Is there a God?

[Assume Nothing]

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

[obfuscator]

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 made a clear argument - I suppose you missed it. My argument is that atheism causes people to be stupid. I've bolded the argument part. I freely admit that I've presented no evidence in that direction, but as per my understanding of your post (and croc's) this was not necessary.

[Vezon Dash]

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

 

What part of Christianity causes ignorance? I'd like to know.

[Assume Nothing]

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.

[Vezon Dash]

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.

 

I would like specific examples.

[Guest Rob]

Could you show us the paragraph in the bible that says information must be censored, science/education must be oppressed and social pressure must be exerted on others?

[Vezon Dash]

Could you show us the paragraph in the bible that says information must be censored, science/education must be oppressed and social pressure must be exerted on others?

 

I'm sure that a Christian minority living in an atheist majority would feel the exact same pressures.

[Guest Rob]

Could you show us the paragraph in the bible that says information must be censored, science/education must be oppressed and social pressure must be exerted on others?

 

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.

[Vezon Dash]

Could you show us the paragraph in the bible that says information must be censored, science/education must be oppressed and social pressure must be exerted on others?

 

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.

 

@Assume Nothing

 

If this is the case, why do you have so much hate for people who follow religion?

[Assume Nothing]

Could you show us the paragraph in the bible that says information must be censored, science/education must be oppressed and social pressure must be exerted on others?

 

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.

[Vezon Dash]

There is still the ugly duckling factor. The odd man out always feel pressure.

[Guest Rob]

Could you show us the paragraph in the bible that says information must be censored, science/education must be oppressed and social pressure must be exerted on others?

 

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?

[Vezon Dash]

Could you show us the paragraph in the bible that says information must be censored, science/education must be oppressed and social pressure must be exerted on others?

 

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.

[Guest Rob]

Could you show us the paragraph in the bible that says information must be censored, science/education must be oppressed and social pressure must be exerted on others?

 

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.

 

Oh, okay. I wasn't saying that I personally dislike those who are religious, just in case it seemed like I was saying that.

[Assume Nothing]

Could you show us the paragraph in the bible that says information must be censored, science/education must be oppressed and social pressure must be exerted on others?

 

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.

[Vezon Dash]

Could you show us the paragraph in the bible that says information must be censored, science/education must be oppressed and social pressure must be exerted on others?

 

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.

 

Oh, okay. I wasn't saying that I personally dislike those who are religious, just in case it seemed like I was saying that.

 

No. I didn't mean that one bit. I was more referring to Assume.

[Assume Nothing]

Could you show us the paragraph in the bible that says information must be censored, science/education must be oppressed and social pressure must be exerted on others?

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.

[Vezon Dash]

Could you show us the paragraph in the bible that says information must be censored, science/education must be oppressed and social pressure must be exerted on others?

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.

[Assume Nothing]

Could you show us the paragraph in the bible that says information must be censored, science/education must be oppressed and social pressure must be exerted on others?

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.

[Vezon Dash]

There is nothing in the Bible that attacks modern day science because it was written in the past. As for the magic part of my statement, I was giving an example of the kinds of 'sciences' that they Bible preaches against.

 

 

I still don't see how you can say 'x causes y' is solid and 100% factual without evidence.

 

 

Drinking water (x) causes lung cancer (y). Obviously since I said that 'x causes y' it must be true.

[Assume Nothing]

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).

[Vezon Dash]

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

 

But I don't need proof.

[Assume Nothing]

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.

[Vezon Dash]

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.

If you were to say that religious people attack theoretical science, then yes, I will agree. It isn't religion's fault as much as it is the individual's 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).

 

The only times that I have ever seen science (Evolution in my instance) and Biblical creation talked about in depth at church was by a practicing scientist. So, as far as misinformation goes, there hasn't been much where I come from. However, I do believe that this is not the case in many situations. Misinformed leaders will undoubtedly spread misinformation solely on the fact that people will believe them.

 

This is why I am selective with where I practice my religious activities. If there are unknowledgable people teaching/preaching/practicing, count me out.

[Assume Nothing]

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.