Religion.

[Florete]

@Fox:

Come oooooooooooooooon. Science HAS changed in your lifetime, it is EVER changing. Just look at computers... Science hasn't explained everything, but that doesn't mean you should fill in the gaps with a magic pixie. Especially when people like the Pixie so much that they deny the reality when it is discovered.

Where did I say Science hasn't changed? Or wait, did you think I meant that science never will change? I'll assume the latter and say that I do expect it to change/evolve/etc., but not enough in my lifetime to get me to completely disbelieve religion.

No thanks, I'd rather not wallow in bullshit up to my nose.

Part of the reason I originally left the topic, but I keep finding myself coming back.

[Kintenbo]

Ah come on! It'll be fun! I'll give you a snorkal! :D

I would do that, but I can't swim. A snorkal would be useless to me, anchor in flesh.

Anyway, Citrusman seems to be getting the right idea about things! What scientific evidence proves God's nonexistance? Evolution? Whoever said creatures looked the same backed then as they do now? Carbon dating? How sure are these scientists of it being accurate? Big Bang? I don't even know what evidence led to that idea. Anyway, just because science has it's facts, I can't see how it disproves the Lord's existance.

[Meteor]

God can't be scientifically proven nor disproven. Hopefully we have no disagreement there.

[Defeatist Elitist]

I REALLY am confused...

Just because science is right, that equals God being nonexistent? Please explain that.

The illogical is not disproved by science, science is there to help people understand their world. Would it be logical if I said some, like you, misinterpret science?

Quite frankly, in the definition of science, there is not a definition that says "Religion is false, because science is right."

I'm just tired of all the BS (Not by you personally), you say not to misinterpret the Bible, yet you believe science to be the proof that God doesn't exist. That's a hypocrite's "talk."

Science gives us all the fun facts about people and animals, it doesn't disprove religion, nor does it try to.

Anytime someone uses logical science in this subject, they think it is proof that God doesn't exist. I think it is fair to say that THAT is like using your religion for debates.

This is an illogical debate, using logic for the illogical is...illogical.

Note: This came out of nowhere, I was just wondering why it was like this.

PS: No offense Revan. I know I quoted you, but I could have posted it w/o quoting you.

I was gunna respond earlier, but my power went out.

Boy, you've got a lot to learn about arguing, but nice try nonetheless.

Science has proven many things that DIRECTLY contradict many religious beliefs. It doesn't try to disprove Religion, it just pretty much does it as a SIDE EFFECT. Because Science's purpose is to uncover the truth, thus it must disprove EVERYTHING THAT ISN'T TRUE.

Logic is the only viable means to make decisions. You can have fun and do whatever, but when it comes down to somewhere where a decision is being made, ONLY LOGIC can be applied. So yeah, I CAN use Logic in every subject, there is no place that it isn't applicable, and you're failing to address any real arguments against you and simply trying to argue semantics because your point is fundamentally flawed.

There is no such thing as a debate where you can't use logic. Logic is the primary tool.

I won't take offense because taking offense is for people who feel. :P

[Phoenix]

Part of the reason I originally left the topic, but I keep finding myself coming back.

You should stay. :D

Well the topic is about religion, and not technically science. So maybe... <.< >.> Just maybe! We should talk about religion. That can include all religion, even the stuff that nobody agrees with save the people in said religion! I guess we could also keep going down this God does not exist bit too... ... ... yipeeee... ... ...

[Meteor]

A proper discussion should also include opposition. Otherwise it's pretty boring.

[Phoenix]

A proper discussion should also include opposition. Otherwise it's pretty boring.

Exactly! Right on! You bring up a religion, and me and the athiests will oppose it. Me only because I'm bored.

[Defeatist Elitist]

You should stay. :D

Well the topic is about religion, and not technically science. So maybe... <.< >.> Just maybe! We should talk about religion. That can include all religion, even the stuff that nobody agrees with save the people in said religion! I guess we could also keep going down this God does not exist bit too... ... ... yipeeee... ... ...

No thanks, I'd rather not let people muck up their perceptions.

[Ragnell]

God can't be scientifically proven nor disproven. Hopefully we have no disagreement there.

But that is basically what this debate is about at the moment. I do agree with you, however. For everything stated by an athiest, a theist can explain how God did that. Then the athiests says what other science the theist's idea is conflicting with. The theist gives a different explanation. And repeat.

But I also think that saying God is right, science is wrong or the opposite is the completely wrong way of coming at this. Science as a whole isn't wrong or right, just certain theories or ideas. I personally believe God works THROUGH science to control the world. Science isn't wrong, and even the ideas we fight against may be partially or completely right. But I believe God uses these things, they don't disprove him.

[Defeatist Elitist]

For everything stated by an athiest, a theist can explain how God did that. Then the athiests says what other science the theist's idea is conflicting with. The theist gives a different explanation. And repeat.

But this is the thing.

Athiest states something with proof and evidence.

GOD MOVES IN MYSTERIOUS WAYS.

Athiest states more proof and evidence.

GOD MOVES IN MYSTERIOUS WAYS.

And on and on. So basically, it CAN be proven because the Theist isn't actually rebuking the point, and thus is automatically WRONG.

[Meteor]

Is it proven if it is not believed?

[Phoenix]

When I try to start a scuffle peace ensues.

When I try to start a truce, WAR, pure chaos and blood everywhere. Millions dead.

I'm not getting into politics.

Personally on the God moves in mysterious ways bit?

Well I just think he's messin with ya :P

[Phoenix Wright]

I was gunna respond earlier, but my power went out.

Boy, you've got a lot to learn about arguing, but nice try nonetheless.

Science has proven many things that DIRECTLY contradict many religious beliefs. It doesn't try to disprove Religion, it just pretty much does it as a SIDE EFFECT. Because Science's purpose is to uncover the truth, thus it must disprove EVERYTHING THAT ISN'T TRUE.

Logic is the only viable means to make decisions. You can have fun and do whatever, but when it comes down to somewhere where a decision is being made, ONLY LOGIC can be applied. So yeah, I CAN use Logic in every subject, there is no place that it isn't applicable, and you're failing to address any real arguments against you and simply trying to argue semantics because your point is fundamentally flawed.

There is no such thing as a debate where you can't use logic. Logic is the primary tool.

I won't take offense because taking offense is for people who feel. :P

I'm starting a DEEPER religion argument baby!

I think you fail to understand science is used for personal gain.

Logic cannot describe the illogical, it is IMPOSSIBLE. Is there a reason why that can't be understood?

Uncover? You mean discover, or are they the same? I don't understand this either: Some things from a long time ago are true but...

David and Goliath: "Illogical, therefore false."

Good and Evil: "Illogical, therefore false."

It seems like anything that messes with people's emotions are COMPLETELY thrown away. Why is that? Aren't emotions REAL? Why are they not considered?

Is anyone alive from there, alive now? NO. Therefore, logically you cannot disprove David never fought with Goliath. You cannot disprove the existence of good and evil.

It seems to me like some use logic to HIDE AWAY from their true fears too, not just religious peoples.

[Defeatist Elitist]

Is it proven if it is not believed?

Wuh?

Something is disproven if it has no proof, basically. If no one can present a viable argument for it's existence, then it's existence can be disregarded.

Also, before people go "WELL SCIENCE IS BIASED", no, it's not, because unlike Religion, we can actually see its results. You can't run a machine on religious ideals. :P

[Ragnell]

The way athiests debate is only using real, proven (or almost proven) facts. And many of the facts used about the Big Bang and other things are NOT even close to being proven. They've got evidence for them, obviously, but so does religion and that is considered illogical. But as I was saying, theists don't use proven facts because there are none that atheists would believe. But as I mentioned before, if you discredit religion because it isn't completely proven, then you also discredit many of the sciences stating the opposite opinion. And you will never get perfect facts about religion because that is the point or religion. If it was proven, it would be science. And it is not completely illogical, partially for sure, but not completely.

And finally, science does not disprove God, and God doesn't disprove science. They work together. That is my belief anyways.

[Defeatist Elitist]

I'm starting a DEEPER religion argument baby!

I think you fail to understand science is used for personal gain.

Logic cannot describe the illogical, it is IMPOSSIBLE. Is there a reason why that can't be understood?

Uncover? You mean discover, or are they the same? I don't understand this either: Some things from a long time ago are true but...

David and Goliath: "Illogical, therefore false."

Good and Evil: "Illogical, therefore false."

It seems like anything that messes with people's emotions are COMPLETELY thrown away. Why is that? Aren't emotions REAL? Why are they not considered?

Is anyone alive from there, alive now? NO. Therefore, logically you cannot disprove David never fought with Goliath. You cannot disprove the existence of good and evil.

It seems to me like some use logic to HIDE AWAY from their true fears too, not just religious peoples.

Hahaha. Honestly, this is so ridiculous that I am defiling myself by even deigning to respond...

Nothing cannot be explained logically.

Your point is already destroyed.

Things regarding emotions are generally disregarded because emotions are fickle things and appealing to them never does much good. This is why the law is not based off emotion, or religion for that matter (please try to argue about this one, it's loads of lulz).

People don't need to have been alive in order to know things...

You can't use logic to hide from fear.

Make real arguments from now on please.

[Phoenix]

I'm starting a DEEPER religion argument baby!

I think you fail to understand science is used for personal gain.

Logic cannot describe the illogical, it is IMPOSSIBLE. Is there a reason why that can't be understood?

Uncover? You mean discover, or are they the same? I don't understand this either: Some things from a long time ago are true but...

David and Goliath: "Illogical, therefore false."

Good and Evil: "Illogical, therefore false."

It seems like anything that messes with people's emotions are COMPLETELY thrown away. Why is that? Aren't emotions REAL? Why are they not considered?

Is anyone alive from there, alive now? NO. Therefore, logically you cannot disprove David never fought with Goliath. You cannot disprove the existence of good and evil.

It seems to me like some use logic to HIDE AWAY from their true fears too, not just religious peoples.

Head hurts

So with God unfalsifiable, let's move on to who's got the right GOD!!!

Is it the wily Muslums?

The crafty Jews?

The faithful Protestants?

The decorative Catholics?

The Bu- wait they don't have a God... next...

The Native Americans with their spirits?

The Mormons?

The Jehovah's Witnesses?

Phoenix's religion?

Phoenix's mother's religion?

Which will it be?! :P

[Defeatist Elitist]

The way athiests debate is only using real, proven (or almost proven) facts. And many of the facts used about the Big Bang and other things are NOT even close to being proven. They've got evidence for them, obviously, but so does religion and that is considered illogical. But as I was saying, theists don't use proven facts because there are none that atheists would believe. But as I mentioned before, if you discredit religion because it isn't completely proven, then you also discredit many of the sciences stating the opposite opinion. And you will never get perfect facts about religion because that is the point or religion. If it was proven, it would be science. And it is not completely illogical, partially for sure, but not completely.

I said Religions generally have pretty much no proof. The rest of your statement is ill informed, but I'll talk about it anyway...

Religion has like no evidence, and definitely less than anything opposing them in 99% of the cases. Therefore, the other option is preferable. As for the evidence for Religion, I'd love to see some of that, so that I can tear it a new one.

Also, for all you people saying "Religion is illogical", then WHY IN THE WORLD WOULD YOU BELIEVE IT?

[Phoenix Wright]

Hahaha. Honestly, this is so ridiculous that I am defiling myself by even deigning to respond...

Nothing cannot be explained logically.

Your point is already destroyed.

Things regarding emotions are generally disregarded because emotions are fickle things and appealing to them never does much good. This is why the law is not based off emotion, or religion for that matter (please try to argue about this one, it's loads of lulz).

People don't need to have been alive in order to know things...

You can't use logic to hide from fear.

Make real arguments from now on please.

So...logic is allowed in debates, yet LOGIC CANNOT explain ANYTHING? That's VERY retarded.

[Defeatist Elitist]

So...logic is allowed in debates, yet LOGIC CANNOT explain ANYTHING? That's VERY retarded.

Dude, no. I said:

There is nothing that logic cannot explain.

ie. Logic can explain everything.

I think I was pretty damn clear.

[Phoenix]

Also, for all you people saying "Religion is illogical", then WHY IN THE WORLD WOULD YOU BELIEVE IT?

I'm one of the few who said this and I mean it. Religion is pretty much illogical. And to believe it? I must find something written earlier, one sec... ... ...

There's a combination of things leading to belief in the illogical... I'll just go back and quote my old post really fast.

[Phoenix Wright]

Dude, no. I said:

There is nothing that logic cannot explain.

ie. Logic can explain everything.

I think I was pretty damn clear.

No, that double negative fucked everything up I'd say.

Well, now that you put it that way, you are false. Explain God logically. You can't? Right, therefore, this 27 long page is retarded, and should not go on any further.

[Phoenix]

Ya know... nothing freaks me out quite like a protestant church with those loud preachers saying inspirational things while the church goers keep raising their hands and crying out to God, tears in their eyes and chanting like mad. It makes me hope that they're right in their beliefs in some ways, but... I also know certain aspects of it are wrong and it bothers me. I guess it bothers me because there's just alittle too much emotion for my taste. And yeah I'm talking about the gospel preachers. The ones shouting at the top of their lungs and everyone holding each other and crying and hugging and getting alittle too well aquainted. What I find wrong with it isn't the emotion or the tear soaked cuddling, just a few doctrinal issues.

I do realize something in all of this religious craziness the world is going through. I'm no different, and you're no different from them. None of us are any different from the Catholics, the Athiests, Jewish, Protestant, Muslum, or even Scientologist groups. The only real difference is who we became. I've learned through life that enough psychological influence or torture can heavily shape who a person is and what they believe.

I would be an Athiest myself if not for several factors, and you would be a believer in the existence of God if not for several factors. Yeah logic is nice to have, but people don't give up all of their logic when they accept a religion, just a portion of it depending on what they believe. They still have logic or they would be in an asylum right now claiming they can walk on water if they concentrate hard enough and keep their eyes on the Lord. So it's not a severe lack of logic that makes religion reasonable to the person adhering, it's actually personal proof, which comes in all shapes and sizes. The belief in God usually comes from a host of different sources all thrown together to make a God logical and reasonable.

In reality, with the way the world is, and with the Bible's legitimacy always in question, religions of any kind based on the belief in something out of the ordinary are illogical. This is a world that relies on proof. Whether or not the proof is there which it usually is, the fact of the matter is that people will all come to different conclusions on their own. There's a standard for logic and that's where the Athiests seem to be at right now. Focusing on a nonexistent til proven existent which keeps things like fantasy worlds in check. But then there's faith, which holds most religions together through a slight blend of logic, "faith", and personal proof.

Here's the combination that keeps religion going! With faith, you can bypass the non existent until proven existent default. With personal proof, gathered throughout life, your belief makes sense to you and is totally logical in appearance, and with logic, you create the boundries of your belief, which keeps you from ending up in an asylum saying you can walk on water if you just concentrate and keep you eyes on the Lord. This is why people can believe in what they don't see. It's already proven to them in someway through a host of life experiences. It's the same with Athiests. You believe their is no God because it is already proven through a host of life experiences. That makes us all exactly the same. You may be using more logic than us half the time, but that is the only real difference besides our unique features.

Lack of logic in religion? Yes! Total lack? No!

Lack of logic in debating religion? Yes! Total lack? Only if you're debating it with non believers.

Lack of logic in trying to prove the existence or non existence of God? Yes! Total Lack? No.

Lack of logic in using logic as a weapon? No. Total lack? No.

Lack of logic in using logic as a weapon against faith? Yes! Total lack? Yes!

Lack of logic in constantly trying to trip up the Phoenix? Yes! Total lack? Hell yes! B) (I coverz my bases you misreaders.)

"Thank you, come again."

What that guy said! *sticks tongue out childishly* :P

[Defeatist Elitist]

No, that double negative fucked everything up I'd say.

Well, now that you put it that way, you are false. Explain God logically. You can't? Right, therefore, this 27 long page is retarded, and should not go on any further.

Actually, I can explain him logically.

He doesn't exist.

Oh look, I just did it.

[Phoenix]

Actually, I can explain him logically.

He doesn't exist.

Oh look, I just did it.

That's still an illogical conclusion with nothing backing it up.

I haven't seen this girl I liked in a long time. Is she dead now? I could assume yes, but I might be wrong. Maybe I should look her up or not jump to conclusions.