Atheists would not die for Atheism, are there any positives in religion?

who?

Who? Who, is a word reserved for creatures who's feet fit on a limb. How do I know? I feel reasonably sure plenty of people have been killed because they had no religious beliefs. So I guess you could say they died for atheism, I feel that it does not matter what you die for, once you are dead you stay that way for a long time. When I was young There is nothing I can think of that I would have died for. Now that I am ancient and everything takes its turn at hurting, dying does not seem like such a bad idea.

1 moral atheist destroys the argument of "no moral base" for atheist.

yea sure, newtons time is different.. plus, its not a positive or negative that newton did what he did, it had nothing to do with Christianity.. he even attacked the churches way of thinking..

LOL MOTHER TERESA there are some baaaaaaaaaad things about her, she believed that everyone had to suffer to be in the eyes of god, she did not help anyone but the church raise money for more of her hospitals of pain and anguish... please check up on that

oyea, do you know how many people died for Buddhism??
YES Buddhism!! lol

Does it? Do you understand what a moral basis is? It means a fundamental reason for one's moral actions. Suppose we have a moral atheist, who speaks against animal cruelty. Then we have an atheist psycho who derives sadistic pleasure from torturing animals. Both are consistent atheists, since atheism does not have any doctrine about animal cruelty in the first place. Were the psycho to claim that he was a Christian, however, there would be an inconsistency.

Right. When Isaac Newton says that he's a Christian, surely it has nothing to do with his scientific advancements. Yet when Hitler says that he's a Christian (I still remember this from your debate with headhunter) it was obviously the motivation for the Holocaust. Do you not see a problem with this? He was unorthodox in some aspects of his belief, but he "regarded religion and science as interrelated". See here: http://www.adherents.com/...

Sources please. In the meantime, I leave you with this: http://nobelprize.org/nob...
I don't see anything about hospitals of anguish.

You missed the point. I didn't say no one has died for Buddhism, I said that it does not command its followers to kill others for its sake.

your moral for the sake of being moral and good to others, your not moral to go to heaven or hell, or to please a god.

different situation.

religion was used as a justification for murder.. whether its killing jews, killing pagans, killing atheists or killing so called "witches"

religion is not used for a justification for science.

thats true, but judeao christian religions tell you to..

the mother tereesa being an evil dooer thing is well known, i dont need to justify any sources for that.. it should be common knowledge.. although it is not spread because it will give the people at the nobel peace prize look bad..just google it

But then why is it good to be kind to others? Why is it wrong to hurt others? And in Christianity one does not earn salvation by works.

Okay. How did Hitler's supposed Christianity motivate the Holocaust? Never mind that anti-Semitism is clearly un-Christian, since Jesus himself was a Jew. Never mind the Christians who risked their lives to protect Jews. Do you not see a problem with this?

"Religion is not used as a justification for science"? Read the site. Newton regarded religion and science as interrelated and that science was the "handmaiden" of religion.

Which parts of the Bible specifically?

"Google it"? How do you think I found the Nobel Prize page in the first place? Further Google searches turn up Wikipedia, which places Mother Teresa's supposed evils under "some negative attention in the Western media". Among those, there is Christopher Hitchens, a self-described "antitheist", and the Guardian newspaper, known for its strong anticreationist stance, among other things. Another site that turns up is CNN here: http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9709/mother.teresa/
Am I going to trust CNN and the Nobel Prize site (note that they are not particularly Christian-friendly) or Christopher Hitchens and Guardian? It's so hard to choose.

I thought we already discussed the importance of giving sources. I found all these sites by Googling and obviously none of them are your source. Now, sources please.

good question..
"why is it "good" to be good? and why is it "bad" to be bad?"
do you know the answer to this? because i will need to think about it.

simply a case of "my god is better than your god"

newton attacked the church for so many issues.. so clearly his definition of religion is different from ours.. he is talking about spirituality, just as Einstein did.

old test.

if you go to a basic info site, like wiki, and search her name, and go to "criticisms" you will understand where i am coming from. im not sure if spreading christian suffering hospitals is such a good thing.

To us, there is a distinction between good and bad because God has given us those rules.

Proof please. Especially since I noted that anti-Semitism is thoroughly un-Christian.

Read the site. Certainly it thinks that he can be considered a Christian, though unorthodox, and unlike Einstein, he believed in a personal God.

You could be a little more specific. But there is this: http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qamorite.html
It is specifically about the Canaanites, and the point is that the Israelites were being used as an instrument of judgement on nations that conducted practices that are considered detestable even today, such as child sacrifice.

I already looked up Wikipedia, and I think I already stated why I do not particularly trust the criticisms. It is also one thing to state that perhaps the hospitals were somewhat substandard, and another to say that since Mother Teresa supposedly thought that everyone had to suffer to be in the eyes of God, she purposely made sure that the hospitals were as terrible as possible.

i dont understand, people disagree on what the bible says, its wayyyy to abstract.. even if i was to agree that god is the one that gives us moral rules, the fact is, he doesnt! because in my eyes, the bible could agree with abortion.. this argument for morality is soooo illogical the way your putting it.
i ask you again, why is it "good" to be "good? and vice versa?

agreements were signed between the americans and germans to not bomb churches

are you still a christian if you disagree with what the bible says?
christian= following the words of christ
words of christ= bible
christian= following the bible
so its not christian to disagree with the bible

does that make it "right"?

again, does that make it right? what is the point of going to people who are sufforing, and making them suffor in a hospital that does not do anything for them... its completly pointless, all the money was just used for converting ppl to christianity.

What's so abstract about it? So if people disagree on what the Bible says, it is automatically invalid? If two people disagree on what your post says, is it automatically invalid? How did God not give us moral rules? Aren't the Ten Commandments moral rules? And how would you use the Bible to support abortion?

And I have already given you my answer. Now it's your turn. Why is it "good" to be good? Why is it "bad" to be bad?

What does this have to do with anything? It means that they were supposed to respect the sanctity of the churches. It does not show that Hitler exterminated the Jews because he was a Christian. Now, proof please.

I admit I am not well-versed in the importance of orthodoxy. But again, the people who wrote the page consider him a Christian, and even if you don't, note that he still considered religion and science to be interrelated.

If there was a modern nation that endorsed child sacrifice and invaded other nations without provocation, what do you think should be done? And if you don't know what makes moral actions "right", how do you judge it to be "wrong"?

'Substandard' does not equal 'nothing was done'. Again, the Nobel Prize organisation and CNN seem to think something was done. Besides, I have already stated why I do not trust the criticisms.

k.. your saying good is good and bad is bad because of god?
im saying, people have disagreements on what god says, so we cannot trust morality to something as abstract as god.
i mean, if we were to look at this logically, your saying something that doesn't exist is giving us laws and morals, which is again, saying that morals do not exist.
even the 10 commandments are abstract and contradictory to what is said in the rest of the bible.

so, if god doesnt give us morals, what does?
we do.
society is what is placing these rules, through traditions, culture and history. i mean, the code of hammourabi was made by hammourabi and its older than gods 10 commandments.. (unless you think the world is 6k years old lol).
so your answer is not really an answer..
im not sure what mine is, yet.. well i am, but i gota think how to word it.

hitler did not do it cuz he was christian, but he used Christianity to move the masses. Christianity justified the killing of thousands of people..then millions.
i mean, really, what other way can you move the masses other than religion??

again, just as you think he was christian, i think he was talking about religion as in "spirituality"... not rituals, institutions and money making.

jesus himself said "turn the cheek"...
2 wrongs never make a right.

btw, religion in those times WAS INDEED spirituality.

Again, so if people disagree on the Bible, it becomes invalid? If people disagree on your post, does that make it invalid? Here, you are assuming "a priori" (I can't put italics) that God existing is automatically illogical. I'm quite inclined to believe what headhunter said at this point about your reason for rejecting religion. And again, what is so abstract about the Ten Commandments? If you say there is a contradiction, it would be well to provide examples. Also notice that you said you could use the Bible to support abortion, yet you haven't answered me on how you would do this.

Now we have something to work with. You say, society gives us morals - but whose society? The Nazi society? Stalin's elite? Why do we not use THEIR moral standard?

So Hitler was not a Christian but used it to justify the Holocaust? I confess I have not heard about this. Even if we grant that this was the case, this does not show anything about Christianity. We can take Stalin - I know you said that his killings were because of communism - but if I were Stalin, my train of thought would be something like "Since there is no God, and we all evolved from pond scum, why should I be bothered by killing people who will ruin my communist vision? It's no different from mowing a lawn." This would be using atheism to justify killing the people who disagreed with him.

Since when is Christianity about "rituals, institutions and money making"? People have made it that way lately, but the fact is, it is not - it is about how Jesus died on the cross for us.

Jesus' command to "turn the other cheek" was about personal offenses. Governments have a duty to protect their people. I suppose if you were the governor of a small nation neighbouring our evil nation, you would just "turn the other cheek" while they ransack your cities and kill your men, women and children? "2 wrongs never make a right" - maybe, since you have discussed where morals come from, you can say WHY it is wrong. And you haven't actually answered my question, so I repeat: If there was a modern nation that endorsed child sacrifice and invaded other nations without provocation, what would you do?

I notice that we have dropped Mother Teresa.

"Now we have something to work with. You say, society gives us morals - but whose society? The Nazi society? Stalin's elite? Why do we not use THEIR moral standard?"
- ask the same question for religion, THAT is my point. religion is just as abstract as society.

first of all, there is nothing in communism about killing people who disagree with you.
second, we can still have evolution and have morals.
some people are strictly not moral, but the thing is, hitler was using religion as a justification, just as they did when persecuting the jews, crusades etc.
- religion justifies immorality.

lately? umm, have you heard about the great schism?
the FACT is, its all about power.

oh, so what jesus said is not absolute? is this logical? it seems that i am more "christian" than you.

hmm, well, as a start, i would find out why the country is doing this, because nobody would waste resources for that for no particular reason.

you agreed about the hospitals mother Teresa did make those hospitals, so i guess it was over, and we found out that she was immoral.

oops
**you agreed that the hospitals mother Teresa built were immoral, so i guess it was over, and we found out that she was immoral.

You might begin by showing HOW religion is abstract. So society's morals are abstract - then how do you know Hitler was wrong?

Where did I say there was anything like that in communism? Stalin wanted to see communism work, and he thought he could do that by purging those who did not agree with it. And there was no need to feel bothered - if they all evolved, they were no higher than the grass on his lawn, to be mowed as he wished. And where did I say evolutionists can't be moral? The point is, they have no basis for their moral actions.

That's exactly the point - PEOPLE use religion to justify wrongdoing. The religion's tenets may even speak specifically against that wrongdoing. If you wrote a children's book, and people somehow used it to justify killing others, does that mean your book is evil?

Proof would be nice.

That is outside the scope of the question. Nevertheless, say they were doing it just for fun, perhaps earn a side income by looting your cities. And while you were busy figuring this out, more people died. Now what?

I agreed that the hospitals were immoral? Quote please. I said 'perhaps' they were substandard. And substandard does not equal immoral. By this logic, hospitals in the 1900's were immoral because they were substandard by our standards.

About Jesus' commands not being absolute - I suppose if by absolute, you mean taking the passage out of context and then blindly applying it to every aspect of one's life, then no, it is not absolute. Having a moral absolute means that there is an absolute right and wrong.

Hitler was wrong because people suffered. not because god says so.

some people dont need rewards to be moral.

there are references to the bible, people are swayed by that, they dont just give in cuz someone says so. the bible is seen in many different ways by many people. some think adam and eve are real, others think they are a representation of something. the point is, it does not matter if people used the bible to justify something, the bible justified it, so the bible justified it.

wait, you dont know what the great schism is? really?

i would threaten the country, tell them to back out.
(im assuming im powerful) I would say what they are doing is illegal to international law. I would sanction their country and finally, if they still dont move out, move in my forces.
too bad this isnt happening in Darfur.

those hospitals were ignorant. they did not know that they needed to clean their hands, etc etc.. there is no need to blame them.
but in the 20th century, when you have money to buy supplies for hospitals and instead fund missionary work, that is immoral.

if jesus was god, and god is always right, and everything he says is true, then that line must be true, always. otherwise, there is no moral absolute, no absolute truth, no god.
so either jesus wasnt god, and there is no god, or what he said was true, always.

From now on, you can pretend I'm Hitler as far as this argument is concerned. "Why is it wrong for people to suffer? I am doing it in the name of a greater good, to advance the emergence of the master race."

No. But then why are they being moral? For its own sake? How do they know it is good to be moral?

Maybe. But they would be swayed if they didn't know what the Bible said and someone with authority told them it said something it didn't. If there are people who do not know how to read the Bible and look to me for advice on what it says, I can quite easily tell them that the Bible tells us that we must dance with chickens to be saved. Most likely they would all go out and dance with chickens, but this has no bearing on what the Bible said. Now show where the Bible justified something that you deem to be wrong. (I say 'deem to be' because you have been wonderfully vague on the Bible's justifications of wrongdoing, and anyway how do you know what is 'wrong'?)

I'm not asking for proof of the Great Schism. I'm asking for proof that religion is solely about power. If there is a God, this would be wrong.

Good. The first thing, though, is that it should be obvious that a nation that raids and pillages just for fun would ignore sanctions and international law. After this, you move in your forces. To what extent? Are you seeking simply to drive them out of your country, or will you go on the offensive?

Again, the Nobel Prize organisation and CNN think something was done to help the poor. There was undeniably a missionary job on the side - it is important to give the patients the will to live. But you must show that this actually overshadowed the main purpose of the hospitals and directly caused them to be substandard.

Did you read my second post? Having a moral absolute means that right and wrong are absolute. It does not mean that there aren't different commands for different situations.

suffering is bad cuz= pain= hard to live= living is good because we are afraid of death, death is bad= death is bad because we dont know what death is= we donr know what death is because we dont have the logical capability to know what death is.

same as above.

people did have bibles, and, since its so very abstract, it can justify wrong doings. so as long as someone is using the bible to justify wrong doings, the bible is evil.

the proof was, the great schism.

no country can "ignore sanctions", it destroys economy, and unless they can self sustain, they are screwed. North Korea can self sustain, Iran is still trading with everyone but UK and US.
and with all this technology that we have, i would not go on the offensive, i would take out the leader, and anyone associated with him that would go down that path.

all that was done, is take the sick and dieing off the streets and put them in a home where they can all be sick and die off together.

"It does not mean that there aren't different commands for different situations."
not true, cuz the only person that can choose which command to choose, is man, and man can be wrong, so in the end he may be doing something wrong.
that is why gods commands must account for all or none because god is absolute truth.

"But why is death bad? You say that we don't know what lies beyond death. But if there is no God (and I see you stating many times that God is illogical, so you agree), there is no life after death. Therefore, I must do what I can to improve the present life. This includes paving the way for the emergence of the master race by exterminating the lesser beings. Is that wrong?"

How many literate people do you think there were in the time of the Crusades?

1. People use the Bible to justify wrongdoing.
2. Therefore the Bible is evil.

1. I can use the Bible to justify dancing with chickens.
2. Therefore the Bible justifies dancing with chickens.

Did you even read my posts? You can start with showing how the Bible is abstract.

Which proves what? The church, admittedly, is not immune to human failure, as it is still composed of humans. But does this prove that religion is ALL ABOUT power? Is it remotely possible to your thinking that it is about God, and that this can be lost on people sometimes?

First you say that no country can ignore sanctions, then you give real-life examples of two countries that do. This is beyond absurd. And wouldn't going after the leader be considered going on the offensive? What if pretty much the entire country is in the leader's sway?

Sources please.

So only man can choose commands that fit the particular situation? This is highly presumptuous. What hinders an all-knowing God from knowing the specific situations facing a particular human, and giving commands that fit that situation? I suppose when Jesus told Matthew to follow Him, it was supposed to apply to everyone around Him.

it is natures duty to exterminate the lesser beings, not yours.. nature and evolution will take their course.

all im saying is, perceptions differ, and when perceptions differ, wrongs can be justified as right. abraham was about to kill his son because god told him to.. one may think that is loyalty, others may think that is madness, others may think that what god says is right, always..

again, ofcourse the bible is abstract, otherwise there wouldnt be so many different sects and levels of Christianity. if it was simple, this would not happen.

it proves that at the core of this religion, its all about power.

k, um, this is too abstract.. how about you give me something that happened in history.. because your saying an entire population has gone mad.. so either everyone around you is mad, or your mad. you know?
sanctions hurt, they cannot be ignored, but they can be lived with.

common knowledge..

lol.. i dont know what to say..even if there is a god, and morality and all that is absolute etc.. how can we trust something as abstract as religion to follow? its ultimately man thats controlling religion, not god.

wait, do you believe in the word of the bible?
if yes, you dont believe in evolution and you think the world is 6000 years old?

if no, you are not a real christian, just a theist who thinks there is something out there, and jesus may have been real?

"Is it? Am I not a part of nature by living on this earth? Why can't I help it along? We evolved the ability to do so - why should we not use it?"

If perceptions differ, that does not affect the actual teachings. As for seeing Abraham's sacrifice as madness, one would have to have an anti-God bias as well as a complete ignorance of Abraham's situation to do so.

Take a children's book. It has the sentence "See the dog" in it. I imagine the dog as a Labrador, while my friend imagines it as a beagle. If it was simple, this would not happen.

I have already stated that the Great Schism, by itself, does not prove this. You need to explain how it does.

Of course it's abstract. We are currently discussing a hypothetical. But if you want history, Hitler practically had all of Germany under his control. Of course there were underground movements, but they did not have significant military capacity, if at all. It depends on what you mean by ignore. If by ignore, you mean to be completely unaware that a sanction has been placed, yes, it is impossible. But by ignore I mean to go on as if it hadn't been placed (you did say they could be lived with) and not comply with the sanctioner's demands. Happy now?

To top this, you haven't actually answered my question. You do not want to go on the offensive, but you want to take out the leader and his associates (how does this work?). Yet practically the entire country is in his sway. What do you do?

Something that Wikipedia relegates to "negative attention in the Western media" by confessed antitheists is common knowledge. I'll make a note of that.

Again, you are assuming that religion is abstract, and that it is man-made.

Your second post has nothing whatever to do with the debate at hand. But it is again about interpretation. Poetry in the Bible is not to be read as a historical account. Some think Genesis is not historical. I personally believe it is.

because you have a contentiousness, unless your a sociopath ofcourse.

thats not the point, the point was, wrongs can be justified through the bible because of perception.

there were 3 popes fighting for the title of pope, fighting for power.. it has nothing to do with god.. and so, the separation of protestant and catholic.

in hitlers case, we can see that it was intervention and debt that caused the second war.. blaming things on the jews, depression, many things helped with that. then, he was given leeway by the british.
once the leader is taken down, the crowds mass, are disoriented and can be controlled.
what would alqueda be without osama funding them?

it has nothing to do with theists, anti-theists atheists or any belief system. FACT: MT created hospitals for the suffering to go to, to suffer. She used the money to spread Christianity and create more of these hospitals.

this is where the ignorance of religion really shows itself. okay, ultimately the atheist will concede the argument on a moral absolute, but what the theist does not realize is that he too has also lost the argument on moral absolute. rules of god= rules of society.

if any of my English professors were to mark the bible, it wouldn't have gotten higher than a C. its not poetic.
plus, either the bible is the word of god or it is not.. my question to you is, is it?
because if you "pick and choose" the parts, im going to start the argument, because you must know where to stand on this topic. then, i will know how this will turn out.

"I assume you mean consciousness. Why is it wrong to eliminate lesser beings, even conscious ones? I am doing it for the greater good. What is so special about consciousness? We are just lucky to have evolved it before any other animal."

How does this affect what the Bible actually says?

Just because at one point there were 3 popes fighting for power does not prove that religion is in fact ALL ABOUT power. It only proves that the church is prone to human shortcomings.

What makes you think one of Hitler's associates wouldn't step in? How would you take out the leader without going on the offensive?

FACT: This "fact" is only listed by antitheist media, and not by the Nobel Prize organisation and CNN for example. It's so hard to choose who to trust.

So we are ignorant for not conceding that religion is IN FACT abstract, that it is IN FACT a man-made construct. "Rules of God= rules of society" stands on those two premises. These assumptions are what I find most irritating about these debates. IF God existed, those premises would be wrong. But of course, you say, He doesn't exist. Right...

How can you grade the Bible in English? It was not originally written in English in the first place. And of course the ENTIRE BIBLE is not poetic. Some of its parts are. I thought you would at least know that the Bible is divided into books of different genres. And just because something in the Bible is not a historical account, it is not the word of God? Gasp! We must revise the canon so that it is more in line with your infinite wisdom! What hinders God from inspiring people to write poetry?

you dont really know what good is tho.

the bible can actually say and mean anything.

if the church did not want power, it would not have been organized to get involved with politics.

lol.. nobody liked hitler.. he just got too powerful.. the government was using him to rally the people, then they thought they would trash him later.. but they couldn't.

wait, so did she or did she not have hospitals where people suffer?
simple question, easy answer.

if we are going to speak of this logically, god initially does not exist.

English profs are usually experts in language in general.. what else can you study in 8 years for your PHD..
so, you choose the irrational way of picking and choosing what you want from the bible.. i did not expect you would come to such an illogical conclusion.

"Nor do you. So on what grounds do you condemn me?"

You missed the point. If people read different things into the Bible, that is not necessarily its fault, and does not change what was actually said. In my example about the children's book, what my friend and I think the dog is does not affect that either the book does not say anything further about it, or may have mentioned what breed it was later, except that we didn't read it.

And I suppose atheists are not involved in politics at all. Christianity, as a belief system, affects the Christian's entire worldview, and obviously they will express this worldview through politics.

But that doesn't mean nobody liked him after he consolidated himself. And you are still avoiding the question. How would you take out the leader without going on the offensive, and what do you expect will happen afterwards?

Since you contend so strongly that Mother Teresa actively caused the suffering in her hospitals, it is your job to prove it. I may reconsider if your proof is compelling enough to stand in a court of law.

See? "Logically= God does not exist" is only true if God does not exist. I hope you see how this is circular reasoning.

Perhaps. But they still specialise in English. If you want to do any analysis on the Bible's linguistic structure, you should get, I don't know, experts in ancient Hebrew and Greek. I hope you realise what you are saying by deeming it irrational - it would imply that your infinite wisdom far surpasses that of the Christians and historians who agree that the Bible is constructed as such. The non-historical parts of the Bible are still God's Word. No one is picking and choosing. We are just not supposed to read them as historical accounts. Do we read horror novels as if they were a newspaper?

If I may comment, I would have to agree with headhunter again - you claim to be open-minded on the concept of religion, yet you show a complete ignorance of such a simple subject as the basic construction of the Bible. If I wanted to learn about religion, I'd at least look that up first before debating people.

no no, you were doing it because you felt it was good, but i argue that you do not know what good is, so now there is no purpose in you to do it.

and thats why its abstract.. when the highest priest in the north says X, and the highest priest in the south says Y about the same line in the bible, we know we cannot trust the bible for our morality.

politics and governments are and should be secular. if you want to go to war on the grounds of religion, that should not be voted on.

i would leave it up to the UN. and if i was the head of the UN, we would vote on what to do.

google it. im not here to teach anyone anything. its a fact.

i see nothing wrong with that.. its like saying, logically= flying elephant monster exists.. its completely ridicules.. you look at the facts and come up with a conclusion, not vice versa.

so we read them as metaphors? if god wanted to have any sort of relationship with us, why would he make it so abstract?

as an x-theist, i consider myself to be very open minded as it takes a lot to go from theist -> atheist, i had to debate myself for a long time.
atheists can be spiritual btw.
the difference between you, and I and why i consider myself to be "open-minded":
if a peaceful alien race one day lands on the earth, with their own religion, or atheism, most open minded people would agree that religion is BS, but closed minded people would try to fit them into their bible, look at some versus differently, and assume that the bible is talking about aliens.
however, if an alien race came and they were christian, after some questioning, i assure you that everyone from richard dawkins to Christopher Hitchens would convert to Christianity.
thats what separates the open minded people from the closed minded people.

"When I say good, I speak of bettering the human race by assisting its evolution by eliminating lesser beings. But if you don't know what is good, why is this wrong?"

If my friend says X about your post, and I say Y, we know we cannot trust your post for any information.

They are? Why does the Declaration of Independence mention the "Creator" and "Nature's God" then? I'm afraid I don't quite understand your second point.

Perhaps the UN decides to sanction it. Meanwhile, even though you've driven them out of your country, they start attacking others. And let's not forget about their child sacrifices. Are you still going to stick with sanctions?

We already discussed this.

1. "Google it" is not an appropriate response to a request for sources.
2. I have already Googled it, and I found the Nobel Prize page and the CNN page, both of which do not mention Mother Teresa's supposed evils.
3. Wikipedia notes that the supposed evils are mentioned by confessed antitheists, who would have more of an axe to grind than the Nobel Prize page and CNN.

Given all these points, a more compelling reason to believe Mother Teresa was evil would be nice. If it's such a self-evident fact, would that be so hard?

Exactly. If you say that logically God does not exist, you should back it up. "Logical= flying elephant monsters exist" is only true if flying elephant monsters exist. This would make it circular reasoning unless I could prove their existence. Therefore, if you say "Logically= God does not exist" you would have to prove God's non-existence instead of assuming that He doesn't.

Let's try this again. Not ALL the Bible is poetic, not ALL of it is history, not ALL of it is instructional. It is composed of different books of different genres. We do not take the historical accounts as metaphors, nor do we read the poetry like it was a historical account.

Actions speak louder than words, my dear. How can atheists be spiritual? And I am more than a little puzzled by your analogy. By your logic, it is open-minded to believe that the alien's new religion is bunk, but it is also open-minded to accept Christianity if the aliens were Christians. Is it open-minded to be self-contradictory?

the reasoning for why you are doing what your doing is because you say it is "good," however, you do not know what "good" is, so, you are being illogical because the reason you are doing it is for a reason that you do not know the answer to. We both ultimately do not know what "good" is.

the information is there, the trust is not.

added in 1947 i believe.

Okay, they must have a reason for doing what they are doing.

i dont know what to say... i dont know where to start.. its inconceivable how people displace facts so easily. its like im teaching you why 1+1=2.. theres no need, its a waste of time, its common sense.. [although thats not so common these days seeing as 35% of americans think the bible is true]

you do not prove negatives, you start with something not existing.. okay, there is X in front of me, its not existent till i scientifically prove it exists, and someone else conforms it. thats it, thats all it needs for logical existence and god does not do that.

its either all or nothing, either god wrote it, or man wrote it, its not a collaboration of authors.

this is why i do not like using analogies, but i have been debating with so many theists that love to use analogies that this is what happens.

"if a peaceful alien race one day lands on the earth, with their own religion, or atheism, most open minded people would agree that religion is BS, but closed minded people would try to fit them into their bible, look at some versus differently, and assume that the bible is talking about aliens.
however, if an alien race came and they were christian, after some questioning, i assure you that everyone from richard dawkins to Christopher Hitchens would convert to Christianity.
thats what separates the open minded people from the closed minded people."

i dont see any problems with this, can you re-explain the problem you see in this?

here is another analogy, if we were to go through every religion in the world, and you were to disprove them one by one, you would see a repetitiveness in your debunking religion, and before you know it, you will realize that you yourself have debunked your own religion. you need to be ignorant of all other religions to be religious, because one if the biggest problems with religion is that you think your religion is right, and if you dont, there is no point in believing what you believe.

"I define good as helping the human race to evolve. Now what do you think good is?"

Exactly. If my friend and I disagree on what your post says, it has no bearing on what you posted. The information is still there. If people disagree on what the Bible says, it has no bearing on what the Bible says.

So the parts mentioning God in the Declaration of Independence were added in 1947? Sources please.

Quite possibly it was for the same reasons they attacked your country. For fun, and the side income. As for the child sacrifice, it is for success in battle and the usual jazz.

It's inconceivable how you accuse me of displacing facts when you don't show me where you get these facts, or why I should believe them.

Oh? By that logic, atoms and black holes did not exist until we scientifically proved their existence. God's interaction with the universe is recorded in the Bible, and if the Bible is considered to be historically accurate, so are the events therein.

"All or nothing"? I'm not sure you have any idea how Christians believe the Bible is constructed. It is composed of different books of different genres because it was written by different men over a great period of time. But all of it is God's Word, because those men were inspired by God to write what they did. If I may quote your reply to someone in your great God debate:

"when you dont even read about it, and still right against it, i call that ignorance..."

Now perhaps you can start with reading about how Christians think the Bible is constructed before declaring that it is not a collaboration of authors.

Okay. Let's call the event of aliens coming to earth with a new religion X1. The conclusion derived from event X1, is that it would be open-minded to dismiss their religion as bunk. So we have:

X1: Aliens come to earth with a new religion.
X2: Open-minded people would dismiss this religion as bunk.

(How do you know "open-minded" people wouldn't attempt to follow this new religion?) Then, we have aliens coming to earth as Christians. Call it Y1. The conclusion derived is that open-minded people would become Christians because of this. So we have:

Y1: Christian aliens come to earth.
Y2: Open-minded people would accept Christianity.

I don't think you are using the same logic in both cases.

What makes you think the arguments for debunking one religion would be the same as the other? And one doesn't have to be ignorant of other religions to believe theirs is right. Sometimes knowledge of other religions can reaffirm your faith in your own.

This will be my last post in your discussion. I will read your reply, but I won't post again until I see that you are indeed reading this with an open mind (again, by your logic, it doesn't exist until I can prove it).

you dont know what good is, so you cannot base your whole reasoning behind it.. thats called religious behavior, they say they know what good/bad is.

the bible says X=Y then Y/=X in the next statement, its contradictory and its pointless, its obviously man-made, because if god made that, god is truly imperfect.

history=needed

so are you suggesting that it is their belief that child sacrifice is a good thing? isnt that related to religion? hmm

history=needed

thats called ignorance, we did not know. and as for blackholes, it was a misery what they were because the math didnt make sense, finally, after researching this math, hawkins came up with a solution with the idea of black holes.
he did not say "black holes exist" then do the math.. lol wtf.. you need to be ignorant to be religious really.

lol..okay.. so the book is BS and its not BS at the same time..
thanks for speaking on behalf of all Christians btw..

=D.. lol.. dont do what i do, plz.. it doesnt work for you..
i dono where to start.


you know, when im debating in life, i dont go around looking for evidence to what i say, its common knowledge, im not handing in my term paper, both sides are pretty knowledgeable in history, arts, religion wtvr.. if i was what i say is a lie, why would i talk to you in the first place? what would be the point?? lol.. the point of debate is to try to convince the person on the other side to change sides.. not to ignore simple logic and close your eyes, and not to lie..because if you do, sooner or later that person would find out, and there would be no point in the debate itself because that person would go to the other side in the future.. when that person comes to your side, he will then need to defend himself from all the other sides.. so its good if he is knowledgeable.

so, go read up on machiavelli, utopia, renaissance, the great schism and all that, because that is the begining of the secularization of western culture, go read up on why we turned secular, and how stupid and ignorant you need to be to believe in the bible.. if you still believe in the bible then, you can come talk to me, if not, congrats, you have secularized your life.

jesus was either some really smart deceptive guy, an insane maniac OR he didnt even exist.
god does not interfer with man, because if he did, he would still be doing it.. and he would have feelings and thought.. god is not man, god is omnipotent.. please, for the love of god, if he is there, open your eyes.

excuse my bad grammar and spelling.. but i am confident that you understand me..

religion= power= controlling the masses

can you not see that?

btw, i hope you know, that no matter how personal this gets, i dont give negatives.