I can prove the existance of God. Right now.

On the contrary: 'science' is also quite adept at rationalizing atrocity.

 

BS.
Religon kills dissenters. Science argues and incorporates.

There are no Techno Terroist. only religious and idealological ones.

The Mafia exist by the power of the church's forgiveness in the name of god.

al quaida murders for promised awards from god.

Obnoxiuos christians annoy me when I walk down the blvd, to recieve gifts from god.

Believers are close minded cheaters, trying to look up the answers in the back of the book instead of working out the problems.

Although religion has often been a force of unification in frontier societies, there are no more frontiers, no more dinosaurs, and no more need for childish, super-natural based belief systems. Religon is the single most destructive force loose in the world today.

 

You said religion rationalized atrocities, not that it was offensive to your world view. I don't really care about the latter, but as to the former, science is a great way to rationalize atrocity. The key word there is rationalize. Science is great at taking horrible things and explaining why they're good ideas. Take the American eugenics movement, for instance: over 60,000 people in the US alone forcibly sterilized. An atrocity, but with supposed scientific justification, almost everyone accepted it.

 

That's political justifacation. Not scientific.

My world view--

religion traditionally promotes violence against non-believers. Do you deny this?

911 is just the most recent galaring example. persecution of muslims in the US is another. so is the catholic campaign to exterminated the american peoples of old.
i can go on and on...
and what's the deal with christianity's ongoing war with knowledge?

if there is a god, she must be on the brink of suicide.

 

War on knowledge he says:smilielol5:

 

The bible ain't knowledge, brother.

religon is war on god, too. don't seek god-- listen to me and throw money in the plate.

science seeks god-- the faithful are too blinded by thier legalistic religion to see it.

 

No, at the time is was considered scientific. Of course the science behind it was bad, but so is the science behind a lot of things people believe in today, which would still be atrocities if they were put into practice. Again, I could point to population reduction theories...

No, I don't. But I also don't see any dichotomy between science and religion -- science is not religion's opposite, and needn't succeed in every instance where religion fails.

This is why this conversation will go nowhere: like many people here, it seems to me that you aren't really interested in discussing this objectively, but just have a bone to pick with religion. That's not my game. A lot of religions and religious people are very stupid, but I'm not going to say that religion is the most negative force in society. I think it has a lot of positives, too. Likewise, science is not the opposite of religion, and I see no need of infinitely building it up while tearing religion down. They're different world views -- learn to live with it.

Gotta throw that 'she' in there, too. Way to go, rebel.

 

What I fail to understand is this idea that if I don't follow the dictates of God I'll be tossed into an everlasting fire of pain and torment, but he also love's me.

Is it just me or does this sound a bit whacked? What happened to a time out or a quick trip to the woodshed for misbehaving?

I also can't understand how anyone can follow the bible as the word of a loving God, when it is so full of violence, rape, incest, etc sanctioned by that very same God.

The very beginning of the Old Testament in regards to Adam, Eve, Cain and Able makes no sense at all. Supposedly they were the first and only people on earth. When Cain killed Able, God placed a mark upon him to warn others that killing Cain would provoke the vengeance of God.

OTHERS? What others? Where did these others suddenly come from? Right off the bat we have an inconsistancy and that isn’t the only one.

For one more “story” that doesn’t make sense, how about the “story” of Noah? When you take the measurments given for the Ark in the bible it’s impossible to fit two of every species on it, along with the food required to keep them in good health. Genetically it’s impossible to create a viable species from only one male and one female, the family tree would die out in only a few generations.

Sorry, but the whole idea of a God doesn't make any sense. Early man needed God(s) to explain the unexplainable and our need to believe in something bigger than ourselves just feeds the fire.

Is it so hard to accept that the universe has always been there without the benefit of a Godly figure? I find it hard to believe some guy in the sky has always been there without a beginning (or parent).

Sorry I'm not buying it.

 

I'm not sure if you're addressing that to me, or someone else, or just everyone in general. If it's the first, I'm not a Christian, so I can't answer your questions. I could speculate about a few of them, but I think the best answer is not to take it all so literally.

 

Religion is a cultural manifestation and it reflects the culture that created it. You could call religion a cultural denomination. All of cultures denominations have but one premise. We are essentially unfit, but some are more worthy than others,and here is a list of fitness goals that you must attain to be considered worthy to participate on an equal basis with the more worthy.

 

My comments are directed to everyone in general. I find religion to be absurd at best and harmful on the other end of the spectrum.

History is full of murder, wars, and other misdeeds sanctioned and encouraged by the various churchs of the world. The New Worlds citizens were decimated in the name of God and spreading the good word.

 

In some cases. They were mainly decimated in the name of imperialism, of which God was only a facet. The British, French, Spanish, etc. Crowns were mostly interested in power, and attaining it however they could. Of course, religion is tied in with this.

 

Science is NOT the antihesis of religion. Science pays no attention to religion at all.
But believers are always trying to use Science to justify there dogmatic illusions. Just like the OP.

As for "she", I find it particularly absurd that fanatics insist that god is a male.
Doesn't that make us all jizz?
Life is a baby, not a wet spot.

 

Which is what I said.

Flawless logic. If there is a God, I really doubt it has a gender.

 

Now we're getting somewhere!

IF

instead of being told that there is a god by ignorant savages from thousands of years ago, why not take a look for ourselves?

 

We find those most agreeable, whom we agree with.

 

I have, and so far I'm undecided.

 

The universe is much bigger than us. In the grand-scheme of things, we're just some bacteria that latched onto God's poop after he ate a super-sized ham-planet at the local fast-matter cafe.

 

I'm undecided, also.
However, I know where god could be without conflicting with any known fact and still meet the criteria for the Godhead.
I also know the nature of god's (if any) undeniable will (comandments?).

I'm hot to discuss the possible nature of a possible god, but that requires a basic acceptance of Relativily Demonstratable Knowledge-- such as Bio-Evolution, Quantum Physics, Relativilty, and Thermodynamics, and NO interruption by anti-evolution fanatics who are perfectly capable of contributing to the discussion but choose to spout inanities instead.
It also begs a logical approach-- tempered by reason.
Sounds like a New Thread. Here it comes...

 

Wrong.
Wrong.
Wrong.

You cant prove the existance of god.