I accept everyone's religion, regardless of who you are

[Extraordinary Gentleman]

For I believe in no religion, because science has made every religion mute.

But good for you that you believe in something, I, however, belive in evolution.

[Henry Hobo-Master]

Extraordinary Gentleman

For I believe in no religion, because science has made every religion mute.

But good for you that you believe in something, I, however, belive in evolution.

Your logic:

I accept everyone's religion, because all religions are wrong and I don't believe in them. So by disregarding that all religions (because science has every answer that we have ever imagined, but its really all just theoretical because science still can't prove evolution actually happened), I can turn around and say that I accept your religion out of the goodness of my heart.

Thats pretty messed up dude. Lets stop lying, and just say that you cannot accept the religion as truth, because each religion is like a different fairy tale for you.

You should instead say how you accept all religions in the category of being "untrue" because evolution solves everything.

Also, can you prove to me that evolution must happen? Are there not instances where it doesn't happen? And when I said that science can't "prove" evolution occurred, what I really mean is that science cannot prove that evolution has happened without God.

Although It might have happened, we can't prove it to be God's will or not.

[Cryptocrystalline]

Henry Hobo-Master

Extraordinary Gentleman

For I believe in no religion, because science has made every religion mute.

But good for you that you believe in something, I, however, belive in evolution.

Your logic:

I accept everyone's religion, because all religions are wrong and I don't believe in them. So by disregarding that all religions (because science has every answer that we have ever imagined, but its really all just theoretical because science still can't prove evolution actually happened), I can turn around and say that I accept your religion out of the goodness of my heart.

Thats pretty messed up dude. Lets stop lying, and just say that you cannot accept the religion as truth, because each religion is like a different fairy tale for you.

You should instead say how you accept all religions in the category of being "untrue" because evolution solves everything.

Also, can you prove to me that evolution must happen? Are there not instances where it doesn't happen? And when I said that science can't "prove" evolution occurred, what I really mean is that science cannot prove that evolution has happened without God.

Although It might have happened, we can't prove it to be God's will or not.

I think he's trying to say that he accepts there are religous people out there who, you know, practice religion.

Whats all this stuff about evolution? Is that the only thing true aethiests care about?

Im sure there is alot of other science stuff that aetheists can beleive in too.

[Henry Hobo-Master]

Cryptocrystalline

Henry Hobo-Master

Extraordinary Gentleman

For I believe in no religion, because science has made every religion mute.

But good for you that you believe in something, I, however, belive in evolution.

Your logic:

I accept everyone's religion, because all religions are wrong and I don't believe in them. So by disregarding that all religions (because science has every answer that we have ever imagined, but its really all just theoretical because science still can't prove evolution actually happened), I can turn around and say that I accept your religion out of the goodness of my heart.

Thats pretty messed up dude. Lets stop lying, and just say that you cannot accept the religion as truth, because each religion is like a different fairy tale for you.

You should instead say how you accept all religions in the category of being "untrue" because evolution solves everything.

Also, can you prove to me that evolution must happen? Are there not instances where it doesn't happen? And when I said that science can't "prove" evolution occurred, what I really mean is that science cannot prove that evolution has happened without God.

Although It might have happened, we can't prove it to be God's will or not.

I think he's trying to say that he accepts there are religous people out there who, you know, practice religion.

Whats all this stuff about evolution? Is that the only thing true aethiests care about?

Im sure there is alot of other science stuff that aetheists can beleive in too.

And all I'm trying to say is that its a vain attempt to "accept" somebody who you obviously disagree with because you have "scientific proof". I would sooner believe that he has tolerance, but does not accept the theist as a person. That would make much more sense.

Are you talking about me and the stuff I said about evolution? I'm just going by what OP inferred (that he believes in evolution, thus all religion is discredited. End of Discussion).

I'm sure there is too, but OP mentioned evolution. Not "other science stuff".

[stealthmongoose]

Henry Hobo-Master

Cryptocrystalline

Henry Hobo-Master

Extraordinary Gentleman

For I believe in no religion, because science has made every religion mute.

But good for you that you believe in something, I, however, belive in evolution.

Your logic:

I accept everyone's religion, because all religions are wrong and I don't believe in them. So by disregarding that all religions (because science has every answer that we have ever imagined, but its really all just theoretical because science still can't prove evolution actually happened), I can turn around and say that I accept your religion out of the goodness of my heart.

Thats pretty messed up dude. Lets stop lying, and just say that you cannot accept the religion as truth, because each religion is like a different fairy tale for you.

You should instead say how you accept all religions in the category of being "untrue" because evolution solves everything.

Also, can you prove to me that evolution must happen? Are there not instances where it doesn't happen? And when I said that science can't "prove" evolution occurred, what I really mean is that science cannot prove that evolution has happened without God.

Although It might have happened, we can't prove it to be God's will or not.

I think he's trying to say that he accepts there are religous people out there who, you know, practice religion.

Whats all this stuff about evolution? Is that the only thing true aethiests care about?

Im sure there is alot of other science stuff that aetheists can beleive in too.

And all I'm trying to say is that its a vain attempt to "accept" somebody who you obviously disagree with because you have "scientific proof". I would sooner believe that he has tolerance, but does not accept the theist as a person. That would make much more sense.

Are you talking about me and the stuff I said about evolution? I'm just going by what OP inferred (that he believes in evolution, thus all religion is discredited. End of Discussion).

I'm sure there is too, but OP mentioned evolution. Not "other science stuff".

Don't be ridiculous, of course children are expected to still be considered people even if they do believe in ghosts and goblins, unicorns and fairies.

I'm sure Neurochemistry can reveal why and how the brain responds to religion too!



How 'bout dat s**t? :V

[Cryptocrystalline]

Henry Hobo-Master

Cryptocrystalline

Henry Hobo-Master

Extraordinary Gentleman

For I believe in no religion, because science has made every religion mute.

But good for you that you believe in something, I, however, belive in evolution.

Your logic:

I accept everyone's religion, because all religions are wrong and I don't believe in them. So by disregarding that all religions (because science has every answer that we have ever imagined, but its really all just theoretical because science still can't prove evolution actually happened), I can turn around and say that I accept your religion out of the goodness of my heart.

Thats pretty messed up dude. Lets stop lying, and just say that you cannot accept the religion as truth, because each religion is like a different fairy tale for you.

You should instead say how you accept all religions in the category of being "untrue" because evolution solves everything.

Also, can you prove to me that evolution must happen? Are there not instances where it doesn't happen? And when I said that science can't "prove" evolution occurred, what I really mean is that science cannot prove that evolution has happened without God.

Although It might have happened, we can't prove it to be God's will or not.

I think he's trying to say that he accepts there are religous people out there who, you know, practice religion.

Whats all this stuff about evolution? Is that the only thing true aethiests care about?

Im sure there is alot of other science stuff that aetheists can beleive in too.

And all I'm trying to say is that its a vain attempt to "accept" somebody who you obviously disagree with because you have "scientific proof". I would sooner believe that he has tolerance, but does not accept the theist as a person. That would make much more sense.

Are you talking about me and the stuff I said about evolution? I'm just going by what OP inferred (that he believes in evolution, thus all religion is discredited. End of Discussion).

I'm sure there is too, but OP mentioned evolution. Not "other science stuff".

Yeah, i think that tolerence is the appropriate word.

The evolution stuff, just based off what the OP said. Well it all comes back to evolution.


Interestingly science cant *prove* anything. It can only imply.
I think people forget this all too often.

[Jazin Kay]

OP is just tolerant of others, which is okay.

Sure beats "believe in my specific deity or get yelled at" or "stop believing your fairy tales are true or get yelled at". OP is in the awesome ground. OP stands between the hatred.

[Henry Hobo-Master]

Jazin Kay

OP is just tolerant of others, which is okay.

Sure beats "believe in my specific deity or get yelled at" or "stop believing your fairy tales are true or get yelled at". OP is in the awesome ground. OP stands between the hatred.

Depends. There is not awesome ground to stand on. Nobody can be a winner when it comes to religion. The winners claim they are winners, while everyone else loses.

And OP's logic isn't sound, and IF God does exist, OP's logic is no longer awesome.

OP relies on science, and science isn't reliable (to a degree). Agnostic people on the other hand, who are open minded, are probably the most "awesome". They can be tolerant, and they can listen to various arguments without being biased.

But I do agree, tolerance is probably what OP is aiming for, but OP stands on questionable ground like everyone else.

[Extraordinary Gentleman]

Considering America is "a country for all religions and lifestyles"

yet christians are against mosques being built near the 9/11 memorial

christians are against gay marriage

christians are only voting like-minded people into politics

Islam murders women just because they dont dress a certain way

Buddhism is the only religion I could accept whole-heartedly. There is no god, so there is nothing to worship
Just be a good person, and one day you will reach enlightenment

you cant expect me to believe that a god had created everything.

Prove it.

[m i r a c u l u m]

What happens if you belief in science and a faith?

[il-Lashtavar]

Is someone offering you a Prius if you demonstrate your liberal values?

You're not accepting religious beliefs--you're tolerating them to be nonconfrontational. With the pretext that you believe in science, assumption being the two are logically comparable.

I would go on (faith vs experimentation and whatnot), but I don't feel like I need to do so.

"You believe in something (that I disagree with, mind you)? Good for youuuuu"
a**.

[Extraordinary Gentleman]

il-Lashtavar

Is someone offering you a Prius if you demonstrate your liberal values?

You're not accepting religious beliefs--you're tolerating them to be nonconfrontational. With the pretext that you believe in science, assumption being the two are logically comparable.

I would go on (faith vs experimentation and whatnot), but I don't feel like I need to do so.

"You believe in something (that I disagree with, mind you)? Good for youuuuu"
a**.

You need to relax, kid.

This is a discussion about my beliefs in comparison to yours.

You're judging me for believing in evolution.

God have mercy on you, sinner.

[il-Lashtavar]

Extraordinary Gentleman

il-Lashtavar

Is someone offering you a Prius if you demonstrate your liberal values?

You're not accepting religious beliefs--you're tolerating them to be nonconfrontational. With the pretext that you believe in science, assumption being the two are logically comparable.

I would go on (faith vs experimentation and whatnot), but I don't feel like I need to do so.

"You believe in something (that I disagree with, mind you)? Good for youuuuu"
a**.

You need to relax, kid.

This is a discussion about my beliefs in comparison to yours.

You're judging me for believing in evolution.

God have mercy on you, sinner.

I'm judging you for being pretentious, not religious or atheistic.

Comparing your beliefs to mine, I see that you thing the two things compare. That's not acceptance; that's stupid. Religion and 'Scientific Theories' don't compare anymore than Aesop Fables and National Geographic.

Your religious views aren't any different than mine. You're just representing them in a way that's far more condescending than your realize.

Sentence one: Religions are wrong because science.
Sentence two: but you can believe what you want, despite that it's stupid.

I can continue to explain how this is a rude point of view if you want me to.
Mostly, I just hate to see this kind of ugly pretension. It wouldn't be any better if you were religious.

[Extraordinary Gentleman]

il-Lashtavar

Extraordinary Gentleman

il-Lashtavar

Is someone offering you a Prius if you demonstrate your liberal values?

You're not accepting religious beliefs--you're tolerating them to be nonconfrontational. With the pretext that you believe in science, assumption being the two are logically comparable.

I would go on (faith vs experimentation and whatnot), but I don't feel like I need to do so.

"You believe in something (that I disagree with, mind you)? Good for youuuuu"
a**.

You need to relax, kid.

This is a discussion about my beliefs in comparison to yours.

You're judging me for believing in evolution.

God have mercy on you, sinner.

I'm judging you for being pretentious, not religious or atheistic.

Comparing your beliefs to mine, I see that you thing the two things compare. That's not acceptance; that's stupid. Religion and 'Scientific Theories' don't compare anymore than Aesop Fables and National Geographic.

Your religious views aren't any different than mine. You're just representing them in a way that's far more condescending than your realize.

Sentence one: Religions are wrong because science.
Sentence two: but you can believe what you want, despite that it's stupid.

I can continue to explain how this is a rude point of view if you want me to.
Mostly, I just hate to see this kind of ugly pretension. It wouldn't be any better if you were religious.

But, you're mad as ********.

On the internet.

[il-Lashtavar]

Extraordinary Gentleman

il-Lashtavar

Extraordinary Gentleman

il-Lashtavar

Is someone offering you a Prius if you demonstrate your liberal values?

You're not accepting religious beliefs--you're tolerating them to be nonconfrontational. With the pretext that you believe in science, assumption being the two are logically comparable.

I would go on (faith vs experimentation and whatnot), but I don't feel like I need to do so.

"You believe in something (that I disagree with, mind you)? Good for youuuuu"
a**.

You need to relax, kid.

This is a discussion about my beliefs in comparison to yours.

You're judging me for believing in evolution.

God have mercy on you, sinner.

I'm judging you for being pretentious, not religious or atheistic.

Comparing your beliefs to mine, I see that you thing the two things compare. That's not acceptance; that's stupid. Religion and 'Scientific Theories' don't compare anymore than Aesop Fables and National Geographic.

Your religious views aren't any different than mine. You're just representing them in a way that's far more condescending than your realize.

Sentence one: Religions are wrong because science.
Sentence two: but you can believe what you want, despite that it's stupid.

I can continue to explain how this is a rude point of view if you want me to.
Mostly, I just hate to see this kind of ugly pretension. It wouldn't be any better if you were religious.

But, you're mad as ********.

On the internet.

I'm also incredibly drunk.

But when I wake up, I'll be sober and this thread will still be pretentious.