I don't like debating religion.

Well, that's a lie, I do like debating religion (amongst other topics), the problem is that you really can't debate religion. Well, you can, but people really, really suck at it. See, my issue is that I have spent the majority of my life aspiring to gain knowledge and understanding of the world around me, which is why I love science so much.

I understand why people want to believe in their religion, or have spirituality, I understand the need for hope of an afterlife. I understand that the idea of an omnipresent father figure watching over you is actually kinda comforting. Knowing (or at least thinking you know) that there's someone out there watching you and giving your life meaning, well, it gives life meaning, and people need that. While I don't appreciate how religion offers comfort without substance, I understand why it exists and I truly do think that everyone has a right to believe what they want to believe.

So why don't I like debating religion? Well, it's because there's no winning a debate with a religious person, and it's NOT because they're right or my arguments fail (neither statement is correct.) I won't debate religion because even if I spent two weeks straight explaining why each and every detail in every bible ever was wrong, debunking myths or explaining how science has a better, more accurate answer, I will never, ever convince the devout that perhaps they need to be a bit more rational and critical of their faith.

The issue is that religious arguments require so many leaps of faith and sometimes flat out faulty logic to get to the conclusion they do. Take the gay rights argument:

1 – First, they need to justify their claim by proving that God thinks gays are bad. This is usually done by quoting Leviticus.

2 – They then have to prove that the vaguely written quote about homosexuality actually meant that gays are bad (hint: the vagueness of the bible's prose in any language means most passages can be interpreted multiple ways.)

3 – Then they have to prove that there are no contradictions counteracting that statement, which isn't common, since there were plenty of things about Jesus saying you're not supposed to judge and that every man woman and child was created in God's own image, meaning that God made gay people gay.

4 – If they manage to somehow properly argue those first points, they then have to explain why their version of their religion is more right than another. For example, Catholics don't like contraception, as it doesn't make offspring, which is a relatively reasonable explanation as to why homosexuality is bad; Protestants, however, aren't as strict with the contraception thing.

5- They have to prove that their religion is the right one, by comparing it to historical data and cross-referencing other religions. This, naturally, can't be done, but assuming it could and Christianity was correct, we'll continue.

6 – They have to prove that the bible was written by GOD and not by MAN.

7 – They then have to prove that the bible was never tampered with and that what is written is pure. If they cannot do this, then it's clear that anything written in any bible is subject to criticism of man and accusations of tampering. Since we're talking about a book written over the course of hundreds of years by too many people to count, the chances of this being the case are astronomically low. Doubly so given man's tendency to manipulate and control others.

8 – They then have to prove that, not only did God write these things and that they're pure, but that there's actually a God. This is usually done by saying that everything had to come from something, citing the fact that science has yet to prove anything concerning the big bang theory, since it's, you know, billions of years before our time. However, this is not proof, only a 'what-if' scenario. While the big bang has science and observation on its side, the 'god did it' argument has only the word of a book written thousands of years ago that says so.

This is mainly why I don't debate religion, or allow people to use religious arguments in non-religious debates. Mostly because as soon as we've skipped past steps 2-7 to get right to the “is there a god” argument to immediately back up the almost certainly faulty argument that God said gays are bad (or whatever argument you need), you have people attacking science, and I have a real problem with that. “Well, you need to have faith in science too, so that makes god just as viable of a theory as the big bang!” No, you fools, it does not. On one hand you have a discipline based on being able to test theories extensively to maintain effects that can be reproduced vs a belief system based, at its core, on “well, there are spots science hasn't or can't explain adequately, so that must mean God did it.”

If you're using 'God' as a metaphor for the unknown or that which is beyond our plausible comprehension, then it kind of works, but accept that God is a metaphor and not an anthropomorphized being. As a conscious, divine being, there's absolutely no proof to substantiate that claim other than a book written thousands of years ago that not only is vague at best but could be (and most likely was) tampered with and no more than an item used by people to control others.

God may be real, but nothing in our history has ever actively pointed towards that being the truth. God is little more than a metaphor used to explain away things we don't know, and as our culture grows towards being more enlightened, with science explaining more and more that was once attributed to God, people who want to believe continue to do so because that's what they want to believe, not because that's where the logic points them, and they will do ANYTHING they can to plant the seed of doubt in others because the very idea that this thing they've dedicated their lives to may be false or flat up lies hurts them.

One book I read concerning the subject was called, I think, Religion as a Social Phenomenon. It likened faith and religion to a local sports team. Think about it, when you gained your religious beliefs, was it something you thought about? Was it something you took the time to weigh the options on before concluding that the religion you follow, or was it something you just kinda were born into? Statistically speaking, something like 2-3% of religious people actually change religions or spend time researching the options before proclaiming themselves one religion, an overwhelming majority just stick with whatever they were born with or what their friends pushed on them. In that respect it's like a Sports Team. Look at the Toronto Maple leafs: Their win/loss record is atrocious, yet people in Ontario cheer them regardless; not because they chose to like or support Toronto, but because they were born in or near Toronto and that's what all their family and friends support.

Religion is a Social Phenomenon, a cultural meme, and nothing more. The fact that people believe in it despite the saddening lack of real evidence supporting it bothers me, which is why I chose not to debate it. I chose to be atheist because I have not experienced or heard of any evidence supporting such a being, and it is incredibly irrational to believe something without good reason (and hope/desperation is not a good reason.) I do not believe there is NO GOD, as there is just as little evidence supporting that theory as there is supporting the existence of god: None. Atheism isn't about actively and aggressively believing there is no god, just that they chose not to have a belief. People believe in God without logic, and the closest thing to proof that any religion is right is an example of them filling in the blanks left by incomplete scientific inquiry with a vague and desperate 'what-if' scenario. That's not good enough for me and it shouldn't be good enough for anyone with the ability to be a critical thinker.

There's a word for that kind of person: Gullible.

So, if you can prove god is real, that your god is the right one, that He wrote the book, that the book wasn't tampered with, and that your interpretation of it is correct, I will gladly debate with you, until then, please keep it to yourself.   

Or to atoms in a less technologically advanced era. The lack of evidence doesn't negate the existence.

What you fail to realize is that we have been observing the atom for eons, even before we knew about it. (Observation = existence)

"Actually, the thought about electricity came before atoms. In about 600 B.C. Thales of Miletus discovered that a piece of amber, after rubbing it with fur, attracts bits of hair and feathers and other light objects. He suggested that this mysterious force came from the amber. Thales, however, did not connect this force with any atomic particle.

Not until around 460 B.C., did a Greek philosopher, Democritus, develop the idea of atoms. He asked this question: If you break a piece of matter in half, and then break it in half again, how many breaks will you have to make before you can break it no further? Democritus thought that it ended at some point, a smallest possible bit of matter. He called these basic matter particles, atoms.

Unfortunately, the atomic ideas of Democritus had no lasting effects on other Greek philosophers, including Aristotle. In fact, Aristotle dismissed the atomic idea as worthless. People considered Aristotle's opinions very important and if Aristotle thought the atomic idea had no merit, then most other people thought the same also. (Primates have great mimicking ability.)

For more than 2000 years nobody did anything to continue the explorations that the Greeks had started into the nature of matter. Not until the early 1800's did people begin again to question the structure of matter.

In the 1800's an English chemist, John Dalton performed experiments with various chemicals that showed that matter, indeed, seem to consist of elementary lumpy particles (atoms). Although he did not know about their structure, he knew that the evidence pointed to something fundamental."

What you fail to realize is that we have been observing the atom for eons, even before we knew about it. (Observation = existence)

"Actually, the thought about electricity came before atoms. In about 600 B.C. Thales of Miletus discovered that a piece of amber, after rubbing it with fur, attracts bits of hair and feathers and other light objects. He suggested that this mysterious force came from the amber. Thales, however, did not connect this force with any atomic particle.

Not until around 460 B.C., did a Greek philosopher, Democritus, develop the idea of atoms. He asked this question: If you break a piece of matter in half, and then break it in half again, how many breaks will you have to make before you can break it no further? Democritus thought that it ended at some point, a smallest possible bit of matter. He called these basic matter particles, atoms.

Unfortunately, the atomic ideas of Democritus had no lasting effects on other Greek philosophers, including Aristotle. In fact, Aristotle dismissed the atomic idea as worthless. People considered Aristotle's opinions very important and if Aristotle thought the atomic idea had no merit, then most other people thought the same also. (Primates have great mimicking ability.)

For more than 2000 years nobody did anything to continue the explorations that the Greeks had started into the nature of matter. Not until the early 1800's did people begin again to question the structure of matter.

In the 1800's an English chemist, John Dalton performed experiments with various chemicals that showed that matter, indeed, seem to consist of elementary lumpy particles (atoms). Although he did not know about their structure, he knew that the evidence pointed to something fundamental."

Evolution is a fact. No "belief" involved. What a ludicrous statement, and the only reason I will address it is because of a lack of tasks at work and this will kill time. Indeed, before each iteration of evolution, a certain species did not exist. Surely that is the response you wanted and not some ridiculous response to lend any credence to your fundamentally ignorant viewpoint of existence. 

On the off chance that you are suggesting that prior to human nature nothing existed, OF COURSE IT FUCKING EXISTED, just because WE weren't around to observe it, the rest of the god damn animal kingdom was. Jesus, wake the hell up and stop making INANE arguments.

Even now, we cannot directly observe or 'see' atoms or atomic particles, we can only observe the effects of those particles using electron microscopes or other means and use that to piece together our understanding.

My own faith comes, not from seeing God directly, but from seeing the effect He has had on my life and the lives of others. That's not something I can argue you into believing.

I agree with some of what you said, especially about Christians trying to shove the 'law' of leviticus on people (or at least the parts they like), even though Jesus taught that the 'law' was actually the problem, and he was the solution.

I respectfully disagree about Science and Creation being mutually exclusive, this is only the case for the most rigid interpratations of the creation narrative. I have a few points you might find interesting, even though I'm sure you'll disagree.

1. Both Creation and Science agree that the universe came from one singularity, you call it the big bang, I simply believe that this 'big bang' came from as source beyond the natural world we can observe and test. The Bible at no time states exactly when the universe was created, as it begins by describing God as 'hovering over the waters' at the beginning of the narrative, meaning that the 'big bang' had already happened (or been caused) at this time.

I cannot find any concrete scientific explaination, based on what is known about Physics, as to how an infinitely dense singularity of matter that had presumably been in an inert state for an infinite period of time, could suddenly explode without outside intervention, this goes against what we know about physics. Namely, looking at black holes, these are so dense that not even light or matter can escape, and there is no way we know of for matter this dense to explode (and we have never witnessed any circumstance where something this dense exploded). The big bang still cannot be adequately and concretely explained by modern science, we simple know it happened because of what we observe now and there are many theories about the how and why - There is no single provable explaination of 'how' and 'why' time and space inexplicably expanded from this singularity. I believe that God is the 'why' in that equation, and I respect that you do not.

2.  The order of creation in the Bible actually lines up very nicely with Science. Light came first, followed by vegitation, then sea creatures, followed by land animals, and last, humans. It also describes a significant series of seismic and volcanic events that produced the land as we know it. This is an uncanny similarity between what we've observed and what was written long before scietific observation even existed.

3. The Bible describes the creation as 'days', but it is also very clear that God does not see time the way we do. In fact, the writer of the creation account states later that to God, 'a day is as 1000 years, and 1000 years as a day', meaning that we don't know if he was describing days or long periods of time. It also never says how old the earth is, how much time progressed after each 'day' before the next one started, etc. Anybody that says the Bible clearly states the earth is only 6,000 years old has not bothered to really read it, as there's simply no such statement or insinuation.

4. If God created the natural systems, then it stands to reason he was smart enough to design species to adapt to their environment. The majority of the evidence we see for evolution shows micro-evolution within species, and I absolutely agree that this happens. I simply do not see any way for evolution to happen between species (macro-evolution), this is largely due to the difference in the number of chromosomes between species. In the field of genetics, science has observed over and over that any change in the number of chromosomes results in retardation or deformation of the resulting offspring, which, due to natural selection, would result in the death of said offspring in most cases. This is one reason I don't believe it would not be possible for primates to evolve into humans, as the difference in the number of chromosomes would make this impossible in my view.

The above statements are not to make you believe that God exists, just to give you my view on why I believe Science does not explicitly contradict my faith... Science is a very valuable endeavor.

Faith is a deeply personal thing, so debates between those who have faith and those who don't are likely to go nowhere. My own experiences have cemented my faith that God exists and can/does work in our lives if we let Him. This will most likely mean little to you, because you have not had these experiences. I wouldn't expect you to suddenly find faith because I tell you of some life altering experience I've had or argue with you in a clear and logical fashion.

It's a shame that so many people of faith damage their own reputation by being rigid, judgemental, and sometimes just plain foolish. It's always interesting to me that the people who hated Jesus the most (and ended up killing Him) were the rigid, judgemental, religious folks.

I reported you. It was a question that required a simple answer. No need for the F-word, no need for ridiculing with calling my points "INANE".

Moving on, I wonder if you believe that the animal kindgom fathomed atomical theory. What makes you so certain that they did? Proof by your logic would be because they needed to exist prior to them being able to witness it. Now what about the fact that atoms were required to form the first living cell: How did that get witnessed so that it could come to being? Because by your logic, no testimony, no existence.