....just as I thought religious zealots over rationalizing and reinterpreting things to their liking. So the bible is wrong? And so is every Catholic Priest, Baptist Minister etc etc etc right? But you KAW forumners know better right? Same ole same ole ...dsnt matter what religion they claim it's the same old song and dance
I never claimed who is right or wrong, I just point out what has intellectual merit and what has no proof whatsoever. In this debate I have tried to explain what Science attempts to do and how everyone has the ability to disprove existing theories or to create new ones and open them up to scientific scrutiny. I also have stated I can't entertain the notion of a valid religion as there is no proof of any God existing. Once someone proves me that God exists I will entertain the notion of investigating or debating him further…
In school you have textbooks and you have teachers. Now, there can be many editions of textbooks as new information about a subject is found, right? And teachers may or may not teach the newest edition and, therefore, may or may teach outdated information. And this information is human interpretation of the way the world works, so that is why it is constantly updated. This is what I am trying to say about religion and religious texts. Are you trying to deny people the ability to update religious texts? And yet. I could still be entirely wrong, I admit that. I am able to accept that there are multiple perspectives and try to see other ways of viewing a topic. Unlike some close minded people in this conversation
tbh you seem like the closed minded one.. ...the fact that you're arguing against The Scientific Method"
...you're arguing the scientific method. It's hard to put any value in anything you say because of that.
Time and time again you have stated how religion is just full of fairy tales, basically claiming religion is wrong. On page 4 i state that religion doesn't have to involve a God. Could you entertain religious naturalism? No god in that religion. And what about my points of looking at a religion's main message rather than the topic of a God? You fail to do that at all times. Like it or not, you are a close-minded hypocrite. @Todd Throughout this conversation, when have I failed to look at other ideas? If i was close-minded, i wouldn't even study other religions that weren't Christianity. I'm trying to find and understand new perspectives all the times.
...you deny the validity of "The Scientific Method" like I say earlier it's hard to put any value in what you're saying. You can have a 100 valid points to make ..99 of them can be a 100% correct but when the 100th is ludicrous it has a tendency to invalidate the 1st 99 to the ears of your audience.
My attempt to integrate science into my points was to vernacularize my points, because i understand that you will most definitely not listen to full on religion. I admit that I don't understand science that well, I am more of a humanities person. But if you are going to say that 1 invalid point makes 99 valid points rejected, then that is you being close-minded because you are focusing on one flaw rather than all the points in their entirety.
Wazz, You seem to be all over the place with ur arguments. Holy crap, u have now even involved religious naturalism into it. Let us keep to the post of the OP in which he talks about religions with an afterlife that have been the cause of conflicts and without which we would have been better off... In one of your posts u claim to be a believer of the Christian God. Let's start first what exactly you believe in, so I know what I am exactly debating about...
@Mudvet This is my original post (which I include religious naturalism in as well, pg 4). My personal beliefs are laid out here, along with ideas about other religions. I have studied religions and so my perspectives have changed much. Like Ghandi, I like to pull from many different religions in my beliefs, but I still connect most with Christianity. So, what will you attack me on now? P.S. OP doesn't specify which religions to talk about, so all of them are open. When one religion doesn't suit you, you can't just avoid it. Although, you do seem to be the type of person who does avoid many points that they know they can't come out on top.
Would like to point out that OP doesn't understand religions very well and generalizes followers of all religions.
Then in your case there is nothing to debate, apparently you have built your faith as a result of a cherry picking between all major religions. A very personal set of unfounded ideas... I don't even know what it is then u believe. But in the end, religions have no basis of truth. I am perfectly happy going through life being amazed on a daily basis by the beauty of the natural world. I hope to leave the world a better place once I leave it, but the moment I die, the last electrical impulses that go through my brain will be the end of my conscienceness here on earth and I am perfectly fine with that.
I haven't cherry picked anything. Time and time again I have explained what religion really is and you won't accept it because then you lose the debate. Again. Religion does not mean there is a God, it means reconnecting to something. Religion has just as much place in the world as science; both are human ideas about how the world works. Religion is set on humans, science expands to everything around us. In the end, they are both just human concepts that ultimately could mean nothing. I can debate about religion because I have actually studied it and find that people, like you, don't understand what religion really is, so you attack it. I'm not saying you need to follow a religion, but at least have the courtesy of doing actual research and understanding a topic before you criticize others who are on the other side. I was able to admit that i don't understand science that well, so why i can't you admit that you don't understand religion? In the end, you believe what you believe. If you believe that there is nothing more, so be it. If you believe there is heaven or hell, congrats. If you think your soul comes back to the world in a new body, you might be screwed because the world is an ugly place. I'm not here to push people into having a religion. I am here to open eyes, to get people to understand what religion is, to get people to have more than one perspective. And you can't say thay religions have no basis of truth. Just because you don't see something or agree with something doesn't make it not true. You can't accept religion as something plausible because there is no known physical evidence. But as i have said, religions have to do with humans, specifically the soul. Or perhaps you don't believe is souls. I suppose there is no way to really prove people have a soul, but then again, you can't really prove that people don't have a soul.
You claim I don't understand religion, but I do. It s the delusional idea that there is something more to life than what we can observe, measure or record. I am sure you will attribute all kinds of beneficial effects to it, but I can't take that intellectual step into weirdo ville. Sorry, I am a rational person and I just can't see me believing as long as I am of sane mind and body ...
I claim you don't understand religion because you haven't taken the time to actually learn about them. You haven't studied them. I've taken a bunch of religion classes, amd I've seem plenty of my atheist friends in them. They might not believe in a god, but at least they understand it. And the way you talk about the world -- something you should only observe, measure, and record -- is only objective. It is ridiculous to think this way. Every time humans get involved in something, there is always a subjective counterpart. Someone can talk about the just facts surrounding PTSD in soldiers, but then that lacks a sense of morals. We are humans, how we feel is important to how we live. Objectivity and subjectivity go hand in hand. And again, I'm not telling you to go and join a religion. Even if you don't agree or believe in something doesn't mean you shouldn't try to understand it.
Religion, or people of religion like institutions? As mentioned in previous comments, there is a lot of change in the way people interpret religions now. So all this ignorance and "conservatism" is being promoted by people.
Not claiming to have won, but (s)he did say he could debate all believers and have the best chances of winning the debate