Says nature, says the virus called aids to stop it. In the absence of religion, evolution and nature will stop such behavior. It's in the design.

If it weren't for humans stopping the natural cycle of the disease, the disease would accomplish its scientific function.

Take religion out of it and think about why aids exists. Now think what would happen if there was no knowledge about how it spread or was started. Only those who act within the rules of nature go unharmed.

If it takes religion to make folks act within the rules of nature, then so be it.

 

Right, but the definition of atheism is absolute meaning those that are atheist claim the non-existence of God to be fact. Atheism does not mean an allegiance to science! here's no two ways around it, man... you are still wrong. What would make your statement more true is if you're talking about someone like me that's not atheist that accepts both as theory (which they are).

 

HIV didn't come into existence to "stop" homosexuality. It was pure random biological chance that it is more easily spread through **** sex than vaginal. While we're on the subject, what were syphyllis, gonnerhia, herpes, even rabs "designed" to stop, hmm?

How does a faith in Jesus Christ as my savior protect me from disease?

The function of any virus or bacteria is to make more viruses or bacterium. Period.

Evolution. Do you argue that single-celled organisms aren't even more advanced in their evolution and specializationt han multi-cellular organisms?

What, like Black Death? Was that a disease created to scrubt he earth of white people?

Rules of nature? Since peple enjoy **** sex so much, what's "unnatural" about it?

:rotfl: Quit using the Lord as an excuse for your bigotry and hatred. He doesn't like it.

 

I'm with Eric. I have rejected, in whole or in part, all organized religion I've studied thus far, but I do not naysay the existence of God outright. I simply refuse to believe that human beings can or will truly understand the nature of God. I find it unnatural for any perty of humans to claim dominion over the rest of us because of what they CHOOSE to believe for themselves. There is no legitimacy in that.

 

but what makes you think there's a god.

I'm being serious now.

 

Lack of proof He doesn't exist. I prefer a universe with God in it, I just don't use that desire as the basis of BELIEF.

 

so it's more of a conversation regarding the amount of proof that god DOES exist...

Personally, i see much more to go against there being a god

 

Such as?

I see the complex relationships between Newtonian physics, astrophysics, and nuclear physics which we are still from from grasping, let alone defining, as being +1 for God. Not to mention genetics and evolution. I see God as the more plausible explanation for our existence than a million monkeys on a million typewriters for a million years creating the works of Shakespeare.

 

see, that's where we differ. I see explanations of certain aspects of physics to be a -1 for the existence of a god. I think the fact that we've traveled into space, have seen other planets, have partial evidence of life existence in/on other planets to be a complete argument to there being a god...

 

I have learned something from this thread, though... Seems that when people say they’re “atheists” they think it means believing in the sciences. Seems logical on the surface but it doesn’t necessarily mean this. That, and it still doesn’t excuse the fact they’re refusing to believe in something (God) that cannot be proven or disproved.

Guess what? You can be religious scientist too! Hindus, Muslims, and especially Jews (etc) had absolutely no problem being religious and having scientific studies! The problem is that Atheists and anti-religious hippies lump all religions into the science vs. religion debate when they should only be focused on european Christianity at the VERY most. It’s just that a ton of these “atheists” have narrow-minded concepts of what it is to be religious.

 

You have a point but only against organized religion. It still does not justify being atheist. There could still be a God even if/when we make radio contact with aliens light-years away. It's like Kevin said... it's just that people here could have never "truly understand the nature of God."

 

yes, but that's the wonderful thing about nature...there could be...but then again there might not be...I chose the second (=

 

You can also be a Christian and be against some forms of "organized religions,"(even some intantiations of the Christian church)but let's be realistic. Do you think this planet would be without strife (or with less) in absensce of it? Look at the historic conflicts between religions, and you'll often see human, political, and ethnic/racial conflicts that would have existed without religions attached to each side.

When whites most recently enslaves blacks, was that a religious conflict? What about when the egyptians enslaved the jews? When the islamic religion religion was made up, was it solely racial hatred or just a preserving measure by arabs in a political movement?
What about conflicts on our planet now? Most all of them involve islam, but is "organized religion" the cause, or is islam just a guise (or simply being used) for modern fascism and racial hatred?

Some people are so focused on the ills of organized religion that they've blindly accepted the current islamic view that Iraq is a holy war? I don't buy it.

Is this political/ racial/ or the fault of organized religion?
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

 

What exactly am I wrong about again?? I'm pretty sure im explaining why religion is ****ing retarded, which this argument really has nothing about since we are so side tracked now...


I accept both of them as theories also, i just believe science alot more then I believe someone who wrote something thousands of years ago when people thought the sun came outa the ocean...

 

Without strife? No. With less strife? 100% certainty. Human conflict on a large scale boils down to power, money, fear, or BELIEF. Which of those is leading people to walk into bus stations with C4 vests?

Of course. But you're using the "everybody else is doing it, why can't we?" excuse. Especially given that it's a recent development in human history that there was any seperation between politics and religion.

Not relevant. Other causes of strife do not lessen or excuse using a belief in God and the teachings of major western religions to make war on those who do not worship identically, or at all.

There's no proof that even happened outside of the Old Testament. And I still don't see what that has to do with people killing in the name of their God elsewhere.

The roots of Islam are nearly identical to the roots of Christianity. I don't see your point, other than you are denying the legitimacy of the Prophet and his followers to preserve the legitimacy of your own faith.

They boil down to money, power, fear or faith.

If there was no organized religion, could it be used as an excuse for carrying out war in God's name? Can not your own faith, with no extraordinary effort on the part of the faithful, be used to justify war, bigotry and hatred? You are still trying to claim superiority of your own faith over all others and I don't think you even realize it. Don't blame Islam for the world's problems without acknowledging that the exact same tools can be misused in Christianity.

A powerful Christian nation waltzes into a longstanding Islam nation and forces radical changes using military strength. What the hell is so wrong about feeling like Islam is being attacked if you believe in the writings of the Quran?

I know nothing of that site other than what I gathered with a brief glance. I can say that it doesn't really matter, because in the end what goes on that site or doesn't comes down to the decisions of the person(s) running it. I would bet that there is little material contained therein that supports a counter-argument to the site administration's positions. It's propaganda. to answer your question... yes, no, and essentially yes. Either the site admin's organized faith leads him to attack the followeres of Islam, or Islam itself.