Religion

[Sage]

Is anybody a Wiccan? jw

I'm not personally, though I've been considering it. Their beliefs are interesting and they have a number of nice morals I can fully agree with.

*Laughs*, yeah, thanks Wayvrn! How long it'll last? Can't be sure, but I know what I'm hoping for!

And most atheists I talk to wonder why religious people are so hostile to them. I can appreciate enthusiasm for the subject, but there comes a point when outspokenness becomes arrogance, and arrogance is annoying.

But yes, as was mentioned before, people shoouldn't start saying that religion is fact since there isn't real proof for that.

Because you simply cannot view the world from another way of thinking, Death. Atheists will criticize religion because it teaches nothing scientific, but you fail to notice that religion will criticize science because it has no morals attached to it.

Religion is not supposed to be based on conclusive facts and science is not supposed to have any morals or life teachings attached to it.

Religious people have, in the past and today, tried to use science to justify their beliefs, and it always fails. Though I am quite frankly disappointed that you cannot realize you are no better, in attempting to apply your line of thinking (scientific) to something it was never intended to explain.

Most pople don't mind criticism since you can argue back with evidence but the ten to think otherwise when it comes to faith. Why? Becuase they have no evidence to fight back with. They cannot support their far-fetched views so they have to object with the fact that they are being criticised instead.

You're basically just repeating yourself now.

Sad.

Boo-fucking-hoo.

[INFERNO]

But yes, as was mentioned before, people shoouldn't start saying that religion is fact since there isn't real proof for that. Most pople don't mind criticism since you can argue back with evidence but the ten to think otherwise when it comes to faith. Why? Becuase they have no evidence to fight back with. They cannot support their far-fetched views so they have to object with the fact that they are being criticised instead. Sad.

Death you don't seem to grasp this idea that was discussed in another thread where you said you understood it but you really haven't and this further shows it.

You cannot analyze religion using science or science using religion. If you do, then you're going to make one hell of a mess and fall flat on your face. This is something that you seem to not grasp: analyze religion with religion and analyze science with science.

Religion is based on faith which is not going to be scientific, it's not going to use science to justify what it states. It's based on the idea that you have a belief with little to no evidence for it, so when you bounce in and say that it has no or little scientific proof, then you're simply re-stating the definition of it. You're not using direct scientific terms, such as scientific theory and such but your answer is a spitting image of a scientific paradigm. Learn the fundamentals of science and of religion, then hopefully it will make sense to you. Otherwise, you'll be supported by people who don't understand it either and fall flat on your ass when someone does understand it.

[bobbyredsnow]

I was raised in the Christian faith but i feel as if there's a conflict between my religion and my sexuality

[sebbie]

Oh really? Share with us 10 good things just from the bible and elaborate them all too.

You really are an idiot if you think there is less than 10 good things in the Bible or any religion.

*Laughs*, yeah, thanks Wayvrn! How long it'll last? Can't be sure, but I know what I'm hoping for! But yes, as was mentioned before, people shoouldn't start saying that religion is fact since there isn't real proof for that. Most pople don't mind criticism since you can argue back with evidence but the ten to think otherwise when it comes to faith. Why? Becuase they have no evidence to fight back with. They cannot support their far-fetched views so they have to object with the fact that they are being criticised instead. Sad.



Personally, religion is nothing but a some how non-illegal scam that stabs everybody it can get it's greedy hands on.

Science defeats all that you beleive in.





Who started shooting of saying religion is fact, I am sure it was your friend Wayvrn who incorrectly stated that science has disproved religion.

[Wayvrn]

You really are an idiot if you think there is less than 10 good things in the Bible or any religion.







Who started shooting of saying religion is fact, I am sure it was your friend Wayvrn who incorrectly stated that science has disproved religion.


"O RLY?!" Name some....you failed to name any whilst posting moar ignorence towards me. You're quite the troll on this topic, yes. Because it seems to us that you do not know much about religion and you're just flaming everybody that is either Athiest or Religion to try for us to be equal.

So please, work harder on you're posts in the future. :yawn:

[BuryYourFlame]

Another post will be coming from me sometime next week, for anyone who is interested, although there will only be replies to a few posts, I am only going to bother to reply to those who, like Tim (Deschain), think through the other person's points, and behave in a civil manner (I will certainly do my best to do this as well), I am all for a debate, but an argument is not what I came here for.

btw, Tim + INFERNO (don't know your name soz), kudos on your last posts in here, it is clear that you are here for the proper purpose :)

[Wayvrn]

btw, Tim + INFERNO (don't know your name soz), kudos on your last posts in here, it is clear that you are here for the proper purpose :)

Communist mind, much?! Wow...

"It is clear you are here for the proper perpose" *cough* Conscript...

[sebbie]

"O RLY?!" Name some....you failed to name any whilst posting moar ignorence towards me. You're quite the troll on this topic, yes. Because it seems to us that you do not know much about religion and you're just flaming everybody that is either Athiest or Religion to try for us to be equal.

So please, work harder on you're posts in the future. :yawn:

You have no idea what I know about religion so making blanket statements like that is stupid. Also if I am flaming everyone how come I have had some good discussion with other members of the forum about religion.

If by ignorance you are referring to where I called you post shit, I have already explained why I said that. You said that "Science has disproved religion"

Please show me how all religion has been disproved with science.

Like several other posters have said you cannot use one to argue against the other. Now if you refer back to the post what you said is also offensive and wrong.

Just because your not christian does not mean they all
Christian, live your life blindly by some book full of rape, suicide, violence, incest, beastility, murder, revenge and the destruction of human rights.

Also what you said about Islam is also offensive For instance, muslim, the males are the most strongest there, by far, they hold down people and cercumsize them when wanted, they rape anybody at will, they do whatever they like to their women. - Why aren't the women safety associates after them?

Now about them 10 good things in the bible. Check out

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/good/long.html

Now I would like to finish my post with a quote of you.

So please, work harder on you're posts in the future.

[Sage]

Communist mind, much?! Wow...

"It is clear you are here for the proper perpose" *cough* Conscript...

By proper purpose, he means Inferno and I are debating civilly and not being obnoxious, snarky, under-handed little bitches. Try to not get your panties in a bunch, chico.

But I digress. Let's not steer too off topic now.

[punkjake]

we can't prove many things, too many things, we're pretty ill-knowledgeable

agreed :D

[Death]

I'm not personally, though I've been considering it. Their beliefs are interesting and they have a number of nice morals I can fully agree with.

And most atheists I talk to wonder why religious people are so hostile to them. I can appreciate enthusiasm for the subject, but there comes a point when outspokenness becomes arrogance, and arrogance is annoying.

Because you simply cannot view the world from another way of thinking, Death. Atheists will criticize religion because it teaches nothing scientific, but you fail to notice that religion will criticize science because it has no morals attached to it.

Religion is not supposed to be based on conclusive facts and science is not supposed to have any morals or life teachings attached to it.

Religious people have, in the past and today, tried to use science to justify their beliefs, and it always fails. Though I am quite frankly disappointed that you cannot realize you are no better, in attempting to apply your line of thinking (scientific) to something it was never intended to explain.

You're basically just repeating yourself now.

Boo-fucking-hoo.

Athiests' arguments can have morals attatched to it. Why do oyu think otherwise? Also, you are being quite hypocritical in the way that you think that I cannot view something from someone elses' persepctive. Religion is a thereory where no-one tries to back it up so it is therefore, to me, not very believable. People with faith have no real evidence to use in argument except that they believe in it so they hate being critised. To say otherwise is ignorance.

Death you don't seem to grasp this idea that was discussed in another thread where you said you understood it but you really haven't and this further shows it.

You cannot analyze religion using science or science using religion. If you do, then you're going to make one hell of a mess and fall flat on your face. This is something that you seem to not grasp: analyze religion with religion and analyze science with science.

Religion is based on faith which is not going to be scientific, it's not going to use science to justify what it states. It's based on the idea that you have a belief with little to no evidence for it, so when you bounce in and say that it has no or little scientific proof, then you're simply re-stating the definition of it. You're not using direct scientific terms, such as scientific theory and such but your answer is a spitting image of a scientific paradigm. Learn the fundamentals of science and of religion, then hopefully it will make sense to you. Otherwise, you'll be supported by people who don't understand it either and fall flat on your ass when someone does understand it.

That's becuase the idea, IMO, isn't true. There is much evidence that supports the idea of a way of the world being made an working that does not invlolve God. How are you supposed to dispel religion with religion? What am I supposed to say? God doesn't exist becuase God tells me so? As you can probraly see, that sounds retarded since I would be contradicting myself. What I need to throw in are facts like: God doesn't exists because he doesn't kill non-believers and other 'sinners' as the bible commands in the old testament or nothing happens when you pray. You may well believe in God yourself (I am not saying that this is true however) but that doesn't mean that you should demand that people dissprove his existance in the most ineffective (as in non-proving) ways.

"O RLY?!" Name some....you failed to name any whilst posting moar ignorence towards me. You're quite the troll on this topic, yes. Because it seems to us that you do not know much about religion and you're just flaming everybody that is either Athiest or Religion to try for us to be equal.

So please, work harder on you're posts in the future. :yawn:

I agree. It is obvious that he cannot find 10 things and all he is doing is making excuses. Also sad.

You really are an idiot if you think there is less than 10 good things in the Bible or any religion.

Who started shooting of saying religion is fact, I am sure it was your friend Wayvrn who incorrectly stated that science has disproved religion.

Now that is just plain, fucking stupid. He never said that there was only 10 things. You obviously cannot find any so you are wrong. Quit pissing people off and accept that you are not able to find them.

I for one, do not believe in God. I won't say why for obvious reasons.

[sebbie]

I agree. It is obvious that he cannot find 10 things and all he is doing is making excuses. Also sad.

Now that is just plain, fucking stupid. He never said that there was only 10 things. You obviously cannot find any so you are wrong. Quit pissing people off and accept that you are not able to find them.

I for one, do not believe in God. I won't say why for obvious reasons.

Death are you to stupid to read posts : This is him asking for 10 good things in the bible.

Oh really? Share with us 10 good things just from the bible and elaborate them all too.


This is me answering the post.



Now about them 10 good things in the bible. Check out

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/good/long.html

Now I would like to finish my post with a quote of you.

Now if your going to be a faggot and try and flame people at least read what they write.

[BeautifulSilence]

Okay guys, try not to get personal and keep it respectful, 'kay? Thanks.

[Sage]

Athiests' arguments can have morals attatched to it. Why do oyu think otherwise?

I never said atheists cannot use moral arguments against religion. To quote myself,

Atheists will criticize religion because it teaches nothing scientific, but you fail to notice that religion will criticize science because it has no morals attached to it.

When I say "Religion will criticize science because it has no morals attached to it", I'm going after the people who say such ludicrous things like "If Evolution is true, we should all go act like monkeys!" and other such drivel. Atheism and Science are not interchangable. Many Atheists have an interest in science, yes, but Science does not directly promote Atheism.

Also, you are being quite hypocritical in the way that you think that I cannot view something from someone elses' persepctive.

Where is the hypocrisy? Religion should be criticized with religion (or philosophy if you are non-religious) and science should be debated with science. It's dog food and wallpaper- Religion and science are not meant to be used together.

Religion is a thereory where no-one tries to back it up so it is therefore, to me, not very believable. People with faith have no real evidence to use in argument except that they believe in it so they hate being critised. To say otherwise is ignorance.

B-I-N-G-O. That's the religious paradigm. It's completely different from the scientific paradigm. Trying to compare one with the other will get you nowhere. This is why you fall flat on your face every time.

How are you supposed to dispel religion with religion?

The only person who would wish to dispell a religion is someone with an intolerant agenda such as yourself. If there is a religious ideaology you strongly disagree with, then you get into a debate over philosophy, not science. If a scientist used religion to back up their theory, they will be laughed at. In a similar matter, you using science to back up a religious stance will get a real kick out of the religious side.

What I need to throw in are facts like: God doesn't exists because he doesn't kill non-believers and other 'sinners' as the bible commands in the old testament or nothing happens when you pray.

I'm no Christian or expert on the Bible, but it's a matter of interpretation. There may well be a number of passages that contradict things in the Old and New Testaments. I'll let someone with more knowledge on the subject argue that with you.

I agree. It is obvious that he cannot find 10 things and all he is doing is making excuses. Also sad.

Learn to read, please. Sebbie already posted a great list of good things from the Bible. Here's the link if you're not up to scrolling back up and searching for it yourself.

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/good/long.html

Now that is just plain, fucking stupid.

You obviously cannot find any so you are wrong.

Quit pissing people off and accept that you are not able to find them.

You, my friend, are a troll. You use harsh language (not limited to swear words but all strongly phrased statements) to stir a negative reaction in people. If you cannot debate without using language that will provoke people, you're a poor debater, and it should be no surprise why people are react in such a hostile manner to your posts.

[INFERNO]

There is much evidence that supports the idea of a way of the world being made an working that does not invlolve God.

So? The world can exist and continue to function without cars, computers, Euclid of Alexandria's book "Elements", etc... . Hell, according to some religions, the world can work perfectly fine without science. So what exactly are you trying to show, other than giving me a biased and incredibly weak argument that leads to a conclusion, where this conclusion can be obtained by numerous other arguments?


How are you supposed to dispel religion with religion? What am I supposed to say? God doesn't exist becuase God tells me so? As you can probraly see, that sounds retarded since I would be contradicting myself.

I never said anything about dispelling it. I said you can analyze it but not show it is true nor false. You can analyze religion using a religious paradigm, which is what was implied and was rather obvious when I said analyze religion with religion. You're twisting it around to make it a way to conclude something whereas that is not what it is for. You can analyze, say, Christianity using the bible and a religious paradigm. I've not once said it can be used to conclude something.


What I need to throw in are facts like: God doesn't exists because he doesn't kill non-believers and other 'sinners' as the bible commands in the old testament or nothing happens when you pray. You may well believe in God yourself (I am not saying that this is true however) but that doesn't mean that you should demand that people dissprove his existance in the most ineffective (as in non-proving) ways.


Right, so if someone believes in a religion, then I should tell them to disprove it? I've been saying over and over in this thread and in others, you use faith for proving your religious beliefs and use religious paradigms to analyze it.

But you've forgotten the most basic of English skills for analyzing literature: INTERPRETATION.

Now you've jumped to a whole other story by tossing in something that according to you, is factual. If you are going to tell me that a certain god does not exist, then give a reason why that does involve showing that you have understood some of the belief. Using your logic to a human, if someone calls me and I don't answer it (assuming I am home), then I don't exist. That's essentially what you've said to me, which makes no sense because I'd flop back and forth from existing to non-existing. However, your reason is wrong for yet another reason: some people say god has answered their prayers, so that, using your reasoning, would serve as evidence that he does exist.

You seem to just be using little reasons thrown out by someone who is taking little snippets of the bible and referring to them as factual evidence for your claim. If you indeed are telling me a fact, then there should be not a single person who would say that god has answered their prayers, has killed non-believers, etc... .

Since you somehow say that religious people disprove or prove their god's existence in the most ineffective of ways, then perhaps you can enlighten me, how do you propose to prove/disprove a god's existence in a more effective way. There is a condition to this and it is relatively simple: don't butcher up the basics of religion and/or science and/or whatever other method.

Oh and a little side-note: I'm not a believer in god. :yeah:

[Death]

The only person who would wish to dispell a religion is someone with an intolerant agenda such as yourself.

This is a religion topic so you may want to revise that pathetic attitude of yours. If I want to try to dispel a religion on a relgious debate forum becuase I don't believe in it, that's my fucking choice. Oh, sorry, did I just offend you with my language? Big fucking deal. Also, it shouldn't matter how I dispel religion, so long as I use evidence or similar facts that suggest that God does not exist for whatever purpose.


Learn to read, please. Sebbie already posted a great list of good things from the Bible. Here's the link if you're not up to scrolling back up and searching for it yourself.

Okay, I admit that in that aspect, I was wrong and I apologise for this.


You, my friend, are a troll. You use harsh language (not limited to swear words but all strongly phrased statements) to stir a negative reaction in people. If you cannot debate without using language that will provoke people, you're a poor debater, and it should be no surprise why people are react in such a hostile manner to your posts.

If you wish to call me something, be sure that you mean it. I am obviously not your friend due to your attutude towards me afterwards. In fact, you are being very hypocritical here. You are being just as rude as I was. Also, swearing is allowed. I advice you to check up on the rules since you are obviously oblivious to half of them.

So? The world can exist and continue to function without cars, computers, Euclid of Alexandria's book "Elements", etc... . Hell, according to some religions, the world can work perfectly fine without science. So what exactly are you trying to show, other than giving me a biased and incredibly weak argument that leads to a conclusion, where this conclusion can be obtained by numerous other arguments?

Do you seriously find it plausible that no scientific laws will allow a world to work? You probraly don't and nor do I. As for my argument, if you are so inclined to insult my methods of arguing, how about you stop complaining about it and argue religion yourself? Go on, after me, post something that argues against religion without using any facts. Basically, it is a ludricous idea so I don't see the issue here.

I never said anything about dispelling it. I said you can analyze it but not show it is true nor false. You can analyze religion using a religious paradigm, which is what was implied and was rather obvious when I said analyze religion with religion. You're twisting it around to make it a way to conclude something whereas that is not what it is for. You can analyze, say, Christianity using the bible and a religious paradigm. I've not once said it can be used to conclude something.

What use is analysis? We should be debating whether or not something is true! You need to use certain facts for your argument and I've been critisized and insulted for doing this. Are you seriously saying that in order to argue against religion, I msut use religious quotes from the bible or whatnot? I find it deeply unlikely that religous enthusiasts will have left anything behind that would argue such a case. If this was not the method to which you were referring, please be more clear next time.


Right, so if someone believes in a religion, then I should tell them to disprove it? I've been saying over and over in this thread and in others, you use faith for proving your religious beliefs and use religious paradigms to analyze it.

I believe in every religion that I've ever heard. I just don't believe that they are true. Faith does not prove anything. that is why it's called faith. People jsut believe in, full stop. Since when has this been evidence? If people want to prove that religion exists, they should find reasons and try to back them up somehow; not just say that they do. Think about it, I could say that a fairy flies around the moon wihtout requiring any fod but you can't see her. Why ccan you say this is true simply because you believe in it? Okay so maybe we can't truly dissprove it, but we can use reasons to say why it might be improbable. Until we see this fairy or signs of it, it doesn't exist. Al I would want is something to show that she exists.


Now you've jumped to a whole other story by tossing in something that according to you, is factual. If you are going to tell me that a certain god does not exist, then give a reason why that does involve showing that you have understood some of the belief. Using your logic to a human, if someone calls me and I don't answer it (assuming I am home), then I don't exist. That's essentially what you've said to me, which makes no sense because I'd flop back and forth from existing to non-existing. However, your reason is wrong for yet another reason: some people say god has answered their prayers, so that, using your reasoning, would serve as evidence that he does exist.

INFERNO, you are not supposed to mix facts with religion, according to you. Besides, if you sometimes answer your phone, you must exist for that to be possible. It is impossible to flip between existance and non-existance; even you know that. However, the fact that God never answers his prayers and doesn't show that he exists in any other way seems like a reason to suggest that he is non-existant.


Since you somehow say that religious people disprove or prove their god's existence in the most ineffective of ways, then perhaps you can enlighten me, how do you propose to prove/disprove a god's existence in a more effective way. There is a condition to this and it is relatively simple: don't butcher up the basics of religion and/or science and/or whatever other method.

How do you suppose that you can argue religon in a more effective way? In fact, don't tell me, just give me an example. I've said this before, but please, after me, I want you to either prove or disprove God's existance witout using the facts that you think should not be used. I'm actually looking forward to seeing this.


Oh and a little side-note: I'm not a believer in god. :yeah:

You sure don't show it. I don't remember you ever using any information here at all to show that God doesn't exist let alone say that you don't believe in him. If i am wrong however, please prove me otherwise with quotes from yourself.

[INFERNO]

Do you seriously find it plausible that no scientific laws will allow a world to work? You probraly don't and nor do I. As for my argument, if you are so inclined to insult my methods of arguing, how about you stop complaining about it and argue religion yourself? Go on, after me, post something that argues against religion without using any facts. Basically, it is a ludricous idea so I don't see the issue here.

Yes I do find it possible. I have argued religion many times on these forums. I don't use the same approaches you do and I don't argue to show god does or does not exist. I argue using interpretations of the bible, the person's argument, religious paradigm and taking into account the morals of the bible, the person (if the person states them clearly) and my morals (if those are needed for the debate).


What use is analysis? We should be debating whether or not something is true! You need to use certain facts for your argument and I've been critisized and insulted for doing this. Are you seriously saying that in order to argue against religion, I msut use religious quotes from the bible or whatnot? I find it deeply unlikely that religous enthusiasts will have left anything behind that would argue such a case. If this was not the method to which you were referring, please be more clear next time.

I think I know why you're not understanding what I said. Do you know what a paradigm is? In simple terms, it's a set of assumptions you use that can affect your outcomes, analysis, the data/evidence you look for, etc.. . This is not limited to looking for biblical passages but rather to giving your interpretations of the passages, thereby using religion to refute religion.



I believe in every religion that I've ever heard. I just don't believe that they are true. Faith does not prove anything. that is why it's called faith. People jsut believe in, full stop. Since when has this been evidence? If people want to prove that religion exists, they should find reasons and try to back them up somehow; not just say that they do. Think about it, I could say that a fairy flies around the moon wihtout requiring any fod but you can't see her. Why ccan you say this is true simply because you believe in it? Okay so maybe we can't truly dissprove it, but we can use reasons to say why it might be improbable. Until we see this fairy or signs of it, it doesn't exist. Al I would want is something to show that she exists.

You're right, we can give reasons for it being improbable. Faith proves your devotion to a belief, it can give evidence for oneself to believe in it. If one's faith is not good enough for someone else, then so be it. The bible sometimes is taken as evidence for god's existence (I don't consider this evidence for the idea that god is a physical entity though but instead a mental entity), however, religion is not going to provide you with the scientific evidence that you so desire.


INFERNO, you are not supposed to mix facts with religion, according to you. Besides, if you sometimes answer your phone, you must exist for that to be possible. It is impossible to flip between existance and non-existance; even you know that. However, the fact that God never answers his prayers and doesn't show that he exists in any other way seems like a reason to suggest that he is non-existant.

I said not to mix science and religion, not facts and religion. If you're going to tell me that science is factual then you may be butchering science up also but that is a discussion for another time and place. How do you know god never answers his prayers? If someone tells me that god does, then how can I tell them or show them that god hasn't?


How do you suppose that you can argue religon in a more effective way? In fact, don't tell me, just give me an example. I've said this before, but please, after me, I want you to either prove or disprove God's existance witout using the facts that you think should not be used. I'm actually looking forward to seeing this.

Nice debating technique, give me the same question that I gave you which you never answered. Why should I prove/disprove something? If people believe in god, then let them. There's no need nor useful outcome of me doing some elaborate proof of their god. I can criticize it using biblical passages and interpreting them to show how it goes against itself all I want but that is not going to disprove nor prove god's existence. Besides, suppose I do give a believer my interpretation using biblical passages and suppose the outcome of it indicates that due to the contradictions and such, god doesn't exist. What good is that? If someone believes in it, then one random little paper isn't going to change it and it would only fuel the fire for atheists who demand solid evidence for the beliefs while bashing away going "rah, rah, rah, your god doesn't exist, rah, rah, rah".


You sure don't show it. I don't remember you ever using any information here at all to show that God doesn't exist let alone say that you don't believe in him. If i am wrong however, please prove me otherwise with quotes from yourself.

See above, there's no need for me to prove/disprove god's existence. I have stated in other threads I am an atheist, however, I am not the type of atheist who goes around demanding and showing people that their god doesn't exist. I don't believe in it one bit, however, what I find worse is when a fellow atheist comes along and attempts to refute the belief and demanding that the believers show proof. During this time, that atheist doesn't seem to understand the fundamentals of religion and may not understand the actual belief. In that case, I go to my own side where I show how the atheist is wrong but at the same time, I do not show that the believer's beliefs are correct or incorrect.

I believe that science and religion can be used and believed by the same person providing they don't begin smashing them together. They are not mutually exclusive.

If you want to know my beliefs, you can ask them anytime you wish but as you did ask for a quote:
CLICKIE HERE #1 (http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/showpost.php?p=446401&postcount=764) and CLICKIE HERE #2 (http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/poll.php?do=showresults&pollid=823)

[trevor20800]

Well, see here. I am a Christin and i believe in Creationism, so here is what i think of all of it

Big Bang Theory

Big Bang Theory and the theory of evolution is that, what caused it. What caused everything to explode in the big bang theory. There was not more matter, because according to the law of conservation of matter, matter can not be created or destroyed, so there would be nothing to cause the "big bang" to happen. So if it did happen, what caused it??? and where was all of this matter that was the size of a speck located?

Evolution
Evolution says we evolved from single celled organisms. How is that possible they are single celled, and if that did happen, wouldn't it be cancer! (cancer is the over reproduction of cells). So, if evolution did happend, what casued us to slowly change over time. How did a fish suddenly come out of the water and breath. And what fish did it mate and survive with it to give it legs and arms. That is not how breeding works. Kinda

Down to the point

all of this must be cause by something and weather it did happen or not, something must have caused it! done!

[Sage]

Well, see here. I am a Christin and i believe in Creationism, so here is what i think of all of it

Now you're debating science in a religion thread. This should be tons of fun. Let's dance, trevor.

Big Bang Theory and the theory of evolution is that, what caused it.

We don't know.

What caused everything to explode in the big bang theory.

We don't know.

There was not more matter, because according to the law of conservation of matter, matter can not be created or destroyed, so there would be nothing to cause the "big bang" to happen.

Yes, you are right, there was not more matter, but rather, all known matter in the universe was part of a singularity. I suggest you go research what a singularity is.

So if it did happen, what caused it???

We don't know.

and where was all of this matter that was the size of a speck located?

This speck was everything. You cannot define a location without relation to another object.

The Big Bang theory is the best theory we have to explain the expansion of the universe, not the origin of the universe. If you're into astronomy, you should be well familiar with the red shift phenomenon that lets us measure the distance between ourselves and other stars, nebulae, galaxies, etc. The face that everything is moving away is undeniable. You can see it happening for yourself if you measure the night sky with a telescope and some observation. Because we can see everything is moving away now, it is only logical for us to assume that, if we go backwards in time, everything will be moving towards everything else, and eventually it all must've been clumped together. That is the Big Bang theory in a nutshell.

Evolution says we evolved from single celled organisms.

Evolution says we evolved from simpler organisms over time. But this would begin with the single cells, yes. Just a minor correction there.

How is that possible they are single celled, and if that did happen, wouldn't it be cancer! (cancer is the over reproduction of cells).

Single cells multiply via asexual reproduction. You should've learned this in 9th grade Biology, if not earlier.

This would not be cancer because the cells don't grow at an uncontrolled, unreasonable rate. You don't see a fully formed human simply building itself out of single cells in a few weeks or months or years.

So, if evolution did happend, what casued us to slowly change over time.

We don't know.

How did a fish suddenly come out of the water and breath.

Logically, a fish would become an amphbian before it becomes a fully land-based species. Perhaps due to a change in sea levels, previously mid-deep sea dwelling organisms were forced to adapt to living in a shallow-water environment.

And what fish did it mate and survive with it to give it legs and arms. That is not how breeding works.

Animals don't just suddenly decide to give birth to an amazingly more evolved offspring. That's not how evolution works. Small changes occur over time (such as the genetic differences you have that do not resemble either of your parents(microevolution)) and if you observe these small changes over a grand period of time, such as a few million years, you end up with an organism that looks completely unlike what used to be.

Evolution in the real world is not like evolution in Pokemon.

all of this must be cause by something and weather it did happen or not, something must have caused it! done!

If you want to be anal about it, go ahead. But science has no method of proving or disproving the existence of God, and therefore no God is mentioned in science because it would take away from the falsifiability of theories.

Also, we get it. The Big Bang and Evolution are theories. A theory in scientific context is NOT like a theory in every day context. I am sick and tired of having to explain the difference to uneducated, ignorant people such as yourself, so I'm not even going to bother. Saying "It's just a theory" will get you laughed at.

Ha-ha-ha.

[Death]

Yes I do find it possible. I have argued religion many times on these forums. I don't use the same approaches you do and I don't argue to show god does or does not exist. I argue using interpretations of the bible, the person's argument, religious paradigm and taking into account the morals of the bible, the person (if the person states them clearly) and my morals (if those are needed for the debate).

You truly believe that it's possible that there's no true science? If you're athiest, how else does this world work? And if you're not arguing to try to promote or dispel God, then what are you arguing for? The quote you gave me looked quite anti-religous to me.

I think I know why you're not understanding what I said. Do you know what a paradigm is? In simple terms, it's a set of assumptions you use that can affect your outcomes, analysis, the data/evidence you look for, etc.. . This is not limited to looking for biblical passages but rather to giving your interpretations of the passages, thereby using religion to refute religion.

But that seems to be a difficult way in which to do it. Basically, are you saying that you can find religious texts or similar items and say why they were written and what the ycould mean in a non-religous sense? Are you saying that you could say that it needn't have anything to do with God since it can be seen from a non-religious persective and has certain morals in it?

You're right, we can give reasons for it being improbable. Faith proves your devotion to a belief, it can give evidence for oneself to believe in it. If one's faith is not good enough for someone else, then so be it. The bible sometimes is taken as evidence for god's existence (I don't consider this evidence for the idea that god is a physical entity though but instead a mental entity), however, religion is not going to provide you with the scientific evidence that you so desire.

I suppose that faith does prove that you are devoted to something but if that's all it does, then that's little proof. If some stranger were to come up to you, you a dagger and say "God has spoken to me. He has said that those with faith shall reap great rewards. You are to give this dagger to another man and tell them to plunge it in their chest. That person should have faith in me, the lord their god and in doing so, will not be hurt but instead will have great wisdom afterwards, njoy good health for the rest of their life, have special privallages in heaven, and enjoy more money than they've ever dreamed off while still on Earth. You must give this dagger to someone and test them.", would you do it?

Would you have blind faith and stab yourself? or would you walk away and leave it? I don't like having faith because there's nothing to tell me that it's true. other peoples' faith will not satisfy me since the could say pretty much anythign and I'd have to believe it. I don't want to be blind like that. One thing that I do agree with you about however is that the book called "The Bible" (I refuse to just call it "the Bible" since it implies that it is a special book beyond the rest and that is bullshit - call me picky) is not evidence but only suggests that said content exists in peoples' minds. It all exists for them. One question though; does that mean that it truly exists?

I said not to mix science and religion, not facts and religion. If you're going to tell me that science is factual then you may be butchering science up also but that is a discussion for another time and place. How do you know god never answers his prayers? If someone tells me that god does, then how can I tell them or show them that god hasn't?

So what are scientific facts then? Is science not based on facts? It must be since science is always proved so it's factual. Religion on the other hand is based on faith which is no evidence because you could say anything and use it as evidence wheras science looks for the answers without making them up to what they want it to be. Science even admits that there are things that are not understood and hav yet ot be explained. Religion on the other hand, 'knows it all'. Do you really thinks so? Really? Also, why would God answer one person but not another? If one truly believes that God has answered him, they are either hallucinating, or assuming God has helped them when in reality it was something completely different.

Say, Nick prays to God and asks him to make him do well in his football match. God does not actually speak to him (in the same way as standard, person-to-person conversations) as far as he's concerned but when he ends up doing well in the match, he then says that God has answered his prayer and his faith is maintained. What do I think? Rubbish; it was not God that made him do well, it's all the practice and effort he put into it as well as the perfomance of his teamates who would have needed to help as well as pot luck and the perfomance of the opposition - it has nothing to do with God as I see it.

Nice debating technique, give me the same question that I gave you which you never answered. Why should I prove/disprove something? If people believe in god, then let them. There's no need nor useful outcome of me doing some elaborate proof of their god. I can criticize it using biblical passages and interpreting them to show how it goes against itself all I want but that is not going to disprove nor prove god's existence. Besides, suppose I do give a believer my interpretation using biblical passages and suppose the outcome of it indicates that due to the contradictions and such, god doesn't exist. What good is that? If someone believes in it, then one random little paper isn't going to change it and it would only fuel the fire for atheists who demand solid evidence for the beliefs while bashing away going "rah, rah, rah, your god doesn't exist, rah, rah, rah".

INFERNO, if you cannot argue in the same way that you just asked me to, it suggests that you are not even able to. Why ask me to do something you can't do yourself? I do agree that you should let people just believe in whatever wild nonsence the like, just so long as they do not preach and if you are on a religion debate, that is a pretty poor argument to use. We are here to debate religion - why tell people to just let people speculate without facts? Why tell people not to debate? Seems pointless to me. And yes, I understand that some religous people are so tied down to one of many deities, but that doesn't mean that you could make them consider other possibilities and be more open-minded on a debate now does it? You do however, have a bit of a point here.


See above, there's no need for me to prove/disprove god's existence. I have stated in other threads I am an atheist, however, I am not the type of atheist who goes around demanding and showing people that their god doesn't exist. I don't believe in it one bit, however, what I find worse is when a fellow atheist comes along and attempts to refute the belief and demanding that the believers show proof. During this time, that atheist doesn't seem to understand the fundamentals of religion and may not understand the actual belief. In that case, I go to my own side where I show how the atheist is wrong but at the same time, I do not show that the believer's beliefs are correct or incorrect.

See the above. I hate it when religious people say stuff exists and use nthing to back it up. Faith won't do for the reasons that I gave above as well. We should be debating here and thus, refuting others' beliefs with facts and whatnot should be allowed. Likewise, they can do it to me for all I care; so long as they do not expect me to believe stuff without backing it up and explaining the why of it. This would not be preaching. It would only be preaching if they did it outside a debate and simply talk about God as if he exists wihout any proof at all.



I believe that science and religion can be used and believed by the same person providing they don't begin smashing them together. They are not mutually exclusive.

A lot of scientific facts suggest that God doesn't exist. I have heard about this wasp that have their homes in a hole in the ground. They go off to find food for their young in the hole but first, learn the appearance of the area so that they can find it again. When they return with food, they then put it doen and chekc to see if anything is blocking the hole. In the incredible likely event that nothing is blocking it, they then pick the food up and bring it in. Well, one glitch there I'm afraid. One person, when the wasp was checking, he moved the food. The wasp went to ehere it left the food only to find it missing. Consequently, the wasp looked around and then saw it. It then moved the food to the hole and then dropped it just outside and checked the hole again. Naturaully, the man moved the food again and the wasp did the same hting over and over. Basically, the wasp kept re-checking the hole everytime and was not intelligent enough to understand what was going on and thus, the food never entered the hole until the man finally got bored.

INFERNO, this is a scientific fact. Now tell me, did God create unintellgent and flawed wasp? Wouldn't God have created something better which wouldn't be fooled by such simple things? Let's have another exapmle. When giving birth, the anatomy used is shaped to help the baby come out in only one position. If the baby is in any other position, it becomes a whole lot more complicated. Okay, so a lot of the time, the baby comes out correctly, however, this isn't always the case and things get ugly and difficult. Now tell me, did God design this flawed system? Would he not have allowed the baby to come out in several different positonis and allow appropiate anatomy to support this? There are many other scientific facts that question the power or existacne of God. Please think about what I've said.

Well, see here. I am a Christin and i believe in Creationism, so here is what i think of all of it

Big Bang Theory

Big Bang Theory and the theory of evolution is that, what caused it. What caused everything to explode in the big bang theory. There was not more matter, because according to the law of conservation of matter, matter can not be created or destroyed, so there would be nothing to cause the "big bang" to happen. So if it did happen, what caused it??? and where was all of this matter that was the size of a speck located?

I'm going to stop you right there. You say that something will have had to have made the big bang but tell me, if God existed, who created him? Same principle trevor20800. Also, scientists (or at least scientists that are not biased and use religion to explain thigns where they should use science) admit that there are things that are not fully understood. That's becuase they look for evidence. Also, according to the book called "The Bible", the big bang never happened; God went straight to making Earth and other planets.

Evolution
Evolution says we evolved from single celled organisms. How is that possible they are single celled, and if that did happen, wouldn't it be cancer! (cancer is the over reproduction of cells). So, if evolution did happend, what casued us to slowly change over time. How did a fish suddenly come out of the water and breath. And what fish did it mate and survive with it to give it legs and arms. That is not how breeding works. Kinda

We adapt over time as our environent does. How can you connect this to cancer? And no, fish do not just jump out of the water and start breathing. The organisms in the sea would have started to (in so many milleniums I might add) adapt a body system that allows that to breath on air and they would then breath in both places. As they get used to land, they start to evolve to support land alone and they loose anything that had been suited to water. Also, they were never fish, tehy were so simplistic, they could easily adapt and become more complicated to live on land. They were never truly designed for water. Fish however, would have been through evolution. Things don't stay the same. They must change to suit the environt and survive. Those that fail to do so die out. It's called natural selection.

Down to the point

all of this must be cause by something and weather it did happen or not, something must have caused it! done!

As I've explained before, the body does the evolution thing naturally. t has nothign to do with God. Also, you can't say somehting caused the big bang. We do not truly understand it to my knowledge. I believe collecting matter might have caused an explosion but it is unclear what happened befoere that. Lastly, think. As I've said before, who created God? Please think on that one.

So, I'm athiest and for good reason.

[INFERNO]

Big Bang Theory and the theory of evolution is that, what caused it. What caused everything to explode in the big bang theory. There was not more matter, because according to the law of conservation of matter, matter can not be created or destroyed, so there would be nothing to cause the "big bang" to happen. So if it did happen, what caused it??? and where was all of this matter that was the size of a speck located?

We are not entirely sure as to what exactly caused it. For the location of the speck, how do you plan to define its location? We usually would try to give its location in comparison to something else but if there is nothing else there, then how are we meant to give a precise location?


Evolution says we evolved from single celled organisms. How is that possible they are single celled, and if that did happen, wouldn't it be cancer! (cancer is the over reproduction of cells). So, if evolution did happend, what casued us to slowly change over time. How did a fish suddenly come out of the water and breath. And what fish did it mate and survive with it to give it legs and arms. That is not how breeding works.

Cancer is much more than over-reproduction of cells but I'll save you the molecular genetics explanations of it. In simple terms, you have single-celled organisms that "bind" with other single-celled organisms. Keep doing this and you can easily see how a multi-cellular organism can arise.

Evolution has numerous forces, some of them include mutation, natural selection, genetic drift, etc... . For your fish example, there is a type of fish still alive called a lungfish because it has lungs and can breath outside of the water. Any one of these forces could have caused the development of the lungs allowing it to flop on land until it found another water place.


all of this must be cause by something and weather it did happen or not, something must have caused it! done!

And your point is?

You truly believe that it's possible that there's no true science? If you're athiest, how else does this world work? And if you're not arguing to try to promote or dispel God, then what are you arguing for? The quote you gave me looked quite anti-religous to me.

Yes I do believe it is possible for the world to survive without science. I see no reason why it would be unable to survive. Perhaps the inhabitants on the Earth would not fare very well but the world nonetheless would continue to survive.

Right now, I'm arguing against an atheist whose views I do not agree with about religion. There is no reason why I must argue for or against god while being an atheist. I'm perfectly happy if others believe in it while I don't. I don't see why an atheist would have to argue for or against god.


But that seems to be a difficult way in which to do it. Basically, are you saying that you can find religious texts or similar items and say why they were written and what the ycould mean in a non-religous sense? Are you saying that you could say that it needn't have anything to do with God since it can be seen from a non-religious persective and has certain morals in it?

It may be difficult, however, it adheres to the philosophy of religion and does not mix science into it.

You're coming closer to understanding it, however, you're still not getting it. It is using a religious paradigm and it is being viewed from a religious perspective.


I suppose that faith does prove that you are devoted to something but if that's all it does, then that's little proof. If some stranger were to come up to you, you a dagger and say "God has spoken to me. He has said that those with faith shall reap great rewards. You are to give this dagger to another man and tell them to plunge it in their chest. That person should have faith in me, the lord their god and in doing so, will not be hurt but instead will have great wisdom afterwards, njoy good health for the rest of their life, have special privallages in heaven, and enjoy more money than they've ever dreamed off while still on Earth. You must give this dagger to someone and test them.", would you do it?

I don't know how many times I have to say it: RELIGION DOES NOT NEED THE PROOF THAT SCIENCE DOES. Would I do it? No, I'd probably refuse to take the dagger but if I had to, I'd take the dagger home or somewhere else but not use it. May just have it as a nice ornament if anything.


Would you have blind faith and stab yourself? or would you walk away and leave it? I don't like having faith because there's nothing to tell me that it's true. other peoples' faith will not satisfy me since the could say pretty much anythign and I'd have to believe it. I don't want to be blind like that. One thing that I do agree with you about however is that the book called "The Bible" (I refuse to just call it "the Bible" since it implies that it is a special book beyond the rest and that is bullshit - call me picky) is not evidence but only suggests that said content exists in peoples' minds. It all exists for them. One question though; does that mean that it truly exists?

Your own faith in theory would be good enough to make it true for yourself. If someone else has faith in something different, then you always have a choice. You don't need to believe in what they believe as being true or false.

Are you asking if the bible truly exists? I think it does, yes.


So what are scientific facts then? Is science not based on facts? It must be since science is always proved so it's factual. Religion on the other hand is based on faith which is no evidence because you could say anything and use it as evidence wheras science looks for the answers without making them up to what they want it to be. Science even admits that there are things that are not understood and hav yet ot be explained. Religion on the other hand, 'knows it all'. Do you really thinks so? Really? Also, why would God answer one person but not another? If one truly believes that God has answered him, they are either hallucinating, or assuming God has helped them when in reality it was something completely different.

Science is heavily based on scientific theories which in no way are facts. Science is always proved? No, you can show that something may be true or false but that does not mean that it is 100% or 0% true or false.

Faith is not meant to have evidence to satisfy science.

Science and religion both use paradigms, although the paradigms have a different focus. Religion and science could both be given the same phenomenon yet give completely different views on it. So, science does look for things that will satisfy it as does religion.

The "knowing it all" part to me is simply a reflection of someone's faith being very strong. It can be both good and bad. I'm not sure I agree with it though because it can violate their own religious beliefs.

You're right, it could be something completely different but they view it as god having answered their prayers. However, the issue with that is the argument as it would apply to you, that is, god has answered your prayers but you view it as something else. You see the problem now that we are faced with is your word. Only you can be the most reliable source to tell me if that is correct or not, I can suggest it may be right or wrong, and I could bring in a devout believer to give me their answer on it. We're then left with your word vs. theirs. The argument on whether he answered each of your prayers probably will go nowhere because it's simply a "yes-no" back and forth.


Say, Nick prays to God and asks him to make him do well in his football match. God does not actually speak to him (in the same way as standard, person-to-person conversations) as far as he's concerned but when he ends up doing well in the match, he then says that God has answered his prayer and his faith is maintained. What do I think? Rubbish; it was not God that made him do well, it's all the practice and effort he put into it as well as the perfomance of his teamates who would have needed to help as well as pot luck and the perfomance of the opposition - it has nothing to do with God as I see it.

That is also completely true. However, hopefully you're understanding what a paradigm is (you gave a good example of it in this). His paradigm is a religious one whereas yours is not, so he is inclined to view it and use religious beliefs for it. You on the other hand, use a different paradigm.


INFERNO, if you cannot argue in the same way that you just asked me to, it suggests that you are not even able to. Why ask me to do something you can't do yourself? I do agree that you should let people just believe in whatever wild nonsence the like, just so long as they do not preach and if you are on a religion debate, that is a pretty poor argument to use. We are here to debate religion - why tell people to just let people speculate without facts? Why tell people not to debate? Seems pointless to me. And yes, I understand that some religous people are so tied down to one of many deities, but that doesn't mean that you could make them consider other possibilities and be more open-minded on a debate now does it? You do however, have a bit of a point here.

I can do it myself all I want, however, I choose not to because I see it as pointless and probably wasting my time. I also have no reason to do so whereas you seem much more inclined to do so, so why not let you? My only reason would be to satisfy you and frankly, I don't care about satisfying you one way or another. I can easily pick up some biblical passages and scream "God doesn't exist!!!" but I have no real reason to do so.

You're correct, I could try to make them more open-minded but then comes a few questions. First, if they are so devoted, then what are the chances of me changing their views? Not very high. Second, do I have any reason for making them more open-minded other than simply to make them more open-minded?

Wait... you allow others to believe in what they want as long as they do not preach? Funny, you going around trying to show god doesn't exist seems awfully close to preaching to me. Back with your example about Nick and the football game, you go against his possible argument and even called his view rubbish. I'm having a hard time believing that you allow others to freely believe.


See the above. I hate it when religious people say stuff exists and use nthing to back it up. Faith won't do for the reasons that I gave above as well. We should be debating here and thus, refuting others' beliefs with facts and whatnot should be allowed. Likewise, they can do it to me for all I care; so long as they do not expect me to believe stuff without backing it up and explaining the why of it. This would not be preaching. It would only be preaching if they did it outside a debate and simply talk about God as if he exists wihout any proof at all.

If faith won't do, then the question becomes, what will satisfy you? If you say science, then we both know that it won't be a happening thing. For religion, what facts do you propose to be used? Toss around whatever quotes from religious books, give our interpretations on them, and similar stuff?


A lot of scientific facts suggest that God doesn't exist. I have heard about this wasp that have their homes in a hole in the ground. They go off to find food for their young in the hole but first, learn the appearance of the area so that they can find it again. When they return with food, they then put it doen and chekc to see if anything is blocking the hole. In the incredible likely event that nothing is blocking it, they then pick the food up and bring it in. Well, one glitch there I'm afraid. One person, when the wasp was checking, he moved the food. The wasp went to ehere it left the food only to find it missing. Consequently, the wasp looked around and then saw it. It then moved the food to the hole and then dropped it just outside and checked the hole again. Naturaully, the man moved the food again and the wasp did the same hting over and over. Basically, the wasp kept re-checking the hole everytime and was not intelligent enough to understand what was going on and thus, the food never entered the hole until the man finally got bored.

That is a scientific fact?


INFERNO, this is a scientific fact. Now tell me, did God create unintellgent and flawed wasp? Wouldn't God have created something better which wouldn't be fooled by such simple things? Let's have another exapmle. When giving birth, the anatomy used is shaped to help the baby come out in only one position. If the baby is in any other position, it becomes a whole lot more complicated. Okay, so a lot of the time, the baby comes out correctly, however, this isn't always the case and things get ugly and difficult. Now tell me, did God design this flawed system? Would he not have allowed the baby to come out in several different positonis and allow appropiate anatomy to support this? There are many other scientific facts that question the power or existacne of God. Please think about what I've said.

Hold on, so your argument is that since something is flawed in some way, then that means god does not exist and/or is not very powerful? In the bible, it makes it very clear that humans are not as powerful nor as perfect as god. About non-humans, this is a reflection of the social times at that time when it was written: humans were considered much more important than other animals, so your wasp example is not really applicable because the bible is for humans not for other animals. Your wasp argument is then void.

Now, if I understand you correctly, you're telling me that a scientific fact is an observation of something. So since science is based on scientific theories, which are not facts, then science is therefore factual? The observations can be facts but the theories explaining them in no way are facts.

[Death]

Yes I do believe it is possible for the world to survive without science. I see no reason why it would be unable to survive. Perhaps the inhabitants on the Earth would not fare very well but the world nonetheless would continue to survive.

When I said 'science', I didn't mean it as in the theory of science makes the world work, I meant the scientific laws themselves. What makes a body work? Why are teh bodis able to move, eat, sleep and so on? It's the science (moreover, biology) that makes i all work. What makes a twig drop when you let go of it? Gravity which is a law based on physics. It's basically these things that all make the world work instead of simply being empty and inanimate.

I don't know how many times I have to say it: RELIGION DOES NOT NEED THE PROOF THAT SCIENCE DOES. Would I do it? No, I'd probably refuse to take the dagger but if I had to, I'd take the dagger home or somewhere else but not use it. May just have it as a nice ornament if anything.

If what you are saying is true, then as far as I'm concerned, stuff religion. No proof or logical explainations? Then I'll not listen.

Your own faith in theory would be good enough to make it true for yourself. If someone else has faith in something different, then you always have a choice. You don't need to believe in what they believe as being true or false.

Making something true for yourself is only speculation. It doesn't mean that it's really true. Say that as far as I'm concerned, I'm invincible then I jump of a cliff, are you saying that I won't die becuase to myself, I cannot die?

Are you asking if the bible truly exists? I think it does, yes.

'The Bible' does exist, yes. Is the religion it teaches and enforces true? No. If you think it is, you are not athiest.

Science is heavily based on scientific theories which in no way are facts. Science is always proved? No, you can show that something may be true or false but that does not mean that it is 100% or 0% true or false.

I know that there are theories, however, there are some facts that we know shch are defintely true and they are scientific and these theories are made from careful research instad of reckless imaginings and wild speculation which has come from nowhere.

The "knowing it all" part to me is simply a reflection of someone's faith being very strong. It can be both good and bad. I'm not sure I agree with it though because it can violate their own religious beliefs.

True, it proves that they are devout however that can easily lead to narrow-mindedness and I hate that. I do not mind religious people and I don't argue with them, except here for obvious reasons.

You're right, it could be something completely different but they view it as god having answered their prayers. However, the issue with that is the argument as it would apply to you, that is, god has answered your prayers but you view it as something else. You see the problem now that we are faced with is your word. Only you can be the most reliable source to tell me if that is correct or not, I can suggest it may be right or wrong, and I could bring in a devout believer to give me their answer on it. We're then left with your word vs. theirs. The argument on whether he answered each of your prayers probably will go nowhere because it's simply a "yes-no" back and forth.

If somebody refuses to listen to my words of wisdom that I took more effort to get than they did for teirs for obvious reasons, so be it. Let them believe in whatever far-fetched and unproved stuff they wish.

That is also completely true. However, hopefully you're understanding what a paradigm is (you gave a good example of it in this). His paradigm is a religious one whereas yours is not, so he is inclined to view it and use religious beliefs for it. You on the other hand, use a different paradigm.

Again, if someone refuses to look for the factual truth instead of just making something up, let them. Not here though since we are debating.

I can do it myself all I want, however, I choose not to because I see it as pointless and probably wasting my time. I also have no reason to do so whereas you seem much more inclined to do so, so why not let you? My only reason would be to satisfy you and frankly, I don't care about satisfying you one way or another. I can easily pick up some biblical passages and scream "God doesn't exist!!!" but I have no real reason to do so.

Well, that's dissapointed me since I seriously believed that you would do it. If you really won't though, then nor will I. I will argue about religion in my own way.

Wait... you allow others to believe in what they want as long as they do not preach? Funny, you going around trying to show god doesn't exist seems awfully close to preaching to me. Back with your example about Nick and the football game, you go against his possible argument and even called his view rubbish. I'm having a hard time believing that you allow others to freely believe.

INFERNO, you're wrong. I am not preaching since this is a debate. If somebody wants to try to dissprove the 'truth' behind athiesm, let them. Why? Because we are in a debate. Outside of debates however, they should shut the hell up. I for one, wouldn't preach since I am better than that.

If faith won't do, then the question becomes, what will satisfy you? If you say science, then we both know that it won't be a happening thing. For religion, what facts do you propose to be used? Toss around whatever quotes from religious books, give our interpretations on them, and similar stuff?

I want to be able to see things and conduct experiments that show they exist. You can;t d that with religion. Say, you build a campfire and pray to God to ask him to set it alight just to see if he exists. When you realise it hasn't happened, that only suggests he's non-existant or useless or ignorant. And don't say that it's not on fire to you since when you throw yourself in it, you won't die. The fire can't be lit and non-existant at the same time.

That is a scientific fact?

Of course. In fact, I get the feeling that you're dodging my point.

Hold on, so your argument is that since something is flawed in some way, then that means god does not exist and/or is not very powerful? In the bible, it makes it very clear that humans are not as powerful nor as perfect as god. About non-humans, this is a reflection of the social times at that time when it was written: humans were considered much more important than other animals, so your wasp example is not really applicable because the bible is for humans not for other animals. Your wasp argument is then void.

I don't think it is void. Religious hymns and prayers (as well as other content) all teach that God made everything (another point, god made all the disgusting things too which (if religion is true) he should be blamed for) so God must have made that wasp as far as religion is concerned. Why would he create something (or another other thing or system including birth) which is imperfect? Is it because he didn't create it or because he's incompetent or what? Thus, I think that I have a point with my wasp thing. Besides, that's one of many little thing that questoin the ability, personality or very existance of God.

[INFERNO]

When I said 'science', I didn't mean it as in the theory of science makes the world work, I meant the scientific laws themselves. What makes a body work? Why are teh bodis able to move, eat, sleep and so on? It's the science (moreover, biology) that makes i all work. What makes a twig drop when you let go of it? Gravity which is a law based on physics. It's basically these things that all make the world work instead of simply being empty and inanimate.

Oh, I misunderstood you then. In that case, the world would not be able to function.


If what you are saying is true, then as far as I'm concerned, stuff religion. No proof or logical explainations? Then I'll not listen.

Then that's being very narrow-minded and somewhat childish but do you as you wish.


Making something true for yourself is only speculation. It doesn't mean that it's really true. Say that as far as I'm concerned, I'm invincible then I jump of a cliff, are you saying that I won't die becuase to myself, I cannot die?

It does not mean it is really true, you're correct on that but to the person, it is true regardless of what it is in reality and regardless of what the rest of the population thinks. If you think you're invincible, then you simply think you are. You may act like you are as well but to the rest of the population, you aren't. If you jump of a cliff then, well, we both know what the outcome is going to be.


'The Bible' does exist, yes. Is the religion it teaches and enforces true? No. If you think it is, you are not athiest.

I do not think it is completely true. As far as I'm concerned, Jesus may have indeed been a real person at one point in time. I don't think he had magical powers and such but instead was a plain, ordinary human. I also know that the bible exists. Beyond those two things, I do not believe that the religion is true. I believe it can teach good morals but I do not practice the religion myself.


I know that there are theories, however, there are some facts that we know shch are defintely true and they are scientific and these theories are made from careful research instad of reckless imaginings and wild speculation which has come from nowhere.

Then enlighten me as to what these scientific facts are. By scientific, I assume you mean they adhere to the philosophy of science, otherwise I have trouble understanding why they would be considered scientific.


True, it proves that they are devout however that can easily lead to narrow-mindedness and I hate that. I do not mind religious people and I don't argue with them, except here for obvious reasons.

You must hate yourself then as above you stated how you won't bother with any religions.


If somebody refuses to listen to my words of wisdom that I took more effort to get than they did for teirs for obvious reasons, so be it. Let them believe in whatever far-fetched and unproved stuff they wish.

So your words of wisdom are better because they took you longer to establish?


Again, if someone refuses to look for the factual truth instead of just making something up, let them. Not here though since we are debating.

Well, so much for understanding other people's views... .


Well, that's dissapointed me since I seriously believed that you would do it. If you really won't though, then nor will I. I will argue about religion in my own way.

You can argue religion in your own way but just bare in mind, if you argue it with someone who is able to tell the difference between the philosophy of religion and philosophy of science, you're setting yourself up for a nice fall flat on your face. But it's your choice if you still wish to do so.


I want to be able to see things and conduct experiments that show they exist. You can;t d that with religion.

That is the problem though, you want to use scientific paradigms to something whose philosophy is the opposite of science. To put it in terms of science, it's like trying to test how strong a magnetic is using a piece of cabbage and nothing else. You may want to try to figure out how strong the magnet is but no matter what you do with the cabbage, it just is not going to work.

The part I'm slightly confused on is you acknowledge that it cannot be done with religion yet you still want to use it anyways. As you are dedicated to science, logic and common sense, then common sense will tell you that you need to use a different "thing" to use for religion.


Of course. In fact, I get the feeling that you're dodging my point.

You get that feeling because I was not sure if you were about to distort science.


I don't think it is void. Religious hymns and prayers (as well as other content) all teach that God made everything (another point, god made all the disgusting things too which (if religion is true) he should be blamed for) so God must have made that wasp as far as religion is concerned. Why would he create something (or another other thing or system including birth) which is imperfect? Is it because he didn't create it or because he's incompetent or what? Thus, I think that I have a point with my wasp thing. Besides, that's one of many little thing that questoin the ability, personality or very existance of God.

You know damn well that the bible was written by humans, not by god. It was written at a time where the social norms, morals, laws, etc... were different than they were today. You don't have to be a believer in the religion to figure that much out.

However, if that reason is not enough then perhaps looking at what the bible says will show you why your argument is wrong. In the bible, it claims that nothing is equal to god (the Holy Trinity is removed from this for obvious reasons). If you are to say that the wasp is to be perfect, then it is to be equal to god. You see why your argument is not working? You're trying to use the bible to support something when the bible clearly does not support it in any way. It supports your argument up to the point of god making the wasp and that's where it ends.

[Death]

Oh, I misunderstood you then. In that case, the world would not be able to function.

With this, I agree.

Then that's being very narrow-minded and somewhat childish but do you as you wish.

To say what you did is narrow-minded too and thus, hypocritical. I mean really, why should I listen to any random crap from someone if they simply grab it out of thin air without any real study or research? See the problem here?

It does not mean it is really true, you're correct on that but to the person, it is true regardless of what it is in reality and regardless of what the rest of the population thinks. If you think you're invincible, then you simply think you are. You may act like you are as well but to the rest of the population, you aren't. If you jump of a cliff then, well, we both know what the outcome is going to be.

Precisely, that sucide-commiter will get what's coming to him, namely death. That proves that having blind faith does not make it true at all and so I therefore want more than just faith before I believe something.

I do not think it is completely true. As far as I'm concerned, Jesus may have indeed been a real person at one point in time. I don't think he had magical powers and such but instead was a plain, ordinary human. I also know that the bible exists. Beyond those two things, I do not believe that the religion is true. I believe it can teach good morals but I do not practice the religion myself.

Jesus could well have been but yes, this magic stuff is nonsence, IMO. Some of them morals can be good but there are downright discrimintive and dangerous ones (mostly in the old testament) in them which I'm sure you're aware of.

Then enlighten me as to what these scientific facts are. By scientific, I assume you mean they adhere to the philosophy of science, otherwise I have trouble understanding why they would be considered scientific.

Facts which have been acknowledged from research and experiments instead of just grabbing something out of the air are scientific enough to me.

You must hate yourself then as above you stated how you won't bother with any religions.

I don't hate myself since I tolerate religions, but I won't practice them.

So your words of wisdom are better because they took you longer to establish?

Not so much longer but I actually made effort to get it. I looked for the truth that can be backed up and make sense. Religious people on the other hand will choose their answers with little thought put in.

Well, so much for understanding other people's views... .

INFERNO, I do not believe in their stuff so why sould I have to pay attention to it? You know full well that I should not have to believe it and thus it isn't really an issue on understanding. Do I hate people because of their religion? No. So I'm fine for that.

You can argue religion in your own way but just bare in mind, if you argue it with someone who is able to tell the difference between the philosophy of religion and philosophy of science, you're setting yourself up for a nice fall flat on your face. But it's your choice if you still wish to do so.

INFERNO, you are too predictable. I knew that you were going to say that! Why? You tell me. Regardless, you are not showing me any example in the way in which to argue so it justs seems a bit much to demand that I argue in said way.

The part I'm slightly confused on is you acknowledge that it cannot be done with religion yet you still want to use it anyways. As you are dedicated to science, logic and common sense, then common sense will tell you that you need to use a different "thing" to use for religion.

That's just an opinion.

You get that feeling because I was not sure if you were about to distort science.

I was basically getting you to think about the flaws in God's 'handywork'.

You know damn well that the bible was written by humans, not by god. It was written at a time where the social norms, morals, laws, etc... were different than they were today. You don't have to be a believer in the religion to figure that much out.

I never even insinuated that God did write the bible. I don't know why you are using this as 'evidence' since it does not seem connected to the topic of which we are discussing. There are still contradictions between what you claim and what some religious texts say.

However, if that reason is not enough then perhaps looking at what the bible says will show you why your argument is wrong. In the bible, it claims that nothing is equal to god (the Holy Trinity is removed from this for obvious reasons). If you are to say that the wasp is to be perfect, then it is to be equal to god. You see why your argument is not working? You're trying to use the bible to support something when the bible clearly does not support it in any way. It supports your argument up to the point of god making the wasp and that's where it ends.

INFERNO, the wasp does not have to be equal to God in order to not have silly little glitches. Besides, why must God fear creatures being as powerful as him or more so? If he can do anything, surely he can protect himself from anything that can harm him? Coming to think of it, he needn't give the creatures the ablity to even get to him in the first place. It's just interesting to look at all these little things. Besides, does it not seem more logical to say that it is an evolutionary or biological glitch in the system? If people wish to disregard this valid point, so be it. I have no prublem with them.

[INFERNO]

To say what you did is narrow-minded too and thus, hypocritical. I mean really, why should I listen to any random crap from someone if they simply grab it out of thin air without any real study or research? See the problem here?

How have I managed to be narrow-minded? Read your second sentence, there is the problem with your narrow-mindedness.


Precisely, that sucide-commiter will get what's coming to him, namely death. That proves that having blind faith does not make it true at all and so I therefore want more than just faith before I believe something.

Well that's too bad because you cannot perform a scientific experiment to see if a god/goddess exists.


Jesus could well have been but yes, this magic stuff is nonsence, IMO. Some of them morals can be good but there are downright discrimintive and dangerous ones (mostly in the old testament) in them which I'm sure you're aware of.

I'm well aware of the ones in the Old Testament being rather negative.


Facts which have been acknowledged from research and experiments instead of just grabbing something out of the air are scientific enough to me.

Give me an example of one of these scientific facts.


I don't hate myself since I tolerate religions, but I won't practice them.

Refer back to a quote by you:


as far as I'm concerned, stuff religion. No proof or logical explainations? Then I'll not listen.

Yep, you're definately tolerating religion all right, you said you don't even want to listen to them. Even if you don't believe in them, the least you could do is acknowledge them or listen to them but you don't do that. Face it, you're not tolerant of them at all.


Not so much longer but I actually made effort to get it. I looked for the truth that can be backed up and make sense. Religious people on the other hand will choose their answers with little thought put in.

Religious people who abide by the religious paradigms would make their "words of wisdom" that for them is truth and for their paradigm, the evidence satisfies it. You're doing the exact same thing except you are taking a different paradigm.


INFERNO, I do not believe in their stuff so why sould I have to pay attention to it? You know full well that I should not have to believe it and thus it isn't really an issue on understanding. Do I hate people because of their religion? No. So I'm fine for that.

I'm not saying you have to believe in it, however, just ignoring what they have to say on one particular subject (i.e. religion) then returning to them after they are off that topic is childish. It's essentially putting fingers in your ears and saying "la la la la, I'm not listening". Once they're off it, you then listen. So why should you pay attention? Out of respect, manners and perhaps you can learn something new. Society is greatly influenced by religion so why not give an ear for some of it?


INFERNO, you are too predictable. I knew that you were going to say that! Why? You tell me. Regardless, you are not showing me any example in the way in which to argue so it justs seems a bit much to demand that I argue in said way.

I have shown you how to argue it, I have given an example of it already. But I'll give another one: Johnny believes in Christianity and you two want to debate it. You can use your morals, his morals, both of your ethics and interpretations of the bible. You both would also abide by the religious paradigm.


That's just an opinion.

:lol: Very nice tactic of ignoring it.


I was basically getting you to think about the flaws in God's 'handywork'.

Then make it clearer next time.


I never even insinuated that God did write the bible. I don't know why you are using this as 'evidence' since it does not seem connected to the topic of which we are discussing. There are still contradictions between what you claim and what some religious texts say.

It is very clear, humans wrote the bible, it is about humans, how much more clearer do you want it? I know you never insinuated God wrote the bible, I mentioned it anyways.


INFERNO, the wasp does not have to be equal to God in order to not have silly little glitches. Besides, why must God fear creatures being as powerful as him or more so? If he can do anything, surely he can protect himself from anything that can harm him? Coming to think of it, he needn't give the creatures the ablity to even get to him in the first place. It's just interesting to look at all these little things. Besides, does it not seem more logical to say that it is an evolutionary or biological glitch in the system? If people wish to disregard this valid point, so be it. I have no prublem with them.

True, he could still overpower them, however, we're discussing Christianity at this present quote and so we are going to use what the Christian paradigm says. It is interesting indeed.

[Death]

How have I managed to be narrow-minded? Read your second sentence, there is the problem with your narrow-mindedness.

Read your second sentecne. That is narrow-minded. I should not have to accept stuff that I do not believe, end of.

Well that's too bad because you cannot perform a scientific experiment to see if a god/goddess exists.

So if someone believes that sun leaves filled with chlorophyll are pink, you can't argue against that? Nonsense; it's quite clearly green.

I'm well aware of the ones in the Old Testament being rather negative.

Good, since that raises the question of whether or not Christians prcatice the content in the old testament. Christians are supposed to follow the morals from the bible and if they followed those ones, then they are bascially psychopathic terrorists. If they don't, they are not following all the ancient christian rules.

Give me an example of one of these scientific facts.

I gave 2 already; the wasp one and the birth one. Alright, they don't truly disprove God, but they do question his power and/or existance.

Yep, you're definately tolerating religion all right, you said you don't even want to listen to them. Even if you don't believe in them, the least you could do is acknowledge them or listen to them but you don't do that. Face it, you're not tolerant of them at all.

Don't tell me that I don't tolerate religion since I'm the only person who knows whether or not I do and I bloody well do! When I say that I do not listen to them, I mean that I don't want to have to believe the nonsense coming out of their mouth. What right do you or they have to demand that I accept their views and either believe them or say that I believe them? I should have the right to believe that what they say is incorrect and tell them so. So don't tell me that I am intolerant of religion, okay.

Religious people who abide by the religious paradigms would make their "words of wisdom" that for them is truth and for their paradigm, the evidence satisfies it. You're doing the exact same thing except you are taking a different paradigm.

I have already made it clear why their paradigm sucks.

I'm not saying you have to believe in it, however, just ignoring what they have to say on one particular subject (i.e. religion) then returning to them after they are off that topic is childish. It's essentially putting fingers in your ears and saying "la la la la, I'm not listening". Once they're off it, you then listen. So why should you pay attention? Out of respect, manners and perhaps you can learn something new. Society is greatly influenced by religion so why not give an ear for some of it?

INFERNO, I do pay attention but I don't believe in shit. Simple as that. We can argue this until the cows come home but you are not dissuading me from deciding against truly acknowledging what I believe to be false.

I have shown you how to argue it, I have given an example of it already. But I'll give another one: Johnny believes in Christianity and you two want to debate it. You can use your morals, his morals, both of your ethics and interpretations of the bible. You both would also abide by the religious paradigm.

That is not a true example. All that is, is stating the way again. What I wanted you to do was to pretend that you were arguing for or against something and to construct one usng your lesser methods.

:lol: Very nice tactic of ignoring it.

Nice hypocritism. Why am I saying this? Because you completely ignored my wasp and birth points in the same way.

Then make it clearer next time.

INFERNO, not being funny or anything but you are seeming to get rude. Why should I have to make that clear? Since you believe that people should always listen (and I don't disagree), you should have listened to it but no, you disregarded it so I should do the same, really.

You say that we should all listen to each other and accept our views. Then why do you insult me for trying to dispel religion in a debate? Why must you start pathetic arguments with me simply because I try to explain why not everything has to be connected with God and that there's other ways of viewing things? What do you want from me? While reading your posts, I almost get the sense that you are trying to convert me to Christianity in unusual wasy and yet you say that you're athiest so you can't be doing that. What are you trying to do then? Change my method of debate to suit your style? I do not want to. Besides, you haven't argued using your style yet. As for what I'm doing, all I'm doing is defending myself. What are you trying to do?

[INFERNO]

Read your second sentecne. That is narrow-minded. I should not have to accept stuff that I do not believe, end of.

This narrow-minded game is going nowhere, so I'm dropping it.


So if someone believes that sun leaves filled with chlorophyll are pink, you can't argue against that? Nonsense; it's quite clearly green.

You sure can argue against it, however, it will be a faith vs. science argument.


Good, since that raises the question of whether or not Christians prcatice the content in the old testament. Christians are supposed to follow the morals from the bible and if they followed those ones, then they are bascially psychopathic terrorists. If they don't, they are not following all the ancient christian rules.

This is all very true except you're forgetting one key word: interpretation. They do not have to take it literally nor do they have to take it metaphorically, they can do bits of both. So when the bible claims that someone should be killed for some sin, then it can be taken simply as they should be punished but not killed.


Don't tell me that I don't tolerate religion since I'm the only person who knows whether or not I do and I bloody well do! When I say that I do not listen to them, I mean that I don't want to have to believe the nonsense coming out of their mouth. What right do you or they have to demand that I accept their views and either believe them or say that I believe them? I should have the right to believe that what they say is incorrect and tell them so. So don't tell me that I am intolerant of religion, okay.

You have every right to believe or disbelieve in their beliefs, I have no problem with that. However, when you keep calling it nonsense and saying you don't want to listen to it, then to me, it seems you're intolerant of it.


I have already made it clear why their paradigm sucks.

Great way to be open-minded and tolerant... . You don't have to agree with their paradigm but saying it sucks, well that speaks for itself.


That is not a true example. All that is, is stating the way again. What I wanted you to do was to pretend that you were arguing for or against something and to construct one usng your lesser methods.

I gave the method and outlined it clear as day. I'm sure you do understand it and me giving you an example is accomplishing nothing for either of us.


Nice hypocritism. Why am I saying this? Because you completely ignored my wasp and birth points in the same way.

Nope, I gave more than one reason for your wasp and birth arguments, I abided by the religious paradigm, I used evidence that satisfies it, and also included my opinion in it also. You on the other hand, used nothing other than saying that it was my opinion, no evidence, no argument against it, nothing.


INFERNO, not being funny or anything but you are seeming to get rude. Why should I have to make that clear? Since you believe that people should always listen (and I don't disagree), you should have listened to it but no, you disregarded it so I should do the same, really.

Because I was not entirely sure what you were getting at, I wanted it to be less ambiguous. I see no problem with asking for that.


You say that we should all listen to each other and accept our views. Then why do you insult me for trying to dispel religion in a debate? Why must you start pathetic arguments with me simply because I try to explain why not everything has to be connected with God and that there's other ways of viewing things? What do you want from me? While reading your posts, I almost get the sense that you are trying to convert me to Christianity in unusual wasy and yet you say that you're athiest so you can't be doing that. What are you trying to do then? Change my method of debate to suit your style? I do not want to. Besides, you haven't argued using your style yet. As for what I'm doing, all I'm doing is defending myself. What are you trying to do?

I've outlined the religious paradigm numerous times so if you don't understand it, then I can try to re-explain it. But you don't seem to misunderstand it from what I can tell so I have outlined it more than once.

I am not trying to convert you to any religion. I tried to show you that if you are to argue against religion, then it only fits to use a religious paradigm and not a science one. You eventually understood that, you gave some arguments against the religion (i.e. wasp and birth one), so I took the opposite stance because your argument was based on a false premise.

I'm not changing your style to suit mine, I'm trying to get you to see that if you are to argue against it using your ways, then you're distorting science and religion philosophies completely. Is it so offensive for me to outline this to you and then to suggest a better way that does not distort their philosophies?

I have not once told you to believe in god, vishnu, or whatever else. You were being rather narrow-minded from my point-of-view so I find it rather silly that you wanted to argue against religion yet you're so intolerant of it from my perspective that you probably weren't grasping the belief entirely and you weren't very willing to hear the other side (i.e. saying the religious paradigm sucks). If you're going to argue against something, then at least show some acknowledgment of the other side. You do show some acknowledgment but then you flop back to being so ignorant and intolerant towards it.

I don't have a large problem with you dispelling religion as long as you aren't distorting science (which is the paradigm you choose) and religion. When you distort it as you do, then you aren't dispelling religion, you're coming off as though you're dispelling your intelligence.

So, if trying to correct you is so offensive to you, then I'm sorry for that trait you have. Don't take it so personally as though I'm trying to change your beliefs.

[Death]

This narrow-minded game is going nowhere, so I'm dropping it.

Good idea.

You sure can argue against it, however, it will be a faith vs. science argument.

In that, you are probraly correct. Of course, there is no question of the person't lack of perception or foolishness.

This is all very true except you're forgetting one key word: interpretation. They do not have to take it literally nor do they have to take it metaphorically, they can do bits of both. So when the bible claims that someone should be killed for some sin, then it can be taken simply as they should be punished but not killed.

That is in fact a way of looking at it. That being the case, they are not psychopathic but they are discriminate however and thus stll (although not as much) evil.

You have every right to believe or disbelieve in their beliefs, I have no problem with that. However, when you keep calling it nonsense and saying you don't want to listen to it, then to me, it seems you're intolerant of it.

But when I am speaking to them, I am not. Generally, I am not.

Great way to be open-minded and tolerant... . You don't have to agree with their paradigm but saying it sucks, well that speaks for itself.

Please don't be sarcastic; I take offense at that.

I gave the method and outlined it clear as day. I'm sure you do understand it and me giving you an example is accomplishing nothing for either of us.

Very well, don't bother. All you are doing by giving no argument is dissuading me from arguing like that in the first place which I thought that you wanted me to do.

Nope, I gave more than one reason for your wasp and birth arguments, I abided by the religious paradigm, I used evidence that satisfies it, and also included my opinion in it also. You on the other hand, used nothing other than saying that it was my opinion, no evidence, no argument against it, nothing.

I still don't htink that you took full notice of it. You said that my argument was void. I practically said the same thing (and yes, what you said was simply opinion since I do not agree with it) only in a different way.

Because I was not entirely sure what you were getting at, I wanted it to be less ambiguous. I see no problem with asking for that.

True, but you could have said a bit more than asking if it's a fact. You could have taken a bit more notice and argued for or against it or both since you seem to like doing that dor whatever reason you have. I'm not really that bothered about it now though, to be honest.



I am not trying to convert you to any religion. I tried to show you that if you are to argue against religion, then it only fits to use a religious paradigm and not a science one. You eventually understood that, you gave some arguments against the religion (i.e. wasp and birth one), so I took the opposite stance because your argument was based on a false premise.

What you say about a 'false premise' is simply a belief. I am arguing against this so now, as far as you are concerned, you cannot just say it exists, full stop; you have to accept that.

I'm not changing your style to suit mine, I'm trying to get you to see that if you are to argue against it using your ways, then you're distorting science and religion philosophies completely. Is it so offensive for me to outline this to you and then to suggest a better way that does not distort their philosophies?

You are still trying to change my actions in some sort of way and this seems like a big thing to demand. I see no problem with the way I have been debating if you want my true opinion.

I have not once told you to believe in god, vishnu, or whatever else. You were being rather narrow-minded from my point-of-view so I find it rather silly that you wanted to argue against religion yet you're so intolerant of it from my perspective that you probably weren't grasping the belief entirely and you weren't very willing to hear the other side (i.e. saying the religious paradigm sucks). If you're going to argue against something, then at least show some acknowledgment of the other side. You do show some acknowledgment but then you flop back to being so ignorant and intolerant towards it.

About this narrow-mindedness thing, I would just drop the bloody thing if I were you since I think the same about you. However, I do not wish to keep going on about it though so I think that we should stop mentioning it. And yes, I do acknoweldge the other side but that does not mean that I should accept their views as the truth. If I do not want to believe in what they want me to, my choice - not yours or theirs.

I don't have a large problem with you dispelling religion as long as you aren't distorting science (which is the paradigm you choose) and religion. When you distort it as you do, then you aren't dispelling religion, you're coming off as though you're dispelling your intelligence.

When it comes to actually distorting science, I make good care that I don't.

So, if trying to correct you is so offensive to you, then I'm sorry for that trait you have. Don't take it so personally as though I'm trying to change your beliefs.

I'm basically saying that I am suprised by your sudden and uncalled for demands of me to change my ways when I don't even think that it is required. And please don't start insulting my traits. In fact, the insulting of the other (and yet you object to me insulting specific beliefs even though in reality, I have no problem with them - I'm referring to outside VT) has seemed to have started from your side.

Regardless, I do not wish to get into an argument about this. If you want a debate, then please keep it at that and I'll be fine.

[INFERNO]

That is in fact a way of looking at it. That being the case, they are not psychopathic but they are discriminate however and thus stll (although not as much) evil.

Evil is a very subjective term and I have to ask, what is your definition of evil and of good?


Very well, don't bother. All you are doing by giving no argument is dissuading me from arguing like that in the first place which I thought that you wanted me to do.

No argument? Well I'm no longer going to bother with re-stating it over and over because the end result usually is the same, you saying I haven't given it.


I still don't htink that you took full notice of it. You said that my argument was void. I practically said the same thing (and yes, what you said was simply opinion since I do not agree with it) only in a different way.

Yes, we both did say the same thing but the issue was I gave more than one reason whereas you did not. I gave an argument, you did not. Fair enough, we both gave our opinions but you didn't give any reasoning to it.


True, but you could have said a bit more than asking if it's a fact. You could have taken a bit more notice and argued for or against it or both since you seem to like doing that dor whatever reason you have. I'm not really that bothered about it now though, to be honest.

I wanted to know more specifically what you meant so I would know which way to argue and how. I'll admit, I may have not said it in a very polite way but nonetheless, all I did was essentially ask for you to elaborate on it. If I don't understand what someone is saying, then I'm not going to start arguing any sides right away.


What you say about a 'false premise' is simply a belief. I am arguing against this so now, as far as you are concerned, you cannot just say it exists, full stop; you have to accept that.

It's a belief that has some implied evidence for, it's not simply a belief pulled out of thin air with no reasoning at all. You're right, I have to accept that although I don't have to acknowledge it is something I agree with and will abide by also.


You are still trying to change my actions in some sort of way and this seems like a big thing to demand. I see no problem with the way I have been debating if you want my true opinion.

Well, go on then debating your way.


If I do not want to believe in what they want me to, my choice - not yours or theirs.

I completely agree with this.

In fact, the insulting of the other (and yet you object to me insulting specific beliefs even though in reality, I have no problem with them - I'm referring to outside VT) has seemed to have started from your side.

Explain how you think it has come from "my side".

[ThUnDeR]

okthis might be a bit confusing but this is my side of religeon...... i beleive in god for many reasons 1. how did everything apear like it did... the big bang theory is a bit of bull shit too me really ok we have to rocks slam into eachother and create a earth! with land and mountains and water and plants yea right.. next lets talk bout eveolution that is bull shit too.. ur telling me that i eveoved from a fish? yea okay.. and we also eveoved from monkeys? i dont think so. i have a question for everyone why dont we see anything evolving now like we never see anymore monkeys turn into humans . i no it takes millions of years but mankind has been here for a while so dont you think we would have seen somthin evolve by now??? and like how are all our organs working???? really oka right single cell organsm ... SYKEEE also think of all the people who have died and brought back too life. what did they say. they said they saw LIGHT! and even this one guy wrote a book bout it click here too seee the book (http://www.90minutesinheaven.com/) okay so that is my main reason why i believe in god XD

[Perseus]

Baker, humans did not evolve from monkies. Monkies and homo-sapiens evolved from a similar species. Humans evolved from homo-eructus, I believe, and monkies evolved from something else. Evolution takes time, single-celled to multicelled and etc(I find this hard to believe as well, but I don't know much about evolution, so that's why.)

Now to astronomy, my favorite. A planet is made from the debris of a star that had a super-nova. We can observe planets being made today. I forgot how water came to the Earth, so I'll try my hardest to remmember. Ok, so, we have this hot-newly formed planet that has volcanoes erupting and being pelted by meteors and possibly another planet. If I am correct, all the ash in the air is carbon-dioxide and shit, I forgot.

Well, the mountains is easy to explain, plate techtonics.
Everything is like it is because all the matter was stored in an egg before the Big Bang(this is the theory, well, one of them.) Once the egg-like thing just exploded all the matter was realeased and inflation spread all the matter over the universe faster than the speed of light. We know the universe is still expanding to this day.

And please, just because you don't believe something, don't call it bullshit. I don't like when people call the Bible bullshit because I am Christian and I know people who believe in evolution and such(such as I) do not like it being called bullshit.

[INFERNO]

The problem with this is your complete lack of understanding of evolution and I'm willing to bet also of science. But please, read up on the Big Bang Theory, the theory of evolution and the fundamentals of science as you demonstrate you don't have the faintest clue about any of them.

Although I must admire you intolerance and ignorance, calling things you don't even understand to be bullshit... . I wonder if you realize that medicine, which you may like is heavily based on physiology.

. how did everything apear like it did... the big bang theory is a bit of bull shit too me really ok we have to rocks slam into eachother and create a earth! with land and mountains and water and plants yea right..

That is not even close to what the Big Bang Theory states. The Big Bang Theory is based on the concept that the universe expanded and keeps expanding from a very small yet incredibly dense sphere of energy.

The idea you're proposing is not too difficult to understand: take two big rocks, slam'em together and some little bit is produced. Basic science tells you how mountains are formed but plants, animals, etc.. were not instantly made when Earth was formed.


next lets talk bout eveolution that is bull shit too.. ur telling me that i eveoved from a fish? yea okay.. and we also eveoved from monkeys? i dont think so.

Before you begin discrediting it, please tell me your definition of the theory of evolution.


i have a question for everyone why dont we see anything evolving now like we never see anymore monkeys turn into humans . i no it takes millions of years but mankind has been here for a while so dont you think we would have seen somthin evolve by now???

We do see many things evolving in front of our eyes. I'll give you some examples: bacteria, drosophila melonogaster (fruit flies), etc... . Whenever you hear of an issue where some bacteria has become so resistant to medications we would normally have used, that my friend is an example of evolution.

Evolution is not a quick process and we have not as a human race been around for a very long time either.


and like how are all our organs working????

That's called physiology. I'm not going to explain how our organs work because a) it will take far too long, b) it will require delving into various "levels", from tissue level to organ level to microbiological/cellular level, and c) it goes into immense complexity that I have not learned fully even at 2nd year university yet.


really oka right single cell organsm ...

This in its simplest form is actually pretty simple to understand. I'll give an analogy for this to make it very simple, take some play-doh, make little balls. Each ball is a single-celled organism. Slap'em together and it's multi-cellular. There are microbiological processes that allow the two cells to stick together.


SYKEEE also think of all the people who have died and brought back too life. what did they say. they said they saw LIGHT! and even this one guy wrote a book bout it click here too seee the book (http://www.90minutesinheaven.com/) okay so that is my main reason why i believe in god XD

Wait..., so you believe that some person claimed to have died and claimed to have seen light in his death-like state and for that you believe in a certain religion?

So using your logic, you're telling me that if I write a nice fancy book where I say I've died, seen a bunch of trees because Lord Stinky of Smelly Trees and others say that happens, then you'll believe in Lord Stinky of Smelly Trees as a god. If you say otherwise, then you've contradicted your main reason for believing in god.

But I have to ask, how do you know the man wasn't lying? How do you know he wasn't a devoted believer who wanted to make some money?

[ThUnDeR]

But I have to ask, how do you know the man wasn't lying? How do you know he wasn't a devoted believer who wanted to make some money?

idk why he would lie like that and make such a good book and to ahve so much evidence like the hospital family ect.

w.e im just gonna stop talking now XD

[sebbie]

idk why he would lie like that and make such a good book and to ahve so much evidence like the hospital family ect.

w.e im just gonna stop talking now XD

Science can also be used to answer what he saw when he had his near death experience. This is the when the body produces a chemical called DMT, which is a powerful halluncagenic, this could account for the visions he saw.

The problem with taking someone's word for the belief on religion due to what they saw in an experience that was personal to them is we do not know what happened, how they interpreted the events in the said experience and if they have been able to accurately describe it.

[INFERNO]

idk why he would lie like that and make such a good book and to ahve so much evidence like the hospital family ect.

w.e im just gonna stop talking now XD

I think you somewhat answered your own question: he lies about it, makes a good book and gets some nice money.

The alternatives include him being on a hallucinogen of some sort, having a disorder causing hallucinations, being given certain medications by the doctors/nurses at the hospital, etc... . Having the hospital records are useful only to indicate his condition and any medications they may have given him. The family is only useful for similar reasons and to give evidence of his beliefs. However, neither of them can back up his story of what he claims to have seen. So the entire book is based on the assumption that he's not lying because you're going mostly by his word and nothing else.

If you're just going to believe in god mainly because of that guy's book then anytime anyone writes some fancy book and links it to a god/goddess, then according to you, you'd probably believe in it.

[Death]

okthis might be a bit confusing but this is my side of religeon...... i beleive in god for many reasons 1. how did everything apear like it did... the big bang theory is a bit of bull shit too me really ok we have to rocks slam into eachother and create a earth! with land and mountains and water and plants yea right.. next lets talk bout eveolution that is bull shit too.. ur telling me that i eveoved from a fish? yea okay.. and we also eveoved from monkeys? i dont think so. i have a question for everyone why dont we see anything evolving now like we never see anymore monkeys turn into humans . i no it takes millions of years but mankind has been here for a while so dont you think we would have seen somthin evolve by now??? and like how are all our organs working???? really oka right single cell organsm ... SYKEEE also think of all the people who have died and brought back too life. what did they say. they said they saw LIGHT! and even this one guy wrote a book bout it click here too seee the book (http://www.90minutesinheaven.com/) okay so that is my main reason why i believe in god XD

From what you have just said, it is obvious to me that you have absolutely no idea whatsoever of what you are arguing against. Therefore, how about you actually learn the concepts before you call them 'bullshit'? And humans probraly are evolving, it's just you are expecting things to happen to quickly. You seem to be saying that the 'fact' that everything just appeared is illogical. Well, let me tell you this, not only are you completely oblivious to the big bang theory (try reading about it here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang) first), but you also are not considering this: How could some superior and unique being just suddenly appear and make everything with all but a few words in no more than a week? See the problem? And thus, you know damn well that your argument is no more logical as ours so you may want to revise that pathetic attitude of yours and stop effectively calling us 'bullshitters', okay!

Furthermore, one book written by a mentally unstable or (more likely) corrupt liar is by no means evidence so I have no idea why the hell you use it as such. Also, like INFERNO has said, do you even know the full concept of evolution? In the highly likely (near certain) event that you don't, click here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution). Next time, please actually put some thought into your arguments instead of rushing in and posting nonsense, thankyou.

Evil is a very subjective term and I have to ask, what is your definition of evil and of good?

Evil: Pure, definite (and also pointless) evil is going out of your way to hurt others in any way. It could be anythng from simple bullying to murder. More subtle evil which is more like corruption than actual evil can be trying to benefit somehow but not caring how you do it. This can include selling a new brand of drink but putting an unkown drug in it (without people knowing) that makes the drinker become addicted without realisation and thus comes back to but more and more. This is doing something evil in order to benefit; corruption.

Good: Definite good comes from going out of your way and makng sacrifices to help others. Say, you had to choose (don't ask for an actual scenareo; just make one up in your mind) to either save the lives of several good people who you do not know at all or save a loved one, the good thing to do would be save the good people despite the fact that you don't know them and your will be extremely upset with the death of your loved one. More common but also good ways of being good is simply being kind and helpful in all the little ways like putting rubbish in the bin instead of throwing it on the ground, helping someone prepare a meal or complimenting people.

w.e im just gonna stop talking now XD

Why? Because you understand that we all have a point and you don't and so you do not wish to continue 'arguing'?

[Death]

By the way, I found this rather intersting video with Richard Dawkins that you may be interested in seeing:
Click here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bSrSwRpBdHk&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fvideo.google.co.uk%2Fvideosearch%3Fq%3Dno%2520god%26hl%3Den%26 ie%3DUTF-8%26rlz%3D1G1GGLQ_ENUK303%26tab%3Dnv&feature=player_embedded).

[JacobHerrington]

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/RNy6ziOyxoA&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/RNy6ziOyxoA&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[Commander Thor]

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/RNy6ziOyxoA&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/RNy6ziOyxoA&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

And I'll just fix that for ya.....
RNy6ziOyxoA
Good video BTW. :)

[Death]

Wow, I could not stop laughing throughout that! He holds some very true and also obvious points although I must say that there is something in Richard Dawkins's debates that you just don't get in his. Either way, they are both correct and very insightful. Thanks for posting this!

Here's a video that I like:

DMqTEfeqvmM

[Death]

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/RNy6ziOyxoA&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/RNy6ziOyxoA&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

The bit that is required is in the URL section after the equals sign.

Anyway, more videos:

p7XnKjxp_5w

bgoiLJZRmtM

What do you think about the first one? How can you truly love a vindictive, bloodthirsty and bigoted God? And the second? What about the issues with religion there? The reasons as to why athiesm is logical?

[YourFriend]

I am an atheist and i have something against Muslims because they hang gays.

[Death]

Really? I had heard some awful things about islam but never that bad! Suppose you could say similar stuff about other religions including christianity though since the 'holy' texts urge you to kill homosexuals along with many other good people including non-christians although people hardly ever actually put that into practice.

[Death]

By the way, I've found a rather nice video (yes, another one) that tells an important story (I find that this links into religion quite a lot - I think you'll want to see this one):

EDIT: Strange, this particular video doesn't seem to be working. I'll just give a link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kAIpRRZvnJg&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.atheistbus.org.uk%2F&feature=player_embedded) then.

[INFERNO]

Really? I had heard some awful things about islam but never that bad! Suppose you could say similar stuff about other religions including christianity though since the 'holy' texts urge you to kill homosexuals along with many other good people including non-christians although people hardly ever actually put that into practice.

People don't always put that into place because it's an interpretation and you're taking a more literal interpretation of it.

I am an atheist and i have something against Muslims because they hang gays.

You hate Muslims just because of one thing? Religions are created by humans, humans are a far cry from perfection, so it is reasonable to assume that something humans make will be a far cry from perfection also. I just find it rather odd that you may hate on group for one thing only.

By the way, I've found a rather nice video (yes, another one) that tells an important story (I find that this links into religion quite a lot - I think you'll want to see this one):

EDIT: Strange, this particular video doesn't seem to be working. I'll just give a link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kAIpRRZvnJg&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.atheistbus.org.uk%2F&feature=player_embedded) then.

Oh, and the George Carlin one is always very nice to view as is Richard Dawkins :yes:. (I'll edit this post once I view the other video).

EDIT: Death's video I found to be wonderful. It removes unnecessary fancy babble from each person and brings it down to a nice and simple analogy: a cupboard.

[Church]

I believe in a God, but God doesn't conform to a single religion, as in God isn't how Christians or Muslims etc. define him/her.

I also believe in a Heaven like place after death but not a hell.

[INFERNO]

I believe in a God, but God doesn't conform to a single religion, as in God isn't how Christians or Muslims etc. define him/her.

I also believe in a Heaven like place after death but not a hell.

Why not a hell? Would everyone regardless of what they did in their life go to heaven? If not, then where do they go?

[Wayvrn]

Well, people are just scared of death to be honest, people join cults/religious views because they need closure and think they'll go to a "happy" place when they're dead, it's short and simple but true.

[Bluearmy]

Why not a hell? Would everyone regardless of what they did in their life go to heaven? If not, then where do they go?

That is one of the things that angers me about these new people trying to create their own versions of something that has not changed.
People formulating that some things do and don't exists, and do and don't apply to a religion, without any sort of valid explication for the change.

[INFERNO]

That is one of the things that angers me about these new people trying to create their own versions of something that has not changed.
People formulating that some things do and don't exists, and do and don't apply to a religion, without any sort of valid explication for the change.

Interesting. Well I ask you this, if you claim there is no valid explanation for the change, then is there a valid explanation for the actual religious belief where the altered version is derived from? Religion is based on faith, which does not need coherent evidence or proof, so there really is no need for providing them for changing the belief.

[Bluearmy]

Interesting. Well I ask you this, if you claim there is no valid explanation for the change, then is there a valid explanation for the actual religious belief where the altered version is derived from? Religion is based on faith, which does not need coherent evidence or proof, so there really is no need for providing them for changing the belief.

Its the fact that people are changing there beliefs, which are plainly written, for convenience to fit with the times. And that is not right IMO.

[INFERNO]

Its the fact that people are changing there beliefs, which are plainly written, for convenience to fit with the times. And that is not right IMO.

Why can people not change it to how they want? If they don't like all of it, then shouldn't they be able to change it to what fits them? I'll admit I'm usually not too fond of picking and choosing as it can result in the person not really understanding the belief they claim to have. However, if they like certain parts only, then why shouldn't they abide by their interpretation that pleases them?

And what do you mean by it's plainly written to fit with the times? Something like the Christians' bible have been around for numerous years.

[ocguy]

I am Catholic.

[Truth]

Its the fact that people are changing there beliefs, which are plainly written, for convenience to fit with the times. And that is not right IMO. People should be able to believe whatever they want, whether they praise a statue, person, god, or follow a book.

[Death]

I believe in a God, but God doesn't conform to a single religion, as in God isn't how Christians or Muslims etc. define him/her.

I also believe in a Heaven like place after death but not a hell.

You do not believe in Hell and yet you believe in all the other Bible content? Are you saying that the Bible is incorrect (in certain places) since it is wrong about hell? Do evil psychopaths go to Heaven? How can you even begin to prove (proof should come before disproof otherwise you could say that any crap is true and there's nothing you can do about it) that everything happens due to an invisible man in some undefined location in the sky?

Well, people are just scared of death to be honest, people join cults/religious views because they need closure and think they'll go to a "happy" place when they're dead, it's short and simple but true.

Absolutely right. People cannot face up to the fact that they wither and die and so their life must come to an end. They have to pretend that there is some afterlife that's better than Earth. One thing though Christians, why can't you just kill yourself and get to this paradice sooner? Why do you avoid death? Is Heaven not better? Does Heaven not ven exist (since no evidence (if religion 'doesn't need evidence', then that only goes to show how far-fetched it all is) supports its existance).

Its the fact that people are changing there beliefs, which are plainly written, for convenience to fit with the times. And that is not right IMO.

This is also true; they can't keep their story straight. One example I remember is the fight with that pathetic giant (I think it was Goliath) who does not know how to fight and this boy or man (I believe his name was David) who had a sling. In RE (ages ago), I learned that as far as some random fiction novel full of bad morals written 2000 years ago was concerned, a stone was flung towards Goliath and rendered him unconcious. David then proceeded to steal his sword and decapitate the giant.

However, I learned from this sad club I went to (later on but still ages ago) that David origionally had a lot of armour and weapons (wheras the first time he never did) but he got rid of them because it encumbered him. Also, in the fight, the stone shot killed Goliath instantly. This is an example of where Christianity can't keep its story straight and goes to show how made up it all is.

I am Catholic.

Congratulations on believing everyting you were told as an infant. Am I even remotely convinced that Catholism is correct from your 'argument'? Not in the slightest.

People should be able to believe whatever they want, whether they praise a statue, person, god, or follow a book.

That may be so, and I agree with this, but we should also be allowed to debate this (like here for instance for obvious reasons).

[Sage]

Congratulations on believing everyting you were told as an infant. Am I even remotely convinced that Catholism is correct from your 'argument'? Not in the slightest.

Chiiiill, man. I think you're forgetting this thread is primarily a poll before it was a debate. It's rudely jumping on harmless statements like that that makes atheists look hateful and fuels stereotypes.

[Perseus]

Absolutely right. People cannot face up to the fact that they wither and die and so their life must come to an end. They have to pretend that there is some afterlife that's better than Earth. One thing though Christians, why can't you just kill yourself and get to this paradice sooner? Why do you avoid death? Is Heaven not better? Does Heaven not ven exist (since no evidence (if religion 'doesn't need evidence', then that only goes to show how far-fetched it all is) supports its existance).

Before you start acting like you know something about a religion, learn about it, like INFERNO. If you knew anything about Christianity, you would know that if you kill yourself, you will go to Hell.

[INFERNO]

You do not believe in Hell and yet you believe in all the other Bible content?

The problem with this is that you automatically assumed that Church was referring to Christianity. Church said he/she does believe in A heaven but not A hell. None of what Church said automatically meant that it was Christianity.


Are you saying that the Bible is incorrect (in certain places) since it is wrong about hell?

Once again, you're assuming Church was referring to a certain religion. You took that leap with no argument that it was in fact that certain religion.


Do evil psychopaths go to Heaven?

First, define "evil" in reference to religion in general as opposed to "evil" in reference to a certain religion that Church never specified.

Second, define what a psychopath is. There is a psychological disorder called psychopathy but since you say "evil psychopath", I'm not entirely convinced you are referring to this condition.


How can you even begin to prove (proof should come before disproof otherwise you could say that any crap is true and there's nothing you can do about it) that everything happens due to an invisible man in some undefined location in the sky?

No where in Church's post was he/she attempting to prove anything to you or anyone else besides him/herself. You jumped to the conclusion that they were. I also have the feeling that even if Church did end up providing some sort of proof, you would be too intolerant of it. My evidence of this is when you say "you could say that any crap is true". Other evidence is when you automatically beat a certain religion (i.e. Christianity) when this particular religion was never specified by Church.


Absolutely right. People cannot face up to the fact that they wither and die and so their life must come to an end.
They have to pretend that there is some afterlife that's better than Earth.

Before you go about and say that a certain group cannot tolerate something, you might want to show some tolerance towards that group in the first place. You're being intolerant towards a group while claiming that group is intolerant of something.


One thing though Christians, why can't you just kill yourself and get to this paradice sooner? Why do you avoid death?

This is just very rude. You may claim that I am rude towards some things that you say, however, encouraging someone to kill themselves whilst bashing their belief is just rude.


Is Heaven not better? Does Heaven not ven exist (since no evidence (if religion 'doesn't need evidence', then that only goes to show how far-fetched it all is) supports its existance).

Heaven exists for each individual person who believes in it. Religion does need evidence, however, it is not the type that science requires. It is the type based solely on faith and faith alone.

[QUOTE=Death;580287]
This is also true; they can't keep their story straight. One example I remember is the fight with that pathetic giant (I think it was Goliath) who does not know how to fight and this boy or man (I believe his name was David) who had a sling. In RE (ages ago), I learned that as far as some random fiction novel full of bad morals written 2000 years ago was concerned, a stone was flung towards Goliath and rendered him unconcious. David then proceeded to steal his sword and decapitate the giant.

This is also rather rude and very intolerant.


However, I learned from this sad club I went to (later on but still ages ago) that David origionally had a lot of armour and weapons (wheras the first time he never did) but he got rid of them because it encumbered him. Also, in the fight, the stone shot killed Goliath instantly. This is an example of where Christianity can't keep its story straight and goes to show how made up it all is.

The post by T-7089 meant was that Christians believe certain parts of their religion. It has nothing to do with the particular religion. Why you go about and immediately begin bashing the overall belief I'm not sure on. But while you're at it, I'm not understanding your reasoning for saying Christianity isn't able to keep its story straight. You referenced the story of the battle of Goliath vs. David but you presented no argument for why Christianity cannot keep its story straight: you gave a conclusion, a premise for the argument and a bit of evidence but no argument.


Congratulations on believing everyting you were told as an infant. Am I even remotely convinced that Catholism is correct from your 'argument'? Not in the slightest.

OK, now I'm curious. Why are you so incredibly rude and intolerant towards believers of a certain belief? I understand when you said in the past that you have no reason to believe it, that's perfectly fine. But what I don't understand is why you then act so intolerant and are so rude towards believers of that belief. All ocguy did was mention their belief, as the thread asks for.


That may be so, and I agree with this, but we should also be allowed to debate this (like here for instance for obvious reasons).

You may indeed agree that people have a right to believe in whatever but does that then mean that you have a right to bash their religion to bits and act incredibly rude to the believers simply because you don't agree with their belief? I understand that this is in a way exercising your right to believe in your beliefs but does that mean that you must be so rude and intolerant towards them?

Chiiiill, man. I think you're forgetting this thread is primarily a poll before it was a debate.

That may be so but it was placed in the part of the VT forums dedicated towards debates. That being said, I do not support the notion of immense rudeness and intolerance against a certain belief.

Before you start acting like you know something about a religion, learn about it, like INFERNO. If you knew anything about Christianity, you would know that if you kill yourself, you will go to Hell.

Thank you for the compliment. However, you may want to learn Death's view and beliefs before you tell Death to understand your view and beliefs.

[Death]

Chiiiill, man. I think you're forgetting this thread is primarily a poll before it was a debate. It's rudely jumping on harmless statements like that that makes atheists look hateful and fuels stereotypes.

Coming to think of it, you're right. I should have known better.

Before you start acting like you know something about a religion, learn about it, like INFERNO. If you knew anything about Christianity, you would know that if you kill yourself, you will go to Hell.

You know this isn't true. How am I to know that those who commit suicide go to hell? I was never taught this and thus, please quote something (like the Bible for instance) that supports your claim.

The problem with this is that you automatically assumed that Church was referring to Christianity. Church said he/she does believe in A heaven but not A hell. None of what Church said automatically meant that it was Christianity.

True, however, to my knowledge, Heaven only exists in religions where Hell exists too. Of course, you can politely (nice challenge for you) prove me wrong.

First, define "evil" in reference to religion in general as opposed to "evil" in reference to a certain religion that Church never specified.

Second, define what a psychopath is. There is a psychological disorder called psychopathy but since you say "evil psychopath", I'm not entirely convinced you are referring to this condition.

I was basically referring to immoral people who do not deserve a post-life paradise.

No where in Church's post was he/she attempting to prove anything to you or anyone else besides him/herself. You jumped to the conclusion that they were. I also have the feeling that even if Church did end up providing some sort of proof, you would be too intolerant of it. My evidence of this is when you say "you could say that any crap is true". Other evidence is when you automatically beat a certain religion (i.e. Christianity) when this particular religion was never specified by Church.

You have no right to say that I would be intolerant should proof be given so stop right there. When people give reasonable arguments with which to promote a religion, then I find that better than them simply saying stuff is true without any sort of argument or proof.

Before you go about and say that a certain group cannot tolerate something, you might want to show some tolerance towards that group in the first place. You're being intolerant towards a group while claiming that group is intolerant of something.

You believe this and I am fine with that and accept it because I am tolerant torwards it INFERNO.

This is just very rude. You may claim that I am rude towards some things that you say, however, encouraging someone to kill themselves whilst bashing their belief is just rude.

How about you stop complaining, hypocrit. I was not being rude. I am raising the question as to why someone continous with something that is inferior to what will happen upon their death (when they no longer live life) so don't be rude yourself and start being tolerant for a change. To think, I once thought that you were a reasonable, understanding and intellectual debator - what a bloody fool I was. I've oponed my eyes now, you can be sure of that.

Heaven exists for each individual person who believes in it. Religion does need evidence, however, it is not the type that science requires. It is the type based solely on faith and faith alone.

I don't know how many times I've posted this but I will not accept that any random stuff pulled out of thin air with no evidence can possibly be true, okay.

This is also rather rude and very intolerant.

I am simply refuting religion by pointing out contradiction and issues in it so get off your fucking high horse and stop attacking people.

The post by T-7089 meant was that Christians believe certain parts of their religion. It has nothing to do with the particular religion. Why you go about and immediately begin bashing the overall belief I'm not sure on. But while you're at it, I'm not understanding your reasoning for saying Christianity isn't able to keep its story straight. You referenced the story of the battle of Goliath vs. David but you presented no argument for why Christianity cannot keep its story straight: you gave a conclusion, a premise for the argument and a bit of evidence but no argument.

From previous posts I've seen, there is a lot that you do not understand.

OK, now I'm curious. Why are you so incredibly rude and intolerant towards believers of a certain belief? I understand when you said in the past that you have no reason to believe it, that's perfectly fine. But what I don't understand is why you then act so intolerant and are so rude towards believers of that belief. All ocguy did was mention their belief, as the thread asks for.

This is the third time that you have insulted me with the same insult. Why I bother responding to a brick wall is beyond me. You do have a point with the ocguy thing though, I should have been more accepting but I was simply saying how it would not sway opinions in debates although I admit that I did it inappropiately.

You may indeed agree that people have a right to believe in whatever but does that then mean that you have a right to bash their religion to bits and act incredibly rude to the believers simply because you don't agree with their belief? I understand that this is in a way exercising your right to believe in your beliefs but does that mean that you must be so rude and intolerant towards them?

Yawn, forth time. Am I hearing a "But you're being rude!"? I am simply defending myself when random insults were thrown at me first. If I did sway towards bashing when I shod have ben refuting than I apologise - but a lot of what you quoted (and insulted - no suprise there) was civil debate. Are you capable of telling the difference?

[INFERNO]

True, however, to my knowledge, Heaven only exists in religions where Hell exists too. Of course, you can politely (nice challenge for you) prove me wrong.

I don't recall being very impolite in many instances.


You have no right to say that I would be intolerant should proof be given so stop right there.

Freedom of speech, I have every right to say whatever I wish.


When people give reasonable arguments with which to promote a religion, then I find that better than them simply saying stuff is true without any sort of argument or proof.

Sounds reasonable enough.


How about you stop complaining, hypocrit. I was not being rude. I am raising the question as to why someone continous with something that is inferior to what will happen upon their death (when they no longer live life) so don't be rude yourself and start being tolerant for a change. To think, I once thought that you were a reasonable, understanding and intellectual debator - what a bloody fool I was. I've oponed my eyes now, you can be sure of that.

In my opinion, yes you were rude. I'm glad you've opened your eyes, your opinion of me is of no concern to me. You can think of me as an asshole or as an average joe or as nobody. I couldn't care less.


I don't know how many times I've posted this but I will not accept that any random stuff pulled out of thin air with no evidence can possibly be true, okay.

Then how do you expect people to provide a reasonable promotion for a religion as you mentioned above?


I am simply refuting religion by pointing out contradiction and issues in it so get off your fucking high horse and stop attacking people.

If you wish to say that then I can assume it applies to the both of us.


From previous posts I've seen, there is a lot that you do not understand.

If that is the case, then please show me where I lack understanding and provide an explanation(s).


Yawn, forth time. Am I hearing a "But you're being rude!"? I am simply defending myself when random insults were thrown at me first. If I did sway towards bashing when I shod have ben refuting than I apologise - but a lot of what you quoted (and insulted - no suprise there) was civil debate. Are you capable of telling the difference?

The funny thing about your responses is that you are insulting me also. Apparently our opinions differ quite a bit though. What you call civil debate to me seemed rather rude. I can tell the difference, however, it would also appear that my differences on them would likely be different than yours.

[lamboman43]

You sure quote in chunks INFERNO. Kind of like chunky milk, but not as stinky and gross.

[Commander Thor]

You sure quote in chunks INFERNO. Kind of like chunky milk, but not as stinky and gross.

It's easier to understand when it's broken up like that.

Better than a giant block of text in response to another giant block of text.

Now, back on topic. :)


\/ \/ \/ \/ To below me \/ \/ \/ \/
Are you serious?
I was not backseat modding, and I did not have a problem with a post.
I was responding to his post, and telling him why it's better to have it broken up, than a giant block of text. (IMO anyway)
The 'Now, back on topic.' was ment to let him know not to respond to my post, but rather, just read it, then start posting about religion again.

[The Batman]

xbox360922 report a post you have a problem with instead of backseat modding.

Lamboman43 stay on topic and don't spam.

The rest of you need to calm down the fighting stops now anymore will result in infractions if you feel like someone is insulting you then report the post and a moderator will handle the situation.

[Death]

Right INFERNO, I'll try to keep this as polite but still truthful as I can:

I don't recall being very impolite in many instances.

Yes, but that is not all instances, now is it?

Freedom of speech, I have every right to say whatever I wish.

Does that mean that if I wanted to, I could call you a moaning bastard? Or is that not allowed?

Sounds reasonable enough.

You're not going to argue against this like you've argued against everything else I've said then?

In my opinion, yes you were rude. I'm glad you've opened your eyes, your opinion of me is of no concern to me. You can think of me as an asshole or as an average joe or as nobody. I couldn't care less.

So you think that raising a question in order to make someone else question their faith in a debate is rude? Just because you only like debating in certain ways does not mean that you should start forcing others to debate in your way (I've said this before). How was I rude? Think about it INFERNO. If someone truly believes in God and Heaven (but not hell like a certain psot said and it was that quote which I was quoting), then why would they want to continue life if life on Earth is worse than Heaven? Why could they not go straight to Heaven? I am not encouraging anyone to commit suicide since I think it's stupid to do so even if you do believe in God since blind faith like that is foolish but I am basically getting religious people to think over their religion. I know that most religious people would not want to even think of killing themselves and thus, I am making them refute their own religion which is good (regardless of your own preferences) for a debate.

Then how do you expect people to provide a reasonable promotion for a religion as you mentioned above?

By posting a reasonable argument which is backed up somehow which has some logic attatched to it.

If you wish to say that then I can assume it applies to the both of us.

I never attacked you for your style of debate when I saw you refuting others - I actually agreed with you when you did so your point is void.

If that is the case, then please show me where I lack understanding and provide an explanation(s).

I do not wish to start going back and grabbing things that you have said but I know that you have posted that you do not follow our concept or you do not understand what we are getting at (including peole with good points but have incoherant typing which I could understand but you couldn't) at various points.

The funny thing about your responses is that you are insulting me also. Apparently our opinions differ quite a bit though. What you call civil debate to me seemed rather rude. I can tell the difference, however, it would also appear that my differences on them would likely be different than yours.

I insulted you after you started insulting me but I do not eish to go down ths road so can you drop it please? I am happy to debate so long as there's no bashing invlolved. I want to ask why I've seen contradictions in Bible stories, why some sources say one thing happened but other sources (sometimes, this is in the Bible itself so that book actually contradicts itself there) say other things. I am basically sayng that it makes what religion teaches unclear and should question its truthfulness. I'm also merely wondering why Christians say that Heaven is better than Earth but I want to continue on Earth and go to Heaven when I die naturally. I don't think that they should kill theselves for obvious reasons but I am getting them to see the flaw in their belief, nothing else. so, why then are both of the things I've said so?

[INFERNO]

Yes, but that is not all instances, now is it?

True, it is not.


Does that mean that if I wanted to, I could call you a moaning bastard? Or is that not allowed?

You could call me a moaning bastard all you want to.


You're not going to argue against this like you've argued against everything else I've said then?

Nope because I found it to be quite reasonable and is something I myself would agree with.


So you think that raising a question in order to make someone else question their faith in a debate is rude?

No I do not think that it is rude. I think that the way the question can be conveyed can be considered rude.


Just because you only like debating in certain ways does not mean that you should start forcing others to debate in your way (I've said this before). How was I rude?

It was with the manner you used to ask the questions. In most cases, the idea you were getting at wasn't rude in any way, just the tone and such that you used to me was rude.


If someone truly believes in God and Heaven (but not hell like a certain psot said and it was that quote which I was quoting), then why would they want to continue life if life on Earth is worse than Heaven? Why could they not go straight to Heaven? I am not encouraging anyone to commit suicide since I think it's stupid to do so even if you do believe in God since blind faith like that is foolish but I am basically getting religious people to think over their religion.

With that particular instance, it came off to me as though you were encouraging them to kill themselves. I do understand that you were questioning their belief and that I have no problem with but it was the way you questioned, the tone you used.


I never attacked you for your style of debate when I saw you refuting others - I actually agreed with you when you did so your point is void.

My point still stands that both of us attacked others on here. I won't deny that I did and I'm quite certain you are well aware that you did also.


I do not wish to start going back and grabbing things that you have said but I know that you have posted that you do not follow our concept or you do not understand what we are getting at (including peole with good points but have incoherant typing which I could understand but you couldn't) at various points.

Then it's rather pointless to continue with this idea.


I insulted you after you started insulting me but I do not eish to go down ths road so can you drop it please? I am happy to debate so long as there's no bashing invlolved. I want to ask why I've seen contradictions in Bible stories, why some sources say one thing happened but other sources (sometimes, this is in the Bible itself so that book actually contradicts itself there) say other things. I am basically sayng that it makes what religion teaches unclear and should question its truthfulness. I'm also merely wondering why Christians say that Heaven is better than Earth but I want to continue on Earth and go to Heaven when I die naturally. I don't think that they should kill theselves for obvious reasons but I am getting them to see the flaw in their belief, nothing else. so, why then are both of the things I've said so?

Wait... did I read the part in bold correctly?

Some sources say different things because the bible, like all pieces of literature, is open to interpretation.

As for the contradictions, you can argue some of it is due to interpretation but in many places, yes, the bible does contradict itself. The reason I believe this is so is because there were numerous authors who contributed different parts to the bible.

As for your last question, you've said multiple things so I'm not sure what exactly you're referring to.

[Death]

True, it is not.

With this, I agree.

You could call me a moaning bastard all you want to.

Very well. I won't call you one though since I have better things to do.

Nope because I found it to be quite reasonable and is something I myself would agree with.

Oh, okay. Just making sure.

No I do not think that it is rude. I think that the way the question can be conveyed can be considered rude.

By some...

It was with the manner you used to ask the questions. In most cases, the idea you were getting at wasn't rude in any way, just the tone and such that you used to me was rude.

In a few cases I accept this to an extent.

With that particular instance, it came off to me as though you were encouraging them to kill themselves. I do understand that you were questioning their belief and that I have no problem with but it was the way you questioned, the tone you used.

But I never meant to use any specific tone except to question their beliefs.

Wait... did I read the part in bold correctly?

Did you not?

Some sources say different things because the bible, like all pieces of literature, is open to interpretation.

If it's open to interpretation, it makes it seem like its not solid and thus not as reliable but I suppose it can be.

As for the contradictions, you can argue some of it is due to interpretation but in many places, yes, the bible does contradict itself. The reason I believe this is so is because there were numerous authors who contributed different parts to the bible.

This actually makes sense, I see where you're coming from.

As for your last question, you've said multiple things so I'm not sure what exactly you're referring to.

My last question was basically asking the previous 2 questions again.

[junkie]

One question that really has been on my mind...and other opinions.

First off, why do members of one faith criticize members of another? How can we know for sure that our faith is right?

I think that every major religion in the world holds a piece of the truth. If they all started acting in the manner they say they should, then maybe we could find the real truth.

Personally...I believe in a higher entity. Right now that idea is with belief in God. However, I don't label myself 'Christian' because I don't agree with some of the Christian beliefs. I agree with the beliefs of the Baptist denomination the most, though. I was raised Baptist. My mother was raised Catholic but at 17 broke away, my dad was raised Baptist.

I don't believe in the traditional fire and brimstone hell, though. I believe that if you die and your not worthy of God and the light, your soul stays here on Earth.

When it comes to the Islam world's anger at the Pope's statements, here's what I have to say:

1) The Pope quoted the writing that stated the Islam is violent and evil.
2) The Islam responds how? By violence!

so..yea...

What do you believe and why do you believe it?

first of all,pardon my English :D
am a Muslim and proud of it
i believe in god and god created the whole universe
i believe in heaven and hell coz its unfair if the bad guys got away with their actions without punishment
regarding the pope's statements muslims didnt respond by violence ...the media had given a wrong picture of islam by using "MIND CONTROL"
do u really buy that 9/11 and osama bin laden crap
9-11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB (do ur homework)
since u were a lil child u see all these movies about arabs and muslims with their camels,shootguns,wives.The media has BRAINWASHED you.
do u have any idea how many kids were killed during the war on iraq,
how many women were raped.
do u know GAZA (google if u dont) .
am so sick of the stereotyping and calling us terrorists while the REAL terrorists are being called heros.
bottom line:
Muslims are not bad they r just like any other ppl.
we also believe in the bible and Jesus.
all the respect;)

[optimashprime]

did you know jedi is a religion and im not making that up bucause at my school i have a book called this is re 3 (or something like that) and it said jedi is a religion

[Sage]

first of all,pardon my English :D

You are pardoned. : )

am a Muslim and proud of it[quote]

Good for you.

[QUOTE=junkie;582767]i believe in god and god created the whole universe

Who created God?

i believe in heaven and hell coz its unfair if the bad guys got away with their actions without punishment

It might be unfair, but that doesn't make it untrue.

regarding the pope's statements muslims didnt respond by violence ...the media had given a wrong picture of islam by using "MIND CONTROL"

Not really. A few muslims are just very radical. Most are not.

do u really buy that 9/11 and osama bin laden crap

Yes because that's where the evidence points.

9-11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB (do ur homework)

No, it was not.

since u were a lil child u see all these movies about arabs and muslims with their camels,shootguns,wives.The media has BRAINWASHED you.

Stereotypes exist for a reason. Some muslims are like that. They, however, do not represent all muslims.

am so sick of the stereotyping and calling us terrorists while the REAL terrorists are being called heros.

I will agree with you that it's a bad thing that terrorists are making normal muslims look bad. As for whether or not American soldiers are terrorists themselves, that is another debate in itself.

bottom line:
Muslims are not bad they r just like any other ppl.
we also believe in the bible and Jesus.
all the respect;)

I will agree, but you must admit there are a few who do hold radical terrorist beliefs.

[Wonder.]

What exactly am I if I believe there was a god but he was just a normal person without powers and diddn't create the the universe. He lived. He died. The end.

I don't believe it. What am I? Atheist? Or just a person who is different then other people?

[junkie]

You are pardoned. : )

[QUOTE=junkie;582767]am a Muslim and proud of it[quote]

Good for you.

thx

Who created God?

nobody.






Not really. A few muslims are just very radical. Most are not.

radical muslims represnt less than 1% of muslims around the world

Yes because that's where the evidence points.
like...


No, it was not.
yes it was
profs proved that 911 is an inside job
check these vids
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iS2rlAoKiy4&feature=fvst
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezIU6ZxYU3A
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ssuAMNas1us



I will agree with you that it's a bad thing that terrorists are making normal muslims look bad. As for whether or not American soldiers are terrorists themselves, that is another debate in itself.



I will agree, but you must admit there are a few who do hold radical terrorist beliefs.

Islam is not the only reliigon where some people are extremist, and that other religions also have extremists or people with false beliefs. Look at the KKK thing.

[Sage]

There is no heaven
There is no hell.
There was a god.
But then he fell.


If you believe there was a god but said god either disappeared or doesn't do anything or doesn't care or something along those lines, you're a deist. It's a seperate position from theist and atheist.

[BuryYourFlame]

first of all,pardon my English :D
am a Muslim and proud of it
i believe in god and god created the whole universe
i believe in heaven and hell coz its unfair if the bad guys got away with their actions without punishment
regarding the pope's statements muslims didnt respond by violence ...the media had given a wrong picture of islam by using "MIND CONTROL"
do u really buy that 9/11 and osama bin laden crap
9-11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB (do ur homework)
since u were a lil child u see all these movies about arabs and muslims with their camels,shootguns,wives.The media has BRAINWASHED you.
do u have any idea how many kids were killed during the war on iraq,
how many women were raped.
do u know GAZA (google if u dont) .
am so sick of the stereotyping and calling us terrorists while the REAL terrorists are being called heros.
bottom line:
Muslims are not bad they r just like any other ppl.
we also believe in the bible and Jesus.
all the respect;)

A quote from the Koran, not exact, but close enough:
When you meet the unbelievers, smite their necks.

just putting that out there......

[junkie]

A quote from the Koran, not exact, but close enough:


just putting that out there......


this quote is taken out of context
smite their nicks if there is a war and they r fighting the unbleviers
so before just criticizing and smearing the religion ask around and do some research !!!

[BuryYourFlame]

i was not critisizing, mearly questioning, which is what this thread is about. thank you for clarifying.

[junkie]

i was not critisizing, mearly questioning, which is what this thread is about. thank you for clarifying.

most welcome
http://i32.tinypic.com/2hqtpc9.gif[/QUOTE]

[sebbie]

A quote from the Koran, not exact, but close enough:



When you meet the unbelievers, smite their necks.


just putting that out there......

You should cite the chapter where you got this from.
The Koran has several verse's some containing how to act during war, others peace.

The general Islam view on other faiths is to try to convert, by methods of peace not by death. A view shared by most religions. Of course the words are always open to interpritation however I recommend that you take into account the whole chapter than just quoting a line.

[junkie]

You should cite the chapter where you got this from.
The Koran has several verse's some containing how to act during war, others peace.

The general Islam view on other faiths is to try to convert, by methods of peace not by death. A view shared by most religions. Of course the words are always open to interpritation however I recommend that you take into account the whole chapter than just quoting a line.

well said dude.

[Death]

What exactly am I if I believe there was a god but he was just a normal person without powers and diddn't create the the universe. He lived. He died. The end.

I don't believe it. What am I? Atheist? Or just a person who is different then other people?

If you are refering to Jesus as a normal person, I would agree and I would call you an Athiest. If you mean a God as in that invisible man in some undefined location in the sky being a person who died, then I'm not really sure.

[BuryYourFlame]

another question, mainly for junkie, but others can answer.

why is the penatly for apostasy (leaving Islam) instant death, yet people say Islam is a peaceful religion? surely that is not a sign of a peaceful religion?

again, just trying to increase understanding.

[Death]

another question, mainly for junkie, but others can answer.

why is the penatly for apostasy (leaving Islam) instant death, yet people say Islam is a peaceful religion? surely that is not a sign of a peaceful religion?

again, just trying to increase understanding.

You know, I never even knew that! So basically, if I were to decide to become Muslim, then a week later, decide to revert to athiesm, muslims would want me dead? Wow. If what you are saying is true, Islam is no peaceful religion. One question though; how do you know this?

[BuryYourFlame]

i found it out through watching some videos of richard dawkins, he said that that was the case, and then i googled, and pretty pretty much all sources agreed...

[Death]

Thought it might be. Everything he says about religion is so true.

[junkie]

another question, mainly for junkie, but others can answer.

why is the penatly for apostasy (leaving Islam) instant death, yet people say Islam is a peaceful religion? surely that is not a sign of a peaceful religion?

again, just trying to increase understanding.

An individual Apostasy, al-ridda, is not similar to group apostasy. When a group of people renounce Islam and pronounce their enmity to Islam, by holding their guns against Muslims, they are considered apostates, murtadeen. But if one single individual renounces Islam publically, he or she cannot be considered an enemy unless he/she joins the enemy in holding the gun against Islam and Muslims.
The idea here is whether the person constitutes a real danger to the UMMA. Meaning whether this individual threatens the lives and possessions of the Islamic umma.

There is difference between forcing a non-muslim to join Islam (which is not allowed in Islam) and between allowing a Muslim to change to another religion (which is not allowed in Islam)


edit:sorry for the late answer,i forgot this forum :d

[junkie]

You know, I never even knew that! So basically, if I were to decide to become Muslim, then a week later, decide to revert to athiesm, muslims would want me dead? Wow. If what you are saying is true, Islam is no peaceful religion. One question though; how do you know this?
relax,if u become a Muslim then you revert to another religion you are not gonna be killed.There is no such thing as "the penatly for apostasy (leaving Islam) instant death".
people don't have the right to kill apostates.
So basically,someone said something wrong about Islam and you jumped into false conclusions.



i found it out through watching some videos of richard dawkins, he said that that was the case, and then i googled, and pretty pretty much all sources agreed...

isn't he an atheist ?


salam.

[Sage]

The idea here is whether the person constitutes a real danger to the UMMA. Meaning whether this individual threatens the lives and possessions of the Islamic umma.


This may be a silly question, but what is 'umma'?

[junkie]

This may be a silly question, but what is 'umma'?

not its not silly
umma means nation

[Sage]

not its not silly
umma means nation

Okay, thank you for clarifying.

[BuryYourFlame]

isn't he an atheist?

yes, he is, but he is also a very intellegant man, and he interests me. i dont see how it matters if he is an athiest, he wasn't stating an opinion on Islam at the time, so i dont see any room for bias...

[The Batman]

Thanks to our Senior Staff the poll has been updated please click the correct religion for you.

[sebbie]

WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO I'm first to vote :P

Also a much better poll than the last one :) .

[beedubs]

personaly i dont belive in god because i need proof to belive something. to me, the bible isnt proof, its just a book... could be non-fiction, could be fiction... untill i get proof, i wont belive

[Buddy]

:)

Why do we need churches? why do we need buildings to show our faith? Can't I just be faithfull and done? NO! I have to go to church, loose one hour a week of my life, then confess all the shit I do to someone I don't even know, to take some bread, and wine.. I have tons of it at home!

Just so you know...In my religion (Baptist) the Church IS NOT a building, but rather a group of individuals that believe in the Bible and Jesus and so on.

And BTW I AM a Christian and I am NOT afraid of what others think of me.

[hereitgoes]

i tell people i'm an athiest, but rather i just don't give a shit. i do believe that religion in itself is a very positive thing in a way even though we can't prove that one religion is more right than another because it gives people hope and all that jazz but it's also the reason for so many wars and arguments and why my uncle didn't go to his own mother's funeral and crap and why it's apparently a bad thing that i exist because i prefer the same sex over the opposite. religion makes (not all, but some) people very close minded, self-centered and hypocritical. because OHMYGOSH it's so bad that i don't believe in god and everyone needs to try to convert me into a christian but i get attacked for saying jesus christ or oh my god. if people can bash me for having a different religion and i can't use my freedom of speech and say something as harmless as "oh my god"... well, i don't know. there's just something a little fishy about that, eh?

[INFERNO]

On the updated poll, I voted atheism. It's partially from LaVeyan Satanism and although I am dabbling a bit in demonlatry, that currently has no influence over my beliefs. Perhaps when I learn more of it then it may but for now it doesn't.

I try to stay out of the debates of "whose god is the right god?" as I learned from some experience that there isn't any end to it in sight. I do think that some of the morals taught by the various religions are quite good and similar but aside from their morals I don't have any belief in them.

I think religions can be very beneficial to oneself but just like anything, too much of it can be a bad thing.

[Sage]

Just so you know...In my religion (Baptist) the Church IS NOT a building, but rather a group of individuals that believe in the Bible and Jesus and so on.

Both definitions are true regardless of one's believe, it's a matter of context.

[FilmStudentWannabe]

I am agnostic becuase no one knows for sure. People like to pretend they do but they don't.

[liveyoungdiefast]

I think every church in America should pay income tax, every last one.

[INFERNO]

I think every church in America should pay income tax, every last one.

Why should they do this?

[liveyoungdiefast]

Because they're as much of a profit driven institution as anything else. If I wanted to start a public club about philosophy or politics or computers or skating or anything, and my members paid me shitloads of money, even as donations, I would owe the government income tax.

[fallen angel]

I'm a roman catholic but I mainly go to a spiritualist church.

[deadpie]

I use to be catholic, then atheist, then looked into stuff (wooo?) then atheist, and i kinda dont care anymore.

Well, if we haven't met god, how could we say what god approves and doesn't, if he's male or female, blah blah blah.
It's pretty much a big theory. It's imagination.

[Aves]

I'm catholic. :D

[Harley Quinn]

im a catholic person =]

[JackOfClubs]

I am Catholic.

[StJude217]

I also believe in Christ, and that he is God. I was also raised Baptist, but like you I do not agree with everything said. It is up to us as individuals to interpret te Bible and its teachings in our own way. Now, the criticism question; religions criticize other religions
because each religion wants its people to believe it is the only one that holds the truth.
Almost every religion does hold a piece of truth because almost every relgion excluding
Buddhism,Hinduism,and Christianity have branched off of something. Islam branched off
from Christianity when Ishmel and Haggaar were sent to he Middle East to pay for their sins. The Muslim religion came along 1000 years later when Muhhamhed came along. Islam studied almost the same thing Christians did. They lived by our Old Testament and Ten Commandments, but got off track with Muslim coming in the picture. Mormon is a form of Christianity. With Basic Belief Differences that I won't get into. Those are just examples. To consider yourself "Christian" is different than inorming us on your denomination. "Christianity" is a religion. To be a "Christian" is classified as being saved while believing God is the Savior of the World. Islams minr beliefs though make them somewhat of an "evil" people, and like you said proved so by reacting in violence.
Anyway just believe what ou believe and don't worry about what "Religion" it is.

If you ever want to talk E-Mail me at [email protected]

[Sage]

religions criticize other religions
because each religion wants its people to believe it is the only one that holds the truth.

Not really. I'm a wiccan and not preaching to other people is a core part of the belief. As someone once said "For those wiccans who believe in reincarnation, you either were a wiccan in the past, are one now, or will be in the future." so preaching is pretty pointless and generally 'not cool'. I also agree with you however that every belief holds a part of the actual truth, which is why I'm a fair bit more vague in regards to what I believe than some other wiccans/pages. : P

Also, I don't know a lot about buddhism, but they don't seem to be too big on preaching either, nor any other non-abrahamic religions (cults aside).

[StJude217]

Well what some peopl don't know is, is that Buddhism isn't really a religion it is just simply a way to keep one's self under control, and a way to live without anger. I also do not lik "preaching" because everyone interprets everything differently, so one guy preaching something to 200+ people who may not read it the same way is pretty pointless. Besides "Church" is defined in the Bible and Dictionary as Two or More people together talking about God or Gods or just religion.

[Bougainvillea]

I have no religion.
I go through life using my own moral values and standards. I just want to go through life decent as a person.

[Modus Operandi]

I really don't believe in a god of any type.

[mrmcdonaldduck]

i believe in god because science hasnt proven that he doesnt exist and that several times that i have prayed, it came true. eg pray for rain in the middle of a hot, dry summer, rain comes next day.

[Sage]

i believe in god because science hasnt proven that he doesnt exist and that several times that i have prayed, it came true. eg pray for rain in the middle of a hot, dry summer, rain comes next day.

Back when I was a kid, I would cross my fingers a lot when I wanted something to go my way, and it did, therefore crossing one's fingers gives one the magical ability to grant their own wishes.

If you kept up with the weather channel all week that dry, hot summer, you'd have seen the rain front coming well ahead of time. Prayer isn't proof of one's side because people of most (all?) beliefs have some form of prayer they do and they'll all tell you it works sometimes.

[ThatCanadianGuy]

i believe in god because science hasnt proven that he doesnt exist and that several times that i have prayed, it came true. eg pray for rain in the middle of a hot, dry summer, rain comes next day.

Deschain was right about this, and I'd especially want to contest your first statement there. It's irrational to believe in something simply because it hasn't been disproven, I mean, there are TONS of things humans can come up with that are just impossible to test for anyway, like unicorns, fairies, ghosts etc. You should ALSO believe in Zeus, Thor, The Flying Spaghetti Monster etc. because science hasn't disproven them either! But... science doesn't really have to... since there is NO evidence that suggests any of them exist, the most rational position is to NOT believe in them until you are given evidence that suggests they exist.

As for praying for "good weather" that isn't too impressive. Getting lucky and having the weather you wanted isn't miraculous at all, and think about why God would grant this prayer for you, and let it rain.... and he doesn't answer the prayers of starving children in Africa who are dying with no food. We always count the times were the coincidences happen to work out in our favour, and look over the times where nothing happens. Its just human nature.

[Severus Snape]

I consider god to be an imaginary friend, but for adults too. Just because a lot of people think its real, that doesn't mean it is. Repeating the same false thing over and over doesn't make it true.

[Sage]

I consider god to be an imaginary friend, but for adults too. Just because a lot of people think its real, that doesn't mean it is. Repeating the same false thing over and over doesn't make it true.

It's just as likely there there are 'gods' out there as it is that there are not. No one can be sure in either direction.

[Severus Snape]

It's just as likely there there are 'gods' out there as it is that there are not. No one can be sure in either direction.

For me the evidence points to the opposite polarity of the debate. Proof before belief. Human concepts of a god aren't unique, but always claim to be. With several hundred religions and variations and sects within claiming to be the truth, its more likely that all of them are wrong.

[Delusion15]

Is it just me or are they using the you can't prove him wrong so he must exist excuse. unreal excuse.
i am gonna feel like a jackass for saying this but come on. so lets say i say i think that there is a bird in the world that shoots laser beams out of his beak. No one can prove i am lying because chances are people will say they have seen this "bird" and so i can say you can't prove me wrong. so does that mean it's real no it means people have an overactive imagination.

i think the same applies here in one form or another. People are inclined to believe what there leaders or parents say as a child so when a parent say's that there is a god you believe it.

So i just wanted to point out that you the religious must give him evidence of his existence not the other way around.

[Severus Snape]

I offer you the reverse. have you heard of the orbital teapot theory?

[mrmcdonaldduck]

I offer you the reverse. have you heard of the orbital teapot theory?
no, what is it?

[Severus Snape]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07JvzfO0vOk

Perhaps a bit more easy to understand:

If I have absolute faith that there is a refrigerator buried in my backyard filled with gold, my faith doesn't mean it is actually there.

[Giles]

I believe in Alien Jesus.

This isn't a joke I swear.

[Sage]

I believe in Alien Jesus.

This isn't a joke I swear.

How would you define Alien Jesus?

[kenoloor]

I believe that there MAY be a god. Whether that be God (capital 'G') or just a higher power, is beyond me. I'm NOT certain that there is. And I don't believe in Jesus. I also do not believe in creationism. I believe that if there is a g/God that they may have played a part in the evolution process.
I believe that religion dominates too many people's lives. If they could just get their head out of their beliefs, they would see that there ARE other people like them, whether they have the same beliefs as them. There's so many different schools of thought on religion, and those have all caused wars sometime in history.

What would happen if we all just accepted each other and loved each other, despite our beliefs?

[Justwondering]

I'm an Atheist. However Atheism isn't a religion.

[Golddron]

I'm Roman catholic, however, I tend to be a philosophical Buddhist. I used to be agnostic but things happened and I developed faith.

[Xenomi]

ok so i chose judaism because my belief system is called Noahide, its basically being as Jewish as you can without actually being Jewish
Look it up, its a cool religion!!

[Sage]

ok so i chose judaism because my belief system is called Noahide, its basically being as Jewish as you can without actually being Jewish
Look it up, its a cool religion!!

I don't find any of the abrahamic religions very 'cool', but I suppose that's a matter of opinion.

[mrmcdonaldduck]

i consider god to be the force that created the universe and started life on earth. he is not responsible for us and what we have done to the planet.

[Bluearmy]

I'm just looming around right now.

[INFERNO]

he is not responsible for us and what we have done to the planet.

Why?

[mrmcdonaldduck]

because of the theory of evolution created us, not it directly

[Contra]

I'm an atheist.
No offence, but I think religion is stupid.

[tcrawle]

Presbyterian

[tyler_52]

im an atheist because i dont see any religion with any evidence at all towards their beliefs

[mrmcdonaldduck]

I'm an atheist.
No offence, but I think religion is stupid.

none taken.

[INFERNO]

because of the theory of evolution created us, not it directly

The issue is though, you're using science, which adheres to a different paradigm than religion in order to prove something of religion. The two are not comparable, they are based on different philosophies and different assumptions. If you're going to give evidence for why god isn't responsible for what humans have done, then you have to adhere to your paradigm, you cannot simply mix and match bits of various paradigms as you like and hope that it makes some sense. So, do you have an answer that adheres to your paradigm of choice?

[greg95]

I believe that there MAY be a god. Whether that be God (capital 'G') or just a higher power, is beyond me. I'm NOT certain that there is. And I don't believe in Jesus. I also do not believe in creationism. I believe that if there is a g/God that they may have played a part in the evolution process.
I believe that religion dominates too many people's lives. If they could just get their head out of their beliefs, they would see that there ARE other people like them, whether they have the same beliefs as them. There's so many different schools of thought on religion, and those have all caused wars sometime in history.

What would happen if we all just accepted each other and loved each other, despite our beliefs?
that's what we do in my family pal ;)
we are muslims and we accept every body as they are.
my girlfriend is christian, and when i told my parents, they were like "thats cool ^^"

[Lily of the Valley]

What would happen if we all just accepted each other and loved each other, despite our beliefs?Such a thing would go against my religion - but more importantly, my personal beliefs. I don't judge people based on their religions very often. I'll always give someone a chance. But our religion dictates our beliefs, does it not? If someone's part of a religion that holds beliefs I find absolutely deplorable, then it's not unreasonable for me to dislike that person because of their religious beliefs. I don't dislike them because of their religion, but because of their beliefs - they could not even be part of a religion, and I'd still feel the same.

~Maggot

[Sage]

But our religion dictates our beliefs, does it not?

If you believe everything you're told, yes. I, however, have chosen a religion that is already in line with my opinions on several issues and morality. The question is whether or not one should choose their beliefs based on their religion or if they should choose their religion based on their beliefs. I'm much happier with the latter.

[Lily of the Valley]

If you believe everything you're told, yes. I, however, have chosen a religion that is already in line with my opinions on several issues and morality. The question is whether or not one should choose their beliefs based on their religion or if they should choose their religion based on their beliefs. I'm much happier with the latter.Well yes, of course. Whether our religion dictates our beliefs or our beliefs dictate our religion, the fact still stands that our religion reflects our beliefs - which would have been a far better way to state that. Ironically, I just put this on my Facebook about an hour ago: "Anyone ever notice how it's always, "Because of my religion, my beliefs are..." instead of "Because of my beliefs, my religion is..."? Seems backwards to me."

So yes, I entirely, 100% agree with you. I just worded it poorly.

~Maggot

[INFERNO]

I just put this on my Facebook about an hour ago: "Anyone ever notice how it's always, "Because of my religion, my beliefs are..." instead of "Because of my beliefs, my religion is..."? Seems backwards to me."


Actually it doesn't seem that unusual to me. In a way, the religion can be viewed as an explanation for something, such as the creation of the world. Take the religion that's almost always used as an example, Christianity, it states that god made everything. That is an explanation, it may be a rather vague, ambiguous and over-used one but it's an explanation nonetheless. This explanation allows one to formulate their beliefs.

Think about it this way, which statement makes more sense: 1) I believe that the apple falls to the ground because of gravity, 2) Because I believe in gravity the apple falls to the ground OR 3) I believe in gravity because the apple falls to the ground. If you don't believe in gravity in the first place, then the apple isn't going to fall to the ground, whereas if you do believe in gravity, then the apple will fall to the ground.

[clone]

I dont follow any religion, to me it's stupid, tho i have nothing against religious people. It is mostly the cause of wars and terrorism ect.

exactly my thoughts!

[Death]

I'd agree too; it simply gets in the way of life. A lot of time, it's religion that drives terrorists to terrorism. Without religion, many lives could have been saved.

[Sage]

Without religion, many lives could have been saved.

Because there are no other reasons to kill people. Yeah.

[deadpie]

I've been getting allot of friends telling me that "god" puts people on earth for a reason.I really do hate this theory. If one more person tells me this, i'm gonna go insane.
I mean, yesterday we had someone visit our school and this dude talked about how his friend died in a car crash from drinking and driving at age fifteen and he thinks it happened so it was god's intentions. I mean, was the sacrifice of his stupidity necessary to make a point on other people's lives? I mean, what kind of destiny is that? You will drink and drive and die, but you will put an impact on people's lives. Like as if that has worked before. People will still go out and do it.
I don't know, i'm rambling again. I just don't believe in destiny or that there is much a point in anything. We're just ants in a never ending universe.

[Death]

Because there are no other reasons to kill people. Yeah.

There's no need for sarcasm Deschain. Yes, I know that there are other reasons to kill people. But one of the reasons that currently exists is religion and without religion, there would be no religious conflict and wars. True, there would be conflict and wars for other reasons, but you'd have one less without religion.

I've been getting allot of friends telling me that "god" puts people on earth for a reason.I really do hate this theory. If one more person tells me this, i'm gonna go insane.

I know. To be perfectly honest, it sucks.

I mean, yesterday we had someone visit our school and this dude talked about how his friend died in a car crash from drinking and driving at age fifteen and he thinks it happened so it was god's intentions.

I don't think they realise it, but they portray God as being quite nasty if you think about it.

I don't know, i'm rambling again.

Even if you are 'rambling' (although I don't think you are), you're in the right forum for it. ;)

I just don't believe in destiny or that there is much a point in anything. We're just ants in a never ending universe.

Exactly. Our solar system is nothing both time and size-wize with the rest of the universe. Apart from reproduce, I don't really think that there is any actual meaning of life. Of course, the point of reproduction is to create more life which has no meaning of its own except reproduce further, so, one could say that there is no meaning of life.

[Sage]

There's no need for sarcasm Deschain. Yes, I know that there are other reasons to kill people. But one of the reasons that currently exists is religion and without religion, there would be no religious conflict and wars. True, there would be conflict and wars for other reasons, but you'd have one less without religion.


Actually, I think there's a severe lack of sarcasm in this thread.

There's no reason to believe that at all. Without religion, who's to say we wouldn't just bitch about other problems to a greater degree?

[Death]

Actually, I think there's a severe lack of sarcasm in this thread.

Well, that only shows that there's even more sarcasm here than I thought earlier.

There's no reason to believe that at all. Without religion, who's to say we wouldn't just bitch about other problems to a greater degree?

Maybe they will, maybe they won't. But even if they do, I'd be expecting matters to be better than they were before because religion would still have been a big and main thing to argue about. In fact, to which 'other things' were you referring?

[Hyper]

Ignoring the truth that most religions condemn violence...

[luciia96]

I'm completely atheist, i think religion is just something people made up bcause they need to believe in something... from my point of view, if something happens its because of us, the human being... i mean, the world is in our hands, we are destroying it and we know it, so... will your god make the planet stay forever? No. We are the only ones who can do that... because there isnt anything else (for me)

[Sage]

i mean, the world is in our hands, we are destroying it and we know it, so...

HAHAHA.

No. It is still, at the moment, impossible for us to destroy the world. Is it possible for us to put the world in a state in which it can no longer support our existence and other life forms? Yes. But at present we cannot actually destroy the world. Besides, we're doing less harm now than any other time in the past few hundred years. Please go read up on the "State of the World" debate, it's more relevant to this and I'd not like to go too far off on a tangent.

[Death]

Ignoring the truth that most religions condemn violence...

And yet it's still caused conflict. Besides, there are many quotes from the old testament of the bible saying very shocking things like you should stone teenagers to death if they are disobidient and bloodily kill any man that sleeps wit another man. Now that's barbaric and is anything but condemning violence and this is from a very worringly common religion - Christianity.

HAHAHA.

Calm down, you know that he didn't he didn't literally mean destroying it and that he only meant doing harm wich we certainly are. I mean come on, the world would be better off without us, wouldn't it? We arn't exactly helping it, are we? But we can control how we treat the environment, and I know that, that's wat he meant. But anyway, this doesn't directly link to religion, and so I don't even know why I'm or we're discussing it.

[Sage]

Calm down,

If you have a problem with me, take it up with a moderator. Last I checked, I've never been warned or banned for things said in this forum. :rolleyes:

you know that he didn't he didn't literally mean destroying it and that he only meant doing harm wich we certainly are.

If you say something in a debate that can be attacked, you will be attacked.

I mean come on, the world would be better off without us, wouldn't it?

Sure it would, but who the fuck would care? Animals don't have any comprehension of the overall state of the world and would carry on doing their business whether we're here to kill them or not.

Short answer: Nobody cares if nobody's there.

We arn't exactly helping it, are we?

No, and we have no obligation to help it. We (on the economic/political scale of things) only do anything about the environment at all because the damage we cause comes back to bite us, not to bite other life forms.

ABesides, there are many quotes from the old testament of the bible saying very shocking things like you should stone teenagers to death if they are disobidient and bloodily kill any man that sleeps wit another man. Now that's barbaric and is anything but condemning violence and this is from a very worringly common religion - Christianity.

And do you know how many Christians take the Old Testament seriously at all? It's not an issue in and of itself. People who take a literal interpretation of the Old Testament already have dangerous personalities and would just spread their horrible ideas through some other means even without religion.

Religion isn't the problem, ideas are the problem. Religion is but one means to convey ideas.

[The Batman]

No matter what we do to the environment the earth will fix itself we aren't that powerful dude.

[Death]

If you have a problem with me, take it up with a moderator. Last I checked, I've never been warned or banned for things said in this forum. :rolleyes:

I would say 'calm down' again, but it's obvious that there's no point.

Sure it would, but who the fuck would care? Animals don't have any comprehension of the overall state of the world and would carry on doing their business whether we're here to kill them or not.

I suppose that's a valid, if slightly selfish (come on, you have to admit that, although I'm not complaining), view.

Short answer: Nobody cares if nobody's there.

So lets say that one psychopath went round and killed everybody in a remote village (he lived there) which is detatched from the rest of the world before killing himself, all you'd say it that no-one's there so no-one cares? Well, I suppose that you actually have a point there, but wouldn't it have been nicer if they could have all lived? Well, actually, I suppose that's debatable.

No, and we have no obligation to help it.

Never said we did. We certainly have no obligation. Helping it is merely something one can do when they feel like doing something good.

If you say something in a debate that can be attacked, you will be attacked.

Everything can be attacked and so I could now attack you, but I won't. Regardless, I merely wanted us to debate without bashing what others say, nothing else.

And do you know how many Christians take the Old Testament seriously at all? It's not an issue in and of itself. People who take a literal interpretation of the Old Testament already have dangerous personalities and would just spread their horrible ideas through some other means even without religion.

Doesn't it seem weird that a Christian would want to follow a book when they don't take half of it seriously?

No matter what we do to the environment the earth will fix itself we aren't that powerful dude.

I know that. All I said was that we have not left a good mark on the environment. But this isn't even related to religion, and so I don't even know why we're discussing it here. I mean seriously (I'm not speaking to you or anyone in particular, please note), can we drop this 'sub topic' now?

[Sage]

Doesn't it seem weird that a Christian would want to follow a book when they don't take half of it seriously?

Because the Old Testament was mostly relevant to the Jewish faith/culture and Christians rely more heavily on the New Testament. Jesus Christ doesn't appear until the New Testament. I don't see why Christians should be so uptight about upholding a book not about Jesus Christ.

[Hyper]

Seriously if your going to base your hate of religion on the Old Testament then you should just stop living all together.

Extremists they are everywhere and they are never good news.

The Old Testament is ANYTHING but what I perceive as being Christian values, it was also written before ''Jesus'' I believe ;P

Anyway I know its going to be useless to post here since You (Death) will turn it into an argument as your views are incredibly narrow and You simply have your own dilemma and hate regarding religion...

Besides no point for me to talk about a topic that I've made my mind up on already

[Sage]

Besides no point for me to talk about a topic that I've made my mind up on already

You accuse one of being narrow-minded, and you end with dogmatic hypocrisy. Bravo.

[mrmcdonaldduck]

the old testament means nothing to most sensible christians, end of story.

[Death]

Why is it that polytheism is seemingly so uncommon?

[Sage]

Why is it that polytheism is seemingly so uncommon?

It's not. Go to India.

[Death]

I was more referring to this site. From the votes, there are very few polytheists. Why do the monotheists and atheists come here more? Is it pehaps because in the areas where polytheism is usually existant, they either go on these sites less or not at all (maybe because they can't?)?

[Sage]

I was more referring to this site. From the votes, there are very few polytheists. Why do the monotheists and atheists come here more? Is it pehaps because in the areas where polytheism is usually existant, they either go on these sites less or not at all (maybe because they can't?)?

Because the majority of people on primarily english-speaking websites tend to come from North America, Australia, or the UK, where monotheism and atheism are the majorities.

[Suicune]

Well I'm Christian.. I bleive there's a God and Jesus and all that stuff. But I'm not like all absorbed in it and acting like a male nun.

[Ulthran]

I'm a pretty "hardcore" atheist (More like an antitheist). I have gone to a church once or twice to debate the existence of God (my friend is a "hardcore" Christian, goes to Bible Camp, Christian "Rock" Concerts, dad's a minister etc. and he invited me to go to "prove" that God exists").

I don't really have a hatred for any religions, but I do dislike Christianity, as to me (and an ex-Christian friend who brought this up) they are incredibly close-minded (sorry, can't think of the exact word right now), as during the Crusades when Christianity took control over Jerusalem they massacred every single Muslim in sight, women, children, anyone (after all the battles), but when Islam took control over Jerusalem again, they just let all the Crusaders and their families go home :/

And people say that Islam is a violent religion?

EDIT: Oh, and if anyone wants to talk to me about religion, message me :)

[Brazdar]

Lately I've started to consider myself an ignostic; how can people believe in someone's or something's existence or absence when you don't know it's true meaning, it's definition?

[Sage]

I don't really have a hatred for any religions, but I do dislike Christianity, as to me (and an ex-Christian friend who brought this up) they are incredibly close-minded (sorry, can't think of the exact word right now), as during the Crusades when Christianity took control over Jerusalem they massacred every single Muslim in sight, women, children, anyone (after all the battles), but when Islam took control over Jerusalem again, they just let all the Crusaders and their families go home :/

And people say that Islam is a violent religion?

In the past, Christianity was the most violent religion. In the modern day, Islam is the most violent religion. Not to say either has never been peaceful. I know many muslims who are very kind and accepting of others.

[ThatDude93]

I am a Protestant Christian

[Death]

May I ask why?

[Kapitan Kokenbalz]

Atheism wins.

Hell = the grave, by the way.

http://www.newswatchmagazine.org/restknowledge/rk2/whatishell2.htm

^ Makes more sense than anything the Bible has to offer, hands down.

[The Batman]

Atheism wins.

Hell = the grave, by the way.

http://www.newswatchmagazine.org/restknowledge/rk2/whatishell2.htm

^ Makes more sense than anything the Bible has to offer, hands down.

Doesn't seem like anything more than someone using their own interpretation of the bible to prove a point just like any thing else.

[Death]

But that's still saying that the point's proved. Although it sure does make sense though, theists have no way of knowing anything that they 'know'.

[Sage]

theists have no way of knowing anything that they 'know'.

That's because theists have faith and look at things through a religious paradigm and not a scientific one. You're being no more ignorant than they are by stating that the only way to know anything is through science. Simply put, scientific paradigms work in solving scientific issues and religious paradigms work in solving theistic issues.

[ThatDude93]

May I ask why?


Because it makes sense to me, I don't get how something can come fron nothing. I like science and I am a Christian. But I do see holes in both that can be filled by the other. Obviously there will always be questions, and some will go unanswered, but I believe that science and religion can coexist. Also, my religion makes perfect sense to me. I am probably bot going to be a great source of knowledge to answer a bunch of questions though.

Anyway, I hope answered your question even in the slightest way.

[Sage]

I like science and I am a Christian. But I do see holes in both that can be filled by the other.

If you apply religion to science, scientists will laugh at you. If you apply science to religion, well, scientists and a lot of other people will also laugh at you.

Ha.

[ZzKingz]

the reason im agnostic is because i don't know how and why we came to be and i believe that nobody truly knows.

Im leaning towards atheism.

[Death]

That's because theists have faith and look at things through a religious paradigm and not a scientific one.

Faith, yes, and that's all, faith. Nothing more.

You're being no more ignorant than they are by stating that the only way to know anything is through science. Simply put, scientific paradigms work in solving scientific issues and religious paradigms work in solving theistic issues.

Maybe, but we still cannot know these things though.

Because it makes sense to me, I don't get how something can come fron nothing.

And yet again, somebody disbelieves because they do not understand it; I've seen this too many times before. The universe we know today did not come out of nothing. I'd reccomend reading up on the big bang here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang) (may not be the best site, but you could always find others yourself). Apart from anything else, that's a bit hypocritical because you have not said how God has come into being and don't say that he was always there or doesn't need to because you could say the same about the universe or whatever came before it.

I like science and I am a Christian. But I do see holes in both that can be filled by the other. Obviously there will always be questions, and some will go unanswered, but I believe that science and religion can coexist.

That's the last thing that can be done; religion and science don't mix, ever.

Also, my religion makes perfect sense to me.

Some random man who nobody has ever even met ust clicked his fingers and suddenly, poof! The whole universe appeared from nowhere started swirling into place. He then decided that he wanted all the life forms to appear and so he simply told the world what he wanted and it just appeared. Makes perfect sense.

I am probably bot going to be a great source of knowledge to answer a bunch of questions though.

Why don't you ask God? Couldn't he fill you in on what's been happening? Prayer is real, right?

Anyway, I hope answered your question even in the slightest way.

Nice of you to say so, but I'm afraid I've got more. :rolleyes:

[drumir93]

Because it makes sense to me, I don't get how something can come fron nothing. I like science and I am a Christian. But I do see holes in both that can be filled by the other. Obviously there will always be questions, and some will go unanswered, but I believe that science and religion can coexist. Also, my religion makes perfect sense to me. I am probably bot going to be a great source of knowledge to answer a bunch of questions though.

Anyway, I hope answered your question even in the slightest way.

The "something-came-from-nothing" thing is a Christian point of view, not an atheist one.
You believe there always has been and always will be a god, therefore you believe he came from nothing.
I, being an atheist, put my faith in science, which evolves and becomes more complete and correct with time. Whereas Christianity is stagnant in its 1st century, unscientific form, where people came up with any convenient explanation for anything they couldn't understand.
Rather than coming up with excuses like that and just saying it popped out of nowhere like you claim, the average atheist point of view is that we plain and simply don't know yet, science has only come so far and we have to wait much longer for a solid explanation for the origins of the universe.

[Death]

I agree, that's why I don't see how religion can make any more sense than science. And yes, science can admit that there is still research to be done to answer unasnwered questions. The same cannot be said about religion.

[The Ninja]

i believe in God i am lutheran and i dont necisarilly critisize another persons religion the only way to get close enough to someone to teach them your religion is to understand theres i mean if i went over to a buddist friends house i wouldnt pray to buddah but i would do my best not to disrespect there religion and/or culture so theres my answer

[Death]

I have to say, reading your post isn't easy but I'll try my best to respond:

Why do you say that you will do your best to not disrespect their religion? Forgive me, it just sounds like you might sometimes offend someone because of their religion. And also, what made you believe in God (no-one has ever been a theist all their life) and what makes you continue to believe in God?

[Sage]

I think a lot of people are missing that religion deals in issues of morality, where as science does not. Just throwing that out there.

[drumir93]

To an extent, I would say it actually does.
It's all a part of human biology and the necessary cooperation it takes humans just to survive. It manifests its self as our conscience and the purpose of our conscience is essentially to keep us from being counter-productive to the human race and it consists basically of the things some religions decided to use such as Not killing those who are good to us, and not stealing unnecessarily.
At least that's how I understand it.

[Sage]

To an extent, I would say it actually does.
It's all a part of human biology and the necessary cooperation it takes humans just to survive. It manifests its self as our conscience and the purpose of our conscience is essentially to keep us from being counter-productive to the human race

That'd be a good argument if so many people weren't being, y'know, counter-productive.

[drumir93]

Most of those people that I can think of are doing it in the name of God.

[Sage]

Most of those people that I can think of are doing it in the name of God.

So anyone who isn't an atheist is acting in a manner that is counter-productive to the human race.

[drumir93]

You're putting words in my mouth and you're completely aware of it.
To be completely frank, I do think that religion is obsolete and I wouldn't miss it if it where gone. But most people in the world are part of a religion and I just so happen to think that most people in the world are decent.
But I don't see atheist flying planes into buildings in the name of science, or murdering the pro-life Christian crowd because they disagree with them.
You usually make really good posts, but I think that one was just lazy.

[The Batman]

You CAN NOT blame that on religion it's mainly just a book that people read and the extremists are usually following a false preacher who tells them to do that shit so don't even think about condemning religion because of stupid people.

[drumir93]

Don't be so emotional, honestly. If you want me to change my opinion then present your reasons to me in a calm and sensible manner. But I'm not going to pretend I don't believe something based on the evidence I've seen just to prevent myself from offending you.

[The Batman]

Trust me dude I am calm and proof that the acts of certain people aren't because of their religion but because of who they follow is simple. Why are there so many denominations of Christianity and how come no two are exactly alike with the way they handle things they don't agree with? They are the same religion they just follow a different belief on it and have different leaders. Also why is it that muslims in america aren't flying planes into buildings of countries they feel are evil? IF you can blame it on the religion why isn't every follower doing the same thing?

[drumir93]

Because most people inherently know it is bad (that's conscience again) but time and time again I hear of people killing in the name of god, mutilating peoples genitals, gay-bashing, and many other horrible things. Every time, these people have been under the influence of a religion.

In other words, I would say Not all religious people are murdering, mutilating, gay-bashers, but if you are one you're probably religious.

[The Batman]

if you are one then you're probably a mentally deranged person using religion as an excuse to fill your own selfish agenda.

[drumir93]

Of course that's a distinct possibility. But why are they all religious? Wouldn't some of these people choose a different path that didn't involve a god? I'm sure not all of these violent nuts where born hateful and deranged.

[The Batman]

You can't say all of them are religious because you don't know dude also considering atheists are small minorities so a small percent of crimes will naturally come from them unless every religious person followed it like they were suppose to.

[drumir93]

http://americanhumanist.org/hnn/archives/index.php?id=219&article=7

I'm sorry, what was that?

[Tiberius]

Because most people inherently know it is bad (that's conscience again) but time and time again I hear of people killing in the name of god, mutilating peoples genitals, gay-bashing, and many other horrible things. Every time, these people have been under the influence of a religion.

In other words, I would say Not all religious people are murdering, mutilating, gay-bashers, but if you are one you're probably religious.

Of course that's a distinct possibility. But why are they all religious? Wouldn't some of these people choose a different path that didn't involve a god? I'm sure not all of these violent nuts where born hateful and deranged.
I'm pretty sure that MOST of the murders, rapes, "gential mutilation"(whatever you mean by that) and other horrible things that go on now and in history AREN'T motivated by God or Religion. In fact, many murders are commited by Atheists. Interesting...isn't it?

edit:
http://americanhumanist.org/hnn/arch...=219&article=7

I'm sorry, what was that?
That was a load of bullshit since Christianity never really took root in Japan, nor did any western religion for that matter. The majority of Japan is Buddhist and therefore don't believe that God exists. Also, their culture has been based on extreme respect and rigidity for over a thousand years. So basically, you failed with that one since I actually HAVE a brain and some intelligence.

[drumir93]

You didn't even read the whole thing.
It goes beyond Japan.

Also, this is a bit old, but keep in mind that at the time atheist made up about 14% of the US.
It's now at about 16-20%

http://www.holysmoke.org/icr-pri.htm

The Federal Bureau of Prisons does have statistics on religious
affiliations of inmates. The following are total number of
inmates per religion category:

Response Number %
---------------------------- --------
Catholic 29267 39.164%
Protestant 26162 35.008%
Muslim 5435 7.273%
American Indian 2408 3.222%
Nation 1734 2.320%
Rasta 1485 1.987%
Jewish 1325 1.773%
Church of Christ 1303 1.744%
Pentecostal 1093 1.463%
Moorish 1066 1.426%
Buddhist 882 1.180%
Jehovah Witness 665 0.890%
Adventist 621 0.831%
Orthodox 375 0.502%
Mormon 298 0.399%
Scientology 190 0.254%
Atheist 156 0.209%

[The Batman]

Is it based on what religion they were entering the religion or were they already there and some just converted? What were their religions when they committed the crime?

[Tiberius]

The Federal Bureau of Prisons does have statistics on religious
affiliations of inmates. The following are total number of
inmates per religion category:

Response Number %
---------------------------- --------
Catholic 29267 39.164%
Protestant 26162 35.008%
Muslim 5435 7.273%
American Indian 2408 3.222%
Nation 1734 2.320%
Rasta 1485 1.987%
Jewish 1325 1.773%
Church of Christ 1303 1.744%
Pentecostal 1093 1.463%
Moorish 1066 1.426%
Buddhist 882 1.180%
Jehovah Witness 665 0.890%
Adventist 621 0.831%
Orthodox 375 0.502%
Mormon 298 0.399%
Scientology 190 0.254%
Atheist 156 0.209%


How many of them actually cry out "Deus lo volt!" when they're about to shoot some other guy in the face? No, I think not. Therefore, it's not motivated on religion. You can't tie what you just posted to that.

[drumir93]

"Is it based on what religion they were entering the religion or were they already there and some just converted? What were their religions when they committed the crime? "

I don't know, but I doubt that so many people where atheist when they committed the crime and then only .2% remained so afterward