Religion

[Olimar12345]

The wrath of George Foreman echoes in the distance...

[Dude]

Can you not

[Olimar12345]

^k moving foreman to tpytotmt2

[FireArrow]

wat

[Ruto]

This wasn't directed at you, I was including both religion in science to make my statement neutral. There are some idiotic atheists who do treat science like an extremist treats religion, but luckily no one like that is in this conversation.

You can't equate the two. Worshiping science is ridiculous (there were societies that worshiped math, and the some practices and ideas had nothing at all to do with math)

I agree with this, but what can you do? How can you get someone in that loop to consider things outside of it when the belief itself prevents that?

They'd have to get over themselves and actually learn. Using incorrect opinions/deductions and just lies won't get any correct answers. Which is exactly why it's pointless to have a discussion with some of you.
I don't think I'm wrong to point this out, because there's no other way to say it. Besides, the bandwagon fallacy/ad hominem/begging the question/black and white/burden of proof with some tu quoque...etc

I'd point out that one huge mistake everyone did make was to treat the Bible as a historical or sound document. If I said any more, I think THAT would actually be inflammatory even if I cite my sources because of people's sensitivities. I don't take Hesiod word for word, or Homer, so why should one work describing supernatural events be accepted as proof?

Not to mention, one person is better at (probably unwittingly) making blanket, insulting remarks about other religions, pre-Christian work than others. Having studied it in undergrad, I can say, this person never understood any of it.

[Olimar12345]

vary religus pls reed is relevant kthanks

http://forum.ninsheetmusic.org/index.php?topic=7383.0

[FireArrow]

You can't equate the two. Worshiping science is ridiculous (there were societies that worshiped math, and the some practices and ideas had nothing at all to do with math)

I mean it more along the lines of:
Bob: Evolution is a lie.
Bob2: That's insulting!!!! I'll respect your beliefs if you respect mine.

As I'm sure you know, the inability to take criticism and skepticism would render the purpose of science null and void.

They'd have to get over themselves and actually learn. Using incorrect opinions/deductions and just lies won't get any correct answers. Which is exactly why it's pointless to have a discussion with some of you.
I don't think I'm wrong to point this out, because there's no other way to say it. Besides, the bandwagon fallacy/ad hominem/begging the question/black and white/burden of proof with some tu quoque...etc

I'd point out that one huge mistake everyone did make was to treat the Bible as a historical or sound document. If I said any more, I think THAT would actually be inflammatory even if I cite my sources because of people's sensitivities. I don't take Hesiod word for word, or Homer, so why should one work describing supernatural events be accepted as proof?

Not to mention, one person is better at (probably unwittingly) making blanket, insulting remarks about other religions, pre-Christian work than others. Having studied it in undergrad, I can say, this person never understood any of it.

This entire debate was started by me saying the bible isn't an accurate historical document. That was really the entire point I was trying to get across. You can continue to believe in your Bible all you want and I won't judge you, but please accept that it has no credibility and trying to use it to defy scientific discoveries and/or insult people who don't agree with you is just ludicrous.

And yes, I find that normally intelligent people can become... not as intelligent when discussing religion and politics. It's like a defense mechanism to prevent themselves from ever being wrong, though in the end all it does is prevent you from learning anything.

[FireArrow]

vary religus pls reed is relevant kthanks

http://forum.ninsheetmusic.org/index.php?topic=7383.0

wow i feel enlightened, everything makes sense now

[Olimar12345]

very well fiting in the religin topic glad i cood help

[Dudeman]

Dropping this here and moving on.

[Brawler4Ever]

As a Christian, I disagree with C.S. Lewis' statement. It is a chemical process that gives us thought. It is a physical process that allows us to control our bodies. Even if they weren't guided by a Divine Hand, the fact that we can think and that we can take in information is proof that science alone is enough for this to happen. Because we can prove it. Because we can observe it. In a universe greater in size than we can possibly imagine, the circumstances by which life can be produced and maintained had to happen at least once. The argument as to why this happens is up to interpretation, and is, as far as I see, not "proof" of the existence of God.

For my part, I believe that God uses natural causes to create seemingly supernatural phenomena. I believe that God guided the universe for the creation of Earth so that we could live. That includes giving us thought and other natural processes, but I personally disagree with the idea that this is "proof" of the existence of God.

[Dudeman]

So the fact that an intelligent being had to "guide" the creation of the universe is proof that one doesn't exist? Unless I'm reading it wrong, it seems like you're contradicting yourself.

[SlowPokemon]

sexist comments and illogical arguments wow

[Dudeman]

illogical arguments

I'm sorry, does the presence of a guiding force disprove the presence of a guiding force?

[Ruto]

Thinly-veiled creationist literature -.-

I'm sure you can talk about religion without using bad arguments, but that's a stretch. Anyone watch the Godfellas episode in Futurama?

There may also be a quantum basis for free will, and whether or not it can be considered free will at all. (Think about how thoughts are formed, scientifically)