|
Post by phinehas on May 23, 2007 15:03:52 GMT -5
blondie...blondie...blondie.
Your premise was about RELIGION. Please re-read my response on post #22. What you are saying doesn't stick because it's asinine and invalid to your premise. I would also add that you are not being objectve and you don't have a consensus of opinion.
"You have given ZERO evidence that religion is the cause of abortion bombings or the WTC."
Whatever. Do you really want to stand behind that?
Yes, I do. Provide evidence that RELIGION itself is the cause of abortion clinic bombings and the WTC. If you can't then admit it. You are really just arguing from the standpoint that it's the GUN that kills people versus people that kill people.
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on May 23, 2007 15:05:47 GMT -5
As far as Christianity...the EVIDENCE that it HAS done more to elevate women in society is an obvious fact when you look at history. You are a victim of a fake history. This claim is absolutely ridiculous. Prove it. P.S. I am not buying a freakin book on Amazon.com either.
|
|
|
Post by kevin on May 23, 2007 15:21:29 GMT -5
This is ridiculous. Believe me Atheists face real job and housing discrimination. Think about it. I've been turned down for jobs and apartments when my beliefs were known. It's really insulting when Christians, who control virtually every aspect of this country, try to play the victim. Perhaps. I won't pretend to know what type of discrimination an atheist may face because there are so very few who admit to being so out there. I will say that I cannot recall a single time in the last 20 years that anybody asked me what I believed in on a job interview, during a mortgage or loan application, or anything related to such a process. Let me ask this then: do you happen to wear your atheism on your sleeve? Next question then: can you give me some links to people who have been discriminated against because of their atheism? I know I can provide a plethora of examples of people who have faced descriminatory actions for their religion. This makes no sense. What does he claim to be? What is he not? I must say, this is not an objective study of Lee Strobel. Looks to be just opinions. I'll grant you that one . I like this myself
|
|
|
Post by blondie on May 23, 2007 15:35:30 GMT -5
blondie...blondie...blondie. Your premise was about RELIGION. Please re-read my response on post #22. What you are saying doesn't stick because it's asinine and invalid to your premise. I would also add that you are not being objective and you don't have a consensus of opinion. "You have given ZERO evidence that religion is the cause of abortion bombings or the WTC."Whatever. Do you really want to stand behind that?Yes, I do. Provide evidence that RELIGION itself is the cause of abortion clinic bombings and the WTC. If you can't then admit it. You are really just arguing from the standpoint that it's the GUN that kills people versus people that kill people. "Please provide evidence that shows religion has all these faults as a common practice." This is a universal out. The WTC and abortion clinic bombings were inspired by religion. Without that motivation they wouldn't have happened. Why don't you show some evidence to support your point of view? You know why? Because you'll just link to a bunch of Christian apologetics sites. I could "prove" any religion that way. I could prove UFOs exist, the world is flat etc. The reason you don't like my links is because have the entire objective world on my side and it's obvious. Speaking of UFOs check this out: No one had any idea what this thing was, but everyone in the car was visibly freaked out by it. Once it was gone they told me to call the news and drove off. I'm not sure who else saw it in the neighborhood since I don't live down there, but I'm sure at least a few others must have noticed it. It was way too werid and way too close to go unnoticed. Once it was gone and I caught my breath I could barely stop my hands from shaking for the next hour or so. Needless to say, this is all we talked about for the rest of the night. None of us can figure out what it was (and that's saying something, because my fiance's dad is a mechanical engineer).www.earthfiles.com/news.php?ID=1252
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on May 23, 2007 15:43:55 GMT -5
You are the one that made the assertion about RELIGION, then proceeded to prove that assertion by picking out specific groups that do things that are contrary to that groups direct religion and contrary to the overall scope of religion. That is why I don't have to provide evidence.
If you want to change your premise from RELIGION to Christianity or from RELIGION to Islam or RELIGION toJudaism, then please do so and you may have a better footing. Then again, I will just point out that the actions of individuals or groups within one of those specific religions DOES NOT necessarily constitute the precepts of the RELIGION, which YOU would have to show.
blondie...you are from being objective about religion and specifically Christianity, that has long been proven on this forum. Your argument in that scope is not valid.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on May 23, 2007 15:56:09 GMT -5
blondie...you are from being objective about religion and specifically Christianity, that has long been proven on this forum. Your argument in that scope is not valid. Not on this forum. Just in your mind.
|
|
|
Post by zoomixer on May 23, 2007 16:00:24 GMT -5
blondie...you are from being objective about religion and specifically Christianity, that has long been proven on this forum. Your argument in that scope is not valid. Not on this forum. Just in your mind. Nope. In this forum as well.
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on May 23, 2007 16:06:41 GMT -5
blondie...you are from being objective about religion and specifically Christianity, that has long been proven on this forum. Your argument in that scope is not valid. Not on this forum. Just in your mind. I'm rubber and you are glue, whatever you say bounces off of me and sticks to you. Burp.
|
|
|
Post by kevin on May 23, 2007 16:07:30 GMT -5
Wha? Now you want me to go out and buy a book? Can't you give me a Website? I'm cheap you know. Is there a Cliff Notes for this book? I like what one reviewer said and I'll go with his words for now. I highly approve of the efforts of Stenger, Dawkins, Harris, and others to dispute religion and challenge the church but I wish that they would deal in terms of hypotheses rather than certainty. I feel that this would be a more scientific approach even if less powerful as rationalist propaganda. The last word is the best IMHO. From wikipedia Propaganda is a type of message aimed at influencing the opinions or behavior of people. Often, instead of impartially providing information, propaganda can be deliberately misleading, or use fallacies, which, while sometimes convincing, are not necessarily valid. Whether this was a conscious use of the word or not, it is ironic in this setting. Hey, now! I don't go around changing your quotes . But I get why you changed my quote. Actually, you're thinking of the wrong person. Before I ventured into this forum, debating with an atheist was the last thing on my mind. Can't win or lose a contest you were never in . I agree and disagree with the other things. And come to think of it, religion can be blamed to some extent but...as far as Christianity is concerned, I cannot see justification for any of the above in the teachings of Christ and the New Testament. So its not the teachings that are invalid but the way people twist them. Again, I reassert that even if these teachings had not come about, people would find reasons to exert control over others. How many good things can you say about Communism? “But Communism abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all religion, and all morality, instead of constituting them on a new basis; it therefore acts in contradiction to all past historical experience.” Don't get me wrong here -- I am NOT saying atheism leads to communism, but communism seems to highlight atheism. Is that a good thing? But why do you say religion blocks scientific progress? Give me examples. You may cite things such as stem cell research, but this has more to do with sanctity of life vs. just religion. So give me some more examples (so I can debunk them). Sure, right on. Took the day off to go to an award program for my son's 2nd grade. My son - ya know, one that has been taught biblical principles, about Jesus, etc - received "Citizen of the Year". In fact, out of concern that he complains about going to school (says he's bored), I asked the teacher about him (if he had problems, maybe some bullying, etc.) during a field trip recently. She said that in all of her years of teaching, she had hardly had a child who better exemplified a model student. She also said that the other kids fawned over him. That kid sure is messed up. I should stop teaching him the principals I am still learning in God's Word, lest he starts caring too much for his fellow humans. We wouldn't want that now would we? Hey, I don't claim that guy either ;D. Is he asking her "How many fingers am I holding up?"
|
|
|
Post by blondie on May 23, 2007 16:09:30 GMT -5
I'm not the one that believes in magic with 0% evidence.
Neither am I the one who looks at my neighboor's magic supported by 0% evidence and thinks he's crazy.
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on May 23, 2007 16:17:24 GMT -5
"I'm not the one that believes in magic with 0% evidence."
But you believe what I believe is magic with 0% evidence. Which contradicts:
"Neither am I the one who looks at my neighboor's magic supported by 0% evidence and thinks he's crazy."
LOL.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on May 23, 2007 16:17:53 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by blondie on May 23, 2007 16:19:00 GMT -5
"Neither am I the one who looks at my neighboor's magic supported by 0% evidence and thinks he's crazy." uhhh....isn't that exactly what you are doing. LOL. Yes, but I don't have a magic. So it's OK for me. Get it?
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on May 23, 2007 16:21:21 GMT -5
Of course you have magic. You believe that everything in the universe came about for no purpose. That's the biggest magic trick I have ever heard of.
|
|
|
Post by kevin on May 23, 2007 16:22:14 GMT -5
That's terrible. I'd rather buy the book . Cliff Notes would be embarrassed.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on May 23, 2007 16:24:54 GMT -5
Kevin where did you get this?
“But Communism abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all religion, and all morality, instead of constituting them on a new basis; it therefore acts in contradiction to all past historical experience.”
I don't think any communists believe themselves to be immoral. They had a new morality. For instance they think inequality is immoral.
Also moral relativism and postmodernism are much newer ideas than communism.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on May 23, 2007 16:30:40 GMT -5
That's terrible. I'd rather buy the book . Cliff Notes would be embarrassed. Ha ha. Basically Stenger says that God as understood by Western tradition would be the easiest thing to prove. It hasn't been. As a scientist he believes this is proof of nonexistence. Thus the title: God: The Failed Hypothesis. For instance this God answers prayer. This has been proven objectively not to be true.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on May 23, 2007 16:48:23 GMT -5
But why do you say religion blocks scientific progress? Give me examples. You may cite things such as stem cell research, but this has more to do with sanctity of life vs. just religion. So give me some more examples (so I can debunk them). Creationism. www.creationmuseum.org/
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on May 23, 2007 16:56:16 GMT -5
LOL. It hasn't done a very good job at blocking it considering that evolution is taught in schools and a lot of grant money has gone to the research in evolution but very little if any has been given to creationism. Sorry, but that example is not valid, try again.
|
|
|
Post by kevin on May 23, 2007 16:56:36 GMT -5
Christianity is the motivation of the evils above. Everybody's allowed to interpret their religion any way they want. The KKK's Christianity is just as valid as yours. Motivation is not good enough. Like I've said before, show me evidence that if religion had not been used that the same individuals would not have the same mental instabilities. It is more valid to say that the motivation to hate and hurt is already there and that these people use religion to justify it, not that the religion itself was a motivation. And no, Christianity is a patterning of one's life after Christ. They cannot show that they act in any way like the savior, thus their Christianity is NOT valid. You mean things went to hell as in the Romans persecution of Christians? Yes, things were hunky dory for the Romans till those darn Christians came along and spoiled the orgies and what-not. Party-poopers. How dare they assert that their God was the only true God? I guess if you can't beat 'em -- kill 'em. Sorta like whenever Christianity is practiced in a Muslim country. But you've yet to prove that religion is the motivation and not the justification. Many crimes can be covered up in the name of something else. You know, bad childhood, bullied in school, etc.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on May 23, 2007 17:02:31 GMT -5
LOL. It hasn't done a very good job at blocking it considering that evolution is taught in schools and a lot of grant money has gone to the research in evolution but very little if any has been given to creationism. Sorry, but that example is not valid, try again. Creationism is about as anti-science as you can get. Anyway, I'm not going to go out on a limb and say Christianity and science are somehow total opposites. The slavery thing is a better example. Along with womens rights. Also the rewriting of history. Namely about slavery and womens rights.
|
|
|
Post by kevin on May 23, 2007 17:07:20 GMT -5
But why do you say religion blocks scientific progress? Give me examples. You may cite things such as stem cell research, but this has more to do with sanctity of life vs. just religion. So give me some more examples (so I can debunk them). Creationism. www.creationmuseum.org/Personally, I'm fascinated by evolution. Not the form that says we all came from a big bowl of slime, but the evolution of species in reaction to their environment. It is awesome. Truthfully, most don't want an abolishment of evolution being studied or taught, they just want creationism to be taught as well. If anything, they are not allowing creationism equal opportunity. Are they scared that people may believe in it if they do?
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on May 23, 2007 17:11:41 GMT -5
so.....you are saying creationism isn't a good example of religion blocking scientific progress but that slavery and women's rights are, oh and the re-writing of history in relation to slavery and women's rights.
Please explain how slavery and women's rights have blocked scientific progress. Also, give an example of a slave or a woman, being hindered by religion, was able to progress science by becoming an atheist. Give one name of a slave and a woman for us to research this premise of yours.
|
|
|
Post by kevin on May 23, 2007 17:12:40 GMT -5
LOL. It hasn't done a very good job at blocking it considering that evolution is taught in schools and a lot of grant money has gone to the research in evolution but very little if any has been given to creationism. Sorry, but that example is not valid, try again. Creationism is about as anti-science as you can get. Anyway, I'm not going to go out on a limb and say Christianity and science are somehow total opposites. The slavery thing is a better example. Along with womens rights. Also the rewriting of history. Namely about slavery and womens rights. Where do you get the idea of women's rights being lessened and slavery being encouraged by Christianity? Old Testament writings were not too big on women being equal, I admit, but the OT is not our main emphasis. It is still valid for many points but most need to remember that the Jews were the people of the OT, not the Gentiles.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on May 23, 2007 17:30:45 GMT -5
Motivation is not good enough. Like I've said before, show me evidence that if religion had not been used that the same individuals would not have the same mental instabilities. It is more valid to say that the motivation to hate and hurt is already there and that these people use religion to justify it, not that the religion itself was a motivation. Maybe. Maybe not. I doubt Eric Robert Rudolph would have blown up that abortion clinic and gay bar if not for Christian rhetoric. Same for the WTC bombers. Christianity is a patterning of one's life after Christ. They cannot show that they act in any way like the savior, thus their Christianity is NOT valid. You pattern your life after Jesus? You perform magic, boss people around and claim to be god? Even the Jesus we know from mythology drank, hung out with prostitutes and was celibate. He also wasn't judgmental. Didn't like money lenders etc. You mean things went to hell as in the Romans persecution of Christians? Yes, things were hunky dory for the Romans till those darn Christians came along and spoiled the orgies and what-not. Party-poopers. How dare they assert that their God was the only true God? I guess if you can't beat 'em -- kill 'em. Did you know that when the Christians came to power in Rome they still feed people to the lions? They also did plenty of persecuting. They even persecuted other Christians. Yep. Also the roman orgy thing is a myth. People have orgies today. Polytheists were no more or less sexually immoral than Monotheists. A lot of the history you got in high school and Sunday school is propaganda. Sorta like whenever Christianity is practiced in a Muslim country. I'm glad I live in a secular country. Iran is what we Atheists are trying to avoid by keeping the Christians from getting too powerful. But you've yet to prove that religion is the motivation and not the justification. Many crimes can be covered up in the name of something else. You know, bad childhood, bullied in school, etc. At least you're honest enough to admit religion can be a motivation to do bad things. To be fair I'll admit it can also motivate people to do good things. I believe it has been used to keep the unwashed masses in line for a long time. I will say that smart people have lied to dumb people to make them behave for a long time. Do I have proof? Yes, I always have proof: The Noble Lie: The Lie is necessary, Plato argues, in order to keep a stable social structure. In Plato’s mind, The Noble Lie is a religious lie that’s fed to the masses to keep them under control and happy with their situation in life.
Plato did not believe most people were smart enough to look after their own and society’s best interest. The few smart people of the world needed to lead the rest of the flock, Plato said. And The Noble Lie had to continue.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on May 23, 2007 17:33:26 GMT -5
so.....you are saying creationism isn't a good example of religion blocking scientific progress but that slavery and women's rights are, oh and the re-writing of history in relation to slavery and women's rights. Please explain how slavery and women's rights have blocked scientific progress. Also, give an example of a slave or a woman, being hindered by religion, was able to progress science by becoming an atheist. Give one name of a slave and a woman for us to research this premise of yours. No, no. Slavery and lack of women's rights have nothing to do with science. I was referring to bad things religion brings.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on May 23, 2007 17:41:50 GMT -5
Personally, I'm fascinated by evolution. Not the form that says we all came from a big bowl of slime, but the evolution of species in reaction to their environment. It is awesome. Truthfully, most don't want an abolishment of evolution being studied or taught, they just want creationism to be taught as well. If anything, they are not allowing creationism equal opportunity. Are they scared that people may believe in it if they do? Creationism has nothing to teach. You could teach the various creation myths from around the world and the Cosmological argument and it opposition. It's not science. You could study science 24/7 for the rest of your life and not learn all we know about evolution. I just listened to a lecture series about the origins of life by one of the leading scientists in the field. He said there is no good definition of life. When I said that on this forum everybody jumped all over me. This guy said he thought the terms alive and not alive were too limiting. There should be more terms to describe a little alive to a lot alive. There's speculation that life might have started deep underground and not on the surface in the air and sunshine. Nobody knows. Scientists are making progress and the creationists are just getting in the way.
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on May 23, 2007 17:47:11 GMT -5
kevin, women and men were not created to be equal in all things. We are physically and emotionally different. The very fact that one of the two must bear children is a direct need of these differences. The family unit and the incorporation of societies being another need for differences. Men are "equal" with women on the things that are important but God did not create complete equality between women and men.
I would add in the defense of the Old Testament, that women did have inheritance and property rights....which as far as I know, was an advancement of thought in comparison to contemporaries and in the previous past. There is so much more that can be added to the fact that women were raised to a higher level than previous, due to the revealed religion of God.
As far as the New Testament, women still retained the same level as the Old Testament....other than clarification that they are equal in God's eyes as being heirs with Christ, what was added? I am probably missing something that you can add.
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on May 23, 2007 17:53:39 GMT -5
"There's speculation that life might have started deep underground and not on the surface in the air and sunshine. Nobody knows. Scientists are making progress and the creationists are just getting in the way."
Give an example of how creationists are getting in the way of scientists in their ability to speculate? Do they need our permission? Money? Do we need to hold their hands? Speculate away.....I would say that nothing stops people from specualting about anything.
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on May 23, 2007 17:59:57 GMT -5
so.....you are saying creationism isn't a good example of religion blocking scientific progress but that slavery and women's rights are, oh and the re-writing of history in relation to slavery and women's rights. Please explain how slavery and women's rights have blocked scientific progress. Also, give an example of a slave or a woman, being hindered by religion, was able to progress science by becoming an atheist. Give one name of a slave and a woman for us to research this premise of yours. No, no. Slavery and lack of women's rights have nothing to do with science. I was referring to bad things religion brings. I see, please state what religion started slavery and what religion forced women to be unequal in physical attributes to men? What religion made them the sex that carries and delivers a child? What religion caused a woman to have a learned ability to nurture that is stronger than a man's? What religion causes a man to have specific and empirically proved mental strengths and weaknesses in relation to women? I can go on and on but that should suffice for now.
|
|