:
|
could you make it a sticky maybe?
|
Dream on Abeguy.
As for the topic at hand, recently I have concluded that religion can ultimately only offer fascile and unsatisfying answers for things that are explained with more truth and majesty by science. Also the bigoted nature of religions means that when they come with any degree of political influence they cause all sorts of problems. For this reason I believe that religion should be banned or at least heavily controlled.
I happen to hold the belief that once a religion affects the life and rights of a person who does not believe in it, then it has already forfeited it's right to exist. Why for instance should a religion factor into an ethical debate involving medical procedures that would only be administered to people who did not believe in that one religion anyway, medical procedures that might save lives? The answer is it should not. Religion, if it should be allowed at all, should operate within the boundaries of, and at the mercy of, the law, a higher atheist power, which is rightfully above the power and influence of religion, which should rightfully have no power and influence as it is merely a personal lifestyle choice.
One major argument for religion being a part of law and ethical influence which I find to be fundamentally flawed, is that without religious guidance we would have no concept of right and wrong. Yet even monkeys have been shown to have a basic concept of right and wrong, and monkeys have no concept of religion. Therefore, non-religious groups of people are just as capable of getting along with one another in a lawful manner as religious groups of people are, because the concept of right and wrong is something far older than religion, and in this instance science has proven that to be the case.
I've found that the harder and closer I look at religion, the more I begin to see the flaws.