So many religions out there... Well, if you're gonna argue against a religion, argue against it, not just argue that since there are so many religions this one is very unlikely to be right. I can do the same with science theories...
I believe i can argue the way I feel like it. Nor am I arguing in favor of any scientific theory here. I believe in god, btw.
He'll let you do whatever you want, but, if after knowing what he wants and expects from you and you don't do it, it's your own fault you wind up burning.
Sounds a lot like "If you wear skimpy clothing/drink at parties, it's your own fault you got raped."
The perpetrator always has the final responsibility. While the victim can aggravate the perpetrator more or less, that doesn't mean the perpetrator is any less of a dick, or that the victim would somehow get raped or burned without the perpetrator existing.
I really feel sorry for you people who are totally fine with following a power-tripping maniac who likes to burn and torture you.
Yes, obligation. If God exists (the christian God) then you have an obligation. Because if God exists, then you're a sinner who had someone die for your sins.
"Sinner" is a term defined by god. Which means I have the full right to ignore it. Just because someone out there made up a term doesn't mean I should care about it. The thing defined by "sinner" is pure human nature. Do you know who created this nature? God did. God created sinners. So what the fuck is he complaining about?
You have an obligation to follow God and not reject his son he gave for you.
I never asked for a son to be given for me.
Never do anything for anyone expecting a return unless you have people sign a contract.
And I never signed any contract nor saw this son. At least, not this conscience and this is the only one I care about.
And, Jesus. Jesus came back to life, please. Death with resurrection is a joke if you compare it to human history. Joan of Arc > Jesus. She burned at a fucking state and SHE DID NOT COME BACK TO LIFE. She had no Father-the-cool-bad-God behind her, either. She has no omnipotent power and knowledge. She had fucking nothing compared to what Jesus had. If you really think Jesus's sacrifice was that great you're mistaken. The only reason it has any significance is because, you see, oooh, it's God's son and not just anybody's son. E.g., god/jesus > rest of us. Him dying for us is a bigger deal than some lousy human dying for us. I see how it is.
Dude. If you go kill someone who's fault is that? God's? Yeah-no. You made the choice. If I give you a knife and you kill my mom, is it my fault my mom died?
I just want to mention if your son wants to kill you you are probably a really shitty mom, unless he has mental disorders, in which case we get to blame either evolution or, indeed, god.
Since no one knows, why not just live by what God wants, just in case he is real. Except a 'just in case' attitude isn't what God wants either...
Because even if we knew god existed we'd never know how to follow him because there are so many religions out there.
Also because even if we knew god existed we have 0 obligation to follow him and if he is to request of us anything via fear of punishment he's just a dick. It's honorable human nature to fight and oppose such a dick, it's cowardly to bend down to such a dick out of fear, which is pretty much what Christianity is all about these days.
I try to judge the world and my actions in it by the most basic things possible. Some Christianity lines up with it, some does not at all.
You cannot attach to anything an adjective that carries no meaning, and the word "perfect" carries no meaning indeed. What is "perfect"? Seems something that's so far from what man is and represents there can never be ANY connection between these two classes of beings.
he doesn't concern himself with creations or something else entirely.
You mean you're saying he forgot? Generally, when you create something, there's a reason for it. He could have left us alone, but in that case, he does no longer matters to us.
Usually a religion represent a way of life, containing codes of conduct and seeking to instill a form of discipline to live by, presumably harnessing you with enough mental and emotional strength to deal with arising circumstances. These religions obviously have a goal and that goal is God.
Rubbish.
We do not really know for whom, or with what purpose, Christianity or Buddhism were designed. I believe they were designed to propel humanity forward in advancement. Without a complex moral system humanity fails and collapses, and untouched humanity has a very low moral stance due to its lack of intelligence.
We know what religions SAY they are for. But, if we assume god has generated religions, then what they say is irrelevant. When you design what's essentially a propaganda scheme it is not required that the scheme be 100% truthful.
What they cause, what they lead to, is relevant. Their goal is not god. Their goal is human. Something human should do, something human should become. "approach god" is the carrot on the stick, nothing else. Maybe it's even true. Doesn't matter. And, I also believe, that goal has been achieved, and religion, as of right now, no longer serves any purpose that was originally intended for it.
Whether you'll get cookies or heaven as reward matters not(at least not to me).
I don't see why there needs to be a reward if Christianity got tons upon tons of followers without anyone having any proof of such a reward even existing...
I'll simplify it for you.
100% of human problems arise from one thing:
Desire.
No, stupidity comes first. Low intelligence is specifically what makes ones desires disbalanced. Sexual desire is the desire that's disbalanced by origin, why I singled it out. All others, though, are generally weakly expressed in, say, kids.
Also, I did not use the term "IQ". That's an oversimplification of what the word "intelligence" really means.
Religion is here not to suppress it but to recognize it and teach you how to live your life with your desire under control with the end result that you will hopefully be free of it.
"Free of desire" is equivalent to suppressing it. Most texts in, say, Christianity, deal with the direct suppression, direct eradication of evil, and the whole idea that man should be "good". Christianity preaches abstinence and generally discourages sex, as well (bottling up, btw). Christianity blames knowledge as a source of evil (apple of knowledge Eve ate, the whole "and now we know we're naked"). This is suppression, not acceptance. Christianity speaks of negatively defined humans, of "sinners", and of holy elements, such as god and Jesus. Christianity is black and white after all. You do good stuff, great, you do bad stuff, go to someone and ask for forgiveness for the bad stuff - fix it. Christianity is about viewing the human as a faulty machine that requires fixing.
I'll tell you why Christianity does that. Because the next level (accepting human) is considerably more complex and harder to explain to a bunch of dumb illiterate people than a black-white + punishment idea of the world, which is very natural to the aforementioned dumb illiterate people. No equation or reasoning can help dumb people achieve this. Smart people (Epicurus, etc.) already have, ages and ages ago.
This evil business is hilarious. It's like your mom just cooked an apple pie for 3 people. She told you you'll get one piece and if you eat more, you'll get sick. You decide to be greedy and stuff your face with the whole pie and end up vomiting. But now you are saying either your mother or the pie itself is evil because they are responsible for your sickness.
The analogy can be faulty in many ways but I hope you get the idea.
I get the idea that the analogy is faulty in many ways because that has nothing to do with what I said.
To sum up what I said for you, since you clearly did not understand it:
1. The creator of the concept is responsible for all actions taken by the concept (if you make a robot capable of nukes, and it nukes something, it's your fault).
2. The creator of the actor is the reason for all actions performed by the actor (if you have a kid and he kills someone, you're the reason that person died).
You can't just blame God for everything. You can't pin evil on God. You can't pin good on God, either. God created man, and it's safe to say that man created good and evil.
If god created man (directly, e.g., god himself is not man, and man was not copied from somewhere else), god was the creator of everything man does, and god is therefore the originator of that good/evil. There honestly wasn't anything else for it to originate from, in that case.
To say man created good and evil is just silly. In pretty much any context.
If we take the evolutionary approach, saying man is evil for doing X is like saying wolves are evil for killing rabbits. You really can't argue with the evolutionary imperative.
If we take the god-created-man scenario, man comes pre-built with a bunch of crap that man has no ability to stick in there. The entire emotional basis. The intelligence capacity. The perception method. Pretty much all of Christianity and most other similar religions are built around blocking stuff in man that's actually pre-built. Man is like a broken machine Christianity and many other religions (especially Buddhism) needs to keep repairing all the time.
Yes, I can pin pretty much everything on god.
I can pin sexual drive on god.
I can pin periods on god.
I can pin neurosis on god.
I can pin pride and inferiority/superiority complexes on god.
I can blame all the people with IQ of ~90 on god.
I can pin any physiological function, and automatic reaction humans have in large amount on god because all those automatic reactions go back to the imperfect and broken physiological and mental processes with which we were created. Before there was nurture, there was nature, and nature is all god. ALL god. We could have been done without all of this shit, but we weren't, so stop pinning your shit on us when it's working exactly as it was intended, actually.
I can trace 90% of all human problems to these two things:
1. Low intelligence.
2. Sexual drive.
Neither of these are something the run of the mill human has much choice in or control over. It's just there. And that leads to our definition of evil. That was created by god. Therefore, god created evil.
I stick to the theory that god is man or similar to man and he just replicated himself, which is why the human shell is imperfect. Because god is imperfect. And he knows it. And we're not here to be something he is not.
No thank you. What is you came back as a fly doomed to eat crap? Or something worse because your current life is too good now?
My luck I'd come back as an ingrown hair on a cows butt.
Considering that a fly's life is short as hell and so distant from a human's life we have nothing in common, you would not come back as a fly, I assure you.
Human-human reincarnation, though, makes perfect sense, is completely fair, and provides an excellent number of recyclable souls...
And some people that don't have any degrees aren't religious. There will always be overlaps but the majority of college educated individuals would vote against the Earth being created 6000 years ago and other facts from the bible.
And majorities have been correct about ANYTHING since when?
You do realize the science field is bigoted towards religious folk? Being religious there is career suicide. Just like being atheist in a BSA troop. Doesn't mean it doesn't happen. There's a stigma in science, and the stigma is so big and overreaching that it goes as far as this forum and people telling me I'm an idiot just because I don't believe in evolution (how scientific of you, bah).
I would like to hear your reasons as to why evolution progressively makes less sense. I only have a high school education on the theory of evolution and what I've been taught so far seems quite plausible, considering that evolution on small scales can be observed everywhere.
I've stated my reasons many times but if all you want to say to someone who does not agree with you is that they're an idiot, that person is eventually going to stop talking.
If you are 100% convinced in evolution that it is the absolute truth your views will not be faultered.
I do not have the scientific background to argue for or against evolution, really. But whenever I examine any biological anything the question I get stuck on is "how the EFF could have this happened by accident?" Which you're going to throw away and laugh at like everyone else.
Because all you "scientific" folk can do is laugh. Which is why I KNOW you're following a fad.
The same argument can be used against Christianity.
I'm not protecting Christianity, I'm criticizing you.
Just because many Christians are Inspectors (read: lazy and irresponsible) doesn't mean you have to stoop down to their level and be JUST LIKE THEM except in reverse.
Also, since there are still people who haven't heard it yet, I'm not Christian. My religion has no name. So it's useless for you to attack Christianity on me because I really do not care about Christianity.
Science and religion are separate fields. They do not exclude each other, and they may sometimes be in conflict but that doesn't really mean anything. Religion has a different purpose other than science. Religion specifically deals with questions science a) can't answer in your lifetime can't answer at all. I don't care that 400 years from now we'll discover that we CAN travel in time if I'll die by then. Religion and philosophy is all I have access to in MY LIFETIME.
It has nothing to do with education, I'm afraid. People are not any more educated now than they were before. I know what party colleges you go to. Thousands of years ago we had Aristotle and Socrates and Epicurus, who are much smarter than most of this "educated (atheist)" forum put together.
Religion should not be protected, should be freely discriminated against, and is not on the same plane as gender or race. Most major religions discriminate against gender, religion, and sometimes nationality. That whole idea loops on itself.
Funny, my dad has a Master's in computer science and he's religious.
I'm in college right now, the more I learn of biology the less I believe evolution makes sense.
When will evolutionists realize they are merely following a fad and responding to a neurosis caused to them by their religious parents/school or whatever? Look at any teenage gathering, you're all the same, you're following a FAD. Bashing Inspectors, worshiping Dawkins or whoever it is you like to worship.
The amount of people that actually understand religion or evolution is so fucking minor you shouldn't even dare raise yourself over neither concept. Yet I never heard any religion basher say they don't follow religion because they don't get it. And it's usually because they don't get it. Lol.
The people you're bashing for following religion stupidly are Inspectors. They need a manual and they want to live by that manual, no matter how dumb it is or how baldy they understand it. For some it's law, for some religion, other things. Stop blaming religion for what is actually done by Inspectors (and their controllers). Any crime of man lies on man, not on religion.
I do not either. But when those high moral teachings are side by side with things like it's alright to beat your children, and people believe that nonsense, then I have a problem.
I'm not sure Jesus said such things, actually. The Bible did, but not necessarily Jesus, that's why it's important to separate the general Bible and the people in it...
Maybe it's because I am not religious and so can see it from the outside looking in, but it's just something that always agitated me.
Dunno, I've been apathetic, atheistic, and now I'm back to being quasi religious; I was never properly religious, never part of any church or anything. If you can't understand something it's your problem alone and has nothing to do with you being religious. You're just ignorant, and you intend to stay ignorant - you're not any better than the religious folk, just on the other side of the fence.
And that's just fine, because every day the scientists are finding new answers and fixing old problems. The scientists will tell you why Strong Nuclear Force exists long before any priest, father, or rabi ever will.
No, you don't understand. The scientists can find what causes the SNF sure (if that's not the bottom). But when they come to the bottom of it, there will be nothing, it will just be, no explanation. At the bottom of it, there are two little tiny indestructible things, and they attract, period.
The reason why we talk of Christianity and Islam more then Buddhism and Hinduism in America is because Christianity and Islam are the two religions most shoved upon us in America.
This is not a thread on America. This is not a thread on Christianity.
You only mentioned major religions, too, but you're offending all religions when you attack religion, including mine, which has no name, and including deism, pantheism, and others. When you say "bring some Buddhists here" you're basically saying all other non-major non-named religions do not exist or something.
I don't often see you say "Christianity". Because you can't. Because that's not what people you're talking to are discussing. We're discussing RELIGION here.
@Puttah and others
Can you please stop sticking ALL religious beliefs and modes of belief into the same barrel? People believe in the stuff pretty differently. Some of us ignore priests, churches, and parchments almost completely.
I think I'm replying to something like 5 pages ago but people are still discussing Jesus, so...
I see no problem with a lunatic that gives high moral teachings. None.
To be moral in the world Jesus lived in one had to be a bit of a lunatic. I don't find the idea of him believing himself to be something bigger, able to judge others, w/e, because that's not the most illogical reaction if you're the one moral person in the world.
Even so, high morals and mental issues can mix just fine.
The reason I made the word "hypothesis" into bold is because then I can stress how hard it is to make just a simple hypothesis, which is the first real step in the scientific method.
I will ask again: why should I care? I'm not a scientist. I am not writing a report. I am not trying to prove anything to anybody. I'm just here, and I believe what I believe, you are free to believe otherwise. Why you have to make me believe something you don't understand yourself is beyond me.
Let me rephrase what I said. You present no support for your statements on any matter, whether it be evolution, the Big Band, or how to make a sandwich.
If I was presenting support, I wouldn't be here wasting my time on a video game forum. I'd be writing a science report. I have enough of those in my biology homework, thanks.
I do not consider these discussions important enough to bring evidence, no.
Saying that "if you don't like what I believe, block me!" is not compelling in this thread either. I thought that this is a debate thread, and saying that because someone calls your dishonesty isn't fit with this thread.
Calling out one's dishonesty is essentially trolling. I don't like to get dragged into it. My reply is appropriate. It sure as hell a lot more compelling than "oh you're lying" to this thread.
If you believe in any sort of deity, you are not an atheist. Why is the definition a bad definition? This is a research poll, and it requires full honesty. If you voted no but you are not an atheist, then you have shown dishonesty.
O... K.
The poll asks:
Do you believe in God, by the definition of "A deity is a postulated preternatural or supernatural immortal being, who may be thought of as holy, divine, or sacred, held in high regard, and respected by believers, often religiously referred to as a god."
I do not believe in specifically that.
"Are you an atheist" would probably be a better question if that's what you wanted to figure out.
Yet you will put your faith in something that has no proof, no logic, and no background knowledge for, all of which are required to make a valuable hypothesis in science.
What makes you think I put value on these hypothesis of yours with matters such as creation of the universe and life? It has value for you but not for me. It's a stringent method used to define stringent things... it will not shed light on the question we're discussing. I prefer not to limit myself with the scientific method.
You have voted to be under scientific under this poll, but I must call your dishonesty on this topic. You don't believe in science, you believe in yourself. You present your arguments as a personal opinion mixed with sarcasm. No where is this even a remotely valid argument, which is unacceptable under the realm of science.
You don't know what I am, or what I believe, and if you have an issue with what I say and how I talk, the ignore list (and the report button if you will) is right there.
What Dae said is pretty much the reason why I'll probably never accept the explanations for such far away concepts as macroevolution and Big Bang... it's just too much of "oh we're so smart with our science and all".
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
...because?
Sounds a lot like "If you wear skimpy clothing/drink at parties, it's your own fault you got raped."
The perpetrator always has the final responsibility. While the victim can aggravate the perpetrator more or less, that doesn't mean the perpetrator is any less of a dick, or that the victim would somehow get raped or burned without the perpetrator existing.
I really feel sorry for you people who are totally fine with following a power-tripping maniac who likes to burn and torture you.
"Sinner" is a term defined by god. Which means I have the full right to ignore it. Just because someone out there made up a term doesn't mean I should care about it. The thing defined by "sinner" is pure human nature. Do you know who created this nature? God did. God created sinners. So what the fuck is he complaining about?
I never asked for a son to be given for me.
Never do anything for anyone expecting a return unless you have people sign a contract.
And I never signed any contract nor saw this son. At least, not this conscience and this is the only one I care about.
And, Jesus. Jesus came back to life, please. Death with resurrection is a joke if you compare it to human history. Joan of Arc > Jesus. She burned at a fucking state and SHE DID NOT COME BACK TO LIFE. She had no Father-the-cool-bad-God behind her, either. She has no omnipotent power and knowledge. She had fucking nothing compared to what Jesus had. If you really think Jesus's sacrifice was that great you're mistaken. The only reason it has any significance is because, you see, oooh, it's God's son and not just anybody's son. E.g., god/jesus > rest of us. Him dying for us is a bigger deal than some lousy human dying for us. I see how it is.
I just want to mention if your son wants to kill you you are probably a really shitty mom, unless he has mental disorders, in which case we get to blame either evolution or, indeed, god.
Also because even if we knew god existed we have 0 obligation to follow him and if he is to request of us anything via fear of punishment he's just a dick. It's honorable human nature to fight and oppose such a dick, it's cowardly to bend down to such a dick out of fear, which is pretty much what Christianity is all about these days.
I try to judge the world and my actions in it by the most basic things possible. Some Christianity lines up with it, some does not at all.
One does not exclude the other. This extra terrestrial life can also be man. It can also be similar to man. So can god. There's no contradiction here.
You cannot attach to anything an adjective that carries no meaning, and the word "perfect" carries no meaning indeed. What is "perfect"? Seems something that's so far from what man is and represents there can never be ANY connection between these two classes of beings.
You mean you're saying he forgot? Generally, when you create something, there's a reason for it. He could have left us alone, but in that case, he does no longer matters to us.
I have no idea what you're trying to say here tbh.
--Nekro--
Rubbish.
We do not really know for whom, or with what purpose, Christianity or Buddhism were designed. I believe they were designed to propel humanity forward in advancement. Without a complex moral system humanity fails and collapses, and untouched humanity has a very low moral stance due to its lack of intelligence.
We know what religions SAY they are for. But, if we assume god has generated religions, then what they say is irrelevant. When you design what's essentially a propaganda scheme it is not required that the scheme be 100% truthful.
What they cause, what they lead to, is relevant. Their goal is not god. Their goal is human. Something human should do, something human should become. "approach god" is the carrot on the stick, nothing else. Maybe it's even true. Doesn't matter. And, I also believe, that goal has been achieved, and religion, as of right now, no longer serves any purpose that was originally intended for it.
I don't see why there needs to be a reward if Christianity got tons upon tons of followers without anyone having any proof of such a reward even existing...
And god predicted this, I can assure you.
No, stupidity comes first. Low intelligence is specifically what makes ones desires disbalanced. Sexual desire is the desire that's disbalanced by origin, why I singled it out. All others, though, are generally weakly expressed in, say, kids.
Also, I did not use the term "IQ". That's an oversimplification of what the word "intelligence" really means.
"Free of desire" is equivalent to suppressing it. Most texts in, say, Christianity, deal with the direct suppression, direct eradication of evil, and the whole idea that man should be "good". Christianity preaches abstinence and generally discourages sex, as well (bottling up, btw). Christianity blames knowledge as a source of evil (apple of knowledge Eve ate, the whole "and now we know we're naked"). This is suppression, not acceptance. Christianity speaks of negatively defined humans, of "sinners", and of holy elements, such as god and Jesus. Christianity is black and white after all. You do good stuff, great, you do bad stuff, go to someone and ask for forgiveness for the bad stuff - fix it. Christianity is about viewing the human as a faulty machine that requires fixing.
I'll tell you why Christianity does that. Because the next level (accepting human) is considerably more complex and harder to explain to a bunch of dumb illiterate people than a black-white + punishment idea of the world, which is very natural to the aforementioned dumb illiterate people. No equation or reasoning can help dumb people achieve this. Smart people (Epicurus, etc.) already have, ages and ages ago.
I get the idea that the analogy is faulty in many ways because that has nothing to do with what I said.
To sum up what I said for you, since you clearly did not understand it:
1. The creator of the concept is responsible for all actions taken by the concept (if you make a robot capable of nukes, and it nukes something, it's your fault).
2. The creator of the actor is the reason for all actions performed by the actor (if you have a kid and he kills someone, you're the reason that person died).
If god created man (directly, e.g., god himself is not man, and man was not copied from somewhere else), god was the creator of everything man does, and god is therefore the originator of that good/evil. There honestly wasn't anything else for it to originate from, in that case.
To say man created good and evil is just silly. In pretty much any context.
If we take the evolutionary approach, saying man is evil for doing X is like saying wolves are evil for killing rabbits. You really can't argue with the evolutionary imperative.
If we take the god-created-man scenario, man comes pre-built with a bunch of crap that man has no ability to stick in there. The entire emotional basis. The intelligence capacity. The perception method. Pretty much all of Christianity and most other similar religions are built around blocking stuff in man that's actually pre-built. Man is like a broken machine Christianity and many other religions (especially Buddhism) needs to keep repairing all the time.
Yes, I can pin pretty much everything on god.
I can pin sexual drive on god.
I can pin periods on god.
I can pin neurosis on god.
I can pin pride and inferiority/superiority complexes on god.
I can blame all the people with IQ of ~90 on god.
I can pin any physiological function, and automatic reaction humans have in large amount on god because all those automatic reactions go back to the imperfect and broken physiological and mental processes with which we were created. Before there was nurture, there was nature, and nature is all god. ALL god. We could have been done without all of this shit, but we weren't, so stop pinning your shit on us when it's working exactly as it was intended, actually.
I can trace 90% of all human problems to these two things:
1. Low intelligence.
2. Sexual drive.
Neither of these are something the run of the mill human has much choice in or control over. It's just there. And that leads to our definition of evil. That was created by god. Therefore, god created evil.
I stick to the theory that god is man or similar to man and he just replicated himself, which is why the human shell is imperfect. Because god is imperfect. And he knows it. And we're not here to be something he is not.
Human-human reincarnation, though, makes perfect sense, is completely fair, and provides an excellent number of recyclable souls...
You do realize the science field is bigoted towards religious folk? Being religious there is career suicide. Just like being atheist in a BSA troop. Doesn't mean it doesn't happen. There's a stigma in science, and the stigma is so big and overreaching that it goes as far as this forum and people telling me I'm an idiot just because I don't believe in evolution (how scientific of you, bah).
Since we're generally talking about biased polls, we're probably talking about all sorts of people.
I've stated my reasons many times but if all you want to say to someone who does not agree with you is that they're an idiot, that person is eventually going to stop talking.
If you are 100% convinced in evolution that it is the absolute truth your views will not be faultered.
I do not have the scientific background to argue for or against evolution, really. But whenever I examine any biological anything the question I get stuck on is "how the EFF could have this happened by accident?" Which you're going to throw away and laugh at like everyone else.
Because all you "scientific" folk can do is laugh. Which is why I KNOW you're following a fad.
I'm not protecting Christianity, I'm criticizing you.
Just because many Christians are Inspectors (read: lazy and irresponsible) doesn't mean you have to stoop down to their level and be JUST LIKE THEM except in reverse.
Also, since there are still people who haven't heard it yet, I'm not Christian. My religion has no name. So it's useless for you to attack Christianity on me because I really do not care about Christianity.
Science and religion are separate fields. They do not exclude each other, and they may sometimes be in conflict but that doesn't really mean anything. Religion has a different purpose other than science. Religion specifically deals with questions science a) can't answer in your lifetime can't answer at all. I don't care that 400 years from now we'll discover that we CAN travel in time if I'll die by then. Religion and philosophy is all I have access to in MY LIFETIME.
It has nothing to do with education, I'm afraid. People are not any more educated now than they were before. I know what party colleges you go to. Thousands of years ago we had Aristotle and Socrates and Epicurus, who are much smarter than most of this "educated (atheist)" forum put together.
Funny, my dad has a Master's in computer science and he's religious.
I'm in college right now, the more I learn of biology the less I believe evolution makes sense.
When will evolutionists realize they are merely following a fad and responding to a neurosis caused to them by their religious parents/school or whatever? Look at any teenage gathering, you're all the same, you're following a FAD. Bashing Inspectors, worshiping Dawkins or whoever it is you like to worship.
The amount of people that actually understand religion or evolution is so fucking minor you shouldn't even dare raise yourself over neither concept. Yet I never heard any religion basher say they don't follow religion because they don't get it. And it's usually because they don't get it. Lol.
The people you're bashing for following religion stupidly are Inspectors. They need a manual and they want to live by that manual, no matter how dumb it is or how baldy they understand it. For some it's law, for some religion, other things. Stop blaming religion for what is actually done by Inspectors (and their controllers). Any crime of man lies on man, not on religion.
Dunno, I've been apathetic, atheistic, and now I'm back to being quasi religious; I was never properly religious, never part of any church or anything. If you can't understand something it's your problem alone and has nothing to do with you being religious. You're just ignorant, and you intend to stay ignorant - you're not any better than the religious folk, just on the other side of the fence.
No, you don't understand. The scientists can find what causes the SNF sure (if that's not the bottom). But when they come to the bottom of it, there will be nothing, it will just be, no explanation. At the bottom of it, there are two little tiny indestructible things, and they attract, period.
This is not a thread on America. This is not a thread on Christianity.
You only mentioned major religions, too, but you're offending all religions when you attack religion, including mine, which has no name, and including deism, pantheism, and others. When you say "bring some Buddhists here" you're basically saying all other non-major non-named religions do not exist or something.
I don't often see you say "Christianity". Because you can't. Because that's not what people you're talking to are discussing. We're discussing RELIGION here.
Can you please stop sticking ALL religious beliefs and modes of belief into the same barrel? People believe in the stuff pretty differently. Some of us ignore priests, churches, and parchments almost completely.
I think I'm replying to something like 5 pages ago but people are still discussing Jesus, so...
I see no problem with a lunatic that gives high moral teachings. None.
To be moral in the world Jesus lived in one had to be a bit of a lunatic. I don't find the idea of him believing himself to be something bigger, able to judge others, w/e, because that's not the most illogical reaction if you're the one moral person in the world.
Even so, high morals and mental issues can mix just fine. At the bottom of it, you get into "why does this force exists", which is something nobody can put a finger on.
And our whole world is built on that force which has no explanation. It just is. xD
If I was presenting support, I wouldn't be here wasting my time on a video game forum. I'd be writing a science report. I have enough of those in my biology homework, thanks.
I do not consider these discussions important enough to bring evidence, no.
Calling out one's dishonesty is essentially trolling. I don't like to get dragged into it. My reply is appropriate. It sure as hell a lot more compelling than "oh you're lying" to this thread.
You are contradicting yourself, heavily.
The poll asks:
Do you believe in God, by the definition of "A deity is a postulated preternatural or supernatural immortal being, who may be thought of as holy, divine, or sacred, held in high regard, and respected by believers, often religiously referred to as a god."
I do not believe in specifically that.
"Are you an atheist" would probably be a better question if that's what you wanted to figure out.
I'm not an atheist, either, though.
You don't know what I am, or what I believe, and if you have an issue with what I say and how I talk, the ignore list (and the report button if you will) is right there.