RvW, I actually did think that analogy up myself :) Thanks for the compliment!

@devilnis

Christian intrusion into our lives takes an active form. They bar my gay friends from marrying, they murder abortion doctors, they attempt to teach creationism in school as if it's a tested and verifiable fact. I as an agnostic am not telling you you MUST have an abortion or marry someone of the same sex as you. How is it that I am limiting your freedom and thus justifying your hostility towards my point of view?

Gay marraige has NEVER been approved in the past. It's not like CHristians came and banned Gay marriage, it's more like Atheists came and banned the banning of Gay marriage.
You say Christians take away your freedom, so atheists have abortion, taking away the freedom of Life from the fetus. HOw can you talk about freedom of speech, religion, etc, when freedom of life has been taken away?
Atheists TEACH (not attempt to teach) evolution in school, AS IF THAT HAS BEEN TESTED AND VERIFIABLE FACT.

As to the big bang. God created the whole universe in 1 sentence (Genisis:1:1) "in the beggining God created the heavens and the earth. Thus, the bible never disaproves the big Bang (only disaproves evolution). In fact, I believe in the big bang myself (except that it is caused by God).

1) Followers of Christianity attempt to influence my freedoms due to their interpretations of the moral commandments of their religion. True or False?
True, but Atheists (and all other religions) also restrict freedoms due to their own interpretations of moral commandments

2) Verifiable evidence, such as the spectral shifting I spoke of earlier, corroborates the existance of the Big Bang, yet does not corroborate the Christian story of creation. True or False?
I believe i have already answered that

3) Christianity has no greater or lesser claim to truth than any other major religion such as Buddhism or Shinto since all alleged evidence that could provide strength to that claim is anecdotal, not repeatedly observable. True or False?
True, I have already told you, Christianity is based on faith. God cannot be proven by science, period. THus I believe based on faith.

4) last question not targed at Christianity, more at individuals, thus I will not answer it.

The Bible teaches us that there are 2 types of people in this world, those who profess the truth of God's existence and those who suppress the truth of God's existence. The options of 'seeking' God, or not believing in God are unavailable

What the hell is this bullshit, just came up with random points about the bible. Read it first at least before making statements about the bible. The bible said there are two types of people, those who goes to heaven, and those who goes to hell, and unbelievers go to hell (thus not believing in God is available in the bible). As for seeking God, yes, no one can ever seek God, only God can seek man.

The Bible never attempts to prove the existence of God as it declares that the existence of God is so obvious that we are without excuse for not believing in Him.

This is true, however, Jesus also said that Satan (or the devil) enjoys "blinding" people. Without Satan, everyone would believe in God (Satan first lured Eve to sin), because of the statment above.

@RvW

Oh I know, but I'm just saying if you twist the words of religion just a little bit, you get some interesting results. About the incest, whether or not it is technically incest, it is still gross and morally wrong.

Perhaps, if I were to analyse this, we are shown that religious platforms erode with the passage of time, and when we look at scriptures today many of the ideals are either irrelevant, or unorthodox for the world's multitude of societies. When looking at this we see it doesn't matter whether the believers are wrong or not but if they are believing in a false system. Which in turn causes religion of all types to have a controversial role in our society and government, this can lead racism as scapegoats become different believers of different faiths and non-believers. Since we all know the harmful affects racism which include discord and conflict, the real question becomes about how organised faith influences and changes us, and is the change harmful?

Okay, it seems that you actually were attempting to discuss my statements and so I should display more leniency; but once again you fail to actually address my points of argument, which ironically happen to be that you are not addressing my points of argument.

1) My first impression of this question is to answer false. However, the words "influence my freedoms" can mean a whole host of different things... so yes...no...?

Even so, in what way does this relate to my statement that you were criticizing christians for complaining about hostility that you acknowledge on the grounds of hostility that you yourself have recieved, which are hypocritcal sentiments.

2) I don't know whether or not it does, I have not studied the Big Bang theory in depth.

Also, the Big Bang theory does not disprove the theory of creation.

And, once again, how does this address my point: "My point is, that the lack of confirmation for the theory, or knowledge of the answer, undermines the credibility of the argument that God does not exist because God's existence cannot, or has not, been proven. When, that argument itself does not have any confirmed alternative."

3) False.

4) False, it is relevant because it goes to show my point. I have not even begun to prove the existence of God (what is I mean is through the use of facts or evidence,) I have been merely addressing the subject of existence on a purely theoretical basis. Also, in no way have I attempted to limit your freedoms, I am confused at how/why you are attributing negative views accross the board for all Christians, and seemingly even assumed Christians, because I have not even stated my religious views, much less any religious affiliation.


You continually keep saying that I am limiting your freedoms when I have made absolutely no attempts to do so. At the least, it is questionable to say that your logic is impeccable.

How is that even a true or false question?????????????????????????????

Whoops I forgot to point out in point 4 that in my second sentence I was addressing that you said I cannot prove the existence of God, which you cannot know because I haven't even been addressing it.

Aquaholic, thank you for a concise and well-reasoned reply. Let me respond:

"Gay marriage has NEVER been approved in the past."

Patently false. Enjoy: http://www.randomhistory.com/history-of-gay-marriage.html - It's also irrelevant, since the point is that religious beliefs should not be used as an excuse to marginalize groups of people that live in a nominally secular society as enshrined in the concept of the "Separation of Church and State". So even if in the past gay marriage wasn't condoned by various non-Christian society (though it was, as you can see from that link,) it was an injustice then as now, much like debtor's prison (very very common in societies before the 18th century) was an injustice that tended to destabilize society (read up on the initial emigrants to Australia for some context on that).

"You say Christians take away your freedom, so atheists have abortion, taking away the freedom of Life from the fetus."

The abortion debate is certainly a tricky area - at some point what was once a mere embryo, little more than a small ball of cells, gains its own rights to life, liberty and happiness. At what point does that happen? The justification for the Pro-life stance is that life begins at conception, and thus so do the rights that we as a society assign to living beings. I believe that the basis for this justification is the concept of a soul, which is intrinsically religious and thus can't be used as a pretext to drive public policy in a secular nation. The pro-choice stance is that the ability to perceive and analyze is an inextricable part of the definition of a sentient, living being. Since the brain is the physical form of our thoughts, it follows that aborting a fetus (or much more typically an embryo) before its brain has developed to the point where it would be capable of at least rudimentary perception and analysis is therefore not immoral, and further that the woman holds the trump card in being the queen of her own body and the sole arbiter of all rights pertaining to it, as pregnancy clearly does. In any event, I personally support the right of a woman to choose to terminate a pregnancy any time in the first trimester, and under certain circumstances (such as indication of a developmental problem in the fetus, or risk to the life of the woman) in the second trimester as well. The third trimester seems a little late. What do you think about all of this?

Other than the supposed restriction of the freedom of an embryo to become a full-fledged human by supporting a woman's right to choose to abort, what other restrictions of freedom do atheists (which I, by the way, am not) pursue?

"Atheists TEACH (not attempt to teach) evolution in school, AS IF THAT HAS BEEN TESTED AND VERIFIABLE FACT."

Evolution is and long has been a tested and verifiable fact - geneticists even understand to a large degree the intricate workings of the process by which evolution occurs on the physiological level. It is evolution in action that has brought about the sad prevalence of MRSA, for instance (staph bacteria with genetically inheritable antibiotic resistance). There's also the very famous study done on a form of moth that lived on birch trees - they tended to be white, in order to blend in with the bark, but a fairly common mutation would cause them to be dark brown instead. The dark brown moths were very rare because they were easily seen by birds and thus eaten. However, during the initial (coal-burning) phase of the British industrial revolution, the birches were blackened by soot, and over the course of a few years almost all of the white moths died out, and the mutated variant that was black began to flourish because the trait that had once been a liability was suddenly an asset instead. When Britain started burning oil instead of coal and the bark of the trees reverted back to white, the same process happened in reverse so that now the white moths are the most prevalent type of their species (the "typica".) Read for info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution ... So, really. Whether or not God exists, evolution straight up does. It is no more a theory than the theory of special relativity is. Try as you might, you will be completely unable to come up with any observable and testable data to refute this because it is about as sure of a thing as anything science has ever claimed.

|> Atheists TEACH (not attempt to teach) evolution in school, AS IF THAT HAS BEEN TESTED AND VERIFIABLE FACT.

Evolution is taught in science class. Nobody (well, there's bound to be someone, but you get the idea) objects to creation being taught in religion class (argh, what's the real English word for that??), what people have a problem with is creation being taught ("equal time") in science class. That's what started the Spaghetti Monster concept; requesting equal time (in science class) for evolution, creation *and* a third alternative (the Spaghetti Monster).

A very, *very* important point (even though it looks like the minutest of details) is that science never proofs *anything*. The only thing science does is falsify. It's "easy" to show a theory is wrong: just do an experiment where the theory predicts one thing to happen and observe that in fact another thing happens instead. That, once and for all, disproofs the given theory. But, no amount of experimentation can ever *proof* anything.
Example. Despite their name, Newton's Laws of Motion have in fact been disproven; Einstein showed they do not hold at extremely high speeds and/or near extremely large masses. He also supplied a new set of laws (and, with some forethought, used a different qualifier): the theory of relativity. Now, relativity has not been proven (and never will be proven, since that's impossible), it's merely withstood falsification until now. In other words, it's not correct (well, it might be, but it hasn't *shown* to be correct), it is only the best model currently available to us. It is however extremely likely it will eventually be disproven as well and replaced by yet another model.

The reason we still use (and teach in school) Newton's Laws is because they provide an incredibly accurate approximation "under normal circumstances" and are considerably easier to work with than Einstein's Laws. A similar situation occurs for atomic models: the protons and neutrons being a "star" orbited by electrons in a "planet-like" fashion is utterly wrong, but (up to a point) it provides a very useful model and is hence still used. Other theories, such as that of [ether](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminiferous_aether) have not only been proven wrong, but also provide no useful model and have thus been stricken from the schoolbooks (except the history books / history of science sections of science books).

Coming back to evolution, you are correct, it hasn't been proven. But to be honest, it has withstood falsification quite stubbornly. In fact, I know some people "fusing" their Christian beliefs with their scientific knowledge ("beliefs"), reasoning something like this: "God created the Earth and the animals, in such a way as that they *appear* to have evolved; since creation, their further development is directed by evolution".

---

|> |> The Bible teaches us that there are 2 types of people in this world, those who profess the truth of God's existence and those who suppress the truth of God's existence. The options of 'seeking' God, or not believing in God are unavailable
|>
|> What the hell is this bullshit, just came up with random points about the bible. Read it first at least before making statements about the bible. The bible said there are two types of people, those who goes to heaven, and those who goes to hell, and unbelievers go to hell (thus not believing in God is available in the bible). As for seeking God, yes, no one can ever seek God, only God can seek man.

That bullshit came straight from the proof-that-god-exists website [P/X] jsa11111 posted. I was kinda assuming it would at least get its Bible quotes correct...

The term you are looking for is "Divinity Studies" or just "Divinities" in universities. In religious institutions it has a whole host of names such as "Bible School", "Catechism", "Theological Studies", etc. etc.

Imagination, that's a great response and I will respond back in due kind. I've been typing up a storm on this thread though so I'm going to take a break :) Give me some time and I'll get back to you!

P.S. - I love this stuff! Pretty much noone ever gets convinced to drop their previous beliefs when religious debates come up, but I still love to sharpen my wits on the conversation, and in fact that's where I came up with my devilnis handle many many years ago, participating in religious debates on a BBS message board :)

@ devilnis

Same for me

check this website out

http://www.icr.org/article/just-how-well-proven-evolution/ (against evolution)

also:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html (for evolution)

http://www.trueorigin.org/isakrbtl.asp (against evolution)

Very well, devilnis. :)
And I agree, deep intellectual discussion is just absolutely thrilling :3 It's true, I don't actually *expect* anyone to be convinced by me, but sure why not give it a try since it's so fun to discuss anyway :p which is why I waited 5 whole pages of discussion until the intelligence level of the thread was raised to a point that it was worth my time to participate in xD

So, you people came here to practice our debating skills? lol

I actually came to genuinely defend my beliefs.

My favorite Part of this whole post is how it starts out:

Lykus: Just about every forum in the history of the internet has probably had multiple "discussions" about religion, but most of those deteriorate quickly into poorly backed arguments that I wouldn't even classify as discussions.

And then in the same exact post, by the thread creator, the conversation quickly deteriorates quickly with a poorly backed argument:

Lykus: I don't have enough knowledge or experience with other major organized religions, but I absolutely hate Christianity, and lose respect for almost anyone who claims to be a devout Christian/practicing Christian.

And then to follow it up, Lykus doesn't even further participate in the rest of the thread.

Thank you for creating this "Discussion" Lykus.

Why make it a question of either or? ;)

I mean, if someone states their opinion on religion which simply says, "religion is stupid! and and and... and you smell!"
That's only an opinion, it's based on no facts, has no supporting evidence, and leaves no pathway for further discussion. How could you possibly respond to that? "No it's not!" ?? That would also be an opinion that is based on no facts and has no supporting evidence. There is no reason for "discussion" on such an absurd level of thinking... and so I waited for logical points to be made so that a logical discussion could ensue... I just happen to enjoy logical discussion.

@john

I never intended for the first ~3 pages to discuss my opinion. It didn't seem right to ask a question like that and not even give my own opinion on it.


|>And then in the same exact post, by the thread creator, the conversation quickly deteriorates quickly with a poorly backed argument:

I never gave my argument so I don't see how it could've been poorly backed.


|>And then to follow it up, Lykus doesn't even further participate in the rest of the thread.

It was never my plan to participate, im not interested in converting anyone. I made this to hear from people like RvW, aquaholic, imagination, and devilnis



|>Thank you for creating this "Discussion" Lykus.

you're welcome. I've been enjoying it

Sorry to Hi-Jack the thread Lykus, but I'd like to have a conversation about Mothers. I'm interested in hearing what people have to say about them, since most of us came from one.

While I'm terribly ignorant about anyone else's mother, I have a very strong conviction that YOUR MOTHER IS A FAT !@#$#@!, and nothing you can say will convince me otherwise.

So, where shall this conversation start?

@Lykus, Can you guess why the above thread doesn't start a good discussion? Other than it being in a religion thread rather than one devoted to your mother?

Whatever the OP's intent, the discussion is good. Is you subverting it to criticize Lykus going to enhance the conversation somehow? Hypocrisy :)

@Imgination. And the Christians whom say: "If you're not Christian you're going to hell.
Why?... Uh.... Because Jesus Said so" are any better? It can work both ways.