# Faith & religion - the root of all evil?



## Philippa

Hello!!
I have just watched a TV program presented by Richard Dawkins called The Root of All Evil. 
I think the main idea he was explaining was that religion has at its core a lack of logic/blind faith and that since unshakeable faith that isn't based on any evidence cannot be argued with, no compromises are possible and so it leads to religious hate and terrorism.
What do you guys think? 

This is kind of linked to Benjy's logic and religion, ca fait deux (incompatible)? thread, but I don't think it's quite the same original question (I haven't re-read the whole huge discussion). If it is too similar, then please kill it!!

Saludos
Philippa


----------



## Summer_rose

Well...as I see it, it's not a problem of lack of logic mainly. Why do people have faith in any or other religion? I think that it is because they need some support or confidence to face the dificult moments during their lives, those moments unstandably hard or without a clear explanation (like a big personal tragedy or even the death).

So, many people (not all religious people!!) can't question themselves their faith or religious beliefs or feel the need to impose their own religion over all the others because they need to TOTALLY believe in it, because doing another thing would mean that all the confidence and support would go up the creek.

Or something like that  ... I really think the fear to death is behind all. 

But, in my opinion there's no doubt about it, yes, religion is the source of a lot, a lot of evil. (Of course, there are good things too). And, of course any dogmatism is intrinsically bad, because it doesn't allow diverging opinions.

(I want to say that I'm absolutely respectful with other people beliefs, sorry if anyone feels annoyed about what I wrote, it was no my intention )

Regards!


----------



## Agnès E.

Faith is not under human control. Either you believe, or you don't. This has nothing to do with logic, reason or anything consistent. There is nothing bad in any faith, as it is only a private question of a person and his beliefs.

Religion is a creation of men in order to try to master and monitor other people's faith, and to organise the cult to the relevant deity. As soon as there is religion, there is power, hierarchy, strong and weak, right and wrong, true and false, rights and duties... there comes time for evil.


----------



## *Cowgirl*

> Well...as I see it, it's not a problem of lack of logic mainly. _Why do people have faith in any or other religion?_ I think that it is because they need some support or confidence to face the dificult moments during their lives, those moments unstandably hard or without a clear explanation (like a big personal tragedy or even the death).


 
_What's the point of hanging around on this for eighty or so years if there is no divine power? If there no body/ nothing out there to take care of us, then why are we are. I mean, you can't honestly tell me that you think all life just crawled out of some pond. Even if we did, who made the pond, big bang - who made the 1 tiny atom that exploded? Even most scientists believe that there was some kind of divine intervention back in the beginning........_



> So, many people (not all religious people!!) can't question themselves their faith or religious beliefs or feel the need to impose their own religion over all the others because they need to TOTALLY believe in it, because doing another thing would mean that all the confidence and support would go up the creek.


 
_Whoaaaa! Wait a minute. There is nothing wrong with questioning your beliefs, in fact that is how our faith gets stronger._


> Or something like that  ... I really think the fear to death is behind all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But, in my opinion there's no doubt about it, yes, religion is the source of a lot, a lot of evil. (Of course, there are good things too). And, of course any dogmatism is intrinsically bad, because it doesn't allow diverging opinions.
Click to expand...

 
_Yes,unfortunately,there are such things as extremists and holy wars. But hey, just because we believe in God doesn't mean we're perfect._



> (I want to say that I'm absolutely respectful with other people beliefs, sorry if anyone feels annoyed about what I wrote, it was no my intention )
> 
> Regards!


 


> Faith is not under human control. Either you believe, or you don't. This has nothing to do with logic, reason or anything consistent. There is nothing bad in any faith, as it is only a private question of a person and his beliefs.


 


> Religion is a creation of men in order to try to master and monitor other people's faith, and to organise the cult to the relevant deity. As soon as there is religion, there is power, hierarchy, strong and weak, right and wrong, true and false, rights and duties... there comes time for evil.


 
_As I stated earlier some people do things that they shouldn't do in God's name, there's nothing that I can do about it. _
_I think you are being very harsh in this statement and not being very fair. Faith/religion isn't the cause for all of these things. We're not believers so that we can control others. Give us a chance._


_Sorry for such a long post..._

_The peace of Christ be with you._

_*Cowgirl*_


----------



## cuchuflete

Moderator note:  This could be a very interesting thread.  In order for it to continue, there must be some rules....

1. Stick to discussion of Philippa's post #1.  Off-topic posts will disappear.
2. *Do NOT use this thread as an excuse to propound any religion; that is not the topic under discussion.
*
3. Disagree or agree as you see fit, but maintain a respectful approach towards the ideas and opinions of other foreros.

4. Quoting religious texts is off limits.  This is a discussion based on Post #1, and not what any religion has to say.

Thanks,
Cuchuflete,
Moderator


Reminder: This is the thread topic:



			
				Philippa said:
			
		

> the main idea he was explaining was that religion has at its core a lack of logic/blind faith and that since unshakeable faith that isn't based on any evidence cannot be argued with, no compromises are possible and so it leads to religious hate and terrorism.
> What do you guys think?


----------



## Brioche

Philippa said:
			
		

> Hello!!
> I have just watched a TV program presented by Richard Dawkins called The Root of All Evil.
> I think the main idea he was explaining was that religion has at its core a lack of logic/blind faith and that since unshakeable faith that isn't based on any evidence cannot be argued with, no compromises are possible and so it leads to religious hate and terrorism.
> What do you guys think?
> Saludos
> Philippa


 
When push comes to shove, there is not much difference between religious faith and ideological conviction.

Truth is often in the eye of the beholder.  The true believer of a religion/ideology will see at every turn the "proof" of its rightness.

The modern -isms of nazism, leninism, maoism, pol-pot-ism and stalinism have killed and/or enslaved far more people than all the "religious" wars in previous history.


----------



## nichec

Hello to all:
okay, now I'm really scared to say anything wrong. And the following is just my humble opinion, if you think it's not too relevent to the thread, please feel free to kill it.

I've always thought that religion/faith is something very very similar to love. You can't touch them, you can't see them, so sometimes you get confused by them. Some people choose to believe in them, and some people choose not to. When you choose to believe in them, they can absolutely bring you joy and peace, but sometimes, they do bring you sorrow and anger as well. Many people can't even explain well the reason why when they( religion/faith/love ) come into or go away from their lifes. They are not the answers to everything in this life, but for people who choose to believe them, they guide them to the answers or to discover better answers. And the enormous power and beauty of it ( to discover the better answers ) can lead people to do anything in the names of them. 

Kahlil Gibran:" ...love gives naught but itself and takes naught but from itself. Love possesses not nor would it be possessed. For love is sufficient unto love...." I've always thought you can change every "love" to "religion/faith"

It has always been my opinion that if someone chooses to live his life in a way that pleases him, then that's a good thing. As for the war and terrorism, I must confess that I think there are too many reasons for them other than religion/faith/love, I've always thought that the main source of it is human weakness, but that's just me.

If I offend anyone in anyway by this post, please accept my profound apology


----------



## cuchuflete

Brioche said:
			
		

> When push comes to shove, there is not much difference between religious faith and ideological conviction.





			
				Philippa said:
			
		

> no compromises are possible and so it leads to religious hate and terrorism.


I'm writing as a forero, not a mod, so feel free to shoot at my 
ideas

Brioche makes the good point that religious faith is not the only source of fervor.  Fervor may  lead to insane acts, but that is not a logical or necessary consequence of blind faith.

I can't think of many cases of a strong faith leading to violence unless it is associated with some kind of institution, which may be a religion or a political movement or even a military force that inculcates passionate loyalty to a cause, while denying the existence of a deity.  

I know people who hold an extremely profond faith, but do not associate it with any man made institution or religion.
They are mostly peaceful, serene people, not at all warlike or fanatical about anything.  Their faith is internal...and they commune in their own private ways with the force or deity they perceive.  I cannot imagine them converting a fervent faith into a bellicose act.

So I come back to the institution, whether or not religious, as the mechanism that channels strong faith into violent acts.
Of course religions may do the opposite as well, and some sects are obviously pacifist.  Others are not.

If one believes in a benevolent deity, and participates in a religion that claims the deity is on one side of an armed conflict, then maybe it's time for the rational and spiritual aspects to join forces and bolt from the institution.


----------



## Ana Raquel

Hi Philippa, all

the root of evil, hmm, it depends on the person, but yes, I think it can lead to evil because faith is the opposite of knowing.
I mean, if we need to have faith is becasue we don't know something. If we knew, we wouldn't need any faith. We don't need to have faith in the gravity force because we experience it, we can verify it, but when we are basing our "truths" on faith (= we don't know), this can lead us to the most unfair situations.


----------



## Kmanx

_"Faith means not wanting to know what is true." F.N._


----------



## Fernando

Evil deeds happened in the 20th century:

- 1st/2nd WW
- Holocaust
- Nazi Party
- Stalin killings
- Bombing of Dresde
- Bombing of Hiroshima/Nagashaki
- Vietnam / Korea War
- Khmer killings

Role of faith: None

Atheist countries in 20th century: Albania and Cambodja

Faith is the root of all evil??????????????????


----------



## annettehola

But "faith" and "belief" is not the same thing, I..eh..believe. In my view you can have "faith" in an idea, a person, a cause. You can "believe" in the same. To me, faith is something very profoundly internal and subjective. It is what you are yourself inside yourself. People say:"Don't lose faith." This means "Don't depart from what you...believe in as the person you are." I want to explain myself more clearly, I feel I'm doing poorly along that line just now. Listen, please: I have faith in a person I trust. I believe in the words of a person I agree with. Is not that different in essence?
Annette


----------



## whatonearth

Religion *undoubtedly *can be a very positive influence on people's lives, but there was a very interesting (and I believe valid) point used in the programme (at least, I think it was in the programme otherwise I read it somewhere) that:

_"Good people do good things and bad people do bad things, but only religion can make good people do bad things"_

Overly simplified, granted, but I think it makes a very pertinent point.

In response to *Fernando*'s point, the Holocaust/Nazi party/Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings were all part of WWI/WWII. And if you look at ongoing conflicts around the world today, nearly ALL of them are (supposedly)related to/connected to religion - e.g. ongoing conflict in Isreal/Palestine, conflicts between Suni/Shite Muslims in Iraq, conflicts in some South East Asian countries, global terrorism (9/11, London bombings, Madrid bombings, numerous other attacks on US Embassys around the world)...and if you go back in history religion has been the cause of many, many conflicts, so to say that it hasn't is just incorrect. 

I think the problem is religion is SUCH a emotive subject, and something that is SO important to a great number of people, that when evil people can USE religion for THEIR purposes to manipulate and influence others to do wrong or fight in the name of religion (when the REAL motivations are very different for the people behind it all) religion becomes, indirectly, the most dangerous POLITICAL tool we face in the world today.

Politics + Religion = Very, very bad idea


----------



## Fernando

whatonearth said:
			
		

> In response to *Fernando*'s point, the Holocaust/Nazi party/Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings were all part of WWI/WWII. And if you look at ongoing conflicts around the world today, nearly ALL of them are (supposedly)related to/connected to religion - e.g. ongoing conflict in Isreal/Palestine, conflicts between Suni/Shite Muslims in Iraq, conflicts in some South East Asian countries, global terrorism (9/11, London bombings, Madrid bombings, numerous other attacks on US Embassys around the world)...and if you go back in history religion has been the cause of many, many conflicts, so to say that it hasn't is just incorrect.



Of course, Holocaust and Nazi Party was not a part of WWII. Last time I checked Hitler took the power 6 years before the WWII and Holocaust (kristalnacht and the aftermath) were quite independent of WWII.

Current conflicts

All the conflicts you are talking about are related with ONE particular interpretation of ONE religion.

By the way, I forgot Ruanda/Burundi slaughters (current enough?): nothing in common with religion.

Past conflicts

In the past ALL had to do with religion. So, all wars had a religious component. I only remember a "tolerant" people: the mongols. The 250,000 deaths in Baghdad or Kiev had nothing to do with religion.


----------



## whatonearth

Firstly, I dispute your point that the Nazi party and the Holocaust had nothing to do with WWII. Addtionally, millions of Jewish people were killed purely because of what RELIGION they were.

Also, it does not matter that my previous examples were caused by _"ONE interpretation of ONE religion" _(which they weren't, the Israel/Palenstine conflict has two sides you know...) they are still "based on" religion. You are on very dangerous ground if you are suggesting one religion is more "aggresive" than another...For more examples, see the Balklans war, the conflicts in Northern Ireland...etc

Secondly, I don't entirely agree with the point you are trying to make about historical/current conflicts - are you trying to say that religion has played NO part in conflicts throughtout history, and has been/is only a force for good? 

Also, to clarify, at no point did I say ALL wars were caused by religion.


----------



## Agnès E.

Fernando said:
			
		

> Evil deeds happened in the 20th century:
> 
> 
> - Holocaust
> Role of faith: None
> 
> Faith is the root of all evil??????????????????


Thank you for having provided me the perfect illustration of what I have stated in my previous post. 

Holocaust: millions of Jews have been slaughtered just because they belonged to some religion, not because of their faith. Among them, a great deal did not even believe in God. They were killed because they had been raised in the Jewish religion, whatever their own personal beliefs were). And they have been mostly killed by Christians, who basically believe in the same god as the Jews' one. Christians, Muslims and Jews share a faith in the same god. What makes them different is not what they believe in, but HOW they believe in, i.e., their religion.

And even among Christians, people don't agree, mostly because of their INTERPRETATION of what is right and what is wrong, not because of the existence or non-existence of their God (i.e., their beliefs).

For me, faith is not a root of evil. Religion is.


----------



## Ana Raquel

Agnès E. said:
			
		

> For me, faith is not a root of evil. Religion is.


 
but what organised religion is not based in a way or another on faith (= not knowing but believing)


----------



## Brioche

whatonearth said:
			
		

> Firstly, I dispute your point that the Nazi party and the Holocaust had nothing to do with WWII. Addtionally, millions of Jewish people were killed purely because of what RELIGION they were.


 
Hilter's Nazis murdered the Jews because of their *race.* As far as Nazis were concerned it was the race, and not the belief that mattered. People who were Christian converts, but who had Jewish parents were still _racially Jews_ according to Nazi theory, and were murdered, and so were atheists who were _racially Jewish_.


----------



## Fernando

Exact, Brioche. The anti-Jews laws were based on race. They condemned mixed marriage regardless their religion. 

And I would say is an abuse of the language to say that religion/faith is an evil because they "provoke" the attack.


----------



## Fernando

Agnès E. said:
			
		

> And they have been mostly killed by Christians,


They have been been mostly killed by Europeans. Do you mean Europeanism is the root of all evil.


----------



## Agnès E.

Being Jewish is a _race_? Jewish people are found all over the world; they can be found in almost any ethnicity existing on that planet. Jews being a race is one of the main nazi argument, I'm afraid, Fernando. 

Besides:
- Bombing of Dresde
- Bombing of Hiroshima/Nagashaki
are part of WWII... 

Anyway, you are right in pointing out that of course not all evil comes from religion. But much of it has been made in the name of religion. As Cuchu so brilliantly explained, faith and religion are not to be mixed up.


----------



## Agnès E.

Fernando said:
			
		

> They have been been mostly killed by Europeans. Do you mean Europeanism is the root of all evil.


And Europeans are humans. Do you mean that humans are the root of all evil?


----------



## Fernando

Israel are still discussing what a Jewish (or a Israeli) are. They have had serious doubts about the fallashas and other non-Jewish-race Jewish. For an orthodox Jew a Jew is the son of a Jewish mother. And so on.

But for Nazis Jewish were a race. So, my point is: No, Holocaust were not a product of religion bigotry but of racism. As a matter of fact the "pure" nazis were atheists.


----------



## Fernando

Agnès E. said:
			
		

> And Europeans are humans. Do you mean that humans are the root of all evil?



Yes, I think humans are the root of all evil (or good). But do you mind to answer my question? Your are saying that Christians were who killed Jews. I am saying not, since they did not kill them because the killers were Christians, but for other reasons and that it should be so true to blame Christemdom as Europe or Westerners.


----------



## cuchuflete

Putting the unstylish, grubby, Mod hat back on for just a moment...




> Reminder: This is the thread topic:
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Philippa*
> _the main idea he was explaining was that religion has at its core a lack of logic/blind faith and that since unshakeable faith that isn't based on any evidence cannot be argued with, no compromises are possible and so it leads to religious hate and terrorism.
> What do you guys think?_




We haven't drifted too far away from the original topic, but it would be nice to drift back towards it right about now.

Thanks,
Cuchu


----------



## JazzByChas

I think I am going to have to agree with the idea presented here that faith is not a cause for evil...only evil religions. Religions, as Agnes said, are what men devise to try to control thier own and other peoples actions and beliefs. If you subscribe to a religion that promotes killing the "infidels" and that rewards such actions in the afterlife, your religion is violent.

I don't think that anyone who believes in the Judeo-Christian God or even the God/Allah of the Middle-Eastern religions would proport such violence. There is violence in the Judeo-Christian bible/Middle-Eastern bibles, but it is not there because of the nature of God, but because of the nature of men. If your God advocates loving your fellow man/woman, then you cannot justify evil in the name of your God.

Now faith is, IMHO, a logical concept. In short, God proves Himself in all that He does: creation, the order and the complexity of all created things, the wonder of the universe. To believe in things that are good, like creation, love, and doing well towards your fellow man, make perfect sense to me, and I don't have to "blindly" believe that: I believe it works itself out in day-to-day life. I can think of a book written by a former agnostic that supports the idea that God and His relationship to men (faith) is very logical.

{Note: if this is an illegal link, I will delete it}


----------



## cuchuflete

Hi Chas,


Nothing wrong with the link...here is a bit more info about the book:

*Physical Info:* 1.93" H x 9.55" L x 6.67" W (3.05 lbs) 800 pages
*Release Date:*   10/01/99 
*Publisher:* Nelson Reference & Electronic Publishing
*ISBN:* 0785243631

Here is a counter argument

What's the point of mentioning that opposing view?  Simply that one is apt to embrace the viewpoint consistent with the faith already held, and there is more than one possible logical viewpoint.

Faith may have an internal logic.  Mix it with religion, and all logic may dissipate, and the results can be either beatiful or very ugly.  

 I don't think faith is the root of any or all evil.

Religion, whole or distorted, *may* be.

Religion is like any institution created by and composed of people.  It can be used badly, or used effectively to achieve repugnant objectives.  That it can be--and has been many times-- is not to say that it typically is.


----------



## xav

> Holocaust: millions of Jews have been slaughtered just because they belonged to some religion, not because of their faith... And they have been mostly killed by Christians, who basically believe in the same god as the Jews' one.


 
I'd rather say "by ex-Christians".

The XXth century saw more than 150 000 000 people murdered for four new religions : communism, nazism-fascism, nationalism, and humanism (the faith in the Man). 

Only the fourth one isn't dead today.

I'd like to add that Christianism isn't a religion, but a relation - with a living God and with His son. Of course, there were a lot of deviations into religions, sects, gnoses and so on, and religion wars which were a horror (d'you can say that ?). But the XXth Century was much more successful in destroying human lives : the power of man had much increased.

So, now, the alternative is :
- either the atom bomb comes in the hands of (nationalist, humanist, atheist...) power-addicted people
- either it comes in the hands of religious fanatics who think they have to pread their religion by force (suivez mon regard)

the result will be exactly the same, don't you think so ?


----------



## luar

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> Religion is like any institution created by and composed of people. It can be used badly, or used effectively to achieve repugnant objectives. That it can be--and has been many times-- is not to say that it typically is.


I agree. Any religion, or ideology, is as good or as bad as the people who practice it; and remember we, human beings, are not exactly angels.


----------



## Fernando

Xav is an optimistic. I would not say that communism and nazi-fascism are dead. Nationalism certainly is not and humanism does not show its beautiest face (Renaissance).

I would concede you that, since religion is based in a block of believes, tends to be self-protective and bigotry is its main deviation. So, it can produce intolerance, progroms and wars, but you could say the same about any other beliefs based on a book (communism, fascism) or not (nationalism).


----------



## cuchuflete

There is another perspective on this subject.  Faith is often  an intensely individual thing.  Those who choose to put it into practice in their quotidian affairs may choose to practice that faith in a social structure called a religion.  Some religions claim that faith is flawed unless done in a group of peope, normally in a hierarchichal structure. 

 If "blind" faith is extended to the righteousness of the social structure, run by women and men, then I wonder if it is then 'blind faith' in a deity or extra-human power, or a devoted belief in a very human social invention.  If a person's faith is educated, guided, dictated, by the interpretation of people in an institution, is it really 'blind faith' that can claim to be about a deity?

Now take all those words, and apply them to a political party.
They fit as well or as badly.  Human institutions do evil things.
Faith distorted into blind adherence to any institution-- including those that are atheistic, the religious ones, and those entirely indifferent to the topic of faith--can support evil.

Institutions, whether or not religious, devote much of their energy and resources to preserving the institutions themselves.  That is not devine work.  It's about power and preservation of man- and woman-made organizations.


----------



## Outsider

I agree with what Agnès wrote, except one point, the dichotomy between religion and faith. Can there be faith without some sort of organized religion? I don't think there are any historical examples of that, though perhaps the future will differ.

And, if organized religion is a source of evil, then you might as well say the same about organized political power, financial corporations, armies... Those institutions don't seem much more innocent than religious institutions.


----------



## Fernando

Totally agree with Cuchu, but...

The most violent manifestations of religious intolerance and bigotry has not been performed by institutions but for individuals, who had a "higher faith". Institutions tend to be conservatives and only reach radical extremes when there is no other solution (from their point of view). Oklahoma or 9/11 attacks have been performed by individuals or groups or individuals that feel that their religious leaders are too shy and cowards.

The 1st Crusade have both sides: The main impulse came from the Popes and the kings but the first blow was done by a crowd of spontaneous beggars and humble people. They performed the worst anti-Jew progroms in the Balkans while kings and knights were marching in order.


----------



## cuchuflete

Fernando said:
			
		

> The most violent manifestations of religious intolerance and bigotry has not been performed by institutions but for individuals, who had a "higher faith"....



This may need its own thread Fernando.  I think you have said something very important...mob mentality (_sic_!) as an alternative source of evil.  Is it guided by any institution, or by the absolute lack of institutional guidance?


----------



## *Cowgirl*

Agnès E. said:
			
		

> And Europeans are humans. Do you mean that humans are the root of all evil?


 
I agree. Humans and our desires (whether for good or evil) are the root of all evil. (Unless you believe in spiritual warfare which is a whole new can of worms...)

Hitler was an extremist and at the beginning he may have been trying to do what he thought that God intended (I doubt it, but hey I'm not Hitler,) but eventually he was out to please himself. The suicide bombers are also extremists. Did any one see the interview with Barbra Walters when she interviewed an attempted suicide bomber and then a Muslim religious scholar? Their responses were almost always totally different. Very interesting....

Faith vs. Religion - I have faith that I will wake up tomorrow morning, but it certainly isn't my religion.....


----------



## ampurdan

Is faith and religion the root of all evil? Well, if I found this kind of formulation in a test, I would inmediately know which of both only possible options I should cross in order to have more possibilities to be right ¾They obviously are not. This kind of question reminds me the priests, back in school, that told us that "the sin is the cause of all evils"; and they meant even natural disasters! You won't wonder why Religion was one of the easiest subjects there…

Back to topic, I agree that Faith and Believe is not a monopoly of somehow organized religions... ANY knowledge needs some faith, even when we strictly check empirically some hypothesis (something I myself have never done), we have faith and confidence in our senses. I know almost everything I know through believe, trust, confidence, faith and a bunch of similar words that revolve about the idea of relying on something else than oneself. Bona fides (Trust) is not only the base of our societies, is the base of the World as we perceive it. Knowing through faith and reason is far more economic that knowing through bare reason and personal observation, if I had had to check all I've been taught, I would be still in the first school years... But obviously, I must not believe everything it’s been said to me (that’s one of the things every kid does check “empirically” through a mischievous sibling or schoolmate).

Thus, the knowledge who deserves more confidence, faith, reliance etc. is the one some determined people provide you… Your mum, your daddy, other family members, teachers, mates who rule the roost, the ones who seem to know how the real world is about, the rabbi, the guru, your football trainer, the imam, the priest who talks about the Pope, the reverend, professors in the university, your gossiping neighbour, scientists, books, magazins, TV documentaries and reality shows, your boss, the owner of the bar just around the corner, shrilling and moderate commentators on the media, friends or acquaintences you appreciate as being sound or knowledgeable in some subject: RELIABLE SOURCES. You learn to know who is more and who is less reliable in different subjects, and you will learn that probably nobody is absolutely reliable on everything. At one point in this process you may realize that all what you know for sure has been learned through other people… And you’ll feel so tiny and unable to say a single thing for sure. “How do I know…? I don’t know. I think I know, but I just believe it”: you might say and I bet you wouldn’t be far from truth this time. But don’t lose heart! During all this time you will probably have learnt to use the tools that can help you find your way through all this world of believes. One of them is reason.

All what has been taught to you can at least be critisided by the use of reason (and also using what seems reason but it’s not: fallacies). You trust people who have allegedly reached some truths by using reason and experimentation… Well, as for the rest of us, common mortals, everything should be quite opinable. It should, but many times only other people’s ideas are opinable, not one’s own; one's own ideas are true (true-blue) _at least_ until proven otherwise, no matter whether you were teached to be critical or trained dogmatically… It’s simply because our believes are practical truths for us in the everyday life; most of them are not conscious believes, they are simply things we take for granted, we never even ask ourselves about them. If I had lived in Egypt around 3000 b.C., when I had raised my eyes from the furrow I had been ploughing, had mopped my brow and had looked at the failing red setting sun, I might just have said to a partner: “Look, Horus is being bloodily sliced by Osiris so soon today, let’s go home have a rest until Isis pieces him together and he can fly again”. Well, we do likewise with our believes today and, much as we should be enlightened, we probably will tomorrow. You may take for granted that “something” is looking at you from “up there”, that your father is the best father you could ever have, that you must give your blood for your country’s sake, that she adores you and you are a sex machine, that nobody cares, that “give me your two cents” is a polite way to ask for someone’s opinion in English, that a woman is a woman is woman is a woman, that you are fated to make a difference someday etc. (any other examples are welcome, right now, my imagination is failing as a bleeding Horus). 

Since we base our acts upon opinable assumptions and believes, we might commit mistakes and since we are provided with reason, by using it, we can realize we’ve done them… Well, that’s being optimistic, I know: we may perfectly fail to recognize our mistakes, even to ourselves. In fact, all of our believes and unrecognized mistakes, without self-critical reason and some social consideration can lead us to delusion and insanity; and just without reason, to dogmatism, which is a desease spread through idiology, such as -but not exclusively- some religions. The problem with religious dogmatism is that it tends to be alienating, putting stress in the afterlife rather than this one, so that the paradise is worth the most laudable sacrifices, but also blatantly inhuman acts (maybe even combined within the same person?). Suddenly, this delusory device appears very, very tasty…

EDIT- Xav and Fernando, what exactly do you mean by "humanism"?


----------



## Fernando

The definition of Xav would be (I am assuming) that humanism humanism is the faith in Man as an absolute. It is not maybe the most usual one, but I have seen it before.

I prefer to use the "Renaissance" one: Man has the possibility of Knowledge, and Progression. Of course, there is a Christian Humanism (from Erasmo).


----------



## Ana Raquel

faith = strong belief

belief = mental acceptance of something as true

truth = a fact that has been verified


When religions/idelologies impose their beliefs as "truths", the possibility of evil arises.


----------



## xav

For me, "faith" has the original Hebrew meaning of "confidence", going until "total confidence". One of the Christian's goal, maybe the most important one, is that his/her confidence in God increases and increases, in the same time as knowledge and love.

If your confidence is in the man, in his goodness, in his intelligence, in his trend to truth and his ability to solve, you're a Humanist in the christian meaning of the word - which slightly differs from the Renaissance one, based on culture, reason and knowledge of Greek, Latin and their autors ; but isn't this humanism a rediscovery of the Man, his beauty and his ability to think by himself ? Anyway, if you are a humanist, I suggest you re-read the history of the XXth century.

If your confidence is in your reason, your ability to think and to build up your own judgement on everything, you're a Rationalist, like most of French people. Doesn't drive to war, but to nihilism and, erm... see Alfred Camus.

If your confidence is in money, in your saving, in your ability to earn money... Woe to you, your world will nextly crash down, as soon as China will stop lending to the US enough money to buy its products !


----------



## ammon101

I'll state my opinion simply. 

Religion can indeed be used as a tool for destruction. In cases where it has been used for terrorism or oppression of any sort I see religion as being used for *fueling* hate and evil.

My basic tenants of belief in the potential goodness in the major religions of the world include the following (condensed for clarity):

1) Religion is a tool. Tools can be used for good (increased awareness of self, others, God) or evil (oppression, blinding others, expressions of hate that hurt or otherwise depreciate innocents)

2) Truth is eternal. Truths are based according to universal laws of spirit and matter that bind the universe together.

3) All major religions are based in a degree of truth. 

4) People that truly study/seek TRUTH "hungerly" and with an open mind find the most remarkable FREEDOM and are led to greater truth, and thus are among the happiest of all people being in sync with themselves, God, and their community.

5) Exploring the tenants of faith as a group, discussion, worship service, etc. can (if done with that "hunger" for truth) expand the sync between God, self, and others and further deepen the freedom that one finds.

6) As soon as ANY RELIGION or religious sect demands "blind faith" it ceases to be useful in promoting spiritual maturity and the wholistic health and community care that accompany one's devotion to seeking and following truth. It is at this very moment when the risk is great for abusing that organization to appease the whims and vain ambitions of self-serving monsters.

7) As truth is clearly distinct from error it is discernable. God helps us see where the truth is because it nourishes our spirits and brings about life-changing reform. The (a) persistent “hungering” for God-given eternal truth and (b) embracing it wherever it is found is the *purest expression of faith*.

I have witnessed the power of seeking and embracing eternal truths everywhere they are found. I have never seen anyone more at peace than when they are wholly devoted to their religion as a means of gaining greater sense of meaning and purpose.

So, in summary and tying it back to the original question:
-_Faith _(openly seeking God given truth) cannot espouse blindness and evil as they are inherent opposites.
-_Religion_ on the other hand could be used (like any tool) for evil purposes but none of the major religions I am familiar with is inherently evil. 

Good discussion,
Ammon Larsen.


----------



## Ana Raquel

Hi Ammon, yes, good discussion, 
let me point out something regarding your words:





			
				ammon101 said:
			
		

> 7) As truth is clearly distinct from error it is discernable. God helps us see where the truth is because it nourishes our spirits and brings about life-changing reform. The (a) persistent “hungering” for God-given eternal truth and (b) embracing it wherever it is found is the *purest expression of faith*.
> 
> 
> Good discussion,


 
when you have found a truth, it is not faith, it is knowledge. At that point, you don't need faith, you know.


----------



## Fernando

Define knowledge.


----------



## ammon101

Ana Raquel said:
			
		

> Hi Philippa, all
> 
> the root of evil, hmm, it depends on the person, but yes, I think it can lead to evil because faith is the opposite of knowing.
> I mean, if we need to have faith is becasue we don't know something. If we knew, we wouldn't need any faith. We don't need to have faith in the gravity force because we experience it, we can verify it, but when we are basing our "truths" on faith (= we don't know), this can lead us to the most unfair situations.


 


			
				Ana Raquel said:
			
		

> Hi Ammon, yes, good discussion,
> let me point out something regarding your words:
> 
> when you have found a truth, it is not faith, it is knowledge. At that point, you don't need faith, you know.


 
I whole heartedly agree and realize that there is a lot I had to leave out of my post. On of them that I probably should have included more explicitely is how _faith leads us to knowledge. _A funamental principle behind my opinion that neither faith nor religion is inherently blinding/evil is that when (a) one is following the truths as they understand them, and (b) hungrily seeks God's guidance, such a person is then led to a more refined understanding of eternal truths (as defined in my post) and led to more truth. 

In all such situations the process of _faithfully _searching out the eternal truths and embracing them wherever found is open-eyed (not blind), discernable, exciting, and allows for an individual's choice in how to apply that truth (not oppressive), liberating (not binding) and promoting harmony with other truth seekers regardless of their religion (not war and conflict).

Said simply eternal truth as it relates to spirit, and not just matter, is only discernable when it is sought through reaching out to God in our spirits.  The challenge for most people when this argument is presented is how universal, eternal truths can't be seen or scientifically measured so one can only find them through faith.  The great thing about this is once we go through this process and apply what "tastes good" to our spirits (even though one doesn't have a perfect knowledge of its truth yet) we then allow the truth to change us resulting in being in greater sync with God, self, and others as well as resulting in a more sure knowledge that what was applied is *true*.


----------



## ampurdan

Well, I don’t know any “humanist” organization around the world right now, as to compare “humanism” to christianisms, islamisms, judaisms, comunisms, nazism and nationalisms, and, excuse my ignorance, I don’t know of murders instigated by any “humanism”... Maybe it would be a good idea to explain a little what part of tose 150 000 000 deaths account for this “humanism” and how did it happen (in a new thread, or else this one will have to bear the silencing consequences from being off-topic).

Ana Raquel, I think that you could agree that a great deal of the knowledge you get in School is only based in the faith/trust in the theachers, the authors, etc. other people’s statements… And you still call it knowledge, even the part that it is not falsifiable or verifiable. Of course, perfect knowledge of truth requires no faith, but this kind of approach only interests the different theologies, I think, and does not suit human knowledge very well. 

But not all believes must deserve the same trust. Things that are per se unverifiable merit less trust, particularly: metaphysical speech such as: “Truth is eternal”. What is this “truth”? Truth is not a substance, but something predicable from statements, and statements may be true in some respect but not in other, they may be true today and wrong tomorrow… I’m not really sure that any of them are eternal. “Truths are based according to universal laws of spirit and matter that bind the universe together”. So now there’s more than one truth and it is based on laws… Excuse me, what laws?

I will continue on Ammon reasoning: “all major religions are based in a degree of truth”. Well, I’m glad they do, the worrying part is the extent in which they are not based on it.

“People that truly study/seek TRUTH "hungerly" and with an open mind find the most remarkable FREEDOM and are led to greater truth, and thus are among the happiest of all people being in sync with themselves, God, and their community”.

That’s a falsifiable premise, and I think it’s false since I think there are antisocial, turmented people, atheists and agnostics between those who seek truth.

“Exploring the tenants of faith as a group, discussion, worship service, etc. can (if done with that "hunger" for truth) expand the sync between God, self, and others and further deepen the freedom that one finds”. I don’t understand this one. What exactly does “exploring the tenants of faith as a group” mean?

“As soon as ANY RELIGION or religious sect demands "blind faith" it ceases to be useful in promoting spiritual maturity and the wholistic health and community care that accompany one's devotion to seeking and following truth”.

I can understand this statement.

“As truth is clearly distinct from error it is discernable. God helps us see where the truth is because it nourishes our spirits and brings about life-changing reform”. 

Well, that’s not my experience at all, my God does not tell me where is the truth and where is the error (much as I should have asked him during my last exam... sorry, just kidding). 

“The (a) persistent “hungering” for God-given eternal truth and (b) embracing it wherever it is found is the *purest expression of faith*”.

Well, at least it is an act of believing something.

“I have never seen anyone more at peace than when they are wholly devoted to their religion as a means of gaining greater sense of meaning and purpose”.

Well, my experience tells me that this kind of people may be also as peacefull as someone who is neither particularly after truth, neither after God, an that among does who do, the angriest of temperaments and most frustrated of spirits.

_“Faith _(openly seeking God given truth) cannot espouse blindness and evil as they are inherent opposites”. 

Sorry but there is I don’t see any ground to state such thing. I don’t see why personal faith may not be blind to the truth. Of course faith in God is not evil per se, but depending on what that God says to you, there may come some insane or evil consequences to other people.


----------



## Ana Raquel

Hi Fernando,


			
				Fernando said:
			
		

> Define knowledge.


 
Certainty reached through verification.


----------



## cuchuflete

I am pleasantly surprised that all of us have stayed in touch with the original topic.  We have drifted, usefully I believe, into some nearby areas, but these have been mostly to clarify definitions of terms.

As we go on, please note....



> Reminder: This is the thread topic:
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Philippa*
> _the main idea he was explaining was that religion has at its core a lack of logic/blind faith and that since unshakeable faith that isn't based on any evidence cannot be argued with, no compromises are possible and so it leads to religious hate and terrorism.
> What do you guys think?
> _


----------



## Everness

Let's refocus on Richard Dawkins, the person. He is clearly one of the most knowledgeable, brilliant and articulate evolutionary biologists alive. That's the persona, and we are all happy to have him around. However, his morbid obession with religion ...

*Severe Mod intervention:  The post immediately before this one was a message giving thanks to all prior participants for staying on topic.  

This heavily edited post was a diatribe about Mr. Dawkins. 

 Mr. Dawkins is not the thread topic.   *


----------



## Lizziewoo

Agnès E. said:
			
		

> Faith is not under human control. Either you believe, or you don't. This has nothing to do with logic, reason or anything consistent. There is nothing bad in any faith, as it is only a private question of a person and his beliefs.
> 
> Religion is a creation of men in order to try to master and monitor other people's faith, and to organise the cult to the relevant deity. As soon as there is religion, there is power, hierarchy, strong and weak, right and wrong, true and false, rights and duties... there comes time for evil.


 
Agnes makes a very interesting point. To me, it seems that religion is being used as an EXCUSE to be evil. Having faith and being religious does not give you the right to be evil and to do whatever it takes to make others follow you. 

In todays newspaper I was reading about the Muslim cleric Abu Hamza who preaches 'murder and hatred', urging followers to kill non-believers: 

Prosecutor David Perry told the court, 
'In the course of one lecture, he accused the jews of being blasphemous, traitors and dirty. This, because of the treachery, because of the blasphemy and filth, was why Hitler was sent into the world.'   

Hamza has denied 15 charges of soliciting to kill, stirring up racial hatred and owning information likely to help terrorism. 

For me, religion is about guiding me and helping me through life by being a better person, leading a good example and of course, being anything other than evil. My faith guides and strengthens me. I am catholic but this does not mean that I hate all jews, muslims, protestants, etc. I accept that other people have different beliefs to me and I would never attack people because they have a different faith. 

I do not agree that religion is the root of all evil, however I do believe that religion is used as the *excuse *for evil. There are some people that believe their religion is the right path and anyone that disagrees is wrong and should therefore be punished. This is a complete contradiction; how can being religious give someone the right to persecute others that don't believe? Surely religion is there to make us better people, to help us through life and to give people strength...  ?


----------



## Everness

Are faith and religion the root of all evil? No. It's stupidity, prejudice and hatred. And you don't need to have faith in God to embrace the above attributes. 

Why do we do what we do? How can human behavior be explained? Picture a triangle with three levels. The bottom of the triangle represents the biological level of integration of human behavior. E.g.:heredity. The middle part represents the psychological level of integration of human behavior. E.g.: conscious and unconscious motivators. The top of the triangle represents the axiological level of integration of human behavior. E.g.: ideologies and belief systems. This triangle is surrounded by a circle that represents the social, cultural, economic, etc. factors that shape human behavior.  

To say that values rooted in faith and religion are solely responsible for the irrational violence that has kidnapped our world (9/11, invasion of Iraq, etc.) is plain nonsense. Ideologies that have done and continue to do extreme damage to humankind. E.g.: racism, classism, sexism, etc. belong to the axiological level of integration of human behavior. Even communism and capitalism, two political and economic theories of society, belong to the axiological level. Individuals are socialized into these ideologies which then inform their behavior. For instance, if you ask an American why he/she isn't a communist, you'll get emotional answers that associate communism with evil. People know emotionally --anecdotically at best-- but not rationally why they aren't communists. Interestingly enough, organized religion has sometimes been the only voice to denounce the social maladies listed above as well as the excesses of capitalism and communism.  

My point? It's true that organized religion has displayed throughout the years stupidity, prejudice and hatred. However, it has also contributed to the betterment of the human condition. The fallacy of Dawkins' argument is that it demonizes faith and religion and makes them the ultimate and exclusive causes of all evil.


----------



## fenixpollo

_


			
				Cowgirl said:
			
		


			What's the point of hanging around on this for eighty or so years if there is no divine power? If there no body/ nothing out there to take care of us, then why are we are. I mean, you can't honestly tell me that you think all life just crawled out of some pond...
		
Click to expand...

_ The point of hanging around is TO LIVE. It is a beautiful experience to actually live, to relish feeling and thinking and sensing, to enjoy the present without worrying about what will happen when I die, whether there is a creator and whether she is following a plan or is she just "winging it". I can't know the plan anyway, so why cause myself stress about it? Living isn't purpose enough? Must there be a "higher" purpose? No, I don't need anyone out there "to take care of me." Yes, I can honestly tell you that I think that life just crawled out of some pond.

edit:  My point is that my faith (interpret it as you wish) does not depend on any religion or church.  I agree with Agnés that the two are separate and that the latter is as often a force for dividing humans than it is for uniting them. 





			
				Chas said:
			
		

> faith is not a cause for evil...only evil religions.


 Define "evil religions". In fact, define "evil". What are "good" and "evil" but two subjective terms that are merely used by the person who is talking to paint an argument in black and white? They are terms that have been mis-managed by religions. Just like "truth", which is an attempt to define one point of view as the right one, "evil" is an attempt to define other actions as inherently and abhorrently wrong. I can't say more about this subject that hasn't been said better by greater minds. 





			
				ampurdan said:
			
		

> I will continue on Ammon reasoning: “all major religions are based in a degree of truth”. Well, I’m glad they do, the worrying part is the extent in which they are not based on it.


I agree with everything in ampurdan's post about truth. 





			
				Chas said:
			
		

> There is violence in the Judeo-Christian bible/Middle-Eastern bibles, but it is not there because of the nature of God, but because of the nature of men.


Many people disagree with this; the argument being that the Hebrew god of the old testament was a vengeful, often violent god, and that this idea of God has changed in the modern Protestant version of a beneficent, caring God.

Humans invented the concept of _faith_. Humans invented the concept of _evil_. Only humans can define what is evil and what is good. Therefore, *Humans are the source of all good and all evil. Nature/The Universe/God is not inherently good or evil; it just is.*


----------



## Fernando

Living is OK. Anyway, if World is what-you-see-is-what-you-get, the logical consequence (to me) is "Avoid pain, look for pleasure". Some quite logical consequence of this thinking is: "I do not mind a sh*t if the world blows up one minute after I die". Another is: "I will commit suicide if I feel one minute of pain, Why should I bear it?" And so on.

Evil religions are those that propose and require evil deeds. Example: Aztec religion, which required human sacrifices, was an evil religion. I could be wrong, obviously, if I am misinformed about that or if the social situation at the moment was not very much better.

About truth and evil. Of course good/evil, truth/falsehood exists. If not, why are you trying to convince us, fenix?

I agree that the concept of God in the Old Testament was not exactly funny. I disagree that the idea of God changed with protestantism to the better. Puritans were scared to death by God. The image changed with the New Testament.

The Universe is not good or evil. God is good (funny English play of words) and humans have a sense of what is good, coming from God (or from somewhere/somebody else).


----------



## cuchuflete

Ahemmm,

This is going to hurt me more than it bothers you...

BUT...this thread is not about whether we came from an act of god or God, or whether we are descended from a pond.

We can have lots of discussions about that, about whether faith requires religion, or even if all religions require faith.
It is absolutely not about whether a happy, fulfilled, decent life requires either one or both or none.

But not here, please.   

Before posting, please read post #1, or any of the copies I've left lying around.

Gracias,
Cuchu


----------



## ampurdan

Fernando said:
			
		

> Living is OK. Anyway, if World is what-you-see-is-what-you-get, the logical consequence (to me) is "Avoid pain, look for pleasure". Some quite logical consequence of this thinking is: "I do not mind a sh*t if the world blows up one minute after I die". Another is: "I will commit suicide if I feel one minute of pain, Why should I bear it?" And so on.


 Non-sequitur.

Fernando, I think you've realized that your judgement of Aztec religion might be applied to Catholic Christianism, also. Don't you?

I do believe there are morally good and evil actions, but I agree that it's human being who decides which is good, which is morally indiferent and which is evil (in fact, we've been surreptitiously deciding these kinds of things since long time), nature cannot provide us any clue.


----------



## cuchuflete

Ampurdan (te felicito por los 2000 valiosos mensajes),

Haz el favor de leer el post #52.

Gracias,
Cuchu


----------



## Fernando

Of course, I do not have any problem in saying that the interpretation of Christianism by Torquemada was evil. 

Of course, it is every human being who decides (right or wrongly) what it is good or bad.

Nature can not order us what to do. If lions kill preys or spiders kill spiders I am not forced to kill people. But it can provide us some "clues" (no religion at all):

- Look for pleasure. Avoid pain. (This is certainly a moral rule I would not scorn. I am simply saying it is not the only one).
- Do not kill your children (at least, on a regular basis).
- Follow your nature. If you are a lion, kill zebras. If you are a zebra, run.

But you are right. As clues, are very loose ones.


----------



## fenixpollo

Fernando said:
			
		

> About truth and evil. Of course good/evil, truth/falsehood exists. If not, why are you trying to convince us, fenix?


 Because some religions tell me that because I am human, therefore I am evil (I sin). I reject that idea and I resent it. I would like to discuss human behavior without resorting to absolutes. No human is absolutely evil nor absolutely good. 





			
				Obi-Wan Kenobi said:
			
		

> Only a Sith deals in absolutes.


 


			
				Fer said:
			
		

> I disagree that the idea of God changed with protestantism to the better.


 I didn't mean to imply that it was Protestantism that changed the view of God. I jumped from the Hebrew concept to the Protestant concept only to contrast them, not to suggest that the Protestants were responsible for the change in concept. I agree with you that they were not responsible for that.





			
				Nando said:
			
		

> The Universe is not good or evil. God is good (funny English play of words) and humans have a sense of what is good, coming from God (or from somewhere/somebody else).


Since I do not share your faith, I do not share this view of good and evil. Since the Universe is neither good nor evil, humans create their own sense of good (and evil).


----------



## Fernando

fenixpollo said:
			
		

> Because some religions tell me that because I am human, therefore I am evil (I sin). I reject that idea and I resent it. I would like to discuss human behavior without resorting to absolutes. No human is absolutely evil nor absolutely good. ).


 
About the "original sin" there are several interpretations. Anyway nobody, or at least only extremists (but I can be wrong) that "human is bad"



			
				fenixpollo said:
			
		

> I didn't mean to imply that it was Protestantism that changed the view of God. I jumped from the Hebrew concept to the Protestant concept only to contrast them, not to suggest that the Protestants were responsible for the change in concept. I agree with you that they were not responsible for that.



Agreed. Since there are a very wide range of Protestants there is a wide range of visions of God. Some are more "sympathetic" to the man, others are less.



			
				fenixpollo said:
			
		

> I do not share this view of good and evil.



I did not expect you to.  This would kill the conversation.



			
				fenixpollo said:
			
		

> Since the Universe is neither good nor evil, humans create their own sense of good (and evil).



Let assume you are right. We do not have God, we have no Nature-God. Which is the basis of such a morality? Do not misunderstand me. I am not saying that there is impossible to fund a morality without Nature/God. I am saying:

1) It is difficult.
2) It is not easely shareable.
3) You will have to enforce it since it is not based in nothing you can see. So, why should THE RELIGION BE THE BASIS OF ALL EVIL if any (or many) other solutions come back to enforcement, discussion and rage? Since French Revolution to NSDAP.


----------



## fenixpollo

Fernando said:
			
		

> I am not saying that there is impossible to fund a morality without Nature/God. I am saying:
> 
> 1) It is difficult.
> 2) It is not easely shareable.
> 3) You will have to enforce it since it is not based in nothing you can see. So, why should THE RELIGION BE THE BASIS OF ALL EVIL if any (or many) other solutions come back to enforcement, discussion and rage? Since French Revolution to NSDAP.


  I agree with you 100%.  In fact, even with Nature/God, morality is not easily shareable.  Look at our world today, and assume there is a God.  How many of the 6 billion humans share your morality or mine?

What is NSDAP?


----------



## Fernando

Many of them. Most of them will agree that killing is bad, you must respect the laws, government has to have some link to the people, a family is a good thing...

Obviously the details are "a bit" diffuse: Some of them will say that there are some exceptions when killing is good. The family varies from town to town, etc., but there is a common ground. Why? I do not know your solution. Mine is God made us quite alike (and quite similar to Him). Children (the wicked beings), this SoaBs, lie, rob and even kill. But from, say, 7/8 years they know they are lying because they are doing something BAD. 

NSDAP = NazionalSozialiste Deutsche Arbeiter Partei (Nazi Party). I am quite sure I am misspelling in German.


----------



## fenixpollo

Fernando said:
			
		

> Many of them. Most of them will agree that killing is bad,


 Some people's faith/religion says that killing is bad.... unless it's in self-defense, or in war, or as punishment for a serious crime, or in abortion, or as a sacrifice to a deity,etc.  

Which of these is evil?  If they are all endorsed by a faith/religion, are they good or evil?  If they are not endorsed or, conversely, rejected by a faith/religion, are they good or evil?  Who decides?

Of course, _my_ answer is that each individual human decides, with no previous programming from nature/god/universe.


----------



## Fernando

When you decide with your freedom you will have to justify your choose, won't you? People do, every day. You are programmed, believe it or not. "Free" decisions are free, but are to be based on something. Freedom is not caprice. It is taking a decision having any knowledge about its consequences, and JUDGING if the outcome is GOOD or BAD.

You judge, every day, every second. Your decision ought (and use to) be based in your personal INFORMED judgement, not in some voices in their head, what is so enslaver and crazy as a I-do-what-Pope-says person. 

Right. You are not going to consider bad all that the Pope says it is bad, but I think you should consider what the Pope (and your guru, and your parents, and friends, and books and personal experience, and scientists, and sons, and stones and clouds) say to you it is good. After all that you must go your own way.

In some fields, those who follow a religion believe what they are said to believe ONCE they have decided that is their truth. Obviously in most religions they can disengage at any moment. When not I disagree. They disagree all the time on what the priests or Politburo do. When not, I disagree.


----------



## Gabriel Marín Aballi

Maybe,there is some concealed intention in this title thread,since We CANNOT put the blame on RELIGIONS ONLY for all the calamities in this temporal sceneray we've been sent. It's IMPOSSIBLE for the GOOD to exist without a CONTRASTING ENTITY: The EVIL. No RELIGION can help it...It always have been a police and thieves affair,the engine,the machinery,the dinamism of this SYSTEM...


----------



## cuchuflete

Maybe there is no concealed intention in this thread title...just an honest question...a request for people's ideas.


----------



## Gabriel Marín Aballi

My apologize for being excited in writing. Never meant to bother anybody. It was about benevolent intentions. But,rules are rules. It´s O.K.


----------

