This is taken from Dan Brown's book, "Angels and Demons," and I have taken out dialogue from pages 378 to 383.

To the Illuminanti and to those of science, let me say this. You have won the war. The wheels have been in motion for a long time. Your victory has been inevitable. Never before has it been as obvious as it is at this moment. Science is the new God. Medicine, electronic communications, space travel, genetic manipulation... these are the miracles about which we now tell our children. These are the miracles we herald as proof that science will bring us the answers. The ancient stories of immaculate conceptions, burning bushes, and parting seas are no longer relevant. God has become obsolete. Science has won the battle. But science's victory, has cost every one of us. And it has cost us deeply. Science may have alleviated the miseries of disease and drudgery and provided an array of gadgetry for our entertainment and convenience, but it has left us in a world without wonder. Our sunsets have been reduced to wavelengths and frequencies. The complexities of the universe have been shredded into mathematical equations. Even our self-worth as human being has been destroyed. Science proclaims Planet Earth and its inhabitants are a meaningless speck in the grand scheme. A cosmic accident. Even the technology that promises to unite us, divides us. Each of us is now electronically connected to the globe, and yet we feel utterly alone. We are bombarded with violence, division, fracture, and betrayal. Skepticism has become a virtue. cynicism and a demand for proof has become enlightened thought. Is it any wonder tha thumans now feel more depressed and defeated than they have at any point in human history? Does science hold anything sacred? Science looks for answers by probing our unborn fetuses. Science even presumes to rearrange our own DNA. It shatters God's world into smaller and smaller pieces in quest of meaning... and all it finds is more questions.

The ancient war between science and religion is over. You have won. But you have not won fairly. You have not won by providing answers. You have won by so radically reorienting our society that the truths we once saw as signposts now seem inapplicable. Religion cannot keep up. Scientific growth is exponential. It feeds on itself like a virus. Every new breakthrough opens doors for new breakthroughs. Mankind took thousands of years to progress from the wheel to the car. Yet only decades from the car into space. Now we measure scientific process in weeks. We are spinning out of control. The rift between us grows deeper and deeper, and as religion is left behind, people find themselves in a spiritual void. We cry out for meaning. And believe me, we do cry out. We see UFOs, engage in channeling, spirit contact, out-of-body experiences, mindquests-all these eccentric ideas have a scientific veneer, but they are unashamedly irrational. They are the desperate cry of the modern soul, lonely and tormented, crippled by its own enlightenment and its inability to accept meaning in anything removed from technology. Science, you say, will save us. Science, I say, has destroyed us. Since the days of Galileo, the church has tried to slow the relentless march of science, sometimes with misguided means, but always with benevolent intention. Even so, the temptations are too great for man to resist. I warn you, look around yourselves. The promises of science have not been kept. Promises of efficiency and simplicity have bred nothing much pollution and chaos. We are a fractured and frantic species... moving down a path of destruction.

To science, I say this. The church is tired. We are exhausted from trying to be your signposts. Our resources are drying up from our campaign to be the voice of balance as you plow blindly on in your quest for smaller chips and larger profits. We ask not why you will not govern yourselves, but how can you? Your world moves so fast that if you stop even for an instant to consider the implications of your actions, someone more efficient will whip past you in a blur. So you move on. You proliferate weapons of mass destruction, but it is the Pope who travels the world beseeching leaders to use restraint. You clone living creatures, but it is the church reminding us to consider the moral implications of our actions. You encourage people to ineract on phones, video screens, and computers, but it is the church who opens its doors and reminds us to commune in person as we were meant to do. You even murder unborn babies in the name of research that will save lives. Again, it is the church who points out the fallacy of this reasoning.

And all the while, you proclaim the church is ignorant. but who is more ignorant? The man who cannot define lightning, or the man who does not respect its awesome power? The church is reaching out to you. Reaching out to everyone. And yet the more we reach, the more you push us away. Show me proof there is a God, you say. I say use your telescopes to look to the heavens, and tell me how there could not be a God! You ask what does got look like. I say, where did that question come from? The answers are one and the same. Do you not see God in your science? How can you miss Him! You proclaim that even the slightest change in the force of gravity or the weight of an atom would have rendered our universe a lifeless mist rather than our magnificent sea of heavenly bodies, and yet you fail to see God's hand in this? Is it really so much easier to believe that we simply chose the right card from a deck of billions? Have we become so spiritally bankrupt that we would rather believe in mathematical impossibility than in a power greater than us?

Whether or not your believe in God, you must believe this. When we as a species abandon our sense of accountability. Faith... all faths... are admonitions that there is something we cannot understand, something to which we are accountable... With faith we are accountable to each other, to ourselves, and to a higher truth. Religion is flawed, but only because man is flawed. If the outside world could see this church as I do... looking beyond the ritual of these walls... they would see a modern miracle, a brotherheard of imperfect, simple souls wanting only to be a voice of compassion in a world spinning out of control.

Are we obsolete? Are these men dinosaurs? Am I? Does the world realyl need a voice for the poor, the weak, the oppressed, the unborn child? Do we really need souls like these who, though imperfect, spend their lives imploring each of us to read the signposts of morality and not lose our way?

Tonight we are perched on a precipice. None of us can afford to be apathetic. Whether you see this evil as Satan, corruption, or immorality... the dark force is alive and growing every day. Do not ignore it. The force, though might, is not invincible, Goodness can prevail. Listen to your hearts. Listen to God. Together we can step back from this abyss.

Feel free to debate about the fallacies of this, but this piece really was amazing to me in such a way I can't describe. I thought you all might find it intruiging.

This post reminds me, I really need to read Angels and Demons. Loved The Da Vinchi Code.

Anyway, onto analysis:

The persion who is speaking(henceforth known as he) seems to make some arrogant statements in regards to morality . He seems to feel that we cannot control ourselves, that God is the only way to prevent the horrors of unchecked development in science. He also feels that The Church is right, and that it's own beliefs are right. Infact, what he is defining as believing in God is the defintion of ignorant! He feels that our own thirst for knowledge will lead us down a path of destruction, and that to remain dormant in science and to believe wholly in a God without proof or doubt. While I believe that it is exactly the opposite of that will help us: to continue our quest for knowledge and to question everything, although I too feel that cynicism and demand for proof is required if we do not want to perish in our own inquiry.

In the second paragraph, the priest is remaining ignorant again in that his religon is right and what will steer us to safety, while belitting other ways of thinking. He says that UFOs, engagement in channeling, spirit contact, out-of-body experiences, mindquests, ect, are irrational without even daring to doubt wether his own belief in Christianity is with merit. He also goes on to how with science we're killing ourselves and destroying each other, when we had gone on just as easily killing and destroying each other without the help of science; it's a feeling we've nutured ever since our very creation.

In the third paragraph, he goes on how we need the Church to govern ourselves. He even declares that talking to each other face to face is the only true way, that we cannot consider the moral implications of out actions, and that the use of literally thoughtless fetus' is in itself fallicious, taking those beliefs as fact without even considering or questioning why.

Then in the fourth, he declares that we are the ignorantones. In his lightning question, it's fallicious because he's taking a blind stance on it. He is saying it's better to take the ingnorant stance; that we should respect it's power, when even mortals today can create it's energy within a day at most. As well, he is saying that because we cannot understand the wonders of the universe, there has to be a God. Of course the heavens are magniciant to us, we're puny humans who cannot even imagine the luck and process involved in creating the heavens. Which is why we created gods, to give us an answer to every thing we don't know or are fearful to know.

For the last three paragraphs, I'll say this. We are our own God, we are own saviour, we are own destroyrer. It is us who create the medicenes and fufil the deeds that save us. And it is also us who creates the weapons to kill us, to plunge stone and iron into our flesh. The evil he speaks of is ignorance, we have to think of every single act we do, we shouldn't rely on old tomes to guide us on our lives. He said religion is flawed because of us; does that not mean too God is flawed too because of the religion we base his qualities on? We may or not be alone, there may very well be a God. But to say that we found him, that there is no doubt that we are forgotten to him, that we shouldn't rely nor think upon ourselves, is really what is leading us on the pathway to destruction.

(Longest. Post. Ever.)

Science, you say, will save us. Science, I say, has destroyed us.

Science is saving us, but not to the end Dan Brown was dogmatically aiming at. Where he, as so many others, unquestioningly assumes the survival of mankind as a must, science is saving us by opening our eyes and slowly, painfully dragging us into the light of truth.

That truth being that we really have no higher purpose nor worth to existence than what we make for ourselves, that we really are not some spiritual godspawns whereto the universe has to be justified - what arrogance!

The truly blind ones will have a long time adjusting to the light and they'll desperately claw on to others and keep them from entering the light, because they do not want to be alone with their fears, one of those fears sadly being the light.

Hopefully the cycle of generations will weed out these poor weaklings.

This dude is evidently unhappy about science overtaking religion. Sure, science could be a bad thing, what with the invention of atomic bombs and weapons of mass destruction. However, science also paves the way for more new developments in techonology. It has resulted in the invention of facilities which makes our lives easier. It has brought about many discoveries which could save lives. He just wants to believe that God is responsible for all these.

I say use your telescopes to look to the heavens, and tell me how there could not be a God!

I fail to see the logic in this statement. What I see would be planets.

Ok first off, legameboy, what an amazing piece. I remember when I read this too and it struck me as a great piece of writing (not just from a religious sense but just in general ya know?) And to all those who have not read "Angels and Demons"... read it. Now. :)

And also please note this before you start reading my post! Dan Brown is NOT religious! Therefore, that passage does not represent his beliefs, it's just that, a piece from his book. In fact, I believe that he wrote this piece simply to spark some debate, which isn't what I'm trying to do, I'm just taking the opposite stance as the others who have posted.

Just thought I would give a little disclaimer. :)

Originally posted by Druid Allanon
I fail to see the logic in this statement. What I see would be planets.

What the speaker is trying to imply about that statement is, if you look at the sky at light and see the millions of galaxies and hundreds of trillions of stars, with all the wonders in the galaxy, could you really think it was all random creation. That something that beautiful wasn't created by God or that God at least helped to create that beauty. That's all he's saying. (Note: I am not trying to argue with your statement, I'm just trying to explain the speaker's logic. :))

Originally posted by Jubatus
...[Science is] slowly, painfully dragging us into the light of truth.

That truth being that we really have no higher purpose nor worth to existence than what we make for ourselves, that we really are not some spiritual godspawns whereto the universe has to be justified - what arrogance!

Just wondering, but how is science "dragging" us into the light that you speak of? If you're going to make a statement and then call EVERY religious person in the world arrogant, I at least suggest that you specify exactly what in science is dragging us into this "truth." Is it an invention? What is it?

Originally posted by Tyrion
He feels that our own thirst for knowledge will lead us down a path of destruction, and that to remain dormant in science and to believe wholly in a God without proof or doubt. While I believe that it is exactly the opposite of that will help us: to continue our quest for knowledge and to question everything, although I too feel that cynicism and demand for proof is required if we do not want to perish in our own inquiry.

The speaker is not telling us to remain dormant in science. Go back and read more carefully his examples of what science is doing to us as humans. Like he says, we would all like to think of ourselves as significant, but because of science, we have been told time and time again that our being here on Earth was an accident. That we are less significant in the universe than a single grain of sand on all the beaches of the Earth. Now, he's not saying to abolish science, because in other parts of that speech (and the book) he (and others) admit that science and religion actually go hand in hand and help each other in certain ways. What he's saying is that maybe we should just step back for a little and marvel at the beauty of what we see on Earth and in space, who we are as special individuals instead of tiny, meaningless specks in the universe.

Nowhere does he say "abolish science totally" he's just saying that maybe we should slow down the pace and just relax and look at everything around us from a "beautiful" point of view, instead of scientific all the time. Now, I like science, I want to become a scientist, but I also just like to look at the inherant beauty of the universe sometimes, and there doesn't seem to be anything wrong with that does there?

And one more thing (sorry about the long post). The quest for knowledge is a great thing. I want to be part of that quest. But when do you draw the line at that quest? Atom bombs, manufactured poison chemicals that are used for the sole purpose of killing? Those don't seem like very noble and safe things that we should be "questing" for, and that's all the he's trying to say.





(I am in no way, shape, or form condoning science. It would be a stupid thing for me to do, because we need science and I as a Christian will admit that. Science is an awesome thing, but sometimes it gets a little dangerous ya know? And I hope to study astrophysics or chemistry in college. :D)

Originally posted by Reborn Outcast

The speaker is not telling us to remain dormant in science. Go back and read more carefully his examples of what science is doing to us as humans. Like he says, we would all like to think of ourselves as significant, but because of science, we have been told time and time again that our being here on Earth was an accident. That we are less significant in the universe than a single grain of sand on all the beaches of the Earth. Now, he's not saying to abolish science, because in other parts of that speech (and the book) he (and others) admit that science and religion actually go hand in hand and help each other in certain ways. What he's saying is that maybe we should just step back for a little and marvel at the beauty of what we see on Earth and in space, who we are as special individuals instead of tiny, meaningless specks in the universe.

Of course, when you look at it in Christian-stained eyeglasses(what would that color be? blue? green? gore red? :D), you could also see that you're pretty meaningless. I mean, you were created by God, and in the history of time you are only one in dozens if not hundred of BILLIONS of people.

Nowhere does he say "abolish science totally" he's just saying that maybe we should slow down the pace and just relax and look at everything around us from a "beautiful" point of view, instead of scientific all the time. Now, I like science, I want to become a scientist, but I also just like to look at the inherant beauty of the universe sometimes, and there doesn't seem to be anything wrong with that does there?

I marvel at the beauty of the sky too, but I also realize that some of the things I see are actually quite small too compared to the universe. The priest was making a comment about how we should be in awe of the power of lightning, when there's much more marvelous and powerful things not only in space, but even in our creations.

And one more thing (sorry about the long post). The quest for knowledge is a great thing. I want to be part of that quest. But when do you draw the line at that quest? Atom bombs, manufactured poison chemicals that are used for the sole purpose of killing? Those don't seem like very noble and safe things that we should be "questing" for, and that's all the he's trying to say.

I agree, but his point was in that the church should be the one deciding the line, not humanity itself. That's where I primarily disagree.

(I am in no way, shape, or form condoning science. It would be a stupid thing for me to do, because we need science and I as a Christian will admit that. Science is an awesome thing, but sometimes it gets a little dangerous ya know? And I hope to study astrophysics or chemistry in college. :D)

The word you're looking for is condemning, not condoning. :p

Originally posted by Tyrion
The word you're looking for is condemning, not condoning. :p

Dast, I was going to point that out :D

Originally posted by Reborn Outcast
Just wondering, but how is science "dragging" us into the light that you speak of? If you're going to make a statement and then call EVERY religious person in the world arrogant, I at least suggest that you specify exactly what in science is dragging us into this "truth." Is it an invention? What is it?

I used the term "dragging" because many of us are resisting, mainly through religion, and science is doing so by eliminating sources for superstition that leads to religion. Eliminating by discovery after discovery about the true nature of our existence.

Originally posted by Tyrion
Of course, when you look at it in Christian-stained eyeglasses(what would that color be? blue? green? gore red? :D), you could also see that you're pretty meaningless. I mean, you were created by God, and in the history of time you are only one in dozens if not hundred of BILLIONS of people.

Just thought I'd point out something interesting.

The amount of humans on the earth today is greater than the total number in history. (I only have 1 link, but I'll try and find more.) (http://www3.open.uoguelph.ca/de/ideaExchange/zoo1500/cwork/unit9/connection1.html)

If you look at the table of human growth, you would realize that 6 billion different people were not born in 40 years, that's just a grand total. So out of the 6 billion people on earth today, many of them are probably still living from the 3 billion in 1960, which makes the 6 billion pretty close to the total amount of humans living on earth ever. Just a little interesting thing. :)

But what I'm trying to say is, no one should think of themselves as insignificant. Everyone IS capable of making a difference if they put themselves to it. (Man, that was corny wasn't it? :p) But science partially makes it seems as if we have no effect whatsoever because of how insignificant we care compared to the rest of the universe.


Originally posted by Tyrion
I marvel at the beauty of the sky too, but I also realize that some of the things I see are actually quite small too compared to the universe. The priest was making a comment about how we should be in awe of the power of lightning, when there's much more marvelous and powerful things not only in space, but even in our creations.

He's not saying we should be in awe of lightning specifically. It's just an example. Of course there are much more powerful things in the universe, but what he is trying to say is, if you don't have any respect for the power in the universe, it could come back to bite you in the butt. (I hope that wasn't to confusing.)

Originally posted by Tyrion
I agree, but his point was in that the church should be the one deciding the line, not humanity itself. That's where I primarily disagree.

Could you show me the sentence where he specifically says that? I didn't really see any place where he says that the church is the deciding line.

Originally posted by Tyrion
The word you're looking for is condemning, not condoning. :p

Yes, I believe that is the word I'm looking for. :p Thanks for pointing that out.

And, just so everyone knows, I'm finding it hard to type out my stance on this, because it makes it seem like I'm trying to say science is of no use which is the exact opposite of what I think. I just need to clarify that because when I read over what I type, I kind of seem like a science-abolishing zealot, when I'm really not.

Maybe it's just me, but I found that boring.

Originally posted by Reborn Outcast
[B]Just thought I'd point out something interesting.

The amount of humans on the earth today is greater than the total number in history. (I only have 1 link, but I'll try and find more.) (http://www3.open.uoguelph.ca/de/ideaExchange/zoo1500/cwork/unit9/connection1.html)

If you look at the table of human growth, you would realize that 6 billion different people were not born in 40 years, that's just a grand total. So out of the 6 billion people on earth today, many of them are probably still living from the 3 billion in 1960, which makes the 6 billion pretty close to the total amount of humans living on earth ever. Just a little interesting thing. :)[b]

Wow, didn't know that. I knew that the total population got lower and lower the further back we went in time, but I was sure we passed at leat 20 billion...

But what I'm trying to say is, no one should think of themselves as insignificant. Everyone IS capable of making a difference if they put themselves to it. (Man, that was corny wasn't it? :p) But science partially makes it seems as if we have no effect whatsoever because of how insignificant we care compared to the rest of the universe.

But religion doesn't change that, you can still feel you're insignifigant. In both religion and science, you can remain perfectly happen fowarding humanity.


He's not saying we should be in awe of lightning specifically. It's just an example. Of course there are much more powerful things in the universe, but what he is trying to say is, if you don't have any respect for the power in the universe, it could come back to bite you in the butt. (I hope that wasn't to confusing.)

I suppose, but my point was in that one thing may look powerful to us, but there's always something more powerful(well, until you get the forces which created the big bang...even then, there might be always something bigger).

Could you show me the sentence where he specifically says that? I didn't really see any place where he says that the church is the deciding line.

To science, I say this. The church is tired. We are exhausted from trying to be your signposts. Our resources are drying up from our campaign to be the voice of balance as you plow blindly on in your quest for smaller chips and larger profits. We ask not why you will not govern yourselves, but how can you? Your world moves so fast that if you stop even for an instant to consider the implications of your actions, someone more efficient will whip past you in a blur. So you move on. You proliferate weapons of mass destruction, but it is the Pope who travels the world beseeching leaders to use restraint. You clone living creatures, but it is the church reminding us to consider the moral implications of our actions. You encourage people to ineract on phones, video screens, and computers, but it is the church who opens its doors and reminds us to commune in person as we were meant to do. You even murder unborn babies in the name of research that will save lives. Again, it is the church who points out the fallacy of this reasoning.

In that paragraph he was stating that it's the church who should remind us of the moral implications of our actions.

And, just so everyone knows, I'm finding it hard to type out my stance on this, because it makes it seem like I'm trying to say science is of no use which is the exact opposite of what I think. I just need to clarify that because when I read over what I type, I kind of seem like a science-abolishing zealot, when I'm really not.

Nah, you really are a science-abolishing zealot, don't deny it. :p

Originally posted by Jubatus
I used the term "dragging" because many of us are resisting, mainly through religion, and science is doing so by eliminating sources for superstition that leads to religion. Eliminating by discovery after discovery about the true nature of our existence.

That's not true. Christian churches all over the world are sending out money for AIDS work in Africa and other areas of the world. AIDS relief is a fairly new, scientific area, yet Christians are helping out.

Science can "eliminate" things that people think are clues about our true nature, but can science ever truly prove that there is no God at all? I believe that God created the heavens and the earth, but does that mean that he couldn't have let them run free for a while? Partially controlled evolution? Science will NEVER be able to prove that there is no God, because no matter what you say, even if someone manages to scientifically prove everything in the universe, couldn't God have started it all and left it to be discovered by science?

You see what I mean? It's kind of round-about thinking to you probably, but do you at least see what I'm getting at?

Originally posted by Tyrion
I suppose, but my point was in that one thing may look powerful to us, but there's always something more powerful(well, until you get the forces which created the big bang...even then, there might be always something bigger).

Yes, I see what you mean, but the priest was just using lightning as an example. :) And the thing is, we can't really "define" the Big Bang so to speak. (At least not yet.) There's not yet any specific proof like there is for lightning. I guess that's the reason why he used lightning as the example. :)

And hey, even though I'm a Christian, I can believe that God "created" the Big Bang. It is my humble belief that God left Genesis open for interpretation. When it says "Let there be light, and there was light" it could mean God started the Big Bang. I think it's vague on purpose.

Originally posted by Tyrion
In that paragraph he was stating that it's the church who should remind us of the moral implications of our actions.

Well, he's not specifically saying that. He mentioned the Pope going around and urging restrain from the world leaders, but that doesn't mean that they need to listen to him. It makes Christians look bad because sometimes, Christians are the only ones talking about moral implications, which leaves them isolated and looking like know-it-alls.


Originally posted by Tyrion
Nah, you really are a science-abolishing zealot, don't deny it. :p

I resent that. :p

Good points there, Reborn Outcast. And I also agree that was left vague on purpose...what is 7 days to a almighty being who has existed forever? It is all in how you look at it. Only in recent times have people started taking the book of Genesis as full on literal fact, word per word.

While we might not be able to prove god doesn't exist, one also cannot prove he does exist. :)


oh and it's usually the military scientists who create these weapons of mass destruction, using the tax dollars of the countries citizens no less, so if you don't want to fund these, then don't pay taxes along with abolishing science. ;)


(was just making a general statement to anyone who shares a lot of this person's ideology)

Originally posted by Reborn Outcast
That's not true. Christian churches all over the world are sending out money for AIDS work in Africa and other areas of the world. AIDS relief is a fairly new, scientific area, yet Christians are helping out.



LOL! By doing what? Telling them to abstain? LOL! Christians are the main cause of the huge spread of AIDS in Africa. They keep telling people to abstain even though it doesn't work.
They could encourage them to use condoms but no...

Originally posted by Reborn Outcast
That's not true. Christian churches all over the world are sending out money for AIDS work in Africa and other areas of the world. AIDS relief is a fairly new, scientific area, yet Christians are helping out.

Not gonna get into how much the Christians are really "helping out" down there, but get to the stronger point; they can do what they do without religion, without a diety to cling to, had they the balls.

Originally posted by Reborn Outcast
Science can "eliminate" things that people think are clues about our true nature, but can science ever truly prove that there is no God at all? I believe that God created the heavens and the earth, but does that mean that he couldn't have let them run free for a while? Partially controlled evolution? Science will NEVER be able to prove that there is no God, because no matter what you say, even if someone manages to scientifically prove everything in the universe, couldn't God have started it all and left it to be discovered by science?

I've said it before and I'll say it again - asking science to disprove something that has never been even marginally proven is folly. It's like me claiming that our universe resides inside a purple peanut governed by the seven-legged ant, Wonga-Wonga Watanaga and ask you to disprove it.

EDIT: Corrected early morning typos :rolleyes:

Originally posted by InsaneSith
While we might not be able to prove god doesn't exist, one also cannot prove he does exist. :)

Look, I'm not gonna get involved in this one(you can thank whoever you like, I just don't feel like I want a headache), but that is thee single biggest truth EVAR. And heres why:

1: God is known through books written by a less than perfect species who's greatest creation is the wheel(it really is)
2: God isn't a creature, he's a BEING, and thus, cannot truly be proven existant or not by science
3: Its nice to have something to look forward to after life(I believe in astral projection, but thats me), but neither side can prove or disprove Heaven and Hell or Nirvana and Limbo, or reincarnation over transcendence.

Don't quote me cuz I ain't coming back to defend myself.

Originally posted by lukeiamyourdad
LOL! By doing what? Telling them to abstain? LOL! Christians are the main cause of the huge spread of AIDS in Africa. They keep telling people to abstain even though it doesn't work.
They could encourage them to use condoms but no...

So OBVIOUSLY by telling them to abstain it encourages them to go out and rape people, spreading AIDS... :confused: :confused: :confused:

Originally posted by Jubatus
Not gonna get into how much the Christians are really "helping out" down there, but get to the stronger point; they can do what they do without religion, without a diety to cling to, had they the balls.

...but because they're doing it in the name of God, that immediately makes it a laughing matter to you? Show me proof that Christians are doing less than any other AIDS relief foundations in Africa. (Keyword, Africa.)

And in terms off good deeds, hmm, I guess I kind of remeber Mother Teresa winning the Nobel Peace Prize or something.

Originally posted by Jubatus
I've said it before and I'll say it again - asking science to disprove something that has never been even marginally proven is folly. It's like me claiming that our universe resides inside a purple peanut governed by the seven-legged ant, Wonga-Wonga Watanaga and ask you to disprove it.

Christians aren't asking you to scientifically prove there is a God. It's called faith. The reason it's so special is that it can never be proven, either right or wrong, so you just have to believe.

(Eh, and I'm not trying to start a religious flamewar, I just came in here to talk about the text.)

Originally posted by Reborn Outcast
So OBVIOUSLY by telling them to abstain it encourages them to go out and rape people, spreading AIDS... :confused: :confused: :confused:

I think you need to take a sex-ed class. You do realize that the spread of AIDS in Africa isn't due to raping right? I guess not.
You don,t really understand let me explain. See, they encourage them to abstain but at the same time condemn all other methods of contraception. So using a condom is bad. People listen and don't use them. People aren't educated to use condoms and don't use them. So AIDS spreads faster because they aren't taught any other method of contraception then abstinence.

Originally posted by Reborn Outcast
...but because they're doing it in the name of God, that immediately makes it a laughing matter to you? Show me proof that Christians are doing less than any other AIDS relief foundations in Africa. (Keyword, Africa.)

And in terms off good deeds, hmm, I guess I kind of remeber Mother Teresa winning the Nobel Peace Prize or something.

As a said above, they aren't doing less, they're doing it wrong.
As far as good deeds go, you're blind if you think Christians only do good deeds, they do a lot of bad things too.

Originally posted by Reborn Outcast
...but because they're doing it in the name of God, that immediately makes it a laughing matter to you? Show me proof that Christians are doing less than any other AIDS relief foundations in Africa. (Keyword, Africa.)

And in terms off good deeds, hmm, I guess I kind of remeber Mother Teresa winning the Nobel Peace Prize or something.

You're exactly misunderstanding what I said they way I should have forseen. That they help is what it is, but they do not need to be Christians to do it - that is what I said. It's like you're proposing that you cannot be kind and helpful without believing in a god.

That Mother Teresa won a Nobel Peace Prize means exactly nada to me. She was a Christian and therefor a contributor to the continuing pain of the world making her a blind, fearful fool like all the rest of them.

Originally posted by Reborn Outcast
Christians aren't asking you to scientifically prove there is a God. It's called faith. The reason it's so special is that it can never be proven, either right or wrong, so you just have to believe.


Indeed, and the source of that belief, fear, is more damaging to the course of mankind than anything I can think of.

Hmmm, well that whole thing came from a piece of fiction so reading it with a grain of salt would be smart. I think that it does make some good points against the point of view that many people are taking. That is, leaving science to act unrestrained is okay and to hell with the potential consequences. Obviously that point of view can be detrimental to society so it is a bad thing, since scientific discoveries can be a benefit or a hazard to human beings.
As for the part talking about humans losing their sense of faith and wonder regarding the world around them, I think that's a natural process that is bound to happen to the human race. Individual people naturally become more skeptical and more analytical of the world around them as they get older. So as a species it would make sense that we follow the same process(mental maturation on a species wide level).
As for fear being a source of faith like Jubatus suggests, I don't buy that. I wouldn't feel any allegiance or obligation to some unprovable higher power because I'm afraid of it, becuase if you cant prove something exists then how can you fear it?
I do think the idea of believing in a higher power for good can reinforce you own sense of morality. But that' s something that only individual people can decide.
Just my two cent's on the matter.

Originally posted by JediLiberator
As for fear being a source of faith like Jubatus suggests, I don't buy that. I wouldn't feel any allegiance or obligation to some unprovable higher power because I'm afraid of it, becuase if you cant prove something exists then how can you fear it?

You got it wrong. I'm not saying people turn to religion because they are afraid of the religion, they turn because they are afraid of the world or parts of it.

Jubatas, keep your opinions pretty. Don't accuse Christianity of bring the world "pain". And do not call its followers fools. You very well could offend any christians on this board. Watch it, bub.

Originally posted by Hiroki
Jubatas, keep your opinions pretty. Don't accuse Christianity of bring the world "pain". And do not call its followers fools. You very well could offend any christians on this board. Watch it, bub.

First off, you might do well to address me by my name correctly if you hope to gain any positive response to your "request".

Way more importantly, the offence any Christians on this board might take from my outspoken views on them is infinitesimal next to the offence they incur in me by their christianity. Warn them.

Geez, don't get worked up over a one out of place letter. You're lucky said your name that properly. So JubatUs...what problems do you have with Christianity? What has it ever done to you? Most true Christians are very good people. Unfortunately, we get blamed for the crap that people who "Hide behind the cross" do. Understandable, but also regrettable...

You seem very bitter towards it, none the less. And it pains me to see somebody so against such a noble religion. I do not know if you are aware of this, Jubatus, but there are going to be bad people in ALL religions. And there are bad Atheists as well. That does not mean all of them, or even most of them are bad.

No, I do not hate Atheists, and I do not go around trying to convert them. However...I do ask that they show respect for others beliefs, as they often request. And I suggest you do so.

Originally posted by Hiroki
Geez, don't get worked up over a one out of place letter. You're lucky said your name that properly. So JubatUs...what problems do you have with Christianity? What has it ever done to you? Most true Christians are very good people. Unfortunately, we get blamed for the crap that people who "Hide behind the cross" do. Understandable, but also regrettable...

You seem very bitter towards it, none the less. And it pains me to see somebody so against such a noble religion. I do not know if you are aware of this, Jubatus, but there are going to be bad people in ALL religions. And there are bad Atheists as well. That does not mean all of them, or even most of them are bad.

No, I do not hate Atheists, and I do not go around trying to convert them. However...I do ask that they show respect for others beliefs, as they often request. And I suggest you do so.

You're way off target. I don't distinguish between "good" and "bad" religious people, I loathe all religion and religious people, because religion is a symptom of self-induced ignorance spawned by fear of death and oblivion. And I will not show respect for your belief because that very belief is truly offensive to me albeit being merely the symptom.

If you want clarification then dig into some of the older threads in here, the one of main importance being "Why is it OK to criticise Christianity?" or something to that effect. I will not discuss this further with you, because you are a Christian and it will only be me banging my head against your wall of religious dogma; another issue about which you can also find out by checking out a newer thread here (http://www.lucasforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=133721)

Well Jubatus, if you really feel debates about religion end up in one "dogma" or school of thought head banging another, why do you criticize any religion when you know your words will fall on deaf ears? No offense intended, but it seems you're just as dogmatic about your point of view as the people you claim to despise.
Religion is a part of humanity, a part of our civilization and our identity, and just like any aspect of humam it has it's good aspects and bad aspects. So why try to bash it? You think religion has no place in an argument? Well if it affects someone's decision making process it certainly does!

Originally posted by Jubatus
You're way off target. I don't distinguish between "good" and "bad" religious people, I loathe all religion and religious people, because religion is a symptom of self-induced ignorance spawned by fear of death and oblivion. And I will not show respect for your belief because that very belief is truly offensive to me albeit being merely the symptom.

If you want clarification then dig into some of the older threads in here, the one of main importance being "Why is it OK to criticise Christianity?" or something to that effect. I will not discuss this further with you, because you are a Christian and it will only be me banging my head against your wall of religious dogma; another issue about which you can also find out by checking out a newer thread here (http://www.lucasforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=133721)

So I, and the BILLIONS of other religious people, are all afraid of the world? Hmm, how about because we believe that there is an afterlife. AFTERLIFE. Please note the two keywords, After, and Life. That means after we're dead. I don't see how being afraid DURING our life induces us to believe in an AFTERlife.

Unless I'm reading you all wrong. Are you afraid of religion? Does it scare you for some reason? I'm asking this as a serious question since you "loathe" every single religious person in the world and feel the need to catigorize them as childish and immature.

people fear what they do not know, thus they created an afterlife to calm themselves. ;)

I'm just guessing that's what he is saying.

Originally posted by Reborn Outcast
So I, and the BILLIONS of other religious people, are all afraid of the world? Hmm, how about because we believe that there is an afterlife. AFTERLIFE. Please note the two keywords, After, and Life. That means after we're dead. I don't see how being afraid DURING our life induces us to believe in an AFTERlife.

He means that billions of people are scared of dying, thus they create an afterlife to ease thier mind.

And why does this bother him? He can not prove, or disprove an Afterlife. And let me tell you something, getting all worked up over religion like that, will only stress your body out, and help you to find out if its true or not all the sooner. ;)

Also, whats it to you? What does it matter if we believe there is an afterlife or not? If there is, and we die, we'll be gone from the earth, our bodies will be dead. If there isn't, we'll be gone from the earth, and our bodies will be dead...see my point? :p

Originally posted by Hiroki And why does this bother him? He can not prove, or disprove an Afterlife. And let me tell you something, getting all worked up over religion like that, will only stress your body out, and help you to find out if its true or not all the sooner. ;)

Personally, I'm agnostic, so I have the same sentiments.

Also, whats it to you? What does it matter if we believe there is an afterlife or not? If there is, and we die, we'll be gone from the earth, our bodies will be dead. If there isn't, we'll be gone from the earth, and our bodies will be dead...see my point? :p

Well, some religious fanatics have been known to kill themselves and others to get into a afterlife...

Yes...fanatics. Note the word Fanatics. Fanatics are an extremely small part of the religious community.

Too bad they make more noise then the majority.

Originally posted by lukeiamyourdad
Too bad they make more noise then the majority.

That's just the way it is with todays media. Everything violent and horrible makes the front page even though it may not represent the majority.

Originally posted by Reborn Outcast
That's just the way it is with todays media. Everything violent and horrible makes the front page even though it may not represent the majority. not just today's media, but all media since the beginning of secular media.


*edit* DAMN YOUR BRAIN!

Originally posted by InsaneSith not just today's media, but all media since the beginning of circular media.

Circular? Or do you mean Secular Media?

Unless you're trying to imply that the media is right because they says so...:p

Originally posted by Tyrion
Circular? Or do you mean Secular Media?

Unless you're trying to imply that the media is right because they says so...:p bah, secular. where is my head today? ;_;

Originally posted by JediLiberator
Well Jubatus, if you really feel debates about religion end up in one "dogma" or school of thought head banging another, why do you criticize any religion when you know your words will fall on deaf ears? No offense intended, but it seems you're just as dogmatic about your point of view as the people you claim to despise.

Read more carefully; I didn't speak of two opposing dogmata. And if my views seem dogmatic to you I suggest you dig into the 2 threads to which I referred Hiroki.

Originally posted by JediLiberator
Religion is a part of humanity, a part of our civilization and our identity, and just like any aspect of humam it has it's good aspects and bad aspects. So why try to bash it? You think religion has no place in an argument? Well if it affects someone's decision making process it certainly does!

In the overall picture there is no "good" attributed to religion that cannot be without religion.

Religion has a place in many arguments, as do religious dogma as a topic, but religious dogma is not a rational way of argument, it's just saying "so it is written, so shall it be!"

Originally posted by Reborn Outcast
Unless I'm reading you all wrong.

You are, as InsaneSith and Tyrion has pointed out.

Originally posted by Reborn Outcast
Are you afraid of religion? Does it scare you for some reason? I'm asking this as a serious question since you "loathe" every single religious person in the world and feel the need to catigorize them as childish and immature

No.

Originally posted by Hiroki
Also, whats it to you? What does it matter if we believe there is an afterlife or not? If there is, and we die, we'll be gone from the earth, our bodies will be dead. If there isn't, we'll be gone from the earth, and our bodies will be dead...see my point?

Your belief in an afterlife is but an aspect of the crime of religion. Did you at all read the 2 threads to which I referred you?

Well, I just finished scanning through the thread you gave me. Only so much of your babble I can take...but from I can tell, you dislike religion, because we do not like to debate, and argue "rationally", and because of our faith, in things that are often not proven by science? Is that what you're getting at? I'll let you tell me if I've got what your problem is pegged down before I comment.

Originally posted by Hiroki
Well, I just finished scanning through the thread you gave me. Only so much of your babble I can take...but from I can tell, you dislike religion, because we do not like to debate, and argue "rationally", and because of our faith, in things that are often not proven by science? Is that what you're getting at? I'll let you tell me if I've got what your problem is pegged down before I comment.

Whether you like to debate or not does not apply, the problem is that discussing your religion you cannot by definition argue rationally, because far the most of your points are dogmatic of origin.

That your faith cannot be proven by science is only looking at the top of the iceberg, and since it seems you only skimmed through one of the two threads to which I directed you, I'll dig the older one up for you: Behold! (http://www.lucasforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=104161)

And calling my writing babble is only more overtly revealing yourself as a less than average skilled reader. Please, work on it so I won't have to repeat and elaborate every time.

Babble as in useless ramble that I do not care to hear. ;)

Anyway, that thing is a friggen 8 pages long. I'll comment eventually when I find the time to read through that whole thing. I'm not keen on debating my faith, so you'll forgive me if I'm not too zealous ( Hah! ) in arguing with you here. If you really want to fight with somebody though, I'll bring a friend over for you to duke it out with untill I get off my lazy bum and read that whole thread.

Originally posted by Hiroki
Babble as in useless ramble that I do not care to hear. ;)

Since that is how you regard my writing there really is even less point in us discussing, no?

Originally posted by Hiroki
If you really want to fight with somebody though.....

My intention with debating has never been to fight, but to enlighten and to be enlightened. But bring your friend; hopefully he will prove of a more rational breed.

My intention with debating has never been to fight, but to enlighten and to be enlightened. But bring your friend; hopefully he will prove of a more rational breed.

The one thing that bugs me about saying things like this is simply this. Reason and rational thought are only part of what it is to be human. Instinct, human passions, and yes, even beliefs are part of what it is to be human. Therefore if you're going to have a debate wouldn't it be natural to assume people wouldn't JUST use reason and logic to back up their arguments?
Now Jubatus, you say you want to be enlighten others or be enlightened yourself. Well to that I say, how could you hope to enlighten people by arguing with them over something as deeply personal as religion? More importantly how could you hope to be enlightened when you presume religion is just flat out wrong or illogical anyway. That's what I'm talking about when I speak of opposing points of view. Your view of religion is just as prejudiced as the people who you're arguing with, its just prejudiced in the opposite direction(so to speak). So what do hope to learn or gain by having a verbal fight that's a stalemate from the start? It's like two adults playing tic tac toe, neither one can win unless someone get bored or makes a blunder.

Originally posted by JediLiberator
The one thing that bugs me about saying things like this is simply this. Reason and rational thought are only part of what it is to be human. Instinct, human passions, and yes, even beliefs are part of what it is to be human. Therefore if you're going to have a debate wouldn't it be natural to assume people wouldn't JUST use reason and logic to back up their arguments?
Now Jubatus, you say you want to be enlighten others or be enlightened yourself. Well to that I say, how could you hope to enlighten people by arguing with them over something as deeply personal as religion? More importantly how could you hope to be enlightened when you presume religion is just flat out wrong or illogical anyway. That's what I'm talking about when I speak of opposing points of view. Your view of religion is just as prejudiced as the people who you're arguing with, its just prejudiced in the opposite direction(so to speak). So what do hope to learn or gain by having a verbal fight that's a stalemate from the start? It's like two adults playing tic tac toe, neither one can win unless someone get bored or makes a blunder.

If you had cared to read this thread (http://www.lucasforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=133721) then you would know I do indeed not want to argue against religious dogma, but that does not mean I can't discuss religion.

Life consists of emotions too, yes, but that's not what I'm against when it comes to debates; I'm against (and I'm really getting to hate repeating myself when people do not read thoroughly) is DOGMA , especially the religious kind. Belief, or more to the point faith, is harmful in that it might boost the confidence of the weak, but it is a delusion, a false premise from which to form a world view. Now, religion has spread some pretty hefty such delusions and these delusions are refugia for those who are content with remaining intellectually stagnant, because all the answers are already provided for them in the form of ancient texts repeated again and again from figureheads of authority that have no other merit of authority than that very same dogmatic delusion! And for fear of not being confirmed in the righteousness of their delusion they spew it into the face of all they meet in the hope that they might join them in the simplicity of their blissful dark corners, whilst relying on the merit of numbers and the age of their delusion to be reasons enough to validate them!

I am exactly wanting to rip people from their delusion that they might contribute to their world and common man in a constructive manner, moving forward on the road of evolution towards whatever end that might bring us, be it annihilation or enlightenment. My "prejudice" against religion is not about various aspects of the religion; it is against the very essence of religion itself! But I do realize that I cannot win, and my only hope is saving the rare few who, on their way into this shared delusion, might read my words, see the truth of them, and be spared that indignity of hiding behind false solutions to the intellectual and emotional issues of this existence!

Fear spreads like cancer and religion has long ago found the ultimate fear to ever enter the heart of man; the fear of death, both for themselves and their closest, and religion have through the centuries abused that fear to goad hordes of followers into seeking shelter in a house of golden promises and abysmal threats, making people forget that there is a simple evolutionary, genetic reason for their mortality, and if they do seek immortality then it is to be found within their children and their children and theirs and theirs and so on and so on. And why fear oblivion, nothingness, the discontinuation of consciousness and awareness? There is no rational reason, for if you do not exist, can you feel sorry for yourself for it? Can you regret it? If it is too hard to answer then think of the question for the other end - what if you were never born? Would you feel sorry for yourself for that? Would you regret it? No, because you do not exist to do so! There is no pain, no loss and no regret in non-existence, so why fear it?

Oh, and all the higher qualities of human behaviour written of in the Bible or whatever religious scripture one might adhere to; all these virtues can easily be embraced without pledging yourself to any delusion, in fact they become more pure if you're not pledged to some religion, because you act nobly because it is your own conviction and not because you're obeying some higher authority.
Yet it is true enough that it is fear of authorities that keep a civilization intact, but it should be from the laws conceived from man's reason and logic observing existence as is, not from some obscure, omniscient and omnipotent entity claiming the capability to hold our very eternity in their grasp.

For mankind's sake, open your eyes!

Maybe its true that religion is the "opium of the masses" as you say, but the same religions that perpetrate the "illusion" of an afterlife also do more to instill a sense of morality in people than all the logical arguments in the world.
How can you teach morality and logic to a child? In terms of complex arguments and ideas they wouldn't undertand? Or in terms simple stories and myths, in terms of parables and basic rules they can understand.
Do those myths limit peoples' ability to think for themselves and make them more easily manipulated by people in leadership positions? Yes it does.
But their condition as manipulatable subjects does not change when you remove those religious conventions. How do I know that? Look at the way politicians use the media to influence regular citizens today. The idea of controlling the information a ruled populace recieves to keep control of said populace started with religion, but it does not end there.
Today in present day society, religion's role has to been to act as a source of conservative and moral indoctrination of people. That is to say they teach normal folks to do the right thing and to act within the constraints of religious tradition.
While those traditions can be severly limiting and promote injustice within a society, they are also part of the glue that holds society together.
Jubatus, you suggest that we remove those religious traditions and teach morality based on logic. I say we change religious traditions to face the realities of a new society. Logic is only half the answer, or maybe even less that half. By teaching people to observe and participate in a "divine" order religions teach them important values, and that is something pure logic can never do. There is no logical argument in this world that backs up being a good person as well as religion. The very quality you see in religious people as a detriment to debate is sometimes the one thing that keeps people from commiting evil acts and atrocities on their fellow humans.

Originally posted by JediLiberator
Maybe its true that religion is the "opium of the masses" as you say, but the same religions that perpetrate the "illusion" of an afterlife also do more to instill a sense of morality in people than all the logical arguments in the world.

So basically you'd rather live a civilized lie than an anarchistic truth.

Originally posted by JediLiberator
How can you teach morality and logic to a child? In terms of complex arguments and ideas they wouldn't undertand? Or in terms simple stories and myths, in terms of parables and basic rules they can understand.

There is a difference between telling parables and myths for the sake of explanation and claiming that the source of these stories are divine in origin. Besides, rationale and logic does not exclude using parables.

Originally posted by JediLiberator
Do those myths limit peoples' ability to think for themselves and make them more easily manipulated by people in leadership positions? Yes it does.

Only if they swallow them on faith without criticism.

Originally posted by JediLiberator
But their condition as manipulatable subjects does not change when you remove those religious conventions. How do I know that? Look at the way politicians use the media to influence regular citizens today. The idea of controlling the information a ruled populace recieves to keep control of said populace started with religion, but it does not end there.

Indeed not, but that is not an argument to validate religion, in fact it puts it right on the shelf with political manipulation, thus not excusing religion, merely pointing out an accomplice. And I think we all are quite aware that political and religious manipulation are often intermixed, one abusing the other for further control.

Originally posted by JediLiberator
Today in present day society, religion's role has to been to act as a source of conservative and moral indoctrination of people. That is to say they teach normal folks to do the right thing and to act within the constraints of religious tradition.
While those traditions can be severly limiting and promote injustice within a society, they are also part of the glue that holds society together.

Nevertheless they remain a false premise for the founding and continuation of a civilization. If mankind cannot do without then mankind needs to wake up to alternate realities about existence, truer realities. And I must add that this view that we could not do as a stable society without religion seems nothing more to me than a conditioning of the mind serving as a crutch for the weaker elements.

Originally posted by JediLiberator
Jubatus, you suggest that we remove those religious traditions and teach morality based on logic. I say we change religious traditions to face the realities of a new society. Logic is only half the answer, or maybe even less that half. By teaching people to observe and participate in a "divine" order religions teach them important values, and that is something pure logic can never do. There is no logical argument in this world that backs up being a good person as well as religion. The very quality you see in religious people as a detriment to debate is sometimes the one thing that keeps people from commiting evil acts and atrocities on their fellow humans.

The key sentence here being: There is no logical argument in this world that backs up being a good person as well as religion., which again leads us to the options of living a civilized lie rather than anarchistic truth. This glorification of human life is a societal dogma that has been bred into us for the main part by religion. It's this dogma that allows for the sustaining of those who cannot survive on their own and the prolonging of lives beyond what is personally bearable. Yet if you wanna support a multi-handicapped child that would have no chance on its own, by all means do so, just don't force the "obligation" of this care down the throat of your surrounding society. And if a person, who has lived out her life, ends in barely endurable pain of body due to the hardship of a laborous life, then let her die with some dignity instead of hooking her up to machines to keep her alive for a few more years despite the lack of possibility of recuperation just because society has deemed it the "humane" thing to do.

We are in agreement that humans need something more than logic and rationale to live by and for, of course we do. I say we should live by logic, and for emotion, and the beautiful ugliness of this is that logic and emotions are each other's greatest adversary. And that conflict is what makes this wonderous life, and one would think that would suffice. I for one belief so. Praise emotions for what they are, don't contribute them to some higher ideal that would demand our obedience. It is a illusory control based on fear....not healthy. I hear it often in their own choice of words by religious people; they behave like good people because of fear of retribution, and not of love for the righteousness of that behaviour. 'tis sad indeed. Granted, there are a few rare religious people that actually are benevolent out of love for their religious teachings, yet they are still under that false assumption that those teaching could not and cannot be without the religion.

Why must we have higher ideals than ourselves and our intellectual and emotional capabilities in order to care about each other? Does that not speak something crucial of human nature? Does that not suggest that only our imagination puts us apart from the primal?

So basically you'd rather live a civilized lie than an anarchistic truth.

Essentially that's all I see humans doing. Creating myths and stories about the existence of a "divine" presense to reinforce the ideas that preserve civilized order. If you have a historical bit of evidence that shows a human society relying on morals based on logic tell me. Because I take a glance through history and I see a whole sea of "civilized lies" as you put it. The idea you suggest would benefit individuals, I don't deny that, but it could also decrease our species' chances of survival.
Because when people are taught to believe the same set of moral principles they are less likely to fight over it, especially when they fear "divine" retribution as you put it.
And if you did manage to banish religion what would you put in it's place? Because you cannot tear down a major institution of society and just walk away and leave everyone out there like fish caught out of water. How would YOU teach morality in such a way that it keeps us from each others' throats? More than that, how could things like empathy and compassion be taught without talking about matters of "the spirit" (for lack of a better word).
Have at thee sir! :)

Originally posted by JediLiberator
Essentially that's all I see humans doing. Creating myths and stories about the existence of a "divine" presense to reinforce the ideas that preserve civilized order. If you have a historical bit of evidence that shows a human society relying on morals based on logic tell me. Because I take a glance through history and I see a whole sea of "civilized lies" as you put it.

You somehow present this as something I've denied, while it is exactly what I've been saying all along and been advocating against. Yes, we have through all civilized history been living a lie, as a whole. That's the problem!

Originally posted by JediLiberator
The idea you suggest would benefit individuals, I don't deny that, but it could also decrease our species' chances of survival.

Might it actually be (and cast the dogmatic ideal of the unquestionability of mankind's survival aside, if even for a moment) that we indeed, through our growing intellect, are on a road to a fuller understanding of existence that will eventually overcome our primal, genetic urges and lead us to the discontinuation of our existence as a species as the logic viable result? In other words, will rationale at some point finally get the better of emotion and we can quietly return to the oblivion from whence we came?

Originally posted by JediLiberator
And if you did manage to banish religion what would you put in it's place?

Reason, rationale and logic battling it out with emotions; let the chips fall where they may!


Originally posted by JediLiberator
Because you cannot tear down a major institution of society and just walk away and leave everyone out there like fish caught out of water.

I would ask why not, but you have already given an answer which I in return have answered.

Originally posted by JediLiberator
How would YOU teach morality in such a way that it keeps us from each others' throats?

I wouldn't polute mankind with morality. Morality finds only true disciples in the few, hypocrites in the many, and ignorance in the rest.

Originally posted by JediLiberator
More than that, how could things like empathy and compassion be taught without talking about matters of "the spirit"

By recognizing them as subjects to the mind.