Assume Nothing

... until we establish what you're looking for in a relationship, there is very little to suggest. It applies for both Nox and TTanT, actually.

EDIT - what does that mean, all of it's a literal truth but there are certain parts that were meant to be left out? I don't understand why you'd cherry-pick values in the book.

It depends how you want to see it, but if we interpret my original remark as 'religion operates as a tool for causing ignorance', I'm not entirely wrong (if at all). I'll agree that I left the original remark ambiguous, which is why the two-page discussion of drivel spawned. I can't say too much for moderate theism, because theists are reluctant to tell me what they do interpret from the bible as a literal truth. Until someone presents me that, I'll operate on what fundamentalists (despite its minority status) view.

The evidence is showing us the carcinogen. It's still evidence, just not in a conventional sense of laboratory tests or statistical surveys which is what 'evidence' usually implies. I don't understand the point of this discussion though, please elaborate.

Banned for failing to be an Imgurian. ^ that's a nope. Oh, and there's a lot of nope-spiders too, but that's a little beyond PG13

If you can show a carcinogen in the chemical composition of H2O or its contaminants that somehow reaches the lungs, then I'd be inclined to believe you - because it's already well-established that carcinogens are causal agents of cancerous cells. It doesn't require 'statistics' as such, it merely requires an observation (which is another form of evidence, fyi). I'm not sure whether it's the fact that religious scripture attacks science than religious persons attacking science for its inconsistency with religious claims, despite an abundance of empirical evidence (obviously in reference to scientists, not myself). It's difficult to assign blame, but if religious bodies operate as a tool, then it's still fair to say religion is at fault. I don't see how it's so difficult to grasp that religions often do 'propagate ignorance' though. Could you agree that it spreads misinformation pretty frequently (including fundamentalistic views, regardless of whether it's a minority view).

Banned for noping a non-nope. (if you understand the reference, good for you)

Fast drying lenses irritating your eyes. Pics of both your lenses, and your eyes - at the same time.

As they say on the internet, pics or it didn't happen.

I fail to see how it's enjoyable to eat over a grilled cheese. ... personally, I prefer my cheese(s) grated or thinly sliced between two pieces of lightly buttered bread. Then it shall be heated on a low-heat skillet for several minutes on each side to achieve an optimal crispness/meltiness. In order to achieve maximum gratification - thin slices of smokey, dry-cured Italian hams may be used to complement the flavour/textures. Dat is my fetish (what).

It's less a 'must' from scripture, rather - it's the likelihood of these things happening because of the acceptance of biblical scripture. I'm sure there are some verses which actually does suggest oppression of science/education, but it'll be too time-consuming to be worthwhile. Science/education, particularly things like evolution, is likely to be oppressed because it contradicts with the biblical claims of creationism. Religiously inspired social pressure, and censorship is derived from organizations which have a motive to prevent others accepting a different viewpoint. We should be able to agree that the bible doesn't allow for much disagreement. There's even verses on the consequences of 'blasphemy'. I am writing this hastily, so I'll submit some corrections later. Until you find those statements, please don't make the claims. You are going back to the 'I can make claims without proof' thing again. Blasphemy against God is the one "unforgivable sin." The reason why? The point at which you denounce God, you no longer believe, and therefore you can not be forgiven be a God that you do not believe in. Believing in Evolution is not blasphemy as much as it is lacking faith in the Bible. It isn't like we aren't force-fed all of the Evolution shit in elementary biology anyway. And as for the Bible oppressing science, yes. It does. It oppresses dark magic and alchemy which were considered sciences thousands of years ago. The theory of Evolution had not even surfaced as a mainstream belief at the time that the Bible was composed. So before you tell me what is in the Bible, please read the book for yourself. I don't follow; which statements are you referring to, and why shouldn't I make those claims (whatever they may be)? If you're referring to what you've bolded, I'll make the remark so long as it's phrased in a way that I clearly suggest that it's a vague memory - not a fact I could easily verify. 'I can make claims without [statistical] evidence' is indeed correct, because statistical forms of evidence is unnecessary in this context. If the claim is 'x causes y', all that's needed is identification of causal agents. I refer to oppression of science in the context of modern day science, so I'm not sure why you should be referring to 'dark magic' or whatever your religion sees science as. I'm not sure on the comments on blasphemy though, I don't follow its relevance until you clarify.

It's less a 'must' from scripture, rather - it's the likelihood of these things happening because of the acceptance of biblical scripture. I'm sure there are some verses which actually does suggest oppression of science/education, but it'll be too time-consuming to be worthwhile. Science/education, particularly things like evolution, is likely to be oppressed because it contradicts with the biblical claims of creationism. Religiously inspired social pressure, and censorship is derived from organizations which have a motive to prevent others accepting a different viewpoint. We should be able to agree that the bible doesn't allow for much disagreement. There's even verses on the consequences of 'blasphemy'. I am writing this hastily, so I'll submit some corrections later.

I'm sure that a Christian minority living in an atheist majority would feel the exact same pressures. Probably. But the point I was getting at is that it's not the religion he dislikes; he dislikes the people who follow the religion. There's a significant difference in my opinion. @Rob Which is kind of exact opposite of those who follow religion. Wait, what's the exact opposite of those who follow religion? I don't have any religious friends that dislike atheists. They may dislike atheism as an ideology (or lack thereof), but never a person because of their beliefs. It's not an ideology by definition, and I fail to see how atheism could be hated for not being an ideology. It's misunderstood, atheism isn't anti-theism - it's just that many vocal atheists are anti-theists.

I'm sure that a Christian minority living in an atheist majority would feel the exact same pressures. Irreligion doesn't impose anything as it's not an ideology. It's as simple as that.

Slippery slope fallacy, but nope.

Oppression of information - science, education, active censorship, exerting social pressure to prevent others from learning to disagree, etc. It's not hard to imagine really.

There's nothing in atheism to cause stupidity, hence his claim is - ironically, a stupid one.

It depends what you classify as evidence. I did put as a clause that even without evidence, there needs to be argument presented. I'm sick of your deliberate misinterpretations of what I write though, it's a waste of time speaking to you.

I don't follow - why? What they feel/believe to be != what is. You're only encouraging biased viewpoints being imparted here.

Identify something in atheism which does. Remember: atheism entails only a disbelief in deities. If you can't do that, your claim is unfounded and quite frankly an unjustified attack on my position.

You're omitting the clause beyond that, and you're missing the point here. It depends on the claim though - if we're saying 'x' causes 'y', all we need to verify it would be the identification of a causal agent.

How so?

If we replace 'songs' with 'women'...

prop·a·gate verb /ˈpräpəˌgāt/  propagated, past participle; propagated, past tense; propagates, 3rd person singular present; propagating, present participle Breed specimens of (a plant, animal, etc.) by natural processes from the parent stock - try propagating your own houseplants from cuttings (of a plant, animal, etc.) Reproduce in such a way - the plant propagates freely from stem cuttings Cause (something) to increase in number or amount - operational error includes those errors propagated during the digitizing process Spread and promote (an idea, theory, knowledge, etc.) widely - the French propagated the idea that the English were violent and gluttonous drunkards Transmit (motion, light, sound, etc.) in a particular direction or through a medium - electromagnetic effects can be propagated at a finite velocity only through material substances - a propagated electrical signal (of motion, light, sound, etc.) Be transmitted or travel in such a way - a hydraulic fracture is generally expected to propagate in a vertical plane 'Religion propagates ignorance', for that is to say, 'Religion causes an increase in ignorance' If we can identify something in religion that can cause an increase of ignorance, then we have verified that religion propagate ignorance. If we can verify that in the past, it does - then we have verified that religion does propagate ignorance. Religious bodies, specifically those of Christianity, has a tendency of preventing educators from teaching various subjects based on its belief system. In many instances, it rejects fully verified scientific claims simply because it contradicts their own teachings. I could provide an exhaustive list, but it would be of no purpose. It's quite evident that religion serves as a tool, or platform for propagating ignorance. I don't see where my claim would be 'outrageous', for sure. I fail to see how it's necessary to examine it in areas. As for your 'no, just no' statements, I'll just ignore that since it has no substance to speak of. EDIT - 'it's downright laughable' - that's actually rather irrelevant, you might want to delete that before you get accused of appealing to ridicule.

I didn't say an entire community was made ignorant - that's a straw man argument from poor interpretation by yourself. I'm saying religion allows for, and continues to cause ignorance by omission/rejection of many scientific/educational things.