I'm really not for ANY religion. People believe in this "god" that supposedly created the world. Yet if you think about the obvious things, let's see...Diseases, illnesses, corruption, etc etc...I suppose that was ALL part of his PLAN as well? I just think every religion is pointless and doesn't do any help to the world, in fact, most of the time I see religious people they act arrogant beyond belief because they believe in someone that could be completely made up. Hell, I don't know if it's just where I live or everywhere, but apparently Christians and people who don't have a religion have separate cemetery rules?
First, in response to religion not helping the world: Red Cross, Salvation Army, Compassion Child, etc.
Religion helps the world quite a bit. The issue, however, generally isn't if religion helps the world, it is if it helps more than it hurts. As I think most would generally agree, Zeality's stance is that it hurts far more than any help could ever make up for, whereas Daniel and I generally maintain the opposite.
Second, on the topic of disease and illness, why do you view those as bad things? How is a disease that feeds off your body any different, fundamentally, than you feeding off the planet? You don't like disease and illness, few people do, but does their existence indicate a flaw in the system? Bacteria can cause illness but bacteria are also necessary for life; you currently house a veritable crapload of bacteria and they are helping you. Indeed, if it wasn't for foreign bodies along the lines of viruses and bacteria, human life would be impossible (since we'd be lacking mitochondria, and even beyond that we wouldn’t have the intestinal bacteria that helps us process food). Viruses, though potentially deadly, have a mutagenic effect; they promote evolution by introducing new sections to our DNA.
In a changing universe, evolution is desirable, and so disease is desirable. The real question seems to be, is a changing universe fundamentally bad?
The problem with your approach is that the universe would seem to be perfectly suited for its current state regardless as to if there is a god and if there wasn't. You say X is bad, I say X is necessary for this marvelous universe and therefore X is good. But neither definitively links to the divine.
Third, yes, some sects of Christianity do have specific cemetery rules. For example, usually only members of a certain church can be buried in that church's graveyard (if there is one). However, that is a practice that to my understanding has largely fallen out of practice... though, some religious sects also strictly oppose cremation, or endorse it, depending on their religious tenants.
Let's remember one thing shall we?
Religion = hate.
It is very true; religion does equal hate. However, it should be noted that hate is not itself inherently evil.
I hate being sick, for example. I hate it when companies rip off the common worker/customer. I hate it when governments do not serve the people that they govern. Are these bad forms of hate?
Now, if I said I hate people with six fingers, you might say that such is a bad form of hate (though if I told you a six fingered man killed my father and I specifically hate that one, you might be more understanding of such hate).
Most human concepts can be good or bad based on the circumstances.
Religions generally say that "X is good" and "Y is bad." Many also then go on to say that one should love that which is good and hate that which is bad. Hence, religions promote hate. However, any and every stance that says some things are desirable and some things are undesirable promotes hate. Atheism = hate, insofar as atheism promotes the idea that religion is bad and non-religion is good. It doesn't mean that the hate itself is bad or misplaced, however.
Though on the topic of evolution; unfortunately it is one of those things that in generality seems absurd but in specific is more reasonable. I say unfortunately because it is usually talked about in generalities rather than specifics, making it usually seem absurd.
You say you can't fathom bacteria becoming a monkey. When you put it like that, it is quite understandable to believe such. One of the hardest things for me to understand was the jump from single to multiple celled organisms. Until I learned that certain single celled organisms alive today can form colonies, with specific cells within that colony performing specific actions. While not a singular entity, I can better imagine a single celled organism developing into that, and that developing into a multi-cellular organism, than I can imagine bacteria evolving into monkeys.
This isn't to say that you should thus believe evolution; rather, the absurdity decreases when one looks at the stages of progression rather than comparing two extremes. I find that the absurdity decreases to such a level as to be perfectly reasonable and convincing, but others might not agree based on the same evidence.
Building empirical evidence against a supernatural entity is moot. I think it's fair to reject the existence of such a being, but one can't build a case against it -- it can't be done. Put simply, there's much more productive things to do.
Just to qualify that statement (which I agree with), one can build a case comprised of empirical evidence against the existence of a supernatural entity, or for it, but such cases can never be conclusive for the simple reason that there can inherently be no controls.
It is quite fair to accept or reject the existence of such a being. But it is quite unfair to insist that one's own choice is the only potentially valid choice.
Wasn't Luther being pissed off at the sale of indulgences the main idea of the 95 theses? Or was that just one of the theses? (Oh wait, ninja'd by Krispin on that one I guess)
Transubstantiation is kinda fun. Technically makes us Catholics cannibals, doesn't it? The Spanish conquistadores came over to the New World, saw people being sacrificed, and said what the hell? And then the native peoples saw the eucharist, and said what the hell? True story, I think -- I remember reading somewhere that the people of Peru took Catholics for vampiahs.
I'm not 100% positive, but I am fairly certain that the 95 theses contained more than just the sale of indulgences. That was just the impetus that started him on the road to everything contained therein. For example, I am pretty sure he rejected the catholic practice of confession as well. But that itself was the first step in a line of rejecting any and all forgiveness of sin that was Church based on not God based (among which the sale of indulgences was included).
Also, that is hilarious; I had never thought about the Jesuits in that light. Though cannibalism was one of the earliest offenses applied to Christians (though it was usually specifically baby flesh and blood that Christians were said to consume, because cannibalism itself wasn't abhorrent enough apparently).
Though, while the evidence is quite sketchy, there were some gnostic sects that may have done just that. The sources are always biased, but even Christians accused other Christian sects of consuming flesh and blood (though the one that comes to mind was attributed with consuming aborted fetuses and placenta).
