Ok.....So you killed off Religion...

[DeistPaladin]

Look for one, your motives are as transparent as glass. 2, you wouldn't be challenging me or talking to me if you thought I were stupid, (we're all liars to some degree).

You were busted re-using an argument that you were already advised was a logical fallacy. Not only that but you smugly referenced it as if it were some kind of slam-dunk. So you tell me what I'm supposed to conclude about you.

And lastly you had no rebuttal to "hard scripture" except to make fun of it

What is "hard scripture"? What I made fun of (the part you referenced) was the vapid appeal to an imaginary authority (a double fallacy since it's both a bare assertion and an appeal to authority).

If you want a conversation, or argument lets go at it! No one wants to be treated like yesterdays trash! Not even us Christians.

I'm still waiting patiently for you, John V, Frodo or that new Panda guy to offer me a coherent argument that can't be immediately identified as a logical fallacy. So far all you've offered are bare assertions and vapid appeals to ridicule.

You get the respect you earn. Time for you to start earning some.

[Tonus]

What is "hard scripture"?

Reading the Bible while drinking some of these:

[Brian37]

Logical Fallacy: Appeal to Ridicule. "Ha ha, you sound funny" isn't an argument.

EDIT TO ADD: What's more, you had already been told that appeal to ridicule is not an argument. And yet you ignored that response and represent that same post as if it were a slam-dunk? Are you a liar or are you just stupid?

And you Christians wonder why you're not taken seriously?

Look for one, your motives are as transparent as glass. 2, you wouldn't be challenging me or talking to me if you thought I were stupid, (we're all liars to some degree). And lastly you had no rebuttal to "hard scripture" except to make fun of it!

And then, I'm supposed to think seriously of a bunch of words "that prove nothing" (a phrase I got from hanging around here btw) except that you can spell and put a sentence together.

I might have some glass in my actions too...but it has silver painted on the back. So, if you're condenscending....?

If you want a conversation, or argument lets go at it! No one wants to be treated like yesterdays trash! Not even us Christians.

Former Catholic here, not that it would matter if I were a former Jew or Muslim, but you don't like being treated like trash?

Funny, but your invisible friend as depicted in your comic book seems to treat humans like toys and property and condones violence or becomes violent to dissenters. I'd say being treated like a prop, toy or property that you can throw away is being treated like trash, even toys get old and thrown away, even the ones you love. I don't have my stuffed Winny The Poo bear anymore.

No, see you are not going to get away with hiding behind playing victim here. Blasphemy wont hurt you nor will ridicule. It might be incumbent upon you to instead of having a childish emotional reaction to a challenge to you to think, to consider that it is you that might be wrong. It sucks when people throw cold water on your face, but when you wake up out of your delusion because others cared enough to do so, you feel lots better.

Now suck it up and grow up. You have a god claim, fine, get in line take a number, but please don't whine here. Poney up with what you think is evidence, let the claims take the beating, if they stand up to our scrutiny then we would be the ones obligated to adapt to the correct position.

Otherwise all you are doing is demanding we don't bruise your ego.

[Ryantology]

Suppose you omit George Washington. Would a child be more likely to view him as (a) important to the founding of the United States ; or (b) unimportant to the founding of the United States?

George Washington is not a mythical figure, and his existence is directly relevant to the history of the United States. If Jesus ever actually lived, he should be included in history texts as the man he really was and for the effect he had on history, but he should not be recognized as a god because that is specifically endorsing a particular dogma, and this is not only unconstitutional, it is intellectually dishonest as long as the claim remains unproven.

So we're supposed to leave out Jesus altogether because he claimed to be something more than a philosopher? Would you exclude Augustus Caesar? He claimed to be a god, too.

You may correct me if I'm wrong, but the last time I checked, nobody in America worships Augustus Caesar and nobody consults his opinions on matters when it comes time to write legislation. Your questions are irrelevant.

[Brian37]

Suppose you omit George Washington. Would a child be more likely to view him as (a) important to the founding of the United States ; or (b) unimportant to the founding of the United States?

George Washington is not a mythical figure, and his existence is directly relevant to the history of the United States. If Jesus ever actually lived, he should be included in history texts as the man he really was and for the effect he had on history, but he should not be recognized as a god because that is specifically endorsing a particular dogma, and this is not only unconstitutional, it is intellectually dishonest as long as the claim remains unproven.

So we're supposed to leave out Jesus altogether because he claimed to be something more than a philosopher? Would you exclude Augustus Caesar? He claimed to be a god, too.

You may correct me if I'm wrong, but the last time I checked, nobody in America worships Augustus Caesar and nobody consults his opinions on matters when it comes time to write legislation. Your questions are irrelevant.

The bible like the Egyptian Pyramids, SHOULD be kept around, not because of an of the fantastic myths depicted by those cultures were ever true, like virgin births or the sun being a god. They should be studied as a reminder as to what superstitions do in straying humans from finding answers to the realities in nature.

Jesus is important as a literary figure, not because the cherry picking of the fraction of stories of compassion, which are negated by the tribal violence condoned by the god character, but we today are still affected by the governments and believers that run our governments and make our laws.

Jesus is important because people still worship him as if he is a god. At best, the only thing that could be said if we found his bones and DNA tomorrow and confirmed his existence(which in reality no honest historian claims) the only thing it would mean is that a man started a cult and managed to market the religion.

Just like if we found Mohammed's bones and DNA it would not make Allah real, it would merely mean a deluded man started a cult and successfully marketed it.

Otherwise if magic exists because a myth is peppered with real places or real people, then the original book Peter Pan and all the fantastic claims in it would be true because the book mentions the city of London.

No one thinks the polytheistic gods of the Greeks or Romans are real because real people believed in them.

[Undeceived]

So we're supposed to leave out Jesus altogether because he claimed to be something more than a philosopher? Would you exclude Augustus Caesar? He claimed to be a god, too.

You may correct me if I'm wrong, but the last time I checked, nobody in America worships Augustus Caesar and nobody consults his opinions on matters when it comes time to write legislation. Your questions are irrelevant.

What does worship have to do with omitting religion from schools? People worship Jesus, so therefore his words should be omitted from curriculum? Could you explain the logic, please? If you wouldn't mind, provide the step-by-step argument. How do you get from "this subject is worshiped" to "therefore, this subject should not be taught"?

[Esquilax]

What does worship have to do with omitting religion from schools? People worship Jesus, so therefore his words should be omitted from curriculum? Could you explain the logic, please? If you wouldn't mind, provide the step-by-step argument. How do you get from "this subject is worshiped" to "therefore, this subject should not be taught"?

It's not so much to do with worship as it does the fact that the guy can't be factually verified, and that even if you could, there's no way to verify his divinity, the same as any other supposedly divine religious figure. There's a reason you guys still have to use faith, right?

I've used this analogy before, but think of the education system like an ice cream parlor. Everyone who walks in ends up with ice cream, that's the basic education, and it serves everyone equally; only demonstrable facts, things that every student needs to know and will benefit from. Your religious instruction is the topping, and that's optional; it's still there, you can do it, but it's not forced upon you. It's made to order, and that way every student can get the appropriate religious instruction, rather than wasting time on one religion in class you might not follow. Would you really want to have to scrape the sprinkles off your ice cream cone because you wanted chocolate sauce instead? Why wouldn't the server just give you the basic ice cream and let you pick your own additional extras, instead of making assumptions you've later got to correct?

[Undeceived]

What does worship have to do with omitting religion from schools? People worship Jesus, so therefore his words should be omitted from curriculum? Could you explain the logic, please? If you wouldn't mind, provide the step-by-step argument. How do you get from "this subject is worshiped" to "therefore, this subject should not be taught"?

It's not so much to do with worship as it does the fact that the guy can't be factually verified, and that even if you could, there's no way to verify his divinity, the same as any other supposedly divine religious figure. There's a reason you guys still have to use faith, right?

I've used this analogy before, but think of the education system like an ice cream parlor. Everyone who walks in ends up with ice cream, that's the basic education, and it serves everyone equally; only demonstrable facts, things that every student needs to know and will benefit from. Your religious instruction is the topping, and that's optional; it's still there, you can do it, but it's not forced upon you. It's made to order, and that way every student can get the appropriate religious instruction, rather than wasting time on one religion in class you might not follow. Would you really want to have to scrape the sprinkles off your ice cream cone because you wanted chocolate sauce instead? Why wouldn't the server just give you the basic ice cream and let you pick your own additional extras, instead of making assumptions you've later got to correct

What do you mean by "verified," and why should I accept its application here? Your answer will necessarily presume a worldview/philosophy. Philosophy isn't factually verified, yet it is required to answer questions about knowledge and metaphysics before humankind can even begin judging what is verified. So one's worldview is the cone, not the sprinkles. Why not lay out a wide selection of cones first, before the ice cream? Otherwise, we are educated before the reason for education comes to light.

[Ryantology]

What do you mean by "verified,"

Able to be reproduced and tested repeatedly and found to be in accordance with known natural laws.

and why should I accept its application here?

Because whatever you have does not deserve to be called 'knowledge' unless it at least meets the above criteria.

Your answer will necessarily presume a worldview/philosophy.

Our answer is in accordance with a worldview that knows better than to place complete trust in anything which is indistinguishable from a hallucination, delusion, or outright fantasy. Yours is in accordance with a world view which relies 100% upon elements indistinguishable from hallucinations, delusions and outright fantasy. You consider your ability to decipher the contents of your mind so advanced that you attach the title 'knowledge' to what your mind produces all by itself. That is presumptuous beyond the point of insanity.

[KichigaiNeko]

Perhaps "undeceived" should change his/her nick to "totally-deceived"