Christianity and Creationism - some clarification

You are aware that several people arguing against you are actually angostic/atheist aren't you?
All of the points I've made are valid, I admit a couple of minor errors on a couple of things, but the overarching points still stand - but considering the breadth of the subject (I also never claimed to have superior knowledge , simply pointing out that others don't either).

Most religions do promote (in varying degrees) segregation, racism, sexism & homophobia - this is not something that anybody can really dispute.

I admit I may have brushed a few too many with the same swipe - but they all suffer from the same fundamental flaw - being that they can't logically or coherently defend that they believe in.

But it's fine, I don't claim divine knowledge, I don't claim to know how the universe started - I'm OK with that.

All I've heard from the atheists/agnostics is nit picking arguments ever minor things points ignoring the point of what was said, along with a number of deliberate mis-interpretations (after the points were clarified).

Besides, as I said - I don't really care what the atheists think either.
 
All of the points I've made are valid, I admit a couple of minor errors on a couple of things, but the overarching points still stand - but considering the breadth of the subject (I also never claimed to have superior knowledge , simply pointing out that others don't either).

I would say that at least one poster does indeed have superior knowledge as the content of his posts would certainly suggest. But even from a layman's point of view you either seem to be arguing from ignorance or deliberately overstating things to try and prove your point.

Most religions do promote (in varying degrees) segregation, racism, sexism & homophobia - this is not something that anybody can really dispute.

But this is where I fundamentally disagree with you. Few religions are racist, certainly not Christianity or Islam. Not liking someone who isn't your faith cannot be construed as racism and even that would be to ignore the generally inclusive nature of Christianity in the western world at least. I would certainly agree that the Abrahamic faiths are both sexist and homophobic to a greater or lesser degree, the same can be said of some other religions too, however to say "most" when you actually mean "most popular" is somewhat disengenious.

I admit I may have brushed a few too many with the same swipe - but they all suffer from the same fundamental flaw - being that they can't logically or coherently defend that they believe in.

I think it is more that they cannot provide you with the sort of evidence you would need to believe in them. Which is fine, I am exactly the same. However that does not mean that the religion does not make logical sense to the followers themselves.

Besides, as I said - I don't really care what the atheists think either.

In that case why should anyone engage you in discussion if we know off the bat that you have no interested in what we say?
 
I admit I may have brushed a few too many with the same swipe - but they all suffer from the same fundamental flaw - being that they can't logically or coherently defend that they believe in.

They can, but - as I said before - your views differ at an axiomatic level.

Specifically, you apparently do not believe that there could be anything out there that you can't scientifically test. That is an axiom that underpins everything you believe in and understand. Religious people do not share that view. Neither group is right or wrong.
 
I never said "Catholics are cannibals", I merely highlighted how odd it was for a religious ceremony to have aspects of cannibalism (be it symbolic) woven into it.

I believe Castiel has already covered this. And note how I said you acknowledged that it was not fact and therefore:

I reiterate that you are using this term to be purely confrontational unless you can demonstrate that a) the meaning is to be taken literally (there are good counterpoints to what Castiel is saying if you could be bothered) b) you could then prove the blood and flesh were taken from the same species c) you could then prove that it was a significant act to suit a definition of the word you are ascribing to it.

Sacrifice, cannibalism - it's worth noting how similar the popular religions are to the old & dead religions of old.

I would think as sacrifice is about as far an act as one could go then it's amalgamation into religions is hardly shocking.

I've spoken to a number of religious people, a number of which I've managed to ask certain questions which has caused them to re-evaluate certain aspects of there faith.

Fair enough challenge where need be if that is what you must do. However, maybe don't use such confrontational language designed to deliberately provoke. At the same time get your scientific facts right, develop an understanding of the epistemology of science and an understanding of its application (or rather the limits of it) and you'll get no objections from me. And when you are taking the moral high ground then at least obey some of those principles.

Just so you know, I'm not posting for the benefit of the fully converted, or the zealous followers (so I don't expect you to like any of what I say) - but those who have doubts or are sitting on the fence - I simply pose questions/observations about certain aspects of religions/doctrines which are questionable to prompt them to think little more.

I fully admit it's a waste of time on some people, which is why I don't bother.

Yer, we get it you are the mystical atheist Caine walking the earth saving the lesser souls from the subjugation of organised religion. Except the very things you are so critical of you end up doing yourself. And whilst you posted earlier to say what your personal ideal is - it is quite clear to people such as myself that there is a very strong delineation between what you perceive your actions to be and how other people are perceiving those actions.
 
I admit I may have brushed a few too many with the same swipe - but they all suffer from the same fundamental flaw - being that they can't logically or coherently defend that they believe in.

But neither can you as per my question to Nitefly earlier - to say there is anything that exists beyond yourself is in my eyes taking a greater leap of faith than that which people who believe in a God are making.
 
it is quite clear to people such as myself that there is a very strong delineation between what you perceive your actions to be and how other people are perceiving those actions.
You are not my target audience, do you not understand this concept? - of course you are not going to perceiving it.

What I do find amazing is the ability most religious people posses to ignore vast sections of creed to suit modern times.

I'll give you (yet another example) - the plagues of Egypt & the concept of collective punishment.

Infanticide.

Genocide through the act of the great flood.

A book which endorses ultimate evil & ultimate good - endorses nothing.

I really don't care about the specifics of each religious doctrine, it's fictional anyway.

If I started claiming I wrote a book called "How I created the world" - a lengthy & boring rendition of my exploits in which I created the world by shouting words at the universe until it came to be.

Would you need to read all 4,000 chapters to dismiss it? (knowing already that I had no evidence to back up my claims).

I don't need to know every single aspect of religions to criticise it - I see every single day the actual damaging effect it has on people & the world around me.

On the subject of confrontational language, of course it's going to be confrontational - you can't tell somebody that they have been "indoctrinated & lied to", or that everything they believe is nothing more than an elaborate method of control without being confrontational.

On your last comment, I have attacked nobody - I don't call people immoral, or evil, or sinners.

Neither do I attempt to inter-fear with education, infringe on the liberties of others (gay people, or religious people).

I'm point out flaws in the doctrines & contradictions which exist in the core of all religions to encourage people to be a little more honest about what they do & don't know.
 
But neither can you as per my question to Nitefly earlier - to say there is anything that exists beyond yourself is in my eyes taking a greater leap of faith than that which people who believe in a God are making.
I know certain things are true (to at least a degree) outside of myself.

Why?.

Because I'm capable of using the information outside of myself to enable the production of models with greater predictive accuracy.

I may not know 100% for sure, but I do have a degree of margin for the things that are unknown.

There are no variables for a "god concept" to make the same claim.

A totally baseless claim with evidence or valid reason for belief (IE : I think there is a god").

Is not the same as a theory/claim about a not fully understood event - but the claim increases the predictive power of the models involved.
 
You are not my target audience, do you not understand this concept? - of course you are not going to perceiving it..

Nope was not on about your points made against religion I was referring again to this statement you made quite a few pages back:

It's also important to understand the difference between being intolerant of bigotry & just being intolerant of others.

"If person A harms nobody, indoctrinates nobody & causes no harm - I have no problem with them - they can believe/worship or do whatever they want."

That's my attitude - I only have a problem when Person A starts trying to impose on person B, or discriminate against person C.

A religious point of view is usually different.

"If person A harms nobody, indoctrinates nobody & causes no harm - I have no problem with them - they can believe/worship or do whatever they want - unless either my book says it's evil, or my preacher says it's evil - then I do have a problem with that they do (even if objectively nobody is hurt)."

I can see why theists tend to try to distort this point, it's easier to misrepresent the other persons arguments than defend a organisation which has elements of sexism & homophobia at the core.

You do not seem to get that you have become the very thing you oppose.

When you came into this thread you did not do this:

"If person A harms nobody, indoctrinates nobody & causes no harm - I have no problem with them - they can believe/worship or do whatever they want."

You did this:

"Person A starts trying to impose on person B, or discriminate against person C."

You came in with prejudice using an offensive tone and was suitably cautioned for it.
 
I know certain things are true (to at least a degree) outside of myself.

Why?.

Because I'm capable of using the information outside of myself to enable the production of models with greater predictive accuracy.

I may not know 100% for sure, but I do have a degree of margin for the things that are unknown.

There are no variables for a "god concept" to make the same claim.

A totally baseless claim with evidence or valid reason for belief (IE : I think there is a god").

Is not the same as a theory/claim about a not fully understood event - but the claim increases the predictive power of the models involved.

And yet you are here discussing a random concept on the internet with a complete stranger who may or may not exist as an entity outside of your imagination using fingers to type that may or may not be "real" outside of your consciousness.

You are taking the fact that a) I and the others here exist b) that anything else outside of your consciousness exists as massive a priori assumptions. That requires a leap of faith - a quite reasonable one in my eyes I think we all make that leap of faith here it would be quite fruitless to not take it - but to then be critical of others for thinking a god may or may not exist because they take a leap of faith they can not prove is then slightly hypocritical shall we say. You can not prove anything outside of your consciousness without taking a leap of faith.
 
How is asking "Why?" ever needlesly complicating things? I can explain why a man cannot give birth, you cannot explain why a woman cannot perform Transubstantiation. "They just can't" really isn't an explanation.

You are simply looking at things the wrong way. Priests act "in persona Christi" as I mentioned previously. They take the place of Christ, Christ was a man, hence women can't take the place of Christ. If you don't agree with that then I can't stop you going off and founding your own Church. It really does come down to this fact though.

Yet by supporting the position of the Catholic church in opposing gay adoption that is exactly the outcome that will occur. Children will be left in care rather than adopted.

The Catholic position on this will not move and is very clear. If Catholic adoption agencies are forced to open up to homosexual couples they close. This leaves more children in care than would be the case if Catholic teaching was followed. Do you support that approach?



So God invents marriage first as pretty much a legal contract and then waits until Catholicism before revealing it's true purpose? You see that as more likely than Catholicism co-opting something that was already about?

Again here you are misunderstanding what is being said. For Catholic's marriage is not a legal contract. It is a spiritual contract - hence why the Catholic Church does not recognise marriages outside the church.

So all the really dodgy popes throughout the years were infallible and talking as the voice of God any time they decided to do it ex cathedra? How do you brush aside the pretty appalling things popes have done and reconcile it with them being God's representative on earth?

Can you give me an example of something that was said ex cathedra that you take issue with?



The Adam and Eve bits are also somewhat suspect considering our knowledge of human evolution too...

They are allegorical and not part of Catholic dogma.


So every Catholic has to agree with every single catechism? How on earth do any get changes then? Surely you are also being a bit on the judgemental side stating what does and does not make a catholic? Considering the large number of Catholics that do not believe in the ban on women priests and the remarkably few excommunications on the matter I would suggest that the Vatican does not share your view.

You are confusing catechism with dogma. I am not being judgemental in any shape or form. I am simply quoting the official position of the Church. Every single Catholic has to accept all Church Dogma. These are the foundations of the faith. Catholics don't have to like them or agree with them they just have to accept them. Let me give you an example of this :

1 : "I wish women were able to become priests" - not heresy
2 : "I don't accept that women can't become priests" - heresy

Any Catholics who are fully educated in the faith and hold position 2 are heretics. Now they may not be formal heretics....

There is an interesting piece here which explains sins against the faith in detail :

Definitions
The Catechism of the Catholic Church defines these three sins against the faith in this way:

2089 Incredulity is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it.

"Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same;

apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith;

schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him." [Code of Canon Law c.751]

The Church's moral theology has always distinguished between objective or material sin and formal sin. The person who holds something contrary to the Catholic faith is materially a heretic. They possess the matter of heresy, theological error. Thus, prior to the Second Vatican Council it was quite common to speak of non-Catholic Christians as heretics, since many of their doctrines are objectively contrary to Catholic teaching. This theological distinction remains true, though in keeping with the pastoral charity of the Council today we use the term heretic only to describe those who willingly embrace what they know to be contrary to revealed truth. Such persons are formally (in their conscience before God) guilty of heresy. Thus, the person who is objectively in heresy is not formally guilty of heresy if 1) their ignorance of the truth is due to their upbringing in a particular religious tradition (to which they may even be scrupulously faithful), and 2) they are not morally responsible for their ignorance of the truth. This is the principle of invincible ignorance, which Catholic theology has always recognized as excusing before God.

The same is true of apostasy. The person who leaves not just the Catholic Church but who abandons Christ Himself is materially an apostate. He is formally an apostate through willful, and therefore culpable, repudiation of the Christian faith.
Finally, the person who refuses submission to the Roman Pontiff, whom Vatican I defined as having a universal primacy of authority over the whole Church, is at least a material schismatic. It was thus common in the past to speak of the schismatic Orthodox Churches who broke with Rome in 1054. As with heresy, we no longer assume the moral culpability of those who belong to Churches in schism from Rome, and thus no long refer to them as schismatics.

Excommunication

When it comes to Catholics who are formally guilty of heresy, apostasy or schism, the Church applies the penalty of excommunication. The 1983 Code of Canon Law, repeating the sanctions of the earlier 1917 Code, states,

c. 1364
1. With due regard for can. 194, part 1, n. 2, an apostate from the faith, a heretic or a schismatic incurs automatic (latae sententiae) excommunication and if a cleric, he can also be punished by the penalties mentioned in can. 1336, part 1, nn. 1, 2, and 3.
2. If long lasting contumacy or the seriousness of scandal warrants it, other penalties can be added including dismissal from the clerical state.
This canon is saying that once a person willingly repudiates Christ, embraces a heresy, knowing it to be contrary to divine and Catholic faith, or refuses submission to the Roman Pontiff (or communion with the members of the Church subject to him), by virtue of the law itself they are automatically excommunicated. No ecclesiastical act is necessary and no public notice.

However, to incur this latae sententia excommunication one must satisfy the general conditions for canonical culpability set out in the Code. For example, a person who has not been diligent (prudently weighing the issues involved) in their action is not punished.
c. 1321
1. No one is punished unless the external violation of a law or a precept committed by the person is seriously imputable to that person by reason of malice or culpability.
2. A person who has deliberately violated a law or a precept is bound by the penalty stated in the law or that precept; unless a law or a precept provides otherwise, a person who has violated that law or that precept through a lack of necessary diligence is not punished.
3. Unless it is otherwise evident, imputability is presumed whenever an external violation has occurred.

A person who lacks the proper use of reason is likewise not punishable.

c. 1322 Persons who habitually lack the use of reason are considered incapable of an offense even if they have violated a law or a precept while appearing to be sane.
The following canon completes the list of conditions that can prevent the application of an excommunication and other ecclesiastical sanctions.
c. 1323
The following are not subject to penalties when they have violated a law or precept:
(1) a person who has not yet completed the sixteenth year of age;
(2) a person who without any fault was unaware of violating a law or precept; however, inadvertence and error are equivalent to ignorance;
(3) a person who acted out of physical force or in virtue of a mere accident which could neither be foreseen nor prevented when foreseen;
(4) a person who acted out of grave fear, even if only relatively grave, or out of necessity or out of serious inconvenience unless the act is intrinsically evil or verges on harm to souls;
(5) a person who for the sake of legitimate self-defense or defense of another acted against an unjust aggressor with due moderation;
(6) a person who lacked the use of reason with due regard for the prescriptions of cann. 1324, part 1, n. 2 and 1325;
(7) a person who without any fault felt that the circumstances in nn. 4 or 5 were verified.

Reconciliation

The penalty of excommunication carries with it the prohibition of receiving the sacraments, while not excusing from obligations such as Sunday and Holy Day Mass, Easter Duty etc... To be reconciled to the Church a person who has been excommunicated, even if that fact is known to the person alone, must first have the excommunication lifted. With the exception of certain crimes reserved to the Holy See, each bishop has the authority to remit the penalty of excommunication. However, he generally delegates this faculty to his priests, or at least to certain confessors (usually at the Cathedral).

Thus, by going to confession one can usually have the penalty lifted. If recourse to higher authority is needed the confessor will say so and invite the person to return the following week or at another time. He will then obtain the remission of the penalty from the bishop (protecting the person's anonymity, of course.) and communicate it to the penitent. The person is then free to make a good confession and be fully reconciled with Christ and the Church.
The Special Danger of Ultra-Traditionalist Movements

There is within the Church today a special danger for those who, often for seemingly legitimate reasons (abuses of the liturgy, the open promotion of heresy even by clergy, and similar causes), have sought refuge in traditionalist movements on the margins of the Church. These groups, distinguishable from those who love the Tridentine tradition of the Mass and sacraments and who celebrate them in Communion with the Pope, go their own way outside of the laws of the Church. They typically rationalize their disobedience by attacking the Second Vatican Council, the current liturgical rites, ecumenical and interreligious dialogue, and often Pope John Paul II personally, never distinguishing between teaching and law on the one hand, and the abuse of it by dissenters and the disobedient on the other.

These groups, such as the Society of St. Pius X, of Pius V, the "We Resist You to Your Face" movement, Br. Dimond and Holy Family Monastery, make ready use of scandals to gain support among the unwary, who, discouraged by their local situation, may think they are joining a more perfect orthodoxy and a more loyal remnant of Catholics. Thankfully such motives may excuse the average person who takes comfort in such groups, at least initially, though as St. Thomas Aquinas teaches to take scandal in other's sins is istself sinful. However, there is a great danger that starting from the material schism of refusing submission to the Pope, that all these groups have in common, the Catholic cannot long maintain the schizophrenic position of saying they are being submissive to the Pope while disobeying him. At some point they must choose and formally adhere to the schism of the group. In some cases the group identity depends on some formal repudiation of the "Novus Ordo" Church, very effectively hastening the spiritual demise of the lay adherent.
Also unfortunate for such souls is the fact that these ultra-traditionalist groups profess to be doctrinally orthodox, an orthodoxy which necessarily includes the teaching that Outside the Church There Is No Salvation. This means that someone who has formally separated himself from the Church through heresy or schism, or knowing the Church to be true failed to enter her, cannot be saved, unless of course they renounce their own will and reconcile with the Church. Unlike the non-Catholic Christian, can the super-orthodox claim invincible ignorance of this teaching? Can they escape the condemnation of Pope Boniface VIII, who in first elaborating it said, "this authority, although it is given to man and is exercised by man, is not human, but rather divine, and has been given by the divine Word to Peter himself and to his successors in him, whom the Lord acknowledged an established rock, when he said to Peter himself: Whatsoever you shall bind etc. [Matt. 16:19]. Therefore, whosoever resists this power so ordained by God, resists the order of God ...? No wonder that given enough time such groups inevitably produce those who claim that the See of Peter is vacant, since the logic of their schismatic attitude is ultimately irreconcilable with the doctrine of papal primacy, as enunciated by both Pope Boniface and Vatican I.



So why could the ban on the ordination of women priests not be part of the imperfections of man? Why hold, seemingly blindly, to each and every catechism when you know that the men that have written them over time have been flawed?

Again you are confusing the dogma of the church with it's catechism. The catechism is written by man the dogma come from God though divine revelation.
 
Last edited:
And yet you are here discussing a random concept on the internet with a complete stranger who may or may not exist as an entity outside of your imagination using fingers to type that may or may not be "real" outside of your consciousness.

You are taking the fact that a) I and the others here exist b) that anything else outside of your consciousness exists as massive a priori assumptions. That requires a leap of faith - a quite reasonable one in my eyes I think we all make that leap of faith here it would be quite fruitless to not take it - but to then be critical of others for thinking a god may or may not exist because they take a leap of faith they can not prove is then slightly hypocritical shall we say. You can not prove anything outside of your consciousness without taking a leap of faith.
I'm sorry but that was one of the weakest & poorest arguments I have ever read.

Trying to compare the assumptions I need to make to know I'm speaking to a person are NOT the same as the leap made in believing in a deity.

For a start, I KNOW people exist - they are tangible.

Let's explore what you said in detail.

For me,

I know for a fact computers exist, I've seen them - I use them, they are able to influence things outside of my control.

I also know people exist, I've seen them also - they exist physically in the world & are able to influence my life.

I'm also not the only person who has access to the knowing that computers & people exist - it's not something specific to my "group of people" (in your case religion).

Putting the two together does not require a leap of faith at all, it's a reasonable assumption based on KNOWN prior information & again.

Has value for the use of predictive modelling (something which you seem to keep ignoring).
 
All of the points I've made are valid, I admit a couple of minor errors on a couple of things, but the overarching points still stand - but considering the breadth of the subject (I also never claimed to have superior knowledge , simply pointing out that others don't either).

Most religions do promote (in varying degrees) segregation, racism, sexism & homophobia - this is not something that anybody can really dispute.

I have been having a very engaging conversation with RDM on this very thread. I have been disputing those very points. (Thanks to RDM for such a civil and intelligent discussion.)
 
I'm sorry but that was one of the weakest & poorest arguments I have ever read.

Trying to compare the assumptions I need to make to know I'm speaking to a person are NOT the same as the leap made in believing in a deity.

For a start, I KNOW people exist - they are tangible.

Let's explore what you said in detail.

For me,

I know for a fact computers exist, I've seen them - I use them, they are able to influence things outside of my control.

I also know people exist, I've seen them also - they exist physically in the world & are able to influence my life.

I'm also not the only person who has access to the knowing that computers & people exist - it's not something specific to my "group of people" (in your case religion).

Putting the two together does not require a leap of faith at all, it's a reasonable assumption based on KNOWN prior information & again.

Has value for the use of predictive modelling (something which you seem to keep ignoring).

You perceive them to exist - you do not know.
 
Nope was not on about your points made against religion I was referring again to this statement you made quite a few pages back:



You do not seem to get that you have become the very thing you oppose.

When you came into this thread you did not do this:



You did this:



You came in with prejudice using an offensive tone and was suitably cautioned for it.
Idea's & concepts are not people with feelings.

I'm not offending any person individually.

I also like how the admins here think it's perfectly acceptable to be homophobic & call gay people "disordered" but it's not OK to insult an organisation.

Just because the admin has serious bias issues it does not meant you are in the right.

I respect people, not beliefs or organisations - something you clearly can't understand.

Are you also denying that religion has any negative consequences in the world?, look at the middle east for one, at the fundamentalists on both sides.

My problem is with the mindset - with the idea it's ok to abandon reason in favour of magic - because this kind of thinking has a real human impact.

Many religious people think it's OK to mutilate the genitals of children (without there consent) - another great example of how religion makes otherwise intelligent & kind people commit horrendous acts.
 
You are not my target audience, do you not understand this concept? - of course you are not going to perceiving it.

What I do find amazing is the ability most religious people posses to ignore vast sections of creed to suit modern times.

I'll give you (yet another example) - the plagues of Egypt & the concept of collective punishment.

Infanticide.

Genocide through the act of the great flood.

A book which endorses ultimate evil & ultimate good - endorses nothing.

I really don't care about the specifics of each religious doctrine, it's fictional anyway.

If I started claiming I wrote a book called "How I created the world" - a lengthy & boring rendition of my exploits in which I created the world by shouting words at the universe until it came to be.

Would you need to read all 4,000 chapters to dismiss it? (knowing already that I had no evidence to back up my claims).

In fairness I have read the God Delusion and found it a very enjoyable read. I certainly would not have criticised it based on reading the back cover.

I also took the time when I was younger to read the Torah, The Talmud, The Koran, The Vedas and The Tripitaka.
 
You perceive them to exist - you do not know.
Terrible argument, by that standard nothing is know about anything - including your god.

This failed attempt to set "what's known" to an unattainable level - then say everything is equal because of it is foolish at best & dishonest at worst.

Not only is a daft but it's also wrong, existences is measured & is independently verifiable.

If thing A exists in reality it's available to everybody, not just one person - it also has properties which can be deduced & it's form understood.
 
In fairness I have read the God Delusion and found it a very enjoyable read. I certainly would not have criticised it based on reading the back cover.

I also took the time when I was younger to read the Torah, The Talmud, The Koran, The Vedas and The Tripitaka.
You didn't reply to any of the points (as usual).
 
Idea's & concepts are not people with feelings.

I'm not offending any person individually.

I also like how the admins here think it's perfectly acceptable to be homophobic & call gay people "disordered" but it's not OK to insult an organisation.

Just because the admin has serious bias issues it does not meant you are in the right.

I respect people, not beliefs or organisations - something you clearly can't understand.

Are you also denying that religion has any negative consequences in the world?, look at the middle east for one, at the fundamentalists on both sides.

My problem is with the mindset - with the idea it's ok to abandon reason in favour of magic - because this kind of thinking has a real human impact.

Many religious people think it's OK to mutilate the genitals of children (without there consent) - another great example of how religion makes otherwise intelligent & kind people commit horrendous acts.

Well I think that is for other people to say whether you judgemental attitude offended them. Are you quite sure you didn't target individuals in this thread - you may want to think about answering that one.

You will note of course I also immediately challenged the use of the word "disorder". And I ascribe that religions has caused both bad and good things. I further ask the unanswered question pages back I asked you - what good things have you done to take the moral high ground? Circumcision is cultural not religious in origin - before you want to start down that path read the threads on here about it so I don't have to go over the same ground.
 
Last edited:
Terrible argument, by that standard nothing is know about anything - including your god.

This failed attempt to set "what's known" to an unattainable level - then say everything is equal because of it is foolish at best & dishonest at worst.

Not only is a daft but it's also wrong, existences is measured & is independently verifiable.

If thing A exists in reality it's available to everybody, not just one person - it also has properties which can be deduced & it's form understood.

And now you resort to the kind of arguments that Christian fundamentalists use to further creationist theory against the strong evidence base of evolution. Once more into the abyss! Once more!

Existence is not independently verifiable as I am describing because one would have to make the a priori assumption that the other entity independently verifying did actually exist. Oh and btw I don't have a god I am agnostic - god or no god I lead my life the way I see fit.
 
Idea's & concepts are not people with feelings.

I'm not offending any person individually.

Well I have felt pretty offended by some of the things you have said. You certainly have been confrontational. Even the other atheists think you have been offensive. It isn't just us believers. ;)

I also like how the admins here think it's perfectly acceptable to be homophobic & call gay people "disordered" but it's not OK to insult an organisation.
I believe I am the only person who has used the term disorder. I believe that homosexual practices are wrong. That is an opinion - not an insult.

On these forums I think that any homosexuals would be more concerned about the use of words like poof and queer in a derogatory manner than a Catholic saying he didn't like what they got up to in the privacy of their own home.

Just because the admin has serious bias issues it does not meant you are in the right.


Sorry, do you think there is some sort of pro-religious bias on here? Rly?


I respect people, not beliefs or organisations - something you clearly can't understand.

Well, you should be respectful of the beliefs of others. That is just good manners at the very least.


Are you also denying that religion has any negative consequences in the world?, look at the middle east for one, at the fundamentalists on both sides.

My problem is with the mindset - with the idea it's ok to abandon reason in favour of magic - because this kind of thinking has a real human impact.
Have you actually studied any religion at all?


Many religious people think it's OK to mutilate the genitals of children (without there consent) - another great example of how religion makes otherwise intelligent & kind people commit horrendous acts.

In the US as an example - most circumcisions are performed for non religious reasons. Is that some sort of negative fact about those without religion then?
 
Back
Top Bottom