[quote]Ecuse me! Why are speeches from students banned if they mention anything religous?<hr></blockquote>
They are being banned because not everyone believes the same things as them, and as a result, they inevitably insult people.
It is for this reason, to stop these problems before they occur, that students aren't allowed to talk about religion in public schools. If faith was universal, it might be a different story, but it's far from it; and because you FORCE people to sit through this, you're pushing the speaker's beliefs on others. Like I said earlier, THAT'S PERSECUTION!
[quote]They are being banned because not everyone believes the same things as them, and as a result, they inevitably insult people. <hr></blockquote>
Of couse we believe in different things. That is our STRENGHT!!! You simply cannot please everyone out there. I do not get offended if someone mentions Allah as an inspiration. Fran this is about Control...plain and simple. People will always use a liberal interpretation to bend the Law..to revise it to meet their needs. I'm not on a Moral High Horse because I WELCOME the thoughts and ideas of Atheist...I however choose differently.
You have to understand how CRAZY this really is. Macintosh computers insult some people...that doesn't mean they should be banned.
[quote] It is for this reason, to stop these problems before they occur, that students aren't allowed to talk about religion in public schools. If faith was universal, it might be a different story, but it's far from it; and because you FORCE people to sit through this, you're pushing the speaker's beliefs on others. Like I said earlier, THAT'S PERSECUTION! <hr></blockquote>
But it's ok to talk about sexuality? If Faith was universal??? That's Socialistic..."assimilate to ONE Faith or you may have none!" very scary Fran. How are people FORCED to sit through it and why would that matter as I can easily be FORCED to sit through the speech or ideas of a Muslim. No mentionion God as an inspiration does not push anything on anyone.
What makes Humans great is our ability to use rationale judgement. When we suspend this judgement we have willfully weakened ourselves. Push what you want on me...I am Atheistic in the fact that I feel comfortable making a decision that is right for ME. However...I welcome the choices.
The man that started this is FORCING HIS beliefs on his daughter. No one seems to mention that.
Atheists are realists, in that they will not acknowledge concepts for which they see no evidence, (or for which no evidence is scientifically proven).
Atheism, (together with secular humanism and agnosticism) is a breath of fresh air in a world enslaved by ancient, unproven myths, written by humans, edited and censored by humans, for largely material ends.
Humanity is no more "moral", or "happy", or "caring" or "good" or "positive" etc etc on account of religion; mental slavery to 'big religion' and dogma is one of the powerful ways of holding back the human race, and the "my gang is better than your gang" notion universally attached to big religion of all brands is the greatest promoter of warfare, intolerance, hatred and bigotry.
I have absolutely no problem with anyone who wants to worship their God, whatever or whomever that may be, so long as it's kept private!. A human's relationship with the Universe is an intensely personal and private affair! In the same vein would you go telling all and sundry about your sex-life, or financial affairs, sharing all the gory details willy nilly?
I can well do without someone shoving their faith in my face, or using MY tax $$$ to promote them to others. And, I could well do without the Government promoting religion, arbitrarily, when the First Amendment of the Constitution expressly implies Freedom OF Religion, which naturally infers Freedom FROM Religion too.
BTW, anyone care to nominate some terrorist groups dedicated to promoting agnostic or atheist groups?
[quote]Originally posted by Samantha Joanne Ollendale:
<strong>
BTW, anyone care to nominate some terrorist groups dedicated to promoting agnostic or atheist groups?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Masons? Knights Templar? The League of COncerned Scientists? PETA?
Actually, a case could be made that a lot of the ones that are "religious" are actually agnostic or atheist (but not formed to "promote" those values - and by that I mean positivism or realism).
[quote]Humanity is no more "moral", or "happy", or "caring" or "good" or "positive" etc etc on account of religion; mental slavery to 'big religion' and dogma is one of the powerful ways of holding back the human race, and the "my gang is better than your gang" notion universally attached to big religion of all brands is the greatest promoter of warfare, intolerance, hatred and bigotry. <hr></blockquote>
Atheism is no more more immune to these issues.
[quote] I have absolutely no problem with anyone who wants to worship their God, whatever or whomever that may be, so long as it's kept private!. A human's relationship with the Universe is an intensely personal and private affair! In the same vein would you go telling all and sundry about your sex-life, or financial affairs, sharing all the gory details willy nilly? <hr></blockquote>
I agree that it can be overbearing but so can other things. Preventing Public acknowlegement of ones Faith is exactly what we ran from Great Britain. I thinks its such an Irony now that we're facing the same issues.
[quote] I can well do without someone shoving their faith in my face, or using MY tax $$$ to promote them to others. And, I could well do without the Government promoting religion, arbitrarily, when the First Amendment of the Constitution expressly implies Freedom OF Religion, which naturally infers Freedom FROM Religion too. <hr></blockquote>
That will always remain a contradiction. Some will feel that the blocking of their expressions of Faith is just as egregious as the person that expects to have immunity against certain thoughts and ideas. It's really a no win situation.
I agree that it can be overbearing but so can other things. Preventing Public acknowlegement of ones Faith is exactly what we ran from Great Britain. I thinks its such an Irony now that we're facing the same issues
</strong><hr></blockquote>
This is NOT what we ran from in Britain (that is, those that ran from persecution rather than those who came over for economic reasons). The prevention of public acknowledgement of religion was merely a consequence of the King changing religions (i.e. establishing a state religion) with him at its head. That meant that belief in any other religion was a form of sedition, rather than "just" heresy. You're right about the irony, but I don't think you mean it the way I do...
personally i think it would be damn funny and a real pisser to all the "true believers" out there if there was a heaven, and everybody was invited. i'd love to have a conversation with a real bible thumper then.
ME: so, you believed in god, never drank beer, never smoked pot, had meaningless premarital sex, cut class, and always came home on time?
Edit: To put this in simpler terms, the government is saying that you can practice your religion, whatever it is, wherever you like, with the exception of school grounds and public buildings. What's wrong with that?</strong>
Careful Fran with the wording. The underlying principal of the Religion clause is that a religion cannot be advanced through the power of the State. Anyone can practice their religion anywhere, within reasonable bounds of course (like damage of property, disturbing the peace, etc). They can do it school. The school, an instrument of the State, however, just can't be the ones leading it, or sometimes can't provide the means to do it.
The Pledge is a school-led activity. Much in the same reasoning used in state-sponsored prayer and moments of silence in classrooms, was considered unconstitutional because peer pressure punished a student for not conforming. The original court case on school prayer was in part a sectarian issue btw.
If a person only answers to themselves then they have made themselves accountable to NO ONE.
Why fear murder
Why fear Govt
Why fear Anything...you control your own destiny and make your own Morals
that is not the belief of all Atheists but many seems to hate only the Christian Church.</strong>
Ok. I feel insulted. Athiesm does not equate to immorality nor to amorality. You will have to clear up what you are saying here?
"Why fear murder?" It's wrong to kill others. I have no right to do it. Everyone has a right to life. It's dangerous. The authorities will catch me and punish me. Now what goes through the mind of a typical Christian? Is it God says it is wrong and you'll go to H-E double sticks, or is it the things I said?
"Why fear govt?" The government is 99% composed of Christians. The top executive, POTUS, Christian. The top judicial body, SCOTUS, Christian. The top law enforcement officer, Attorney General, Christian. The House of Congress, 95% Christian. The Senate of Congress, 95% Christian and 1 devout Jew. Oh yeah, atheists do not fear the gov't. I have the added bonus of living in Texas!
"Why fear anything?" What does this have anything to do with being a good person. I obey all the laws within reason. I break the speed limit. I jaywalk on occasion. That's about it. I don't cheat. I don't steal. I don't behave like a scumbag. I treat everyone like I want myself treated. You know why? Because I believe it is the right thing to do, not because I fear being punished.
<strong>How many complain about muslims or Buddhists?</strong>
It's probably a proportional relationship between the level of complaints to the level of evangelism.
A lot of people complain about Islam, but perhaps their minority status in the USA limits the complaints. Buddhists aren't the most evangelical set of people in the world though. I'd complain about them if they start to evangelize a lot too.
The pledge is a trivial matter. What gets me annoyed is that the gov't consists of a bunch of hypocritic scumbag whores, adulterers, draft dodgers, felons, professional liars, Christian or religious people nearly all of them, they betray the very people they are charged to protect, and people are outraged with this pledge thing. Will people vote for an atheist who is a statesman and will do the right thing or your stereotypical Christian politician we love to hate? I'm afraid the answer is the latter.
If a person only answers to themselves then they have made themselves accountable to NO ONE.
Why fear murder
Why fear Govt
Why fear Anything...you control your own destiny and make your own Morals
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Heh?
Ever hear of morals? Ethics?
They aren't exclusive to faith or religion.
Your only making sense up to a point. But don't blame yourself... it was probably your CREATOR that made you this way(...so your not accountable).
A 'religious' person would have no need to fear murder, govt, anything.... If you have faith... you believe in an afterlife(and you believe there is a litmus test to get the good version, otherwise why be nice right?).... they generally go hand-in-hand..... religion is this crutch people are given when they are very young and start to ponder their mortality (perhaps they see Bambi or their hamster dies)... most have so much fear(which you seem to think is a good thing) that they easily embrace this fiction.
So how, you may be wondering, does an atheist deal with death? Heh, ain't no dealing with it. It's got you from the day your born. Death and taxes, baby.
PS. I like the idea of a pledge of allegiance, just not the god part.
Anyway.... I'm actually working on something right now to address these issues... I like to call it REPUBLIC. Maybe if you ask nice enough I'll let everyone see it early. Maybe even work on it. heh.
[quote]the late agnostic Sir Fred Hoyle calculated the odds of life originating by chance are 1x10^4,000,000 and some change, that's a one with four million zeros after it!
Or, as he said(paraphrased) ?the odds are about the same as a tornado and a junkyard producing a 747?<hr></blockquote>
So you're saying it is possible?
And I would love to see his calculations. Seems kind of hard to work with so many variables. I would think it's easier than 1x10^4000000 since scientists have been able basically recreate the primordial soup in a flask for a while now.
Is the idea that religion, faith, spirituality or the idea of an afterlife evolved because of a need to counteract the fear of death; this logic is self contradictory because the very purpose for the fear mechanism is to protect us FROM death;</strong>
You are sort of misapplying the idea. I don't even subscribe to this idea that much. The idea is about living on after death, not preventing death.
<strong>namely that absence of evidence is the same as evidence of absence & there is a big difference: there is good scientific evidence that fairies and talking pink bunnies DON?T exist but very little if no scientific evidence that God doesn?t exist, in fact there is extremely powerful evidence that a creator does/did exist</strong>
There isn't any scientific evidence that fairies and talking pink bunnies don't exist. There are dozens of people who have seen fairies. So it's possible that they do exist.
<strong>the late agnostic Sir Fred Hoyle calculated the odds of life originating by chance are 1x10^4,000,000 and some change, that's a one with four million zeros after it!
Or, as he said(paraphrased) ?the odds are about the same as a tornado and a junkyard producing a 747?</strong>
Hmmm... I wonder if Hoyle would change his mind today. At last count there are 3 other possible places in which life could arise or have arosen in our own star system: Mars, Europa, Titan, let alone the universe. It'll certainly be interesting at least.
or if your feeling frosty try:<a href="http://creationevidence.org/"; target="_blank">Creation Evidence.org</a></strong>
Dude, these sources are duds. The quintessential source of creatio ex nihilo, the giant amongst the lilliputia, the encyclopedia against the Cliff note, AI's very own, our man Fluffy, can take on any fervent Evolutionist for as long as the thread lasts. No need to refer to websites. Just enlist Fluffy.
<strong>My final point was going to be the fact that some atheists were using morally objective terms like ?right? & ?wrong?, but it?s getting late so I wont go into that.</strong>
Sigh. Ok, atheists cannot have a moral framework with right and wrong things to do. I should just go on a wrongful raping rampage right now, or is that rightful. Sarcasm aside, are "right" and "wrong" objective terms or subjective terms?
Is speeding "wrong"? If so, do you do it? Is lying "wrong"? If so, do you do it? Is downloading copyright music "wrong"? If so do you do it?
Is this a correct simplification of the anthropic principle, which may deal with the "fine tuned universe" proofs:
If the universe's properties were different, life as we know it could not exist,
therefore we would not be around to make philosophical observations about the universe's properties.
As for the creation evidence conundrum, would the the presence of the universe (or life) relying on a contradiction prove anything? (That is intended to be an open question )
Where is this Fluffy you speak of?
[quote]luckily for us humanoids though, he doesn't now, nor has ever, really exist.<hr></blockquote>
[quote]And frankly, when people dont have to face the terrible truth that everything they work and sacrifice for wont matter after they die, and that our only true 'purpose' is reproduction, the same as every other living organism in existance, vegetation included, they seem to feel better. <hr></blockquote>
How do you know? (same question goes to Deists, who I guess would claim divine revelation). Why is God's (presumed) non-existance fortunate?
[quote]Atheists are realists, in that they will not acknowledge concepts for which they see no evidence, (or for which no evidence is scientifically proven). <hr></blockquote>
I'd say agnostics are realists, as science and its "laws" do not apply to [for the sake of arguemnt hypothetical] [G|g]od[s]/creators/etc, making a scientific evidence (or a lack thereof) largely irrelevant. Mysterious ways...
i had a co-worker that was very born-again...when he found out i was an atheist he became quite upset...he asked me what kept me from just going out and killing people....i was dumb-struck...i told him that i liked people, that i thought killing was wrong....then i asked him if the only thing that stopped him from killing people was a fear of god....that seemed much scarier to me...to be full of hate and to desire malice against others, yet not acting on those feelings only because of a fear of punishment...a fear of punishment can be easily forgotten or laid aside...oh well, belief in god doesn't automatically make us moral...a lack of belief in god doesn't make us immoral....i have been married to the same woman (childhood sweetheart) for 17 years, we have 2 bright and well adjusted children who we have raised with love and compassion..etc etc....i have long ago decided that whatever people believe (as long as it helps them and makes them stronger) is good and fine with me...i would never try to change or convert someone to or away from god....i more recently have established the belief of "i don't care"...sounds harsh, but it isn't...what i decided is that i am fine with myself...i treat others well and treat myself the same...i would do exactly the same things i do each and every day whether there is a god or not..thus "i don't care" since a belief in god wouldn't change me or my actions.
g
also, as an atheist i don't care about the "under god" part of the pledge myself. i recited it everyday as a school kid even though i was born and raised without religion (my grandmother did sneak me out when i was two and have me baptized because she was worried about my mortal soul...my mom was fairly ticked at the time--of course mom is now a buddhist who helps out at the local presbyterian church at least twice a week and for many years volunteered at the homeless shelter at St John's Catholic Church...she has always liked the good things religion and churches do, and hated the bad....when she was young the bad seemed to overpower the good...now that she is older, the good seems stronger than the bad....not enough for her to join a church, but enough so she doesn't fear/dislike/distrust a church either)...i have always told my children that we live with lots of other humans with many different thoughts and beliefs and that we should respect them and honor them (or at least be courteous if honor and respect is too strong)...but i really don't care if the "under god" part of the pledge is removed either...the pledge was recited by children across this country for over 60 years without those two words added on and i think kids today would do just fine if it was taken back out...just call me a "traditionalist" ...leave it in, take it out, either is okey dokey with me....g
ps..don't dinosaurs kinda mess with at least the christian bible view of the history and creation of this world??? on which day did god make and then decide to extinct them??
Well, if all this bickering is just for a few words that is included on our money that everyone seems to love, i dont get the big deal.
If there is a god, then what the bible says makes it almost impossible to get to heaven anyway. Yes I know the bible very well. You can test me later.
If there is no God, would it really make a difference? All my life I have found a positive and a negative to everything. There is always a reverse effect for all things. God does not fit in with this natural law. There is no opposite of god. satan is more the opposite of jesus than god so i can't in my right mind count that. so there we have it there is only ultimate good. How optimistic religion is.
As for dinosaurs and ufo's and the like, just because the bible doesn't mention them specifically does not make them a stumbling block for believers. It says god created beast, names a few and moves on, just because it didn't mention t-rex does not mean it didn't happen. It didn't mention the platapus either but they are still here. Besides that there is a popular theory regarding the size of the dinosaurs and how it came to be. here it goes. Supposidly before the whole Noah flood thing it had never rained before on the earth. There was a sort of shield in the atmosphere where all of the water was, which is why man lived so long and some animals were so large. once it rained however, mans age became less and less and creatures sizes became smaller and smaller. Well, it is something along those lines.
so to conclude. If there is a god I have never seen him. I have seen a lot of great things happen in my life as well as a lot of bad things. Nothing to make me believe there is a higher power at work. Yet there is no scientific evidence to make me believe in spontaneous creation either. What happened we may never know. What I do know is that if there is or isn't a god I would still not see him after I die.
Comments
They are being banned because not everyone believes the same things as them, and as a result, they inevitably insult people.
It is for this reason, to stop these problems before they occur, that students aren't allowed to talk about religion in public schools. If faith was universal, it might be a different story, but it's far from it; and because you FORCE people to sit through this, you're pushing the speaker's beliefs on others. Like I said earlier, THAT'S PERSECUTION!
[quote]They are being banned because not everyone believes the same things as them, and as a result, they inevitably insult people. <hr></blockquote>
Of couse we believe in different things. That is our STRENGHT!!! You simply cannot please everyone out there. I do not get offended if someone mentions Allah as an inspiration. Fran this is about Control...plain and simple. People will always use a liberal interpretation to bend the Law..to revise it to meet their needs. I'm not on a Moral High Horse because I WELCOME the thoughts and ideas of Atheist...I however choose differently.
You have to understand how CRAZY this really is. Macintosh computers insult some people...that doesn't mean they should be banned.
[quote] It is for this reason, to stop these problems before they occur, that students aren't allowed to talk about religion in public schools. If faith was universal, it might be a different story, but it's far from it; and because you FORCE people to sit through this, you're pushing the speaker's beliefs on others. Like I said earlier, THAT'S PERSECUTION! <hr></blockquote>
But it's ok to talk about sexuality? If Faith was universal??? That's Socialistic..."assimilate to ONE Faith or you may have none!" very scary Fran. How are people FORCED to sit through it and why would that matter as I can easily be FORCED to sit through the speech or ideas of a Muslim. No mentionion God as an inspiration does not push anything on anyone.
What makes Humans great is our ability to use rationale judgement. When we suspend this judgement we have willfully weakened ourselves. Push what you want on me...I am Atheistic in the fact that I feel comfortable making a decision that is right for ME. However...I welcome the choices.
The man that started this is FORCING HIS beliefs on his daughter. No one seems to mention that.
Atheism, (together with secular humanism and agnosticism) is a breath of fresh air in a world enslaved by ancient, unproven myths, written by humans, edited and censored by humans, for largely material ends.
Humanity is no more "moral", or "happy", or "caring" or "good" or "positive" etc etc on account of religion; mental slavery to 'big religion' and dogma is one of the powerful ways of holding back the human race, and the "my gang is better than your gang" notion universally attached to big religion of all brands is the greatest promoter of warfare, intolerance, hatred and bigotry.
I have absolutely no problem with anyone who wants to worship their God, whatever or whomever that may be, so long as it's kept private!. A human's relationship with the Universe is an intensely personal and private affair! In the same vein would you go telling all and sundry about your sex-life, or financial affairs, sharing all the gory details willy nilly?
I can well do without someone shoving their faith in my face, or using MY tax $$$ to promote them to others. And, I could well do without the Government promoting religion, arbitrarily, when the First Amendment of the Constitution expressly implies Freedom OF Religion, which naturally infers Freedom FROM Religion too.
BTW, anyone care to nominate some terrorist groups dedicated to promoting agnostic or atheist groups?
<strong>
BTW, anyone care to nominate some terrorist groups dedicated to promoting agnostic or atheist groups?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Masons? Knights Templar? The League of COncerned Scientists? PETA?
Actually, a case could be made that a lot of the ones that are "religious" are actually agnostic or atheist (but not formed to "promote" those values - and by that I mean positivism or realism).
Thoth
Atheism is no more more immune to these issues.
[quote] I have absolutely no problem with anyone who wants to worship their God, whatever or whomever that may be, so long as it's kept private!. A human's relationship with the Universe is an intensely personal and private affair! In the same vein would you go telling all and sundry about your sex-life, or financial affairs, sharing all the gory details willy nilly? <hr></blockquote>
I agree that it can be overbearing but so can other things. Preventing Public acknowlegement of ones Faith is exactly what we ran from Great Britain. I thinks its such an Irony now that we're facing the same issues.
[quote] I can well do without someone shoving their faith in my face, or using MY tax $$$ to promote them to others. And, I could well do without the Government promoting religion, arbitrarily, when the First Amendment of the Constitution expressly implies Freedom OF Religion, which naturally infers Freedom FROM Religion too. <hr></blockquote>
That will always remain a contradiction. Some will feel that the blocking of their expressions of Faith is just as egregious as the person that expects to have immunity against certain thoughts and ideas. It's really a no win situation.
<strong>
I agree that it can be overbearing but so can other things. Preventing Public acknowlegement of ones Faith is exactly what we ran from Great Britain. I thinks its such an Irony now that we're facing the same issues
</strong><hr></blockquote>
This is NOT what we ran from in Britain (that is, those that ran from persecution rather than those who came over for economic reasons). The prevention of public acknowledgement of religion was merely a consequence of the King changing religions (i.e. establishing a state religion) with him at its head. That meant that belief in any other religion was a form of sedition, rather than "just" heresy. You're right about the irony, but I don't think you mean it the way I do...
Thoth
Thoth
ME: so, you believed in god, never drank beer, never smoked pot, had meaningless premarital sex, cut class, and always came home on time?
THEM: yep.
ME: bummer.
THEM: yep. bummer.
Edit: To put this in simpler terms, the government is saying that you can practice your religion, whatever it is, wherever you like, with the exception of school grounds and public buildings. What's wrong with that?</strong>
Careful Fran with the wording. The underlying principal of the Religion clause is that a religion cannot be advanced through the power of the State. Anyone can practice their religion anywhere, within reasonable bounds of course (like damage of property, disturbing the peace, etc). They can do it school. The school, an instrument of the State, however, just can't be the ones leading it, or sometimes can't provide the means to do it.
The Pledge is a school-led activity. Much in the same reasoning used in state-sponsored prayer and moments of silence in classrooms, was considered unconstitutional because peer pressure punished a student for not conforming. The original court case on school prayer was in part a sectarian issue btw.
If a person only answers to themselves then they have made themselves accountable to NO ONE.
Why fear murder
Why fear Govt
Why fear Anything...you control your own destiny and make your own Morals
that is not the belief of all Atheists but many seems to hate only the Christian Church.</strong>
Ok. I feel insulted. Athiesm does not equate to immorality nor to amorality. You will have to clear up what you are saying here?
"Why fear murder?" It's wrong to kill others. I have no right to do it. Everyone has a right to life. It's dangerous. The authorities will catch me and punish me. Now what goes through the mind of a typical Christian? Is it God says it is wrong and you'll go to H-E double sticks, or is it the things I said?
"Why fear govt?" The government is 99% composed of Christians. The top executive, POTUS, Christian. The top judicial body, SCOTUS, Christian. The top law enforcement officer, Attorney General, Christian. The House of Congress, 95% Christian. The Senate of Congress, 95% Christian and 1 devout Jew. Oh yeah, atheists do not fear the gov't. I have the added bonus of living in Texas!
"Why fear anything?" What does this have anything to do with being a good person. I obey all the laws within reason. I break the speed limit. I jaywalk on occasion. That's about it. I don't cheat. I don't steal. I don't behave like a scumbag. I treat everyone like I want myself treated. You know why? Because I believe it is the right thing to do, not because I fear being punished.
<strong>How many complain about muslims or Buddhists?</strong>
It's probably a proportional relationship between the level of complaints to the level of evangelism.
A lot of people complain about Islam, but perhaps their minority status in the USA limits the complaints. Buddhists aren't the most evangelical set of people in the world though. I'd complain about them if they start to evangelize a lot too.
The pledge is a trivial matter. What gets me annoyed is that the gov't consists of a bunch of hypocritic scumbag whores, adulterers, draft dodgers, felons, professional liars, Christian or religious people nearly all of them, they betray the very people they are charged to protect, and people are outraged with this pledge thing. Will people vote for an atheist who is a statesman and will do the right thing or your stereotypical Christian politician we love to hate? I'm afraid the answer is the latter.
[ 06-27-2002: Message edited by: THT ]</p>
<strong>Don't like'em.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Only those that are jerks.
There are jerks of all 'categories', IMO.
Just like there are nice and not nice Windows users.
It's not a factor of being a Windows user.
<strong>
If a person only answers to themselves then they have made themselves accountable to NO ONE.
Why fear murder
Why fear Govt
Why fear Anything...you control your own destiny and make your own Morals
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Heh?
Ever hear of morals? Ethics?
They aren't exclusive to faith or religion.
Your only making sense up to a point. But don't blame yourself... it was probably your CREATOR that made you this way(...so your not accountable).
A 'religious' person would have no need to fear murder, govt, anything.... If you have faith... you believe in an afterlife(and you believe there is a litmus test to get the good version, otherwise why be nice right?).... they generally go hand-in-hand..... religion is this crutch people are given when they are very young and start to ponder their mortality (perhaps they see Bambi or their hamster dies)... most have so much fear(which you seem to think is a good thing) that they easily embrace this fiction.
So how, you may be wondering, does an atheist deal with death? Heh, ain't no dealing with it. It's got you from the day your born. Death and taxes, baby.
PS. I like the idea of a pledge of allegiance, just not the god part.
Anyway.... I'm actually working on something right now to address these issues... I like to call it REPUBLIC. Maybe if you ask nice enough I'll let everyone see it early. Maybe even work on it. heh.
Or, as he said(paraphrased) ?the odds are about the same as a tornado and a junkyard producing a 747?<hr></blockquote>
So you're saying it is possible?
And I would love to see his calculations. Seems kind of hard to work with so many variables. I would think it's easier than 1x10^4000000 since scientists have been able basically recreate the primordial soup in a flask for a while now.
Is the idea that religion, faith, spirituality or the idea of an afterlife evolved because of a need to counteract the fear of death; this logic is self contradictory because the very purpose for the fear mechanism is to protect us FROM death;</strong>
You are sort of misapplying the idea. I don't even subscribe to this idea that much. The idea is about living on after death, not preventing death.
<strong>namely that absence of evidence is the same as evidence of absence & there is a big difference: there is good scientific evidence that fairies and talking pink bunnies DON?T exist but very little if no scientific evidence that God doesn?t exist, in fact there is extremely powerful evidence that a creator does/did exist</strong>
There isn't any scientific evidence that fairies and talking pink bunnies don't exist. There are dozens of people who have seen fairies. So it's possible that they do exist.
<strong>the late agnostic Sir Fred Hoyle calculated the odds of life originating by chance are 1x10^4,000,000 and some change, that's a one with four million zeros after it!
Or, as he said(paraphrased) ?the odds are about the same as a tornado and a junkyard producing a 747?</strong>
Hmmm... I wonder if Hoyle would change his mind today. At last count there are 3 other possible places in which life could arise or have arosen in our own star system: Mars, Europa, Titan, let alone the universe. It'll certainly be interesting at least.
<strong>For a larger list of evidence go to: <a href="http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/design_evidences/designevidenceupdate1998.html?main"; target="_blank">Design Evidences in the Cosmos</a>
(check out the rest of the site too)
or if your feeling frosty try:<a href="http://creationevidence.org/"; target="_blank">Creation Evidence.org</a></strong>
Dude, these sources are duds. The quintessential source of creatio ex nihilo, the giant amongst the lilliputia, the encyclopedia against the Cliff note, AI's very own, our man Fluffy, can take on any fervent Evolutionist for as long as the thread lasts. No need to refer to websites. Just enlist Fluffy.
<strong>My final point was going to be the fact that some atheists were using morally objective terms like ?right? & ?wrong?, but it?s getting late so I wont go into that.</strong>
Sigh. Ok, atheists cannot have a moral framework with right and wrong things to do. I should just go on a wrongful raping rampage right now, or is that rightful. Sarcasm aside, are "right" and "wrong" objective terms or subjective terms?
Is speeding "wrong"? If so, do you do it? Is lying "wrong"? If so, do you do it? Is downloading copyright music "wrong"? If so do you do it?
[ 06-28-2002: Message edited by: THT ]</p>
The only fair thing to do is not prevent the expression but limit it's influence.
Atheism can be considered a Religion with a liberal interpretation.
- If the universe's properties were different, life as we know it could not exist,
- therefore we would not be around to make philosophical observations about the universe's properties.
As for the creation evidence conundrum, would the the presence of the universe (or life) relying on a contradiction prove anything? (That is intended to be an open questionWhere is this Fluffy you speak of?
[quote]luckily for us humanoids though, he doesn't now, nor has ever, really exist.<hr></blockquote>
[quote]And frankly, when people dont have to face the terrible truth that everything they work and sacrifice for wont matter after they die, and that our only true 'purpose' is reproduction, the same as every other living organism in existance, vegetation included, they seem to feel better. <hr></blockquote>
How do you know? (same question goes to Deists, who I guess would claim divine revelation). Why is God's (presumed) non-existance fortunate?
[quote]Atheists are realists, in that they will not acknowledge concepts for which they see no evidence, (or for which no evidence is scientifically proven). <hr></blockquote>
I'd say agnostics are realists, as science and its "laws" do not apply to [for the sake of arguemnt hypothetical] [G|g]od[s]/creators/etc, making a scientific evidence (or a lack thereof) largely irrelevant. Mysterious ways...
g
also, as an atheist i don't care about the "under god" part of the pledge myself. i recited it everyday as a school kid even though i was born and raised without religion (my grandmother did sneak me out when i was two and have me baptized because she was worried about my mortal soul...my mom was fairly ticked at the time--of course mom is now a buddhist who helps out at the local presbyterian church at least twice a week and for many years volunteered at the homeless shelter at St John's Catholic Church...she has always liked the good things religion and churches do, and hated the bad....when she was young the bad seemed to overpower the good...now that she is older, the good seems stronger than the bad....not enough for her to join a church, but enough so she doesn't fear/dislike/distrust a church either)...i have always told my children that we live with lots of other humans with many different thoughts and beliefs and that we should respect them and honor them (or at least be courteous if honor and respect is too strong)...but i really don't care if the "under god" part of the pledge is removed either...the pledge was recited by children across this country for over 60 years without those two words added on and i think kids today would do just fine if it was taken back out...just call me a "traditionalist"
ps..don't dinosaurs kinda mess with at least the christian bible view of the history and creation of this world??? on which day did god make and then decide to extinct them??
[ 06-28-2002: Message edited by: thegelding ]</p>
If there is a god, then what the bible says makes it almost impossible to get to heaven anyway. Yes I know the bible very well. You can test me later.
If there is no God, would it really make a difference? All my life I have found a positive and a negative to everything. There is always a reverse effect for all things. God does not fit in with this natural law. There is no opposite of god. satan is more the opposite of jesus than god so i can't in my right mind count that. so there we have it there is only ultimate good. How optimistic religion is.
As for dinosaurs and ufo's and the like, just because the bible doesn't mention them specifically does not make them a stumbling block for believers. It says god created beast, names a few and moves on, just because it didn't mention t-rex does not mean it didn't happen. It didn't mention the platapus either but they are still here. Besides that there is a popular theory regarding the size of the dinosaurs and how it came to be. here it goes. Supposidly before the whole Noah flood thing it had never rained before on the earth. There was a sort of shield in the atmosphere where all of the water was, which is why man lived so long and some animals were so large. once it rained however, mans age became less and less and creatures sizes became smaller and smaller. Well, it is something along those lines.
so to conclude. If there is a god I have never seen him. I have seen a lot of great things happen in my life as well as a lot of bad things. Nothing to make me believe there is a higher power at work. Yet there is no scientific evidence to make me believe in spontaneous creation either. What happened we may never know. What I do know is that if there is or isn't a god I would still not see him after I die.
peace.