• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Which religious situation would you prefer?

Which would you prefer?

  • A world with one religion

    Votes: 1 2.6%
  • A world with several religions

    Votes: 21 53.8%
  • A world with no religion

    Votes: 17 43.6%

  • Total voters
    39
Sounds...wow...sounds no better than nazism... Just replace "religion" with "conservativism", "capitalism", "judaism" etc. and, bang, atheist nazism.


Don't worry yourself any about helping those poor people who have that horrid disease, religion, just call the people who recognize their need for help "Nazis", and you'll feel all better about yourself.
 
Religions do not create any conflicts,disputes, strife,hatred, famines, war, on and on......
Ignorance, fear, intolerance, disrespect, does these things.

Religion, in history, has caused every one of those things, including famine. Which religion was trying to starve which religion into submission in Bosnia?
 
Religion, in history, has caused every one of those things, including famine. Which religion was trying to starve which religion into submission in Bosnia?

No religion has done anything of the sort.
 
This assertion is as much a statement of belief as the existence of the Creator Deity, and rests on as much empirical support.

No. Humans have searched 100,000 for evidence of their gods. Ain't never found a shred of a hint of any.

That human behavior is influenced by internal unconscious urges and desires is incontrovertible fact.

First, absence of proof is not proof of absence.

You people always like to say that. It makes you feel good, but then you don't admit there's not one shred of evidence for any religion whatsoever.

Frankly, I'm not required to prove there isn't a god. It's not logically possible. However, since nothing observed requires a Magic Sky Pixie to explain it's existence, God is not necessary, and thus by Occam's Razor, a superfluous hindrance to intellectual progress.

You people's failure to provide the least bit of evidence to support your claim is your problem. You people are making positive assertions of the existence of something and don't have any evidence whatsoever to back it up. The logical failure is evident there. Also, religion has been a HUGE millstone around the collective neck of humanity, repeatedly interfering and inhibiting progress towards more enlightened existence.

Example 1: The Babylonians invented the Zero to aid their mathematical calculations of astronomy. The Greeks rejected that zero, and it's inverse, the infinite, because their religion accepted neither. Because he did not have the zero, Archimedes failed to invent the calculus, though it's clear that he was both intelligent enough to do so and working out solutions to problems, such as the area of a circular spandrel, that led others directly to the calculus because they, two thousand years later, weren't shy of the zero or the infinite.

Example 2: The absurd superstitions against human dissection held back medical knowledge for centuries, killing countless by the perpetuation of ignorance.

In the particular phenomenon of religious belief, it necessarily exists in the absence of proof--hence the use of the word "faith".

No. Modern religious belief, as practiced by the Jews, the Christians, and the Muslims, demand not faith in the absence of evidence, but faith to reject evidence. It takes an enormous amount of "faith" to pretend that the religion promoted by the internally inconsistent Bible, for example, has anything to do with any possible "real" god. The stories conflict logically, the stories frequently simply don't fit reality (Noah's Flood being the easiest to dispell, but not the only one), and its simply not possible for a healthy rational mind to accept the document, and hence the religion it advertises, as anything except the rantings of dead ignorant savages.

Second, the Bible is not an historical document, nor does it necessarily contradict evolution.

Of topic...and you're wrong.

If one charts the progression of creation through the aforementioned seven days, one sees that there is no contradiction with evolutionary theory.

Read Genesis sometime, it's apparent you've not done that.

The metaphorical creation myth of Genesis and Darwin are not necessarily in opposition to each other. Darwin neither proves nor disproves God.

A-hah. The usual "it's all a metaphor, not meant to be taken literally argument, except for those places where it can't be checked, and then by golly! it's absolutely inerrantly true!" argument.

If the bible is lying about the Flood, and it is, then there's absolutely no reason - that means NONE - to accept the magical hymen of Mary or any of the other circus acts in the first century that form the basis of "evidence" for Christianity. Jesus, if he existed, was the son of a human sperm donor, just like everyone else.

And thus christianity is just a surviving example of an ancient Mithraic cult, of which there are many examples of in history.

Third, personality and "soul" are two different constructs: one an observed psychological phenomenon, the other a metaphysical construct whose import and even existence is a matter of debate among religious thinkers. Buddhism, for example, despite its assertion of rebirth, also asserts the doctrine of anatman--"no soul" in Sanskrit.

Yes. Personality is an observed expression. "Soul" is an imaginary concept.

I do not desire a world filled with recovering Catholics. I do not share your vision of what is "best".

I've never denied anyone their freedom to be wrong. I seek to avoid exercising that freedom in myself, however. That's why I don't have a religion.
 
That's true. Only problem is, if they are correct, then they need to justify how 75% of America and 30%(80% if you include all other religions beside christianity) of the entire world has, all of a sudden, a "mental disorder".

"All of a sudden"? It's an instinctive urge that holds families, clans, and societies together. It's served an evolutionary purpose. Religion provided the comfort of secure knowledge in the times of ignorance. It's outmoded, dangerous, and an impediment to progress today, when reliable methods of discerning real truths have been developed and shown to work.

Doesn't mean it's valid, just like civilized people no longer perform clitoretomies on their girl children or circumcise their boy children, civilized people should be able to shed the bonds religion places on their minds.

Where would we be today if Archimedes had found the calculus and disseminated it all around the Mediterranean? The birth of the calculus transformed european natural history into science. What would the world be like today if science could have had that two thousand year head start the Greeks abhorrence of the zero denied us?
 
Don't worry yourself any about helping those poor people who have that horrid disease, religion, just call the people who recognize their need for help "Nazis", and you'll feel all better about yourself.
How about I just say religion isn't a disease. mmk? I have yet to see any proof that it is from you.
 
A world with 1 religion would have the benefit that everyone would believe in either the same fiction, or have discovered Truth. However, with billions of people, and one religion, there are so many viewpoints, interpretations, and spiritual understandings that inevitbaly, different sects of this religion would eventually spring up.... and given enough time this would likely change enough that you could ultimately call them many religions...

Now, a one world STATE SPONSORED religion... that would be a catastrophe in the making.

A world with NO religion would be an ideal... but just like how you can go to AA to stop drinking booze and walk out chugging a coffee every hour to compensate.... people would fnd something to have faith in, if nothing else to fill the void.
 
You people always like to say that. It makes you feel good, but then you don't admit there's not one shred of evidence for any religion whatsoever.
A great many people I have met assure me there are multiple proofs of the Divine, and have stated their proofs with specificity. Are their interpretations of certain phenomena necessarily accurate or correct? I do not know.

Frankly, I'm not required to prove there isn't a god. It's not logically possible. However, since nothing observed requires a Magic Sky Pixie to explain it's existence, God is not necessary, and thus by Occam's Razor, a superfluous hindrance to intellectual progress.
The irony of this is that William of Occam articulated his principle as means of evaluating and critiquing the theological debates of his time (11th Century). William himself was an English monastic.

However, if you assert there is no God, then yes, you are required to prove your thesis if it is to be accepted as logical argument. Given your admission above that such proof is impossible, your insistent denial of the possibility of a deity (or deities) is irrational on its face.

Yet the debate of the moment is not the reality or unreality of the deity, but of the necessity of religiosity that impels the assertion of the one or the other. The fervor and anger of your commentary speaks of a most passionate faith in the rightness of your position--of a religious conviction in this regard. The anger of your refutation merely demonstrates the necessity of religion that has been my thesis throughout.

You people's failure to provide the least bit of evidence to support your claim is your problem. You people are making positive assertions of the existence of something and don't have any evidence whatsoever to back it up. The logical failure is evident there. Also, religion has been a HUGE millstone around the collective neck of humanity, repeatedly interfering and inhibiting progress towards more enlightened existence.
I have not made a positive assertion of a deity. I have made a positive assertion of the necessity of religion, and of the inevitability of religion.

Further, while religious authorities have often impeded scientific research, claiming that religion itself is a "millstone" is paradoxically yet another example of a religiously inclined position. As for scientific progress leading to "enlightenment"--also a claim lacking in substantiation. (you should take note of the difference between pointing out the unproved nature of your assertions and a disputing of them.)

No. Modern religious belief, as practiced by the Jews, the Christians, and the Muslims, demand not faith in the absence of evidence, but faith to reject evidence. It takes an enormous amount of "faith" to pretend that the religion promoted by the internally inconsistent Bible, for example, has anything to do with any possible "real" god. The stories conflict logically, the stories frequently simply don't fit reality (Noah's Flood being the easiest to dispell, but not the only one), and its simply not possible for a healthy rational mind to accept the document, and hence the religion it advertises, as anything except the rantings of dead ignorant savages.
I will only say that the clergy I have known explicitly reject the notion that faith must reject evidence.

A-hah. The usual "it's all a metaphor, not meant to be taken literally argument, except for those places where it can't be checked, and then by golly! it's absolutely inerrantly true!" argument.
This is a rather pathetic straw man argument. Nowhere have I asserted, claimed, or implied the inerrancy of any sacred text.

If the bible is lying about the Flood, and it is, then there's absolutely no reason - that means NONE - to accept the magical hymen of Mary or any of the other circus acts in the first century that form the basis of "evidence" for Christianity. Jesus, if he existed, was the son of a human sperm donor, just like everyone else.
Your argument is its own refutation. There is considerable evidence of a catastrophic flood some 6,000 years ago covering at least a significant portion of the Tigris-Euphrates valley. Additionally, one should not lose sight of the fact that the last Ice Age ended a mere 14,000 years ago; the Flood myth may merely be the murky remembrance of the ending of that period of glaciation. Thus, the statement the Bible "lies" about the Flood is simply not proven. If the Bible is not lying about the Flood, reversing your logic, the divine origin of Jesus is quite reasonable.

I've never denied anyone their freedom to be wrong. I seek to avoid exercising that freedom in myself, however. That's why I don't have a religion.
Yes you do. It's called atheism.
 
How about I just say religion isn't a disease. mmk? I have yet to see any proof that it is from you.

Can't help you there. I don't lie to make other people happy.

Don't want to call it a disease? Fine. Call it an exhibition of the ignorance of the human mind, then.

At one time, people thought thunder and lightning were the violent expressions of an angry god. Now we know lighting is just electricity and thunder is a harmless loud noise.

Our society has the maturity to recognize religion for what it is, an interaction between the conscious and subconscious minds without any magical outside interference. We need to shed the ignorance of our heritage and move forward towards a more enlightened age.
 
But is that "blind" faith? Or is it merely misinformed?
Could be one or the other or both. The point is that very few religions stress teaching WHY their followers should do things and instead focus on WHAT the followers should do. This is understandable because many religions tend to be highly complex and NOT intuitive.

However, religious education pales in comparison to activities such as scientific research because PROOF and JUSTIFICATION are always at the forefront of the latter.

Sunday schools and Bible study groups seem to me to contradict you on this. People do spend time at least attempting to become educated, and to educate others--with no doubt varying degrees of success.
I agree but most of these learning institutions are pathetic compared to how university classes are taught.


You never made the explicit claim. However, your sole example pertained to the afterlife, thus implying the predicate. The significance of the predicate is that it inaccurately narrows the scope of religious belief and its significance to the individual.
Well i didn't make the claim. I can understand why you thought so but I wasn't making such a claim.

While what comes after death is of great importance to many, how one lives until death is for many a religious question of equal or greater importance.
Obviously.:mrgreen:


"Ignorance is bliss". I will leave a judgment of the intelligence and rationality of the debaters to you.
Assuming ignorance is Bliss is assuming that the probability of being ignorant allows a greater chance of favorable outcomes than knowledge.

1) You can't know for certain what things will allow greater probability of positive outcomes until you already remove your ignorance. And you can't forcefully "forget".

2) How one would even calculate probability for increased positive outcomes is beyond me.

There is not a definitive conclusion that knowledge is superior to ignorance. However, using inductive reasoning we can easily see that knowledge has had an extremely positive impact on the lives of countless people.


celticlord said:
scourge99 said:
Isn't that a good thing thus tipping the scales ever so slightly toward "no religion".
"No religion" is attainable within the human psyche:
I don't see how me saying that has anything to do with you thinking I claimed what you said.

How can the scales be tipped towards something not even feasible? My assertion has always been that religious belief of some form is intrinsic to the human condition. Religion--whether celebrated as moral guide or derided as voodoo and superstition--is one of the oldest and enduring aspects of human society and civilization; do we dismiss this as coincidence?
So its an argument to popularity you wish to propose?

Yet there are also innumerable examples of beliefs working to alleviate human suffering: Mother Teresa, Damien de Veuster, Albert Schweitzer, Siddartha Gautama, Francis of Assissi, Mohandas "Mahatma" Ghandi, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., just to name a few. Is removing these definitive goods a worthy price to eradicate the putative evils?
Considering that all these do-gooders could have done the same without a belief in God and the fact that atheists and agnostics do such virtuous things as well, then yes I can argue that religion can be removed without fear of losing such positive things.
 
A great many people I have met assure me there are multiple proofs of the Divine, and have stated their proofs with specificity. Are their interpretations of certain phenomena necessarily accurate or correct? I do not know.

They're wrong.

The irony of this is that William of Occam articulated his principle as means of evaluating and critiquing the theological debates of his time (11th Century). William himself was an English monastic.

Yep. Don't ever discount the value of serendipity.

However, if you assert there is no God, then yes, you are required to prove your thesis if it is to be accepted as logical argument.

Then, no, I'm not. I'm required to review the evidence, note that it can all be explained without recourse to the magical, explain the flaws of assuming the magical as an explanation, and then stop.

That's been done repeatedly. The religious people assert their god is real. The religious people provide no evidence. Their job has not been done.

Given your admission above that such proof is impossible, your insistent denial of the possibility of a deity (or deities) is irrational on its face.

Wrong.

It's a valid working theory consistent with the format of scientific theories. It addresses the observed facts, it makes predictions, ie, that God doesn't exist so She's not showing up anytime in the near future...by which I mean never, and it's falsifiable, ie, if She does show up, the theory is false.

The "theory" religion operates under doesn't address observed fact, doesn't make sustainable predictions, and cannot be falsified. It's not a rational view of the universe, and therefore is not scientific in the least.

Yet the debate of the moment is not the reality or unreality of the deity, but of the necessity of religiosity that impels the assertion of the one or the other. The fervor and anger of your commentary speaks of a most passionate faith in the rightness of your position--of a religious conviction in this regard. The anger of your refutation merely demonstrates the necessity of religion that has been my thesis throughout.

What anger? Oh, you mean the reflections of the emotions you're feeling when you read a rational refutation of the silliness of religion? That's internal to you? I'm posting words here, you're not capturing any of my emotions from mere unadorned text.

Religion isn't necessary, not to any competently rational and emotionally balanced mind.

I have not made a positive assertion of a deity. I have made a positive assertion of the necessity of religion, and of the inevitability of religion.

Sure religion is inevitable. It's a manifestation of human instinct and all such manifestations have to be educated out of the individual, who needs to be trained to recognize the symptoms and who needs to be trained how to respond to those symptoms to minimize the onslaught of the emotional overload religion imposes to overthrow the rational mind.

Just like children have to learn to control their little temper tantrums, children should be taught to use their minds and not be deceived by adults using religion to cover their own ignorance and possible embarassment, depending on what the topic is.

Further, while religious authorities have often impeded scientific research, claiming that religion itself is a "millstone" is paradoxically yet another example of a religiously inclined position.

No it's not. It's an assessment of the damage religous behavior has done to human societies.

As for scientific progress leading to "enlightenment"--also a claim lacking in substantiation. (you should take note of the difference between pointing out the unproved nature of your assertions and a disputing of them.)

Right. Everyone I know runs to cower under their beds when the gods hurl their thunderbolts at the sinful and evil. Frankly, it's surprising, isn't it, how flawed the gods really are? They cast hundreds of thousands of those angry thunderbolts at America every year, and only very few people are actually hit. You think the gods are mad at the trees and the grass?

Then again, science enlightened us about what lightning really is.

I will only say that the clergy I have known explicitly reject the notion that faith must reject evidence.

They can't reject it. The evidence is that the clergy have it all wrong. And once they start babbling about metaphorical this and parable that in their bibles....they've taken away any reason to support the weird notion that Mary was a virgin.

This is a rather pathetic straw man argument. Nowhere have I asserted, claimed, or implied the inerrancy of any sacred text.

I don't care about you. Christianity at its heart has to insist on the inerrancy of it's ancient texts...and so does every other religion. If you want to pretend the logical inconsistencies you have to follow to be a christian while avoiding the logical inconsistencies you'd have to follow to be a gen-u-ine bible thumper, fine. You're still not being logically consistent, and thus deceiving yourself.

Your argument is its own refutation. There is considerable evidence of a catastrophic flood some 6,000 years ago covering at least a significant portion of the Tigris-Euphrates valley.

See what I mean?

The Bible says "the whole earth" was covered.

Specifically, here's some bible nonsense for ya:

Genesis 7:19-20
19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.

20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.

So first we have all the high hilss under the whole heaven were drowned....but then again, those high hills were less than thirty feet all, since a cubit is roughly a foot and a half.

Then again, if the water was only thirty feet deep....that's not much of a flood....I mean if it rained for 960 hours straight....that's only 3/8 of an inch of rain per hour. Not very impressive, is it?....but if the water was only thirty feet deep, ain't no way it was a global flood, and ain't no way any thing resembling a species saving ark was required.

And that's just two sentences out of the whole bible. There's a thousand websited dedicated to showing the inconsistencies and irrationalities of the bible, I'm not going to chase them for you. If you want to see, find'em yourself.

But you don't want to see them, do you?

Also, the geological evidence today says that first off, no global flood EVER happened. Period. Didn't happen. Large local floods happen here, later large local floods happen there. Inbetween times some people here and there survive a disastrous flood that makes them feel their entire world is almost destroyed, and they start legends about them, not to mention the human psychological urge to invest in stories of catastrophic destruction and miraculous re-birth. The cult of Mithra promoted such a religion...when were they popular...oh yes...just before, during, and after the jesus mythology became so popular.

Additionally, one should not lose sight of the fact that the last Ice Age ended a mere 14,000 years ago; the Flood myth may merely be the murky remembrance of the ending of that period of glaciation.

The middle-eastern flood mythology is almost certainly both a cultural echo of the vast flood that filled the Black Sea and the reinforcement those legends had by the flood that washed "gilgamesh" out to the Red Sea from Mesopotamia. It's practically certain that the tale of Noah is blatant plagiarism from the Gilgamesh tale.

Thus, the statement the Bible "lies" about the Flood is simply not proven. If the Bible is not lying about the Flood, reversing your logic, the divine origin of Jesus is quite reasonable.

Nice song and dance. Doesn't work on anyone that's studied the matter with an open mind.

Yes you do. It's called atheism.

Atheism ain't a religion.

Next thing you'll be telling us socialism isn't a religion.
 
I’d prefer a world without religion.
If you follow Jesus then follow him personally.
If you follow Allah then follow him personally.
If you follow…
 
A great many people I have met assure me there are multiple proofs of the Divine, and have stated their proofs with specificity. Are their interpretations of certain phenomena necessarily accurate or correct? I do not know.

What would count as 'proof' of the divine??

Even though, I've heard that many scientists that study genes through electron microscopes and all start seeing a certain validity to some sort of 'intelligent design' since the structures are SOO intricately complex that it would almost require a 'designer'. Keep in mind that most scientists have an aversion to 'religion' since in scientific terms, god cannot be 'proven'.

However, if you assert there is no God, then yes, you are required to prove your thesis if it is to be accepted as logical argument. Given your admission above that such proof is impossible, your insistent denial of the possibility of a deity (or deities) is irrational on its face.

My big issue is that if there is a true, natural all loving knowing, seeing, and powerful... wouldn't I be naturally drawn to this god rather than having to have it sold to me through religion?

Yet the debate of the moment is not the reality or unreality of the deity, but of the necessity of religiosity that impels the assertion of the one or the other. The fervor and anger of your commentary speaks of a most passionate faith in the rightness of your position--of a religious conviction in this regard. The anger of your refutation merely demonstrates the necessity of religion that has been my thesis throughout.

I'm not quite certain WHY humans have a need to have 'faith' and believe in an afterlife.... The problems don't stem so much from the religions themselves, but rather this 'religious conviction' that one persons beliefs are right and anothers ultimately wrong.


I have not made a positive assertion of a deity. I have made a positive assertion of the necessity of religion, and of the inevitability of religion.

I agree... even in a lack of a religion is still a 'religious' belief. I oppose most all religion, but believe in the truth contained within the texts... the ancient writings contain truths, but each religion (consider, how many different religions have sprouted from 'the bible'?) is ultimately used as a means of social control... sometimes extreme, like German preachers being urged to use Romans 13 in their sermons (with the message to bow down to the will of 'god'... essentially ... even though Jesus (much like the founding fathers I digress) in this day and age would have been viewed as some sort of renegade or terrorist.

Your argument is its own refutation. There is considerable evidence of a catastrophic flood some 6,000 years ago covering at least a significant portion of the Tigris-Euphrates valley. Additionally, one should not lose sight of the fact that the last Ice Age ended a mere 14,000 years ago; the Flood myth may merely be the murky remembrance of the ending of that period of glaciation. Thus, the statement the Bible "lies" about the Flood is simply not proven. If the Bible is not lying about the Flood, reversing your logic, the divine origin of Jesus is quite reasonable.

Don't forget that EVERY culture around the world has a myth involving a great deluge, divine intervention/instruction, that eradicated all the low-lands. For that to be the case there are a few possibiliities :
a) This story is an elaborate fiction deemed worthy of maintaining over the centuries
b) There was a massive deluge of global scale that wiped out all those living in low lands (where did the water come from?? This really is the most intriguing possibility... because IF the deluge can be shown to be accurate.... where does the 'truth' in these stories end?? Soddom and Gomorrah? Lots wife being turned into a pillar of 'salt' ??)
c) There really was a 'deluge' in the time of the first cultures BEFORE humanity spread out to the four corners


Yes you do. It's called atheism.

Atheism... the sad thing about atheism, is that as an idea it was pushed and 'promoted' (so to speak) because we are about to enter a 'new world' and in this 'new world' it is wrong to have people being driven by a 'god' when it is the STATE that the people should be listening to.
 
Don't forget that EVERY culture around the world has a myth involving a great deluge, divine intervenhtion/instruction, that eradicated all the low-lands. For that to be the case there are a few possibiliities :
a) This story is an elaborate fiction deemed worthy of maintaining over the centuries
b) There was a massive deluge of global scale that wiped out all those living in low lands (where did the water come from?? This really is the most intriguing possibility... because IF the deluge can be shown to be accurate.... where does the 'truth' in these stories end?? Soddom and Gomorrah? Lots wife being turned into a pillar of 'salt' ??)
c) There really was a 'deluge' in the time of the first cultures BEFORE humanity spread out to the four corners

None of those. While every major culture does have a major flood story, virtually none of them have more than a few details in common. The Chinese flood stories involve flooding from various rivers and many people survived not to mention why the Gods did it was vastly different. Historically, we know that the area around the black sea did have a massive flood and the earliest flood story of note, the Epic of Gilgamesh is believed to have mutated into the Enuma Elish and eventually got into the Torah as traders from the north moved down into what is now Israel.

The actual evidence for a global flood is absolutely nil. Furthermore, every push to prove a global flood comes up short and often results in even more problems. Walleye tried to argue it by citing a theory that its own creator states requires a miracle to deal with the extraordinary heat. The problem with compacting a global flood into 6,000~4,000 years ago is primarily the resulting heat. The Bible itself kills all life by stating the waters came from within the Earth. Releasing trillions of cubic meters of superheated water instantly will poach virtually all life.
 
None of those. While every major culture does have a major flood story, virtually none of them have more than a few details in common. The Chinese flood stories involve flooding from various rivers and many people survived not to mention why the Gods did it was vastly different. Historically, we know that the area around the black sea did have a massive flood and the earliest flood story of note, the Epic of Gilgamesh is believed to have mutated into the Enuma Elish and eventually got into the Torah as traders from the north moved down into what is now Israel.

The actual evidence for a global flood is absolutely nil. Furthermore, every push to prove a global flood comes up short and often results in even more problems. Walleye tried to argue it by citing a theory that its own creator states requires a miracle to deal with the extraordinary heat. The problem with compacting a global flood into 6,000~4,000 years ago is primarily the resulting heat. The Bible itself kills all life by stating the waters came from within the Earth. Releasing trillions of cubic meters of superheated water instantly will poach virtually all life.

from within the earth does not necessarily equate to super heated water...most springs put out cold water, and they are certainly from within the earth.

most of those OT stories are sensationalized fiction, or exaggerations of some minor event blown out of proportion....
 
from within the earth does not necessarily equate to super heated water...most springs put out cold water, and they are certainly from within the earth.

Perhaps, but not when you consider the sheer amount of water not to mention it specifically states "fountains of the deep." No spring system can contain trillions of cubic meters of water under sufficient pressure to shoot miles into the air upon release. The only place where that can occur is within the mantle. And that's superheated water. This is of course lost on most YECs who are quite frankly, dumb as bricks.

most of those OT stories are sensationalized fiction, or exaggerations of some minor event blown out of proportion....

No question. Thousands of years of passing oral traditions down will lead to massive exaggerations.
 
The only acceptable answer is a world with multiple religions. Both one religion and no religion are too strict in so far as "limiting" human thought.
 
The only acceptable answer is a world with multiple religions. Both one religion and no religion are too strict in so far as "limiting" human thought.

makes good sense....
It would be even better if a common thread among them all is that freedom of thought is allowed by all, that no one religion tried to insist that they have the only true path to God....
 
The only acceptable answer is a world with multiple religions. Both one religion and no religion are too strict in so far as "limiting" human thought.

My logic in creating this thread was this:

A world with no religion is not necessarily a world in which religion is outlawed, but a world in which religion never existed.
 
My logic in creating this thread was this:

A world with no religion is not necessarily a world in which religion is outlawed, but a world in which religion never existed.

Still that would be a world where no peoples were creative enough to entertain ideas about our existence, our creation, our purpose, and our immortality in some form or shape. That's a fairly limited world. Unless you allow for Gods to be exchanged for aliens or the word God just replaced with other words describing similar metaphysical theories. Humans have a creative thoughtful philosophical essence that sorta goes hand in hand with a variety of religious beliefs.
 
My logic in creating this thread was this:

A world with no religion is not necessarily a world in which religion is outlawed, but a world in which religion never existed.

I was simply envisioning a world in which the large majority of people finally woke up and realized what religion was, a process of communication between the subconscious and the conscious minds, not a mystic pathway to real-world secret knowledge.
 
I was simply envisioning a world in which the large majority of people finally woke up and realized what religion was, a process of communication between the subconscious and the conscious minds, not a mystic pathway to real-world secret knowledge.

Still that would be a world where no peoples were creative enough to entertain ideas about our existence, our creation, our purpose, and our immortality in some form or shape. That's a fairly limited world. Unless you allow for Gods to be exchanged for aliens or the word God just replaced with other words describing similar metaphysical theories. Humans have a creative thoughtful philosophical essence that sorta goes hand in hand with a variety of religious beliefs.


Oh ok, I think I understand now. That makes sense.

I guess the want to have a world with no religion comes from the conflicts that come with it, not necessarily the idea of religion itself. But then again, the fact that there are conflicts with religion just shows how thoughtful and opinionated humans are, I suppose.
 
Back
Top Bottom