why are you guys talking about God when there’s dirt way more interesting (i.e. Lena Chen)?! Seriously, I don’t think there are any plausible reasons to remain a virgin until marriage. You have to take the car out for a test drive before you buy it…

“And if nature cannot explain what is observed, that is when reason resorts to the supernatural. ”
So you have put God in the same category as ghosts, wiji boards, and superstition… If a black cat walks under a latter on Friday the 13th then God might exist.
The only objective of science is to explain the natural world, and in doing so it ties the hand of the human imagination. Is it any wonder, then, that there are conflicts between science and religion?

I’ll sum up my major points
-to d10: Being an arrogant and times offensive atheist is not tantamount to being a religious fundamentalist. At worst, I mock your sacred beliefs. Fundamentalists want to throw you in the ocean.
-The Bible, no matter what interpretation, is a book of moral and scientific filth. The God of the Old Testament kills people indiscriminately and seems to enjoy it. Jesus was somewhat better but if one part of the Holy Trinity is a raving, murderous lunatic, then you’re religion is fucked.
-Finally, religion (or faith) and science are polar opposites. You can not justify faith, and I don’t give a shit what Greenleaf and his law based bullshit attest to. Faith has no basis and thus no reason. Give me a premise based justification for believing that Jesus Christ was born of a virgin. These is none. You simply have to have faith in the testimony of those that “witnessed” it. And your contention, Reason, that the supernatural is a viable alternative to science is surely wishful. You’re probably the type of person who watches MindFreak and thinks Criss Angel actually cut himself open or watches Uri Geller and think he has magical powers. The whole scope of possible natural explanations should be exhausted before tentatively accepting a supernatural belief. Unfortunately, no parapscyhologist, despite numerous attempts and James Randi’s million dollar challenge, has ever had a successful experiment. In regards to humanity, the only rationally tenable supposition of God’s interaction would be our initial creation. Evolution filled in that gap. What else is left? Ghosts, leprechauns, spoon bending? Please. These so-called phenomenon are the result of a credulous mind desperate for a world beyond nature.

i am sorry to whoever said the chen girl is hot, i have to strongly disagree. she’s busted, ugly ugly ugly. great legs she has, though.

“Finally, religion (or faith) and science are polar opposites.” — Religion does not equal faith. And religion (or perhaps we should be using the word spirituality because religion is a social construct) is certainly not the opposite of science, just as faith is not the opposite of reason (even Steven Pinker agrees on this point). They come from different realms. Which is why they don’t conflict if you have an understanding of each.

“The only objective of science is to explain the natural world” — Right…

“The whole scope of possible natural explanations should be exhausted before tentatively accepting a supernatural belief.” — Granted.

“the only rationally tenable supposition of God’s interaction would be our initial creation. Evolution filled in that gap.” — That’s obviously a subject of debate, a la Francis Collins, isn’t it? Whether evolution and natural selection are sufficient. That’s not a legitimate debate in everyone’s mind, but it’s certainly there. That aside, there are other phenomena beside our very existence that continue to suppose God’s interaction.

Anyway, I’m not that interested in debating whether God exists because its rather pointless. Returning to the takeaway points:

1. Abstinence is a health issue.
2. You do not need a Bible to be abstinent.
3. Confining something to a certain interpretation is a weak way of condemning it. It’s a straw man type of argument.

That’s all, folks!

This is to THE cursory/highly-prejudicial-examination-of-the Bible half-witted cretin: Shut the fuck up already. Nobody seems to care about your personal anti-christ introspections and your ardent philosophical claims. And while you do have ‘some’ points in your tempestuous arguments, your obnoxiously dyslogistic verbalism definitely killed that. Who the fuck is going to listen to your reason (no matter how valid or sound or justified) if you only come across as a peremptory extremist who doesn’t give a shit about others’ belief systems?

This is to THE cursory/highly-prejudicial-examination-of-the Bible half-witted cretin: Shut the fuck up already. Nobody seems to care about your personal anti-christ introspections and your ardent philosophical claims. And while you do have ‘some’ points in your tempestuous arguments, your obnoxiously dyslogistic verbalism definitely killed that. Who the fuck is going to listen to your reason (no matter how valid or sound or justified) if you only come across as a peremptory extremist who doesn’t give a shit about others’ belief systems?

This is to THE cursory/highly-prejudicial-examination-of-the Bible half-witted cretin: Shut the fuck up already. Nobody seems to care about your personal anti-christ introspections and your ardent philosophical claims. And while you do have ‘some’ points in your tempestuous arguments, your obnoxiously dyslogistic verbalism definitely killed that. Who the fuck is going to listen to your reason (no matter how valid or sound or justified) if you only come across as a peremptory extremist who doesn’t give a shit about others’ belief systems?

This is to THE cursory/highly-prejudicial-examination-of-the Bible half-witted cretin: Shut the fuck up already. Nobody seems to care about your personal anti-christ introspections and your ardent philosophical claims. And while you do have ‘some’ points in your tempestuous arguments, your obnoxiously dyslogistic verbalism definitely killed that. Who the fuck is going to listen to your reason (no matter how valid or sound or justified) if you only come across as a peremptory extremist who doesn’t give a shit about others’ belief systems?

This is to THE cursory/highly-prejudicial-examination-of-the Bible half-witted cretin: Shut the fuck up already. Nobody seems to care about your personal anti-christ introspections and your ardent philosophical claims. And while you do have ‘some’ points in your tempestuous arguments, your obnoxiously dyslogistic verbalism definitely killed that. Who the fuck is going to listen to your reason (no matter how valid or sound or justified) if you only come across as a peremptory extremist who doesn’t give a shit about others’ belief systems?

This is to THE cursory/highly-prejudicial-examination-of-the Bible half-witted cretin: Shut the fuck up already. Nobody seems to care about your personal anti-christ introspections and your ardent philosophical claims. And while you do have ‘some’ points in your tempestuous arguments, your obnoxiously dyslogistic verbalism definitely killed that. Who the fuck is going to listen to your reason (no matter how valid or sound or justified) if you only come across as a peremptory extremist who doesn’t give a shit about others’ belief systems?

I am not solely anti-christ, I’m also anti-Judiasm, anti-Islam (the most so) and anti-faith. I am all those things b/c I’m pro-science and pro-logic. In your emotional (people like you can’t have motivations besides emotion) diatribe, you did hit something right. I don’t give a shit about your belief system. To me, it is tantamount to Greek myth or Scientology. It’s ridiculous. In any philosophical or political arena, I will surely mull over dissenting viewpoints becuase rational arguments can be articulated (i.e. I’m republican but I can concede points to liberals). You however can not provide a suitable argument that a ghost fucked a virgin then she popped out a half-man half-God who died then became a zombie to save me. I don’t respect lunacy. I’m sorry.

And seriously, learn how to comment less than 6 times dumbass.

And next time, put down your fucking SAT verbal list. Your prodigious verbosity will subsequently culminate in ubiquitous aversion from those perusing your fatuous and inane comment.

Hey, I thought we were all done. Can we officially end the religious discussion?

:: THE END ::

But I’m all for discussing politics (since you mentioned you’re a Republican), which may be even less related to the subject of this post.

“And next time, put down your fucking SAT verbal list. Your prodigious verbosity will subsequently culminate in ubiquitous aversion from those perusing your fatuous and inane comment”

…….talk about overblown oratory and pseudo-scientific gobbledygook and pontifical hooey…heed your own advice, asshole.

and i don’t need to provide any argument to a stubborn idiot who lives in his own self-deluded world of rhetoric. no respect, whatsoever. you are a fucking disgrace to the ivy circle.

Clearly, noting overt sarcasm is not one of your strong suits. I am an atheist who abhors religious thought. Plently of people, ever increasingly so, share my position. I have never stated that I can not respect religious individuals. There’s a distinction. Although I’d rather have someone mock my beliefs than tell me I’ll suffer eternal damnation. But why don’t you ignore that minor point?
You seem incredibly angry and willing to attack me rather than my perspective. You must be emulating Jesus (again overt sarcasm).

You don’t need to verbally state anything, it’s noticeably implied throughout your abhorrent diatribe. I never said I didn’t share your position. All I said was tone it down and show some considerations with respect to other people’s views/opinions/belief systems. If you’ve learned anything in Philosophy (specifically ‘reason’) it would be best to approach any reasonable argument dispassionately.
You just jumped down REASON’S (whoever she is)throat and blatantly attacked her view/opinion in a manner that was uncalled for. Read over what you wrote.

It’s ok, @ above. I certainly understand @ Reason’s position and don’t take what’s been said here personally. I was trying to tell him from the beginning that his approach was ineffective (trying to help!), but he does not seem receptive to constructive criticism. All I can do is try to give respect and hope that it rubs off. Until then, this still seems to hold: “If you cannot ‘condescend’ yourself to respectfully discuss such issues with people of different viewpoints, then I can’t take you seriously.”

AI AI AIIIII VIVA MEXICO

Isn’t it time to acknowledge the idleness of this debate?

If @Reason believes his own words, that the religious are a duped mass, lacking the capacity for independent and logical thought, then wouldn’t such a debate be a frivolous waste of his time?

And to Reason et al, you had to accept at some point that your religions didn’t articulate their true meaning when held to intense scrutiny. This is why you claim the Bible should not be taken literally. So you must have found something in religion that doesn’t hinge upon the scientific precepts of God’s methods. It is, therefore, disingenuous of you to debate the issue now as if you’ve personally ironed out all of the many wrinkles and inconsistencies contained in the Bible, instead of accepting them on faith.
So can’t we all agree that a) religion has necessarily placed itself outside the realm of deductive reasoning, and b) Lena is slutty for reasons we don’t entirely understand.
I mean, does she really just enjoy sex? Really? In a sex etiquette article she proposes that the guy should pay for her taxi ride home. But when I go to a concert I have to buy my own ticket. Shouldn’t Lena, also, pay her own taxi fair?

First off, if this debate is a waste of his time, @Reason does not have to participate. He said he likes religious discourse, and it’s his choice to engage in it.

RE: “…you had to accept at some point that your religions didn’t articulate their true meaning when held to intense scrutiny.”

I’m not sure what you mean. I don’t accept belief systems that don’t stand up to scrutiny. I believe the only thing I’ve said here about my personal beliefs is that I believe in God. I haven’t said anything about my own views or whether I accept of the Bible.

“This is why you claim the Bible should not be taken literally.”

Given that we do not know how it was meant to be interpreted, there are numerous ways to interpret it. I’m simply saying that we shouldn’t limit our understanding of it to a literal interpretation (or any single interpretation).

“So you must have found something in religion that doesn’t hinge upon the scientific precepts of God’s methods.”

Can you clarify this statement please? I believe you’re saying I must be taking something in my “religion” on faith and not on science or reason. But I haven’t told much of what I accept with regards to religion. So this doesn’t follow…

“It is, therefore, disingenuous of you to debate the issue now as if you’ve personally ironed out all of the many wrinkles and inconsistencies contained in the Bible, instead of accepting them on faith.”

When did I suggest that I personally ironed everything out? And when did I say I accepted everything? Again, people are making assumptions about my beliefs. That is the root of the problem I was originally addressing. @Reason was making assumptions about how a book had to be interpreted and then about the thought processes (or lack thereof) of people with certain beliefs. This issue is much more nuanced.

Sorry, typo: “I haven’t said anything about my own views of, or whether I accept, the Bible.”

well said.

“I’m not sure what you mean.”
I was only making the simple point that you cannot counter @Reason’s objections regarding, for example, Noah’s Arc – that such a thing would be too large to remain buoyant. The Bible simply doesn’t provide such details and so you are at a loss here, but must have decided that God is omnipotent so God found a way.

“Can you clarify this statement please?”
Certainly. When you accepted your religious views, did you first sit alone in an attic, crunching numbers and cross-analyzing scholars until a proof of God emerged? My point is that religion is a personal experience and you were clearly able to accept your religious views for personal reasons despite some minor discontinuities (Noah’s Arc, for instance). So because you have accepted the Bible, even with its “wrinkles,” you are in no position to object to someone else’s objections to said wrinkles… because you must have ignored them… because you had to… because the Bible is unclear about these things.

In closing, the reason this argument cannot evolve is because @Reason is challenging religion with deductive reasoning, when religion, at its best, follows from inductive reasoning.

…I apologize if my remarks don’t apply to you personally. I am admittedly speaking more to the universal idea of a Christian.