Religion/Spirituality Theism Discussion (Abrahamic Religions, Religious Philosophy, etc.)

[noon]

46% of 1,012 = 465 people.

LOL.

That's not even a molehill. More like an anthill and woefully insignificant to draw any conclusions.
​

I'm still waiting for your 99% to 1% statistics.

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

I'm still waiting for your 99% to 1% statistics.

I already provided them by using your stats.​

 

[Jesus Shuttlesworth]

Matthew 25:41 ESV
“Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.

Matthew 25:46 ESV
And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."

2 Thessalonians 1:9 ESV
They will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might,

Mark 9:48 ESV
‘where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched.’

Jude 1:7 ESV
Just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.

2 Thessalonians 1:9 KJV
- Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;

Revelation 20:10 KJV
- And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet [are], and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

and so on.

I don't have much faith in the Bible, a book that even its staunchest advocates know to have been corrpted.

One day you and others like you will realize there is more to religion than the Bible. Hopefully it will aid in your understanding.

 

[noon]

I already provided them by using your stats.​

So 71% of Christians is not really 99% is it? I'll give you 29% is not a huge percentage but of 246,780,000 Christians in the US I wouldn't call it a molehill.

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

So 71% of Christians is not really 99% is it?

Nope, but 465 sure is less than 1%.
​

 

[noon]

Nope, but 465 sure is less than 1%.
​

You do know what a sample is when studies are undertaken don't you?

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

You do know what a sample is when studies are undertaken don't you?

Yup, I also know that the sample size for the study was far too small to make any conclusions or even suggest a 'trend'.​

 

[noon]

Yup, I also know that the sample size for the study was far too small to make any conclusions.​

Well however inconsequential you think the creationists are they're always lobbying to get creationism taught alongside/instead of science in the classroom, trying to get textbooks changed/thrown out and generally fukk up the youth. Along with the few crazy politicians and groups around. These people are everywhere. shyt even my boss is one. And I thought there were none in my area. Literally zero.

 

[noon]

I don't have much faith in the Bible, a book that even its staunchest advocates know to have been corrpted.

One day you and others like you will realize there is more to religion than the Bible. Hopefully it will aid in your understanding.

The point is, science is at odds with religion no matter what your own personal definition of religion is. I don't know what it is, but it seems to take all the evidence and knowledge that science provides and makes the leap into the god of the gaps fallacy.

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

Well however inconsequential you think the creationists are they're always lobbying to get creationism taught alongside/instead of science in the classroom, trying to get textbooks changed/thrown out and generally fukk up the youth. Along with the few crazy politicians and groups around. These people are everywhere. shyt even my boss is one. And I thought there were none in my area. Literally zero.

It isn't that I 'think' they're inconsequential. It's that they ARE inconsequential.

Out of ALL the 'religious' people that you know of, you only know ONE Creationist.

Think about that for a minute.​

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

The point is, science is at odds with religion no matter what your own personal definition of religion is.

“If there are a bunch of fruit trees, one can say that whoever created these fruit trees wanted some apples. In other words, by looking at the order in the world, we can infer purpose and from purpose we begin to get some knowledge of the Creator, the Planner of all this. This is, then, how I look at God. I look at God through the works of God’s hands and from those works imply intentions. From these intentions, I receive an impression of the Almighty.” (Penzias, as cited in ‘The God I Believe in’, Joshua O. Haberman - editor, New York, Maxwell Macmillan International, 1994, 184)

 

[noon]

It isn't that I 'think' they're inconsequential. It's that they ARE inconsequential.

Out of ALL the 'religious' people that you know of, you only know ONE Creationist.

Think about that for a minute.​

Yeah, because I'm in a Catholic area. And Catholics are on the side of evolution. And I only know one Evangelist. And that one Evangelist is a Creationist. And like I said, acknowledging all the creationists in the world, I assumed there were literally zero in my area.

I don't even know what your point about the Physics guy is. Religion is still at odds with science.

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

I don't even know what your point about the Physics guy is. Religion is still at odds with science.

 

[Jesus Shuttlesworth]

The point is, science is at odds with religion no matter what your own personal definition of religion is. I don't know what it is, but it seems to take all the evidence and knowledge that science provides and makes the leap into the god of the gaps fallacy.

You see a watch. You examine all of its intricacies. The multiple gears in synchronized action. You study its parts and understand the function of each movement.

So is this a fallacy if you then give credit to the watchmaker?

How does you understanding how the watch works discredit its maker? Furthermore, how do your studies now pit the watchmaker against his own enginuity?

Your stance is a pretty illogical one. It's not a debate. You simply don't understand what you're speaking on.

 

[Berniewood Hogan]

You see a watch. You examine all of its intricacies. The multiple gears in synchronized action. You study its parts and understand the function of each movement.

So is this a fallacy if you then give credit to the watchmaker?

How does you understanding how the watch works discredit its maker? Furthermore, how do your studies now pit the watchmaker against his own enginuity?

Your stance is a pretty illogical one. It's not a debate. You simply don't understand what you're speaking on.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watchmaker_analogy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watchmaker_analogy#Criticism