Oh by the way, my only point in this argument was not to convert you, but to make you do some research into Christians, as an atheist your job should have only been to make me research Science. Battles dont win wars :D
All I'm saying is that if someone says "I believe in God" and then goes about murdering people, one must wonder what God he professes belief in, whether that belief is true, or whether his idea of God is completely different from normal, sane people.
Last time I checked, genocide was a sin...
What is your stance on the crusades, jihad and "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live"?
Hitler's regime murdered priests, nuns, monks, pretty much anyone that defied the State. The tendency for any dictator is to try and stamp out religion because it is a competitive source of power - especially when that dictator considers himself a deity of sorts. Hitler was no exception. The image you posted is an example of Hitler attempting to twist religion to support his regime.
He mentions Yahweh in Mein Kampf and multiple times during nearly all of his speeches. His soldiers swore allegiance to Yahweh and had "GOTT MIT UNS" on every soldier's belt.
I think it would take quite a leap of faith to believe that Hitler didn't subscribe to Yahweh.
With that said, I'm not interested in point scoring with historical figures.
everyone is religious weather you like it or not, Religion, like noted is a set of beliefs, you dont have to believe in god to believe. if you did, then your life what suck at every turn.
And the reason why Christians, Muslims, Jews, get infuriated when you talk about their god is because they love him, and they learn to love him, because your going to love the Person, or entity that you turn to in the times of Crises its as simple as that.
Religion isnt the reason your mommy didnt love you Eiviyn :D just kidding about that though, but seriously, you cant blame Religion for everything, Religion is a set of beliefs nothing more, Weather you like it or not YOU ARE RELIGIOUS!!! Atheist are religious Not in the Theism sense, but in the sense of you believe that there is no god.
Perhaps if you know my values better than I do, you'd be better off arguing with a mirror?
How you draw the causality to religious superstition is beyond me. Do you honestly believe that if religion hadn't existed at all, we wouldn't have had these problems? Or that different problems of the same scope wouldn't have arisen? If the bible hadn't preached any kind of homophobia, do you think the problem would have been non-existant? If the bible hadn't preached any kind of female subjugation, do you think all females would've lived as free equals to men from the dawn of mankind?
The best example you offered is still that 'witch hunt' article from a couple of topics ago. Let me ask you again; do you honestly think that if religion had never existed, those two folks would have never murdered anybody and be completely fine and upstanding individuals? Yes, religion has a ROLE in all of these instances, but that doesn't make it the cause. PEOPLE are the cause. Like I said multiple times, religion is what you make of it. If I choose to believe in a god and proceed to murder everyone who doesn't believe in my personal god, that makes me a moron, not my religion stupid. If this were untrue, we could assume that religion, as the 'cause' of these evils, makes anybody able to commit them. Which would mean that any upstanding citizen, upon convertion to Christianity, would suddenly become more likely to commit murder than before.
The whole ordeal just doesn't make sense to begin with. The number of Christians in the world has only been on the rise since the 1500's, yet violence has gone down, and 'holy wars' have lessened to nearly the point of extinction. If religion is what causes men to murder, how do you explain this? I do so through stating that our morals as a whole have shifted, not our belief in God.
The only correlation I really see is that 'stupid' people (or rather, 'people capable of murder') are more easily drawn to radical causes because of their state of mind. Or in a nutshell; people who are stupid (or rather 'capable of murder') to begin with are also the ones more prone to believe in lies, making religion not a cause of their violence, but rather a hint to their state of mind.
Only a politician could write half a page of text and not address a single point.
You're just throwing links of people committing crimes and citing religion.
Let me remind you of my examples.
1) Preservation of Polio
2) Subjugation of women
3) Denial of contraception
4) Propagation of Homophobia
5) Opposition to stem cell research, therefore preventing life-saving derivatives
6) Opposition of cloning, therefore preventing life-saving derivatives (cloned organ transplant)
Which of those is "people committing crimes and citing religion"? I've even numbered them so that the seemingly 8 seconds of time you warrant to my posts can be well spent by simply replying with a number.
These are real issues in today's world who's sole causality is religious superstition.
How you draw the above to "people who have murdered for silly causes" is... rather beyond me.
I don't recall stating I was an atheist nor that I deny the possibility of a god.
Science operates on probabilities and observations. The probability of there being a god is not 0 nor 1. It would be profoundly unscientific of me to state that there are no gods, just as I view anyone who knows that a god exist as unscientific.
As for science being used to prove science, that's simply not true. Any hypothesis must draw on observable facts before a conclusion is drawn.
The cake analogy is just plain unfair. Firstly, cakes don't breed other cakes with slightly different qualities per each generation. Secondly, in this context, your "baker" is your mother. We are discussing a designer here, not the "baker". I don't really see how your example is relevant.
As for the section on apathy, good science is communicative science. I'm a million miles from Dawkins, but I can do my part. I listen to religious debates, and they all have one thing in common; a fundamental misunderstanding of the science they are abusing. While I don't think I could achieve much on a forum, nor convert a single person even if I had a wider audience, I can at least try to explain the misunderstandings.
Of course they do. You included. Luck and chance and randomness. That is your God.
Destiny, Intelligent design, purpose. The God of the bible.
I'm not sure what you expect to achieve by telling me what I do and don't believe. "Your god" also says the Earth is held up by pillars (Samuel 2:8) but I wouldn't accuse anyone of believing such nonsense.
Gene mutation is random. Bad mutations are expunged.
lol, So god couldn't have made a self evolving species? if anything your statement furthers religious argument. It says god flooded the earth to rid of a species that was living at the time, nope that couldn't be possible?, OH WAIT Cro-Magnon were wiped out mysteriously and the current humans took over after that.
You misunderstand.
A god could have orchestrated evolution, yes.
However evolution removes the need for one.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
No.
Atheist = Doesn't believe in god, but can't be sure in the same way you can't be sure there's no invisible pink unicorns.
Agnostic = Believes that there might be a god, but s/he/it is unknowable or hasn't revealed him/her/itself.
So you're an atheist that's afraid of death. You realise that this is why most people subscribe to a religion, right?
Who is this atheist you're referring to?
I give up. You can have him. But please, at least teach him the damn bible so that he at least understands one side of this debate.
I dare say England wins that round.
...
Incredible.
Exodus 22:18
What is your stance on the crusades, jihad and "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live"?
He mentions Yahweh in Mein Kampf and multiple times during nearly all of his speeches. His soldiers swore allegiance to Yahweh and had "GOTT MIT UNS" on every soldier's belt.
I think it would take quite a leap of faith to believe that Hitler didn't subscribe to Yahweh.
With that said, I'm not interested in point scoring with historical figures.
Truth hurts.
Kinda curious who taught you history. Conservapedia?
Perhaps if you know my values better than I do, you'd be better off arguing with a mirror?
Only a politician could write half a page of text and not address a single point.
Let me remind you of my examples.
1) Preservation of Polio
2) Subjugation of women
3) Denial of contraception
4) Propagation of Homophobia
5) Opposition to stem cell research, therefore preventing life-saving derivatives
6) Opposition of cloning, therefore preventing life-saving derivatives (cloned organ transplant)
Which of those is "people committing crimes and citing religion"? I've even numbered them so that the seemingly 8 seconds of time you warrant to my posts can be well spent by simply replying with a number.
These are real issues in today's world who's sole causality is religious superstition.
How you draw the above to "people who have murdered for silly causes" is... rather beyond me.
Yeah, I noticed. It's all your posts seem to be. "Religion is an innocent tool and you are wrong".
I'm arguing that religion predisposes mentally healthy individuals to commit grievous or illogical acts in the name of their subscribed deity.
@EternalWraith: Go
I don't recall stating I was an atheist nor that I deny the possibility of a god.
Science operates on probabilities and observations. The probability of there being a god is not 0 nor 1. It would be profoundly unscientific of me to state that there are no gods, just as I view anyone who knows that a god exist as unscientific.
As for science being used to prove science, that's simply not true. Any hypothesis must draw on observable facts before a conclusion is drawn.
The cake analogy is just plain unfair. Firstly, cakes don't breed other cakes with slightly different qualities per each generation. Secondly, in this context, your "baker" is your mother. We are discussing a designer here, not the "baker". I don't really see how your example is relevant.
As for the section on apathy, good science is communicative science. I'm a million miles from Dawkins, but I can do my part. I listen to religious debates, and they all have one thing in common; a fundamental misunderstanding of the science they are abusing. While I don't think I could achieve much on a forum, nor convert a single person even if I had a wider audience, I can at least try to explain the misunderstandings.
You are absolutely free to do that, but know that science does not need any god to operate.
I'm not sure what you expect to achieve by telling me what I do and don't believe. "Your god" also says the Earth is held up by pillars (Samuel 2:8) but I wouldn't accuse anyone of believing such nonsense.
Gene mutation is random. Bad mutations are expunged.
I'm sure they will, because the human mind is hardwired to reject opposing input to pre-existing ideas. Unfortunate really.
You misunderstand.
A god could have orchestrated evolution, yes.
However evolution removes the need for one.