Religion or Science - How do they compare?

quote:

---

Their truth has not been questioned by millennia of people who believe them. Only by Liberal Nazis in recent times.

---

In other words your sole argument is to say that people believed it - and call anyone who disagrees a Liberal NaziBecause viciously and falsely smearing anyone who disagrees is such a good argument.

You need to quote my own words where I concede that my original statements don’t prove my case. I have made my point that while people are ultimately responsible for what they do, Religion has encouraged and excused horrible things done in the name of god. Christianity is no exception. Christianity was conceived as a Jewish copy of other religions that were popular at the time. Later, when it became state religion, it was an effective tool to subdue the people through fear.

By this, do you mean that everything that the New Testament says is morally acceptable?

No Shit Sherlock.People believe lots of really stupid things like Young Earth or some Biblical Flud or Inerrant Bibles.

I don't believe I said that, so I appreciate that you phrased this in the form of a question rather than as an accusation. If you want me to be more specific, I will point out that as I Christian, I believe we should follow the teachings of Jesus Christ. My experience is that doing so does not present me with any moral dilemmas.

Yeah and you believe about the stupidest things anybody has ever believed, and who are you to pass judgment on millions of others? The Flood and the inerrant Bible built western civilization and you are a doltish Liberal Nazi.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

You are a Liberal Nazi. Who viciously smears me and millions of Christians.

Stop calling me a liar. No Christian would ever say the things you say about Christianity. You are no Christian, and you certainly do have an anti-Christian bias.Christianity does not commit genocide you lying dolt.

Please stop calling each other names. 1 hour timeout.

I am a bit puzzled by this response.'I noted your concession about not having proved your position. But since you did not drop your position, asking for you to make a case seems appropriate. Are you instead conceding that you were wrong?

Yet the fact remains that I am a Christian, a member of a recognized Christian sect and that I have no anti-Christian bias. You repeatedly misrepresenting reality does not change reality.Yet the fact remains that Christianity has a long history of forcing people to adopt Christianity, of driving non-believers from their homes and lands, of forcing peoples to drop their language, dress, habits, religion, culture and of desecration of their sacred sites.That is classic genocide Faith.

I haven't pointed out any mere "slip-ups", and I haven't even bothered to debate the things you say about Catholics.But I appreciate the acknowledgment of your denials of fact. So what if it is not like Catholicism? According to your BS, Catholicism is the purest evil. Not being like Catholicism is really not all that much to brag about.Protestants have done their own evil. Out of respect for the request from the moderators, I am going to let this opportunity pass.

[SIZE=5]Edited by AdminPhat, : Removed Inappropriate Venting

I’m prepared to accept that social and moral standards can evolve through natural processes. I would even agree that these natural processes are the memes of Dawkins’ world. However the question that can only be answered by belief is whether the foundations for these evolutionary processes are intelligent or not. Once again, you believe,(as I understand you), that consciousness, intelligence, morality etc evolved by chance from mindless particles. I believe that these natural processes have come from an intelligent root. Different cultures have different ideas of what is right and wrong. If there is no universal standard then who are you or I to say that what ISIS terrorists do is wrong. They believe that what they are doing is the right thing to do. If there is no universal standard then it is only what we as individuals or to a lesser degree our own cultures decide what is right or wrong. If there is a universal definition for right and wrong then it means that there is an external basis for that. Morality changes because we as humans can adapt our sense of morality as to what works for us best right now, as individuals and societies. In my view universal morality is a morality based on a type of love that is able to always desire positive outcomes for others and to be prepared to act unselfishly to respond to that desire. Well, we can look at different societies and see that isn’t true. However, let’s accept your statement as it stands. It only shows that nations can naturally evolve more empathy and compassion. The question still remains about why that is. Does it only involve processes that are mindless or is there an intelligent root cause for the them.

And thus our question hinges on what reality actually is. Is it soley based on evidence or is there another dimension? Subjectively? Perhaps. Rather than dogpile Faith, who is excusing herself from the fray for a time, I would like to bring attention to a link she shared earlier. Perhaps the peanut gallery can throw their shells in that direction. Faith Facts: This apologetics website has many similar views as to how Faith thinks and believes. jar would be better off calling the apologist's liars rather than addressing any of us as such. Perhaps believers can be accused of willful ignorance, but they find it hard to simply throw the concept of God away. For us, reality is God.add by edit: Im off to work. Thank God I have a job or I would be too addicted to EvC also. Edited by Phat, : No reason given.