kuzadd

"The results were showing that when the volunteers placed the interests of others before their own, the generosity activated a primitive part of the brain that usually lights up in response to food or sex. Altruism, the experiment suggested, was not a superior moral faculty that suppresses basic selfish urges but rather was basic to the brain, hard-wired and pleasurable." if it feels good, do it?

Immoral!!!!! well, you must be a man!!! ;-) ;-) ( I am just jokin's with ya, and purposely promoting the sexist stereotype of men as immoral pigs, only after sex) I get that from my MIL! rofl!!!!! now , my joking around can all be taken out of context, just watch!!! cause we can't have a lick of 'wicked' fun on this forum!

AAAARRRGH! more moral then me! for shame! lol,lol, lol...........................................

my score was 4.2, apparently the average had been 3.9 it goes between 1 and 7, so does this mean, I sit pretty much morally in the middle?

Arguing that atheism are 'special' and not just another form of religious belief is arguing that atheists have a monopoly on the 'truth'. If you agree that athiests could be wrong then you cannot claim that it is not a faith based religion. Read your own posts. "who presumes all other belief systems are inferior?" actually I don't, very foolish insinuation. I actually believe they serve some purpose, obviously for people who choose to adhere to them. "Arguing that atheism are 'special' and not just another form of religious belief is arguing that atheists have a monopoly on the 'truth'" I don't argue that point, at all. Atheist are no more 'special' then anyone else. Nor have I ever argued atheists have a monopoly on 'truth' I have absolutely no issue, with anyone having their own religion, or not. again you are presuming, and not reading.

will you? It's interesting, it only took about 10 minutes. Let me know if you do, decide to, please and thanks!

Atheists can call themselves whatever they want - it does not change the fact that Atheism is just another form of religion.Anyone who presumes that they have a monopoly on the 'truth' and that all other belief systems are inferior are, by definition, religious zealots. Atheists are often guilty of exactly that behavoir. who presumes to have a monopoly on truth? who presumes all other belief systems are inferior? Or are you presuming that is what atheists do? That is what it seems.

interesting article, with reams of conjecture, long on speculation, short on evidence. very vague. remember that 'Iraq can launch a nuclear attack in 45 minutes' "Iran is attempting to draw up plans" In other words, they have no plans, drawn up and the allegation is, they are attempting to. Note this is from "a private think-tank in Brussels" like, AEI, perhaps, or any other private think tanks? ""We have serious signals that something is under preparation in Europe," really what 'serious signals' do they have? this private think tank? if they have serious signals , should n't they know what is 'under preparation' "Iran appeared to be preparing to target "British citizens on the streets of London," Moniquet said. "Just as they kill British soldiers in the south of Iraq." two statements of conjecture cojoined. There is no concrete evidence that iran is killing British soldiers in the streets. this is interesting. "A government security official said Iran was active in espionage and likely interested in compiling information on European military and industrial targets." Yup, that may or may not be the case, but , would they be any different then Britian, the US, Israel?? and then this: like I said, reams of conjecture, long on speculation, short on evidence. an attempt to cause fear and irrationality. We saw loads of these types articles prior to the attack on Iraq.

did you take the test? I did.

That's "cold-war-think" and typical of those who haven't done their homework. Iran is a different kettle of fish: We're now dealing with a death-cult religion that "rewards" and praises suicide. Mutually Assured Destruction only works if both parties are afraid of dying. as opposed the the American military which appears to be a "death cult/reward rapture" army.?? or America's government at the time, with a leader that 'talks to God' ??? FYI: all religions use reward indoctrination, to get it's adherent to conform.

No, it isn't that easy this time....you can't dismiss Canada's role with such glib comments. Not only did Canada "supply" both the UK and USA's massive cold war nuclear arsenal, it also wanted to charge France more for the same thing! Canadians worked on the military projects, manned NORAD posts, hosted bases and weapons systems, tested defoliants, manufactured munitions, and got rich doing it. Try as you may, you can't run away from Canada's history as staunch ally. Even today....where do you think DU comes from? oh, my friend, I am not dismissing Canada's role. Never would. But the issue I was adressing, was how it was any different , cold war wise , US vs USSR, , between using fear and spreading ideology, and it wasn't, in fact it was exactly the same. That is what I was discussing and referring to.

http://militaryreligiousfreedom.org/urgent_issues.html Here's Mikey Weinstein announcing the launch of a lawsuit, by the Military religious freedom foundation, wrt, this, "christian evangelical memorial day "salute to the troops" event" Give a listen!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...ml?nav=hcmodule After complaints by a government watchdog group, the Air Force and the Army partially distanced themselves yesterday from a three-day evangelical Christian event this weekend at a Georgia theme park. The promotional materials also said that an active-duty B-2 pilot, Air Force Maj. Brian "Jethro" Neal, would give Christian "testimony" during an outdoor worship service punctuated by a special flyover of B-2 "stealth" bombers. A Washington-based advocacy group, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, sent letters yesterday to Air Force Secretary Michael W. Wynne and acting Secretary of the Army Pete Geren contending that the military's extensive cooperation in the event would be unconstitutional. "The Air Force and the Army have crossed the line here: A reasonable observer, upon examining the promotional materials, the Robins Air Force Base newspaper, and the current program schedule, could not help but believe that the Army and Air Force fully support and endorse the Christian substance of the celebration," the letters said. What about all the other's who have served? Non-christian? non-beleivers?

continuing on with the bogus factor: does anyone ever notice how alleged religious people, do the most immoral things, while claiming to be moral, from a religious perspective anyway. Like all the ministers who have affairs on there spouses, they have committed relationships,(heterosexual of course, and ordained in the eyes of God, of course) in which over a number of years together, they have built a trustworthy relationship, that is secure, and reliable, someone to count on, etc., Despite all the alleged moral superiority, they have from their religion, they betray the trust their partner has in them. Even with all that morally superior religion?

this whole article is BS. 1. Celebrating the death of somebody you disagreed with pretty much makes you a dick. Uses Jerry Falwell as an example, interesting, but of all the people to use, well, how very christian. Now he was a very divisive man, who preached alot of division, of the type that seems to always make christians happy, but, let's face it, because he was so divisive and so antagonistic, some people, probably thought it was good, he was gone. But why? In the writers opinion, but, why? No reason., just shouldn't cause "your a dick" nice name calling\\ 2. You Can Do Terrible Things in the Name of Either One : don't see this as correct, in religion, you can justify all sort of attrocities in the name of God, since an atheist has no God, nothing can be justified in the name of a God, any God. One can say, God made me do it, or it is my duty under God. Atheists, don't say that! 3 Both Sides Really Do Believe What They're Saying: of course they do, but, only in the case of christians, is alot of that based on religious/God/retribution/reward./sin beliefs. 4: In Everyday Life, You're Not That Different , no were not, but not for the most bogus arguements this author sets up, because we are all human beings, is why we are not all that different. this sentence is pure conjecture "Atheists, even if you reject the idea of God completely and claim to live according only to the cold logic of the physical sciences, you all still live as if the absolute morality of some magical lawgiver were true. " where does the writer get this huge assumption from?? Ok, i've wasted enough times, basically what the author does is set up some of the most nonsensical arguements possible, like betrayal of a girlfriend, and relates it to an "injustice" when it's about trust. Attempts to give everything a religious spin, so he can make a link between atheists and religion. Did anyone actually read the whole thing? even the words the author uses are loaded with religious baggage. "Atheists, you know that Christians have freaking died because they refused to walk away from what they believe. " Any number of people may have died 'for a cause' not necessarily ,involving religion, so what does this prove? I find the whole thing nonsensical.

Atheism is a just another type of religious belief system. Fundamentalist atheists are as dogmatic as any radical christian or Muslim. Mao and Stalin singled out people who practiced traditional religions in their purges because they were a threat their atheistic ideology. Atheism is not a 'type of religious belief' Definition of Atheism and Atheists Today http://atheism.about.com/od/definitionofat...atisatheism.htm There is, unfortunately, some disagreement about the definition of atheism. It is interesting to note that most of that disagreement comes from theists — atheists themselves tend to agree on what atheism means. Christians in particular dispute the definition used by atheists and insist that atheism means something very different.

killing in the name of atheism is, not just wrong, it nonsensical.

Since there was no independent nation of Palestine, nor any people that identified themselves as "Palestinian" are you saying that the only people entitled to "protection" were worshipers of Allah, or thugs in the nature of Mohamed? Yes, there was a nation, a sovereign nation, and that is a fact and that is that! Go back at look at the UN language of the time, it is quite clear there was a Palestine, filled with it's own citizens, Palestinians. Fact!

The british turned over there 'protecterate'?? You do mean someone elses country, filled with citizens of that country, right? protectorate: is a political entity (a sovereign state or less developed native polity, such as a tribal chiefstainship or feudal princely state) that formally agrees by treaty to enter into an unequal relationship with another, stronger state, called the protector, which engages to protect it (diplomatically or, if needed, militarily) against third parties, in exchange for which the protectorate usually accepts specified obligations, which may vary greatly, depending on the real nature of their relationship. So Britian failed under international law, like the US has in Iraq, to protect it's protectorate. Rich!

No wonder the Liberals can't make any gains in the polls. a 'riveting' topic, that nonetheless, grew into multiple pages?? who would have ever thought?

hmmmm? so you adhere to that always, do you? Or is this some new found vigilanteism? BTW: comparing ,posting on a forum slightly off topic, to wife beating, still over the top! in light of the fact this thread had already wondered into the 'homosexual love' is a sin. "In the Bible it is said that for one man to lie with another man in the same way he lies with a woman is a sin. So according to many churches it is a sin. And if a certain churches official position on the subject is that homosexual acts are sins then that is their business." though this thread appears to be about a changed policy. If it was a sin to begin with, then why ordain them? which was why I posted the comedic song about how silly this all is, and then thought I would actually give Dick Cheney a high five, while I was at it. okay?

This is like saying, "honey Im sorry to hurt you." Then he proceeds to whack his wife anyway. Anyway, is Dick Cheney's lesbian daughter an ordained Minister in a church? Does she wants to be ordained? Are this lesbian couple wanting to get married in a Christian church....or have they been married in a Christian church and then the church decided to take their vows back? Are they being kicked out of a church? What's the connection??? your analogy is absolutely ridiculous! a comic relief song compares to abuse???? okay??????

sorry for hijacking the thread, but the song, was a much needed entertainment break, but still relevant. Hope you have highspeed to see and listen! BTW: congratulations are in order to Dick Cheney, who is again a grandfather! Yup his homosexual daughter and her longterm partner are now parents!! http://www.canada.com/theprovince/news/sto...36-653110596574 Cheney a granddad again News Services Published: Thursday, May 24, 2007 WASHINGTON -- Cheney and his wife, Lynne, paid a visit to their newest grandchild -- Samuel David Cheney -- a few hours after the birth. For instance, James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family, asserted that children need to be reared by heterosexual married couples. (Boo,boo to Dr Dobson, myob!!!)good for them and the Cheney's, I may not give him much credit for a number of things, but, it's good to see they stand by their daughter, and will extend that to their grandchild.

http://www.youtube.com/p.swf?video_id=bja2...VcIMmIP7CJ1V63N defenders of marriage: 'defending the institution of marriage against people who wanna get married' Yah, gotta love that line alone!

Seymour Hersh: U.S. Indirectly Backed Islamist Militants Fighting Lebanese Army Islamist militants entrenched in a Palestinian refugee camp in Lebanon are facing an ultimatum to surrender or face further military action. The Lebanese government accuses Fatah al-Islam of having ties with al-Qaeda and the Syrian government. Investigative journalist Seymour Hersh joins us to talk about another theory of who is backing the militant group - the Lebanese government itself, along with the United States. Last March, Hersh reported the U.S. and Saudi governments are covertly backing militant Sunni groups like Fatah al-Islam as part of an overarching foreign policy against Iran and growing Shia influence. partial transcript of an interview: SEYMOUR HERSH: Well, very simply -- this is over the winter -- the government made -- I think the article is called “The Redirection.” There was a major change of policy by the United States government, essentially, which was that we were going to -- the American government would join with the Brits and other Western allies and with what we call the moderate Sunni governments -- that is, the governments of Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Egypt -- and join with them and with Israel to fight the Shia. One of the major goals for America, of course, was the obsession the Bush White House has with Iran, and the other obsession they have is, of course -- is in fear -- is of Hezbollah, the Party of God, that is so dominant in -- the Shia Party of God that’s so dominant in southern Lebanon that once -- and whose leader Hassan Nasrallah wants to play a bigger political role and is doing quite a bit to get there and is in direct confrontation with Siniora. And so, you have a situation where the Sunni government, pretty much in control now, the American-supported Sunni government headed by Fouad Siniora, who was a deputy or an aide to Rafik Hariri, the slain leader of Lebanon, that government has -- we know, the International Crisis Group reported a couple years ago that the son Saad Hariri, the son of Rafik Hariri, who’s now a major player in the parliament of Lebanon, he put up $40,000 bail to free four Sunni fundamentalists, Jihadist-Salafists -- which you will -- who were tied directly to -- you know, this word “al-Qaeda” is sort of ridiculous -- they were tied to jihadist groups. And God knows, al-Qaeda, in terms of Osama bin Laden, doesn’t have much to do with what we’re talking about. These are independently, more or less, you can call them, fanatical jihadists. And so, the goal -- part of the goal in Lebanon, part of the way this policy played out, was, with Saudi help, Prince Bandar -- if you remember him -- we remember Prince Bandar, the Saudi prince, as a major player in Iran-Contra and also in the American effort two decades ago -- if you remember, we supported Osama bin Laden and other jihadists in Afghanistan against the Russians, and that didn’t work out so well. Well, we run right back to the well again, and we began supporting some of these jihadist groups, and particularly -- in the article, I did name Fatah al-Islam. The idea was to provide them with some arms and some money and some basic equipment so -- these are small units, a couple hundred people. There were three or four around the country given the same help covertly, the goal being they would be potential enemies of Hezbollah in case of warfare; in case Nasrallah decided to do something physical, get kinetic, in Lebanon, the Sunni Siniora government would have some very tough guys on its side, period. That’s the policy. JUAN GONZALEZ: Well, Sy Hersh, if that is true, then what has led to the current fighting now? If the Lebanese government had been backing the group, why is it now attacking it? SEYMOUR HERSH: Well, first of all, the Lebanese army is very distinct. Let me begin by saying nobody really knows anything right now. I mean, there’s a lot -- one of the things about crises is you learn that you really get to play much later. But based on common sense and what I’m reading, the Lebanese army has maintained an amazing sort of neutrality, which is surprising. The army has not been a pawn of the Siniora government. As you know, the American government -- the American position right now -- there’s a stand-off politically. You cannot discuss what’s going on without discussing the overall politics. There’s a stand-off politically right now, a very serious one, in Lebanon. The government is polarized. The government in power really has no legal basis to make any changes in cabinet positions, etc., because it’s not a constitutional government, because Hezbollah, which had five members of the parliament -- five members of the cabinet and a dozen or so members in the parliament, Hezbollah pulled out months ago. And there were street protests, protests against Siniora. And right now, you have Hezbollah in league with a Christian leader named Aoun, a former chief of staff for the army. Aoun and Nasrallah are in an amazing partnership against the Siniora government. And where this breaks down and who’s going to win this stand-off -- it’s been going on since last December -- isn’t clear. America clearly supports Siniora. But there’s a big brutal fight going. And the Lebanese army stayed out of it and was pretty much, very much, independent, in the sense that when there were street demonstrations, they did not beat up on the Nasrallah people. They were very impartial. So I think the story that we have is that there was a crime, and they were chasing people into one of the Palestinian camps, which are always hotbeds. God knows the Palestinians are the end of the stick, not only for the West, but also for the Arab world. Nobody pays much attention to them and those places. I’ve been to Tripoli and been into the camps, and they are seething, as they should be. You know, rational people don’t like being mistreated. And in any case, so what you have is, what seems to me, just a series -- the word you could use is “unintended consequences.” I don’t think anybody in the Siniora government anticipated that the people they were covertly supporting to some degree -- I got an email the other day, and I have not checked this out, from somebody who was in the community, in the intelligence community and still consults with the community, he says, “Why don’t we ask more about the American arms that the fighters of Fatah al-Islam have, are brandishing?” I don’t know if that’s true or not, but I did get that email. And so, that could be true. Both Saudi money and American money, not directly, but indirectly, was fed into these groups. And what is the laugh riot and the reason I’m actually talking to you guys about this -- I usually don’t like to do interviews unless I have a story in The New Yorker -- the reason I’m talking about it is because the American government keeps on putting out this story that Syria is behind the Fatah group, which is just beyond belief. There’s no way -- it may be possible, but the chances of it are very slight, simply because Syria is a very big supporter, obviously, of Nasrallah, and Bashar al-Assad has told me that he’s in awe of Nasrallah, that he worships at his feet and has great respect for him. The idea that the Syrians would be sponsoring Sunni jihadist groups whose sole mission are to kill the apostates -- that is, anybody who doesn’t support their view, the Wahhabi or Salafist view of Sunni religion -- that includes the Shia -- anybody who doesn’t believe -- support these guys’ religions are apostates and are killable, that’s basically one of the crazy aspects of all this, and it’s just inconceivable. Nothing can be ruled out, but that doesn’t make much case, and I noticed that in the papers today there’s fewer and fewer references to this. The newspapers in America are beginning to wise up, that this can’t be -- this isn’t very logical. The White House is putting it out hot and heavy as part of the anti-Syria campaign, but it’s not flying, because it doesn’t make sense. So there we are. It’s another mess. http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/05/24/143208 listen here!