I would like to dedicate this thread to discussing the fallacies committed in pro-religious debates, discussions, etc. If you are a pro-theist, please feel free to dispute what you think others are saying and give logical, well thought-out reasons for why you think whatever it is that you believe.
If you are a pro-theist, please feel free to dispute what you think others are saying
Is this saying that pro-religious people can't post here? You can try to do that, but it is not going to work...
Personally, I have, through out the course of my time on AG, transformed from a definite religious person, to something more of a deist. I think that there was a god, that the Earth was made around 6,000 years ago, rather than six billion, and that after creating Earth, god just simply left. Personally, I find that people who go to war over religious disputes, slur people because of religious beliefs, and basically try to ignore religions positive influence on people, are just aggrivating.
I am probably going to get flamed, yelled at by people I don't even know, and just generelly be trolled to oblivion for using things that Kent Hovind says, but, when he says that just becuase one thing someone says is wrong, that does not give you the power to immediately assume that everything they say is totally incorrect.
Kent Hovind is the perfect example of this. Just because he is absolutly moronic, wrong most of the time and blatently oblivious, does not mean that everything he says is completely idiotic. He has a few nuggets of reasonably intelligent reasoning in his sermons. Not many, but they are there.
Is this saying that pro-religious people can't post here?
No, I was saying that since the thread is for discussing fallacies of religious argument, it would be mostly atheists talking here. Therefore, the post was meant to invite pro-theists to discuss their views in an eloquent fashion.
the Earth was made around 6,000 years ago, rather than six billion
I fail to see how it is possible to disprove a blatant scientific fact.
Personally, I find that people who go to war over religious disputes, slur people because of religious beliefs, and basically try to ignore religions positive influence on people, are just aggrivating.
Well, you're saying that religion has obvious positive benefits. This is true, technically. However, the conflict caused by religion clearly outweighs the good it's done. The fact that hundreds of thousands of people have died in religious wars, or that for several hundred years people were forced to suffer because it was believed that their ruler was chosen by God himself to rule, or any other number of reasons such as these, it is obvious that religion has done more harm than good.
Well, you're saying that religion has obvious positive benefits. This is true, technically. However, the conflict caused by religion clearly outweighs the good it's done. The fact that hundreds of thousands of people have died in religious wars, or that for several hundred years people were forced to suffer because it was believed that their ruler was chosen by God himself to rule, or any other number of reasons such as these, it is obvious that religion has done more harm than good.
I accept your problems with religion, but could you imagine a world where all the people that hadn't been killed in religious war, almost all wars btw, had huge families and their families mutiplied, and that generation had a ton of kids... What I am getting at is, if you think that we have a population problem now, think about how bad it would be if religion didn't exist.
Also, think about it. If they hadn't come up with the ten commandments, he wouldn't have been able to shorten them.
I appologize for the language used in the link above. It is purely for you to look at and realize that, yeah, religion is stupid. However, it does have some good points. I suggest following his revised list.
Yet, I still think that people who have a lot of children are being irresponsible. Religion gives you the freedom to have many kids, or it could chop off a girls genitals to show virginity It is one ****ed up little world we live in, and debating on a small, obscure website isn't going to change that. It may enlighten a few people, it mayeven change a few lives, but what we talk about on here is really just plain bull**** when you get down to it.
I think that there was a god, that the Earth was made around 6,000 years ago, rather than six billion, and that after creating Earth, god just simply left.
Problem with the 6,00 year time line is we have civilizations much older then that. Also the estimates are around 4.5 billion not six billion.
I suppose it depends on how we are classifying civilization. If we are just referring to an organized group of people living in a community we can go back to our roots with the earliest humans about 100,000 years ago. We have evidence of agriculture and live stock going back about 10,000 years with the Natufian culture. Mesopotamia had a city around 5,000B.C. about 7,000 years ago.
I suppose it depends on how we are classifying civilization. If we are just referring to an organized group of people living in a community we can go back to our roots with the earliest humans about 100,000 years ago. We have evidence of agriculture and live stock going back about 10,000 years with the Natufian culture. Mesopotamia had a city around 5,000B.C. about 7,000 years ago.
I suppose you get the dates from carbon dating, correct?
Scientists don't just use carbon dating, Valkery. If we just used that, we wouldn't have unearthed a fraction of the discoveries yielded. No, they use more than just one method of dating.
This is why you shouldn't go just by carbon dating It is a flawed science that isn't 100 percent acurate. It can be off by several thousand years.
It's also cross referenced with other dating methods which all independent of each other and all agree with each others data. So it's not based just on Carbon-14 dating. Some of it like the earliest humans wouldn't have even used C14 dating to determine age. Considering Carbon-14 dating is used for stuff up to about 50,000 years your claim would give it an error of about 44,000 years. Your really pushing conspiracy theory territory here if you think it would be used with that sort of error range. I can't help noticing your source doesn't make any citations. So can't fact check on who the author is, though I would suspect a creationist. Wait is that article listed under Relationships & Dating? Considering your source of dating is a book written by dessert herders with no cross checking involved or knowledge of the world, I think I will go with the method that get's scrutinized.
And just for the record the dating method actually only has an error of about 700 year at most, though modern methods has improve the accuracy.
I accept your problems with religion, but could you imagine a world where all the people that hadn't been killed in religious war, almost all wars btw, had huge families and their families mutiplied, and that generation had a ton of kids... What I am getting at is, if you think that we have a population problem now, think about how bad it would be if religion didn't exist.
First of all I'm pretty sure Christianity encourages reproduction, "Be fruitful and multiply.".
Secondly lets say we need population control. It still doesn't the answer why religion has to fill that role. Since it's obviously biased towards the out-group therefore only trying killing them off. Personally if I had to choose a system to kill people I most likely would pick the most non biased method. Of course you could say that I would choose the method that leads the least probably of my death. But I would say that it still doesn't dispute the fact most people would rather have an fair system.
