Which religion is more spiritually bankrupt?

Originally posted by KellyJay
Yes it does, it has God/god as a 0/nothing value. It asserts that there
is no power over us other than the universe as they define it.
It is faith, you may not want to call it a religion, but there are beliefs
in that faith.
Kelly

I do not, and cannot know, the value of god. It is likely that god has a 0 value, but I cannot assert that. But I see no reason to believe that it is 1. Therefore I will conduct myself as though it were 0 while admitting that it may be otherwise. So as you can plainly see, there is no faith involved. Nor are there any beliefs.

I'm perfectly willing to have this argument as many times as you want, KellyJay. And I'll say the same thing every time.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Defining someone by their race is with almost no exceptions, moronic. Religion and culture are fair game however because they are choices, you don't choose your race, you are born into it, and it is unchangeable (unless you're Michael Jackson). But you can choose whether to have, and which religion you follow, and you can chose which cultural/moral value ...[text shortened]... another till the cows come home and all that would result is short tempers and flying insults.

We are not talking about "defining" other human beings. We are talking about stereotyping other human beings. Whether or not you do this by race or by culture or by religion is a nonissue. For example, you may choose to be apart of a particular religion. This does not mean, however, that you are any more or less righteous or currupt than another based on that particular religious choice.

Originally posted by rwingett
I do not, and cannot know, the value of god. It is likely that god has a 0 value, but I cannot assert that. But I see no reason to believe that it is 1. Therefore I will conduct myself as though it were 0 while admitting that it may be otherwise. So as you can plainly see, there is no faith involved. Nor are there any beliefs.

I'm perfectly willing to ...[text shortened]... ave this argument as many times as you want, KellyJay. And I'll say the same thing every time.

I know, it doesn't change anything. You believe what you will and
deny what you will, it is up to you.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I know, it doesn't change anything. You believe what you will and
deny what you will, it is up to you.
Kelly

I will believe many things, but it will not be by virtue of my atheism.

Originally posted by jaywill
Doesn't atheism require a lot of faith?

I mean if we are dealing with uncertainties then our lack of absolute knowledge has to be supplemented by faith.

The universe came into existence by a Creator or the universe came into existence by itself with no Creator. The athiest nor the theist knows for certain. The athiest wasn't there any more than the t ...[text shortened]... elieve that the universe poped into existence by no cause or that there was a causing Creator?

Atheism requires no faith. If the evidence, logically deduced, tells you the universe popped out of nothing, why do you have such a hard time coming to terms with that?

Originally posted by jaywill
The athiests I know are pretty ascertive. They are ascertive that a God does not exist. How can you say that atheism asserts nothing?

Atheism =/= atheist.

People have their own viewpoints. Atheism is simply denying the existance of God, on the basis (normally) of a lack of evidence. This is to say, in the event of a lack of positive evidence for God, it is more parsimonious to expect there to be no God. Do you believe in pink flying kittens? There is as much direct evidence for the existance of pink flying kittens as there is for God (i.e. none). People have their own opinions, of course, and if someone wants to assert with certainty that God does not exist, and they are an atheist, that does not say anything about atheism per se, only about that individual.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Yes it does, it has God/god as a 0/nothing value. It asserts that there
is no power over us other than the universe as they define it.
It is faith, you may not want to call it a religion, but there are beliefs
in that faith.
Kelly

Atheism accepts the most parsimonious argument. If there were definative evidence of God / god then atheism would not exist. As is, there is no definative evidence, and in the absence of evidence the simplest argument is to go with things that we can actually prove the existance of.

Originally posted by David C
$cientology. If you're even inclined to call it "religion".

Excellent point. Strangely, our Christian bretheren are all "me, me, me" on this one. Silly Christians with their Persecution Complex.

Originally posted by jaywill
Doesn't atheism require a lot of faith?

I mean if we are dealing with uncertainties then our lack of absolute knowledge has to be supplemented by faith.

The universe came into existence by a Creator or the universe came into existence by itself with no Creator. The athiest nor the theist knows for certain. The athiest wasn't there any more than the t ...[text shortened]... elieve that the universe poped into existence by no cause or that there was a causing Creator?

your post contains the assumption that the universe has a begining.

Originally posted by whodey
We are not talking about "defining" other human beings. We are talking about stereotyping other human beings. Whether or not you do this by race or by culture or by religion is a nonissue. For example, you may choose to be apart of a particular religion. This does not mean, however, that you are any more or less righteous or currupt than another based on that particular religious choice.

If you join a religion then to be a 'proper' devout follower of that religion then you have to obey it's practices and tenants. If you were a Catholic for example you shouldn't wear a prophylactic or have an abortion (or read Harry Potter apparently). Because you subscribe to the doctrine of that religion then you are accepting it's moral code, if this code is contradictory or hypocritical then you’re beliefs by necessarily become contradictory and/or hypocritical, also your joining this religion is at least tacitly supporting and verifying the hierarchy of that religion, and it's actions. Thus you are also at least partly culpable for their actions.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Well? Which is the most hypocritical, underhand, lying, cheating religion in the world?

Well, a little late in the day, I guess. But let me answer this question anyway. I think Islam is without doubt the most hypocritical religion of all. It is perhaps the best religion for lawyers.

Originally posted by ckoh1965
Well, a little late in the day, I guess. But let me answer this question anyway. I think Islam is without doubt the most hypocritical religion of all. It is perhaps the best religion for lawyers.

In what way specifically?

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Well? Which is the most hypocritical, underhand, lying, cheating religion in the world?

A religion is a field generated by the minds of every one of its adherents. A religion in itself cannot be hypocritical (etc). I'm afraid the unpleasant qualities you seek to lambast religion with are to be found in human nature. You're treading the path of the Cultural Revolution, perhaps the most destructive and hypocritical of all. Try a little empathy, my son.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
In what way specifically?

Well, I'm not saying that the other religions are perfect. They are not! But Islam is the most hypocritical. On the one hand, it teaches its followers to be kind and humble, not to harm others etc. Then when they find it necessary to suit their purposes, they can conveniently make a loophole by saying you can kill for the purpose of protecting your religion. This is actually provided for in its holy book. It's termed JIHAD. And then just because its prophet fancied having many wives, so the rules were designed to allow up to 4 wives. Of course, he gave a 'brilliant' reason for allowing 4 wives. But really, does any modern muslim men care about those reasons?

I'm not an advocate of Cristianity. And I took such a long time to understand why the Christians proclaim that when Jesus died on the cross, it was a victory to Christians. After all, he died didn't he? But the thing is that if a prophet claims to reflect that quality of God, then he should be a man of his words. No violence means no violence. period. Even when he was tortured, still no violence. He was true to his words till the end. I think that was really admirable, though perhaps not very clever. When St Peter (or was it another person?) fought back and cut the enemy's ear, Jesus insisted, NO VIOLENCE. Don't fight. In that sense I'm inclined to think that Cristianity is at least better than Islam. Of course, I still insist that I don't believe in religion, but it's still possibly to tell which one is better than the other.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
A religion is a field generated by the minds of every one of its adherents. A religion in itself cannot be hypocritical (etc). I'm afraid the unpleasant qualities you seek to lambast religion with are to be found in human nature. You're treading the path of the Cultural Revolution, perhaps the most destructive and hypocritical of all. Try a little empathy, my son.

True, but religions tend to accumulate baggage like any institution. It's not as simple as the here and now proponents.