How would one eliminate fundamentalism?

[Durandal]

It's like atheists are saying, "Jesus! That pile of bullshit stinks!"
Then Christians come back and yell about how our senses of smell are not open-minded or whatever.

[Vendetta]

There is no conflict provided religion admits that it is irrational, subjective nonsense, and that for real answers about the real universe, you must defer to science.

But then humans are irrational subjective creatures.

The heart of religion and spirituality isn't answering questions about the way the universe works, it's about finding your place in it.

Trying to automatically deny any validity in religion or belief is just as foolish as ascribing absolute factual status on the basis of belief.

It does if you're a fundie.

But on the evidence you present you are. You would seemingly have it the case that despite the wealth of perfectly sane and sensible moral messages in the later bits of the bible, the whole thing is as worthless as Voyager. (chosen as the lowest comon denominator of fiction).

Utter dismissal of the entirety of christian myth as hokum, not accepting it as a vehicle for a set of moral guidelines (which by and large still make a lot of sense, despite meddling by people whose primar aim was control of others) isjust as bad as dismissing the concept that the earth formed naturally over billions of years in favour of the belief that a big man with a white beard made it in a week or so.

The one thing science doesn't provide is meaning, and that's why people turn to faith. (paraphrased hevaily from Mr. Sagan, who knew some shit). that's why the indoctrination from people who only want the simple version, and want an All Powerful Voice to back up their own Holy Word is so powerful, because it uses that hole in people, that they don't know the answer to 'why are we here', no matter how logically they think.

If you want people to REALLY think for themselves, you have to teach them to find that meaning, and that doesn't mean teaching them to analyse the universe inall it's scientific minutiae, it means teaching them to analyse themselves, and the people they know, people who are inherently irrational and illogical for most of their lives.

If people can find that meaning, (and they may still choose to fiund it in one or more gods), they will be less likely to LISTEN to people who tell them 'This Is How It Is', whether it be about faith, science, or what colour wallpaper they should have.

[Jonathan]

logic and religon conflict because one is based upon belief without proof...None of us have proof Heaven exists...but the Bible tells one that it does. That alone is the conflict of religon and science.

Okay, a man can't prove that his wife loves him, therefore he can't be a scientist according to your logic.

There is no reason why you can't believe in God and still be an intelligent scientist. The two things deal with different areas. One outside of nature, one within. And there is not a total absence of proof. There is some (not conclusive) evidence for Christianity. If you are to ask for 100% proof in anything, however, you are not going to get very far with science since it isn't 100% accurate. Science is about finding models that closely fit reality. The 'laws' of science we have aren't necessarily the laws reality obeys. They merely describe the way it appears to work, t the best of our knowledge.

prove this beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Prove which bit?

genocide is sick regardless of use...stop making it seem that people don't care if it's for Fundies or athesit...genocide is never right.

I wasn't try to do that. I was pointing out that sometimes people get away with making jokes which they wouldn't care to have applied to them. A perfectly valid point.

[Jonathan]

You're right, but that's not the point. People here don't attack Christians. We dislike fundies. It's different. In other words, no matter your credentials, if you take the Bible literally and adhere to Creationism, you're still a moron.

Ah, but how are we defining fundamentalism? The word has become rather twisted of late. Strictly speaking it is someone who believes in fundamentals such as, in the case of Christianity, the veracity of the Bible. By that standard, I would be judged a fundamentalist. On the matter of creation, I believe that God had (has) the power to create the universe in 7 days, or to create it in 7 days with the appearance that it had been around for billions of years, or to create it in 7 ages which actually represent billions of years. That, however, is a separate issue from examining the universe in order to decide how it works. If it appears to have been created billions of years ago, then I will use that as the basis for scientific theorems. Take the parting of the Red Sea as another example. I can believe that God parted it for Moses, while still applying science to other bodies of water and expecting them not to part. Science and religion are totally different things.

Going back to defining a fundamentalist, there is IMO, a huge problem with nominalism these days. A lot of people would call themselves Christians, but not believe that Jesus is God, or that he rose from the dead, or that sins are forgiven by simply asking God and him doing so out of love. That would be entirely against the teaching of the Bible and I would therefore regard such people as non-Christians. I get the impression quite often that people are happy for Christians to be Christians as long as they don't actually believe anything the Bible says, which seems to me to remove the point. Not that I'm suggesting you're saying that, BTW.

If otherwise, welcome to the board.

Cheers. Nice to get a welcome rather than a bunch of insults or expletives :^)

[Colonel Olrik]

logic and religon conflict because one is based upon belief without proof...None of us have proof Heaven exists...but the Bible tells one that it does. That alone is the conflict of religon and science.

Okay, a man can't prove that his wife loves him, therefore he can't be a scientist according to your logic.

I can't prove my girlfriend loves me, but I have strong evidence for that. She likes to hang around with me, and do intimate activities. She also says she loves me, and treats me tenderly.

That's evidence that she indeed loves me. If faced with evidence pointing otherwise, I'd rethink my believe. Now, Do you have any evidence supporting Creationism, or Young Earth, or the bullshit fundies vomit? Or seriously believe the Bible is to be taken literally? The evidence is completely against it and you would be closing your eyes to reality.

Believing in God is OK, provided that is not the all intervening, Creationist tyrannical god fundies support.

There is no reason why you can't believe in God and still be an intelligent scientist.

you can't believe in Creationism and be an efficient biologist. You can't believe in the young Earth theory and be an intelligent astronomer.

Once again, I tell you, you're pointing to the wrong target. Fundies idea of religion, that we dislike, is very different from the believes of the majority of Christians.

The two things deal with different areas. One outside of nature, one within.

Fundies disagree. We disagree with them.

And there is not a total absence of proof. There is some (not conclusive) evidence for Christianity. If you are to ask for 100% proof in anything, however, you are not going to get very far with science since it isn't 100% accurate.

That's stupid. What about 20%? I'd never tell you: well, I have 20% sure this bridge isn't going to fall.

Do you have 20% proof Christianity is real? The belief is irrational. Some people call it faith.

Science is about finding models that closely fit reality. The 'laws' of science we have aren't necessarily the laws reality obeys. They merely describe the way it appears to work, t the best of our knowledge.

Now, I'm starting to get a feeling you exagerated your qualifications.. That 'laws' bit..

I wasn't try to do that. I was pointing out that sometimes people get away with making jokes which they wouldn't care to have applied to them. A perfectly valid point.

It is, but then Chick says Catholics goto hell. I'm perfectly confortable with mocking him.

[Nova Andromeda]

But then humans are irrational subjective creatures.

The heart of religion and spirituality isn't answering questions about the way the universe works, it's about finding your place in it.

--Perhaps you are irrational and subjective, but that is your failing not ours. I have a good idea of my place in the universe and it was objective evidence and logic that answered the question your foolishly turn to religion to answer.

But on the evidence you present you are. You would seemingly have it the case that despite the wealth of perfectly sane and sensible moral messages in the later bits of the bible, the whole thing is as worthless as Voyager. (chosen as the lowest comon denominator of fiction).

Utter dismissal of the entirety of christian myth as hokum, not accepting it as a vehicle for a set of moral guidelines (which by and large still make a lot of sense, despite meddling by people whose primar aim was control of others) isjust as bad as dismissing the concept that the earth formed naturally over billions of years in favour of the belief that a big man with a white beard made it in a week or so.

--Your problem is that you cannot rationally justify what most people consider moral. Therefore, you turn to irrational myths to justify your instincts and gain a moral basis. I don't have this problem and neither does Darth Wong (though we argue over the best moral basis). The problem with your basis is that it is a MYTH and can easily be manipulated to support all sorts of horrible things!

The one thing science doesn't provide is meaning, and that's why people turn to faith.

--It does provide meaning if you think for more than a second. There is no objective evidence of anything supernatural (i.e., religious stuff). What does that mean? It means noone built us with a purpose in mind. There is no meaning to life beyond that which is dictated by our instincts, desires, etc. (i.e., our goals). This means that the meaning of life is hardwired for you! If this isn't satisfying enough for you perhaps you should live your life such that your idea of a perfect person could look at your life and say that you are a great person.

[Jonathan]

Why do you assume that education/logic and belief in the supernatural/religion are incompatible?

Religion is an illogical belief. Therefore it is incompatible.

If I'm not using religion as a basis for scientific theorems, there is no incompatibility. Is love logical? Can a scientist therefore love, or have any emotion?

You just quoted Galileo. Ironic isn't it?

Not really. He was a Christian, IIRC. And I think the Earth and Sun orbit a common point within the sun and think that the actions of the church against him were completely wrong. The church, however, does not speak for God and is very, very fallible. And the quote was from a Catholic cardinal. Or at least the version I've seen was.

Being a Christian doesn't mean that you think science is wrong.

You're obvisiousily not from the U.S. Besides, there are many flavors of Christianity. Liberal Christians embrace science while fundies say it is the work of Satan.[/quote]

Uh huh. And how do you define a fundamentalist? Or a liberal? TO me, a Christian is someone who believe that:
Jesus is the only begotten Son of God
He died to save us from our sins
He rose on the third day
To be forgiven, all I have to do is accept his loving offer

Views on science are nothing to do with Christianity. Would you define a scientist on the basis of his relationship with his wife?

Of course science doesn't have all the answers. No one claims that it does. Those answers that it does have however are amazingly accurate. Science, not religion, is what produced the computer you're currently using. Religion has no answers. It is nothing but one big appeal to authority. Someone such as what you're claiming to be should recogonize that.

Actually, the accuracy depends very much on what you define accurate to be. There is an incredible amount we don't know and can't explain. And I never claimed that religion would produce computers. That's not what it's for. Science and religion are very different things, as I've been saying. And religion does have answers. It's a matter of whether they're right or not. I believe they are. You believe they aren't. As for appeals to authority, Christianity is based on what God has told us, but if your source of authority is more knowledgeable than you, then there is no reason to throw the evidence out purely because you didn't come up with it yourself.

At least we don't worship a hateful mass murderer like you do.

I don't. I worship a loving God who would like nothing more than to give you an eternity in paradise.

We don't spend our Sunday mornings praising him, singing him songs, and reading about how he smited all those infadels.

Actually, I spend Sunday mornings, along with various other times throughout the week, learning how better to glorify God and spread the good news of salvation and his love to others. Trying to show love to you all you infidels so you wont get smitten

The Inquisition, Crusades, witch trials, and Holocost are stains on your hands, not ours.

So the Stalinistic purges are on your hands then? Don't be silly. Neither I nor God are responsible for the actions of people during the Crusades, Holocaust or Inquisitions. They were clearly against everything taught in the Bible.

And why did you chuck in the Holocaust? Hitler was a rapid anti-Christian. Said that it was the worst blight on the face of humanity. Unless you're suggesting that anti-Semitism is Christian, in which case you are very mistaken as esus was a Jew, most of his early followers were Jews, the Old Testament was about the Jews and Paul says that Christians are Jews in the heart.

[HemlockGrey]

Before the flood of 'Hitler was a CHRISTIAN' posts come in:

IIRC, he sent Catholics to the gas chambers.

[Jonathan]

--I don't assume they are, I reasoned that they are from objective evidence. Supernatural = nonobjective. Therefore, logic dictates there is no objective reason to beleive in the supernatural. Therefore, science and the supernatural are not compatable unless you are willing to be irrational.

I'm curious, do you think that there is an objective reason for believing that your girlfriend/boyfriend/wife/husband/mum/dad/children/friends love you? Does your answer have any effect on whether you can be a scientist? Why should a belief in the supernatural cause a problem if it is not used as a basis for scientific theorems?

--It doesn't matter one bit what you say unless you can back it up with objective evidence and logic. I never said science can or does tell us everything. The fact that you cannot accept some things are unexplained currently and leave it at that means you have not matured enough to deal with the unexplained. Instead you resort to childish wishful thinking and attribute those things to the supernatural.

Actually, if I don't have an explanation for something, I go and fry and find it out. With an attitude like yours, we would have no scientists. I am curious as to why we exist. The evidence I have encountered compels me to believe that Christianity is true. It is not wishful thinking, it is a conclusion based on my experiences, what I have read, what I have witnessed. I see nothing childish in that.

[Raptor 597]

Before the flood of 'Hitler was a CHRISTIAN' posts come in:

IIRC, he sent Catholics to the gas chambers.

Yes, he did he was Christain, but during his reign his Christainity was the Neo-Nazi State Version.

[Durandal]

IIRC, he sent Catholics to the gas chambers.

Because they were dissenters against Nazi Germany, not because they were Christians. Hitler was a Christian, like it or not.

Okay, a man can't prove that his wife loves him, therefore he can't be a scientist according to your logic.

Scientists don't seek to "prove" anything. They seek to describe nature.

But then humans are irrational subjective creatures.

Ad hominem. Just because humans tend toward subjectivity does not mean that they cannot produce objective results. Objectivity can be attained through indepedent verification of claims, which is <gasp!> how science works!

The heart of religion and spirituality isn't answering questions about the way the universe works, it's about finding your place in it.

Religion was originally meant to answer questions about how the universe works and control people. Now we have science and secular governments for those respective purposes, which work much better. So, religion has taken to making wildly ridiculous assumptions and speculations about mystical realms and vengeful deities to "help people find their place" -- which essentially means, "You're place is to serve."

Trying to automatically deny any validity in religion or belief is just as foolish as ascribing absolute factual status on the basis of belief.

Bullshit. Religious ideas have zero logical validity because they are nondisprovable. That is why we automatically toss them out the window. Try again.

[Colonel Olrik]

Ah, but how are we defining fundamentalism? The word has become rather twisted of late. Strictly speaking it is someone who believes in fundamentals such as, in the case of Christianity, the veracity of the Bible. By that standard, I would be judged a fundamentalist..

Christian fundie: Someone who closes his eyes to the real world, prefering to rely in a book written thousands of years ago, by men, in all matters. Including Science. He also hates homosexuals and thinks people of slightly different views are going to hell. Like Catholics.

On the matter of creation, I believe that God had (has) the power to create the universe in 7 days, or to create it in 7 days with the appearance that it had been around for billions of years, or to create it in 7 ages which actually represent billions of years.

Now, if you actually defend that happened, and can't see the irrelevance of the statement, you're probally a fundie.

That, however, is a separate issue from examining the universe in order to decide how it works. If it appears to have been created billions of years ago, then I will use that as the basis for scientific theorems.

Then, you're complicating the theory by adding it an extra factor, which contributes nothing. Occam's Razor. Can't you simply say God created the Big Bang and the Universe evolved alone since then?

Take the parting of the Red Sea as another example. I can believe that God parted it for Moses, while still applying science to other bodies of water and expecting them not to part. Science and religion are totally different things.

Take Creationism. Take the flood. Take Earth is flat, or pi = 3. All this things can be taken from the Bible. And all contradict the facts.

Going back to defining a fundamentalist, there is IMO, a huge problem with nominalism these days. A lot of people would call themselves Christians, but not believe that Jesus is God, or that he rose from the dead, or that sins are forgiven by simply asking God and him doing so out of love. That would be entirely against the teaching of the Bible and I would therefore regard such people as non-Christians. I get the impression quite often that people are happy for Christians to be Christians as long as they don't actually believe anything the Bible says, which seems to me to remove the point. Not that I'm suggesting you're saying that, BTW.

Rejecting Evolution as evil is stupidity. If you can't understand this, you're a fundie.

[Jonathan]

Why do you assume that education/logic and belief in the supernatural/religion are incompatible? As a scientist i have never seen a conflict. Science teaches us the way the heavens go, Christianity tells us the way to get there, or so i believe. I would certainly encourage people to think logically and would be in favour of putting a lot more money into education, a position that a lot of Christians would hold, from St. Paul to C.S. Lewis.

There is no conflict provided religion admits that it is irrational, subjective nonsense, and that for real answers about the real universe, you must defer to science.

False dilemma. Religion does not claim to offer a basis for scientific theories. It's like criticising people for getting married by saying that love is incompatible with science.

Being a Christian doesn't mean that you think science is wrong.

It does if you're a fundie.

That depends how you define fundamentalist. I see no reason why the word should be used at all. A Christian is someone who believes that:
Jesus is the only begotten Son of God
He died in our place for our salvation
He rose on the third day
To receive forgiveness, we simply accept God's gracious loving, free offer

When you start talking about science, you are no longer looking at Christianity, because it makes no claims about scientific laws.

Science has a lot better answers than religion, which basically answers nothing. After you strip away all of the bullshit, religion answers every imaginable question with "uhhh ... because God wanted it that way ... for some reason ... <shrug>".

Actually, I believe that they have answers to different questions.

Science answers "How does it look like the universe runs?"

Christianity answers "Why is the universe here?"

The answer in that case is 'God is loving and wanted people to have a relationship with. You may not agree with the answer, but it is an answer. And to a question outside the boundaries of science. If you ask why physical laws and constants are the way they are, you can't get an answer.

No one said that. However, it is true that science tells us things that are useful and accurate, while religion just makes up nonsense.

No, that is an opinion. To claim it as a fact is to simply be the opposite side of the coin from 'fundies'. Same attitude, different angle.

I dunno- why don't you ask your fellow Christians the next time you're all gathered around talking about the Second Coming and how God will mercilessly smite the heathens?

Any time we do that, it's out of loving concern. We'd much rather people turned to believe in God and accept his love.

We atheists hear you praising the one who will supposedly murder us all along with our families and torture us for all eternity. People preach about this EVERY GODDAMNED SUNDAY. So don't give us this fucking attitude about how we're all evil for even joking about this; you DREAM of genocide.

What I hear about every day of the week is love, pure and simple. I don't want people to die, but justice has certain requirements. I (along with God and many other people) would much rather all you atheists turned and accepted God's love. I can't for the life of me understand why you don't. But it's easy to say that from where I'm sitting.

I've studied the Bible. I've been to hundreds of church services. My wife was a Christian when I married her. I know all about the belief system of Christianity and its inherent hatefulness.

In that case you either weren't listening or whoever was leading those services was a pretty poor preacher. I know of no other place where love is mentioned more often than the Bible. I've studied the love (grace in particular) present there more than anything else and fervently believe in it above all else. I don't know how it could be twisted to represent hate.

You throw stones from the flimsiest of glass houses, asshole. And stop assuming that anyone who says something bad about Christianity must not be familiar with it; there is no better way to turn someone against Christianity than to make him read the Bible, front to back.

I'm curious, who comes across looking more hateful here; me or you?

I didn't make an assumption, just a suggestion that people think before making jokes about how much they would appreciate having it made the other way. I don't think that's entirely unreasonable. But hey, I'm a Bible-believing Christian and intolerant by definition, right

[Durandal]

Then, you're complicating the theory by adding it an extra factor, which contributes nothing. Occam's Razor. Can't you simply say God created the Big Bang and the Universe evolved alone since then?

No, because you're adding an unknown term for which evidence of existence does not exist.

[Colonel Olrik]

There is no conflict provided religion admits that it is irrational, subjective nonsense, and that for real answers about the real universe, you must defer to science.

False dilemma. Religion does not claim to offer a basis for scientific theories. It's like criticising people for getting married by saying that love is incompatible with science.

Can't you read? Or simply think? Fundies DO claim religion offer a basis for scientific theories.

What I hear about every day of the week is love, pure and simple. I don't want people to die, but justice has certain requirements. I (along with God and many other people) would much rather all you atheists turned and accepted God's love. I can't for the life of me understand why you don't. But it's easy to say that from where I'm sitting.

And if atheists don't see the light, then they are going to hell? What about Catholics? and Muslims? Hum?

You throw stones from the flimsiest of glass houses, asshole. And stop assuming that anyone who says something bad about Christianity must not be familiar with it; there is no better way to turn someone against Christianity than to make him read the Bible, front to back.

I'm curious, who comes across looking more hateful here; me or you?

Darth Wong has reasons to have little patience. Christian fundamentalism almost ruined his marriage cerimony, after all. And, I'm warning you, keep up with the brick wall technique and you'll soon feel the flames. Answer the arguments instead of ignoring them and repeating the same ideas.

[Jonathan]

Christian fundie: Someone who closes his eyes to the real world, prefering to rely in a book written thousands of years ago, by men, in all matters. Including Science. He also hates homosexuals and thinks people of slightly different views are going to hell. Like Catholics.

The Bible never claims authority as a scientific document, therefore to take ti as such is not a viewpoint relevant to Christianity. It does, however, claim authority as the word of God and call us to love everyone, which includes homosexuals. It calls homosexual acts a sin, but it also calls many other things sins and tells us to love the people who do them. We're called to follow Jesus' example and he said that he had come to die for sinners because he loved them. We should love homosexuals so much that we are willing to lay down our lives for them. Hating homosexuals is nothing to do with Christianity and should therefore not be a variable used to define what type of Christian someone is. As for people of different views going to hell, Jesus said "I am the Way the Truth and the Light. The only way to the Father is through me." He claimed the power to forgive sins, that he was God (both the same claim really) and that everyone needed forgiveness or else they would go to Hell, then backed up the seriousness of it by sacrificing himself so that we would be able to spend an eternity in paradise instead. According to the Bible, if you accept Jesus as the only true Lord and Saviour and ask honestly for forgiveness, you don't go to Hell.

Now, if you actually defend that happened, and can't see the irrelevance of the statement, you're probally a fundie.

Woah there, hang on and wait til the next line. I specifically said that my belief in what God could do was irrelevant to what appeared to have happened, when it comes to science.

That, however, is a separate issue from examining the universe in order to decide how it works. If it appears to have been created billions of years ago, then I will use that as the basis for scientific theorems.

Then, you're complicating the theory by adding it an extra factor, which contributes nothing. Occam's Razor. Can't you simply say God created the Big Bang and the Universe evolved alone since then?

What extra factor? I'm taking God out of the equation and simply looking at the evidence I can observe. Go back and re-read what I said. What could might have done is irrelevant. I simply look at my evidence and use it as the basis for theories on how the universe runs. for science, I don't care whether it was created in the state it was in 6000 years ago, with the appearance of billions of years of age. As long as it acts as if it has been around for billions of years, I'll model it as if it has when it comes to science.

Take Creationism. Take the flood. Take Earth is flat, or pi = 3. All this things can be taken from the Bible. And all contradict the facts.

The account of creation has several interpretations and as I've explained above, does not contradict anything. It is neither supported or weakened by science.

There is no evidence I'm aware of against the flood. In fact, IIRC, there is some archaeological evidence in favour of a major flood in the area.

The Bible never says the earth is flat, AFAIK.

The Bible says that the Israelites used 3 for pi. That is an accurate historical fact. It never claims that the value of pi [is] 3.

Going back to defining a fundamentalist, there is IMO, a huge problem with nominalism these days. A lot of people would call themselves Christians, but not believe that Jesus is God, or that he rose from the dead, or that sins are forgiven by simply asking God and him doing so out of love. That would be entirely against the teaching of the Bible and I would therefore regard such people as non-Christians. I get the impression quite often that people are happy for Christians to be Christians as long as they don't actually believe anything the Bible says, which seems to me to remove the point. Not that I'm suggesting you're saying that, BTW.

Rejecting Evolution as evil is stupidity. If you can't understand this, you're a fundie.[/quote]

Actually, that's exactly what I've been saying. Go back and re-read my posts. Evolution is not a matter the Bible discusses. It tells us that God created Man. It doesn't say how.

[Vendetta]

--Perhaps you are irrational and subjective, but that is your failing not ours. I have a good idea of my place in the universe and it was objective evidence and logic that answered the question your foolishly turn to religion to answer.

So you're a Vulcan then?

I suspect not, somehow. I suspect that you feel emotions, and that you have to find a way of dealing with them.

Emotions, remember, are entirely subjective, they are the definition OF subjective, thay are how YOU feel.

If you think you've arrived at a 'place in the universe' through objectivity alone, you must be a robot, because you HAVE to deny any emotion, yo uhave to ignore your own feelings in all instances, because to you, only objective evidence and logic are valid.

Understanding your place in the universe is more than where the atoms that make up your body are, t's about how yo deal with society, emotional involvement with other humans, the morality of your actions, and in the vast majority of those intances, if you DON'T deal with your own emotions, you WILL cease to be a properly functioning human being.

Nice of you to make pejorative assumptions about me based on a platform of religious discrimination, by the way, very open minded and liberal, go you! For the record, I'm as much an atheist as the next heathen non-believer, you'll just have to forgive my foolish belief that a human can be more than the sum of a few electrochemical processes. (it must be boring, in your world, if all you are is what you can prove objectively)

There is no meaning to life beyond that which is dictated by our instincts, desires, etc.

Except that we create for ourselves. That's what evolution has given us, the ability to reason philosophically AS WELL as scientifically, if YOU think the meaning of life is just to continue, I won't take that away from you, but I've come up with a DIFFERENT solution.

Both, remember, are what we choose to believe, they're informed by a subjective process, what we personally choose to interpret the world as, and both are equally valid.

If this isn't satisfying enough for you perhaps you should live your life such that your idea of a perfect person could look at your life and say that you are a great person.

Personally I'd just prefer if the people I chose to call 'friend' felt I was worth the same.

But then, friendship for it's own sake is subjective, so you woudn't know abot that, would you?

Ad hominem. Just because humans tend toward subjectivity does not mean that they cannot produce objective results.

Expain, then, how you can achieve an objective result when analysing a subjective process.

Prove objectively that you love your parents.

Explain, objectively, what it means to be or to have a friend.

[Vendetta]

Take Creationism. Take the flood. Take Earth is flat, or pi = 3. All this things can be taken from the Bible. And all contradict the facts .

Actually, the concept of the great flood does seem to have some validity in history.

It's reported in rather a lot of cultures and traditions, even predating Genesis (the epic of Gilgamesh has a flood story), I've read an interpretation by a Roman scholar.

There's also archaeological evidence for a civilisation under part of what's now the Black Sea.

The literal interpretation, that the 'entire world' flooded is silly, but then, when the event that sparked the story took place, it WAS the whole of the known world that was flooding.

[Jonathan]

Can't you read? Or simply think? Fundies DO claim religion offer a basis for scientific theories.

Have you read my posts? The word fundamentalist is not applied correctly. And what is the relevance of your point to what I've said?

And if atheists don't see the light, then they are going to hell? What about Catholics? and Muslims? Hum?

If you do not accept Jesus as the one true Lord and Saviour and sincerely ask him for forgiveness of sins, then I believe you're going to Hell. If you do, however, believe these things, you're a Christian and won't.

Darth Wong has reasons to have little patience. Christian fundamentalism almost ruined his marriage cerimony, after all.

And that's a valid reason to randomly insult someone who's trying to have a civil discussion about religion in a forum designed for debate over religion? If an atheist had shot my parents, would that be a valid reason for me to call you all murderers and flame you?

Out of curiosity, was that an answer to the question?

And, I'm warning you, keep up with the brick wall technique and you'll soon feel the flames. Answer the arguments instead of ignoring them and repeating the same ideas.

Actually, I'm the one who's answering questions and sending more back. The brickwall tactics seem to lie elsewhere. What questions do you think I haven't answered? Or is the problem that you don't like my answers? That isn't an accusation, BTW, just an honest question to try and find out what you think is wrong.

[Jonathan]

Then, you're complicating the theory by adding it an extra factor, which contributes nothing. Occam's Razor. Can't you simply say God created the Big Bang and the Universe evolved alone since then?

No, because you're adding an unknown term for which evidence of existence does not exist.

There is no scientific reason to put God in, no. That doesn't mean that God doesn't exist however. you can't sue science to disprove God because he is supernatural and therefore beyond the boundaries of science.

[Durandal]

What I hear about every day of the week is love, pure and simple. I don't want people to die, but justice has certain requirements. I (along with God and many other people) would much rather all you atheists turned and accepted God's love. I can't for the life of me understand why you don't. But it's easy to say that from where I'm sitting.

You can't accept God's "love", because it's purely conditional. If you don't, he sends you to Hell to suffer for all eternity. Don't assume that atheists have never tried Christianity. I was raised Catholic. All I ever got was useless guilt and a feeling of worthlessness. Since becoming an atheist, I'm a much happier, more self-confident person.

Just because Christianity has worked for you doesn't mean that it works for everyone. Those of us who tend to be more rational will more than likely tend to reject Christianity because of its blatant irrationality.

[Durandal]

There is no scientific reason to put God in, no. That doesn't mean that God doesn't exist however. you can't sue science to disprove God because he is supernatural and therefore beyond the boundaries of science.

Textbook example of circular reasoning. There is no evidence for the existence of God, so asserting that he exists is fallacious.

If you do not accept Jesus as the one true Lord and Saviour and sincerely ask him for forgiveness of sins, then I believe you're going to Hell. If you do, however, believe these things, you're a Christian and won't.

In other words, if people don't accept your ridiculous beliefs for which no objective evidence exist, they deserve to suffer for all eternity. Fucking bigot.

By the way, I hope you burn for all eternity because you don't believe in the Easter Bunny or Santa Claus.

[Colonel Olrik]

The Bible never claims authority as a scientific document, therefore to take ti as such is not a viewpoint relevant to Christianity. It does, however, claim authority as the word of God and call us to love everyone, which includes homosexuals. It calls homosexual acts a sin, but it also calls many other things sins and tells us to love the people who do them. We're called to follow Jesus' example and he said that he had come to die for sinners because he loved them. We should love homosexuals so much that we are willing to lay down our lives for them. Hating homosexuals is nothing to do with Christianity and should therefore not be a variable used to define what type of Christian someone is. As for people of different views going to hell, Jesus said "I am the Way the Truth and the Light. The only way to the Father is through me." He claimed the power to forgive sins, that he was God (both the same claim really) and that everyone needed forgiveness or else they would go to Hell, then backed up the seriousness of it by sacrificing himself so that we would be able to spend an eternity in paradise instead. According to the Bible, if you accept Jesus as the only true Lord and Saviour and ask honestly for forgiveness, you don't go to Hell.

Damn it. Accept, for once, that there are actually people who take a step further. Fundies hate homosexuality. Chick puts all Catholics in hell (I don't really know why, it's just pure hate, I guess). They try to stop Evolution from being taugh at schools. They ban Harry Potter has eviill. You made an imense ranting that didn't even adress the point. THERE ARE FUCKING FUNDIES. Be glad you're not as rabid as them.
Go and check www.creationweb.com

What extra factor? I'm taking God out of the equation and simply looking at the evidence I can observe. Go back and re-read what I said. What could might have done is irrelevant. I simply look at my evidence and use it as the basis for theories on how the universe runs. for science, I don't care whether it was created in the state it was in 6000 years ago, with the appearance of billions of years of age. As long as it acts as if it has been around for billions of years, I'll model it as if it has when it comes to science.

The mere idea of taking the Bible science literally enough to give credit to those thoughts is disturbing.

The account of creation has several interpretations and as I've explained above, does not contradict anything. It is neither supported or weakened by science.

Fuck it. FUNDIES DISAGREE.

There is no evidence I'm aware of against the flood. In fact, IIRC, there is some archaeological evidence in favour of a major flood in the area.

Present it. I bet it has already been ripped to schreds

The Bible never says the earth is flat, AFAIK.

Sigh. "And he could see the four corners of the world"

The Bible says that the Israelites used 3 for pi. That is an accurate historical fact. It never claims that the value of pi [is] 3

And, due to that, some fundies still think the Christian value for pi is three.

[Durandal]

I've noticed that Jonathon has fallen into the "well, there's no evidence against it, so it must be valid" trap. Take a course in logic, Jonny-boy.

[Jonathan]

Like it or not, he wasn't. He did not believe in salvation through the saving grace of Christ, therefore he couldn't possibly be a Christian. On the contrary, he called Christianity the greatest blight on the face of mankind and was quite keen to eradicate it. Publicly he supported it, because it created less problems.

Okay, a man can't prove that his wife loves him, therefore he can't be a scientist according to your logic.

Scientists don't seek to "prove" anything. They seek to describe nature.

Try telling that to the guy I was debating.

But then humans are irrational subjective creatures.

Ad hominem. Just because humans tend toward subjectivity does not mean that they cannot produce objective results. Objectivity can be attained through indepedent verification of claims, which is <gasp!> how science works!

The heart of religion and spirituality isn't answering questions about the way the universe works, it's about finding your place in it.

Religion was originally meant to answer questions about how the universe works and control people.

Care to back up that rather audacious claim? You say that religion is non-disprovable, then you say with conviction that it is false and an invention of man, thereby eliminating the possibility of it being true, which you aid couldn't be done. Surely you're contradicting yourself?

And since when did religion tell us how the universe works? I don't recall the Bible claiming validity as a scientific paper. Bit of a strawman don't you think?

Now we have science and secular governments for those respective purposes,

Secularism is better for controlling people?

which work much better.

Subjective opinion.

So, religion has taken to making wildly ridiculous assumptions and speculations about mystical realms and vengeful deities to "help people find their place" -- which essentially means, "You're place is to serve."

Actually, Christianity hasn't changed one iota since its founding. The church has, but that's a different matter.

And yes, the Bible does day that we are here for the glory of God, rather than our own. But it also calls Jesus the servant king who died for us. He gave his life for me. I don't need to be told to serve him; I want to do it.

Bullshit. Religious ideas have zero logical validity because they are nondisprovable. That is why we automatically toss them out the window. Try again.

Do you automatically toss love out the window?