A.K.A. "I put something out without any evidence, got it debunked with evidence and now am too lazy to actually discuss with someone who can actually take the heat"
Also, title:
Christianity is Poison
The title was a response to the "Atheism is Poison" thread which had been constantly bumped as the top thread for over a month... If you read the OP you would know this...
It's comparable to christians putting up a 10-commandment statue, and refusing to take it down... until some atheist comes along and puts up a statue of Baphomet right next to it... suddenly christians are ready to take both of them down... funny how hypocrisy works, eh?
As I explained... if you have something in specific you would like to debate, I'm all for that...
Nothing you have said has debunked any of my claims... in fact, you provided zero evidence to support any of your own claims... you simply said I was wrong; that's not debunking...
If you would like to debate a specific claim... let me know which one you most object to, and I will provide supporting evidence...
If you are just here to troll, which appears to be the case... why?
If your God was upset with me trolling His religion... pray that He kills me with a giant lightning bolt or something... because that'll never happen
The title was a response to the "Atheism is Poison" thread which had been constantly bumped as the top thread for over a month... If you read the OP you would know this...
And as I mentioned
in the post of mine you just quoted ("Also, the guy you were annoyed with changed the name of the topic BTW."), the OP changed the title to "Atheism and Health", as apparently his intent wasn't to attack Atheists.
It's comparable to christians putting up a 10-commandment statue, and refusing to take it down... until some atheist comes along and puts up a statue of Baphomet right next to it... suddenly christians are ready to take both of them down... funny how hypocrisy works, eh?
I don't have any experience of such statues being put up on public space, so can't really comment on that except it seems to have been done by fundamental Christians which I don't really agree with on a lot of situations.
As I explained... if you have something in specific you would like to debate, I'm all for that...
And as did I: I wanted to specifically debate on every topic brought up by you in your posts that I refuted in mine. If you don't want to debate on multiple topics, don't put out multiple claims.
Nothing you have said has debunked any of my claims... in fact, you provided zero evidence to support any of your own claims... you simply said I was wrong; that's not debunking...
Sigh, OK, let me go through it yet again (I'll ignore my answers which are open to theological and/or philosophical discussion as you can't really
prove those by definition):
Evidence-less claims:If you are just here to troll, which appears to be the case... why?
Just because I disagree and provide counterclaims to yours, doesn't mean I'm trolling. That's a
discussion.
If your God was upset with me trolling His religion... pray that He kills me with a giant lightning bolt or something... because that'll never happen
Your only view of religion seems to be in regards to, as I mentioned, "zealously religious fundamentalist nuts" who interpret the everything in the bible literally, force others to follow their religion, attempt to restrict freedom of speech, etc.. You seem to ignore the fact that there actually are rational/moderate religious people, who defend the right to freedom of speech, analyze and discuss on possible interpretations of whatever religious document they have, discuss with the critics of religion rather than silence them and whose faith doesn't clash with science. An example would be my view as previously stated in one of the posts in this thread:
In fact, I'd say the the current definition of religion would be the search for who created the system we are living in. I think the best way to describe it would be comparing it to computer software: imagine an extremely complex computer simulation, with it's rules and parameters, running constantly with the objects (with a crap ton of variables, methods and other OOP features implemented) inside acting independently (but predictably due the fact that author of the program knows what code he wrote and how it performs) based on their variables and the surrounding objects. The self-aware objects inside decide analyze the system and due to being withing that system and unable to detect anything outside it, deducted that since they can't detect anything within the system that there is no creator outside it. Seems familiar?