You cannot completely say Religion is bad. For example, religion played a great role in America's success just after it was established. It promoted literacy, social cohesion, brought social order, the want for justice, equality etc were all because of religion.

As for wars, its not in the name of religion exactly (not FOR religion), religion is just a tool used to garner support. For example, its not because of Islam, that you have terrorists hating on the US. Terrorists USE religion to garner support among the masses, where they operate, like in Saudi, Afghanisthan etc., The real reasons for terrorism is the blowback as a result of US foreign policy back from the days of the cold war. These terrorists DO have a political agenda, which is to get America out of the middle east, to stop American intervention and influence in their respective countries etc., But ordinary poor people wont understand this. So they use religion to garner support and indoctrinate dumbasses to go die for them, while they hide in a hole under the ground.

The reason I dont buy into an ideology like religion is because it is a very flawed ideology. It is not infallible.For example take the 10 commandments. Do you really need them? You can love your neighbor, not cheat on your wife, not kill people even without religion. What religion does however is oversimplify these things. For example it says being gay is a sin. When in reality it has a scientific explanation. It says adultery is wrong, but there are numerous people in complicated relationships. It says killing is wrong, but what about killing in defence?. So religion does not take into account all of these factors. This is because back in the day, people had a very simple world view. Today the world is a much more complicated place and as such morality based on Judeo christian values are first of all too objective to be practical and second of all, outdated. Question is am I gonna adhere to perspectives of some 2000 year old nomads and desert dwellers and their perception of what reality was back then, as opposed to what reality ACTUALLY is today?

I think that now, people are starting to see that things with religion are flawed... and the churches don't exactly take kindly to that. The radical movements, in my opinion, are caused by the churches, either using their pawns to gain more members and keep power... Religion now is simply for power for the well-off people running the churches, instead of a true belief.

But as you said, religion isn't totally bad. It gives people something to hold on to, and did contribute to many things in the past. And while religion isn't needed for order, to be honest, most people think that God's wrath is more feared than a prison cell.

Random fact: Jesus was born during the summer. Christmas?

"Most atheistic countries like Sweden, Norway, Finland, Denmark and Japan are much safer places with much less violence, murder and rape than majority religious states like the USA, Iran, Iraq etc?"

And please don't pick apart that quote...I'm not going argue over whether a country is majority atheist...It was just a comment made on a video that i thought would work nicely here:)

Religions are varied from country to Country........ or races to races... But one thing Religion and thier concepts are pure... But people who are in religions are not pure as religions...

There is nothing like a pure religion. Religion is an ideology, and as such has no "pure" form. Its upto individual interpretation. You have Christians who are kind and charitable, and then you have the Westboro Baptist Church, spewing nonsense. Its 2 different ways of looking at the same thing, and as such religion can only be what its followers are. And its followers are of all types.

Secondly, this is out of topic, but there are no races. Skin color is not race, and there is actually no valid genetic marker that sets people apart as "races". Its a 19th century taxonomic classification, that has no validity in the modern world.

ya i agree....

Nothing better to add than to rain on your parade. Africans and Caucasians have different bone structure, those who are trained can tell you

1. Sex.
2. Educated guess of ethnicity based entirely on your jaw bone. Or your skull, or enough bones in your body (hips+femur+arms,etc)

Differences in Bone structure dont make races.

found this on hubpages by secularist10


Can God create a stone so heavy even he can't lift it?

The paradox of omnipotence is one of the simplest, and therefore one of the most powerful, questions one can ask about God. It forms the basis of a classical argument against God's existence.

The paradox stems from the notion of "omnipotence" as indicating the ability to do anything. One may conclude that if a being is capable of doing anything, therefore it must be able to do even that which is logically impossible. Thus God can create a square circle, God can create a stone that even God cannot lift, and (my personal favorite) God can create another God. Keep in mind that God is defined as an uncreated being. To create an uncreated thing is logically contradictory. But if God cannot do the logically impossible, then he isn't omnipotent, right?

So what may the God-believer respond to such a question? Let's take one form of the paradox, and see where deduction leads us.
Can God create another God?

The answer to this question is either yes or no. For the purposes of this discussion, the main quality of God is his uncreated nature. Therefore, if one responds "yes," it means that God can create something that is uncreated. Let's look a bit closer at the "yes" response.

If God can create something that is uncreated, it means that the ability to create something that is uncreated exists. If that ability exists, somewhere in the universe, then the believer who responds "yes" is met with a dilemma: God himself may have been created.

Think about it. Since the "yes" responder has now established that the ability to create an uncreated thing exists, he has admitted that uncreated things can be created. God is an uncreated thing. Therefore God may have been created. And "God" as typically defined, ceases to exist.

But the fun doesn't stop there. Not only is it now possible that God (an uncreated thing) was created, but the thing that created God--the Overlord that created the Lord--itself may have been uncreated. The "yes" respondent has thus opened the floodgates to an infinite regress of uncreated creators. Interestingly, the absurdity of an infinite regress is one of the major themes offered by God-believers to support the existence of God as an "uncreated creator" or an "unmoved mover."

To sum up the conclusion from the "yes" response:

God is omnipotent
Therefore God can do anything
Therefore God can create another God
Therefore, since God is uncreated, it is possible for God to create an uncreated thing
Therefore, the ability to create something that is uncreated exists
Therefore, uncreated God himself may have been, in fact, created [refuting the existence of God]
By (5), since every uncreated thing may have been created, we are necessarily left with an infinite regress of uncreated creators, each in turn created by an uncreated creator

The "No" camp

Perhaps sensing the inconvenient outcomes of the "yes" response, the main thrust of religious thinking (from such great philosophers as Augustine and Aquinas and Averroes) has focused on the "no" response. However, as we shall now see, this too leaves the God-believer in a profound intellectual predicament.

If one says that God cannot create another God, then one is admitting that God's power is limited. And therefore God is not omnipotent.

Not so fast, says the theist. It's not that God is limited, but rather that power is limited. That is, God can do with power whatever power can do. But since power, by definition, cannot bring about a contradictory state of affairs, God cannot do it. But that is the fault of power, not of God. So (the theist will claim) we are legitimate in identifying God as omnipotent, because God can do whatever power can do. But since power cannot do that which is logically impossible, neither can God.

The problem with this argument is that it confuses the definition of the word "power." Power means, quite simply, "the ability to do something." That's it. The definition doesn't say "the ability to do something that is logical," or the "ability to do something that makes sense." The word "power" makes no reference to logic, to contradiction, or any such thing.

Once we have a solid understanding of the word "power" as the ability to do a thing (not a logical thing, not a sensical or nonsensical thing, but just "a thing"), then we can see why the "no" response digs its own grave.

The "no" respondent indicates that God's power is constrained. Specifically, it is constrained by logic. The question then arises... who created logic?

Obviously, if God cannot violate logic, it follows that he did not create logic. A being cannot create the thing that constrains it. Therefore logic must exist outside of him, external to him, or prior to him.

If logic exists beyond God's hand, then logic is either uncreated, or was created by something other than God. Either way, we have discovered at least one thing--logic--that God did not create. Therefore God did not, in fact, create everything. And the God hypothesis is defeated twice: first, as a being with infinite/ unlimited power, and second, as the creator of everything.

To sum up the conclusions from the "no" response:

God's power is restrained by logic
Therefore God cannot do that which is logically impossible
Therefore, no, God cannot create another God because God cannot create an uncreated thing
Thus, God is not all-powerful
If God's power is constrained by logic, then logic must exist outside of God
Therefore God cannot have created logic
Therefore logic is either uncreated, or was created by another being
Therefore God did not create everything

Final Thoughts

Omnipotence isn't all it's cracked up to be. According to logic, we have seen that it is very unlikely that God exists, as far as "God" is typically defined. It is also highly unlikely that omnipotence exists. The paradox of omnipotence is a fascinating intellectual game, but it would seem that no matter who plays, and no matter what side they take--the "yes" side or the "no" side--nobody wins. Nobody, that is, who is a theist.

in think that every religion has the bases of doing or being good, but there are people that take these religions to the extreme and they do bad things in the name of there religion

but i believe there is one god