K4t wrote: » Without simply choosing the bits which both people of faith and those not of faith would agree on was my point. You're so predictable. You simply want to win, like this all a big game to you.
RobertKK wrote: » No, but if you want to make that accusation, it could also apply to you. There are no winners, just opinions which no one will care about or simply don't care about as it is.
K4t wrote: » Not when many people's opinions come directly from a book written thousands of years ago which teaches some pretty inhumane beliefs. People are always going to take the bad stuff (as well as the good stuff) literally. And therein lies the problem. The good stuff can exist without religion. It does. Anyway, you've moved the argument on from my original point which still stands, which is that scientists of faith give religious extremists (who would take even the bad stuff written in the bible or the koran as being correct) intellectual cover; that it's fine to believe in science and rationality as well as faith (even the faith which teaches bad things if that is the faith you want to adhere by).
RobertKK wrote: » I take 'thou shalt not kill' literally, should our laws change so they don't copy the bible.
seamus wrote: » That's not what he said. He simply said that laws should not exist simply because some religious book says they should.
Anyone who takes what is said in the Bible or the Koran literally, and furthermore attempts to influence law or public policy based on either, is stupid
RobertKK wrote: » I disagree.
K4t wrote: » Not just the good bits. You forget my edit which I thought would have been implied. Which is my whole point really, an educated scientist can differentiate between the good and the bad of the bible and so he appears as enlightened, but he gives cover and perpetuates the opportunity for the uneducated and the unenlightened to take literally the bad. And they are the dangerous ones as they DO attempt to garner followers and influence policy.
RobertKK wrote: » Well my post was before/during your edit and that is what was being replied to. The problems arise from society far more than from any book.
K4t wrote: » Religion doesn't help. It never has. All the good parts humanity would already know, and all the bad parts (of which there are many), have caused pain and misery for millions for years. And continues to do so. Thankfully more people think like me than yourself and hopefully soon you will be free to hold your beliefs in a minority.
Bobking wrote: » Are you saying holy books should be used to make laws for society? Which ones? Your religion or mine? You're conversing with a troll, I'm sure enough, not even gonna taste the bait.
RobertKK wrote: » No, I am saying things are in law that are in the bible. It was said having things from the bible or Koran in law was stupid, but there are things in holy books that most people would agree with, like the thou shalt not kill. But no one wants to live in a theocracy, but also a lot don't want to live in a society where their beliefs or lack of are ignored.
Dan_Solo wrote: » This seems a common problem. Some people can't even comprehend that other people don't believe their god exists. Or answering a hypothetical question means that you are saying you agree the hypothetical is a known fact.
floggg wrote: » To me, understanding how there is an omnipresent omnipotent God who allows bad things to happen is way more baffling than the idea that bad things happen because of natural forces and/or human nature.
Defender OF Faith wrote: » Why do you try and bother to understand when you dont even believe in a Creator and a God to begin with?
RobertKK wrote: » Hmmm, basic mathematics would show a problem within your minority talk.
floggg wrote: » Religion isn't needed for us to offer for great evil to each other unfortunately. Man has always been, and likely will be prone to evil. The problem with religion is that it cam legitimise and validate evil impulses, and provide us with justification for giving in to them. That's not exclusive to religion mind, and various other concepts and ideologies have had the same effect in the past - including patriotism, politics ethnicity etc. Religion cam however he the most dangerous, simply because it adds a false veneer of morality and virtue to evil acts.
floggg wrote: » Because unlike some, I don't just accept whatever beliefs I am told to or was raised with. I was raised in a Catholic household, but came to my conclusions regarding the non-existence of any gods based on consideration of all relevant evidence, arguments and sources. I would be a fool to make up my mind before considering all the arguments, now wouldn't I.
Donkey Oaty wrote: » Where do you stand on the existence of Elves? I don't mean djinns - I am specifically referring to Icelandic Elves.
Defender OF Faith wrote: » As this argument is not even a refutation or a contention with regard to God existence but rather it questions the nature of God, and a question regarding a Nature of God when you dont even believe in a God does not make sense to me.
Maximus Alexander wrote: » It's absolutely a refutation of God. If a God is omnipotent and loving, but the world is full of suffering, then that God can't exist.
saywhatyousee wrote: » That's the new testament god t he old testament one was a bit more hardcore
