I think said person should pipe down and stop trying to indoctrinate people.

Whatever it meant 2000 years ago has been warped beyond belief (no pun intended) by people using it as a way to control people for their own ends.

Yeah, because believing that the earth is flat is really harmful to other people like the examples you described. Great job as creating textbook false equivalency there.  And BTW children don't equal their parents.

I'll preface this by saying yes: I personally believe in the Christian God as I am myself a practicing Roman Catholic.

However, while there is definitely some intersectionality between faith and reason a lot of it is, well, faith. I would be lying if I said I never questioned my religion or had my own skepticisms. A major component of organized religion is taking things on faith, which is something I definitely have trouble with doing at times.

But the same time I don't think it's irrational to infer the existence of some arbitrary higher power using reason alone. As I understand it, the only way a purely atheistic universe could exist is through an infinite regression of events. Either the universe continuously recycles itself or some form of the multi-verse theory is true. However the idea of infinite regression is both logically fallacious in nature and scientifically dubious in practice, neither of the above models for the universe reflect our current scientific understanding.

Our current understand yields that the universe is finite in time; having both a well established beginning in the big bang and a probable end in heat death. Furthermore, as I understand it, all infinite regression theories for the universe lack any credible evidence. In other words, there is no proof or even logical ground for them to stand on, making them nearly as faith based as any organized religion. Therefore given our current understand there has to be some unmoved mover or some uncaused causer; whether it's the Abrahamic God, some pantheon of gods, or maybe just a really big unconscious rock. The idea here is that the only way to avoid a Homunculus Fallacy is to have some entity that exists unbound by the physical laws of our universe, and that being would be defined as God for lack of a better definition. Asking "what caused God" is also a fundamental misunderstanding of the argument being made, because under these metrics God has to be defined as the uncaused entity (i.e an infinite being).

I'll note however that the above statements aren't an argument for the existence of God in the conventional sense. The argument can't be used to prove or even infer the existence of an intelligent designer, it merely acknowledges the probable existence of some higher power outside of our physical laws; and I think that's about as far as one can get through reason alone.

lol like I expected anything different

modern US/Europeans are too immersed in their life to see beyond, it is human nature to take things for granted

we will all find out eventually, rivers run everywhere but the sea embraces them all in the end

When jesus was in the desert for 6 days, lucifer offered him all 7 worlds including thr earth for bowing infront of him. jesus said no. I am not talking about the story is true or not. But according to the bible, he offered him 7 worlds+earth. You cant offer something what is not yours. That said, the bible says the worlds owner is lucifer. How to offer if its not yours?

You really do like to miss the point on purpose, do you?

The examples are not for supporting my argument, but rather to point out that you like to put words in someones mouth that he/she didn't meant to say in the first place.

So, no, I don't place flat earthers on the same level as IS or pedophiles. Can't believe I have to point that out.

But flat earthers can become seriously harmful if the movement is big enough. So far, they are a laughing stock for those who can see through their idioticy. Sadly some people can't and they become part of the ridicule.

But all in all, and what Alara317 said and meant, people with those believes and behaviour are no help for the society and can cause only harm for everyone else. They have the potential in doing so. 

I don't know his stance on evolution, but I really don't need another one denying a fact. So, don't breed in this kind of sense is the correct term.

seriously I don't get you, do you mean the crusades?

he made an impact because of the way he came to life and the way he left, and obviously because of what he did while he was on earth

That's a harsh generalization.

If you say modern, can I say outdated?

"too immersed in their life to see beyond", now that's a funny statement.

How far beyond did you looked in other direction than the one you are looking at right now(christianity)?

It's not that I turned atheist for the lulz of it. There is some serious thought process behind it to abandon the view ones hold since birth. It's because you dig deeper and deeper and try to understand the concept of god and your very own existence that leds you away from one of thousands of made up answers on this god forsaken planet. Maybe there is one correct answer out there, but yours it is not. I've been there already.

Yeah, so then the problem becomes that you think an individuals value is equal to their value to society. Someone shouldn't breed because they are detrimental to society, but there the assumption is that society supersedes the individual. 

What I say is: It can take thousand of people to build something up, but it takes only one to destroy it.

This can be taken literal aswell as metaphorical.