Attention Atheists.

More?

God isn't a fundamental truth, truth is not based on how many think something to be true. Truth is based on whether something is observable, which god by any backwards definition: is not.

Pretending like the Big Band Theory is a piece of paper that says

is stupid. There's evidence for the expansion of the universe to a single point in space and time where all energy existed in a singularity caused by a variety of possibilities. Physicists are constantly coming up with new reasons for this through experimentations and research.

And I wasn't jumping to conclusions saying you don't know what science is. You said scientific truths will always be truths. This is like saying white is black. Wrong.

Not sure. I would think a title? I wasn't really thinking about it and definitely didn't state it. If you think "godidit" is less lazy than theoretical science that's been developed over hundreds of years then fine. Do.

I'm not intolerant. Saying I'm intolerant of religion is like saying I'm intolerant of people punching me in the face. It's misuse of the word. Religion is generally the intolerant one. Look at the scriptures. "BUT WAIT HIPPO! Scriptures aren't even regarded as truth any more!" Oh right the pick-and-choose religion has updated idea.

Actually religion changes because it has to. It never changes because it wants to. It's proven to be wrong or stupid or illegal so it has to squeeze it's way into modern standards.

Please cite something or this is just going to get nowhere.

I never said they denied that it was written by people. It was a question. This isn't just a debate, it's also a discussion.


And, uh, just so you know, Catholicism formed the basis for the entirety of Christianity. That's what I'm trying to prove. So if anyone's not Catholic, they have no reason to be Christian, because it was the Pope that they denounced who created the laws they follow.

This post has been edited by ChaosEmerl on Jul 23 2008, 07:05 PM

this thread was doomed from the start (as is every other religion thread)

I don't think so. If people would treat it less like a debate and more like a discussion, it could easily be a lot more civilized.

that will never happen because they all feel it is their job to force their beliefs upon you

Some people aren't just ready for that kind of maturity, but I would not go far to say that EVERY religion thread is crap because some people have a mis-guided sense of chivalry.

why are replies like this even allowed? terrible trolling

I would also like to point out that there is a difference between "truth" and "fact".


Truth is what you believe to be "true".
Fact is what will be true regardless of your beliefs.


Gravity is a fact. Religion is a truth. See what I'm saying?

why are threads like this even allowed? terrible "discussion"

To you, it's not a fundamental truth, but for religious people it is.

Also, a fundamental truth is not an observable one. That is not the definition of fundamental truth.

fundamental adj. 1. serving as, or being an essential part of, a foundation or basis; basic; underlying: fundamental principles; the fundamental structure.
2. of, pertaining to, or affecting the foundation or basis
3. being an original or primary source
n. 5. a basic principle, rule, law, or the like, that serves as the groundwork of a system; essential part: to master the fundamentals of a trade.

"Fundamental" implies that it provides a basis for other thought processes. It has nothing to do with being visible or observable.

And what's to say God didn't put the evidence there? Or that he caused the Big Bang? What if God makes up a faux reality for us to analyze and try to comprehend? There's a thousand religious theories out there that can disprove the Big Bang, and theirs even some religious theories that work in tandem with science.

Also, science isn't still clear on everything. You claim religion to have loopholes and inconsistencies, but so does science. Why did the Big Bang even happen (rhetorical, please don't answer)? Some people say God. Some people say because it's a cycle. Some people say just for the lulz. Who's to say any or all of these theories are right or wrong?

Surely not you or I.

Also, there's more to religion than Goddidit. If that was all their is, there wouldn't be college courses in religion and degrees to be had in the subject. There's more to it -- a sort ot "science" to it, if you will.

They'll be truths as long as we find nothing to contradict them. Religion runs on the same principle.

They have yet to find something that contradicts their beliefs because there are justifications for things that do in the Bible. I'm not saying these justifications are valid or not, but to religious folk, they are. Just like the truths you find in a science book are truths until they are proved wrong.

It is. See what I said above. There's plenty to learn about theology. If all you needed to know was Goddidit, there wouldn't be workshops, discussion, meetings, classes, degrees, etc. for it.

Bad metaphor. Religion has done nothing to physically hurt or defame you. It does not infringe upon your human rights. As I said earlier, Christians don't have an allotted portion of time in their services where they regularly go out and beat non-believers. It merely contradicts everything you believe, am I correct? And you don't like that? Therefore you feel it is your duty to debunk it? If all that is so, you are indeed intolerant.

Also science picks and chooses what it deems as truth, I don't still citing books that say the Earth is flat. But they're still science books. How about this? Pretend every scripture is a mini-book -- would that make it easier for you to accept that they have the right to pick and choose? Some of these mini-books are outdated, so they reinterpret them. Just like scientific books have been proven to be outdated, thus new ones are written.

Eating shellfish isn't considered illicit anymore. That was a change for the better not forced by the government or laws. Also, while it's not a modern reformation, you do know the entire New Testament is a reformation of some of the ideals presented in the Old Testament/Torah, right? That entire reform wasn't an obligation to make the religion legal - in fact, it actually did the complete opposite for awhile.

What do you want me to cite? Why don't you cite something? Or is science just too good to need petty things like citations?

Well, then what exactly is your question?

Christianity was the basis for Catholicism (see "Denominations" portion of this article). Christianity stemmed from Judaism.

Research. Do some.

This post has been edited by Mrs. Aforcer on Jul 23 2008, 07:26 PM

This isn't a discussion any more.

You said religion is based on the idea god is real. Of course it is.

You said I want to force my non-beliefs. No. All I want is to help people use critical reasoning and logic in their lives. If someone thinks god is real, they are much more easy to control. Much, much, more easy.

The whole citation thing is referencing you should actually have some content to your posts. Otherwise just post a quote of this and type "no wrong" or something. Because you're not even addressing points.

Eg: You once again show diminished or lack of knowledge when it comes to the Big Bang Theory. When you say some people say godidit you're proving my point. People choose the idea of god OVER science and it slows don't the advancement of our race. There is no merit to religion, none whatsoever. For every tiny achievement that actually REQUIRES religion to exist, there are hundreds of negative points.

Let's take an accurate metaphor. Your friend, (or sadly maybe you) believe in ghosts. They say if people don't believe in ghosts they will suffer for all eternity for no reason other than non-belief in something that you belief in "just because". These ghost believers are actually the majority. Your child is indoctrinated to believe in ghosts and tells you that you will suffer for eternity as a non-believer. You cry.

Another fine example. You find a letter saying

and decide that this is evidence of god and that you should kill all the dogs in the world. Thousands of years later you refute killing dogs but still uphold not painting walls red. Why? There's absolutely no reason. Historical evidence proves some guy wrote the letter but you still hold onto your ridiculous archaic beliefs (recent scientists prove red makes you better).

EDIT:

The Catholic church was the first Christian denomination and all Christianity stemmed from it as earlier denominations (first prominent being Protestantism) were wiped out.

This post has been edited by Hippoman on Jul 23 2008, 07:35 PM

Oh my God. It sounds like you "researched" it but completely misunderstood everything.

After Jesus died, a bunch of people (who were, yes, jewish) got together and formed Christianity, though it wasn't called that until St. Paul went into rome and greece and all sorts of places and spread the word in other languages. It started out as just Christianity, lead by the Pope (Who, at the time, was St. Peter). Then hundreds of years later, after Martin Luther, King Henry VIII and a bunch of people got tired of answering to the pope, they spread into the protestant branches, in what's known as the great Schism.

The people who still follow the pope are called roman catholics. Trust me, I was raised catholic. And because the pope was in charge of "Christianity" before it split into all the different branches, (Mormons, Jehova's Witnesses, Anglicans, etc.), and he's now in charge of catholicism, that means he formed the base for all branches of Christianity. The one thing they all have in common is the Bible, and it's thanks the Pope that they're reading the Gospels they are.

This post has been edited by ChaosEmerl on Jul 23 2008, 07:37 PM

... after seeing how logical Ms. Aforcer was in the last argument ... I am confused as to how her logic is so malformed now ...

I don't think I should bother with this ...

OK this is seriously going nowhere and I need to sleep.

**** it.

Okay, then if you'd like to cease, I'll comply. That requires you to stop making rebuttals, though. I'm not just going to stop because you tell me to. I was quite enjoying myself, but if you have tired of the discussion, than I'm fine with that. Stop discussing -- which means stop trying to squeeze in the last remark.

No one wants your help. And that doesn't make them any easier to control than atheists. Quite honestly I and many other people find either quite simple to manipulate, you just have to use different methods. Hitler manipulated his people without religion (or I guess you could argue he made his own religion), and so did Charles Manson.

And even if people are easier to control (which is false), it's their choice to be that way. Just like it's your choice to be the way you are and my choice to be the way I am. You don't like it when religious folk go around converting you, even if they say it's in "your best interest" to do so, so why're you dropping to their level and doing the exact same thing, hm? Unless you are perfect, work on making yourself flawless before attacking other people's flaws.

I do. I cited plenty of things. ANd I cited posts, also. You did too. As far as I'm concerned, our debate tactics are fine. This is a cop-out to make me stop arguing, which, if that's all you want, then fine. Just say so.

Well you chose the idea of science over God.

They're both valid thought processes; they're two theories that lead to the same result. Also (assuming you consider psychology a branch of science), there's a thousand different reasons for why something happens. Do you believe in a collective conscientiousness? Or psychoanalytic theories? Or the learning method? You can't believe all at once, so does that mean just because you don't agree with one, it has no merit at all? No. It's more or less the same concept with religion versus science. They both lead to the same result, and has a series of events that lead up to it. They have fundamental truths and the theories within them rely on these truths. It's your choice as to which one you have to believe.

There has been a lot of religious research to prove things in the Bible are true. Also, their are parts of the Bible that refute the counter arguments to religion. If you're going to deny all this, than fine. You're the one choosing to be close-minded.

Why would I cry? Why would I care? No one knows what will happen if I believe in ghosts or not. People can speculate, and live life according to their speculations, but as far as anyone is concerned, those are merely theories. They are living life based on what they think will happen, whether they are religious, scientific, or "ghost-believers." It's not my job to force help them change.

Also, if the majority of my society are these "ghost believers," then fine. I'm tolerant of it. I'm not going to get angry because my child or friend is "indoctrinated." You're the type that'd get mad. Thus, as I've been saying, it's your problem, not theirs.

Another bad metaphor. First off, there's no proof, scientific, religious, or otherwise, that the Bible is similar to this metaphorical letter that you have made up. Secondly, what's wrong with stopping some customs and continuing others? Science does the same thing. We still believe the Earth is round, but we no longer believe it's the center of the universe. They're both astronomical theories, so why can scientists pick and chose which one is true, and religious folks can't?

Also, for the record, the likelihood of such a bogus doctrine staying alive here in America is slim. Just putting that out there, you don't have to rebuke it.

Can you elaborate Draco? I'm honestly curious, because I was only doing this for kicks and giggles. And I always like to hear how I can improve my debate tactics.

Also, talk to you later, then, Hippoman. I got to run soon anyways, too, so I guess this is a convenient place to cut off the debate.

This post has been edited by Mrs. Aforcer on Jul 23 2008, 07:59 PM

we were right this topic has become xtreme chaos

See the "Second Opinion" on this page. It seems like it depends more on what form of Christianity and/or Catholicism you're referring too, but I don't believe Catholicism was the entire basis for Christianity. Early Christianity came before Catholicism, and Catholicism made some reforms on it to create modern Christianity.

This post has been edited by Mrs. Aforcer on Jul 23 2008, 08:06 PM