lowly_caterpillar

This is a question to Willy, I was just watching south park and I was wondering what happens to handicapped folks who cant confess their "sins" do they automatically get a "go to hell, do not pass go, do NOT collect 200 dollars" card?

sorry another point i'd like to add has to do with Michael Moore. Okay here goes, I have seen many a documentary by this man and he proves some valid (i suppose) points but he goes about very dishonestly. He attacks the state for using fear to instill ideas and then he tries to hit our nerves by using a soldiers death to rile up some sort of grief, not only this but he is a complete hipocrite he goes around catching people off guard and holding interviews pop-quiz style , and i have seen footage which shows that he never gives up any information unprepared. By the way there was a time when i was completely convinced that this unshaven humble looking (definitely not humble)man was the bearer of absolute truth, but i have come to realize my incredible naivety.

I have had many a discussion in class on this topic and because of the ready availability of "information" nowadays it is becoming increasingly difficult for parent to properly censor the things that their kids are exposed to and although parents are easy scapegoats, there is a responsability on parents to somewhat at least be aware of what t heyre kids are witnessing. I think that complete censorship is less detrimental than partial censorship, let me explain. If someone doesnt hear an Eminem (geez such a cliche already) album at all they don't have any material to judge but it is far more harmful for someon to hear small out of context exerpts of songs and take them the wrong way. I agree with Tawasakm there should be a longer warning period before "edgy" shows and such and I also agree with JWayne625 and Slavik44 on the issue of child pornography, when material like this is created it proves that the exploitation of children has happenned. To take this point on child porn further, in a discussion that i recently had someone mentioned the fact that this type of material can now be created digitally without harming children and we all agreed that that this was just as detrimental in that it advocated the atrocities commited, I'd like to hear your thoughts on this.

I completely agree with Tawasakm, faith is only necessary in ones mind if we believe that we are somehow less without it. Just to clarify it would be the practise of religion that is thrown out and not the teachings? If this is so I think that a society could definitely exist like this, the way i see religion (as tainted by history) Is an opressive church threatening its people with the looming idea of hell, I also however see great wisdom in the bibles teachings of brotherhood of man and such. On a lighter side note: Quote:As to the quantitative nature of the resurrection. Jesus was witnessed by many people in public places after the crucifixion. -willy Elvis was also "witnessed" after his death.

can you disprove that the torah or any of the fundamental religious books, are the first rcorded proof. Im not well read on religion so i wouldnt even know where to begin to look.

nope.

wow so you guys owned me when i said that ethics wouldn't exist without religion(not what i intended to imply at all), I will correct myself and say that religion is the earliest recorded proof that humans have the ability to afford compassion (and all of that other lovely human stuff to others). In saying this religion is a stepping stone to modernization of thought in society, first came complete religious thought and in this hypothetical world would come complete scientific thought but there will always be an element of spirituality because there will always be the meta-physical. I apologize for my terrible mechanics

Hello everyone, I feel like a moron, and my head is whirring with this redundant vocabulary, I am but a lowly law 12 student and am fascinated (dont let your egos swell too much) by this discussion. I too consider myself an atheist but in this hypothetical world that you describe it seems to me that morality of any kind would be greatly compromised if we were to solely use science to explain consequence. It seems to be that science only exists because of our desires to disprove and in some cases prove religions truth, but science can only progress if religion is there to fuel it's fire so if religion was abolished not only would sciencee become stagnant but morals wouldnt need explaining and the fibre of our democratic society would disintegrate. Imagine murder and genocide would be justifiable under the premise of overpopulation and an imbalanced supply and demand. Anarchy would in my opinion be rampant because there would no longer be a looming figure or ideal of fairness and good. Please someone tell me if any of this makes sense!