A serious question: religion?

[nipponman]

In other words, that's called blind faith. I Hope they don't tell you one day you can fly and you'll just jump off the building. As you know some people will really do it. Like the The Waco Massacre.

Don't be silly. The Bible forbids commiting suicide. That is why the Bible also tells you to try the spirits. If you hear some voices that tell you to "jump off a building to be saved" Just refer to the Bible where it says that hurting yourself is a sin. You can't repent for a sin once you're dead, so you get the picture. As far as the Waco story, I don't really want to comment on that, but just to say that you are grossly misinformed on it.

Wait, who does not want himself/herself to be happy, raise their hands, lol.

Let me rephrase this, you may want to be happy, but you don't know how to make yourself happy. You may do things you think are good for you, but it may not be and you don't know.

[elina]

Every time when I write something in this post, I spend much more time to understand and digest what you people say, and each time I leave this post to be my last post on this website to think carefully. It is a “headache”, but it is also in expectation. I mean: 尽管我每次写这个贴子的时候都感到“头痛”，但我同时又盼望着看到你们的回贴，一起讨论，继续“头痛”下去。“The journey to truth is no easy”.

Sound: follow me and I’ll give you $10.

Reaction: Not interested.

Sound: follow me and I’ll give you $10 billions.

Reaction: Don’t make me laugh.

Sound: follow me and I’ll give eternal life and happiness and whatever you want, or otherwise you'll be burnt in hell.

Reaction:

For the reason in my first and third posts in this topic, as well as other things, I will be thinking of it.

How do you see the relation between the inputs and outputs? From what I see, the reward is increasing, and once it breaks a certain threshold, the person starts to believe. Because, (s)he can not bear the possibility of the sound is saying right.

It sounds pretty good, but not VERY EXACTLY for my case:

1. At present I do not fear to face “the possibility of the sound is saying right” (but when I was ill before and did not know the coming future as I wrote in my first post, I feared).

2. I really consider other people’s saying is reasonable.

Outofin, I hope you’ll make a good decision towards your big personal events in the next few weeks. After that, please do not forget to come back here and continue the topic. Let’s hear how you make decisions "in this noisy and complicated world". By the way, how do you make the quote as: “Originally Posted by elina”, I want to do like that too, but do not know the skill.

The point of skepticism isn't so you can stay forever doubtful, but so you may make the right choice about what to believe.

Yes, for this reason, I am here and discussing.

Evolution, big bang theory, all of these are unfounded theories to describe the beginning at a time when no humans existed! What started the big bang? What started whatever started it? There is no answer apart from God.

Let’s talk about the beginning of the world. This is another question which puzzles me. Christian finds the beginning of the world, while Buddhism says the world is there itself. I think the second one may be reasonable. If a person must find the very beginning of the world, so who creates the God (I do not want to be blasphemous here, but I want to discuss)? I prefer there is no very beginning of the world, and no the final end of the world too. It is like a circle, or coordinates / 坐标, having origin / 原点 which can represent now, but having no vanishing point.

And who can explain the following two:

IMHO, religion is one of the reasons for our current intolerance and hostilities in the world.

I mean I don't dislike religion. But I dislike people that claim what they believe is the one and only, the trueth, the only so called true God. And this is what cause a lot of trouble today in the world. Religion is something that unites us yet devides us deeply.

I do not know the meaning of this sentence:

I think it is sad that most religions hoard treasures and precious relics while people are starving in other parts of the world.

you may want to be happy, but you don't know how to make yourself happy. You may do things you think are good for you, but it may not be and you don't know.

I think it is reasonable, I will try my best to find out what is good.

[Yang Rui]

Religion is an interesting topic. Personally, i think that anyone who thinks the secrets of life, the universe and everything are written down in some primitive book needs their head checking. What possible reason could anyone have for actually believing this? I suppose some people might find this offensive, but to be honest, i find the idea that gay people or people who have sex outside marriage (without saying sorry to "god" for it) deserve eternal punishment pretty offensive too.

One thing that's always struck me as odd is that my Christian friends all say that anyone who hasn't had god's light shine upon them (i.e. people who grew up in countries where there is no Christianity and therefore they have never heard about god) can still go to heaven. Then they go off to these countries and start preaching to them about the bible. Surely if you really wanted them to go to heaven, you would just leave them alone and let them carry on in ignorance. By telling them about the bible, you are increasing their chances of going to hell, as they may reject the bible.

An interesting point is raised on this thread about whether an atheist can be blasphemous. Although some Christians in particular seem to think they are constantly under attack from the forces of evil, I don't think religion is criticised enough. If people really believe in the truth of their religion then why would it matter to them if someone criticises it? I don't get angry if someone suggests to me that the world started with two people in a garden who got tempted by a snake. I just think it's silly. It's no good pretending to "respect other people's beliefs" when you think they are wrong and misguided. So let's not worry about being "blasphemous".

Ultimately, I think people should be free to believe what they want, and everyone else should be free to relentlessly mock them for it. Discuss.

[nipponman]

I'm not trying to force religion down peoples throats, I just want to discuss what is right and what is wrong by the bible, that's all. The only reason being gay is an abomination is because God says it is. God created woman for man (the feminists don't like this), and for men to turn from God's gift to them in favor of an unnatural strange passion is more than a slap in the face, it is an insult against the homosexual himself. Because there is a natural way for men to find relief and that is with their wife. Gay men don't lead very good lives. You don't hear the nasty side of that kind of lifestyle, but let's just say you face problems that would not normally occur to straight people.

Concerning the beginning of the world, the bible's rendition is the most logical believe it or not, God created Adam, saw that Adam was alone and created Eve. But in evolution, we have no clue as to who came first, man or woman? Why did they develop? Fact of the matter is, evolution is a very bleak view of things. If we are just goo from a pond, why do we need ethics? Why can't I just do what I want to other people without fear of consequence? I'm goo and you're goo, make's no difference right? Wrong, we have a God-given purpose.

And to elina, God wasn't created. This is something I don't understand but still believe, God has been forever, and always will be. He never had a beginning. That is just how it is.

nipponman

P.s. Another flaw with the big bang theory, the law of conservation of matter roughly states that, mass cannot be created, and mass cannot be destroyed. So therefore, are we to believe that the universe began as a single point of matter that contained all the matter in the universe? With gravity maybe billions of times greater than that of a black hole? That sounds silly, don't you think?

[elina]

And to elina, God wasn't created. This is something I don't understand but still believe, God has been forever, and always will be. He never had a beginning. That is just how it is.

This is something I don't understand too. I do not believe the big bang theory, till now I just think what Buddhism says may be reasonable and acceptable. And where is Youshen? You are a Christian, what do you say about it?

[Yang Rui]

Good point nipponman. I guess all our explanations of the beginnings of the universe can sound silly. I wouldn't rule out the possibility of an omnipotent power creating it all. However, i don't think this power would have had much to do with writing the bible. The bible reflects the conservative attitudes of the people of the time who wrote it. There are all kinds of things that it says are wrong that seem strange to us now. There's a part where it says you shouldn't make bodily contact for a woman who has just given birth:

"If a woman have conceived seed, and born a man child: then she shall be unclean seven days; according to the days of the separation for her infirmity shall she be unclean."

Or two weeks if she's a girl: "12:5 But if she bear a maid child, then she shall be unclean two weeks, as in her separation: and she shall continue in the blood of her purifying threescore and six days."

And if you've ever eaten shellfish, then i'm afraid you're for the burning pits of hell:

"11:12 Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you."

Assuming you think that it's actually ok to eat shellfish or touch a woman within two weeks of her giving birth to a baby girl, then why do you still think that homosexuality is an "abomination"?

[nipponman]

Assuming you think that it's actually ok to eat shellfish or touch a woman within two weeks of her giving birth to a baby girl, then why do you still think that homosexuality is an "abomination"?

Actually, I don't think eating shellfish is good, I have never (and will never) eaten anything without fins and scales. They are dirty creatures (they're cool though) not meant for human consumption.

And I believe that the laws pertaining to the cleanliness after birth were cleanliness laws that may or may not pertain to today because we are cleaner. I'm not sure, though, and I definitely don't want to say they don't apply, I just don't know how. Believe me, there is something God knows about what happens when a woman bears a female child that we as humans don't.

nipponman

[Quest]

Concerning the beginning of the world, the bible's rendition is the most logical believe it or not, God created Adam, saw that Adam was alone and created Eve. But in evolution, we have no clue as to who came first, man or woman? Why did they develop? Fact of the matter is, evolution is a very bleak view of things.

So, was Adam white? How come people separated by distance started to look different? I don't know about the very beginning, but physical adaptation is observable even in humans, and more obvious in animals.

P.s. Another flaw with the big bang theory, the law of conservation of matter roughly states that, mass cannot be created, and mass cannot be destroyed. So therefore, are we to believe that the universe began as a single point of matter that contained all the matter in the universe? With gravity maybe billions of times greater than that of a black hole? That sounds silly, don't you think?

I have doubts about the big bang theory, but I still remember from my physics class that matter can in fact be created from energy, see:

http://www.hep.princeton.edu/~mcdonald/e144/discover.html

[nipponman]

I have doubts about the big bang theory, but I still remember from my physics class that matter can in fact be created from energy, see:

I'm glad you were able to correct me on this Quest, I am not that far in phyics:mrgreen: .

So, was Adam white? How come people separated by distance started to look different? I don't know about the very beginning, but physical adaptation is observable even in humans, and more obvious in animals.

Probably not, he was the father of all humanity though, so he had the genetic capability to create all races. And eventually they would differentiate and spread out. Like most people believe that there wasn't this much variation in beasts that there is today, like you just had maybe one type of dog or one type of cat and they genetically spread out.

[gougou]

Actually, I don't think eating shellfish is good

Whoa, now here's some wordly pleasures you're missing out on... Seriously though, that is the first time I hear of that.

elina,

By the way, how do you make the quote as: “Originally Posted by elina”,

After having inserted the quote, you have to add =elina after the first QUOTE (within the square brackets)

And who can explain the following two:

IMHO, religion is one of the reasons for our current intolerance and hostilities in the world.

I mean I don't dislike religion. But I dislike people that claim what they believe is the one and only, the trueth, the only so called true God. And this is what cause a lot of trouble today in the world. Religion is something that unites us yet devides us deeply.

The first one means that some (or many) conflicts in this world have religion as their basis. (Why "current", though?)

The second one means that some people are not tolerant enough of different religions. Even though many people are religious (and thus somehow united), they have different religions and think the others are wrong (and thus are divided again).

I do not know the meaning of this sentence:

I think it is sad that most religions hoard treasures and precious relics while people are starving in other parts of the world.

What I mean is that many of the world's religions are very rich, and I wonder why that is necessary. Look at the Vatican for example, the center of Christianity. Do they really need so much gold everywhere?

[Song You Shen]

Wow so much to comment on... this might take a while...

And where is Youshen? You are a Christian, what do you say about it?

To get the quotes with a name in it, you must modify the [ QUOTE ] to look like this... [ QUOTE="Elina" ]. (without the spaces between the brackets)

Ok, so to answer some questions and to comment on a few things:

1. God was never created. God had no beginning, and will have no end. God is God, and there were none before Him. This is hard for us to understand, because we can't fully grasp the idea of something having no beginning. We think in terms of "beginnings" and "endings". In this way, our thinking is extremely limited. God lives outside the realm of time, and therefore He does not operate on the basis of time.

2. The difference between Faith and Blind Faith is simple. Faith is discerning and believing (i.e. knowing what is from God and what isn't from God). Blind faith is believing without discernment (i.e. hearing something, acting on it, without knowing who it came from).

3. Eddie, you say that everyone wants to make themselves happy. This is true... but we can only see a little ways into the future, and we often make decisions which turn out to be bad decision later on. This is what Nippoman is getting at. Even though we think we are making ourselves happy, it is only for a temporary moment. In the end, the final result is unhappiness (having to deal with consequences). Here is an example: A young 16 year old boy has sex with a girl. Why? Because it would make him happy (feel good, indulging himself). Before he makes his decision, he understands that this is going to be exciting, and good. What he doesn't see are possible consequences that might occur afterwards (i.e. baby, virus', etc).

4. IMHO, religion is one of the reasons for our current intolerance and hostilities in the world. - You cannot say this from an unbiased view. Everyone is part of a religion. Even Atheism is a religion, a backwards contradictory religion, but nonetheless a religion. Why do I say it is a religion? Well, because it uses "Humanism" as its guidelines. The end result of Humanism is "the goodness of man" (meaning, everything is for the goodness of man [i.e. ourselves], our ultimate desire is for the goodness of man [i.e. ourselves]). This is what they believe. Why do I say it is contradictory? Because the essence of Atheism says that, "there are no absolutes." However, that statement, in and of itself is an absolute. I do not understand how religion is always the target in these comments. Are you saying that man, and the wickedness of man has nothing to do with it? This is unreasonable. These types of comments seem to come from your own bias against religion.

5. I think it is sad that most religions (I don't dare to say all, but I don't know of any exceptions) hoard treasures and precious relics while people are starving in other parts of the world. - Ok, once again, people are looking at the worst part of religion. Inevitably there are going to be people that exploit religion for their own personal gain... in EVERY religion (again, this goes back to the wickedness of man). I have never once hoarded money or "relics" or any such thing in my entire life! Nor has my church. I spend thousands of dollars every year going to orphanages, drug rehab centers, supporting churches, the families in their congregations, etc... from all around the world (from India to Russia to the Philippines, to South America, etc). You can't assume that everyone who claims to be part of a religion is actually obeying that religion's laws. That would be naive. Not everyone that calls themselves a Christian is a true Christian. So then, how can we categorize the atrocities of these so-called "Christians" as being something that is common to that religion? Here's an example: The crusades. The knights came down and raided Jerusalem, killing Jews (God's chosen people). While killing Jews they did it in the name of Christianity and sang hymns as they gathered Jews in Synagogues and burnt them alive. They did this, calling themselves Christians. Were they Christians? Absolutely not. So using your argument that generalizes a religion based on 1 person’s radical (and misguided) actions (ala Tele-evangelists that try to get money from you)… I could argue that Religion doesn’t hoard anything, and gives everything away… looking at Mother Teresa’s life, looking at what I do… both are examples of what good things religious people can do. Your argument is too generalized, and doesn’t have a very good foundation.

6. Yang Rui, whenever someone is told they are wrong, and what they’re doing is wrong will be offensive. You said that it would be better if missionaries didn’t go to different countries an inform people about the Bible and God. You said your friends told you, “anyone who hasn't had god's light shine upon them can still go to heaven”. This is correct, but, it doesn’t mean that “anyone who hasn’t had God’s light shined upon them will go to heaven.” This is a big difference.

7. Yang Rui said,However, I don't think this power would have had much to do with writing the bible. The bible reflects the conservative attitudes of the people of the time who wrote it. There are all kinds of things that it says are wrong that seem strange to us now. The Bible was not written during the King James period as many mistakenly believe. Rather, it was written much much farther back than that (as far back as a few millennia) - this can be testified by the authenticity of the Dead Sea Scrolls (the scrolls that predated the Bible to be written well before King James Era). God inspired the bible, and inspired the men that wrote the Bible. The Bible does not have one author, but has many (as many as 100 different authors).There is not one contradicting fact in the Bible (and this has been tested over the last 300 years by many brilliant historians, scholars, etc). With there being as many as 100 authors, and it being written over a period of 1600 years, how could there be no contradictions or errors? Simple, It is called the "word of God", and God oversaw the writing of it. There are over 3600 prophecies in the Bible, as of today, over 2000 prophecies have been fulfilled without error.

[Song You Shen]

8. Yang Rui, you make an argument using scriptures in the Old Testament. Did you know that the Old Testament and the New Testament are also called "The Old Covenant" and "The New Covenant?" (also known as "The Old Law" and "The New Law"). There is a reason for this. What is a covenant? It is an agreement, contract, pledge between two people (in this case, between the people of God (Hebrews) and God. If you are going to use scriptures for arguments, you need to understand what you are quoting before you use it as evidence. The scriptures you used were from the book of Leviticus I believe. Leviticus is a book that outlines, in detail, God's laws for his people (the Israelites). Much of the Old Testament is "types" and "shadows" of what is in the New Testament. By "types" and "shadows" I mean, a foreshadowing. Here is an example... In the Old Testament, every year the Israelites had to go to the temple where the Chief Priest would sacrifice a lamb to atone for the sins of the people. In multiple places of the Old Testament (multiple places in Psalms an Isaiah) it talks about Jesus Christ symbolized as a lamb. When we look at the New Testament, it correlates directly with Jesus Christ's sacrifice - being crucified. Jesus Christ, the Son of God, took the place of that sacrificial lamb and was crucified for the sins of the world (not just the people at that time, but for all generations). The literal phrases that Christ spoke on the cross were recorded in the Old Testament, and things that happened on the cross (such as the sword in His side, the vinegar thrown in his face, the tearing and allotment of his clothes by the guards, the fact that they didn't break his bones [which happened at all crucifixions], etc) were prophesied about in the Old Testament. If you want a more recent example... I will tell you about the Six-Day War (the war over Israel in the 1950s). In Psalms there is a very specific chapter where it vividly outlines the details of the 6-day war. It even gives a quote that the enemies of Israel will say to themselves before they go to war. I recently got the opportunity to listen to an Ex-PLO terrorist (now a Christian) who was involved in the 6-day war. He mentions how the bible lined it up exactly! And the leaders of his group quoted the exact quote in the Bible (this is a big thing because the Islamic people do NOT read the Old Testament, and they consider it worse than sin). If you would like to know more about this guy, you can go to his website here: Walid Shoebat.

9. The Law then vs. the Law now. This is where your argument came from Yang Rui. When Christ came and sacrificed Himself, he fulfilled the law, and brought a New Law (i.e. the New Covenant). If you would like to understand this more, please read the book of Romans, it clearly describes it. In the book of Romans, and in other places in the Bible, it clearly states that homosexuality is a sin. Woman was created for man to be as a co-ruler, and a partner in life. God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. God doesn't hate homosexuals, but he does hate the sin of homosexuality. It is very clear in the bible when it says, "do not lay with your brother [male with male]." It also clearly talks about abstaining from sexual immorality and talks about marriage and sex before marriage.

10. So are we allowed to eat things without fins? Yes, we are. Are we allowed to touch our wife after she's given birth? Yes. Why? Because Christ fulfilled the law in His sacrifice. Then what law remains? The 10 commandments, and above that the two most important laws "To love your God with all of your heart, all of your soul and all of your mind" and to "love your neighbor as you love yourself." If you fulfill these 2 laws, then everything else will fall into line. I encourage you to study out the book of Romans. By study, I don't mean you should just read it, but get a Hebrew-Greek bible, and study out what the original Hebrew meaning was. If you want to use the Scriptures as an argument, please understand the meaning, use it in context, and then bring your questions forth.

I hope this helps clear some things up.

Youshen

[Song You Shen]

please don't take offense at my above-stated messages, I had to type out fast at work, so I didn't have much time to formalize them. They are written in argument/discussion guester...

Youshen

[xuechengfeng]

9. The Law then vs. the Law now. This is where your argument came from Yang Rui. When Christ came and sacrificed Himself, he fulfilled the law, and brought a New Law (i.e. the New Covenant). If you would like to understand this more, please read the book of Romans, it clearly describes it. In the book of Romans, and in other places in the Bible, it clearly states that homosexuality is a sin. Woman was created for man to be as a co-ruler, and a partner in life. God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. God doesn't hate homosexuals, but he does hate the sin of homosexuality. It is very clear in the bible when it says, "do not lay with your brother [male with male]." It also clearly talks about abstaining from sexual immorality and talks about marriage and sex before marriage.

Matthew 7:12 So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.

A pretty wise dude.

[gougou]

I have never once hoarded money or "relics" or any such thing in my entire life!

Youshen, please don't misunderstand, I was refering to the organizations that exist around religions, i.e. Vatican City (and its lower level equivalents) for Christianity. (Probably there is a better term than 'religion' for that?)

Concerning this, and many other issues, I have no reservations against the lowest layer (not meant pejoratively) of a church. However, I think that many of the people in influential positions are not half as 'religious' as somebody like you or nipponman. Unfortunately, it is those that for the most part shape a religion's outward appearance.

One note on prophecies: always be careful when evaluating these in hindsight. After September 11, 2001, the whole of the USA, if not of the world, suddenly had known about it beforehand, because the signs were so obvious...

Once something has happened, it is quite easy to link it somehow to one prophecy or another. There are people that find new proofs for Nostradamus' prophecies by the day...

Especially within religious people, you might also have the possibility of self-fulfilling prophecies, i.e. somebody doing what the Bible predicted because the Bible predicted it.

God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve

Although I still completely disagree with the point in question, this is nicely put...

[nipponman]

Although I still completely disagree with the point in question, this is nicely put...

Really? Well, I've heard it so many times it has become rather overused and I cringe at its use...

[elina]

Thank you, gougou and Youshen, look, I can make the quote with a name in it now with your help.

Youshen, by the way, what’s your Chinese name in Chinese character, just curious, 宋友绅? I think I will be very wrong.

1. God was never created. God had no beginning, and will have no end. God is God, and there were none before Him. This is hard for us to understand, because we can't fully grasp the idea of something having no beginning. We think in terms of "beginnings" and "endings". In this way, our thinking is extremely limited. God lives outside the realm of time, and therefore He does not operate on the basis of time

I’m afraid that this cannot persuade me yet. My mother is a devotional Christian, she sometimes makes the argument like this: Buddhism even cannot find the beginning of the world, but Christianity gives the answer. Every time I hear this, 我觉得不服气 / I’m not convinced completely. This is not hard for me to understand the idea of something having no beginning and ending, but I prefer the Buddhism way.

I think it is sad that most religions (I don't dare to say all, but I don't know of any exceptions) hoard treasures and precious relics while people are starving in other parts of the world

What Youshen said about it makes me suddenly understand something. I think Youshen is right. For example, student A and student B are both in the same class and with the same mathematics teacher, student A is a good student, while student B is not. People can not get the conclusion that what the mathematics teacher taught (say 1+2=3) is wrong, just because of student B’s score and behavior. I think it is unfair to consider a religion in that way, religion is to give a road to people to be perfect, but does not guarantee that everyone who claims to believe in that religion is perfect. And the whole world is not perfect, I think the first sentence can be changed into different sentences:

1. “It is sad that most religions hoard treasures and precious relics while people are starving in other parts of the world”

1A. It is sad that most countries hoard treasures and precious relics while people are starving in other parts of the world

1B. It is sad that most organizations hoard treasures and precious relics while people are starving in other parts of the world

1C. It is sad that most companies hoard treasures and precious relics while people are starving in other parts of the world

…

Similarly, the following sentence can be also changed into different sentences:

“Unfortunately, it is those that for the most part shape a religion's outward appearance”

One note on prophecies: always be careful when evaluating these in hindsight. After September 11' date=' 2001, the whole of the USA, if not of the world, suddenly had known about it beforehand, because the signs were so obvious...

Once something has happened, it is quite easy to link it somehow to one prophecy or another. There are people that find new proofs for Nostradamus' prophecies by the day...

Especially within religious people, you might also have the possibility of self-fulfilling prophecies, i.e. somebody doing what the Bible predicted because the Bible predicted it[/quote']

I have not read the Bible yet. I think what gougou said completely accords with logic. But whether it is suitable to the Bible, I don’t know. 没有调查，就没有发言权 / No investigation, no speaking.

[gougou]

1. “It is sad that most religions hoard treasures and precious relics while people are starving in other parts of the world”

1A. It is sad that most countries hoard treasures and precious relics while people are starving in other parts of the world

1B. It is sad that most organizations hoard treasures and precious relics while people are starving in other parts of the world

1C. It is sad that most companies hoard treasures and precious relics while people are starving in other parts of the world

Completely agree with all of the above statements...

But companies, as opposed to religions (Still looking for a better word here, if somebody could help me out? Is it church, maybe?), usually do not propagate to love your neighbor as you love yourself. They are capitalist, and, as long as you accept capitalism's existence, have a right to hoard treasures, sad as it may be...

[Song You Shen]

Youshen, by the way, what’s your Chinese name in Chinese character, just curious, 宋友绅? I think I will be very wrong.

Hehe, yes, that is a wrong. In character my Chinese name is 宋悠神. Kinda fits this topic actually.

Youshen

[shibo77]

This is a strange topic, does it have much to do with Chinese society in particular or with society in general? Besides I think these discussions will only end in flames. But seeing it as a serious question I will try to give a serious answer.

This is just my opinion and it can do no more than act as a suggestion:

I don't believe in religions nor do I like religions for many reasons. Neither do I like culture, language, economy and governments either, I think they are all chains to the human potential and should be abolished in a perfect society.

Religion imposes an ideal upon you as with the other things I've listed. I don't like that. It may be good things they are imposing, but it is nevertheless imposing and forcing an ideal upon an individual. This is what I think of when people talk of euthanasia or abortion. I think it is their choice to euthanise or not, or have an abortion or not. At the most you can only suggest to the individual that it is better not to kill oneself or not to have an abortion, the final choice should be the individuals' alone. That is why I believe everyone should be free to do anything they want as long as it doesn't take away others' rights to do freely whatever they want. Morality and ethics are only suggestions, and the individual may or may not follow them.

Religion and science are very different things and I like science better because it allows me the final choice in matters. In truth both religion and science are both as faulty and ridiculous. The difference is that science allows the possibility that it is completely wrong, while religion doesn't allow that possibility. From a fundamental point-of-view, religion is knowledge in ignoring all wrongs and try to believe all are right, while science is knowledge gained by trying to try to prove itself wrong. In the scientific method, even the staunchiest scientists gives the possibility that the whole of science is completely incorrect. In fact this is considered healthy in science while it is considered blasphemy in religion. In science, all start with theories and experiments and evidences that could be recreated to support this theory. Then the rest of the scientists in the scientific community tries in every way to disprove that theory, and after decades and centuries of bashing, it is finally accepted as principle or law. However even those few theories that became accepted as laws and principles can be overturned as soon as someone disproves it with a new theory. The scientific community would then accept that as the new standard. Through all this we gain a wider perspective at things, and the willingness to accept them as completely incorrect. The religious community tries in everyway to persuade that it is all true, and when common persuation does not work anymore, it is left simply as faith.

The common idea of evolution for example, it is now the standard of the scientific community, basically the best theory at the present moment, it is not accepted as law, even today, 300 years after Darwin thought of the theory, it is still called "Theory of Evolution" and not accepted as "Law of Evolution". There are really very few laws and principles in existence in the scientific community today. Compared with religion, it is quite easy for something to be entered as law in religion. In fact, religions have little theories or some doesn't have theories at all, everything is considered law. This is a very faulty method at arriving at knowledge.

For example, if you are Roman Catholic, you had to believe in a set of systems and laws and practises, which could very well be faulty, but because of the religious nature of the Roman Catholic system, it was imposed upon you, either because you were born Roman Catholic, or willingly converted to Roman Catholicism. You had to believe that the Earth was the centre of the universe and that the Sun is the third heavenly object in the Solar System until it was overturned by Pope John Paul II just in the last decade! Basically overnight, because the highest authority said so, you had to change your believe suddenly into Earth not being the centre of the universe at all, and apologise to all the previous wrong-doings of the Inquisition! Is this not ridiculous?

Science is equally ridiculous. For exmaple, we know of the seven colours, red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo, and violet. Some might not accept indigo...

These seven colours are merely what is seen by the human eye, and what has been formed through evolution. These colours are what we perceive of electromagnetic wavelengths between 480 terahertz and 780 terahertz, other electromagnetic waves outside that range cannot be directly observed by us. Even with the use of instruments we have no way to gain knowledge of the colours of the infrared. If we evolved from snakes we would be viewing colours of the infrared, 4 colours, 7 colours, 1000 colours? But we would have no idea of the colours red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo and violet! And we would lable it as ultra-violet, though viloet would be some other snake-invent colour name. Yet, today when we use spectrometers on the satellites we send into space or the optical spectrometers in telescopes, we view the universe according to these colours that we can observe. When we point the optical spectrometer at the Sun in order to determine the composition of the Sun, bands within the blue range means there are hydrogen, and so on, we view the universe as if there were only seven composing colours. Our knowledge becomes biased and considering how insignificant to the many million of other species living even on Earth and considering how many more planets there are in this universe and the void in between the planets, our scientific knowledge becomes ridiculous and laughable.

But the big difference between religion and science is that after I have said all this, a religious person will shun a new ideal and they will try to think of a way to avoid/attack the issue with persuation that I am wrong and religion is right. But a scientific person will look at the evidence given and attack the issue with equal recreated experiments. In other words, in religion, Copernicus gets burnt on the stake, while in science Copernicus and his theories will be known and evidence will be reviewed, he gets at most a bunch of tomatoes thrown on his face and laughed at... After his theories have not been disproved, it becomes the new standard of the scientific community and today Copernicus' work are thought of as one of the greatest achievements in this millenium!

There are alot more reasons why I enjoy the scientific method much more than religions, but it does not much because in the end, a religious person will always believe in their believes no matter how many mistakes there are, or faults and arguments against it.

By the way, the Bible has alot of mistakes, reading the Bible in a translation is the first mistake, and reading the Bible in the original language gives the mistake that there are about 600 places where the short vowel could be incorrect, Old testament only...

Most of the major Abrahamic religions of today are the result of humanity changeing from a matriarchial society to a patriarchial society. The invention of writing gave males the advantage allowing only one hemisphere of the brain to function at its peak rather than both hemispheres functioning with an equal amount. This is also where the modern standards of objectivity and abstract thinking came to the domination of modern human thought.

-Shìbó