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

[Natsu Shazneel]

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.

I was asking you specifically cause I thought you were sure that there is no evidence that states there is existence of god. However I do find it amusing how you single out religious people. In reality what you know and say has nothing to do with what the other believes. Therefore if you truly believe there is no evidence that God exists than provide me with that evidence yourself. Otherwise don't spout something you yourself can't prove. Cause no matter how clever we humans may think we are. We don't even know 3 percent of how this universe works. We have yet to discover what truly exists and what doesn't. There is a reason there is a discovery channel.

 

[Marin]

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.




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.

No, you said that faith requires an individual to discard his reason and you identified it solely as blind faith wich means believing without evidence. You've repeated this many time on this thread.

You didn't say faith as a basis of an argument is evil but having faith alone unlike how you're putting it now.

Also, you're saying religion and science aren't compatible without backing it up. Religion was for centuries (and still is in good part) a bringer of education and preservation of knowledge.

Catholic Church for one (wich is often being portrayed as an enemy of science) played a huge part in preserving the culture of the west and offering education. During Enlightment period the interest in science was only amplified. Vatican posesses one of the best obervatories and has been a prominent supporter of astronomy.

Many many scientists and philosophers whose discoveries created the world as we know it were religious in one way or another. Theists, deists, pantheists, dualists, it doesn't matter. They all had faith in one way or another.

And yes, they do. There are plenty of arguments for the existence of god in one form or another waging from moral to existencial.

There is a reason to belive, thus their faith is rational.

There is absolutely nothing that makes religion (atleast the biggest known ones) incompatible with science.

 

[Hawker]

I was asking you specifically cause I thought you were sure that there is no evidence that states there is existence of god. However I do find it amusing how you single out religious people. In reality what you know and say has nothing to do with what the other believes. Therefore if you truly believe there is no evidence that God exists than provide me with that evidence yourself. Otherwise don't spout something you yourself can't prove. Cause no matter how clever we humans may think we are. We don't even know 3 percent of how this universe works. We have yet to discover what truly exists and what doesn't. There is a reason there is a discovery channel.

By your logic everyone would be right to make what ever claims they'd like on the grounds of "well you can't prove that the evidence for my claim doesn't exist as we don't fully understand the universe"

Simply put: there is no evidence as religious people haven't provided any evidence. Until they do, the matter is clearly faith based on their end. So what is your problem again with this?

 

[Natsu Shazneel]

By your logic everyone would be right to make what ever claims they'd like on the grounds of "well you can't prove that the evidence for my claim doesn't exist as we don't fully understand the universe"

Its no different than to the claims you make yourself. "If there is no evidence. it must not exist". If you haven't even searched for the evidence than how will you find it? Fact is we humans don't know everything about the existence of life forms in this universe. We have still yet to discover them. Just because you don't have the evidence it does not mean it does not exist. It may exist but in a place we have yet to discover yet. Why should I sit here and go by some dudes opinion when you know jack of how this universe works?

Simply put: there is no evidence as religious people haven't provided any evidence. Until they do, the matter is clearly faith based on their end. So what is your problem again with this?

Simply put: You have no evidence claiming there is no evidence. Cause you know nothing of how this universe works. Nor are you fully aware of what exists and doesn't exist whats out there. We don't need to provide you with jack because you simply wanna make believe your way of thinking is true due to lack of evidence you yourself ignores. Please do provide me with evidence that god doesn't exist. I will wait to hear your knowledge of life forms on this universe. I am pretty sure you have communications with some already. You know those green guys who like to appear in sci-fi films?

 

[Hawker]

No, you said that faith requires an individual to discard his reason and you identified it solely as blind faith wich means believing without evidence. You've repeated this many time on this thread.

You didn't say faith as a basis of an argument is evil but having faith alone unlike how you're putting it now.

Also, you're saying religion and science aren't compatible without backing it up. Religion was for centuries (and still is in good part) a bringer of education and preservation of knowledge.

Catholic Church for one (wich is often being portrayed as an enemy of science) played a huge part in preserving the culture of the west and offering education. During Enlightment period the interest in science was only amplified. Vatican posesses one of the best obervatories and has been a prominent supporter of astronomy.

.

Yes faith is believing without evidence. No one has yet come out and proved me wrong on this. Yes faith alone is evil, when it leads to using faith as the basis of an argument. I really have to spell this out for you don't I.

I never said religion and science are incompatible. You're putting words in my mouth which is again a strawman argument. So what education does religion provide that neutral school systems don't? Religion based schools are biased and they spread the message of faith. Meaning they spread evil.

Also what you say about Catholic church is laughable and it tells me you don't know what you're talking about: when catholic church says condoms are evil then that's education? Religion is almost solely responsible for continued AIDS epidemic in Africa.

What other things Catholic church has done for our societies: Crusades, inquisition, the persecution of the jewish people, injustice towards women (that's half of the population righ there) and the force conversion of indigenious people, especially in South-America, African slave trade, silence during Hitler's final solution. They've institutionalized the raping of children.

Now compare those with the achievements of science. Lightbulp. Electricity. Vaccines. Phone. Computers. Medication. Organ transplants. Prosthate legs. Condoms.

Many many scientists and philosophers whose discoveries created the world as we know it were religious in one way or another. Theists, deists, pantheists, dualists, it doesn't matter. They all had faith in one way or another.

I've said this already many times on this thread: religious people can be scientists. But as they did those discoveries they did not do them in the name of religion. They did not use faith. They used science. So that is an invalid argument for the benefit of religion.

And yes, they do. There are plenty of arguments for the existence of god in one form or another waging from moral to existencial.

There are arguments but no evidence. All and all it's just people wanting to believe for something supernatural and then justifying that belief afterwards when they get questioned.

There is a reason to belive, thus their faith is rational.

There is no reason to believe as there is no evidence that support that reason. It's just believing. It's blind faith.

There is absolutely nothing that makes religion (atleast the biggest known ones) incompatible with science

Not inherently, but we could do much better without it. Religion, like I showed you above, does more bad than good.

 

[Hawker]

Its no different than to the claims you make yourself. "If there is no evidence. it must not exist". If you haven't even searched for the evidence than how will you find it? Fact is we humans don't know everything about the existence of life forms in this universe. We have still yet to discover them. Just because you don't have the evidence it does not mean it does not exist. It may exist but in a place we have yet to discover yet. Why should I sit here and go by some dudes opinion when you know jack of how this universe works?



Simply put: You have no evidence claiming there is no evidence. Cause you know nothing of how this universe works. Nor are you fully aware of what exists and doesn't exist whats out there. We don't need to provide you with jack because you simply wanna make believe your way of thinking is true due to lack of evidence you yourself ignores. Please do provide me with evidence that god doesn't exist. I will wait to hear your knowledge of life forms on this universe. I am pretty sure you have communications with some already. You know those green guys who like to appear in sci-fi films?

You're hopeless. And failing at understanding what I've said to you. I didn't say that if there is no evidence it must not exist. I said that if you can't prove it exists it most probably doesn't. And this is the situation, these are the facts that make our reality here and now.

I know you are too dense for undestangin this but I say again: The burden falls on the one that has made the claim. It's not my job proving it. Also I can't say for certain that god doesn't exist, but what I can say that the belief that god does exist is faith based!

Ofcourse you have to prove it. You made the claim! Not scientists, or atheists. Prove it. Rather than shove it down other peoples throats.

We live in a world where there are no physical evidence now or in thousand of years of mankinds history that god exists.

But by your logic you should go look for evidence of snowman, samsquanch or santa claus until you say it doesn't exist.

 

[Benjamin King]

I would like to add greed of money is also destroying the world. Take religion out of the picture you will still get these conflicts.

Capitalism too. Political ideology, when favoured by the majority, can be benefited for politicians who will use it for their own selfish goals. You have atheists bashing political religion, but they forget or too stupid (most likely the latter) to realize communism was also atheist ideology and responsible for over 100 million deaths.

 

[Dantee]

Terroristic cells like ISIS, Al-Qaeda, Boko Haram etc. etc. will never threaten the world. The only presence truly capable of destroying the reality as we know it are the major nuclear powers and the greed and agenda's of the world's super-powers i.e Russia, China, America as well as the careless use of our planet leading to global warming and other natural destruction.

Facts but dont forge tthe greedy corporations that fund this bs.

 

[YowYan]

Capitalism too. Political ideology, when favoured by the majority, can be benefited for politicians who will use it for their own selfish goals. You have atheists bashing political religion, but they forget or too stupid (most likely the latter) to realize communism was also atheist ideology and responsible for over 100 million deaths.

Atheism is not an ideology, smartass. And oppressive, expansionist governments is something everyone is aware of, regardless of having a religious background or not.

 

[Hawker]

Capitalism too. Political ideology, when favoured by the majority, can be benefited for politicians who will use it for their own selfish goals. You have atheists bashing political religion, but they forget or too stupid (most likely the latter) to realize communism was also atheist ideology and responsible for over 100 million deaths.

Typical argument. The difference is that Stalin didn't kil those people in the name of atheism. He wasn't spreading the word of atheism to people. He was just a psychopath.

 

[veggetta13]

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


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.


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.


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.


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


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

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

There's no 72 virgins.

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


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


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



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.


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


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





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


Gee I wonder what else you may be wrong about.


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.


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.


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

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


Who says so?


It isn't.



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.


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.



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

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.


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

Deep down is not an argument, my friend.

To hunt down weaknesses in people´s words is pivotal in counter-argumentation or rhetoric but it also shows how hollowed the speaker´s speech is. I haven´t been able nor think I will be to reach this Nirvana so uninviting you talk to us about, us STUPID -or was it Idiots you called us, besides //funny//?? Focus on the topic of conversation or open a thread for yourself


It is also alike how you argue the lack of evidence on Black Holes. I read an introductory book to Particles Physics by Leon Lederman and he estates whether you speak about a black Hole or Higgs field, everything time+space (events on earth or the universe) are depicting a scenery for you to conclude that there are black holes as a mean to explain that gravity affects light. It´s the lack of tools to find the Truth, not the lack of hints or reasons. Why the hell were particle accelerators built FOR? They were looking for freaking shadows or small hints of information about NOTHING-antimatter but they had their hands full information to juggle with. You are trying to look cool, speaking Quantum Physics and God pffffff

As much as you might not sympathize with this those scientists breaking their heads vowed to prove their thought. It´s not like they woke up feeling like rhyming black hole or relativity with their last name A guy or woman in a midlife crisis is not center of my bets vibe off "objective thinking" that´s how I see you. Trying to imply knowledge earned by mankind has been mostly thrown dice pushed by guts : -lame-. I do not see mankind weak or clumsily reaching its meeting with Science or Destiny played by chance good will = stupid hopes. Chance is you or how you´ve worked throughout your life.


You are trying pathetically to tell us how you converted through science to Religion.. Oh my oh my

 

[Scooby Doo]

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.

Sigh...

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. At the other extreme is evidence that is merely consistent with an assertion but does not rule out other, contradictory assertions, as in circumstantial evidence.

You must be registered for see links

Circumstantial evidence is evidence that relies on an inference to connect it to a conclusion of fact...

You must be registered for see links

Inference is the act or process of deriving logical conclusions from premises known or assumed to be true.

You must be registered for see links

The universe exists. I think we can both agree on that. The universe either had a beginning, or it has always existed. I think you will also agree that these are the two main options we have.

If it had a beginning- as for example the Big Bang suggests (which was actually introduced by a priest)-, then from these two premises:


- Everything that begins to exist has a cause;
- The universe began to exist;

Therefore:

The universe has a cause.

You must be registered for see links

So from the factuality of the universe, we made an inference that it has a cause. This cause is either an abstract object, but abstract objects like numbers don't create anything, so I think we have a good reason to think it's a personal agent.

Thus the universe has served as an evidence. More precisely, a circumstancial one. But it's still an evidence. Note again that proof and evidence are not the same. Of course I can't prove you scientifically that God exists, but I don't have to do that. To form a valid argument, all I need is evidence. It's up to you now to disprove my premises, or show that the conclusion doesn't follow.

But we still have a good reason to believe in a Creator. Sure it is faith, but it does have pieces of evidence as I just showed you. Direct proof? No. Evidence? Yes. Don't confuse the two.

Now let's examine the other options. Some might say ok the universe has a beginning but it just randomly popped into existence. Ok, so where is your proof?

Or the universe never had a beginning. But them, if you don't have a problem admitting that something eternal may exist, then you shouldn't have a problem with an eternal person existing. But in any case, there is no proof that the universe has always existed,so unless you prove that, or you prove that the universe has popped into existence from nothing, then the burden of proof also lies on you.

And if you believe in those options without proof then your faith is nothing better. So look in the mirror and call yourself evil too. And I'm still waiting for you to explain how faith is evil from a naturalistic pov.

Also. Flying spaghetti monster created the universe.

Let's talk about the flying spaghetti monster then. Define what it is first. Then show some evidence that it does exist.

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.

The point is that you can't prove me directly that black holes exist, so for now it's just a belief. Does it have indirect evidence to support this claim? Sure. But it's still just a form of faith.

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.

So you don't believe in black holes?

Then what do you believe in? Again, asnwer my above questions, do you believe the universe has always existed then, or that it popped into existence from nothing? Either way you can't prove that, so it's just faith.

I just presented you evidence above.

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.

Any other ideology can serve as an excuse to stop thinking. Also, you ignore that the first universities were maintained and formed by the church/ religious people (f.e some consider the Al Azhar in Egypt to be the first univesity)

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.

And who says so that we are far from being just smart animals?

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

So you say God is the flying spaghetti monster? okay, call Him that if you wish, at least you admit that there is a God who created the universe.

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.

Yet people send expeditions to planets to discover alien life.

Anyway, it's a good thing you admit the possibility.

According to Plantinga's ontologcial argument, if it's possible that God exists, then it logically follows He really does.

You must be registered for see links

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

So you admit the difference, but that's not how your originally used the word...

So now you are saying that religious faith is always blind faith? But apparently I gave you reasons and pieces of evidence to support that God exists. Even RD admits the possibility. Even you admit the possibility. So why do you say it's blind faith? Because then, believing that the universe just popped into existence from nothing and you beting your life on that premise, is also blind faith then.

Faith: I have faith over the scientific methods to work out problems as they have proven from time and time again to work.

Wow, finally you defined precisely what you mean. You should have done it from the beginning. At least from here we can get somewhere.

So let me ask, if you trust science because it has worked out from time to time, then what's evil about me trusting God if so far it has worked out in my life? Also, the existence of God does not contradicts scientific discoveries so I don't think the two are mutually exclusive.

Blind faith: I believe in something I haven't seen, touched or heard. I've only read about it from a man made book.

And that's where you are wrong. Not all religious people follow a book.

You don't have either.

Big bang has peen proven to happen.

And the idea was originally proposed by a priest

Anyway, there are scientists who actually claim now that there was no Big bang...just saying.

But I personally agree that there was a Big Bang. In which case my above argument stands.

Yes.

And I say so differently.

[/quote]

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.[/QUOTE]
And you still may be wrong. Just like if one day we will have 100% proof that the universe has always existed, then both of us will turn out to have been in denial because we thought the Big Bang happened.

In any case, none of those discoveries would actually disprove that God exists, it's just we'd need to revise some of the things we believed about how God operates .

 

[Marin]

Yes faith is believing without evidence. No one has yet come out and proved me wrong on this. Yes faith alone is evil, when it leads to using faith as the basis of an argument. I really have to spell this out for you don't I.

I never said religion and science are incompatible. You're putting words in my mouth which is again a strawman argument. So what education does religion provide that neutral school systems don't? Religion based schools are biased and they spread the message of faith. Meaning they spread evil.

Also what you say about Catholic church is laughable and it tells me you don't know what you're talking about: when catholic church says condoms are evil then that's education? Religion is almost solely responsible for continued AIDS epidemic in Africa.

What other things Catholic church has done for our societies: Crusades, inquisition, the persecution of the jewish people, injustice towards women (that's half of the population righ there) and the force conversion of indigenious people, especially in South-America, African slave trade, silence during Hitler's final solution. They've institutionalized the raping of children.

Now compare those with the achievements of science. Lightbulp. Electricity. Vaccines. Phone. Computers. Medication. Organ transplants. Prosthate legs. Condoms.



I've said this already many times on this thread: religious people can be scientists. But as they did those discoveries they did not do them in the name of religion. They did not use faith. They used science. So that is an invalid argument for the benefit of religion.


There are arguments but no evidence. All and all it's just people wanting to believe for something supernatural and then justifying that belief afterwards when they get questioned.

There is no reason to believe as there is no evidence that support that reason. It's just believing. It's blind faith.



Not inherently, but we could do much better without it. Religion, like I showed you above, does more bad than good.

So you are again going with your own definition of faith. Judging from Kobak's posts, you have already been proven wrong. You just choose not to accept it. Wich leads us to the said issue of you ignoring/not reading your opponet's posts.

You totally did.

"Religion has always stood in the way of progress, in the way of thinking, in the way of rationality."

And for the record, implying that you said something you didn't doesn't make it a strawman, but it is fallacy non the less.

As for Church run schools vs secular schools, they're on the same level. Church run schools offer Ethics class instead of Religion, while secular schools don't. So there's that. Though the state and way these schools are executed varies from country to contry. So talking about them in general is a terrible argument.

And you're once again claiming having faith is evil. Not this is really funny for an atheist to use the term evil so much. There is no good and evil in your worldview. Assuming (good=morally right / evil=morally wrong) it implies that there is an objective standard for morality, wich is a self-destructive statement for you.

And no. What I'm saying about RCC stands rock solid. Now, you mentioning the condom deal is actually helping my case with the "RCC is enemy of science" taboo. RCC teaches that ***, if not for the purpose of reproduction, is a sin. So you won't be using condoms anyway if you're a Catholic. If you're not this will mean nothing to you and you'll use them anyway, if however you are a Catholic and you don't abide by one rule, while still for some reason keeping a less important one, you're not really bright.

In short, priest don't run around killing people who buy condoms. If you choose not to use them and have *** (for fun as they say), RCC is already not responsible, and if you simply aren't a part of RCC, it has nothing on you so you're yet again responsible for your actions.

In the next paragraph you show your lack of knowledge of the context of the events you're mentioning and the RCC history in general. I can get that but you claiming RCC did nothing in Hitler's reign is just ridiculous. It was one of the loudest forces against Nazi regime and fought openly against it. Even Einstein, who despised RCC came to praise it.

"Only the Church stood squarely across the path of Hitler's campaign for suppressing truth. I never had any special interest in the Church before, but now I feel a great affection and admiration because the Church alone has had the courage and persistence to stand for intellectual truth and moral freedom. I am forced thus to confess that what I once despised I now praise unreservedly."

As for the child rape, I assume you mean the infamous Vati-leaks scandal and the *** offenses commited by RCC officials. What's fun about this is how exagareted it is. Indeed, there have been terrible cases when such things happened. However, the number of priests who did this are but 1% of the whole RCC. Actually, a lot more ***-offenses happen with teachers who abuse their students, but guess what, you don't see every teacher outthere being accused for what someone else did. Same goes for preasts. You don't blame everyone for one man's actions.

Long story short: RCC being a bunch of pedophiles is a stereotype. Nothing more, nothing less.

And voila! Your "Science vs Religion" attitude comes again. Already mentioned, already explained.

And no, that is not an invalid argument. You're assuming the argument's purpose was to prove that religious people can be scientists. No proof is needed for that. The argument's purpose was to show that religious organisations have been prominent promoters of education and science. (Some more some less) A point wich you have failed to counter.

Arguments in things like religion, philosophy and pretty much all non-material topics serve as evidence. In a case of a religion, they serve as reasons to believe ie reasons why believing is not irrational nor unrasonable. And you're yet again, assuming and generalizing without even knowing what arguments I'm talking about (further strengthened by the fact you don't even understand the material these arguments are built upon).

All this aside, you're still feeding my point that you're running away from the topic. This discussion isn't about science vs religion, does god exist, is this or that religion true or not, but about wether having faith is unreasonable. A statement you proclaimed true without giving any valid back-up. Instead you resort to made up definitions, biased sources, straw-man and generalizations and lying.