Religion… What do you think?

@spareheadone: If you ever manage to hear that voice again, try asking it why it chooses to speak specifically to some people but not to others. It'd be interesting to see if you get a response.

It always appears as if Heaven is some place in the Sky, at least from some of the Holy Texts... but that begs the question... what happens if the Earth is destroyed ? Does Heaven die with the Earth too ?

Waking up early depends on your age and if your body can handle it, just saying.

I have to fight rhe athiestic veiw first. Yes, I have made thag one argument to myself before. There is absolutely limits to our intelligence.

You can't expect to understand things like that. It's impossible. If you think you did you're most likely wrong.

No one can even understand even a particle to it's fullest extent. It takes more knowledge than we can hold to know everything know and even that isn't enough to understand how a God/gods could exist.

As for the Why have you forsaken me. He was bearing all our sins. And a lot of people believed and believe and will believe that God has forsaken them. It's just like a messenger carries the messege to someone else orally, although it is not their message.

@thedandyman:

The voice happened twice only and that was 20 years ago. But it taught me a lot about recognising God in the mundane

@spareheadone: Ah, ok.

@king_saturn:

Jesus said heaven is in our hearts

He was wrong about that... because there are multiple passages that point to Heaven being some place in the Sky... I mean even after Jesus Resurrection... dude, went back to Heaven on a Cloud... then you have Elijah being taken to Heaven in a Whirlwind... Heaven opening up in the Sky before Steven was executed. I could get the direct passages... but The Flash just came on.

LOL

@king_saturn:

Nice to see we have the same priorities ; D

One thing I've found ridiculously hard to wrap my head around is creationism, the literal interpretation of the bible, the earth is six thousand years old and absolutely everything is literal in the OT? I can accept someone getting some meaning out of the OT & the NT and having some profound meaning to them in there and they can respect and appreciate that, as can I, but to take the OT as an actual literal reading of fact in everything you read, one reallyyyyyyyyyyy has to bury their head deep in the sand!? This is where I have issues when people in general say you should respect other peoples beliefs? Well, with all due respect, then I'd have to respect anyone who believes and takes any book they wish out there as meaningful and real/literal to them, be it the Enûma Eliš or the Bible if that was the case.

There are some amazing word origin studies to be had when comparing genesis and enumah elish.

I dont believe in any religion. Religion is just a set of beliefs held because of emotion, and not logic or facts. If religious beliefs actually had facts and logic to back them up then you wouldnt need "faith". You also wouldnt have so many contradictory religions in the world. There would just be the one that everyone agrees is true. Basically, religion exists because of indoctrination and the human need for emotional support when things arent going well or when you're feeling helpless or afraid. It's a natural way that the human brain tends to look at things. It's a sort of warm blanket that the mind goes to when it cant deal with reality. Religion might make you feel better, but it's in no way a reliable way to get to truth. In fact, the only thing that religion has shown to be good at through the centuries is at coming up with incorrect views about how the world works, creating division and hostility between groups, and promoting persecution of anyone who doesnt agree with that religion.

What I believe is that logic and science are the best ways we have to learn about how the universe works. Religion is the complete opposite of that.

Why I believe it is because logic and science work. They are the reasons we've made progress in the last few centuries, why we've gone to the Moon, eradicated diseases, and linked the world with technology that allows us to communicate with or travel to anywhere in the world. It's why we have ONE science in the world, because it's based on evidence and because it works.... rather than hundreds of religions all of which contradict each other and do nothing but promote ignorance.

While science is busy trying to understand how the brain works, trying to unify the forces of nature, or attempting to come up with ways to travel faster than light to other star systems... religion is busy killing homosexuals by throwing them off of buildings, throwing acid in girls faces for wanting to go to school, and molesting young boys and then covering it up.

Have a nice day.

You'd make a superb and awesome Vulcan Will :-)

Example of the relationship of the Bible to the Enuma Elish

^Genesis1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

Hebrew dictionary - deep

H8415

תּהם תּהום

tehôm tehôm

teh-home', teh-home'

(Usually feminine) from H1949; an abyss (as a surging mass of water), especially the deep (the main sea or the subterranean water supply): - deep (place), depth.

H1949 (The root word)

הוּם

hûm

hoom

A primitive root (compare H2000); to make an uproar, or agitate greatly: - destroy, move, make a noise, put, ring again.

The Enumah Elish speaks of the great mother Tiamat a word related to Tehom.

Tiamat is Female. - Tehom is a feminine word

Tiamat is the bitter waters of chaos. - Tehom is the agitated abyss.

The Enumah Elish talks of Apsu's great agitation because of the noise and uproar of their children (the gods) in Tiamat’s belly.

“Discord broke out among the gods although they were brothers, warring and jarring in the belly of Tiamat, heaven shook, it reeled with the surge of the dance; Apsu could not silence the clamour, their behavior was bad, overbearing and proud.” - We can see all those ideas in the root word of Tehom-“ to make an uproar, or agitate greatly: - destroy, move, make a noise, put, ring again.”

@willpayton: Yes science and logic are the correct ways to learn about the world, so are facts. There must be some form of supreme being and designer for anything as complicated as a universe with all its living and interesting creatures to exist.

Catholocism does not come from emotion. It can be very difficult to be a Catholic. Most religions do have some logic and facts, even greek mythology.

The muslims are the ones doing most of that. They thoroughly hate gays.

I have historical proof prayer is useful. How else could Catholics have won the crusades. We were drastically outnumbered. The knights templar were connected to the Catholic faith and were some of the most feared enemies of muslims.

The muslims are doing that. They thoroughly hate gays. Call that boyplay. And I don't doubt that happens somewhere but I have never heard of such instances.

Thank you.

Now isn't this interesting? My impression of Ben Carson has been greatly altered. He's much more rational than I'd been lead to believe by his comment that African Americans were better off during the Jim Crow era; but, why does he rationally disagree with Democrats and agree with Republicans in relation to issues of civil rights? Finally, Richard Dawkins approached creation scientists for debate; now, he gets put down.

This statement just doesnt make sense. There's no reason I know of to suggest that "complex things must have designers" and in fact we know that complex things do indeed arise without designers. Evolution proves this, and we know that Evolution is a fact. Complex things also arise from simple things like mathematical equations:

"Some logic and facts" does not prove that something is true.

The point is, if you have convincing evidence to support your beliefs then show it. Publish it in a peer-reviewed journal and lets see how it stands up to criticism. If it holds up then others will be convinced and will accept it as true.

But, you know what, that doesnt happen with religion. In fact whenever religious or supernatural claims are put under the microscope or subjected to scrutiny... they always fail.

Prayer has been tested by science and shown to be completely ineffective.

Also, the Christians didnt "win" the Crusades. That whole part of history is long and complicated. But, regardless, it proves nothing.

If prayer works, why are 99% of people in prison religious? Why does God kill hundreds of thousands of religious people in a single tsunami? Why dont religious people live longer than atheists? Why arent religious people more successful in life than atheists? Why dont religious people win the lottery more than atheists? Why arent there any recorded instances of miracles?

What I believe... is that logic and facts speak for themselves.

@dshipp17: Ben Carson is either an idiot or he's pandering hardcore to the religious voters that cant accept that Evolution is a reality. Not surprisingly, most of those religious voters are Republicans.

I have a feeling that other nations look at our politicians and especially the morons that come out of the woodwork to run for office every election cycle and laugh at us. Frankly it's embarrassing that as the richest and leading developed country on the planet, that we have politicians running for President that can say these stupid comments and not be laughed off of the stage. Idiocracy here we come!

@willpayton: To which evolutionary theory are you referring? Monkeys? Apes? Tine microorganisms? The simple evolution of adapting to ones environment such as we do on a day to day basis? Many are just bogus, and have been disproved.

Actually when thoroughly put under a microscope, Catholocism has passed thw test. Why would I need to write a journal? Go look at Thomas Aquanas. Thomas Moore. There's a billion of people to find things from. People aren't always that logical. Or else relativism wouldn't exist.

Prayer has been proven to work, actually. There have been recorded miracles about miracles. Go to the TFP website, tons of information on there.

Being religious doesn't mean you pray. Also a lot of people are put in jail for fake and illogical reasons.

Being succesful in life does not prove much.

Now you say bodily death is bad going by saying there is no afterlife.

@willpayton:

The Enuma Elish tells us that we are made from gods blood. We know the Enuma Elish is inspired by god so how can you know evolution is true?

I'm talking of the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection.

Evolution is a proven theory, it's been demonstrated to be correct by many different types of evidence, and it's also a fact. Evolution happens, it's how all life on Earth got to its current form, including humans.

Religion hasnt passed any tests. And, when tests are applied to the supernatural... it always fails. There's even a prize of $1 Million to anyone who can demonstrate evidence of any supernatural phenomenon... and guess what... no one has won that money yet. Why is that?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Million_Dollar_Paranormal_Challenge

I have no idea what TFP is.

And no prayer has not been proven to work. In fact a study not only showed that it didnt work, it also showed that if people knew they were being prayed for it actually made things worse.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/31/health/31pray.html?pagewanted=all

But why dont you prove me wrong. Go and win the $1 Million prize by proving that you can pray for something and it will actually happen. Should be pretty easy right?

Or, will you just come up with some excuses as to why it wont work?

So now you're going to tell me that all those people in prisons or suffering from diseases or in the middle of natural disasters are not praying?

@lordraiden said:

@willpayton said:

@admirallogic said:

@willpayton: What religion are you then? Or are you not in one?

Either way. What do you believe and why do you believe it?

What I believe is that logic and science are the best ways we have to learn about how the universe works.

You'd make a superb and awesome Vulcan Will :-)

Thank you!

=)

He's neither an idiot or a panderer; he's a scientists who happens to be a neurosurgeon who evaluated the evidence and came to a logical conclusion based on the findings; the atheists who believe in evolution need to go back under the woodwork, as they are very much in the minority compared to the Christians who do not see a reason to accept evolution over creationism.

LOL... this comment is so funny that I actually starting laughing out loud.

Thanks for the mid-day comedy!

I've said as much as I can with dshipp and walked away a while ago. It's like banging your head against the wall. It's comments like above that make you stare at your computer in bewilderment wondering "what the hell did I just read?". It's comments of his like "the atheists who believe in evolution need to go back under the woodwork, as they are very much in the minority compared to the Christians who do not see a reason to accept evolution over creationism" which makes his comments a comedy and very delusional, imo. To actually think that your in the majority who thinks the bible is literal, the earth is only six thousand years old and evolution is a failed theory that hasn't been proven is the definition of delusional, imo. There's really no where one can start in the middle with that? I'm starting to feel the same way about admirallogic, to tell you the truth. A lot of his comments are right out of left field and sounds like he's been very indoctrinated within the catholic church, that a fair amount of his comments come out as absurd, imo. I find there's a lot of outright denial in his comments, but that could be just me?

Without sounding hypocritical when it comes to our government, the American political show has turned into a circus some time ago. It's amazing what goes on and what passes as legit?? It's like tickets to the front row at the circus!

The hypocrisy in religion can be quite remarkable

Indoctrination is almost impossible to avoid. Schools do it all the time. Are you homeschooled, private schooled, or public schooled? They each will likely make an enormous difference, public school, payed by government, means the government has choice of what religion you will be from an early age. Private school may or may not have similar occurrence, I know Catholics in both but public school is a less likely place for it as it results in not wanting to be in the minority. Homeschooling depends upon the parents. It may or may not influence their religion, in fact it can make their children distant to the religion of their parents.

I'm sorry if it seems like I am not using facts. I have memory problems at some points and cannot remember where to find things, or else I would have a load of evidence in links and such. But I guess anyone can use that excuse. What does out of left feild mean?

TFP (tradition family property) It can be easily found.

As I've said before. Prayer isn't for wealth and comfort here. That would only distract us from God. Which is exactly why many saints got rid of everything.

You are making excuses too by the way. An excuse is not something that is always false.

Some of that theory is correct. But a new species does not happen. It is the same species. Also, we are no longer getting any better (at least not in large numbers) we are actually decreasing in health. We now rely on things nobody ever needed. There are now fake imitation drugs that can cause more damage than good where the problem could have been solved with a more natural diet, and maybe some rather gross things like coconut oil or cod liver oil.

This. Natural selection is plausible. But for one species to become another is to add information. Which simply does not naturally occur.

Natural selection can never extend outside of the DNA limit. DNA cannot be changed into a new species by natural selection. The same process of selective breeding is done with flowers, fruits, and vegetables.

New variations of the species are possible, but a new species has never been developed by science.

@yodaprime: Well that was unexpected. Someone actually agreed with me.

I've actually pondered addition of DNA for making my stories more realistic. It sort of makes sense but the likelihood it would work without severe consequences seems very low, at least for the more complicated creatures.

You are not just wrong, but totally and unambiguously wrong. But, that's not what amazes me about this and other such comments.

The scientific consensus is clear, and the sheer arrogance of thinking that you know more about biology than every biologist on the planet is mind-boggling. There are people who study this their entire lives, win Nobel Prizes, and are accepted as leaders in their fields by everyone else in that field as well as other fields of science... and you're basically calling them idiots and claiming that you know better than they do about their own goddamn field. Simply... amazing.

This is why religion is a plague, it encourages this type of ignorance and what's worse... being willfully ignorant and having the arrogance to think that your lack of knowledge qualifies you to contradict what the best experts on the planet all agree is true.

@willpayton: No good reason to get angry. You chose to come to this discussion after all. If you are going to be so easily angered perhaps you should not have arguments.

I have recently, about three hours ago, seen what "the entire population of scientists" believe. Such as global warming. Despite obvious information a "scientist" decided to go with the unmovable approach and would only respond to facts about there being no significant increase in global temperatures with "I conquer with %97 of the scientists about global warming."

To think every biologist on the planet agrees with you is illogical and emotionally based. It takes precious little to become a biologist by definition.

I know what I have learned. I have learned it from past and present people and facts.

So you say people study their entire lifes. That is impossible. Perhaps for large portions of their lives. But it doesn't take that much to know truth. Perhaps to be an exper doctor or apologist. But to know truth it takes the right circumstances. I can name a great many saints who have studied plenty and know extensive amounts of knowledge. Are you saying you must agree with all of them just because they have superior experience? A martial artist can train from the moment he could start and still lose to a natural fighter who only had to learn biology and apply that to fighting.

You say they are the best experts. But where is your proof? Emotional response of unnecessary anger is likely from the realization of being incorrect or perhaps just stress of someone not wanting to agree with you. You broke a very important rule in apologetics, don't get angry. It appears that you have a lack of knowledge and/or logic and are trying to replace it by sheer emotion.

I have experienced anger to the point of wanting to commit suicide to end the emotional and mental pain and stress. I know what it feels like and from what it originates. I can sometimes find what is causing it and realize it is not founded enough for it to even need to exist. But it was still there. I have a physical problem, it causes me to either get sick or get very emotional. When I prayed the result was less pain/stress emotional or physical.

You are trying to attack what milinias of people have agreed on and you say I am being arrogant. People have always known there was a creator(s) but recently the theory that he didn't exist came up. Trying to counter what billions of people knew for certain.

I may not be an expert but even I kept my cool in this debate, despite my problem. That should show you that religion is worth something.

I sometimes do get angry because I've seen this same type of reply in this thread dozens of times by now. I've seen the same type of religious people come here and try to claim they know better about everything from biology to astronomy, while in fact they know nothing about those subjects. Their entire basis of knowledge is "I read the Bible". It's one thing if someone is ignorant, everyone is ignorant about something including myself. But, what is really annoying to me are people who are not just ignorant but actually think they know better than the consensus of experts in a field about which they know nothing.

As far as you... believe what you want to believe. I can try to help you by pointing out where you're going wrong, but if you dont listen then there's nothing I can do. You want to ignore the consensus of 90+% of scientists on the planet and believe one guy? Feel free. You dont think there's anything illogical with doing that? Fine. But, know that what you're doing is called cherry picking, and it's a logical fallacy. You have your existing beliefs and are now just rationalizing to make yourself feel better about what you already decided is true.

There's not much point in me trying to point out where you're wrong, because you wont listen. When you decide that you actually care about what's true and not just people agreeing with what you already believe... then come back and I'll be happy to talk.

Speciation is plausible though there have been no examples of it that are not heavily speculative. Speciation does not have to add genetic information it simply has to recombine it.

A change of genus or phyla is well beyond natural selection because of the aforementioned adding of genetic info. This extra info cannot just be in the form of DNA there must be a epi genetic change because DNA is not the stuff that codes for body plans. DNA codes for the protiens that contribute to the building of the body plans as well as other maintenance roles.

The hardest thing for natural selection to accomplish is the initial building of previously "uninvented" organs and systems.

It all boils down to improbable fluke after improbable fluke.

We are all eminations of the Buddha and the creation/evolution debate is just people living out their karma.

@willpayton: You are obviously not going to be happy to talk with anyone who disagrees with you. The bible, as I've stated many times before, is just one of the many sources we use. I have seen your argument, and more effective ones, many times before. Not just threads. Not just on some video i looked up. I have experienced actual conversations with actual people in person. Their emotional response comes from the frustration of not being able to permanently counter a reply. There are many Catholics who know a lot about science, but you have ignored that due to your already activated emotional response. It creates irrational logic and rushed answers. The person in the video only said that %97 scientists conquered with him. You did too. Scientists are everywhere. There is no need for a college degree. You could be the most knowledgeable person and never have gone to school but instead learned it on your own.

There are many more than one guy I agree with. You should have figured that out by simple logic.

Incorrect, I have personally challenged myself to apologetics battles against or with Catholocism. Many modern apologists aren't very good so to find a good argument I watched a video or movie about the thing I would argue with.

You have tried to point out "that I am wrong" and I have tried to poi t out your misguidance.

Again, the emotional response is a very ineffective one for both you and your opponent(s) Continue calmy and you are more likely to get a point across to a logical person. You however have become emotional and cannot currently be reasoned with. Take a rest. Do something calming. Go outside. When you have returned to your reasonable self then I suggest you ponder all the replies we have had. I have already so I need not do it again.

I would like to suggest two things, a website and a person, for you to visit (if you want a real apologetics challenge with people who have facts on hand any time)

TFP, Taylor Marshal.

These people are more likely too convince you as TFP members have actual training and Taylor Marshal is very good, as far as I've seen, at apologetics.

I will be gone for the moment but should reply within 24 hours.

@admirallogic:

You are priceless

I nearly messed my pants because of you.

@admirallogic: I talk with people who disagree with me all the time. The problem here is that there's not much point because you're making the mistake of thinking that you can come to valid conclusions about technical areas without having any expertise in that area. Basically, this is a form of the Dunning-Kruger Effect. I can sit here and post reply after reply giving you facts, siting research studies, and all that to show you where you're wrong, but it wont make any difference until you realize that you might be wrong and that experts actually know what they're talking about.

Then your second mistake is in cherry picking. Your fallback position when shown evidence to prove you wrong is that "here's an expert and he agrees with me, so therefore I'm right". This is nonsense. Any area of expertise will have crackpots and lunatics. Just because you found one that agrees with you means nothing. That's why we look at the scientific consensus for answers. It has nothing to do with popularity... I'm not saying "look how many people agree with me", because that's not how science works. Scientific Consensus is arrived at through rigorous evaluation of evidence, peer-reviewed papers, and lots of duplication of results and discussion. It's not a popularity contest. If you chose to ignore it and go with your own layman opinions and cherry-picked "experts" then you're well on your way down the road to being wrong.

Also, I've heard everything you've posted before, and I've seen all the arguments from the so-called best apologists. They are always full of holes and full of ignorance when they talk about scientific matters. Their logic is faulty and their "evidence" is laughable.

@willpayton: You have repeated yourself a bit, though I see your emotions returning into control. You don't appear to have much expertise in apologetics proven by your lose of control. So you must not think that truthfully or you would have taken a better apologetics class or just not come into this discussion. I could do the same. But, as has been done here before, they are considered false just because they are views similar to mine. Though the direct response was tactfully avoided it was easy enough to see through. You have "cherry picked" as well, as you say it. By choosing people that agree with you. You have gievn me very little other than your word to go on. I gave you a website filled with information regarding almost any topic you can come up with, and they have evidence so it's not all made up.

How do you think St Ambrose countered every argument he was put up against. He evaluated and studied rigorously.

I have seen many of your arguments. They hold only a seed of truth and are otherwise entirely lacking. They are written with a certain emotional force. Despite not hearing you I can still understand you're being insulted by my replies.

You actually just said "if your going to disagree with %90 of experts. Fine" so you are sort of still saying "Tada! I have more people." Just in a more angered and less excited way.

You'd be surprised how many people disagree with you on many points so don't bother trying to use a majority of scientists. Because it is fake.

You are still however being emotional. If I were using your kind of literary messages then this argument would become a heated argument. Calling an opponents evidence laughable is a huge flaw in apologetics. It shows weakness at responding to it and in order to satisfy the mind comes up with an attempted insult and laughable is a very well used one. Please refrain from insults if you wish to succed in any argument as it will only infuriate a normal opponent who also uses insults. Causing a vicious circle.

@spareheadone: Why would you mess your pants? That can be translated into many things usually leaning towards witty, funny, or stupid. One is slightly a compliment, the others (more lilely) are insults and hold no use in actual arguments except to show uncontrolled emotions.

@admirallogic:

Don't go changin'

Like I said before, it's not about popularity. When I'm referring to the scientific consensus it's not because I'm trying to say that "I have more people than you" which is indeed a fallacious argument. I'm pointing out that in science it is not easy to arrive at a consensus and science by its very nature is rigorous and ideas only make it to the point of being "accepted" when they've gone through a lot of criticism and scrutiny.

And again you keep speculating about my emotional state rather than what I actually said.

Here's the main point that you can address... if you're going to criticize biology, on what expertise do you base that criticism on? So far you've shown none but only site other sources, so I'll assume you have none. So, if you're only going to site other sources, what makes you think that those sources are correct?

I mean, I can reply to anything in any page you link to... but why or how would that convince you? If you dont accept the scientific consensus, why would anything I post be convincing... regardless of what credentials or arguments I may present? You have either looked at the science behind Evolution or you havent. If you have you either have expertise to understand it or you dont. If you havent then you're going on the word of cherry-picked "experts" to base your opinion.

So, for an argument like this we can do one of two things... 1) we discus the actual science, or 2) we discuss what experts say about the actual science. If we do #1 then I'm perfectly fine with that. Lets do it. If you want to do #2, then please tell me how we decide which experts are right other than "I have more experts than you do".

And this is why I bring up the scientific consensus, because unless you want to get into actually discussing evidence and the science, the you have to go with the consensus of experts.

@willpayton: Admirable but it's a dead end man...the indoctrination is strong in this one.

We share very similar views but I have to disagree with your claim that Religion was only good at one thing. Numerous times Religion has been used as a tool of social control of the masses, arguably it still is today in America.

As for other countries laughing at your political parties, yes...we do, as you said yourself you can't blame us its a ludicrous system and one that can only be won if you're Christian which directly contradicts the foundation of your countries law. Don't worry though, most countries political system is a joke...I live in England and I couldn't choose which system I'd rather.

Edit: Apologies for my awful grammar...I'm at work, on my phone and shattered, hope you understood what I was trying to say.

@admirallogic: "You are trying to attack what milinias of people have agreed on and you say I am being arrogant."

Just because the majority of people in the past 2000 years have believed it doesn't make it true or even more likely. There have been more humans alive that have not believed in Christianity than have, the fact a majority believe in a creator actually makes your argument weaker as they all believe they know lots about their creator and all their creators differ. Science being relatively young has disproven lots of religious bullshit and will continue to, but it means fewer people have believed.

"People have always known there was a creator(s) but recently the theory that he didn't exist came up. Trying to counter what billions of people knew for certain."

The fact that people think they know it for certain with no evidence shows the arrogance, ignorance and simplicity of the religious.

"I may not be an expert but even I kept my cool in this debate, despite my problem. That should show you that religion is worth something."

It's proves that ignorance is bliss.

Consensus: general agreement: a consensus among many judges.

And the Catholic Church has been debated about before on numerous subjects. Which means you are challenging a consensus.

Your arguments are very important in apologetics. Credentials only matter on who your opponent is. If your opponent is illogical they will try to say your argument is invalid because they have credentials and you don't. I meant I could tell you don't have or had a good class for apologetics because you weren't keeping control of yourself.

We can do one because if we do two we get nowhere. The media and popular scientists highly in your favor but history and less popular people in mine. So if we do (1) perhaps there will be results.

@mrhamwallet: Science existed long before athiesm. The egyptians in particular were quite successful during their time.

Wrong,

The fact they believe in a creator makes my argument more likely. They used natural logic to realize that something must have made everything. For greeks it was earth and the stars who had children. But it usually went to a nature god or spirit. The majority of scientists were actually not going to be athiest for a long time, many still are.

Actually science has only proven the existence of a God. Not all religions are simple. Catholocism is not. While athiesm is.

Actually I prefer to know. And I could say the same about you. You still pretend there is no God but, as I've said before, it's impossible for there not to be. You don't need to be an expert scientist to know that, but there are. You just need natural logic.

@admirallogic said:

@mrhamwallet: The Age of Enlightenment? Your acting as if up until that time eveyone must have been stupid.

Why do you still assume their is nothing logical about knowing some supreme being exists. The evidence is everywhere. The very existence of even a mouse is enough to prove that.

Actually many athiests are emotionally based from previous pain, possibly traumatic. So they refuse to admit a God no matter what anyone says, not even for a miracle.

Actually, death without religion is nothing to fear(it could even be enticing) In Catholocism Even purgatory is frightening for people who are anchored to this world. You'd have to be a great person to not go to purgatory and so people are more likely to fear Catholocism even with the possibility for redemption. It can also be extremely difficult to admit fault, especially major, so confession isn't as easy as you say.

Athiesm is only the lack of belief in God. Done. There may be other personal beliefs but as a whole that's all it is.

There you go again, using insults and pretending they are arguments. Please refrain from such useless conversation, it accomplishes nothing and only makes you look emotional.

As I said before, there is evidence of a creator. Even if I knew nothing about Catholocism and instead woke up in the jungle so somehwere I can come up with three possibilities for a creator(s)

(1) Creator and designer. The creator was something that suddenly made things out of nothing and accidentally made a highly intelligent being who reorigised the matter to make earth and stars and such.

(2) God created/designer. A being that both created matter out of nothing and reorganized it to make earth and such.

(3) nature gods. As with many religions this one is just saying there are many gods who control certain elements of nature.

Many religions are man made but some are made by demons. And one by God. Catholocism.

@spareheadone: " Don't go changin" I get the pun but not the comment.

okay..

first of all hardly anything is unanimous in science. they are all theories. i guarantee you there are plenty of well established biologist that disagree with evolution.

secondly, is it not hypocritical of you to say; me calling foul on people that study biology all their lives is appalling yet you calling BS on people that study religion all their lives is legitimate? The pope is decorated and respected too yet you apparently call him idiot as well. Are you not willfully ignorant to deny the "best experts on the planet" in their respective religions?

Sounds like you have quite a bit a faith too. you just placed it in something (someone/s) else than religion.

I'm assuming this comment above was meant for me??

I wasnt talking about "consensus", I was taking about the scientific consensus. Which means:

Scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study. Consensus implies general agreement, though not necessarily unanimity.

The Scientific Consensus isnt just a cherry picked group of people that happens to think the same way, it's the consensus of the entire scientific community with regards to scientific matters.

Good, so you want to discuss the science, so lets do it. I'll start with a simple question:

Do you agree that humans evolved from earlier forms including apes?

Oh I totally agree that religion has been used in large part to control people.

@willpayton: Not from apes. Although we did change our skeleton structure. Apes wouldn't exist anymore id we sid come from them. That and the changing it position would be too difficult for a creature to do, the back would have had far to much strain moving from an apes position to an upright position. The muscular structure is also different. As well as diet but those two are very different. Another thing I have against that theory is the brain. An ape doesn't have enough mental power to do many of the things we can do. They are some of the more intelligent creature but still far below us in that regard.