Creation & EvolutionForum for the discussion of this important topic. This forum is open to non-believers. There is a Christians-only forum in the Christians-only section too.
The Falsity of Religion: Twelve Indisputable Arguments
By John "Birdman" Bryant
Religion today hangs on the horns of a dilemma: On the one hand, it is false in the scientific sense, as we shall demonstrate below; but on the other hand, because religion in one form or another has been around as long as recorded history -- and in fact has played a central role in man's social and personal life -- it is almost certain that religion is useful in the sense that it has helped men to survive. The real dilemma of religion, however, is that it must be believed in order to be useful, yet this is impossible when people know that it is false.
The obvious solution to this dilemma -- if indeed there is a solution -- is to discover what is useful about religion, and to try to make use of this knowledge. This I have attempted to do in my book The Most Powerful Idea Ever Discovered. But we will be stymied in our attempt to accomplish this task -- or at least to bring it to fruition in the sense of teaching others -- if we do not first and finally sweep away the foolishness of religious belief by making a plain and clear statement as to religion's literal falsity. Accordingly, we cite below what we view as twelve compelling reasons why a rational person must regard religion as false.
Im too tired to go over all the logical fallacies and errors I saw, but im sure someone will before I return. I did notice that when he said "religion" what he really ment was "christianity" as no other religion was ever mentioned.
Just as creationism hurts christianity, Militant atheism (what birdman is doing) hurts both science and atheism.
Just as creationists play into the hands of militant atheists, our militant atheist here is playing into the hands of creationists.
Its actually very interesting to note the similarities between the two groups, as they are often very similar.
(Note to atheists: I know there are some atheists who consider themselves "militant atheists" and dont agree with our friend here, since I know of no better term, im using it for now. )
The Falsity of Religion: Twelve Indisputable Arguments
By John "Birdman" Bryant
Religion today hangs on the horns of a dilemma: On the one hand, it is false in the scientific sense, as we shall demonstrate below; but on the other hand, because religion in one form or another has been around as long as recorded history -- and in fact has played a central role in man's social and personal life -- it is almost certain that religion is useful in the sense that it has helped men to survive. The real dilemma of religion, however, is that it must be believed in order to be useful, yet this is impossible when people know that it is false.
The obvious solution to this dilemma -- if indeed there is a solution -- is to discover what is useful about religion, and to try to make use of this knowledge. This I have attempted to do in my book The Most Powerful Idea Ever Discovered. But we will be stymied in our attempt to accomplish this task -- or at least to bring it to fruition in the sense of teaching others -- if we do not first and finally sweep away the foolishness of religious belief by making a plain and clear statement as to religion's literal falsity. Accordingly, we cite below what we view as twelve compelling reasons why a rational person must regard religion as false.
We agree that evolution is in direct conflict with Christianity, however you are promoting the common misconception that evolution is science. The question of origins is a question of history not science. WHATEVER happened only happened once. Science can only make guesses based on a priori assumptions. Evolution is atheist mythology with scienctific jargon tacked on. Evolution is only relevant if God is irrelevant. You have assumed God is irrelevant to prove God is irrelevant.
We agree that evolution is in direct conflict with Christianity, however you are promoting the common misconception that evolution is science. The question of origins is a question of history not science. WHATEVER happened only happened once. Science can only make guesses based on a priori assumptions. Evolution is atheist mythology with scienctific jargon tacked on. Evolution is only relevant if God is irrelevant. You have assumed God is irrelevant to prove God is irrelevant.
And why, IN YOUR OWN WORDS, is evolution not science? Why do you consistently make the mistake of confusing evolution with abiogenesis (again, if you would, in your own words)?
Why do you assume (again your own words please) that science can only make 'guesses'?
__________________ If we are going to teach 'creation science' as an alternative to evolution, then we should also teach the stork theory as an alternative to biological reproduction. ~Judith Hayes, In God We Trust: But Which One?
"Be happy noble heart... And now the God of vengeance yields to me his power."
Just remember, you are unique, just like everybody else.
To be honest, I don't agree with him and I don't care about him. He's almost as dumb as the creationists and I probably dislike him more than I dislike the creationists since he's on "our side".
Science supports an evolutionary argument for atheism by arguing against YECreationism and other literalist religious explanations for the recent sudden appearance of man and life on earth.
As an argument for gesthalt atheism, it's barely worth consideration given it's logical limitations.
We agree that evolution is in direct conflict with Christianity,
Only in direct conflict with christians who hold a certain interpretation of the bible.
however you are promoting the common misconception that evolution is science.
In what way is it not science?
The question of origins is a question of history not science. WHATEVER happened only happened once.
Evolution is not abiogenesis. And nobody has ever said that abiogenesis only happened once. Even it did, that does not put it outside the realm of science. The big bang only happened once (assuming this is the only universe), that doesn't mean it isn't science.
Science can only make guesses based on a priori assumptions.
Except that science makes conclusions using availabe evidence. WE see the data, come up with a way of explaining the data, gather further data to see if it's the explaination is true. If not, the explaination is tweaked to account for the new data or thrown out all together.
Evolution is atheist mythology with scienctific jargon tacked on.
Except that evolution has nothing to do with atheism, and that the majority of religious people in the western world agree with the theory.
Evolution is only relevant if God is irrelevant. You have assumed God is irrelevant to prove God is irrelevant.
Evolution has nothing to do with god(s). Evolution does not necessarily exclude a god nor does a god necessarily exclude evolution.
All the same, evolution does have theological implications. Think about it: living organisms creating themselves instead of being created by an intelligence. Is this not atheism or pantheism? I wouldn’t be a pagan if it weren’t for evolution.
__________________ “I have little confidence in any enterprise or business or investment that promises dividends only after the death of the stockholders.” — Robert Green Ingersoll
) 
Linear Mode
