My Objection to Religion

dude i agree with the fact that god exists
and christianity doesn't cause war
the bible said (not directly) that war would occur in this time and theire happening

i highly doubt its a coincidence

My questions were not directed at you, so please don't try to answer them. They were for mjordan2nd to answer. Thanks.

Also, the Bible is full of shit.

the bible said (not directly) that war would occur in this time and theire happening i highly doubt its a coincidence

I could have predicted that the human race would still wage wars 2000 years ago as well, however it is quite impressive that the Bible predicted this, because I have seen no such passage in the Bible that would suggest that. Please explain to me what passage predicts the wars in 2006?

Cloning equaling no-no, though... Is a give-in in my mind. If we try and make more of people, it goes against the old, 'everyone is special ' routine.

Should we kill the second-born identical twin to preserve the first-born's "specialty?"

also, I would like to think that we're better off without it. The only people to get cloned for medical emergency would be those rich enough to afford it. And why would you want the bastards who run this god-forsaken world life?

Perhaps this would be an accurate portrayal of the world immediately after cloning goes mainstream, but it is possible that the cost of cloning will go down substantially in the future, and its benefits will be extended even to the common man.

MJ, if there was to be a wholly atheist society, the outcome would be communist to an extent, as you would not have freedom of religion.

A lack of religion will not make a society communist. Communism is an economic system. You can have a society that practices religion and communism at the same time, or a society that is wholly atheist yet capitalist. However, I am not promoting a society in which you are forced to be an atheist. I would personally find such a society repugnant. What I would like to see is more people basing their lives off of reason rather than faith by choice, not by force.

I will get to the rest after my next class.

Should we kill the second-born identical twin to preserve the first-born's "specialty?"

Yes, lets make a BBQ out of it.

I was being sarcastic when I said everyone is special. Forgot to Italicize, sorry.

2. The bible says waaay to many things that occure exactly has they're written in real life, and now its highly doubtfull that its all coincidence

Such as what? We're not talking about relevance anymore, we're apparently talking about prophecies, so the abortion example has no bearing. I'm not sure what you mean, so you want to provide some examples?

the bible is not bull shit is the mind of god

If there is a God, the Bible is certainly not his mind.

he says "dont this or don't do that" but then you catch him in a bar doing exactly what he said not to do

What?

because his glory would kill you if he showed himself to you or communicated directly with you.

Then he most certainly can not be omnipotent, can he?

KagomJack, why don't you bring these people inside?

LOL wow. Society grants religion 'immunity' to criticism. How is it then this person is able to write an article criticizing it?

Zelaron does not accurately represent society as a whole. Zelaron consists mainly of teenagers and men in their early 20s who are predominantly atheists or agnostics. If I were to post this on a more mainstream forum, I would be severely chastised due to the subject of my article, not because of any flaws in the article itself. I can not think of a better paradigm to portray the concept of immunity to criticism.

Most of these people that claim they aren't "religious", such as the clown that wrote that above piece, are in fact subscribers to their own belief system.

Incorrect. A belief is something that is not based on evidence. Everything I have presented in my article is based on evidence. The possibility exists that our theories are incorrect, as I have already stated, but they are based on observable facts, unlike religions. If I drop an apple from the air, it is not a belief that it will fall under normal circumstances, it is a fact in every sense of the word. Of course the possibility exists that the apple may simply suspend itself from the air by magic, but it would be ridiculous to assume that, and even more ridiculous to spend time learning about that possibility.

Here the writer is flat out admiting that his belief system, Darwinism, also requires a "leap of faith" in that it does not require any physical or scientific evidence to prove the theory as fact. Sounds alot like religions he attacks with his "teapot" analogy doesn't it?

You obviously have no understanding of evolution, and apparently an underdeveloped grasp of the English language as well. Nowhere in that paragraph do I imply that recognizing the theory of evolution is a leap of faith. I only state that fossilized evidence is coincidental to evolution, not consequential as is commonly believed. There is a massive amount of evidence that supports evolution that is consequential to evolution, however fossils do not match that criteria.

I gave them a link, but it's their choice to click it and go here.

I gave them a link, but it's their choice to click it and go here.

Out of sheer curiosity, are these just random friends of yours, or what?