NationStates Jolt Archive

First of all...
<----------- Agnostic (not jewish, christian, athiest, muslim, bla,bla,bla)

I would like to say that religion is one of the greatest things that has happened to humanity.

As most of the dispute is between Judeo-Christian believers (jews, christians, muslims, any religion that rooted from Judaism) and athiests.

Im not gonna make this long, because i dont have much time here, but id just like to say that: although judeo-christian religions have been the cause for countless wars and persecutions; i believe that the wars and persecutions would have happened anyway. Its called a scapegoat.

If anything, judeo-christian religion is responsible for the value western culture puts on human life. The dark ages would have been just as bloody without christianity. But our current society relies on the fact that people usually dont want to kill fellow human beings. and that comes from our judeo-christian heritage. even if you are athiest, you still have that idea that killing is wrong; and you got that from our judeo-christian culture.

yep, discuss if you want, i just wanted to throw that out here.

you still have that idea that killing is wrong; and you got that from our judeo-christian culture. Bullshit. That value has existed in every culture in some form of another before, after and parralell from the Judeo-Christian-Islamic model.

you still have that idea that killing is wrong; and you got that from our judeo-christian culture. Bullshit. That value has existed in every culture in some form of another before, after and parralell from the Judeo-Christian-Islamic model.

If you look at the surrounding cultures, many were much more bloodthirsty than the Jews and Christians (especially if we look at the early Christians before they became blended with the powers of Rome).

you still have that idea that killing is wrong; and you got that from our judeo-christian culture. Bullshit. That value has existed in every culture in some form of another before, after and parralell from the Judeo-Christian-Islamic model.

If you look at the surrounding cultures, many were much more bloodthirsty than the Jews and Christians (especially if we look at the early Christians before they became blended with the powers of Rome).Please provide proof. An argument that is entirely based on an assumption that I share your subjective cultural biases is not only a falacy but also the worst sort of demogoguery.

There were many native American Indian tribes for example that were far less 'bloodthirsty' then their Christian murderers. Bhuddist and Confucian thought is also arguably less bloodthirsty then that of the Christian Europeans.

you still have that idea that killing is wrong; and you got that from our judeo-christian culture. Bullshit. That value has existed in every culture in some form of another before, after and parralell from the Judeo-Christian-Islamic model.

If you look at the surrounding cultures, many were much more bloodthirsty than the Jews and Christians (especially if we look at the early Christians before they became blended with the powers of Rome).Please provide proof. An argument that is entirely based on an assumption that I share your subjective cultural biases is not only a falacy but also the worst sort of demogoguery.

There were many native American Indian tribes for example that were far less 'bloodthirsty' then their Christian murderers. Bhuddist and Confucian thought is also arguably less bloodthirsty then that of the Christian Europeans.

Whoa there, cowboy, turn down the heat a bit. No need to get all nasty when you're only one of the first five posts in the thread.

Now, the first thing to consider is what is one's definition of "bloodthirsty"? Certain Mayan and Aztec cultures might be considered bloodthirsty due to their practice of human sacrifice, particularly of enemies. Certain African tribal cultures might be considered "bloodthirsty" due to their accepted practice of enslavement and slaughter of vanquished foes. Everyone makes much hay out of Buddisim and Eastern thought, but I would like to point out that the Mongol Horde was as "bloodthirsty" as the Roman Empire and just as successful.

Again, I think this boils down to a "human" thing and not a specific "religion" thing or a "Judeo-Christian" thing. People have managed to find sufficient reason to be atrocious to one another without religion and, should religion magically one day disappear, people will continue to find justification to slaughter each other over something else. Religion is a convenient target but by no means the root of the problem.

Whoa there, sport. Turn down the BS a bit. No need to get patronizing when you're only one of the first six posts in the thread.

Certain Mayan and Aztec cultures might be considered bloodthirsty due to their practice of human sacrifice, particularly of enemies. Certain African tribal cultures might be considered "bloodthirsty" due to their accepted practice of enslavement and slaughter of vanquished foes. Your point? By pointing out a few examples of cultures which seem to have valued human life more then most Christian ones have through out most periods of their history I cast some doubt on the silly statement "if you are athiest, you still have that idea that killing is wrong; and you got that from our judeo-christian culture."

The idea that murder is wrong did NOT originate from Christianity or Judeaism. Everyone makes much hay out of Buddisim and Eastern thought, but I would like to point out that the Mongol Horde was as "bloodthirsty" as the Roman Empire and just as successful. Bhuddism was most certainly not the predominent philosophy amongst the mongols during that period.

I got so angry at these lies I couldn't express myself coherently. Here's Richard Dawkins instead.


"To blame Islam for what happened in New York is like blaming Christianity for the troubles in Northern Ireland!" Yes. Precisely. It is time to stop pussyfooting around. Time to get angry. And not only with Islam.

Those of us who have renounced one or another of the three "great" monotheistic religions have, until now, moderated our language for reasons of politeness. Christians, Jews and Muslims are sincere in their beliefs and in what they find holy. We have respected that, even as we have disagreed with it. The late Douglas Adams put it with his customary good humor, in an impromptu speech in 1998 (slightly abridged):


Now, the invention of the scientific method is, I'm sure we'll all agree, the most powerful intellectual idea, the most powerful framework for thinking and investigating and understanding and challenging the world around us that there is, and it rests on the premise that any idea is there to be attacked. If it withstands the attack then it lives to fight another day and if it doesn't withstand the attack then down it goes. Religion doesn't seem to work like that. It has certain ideas at the heart of it which we call sacred or holy or whatever. What it means is, "Here is an idea or a notion that you're not allowed to say anything bad about; you're just not. Why not?--because you're not!" If somebody votes for a party that you don't agree with, you're free to argue about it as much as you like; everybody will have an argument but nobody feels aggrieved by it. If somebody thinks taxes should go up or down you are free to have an argument about it. But on the other hand if somebody says 'I mustn't move a light switch on a Saturday,' you say, "I respect that."

The odd thing is, even as I am saying that, I am thinking "Is there an Orthodox Jew here who is going to be offended by the fact that I just said that?" But I wouldn't have thought "Maybe there's somebody from the left wing or somebody from the right wing or somebody who subscribes to this view or the other in economics" when I was making the other points. I just think "Fine, we have different opinions." But, the moment I say something that has something to do with somebody's (I'm going to stick my neck out here and say irrational) beliefs, then we all become terribly protective and terribly defensive and say "No, we don't attack that; that's an irrational belief but no, we respect it."

Why should it be that it's perfectly legitimate to support the Labor party or the Conservative party, Republicans or Democrats, this model of economics versus that, Macintosh instead of Windows--but to have an opinion about how the Universe began, about who created the Universe . . . no, that's holy? What does that mean? Why do we ring-fence that for any other reason other than that we've just got used to doing so? There's no other reason at all, it's just one of those things that crept into being and once that loop gets going it's very, very powerful. So, we are used to not challenging religious ideas but it's very interesting how much of a furor Richard creates when he does it! Everybody gets absolutely frantic about it because you're not allowed to say these things. Yet when you look at it rationally there is no reason why those ideas shouldn't be as open to debate as any other, except that we have agreed somehow between us that they shouldn't be.


Douglas is dead, but I think he would join me in asking people now to stand up and break this absurd taboo. My respect for the Abrahamic religions went up in the smoke and choking dust of September 11th. The last vestige of respect for the taboo disappeared as I watched the "Day of Prayer" in Washington Cathedral, where people of mutually incompatible faiths united in homage to the very force that caused the problem in the first place: religion. It is time for people of intellect, as opposed to people of faith, to stand up and say "Enough!" Let our tribute to the dead be a new resolve: to respect people for what they individually think, rather than respect groups for what they were collectively brought up to believe.

Notwithstanding bitter sectarian hatreds over the centuries (all too obviously still going strong), Judaism, Islam and Christianity have much in common. Despite New Testament watering down and other reformist tendencies, all three pay historic allegiance to the same violent and vindictive God of Battles, memorably summed up by Gore Vidal in 1998:


The great unmentionable evil at the center of our culture is monotheism. From a barbaric Bronze Age text known as the Old Testament, three anti-human religions have evolved--Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. These are sky-god religions. They are, literally, patriarchal--God is the Omnipotent Father--hence the loathing of women for 2,000 years in those countries afflicted by the sky-god and his earthly male delegates. The sky-god is a jealous god, of course. He requires total obedience from everyone on earth, as he is not just in place for one tribe, but for all creation. Those who would reject him must be converted or killed for their own good.

In The Guardian of 15th September, I named belief in an afterlife as the key weapon that made the New York atrocity possible. Of prior significance is religion's deep responsibility for the underlying hatreds that motivated people to use that weapon in the first place. To breathe such a suggestion, even with the most gentlemanly restraint, is to invite an onslaught of patronizing abuse, as Douglas Adams noted. But the insane cruelty of the suicide attacks, and the equally vicious though numerically less catastrophic 'revenge' attacks on hapless Muslims living in America and Britain, push me beyond ordinary caution.

How can I say that religion is to blame? Do I really imagine that, when a terrorist kills, he is motivated by a theological disagreement with his victim? Do I really think the Northern Ireland pub bomber says to himself "Take that, Tridentine Transubstantiationist bastards!" Of course I don't think anything of the kind. Theology is the last thing on the minds of such people. They are not killing because of religion itself, but because of political grievances, often justified. They are killing because the other lot killed their fathers. Or because the other lot drove their great grandfathers off their land. Or because the other lot oppressed our lot economically for centuries.

My point is not that religion itself is the motivation for wars, murders and terrorist attacks, but that religion is the principal label, and the most dangerous one, by which a "they" as opposed to a "we" can be identified at all. I am not even claiming that religion is the only label by which we identify the victims of our prejudice. There's also skin color, language, and social class. But often, as in Northern Ireland, these don't apply and religion is the only divisive label around. Even when it is not alone, religion is nearly always an incendiary ingredient in the mix as well.

It is not an exaggeration to say that religion is the most inflammatory enemy-labelling device in history. Who killed your father? Not the individuals you are about to kill in 'revenge.' The culprits themselves have vanished over the border. The people who stole your great grandfather's land have died of old age. You aim your vendetta at those who belong to the same religion as the original perpetrators. It wasn't Seamus who killed your brother, but it was Catholics, so Seamus deserves to die "in return." Next, it was Protestants who killed Seamus so let's go out and kill some Protestants "in revenge." It was Muslims who destroyed the World Trade Center so let's set upon the turbaned driver of a London taxi and leave him paralyzed from the neck down.

The bitter hatreds that now poison Middle Eastern politics are rooted in the real or perceived wrong of the setting up of a Jewish State in an Islamic region. In view of all that the Jews had been through, it must have seemed a fair and humane solution. Probably deep familiarity with the Old Testament had given the European and American decision-makers some sort of idea that this really was the 'historic homeland' of the Jews (though the horrific stories of how Joshua and others conquered their Lebensraum might have made them wonder). Even if it wasn't justifiable at the time, no doubt a good case can be made that, since Israel exists now, to try to reverse the status quo would be a worse wrong.

I do not intend to get into that argument. But if it had not been for religion, the very concept of a Jewish state would have had no meaning in the first place. Nor would the very concept of Islamic lands, as something to be invaded and desecrated. In a world without religion, there would have been no Crusades; no Inquisition; no anti-Semitic pogroms (the people of the diaspora would long ago have intermarried and become indistinguishable from their host populations); no Northern Ireland Troubles (no label by which to distinguish the two 'communities,' and no sectarian schools to teach the children historic hatreds--they would simply be one community).

It is a spade we have here, let's call it a spade. The Emperor has no clothes. It is time to stop the mealy-mouthed euphemisms: 'Nationalists,' 'Loyalists,' 'Communities,' 'Ethnic Groups.' Religions is the word you need. Religion is the word you are struggling hypocritically to avoid.

Parenthetically, religion is unusual among divisive labels in being spectacularly unnecessary. If religious beliefs had any evidence going for them, we might have to respect them in spite of their concomitant unpleasantness. But there is no such evidence. To label people as death-deserving enemies because of disagreements about real world politics is bad enough. To do the same for disagreements about a delusional world inhabited by archangels, demons and imaginary friends is ludicrously tragic.

The resilience of this form of hereditary delusion is as astonishing as its lack of realism. It seems that control of the plane which crashed near Pittsburgh was probably wrestled out of the hands of the terrorists by a group of brave passengers. The wife of one of these valiant and heroic men, after she took the telephone call in which he announced their intention, said that God had placed her husband on the plane as His instrument to prevent the plane crashing on the White House. I have the greatest sympathy for this poor woman in her tragic loss, but just think about it! As my (also understandably overwrought) American correspondent who sent me this piece of news said:


"Couldn't God have just given the hijackers a heart attack or something instead of killing all those nice people on the plane? I guess he didn't give a flying fuck about the Trade Center, didn't bother to come up with a plan for them." (I apologize for my friend's intemperate language but, in the circumstances, who can blame her?)

Is there no catastrophe terrible enough to shake the faith of people, on both sides, in God's goodness and power? No glimmering realization that he might not be there at all: that we just might be on our own, needing to cope with the real world like grown-ups?

Billy Graham, Mr. Bush's spiritual advisor, said in Washington Cathedral:


But how do we understand something like this? Why does God allow evil like this to take place? Perhaps that is what you are asking now. You may even be angry at God. I want to assure you that God understands those feelings that you may have.

Well, that's big of God, I must say. I'm sure that makes the bereaved feel a whole lot better (the pathetic thing is, it probably does!). Mr. Graham went on:


I have been asked hundreds of times in my life why God allows tragedy and suffering. I have to confess that I really do not know the answer totally, even to my own satisfaction. I have to accept, by faith, that God is sovereign, and He is a God of love and mercy and compassion in the midst of suffering. The Bible says God is not the author of evil. It speaks of evil as a "mystery."

Less baffled by this deep theological mystery were two of America's best-known televangelists, Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell. In a conversation on Robertson's lucrative television show (religion is tax-exempt), they knew exactly where to put the blame. The whole thing was obviously caused by America's sin. Falwell said that God had protected America wonderfully for 225 years, but now, what with abortion and gays and lesbians and the ACLU, "all of them who have tried to secularize America . . . I point the finger in their face and say you helped this happen." "Well, I totally concur," responded Robertson. Bush, to his credit, swiftly disowned this characteristic example of the religious mind at work.

The United States is the most religiose country in the Western world, and its born-again Christian leader is eyeball to eyeball with the most religiose people on Earth. Both sides believe that the Bronze Age God of Battles is on their side. Both take risks with the world's future in unshakeable, fundamentalist faith that He will grant them the victory. Incidentally, people speak of Islamic Fundamentalists, but the customary genteel distinction between fundamentalist and moderate Islam has been convincingly demolished by Ibn Warraq in his well-informed book, Why I Am Not a Muslim.

The human psyche has two great sicknesses: the urge to carry vendetta across generations, and the tendency to fasten group labels on people rather than see them as individuals. Abrahamic religion gives strong sanction to both--and mixes explosively with both. Only the wilfully blind could fail to implicate the divisive force of religion in most, if not all, of the violent enmities in the world today. Without a doubt it is the prime aggravator of the Middle East. Those of us who have for years politely concealed our contempt for the dangerous collective delusion of religion need to stand up and speak out. Things are different now. "All is changed, changed utterly."

http://ffrf.org/articles/?t=others/dawkins.txt

Yeah Christians arent bloodthirsy at all *dies laughing*

Bush and his peaceful way show that conclusively. It's not like there was any kind of torturing going on to convert people in history.

Whoa there, sport. Turn down the BS a bit. No need to get patronizing when you're only one of the first six posts in the thread.

Er, what BS? I'll tell you what, I'll agree to turn it down if you agree to turn down the nasty level. Sound fair? These things always turn into a shouting match and no one ever listens to anyone else. What say both of us rise above that. I apologize if I sounded patronizing, but I do think I raised some valid points that you didn't address.


Your point? By pointing out a few examples of cultures which seem to have valued human life more then most Christian ones have through out most periods of their history I cast some doubt on the silly statement "if you are athiest, you still have that idea that killing is wrong; and you got that from our judeo-christian culture."[quote=Free Outer Eugenia]way, shape or form defending that statement. I am, however, defending Collaboration's remark regarding "bloodthirstyness" in general being common to many different theologies and tribes and not the sole province of Judeo-Christian thought.

Second, you asked for examples, I gave them, then you dismissed them out of hand. The examples simply pointed out that A) Bloodthirstyness is a vauge term indeed and is perhaps a lot more culturally related and B) many different societies who had never even heard of Judeo-Christian thought were just as mean to one another.

Third, I could turn the question back on you and say that you are picking and choosing from Judeo-Christian tradition and history and only emphasising those points which make your case, but neglecting the body as a whole. This would illustrate that either view (That Judeo-Christian theology is either responsible for the creation of Western thought or the complete destruction of the world) is a gross generalization that should be beneath the minds of all critical thinkers.

[quote="Free Outer Eugenia"]
The idea that murder is wrong did NOT originate from Christianity or Judeaism.

What, exactly, is your point with this? I agree. The idea that murder is wrong comes from many different sources independently and can't be claimed as the sole provence of Judeo-Christian thought. However, it is an idea that is endorsed by the Church (at least, it's supposed to be).


Bhuddism was most certainly not the predominent philosophy amongst the mongols during that period.

Quite so, but you're willing to judge the whole of Western society and civilization, not to mention Judeo-Christian tradition, by the actions of individuals. Why can't I make that same comparison for Eastern society and tradition?

Religion is both the best and the worst thing to happen to human civilization.

blahblahblah I'm a militant atheist. Blahblahblah.

http://ffrf.org/articles/?t=others/dawkins.txt

That's really beautiful, let me tell you. Let's see, what else can be misused by people? Hmmm. Cars. Do you know how many deaths are caused by cars each year? We should definitely get rid of them! Science has been used to create all sorts of weapons that kill people, so obviously we should do away with all scientific thought.

Seriously, the fact that fundamentalist (insert religion here) people go out and kill people is not a reflection of religion being bad, it is a function of those people being bad.

And as for Douglas Adams (who I absolutely adore), if he were alive I would inform him that I think all things are questionable - even faith, and I question them on a daily basis. And I come to the conclusion that there is a God. As soon as you can show me scientific evidence against the existence of God (not just "well you have no evidence *fo*r it..."), then I will take that into consideration. But you can't. And my religion isn't forcing me to go out and kill anyone, because I'm not a fundamentalist who believes everyone with other beliefs should die for their differences.

Differences are necessary in this world. How boring would the world be if everyone was the same and no one disagreed? The problem is the human tendency to discriminate and hate based on those differences. This is what we need to work on, not getting rid of the differences.

Good morning every one...
I know this is off topic, but just to share some of my more 'minor' thoughts... If I stumbled upon a magical lamp, rubbed it, and a genie came out and offered me three wishes - guess what three wishes I would make?

First - supreme happiness for those close to me

Second - make the world's religions secondary to Life itself

Third - I wish the genie free... 8]

Differences do make the world a more interesting place - a perfect flaw of our human race. Sometimes, I wish people didn't take the whole of their beliefs to the extremes of being the ONLY absolute faith and use it as a philosophical tool instead...

BTW, one of my friends really sincerely think that Christianity is the only faith with a God. How unfortunate...

blahblahblah I'm a militant atheist. Blahblahblah.

http://ffrf.org/articles/?t=others/dawkins.txt

That's really beautiful, let me tell you. Let's see, what else can be misused by people? Hmmm. Cars. Do you know how many deaths are caused by cars each year? We should definitely get rid of them! Science has been used to create all sorts of weapons that kill people, so obviously we should do away with all scientific thought.

Seriously, the fact that fundamentalist (insert religion here) people go out and kill people is not a reflection of religion being bad, it is a function of those people being bad.


Way to use an irrelevant analogy. What he's saying is that irrational religious belief (i.e all religious belief) means that people don't fear death, and gives them a reason to kill people.

Science isn't good or bad, it simply is. Science is simply what is. Religion, on the other hand, is motivated by thoughts of either goodness or evilness.

Science doesn't say 'You are better than others, because an almighty being loves you, so if you kill people in big towers thats a good things, and you'll have 72 virgins, eager for you, when you die'. Religion does.

Way to use an irrelevant analogy. What he's saying is that irrational religious belief (i.e all religious belief) means that people don't fear death, and gives them a reason to kill people.

Yes, Pyr, but what Dawkins has avoided addressing here is the countless number of atrocities committed on people by people for things other than religion. Be it for property, tribal conquest, water rights, food, or the choicest women, people have always found a reason to be horrible to one another. To hang this on religion and claim that it's an artifact of a belief system instead of a central tennat to human existance is to absolve those guilty of the atrocities from responsibility and to ignore the problem. Religion, in and of itself, is just like science. It is a tool to help understand. Like any tool, it can be misused and has been misused. So has science. It is incorrect to lay the blame at the feet of an idea, when it's the actual hands of people that do the killing.


Science isn't good or bad, it simply is. Science is simply what is. Religion, on the other hand, is motivated by thoughts of either goodness or evilness.

No, it's motivated by thoughts of Truth and Falsehood, which people have also killed and died for. Again, all tools can be misused or their use can be unjustified. To say science is bad because we now have nuclear weapons and the capacity to destroy the entire world is just as irrational as to say religious thought is bad because it has been used to justify horrible things.


Science doesn't say 'You are better than others, because an almighty being loves you, so if you kill people in big towers thats a good things, and you'll have 72 virgins, eager for you, when you die'. Religion does.

Neither do all religions. This is a very limiting definition. I won't say it isn't correct in some cases, but it's not the whole of religious thought or practice. It's easy to focus on issues like this and actions like this and say they are the sum total of theistic tradition, but to do so would be to willfully and irrationally ignore many advancements and works of beauty that have come about via theistic thought. Religion, per se, can't either claim credit for fabulous works of art nor be blamed for all man's inhumanity to his fellow man just as science can't claim to have invented gravity or be held accountable for the way insane people may use it's gifts.

I'm inclined to think that the problem attacked here isn't religion itself, but prescriptivist religion. As far as I'm concerned, you can believe whatever you want but you shouldn't try and impose this on others - not the world, not your government, not the people across the street, not your own children.

It's undeniable that religion can be a good and beautiful thing. Whenever it does wrong, it's because it's being perverted into a means of control. To tell someone else that they should believe X (and therefore do Y) is to condone unthinking faith; to devalue the essential personal nature of religion. Your religion can never be mine, because religion's based upon intuitions about the unverifiable, so there's never any chance we'll be talking about the same thing.

I can learn from you, sure, but trying to prescribe religion is an act of such intellectual arrogance and transaparent manipulation that it can never be justified.

But I love my kids. I don't want them to stray into the ways of Satan!
If your religion's so wonderful, they'll work it out for themselves and their faith will be the stronger for it.

But they might get it wrong. Nobody's perfect.
Then you might have gotten it wrong too. You can't play the probabilities on this.

Without the unifying aspect of religion, communities would fall apart!
Then perhaps they'd stop unifying against other communities.

I've got scientific proof that your religion here is the one true faith.
And you've subjected it to academic peer review, I take it? Get out of here.

I'm inclined to think that the problem attacked here isn't religion itself, but prescriptivist religion. As far as I'm concerned, you can believe whatever you want but you shouldn't try and impose this on others - not the world, not your government, not the people across the street, not your own children.

Being a meme (chew on that, Dawkins haters) ithe likelyhood of people taking it up without being exposed by other forces, just simply by the quality of the argument is small


I've got scientific proof that your religion here is the one true faith.
And you've subjected it to academic peer review, I take it? Get out of here.


hahahaha. Go you.

christians arn't bloodthirsthy. i'm not gonna say that christanity is peacfull. because that's a lie. god isn't the sweet and cudly jesus that you read about in the crappy translations and buchured up versions church of christ bible. but we arn't bloodthirsty.

Religion is as previously said a truly wonderful thing for some peolple it is also a wondeful excuse for others. The fundamentals of most religions are the same, Thou shalt not kill etc. that is why the laws of most counties are based on these books, texts and words.

Religion is a perfect excuse for people with a grudge against someone else to harm them. Hitler is the classic example he persecuted the Jews because he was jelous of the wealth he saw amongst jews in Vienna, when he was living on the streets.

The same points can be found within all 'religious fundamentalists' al qeada were jeleaus that their countries were economically inferior to those of the Western World. So launched their attacks against the western world using Islam as a cover. The crusaders did the same.

This is only my view on things but I can see logic in it. Religion the concept is good but like everything it is open to abuse. In case you are wondering I'm not a believer in any particular religion but Macro-Creationism essentially something like a god or allah kicked it off but then evolution took its cause.

I'm not a believer in any particular religion but Macro-Creationism essentially something like a god or allah kicked it off but then evolution took its course.

*agrees*


The thing is, religions are NOT the same as they were millenia+ ago. Essentially when they began to form their intentions were never to kill or persecute non-believers. Religion has changed, in some parts for the worse. Also, Catholicism is not the first known branch of "Christianity" (Anyone here ever heard of the Gnostics?). And Catholicism had to be altered to suit the peoples of Europe. So, if anything, religion should return to its BASIC roots

al qeada were jeleaus that their countries were economically inferior to those of the Western World.

Well, a more accurate version would be to say that Islamic countries are economically controlled by those of the West, forced into an economic system based on greed rather than compassion. (When exactly did usury and wealth-accumulation become acceptable to Christians, again?)

Being a meme (chew on that, Dawkins haters) ithe likelyhood of people taking it up without being exposed by other forces, just simply by the quality of the argument is small

Small, but perfectly formed. You'd have fewer religious people, in all likelihood, but their religion would be more sincere and less divisive.

Every religion preaches that its foundation should be a strong personal relationship with their faith, and mass-marketing it inevitably waters this down. The desire to spread your religion isn't based on faith; it's based on insecurity.

Macro-Creationism essentially something like a god or allah kicked it off but then evolution took its cause.



Hm. Evidence for this? You believe (irrationally) this happened. Different from it actually happening.

So let me get this straight, because religon causes people to be seperate and different, we should outlaw it? You frickin socialists crack me up. If you try to outlaw religon (or even discourage it!) you would be met with such a public outcry that you would probably be killed in a riot. Yes, religon causes wars, but so does water and imaginary lines on a map. Do you really think that if everyone was an athiest that they would just all live in peace and prosperity?! Homo sapiens is the most cruel, decietful, calculating, and evil animal ever created. If he doesn't kill another person over religon, he'll kill him over something else. Lets take off the rose (or red in your case) glasses and see things the way they are! Religon and Government contain our human emotions. Without it, we become wild men who kill for no other reason than we want to. End of story.
Go on, flame away athiests. This Protestant conservative doesn't care.

Macro-Creationism essentially something like a god or allah kicked it off but then evolution took its cause.



Hm. Evidence for this? You believe (irrationally) this happened. Different from it actually happening.

But (and please believe me when I say I'm not standing up for the bastardization of ideas that is Creation Science), modern theories of evolution do not preclude a divine inception or disprove a divine influence. Saying that God was not the initial spark of the evolutionary chain is just as irrational as saying he was. The fact is, we don't know and it's all a matter of conjecture.

Macro-Creationism essentially something like a god or allah kicked it off but then evolution took its cause.



Hm. Evidence for this? You believe (irrationally) this happened. Different from it actually happening.

But (and please believe me when I say I'm not standing up for the bastardization of ideas that is Creation Science), modern theories of evolution do not preclude a divine inception or disprove a divine influence. Saying that God was not the initial spark of the evolutionary chain is just as irrational as saying he was. The fact is, we don't know and it's all a matter of conjecture.


Right. But the likelyhood of it being a God is exactly the same likelyhood as it being a teapot, a spaniard, a super computer and a large exotic cucumber. And as we have no evidence for any of those things, its safer to assume its non of those.

Macro-Creationism essentially something like a god or allah kicked it off but then evolution took its cause.



Hm. Evidence for this? You believe (irrationally) this happened. Different from it actually happening.

But (and please believe me when I say I'm not standing up for the bastardization of ideas that is Creation Science), modern theories of evolution do not preclude a divine inception or disprove a divine influence. Saying that God was not the initial spark of the evolutionary chain is just as irrational as saying he was. The fact is, we don't know and it's all a matter of conjecture.

saying that some originating force caused the generation of the universe as we know it is consistent with modern science. attributing human traits and emotions, as well as human-based intelligence, to that force is irrational, since there is no evidence supporting it. it's like saying that a flock of invisible winged unicorns created the universe; sure, nobody can PROVE that you are wrong, but you also have no reason whatsoever to believe you are right. the best course of action is to merely work with the information that you have, instead of making up stories that may or may not have any relationship to the realities.

Macro-Creationism essentially something like a god or allah kicked it off but then evolution took its cause.



Hm. Evidence for this? You believe (irrationally) this happened. Different from it actually happening.

But (and please believe me when I say I'm not standing up for the bastardization of ideas that is Creation Science), modern theories of evolution do not preclude a divine inception or disprove a divine influence. Saying that God was not the initial spark of the evolutionary chain is just as irrational as saying he was. The fact is, we don't know and it's all a matter of conjecture.

saying that some originating force caused the generation of the universe as we know it is consistent with modern science. attributing human traits and emotions, as well as human-based intelligence, to that force is irrational, since there is no evidence supporting it. it's like saying that a flock of invisible winged unicorns created the universe; sure, nobody can PROVE that you are wrong, but you also have no reason whatsoever to believe you are right. the best course of action is to merely work with the information that you have, instead of making up stories that may or may not have any relationship to the realities.

To be fair, I don't think I personified the initial motive force in any way, I simply said that it is neither inconsistent nor heretical to believe in both Evolution as well as a theisim. And you're right, single instances being what they are, saying a flock of winged unicorns was that motive force is as likely a statement as saying God did (although I do think saying a teapot, a spaniard, a super computer or a large exotic cucumber is inappropriate as there is a very strong possibility that none of those things provided the initial motive force as we have direct access to all of them and they haven't done it again...at least, I don't think any spaniards have spawned a new evolutionary chain from scratch in a teapot, with a cucumber using a super computer :wink: ). However, if you take several instances and combine them into a whole, there is a stronger probability that God exists in some form than that winged unicorns exist in any form. Therefore, there is a greater probability that God, in some form, was the initial motive force and not a heard of winged unicorns as there is simply a greater possibility that God exists, in some form. It's still idle speculation, able to be neither proven nor disproven, and it hardly affects the validity of evoluntionary theory or theistic thought.

Mrf. Reasoning in a vacuum. You can posit a creative God (with an unknowable probability), but to speak of any attributes beside the ability to create as more probable than each other is also of equal unknowable probability. When something's by definition beyond experience, assigning any probabilities to it is always going to be bogus.

Macro-Creationism essentially something like a god or allah kicked it off but then evolution took its cause.



Hm. Evidence for this? You believe (irrationally) this happened. Different from it actually happening.

But (and please believe me when I say I'm not standing up for the bastardization of ideas that is Creation Science), modern theories of evolution do not preclude a divine inception or disprove a divine influence. Saying that God was not the initial spark of the evolutionary chain is just as irrational as saying he was. The fact is, we don't know and it's all a matter of conjecture.

saying that some originating force caused the generation of the universe as we know it is consistent with modern science. attributing human traits and emotions, as well as human-based intelligence, to that force is irrational, since there is no evidence supporting it. it's like saying that a flock of invisible winged unicorns created the universe; sure, nobody can PROVE that you are wrong, but you also have no reason whatsoever to believe you are right. the best course of action is to merely work with the information that you have, instead of making up stories that may or may not have any relationship to the realities.

To be fair, I don't think I personified the initial motive force in any way, I simply said that it is neither inconsistent nor heretical to believe in both Evolution as well as a theisim. And you're right, single instances being what they are, saying a flock of winged unicorns was that motive force is as likely a statement as saying God did (although I do think saying a teapot, a spaniard, a super computer or a large exotic cucumber is inappropriate as there is a very strong possibility that none of those things provided the initial motive force as we have direct access to all of them and they haven't done it again...at least, I don't think any spaniards have spawned a new evolutionary chain from scratch in a teapot, with a cucumber using a super computer :wink: ). However, if you take several instances and combine them into a whole, there is a stronger probability that God exists in some form than that winged unicorns exist in any form. Therefore, there is a greater probability that God, in some form, was the initial motive force and not a heard of winged unicorns as there is simply a greater possibility that God exists, in some form. It's still idle speculation, able to be neither proven nor disproven, and it hardly affects the validity of evoluntionary theory or theistic thought.

Why is there a greater possibility that God was the origin than teapots? I'd say its far more likely to be a teapot. Because we know teapots exist and have evidence for them.

Why is there a greater possibility that God was the origin than teapots? I'd say its far more likely to be a teapot. Because we know teapots exist and have evidence for them.

Well, in a way, that precisely why there is less probability that it was a teapot. Because we have teapots now. We have a lot of experience of teapots now. We can state, with a fairly high degree of probability, the things a teapot is capable of. To the best of our knowledge, a teapot is not capable of igniting the chain of evolution from scratch. While I will admit there may be unknown powers of teapots, it is with a certain amount of confidence that we can say this is most likely not one of them.

Also, and this is a rather semantic argument, teapots did not exist before mankind made them, therefore you have a paradox if teapots started evolution as they would have to create the thing which created them in the first place.

Okay. Let's give an example.

You're walking down a road you don't know. After a while, you notice that you keep passing white milestones along the road at 1-mile intervals. Are you justified in assuming that all the milestones on the road are white?

Of course not. Ten miles ahead of you there might be a pink milestone, and you just haven't come across it yet. If you don't have any way of knowing about the road ahead of you, there's no way you can make a valid deduction as to this.

You can try an induction; posit a rule (all milestones are white) and then apply it to the unknown (all the milestones ahead of me are white). But this is just a hunch; it doesn't affect the probability.

What if there were milestones with little legs that always scuttled away when they heard you coming, so you never actually saw them? Would it be valid for you to draw up a taxonomy of such postulated walking milestones, and say 'it is more likely that the walking milestones, if they exist, are white'? Of course not.

Why is there a greater possibility that God was the origin than teapots? I'd say its far more likely to be a teapot. Because we know teapots exist and have evidence for them.

Well, in a way, that precisely why there is less probability that it was a teapot. Because we have teapots now. We have a lot of experience of teapots now. We can state, with a fairly high degree of probability, the things a teapot is capable of.


Ok. So the universe has totally equal probability of being started by ANYTHING that doesn't exist. I could think of anything new, and that would have as equal a likelyhood of being the creator of the universe as a Judeo-Christian/ Abrahamaic God. Like the Tom-Tom Wulla Wulla King God. And the Billy Booo Booo Cheeky Cheeky Hat Stand.

Which is fair enough. But then that shows why religion is a bad way to run your life. I wouldn't run the laws of my country by the Tom-Tom Wulla Wulla King God or the Billy Booo Booo Cheeky Cheeky Hat Stand. Why should it be run by those who believe in God?

It's a bad way to run your country; that doesn't mean it's a bad way to run your life.
All motivations are essentially irrational; if we relied on cold, hard fact we'd have no purpose whatsoever.

It's a bad way to run your country; that doesn't mean it's a bad way to run your life.
All motivations are essentially irrational; if we relied on cold, hard fact we'd have no purpose whatsoever.


Well we do have no purpose. Running your life by irrationality is a stupid idea. The only thing it offers you is a way not to think about really important things so we can get on with the little things in life. I don't run my life with religion, and I realise it has no point. Which is both liberating and terrifying.

I use 'purpose' in the internal sense. If you no purpose, you have no reason to scratch your ass when it itches, eat, or get out of bed in the morning. Doing these is essentially as irrational as believing in a God.

Why is there a greater possibility that God was the origin than teapots? I'd say its far more likely to be a teapot. Because we know teapots exist and have evidence for them.

Well, in a way, that precisely why there is less probability that it was a teapot. Because we have teapots now. We have a lot of experience of teapots now. We can state, with a fairly high degree of probability, the things a teapot is capable of.


Ok. So the universe has totally equal probability of being started by ANYTHING that doesn't exist. I could think of anything new, and that would have as equal a likelyhood of being the creator of the universe as a Judeo-Christian/ Abrahamaic God. Like the Tom-Tom Wulla Wulla King God. And the Billy Booo Booo Cheeky Cheeky Hat Stand.

Which is fair enough. But then that shows why religion is a bad way to run your life. I wouldn't run the laws of my country by the Tom-Tom Wulla Wulla King God or the Billy Booo Booo Cheeky Cheeky Hat Stand. Why should it be run by those who believe in God?

First of all, you've made an assumption. God may or may not exist. Evidence is on either side. Many societies, in fact all societies, have a conceptualization of either a god or a motive force. The sheer number of societies that are otherwise unconnected yet still have some conceptualization of God slightly increases the probability of God's existance. By no means does it make it a certainty, but we're talking about very slim probability differences here, so every little bit helps. :lol:

So yes, if you were going to name you conceptualization of godhead Tom-Tom Wulla Wulla King God or Billy Booo Booo Cheeky Cheeky Hat Stand, then there is an equal chance one of them might possibly be responsible for the initial spark. However, if you are simply going to pull them out of the air, then they are, in fact, less likely to exist as you yourself have admitted they are simply creations of your fancy. Even still, though, there is a possibility that they did it, just as there is a possibility the teapot did it, they are just vanishingly slim.

Reality is as frayed in the past as in the future and we are only truly capable of collapsing the waveform in the present, in the now. Unless we have complete knowledge of a past event, it is still open to possibility.

As for Tom-Tom Wulla Wulla King God or Billy Booo Boo Cheeky Cheeky Hat Stand being a bad way to run one's life, I'm not sure I follow your reasoning here. Could you explain it a bit more?

Yeah Christians arent bloodthirsy at all *dies laughing*

Bush and his peaceful way show that conclusively. It's not like there was any kind of torturing going on to convert people in history.

God Bowels shut up you red bastard. Maybe you athiest are forgetting Joseph Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao Zedong, Marshal Tito, Kim Kong-IL. They killed millons to spread communism so you athiest are not all inocent. And there have been cristanes who are protesting Bush. You are a giant moron who has no idea what he is talking about. By the way I think the world would be a better place if you did die. Also what about FDR he was a cristan and made the world a better place. Unlike your ignorant bigoted theory we are not all the same. So would you let the adults talk and keep your whiney, overopinonated bullshit to yourself. People like you are the reason the world is so screwed up.

It's a bad way to run your country; that doesn't mean it's a bad way to run your life.
All motivations are essentially irrational; if we relied on cold, hard fact we'd have no purpose whatsoever.


Well we do have no purpose. Running your life by irrationality is a stupid idea. The only thing it offers you is a way not to think about really important things so we can get on with the little things in life. I don't run my life with religion, and I realise it has no point. Which is both liberating and terrifying.

First of all, I'm not sure what you mean by "running your life by irrationality." I hope I have given enough evidence in my past posts to indicate I am not irrational (okay, maybe I'm a little irrational on my hatred of Bush...but I just dislike him sooooooooooooo much). I also don't run my life by my religious beliefs. I came to my own decisions on what I think is right and wrong and have discovered a wonderful faith wherein I can examine my decisions within a larger context, bringing them out of myself and connecting me with the larger network of humanity. I know not all people view religion this way, but I do and it's taken me a long time to get here. I would ask you not call me stupid as I have disagreed with you many times and never resorted to name calling.

Religion may have no point, but like Rheochipe stated, all of existance may be fundamentally pointless, but we continue to do it. We continue to draw breath, go to work, bake cakes, see family, post online to people we'll never meet, scratch ourselves and drink soda. Religion may have no point, but some of us continue to investigate and believe in it. Perhaps we're wrong, but to dismiss us all as stupid shows a profound lack of empathy, understanding and human connection on your side.

Many societies, in fact all societies, have a conceptualization of either a god or a motive force. The sheer number of societies that are otherwise unconnected yet still have some conceptualization of God slightly increases the probability of God's existance.

Logical fallacies coming hard and fast tonight, I see...
'The sheer number of societies that are otherwise unconncected yet still practise capital punishment slightly increases the probability that capital punishment is a good thing.' Discuss.

Many societies, in fact all societies, have a conceptualization of either a god or a motive force. The sheer number of societies that are otherwise unconnected yet still have some conceptualization of God slightly increases the probability of God's existance.

Logical fallacies coming hard and fast tonight, I see...
'The sheer number of societies that are otherwise unconncected yet still practise capital punishment slightly increases the probability that capital punishment is a good thing.' Discuss.

Well, in a way, and this costs me to say, it sort of does. Not in any absolute sense, just in a "if there's smoke there's fire". Of course, it also slightly increases the probability that capital punishment is a bad thing and you are comparing a qualitative judgement to a quantitative fact (The question isn't "Is God Good Or Bad" but "Is God")? I'll admit, it's not my most inspired bit of reasoning. :lol: However, it's after 5 o'clock on a Friday and there's a martini with my name on it, so everyone have a good weekend.

DP...I shake my tiny fist at you, Server From Hell!

Yeah Christians arent bloodthirsy at all *dies laughing*

Bush and his peaceful way show that conclusively. It's not like there was any kind of torturing going on to convert people in history.

God Bowels shut up you red bastard. Maybe you athiest are forgetting Joseph Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao Zedong, Marshal Tito, Kim Kong-IL. They killed millons to spread communism so you athiest are not all inocent. And there have been cristanes who are protesting Bush. You are a giant moron who has no idea what he is talking about. By the way I think the world would be a better place if you did die. Also what about FDR he was a cristan and made the world a better place. Unlike your ignorant bigoted theory we are not all the same. So would you let the adults talk and keep your whiney, overopinonated bullshit to yourself. People like you are the reason the world is so screwed up.


This is pointless. Atheists do bad things, The Pious do bad things. The question is WHY. Stalin didn't kill for athiesm, he killed to preserve his own power. Very few kill for their belief in athiesm.

Many societies, in fact all societies, have a conceptualization of either a god or a motive force. The sheer number of societies that are otherwise unconnected yet still have some conceptualization of God slightly increases the probability of God's existance.

Logical fallacies coming hard and fast tonight, I see...
'The sheer number of societies that are otherwise unconncected yet still practise capital punishment slightly increases the probability that capital punishment is a good thing.' Discuss.

Well, in a way, and this costs me to say, it sort of does. Not in any absolute sense, just in a "if there's smoke there's fire". Of course, it also slightly increases the probability that capital punishment is a bad thing and you are comparing a qualitative judgement to a quantitative fact (The question isn't "Is God Good Or Bad" but "Is God")?


Maybe it shows not that there is an increased likelihood of a God, but that there is a common need in humans for something divine so they don't need to worry about real life.

Why argue whether or not certain religious groups are blood-thirsty? The human race as a whole is. Big deal. Take this for example: If two people get in a fight, everyone crowds around to watch, regardless of any religion they might be affiliated with.

So let me get this straight, because religon causes people to be seperate and different, we should outlaw it? You frickin socialists crack me up. If you try to outlaw religon (or even discourage it!) you would be met with such a public outcry that you would probably be killed in a riot. Yes, religon causes wars, but so does water and imaginary lines on a map. Do you really think that if everyone was an athiest that they would just all live in peace and prosperity?! Homo sapiens is the most cruel, decietful, calculating, and evil animal ever created. If he doesn't kill another person over religon, he'll kill him over something else. Lets take off the rose (or red in your case) glasses and see things the way they are! Religon and Government contain our human emotions. Without it, we become wild men who kill for no other reason than we want to. End of story.
Go on, flame away athiests. This Protestant conservative doesn't care.

Yup...that's exactly the point. You probably won't even LISTEN either? Don't blame liberals for the world's problems...at least they are open to different ideas...maybe they don't always listen to conservatives but at least they'll listen. No, we shouldn't outlaw religion, but we shouldn't let it rule our lives. We shouldn't have churches advising us on government matters. Let's not take offense here, but someone oughtta say to the christian church 'SHUT THE F*** UP! WE CAN DECIDE IF WE WANT GAY MARRIAGE BY OURSELVES' Yes. I know in america there is a majority that is anti-gay marriage. No need to remind me. But we should be deciding it on OUR views, not some church publicizing on TV. Religion is an ironic thing that can be very beautiful, but is also disgustingly close minded. For example, at the holocaust memorial, both a church and a synagogue got together to celebrate it, even though the christians 'didn't feel everything the jews did.' It was fine because people were remembering together. Once it gets to the point of people pushing their view on to me, saying my view is wrong and i have to take life a certain way, i take offense. And that is EXACTLY what most religions do. 'If you're holy you eat so and so, you believe this and that, etc.' But if I don't want to do this, why should i be hanged, burned, outcast, hated? And also, there have been great tragedies, but also great victories for man's morals. The public outcry against Israel's methods against 'palestine', the establishment of the UN. Back to the point here, I have no urge to kill other people, and even if 'my own people' asked me to, i would still refuse. Why? because i'm EDUCATED. I've had a chance to see life, interpert it my way, and realize for myself what path i will take. I don't want to be brainwashed like the generation under stalin and hitler, i don't want to be a suicide bomber, a christian fundamentalist, a jewish zionist. I want to be a normal person who does things on a daily basis because its what HE wants to do, and it's not hurting others. I don't want my life ruled by religion, i don't want bush making references to religion every so often, and saying jews go to hell. I don't care if you're religious or not, i just dont want you forcing me to do anything. Humanity needs to realize, we aren't going to live any better if we squabble over religion, kill people in ireland, india, israel. So why do it?

Also, I reached all these conclusions without the church/synagogue/mosque, etc. I needed the government for the education, but other than that i don't need people telling me what to do. We should be establishing laws based on logic and fairness, not by people like lazarus, isiah, etc.

So let me get this straight, because religon causes people to be seperate and different, we should outlaw it? You frickin socialists crack me up. If you try to outlaw religon (or even discourage it!) you would be met with such a public outcry that you would probably be killed in a riot. Yes, religon causes wars, but so does water and imaginary lines on a map. Do you really think that if everyone was an athiest that they would just all live in peace and prosperity?! Homo sapiens is the most cruel, decietful, calculating, and evil animal ever created. If he doesn't kill another person over religon, he'll kill him over something else. Lets take off the rose (or red in your case) glasses and see things the way they are! Religon and Government contain our human emotions. Without it, we become wild men who kill for no other reason than we want to. End of story.
Go on, flame away athiests. This Protestant conservative doesn't care.

Yup...that's exactly the point. You probably won't even LISTEN either? Don't blame liberals for the world's problems...at least they are open to different ideas...maybe they don't always listen to conservatives but at least they'll listen. No, we shouldn't outlaw religion, but we shouldn't let it rule our lives. We shouldn't have churches advising us on government matters. Let's not take offense here, but someone oughtta say to the christian church 'SHUT THE F*** UP! WE CAN DECIDE IF WE WANT GAY MARRIAGE BY OURSELVES' Yes. I know in america there is a majority that is anti-gay marriage. No need to remind me. But we should be deciding it on OUR views, not some church publicizing on TV. Religion is an ironic thing that can be very beautiful, but is also disgustingly close minded. For example, at the holocaust memorial, both a church and a synagogue got together to celebrate it, even though the christians 'didn't feel everything the jews did.' It was fine because people were remembering together. Once it gets to the point of people pushing their view on to me, saying my view is wrong and i have to take life a certain way, i take offense. And that is EXACTLY what most religions do. 'If you're holy you eat so and so, you believe this and that, etc.' But if I don't want to do this, why should i be hanged, burned, outcast, hated? And also, there have been great tragedies, but also great victories for man's morals. The public outcry against Israel's methods against 'palestine', the establishment of the UN. Back to the point here, I have no urge to kill other people, and even if 'my own people' asked me to, i would still refuse. Why? because i'm EDUCATED. I've had a chance to see life, interpert it my way, and realize for myself what path i will take. I don't want to be brainwashed like the generation under stalin and hitler, i don't want to be a suicide bomber, a christian fundamentalist, a jewish zionist. I want to be a normal person who does things on a daily basis because its what HE wants to do, and it's not hurting others. I don't want my life ruled by religion, i don't want bush making references to religion every so often, and saying jews go to hell. I don't care if you're religious or not, i just dont want you forcing me to do anything. Humanity needs to realize, we aren't going to live any better if we squabble over religion, kill people in ireland, india, israel. So why do it?

Also, I reached all these conclusions without the church/synagogue/mosque, etc. I needed the government for the education, but other than that i don't need people telling me what to do. We should be establishing laws based on logic and fairness, not by people like lazarus, isiah, etc.

So let me get this straight, because religon causes people to be seperate and different, we should outlaw it? You frickin socialists crack me up. If you try to outlaw religon (or even discourage it!) you would be met with such a public outcry that you would probably be killed in a riot. Yes, religon causes wars, but so does water and imaginary lines on a map. Do you really think that if everyone was an athiest that they would just all live in peace and prosperity?! Homo sapiens is the most cruel, decietful, calculating, and evil animal ever created. If he doesn't kill another person over religon, he'll kill him over something else. Lets take off the rose (or red in your case) glasses and see things the way they are! Religon and Government contain our human emotions. Without it, we become wild men who kill for no other reason than we want to. End of story.
Go on, flame away athiests. This Protestant conservative doesn't care.

Yup...that's exactly the point. You probably won't even LISTEN either? Don't blame liberals for the world's problems...at least they are open to different ideas...maybe they don't always listen to conservatives but at least they'll listen. No, we shouldn't outlaw religion, but we shouldn't let it rule our lives. We shouldn't have churches advising us on government matters. Let's not take offense here, but someone oughtta say to the christian church 'SHUT THE F*** UP! WE CAN DECIDE IF WE WANT GAY MARRIAGE BY OURSELVES' Yes. I know in america there is a majority that is anti-gay marriage. No need to remind me. But we should be deciding it on OUR views, not some church publicizing on TV. Religion is an ironic thing that can be very beautiful, but is also disgustingly close minded. For example, at the holocaust memorial, both a church and a synagogue got together to celebrate it, even though the christians 'didn't feel everything the jews did.' It was fine because people were remembering together. Once it gets to the point of people pushing their view on to me, saying my view is wrong and i have to take life a certain way, i take offense. And that is EXACTLY what most religions do. 'If you're holy you eat so and so, you believe this and that, etc.' But if I don't want to do this, why should i be hanged, burned, outcast, hated? And also, there have been great tragedies, but also great victories for man's morals. The public outcry against Israel's methods against 'palestine', the establishment of the UN. Back to the point here, I have no urge to kill other people, and even if 'my own people' asked me to, i would still refuse. Why? because i'm EDUCATED. I've had a chance to see life, interpert it my way, and realize for myself what path i will take. I don't want to be brainwashed like the generation under stalin and hitler, i don't want to be a suicide bomber, a christian fundamentalist, a jewish zionist. I want to be a normal person who does things on a daily basis because its what HE wants to do, and it's not hurting others. I don't want my life ruled by religion, i don't want bush making references to religion every so often, and saying jews go to hell. I don't care if you're religious or not, i just dont want you forcing me to do anything. Humanity needs to realize, we aren't going to live any better if we squabble over religion, kill people in ireland, india, israel. So why do it?

Also, I reached all these conclusions without the church/synagogue/mosque, etc. I needed the government for the education, but other than that i don't need people telling me what to do. We should be establishing laws based on logic and fairness, not by people like lazarus, isiah, etc.

Yeah Christians arent bloodthirsy at all *dies laughing*

Bush and his peaceful way show that conclusively. It's not like there was any kind of torturing going on to convert people in history.

God Bowels shut up you red bastard. Maybe you athiest are forgetting Joseph Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao Zedong, Marshal Tito, Kim Kong-IL. They killed millons to spread communism so you athiest are not all inocent. And there have been cristanes who are protesting Bush. You are a giant moron who has no idea what he is talking about. By the way I think the world would be a better place if you did die. Also what about FDR he was a cristan and made the world a better place. Unlike your ignorant bigoted theory we are not all the same. So would you let the adults talk and keep your whiney, overopinonated bullshit to yourself. People like you are the reason the world is so screwed up.

Kudos to you Yugoslavia, I was waiting for somebody to say that, your language could have a bit more relaxed but oh well. Don't forget Hitler, theirs Castro too, heck theirs quite a few more.

As Malcolm Muggeridge once said, "I would rather be wrong with Dante, Shakespeare, Milton, St. Augustine, St. Francis of Assissi, Doestoesvski, (forgive the spelling) Blake, and Mother Teresa, than be right, with Darwin the Huxley's Hitler, Stalin, and Moa Tse Tung.

...what's St. Augustine doing in a list of notable figures? The guy couldn't construct a sound argument if it was made of Duplo.

Any such set of lists is going to be unrepresentative, and religion isn't about being on a side.

Kudos to you Yugoslavia, I was waiting for somebody to say that, your language could have a bit more relaxed but oh well. Don't forget Hitler, theirs Castro too, heck theirs quite a few more.

As Malcolm Muggeridge once said, "I would rather be wrong with Dante, Shakespeare, Milton, St. Augustine, St. Francis of Assissi, Doestoesvski, (forgive the spelling) Blake, and Mother Teresa, than be right, with Darwin the Huxley's Hitler, Stalin, and Moa Tse Tung.

Pardon? You just totally subjectively chose those people. Firstly- Hitler was religious. He never renounced his Catholicism, and atheists were amongst the first sent to the camps.
Secondly- whats Darwin ever done wrong? He was a scientist who put forward a theory on the origin of life? Who did he ever hurt?
Thirdly- you (or Muggeridge) has selectively chosen all the good Religious people and all the bad atheists! The fact is the only person in that list who persecuted others for religious reasons was Hitler, as religious person himself. Stalin and Mao both killed people for political reasons.


I could just as easily say 'I'd rather be right with Darwin, Sir Ian McKellen, Noam Chomsky and Barry Manilow than wrong with Osama Bin Laden, Hitler and the KKK'.

But I don't, because its a stupid argument.

Also, whats Blake doing on the list of great religious people? He was barking mad. A great artist, but totally insane. And perhaps Barry Manilow isn't a great example of an athiest. How about Thomas Edison, John Stuart Mill (of his own free will), Jean Paul Sartre, Mark Twain and Bertrand Russell?

id just like to say that i understand that other cultures and religions can enforce the notion that killing is wrong and human life is precious-- and ofcourse buddhism enforces that. BUT, buddhism had no where the amount of influence in buddhist`s lives as judeo-christian religions did. therefore western cultures place a much higher value on human life then Asian or African cultures.

((although im now questioning that on the basis of wars and stuff and etc.)

Many societies, in fact all societies, have a conceptualization of either a god or a motive force. The sheer number of societies that are otherwise unconnected yet still have some conceptualization of God slightly increases the probability of God's existance.

Logical fallacies coming hard and fast tonight, I see...
'The sheer number of societies that are otherwise unconncected yet still practise capital punishment slightly increases the probability that capital punishment is a good thing.' Discuss.

Well, in a way, and this costs me to say, it sort of does. Not in any absolute sense, just in a "if there's smoke there's fire". Of course, it also slightly increases the probability that capital punishment is a bad thing and you are comparing a qualitative judgement to a quantitative fact (The question isn't "Is God Good Or Bad" but "Is God")?


Maybe it shows not that there is an increased likelihood of a God, but that there is a common need in humans for something divine so they don't need to worry about real life.

You're absolutely right, Pyr. Maybe it does. Like I said, we're talking potentialities here and, in this particular instance, your assumption is, in essance, just as likely.

I do think you perhaps go a bit far when you attribute reason to the motive speculation. Not everyone who embraces a theisim is searching for a way to not worry about real life. It might be just as likely to say there's a common need in humans for something divine so they can establish their place in the Universe or so they can have several religious holidays throughout the year. The problem with attributing motives to blanket populations is that everyone is biased. Who knows why people seek the divine. I imagine all the reasons we've both listed so far are valid as well as many others. Furthermore, I imagine that any one person's interest in divinity may result from a host of reasons. I won't deny that when I see an injustice or a friend or loved one dies, I take comfort in my faith and my belief that life and conciousness does not end with death. I also admit that I take strength from my faith and my beliefs when confronted with the challenges the corporeal world presents. However, neither of these reasons are the whole of my belief.

*TAG* because i liked the douglas adams bit in the article but havent got time to write a full post

you still have that idea that killing is wrong; and you got that from our judeo-christian culture. Bullshit. That value has existed in every culture in some form of another before, after and parralell from the Judeo-Christian-Islamic model.

If you look at the surrounding cultures, many were much more bloodthirsty than the Jews and Christians (especially if we look at the early Christians before they became blended with the powers of Rome).

Well, it was heathens that invented the concept of parlament...And it was hundreds of years before christians stopped using the "let the king decide wether we behead him or torture him a bit first" system.

Whoo what a toasty topic.
A note to Dempublicents (good name btw)
With all respect to torch & pitchfork carrying folks reading and considering -
I've actually met Douglas Adams in person (the author) and am somewhat vexed that i didn't shove the self-preoccupied and substantially misled individual down the flight of stairs we were on.
I've quite a few reasons for this stance, but i would suffice it to say:
I began my novel because i read his books, almost all of them, in appreciation of his wit, charm and what appeared to be a significantly enlightened sense of humor. I went to his symposium under similar respects.
I met and talked with a man who had no idea of the humor of the BBC, who got him started, who thought that there weren't Americans who understood the difference between an Australian and a British accent, nor who knew what a barrister was, nor who had an inkling of how to preserve the environment, nor any idea how to repeat the same stupid historical mistakes over and over again, nor willing to appreciate the fact that it was his writing the HHGTTG series that got him any social clout whatsoever. And at the end of that, he was incapable of extending the slightest amiable curteousy to people who apparently got his personality completely wrong from his writings. One of the biggest let downs of my entire life. The reading is good though.

Whatever, no one respond to my post :(

Religion should be allowed to exist, as long as it doesnt press on others'. So some religions have to go down the pipehole, oh well :P

How condescending of you to allow the cultural mainstay of billions to "exist".