Question 21

Question: What is the number one thing wrong with organized religion? –Agnöstic

Answer: My major issue, and they’re many little issues, is that religion deprives an individual of his/her ability to think independently. So many people on this planet subscribe to a religion, which is basically a set of beliefs. Most of these "believers" didn’t come in to these beliefs by their own choice. These beliefs were passed to them from their parents much like a virus. Furthermore, many don’t understand why they believe them in the first place; they just do because they were raised that way. Ask a Christian or a Muslim why they don’t like homosexuals and the answers are amusing. Rarely do they offer an attempt at a logical answer. Instead they spew out blind hatred and religious scripture. They aren’t thinking for themselves.

And did you ever notice how many Christians dislike the teachings of Islam and vice versa? Of course they won’t admit that openly but you can see it on their face when the topic of Islam comes up. What I find amusing is that these people would have been Muslims if they were born to Muslim parents. This of course goes for Muslims too. They could just as easily have been Christians.

To summarize, the number one thing wrong with religion is that it keeps people from asking, "why" and "how". They accept things and their beliefs blindly and wholly.


149 Responses to “Question 21”

  1. Arktis says:

    sidfaiwu: Don’t go plagiarizing me, by the way. Eventually, I intend to do some writing, and that’s one of the topics I will be covering (in greater depth, of course).

    I’ll come after you and kick your ass if you do. ;)

  2. J says:


    i’m sorry, friend, but you or that video are nowhere even close to showing that Christians are dellusional. The problem with your assesment is that you don’t understand basic theology and the lack of it shows.

    We have not been talking about any specific God this whole time but a existence of a God in a general way but not any specific God of a religion.

    Since you made those claims above your going to have to demostrate them. Demonstrate the illogicalness of god in the general sense as well as in the christian sense. Show me how it doesn’t make sense.

    As I said, both belief in the existence of God and disbelief in the existence of God can be rational provided both appeal to evidence and make claims that are meaningful. Evidence isn’t always obviously “conclusive.” Sometimes a piece of evidence will “point” in a certain direction without itself necessitating a particular conclusion. So to say that belief in God is rational just means (a) it’s based on evidence that points to the possible existence of God, or the probability of God’s existing, and (b) that belief in God does not contradict any known rule of logic or any other proposition known to be true.

    So you will need to produce some proposition:
    (1) the truth of which is indisputable


    (2) which cannot be conjointly true with the proposition “some divine being exists.”

    Can you produce ONE such proposition?

    don’t just come here telling me that everything is fairytale without demonstrating it. That video didn’t show anything, it just made assumptions based on OTHER religions.

    So you show me why you think a general “God” cannot and/or does not exist and why you think the “Christian God” cannot and/ or does not exist and then we can move forward. and do not pull other religions into it because they are irrelevent in this discussion.

  3. Arktis says:

    The video made a very clear point: You believe in simplistic magical fairytales. It hurts, doesn’t it? Makes you angry, right? It should. Don’t get angry at the submitter of the video, or the creator, or the people who approve of it. They all pretty much care about you and that’s why the video was made in the first place. You ought to at least thank them even if you disagree. If you want to get mad at someone, be mad at yourself for seeing only red and charging like a bull.

  4. freigeist says:

    J, i’m beginning to lose my patience.
    if the only thing available to you is INCONCLUSIVE evidence, why the fuck would you go around making conclusions out of something INCONCLUSIVE?!?! why do you care so much? why not make the logical conclusion and say “the evidence is inconclusive, therefore i don’t know whether God exists or not.”
    ok… it’s been said already that WE CANNOT DISPROVE GOD. in the end, it comes down to faith. by definition you can’t disprove something based on faith (because taking something on faith means you are taking it without proof – i hope you understand that). the problem lies with faith itself since FAITH IS NOT RATIONAL. faith is magically believing something to exist without any empirical evidence for it. at least there is empirical evidence for the Big Bang, which goes MUCH MUCH further than anything that could speak to God’s ‘existence’. there is a difference between RATIONALIZING (which is what you do) and thinking RATIONALLY.

    i’ve given points but i don’t have to prove anything to you because i don’t care… i’ve been there and i outgrew it. god is for children and stupid people. to paraphrase the video, stop hurting the wolrd with your delusions!

  5. freigeist says:

    i really need to put in a qualifier there and say that the non-rational faith i’m talking about is the faith in God. someone mentioned earlier that we do take things on faith, like we have faith in logic and faith that what we see is actually what is happening, etc, etc. i think most of us see the difference between faith related to religion and these other basic ‘faiths’.
    and for you J, it is ILLOGICAL to propose something more mysterious to explain a mystery. for example, you could argue that the complex structure of the eye (or whatever) is such that an Intelligent Designer must have Created it. the problem is, this Intelligent Designer must necessarily be more complex than the thing which he creates. therefore, you went from a small mystery (the eye) to a much bigger mystery (Intelligent Designer).
    I understand that a lot of this may be new information to you and i fully appreciate how difficult it is to dislodge deeply held religious convictions, believe me i know. So i’m going to try and be more patient… just please start to think about what you are saying/writing a little.

  6. J says:


    your again missing the point, there is a difference between being absolutely positive about something, being reasonably sure based on evidence (reasonable faith), and accepting something blindly (blind faith). I know a cannot prove God, but i am personally convinced through my own experience and external evidence that God does exist.

    it has been all pointless up to this point, but if you would like to have a more formal debate on the subject, then i would be happy to do so. If you want, we can both give our reasons (A) (B) (C)…Therefore…
    I will give evidence for the possbility of God, while you will give evidence for the impossbility of GOd (why you think he is nothing more than a fairytale). Some general respect would make it more enjoyable. Would you like to continue the conversation in this manner?

  7. Arktis says:

    J, allow me to introduce you to something called anecdotal evidence, which is what you’ve got:

    Have fun reading.

    You should give up now. You’ve got no credibility.

  8. J says:


    thanks for the link to the anecotal evidence, it was really helpful to the conversation???? hardly. and is how exacly is that the evidence i have?

    and you have a lot of credibility? its easy to say someone you disagree with has no credibility.

    im still waiting for your response freigeist

  9. Arktis says:

    I’m with freigiest on this; I am losing patience. I will continue to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are purposely being difficult. This is a simple concept. I’ll walk you through it and in the process your questions will be answered.

    Here’s what you do: Take the term “anecdotal evidence”, and apply as a filter of sorts to whatever you have to present as evidence for your god. You will quickly find that literally everything you can think of has been caught in our little filter, and nothing is left for you to present. In other words, you have nothing but anecdotal evidence, which is not credible. The Bible itself, for goodness sake, is completely anecdotal and that’s the book all of your religious beliefs are derived from.

    To restate once again: You have no credible evidence to present in support of your position. If you still doubt me, I will happily and thoroughly tear apart anything you happen to present. Consider it a challenge.

  10. Arktis says:

    Let me add something to further drive home the point. Christians have tried to come up with evidence that isn’t anecdotal, and the fruits of these attempts have taken the form of several impressive sounding numbers in scientific notation – mostly probabilities.

    When you apply critical thinking to these little tidbits, they quickly fall apart. I have probably heard them all. Believe me, I’ve heard a lot, and they have all failed scrutiny.

    So once more, you’ve got nothing, and I challenge you to show me otherwise.

  11. sidfaiwu says:

    Hello Arktis,

    Let me know when you’ve done your writing, I’d like to read it. But it’s not plagiarism if I quote it and cite you. If you come to kick my ass, I’ll hide behind a lawyer like a good little coward ;)

    Going back to the distinction between a working model and belief, I guess I asked the wrong question. What I’m thinking is that the application of a working model in some way requires belief. I might be wrong on this, which is why I asked for more details. When I think about the criterion you defined for rational vs. irrational belief: a rational belief is one that is required for normal functioning, I see it fits nicely with your ‘working model’ based rational behavior.

    My interest hasn’t waned, though. I guess I’d describe your philosophy as a ‘practical’ one. As you know, I’ve mostly exposed myself to empirical philosophers. Perhaps you could point me to a philosopher who has developed a full practical philosophy? If it is Kant, do you know of a book that presents his ideas more succinctly then he did?


  12. Arktis says:

    I’ll just generalize some more and then run away.

    If you really want a good answer about belief and the application of working models, just look at science. Pure science doesn’t make any claims about the truth, it just establishes consistency in the application of models. When new information arrives, models are updated and put through the gauntlet all over again. Belief in any model as THE actual factual truth is not a requirement for applying it usefully, and just seems silly in that light.

    What about things like big bang theory? The answer is in the question. It’s a theory, until science might progress to the point where it can consistently demonstrate the big bang model to be functional and applicable.

    I hope I answered you well enough. I sort of shied away from getting too specific because I can clearly see that path getting more and more complex and into the intricacies of the human psyche. That’s not something I’d like to get into right now, not to say that it’s uninteresting though.

    As for books that summarize Kant well… I can’t really say. Unlike you, I have not had extensive schooling in philosophy as well as solid hands-on experience with it. It’s my loss really because I just love it. All I know is what’s what I took away from my intro to philosophy course and some of what’s contained in the textbooks I picked up at the local Goodwill. I have no books that feature Kant as a primary focus nor do I know of any, other than the ones that he himself wrote (which I do not own).

  13. freigeist says:

    “there is a difference between being [1] absolutely positive about something, [2] being reasonably sure based on evidence (reasonable faith), [3] and accepting something blindly (blind faith)”
    i assume you would put yourself in with the second group.
    i and many others on this forum have given plenty of reasons showing that belief in God is irrational but you can’t seem to grasp it because, and brace yourself for this, you are delusional.
    from 102:
    “That video didn’t show anything, it just made assumptions based on OTHER religions.”
    with that in mind, please feel free to present to the court whatever personal experience or “external evidence” of God’s existence you think you have.

  14. J says:


    Please give up the whole calling people delusional thing. Because anyone that believes anything believes everyone else that doesn’t is delusional (unless they are into that whole post-modern thing). From my point of view, you are delusional. So calling someone delusional is pretty much pointless.

    You’re going to have to be more specific in your claims for me to interact with your words. FAITH DOES NOT EQUAL TRUTH. Just because someone has faith in something does not make it true. Other religions are not what we are talking about. Let’s not even call what I believe a “religion” just for debate sake and let us discuss the possbility of the existence of God. You’re still at the podium, so go ahead and give your logical reasoning or whatever for why God does not exist.


    I understand your take on my “evidence” (FIY the bible is not the only evidence i have for a God, not even close to a part of it). To any person that hasn’t done extensive study on the subject would consider the bible to be anecdotal, but that is something we can talk about a little later as soon as friedgeist gives his evidence.

  15. freigeist says:

    i’ve given enough reasons for why there is no such thing as God. in any event, the burden is ON YOU to show that a God exists (not that the existence of one is a possibility)
    why does God not exist? well, it’s pretty simple actually, but i have a feeling this point will be lost on you. there simply is NO REASON for God to exist. we don’t need God for anything. the burden is on you to show me otherwise.
    and while we are on the subject of anecdotes, i’m gonna give you one here.
    after the french revolution, Napoleon eventually took hold of power. i’ll just cut and paste from wikipedia,

    Laplace went in state to beg Napoleon to accept a copy of his work, and the following account of the interview is well authenticated, and so characteristic of all the parties concerned that I quote it in full. Someone had told Napoleon that the book contained no mention of the name of God; Napoleon, who was fond of putting embarrassing questions, received it with the remark, “M. Laplace, they tell me you have written this large book on the system of the universe, and have never even mentioned its Creator.” Laplace, who, though the most supple of politicians, was as stiff as a martyr on every point of his philosophy, drew himself up and answered bluntly, “Je n’avais pas besoin de cette hypothèse-là.” (I did not need to make such an assumption). Napoleon, greatly amused, told this reply to Lagrange, who exclaimed, “Ah! c’est une belle hypothèse; ça explique beaucoup de choses” (Ah! that is a beautiful assumption; it explains many things). Laplace then declared: “Cette hypothèse, Sire, explique en effet tout, mais ne permet de prédire rien. En tant que savant, je me dois de vous fournir des travaux permettant des prédictions” (quoted by Ian Stewart and Jack Cohen — This hypothesis, Sir, does explain everything, but does not permit to predict anything. As a scholar, I must provide you with works permitting predictions.”). Laplace thus defined science as a predicting tool.

    i don’t believe in God because i don’t need to. so now please go ahead and amaze us all with your evidence.

  16. J says:

    so that is all you have for God not existing? Because you don’t need God, then he doesn’t exist? we are strictly on truth. What is true? feelings don’t have that much to do with it. Again, you say that there is no God because there is no need for one? So what? what about the deistic God that many people on this site are convinced exist? What about for people who believe that they need God? why are they wrong?

    You’re still on the podium, if you have anything else to say. I expected a little more. If not, then i’ll state my claims.

  17. J says:

    sorry to double post but “not that the existence of one is a possibility” could you demonsrate how God is a logical impossbility. and just because he is not “needed” does not mean he is a logical impossbility.

  18. gasmonso says:

    J, I think what most of us are trying to say is that dure God is possible, but so is the flying spaghetti monster. Anything is possible I guess, so the burden is on you to say that you know for certain that something does exist like God or the FSM.

    I’ve asked many people why they believe in God and the answers are usually pathetic. Many people say that nature is so beautiful that it just had to be created. What kind of reasoning is that?

    Can’t wait to hear your evidence.


  19. J says:


    friedgeist just said that a God is impossible. i was responding to his post.

    im not saying that my evidence is amazing or anything, its not like i thought of it. i get it from other people, but i think it is suffcient.

  20. freigeist says:

    you need to get this through your head. I DON’T NEED TO DEMONSTRATE THAT GOD IS A LOGICAL IMPOSSIBILITY (although there are logicians that have done this, their point will be lost on you as well).
    so then is your belief in gasmonso’s FSM as strong as your belief in God? you cannot show me that the FSM is a logical impossibility (based on the way you have been arguing). any point you might be able to muster, i’ll be able to use a rationalization to justify the existence of the FSM. for example, you may argue that spaghetti is inanimate and therefore unable to fly. but i will respond with “yes what you know to be spaghetti is inanimate, but this is no ordinary spaghetti. this particular bit of spaghetti was brought to life by aliens that dug a tunnel through space itself, made their way to a small village house in Tuscany while the family was out picking tomatoes, took the spaghetti from off the stove and used their animation weapon to give it life and allow it to fly. the aliens quickly retreated through the space tunnel (which we cannot detect because they travelled through other dimensions) and then collapsed the tunnel so that we may never be able to locate it even if our technology advances.
    now here is the point: J, YOU CANNOT PROVE THAT I AM WRONG. therefore, the flying spaghetti monster exists.

    and the name is freigeist, not friedgeist.

    gasmonso, hope you didn’t mind too much that i borrowed your FSM. i’d be open to rewriting the creation story if you care that much.

  21. freigeist says:

    this is from post 95
    “It is pretty obvious that i disagree with you on what is logical and how to arrive at what is logical”

    dearest J, what does the word ‘logic’ mean? is it logical to assume that there is more than one type of logic? how can you begin to have a logical conversation when you don’t agree on the logic to be used? you have your own idea of what is ‘logical’ and “how to arrive at what is logical”, and you clearly say that it is different than Arktis’ (in this case). i think the problem is you don’t know what it means to think critically and you don’t know how to figure out whether something is logical or not.
    and you got your evidence for God from other people, you say? the evidence is sufficient, you say? well feel free to lay it all out cause i can’t wait to rip you to shreds.


  22. Scott says:

    “i can’t wait to rip you to shreds”


  23. gasmonso says:

    I’m sure he meant that in a sincere and loving manner :)


  24. freigeist says:

    i just dug this up.
    a philosophy prof in my university was involved in a Does God Exist? debate. this is the text of his presentation, which took place a little more than a month ago.

  25. J says:


    i havn’t read your profs debate yet but hopefully i will be able to soon.

    As i said before,
    this example is not at all analogous to the debate over claims made by theists and atheists. Not even close. You just assume the truth of atheism and then require those who disagree to ‘prove’ otherwise. It’s universally acknowledged and demonstrably the case that spaghetti monsters do not exist (because of humans experience with sphaggetii) So for you to claim that it exists, you would have to produce it. So for you to claim that you have such a monster would be to lay claim to what is universally and demonstrably not the case. But the non-existence of God is not universally and demonstrably the case. There is no universally acknowledged experience of the non-existence of God that’s analogous to humanity’s universal experience of spaghetti being a flying monster. There is nothing in human experience that by definition or by way of analogy to your example is incompatible with the notion of God’s existing.

    There is absolutely no evidence for a spaghetti monster or a human experience with it.

    But since you will not give anything for the impossbility of God’s existence, i will now give my statement.

  26. Arktis says:

    …. where is it?

    Did I miss something?


  27. freigeist says:

    while we all wait in awe of the evidence we are about to be presented with, i’m wondering if anyone got a chance to read dr. hitchcock’s presentation. do you think Jesus Christ was a person with flaw because of his “demand for all-consuming emotion”?

  28. freigeist says:

    “There is absolutely no evidence for a spaghetti monster or a human experience with it.” and there is also absolutely no evidence for a “God” or a human experience with it EXCEPT FOR ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE. those ‘human experiences’ that you are attributing so much value to can be explained by looking at human psychology.
    tell me something, how come God only shows up when coincidences are possible? how come God doesn’t turn up when it can’t be a coincidence? would you like to know why? because there is no such thing as God, and that coincidences are just that, coincidences.

  29. Arktis says:

    freigeist, I’d like J to have no excuses for delaying the presentation he’s been talking about this whole time and so I hope it’s not too much to ask to get you to lay off for a bit.

    I think it’s about time we see the cards so this whole silly argument can be over.

    I hope J has some sort of miracle ace up his sleeve, otherwise I think this is going to be pretty unenlightening.

  30. freigeist says:

    maybe J started to see how things for how they really are :)

  31. J says:

    sorry i havn’t been able to post much lately, ive been busy. but don’t worry, i havn’t forgotten.

  32. Arktis says:

    Alright. Take all the time you need.

  33. freigeist says:

    i’ll give J the benefit of the doubt and assume he has some valid reason for not posting all this time (maybe he just lost interest), but i’m curious if there are any God-fearing folks out there who could take up the mantle for J and give some sort of defense of God… any takers? i promise to be nice :)

  34. Your Father says:

    freigeist, you totally have the story of FSM wrong. There weren’t aliens, but I recall something about a midget, and pirates.

  35. freigeist says:

    oh wow…. i didn’t realize this thing was real! i thought gasmonso was just messing around!
    i guess i have two roads ahead of me… i can either recant my heresy or start my own offshoot of the Church of the FSM

  36. Arktis says:

    Yeah.. I guess there are still a few people who haven’t heard the one true gospel of FSM.

    Anyways, at this point I think J basically chickened out. I think he realized he had nothing to offer up. Maybe we’ve got a potential convert on our hands. There’s no shame in that. I had to go through a similar process; at some point I just had to admit that I was being blind and irrational. It’s like the infamous Alcoholics Anonymous saying: the first step to a solution is admitting you have a problem. Hell, blame your parents… I did. They raised me with the nonsense, right?

  37. sidfaiwu says:

    Many of us have been through the exact same, Arktis. Perhaps we should form Religious Anonymous (RA)?

  38. freigeist says:

    yeah if you really need to blame someone then it’s definitely the parents… unfortunately they are just victims of their parents, and so on. humans as a species will greatly benefit from discarding these old fairytales we’ve been living with. unfortunately i don’t think that’s gonna happen any time soon because too many people on this planet find a refuge from their problems in their faith… i see myself in a privileged position relative to most other inhabitants of this world (i live in a western country with freedoms not available in most other places, i have a university education and my mind is trained to think critically, i don’t have to worry about hunger or poverty or the like, etc, etc) and so i was in a better position to see my reality for what it is. yeah it may be arrogant to claim that i ‘know’ what this life is about, but i’m fairly confident in my outlook. we are just a random occurrence in a universe so large that it is difficult to truly comprehend. i think we are really being arrogant when we claim we are more than that. fuck you if you think you are special because this universe has been around for over 13 billion years already and the whole fuckin human species has only taken its modern form over the last few hundred thousand years (or something like that). and guess what, after our planet is swallowed up by the sun, the universe will still be there. you guys better be praying for some star trek type of scenario cause that’s the only way forward!

  39. Arktis says:

    Yep, the ultimate anti-religious argument: Self-fulfilling prophecy. If enough people believe in some kind of apocalypse, then they aren’t exactly going to be purposefully making forward progress for the preservation of the species.

    How much you wanna bet that there are people alive now with enough resources, intelligence, and foresight to make plans for post-earth life? Do you think they’re just gonna save us all? Hell no. I wouldn’t.

  40. “Many of us have been through the exact same, Arktis. Perhaps we should form Religious Anonymous (RA)?”

    I have our twelve steps right here!
    #1 Admit you are capable of exerting will over your previous superstitions.

    #2 Come to believe that a Power within yourself could restore you to sanity.

    #3 Make a decision to turn your will and your life over to the care of yourself as you understand yourself to be.

    #4 Make a searching and fearless moral inventory of ourselves. (no argument here, I didn’t even change it)

    #5 Admit to yourself and to another human beings the exact nature of you superstitions.

    #6 Stop waiting for “God” to fix your problems and get off your butt and do it yourself.

    #7 Put forth your own effort to work past and remove your shortcomings.

    #8 Make a list of all persons your superstitions have harmed, and become willing to make amends to them all.

    #9 Make direct amends to such people wherever possible, except when to do so would injure them or others.

    #10 Continue to take personal inventory and when you are wrong promptly admit it.

    #11 Seek through research and meditation to improve your consciousness and your own spiritual philosophy, working towards strengthning your will and resolve against the superstitions of others.

    #12 Having had a mental awakening as the result of these steps, try to carry this message to religious freaks, and to practice these principles in all your affairs.

    Admit that you have power over yourself! Admit that you are addicted to religion and only you can save you!

  41. freigeist says:

    this is an open question to the atheists. assuming God has finally been done away with, what will be the next step(s) in the history of our development? we’ve reached a point where different parts of the globe can communicate instantly with each other… do you think this may lead to any sort of ‘paradigm shift’ in the interactions between humans? how will our understanding of ourselves affect our outlook in a global perspective? should thinking globally be something to concern ourselves with?

  42. J says:

    i am still here and still planning on posting my part, just been super busy lately.  hopefully in the next couple of days.

  43. Arktis says:

    After all this waiting, this is gonna be so awesome.

    I expect nothing less than the Holy fire of Christ Almighty to come shooting through my computer screen and bless me so hard that my eyebrows will never grow back.

    I’ll be sure to keep a can of gasoline at the ready so I can maximize the effect.

  44. freigeist says:

    maybe J lost track of what ‘couple’ means.
    you know it’s really too bad that God had to lose this battle so easily. God needs to make sure he trains his people better in order to be able to handel infidels with a little more free thought than cows or ants.
    and i must say that God and i are disappointed in the rest of you theists and deists. you’ve let us both down

  45. Arktis says:

    Well, it’s official now (it’s been long enough). J gave up.

    Thought I’d forgotten, eh? ;)

  46. sidfaiwu says:

    I’m still holding out hope for his return. He may just be traveling a lot for the holiday season. Also, I think he is open to other ways of thinking. We may be able to install that all-important seed of doubt if we treat him with respect. It is often difficult for atheists and agnostics to not come across as condescending. It is certainly something that I struggle with. But giving others’ beliefs a respectful critique allows them to critically evaluate their own beliefs. Insulting or showing disrespect only causes others to become defensive and even more entrenched in their preconceptions. Also, being too aggressive causes your own position seem less attractive. It could lead a believer to ask “Why would I want consider becoming an atheist/agnostic? They’re all jerks!”

    I have another reason for wanting J, Scott, Mohamed, and other believers to be treated with respect: I want them to stick around! If we chase off all the believers, this site will become nothing more than a cheering section for agnostics and atheists. Every article discussion will go something like this:

    Comment 1: Hahaha, aren’t they (those in the article) stupid freaks?

    Comment 2: Yup

    Comment 3: We’re so much better because we are not believers in that crap.

    Comment 4: Yeah, aren’t we great!

    In such a scenario there would be little to no interesting discussion and worse yet, no changing of minds and nothing learned by anyone.

    I guess what I am saying is that I’d rather be effective at enlightening believers than right all the time.

    I don’t think J, and others like him, will convert from Christianity, based on my arguments. But I do think that J, at least, could be converted from a Biblical literalist. Lastly, I was really enjoying the conversation we were having on another thread. I hope he comes back.

    Ok, I’m done rambling for now.

  47. Aly says:

    You say that science teaches to ask questions, but really so does religion. It is indeed unfortunate that people adhere blindly to faith, but many do so for science as well, and that is not how all people approach religion.

    Religion teaches to “Seek, and you shall find”

    There are just as many problems cause by science (hatred against others for being religious, the Atom bomb was created by science, testing done on people by Dr. Mengele and others, etc.) – you even state in your About section that you made this site because of your “disdain for religion and the hatred and ignorance it breeds”, when you are promoting this same disdain, hatred, and ignorance by assuming that all religious people are blind sheeps or hating cults like the WBC.

    There is such an attack on religion from agnostics and atheists, and it seems to usually come from some bad experience with or anger towards religion on the part of the people perpetrating it (your own testimony makes this evident)

    Religions may sometimes have qualms with science, but this is usually the very extreme sectarian fundamentalists. Additionally, religion is not trying to destroy science, as science/atheists are of religion. There are many sites like yours that openly ridicule religion, and I know of none that are religious and ridicule science (if there are some out there, it is likely from fundamental extremists).

    If you study history, you’ll see that the first scientists and universities were within the Catholic Church, a religious institution. Today, it maintains that “faith and scientific findings regarding human evolution are not in conflict” (i.e. the Church has no problem with science, though the scientific community may have a problem with religion).

    I just find it interesting how those who are obviously anti-religion think they are more accepting than religion. Certainly not all religion is “good” (in the sense that it does not actively promote hate towards others – such as picketing, hate speech towards homosexuals, etc.), but neither are all agnostics/atheists “good”

  48. Korgan says:

    Aly, regarding “accepting”, why would any reasonable person “accept” a religion to begin with? Religions should be rejected if even any single one of their tenets and claims is erroneous, since typically, religions claim infallibility. Consider the supposedly perfect yet demonstrably incorrect Quran, for Islam, or the self-contradictions of the Christian bible; these religions should have been rejected by all humanity long ago.

    Furthermore, these religions don’t teach “seek and you shall find” such as they advertise. There is just no seeking there. Rather, they teach “believe, or be punished”.

    However, note that the degree to which a given religion is “good” or “bad” (Christianity and Islam are bad in many ways, including severe punishment for absurdly defined “sins”, as well as suppression of critical thinking, as Gasmonso noted) is pretty much irrelevant in regard to the veracity of what the religion claims regarding its particular supernatural being(s) and so on; that is a separate issue. Such extraordinary claims should require rigorous verification of evidence before belief. That is yet another an area where science and religion collide; these religions have never produced any verifiable evidence to justify belief in what they claim. Religions may claim to having supported science, but that is an insincere claim if the valid conclusions of the science are not then accepted by the religion; in reality, science and religion are antithetical.

  49. Tyler Ugland says:

    Thanks for the great website. I find the information useful and will visit on a regular basis

Leave a Reply