Which Is A Bigger Threat To Humanity? Science Or Religion?

[o_O.Q]

Peh said:

o_O.Q said:

i didn't say anyone said so... so i'm not attacking a strawman... i'm just saying that atheists aren't bastions of moral virtue in response to the point that was made about religions influencing people to cause harm

and some religious people would make the point that without the grace of god atheists fall into temptation from the devil

atheists can't disprove that claim

Your very reply to bdbdbd is a non-sequitur, arf. He talks about the influence of religion itself, arf. You reply has absolutely nothing to do with his, arf. You just dodged his statement and went straight for atheists who also kill people to build a strawman, arf.

 

Uhm, why should I disprove a claim which you for example created, arf? Don't shift the burden of proof on to atheists, arf.

Besides not believing in a God or the devil, I don't see myself going around killing and raping people, arf. Nor do I see millions of other atheistic people do that, arf. For once, I've yet to see the numerous news on the media saying: atheististic group rapes women, throws suicide bombers into a group of people, throws gay people from roofs, going on a killing spree at a church, arf.

I also wouldn't really blame the term religion but the scripts that tell those people do to such things, arf. Also  Crazy  people are all over the place, arf.

But your argument can be turned against you with ease, arf.

Here, let me show you, arf:

While you say that it is the grace of God who shields you against the devil or so to say your believe in him, arf. Would you go killing and sinning all over the place when you don't believe in God, arf?

Is religion just an invention to keep people from going to do whatever they like to do, arf? Just think about it for a moment, arf. Why fear humans if you have to fear God's wrath, arf?

"He talks about the influence of religion itself, arf. You reply has absolutely nothing to do with his"

his statement was rhetorical... its the kind of statement that is obviously true and doesn't need to be addressed further... so i did not

if i told you water is wet, would you feel the need to challenge that statement?

 

"Uhm, why should I disprove a claim which you for example created"

its not my claim, its a claim that religious people would make of atheists

 

"You just dodged his statement and went straight for atheists who also kill people to build a strawman"

strawman definition "an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument"

if i "dodged" his statement how can i be making a strawman? edit: and how did i misrepresent him?

 

" I've yet to see the numerous news on the media saying: atheististic group rapes women, throws suicide bombers into a group of people, throws gay people from roofs, going on a killing spree at a church"

i'm not understanding your point here... are you trying to say that atheists are more moral than other groups? or that they don't kill people in news worthy ways?

 

"While you say that it is the grace of God who shields you against the devil or so to say your believe in him, arf. Would you go killing and sinning all over the place when you don't believe in God, arf?"

"Is religion just an invention to keep people from going to do whatever they like to do, arf? Just think about it for a moment, arf. Why fear humans if you have to fear God's wrath, arf?"

its not my view, so i can't address your question

Last edited by o_O.Q - on 16 January 2018