Bill Nye VS Ken Ham: Science Vs Creationism

[pedoviejo]

Can any of you non believers adaquatly answer this non believers question… what will satisfy the need for spirituality and hope if religion was completely killed off.

and of course this question is going to be brushed off by many of you because you believe that it’s a stupid question…

The same thing that satisfied it when spirituality and hope didn’t exist eons ago.

lol, the fuck are you talking about. Spirituality and the belief in some higher power has been a human thing for eons. Neanderthals would bury their dead with decorations and what not.

go read a book

Can any of you non believers adaquatly answer this non believers question… what will satisfy the need for spirituality and hope if religion was completely killed off.

and of course this question is going to be brushed off by many of you because you believe that it’s a stupid question…

The “need” for religion is not genetic, it is a learned behavior. I ask you this, who decided your religion? Was it you? Or was it your parents? Religion doesn’t need to be killed off completely, the religious will simply kill each other off.

the need for religion is a need that’s been around since before Mesopotamia. The administration was diffrent…

I choose my beliefs, my parents would take to church, but I never liked it, I just went. I made the choice, I went through some typical atheist dip shit phase and hated it on some 1st grade logical fallacies. I grew up, looked at it like an adult, saw the role religion plays, and made my peace with it.

Can any of you non believers adaquatly answer this non believers question… what will satisfy the need for spirituality and hope if religion was completely killed off.

and of course this question is going to be brushed off by many of you because you believe that it’s a stupid question…

The love of and for your family and friends. The actual instinctual desire to make things better. Also, see Buddhism.

Although your implication that there is an actual NEED for spirituality and hope is a straw man.

and here is the typical response. the love for friends and family. You still haven’t answered my question. things get better, what about those who have it bad, suffer, and die alone. What consolation do they have. You are only thinking about your relative perspective. what happens when I die? Is that it? all that struggling I did, all the things I did right, yet I still struggled and suffered everyday. for what? What do I gain from all of that. Seriously

buddhisim is still a philosophy in which one lives their life. Christianity, Kwansa ass fools, Muslims, insert religion x here all are supposed to do that. buddhism provides the same relief other religions provide without the origin story.

The more you “athiests” speak out, the more obvious you are on the anti-chirstian hate mongoring bandwagon that believe it’s Christianityies fault the dark ages happened and was responsible for setting humanity back 1000 years. LOL

And people still killed in the name of Buddhism, so your point is invalid.

what will satisfy the need for spirituality and hope if religion was completely killed off.

That is was I dislike about the religious institution. The take advantage of misery and hopelessness by selling hope and salvation for those in need or ignorant.
Business wise it an amazing idea, you don’t have to pay taxes, don’t have to restock inventory, and its basically all profit for the exception of operation costs.
Spirituality, as a connection with the inner self doesn’t need religion. Are you claiming that an atheist can’t be spiritual?
That Is like claiming that we need religion because the charities they do when in fact there are now lots of charity organizations that don’t have an agenda on indoctrinating people in their beliefs.

I personally don’t have anything against the existence of religion, what I’m against is when they try to pass legislation and attempt to get it in the science classroom like that retard Ken Ham. That’s ridiculous! You can have bible camps or whatever you want but KEEP IT OUT OF THE EDUCATION SYSTEM! Religion is NOT education.
Values like respect, love and mercy do not belong to religion, you don’t need it to teach good values.

And yes, religion is definitely child abuse. How is it not abuse to tell a young child that they are under surveillance 24/7 by that an all powerful being who will save you because you were born being a sinner and in debt with this all powerful being who will send you to hell if you don’t follow his standards? Not only that, but also this horrible practice of telling children that people who die are just “waiting” for them in a paradise. I still remember when I was a kid, I always asked my parents “Hey, so if its better after you die, why don’t we just die already?” Religious beliefs can most definitely fuck with a kid’s head big time.

Oh and Cisco is sooo washed up now, he never made any sense, but he was better at hiding it, he’s now a retired old man.

THat sounds like a problem with the people who are in charge. Your issue is with institutionalized power, not the idea. Channel your hatred and collect yourself.

You also assume everybody is going to be fine with your choice, with your outlook. You are behaving no diffrent than the fundementals that scream death to infidels. You believe your model is good enough for everybody and it should be the norm

and again, all of you miss the point. You assume too much. Why are all of you responding as if I’m a believer, I asked a question and stated from the beginning my stance.

And why are you talking about school? I never stated anything regarding school and religion, and you still post about that shit while responding to my question. It’s obvious you haven’t read my other posts, where i clearly state the real issue with religion in school.

jAll I’m getting form all of you is a typical copy paste response that you probably saved somewhere on your computer.

[Vynce]

Not that I’m a Jew or Christian, but I prefer to think of “in the beginning” as “in our beginning.”

[fishjie]

Can any of you non believers adaquatly answer this non believers question… what will satisfy the need for spirituality and hope if religion was completely killed off.

why can’t one be spiritual but not religious? if anything, the dogma and rigidity of organized religion kills off any chance you can get to gain true enlightenment. i find beauty in the small and mundane things, and I don’t need religion to ruin it. disclaimer, i don’t consider buddhism, as some people practice it, to be a religion. i dont believe in karma or nirvana or any of that, but i believe in the benefits of meditation and practicing mindfulness.

@Fishjie: “Who is honest about the bible would know that evolution and creationism are mutually exclusive. for one thing, where does the soul come from? did it evolve?”. It’s in the books of Augustine and Gregory as i referenced. Evolution was part of christian theology long before modern science dressed it up as a non-creationist argument.

" God brought everything into existence in a single moment of creation but not static. God endowed it with the capacity to develop. The 2nd was to strike the idea that after the fall in Eden, a detachment between god and the universe happened (which caused the imperfection) that life had to start progressing biologically and spiritually in order to regain or return to the perfection that God orginally created him to be. "

that doesn’t address the question. creationism and evolution are incompatible. evolution is about the slow gradual change through natural selection of life on earth. a christian can’t believe in evolution and creationism at the same time: if humans have a soul and can go into heaven, yet we descended from simple single celled organisms, at what point did we evolve a soul? because bacterias dont have a soul. that would imply that a soul magically evolved, and that somewhere in between bacteria and humans, other species have “partial souls”. the whole thing is ludicrous. if you even think about it for any amount of time, its pretty clear that the soul is non-existent and an imaginary construct.

It actually does, first of all. Saying that evolution and creationism can’t be believed at the same time is historically wrong, because originally evolution was made as a theology before modern science existed. Just read the books of St Augustine and Gregory. It was taught before that we were not created static. Where we differ is the part on natural selection, we highly disagree that natural selection was unintentional, we believe and consider it logical that natural selection was intentional. That this world was created with a mechanism and we were given our own systems to adjust to it in order to survive.

Souls = our conscience, our identity and Spirit = our life force or our energy. As taught in early AD by Christianity, our Spirits did not evolve but de-evolved after the fall, and that we are at a goal (spiritually) where we have to progress and return to what we were originally created to be, in the likeness of god. does energy evolve or grow, if energy can grow then spirits/souls can grow/evolve. Even Buddhaism when talking about Chi does not deny that it potentitally can grow or evolve. It’s not an evolution in the biological sense and straight philosophical in description than science, but to think evolution can’t be belived because of the belief in souls not making sense to you is just your confusion. Not to insult you or anything, but when an atheist thinks evolution is a science that shows god doesn’t exist the more he shows he doesn’t know much about it, because Darwin himself did not become atheistic when developing the theory.

As for your post to Serpent. The God of the gaps is not just waving around “god did it”… Saying God did it is because of that same reasoning shown in that painting example. A man sees a painting and he concludes that a painter did it, another man butts in and says the same things you are saying… that’s the logic with in saying “god did it” because there is just no observable facts that show that language, order, and systematical mechanisms can just be here with out a mind.

Of course you can prove a negative mathematically. Take, for example, the statement ‘the world is not flat’. If we cannot prove a negative, how can we know that this statement is true or false? You referenced Santa Claus can’t be proven true, if that’s the case then why is he (the guy from the north pole who brings gifts around) ultimately known as not real if no one can prove he isn’t real?

The question still remains, at what point did humanity in its evolutionary history gain a life force? Do bacterias have a life force? What about viruses? To pass on genes, traits typically have to confer to some sort of advantage to ensure that its genes are propagated. Humans having a soul would make sense only if you believe the creation story where god breathed his spirit into humans. But if you subscribe to evolution, then humans gradually came into existence, so that moment when god breathed into a fully formed human never happened. it gradually happened. which doesn’t really make much sense at all.

Saying god did it is not a scientific model and it is just hand waving. Just like how the sheep herders back in the day saw lightning and thought, “oh god did it”. that explanation sufficed for them. sure that explanation might have made sense back then with their limited understanding, but luckily curious minds dug deeper and gained a better understanding of the how/why of lightning. creationism is much the same way. if we did not evolve but all magically appeared in place by some powerful being, there would be plenty of evidence of it, and as a result, scientists would be able to study the mechanisms for how this powerful alien accomplished these feats. in the case of a painting yes, you could conclude someone painted it, and you would be able to do research and figure out who painted it and how. creationism just says “god does it” and stops at that. its not science. it does not advance knowledge or understanding of the world but instead retards it. young earth creationists argue that the earth is not billions of years old. ok fine, propose a new way of dating how old the earth is, and provide evidence and a rigorous scientific model to defend it. they don’t. all they do is try (unsuccessfully) to invalidate the age of the earth, while not providing an actual alternative theory other than “herp derp god is magical!” that’s not science. if we settled for “herp derp god is magical” we’d still be living in caves.

And no, you cannot disprove a negative. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Just because its most likely santa is imaginary does not mean he is. He could have a highly advanced cloaking field that evades all attempts at human detection. And so on and so forth.

[specs]

Just a heads up for everyone:

This guy is a lawyer, and desired at one point to be a scientist.

Let that sit for a second.

Seriously what the fuck does that have to do with anything?

A guy who is currently employed in a role where he has to think critically and be mindful of evidence – and who desired to be something else with similar prerequisites – is touting what many a shithole website has: that there’s biblical “evidence” of modern science in an ancient text written by desert-dwelling farmers who used mythology to explain what was then unexplainable.

This should be cause for reflection, because if he can be a lawyer or a scientist, this planet is in a whole heap of trouble.

one thing i always hated is that bill nye pushes the idea of teaching kids religion is a form of child abuse. thats a very narrow and fucked up view from a scientist.

A scientist objecting to dogmatism being fed to children, how inappropriate!

calling it child abuse is pushing your ideals onto others in the most vile wording possible. hes pushing his views that people shouldn’t be allowed to teach their children they want to. you dont find that ironic at all?

Um, no.

Parents shouldn’t be allowed to teach their kids nonsense. That’s abusive in a very real way. Evolution isn’t an “ideal”; it’s an observable fact.

it’s only nonsense to you. i believe in both science and religion, it doesnt mean i was abused or even forced that way.

No, it’s nonsense, period. This isn’t subjective.

That’s not me saying religious rituals that do no harm are a bad thing. It’s me saying that when you teach a kid something you claim as fact, but is backed by nothing, you’re warping that kid.

the whole point of faith is to believe in something you may or may not be able to prove. Beliving and having faith in something will not warp a persons mind. it’s when you take it to the extreme that its detrimental…this goes for the science as well. When people said eugenics is a good idea, or when scientists said black people couldn’t be intelligent compared to whites. that was taking it to the extreme…they claimed to have evidence to back it. Everything can be bad when taken to the limit.

I don’t disagree with the idea that in moderation, a belief system isn’t necessarily harmful and can even be inspiring. And of course science is imperfect, which is the point: it doesn’t claim perfection because a counter-claim can throw everything we know into flux. Religious doctrine seldom allows the same flexibility, even if its practitioners choose to ignore those more rigid parts.

When teaching children specifically though, an impressionable young mind that is told something can be true despite a lack of any sort of evidence is going to apply that to anything. These are the type of people that con artists like Sylvia Browne (who claimed herself psychic) prey upon. Best to teach a kid critical thinking and evidence-based reasoning, and let that kid decide from there what religion, if any, they will follow.

I don’t think we’re necessarily that far away from each other ideologically. Perhaps this damn toneless internet text is to blame.

[pedoviejo]

Can any of you non believers adaquatly answer this non believers question… what will satisfy the need for spirituality and hope if religion was completely killed off.

why can’t one be spiritual but not religious? if anything, the dogma and rigidity of organized religion kills off any chance you can get to gain true enlightenment. i find beauty in the small and mundane things, and I don’t need religion to ruin it. disclaimer, i don’t consider buddhism, as some people practice it, to be a religion. i dont believe in karma or nirvana or any of that, but i believe in the benefits of meditation and practicing mindfulness.

I’m not saying that, but a lot of people here are saying you can’t be religious and being religious is stupid, and teaching your kids your faith values is child abuse. Which is the stupidest fucking thing i’ve read in a long time.

And so, you again illustrate the real issue with religion. It’s not religion, it’s the institution in which you peeps have issue with. But 4that doesn’t make the idea retarded. Just like science, it’s a tool an idea/method, it’s the people who ruin the idea.

Lastly, you take philosophical points from Buddhism to live your life. that’s what religion is/should be. A philosophy that you apply to your life to make it better.

[MotM]

the problem is you guys believe everyone is forced in a certain to believe. Just you grow up with it, doesnt mean you have to accept it your whole life. I wasnt forced into believing in god, i was introduced to it as a kid but it wasnt something they forced upon me. i chose to continue to believe as i got older…everyone has a choice. This isn’t something to blame on the parents. you can walk both roads.

bills originally wording wasn’t “forced” it was “taught” they aren’t the same things. you guys are implying it is, which you can’t.

Wrong again, I am under no disillusion that force can’t be overcome or that there aren’t rare individuals with religious parents who honestly escaped pressure to convert. I take special issue with “Just you grow up with it, doesnt mean you have to accept it your whole life.” This is not a reason to or not to do anything, and if taken on its own merit excuses just about any mistake a parent makes.

You know what a real example of not forcing something on your kids is? Letting them choose their job. You’re a farmer? Billy doesn’t have to be a farmer. Because that would be barbaric for force your kids to be like you simply because that is who you are. You don’t even have to demand they be a farmer, you impress it on them, you make life decisions for them when they’re young that directs them toward that job. That’s force, and if the kid overcomes it and becomes a stock broker or some shit then everyone on the sidelines breathes a sigh of relief.

Now replace “job” with “religion” and “farmer” with whatever it is religion that you have.

[LoyalSol]

A guy who is currently employed in a role where he has to think critically and be mindful of evidence – and who desired to be something else with similar prerequisites – is touting what many a shithole website has: that there’s biblical “evidence” of modern science in an ancient text written by desert-dwelling farmers who used mythology to explain what was then unexplainable.

This should be cause for reflection, because if he can be a lawyer or a scientist, this planet is in a whole heap of trouble.

In the single post I read of his, he didn’t say anything horribly wrong. Right now science hasn’t answered the question of what created the big bang so he is right in saying any theory is as good as the other because the fact is we don’t know and we aren’t really close to knowing at the moment. The belief everything came about on its own is as good as something put it there. Till the day science figures that one out or at least makes advances toward figuring that out, any theory is as good as the next.

Your mistake is assuming he meant Creationism as the young earth version which is currently the one at odds with science. A wiser choice would be to ask him to clarify his position because guess what? Creationism is a broad term! We often associate it with strictly the Christian version of it, but the fact is that creationism means as its name sound “someone created the universe” that someone could be a lot of different things if it is true. Even if you can prove the Bible is 100% wrong, you have not disproved the notion of a God, you’ve disproved the notion of the Christian version of God. Logically it could be they were right about there being a God, but totally wrong about the mechanisms used by said God.

So sorry but you inserted your own bias to see the point you wanted to see and followed it by a personal attack. That’s a shitty fucking string of logic.

Just because you are for science does not mean your argument can’t be utter nonsense. If you are going to support science don’t insult those of us in it by using poorly thought out reasoning. Someone defending a logical pursuit by using illogical arguments to me is like someone celebrating that marijuana is illegal by going out to smoke a joint.

Frankly I don’t even know why I am in this thread because so far people have only succeeded in pissing me off even if I agree with their stance because they keep defending their stance in fucking idiotic ways.

[StarvinMarvin]

that doesn’t address the question. creationism and evolution are incompatible. evolution is about the slow gradual change through natural selection of life on earth. a christian can’t believe in evolution and creationism at the same time: if humans have a soul and can go into heaven, yet we descended from simple single celled organisms, at what point did we evolve a soul? because bacterias dont have a soul. that would imply that a soul magically evolved, and that somewhere in between bacteria and humans, other species have “partial souls”. the whole thing is ludicrous. if you even think about it for any amount of time, its pretty clear that the soul is non-existent and an imaginary construct.

You actually answered your own question a bit. We gained our souls through his, like in genesis after the dust was formed we got our spirits. Replace the word “dust” with “bacteria”. This question of yours can be examplified by any man made technology or material. Look at computers, it works when there is energy or electircity in it. Most of it’s components are and originate as mere metal, does the metal or the materials involved automatically come with the electricity to power it on? No. It is infused and a source is used to allow the metal and the components to function. Even science itself shows that it is factual that things can only work through energy. If the metal and components were just built yet not given energy, it just remains as an object.

Saying god did it is not a scientific model and it is just hand waving. Just like how the sheep herders back in the day saw lightning and thought, “oh god did it”. that explanation sufficed for them. sure that explanation might have made sense back then with their limited understanding, but luckily curious minds dug deeper and gained a better understanding of the how/why of lightning. creationism is much the same way.

Like what i said before, the “God did it” is based off observable facts that we have it’s not because we are facing a something and giving it an answer out of the blue. We just don’t have anything to erase that language, order and mechanisms can just be here with out a mind is factual. And if there is, then show me other methods. Those people during that time didn’t have examples or observances to give their conclusion that god is currently throwing bolts, therefore their level understanding should be given the same treatment of level in both ways. In terms of creationism, that logic just doesn’t fit due to the fact of examples and observances.

if we did not evolve but all magically appeared in place by some powerful being, there would be plenty of evidence of it, and as a result, scientists would be able to study the mechanisms for how this powerful alien accomplished these feats. in the case of a painting yes, you could conclude someone painted it, and you would be able to do research and figure out who painted it and how. creationism just says “god does it” and stops at that. its not science. it does not advance knowledge or understanding of the world but instead retards it. young earth creationists argue that the earth is not billions of years old. ok fine, propose a new way of dating how old the earth is, and provide evidence and a rigorous scientific model to defend it. they don’t. all they do is try (unsuccessfully) to invalidate the age of the earth, while not providing an actual alternative theory other than “herp derp god is magical!” that’s not science. if we settled for “herp derp god is magical” we’d still be living in caves.

So then what would be the more logical thing to think? That we were made by a greater mind and then evolved to meet and survive the changes in our enviornment or we just appeared just like that and given the capabilities to progress and change to meet our environments, all from accident?

Next, you can’t use the term “magically appeared” and then apply that to creationism because Creationism doesn’t believe we “magically appeared” we believed we intentionally appeared… “intentionally” contradicts “magically” because magically implies randomness just happened… and which side is arguing against the “intentionally appeared” side? Since scientists are able to study the mechanism shows evidence of an agent because suprisingly, the mechanism is readable and it’s because of that Newton and Galileo knew there has to be a God because how else can a mechanism be that accessible if there was no language, and how else does language produce with out a mind?

And no, you cannot disprove a negative. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Just because its most likely santa is imaginary does not mean he is. He could have a highly advanced cloaking field that evades all attempts at human detection. And so on and so forth.

The geocentric theory was disproved to be a negative, the flat earth theory was proven to be a negative… what more should i reference?

[angelpalm]

No, it’s nonsense, period. This isn’t subjective.

That’s not me saying religious rituals that do no harm are a bad thing. It’s me saying that when you teach a kid something you claim as fact, but is backed by nothing, you’re warping that kid.

Agreed, on top of that teaching your children that anyone who doesn’t believe the exact same proofless myth deserves eternity being tortured is a level of bigotry that the KKK can’t even reach.

But everyone in the KKK ARE Christians…

[StarvinMarvin]

Can any of you non believers adaquatly answer this non believers question… what will satisfy the need for spirituality and hope if religion was completely killed off.

I kinda cosign on fishjie’s response to you. I think Spirituality and Religion are of two different things, or attitudes if you will. I always found Religion with out spirituality to be just a bad form of politics.

[Pertho]

Spirituality is a crap word. Oh look, I’m gonna faith but no religion? So what do you believe? I dunno, I just choose to be mentally aloof.

If you’re gonna believe in something, actually believe in something. Trying to put together a bunch of shit out of thin air and call it spiritually actually makes you fucking retarded compared to religious people.

[p.m_novaroad_pilot]

I came here for nothing but to see the record amount of lols in these posts
srk you dont disappoint

[r00ster22]

TIL I am mentally aloof.

[specs]

A guy who is currently employed in a role where he has to think critically and be mindful of evidence – and who desired to be something else with similar prerequisites – is touting what many a shithole website has: that there’s biblical “evidence” of modern science in an ancient text written by desert-dwelling farmers who used mythology to explain what was then unexplainable.

This should be cause for reflection, because if he can be a lawyer or a scientist, this planet is in a whole heap of trouble.

In the single post I read of his, he didn’t say anything horribly wrong. Right now science hasn’t answered the question of what created the big bang so he is right in saying any theory is as good as the other because the fact is we don’t know and we aren’t really close to knowing at the moment. The belief everything came about on its own is as good as something put it there. Till the day science figures that one out or at least makes advances toward figuring that out, any theory is as good as the next.

This is “God of the Gaps” fallacy and has been mentioned already.

In short: no, not every theory is as good as any other. A sound theory has a basis in observation, hypothesis, and experimentation.

[angelpalm]

Spirituality is a crap word. Oh look, I’m gonna faith but no religion? So what do you believe? I dunno, I just choose to be mentally aloof.

If you’re gonna believe in something, actually believe in something. Trying to put together a bunch of shit out of thin air and call it spiritually actually makes you fucking retarded compared to religious people.

I don’t think you know what spirituality means bro. Which is understandable since it has undergone change from it’s original meaning. Too put it simply too me as a martial artist, being a spiritual person has to do more with cultivating ones self and discipline than it does with any religion. Less focus on the external and materialistic and more on your own internal functions and how you affect the world around you. Probably why they say that religion is for people afraid of hell and spirituality is for those that have already been there.

[p.m_novaroad_pilot]

Creationism vs science = stick vs pad?

[StarvinMarvin]

How does that take away from the gross inaccuracies, deletions and mistranslations? The fact that you have to cite an early theologian to explain a " common misunderstanding" to a fundamental story taken literally by most christians, (who believe in the direct chronological order listed in Genesis KJV) only further muddies the claim of its relevancy.

How so? i think the fact the citing of theologians to explain the misunderstanding shows the complexity in dealing with these text. That’s how scholars do it when investigating writings of certain periods, you need to take note of translations, teminologies, cultural standpoints and all that when try to get a message of an ancient text.

Your problem shouldn’t be with atheism, but the argument form, ergo, logic itself. The burden of proof always rest on the one making the claim, and evidence needs to be shown to validate said claim. It doesn’t matter if the crux of the argument is the existence of god, Sasquatch, plate tectonics, or Atlantis.

And saying that or suggesting that we just got it here is not a claim? Is saying God doesn’t exist and it’s scientifically right not a claim If you are trying to engage in intellectual reason, everyone is required to present their evidence. In fact, if you feel you don’t need to present at the least try to show an example to show that we are possibly wrong. You guys gloat out about how Science shows this yet when asked for it, suddenly it’s not a requirement to show? If someone comes to me and claims that Santa Claus exists, even if he is making that claim, i am still at duty to prove him wrong.

[Tanner]

the need for religion is a need that’s been around since before Mesopotamia. The administration was diffrent…

I choose my beliefs, my parents would take to church, but I never liked it, I just went. I made the choice, I went through some typical atheist dip shit phase and hated it on some 1st grade logical fallacies. I grew up, looked at it like an adult, saw the role religion plays, and made my peace with it.

Please name a SINGLE logical fallacy about atheism.

and here is the typical response. the love for friends and family. You still haven’t answered my question. things get better, what about those who have it bad, suffer, and die alone. What consolation do they have. You are only thinking about your relative perspective. what happens when I die? Is that it? all that struggling I did, all the things I did right, yet I still struggled and suffered everyday. for what? What do I gain from all of that. Seriously
buddhisim is still a philosophy in which one lives their life. Christianity, Kwansa ass fools, Muslims, insert religion x here all are supposed to do that. buddhism provides the same relief other religions provide without the origin story.

The more you “athiests” speak out, the more obvious you are on the anti-chirstian hate mongoring bandwagon that believe it’s Christianityies fault the dark ages happened and was responsible for setting humanity back 1000 years. LOL

And people still killed in the name of Buddhism, so your point is invalid.

I find it fucking ABSURD that a Christian, whose core belief is that people who don’t agree with them get TORTURED FOR ETERNITY would dare call any other group “hate mongers”.

[pedoviejo]

the need for religion is a need that’s been around since before Mesopotamia. The administration was diffrent…

I choose my beliefs, my parents would take to church, but I never liked it, I just went. I made the choice, I went through some typical atheist dip shit phase and hated it on some 1st grade logical fallacies. I grew up, looked at it like an adult, saw the role religion plays, and made my peace with it.

Please name a SINGLE logical fallacy about atheism.

and here is the typical response. the love for friends and family. You still haven’t answered my question. things get better, what about those who have it bad, suffer, and die alone. What consolation do they have. You are only thinking about your relative perspective. what happens when I die? Is that it? all that struggling I did, all the things I did right, yet I still struggled and suffered everyday. for what? What do I gain from all of that. Seriously
buddhisim is still a philosophy in which one lives their life. Christianity, Kwansa ass fools, Muslims, insert religion x here all are supposed to do that. buddhism provides the same relief other religions provide without the origin story.

The more you “athiests” speak out, the more obvious you are on the anti-chirstian hate mongoring bandwagon that believe it’s Christianityies fault the dark ages happened and was responsible for setting humanity back 1000 years. LOL

And people still killed in the name of Buddhism, so your point is invalid.

I find it fucking ABSURD that a Christian, whose core belief is that people who don’t agree with them get TORTURED FOR ETERNITY would dare call any other group “hate mongers”.

when they claim a god cannot exist or god doesn’t exist. You can’t prove that until you remove yourself from our observable experience into something higher. You especially cannot use logic against something that by default is claimed to be above everything. Do I agree with it? No, but it’s pointless to use logic to disprove something that from the very beginning claims existed before there was anything. You can’t apply rules to something that supposedly can create the rules it wants.

oh and read those txtbook meme’s which are pushed by supposed atheists, and they just so happen to attack one single religion…obviously not all athiest’s push this shit and don’t carry themselves like that, but a large majority i’ve met do.

Look I’m not arguing christian morals or not, I’m not one, and I don’t believe in a god nor do I believe one cannot exist. But it doesn’t matter what the christian does, you can’t commit the same bullshit they do. Be better than them, otherwise you or anybody else scoop to the same level a lot of these stupid christians are.

[Kromo]

I don’t know how much more proof you need. It says right there "The world is mine"
This isn’t some secret, esoteric message written by an inbred desert cave dweller on some stretched sheep guts. This is GOD, speaking DIRECTLY TO YOU.

Glory unto Miku!