Questions You Have Always Pondered On

[Autumnpuma 0]

EDIT - I should explain. To me there is no 'believing' involved in a naturalist view of the world. The 'belief' only goes as far as that required to acknowledge what you can see in front of your eyes. I guess what I'm saying is that there's no 'faith' involved. Just as I can see this computer I'm using and 'believe' it to be there, so to I can acknowledge there is a world around me that works within naturalist, observable and predicatable bounds. His use of the term 'believe' when talking about science seems largely interchangeable with the word 'accept' to me. When talking about religion it seems more akin to 'imagine'. The theists amongst us have every right to think the opposite of course.

Still - an interesting article.

Ironically, the Bible teaches that you will get your tangible proof and that you shouldn't believe it when you do.

[yurp 0]

Same problem again but this and this fits perfectly for me. First this is about quality, second one about quantity.

They are both statements on quality and both depend on personal judgement which is subjective. i.e. A sermon on genesis may be classed as 'honest' by you while I might call it a 'deception'. But anyway - let's move on from that...

No, I don't. Chrisitanity is for the poor, the prosecuted, the weak, the repented...

many serious problems with that line of argument...

i) that is no excuse for committing more crime, being in favour slavery, being against universal suffarage etc etc.

ii) christianity is supposed to preach morality and good? so why do poor christians commit more crimes than non-christian poor people?

iii) christianity is by far the richest religion on the planet - ironic that the adherents remain so poor while many priests live in mansions

iv) yes - prosecuted for the crimes they commit more than others http://www.timesonli...ticle571206.ece but as they study said - they where christian before they committed the crime.

v) the christian religion is extremey powerful and has been for a very long time

vi) perhaps the repenting (in jail)

Perhaps what you mean is that christianity recruits new followers from amongst the poor, weak and prosecuted.

If so - of course they do. Its much easy to dupe those with no money or education. The religions of the world figured that out millenia ago. They all offer false hope to those with none in return for the their adherence. Your support in this life for eternal bliss in heaven when you die. What ill educated, destitute person wouldn't sign up? Especially if the church gives free "education" and free meals like they did all over Africa.

But anyway this still doesn't excuse their higher crime rate.

My hypothesis:

A man kills a mother of 2 sons. The first son (Blueberrymuffin) is a thiest. The second son (Napkinface) is an atheist.

Napkinface thinks - I can't kill my mother's killer because society says it's bad, everyone thinks it's bad, I would be a murderer, I would go to jail.

Blueberrymuffin thinks - I can't kill my mother's killer because society says it's bad, everyone thinks it's bad, I would be a murderer, I would go to jail BUT the bible says 'an eye for an eye', god will forgive me if I repent and I'm a sinner anyway - it's out of my hands.

Blueberrymuffin goes out and kills the guy.

Now - I know you will say that Blueberrymuffin interpreted the bible incorrectly. And you are correct - he did. But you see, his theism allowed him the oportunity to work around societal morality in his own mind. Napkinface never had that option and so couldn't commit murder. His adherance to religion allowed Blueberrymuffin to rationalise an immoral act.

Ergo - religious people commit more crimes and justify immoral acts to themselves.

Ironically, the Bible teaches that you will get your tangible proof and that you shouldn't believe it when you do.

Yep - that is ironic. http://www.conclusiveproofofgod.com/ damn - I was so nearly saved

I want to end with this...

I think it's not only important to asses what is a mistake and what is not but it is also very important to ponder and weigh it through good judgement. Yes, that's what human beings use for that kind of task. It's the same kind of argument we had before and so we can see that good judgement is different for belivers and non-believers on that matter.

Actually I think that is what brings us together. Atheists use our own judgement to decide what is morally sound. Theists use their own judgement to decide what the bible says is morally sound. You are far closer to being an atheist than you think.

Just skip the bible/god/jesus stuff and understand that any decisions or actions are your own - just as they have always been.

[Kate's Dirty Sister 0]

Adamstrags,

Firstly can I say that I find you very disrespectful. You don't have to believe or agree to be respectful of someone's religion. You claim to be not an ignorant person yet your posts are full of ignorant disrespectful language. I don't believe in Islam but I would never dream of disrespecting their beliefs by using the name of their prophet or using their holy book for jokes. What you believe and how you feel is your choice but what you write in open forums should have some boundaries where religion is concerned.

I have no problems with you asking questions and saying you think parts of the bible is wrong etc, that is your opinion. The fact that you had to find a website to show "contradictions" not only shows your lack of imagination but also your personal knowledge. I believe there are no mistakes or contradictions, as the bible is the inerrant word of God. The Bible was written by approximately 40 different authors over a period of around 1500 years. Each writer wrote with a different style, from a different perspective, to a different audience, for a different purpose. We should expect some minor differences. However, a difference is not a contradiction. It is only an error if there is absolutely no conceivable way the verses or passages can be reconciled. There are some differences with translations which is obvious and yes there are some difficulties in the bible that I can not yet explain. No intelligent person would claim to have all the answers to these bibles difficulties, but it is a mistake of a critic to presume therefore that just because something has not been explained, it will never be explained. No scientist gives up just because they can't explain a certain phenomena, there were no answers for why we have earthquakes and volcanoes but the scientists didn't give up and shout "contradiction!"

It's weird that you have chosen to share the Infidel website, as I have recently been reading the so called "contradictions" on that site. Firstly the guy who wrote the contradictions has very very little knowledge of the bible, and the world around him. One of the contradictions is "Snails do not melt" Now you don't have to be clever, you don't have to be religious in anyway shape or form and even school kids know snails indeed melt when in contact with salt. And any slightly educated person who has studied biblical times will also know that snails were used as a dye for the "biblical" purple described in the OT. Now the guy who wrote these contradictions doesn't really seem all that clever now does he? But if you feel some of those "contradiction" have some intelligence and relevance I will gladly try to answer why I think it is not an inconsistency.

You make the mistake on making the bible guilty until proven innocent. What world do you live in? Do you presume all written things are wrong until you prove otherwise? What about road signs? Do you presume it doesn't really mean stop until you crash then you have the evidence that proves it to be correct? Do you presume all written documentations found throughout history as fake nonsense until someone can prove otherwise? I doubt that very much. The bible like all other books should be presumed to be telling us what the author said and heard until you have proof otherwise.

[Kate's Dirty Sister 0]

In addition, not one intelligent person would dispute that humans and dinosaurs co-existed. There are many pictures that show the blatant evidence. If you don't believe me...

(Please don't ruin my dreams of having a dinosaur pet and dinosaur shower)

[Schumikonen 2]

Satan doesn't exist.

Me neither

[Schumikonen 2]

In addition, not one intelligent person would dispute that humans and dinosaurs co-existed. There are many pictures that show the blatant evidence. If you don't believe me...

(Please don't ruin my dreams of having a dinosaur pet and dinosaur shower)

If I remember correctly and I do, becuase I am currently watching the Flintstones, their shower was a Mammoth.

[Max Mosley 2]

Another contradiction!

[Kopite Girl 0]

Now all we need is contradiction man.

Actually. I've been wanting to post on this here for a while but have kept away for a number of reasons.

Whilst I say I'm an open minded person, as far as ANY religion goes, I cannot say I am. Whilst I respect others choices in life, I cannot respect the belief if I do not respect the religion. If I did, that would be contradictory.

But. Another point is the majority of the human race do not choose their religion. It is chosen for them at the moment of birth. Example, born in Saudi, born a muslim.

What happens if a muslim breaks his belief? Call me small minded but they're punished right? For what? Free Will? And before you start thinking free will is the work of Satan. Wrong. If God, Allah, Buddha or whatever deity exists, then free will they will accept is a human trait, not punish a natural instinct.

Every human being possesses free will. It is quite possibly the most powerful of instincts that drive us to who we are. It drives us for the most simplest of things. 'Shall I go in to work or have a lazy day? Ah Sh#t, I'll ring in sick.' It plays a part in love. It gets extremely confusing.

This leaves us to the other side. People also have free will to change religion. For marriage, whatever. I respect that choice, but not the belief.

We are never given a choice of religion when we're born. We start out according to our peers, parents, social circle. I do not respect that.

I cannot. I never will. Not ever.

[yurp 0]

Adamstrags,

Firstly can I say that I find you very disrespectful. You don't have to believe or agree to be respectful of someone's religion. You claim to be not an ignorant person yet your posts are full of ignorant disrespectful language. I don't believe in Islam but I would never dream of disrespecting their beliefs by using the name of their prophet or using their holy book for jokes. What you believe and how you feel is your choice but what you write in open forums should have some boundaries where religion is concerned.

Disrespectful? Ignorant language? Jokes? Where? Yours is the only personal attack in an otherwise interesting discussion. I find that very dissappointing to be honest. It saddens me that you feel I shouldn't say what I believe - would you prefer me to lie about what I think or just self censor? It saddens me also that you have undone a lot of Alehop's hard work - that's not fair to him.

I believe strongly in free speech - mine and yours. You have every right to make your comments.

I would prefer you actually joined the debate about religion using evidence to support your opinions rather than simply calling me 'disrespectful' or 'ignorant' without even offering any examples, but that is your choice to make and I wouldn't dream of telling you what you should or shouldn't write.

Conversely, it appears that you don't support my right to free speech when concerning religion. That's a shame. The pursuit of truth has never been helped by censorship.

I will not use your ad hominem argument as evidence that theists resort to personal defamation when they have no case to make, because that would be unfair to Alehop too. He has made much effort to answer the evidence and statistics I've offered as best he can without resorting to victimhood or name calling of this kind. But do consider this - an ad hominem argument is almost always used by people unwilling to engage in a fair and equal debate.

Alehop's and my own posts have been both combatitive and fair. We respect each other's positions but will continue to question them. I rather think he was enjoying himself as much as me.

If you choose (and it is your choice) to take offence at statistics or the historical record that I am presenting, then I'll say this - I didn't make them up, so don't blame me.

If you have found anything disrespectful in what I've said please quote it and quallify what you are saying.

If you have evidence that supports a counter argument to mine, by all means present it - I won't call you disrespectful for doing so, I will look at your sources and validity of what you say and either accept it or refute it accordingly.

If you simply wish to slander those who you disagree with, then please note that is something that neither Alehop or myself have resorted to.

And lastly - the bold part. Here's the crux of it. Why 'where religion is concerned'? I think forums should have boundaries for every subject. Why do you think religion is a special case? Why do you think discussion of religion should be more controlled than discussion of football? Is that freedom of expression? Or is it repression & censorship?

Think about it. What would Jesus say?

EDIT

Oh yes - and bible contradictions are only a tiny part of what Alehop and I have discussed. I suggest you read the whole debate and join in - I would welcome your opinions on religion and evidence to support those opinions because that is what a respectful member of a fair and open minded forum should do.

[Pucky the Whale 0]

Satan doesn't exist.

Umm...I have proof that he does.

[Kopite Girl 0]

Umm...I have proof that he does.

I think the shirt maker may be dyslexic and was meant to print 'Sat On'

[Kate's Dirty Sister 0]

Exactly.

Also - I suggest you read up on what certain sects of christianity say about Darwin and genesis these days.

Not really, here's one of many arguments from a religious website www.believers.org...So who's wrong? The bible authors, other christians, yourself or god? Someone has to be.

How about I give you a list?

But hang on...So you accept there are some. That's a start.

Oh hang on again...Why? and Why?

Simply saying "they are not contradications", doesn't make them not contradictions.

Listen figure this out for yourself first - either agree that there are contradictions in the bible or disagree and I'll give you a very long list to explain away. Your call.

Many religious leaders preach hate, intollerance and ignorance on various issues. That's what makes religious nutters go out and shoot abortion doctors or gay people.

How about a little look at christian anti-semitism over the past 2000 years or jewish anti-islam preaching or the islamic leaders who promote war on the west? Major religions preach hatred, intollerance and ignorance all the time.

Let's look at the preaching of ignorance... Religions consistently reiterate fictions that they have no evidence for and deny the authenticity of knowledge that aids humanity (including them) in order to perpetuate their own falsification of 'truth'.

I was steering clear of the religious faux pas de jour - it always seems a little unfair to rub noses in religion's latest scandal, but since you brought it up.....

You don't blame the catholic church for the raping of children committed by those people running and belonging to it? How about blaming the pope? After all, instead of excommunicating a priest who was guilty, he simply moved him to another position where he continued. No? Not guilty your honor?

The catholic religion provided these people with the position and the power to rape children. Then, when they knew it was happening, they leaders of that religion covered it up.

Jesus wept!

Now what did you say earlier? - Oh yes, but raping children is okay - we'll just move him to a different church.

Is that not a contradiction either?

I entirely agree here. No one should aim to destroy religions. There is no need. They will crumble on their own. Humanity requires them less and less every year. Eventually we'll collectively and happily grow up and leave behind our childish, superstitious beliefs.

Anyway - I have found myself repeating the same things over and over during these posts - which is always an indication that we've gone as far as we can go on this limited subject.

If you would like to try to offer some proof of the existence of your god we could perhaps shift onto that subject (a particular favourite of mine).

Cheery bye bye.

Back from a very fattening meal. Feeling seriously bloated. Gluttony - I think the bible was right about that one.

Yep - that's all I was after. I chose this particularly harmless example in order for you to be able to accept that the bible contains mistakes and contradictions. Now comes the more important question: How do you go about assessing what is a mistake and what is not? Be careful how you answer this one.

This...

...still doesn't fit with this......but I think you've realised that now, so I won't push it.

This would be very true if the proportion of christians in prison was equal to that in the general population, but it isn't. There are more christians in prison than there would be if law breaking was equally common. i.e. christians break the law in the US more than non-christians. And that's only one of the issues I quoted. Religious people are more often on the wrong side of common morality than the general population in all kinds of ways - don't you find that worrying? I do.

Fair enough.

They're the work of Satan, you're better off not knowing.

Disrespectful? Ignorant language? Jokes? Where? Yours is the only personal attack in an otherwise interesting discussion. I find that very dissappointing to be honest. It saddens me that you feel I shouldn't say what I believe - would you prefer me to lie about what I think or just self censor? It saddens me also that you have undone a lot of Alehop's hard work - that's not fair to him.

I believe strongly in free speech - mine and yours. You have every right to make your comments.

I would prefer you actually joined the debate about religion using evidence to support your opinions rather than simply calling me 'disrespectful' or 'ignorant' without even offering any examples, but that is your choice to make and I wouldn't dream of telling you what you should or shouldn't write.

Conversely, it appears that you don't support my right to free speech when concerning religion. That's a shame. The pursuit of truth has never been helped by censorship.

I will not use your ad hominem argument as evidence that theists resort to personal defamation when they have no case to make, because that would be unfair to Alehop too. He has made much effort to answer the evidence and statistics I've offered as best he can without resorting to victimhood or name calling of this kind. But do consider this - an ad hominem argument is almost always used by people unwilling to engage in a fair and equal debate.

Alehop's and my own posts have been both combatitive and fair. We respect each other's positions but will continue to question them. I rather think he was enjoying himself as much as me.

If you choose (and it is your choice) to take offence at statistics or the historical record that I am presenting, then I'll say this - I didn't make them up, so don't blame me.

If you have found anything disrespectful in what I've said please quote it and quallify what you are saying.

If you have evidence that supports a counter argument to mine, by all means present it - I won't call you disrespectful for doing so, I will look at your sources and validity of what you say and either accept it or refute it accordingly.

If you simply wish to slander those who you disagree with, then please note that is something that neither Alehop or myself have resorted to.

And lastly - the bold part. Here's the crux of it. Why 'where religion is concerned'? I think forums should have boundaries for every subject. Why do you think religion is a special case? Why do you think discussion of religion should be more controlled than discussion of football? Is that freedom of expression? Or is it repression & censorship?

Think about it. What would Jesus say?

EDIT

Oh yes - and bible contradictions are only a tiny part of what Alehop and I have discussed. I suggest you read the whole debate and join in - I would welcome your opinions on religion and evidence to support those opinions because that is what a respectful member of a fair and open minded forum should do.

Firstly read my post, I said and I quote: "I have no problems with you asking questions and saying you think parts of the bible is wrong etc, that is your opinion" Do not twist what I have said to make it like I am trying to stop your point of view or free speech, I am not and have never in any of my posts attacked you personally, said you are wrong, in fact read every one of my posts not once have I said God is real etc in all my posts I have only put I believe...because I know some of my atheist friends would find that bombastic and disrespectful. The things you have said that I have found very disrespectful I have put some of them in bold in the above quotes. I said "You claim to be not an ignorant person yet your posts are full of ignorant disrespectful language" as you have claimed you know the bible more than most Christians so you know more than most people that the things you wrote would be disrespectful. Either you knew you were being disrespectful but did it intentionally or you don't actually know much about the bible at all. If you think you have such a great case, why do you feel the need to mock my religion by using quotes for laughs "Jesus wept" (and that's a quote). There is simply no need for it and I called you on it. If you want to lie and say it's because I want censorship or because I don't want to hear other peoples opinions although that is down right false, you believe that but I have said and I repeat "I have no problems with you asking questions and saying you think parts of the bible is wrong etc, that is your opinion".

And I have read everyone of your posts and although you say I haven't given any evidence or statistics..have you?? You make claims that more Christians have done this...Christians have done that... not once have you actually said in what country, in what year and where you found this information. You say "I would prefer you actually joined the debate about religion using evidence to support your opinions rather than simply calling me 'disrespectful' or 'ignorant' without even offering any examples" yet have given no evidence yourself. You also said "If you choose (and it is your choice) to take offence at statistics or the historical record that I am presenting, then I'll say this - I didn't make them up, so don't blame me." I'd like to know what "statistics and records" you are referring to because I can't find anything other than your opinions and statements not backed up with any documentation foundation at all. And no, stats and records that are truthful would never offend me.

You said "My hypothesis:

A man kills a mother of 2 sons. The first son(Blueberrymuffin) is a thiest. The second son (Napkinface) is an atheist.Napkinface thinks - I can't kill my mother'skiller because society says it's bad, everyone thinks it's bad, I would be amurderer, I would go to jail.

Blueberrymuffin thinks - I can't kill my mother'skiller because society says it's bad, everyone thinks it's bad, I would be amurderer, I would go to jail BUT the bible says 'an eye for an eye', god willforgive me if I repent and I'm a sinner anyway - it's out of my hands.

Blueberrymuffin goes out and kills the guy.

Now - I know you will say that Blueberrymuffininterpreted the bible incorrectly. And you are correct - he did. But you see,his theism allowed him the oportunity to work around societal morality in hisown mind. Napkinface never had that option and so couldn't commit murder. Hisadherance to religion allowed Blueberrymuffin to rationalise an immoral act.

Ergo - religious people commit more crimes andjustify immoral acts to themselves."

As you say you know the bible well you will know Romans 13: 1-7 states, “Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing. Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.” So a Christian acting biblically would not have murdered at all, if you knew the bible you would know that. (Where did you get the name Napkinface from, I seem to remember it in a film, any ideas?)

The laws you state about stoning etc are from the Jewish law, from the Torah/OT. Jesus came to break the law, those laws are not part of Christianity, if you knew the bible you would know that.

You say "bold part. Here's the crux of it. Why 'where religion is concerned'? I think forums should have boundaries for every subject. Why do you think religion is a special case? Why do you think discussion of religion should be more controlled than discussion of football? Is that freedom of expression? Or is it repression & censorship?" I think it is you who is calling victimisation here. And yes I do think religion is a special case because only in religion are there deities and holy people. And I say again it is nothing at all to do with censorship, it is respect for things people consider holy, not one person thinks football is holy no matter how much they claim a hand of God helped Argentina.

And let me also explain why I said this: " The fact that you had to find a website to show "contradictions" not only shows your lack of imagination but also your personal knowledge"

You said: MAT 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

LUK 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli.So who was Joseph's dad (Jacob or Heli) and how does faith lead you to the correct way of reading these two verses so that they are not contradictory? If one is a mistake then what's to say the bible isn't full of mistakes?

If you read the book of Matthew and Luke you would have noticed two things 1) Jesus was the descendant of King David but Joseph was not Jesus's biological father. So the only way Jesus is related to David would be through his mother. 2) The genealogies in Matthew and Luke are 90% different.

If you had found this for yourself, or at least done a little reading beforehand you would have noticed these things and known that the second list of relatives must be the other side of the family, Mary's line, proving Jesus's kingly heritage, therefore no contradiction at all, just lack of knowledge.

You said "The scientificmethod and terminology allows for an inevitable degree of error in everytheory. That's why there is no such thing as a scientific fact. Many peopledon't understand what a scientific theory is either. A theory is as close tofact as a scientific hypothesis ever gets. The theory of gravity is 'only atheory', the germ theory of disease is 'only a theory', evolutionary theory is'only a theory'. Science has found many facts about the world around us, many you'll be glad to here were by Christians. A scientific theory is a theory, a presumed answer to a phenomenon, using observations and experiments. Many theories contradict each other, many are no where near fact and no scientist would ever say so, so why you think "A theory is as close to fact as a scientific hypothesis ever gets" is beyond me. Yet you presume that just because I am a Christian I am foolishly mistaken about science. (quote: Kate - unfortunately you have a common misunderstanding of science (regularly encouraged by evangelical churches wishing to discredit it). But don't feel bad. Its a misconception that many MANY intelligent people have. Some religious people actively encourage ignorance of what the scientific method is and what scientific terminology means. It makes their own argument seem more authentic." ) Why do you presume my knowledge of science had anything to do with the church? I have only ever learned about science from the classroom or from non Christian books and websites, you try to make out that churches "actively encourage ignorance" about science, I have been to many churches over twenty odd years and I have not once experienced that, in fact quite the opposite would be true. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, maybe it does, but not anywhere I know of. I know the church has a great amount of say (or seems to) in the USA but I live in the UK, the church doesn't say much at all.

You said "The ironic thing is that evoltunary theory has saved millions of lives and yet many religious people would have creationism taught in its place in the science classroom" Can you explain this please because I don't know in what way you mean the evolution theory has saved millions of lives. And what part of evolutionary theory are you talking about?

And while I'm writing, for all the bad things people who are Christians have done why not think about all the people who have done good? Why not look at both sides? Why not look at all the people who have ever had an operation, the doctors came up with putting people to sleep because in the bible God put Adam into a deep sleep when he took out his rib to make Eve. Just think, if the world was without the bible, how many people would have died without an operation? All of my family would be dead for a start. There are many Christians who have saved many lives purely because of what it says in the bible. I have a few personal friends who have changed their lives drastically for the better because of the bible, I have many friends who were addicted to drugs, mainly Heroin and some were prostitutes but because the bible says they are precious and not an accident made by millions of years of macro-evolution they have felt a purpose in life. Let's say for arguments sake that there is no God, what harm has the bible done to those people? They have been able to pick themselves up and start living life away from addiction. Yes there are a lot of bad things Christian people have done but you can't forget all the good things Christians have done for mankind.

Can I also say I am very sorry if you think that I meant for you not to have a say, I have not and did not mean that in anyway. I thought my post was very clear actually. I do feel you have been disrespectful, not for any "truths" or opinions but like I said in my original post, the language you have chosen to use.

[Kate's Dirty Sister 0]

If I remember correctly and I do, becuase I am currently watching the Flintstones, their shower was a Mammoth.

A Mammoth is even better! Could use it as a towel too!

[yurp 0]

[EDIT] Sorry - really long post. I wanted show you the respect of answering every point you made in full. Please read it to the end. [/EDIT]

Point 1 - You said my posts are "full of disrespectful language" and "jokes" abut religion yet have given only 2 sentences from 10 or so very long posts as evidence.

First - does that mean that the other 99.9% of my posts were neither disrespectful or religious jokes?

Anyway - let me explain those two...

The first "jesus wept" was not a joke, but a very serious statement. Jesus would indeed have wept had he seen what crimes the catholic priests have used their position in the church to commit. There is no disrespect in that, - only my honest dismay at how the head of the catholic church could be involved in the cover up of paedophilia. If you want to call anyone disrespectful of the christian faith it should be the priests involved. I typed it in all seriousness.

The second - "Back from a very fattening meal. Feeling seriously bloated. Gluttony - I think the bible was right about that one."

Was a light-hearted joke at my own expense. If you find that disrespectful, then might I politely suggest you may be over reacting? If you wish to take offense at that (again, it is your own choice to be offended) then I suspect you'll claim offence at anything I write about religion that you don't like. Nevertheless...

I understand that you don't like that I disagree with you (that is natural) and calling me disrespectful and ignorant is an inevitable defense when you can't/won't provide any actual evidence to contradict my position.

I'll say it again - if you have any evidence that refutes that christians commit more crimes than other people or any of the other arguments I've made then please provide it. I will read it and assess the validity for myself. If you won't provide any evidence or sources, then how do you propose to support your standpoint?

You may deny that calling me disrespectful and ignorant is a personal attack, but what else is it but argumentum ad hominem? I doesn't serve to support religion, it only serves to defame me personally. As I said before - you have every right to think and say that, so I am not claiming victimhood - quite the opposite, in holding my position and speaking out about my beliefs I expect some personal comments to come my way. I would prefer you join the debate rather than make those statements but that's your choice. If anything, it helps my case because I believe an argument based on evidence is far stronger than one based on name calling.

Now how about we return to the actual subject of the debate - not me or my tone, but what Alehop and I were actually arguing. Okay?

Point 2 - Admittedly I have been lazy in providing sources for my evidence.

For that I am sorry - I'll make up for it now - here are a few...

Religion and disproportionate crime rates:

http://www.timesonli...ticle571206.ece (I did give this source above)

http://www.calgaryhe...1632/story.html

http://www.bobkwebsi...inmaterlgn.html

http://www.adherents...adh_prison.html

Christian leaders in the news for being extremely "unchristian":

http://ipsnews.net/n...sp?idnews=50479

http://en.wikipedia....gelist_scandals

http://religion.blog...hes-new-church/

Historical record of religious intollerance:

http://en.wikipedia....ish_Inquisition

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

http://en.wikipedia....of_Christianity

The scientific method:

http://www.sciencebu...ic_method.shtml

Evidence for Evolution rather than genesis:

http://en.wikipedia....School_District

http://anthro.paloma...ve/evolve_3.htm

http://en.wikipedia...._common_descent

http://www.fsteiger.com/theory.html

Plus some excellent and informative, evidence based videos from scientists and naturalists under the following youtube accounts:

Thunderf00t

Potholer54

DonExodus2 (a christian himself)

AndromedasWake

cdk007

Point 3 -

So a Christian acting biblically would not have murdered at all

Sorry - but you have not understood my hypothesis (forgivable) or you are deliberatey misconstruing it (dishonest) - I'll be kind and assume the former.

I said nothing about 'acting biblically'. I even said that Napkinface had misinterpreted the bible.

The bible and what it says (good or bad) is not the point.

A man's belief in things other than the natural, observable world allows him a 'logical' (as he perceives it) route to justifying immoral actions. That path is not open to atheists. We are bound by the norms of societal morality that surround us, according to which a society runs and upon which society is based.

And Napkinface was a made up name. Perhaps you are inclined to look for coincidences or patterns where they don't exist.

On the other hand, having just googled it, I see there's a youtube video with a 'mister napkin face' singing 'I kissed a girl'.

Perhaps you've seen it - perhaps not.

Point 4 -

Yes I do think religion is a special case because only in religion are there deities and holy people. And I say again it is nothing at all to do with censorship, it is respect for things people consider holy, not one person thinks football is holy no matter how much they claim a hand of God helped Argentina.

But I don't believe anything is "holy". Why should your boundaries have any more validity than mine?

If you wish to set boundaries upon your own posts, then I will not tell you where those boundaries should be.

If I wish to set my own boundaries then you should not tell me where those should be either. To do so is exactly what censorship is.

If I claimed the belief that Petrov is holy and I choose to be offended if anyone says he is anything but the best F1 driver ever, should the rest of the community bow to my wishes and be classed as disrespectful if they disagree?

Do you think that because there are more christians than us petrovists you're more entitled to tell others what is permissable? if so - there are more non-christians than christians - so your argument still doesn't stack up.

Which ever way you look at it, you wish to impose your boundaries (derived from your beliefs) upon me. I don't share your beliefs and your wish to restrict my right to free speech in such a way constitutes intollerance (and attempted censorship) of my beliefs. I would not dream of telling you what is permissable for you to say, but yet you assume the right to do so to me.

Don't worry - no apology necessary.

Point 5 -

Science has found many facts about the world around us, many you'll be glad to here were by Christians. A scientific theory is a theory, a presumed answer to a phenomenon, using observations and experiments. Many theories contradict each other, many are no where near fact and no scientist would ever say so, so why you think "A theory is as close to fact as a scientific hypothesis ever gets" is beyond me. Yet you presume that just because I am a Christian I am foolishly mistaken about science.

A scientific fact is not 'found' - it is a verifiable observation.

To be fair - perhaps I should explain my sentence "A theory is as close to fact as a scientific hypothesis ever gets" better...

A scientific fact is a verifiable observation. A hypothesis is an explaination of scientific facts but cannot become a scientific fact itself. At best it can become a 'theory'. Thus when people say 'evolution is just a theory' they do not realise that a scientific theory is as close to [their own concept of] a fact that a hypothesis can obtain.

Those same people will state that 'gravity is a fact' when actually it is also a scientific theory and can never become anything more. They will accept gravity but not evolution which has considerably more verifiable observations to back it up.

There is an unavoidable hypocracy with adopting a selective ideological standpoint against anything - scientific knowledge included.

I recommend you read http://chemistry.abo...a/lawtheory.htm and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory for a proper understanding of the scientific terminolgy verses the layman concept of those same words.

Moving on - was the bold bit deliberately ironic? - kindly provide some evidence of two (or more) currently held theories (not historically disproven ones) that contradict each other AND that scientists are not working on updating or disproving as a result.

That is what science does - it continuously updates itself when new findings throw doubt on an existing hypothesis. It continuously searches for the absolute truth regardless of whether or not that means disproving previously held understandings. Science never claims that a theory is absolute because the scientific method provides continual improvement of theories old and new.

Religions on the other hand deny many verifiable observations that don't fit literal readings of ancient texts. How is that intellectually honest? How does that lead humanity forward towards truth?

Also - a quick word of advice if you want to provide evidence of contradictions in science - be careful not to quote a religious site without checking the facts first, they have a proven and extensive track record in quote-mining, misrepresenting science and using 'scientists' with degrees from their own evangelical 'colleges' to make spurious claims about findings/theories and experiments (case in point - Kent Hovind - a true master of deception).

Many of the 'scientific facts' on religious sites are fraudulant. Many come from the Discovery Institute. You should read about them if you don't think christians lie. Others come from talks by evangelical ministers who have no understanding of real science at all and skew it for their own nefarious purposes. Billy Graham, Ted Haggard, Kent Hovind, Pat Robertson etc etc.

Courts in the US have jailed some of these people for various fraudulant acts, so be careful your evidence doesn't come indirectly from them. Their bogus 'scientific' claims circulate the web like wildfire.

Or stay on the safe side and don't offer any evidence at all. You haven't thus far, why change now.

Point 6 -

you try to make out that churches "actively encourage ignorance" about science

I suggest you check out the above source http://en.wikipedia....School_District... they do.

When people preach the bible as historical fact - they are actively encouraging ignorance. Ignorance of history, geology, biology and physics.

When they deliberatly misrepresent and lie about scientific theory they activey partake in dishonesty and support the increase of ignorance.

When they insist that 'intelligent design' is a valid scientific theory while refusing to submit it for peer review (as any scientific theory must be) they are again attempting to wilfully disrupt the search for truth in favour of retaining ignorance.

Point 7 -

You said "The ironic thing is that evoltunary theory has saved millions of lives and yet many religious people would have creationism taught in its place in the science classroom" Can you explain this please because I don't know in what way you mean the evolution theory has saved millions of lives. And what part of evolutionary theory are you talking about?

Genetics and germ theory are built on / work with evolutionary theory.

Without our understanding of genetics we wouldn't be able to treat many genetic diseases that we can today.

Without germ theory we wouldn't even understand how disease spreads and evolves.

We wouldn't know how to prevent a whole slew of preventable illnesses.

We wouldn't have most of the vaccines we commonly use today.

We wouldn't have any way of developing vaccines for new contagious deseases when they appear.

The list goes on and on and on and on and on.

Everything you might go to the hospital for is understood and treated better with the knowledge that evolutionary theory provides.

This hard-won knowledge depends on scientific research, observable evidence and repeatable experiment. Many religious people would have us deny the resultts of that research because it doesn't fit in with a literal reading of the bible. That again is the encouragement of ignorance.

Point 8 -

the doctors came up with putting people to sleep because in the bible God put Adam into a deep sleep when he took out his rib to make Eve

Huh? Who told you that little gem? What an utterly bizarre claim. First - Evidence please. Second - What has that got to do with anything anyhow? Do you mean we wouldn't have sedation without the bible? Is that seriously your argument for religion? Was the use of one of the most common sedatives used in surgery, for headaches, toothaches, stomach aches etc etc (herion) a result of reading the bible? seriously?

Point 9 - Yes christians have done a lot of good too. I have said that from the start and it would be ignorant of me not to think so. I believe all people do good and bad. I also believe their religion is largely irrelevant in this. Theists and atheists can be nice and they can be arseholes.

But this goes back to a very early point in this discussion. It is hypocritical of religions to claim the good is down to them and the bad is not their responsibility. If religion is not responsible bad things people do in its name, then it shouldn't be praised it for the good either. It is an age old hypocracy of religions around the world.

Secondly - theists commit more crime (per person) than atheists, so I would like to hear an end to the claim that religion teaches morality. I grant you it may well try, but it fails - the facts (see the above sources) support me in this. If you have evidence to the contrary, provide it.

A little bit extra -

As science currently understand it, our morality comes from (strangly enough) self/familial-interest. We increase the chances of our genes (which we share with our relatives) being reproduced in offspring if we are "moral" in our actions. What we call morality is itself a prerequisite and result of evolutionary success. There has been some fascinating research into sociopaths, psychopaths and also observations of various primate groups and human societies that is extending our knowledge in this area.

Religion to me is (as Maure wrote earlier) a natural consequence of and earlier stage in humanity's development. If you look at modern religions compared to ancient beliefs (mesoamerican, egyptian etc) you'll see that already humanity was making a move from more mythical understandings of the universe to the more observable ones. This move to monotheism and the premise of man as a prophet of god was one step along the path that naturally leads us eventually to atheism.

As our knowledge of what is around us continues to inrease, the need for modern religion will subside and the evidence of its inaccuraces will mount. Nature will run its course and religion as we know it will gradually disappear (this has started over the last 100 years or so).

I have never seen/heard/read any verifiable evidence to support the claims that god exists, that anything is holy or spiritual.

I have equally never seen/heard/read any verifiable evidence to support the claims that faries, elves, unicorns or spaghetti monsters exist or that mars is the god of war or that zeus is the source of lightening.

For these reasons I can not bring myself to believe in god, spirituality or holyness any more than I can believe in faries, unicorns, zeus, spaghetti monsters, mars (the god) or elves.

I do not mean to be disrespectful in these comments. They are simply my conclusions based on what I know and I have every right to express them.

[freaky2 1]

Religion to me is (as Maure wrote earlier) a natural consequence of and earlier stage in humanity's development. If you look at modern religions compared to ancient beliefs (mesoamerican, egyptian etc) you'll see that already humanity was making a move from more mythical understandings of the universe to the more observable ones. This move to monotheism and the premise of man as a prophet of god was one step along the path that naturally leads us eventually to atheism.

As our knowledge of what is around us continues to inrease, the need for modern religion will subside and the evidence of its inaccuraces will mount. Nature will run its course and religion as we know it will gradually disappear (this has started over the last 100 years or so).

Oh, but we will create the next thing that will gradually be changed by the next thing, and so on. Religion was doing fine not that many centuries ago, people didn't care. There will still be unexplainable for us things, so even if religion disappeared there would be other equally imaginative explanations (maybe less constricting to people who quite enjoy their free will, free speech and all that).

Well, what would we talk about if it weren't for religion, huh?

[yurp 0]

Oh, but we will create the next thing that will gradually be changed by the next thing, and so on. Religion was doing fine not that many centuries ago, people didn't care. There will still be unexplainable for us things, so even if religion disappeared there would be other equally imaginative explanations (maybe less constricting to people who quite enjoy their free will, free speech and all that).

Well, what would we talk about if it weren't for religion, huh?

Yep - quite right - its a natural process - we'll move from religion onto TV celebrity worship or some such daft idea and that will be the unquestionable calling for millions until the next soothing yet temporary answer to "why are we here?" comes along to mollify the masses.

[Max Mosley 2]

Interesting debate this. But not as interesting as my blog entry about Christianity, which you can read here. Only thing is, since I wrote it a while ago, you have to ignore 124 (I deleted a few) trackbacks about valium.

[Kopite Girl 0]

Adam.

I'm an athiest through and through and I agree with you on the contradictions, etc.

However. As an athiest, I have to ask you. How can you ask for evidence to prove there is a God, when we know full well that christianity and any other religion is based on faith?

[AleHop 0]

Point 7 -

Genetics and germ theory are built on / work with evolutionary theory.

Without our understanding of genetics we wouldn't be able to treat many genetic diseases that we can today.

Without germ theory we wouldn't even understand how disease spreads and evolves.

We wouldn't know how to prevent a whole slew of preventable illnesses.

We wouldn't have most of the vaccines we commonly use today.

We wouldn't have any way of developing vaccines for new contagious deseases when they appear.

The list goes on and on and on and on and on.

Everything you might go to the hospital for is understood and treated better with the knowledge that evolutionary theory provides.

This hard-won knowledge depends on scientific research, observable evidence and repeatable experiment. Many religious people would have us deny the resultts of that research because it doesn't fit in with a literal reading of the bible. That again is the encouragement of ignorance.

1.- Mendel was The Father of Genetics. OMGOMGOMG!!! HE WAS A CHRISTIAN MONK, A PRIEST, AN ABBOTT!!! OMGOMGOMG!!!

2.- Darwin's theory had a few flaws and evolutionists rejected Mendel's laws for more than a century.

That's the problem with prejudiced people no matter what they are; believers or atheists. Now you can praise Christianity for the contribution to the modern evolutionary theory.

[Schumikonen 2]

Had there ever existed a country, group or any other kind of civilization that had not idea of what a god is? I mean a tribe or town or anything like that, than when an outside ask anyone of then about he they worshiped they aks "what is that? what is a god? I would like to know because as far I as know every etnia, town, country, tribe o whatever group of people I've even know they had a god o worshiped something, my point is that teh knowledge of god is within the human being it does matter from what continent or era they are, if Gos doesn't exist there should have been at least one group that had no idea of what is a god.

[Quiet One 15]

1.- Mendel was The Father of Genetics. OMGOMGOMG!!! HE WAS A CHRISTIAN MONK, A PRIEST, AN ABBOTT!!! OMGOMGOMG!!!

2.- Darwin's theory had a few flaws and evolutionists rejected Mendel's laws for more than a century.

That's the problem with prejudiced people no matter what they are; believers or atheists. Now you can praise Christianity for the contribution to the modern evolutionary theory.

Sorry, I don't want to meddle in this debate which I find fascinating for tghe passion and level of detail each one has gone to defend their positions, but I just can't resist posting even a little bit. I promise I will let you guys keep on without any further interruptions.

Just some quick questions (these are not sarcastic):

Exactly how do you think that Mendel being a priest and a christian helped him discover of genetics? Do you think that there is something in Christian beliefs or about being a priest that favors breakthroughs in science? On the other hand, do you think that there are points in dogma that actually discourage trying to reveal the secrets of nature? Yes, maybe you can find a Bible quote that could be interpreted as an impulse to scientific research, but wouldn't you agree that most often than not the Bible was used as a deterrent of scientific research more than an encouragement?

I don't expect a reply, I am merely pointing out some food for thought.

[Autumnpuma 0]

Yep - that is ironic. http://www.conclusiveproofofgod.com/ damn - I was so nearly saved

Very amusing link. It also shows that you have no clue whatsoever about what I was referencing. You're pretty good at quoting snippets of the Bible to suit your arguments, but can you figure out my reference? Strictly as a reading comprehension exercise, mind you. There is no attempt at 'saving' you in this; indeed, I find you occasionally decent but mostly rude and obnoxious..the thought of spending eternity with you isn't appealing. So I'd rather you not be saved. But I would like to see if you can read the Bible you're quoting with a semblance of comprehension.

[AleHop 0]

Sorry, I don't want to meddle in this debate which I find fascinating for tghe passion and level of detail each one has gone to defend their positions, but I just can't resist posting even a little bit. I promise I will let you guys keep on without any further interruptions.

Just some quick questions (these are not sarcastic):

Exactly how do you think that Mendel being a priest and a christian helped him discover of genetics? Do you think that there is something in Christian beliefs or about being a priest that favors breakthroughs in science? On the other hand, do you think that there are points in dogma that actually discourage trying to reveal the secrets of nature? Yes, maybe you can find a Bible quote that could be interpreted as an impulse to scientific research, but wouldn't you agree that most often than not the Bible was used as a deterrent of scientific research more than an encouragement?

I don't expect a reply, I am merely pointing out some food for thought.

If you followed the debate, it is Adams who defends to blame/praise Christianity for the bad/good things Christians do. My comment was sarcastic and just to point out how irrational can be the praise and blame theory Adams seems to love.

[Max Mosley 2]

In Andres's defence, it would take a saint to read some of the posts in this thread from start to finish. That said, just as an aside, I do think religions have promoted learning, including science, oftentimes throughout history. I know very little about history but it seems to me that, for example, monasteries in Europe provided a space for learned people to work in that would likely not have existed otherwise. Many religions have influenced and inspired philosophers and scientists to consider new intellectual problems, or to see an old problem in a fresh light. An example might be early astronomy, which in many cultures was driven by religious interest in the "heavens". Of course, at other times religious dogma has indeed held learning back.

[Quiet One 15]

If you followed the debate, it is Adams who defends to blame/praise Christianity for the bad/good things Christians do. My comment was sarcastic and just to point out how irrational can be the praise and blame theory Adams seems to love.

My mistake I thought you were actually meaning it (besides the obvious sarcastic tone)