Posts by Guest with Questions

13

If not God, who or what is ultimately in control?

by Guest with Questions in

i believe that we are all subject to either god or man but man is very limited.

as a christian i believe that god is in control.

he did give us free choice to an extent but he is control overall.

Guest with Questions

Why does someone/something have to be in control?

am in control of me, you are in control of you

There is no centralized control

I wasn’t asking who is in control of the details in ones own life but who or what is in control overall. We have no choice about when, where, or that we are even born, about when and how we die, who our parents will be etc. We have lots of choices in how we live our own lives but overall we don'thave much choice. Governments as a whole have some control over the lives of individuals; some, like socialism, more so. That's not necessarily a bad thing. We need order, we just can't do some things just because we feel like it. Some say that if the belief in God gives some comfort, the same can apply to those who chose Socialism or if Communism is forced upon us; the Govt will take care of my overall needs. You saw it when Communism fell; people were at a loss and many wanted Communism back. But Govts run by people only have a certain amount of control; they are limited. So who or what is ultimately in control? Wouldn't it be more honest to say that we don't know than to flippantly say I am in control of my life?

13

If not God, who or what is ultimately in control?

by Guest with Questions in

i believe that we are all subject to either god or man but man is very limited.

as a christian i believe that god is in control.

he did give us free choice to an extent but he is control overall.

Guest with Questions

I believe that we are all subject to either God or man but man is very limited. As a Christian I believe that God is in control. He did give us free choice to an extent but He is control overall. What or who do you think is in control?

27

Parthogenesis: How do creationists explain this?

by Crumpet in

i read this article in the paper on the train to work this morning (helped to keep me eyes of ladies feet and ankles) and was amazed as i never knew this before.. http://www.metro.co.uk/news/article.html?in_article_id=50123&in_page_id=34.

certain species can actually get pregnant and give birth without any make interaction.

if this doesnt support evolution as the most scientifically accountable theory of our existence what does?!.

Guest with Questions

Or could parthenogenesis give credence to the virgin birth of Jesus? I'm not trying to be flippant but I just don't see how this proves evolution.

gives credence to the theory that we are constantly evolving in order to achieve survival.

I've never understood why, or that, the process of evolution cares if we survive or not.

How simple it is to be a creationist. One doesnt need any facts, evidence, statistics, to evaluate anything

You seem to imply that Creationists have thrown science out the window; that science is an atheistic concept. Both Christians and Atheists use scienctific evidence to prove their views. Christians believe that God is behind science; that He created all things. Atheists don't believe that there is a God that created the universe. All this happened for no reason; it just happened.

93

How the Religious View Homosexuality

by serotonin_wraith in

for people who are still religious, what are your views on gays?.

for me (an atheist) it goes against my own morality to think of them as sinners or somehow doing wrong, and yet in the bible it teaches that it is wrong.

it's one of the main reasons i could never go along with the jws.. i'm curious how religious people address this issue.

Guest with Questions

For me there is a difference between what people see as sins and what God sees as sins. I don't put pedophiles, murderers, etc on the same plane as homosexuality (as long as it's with a consenting adult) but I believe that to God that all sin separates us from Him.

I had witnesses coming to my door a number of years ago and one mentioned about homosexuality and I was a bit irritated, not because I condone homosexuality but because there are so many other sins that each one of us commits every day. I asked this person why she was targetting just this group; a man down the street could be abusing his wife; why not comment on that also.

I don't believe we have the right to target a particular group of people and condemn them. Promiscuity is sin whether heterosexual or homosexual. I know these remarks aren't politically correct but as a Christian I don't believe homosexuality is right.

Does a thief get a free pass if he dedicates his life to God, yet continues to steal? Does a pedophile have God's blessing if he does much to spread God's word, but at the same time continues to abuse children?

God forgives us when we are truly remorseful but I doubt that when we willfully abuse a child that we were ever repentant. If we have a problem we seek help, but if you continue without seeking help you're obviously not wanting to change.

76

How do you see the world heading if all religion was eliminated?

by Guest with Questions in

many, like dawkins, think that religion is the root of all evil.

hypothetically, if all religion was eliminated and all people stopped believing how would you see the world in a few years?

with atheism on the rise do you think that society will improve or deteriorate?.

Guest with Questions

On one post I forgot the link:( for a critical view of Richard Dawkins)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,,1681235,00.html

Serotonin: I haven’t had time to respond to all the posts but while going over some of them I noticed this comment from you and I would like to respond.

Do Christians do good things? Absolutely. But we can count their numbers because they do it in the name of their chosen deity. Atheists don't give help in the name of anything, they just want to do it. They don't need to think they'll be rewarded, or be able to pass on their dogma in the process of giving aid.

You seem to imply that Christians donate only because they will be rewarded or because of ulterior motives whereas Atheists donate because they just want to do it. I don’t speak for all Christians and I’m sure you don’t speak for all atheists. I donate not because I will be rewarded but because I feel that it is everyone’s obligation to help the poor; those who can financially do so. In European countries the Govts donate the money through (what I hear are very high) taxes. The people don’t have the choice to donate or not donate. The Govt has made that choice for them. I’m sure there are many individual people who make additional donations privately, but for those that don’t donate privately, it doesn’t make them generous in my opinion.

76

How do you see the world heading if all religion was eliminated?

by Guest with Questions in

many, like dawkins, think that religion is the root of all evil.

hypothetically, if all religion was eliminated and all people stopped believing how would you see the world in a few years?

with atheism on the rise do you think that society will improve or deteriorate?.

Guest with Questions

Satanist? Please don't say you still believe the UN is the great whore of Babylon! Your latest statistics were already answered in the site I gave.

Serotonin: I don't believe that the UN is the great whore of Babylon. I have never been and never will be a witness. That is their belief.

I was talking about the author of the site -"Charity across the World" by Vexen Crabtree. Click on his name and scroll down and it will tell you who Vexen is. He is the Satanist.

Obviously I overlooked where the data came from. By the same token you originally seemed to overlook evidence on that site that states that the American people (not the Govt) do donate more than the European people. The European Govt’s gives more than the American Govt. To me that is very different. Because the European Govt gives more overall doesn’t make the individual European more generous. I’m not bashing Europeans. I was born there. I am not an American as I’ve stated but I do have two brothers in Texas. I still maintain that as a whole the American people are the most generous apart from the Govt. So in a sense we were both right and wrong.

This is the whole quote:

Comparing USA aid to that of European countries is not in itself a simple task. The American people are actually no less generous than those of other developed countries. By comparing aid as a percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) you measure the amount of aid that is given by individuals. On this scale, Americans look angelic, giving twice as much as Britons or Canadians. By comparing aid as a fraction of Gross National Income (GNI) as the studies on this page has done, you combine the generosity of the government and individuals.Europeans pay higher taxes to their governments, who in turn operate as welfare states, doing much charitable work
For this reason, European governments always appear more generous in league tables compared to American governments, which is decidedly not a welfare state.
American citizens give no less than others, according to The Economist, "the extra percentage point of its GDP that individuals deposit in rattling tins hardly reflects the much lighter taxes they pay" American citizens give more, but the government does so much less that the country as a whole looks miserly. It would not be right to blame the citizens for this, but the lack of a socially-minded government.

76

How do you see the world heading if all religion was eliminated?

by Guest with Questions in

many, like dawkins, think that religion is the root of all evil.

hypothetically, if all religion was eliminated and all people stopped believing how would you see the world in a few years?

with atheism on the rise do you think that society will improve or deteriorate?.

Guest with Questions

serotonin: I don't put too much stock in one satanists website. My sources seem to be a bit more reliable to me. The following site is from the World Watch Institute.

http://www.worldwatch.org/node/4319

76

How do you see the world heading if all religion was eliminated?

by Guest with Questions in

many, like dawkins, think that religion is the root of all evil.

hypothetically, if all religion was eliminated and all people stopped believing how would you see the world in a few years?

with atheism on the rise do you think that society will improve or deteriorate?.

Guest with Questions

Hi Serotonin, I did what you suggested and came up with this info. I did not pick and choose certain sites because it favoured my opinion. Can you find sites contrary to what I have found? By the way I am not American.

http://www.hoover.org/publications/policyreview/3447051.html

The differences in charity between secular and religious people are dramatic. Religious people are 25 percentage points more likely than secularists to donate money (91 percent to 66 percent) and 23 points more likely to volunteer time (67 percent to 44 percent). And, consistent with the findings of other writers, these data show that practicing a religion is more important than the actual religion itself in predicting charitable behavior. For example, among those who attend worship services regularly, 92 percent of Protestants give charitably, compared with 91 percent of Catholics, 91 percent of Jews, and 89 percent from other religions.
Some people might object to my conflation here of religious and nonreligious charity. One might argue, for example, that religious charity is more likely to take place for non-altruistic reasons than is nonreligious giving and volunteering: Religious people might give because of social pressure, for personal gain (such as stashing away rewards in Heaven), or to finance the services that they themselves consume, such as sacramental activities. Therefore, disparities in charity might disappear when we only consider explicitly nonreligious giving and volunteering. The sccbs data do not support this hypothesis, however: Religious people are more generous than secular people with nonreligious causes as well as with religious ones. While 68 percent of the total population gives (and 51 percent volunteers) to nonreligious causes each year, religious people are 10 points more likely to give to these causes than secularists (71 percent to 61 percent) and 21 points more likely to volunteer (60 percent to 39 percent). For example, religious people are 7 points more likely than secularists to volunteer for neighborhood and civic groups, 20 points more likely to volunteer to help the poor or elderly, and 26 points more likely to volunteer for school or youth programs. It seems fair to say that religion engenders charity in general —— including nonreligious charity.

http://misskelly.typepad.com/miss_kelly_/2006/11/who_gives_more_.html

A recent book by economist Arthur Brookes concludes that "religious conservatives donate far more money than secular liberals to all sorts of charitable activities, irrespective of income." Makes perfect sense to me, but it's sure to annoy the secular progressives. From Beliefnet: "In the book, he cites extensive data analysis to demonstrate that values advocated by conservatives -- from church attendance and two-parent families to the Protestant work ethic and a distaste for government-funded social services -- make conservatives more generous than liberals.

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=4768

For evidence, one can turn to the 2002 General Social Survey, a large survey of Americans conducted every other year or so by researchers at the University of Chicago. The survey is structured in such a way that it is possible to break down respondents along party and religious lines, as well as gauging their level of compassion (by asking, for example, whether respondents feel "tender, concerned feelings" for the less fortunate - which 72 per cent of Americans say they do).
According to these data, much conventional wisdom about uncompassionate conservatives is off base. Indeed, conservatives have slightly more compassionate attitudes than liberals; for example, they are three percentage points more likely to say they have tender, concerned feelings for the less fortunate.
Far more important than politics, however, is religion: people who attend their house of worship nearly every week are 15 points more likely to say they have tender feelings toward the less fortunate than people who never attend worship services (or attend less than once a year). That difference persists even when grouping people by their demographic characteristics, such as age, race, education, sex, marital status, and income.
As we all know, talk is cheap. So even if religious people say they feel more compassionate, do they also act more compassionately?
They do. Religious people of all political persuasions are 40 per cent more likely to donate to charities each year than secular people, and more than twice as likely to volunteer. They are also more than three times more likely than secular people to give each month, and three and one-half times as likely to volunteer that often.
And those religious believers aren't just giving to their churches, either. Research on volunteerism and philanthropy shows clearly that people who give and volunteer for religious organisations are far more likely than others to donate time and money to secular charities as well. For example, a 2000 survey of 30,000 people around the United States shows that religious people are 10 percentage points more likely than secularists to give (and 21 points more likely to volunteer) to explicitly nonreligious causes and charities.
Perhaps it is unfair to conclude that secular people (even those who feel compassionate) are simply less generous than religious people. Secularists with compassionate sentiments may simply be more likely to favour non-private means to help others - say, by supporting higher taxes to cover government welfare payments. However, the General Social Survey data do not support this idea: In fact, secularists and religious people are equally likely (25 per cent) to state that the government is spending "too little money on welfare".
So who is more compassionate: the religious right, or the secular left? The answer appears to be the former. The reason for this, however, revolves around religion, not political ideology. The relatively large religious right and fairly small religious left are both far more compassionate than secularists from either political side. The most uncompassionate group of all - in attitudes and behaviours - is a subset of conservatives who are also secularists. Inordinate media attention to this group may help explain why conservatives are often accused of being uncompassionate. But that group is not representative of the broad majority of Republican voters, who are in fact religious.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20061120141622AAOYrW1

Are Religious Conservatives More Generous Than Secular Liberals?

SYRACUSE, N.Y. -- Syracuse University professor Arthur C. Brooks is about to become the darling of the religious right in America -- and it's making him nervous.

The child of academics, raised in a liberal household and educated in the liberal arts, Brooks has written a book that concludes religious conservatives donate far more money than secular liberals to all sorts of charitable activities, irrespective of income.
In the book, he cites extensive data analysis to demonstrate that values advocated by conservatives -- from church attendance and two-parent families to the Protestant work ethic and a distaste for government-funded social services -- make conservatives more generous than liberals.

The book, titled "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism" (Basic Books, $26), is due for release Nov. 24.

When it comes to helping the needy, Brooks writes: "For too long, liberals have been claiming they are the most virtuous members of America"

http://www.examiner.com/a-489482~Jonah_Goldberg__Americans_really_do_care_more_than_others.htmlhttp://www.examiner.com/a-489482~Jonah_Goldberg__Americans_really_do_care_more_than_others.html

The further to the left you are —— particularly to the secular left —— the less likely you are to donate your time or money to charity. Imagine two demographically identical people, except that Joe goes to church regularly and rejects the idea that the government should redistribute wealth to lessen inequality, while Sam never goes to church and favors state-driven income redistribution.
Brooks says the data indicate that not only is Joe Churchgoer nearly twice as likely as Sam Secularist to give money to charities in a given year, he will also give 100 times more money per year to charities (and 50 times more to nonreligious ones).
Because Brooks is using vast pools of data, and because he’’s talking about averages rather than individuals, there is no end of exceptions to prove the rule. No doubt there are pious Scrooges and Santa-like atheists. But basically, if you are religiously observant, a married parent and skeptical toward the role of government, you are much more likely to be generous with your time and money.

http://www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/news/business/story.html?id=3af0092c-f684-4ea8-86cb-479d7aa1a7d0&k=81082

Americans give US$900 per person to charitable causes each year, while in Canada, the average is $400. In Quebec, the average is $176, the lowest amount of any province or territory.
In his new book Who Cares: America's Charity Divide -- Who Gives, Who Doesn't, and Why it Matters, economist Arthur C. Brooks compares the United States to western European nations and finds Americans give on average 14 times more than Italians, seven times more than Europeans and 3 1/2 times more than the French. "There is a view [in Europe] that if something is truly important, then government should be doing it and that discharges my duty to privately help others," says Mr. Brooks. "Maybe this explains something in Canada as well."

http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Debt/USAid.asp

As an aside, it should be emphasized that the above figures are comparing government spending. Such spending has been agreed at international level and is spread over a number of priorities.
Individual/private donations may be targeted in many ways. However, even though the charts above do show US aid to be poor (in percentage terms) compared to the rest, the generosity of the American people is far more impressive than their government. Private aid/donation has been through charity of individual people and organizations though this of course can be weighted to certain interests and areas. Nonetheless, it is interesting to note for example, per latest estimates, Americans privately give at least $34 billion overseas——more than twice the US official foreign aid of $15 billion at that time:

76

How do you see the world heading if all religion was eliminated?

by Guest with Questions in

many, like dawkins, think that religion is the root of all evil.

hypothetically, if all religion was eliminated and all people stopped believing how would you see the world in a few years?

with atheism on the rise do you think that society will improve or deteriorate?.

Guest with Questions

First I want to say that for me faith and religion are two different issues. Faith is a belief in God, religion is man-made. I haven’t commented to everyone but will eventually. Bear with me I’ve had a toothache (tooth crowned) for the past week. If at any time I sound angry, I'm not. But I am passionate about my beliefs and I will defend them.

I think they'd just find something else to kill each other over. But imagine if all the money that goes into religion went to the poor and hungry and diseased, unfortunately human nature isn't like that (with or without religion)?

I agree that with or without religion we would continue to kill each other. I personally have my doubts that the money would go to the poor and hungry. In spite of of what some think, Christians as a whole are the most generous; they collectively are feeding the hungry, comforting the hurting, helping the sick.

Without organized religion rearing its ugly head, we could prob make communism work. Hell, we could make anarchism work.
Wars would gradually cease, as people don't want to die and not be rewarded, and crime might surge for a while, but it would come right back down because no one would mind sentencing the death penalty.
And I could hug my mom again.

Communism has never worked. Russia, China, Cuba. They were always a few dictators that controlled the masses.

Why would wars gradually cease? We would still have that herd mentality and follow "a leader" who we would follow and do what we are told. The masses would not collectively gather together and kindly decide what was best for all. I truly believe that mass hysteria would ensue and people would do as they pleased but then something would kick in and a strong controlling leader would take over. It’s our nature to follow someone, whether it’s God or a man. I do believe that a strong leader will come and everything will be peaceful for a while. People will be numbed into thinking everything is well and then after (could it be 3 ½ years?) he shows his true colours; he’s nothing but a mean controlling dictator. People in general are followers and he will have no problem getting them to follow them especially with promises that with him all will be utopia.

This is the fault of one strange cult that you can’t hug your mom and I feel for you. At least I still can hug my mom but who knows how long that may last

It would be nice without this barrier to science. Religion has always been a barrier to progress. Religion started the first Dark Ages (and a whole lot of wars). Religion is threatening to start another Dark Ages: if the Jihadists or the Jehovah's Witlesses have their way, we will be in another Dark Ages.
Without religion holding us back, now all we need is to get those government regulators off our backs, and the free enterprise system will be able to solve our problems without the hinderances. The bad companies that initiate fraud will go bust as their reputations will be exposed like the Watchtower Society is today, and they will have as hard a time getting back their footing. Good companies will rise and produce ever better product. And that's as good as any regulator can hope for.

Do you realize that modern science grew out of Christianity. God created science. There is no barrier between God and science. Anti religion, I believe, is going to start another dark age. How would you get govt regulators off our backs, how will we get a free enterprise system, how will bad companies that initiate fraud go bust, how will good companies rise and produce ever better products? It’s a nice fantasy but how will this come about?

I think it all depends on the methods used to get it that way.
If all of us atheists banded together to wipe out religious people, that would not be a good thing. And then we'd have to execute/imprison all the 'offenders'. Basically that would be a huge violation of personal rights, and when one basic right can be destroyed so can all your other rights... not a pretty picture, it would probably be almost as bad as if everyone was required to be Christian or Muslim.
BUT on the other hand, if all religion was eliminated due to personal choice, like if scientists learn much more about the natural universe to the point where only retards would even consider god. Then that would be a good thing, because everyone is ALLOWED to be religious, they just don't want to be.
Then I think the world would be a wonderfull place and you end up with an advanced society ruled by humanism... (There would still be crimes commited by evil people.)
But the same applies Christianity, if everyone WANTED to be christian, then you would have a worldwide brotherhood of extremely peacefull happy people... (There would still be crimes commited by evil people.)
Unity is a good thing, no matter who is united. Uninformity is a bad thing, no matter who is assimilated.

First I do think it will come to that. Anti Christians will try to wipe us out. I don’t believe a time will ever come that all religion will be eliminated due to personal choice. The choice will be forced upon us. Why is it so unpalatable that God could be behind science. Why would you think that only retards could even consider that there is a God.. I have to remember that at the age of 18 you see everything black and white. You seem to think that without religion the world would be a wonderful place; that you end up with an advanced society ruled by humanism (hasn’t this always been the downfall of mankind; someone will show them utopia only for it to become a nightmare. Show me a time without religion that the world was "wonderful". Without religion there really is no evil. That is a religious concept. People will continue to hurt each other and it will only escelate. Religion is made up by man; it’s of his own creation. So by taking God out of the equation you are still left with man creating this mess. We killed each other, we were inhumane to each. You say there is no God well you are still left with the mess at your feet with or without God..

I’m glad you realize that if all people were "truly" Christian this would be a wonderful place. The sad fact is that we aren’t able to maintain it for long lengths of time. I’m a Christian but am the first to admit that I fail to live up to it. That’s why I do believe that Jesus came for the broken. Like everything, Unity has a negative and a positive. Look at the wonderful music that Germany brought and also brought Hitler and his regime ( Hitler/Hiedler was actually Austrian but his evil deeds were done in Germany)

We can already see the benefits when countries move away from religion. Sam Harris wrote:

'Countries like Norway, Iceland, Australia, Canada, Sweden, Switzerland, Belgium, Japan, the Netherlands, Denmark and the United Kingdom are among the least religious societies on Earth. According to the United Nations' Human Development Report (2005) they are also the healthiest, as indicated by measures of life expectancy, adult literacy, per capita income, educational attainment, gender equality, homicide rate and infant mortality. Conversely, the 50 nations now ranked lowest in terms of human development are unwaveringly religious. Other analyses paint the same picture: The United States is unique among wealthy democracies in its level of religious literalism and opposition to evolutionary theory; it is also uniquely beleaguered by high rates of homicide, abortion, teen pregnancy, STD infection and infant mortality. The same comparison holds true within the United States itself: Southern and Midwestern states, characterized by the highest levels of religious superstition and hostility to evolutionary theory, are especially plagued by the above indicators of societal dysfunction, while the comparatively secular states of the Northeast conform to European norms.'

First, is it possible that people like Sam Harris and Richard Dawkin etc etc, are writing these books for monetary gain. Talk about parroting. Atheists seem to have their own parrots (flying spaghetti monster?, fairy tales etc etc) It goes to show that we as a people are followers. I can only speak a bit about the Netherlands because I was born there, but not raised there. My extended family live there and I what I see I don’t particularly like. Netherlands condoned prostitution, drugs, bringing in foreigners and they now have a huge mess in their hands. Muslims are taking over Europe. White people are becoming more and more secular, having fewer children and Muslims are having more children. So how do you see Europe in the near future?

Don't forget those great atheist bastions of freedom and socialist workers paradises- USSR, China, Cambodia. Together their wonderful examples of freedom from religion brought about @100 million deaths in the 20th century. Maybe we'll be even luckier in this century and kill half a billion when we finally manage to wipe out every trace of a belief system. Can just imagine all those greenies salivating at the thought of all those dead people. Fertilizer for the trees and plants and room for all the animals.

But according to atheists the problem is with the religious. With socialism we will have paradise. In the end I don’t believe that every trace of a belief system will ever be eradicated but many will try and are trying. I do believe it will get much worse. The sad reality is that atheism is on the rise but will not last long.

oh god, a world without religion? would definitely eliminate alot of the problems.. and the first step, all the religious giving all their money to the church, could donate it to fix thiungs in africa... yeah world would be a better place!

You’re implying that if religion was eliminated a lot of the problems of the world would be eliminated. Where does religion come from, it comes from man. Take God out for a moment, you are still left with the fact that we messed up whether in the name of religion or not. Can you tell me how without religion we can make this a better place? How long has man existed on this earth and we still can’t get it together. Do you really think that all or even a little of the church money would go to fix Africa? As Christians we are followers and God commands us to help our fellow man and I think for the most part we have been obedient. As followers of a man or a few men do you really think the world would be a better place? Think again. Your answer is too simplistic.

First their would be chaos as people wouldn't know what to do without their Jehovah, Allah, Jesus, Yahwah, Buddha, father, son or holy ghost.
But slowly, people would realize that logic and human decency provides the guidance they need.
Then, all would be right in the world again.
Ahhh, perchance to dream .....you're such a tease.

Where would that logic and human decency come from? People coming together and rationally talking together and coming to a mutual agreement with a handshake. What happens if no one can agree? (guess what that will happen)

Again religion comes from man and we haven’t done a very good job, changing the philosphy isn’t going to change anything.

Ahh, perchance to dream...you’re such a tease............no my dreams are based on facts and yes I do believe this nightmare to come will end but only through a strong leader, Jesus.

ajwnm, I don't recall them dying due to atheism.
Richard Dawkins: "I cannot think of any war that has been fought in the name of atheism. Why should it? A war might be motivated by economic greed, by political ambition, by ethnic or racial prejudice, by deep grievance or revenge, or by patriotic belief in the destiny of a nation. Even more plausible as a motive for war is an unshakeable faith that one's own religion is the only true one."

If these people didn’t die due to atheism, then why, how did they die?

I think atheism has always been around but not to the degree that it is today. Can you show me in chart form all the wars and the reasons for them? In the end if there is no God we are still guilty of the autrocities.

I can only "Imagine"..................

http://youtube.com/watch?v=jEOkxRLzBf0&mode=related&search=

I thought the link was for I can only Imagine not Imagine

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S70gwFcSK9k&mode=related&search=

I'd see a much better world to live in IMHO

Can I ask why you would think it would be a better world to live in? To wish it doesn’t make it so.

Many, like Dawkins, think that religion is the root of all evil.
Actually, if you read Dawkins, he is careful to say religion is not the root of ALL evil...
Anyway, I would argue that we are just not ready for this yet. If tensions continue, (Islamic, ultra-conservative Christian, etc), then it may be forced upon us. That will be a scary day. Not in the jw "great tribulation" sense, but quite the opposite. People will certainly rebel, in the worst possible way agasint such an effort. At the moment, I see no good comming of it. Maybe in another couple hundred of years, but not now

I agree that things will get worse but not because of religion but inspite of it.

As for misquoting Mr Dawkins here is his website:

http://richarddawkins.net/article,107,Root-of-All-Evil-Part-1-The-God-Delusion,Richard-Dawkins---Channel-4

for a critical view of Richard Dawkins:

Richard Dawkins does not seem to know history very well . Communist nations have always warred against religion in the name of atheism .I don't think the world would change a whole lot without "christianity" . I know I can't stand christmas exept for the paid holiday at work but the whole thing is all about greed and stupid santa claus and rein deer , give me a break already . It's just a fairy tale that got way out of hand .

See above link regarding Dawkins. I agree that without christianity (if there is no God) that the world will continue to go on as it has. We are responsible for the mess. By the same token I believe that Christians as a whole have done more to help the poor, sick, needy.

My guess is that after a few short moments without religion (or spiritual philosophies) mankind would turn and begin to shift through the ashes that where left and raise it up again.

and again and again...

Will try to respond to the rest of the posts later.

76

How do you see the world heading if all religion was eliminated?

by Guest with Questions in

many, like dawkins, think that religion is the root of all evil.

hypothetically, if all religion was eliminated and all people stopped believing how would you see the world in a few years?

with atheism on the rise do you think that society will improve or deteriorate?.

Guest with Questions

Many, like Dawkins, think that religion is the root of all evil. Hypothetically, if all religion was eliminated and all people stopped believing how would you see the world in a few years? With atheism on the rise do you think that society will improve or deteriorate?