I hate to stir anything more up but I can't resis

---

Originally Posted By: HClThe uncritical acceptance of ideas that are backed up by little or no evidence, often motivated by the ideas' falling into line with an already-held ideology, or just because the ideas cause happy feelings.I think "credulity" will do. Or "gullibility".I'm sure there's a good noun for "religious belief" or "uncritical acceptance thing", but I can't think of it at the moment. [/quote] Originally Posted By: damienAnd you are equating "uncritical acceptance of ideas that are backed up by little or no evidence" with religion? Man...you are about the most prejudiced person I have come across in years.No, not equating. Bobalicious understood exactly what I meant. Uncritical belief is a cornerstone of most religions; you can have a semantic debate over whether the others are actually religions, or rather, philosophies.I would hope that you consider Fred Phelps, founder of the Westboro Baptist Church, more prejudiced than I. Originally Posted By: damienI'm sure there are no non-religious people anywhere in the world who are ever guilty of "uncritical acceptance of ideas that are backed up by little or no evidence". And I'm sure you're not one of them. I'm afraid that it's a part of the human fabric. It's how we evolved. It probably was (and perhaps still is) an important component of social cohesion.But uncritical acceptance is part an parcel of religious belief. Young children who are raised in a religion are not going to critically examine their beliefs, and by the time they're older they are so habituated to their beliefs by their family and culture that it becomes a fact of life to them.

The Wikipedia article on Evolution of sexual reproduction is interesting. The summary in point form doesn't really hit the mark - the real question is how diploid organisms with haploid gametes evolved.

Originally Posted By: thor Originally Posted By: HClI have not found any plausible evidence, and yes, I do know how to use Google. Try Wikipedia next time... ...then track down the cited sources for yourself and try as hard as you can to disprove them all. (This should be amusing!) What is amusing is your misunderstanding of logic. Where were you educated? One does not prove the negative. Would I do it through perfect induction, and examine every point in space and eliminate the possibility that each one contains an Iraqi nuclear weapon?The "theories" posted contains wild-ass ideas. That you seem so absolutely certain that there were weapons further exposes the credulous mind that would so easily completely embrace religious dogma.Fox News shows up as a source a number of times in the Wikipedia article. The network may have an ideological bent that appeals to you, but still, as poor as the reporting on the Iraq was, all around, they proffered more misinformation than any other network.I'll tell you what. Choose from among the 52 references a few that most appeal to you. We'll take it from there.And remember, if you assert a fact, you need to back it up. If you ask someone to prove the negative, you fail at logic.

Originally Posted By: HClI would hope that you consider Fred Phelps, founder of the Westboro Baptist Church, more prejudiced than I.I think Fred Phelps is a collosal dick who should be given his own planet, one that can easily be blown up. Quote:But uncritical acceptance is part an parcel of religious belief.Not true. I understand kind of what you are trying to say, but acceptance based on faith is hardly uncritical. Your saying so betrays a prejudice. Quote:Young children who are raised in a religion are not going to critically examine their beliefs, and by the time they're older they are so habituated to their beliefs by their family and culture that it becomes a fact of life to them. Not true. Your saying so betrays a prejudice. You seem to believe that anyone who claims any faith is accepting something blindly with no thought or critical examination. You couldn't be more wrong.

Quote:

acceptance based on faith is hardly uncritical. Your saying so betrays a prejudice.
How is believing something based on....based on what? Belief? How is that not uncritical? What is faith then? It's not logic. It's not inductive reasoning. You can't set up a test to show that it's correct.

Quote:

You seem to believe that anyone who claims any faith is accepting something blindly with no thought or critical examination. You couldn't be more wrong.
Then explain to me why the vast majority of people accept the faith of their parents, and if they adopt another faith, it's almost always a prevalent faith in their community.

Religions tend to think that they are right and competing religions are wrong. Are you saying that a lot of people shop for religions they way people shop for cars? The great majority of the U.S. in Christian, the great majority in the Middle East is Muslim (except for Israel), the majority in Israel is Jewish (and is unlikely to change except through emigration or the growth of their Muslim population).

What is much more common is people losing their faith altogether, as has happened in much of Western Europe. People will nominally call themselves Christian there, but it's more of a cultural and historic thing for many of them.

You said "uncritical acceptance is part and parcel of religious belief". That means anyone with any religious belief accepts uncritically. Go ahead...continue to backtrack and pretend that's not what you said. But it is. I'm not arguing with you any more.

Thanks. Didn't reply earlier because I've been out of state.

Well lets be honest here Damien, if you really took a critical look at Christianity, you wouldn't be a Christian. Christianity is so flawed and full of hypocrisy, bigotry and bullshit.

No problem Cider. If you have any more question feel free to ask.

So I'm stupid because I'm a Christian. That's nice...and betrays a huge prejudice on your part.What if I had said something like that only substituted non-Christian. My, how the flaming would begin!

I did not call you stupid, nor do I believe that you are. Everyone can be fooled by lies, nobody is perfect. We all believed Bus at first when he said that there were weapons of mass destruction. But even when a lie is exposed some people still believe it. e.g. Thor.

Originally Posted By: bobalicious

Well lets be honest here Damien, if you really took a critical look at Christianity, you wouldn't be a Christian. Christianity is so flawed and full of hypocrisy, bigotry and bullshit.

No. People are flawed and full of hypocrisy, etc, etc.

BTW, what "lie" (your definition of the word) were you referring to?

A book can be flawed and full of hypocrisy too.Which one? The Bible or the WMDs?

The one thing I don't understand is this: If cells and their organelles evolved overtime, how did the mutations happen without a nucleus, mitochondrion, and a ribosome? I mean I can see how things could evolve after all this stuff has been laid out, but don't you need those 3 organelles before you have mutations, transcriptions, and translations that could account for other organelles and the complex cell function?

Quote:if you really took a critical look at Christianity, you wouldn't be a Christian. Christianity is so flawed and full of hypocrisy, bigotry and bullshit. Why do non-believers focus so much on the "technicalities" of Christianity? There's more to being a Christian than what you think. It's just tiring the way Christians are battered and you call out our flaws when really you know nothing about us or the religion at all. No human is perfect and yes people who claimed to be Christians have done evil things. If it makes you feel better call me God's daughter if you dislike the term Christianity because people just have a dislike for that word solely. The whole "Bible was written by man" argument gets pretty old. I never not once in my entire years of being saved looked at Christianity that way. Becoming a Christian for me was claiming a Father who loves me and unlike humans never leaves me nor forsakes me. It was gaining a best friend who loved me so much He gave Himself up to be killed so that I might have eternal life. It was losing a life of depression, hate, jealousy, fear, and pride for a life of joy, peace, love, kindness, humility, and forgiveness. How come you guys always pass over what being a Christian is really about?

Do expand on the flaws, I'll do my best to tell you that there aren't flaws in the Bible at least.

As for the crusades, I can't take responsibility for something that happened 1000 years before my time. I also can't take responsibility for the priests in the Catholic church. God is watching them and they will be punished. They took away from the innocence of childhood and I'm sure that God and Jesus aren't too happy about it, as Jesus loved children.

Quote:Do expand on the flaws, I'll do my best to tell you that there aren't flaws in the Bible at least.Red flag, my friend.Let's not jump to that so soon. Or at all would be good too.

Originally Posted By: bobaliciousif you really took a critical look at Christianity, you wouldn't be a Christian. Christianity is so flawed and full of hypocrisy, bigotry and bullshit.And once again! What the fuck! I thought we just had discussion about not starting shit again. Do unto others and you would have them do unto you. I'm sure none of you would enjoy me making fun of atheism constantly. I agreed to stop being condescending but I'm not going to stop unless you also stop. Coming from a standpoint where Hitler, Stalin, and Dahmer go unpunished when they die, how can you say that Christianity is flawed? Atheism is flawed if you ask me.

He's the one who attacked my religion and I'm the one who's going to defend it. Stay out of it if you don't like it.

-le sigh-look, guys, stop fucking pointing fingers. EVERYTHING has flaws, so just DEAL with it.