Shila

@Poly.

That's because atheists hate theists.

Perhaps you stated the above because it is actually you who hates atheists.

I personally love theists, because they have some fun ideas to discuss.

-> @Tarik

Well I disagree, you see how easy that was 😉

SkepticalOne: Okay. You're disagreeing with the definition you provided. 😉

for those of you who believe in the religion known as evolution, i recommend you read some dr kent hovind. 

if u think evolution is real, you really think we came from an ameba and that we are related to bananas. if you ask any farmer, they will tell you that all their animals have only ever brought forth after their kind just as how god had said in the bible. is there ever a case wher ea dog gave birht to a cat? NO!!!!!!! a dog ONLY EVER GIVES BIRTH TO A DOG. 

as to why. we are taught this propaganda, well it's just a liberal ploy. 

also can any one of you evolution religous pastors tell me - do you think a dog can give birth to a non dog ?

This is exactly the kind of nonsense that's okay coming from some random dude on the internet but not from the lips of the President.

Abortion double standards

If it is the case that women can willingly engage in sex and subsequently abort the fetus because "her body is her choice", does it then follow that a male can impregnate a female and subsequently not pay child support because "his body his choice"? It is entirely possible that a male, after impregnating a women, regrets the choice, just as how women commonly experience such regret, so would it follow (on the grounds of consistency) that men ought to al have the right to abandon the child and not pay child support?

School systems should include LBTQ+ topics in their history and sex education

But .

But it isnt a argument. 

Becauseeeeeeeeee religion is an evolutionary advantage. 

Its a statement. 

It points out some benifits religion has.  

When you start to think about a evolutionary advantage you dont immediately think about ( biological evolution )

You just think about toe evolution. And you rarly talk about evolution and anything under a million years  .

 So again .

Sooooooooooo

 The statment should read.

Religion is an Biological evolutionary advantage.  

I mean, this whole argument assumes macroevolution is actually real.

The scientists over at scienceagainstevolution.org have some pretty convincing arguments that it isn't. Mainly that the earth cannot possibly be older than 2 billion years [1] [2] due to u238 decay times and the fact that uniformitarian dating methods are significantly flawed and based on a logical fallacy. [3] 

But, assuming the shaky premise that macroevolution exists, the argument is that religion was a mechanism that survived because it made people more altruistic and therefore less likely to kill each other because they feared retribution for their actions.

Look at the world around you for a minute and  ask yourself, do these people seem like kind, altruistic, loving individuals who will have my back and work collaboratively with me to advance the greater good? I'm sure that your answer will undoubtedly be "no effing way."

There is mounds of psychological research that proves that people, even many of those who are "religious," are selfish, pathological liars who cannot engage in basic empathy unless someone in authority forces them to with threat of punishment. In fact, the main reason most governments exist is because people got together and determined it was in their selfish best interest to have a third party to govern them because they knew they were completely incapable of governing themselves and being altruistic. And these same people then turn around and allow their governments to steal from them, control their every move, and send them off to die in a foreign war somewhere.

And you think that religion somehow was an evolutionary gene that stopped mass killing? Have you even read the history of the Catholic Church, the Egyptians, the Babylonians, basically any society that worshipped the emperor or ruler as a god or regent of God and therefore just let them do whatever it is they wanted?

And you think this somehow was an evolutionary advantage? 

IMHO, we are designed to worship because he world runs best when we worship God. Not just some random god that a person made up last week, but God proper. The one who actually changes our nature into altruistic, good people by making us new and giving us a new nature filled with love for each other. Man's natural impulses, even including religion, are selfish, hateful, lustful, and violent.

SOURCES:

[1] http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v16i10f.htm

[2] http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v16i11f.htm

[3] http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v5i3f.htm

You know what? I can honestly say that, these past 2 years, I haven't thought about Biden all that much. And I really haven't harbored that much hostility toward him either. And unlike perhaps some people, I can say this in reasonably good faith.

But after last night, fvck Joe Biden. 

After last night, I am a fellow "MAGA Republican" and I like to think that the entire party is united against the president's fascist bullying.

SkepticalOne: I'm not convinced indifference to survival is an evolutionary advantage.  

--> @Ehyeh

I've seen one of my friends actually get angry and go on a rant to me about the evils of god, simply over the fact we walked past a family where the mother was reading the bible to her child.

Polytheist-Witch: That's because atheists hate theists. They want us all to literally drop dead so they can bury us in religion along with it. I don't understand how more people don't get it. Imagine what your friend feels for his parents if they read the Bible. But he'll try to tell you he doesn't hate them. They lie all the time to family and friends to hide the fact that they hate them. You have no concept of how horrible they are.

--> @Shila

Polytheist-Witch: Do something with your death threats or fuck off, pussy.

--> @3RU7AL

how do you propose we measure love, you know, scientifically

Not sure you can.

--> @Ehyeh

--> @Shila

Sounds like you're projecting you're lack of care you felt in the household, Shila.

I've seen one of my friends actually get angry and go on a rant to me about the evils of god, simply over the fact we walked past a family where the mother was reading the bible to her child.

Well, you're calling me deprived there, shila. Once more, are you not projecting that you could of had more as a child?

Religion is an evolutionary advantage. 

Who could one possible put this statement  before apart from a religious forum ?    

--> @Shila

Sounds like you're projecting you're lack of care you felt in the household, Shila.

I've seen one of my friends actually get angry and go on a rant to me about the evils of god, simply over the fact we walked past a family where the mother was reading the bible to her child.

are you suggesting that love is some sort of object, you know, like a rock ?

I've seen one of my friends actually get angry and go on a rant to me about the evils of god, simply over the fact we walked past a family where the mother was reading the bible to her child.

 And if you indoctrinate someone into believing they will burn in hell from childhood to adult hood I am sure the numbers will increase daily. Your appeal to numbers is nonsense. 

--> @Shila

The New Testament was eyewitness accounts about Jesus in the Gospels.

collected and compiled 325 years after the fact

what we see, is that trump has default authority to classify at will. but even your article says only that there would be serious constitutional issues if a statute were passed. a statute was passed, which is cited above. we might assume that trump shouldn't be using classified material in a way that is detrimental to the USA. this is of course a judgment call, so executive authority and privilege would be here, but it's at best a murky issue. 

also, even if trump was cleared legally for what he did, you have to admit, that it at least sounds like he did the wrong thing by taking and hoarding those documents, right? just because it's legal doesn't mean it's right. 

Science is replacing religion in almost every aspect.

Feeding millions.

Curing millions.

Giving hope to millions.

Answering questions that baffled mankind which religion was unable to solve.

Science can't make you stop fearing death. Science can't drag you out of the blackpill. Science can't make you a moral person.

Science is not a replacement for god(s).

 Objectivity means independent of the mind. Demonstrate that love is the standard for morality independent of the mind and that well being is not.

--> @Shila

Unfortunately you are to smart shila  to say the universe is no older then 10,000 years 

Functionally, regardless of whether the religion in question is true, it will solve issues that humans face. Namely:

(1) Creating an untouchable, unseeable leader who can never be caught in a scandal, contradiction or anything untoward (something that humans will never be able to rectify if they themselves are leaders, due to their imperfection).

(2) Adds mystical magic to morality so that it seems divine, rather than just an impulse. This is especially important for cause-driven people who want to feel like they are living with a real purpose. It also helps to prevent crimes of all natures.

(3) Quells fear of the unknown with answers to queries that scare humans (e.g. what happens after death? You go to Heaven or hell; you are reincarnated; you enter paradise etc.).

(4) Creates free labor as a religious zealot will gladly do things in the name of the divine, all the whilst making them feel good for doing so.

Without religion, there are important holes to fill, and I don't think Atheism or Agnosticism fill them. I think it could be said that humans currently need religion to function.

Religion helps people to survive. 

--> @3RU7AL

don't you have to have a "Y" chromosome in order to be considered "male" ?

SkepticalOne: No. 

--> @Deb-8-a-bull

Instead of  Religion is a ( evolutionary advantage )  

Can you perhaps reword it ?  

Dumb it down for me.

Religion helps people to survive.

Sooooooo. 

With this uncertainty in mind.  The TOE shouldn't be placed at the top of the scale of things you belive are so called "certainties" 

I mean, it doesn't need to be. 

Theists on the other hand have this problem proving a god exists.   yet it is the most important thing ever. 

It is the sole reason they are here.    They will follow the rules/ laws of that god exactly for the rest of their lives without questioning it. 

You can see what is happening hear hey ? 

--> @3RU7AL

Please tell me more about your fantastic world on magic fairy dust and unicorns.  

please explain to me what you mean by "science and logic"

please provide your personally preferred definition of "explain"

and

please provide your personally preferred definition of "mean"

Ty, it won't last long once my 2 defeats process but I am happy enough.

Personally, the debating here just involves knowing how three or four voters think. There are only 2 people, who are mods, that decide most outcomes.

That is silly but the truth.

This site is too dead for risking very edge topics and people suffer from pro-US bias in all debates where US interests are geopolitically debated.

You need to notice certain biases and play around them (including by avoiding certain debates and sides entirely)

I will coach anybody, just hit me up and be a bit humble.

--> @Avery

I'll make it very simple for you two <3 :

(1) Having orderly societies is good. Having leaders is good. Leaders making mistakes is front of people is bad. Having perfect/near-perfect leaders (i.e. gods) is better. Societies did better with perfect/near-perfect leaders.

(2) Being moral allows for better societies. Objective, divine morality makes people more likely to be moral. This makes people more likely to be moral.

(3) People often do crazy things when they are scared. Religion answers scary questions. People spend less time being scared and are more likely to spend time on good things. This makes societies more productive.

(4) Work usually costs money. People who believe in a cause are more likely to work for free. Societies get a lot of free work from religious people. This means more work gets done because money doesn't need to be spent on it. This helps societies survive rather than paying people for everything.

All of that simply relates to the development of social structures within society and has absolutely nothing to do with biological evolution by natural selection.

 

--> @Ehyeh

Whether you're male or female depends on your gametes, so an XX male is still a male if he has male sex cells. If you have a propensity to produce both female and male gametes you're intersex.

which one applies to god ?

Polytheist-Witch: -> @Elliott

Well everything you've posted is true no one here wants to talk about those animistic and polytheist religions. They consider them irrelevant to today even though they existed for a very long time before monotheism or as you stated even religion in general. There are certain polyistic religions were even the gods take a back seat to land spirits and dead ancestors. But again nobody here wants to talk about those things because they're irrelevant to their day-to-day life. They only care about the religion they feel have scarred and marked them in some way. The purpose is never for productive conversation. 

--> @ Elliott

Here is the argument yet again. Tarik.

God wants us to believe in him so he should have provided strong evidence for his existence. We have no strong evidence for his existence, therefore God doesn’t exist.

Please show why it is pointless.

--> @Shila

Love objectifies the parts of a person that we are attracted to.

SkepticalOne: : No. That's not what is meant by objective.

Whether you're male or female depends on your gametes, so an XX male is still a male if he has male sex cells. If you have a propensity to produce both female and male gametes you're intersex.

-->

@Shila

      Allahu Akbar !

--> @Elliott

I’m not sure there is a ranking of pointlessness, I would say they are equally pointless.

Then why are you making a pointless argument?

--> @Shila

Nice.

If we asked everyone that has meet the god thing where it happened 

You would have a ( Places you are most likely to meet a god thing.

It would read as following. 

A book store 1% chance of meeting a god.    

A shoe store 1% 

On top of a mountain 6%

A hospital 8%

A church 18%

Prison 34%

Freeway. 0%

But we would have a definite  . The best chance of meeting a god place. 

-> @Tarik

And what is your objective moral standard?

Love

SkepticalOne: How is love an objective standard? 

Religion is an evolutionary advantage

--> @Shila

Between love and well being we need to identify the object under consideration. Is it a person, a feeling or doctrine?

If morality is objective then it's not about our considerations.

--> @Sidewalker

i personally feel god's love in my heart

and that's how i know god is verified by science

--> @Shila

does that mean you won't get into heaven ?

You will not be judged for reacting differently but for rejecting the word of God.

ok, that's good

so, all denominations of christianity are equally correct

as long as they "don't reject" the modern version of the bible that was composed by the council of nicaea 325 years after the reported execution of the jesus

God reveals himself to people in prisons allllllllll the time . 

To have it a guess. 

I'd say that is the number one place where people meet and or talk to a god thing for the first time is in prison to prisoners.  

Whats the deal with that ?  

Is there a scripture that explains this ?