Electric Monk

At the risk of sounding like a buffoon, I have a question. Why are the concepts of "faith" and "separation from the animals" taught by some organized religions a good thing? One encourages belief without evidence, (not hard to see how THAT one could be abused!). The other fosters disdain and mistreatment of our environment and it's non-human inhabitants.

Interestingly, there are at least two kinds of atheism. Weak Atheism is the lack of belief in a god or gods, Strong Atheism is the belief that there is/are no god/gods. IMHO the Weak Atheist has the stronger philosophical position.

Hypothetical situation in a nightclub: I (a large male) proposition a female. Enraged by my lack of tact, cheesy pickup line, and corduroy vest, she proceeds to slap and kick me in the shins multiple times. I pull the roll of coins out of my pocket (why would that be there? ), insert it in my closed fist, and proceed to break her jaw, also giving her a concussion. Should she be able to complain? I think so, my response was disproportionate to the provocation, which is why I voted for "Yes, in some situations".

There is a danger... Villager: (very slowly, with pauses between each word) If...she...weighs the same as a duck......she's made of wood. Bedevere: and therefore... (pause) Villager: A Witch! All Villagers: A WITCH!

Still waiting for an answer. Leafless, it's really a simple question, why are you dancing around it and not answering it?

Still waiting for an answer.

Those don't fit, I may be an atheist who believes my dog can pick the best performing stocks, but that doesn't make canine-stock-picking a subset of atheism. Atheism can co-exist with any belief except belief in a deity.

I like your solution to the discrimination in my analogy, Greg should set up rules so that the majority cannot oppress the minority. So you agree that simple majority rule can result in discrimination against minorities? As to your assertions about the homosexual issue being different, I'm still trying to understand what you mean. What is legal moral documentation? Why should a majority vote concerning moral issues be treated differently than one concerning legal issues?

Leafless, your rights do not extend beyond you, others have their own rights. To be equal, homosexuals need to have the same rights that you do. If your rights supersede theirs, you are no longer equals. That would be wrong. How does allowing Bob and Steve down the street to marry each other affect your rights? Here's an example, imagine conservative supporters were the majority of the posters at this forum, (edit: and this is the ONLY forum in the world), and Greg set up a referendum on whether or not all others should be allowed to post in the general forums, or if they should be restricted to a special area set up just for them called the "leftorium". However, conservatives can post in all areas including the "leftorium". The vote is held, and the majority conservative supporters vote to restrict all others to the "leftorium", no posts in the general forums. Now on the face of it everyone can post, but only one group can post to the general forums. Is this equality? Should the majority prevail in this case?

I'm not sure how that follows, atheism is a disbelief in the existence of deity, it really only deals with the one subject. Any other beliefs may be related, but don't fall within the scope of atheism. Do you have any examples?

I may have misunderstood your comment, but I wanted to use the same adjective to describe all the options, and chose "militant" as the most appropriate one. I agree with most of your points so far.

Hitler was brought up in the Roman Catholic church, and there are many quotes and passages from his "writing" that indicate he was still a believer. “I believe today that I am acting in the sense of the Almighty Creator. By warding off the Jews I am fighting for the Lords work.” ( Adolf Hitler, in a speech delivered at Reichstag, Berlin, 1936. )

But that would be lying.

If "none of the above" were an option, I would likely choose it as well. I excluded that option so that I could find out how people felt about the other three options relative to each other. What do you mean by the common sense of a society?

I am a pedant, it's "Mein Kampf", and I found "Borat" funny.

I chose the militant Muslim, because I think Islam has the most repressive tendencies. (Arrgh...should have titled it "greater of three evils?")

Using the definition for the word militant as: aggressively active (as in a cause). Who would you choose?

Previous thread link as requested. I think it is certainly plausible, but does not take into account children that change their views. I am one of those, but I may be in a minority.

Orwell?

He speaks ""I was surprised, because I always had faith in the audience that they would realize that this was a fictitious country and the mere purpose of it was to allow people to bring out their own prejudices...." Sasha Baron Cohen gives a rare out-of-character interview that should answer questions some of you may have.

Jdobbin, one thing Nintendo does REALLY well is provide fun, family oriented multiplayer games. I remember fondly my college days with an N64, 4 controllers and three friends playing and having a great time. That said, I think the only thing the Wii has going for it other than an incremental power increase over the GameCube is the new controller. If it turns out well, and is well utilized by many games, it may be the easiest game system yet to get the whole family playing at once. You may want to wait and see, and read some reviews, maybe try it out at a kiosk. Unless you have the scratch for a PS3, which has waaay more power, but lacks the cool controller. Topical forum content: Video games make baby Jesus cry.

Nintendo, cheap(er), and the controller has interesting possibilities. I have high hopes that the controller will become as intuitive as a mouse and keyboard are on the PC.

I also like puns, deal with it.

I have no problem with students wearing religious symbols in school, but in this case Canadians of many religions died to protect our freedoms, and I think it sends the wrong message to the class, and other classes who may observe the board to include only one religious symbol. Did anyone else notice that two crosses were left up? And why?

Some people say, Fox news isn't the fair and balanced news source they purport to be.