When will religion be overteken by logic?

The idea that any gaps have been filled is pure delusion.

The difference between that and a gap being what, exactly?

Well how very convenient. If a high enough percentage of lab-coated pinheads figure it doesn't clear that bar, the gap is out of sight and out of mind.

irrelevancies that pop into your head? I'll pass.

 

Hey - what the heck?

Saying "I don't know" is not more egotistical than saying, "My god did that".

The gaps in evolution that exist have to do with the FACT that only a miniscule percent of life forms that have lived on earth have left remains that have been found.

That's not a problem for evolution. You and everyone else is free to find more evidence. In fact, I'd suggest that, as it would lead to greater understanding!

 

Claiming that no gaps have been filled to be pure delusion is in fact a delusion itself.

I see you are not familiar with the concept of context. As to pinheads, I defer to your expertise. And yes to a scientist if it doesnt clear necessary criteria its placed in the the "out of sight/mind" category.

You do pass a lot. I guess its a reasonable substitute for actual substance, when ya got nothing.

 

No doubt it appears so to those mired in delusion.

Hey, if you insist on declaring the pronouncements of scientists worthless in determining the existence of gaps, no skin off my ass.

You give me a lot to pass.

Sure, like that isn't your worst enemy.

 

Yep, just ask yourself, although I doubt you can trust the answer.

Yet another mental contortion and truly stupid strawman.

An admirably effective defense in the absence of substance. You do it well.

No, lack of substance in others is not my worst enemy by a long shot. It doesn't even top willful ignorance, ideological entrenchment, intellectual bankruptcy. And those don't come remotely close to nazis, racists, commies and religious fanatics.

 

On the contrary, it follows ineluctably from your own assertion - never mind that you'd rather be dead than realize it.

Yes.

 

You mean ineluctably from your own narrow perspective, since obviously it was that perception that prompted your stupid strawman.
As for your assertion that I'd rather be dead than realize something, I get that you need to use your own personality quirks to project onto others. Its a rather common human trait, after all.

 

I suppose one could so characterize a commonsensical inclination, which naturally leads one away from the endless wonderland of stupid that the stereotypical atheist finds so enthralling.

That word doesn't mean anything like what you're pretending it means, obviously.

 

yes, Buddhism is a religion, like Christianity

theism and atheism are not religions in themselves

 

Waxing lyrically superficial once again. And you chastise me for ad homs?

Oh but it does. You mischaracterized my comment and then commented on your mischaracterization. As for pretending, I doubt you don't know what a strawman is.

 

The irony is that is something you got from religion.

 

Correct.

Incorrect. They are religions just as much as Buddhism and Christianity are. They simply are overarching religions of other (more specific) religions, such as Buddhism and Christianity.

Theism is the belief that god(s) exist. Atheism is the belief that god(s) do not exist. The argument that god(s) exist (or do not exist) is a circular argument. Initial circular arguments, such as those, are the very basis for any and all religion. Religion is simply an initial circular argument with additional arguments stemming from it.

--- Another poster earlier defined religion as "a belief which people have faith in"... That poster is basically correct, as 'faith' IS synonymous with 'circular reasoning', but the other part of religion is the additional argumentation which stems from the accepted truth of the initial circular argument. -- That is what gives religion a separate identity from a circular argument.

 

So now you're pretending not to know what that means.

As for chastising, no. I merely make note of it, along with what it reveals about your motives.

No it doesn't.

No, I drew an inference from your comment. Had said inference not followed from said comment, it would have been a non sequitur, not a strawman. Things being what they are, of course, it was neither.

 

so both Muslims and Christians belong to the same religion Theism?

Theism means you believe in a God, it is not a religion

Atheism means you do not believe in a God, it is not a religion

you can have a religion and be a theist or atheist, but it's not required

 

Must I point out billions of people are poor, working hard and largely undereducated and I don't see this changing much so religion will always be important since its simple and gives these people some hope. You do get many depend on religious people for education, help with small businesses, getting basic things like any sort of medical care and an afterlife which is better than scooping up dung for fuel and carrying wood. Seriously remove basic needs and then maybe you will help the rest with education but do you see needs going away for the very poor who live still on two dollars a day per household how ignorant are some of you idealists?

 

Yes, they are both theistic religions. They both stem from Theism. They are two specifically different forms of Theism.

Yes, Theism is the belief that god(s) exist. It IS a religion.

Yes, Atheism is the belief that god(s) do not exist. It IS a religion.

Theism and Atheism ARE religions. They make initial circular arguments and make use of additional argumentation stemming from the initial circular argument. Atheistic arguments are dependent upon the truth that god(s) do not exist, akin to how Theistic arguments are dependent upon the truth that god(s) do exist. Muslim arguments are dependent upon the truth of the Qur'an. Christian arguments are dependent upon the truth of the Holy Bible.

Global Warming is dependent upon the truth that the Earth's temperature is rising. Evolution is dependent upon the truth that current life forms are a direct result of the mutations of earlier more primitive life forms. The Big Bang Theory is dependent upon the truth that a very high density high temperature state expanded into the universe that we currently reside in.

They are all initial circular arguments. They are all religions.

 

Religion will always be important and useful because not everything is falsifiable. Not everything can be addressed by science.

 

Actually it appears you don't now that it means, going by that response. Here's a handy source to enhance your understanding ofthe term.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Motives? really? do tell what are my motives?

How so?

straw man
/ˌstrô ˈman/
noun

1. 1.
   an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument.

Do you need the definition of mischaracterize as well?

 

"Yes, they are both theistic religions. They both stem from Theism."

right, the religion is Muslim and Christian, the theism is not the region, that only states they both believe in a God

911 was done by Theists... but you may also want to know there religion or your missing a big piece of information

 

To foment irritation followed by overreaction.

You'll never get it done, but that's what you want.

Already told you once, not gonna do it again.

 

Atheism is by definition, not a religion.

 

Nope, just matching snark for snark and I enjoy a good sparring session. I must say tho, you hold your own.

It apparently didn't stick the first time due to lack of effort.

 

Yep.

It wouldn't stick the hundredth time, due to your complete lack of interest in anything beyond caviling.

 

Since it became clear to both of us that we are on completely different sides of the fence and both intellectually and emotional happy with their position the snark increased. Hence my lack of interest. petty dismissal has its place.

 

They are all religions.

Yeah... your point?