Celtic Heroes

Yes Muslims are 5 times more likely to wind up in American prisons than the average person. I don't make this up it is a fact from the US census and federal bureau of prisons.

Also as far as make belief in god yes most societies have creation myths and god. But you don't believe in juju of the mountain, zales, Odin, or Zeus do you? Even Christians can't agree on basic facts of religion. If god was real every last separated isolated culture would have exactly the same highly detailed religion. There would only be one religion.

You said that norway has low religion and crime, maybe i shoulda restated, some people could only be stable with religion, there are people who don't care for the government and the only thing stopping them from a life of crime is their faith in religion.

As i said before, don't push beliefs on people (or non-beliefs- my bad ) if we wanna live a life that you think is pointless, thats our decision.. your not a god (lol perfect time to use that expression) .

im pretty sure what solumbum said about being the better deal was a joke lol, its kinda true and funny, the same way it was a good idea to deny the apocalypse because if youre wrong, there will be nobody to say i told you so

putting facts before myth is required for societies to function. Otherwise you would be doing stupid things like preaching the evils of condoms during an aids epidemic and cause hundreds of thousands of needless deaths for example. Show me the last time scientists murdered each other over dark matter evidence because I can show you today's news of religions killing over fantasy everyday.

Btw idk about the bible, but in my religion it teaches so many good morals, that whoever set it up, either actually met god or had a godly personality because if people actually followed it instead of mis-interpreting it and pulling a missionary by trying to spread influnece, we'd have good people, is religion such a bad thing if all these good morals are there? And the population of athiests is too low to compare them to religious people because thats insufficient data.

You mean good morals like how to beat your slaves properly? Or how you should murder homosexual men? Maybe it's putting to death people who work on Sunday? The fact is the bible is full of horrible detestable genocidal misogynistic morality. You have to do extreme cherry picking of facts to make it even remotely moral.

So explain to me how your lowly human status gives you the right to ignore the mandates of your god? If god was real your thoughts mean nothing. Your morality nothing. You would have to smile and bow and scrape and live in fear your thought crime of knowing it was immoral would get you tortured forever.

I thank god he dosent exist every day.

Actually, you are trying to make the Bible sound a lot worse than it is by giving only part of the information. For instance, I could say that our country has killed 100,000 people this year. This would sound really bad. But if I told you that those people were all murderers, or victims of war, it would be ok. You have to take things in context.

What I would like to know is: How does religion contribute to the advancement of humanity?

Evolution was not created as a counterpart for religion. Science do not work to disprove religon. Religion would first need justification and evidence before it could be considered valid.

The only evidence presented that is somewhat valid, both here and in the rest of society, is the existence of places mentioned in scripture and historical events that are vague but verifiable through other historical texts. However, both are mere side truths that would indicate exaggeration and manipulation, common in folklore and myth.

The argument of "everyone has a concept of god" is not entirely incorrect. Humanity seems to be hard wired with hierarchical functionality. It is not everyone has a concept of god but rather, everyone believes someone or something is better than themself, and therefore, a collective agreement with such thought process would yield the creation of a god.

I say a god not just to be fair to every religion but to emphasise the fact that there are regions of the world that have completely different views of the being at the top of the hierarchy. Now one could say such a pattern suggests that there must be some form of god, to which I would say "perhaps." I feel that it is more probable for the idea of god to be a reflection of hardwired human nature, however, a widespread idea of a higher being across previously nonconnected groups of humans does hold some merit and would certainly be more probable than any one religon.

Now to one who would select a religon, such as the majority here who support Christianity, I would say the argument of "everyone has a concept of God" is completely incorrect and I suggest you truly examine the diversity of religon. In fact, if the concept of God had started with the first group of humans and was properly cemented as mentioned in the bible, why is it that groups of humans have almost entirely different ideas God(and gods) as well as different collections of scripture?

The Ancient Greek and Roman scripture also has mention of verifiable predictions, hisotorical facts, and places. Why would it be any less likely than European scripture?

Just a side note to this question:

Ok, so maybe god didnt create humans, how the f*** did the common ancestor we have with chimpanzees get there then?

This seems to be the question that we all want to know. The origin of life. Religion, however, does not answer it any better than science does. In fact, it is the ever present modifications in science the fact that religion is unchanging, that would make me favour the scientific ideas of evolution and the Big Bang over the simple ideas of "a god did it."


Please excuse the spelling and grammatical mistakes that are most likely above. I do not have enough time to correct them at the moment.

There is plenty of evidence that there is an intelligent being out there who created us. If you don't believe that, then look around you. If you still don't believe, look at how the Bible fits into itself. No other book has that many prophets, views, and statements that agree with each other. It conforms with history perfectly(not counting creation, as since you don't believe in that, you would count it as a descrepincy. There has never been a time when people did not believe in God, not in the Dark ages, not during the Flood(which has plenty of evidence for it by the way(how did sea shells get on top of mountains? Also, the fossils under the earth are layered in the exact manner we would expect if there was a world wide flood.) The Bible matches up exactly with real science. It is evolution that does not match up with the scientific message. It has not been observed, nor is thereany fossil evidence for it. The chances of it occurring are so minute it is not even funny. The Bible can fit into any developments that science makes while evolution tries to explain even the laws of thermodynamics. I am tired of people saying that creationism is not scientific. It is. I am not a moron(against popular belief). I do not deny reality. I just accept what science has proven correct(aka creationism) and reject what it has proven wrong(aka evolution).

What I would like to know is: How does religion contribute to the advancement of humanity?

Evolution was not created as a counterpart for religion. Science do not work to disprove religon. Religion would first need justification and evidence before it could be considered valid.

The only evidence presented that is somewhat valid, both here and in the rest of society, is the existence of places mentioned in scripture and historical events that are vague but verifiable through other historical texts. However, both are mere side truths that would indicate exaggeration and manipulation, common in folklore and myth.

The argument of "everyone has a concept of god" is not entirely incorrect. Humanity seems to be hard wired with hierarchical functionality. It is not everyone has a concept of god but rather, everyone believes someone or something is better than themself, and therefore, a collective agreement with such thought process would yield the creation of a god.

I say a god not just to be fair to every religion but to emphasise the fact that there are regions of the world that have completely different views of the being at the top of the hierarchy. Now one could say such a pattern suggests that there must be some form of god, to which I would say "perhaps." I feel that it is more probable for the idea of god to be a reflection of hardwired human nature, however, a widespread idea of a higher being across previously nonconnected groups of humans does hold some merit and would certainly be more probable than any one religon.

Now to one who would select a religon, such as the majority here who support Christianity, I would say the argument of "everyone has a concept of God" is completely incorrect and I suggest you truly examine the diversity of religon. In fact, if the concept of God had started with the first group of humans and was properly cemented as mentioned in the bible, why is it that groups of humans have almost entirely different ideas God(and gods) as well as different collections of scripture?

The Ancient Greek and Roman scripture also has mention of verifiable predictions, hisotorical facts, and places. Why would it be any less likely than European scripture?

Just a side note to this question:

Ok, so maybe god didnt create humans, how the f*** did the common ancestor we have with chimpanzees get there then?

This seems to be the question that we all want to know. The origin of life. Religion, however, does not answer it any better than science does. In fact, it is the ever present modifications in science the fact that religion is unchanging, that would make me favour the scientific ideas of evolution and the Big Bang over the simple ideas of "a god did it."


Please excuse the spelling and grammatical mistakes that are most likely above. I do not have enough time to correct them at the moment.

The claim of 'science does not work to disprove religion' isn't really true it depends on your meaning. Yes the purpose of science is not solely to disprove religion. But evolutionary biology, cosmology, geology, heck even math (if you buy the perfect circle 3 cubits across and 10 in circumference quote) all have shown Christianity false. It's too bad for the believers that its unfounded and completely untrue.

If a god (or set of them) was real and they were the childish type demanding worship and so concerned over what holes are for what gods (like Jesus or Mohammad) - the evidence would be obvious. All cultures across all times would have only one specific and exactly the same religion.

The fact there isn't a single large religion that isn't fractured into tiny splinter groups each with a different version of what really happened is a big clue here. The fact that separate cultures have only mythology in common and absolutely ZERO details is a bigger clue. In fact the murdering each other over the details no one can agree on pretty much cinches it.

Just going to add my post here and merge topics:
In life there are people, events, ideas, and so much more. The best part is that we have found a way to communicate such information; pure and neutral information. Information does not require insults and if you have to insult to make your point, then your information is most likely flawed.

In regards to a certain idea that evolution and the Big Bang are only theories; may I remind you that in science we differentiate between laws and theories by how much evidence and how much certainty. With all things considered, everything is a theory and we can not be certain about anything. It is, however, based on patterns and a preponderance of evidence that we choose to stabilise society and make progress.

The evidence I had listed for both were in another topic and I shall repost it here:
Big Bang: from http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astrono ... l#evidence
a) Large-scale homogeneity
b) Hubble diagram
c) Abundances of light elements
d) Existence of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation
e) Fluctuations in the CMBR
f) Large-scale structure of the universe
g) Age of stars
h) Evolution of galaxies
i) Time dilation in supernova brightness curves
j) Tolman tests
k) Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect
l) Integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect
m) Dark Matter
n) Dark Energy
z) Consistency

Evolution:
a) Early behaviour
b) Genetics
c) Fossils
d) Dating

The only hard evidence I can come up with for the bible is the bible and that is a fallacy. Someone mentioned that it had some historical events written down and, therefore, the rest of it is truth. Well, Ancient Greek religious scripture, which we now call mythology, included some historically correct information. Does that make all of it truth?

Another reminder, we judge by a preponderance of the evidence. Therefore, even if a few things with religion is correct and has valid reasoning, other ideas have far greater evidence. The type of evidence that is physical, continuing, contains patterns, etc.

There is plenty of evidence that there is an intelligent being out there who created us. If you don't believe that, then look around you. If you still don't believe, look at how the Bible fits into itself. No other book has that many prophets, views, and statements that agree with each other. It conforms with history perfectly(not counting creation, as since you don't believe in that, you would count it as a descrepincy. There has never been a time when people did not believe in God, not in the Dark ages, not during the Flood(which has plenty of evidence for it by the way(how did sea shells get on top of mountains? Also, the fossils under the earth are layered in the exact manner we would expect if there was a world wide flood.) The Bible matches up exactly with real science. It is evolution that does not match up with the scientific message. It has not been observed, nor is thereany fossil evidence for it. The chances of it occurring are so minute it is not even funny. The Bible can fit into any developments that science makes while evolution tries to explain even the laws of thermodynamics. I am tired of people saying that creationism is not scientific. It is. I am not a moron(against popular belief). I do not deny reality. I just accept what science has proven correct(aka creationism) and reject what it has proven wrong(aka evolution).

Bro, first i agree fully with ya, second, wut ur trying to convince them of is like trying to convince the devil that God is good...

Just going to add my post here and merge topics:
In life there are people, events, ideas, and so much more. The best part is that we have found a way to communicate such information; pure and neutral information. Information does not require insults and if you have to insult to make your point, then your information is most likely flawed.

In regards to a certain idea that evolution and the Big Bang are only theories; may I remind you that in science we differentiate between laws and theories by how much evidence and how much certainty. With all things considered, everything is a theory and we can not be certain about anything. It is, however, based on patterns and a preponderance of evidence that we choose to stabilise society and make progress.

The evidence I had listed for both were in another topic and I shall repost it here:
Big Bang: from http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astrono ... l#evidence
a) Large-scale homogeneity
b) Hubble diagram
c) Abundances of light elements
d) Existence of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation
e) Fluctuations in the CMBR
f) Large-scale structure of the universe
g) Age of stars
h) Evolution of galaxies
i) Time dilation in supernova brightness curves
j) Tolman tests
k) Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect
l) Integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect
m) Dark Matter
n) Dark Energy
z) Consistency

Evolution:
a) Early behaviour
b) Genetics
c) Fossils
d) Dating

The only hard evidence I can come up with for the bible is the bible and that is a fallacy. Someone mentioned that it had some historical events written down and, therefore, the rest of it is truth. Well, Ancient Greek religious scripture, which we now call mythology, included some historically correct information. Does that make all of it truth?

Another reminder, we judge by a preponderance of the evidence. Therefore, even if a few things with religion is correct and has valid reasoning, other ideas have far greater evidence. The type of evidence that is physical, continuing, contains patterns, etc.

Ya this is way long ago but i gotta say, science cant PROVE anything

The claim of 'science does not work to disprove religion' isn't really true it depends on your meaning. Yes the purpose of science is not solely to disprove religion. But evolutionary biology, cosmology, geology, heck even math (if you buy the perfect circle 3 cubits across and 10 in circumference quote) all have shown Christianity false. It's too bad for the believers that its unfounded and completely untrue.

If a god (or set of them) was real and they were the childish type demanding worship and so concerned over what holes are for what gods (like Jesus or Mohammad) - the evidence would be obvious. All cultures across all times would have only one specific and exactly the same religion.

The fact there isn't a single large religion that isn't fractured into tiny splinter groups each with a different version of what really happened is a big clue here. The fact that separate cultures have only mythology in common and absolutely ZERO details is a bigger clue. In fact the murdering each other over the details no one can agree on pretty much cinches it.

U HOPELESS IDIOT (whoever in there said religion proves the monkey thing no better) OFC IT DOES, JUST THINK, THINK THINK THINK THINK