Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I personally don't think that being religious is a bad thing, unless it's perverted into an evil ideology like Isis. Most religious people follow a good moral fiber, it's the fanatics that give religion a bad name. It's the lack of respect on both sides of the fence that divides and is destructive.
I don't care which God you choose to believe in, or not. What matters is who you are on the inside and do you have respect for different opinions. One size must fit all does not belong on either side, because we never all think alike.
As the topic says, what's your favorite argument to use against religion in a discussion? Obviously there are many different angles you can undermine religion from but what's your favorite? I like to use very simple arguments.
I address them from the evil argument. I explain how can there be a God with some much evil in the world? This is the time where they start to drivel up nonsense about Adam and Eve. So then I explain that God would not even save his own followers in a church as seen in the multiple mass shootings in churches in America nor stop school shootings despite multiple "thoughts and prayers." Then they start to get really angry and talk about testing of faith.
The bible argument is another good move. Who says the bible is the word of God? The bible? The bible is infallible says the bible?
Either way, it makes for a great discussion as you see their mental gymnastics and baseless claims it takes to explain such things. So what's your favorite argument?
I'd never presume to try and undermine another's value system or his/her deeply held beliefs. It's the individual's right to believe as he/she chooses, and if those beliefs provide comfort and meaning to the life of the individual, and an anchor in this crazy world we live in, who am I (or you) to try and take that away from him/her. It doesn't matter if I (or you) understand or agree with those beliefs. And who made you infallible anyway?
I do indeed agree with a portion of what you've stated here. However, to state with any certainty that humans WILL uncover the truth concerning the origin of the universe seems just a tad too presumptuous to me...
It would appear that you've possibly over-estimated human intelligence to some extent. We must always remember that no matter how much knowledge one may have, that possessed knowledge will always be dwarfed by our insurmountable degree of ignorance.
Computer-modeling will eventually resolve the problem.
For example, the Cray Super II (and later Cray's 'Big Red') proved that there is no possible way Earth could capture the Moon. No matter what the parameters, in every instance, the Moon either sails right on by Earth, or collides with Earth.
Cray's Big Red (and IBM's 'Big Blue') are capable of performing Billions of calculations per second. Computing power will only increase over time (as Big Red is much more powerful than the Super II).
Computer-modeling has already allowed for the simulation of the Universe from 12 Million years after the Big-Bang to present.
It only requires greater computing power and more information to push back the simulation to a few seconds after the Big Bang, to the formation of singularity that led to the Big Bang.
Part of the problem-solving rests with determining the age of the Universe as exactly as possible. The age of the Universe has increased a great deal since I was in high school.
Around 1928, Hubble calculated the age at 2 Billion years, based on Red-shift. Estimated at 6 Billion years in the 1970s. 8 Billion years in 1987 based on the measure of ratios of Thorium and Neodymium in our Sun and dozens of other nearby stars. 9.5 Billion years in 1995. 13.4 Billion years in 1999. And 13.7 Billion in 2003.
Better technology allows for better measurements.
We can now measure gravitational waves, and the better we get at that, the more data we'll have, and the more data we have, the better the computer-modeling will be.
How, exactly, did mere chemical and physical processes become aware of themselves?
Um, they evolved, eventually creating highly specialized cells in mammals that form the brain. Neurons traveling across other highly specialized brain cells is what creates consciousness.
Since all mammals (and some highly developed birds) dream, it is likely that all mammals are conscious, although they obviously lack the ability to communicate that to humans.
Um, they evolved, eventually creating highly specialized cells in mammals that form the brain. Neurons traveling across other highly specialized brain cells is what creates consciousness.
Since all mammals (and some highly developed birds) dream, it is likely that all mammals are conscious, although they obviously lack the ability to communicate that to humans.
Apparently, you do not grasp the significance of the question since evolution only applies to existing life which is a YUGE step beyond mere chemical and physical processes.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
