Maybe. Maybe the world would be a much better place if a certain type of plant had never evolved in primordial times, or if humans had a different sense in place of smell. I don't really see the point of speculating about this though, as religion has been so persistently and indelibly part of human history that it's impossible to imagine it (or even human nature) without it.
It was totally fair the way we took Native American land.
Maybe not, but I don't see anyone advocating we just vacate America to give it back to the natives. That's what Palestinian nationalism is about. And it might have been longer ago that we encroached on indigenous Americans, but also weren't seeking asylum when we did it, while the Jews were.
it was totally unfair for the Jewish people to take the land which belonged to the Palestinians for centuries upon centuries
In what sense did it belong to the Palestinians? They hadn't set up borders. There was no Palestinian state. They were simply the nomadic tribes that occupied the territory, with little sense of property--much in the way the native Americans had.
they gave the land up, the least they could do is accept the consequences of permanently leaving your homeland for such a long time.
You talk as if their exile was voluntary.
it would have been reasonable for them to simply move there, just as long as the Palestinians can support immigration of the Jewish people in that small area
They did. Wealthy Jews had been buying up land in the area since the 1800s. By 1948, there were more "foreign" Jews living legitimately in the area than natives.
but no, they literally barged in under the banner of the UN.
What would you rather have been done with the Jews following the Holocaust? There were certainly some Jews lobbying for the territory to be declared a Jewish state as according to scripture, but their options were kind of scarce to begin with. Much of Judaism had been subject to reform voiding the old prophesies of a return to the holy land already. The Allied armies didn't have the kind of supplies necessary to feed and clothe and house all of those refugees. Many of them hadn't any family or shelter in their home countries to return to. Pretty much anywhere we could have put them they would've intruded upon somebody.
now 67 years later, the Israeli government have committed quite the rack of human rights abuses
Israel is among the best states to live in for human rights in the Middle East.
while at the same time illegally moving into whats left of the Palestinians land creating more neighborhoods, and leaving the Palestinians more crammed in their land mass everyday.
There's a long history of generous partition proposals that have been accepted by the Israelis but rejected by the Palestinians. Palestine has kind of an all-or-nothing mentality. They'd rather see Israel and Judaism wiped off the face of the earth than for their people to have the basic necessities of living.
if it's true, it renders this debate rather, how I say... shoot-yourself-in-the-foot-ish(?)
I see it more as recognizing of nuance. The emphasis of this debate is on the positive aspects of society, more of which I think can be traced back to Judeo-Christianity than to Greco-Roman or enlightenment influences. It's a matter of degree. It doesn't need to be so absolute as "Christianity is evil," which is how a lot of atheists on this site like to put it.
It's no more good than bad. In order to reject it wholly as an institution, you kind of have to write the majority of recorded history off as a mistake. Which you might do if you're an edgy teen looking for a reaction, but most people tend to average out over time.
Nope. But this question isn't the stumper 15-year-olds tend to think it is; it's just equivocation. Omnipotence is the ability to do all things that are possible. Saying Jesus isn't God because he couldn't microwave a burrito so hot that even he couldn't eat it is like saying science isn't useful because it can't determine whether there is or isn't a God. It's moving the goal posts. Omnipotence would be incoherent as an idea if it included the ability to commit logical contradictions.
That's a widely-believed-in variation of God. Yo.
It's kind of discouraging that your ignorance is so encompassing and that you are so unashamed of it. On a personal note, what makes you think you are qualified to have this discussion? A lot of it seems over your head.
Physical/empirical evidence isn't the only kind of evidence. But, again, this discussion is starting to fall outside the scope of this debate. We're not talking about what we are or aren't justified in assuming; that would be an epistemological debate. We've got the epistemology for this discussion very strictly defined: that of the scientific method. Under the established epistemic rules of scientism, are we justified in ruling out the "existence" of a God-figure?
This is off-topic. The resolution is "Science refutes god," not "Science can refute god" or "It is the responsibility of science to refute God." You can start one of those debates if you want and invite people here to participate, but that's not what I'm interested in and it won't get us anywhere in this debate.
I downvote bad arguments, usually with an explanation of why in a message if not in the thread. The above comment doesn't even contain any arguments. I'm not sure how someone could take issue with it. I don't think it's impossible, but I sure would appreciate some illumination.
I am not "people who represents religions" (nor a Christian Scientist, which is the denomination that believes in the things you're talking about). I am this person who is opposing this resolution. If you'll check my recent arguments, I just claimed that intercessory prayer is not effective. I'm afraid you'll have to tailor your attacks to me, and not just make whatever generalized, half-formed argument you'd normally levy against those who weren't able to defend themselves.
Jesus, you are just too tough a guy for me to handle. I can't handle it. My handling skills are insufficient. He's gonna drink poison for his non-faith! What a saint!
I haven't claimed that religion is an adequate substitute for medicine, buddy, and you'd have to stretch my words pretty far to claim I did. I don't get your point.
Yeah because old storybooks hold so much more weight in evidence than scientific facts.
In some ways.
anyone can see it was a religion made into a get rich quick scheme.
Roman Catholicism is original, (mostly) unaltered Christianity. It is the wellspring from which all other forms of Christianity originate. In this sense, it is the purest iteration of the faith. You're right that it's gotten corrupt over the years, but the essence of it (and the purpose for which it was created) is clearly for the worship of Christ, and the traditionalism appeals to a certain sort of person.
The pope can lick my balls.
Woah! This is the edgiest thing I've ever read! I can't believe any teenaged male Atheist is this irreverent! How unexpected! You, sir, are a true iconoclast!
