Since a lot of people seem to want to talk about religion lately, I thought it might be appropriate for there to be a designated topic here. While I know this community is based heavily on just calculators and other programming topics, you can't ignore that there's at least like two or three religious debates in SAX a day.

Other threads have gotten out of hand regarding this topic, but I hope this will not be the case. Pretty much my only rule is, respect the other people here. Do not personally attack anyone. Let's try to have some constructive arguments. Whatever you wish to discuss regarding religion you may discuss here*.

*if you are overly enthusiastic about debating these kinds of things I recommend you check out reddit too. There are some great communities of people on reddit, whichever side you are on.

----------------

With that said, my personal stance on religion is that I'm against it. I was a non-denominational christian for 19 years, until becoming atheist about 4 months ago. But unlike what most people think of atheists, I am not hateful. Having hate holds no benefits for anyone, and so I do not hate on religious people at all. However, religious people do seem to be against many groups of people who aren't even personally bothering them.

I hope someday that ethics and morals will be taught without the need for religion, but nonetheless I recognize that many people just aren't ready to give it up as it is a source of comfort and strength. And that's fine, but I encourage people to do some critical thinking for themselves.

This is an open discussion. What do you think of religion?
Religion is for people who don't know any better. If they did; they would realize that they are completely brainwashed.

That's about it. All you have to know is you're supposed to respect brainwashing.
MateoConLechuga wrote:
Religion is for people who don't know any better. If they did; they would realize that they are completely brainwashed.

That's about it. All you have to know is you're supposed to respect brainwashing.


What about intelligent design? Which sounds more plausible: The universe began from the universe exploding itself into existence or a Creator spoke it into being?
Calcuon wrote:
MateoConLechuga wrote:
Religion is for people who don't know any better. If they did; they would realize that they are completely brainwashed.

That's about it. All you have to know is you're supposed to respect brainwashing.


What about intelligent design? Which sounds more plausible: The universe began from the universe exploding itself into existence or a Creator spoke it into being?

Which sounds more plausible? A bunch of dudes living in the near east 2000 years ago just so happened to know the truth about the entire world (and wrote it down to make the bible), or the scientific theories supported by countless observations made by men with modern 21st century equipment?
Calcuon wrote:
Which sounds more plausible: The universe began from the universe exploding itself into existence or a Creator spoke it into being?

It's not about what "sounds" more plausible to you. It's what the evidence and facts actually support. Religion asks you to ignore facts in order to fit its worldview.

You also need to go back to basic science class. The universe didn't "explode out of itself". There was no explosion. Come on man, if you are going to deny something, at least understand even the basics of the model.
c4ooo wrote:
Calcuon wrote:
MateoConLechuga wrote:
Religion is for people who don't know any better. If they did; they would realize that they are completely brainwashed.

That's about it. All you have to know is you're supposed to respect brainwashing.


What about intelligent design? Which sounds more plausible: The universe began from the universe exploding itself into existence or a Creator spoke it into being?

Which sounds more plausible? A bunch of dudes living in the near east 2000 years ago just so happened to know the truth about the entire world (and wrote it down to make the bible), or the scientific theories supported by countless observations made by men with modern 21st century equipment?


That's irrelevant to my point. My entire point was to step away from the "religion" aspect. Also by your statement, did any of those scientific theories supported by countless observations ever show or prove that the universe created itself? Or that it was created by someone else? Or even anything about the origin of the universe? Have any of those scientific theories establish that matter can make itself? Those scientific theories might prove evolution and fossils and whatnot, but the Earth was created 4.5ga years ago (or 4ka). Science has not and will not ever be able to pinpoint what happened billions of years ago. It's ludicrous that schools teach evolution as a fact. Most "Christians" aren't trying to impose their beliefs into the world, but want it to be taught as maybe an alternative.
Calcuon wrote:
It's ludicrous that schools teach evolution as a fact. Most "Christians" aren't trying to impose their beliefs into the world, but want it to be taught as maybe an alternative.

Evolution is [most likely] a fact. The stories in the bible are fictional, just like those in the Illiad or Sophocles's plays.
Calcuon wrote:
Science has not and will not ever be able to pinpoint what happened billions of years ago.

You are wrong. We literally built The Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO), a large-scale physics experiment and observatory to detect cosmic gravitational waves. These waves emanated directly from the singularity of the universe. This has been established as fact.

We have computed the radiological background radiation of the observable universe. We know pretty much how the universe began 14 some odd billions of years ago.

If you are going to deny something, actually have an understanding of what you are denying before just falling on your incorrect beliefs.
c4ooo wrote:
Calcuon wrote:
It's ludicrous that schools teach evolution as a fact. Most "Christians" aren't trying to impose their beliefs into the world, but want it to be taught as maybe an alternative.

Evolution is [most likely] a fact. The stories in the bible are fictional, just like those in the Illiad or Sophocles's plays.


I haven't said the bible is true or isn't true. I'd like someone to actually look at respected Creation scientists see what they say and disprove it outside of "the bible is wrong". I'm a 15 year old kid. Obviously everything that I say hasn't come out of an 8 year PhD.
Calcuon wrote:
I'd like someone to actually look at respected Creation scientists

None of them are respected. They all are conmen that take money any peddle bullshit to the people who listen.

You don't need a PhD to understand Natural Selection. A 5 year old could comprehend it, and does.
MateoConLechuga wrote:
Calcuon wrote:
I'd like someone to actually look at respected Creation scientists

None of them are respected. They all are conmen that take money any peddle a to the people who listen.

You don't need a PhD to understand Natural Selection. A 5 year old could comprehend it, and does.


You guys keep on taking my words and twisting them. The "PhD" thing was to support the fact that I'm not an expert in "people who accept evolution by natural selection as the most reasonable explanation for the fact of evolution."

Also, speaking of "actually have an understanding of what you are denying before just falling on your incorrect beliefs", show me where there is the slightest evidence that scientists like Ken Ham are conmen.
Calcuon wrote:
Show me where there is the slightest evidence that scientists like Ken Ham are conmen.

He literally built a freaking boat in the middle of Kentucky and forced all the taxpayers to pay for it so he could get even more money from admissions. It peddles absolute nonsense, depicting dinosaurs living on the boat with humans.
MateoConLechuga wrote:
Calcuon wrote:
Show me where there is the slightest evidence that scientists like Ken Ham are conmen.

He literally built a freaking boat in the middle of Kentucky and forced all the taxpayers to pay for it so he could get even more money from admissions. It peddles absolute nonsense, depicting dinosaurs living on the boat with humans.


Building a museum to exhibit what creationists believe is not "conning." There are hundreds if not thousands of museums exhibiting evolutionist beliefs. And speaking of dinosaurs, many museums exhibit entire dinosaur skeletons when they only found one bone.

Also might I mention that again you are attacking the Bible. The Bible does not NEED to exist to prove or disprove evolution.
Calcuon wrote:
MateoConLechuga wrote:
Calcuon wrote:
I'd like someone to actually look at respected Creation scientists

None of them are respected. They all are conmen that take money any peddle a to the people who listen.

You don't need a PhD to understand Natural Selection. A 5 year old could comprehend it, and does.


You guys keep on taking my words and twisting them. The "PhD" thing was to support the fact that I'm not an expert in "people who accept evolution by natural selection as the most reasonable explanation for the fact of evolution."

Also, speaking of "actually have an understanding of what you are denying before just falling on your incorrect beliefs", show me where there is the slightest evidence that scientists like Ken Ham are conmen.

Whether or not he's a conman (I think he is), he still drastically misunderstands the nature of the universe, as do all biblical literalists.

Sure, understanding the universe can be quite difficult, but just because we don't know something doesn't mean the existence of a god or gods. Ken Ham refuses scientific facts and instead chooses to base his beliefs on the limited knowledge of goat herders and fishermen who lived over 2000 years ago.

MateoConLechuga wrote:
Calcuon wrote:
Show me where there is the slightest evidence that scientists like Ken Ham are conmen.

He literally built a freaking boat in the middle of Kentucky and forced all the taxpayers to pay for it so he could get even more money from admissions. It peddles absolute nonsense, depicting dinosaurs living on the boat with humans.

Good lord. I heard about that.
Calcuon wrote:
Building a museum to exhibit what creationists believe is not "conning." There are hundreds if not thousands of museums exhibiting evolutionist beliefs. And speaking of dinosaurs, many museums exhibit entire dinosaur skeletons when they only found one bone.

You are wrong. Again. There are thousands and thousands of real dinosaur fossils, each dated to at least 65 million years ago. Humans did not exist until 200,000 some odd year ago as an early species.

Peddling creationist beliefs for money is exactly what a con is!!! You rely on people's complete ignorance to get money from them.
One thing I am yet to see from a religious person is why their religion is correct while the thousand other conflicting beliefs are wrong. (Conflicting beliefs as in other religions, let alone scientific ones)

Also paganism is cooler, heil Perun!
Michael2_3B wrote:
Calcuon wrote:
MateoConLechuga wrote:
Calcuon wrote:
I'd like someone to actually look at respected Creation scientists

None of them are respected. They all are conmen that take money any peddle a to the people who listen.

You don't need a PhD to understand Natural Selection. A 5 year old could comprehend it, and does.


You guys keep on taking my words and twisting them. The "PhD" thing was to support the fact that I'm not an expert in "people who accept evolution by natural selection as the most reasonable explanation for the fact of evolution."

Also, speaking of "actually have an understanding of what you are denying before just falling on your incorrect beliefs", show me where there is the slightest evidence that scientists like Ken Ham are conmen.

Whether or not he's a conman (I think he is), he still drastically misunderstands the nature of the universe, as do all biblical literalists.

Sure, understanding the universe can be quite difficult, but just because we don't know something doesn't mean the existence of a god or gods. Ken Ham refuses scientific facts and instead chooses to base his beliefs on the limited knowledge of goat herders and fishermen who lived over 2000 years ago.




Are you saying he wrote "Answers in Genesis" wholly based on what he believes in the Bible? He both got his degree and taught science in high school.
Calcuon wrote:
Are you saying he wrote "Answers in Genesis" wholly based on what he believes in the Bible? He both got his degree and taught science in high school.

Of course he did! He's trying to get you to buy stuff all over that site! How are you so blind.
Calcuon wrote:
Show me where there is the slightest evidence that scientists like Ken Ham are conmen.

If you are going to postulate a system of belief, the burden of proof is on YOU. Not other people to refute. Religion derives its basis on encouraging you not to try to prove it, and attacks those who question it, rather like you. Science derives its basis on proof and evidence, and does not advance anything to "theory" unless the scientific community is able to reproduce it. Science has decisively proven that evolution is a FACT. This FACT is observed today. Just look at illnesses. They are more deadly and more resistant to medications today than they were a decade or two ago. This is evolution occurring right before your eyes... it's time to open them. "God" gave them to you for a reason, and it's not so you can ignore what's staring you in the face.

Calcuon wrote:
Also might I mention that again you are attacking the Bible. The Bible does not NEED to exist to prove or disprove evolution.

Sadly, when you try to pass the Bible off as a science or social studies textbook, it DOES need to prove itself. In literally every other discipline you have to back up claims you make with proof. Not holding religion to this standard is simply an excuse to avoid dealing with the fact that you cannot prove any of it.
Calcuon wrote:
Are you saying he wrote "Answers in Genesis" wholly based on what he believes in the Bible? He both got his degree and taught science in high school.

Having a degree and teaching "science" does not prove you're actually smart. Nothing against people with degrees, but in Ken Ham's case he is just repeating toxic cycles and teaching outdated beliefs.
  
Register to Join the Conversation
Have your own thoughts to add to this or any other topic? Want to ask a question, offer a suggestion, share your own programs and projects, upload a file to the file archives, get help with calculator and computer programming, or simply chat with like-minded coders and tech and calculator enthusiasts via the site-wide AJAX SAX widget? Registration for a free Cemetech account only takes a minute.

» Go to Registration page
Page 1 of 2
» All times are UTC - 5 Hours
 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

 

Advertisement