Religious Debate... Again...

Rotaretilbo wrote:Some Texans oppose a mosque. Everyone knows they're just being intolerant.

Tennessee actually

what was funny is paying attention to the interviewer. she was trying to be unbiased in her questions but as it went on and on (as she spent more time in the town doing research and interviews) she began to show that she too thought these people were crazy.

KristallNacht wrote:

Rotaretilbo wrote:Some Texans oppose a mosque. Everyone knows they're just being intolerant.

Tennessee actually

Texans are a lot less fucking retarded than most people seem to think. Most of them are fairly religious, but as strong as they are in their convictions, they have a certain "leave me the fuck alone, and I'll leave you the fuck alone" mentality that overrides many of their prejudices.

I was born in Texas

Zaki90 wrote:I just love how that lawyer went out and proclaimed that Islam is not a religion.

Just fucking ridiculous.

This is just a prime example of how terrible conservative/republican America can get.

yes.
Base an entire group of people on the idocy of one person.
Great idea, way to be tolerant.

Zaki90 wrote:I just love how that lawyer went out and proclaimed that Islam is not a religion.

Just fucking ridiculous.

This is just a prime example of how terrible conservative/republican America can get.

Change "America" to "someone".

Gold Spartan wrote:

Zaki90 wrote:I just love how that lawyer went out and proclaimed that Islam is not a religion.

Just fucking ridiculous.

This is just a prime example of how terrible conservative/republican America can get.

yes.
Base an entire group of people on the idocy of one person.
Great idea, way to be tolerant.

no, no.... he has a point

The worst of liberals are obnoxious, tree-hugging, ipad-toting hipsters, who like indie music, and think everyone should eat 'organic' food.

The worst of conservatives are uneducated, xenophobic, bible-thumping bigots, who think abortion and gun rights are the most important issues of 21st century politics.

One is annoying. The other is dangerous.

Recon you just took a moderate liberal vs an extreme conservative

extreme liberals are pretty much communists.... they want a fully controlling government with government hands in everything from private business to religion. Joseph Stalin would be considered an extreme liberal... he is responsible for around 6 million deaths... don't try to tell me that isn't dangerous


don't argue democrats vs republicans, as neither of those sides is conservative or liberal, they are all just in it for themselves. The extremes of Liberals and Conservatives have equal dangers, except only one so far in history has actually killed millions of people

ReconToaster wrote:

KristallNacht wrote:

Rotaretilbo wrote:Some Texans oppose a mosque. Everyone knows they're just being intolerant.

Tennessee actually

Texans are a lot less fucking retarded than most people seem to think. Most of them are fairly religious, but as strong as they are in their convictions, they have a certain "leave me the fuck alone, and I'll leave you the fuck alone" mentality that overrides many of their prejudices.

I was born in Texas

this is true ^

The worst of liberals make us sign an agreement saying no one is allowed to use coal unless it is clean coal, even though Africa is in desperate need of cheap energy, where hundreds of thousands of people literally die from poverty every day, because they have to burn shit and debris just to keep warm and end up getting horrible lung diseases from the burning refuse.

We can play this game all day. At the end of the day, neither extreme is any worse or better than the other.

KrAzY wrote:Recon you just took a moderate liberal vs an extreme conservative

extreme liberals are pretty much communists.... they want a fully controlling government with government hands in everything from private business to religion. Joseph Stalin would be considered an extreme liberal... he is responsible for around 6 million deaths... don't try to tell me that isn't dangerous

Twenty million is closer, though that's a conservative estimate. Rather hesitant to call him a 'liberal', though the institution that put him in power was a liberal one.

Closer to home, I'd use the Weathermen and Greenpeace as examples of liberalism gone too far. Weathermen were an outright terrorist organization, whereas Greenpeace has probably done more to damage environmentalism than it has to promote it. Of course, there's also the ELF and Earth First!, which are undeniably extremists.

Anyhow, Conservatives may have Rush Limbaugh, but liberals have MoveOn.org.

KrAzY wrote:don't argue democrats vs republicans, as neither of those sides is conservative or liberal, they are all just in it for themselves. The extremes of Liberals and Conservatives have equal dangers, except only one so far in history has actually killed millions of people

And Hitler/Klu Klux Klan is?

Rasq'uire'laskar wrote:
Anyhow, Conservatives may have Rush Limbaugh, but liberals have MoveOn.org.

MoveOn.org is sometimes arrogant, and irresponsible in what they report. Rush Limbaugh is a fear-mongering bigot.

I'd personally argue that the extreme of conservatism, fascism, will always be better than the extreme of liberalism, anarchy. That's probably just me being conservatism, though. But generally, both extremes are equally bad.

Rotaretilbo wrote:I'd personally argue that the extreme of conservatism, fascism, will always be better than the extreme of liberalism, anarchy. That's probably just me being conservatism, though. But generally, both extremes are equally bad.

Nah, I'd much rather be out on my own than under the control of a fascist government. Either way, I wouldn't call anarchy an extreme form of liberalism. I'd say it's just the opposite. Liberals don't want government involved in personal matters, but they definitely want government involved in regulating and providing services to the people.

Extremism is bad. That's all you need to know.

Generally, i find fundamental conservatives to be worse than fundamental liberals. Probably because i find that there are more fundamental conservatives.

Fundamental conservatives come across as fear mongering bigots, while fundamental liberals come across as pretentious douchebags. Needless to say, neither side is good.

Anarchy is extreme liberalism? Do I need to break out the Nolan charts?

Rotaretilbo wrote: Wow. This is more fail than usual for you. Go back and read my posts. My point was that good has come out of religion, and bad has come out of secularism. I was just pointing out the inherent fallacy in saying that "only bad has ever come out of religion". I did not counter with my own fallacy by saying that only bad has come of atheism, as that would be stupid.

Well, I think there is quite a large difference between secularism and atheism. As far as good springing from religion, the fact that nonreligious are capable of the same virtues and shortcomings as the religious, I don't think it's fair to say that religion or atheism is the root of anything as there is a more base denominator, ie human nature.

Religion does require people to suspend reason though.

The premise of it is you are presented with a choice (if your lucky), believe something in the absence of evidence that countermands scientific discovery and your own reason like talking snakes, flying beasts, etc. and spend eternity in paradise, or don't and burn forever in a lake of fire. When scare tactic is implemented in such a way it's no surprise that 40% of Americans think the planet is 6,000 years old.

As far as good coming out of religion, I'm pretty confident those are inherent principles that were evolutionarily advantageous to our early ancestors. Or maybe your referring to the United States and other rich western powers pursuing humanitarian goals around the world? That's because we're rich, and able to do so. Any other rich country with similar economic systems, wealth, population and history would likely do things the same even in the absence of Religious beliefs.

Arguably Religions such as Christianity and Islam serve as a focusing medium in which to organize humanitarian efforts, that's the only upside I can see to it. In the US, church makes more then 10 billion dollars annually, do you think they are as thrifty with their tithes as, say, the Red Cross?

The thought that we only do good to be rewarded in the afterlife or to avoid infinite torture and damnation is indignifying. I would prefer people to help each other less but do it for the right reasons, thats to say if religion actually motivates people to do more altruistic deeds then people without religion (something I highly doubt).

Given that basically all world beliefs are man made constructs, it's no surprise their tenets are written to emulate are already present social norms. Which is to say that they really don't do anything morally or socially except impede scientific discovery, ie heliocentrism, evolution, stem cells. Religion doesn't really do anything out of what we would do regardless except advance faster scientifically.

Given that there have only been a handful of atheistic states, of course atheists specifically have not waged as many wars as theists. They've not had the opportunity, after all. Just keep in mind that atheism is the lack of theism, and so if a war is not theistic, as the wars I listed clearly were not, it is atheistic.

Nor do they wage war specifically FOR atheism, or claim to at least.

I was simply reminding that there have been far more secular wars and other such bad than good, because theism is not the root of war, as you seem so eager to proclaim: man is the root of war. But don't worry, NT. We all got a good laugh at your attempts at intelligent trolling.

Well, again I don't know if it's fair to say that it's a fair comparative to make that there have been far more secular wars then theistic wars. Any war isn't even that great when not directly provoked or attacked. Man is the root of war because we invent differences amongst each and then fight over them.

Firstly, secular wars are normally fought over something tangible. I would prefer the United States or any other country fighting over something that can benefit me in the real world, like oil or gold, something real and that I can use. It just seems more noble to fight over something then just a promise.

Secondly, most religious wars were just over land anyway, or getting certain people OFF YOUR land, which is really a secular thing masquerading as a religious thing. Wanting land/plunder isn't really a divine concept, even though in the Bible, God proclaimed that the Israelites may conquer the Midianites and Canonites, slaughter their men and children while keeping their virgins as spoils of war... Oh, I got the feeling that an Israelite wrote that part.

More recently, with the Islamic fundamentalists in the Middle East wanting everyone off THEIR land, that's basically just the secular desire to want territory sanctified by a book written by a similar man years and years before while the desire to want people off your land was just as strong.

wars are fought for foolish pride, greed, religion, money, politics, an the feeling of being triumphant. an many atheistic states have crumbled due to lack of common ground. but so have theistic sites. i say everyone does whatever the hell they seem fit as long as it doesn't interfere with other peoples rights.

Ringleader wrote:Well, I think there is quite a large difference between secularism and atheism. As far as good springing from religion, the fact that nonreligious are capable of the same virtues and shortcomings as the religious, I don't think it's fair to say that religion or atheism is the root of anything as there is a more base denominator, ie human nature.

Which is exactly my point.

Ringleader wrote:Religion does require people to suspend reason though.

As do all belief systems, including atheism, except for agnosticism.

Ringleader wrote:The premise of it is you are presented with a choice (if your lucky), believe something in the absence of evidence that countermands scientific discovery

The handful of "scientific" discoveries that conflict with most of the prominent religions are usually predicated from the assumption of atheism. Macro evolution is, of course, in every way, unscientific in nature, as we cannot observe or recreate it, nor is there anything but circumstantial evidence for it. And, as I've said many times, radiocarbon dating is one of the silliest things I've ever come across.

Wikipedia wrote:After plants die or they are consumed by other organisms (for example, by humans or other animals) the ¹⁴C fraction of this organic material declines at a fixed exponential rate due to the radioactive decay of ¹⁴C. Comparing the remaining [/=sup]14[/sup]C fraction of a sample to that expected from atmospheric ¹⁴C allows the age of the sample to be estimated

This premise would make sense, except that there are two variables. You have the amount of ¹⁴C remaining, but neither the amount starting nor how long it has been decaying for. While you can approximate the former to a certain degree now, we have no way of knowing how much ¹⁴C was in the atmosphere a couple millenia ago, let alone hundreds of millions of years ago. The way this basically works is you take the first fossil, assume that it is hundreds of millions of years old, and then use that as a template to get the approximated ¹⁴C in the atmosphere at the time. See the problem? Radiocarbon dating only works if you already assumed the earth was very very old.

Ringleader wrote:and your own reason like talking snakes, flying beasts, etc.

Things that are actually quite uncommon in the Bible, as well.

Ringleader wrote:and spend eternity in paradise, or don't and burn forever in a lake of fire. When scare tactic is implemented in such a way it's no surprise that 40% of Americans think the planet is 6,000 years old.

Scare tactics are only inherently bad if they are used for untruth. From the viewpoint of religion, we are letting people know that they have a deadly disease and that there is a cure. To do otherwise would be gross negligence on our part.

Ringleader wrote:As far as good coming out of religion, I'm pretty confident those are inherent principles that were evolutionarily advantageous to our early ancestors. Or maybe your referring to the United States and other rich western powers pursuing humanitarian goals around the world? That's because we're rich, and able to do so. Any other rich country with similar economic systems, wealth, population and history would likely do things the same even in the absence of Religious beliefs.

The specific example I was referring to was the Protestant reform leading to mass literacy in Europe, or the Calvin subgroup leading to a much greater work ethic among peasants. I don't even particularly agree with or like Calvinism, but some good came out of his babbling. I was simply giving counterexamples to "no good has ever come of religion."

Ringleader wrote:Arguably Religions such as Christianity and Islam serve as a focusing medium in which to organize humanitarian efforts, that's the only upside I can see to it. In the US, church makes more then 10 billion dollars annually, do you think they are as thrifty with their tithes as, say, the Red Cross?

You'd be surprised how fiscal the Red Cross is. The problem with the Church is that all that tithe isn't going into one big pot, where one person can redirect it to projects. There are some churches that collect tithes and do not use that money to help the community or people in need. That number is probably also bloated by the presence of many, many churches that barely scrape by on the tithes they get. However, I know a fair number of churches, at least in my area, that take in a lot of revenue, and give back a lot. Mission Church, for example, actually funds a camp in the Philippines where abused women can seek shelter. Last I checked, there was no profit from this shelter whatsoever. But every year, not only does the church fund the shelter, but it sends volunteering members to the Philippines to visit it, make sure everything is going well, and to construct new structures. These aren't vacations, either, since these members don't leave the camp during their stay in the Philippines. This same church also has projects every few weekends where members go out and build small houses for the poor. This is, of course, done for no charge. I know that the church funds and runs a teen rehab center for teens addicted to drugs and such whatnot. And this is all done on an income that I assure you is barely a blip on the Red Cross's income radar.

Ringleader wrote:The thought that we only do good to be rewarded in the afterlife or to avoid infinite torture and damnation is indignifying. I would prefer people to help each other less but do it for the right reasons, thats to say if religion actually motivates people to do more altruistic deeds then people without religion (something I highly doubt).

I would argue that many theists don't do nice things simply because it will get them rewarded in the afterlife. In most Protestant beliefs (save Calvinism and a few others), good deeds are not required to get into heaven. You do them because you want to make God happy, because you recognize that what you were doing before wasn't the right thing to do. If you do good deeds because there's a gun to your head, you're doing it wrong.

Ringleader wrote:Given that basically all world beliefs are man made constructs, it's no surprise their tenets are written to emulate are already present social norms. Which is to say that they really don't do anything morally or socially except impede scientific discovery, ie heliocentrism, evolution, stem cells. Religion doesn't really do anything out of what we would do regardless except advance faster scientifically.

The Catholic Church's issues with heliocentrism was wholly based in the fact that the Catholic Church had created a handful of documents not in the Bible that they decided were also divinely inspired. Very few people, especially Protestants, believe in geocentrism.

The Bible does not actually conflict with micro evolution, aka natural selection. It only conflicts with macro evolution, the belief that enough micro evolution can result in macro evolution. I've had this argument here and elsewhere hundreds of times, and I've yet to see sufficient evidence for macro evolution. There are a lot of holes in this seemingly ironclad theory.

Embryonic stem cell research is a moral and ethical dilemma. Are embryos alive? Who can say? This hardly has anything to do with religion itself. Religion just happens to side with the people who believe that embryos are indeed alive. Many agnostics and atheists also take this side. The main difference is that few religious people take the other side. However, the main reason I oppose embryonic stem cell research is because there are viable alternatives that are actually further along that won't bother anyone. Blood stem cell research has been getting results for a decade now, while embryonic stem cell research is still talking about hypotheticals. And using the placenta and umbilical cord won't anger anyone. Those bits are normally thrown away, and what a waste, considering their extremely rich in stem cells.

Ringleader wrote:Nor do they wage war specifically FOR atheism, or claim to at least.

Well, except the Soviet Union. They killed a lot of theists for being theists.

Ringleader wrote:Well, again I don't know if it's fair to say that it's a fair comparative to make that there have been far more secular wars then theistic wars. Any war isn't even that great when not directly provoked or attacked. Man is the root of war because we invent differences amongst each and then fight over them.

Firstly, secular wars are normally fought over something tangible. I would prefer the United States or any other country fighting over something that can benefit me in the real world, like oil or gold, something real and that I can use. It just seems more noble to fight over something then just a promise.

Secondly, most religious wars were just over land anyway, or getting certain people OFF YOUR land, which is really a secular thing masquerading as a religious thing. Wanting land/plunder isn't really a divine concept, even though in the Bible, God proclaimed that the Israelites may conquer the Midianites and Canonites, slaughter their men and children while keeping their virgins as spoils of war... Oh, I got the feeling that an Israelite wrote that part.

More recently, with the Islamic fundamentalists in the Middle East wanting everyone off THEIR land, that's basically just the secular desire to want territory sanctified by a book written by a similar man years and years before while the desire to want people off your land was just as strong.

Which, again, was my point. I brought up secular wars simply as a counterexample for "all wars are caused by religion, because religion is bad."

Rotaretilbo wrote:

Ringleader wrote:The thought that we only do good to be rewarded in the afterlife or to avoid infinite torture and damnation is indignifying. I would prefer people to help each other less but do it for the right reasons, thats to say if religion actually motivates people to do more altruistic deeds then people without religion (something I highly doubt).

I would argue that many theists don't do nice things simply because it will get them rewarded in the afterlife. In most Protestant beliefs (save Calvinism and a few others), good deeds are not required to get into heaven. You do them because you want to make God happy, because you recognize that what you were doing before wasn't the right thing to do. If you do good deeds because there's a gun to your head, you're doing it wrong.

In addition to this, I'd like to point out that, in accordance to many religions, a deed done for your own benefit does not qualify as a "good" deed. This includes doing things just so you don't go to hell. Integrity is the key.

Rotaretilbo wrote:

Ringleader wrote:Given that basically all world beliefs are man made constructs, it's no surprise their tenets are written to emulate are already present social norms. Which is to say that they really don't do anything morally or socially except impede scientific discovery, ie heliocentrism, evolution, stem cells. Religion doesn't really do anything out of what we would do regardless except advance faster scientifically.

The Catholic Church's issues with heliocentrism was wholly based in the fact that the Catholic Church had created a handful of documents not in the Bible that they decided were also divinely inspired. Very few people, especially Protestants, believe in geocentrism.

Indeed. The notion that scientists thought of our universe as geocentric for so long is just as inaccurate as the notion that they also though the Earth was flat.

This premise would make sense, except that there are two variables. You have the amount of 14C remaining, but neither the amount starting nor how long it has been decaying for. While you can approximate the former to a certain degree now, we have no way of knowing how much 14C was in the atmosphere a couple millenia ago, let alone hundreds of millions of years ago. The way this basically works is you take the first fossil, assume that it is hundreds of millions of years old, and then use that as a template to get the approximated 14C in the atmosphere at the time. See the problem? Radiocarbon dating only works if you already assumed the earth was very very old.

Radiocarbon dating isn't the only dating method, living in Arizona, I assume you are familiar with the Meteor Crater? The Canyon Diablo Meteorite samples contained therein being dated at 4.6 billion years old using lead dating.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canyon_Diablo_meteorite

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth#Why_meteorites_were_used

The Canyon Diablo date has been backed up by hundreds of other dates, from both terrestrial samples and other meteorites.[29] The meteorite samples, however, show a spread from 4.53 to 4.58 billion years ago. This is interpreted as the duration of formation of the solar nebula and its collapse into the solar disk to form the Sun and the planets. This 50 million year time span allows for accretion of the planets from the original solar dust and meteorites.

There's really no dispute among scientists now about how old fossils are and how old the earth is, not because scientists are close minded to the notion, but rather because as of yet, no strong evidence has been discovered that goes against inferences built upon all standing evidence.

Also, radiocarbon dating alone isn't used for remains older than 60,000 years. Firstly, no dating method is EVER used alone, secondly the amount of atmospheric has been determined by a multiplicity of sources, each in support of each other.

http://digitalcommons.library.arizona.edu/objectviewer?o=http://radiocarbon.library.arizona.edu/Volume46/Number3/azu_radiocarbon_v46_n3_1029_1058_v.pdf

The raw radiocarbon dates, in BP years, are calibrated to give calendar dates. Standard calibration curves are available, based on comparison of radiocarbon dates of samples that can be dated independently by other methods such as examination of tree growth rings (dendrochronology), deep ocean sediment cores, lake sediment varves, coral samples, and speleothems (cave deposits).
The calibration curves can vary significantly from a straight line, so comparison of uncalibrated radiocarbon dates (e.g., plotting them on a graph or subtracting dates to give elapsed time) is likely to give misleading results. There are also significant plateaus in the curves, such as the one from 11,000 to 10,000 radiocarbon years BP, which is believed to be associated with changing ocean circulation during the Younger Dryas period. Over the historical period from 0 to 10,000 years BP, the average width of the uncertainty of calibrated dates was found to be 335 years, although in well-behaved regions of the calibration curve the width decreased to about 113 years while in ill-behaved regions it increased to a maximum of 801 years. Significantly, in the ill-behaved regions of the calibration curve, increasing the precision of the measurements does not have a significant effect on increasing the accuracy of the dates.[15]
The 2004 version of the calibration curve extends back quite accurately to 26,000 years BP. Any errors in the calibration curve do not contribute more than ±16 years to the measurement error during the historic and late prehistoric periods (0–6,000 yrs BP) and no more than ±163 years over the entire 26,000 years of the curve, although its shape can reduce the accuracy as mentioned above.[16]
In late 2009, the journal Radiocarbon announced agreement on the INTCAL09 standard, which extends a more accurate calibration curve to 50,000 years.[17][18]

Macroevolution cannot be observed by the human eye as you've said, but that's not to diminish it's factuality and the mountains of evidence in support of it. I could argue that insects or other small fauna can be observed to experience generational changes throughout the span of a human life. I guess that depends how large or small you consider 'Macro' in macroevolution.

In a way, domesticated animals including human beings are an example of macroevolution/speciation with mutations that proved not to be the bane of their utility and our survivability. Scientists accept that the resolution for Macroevolution is 10,000 years, however most domesticated animals fall within that timespan. I mean, you can breed two dogs, two goats, two horses, or 2 of anything really for racing, milk yield, size, or any such purpose and this would be an example of evolution in which the organisms had been unnaturally selected for human gain, instead of what would normally occur in nature, being natural select for the organism's own survivability and success.

The fossil record and the stratification of fossil remains have a consistent pattern, that's to say you wont find rabbit skeletons in the Burgess shale. That's to say we find amphibian fossils buried under reptile fossils which are in tern buried under and with bird fossils. Genetics is among the strongest supporters of the macroevolutionary process in addition to finding vestiges of more ancient versions of the organism in question, appendices, wisdom teeth, but in terms of genetics, scientists have recently found that chickens still posess many of the same genes that were physically manifested in it's earlier theorized ancestors, such as genes for growing teeth and extra vertebra, reptilian characteristics.

In 2006, scientists researching the ancestry of birds "turned on" a chicken recessive gene, talpid2, and found that the embryo jaws initiated formation of teeth, like those found in ancient bird fossils. John Fallon, the overseer of the project, stated that chickens have "...retained the ability to make teeth, under certain conditions... ."[15]

I suspect if they scour the genetics of any other species, the same observation would be seen. Sometimes these vestigial genes are activated through natural mutation, as is the case with dolphins growing hind limbs.



From this, one can infer that though we cannot see the physical generational change of a large complex organism such as an elephant or a dolphin, the apparent cumulative presence of highly specific physical mutations occurring in both natural and natural settings implies that the genes themselves had accumulated. The fossil record also supports this inference.



The one word definition for Evolution: Heredity. This is fact for any form of evolution, macro or micro.

CivBase wrote:

Rotaretilbo wrote:

Ringleader wrote:The thought that we only do good to be rewarded in the afterlife or to avoid infinite torture and damnation is indignifying. I would prefer people to help each other less but do it for the right reasons, thats to say if religion actually motivates people to do more altruistic deeds then people without religion (something I highly doubt).

I would argue that many theists don't do nice things simply because it will get them rewarded in the afterlife. In most Protestant beliefs (save Calvinism and a few others), good deeds are not required to get into heaven. You do them because you want to make God happy, because you recognize that what you were doing before wasn't the right thing to do. If you do good deeds because there's a gun to your head, you're doing it wrong.

In addition to this, I'd like to point out that, in accordance to many religions, a deed done for your own benefit does not qualify as a "good" deed. This includes doing things just so you don't go to hell. Integrity is the key.

Well, is that really possible with the looming presence of eternal damnation constantly weighing on your conscience?

Call me a pessimist, but I would think your subconscious would at least in part react to such a threat in a way that would seem sincere, the subconscious of course reacting in the defense of the individual.

Rotaretilbo wrote:

Ringleader wrote:Given that basically all world beliefs are man made constructs, it's no surprise their tenets are written to emulate are already present social norms. Which is to say that they really don't do anything morally or socially except impede scientific discovery, ie heliocentrism, evolution, stem cells. Religion doesn't really do anything out of what we would do regardless except advance faster scientifically.

The Catholic Church's issues with heliocentrism was wholly based in the fact that the Catholic Church had created a handful of documents not in the Bible that they decided were also divinely inspired. Very few people, especially Protestants, believe in geocentrism.

Indeed. The notion that scientists thought of our universe as geocentric for so long is just as inaccurate as the notion that they also though the Earth was flat.

Greek mathematicians had discovered the earth was round hundreds of years BC. I suspect other civilizations had come to the same conclusion. As I said before, I'm sure why Geocentrism hadn't become the practiced norm of ancient Greece was because it offended Zeus, or one of the many other deities no long worshiped today.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth#The_Talmud

According to the Catholic faith, the Pope is the envoy of Christ, and therefore whatever he says is canonical. If he decided something based on new precedents that had arisen, it's still part of the Catholic doctrine.

Ringleader wrote:Well, is that really possible with the looming presence of eternal damnation constantly weighing on your conscience?

Call me a pessimist, but I would think your subconscious would at least in part react to such a threat in a way that would seem sincere, the subconscious of course reacting in the defense of the individual.

Easily. When you actually understand what the church is teaching, eternal damnation doesn't bug you so much. Scare tactics were largely abandoned a couple centuries ago. Although some still use scare tactics, it is not a common occurrence.

Hell is a punishment, not a threat. Do not confuse the two.

Ringleader wrote:Greek mathematicians had discovered the earth was round hundreds of years BC. I suspect other civilizations had come to the same conclusion.

This is my point. Few actually subscribed to geocentric theories in the same way that few believed the Earth is flat.

Ringleader wrote:According to the Catholic faith, the Pope is the envoy of Christ, and therefore whatever he says is canonical. If he decided something based on new precedents that had arisen, it's still part of the Catholic doctrine.]

The Pope is not the envoy of Christ. According to Catholic faith, the Church is infallible in its interpretation of the Bible. Catholic faith does not dictate, though, that the word of the Church (or Pope) is the word of God. That's what the Bible is for.



Also, in your large response to Rot, you seem to be confusing micro and macro evolution. As Rot already explained, micro evolution is common knowledge, even to theists. Macro evolution - the idea of a single, common ancestor - does not have significant evidence, though. For the moment, it is gross speculation that cannot be disproved any more than the existence of a deity.


10,000th Post in Debate Section! WHOOO!
-Bacon

ARG!, I had typed up a long ass rebuttal but windows update restarted my computer overnight...

edit* and to add on to that, I edited over the wrong post

The premise of evolution contends that when the beneficial Gene X forms through mutation, it is more likely to survive than previous genes. If Gene X does survive, it is slowly spread to the rest of the species; species with Gene X eventually overtake the population. Simple enough, right? Needless to say, this is very uncommon, so evolution moves at a very slow pace.

The idea of microevolution is that changes occur within a species. Macroevolution is about new species being formed out of old ones. The problem with this is that when Gene X was spread, it was spread to the entire population. A new species was never formed. This is where macroevolutoin starts falling apart. Members of a species who do not have Gene X eventually die off.

Evolution is and always has been about natural selection. Natural selection is about choosing the best traits and doing away with the rest. You're throwing stuff out, not bringing it in. For evolution to work, you have to use subtraction, not addition. That is why evolution cannot explain life as it is today; you can't subtract and end up with more than what you started with.

Ringleader wrote:Also, Hell is absolutely a threat. Like if my dad said, 'don't lie or I will beat you', that applies to something that hasn't happened yet, the beating is both a threat for not lying and punishment FOR lying.

Him reminding you of the punishment is a threat. The punishment itself is not a threat, it is a consequence. According to most Christian teachings (save for a few Protestant branches), God loves everybody and wants to save us from evil and going to hell, just as a father wants his child to behave. He is not trying to send people to hell for doing bad things; he's trying to keep people from doing wicked things so they don't have to go to hell.

Ringleader wrote:Whereas with Religion, specifically Christianity, the moral quandary presented is 'Believe in me and live in paradise, or don't and suffer eternal damnation', (which IS basically what it boils down to),

No, it isn't. You don't have a very firm grasp on what the Church actually teaches, do you? The punishment for breaking God's laws, for sinning, is a ticket to hell. No man is without sin, not even men of the Church, so that means that everyone should go to hell. However, the Bible also teaches about God's forgiveness. If you repent and ask for forgiveness, God will grant it. Unfortunately, non-believers aren't going to do this.

Who is actually allowed in to hell is not detailed in the Bible. Christians don't really know whether or not non-believers can go to heaven. It's all speculation.

Ringleader wrote:the similarities are uncanny, because as I said before, the moral precepts given in religion are merely emulations of already present social norms, don't steal, don't cheat, the golden rule, these things are present in all world societies, religious or not, don't lie or be punished, it just ads in one more requirement, faith in something that has yet to be proven.

Theists would contend that these morals came from religion, not society. Honestly, after witnessing the kinds of values demonstrated by my peers, I have a hard time believing that they have a hereditary moral foundation. I recommend you read Lord of the Flies (or re-read).

CivBase wrote:Who is actually allowed in to hell is not detailed in the Bible.

And hell isn't mentioned in the bible at all.

Arguing against religion with scientific theories is stupid as science adjusts its views on whats observed whereas faith is the denial of observation so that belief can be preserved. Its hard to change a persons ignorance...

But arguing against a belief with LOGIC and REASON gives no real basis for them to argue back, like these points;

- Who created god?

- "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" - Epicurus

- Are those who are born into the wrong religion due to their upbringing doomed to hell?

- If a god was omnibenevolent would he really be so petty as to damn one of his creations to hell for not believing in him, after considering that god hasn't once shown himself physically to the person?

- Why did god create the devil?

- Why did god create aids and allow the catholic church to disallow the use of contraception?

- Why do baptisms still happen for children if the tale of adam and eve isn't real? Surely its rather sick to claim a new born child is full of evil because it hasn't been dipped in water.

- Why do children get cancer?

- And if the watchmaker theory is correct then why are people born with deformities?

And im fed up of christians trying to prove their god with creationism, i mean even if the big bang theory is false it doesn't at all prove there is a heaven, a hell or a cosmic mind reader in the sky.

CivBase wrote:The premise of evolution contends that when the beneficial Gene X forms through mutation, it is more likely to survive than previous genes. If Gene X does survive, it is slowly spread to the rest of the species; species with Gene X eventually overtake the population. Simple enough, right? Needless to say, this is very uncommon, so evolution moves at a very slow pace.

The idea of microevolution is that changes occur within a species. Macroevolution is about new species being formed out of old ones. The problem with this is that when Gene X was spread, it was spread to the entire population. A new species was never formed. This is where macroevolutoin starts falling apart. Members of a species who do not have Gene X eventually die off.

Evolution is and always has been about natural selection. Natural selection is about choosing the best traits and doing away with the rest. You're throwing stuff out, not bringing it in. For evolution to work, you have to use subtraction, not addition. That is why evolution cannot explain life as it is today; you can't subtract and end up with more than what you started with.

you actually covered the 'addition' part earlier. the MUTATION part. MUTATION is your addition. And Macroevolutions 'new species formed from old' is based on a certain level of difference, generally caused by speciation.

You wouldn't say that dolphins and porpoises are the same species, but theres a high probability that, when traced back, they came from the same species. Does that mean both are the same? or that there were two identical species before?

much like you wouldn't say a flying penguin is the same species as a nearly identical flightless penguin, even if all the flying ones died off and only the flightless ones remained.