I know sweety… i know. =) I just dont do well with confrontational situations is all. Many others do well… like yourself for example. But ‘debates’ is not my forte and you have a talent for heated discussions that is much better than mine. 
Edit: And to comment on the “I have a problem. “I’m a good guy because I’m a Christian” or “You’re evil because you’re not Muslim” or so on. That’s not what religion is meant for.” I couldnt agree with you more.
I always thought “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” was an extremely enlightened philosophy.
I wouldn’t say there’s no good in religion myself, but it seems to be the method in which religion instills even universal morality that I have a problem with. If you teach a rat to share by shocking it if it doesn’t, who is moral? Is the teacher moral for shocking the rat into making it’s community a ‘better place’? Is the rat moral for sharing only because it doesn’t want to feel pain?
In this way I feel religion steals peoples morality by making them do good for the wrong reasons. You’ll burn if you’re not good.
I agree with Catz. Everyone has a compass that tells what is right and wrong, and, to me, what is the shape of the compass each one uses don’t matter. I personally think the problem arises when people separate from each other because of that compass.
For instance, I’m currently going to a NGO which is essentially guided by Spiritism. I see no big deal in that, I mean, they are nice people, they have valuable moral values. My mother, on the other hand, was scandalized because of that, she fears that I will be “seduced” by their “sweet talking” and that I’ll eventually go to the “wrong way”.
I just thought: What the hell? Isn’t Christianity all about loving everyone independent of their religion? Respecting other people’s beliefs and have a good relationship with them nevertheless? How is it love to avoid attending a place just because they have a different religion than you, or even because they like to talk about reincarnation and stuff?
Anyway, I’m not saying that Christianity is wrong. Actually, Jesus Christ was undoubtedly one of the most, if not the most incredible human being that existed. I’m just saying that this abyss that exists between the religions is ridiculous, not to mention contradictory with the beliefs of almost every religion on Earth.
I know that I bashed Christianity and perhaps offended Christians in the mean time, I apologize for that. I was just letting my frustration out 
Sharing ideas is always a wonderful thing gugamilare.
I think it might be easier to argue against/for creationism if there was one defined version of it. There’s anywhere from God did everything and literally put humans on the planet, pretty much verbatim from the Bible, all the way to God just set in motion all these events and it mostly on the side of Evolution.
I’m not sure if this is a wrongheaded approach, but I take that “Do unto others” phrase to mean that I see how others treat others, and then treat them the same way. For example, if someone is an arrogant asshole, that gives me carte blanche to be an arrogant asshole right back to them. After all, they’re doing unto others as they would have done unto them…
Or is that wrong?
@Kai: Or if there was even anything of substance /FOR/ it. To date, it is almost entirely an anti-evolution stance.
I’m not sure if that’s sarcasm or not…
That’s not it’s direct meaning, but it is it’s implication. If they expect to be treated like shit then meet, nay, exceed their expectations!
If there’s no proof for it than why do you feel the need to argue against it?
That’s extremely wrongheaded. The idea is to treat others like you want to be treated yourself, regardless of how others treat others. Spread the love, be tolerant, etc.
If everyone treats others like they treat others, what’s stopping everyone from treating everyone like assholes?
I’m not explaining it very well, but I hope you catch my drift.
Yeah you did
The way I see it, Burb, is that I treat everyone how I want to be treated (with respect and tolerance) but if they give me asshattery, they get asshattery.
This^
I’m not gonna sit there like Ghandi while some one’s being a complete douchebag. At first I will treat you well, then if you start burning me I’ll burn you back.
+1
If someone is treating me like an asshole, I’d rather get far away from the person. Even if that means, on the mind of that person, that I lost the battle, or that he humiliated me. I mean, is it really that bad? If you don’t mind about that, that won’t mind anything to you.
Being a jackass back to someone who is being one will only get yourself angry and upset, not happy or satisfied. Sometimes, in very few occasions, it is important to be a jackass, though, if that makes the person realize its own stupidity.
I don’t get angry or upset when I treat someone like they’re treating others. I do try to reason with them, but I don’t treat them with respect if they don’t give it.
I always treat everyone like I want to be treated, tbh. Unless someone has done something terribly wrong, but I haven’t really had that a lot.
If someone really is a real asshole, he’s not worth getting upset about. I just stay relaxed and whatever.
I don’t get upset either. Just give what they give with a big relaxed smile on my face.
Back on topic:
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudocience
It is easy to see how it is easy to defend Creationism. And no matter how you attack it, or what evidences you show against it, you can always use some sort of philosophic argument to defend it. Just use your pure imagination, and you are done. I mean, why would you need to create a theory, test it, document your method and conclusions anyway?
That way, you easily have a theory that can adapt itself to any counter argument. Therefore it is true, right?
…
Sorry, that is wrong.
One misconception that the laymen have about science and truth in general: suppose there a given amount of facts, or stuff that you observe, and you have a theory that explains everything really, really, and I mean really well. Then your theory must be true. Right? No! No matter how surprising that is, science is not like that. If you make conclusions too easily then you are wrong. If those conclusions cannot be disproved then you are wrong.
How does science work? Any valid theory must have a set of experiments that support it (not prove!) and those experiments must be repeatable. The theory must predict something that can be tested as true or false with scientific experiments.
For instance, the law of gravity is a valid theory because it can always be tested by dropping something and watch it fall, or observing the movement of celestial bodies. All observations made show that the law of gravity is true.
The power of prayer is a valid theory because it can be tested by telling a bunch of people to pray for a bunch of sick people and see if the healing rates increase. All tests made show that the prayers have no effect.
Now, the existence of God can be tested by… oops. God’s existence cannot be asserted as true or false by science. Sorry. Well, philosophers might try giving you a hint, but don’t confuse philosophy and science.
The problem is the infinite realm. Anything supernatural exists in a realm of infinite ( imagined or beyond our ability to experience ). Since there is no way to get past the unlimited nature of the claim it is impossible to disprove. This makes any argument relating to god or supernatural beings invalid.
There is simply no way to disprove anything that exists beyond testing. Something without evidence that can’t be disproved is no more real than anything else that can be dreamed up.
Also, I hate the ‘Well look at how many people believe’ argument. That is a load of crap. People as a group have believed so many false and ridiculous things, that you can hardly expect that argument to mean much.
Someone in this thread posted a link to an amazing youtube video where Andy Thomson explains why people believe in gods. It is long, but worth it. Just in case you lost it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1iMmvu9eMrg
Founded in 2004, Leakfree.org became one of the first online communities dedicated to Valve’s Source engine development. It is more famously known for the formation of Black Mesa: Source under the 'Leakfree Modification Team' handle in September 2004.