Attention Atheists.

Around 311~ years after his death.

I know this has become a religious debate but I'm only really seeing one side and no answers from the other. This is what always happens. No religious person ever gives any answers besides "faith", "bible" or "godidit".

This is why these things derail; the logical become enraged at the lines people try to pass off as answers.

Yes I understand you have no proof and you rely on faith. That's the whole problem.

And there is no value you can get from religion that you can't get naturally. Not "taught", I said naturally.

That's not "the whole problem." It's your problem. Obviously he and thousands of other people are just peachy with the concept.

Also, isn't your "proof" merely a sort of faith that what has been proven as "truth" or "fact" will always be just that?

This post has been edited by Mrs. Aforcer on Jul 23 2008, 05:50 PM

Blissful ignorance.

There isn't a positive reason for religion. Even smoking has euphoria. What does religion give that I can't give myself?

Our being religious is not a "problem", and you're not going to "fix" us.

Understand that you can't force us to not believe in God. It doesn't make you more intelligent or a better person.

It's not to you. It is to the general population.

Statistically and morally. It's also my personal opinion but that's a different matter.

Fix of course implies it's an instant process which of course is impossible; all I hope is that the constant day-by-day indoctrination stops and maybe, just maybe, one of greatest countries in the world catches up with the rest of the western world in terms of modernisation of believes.

I of course understand I can't force you, you understand you can of course force your children, and your children's children. This is where the problem lies.

I'm not gonna force my children to be Christian. I'm not one of those crazy radical Catholics that worry about every single sin. Mind you, I'm gonna raise that child as a Christian, but what he chooses to believe is up to him.

There really isn't any positive reason for science, though. Yes, we can make hypotheses and experiments, but the reason we use them as proof is because we have faith that they will. Since they worked X amount of times, they must always work. Is that not a form of faith too?

Also, for a lot of people, religion is a source of justice. This world is full of a lot of corruption and evil, and when one goes to church, it reminds them that above all this, there is an all-powerful force that is never unfair and always does the right thing. This is especially true of people that have gone through a lot of injustice, such as a corrupt dictatorship, robbery, abuse, divorce, or even something as simple as a boss laying them off. It's a comfort to them, just like science is a comfort to many people.

And even if that's still not reason enough for you, why do you insist on changing them? This is just another case of atheist blindly attacking religion. No one is forcing you to be religious. So why force religious people to be atheist? Does the world really center that much on your self-proclaimed truths? You have no real proof of your theories being truths, you merely have faith that since they worked once or twice or maybe hundreds of times, they will work indefinitely. It's really all the same concept in the end.

"Everyone should be the same and believe the same thing."

Okay, fascist.

Ouch. OK well theories aren't truths. But if you want to believe gravity won't work 1 out of X times then go ahead.

Saying science has no positive reason is just plain...well...it stumped me. I'm sure you use the products of science some times. Like a computer sometimes.

Anyway no-one has faith in theories. They work because they're tested. If they're found to be wrong ever the theory changes. Unlike religion that never does.

Atheism isn't the centre of everything or whatever that jab was. I just think it's humiliating to be part of the same species who can make exoskeletons that read your brain waves and phones than run on blood yet still believe in magic.

Seriously though. Answer these:
Why don't you believe in all the other deities when they have the exact same amount of evidence?
How much of the one source of your religion (the bible) do you believe?
If science and religion ever clash, which one wins?
Do you believe in other things that have no evidence, such as ghosts?

Don't post them. It's rhetorical.

Nice. Not only does fascism encourage religion, but it also encourages difference in a populace. Why not just call me a ****?

This post has been edited by Hippoman on Jul 23 2008, 06:11 PM

Hippoman is backing out with "Sorry, I have nothing to say, so I'm gonna throw a bunch of non-relevant questions with the words Science and Religion in them."

This post has been edited by Sword on Jul 23 2008, 06:10 PM

Backing out of what? Hit me with a question and I'll answer it.

"If science and religion ever clash, which one wins?"

Science. Bats aren't birds, for example.

EDIT: Fact gathered from the Bible

This post has been edited by Hippoman on Jul 23 2008, 06:17 PM

I was referring to the more controversial aspects of science. The ones, y'know, religion and science actually disagree on? The Bible never said there was no gravity. Even so, one could argue, what caused gravity? The rotation and orbit of the Earth, which is caused (summarizing a lot, here) by the way the universe is constructed. So then, what caused the universe to be in the state it is now? Scientists say the Big Bang, and they cite things from their "religion" (which is science) to justify this theory. This is a form of faith; the scientists are faithful that all their theories and hypotheses are true, and even then, there are plenty of loopholes (e.g. why did the Big Bang happen for no real apparent reason? Scientists would say perhaps because it is part of a cycle, but this belief is based on a similar type of faith that I described above). On the other hand, Christians would say God created it all. They would cite sources from their religion to prove their point. Each "religion (science and Christianity) has it's own set of truths -- some mutual, some not -- so who really has the right to say they're right and someone else is wrong if no body really knows? At all. Period.

I'm sure you use products of religion sometimes, too. Many laws and aspects of government have their roots in the Bible. Does that mean you have to be religious? Certainly not. Just because I use products of science doesn't make it any more or less valid.

Yes, but the thought process of "if it is tested and proven to work, then it always works" is a fundamental truth of science. That is what scientists have faith in and that's what almost every theory relies on. God is a fundamental truth of religion. A big chunk of religion relies on him.

Also religion promotes adaptation to the times. I don't see men on the train asking women "I want to sit down where you got up. Are mensing at the moment? If you are, I can't sit in that seat." Go to a church service sometime. They're not still preaching about how you can't eat shellfish, I can guarantee you that.

Again, then, that's your problem, not theirs. Don't go about trying to convert people because you feel humiliated. It's your fault for being intolerant.

Well, I was going to answer them, and then I read the last part. So I won't.

Bottom line: it's your problem, not theirs. If you can't deal with people being different, maybe it's you who doesn't belong, not them.

fascism n. a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.

Oh, yeah, really sounds like a type of dictatorship that encourages diversity. Sorry, my bad. Also, for the record, I meant it in more of a snarky sense, but I forgot only you were allowed to use words that way. Also, it seemed nicer than calling you neo-Hitler.

Also, I'm not fond of profanity, that's why.

This post has been edited by Mrs. Aforcer on Jul 23 2008, 06:30 PM

Oh yeah. The Bible should get up and rewrite itself, you're right. Lazy thing it is.

What about ancient science texts? The ones we've proved wrong? Should I call science wrong just because those texts never rewrote themselves? I mean actually erased their pages and reformed to modern day?

Church is meant to re qualify the things in the Bible that have since been deemed as false. Just like I said earlier. The two go hand-in-hand, and if you chose to out-and-out ignore one, you're not really attacking religion at all. You're just finding petty things in one aspect of a larger idea and throwing pebbles at it.

Amen to that, Sword.

This post has been edited by Mrs. Aforcer on Jul 23 2008, 06:34 PM

You think of science as a religion. Really?

The fact is, you don't understand science, and with that attitude, you never will. If you think science believes theories to be true indefinitely you are wrong. Not close-but-wrong, wrong. Theories change, and always change. Science is always improving itself through peer review.

The current theories are the best answer to questions that no one can answer for sure. People who simply say godidit are just being ignorant. They're taking the lazy way out.

The point you reiterated about it not being my problem is far off as well. Religion is a problem to the human race; our beloved Homo sapien.

And never, ever, state that the civilised world has it's roots in religion. Especially America, which never even had a monarchy. If you think law has roots in the bible, then you need to learn that the bible has roots in law. The early commandments were just copy and chiselled from the current laws of the tribes. What about all the civilisations before Christianity? Babylon? Carthage? The Mayans?

You're not even addressing a point. You're just saying I'm wrong and that theoretically somehow makes it not matter or that religion is right.

How come they don't rewrite the existence of god or jesus or moses or adam and eve? These things we deem now to be false by the same process and disciplines that proves bats aren't birds.

Do you just pick and choose?

This post has been edited by Hippoman on Jul 23 2008, 06:37 PM

pascal's wadger is retarded. why live in fear?

to me, it does not make sense that an all loving God wants to send rational people to hell for not believing in something with no proof.

The conclusions I can get from this are:

1) God does not exist
2) If he does, he's a wishy washy lying dick.

No. I'm playing devil's advocate. What I actually believe doesn't really matter.

Oh, I do. I lived, like, half my life at Caltech, but thanks for jumping to conclusions. I'm saying that there is a parallel between religion and science. Both has fundamental theories, and everything within the field revolves around that being true. The two are exactly the same concept, but different fundamentals. Also religion changes too, as I've been saying and citing examples for. I don't see men legally stoning their women out in the streets (of America) anymore.

Oh, and theBigBangdidit is any better? What makes you the all-powerful-declarer-of-laziness, seriously? God is a fundamental truth in their life, thus this is not the lazy way out. It is the truth. Just certain aspects of science are your fundamental truth, thus the Big Bang is the truth. It's not ignorance just because they believe something different.

No, it's people like you who can't get over people's differences. I don't see Christianity forcing our bodies to revert back to Homo erectus.

If you want to get real technical, the problem with the human race is science. It has provided medicine and technology that has made us sedentary, pharmaceutical-dependent beings. Natural selection doesn't act upon us anymore, so we have stopped evolving. In the natural animal world, we'd probably go extinct in a matter of years, for we have practically devolved in all of our survival adaptations.

Well it does. Look at the founding fathers. A lot of the Constitution has it's roots and morals in religion. Heck, America began so religious folk could have a safer place to live where they could practice their religion freely, even. Religion is woven through the history of the modern world. It's undeniable. If anything, you're the willfully ignorant one here.

Also, if you're going to cite even more ancient civilizations, than you could say, yes, Christianity got it's basis from religions before it. I'm not denying that. Christianity found it's roots in Judaism, and so on. I'm not debating that, I'm saying that alot of post-Christian history contains Christianity and uses it for a basis for morals and ethics and such.

No. I'm saying you're intolerant. I've said it multiple times.

God is a fundamental theory. He has yet to really be disproved by religion itself. Same with a lot of the other payers you listed. Some of them (such as Jesus) even have been proven to exist by science. Also, they're things you deem wrong. That doesn't mean you're right, it means you beleive you're right. Which is fine for people who agree with you, but it gives you know right to go about forcing other's to bend to your beliefs.

Do I just pick and choose what?

This post has been edited by Mrs. Aforcer on Jul 23 2008, 06:52 PM

This is where I was getting way earlier, with the whole Bible thing.

Can most Christians in this thread agree to the fact that the Bible was written by People? I mean, it's not like a hand came out of the sky and wrote words on the pages.

So if you can agree that people wrote it, you would have to agree that, because people make mistakes, the Bible isn't perfect. And there many, many instances in which people were in charge of the creation of the Bible.

There were the people who wrote it, of course, though some might say they were "divinely inspired" which is either to say that they were hearing the voice of God and writing down what he said, or they really liked Religion so that somehow made them more accurate historians.

Then there were the people who translated it. Though there's less room for error here, as we have access to the untranslated versions, and many people constantly retranslate it.

The real terrible part that nobody thinks about is the people who compiled it. As I said before, this was a council in the Vatican, lead by the Pope. Out of hundreds of different Gospels, they chose the 4 we know today as Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. But what about the others? This group of maybe 10-20 people got to decide for almost a third of the entire world which Books would be considered holy?

Not to mention the entire concept of the Pope himself. They have a law in Catholicism stating that anything the Pope says goes. He could tell people to start murdering each other, and anybody who didn't listen to him would no longer be considered Catholic.

Christians never denied the Bible wasn't written by people. And many Christians believe certain parts of the Text need to be re-interpreted for modern times.

Also, you jumped from Christianity to Catholicism somewhere in there. Not totally sure where.

What are you trying to prove?

This post has been edited by Mrs. Aforcer on Jul 23 2008, 06:57 PM