other animals have converted to human religions: their biology doesn't freaking allow it. Anything that religion does is only possible within the parameters of what is biologically possible for a species.

well, generally speaking you wouldn't be religious if you didn't believe your worldview is the answer to the world's problems

Religion and money, the 2 single greatest causes of conflict in the world by a long way, the world would be a safer more secure place without either.

yea.....no

Not all problems can be solved. Some problems can be solved, some problems can't be solved, and for some problems the solution is worse than the problem.

Religion can help people solve problems, as well as understand and accept those problems that they cannot or should not solve.

I think the majority does not know what its talking about considering its realization and practice of its different creeds of choice. What I'm trying to say is that if you pulled out one of these people who believe that their faith is capable of solving the problems of today's world and scrutinized his/her adherence to that said faith, chances are, you'd be appalled. Not only that, but if you asked him/her to give up something or cease to do something in the name of that creed he'd tell you to **** right off with a facial expression that screams "what are you, nuts?"

Then much like most christians, you probably didn't look very hard into your religious book.

How about 'Secular Nazism' and all the deaths Nazi Germany was responsible for during WWII? No one seems to have mentioned that in this thread yet.

There was nothing secular about nazism

You don't know much about Nazi Germany do you?

Secular schools can never be tolerated because such schools have no religious instruction, and a general moral instruction without a religious foundation is built on air; consequently, all character training and religion must be derived from faith ...we need believing people.

For this, to be sure, from the child's primer down to the last newspaper, every theater and every movie house, every advertising pillar and every billboard, must be pressed into the service of this one great mission, until the timorous prayer of our present parlor patriots: 'Lord, make us free!' is transformed in the brain of the smallest boy into the burning plea: 'Almighty God, bless our arms when the time comes; be just as thou hast always been; judge now whether we be deserving of freedom; Lord, bless our battle!

Is this a joke or you really this misinformed?

Perhaps you can offer some insight then since I am so "misinformed". And please, use your own words and not some external link to a Wikipedia article. Thanks.

Wikipedia? I don't really consider that a reliable source for information in the first place. Fact: The majority of people in Nazi Germany were religious (Protestant and Catholic). Also you may want to look up the Reich Church. Fact: The Vatican supported the Nazis. Fact: While we don't know with 100% certainly what Hitler's views were in private, he did publicly speak out in support of Christian beliefs, talked about doing the lord's work, etc... Fact: The belt buckles on the nazi uniforms were inscribed with the words "God with us." Just a few examples for now.

So where is your evidence that Nazi Germany was secular?

Its probably based on all of the Christians that the Nazis killed.. Oh wait, that didn't happen. Jews? Check. Socialists? Check, Gypsies? Check. Communists? Check. Homosexuals? Check. Christians? Not so much.

Only two religious groups were killed: Seventh Day Adventists and Jehovah's Witnesses. Killing Jews was based more on race than religion.

Nazism was not secular. It was a mishmash of Christianity, race superiority, mixed in with some neo Nordic paganism. This is even ignoring that the Catholic Church had decent relationships with the Nazi party (although not as chummy as the Church was with Franko, Mussolini and the rest of the fascists).

Yeah, the vatican was in bed with him. He had them under his thumb and could have wiped them off the planet overnight, never did.

Okay then... Much like the bible, your book not only condones genocide but demands it as well.

Surat An-Nisā 4:34

Surat Al-'Anfāl 8:12

Surat Al-Baqarah 2:191

Surat An-Nisā 4:89

Surat Muĥammad 47:4

Surat At-Tawbah 9:5

Surat Al-'Anfāl 8:60

Surat Al-Ĥaj 22:19

Surat Al-Ĥaj 22:20

Surat Al-Ĥaj 22:21

Surat Al-Ĥaj 22:22

And of course, its view of women is exactly the same as the bible:

Surat Al-Baqarah 2:228

Surat Al-Baqarah 2:282

Surat At-Taghābun 64:14

Surat Al-Baqarah 2:222

Surat Al-Baqarah 2:223

Surat An-Nisā 4:3

Surat An-Nisā 4:11

Surat An-Nisā 4:15

Surat An-Nisā 4:20

Surat An-Nisā 4:24

Surat An-Nisā 4:25

Surat An-Nisā 4:43

Surat An-Nisā 4:176

Surat Al-Mā'idah 5:6

Surat Al-Ĥaj 22:2

Surat An-Nūr 24:6

Surat An-Nūr 24:31

And we can't forget that shining example of religion, Lot (or Lut in the Quran) who offered his daughters to a gang of rapists. And they manage to imply that homosexuals are all pedophiles and rapists in the same story. Surat Hūd 11:78

And its view of gay people is exactly the same as the bible: 29:28, 29:29, 27:54, 27:55

And it condones slavery exactly like the bible: 33:50, 33:55, 24:58, 24:31, 4:92

This is why I find the whole fight between Christians and Muslims really humorous. Their books are two sides of the same coin and almost perfect copies of each other as far as the laws are concerned.

Maybe instead of Copying and pasting some list you found on the Internet, you should try reading the Quran yourself.

As one of the few on here that actually have, I can tell you that on the surface the Quran does come across as quite Militant. But once the context and culture of the time is considered, it makes sense why it says what it says.

In the Quran, Violence is a measure of last resort, and should never be initiated.

Also the Quran and Bible should be similar, they are continuing progressions of the same true religion.

The Quran teaches that the true Gospels of Jesus were lost, and the Bible was corrupted by the Polytheists that came later.

No, but I've read the Quran. I have the English translation written by Maulana Muhammed Ali

lol, sure it is

why then are fundamentalist Muslims incredibly violent? If what you are saying is true you'd assume that a strict adherence to the Quran would have a pacifying effect.

Probably because they are not true Muslims.

Extremists make up literally less than 1% of Muslims. They are using the name of Islam to control the population. They take weak impressionable youth and brainwash them into believing they must do violence.

You have to understand American Culture. When i was a kid Russians were the bad guy. People feared them, hated them, and wanted to destroy them. They were perceived as the enemy, and it was a perception that was engrained through all types of Media.

Today Islam takes that role for American Culture. Throw religion into the mix and it's even more volatile.

I read the Quran because I didn't believe what the little man on the TV told me about it. I wanted to know the truth, and the only way to know that is to read it yourself.

The whole thing mind you, not some website bullcrap that so many of the morons here have skimmed and continually reference.

That's a very bold thing to say, that they are not "true" Muslims. Who are you to say that they aren't?

And I'm not talking about extremists exclusively, although opinion polls have shown that substantial segments of Muslim populations support or at least sympathize with terrorist attacks, and even if ~1% of Muslims were extremists we're still talking about roughly 10 million extremists - as a point of reference it's the equivalent of the entire population of Belgium being extremist.

But go beyond what you describe as only 10 million extremists and look at all the Islamist theocracies. These are not enlightened governments, and while there are certainly liberal segments of these populations there is also significant support for the outright barbarism that these governments promote. You say they take the name of Islam to control the population - that's the entire point of Islam in the first place. Islam means submission, it was originally created by Muhammad as a means to unify Arabia.

That's an odd thing to proclaim considering that countries like Saudi Arabia and Qatar have been funneling money to radical Jihadist groups for years now.