All religions are just made up superstitious supernatural nonsense

[Brás Garcia de Mascarenhas]

You really overestimate my willingness to debate your extremely naive beliefs.

The scientistic worldview DOES have fundamental assumptions about the world which it takes dogmatically, fundamental assumptions which aren't only unverifiable, but also contradictory to scientism itself. When you argue you make exactly those assumptions, and yet you lack the intellectual sophistication to understand that you are doing exactly that.

Can you name one scientific fundamentalist that wasn't verifiable or that isn't undergoing verification? Scientific theories are still to be proven whereas scientific laws are already proven. However, through empirical criteria, logical criteria, and even sociological and historical criterion these laws and theories might change one day. Religious dogma is the exact opposite of this: it claims to be true without any criterion.

You talk about religions as if every religion is the same. It's extremely ignorant and simplistic of you to do so. It makes absolutely no difference to Christianity whether or not the world is fundamentally composed of strings, atoms or nanobananas. You clearly don't know the slightest thing about religions, which means you shouldn't talk about it.

Religions differ but their premise is the same. It makes no difference to Christianity if the world is composed by atoms, but bare in mind it claims that their holy book contains eternal truths when it has no basis of sufficient evidence of truth. That's when science becomes annoying to the dogmatic-minded: science is fine in all spheres of life of the believers as long as it doesn't defy or interfere on your personal believes. That's when it becomes a pain in the ass for the blind-folded.

One of your own boys, David Hume, pointed out that we can never know cause and effect, because all we can say is that one thing succeeds another. When you argue that science works on probabilities, you are in effect arguing that we can't know anything through science. The attribution of probability to a thing is completely arbitrary.

I've said previously: you have two choices. We know science can not be absolute but you can choose between what is more logical and rational has higher or very high probabilities of being reality or choose dogmas. The probability is not completely arbitrary. How many people need to fall from a skyscraper for us to determine that is very likely\has high probability to die and get crushed? It is more likely than being saved by angels. There might be also a case when someone falls from a skyscraper but survives. This not disproves that the highest probability is to die when you fall from it. It just means it is not 100%. The fact we can not determine something for 100% does not give any credibility to religious beliefs.

You have this very dumb and strange dialectic of science against religion, when no serious thinker ever thought this way. Your fundamental assumption is physicalism against metaphysics. You engage in metaphysics to argue for an anti-metaphysical position. It's blatantly contradictory.

Science is not against religion and does not speak against God, science is merely knowledge attained via observations. It is actually the opposite, if anything it is religion that hate science for it is the total antithesis of science.

[wvwvw]

You're basically a Deist then. Why are aggressive proseltyzing religions like Christianity and Islam even necessary then? They belong in the trash bin I agree.

Jesus said "If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, leave that home or town and shake the dust off your feet."

The Bible verses, when interpreted properly, completely agree with the information brought back by near-death experiencers. They return knowing the supreme importance of the unconditional love that is God. Being in the presence of this love changes people forever. This unconditional love that is God is the true inner spirituality taught by and lived by Jesus.

Loving others EQUALS fulfilling the law of God THEREFORE the law of God IS EQUAL TO loving others THEREFORE everyone who loves fulfills God's law and has eternal life.

Jesus is the way AND the way is the truth AND the truth is law AND the law is love AND love is God THEREFORE people go to hell because they refuse to love. But we know we have eternal life if we love.

Loving others IS EQUAL TO God loving us first AND God is love (1 John 4:16) AND love is the way to eternal life (Luke 10:25-28) THEREFORE God is the Source of love.

Loving others IS EQUAL TO obeying Jesus' commands AND his command IS EQUAL TO walk in love. THEREFORE, loving others IS EQUAL TO obeying Jesus.

Love IS EQUAL TO fulfilling the law of God AND God IS EQUAL TO love, THEREFORE, love is the law of God "God is light." (1 John 1:5). God IS EQUAL TO light. Therefore, light IS EQUAL TO God.

Light demonstrates both wave and particle properties; it can be said to be both. Jesus like light, exhibits both particle and wave properties, Jesus exhibits both God and human properties. If you can consider light as both wave and a particle, then you can also conceive Jesus as both God and man.

[Brás Garcia de Mascarenhas]

Free will doesn't exist under your own belief system.

I'll help you so you stop misinterpreting the argument. When I argue that technology has brought evil, I am not saying that technology does evil. What I am saying is that through things like the atom bomb, the ability for people to do evil has increased manifold. Moreover, it is a weapon created exactly for the purpose of killing as many people as possible and destroying as much as possible. It was built with evil intentions and for evil purposes, it is an evil. It was quite obvious since WW1 that something was different, that the nature of warfare had drastically changed, for the worse.

You're failing to see that the purpose of science is not to determine what is good or evil. You can not replicate evil or good in clean laboratory conditions. Technology did not brought evil, the human condition did.

[Gold-Shekel]

Not really. That's the argumentum ad populum.

Which ideology has been continuously present for the last 3000 years?

[Dandelion]

Which ideology has been continuously present for the last 3000 years?

Judaism? Well it underwent changes. Luckily, if Judaism was like it was 2,000 years ago a lot of blood would be spilled.

[Herr Abubu]

Can you name one scientific fundamentalist that wasn't verifiable or that isn't undergoing verification? Scientific theories are still to be proven whereas scientific laws are already proven. However, through empirical criteria, logical criteria, and even sociological and historical criterion these laws and theories might change one day.

All of the assumptions of empiricism-scientism are "unverifiable". Moreover, they are logically contradictory. Here's the most essential one that shows how incredibly retarded it is: claiming that all knowledge is a posteriori isn't known a posteriori but a priori.

Now look, you are talking with someone who knows much more on this topic than you do. You can keep repeating your cookie cutter atheist.about talking points to yourself or you can make an effort to not look like an ignorant retard on the topic. At this point you're not even better than the autistic Armenian dude who used to bitch about this shit.

Religious dogma is the exact opposite of this: it claims to be true without any criterion.

Repeating this a thousand times won't make it a thousand times more likely to be true. Get your head out of Richard Dawkin's ass and stop being so fucking ignorant.

[Brás Garcia de Mascarenhas]

Now look, you are talking with someone who knows much more on this topic than you do. You can keep repeating your cookie cutter atheist.about talking points to yourself or you can make an effort to not look like an ignorant retard on the topic. At this point you're not even better than the autistic Armenian dude who used to bitch about this shit.

You're becoming the personification of religion through your (clearly on defence) rhetoric as you claim to know everything.

[Gold-Shekel]

Judaism? Well it underwent changes. Luckily, if Judaism was like it was 2,000 years ago a lot of blood would be spilled.

Judaism is a religion, proving my point that no other ideology can last as long as religion.

[stochastic]

Jesus said "If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, leave that home or town and shake the dust off your feet."

The Bible verses, when interpreted properly, completely agree with the information brought back by near-death experiencers. They return knowing the supreme importance of the unconditional love that is God. Being in the presence of this love changes people forever. This unconditional love that is God is the true inner spirituality taught by and lived by Jesus.

Loving others EQUALS fulfilling the law of God THEREFORE the law of God IS EQUAL TO loving others THEREFORE everyone who loves fulfills God's law and has eternal life.

Jesus is the way AND the way is the truth AND the truth is law AND the law is love AND love is God THEREFORE people go to hell because they refuse to love. But we know we have eternal life if we love.

Loving others IS EQUAL TO God loving us first AND God is love (1 John 4:16) AND love is the way to eternal life (Luke 10:25-28) THEREFORE God is the Source of love.

Loving others IS EQUAL TO obeying Jesus' commands AND his command IS EQUAL TO walk in love. THEREFORE, loving others IS EQUAL TO obeying Jesus.

Love IS EQUAL TO fulfilling the law of God AND God IS EQUAL TO love, THEREFORE, love is the law of God "God is light." (1 John 1:5). God IS EQUAL TO light. Therefore, light IS EQUAL TO God.

Light demonstrates both wave and particle properties; it can be said to be both. Jesus like light, exhibits both particle and wave properties, Jesus exhibits both God and human properties. If you can consider light as both wave and a particle, then you can also conceive Jesus as both God and man.

Yes I agree. One does not need the Bible or Jesus to know to be nice to your fellow man.

If this is so, then what is the point of the NT?