[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]

I think that any religion is bad that doesn't possess the doctrine to change, or the willingness to say in certain areas "I don't know". Take for instance the bible. It includes many good things like the golden rule. Yet it also takes a stance on creation. Now despite the fact the fact that there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary, people will still insist the earth is only 6000 years old because they embraced their religions stance of the documents infallibility. Yet 2000 years ago no one had any problem with this because they had no means of understanding how old the world was. So even though a religion can seem to contain no monstrous rules now, who knows how we will view some of those rules 2000 years from now.

Now take the constitution for example. It includes statements about freedom of religion, press, speech, etc. Yet it also included a passage about how blacks were 3/5 of a person. 200 years ago, the majority of people had no problem with this. The greatness of the document did not lie simply in what it said, but what it could say in the future. It could be amended and changed.

I vast majority of religions do not allow for change, or make that change exceedingly hard. It is for this reason that I think that believing in any particular religion is dangerous while believing in a God or Gods is not bad, as long is accompanied with the willingness to acknowledge the "I don't know" areas in life, and also able to change and reevaluate rules and beliefs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Awesome post.