Am i the only one thats seeing Religion destroy the world?

[Marin]

Look I'm not going to waste my time writing the same responses over and over again. Again you over simplify some of my replys. You clearly don't get what I'm saying to you. It's tiresome. I'll probably watch that debate tomorrow when I have time, but if you want my reply, provide your main points in a short reply on your next comment or don't. I won't lose sleep over it.

​

This is about the most dishonest way to debate.

After all the arguments get blown away, you back off and say it's a waste of time. Intellectual cowardice at it's best.

 

[DominiqueX]

Yep, I see religion as a very bad thing too, at least nowadays.
In the past, it was kinda helpfull to build up moral standards like "killing people is bad, don't steal etc." but that's it. Religion is and was always used to manipulate and to control people. The biggest wars in human history have been fought at the expense of religion.

The funny (or sad) aspect is... that people believe in "holy books". Books that were written by other HUMANS. Written by clueless people who didn't even know that the world is a sphere, who didn't know what a solar eclipse is, who thought that natural disasters were caused by a "god". People were stupid at these times and people still believe everything others wrote long ago, without questioning it, without demanding any evidence. They don't think for themselves and that is very dangerous.

People believe in a supernatural being, without having ANY evidence. It's exactly like:
"So. I want to believe there is a giant, yellow, speaking slug in the middle of the galaxy. I'll teach my children and grandchildren what I believe and they will keep spreading my words from generation to generation."
That's basically how religion works. People blindly believe in something only because it was written by other people long time ago and because family or friends taught the religious way of thinking and not-questioning.

I mean, come on. Why does even a single person think there is an afterlife? There is not the tiniest outlook on evidence for that. But religious people then say "there is also no evidence that there isn't an afterlife". But that's not how it works. One has to prove that something exists, not that it doesn't exist.

I'd say, the world would be a better place without religion today. We already have moral standards that are not bound to any religion. And as I said, religion is the most powerful tool to manipulate people. I know that humans itself are the core-problem and that humans will always find a way to wage war against each other.
I just see it like this:
If you take away someones machine-gun (religion), he/she will take a knife (another tool, like money for example) instead. That's true. But the world would still be better off, when everyone has a knife in place of the machine-gun.
There is nothing that is as powerful as religion to control people.
For sure there wouldn't be that much terrorists that blow up themselves, if these people realized that there is no afterlife, no 72 virgins etc.
One life, one chance. This way of thinking would help people a lot to cherish their lifetime more.

A world without religion would pave the way towards more acceptance.
Most people who are against homosexuality, transsexuality and other heavy topics, are religious. They are ignorant to other people because someone else once said these things would be bad. It's just sad.
Religion should teach acceptance, charity and benevolence. But it causes more violence and ignorance than it helps.

All cause instead of worrying about all we do in the physical, what we can do for NOW
we too busy worrying about what we MIGHT can do in a hypothetical after life that would come LATER

Good point. I hate that as well. We are living now, everything else is just an assumption.

 

[Marin]

Yep, I see religion as a very bad thing too, at least nowadays.
In the past, it was kinda helpfull to build up moral standards like "killing people is bad, don't steal etc." but that's it. Religion is and was always used to manipulate and to control people. The biggest wars in human history have been fought at the expense of religion.

The funny (or sad) aspect is... that people believe in "holy books". Books that were written by other HUMANS. Written by clueless people who didn't even know that the world is a sphere, who didn't know what a solar eclipse is, who thought that natural disasters were caused by a "god". People were stupid at these times and people still believe everything others wrote long ago, without questioning it, without demanding any evidence. They don't think for themselves and that is very dangerous.

People believe in a supernatural being, without having ANY evidence. It's exactly like:
"So. I want to believe there is a giant, yellow, speaking slug in the middle of the galaxy. I'll teach my children and grandchildren what I believe and they will keep spreading my words from generation to generation."
That's basically how religion works. People blindly believe in something only because it was written by other people long time ago and because family or friends taught the religious way of thinking and not-questioning.

I mean, come on. Why does even a single person think there is an afterlife? There is not the tiniest outlook on evidence for that. But religious people then say "there is also no evidence that there isn't an afterlife". But that's not how it works. One has to prove that something exists, not that it doesn't exist.

I'd say, the world would be a better place without religion today. We already have moral standards that are not bound to any religion. And as I said, religion is the most powerful tool to manipulate people. I know that humans itself are the core-problem and that humans will always find a way to wage war against each other.
I just see it like this:
If you take away someones machine-gun (religion), he/she will take a knife (another tool, like money for example) instead. That's true. But the world would still be better off, when everyone has a knife in place of the machine-gun.
There is nothing that is as powerful as religion to control people.
For sure there wouldn't be that much terrorists that blow up themselves, if these people realized that there is no afterlife, no 72 virgins etc.
One life, one chance. This way of thinking would help people a lot to cherish their lifetime more.

A world without religion would pave the way towards more acceptance.
Most people who are against homosexuality, transsexuality and other heavy topics, are religious. They are ignorant to other people because someone else once said these things would be bad. It's just sad.
Religion should teach acceptance, charity and benevolence. But it causes more violence and ignorance than it helps.


Good point. I hate that as well. We are living now, everything else is just an assumption.

Expect a reply later today. (If someone else doesn't say what I wanted to.)

 

[Hawker]

This is about the most dishonest way to debate.

After all the arguments get blown away, you back off and say it's a waste of time. Intellectual cowardice at it's best.

There's no end to debating with a religious person. It's not even debate when he doesn't understand what you're talking about. Just look at vegetta trying to explain the same thing to him.


Tell me which of my argment got "blown away" lol! If you don't that's intellectual cowardice. Only part where I was wrong is when I said Lennox is not a scientist. My bad. I couldn't believe it, bu t he is. Other than that it's a waste of time 'cause he insists on spewing the same points over and over again, when I proved him wrong.

He says this:

My point was that faith does have arguments, for the existence of God, and so it doesn't mean you give up giving argument or providing evidence, and I quoted from the Bible and the Quran that christians and muslims are told to provide arguments.

And his point is inherently wrong. It does mean you give up giving evidence because religion has 0 evidence for it. His so called examples didn't provide any proof for their faith. It's just saying that people were arguing. Same as I'm saying now that I'm god and I argue about it saying that I have telekinetic powers so I must be.

My point is: faith in religion is believing without evidence. This is self explanatory as religious people have 0 evidence for their cause.

This whole argument started over that sentence and he still hasn't provided any proof. It's simple as that. Then he writes walls of text with his mouth foaming because deep down he knows he has lost.

 

[Karna]

Whether it's extremist like isis or the jihad or dummies like illuminati conspiracist.
Religion is slowly but surely destroying the world. It's turning people against each other.

If your wealthy and dont satisfy someone your branded as satan worshipper.

People share different beliefs and they collide with each other.

Whats considered holy to your religion might be offending someone else's.

It's limiting people self awarness, self consciousness, and we're afraid to know the unknown.

We're being limited to ignorant retained species who'll either stop advancing or go extinct.

All cause instead of worrying about all we do in the physical, what we can do for NOW

we too busy worrying about what we MIGHT can do in a hypothetical after life that would come LATER

smh i just dont know

You aren't entirely wrong, like it or not most people choose to follow a religion because it's in accordance to their desires, why do you think people(a percentage)- who identify themselves as muslims do it? Because coloring every non-muslim as evil server their otherwise immoral desires well, I don't think they would be this zealous if it required them to practice nonviolence and celibacy. So we can say that THIS understanding of religion followed by these particular people is a manifest of their own personal problems. So you may see religion as problem but you're looking at shadow of BAD humans.

 

[Scooby Doo]

Yep, I see religion as a very bad thing too, at least nowadays.
In the past, it was kinda helpfull to build up moral standards like "killing people is bad, don't steal etc." but that's it. Religion is and was always used to manipulate and to control people. The biggest wars in human history have been fought at the expense of religion.

I guess you've never heard about the world wars.

The funny (or sad) aspect is... that people believe in "holy books". Books that were written by other HUMANS. Written by clueless people who didn't even know that the world is a sphere, who didn't know what a solar eclipse is, who thought that natural disasters were caused by a "god". People were stupid at these times and people still believe everything others wrote long ago, without questioning it, without demanding any evidence. They don't think for themselves and that is very dangerous.

Not everyone accepts what holy books say witout demanding evidence.

There are many people, atheists too, who just accept whatever some scientists say. So, ignorance is not unique to religious people. Don't generalize.

People believe in a supernatural being, without having ANY evidence. It's exactly like:
"So. I want to believe there is a giant, yellow, speaking slug in the middle of the galaxy. I'll teach my children and grandchildren what I believe and they will keep spreading my words from generation to generation."

No it's not exactly like that. I've never heard of anyone teaching that to his children.

Evidence, broadly construed, is anything presented in support of an assertion. This support may be strong or weak. The strongest type of evidence is that which provides direct proof of the truth of an assertion.

You must be registered for see links

You don't need to be able to see God physically or measure Him with a meter to have evidence supporting His existence.

That's basically how religion works. People blindly believe in something only because it was written by other people long time ago and because family or friends taught the religious way of thinking and not-questioning.

See, the key word is 'blind'. Yes there is a kind of faith, blind faith, which you are talking about, but not everyone follows blindly what family tells them to. I for one used to be an atheist and now I'm religious, so i'm the living example that your generalization is flawed.

I mean, come on. Why does even a single person think there is an afterlife?

What does the existence of God have to do with afterlife now?

There is not the tiniest outlook on evidence for that. But religious people then say "there is also no evidence that there isn't an afterlife". But that's not how it works. One has to prove that something exists, not that it doesn't exist.

That's an argument from ignorance.

When two parties are in a discussion and one asserts a claim that the other disputes, the one who asserts has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim. An argument from ignorance occurs when either a proposition is assumed to be true because it has not yet been proved false or a proposition is assumed to be false because it has not yet been proved true. This has the effect of shifting the burden of proof to the person criticizing the proposition.

You must be registered for see links

I'd say, the world would be a better place without religion today. We already have moral standards that are not bound to any religion. And as I said, religion is the most powerful tool to manipulate people. I know that humans itself are the core-problem and that humans will always find a way to wage war against each other.
I just see it like this:
If you take away someones machine-gun (religion), he/she will take a knife (another tool, like money for example) instead. That's true. But the world would still be better off, when everyone has a knife in place of the machine-gun.
There is nothing that is as powerful as religion to control people.

Let me introduce the term 'power'.

"In social science and politics, power is the ability to influence or control the behavior of people. "

You must be registered for see links

Influencing or manipulating each other is a natural and normal modality of human interactions. As long as we live in communities/societies -and we do, it's a necessity-, power is a given. To reduce religion to being a tool of power is misleading, and i'd go as far as saying it simply does not coincide with reality.

Sure, religion(s) can be and are used to manipulate people, but the same can be said about any societal subsystem.

Politics is a societal system that is not just used to influence people, it is about influencing others.

Politics (from Greek: πολιτικός politikos, definition "of, for, or relating to citizens") is the practice and theory of influencing other people. Politics involves the making of a common decision for a group of people, that is, a uniform decision applying in the same way to all members of the group. It also involves the use of power by one person to affect the behavior of another person. More narrowly, it refers to achieving and exercising positions of governance — organized control over a human community, particularly a state. Furthermore, politics is the study or practice of the distribution of power and resources within a given community (a usually hierarchically organized population) as well as the interrelationship(s) between communities.

You must be registered for see links

For sure there wouldn't be that much terrorists that blow up themselves, if these people realized that there is no afterlife, no 72 virgins etc.

There's no 72 virgins.

And I'm quite sure the kamikaze didn't blow up themselves coz of the virgins.

One life, one chance. This way of thinking would help people a lot to cherish their lifetime more.

Stalin also had just one chance at life, so he gave it his best shot.

A world without religion would pave the way towards more acceptance.

Just like you don't accept that others believe in God or an afterlife?

Most people who are against homosexuality, transsexuality and other heavy topics, are religious. They are ignorant to other people because someone else once said these things would be bad. It's just sad.

You've heard about the Greeks or Romans right? They were quite ok with homosexuality, but they were religious.

But I do realize you're talking about today. But there are religious people who exactly argue for accpeting homosexuality because the religion is about love and peace.

Religion should teach acceptance, charity and benevolence.

Religions do teach that. Should I quote you from the Bible or the Quran?

But it causes more violence and ignorance than it helps.

Not really, most religious people are normal and trying to survive peacefully like you or I.

There's no end to debating with a religious person. It's not even debate when he doesn't understand what you're talking about. Just look at vegetta trying to explain the same thing to him.

So now vegetta is an authority on what words mean? You two are funny.

I couldn't believe it, bu t he is.

Gee I wonder what else you may be wrong about.

Other than that it's a waste of time 'cause he insists on spewing the same points over and over again, when I proved him wrong.

You didn't, though. Funnily even RD admits that some kind of a creator may exist, so he is at least still more open minded than you are.

And his point is inherently wrong. It does mean you give up giving evidence because religion has 0 evidence for it.

Who says so, again? you? And?

Evidence, broadly construed, is anything presented in support of an assertion. This support may be strong or weak. The strongest type of evidence is that which provides direct proof of the truth of an assertion.

You must be registered for see links

As you can see, religious people don't give up giving evidence just because they can't show you God in a laboratory.

But then, please show me concrete evidence that for example, black holes exist. Can you see them? No because they absorb light by definition. you can't even go near them. So you can't see them nor can you experiment with them. Now you may start blabbering that I just don't know what I'm talking about, or I just don't understand science blah blah, but apparently there is simply no concrete evidence for black holes. You still believe they exist? You must be evil.

Also. Do you believe the universe has always existed? If so, where is the empirical evidence? There isn't any. So you believe it? You are evil.
Or you believe the universe popped into existence from nothing, at some point? Where is the empirical evidence? There isn't any. So you only believe it, therefore you are evil.

His so called examples didn't provide any proof for their faith. It's just saying that people were arguing.

You still don't seem to understand. Proof and evidence are not the same thing. To form a valid argument, you don't need proof of factual certainty. Also, if you ask me to prove everything, you are arguing from ignorance.

When two parties are in a discussion and one asserts a claim that the other disputes, the one who asserts has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim. An argument from ignorance occurs when either a proposition is assumed to be true because it has not yet been proved false or a proposition is assumed to be false because it has not yet been proved true. This has the effect of shifting the burden of proof to the person criticizing the proposition.

You must be registered for see links

Same as I'm saying now that I'm god and I argue about it saying that I have telekinetic powers so I must be.

Maybe you do? I can't confirm it, but to you it may be reality. Just liek your friend Yowyan actually believes that people can learn to levitate things through their minds if they train by meditation.

Or just like I can't confirm that you met tons of religious people- hence anecdotal evidence is a fallacy, even if to you it's true

My point is: faith in religion is believing without evidence.

Who says so?

This is self explanatory

It isn't.

as religious people have 0 evidence for their cause.

Evidence, broadly construed, is anything presented in support of an assertion. This support may be strong or weak. The strongest type of evidence is that which provides direct proof of the truth of an assertion.

You must be registered for see links

As you can see, religious people don't give up giving evidence just because they can't show you God in a laboratory.

But then, please show me concrete evidence that for example, black holes exist. Can you see them? No because they absorb light by definition. you can't even go near them. So you can't see them nor can you experiment with them. Now you may start blabbering that I just don't know what I'm talking about, or I just don't understand science blah blah, but apparently there is simply no concrete evidence for black holes. You still believe they exist? You must be evil.

Also. Do you believe the universe has always existed? If so, where is the empirical evidence? There isn't any. So you believe it? You are evil.
Or you believe the universe popped into existence at some point? Where is the empirical evidence? There isn't any. So you only believe it, therefore you are evil.

This whole argument started over that sentence

Because you yourself made a semantic claim. You gave your own definition of faith: I showed that's not the only meaning of it, what you are talking about is blind faith, but not all religious people follow everything blindly.

and he still hasn't provided any proof.

You still don't seem to understand. Proof and evidence are not the same thing. To form a valid argument, you don't need proof of factual certainty. Also, if you ask me to prove everything, you are arguing from ignorance.

When two parties are in a discussion and one asserts a claim that the other disputes, the one who asserts has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim. An argument from ignorance occurs when either a proposition is assumed to be true because it has not yet been proved false or a proposition is assumed to be false because it has not yet been proved true. This has the effect of shifting the burden of proof to the person criticizing the proposition.

You must be registered for see links

It's simple as that.

Indeed it is. You still haven't provided proof that the definition of faith is as you asserted. You haven't provided proof that no religious person could provide any evidence- because you don't understand what evidence means. You haven't proved either that God can't exist.

Then he writes walls of text with his mouth foaming because deep down he knows he has lost.

It's you cussing from time to time. Wash your dirty mouth with a soap.

Deep down is not an argument, my friend.

 

[Made in Heaven]

What a joke. Only groups capable of destroying the world are those with nuclear power, namely the super powers of the world. A bunch of crazy terrorist groups aren't doing jack.

 

[Hawker]

...I wrote a wall of text for nothing...

What is the evidence for God's existence? Tell me that. Otherwise shut it.

Also ofcourse RD admits that some kind of creator could exist as there is no proof that it couldn't. Same way a flying spaghetti monster may exist as there is no absolute proof saying that it doesn't exist.

Saying something could exist is not the same thing that it exists. Until the point that it's actually proven that it exists, it's faith, and in this case blind faith.
All of John Lennoxs and every other religious persons arguments for God existing boil down to "I'm scared of the alternative. I am scared of death. I am a frightened man and I need comfort from an imaginary friend."

 

[Scooby Doo]

What is the evidence for God's existence? Tell me that. Otherwise shut it.

The universe itself is an evidence.

Also ofcourse RD admits that some kind of creator could exist as there is no proof that it couldn't.

But evidence and proof are not the same thing, for the umpteenth time. First you said there is no evidence. But there is.
There is no proof? Sure, no factual certainty that can be scientifically demonstrated, but the same way you have no such conclusive proof either that black holes exist, or that the universe has always existed or that it popped into existence from nothing. So whatever you believe out of these options, that's what it is: your belief, which holds no more value than the universe being created.

You still haven't explained how can you claim something is evil on a naturalistic worldview.

Same way a flying spaghetti monster may exist as there is no absolute proof saying that it doesn't exist.

Except that the flying spaghetti monster is a physical thing that creates nothing. So to compare God to the flying spaghetti monster is a strawman argument: distorting the God I'm talking about.

Saying something could exist is not the same thing that it exists.

So do you admit the possibility or not?

Until the point that it's actually proven that it exists, it's faith, and in this case blind faith.

Not blind faith, because it does have evidence. And funny how you are adding now 'in this case'. So apparently there is a difference between faith and blind faith.

Also, again, proof and evidence are not the same thing.

Unless you prove that the universe has always existed or that it popped into existence from nothing, it's just faith.

All of John Lennoxs and every other religious persons arguments for God existing boil down to "I'm scared of the alternative. I am scared of death. I am a frightened man and I need comfort from an imaginary friend."

Why? Because you say so?

Funnily he does address that argument so apparently you didn't watch the video. This 'religious peopel are just scared so they need an imaginary friend' argument is a Freudian approach, which is only true if God does not exist. But if He does, then it's atheists who are being in denial.

 

[Hawker]

The universe itself is an evidence.

No it's not. Just because you say so. That's just your way of trying to simplify something. The idea of god is man made. It's just there to comfort us in fear of death. Again there is no evidence, no proof, no nothing. Nada.

Also. Flying spaghetti monster created the universe.

But evidence and proof are not the same thing, for the umpteenth time. First you said there is no evidence. But there is.
There is no proof? Sure, no factual certainty that can be scientifically demonstrated, but the same way you have no such conclusive proof either that black holes exist, or that the universe has always existed or that it popped into existence from nothing. So whatever you believe out of these options, that's what it is: your belief, which holds no more value than the universe being created.

What's up with you and black holes? That doesn't prove anything in favour of religion or against science. Does it somehow dismiss the fact that science works? No it doesn't, it's just a part of the things we don't yet fully understand. Same as nanotechnology was something we couldn't understand 100 years ago, but because of science we have progressed.
I believe in scientific method to work out these mysteries. Now kid, did I say that I believe in black holes?
I didn't. But you said you believe in god, for which there is no evidence. You're just shooting yourself in the leg here. It's embarassing.

You still haven't explained how can you claim something is evil on a naturalistic worldview.

Because religion offers people an excuse to stop thinking. How has religion made our societies progress? Actually throughout the history religion has stood in the way of progress and now finally in secular democrasies sciense is taking us forward. Not religion.

We're far from being the animals in "survival of the fittest" world. That's just a silly comparison. "Oh I can do whatever I want because in the end we are animals living in nature and the best survive, so I kill someone and you think it's evil". Lol we are moving away from that. Not towards it.

Except that the flying spaghetti monster is a physical thing that creates nothing. So to compare God to the flying spaghetti monster is a strawman argument: distorting the God I'm talking about.

No it's not. They're the same. I say flying spaghetti monster created the world. I believe so.

So do you admit the possibility or not?

Of course I do. Same way I do admit the possibility the aliens live in caves inside Saturn. I still don't go around creating religious movements based on this possibility.

Not blind faith, because it does have evidence. And funny how you are adding now 'in this case'. So apparently there is a difference between faith and blind faith.

No it doesn't. Show me the evidence. Ofcourse there is a difference.

Faith: I have faith over the scientific methods to work out problems as they have proven from time and time again to work.
Blind faith: I believe in something I haven't seen, touched or heard. I've only read about it from a man made book.

Also, again, proof and evidence are not the same thing.

You don't have either.

Unless you prove that the universe has always existed or that it popped into existence from nothing, it's just faith.

Big bang has peen proven to happen.

Why? Because you say so?

Yes.

Funnily he does address that argument so apparently you didn't watch the video. This 'religious peopel are just scared so they need an imaginary friend' argument is a Freudian approach, which is only true if God does not exist. But if He does, then it's atheists who are being in denial.

Atheists are not being in denial as there is no proof or evidence of the existence of god. So in light of that we are just being realists.

 

[Marin]

Ok, finally got to my PC, so let's begin.

Before we do, however, I'll point out a few things. First one, this thread is obviously not written by someone well qualified for this topic for more than one reason. The obvious one is the fact that religion is being talked about as if it's not a term that describes many vastly different ideas and movements, but as some sort of a one-way ideology.

Nowadays, when people here talk about religion they act as if the only religions in the world are Christianity and Islam, thus all the comments like "being based on a book", "written 2000 years ago" and other one-(or more)-religon-specific attributes.

That said, people who bought into OP's statement aren't really to be taken seriously. Now I'll go into these 2 specific replies.

Yep, I see religion as a very bad thing too, at least nowadays.
In the past, it was kinda helpfull to build up moral standards like "killing people is bad, don't steal etc." but that's it. Religion is and was always used to manipulate and to control people. The biggest wars in human history have been fought at the expense of religion.

The funny (or sad) aspect is... that people believe in "holy books". Books that were written by other HUMANS. Written by clueless people who didn't even know that the world is a sphere, who didn't know what a solar eclipse is, who thought that natural disasters were caused by a "god". People were stupid at these times and people still believe everything others wrote long ago, without questioning it, without demanding any evidence. They don't think for themselves and that is very dangerous.

People believe in a supernatural being, without having ANY evidence. It's exactly like:
"So. I want to believe there is a giant, yellow, speaking slug in the middle of the galaxy. I'll teach my children and grandchildren what I believe and they will keep spreading my words from generation to generation."
That's basically how religion works. People blindly believe in something only because it was written by other people long time ago and because family or friends taught the religious way of thinking and not-questioning.

I mean, come on. Why does even a single person think there is an afterlife? There is not the tiniest outlook on evidence for that. But religious people then say "there is also no evidence that there isn't an afterlife". But that's not how it works. One has to prove that something exists, not that it doesn't exist.

I'd say, the world would be a better place without religion today. We already have moral standards that are not bound to any religion. And as I said, religion is the most powerful tool to manipulate people. I know that humans itself are the core-problem and that humans will always find a way to wage war against each other.
I just see it like this:
If you take away someones machine-gun (religion), he/she will take a knife (another tool, like money for example) instead. That's true. But the world would still be better off, when everyone has a knife in place of the machine-gun.
There is nothing that is as powerful as religion to control people.
For sure there wouldn't be that much terrorists that blow up themselves, if these people realized that there is no afterlife, no 72 virgins etc.
One life, one chance. This way of thinking would help people a lot to cherish their lifetime more.

A world without religion would pave the way towards more acceptance.
Most people who are against homosexuality, transsexuality and other heavy topics, are religious. They are ignorant to other people because someone else once said these things would be bad. It's just sad.
Religion should teach acceptance, charity and benevolence. But it causes more violence and ignorance than it helps.


Good point. I hate that as well. We are living now, everything else is just an assumption.

For starters, as I said before, claiming "all religion is this or that" is a sign of one's poor knowledge on the topic at hand as you can't just lump a ton of different worldviews together and call them things like "source of all evil" or "a very bad thing".

Not to mention you talk as if you're some sort of authority on the subject who knows things that noone else does. How religion came into being, wich was the first one, and the reasons for it's creation is unknown and is a subject of many hypotheses. Not to mention, you talk about all religion being made to control and manipulate people. Monotheistic, nontheistic, polytheistic, pantheistic, dualistic, all of them, regardless of the vast differences in the setting in wich they originated, you are claiming are just a tool.

That's overly simplifying things wich are everything but simple. A sort of thing that makes intellectuals lose all credibility.

Second paragraph also suffers from the same flaw as the first one, as you're assuming all religions are based on books written by men (as if it's a deniable thing), further assuming these men were idiots who had no clue how the world works. A pretty arrogant and egocentric statement, but I'll get to the that after I tackle the "books written by men" part.

So, yes, all the world's leading religions are based on some sort of scripture this way or the other. However, these scriptures are vastly different. Take the most popular one, the Bible, for example. This isn't a book written by ignorant humans who wanted to control people, contrary to your statement. It's a collection of various ancient writings (of both mythical and literal nature), songs, letters, writings documenting historical events etc.

All written over a wast period of time with great time gaps between them. Clearly not "just a book" written by a company of ignorant men.

Speaking of the ignorant part. They may not have been well educated on how the world works (not like you can blame them since science wasn't developed back then) however, those people have a great deal of traits that we are missing. For one, think of all the great philosophers history has known. All the famous quotes and ideas that are being built on today, originated there, in the time when those "ignorant men" lived. If we were to put up an average philosopher from ancient Greece and pit them against an average philosopher of today, I'm positive the modern man would be put to shame.

Point is, scientific knowledge does not imply stupidity.

As for the belief in god/s, as I said already, not all religions are theistic, and those that are have different concepts of god/s (some more some less). The point is you can't just write them off like that as if there was a universally accepted idea of a diety in all religons. (Only further showing how poorly constructed this thread and your reply is.)

Actually, there is a good amount of evidence for the ideas presented in various religions. Christianity for example has a lot of evidence going for it. (For the existence and divinity of Jesus specifically. ) I won't get into it now, as it isn't necessary (unless otherwise insisted).

Things like spaggeti monster, or a giant slug as you put it serve more as a mockery than an actual argument. Comparing them to individual religions would take too much time but if we're to compare them to God as seen in Judaism, Christianity and Islam, there are vast differences.

Besides the evidence supporting these religions, the nature of God and those caricatures are hugely different. Judeo-Christian God is a concept wich tackles and answers serious philosophical questions and the nature and purpose of our existence. The things you listed there are just mockery figures presented under a false assumptions that the amount of evidence for both ideas is the same.

For the end of your post, you continue with the generalization and assumptions that the world would be this or that had things been different. As for the conflicts you're mentioning, you didn't bother to specify any so there is no need for me to tackle that statement.

There's no end to debating with a religious person. It's not even debate when he doesn't understand what you're talking about. Just look at vegetta trying to explain the same thing to him.


Tell me which of my argment got "blown away" lol! If you don't that's intellectual cowardice. Only part where I was wrong is when I said Lennox is not a scientist. My bad. I couldn't believe it, bu t he is. Other than that it's a waste of time 'cause he insists on spewing the same points over and over again, when I proved him wrong.

He says this:


And his point is inherently wrong. It does mean you give up giving evidence because religion has 0 evidence for it. His so called examples didn't provide any proof for their faith. It's just saying that people were arguing. Same as I'm saying now that I'm god and I argue about it saying that I have telekinetic powers so I must be.

My point is: faith in religion is believing without evidence. This is self explanatory as religious people have 0 evidence for their cause.

This whole argument started over that sentence and he still hasn't provided any proof. It's simple as that. Then he writes walls of text with his mouth foaming because deep down he knows he has lost.

Your statements reek of generalization. You've built this image of what religion and faith is and how religious people are based on your subjective experience and are showing it down our throats as if it were a fact. This is clearly evident as you refuse to aknowledge the fact that the definition of faith or belief in general is contradicting what you make it out to be.

You state that it's a simplified definition and proceed to quote invalid sources to somehow back-up your position. Your ignorance is further shown after openly stating that studying the religion at hand isn't necessary since "you've talked with many people".

You also make the same mistake as the guy above and are even claiming you don't read half of your opponet's posts as they are "debating semantincs" (wich is funny since that's exactly what your discussion is about). You also talk as if writing long posts is a bad thing and are immediatly labeling them as "typical" as if you actually have a point.

If you don't want to read than you have no right to debate or call others ignorant. Let alone you don't really back up your claims with anything at all. Saying things like "it's self-explanatory" serves no purpose.

After all this you claim religious people are the unreasonable ones.

"There is no end to debating a religious person."

You are generalizing, throwing straw-mans and aren't backing your points up without even knowing the topic at hand. Far from being rational, let alone reasonable.

 

[Hawker]

...

Provide me with evidence of gods existence.

Meanwhile Christopher Hitchens says the exactly same thing that I am saying:




"Atheists do not say we know there is no god. We say to the contrary: no argument and no evidence has ever been adduced that we consider to be persuasive."

 

[Natsu Shazneel]

Sounds as empty as the slogan of the us military industrial complex.

''Support the troops!''. It has no real meaning so nobody will be against it.

It sounds empty because I did not add much detail to it. I thought you were smart enough to figure that.

 

[Marin]

Provide me with evidence of gods existence.

Meanwhile Christopher Hitchens says the exactly same thing that I am saying:




"Atheists do not say we know there is no god. We say to the contrary: no argument and no evidence has ever been adduced that we consider to be persuasive."

You see, this is a funny thing about you. You claim that people like John are biased because they are religious, but people like Dawkins or Hitchens are not, despite the fact that they are one of the "4 horseman" of atheism. They are neither objective nor any better thinkers than those who oppose them. As a matter of fact, both have been beaten by well-known apologists, heck Dawkins ran away from his debate with William Lane Craig, wich caused him to be accused of cowardice by his fellow atheists.

That being said, the video doesn't bring anything relevant to the topic at hand.

Also, what evidence and what god? It seems you're trying to shift the topic to something else while yet again you're ignoring the posts of your opponets.

 

[Hawker]

You see, this is a funny thing about you. You claim that people like John are biased because they are religious, but people like Dawkins or Hitchens are not, despite the fact that they are one of the "4 horseman" of atheism. They are neither objective nor any better thinkers than those who oppose them. As a matter of fact, both have been beaten by well-known apologists, heck Dawkins ran away from his debate with William Lane Craig, wich caused him to be accused of cowardice by his fellow atheists.

That being said, the video doesn't bring anything relevant to the topic at hand.

Also, what evidence and what god? It seems you're trying to shift the topic to something else while yet again you're ignoring the posts of your opponets.

You are unbelievably simple minded. My short reply was for what you said earlier:

Your statements reek of generalization. You've built this image of what religion and faith is and how religious people are based on your subjective experience and are showing it down our throats as if it were a fact. This is clearly evident as you refuse to aknowledge the fact that the definition of faith or belief in general is contradicting what you make it out to be.

So prove me wrong and provide evidence for the faith of religious people. I can't believe I have to spell this out for you.

Also Hitchens from time and time again kept owning religious people. He is objective. Religious people are not. That's the whole point of atheism.

 

[Marin]

You are unbelievably simple minded. My short reply was for what you said earlier:

And no that's not what atheism is. There you go again with your baseless statements and made up definitions.

So prove me wrong and provide evidence for the faith of religious people. I can't believe I have to spell this out for you.

Also Hitchens from time and time again kept owning religious people. He is objective. Religious people are not. That's the whole point of atheism.

Ad hominem doesn't win you debates. This isn't about the truthfullness of religions let alone wether God exists or not, but wether faith implies no reason.

A claim you still haven't backed up, but are running away into a different topic.

 

[YowYan]

It sounds empty because I did not add much detail to it. I thought you were smart enough to figure that.

We all know what kind of details would be mentioned. same ol' same ol'

 

[Natsu Shazneel]

Provide me with evidence of gods existence.

Provide me with evidence he does not exist?

We all know what kind of details would be mentioned. same ol' same ol'

The inner wall of texter in me still hasn't come out yet. Be warned the day it does it will give shivers down your spine. You may even end up in coma.

 

[Hawker]

This isn't about the truthfullness of religions let alone wether God exists or not, but wether faith implies no reason.

A claim you still haven't backed up, but are running away into a different topic.

I never said faith means you don't reason. You are simplifying again. All I said was that faith is inherently evil as it enables people the excuse for not thinking themselves. Where ever you use faith as the grounds for your argument it's the same as not reasoning. Like I said religious people can argue other things where they don't use their faith. But inherently it is wrong.

Religion is based on faith. And faith has never ever progressed our culture. Science did that and still does. Religion has always stood in the way of progress, in the way of thinking, in the way of rationality.

Fact is this: religious people don't have evidence for their faith. Therefore their faith is not based on evidence. It's the absence of evidence.

Provide me with evidence he does not exist?

That burden falls on the one that made the claim. Meaning religious people.

It's the same as I would say I believe that flying spaghetti monster exists. Now prove me that he doesn't.

 

[YowYan]

Provide me with evidence he does not exist?



The inner wall of texter in me still hasn't come out yet. Be warned the day it does it will give shivers down your spine. You may even end up in coma.

*puts down fedora*

..by our sparkly god, no!...no! *shivers* Not shazneel's inner texter!