Religion is irrelevant in todays world

No, this one does.

However, you need to stop using this source as an argument. It is quite simply... wrong. I have already shown why it is incorrect the last two or three times you posted it. Conveniently, you always ignore me when I do.

Here it is again - http://www.politicalforum.com/religion/196829-what-atheism-22.html#post4210004

 

And every time someone does a quotation of what you have stated, that quotation can be referred to as the Word of Giftedone. Does that mean that Giftedone wrote the words that are actually published inside the quotation marks? No! It means that whoever used the quotation marks are repeating the words of giftedone.

Can you prove that claim? Prove that the world functions on the basis of what is perceived to be true.

Now the 64000 dollar question. What criteria is used in making either an acceptance or rejection of evidence? Is that criteria the same for all individuals? If the same, then where did the mandate come from that requires that criteria be used by all individuals?

Then why do people complain about the perceptions of other people? Is the perception of one person the only true perception?

Interesting perception on your part. Now is that perception of yours true? If it is true, then are all people required to accept your perception as true? If your perception is true, then who is making the requirement that all other people accept your perception as true?

My existence is accepted by me as true, and by those that wish to communicate with me. If those others deem their perception of me as false, then those that do so and still continue communicating with me are guilty of communicating with phantoms that exist only in their mind. Do you KNOW that I exist?

 

Yawn!

It may be irrelevant to you, but it is very relevant to many of us. You can do what you want to, leave me alone to do what I want to.

 

And to me, religion is a way to help structure my life. There is something many of us like about something that changes very rarely. It is a good difference from the rest of our lives in which things change constantly.

 

If religions didn't exist, very similar crimes would have happened with a different excuse.

 

There is no connection/relationship between science and religion. They are concerned with different things. Only warped views of either science or religion put them in conflict.

 

Science cannot "blast" holes in religion. Only a fool would believe that. Religion is concerned with the supernatural. Science the natural. There is no conflict between the two unless either science or religion goes beyond those bounds. That is an incorrect usage of both science and religion.

 

And now you show yourself to be totally incompetent in the world of science. In science, nothing can be proven. That is an impossibility. Things can only be disproven in science.

 

Any human action that is willed is based on perception.

Concensus.

Existential nonsense like this statement: " Prove that nothing is true"

What is true to most folks is based on concensus and feedback.

Your claim that all people are required to accept the same perception for truth to be established is invalid.

What I perceive is a person that wants to debate whether or not the sky is blue.

Debate with someone who does not grant the obvious is a pointless circle jerk.

Questioning existence and perception is merely a way to escape having to account for the obvious realities that contradict and bring in to question the pillars of ones belief system.

This type of constant escape from reality is form of repression and denial, or if done intentionally, trolling.

 

The Communists wanted to put an end to religion but were unable to acheive it. How would the OP accomplish what the Communists failed to do?

 

China did a pretty good Job. It does not matter if a few zeolots still believe, as long as the majority does not believe religious folks will have no power to force their beliefs on other which is a primary objective for banning religion.

Looking at the last 1500 year history of religion one can not really blame China and Russia for at least trying to stop religious folks from taking over and setting up the torture chambers, persecuting and killing Jews, and mass killing of folks who have ideas they disagree with, banning sex, alcohol.

Fear of prohibition was probably the main reason Russia banned religion. They really like their vodka.

 

Right, because the Communists didn't want to compete with Christians for the chance to torture people, persecute Jews, commit genocide, etc.

Do you know anything at all about the history of Communism? You act like you have no clue.

 

Are you serious... WOW, who would have guessed.

Whose consensus? Where are the numbers for that polling and what were the inquiries made relative to that consensus? At this point all you have presented is conjecture,, a fabrication of your mind.

There is no scientific means of PROOF of anything.

Again, where are your supporting documents relating to any consensus that may have been produced by inquiry of the world population?

Again, where are the supporting documents that show my or any other opinion on this forum to have been officially established as "invalid"? No proof, no valid claim on your part.

Faulty perception. I have not attempted to make such a debate as "whether the sky is blue". Error on your part.

What is the 'obvious' and where is your proof of claim relative to the 'obvious'?

Questioning existence? You are the one who brought up the subject of my existence:
"Originally Posted by Giftedone
If you are going to use such arguments then you really have no interest in what is being debated because you do not accept any evidence as reality because nothing can be proved, including your own existence.". Therefore, you are now saying that you were attempting to escape having to account for the obvious realities that contradict and bring to question the pillars of ones belief system." Such as your embrace of the religion called Atheism.

Trolling is officially determined by the moderators. Your use of that term is nothing more than 'name calling' which is a violation of the TOS.

 

And what is the majority here in the Untied States? 75.9 % self proclaimed Christians.

 

I never claimed that LOL ..

 

Yes .. hence why constitutionally protected freedoms and liberties were able to be trampled on by Church folk in this country.

The percentage was probably even higher when religious leaders successfully lobbied the state for prohibition.

 

Oh well. The borders are still open for those that are desiring to leave. But as long as you are volunteering to remain in this country, you have to accept the reality that the majority of people in this country are 'self proclaimed Christians' and as such, have the upper hand. The majority rules. Like it or leave it or try some legal and lawful means of changing it.

 

You missed the point of the comment. When you challenge perception you might as well be claim that the sky is not blue.

I can easily defend the claim that the sky is not blue by using such tactics.

What is obvious is that you are attempting to deny the obvious.

Claiming that none of history matters because it can not be proven is the same as claiming the sky is not blue.

Denial of the obvious.

I gave you a definition of trolling .. If the shoe fits ?!

 

Not all Christians think they have the right to force their beliefs on others.

I count myself in that number and hope that like minded folks will succeed in winning back the soul of the country.

 

So make the claim that the sky is not blue. I don't care. Likewise, when you challenge the perception of another person, regardless of the subject matter of that perception, then I can equally challenge your perception. Wanna play some ping-pong?

What is even more obvious, is that you are attempting to Not address the questions posed to you. I asked previously: "What is the 'obvious' and where is your proof of claim relative to the 'obvious'?" Your refusal to answer the question is showing that you cannot make an honest answer.

No it is not! History and the color of the sky are two totally different subjects, and the color of the sky would be dependent upon location, weather conditions and specific geographical location during that historical period in question.

And again... "what is the obvious and where is your proof of claim relative to the 'obvious'?"

I could care less about your definition of trolling. On this forum, trolling is a matter of concern only to the Moderators, and the Moderators make the definition of 'trolling'. So if you are not a moderator, then your comments on the subject of trolling are nothing more that what can be found in the local country out-house.

 

Who said that they did?

Oh? This country has been invaded and taken over by some foreign agents? When did this happen? How did this happen?

 

What if you're wrong?

 

You were the one talking about the majority being Christians and majority rules.

What was your point ?

 

Religion is irrelevant according to the OP, but my parish is planning on building a new church and a new elementary school, so maybe not so much.

Despite all the talk I hear on this forum about religion being irrelevant, Masses are well attended every Sunday and people are standing out in the halls when the pews are full.

 

My point was and is, that Christians hold the majority in the United States Population, and subsequently, the majority rules.

So, when the legislators act, they act in accordance with the demand of the majority (most of the time but at other times, they act in accordance with the whims of the corporation). So deal with the legislators or simply accept what is as being What Is.