CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
There is no real authority on when God wants people to fight and when he does not. People are pretty much free to use this excuse whenever they feel like it, and there is an equal chance every time that it is a valid motive. Just because you think God would not have chosen to participate in a particular war doesn't mean very much.
I picked this side because I do not think the absence of religion would remove human tendencies, positive or negative. There would still be greed, corruption, and a desire for power, so there would still be war. There would still be empathy, generosity, and humanitarianism, so there would still be charity, too. Both of them would just find another banner to fly.
Religion doesn't create conflict anymore. People who abuse religion to control others or those who use religion as an excuse do, though. Those uh, brainwashed terrorists are a fine example of that. Not saying we should give them any sympathy or anything, though.
it is actually bad people who are blinded by religion who cause wars. the world only consists of bad people and good people, not bad religions and good religions. no religion is bad, only people who believe that followers of other religions are bad. this racism is the main cause that in America today, followers of Islam are still suffering hated of the 9/11 terror attacks.
all terrorists may be Muslim, but all Muslims are not terrorists.
I read that somewhere and have no questions against it.
Stalin was an atheist, as was Mao, as was - I believe - Mussolini.
Atheists have perpetuate violence and hatred as well as religious people. We know this, and yet this debate highlights a blatant disregard for reason (and a strong prejudice against religion).
If you want to say religion causes wars and hatred then I ask: which religion? Christianity - the Catholic church? James 1:27 (one of the 2 verses of the NT that explicitly mention 'religion') "Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world." That cannot cause war.
Stalin was an atheist, as was Mao, as was - I believe - Mussolini.
Atheists have perpetuate violence and hatred as well as religious people. We know this, and yet this debate highlights a blatant disregard for reason (and a strong prejudice against religion).
Atheism is a lack of ideology, a lack of belief. As such it can never be the cause of wars and violence. Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong, and Benito Mussolini all had political ideologies which they were working to build up in their states.
If you want to say religion causes wars and hatred then I ask: which religion? Christianity - the Catholic church? James 1:27 (one of the 2 verses of the NT that explicitly mention 'religion') "Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world." That cannot cause war.
If you wish to make a different representation of Christianity from its real world counterpart. You should look into the passages which punish witches with death, consider nonbelievers as vile and corrupt, condemn homosexuals and adulterers. This is more in tune with ancient Christianity.
What we have come to in terms of the Bible and Christianity is that I can see one thing within the text and you see another. That is, interpretation can be subjective. If this is the case then the representation is based not on the objective truth of the passage(s) - since we have no basis by which to determine the shift from subjective to objective - but rather upon the subjective "truth". As such the consequence of every passage lies with the interpreter. That is, the person.
Politics. I think you confuse instance with principle here. I'll put aside fascism - to that degree I think we have consensus. Mao and Stalin were communists, you thus blame their ideology - if you blame them as people who "rail-roaded", as it were, their respective ideologies you argue my point. However this is unfair: the Spanish revolution ended in no mass fatalities because of the ideology of anarcho-communism, nor do the Kibbutzim (also anarchist), nor did the Paris commmune. You see, we have instances on both sides (that is, of ideologies going "good" and "bad"). As such it cannot be the commonalities that cause the schism: if it was communism, they'd all be bad. The differences cause the differences - tautologous! And the difference, again, is the persons.
What we have come to in terms of the Bible and Christianity is that I can see one thing within the text and you see another. That is, interpretation can be subjective. If this is the case then the representation is based not on the objective truth of the passage(s) - since we have no basis by which to determine the shift from subjective to objective - but rather upon the subjective "truth". As such the consequence of every passage lies with the interpreter. That is, the person.
The interpretations are subjective, but the real-world effects are and have been extremely violent. Doctors being murdered for carrying out abortions, homosexuals beaten and slain, witches and heretics being burned, Muslims warred against.
Politics. I think you confuse instance with principle here. I'll put aside fascism - to that degree I think we have consensus. Mao and Stalin were communists, you thus blame their ideology - if you blame them as people who "rail-roaded", as it were, their respective ideologies you argue my point.
Joseph Stalin produced Stalinism and Mao Zedong produced Maoism. Both were despots. Both were in a position of great power and both had severe personality flaws, Stalin with his paranoia and Mao with his hedonism.
Essentially what we've come to is that it is the people. Interpretations are subjective, and it is the results of these interpretations that are ill. People are causing the ills.
In terms of the political allegory, of sorts, again it is agreed that it is the people that cause the problem. (As soon as you blame the ideology called Maoism you blame Mao; if you blame Stalinism you blame Stalin.)
I don't see how you are strengthening your point that it is religion and not people that create wars (and other "bad" things).
Essentially what we've come to is that it is the people. Interpretations are subjective, and it is the results of these interpretations that are ill. People are causing the ills.
In terms of the political allegory, of sorts, again it is agreed that it is the people that cause the problem. (As soon as you blame the ideology called Maoism you blame Mao; if you blame Stalinism you blame Stalin.)
Correct. This is another reason why you cannot blame atheism.
I don't see how you are strengthening your point that it is religion and not people that create wars (and other "bad" things).
I am not arguing for this point in this rebuttal. I am addressing your statement that Atheism could be construed as motivating despotism. On the other side of this debate I already made my argument against religion.
In the context of this debate you are agreed with my position here. I don't think we should dwell on it. I do not blame atheism, I merely use the example that the thing that is in common with despots is not their religious belief: hitherto it is unreasonable to suppose that is what causes the despotism. Your arguing my side. (Welcome to the dark side - we lied about the cookies.)
Atheism can no more prompt or cause war as religion can ('religion' used in the standard understanding). It was used as an example to demonstrate my point is all.
(I may respond to your own argument - to be honest I haven't read it yet...)
religion is a mechanism to explain the universe, standardize acceptable behavior in a society, and unify a group of people. Unfortunately, different people with different explanations of the universe, standards of acceptable behavior often clash, but this is in no way because of religion
Neither. it's politics that creates wars. Every war ever fought has been over kingdom or resources. It's well paid historians who want to rewrite history to fit their views that lead to the current crop of "history rewriters"
Is it religion that creates wars or bad people who are blinded by religion?
I get upset by people saying that Christianity causes wars,
But really, I believe it is the people who belive God
wants them to fight WHEN HE DOES NOT!!!!!
I want to see what other people belive about the subject.
Neither. it's politics that creates wars. Every war ever fought has been over kingdom or resources. It's well paid historians who want to rewrite history to fit their views that lead to the current crop of "history rewriters." If you look at current wars like Afghanistan and Iraq and compare them to something like the crusades. Their very similar not only in attacking Muslims in their countries but that the invaders countries have excessive needs and the country their attacking has the resources.
The crusades were fought because the Church and the Kingdoms were not making enough money, but to get cheap soldiers fighting used the religion excuse so they could pay them less as “God would repay them 100 fold” if they fought on the kings (so the churches) side.
Nowadays, most weapons and soldiers are from Christian countries so it pretty obvious that if they weren’t so willing to make money by selling guns to the highest bidders, criminals and terrorists would not be so well armed.
What God or Dawkins has to say on the subject is lost to these people but they won’t hesitate to hide behind the religion or freedom or speech excuse when it suits them. The Arabs call these people “Mushriks” and there is no equivalent word in English but it’s sort of like turncoats who will fight for the winning side as long as it’s profitable and advantageous to them but will not allow the total extermination of the other side in case they need to switch back over to them. Nasty people in other words.
Neither. it's politics that creates wars. Every war ever fought has been over kingdom or resources. It's well paid historians who want to rewrite history to fit their views that lead to the current crop of "history rewriters." If you look at current wars like Afghanistan and Iraq and compare them to something like the crusades. Their very similar not only in attacking Muslims in their countries but that the invaders countries have excessive needs and the country their attacking has the resources.
I used to think this way until I read and saw in videos Muslims praising god during acts of violence. The violence was provoked for the most benign, abstract reasons: we blasphemed, and so they were rioting in streets in protest of our blaspheming cartoons. There is no money at stake, no land, merely religious doctrine which makes any blasphemy punishable by death.
Religion can make people act in the most crazy ways, and this is an unequivocal example of something purely religious, blasphemy of danish cartoons, leading to violence.
People who say religion are retarded. There've been plenty of wars with religion playing no hand in the matter and that's enough to justify that religion isn't the cause of wars and most likely never has been.
Except judaism christianity islam and the aztec religions... all they've ever wanted is bloodshed. Let's not forget hinduism, budhism and sikhism either.
Crazy people with no real hobbies or morals , twist the intention of "religion" or get a twisted version of someone's sick joke stuck in their heads and they repeat bible quotes, or koran quotes with the numbers or stories memorized instead of reading some real research or ethics books.
And also they agree with whatever is popular. Thinking for yourself is hard.
Listen!! Religion always asks for peace. People ask for war. It is part of the ten commandments to kill. People declare war and kill each other FOR religion, even though it is an atrocity to kill. If you say religion causes war, name 2 wars that Jesus, Allah, Buddha, etc started that humans did not start.
It has to be people, because people are impure and, as a Christian, I believe that Religion is impure. I believe in faith above being (quote) "religious". Religion is how you respond to a pure thing as an impure human. You must understand that I do not believe in going to church or climbing a "being good" ladder, I believe in living for god and loving others and trying to live as Jesus lived. Jesus never started a war and Nether has my god, it has always been us humans. Always the bickering humans.
It has to be people, because people are impure and, as a Christian, I believe that Religion is impure. I believe in faith above being (quote) "religious". Religion is how you respond to a pure thing as an impure human. You must understand that I do not believe in going to church or climbing a "being good" ladder, I believe in living for god and loving others and trying to live as Jesus lived. Jesus never started a war and Nether has my god, it has always been us humans. Always the bickering humans.
I was lost in the Darkest parts of my own wicked ways, spiraling down a path of destruction leading me away from His Almighty ways, and all the while im going down ONLY ONE, He could save me. No matter how far i looked on this lowly planet, i never once found a soul who could manage, to show me the love that i truly needed, because on this planet aint nothing but hate and contempt have been breeded. the lowly snake slithering as he goes through the towns of man looking for lowly lowly souls, to feed on so that it could plant it's evil seeds, and so that throughout the generations nothing but evil and hate we could recieve, but those where the ways of the past, my brothers and sisters. the devil had a hold of us and he managed through our parents, down through the generations His ways have been lost, and because of the us, the devil has turned and tossed, We can All be saved, all we need is Thanksgiving, to the One who Above, for All of His Givings. The devils trying to stop me right now as i speak, but Faithful to the Lord and willit He, that i may be meek. Because it is He not i that gives you this message but it is The One that we All should seek. i know that it is hard to find Rest, as we all go through this test some call a game, every single last one of us, probably, training to gain and retain our fame. But That is not what this life is about, i have a Strong feeling that we are All getting our Water from the wrong wrong spout. because thats all the devil has for us is a little bit, of pleasure, then comes the pain. steady feeding our bodies what i see now Is Insane. because ya'll hafto see that we are all carnally minded, and This is the reason The LORD, us he has blinded, binding, ourselves to our own flesh, so that eventually we would All fail this Test. but know that The Lord, He loves us, and wishes nothing but the best, and all He wants is for us to Love Him all the while through this Test. some wonder why we see nadoes and quakes, He needs ya'll to know that its Ya'lls souls that He is trying to shake. and bake if you will, so the devil may not have his fill, to letchya'll know that there is NONE like that ALMIGHTY AND ALL POWERFULL ONE. i say full because Hes filled with Love, like None that we have seen on this lowly earth, but now that i have SEEN, my Eyes have been UnBlinded, and now it is He, He who signs this, letter so maybe that some of Ya'll could listen, and Maybe get the Message that He is trying to dish, out of His spout, so that ya'll might be fed, with all of His Love, His Water, And His Bread. Don't for a second think any of Ya'll are living, All of ya'll are dead and for the devil are you "living" as i sit here and do this all of the "dome" just know that it is Not me and that this is His tomb. He is singing through me in these words and this song, so that maybe one day we All can be free all the day long, and ya'll can say its cheesy if ya'll want, but just know the devil in you he does flaunt x) i had to stop and show ya'll how i felt about that one, cuz its the truth, and right now i have a Strong feeling He is swinging harder than that brother Babe Ruth, or ballin harder than micheal jordan, and in this song he Is Playing His Accordian. Ya'll just need to know that He is our Guardian, and right now im flying Higher than any single air jordan, because my love i gave to Him more than any of Ya'll so i guess i can say more than them. But dont getit twizted like boi's if ya'll know, that me and moreover Him, have a lot to show. we are all brothers and sisters, but i should call us the missers, because we all fail to see the smaller things in this world, without even thinking twice, what truly brings a man alot of happiness or to see the pain that ALOT of us have in us. i know that we are all hurting on the inside, and for ya'll who say we dont, Boi, you know that is a lie, because only with Him and not that evil leech from down south, can we truly fly. higher than the highest of trees or the tallest of mountains, But in Him we Have to trust, so that We may Drink From The One and Only True fountain, only because of Him can i do this for days, and its Because i gave Him my love, thanksgiving, and praise. so now that i have seen what it is truly to be Man, Men of God, all these hater out there who bout to say something aint nuthing more than sod. sorry if it dont make sense, just know that me and Him the latter first, We are just trying to give His children, ya'll some mother lovin cents. forgive me if i pause for no longer am i a vulgar man life is just a beach, and Now, He is playing in the sand, hopefully in the minds of the young, the daughters and sons, i have my holster, and now the Lord is my Gun, Shining Brighter, than a million suns, times two, because His love is True, actually make that twenty twenty, because He is aplenty, in me in you and All, i just hope that ya'll can hear His call, so that maybe that ya'll may not fall, into the Pit, but right now i can say the devil is probably having a fit, of anxiety cuz he is losing his "children" just know that we are God's and with me He has been pilfering, in my mind day and night, as i have been in my room trying to stay out of sight, of ya'll because all it seems like to me, that nothing to ya'll it would please, more, than to see one of your own fellow brother get shot and fall. when i look around me i dont see any real love, this evil surrounds me, but Now i DO NOT CARE, because the Lord, THE LORD, HE has found me. so now ya'll cannot touch, because with His love, im about to bust. with loving Faith and Trust, i put in Him, so that i can be led away from this life of sin, and Now that i have His Trust, my brotha's and sista's, not just the black ones, comeon now, that just is not a must, there is no such thing man, all that is, is nothing more than an evil thought, brought up in vain, so that maybe a man's soul, that leech, can be bought. Quit being evil, for it is Love, that should be sought, out so once again we may be fed from His Spout, for only He can give us what we need so that in the end we may succeed. my brothers and sisters all we need to do is Believe, and then, Anything, together, WE CAN ACHIEVE. this is an ode to ya'll so in hopes once again that ya'll may hear The Call, and will not fall, so one day me, ya'll, and The Almighty,Perfect, like a prefect without the er, Omnipotent, and Patient ONE, that together we May All Ball. and they keep telling me to stop, but i just cant my brothers me and Him are headed to the top, and right now i got The Heart Of A Lion, King, and pray tell me my brothers and sisters who are reading, what single Beast can stop that king? of the jungle we are running but with Him we can be free. out into the open pasture we all can roam, just know this is not me, and that this is His Tomb. its wierd how they're spelled alike but do not rhyme, im talking bout bomb my brothers, and its One of a Kind. in the Hopes that this petty rhyme, can help lead the black sheep, away from the Blind, being themselves, for who? tell me can save them from that? if you dont answer right then your a part of this blight that runs rampant through the streets, evil im talking about and all it wants to do is eat, your souls because it is angry at the Living God, hahahaha for it is nothing more than a sod, on His Cleat as He is Running, Hoping that some of these Words, hit you right in the stomach, and make you sick, but not you, im talking about the evil you, for we are all children of God, but we have made ourselves nothing more than a sod =( i say with a heavy heart, because all this time we have been playing the devil, his part, but with Him it is nothing but a fart, because He Forgives, and Only Through Him may we EVER, get the chance to Live, and im not talking about on the earth, im talking about another, and maybe one day you can see and i can Truly call you my Brother, for there is Life in Death, but it is only gained through this life which is a test, just know that when we die, if you have lived righteously, on that day you will Fly, for the Lord will Breathe His Breath in you when you die and like i said before You Will Fly, but not if you keep eating from the devil's table, for you can only eat from one, and i hope its Not the devil's table. for if we Eat from Him, we can All go back into His Stable, and only in doing that can we Ever truly be stable, only only if, we are eating from, The Living God's Table. and for ya'll who are sitting at your computers steadily dissin Him, i pray for you, because it you are missin, Him and the bigger picture, just know right now im taking a Big Gulp From His Ultimate Pitcher, not one from the MLB, and if you are listening then i pray that you sea, i mean see, but with Him we can fly over the one before, and higher than mike, dunk it in, right for a score, but not for 2 for it is for 3, because He is Holy in me, but atm holy in you, because you missing some parts, we all need to change, so that we may play His Part, that He intended from the Beginning, because only With Him can we ever be winning, but hahahaha not as long as we are sinning. for that is not the way that we was meant to walk, With Him we was mean to Walk and Talk. once again i say this way i, used to, but we choose to live, is insane in the membrane, but He is using me as His Template, lol or templar whichever you prefer, just know that He is Prefect, ha just without the errrr. as i sit here steadily dissin em i mean the demons in the minds of the children of the One and Only, God Who Is Kind, i hope that they depart, so we can All gaze upon The Divine, not like wine or watch, i aint lil wayne, just know that i feel like im the only one who is sane. because i AM NOT PERFECT, do not get the wrong message for that would hurt me, only He is, and He just wants some love from His Kids, but for some odd reason... we still choose to do the evil leeches bids, for i feel he has sucked to much from us, all of our blood, i mean soul, it has tucked from us, and right now He is aiming at it with a Big Ol' Blunderbuss. to shoot it and unleech it, from His Children's Soul's so one day maybe we can gaze upon, That Wonderful City Of Gold, and dont letit peak your in ter ests, for if you do your not getting whats bests, from this test that He has beset, for our minds to ponder and think on, maybe in some of the hearts out there this message is shining, for He is a Beacon of Light, to shine out all the evils, and end this ugly, hateful blight, that courses through our vains, that nasty garbage that makes us feel insane, because no one is living right, and for That NONE is sane. you can talk and sit there and chatter, but i pray and hope that none get fatter, and im not talking because of mcdonalds, im talking about your ego and pride, because We Alll NEED to push that aside, all we seem to do is breed hate and contempt, sitting there looking for another hurt sould to feed on, thinking it makes us content, but just know NOW people, lolol all your doing is letting the devil be your PIMP! ha ha ha i think that really funny, because in the words of man that just makes ya'll some ho's, and please forgive my trespasses my sisters and brothers, for my vulgar words, because i Did Not mean to hurt, He's just trying to keep our faces from being rubbed in the dirt. but it really shouldnt matter because we are mud, and from One we all came, so can i not call ya'll blood??? nah im not talking about them two glock shotta's, im talking bout from The One Who Has Always Got Us, not us as in the navy, i mean us as in the ones who might sit on that bus, the one going to school and to the ones who drool in class, and all of us who needs a kick in the, pause, ya'll know what i mean, im just sitting here trying not be obscene, all im trying to do is get the bigger picture, through ya'll minds so that maybe one day, we can All WALK IN THE LORDS WAY. forgive me if i make any of ya'll mad, if i do know that i Am sad, but how about ya'll just go to the store and go and grab on of them happy hefty bags, you know i meant glad if you didnt you are simple, and forgive me as i sit here and bust this pimple, lol sorry that was nasty just know that i didnt, and know that we are all fake, and its time for some rhino plasty, or however its spelled im just hoping some hearts will melt, like the plastic we are, and become melded into flesh, as i sit here and type in this Soul Food test, for if ya'll can't hear me then your hearts are so cold, forgive me as i trespass, because, uhm, i Am not trying to be bold, im just tryna through some fia atcha hearts, in the hopes that you may leave the Dark, ness not loch just in case thats watchu thought, all you gotta do is leave your flesh behind, and know that He is the one who Should Be Sought, out so we can drank From His Spout, cuz the Lord Knows, man it has been a drought. we are all so thirsty, but in order to be filled its The Lord who must come firsty x) just know that me and Him are going Stooopid, and for those who are real maaan i thoughtchu knew it. and if you dont i pray you haven't already blew it, up i mean your ego, like a balloon, just know right now i feel like taz boi, yup them looney toones, or tunes whichever you prefer, just know that He is Prefect, just without the err. and i say pre because He was always here, yes before you and me, but with Him i wanna letchu know that we can all be as pure, and as white as the snow, just like powder we can all be melted, i mean melded into the beings we were meant to be, so one day we may fly free as a dove, Right over the sea, so that we all can reach New Jerusalem, yup just right where we was all meant to be, that is the Golden City for those who did not, know, im just hoping that one day we can All be as pure as the snow, because the evil has taunted and flaunted and given us a show, to peak i mean perk up our ears and it, that leech i mean, gave us nothing but fears, fears of ourselves and one another, fears from our sisters and daughter, Father, and brothers, but we have a right to Fear the Living God, because to Him we have all become a sod, He is sorrowful and cries as we follow, the evil being, who was never meant to be followed, and i felt His pain at one point in time, yes i Am talking About the Divine, we both cried together, in my room, because of the little things we miss, something just as small as, a heartfelt kiss... for it is the little things that bring us the greatest joy, not some diamond chain, or a, wind up toy, the biggest thing of all that should, is His Love, should bring us the Greatest joy, in the world, for thats all it is man just cars and noise, all the long going our way, Missing the sweetest noise, zes ya'll know what i mean, im talking about the One who is Never obscene, for He is Just And Right, in each and every single way, and for our sins my borhters and sisters, we have to pay, but do not fret for it is never to late, I think we all need to call upon The Divine, and we should All go on a date, do not worry for on this date there is no rape, or murder, or hate, for that is of the devil, and Your Soul it will take, there is no worries once you follow Him, we should all be hand in hand as we walk down this path, called, life Never having to worry about no pain or strife, or for a bigger picture His Wrath, but ONLY IF WE DRINK FROM HIS PITCHER. for The All Powerful and Righteous Wrath, only comes when you stray from His Path, it is there to show us our wrongs...can you feel His Soul as i sit here and Sing His song? and with Him i will NEVER fall, because with my Brother, I will always Hear His Call. i say we but it is Him, who say these words to in the hopes, that those who have an Ear to listen may never Fall, into the Pit, all you have to do is have Faith, Follow The Ten, Believe, and never EVER Quit, for in order to gain His All Perfect and Good Graces, we have to eliminate ALL the Hate and evil, in all sorts of places, i have a feeling this song was wrote long before, just in His mind and now in mine, and i sing His song in the Hopes, that you follow Him and not any of these "popes" for no hope lies in them, lol and if you truly think aboutit that actually rhymed, just know that im thinking of Him, foremost, but ya'll too as i steadily write This Rhyme, it comes from above yup, Straight From the Divine, in the Hopes that one day ya'll can SEE, exactly it was that we was missing, so we can All fly over the sea. Man this thing is long but i should Say God, because this is His Rhyme, and not from a sod, like me or you, if you real you can feel its True, as His Sword aims at the hearts of His good, flying Straight and Through, lol i mean True, but them if you can follow my friend, all we gotta do is sing Praises and Thanksgiving to Him, until the very end, and give Him all of our love, Because WITHOUT HIM, ha There WOULD BE NO LOVE, all there would be is pain and suffering, and i hope that the ones who are, suffer, i mean acating, Might actually stop and take the time to sit there and be debating, against the devil of course, cuz all it wants to do is, lead us, right, or left, but straight off our course. Lord Please Forgive me, if i am being coarse just know that i am your back, and You Are My Horse, lol ya'll might think He's heavy but He's really not, and i Love Him till Death, i mean Life, cuz i have found It, but back to the point, because i HE HAS TAUGHT, never went to church or none of that, maybe when i was younger but none of that, for our minds our are churches, ha gotit backwards but i feel as tall as the burches, talking bout them trees man im over the seas man, just know i cant, wait, My Father, until You Kick Over My Can Man x) aw man i thoughit was funny, because he's One Cool Dude, and i am His, Bunny, i mean Collie, and know that as i, i mean He, but as i bark, that i have a Strong feeling, that i am playing my Part, or His i prefer the latter but the choice is yurs, because it is His Puzzle, and i am the last part, i cant be for certain because the Knowledge is His, but im just trying to bring His Black Sheep back, you know i mean His KIDS, He thoughtit was funny, But ya'll best Believe that He NOR i the first comes first, but neither one of us is No, pause, Dummy, lol but if you choose you can beat and bite, whatever you do just know it is out of spite, and i dont capitilize because its an evil word, just know me and HIM, are trying to end this wrongful blight, and saying these words i Hope that maybe, just maybe some can be given the Sight, that HE intended us to have, right, from Go, talking bout monopoly,lol but no no more, from the start maaaan all HE ever wanted was us to give our heart, which is HIS, because He gave to us, All that is HIS, HE just Wanted someone to talk to man, thats why HE made HIS Kids, HE was all alone, and then HE built, a Beautiful place for us, and HIM, to walk and talk all the while, just laughing and talking, seeing eachother smile =) because HE is our FATHER, He's not as mean ha as ya'll would believe, just know that HE TRULY IS ONE BENEVOLENT KING. lol ha ha i think this is funny, He knows what im talking about, cuz this is all of the top of the dome with barely a second to pause, Just Know the THE LION KING, Has Opened HIS Claws, Blessed be the children who took the time to listen, to the message that a, and The King is steadily dishin, i say a because i am one too, but know that im a servant, and from a Seed i did Grew, i dont care if it makes no sense to ya'll because i have heard the Lords Call, and they, they know who they are, are always listening, and as He types, through, me i have a feeling they are about to call, Prayer is the Best Wireless Connection X) aint no service down here got that type of Connection, i just hope that i get to see some of ya'll at that intersection, i mean Crossroads, bone thugz n harmony, they said it first, man thats the song man and if you feel their soul, then maybe you should hurt, because those bois on the streets back in the day, all they was doing was searching for some Peace, but in the streets, the oppressors, following the devil, have no love for us in the slums, just know that we All have a Holster and God Is our Gun, we dont need no metal, for The Lord our issues HE will settle, all you gotta do is Have some Faith, saying this in hope that some dont see any wraiths, talking demons people come now and please listen, as the Lord spits his song and these Words HE is dishin, out yup you getting it word of mouf, lol or mouth whichever you prefer just DONT follow that lowly snake, yup the one down south, it might try and offer pleasure and happiness butits all fake, HA what do ya'll expect from a lowly snake? remeber eve as she sat under that tree? sitting there thinking and feeling the breeze? the snake spoke in her Ear temptation it did bring, and after teel me WHO did she fear? she had a split second of happiness and thats all it can give, and after that she felt the WRATH which is ONLY HIS, lol i hope that ya'll see, the way we live people, it just wasn't meant to be, i have a feeling that there all up there laughing, with, not at me as i type out His message, and i pray ALMIGHTY FATHER, THE ONES WHO HAVE AN EAR TO LISTEN PLEASE FATHER PLEASE LET THE HEAR. and the ones who dont i pray you dont hit him hard, maybe just a little tap, just like Babe Ruth, on that baseball card x) Peace be with you my sisters and brothers, just know that HIS LOVE IS LIKE NO OTHER, GOD BLESS ALL WHO FINISHED, AND I PRAY YOUR SOULS NEVER, DIMINISH. ONE HEART IS ALL, AND WITH THAT HEART WE CAN NEVER FALL, lol i said i was finished, but i dont think HE is as you can tell this words are not mine, THEY COME FROM THE UPPER BEING, yup THE DIVINE!!! i think im going to cut Him short and please Forgive me, because i know HE could go all day, BECAUSE I CAN FEEL HIM IN ME.
Religious nuts, always ranting like the above user. How about you make some valid points instead of copying and pasting your biography of how you found Jesus in prison.
Holy War (Jerusalem) - Crusades, Jihad - what are these if not examples of religion causing wars. 9/11 - bombers doing what they feel their religion is telling them to do. Do I need to continue, I will if you want me to.
Jihad, Crusades, etc. are not caused by religion, but religion being used to justify. Most Muslims I know don't support 9/11, are they of a different religion? Okay, in nuance yes, but fundamentally it is the same Qur'an, etc. What differs is interpretation of religion, and interpretation is subjective, as such it is due to the individual.
America is the vanguard of Zionism, is it really because they're a profoundly Jewish state?
It is very hard to defend religion's role in warfare. Likewise it is very difficult to dissect the political issues and determine if religion is the cause.
The terrorist attacks caused by Islamists seem to be caused by religion in most cases, because if you examine the religious motives of the group responsible, it is a near-certainty that the group is fighting for Sharia, and that it is fighting as punishment for support of Israel.
Holy wars often portray the enemy as heretics and infidels, and combat as somehow righteous or rewarded. Whether or not the leaders directing the war initiated it for purely religious reasons is often debatable, but for the underlings it seems very apparent that they are fighting for religious reasons.
There is also a bit of deeper philosophy here as well. If people cannot start or fight wars due to religion, then does that mean that people cannot start wars or fight wars due to ideology or nationalism?
It probably does not even matter whether the war was originally started due to religious differences, but that the combatants fight in dedication to their god, or higher religious purposes like converting the enemy nation or imposing religious law. As long as men can dedicate themselves to these concepts while killing, raping, and pillaging another land, the possibility that an underlying reason like scarcity of resources motivates them seem at best a tertiary objective.
I agree with what you have said here, but you've posted on the wrong side.
The domain of the debate is what 'creates' wars, that is: cause. You have admitted that it is not religion that creates, it is religion that perpetuates. Moreover, it is not so much religion that perpetuates, but ideology (insofar as religion is used as an ideology). This does not conclude that religion creates wars, your argument resolves to say strong held belief perpetuates wars, that is not the same thing.
The complexity is the people. If the matter is religion itself then one must suppose that all religious people are aimed toward the matter of war. This is not the case.
Also, I'm assuming you take a rather rationalist approach, and so I'll invoke a sort of scepticism: if you can't prove it don't assent to it. In the words of Russell (paraphrased to more pedestrian terms): 'put up or shut up'.
As for myself, you agree people are instrumental, there is no religion without people. My point seems made.
it isn't religion that creates war indeed it is the bad people who just aim at destroying the unity between people of different religions is the reason that creates war.people of different religions have always lived in harmony and unity but this harmony and unity is always disturbed by the evil spirits of bad people who wish to destroy this unity.so why don't we just try to put an end to this problem of evil people and their spirits .we have been created by God as humans ,we all are fre to choose our religions ,we are not forced to choose any 1 specific religion.therefore why don't we just live and not i nterfere in people's business
well religion is just an other man made institution designed by the "enlightened" to control the sheeple.
thats why i believe purely in the bible as the complete authority and have my direct relationship with Jesus, not some special person who says he has equal authority as the bible or God.
well religion is just an other man made institution designed by the "enlightened" to control the sheeple.
thats why i believe purely in the bible...
Who picked up a quill and wrote the books of the Bible? The authors were men, rendering it manmade in spite of any divine inspiration they had or claimed to have.
Who translated the Bible from its original text to the one you own today and on which you place so much importance? Humans, correct? Didn't human politics and preference dictate what would even be allowed into the finished product?
Who presented you with a Bible in the first place, read it to you, and told you it was true? A human, I am going to presume. Who influenced you to pick and choose the most convenient parts of the Bible to obey (since I am assuming you don't intend to forever forgo shaving or kill your disobedient children in the future)? In one way or another, probably men.
It's great to realize the faults with organized religion but don't ignore the fact the Bible, created and interpreted by fallible humans for generations, is very much a tool of it.
there is a difference between men writing the bible and creating it. you seem to getting both of them mixed up.
and again what are you proving by telling me i was told the bible is accurate by a human being, who else would of told me? and a human telling me that something is right does not make the human above the bible or equal to it, but simply advocating its truth. the bible is self explanatory of its inspiration and authority.
"Do not let the book of the law depart from your mouth, meditate on it daily so that you shall be careful to do all that is according to it. then your ways will be prosperous and successful." Joshua 1:8
"All of scripture is god breathed, it is useful in teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness." 2 Timothy 3:16
and if God is the all powerful being of the universe it is safe to say that he guided the process of the creation of his book, the bible, when religious scholars at Carthage canonized the bible.
as for it being created for political reasons, you are right on. the canonization of the bible was created to formally recognize God's Christian writings, and to end heretics who claimed new revelations from God. but also people were being killed in the Holy Roman Empire and the they wanted to know they were dying for the right scriptures.
as for why we don't add new books to the bible. it's because God's ultimate plan was completed. that is the sacrifice of Jesus as the ultimate price for humanities sins. back then God used religion and laws to keep his people righteous. but it was just a substitute for what God had planned all along, Jesus. now law and religion has been replaced with the son as the complete mediator for all believers. this is the message Jesus brought and if the bible did not sufficiently provide that for us then other scripture would have. but seeing that didn't happen i can say the bible is sufficient and correct.
there is a difference between men writing the bible and creating it. you seem to getting both of them mixed up.
I suppose I would be, if I actually thought there was a difference.
and again what are you proving by telling me i was told the bible is accurate by a human being, who else would of told me? and a human telling me that something is right does not make the human above the bible or equal to it, but simply advocating its truth. the bible is self explanatory of its inspiration and authority.
You believe the Bible to be an authority that transcends human authority, correct? Why would you accept such a weighty claim just because a human advocates its truth?
For the record, I am not trying to change your mind. I realize we have a fundamental difference of priorities and mine are not inherently superior to yours. I ask these questions out of a curiosity regarding what makes people put their trust in claims that, to me, seem unfalsifiable and at odds with reality.
"Do not let the book of the law depart from your mouth, meditate on it daily so that you shall be careful to do all that is according to it. then your ways will be prosperous and successful." Joshua 1:8
"All of scripture is god breathed, it is useful in teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness." 2 Timothy 3:16
Do you see a problem with using a source to cite itself?
i was using the sources as proof that the bible self claims what it is. not as support for what the bible says it is. your question is that how do i put faith into a book written over two thousand years ago, then canonized by religious scholars? well if your interested check these sites out. their more in depth then what i feel putting the effort into writing here, since that you, if at all, would probably be the only one to read my statement.
Wait, did you HONESTLY say you do not add new books to the bible? Have you ever heard of the old testament? Did G-d err in his original? According to the holy books, G-d is perfect, so he could not have erred in his original.
So what did change at that time? Political disputes amongst romans and Jews. There was religious tension, but it would seem clear that being invaded and overrun is a greater irritant than a dispute over which all powerful deity created the universe.
Moving on, you are validating the bible with itself, which adds nothing to its own credibility. I do not wish to blaspheme, or insult your religion in any way, but read the following sentence
The flying spaghetti monster created the universe, and compelled me to write it on this website.
My only link to validity is embedded within the content in question, and much like my previous statement is not true, the bible is not proven true simply because it states it is true.
Lastly, I am offended that you refer to the bible as 'the right scriptures'. I find it entirely insensitive, especially considering the context of this debate. There is no 'right' religion- You believe in what you want, as should Buddhists, Hindus, Jews, Mormons, and any other religion. None should be placed in higher regard
I'm afraid you misunderstood what i said. God is perfect and when the bible was canonized it was done for all people to be able to read and understand the full revelation of God. and to stop other literature form creeping in that was not of the Christian God.
no good points. as i mentioned my validating the bible was just showing to other religious people who claim the bible is not the complete revelation of God aka Mormons and jws. as for your other part. the spaghetti monster is a made up idea with no proof. i did not become Christan by reading of how a man was eaten by a whale and lived in him for 3 days. no one would be convinced by reading that story alone to believe in the biblical God.
but through logic, such as there being a beginning to this universe that is unexplainable by science. the unity of the universe. the absolute laws that exist. aka gravity, the ability to use science to regulate the actions of our existence. our superiority to all other creatures. our morality. led me to ask the big questions and over time i came to believe in the biblical God as the only true god.
as for the remark on no religion being placed higher then an other. its hard to do that when almost each religion you mentioned considers its self the only true one, and thats the reality. only one is true. but i don't need to bore you any more. i just wanted to give a simplistic reply.
Yes, but the bible is a second version of the Torah.
"the bible is not the complete revelation of God aka Mormons and [Jews]"
Jews came before Christians. Jesus was Jewish. The bible is nothing more than Jewish scriptures, with some additional content and a lot of content removed.
Why would a perfect G-d need to make any revisions to His book?
also, there is no "Christian God". Jesus was Jewish.
"the spaghetti monster is a made up idea with no proof"
And where is this proof for the Bible? As far as I am concerned, both Christianity and Pastafarianism are 'made up [ideas] with no proof"
"a beginning to this universe that is unexplainable by science."
two words. Big. Bang.
"the unity of the universe."
what 'unity'? I do not understand.
"the absolute laws that exist. aka gravity"
graviton particles for gravity
electrons for electromagnetism
Neutrons for weak atomic forces
Quarks for strong atomic forces
Science is amazing!
"the ability to use science to regulate the actions of our existence"
G-d did not give humanity science. Humanity discovered science.
"our superiority to all other creatures"
Mitochondria are the dominant organism on Earth. All other organisms are nothing more than houses for them.
"our morality"
is an evolutionary trait designed to allow social animals- not just humans- to work in a group.
"the biblical God as the only true god."
Assuming any of your arguments had any merit, why is it that the Hindu gods could not explain all of these pseudofacts?
"each religion you mentioned considers its self the only true one"
Judaism teaches that one should respect other religions-even idolaters-
Buddhism teaches that the various religions are all paths to G-d
So no- there is no need for you to place any single religion over any other.
first of all the new testament was the final Revelation of god through his son Jesus, numerous old testament scripture support the coming of a messiah to save the world. the dispute Christan's and Jews have is over Jesus being the old testament acclaimed messiah. as for proof of the bible you and any one else reading this please take some time on this site. it is great and answers numerous questions. for a logical man can easily conclude there is more proof for the Christan god than your spaghetti monster.
as for science, we discovered science? which begs the question. it was here before us, and the big bang proves that the universe had a beginning. so what caused it and what created science?
as for your scientific remark on gravity. it does nothing to disprove god so what were you trying to do?
"as for proof of the bible you and any one else reading this please take some time on this site. it is great and answers numerous questions. for a logical man can easily conclude there is more proof for the Christan god than your spaghetti monster."
I actually enjoyed reading that link you posted.
However, I copied the site into word and replaced "God" with "The Flying spaghetti monster"
because what is more logical,
a mystical human being who gave birth to himself but is also a ghost, but is still only one person
or a magic piece of pasta?
and my remark on gravity was to explain what you described as an 'inexplicable' phenomena of gravity
again. your opinion verses profound intellectual theologians. you may think your cute with your whole pasta Deity but again you have proven nothing to show your made up Deity is more reasonable than God.
as for your remark about god giving birth to himself and all. your right, i did not become a Christian by reading the story of a talking burning bush, no one would. nor would you believe that a 4 ton metal object that flew hundreds of miles than dropped a small object the size of a couch that once hitting the ground killed 75 thousand people instantly. anyone can dumb down or mystify a situation beyond belief. and if you did not know what i was talking about, i was talking about the nuking of Hiroshima.
i became Christian by asking the big questions, why am i here, who created the order of the universe, who left absolute laws like mathematics or the ability of the discovery of science, who or what created life. things unexplainable by science, through a long process i came to believe that the Christan God is the most reasonable explanation for existence.
"you have proven nothing to show your made up Deity is more reasonable than God."
likewise, you have proven nothing to show your made up Deity is more reasonable than the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or Santa Claus, or the tooth fairy.
why are you here?
because in an enormous universe, a series of non-zero events took place that gave rise to self replicating iron sulfide particles which then developed lipid bilayers as a means of self propagation, eventually developing into a primitive single celled organism known as Luca, who had an imperfect replication process that resulted in many types of single celled organisms.
These single celled organisms, who inherited this imperfect replication process, usually died off whenever they were adjusted, although through blind luck some actually thrived, starting natural selection.
after a while a few single celled organisms began to aggregate, forming primitive algae and fungi. Eventually, these cells specialized into specific roles, forming primitive multi celled organism. Again, through random changes that were often- but not always- fatal, these multi celled organism diversified, becoming plants, fish, amphibians, reptiles, etc. It is after an incredibly long period of time that these multi cellular organisms branched into apes. Due to the evolutionary pressure to outsmart their more lethal big cat competitors, apes developed larger brains and cognitive capacity.
Soon, however, hairless apes began to grow larger crania not for intelligence purposes, but for appearance: larger heads appeared more neotonic and therefore better for mating.
Along with this advanced brain, came advanced cognitive capacity, which resulted in the ability to think.
As for who created the order of the universe, it could not have been G-d, because that only begs the question- who created G-d? if G-d could create himself, so could the universe in a series of oscillatory functions.
Mathematics and science are nothing more than descriptions of the world around us, they are inherent to the existence of an object along with the capability to understand it.
which leads me to my final question...
how long did it take for you to give up on trying to find these answers, throw in the towel, and say "G-d did it"?
fist of all i have been given proof of God through the site i listed. As for your scientific chronology of existence. it is not absolute and is only a theory of existence. scientist still have not and never will answer how the universe or big bang happened or why, how life came from no life, or that we absolutely evolved from a lesser species of primates. while it is popular information that is commonly recited as fact due to the growing age of atheism. it is still not absolutely true or provable the claims science suggest. scientist forget they are just observing the laws of nature, not making political or spiritual claims. until it is completely feasible that science has for sure proved a non divine intervention or creator of greater power than us created our existence. scientist only make a guess or suggestion.
first of all, your 'proof' states that the only reason atheists are wrong is because creationism is simpler.
However, stating that everything occurs by magic is, inevitably, easier than a scientific answer. That does not make it correct.
For example, saying that there are four elements (earth, air, water, fire) is simpler than saying there are 216 independent elements: the simple answer is not always right.
Also, concerning pastafarianism, i found proof too
INTRODUCTION
Is the universe designed?
"Improbable things happen all the time" is the mantra of the atheist. It is certainly possible for improbable things to happen. However, it is virtually impossible that all the physical laws would just happen to be tightly constrained in order for stars and galaxies to exist.
Rich Deem
Part 1 of the introduction for non-believers showed that strong atheism contradicts its own worldview by believing the universe has a natural cause despite the lack of observational evidence for such a belief. However, since there is no direct observational evidence regarding the origin of the universe, why should one believe the equally unobserved hypothesis that The Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe? Although there is no direct evidence for the cause of the universe, we now have a fair amount of knowledge about the early history of the universe and the laws that govern it, which provide us with indirect evidence that a super-intelligent Agent designed the universe. In order to keep this essay brief, much of the supporting information will not be included. However, you can click the links to the full-length articles for the details.
Evidence for design?
The best evidence for design can be seen in the nature of the universe and how it came to be. The process of discovery continues, since one of the fundamental properties of the universe, dark energy (or the cosmological constant), was discovered late in the last century. New studies continue to add to our knowledge about the universe and its extremely unlikely makeup.
The Big Bang
The Big Bang theory states that the universe arose from a singularity of virtually no size, which gave rise to the dimensions of space and time, in addition to all matter and energy. At the beginning of the Big Bang, the four fundamental forces began to separate from each other. Early in its history (10-36 to 10-32 seconds), the universe underwent a period of short, but dramatic, hyper-inflationary expansion. The cause of this inflation is unknown, but was required for life to be possible in the universe.
Excess quarks
Quarks and antiquarks combined to annihilate each other. Originally, it was expected that the ratio of quarks and antiquarks to be exactly equal to one, since neither would be expected to have been produced in preference to the other. If the ratio were exactly equal to one, the universe would have consisted solely of energy - not very conducive to the existence of life. However, recent research showed that the charge–parity violation could have resulted naturally given the three known masses of quark families.1 However, this just pushes fine tuning a level down to ask why quarks display the masses they have. Those masses must be fine tuned in order to achieve a universe that contains any matter at all.
Large, just right-sized universe
Even so, the universe is enormous compared to the size of our Solar System. Isn't the immense size of the universe evidence that humans are really insignificant, contradicting the idea that a The Flying Spaghetti Monster concerned with humanity created the universe? It turns out that the universe could not have been much smaller than it is in order for nuclear fusion to have occurred during the first 3 minutes after the Big Bang. Without this brief period of nucleosynthesis, the early universe would have consisted entirely of hydrogen.2 Likewise, the universe could not have been much larger than it is, or life would not have been possible. If the universe were just one part in 1059 larger,3 the universe would have collapsed before life was possible. Since there are only 1080 baryons in the universe, this means that an addition of just 1021 baryons (about the mass of a grain of sand) would have made life impossible. The universe is exactly the size it must be for life to exist at all.
Early evolution of the universe
Cosmologists assume that the universe could have evolved in any of a number of ways, and that the process is entirely random. Based upon this assumption, nearly all possible universes would consist solely of thermal radiation (no matter). Of the tiny subset of universes that would contain matter, a small subset would be similar to ours. A very small subset of those would have originated through inflationary conditions. Therefore, universes that are conducive to life "are almost always created by fluctuations into the[se] 'miraculous' states," according to atheist cosmologist Dr. L. Dyson.4
Just right laws of physics
The laws of physics must have values very close to those observed or the universe does not work "well enough" to support life. What happens when we vary the constants? The strong nuclear force (which holds atoms together) has a value such that when the two hydrogen atoms fuse, 0.7% of the mass is converted into energy. If the value were 0.6% then a proton could not bond to a neutron, and the universe would consist only of hydrogen. If the value were 0.8%, then fusion would happen so readily that no hydrogen would have survived from the Big Bang. Other constants must be fine-tuned to an even more stringent degree. The cosmic microwave background varies by one part in 100,000. If this factor were slightly smaller, the universe would exist only as a collection of diffuse gas, since no stars or galaxies could ever form. If this factor were slightly larger, the universe would consist solely of large black holes. Likewise, the ratio of electrons to protons cannot vary by more than 1 part in 1037 or else electromagnetic interactions would prevent chemical reactions. In addition, if the ratio of the electromagnetic force constant to the gravitational constant were greater by more than 1 part in 1040, then electromagnetism would dominate gravity, preventing the formation of stars and galaxies. If the expansion rate of universe were 1 part in 1055 less than what it is, then the universe would have already collapsed. The most recently discovered physical law, the cosmological constant or dark energy, is the closest to zero of all the physical constants. In fact, a change of only 1 part in 10120 would completely negate the effect.
Universal probability bounds
"Unlikely things happen all the time." This is the mantra of the anti-design movement. However, there is an absolute physical limit for improbable events to happen in our universe. The universe contains only 1080 baryons and has only been around for 13.7 billion years (1018 sec). Since the smallest unit of time is Planck time (10-45 sec),5the lowest probability event that can ever happen in the history of the universe is:
1080 x 1018 x 1045 =10143
So, although it would be possible that one or two constants might require unusual fine-tuning by chance, it would be virtually impossible that all of them would require such fine-tuning. Some physicists have indicated that any of a number of different physical laws would be compatible with our present universe. However, it is not just the current state of the universe that must be compatible with the physical laws. Even more stringent are the initial conditions of the universe, since even minor deviations would have completely disrupted the process. For example, adding a grain of sand to the weight of the universe now would have no effect. However, adding even this small amount of weight at the beginning of the universe would have resulted in its collapse early in its history.
What do cosmologists say?
Even though many atheists would like to dismiss such evidence of design, cosmologists know better, and have made statements such as the following, which reveal the depth of the problem for the atheistic worldview:
• "This type of universe, however, seems to require a degree of fine-tuning of the initial conditions that is in apparent conflict with 'common wisdom'."6
• "Polarization is predicted. It's been detected and it's in line with theoretical predictions. We're stuck with this preposterous universe."7
• "In all of these worlds statistically miraculous (but not impossible) events would be necessary to assemble and preserve the fragile nuclei that would ordinarily be destroyed by the higher temperatures. However, although each of the corresponding histories is extremely unlikely, there are so many more of them than those that evolve without "miracles," that they would vastly dominate the livable universes that would be created by Poincare recurrences. We are forced to conclude that in a recurrent world like de Sitter space our universe would be extraordinarily unlikely."8
Speculative "solutions" to the design "problem"
The newest "solution" to design in the universe is a belief in the multi-universe theory. This theory requires one to believe that there are more universes in existence than the number of all the subatomic particles that exist in our universe. Our universe just happened to be one of the few that is able to support life. Here is what a recent article from Science says about this hypothetical "multiverse" spinning off an "infinity" of other universes:
"Uncomfortable with the idea that physical parameters like lambda [cosmological constant] are simply lucky accidents, some cosmologists, including Hawking, have suggested that there have been an infinity of big bangs going off in a larger 'multiverse,' each with different values for these parameters. Only those values that are compatible with life could be observed by beings such as ourselves."9
What scientific evidence exists to support the multiverse model? None! Not only is there no evidence, the physics of our own universe requires that we will never be able to obtain any evidence about any other universe (even if it does exist). Even secular websites admit that such ideas amount to nothing more than unfalsifiable metaphysics:
"Appeals to multiple or "parallel" cosmoses or to an infinite number of cosmic "Big Bang/Crunch" oscillations as essential elements of proposed mechanisms are not acceptable in submissions due to a lack of empirical correlation and testability. Such beliefs are without hard physical evidence and must therefore be considered unfalsifiable, currently outside the methodology of scientific investigation to confirm or disprove, and therefore more mathematically theoretical andmetaphysical than scientific in nature. Recent cosmological evidence also suggests insufficient mass for gravity to reverse continuing cosmic expansion. The best cosmological evidence thus far suggests the cosmos is finite rather than infinite in age."10
According to Paul Davies:
"Whether it is The Flying Spaghetti Monster, or man, who tosses the dice, turns out to depend on whether multiple universes really exist or not….If instead, the other universes are relegated to ghost worlds, we must regard our existence as a miracle of such improbability that it is scarcely credible."
Theistic solution - measurable design
On the other hand, the deist or theist says that The Flying Spaghetti Monster designed the universe with just the right laws of physics. Note that neither the multiverse nor the "The Flying Spaghetti Monster hypothesis" is testable. However, the "The Flying Spaghetti Monster hypothesis" is much simpler. The naturalistic explanation requires the presence of a complicated, unproved super universe that has the capacity to randomly spew out an infinite number of universes with different laws of physics. How does this hypothetical super universe know how to do this? Why would it even want to do this? Ultimately, why should there be any universe at all? None of these questions are logically explained by naturalism. Only an intelligent Being would be motivated and expected to produce any kind of universe such as what we see. If we use Occam's razor, which states that one should use the simplest logical explanation for any phenomenon, we would eliminate the super universe/multi-universe explanation in favor of the simpler The Flying Spaghetti Monster-designed universe model. The evidence for design in the universe and biology is so strong that Antony Flew, a long-time proponent of atheism, renounced his atheism in 2004 and now believes that the existence of a Creator is required to explain the universe and life in it. Likewise, Frank Tipler, Professor of the Department of Mathematics at Tulane University, and a former atheist, not only became a theist, but is now a born-again Pastafarian because of the laws of physics.11
Who created The Flying Spaghetti Monster?
A common objection to the "The Flying Spaghetti Monster hypothesis" is the problem of how The Flying Spaghetti Monster came to be. If everything has a cause, why does The Flying Spaghetti Monster get an exception? The problem with such reasoning is that it assumes that time has always existed. In reality, time is a construct of this universe and began at the initiation of the Big Bang.12 A The Flying Spaghetti Monster who exists outside the time constraints of the universe is not subject to cause and effect. So, the idea that The Flying Spaghetti Monster has always existed and is not caused follows logically from the fact that the universe and time itself was created at the Big Bang. The Bible makes these exact claims - that The Flying Spaghetti Monster has always existed13 and that The Flying Spaghetti Monster created time,14 along with the entire universe,15 being described as an expanding universe.16 Why can't the universe be uncaused? Of course, it is possible that the universe is uncaused. However, there is a tremendous amount of evidence that contradicts that idea (see part 1). So, an atheist who claims to live by logic and evidence cannot arbitrarily assign eternity to a universe that is clearly temporal.
CONCLUSION
No, The Flying Spaghetti Monster has not left His name etched onto the surface of planets. However, there is abundant evidence that the universe was designed by super intelligent Agent, who purposed that the universe should exist and be capable of supporting advanced life. The design of the universe is just one line of evidence that The Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe. The design of the earth and solar system is also quite impressive. Likewise, chemistry and physics preclude the possibility that life evolved on earth. In addition, human beings are remarkably different from every other animal on earth, suggesting a departure from naturalistic processes. Continue to part 3: Why Pastafarianism?...
fist of all i have been given proof of God through the site i listed.
God And Science is not a credible website. The simple reason is that it tries to justify god's existence which defies logic (god is unknowable as per basic scientific epistemology) and theology (god is a matter of faith, not a matter of evidence).
As for your scientific chronology of existence. it is not absolute and is only a theory of existence.
Evolution, Abiogenesis, Big Bang Theory, Nebular Hypothesis, Solar and Planetary Accretion are all based on inductive reasoning meaning that they can never be absolute but it is only a fool who would take that to mean that they are dubious. The evidence supporting them is vast and detailed, but it denies you the comfortable theology which you were brought up to believe in. This is what your scepticism is about, not the certainty of science but the uncertainty of your faith.
scientist still have not and never will answer how the universe or big bang happened or why, how life came from no life, or that we absolutely evolved from a lesser species of primates.
Science did answer those questions decades ago.
while it is popular information that is commonly recited as fact due to the growing age of atheism.
Atheism comes from understanding the natural universe and the lack of need for god. It also comes from the logical inadequacies of most theologies and the inability to suspend critical thinking forever. Sooner or later you have to confront how illogical Christian dogma is, and then you become atheist.
it is still not absolutely true or provable the claims science suggest. scientist forget they are just observing the laws of nature, not making political or spiritual claims.
The laws of nature contradict Christian dogma (people do not rise from the dead, there is no heaven in the clouds above us, there was no global flood, there was no Adam and Eve because a population is required to foster genetic diversity, people don't survive in the bellies of fish, etc.). The laws of nature adequately explain our existence without the need of god. A thinking mind concludes that god is therefore not important to life.
until it is completely feasible that science has for sure proved a non divine intervention or creator of greater power than us created our existence. scientist only make a guess or suggestion.
You mean like evolution and abiogenesis? Evolution is well-supported and explains why we are the way we are. Abiogenesis is making strides in research and explains ways we could have come from nonliving matter.
Your wholesale denial of science demonstrates that you are at least aware of the insincerity of your condition.
If people made religion, then explain the proof of religion. Also if man made religion, then man started religion right? Its like the transitive property. A=b b=c a=c. A=Man made religion. B=Religion caused war. C=Man made war?
religion doesn't create war but it like a big club of people controlled by a few leaders who if they favor war as a way of getting more power they can have it very easy just by saying :"fight for god and you will go to heaven".So any religion with heaven and hell is a big argument to go to war.
These so called religions are by products of a few violent and corrupt men. It's not as though the men are flawed and their precious dogma is innocent, Christianity is a tool created specifically for these men to express their egotistical and psychotic ideals.
If there were no "bad people" then there would be no Christianity.
You would be wise to go and review the origins of Christianity.
The church, perhaps, may fall into your definition (and only insofar as we talk the period of Christendom) but Christianity cannot.
Read James 1:27 for Christianity's view of religion.
The other matter is that Christians were persecuted massively in the beginning. After AD 64 when Rome burnt under Nero, Christians were blamed for the fire! As such no one liked them; this event was used to vindicate Nero in feeding Christians to lions, crucifying them along the road to Rome. Christianity did not initially lend itself to world domination and war - in fact it acted against that. Jesus was not a zealot.
The argument of religion being created so as to validate 'egotistical and psychotic ideals' is demonstrably false anyway. If I come to your front door and say, "the mystic unicorn has commanded me to sleep with your mother, where can I find her?" You're not going to believe me, in fact you will probably physically harm me.
Don't be so arrogant as to suppose people of old were so gullible - look at the story of 'doubting Tom', or read Plato, or Aristotle, or Home (these were men of the ancients - and by no means gullible). Unless there is some reality to the claim there can be no reasonable assumption of it providing influence, or being used to sublimate psychotic tendencies.
Like the idea of cave man tribes being ruled by the "strong man". Yes it sounds a reasonable proposition, but we all know that 10 men are stronger than any 1, and so: this does not make it a false assertion, merely an unreasonable one upon which to premise further conclusion.
Emperor Constantine commissioned the first bible as a means to use Christianity as a tool to expand his own power. Before then, Christianity was used by popes as a means to expand their power. You could loosely argue that Christianity was a loving peaceful religion during the time Jesus was alive and perhaps even a few years after, but that's a particularly weak argument, especially in the face of the last 17-18 centuries.
I'm not interested in your cherry picked verses nor do I care if Christians where ever persecuted, that's no excuse.
Your unicorn analogy fails hard. Coming to my house and telling me you need to sleep with my wife because of a unicorn doesn't debunk the claim that Christianity can/was/is (be) used as a tool to expand power. It doesn't even address it... I'm not even sure how the hell you could possibly of thought that was an argument against me... are you trying to say that the fact persons followed Christianity proves it is true? Because THAT is a very demonstrable logical fallacy. ;)
The exception does not prove the rule. Besides, Plato was in favour of holding young boys in common to make having sex with them more convenient. Aristotle disagreed with this... because he didn't like the idea of fathers accidentally sleeping with their sons. Every single respected anthropologist and sociologist support the notion of early man being insane by contemporary standards.
Your own language gives away the weakness in your argument:
'Emperor Constantine ... use[d] Christianity as a tool to expand his own power.'
'Christianity was used by popes as a means to expand their power.'
These are instances not of religion causing war or consolidating power, but people using religion. The fact that you say, 'Christianity was a loving peaceful religion during the time Jesus was alive and perhaps even a few years after', shows very well that the religion itself does not necessitate the ills. So they must be caused by something else. What is different from Jesus and His 12 disciples and the Popes? The people. Hitherto it is the bad people, not the religion.
The unicorn analogy does not "fail hard", merely examine it. Why would you not let me then sleep with your mother (who is apparently also your wife... I don't judge)? Because you didn't believe me -- assuming the unicorn would kill you if you didn't let me. What this highlights is that if Jesus was lying flat-out and had no truth to what He said, no one would believe Him. This is not to say, necessarily, that all He said was true, but it does show that there must have been some believability to it. That is the point to be made.
In all seriousness when a wikipedia page opens with '... controversial study ...' your not in a favourable position. Psycho-history - which I'll be honest, I don't know a whole lot about, I know the tiniest of tiny bits - seems to me a bit like psycho-analysis: it does seem to answer all the questions, but that doesn't mean it lines up with reality. I'm sure there is part of psycho-history that's great and insightful, but to predicate the entirety of human history on one school of thought is foolishness (other just as credible schools of thought exist and refute the notion).
(The alpha's comment was more a side-note, but I'll address it. The phenomena of alpha's needs to be taken in a more complex manner than you suppose. Why do we listen to the government today? Is it because we don't have the power to overthrow them? Nonsense! It's because there is a lack of unity and solidarity, because we like what they say, because we can't think of anything better, there's a myriad of reasons. To suppose that we can tell the social structure, and the reasoning for said structure, of ancients, of which we have a few bones and some cracked pottery, is ridiculous -- and frankly arrogant. We suppose we know so much more than we do.)
These are instances not of religion causing war or consolidating power, but people using religion. The fact that you say, 'Christianity was a loving peaceful religion during the time Jesus was alive and perhaps even a few years after', shows very well that the religion itself does not necessitate the ills. So they must be caused by something else. What is different from Jesus and His 12 disciples and the Popes? The people. Hitherto it is the bad people, not the religion.
There is no religion without persons. The point is religion is just as much to blame as it's proponents. In order to corrupt a persons you need both a person willing to corrupt another and a means for corruption. Both the persons and means are necessary, one without the other is powerless. Your argument would make sense if we are talking about, say, a killer and a knife. A knife is just a tool, it wasn't necessarily created for "evil", though it can be used to such an end. However, Christianity was created as a means to expand the power of a few men. Jesus didn't seek power, but he also didn't create Christianity. Since Christianity was created solely as a means for the expansion of power I would say that it is just as reprehensible as the men whom made it.
Why would you not let me then sleep with your mother (who is apparently also your wife... I don't judge)?
Hahaha! It seems I made a grievous error while reading your argument. That is hilarious! But, back to debating...
Because you didn't believe me -- assuming the unicorn would kill you if you didn't let me. What this highlights is that if Jesus was lying flat-out and had no truth to what He said, no one would believe Him. This is not to say, necessarily, that all He said was true, but it does show that there must have been some believability to it. That is the point to be made.
Being believable doesn't make something true. Back in 2008 one could easily be convinced that we were facing a depression. Just because it was believable doesn't make it true and an example of something untrue not being believed doesn't make all believed things true.
In all seriousness when a wikipedia page opens with '... controversial study ...' your not in a favourable position. Psycho-history - which I'll be honest, I don't know a whole lot about, I know the tiniest of tiny bits - seems to me a bit like psycho-analysis: it does seem to answer all the questions, but that doesn't mean it lines up with reality. I'm sure there is part of psycho-history that's great and insightful, but to predicate the entirety of human history on one school of thought is foolishness (other just as credible schools of thought exist and refute the notion).
It's controversial because it claims things persons don't like to hear, not because the evidence doesn't support it. The way you're using the word, gravity is a more controversial study than psycho-history.
There is no school of thought that disputes psycho-history in its entirety, besides, psycho-history isn't even the only field of study that suggests ancient man was a paranoid sociopath by contemporary standards.
(The alpha's comment was more a side-note, but I'll address it. The phenomena of alpha's needs to be taken in a more complex manner than you suppose. Why do we listen to the government today? Is it because we don't have the power to overthrow them? Nonsense! It's because there is a lack of unity and solidarity, because we like what they say, because we can't think of anything better, there's a myriad of reasons. To suppose that we can tell the social structure, and the reasoning for said structure, of ancients, of which we have a few bones and some cracked pottery, is ridiculous -- and frankly arrogant. We suppose we know so much more than we do.)
There's a big jump between the alpha of a tribe and an entire government. Alpha's emerge through some outstanding trait resulting in either fear or respect (or a combination). States emerge out of psychological desire as a parental projection.
If we want to continue your knife analogy: if the knife was made with intent to be used as a killing tool it is to blame. That's ridiculous. Also you would have to prove that Christianity was made for such a purpose as expanding power. It doesn't make sense. The early Christians were persecuted! Maybe you could argue that it was hijacked and made into a power hungry tool, but that can't have been the original aim.
Moreover, you miss the point: is government wrong? Well no. (I'm an anarchist and I admit that - because if the government was truly democratic it wouldn't matter.) Ideas and organisational structures (which is what religion and the church are - from a secularist view) are not bad, they are but tools. It's like arguing the red cross is bad -- in theory you could distort its resource pool to do something horrid (poison water or something).
Not to mention that the topic is about religion, which means you would have to show that religion (in all its forms) are geared toward causing war. Sure religion can be used to "justify" war, but only after people have started it. (Just like communism, Zionism, and all other manner of ideas and structures.)
Agreed believability does not mean truth. But complete un-believability doesn't make sense. If it is complete nonsense no one would take it seriously; it doesn't mean it's true, it means it has something of truth in it or about it.
Psycho-history isn't a debunk field. It has helpful things to say, but it isn't the whole story. If it is treated as such it denigrates what it is, and loses credibility. Why people dispute is not the issue: it is disputed, so it can not be taken as sure footing in making further assumptions and inferences. And too, agreement of different views don't necessarily make them true. My tarot card reading could match my horoscope: big deal!
(On the alpha matter, you again give away your argument: '... resulting in either fear or respect (or a combination).' That is, it is not the fact they are the strongest, but that they are the most respected (or feared) - probably due to their strength. The point being there is a civility to it, a bit of complexity, it is not purely animalistic (in the base sense).
Jesus didn't start Christianity. Christianity formed after his death as a means to use his words to benefit a few corrupt men. The bible is the tool used to spread this corruption. Jesus didn't write the bible, the bible was written specifically to corrupt the words of Jesus so they could be used as a tool to expand power. This is why I say the religion as just as bad as its proponents. It's entire purpose is to corrupt.
You do realize that this government argument only works because you've chosen to define "wrong" in such a way that it wouldn't qualify government as "wrong", right? Government is also just a system created by corrupt men to corrupt the populace. You're an anarchist, so you already know this. So then, if non-corrupt men took power of the government, would the system stay the same? Obviously not, because the current system was built out of corruption. If corrupt men no longer were in power, then the system would also have to go.
Religion creates wars, history is enough to prove this. Perhaps not all religious texts are bold enough to say "war with infidels!" but the whole point of organized religion is to militarize into a massive cult with strong geological influence. As long as there are men desiring power, there will be religion (or government), as long as there is religion there will be war.
The bible is garbage. Even if 10% of it is true, it's still garbage. Regardless of how believable it is, if the bible were never written there's a very good chance the world would be a much better place.
As far as the effects of child-rearing throughout the ages is concerned, it absolutely IS the whole story! That's precisely what psycho-history is, anything that falls under this category IS psycho-history, so by definition it has to be the whole story when it comes to the effects of child-rearing methods throughout the ages. Why persons dispute psycho-history is absolutely 100% relevant! If they dispute it because well backed statistics contradict it, that's worth looking at, but if it's disputed because some sociologist doesn't like the idea of wanton incest being predominant during the antiquity of man, then it's hardly an argument against the study!
What does it matter if you view the emergence alphas to be animalistic or not?
It just doesn't follow. When the Bible was written - even if we take a liberal view and say early in the second century - the Christians were still being persecuted, they had no real sphere of influence. By the time they did have any real influence the people who wrote the Bible were well and truly gone. The charge that the Bible was designed to expand power is nonsense, unless you accept that they were trying to secure power for the generation of their grandchildren...
With the government though it is corrupt men that make it bad. If purely good men ran the government there wouldn't be a problem - there would be numerous referendums, but governments would still exist and they would work for good. The difference is the state of the people, not the structure. How is it that parts of the church can be categorically argued to be exacting good in the world, but others not so? Well, there are good people concentrated in the good parts.
Religion does NOT create wars. Religion has been instrumental in perpetuating wars, but not the cause. It's like, did the idea of terrorism cause the war in Iraq? NO! It was American government officials who realised their old friend (seriously, old friend) Hussein wasn't doing what they wanted any more - they just produced the "terrorism" propaganda to justify it. (I'm not saying terrorism doesn't exist, the point is that it doesn't validate war in Iraq)
If the Bible was never written the premise of modern western culture would be gone. Read 'Everlasting Man', it kind of deals with the matter of Christianity arising in history. You really don't understand the influence the church and Christianity has had on the west. Every legal code would be different. Also, it's rather foolish to make such a broad claim as 'if the bible were never written there's a very good chance the world would be a much better place.' You can't back that up with, really, anything. I mean, who's to say something else - worse - would have taken Christianity's place. If the Bible is just man-made then it would follow that man would write something else... If it is not man-made then we really shouldn't be ignoring it.
I agree there should be good reason to dispute psycho-history (although scepticism would argue the psycho-historian has to prove their own point). As it stands, there is dispute amongst people who know what's going on, so I'll leave it to them to settle the matter.
It matters fundamentally! But here is not the place to delve into that.
It follows perfectly. It doesn't matter one iota is Christians where being persecuted because intent is not predicated on actualization. At this point, I'm starting to think you're being willfully ignorant. In what way is it nonsensical for persons striving for power to also want that power to carry on down their blood line? Not only is it sensible, but it's typical. =/
A corrupt system would still be a corrupt system even if non-corrupt men took power because the system itself was based around corruption. A rickety house doesn't become a mansion just because a competent carpenter moves in. The house actually has to be changed.
If a Christian is doing "good" things, it doesn't make Christianity "good" by association. Keep in mind, a "good" Christians stones adulterers and gays. Christians who don't do this are not being good Christians at all.
Which came first; the idea of war, or war? the idea, obviously. So, would war have started without the idea of war? Again the answer is obvious. So then, it's perfectly logical to say that war's are started by what initiates them. You're trying to say that wars over religion start wars over religion, this is tautological. Take a step back and it's clear that religion itself is the cause of religious wars.
You're saying that because I can't predict some back door means of the world ending up worse as a result of religious void I am being illogical, the problem is you're making the exact same claim by saying assuming something worse would replace Christianity. The only difference is my assumption is based purely on facts (Christianity exists, wars have been fought over it, without Christianity wars cannot be fought over it) while YOURS is based on the assumption of a variable that may or may not even be possible.
That's rather lazy of you. So you're going to brush aside my claim that ancient man was paranoid and insane relative to contemporary men because persons you don't know disagree with it for reasons you don't understand?
I don't think it follows 'perfectly' as you say. You suppose that the founders of the church had the foresight to predict that the Roman empire would become Christian, allowing them to gain power, and that after the fall of the empire they would be still strong? And an ongoing legacy of power was their aim, despite them never participating in such power? -- even within the church, Paul often writes complaining that the churches are listening to the wrong teachers... Sure that could be power lust, but it at least shows he had no real power... Where is your evidence to back this claim? Fundamentally it is not portrayed in the Bible. Jesus turned down being made a political force and leader, and the early church always fed the line that they wanted to be "like Christ".
True, but a house will be renovated by a good man, whilst keeping its foundations. Systems do exist with irreparable foundations, but they are few.
A "good" Christian does NOT stone gays and adulterers. If you wish to seem intelligible in a debate about Christianity, at least understand what Christianity is! Jesus saved a prostitute from being stoned! (FYI, prostitutes commit adultery...) Jesus, therefore, was a rubbish Christian. You don't even know what it is you're arguing against. It's not Biblical Christianity.
What I am saying is this: people start wars for power, and justify it by the using religious ideology. That's not tautologous. What I argue is that the motive for "religious war" isn't the religion, but the ideology built around it, or the persons involved's want for something - power, money, etc.
I didn't say something worse would replace Christianity, but something would. Fact: Islam, communism (iron and bamboo curtains), fascism, imperialism... Half of these exist and are acting in our time. US imperialism, North Korean "communism", Iranian Islam... It's not a matter of me supposing my own back door, I just need to watch the news. Or sit in my high school history class.
It is very lazy. However I don't think it central to the issue, so we can discard it. The point is that there is by no means consensus, and as such no just cause to state your own aim so emphatically. (It was an analogy, much in the same way I shouldn't expand on the matter of mismatched concrete slab foundations of period housing. A brief comment critiquing the equity of analogy to truth is enough.)
You're assuming that because early Christians couldn't see into the future, they wouldn't bother even trying to establish power... I'm going let you think about that for a minute. =/
The church is a very, very different thing from Christ. You'll notice Christ never actually wrote anything down himself. He did this for the same reason Lao Tzu (almost) never wrote anything down; because it's easy to twist text. Jesus knew he would die one day, so he knew that if he wrote down his teachings and wasn't their to put it into context his whole message would be lost as others try to interpret it and even worse, others would use his teachings specifically to corrupt others. This is why the church is so pushy with their bible and why their are so, so many contradictions in it.
As of right now, every world power is built on a foundation of "legal tender" funny money. The whole world is being run by idiots in a house made of straw and toothpicks.
So then, a good Christian doesn't follow the bible??? As I've said, Christ and Christianity are two very different things. If Christ came back, your kind would murder him all over again! The bible says to stone adulterers and gays, not doing this is against the bible, therefore against Christianity. It's logically impossible to be a good Christian while simultaneously opposing it's edicts. There's no point in trying to weasel out of it, no Christian ever has.
Persons start wars for power, but the whole point of starting religion is also for power, so you're merely stating that fighting for power starts fights for power... which is still tautological. =/
Do you realize you just admitted Christianity is as damaging to mankind as Islam, communism, fascism and imperialism is... right? XD
Besides, I'm not solely opposed to Christianity. I think the world would be a better place void of all those things. The more of those things it lacks, the better off we'd be.
Yeah, yeah, you're ignoring my argument because persons you don't know disagree with it for reasons you don't understand. Can you spell cop out?
If we want to talk about the "religion" of Christianity, read James 1:27. You are confusing the "church" with the religion. Like confusing China with communism.
Hundreds of people around the world dedicate themselves to exegesis, corruption of text is explicitly trying to be weeded out.
If you aren't willing to take the Bible seriously we cannot debate what it says. You don't know enough about the Bible to debate me on it. Sure, you can quote verses - I can use bible gateway as well... It does not mean you could pass a unit of systematic theology.
The comment that the world would be better without all religion is indicative of why this debate between us will get no where. See, why do you argue that? Well, because you don't think any of the religions true; you don't think God exists - else you'd at least accept Baha'i or Quakerism... We are debating on the level of established religion, doctrine, tradition, etc. However we have completely different metaphysical foundations. Nothing will change unless those are suspended.
An odd opening considering YOU'RE the one who started debating me. =/
If we want to talk about the "religion" of Christianity, read James 1:27. You are confusing the "church" with the religion. Like confusing China with communism.
You can always tell when someones on the ropes because they begin to argue semantics. The religion of Christianity and the Church of Christianity are very much the same thing. How can you have the Christian religion without a church? How can you have a Church without religion? The Church governs the religion. The whole point of the religion is to power the church. I can't stress this enough; without the church the religion would never spread, without the religion the church means nothing.
Hundreds of people around the world dedicate themselves to exegesis, corruption of text is explicitly trying to be weeded out.
You misunderstand (or are deliberately straw-manning me). I'm not talking about the bible being corrupted from its original text, I'm saying that the entire purpose of the bible is for corruption. A bible void of corruption is a sketch-pad. Nothing more.
If you aren't willing to take the Bible seriously we cannot debate what it says. You don't know enough about the Bible to debate me on it. Sure, you can quote verses - I can use bible gateway as well... It does not mean you could pass a unit of systematic theology.
Wrong. It's not even about "taking the bible seriously", it's about the factual relevance/continuity/purpose of the bible. you have no idea how much or how little I know about the bible, you're just being an egotistical child by making such claims. If all your studies of theology have lead you to the conclusion that the bible is anything but a lame piece of semi-fiction literature, then it seems the world would benefit from a lack of such unproductive and trivial studies.
The comment that the world would be better without all religion is indicative of why this debate between us will get no where. See, why do you argue that? Well, because you don't think any of the religions true; you don't think God exists - else you'd at least accept Baha'i or Quakerism... We are debating on the level of established religion, doctrine, tradition, etc. However we have completely different metaphysical foundations. Nothing will change unless those are suspended.
You know, you have a strange debating technique. By that I mean, very little of your arguments actually deal with the things I'm talking about. Your whole post completely side-steps everything I wrote before this! And even stranger still, you would have yourself just in complaining that the things I'M saying are leading this debate nowhere.
Such hypocrisy... =/
Nothing I've said suggests I lack a belief in God, this is a straw man. Believing in God doesn't necessitate the acceptance of an organized religion as you suggest. Now, if YOU have some varying definition of what constitutes religion, fine, but this debate was clearly written in reference to religion in the colloquial sense. Also, you'd be a fool for starting a debate based on semantics without even establishing your personal vocabulary dissensions.
religion throughout history has been a major motivating factor behind wars, but i think its a little of both, it takes an instilled religion to be a motivating factor, and a large group of people to be over zealous for it to the point of war. perhaps if no religion was instilled historically, there would have very likely been less wars in our history, because you cut of the original motivating factor behind the war(s), and other such unnecessary chaos that has occurred. so that is why my view is that religion has created wars, because of it being the motivating factor in the first place.