Lets have a debate

Religions should just throw their ideas out the window when they're proven wrong? The very religions that you yourself cited are revealed knowledge religions along with all variants of the abrahamic traditions. The basis for their faith is that their ideas come from god. You think they should just 'throw out' the word of god? And you think I don't understand religion? ROFL

 

Worthless. My formal education is in religious studies and honestly I have nothing left to say to such an obstinate fool. Whatever personal issues or misunderstandings you have about religion should be rectified lest you become the plaything of ignorance. Science doesn't disprove the idea of seeing the future. In fact the I ching basically speaks of universal patterns and algorithms to predict the future. Sadly, you seem to get feelings involved with what you're speaking about and you have too many false ideas to address, so good luck.

 

Nope. It means to understand what the word of god means. What god means, what religion means. Meanings don't seem to matter much to you though, as it seems you just make up your own.

 

 
You're being too reasonable, and reason is a language that pickled doesn't speak/understand.

 

Hah hah! Now it's the I ching? Another piece of superstition that's been conclusively disproved time and again! I certainly believe your educational claims - no other schools but the religious turn out graduated with such a basic lack of understanding. You've committed fallacy after fallacy, made false assertion after false assertion, and back-pedalled so fast you contradict your own argument. By your definition of religion, the very religions you chose to use as examples don't qualify to be considered religions in the first place. You either lack even a basic understanding of scientific principals or you're being deliberately dishonest. Your definition of a religion is hopelessly confused with that of a church, two different things I assure you. I am an ordained minister of a church myself and I am not religious, nor does the church I belong to believe in a god or any other supernatural entity. When confronted with the inadequacies of your argument, you ignore them or seek to turn to a personal attack. Intellectual dishonesty at it's most boring.

As they say, when someone has abandoned reason, how can you reason with them?

 

Heh heh, yeah religious people are always interested in a reasonable debate. Right up to the point where they start losing and can't come up with anything reasonable.

 

For those of you keeping score at home, so far we've had the 'No True Scotsman' fallacy, two attempts at the 'Straw Man' fallacy, the 'Shifting Goalposts' fallacy, and the 'Poisoning the Well' fallacy applied as an Ad Hominem. All we need now is 'Special Pleading' and a bit of post-hoc rationalisation, and you've pretty much got the whole religious apologetics circle-jerk box set.

 

 
We've also had the two or three atheists ganging up on one Christian phenomenon. The "I'm eighteen and think I know everything" dynamic. Not to mention the "I've read three books by famous atheists and think I'm the shit" happening.
Liberal indoctrination at it's finest.
 
I'm laughing now because I know that I'll be laughing in the future.
Whereas, you're laughing now...but, I know for a fact, that you'll be crying later.

 

The irony in what you say is embarrassing. Again, it's another case of believing science is an institution. One that replaces or makes defunct the institution of religion. Like I said before, your view of religion is based in the personal and that's clear for anybody to see. Imagine a pendulum. At one end is the super religious and on the other end is the super anti-religious. There's a sweet spot in the middle that the true intellectual occupies. Neither for or against, simply seeing the merits and demerits of it all. I can't speak to you because you're polarized and I am not. I've taken a polarized stance to combat yours but it has proven useless. I look at human interaction and history objectively. I have nothing bad to say about where we've been and where we're going, only that the objective and unbiased point of view should always be held. I wish you luck in overcoming your obstacles.

 

Every five minutes...
 
http://www.cesnur.org/2011/mi-cri-en.html
Some 100,000 Christians killed per year over faith, Vatican says
<div>

By Cristina Corbin
\tPublished June 02, 2013
</div> 

 

Straw Man argument number three. Nowhere did I say science replaces religion. Nowhere did I say science is an institution.
I said the idea of religion and science occupying non-overlapping magisterium is a false notion. For someone supposedly theologically educated, your theological knowledge seems woefully lacking. Did your theological studies really not include the oldest and best known attempt to reconcile science and religion as favoured by Thomas Aquinas? You've already demonstrated your total ignorance of the conflicts which were behind the greatest schism in the history of the catholic faith. If I were you, I'd ask the school for your money back.

 

 
?
 
EDIT; I was hoping not to get into a conversation like this, but okay - I called you a ''bigot'' in response to the last two lines of your post, regardless, seeing as how you think that ''The Vatican'' is reliably informed of murder statistics, and the intentions behind said murders, can you tell me how the Vatican itself got hold of those statistics, and added to that, where the Vatican itself has issued a statement which mentions those statistics and/or from where they received them. But lets say your information is correct, it's quite clear, due to the devotion with which some sects of society uphold their religion as the one and only that the Christians that are killed because of their faith most likely would of been killed by members of another conflicting religion, but this didn't occur to you I'm sure. If you're going to reply try not to include any biased source, it's tedious having to read through, let alone speak about. ^_^

 

 
you can be 90, or 20 and still be stupid. if you were taught stupid things, then you're going to be stupid.
 
look at the creationists, for example. they think the world was created couple thousands of years ago. 

 

That would make three more than the loudest religious apologists I've met.