Official Religious Debate Thread

[excruciator]

Even after you justify your evidence, you would still need to believe jimmy did it to "incriminate" him.

Even if I don't believe Jimmy did it, the evidence will present a different story. Since we were entrusting the evidence, my beliefs matters little.

You require just as much faith as most religious people.

Science is mutable. You could say that my faith is constantly changing.
In other words, I am not faithful.

[Smegma]

Science is mutable. You could say that my faith is constantly changing.
In other words, I am not faithful.

Sure, the products of science are mutable, but not the foundations. Religions evolve over time as well.

Even if I don't believe Jimmy did it, the evidence will present a different story. Since we were entrusting the evidence, my beliefs matters little.

But now you are changing the whole analogy. Also, in order to convict jimmy, you must believe he did it, assuming a conviction requires the knowledge that he did it.

[excruciator]

Sure, the products of science are mutable, but not the foundations. Religions evolve over time as well.

True. The definition of science has never changed. But you know what, something has to remain static otherwise it would become something else.

It would also depend on your definition for the foundation of science. I'd say that the foundation for science is the preexisting knowledge. And those are mutable.

But now you are changing the whole analogy. Also, in order to convict jimmy, you must believe he did it, assuming a conviction requires the knowledge that he did it.

The deciding factor in this is not me, is the evidence. Me believing in evidence = entrusting in evidence.

[Smegma]

True. The definition of science has never changed. But you know what, something has to remain static otherwise it would become something else.

It would also depend on your definition for the foundation of science. I'd say that the foundation for science is the preexisting knowledge. And those are mutable.

No the foundations of science are dogmatic principles of certain philosophies. These require faith.

The deciding factor in this is not me, is the evidence. Me believing in evidence = entrusting in evidence.

Belief, entrust, label it however you want, it is still the same thing. The deciding factor is you, as you put faith in not only the evidence, but all that  is required in order to justify that evidence.

[excruciator]

No the foundations of science are dogmatic principles of certain philosophies. These require faith.

We all have our own opinion on things.

but all that is required in order to justify that evidence.

That happens only after the evidence has incriminated the suspect.

[Smegma]

That happens only after the evidence has incriminated the suspect.

Yet it still occurs.

We all have our own opinion on things.

You mean beliefs, yet this doesn't make them any less true. Attacking my claim with no support doesn't do much of anything at all.

[excruciator]

That happens only after the evidence has incriminated the suspect.

The occurrence after the decision has been made would not affect the outcome. Since I rely on the evidence to make the decisions for me.

I can have an opinion on the Iraqi War, it does not mean I've changed it, therefore it does not mean that my beliefs matter.

But in this case I am indeed empowered to change the decision, but since I will not, my belief don't matter.

You mean beliefs, yet this doesn't make them any less true. Attacking my claim with no support doesn't do much of anything at all.

Unless every scientist can come to an agreement on this, it will only remain as an opinion, or belief as you put it, of those scientists.

[Smegma]

Unless every scientist can come to an agreement on this, it will only remain as an opinion, or belief as you put it, of those scientists.

Its not a matter of science, its a matter of epistemology.

But in this case I am indeed empowered to change the decision, but since I will not, my belief don't matter.

I dont know what you are talking about here, but a belief is requirement for knowledge. That is all I was getting at.

[excruciator]

I dont know what you are talking about here, but a belief is requirement for knowledge. That is all I was getting at.

You said something about how belief will impair an unbiased judgement.
I'm just saying that is not true for all case. In this case, I don't make the judgments. There is no way to impair.

Its not a matter of science, its a matter of epistemology.

How would you prove your theory for the foundation of science is true?

[Smegma]

You said something about how belief will impair an unbiased judgement.

I dont remember saying this.

How would you prove your theory for the foundation of science is true?

What is my theory for the foundation of science?

[Espadon]

rather, I focus on my relationship with God. Wonderful things happened in my life since I got reconnected with him and he has plans for you, too.

Avoiding the parts you don't like of it doesn't make christianity less bad, it makes you less christian.

It's good that you find some peace, though, whatever your religion might be. 

What's with the patronizing tone?

There certainly are Christians that figured out and go by the good parts of Christianity -- you can't deny that it has merits. I've always been an atheist but after a lot of reading and thinking I've realized that a lot of the ethics I adopted can also be found in Christianity. Mind you they're just different ways to get to the same common sense conclusions of how to become a better person; it's just that Christianity skips the contemplative part and replaces with dogma that is easier for most people to follow [which consequently makes it easier to corrupt]. I'm still an atheist but I no longer make those harsh ignorant generalizations about Christianity that I used to make. The fact there are some good cars and a lot of bad cars doesn't mean cars are bad.

[UnknownSniper]

except for the gays, jews... psychos... etc etc. All religion is corrupt, you'll realize it sooner or later~

Let me tell you right now... God doesn't hate homosexuals. Other people say God hates homosexuals. The same applies to the other 2 groups of people you mentioned.

I believe he, and others, get their views from the following verse..

Leviticus 20:13
If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.

[Twistkill]

I believe he, and others, get their views from the following verse..

Leviticus 20:13
If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.

I'm really not qualified enough to say this, but I'm going to try.

The punishment for all sin is death, that scripture just emphasizes the fact that it is a "major" one (for lack of a better term) even though all sin is equal in God's eyes. The only reason why we physically die anyway is because we are born into a sinful world. Jesus sacrificed himself for us, so we have already been forgiven of all our sins, we just have to acknowledge that fact and follow him.

[UnknownSniper]

I believe he, and others, get their views from the following verse..

Leviticus 20:13
If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.

I'm really not qualified enough to say this, but I'm going to try.

The punishment for all sin is death, that scripture just emphasizes the fact that it is a "major" one (for lack of a better term) even though all sin is equal in God's eyes. The only reason why we physically die anyway is because we are born into a sinful world. Jesus sacrificed himself for us, so we have already been forgiven of all our sins, we just have to acknowledge that fact and follow him.

I fail to see how that proves that God does not "hate" homosexuals, all you're doing is repeating that it's a sin, which is obvious simply from reading the verse.

[GSx_Major]

What's with the patronizing tone?

There certainly are Christians that figured out and go by the good parts of Christianity -- you can't deny that it has merits. I've always been an atheist but after a lot of reading and thinking I've realized that a lot of the ethics I adopted can also be found in Christianity. Mind you they're just different ways to get to the same common sense conclusions of how to become a better person; it's just that Christianity skips the contemplative part and replaces with dogma that is easier for most people to follow [which consequently makes it easier to corrupt]. I'm still an atheist but I no longer make those harsh ignorant generalizations about Christianity that I used to make. The fact there are some good cars and a lot of bad cars doesn't mean cars are bad.

Funny that you only noticed the tone when it came from this side. Was it the that gave it away?

Terrible metaphor but I'll play along. If you like hood ornaments but skip the rest then don't say you like cars.

I... never said that I do. It's not nice to assume things.

Oh, sorry, I just assumed that since you said things diametrically opposite from the message of the bible, you had chosen to ignore those parts.

Let me tell you right now... God doesn't hate homosexuals. Other people say God hates homosexuals.

Nothing about what the bible preaches? God doesn't hate homosexuals, you say. I don't really care, since he wants them killed and sent to hell.

I do apologize if it seems like an attempt to start a flame war, but your hypocricy disgusts me.

[Veritas]

The punishment for all sin is death

Have you even read the old testament?

[~Niko~]

If you'd start out by the theory that god does not exist, and that all of the things that "god did" and all the things that "god hates" have been written and spread out by humans, everything would start to make sense.

Ever tried to?

[Smegma]

If you'd start out by the theory that god does not exist, and that all of the things that "god did" and all the things that "god hates" have been written and spread out by humans, everything would start to make sense.

Ever tried to?

It makes about just as much sense as if god did exist.

[{LAW} Gamer_2k4]

Let me tell you right now... God doesn't hate homosexuals. Other people say God hates homosexuals.

Nothing about what the bible preaches? God doesn't hate homosexuals, you say. I don't really care, since he wants them killed and sent to hell.

I do apologize if it seems like an attempt to start a flame war, but your hypocricy disgusts me.

I think if you'll look at the book you're quoting, you'll find many other sins for which the punishment is death.  Why are you acting as though God is singling out homosexuals?  I mean, heck, if I recall correctly, kids who disrespected their parents were supposed to be stoned to death.

At any rate, the reason that homosexuality is considered to be such a bad thing is because it's a corruption of the sexuality that God intended.  However, it's not alone.  Fornication is condemned as well, and even thinking lustful thoughts is considered adultery (one of the "thou shalt not" big ten).

Yes, every sin is equal in that it keeps us out of heaven, but not every sin is equal in its effect on society.  That's why some penalties are harsher than others.  However, even given that, the people who single out homosexuals and wave signs that say "God hates fags" are DEAD WRONG.  It's not their place to judge; it's not anyone's place to judge.  Besides, those people have committed sins just as bad in God's eyes, so they definitely have no right to condemn others.

[Smegma]

It's not their place to judge; it's not anyone's place to judge.

But punishing is fine?