I'm gonna stop arguing with you mostly because the quote panel is getting way too narrow.
All right, but I'll respond here anyway.
But your insistence that its perfectly okay to view the world with narrow black and white terms is, to be honest, frightening.
I have yet to see reason why it isn't. So far you've misrepresented the position and equated it with racism, showing you have a very, very infantile understanding of "black and white" philosophy.
It's unrealistic to view everything as either good or evil.
A man helps an elderly woman cross the street. Good. A man hits an elderly woman with a car. Evil. What you are getting into are moral dilemmas.
Some would say that there is no such thing as evil.
They would go back on this statement minutes later. This philosophy is far more frightening than mine; even the most evil men in history recognized that evil did, in fact, exist.
Others would say all people are evil.
Not as unreasonable, but then that would mean there are varying degrees of evil.
Its all relative.
Perceptions of what is and what is not evil is relative; the existence of evil itself is not. All cultures agree: evil in some form exists. The only issue is the matter of what is or what is not evil. the only ones in disagreement are postmodernist idiots, and the "evil does not exist" philosophy is so ridiculously incoherent and self-refuting that nobody should take it seriously.
But would I be evil if I let a kid die to save a bus load of people?
Moral dilemma. In my opinion, an evil would occur either way. I would invoke the philosophy of necessary evils and save the busload.
That is a classic grey choice. Is it possible that my choice would be neither good nor evil, but simply logical?
Logic is not immune to good or evil.
And I simply hate it that you have the tendency to break down sentences and answer them in a way that is out of context.
I haven't answered anything out of context. I'm answering you point-by-point in an organized manner. Out of context would be if I deleted part of your post to make it look like you said something you didn't, or didn't say something you did.
You should comment of a paragraph/topic as a whole.
No.
For example:
I said "I was saying you were trying to hurt my feelings. I never meant you were hurting me physically. And Athiests haven't killed anyone in as great the numbers that religious people have. Crusaders and Jihadists alone are responsible for countless deaths."
And you separated my paragraph into two that sound different.
Because your paragraph was disorganized and all over the place. Rather than focus on one point (that I was hurting your feelings), you stepped off into another point (that theists have killed a bunch of people), then another point (atheists haven't killed nearly as much as theists), then another point (Jihadists and Crusaders have killed countless amounts of people) that really had nothing to do with whatever point you were trying to demonstrate in the first place. Therefore, as separate points, I gave them separate responses.
With this separation its as though I'm comparing your insult to the crusades. And it makes me sound ridiculous.
Grammatically speaking, you WERE comparing my insult to the Crusades. The Crusades never needed to be brought up at all if you were just complaining about me hurting your feelings. And originally, you said this: "Theists have been hurting and killing for their beliefs throughout history, so why stop now?" Which implies that I am physically, not emotionally, hurting you. Your point was incoherent and filled with red herrings.
It's a dirty trick and I think your better than that.
Again, if you could point out where I have actually taken anything out of context, you will have a point. I'm trying to stay organized with my paragraphs.
If you want to talk individuals criminals Christian vs. Atheist. Statistically 70% of people in prison are Christian. While only 0.2% are Atheist.
OOh, and you accuse me of twisting context!
1. While that many may have reported being atheistic, 31% reported "having no religion," (Census, April 2001, Office for National Statistics) which is typically atheism and agnostic atheism.
When one compares the 31.6 percent of imprisoned no-religionists to the 15.1 percent of Britons who checked “none” or wrote in Jedi Knight, agnostic, atheist, or heathen in the 2001 national survey, it becomes clear that atheists are nearly four times more likely to be convicted and jailed for committing a crime than a Christian. So perhaps you should actually study things rather than argue by link.
2. In America, there are more theists in prison because there are more theists than atheists.
3. The fact that there are more theists in prison has nothing to do with their theism. There are more black people in prison than white people; therefore all black people are naturally violent? Uh, no.
4. Theists have a longer average lifespan (Hummer R., Rogers R., Nam C., Ellison C. G. “Religious Involvement and U.S. Adult Mortality:” Population Research Center, University of Texas at Austin. 1999) and atheists are more likely to drink, develop depression, do drugs and develop obesity than theists(Krista M. C. Cline and Kenneth F. Ferraro, “Does Religion Increase the Prevalence and Incidence of Obesity in Adulthood?” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 2 (2006): 269).
Notice also how I used unbiased government and university sources, as opposed to atheist blogs.
You ever here in biology class "all bugs are insects, but not all insects are bugs?" Well this is similar. You NEED to be spiritual to be religious, but you don't need to be religious to be spiritual.
Okay?
Disbelief isn't necessarily skepticism. And the whole "not believe everything in the Bible" thing? Yeah, by that standard, if it were true, most Christians would consider themselves Hell-bound.
That is whats wrong with the world. Its mostly difficult choices and constant grey.
Are you talking about moral dilemmas? you need to get a bit more specific here.
To class something or someone as pure evil, or purely good is stupid.
Why?
Do you think that the iraqi's are evil?
No. why should I?
do you think germans are evil?
No. Why should I?
The fact is that people do bad things but whoever they are they still have a family that loves them to go home to.
Unless they killed their whole family.
Therefore they can't be totally evil.
I think you're mixing something up seriously bad here.
Firstly, just because some people of a certain race (Iraqis, Germans, etc.) do something evil does not make them all evil (same for belief systems and school groups). It makes the individual(s) involved evil.
Secondly, it does not make them permanently evil.
Thirdly, the fact that some people love an evil person has no bearing whatsoever of that person's actions or moral status.
Finding a purely evil person is tough.
A man in Austria kidnapped his granddaughter and repeatedly raped her and forced her to live in his basement with her children (incest rape spawn) for twenty-four years. Most of the kids had never seen daylight and all of them had some form of physical or mental disorder that was never treated.
I consider that pure evil.
Hell, even Hitler was an animal lover. (don't insinuate that I'm a nazi, I'm not. I'm just proving a point.)
I know what you mean. If I thought you were a Nazi I wouldn't even waste my time.
I didn't insult you. I offended you. Totally different
You offended me with an insult. An insult is an offense, by the way. It wasn't a direct insult, sure, but I was there all the same.
Then why did you feel you needed to make fun of me? Why the hostility?
I'm a hostile person when I'm in a bad mood.
You didn't get it. I'm saying that attacking me is something I'd expect from a christian.
I do a lot of things you wouldn't expect from a Christian. Typically because it's Christian taboo.
(I was insulting you. )
I get that you were insulting me. If you were a Christian I'd be more offended than by any other insult you could ever throw at me as long as you live. But since you're not, it means nothing more to me than a baby's temper tantrum.
I'm not hurting or killing you. Atheists have been doing some killing too, you know. Avoid hyperbole, plz.
I was saying you were trying to hurt my feelings.
And that's comparable to the actions of Christians in the past. . . in what world?
I never meant you were hurting me physically. And Athiests haven't killed anyone in as great the numbers that religious people have. Crusaders and Jihadists alone are responsible for countless deaths .
Ha. Stalin killed more people than Hitler and was an atheist. Mao Zedong instigated the Chinese Cultural Revolution and killed hundreds of millions. Pol Pot preached atheism and killed even atheists who disagreed with him. You might want to actually count these countless deaths; because I have, and you'd be surprised.
Arrogant, false sense of superiority.
I'm still disappointed here.
Something Athiests and Christians share, so I guess I can't fault you for that.
Sure you can; just be sure not to demonstrate it yourself or I'll grill you with the hypocrisy.
And as a final note. Why would Christians belief any possible scientific evidence that may arise that would support Religion? When Christians spend their whole lives disregarding any scientific evidence that doesn't conform to their beliefs."
Such as?
Evolution, Global warming.
I don't deny evolution (and neither do about 60% of Christians), and I have never heard of Christians denying global warming for religious reasons (in fact, Global Warming lines up quite nicely with one of the Bible's end-of-the-world prophecies, so I'd expect the fundies to rather embrace global warming)
Some dont believe in gravity. (not gonna lump you in with them I'm sure your smarter than that.)
No, there are plenty of spiritual people who don't affiliate themselves with religion
That has nothing to do with my statement, that religion and spirituality typically go hand in hand. Yes, there are non-religious spiritualists (somehow), but that doesn't change the fact that spirituality is ever-present in most, if not all, major religions.
Mentioning religion in a science topic could be considered baiting
This topic is about religion and science, so no.
Sorry, didn't realize I was writing a term paper, feel free to dock me a few points for poor spelling.
Already done, mate.
And religion most definitely punishes skepticism. Where do you think you go if you think, "maybe not everything in the bible is true." Answer: Hell actually the answer for everything ungodly, like disbelief, is hell.
Disbelief isn't necessarily skepticism. And the whole "not believe everything in the Bible" thing? Yeah, by that standard, if it were true, most Christians would consider themselves Hell-bound.
It means that in the whole bible there are two choices the good choice and the bad choice. nothing is in the grey area.
I see no problem with that.
Nice, witty attack on me.
Thanks.
even though I never even insulted anyone here.
You insulted me at least twice in your first post.
I guess you decided you needed to attack me because I was threatening your beliefs.
You pose no threat to my beliefs.
What a perfectly Christian thing to do.
A lot of things I do are unchristian. Too bad an atheist has no right to determine what is or what is not Christian. Hell, not even Christians have that right.
History is full of Christians hurting, killing for their beliefs why stop now?
I'm not hurting or killing you. Atheists have been doing some killing too, you know. Avoid hyperbole, plz.
I'd expect nothing less.
I expect more, but am often disappointed.
"
And as a final note. Why would Christians belief any possible scientific evidence that may arise that would support Religion? When Christians spend their whole lives disregarding any scientific evidence that doesn't conform to their beliefs."
"A person's soul has little to do with religion. It's more of a spiritual thing.
Spirits and religion typically hold hands in the Mall.
Actually the existence of one's soul is more of a philosophical question, than a religious one.
Religion is an extension of philosophy.
It may be inflammatory for you to have mentioned the "R" word in the topic title.
No, it isn't. Unless you're so unbelievably sensitive that the very mention of religion is evil to your ears.
And no, science will never back up religion.
So could science never back up scientism?
They are on opposite ends of the intellectual spectrum. One based on fact and experimentation. The other on belief and never ever doubting that it may all be bullshit.
I think you misworded that sentence.
Science invites you to be sceptical, while religion punishes scepticism.
You misspelled "skepticism." Religion doesn't punish skepticism. . . .
Science gives real answers about the world around us, religion gives you fairy tales and outdated moral codes.
Science gives us answers about nature. Religion is a whole other ballpark.
The bible is alpha and omega, black and white, good and evil.
Whatever that's supposed to mean.
Science shows the world as grey, filled with more than two choices.
Of course, science doesn't show us whether or not those choices are right or wrong; only that they exist.
So you see, science is and always will be religions nemesis. It will never backup religious beliefs.
Hence the whole "scientists who believe in God" thing.
Sorry for getting a little poetic there. Its fun to flex the literary muscles every now and then, though."
Log in to comment