Point out exactly what you think I plagiarised. And it's not just Sagan i paraphrase - if you spent not a lot of time researching in the scientific community you'd see tremendous point borrowing throughout my arguments - this does not affect the opinion of a rational thinking person, only someone who fears being seen as "wrong." You've made it plain you have no interest in rational debate. Goodbye.

Point out exactly what you think I plagiarised. And it's not just Sagan i paraphrase - if you spent not a lot of time researching in the scientific community you'd see tremendous point borrowing throughout my arguments - this does not affect the opinion of a rational thinking person, only someone who fears being seen as "wrong." You've made it plain you have no interest in rational debate. Goodbye.

I copied my OWN writing - that's not plagiarism lol (the short number of sentences from other sources could hardly be considered plagiarism lol... ad hominem101)

Actually anything proven is scientifically proven. Science is merely testing and documenting the results, simple as that. Science can refer to either the body of knowledge or to the way of thinking; skeptically interrogating your surroundings. Mathematics is the language of science (all math is science.) There is no other kind of evidence but scientific evidence as all evidence which is actually evidence has been determined to be true via the scientific method (testable, replicable, verifiable). (Pure logic and theories may remain but doubt must be suspended between possible conclusions in the absence of definitive evidence.) Anything else is bullshit.

You clearly have no interest in or are incapable of rational debate. "Honestly, coming from you, I'm really not that offended." Lines like that come from people who don't debate things to arrive at a common understanding of what's really true - more important to that mindset is being seen as "right" or just offending those who don't agree with them - which is deeply corrosive to intellectual discovery. I've not once made an attempt to offend you - but I do find you highly ignorant and I state this only in hopes it inspires you to notice and perhaps overcome it (no offense intended - as far as I can tell your ignorance is honest.)

p.s. It's not that I couldn't make the remote correlation between your Obama analogy and the point I had made - but it was so absurd, personally bias, and unrelated that I didn't humor it lol. The point I made is; it's apparent to anyone, who takes the time to consider, that all religions in all their different flavors have been invented entirely by humans. Your point is not anywhere near that, and though I see the parallel you were attempting to draw it's just so far off from being analogic... it's outright stupid.

I had intended to hit dispute. Sorry I'm new on the site :).

"First, let me make clear that I find it difficult to take seriously a person who copied and pasted a completely unoriginal page long argument... twice."

That in and of itself would not affect the opinion of a rational thinking person. The argument I wrote then copied, applied to both separate debates and is completely unrelated to any point being made here. That's what's called an ad hominem.

You provided no evidence at any point for anything.

"Because I actually understand what their religious texts mean, unlike you."

You might not see it but the implication made is you have some insight into "what their religious texts mean" others do not fathom as well as assuming a full understanding of their intellectual capacity and state.

"The religious texts are ambiguous (to some degree) in their interpretations, across the board of all (claimed) religious believers."

"I was talking specifically about the Bible."

Religious texts include the bible... lol

"You believe the writer to have a certain meaning and context, which you feel you've "accurately" deduced."

Yeah... Okay, sure... It's somewhat of a theory, one with plenty of evidence. You can call me ignorant as long as you call believers in the Big Bang ignorant as well."

It has zero evidence. Evidence is scientific - there is no science in scripture. I'll copy paste from another post I made just for you, as it applies here as well ;). "Atheists consider any evidence presented and go along with what's proven to be true scientifically. Then search for more questions to find out more about the cosmos (eg: 2+2=4, testable, replicable, verifiable - scientifically proven.)" And how is it you think people who theorize the big bang as plausible are in some way ignorant just for thinking it....? The level of your ignorance astounds me.

"How this doesn't unequivocally expose to people that it's all a bunch of made up stories I find perplexing.

Some people think Obama is a Muslim, some think he is the anti-Christ, some think he is an alien, some think he is a double agent, some think he is a puppet, some think he's having an affair... Most of that is obviously bullshit, so is him being president bullshit as well?"

Uh... hum it seems we got a little off topic there.

"As for myself? I don't consider myself religious, but people can label me religious if they want me too, they are just wrong if they do label me religious. I hate religion but love Jesus."

Puzzling.

Do some homework, get off the fence.

"Because I actually understand what their religious texts mean, unlike you."

That statement shows you do not require evidence to make claims.

You do not hold supreme understanding over religious texts - and it's overwhelmingly ignorant to assert you do. The religious texts are ambiguous (to some degree) in their interpretations, across the board of all (claimed) religious believers. You believe the writer to have a certain meaning and context, which you feel you've "accurately" deduced. This is why we have thousands of different brands of Christianity (and other major religions) - largely from people starting their own religion as their interpretation is somewhat different from the current community. How this doesn't unequivocally expose to people that it's all a bunch of made up stories I find perplexing.

"The cosmos is also within us, we're made of star stuff. We are a way, for the cosmos to know itself." - Carl Sagan

"You are the universe, expressing itself as a human for a little while." - Eckhart Tolle

We are just some of the things hydrogren atoms do given 13.7 billion years of evolution.

"However on average religious people have a better sense of morality." - What do you base that on when the scriptures for "the big three" religions especially are full of actual endorsements of murder and rape and misogyny, and every other evil thing a bronze-age man could possibly imagine?

"What if they aren't delusional? What a shocker that would be to all of the atheists."

The idea is that atheists are open-minded and the religious doctrines are the opposite. We approve of questions, knowledge seeking behavior, scientific discovery, education - the major churches of this world have openly declared war on these things. Atheists consider any evidence presented and go along with what's proven to be true scientifically. Then search for more questions to find out more about the cosmos (eg: 2+2=4, testable, replicable, verifiable - scientifically proven). Religions pretend to have answers for all of the unimaginably big questions - which is extremely corrosive to learning anything new, and dampers us intellectually as a species. We are starting to be able to answer very large questions about the cosmos - much in stark contradiction to the doctrines (which is not all that surprising given there is no science in scripture :P).

"When you are studying any matter, or considering any philosophy, ask yourself only: What are the facts, and what is the truth that the facts bear out. Never let yourself be diverted, either by what you wish to believe, or what you think could have beneficent social effects if it were believed; but look only and solely at what are the facts." - Bertrand Russell

It's not that the majority of atheists haven't considered the religious doctrines, it's that the majority of those holding religious beliefs haven't taken the time to learn what we know to be true - or refuse to even try (and often get extremely offended at simply being questioned.)