The Religion Discussion

[Chimera]

Huh? Habit wanna talk about reality? Brb gotta Skype the imaginary man in the sky

[meccalli]

Yup the imaginary gawd that you think is real is supposed to be all knowing, therefore there is no need for prayers, if he requires you to pray, then he is not all knowing

You seem to lack understanding of the concept of wants vs needs as well as how communication establishes a good relationship and allows you to understand someone better. This is the sorry extent of your arguments, do you know what prayer is?

You ASSume that folks who do not believe in gawd, believes in evolution and spontaneous generation . There are many types of theory, religious and scientific to name two

So you don't believe in evolution right? Did you know those guys belief is based on 7 assumptions? The tenets of the faith if you will. The first 2 being Life arose from nonliving matter and
Spontaneous generation only occurred once. Ridiculous huh even after science disproved it.

There you go again ASSuming stuff, seems to be a christian flaw.

Seems more so an atheistic trait.

Another ASSumption, we dont hate gawd, we hate when folks assume that everyone should believe in thier imaginary bunny rabbit... edit GAwd.

Actions speak louder than words, atheists go out of their way and make it their business to discourage people from serving God.
Assumptions, you need the other 5 for darwinism which remain unproven?

Faith could be for good or for bad.

Religion is capable of driving people to such dangerous folly that faith seems to me to qualify as a kind of mental illness.
Richard Dawkins

Without a villain, a hero is nothing

Heroes? Those guys who go out in blaze of glory and have big funerals? Idk where you're at, but this about God.

As for everything else. You think if all knowledge of science disappeared in a second that people would search out God. I think they would have a problem just learning how to survive considering how entwined science is into every facet of life.

Would you be up for a challenge. How long I can go without anything that is a product of your religion (or any other religion that you feel is 100% correct) vs. How long you can go without anything that is a product of science

Yes, the state of man is deplorable, they have lost the skills and senses required to live. I'll tell you the same thing I told my hist lect, I'd rather live in a pre discovery neo tropical period. God has provided man with all his senses and intelligence to rule over nature and live luxuriously and without contention before the advent of modern science. There are thousands who continue to do so even now.

[Habit7]

Huh? Habit wanna talk about reality? Brb gotta Skype the imaginary man in the sky

Cool.

Could you ask him when next he is going have an infinitesimal nothing, explode into a next universe? I have plans for Tuesday and I will hate to cancel.

[Chimera]

He said he has to kill a few thousand children as well as send a couple earthquakes our way so hes busy for the next few months.

He also said he has to choose one miracle child to save while he kills the other thousands so his sheep will continue believing in him.

[Slartibartfast]

The first second of our challenge I choke you with my bare hands.

I win.

Wow, so you must resort to committing a mortal sin and assume that I won't fight back in order to win? It's funny that just like ISIS you resort to killing as soon you are challenged. This is precisely why religion is bad.

Also, excellent side step as always. Absolutely no response to the points that I raised.

Nevertheless your premise is a nonsense. Modern science is a direct out working of religion so there is no need to pit them against each other as they all play a factor of life as we know it.

Religion only plays a significant part in the lives of mad men or persons that are affected by them. And again, science disproves religion (yours especially) so there are incompatible and will always be pit against each other.

Can you illustrate how religion is essential for modern science (i.e. prove that without religion it would be impossible for modern science to exist).

Let's come out of the "what if" scenario and talk about reality apart from what you think it might be.

If you want to argue about the importance of God and your religion you must show that he is essential to us. Eg. If there was no oxygen we would die, therefore we know we must ensure that we are always in an oxygen rich environment. Now complete the following using the same format

If there was no religion/God there would be no _________ and the consequence would be ____. Therefore we must always ensure that religion and belief in God are present.

[Habit7]

He said he has to kill a few thousand children as well as send a couple earthquakes our way so hes busy for the next few months.

He also said he has to choose one miracle child to save while he kills the other thousands so his sheep will continue believing in him.

You say killing children and earthquakes like if it is an objectively bad thing, only bible thumpers believe in objectively bad things. Children dying and earthquakes are random acts without cause or reason according to your imaginary position.

Are you borrowing from a Christian worldview to disprove it?

[Habit7]

The first second of our challenge I choke you with my bare hands.

I win.

Wow, so you must resort to committing a mortal sin and assume that I won't fight back in order to win?

Mortal sin?

I thought all religion was gone? You accusing me of violating Roman Catholic theology?

If there is no religion, I kill you, I win.

[Slartibartfast]

He said he has to kill a few thousand children as well as send a couple earthquakes our way so hes busy for the next few months.

He also said he has to choose one miracle child to save while he kills the other thousands so his sheep will continue believing in him.

You say killing children and earthquakes like if it is an objectively bad thing, only bible thumpers believe in objectively bad things. Children dying and earthquakes are random acts without cause or reason according to your imaginary position.

Are you borrowing from a Christian worldview to disprove it?

Harmful/ injury/ death = Bad for whatever is being harmed/ injured or dead if it was not previously in a harmed/injured/dead state before

[Slartibartfast]

The first second of our challenge I choke you with my bare hands.

I win.

Wow, so you must resort to committing a mortal sin and assume that I won't fight back in order to win?

Mortal sin?

I thought all religion was gone? I said I live without religion and you live without science

You accusing me of violating Roman Catholic theology?Sorry I mistakenly thought that you believed killing was wrong. I see now that your imaginary beliefs are all you have and you are incapable of reasoning for yourself


If there is no religion, I kill you, I win.Ok ISIS. I see there is clearly no reasoning with you either. Thank you for proving my point.

[Habit7]

Would you be up for a challenge. How long I can go without anything that is a product of your religion (or any other religion that you feel is 100% correct) vs. How long you can go without anything that is a product of science

This is what you said.

Hypothetically, I accept that challenge and I kill you. You can't accuse me of violating my religion, my religious beliefs shouldn't affect you...plus you will be dead and can't accuse me anyway.

So I kill you, I win.

[Daran]

Habit7,

Given the voluminous pages of debate you have contributed (that I cannot feasibly reread), I'd just like to know a few brief things on your stance, if you don't mind.

1. Your religious belief?
2. Does evolution/big bang/science directly contradict something you believe in?
3. Why choose a religion? and your religion?
4. How do you view fundamentalists of any religion (use yours for example).

Any other religious person can answer as well, Habit7 just tends to be the dominant once adding to constructive debates here though.

[Slartibartfast]

Would you be up for a challenge. How long I can go without anything that is a product of your religion (or any other religion that you feel is 100% correct) vs. How long you can go without anything that is a product of science

This is what you said.

Hypothetically, I accept that challenge and I kill you. You can't accuse me of violating my religion, my religious beliefs shouldn't affect you...plus you will be dead and can't accuse me anyway.

So I kill you, I win.

OK ISIS, you win (assuming I can't defend myself against a simple choke attack). I guess a neutral official (as is present in most challenges/ competitions) is not something you are familiar with. Oh wait, you can kill him to.

I am still allowed to use products of science and nothing happens to your religious practices or beliefs. It is a challenge to see which is more essential to our lives. Is this what you do anytime your religion is challenged? Kill the challenger to immediately end the challenge?

Daran, you may want to make sure and specify that you want him to state the exact sect that his religion is as well as there are many sects of Christianity, a lot of which do not share his exact beliefs.

[Habit7]

Somehow I think our follow up won't be brief.

1. Christianity 2. Science very much agrees with my belief. The theories of evolution and big bang doesn't. 3. Because one wants a true theology. 4. Some religious fundamentalists are good some are bad, my fundamentalist is Jesus, he is who I emulate.

Let's see how brief we can keep this.

[Daran]

Nice and brief thanks. We can move on now.

What troubles me a lot is that you're use religion to influence your belief in science when science is not something that requires belief. If you oppose a theory I expect you'd have an alternative or at least a scientific reason for opposing it's claim. Not a bias (e.g. world is supposed to be 6000 years old and I will pick and manipulate evidence to prove that), which isn't science.

I'm one of the few rare people who grew up in a home of agnostics, but was exposed to religion outside of my family via grandparents (one set christian, the other muslim) and in school. From my view early on, I saw all religions being the same (as in worshipping a God) but just did so differently out of cultural background.

To choose one and reject the other seems hypocritical of any religious person.

Are you one who takes the bible as the infallible word of God? If so why? And why not any other religious text?

[meccalli]

And again, science disproves religion (yours especially) so there are incompatible and will always be pit against each other.

Can you illustrate how religion is essential for modern science (i.e. prove that without religion it would be impossible for modern science to exist).

What you are stating is impossible for science to do, it's an immensely ignorant statement that denigrates everything about the genuine mission to find life's mysteries. I'll ignore your use of 'religion' here, the issue is God. You're saying a construct of natural philosophy has disproved a concept that transcends the natural world. It's pointless to continue if you believe this.
You're trying to see Antarctica with a pair of binoculars from the equator and saying it doesn't exist. I imagine you've tried to prove God with science given your conviction?

The question really is can science exist without God- that's an obvious no when you look at concept of life itself and the natural world which science is based upon.

[Habit7]

I am still allowed to use products of science and nothing happens to your religious practices or beliefs. It is a challenge to see which is more essential to our lives. Is this what you do anytime your religion is challenged? Kill the challenger to immediately end the challenge?

It is funny to hear you appeal to my religious morality of murder and justice to plead your case that religion is useless to you.

The day you win that challenge I will publicly admit that religion has more to offer than science and that it should be the guiding authority on the quest for the absolute truth no matter what it may be. I'll also convert to what ever it is you call yourself including all the formalities like white shirt, black pants and matching umbrella as well as all Sunday meetups for finger foods and shots.

OK ISIS, you win

PM me your number. And make sure you get a restful Saturday night sleep.

[Daran]

meccalli,

If there is a God that you allude too, he certainly isn't anything similar to the weak and stupid fairly tales of religion that exist today.

Science can and possibly will explain everything. To think less would leave room for the supernatural which clearly does not exist.

Your question of ' Can science exist without God?' makes no sense as it asserts we need God for everything. Why? What does that add?

[Slartibartfast]

And again, science disproves religion (yours especially) so there are incompatible and will always be pit against each other.

Can you illustrate how religion is essential for modern science (i.e. prove that without religion it would be impossible for modern science to exist).

What you are stating is impossible for science to do...

Sorry, slight slip of the tongue. What I meant was that current scientific theories disagree with some religious beliefs in some very important areas... so they are incompatible and will always be pit together.

Also... I thought immutable meant unable to be muted

Now that we have my mistakes out of the way, how about addressing one of the many points I raised without wanting to kill me.

P.S. I can't see youtube videos in work so a brief synopsis will help.

The question really is can science exist without God- that's an obvious no when you look at concept of life itself and the natural world which science is based upon.

Yes nothing in the world would not exist without God if we assume that he created everything in the world. This conversation will ultimately lead down the road of

"Why did God create the world and all of us in it and what exactly are his powers in this world. Also, what is his end game and why?"

[Slartibartfast]

It is funny to hear you appeal to my religious morality of murder and justice to plead your case that religion is useless to you. Huh?..... I showed your lack of personal morality to show how similar you are to other extremist fundamental groups... like ISIS. If I wanted to argue that religion is useless to me I would just let a camera follow me around whole day and send you the video.

The day you win that challenge I will publicly admit that religion has more to offer than science and that it should be the guiding authority on the quest for the absolute truth no matter what it may be. I'll also convert to what ever it is you call yourself including all the formalities like white shirt, black pants and matching umbrella as well as all Sunday meetups for finger foods and shots.

OK ISIS, you win

PM me your number. And make sure you get a restful Saturday night sleep.

PM sent. I guess we could start this on a Saturday as being dead is as restful a sleep as I can get.

[meccalli]

If there is a God that you allude too, he certainly isn't anything similar to the weak and stupid fairly tales of religion that exist today.

Here's an atheist explaining to me what God's nature is like.

Science can and possibly will explain everything.

Do you understand anything I write?

Your question of ' Can science exist without God?' makes no sense as it asserts we need God for everything. Why? What does that add?

Everything. God creates life.
"You alone are the LORD You have made the heavens, The heaven of heavens with all their host, The earth and all that is on it, The seas and all that is in them You give life to all of them And the heavenly host bows down before You.

Sorry, slight slip of the tongue

Suuurre.

P.S. I can't see youtube videos in work so a brief synopsis will help.

You'll enjoy it better on the tube, Susskind is the guy who refuted Hawking.

"Why did God create the world and all of us in it and what exactly are his powers in this world. Also, what is his end game and why?"

Who knows except him? It must be pretty important to not scrap the board and allow his beloved to suffer at the hands of evil men, so that he could redeem us through love.

[Slartibartfast]

Mec maybe you should just it this one out

[Habit7]

Nice and brief thanks. We can move on now.

What troubles me a lot is that you're use religion to influence your belief in science when science is not something that requires belief. If you oppose a theory I expect you'd have an alternative or at least a scientific reason for opposing it's claim. Not a bias (e.g. world is supposed to be 6000 years old and I will pick and manipulate evidence to prove that), which isn't science.

I'm one of the few rare people who grew up in a home of agnostics, but was exposed to religion outside of my family via grandparents (one set christian, the other muslim) and in school. From my view early on, I saw all religions being the same (as in worshipping a God) but just did so differently out of cultural background.

To choose one and reject the other seems hypocritical of any religious person.

Are you one who takes the bible as the infallible word of God? If so why? And why not any other religious text?

If I oppose a theory based on scientific analysis of its claims, I don't have to put forward an alternative (although I already have in the voluminous pages you don't want to read). That theory shouldn't stand or fall on my alternative suggestion, it should be on the true it claims.

It is not hypocritical to reject other religious claims. All religions are not the same. They all have opposing claims. For those who claim to say they hold all together are either lying or ignorant of the said claims.

[Daran]

meccalli,

All I was saying that if there is a God, it certainly isn't any of the God's described by man. Maybe you don't see it that way, but tell what you do? Who is this God you believe in?

I haven't read most of what you wrote, but as a scientist myself, I see that the universe follows laws, physics, quantum physics, biology, chemistry. We've uncovered a lot in the last few centuries, Mathematics is scary and beautiful at the same time in how it explains observed nature.

Where we're lacking is in our models for things that are hard to observe (big bang, abiogenesis, evolution, plate tectonics (part of my research area). However, that is an ongoing process of updating, validating with our observances, etc etc. It's amazing when you do a literature review on a topic to see how it evolved from 100 years ago to now.

That said, i do believe we can and eventually be able to explain mostly everything (the limit I'd say may be on why we exist and why the universe is the way it is), but things like life, consciousness (AI is around the corner), evolution and big bang will be resolved by scientific review.

Would you mind answering the same questions I asked Habit7?

1. Your religious belief (and sect)?
2. Does evolution/big bang/science directly contradict something you believe in?
3. Why choose a religion? and your religion?
4. How do you view fundamentalists of any religion (use yours for example).

[Daran]

Habit7,

Then how do you know which religion is right?

How science works is that if there were an valid scientific claims to disprove a theory, it would have happened already. The debates on evolution and big bang are not debating that it happened, but how it happened.

Yet you choose to reject solid scientific evidence for both BECAUSE they interfere with what you believe. That isn't right, and to promote such a stance is dishonest.

[Habit7]

Habit7,

Then how do you know which religion is right?

How science works is that if there were an valid scientific claims to disprove a theory, it would have happened already. The debates on evolution and big bang are not debating that it happened, but how it happened.

Yet you choose to reject solid scientific evidence for both BECAUSE they interfere with what you believe. That isn't right, and to promote such a stance is dishonest.

I know which religion is right by investigating the truth claims of each.

There are claims to disprove evolution, but it is documented proof that academics who even question evolution fall out of favour with the scientific community because of bias. I have stated my reasons why I disagree with evolution, either they are wrong or right, not a matter for consensus. BTW if you stating how something happen...inherent in that is that it happened.

I am disagreeing with a scientific theory (an explanation of correlation of scientific evidence) not scientific evidence (empirical observation).

[Daran]

then there's a lot you don't understand about science. This is the miseducation we need to address in society.

1. Firstly, there is absolutely zero proof of any religion. Can you show me yours? Why would a God even make it so vague and hard to find the right one in the first place? It seems quite unnecessary.

2. Please show me your claims to disprove evolution. The scientific world doesn't operate like that. There is no 'community' trying to support a claim. Reputations and academic fame are gold in this industry, thus anyone who could have proven evolution wrong (and propose a better alternative) would be famous.

3. So what if it happened? That doesn't negate anything. Unraveling the mystery of how it happened and why it happened is how science investigates and builds theories and knowledge.

4. But there is evidence of big bang and evolution? What are you disagreeing with exactly, scientific theory? Which is essentially a vast body knowledge/research supporting a specific field. How does one disagree with that?

Science is independent of religion......for peace they shouldn't ever intermingle and everyone's belief's be just that, your private belief system that is none of my business unless you try to corrupt/influence something wrongly.

[Habit7]

This isn't getting brief. I would just copy my prior posts discussing these same points but I am limited to my phone. Or you can search it yourself and quote me.

[nareshseep]

Meccalli has an imaginary friend who he has a personal relationship with.
Btw I do not believe in evolution. We were dropped on earth by aliens from the.planet xenu.
Atheist are aware that they do not know everything. Theist on the other hand think they
know everything and everything can be cherry picked from their holy scriptures.

No one can prove that "gawd" exists to a atheist. And no one can prove that "gawd" does not exist to an theist.

For argument sake if there was evidence that that there is absolutely no gawd.
Would you still believe in gawd?

[Daran]

Habit7, no worries i know this is just a regurgitation of previous debate.

Honestly, I don't care what people believe, just don't tell us science is wrong because it contradicts your beliefs.

Just out of major debates with Christians who are saying God caused the earthquake in Nepal because (a) they're idol worshipers (b) allow gay couples to use them for child adoption via surrogacy (c) they had a buffalo killing sacrifice last year.

[MG Man]

I know which religion is right by investigating the truth claims of each..

so you've investigated islam, hinduism, bhuddism etc extensively then?