by Hugh Ross, Ph. D.

[quot]"Calling Atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color."
--Dan Hirschberg [/quote]

But that can be said of many religions too. If one religion believes its gods are killable does it mean its different than one which does not? Nor do all religions have what one can call a god in them. Even the beliefs that Confucius started is often called a religion yet its a closer to philosophy.

The thing is Atheist usually believe in science and science can be put in the the mix with religion. Its got people you go to when your having problems and tell you what happens when you die. Not all Religions have the "happy hunting ground" either. Some believe you just become plants and may be an animal after.... hey in science they tell you that can happen too!

In the end all anyone can really say is that they believe in something. If you wait till you are 100% right you'll never do anything... there is just to much information to sift through!

Well, what evidence is required to prove that an event occured? How about eye witnesses? I suspect that you won't accept the eye witness accounts contained in the Bible, so I will not submit those. But were a man accused of a crime, would two eye witnesses be enough to convince you of guilt? How about three, or even four? Would six people be enough to "prove beyond reasonable doubt" that a crime commited? I offer the number because that is how many I can name off hand wihtout having to actually start looking up examples.

Now, six people all in agreement on a matter would be considered evidence in any court. While I know it won't prove anyhting to someone who does not want it to, but it remains a form of evidence none the less. Further, if we begin to simply discount multiple eye witnesses to a matter simply because it is convenient, then virtually all of our recorded history goes with it.

How do we know about the Roman wars? Through written accounts. Yes, we may find a dagger, a shield, or insignia in the ground, but that is not evidence of an event (unless we accept written accounts). It only means that at some point someone had that item and left it there for some reason. At some point eye witnesses must be accepted as evidence if we want to know anyhting about history, and we cannot accept only those that are in agreement with how we see things.

How about historical evidence? Again, accusations will be that the Bible's historacity is no proof of it's spiritual nature, so I will not submit such. So, what if there were a book written, who's historacity is proven everyday, and whose origin can only be fully explained trough spiritual means? Would a book that describes in great detail ancient customs and societies and whose descriptions are completly accurate, despite the fact that those customs would not be discovered as authentic for another century, and the author of said book only having a third grade education? Would that be considered evidence?

Finally, what I feel to be amoung the greatest of evidences. What if a promise was given, by which everyone could know for themselves? An actual written promise, that if one does certain things, then a specific result will happen? Now, what if millions of people decide to try, to test out the experiment to find out for themselves, and it works? Would the testimony of millions of people that an event occured be at least considered evidence?

Now, I don't expect to convince anyone that there is a God, or that my understanding of Him is the correct one. That's not my job. But to say there is no evidence of God is to openly ignore the testimony of billions of people alive today, and billions more throughout history. It may not prove it to you, but to say it is not even evidence makes me wonder what exactly you consider evidence to be, and such a stance requires the person to discount everything that has ever happened that they have not observed directly.

No matter what you believe, you should recognize that it is a matter of faith. I have faith that God is the God of the Bible. Atheists have faith that science will someday be able to explain the current impossibilities of existence. Same thing with every religion.

The purpose of religious debate is to put all the facts on the table, so that we can make an educated choice as to the one which is right.

"Calling Atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color." NO. Calling Atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair _style_. Zero is still a number, you know.

>90% of Americans and a similar percentage of Earth's population identify themselves as religious. This in itself speaks volumes about humanity, and about truth.

Then, there's this little thing called consciousness. It is a feeling, a sense of being, independent of the individual cells. If you believe that this is no more than a chemical reaction; that you ARE no more than cells, then you must also believe that some sort of similar consciousness exists in any chemical reaction - from the electric processes in your computer to the chemical processes in a test tube.
But I say that there is more. Believing that everyone around you is no more than a stack of cells cooperating in such a fashion is one thing, but believing that you yourself, despite the feelings you have, despite the fact that you, and every cell within you, act as one being, and think as one being, and ARE one being - that is another.

"Give it 3 thousand years, religion will disappear when man make use of science to turn themselves into gods." Give it a hundred years, you will die and see who was right.

"Those who prefer to seek more answer via experiments instead of submitting to this particular reasoning that everything is created by god, believe more in science." This viewpoint fails when it tries to begin to explain the universe. Experiments, reasoning, logic cannot explain where matter began, and where energy sprang forth from. It defies science, defies logic. All the rules of "experiment" declare that nothing like this could ever happen - and yet a meagre ten percent of Americans still cling to this fallacy - still trust in something which their own science tells them is impossible. Why?

I’m a happy agnostic sitting on the fence. Religionists can keep their tortured (literally!) theology and ideologically twisted science, and the atheists can try (forever) to prove a negative. Good luck.

As to answering the pesky ‘why’ questions, I’ll read lots of science and science fiction. It is at least as illuminating and generally more creative as any religious myths. Heck, Hubbard has his own religion, so why not the Church of Clarke? Or the Temple of Asimov? Hmmm. Personally I like the Covenant of Einstein, whose precepts might be the pure wonder that is the universe.

A god by any other name…

Hydro

My logic is undeniable

Almost a word for word quote from one Douglas Yurchey.
But it is correct nonetheless. We are energy and that energy is what can be defined as our *soul*. Upon death our *soul* is either free to move on to the next *level* of the universe or it comes back around via reincarnation.

Remarks about consciousness and energy are the most intriguing for me in this thread so far. If everything is made of energy than is consciousness a form of energy or perhaps a pattern created from intersecting waves of energy? If so than doesn't that imply a collective consciousness where all intersecting waves of energy are taken as a whole? I am not saying its any particular god I am just saying the evidence scientific or otherwise seems to point to this collectively conscious energy as existing. Also in regards to the idea that energy is neither created or destroyed I would say this is workable in our small sphere of influence that is the earth and the closely surrounding spheres but when you begin to think about the possibility of black and white holes you find interesting concepts about alternative universes and the idea that perhaps there is a center in our curved space-time continuum that is the unmanifest energy constantly becoming manifest and as it folds under it becomes unmanifest again. Quantum sciences and their applications in things like particle acceleration begin to disprove commonly held assumptions as fundamental as gravity and determinate cause. When scientists look as closely as they can at the smallest pieces of matter and energy they can find, and have to come up with rules to explain them that contradict everything else they have ever been taught or have seen I find it difficult to believe that science has disproven the existence of an omnipotent omniscient being since they cannot even prove the absoluteness of gravity or cause and effect on the subatomic level. When we finally build Invention Spheres maybe we really will look out into the void and see the number 42 stamped on everything. It is as likely or unlikely as anything else being discussed and is equally unprovable today.

Well I hadn't been this interested in an off topic post in a while. I read every post carefully with consideration. I have faith and I practice in the way that makes me happy. I think that is it. I'd rather be happy than be right.  
I've read some of the Bible, and translations of the Torah, and all of the Quran. Did anyone see a film called ‘Enemy Mine’? I always liked the part where the human is learning the alien’s religion and he makes a statement that he read it before in the human holy book. The alien replies that it is because it is the truth.
I can’t remember where I picked this up (if you can quote it properly please do so). A parent on an occasion of honoring the parent receives a different gift from each son and daughter. One makes a picture, one buys something, one picks a flower the parent would like, and so on, each child according to their own thought. The parent is glad because each gift is sincere. Had all given the same gift it would have felt contrived and insincere. I feel there is a place for everyone and every belief.
I liked Piers Anthony’s book ‘On a Pale Horse’, where people receive the fate they believe in when they die, and C. S. Lewis’ book ‘The Great Divorce’, where the characters have no limits to choosing redemption. I also liked the books written by Carlos Castaneda about the beliefs of the Yaqui Indians. They thought you had to achieve a third attention in life order to escape being eaten by the “Great Eagle”. One of my favorite “philosophers” is Douglas Adams. The book The Hitch Hiker’s Guide to the Galaxy has some amusing comments such as:
“The argument goes something like this: I refuse to prove that I exist says God, for proof denies faith and without faith I am nothing. But said man, the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It proves you exist and so therefore you don't QED. Oh dear, says God, I haven't thought of that and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic. Oh, that was easy says man, and for an encore he proves that black is white and gets killed on the next zebra crossing.” I love that one.  
One last thought. Religions have left bloody footprints on history. Evil men can do evil with any good thing. Do not blame the thing to for the evil, blame the man who did the evil.

Hi!

Can not explain YET.

Funny you named the only one event where God could have a word or two. What about the rest of 20 and some billion years? What about all the prayers directed to all the deities throughout the history? How many worked? How many of YOUR prayers worked? Now just turn on lighs in your room, and have a chat with your friend over Skype. Does THAT work? Even if it doesn't, we can explain why, and fix it. Can you explain why the prayer didn't work?

Science works. God doesn't. God is not needed in our universe.

BR, Iztok

I would say that every prayer offered in sincerity "worked'. However, God is not required to always say yes. Like any loving parent He also has the options of "no" and "yes, but not yet" which He uses based upon what is best. I can say that everyone of my prayers have worked, the result isn't always what I wanted it to be, but they have always been heard and answered.

Further, science does not always "work". A friend of mine some years ago was diagnosed with lymphatic cancer. Due to the early stage of it, previous patients wiht similar conditions and the resources availible she was told that it would be a quick fix and a full recovery. Four months later she died in the hospital, after two months of agony and torture from both the cancer and the "cure".

Science works, until it doesn't. God works, but has the bigger picture in view when He answers you.

at it again, eh Marcus? whew, what a topic.

i minored in the study of religion, which complemented a lot of what i learned in sociology. i haven't read this entire thread, but but it's a topic that really interests me. i'm sorry if i write a lot and that bothers anyone. i guess i'll start be describing my own beliefs.

i don't like calling myself agnostic, because it literally means 'unwise,' and i don't consider myself unwise. i prefer the term ambivalent, meaning that i grasp multiple frames of reference, but i cannot commit to a single one.

on a theoretical level i have to admit that i can't know if god exists, but i have to admit the same thing about the Easter Bunny. the same is true of souls or spirits, karma, and other supernatural forces people have described. if i had to say what i think is most likely, i'd agree with Marcus: we're animals composed of chemical processes that came to be by happenstance and will simply die and decompose.

but seriously, i don't care about those questions. the other largest influence on me has been 'Buddhism' (as well as the broader tradition of metaphysical philosophy in India). i use quotation marks because when you study even just one religion, you realize you're studying religions.

there's a traditional parable in buddhism, where a seeker of knowledge goes to every authority asking questions about the origin of the universe, and everyone tells him he needs to see a smarter person. finally, (i think it's) vishnu tells him to see the buddha. when he sees the buddha and asks about the nature of creation, the buddha tells him to stop asking stupid questions. he then says, "if you were shot with a poison arrow, what would be the first thing you want? would you want to know who shot the arrow? would you want to know who distilled the poison? would you want to know what village they are from, who their fathers were, or what type of wood they used to make the arrow? No, you'd want to know where the nearest doctor is."

to many buddhists, asking those kinds of ultimate questions is meaningless when you're still in a world characterized by suffering. the most important question for them is how to end suffering. the larger lesson i learned is that i want my beliefs to be based on the here-and-now.

the first lesson in my religion classes was a task: define religion. we never did very well. we learned that religion can be defined in many ways, but the only universally one is that religion is a word. more specifically, it's a category of human behavior that was invented by westerners. what we think of as central to religion is central to western religion; for example, some Indians prefer to say, "we don't have a religion, we have a dharma." and this isn't just splitting words, either. the history and practice of religion in the west creates many assumptions we have that simply don't apply. we often think religion is based on (explicit) faith, but that isn't the case. faith isn't a central part of some religions. to use India as another example, ones dharma is often a matter of rational and tentative choice, rather than faith. moreover, faith is an everyday necessity. it's another word for trust, and there's a very basic kind of trust we need to go about our day-to-day lives.

it's trust in the world. we need to trust or have faith that the world we act in is real. we need to have faith that gravity will continue to work with each step we take, that if i say 'apple' you'll think of the same fruit as i, etc. (they call this 'ontological security'). faith in a great something-more isn't really all that different. how many actions would be unthinkable without faith in a god or other great something? and what actions do beliefs cut off?

still, this broader notion of faith isn't an bad place to look if you want to study groups of people, with or without religion in mind. agnostics might seem to have it hard in this respect, except believing in something more isn't necessary to believe that 'out there' is real. some theoretical psychologists point to creativity (not originality) as the basic human test of whether or not we're real, the logic being that to create something in external reality proves our internal reality.

the leads to my answer to your original question, Marcus: "Why are all 'other' religions so 'hated'"?

i think it can be hard to tolerate other beliefs, psychologically. the notion of cognitive dissonance basically says that when an individual is confronted with a new experience or stimulus, there are three basic responses we have: attack it, ignore it, or integrate it into our sense of things. but what's important isn't how you deal with opposing points of view, but how you maintain your own. especially if the main support of your belief (whether or not you know it) when your main support is "everyone else believes X, and they can't all be wrong" finding someone who believes Y will be pretty disturbing.

what do you think is the first knee-jerk reaction anyone would have to ideas that basically contradict your sense of order in the universe? you might feel threatened, and if you accept or at least entertain what some of these psychologists have argued, it might even seem like your very existence is at stake. how easy is it to integrate beleifs that seem to explicitly contradict your own? you can simply say they're wrong. but what if the fate of your soul or those you care about is at stake?

one common way i've heard is the "multiple paths to the same destination" idea, that all the world's religions are all pointing to the same thing despite apperant differences. i don't agree with this idea on the level of what it's saying, but i don't oppose it because of what it's doing (getting a few people to stop fighting).

personally, i don't worry about what'll happen after i die. if it's simply entropy, i won't be around to care anymore. if there's a heaven and a god, i hope s/he'd have enough wisdom to approve me for my virtures, and not deny me for denying him/her. i take nietzsche's view in Thus Spoke Zarathustra (part of which was quoted in Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri):



if there is a god, and s/he wants me in heaven, and s/he gave me free will, then s/he'd better damn well accept that i'll arrive at my own conclusions about things. i'd hope that she'd judge me for my virtues and actions in the world, and not solely on whether or not i bow down to him/her. otherwise, i'll take my chances in hell (eternal suffering? eh. didn't they tell you i'm from Earth? i'm used to it). but in this respect, i could never be a muslim (which literally means 'one who submits to the will of Allah'). it's reminiscent of William Blake's The Marriage of Heaven and Hell:



at any rate, this is all just some food for thought. i think they're very interesting ideas. i do think it's true, that humans have two opposing drives: one for security, and one for exploration. and i do think those who value security over exploration tend to despise explorers because we return from the unknown with new and threatening things. but i don't think mainstream, institutionalized religion must do this. to use India again (my study of religion minor was almost entirely focused on Indian religions), there are many times many varying beliefs, but the larger culture has a sense of context sensitivity: "what is right for me might not be right for you." people can practice their beleifs, find security and explore in new and threatening ways. this doesn't mean parents don't try to stop their kids from going of an joining that weird sect in the next villiage; of course they do. but not for the sake of their childrens' souls, but for the sake of their lives (some of the less mainstream sects involve living in poverty, self-mortification, and other less-than-desireable lifestyle elements). in classical india, the religious disputes were settled in a royal court of debate. the party considered "wrong" wasn't punished or forbidden, and only marginalized because they'd lost face. so religion, even organized religion, need not be exclusivist and prostylizing.

anyway, a lot of this is just prefacing my view of religion. i think religion is the packrat's basement of society. some of the things are leftover from times gone by, but it's all mixed up with stuff we use all the time. i definately don't see religion as a vestigial organ: some parts of religions are vitally needed. for example, i've never before encountered anything with the psychotherapeutic power of prayer or meditation. but some things are leftovers: rituals from bygone times, distorted histories, and even just story tales. i think the Vedas of India, for example, were probably nothing more than drinking songs sang by travelling bards until they seddled (there are frequent mentions of gambling, fighting, drinking and getting high on a drug they called soma). religion is also a place (well, the corresponding churches, temples, mosques, stupas, stone circles, and whathaveyou) to meet with like-minded people and feel at home. when you have people congregating peacefully, there's always a lot of potential for power, which attracts the easily corruptible. but attracting so much stuff (people, history, ritual, therapy, dietary advice), it's no surprise that religion also tries to explain things; but is religion the chicken or the egg? i don't know, and i don't really care (but if i had to venture a guess i'd say the egg). i think humans always want answers to the Big Questions, but those answers needn't to turn into religions. and people will always want to feel connected to each other, but they don't always have to do it in a way that makes them opposed to others. power will always attract the corruptible, but ultimately it is WE who give them authority.

hate to break it to any of you atheists out there but you are a religion too. Yes, thats right you believe in no god. The belief in the nonexistence of a god is still a belief and no different than the belief in the existence of a god. Its just 2 sides of the same coin, or positive and negative if you like. To believe that something does not exist without proof is to require the same amount of faith in that as a religious person has in their belief that something does exist without proof.

So, you see, your in the trap of contradiction. Atheism is also a religion. If any atheist on here became one to be seperate from religions, then you failed causse you are part of one too.

If that was your intent however, just go with agnosticism, which is basically saying "I don't know", saves a lot of headaches that way and avoids annoying discussions/debates/arguments over religion I am proudly an "I don't know" or more appropriately named an agnostic. For anyone that doesn't know what agnosticism is, then here's a definition:

Agnosticism (from the Greek "a," meaning "without," and Gnosticism or "gnosis," meaning knowledge) means "unknowable," and is the philosophical view that the truth value of certain claims—particularly theological claims regarding metaphysics, afterlife or the existence of God, god(s), deities, or even ultimate reality—is unknown or, depending on the form of agnosticism, inherently unknowable due to the nature of subjective experience.

Agnostics claim either that it is not possible to have absolute or certain knowledge of God or gods; or, alternatively, that while certainty may be possible, they personally have no knowledge. Agnosticism in both cases involves some form of skepticism.

Interesting. To me this shows god doesn't work, or that at best prayers are a random number generator. I'd bet lots of sincere prayers were offered by the faithful and still your friend passed - a very sad event, to be sure. It might be chalked up to god's will, which is unknowable. But if god is unknowable then why offer prayers? What possible impact could prayers have, unless god is arbitrary and capricious and decides to be swayed? And if prayers are answered (or not), what of god’s plan? And of what use are prayers since god knows was is going to happen to the end of time? Are prayers like the lottery? I'm mystified, if you'll excuse the pun.

Or perhaps there is no god and it was just chance.

Or perhaps we just can't say since there is no way to prove or disprove god, prayers, miracles, or any other element of faith.

Hydro

No. Im atheist, and I dont go out of my way attacking religions. I do however get irritated when someone rants about their religion.

Hi!



I'm sorry to hear that.

Doctors tried to cure her, and failed. I have no doubt you and her family also prayed sincerely for her recovery. You know the result.

There's way too many such cases of "God works, but has the bigger picture in view when He answers you." for any rationale mind to rely on him. If prayers would give reliable results, science would not be needed. Unfortunattely in this universe that's not true.

BR, Iztok

Of course we prayed for her recovery. But, since all things die at some point, we also asked that if it were her time to go that she would be allowed to stay for sufficiant time to take care of a few things, one big one of which was that she would be granted enough time and strength that she could marry her fiance. Our prayers were answered, and she died happy.

As for God's will:

I believe that God is truely our Father in Heaven, and by no means is He "unknowable" (in fact the Bible teaches exactly opposite of an "unknowable" God, Jesus Himself said "This is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent" (John 17:3)).

As such, He wants us to learn and grow, and is willing to bless us with many things. However, He does ask some effort on our part, sometimes no more then asking. I feel that most often one should not ask to be given something, but that we should ask for guidence in what we need to do, and assistance in doing so.

Prayer is really for our benifit, not His. He doesn't need our help, but we need His. Prayer gives us an opportunity to commune with Him, do draw our hearts close, and have the humility and frame of mind to recieve answers. We then must exercise faith in Him that He will answer us, and have trust that the answer, whether we like what it is or not, is given by His greater undertanding of what is best.

There is much He is willing to give, but He will not force us to be blessed. He will not force His will on us, He allows us to make choices, while requiring us to accept the consequences of our actions. Prayer helps us to know what He would like us to do, so that we may do it, which is to our best interest.

Does that explain it a bit better?

Marcus;

I asked my father once that question in your OP. He is a very smart man when it comes to these issues and knows them very well (aka, PhD). Here's the gist of what he told me:

Before I dive into this, please remember that there are always exceptions to generalizations. I do not intend to offend anyone, just to make clear this relationship:

Essentially it comes down to the rise of the modern civilization and how it was influenced by parrallel rise of monotheism (we're talking essentially Western civ and the major religions, Islam, Christianity, and Judaism). Monotheism, by definition, rejects the possibility (or existance) of other Gods. This causes doctrine and cannon to become essentially "set in stone" and therefore incompatable with other beliefs. Hence, it intentionally divides a wedge between groups based on spirituality. In addition, these religions advocate the spreading of thier respective faiths (in a variety of different methods) and promise rewards for faithful service and punishments for those unfaithful (for example an afterlife). This is why people are so intent on defending thier beleifs and explaining/forcing them to others.

This is the source of modern religious conflict. Essentially, in the eyes of the religions, there is only one "correct religion" and thier respective religion is the "correct religion" and the other relgions must be converted.

Also, this line of thought ("Only one possible answer") has influenced much of our social thinking as a society.

One example is the Science Vs. Religion debate. This debate is only 150ish years old and started around the rise of Utilitarianism (People would use statistics as a moral guide instead of religion - still very relavent today).
Another example would be this thread. The thread is an example of Ethical Relativism. Essentially, every one makes an ethical statement ("This is what's right for me") and also accepts that different people have different moral views and should follow thier own moral views.

Lastly, It should be noted that religions cannot be proven or disproven yet(philosophically or scientifically). There are many theories out there both for and against religions and many of them are very intelligent and well thought out. But all of them do have flaws.

Simply put, no one can prove or disprove a religion and that is the source of conflict. It's entirely based on one's beliefs. I'm very glad people have remained fairly civil with this topic. I hope it stays that way.

Prayer is always reliable. I think you are mistaking reliability with an immediate "yes' answer. Science has it's place, don't get me wrong. It is up to us to do our best to solve our own problems, and I think some of life's greatest blessings and achievments come as a result of that effort (in fact, one could say that benaficial science is a gift from God, it is much easier and painless to prevent a disease through a vaccine then it is to seek healing through spiritual means).

What I'm saying is that while science can fail us, faith cannot. There were means to try and save her life, and try we did. How could we ask Heaven for aid if we were not willing to do all we could on our end? In the end the result was a happy one. She was happy, her husband, though saddened by her passing, had his own faith strengthend and has hope of seeing her agian. I myself was deeply touched, and feel that I am a better person for having exprianced it, and look forward to seeing her on the other side.

I am greatful for the experiance. That's not to say I am happy she died, but things truely did work out for the best. She is in a better place, and those of us left behind have a greater opportunity to go there as well.

even though i agree that atheism can be considered a religion, i don't think belief is sufficient to define something as a religion. plus, i'm willing to look at marxism as a religion, as well as science (or at least many popular conceptions about science - i'll call it scientism). i believe humans are causing global warming, but that's not a religion.

also, when atheism can be called a religion depends on why you're curious. there's no church of atheism. atheism has no ritual, no cannonical system of ethics, no unified cosmology (except the negation of other cosmologies). i don't think those things are necessary parts of religion, but neither is belief or faith. that's a uniquely western conception dating to the reformation and the historical catholic/protestant debate between faith and works.

this dichotomy that might be even older, if you consider the word religion itself- it's unclear where this word comes from. it's obviously latin, but it might be re-legere, meaning to read again, but it might also mean re-ligare, meaning to again-bind. this can be interpreted as the former emphasizing faith vis-a-vis careful study of religious texts and the latter emphasizing works vz. membership in a community.

contrast this to the closest Sanskrit word, dharma. this word isn't easy to translate into english; it can mean truth, teaching, text, life-path and law, just to name the big ones that come to mind. it's not that they ignore faith, but it's not imporant to the way they think about their spiritual life. you can believe all you want, but it doesn't mean anything until you do something about it. i think the closest concept to (at least how we sometimes use) faith is bhakti -- devotion. the Bhagavad-Gita, a section of one of the two major books of Hinduism, narrates a very long conversation between a warrior named Arjuna and Krishna (who many Hindus consider the highest god or god-above-gods, but not all Hindus believe it to be Krishna, and not all Hindus even believe in a god-above-gods; traditionally, gods are considered mortals equally bound into the cycle of death and rebirth, samsara, as we are). one of my professors viewed the book as a reconciliation between different ideas about how to attain a higher spiritual life, because it seems to oscilate between devotion, discipline (yoga) and wisdom (jnana - same origin as the greek word gnosis) and say it's all good!

saying one thing is a religion and another thing misses the point of the OP, i think, which is about why different religious groups fight so much. but it's good to take a step back. groups of people fight a lot, and religion might be nothing more than a popular pretext espcially easy to notice in today's world. but you don't see atheists going around and killing deists, so maybe not.

actually, Moses's laws implicitly awknowledge other gods: "I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery; you shall have no other gods before me."

...not, "there are no other gods, stupids."

i really think it's interesting that when we use the word "monotheism" we really only mean the 3 sibling religions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam (I prefer to call them Abrahamic religions myself, all claiming Abraham as the first to make a pact with Yahweh/Jehovah/Allah, all of which mean 'God' in respective languages).

are there any other monotheisms? Zoroastrainism is more of a dualism, and Hinduism is typically Enotheistic. Buddhism and Taoism place no emphasis on gods. many religions emphasize a relationship with nature or a spirit world and have no central or exclusive diety.

so i don't think it's inherently monotheism, and i don't think there's anything about Abrahamic religions necessarily. the japanese killed in the name of their god-emperor during WWII. Confusians, Buddhists and Taoists have a long history of conflict in classical China.

i think it's about power. saying, "we're right, you're wrong, and you're bringing everything down because of it" justifies questionable actions much more easily than "i guess we've each found something that works for us." i truly believe the violent, oppresive, exclusive practice of religions has more to do with a few power-hungry leaders, but perhaps in some cases it's much easier for such leaders to use the religion to their political ends.

I'd like to testify as well that God is alive and exists.
I believe without any doubt that Jesus Christ is my personal saviour, and the global saviour of all..
God loves us all even if we don't believe in Him.




God made the laws of physics and since He made them He is free to break them and intervene, which He has done on a number of occasions.



It's not God that made the suffering, it is us that allow it and we have free will to stop it, and God will give us the strength.



It is easier not to believe as you don't have to do anything. But to believe you need to have faith and patience which is difficult in our world with many distractions. It is hard to believe as you have to do something.


Science can be like a religion. To make a theory one probably has a priori assumptions about something, which will cause him to "observe" what he is looking for. That might influence the theory and make him miss other stuff.

There are many theories that while correct by our today's standards they were thought wrong in their time because their discoverer wasn't well known. However when a famous scientist of the time went behind the theory everybody started accepting it. This happened with the discovery of the states of spin. Even today science is dominated by the Western world. A discovery made in a lab in London is probably going to be considered with more credibility than a discovery made in Adis Adaba (capital of Ethiopia) for example.


Actually all of my prayers were answered. Some with a Yes or a No.



There was a study that was done that people that were prayed for, fared better in an illness.
In any case the death of one person, however tragic it maybe of course, might be the cause of salvation for many others. God might decide to take that person close to Him for that reason. We have free will but God knows every possible outcome of every possible variable so He knows where each action leads. Prayer means faith in God and He can indeed be swayed by His Love towards us. That is why we also pray to Saints as they are closer to God and they act on our behalf and ask God to help us.

Thank you Feud, you have said many of the things that I've liked to have said.

ah, but terrorism and religious fundimentalism aren't the same thing. in fact, it's possible to look thousands of years into history to find examples of fundimentalisms, some of which were even pacifist. fundimentalism happens when a religion starts to change, and some of its followers say, "no! we're starting to get it wrong! we need to go back to the fundimentals!" of course, placing such an emphasis on fundimentals was never a part of the religion in its onset, so they're more innovators than mainstream practicioners, who're usually just flowing with an ebb and tide of change that's occuring outside individual wills.

I'd also like to add that the so called "conflicts of religions" arise only when people try to take advantage of other people and use religion as a pretext. In no faith is violence and aggression tought. Loving and helping each other is present in almost all of them.

I also disagree with forceful conversion and unwilling proselytising. That violates all the rights of a person and is underhanded and wrong.

I'm going to guess that you are either Catholic or Orthodox, based upon the Saints mention. I'm personally a "Mormon", which is the "common" name for members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.