Subject: »NEWS AROUND THE WORLD

My opinion concerning religion is not only based on the abuse of religion. It is also based on my thinking: I don't believe anything that isn't proven. For me, believing something that has no proof whatsoever is illogical. I don't want any benefit that is caused from religion, I've banned religion completely out of my life.


i cannot even imagine the chaos in your head when people around you talk about terms like love, mind, origin of life, evolution, death etc.

just like when the ottoman islamists were invading the old european countries...and were not so nice and not so tolerant...

acctually ottoman empire was much more tolerant than a most of christian empires. compare p.e. only how jewish people were treated in spain or france, and on the other side how they were treated in ottoman empire.

1. Okay, feelings are an exception, you cannot deny them (in fact you can, but then you are not really human). And btw, I think feelings are scientifically proven.
2. What about the mind?
3. Except for the missing links, evolution is proven. It is a scientific accepted fact. Religion isn't.
4. Death is death. Nothing more, no afterlife whatsoever. We die and that's it.
(edited)

I understand your point of view very well. The problem is that you are using logic used for natural sciences on religion which is a matter of social sciences. E.g. in legal science basic types of evidence are testimonies and exhibits. In natural sciences such as chemistry or physics you would never use a testimony when trying to prove something but in social sciences you would be completely lost without it.

Being that testimonies are obviously subjective, you can never remove uncertainty when they are used as proof but the possibility of being wrong is not an argument for giving up on making conclusions. I mean, natural sciences are actually lucky that they deal with rather exact issues but these issues would exist even if humans would perish from universe. Social sciences deal with important aspects of human existence and interaction and so the logic of social sciences must be applied when discussing social matters like religion.

When religion makes statements on how the earth was created etc. it should be evaluated as a natural science.

What we see in Sudan is the clear devision of christianity(hope/peace /together/building up) and islam(war/aggression/suppression/demollishing)...

yeah - allready seen in aphganistan and iraq (...) where moslems (war/aggression/suppression/demollishing) attack without any reason innocent american and european christians (hope/peace /together/building up)...

or maybe i should write something about harm that savage, agressiv, demolishing and bloodthirsty bosnian moslems from srebrenica did to holland and serbian soldiers???

I have a different approach. I don't believe in anything that is not proven, but I don't defy that something is possible, unless there are proofs.
God and afterlife are a possibility after all. Not the kind of Gods like Allah, Christian God, Budda, Zeus etc.

All these examples define the abusers and not the means nor the objects of abuse. So, it is completely illogical and, I would say very immature, that based on these examples anyone claims that sexuality, politics, cars, internet and religion are idiotic and especially when we all know that, when used properly, we all can enjoy multiple benefits from them.

The question is, are those who kill simply of a killer nature, or does religious fanaticism make them such.

1. Okay, feelings are an exception, you cannot deny them (in fact you can, but then you are not really human). And btw, I think feelings are scientifically proven.
2. What about the mind?
3. Except for the missing links, evolution is proven. It is a scientific accepted fact. Religion isn't.
4. Death is death. Nothing more, no afterlife whatsoever. We die and that's it.


religion isn´t fact??????????????????????????????

please, see this!


4. Death is death. Nothing more, no afterlife whatsoever. We die and that's it.

is it really proven!?

religion isn´t fact??????????????????????????????

please, see this!

What religion says isn't a scientific fact, no. By the way, putting X times a question mark only makes you look ridiculous.

4. Death is death. Nothing more, no afterlife whatsoever. We die and that's it.

is it really proven!?

Afterlife isn't proven, you cannot prove that there is no afterlife. Just like you cannot prove there is no god. Just like you cannot prove there isn't a teacup going around the sun. Just like you cannot prove the FSM isn't real. You can only prove that things are there, you cannot prove things aren't out there. Please, I've said this a thousand times ...

The question is, are those who kill simply of a killer nature, or does religious fanaticism make them such.


the people are killing each other from the beginning. for various reasons. nice book about it - erich s. fromm: "the heart of man, its genius for good and evil".

What religion says isn't a scientific fact

you are really new c. columbo ;)))


Afterlife isn't proven

did i ever wrote term "afterlife"???


your words:

I don't believe anything that isn't proven.

Death is death. Nothing more, no afterlife whatsoever. We die and that's it.

i ask you what is conclusion!? what proof for the second premise you have?

your words:

I don't believe anything that isn't proven.

Death is death. Nothing more, no afterlife whatsoever. We die and that's it.

i ask you what is conclusion!? what proof for the second premise you have?

You don't get it do you? I'll only believe in afterlife if afterlife is proven. It isn't, and therefore, I don't believe afterlife exists ergo there is no afterlife. Once again: there cannot be proof that afterlife exists! If you still don't get it, ask someone else, I'm not going to keep repeating myself.
(edited)

With you discussion is only about basic logic and semantics. You are the one that doesn't get it.

So again, your words:

I don't believe anything that isn't proven.

Death is death. Nothing more, no afterlife whatsoever. We die and that's it.

If your 1st sentence is a premise that is true for you, then you simply cannot write the 2nd sentence without totally contradicting yourself. 2nd sentence means that you strongly believe that "there is no afterlife whatsoever". And that, my friend, is not proven yet which is contradictory to your first sentence. Which part of this you stil do not understand? :D
(edited)

I'm not going to keep repeating myself.

but that what you permanently do is exactly this: repeating yourself. even if you´ve been asked something else.



please, see this again!

Good point. :D

However, he is right. You cannot say that the evil aspects of religion are abuse, they are inherent to any set of dogmatic moral values. When for instance those moral values command, go forth and multiply, you have a pope condeming the use of condomns in the face of AIDS. I could name quite a few other examples, with one common denominator: moral rules based on religious values usually tend to have detrimental effects for third parties. Not to mention the artificial divide between those who believe the right thing and the poor misguided fools who don't. This is an open invitation for neglect, violence and differentiation.

Scientifically, the evidence for nothing happening outweighs the scientifically possibility of the afterlife.

I am of the belief that religion can give something to people in need of guidance or support, but I'm an atheist.