Login or register
Login or register
Stay logged in
Log in/Sign up using Facebook.
Log in/Sign up using Gmail/Google+.
CREATE A NEW ACCOUNT
Email is optional and is used for password recovery purposes.
Disable ads temporarily
Remaining character count: 4000
[ + ]
Image or Video File:
Shortcuts: "C" opens comments. "R" refreshes comments.
Record voice message?
Click to start recording.
Enter Captcha Code:
Scroll to comment?
Back to the content 'Atheism'
**User deleted account**
What an awesome kid, thinking for himself and whatnot. this proves that it's ******** when people say stuff like "Well of course I follow so-and-so religion, I
grew up with it
." I don't know why, but that really pisses me off
discussions about God are known to last for centuries so a 5 year old boy (who has years to fully develop his mind) rejecting the belief that God exists after just 2 hours isnt really what i would call being "awesome" and "thinking for himself", especially since the parent could have easily been uneducated in the field of theism or religion, or could have explained everything in an ignorant way
also, im pretty sure that understanding and following a religion better as a result of growing up with it
Well... She failed to provide evidence... There may be plenty, but she didn't show any. So he didn't believe her. A logical-ish train of thought.
Telling him all about science without providing evidence would likely gain the same result.
(-ish because it doesn't mention him asking for evidence.)
I doubt he'd say "stupidest thing ever" if she would care to explain scientifically how we were created, not that a man with a beard created us.
His point is that it doesn't take a genius to realize how much of a waste of time religion is. As a 5 year old, he has no biases.
i dont know what part of his comment suggests that religion is a waste of time, but i can speak out for more than half the world's population when i say that religion isnt a waste of time
my point was that as he is a 5 year old, his mind is still developing and isnt really a valid example to be used to back up
philosophical mindset never mind one as complicated and frequently debated as a religious one
Religion is based off of faith, faith is the endorsement of ignorance and belief without evidence.. If you view that as not detrimental to modern society I'm not going to argue with you.
if your definition of faith puts an emphasis on "ignorance" and "belief without evidence" then its hardly surprising that youre convinced religion is detrimental to modern society
having faith can have many benefits in life, regardless of whether its influenced by religion or not. if youre against
for promoting beliefs which you dont agree with then i dont really think its faith that you should be trying to demote
I'm not giving you an opinionated idea of faith, this is what faith is. Faith is at it's core is caring to believe in something without evidence. I am not convinced that Religion is detrimental to society, I know it is.
46% of Americans perceive the bible to be true, coming from "God". There is no evidence to support anything that came from the bible as fact. Other than the writers, etc. So anything from the bible that isn't also in a history book (mostly nothing) is therefore believed to be true by that 46% by faith. That is irrefutable. This type of belief in something is toxic, and in fact like I said before, detrimental to society.
Faith has no context outside of religion, so it can only be a subsidy of it. So you can't say "by religion or not." Because faith has no weight outside of religion.
Saying I have faith that my favorite team will win this game, is different from saying; I have faith that God loves me or that Adam & Eve were real people.
And I am not against religion because It promotes what I disagree with. I agree with science, and evidence. Neither of which agrees with Religion along with faith.
>I'm not giving you an opinionated idea of faith, this is what faith is.
or alternatively, faith is having complete trust or confidence in someone or something
evidence is acquired. it can be used as motivation to work towards gaining scientific evidence and developing further scientific understanding of the universe
>I am not convinced that Religion is detrimental to society, I know it is.
nice try, but ending a sentence with "I know it is" doesnt make it any less of an opinion than it is. there are plenty of people (including myself) who
that religion as a whole isnt detrimental to society
type of belief in something is toxic, and in fact like I said before, detrimental to society.
nice try again, this time using the word "fact" in an attempt to sound like you have the irrefutably correct understanding of faith. if you examine closely, you'll realise that you arent referring to faith in general (like you claim to be doing) but instead, referring to the Christian faith and using that as a representation of "faith" in general.
>Faith has no context outside of religion ...faith has no weight outside of religion.
right, because if i had faith that my vet could save my dog's life then that is directly/indirectly linked in with religion
>Saying I have faith that my favorite team will win this game,
is different from saying
; I have faith that God loves me or that Adam & Eve were real people.
oh, wait. are you now saying that a type of faith can exist outside of religion?
>I am not against religion because It promotes what I disagree with
1/10, poor attempt in trying to sound like you take an unbiased perspective of religion
>I agree with science, and evidence. Neither of which agrees with Religion along with faith.
because if i started a religion which puts an emphasis in understanding how God works through the natural sciences, then it is automatically incompatible with science because it uses science
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Remember that. It's something people like you need to remember.
I'm not going to waste my time giving rebuttals to your badly formed responses. And I see you didn't create an answer for the "46%" part of my argument. You must have realized there was no arguing that point, even though you are trying to defend Religion you realized how embarrassing that statistic is.
I will however respond to your last point, because it is too ridiculous to not give attention
>because if i started a religion which puts an emphasis in understanding how God works through the natural sciences, then it is automatically incompatible with science because it uses science
You would never be able to start a religion doing so, for the reason that no science that has ever been done, ever, has produced evidence for God, or that the universe needs one at all.
Explain to me why Religion does not need extraordinary evidence for the extraordinary claims that it holds, like I said earlier. Tell me why friend. Tell me why they are allowed to claim something that no one could possibly know. Then once they are done doing so, their beliefs are held above scrutiny. And if someone comes along and challenges those views (Which deserve challenging because they hold zero weight and evidence.) they are immediately bombarded with people like yourself that think Religion deserves a free pass at the modern table of ideas.
I want to let you know that it does not have a free pass. Nothing does.
We are on this Earth for maybe a little less than a century if we are lucky. Maybe not if we were born in sub-Saharan Africa and starving everyday, but nonetheless we are here. (But hey God loves us, so starve on in his name!) To truly believe in a God of the scriptures is sadomasochism.
**Nothing is above scrutiny.
I've tried my best to show you how misguided you are.
my two quotes that were in bold at the beginning and end here.
Back to the content 'Atheism'