Bull$#!+ in the world.

[freakachu]

consider though, that when there was penny candy, making $5 an hour was decent money.

[hoho]

Kinda busy atm so I can't do a proper response, sorry. There is a LOT more I'd like to say about religion

without something to base morals on that is constant and absolute, you can have no real morals, only social acceptability. even that is a stretch.

Morals are NOT based on religion. They are based on common sense and what's beneficial for humanity in long term. Religions actually teach you to do all sorts of immoral things that no sane person would ever do.

also, you view the innumerable charities, hosptials, soup kitchens, food pantries, and other supportive organizations founded and operated by people primarily motivated by religion as not worth it? why?

Was religion a must-have for any of these things? Definietly not. Also, people generally do good because they are good people, not out of fear of being eternally punished.

Also, you might want to look up the death camps aka Mother Theresa's "hospitals". Awesomely moral and good stuff she did, right?

Also, there are plenty of horrible teachings in the new testament as well: http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/nt_list.html

this is not actually true. that is in leviticus, yes, but that is also part of the old testament. the laws set forth there were essentially made null with the new testament.

No, new testament did NOT make old one invalid. It's the word of God and God can't be wrong, according to himself. If it would have made it invalid then it would mean the word of God was wrong. Thus how can we even trust he got it right this time?

in essence, who are you to be able to determine what is and isn't moral?

I'm a guy with common sense. That's all it takes to be moral. Also, morals should be based on intelligent design, not bronze age misconceptions: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_wXEjQ1kdU

[Decnav]

It has alot to do with our fiat currency. If we compared the price of gold at the time of penny candy, and figured out the percent of and ounce of gold that the candy cost, compared to the same candy per ounce of gold today we would have a close match on gold weight.

1950 gold = 34.72 oz

2011 gold = 1571.52 oz

( http://www.nma.org/pdf/gold/his_gold_prices.pdf )

so it takes 45.26 of modern valued pennies to buy what 1 1950's penny could buy.

[KakerMix]

the argument that the bible has been mistranslated or changed over centuries of transcription is quite common. it's also not as accurate as many people think. even the oldest manuscripts end up being functionally identical to versions penned hundreds of years later. when you consider that for the jews, and later various christian monks, the transcribing of scripture was considered a sacred act, and any mistake an affront to god himself, it makes some sense that you ended up with some unparallelled accuracy. combine that with the fact that even the bible itself mentions that the scriptures are essentially divinely protected, so as to preserve god's message contained within. of course, if you don't believe in god that last part doesn't mean anything to you, but the rest certainly should.

It isn't about being mistranslated, its about the thing being translated into a new language at all. Words in Hebrew mean different things in different contexts compared to the 'same' words in English because it isn't 100% direct. It's built in to translating from one language to another, this happens with everything that is ever translated from one language to another, they have different structures, worlds, intents, flows. Translating anything at all ALWAYS changes the meaning, no matter how slight because you are trying to fit a message originally meant for another mold into a new one. This isn't so bad when its comics or video games, but kind of becomes a big deal when people's lives are held accountable to the information presented.

as for the "thou shalt not kill", that commandment is famously misquoted. it is "thou shalt not murder", which is all together different. that is why god can commands the hebrews to go to war quite often in the old testament without being blatantly hypocritical.

Brushing aside my comment on the murder commandment based on a misquote is odd, because it was written in Hebrew. Your quote is just as wrong as mine according to your own ideas on the whole Bible translation. Beyond that, it still doesn't explain *why* it isn't hypocritical. What difference is it if I murder a man for causing me or my family harm or when I murder him in a time of war?

it's pretty clear I'm outnumbered here, and I'm really not interested in instigating "the religion debate thread" for these forums, so I'm going to leave it at that. I was just a little tired of having my beliefs bashed and lampooned. I feel a bit better now. the regularly scheduled mocking of all religions can now resume.

freakachu, it isn't my intention to 'bash' your views our your religion but surely you must see it as the logical result of (what is considered, anyway) a scientific outlook. Christianity (of which I was previously, Catholic specifically) doesn't have any claim at all besides being popular. It wasn't the first, it certainly won't be the last, and it relies on denying everything as a species that we've learned in order to be fit. Religion constantly adjusts to reality, not the other way around. From things like the Earth is the center of the universe to whether you could eat pork, lie with another man, or wear mixed fabrics, things change. That's simply being logical about it.

Outside of that, you have a massive uphill battle in trying to convince a seasoned, logical mind that your specific set of beliefs is the right one because your beliefs aren't the only one. Scientology is just as valid a system, so is the various polytheistic flavors. Christianity can't get a free pass just because its your own, I judge it just as hard as I judge 'obvious' false ones, and considering the hate that people in power use Christianity for I think its completely valid to 'bash' your beliefs as well, considering anyone else religions beliefs get crushed or brushed aside all the time in the name of God/Jesus.

I suppose what I am saying is bullshit I hate is when you argue with someone that insists on playing by their own rules. You simply said 'this is incorrect, actually _________' without giving me any facts that are verified, or even a direction to go.

I also hate it when people that take honest criticism and say its 'bashing'.

It has alot to do with our fiat currency

Yeah and if/when we start mining asteroids like we are in the process of beginning you can kiss the idea of a gold-based economy goodbye, because one asteroid full of precious metals is going to completely annihilate a gold-based currency to the point of chaos.

Basically I hate religion, and I hate libertarians. :argh:

[The_DarthMoogle]

I hate librarians, too.

[Icyblue]

Religion in all it's forms.

It's basically a mental illness and I still can't understand why people suffering from the delusion are treated differently from other similar problems. Even worse, they are often thought being superior to non-believers. Seeing how many people are simply incapable of rational thinking and how they are often working in places with high responsibility makes me rather worried.

Not religion, after nitpickying a lot of it (me myself being a nonbeliever if a bit of a spiritualist due to hawaiian tradition). Quite a lot of the texts are actually counter this behavior, as many of their own bibles actually cite the fact that they cannot judge another for that is the duty of their god; but instead they must cheer them on with their personal endeavors and pray that they find their own salvation through their actions. So it the human condition, not religion that is the problem.

As for a personal insight on this? The one that I encounter the most is people who feel that they are done learning, and thus suffer greatly as a result. Too many times have I seen it where a person is satisfied with their knowledge only to pay for an easily remedied mistake if they just took 3 minutes to learn the subject matter.

[Adlersch]

Religions actually teach you to do all sorts of immoral things that no sane person would ever do.

Why is religion being generalized anyways? Religions don't do bad things by themselves, religion is not evil by itself, and it is not good by itself. The way people react to religion is what religion is being judged by, and that is entirely unfair to the religions and the moderates who follow them. An educated, rational person shouldn't look at the extremists of anything (Be it religion, a nation, atheism, a race... etc) to judge the whole.

All religions have people who are educated and rational on the whole but may believe some things that others feel they don't have enough evidence to believe (Or in some cases believe something else with less empirical evidence and refuse the former belief for that reason). At the same time, all religions have ignorant idiots who refuse logic and reason and believe that anyone who believes anything other than them is either evil, stupid, or somehow 'lesser' than them, for lack of a better term. All religions have people that fit in one catagory or the other, as does atheism, agnosticism, all races and cultures, all nations, or anything else humans can be grouped by.

In short, I agree with Icyblue. Religions are not purely evil or good by themselves (Although if you believe in one you may have a deity or deities which may be good or evil within your belief). Atheism isn't purely good or evil by itself (In the case that someone makes a claim as such). No race, nation, or person is purely good or evil (Some may believe so, if they believe in certain religions, however that is their belief).

However, so that I can add to the topic and hopefully steer it in a new direction away from my point of "Don't generalize things based off of humans and human action," what I think is bulls#!+ in the world is how sensitive and easily offended people can get. If a person is offended by a slur, comment, or other ignorant gesture then they are participating 50% in their offense/oppression/whatever other term you wish to call it by identifying themself by whatever was done, deciding it was true in their mind, and becoming offended.

[hoho]

It's my personal belief (ha!) that being religious is a sign of mental deficit. It can be as simple as being too lazy to figure things out and instead take the easiest to understand explanation, not being capable of critical thinking about some specific topics or in worse case actual full-blown lunacy.

People of any and all religions, I invite you to answer these 30 simple questions: http://30questionsproject.weebly.com/the-30-questions.html

I'd especially love to see your answers to at least some of those.

I've yet to hear about any religion that wold hold up once you start to really think rationally about it.

My main problem with religions is that they actively promote and praise ignorance and make critical thinking look like it was a bad thing. Besides causing general and widespread harm due to all sorts of pointless rituals, customs and life values it also holds back our evolution as a species.

[edit]

Why is religion being generalized anyways? Religions don't do bad things by themselves, religion is not evil by itself, and it is not good by itself. The way people react to religion is what religion is being judged by, and that is entirely unfair to the religions and the moderates who follow them. An educated, rational person shouldn't look at the extremists of anything (Be it religion, a nation, atheism, a race... etc) to judge the whole.

A wise man once said something like:

"When left to their own devices good person will do good things and bad person will do bad things. To make good person do bad things, that takes religion."

This has been proven over and over again over thousands of years and is still valid today.

[Adlersch]

It's my personal belief (ha!) that being religious is a sign of mental deficit. It can be as simple as being too lazy to figure things out and instead take the easiest to understand explanation, not being capable of critical thinking about some specific topics or in worse case actual full-blown lunacy.

My main problem with religions is that they actively promote and praise ignorance and make critical thinking look like it was a bad thing. Besides causing general and widespread harm due to all sorts of pointless rituals, customs and life values it also holds back our evolution as a species.

Not to be a total ass, but why? Why are these things true? Why is believing in a religion indicative of inability to look at things empirically and think logically? Again, I don't mean to be an ass, I just want to see your reasoning behind your belief.

Edit:

This has been proven over and over again over thousands of years and is still valid today.

How? How has it been proven? How do you know the opposite is also not true? If you don't, how do you know that the former occurs more often? Simply put, one person cannot know with empirical evidence without at least one assumption or generalization. And those are the opposite of critical thinking.

Another edit: Also, I'm not saying you're either necessarily wrong or necessarily right. I am simply being a proponent of critical thinking in all areas of life, including opinions of others and respect of their beliefs.

[Petronec]

one person cannot know with empirical evidence without at least one assumption or generalization.

Truer words have never been spoken BUT the assumption that all of the theories, studies and things which we have based modern practices on being wrong takes a lot more finger-crossing and self-affirming than that ONE book is wrong. Well, I lied about truer words have never been spoken on account of those are not the "opposite of critical thinking." Critical thinking is looking at everything critically. Just because you criticize the crunchiness of a cheesecake does not mean you refuse to accept that it's an otherwise good cheescake.

[Adlersch]

You miss the point of my posts. I'm being a proponent of moderation and I am not defending any religion at all whatsoever (Or religion as a whole, for that matter). I was just making the point that if a person has a belief and wants to state it, they should have empirical evidence to back it up. Claiming something causes people to assume and ignore/not use evidence to back up their beliefs without providing empirical evidence of your own to back up your belief that the aforementioned doesn't make sense.

Edit: I see what you mean. You were correcting my definition, my mistake. Anyways, you can disregard the above if you wish since it is no longer relevant.

[hoho]

Not to be a total ass, but why? Why are these things true? Why is believing in a religion indicative of inability to look at things empirically and think logically? Again, I don't mean to be an ass, I just want to see your reasoning behind your belief.

Don't worry, I'm not some delicate flower that can't handle questions. Everyone should be able to back up their claims. Too bad religions are pretty much incapable it by definition

But to answer, just start with the linked 30 question thing. Religion couldn't exist if people would think logically about it, they have to be ignorant in order to make it work.

How? How has it been proven? How do you know the opposite is also not true? If you don't, how do you know that the former occurs more often?

For starters did you know that there have been numerous researches done that pretty

much unanimously have concluded that religious people are more prone to violence and crime while also being less moral and compassionate?

http://www.religiondispatches.org/dispatches/laurilebo/4576/are_atheists_more_moral_than_the_religious

A growing body of social science research reveals that atheists, and non-religious people in general, are far from the unsavory beings many assume them to be. On basic questions of morality and human decency— issues such as governmental use of torture, the death penalty, punitive hitting of children, racism, sexism, homophobia, anti-Semitism, environmental degradation or human rights — the irreligious tend to be more ethical than their religious peers, particularly compared with those who describe themselves as very religious.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2011/apr/11/aetheists-research-scientists

The claim that atheists are somehow likely to be immoral or dishonest has long been debunked. Studies that looked at readiness to help or honesty showed atheists standing out, not the religious. When it comes to the more serious matter of violence and crime, ever since the field of criminology got started, and data collected of the religious affiliation of criminal offenders, the fact that the unaffiliated and the non-religious had the lowest crime rates has been noted.

http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net/atheistmoral.html

Abraham Franzblau, "Religious Belief and Character Among Jewish Adolescents," Teachers College Contribution to Education, no. 634 (1934): found that the higher the acceptance of religious beliefs, the less inclined to honesty the adolescents became!

Murray Ross, Religious Beliefs in Youths, New York 1950: a survey of 2,000 associates of the YMCA found that those who labeled themselves atheists and agnostics were more willing to help the poor that those who called themselves religious.

Travis Hirschi & Rodney Stark, "Hellfire and Delinquency", Social Problems Vol 17 (1969), pp202-213: reported that there is no difference in the likelihood to commit crimes between children who attend church regularly and those who did not.

R.E. Smith, G. Wheeler & E. Diener, "Faith Without Works: Jesus People, Resistance to Temptation and Altruism." Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 5 (1975) p320-330: in their study found that college-age students in religious schools were no less likely to cheat than atheist and agnostic students in non-religious schools.

David M. Wulff, Psychology of Religion: Classic and Contemporary Views, New York 1991 p219-220: reported in his vast study that people with religious affiliation and / or attended church regularly and / or rated doctrinal orthodoxy as important tend to be prejudiced, intolerant of ambiguity, dogmatic and racist.

http://freethoughtpedia.com/wiki/Percentage_of_atheists#1997_Federal_Bureau_of_Prisons_Statistics

The Federal Bureau of Prisons does have statistics on religious affiliations of inmates. The following are total number of inmates per religion category:

Catholic 29267 39.164%

Protestant 26162 35.008%

Muslim 5435 7.273%

...

Buddhist 882 1.180%

...

Atheist 156 0.209%

vs

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_United_States#Main_religious_preferences_of_Americans

Protestant 51.3

Catholic 23.9

Buddhist 0.7

Muslim 0.6

Nothing in particular 12.1

Agnostic 2.4

Atheist 1.6

Notice that last three are basically equivalent to non-religious

Also, do you think genital mutilation of kids of both sexes would exist without religion?

[reptar]

here in Canada, we just stopped making the penny. By september they'll be all gone, and everything sold will have to be rounded to the nearest 5.

[The_DarthMoogle]

here in Canada, we just stopped making the penny. By september they'll be all gone, and everything sold will have to be rounded to the nearest 5.

That is something we need to start doing everywhere. It'll drive taxes down for a start.

But it could bugger things up for businesses paying people by the hour.

[Xylord]

That is something we need to start doing everywhere. It'll drive taxes down for a start.

But it could bugger things up for businesses paying people by the hour.

I made a quick calculation :

0,04$ (The maximum loss per hour) * 8 hours (A LONG day of work) * 365 days = 116,80$ of loss per year.

I guess that could be a good bit of cash for poorer people, but even then, I am pretty sure there are side-measures to compensate this.

[The_DarthMoogle]

Not really.

Under UK laws, everything has to be rounded UP.

Can you imagine how much businesses and banks would lose by rounding everything up an imaginary 2 to 2.5 pence?

[Xylord]

Not really.

Under UK laws, everything has to be rounded UP.

Can you imagine how much businesses and banks would lose by rounding everything up an imaginary 2 to 2.5 pence?

Oh, I missed the point of your post. Then, I guess if we're talking about banks, the numbers become far larger, huh. Well, it's the problem of the banks, I couldn't care less about them. As long as I get my interest, that is.

[Brunswick]

I don't think about religion. Because, as I see it, it isn't a situation that I need to worry about in the near future. I'm twenty-two, I've got a solid forty years of life in me judging on my family history, and I don't need to start fretting about God or Yahweh or Allah or Anubus or whatever for at least twenty more years. Even if I do...well, I'll find out once I finally croke, right? So what's the point of bothering yourself with metaphysical worries when we've got enough physical worries to concern ourselves for a lifetime? It's not that I don't follow a religion, it's just that I'm not totally concerned with it.

The only point that I really get annoyed with religion is when people use it to make important decisions that affect others or matters of law/rules/what have you. The only time I'd find that appropriate is if every single member of those affected share the same metaphysical outlook. Make a decision based on Christian scripture that only affects one church? Peachy fine. Make a decision based on Christian scripture that affects a state? Not good. Make a decision based on Christian scripture that affects the entire world? Double plus ungood.

But what I see as religion can really be a two-sided thing. Organized religion, the churches and temples and covens or whatever, is what I mean by above. I don't mind people congregating in a faith, in fact I'm supportive of it. But just don't go out and try to 'convert' others who clearly don't want a part of it or use it to make decisions that affect others that don't share your worldview. Personal religion to me is more of a set of guidelines, an arrangement of values and honors and codes of conduct that guide how you act and feel. Now that can be cherry-picked from all the variants out there to your own pleasing, or even create something entirely new.

[hoho]

So what's the point of bothering yourself with metaphysical worries when we've got enough physical worries to concern ourselves for a lifetime?

For me it basically boils down to the fact that I want to live forever or well, at least a few hundred years I want that simply to be able to learn more about the universe we live in (and quite possibly about other universes )

Only practical way it can work is if we figure out a way to either upload ourself to internet or to work out practically working life-extending medical procedures. Both are basically feasible but are mostly held back by the fact that humanity isn't investing in science nearly as much as we could. Instead we are popularizing ignorance. It's depressing to see how being dumb and not using critical thinking and rationality is considered a good thing and it gets told to us in media constantly. In addition we make up stupid "rules"* to divide ourselves to distinct groups that fight each other in one way or another instead of cooperation. Religion is a thing that combines both ignorance and fighting. If we'd stop with the bullshit we could put several orders of magnitude more effort and resources into research to come up with ways to actually survive the next few decades and just maybe figure out a way towards increasing our life span.

*) nations, religions, sexual preferences, wealth, ...

Well, that's my ultimate goal but being realistic I'm almost certain that won't be happening in my lifetime. Though it doesn't stop me from trying to move the world towards that goal so perhaps some of my descendants once could enjoy a better world.

The only point that I really get annoyed with religion is when people use it to make important decisions that affect others or matters of law/rules/what have you. The only time I'd find that appropriate is if every single member of those affected share the same metaphysical outlook. Make a decision based on Christian scripture that only affects one church? Peachy fine.

Here comes the other problem I have with religions. What about the kids that born into a religious family? How often are they given a free choice for their world view to either choose one of the thousands of religions their parents didn't follow or perhaps simply not believe in grownup version of Santa? I consider this a child abuse at highest order.

[Xylord]

Here comes the other problem I have with religions. What about the kids that born into a religious family? How often are they given a free choice for their world view to either choose one of the thousands of religions their parents didn't follow or perhaps simply not believe in grownup version of Santa? I consider this a child abuse at highest order.

When I was 7 or 8 years old, my father-side family brought me to church for christmas. They were really religious, catholic to be precise. I love christmas, even now, I think it's a great moment for all the family to re-unite, but this one year, this part of my family really insisted so we would go to the mass. I remember I found the building really pretty, with the gold-ish art, and all the arts. I asked my aunt what this place was for. "It's a church, it's to honor our God. We're here to thank him for the beautiful year we just had."

At this moment, this concept of God was a new thing to me. My parents are indifferent to religion, and never really touched the subject with me. Not to keep me ignorant, but probably because they just didn't care. However, I had read books, I was (And I am) a real bookworm. I knew about evolution, the Big Bang theory, the formation of the solar system, the conditions that made life possible on Earth. And I could also explain tides, M. O'Reilly.

I asked her why I should thank this god guy. "Well, it's because of him that we have our world, and that we're all here."

"How can a single guy make the whole world? It's impossible. The world was made by star dusts sticking together."

"He's not just a "guy", God is very powerful. He lives in the sky, and it's him who created the world, not some stupid theory."

At this moment, I was getting a bit mad, because I knew the theory explaining the formation of stars and planets was proven and could be observed in Nebulas.

"There isn't air in space, god would die if he was there! And this isn't a stupid theory, it's proven!"

Since I was talking a bit loud, and the mass was about to start, she dryly told me to shut up, and I think I fell asleep after about fifteen minutes of recitation of prayers. I think my parents carried me to the car and next thing, I was waking up at home and unpacking my gifts.

The Morale of the story? For me, I don't talk about God with my religious family, because I want to keep good relations with them.

For others though, it's that if I didn't had some of the knowledge I had at this time, I might have found this "guy in the sky" story perfectly logical, and maybe I would be a good little christian today. My cousins who were born in this part of my family go to church pretty often. That's the power that religion can have on innocent kids, if they aren't given anything else to believe, the religion seems to be the option by default.

[FFGF]

Religion is the biggest bull ever to be expressed.

/endthread

[Brunswick]

For me it basically boils down to the fact that I want to live forever or well, at least a few hundred years I want that simply to be able to learn more about the universe we live in (and quite possibly about other universes )

A pair of thoughts on that. Why do you want to extend lifespan? I'm just curious because this is a strange viewpoint for me. I see life as more of a...a stage, I guess, and artificially extending that stage just seems wrong to me. In my mind it's always been 'when you die, you die', and artificial attempts beyond medical care and emergency services (like brain uploading and immortality elixirs and all) just seems...I don't know, unnatural? Who would want to live forever? You're depriving yourself of experiencing that last stage, solving the mystery of what's actually the end result of death, and instead condemning yourself to watching everything you've loved and made crumble under the waves of time and decay. I hate to sound like a spoilsport but that's what I've seen it as. Everything ends, everything must end and to artificially make it not end just seems like a perversion of natural order as well as temporary at best.

Take a flower. You could, in theory, pluck it from the ground and encase it in plastic, rendering its beauty seemingly immortal. But in time, the chemicals will leach from the plastic and degrade it, and it will be lost or forgotten somewhere and be subjected to the gnawing of time and weather, tearing away the plastic and exposing the fragile flower under that. Then what happens? It rots and decays just as normal, the natural events leading to its destruction. Even if you were to put it in a carefully controlled environment the decay will still happen and the process will still complete, if slowed. Again I am not attempting to rip apart your worldview, but to share a different take on it.

Mind Uploading - Data, like flesh, fails. Power outages, computer errors, physical hardware failures, bit rot...it happens. Just like sudden deaths and diseases and accidents happen to people. There is no immortality in this, just a slower decay.

Medical Procedures - This is the same as mind uploading, as you cannot control accidents, but this lends itself to a more social destruction. The devil is not in time but in people, in this case, as no matter how much you extend life you cannot control basic human hate and destructive tendencies. Which leads me to your second section;

Both are basically feasible but are mostly held back by the fact that humanity isn't investing in science nearly as much as we could. Instead we are popularizing ignorance. It's depressing to see how being dumb and not using critical thinking and rationality is considered a good thing and it gets told to us in media constantly. In addition we make up stupid "rules"* to divide ourselves to distinct groups that fight each other in one way or another instead of cooperation. Religion is a thing that combines both ignorance and fighting. If we'd stop with the bullshit we could put several orders of magnitude more effort and resources into research to come up with ways to actually survive the next few decades and just maybe figure out a way towards increasing our life span.

This is the human condition. This is how it has been since time immemorial. Humans are a basically greedy, violent, hateful and destructive race. Chiefs, kings, priests, prime ministers and presidents will always lord power over their fellow humans not out of some distinct decision to but from the base instincts of a race that was, is, and always will be animals. I'm not the kind of person that wants to shed this idea or to minimize it, but instead cope with it. We, as humans, will always divide ourselves and fight instead of cooperating. It's in our blood, from the first days of human evolution where we had to fight our way tooth and nail up the food chain to our current position. The human race is a race of survival above all, survival at any cost necessary. Survival which was once for one's life but now for one's social comfort and mental comfort. We have to survive, to get and hold and keep to bolster our emotions and our social status. And the only thing that will change that is millennia of development. Many, many millennia.

What about the kids that born into a religious family? How often are they given a free choice for their world view to either choose one of the thousands of religions their parents didn't follow or perhaps simply not believe in grownup version of Santa? I consider this a child abuse at highest order.

Xylord: That's the power that religion can have on innocent kids, if they aren't given anything else to believe, the religion seems to be the option by default.

See, to me, the child has choice from the moment they develop enough mental wherewithal and capacity to understand it. One never must believe something. People can be told 'no', can be told to fuck off. I told my parents when I was eight that I was not going to Izumo Taisha out of respect for religion but for its historical significance. My parents are highly religious people, and I allowed them that right. They did moan at me, scolded me for 'disappointing your grandmother', but I held my right to choose what to worship and believe closer to myself than my contemporaries. I was never forced to follow their religion, and while I eventually began to at a later age, there was no force commanding me to follow them. All that is lacking when children are 'forced' to follow a religion is the child's will.

[Brunswick]

Religion is the biggest bull ever to be expressed.

/endthread

You can take that elsewhere, kid. Adults are talking.

[FFGF]

You can take that elsewhere, kid. Adults are talking.

Age is of no meaning to me, and I have most likely thought about my ideals than you have regardless if you've had more years to think about them; i'm half-way through my seventeenth year.

[Brunswick]

Age is of no meaning to me, and I have most likely thought about my ideals than you have regardless if you've had more years to think about them; i'm half-way through my seventeenth year.

Your ideals? What, 'religion is bullshit and has no bearing'? I know I'm grappling with a troll here but that's an immensely childish point of view. Religion brings comfort, brings hope in a higher power that, honestly, while may or may not exist even the idea is enough to give people hope. And hope, friend, is one of the best things you can give to a person.