Having freedom FROM religion:

Originally posted by Suzianne
Feel the Force.

Faith is not a classroom exercise.

So a persons choice is based on what they feel, not evidence? Its still not making a whole lot of sense. Some of us simply don't feel the force, yet you claim we made a choice. I say that one cannot choose what one is not aware of.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Oh please, give me a break in just about every post you have responded to me
you've brought up religon or God, examples:

"To accept a god is to accept limitations."
"Religion is an intellectual prison based on conformity and self preservation. There is no such thing as a religious open mind, EVERYTHING starts and finishes with a god. I on the other han ...[text shortened]... han, because I cannot communicate
without bringing up God? What is your excuse?
Kelly

Remember the OP ,that is my excuse!

Originally posted by RJHinds
The idea of a god or gods has been with man from the beginning of recorded history. Why?

Why? I'll tell you why: It stems from the very intelligence evolving from humans, with larger brains comes curiosity and observation. When you put those two together in a pre-technological society, and they see a comet for instance, the natural thing to think is there is something out there bigger than humanity, bigger the Earth, part of the heavens. So it doesn't take a huge step of imagination to ascribe intelligence to a comet and having done that, realizing that whatever that intelligence must be (now of course we know there is in fact no intelligence in a comet) it is bigger than mere humans so it isn't a huge jump to see them ascribing god like abilities to that comet.

That is just one example but that is the main drift of it. They simply invented gods to account for that which their intelligence observed but could not explain so gods were invented, including yours.

Originally posted by OdBod
Remember the OP ,that is my excuse!

Spell it out for me! The Op was a wine about not liking being told what to think
or do, and no religion required for someone telling you what to think or do, that
is a human trait.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Spell it out for me! The Op was a wine about not liking being told what to think
or do, and no religion required for someone telling you what to think or do, that
is a human trait.
Kelly

Having freedom from religion allows unfettered free thought . Religion always seeks to control the individual for it's own end. I do not wish to be told how to think by ANYONE.I think our lives would be better if we were answerable to each other and not some supernatural being whose intent is explained by the "enlightened" .

Originally posted by sonhouse
Why? I'll tell you why: It stems from the very intelligence evolving from humans, with larger brains comes curiosity and observation. When you put those two together in a pre-technological society, and they see a comet for instance, the natural thing to think is there is something out there bigger than humanity, bigger the Earth, part of the heavens. So it ...[text shortened]... ich their intelligence observed but could not explain so gods were invented, including yours.

So because we can not explain how the image appeared on the Shroud of Turin, then God must have done it. Since we can not explain how life came about, then God must have done it. Yes, that makes sense. Now if you could only explain the truth, we could drop these superstitious beliefs. Right?

Originally posted by RJHinds
So because we can not explain how the image appeared on the Shroud of Turin, then God must have done it. Since we can not explain how life came about, then God must have done it. Yes, that makes sense. Now if you could only explain the truth, we could drop these superstitious beliefs. Right?

This god, which one out of the multitudes are you blaming for leaving dirty linen lying about the place?

Originally posted by OdBod
Having freedom from religion allows unfettered free thought . Religion always seeks to control the individual for it's own end. I do not wish to be told how to think by ANYONE.I think our lives would be better if we were answerable to each other and not some supernatural being whose intent is explained by the "enlightened" .

Really, you actually think billions of people who want their own way, and want
others to do, act, and think as they do is a better system than a single standard
for all, just on the merits of many standards verses one? Not sure what could
go wrong there? You admit in this Op you are not tolerant of those that have
different views than yours to the point that you even justify behavior in yourself
that you condemn in others (always talking about religion or God), justified by
your dislike of their views on religion.

What would the difference if the argument were just progressives,
conservatives, liberal, or liberations going at it? You actually believe that
human nature wouldn’t have these struggles without religion, so do away with
religion would fix our world and everyone would get along no issues or worries?
If you think human nature would still generate these types of struggles to
occur, would not that show the root cause is human nature, and not religion? If
that is true, religion would than only be a tool, not the cause of humans trying
to control other humans?

If it is our nature to dominate and the only the standards are those we place
upon ourselves you’d be okay with someone else telling you what to do due to
their “better” way of thinking, as long as religion isn't foundational to their
reasons? It is okay simply because they are not using religion to do it but
anything else, really?

Knowing you justify behavior you condemn in others just due to your dislike of
religion I’d say others would do the same, and it is hard telling what they would
do to you and others that they would condemn in everyone but themselves.
Kelly

Originally posted by sonhouse
Wouldn't be much of a save, the last human now would it?

That's probably why He won't be waiting that long.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Really, you actually think billions of people who want their own way, and want
others to do, act, and think as they do is a better system than a single standard
for all, just on the merits of many standards verses one? Not sure what could
go wrong there? You admit in this Op you are not tolerant of those that have
different views than yours to the point ...[text shortened]... hat they would
do to you and others that they would condemn in everyone but themselves.
Kelly

I think there will always be conflict between people ,it is inevitable and necessary! The socio-economic systems of governing are many and varied. It is only religion and extremists who claim a "divine" mandate to justify their right to influence how people should think and act , systems based on such a belief are deemed to be unchangeable by their proponents because they are divinely inspired. Man made systems on the other hand can be changed if they no longer work for the population. I applaud and encourage different views to my own, what I find objectionable is when a view point is held to be an absolute truth, which acts as a brake on intellectual advancement and investigation.

Originally posted by OdBod
I think there will always be conflict between people ,it is inevitable and necessary! The socio-economic systems of governing are many and varied. It is only religion and extremists who claim a "divine" mandate to justify their right to influence how people should think and act , systems based on such a belief are deemed to be unchangeable by their proponents ...[text shortened]... to be an absolute truth, which acts as a brake on intellectual advancement and investigation.

Once it is determined that a viewpoint is absolute truth, then why would it be necessary to do anymore investigation? 😏

Originally posted by RJHinds
Once it is determined that a viewpoint is absolute truth, then why would it be necessary to do anymore investigation? 😏

That's why I'll always oppose it RJ, for that very reason !

Originally posted by OdBod
I think there will always be conflict between people ,it is inevitable and necessary! The socio-economic systems of governing are many and varied. It is only religion and extremists who claim a "divine" mandate to justify their right to influence how people should think and act , systems based on such a belief are deemed to be unchangeable by their proponents ...[text shortened]... to be an absolute truth, which acts as a brake on intellectual advancement and investigation.

A claim of divine is just a word to jusitify a power stance among people, our
current Pres using the pharse "fairness" to enact his will over others. You are
only going on about verbage not the root cause here! It is a human trait to
go after control, you will not change that if you do away with religion, not that
you ever could. You hold this absolute truth that religion is bad, so what makes
you so different than the one that believes in one?
Kelly

Originally posted by OdBod
That's why I'll always oppose it RJ, for that very reason !

Your against 2+2+4? Seriously, if you are against truth being truth you are
against knowledge, you are just for the looking for the knowledge. You will
be forever looking for but never finding!
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
A claim of divine is just a word to jusitify a power stance among people, our
current Pres using the pharse "fairness" to enact his will over others. You are
only going on about verbage not the root cause here! It is a human trait to
go after control, you will not change that if you do away with religion, not that
you ever could. You hold this absolute ...[text shortened]... hat religion is bad, so what makes
you so different than the one that believes in one?
Kelly

Is it me, but I don't understand what you are saying in your first sentence.With regard to the rest of your paragraph you cannot have read my previous post.Your next post is also difficult to understand 2+2+4 ?