Relgion, Philosophy for the Credulous and The Gullible

On my opponents side note: It is customary to congratulate your opponent and to show respect to them. It has been obvious my opponent has no need for that. I have did no such thing as distorting my opponents case as he claims. I have relied on the specific words that he typed and the impression he left. If that impression has been wrong then that is by fault of my opponent and not my own. The readers here, will, no doubt determine the intent of my opponent and also the rebuttals to that intent by myself. My opponent should not need to be kept in safe keeping by the readers. He should instead provide a through argument. It seems though my opponent wanted to make claims about religion and not be challenged on the things he has claimed. The point is obvious why I showed highly respected scientist that believe in religion, they are not gullible or credulous, but instead have value in their thoughts and philosophies. Science has recognized them as valuable thinkers. This is a point that my opponent has made, that those in religion are not thinkers but instead are lead as lambs to a belief that is nonsense. I do not think highly repeatable scientist who's job it is to think, would involve themselves in a belief that is not for thinkers or is just plain nonsense. What is the nature of religion? Religion can mean many different things and in some places of the world, the word religion, has no meaning. Religion for the most part is a state of life that is bound by vows. It gives actions of how one should conduct themselves. It is devotion to a principle or rule or belief. Because of religious principles, we have many of the laws and morals we use today. No one expects anyone to believe in the supernatural. Any belief should have a reason or cause for that belief. Many religions involve science and do not involve supernatural thinking. My opponent also leaves to think that science does not offer a reasoning for the origins of the universe but that is not the case. Science offers the Big-Bang as just one attempt to explain the origin of our universe. Also there is many ways to offer evidence for a supernatural cause, many will not accept them, but there is evidence for those who look. Religion is not science and does not claim to be a equal to science. Science and religion are from two different sides of thinking and can not be compared. My opponent is suggesting that religion should involve science but has given no reason why that should be. Religion offers answers and thinking that science leaves blank and therefore can offer ideas that science can not. Even if my opponent sees no need for that type of thinking does not mean everyone should also see no need for it. My opponent says I have failed to prove his point false but I retort that my opponent has failed to explain himself properly. With the evidence my opponent supplied(which is minimal), religion and religious people are gullible. Then my opponent finally gives us his debate means, which is, religion offers nothing for science. Ahh, now we see my opponents true meaning and yet that is false. Yet again after such a claim he again says that religious people are credulous and furthermore proving that the direction of my argument has been correct all along. What does religion offer science? Well what does religion offer that science can not? Science can not offer moral guidelines. Science can not offer interpretations to the meanings of life. Not to mention that science has shown many things in many religions that are true and false. Like I said religion is not science and does not suppose to be science. Religion is philosophy and philosophy is about thought and not physical means. My opponent asks am I serious about offering scientology as a religion without hell, well yes, because it has no concept of hell and my opponent never shows us it does. Scientology believes in reincarnation and does not value hell at all. If one does not accomplish their goals they are reincarnated instead of joing the divine, this is not hell. From my opponents own link: "According to Scientology, its beliefs and practices are based on rigorous research, and its doctrines are accorded a significance equivalent to that of scientific laws. "Scientology works 100 percent of the time when it is properly applied to a person who sincerely desires to improve his life", the Church of Scientology says. Conversion is held to be of lesser significance than the practical application of Scientologist methods. Adherents are encouraged to validate the value of the methods they apply through their personal experience. " . http://en.wikipedia.org......) My opponent thinks that punishment equals the concept of hell. This is incorrect. "Buddhism offers rebirth as a process whereby beings go through a succession of lifetimes as one of many possible forms of sentient life, each running from conception to death. Buddhism rejects the concepts of a permanent self or an unchanging, eternal soul, as it is called in Hinduism and Christianity. According to Buddhism there ultimately is no such thing as a self independent from the rest of the universe (the doctrine of anatta). Rebirth in subsequent existences must be understood as the continuation of a dynamic, ever-changing process of "dependent arising" ("pratītyasamutpāda") determined by the laws of cause and effect (karma) rather than that of one being, transmigrating or incarnating from one existence to the next. " . http://en.wikipedia.org... My opponent is incorrect about Satanism, Satanist have a bible and a dogma that they follow, therefore making it a religion in every sense of the word. There is "theistic Satanism (also known as traditional Satanism, spiritual Satanism or Devil Worship) is a form of Satanism with the primary belief that Satan is an actual deity or force to revere or worship. Other characteristics of theistic Satanism may include a belief in magic, which is manipulated through ritual, although that is not a defining criterion, and theistic Satanist's may focus solely on devotion. Unlike the LaVeyan Satanism founded by Anton LaVey in the 1960s, theistic Satanism is theistic as opposed to atheistic, believing that Satan is a real being rather than a symbol of individualism. " . http://en.wikipedia.org... My opponent has failed and every religion I have offered is a religion and has no concept of hell in their beliefs. My opponent ignored the link I that offered and it offered many more than I did. My opponent has not offered us one reason to think religion is for the gullible. He has made claims and assumptions and not backed one of them. He instead tracks my remarks and never proves his own. He fails at even rebutting my remarks. My opponent also fails to guide us to the specific religion he wishes to debate that and that has been the problem here. He involved all religions and all religions do not fit his argument, my point and rebuttal. Also, if my opponent new about religions that offers a God or deity that is the creator, he would know they explain at length about the reason evil or pain is on the earth and why we live in it. My opponent also says that all Palaeontologist agree with evolution, this is not true, I offered scientist who are in fact Palaeontologist that disagree. This being another reason why I offered the scientist I did. He never gives us a quote or scientist that agrees with him, I am sure there are ones that agree but that is Pros job to show us. My opponent has failed. He gave no evidence what so ever. If a gullible person was reading his argument then they would believe him without any evidence and this being that exact thing he is arguing about. I rest my case.