How Would You End All Religions on This Planet?

For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins. As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the father's sakes. For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance. For as ye in times past have not believed God, yet have now obtained mercy through their unbelief: Even so have these also now not believed, that through your mercy they also may obtain mercy. For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.-Rom11

Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all,
(As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were.-Rom4

Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt. But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness, just as David also describes the blessedness of the man to whom God imputes righteousness apart from works

For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another-2

For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings.-Hos6

For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.-John1

Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world:
But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,
To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.-Gal4

For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering.-Rom8

If the ministry that condemns men is glorious, how much more glorious is the ministry that brings righteousness!-2Cor3

Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.-Gal3

For it is clear that our Lord descended from Judah, and in regard to that tribe Moses said nothing about priests. And what we have said is even more clear if another priest like Melchizedek appears, 16 one who has become a priest not on the basis of a regulation as to his ancestry but on the basis of the power of an indestructible life. 17 For it is declared:
“You are a priest forever,
in the order of Melchizedek.”
The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless (for the law made nothing perfect), and a better hope is introduced, by which we draw near to God.-Heb7

reply to post by Rustami


Rustami, i honestly don't know where we would be without your wise words of wisdom plucked out from that lovely book.

Peace bro,

A&A

Great discussion. Have not been able to read it all so apologies if these quick thoughts have been touched on.
I am a devoted. born again Christian. That's all I need for me. Denominations, names, and other tags seem to be more important for others. There are so many different permutations of almost every "religion" that I discovered a very long time ago there is no such place as a church I will agree with 100%. SO,,,,,,,,, it is my obligation to live my life to the best of my ability as I understand the Bible and God's direction. I get greatly disheartened by the negative comments, threads, and debates regarding God here at ATS because I sincerely care about your soul. Still I respect your decision to decline God's invitation. If non believers grant me the same respect and myself or anyone else of faith has the opportunity to explain our belief, then you have every right to make your own decision.

Lastly, I fear the title of "religion" may be the great divider in any such debate. What a shame for entire nations to go to war because of their "religion". What a travesty for anyone to interpret the Divine in a manner whereas it can be used as an excuse to kill in His name. No wonder there are so many non-believers! No wonder religion has such a negative connotation in today's society! A bad reputation has been earned for all by the actions of a few. The few who seem to know the least about what they are talking about.

Can't we all just get along?

reply to post by samstone11


Label or not, if you choose a specific religion, expect to be labelled with that faith.

There's many people out their with "Vague Faith" - They're willing to cherry pick certain parts out of their doctrine.....It seems they don't trust the word of their own "GOD" OR they really do understand that it was written by man when philosophical/ethical and moral teachings were young.

If you're going to take bits out of scripture that you like and dislike, you are actually making a custom God.

I find it really bizarre that because someone makes a claim that there is a God, that people are willing to believe too. I mean just because you can't prove it wrong, doesn't make it true (ARGUMENT FROM IGNORANCE)

I think the main reason people obide is the proposition of eternal damnation if you do not follow the "will of God".

Any historian/scientist/achealogist cannot take this nonsense serious. Whether you label yourself with a religion or just believe in a personal God or a creator. It's irrational.

If i was to make a claim that the universe is infinite, would you believe me? I would expect you to want evidence for that claim.

Just remember, philosophical, ethical and moral teaching can be studied without the need to invoke the supernatural.

If God was ever to be proved wrong, we would still have to work together to build a just civilisation. Just because i have no belief in God doesn't mean i think theiving, killing and unconcented adultery are moral actions.

reply to post by awake_and_aware

I need to thank you for your support and also for proving my point in it's entirety. The tone of your response, the extensive presentation of your views as fact, and apparent complete disregard for my plea for harmony validates exactly what I was wanting to convey. I must admit at this moment it is exceptionally difficult for me t to abide by the tenants of my beliefs which mandate I not strike back in anger, so I will temper myself and again simply implore you to reconsider your approach. I was trying to state that I am ultimately responsible for only myself and my beliefs, as you seem to be doing, but I will be categorized by certain societal elements regardless. However, I did request the dignity of respect for one another's personal decisions. Labeling is no more valid than asserting that all Muslims are terrorists or since you know someone named Steve who has blond hair that everyone named Steve must also have blond hair. I want you to know that I recognize there are varying degrees of how willing someone is to stay true to their moral compass. It is a constant internal battle, but I make a conscious effort as often as necessary to do so. I hope you will reconsider your position. If not, maybe you can at least have an open mind and allow for the possibility God is who He says He is and not so easily dismiss the entire subject. I do not believe I have either the authority or the will to judge you for disagreeing.

I offer you my most sincere best wishes.

reply to post by samstone11

The tone of your response, the extensive presentation of your views as fact, and apparent complete disregard for my plea for harmony validates exactly what I was wanting to convey

I don't have a disregard for harmony, i have a disregard for religion, i've already stated this. I think religious beliefs are irrational, and are and have been a direct threat the stability of civilisation.

I never have a problem with Deism, a simple belief in God, but i will ask how and why such a belief was formed and challenge that stance, if i find the reason to belief to be irrational.

What i think is wrong is Theism (ORGANISED RELIGION) - claiming to know God exists, and THEN further claiming you know the thoughts and desires of this entity. This is a conjuring trick. This is deception, this is wrong, this prevents peace because of supertitious beliefs.

I must admit at this moment it is exceptionally difficult for me t to abide by the tenants of my beliefs which mandate I not strike back in anger, so I will temper myself and again simply implore you to reconsider your approach.

How do you approach something you believe is irrational and a direct threat the stability and harmony of society?

You accuse me of disregarding your plea for harmony, this isn't a debate about harmony, this is a debate about religion. I seek harmony myself, i believe getting rid of ancient beliefs will bring society together, to fight for a common goal; truth, not BLIND belief.

Labeling is no more valid than asserting that all Muslims are terrorists or since you know someone named Steve who has blond hair that everyone named Steve must also have blond hair.

Really? You're really going to say this? I don't stereotype individual people, but if someone claims to worship the God of the Old/New Testament, that makes them a Christian, they carry the label of Christian. There's no getting around that fact, unless you make your own religion up and give it another name.

If they preach Martyrdom and Jihad and believe in Allah, this person is a Muslim, they're religion is Islam. I'm not physically putting a label on this person, but the label comes with their beliefs.

If they don't believe in scripture or organised religion, they are simply a person who is a Deist or (Atheist, Agnostic, Pantheist)

I want you to know that I recognize there are varying degrees of how willing someone is to stay true to their moral compass. It is a constant internal battle, but I make a conscious effort as often as necessary to do so

I agree with you, but i believe absolute objective morality inferred through the supernatural presence of a Deity can distort you're moral choices. Moral choices can be understood without the need to invoke God.

Why would anyone think that blowing up another church is a moral act without thinking they are doing the "will of God" - Religion makes otherwise morally decent people, do and say disgusting things.

I hope you will reconsider your position.

My position is Agnostic Atheism, there's no evidence currently to suggest there is a supernatural dictator governing the universe, and if there is, there's no evidence to suggest this entity intervenes in human affairs.

Because of this i am inherently against Theism (an anti-theist), especially the exclusive mono-theistic doctrines, because they preach prejudice towards non-believers, or prejudice automatically follows.

(If you think Allah is the true God, you are going to look down on non-believers, it's really as simple as that, if you believe you are following a true God, you will think other people are wrong.)

So far, i have no been impolite, i am civilised when it comes to debate, i don't do personal attacks, i just have concerns with religion, and i will challenge it.

God is who He says He is

Sorry, when did "HE" say this?

I really don't see where you are going with your response, and what you want me to change about my approach.

Yes i am willing to grant you the possibility that this universe was created by a super special supernatural entity, but only if you are willing to grant me that there may not even be a being that governs the universe, the universe is just infinite.

See, i can't claim know there is a God, and i can't claim to say there is NO GOD, but people do, and they have no evidence for this, this is irrational. This is wrong, it's caused chaos and havoc for many years, and still does.

Eternal damnation is fearmongering of the worst kind and the promise of "heaven" is false hope.

Thanks for your reply, i hope i have answered your concerns, i probably havn't.

Like you, i want the world to live in harmony, but just as i would oppose Nazi Faschism, i oppose religion for the same reason, it's a threat to peace, and it's based on a absolute dictatatorship on a universal scale. Even if GOd did exist, i would not worship him, especially if it was the Christian/Islamic/Jewish God. (Abrahamic Gods)

Originally posted by samstone11
If not, maybe you can at least have an open mind and allow for the possibility God is who He says He is and not so easily dismiss the entire subject.

Interesting. Who does God say he is? I suspect you'll get a different answer depending on which cultures and epochs you probe. This lack of consistency, along with the convenience of being invisible, casts doubt on there actually being any god(s) at all. However, I will agree to have an open mind that there may be a god(s) present in the universe (though the lack of evidence favoring the notion is staggering).

reply to post by traditionaldrummer


TD,

I don't understand what is so "WRONG" with my approach? I come from the humble position of Agnostic Atheism, if irrefutable evidence of an omnipotent being is presented, i will be happy to renounce my Atheism.

Because there is no evidence for such a being, how can anyone claim to know of this being? And teach such dogma to children? It's pretty much lying, is it not?

I believe it is a direct threat to the stability of civlisation, especially mono-theistic doctrine - Is this approach wrong, in your opinion?

Always interested to hear your thoughts.

A&A

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
TD,

I don't understand what is so "WRONG" with my approach? I come from the humble position of Agnostic Atheism, if irrefutable evidence of an omnipotent being is presented, i will be happy to renounce my Atheism.

I think agnostic atheism is the most rational stance, though "approach", especially in debate, can widely vary. And when the agnostic atheist encounters the gnostic theist, rarely would the two see eye to eye.

Because there is no evidence for such a being, how can anyone claim to know of this being? And teach such dogma to children? It's pretty much lying, is it not?

It's not lying. If someone has (or believes they have) direct encounter with god(s), they can claim to know that god(s) exists and technically not be lying. Dogma is another issue and I believe there is strong potential for damage when it's taught to children.

I believe it is a direct threat to the stability of civlisation, especially mono-theistic doctrine - Is this approach wrong, in your opinion?

I also believe religion to be detrimental to the species though I am uncertain if it could be eradicated completely, or whether such a scenario would be inherently positive. I'm all for the advocacy of rational thought, skepticism and critical thinking, and often when these are employed and applied to religious beliefs the religious beliefs dwindle away. Anti-theism is a very noble cause if the approach is rational and civil as opposed to violent or iconoclastic.

reply to post by traditionaldrummer

It's not lying. If someone has (or believes they have) direct encounter with god(s), they can claim to know that god(s) exists and technically not be lying.

I guess not, but it's just like the cosmic teapot anology; isn't it a verbal conjuring technique?

Such techniques are used by Mediums, Fortunes Tellers. It's cold reading; because we can never ultimately prove or negate professed "truth", people accuse doubters of irrationalism and arrogance. As i've heard you say, i believe too, that unfalisfiable hypothesis are dangerous.

Of course you could postulate that "Multiverse" theories are unfalsifiable and therefore equally abhorrent but it uses data and knowledge to try attempt to rationalise reality. I can understand the goal behind these types of unprovable theories.

The only goals i can see in supernatural claims is deception and thus false belief/hope.

Anti-theism is a very noble cause if the approach is rational and civil as opposed to violent or iconoclastic.

I couldn't agree more. I don't want to appear arrogant or smug with regards to expressing my position. I don't seek to please my own ego. In fact, quite the opposite; i see the irrationality and the pain these beliefs have caused and i want to help emancipate my own species by spreading reason and teaching the value that reason and evidence hold.

I see Atheism as a minority, our words and concerns go unheard, just like the black's voices were unheard, just like the women's voice when unheard. The only way to cure that is advocating freedom of speech, to change minds and win hearts, for the better.

Peace always bro, thanks.

A&A

reply to post by awake_and_aware

I sincerely appreciate the discussion. Hopefully you realize I understand your position, and in truth it is a difficult and sometimes more than a little challenging to hold onto my beliefs. I think anyone, Christian or otherwise, will be fooling themselves along with whoever else they are talking to if they make the claim they have an absolute, unconditional, resolute, and unbending confidence in everything they believe. That includes items outside of religion as well.

For me, I spend time studying and actually practicing my "faith". The word faith does not, in my opinion, imply any labels or religion necessarily as this encompasses many aspects of one's life. Again, for me, I have had many things happen in my life that across the field of "religion" would not meet the criteria of some as Divine Intervention, but would in others. So, I will hold onto my faith. I will do my best to always practice what I preach, so to speak, but in reference to the thread we are on, I actually think you and I may agree. "Religion" causes trouble. Hopefully faith, whether in God, UFOs, your friends and co-workers, Mom, Dad, or even yourself implies only that you are willing to believe you are right-sans overt and/or incontrovertible evidence--and hence won't be let down. I can never offer you indisputable evidence, so let me give you these two quick notes and maybe you can understand me and like-minded people a little better:
1: You asked who He says He is. He said He is "I Am". Very long story not suitable here, but I did want to offer the response
2: Quick definition ... faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Regarding this definition and how it pertains to our discussion and this thread, religion is far from as important as the simple act of belief and faith. I suspect you and I have faith in many of the same things, but unfortunately not this particular one. I understand and respect that, but I would not be true to myself if I did not continue to encourage your open mindedness. Beyond that, I should thank you again for the civil and intelligent conversation.

reply to post by samstone11


There are many definitions of faith:

-religion: a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny; "he lost his faith but not his morality"
-complete confidence in a person or plan etc; "he cherished the faith of a good woman"; "the doctor-patient relationship is based on trust"
-loyalty or allegiance to a cause or a person; "keep the faith"; "they broke faith with their investors"

When i talk about faith, i mean blind faith.

I'm not talking about a dedication to a cause or person. That's a different type of faith. For instance, these type of faiths are formed through a history of conviction; evidence. My mother, i have faith in her, she is a good person.

The faith in "God" is a blind faith as humans currently do not know whether God exists or does not. It would be unwise, and perhaps irrational to state you know the "truth"

I am not here to protest against your personal freedom to believe whatever you want to believe, or even to believe what other men have written or told you; I am here to challenge ideology, the very core of religion; blind faith, I'm here to make a stance and explain my concerns.

I value evidence and reason very close to my heart as do many other Atheists. This means we require reason/evidence to form a belief system. We don't buy blind faith.

I believe many people think an Atheist's personal goal is to cause disruption and hurt feelings and generally just be smug and arrogant. This is not the case, quite the opposite, i would not be here typing these words if i wished to only please my ego; I believe i'm honest when i talk to people.

While God may or may not exist, i do not hold a definitive answer to the big question "Does God exist" - I can't claim to answer this with any truth, therefore my position remains as honest and humble as i can be; "I don't know" - Agnostic Atheism.

I admit, "absence of evidence, is not evidence of absense" - but by that logic alone; i could claim that "there is a teapot orbitting Jupiter that our best telescopes cannot see", does this make it true? Does this warrant faith? or belief?

I argue with you only for the purpose of debate, and not in haste, and with no attempt to demean your personal character.

I hope my answers and responses have been polite and honest.

Peace

Originally posted by nastyj
Correct me if im wrong but planned out in ALL religious texts? Since when did christianity speak of wars with islam, same with judaism? there are no scriptures showing that neither, otherwise it would give claim to islamic autheniticity as the divine scipture.

Not all, sorry but most of them. There will be wars, because it is a prophecy people will act them out, but always someone benefits from it.

Also the 'elite' havent planned anything in the Quran because it remains intact from alteration.

The Kuran is not the problem, whereas the people are.

In the Quran however does show somewhat a 'plan' of how things would play out, and it surely doesnt involve everyone killing eachohter like some royal rumble lol. Quran tells us of a war on 'jews' (

sorry, double post for some reason.

reply to post by naeem11111

The Kuran is not the problem, whereas the people are.

I disagree. I believe "extremists" are fundamentally extreme because the Koran is fundamentally extreme.

Please see my thread: Islam Promotes Terrorism

Civil discussion encouraged.

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
I disagree. I believe "extremists" are fundamentally extreme because the Koran is fundamentally extreme.

Please see my thread: Islam Promotes Terrorism

Civil discussion encouraged.

Yes, precisely, those who go over the top, unknowingly allow the prophecies to come true, and those who fund them know exactly whats going on.

reply to post by naeem11111


I think just in general, with a belief in a religious God comes the obligation to follow a specific moral, ethical philosophy code for fear of consquences warned in doctrine. This causes prejudice and separation between people with other beliefs.

Man can't prove or disprove God, so why bother following a description of GOd (religion) And how can they form a description that you can rely on in the first place?

Why not just practice good moral behaviour , study history, the belief of God can still remain. I think religious dogma encourages moral separatism and exclusivity of culture.

You could still study a doctrine without labelling yourself with a Religion, but especially in modern societies, there are much better means of improving our moral, ethical practices and much better means to study the unknown.

If i could, i would grant them all their respective 'heaven's.

reply to post by chr0naut


I wouldn't. I'd hope that they die and never come back, just like the rest of us will.

I hope that is the truth - If it is infact the truth; it's ironic that they won't realise that asserting a belief before having logical or empirical evidence is irrational and dishonest, it promotes false fear and hope.

reply to post by JR MacBeth

We MUST, somehow, step "out" of the box FIRST. In other words, in order to have even the slightest possibility of getting beyond "faith", you must actually have, at least momentary "faith", that your "faith" is so strong, that you're not "worried" about not coming back.

I don't know if you're still subscribed to this thread, but I wanted to say that I undertstand what you are saying here.

A few years ago I made the decision to "step outside the box" of my own mystical beliefs, to acknowledge that they may be wrong and that others possibly had a better handle on reality.

I let go of the conviction that my beliefs were founded on the truth, and I was open to wherever that may lead me, whether to atheism, christianity, or something else entirely.

The odd thing that I discovered was that it did not matter whether my mystical path was the ultimate truth or not, only that my inner integrity remain intact. I was released from my beliefs, only to find that I was exactly where I was meant to be at this point in time.