Arguments relating to religion

[FireFly]

I all to much enjoy getting into debates with others on subjects relating to religion. I have been debating with some girl that states she's not religious but rather has a "relationship with God." I like bringing things up like "would you ever date a jealous man if you knew he was jealous? Then mention how the Bible states in the 10 commandments that God is a jealous God and to have no other Gods before me." I also like mentioning how such a loving God ordered entire villages to be destroyed. I had her stumped when I said "some evolutionist believe we evolved from apes, however, no fossilized proof has been found showing this transaction. Then stated if God created life then how did he come about, and if he always was and always will be (alpha and omega) then surely 'always' & 'forever' must have a true time. Then I stated if matter could not conserve energy then why does time flow forwards but not backwards, and how smoke fills up a room and doesn't build up in a corner, and how an object in motion will stay in motion until an outside force acts against it, and if this was the case how was time sent into motion". This had her stumped for several minutes until I stated I believed all simple life forms were created by Organic chemical reactions and have since then evolved into more complex organisms, and the reason no fossilized proof has been found is because these changes form rapidly and not slow in which a transaction would be found. I then gave an example of how many scientists believe the Y chromosome in men has been shrinking slowly, then will rapidly disappear. She then replied by asking me "how did the chemicals got here?" which had me stumped.

I have been doing research on the matter, and I do read the Bible, I don't believe someone can perform a good argument on something they haven't studied. I am currently doing some research on the ark Genesis 6:15 states the ark was to be 300 cubits (450ft.) long, the width was to be fifty cubits (75ft.), and the height was to be thirty cubits (45ft.), making the ark 1,518,750 sq.ft. I often ask "religious" people if they believe two of every species and subspecies of animal could fit inside of Walmart, then mention that the ark was much smaller and was to contain 2 (and in some cases 7) of every species. There is no way (in my opinion) that many creatures could fit in the ark, even if they were juveniles they wouldn't fit, and if they did the carnivores would eat them before they could reproduce. (I will eventually figure out what could and more importantly couldn't fit.)

My question for you are what are your beliefs? I personally don't believe in this rubbish and utter bullshit. What are your thoughts? What are some ideas I should bring up in future debates to further prove that evolution which so happens to be the paradigm for the majority of scientists of today? NBK, surely you have some thought on the subject you would like to share that I may repeat in the next debate with some Jesus loving fools.

One thing that still does stump me is how did the first life forms or anything for that matter evolve, I don't believe in God, nothing in the Bible adds up, and there are many things that simply cannot be true. I don't think we evolved from apes, even if we did how did they get here. I do somewhat believe the first simple life forms were created by organic chemical reactions, but how did the chemicals come about? Another question, do you believe "always" & "forever" have a true time? What sent time in motion, surly it didn't do it it's self, that would deny physics, chemistry, and science altogether. All comments will greatly be appreciated.

[xyz]

Well, I'm an atheist...

One of the main things that people give as a reason for god existing is "Well, if there isn't a god then how did the universe get here? Surely there must have been a god to create the universe". Then when you say "The universe just is here, nobody created it" they don't accept that. They just can't get the concept of "WE JUST ARE HERE, NOBODY SENT US" into their heads as, to them, it doesn't seem to add up.

Well, my question is, How did god get here then? If god made us then who made god?(Yeah, answer that one, and none of this "God just is here" crap that you just told me was not a satisfactory explanation for us being here).

I mean, if your reason for beleiving in god is simply that there must have been some way the universe got here, then how the hell (pun intended) did god get here?

As for the Noah story, If every animal came from one pair and every human came from Noah's family, then the planet would have more inbreds than Tasmania...

Also, if everyone came from Noah's family then where did the blacks/asians/e.t.c. come from? They evolved you say? That would take hundreds of thousands of years, and most religions are adamant that the world is less than 10,000 years old. (Personally I beleive carbon dating and other radio-isotope dating methods have proved them wrong on this one countless times)

[SweNMFan]

For me its more like this

Roger Murtaugh : God hates me. That's what it is.
Martin Riggs : Hate him back; it works for me

[FUTI]

Search some more on Oparin theory of life. Electric discharge and UV rays through primordial atmosphere and sea makes lots of common organic molecules that are supposed to make primitive organism as "coacervates" ( hope I spelled this one right). That should plant little bug inside it's head and to gain your time for future attacks:)

BTW none gave any explanation about chirality chosen by the natural compounds. Why L-amino acids and D-sugars mostly? Fliping a coin? As synthetic chemist doubt about that...but it would be nice if it could work:) We can thought several hypothesis but I never heard someone done any experiments to prove chiralty can arise spontaneously.

One of my colleges said once a girl who studied (chemistry) with him and tried to convert him into Hare-Krischna or something....do you know what is definition of meter?-Yes!?-That is how close you can come to me ever!!!

EDIT: to akinrog: I agree with most things you said below about religion being a building part of society at least as far as the moral and ethical issues are in question...I only wish you could said that with less poetry involved ;)

[TheHitMan]

Arguments relating to religion? There isn't none, they all start shitting bricks when you present them with science.. :rolleyes:

[Valinomycin]

I think the guys who wrote the bible had very interesting ideas. I'm definitely not very religious, but if look at the facts behind the story there might be some truth. I give you some examples:

1. Physics tries to close the gap between particles tha have mass and those wo consit of pure energy. If Einsteins formula E=mc^2 could be realized then we could exactly do what is described in Genesis, creating something from "nothing"

2. The Arc. Scientists located the beginning of this story around the black sea. The Bosphorus, the strait between Europe and Asia once was probably closed. When it broke through there must have been a huge flood wave around the black sea. Scientists assume that this is the flood desrcribed in Genesis 6:15.By the way this story also exists in many other cultures (e.g Hinduism, Islam ...)

Don't believe every word that is written in the bible many stories are just inventions of their authors (e.g the christmas story). Christianity has also been shaped by many other religions (e.g Egypt). But a lot of ideas in the bible probably base on facts. I personally think thy bible is more a history book than a book about religion. No human can think without beeing influenced by anything/anybody (if you don't believe me read Hegel or Kant)
so why not by religions, but influence mustn't end in fantism ,yes I'm thinking of Islamic terrorists BUT also on Christians in america who blindly follow George Bush on his tour of world desruction (sorry but thats my opinion)

[akinrog]

IMHO, the problem is not that if there is a god, satan, Jehuda, Genies, (or whatever deities the people believe in) or this or that religion is true but that or this religion is false.

If we consider the society as a building I believe religion is the very water added to cement mix to prepare concrete which helps holding the building (society) together and direct it properly. However a bulding not only requires cement (which contains our examplary water) but reinforcement steel, columns, beams, forms, plaster, windows, doors, utilities (e.g. power, gas, utility water) etc. (which in short imply IMHO the science). If we assume that we are preparing the concrete in the right way, we must add the correct amount of water, of which while a good deal reacts with the cement in the concrete mix and sets it properly, a great majority of it evaporates an / or oozes out.

If we add too much water, the concrete mix becomes a slurry which is useless unless dewatered; if we add only a little water then the concrete mix is very dry and crumbles.

To continue my metaphorical example, if prophets are architects of this building (society) then disciples/saints, etc are their civil /structural engineers, and priests are foreman/workmen. While in some cases architects, mechanical /structural engineers are to blame, in many occasions its priests' fault in failing to construct the building properly (i.e. to direct the society in an proper manner).

In short, after the building is constructed, we generally never see the architects, civil /structural engineers, constructunal foremen/ workers. That's over with them after completion and handing over of the construction.

I mean while people can sooth their pains with divine beliefs, feelings, aspirations, they must never adapt and base their entire lives upon the religion which represents a very slippery ground IMHO. I say this because we use priests as our intermediaries between our mundane life and spiritual life and if those priests have evil intentions, we are simply fu*ked.

(A sidenote: I have always admired the Christianity since you simply suppressed the priests to prevent them intervening your mundane lives, which in turn brought you the illumination.)

That's my opinion of religion and divine beliefs. I always tried to look at the religion in a utilitarianist point of view. I mean a religion must be assessed regarding its utility to the society and if a religion inspires hatred towards a nation /another religion (which is the current position of Islamic Fundamentalists), or reactionary movements, such religion (or at least such interpretation thereof) must be reformed and no reformation is possible then it must be eliminated.

Now after the philosophical discourse (or shit as you may put it :) ), I would like to express my personal thoughts about the divinity.

First of all, if there is a god, he must be an unmitigated son-of-a-bitch to allow so much misery, pain and agony in our mundane life.

We are spending our entire lives to overcome all and any types of difficulties and troubles, so I am not a fan of God/Allah/Jehuda and any divinity that people workship, even if he exist.

As a result I would like to repeat final words of Jesus on the cross,
"O God! Why thou hast forsaken me!" (This is a translation. I don't know the original)

[Sarevok]

I would like to repeat final words of Jesus on the cross,
"O God! Why thou hast forsaken me!" (This is a translation. I don't know the original)
From Mt. 27:46 and Mark 15:34, the original is "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?" or "Eli, Eli, la'ma sabach-tha'ni?", according to english bibles. The original, according to the Vulgate is "Heli Heli lema sabacthani" or "Heloi Heloi lama sabacthani."

A more appropriate translation is: "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?"

[Marvin]

As soon as you start to introduce logic to any religion it starts to fall apart, ultimatly this is what it all boils down to. This implies 1 of 2 things the first being very obvious.

Martin Luthur King knew this and he picked the other one. He decided logic and reason themselves must be somehow lying to us, currupting our thoughts, poisoning the population and they needed to be stamped out and destroyed so that we would 'know nothing but the word of god'.

'Nice'.

[Skean Dhu]

You argue that we(worshippers of a faith) can't explain the origin of our chosen diety, but we can no more explain their origin, than you atheists/agnostics can explain the origin of the universe. but sure enough, here we are one littel blue orb spinning idely in the great sea of the universe

absence of evidence is not to be confused with evidence of absence.
*prepares for ridicule and attacks

[Marvin]

No, you miss the point. Saying that god created everything doesnt *explain* anything. It just wraps the answer up into something more complicated.

Use of science explains complicated things in terms of simpler ones. You can use this to improve the human condition, instead of trying to convince everyone that if they are suffering, its because they are meant to be.

[Skean Dhu]

sorry, for somereason I totally missed your post directly above mine, that comment was more or less directed to the first few posts.

wold you care to elaborate more on your posts directly previous and post mine, I'm not sure I entirely get what your point is.

The big bang(science) and intelligent design(religion) are just theories that help us comprehend our coming into existance, saying one or the other is wrong would be ignorant, we don't know enough about our world/universe to say with certainty which theory of existance is (completely)right, or whether they are both wrong and some new untheorized theory is right.

[Marvin]

Skean Dhu,

Then I apologise if the tone was inapropriate.

I gave up arguing about religion a long time ago for many reasons. If I had to reduce the god vursus science debate to something simple, it would have to include a reason to argue at all,

Science isnt a theory, its a way of using logic and experiment to build a model of the world that makes sense. Its only real assumption is that in the final solution no part should contradict any other part. When you have a big enough solution you can make motorcars and rockets and cancer drugs and at no point do you have to say 'these things do not fit becuase they were made by god". As soon as you introduce the supernatural, you assert that we cannot control or predict anything.

Religion starts with that assumption. This was all made by an all powerful, all knowing being. It explains nothing, it meerly states we are not capable of understanding gods master plan and we shouldnt worry. The more science progressed, the more we understood that the universe was shaped by simple forces, all of this massive complexity wasnt designed, it created itself, evolved.

If we want cars, and MRI machines in hospitals, if we want to shape this world to make it better to live in we need an understanding of the way the universe works based on logic. Faith in the supernatural in all its forms works against this (allthough some religions advocate we should study gods work to better understand him). It says that it doesnt matter, or that its meant to be like this and we shouldnt be altering it or that we should spent all our time trying to reach goals that cant be tested by us. Most of all it says there are things humans cannot ever understand and nothing we can do that can be relied upon. Faith in something that will never interact with the real world doesnt help us improve it, and relience on it can only slow progress.

The more we understand, the less room there is for god. We study the solar system, and we see it doesnt work by the supernatural, everything falls into place from the simple forces. We study the natural world and we see man evolved from simpler creatures, not created by a designer. We study man closely and we see there is nothing special. Nothing to say a computer could not eventually be programmed to think like a man, and nothing that would stop that computer from bilieveing in a god itself. Nothing that would stop a man erasing everything that computer is, and nothing that stops everything that man is from being lost when he finally switches off.

We needed the existance of gods to explain things happening to us, the wind, the rain, the sun so we evolved those ideas. We needed a god to expain where we came from and where we should be going, so we evolved that idea. We needed the concept of a soul for emotional stability so we evolved it. We needed a sense of self for survival so we evolved that before all the others. Its much easier to doubt the existance of things when you can see where these ideas came from and why we needed them to get where we are today. Its also easy to see why these ideas get in the way of progress but why we arnt yet ready to get rid of all of them.

To boil down the argument as far as I can. Science leads to places we want to go in the real world. Religion leads nowhere real.

Its difficult to see why someone who understands atheism would want to convince an average theist. Ultimatly atheism is insubstantial in a way humans are evolved to need emotionally, and religion is insubstantial in a way humans are evolved to need physically. Between science and faith in modern society, science is the more empowering and faith is the more easily abused.

[10fingers]

I tend to believe in a God. Organized religion has really become a perversion though. It is more about one group of people trying to control another. Do we not feel our most secure when we are surrounded by people who think and believe as we think they should?
The most worshipped religion in the world today is science. I think science is a religion of man, we are insecure and need to understand how things work so that we can control events around us. Man has really come a remarkable distance in his ability to do things but I don't think we are any more secure than when we were running around naked on the plains of Africa.
People can go into space, talk instantly to anyone in the world, watch DVD's and a myriad of other science marvels, but as for the things that really matter we can't do much. Science can't explain why an electron orbits around a nucleus or why people can't get along with each other. It can't cure the common cold or cancer. You could take all the technology man has ever devised and we would not be able to create a machine that can do what a common housefly can do.

[akinrog]

I also give up arguing religion in the very essence of it but I always discuss the sociological aspects of (i.e. social order created by) the religion whenever I find an occassion to do so.

IMHO, the key issue for using Religion and Science to the advantage and benefit of any society is secularism.

Secularism not only prevents reactionary movements (i.e. bigotry) by the religious groups but also enables the mainstream people to distinguish between the mundane life and spiritual life and prevents both becoming an obstacle before each other for the people.

Thanks Heavens, at least Christian world is not as bigot as Moslem World. Otherwise we would be living in shitholes globally, (when we considered how the world becomes illuminated and how its living standards are elevated by the science pouring out from west) fighting each other to rescue this or that holy place, trying to topple those people (whom we believed to be infidels or said to be infidels by the priests) etc.!

Believe me you are so lucky since you do not experience reactionary movements by the bigots (who are trying to bring entire society into Dark Ages). I am living in a Moslem country (which is a secular one not a theological one) and there is quite a reactionary movement, some of them are so fanatic that they claim we must give up anything that they deem to be satan's gudget (poor souls) (e.g. TV, radio, GSMs, drugs (medicines), etc.).

In a few months ago, US Government criticized France for enacting some laws to ban wearing religious symbols in public places. I am supporting France for its action since if tolerance against bigots (especially Muslem shitheads) is allowed, then they eventually attempt to establish a theological state (which is far more dangerous than any fascist government).

By saying this I blame nor US Government nor Americans, since you have never experienced bigotry (consider Mediveal Europe, witch huntings, inquisition, etc.) and aren't aware that reactionist movement is a danger for the illumination of the people.

In no event, I argue workshipping practices of any religion since it is totally useless and meaningless. If you believe it something, it is OK and the only truth you must believe and nobody has any right to intervene it (since it's in the concerned peoples' private sphere). But as I said before I always discuss social order created by the religion.

In addition, it is always an improper thing to clash religion with science since they are acting in different spheres (former in our spiritual life and later in our mundane life).

While it may seem a sign of divided personality (and I generally prefer scientific approaches over the religious approach), I always have two explanations for the very same thing (one - the dominant one - is scientific and the other - the trivial one - is religious).

This is something like explaining the same physical phenomenon according to both classic physics and quantum physics. As you may know, physical phenomenons are very different when you go into subatomic size. At that level principles of classical physics are not applicable but so are those of quantum physics.

[nbk2000]

Science has only been around a couple of hundred years.

The housefly has been around 10's of millions of years.

The house fly is going to be the same in 10 million years.

Science will NOT be the same in even 10 years.

Manipulation of matter at the atomic level, and lower (quantum), is now taking place. In 100 years, nano-machines will surpass anything a housefly can do.

But, of course, GOD could update the housefly with an organic jet-engine, right? :p

[Marvin]

"In 100 years, nano-machines will surpass anything a housefly can do."

Were I to know a way to live long enough to collect my winnings, I'd give you even odds that will not happen. Though by then I would hope genetics would fully understand every aspect of how a housefly works at a chemical level.

[Sarevok]

Thanks Heavens, at least Christian world is not as bigot as Moslem World.

The "Christian" world is not as bigot as the Moslem world simply because no christians take their religion seriously, as moslems do. And they don't take their religion seriously because of technological and economical progress, which dissolves old beliefs, such as religion.

If you don't believe me, search google for anything said about women by Ecclesiastes, Saint Paul, Saint Tertullian, or Saint Augustine. Search for misogyny bible.

The presence or absence of bigotry is more related to the technological and economical level of a society than to the religion(s) professed by that society. If the Moslem world was as advanced and rich as the US, they would not take their religion too seriously and it would be less bigot. If the "Christian" world was as low-tech and poor as it was in the Dark Ages, then it would be as bigot as today's Moslem world.

In short, its not a Christians are not bigots and Moslems are bigots. Both christianty (mystical/pagan/corrupted paulism would be a more appropriate name, but thats a complex issue) and islamism are bigot religions. Christians are not usually bigots because they live in a more technologically and economically advanced society, not because of their religion.


By "bigotry" you do mean someone who believes that women, in average, are not as strong and as capable as men, in average; that blacks, in average, are not as intelligent as whites, in average; etc, right?

In short, you do call a "bigot" someone who doesn't agree with the accepted values of our society, as they are presented by the mass media (or do you think you figured your morality and values - the values you use to call someone who doesn't agree with them a "bigot" - by yourself?) By calling others a "bigot," you are merely protecting the values the mass media and the school teached you to protect.

Some of these values are: all races are equal, women are as good as men, real-life violence is wrong, child-spanking is wrong, buying stuff you don't need is good, any form of thought of behavior that is incoveninent for society is a problem and the person in question must be cured by confinement in a prison or by manipulation through drugs or brainwashing by the hands of a psychologist, etc.

All of these values are presented by the mass media, teached at schools, etc, because they are useful to the system. Examples of why they are useful:

1) By putting women in equal standars with men, women will, among other things, work. Therefore, instead of taking care of their children, they will leave the children to be educated by school and by the mass media. Thus the system is capable of weakening family bonds, since strong family bonds generate nepotism; also if one is more loyal to his family than to society, one will not delate a criminal relative to the police, one will not work in a different city because one wants to stay with his parents, etc.

2) If blacks are considered to be less capable than whites, and therefore as a genetic threat to the good of humankind (they would be, if they were inferior to whites, wouldn't they? They would destroy the superior race through interracial fornication), they would have to be destroyed, and that would require violence. Violence (not violence as it is happening in Iraq; I'm talking about widespread violence all over the world, such as a big civil war) disrupts society (can society exist if everybody kills a lot of people daily?). IF (I am talking IF) science PROVES that blacks are NOT as intelligent as whites, then what would happen? The scientists that proved this would be jailed, the proof would be discredited and, thanks to the mass media, would soon be forgotten. Or you think this wouldn't happen, if science PROVES that blacks are NOT as intelligent as whites (agains, I'm talking "IF they are not" - I'm not asking you to agree with Hitler's race views, since TV told you that Hitler is bad)?

3) If the natural aggressive human behavior is not manipulated, then there would be too much killings and widespread violence, which would disrupt our complex society. Therefore the mass media fuels us with fake violence (e.g. Rambo movies, etc) to sustain our natural hunger for violence and, at the same time, displays real-life violence as being abhorrent.

The main difference between christians not being bigots and moslems being bigots is a technological and economical difference, not a religious difference. As strange as it can sound, technology and economy are MUCH more important to define a culture's values and beliefs than religion. Religion is merely a coating, not a cement. Its a coating as important as a galvanized coating (i.e., without it the stuff rusts), but is is, anyways, merely a very thin coating, and differences between the coatings are unimporant .

Take the christian world for example; it was christian too in the middle ages, but blacks, poor and women were considered inferior, slavery was considered natural and right, violence was accepted, child-spanking was the norm, etc. Today the christian world is quite different. And the christian world still professess the same religion. Why did the values changed then? Because of technological and economical advance. Contrary to most people belief's, technology is not a neutral tool, nor economy is merely a heap of bills. They shape the very fabric of society.

To summarize, I want to say that differences between religions are utterly unimportant (religions are important to feed the common people's fear of inevitable death and utterly meaninglessness of life, but the differences between religions are unimportant - if there is a difference, it is either superficial, or it is related to economy and technology, not really to religion, even if it looks like something created by or for religion).

Christianty is not much "better" nor "more correct" than any other religion, and the contrary is also true. Now, if someone says "Horray! I agree with you, all religions should be respected", then one has learned nothing. To respect all religions (with the exception of those who profess bevahior that is inconvenient for society) is also a value presented by the mass media to protect the system since religious conflict disrupts society.

Someone who REALLY believes in a religion should attack all other religions at any cost, by all means necessary, including sabotage, killing, bombings, etc, since only ONE religion can be right. Average idiot: "Oh, but TV told me that isn't right to do." Me: "Forget it..."

[SweNMFan]

Essentially Christians, Moslems and Jews share the same god, we only have different prophets, Jesus, Mohamed and the Jews are still waiting.

[akinrog]

By "bigotry" you do mean someone who believes that women, in average, are not as strong and as capable as men, in average; that blacks, in average, are not as intelligent as whites, in average; etc, right?

No I use the term's dictionary meaning, i.e. fanaticism or more properly a person holding on a creed, opinion, etc.

The main difference between christians not being bigots and moslems being bigots is a technological and economical difference, not a religious difference. As strange as it can sound, technology and economy are .......

I agree with you regarding this. I praise the Cristian world not because they are Christians (see my personal opinion on God's himself :) which I believe expresses my true stance regarding the religion of any kind), but since you managed to break apart the clergymen's hegemony to allow enlightment of the average citizens and thereby elevating your life standards.

The main difference between christians not being bigots and moslems....

Regarding the above statement, I gave the above metaphorical example to emphasize that while establishing a brand new society (e.g. from Israeli society to Christian society, from Pagan Arab society to Moslem Arab Society, from Monarchic/Aristocratic Russian Society to Socialist Russian Society etc.), always some sort of religion/belief/ideology (in short beliefs) is involved to convert and transform such society into something different both in essence and form. I mean beliefs (which during ancient times, is religion) was the corner stone to transform a society.


... Religion is merely a coating, not a cement....

In my example I did not identify the religion with the cement but the water in the cement, which imply something indefinite and volatile and must used carefully in order to obtain a hard set concrete inlaid with reinforcement steels, etc.

Take the christian world for example; it was christian too in the middle...

The above statement actually confirms my views, during Middle Ages the Christian world was under the bigotic influence of clergymen. You managed to hush them up (Renaissance, Reform Movements, etc.) and finally had a life of your own not that of priests.

.....it is related to economy and technology, not really to religion, even if it looks like something created by or for religion).

I am sorry but I had to express that I, to a certain extent (that is to say not absolutely), disagree with you on this.

While what you say is true to a certain extent, during those times Islamic world was as bigotic as Christian world but they were rich (remember Seraglios, Sultans, Andulisia, Istanbul (Constantinepole) which are extravagantly rich and inspirations to Arabian Nights, Abduction from Seraglio by Motzart, etc.) due to trading and scientific innovations which are known to newborn Islamic Arab State but unknown to Christians. But you managed to hush up then hatemongering Christian priest, but Moslem world up to date could not manage it.

And more important of all one of the most richest countries of the world, that is to say Saudi Arabia and Kuwait are the most bigotic Moslem countries where the hardest of the Islamic Laws (Sheriah) are valid and in force, even though they have the money, they have the economy, they can purchase any technologies with their money, which IMHO disproves your argument of the relation between the bigotry and economy.

Moreover, we must not underestimate the burden (not only physical/financial, but also psychological burden) a religion imposes upon human beings. I mean if you are very religious, your attention, your cognitive abilites are concentrated upon the religious implications of all and any action you confront and/or undertake, thereby (mostly) adversely affecting your ability to make a healthy decision/conclusion regarding such actions.

I remember during my childhood I had to receive Koran courses where the pupils only had to read Arabic texts without understanding it (since my native language is not Arabic - though I must claim that even native Arabs are incapable of thoroughly understanding a quite ancient text i.e. Koran which have been written at least fifteen centuries ago, given the fact that languages are dynamic and change over the time with respect to context and syntax, grammar, symantecs, etc.).

During my adolescence/youth I thought those a few years of my childhood are an absolute loss, since it gave me nothing to cope with real life (mundane life). And I am really angry since I lost those precious years repeating some Arabic texts (which are meaningless since I cannot understand them).

As a conclusion history confirms the rise of the west occurred only after Renaissance and Reform Movements originated in Europe. I mean, the economic wealth, scientific innovations (i.e. enlightment) took place only after you had managed to suppress heavy influence of the priest on your daily life. For example you managed to extricate print machine from the hands of the bigotic priests (who apparently may object that it's satan's invention but are actually afraid of the fact that brand new ideas shall be spread, literacy rate shall increase and they can no more exploit ignorance of the people for their pockets and greed of power). However the Moslem world (thanks to aspirations of Moslem Priests - namely Hodjas, Mullahs, Sheiks, Darvishes, etc.) resisted inception of printing machine for almost three hundred years.

Christianty is not much "better" nor "more correct" than any other religion...


My entire argument was based upon the fact that I am regarding the religion as a utilitarian point of view, and at the very first post I made regarding this arguing essence of religion is useless and meaningless since it is in people's private sphere which is immune to human perception, but discussing sociological aspects are always useful for illumination.

But I must confess that I, as a very diluted Moslem (or more properly a non believer), love Jesus Christ for his humanely actions/preachings, etc. although not very informed of Christianity.

....Average idiot: "Oh, but TV told me that isn't right to do." Me: "Forget it..."

Of course media has a really brainwashing effect on its audience. However the above statement is the very bigotry (fanaticism, of course - I hope - not your bigotry) I am referring to.

I shall not mention those shit (like tolerence) that your media poured upon you, but I shall argue that acting on religious motives is a waste of time and no good for nobody. I again regard this issue in the utilitarian point of view. I always try to concentrate my efforts/cognital abilities to have as much as knowledge I can get and improve myself, my family to the best possible extent. And I am (and at least half of my country is) taking Western World as my role model not with regard to beliefs (which are very indefinite and slippery) but with regard to values, mentality, scientific approach of the Western Sphere. Regards to all.

[FireFly]

Very interesting and "amusing" stuff. Thanks for the posts guys, I don't mean to anger any of you creationist, though most of you seem to be evolutionists. I simply enjoy debates on such controversial things as this. For me it's like this...in order to believe in God you must have faith, faith in what is the question...faith in the Bible? The Bible is fool of lies, there are some things stated that simply cannot be true. Science on the other hand is tested and tested again until a conclusion is drawn up that always gives the same results (falseafiable). I believe people like to believe in a God, it makes them feel warm and fuzzy inside, they like to feel that they will be born again and live "forever" (define forever!) in heaven. I would much rather study things like Science, that may very well help better our lives and increase our life span on our very pathetic and puny planet. Many Scientists believe that around 2050 our planet will be overpopulated, if this happens the population will decline till a point is reached in which the amount of people wont overwhelm Earth and its resources. Even if we could somehow overcome this we are bound to run out of resources sooner or later, and even disease will surely kill the likes of our kind. I believe we need another cold war, during the showdown with Russia NASA had all the funding needed, one day our one shot at survival may very well be on another planet, I don't see this one surviving many more generations, even if it did, who would want to live here with all these new laws, we would be like caged animals, with our controlled more and more by the government. A Revolution and Civil War are long overdue (IMHO).
Off topic: Rogue Science may now be found on AOL!

[SweNMFan]

Many Scientists believe that around 2050 our planet will be overpopulated, if this happens the population will decline till a point is reached in which the amount of people wont overwhelm Earth and its resources

There is no way that earth get overpopulated in 50 years, localy maybe but there is still alot of places where we could survive that isn't used yet.

But if it happend I see that just as natural selection. But that has nothing to do with religion.

[xyz]

"Instant Controversy! - Just add religion" :D

[nbk2000]

Saudi Arabia may be rich, and have strict adherence to Sheriah law, but it's also the one having the most agitiation for moderation of this absurd restriction on their lives.

Women are agitating, the poor are agitating, foreigners are agitating, and the princes are getting nervous because they know that their hold is slipping and only tighter repression can prevent it, which only fuels the opposition even more.

Only the goat-herder poor countries, like afghanistan, are really gung-ho about fundamentalist islam, because they've got nothing to live for, and plenty of reasons to die.

[10fingers]

NBK, for every benefit of technology you can give I will give you three negatives.
I love science and technology. I like the internet, cell phone, chemistry, porno DVD's. It's great. But I do not have a blind faith in them to make my life more satisfying. The same people that say that blind faith in a God is illogical and unscientific are ususally the same ones that have that same blind faith in science.
One of the great things that science has given us is an insight into the workings of the universe. These insights give me all the more reason to believe in a creative force at work that is a lot smarter than man will ever be. We might be able to someday create a small machine that can do all the things a common housefly can do in the same size package, but I think to make a universe with countless galaxies, stars with planets and myriad forms of life springing up is another thing. I think this universe and us will come to an end long before that happens.
The bible is full of contradictions, for instance, if Adam and Eve were the only people on earth then their children must have committed incest for people to have propagated. Also, the creation theory has been totally disproven by the theory of evolution. But is not evolution a way to create? Most of the things in the bible are parables, not meant to be taken literally.

[FireFly]

There is no way that earth get overpopulated in 50 years, localy maybe but there is still alot of places where we could survive that isn't used yet.

But if it happend I see that just as natural selection. But that has nothing to do with religion.

I think you miss my point (I'm not sure I believe the earth will be overpopulated in 50 years, though I do believe it will happen). I was stating that religious people like to feel that there is something good to come, though science states different. I do believe the earth will become overpopulated though I'm not sure when. I do know that many believe the resources on this earth will only be able to hold around 17 billion people and that amount is growing close.

[nbk2000]

17 billion at a level like that in Soylent Green, or 1 billion (or less) in Xanadu?-

[knowledgehungry]

I believe in Christianity not based on someone else, not based on theories, but based on my own experiences in life. Things will fall into place in ways that I would never expect, but when I look back I can see something arranging everything for the outcome that occurred. I can see a pattern and a movement towards a specific goal or direction in my life. Things do not just happen randomly, I don't like to argue religion. The best way to convert someone is to live your life as a christian and make the world wonder what it is I have and for them to want it.

[tmp]

Religion and science will always clash. The classic example is Evolution
and Creationism. Religion in itself is not a bad thing. It gives us moral
groundings. The problem is, as always, the handful of fanatics who
use religion to justify the enslaving, torturing, and killing their fellow man.
This is the type of the so-called "religious" person that scares me !

[doggie]

people tend to need something to believe in, be it a god, or a calculator.

I tend to believe in half of what I experience a quarter of what I read and 25% of what I think "should" happen.

:)