Religion is for cowards and pedophiles of childrens minds

OK, so we've established that you're more in favour of mass suicide than at least one of your so-called "death cults". What's next?

The same methods cannot be and have not been used these things. I'm sorry to break that to you. That doesn't mean that I believe that they happened, but no amount of "oh come on so u are saying u beleev jesus turn water into wine that is for fool's and conmen" rhetoric is going to make you sound any smarter on this one.

Science be praised!

When you say "it's called science", do you dribble at all, or do you just get such a rush of unjustified self-satisfaction that a little bit of wee comes out?

 

Congratulations: you can cut and paste other people's views when someone goads you incessantly to prove your point rather than merely asserting it over and over again and ridiculing anyone who disagrees. Have a fucking cookie.

I don't know though, common consensus among Jews seems to be that there isn't an afterlife at all. One rabbi isn't going to sway me any more than one boy-buggering Catholic priest is going to convince me that Christianity condones buttsecks. I wonder how much of the above you've actually read, in the short time that you've had to research it. A lot of what's there really DOES NOT support your claims. e.g. "Judaism does not have a specific doctrine about the afterlife", and that Gehenna is "a sort of Purgatory where one is judged based on his or her life's deeds [...] for all souls (not just the wicked)." Do you even know what Purgatory means?

So what about Buddhism and Mormonism then? Got any mega-persuasive links to drop on me.

 

Yup. Factual errors. Still waiting on that proof that religious people are more likely to kill, fight, or kill themselves than others. Any time you wanna drop those on me would be fine.

 

It was called a joke, hence the happy face I posted with it to warn you of sarcasm anyways,

What are you saying that science has not discredited the so called "miracles" from any religious text?

Which ones I'm curious?

And while I do not "dribble" when I type or say the word science... usually, I do not claim to be one either.

Are you now saying that your supposed deeper understanding of science discredits my use of it statistics and facts?

 

Which miracles has it discredited? I mean, short of actually being there when a magic trick is performed and showing that it was done at the time via simply trickery, I don't see how it could ever do what you're claiming. Maybe we're talking about a different science?

One what?

Nope, not saying that at all. Although I do now wish to ask: when have you used science's "statistics and facts" in this thread?

 

http://rotten.com/library/history/inquisition/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusade

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas

Again I'm not saying the elimination of religion will make the world perfect, but it would give us one less reason to destroy each other.

 

It depends what religion your talking about and the specific miracle I'm not just going to link or list every miracle in every holy text I know of that has been discredited.

I would hope we are talking about the "same" science, the one that does not claim to have a definite answer to exactly how the universe was made.

Unlike many religions that argue it was made in a handful of days by a all knowing benevolent dictator with a divine plan that may end with the eventual heat death of the universe.

Religion is unnecessary and is a pitiful answer to any question.

 

Sorry, when I said proof, I meant actual statistics, not just anecdotal evidecen (which as we know can be incredibly inaccurate).

So would the elimination of a hell of a lot of other things. Doesn't mean eliminating them is feasible or desirable. If people fight over something, doesn't that imply that it's valuable, not worthless?

 

Yes, because obviously there's no compromise between being spoonfed and being asked to eat an elephant.

I'll make you a compromise, then: please name three miracles that science has somehow disproved, and how it has disproved them. Take your time, and be thorough rather than brief if need be.

Yes, we are indeed talking about the same science, practised by scientists who likely would consider you massively arrogant for dismissing religious beliefs offhand for lacking a basis in proof while failing to substantiate most arguments you've made with anything even approaching evidence, let alone proof.

Sorry, are you saying that the heat death of the universe is an idea embraced or championed by the religious?

And yet you don't have a better one. You just invoke "Science" - what science? all science? - whenever you want to convey that you are smart and religion is dumb, even though the two serve completely different purposes.

Riddle-me-this: philosophy is to science as religion is to mysticism. So would you ban philosophy as well, or would you embrace it, with all the foibles and violence that has historically come with it, purely because it does not care about the supernatural?

 

Religion and mysticism are one in the same, philosophy is a manner of living life while science is the study of the world in which you live I'm not calling for a ban of anything I'm pointing out that religion in all it's forms is unnecessary.

A virgin birth is rather miraculous in my opinion several deities claim to have there origins in this way.

When they are described as having virgin births in most respects it is said to be a miracle, could there mothers passably have been asexual?

The offspring of a human and a god?

Maybe a bored husband or monk somehow tricked them into inserting seamen without there knowledge?

Maybe it was made up or just a cannibalized story from another religion?

The knowledge we have of the human reproductive system would point in favor of the "divine" birth to be a sign of a hoax.

What would seem most likely to you given whatever knowledge of human nature in primitive times you may have?

Today it would not at all be considered impossible to be birthed of a virgin thanks to artificial insemination, it doesn't mean they are children born literally of a god.

Religion and belief in the literal supernatural go embarrassingly hand in hand.

 

Are you denying these events happened?

The statistics are in the links.

 

Who would you consider the others?

Atheists?

Anti theists?

 

So you just want us to agree with you, not to do anything about it at all?

In a similar mode as before: many things are unnecessary. That does not mean that they are feasibly preventable. So it is pointless to devote serious time or effort to discussing how wonderful the world would be if they were prevented, let alone identifying oneself with an ideology that would seek to achieve this.

Do you think a list of possible (far-fetched, in some cases) explanations for something constitutes evidence, let alone proof, that it didn't happen?

Sorry, you seem to have me confused with someone who isn't waiting for evidence that a miracle didn't happen.

So? The technology you're talking about didn't exist when the miracle in question is said to have occurred.

Actually no, a lot of the time they really don't. You just repeatedly insist that they do because you have very little else.

 

Maybe I'm being stupid, but I'm not seeing the statistics you were asked to provide. I have asked you for evidence that the religious are more likely to kill or commit violent acts than the non-religious. In order to ascertain this, you need to provide more than just a few death tolls of religious wars. You need to tell me how many atheists killed people during that time. I would accept statistics over a given period of time (say 10 years), but the number of killings by religious people tells me nothing if I don't have a point of comparison. If you have this evidence upon which to base your beliefs, why is it so hard for you to cough it up when asked?

 

Those without a strong/stated religious affiliation. Quit stalling.

 

I'd say that's pretty inaccurate. Philosophy's relationship to scientific process is similar to that of religion to mysticism, spirituality, etc. It is the systematisation or organisation of "raw data" - in the case of philosophy, scientific and sociological observation, in the case of religion, of intuition, emotion and inspiration.

I would say philosophy is if anything more dangerous than religion. Religion is a lot harder to dissuade someone from than philosophy, and because it does not carry with it the sign of scientific validity, it allows for moderate belief far more than Kant or Sartre.

Your portrayal of religion is disingenuous, as is your portrayal of science.

 

you are only stalling yourself.

your statistics are in your local libraries history books.

 

The OP sounds like a hateful, ignorant fascist who refuses to tolerate people who think differently than he does. I am not saying this as a religious person, because I am not religious, but just as a person who thinks that people should be allowed to make up their own minds, believe what they want to believe, and/or question what they want to question.

I have met lots of religious people who are smarter, more well-read and more complex than the OP, not to mention most of the people posting here. Having faith in something does not make anyone cowardly... in a lot of cases, it can make them stronger, better people. For example, I've met a former skinhead who 'found Christ' and adopted extremely positive attitudes towards people, and now leads a youth group and helps poor kids.

Dismissing them as cowards and 'pedophiles' is so stupid I'm actually embarrassed for the OP... especially since 'pedophiles' doesn't even make sense in the way he is trying to apply it. Religion is not an entirely negative thing-- it's not always a positive thing, but there are a lot of positives involved. Labeling it as a threat to humanity only shows how simple-minded and hateful you really are.

 

I don’t have to. You are the one stating that God doesn’t exist and you have based this whole thread on it. If you can’t prove that God does not exist then this whole thread is bogus.

For the purposes of this thread I have not said one way or the other about my belief in God or the creation of the universe and really don’t need to.

I’m not taking any such tactic; I just want you, seeing as your whole thread is based on your belief that God doesn’t exist, to prove it.