I like to call him the sky wizard.

So, I'm liek 'I DUN BELIEVE IN A SKY WIZARD' and he's like 'CRUCIO' and I like hurt forever because his crucio's so tuff it lasts forever and then he apparates me into a cage and stops me from dying and im cruciod forever .

And the guy next to me's like 'I BELIEVE IN A SKY WIZARD' and he's like 'GOOD!' and gives him free stuff and wen he dies he gets resurrected and taken to a whorehouse in the sky. NO FAIR!

In this world, that's the central message of Christians.

Like all topics on atheism, the story goes into atheism versus Christianity, Bible-thumpers versus modernites, people who watch Fox News versus people who own iPhones, etc.

The main point of the story is if someone does not hurt you do not hurt them, and believe what you want to believe so long as you don't use it as an excuse to hurt somebody.

That's what most religions state, and it's what's most alternative moral systems preach, and I think we're doing ourselves a massive disservice by fighting over this kind of idiocy. Also, the Bible is an important historic and literary document and without a doubt the most influential book ever released. Even if it's contents have no interest to you faith-wise it's still an extremely potent and powerful document.

Also, you expect more of me? You say YOU decided on your lack of faith! So, did she "convince you" with her words? No, you simply were exposed to a new idea, one of the great wonders of our world, and you accepted it of your own will! This is shining brilliance of freedom.

I am an Atheist because math and science is real.

Religion believes the same thing too. Wait, what kind of person thinks math or science isn't real?

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Mar 10 2008, 1:49 pm by JordanN.

I woulnd'nt have a problem with them if that's what the bible actually taught. The funny thing is you are actually closer at attributing that philosophy to the church of satan. The bible says You're either with us, or agaisnt us.

I think the major flaw with Religion vs. Science is simply that the Science side of the argument uses the bible against Religion and when the Religion side tries to use it, science dubs it as invalid scientific information (from my experience anyway).

Now I'm about to get philosophical. Neither side can win. Because you're comparing two things from two entirely different genres. It is like saying that chocolate ice cream is better than blue plastic chairs.
Religion, as I have come to understand it as is belief in something higher than oneself.
Science, as I have come to understand it as is an explanation on how the world works according to our five senses.
Now religion states that there is something beyond our five senses, and science says that is logically impossible because if we can't test it than it isn't valid. Well how can you test something that can't be detected using the five senses?
Think of it this way, if our whole race was blind. Would color exist?

Religion is a method of trying to explain things through belief in a higher being (or something else).
Science is a method of trying to explain things through experimentation. They're perfectly compatible.

I am a Christian Scientist.









Not really. I'm an aethiest.

IMPOSSIBILITY ALERT

As if a "Christian Scientist" were the only "impossibility". It's rather disappointing that Atheism debates seem to turn into Christian-bashing. The Bible is not the only religious book with contradictions among itself.

Post has been edited 2 time(s), last time on Mar 11 2008, 4:41 pm by Mini Moose 2707.

The Torah, Quaran, book of Ganesh, Gospel of the flying spaghetti monster etc.

The bible is the most prominent and filled with the most nonsense. Plus, it has no 1337 monsters.

Thats a scientifically invalid statement that it is full of contradictions actually.
Several mistranslations from greek and hebrew to english and misunderstanding of figures of speech used in those times have led people to believe in many things that aren't actually said by the bible. Now if you get an original unstranslated version of the bible, and become a master of the customs, language, and figures of speech back then. Than I'll believe you when you say it is full of contradictions.

damn it double posted for some reason... You can delete this if you want.

That''s your opinion, not fact.

I am, it is.

You have no proof mr. smart ass

So you're saying it's not your fault because you copied it wrong?
So you're saying that the original bible didn't have any of these contradictions?

How are you so sure your spaghetti monster was so perfect orginally, and that translation is entirely to blame?

Lolsarcasm?

Looks like I need to start including the tags...

How are you sure he's wrong? Mistranslations in the bible are all over the place, and most people's bibles don't have anything to point it out.

The other problem is that people are taking it literally, such as the passage in Genesis where it says to marry your brother's wife if he dies, nowadays, that really should be interpreted as care for your brother's wife, if he dies, but back then, marryiage was the best way to care for them.