jefferiah

But I have to agree that religion would be the wrong word to use in the case of atheism itself. But either way these people are not free from beliefs. Be they political or whatnot. Everyone regardless of faith in God or not, has belief systems. Here we have Cybercoma who in another thread would legally impose his belief that religion be ought to be banned. With all the religious people in the world how does he propose to enforce this law? People will still be religious, right? So how does he propose to deal with theists if he were to have his way.

Again with your private language! It really does make a discussion difficult to pursue. Look here -- words are symbolic constructs used to represent things, concepts, people, etc. collectively called memes. For this system to be useful, the word/symbols used to represent different memes must distinguishable from eachother, and used predicably to allow hearers to decypher the intent of speakers. Or in short -- Words have meanings. Now, the words 'greater good' are, if you look closely, DIFFERENT words than 'believing in a specific deity'. Why do you suppose that may be? Well, in fact, it's because they represent DIFFERENT things. Yes. And so, when you burble up and say they are the SAME thing, it really isn't very comprehensible or useful. There is nothing necessarily theistic about perceiving and acting on a 'greater good'. To take an example, a person who feels he has had a full life with little more joy to come, might quite LOGICALLY decide if forced into a situation to sacrifice his life to ensure the prospect of life for younger people. There is no need to drag any notion of a 'higher power', let alone a specific 'God' into explaining that. ??? Here we go again. What is your private definition of 'deity' now? Bunk.* *Silly unsupported assertions are adequately met with denial. They don't deserve the dignity of refutation. He is right you know. Zen Buddhism for instance is a religion but there is no deity. Religion is a way of life, a system of laws. It does not necessarily have to have a God.

Huh? Is this directed at me? Perhaps that was for Cybercoma

I don't, and that's why I asked. Anyways, the comment that started this was when I said that the old testament says you should kill people who worship a different God. Virtually everyone ignores this part nowadays, but that wasn't the case a few hundred years ago. How many Christians do you see in your neighbourhood launching attacks against atheist's? Or how many Jews do you see executing Christians?

I don't, and that's why I asked. Anyways, the comment that started this was when I said that the old testament says you should kill people who worship a different God. Virtually everyone ignores this part nowadays, but that wasn't the case a few hundred years ago. Less than a few hundred years ago an atheist named Stalin purged millions of his own.

When Church gets out on Sunday do you feel the need to get a good hiding spot with all these poisoned violent people out on the road at once? Is it that bad really? I am sure you have family who goes to Church. Are they commiting violent crimes against you. Really, seriously. Is the general Church going public launching non-stop violent attacks against you.

So, we can ignore some stuff in the old testament, but not other stuff? How do we know what we can and can't ignore? I don't. But I feel strongly that laws concerning ritual cleanliness are superficial. The commandments are important. There are many punishments prescribed in the Old Testament for many sins. I probably should have been taken outside the village years ago and stoned. Who knows? But there is mercy. Mercy comes from God. Man's mercy stems from the fact that he is a sinner like everyone else. We don't let convicted felons out of jail to preside over the case of another criminal. The Old Testament teaches that we are all sinners. Now I have readily admitted that I don't know everything about what is important or what is not? But either way, it still has no bearing on the argument. You may feel that smoking is bad, so in your house you make the rule of no smoking. Same with the church. If the church or a certain church holds to the teaching that homosexuality is a sin (and I firmly believe it is. It is mentioned as a sin in the New Testament as well, but there is no punishment in this case) then what business of that is yours? Or to put it your way, How do you know what we can and can't ignore?

No. The Old Testament is important. It serves as an important comparison to the New. The Old Testament teaches us about what sin is and that we are all sinners. The New teaches about mercy. But mercy does not mean that sin is no longer sin.

It also says things like "kill anyone who worships a different God". Unfortunately, there was a time when some people put more emphasis on those verses. Christianity is the New Testament. It replaces the old covenant. If it were not the case then the early apostles rather than being executed for their faith would have gone about performing forced conversions. The fact that historically there were people who did, does not make it God's fault, anymore than it was Salinger's intent that Chapman shoot Lennon. You could just as easily point to people like Stalin and say that atheism is poison, and therefore we must ban it. That would be pretty ridiculous don't you think?

Yes the church can decide who they want as a chairperson. My point is, this is an internet message board where people share opinions, and my opinion is it's pretty stupid to choose a chairperson based on sexuality. Therefore, for me to post my opinion stating that the church should choose their chairperson based on sexuality would be kind of strange, don't you think? No I dont think it is strange at all. If the Church holds to the position that homosexuals acts are sins, then why would that church promote practicing homosexuals as leaders. It would make as much sense as PETA promoting seal hunters. I dont agree with Peta, but I am not going to get up in arms about how they discriminate against seal hunters when it comes time to choose a leader. Do you think seal hunters are making a human rights case about it?

It also says things like "kill anyone who worships a different God". Unfortunately, there was a time when some people put more emphasis on those verses. Christianity is the New Testament. It replaces the old covenant. If it were not the case then the early apostles rather than being executed for their faith would have gone about performing forced conversions. The fact that historically there were people who did, does not make it God's fault, anymore than it was Salinger's intent that Chapman shoot Lennon.

No one is saying you have to agree with PETA, but if you don't like their position on things you dont have to join. Simple as that. I am not joining anytime soon. Would you expect an anti abortion group to be made of members who go around performing abortions? That doenst mean you cant criticize an abortion group or anti abortion group, but why would you get up in arms if they have people who support the groups position as leaders.

Does that mean we are not allowed to be critical of PETA for being against the seal hunt? Are we not allowed to question why PETA even cares about seal hunting in the first place? Of course not. I am no PETA fan. I disagree with them all the time. But I am not a member. Criticizing their position on the seal hunt is one thing. Criticizing the fact that they probably would not choose a seal hunter as a chairperson when it is against their tenets would be kind of strange though, don't you think. What else would you expect from a group who opposes the seal hunt?

War is usually about territory and money. Greed. People who use religion to that end are just justifying. Humans do this, and they can use anyting they want. Mark David Chapman was inspired by the Catcher In The Rye to make an end of John Lennon. Is that J.D. Salinger's fault?

What do you mean one more reason? Religion has been around for a long time so it is nothing new. Futhermore, Christianity for example says things like "turn the other cheek" and "blessed are the peacemakers" and "pray for your enemies". So if anyone interprets that as a reason for war, what difference will it make if you ban religion. People who want a war will interpret anything they want as a cause for such. It would be like banning milk because 100 per cent of convicted felons drank milk as infants.

And yet wars have been fought over it. So what? Wars have been fought over a lot of things. Someone sending there kids to a Synagogue or Church is not an act of war in itself. The war is the war, not the religion itself. You can't start banning things just because there is a possibility people could argue over it. People can argue over just about anything. People have observed the effects gravity directly. People have observed the phenonemon of immunity directly. But no one has observed a species changing into another species. To say that it is possible that adaptations like this are small steps in such a change is a theory, and nothing more.

The phenomenon of adaptation and developing immunity is a far cry from becoming a whole other species, I think you will agree. Your tennis ball analogy is a perfect example of path of least resistance. But it is a poor analogy of a living being. It is basically an analogy in my favor, and it makes the same point I am making. Whereas the non-living object just rolls down the hill, I often find myself walking up them. Now it is possible that you may go on and say that sometimes a little hard work in the meantime saves a lot harder work in the long run. But to say that this is the reason that life happened (because it was easier) is a huge assumption, based on absolutely nothing. And actually I would venture to say it is highly unlikely since I have never ever seen an inanimate material with the ability to forego using the path of least resistance because it calculates that it will be easier in the long run. Have you? If I dig a channel to divert water from a river to flow into a dam I have created, the water will not say to itself after a while....you know its easier now to flow through this canal but then I always end up being stopped up by the dam. Water will never figure this out. No inanimate material has this property of being able to calculate what would be easier in the long run, and other than that inanimate objects dont just arrange themselves in patterns by chance. Your bedroom does not clean itself. Complex organisms and machinery don't develop themselves.

And if a group of people who happens to believe that thinking homosexuality is a sin is wrong, wishes to post on an internet message board about this, that is their business. Most people in the church don't want to be homosexuals, so why do certain members of the church care about it? Once again QC, most members of PETA probably don't want to hunt seals, but don't you think it would be odd of them to pick a seal hunter to chair their organization, when it goes against one of their tenets.

The simple answer is that it is the most energetically favourable. For what purpose would elements in a tennis ball roll down a hill when they could stay at the top of the hill? The development of consciousness is most energetically favourable? That is a big assumption there. If it were so, then why doesnt the tennis ball take the path of least resistance (as you see it) and evolve and write a novel. The tennis ball has no consciousness of its own rolling down the hill. The analogy is a bit irrelevant. The amount of energy used would not change a bit if there were no such thing as life. Mass-energy. It is a big jump to say that development of organized beings happens simply because its the easiest thing to happen. How do you know it is the easiest thing? Matter does not need consciousness to survive. If I smash a rock, there are still two pieces. And no pain! Everything is there.

How do you know they hate homosexuals? You have just made a huge assumption there. Believing that something is a sin does not mean you hate the person who does it. We all have our own standards and morals, whether they be religious or just personal preferences. I am sure you have friends who may not have exactly the same standard as you, they may do things you dont always agree with, but it does mean you hate them. Lisa Simpson became a vegetarian because she felt eating meat was morally wrong. But she did not disown her whole family, right? I am sure there are people who are anti-fur are able to see past their beliefs enough to be able to talk and enjoy social interactions with people who wear fur. There are more sects of Christianity than I can count and I can't vouch for them all, but most Churches I know of who preach that homosexual actions are sins do not preach a message of being mean or hateful to homosexuals, but of mercy and forgiveness, and that they can change. Now maybe you don't agree with that, but you are an adult and you have a choice of whether you would like to attend their church or not, and so do adult homosexuals. It is quite a stretch to compare it with the KKK. The church is not going to kick out homosexuals or call for their extermination. I don't think it is even often a subject of many sermons, really. But I mean why all the special treatment for homosexuals. Seriously, in some ways I think we have lost sight of how silly it is getting. Because the gay rights movement is getting to the point where it is actually enforcing its own beliefs on people through legislation, not just seeking the freedom to practice. You know it is not considered discrimination in most other cases to consider something a sin. I don't feel like I am a victim of Jewish bigotry because they believe that eating pork is wrong. Tolerance and condoning are not one and the same. But it seems that with the gay movement nowadays they want it to be. Not only is tolerance enough, you have to condone it. Why? People can condone whatever they want.

Yes, I understand that, Cybercoma. But that is not simply a religious issue. It is an inescapable fact of life that sometimes people are going to tell you one thing or you will feel pressure to comply. If it is not religion it is something else, and if it's not parents instilling something in their kids, it will be society, or some sort of collective government which makes the decisions. Sometimes you are right and the world is wrong, and sometimes the world is right and you are wrong. It's never always one or the other. If the people around you all jump off a bridge it might be wise to not conform, but when the peers of an alcoholic show concern and say he has a problem he might console himself that he is doing his own thing and going against the crowd, but the peer group is probably right. Perhaps you had a more strict religious upbringing than I did. My parents are both Christian and I had to go to Church when I was small, but they never made me feel pressured. I often defend religious people on here but at the same time I am not really very religious either. I don't read the Bible much, but I have, and I don't go to Church. And when I was a kid I hated going to Sunday school and having to sing kiddy church songs. And one time I screamed in Church "I hate these stupid babyish songs." And pretty much everyone got a good laugh over that. And they never made me sing anymore. And I know that sometimes a person with a very particular belief about something because of a religious idea can be annoying, and I often find myself arguing with them when I am confronted with something like this. But then at the same time I would rather deal with that when it arises than to open up a can of worms where we start systematically banning God because in some cases people who claim to follow Him are hypocritical, unreasonable, etc etc. The problem with this kind of thinking is that its basically the same as the problem many people have with religion. It's a system. And system's are necessary in life, but they are sometimes just "necessary evil's". There are never ever ever enough words, clauses or amendments within any system to account for all possible situations. And people will disagree over which situations are more important and to be taken more into account. That is just life. I can't help it. But if you start legislating more you might make it worse, you know. Having to go to a Bar Mitzvah or to Church is not the worst thing in the world you know. Seriously, if thats the sum total of your problems (and I am sure it isnt) you have had a pretty good life.

What if anybody decides to start murdering homosexuals? Why the church? Is the church doing it? Maybe we should put everybody in jail lest they decide to do something.

As to the issue of discrimination in hiring, you do understand that a religion is a bit different than a regular business. Now let's say I discriminated against someone by not hiring him to work at my candy store because in his spare time he is a seal hunter. That would be kind of wierd and irrelevant wouldn't it. But if it were not a candy store, but rather it was the people at PETA who decided that he was not suitable to be a chairman or whatever of their organization it would kind of make sense wouldn't it, given their beliefs.

Is the church murdering homosexuals, Cybercoma. Be realistic. The church is not sending out an army to exterminate them are they? So if you see religion as no more than a social club, and it's one you don't like, you don't have to join. Homosexuals are allowed to go to church. Temptation itself as far as I know is not a sin anyway (I don't actually go to Church). But homosexuals acts are forbidden. But not by punishment. The church has no power to put people in jail do they. You say it is not the Church's business to decide who somebody loves. Well they can't decide that. But they can decide who they want as leaders (for better or worse) that is their business. They cannot stop a Priest or whatever from leaving and getting married to a man or whatnot. But if that is against the rules of their society they can choose another leader. How is it oppression? Are they starving them to death? Homophobic is a funny term, and a large assumption in itself. Who is to say that all these people are afraid of homosexuals? Do Jews shrink in fear when they meet pork eaters? Does believing something is wrong mean you are afraid of it. In some cases it may be very true. But the flip side is that people also go too far the other way. Believing something is a sin does not necessarily mean that you are going to be mean to a person who commits that sin, or that you will feel uncomfortable about your own orientation because of it. It can simply mean that you do believe it is wrong. And we all have a freedom of conscience prescribed by law, as long as you dont start assualting people who have a different conscience. Believing that homosexuality is a sin is no more a detriment to society than believing that eating pork is wrong or believing that wearing fur is wrong. If a group of people who happens to believe that wearing fur is wrong (among other beliefs) wishes to get together and have a group and speak their mind about this and other things among their own group, that is their business. If one of their leaders comes to the podium to speak at one of their meetings wearing a mink shawl, it is their business to decide if that violates the code of their society, or whather or not they should forgive. Since you don't even want to belong to the church why do you care about it.

Most people with mouths are hypocrites.