QUOTE(IamsSon @ Dec 13 2006, 02:36 PM) [snapback]1461085[/snapback]
So, although all believers are to be painted with the brush of corruption, violence, hatred, and failure, they are to get no credit for the benevolence, successes, improvements, and advancements that they have either contributed to or accomplished all on their own?
Name some things that have been done in the name of good by religion that has not in anyway pushed forward that religion or preached that religion in the name of that good. Define good as the selfish act for nothing in return.
I know the KKK does some charity work, doesn't mean in the end of it they're still not the KKK. My point? - Doing some smidgen of good doesn't outweigh the bad things that have been done and are still being done.
For the first post, well of course it's too long. If it really was truth, it would be widely accepted and in the better countries it would be being pushed forward... Truth is it's being widely rejected with each passing day and it's failing.
QUOTE
Look back in history a few thousand years since God revealed his plan for us, what do you see?
I posted this yesterday and I think it applies pretty good here as well...
The Emptiness of Theology By Richard Dawkins
A dismally unctuous editorial in the British newspaper the Independent recently asked for a reconciliation between science and "theology." It remarked that "People want to know as much as possible about their origins." I certainly hope they do, but what on earth makes one think that theology has anything useful to say on the subject?
Science is responsible for the following knowledge about our origins. We know approximately when the universe began and why it is largely hydrogen. We know why stars form and what happens in their interiors to convert hydrogen to the other elements and hence give birth to chemistry in a world of physics. We know the fundamental principles of how a world of chemistry can become biology through the arising of self-replicating molecules. We know how the principle of self-replication gives rise, through Darwinian selection, to all life, including humans.
It is science and science alone that has given us this knowledge and given it, moreover., in fascinating, over-whelming, mutually confirming detail. On every one of these questions theology has held a view that has been conclusively proved wrong. Science has eradicated smallpox, can immunize against most previously deadly viruses, can kill most previously deadly bacteria. Theology has done nothing but talk of pestilence as the wages of sin. Science can predict when a particular comet will reappear and, to the second, when the next eclipse will appear. Science has put men on the moon and hurtled reconnaissance rockets around Saturn and Jupiter. Science can tell you the age of a particular fossil and that the Turin Shroud is a medieval fake. Science knows the precise DNA instructions of several viruses and will, in the lifetime of many present readers, do the same for the human genome.
What has theology ever said that is of the smallest use to anybody? When has theology ever said anything that is demonstrably true and is not obvious? I have listened to theologians, read them, debated against them. I have never heard any of them ever say anything of the smallest use, anything that was not either platitudinously obvious or downright false. If all the achievements of scientists were wiped out tomorrow, there would be no doctors but witch doctors, no transport faster than horses, no computers, no printed books, no agriculture beyond subsistence peasant farming. If all the achievements of theologians were wiped out tomorrow, would anyone notice the smallest difference? Even the bad achievements of scientists, the bombs, and sonar-guided whaling vessels work! The achievements of theologians don't do anything, don't affect anything, don't mean anything. What makes anyone think that "theology" is a subject at all?
---------------------------------------
Religious truth is bunk.
QUOTE
what do you expect to see if these same failures lead us spiritually?
Hopefully the backward ways of religion will be shed and rational thought will become a top dog. A world ruled under religion for a 'success' for that religion would result in a lot of back peddling in the advancement of mankind. I do expect though that there will still be conflict in the future, regardless of who's top dog, though if religion is still top dog in the world there would be more conflict in the future yet, unless that said religion took over the world and is repressing everybody but that is even worse than conflict to me.