What right do you or I have to say what another can and can't believe in. All these ,"terrorist " "suicide bombers" are a relative new thing and become worse due to arrogance (very much like the opener) It's about time the west at large wind their necks in and stay the hell out of other countries. Governments are the issue and,the idiots who nievely believe the the propropaganda bs they spew. Who cares if someone wishes to eat selectively due to their own believes,individual choices that negatively effect noone should not be restricted in any way shape of form, you want a completely totalitarian dictatorship? Sounds like that is what your preaching here! life should be able to lived as each person wishes, only when a individual commits a crime then they should be prosecuted of course. This blanket treatment segregation you are trying to peddle is insulting and totally unnecessary. In reality the amount of religious people who are extremist or terrorists is minuscule.. Food for thought the biggest war crimes have been committed by our own countries.
You have a lot of weak points, and a lot of wrong ones. I'm about to go do something so I can't criticize you (sorrynotsorry). Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Let the Christians believe they're going to heaven, and you're going to hell, and the world can go round. Respect their opinions.
"Religion" may have been created for order against chaos, but God created his laws so we might know how to be holy, like God. There is a major difference.
Can you please tell me which of my points were wrong and/or weak. Not being defensive just wanna know what you think
Ah yes the chicken and the egg theory. That's called a circular logic. Which is oxymoronic because it requires zero logic.
As genuine as you may be with this thread, this question is simply terrible. I've seen lots of atheists throw this question out like a trump card and go "HA! I win!" Even so, I'll bite and say why I think this question is silly. It deals with "infinite regress", which for the atheist and the deist both should be a non issue. Both the atheist and the deist will eventually butt up against concepts of eternity and a prime mover. The atheist will say that the universe is eternal (some people believe that the universe "banged" into existence when higher dimensional "branes" crashed into each other. But, what created the higher dimensional branes?) The theist says God is eternal and created the universe. In either case, both viewpoint must deal with eternity and an "uncreated" prime mover from which all things originate. So, if both the theist and the atheist accept that there must be an uncreated "prime mover" why even bother with God at all? Doesn't Occam's razor render God superfluous? I will post my link again that shows how our most advanced science not only leaves open the possibility of a god, but actually requires a theistic view of our universe. I'll post the link here again for people to review https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4C5pq7W5yRM
Science is always contradicting itself and is based deeply in theory . Everything science has today has come from our holy books.Our holy ancestors were soing things way before and science has picked up on them only today.