Official Religion Debate Thread

Farq, you are always purposely trying to give Christians a bad name, that is not a typical Christian response, it is a response you would have made when you where a Christian. Not every Christian is ignorant like you were. PLEASE stfu and stop offending peoples beliefs and stereotyping people. That post had no meaning at all, just a jab at Christians and a +1 to your post count.

Farq, you are always purposely trying to give Christians a bad name, that is not a typical Christian response, it is a response you would have made when you where a Christian. Not every Christian is ignorant like you were. PLEASE stfu and stop offending peoples beliefs and stereotyping people. That post had no meaning at all, just a jab at Christians and a +1 to your post count.

i jsut said this came from a 14 year old girl who is ignorant, and i said older christians would have much better responses lol...
i mean i said it in the post, read it all... i said its a typical response from a 14 year old...

and its true, more than 50% of christians i ask give the same answer
and how does that make a christian look bad haha?
it did have a meaning, read the last part.

I didnt mean it to be offending wow im sorry, i was just putting forth what i mostly hear.

But you are right when i say i try to give christians a bad name, not only christains but all religions, thats just the way i role. I strongly believe in the freedom of speech and being able to express your feelings and i wont hold back.

BUT THIS WAS NOT TO MAKE CHRISTIANS LOOK BAD, i dont even see how it makes christians look bad.

I know what you typed, just people lie about things that happen to them all the time. They say someone said something just to have some backup.

well i didnt lie about that, i mean i know you know many christians who give the same response.
I'm sorry if it was being disrespectful i didnt mean it to.

I mean its not a bad argument, i just put forth what i hear from most christians, but when i comes to people like you, i get owned hahah.

[ace]

Farq, your pretty darn stereotypical too. You make tons of judgments about people that you don't know. "O that's the typical Christian response." What If I said "O that's the typical atheist response". You cannot say you know exactly how all Christians were brought up, or how most were brought up. I sear, your the most prejudice person I know.

Farq, your pretty darn stereotypical too. You make tons of judgments about people that you don't know. "O that's the typical Christian response." What If I said "O that's the typical atheist response". You cannot say you know exactly how all Christians were brought up, or how most were brought up. I sear, your the most prejudice person I know.

i said mostly from 50% of 14 year olds lol...
but yah thats true i am steroetypical... need to change that...
how am i prejudice, i mean i admit im steroetypical about cops and religious people, but what i said about how most religious are brought up is not a lie... im not saying all but about 75% are thought to think that way and you cant deny it man..

I mean come on, your telling me that you are not grown up and being flooded with religious thoughts? i sure was and i see and others are.
But thats my opinion.

People take what i say in a way i dont want them to take it, damn i have to like explain everything now and make ever larger posts....

[ace]

I was just stating the obvious. Yea I can deny that 75% are taught to think that way, because I don't know 75% of the Christians in the world, and neither do you. I don't know for sure everything that you say about how others are brought up, and I just don't think it's right that you make so many assumptions saying what you say is definitely right, but you don't know. All I got to say is, if you want people to understand you then say what you mean instead of insinuating the opposite.

ok my bad...

75% of christians are brought up that way IN MY OPINION and i am basing this opinion on wild assumptions
happy:)

Let's get these 14 yr old sterotypes out of the way... I am a 14 year old though my prof on here pbly says i'm over 20... same with my myspace... I was born and have so far been raised a Catholic. The bible isn't meant to be taken literally. Hell is the abscence of God. The firey image of hell was probably taken from the refuse pile that was always burning outside Jerusalem. As far as the whole "that's what the bible says" mumbo jumbo, the bible is a guide line. It uses symbolism to try and define human nature and beliefs. The Garden of Eden was probably taken from a fertile stretch of land in the Tigris Euphrates valley. One last issue to help move along. The Book of Revelation can NOT be used to determine the end time of the world, no matter what anybody says. That horrible beast you hear about is representing Babylon, who put the Jews through years of torment and exile. The Harlot of Babylon is symbolizing the Roman Empire, who persecuted the Christians. 6 was an imperfect number because it had something to do with the seals the Romans used on offical documents (don't quite remeber that part) 7 was considered a good number because it was one above the 6 of the Romans, symbolizing superiority. Why mention the Jews when talking about Christians? They wrote the Old Testament, the first Christians were Jews. In the end, every religion has a superior diety. So we are all worshiping the same God in different forms. That is why all religions should be accepted to.

[DarkPacMan77]

Since both SGG and des (friends of mine personally) posted, I feel I have to lol.

I have a question though, primarily aimed at someone of [any] faith. My question is this: "since nothing can 100% substantiate religion, and nothing can 100% substantiate athiesm/ agnosticism or prove religion false 100% by scientific means, wouldn't that, in turn, mean that religion, just as well as science, are both equally wrong?"

My answer to my own question would be, "yes", but I don't think that science is less accurate than religious scriptures. That may seem like double-talk, but it really makes good sense. Look at it from my way... like farquezy and SGG and des343 all do. Any religious scipture can be proven theoretically wrong or related to other stories/ myths that have been used throughout time to tell of the same types of events (astrologically for example). These things can be defined as theoretically impossible by science and mathematics in hundreds of thousands of different ways than religion can prove that science is theoretically wrong.

In other words, religious scriptures DON'T SUBSTANTIATE themselves, and science does. That's why people like myself, or des, for example, are able to say, "Prove it", and have the right to say it so sternly. Even though nothing can be proven in a realistic and definitive fashion regarding this subject, I think it's much more important to weigh theoretical and hypothetical ideologies. If you do that, you'll realize that there is just too much science and mathematics that discredits religious beliefs and that religion also can't prove itself "realistic" (in any way) through means of science or mathematics.

It's a guessing game until you weigh each side, but when you research and understand both sides of the issue, it's impossible to denounce science's opinions, and highly plausible, through science, to discredit and denounce any body of religious institute.

-DarkPacMan77-

[ace]

Science does have a lot of good points, but in the end like you said nothing can be "proven" until you actually die, then well there is no one that you have argued with to actually say either was right or wrong. But like you said, neither can be proven. I just believe there is more truth to Christianity then science. I think the reason there is so many theories in science to discredit Christianity is because science is always evolving in itself. Christianity on the other hand, just has the bible. I believe if say, Jesus was around today then we would really have quite the argument.

If say I believed in the values of Scientology then I could just as equally not believe in it anyways since it can't actually prove Christianity wrong. I mean I don't possibly see how anything could prove that Jesus wasn't alive. All we have are books. So I mean, "technically" nothing can prove it right or wrong, so I have no reason to believe something based of facts when it can't disprove Jesus's life.

[DarkPacMan77]

If Jesus was around today, I'd be a Christian.

I think it's interesting how you used the word, "evolving" to describe science. Through time, science changes and becomes more advanced in its ways to help denounce religion, while religion itself doesn't keep advancing in a way in which it redeems itself or makes itself more believable.


-DarkPacMan77-

Keep in mind what you guys say are opinions, you speak as what you say is definitely true, but we don't know yet.

But I believe there is quite a bit of truth in scripture. I mean compare it to current events.

[DarkPacMan77]

Keep in mind what you guys say are opinions, you speak as what you say is definitely true, but we don't know yet.

But I believe there is quite a bit of truth in scripture. I mean compare it to current events.

Well, no, it's true that there is more science and mathematics that can denounce religion than there is religion which can denounce science. You can use your basic logic and ask yourself, "why do we not have documented proof (beyond a shadow of a doubt) as to whether Jesus Christ existed?". That's a perfectly logical thing to ask yourself, religious or not. I think everyone will agree on that.

On the other hand, you can't use religion to discredit any advances in science, but since I attacked "logic" before, I'll use logic again. For instance, religion can't logically say that something scientific or mathematical is false. Religion can ask, "how many fingers does a man have on one hand?", and mathematics can say 5. Science can tell you the genetic makeup and structure of the hand. Religion can only say that "God made that hand". The evidence to support this is so vast that I don't have time to list off how often this occurs, but my main point is that where the Bible is weak on explaining details, science isn't.

Of course, the reverse side of what I just said can be thrown back at me and used against me. Someone could easily say, "well what if 'science' asked how many disciples Jesus had?" (or other main plot point in the bible) and scripture can easily point out that there were 12. So yes, you can still answer mathematical questions regarding the Bible itself, but as I've made the point of earlier, religion cannot prove that the Bible is true. Science can prove it untrue because we can't replicate events from the Bible in real life and can't prove that God(s) in any form exist or show signs of existing.

-DarkPacMan77-

Well I never said there is more Biblical proof than Science, I was just saying there is reasonable truth. And the timeline BC/AD is based on the birth/death of Christ. Where did that come from? You don't actually believe that a man named Jesus Christ never existed? Even the top scholar Atheist acknowledge that. It is whether he was a true prophet guy or not is the question. There are texts by ancient people that documented about Jesus.

Anyways, no one can prove it either way. There is plenty of proof on both sides although I haven't seen much proof countering religion. I'd rather not watch the Zeitgiest, the first 5 minutes or so was pretty false since it was blaming religion on man's doing. And it just seems like a waste of time. What is in the movie that counters religion?