Are you Religious or Atheist OT?

Summed nicely by gerg

I am a Born Again, Seventh Day Evangelical, Anglo Saxon, Pentecostal, Greco Roman, Presbyterian, Orthodox Sodomitarian.

Yikes!

And I thought emoticons used to work on this site?

A lack of a belief system cannot be a belief system.

Christianity is absolute a religion by every definition. There is no questions on this subject, its not up for opinion, its not up for debate. In fact most dictionaries actually cite Christianity as examples of the definition. And btw, if you're an apologetic or Christian yourself, you really don't want to go down that rabbit hole in America. The tax situation alone would destroy most organized christian sects in America.

This is a newer talking point we've been hearing from the religious, i believe it was the discovery institute that put it forward i their attempt to use science to disprove science and this silly idea that Christianity is not a religion, popped out of that whole thing because they tend to be backed into corners due to the failure of their ideas and understanding of the world, and come up with nonsense like that.

No, this is again, not true.

It seems you should be listening to them instead of talking, you might gather correct information if you did this.

The foundation of every religion ever created since man could write, which includes the bible old and new testament.

But this is kind of the point right? This is why the term "faith" exists and why believers i deities are reliant on it. Because any educated person who is also religious is faced with the reality that their bible is 99% historically inaccurate and 99.9% scientifically inaccurate. So they have to rationalize believing this stuff, with the reality they are faced with. They more often than not say "i have faith". Which IMO is laughable and very clear destruction of critical thinking but at this point its all they have and its loads better than what we see the discovery institute and intelligent design attempting.

So first off, people getting together to discuss a topic does not make them a religion of that topic or anything near it.

Second off, most of the time "atheists" get together for discussion the topic is usually religion, incorrect things within a religion, etc. This is why atheists tend to know more about another persons religion than that person does. At least this is my experience in America with Christians. This might seem hyperbolic to you, but i can think of only a few situations where i was being questioned for my lack of religious belief, and it didnt end with me explaining to a Christian whats in the old and new testament that they didnt know about. I tend to call American Christians "Walmart" Christians..... they pick up a cross, put it on their neck and all the sudden they are religious.

Ive never seen anyone do any of these things. No one worships science. Those who worship the earth are still religious, their deities are simply physical. And no one worships the idea of disproving god, in fact the majority of non-believers know you cannot disprove something that cannot be proven to begin with.

This is very semantic.

But it is worth pointing out that one can be without religion and still believe in a deity.

Never been proven, so cant be disproved. BUT, it does not take action and belief to disprove religious texts when they reference the real world. This goes back to my 99% comments, historically we know the old and new testament are not even remotely accurate. And scientifically they are a joke. Does this disprove the christian god? No, but it definitely shows you that the idea is nothing but fiction and we can actually take this further and demonstrate how the religion evolved from other religions, the copied stories and the alterations and why those alterations happened.

@kod: Geez you just went off... I can send you a link that says atheism is a religion according to a ruling by the supreme Court or you can Google it. You can say it isn't and that's fine, but legally it is, and it gets the same benefits as any other religion.

How is Christianity a religion? So if someone ask you what religion you are, you can say Christian? Christian simply means "follower of Christ". There are hundreds of religions based of Christianity.

Not sure how to can claim the Bible is historically inaccurate. There are several verses that were written before the common belief such as the Earth being round. They continually are finding more evidence that supports the Bible... The recent documentary about how fast the Grand canyon was formed was interesting. All these years I've been taught to believe it took millions of years to form. Also, I was taught in school that we come from monkeys... Rediculous.

So if you can't disprove God exist because no one can prove it, means it can't be true? Or means it can be or may not be? Sounds more like agnostic views in that way.

Stupid subject either way. Science has a lot of theories and that's cool because that's all they are. The more educated we get, the more we see how wrong science has been but at least it's getting correcting. No clue if they are still teaching kids we came from monkeys or not... More likely to have came from dolphins than monkeys... Which is still rediculous.

@thegerg: So do you believe God exist? Or do you not, not believe but don't disbelieve either? My head's spinning.

@thegerg: https://evolutionnews.org/2014/07/for_first_amend1/

There's so much wrong here. The answers to your questions are in the thread. There's a lot of confusion in your' post.

So im going to respond to this by talking about your citation for it.....

....If you're really interested in this case, what it said, whats been overturned or rewritten, etc. here is a summary by the ACLU: https://aclu.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000393

Now... you remember that whole "discovery institute" and "intelligent design" things i was mentioning before? How it sounded like you were repeating things that came from them or some of the concepts/ideas you mentioned were theres? Well, how right was i? You're citing evolutionnews, which if you didnt know is an intelligent design website that accepts and promotes a literal interpretation of the old and new testament and they named their website "evolutionnews" in order to try to convince the world that they are involved in scientific fields and can speak on scientific issues. When the reality of it is, they cant because they are not qualified. They're not really qualified for anything except speaking on biblical text (and not in a scholarly manner) all they ever want to do is convince you that everything in the bible is real, non-believers are the devil, the US was built on Jesus and there is no separation of church and state and blah blah blah. This is why i urge you to read more on the case instead of relying on a website like evolutionnews, who seems to avoid explaining that this is a 50 year old case for a state (not federal) and who's outcome has been addressed and holds no meaning in our judicial, legislative or legal system today. If you want a court case more recent that verifies all ive said, look into... meh, i forget the case name... just look up "PA supreme court of pandas and people" and im sure it will pop up.

So i really feel that you should step back and absorb what all of that means.

Be leery of intelligent design people, all they do is intentionally lie. They come to a conclusion and than by any means necessary try to make that conclusion a fact.

How is it that you're arguing Christianity is not a religion, but a lack of believing in Christianity is?

In what reality does that make any sense?

Which dictionary would you like me to go to for the definition of a religion? Websters? Oxford? Stanford? There's even a religious dictionary (by Christians funny enough) i could go to. Do you honestly not realize you're defining a religion when saying "what Christianity simply means"? You know what... what might make more sense is if you called it a "cult" and than realized by definition there is no difference between cult and religion.

At this point i think we are going to end this, you're trying to shape the world as you want it to be instead of how it is. If youre really interested in how historically inaccurate the bible is, stop listening to snakeoil salesmen and check world history for five minutes. Stop going to sources that are laughed out of every serious discussion and academia.... who are laughed at not because of what they say, but because of their blatant lying to get there. This is why these guys rely on living in bubbles instead of having their ideas challenged. There's a reason why nothing you rely on for your daily life is discovered or built or promoted by these morons.

Actually, ill address this very quickly.

Those scientific theories, made it so you didnt die before you were 10. They give you everything you have in your very easy life that would not be easy without them. AND a scientific theory as far as you need to be concerned, is a fact and there is nothing you can say or do to change this fact. Things are labeled scientific theories when there is enough evidence of a process for us (mankind) to say its an undeniable fact.

The guy who responded to you first, really nailed it with: 'There's so much wrong here. The answers to your questions are in the thread. There's a lot of confusion in your' post."

Thanks for explaining all of that to him. I get exhausted clarifying where people go wrong because I've seen all these arguments so many times. Explaining the difference between the lexical use of the word "theory" and explaining the difference to the definition of the word in science (a set of ideas explaining the observations of facts of phenomenon) is fun the first 100 times you do it, but misinformed people sprout like weeds.

It's like putting out fires constantly. I love talking about it, but it's frustrating that guy didn't even seem to read through the thread. Lot's of good info in here.

Thanks for explaining that to him...he's very adamant that the courts can define words, and that if they had the power to do so, it would mean something.

You could have just stopped at him citing evolutionews as a source. Anyone that cites creationist think tanks isn't knowledgeable or willing to engage in an honest or open conversation.

Topic Locked from further discussion.

Discussion went from "are you religious or atheist?" to why people are wrong for believing what they believe in or why they are wrong for not believing. In addition to various posts that are blatantly against the CoC and condescending commentary.