LOL... This is insane... religious fanatics have been claiming this for years. Ive heard it about The Beatles, Stones, etc.... It is usually lead my the greedy far right churches that have their own agendas to fill. Nonsense if you ask me.

 

It is always a struggle to debate when the other side seems entirely unwilling or incapable of comprehending what you say. I have not substituted religion for anything, I have simply tried to explain to you the simple truth that anything ever done or discovered is done so through some motivation of the doer. Religion, among many other things, is a motivator, science, so long as it remains objective, is not a motivator, but a tool of the motivated. No one has ever said "I want to find the cure for cancer so more people respect science." And I suspect no one ever will, because science is a means to an end, not an end in itself.

Thus, I was merely trying to point out how childish your view of a purely scientific world was. No one practices science merely for the sake of science and that is as nonsensical a statement as saying that a religious man is religious "for the sake of religion."

You say men built bridges to "push the boundaries of knowledge and science." I say it is quite set in stone that men built bridges because they wished to get to the other side of the river.

Forgive me, but I wished for two birds with this one stone.

Nowhere in the bible is the age or supposed age of the earth ever mentioned. If you are going to debate the topic, you should know such simple facts. Those Christians who believe the earth is 6000 years old belong to strict fundamentalist sects and make up a very small percentage of the actual christian community. If you are going to argue against an entire faith based upon it's smallest minority, then I invite you to do the same with all your arguments in the future. Refer to all men as rapists because 7% are, refer to all blacks as drug dealers because 9% are, so on and so forth. Obviously you see the problem.

Either you are purposefully choosing to attack the exception rather than the rule because you do not argue honestly, or you are doing so because you actually thought it was the rule. If it is the latter then I invite you to actually do some research on the opposition before telling them what they think, it will save you trouble in the future. And as an aside, "research" does not mean reading books by Hitchens and Dawkins; that will only put you back at the beginning since an atheist has no reason to represent religion accurately and viceversa. Research means reading what the other side has to say about itself; you will have a much better, and less infantile view of your opponent.

As an agnostic, the only theory I find to be more poorly put together than god creating man from the earth is random, pointless chance randomly and pointlessly doing it from nothing. But to each his own.

 

By and large "random" doesn't enter into the picture much. Chemical and biological processes, evolutionary pressures etc are subject to variation but they are not, however, random.

 

What do they say of Simon Cowell?

 

​

 

He's Lucifer's buttplug.

 

Well you hang on to your religion, you waste all your time stacking up brownie points for the next life, I will just enjoy this one like it is the only one.

 

Who says that you cannot do both?

 

Time wasted contemplating religious ideals could be directed to useful causes.

 

I do agree Religion is a waste of time but you see that's the difference betwixt Faith & Religion, you don't have to contemplate Faith. You either have it or you don't.

 

What happens when science contradicts faith?

 

Wrong again.

You've said a lot about the process you followed. It wasn't logic.

 

If you are going to criticize me, could you at least tell me what part was not logical?

 

Don't wish to put words in peoples mouths, but I assume he means you describing Pascal's Wager as a logical reason for becoming a Christian

 

Well richie, You do not believe in god but from this thread, it is clear to see that you do "waste" time contemplating religious ideals. We can see this from your knowledge of religious and atheist theories.

This is an very weak argument, rich. And seems to be one of your major arguments through out the thread.

 

No, time trying to show people that religion is wrong is not wasted, the same way that educating people that theft is wrong.

 

When questioning the existence of god, a religious man goes on the assumption that we ,as humans, know nothing about the physical and spiritual worlds. An atheist goes on the assumption that we ,as humans, know everything about the physical and spiritual world.

Which one do you think is naive and a fool?

 

Woah Woah Woah, hold your horses, you have those back to front. Scientists will happily admit we don't know everything, thats why we still have science !

It is the religious people that claim to have all the answers, yet have no proof for their claims.

 

To both Dave and Rich, I will discuss and defend religion and the logical belief of the existence of a superior being. However I will not defend the church or any organized religion. I will also not defend right winged views. Such as the bible holds the answer to everything in life. This is ridiculous. I have stated many times on this thread that I and by far the majority of Christians Take the bible as a spiritual book and not a history book.

Like Jesternix already said, You people have a stereotypical view of the people who call themselves "Christians". Most Christians in this world do not interpret the bible a literally, we do not worry about the "end of days", we do not believe that when judgment comes we will have to literally either be honest or lie to god about our faith. We will be judged on the way that we live our lives. And as has already been stated again and again. The meaning of Christian is a follower of the teachings of Christ. Many aspects and beliefs in organized religion are not taught by Christ.

By assuming that and judging liberal Christians such as myself based on an extreme stereotype is discriminatory and not much better than real RACISM, now is it.

I believe in god. I am Christian. I do not subscribe to any of the rituals and superstitions used by organized religion. This does not make me any less Christian. In fact, I think it makes me a purer form of Christian. Jesus did not teach to go to church. In fact he taught against organized religion and the hypocrisy and greed$$$ that it brings.

My first post on this thread was a reply to a member who commented that Christians were less intelligent then atheists for believing in god. This is not true. Atheists are in fact naive for thinking that they have any idea of what real "reality" is. Infinity is a VERY BIG place.The human mind is a very complex and abstract idea which science is able to give little answer. We know very little about anything in the "real" reality that we are in. Other than what is directly under our nose. Anything is possible.

Orion, I like your signature. I am starting to see what you mean...lol

 

So like most christians you cherrypick the good bits and say the rest is allegorical or just a metaphor, and like most christians you are hypocritical.

You have no idea what christ taught, if he existed, the bible was wrote third and fourth hand 2 - 3 centuries after his supposed life, translated erroneously god knows how many times, so how do you know what he actually said and taught.