Religion or Science - How do they compare?

My question about you conceding was rhetorical. I know you did not concede. That's why after acknowledging that you had made a bad argument, I asked for a different one. Have you ever noticed that there are bigots with or without religion? Religion is just an excuse. I don't believe Christianity requires or demands that I treat homosexuals different from the way I tread anyone else.Yes, people did use the Bible to justify things like slavery, but did not slavery exist in cultures that were not Christian or Jewish at all? I simply don't buy the idea that religion, and in particular, Christianity, is even largely responsible for those problems. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

There is a line between willful ignorance, self-deception, and stupidity, and folks might well disagree regarding how they characterize Faith on a given topic. Your own conclusion is fairly clear, but reasonable minds might well differ.I believe I am slightly slower on the draw than you are, but that still means that I've caught Faith in positions where I believe lying is the appropriate description. I accept that other folks don't reach the same conclusion I do.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

How would you characterize calling somebody a Nazi because they believe that calling for the razing and destroying of the houses of Jews is anti-Semitic? Perhaps you are defending the indefensible.Yeah, some things are rude, but sometimes you reap the insults that you sow.

The Southern Baptist Church is an institution. It is currently the 2nd largest Christian denomination. Secondly in size only to the Catholic Church. The Southern Baptist Church, at the time they split away from the larger body, was not just a local church or a few local churches.Your claim is beyond bizarre. I probably would not stick around after making it either.

I am not required to limit my remarks to your chosen topic. The Southern Baptists are a huge group of Protestants, and as a group they managed to apologize for their racism and support of slavery a mere 23 years ago.I understand that you would want to limit the topic so that evil by Protestants is nonexistent but I am not going to play by those rules.

Calling Protestants committing evil off topic does not cover up anything Faith. What I am saying is no more difficult to understand than that.

Because your statement is not operative. You are not pointing to any problems with the handling of evidence, you are just blowing smoke. I would also add that it impossible to handle the evidence so that you could do any verification. You cannot even conduct a simple experiment with a protractor, sand and a bucket of water.

Obviously, this question is at least somewhat rhetorical. But the simple answer is that she cannot accept those things. For a YEC, all of Christianity rises and sets on the idea that the Bible is literally true and that said truth must be interpreted in only one way. If God did not create the Universe in a week, did not make the first man in one day, and then did not Flood out all of life about 1500 years after that, then Christ is not real and Christianity is fraud. YECs have painted themselves into the tiniest corner using paint that can never dry. There is literally no way out for them.For someone who believes those things, the underpinning of everything is ripped away if a cave painting in Spain is 30,000 years old, or some rock is 4 billion years old, or if some pyramid was really built in 2500 or so BC. In turn astronomy, archaeology, genetics, biology, paleontology, and geology must also be bogus.And if they participate in debates, at least in those which they cannot rig by declaring evidence to be off-limits, they will have to employ bad logic, wishful thinking and denial. What else is left.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Don't kill folks. Don't hurt your brother. Just how huge a chunk of morality can be developed from a couple of what might be easy to come by precepts. It might even be that there is an evolutionary advantage to concepts like that.I am not sure that the lack of absolutes is completely debilitating. Half of the ten commandments are about man's relationship to his closest neighbors and family. Surely there is more than one source for somthing like that.Obviously, the half of the commandments that relate to God must come from a religion of sorts.

I am not sure I understand what you mean when you distinguish between our heart and our mind here. Describing things as "heart" is not literal thinking. Our heart pumps blood, delivers oxygen and helps remove waste products from our cells. Everything we do is mind driven.Whatever the source of our morality, we can grow emotionally attached to following it. How is that different from morality being about our heart. How does the source matter? Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Yes. Your claim seems to be that a sense of morality is not possible without that pre-existing intelligence. My question to you is why that sense of morality cannot grow out of a sense of duty to one's family, friends, clan or species?I don't believe that atheists are immoral or that atheistic societies must be amoral, but your argument does not seem to leave open any possibility of a non-theistic morality. What is your best defense for your position?

The material you quoted suggests that morality is universal. What you are adding to that is your belief that it comes from a divine source, and in particular from Jesus Christ, regardless of one's belief system.So, no argument from you. Just belief. At least that what I think you are espousing. If I've missed something, let me know.

Arguments of that kind are not helpful in deciding between two alternatives. I am asking for some reasoning if you have it.

Wrong. It was not "the" excuse. It was "an" excuse to do what folks were already doing. It was also a driving force for those who were already abolitionists and for those who thought slavery was evil primarily because of its effect on white people.My point is that targetting religion does not accurately target the impetus for homophobia.ABE: I did ask plainly. I'll quote my question here. That's asking for a new argument in plain words. And I note that the concession I mentioned here is about not making your case and not about giving in. Not sure what you are asking me to do? Perhaps my tone was inappropriate?Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

I don't believe that there was a moral code built into creation because I see no evidence and further, no scripture that dictates any such belief. That's a pretty big if, and it is not one I can accept as the basis for an argument.In fact, what you are actually doing here is assuming the entire question and putting that forth as your premise. Even if I agreed with you, I would reject an argument of that type.