|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|
It is quite understandable for the rationals to pity the believers for their purported ignorance and obstinate adherence to their religious beliefs. They think they know the truth which may well be the case. What I do not understand is the way they put down the believers as though they were some dimwits. There have even been some instances of ugly incidents that had resulted from heated arguments. Isn't this vehemence the very anti-thesis of rational thinking? Why can't they let the "ignorants" to themselves and move on themselves?
Two extreme being tolerance of each other, good luck with that. I fing it difficult enough to be accepted by most the God fearing people.
I offer middle ground solutions, yet most onesided groups would rather fight than switch to a new way of thinking. As long as people are fighting, the greedy will walk away with the money, in turns harm nature, and our health..
So I know I probably replied enough in this thread but it's a bit frustrating to see so much ignorance coming from those who claim they are intelligent and reasonable.
For example this quote here
This may be something true of third world countries but in present day US and much of the world this is utter nonsense.
As I have said multiple times already, and people seem to not understand the meaning, religion and science are NOT exclusive towards each other. This means someone can believe in and study both. There are many many many religions, and from what I've seen in this thread most people only have experience with a few. Some of these religions do believe in evolution and other scientific theories. Believing in a religion does not mean that one cannot work in or study science.
Those that do not believe in such scientific theories are better off not working in the scientific fields in your opinion, no? If someone is so easily able to convince themselves that something is true without proof or evidence than they're probably not someone you want to be conducting scientific experiments.
I would also like to point out that there are scientific theories and studies regarding religious events. Again science and religion are not exclusive of each other.
Religion is not what is holding back science and medicine.
I would also like to say that the majority of religions do not brainwash. Which by the way is defined as; In order to brainwash a person to believe in a religion you would have to cloister them away from society.
Because in today's society religious beliefs are tested daily. Not only do you have ignorant internet identities directly attacking people for their beliefs but you have movies, tv shows, books, and other media outlets posing questions about existence, religion, beliefs, and self identity.
Believing in a religion is a personal choice. Much like a decision to be agnostic, ignostic, or atheist. Not a choice that someone makes for you in the modern world. I also do not believe it is a radical belief as I have already mentioned, even as far back as my first post. The radical members of any movement are the memorable ones and that is perhaps the reason for much confusion.
Also I do not believe that religious parties play a large role in disrupting people's lives. Quite the opposite. There are very few cases where religious parties go around disrupting people's daily lives. As I have already mentioned most people will stop talking to you about religion if you tell them you are not comfortable with the conversation. And also mentioned this, being atheist does not mean that people are banned from discussing or talking about their religion around you. That's censorship.
For many believing in a religion is a way to support their emotional and spiritual well being. It helps them feel at peace with their current situations, decisions, and with the people around them. It also makes them feel included in a larger family that will help support them through difficult times. While many are welcoming towards newcomers very few go knocking door to door. In my experience those that do our not doing so with ill intent. So I think it's a bit rude to meet their goodwill with aggression. Simply telling them that you're not really interested will suffice.
What I tend to see online very often is people already predisposed for bigotry towards those with religious beliefs attacking said person's beliefs when the person posts something about their religion. Bigotry is Many people in today's society are intolerant of religion for very poor reasons as can be seen here. Most are biased images formed from a handful of encounters. Those then create an aggressive initial reaction when meeting those that have a belief in religion. Either by attacking their beliefs or by attacking the person's intelligence.
Honestly intolerance towards someone's personal choices is quite sad. Telling someone they shouldn't believe in something because YOU think it's an ignorant or wrong decision is not something any grown adult should think is okay. It wouldn't be okay for you to go around telling someone who chose to be openly gay that they were ignorant or wrong and their decision wasn't reasonable. It's not considered acceptable or decent in modern society.
And no, most reasonable religions in the modern world would not do such things. They would not throw a fit and attack someone for being gay. They might say they disagree with the person's decision. But for the Bible believers the book says to love your neighbor, and that includes when he does or believes something you disagree with.
Again the people you think of rioting are the radical members of religious society who use a book as a means to rationalize their hatred. Much as some use science to rationalize their hatred of those that believe in religion.
I'm sorry if you disagree but I'm a believer in not judging a book by it's cover. You're more likely to realize how nice people are if you don't go in believing they're ignorant and attacking their beliefs. Keeping an open mind promotes intelligence. When you start closing off your mind to other ideas and beliefs you've stopped allowing in new information. You've stopped growing.
This is probably the last time I will post in this thread though I will answer questions if someone wanted clarification on my meaning or something. I tried to make meanings as clear as possible so hopefully that doesn't happen. I will likely not respond to attacks or aggressive posts as those usually come from people not looking for enlightenment, but looking for a fight or looking to be right. I'm not interested in either of those last two.
Probably because religionists are always trying to get their religious beliefs into school classrooms, and onto the law books. I hear it's a constant battle.
Depending on which "religionists" you mean, and considering the present state of society, it might not be a bad idea. Seems the country was progressing while those items were a part of the curriculum.
We could even experiment and go back to the 3 R's, readin', ritin' and rithmic instead of the present day teachings of the 3 C's, condoms, coke and coexistence.
I never really looked at it like that before. I've seen that school is a FAR cry from "old-school" school. The teachers had a paddle, the students did what she said, or there were consequences, the teacher was in school til 5. The teachers separated and tutored students needing extra help while the class quietly worked on other assignments. She noticed everything and everyone.
Here it is.
One's own Belief produces good effects on oneself. Other's Beliefs…? Not so much.
Atheism is mostly a request to allow one to think for oneself and come to one's own conclusions.
Prejudice on the part of atheists can occur, however, and they can become defensive when even in proximity to a Believer.
Believers do need to tone it down a bit. Speak when asked, is my rule.
(Do I follow my own rule? Another story.
But, at least I can admit when I have "asked for it" from an atheist.)
I believe to truly understand the issue you have to first understand the vast scope of religion. It is not merely Christianity. Christianity itself is a vast and diverse collection of smaller religious groups with vastly different beliefs and behaviors.
Not all religions believe in a heaven or a hell. Some believe in reincarnation and karma. Some have vengeful gods and some have none. But what the opponents of religious beliefs tend to do is compress all these varying religions into one biased word; radical.
Not all religious people are radical and to assume that the majority are is an incorrect assumption. Radical religious members tend to stand out more than those who are civil and/or accepting of different religious, even atheist, views. Because of this I often see many atheist posting rude comments attacking all religious peoples with the view of this radical in mind. This itself is a biased viewpoint quite ironically.
I understand that many may have a limited experience in dealing with people of different religions and the radical may be their only experience. But it is also worth pointing out that many atheist are not accepting of those that are religious. As can be seen right here on this page; some people do not want to hear about differing religions.
I also see some confusion here between Atheism and Agnosticism. Atheism is the firm belief that a god or gods do not exist. In contrast Agnosticism is the position of not being sure whether a god exist or not. Neither are a request to think and speak for oneself. They are a viewpoint. (The meaning of this being that people may not associate you stating that you are Atheist with the words, "Don't talk to me about religion." They are not synonyms.)
I do not quite agree with the "don't speak unless spoken to" attitude towards religious peoples. Thinking and speaking for oneself is your right. It is also the right of religious peoples. They shouldn't have to censor religion out of their daily lives for those less accepting of different views. If you are uncomfortable speaking about religion than try stating so plainly. I believe most people will switch topics and understand if you say something along the lines of, "I'm not comfortable with this conversation."
While I will not state that all religious peoples are highly intelligent individuals the belief that people who believe in religion are ignorant is ridiculously false.
Edit: I'd also like to add in here that the belief in one of these does not exclude you from belief in the other. It's not exactly an either or thing.
Many claim that they choose science over religion because it is the logical conclusion, and that may well be the case. Yet, they often also claim to be smarter than those that believe religion because they have "proof." This is often an oversight.
Those that believe in science rarely conduct experiments on their own or only simple ones that could be done by an elementary student. Most often scientific studies are read over in magazines, skimmed in classes, or glimpsed in a documentary. The specific details of these studies often go unknown to the believer in science. Yet the believer of science will argue that this is the truth and may even become angry when defending science without having experienced even a fraction of it first hand. (Much like a radical believer in religion.)
Let me clarify here. I'm not saying that science is a religion. I am saying that there are those that cling to science just as there are those that cling to religion. They do not understand the details, but they will use it to their defense all the same.
IMHO simply reading about something in a book is not the same thing as proof. For me proof is something I see, experience, and understand for myself. What I mean by this is that I will not believe something simply because someone tells me it is true. I must first understand why it is true myself.
(Disclaimer: I'm not religious. I'm more of an Agnostic. Though, that said, I have had experiences in different churches in different places and with people of various religions. It's with these experiences in mind that I wrote the proceeding. I understand your own experiences may be different. Sorry for the super long read.)
Except that the science believer also knows that scientists use an unbiased scientific method, so have little need to doubt the scientist are being biased in their findings. It does take faith yes, but not blind faith like religion does.
That is actually not true.
Sometimes scientific studies are manipulated to achieve desired results. That is why you often have conflicting studies regarding the same test matter and conditions. So you can't really guarantee that science is unbiased.
Scientific studies have as much room to be biased as people do.
Sure there are some. On the whole, not. Plus, it all gets equaled out in the end. Usually when the holdouts die and the next generation takes over.
So you're saying here that the validity of a study changes over time? Due to new people taking over? This contradicts your statement that science is unbiased.
Most studies you can find publicly available today will face similar studies with opposing conclusions. Take for example Aspartame used as a sweetener in foods. There are many studies revealing it as a trigger element in several health problems. However there are also several studies claiming it innocent of such accusations.
The point of this is that science is only as faultless as the people that conduct it.
I've also noticed by reading an article of yours that you do seem to be quite biased yourself towards those who have some belief in religion.
"As most people have religious beliefs, then it's obvious most people need to take a look at their thinking processes."
"I doubt religion will ever be eradicated from the minds of people, but at least scientific reasoning is well established for now."
"When children are indoctrinated into religions, they are encouraged to blind belief. They are taught not to think for themselves, and especially NOT to question authority. They grow into adulthood with a child like mentality."
Why do you believe that people are wrong for not believing the same as you? Why do you think that their beliefs should be eradicated? Why does them not agreeing with your viewpoint equate to them not being able to reason properly? You said in that same post that even intelligent people blindly believe in religion. How does this equate to them having a childlike mentality?
"So you're saying here that the validity of a study changes over time? Due to new people taking over? This contradicts your statement that science is unbiased."
No, I didn't say that the validity of a study changes over time. I said conclusions based on facts change over time.
Science isn't unbiased; scientists are.
The rest I will tackle in a bit, I need to reread what you wrote.
Why do you believe that people are wrong for not believing the same as you?>> Because religious beliefs are unscientific. And wrong.
Why do you think that their beliefs should be eradicated?>> Because religious beliefs hold back science and forward thinking civilization.
Why does them not agreeing with your viewpoint equate to them not being able to reason properly? >>Religious thinking is suspension of disbelief for those who can reason. This is ok, as long as the suspension of belief remains only for the belief itself. The rest don't seem to reason at all.
Basically you acknowledged what I said before. "The point of this is that science is only as faultless as the people that conduct it." Science is not faultless. Yet, you cling to it and use it as a shield against opposing beliefs.
Being unscientific does not make something wrong. There are many things that science does not yet explain. This does not make them wrong.
As I said before a belief in religion does not exclude one from the right to belief in science. This means that one can believe in both. As far as I know science has yet to prove that there is no god or gods. Therefore it is reasonable to acknowledge the possibility of their existence.
Just like it's reasonable to acknowledge the possibility of the Flying Spaghetti Monster's existence.
If you want to put it that way then, yes. I'm not well versed in that religion so I don't know the details, but if people wish to believe in something who are you to tell them that they are wrong? Why does it bother you that someone believes something you don't agree with? If you think they are childlike and lack the correct reasoning capabilities why does it bother you that they won't be contributing to science? If the belief in a god or gods watching out for someone helps them make it through the day how is that wrong?
It doesn't bother me unless they try to get it on the lawbooks, or in the schools. Or in Government. Which they do try.
This again redirects towards something I mentioned in my initial post. You are here condensing a multitude of religions into the idea of a radical believer.
I have also not seen many examples of this happening despite your claims. Even just recently there was an article posted about the supreme court in Canada deciding not to have prayers at the beginnings of it's meetings. It seems more motions are being taken to remove religion from government, schools, and lawbooks than are being taken to implement it. Also it's worth pointing out that allowing someone else to practice their religion is not the same as forcing their religion upon you. Not allowing someone to practice their religion would be censorship.
You are also quite frankly lying. You are speaking of eradicating an opposing belief system to yours. It bothers you for some reason. Reason enough for you to want it to disappear in entirety. I find this a quite unreasonable standpoint.
"You are also quite frankly lying. You are speaking of eradicating an opposing belief system to yours. It bothers you for some reason.Reason enough for you to want it to disappear in entirety. I find this a quite unreasonable standpoint."
I already told you what bothers me. People trying to get it into schools. In the US, it's a constant battle. That's what Eugenie Scott does for a living. If there were no problem, I wouldn;'t even know who she is, would I?
Am I advocating for the eradication of religion? Of course not. It has it's place as a form of community support that I see as necessary. If people keep it to that, that's great. They use it to further their agendas, then I'm against that.
Eugenie Scott does not show up in any recent news articles regarding religion.
Edit: Ah. I found one article mocking her.
The Supreme Court article was quite recent. Also quite recent was the Indiana governor amending a future law in order to prevent businesses from denying customers based on their sexual orientations or religious beliefs.
I'm glad you've shifted views since you wrote that post then.
Btw I do live in the US.
I'm with janesix
Not for imposing religious laws in our culture/school/ state or in business.
The state law protects all religions of the freedoms of personal choice, not the freedom to kill me for mowing my lawn on Sunday. Or steal much of my taxes to pay for 90% of the religious wars out there.
It is actually unconstitutional to impose such laws here in the US so I really don't see much problem of that happening.
It's also a bit of an overstep to assume the government would allow such actions; a radical viewpoint in itself.
I don't believe anybody was advocating to allow people to kill others on the basis of religion. Or allowing religious beliefs to be imposed on others. Rather people are advocating religious tolerance. As in let people worship and believe what religions they wish to without harassing them.
As for allowing it in school I'd just like to point out that Big Bang and Evolution are theories. They have not been proven and there really is no way of proving them with absolute certainty at this moment. Therefore they are scientific beliefs. More reasonable than creationism, yes, but unproven just the same. Personally I don't think schools should teach either as if they are absolute certainty, but allow students to research all theories themselves when they become curious and allow them their own conclusion.
"Personally I don't think schools should teach either as if they are absolute certainty..."
And yet we know almost nothing. Everything we learn needs to be modified as we learn more and more.
Would it not be best, then, to teach our children to the best of our ability? Recognizing that we will never have all knowledge, teach what we think is the correct answer to questions, based on as much observation and testing we can apply?
As far as the BB vs creationism, the BB is an accepted scientific theory while creationism doesn't even approach that level of certainty. There is often a vast misunderstanding of what the word "theory" means in the scientific community, but it is NOT a mere guess.
We wouldn't be able to teach any science at all, if we had to wait for absolute certainty. We would be waiting forever.
Again you're both twisting something to mean something I did not say, because you have somehow taken offense to it. I meant only what I said exactly as I said it.
True. We do know nothing ABOUT THIS SUBJECT. And when we know nothing isn't it better to say, "Hey, this may not be right but this is how we think things went." Than to teach kids something is correct only to find out at some later date that humans came about by some other means? Teaching to the "best of our ability" would be to acknowledge that one way isn't the only possible way, and admit that there are other possibilities. And rather than setting in children's minds that this one way is the only possible way, allowing them to consider other means, which they might later grow up to study as scientists, by which man could have come into being.
As you said earlier janesix, and seem to be going back on now, science is based on facts. Facts are what you know. Now you're saying that if we don't teach things we are unsure about we can't teach science at all.
One thing you don't seem to realize is that science contains theories and laws. Theories are less concrete than laws and are still subject to being disproven. It is highly unlikely that a scientific law will ever be disproven. Another thing you seem to be neglecting is how the scientific method really works. Most experiments start out as a observation followed by a hypothesis. It is then the scientist's job to prove these things through extensive study, facts, and peer review. Through this they can prove something.
Does this mean that people are unbiased and will always be factual? No. Does it mean that people can discover new things and prove facts through extensive study and testing? Yes.
You keep forgetting or ignoring the fact that this items you disparage were in the schools and law books at one time, a time when common sense and decency had meaning.
You used the word "wrong" regarding people that have faith in God. That is a bit beneath your previous comments. Seems you are allowing your irritation with folks to override your "common sense and decency."
"Because religious beliefs are unscientific. And wrong." Using the scientific approach, can you prove they are wrong? And that old bromide of "you can't prove something that does exist, doesn't exist" just doesn't cut it. It lacks scientific verification.
Wow. I didn't know I was violating your sense of common sense and decency to say that I think religious beliefs are "wrong".
Do you think the Muslim or Hindu religion are wrong? How about the ancient Greek and Roman Gods? Are they wrong in your eyes? Or are all of those beliefs right?
Common sense tells me they are wrong.
My sense of decency tells me that the genocidal Abrahamic God is wrong.
It is odd, isn't it, that all religions are "wrong"...except the one of a believer, who insists it is wrong to say theirs is wrong while saying the exact same thing about all the others.
Please refrain from being rude. The user said nowhere in their post that other beliefs were wrong.
It does go against decency for you to claim someone with different views is wrong. It shows that you are unaccepting of those with different religious views.
Your sense of decency should keep you from attacking those of other religions with claims that they are childlike and ignorant. Especially while contradicting yourself with the claim that even intelligent people can have blind faith in religion.
This is intolerance and bias towards those of other religions.
Sorry, I don't feel like arguing with you just for the heck of it so I chose not to respond to that. As you seem offended I still choose not to respond to it. The fact that your post has nothing to do with the conversation and everything to do with the fact that I called someone else rude I do not see how this is constructive at all.
You do tend to contradict yourself a lot without realizing it and my post about you lying was in address to this. You state a belief in one thing and then later undermine it in a separate post.
Also never be afraid to turn off your computer and interact in the real world if you feel like you're getting too worked up about something.
Unfortunately I did not. I was speaking to the wilderness user with that comment. I thought that would be a bit obvious based on the context.
I can understand that it probably showed up in your notifications as for some reason I can't respond directly to subposts and yours is the only one it will let me reply on. The posts beneath it do not allow me to reply on them.
Sorry if this confused you but as I said before I was not calling you rude.
Also again as I said before this has nothing to do with the conversation topic and everything to do with you becoming personally offended. This is not constructive to the discussion.
First, if you will go to "chronological" view (upper right of screen) you will be able to reply to the right person. I had trouble as well figuring out your posts.
I believe you referred to the post commenting on believers saying others were wrong. I don't think that was out of line - I've never met a Christian who also believed in Thor or Odin. Or even any of the gods of Hinduism. Have you?
Perhaps you missed the point, though - that believers find it "wrong" to say their belief is incorrect, all while saying the same thing about others with different beliefs.
Ah. Thank you very much. (^_^)
I think that the fact that you find something to be wrong is fine. What I think is rude is going around and telling other people that they are wrong for believing as they do. I realize this isn't limited to one side or the other. And I do feel that anyone who does believe in a religion should not go around telling others they are wrong for believing differently either.
Basically I find it fine to disagree with someone else's beliefs but, I think it's rude to go around calling someone ignorant and saying that they're wrong simply because they don't have the same beliefs you do.
I don't know about other's experiences but I actually see more harassment online directed towards those that do believe in a god than I see towards those who are atheist or agnostic. There tends to be a lot of posts or comments mocking them for believing in a religion, blaming them for all the world's problems, and belittling their beliefs and intelligence in general.
I apologize then, as it appeared you were responding to me.
The present state of affairs speaks to present notions of common decency and common sense.
It was in response to your recent response which seemed to indicate you have no use for religion, at least in schools. As much as I dislike the word as descriptive for following God, I believe it was your word. Like it or not, "religion" did set the tenor for common decency.
One cannot legislate or teach common sense, of course, and the lack of it is quite evident in the education systems. Seems they are more interested in teaching the ills of society, how to use a condom, multiculturalism, rights of the minorities, alternate life styles, etc, issues that were handled in the home and church in years past, which brings us back to common decency... and religion.
Of course the opposing view can only see the ills that the church presented and presents.
I dunno, Mish. Personally, I find that "common decency" has much improved. We don't keep slaves, we don't keep our women barefoot and pregnant, we've vastly improved our racism, we take care of the disabled, poor, etc. much better. We don't do a lot of things that used to be commonplace and are better for it.
It's true that we continually gripe to high heaven about a lack of decency, but we fail to realize just how bad it used to be. We've come a long ways.
That doesn't say much about "common sense", however; that's a pretty uncommon item, IMO.
I find your response well worded and responsible. I only comment, and hopefully you do not see it as a negative, the family and the church did do many of these things in the past. The family unit is failing and the church already has. Government and self help programs have picked up the slack and they should be commended for that. But I believe that "common decency" is for sale.
I won't find fault in those that truly work at providing many of those items, or the need for them. However, it would seem the driving forces behind them, i.e. the power and money folks, have a far different agenda. I would like to be wrong in this thought, but time will tell.
This I have to agree with, for the most part. I would stress it has more to do with a solid family unit that church or religiosity though. An atheist with a strong family unit has no trouble with "common decency" as compared to a strong religious family.
Yes it is true, really, no one should argue. In The Bible it says to not argue. Very good Point. It also says we should love everyone! We are all just human and I can only try. I like to love people though. It feels so much better, ya know. Thank you and God Bless you.
2 Timothy 2:23-24 But avoid foolish and ignorant disputes, knowing that they generate strife. 24 And a servant of the Lord must not quarrel but be gentle to all, able to teach, patient,
Proverbs 15:1 A soft answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger.
Romans 14:19 So then let us pursue what makes for peace and for mutual upbuilding.
Proverbs 29:22 A man of wrath stirs up strife, and one given to anger causes much transgression.
Romans 14:1 As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions.
Proverbs 19:11 Good sense makes one slow to anger, and it is his glory to overlook an offense.
There are many many more.
What does the Bible say about ?
oh yes yes, also James 3 talks about taming the tongue.
Its true, our tongues speak so much evil instead of nice. Ofcourse this has many social variables, but ultimately its comes down to a choice as to how we talk to each other.
It's pretty simple for me.... there are MANY MANY different religions all around the world that all think they're right. Guess what, almost every single religious person on the planet belongs to the 'faith' (ridiculous word) that they do purely because of the geographical nature of their birth and the brainwashing forced upon them, with no reason or evidence to back it up. That makes religion beyond a joke, and it certainly should not be holding back science and medicine, as well as disrupting peoples lives in the 21st century. I find it sickening, and I firmly believe that it is encouraged by tyrannical governments as a way to control the gullible
Yes the gullible.
Last Halloween I dress up as a cowboy billionaire, just to feel what it would be like being in the shoe of a greedy 1% person. Most of us know absolute power corrupts, in these so called leaders minds, it seems they think people can not control them selves in masses, like were are wilder-beast.
On the contrary the private can do anything better the Government and we are better at leading ourselves than corperationism or religion.
Just an experience.
Hhmmm, wait a minute, that's Mao said?
And that was an interesting "guess what". Kinda like a scientific fact.
Yes I agree, that is people, human beings choosing those actions, hurting others and controlling others, , that is humans choosing to do bad things. Religion is not God. Beauty of a waterfall, oooooooooo that feels so God, Love is God, a peaceful moment is God, my son being born into the world, ohhhhhh is wonderful gift of God, Me talking to God and God answering me in the most loving way is God...Jesus doing such beautiful kind acts for others is God, us doing such beautiful kind acts for others is God... That makes me happy and that's God...God Bless your weekend
by Wayne K. WIlkins21 months ago
What does religion mean to you?With so much evidence supporting science these days and countless discoveries disregarding religion and proving it wrong, what does religion mean to you? Religion means nothing to me,...
by Debra Allen2 years ago
Why Would You Want To Change Others Religious Beliefs?There has been lots of questions about changing the views of Athiests, Gnostics and even other Christians,. Why would you have the need or desire to change...
by Justin R. Anthony3 years ago
I normally pay no attention to religious discussions. Partially because people tend to loose their minds when the "R" word is mentioned. However, due to recent attention from the media on religious people who...
by Thomas M D Hemsley5 weeks ago
This forum is for anyone here who wishes to debate on the subject of religion and religious beliefs. Outline your position, whether it be theist or atheist, explain why you hold that position, and then people can debate...
by yoshi978 years ago
After reading through the religion forum, I see a lot of different views, but I also see some that are very much the same. What I am curious about is this ... are we all mostly different, or are we preaching the same...
by Alan23 months ago
A basic rule of scientific inquiry is that you start from something you already know, something that can be proven, repeatedly, by other investigators in exactly similar circumstances. From something that is known...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.