:whistles: (http://www.lucasforums.com/showthread.php?t=169077) That's one reason. Even if it isn't true. But as some of the other respondents in that thread point out, there's nothing to show that your story is a case for faith. To take things a step further, what about those religions that insist that medicine is not used. Wouldn't faith be dangerous is some cases? Considering that differences in faith is one of the most predominate cause of conflict in our world, isn't it safe to say that faith has been lethal for a great number of people?

Because it was portrayed as fiction. By comparing records of the film's President to real life, they would know that he wasn't serving in 1996, Bill Clinton was. Actors such as Will Smith and Jeff Goldblum would be credited for the roles they played in the film, assuming we are keeping records and have the Internet in the future it'd just be a simple matter of looking it up. I'm afraid I've failed to adequately express my point.

Exactly, and for people to come out, this is for Samual as well, for people to come out and say 'ZOMGWTF THERE IZ NO GOD LOLZ!1!!11ONE!1!!11ELEVEN!1!!11 U R RETARDED FOR BELIEVING IN RELIGION LOLZ!1!!11ONE!1!!11ELEVEN!1!!11' is utter arrogance, and I know there is a world of diffirence between choosing not to believe in religion and slamming it with comments like this but the sad fact is people do beat people into the ground because they believe in religion, and they bring down their non belief by doing so.I'm not sure what relevance this has to the point that I made in the section that you quoted. I do not agree that religion should be off limits or given a pass during open debate. I find it a little hypocritical that prostletizing via missions or witnessing is seen as noble work, while pointing out that there is no foundation in fact for any religion is viewed as "utter arrogance".

It's interesting you point this out because lately I've been thinking about things we see on the Internet, TV and such, and how especially what you find on the Internet it tends to get criticised as not being creditble. Sure it's usually because someone doesn't agree with it but it does happen. And I'm getting to the point where I wouldn't trust any given source. So to answer your question, I can present whatever evidence of, say, the first king of the Aztec Empire, but there is the possibility of it being wrong. Like how Billy Cohen was going to be a Navy SEAL but turned out to be a Marine, I think. The point, which you appear to concede, is that we cannot be certain about anything that has taken place in the past. We have a certain degree of confidence in some events and historical figures based on the amount (and quality) of the evidence that we have for them. Meanwhile a majority of human beings claim to have absolute certainty about a handful of events and people for which we have absolutely zero evidence. I struggle to understand how that works.

Creditble testimony; the sort of thing Berkowitz went on with would likely put him in a mental institute, that he may have said that to get a lighter sentance is neither here nor there, is very important. I'll paint you a picture: say a police station is bombed, an officer and a member of the public is killed, the police investigate likely suspects while they gather evidence and find out it was semtex, one of the suspects asks if it was semtex used and says how an ex commando had stolen some to sell, on the strength of that testimony he is questioned and made to reveal who he sold it to, on the basis of that testimony they investigate the buyer and he admits to making a bomb out of the semtex and selling it, and another testimony reveals that the bomber was saying that he's been waiting years to pay back the police for putting him in jail, the police are able to arrest the bomber because they followed the testimonies until they found the evidence and the truth. In the case of religion however every time we follow the testimonies we find no evidence, so we keep plugging away until we do. I'm well aware of how testimony works in our legal system. The "bumpers" that exist are a) the assumption that the individuals giving testimony are telling the truth and b) those that are found to not be telling the truth are punished. Remove either of bumpers and testimony is worthless. That was my point. My apologies for not being more specific earlier.

My point of view? People who try and convince others that they are wrong regardless of what religion, if any, they follow, are afraid, they're afraid of losing followers, they're afraid of people believing in something they don't believe in and they're afraid that they may be wrong because they don't have the power of some mythical being, and the more they try and beat people down with their religion, or lack of it, the more scared they are. That's not a knock on people following their beliefs or nonbeliefs, or those who discuss them, it's those who go beyond the call of duty to push their beliefs on others. Belief, and specifically religious belief, can have very real consequences. September 11th, the Transit Bombings in London, the length and breadth of the conflict in Ireland, Somalia, etc, etc are evidence of this. To say that faith is harmless and that those who chose to base their level of believe on the amount of evidence are foolish is to not examine the situation as it is.

Ah, hypocracy. I thought science was meant to be evil. Why? Because it might reveal something those who believe in religion don't want to hear? If science could settle the matter once and for all you'd think deacons the world over would jump at the chance. They're not exactly queing up around the block.Agreed. Unfortunately, because God is a supernatural explanation, He/She/It/They can't be measure via scientific means. To do so would be to instantly revoke His/Hers/Its/Theirs supernatural status.

But as some of the other respondents in that thread point out, there's nothing to show that your story is a case for faith. To take things a step further, what about those religions that insist that medicine is not used. Wouldn't faith be dangerous is some cases? Considering that differences in faith is one of the most predominate cause of conflict in our world, isn't it safe to say that faith has been lethal for a great number of people?

A little common sense goes a long way. It says in the Bible that you cannot go to the toilet. I've yet to see one Christian who doesn't. Take 'though shalt not kill' to it's ultimate and you're expected to get down on your knees and pray for the forgiveness of whoever is about to put a bullet in the back of your head. I'm game if you are.

I'm not sure what relevance this has to the point that I made in the section that you quoted. I do not agree that religion should be off limits or given a pass during open debate. I find it a little hypocritical that prostletizing via missions or witnessing is seen as noble work, while pointing out that there is no foundation in fact for any religion is viewed as "utter arrogance".

Saying that it's wrong for people to make comments like I demonstrated isn't giving religion a pass. The same can be said of any topic. People shouldn't make such comments on religion, or Atheism, or really anything, because it's wrong to make comments like that.

Belief, and specifically religious belief, can have very real consequences. September 11th, the Transit Bombings in London, the length and breadth of the conflict in Ireland, Somalia, etc, etc are evidence of this. To say that faith is harmless and that those who chose to base their level of believe on the amount of evidence are foolish is to not examine the situation as it is.

So, what? We put religion on trial for the crimes of the individual? And what happens to, say, Muslims if some court were to find Islam guilty of the crime of terrorism?

Exactly, and for people to come out, this is for Samual as well, for people to come out and say 'ZOMGWTF THERE IZ NO GOD LOLZ!1!!11ONE!1!!11ELEVEN!1!!11 U R RETARDED FOR BELIEVING IN RELIGION LOLZ!1!!11ONE!1!!11ELEVEN!1!!11' is utter arrogance, and I know there is a world of diffirence between choosing not to believe in religion and slamming it with comments like this but the sad fact is people do beat people into the ground because they believe in religion, and they bring down their non belief by doing so.I'd agree that it is arrogance with regards to claiming an absolute knowledge of the question. Similar arrogance, then, shows on the other side of the coin.

I personally care very little what anyone spends their free time on, whether it's religion or something else. Hey, it's their life to do with as they see fit. The only problems I have with religion, really, come up when it affects other people. If this effect is good - and in a lot of cases it is, no doubt about that - then great.

However, if people use religion to justify something I'd consider an unnecessary restriction or just wrong, then I'd ask them what basis they have for their statements. If they can't give a rational one, then as far as I can tell it's just an opinion - and opinions really have no business deciding other people's lives for them.

Sure, some might take it as offensive or arrogant, my dismissal of their opinions. I'm not sure what they'd be trying to accomplish though. If they had a rational reason for their position, then they'd have already shown it to me. Since they didn't, then the only person they have to be angry with is themselves. I certainly didn't make them try to defend the indefensible.

A little common sense goes a long way. It says in the Bible that you cannot go to the toilet. I've yet to see one Christian who doesn't. Take 'though shalt not kill' to it's ultimate and you're expected to get down on your knees and pray for the forgiveness of whoever is about to put a bullet in the back of your head. I'm game if you are. At the risk of sounding like a broken record: I'm not sure what relevance this has to the point that I made in the section that you quoted. I'm really unclear as to what I'm supposed to take away from your reply. Help?

Saying that it's wrong for people to make comments like I demonstrated isn't giving religion a pass. The same can be said of any topic. People shouldn't make such comments on religion, or Atheism, or really anything, because it's wrong to make comments like that. This is exactly what I was referencing. Why shouldn't such comments be made (thereby giving religion a pass)? For almost any other enterprise we engage in as human beings, some expectation exists that we act rationally and have good reasons for our beliefs. This expectation doesn't seem to exist for religion. What's more, it's almost taboo to even speak about having such an expectation.

So, what? We put religion on trial for the crimes of the individual? And what happens to, say, Muslims if some court were to find Islam guilty of the crime of terrorism? I suppose that's one possible response, however I don't imagine that choice will accomplish very much. Another option that might be more productive would be to shed the taboo of religious discussion, refuse to accept, "well, that's just what I believe" as a perfectly rational response, and encourage others to truly examine the basis of their belief.

I don't advocate that this should be done at gunpoint. Nor do I think atheists should crash religious services or attack people wearing crosses around their necks on the street. However, if the subject of religion does come up in conversation, I don't see why I should be expected to sit back and refrain from voicing my observations just because it might put the faithful in the uncomfortable position of having to defend their beliefs.

I suppose that's one possible response, however I don't imagine that choice will accomplish very much. Another option that might be more productive would be to shed the taboo of religious discussion, refuse to accept, "well, that's just what I believe" as a perfectly rational response, and encourage others to truly examine the basis of their belief.

I don't think that even possible at all. I think that all rational discussion breaks down to "Well, that's just what I believe", and I think we have to accept that rather than go and attempt to attack it. All beliefs are formed by assumptions after all, and these assumptions cannot be backed up, so in the end, all arguments are made to justify the belief. As long as you attack the warrants, you can destroy all beliefs, in Science or in Religion. Even Atheism (you say it is an abscene of belief, but if so, why not abandon belief in Science and its Method, since that may be wrong as well and there is no proof that observations are correct).

We have to resort to "That's just what I believe"...because it's true. I believe in Science. It seems to be applicable, has the answers to everything, etc. I have no reason to believe in Science, it may be wrong, but I made a choice to believe in Science. That's just what I, along with many other human beings, believe, even though I may be wrong. Replace Science with Religion, and you just the justification.

However, if people use religion to justify something I'd consider an unnecessary restriction or just wrong, then I'd ask them what basis they have for their statements. If they can't give a rational one, then as far as I can tell it's just an opinion - and opinions really have no business deciding other people's lives for them.

Frankly, using religion to justify something pisses me off. That's what terrorists do. You really think they believe in Islam? If they did they wouldn't commit terrorist acts.

At the risk of sounding like a broken record: I'm not sure what relevance this has to the point that I made in the section that you quoted. I'm really unclear as to what I'm supposed to take away from your reply. Help?

Okay. Though shalt not kill has been more commonly interpreted in recent times as 'Though shalt not murder'. The reason for the change is because common sense dictates there are times, in war for example, or in self defence, where we must kill. We kill animals for food, or because they're sick. We put murderers and pedophiles to death. So if we were to examine 'Though shalt not kill' a great number of us would be guilty. Hence the reason for the reinterpretation 'Though shalt not murder'.

This is exactly what I was referencing. Why shouldn't such comments be made (thereby giving religion a pass)? For almost any other enterprise we engage in as human beings, some expectation exists that we act rationally and have good reasons for our beliefs. This expectation doesn't seem to exist for religion. What's more, it's almost taboo to even speak about having such an expectation.

Well, do people say 'you're a ****wit to not believe in religion'? No, I would hope not, because it's wrong to make such a comment full stop. The same as it would be to make such comments on religion, or on topics such as homosexuality, racism, politics, really anything. We don't make anti gay comments around homosexuals, racist comments around ethnic groups or Bush bashing around Republicans...well that last one is debateable, out of respect for those who hold those beliefs and are those type of people. We don't want to upset them.

And yes, religion, like issues such as politics, the war, homosexuality and racism can be a more toey subject than most. It shouldn't be, I think it's more wrong to discuss something like persecuting Muslims because they are terrorists than discussing the validity of religion, but it is.

I suppose that's one possible response, however I don't imagine that choice will accomplish very much. Another option that might be more productive would be to shed the taboo of religious discussion, refuse to accept, "well, that's just what I believe" as a perfectly rational response, and encourage others to truly examine the basis of their belief.

A crusade to stop people from the fallacy of believing in religion?

I don't advocate that this should be done at gunpoint. Nor do I think atheists should crash religious services or attack people wearing crosses around their necks on the street. However, if the subject of religion does come up in conversation, I don't see why I should be expected to sit back and refrain from voicing my observations just because it might put the faithful in the uncomfortable position of having to defend their beliefs.

And yes, despite the thoughts of some you shouldn't have people at gunpoint on their religion. But certainly if the topic comes up you should be free to discuss your thoughts on religion. Just don't go around making comments like 'you're a ****wit to believe in religion', that's akin to bombing abortion clinics.

Frankly, using religion to justify something pisses me off. That's what terrorists do. What about embryonic stem cell research? Or abortion? Or the cherry-picked scripture that was the basis for the abolition of slavery? Some of these things are good, while others are bad. If you apply that standard to some of them, then you have to apply it to all.

FWIW, I absolutely agree with you. There are ethical arguments for every truly moral issue that we have. Religion is completely unnecessary for moral behavior. Therefore using it as justification should be upsetting.

You really think they believe in Islam? If they did they wouldn't commit terrorist acts. Do you have any reason to believe that they do not? Pretty sure their holy book tells them to kill non-believers just the same as ours (meaning Western Christians). Muslims have extremists. Christians have extremists.

Okay. Though shalt not kill has been more commonly interpreted in recent times as 'Though shalt not murder'. The reason for the change is because common sense dictates there are times, in war for example, or in self defence, where we must kill. We kill animals for food, or because they're sick. We put murderers and pedophiles to death. So if we were to examine 'Though shalt not kill' a great number of us would be guilty. Hence the reason for the reinterpretation 'Though shalt not murder'. I appreciate you clarifying the argument. Unfortunately, I still don't understand how that is associated with the section that you quoted.

Here it is again:

But as some of the other respondents in that thread point out, there's nothing to show that your story is a case for faith. To take things a step further, what about those religions that insist that medicine is not used. Wouldn't faith be dangerous is some cases? Considering that differences in faith is one of the most predominate cause of conflict in our world, isn't it safe to say that faith has been lethal for a great number of people?Thanks in advance.

Well, do people say 'you're a ****wit to not believe in religion'? No, it tends to sound more like, "you're a sinner and you're going to spend eternity burning in hell". Which is clearly a more appropriate display of grace, tolerance, and brotherly love. ;)

No, I would hope not, because it's wrong to make such a comment full stop. In other word, "No, it doesn't happen because that would be wrong". Unfortunately, such sentiments don't actually stop things like that from happening.

The same as it would be to make such comments on religion, or on topics such as homosexuality, racism, politics, really anything. We don't make anti gay comments around homosexuals, racist comments around ethnic groups or Bush bashing around Republicans...well that last one is debateable, out of respect for those who hold those beliefs and are those type of people. We don't want to upset them. Actually those are all factually incorrect. Those things do happen. All the time.

A crusade to stop people from the fallacy of believing in religion? I don't know if I'd use the word "crusade". "Campaign" would probably be more appropriate. Also, I would probably rearrange the last few words of that sentence. :)

Just don't go around making comments like 'you're a ****wit to believe in religion', that's akin to bombing abortion clinics. Most of the non-believers I've had experience with tend to avoid personal attacks. There's a huge difference between calling someone a "****wit" and pointing out that their beliefs are based on delusion. One is a personal attack while the other is not.

What about embryonic stem cell research? Or abortion? Or the cherry-picked scripture that was the basis for the abolition of slavery? Some of these things are good, while others are bad. If you apply that standard to some of them, then you have to apply it to all.

Well, if you worry about the sancity of your soul, don't do it, and don't support it. As I understand it God will sort out dealing with those who take part in it.

My thoughts on these topics? Stem cell research is playing God isn't it? I believe in the betterment of the human race, but am more familiar with the theory of gene therapy, I think it's the same thing. Abortion? That's an icky moral subject but overall I think if the mother and child would really be worse off then it's for the better they do it, especially in the event of an unwanted or forced pregnancy. I don't know what cherry picked scripture abolished slavery but I'm glad it did, it's morally reprehensible.

Do you have any reason to believe that they do not? Pretty sure their holy book tells them to kill non-believers just the same as ours (meaning Western Christians). Muslims have extremists. Christians have extremists.

Again it falls down to common sense. The part about laws overiding religion is a good place to start. Terrorism is illegal in America. Hijacking and suicide bombing is illegal. Therefore, religious extremists must curb their faith to coexist with society, I think it's so that extremists stop committing acts that would be frowned upon by the general public but I have no basis for that, it's how I interpret that section.

I appreciate you clarifying the argument. Unfortunately, I still don't understand how that is associated with the section that you quoted.

Here it is again:

Thanks in advance.

Would faith be dangerous or even lethal in some cases? In terms of people using dogma to preach killing and dieing for their God, absolutely. We've seen it with Islam and we are seeing it now with Christianity. The people who do go to these extremes are certainly in the minority, Al Qaeda has been condemned by Islamic clerics the world over. There are still those who preach hatred though, and as sensible people we know that is wrong. The growing...militarisation? of Christianity is disturbing as well. I haven't heard of Christian based terrorism but it could happen, and were it to it would lessen the religion. And you can point to things such as the Crusades and the history of the Middle East. I think religion for the most part is taught by sensible people, and most of those who recieve the message are sensible people. In my view for someone to look at religion and get it into their minds that killing for their God is a good idea is the same as those who play violent video games and then go out and kill, they arn't right to begin with.

No, it tends to sound more like, "you're a sinner and you're going to spend eternity burning in hell". Which is clearly a more appropriate display of grace, tolerance, and brotherly love. ;)

Well that's their problem, and regardless of what way you say it making comments like that and not respecting the right for others to be entitled to their beliefs is wrong.

In other word, "No, it doesn't happen because that would be wrong". Unfortunately, such sentiments don't actually stop things like that from happening.

No unfortunetly it doesn't. We know pedophillia is wrong but despite our best efforts to stop it it still happens.

Actually those are all factually incorrect. Those things do happen. All the time.

I should probably say we shouldn't do these things, we are taught that they are wrong and I think we know that they are wrong. It doesn't stop it from happening but the point is we know that if we value the sensibilities of others, not to mention our teeth that might get rammed down our throats were we to make such comments, we wouldn't say such things.

I don't know if I'd use the word "crusade". "Campaign" would probably be more appropriate. Also, I would probably rearrange the last few words of that sentence. :)

Admirable. Were it me I would be more inclined to campaign against issues that are well rooted in how dangerous and wrong they are, drugs, crime, lack of justice, but that's just me. Perhaps the danger of letting your religion and beliefs get you in hot water, such as being preached to kill.

Most of the non-believers I've had experience with tend to avoid personal attacks. There's a huge difference between calling someone a "****wit" and pointing out that their beliefs are based on delusion. One is a personal attack while the other is not.

Exactly, and you know which one to avoid at all costs, even if some deacons as you've demonstrated don't.

Well, if you worry about the sancity of your soul, don't do it, and don't support it. As I understand it God will sort out dealing with those who take part in it.Unfortunately, I don't think this response addresses the point that I made. Your statement was that religion should have no place in public policy decicion making. I pointed out that it does, sometimes for good and sometimes for bad.

My thoughts on these topics? <snip>There are existing threads for both of these topics. I will be more than happy to respond to your points there.

Again it falls down to common sense. So you're saying that Muslims don't really believe in jihad because of "common sense"?

The part about laws overiding religion is a good place to start. Terrorism is illegal in America. Hijacking and suicide bombing is illegal. Therefore, religious extremists must curb their faith to coexist with society, I think it's so that extremists stop committing acts that would be frowned upon by the general public but I have no basis for that, it's how I interpret that section. I think the terrorists were more than aware that their actions were going to violate some national laws. The fact is that many terrorists are on record stating that they are following a "higher law". This goes for Muslim extremists that suicide bomb Iraqi convenience stores as well as Christian extremists that bomb abortion clinics.

Would faith be dangerous or even lethal in some cases? In terms of people using dogma to preach killing and dieing for their God, absolutely. We've seen it with Islam and we are seeing it now with Christianity. The people who do go to these extremes are certainly in the minority, Al Qaeda has been condemned by Islamic clerics the world over. There are still those who preach hatred though, and as sensible people we know that is wrong. The growing...militarisation? of Christianity is disturbing as well. I haven't heard of Christian based terrorism but it could happen, and were it to it would lessen the religion. And you can point to things such as the Crusades and the history of the Middle East. I think religion for the most part is taught by sensible people, and most of those who recieve the message are sensible people. In my view for someone to look at religion and get it into their minds that killing for their God is a good idea is the same as those who play violent video games and then go out and kill, they arn't right to begin with. I don't think the problem is as isolated as you would suggest. Link (http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=618).

Well that's their problem, and regardless of what way you say it making comments like that and not respecting the right for others to be entitled to their beliefs is wrong. I don't agree that militant, dogmatic thinking is "their problem". You are aware of so-called "hate crimes" aren't you? Those are the perpetrator's "problems". They aren't the ones that end up in the hospital or dead. We don't say, "well if the KKK wants to maim and kill people of other races, then that's their problem" do we?

(Full disclosure: I don't agree with the concept of "hate crimes". Assault is a assault and our government should be equally harsh with all violent offenders, regardless of their motivations. My 2 cents).

No unfortunetly it doesn't. We know pedophillia is wrong but despite our best efforts to stop it it still happens. If you agree that such arguments don't solve the problem, then why are you advocating them in this thread? Please help me understand which part of your argument I am missing.

I should probably say we shouldn't do these things, we are taught that they are wrong and I think we know that they are wrong. It doesn't stop it from happening but the point is we know that if we value the sensibilities of others, not to mention our teeth that might get rammed down our throats were we to make such comments, we wouldn't say such things. So you are retracting your earlier statement that people are not verbally harassed by people that hate them?

Admirable. Were it me I would be more inclined to campaign against issues that are well rooted in how dangerous and wrong they are, drugs, crime, lack of justice, but that's just me. Perhaps the danger of letting your religion and beliefs get you in hot water, such as being preached to kill. Do we only have to choose one issue to stand behind? Can I not campaign for rational discourse on religion while standing up for other social issues? Is it safe to say that there might be some other social issues that are at an impasse because of our failure to have rational discourse on religion (abortion and stem-cell research, for instance)? Considering that religion promotes in-group/out-group bias which clearly leads to conflict all over the world, don't you think crime would be reduced significantly it we eliminated the basis for such biases? I think we would.

Exactly, and you know which one to avoid at all costs, even if some deacons as you've demonstrated don't. I believe that a "deacon" is a religious officer. ;)

If you and I are agreeing that I've made no personal attacks, then I'm not sure where "****wit" came from. :)

Unfortunately, I don't think this response addresses the point that I made. Your statement was that religion should have no place in public policy decicion making. I pointed out that it does, sometimes for good and sometimes for bad.

I'm not sure if religion should or should not have a place in public policy decision making but I think it shouldn't be used as a club to beat down any decision or to go against what is honestly going to be good for people.

So you're saying that Muslims don't really believe in jihad because of "common sense"?

I would argue that people such as Al Qaeda can say they commit terrorist acts because of their religion and point to texts in their Quran to justify Jihad. There's a few ways to look at this: they take the parts out of context rather than look at the whole, this is honestly how they see Islam despite the views of religious leaders, personally I think it's an excuse to hide behind but I'm the blunt type.

I think the terrorists were more than aware that their actions were going to violate some national laws. The fact is that many terrorists are on record stating that they are following a "higher law". This goes for Muslim extremists that suicide bomb Iraqi convenience stores as well as Christian extremists that bomb abortion clinics.

Then I suggest to them that they read again their religious texts. It says right there, I can find it if you like, that they are to respect the laws of the land when their religion says otherwise.

I don't think the problem is as isolated as you would suggest. Link (http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=618).

That's beliefs. How does that indicate they would commit criminal acts?

I don't agree that militant, dogmatic thinking is "their problem". You are aware of so-called "hate crimes" aren't you? Those are the perpetrator's "problems". They aren't the ones that end up in the hospital or dead. We don't say, "well if the KKK wants to maim and kill people of other races, then that's their problem" do we?

By it being their problem I mean they have the problem of not giving a stuff about other people's feelings, those who delight in making racist comments to ethnic groups, anti gay comments to homosexuals, ect. These people are the scum of the earth and we should do everything to stop them.

If you agree that such arguments don't solve the problem, then why are you advocating them in this thread? Please help me understand which part of your argument I am missing.

I don't. I think we should do what we can to stop it, but the fact of the matter is it does. We shouldn't tolerate it but it does, and whatever we can do to stop it we should.

So you are retracting your earlier statement that people are not verbally harassed by people that hate them?

By saying that we don't make racist comments and the like I'm talking about the overwhelming majority. There are those that still do and as I said we should eradicate them, yesterday.

Do we only have to choose one issue to stand behind? Can I not campaign for rational discourse on religion while standing up for other social issues?

No you should do what you can. However you're not Superman, that's not a knock you should do what you can, but you shouldn't do more than you can, neither should you be expected to. A man who takes on the weight of the world's problems will over be crushed by them.

Is it safe to say that there might be some other social issues that are at an impasse because of our failure to have rational discourse on religion (abortion and stem-cell research, for instance)?

Yes I think it's fair to say that.

Considering that religion promotes in-group/out-group bias which clearly leads to conflict all over the world, don't you think crime would be reduced significantly it we eliminated the basis for such biases? I think we would.

But then what do we do when racial hatred leads to conflict? Do we kill all the black people because of the race riots Los Angelas had faced. What about violent protests against government? Should there be death camps for those opposed to whoever is in power?

If you and I are agreeing that I've made no personal attacks, then I'm not sure where "****wit" came from. :)

From the basis that saying things like 'you're a ****wit to not believe in religion' is wrong. It's wrong. Regardless of people making comments like that it's the wrong thing to do.

I'm not sure if religion should or should not have a place in public policy decision making but I think it shouldn't be used as a club to beat down any decision or to go against what is honestly going to be good for people. The unfortunate reality is that it already happens. I guess it comes down to what you're prepared to do about it.

I would argue that people such as Al Qaeda can say they commit terrorist acts because of their religion and point to texts in their Quran to justify Jihad. There's a few ways to look at this: they take the parts out of context rather than look at the whole, this is honestly how they see Islam despite the views of religious leaders, personally I think it's an excuse to hide behind but I'm the blunt type. What evidence do you have to support the hypothesis that Islam is a peaceful religion? Same question for Christianity.

Then I suggest to them that they read again their religious texts. It says right there, I can find it if you like, that they are to respect the laws of the land when their religion says otherwise. I've stated before and I state again that I don't think more reading of religious texts will help reduce religious violence.

That's beliefs. How does that indicate they would commit criminal acts? Religious texts promote, what we would today consider, criminal acts. Can you tell me how many atheists are incarcerated in the U.S.? How are the crime rates in the country's most religious areas?

By it being their problem I mean they have the problem of not giving a stuff about other people's feelings, those who delight in making racist comments to ethnic groups, anti gay comments to homosexuals, ect. These people are the scum of the earth and we should do everything to stop them. How do you suggest we do that?

I don't. I think we should do what we can to stop it, but the fact of the matter is it does. We shouldn't tolerate it but it does, and whatever we can do to stop it we should. Actually you have. Post #105 for example. That's how this whole sub-topic got started :)

By saying that we don't make racist comments and the like I'm talking about the overwhelming majority. There are those that still do and as I said we should eradicate them, yesterday. Wow. "eradicate". And you claim that atheists are extreme in their views.

No you should do what you can. However you're not Superman, that's not a knock you should do what you can, but you shouldn't do more than you can, neither should you be expected to. A man who takes on the weight of the world's problems will over be crushed by them. I don't think that cartoonish super-powers are a prerequisite. :D
I think contributing toward the resolution of social problems is a key element of good citizenship. My 2 cents.

But then what do we do when racial hatred leads to conflict? Do we kill all the black people because of the race riots Los Angelas had faced. What about violent protests against government? Should there be death camps for those opposed to whoever is in power? Didn't you earlier suggest eradication for those that you felt crossed a line? Seems to me that these would be "solutions" that you would promote.

From the basis that saying things like 'you're a ****wit to not believe in religion' is wrong. It's wrong. Regardless of people making comments like that it's the wrong thing to do.Ah, so this is non sequitur. Thanks for clarifying.

Sorry this anouncement is a little late but..........Happy National Atheist's Day............"The fool said in his heart there is no God."-Psalm 53:1

Sorry this anouncement is a little late but..........Happy National Atheist's Day............"The fool said in his heart there is no God."-Psalm 53:1You might be surprised at the fact that many atheists would agree with your quote. Only a fool would say he knows something to be true when evidence cannot be obtained on the subject in question. :)

I know that, but the Ark is meant to be able to do the sort of thing we saw in the film. It says in the Bible that anyone who approaches it will surely be put to death, and there's bits and pieces floating around on what it can do. Here's a couple of sites on the matter.
Actually to approach the Ark, there are certain requirements that the High Priest must perform so that his body, mind and soul are clean before God. I believe that it was the descendants of Aaron that could do this. Leviticus and Exodus are a bit sketchy for me but I believe that is it.

Religious texts promote, what we would today consider, criminal acts. Can you tell me how many atheists are incarcerated in the U.S.? How are the crime rates in the country's most religious areas?
Have you looked at Cuba? Yes we associate them with Communism when in fact Castro was Nationalist and he resorted to facism. With crime though, I had a teacher go there and he said that crime was very low because it is not innocent until proven guilty but guilty until proven innocent and that it was very hard to get proven innocent. Cuba has Spanish ancestry and no doubt that they still follow the principles of Catholicism. Maybe it is an obscure example but one I just happened to remember.

You might be surprised at the fact that many atheists would agree with your quote. Only a fool would say he knows something to be true when evidence cannot be obtained on the subject in question. :) Indeed.
*wonders if Rasputin1st knows that National Athiests Day is a religious attempt at satire. ;)*

Have you looked at Cuba? Yes we associate them with Communism when in fact Castro was Nationalist and he resorted to facism. With crime though, I had a teacher go there and he said that crime was very low because it is not innocent until proven guilty but guilty until proven innocent and that it was very hard to get proven innocent. Cuba has Spanish ancestry and no doubt that they still follow the principles of Catholicism. Maybe it is an obscure example but one I just happened to remember.You appear to assume that there is a causal relationship at play here where the evidence for your conclusion is unsubstantiated.

Would it be more appropriate to say that atheism is responsible for the conditions in Cuba, or would it be better to say that a facist, dictatorial regime is the culprit? Regardless, introducing this strawman does not answer my questions about atheism here in the U.S.

Take a look at the UN Human Development Index. The U.S. (heavily Christian) usually shows up in the (lower end of the) top 10, but Norway has been in the top spot for the last 7 years. Norway is also known as the most non-religious country in Western Europe. I don't think it's a stretch to say that religion hinders social progress rather than promotes it.

The unfortunate reality is that it already happens. I guess it comes down to what you're prepared to do about it.

Anything possible. Too often religion has caused action or inaction when it shouldn't have otherwise. Less should be done to appease them if what they oppose is of benefit.

What evidence do you have to support the hypothesis that Islam is a peaceful religion? Same question for Christianity.

Islam, from my understanding of it, is a decidedly more war like religion. However it is my belief that about 99% of Muslims and those who follow Islam would rather function in society that work towards Jihad. People can look at Christianity's Old Testement and cherry pick verses that promote war, this isn't done away with but with the coming of Jesus Christ peace, forgiveness, are meant to be the watchwords.

Religious texts promote, what we would today consider, criminal acts. Can you tell me how many atheists are incarcerated in the U.S.? How are the crime rates in the country's most religious areas?

Religious texts, such as burning animals for sacrifice, people don't do that anymore. Maybe part of the problem is those who are very much stuck to the old ways. As for the statistics of crime in Christian and Atheist areas, I have no idea, I'm not even sure if there are religious zones and Atheist zones. I do know that the crime rate is much higher in America than Canada and Japan, I don't think Japan is a very religious country the way America especially under the Bush administation is. They also don't have nearly the same access to guns which people say is a contributing factor.

How do you suggest we do that?

There's hate crimes for example, I know you're against them, to tell the truth I am as well. This thing has gotten so out of hand that calling someone black is racist. I wonder what it is when we call someone white. The point is people know that it's wrong, very rarely can we say someone doesn't know any better. There's a law called provocation, meaning if you said something that causes someone to attack you then you could find yourself in bother as well. Unfortonetly police arn't too interested in chasing this up, too much work. But that's one solution, to point out that if you cop a smack in the mouth for having a go at someone who follows religion, at an Atheist, at someone who's black, who's white, or for whatever reason you might have to have a go at someone you can't expect to get any support.

Actually you have. Post #105 for example. That's how this whole sub-topic got started :)

'Using religion as justification pisses me off, Though shalt not kill amended, it's wrong to make hurtful comments, some subjects are more sensitive than others, asking about this being a crusade to stop the fallacy of believing in religion', you mean that I say that it happens means that I accept it? I don't. I know there are mad people in the Middle East who want to kill us all, no way I would accept that, but that's how things stand and that's not going to change until something is done about it.

Wow. "eradicate". And you claim that atheists are extreme in their views.

That's because people like this cross religious boundries. There are scum who are Christian, Jewish, Muslim and Athiest, Buddist, Hindu and some cooked up witchcraft nonsense. People who don't believe they have to abide by things such as the social contract and the rules regulations and laws of society. It'd be great if we could say 'kill all the Christians and the problem will go away', but the problem won't go away, all it means is there's a few less of them to worry about.

Didn't you earlier suggest eradication for those that you felt crossed a line? Seems to me that these would be "solutions" that you would promote.

As I said these things cross religious racial and cultural grounds. There's scant little seperating a black Atheist who kills a woman and steals her car and a white Christian who kidnaps, rapes and then kills a six year old girl. Both are about as far apart as you can get, yet no punishment is good enough for either of them.

Ah, so this is non sequitur. Thanks for clarifying.

You understand that it's wrong. That's the point I was trying to get across.

Anything possible. Too often religion has caused action or inaction when it shouldn't have otherwise. Less should be done to appease them if what they oppose is of benefit. So are you now arguing that religion should be involved? I'm having difficulty keeping up.

Islam, from my understanding of it, is a decidedly more war like religion. Didn't you earlier state that the extremists were taking their religious doctrine out of context? Does Islam promote violence or doesn't it?

However it is my belief that about 99% of Muslims and those who follow Islam would rather function in society that work towards Jihad. Ok. What is this opinion based on? What type of society do you think they want to build?

People can look at Christianity's Old Testement and cherry pick verses that promote war, this isn't done away with but with the coming of Jesus Christ peace, forgiveness, are meant to be the watchwords. Well, I suppose that's one way of looking at it. Based on my readings of the Bible, I would say the opposite is closer to the truth. Also, Christ's demeanor and purpose can be highly debated based which Gospel and/or book of the NT you read. There is no one clear, definitive vision of who Jesus was. Biblical scholars haven't even laid to rest the nuts and bolts of his sacrifice. As with any fictional character, there is a lot of room for interpretation.

Religious texts, such as burning animals for sacrifice, people don't do that anymore. Did you mean religious acts? I'm sure that satan worshippers and voodoo practitioners (not to equate the two groups) might disagree with you here.

Maybe part of the problem is those who are very much stuck to the old ways. Like those that view a 1800 year old text as their sole source of guidance? ;)

As for the statistics of crime in Christian and Atheist areas, I have no idea, I'm not even sure if there are religious zones and Atheist zones.
Crime rate by state (2004) (http://encarta.msn.com/media_701500272/Crime_Rates_by_State_in_the_United_States.html)

Let's use aggrivated assault as an example:

Highest - South Carolina (606.7). 92% Christian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Carolina#Religion)

Lowest (comparison limited to similar population) - Kentucky (130.5). 47% not affiliated with any religion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kentucky#Religion)

Do I have a slam-dunk case on the causal relationship between religiousity and violence? Absolutely not, but niether do I think this is a coincidence.

I picked aggrivated assault at random, however I suspect we'll find similar results for any other stat you'd like to look at.

I do know that the crime rate is much higher in America than Canada and Japan, I don't think Japan is a very religious country the way America especially under the Bush administation is. They also don't have nearly the same access to guns which people say is a contributing factor. Guns don't kill people. People kill people.

There's hate crimes for example, I know you're against them, to tell the truth I am as well. This thing has gotten so out of hand that calling someone black is racist. Depending on how you say it, it certainly is!

I wonder what it is when we call someone white. The point is people know that it's wrong, very rarely can we say someone doesn't know any better. There's a law called provocation, meaning if you said something that causes someone to attack you then you could find yourself in bother as well. Unfortonetly police arn't too interested in chasing this up, too much work. But that's one solution, to point out that if you cop a smack in the mouth for having a go at someone who follows religion, at an Atheist, at someone who's black, who's white, or for whatever reason you might have to have a go at someone you can't expect to get any support. So you'd promote more laws against discrimanatory behavior? I think that this isn't necessarily a bad idea, but if the current laws haven't eliminated discrimination, what makes you think that more laws will? At some point, don't we have to address the problem rather than the symptoms?

'Using religion as justification pisses me off, Though shalt not kill amended, it's wrong to make hurtful comments, some subjects are more sensitive than others, asking about this being a crusade to stop the fallacy of believing in religion', you mean that I say that it happens means that I accept it? I don't. I know there are mad people in the Middle East who want to kill us all, no way I would accept that, but that's how things stand and that's not going to change until something is done about it. I'm having difficulty deciphering this.

That's because people like this cross religious boundries. So it's ok to eradicate people that we don't agree with?

There are scum who are Christian, Jewish, Muslim and Athiest, Buddist, Hindu and some cooked up witchcraft nonsense. Atheists can't call Christianity "nonsense" but you can apply that label to Wicca? Can't have it both ways.

People who don't believe they have to abide by things such as the social contract and the rules regulations and laws of society. It'd be great if we could say 'kill all the Christians and the problem will go away', but the problem won't go away, all it means is there's a few less of them to worry about. The only group that I know of that wants to kill Christians is Muslims. And most of them just want you to convert. Or at least leave their holy lands alone.

As I said these things cross religious racial and cultural grounds. There's scant little seperating a black Atheist who kills a woman and steals her car and a white Christian who kidnaps, rapes and then kills a six year old girl. Both are about as far apart as you can get, yet no punishment is good enough for either of them. I hope you don't have political aspirations. I'll tell you right now: I'm voting for the other guy :D

Seems to me that violence is only unacceptable when it isn't you weilding it.

I'll try and explain this as simply as I can, on the proviso that there's no easy solutions given to what I write (such as, say, 'Islam is a violent religion, outlaw Islam, wipe out the violence') because the answers arn't nearly as cut as dry as that, or probably as I'll put them below for that matter.

So are you now arguing that religion should be involved? I'm having difficulty keeping up.

Religion should be involved, but not over and above everything else.

Didn't you earlier state that the extremists were taking their religious doctrine out of context? Does Islam promote violence or doesn't it?

I did, it does and extremists take up promoting that violence, Jihad.

Ok. What is this opinion based on? What type of society do you think they want to build?

They're strangers in a strange land, they want to fuction as part of society. We'd be fish out of water too in some of their countries. Can you imagine me having to abide by the laws they have in Islamic countries? No thanks.

Well, I suppose that's one way of looking at it. Based on my readings of the Bible, I would say the opposite is closer to the truth. Also, Christ's demeanor and purpose can be highly debated based which Gospel and/or book of the NT you read. There is no one clear, definitive vision of who Jesus was. Biblical scholars haven't even laid to rest the nuts and bolts of his sacrifice. As with any fictional character, there is a lot of room for interpretation.

He was tortured by the Romans and crucified. Passion of the Christ gives a pretty blow by blow account, though it's not actually a Christian source. What do you mean by the nuts and bolts of his sacrifice? A day by day account of Jesus' life?

Did you mean religious acts? I'm sure that satan worshippers and voodoo practitioners (not to equate the two groups) might disagree with you here.

Christians don't do it anymore, far as I know. Though I did hear one story about a witch's belongings being burned and the Christians saying she should be burning as well. That's not on.

Like those that view a 1800 year old text as their sole source of guidance? ;)

Those who believe their religion puts them above the law, that their religion gives them the right to commit violent acts.

Crime rate by state (2004) (http://encarta.msn.com/media_701500272/Crime_Rates_by_State_in_the_United_States.html) :snip:

Did they look at how many Christians and Atheists there were and then how many of them commited the offenses?

Depending on how you say it, it certainly is!

The wording, tone of voice, ect surely, but just saying someone is black, c'mon.

So you'd promote more laws against discrimanatory behavior? I think that this isn't necessarily a bad idea, but if the current laws haven't eliminated discrimination, what makes you think that more laws will? At some point, don't we have to address the problem rather than the symptoms?

What is the problem? Religion? Not enough education that the type of behavior is unacceptable? Or simple people with too much powder up the ass and not enough kicking it?

So it's ok to eradicate people that we don't agree with?

Those who don't wish to function as part of a society, who live by their own terms at the expense of others, shouldn't be a part of society. Does that mean killing them? No. Harsh words on my part. A spell in the lockup on the other hand...

Atheists can't call Christianity "nonsense" but you can apply that label to Wicca? Can't have it both ways.

I was thinking more along the lines of a cult, but no, fair point, we should respect the beliefs of others regardless of what they are, up until the point they hurt others. The point is it doesn't matter what religion, if any, you pick, you'll get bad eggs in all of them.

The only group that I know of that wants to kill Christians is Muslims. And most of them just want you to convert. Or at least leave their holy lands alone.

What I'm saying is the theory of 'get rid of this religion, you get rid of the problem', it won't work.

I hope you don't have political aspirations. I'll tell you right now: I'm voting for the other guy :D

I'll tell you right now I wouldn't take the job if I was begged to. It's a hell of a job, the voters hate you, the press crucify you and you can have the perfect solution to the world's woes that pleases everybody and if your opponents don't attack it to the point where your own team turns on you then some roadblock or another is thrown up to stop it.

Seems to me that violence is only unacceptable when it isn't you weilding it.

You noticed? That's probably true, I'm the Butheress of Abu Gharib, a Nazi Stormtrooper and I have a photo of Palpatine next to my bed. Well, that's the story going around on parts of the forum anyway.

Well, maybe not Palpatine, maybe Anakin.

Religion should be involved, but not over and above everything else. Thanks for clarifying.
Why? What does religion bring to the discussion that isn't already offered by modern ethics? Better yet: What does religion bring to the discussion that is superior to modern ethics?

Name as many "wedge" issues as you can. How many of them are "wedge" issues because of religious arguments that have no basis in ethics or morality (in other words, how many of them contain an argument that sounds like "because the Bible says so")?

I did, it does and extremists take up promoting that violence, Jihad. Where do extremists get the concept of Jihad? No matter how many times we circle this argument, the facts aren't going to change: the Bible and the Qu'ran promote violent behavior. We call them extremists, but the fact remains that if adherence to holy texts is a measure of faithfulness, then these people are the only ones getting into Heaven/Paradise.

They're strangers in a strange land, they want to fuction as part of society. We'd be fish out of water too in some of their countries. Can you imagine me having to abide by the laws they have in Islamic countries? No thanks. Huh? Middle Easterners are strangers in their homelands? How does that work?

He was tortured by the Romans and crucified.According to what extant historical document? I'm pretty sure that all we have are several incomplete fictional texts. If my information is incorrect, please let me know.

Passion of the Christ gives a pretty blow by blow account, though it's not actually a Christian source. The Passion of the Christ is a movie. It was based on the accounts provided in the Bible. It's fiction based on fiction. Do you have another source?

What do you mean by the nuts and bolts of his sacrifice? A day by day account of Jesus' life? Was Jesus a man or was he a God. Was he separate from God or another just another face? Why was the sacrifice necessary? How did Jesus' sacrifice differ from other sacrifices with Judaism?

Keep in mind, I'm not interested in your opinion on these matters rather what the scholars say. This is a small sample of contested issues within Christianity.

Christians don't do it anymore, far as I know. Though I did hear one story about a witch's belongings being burned and the Christians saying she should be burning as well. That's not on. My point is that "religion" extends beyond the borders of Christianity.

Those who believe their religion puts them above the law, that their religion gives them the right to commit violent acts. I'm not sure how this comment is related to the point that I was making.

Did they look at how many Christians and Atheists there were and then how many of them commited the offenses? If you take a look at the Federal Bureau of Prisons data, you'll find that about 84% of people in prison subscribe to some flavor of Christianity. By way of comparison 0.2% of inmates are Atheists.

83% of U.S. population is Christian. 84% of prison population is Christian.
8% of U.S. population are Atheists. 0.2% of prison population are Atheist.

Compare those figures to the figures I referenced earlier.

The wording, tone of voice, ect surely, but just saying someone is black, c'mon. The point is, it depends on how you "just" say it.

What is the problem? Religion? Not enough education that the type of behavior is unacceptable? Or simple people with too much powder up the ass and not enough kicking it? The problem is not enough rational discussion about beliefs. How many people do you think would continue to maintain discriminatory beliefs after it became embarrassing to do so? By declaring certain topics "off-limits", we create pockets where such beliefs can exist without fear of examination. Get rid of the pockets and get rid of the beliefs.

Those who don't wish to function as part of a society, who live by their own terms at the expense of others, shouldn't be a part of society. Does that mean killing them? No. Harsh words on my part. A spell in the lockup on the other hand... Who gets to determine what those terms are? What criteria will they be required to use to ensure that those terms are just? What do you suggest we do with these "outsiders"? How do your beliefs compare to the principles outlined in the Bill of Rights?

What I'm saying is the theory of 'get rid of this religion, you get rid of the problem', it won't work. What evidence is your opinion based on?

I'll tell you right now I wouldn't take the job if I was begged to. It's a hell of a job, the voters hate you, the press crucify you and you can have the perfect solution to the world's woes that pleases everybody and if your opponents don't attack it to the point where your own team turns on you then some roadblock or another is thrown up to stop it. Considering that your views sound rather dictatorial, I don't think you'd have to worry about elections or opposition for very long.

You noticed? That's probably true, I'm the Butheress of Abu Gharib, a Nazi Stormtrooper and I have a photo of Palpatine next to my bed. Well, that's the story going around on parts of the forum anyway.

Well, maybe not Palpatine, maybe Anakin. You had me at "eradicate".

Now, in case you don't know, Atheists such as myself are pretty much discriminated against more than anyone these days. Surveys have stated that less than 3% of parents would want their child marrying an Atheist, George H.W. Bush (our current president's father) once stated that he didn't know whether Atheists should be considered American citizens, we are stereotyped as being immoral and evil and I've even heard some complete idiots (my own parents included) who have compared my people to terrorists. There are even those who believe that Atheists DO believe in God, but are simply in denial (that's where the "There are no Atheists in foxholes" saying comes from.) I am curious as to what all my fellow forumites think of Atheists. More so, I am curious to hear the opinions of those of you who do believe in God, or even dislike Atheists. However, even though I condone anything basically because I simply wish to hear the truth and don't care how harsh it is, nothing will stop a moderator from stopping things from going out of control. So for those of you who might dislike or look down on my people, I hope you can clearly state your opinion and still stay in the boundaries of the Forum's rules.
Even though I am a Christian, I have no bias towards Atheists. Religion is not for everyone. Sorry to hear that you have had a hard time with being an Atheist. Believe or not believe in anything or nothing at all. It really doesn't matter to me where you stand. If you are a nice person who has a set of personal morals, which do not conflict with logic, I have absolutely no problem in what you do or not believe.

You had me at "eradicate".

:rofl:

"I'll take parodies of chick flicks for 500, Alex"

Thanks for clarifying.
Why? What does religion bring to the discussion that isn't already offered by modern ethics? Better yet: What does religion bring to the discussion that is superior to modern ethics?

Ah, you know, people don't want millions of angry Christians, Jews and Muslims breathing down their necks.

Okay, that's a pretty cynical and Atheist way of looking at it but seriously, that's partly true. I think that it's because in any given society if you want morality and ethics you look at religion, which is meant to be a pillar of such things that is meant to be superior. I think it's because we change to suit the morality of the times when we shouldn't and religion is set in stone.

As an aside, I remember a Simpsons episode when the priest says of gambling 'If the government declares it law it's no longer immoral'. I think there's a lot of truth in that statement in that despite religion the law stands. That's probably why we see such religious opposition to things, as they could well be seen to be immoral, but once they are passed they have to stand by them.

Name as many "wedge" issues as you can. How many of them are "wedge" issues because of religious arguments that have no basis in ethics or morality (in other words, how many of them contain an argument that sounds like "because the Bible says so")?

Cloning, stem cell research, gene therapy, not executing or punishing a woman who had drugs on her (the infamous Schapelle Corby and the Muslim religion in Indonesia screaming for her blood). Uh, my brain hurts thinking about it. Three of the four stem, uh, no pun intended, from the arguement of playing God, and the fourth with punishing drug smugglers, I think it has to do with punishing sinners, but I really have no idea.

Where do extremists get the concept of Jihad? No matter how many times we circle this argument, the facts aren't going to change: the Bible and the Qu'ran promote violent behavior. We call them extremists, but the fact remains that if adherence to holy texts is a measure of faithfulness, then these people are the only ones getting into Heaven/Paradise.

And yet there are those truely dedicated Christians, Muslims, ect who are very much against war. Yes, a few do think they are honoring their God but I still think it's a bit of an excuse to persecute what they don't understand and can't tolerate.

Huh? Middle Easterners are strangers in their homelands? How does that work?

In our countries they are strangers. I read about a Croatian basketball player and how he tried fitting in. Same thing.

According to what extant historical document? I'm pretty sure that all we have are several incomplete fictional texts. If my information is incorrect, please let me know.

The texts of Matthew, John, Paul and others in the New Testement of the Bible. This is how the book is made up, as well as texts such as Exedus which details Moses and the Jews leaving Egypt, Solomon, of King Solomon, Corinthians and Galations which tells of visits to those people and Revelations which details how we will all die. I know, charming. Any other sources I can point to? Nup, I haven't bothered to look. But I might, given the right incentive.

Was Jesus a man or was he a God. Was he separate from God or another just another face? Why was the sacrifice necessary? How did Jesus' sacrifice differ from other sacrifices with Judaism?

Hmmm, let me think. The first part is debated but I think Jesus was God made flesh. Jesus was God's son, essentially God so that we might see him, as it says that God is so great we cannot see him. His sacrifice was nessecary to absolve the world of sin. Before God would wipe out sin, physically wipe it out, such as using evil Spartan like warriors to destroy the entire kingdom of Niniva, innocent and guilty alike, because of how sinful it was. Such as having armies destroy other kingdoms, telling the soldiers to maim, rape, pillage slaughter and burn everything, women, children. Or the great flood where God was going to destroy it all because of sin. Jesus's sacrifice differs from Judaism in that they don't see Jesus as the Messiah, that's as basically as I can put it particularly because I'm not sure of the details.

My point is that "religion" extends beyond the borders of Christianity.

Of course. Atheism is about the only place where it stops.

I'm not sure how this comment is related to the point that I was making.

Those that view a 1800 year old text as their sole source of guidance? Those who read the texts and think they would honor their God by killing people or they can use religion as an excuse are the problem.

If you take a look at the Federal Bureau of Prisons data, you'll find that about 84% of people in prison subscribe to some flavor of Christianity. By way of comparison 0.2% of inmates are Atheists.

83% of U.S. population is Christian. 84% of prison population is Christian.
8% of U.S. population are Atheists. 0.2% of prison population are Atheist.

Compare those figures to the figures I referenced earlier.

Aha, that's what I was looking for. So of the 8% of Atheists in America such a small percentage of them are criminals. It's interesting. I wonder what crimes they were convicted for, that could make for further reading. Especially if these Atheists were arrested for speaking out against religion.

The problem is not enough rational discussion about beliefs. How many people do you think would continue to maintain discriminatory beliefs after it became embarrassing to do so? By declaring certain topics "off-limits", we create pockets where such beliefs can exist without fear of examination. Get rid of the pockets and get rid of the beliefs.

So we get right back to the issue of get rid of religion, or beliefs, you get rid of the problem. Has it occured to you that a lot of problems don't stem from religion?

Who gets to determine what those terms are? What criteria will they be required to use to ensure that those terms are just? What do you suggest we do with these "outsiders"? How do your beliefs compare to the principles outlined in the Bill of Rights?

Arresting gangs of youths tearing neighbourhoods aparts and having them cool off in a prison cell is already done. Charging drunks who get into fights is already done. People are even sent to the church for a change of scenary. I think this works well. It's not without it's problems, but by the same token we'll keep Judge Dredd well out of the hands of legislators, they might put the idea of a police state and legal death squads into practice.

What evidence is your opinion based on?

We can look at history as an example, when religion was banned in the Soviet Union and Hitler tried to exterminate the Jews, but we don't really need to. People will still be just as currupt, violent and criminal without religion. Those who seek conflict will use politics and racism as a reason for it, and with religion outlawed those topics will become topics of conflict anyway.

religion is set in stone.

Sometimes *too* set in stone, in my opinion. Simple morality is completely inflexible in its "tenants" and much harder to use to justify things that violate them. There is no way you can say murder is moral, for instance.

Religion, however, can override simple morality. When you bring God into the whole thing, you bring in something that can be used to justify any action no matter how immoral. Look at the case of that one mother who drowned her children a few months ago - from a moral perspective, murdering children is a bad thing. But introduce religion into it and that changes things. What if she killed them to save their souls from Satan, as she claimed? There, you've just justified a perfectly monstrous act with an appeal to authority (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html).

When you introduce a power as high as God to something, you completely negate your own sense of morals - they are inferior to God. Worse yet, you can't ever question the will of God, no matter how immoral He may appear.

With this you can do the most evil of acts and justify it all with that a higher authority (God) directed you to do it. (Doesn't that sound an awful lot like the "I was only obeying orders" excuse a lot of post-WWII Nazis used?) It's been done more than a few times - look at the 4rd Crusade if you want another example. By God's will, the Crusaders were supposed to conquer Constantinople. Despite how such an action was obviously immoral in how it resulted in the near-destruction of one of the most cultured and wealthy cities in the world at that time, God wanted it so it had to be done.

Yes, religion is set in stone - which is especially dangerous considering that religion itself is not morality, but rather an idea that is supposed to uphold morality. Introduce a being whose unquestionable word can override our own earthly views of morality and justify acts which obviously are not moral, and you've chosen a pretty bad thing to set in stone.

Ah, you know, people don't want millions of angry Christians, Jews and Muslims breathing down their necks. In other words, to pander to the majority regardless of how valid or invalid their views might be?

Okay, that's a pretty cynical and Atheist way of looking at it but seriously, that's partly true. I think that it's because in any given society if you want morality and ethics you look at religion, which is meant to be a pillar of such things that is meant to be superior. I think it's because we change to suit the morality of the times when we shouldn't and religion is set in stone. Sounds like you're finally acknowledging my argument that true believers should be following the violent instructions included in their holy texts. Somehow I still have the impression that you'll contradict that elsewhere in this response.

Before we move on: You only answered one of my questions. :) What are your thoughts on the rest?

As an aside, I remember a Simpsons episode when the priest says of gambling 'If the government declares it law it's no longer immoral'. I think there's a lot of truth in that statement in that despite religion the law stands. That's probably why we see such religious opposition to things, as they could well be seen to be immoral, but once they are passed they have to stand by them. Doesn't seem like much of a system of morals then.

Cloning, stem cell research, gene therapy, not executing or punishing a woman who had drugs on her (the infamous Schapelle Corby and the Muslim religion in Indonesia screaming for her blood). Uh, my brain hurts thinking about it. Three of the four stem, uh, no pun intended, from the arguement of playing God, and the fourth with punishing drug smugglers, I think it has to do with punishing sinners, but I really have no idea. I don't know if Corby counts as a wedge issue. So 100% of the issues you listed are religious in nature. Wouldn't it be nice if we could leave religion out of it and examine each of these things on their ethical merits alone?

And yet there are those truely dedicated Christians, Muslims, ect who are very much against war. Those are called "moderates". Not the same thing.

Yes, a few do think they are honoring their God but I still think it's a bit of an excuse to persecute what they don't understand and can't tolerate. You seem to be ignoring the fact that the holy texts tell us specifically to do that. Am I misunderstanding you?

In our countries they are strangers. I read about a Croatian basketball player and how he tried fitting in. Same thing.Location has nothing to do with it. Where do you think the extremist come from? Even if I were to entertain your hypothesis, it would quickly fall apart after I looked around and noticed all the immigrant Latins, Asians, and Europeans in my neighborhood that aren't terrorists.

The texts of Matthew, John, Paul and others in the New Testement of the Bible. This is how the book is made up, as well as texts such as Exedus which details Moses and the Jews leaving Egypt, Solomon, of King Solomon, Corinthians and Galations which tells of visits to those people and Revelations which details how we will all die. I know, charming. Any other sources I can point to? Nup, I haven't bothered to look. But I might, given the right incentive. All of which are fiction. Paul's letters have clear authorship, however Paul admits that he's never actually seen Jesus. None of the Gospels are eyewitness accounts.

Hmmm, let me think. Per my earlier message, I'm not asking for your opinion. I'm asking you to point to a single source that has an undisputed answer for any or all of these questions.

Of course. Atheism is about the only place where it stops. Even though you earlier tried to exclude other belief systems. That was my point.

Those that view a 1800 year old text as their sole source of guidance? Those who read the texts and think they would honor their God by killing people or they can use religion as an excuse are the problem. Really? They're just doing what their Gods have told them to do.

Aha, that's what I was looking for. So of the 8% of Atheists in America such a small percentage of them are criminals. It's interesting. I wonder what crimes they were convicted for, that could make for further reading. Especially if these Atheists were arrested for speaking out against religion. Freedom of Speech. Such an arrest would never hold up. They were probably convicted of something terrible enough to get them thrown in prison. The point is that a disproportionate percentage of inmates are atheists. So based on the evidence, who is more likely to display illegal/immoral behavior? A religious person or a non-religious person? What does this say about "religion being the sole source of morality"? Or even a good source of morality for that matter?

So we get right back to the issue of get rid of religion, or beliefs, you get rid of the problem. Has it occured to you that a lot of problems don't stem from religion? Absolutely. My sore feet have nothing to do with religion. ;)

Let's list all the modern social issues. Then we can make a list of all the ones that have religious ties. Sound like a plan?

Also, you didn't answer my question :)

Arresting gangs of youths tearing neighbourhoods aparts and having them cool off in a prison cell is already done. Charging drunks who get into fights is already done. People are even sent to the church for a change of scenary. I think this works well. It's not without it's problems, but by the same token we'll keep Judge Dredd well out of the hands of legislators, they might put the idea of a police state and legal death squads into practice. You didn't answer any of my questions.

We can look at history as an example, when religion was banned in the Soviet Union and Hitler tried to exterminate the Jews, but we don't really need to. People will still be just as currupt, violent and criminal without religion. Those who seek conflict will use politics and racism as a reason for it, and with religion outlawed those topics will become topics of conflict anyway. Fascist regimes have bigger problems than atheism. Also, as I've pointed out before, Hitler was a Catholic, not an Atheist. In other words, there's no causal relationships. Would you like to try another source?

Maybe I'm not giving you the answers you want to hear. Maybe I'm not saying 'religion is evil, we must stop it at all costs'. The problem isn't as cut and dry as you might like to make it out to be. We cannot just lump every Christian, Jew and Muslim in the one box. By doing that the innocent are punished as well as the guilty.

Sometimes *too* set in stone, in my opinion. Simple morality is completely inflexible in its "tenants" and much harder to use to justify things that violate them. There is no way you can say murder is moral, for instance.

Religion, however, can override simple morality. When you bring God into the whole thing, you bring in something that can be used to justify any action no matter how immoral. Look at the case of that one mother who drowned her children a few months ago - from a moral perspective, murdering children is a bad thing. But introduce religion into it and that changes things. What if she killed them to save their souls from Satan, as she claimed? There, you've just justified a perfectly monstrous act with an appeal to authority (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html).

When you introduce a power as high as God to something, you completely negate your own sense of morals - they are inferior to God. Worse yet, you can't ever question the will of God, no matter how immoral He may appear.


Come on, Emperor Devon. She was seriously mentally ill. There's a big difference between someone trying to justify an act using God (and that's an incorrect usage anyway), and someone who's so mentally ill that she believes she's seeing Satan in front of her and God is one of the many voices she's hearing in her head telling her to go kill it. The lady who drowned her kids was the latter--terribly psychotic, and that is very different from a moral problem.

So how do you benchmark morals if you have nothing that is ultimately good? Atheists have nothing that is Ultimate Good (God) that serves as the definitive standard. That is not to say that atheists are immoral--let me be clear about that--my 2 close atheist friends are every bit as moral as I am.
But who's the 'good person' who provides that defining sense of morality? And why should I accept your benchmark? Or you mine? if there is no defining ultimate good, then anything goes. Your 'good' is just as valid as my 'good', and we end up depending on nothing more than feelings about what's right or wrong, with no basis to say 'x is always wrong' and 'y is always right'.

Furthermore, the fact that anyone can say something is 'good' or 'evil' means we know there is an ultimate standard. It's not 'my culture says this is the right thing to do' or 'I internally feel this is the right thing to do', all of which are variable. The only way we can definitively know that murder is wrong or molesting children is reprehensible is if there is non-changing standard of good with which we can compare such acts.

The atheist:criminal ratio--atheists tend to be more highly educated. Criminals tend to be less educated. The crime rate is lower among the more highly educated, regardless of religious affiliation or lack thereof. Since atheists are more highly educated and more likely to be gainfully employed, of course there are going to be fewer atheist criminals. If you could control for educational status along with religion/lack thereof, I suspect the ratios would be more similar.

This article in Criminology (http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1745-9125.1995.tb01176.x) states that involvement in religious activities lowers the probability that someone will commit a crime.

Maybe I'm not giving you the answers you want to hear. Maybe I'm not saying 'religion is evil, we must stop it at all costs'. The problem isn't as cut and dry as you might like to make it out to be. We cannot just lump every Christian, Jew and Muslim in the one box. By doing that the innocent are punished as well as the guilty. Does this mean you aren't going to answer those questions? :)

I'm simply trying to point out that there are some inconsistencies in your positions. Several pertinent points to the dialog are denied, ignored, or dismissed as incredible. I try to address the points you raise, but frequently it seems as though you're unwilling to show me the same level of respect.

A few points:

Movies, television shows, and video games are great forms of entertainment and can sometimes be used to express important messages. However they make for very poor sources when trying to shore up your position in a debate.

You seem interested in actual facts when presented, but you also seem equally willing to ignore their implications if you don't agree with the conclusions they support.

Your message implies that my goal is to "punish". As I've stated several times, my goal is to have a dialog. I am not interested in (nor do I support) persecution of anyone or any group. I don't have a problem with any religious people. I have several problems with religious beliefs.

If you have some information that you feel contradicts, disproves, or weakens my position, I would be more than happy to listen to whatever you have to say. All I ask is that you act with reciprocity.

As always, thanks for reading.

Alright. Put down your question again, all of them, and be as descriptive as you can, and I'll lay it all out for you, facts, sources, even if the best I can point to is some fiction in religious texts.

Come on, Emperor Devon. She was seriously mentally ill. There's a big difference between someone trying to justify an act using God (and that's an incorrect usage anyway), and someone who's so mentally ill that she believes she's seeing Satan in front of her and God is one of the many voices she's hearing in her head telling her to go kill it. The lady who drowned her kids was the latter--terribly psychotic, and that is very different from a moral problem. I'm reminded of William James arguing the idea that maybe the ones we refer to as "sane" are the ones with mental deficiencies. There are countless horrible act that have been done throughout history in the name of God. Surely some of the people that committed them were crazy, but not all of them.

So how do you benchmark morals if you have nothing that is ultimately good? Atheists have nothing that is Ultimate Good (God) that serves as the definitive standard. That is not to say that atheists are immoral--let me be clear about that--my 2 close atheist friends are every bit as moral as I am. What if you don't need an "ultimate good"? I don't believe in not killing people because it conflicts with some concept of ultimate good. I don't kill people because I don't believe we should live in a world where people should be allowed to walk around killing whomever they want. Since I wouldn't want someone to kill me, I don't kill others. No ultimate good necessary.

But who's the 'good person' who provides that defining sense of morality? And why should I accept your benchmark? Or you mine? if there is no defining ultimate good, then anything goes. As I just showed, this isn't true. I'm a big fan of truth being self-evident. I don't know anyone that encounters the Golden Rule and says, "yeah, I don't know...". You may choose not to accept the Golden Rule, but I'm willing to wager than you can't make one argument against it that would cause a rational person to say, "You're right. That golden rule stuff is BS.". The problem is that if your morality comes from religion, then you don't have to have a rational reason for your belief. Furthermore, it's generally accepted that if you say, "Well, that's what I believe", then the other person has to respect that. I obviously don't subscribe to that way of thinking :D

Your 'good' is just as valid as my 'good', and we end up depending on nothing more than feelings about what's right or wrong, with no basis to say 'x is always wrong' and 'y is always right'. Unfortunately, I think you'll find that this only happens in religion. I can't think of any other institution in which this type of thinking is permitted.

Furthermore, the fact that anyone can say something is 'good' or 'evil' means we know there is an ultimate standard. Referring to things as "good" and "evil" is only evidence that we are enculturated to think in those terms. Nothing more.

It's not 'my culture says this is the right thing to do' or 'I internally feel this is the right thing to do', all of which are variable. Actually, this is known as "moral relativism". Eating dogs in Asia is perfectly normal, however it's animal cruelty here. By way of comparison, most of us have no problem sitting down to a burger or a steak, but Hindus would sooner chew off their own tongues than eat cow.

The only way we can definitively know that murder is wrong or molesting children is reprehensible is if there is non-changing standard of good with which we can compare such acts. I agree with your conclusion but not for the same reasons that you do.

The atheist:criminal ratio--atheists tend to be more highly educated. Criminals tend to be less educated. Atheists tend to be highly educated. Criminals tend to be less educated. Therefore Atheists tend not to be criminals. Criminals are not usually atheists. Therefore criminals are usually religious people.

Am I missing something? Wasn't that what I said? :D

The crime rate is lower among the more highly educated, regardless of religious affiliation or lack thereof. Since atheists are more highly educated and more likely to be gainfully employed, of course there are going to be fewer atheist criminals.If you could control for educational status along with religion/lack thereof, I suspect the ratios would be more similar. You're stretching. I'm not seeing anything here that refutes my argument that religious people are more likely to break the law and go to jail.

This article in Criminology (http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1745-9125.1995.tb01176.x) states that involvement in religious activities lowers the probability that someone will commit a crime.*Ignores that article is 12 years old*

Does Religion Really Reduce Crime?

Paul Heaton (2006). Journal of Law and Economics XLIX (April).
University of Chicago.

Previous studies have found evidence that increased religious membership in a jurisdiction leads to reduced crime rates. However, many of these studies have examined the relationship using a statistical technique (ordinary least squares (OLS) regressions) which may have produced biased results. The reason for the potential bias is that criminal activity may itself affect religious activity. That is, high crime areas might lead religious organizations to locate there. Alternatively, criminal activities might lead individuals to abandon religious participation because of guilt. This study controls for the influence of crime on religion and re-examines the impact of religious activity on crime rates. The author finds no statistically significant relationship between religious membership and property or violent crime.
—Niels Veldhuis and Jason Clemens

Come on, Emperor Devon. She was seriously mentally ill.

But Jae, it's hardly unique. She wasn't the first case in which God was used to justify an immoral action. Another example (apart from the one in my previous post) are people who strap bombs to themselves and blow themselves up in crowded places. If you look at it from a moral perspective, is it horrible? Yes. If God says so? A-okay!

Atheists have nothing that is Ultimate Good (God) that serves as the definitive standard.

You are forgetting that God is merely an individual who meets that standard better than we do (supposedly). It's the standards themselves we should be striving to meet, not how well someone else has met them.

my 2 close atheist friends are every bit as moral as I am.

Might I ask why you're debating this if you think atheists can be just be as moral as the religious? :)

Achilles addressed the rest...

Alright. Put down your question again, all of them, and be as descriptive as you can, and I'll lay it all out for you, facts, sources, even if the best I can point to is some fiction in religious texts. I respectfully decline your invitation to start over from scratch. You're more than welcome to pick up at post 118 (http://lucasforums.com/showpost.php?p=2292994&postcount=118) on page 3. There are also a few lingering questions in post 123 (http://lucasforums.com/showpost.php?p=2293199&postcount=123) earlier on this page.

I look forward to reading your responses.

Just a quick post because I have a bunch of appts today, and I just wanted to ask a couple questions more than anything else.

@Achilles--just because the article is 12 years old doesn't make it invalid. It's been quoted by a good number of other articles, so someone thought it must have been useful.

@ED--God doesn't define the standard, He _is_ the standard.
Mentally ill people would use Flying Spaghetti Monster as the reason for killing if they happened to worship such--they're not killing because of God, they're killing because they are mentally ill, and the brain is so screwed up that God happens to get mixed in. This isn't a moral question at all in this case, because they aren't able to process morals correctly at all.

Achilles started to answer this but hasn't completely. Stalin and Mao thought that promotion of Communism and their view of how to run Soviet Russia and China respectively justified all the deaths they caused to achieve their end. For them, death was not evil if it meant promotion of their ideals, and they surely did not find the Golden Rule to be self-evident in this case. This is very clearly a case of their own human standard being applied to morals with disastrous results for millions, and in fact I'd submit that these two alone were responsible for more deaths than all of the religious wars combined.
If Atheism uses man as the standard, then something like the actions of Mao and Stalin can no longer be considered 'wrong'. Why is your brand of morality any better than these two, in this case?

@Achilles--just because the article is 12 years old doesn't make it invalid. It's been quoted by a good number of other articles, so someone thought it must have been useful. Sorry. I guess I'm just used to academic standards. For the past decade, I haven't been permitted to cite anything that isn't peer-reviewed or less than 5 years old.

@ED--God doesn't define the standard, He _is_ the standard. How can you tell us that you have moral atheist friends and then say this? What explanation can you offer for the morality of Buddhists or Jains?

Mentally ill people would use Flying Spaghetti Monster as the reason for killing if they happened to worship such--they're not killing because of God, they're killing because they are mentally ill, and the brain is so screwed up that God happens to get mixed in. This isn't a moral question at all in this case, because they aren't able to process morals correctly at all. As I pointed out earlier, some are insane. Others are just really devoted.

Achilles started to answer this but hasn't completely. Stalin and Mao thought that promotion of Communism and their view of how to run Soviet Russia and China respectively justified all the deaths they caused to achieve their end. For them, death was not evil if it meant promotion of their ideals, and they surely did not find the Golden Rule to be self-evident in this case. This is very clearly a case of their own human standard being applied to morals with disastrous results for millions, and in fact I'd submit that these two alone were responsible for more deaths than all of the religious wars combined. Actually I have answered this completely. The problem that you cite is facism, not atheism. Your examples just happen to be Atheists. Even I wouldn't go so far as to say that Hitler isn't the gold standard for Catholic leaders.

If Atheism uses man as the standard, then something like the actions of Mao and Stalin can no longer be considered 'wrong'. Why is your brand of morality any better than these two, in this case? Fine. If Religiosity is the standard, then something like the actions of Hitler can no longer be considered 'wrong'.

As you can see, that argument fails for obvious reasons. If we didn't have a "moral compass" that was independent of religion, then we would still be stoning people to death of working on the Sabbath, using the Bible to justify slavery, etc. Because we do, we opt to cherry-pick the parts the reinforce what we consider to be moral behavior. Until you can address this point (which I have brought up several times before), then I don't see how we can move forward.

using the Bible to justify slavery,Actually this has been done. I believe it is Joshua 9:20 that is the popular favorite. "The children of Ham turned black for their sins and shall be unto the rest hewers of wood and drawers of water. They shall be as servants unto us." I would think that this would be used to justify the slavery in particular the African slave trade. And these people who used this were God fearing people who believed in helping their neighbor, just not the ones who were physically different.

How can you tell us that you have moral atheist friends and then say this? What explanation can you offer for the morality of Buddhists or Jains?
It was more of an ethnocentric statement which even the most enlightened people make. The founding fathers were the same way. As for Buddhists, if I remember correctly, they believe that all life is suffering and that they believe that by achieving balance, they will be enlightened or something like that. Very rusty there. Buddhism is more philosophical if I'm not mistaken as well as Confucianism and both address standard modes of behavior.

Hitler was less Catholic than Calvin.

After he left school he abandoned his faith (Michael Rissmann, Hitlers Gott. Vorsehungsglaube und SendungsbewuЯtsein des deutschen Diktators, Zьrich Mьnchen: Pendo, 2001, p. 94-96 ISBN 3-85842-421-8.).

Yes, in addresses to the Reichstag and in public, as on March 23rd 1933, he claimed Catholicism, but in private, he clearly held no such beliefs, and this was probably just another facet of what Ian Kershaw refers to as 'the Hitler Myth'. This was probably an attempt to placate the Christian churches into believing he still followed their moral codes.

Speer notes that Hitler asked why he was raised a Christian: "Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?". Hitler also seems to claim that it was the 'disintegrating effect of Christianity' that was solely responsible for the destruction of the Roman Empire. Goebbels noted in his diary that Hitler believed Christianity was a 'symptom of decay'. He regarded Christianity as a corrupted teaching of an Aryan, anti-semitic Christ (Steigmann-Gall, p. 257, 260).

He also, claimed not to believe in Christianity with 'its weak pity ethics', but rather, in a strong, 'active', perhaps militant God, with his somewhat odd 'positive Christianity'.

"My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter." - Cited in Norman H. Baynes, The Speeches of Adolf Hitler: April 1922-August 1939, Vol. 1, New York: Oxford University Press, 1942, p. 19-20 ISBN 0-598-75893-3. In a speech delivered on 12 April 1922, Munich

Catholic by birth, perhaps. But Catholic in belief? I think not.

Hitler, if we were to momentarily ignore everything I have said above, Hitler, by performing the atrocities he did, contravenes an absolute moral law that is laid down by Catholicism in pretty well every act of legislation, and in every major deed that he performed.

Mao and Stalin, however, contravene a much less absolute moral law. Theirs would seem to based upon (although I do not claim authority on atheism, and please, do contradict me if I am wrong), what is good for society. Now that is a very relative term, no?

Actually this has been done. Yep. While liberals were using the Bible to promote Abolition, southern concervatives were using the Bible to refute it.

It was more of an ethnocentric statement which even the most enlightened people make. The founding fathers were the same way. I'm afraid I don't follow. What is this in regards to?

As for Buddhists, if I remember correctly, they believe that all life is suffering and that they believe that by achieving balance, they will be enlightened or something like that. Very rusty there. Buddhism is more philosophical if I'm not mistaken as well as Confucianism and both address standard modes of behavior. Pretty close. Life is suffering and acceptance leads to enlightment. Enlightenment makes happiness possible in the face of suffering. At least that's my understanding of the philosophy.

I raised the point because Jae claimed that God is the only source of morality. The fact that non-christians display moral behavior directly contradicts such a claim. This claim was made after I pointed to sources that show that Christians are significantly more likely to be imprisoned for crime than Atheists (or even non-christians for that matter).

Hitler was less Catholic than Calvin. I appreciate the comparison, however the fact still remains that he was not an an atheist.

“I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so.” - Adolf Hitler

I concede that his apparent belief may have been political rather than personal, however this is theory and not fact. Taking Hitler at his word, it's clear that he was a religious man.

Mao and Stalin, however, contravene a much less absolute moral law. Theirs would seem to based upon (although I do not claim authority on atheism, and please, do contradict me if I am wrong), what is good for society. Now that is a very relative term, no?Their regimes were based upon what they thought best for society, not necessarily what reasoned examination of ethics would prescribe. Again, Mao and Stalin are examples of the dangers of dogmatic thinking, not atheistic thinking.

My point has been to show that Mao, Stalin, and arguably Hitler are all red herrings. They are frequently paraded out to show how terrible a world of atheistic nations would be. Unfortunately, the true problem in these examples is fascism, not atheism. If someone would like to provide an example of atheism run amok that doesn't involve a fascist regime, I'd be more than happy to stand corrected.

They're just doing what their Gods have told them to do.

Nothing I’ve every read in the scriptures has told me to harm another. To the contrary what I’ve got from the bible was to love everyone especially my enemy. I’d like to know the book and verse where this could be found.

I agree with a lot of what you have written in this tread, but I do not believe their “Gods” have told them to harm another. I don’t know much about Buddhists or Judaism, but I’ve read the bible and in college I read the Koran and neither condone violence against another. Just because someone misinterprets it for their own selfish reasons does not make everyone of a particular faith “evil.” I do believe millions have been killed in the name of religion, but I see no proof that God told anyone to harm another.

On Topic: I have the same view on Atheists that I have for any other person. It is their right to choose their own faith or lack there of. According to my faith it is not my job to judge anyone, but myself.

The only problem I have with Atheists or any other group is when they try to force their own beliefs on me or belittle my beliefs.

Personally I believe in god and I’m a Christian, but I don’t believe in organized religion. I only believe in my own interruption of his word. I understand the bible was written by man and then translated by man, so personally I use it for guidance not as the final word.

“I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so.” - Adolf Hitler
I concede that his apparent belief may have been political rather than personal, however this is theory and not fact. Taking Hitler at his word, it's clear that he was a religious man.


Just because Hitler says he was a Catholic does not make him one, any more then me saying I’m a mongoose makes me a mongoose. I attend the Catholic Church as a child, but I’m no Catholic. It takes more than just going to the Church to be a part of any particular religion. Also no organization should be condemned for one homicidal lunatic did. Just as Austrian people or the entire German population should not be looked down upon for what Hitler and the Nazi’s did.

Why would you take known liar and murder at his word anyways?

I'm afraid I don't follow. What is this in regards to?
The statement that Jae made about God being the standard. Ethnocentrism in general terms is the attitude that my culture and all the trimmings are better than yours. It is look that one person has on the world. Looking at Jae's statement I pointed out that it was ethnocentric purely from an anthropological viewpoint. As a Christian I somewhat hold this view but being more liberal and having a library full of pagan works I am more inclined to listen and in the mood for possible acceptance. Which is why I like some ideas of Buddhism and other religions.

I raised the point because Jae claimed that God is the only source of morality. The fact that non-christians display moral behavior directly contradicts such a claim. This claim was made after I pointed to sources that show that Christians are significantly more likely to be imprisoned for crime than Atheists (or even non-christians for that matter).
Again why I said the statement was ethnocentric.

As for the subject of atheists not being criminals...

I actually read an autobiography of a atheist who was also criminal (a robber and a coke dealer, actually). He claimed that he basically did not believe in God, and saw it as useless. He basically did not believe in God, because he is a criminal (the problem of evil and all). The concept of God doesn't really help one surivie out on the streets, after all, and what use is praying to an invisible diety when you have to threaten to kill and harm others in order to live. In prison, he was known as "Satan", due to his disbelief.

[I got this from "Autobiography of Malcom X", which talks about Malcom X's life on the street before he went into prison and discovered the Nation of Islam, and later on in his life, Othrodox Islam.]

What I am getting at is that, well, the belief that atheism will get people to stay loyal to state and do moral behavior...may not actually work. Prehaps immoral people, like criminals, MAY embrace atheism, prehaps as a justification for their crimes.

Religion has nothing to do with if a person does crimes or not. It is all about the individual.
--
discussion about Hitler

...Really, shouldn't someone be invoking Godwin's Law here?

Nothing I’ve every read in the scriptures has told me to harm another. Are you simply stating that you aren't familiar with the scriptures that I'm referencing or are you claiming that they don't exist?

To the contrary what I’ve got from the bible was to love everyone especially my enemy. There are certainly some scriptures that promote such behavior. Unfortunately, such sentiments are only limited to a few books in the bible.

I’d like to know the book and verse where this could be found. Too many to cite here I'm afraid. The Skeptic's Annotated Bible (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/) might be a good source for you. The "Cruelty and Violence" section has over 850 references. "Intolerance" has almost 550. Since those are closest to the topic at hand, I'd recommend starting there.

I agree with a lot of what you have written in this tread, but I do not believe their “Gods” have told them to harm another. I don’t know much about Buddhists or Judaism, but I’ve read the bible and in college I read the Koran and neither condone violence against another.

The Christian God on how to treat those of other faiths:
If thou shalt hear say in one of thy cities, which the LORD thy God hath given thee to dwell there, saying,

Certain men, the children of Belial, are gone out from among you, and have withdrawn the inhabitants of their city, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which ye have not known;

Then shalt thou enquire, and make search, and ask diligently; and, behold, if it be truth, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought among you;

Thou shalt surely smite the inhabitants of that city with the edge of the sword, destroying it utterly, and all that is therein, and the cattle thereof, with the edge of the sword.

And thou shalt gather all the spoil of it into the midst of the street thereof, and shalt burn with fire the city, and all the spoil thereof every whit, for the LORD thy God: and it shall be an heap for ever; it shall not be built again.

And there shall cleave nought of the cursed thing to thine hand: that the LORD may turn from the fierceness of his anger, and shew thee mercy, and have compassion upon thee, and multiply thee, as he hath sworn unto thy fathers;

When thou shalt hearken to the voice of the LORD thy God, to keep all his commandments which I command thee this day, to do that which is right in the eyes of the LORD thy God.

Deuteronomy 13:12-18

The Qu'ran on how to treat those of other faiths:
And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. And fight not with them at the Inviolable Place of Worship until they first attack you there, but if they attack you (there) then slay them. Such is the reward of disbelievers.

The Cow 2:191

As you can see, these books do in fact not only condone but promote violence toward one another.

Just because someone misinterprets it for their own selfish reasons does not make everyone of a particular faith “evil.” I do believe millions have been killed in the name of religion, but I see no proof that God told anyone to harm another. Please see above as well as sources.

Just because Hitler says he was a Catholic does not make him one, any more then me saying I’m a mongoose makes me a mongoose. I attend the Catholic Church as a child, but I’m no Catholic. I don't know how one would go about disproving another person's beliefs. How would you go about proving that I'm not really an atheist? How would I prove that you don't really believe in God?

It takes more than just going to the Church to be a part of any particular religion. Also no organization should be condemned for one homicidal lunatic did. Just as Austrian people or the entire German population should not be looked down upon for what Hitler and the Nazi’s did. I don't believe anyone here is condemning Catholicism becasue of Hitler.

Why would you take known liar and murder at his word anyways? Call me foolish, but I tend to take people at their word when it comes to their beliefs. If you tell me that you believe in God, I'm going to believe you. If you tell me that you worship the Greek pantheon, I'm going to believe you. Since religious people also lie and commit murder, I see no reason not to take them at their word as well.

I think here is something, Achilles, that you have to realize.

WE define religion.

Not you. Us.

We are the ones that answer to our God. We are the ones that write and read our Holy Books. You cannot tell us what to believe, because we tell ourselves what to believe.

And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. And fight not with them at the Inviolable Place of Worship until they first attack you there, but if they attack you (there) then slay them. Such is the reward of disbelievers.

The Cow 2:191

Here's an answer your own quote:

[2:192] But if they desist, then lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

Right after the aytah that you quote. Basically, if you are being attacked, you have the right to fight back. When the other sects say, "You know what? I don't want to fight!" then you don't fight. Simple. Don't take things out of context.

It's basically an quote that justifies 'self-defense'. Better to fight against people who are enslaving you, then to consent to being enslaved.

We understand our own religion. And if we are "reading" our own religion wrong, well then, that is exactly what we are doing. So? Let us be accountable to our own God that, by the way, we invented! If we invented God, we can invent religion.

I invoke Godwin's Law. I win.

Is this the article you're quoting, Achilles?

Studies: Atheists Supply
less than One Percent
of Prison Populations
by Dale Clark

* Index: Atheism and Awareness (News)
* Home to Positive Atheism

Received July, 1997

It's surprising how many people remark to me, "You're an Atheist? You must have no conscience about committing crime then." Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, if we examine the population of our prisons, we see a very different picture.

In "The New Criminology," Max D. Schlapp and Edward E. Smith say that two generations of statisticians found that the ratio of convicts without religious training is about one-tenth of one percent. W.T. Root, Professor of Psychology at the University of Pittsburgh, examined 1,916 prisoners and said, "Indifference to religion, due to thought, strengthens character," adding that Unitarians, Agnostics, Atheists and Free-Thinkers were absent from penitentiaries, or nearly so.

During 10 years in Sing-Sing, of those executed for murder 65 percent were Catholics, 26 percent Protestants, six percent Hebrew, two percent Pagan, and less than one-third of one percent non-religious.

Steiner and Swancara surveyed Canadian prisons and found 1,294 Catholics, 435 Anglicans, 241 Methodists, 135 Baptists, and one Unitarian.

Dr. Christian, Superintendent of the N.Y. State Reformatories, checked records of 22,000 prison inmates and found only four college graduates. In "Who's Who," 91 percent were college graduates; Christian commented that "intelligence and knowledge produce right living," and, "crime is the offspring of superstition and ignorance."

A survey of Massachusetts reformatories found every inmate to be religious.

In Joliet Prison, there were 2,888 Catholics, 1,020 Baptists, 617 Methodists and no prisoners identified as non-religious.

Michigan had 82,000 Baptists and 83,000 Jews in the state population; but in the prisons, there were 22 times as many Baptists as Jews, and 18 times as many Methodists as Jews. In Sing-Sing, there were 1,553 inmates, 855 of them (over half) Catholics, 518 Protestants, 117 Jews, and 8 non-religious.

Steiner first surveyed 27 states and found 19,400 Christians, 5,000 with no preference and only 3 Agnostics (one each in Connecticut, New Hampshire, and Illinois). A later, more exhaustive survey found 60,605 Christians, 5,000 Jews, 131 Pagans, 4,000 "no preference," and only 3 Agnostics.

In one 19-state survey, Steiner found 15 non-believers, Spiritualists, Theosophists, Deists, Pantheists and one Agnostic among nearly 83,000 inmates. He labeled all 15 as "anti-Christians." The Elmira, N.Y. reformatory system overshadowed all others, with nearly 31,000 inmates, including 15,694 Catholics (half) and 10,968 Protestants, 4,000 Jews, 325 refusing to answer, and no unbelievers.

In the East, over 64 percent of inmates are Roman Catholic. Throughout the national prison population, they average 50 percent. A national census of the general population found Catholics to be about 15 percent (and they count from the diaper up). Hardly 12 percent are old enough to commit a crime, and half of these are women. That leaves an adult Catholic population of 6 percent supplying 50 percent of the prison population.


Author Chaz Bufe responds:

This [last paragraph] is wrong. If he's going to subtract the women from the Catholic population, he necessarily has to do it for all other religious groups too. That would leave the Catholic percentage at 12 percent, not six percent.

^^^^
I'm sorry, which quote are you referring to? I don't recall having seen that article before.

So I don't take up a post.... :) The percentage of atheists in prisons. I wanted to know where you found that stat. --Jae

Whoops, sorry. Just now seeing this. The data was provided by the Federal Bureau of Prisons. Not sure if it's available online, although I'd be surprised if it's not.

I know this isn't a complete study, but maybe you all will find this interesting and maybe see some connection to this discussion and gain something useable from it...
It is incomplete, so if you can finish it then please do so in whatever manner you choose, so that I may understand how you tick.

I am disappointed in this discussion in general, quote-tag, with a lack of commitment (maybe that's just the way it looks to me, but whatever), maybe we can remedy this.

I apologize for the format, it is research done in a chatroom after all.

Sabretooth does seem to be a nice guy and won't kill me...

I forgot to copy the interview I had with devon (4am go figure), but basically we had boiled his motivations down to pursuit of personal happiness.

With a little more research we can break these notions of ethics, morality, religion, society, etc. and explore what lies beneath.

I really wish I'd remembered to record the conversation with devon, if a swk mod could dig that out somehow I would be appreciative, as it's a useful piece of information regarding this subject.

Thanks for reading

The death of an insignificant PT 1.

[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 01:44:15 | UTC-4)
I'll have to read thw hole thing first. But it seems like you guys, achilles and everyone else there are rather closed minded and have a lot of misconceptions
[5] Jae Onasi (04/05 01:44:26 | UTC-5)
There's a difference between being proud of your work and being prideful and haughty about it.
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 01:44:37 | UTC-4)
I'll have to find some time for it though
[5] Jae Onasi (04/05 01:44:40 | UTC-5)
Thanks RJM.
[666] Emperor Devon (04/05 01:44:54 | UTC-7)
As long as the pride does not exceed the accomplishment it is completely justified.
[5] Jae Onasi (04/05 01:45:01 | UTC-5)
I'm deluded, paranoid, _and_ close-minded. :gring:
[5] Jae Onasi (04/05 01:45:06 | UTC-5)
[5] Jae Onasi (04/05 01:45:14 | UTC-5)
Jae failz smilies
[666] Emperor Devon (04/05 01:45:25 | UTC-7)
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 01:45:44 | UTC-4)
Seriously though, both Jae and Achilles seem to miss quite a bit and ED was just sad
[189] Sabretooth (04/05 01:45:46 | UTC5:30)
der sabretoothe ist heeren.
[5] Jae Onasi (04/05 01:45:55 | UTC-5)
Hi!
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 01:45:59 | UTC-4)
Hey there toothy boy
[189] Sabretooth (04/05 01:46:01 | UTC5:30)
what up?
[666] Emperor Devon (04/05 01:46:07 | UTC-7)
Caught us at a bad time.
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 01:46:08 | UTC-4)
May I ask you a question sabre?
[189] Sabretooth (04/05 01:46:29 | UTC5:30)
go on
[5] Jae Onasi (04/05 01:46:33 | UTC-5)
@RJM--there's no way to say everything in that thread.
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 01:46:57 | UTC-4)
Sabre, if I was standing in front of you right now, would you kill me?
[189] Sabretooth (04/05 01:47:23 | UTC5:30)
most likely not
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 01:47:28 | UTC-4)
[of topic] yeah, kind did at a bad time eh? [/offtopic]
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 01:47:33 | UTC-4)
why?
[666] Emperor Devon (04/05 01:47:45 | UTC-7)
The middle of mah complaining.
[666] Emperor Devon (04/05 01:47:48 | UTC-7)
Accursed filter
[189] Sabretooth (04/05 01:47:51 | UTC5:30)
i don't know you, and have no reason to kill you
[666] Emperor Devon (04/05 01:47:59 | UTC-7)
complaining = b!tching
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 01:48:00 | UTC-4)
why not?
[189] Sabretooth (04/05 01:48:24 | UTC5:30)
i'll be apprehended.
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 01:48:48 | UTC-4)
if you couldn't be apprehended, if there were no repurcusions whatsoever
[666] Emperor Devon (04/05 01:48:59 | UTC-7)
It would be unethical
[189] Sabretooth (04/05 01:49:09 | UTC5:30)
precisely
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 01:49:17 | UTC-4)
shhhh, stay out of it for now.
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 01:49:24 | UTC-4)
I was asking you
[189] Sabretooth (04/05 01:49:43 | UTC5:30)
<is there any way to fix this chat? I can't post a message without the HERE button below>
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 01:50:07 | UTC-4)
it's goofy like that... anyway, I was asking you why not?
[189] Sabretooth (04/05 01:50:33 | UTC5:30)
i don't see why i would want to kill you, seeing as you could still be of use to me
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 01:51:01 | UTC-4)
if I was of no use to you, no advantage in me living, would you do it?
[666] Emperor Devon (04/05 01:51:04 | UTC-7)
Exploit him and dipose of him when his use has run out
[189] Sabretooth (04/05 01:51:29 | UTC5:30)
perhaps. you could only be a burden on humanity.
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 01:51:33 | UTC-4)
comments like devon's are the reason that whole discussion is bogus
[189] Sabretooth (04/05 01:51:46 | UTC5:30)
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 01:51:56 | UTC-4)
Neither a burden or help, just there. Would you do it?
[666] Emperor Devon (04/05 01:51:56 | UTC-7)
Hey!
[5] Jae Onasi (04/05 01:52:13 | UTC-5)
Ugh. no respect for life, eh?
[189] Sabretooth (04/05 01:52:19 | UTC5:30)
*sigh*
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 01:52:36 | UTC-4)
Ignore them sabre
[189] Sabretooth (04/05 01:52:45 | UTC5:30)
why do people want to turn me into a killer?
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 01:52:46 | UTC-4)
Just decide wether or not to kill me
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 01:53:07 | UTC-4)
I'm not turning you into a killer, you are or you arent
[189] Sabretooth (04/05 01:53:18 | UTC5:30)
i will still not kill you, because I value life.
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 01:53:37 | UTC-4)
Kill me or don't, no repurcussions
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 01:53:38 | UTC-4)
why would you value life?
[189] Sabretooth (04/05 01:53:40 | UTC5:30)
mine and everyone else's.
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 01:53:52 | UTC-4)
laggy here too
[189] Sabretooth (04/05 01:54:01 | UTC5:30)
because it is unique. you cannot live the same again.
[189] Sabretooth (04/05 01:54:25 | UTC5:30)
a life is the most valuable object in human society.
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 01:54:32 | UTC-4)
unique things are destroyed all the time and I will be destroyed eventually
[666] Emperor Devon (04/05 01:54:54 | UTC-7)
You'd be destroying it sooner
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 01:55:01 | UTC-4)
it makes no difference if I die now
[189] Sabretooth (04/05 01:55:03 | UTC5:30)
so? you are still valuable till you are estroyed.
[5] Jae Onasi (04/05 01:55:15 | UTC-5)
Yeah, but you can make contributions to the greater community that add more value when you are working complemetarily.
[189] Sabretooth (04/05 01:55:22 | UTC5:30)
even if you think you're not.
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 01:55:37 | UTC-4)
*does he really need the cliches sitting on each shoulder?
[189] Sabretooth (04/05 01:55:50 | UTC5:30)
lol
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 01:55:50 | UTC-4)
what would make it worht anything
[666] Emperor Devon (04/05 01:55:59 | UTC-7)
You likely derive pleasure from living. There is no reason to violate your wishes
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 01:56:11 | UTC-4)
dangit ed
[189] Sabretooth (04/05 01:56:11 | UTC5:30)
look...
[666] Emperor Devon (04/05 01:56:22 | UTC-7)
And you're not harming anyone
[189] Sabretooth (04/05 01:56:29 | UTC5:30)
you never chose to live. you have been given it.
[189] Sabretooth (04/05 01:56:47 | UTC5:30)
it is your duty to make the most of it, and that is why life is valuable.
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 01:57:04 | UTC-4)
maybe, maybe not, I'm just standing here in front of you where no one can see you
[189] Sabretooth (04/05 01:57:11 | UTC5:30)
you didn't buy it, you got it and you can'
[189] Sabretooth (04/05 01:57:25 | UTC5:30)
't sell it.
[189] Sabretooth (04/05 01:57:42 | UTC5:30)
you can't throw it away
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 01:58:05 | UTC-4)
what if I don't think I need it, and will stay here waiting for you to kill me until I die, would you do it?
[189] Sabretooth (04/05 01:58:21 | UTC5:30)
i won't.
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 01:58:36 | UTC-4)
why not? I don't value it.
[189] Sabretooth (04/05 01:58:41 | UTC5:30)
what you think never matters, you are still a sentient human.
[5] Jae Onasi (04/05 01:58:44 | UTC-5)
ED and Jae tag-teaming ftw!
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 01:58:52 | UTC-4)
what if I'm not sentient
[189] Sabretooth (04/05 01:59:05 | UTC5:30)
yes you are
[666] Emperor Devon (04/05 01:59:09 | UTC-7)
Yay tag-teaming!
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 01:59:17 | UTC-4)
what if I'm just a comatose shell that will die tomorrow anyway
[189] Sabretooth (04/05 01:59:35 | UTC5:30)
then i'll let you die a natural death.
[1218] _system_ *whispered* (04/05 01:59:39)
Private message sent to ID#5
trying to accomplish something
[1218] _system_ *whispered* (04/05 01:59:48)
Private message sent to ID#666
trying to accomplish something
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:00:12 | UTC-4)
i'm going to die anyway why won't you kill me? what is your sole reason for doing so?
[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:00:47 | UTC5:30)
i have no reason to kill you, and most importantly, I HAVE BETTER THINGS TO DO.
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:00:47 | UTC-4)
it doesn't matter if my life is ended
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:01:15 | UTC-4)
what if we are stuck in the same room until after my unavoidable death
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:01:28 | UTC-4)
you have no better things to do
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:01:36 | UTC-4)
while I am alive
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:02:11 | UTC-4)
would you kill me?
[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:02:26 | UTC5:30)
*sigh*
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:02:39 | UTC-4)
no sigh, just a simple choice, and analysis
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:03:04 | UTC-4)
I'm just trying to get to the root of the thing
[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:03:05 | UTC5:30)
you are either deperately suicidal or a very very persistent bugger.
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:03:36 | UTC-4)
I'm a very vey persistant bugger who is currently fascinated by this conversation
[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:03:40 | UTC5:30)
look
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:03:45 | UTC-4)
would you do it?
[666] Emperor Devon (04/05 02:04:04 | UTC-7)
Recuing someone's lifespan, no matter by how much in this instance, is still immoral
[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:04:07 | UTC5:30)
how old are you, woman?
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:04:42 | UTC-4)
ED, morals are not being taken into account here
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:04:50 | UTC-4)
@ST, old enough
[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:05:02 | UTC5:30)
<blasted chat lag>
[666] Emperor Devon (04/05 02:05:06 | UTC-7)
WTF? You can't live life without morals
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:05:07 | UTC-4)
I'm just trying to understand why you would or wouldn't kill me
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:05:45 | UTC-4)
@ED, wether or not you can, it is not being taken into account here, please don't be sarcastic either
[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:05:45 | UTC5:30)
?
[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:05:46 | UTC5:30)
alright, then
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:05:57 | UTC-4)
Sabre needs no distractions
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:06:06 | UTC-4)
alright then what?
[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:06:27 | UTC5:30)
yeah
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:06:34 | UTC-4)
yeah what?
[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:06:45 | UTC5:30)
so, if I killed you, what purpose would that serve?
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:06:55 | UTC-4)
none
[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:07:00 | UTC5:30)
wait a sec, you annoying bugger, there's a lag!
[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:07:19 | UTC5:30)
none, so what is the point in me killing you?
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:07:31 | UTC-4)
okay I'll wait for you to catch up..
[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:07:48 | UTC5:30)
none. that means I could do better stuff, like ponder the meaning of life.
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:07:49 | UTC-4)
there is no point, you may simply decide wether or not to do it
[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:08:10 | UTC5:30)
which IS a better thing to do than kill somebody as useless as you.
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:08:35 | UTC-4)
We are locked in a room, inescapable until such a time as I die (you will live either way)
[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:08:56 | UTC5:30)
i'd rather live without blood on my hands.
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:09:07 | UTC-4)
why?
[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:09:20 | UTC5:30)
well
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:09:22 | UTC-4)
it's just meaningless
[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:09:41 | UTC5:30)
well, that works either ways
[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:09:57 | UTC5:30)
if it's meaningless, it serves no point to kill you or not
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:10:03 | UTC-4)
you could kill me without any repurcussions and I would forgive you before I die so that you would be clean, would you do it?
[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:10:16 | UTC5:30)
that means that I have a perfect 50:50 chance of killing you or not.
[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:10:29 | UTC5:30)
I pick the other 50, that simple.
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:10:40 | UTC-4)
no, the chance is 100% that you will do whatever you do
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:10:48 | UTC-4)
which 50 and why?
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:11:00 | UTC-4)
the why is what we are after here
[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:11:02 | UTC5:30)
the 50 that is NOT killing you.
[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:11:26 | UTC5:30)
it matters just as much as killing you, so not killing you will not make a difference.
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:11:49 | UTC-4)
so, if there is no difference, why choose the one over the other
[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:12:06 | UTC5:30)
because you can't choose both.
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:12:20 | UTC-4)
have you killed anything before?
[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:12:21 | UTC5:30)
you can't not kill and kill at the same time.
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:12:29 | UTC-4)
anything?
[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:12:47 | UTC5:30)
insects, because they were annoying me.
[5] Jae Onasi (04/05 02:12:52 | UTC-5)
Well folks, I need to sign off and try to get some sleep.
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:12:58 | UTC-4)
why is this any different
[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:12:58 | UTC5:30)
cya
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:13:03 | UTC-4)
bye jae?
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:13:09 | UTC-4)
[5] Jae Onasi (04/05 02:13:09 | UTC-5)
Night all!
[666] Emperor Devon (04/05 02:13:14 | UTC-7)
C'mon, we hardly discussed anything!
[5] Jae Onasi (04/05 02:13:22 | UTC-5)
to everyone!
[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:13:23 | UTC5:30)
well, you didn't mention you'd be annoying me
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:13:26 | UTC-4)
no differenc between me and an insect
[666] Emperor Devon (04/05 02:13:31 | UTC-7)
Jae
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:13:49 | UTC-4)
I'm annoying you know, but not when you are in a state of having this choice
[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:13:57 | UTC5:30)
i don't kill insects randomly, especially insects in a comatose shell about to die tomorrow
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:14:18 | UTC-4)
but you've killed, why would this be different?
[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:14:37 | UTC5:30)
i would be killing a helpless being.
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:14:44 | UTC-4)
so
[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:14:50 | UTC5:30)
those insects could defend themselves.
[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:15:00 | UTC5:30)
AND they were sucking my blood.
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:15:13 | UTC-4)
no they couldn't, not the ones you stepped on without thinking
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:15:34 | UTC-4)
why does ths situation require any thought
[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:15:35 | UTC5:30)
i don't recall killing them, then.
[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:15:47 | UTC5:30)
technically, I haven't killed them
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:15:49 | UTC-4)
you won't recall killing me
[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:16:03 | UTC5:30)
then I wouldn't know if were killing you.
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:16:11 | UTC-4)
you ended their life, therefore you are their killer
[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:16:17 | UTC5:30)
and then I don't have a choice.
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:16:19 | UTC-4)
you would know at the time you decide
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:16:32 | UTC-4)
you simply have to choose
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:16:43 | UTC-4)
and tell me why before you kill me
[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:16:50 | UTC5:30)
then I know I would have killed and that would negate me not remembering your death.
[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:17:13 | UTC5:30)
*grammar typos
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:17:25 | UTC-4)
you would not remember after the fact, only I would, and would have no ill will towards you
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:18:00 | UTC-4)
would you do it
[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:18:08 | UTC5:30)
well, we've been through atleast a dozen clauses till now...
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:18:19 | UTC-4)
eh?
[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:18:37 | UTC5:30)
yep, we started with a simple would you kill me...
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:18:48 | UTC-4)
of course
[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:18:55 | UTC5:30)
and now we have no ill will, comatose shells, loss of memory...
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:19:11 | UTC-4)
all leading us towards the end
[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:19:21 | UTC5:30)
the end?
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:19:31 | UTC-4)
your decision
[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:19:33 | UTC5:30)
you mean your death, on my hands?
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:19:48 | UTC-4)
no, my death at your hands, nothing on them
[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:20:09 | UTC5:30)
i'll still not kill you.
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:20:26 | UTC-4)
why not
[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:20:38 | UTC5:30)
my conscience would kill me.
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:20:48 | UTC-4)
I need to know reasons and motive
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:21:00 | UTC-4)
your conscience couldn't remind you
[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:21:03 | UTC5:30)
eh?
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:21:14 | UTC-4)
if it did it wouldn't matter as I forgive you
[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:21:31 | UTC5:30)
right, so i kill you.
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:21:34 | UTC-4)
no memory of the event, and forgiveness
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:21:42 | UTC-4)
why would you kill me?
[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:21:53 | UTC5:30)
*ogod*
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:22:01 | UTC-4)
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:22:11 | UTC-4)
why would you kill me?
[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:22:11 | UTC5:30)
i love death and slaughter
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:22:23 | UTC-4)
you said "right, so I kill you"
[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:22:26 | UTC5:30)
i revel i it, it is my life. Your Death is my life.
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:22:29 | UTC-4)
really?
[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:22:38 | UTC5:30)
yep
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:22:57 | UTC-4)
My death isn't your life, only your pleasure in it if you so desire
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:23:11 | UTC-4)
are you being sarcastic or honest
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:23:17 | UTC-4)
because I need honesty
[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:23:40 | UTC5:30)
sooy, i'm back
[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:23:56 | UTC5:30)
i'll die in this chatroom, if i be honest
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:24:07 | UTC-4)
no you wont
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:24:20 | UTC-4)
maybe I will though or maybe I won't
[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:24:25 | UTC5:30)
who are you?
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:24:35 | UTC-4)
were you being sarcstic or honest?
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:24:43 | UTC-4)
who I am doesn't matter, only the choice
[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:24:49 | UTC5:30)
who ARE you?
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:25:19 | UTC-4)
like I said, it doesn't matter, if you knew me it oculd influence your decision
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:25:43 | UTC-4)
I need you decision uninfluenced by anything external to yourself
[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:25:56 | UTC5:30)
to be honest, i don't care about people
[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:25:57 | UTC5:30)
they're just there, and I'm here.
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:25:58 | UTC-4)
so you honestly kill me?
[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:26:08 | UTC5:30)
no, i will not.
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:26:10 | UTC-4)
out of pleasure?
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:26:20 | UTC-4)
you were being sarcastic then?
[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:26:21 | UTC5:30)
no
[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:26:29 | UTC5:30)
yep
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:26:49 | UTC-4)
so you still maintain that you will not kill me?
[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:27:10 | UTC5:30)
yes
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:27:45 | UTC-4)
with all we've discussed considered, what is left to keep you from doing so?
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:28:10 | UTC-4)
you can't use any reason we've already disqualified
[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:28:23 | UTC5:30)
lemme think
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:28:29 | UTC-4)
please do
[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:29:36 | UTC5:30)
you will die naturally. I have no reason to exert force.
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:30:03 | UTC-4)
exersion of force makes no difference
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:30:15 | UTC-4)
you have all the time and energy in the world
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:30:20 | UTC-4)
until I die
[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:30:56 | UTC5:30)
then i'd exploit this unlimited energy till you die naturally.
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:31:13 | UTC-4)
you are well fed and exercising, you wouldn't even notice it
[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:31:41 | UTC5:30)
notice your death?
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:31:54 | UTC-4)
the effort
[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:32:21 | UTC5:30)
how long is this going to go on?
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:32:34 | UTC-4)
the energy can't benefit you in any way other than to make my death unnoticeable
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:32:49 | UTC-4)
until we find out why really will or wont kill me
[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:32:57 | UTC5:30)
we aren't going anywhere, this isjust you denying all my efforts to reason.
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:33:21 | UTC-4)
yes, and you diggind deeper into your reason so we can both understand it?
[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:33:22 | UTC5:30)
it's not even a real conversation.
[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:33:50 | UTC5:30)
and tyhis final reason, you'll disqualify it too.
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:34:06 | UTC-4)
maybe, let's hear it
[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:34:23 | UTC5:30)
er, no, i haven't made it.
[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:34:33 | UTC5:30)
but when i do, you'll disqualify it.
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:34:48 | UTC-4)
maybe I will maybe I will not be able to
[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:35:18 | UTC5:30)
gee, how is that?
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:35:42 | UTC-4)
there must still be some reasons left, because you haven't really killed me or not killed me yet
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:35:54 | UTC-4)
you've still had doubts
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:36:37 | UTC-4)
otherwise you'd have chosen one, verified your reason for doing so and never second guessed it
[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:36:38 | UTC5:30)
look i gotta go take a bath now
[189] Sabretooth (04/05 02:36:58 | UTC5:30)
see you later
[1218] HntaiGrl16 (04/05 02:37:02 | UTC-4)
oh, okay, anyone else there who would like to continue this cnversation

I invoke Godwin's Law. I win. Actually, you're the one that brought up Hitler, therefore you lose. The moving goalpost kills its maker :(

So why isn't this topic dead yet?

A friend of mine made a very good comment, 'If you're Atheist, you're Atheist but don't be an ******* about it'. What he says is very true, not just of Atheism but of religion as well. If, say, a Christian says they're a Christian, fine, but if they say something like 'I'm a Christian and you're a ****wit for not believing it' then that causes problems. The same for Atheism. Now people will say that they have a right to make such comments and that religion shouldn't be allowed to be given a pass. Before making that comment however people need to think how they would feel by being told what they think is deluded.

Avoid using 'deluded' or any other terms describing someone's mental status, please, unless we're talking about mental illness, of course. It's an emotionally charged word and there are far better choices.

@Achilles--I'm still working on the questions from the other thread, and got some answers but still have some other work to do on the others. It's Lent/Easter season so the pastors are busy with all the activities going on. I can't monopolize their time for several hours to discuss all those things, and I need some downtime for me, too. I'm working on it, it's just slow. :)
In any case, when I asked about the Deuteronomy laws, the answer I got was that those laws addressed the problems that were present historically and rampant in the Middle East at the time--chiefly slavery in this particular case. God was saying "Fine, you have chosen to have slaves, here's some rules for dealing with until you can grow up enough to stop having slaves." Regarding rape--is it fair-sounding to us? No. We live in a much different age that respects women a lot more. The problem was what to do with a woman who had been defiled in that culture at that time. She could not get a job, and without family or a husband, she had absolutely no way to survive. Any child she had resulting from the rape would have been illegitimate, and likewise would have had great difficulty surviving, particularly if the child was a girl. Was it fair to the woman to marry her rapist? No. But given the only other option, which was dying because of a lack of food and shelter, and the child being illegitimate (a terrible stigma at that time) and also dying if the mother had no resources, it was the only option available in that culture at that time. There is nothing in those rules that say the woman had to live with the guy, btw. All it did was legitimize the sex act so that the woman and any children borne of that union had a chance of survival. When the only option is to marry the guy or both the woman and child die, it's pretty clear what needs to be done, whether we as 21st century people like it or not. God's in essence saying "OK, I can't stop you from making these stupid choices, so I'm going to give you some rules to deal with these specific problems in this specific culture at this time. When you're done being stupid, you won't have to utilize these laws." We have old laws on our books that are now no longer necessary because our culture has matured, and yet those laws still exist. Just because they are on the books historically doesn't mean they are still applicable in a culture that has matured past the problems that generated those laws in the first place. There's nothing wrong with having a book in the Bible that shows the history of the Jewish culture and a history of Jewish law from that time period as a basis for showing just how important Christ's love and sacrifice truly was. I can read the Code of Hammurabi to understand the Mesopotamian mindset without being bound by those rules. Leviticus and Deuteronomy (among others) had rules in order for people to recognize their own sin and take steps to make it right with God and the people around them. Christ's message of love obviously moved a good chunk of the world in a new direction, but it's still important to understand Christ's cultural background as a basis for His actions.

And moving on from that....
You cannot dismiss Mao and Stalin out of hand as having fascist ideologies as their reasoning for mass killings--that's dodging the fundamental reason for their breath-taking lack of respect for human life. They embraced (and abused) Communism and could slaughter that many people because as Atheists they decided _they_ were the standard of morality rather than God--they decided what was right and wrong, they decided that murdering millions was acceptable in order to achieve their ends. That is the inherent danger in moral relativism and any system that does not have a definitive standard of ultimate good with which to decide what is evil.

Why are my Atheist friends moral? They were raised in the US, which has Judeo-Christian underpinnings for its culture/legal system. They were taught that stealing and killing is bad because our culture says so, but our culture has a religious foundation. I also have a thoroughly immoral Atheist friend who is tremendous fun to be around, and who I love, but he thinks anything goes in the sex department because absolutely nothing is off-limits to him. His moral code is derived from 'whatever feels good is right' and let me just say I learned from talking with him a lot of things I probably never really needed to know and which are _way_ outside my God-based moral code. :) Well, needless to say, I would never leave my children with him, and I declined a couple...interesting offers. Some of the things he does most of us would say "Oh, ick, that is so wrong", but only because we have a defining standard outside of ourselves telling us what's right and wrong. If there is no defining standard, then there's nothing wrong with his definition of 'if it feels good, it's right'. However, since we know there is definitive good and evil, then we must have a benchmark for it.

@Emperor Devon--mental illness is entirely unconnected to using religion as an excuse for evil behavior. If the woman had been an atheist in an atheist culture, she undoubtedly would have substituted some highly regarded political figure as the person telling her to kill her children "Kim Jong Il made me do it because he was afraid they wouldn't be good Communists". The use of religion is cases like Andrea Yates is incidental to their real problem, which is schizophrenia. You can't use religion as an excuse in those cases since they are entirely incapable because of the mental illness of making any kind of appropriate judgments, moral or otherwise.

And that's enough musings for the time being. :)

So why isn't this topic dead yet?

To my knoweldge: Godwin's Law states that if someone, anyone bring up Nazis, the debate has offically degenerated to a flame war. Therefore, the topic is as good as dead, it only takes time for people to understand it and leave.

You know, now I understand why HerbieZ hates these sort of serious topics. I'm going to start up a topic that won't start up such firestorm.

So why isn't this topic dead yet?Maybe Godwin's Law really isn't a law (see: Murphy's Law, etc).

A friend of mine made a very good comment, 'If you're Atheist, you're Atheist but don't be an ******* about it'. What he says is very true, not just of Atheism but of religion as well. If, say, a Christian says they're a Christian, fine, but if they say something like 'I'm a Christian and you're a ****wit for not believing it' then that causes problems. This sentiment has been expressed several times within this thread. To the best of my knowledge, no name-calling has taken place here, so bringing it up again seems to be something of a red herring.

The same for Atheism. Now people will say that they have a right to make such comments and that religion shouldn't be allowed to be given a pass. Before making that comment however people need to think how they would feel by being told what they think is deluded. In endeavors that are based on reasons rather than faith, such challenges are not only permitted but encouraged. If you would prefer not to have your beliefs challenged, then perhaps the best way to avoid bad feelings would be not to voice them.

@Achilles--I'm still working on the questions from the other thread, and got some answers but still have some other work to do on the others. It's Lent/Easter season so the pastors are busy with all the activities going on. I can't monopolize their time for several hours to discuss all those things, and I need some downtime for me, too. I'm working on it, it's just slow. :) Perhaps you should encourage them to create LF accounts. We could cut out the middleman and I could debate with them directly :)

In any case, when I asked about the Deuteronomy laws, the answer I got was that those laws addressed the problems that were present historically and rampant in the Middle East at the time--chiefly slavery in this particular case. God was saying "Fine, you have chosen to have slaves, here's some rules for dealing with until you can grow up enough to stop having slaves." I certainly appreciate your pastor's response to this. Unfortunately, I really hoping to hear your response. If I wanted to know what some pastor thought, I would have asked one.

I suppose I could sit here and spout off Dawkins and Harris all day (in fact, there's little doubt that they have influenced my thinking). However at the end of the day, I have to think for myself and form my own opinions about things.

Please ask your pastor why God would have felt the need to acquiesce on slavery if he omnipotent, omniscient, and the true source of morality. Also, ask him why slavery is still alive and well today and why we didn't get an updated version of the bible when he decided that slavery wasn't ok anymore. In fact, ask him how it is that we know slavery isn't ok anymore. Please let me know what he says.

P.S. If you think he would be interested in corresponding with me directly, please let me know and I'll give you my email address to give to him next time you see him.

Regarding rape--is it fair-sounding to us? No. We live in a much different age that respects women a lot more. The problem was what to do with a woman who had been defiled in that culture at that time. She could not get a job, and without family or a husband, she had absolutely no way to survive. Any child she had resulting from the rape would have been illegitimate, and likewise would have had great difficulty surviving, particularly if the child was a girl. Was it fair to the woman to marry her rapist? No. But given the only other option, which was dying because of a lack of food and shelter, and the child being illegitimate (a terrible stigma at that time) and also dying if the mother had no resources, it was the only option available in that culture at that time. There is nothing in those rules that say the woman had to live with the guy, btw. All it did was legitimize the sex act so that the woman and any children borne of that union had a chance of survival. When the only option is to marry the guy or both the woman and child die, it's pretty clear what needs to be done, whether we as 21st century people like it or not. God's in essence saying "OK, I can't stop you from making these stupid choices, so I'm going to give you some rules to deal with these specific problems in this specific culture at this time. When you're done being stupid, you won't have to utilize these laws." I'm suppose to want to worship someone like this why?

I've responded to this before, so I'll only summarize here: No one waits until their children are teenagers to start teaching them moral behavior.

Kudos to your pastor. The mental gymnastics here are very impressive. ;)

We have old laws on our books that are now no longer necessary because our culture has matured, and yet those laws still exist. Just because they are on the books historically doesn't mean they are still applicable in a culture that has matured past the problems that generated those laws in the first place. How can you say that? Someone is sexually assaulted every two minutes in this country (I'd hate to see what the world-wide stats look like). One out of every four women have been sexually abused in their lifetime. Frequently by someone that they know. These are not "old issues" that don't apply to our modern culture. This is happening right now.

There's nothing wrong with having a book in the Bible that shows the history of the Jewish culture and a history of Jewish law from that time period as a basis for showing just how important Christ's love and sacrifice truly was.First, Christ is a character in story (unless you have some historical evidence that shows otherwise). Second, what about God's love?

As for your argument (or your pastor's?):

Mt 5:14 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

Jesus did not argue anything from the OT. He didn't outlaw slavery. He didn't end the subjugation of women.

Mt 10:34-37 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household. He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

Jesus doesn't sound like a harbinger of peace to me.

At this point, you'll probably want to accuse me of cherry-picking and then go cherry-pick some of the "good" verses to show me that I'm wrong (Luke 2:14, John 14:37, John 16:33, Acts 10:36...). Unfortunately, all this will accomplish will be to further show that the Bible contradicts itself.

I can read the Code of Hammurabi to understand the Mesopotamian mindset without being bound by those rules. Leviticus and Deuteronomy (among others) had rules in order for people to recognize their own sin and take steps to make it right with God and the people around them. The Code of Hammurabi does not claim to be the doctrine of God.

Christ's message of love obviously moved a good chunk of the world in a new direction, but it's still important to understand Christ's cultural background as a basis for His actions. And here I thought Constantine did that.

You cannot dismiss Mao and Stalin out of hand as having fascist ideologies as their reasoning for mass killings--that's dodging the fundamental reason for their breath-taking lack of respect for human life. They embraced (and abused) Communism and could slaughter that many people because as Atheists they decided _they_ were the standard of morality rather than God--they decided what was right and wrong, they decided that murdering millions was acceptable in order to achieve their ends. Actaully Jae, fascism is precisely what that is.

Main Entry: fas·cism
Pronunciation: 'fa-"shi-z&m also 'fa-"si-
Function: noun
Etymology: Italian fascismo, from fascio bundle, fasces, group, from Latin fascis bundle & fasces fasces
1 often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
2 : a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control <early instances of army fascism and brutality -- J. W. Aldridge>

There are fascist regimes that are not atheistic. There are atheistic societies that aren't fascist. Your argument does not hold up to scrutiny. One does not need to be an atheist to convince oneself that their moral ideologies are superior. In fact, I should probably caution against throwing stones in glass houses right about now. ;)

If anything an atheist is more likely to examine their morals than a theistic person. Why would you need to question right and wrong if God (or your pastor) is right there to tell you what right and wrong are? What if what God (or your pastor) told you was moral wasn't really moral? In other words, what if your position had no foundation in the study of ethics (i.e. same-sex marriage, abortion, ESCR)? Can you form an opposing argument for any of those examples that doesn't (eventually) invoke God or religion?

That is the inherent danger in moral relativism and any system that does not have a definitive standard of ultimate good with which to decide what is evil. I agree 1000% with your sentiment but not your wording. Let me rephrase:

"That is the inherent danger in moral relativism and any system that does not have a definitive standard of 'right' with which to decide what is 'wrong'"

Yes, Jae. I couldn't agree more. So let's get rid of the dogmatic institution of religion which claims to have absolute authority on right and wrong (and thereby eliminate the basis for opposing claims of 'absolute truth') and instead adopt a reasoned system of morals based on rational thought. I think that's a splendid idea.

Why are my Atheist friends moral? They were raised in the US, which has Judeo-Christian underpinnings for its culture/legal system. They were taught that stealing and killing is bad because our culture says so, but our culture has a religious foundation. That's an interesting theory. So what about non-religious people that aren't raised in the U.S. or in Judeo-Christian societies? What's the basis for their moral behavior? Buddhists? Jains? This is a very important question. I would appreciate it a great deal if you made the time to answer it.

I also have a thoroughly immoral Atheist friend who is tremendous fun to be around, and who I love, but he thinks anything goes in the sex department because absolutely nothing is off-limits to him. His moral code is derived from 'whatever feels good is right' and let me just say I learned from talking with him a lot of things I probably never really needed to know and which are _way_ outside my God-based moral code. :) Why shouldn't consenting adults be allowed to do whatever they want behind closed doors?

Well, needless to say, I would never leave my children with him, and I declined a couple...interesting offers. Some of the things he does most of us would say "Oh, ick, that is so wrong", but only because we have a defining standard outside of ourselves telling us what's right and wrong. If there is no defining standard, then there's nothing wrong with his definition of 'if it feels good, it's right'. However, since we know there is definitive good and evil, then we must have a benchmark for it. Actually, we know no such thing. "good" and "evil" are concepts that we are indoctrinated to accept. "Right" and "wrong" have some basis in empiricism and would be a much better set of benchmarks to adopt.