Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Theism

2007-11-28T17:54:51Z

SDSkinner:

'''Theism''' is the belief in a [[Deity]] or deities. According to the ''Catholic Encyclopedia'', theism more narrowly means belief in a deity that is both [[immanence|immanent]] in the world, but also [[transcendence|transcendent]], and is also omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent.[http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04679b.htm]

The opposite of theism is [[atheism]], which denies the existence of God. There is also [[agnosticism]], which is a lack of belief either way.

Variations of theism include [[polytheism]] (many gods, contrasted to [[monotheism]], one god), [[pantheism]] (all is God), [[panentheism]] (all is in God), and depending who you ask, [[deism]] (God made the Universe but then ceased to interact with it), [[polydeism]] (many Gods made the Universe but then abandoned it), [[pandeism]] (God made the Universe by becoming it), and [[panendeism]] (God made the Universe by partially becoming it). Some do not consider the deistic variations to relate to theism at all because they refer to an absent God (although the God of pandeism and panendeism is immanent, but non-interfering).

Variations of polytheism include [[monolatry]] (belief in many Gods, but worship of only one), [[henotheism]] (belief in many Gods of which one is supreme), and [[kathenotheism]] (belief in many Gods, but worship of only one at a time, because one is supreme at a time).

4 The tenuousness of the theistic position

Mother Teresa, in her later years began to doubt the existence of God.<ref>http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1655415,00.html</ref> Many Holocaust survivors became atheists after the extreme the lived through because they realized their experience is incompatible with a kind and loving God.

5 Claims of the Conditionality and Nonconditionality of Theism

Natural disasters and other horrific events tend to make people more religious and thank God for sparing them. Obvious the dead mother of three was a vile heretic who deserved to die.

6Theism and Fascism

Despite protestations to the contrary theism has been intricately linked with the fascist movement, providing intellectual underpinning for its rejection of reason, antisemitism and strict obedience and moral underpinnings, supporting dictators as stalwart defenders of the faith against communism.<ref>http://emperors-clothes.com/vatican/cpix.htm</ref> In addition the churches were the base at which theists launched their assault against civil rights, women rights and birth control. Fortunately the action of communists and secularists from the American Communist Party and the ACLU respectively helped push forward the case from civil rights in the United States.<ref>http://www.pbs.org/wnet/jimcrow/stories_org_communist.html</ref>

7 Criticism of Theism

7.3 Theism and Mass Murder

The ground is stained with the blood of the millions killed in the name of theism. Notorious examples include the crusades, the inquisitions, witch hunts, the Holocaust<ref>http://www.ffrf.org/fttoday/back/hitler.html</ref>, suppression of birth control and anesthetics, the Partition of India and the ensuing wars<ref>http://www.english.emory.edu/Bahri/Part.html</ref>, The Sri Lankan civil war, The Yugo-Slavian civil war and many others. Although not all wars are caused by theism, many are.

7.5 Immoral Views

In comparison to atheists, theists are more likely to believe that the following are acceptable:

eternal torment, scapegoating, cannibalism, fascism, totalitarianism, theocracies, stoning, blasphemy laws, blue laws, prohibition and random violence against strangers for no reason other then they are different. They also believe that their views are above question no matter how many innocents are hurt, the most notorious example being witch burning and birth control suppression.

8 Reasonable Explanations of Theism

1 Fear of Death
2 Desire to Conform
3 Desire to Abdicate responsibility
4 Hope for reward
5 It feels good
6 Tradition
7 Unaware of Alternatives
8 The voices in your head

19 Other Well Known Proponents of Theism

1 Jesus Christ
2 Gandhi
3 Adolf Hitler <ref>http://www.ffrf.org/fttoday/back/hitler.html</ref>
4 Franco
5 Mussolini
6 St Francis
7 Henry the Sixth
8 Queen Isabella
9 Montezuma
10 Tojo
11 Mother Teresa
12 Vlad the Impaler
13 Pope Urban
14 Moses
15 Milosovich

21 Quotes regarding theism

Religion is regarded by the people as true, the wise as false and the rulers as useful.

I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator.

- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1 Chapter 2

Even today I am not ashamed to say that, overpowered by stormy enthusiasm, I fell down on my knees and thanked Heaven from an overflowing heart for granting me the good fortune of being permitted to live at this time.

- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1 Chapter 5

Theism by defintion contridicts the central premises of conservativism and thus the two are incompatible. The belief in a supernatural creater contridicts the belief people are responsible for their actions, the belief in ethical relativism (God isn't bound by the same rules and neither are religious rituals), the denial of truth, reality and science (it's "metaphorically" true), the implicit statism (he's watching you) and finally its rejection of capitalism and the free market with its ban on ursury. While it is possible to be a good person and a theist, it is not possible to e a theist and a consistant conservative.

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1655415,00.html
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/jimcrow/stories_org_communist.html
http://emperors-clothes.com/vatican/cpix.htm
http://www.ffrf.org/fttoday/back/hitler.html
http://www.english.emory.edu/Bahri/Part.html

[[Category:Religion]]

Theism

2007-11-27T00:18:56Z

SDSkinner:

Theism

2007-11-27T00:17:27Z

SDSkinner:

Theism

2007-11-26T22:12:17Z

SDSkinner:

Debate:Does the Theory of Evolution promote atheism?

2007-11-26T19:47:50Z

SDSkinner: /* NO */

{{debate}}

==YES==

The theory of "evolution through natural selection" is ''predicated'' upon an atheistic assumption. It is based on so-called [[methodological naturalism]], i.e., a refusal to consider supernatural causes. Right from the start it consciously and deliberately rules out God's creative and guiding power.

Legislation and especially court rulings in the United States enforce this atheistic doctrine. In public schools, during science class, teachers are authorized to ''squelch'' any challenge to this atheistic premise. Note that I do not mean that science classes simply say, let's ignore God. I mean that ''by choosing to ignore God'' they are supporting atheism and attacking religion.

The doctrine of [[unguided evolution]] is essential to atheism. No atheist can survive intellectually, without having a satisfactory answer to the question, "Where did human beings come from? How did life begin? Why is planet Earth so hospitable to life?" --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 06:48, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

:: I'll have to call you on that, Ed - it's true that unguided evolution would be essential to an atheist worldview, but evolution doesn't necessarily deny the existence of God. It merely explains a world without God's active involvement at a biological level. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 21:22, 11 November 2007 (EST)

:The Bible says that God created life in 6 days and rested on the 7th. Any belief other than this is anti-Christian, and therefore atheistic. [[User:BornAgain|BornAgain]] 17:37, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

::Ed, you are correct in saying that noone can survive intellectually without an answer to those questions. The thing is that us atheists do have satisfactory answers to those questions. And the planet Earth is so hospitable to life because ''life evolved to suit the Earth''. Regardless of what Earth actually turned out to be, life would have evolved to suit it.

::BornAgain, without meaning to be rude that is one of the most ridiculous statements I have ever heard. What about Hindus? They are definately not atheists however they have a different creation story to you. It involves gods, so how is that an atheistic belief? [[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 9:52, 27 June 2007

*'''Yes'''. Amen to that, bro. Atheism and [[homicide]]. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 22:49, 11 November 2007 (EST)

==NO==
Ed Poor's argument is based on the assumption that humans can fathom the manner in which God created life. This is a faulty premise. The majority of scientists support the theory of evolution and the vast majority of scientists believe in God. They are able to have both of these beliefs because they realize that we cannot possibly understand the works of God. On the other hand, we can seek understanding of the world we live in by creating theories based on our observations. The theory of evolution says nothing about the existence of God. It is simply a theory, based on certain observations, that creates certain predictions.

If evolution is undermining religion, it is doing so only because creationists posit that they know how God created life, and evolution is not how He created it. When evolution is supported, creationists feel like their beliefs are being undermined. Belief in evolution is an exercise in humility and perseverance - accepting the fact that we cannot understand God's works combined with an unceasing effort to understand what we can in our world.--[[User:Laches|Laches]] 14:42, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

:I feel I have to disillusion you over religious scientists. Out of the two academically highest fellowships of scientists in the USA and Great Britain only 7% are religious. Unfortunately as well, there is no way to really believe in god and science at the same time. Science proves that the bible is wrong on many counts, and to believe in science you must accept that the bible is wrong on so many things. How then can you accept that god exists considering that the only evidence for his existences is proven to be a mess of falsehoods and folklore? Simply, you cannot. The reason is because religion was created by humans as a way of explaining how they came to be and where they are going. Now science is better at explaining these things yet people insist that religion is true or that religion is more important then science. Until these people are disillusioned of religion then scientific progress will be hindered and humanity will stagnate. [[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 09:35, 8 June 2007

Bolly, you actually need to crack your Bible open, assuming have ever read it, and read what it says. For example, In Job, God mentions (or I think it was God) streams in the seas. Science did not even know that such things existed until recently. Evolution may be a way of explaining where you are going in this lifetime, but it is not a promising or comforting thought. Most of evolution is based on opinions, ideas, thoughts, etc. Look through any textbook. "We believe...", "perhaps", "scientists assume/think," etc. It is all hype. Watch any serious creation video, and they raise very interesting questions. For example (I am going to have to write something, this is getting exciting!)

1. The Big Bang can not have formed the universe, because mathematically it is impossible. If you add up the estimated masses of all planetary bodies, and compare it with earth's mass and gravity, the speed neccesary for particals to leave that small of a region would approach light-speed. Black holes are a example of this. How often do we see exploding black holes?

2. The chances that information can come from non-information to form life is astronomical. We all know and love the illustration about the airplane being assembled in a junkyard with the components therein. While I forget the exact the exact figure, one major scientist theorized that the chances that one E. Clori bacteria would form from soup was one chance in 10 with many BILLION zeros following it. That means that said bacteria would have to have several succesful mutations per year in order to evolve into a human.

I could keep on going here, but I will let others join in

In Christ
[[User:TheComputerWizard|TheComputerWizard]] 20:09, 7 June 2007 (EDT)

:In reply I have to say ComputerWizard, you need to study the theory of the Big Bang, assuming you have ever read that. The Big Bang theory does not say that the entire mass of the universe started at one point in space and has spread out ever since. It says that ''space itself'' has expanded from that point. The particles in it did not move however they did move away from each other due to the expansion of space. One reasonably good metaphor is a balloon with dots on it. When the balloon is blown up the dots move away from each other, although they do not have any of their own velocity.

:Yes the airplane in the junkyard. That is in fact an argument ''against'' your position, not for it. How do you explain how God came to be? Surely the chance of nothing forming into one obviously complex creature impossible? On the other hand, it is possible for the primordial soup to form into proteins and highly simple forms of proto-life. Of course soup cannot form into E. Clori bacteria, because that bacteria is quite complex in comparison to what it has evolved from.

:Watching a very serious creationist video does raise some very interesting questions. "How much research have these people actually done on this subject?" "Where is their proof?" "Do they honestly believe such absolute garbage?" I feel exaclty this way after any kind of creationist video/book/talk. Yes the words "scientists thinkg/assume..." appear in textbooks. Yet why do they believe it? Because the evidence is strongly in favour of their position. They don't accept the Bible or the Koran as a source of evidence. In fact if someone did quote the Koran as a source of evidence then the christian community would be in uproar! But when it's the Bible, it is all "Yes it is very accurate and believable" when really it is just as bad as the Koran.

:Admittedly the theory of evolution is not as comforting or promising as the religious ideology however that doesn't make it any less true than it is. There are far more unpleasant truths that may be confronted in life and they are no less true just because they are distasteful. Personally I find it quite refreshing and stimulating to think that we are the result of a complex series of reactions, mutations, nuclear collisions and so on, as it means that we are indeed very special and unique and that we are perfect for what we evolved to do, not what a creator designed us to do. Although I highly doubt that I will change your mind, I do hope that you consider these points fairly and maybe I will. [[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 21:04, 14 June 2007

::I've been watching show after show preaching that the Evolutionary Theory is based on scientific fact without proceeding to show any. I ask myself if anyone honestly believes such absolute garbage? Why? Because their Humanist religion requires it. Judeo-Christians have archaeological, geological, as well as scientific studies and research that back up the historic record of the Christian Old and New Testaments. As well as prophetic events that have come to pass or are happening now. Yet people will still reject facts as they are presented to them and attribute these things in conformance to their own world view. So what? The Neo-Cains will continue to do whatever pleases themselves. It is their place in history to continually repeat it again, and again.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 12:00, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

Roo, your whole paragraph could be taken as completely for evolution if you switched some words around. Replace evolutionary theory with creationism, humanist with christian, Judeo-Christians with scientists, 'back up' with disprove and then it makes perfect sense and is an accurate reference to todays situation. There is plenty of scientific facts that support evolution. Try reading "The Origin of Species" by Charles Darwin. It isn't perfect but it is very convincing. Try all the books and scientific papers that have ever been published in support of the theory. How can such a theory be accepted by the vast majority of biologists if it was false or was not supported by evidence?

There are many many problems with the Old and New Testaments historical records. There are events described in there that either did not happen or happened at a different time altogether. The Sumerian civilisation invented the first writing and recording and that started at over 7000 years ago. How do you account for that in your young earth theory? As for the 'prophetic events', where are they? Please give me examples because I am yet to see any. People will reject facts because they don't conform to their world view, it happens all the time in the USA in creationist churches and homes and it saddens those of us who search for truth in these times. Please look at your facts before presenting the same tired old trojan horses. [[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 10:56, 20 June 2007

::Ditto for you. Thanks for making my point. This is why there is the argument to teach both points of view. Also, your problems understanding the historical records of the Old and New Testament isn't a valid one since it is politically biased along ideological lines. This also saddens those of us that seek the truth through His Word.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 11:55, 22 October 2007 (EDT)

1Living things vary
2Ofspring resemble their parents
3Not all ofspring survive
4Some variations increase the chance or amount of ofspring

Therefore living things will change in such a way as to have more ofspring.
If noone has explained this to you then you need better teachers. It is also known as evolution. -Sam
P.S. fix my description if it is wrong. I'm doing what I remember from bio class.

==Neither==
I don't think that the Theory of Evolution cares.[[User:Cthx]]
:Hahaha, good call. :D [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 21:27, 11 November 2007 (EST)

==Backwards==
Since atheism or non-theism existed long before the theory of evolution then it would have to be that atheism promotes the theory of evolution.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 11:39, 22 October 2007 (EDT)

No, it is scientists (see is gravity liberal or conservative). It leads to atheism because it provides a non-theistic explanation for design.

Debate:Does the Theory of Evolution promote atheism?

2007-11-26T19:42:02Z

SDSkinner: /* Backwards */

{{debate}}

==YES==

The theory of "evolution through natural selection" is ''predicated'' upon an atheistic assumption. It is based on so-called [[methodological naturalism]], i.e., a refusal to consider supernatural causes. Right from the start it consciously and deliberately rules out God's creative and guiding power.

Legislation and especially court rulings in the United States enforce this atheistic doctrine. In public schools, during science class, teachers are authorized to ''squelch'' any challenge to this atheistic premise. Note that I do not mean that science classes simply say, let's ignore God. I mean that ''by choosing to ignore God'' they are supporting atheism and attacking religion.

The doctrine of [[unguided evolution]] is essential to atheism. No atheist can survive intellectually, without having a satisfactory answer to the question, "Where did human beings come from? How did life begin? Why is planet Earth so hospitable to life?" --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 06:48, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

:: I'll have to call you on that, Ed - it's true that unguided evolution would be essential to an atheist worldview, but evolution doesn't necessarily deny the existence of God. It merely explains a world without God's active involvement at a biological level. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 21:22, 11 November 2007 (EST)

:The Bible says that God created life in 6 days and rested on the 7th. Any belief other than this is anti-Christian, and therefore atheistic. [[User:BornAgain|BornAgain]] 17:37, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

::Ed, you are correct in saying that noone can survive intellectually without an answer to those questions. The thing is that us atheists do have satisfactory answers to those questions. And the planet Earth is so hospitable to life because ''life evolved to suit the Earth''. Regardless of what Earth actually turned out to be, life would have evolved to suit it.

::BornAgain, without meaning to be rude that is one of the most ridiculous statements I have ever heard. What about Hindus? They are definately not atheists however they have a different creation story to you. It involves gods, so how is that an atheistic belief? [[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 9:52, 27 June 2007

*'''Yes'''. Amen to that, bro. Atheism and [[homicide]]. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 22:49, 11 November 2007 (EST)

==NO==
Ed Poor's argument is based on the assumption that humans can fathom the manner in which God created life. This is a faulty premise. The majority of scientists support the theory of evolution and the vast majority of scientists believe in God. They are able to have both of these beliefs because they realize that we cannot possibly understand the works of God. On the other hand, we can seek understanding of the world we live in by creating theories based on our observations. The theory of evolution says nothing about the existence of God. It is simply a theory, based on certain observations, that creates certain predictions.

If evolution is undermining religion, it is doing so only because creationists posit that they know how God created life, and evolution is not how He created it. When evolution is supported, creationists feel like their beliefs are being undermined. Belief in evolution is an exercise in humility and perseverance - accepting the fact that we cannot understand God's works combined with an unceasing effort to understand what we can in our world.--[[User:Laches|Laches]] 14:42, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

:I feel I have to disillusion you over religious scientists. Out of the two academically highest fellowships of scientists in the USA and Great Britain only 7% are religious. Unfortunately as well, there is no way to really believe in god and science at the same time. Science proves that the bible is wrong on many counts, and to believe in science you must accept that the bible is wrong on so many things. How then can you accept that god exists considering that the only evidence for his existences is proven to be a mess of falsehoods and folklore? Simply, you cannot. The reason is because religion was created by humans as a way of explaining how they came to be and where they are going. Now science is better at explaining these things yet people insist that religion is true or that religion is more important then science. Until these people are disillusioned of religion then scientific progress will be hindered and humanity will stagnate. [[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 09:35, 8 June 2007

Bolly, you actually need to crack your Bible open, assuming have ever read it, and read what it says. For example, In Job, God mentions (or I think it was God) streams in the seas. Science did not even know that such things existed until recently. Evolution may be a way of explaining where you are going in this lifetime, but it is not a promising or comforting thought. Most of evolution is based on opinions, ideas, thoughts, etc. Look through any textbook. "We believe...", "perhaps", "scientists assume/think," etc. It is all hype. Watch any serious creation video, and they raise very interesting questions. For example (I am going to have to write something, this is getting exciting!)

1. The Big Bang can not have formed the universe, because mathematically it is impossible. If you add up the estimated masses of all planetary bodies, and compare it with earth's mass and gravity, the speed neccesary for particals to leave that small of a region would approach light-speed. Black holes are a example of this. How often do we see exploding black holes?

2. The chances that information can come from non-information to form life is astronomical. We all know and love the illustration about the airplane being assembled in a junkyard with the components therein. While I forget the exact the exact figure, one major scientist theorized that the chances that one E. Clori bacteria would form from soup was one chance in 10 with many BILLION zeros following it. That means that said bacteria would have to have several succesful mutations per year in order to evolve into a human.

I could keep on going here, but I will let others join in

In Christ
[[User:TheComputerWizard|TheComputerWizard]] 20:09, 7 June 2007 (EDT)

:In reply I have to say ComputerWizard, you need to study the theory of the Big Bang, assuming you have ever read that. The Big Bang theory does not say that the entire mass of the universe started at one point in space and has spread out ever since. It says that ''space itself'' has expanded from that point. The particles in it did not move however they did move away from each other due to the expansion of space. One reasonably good metaphor is a balloon with dots on it. When the balloon is blown up the dots move away from each other, although they do not have any of their own velocity.

:Yes the airplane in the junkyard. That is in fact an argument ''against'' your position, not for it. How do you explain how God came to be? Surely the chance of nothing forming into one obviously complex creature impossible? On the other hand, it is possible for the primordial soup to form into proteins and highly simple forms of proto-life. Of course soup cannot form into E. Clori bacteria, because that bacteria is quite complex in comparison to what it has evolved from.

:Watching a very serious creationist video does raise some very interesting questions. "How much research have these people actually done on this subject?" "Where is their proof?" "Do they honestly believe such absolute garbage?" I feel exaclty this way after any kind of creationist video/book/talk. Yes the words "scientists thinkg/assume..." appear in textbooks. Yet why do they believe it? Because the evidence is strongly in favour of their position. They don't accept the Bible or the Koran as a source of evidence. In fact if someone did quote the Koran as a source of evidence then the christian community would be in uproar! But when it's the Bible, it is all "Yes it is very accurate and believable" when really it is just as bad as the Koran.

:Admittedly the theory of evolution is not as comforting or promising as the religious ideology however that doesn't make it any less true than it is. There are far more unpleasant truths that may be confronted in life and they are no less true just because they are distasteful. Personally I find it quite refreshing and stimulating to think that we are the result of a complex series of reactions, mutations, nuclear collisions and so on, as it means that we are indeed very special and unique and that we are perfect for what we evolved to do, not what a creator designed us to do. Although I highly doubt that I will change your mind, I do hope that you consider these points fairly and maybe I will. [[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 21:04, 14 June 2007

::I've been watching show after show preaching that the Evolutionary Theory is based on scientific fact without proceeding to show any. I ask myself if anyone honestly believes such absolute garbage? Why? Because their Humanist religion requires it. Judeo-Christians have archaeological, geological, as well as scientific studies and research that back up the historic record of the Christian Old and New Testaments. As well as prophetic events that have come to pass or are happening now. Yet people will still reject facts as they are presented to them and attribute these things in conformance to their own world view. So what? The Neo-Cains will continue to do whatever pleases themselves. It is their place in history to continually repeat it again, and again.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 12:00, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

Roo, your whole paragraph could be taken as completely for evolution if you switched some words around. Replace evolutionary theory with creationism, humanist with christian, Judeo-Christians with scientists, 'back up' with disprove and then it makes perfect sense and is an accurate reference to todays situation. There is plenty of scientific facts that support evolution. Try reading "The Origin of Species" by Charles Darwin. It isn't perfect but it is very convincing. Try all the books and scientific papers that have ever been published in support of the theory. How can such a theory be accepted by the vast majority of biologists if it was false or was not supported by evidence?

There are many many problems with the Old and New Testaments historical records. There are events described in there that either did not happen or happened at a different time altogether. The Sumerian civilisation invented the first writing and recording and that started at over 7000 years ago. How do you account for that in your young earth theory? As for the 'prophetic events', where are they? Please give me examples because I am yet to see any. People will reject facts because they don't conform to their world view, it happens all the time in the USA in creationist churches and homes and it saddens those of us who search for truth in these times. Please look at your facts before presenting the same tired old trojan horses. [[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 10:56, 20 June 2007

::Ditto for you. Thanks for making my point. This is why there is the argument to teach both points of view. Also, your problems understanding the historical records of the Old and New Testament isn't a valid one since it is politically biased along ideological lines. This also saddens those of us that seek the truth through His Word.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 11:55, 22 October 2007 (EDT)

==Neither==
I don't think that the Theory of Evolution cares.[[User:Cthx]]
:Hahaha, good call. :D [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 21:27, 11 November 2007 (EST)

==Backwards==
Since atheism or non-theism existed long before the theory of evolution then it would have to be that atheism promotes the theory of evolution.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 11:39, 22 October 2007 (EDT)

No, it is scientists (see is gravity liberal or conservative). It leads to atheism because it provides a non-theistic explanation for design.

Debate:Should the United States have eliminated communism in North Korea

2007-11-26T19:34:12Z

SDSkinner: /* Communism hasn't ever existed */

{{debate-politics}}

=='''Post Your Thoughts'''==

==='''yes...'''===

hell yeah, "a patriotic conservative!" That is the most awesome response i have ever seen! Anyway, i think we should either nuke them(there isnt such a thing as innocent communists or muslims)or assassinate Mohammed "Iwannajihad" and Kim Jong Ill. Then we should take over and end the communism and islamofascism, spreading democracy and christianity. then, after we have a strong foothold in the east, we will nuke the chinese commies, and also take over their factories so we can keep producing their crap. After we take over the east, including japan and russia, we will move on to europe and the middle east, taking over the girly europeans (they won't do anything about it.) after that, we go on to africa, then south america, canada, and mexico. mexico can't do anything there's no one there anymore! They are all working at taco bell,and doing jobs "americans just won't do"

-New World Order

Why did you delete the original response?

Duh'yeah ... [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 14:21, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

==='''no...'''===

The question seems somewhat misposed. A more important question would be, "Could the United States have eliminated Communism from North Korea." The answer to that question seems to be no. After all the North Korean military was quite large, and more importantly China intervened with an army of well over one million soldiers. Although those troops weren't terribly well equipped and hence couldn't defeat the forces protecting South Korea they did effectivelly defend North Korea along what is today the DMZ (De-Militarized Zone). If victory had been plausible then maybe occupying the North would have been worthwhile, but the costs then were too high. Today they would be worse, since North Korea has atom bombs and Seoul is within artillery range of the DMZ. All in all a terrible situation.

:'''Comment:''' Pyongyang ''might'' have one or two bombs, but the underground detonation was most likely their only one. Besides, they don't possess a delivery system for the nukes, and we do XD. --[[User:Hojimachong|Hojimachong]] 00:35, 10 March 2007 (EST)

::They don't possess a delivery system '''yet'''. Don't discount them in the brains department. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 01:16, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:::They build giant statues. Why not giant slingshots? J.Y.L.

The question is more along the lines of COULD we have eliminated the communism in north korea. They had a sizable military force and would've been a challenge to successfully convert to the government we all know and love, our democracy. but how would the people of NK reacted? would the people following the leader and the leader's friends fought back after we had installed a president and cabinet? hmm... well what is happening in iraq? we have installed a democracy and a cabinet, but it is still not a mini-united states like we would like it to be. There are people there loyal to the way it was, and there would've been people loyal to the way it was in korea too.
We did the correct thing pulling out when we did, although they have nuclear weapons and would love to destroy.

but why havn't they? sanctions? the positive and non-militaritical approach that seemed to have worked against them.

Everyone seems to have a missed a major issue here: McArthur didn't want to just nuke North Korea, but also China.

==='''Uh...'''===

You are forgetting that in this day and age, any nation that were to use a Nuclear weapon, for ANY reason(Regardless of circumstance), would become a global pariah, with no allies at all throughout the world. Infact, one must remember that we are not the only ones with nukes thesedays, and that if we anger the wrong people, nothing will turn good.

:It's also worth noting that America is the only country to have employed nuclear weapons in war. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 01:17, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Many analysts actually estimate the DPRK to have possession of at least 12 kilograms of plutonium [http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/dprk/nuke/index.html]which could be fashioned into six or more bombs. Also, missiles and long range aircraft aren't the only delivery mechanisms, a container ship holding a smuggled nuke would be perfectly dangerous. Finally, American military personnel in Japan and South Korea are horribly vulnerable. --[[User:WOVcenter|WOVcenter]] 14:06, 10 March 2007 (EST)

This assumes that Communism is a viable political construct. Conservatives have held for years that Communism, with its lack of competitive pressures/opportunities is inherently flawed and doomed to fail. If that's true, then why would we have to combat it at all?

Also, for anyone that claims to follow Christ, why would we kill millions of people to establish a different political system on earth when the kingdom of heaven awaits? Jesus could have thrown the Romans out of Jerusalem with a thought. However, he didn't because the earth is not the prize. Right? - Citizzzen 03.14.07

Very good insight Citizzzen. The Earth and everything in it is finite. But Communism also hurts the people it governs and does not allow its people to take part in any religion, effectively condemning their souls to Hell. Doesn't God want us to protect and defend the oppressed? I don't see why not. And I don't think the Bible says that God is against war. I am sure war is not a part of His original plan - that original plan would be a perfect world where there is no need for war - but God protected the Israelites through multiple wars. Why would He do such a thing if He were against war? I think there is such a thing as a just war. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 22:40, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Wait... Are we saying that a person's immortal soul could be condemned to hell because an earthly government didn't allow them to pray? An all loving, all knowing God wouldn't understand that? That seems hard to accept... I agree that some wars are justified, but only from a human standpoint... It seems to me that the Jews were no closer to salvation in Jerusalem then they were in Egypt. Assuming of course that eternal salvation is linked to loving worshipping and accepting God, and not rituals and sacrifices... Citizzzen 03.15.07

==Communism hasn't ever existed==

It's pretty hard to eliminate something which hasn't yet been implemented. [[User:Thjazi|Thjazi]] 19:12, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Real communism has never really existed in North Korea, it existed in Russia for a few years until Stalin though.

:Your argument is misleading, as you are changing the meaning of the term ''communism''. If by "real communism" you mean "the stateless stage of society after [[socialism]] enforced by [[dictatorishp]] has naturally withered away" then you are right (although still misleading).

:If you use the word the way the framer of the question meant it, then you are simply in error. [[Communism]] (i.e., state-enforced [[socialism]] of the Marxist variety) has most certainly existed in North Korea. It was brutal, atheistic, and managed to starve and impoverish the populace almost as severely as [[Pol Pot]] did in [[Cambodia]].

:I suggest you re-read history. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:09, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

Why re-read it, let's just rewrite it! J.Y.L.

In a stroke of historical irony this post may become obselete. The North Koreans have instituted Free Economic Zones in an experiment with capitalism. Soon they will take the path of China and we will have them by the balls. Yes! -Sam

Debate:Is religion morally wrong?

2007-11-26T19:12:32Z

SDSkinner: /* The Imaginary Catalyst */

{{debate}}
==Yes==
anything that teaches young children to ignore natural curiousity and to blindly believe what someone older then them tells them without question, and then teaches them that anyone who does not believe what they do is wrong and needs to have their immortal soul 'saved' is morally wrong. as well as that, waging wars against "non-believers" or "infidels" and killing thousands of millions of people, puts religion in the morally wrong category. as in interesting aside, the link to this debate is actually titled "is athiesm morally wrong?" which may need to be fixed. --[[Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 21:30 (EDT)
: Done. Wikinterpreter'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter talk?]

::''Wha' ...?'' Anyone who thinks that religion teaches one "to ignore natural curiousity and to blindly believe what someone older then them tells them without question" just plain doesn't understand any religion to which I have ever been exposed. However, I'm pretty sure I can guess why your so confused.

::There is a belief, which is generally held by most religions and most people over the age of 30, that human nature is constant. Moral codes, philosophy and religion are built upon assumptions about the constants of human nature. In this way, moral codes are similar to alegbra. Algebra is built upon a foundation of unchanging constants. Math is unchanging. Human nature is unchanging. Therefore, each generation doesn't need to reinvent algebra. Similarly, each generation needn't rediscover the reason that people devised certain moral codes which were based upon countless generations of knowledge about human nature and where then incorporated into religion and philosophy.

::This does not mean that the field of mathemics should cease to expand. This does not mean that curiosity is bad. This means that we already know that 1+1=2. We already know what happens to civilizations and societies where wild sexual activities are encouraged. This does not mean that we stop digging up fossils. This does mean that we don't kill unborn children to expiriment on them. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 12:00, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:::(wow, first ever post on a debate page!) Everwill, I would argue that human nature '''is''' changing and most certainly can't be likened to algebra. Algebra is indeed definite. It always follows the same rules reagrdless of the complexity of the problem. Surely, you can't say that human nature is like that? The scale of variation is unimaginable!

:::Also, in many fundamentalist religious groups, children are brought up in ignorance of everything apart from what is taught to them by their parents, or teacher. Or, they are taught in a slanted view, which distorts the truth. All this because those parents or teachers seem afraid that their young charges may find something in another viewpoint they like more than what they are being taught! That '''is''' morally wrong. The choice should be the child's not the elders'. [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 12:16, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

::There's a reason that William Shakespeare's dramas, King David's tribulations & and the Andy Griffith show (how's that for a unexpected twist?) are timeless stories that affect us in the same way as when they affected those to whom these stories were first told. They affect us all the same way because human nature does not change. The truth is we all love, hate, breath, live and die. The human condition is infinitely variable, but human nature is constant. Of course, there are countless examples of this simple and plainly evident truth. I'm quite sure I'm not the first one to tell you that human nature is the same. In fact, this truth is the foundation of our concepts of equality and our freedoms of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

::I don't want to spend a lot of time defending something that is an elemental and accepted truth spanning time, civilizations and belief systems. This is because I'm not sure whether you're denying the fact that human nature is universal because you are ignorant (unlikely) or because you are intellectually dishonesty (my guess). In either case, it would consume far too much time to explain to you the definition of human nature to your liking. But I what I can posit in reply is an answer to your simple question: there are absolutes in morality, just as there are absolutes in algebra. For example, murder is always wrong. There is no compromise in this principle.

::''As a quick aside I must note that I always find it humorous when people (usually liberals) stereotype the upbringing found in fundamentalist religious groups.''

::To your point, it is true that "in many fundamentalist religious groups, children are brought up in ignorance of everything apart from what is taught to them by their parents, or teacher." But guess what, you've just proven my point. This is because, EVERY SINGLE human that ever reached adulthood was "brought up in ignorance of everything apart from what is taught to them by their parents, or teacher." '''DUH!'''

::It is possible that your theory is true. Perhaps, teachers and parents want to shield children from outside influences because "their young charges may find something in another viewpoint they like more than what they are being taught!" But who do you think is most likely to have the child's best interests at heart? I would presume that a child's parents and that child's teachers want what is best for the child. I think you are implying that the pornographers, salesmen, MTV, rappers, strangers and passerby's---all of whom the child might find more interesting (and more permissive) than the parents and teachers---are better for the child? You think it's better that the child find out (the hard way) the lessons which the parents and grandparents into the mists of history, have already found out? Preposterous. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 13:58, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:::I'm not argueing that modern celebrities are the way forwards by any means. The messages put forward by that group does not teach very good lessons for kids (or adults!). I'm merely pointing out that the near brainwashing of the young by their parents and teachers with regards religious teaching is also wrong and can teach a child "bad" things. An example would be homosexuality. Kids in religious families who think they might be gay receive no support from parents who believe that homosexuality is bad, simply because it is the parents belief. Surely a parents love for their child should come before their religion?

:::I am not being intellectually dishonest, just ignorant (ha like thats any better!). What I thought you meant by human nature isn't what is used in the definitions I found on the internet. I took human nature to be the general world viewpoint held by each individual person; where there is substantial difference!

:::I think argueing that children should accept what their parents tell them because they have learnt it from their experience is flawed. Every person has a different PoV so will experience things differently. If a child recieves all their advice from a parent who sees the world entirely differently to them, what will that child think of themselves? Is that fair on the child? A parent should be there for guidance, yes, but not for absolute teaching. To relate this to religion: religion is a predetermined set of "rules" that followers must stick to. Choosing a religion (and its rules) is a personal choice. Parents will naturally try to enforce their beliefs and rules on their children, thereby removing their choice to religion and actions, which is removing their freedom to be themselves. Surely that is a terrible wrong to do to that child? I am not argueing that children should be given no rules, nothing of the sort. I am merely saying that the rules given to a child by their parents should not be based on the religion of the parent(s) as that is a moral wrong to that child. [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 16:34, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

::I see. By your logic the child should have rules and the rules should come from the parent (sort of) but the parent shouldn't base the rule structure or belief set upon something found in religion. Instead, you believe that religion must be by a higher and more correct authority. And just who is that authority? ''Will & Grace''? Madonna & Britney? Who is this higher and more perfect authority? [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 17:47, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:::You seem to enjoy mentioning celebrities...perhaps they have affected you more than you think. Their ability to corrupt is unbounded! I don't know what you mean by "religion must be by a higher and more correct authority". I am merely argueing for separation of of religious doctrine from a child's upbringing. Yes, make a child aware of their parents belief, why they believe it, etc., but don't "force it down their necks" or make them feel bad for "not believing". That is what I find to be morally wrong about religion: the automatic assumption of parents that their children should follow in their beliefs. [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 14:47, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

a childs parents should bring up their children to be open to new ideas and to trust their senses and logic in ideological matters. religion of any kind does not allow this to be taught to children. as well as this, many parents have their childrens best interests in mind, they just do not know what their childrens best interests are. [[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 09:42, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

::This is a false characterization of religion, perhaps based in ignorance. Every major religion teaches personal accountability and free will. Therefore, religion encourages children (and everyone else) to "trust their senses and logic in ideological matters." Religion is a framework to assist in decision making. Religion does not take personal responsiblity or logic from anyone. (Perhaps you should read a bit of C.S. Lewis or Thomas Aquinas to better acquaint yourself with the value of logic to the Christian mind.)

::You state (no caps and no punctuation are all yours): "many parents have their childrens best interests in mind, they just do not know what their childrens best interests are." Who knows better what the child's best interests are? The media? The government? The child? Who?

::I'm glad we're having this discussion, mostly because it's apparent that you are the victim of the propaganda of another religion. You're repeating the mantra of the liberal religion, which teaches that all religions are equal and there are no moral boundaries. Your religion might be the "one true" religion, but I doubt it.[[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 09:17, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

The childs best interests are known only by the child itself. I do not mean to say that no parents ever get it right, or wrong, however what is in the childs best interests is not to foist a belief system on him/her without letting him/her have any choice or free will in the matter. The majority of religions (liberal or fundamentalist) do not encourage children to take advantage of their natural curiosity and explore all the possibilities of logic and science, as they see science as a threat to their belief system. Just as an example, the enactment of hell that occurs in an American state led by Pastor Ted Roberts which attempts to scare children into beliveing in God by scaring them with the sheer horror of the act. This would be dismissed as simply a fringe sect, however the supporters of this pastor, in his home state (i apologise for not knowing which state this is) number around 3 million. This is only one example of the methods used by religious leaders to force children into mindlessly believing what they are told. Another example is the muslim state of Saudi Arabia, where simply being of another faith or of no faith at all, is punishable by beheading. Note the similar use of fear tactics in both cases here. [[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 20:54, 19 April 2007

::What you're trying to say makes sounds ridiculous to me, but perhaps this is because we have not agreed to what the meaning of the word "child" is. Please allow me to insert a few definitions so that I don't miss your point and vice-versa.

:::* ward --- someone incapable of making personal decisions for some reason or another. There are several types of ward:
::::* child --- This individual cannot make personal decisions because they have not reached maturity (generally 17 and under). Children might step into traffic. Children might drink poison. Children can be cultivated into giving sexual favors to pedofiles. For all these reasons and many more, "parents" (''defined below'') make decisions for parents.
::::** mental defective --- This individual has poor reasoning skills or does not understand reality. For this reason "parents" or care-takers must make decisions for the mental defective
::::** sick or enfermed --- This individual might be in a coma. This individual might be extremely sick or otherwise unable to communicate. Thus, caretakers or "parents" must make decisions for this individual.

:::* parent --- one (ideally of two) individuals responsible for the care and nuturing of a ward or child

:::* adult --- An individual who is mentally competant and mature and thus has the free will to make any decisions they want so long as they don't violate the laws of the community where they reside.

::Children, and in fact, all other wards, need people to care for them and to make decisions for them. I'm quite sure there are a good many teenagers who would agree with your ridiculous notion that children make should make their own decisions, but most adults and most parents today (and throughout history) have come to agree that it is both unwise and unsafe to grant complete and total freewill to children (perhaps most especially teenagers). This is because children don't alwasy make good decisions. Children are easily swayed and they don't have the normal defenses of doubt and fear of strangers to protect them.

::This is a plain, simple and accepted truth. I'm not sure what possible connection that has to anything Ted Roberts ever said or did. Whether Ted Roberts or Jeffrey Dahmer or Hitler is a bogeyman or not, that doesn't change the fact that children need parents. I guess what you'll have to accept is that some parents will raise children who don't agree with your beliefs. I'm quite comfortable with the fact that not all parents or people agree with me. I much too busy and quite frankly don't feel the need to tell other people how to raise their children. I doubt you have any idea what any of the parents in former Pastor Robert's church are teaching their children. I thought liberals believed in tolerance and diversity? Why can't you tolerate their differences and celebrate their Christian diversity?

::What would you like to see in Saudi Arabia, a crackdown on parents? Do you want to take the children from their parents and raise them yourself? Have you ever considered the possiblity that the concept (called "fascism") of imposing your values upon others is wrong-heaed and evil? Don't you think Saudi Arabians should be allowed to live the way they want to live? Are you trying to suggest that the US should invade Saudi Arabia and replace the mullahs with ACLU? [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 09:37, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

No i am not attempting to say much of that, i think that you are right in that i have misunderstood the point that you were making. I do apologise for that. What i would like to say in regards to your previous point, is that while i agree that parents should have the role in making decisions for their children (with an increasing amount of input from the child as they grow older) at the same time, they should not force their beliefs onto their children and, where possible, educate them enough so that they have the intelligence and a high enough level or reasoning to be able to make their own decision in matters of faith and belief. While a lot of parents do this, i believe that the majority don't, although i am willing and hoping to be proven wrong. I do belive in tolerance and diversity, but that is what my main problem with religion is. Religion tends to preach the opposite of this, generally against other faiths but also against homosexuals and other groups that seem to break the rules of their faith. I do think that Saudi Arabians should be allowed to live the way they want to live, however i think that maybe a lot do not want to live the way they do, and that another large number would not want to live that way, if they were not devout muslims. I honestly think the US should keep out of the middle east in general, as the problems it has caused there seem to be greater then the amount solved, however that is not the topic on discussion here. [[Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 17:56, 20 April 2007

:This debate title seems to be relatively unfocussed, but the debate itself seems to have settled down into a focussed discussion of whether or not it is morally right for religions to pass on their codifications, conventions and beliefs to their children in a manner which could be construed as 'indoctrination'. [[Richard Dawkins]] makes the point that it would not be acceptable in today's society to label children as 'a Democrat Child' or 'a Republican child', nor to set up schools which say that we are going to only teach 'Democrat' values in this school, and to only honour Democrats. However, it does appear to be acceptable to have 'catholic' scools, catholic, muslim and hindu children. Why is this? Any Religion and or Political Stance, when it comes down to it are idealogies, and have many parallels in the way they are dogmatic about the way that adherents should behave. They both present strong arguments as to the way that you should treat knowledge, evidence, and all present a very biased world view. This is fine if you are an adult, and you understand the rules, and you know that this is the way the world works, and that you have a choice about whether to question or to belive at all; but if you are an uimpressionable youngester you could be scarred for life: 'Give me a child until he is seven...."

There is a very strong argument to say that we should NOT allow people to present contraversial points of view to children AS IF these were uncontestable facts. This, after all, is the arguments of the creationists against evolution. They maintain children should be exposed to both points of view. However, I cannot imagine that any catholic school would suggest teaching that God may or may not exist, and allowing children to experience both the sacrament and the indoctrination ceremony of freemasons, and asking them to compare & contrast!--[[User:Felix|Felix]] 04:18, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

Thankyou Felix for articulating what i was attempting to say, and i apologise again to Everwill for not wording my arguement very clearly. Having attended an anglican school till i was 13, i never was fully concious that they did not present their teachings as anything other then indisputable fact and that we were expected to believe that without question. The other thing that struck me was that i was never allowed to avoid communion on the basis that i was an atheist, while one of my friends who was jewish was excused. It was almost as if they rathered that we believed in a god, even if it is a slightly different set of beliefs that come attached, than that we had no beliefs at all. [[Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 21:30, 20 April 2007

::Bolly, it sounds like you're trying to impose your own parental issues on others. I understand that you thought you were an atheist and yoru parents wanted to impose their theistic beliefs on you. The fact is, they have every right to impose these theistic beliefs on you. After you come of age, you can think or do anything you like. It would appear that they weren't too oppressive and it would appear they were quite open-minded because they raised an atheist. It would appear that you are the one who is oppressive because you want to raise other children to think like you. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 11:15, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

No, my parents are both atheists as well, the only reason i went to that school was because it was the best school in the area. However adults do not have the right to impose their theistic beliefs on their children, just as they have no right to impose their political ideologies on them. Children are trusting of their parents because in the majority of situations their parents are doing what is best for them. What i believe parents should do is to raise their children to be open minded about belief regardless of their own beliefs. Therefore any parents should educate their children about different faiths (including atheism although it is not really a faith) in a totally balanced and fair manner with no predjudice. This allows children to make up their own mind about their own personal beliefs. [[Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 14:48, 21 April 2007

::Ever wonder why the religious school was the best school in the area? Have you ever once considered the possibility that this school was better because the religious school wasn't attempting to relearn the lessons of the past? This school already had a functioning set of moral codes and they didn't need to wander through the maze of pitfalls in our new ACLU-friendly world of multi-culturalist moral equivelancy? Or perhaps you think the school was better because of dumb luck?

::As defined above, adults do not have the right to impose their beliefs on children. However, ''parents'' have a right (and more importantly a duty) to impose their beliefs on children. Parents should educate their children in the way that feels best to them.

::But what you fail to comprehend is that '''anything''' you teach children is a view point. You're just upset because you want everyone else to teach your view point. Your viewpoint embraces moral equivalism and the belief that all religions are equal. That is a viewpoint. It may or may not be valid, but the fact is, it is a viewpoint. It is just another value-set. It may or may not be more valid than the values of another parent. That's an argument that can be had, but it's not at issue here.

::The issue is that you want other parents to teach their children what you believe. Furthermore, you think it's immoral that they won't teach their children your values. Don't you think that's a little silly? Do you think you're any different from the fundamentalist Christians who are upset because you're not teaching your child about Jesus? [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 05:54, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

==Imposing values on other people's children==

Yes i did think about why my school was the best school in the area. The reason was that it was the richest, as it was a private school and charged massive fees for attendance. And its moral codes are almost indistinguishable from the school i attended after, which was an international college and had no religious affiliation. No adults do not have a right to impose their beliefs on children. Parents also do not have this right. To impose a personal belief on a trusting child is not morally right. Yes they should educate them in the way they see fit however they should not impose upon them theistic beliefs, as these beliefs often stay with the child for life purely because they trusted their parents and not because they thought out exactly how the felt the world worked and how their beliefs fitted with that. No i do not want parents to teach their children what i believe. I believe that all parents should teach their children the logic and the mental reasoning that is needed for a child to make a choice about religion when the time comes for them to make that choice. Up until a certain age, say 13, children cannot believe in anything purely because it makes sense to them and, if allowed by their parents, many children do make up their own religion for a while or switch repeatedly between religions until they reach a point of maturity where they can make a choice based upon what they have learned. Exploiting childrens trust for theistic purposes is never morally right, whether the parent is teaching a religion or atheism. [[Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 20:37, 21 April 2007

::You absolutely don't make any sense. I always think ''ad hominem'' attacks are inappropriate, so I hope I don't sound like I'm attacking you, but based upon the evidence (spelling, grammatical & punctuation errors) I'm beginning to doubt your claim that your private school was the best in the area. Furthermore, I doubt that the religious indoctrination in your school was oppressive based upon the fact that you obviously attended the school, but don't share the school's values. I can't help but tell you that once again you have posted something which does not make logical sense.

::You wrote:
:::"''Exploiting childrens trust for theistic purposes is never morally right, whether the parent is teaching a religion or atheism.''"
::Of course exploiting anyone (most especially children) is never morally right. This is because according to Merriam Webster Online "exploit" means "to make use of meanly or unfairly for one's own advantage <''exploiting migrant farm workers''>". But you haven't laid even a meager basis for this wild accusation. Who are you accusing of exploiting children and for what gain? Are you trying to say that parents are exploiting their own children? What do parents gain from that?

::You write,
:::"''Yes they should educate them in the way they see fit however they should not impose upon them theistic beliefs, as these beliefs often stay with the child for life purely because they trusted their parents and not because they thought out exactly how the felt the world worked and how their beliefs fitted with that. No i do not want parents to teach their children what i believe.''"
::In the first sentence you describe your "beliefs" (which is just a different term for your "religion") and furthermore you demand that parents teach their children your values. In the second sentence you state the exact opposite. Perhaps the silliest thing you imply is that it is somehow dangerous or bad to trust your parents and teachers. If one can't trust ones parents or teachers, then who can one trust?

::I very seriously doubt you have learned much if anything through this process you describe above. I doubt you have tested how the world works to verify the claims of teachers and parents. For example, I'm pretty sure you trusted your Driver's Education teacher when he told you that "green means go". You didn't feel the need to experiment with driving on red first. I doubt you ever verified any claims made in the DMV Manual by using the scientific method and a double-blind study. I'm pretty sure that you trust that when you flip a light switch and turn on the boob-tube that electrons will serve your will and pleasure. But, I doubt you have actually flown a kite in a thunderstorm to verify that electricity exists. By the same token, I doubt you need to violate any of the Ten Commandments to agree that these simple laws are for the benefit of all of humanity. I'm sure you agree that children don't need to experiment with adultery, murder or lying. They're better off just taking their parents' word that these are bad things.

::The reason you agree is because it's just plain silly to waste time verifying every claim of trusted parents and teachers. Therefore, the issue for you is not that "children need to reason things on their own".

::The real issue for you is that you are an atheistic evangelist and you are frustrated because some people aren't open to receiving your message. You are frustrated because some people trust their parents more than they trust you.

::Buck up, trooper. You should satisfy yourself with the many victories of the secular progressive agenda. For example, traditional parents were forced to allow people like you to ban prayer and religious discussion from our schools. This should satisfy you. Now you can safely raise your children without fear that they will overhear a prayer and thus they might accidentally become infected with religion. You have successfully had the 10 Commandments removed from many courtrooms. Be happy because you've already won all you can logically win.

::The only thing left for you is to take away more freedom from others to practice their religion and teach their religion to their children. You're not satisfied with leaving them to do what they want to do. Instead, you want to teach other people's children to force parents (and I quote) to "''teach their children the logic and the mental reasoning that is needed for a child to make a choice about religion when the time comes for them to make that choice.''" Why do you feel the need to force other people not to talk about religion until the child is thirteen?

::My guess is that you believe this because you can't seem to understand that your personal opinion about religion '''is''' just another religion. I'm quite sure that you are trying to be a good person. I'm quite sure that you want to teach other people your religion because you want what's best for the child. But in America we have a concept called "Freedom of Religion". Because of our Freedom of Religion, you are prohibited from ramming your value-set down the throats of other people's children.[[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 08:06, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

I admit you have quite easily picked out some flaws in the way i have argued my point, and you are right in about that paragraph where i contradict myself. I shall attempt to explain myself more clearly. I do not think all children should be taught my beliefs. That is the most important part. My beliefs are of the atheistic kind, as you already know. What i think is that children should not be indoctrinated into any religion or set of beliefs. If the person chooses at a later date to be a christian or muslim or atheist, good on them. But, to come to your point on how we trust what certain people tell us about certain things, like the driving instructor when it comes to driving and so on, children trust their parents. That is because the vast majority of parents do have their childrens best interests in mind all the time. However some do use this trust, often without intending to, to teach their child to believe what they believe about God, or lack thereof (you are right about exploiting, it was the wrong word to use in that situation). My arguement in a nutshell: Children should have freedom of religion. What i mean by that is that they should not be influenced by their parents. Because many people do not have freedom of religion, in America or elsewhere (i should point out that freedom of religion is part of the Australian constitution as well) as they did not realise they had a choice. They have always been brought up to believe that Christianity was right, or that Islam was right, etc. and because it is from their parents whom they trust, they do not question this, and they are often denied the tools with which to apply logic to religious arguements.

Just as an aside to my main point, the ten commandments aren't actually such a great set of morals to live by. The very first commandment violates freedom of religion : thou shalt worship no other god but me. Also, according to the commandments, disrespecting your parents results in being stoned to death. And to compound it, thou shalt not kill, does not apply to people who are not the same religion as you. When taken the way they were intended, they aren't such a good set of morals to live by. [[User:Bolly Ottihw:Bolly Ottihw]] 14:57, 23 April 2007
::I won't waste time defending the Ten Commandments, something I belive to be a foundation of everything good in Western Civilization. The courts have agreed to remove the Ten Commandments from public life and I am not in a position to change the law, so I obey the law.

::But I will repeat the following in the hopes that you might understand this concept. Your opinion about religion, in other words "your personal definition of freedom of religion" is just another religion. It is clear that you want other parents to teach your definition of "freedom of religion" to other children.

::It may offend your sensibilities, but some people don't agree with your opinions about religion. In American, they don't have to agree with you. They can believe whatever they want. Thus, most American parents teach their children that America is a free country, where people can believe whatever they want. Further, they teach their children their own family's values and religion. Some people are Baptists or Muslims or Hindus. Some people (like you) prefer like to teach their children to sample a hodgepodge of all religions so that they will better understand atheism. That is their right. Please don't take it away from them. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 10:11, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

==Age at which sex education should be taught==

Regarding the interesting tangent: to what particularly are you referring? Are you trying to debate the age at which sex education should be imposed upon children?

This is a complicated issue because there are several related factors. Most churches teach that sex outside of marriage is adultery, a sin and a mistake. But it is my personal opinion, that church and religion is a guideline and the morals espoused therein are ideals. Ideally one never lies. Ideally one never commits adultery. But here in the real world, there are a good many liars and adulterers (myself included in both counts). Additionally, most parents think that sex under the age of 18 is a mistake. Most everyone agrees that sex under the age of 16 is a mistake. Does it happen in the real world? Yes it happens. Beyond the basic biological functions of sex, sexuality is about morality. Certainly every child over the age of 13 should be taught something about the biology of sex. But what of the morality of the sex, the politics of sex and the religious or spiritual aspects of sex? These are much more complicated and personal issues and these issues should be handled within the family.

I think it's important to teach young teens "where babies come from." I think it's important to leave discussions about homosexuality, adultery and abortion to the family and church. But my original point is not that I presume to know how or when to push sex education. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 13:30, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

:What i find interesting is that you assume that the church knows more about homosexuality than homosexuals. And regarding this, the church brings 2000 year old arguements to this subject without considering how it applies in todays society. In the past homosexuality would not have been profitable as it would not have benifited the tribe in anyway compared to heterosexual sex. In this age, there is no lack of benefit from not having children and so there is nothing wrong with homosexuality. The other thing i disagree with is that here is a religious aspect to sex. Sex should be a coupling between two people who share a great love between each other. Again, that doesnt always happen, however it is essential that children learn this at the same time they learn about the biological side of sex. [[Bolly ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 11:47, 24 April 2007

::Of course, that's your opinion and your entitled to it. You've got a right to live your life however you want. For me the choice is obvious. On one hand I have 2000 to 10000 years of wisdom. On the other hand, there's some dude on the Internet {{strike personal remark|who doesn't know how to write proper English, but }} who claims to know more than the Church, and Thomas Aquinas. All I ask is that you let others live their lives the way they want. Is that too much to ask? [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 10:58, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Did you just make a personal remark? (I should block your account for 1 second. ;-)

I apologize if I offended anyone. I don't believe in ''ad hominem'' attacks. I think they are rude and pointless. However, if someone admits that they don't write properly in a forum where writing is the only means of communication, then they have openned the door to commentary by others. I'm quite sure you're just kidding anyway, I hope this doesn't sound too stern. I'm just tired right now. I was up late, up early and I'm facing a long day. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 11:22, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

==Atheists have it all figured out ... ==
My point above in ''Selective application of logic'' is that it looks very hypocritical for liberals to want to teach children about sex as young as possible, but the same crowd doesn't want to teach children religion until after they are suspectible to corruption and experimentation.

What amateur philosophers like Bolly don't seem to understand is that theologians, philosophers and generations of people with more time on their hands than all of us have already put a great deal of effort and experimentation into evolving a set of moral codes and sound religious creeds. Bolly is naive enough to expect the unreasonable notion that any '''one''' man can compete with the thoughts and knowledge of countless generations who have gone before him. He honestly thinks he can invent a personal philosophy and religious-code based upon his individual experiences. He believes that his own personal philosophy can rival the combined thoughts of generations of philosophers and theologians.

/begin rant: We as modern humans don't have to invent medicine, or geology, or build a TV set and write computer code. That's already been done by others! We can stand on their shoulders. Can you imagine how silly and presumptive it sounds to those former atheists like myself when they read that Bolly thinks he knows how the universe works and that he can definitively say that he understands the nature of God?

Bolly doesn't know the first thing about God or philosophy, but he wants to teach other people's children his credo of experiment with all religions and then become an atheist. I know why [[Thomas Aquinas]] and [[Socrates]] and even [[Aleister Crowley]] are famous (or infamous as the case may be), but I don't know why Bolly presumes to know what's best for other people's children. /end rant.

You don't have to invent moral codes or laws or waste time experimenting with life's dead-ends. You can look up the answer in the book of your choice and things will be so much easier for you.

[[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 13:30, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

I have explained that it is not hypocritical, as i believe they should be taught at the same age, neither
before the other.

I am not naive enough to think that i can rival any of the great philosophers in logic and philosophy, however i dont think i would have any trouble outthinking Thomas Aquinas, for example. The reason for this is that he (and others like him) used their religious credibility to establish themselves as philosophical geniuses when in fact, he was not much smarter then anyone of the time, and certainly not smarter then the average uni graduate today. This can be amply demonstrated by his '5 proofs' of gods existence which are more full of holes than a swiss cheese.

To compare moral codes to medicing or geology is not an adequate comparison. The basic ideas of medicine and geology are based on sound proof and will not change much within the next thousand years. On the other hand, moral codes are always changing depending on the society that they are employed by. Look at the change in opinion about non-caucasian people over the past 200 years! only 100 years ago it was considered the height of stupidity to consider an african american the equal of a white man, yet today, even though there is still far to much prejudice in the world, it is generally accepted that there is no difference between any of the races of humanity. The great thinkers of one age would be considered backwards and redundant if they were transported in time to today.

I do not presume to know the nature of god. I do know, within myself, that god does not exist and i am content with that knowledge. You say you were an atheist, i would like to know what converted you to christianity.

No you do not need to waste time experimenting with dead ends, however because i believe in freedom of religion, i think it would only be fair that children are shown all the alternative modes of beliefs.

[[Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 12:00, 24 April 2007

::Fine. Show your children and leave others alone.[[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 10:46, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

== This is an invalid question ==

I've stayed away from the debates on Conservapedia, and this one is an example of why. I'm only here now because I was asked for my input.

The problem with the question is that "religion" is not defined. On my [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philip_J._Rayment#.22Religion.22 Wikipedia user page] I've listed some of the main ways that the word "religion" is used:
{{QuoteBox|
# A set of beliefs on which one bases one's life
# Belief in a deity or deities (e.g. Christianity is a religion)
# A particular set of rituals (e.g. He is practising his religion)
# A particular broad set of beliefs (e.g. Which religion are you? Christian, Muslim, or Hindu?)
# A particular narrower set of beliefs (e.g. Which religion are you? Methodist, Baptist, or Catholic?) }}

I further say there:
{{QuoteBox|No. 2 is, in my opinion, an arbitrary subset of No. 1. People believe in multiples gods (polytheism), everything-is-god (pantheism), one god (monotheism) or no god (atheism). Pantheism and atheism don't fit into definition No. 2, yet to consider them somehow "different" is arbitrary and self-serving ... . Thus I use definition No. 1 in preference to No. 2, and argue that atheism (and related views such as secular humanism) are religions, every bit as much as Christianity is. The difference is simply how many gods one believes in.}}

So if "religion" is a worldview (or ''ideology'' if you prefer), then it follows that ''everybody has one'', by its very nature and definition. How can one then ask if it is morally wrong?

Of course the person who asked the question obviously didn't have that definition in mind. But which one did he have?

To a Christian, Christianity is No. 1: a core set of beliefs on which one bases one's life. I would hope that it is obvious even to atheists that one cannot help but base one's actions on one's beliefs. So in that sense, "religion" comes before children, because when dealing with children, one ''must'' deal with them according to one's beliefs. That is why everyone, even atheists, do so.

To an atheist (who conveniently would not describe atheism as a religion), "religion" is a "optional extra". And on that basis, clearly children's welfare should come before "optional extra" beliefs.

To recap, the problem here is that there is no definition of what is intended by "religion" in this question, let alone any actual agreement by opposing viewpoints.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:01, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

This is dead-on correct. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 12:24, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

We do not 'conveniently' choose not to describe atheism as a religion. Atheism is defined as : a lack of belief. Lack of belief is not a religion. [[Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 12:02, 24 April 2007

:Atheism is not a lack of belief. It is an ardent ''belief'' that there is no God. And even ignoring that point, you ''do'' have core beliefs, which can be considered your worldview/ideology/religion. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:23, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

Yes it is. When split up: A-Theism. no-belief. I do not ardently believe god does not exist. I dont think god exists. If evidence emerged that god was real and that it could be proved then i would acknowledge his existence. Until then i remain atheistic.

I do have core beliefs. That does not consitute religion except in your definition. And i would argue that that is not religion, that is simply morality dressed up. My worldview is not my ideology or religion, because it would be a really weird religion compared to the main ones around today.

[[Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 20:57, 24 April 2007

:According to the Oxford dictionary[http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/atheism?view=uk], the "atheism" means "the belief that God does not exist". The prefix "a-" can mean "without", but it can also mean "not", and "theism" is a reference to God, not just belief. Not all atheists hold their belief in no god as strongly, but for many atheists, it is a ''belief'' in no god.
:It is not "my definition". It is one of several dictionary definitions. The rest of your last two sentences don't make sense. You have not explained how atheism is not a religion yet Christianity is. As I quoted myself above, any such distinction is arbitrary and self-serving.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:39, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

Bolly says, ''If evidence emerged that god was real and that it could be proved then i would acknowledge his existence. Until then i remain atheistic. '' Evidence for God lies around us in all directions and in all things. (See other topics herein for a few examples.) The reason you don't see evidence of God is your picture of God has nothing to do with what God is about. God is not some magical being. God is not flying spaghetti. God does not defy logic. God is logic. In your mind the great machine of the univers happened out of sheer luck. What's the difference between sheer luck and God? Aren't they the same thing? Hopefully I can give you a clue where to find God by telling you where to look.

God is in the details. The electrons are busy doing their thing. The subatomic particles are inside the protons hard at work doing whatever they do to make matter do what it does. Complex chains of molecules describe how to build a human being more efficiently than any code written by any programmer.

God is in the everyday. God is in the mother who cares for her child. God is in the man who jumps into freezing water to save a stranger. God is in the reason you feel good when you do good things, even when they aren't fun.

God is in the grandeur. God is in the remotest galaxies filled with stars unknown and possibilities unconceived. God is in the bending of light and the relativity of time.

God is everywhere, everywhere but where you're looking. You're looking for god to do something other than what the universe already does. You're presumption is that the universe is fantastic, wonderfully complicated, a well-oiled machine, but you expect something over and above all of this. ''Yeah the universe is vastly complicate, but what have you done for me lately?''

The naivety of the atheist lies in the belief that the universe itself is not evidence of God. By Bolly's definition, God is only evidenced by something beyond the atheist's explanation and comprehension. By this definition you'll never find God, because if you could comprehended the magical proof of God and God could be explained, then it would not longer be magical and no longer beyond comprehension! [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 10:01, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

Surely it is enough to gaze upon the vastness and awe inspring vistas of the universe without having to attribute it to some other being. Your above definition of god: "God is in the remotest galaxies filled with stars unknown and possibilities unconceived. God is in the bending of light and the relativity of time." seems to me to be more naive then my atheism. You are simply defining the universe but replacing it with god.

I would like to see some of this 'proof' of gods existence for so far i have seen nothing that comes remotely close to convincing me that god exists. On the other hand, there is no need for god in this world. Science has come very close to completly shut out godly influence in the creation of life and the universe.

The universe has not come about out of sheer luck. The strong and weak nuclear force, gravity and quantum theory all allow us to model the creation of stars, planets and black holes in a purely logical manner. If you wish to call that logic and those laws 'God' then you are free to do so. But then god is not a being who can be worshipped or who answers prayers or makes miracles. Then God simply becomes another name for the universe with no added baggage of being the creator. I trust that this dismisses your last point about the magical proof of god. You are welcome to call the universe what you will, however don't expect many people to address prayers to the law of gravity.

[[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 20:50, 26 April 2007

:::I understand what you say, but I don't think that's what you mean. What you are actually saying is that you have defined your image of God and unless God conforms to your idea of what God means/is and then someone else proves to you that idea is true, then you will not believe in God. Have you considered the possibility that what you thought of as God is just a magical bogeyman? Have you considered the possibility that God is something else entirely than what you thought as a child and later realized was preposterous when you grew up? What we teach children about God is drastically simplified for their consumption. It up to you to purse the truth of God after you realize there is no magical bogeyman. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 08:27, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

Ok, well i was arguing under the assumption that you are a theist, when you are in fact a deist. I do not believe in either type of god, or any kind of god whatsoever, the magical bogeyman, the sentient universe or whatever others someone comes up with. When you say 'we' though i am a little confused, as the majority of religious people seem to be theists. Please correct me if this is a wrong impression however. [[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 20:54, 28 April 2007

==Why Atheism is ridiculous==
Stick with me, this can get confusing for those who aren't highly verbal and good with spatial concepts. "God" is another word for "everything." God equals everything. Everthing is God. To deny that "God" exists is silly because the universe and everything in it exists. Thus, atheism is prepostorous if God is everything.

The only question (and it is a valid question) is whether Everything when taken as a whole is sentient or not.

In other words, does God (or "everything" if you prefer) think? Does God have a plan? Or is Everything (''i.e.'' God) just ... here?

Some people prefer to believe that Everything is just randomness with no plan. "Everything" is just does its thing with no guiding force, no rules, no anything. Everything, of course in an ever changing but non-planned form, has always been here. Everything will always been here. Everything is nicely organized into protons and electrons and stars and galaxies. Lives come and go with no meaning whatsoever. All of this and more is "Everything".

Some people have come to realize that Everything seems to have a design and a plan, and that the Grand Architect planned everything. Some people (Einstien included) believe that time is an illusion and that the infinitely complex organizational structure of Everything implies one undeniable conclusion: Everything (or God) is sentient. God has a plan. That plan is far more complicated than we can possibly imagine or understand. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 11:19, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
:That's not the God I know. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:43, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

:::As a godless, atheistic, morally-bankrupt existentialist, I have to say I disagree with this "assessment." If I am to take what you say at face value I come to the immediate conclusion that atheism is still correct. If "god" is a synonym for "everything" then I am moved to think of the everything as all the mass in the universe. I am typing on some god, sitting on some god and had a delicious bowl of god for breakfast this morning. But I don't think that's what you meant....

:::I think of the universe this way: I don't know how it came to be, but I assume it was a chemical and physical event, not supernatural. I know that this "stuff" doesn't have to have a plan in order to exist. There need not be a man in the sky to protect me from everything. I don't need to pray to something that I will succeed in life because there is no one listening. But, I'm not sad about this, I don't feel alone or unloved by the big ol' scary universe. Rather, I feel emboldened to take moral actions when I can.

:::Camus is my hero. His basic equation boils down to this: once a person realizes that there is no god they have two choices--suicide or a "faith flight." That is, if one accepts the religious view of things. If Camus is correct, and existence does indeed precede essence, then there is a third choice, the philosophy of moral action. Simply put, one must make meaning of their own life and not wait for a god, or religion to do it for them.

:::Now, since I don't believe everything has a plan, and that I have a moral obligation to help my fellow man (and woman), I have an obligation to come to sites like this and try to fix them. Not by including so-called "liberal bias." Rather, the point is to make sure truth trumps propaganda. Wether I like it or not, I have a duty to help fix this garbage. I liken it to watching a child roll their tricycle toward the street. You, the adult, are standing there and you can see a truck bearing down on the child. Do you try and help her, or do you pray? I must take action and this website affords me a chance to help everybody. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 11:54, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

You have mistaken my meaning, despite repeating exactly what I said:

::''If "god" is a synonym for "everything" then I am moved to think of the everything as all the mass in the universe. I am typing on some god, sitting on some god and had a delicious bowl of god for breakfast this morning. But I don't think that's what you meant....''

This is indeed exactly what I meant. So in fact, there is a god. The question is God sentient or not. Does God have thoughts, plans, etc. Or is the universe a jumble of meaningless matter that is and always was. A tangental thought to ponder: auantum mechancics seem to suggest that reality can change depending on the observer.

For those who say "this is not the God I know". Indeed it is the God you. Here's the line of logic:

::1. God = Everything
::2. Therefore God exists. (And the corrollary, atheism is ridiculous.)
::3. Now there is a choice: one can choose to believe that God is sentient; or one can deny the sentience of God despite overwhelming of evidence to the contrary.
::4. Then, if God is sentient then what can we mortals know of God? Where will we find His truths? We might find them in science. We find them in religion. We each find out own personal truth in different ways.

If you make it to step 4, the arguement becomes which religion is best. Which truth makes the most sense to you. Christians, Buddhists, Islamist, they all have their own personal arguments. I won't waste time debating religion when atheists are in the room. It's pointless, because they haven't made the logical step to 3.

If your mind doesn't make the leap to step 3, there is no point in discussing morals. In fact, it's ridiculous to postulate morals or philosophy because the universe is meaningless. For those who are at this point in personal growth: thine only commandment is ''do what thou wilt''. It is pointless to do anything other than that which makes you happy if you get to step 2 but don't make the jump to step 3. However, if you can comprehend step two but don't believe in 3 then all this poppycock about morals and goodness is ridiculous. Furthermore, when an atheist discusses morals and philosophy it only only serves to prove there is a God. This is because the atheist's spirit (which he doesn't believe believe exists) nags and naws at him like the quite voices of angels.

If you make it to step one but can't make it to step 2, then you are a) either incapable of higher thought; or b) intellectually dishonest because you fear where this argument leads. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 17:34, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Okay, what you are trying to do, in logic, is referred to as an [[enthymeme]]. However, your argument does not work. First, you must show HOW god equals everything. Otherwise you can say anything. Thus:

::#god = toast
::#therefore toast exists
::#a = b, thus b = c

:::But you tried to do something else. You tried to insert statements as if they are quantifiable terms. Sort of like saying, "E = mc2" ''Well what do those letters mean?'' "Elephants equal mustard and cows times themselves." You've defined nothing except a lack of basic logical principles.

Being intellectually dishonest would be if I said, well, "god likes strawberries more than cherries." When you ask ''why'' I'll say "because they taste better." Asserting your opinion as fact is what makes it less than true. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 17:45, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

::Flippin, why do you care if a child rides into traffic on a tricycle? What do you gain if she is saved? What do you lose if she dies? It sounds a lot like your a theist to me. You obviously think the universe has some meaning or some order. If the universe has order and meaning then it only follows that you believe the universe is God. The next step to make is to find out where God best reveals his truth. You think that his truth is best revealed in the philosophical musings of your hero Camus. Camus wrote your Bible. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 17:34, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

::It might be difficult to understand but I did not say that god=toast. I agree that God is not toast. Is "Everything" that is to say the universe as a whole sentient or not? Simple question. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 17:50, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

::Furthermore, by your example:

::#god = toast
::#therefore toast exists
::#a = b, thus b = c

By your definition, then it would be possible to know the true nature of toast. We pretty well already know how to make toast. It's a silly diversion from the question you are afraid to ask yourself. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 17:53, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

No it isn't. I have already asked myself--for years--if there is a god. I have come to the conclusion ther very likely isn't. I am not an atheist (they are 100% sure) but I sit at about 99.9% sure. I have diverted nothing--being intellectually honest with myself meant I had to realize there was no god. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 17:58, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

:As the one who said, "this is not the God I know", I reject the first point in the line of logic, that God equals everything. I am a monotheist, not a pantheist. God ''made'' the universe, He ''isn't'' the universe.
:Flippin, your counter-logic is wrong. Everwill's logic skipped a step. His logic was:
::1. God = Everything
::1A. We know that everything exists.
::2. Therefore God exists.

:So in order to match Everwill's argument from logic, your counter logic should have been:
::1. god = toast
::1A. we know that toast exists
::2. therefore god exists.
:But you got point 2 back to front.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:04, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

Phil,

So as I understand it you think God is outside of the universe? God is apart from the universe. God is not everywhere at all times, rather he is somewhere else. Where is that somewhere else and what reason have you to believe (other than blind faith) that somewhere else exists? [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 08:53, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
:God is a spiritual being. He is "outside" the universe—a physical place—in the sense that He is not part of it. But being an omnipresent spiritual being He is not confined to a physical place, so He is not outside in a geographical sense. He is everywhere at once, but not synonymous with the universe. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:39, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

::I agree that God is not "confined" to anything. But I'm not sure there's any value to arguing the fine differences between "everything", the universe and God. We're not philosophers, and others have explored this better than we can. I think there is some value to helping atheists understand why the question is not whether God exist or not. The real question is whether God is an omnipresent sentience or not. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 10:09, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

Everwill, your argument that god = everything is preposterous. Firstly, i do not agree with the first statement you make, that god is everything. I would like some hard proof, or at least a convincing argument that god equals everything before the first premise of your argument.

If, for arguements sake, we assume that your first premise is correct, then the only question is, as you say, whether everything (or god) is sentient? Again, you can say so, however i want proof. I have yet to see a plan in the universe or everything. According to the current predictions by astronomers and physcists, the universe is set to expand for an idefinete period and that eventually all the stars will run out of hydrogen and go out, and that everything will spread further and further apart at faster and faster speeds until the universe tears itself apart. Can you explain the plan in this? It displays all the theories about gravity, dark matter, quantum theory and strong and weak nuclear forces. There is nothing to show an added level of intelligence in this everything.

Please do not assume that your first premise is correct until you show some evidence for this, otherwise your argument is entirely invalid.

[[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 21:06, 26 April 2007

:::You must have made things pretty difficult for your alegbra teacher. The teacher presents the following:

::::''x + 1 = 2''
::::''X is'' unknown.
::::''Solve for X.''

:::To which you reply, "Prove that X is unknown and a mathematical value. X is a letter and has no value, thus algebra is entirely invalid."

:::Hopefully you see how silly your reply is, but I'll grant you that I may have given you too much credit above. Perhaps the concept is a little too complicated for you to understand as I presented above. I'll try harder.

:::If the word "God" is synomous with "everything" then I assume you believe God exists. If the word "God" means "magical bogeyman who meddles in the affairs of mankind" then I assume we agree that God does not exist. In the framework of the argument above, God means everything.

:::Now I'll put that aside and try to explain the concept without using words that offend your sensibilities. The universe shows organization and complexity beyond any single human's comprehension at every level. The components of a cell, atomic structures, galactic structures, geological structures, biologal structures. It's vastly intricate, interconnected and complicated. The universe functions like an immense machine and so far as we can tell, it will continue to function for quite some time and it functioned long ago.

:::With this knowledge one has to make a leap of faith, and science has taught us that the simple solution is usually the right solution. The simple solution is that the universe is organization implies design, design implies designer. The only other plausible choice is that the everything that every happens, happened or will happened is the result of something that makes a lottery ticket or a lightning strike look like a easy money and a daily occurence. Now, I respect your right to belive that, but I think it's sort of naive.

:::So you think the universe is randomness. I think the universe has order. Now to work back into the definitions presented above. I think God has order. You think God is randomness. Whether we call it God, the universe or everything, it makes no difference. I'm not trying to take away your right to believe what you want. I'm not trying to tell you to go to church. I'm just trying to find a common ground on which we can agree. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 08:23, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

Alright, now i understand the point you were making. I do not agree with it, however i see now where you are coming from.

The reason that the whole of the universe is so incomprehensible to us, is because we evolved on a scale where the only distances that mattered were a couple of hundred kilometres to about a centimetre. That was all that was needed to survive as homo erectus in a hostile world. It was not necessary for us to be able to understand a cell or an atom or a star. The complex machinery that is our brain is not built for such things as the universe or quantum theory. This is why it is so hard to comprehend.

The simple solution is the right solution in the majority of cases, however the simple solution in this case is not one of design. Darwin has already shown that while animals and plants may look designed they are in fact the end result of a massive series of gene mutations and adaptations. In this case, there is no designer and thus your point that organization implies design implies designer is proved wrong in the case of natural life. Simply because there is no such explanation for how the universe has come to be in such a way does not mean that there is no explanation that does not need to attribute it to a designer. Just think that 300 years ago, noone thought that something complex could come from something less complex as it balked common sense. However our common sense only applies to simple, mundane everyday things, not the huge distances and complexities of space or an atom.

[[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 16:56, 27 April 2007

==Is Atheism Ridiculous?==
::::On what basis do can you decide that something is "moral"? If I saw a truck bearing down on a child, I would try and help her, because God loves her and He would want me to help, and I would be praying at the same time. But why would you help her? From an atheistic point of view, she is just an accidental combination of a bunch of chemicals facing a life of suffering, disease, and ultimate death. What's the point in helping? Why not just let chance shortcut the process and save her all those years of pain? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:24, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

::Because I feel an obligation to help her, as I said. Saying it is moral means nothing. It is the action one takes. I believe that it is right to keep someone alive rather than kill them (what the above example allows for). If I let her die, she cannot make her own decisions--I am taking away her inalienable right to decide her own fate, if you will. I have no right to hurt someone else--that takes away from their right to choose how they will spend their existence.

::Yes, she is accidental, as are you and me, but I have no right to infringe on the rights of a sentient human being by allowing them to die. Standing by and watching her die would make me just as guilty as putting a gun to her head and pulling the trigger. Morality is based on this single point: existence precedes essence. We are all responsible for our own choices with regard to how they affect others.

::I don't need a religion to tell me that. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 12:36, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Just another quick note--don't you think you have an obligation to do something outside of a god's wrath? When you say "because god loves her" you tacitly give up the responsibility for taking action. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 12:38, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::Yes, you feel an obligation to help her. But why? I'd say that it's because you've been raised in a country with a Christian heritage and have absorbed some of its values. But I'm asking what basis atheism provides for that. Why do you feel that it is "right". What if I "feel" differently? Who is right and who is wrong? Where did her "inalienable right to decide her own fate" come from? Does she in fact have such a right? I assert that you ''do'' need a religion—or more specifically, God—to tell you that, because atheism can't.
:::::I fail to see how I'm giving up responsibility for taking action. On the contrary, it's because God loves her that I have that responsibility.
:::::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:55, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

::You know, atheism has almost nothing to do with it. I don't think about, or believe in god the way you don't believe (I assume) in the flying spaghetti monster.

::But saying that "because god loves her...I have a responsibility" is equivalent to saying, "I'll go to Grandma's because it makes Mom happy." It isn't you who has decided anything, rather your fear of god's wrath that's made the decision for you.

::Finally, that "right to exist" could also be thought of as a prohibition against her death. That comes from the notion that even though our very existence is absurd, I don't have a right to decide how you will affect it. To throw my hands up and say "but who is right and who is wrong" is just reducing the argument to multiplicity, and thus relativism.

::I guess what I'm saying is I don't have a right to decide for that child so I will save her and let her make her own choice. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 13:04, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
:::"''It isn't you who has decided anything, rather your fear of god's wrath that's made the decision for you''". On the contrary, I have ''decided'' to do what God would like, rather than do something for a selfish reason of it being something that ''I'' would like.
:::You say that the "right to exist" comes from the notion that you don't have a right to decide how you will affect it, yet by saving the girl you ''have'' decided to affect things. Yes, throwing your hands up is relativism, but the opposite of relatives is absolutes, and absolutes only come from God. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:12, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

Yes exactly, you have decided what god would like. Other people can have a different understanding, people such as Adolf Hitler who decided that god thought it was right that he should kill all jews, as they were "christ killers". Or the young man who shot a doctor who practised abortions because "god would have wanted me to do it". The fact that you have to interpret a book to decide your morals means that several different people can gain different moral codes from the same book, while there are very few people who would disagree that wanton killings would lead to society fracturing. [[Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 14:17, 26 April 2007

::Adolf Hitler was an atheist. Beyond this factual error, I don't understand your point. We all decide what god would like. (It's call concept called ''free will''.) The underlying philosophy and truths found in all major religions are the same. Is this an accident? I suppose you would answer yes. In fact, the entire universe and everything that led to this moment is one collossal accident that happened for your benefit. Children have no idea what their parents endure to provide for them. In the same way the atheist scoffs at the mysteries of the universe. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 08:03, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

::Ottihw, no, I haven't decided what God would like. I have ''learnt'' what God would like be reading what He has told us. Everwill is correct that Hitler was an atheist, but I disagree that we can all gain different morals from the Bible. That is in effect saying that words have no meaning, so we can choose to understand them any way we want. Should I choose to understand your words any way I want, or should I presume that we are both using the same convention of English (in this case) language and that you mean what you've said? Besides, if you and I can both derive different morals from reading the Bible, how is it any better if we ''don't'' read the Bible? Surely that would mean even ''less'' restraint on what we choose our morals to be? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:36, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

Which is another way of saying that Phil is a "strict constructionist" when it comes to the Bible. I think the mullahs in Iran (though they use a different book) agree with him in this way. I'm more of a deconstructionist and have more doubts about the Bible being the "Word of God". I think God's Words are way too complicated for one man or one book to describe. However, I would agree on 99% of the big picture with Phil and probably with the so-called atheists in here. That to me is evidence of God. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 10:47, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

:Well, I happen to believe that God is clever enough to put things in words that we can understand. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:09, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

God is very clever indeed. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 11:37, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

:You havea copy of the Bible in God's handwriting? Or you beleive that every step from initial writing, through every translation throughout time has been divinely guided to lay out His message clearly? So, which translation is the divinely guided one? And if He were so inclined to so specifically direct the writing ans subsequent translation of a book, might he not have made it a bit clearer which translation is correct, and which parts of the Bible can be taken literally and which are metaphors? You claim to know the difference... I've never seen that footnote anywhere in the Bible. [[User:QNA|QNA]] 11:39, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

::The copies and translations of the Bible are very accurate, and accurate enough to know what God was saying. And the phrase "every translation through time" is quite misleading, as mot current English Bibles have been translated directly from the original languages, i.e. a one-step translation. It couldn't get much better than that. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:56, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

(copied below).

: Standard non-answer... How do you know they are accurate, which version? The differences are quite spectacular at times. Not to mention that even if one accepts your "one-step translation" proposition we are talking (in the case of Genesis) about an account put down long after the event itself (even by your time scale), and then translated from languages with enough nuances to allow for all these different translations that arise today... Not to mention that the "accurate enough to know what God was saying" ignores the reality that if people debate it to the degree we do today, it sure doesn't seem so crystal clear... I say the the story of Genesis clearly reads like a parable or metaphor... you believe it is clearly meant to be taken literally, though you allow that some portions of the Bible are not literal... I was asking for the magic footnote that tells us which is which? [[User:QNA|QNA]] 12:18, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
::That was not a non-answer; it made valid points. The differences are not that spectacular. Why don't you accept the "one-step translation"? Look in almost any modern version and it will tell you that it was translated from the original languages. I tend to subscribe to the belief that Genesis was originally written in sections by the people that witnessed the events (e.g. Adam himself) and Moses compiled those handed-down written histories into the book of Genesis.
::People debate the Bible to the degree that they do because some people will do anything to avoid the implications of what it is teaching, including calling black white (actually, calling six days billions of years). But that doesn't mean that the text is ambiguous, just that some people will not take it at face value.
::Parable and metaphor have particular linguistic characteristics, and Genesis doesn't have those characteristics, so it is not parable nor metaphor (on the whole; some bits may be). You determine which is which by the language, just as you do in everyday life. If I said that "it's raining cats and dogs", would you wonder if I was being literal or not?
::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:57, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

Please do not parade that old falsehood that Hitler was an atheist. He was brought up a roman catholic, he made several references to God in his speeches and almost everyone who was close to him described him as a 'good practising catholic'. To call him an atheist is in complete denial of all the facts that surround him.

The reason that people can draw different morals from the bible is simple. The bible has been written by hundreds of authors over 900 years, many of whom described the same story in different ways and the vast majority were not written down until many years after the even they were describing. And of course, in the way of any community effort, the book has been 'improved' by several authors down the years, in different languages and often by people who had no idea about the event they were writing about. To call this text "the word of god" and to attempt to draw a single conclusion from this is just plain ridiculous. Why not have a look yourself, and look for the amount of contradictions and just plain weirdness in there.

[[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 17:13, 27 April 2007

:Please do not parade that old falsehood that Hitler was a Christian. Despite being raised as a Catholic and making out that he was invoking God in his speeches, he realised that the churches would never go along with his policies and planned on eliminating them[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/464].
:I can understand your scepticism towards the Bible, given your view on how it was written. But I reject your views on how it was written. Sure, it was written by quite a few different authors (but not "hundreds"), but under the guidance of God, so it had a single ultimate author. The vast majority was written by eyewitnesses, and the vast majority of the rest by people who knew the eyewitnesses. The Jews respected the Scriptures as God's Word and would not dare alter it, so it was generally not "improved" by other authors (the exceptions being things like authors close to the original authors anyway, as in Joshua writing the final part of Moses' Deuteronomy). And there are no contradictions; at the very least none that can be conclusively shown to be contradictions. Any "weirdness" is likely to be from you not understanding the customs of the time, etc.
:Now I'm sure you will reject most of what I've just said, but the point is that your ''conclusion'' about it's trustworthiness is based on your ''belief'' about how it came to be, yet you present that belief as though it was accepted or self-evident truth. It is neither self-evident nor is it accepted by a lot of people.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:56, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

There is not hard evidence on whether Hitler was in fact religious. The Vatican was a great ally to him in many cases and Goebbals and Himmler both wrote that he was a practising catholic. He refered to himself as the hand of God in many speeches. On the other hand he said things such as "Christianity is the greatest evil the world has seen since the Black Plague". Historians think that he was a Christain until around 1940 where he converted to agnostiscism or atheism. The main point is that most of his plans and programs had begun well before this such as the holocaust and the complete indoctrination of German children with his propoganda (almost like churches today). As an aside he could still be christian while disliking the church.

There is a point on which we cannot be reconciled. You believe that god guided the writing of the bible, i don't believe he exists and therefore that the writers were often flying by the seat of their pants as they wrote. However to deny that there were 'improvements' is a little bit ignorant. As an example, the story of the ressurection was not written until over 200 years after Jesus's death.

There are many contradictions in the bible, not the least of which come in the story of the birth of Jesus. John writes in his gospel that several of his followers were surprised that Jesus was NOT born in Bethlehem, while of course, Mark and Luke write that he was born there. However while Mark has Mary and Joseph always having lived there, Luke gets them there by refering to a census of Israel by the Romans that results in Joseph having to return to his home town. Unfortunately for Luke, the records show that the census occured in 6 AD, after King Herod's death. As well as this, there are gospels that the church decided to leave out of the final version of the bible, including the gospels of Judas, Bartholomew, Nicodemus and Mary Magdalen. What was wrong with these gospels that was right with the four that were chosen? May it have been to the fact that some of them do not portray such a saintly image of Jesus as the others? The gospel of Thomas has stories of a young Jesus abusing his powers by turning his friends into goats or mud into sparrows.

My conclusion about its trustworthiness is based upon the facts that i have read that show that the bible is not such an accurate account after all. And if the writers were guided by god, then how could they have gotten some historical facts so wrong? The creation of the world, Noahs arc, the birth of Jesus, the ressurection and so on. This I think exposes exactly how innacurate the bible is as any sort of record or source of morals.

[[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 16:35, 28 April 2007
:You say that the main point is that many of Hitler's program were started before he stopped being a Christian around 1940, but I'm not sure of the relevance of that as a "main point" when "around 1940" is not known for certain anyway. Secondly, the ''main'' point is not whether or not he was or thought himself a Christian, but whether or not he was acting according to Christian principles. He clearly was not.
:It's rubbish to claim that the record of the resurrection was not written until over 200 years after his death.
:Most bibliosceptic claims of contradictions in the Bible are nothing of the sort, and the one about Jesus' birthplace is a good example. John does ''not'' say that Jesus was not born in Bethlehem. What he says is that some ''people'' (note: not necessarily "followers") were puzzled by the fact that the Messiah was supposed to come from Bethlehem, whereas Jesus came from the area of Galilee. Both are correct. Jesus was ''born in'' Bethlehem, but ''grew up'' in Galilee. No contradiction; your accusation was not supported by the evidence you provided.
:The issue of the census is not a ''contradiction'', even if Luke got is wrong. But there being a census in 6 AD doesn't preclude there being another census earlier, and in any case, Luke is recognised as being a very accurate historian.
:The "gospels" that you claim that the church "left out" were never "in" to begin with. They were never considered to be part of the Scriptures by the early church.
:Based on the above, your conclusions about the trustworthiness is based on "facts" that are not facts at all. I suggest that you question the trustworthiness of your sources that promulgate such nonsense as "contradictions" such as this.
:The historical facts are ''not'' wrong. Some people have a view that things happened differently, but have no documented evidence to support it, and your argument amounts to saying, "my view is right, so your view is wrong". That's not an argument.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:00, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

==Questions and Answers==
Plato showed how in a debate one asks questions so that the debaters can pursue the truth together rather than being adversaries. So what I can't understand is why would you do anything ever which does not serve your immediate self-interests? Would you feel guilty about murdering a child to get what you wanted, if no one would punish you? Is "good" just an animal instinct that we humans share? Or do you have a spirit which can discern right from wrong?

To be more specific you say ''Because I feel an obligation to help her''. What obligates you? Do you have a contract of some kind? Will she pay you? What is the gain for you? What binds you to this vague notion of obligation? Why do you ''feel'' anything about her?[[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 17:42, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

So here are my questions:

::''"Why would you do anything ever which does not serve your immediate self-interests?"''

:::* Atheist says: I might ask you the same thing. I have no short-term interest in this child's death. I have a long-term stake in her survival (she may grow up and cure cancer).
:::* Theist replies, because there is something, perhaps a spirit or a god, that imparts to ever soul the knowledge of good from evil and right from wrong. Doing evil moves you further from god and thus it does not feel good to do evil (''even when it feels good to do evil''!) This is a shorthand way of saying that when you commit acts which are pleasurable but evil, you feel shallow and empty inside. On the other hand, when one commit acts of kindness without any payback of any kind, one feels good inside. This is something most humans learn as they progress into maturity. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 09:05, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

::''"Would you feel guilty about murdering a child to get what you wanted, if no one would punish you?"''

:::* Atheist says: Two parts there: I wouldn't murder a child--as I said--so what is there to feel guilty about? If no one would punish me presupposes I have done this act, so the question is invalidated by the former.
:::* Theist replies, I should hope you wouldn't murder a child, but your reply ducks the obvious answer. Of course I wouldn't murder a child to get what I wanted, but if I did murder a child to get what I wanted I would feel guilty. What causes that feeling of guilty? Is that not proof of a spiritual aspect of life?

::''"Is "good" just an animal instinct that we humans share?"''

:::* Atheist say: It certainly could be. ''"Or do you have a spirit which can discern right from wrong?"'' Reason allows me to discern right from wrong, as I said above. I am compelled to act according to this obligation to help others and not let them have their choice made by another.
:::* Theist says, what is this "reason" you are talking about in an athistic universe. Without God or morality, what is the difference between good and evil or right and wrong? From an atheistic (i.e. Satanic) POV right and wrong are silly concepts. "Good" is just an excuse to chump the strong from their rightful place at the top of the food chain. Don't you agree?

''"What obligates you? Do you have a contract of some kind? <s>Will she pay you?</s> What is the gain for you? What binds you to this vague notion of obligation? Why do you ''feel'' anything about her?"''

:::* Atheist says: Okay, now you're getting to the meat of the matter. I am obligated by this sense of everyone's right to exist. I have no more right to take you're life than I do to steal your bike. Not that those two are equal, but the line of demarcation is the same. It is only selfish in the sense that I ''gain'' when this child is allowed to grow up and make her own choices. If, in the process, I am killed, then I have served my principles. If she dies, then I took moral action and can feel good about my effort. However, if I let her die I am as guilty as any of those Nazi guards at Aushwitz who said ''"I was only following orders."''
:::* Theist replies: your answer implies the existence of God even if you can't see the forest for all the trees. Why does everyone have a right to exist? Because you said so? That makes no sense in your concept of reality. What if my country elects a leader, for the purposes of illustration let's call him ''Adolf Hitler''. Our leader through legal government manuevers manages to establish a process to eliminate what he sees as a cancer on our nation. By your reasoning that leader has a moral imperative to kill Jews BECAUSE he thinks it's best for the nation. From the theist stand-point, we believe that all life is precious, most especially human life. Therefore it doesn't matter what logic, rationale or legal manuevers Hitler makes, killing is wrong.

Atheist summary: As long as you have a choice, to defer your morality to a god, or priest or whatever you ask for figiveness is to shirk your duty to society--that being to think for yourself. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 17:56, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

Theist summary: No one ever defers any choices to anyone ever. Each individual is always responsible for his own actions and choices. To clear up your confusion: a theist defers his choices to a priest about as much as a judge in a court room defers his choices to his first year law professor. Religion is a tool to help us understand God. Religion and religious leaders do not speak for God. An "atheist" who follows a moral code is just a theist who doesn't know much about his God because he's too afraid to trust others. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 09:16, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

:In point of fact here, I have said I am not an atheist, I am more properly called an agnostic. An atheist, by definition, holds that they have the answer--that there is no god. As an agnostic I am open to the idea that a god exists, but I'm not getting my hopes up. Please don't refer to me as an atheist--it is a different thing altogether. Also, in addition to agnosticism, I am an existentialist--so you could also use that term if you like.

:Finally, I don't have a god-belief so I don't do things because something tells me a god wants them done. I do things that I reason are beneficial to society, e.g. actions that foster growth, development and change. I abhor stifling debate and that seems to be the purpose of religion as it is used most of the time. I don't claim to have all the answers, but I'm comfortable with my approach to all questions. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 09:53, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

You claim that "I don't do things because something tells me a god wants them done". You do things because a little voice inside your head tells you to do things? Who is that little voice?[[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 10:05, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

:I don't have a "little voice." That is superstition. I use reason. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 10:54, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

It's easy to dodge the obvious with semantics. There is absolutely no question you (and all human beings) have a "little voice", that's not a superstition, that's a fact. The argument is about what is the driving force behind that little voice.

You claim that you simply rationalize everything out through the use of reason, and you are perhaps superior to moral codes found in religion. For example, you won't kill the little child because as you say you "have a long-term stake in her survival (she may grow up and cure cancer)." But if killing the little child would give you a billion dollars, you would kill the child because of the risk versus reward principle found in rationalization. The odds of that little girl inventing a cure for cancer are pretty remote. Furthermore, you might not ever contract cancer. But with a billion dollars you could finance a health care system that would further benefit you and those you deem worthy. That's "reason" at work and to you way of thinking that's much better than silly and archaic notions like "good" or "evil". [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 12:08, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

::I think you have more of a stake in believing that a "non-believer" would like to kill a child for some kind of gain. I don't see it that way. I don't think there is anything that would make me kill a child. That's silly.
::Also, I don't have a "little voice" in my head. People who do I deem to be psychotic or lying. Simple as that. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 12:11, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

A hypothetical argument takes a certain statement as an assumption and attempts to analyze it. You seem to be (perhaps intentionally) misunderstanding the hypothetical in the form in which it is presented. But, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and pretend like you really don't understand because of inability to communicate.

Let's change the hypothetical slightly, you state there there is nothing that would make you kill a child. Why would you never kill a child? I understand that you base this decision on reason, but I don't understand the basis of your reason. Is your reason based upon moral codes? Aren't "moral codes" just superstition to help supress the will of the strong? Is your "reason" based upon what most helps society or is your reason based upon what most helps you? Why would you ever do anything to help society which ran counter to your own purposes?

As the wise philospher Camus/Flippin says, ''Simply put, one must make meaning of their own life and not wait for a god, or religion to do it for them.'' This is all well and good if one is perfect reasonable. But what about people who are unreasonable and who devise a meaning of life exemplified by people like Hitler, Jim Jones, Jeffery Dahmer, Stalin, and Charles Manson? By what right can we impose our value-system upon them?

By the same token, should each individual have the right, nay the duty, to devise his own code of laws and not wait for some legistlature or society to impose those laws upon them? [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 15:21, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

[[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 15:15, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
.
==Trying to parse some of this==
:Since I consider myself a good communicator I will try and communicate with you.

:Okay, you said: "Why would you ever do anything to help society which ran counter to your own purposes?" How could one do anything that helped society that didn't help oneself? Maybe I should try and explain that by asking is there really anything that one can do that helps society, yet hurts the self? If one takes an action that helps society, like picking up garbage alongside the road, does not that act help society? And if we agree that it does, how is one harmed by it?

:A reasonable person might say that the individual could get a sunburn. The individual could be hit by a truck. These are true statements, but the probability of these things happening is low (for the truck) and not that dangerous (for a sunburn). But what is the value of picking up debris left by less reasonable citizenry? Do we not gain as a society by having less trash by the roadside?

:A reasonable person might also say, yes, but must I pick up all the debris along the roadside? My answer would be no. The responsibility for cleaning up roadsides is spread equally between us all. We have a shared responsibility to do this because it helps the individual ''and'' the society.

:Now, you also mention examples like Hitler who reasoned that murdering Jews would benefit him. But is Hitler an example of a reasonable man? Honestly? Hitler was more likely sociopathic, which is a disorder that affects one's ability to reason. If we rely on reason to tell us that what is of the greatest benefit for society is of the greatest benefit for the individual, then opposing someone like Hitler, or another damaged person, is reasonable. Thus, we not only have a right to oppose them, we have an obligation to oppose them. Just as we have an obligation to oppose trash on the roadways.

:I would not kill a child because doing so can only ''harm'' society. What in that describes to you a failure to communicate? Must one have a "god-figure" to stop them from killing children? If there were no god, would you kill children? Is a strong faith then a barrier to crime? And if so, why would a god allow that in a world/universe they control?

:Finally, why do you feel the need to paint me as something less than moral? I have explained this repeatedly yet you do not understand. Is the failure to communicate really mine then? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 16:13, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

I'm not trying to paint you as immoral. I've said repeatedly I think you are moral. But I'm trying to work withing your framework to understand the truth (according to you) and I'm trying to understand the source of your morality. Where (according to you) does moral authority flow from?

I thought you said that morals comes from "reason". But as you describe it it seems that morals don't come from "reason", but from your rationalizations. I don't understand why you think your rationlizations are any more valid than the rationalizations of any other person? Of course, millions of Germans agreed with Hitler's rationalization. They were not '''all''' sociopaths. I assume that we agree their rationalization was flawed, but why is it flawed? This seems to indicate that there is some higher moral authority than rationalization. Is there some absolute code of moral authority, or were the Germans simply wrong because they lost the war? What does it matter if they were morally wrong anyway? That was in the past. There is no spiritual world and there is no God. Today is a new day. This is a new minute.

I think you're trying to claim that certain rationalizations is more valid than other rationalizations. If some rationalization is more valid than others, then why don't we as humans attempt to find the true source of the best rationalization possible and then follow that reasoning? If that is not a religion, what is that?

Secondly, I suppose I find it difficult to believe that anyone does anything simply because of "reasoning" alone. In my experince people do good things because it makes them feel good, not because they rationalized and reasoned away the degree of goodness vs. the effort required. Like every other human being, you sometimes do some bad things. After the commission of these acts of badness, why do you feel ''guilty''? If the ends justify the means there shoudl be no such thing as guilt.

Thirdly, what is the point of morality? Who cares? Why not take from the system whatever you can whenever you can. Your actions will not stop the world from spinning. You will not stop the stupid morons who worship the flying spaghetti monster, so why not exploit them? Then you can better use their resources, since you have a higher level of rationalization? [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 16:51, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

:::# Rationalization seems to make the unreasonable, reasonable. That is what religion is for.
:::# Reason, as I have stated serves as a guide. It then becomes automatic.
:::# What you describe are the acts of a person that is unreasonable. I have addressed that. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 17:11, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

What you haven't address is this: who defines what is reasonable? The guy with the biggest gun? [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 17:16, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

==The Theist answers==
Here are my answers to your questions:

The theistic-denier states:

::I would not kill a child because doing so can only ''harm'' society. What in that describes to you a failure to communicate? Must one have a "god-figure" to stop them from killing children? If there were no god, would you kill children?

I can think of many incidents of killing children which would benefit society. Our society could harvest children from poverty-stricken regions where resources are depleted and food-shortages are chronic. This is good for the environment and greatly reduces the chance that their children will suffer from famine. Then we could use those children to reseach cancer, AIDs and other diseases. Rather than working on cadavers, young doctors could practice their trade on these children. Then we could pulverize the remains and feed them to hogs. This would provide more food for other people. If you are opposed to killing (because of some fear of the mythic god) you could just enslave the children instead. We have plenty of jobs they can do which will help society more than some miserable existence in a barren wasteland.

Working strictly from a framework of reason and rationalization, why not kill children to better serve society? Furthermore, of course, this rational begs the question: why is the society of any importance at all? Why is "society" any bigger than the individual?

::Please, as one human being to another, it is much easier if you call me an agnostic--which is what I am. I don't call you a gods-worshipper, or whatever. (Jesusfreak I know is a popular perjorative that I don't use either. I am trying to be respectful.) I don't fear god--that isn't the reason to do/not do anything. I don't want anyone to kill me, so I don't kill others. Religion gives those who don't know why they do things a reason to say why they did. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 17:18, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

Additionally, the "agnostic" asks:

::Is a strong faith then a barrier to crime? And if so, why would a god allow that in a world/universe they control?

Please understand that at this point, I'm not trying to prove to you my point of view. I'm trying to understand your point of view. So, while I believe that faith is the strongest barrier to crime that I know of, I won't bother to explain why I think this to you because you are clearly more enlightened than I. You've advance beyond the need for some silly god-figure.

What I would like to know is; what is your barrier to crime in the atheistic framework? It appears (based on my example above) that it is something other than reasoning, because I've proven how killing children can be good for society.

I'd be more than happy to answer why God allows suffering in the universe, but the answer to that question is pointless if we don't agree that God exists. Let's not waste time. Hypothetically, I'm agreeing with your argument that the fact that there is suffering in the universe is evidence that there is no god. Let's proceed along your path and see where it leads. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 17:14, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

:Religious faith is no more a barrier to crime than atheistic, or agnostic, moral reasoning. In Toronto sometime in the 70's the police went on strike. It took two hours for the first bank to be robbed, and at then end of the strike $3 million worth of damage had been done to shops and almost every bank in the city had been robbed. The vast majority of people who were arrested as a result of the crimes were religious. I'm not suggesting that therefore religion encourages crime, it just shows that it isn't such a barrier to crime as you would think. There is also anecdotal evidence that there are very few atheists and agnostics in prison compared to christians.

:The agnostic and atheistic framework is different from what you seem to think. The value of life is the most important part of my beliefs. This is not because of god or the bible, this is simply because those were the morals that i was brought up with and because they make the most logical sense. If life was not valued, then mass murders would be common and unnoticed as greedy people killed and stole to take what they wanted. This would lead to the breakdown of society as a whole. That is why enslaving and killing third world children is wrong, as they have exactly the same right to life that i do.

:This moral framework is far more effective as a crime barrier because people who use it have thought about why they think things are right and wrong from their own POV. Your framework comes from a book that was writtn 2000 years ago, and therefore not all its morals are up to date with the changing zeitgeist. [[Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 14:13, 26 April 2007

::You don't advance the argument by pointing to facts that don't answer my questions. This is what I call the ''magician's argument''. The magician's argument goes as follows: there is nothing in the hat therefore the rabbit from the hat must be magic. I don't care about your claims about religion of criminals. I'd like to have answers to my questions. As best as I can see your answer to my hypotheical question is to deny the framework of my hypothetical question. I can only assume that you refuse to answer this line of question undermines your belief set and that's why you won't answer.

::BTW, the reason I am pursuing this line of questions is not because I don't understand the atheistic point of view. I understand the false premises of atheism quite well. This is because for many years, I was an atheist. As I matured I came to realized just how much I didn't know. I still don't know what I don't know, but as the arrogance of youth recedes I begin to know how much I don't know. Thus, I realized atheism was naive and foolish, so I became an agnostic. Since that time, I learned more and came to believe that I am probably a [[deist]] but my search for truth continues. I may yet get more specific in my religious beliefs as I further mature. I will point out to you that it is a universal truth that as we get older we get wiser. It is not a coincidence that churches are full of old people. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 07:52, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

::I don't see what your point is here. Could you state, in just a sentence or two, what your hypothetical that we are ignoring is? Also, we may need to archive some of this (which I don't know how to do yet.) [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 10:08, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

:::The hypothetical (previously stated in a wildly exaggerated example) is: if in truth "reason" is your only guide and if in fact there is no soul, no spiritual world and no God, why do you do good things that don't follow reason? Why don't you do "bad" things that have perfectly good rationale? Your answer to the second question was: devise a better hypothetical because my reasoning is arbitrary and supports whatever rational I choose to follow. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 10:51, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

==Question==
Do you believe that there is absolute moral truth? --[[User:CPAdmin1|CPAdmin1]] 17:57, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

Please define an absolute moral truth? [[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 21:08, 26 April 2007

==A place for a few more answers==

From the Bible of the Good and Moral Atheist:

"We have evolved the ability to empathize, to share the motivations and feelings of those around us. From this, we
have gained the ability to sympathize with the plight of others, to understand what may be causing them distress or
pain, and to wish, for their sake, that their suffering would stop. Armed with this sympathy, we act in a moral way to
prevent the distress and suffering of others. Our opinions on what constitutes a moral course of action may differ, but
the underlying sympathy is the same."

"With sympathy for others and recognition of the similarities between people, we each build an internal code of the
morality of our actions. We seek to protect innocent children, for we were once children ourselves and needed
protection. We seek a society that does not foster immoral actions, in order to protect the members of society like
ourselves. We feel and internalize various plights and pains of others in this process, and develop a true morality.
American revolutionary and President Thomas Jefferson put it well when he wrote in an 1814 letter, “Nature [has]
implanted in our breasts a love of others, a sense of duty to them, a moral instinct, in short, which prompts us
irresistibly to feel and to succor their distresses.”

Though I am sure this will mean little to a "deist" it is useful to those who at one time tried to find god but realized that the effort was too intellectually dishonest for them to ultimately accept. I think, Everwill, if you are really interested in learning about this and not just baiting the less conservative folk here, you might do well to read some of this material. http://www.angelfire.com/planet/thebgma/BGMA.pdf

::This is exactly my point, but I don't want to jam it down the throats of our resident atheists. Although they don't yet realize it, if you are a moral atheist, you are not an atheist at all, but rather you are a [[deist]]. The slippery slope is: once you realize you are a deist, you begin the search through religions to find a deeper meaning of life and learn more about the true nature of God. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 10:53, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

:But that's just it--I am not a deist because I do not accept there is a god that needs to exist. If that means you are going to call me an atheist, fine, whatever, but otherwise there is no reason to be condescending about "poor little atheists." It just isn't necessary. We feel, if I may be so bold, that ''you'' are the one who is lost. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 11:14, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

::Flippin this statement so far as I can tell doesn't seem to based upon reason but rather upon faith. As Thomas Jefferson (a deist) said, “Nature [has] implanted in our breasts a love of others, a sense of duty to them, a moral instinct, in short, which prompts us irresistibly to feel and to succor their distresses.” In your "Nature" means "good luck" or at the very difference "luck". I don't see any difference between "good luck" and God. You think these are unrelated concepts, but I'm not sure why. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 11:36, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

If I sound condescending it is because you are no different from a fundamentalist muslim. That is you refuse to critically examine your belief set objectively. To answer hypothetical questions will lead you in a direction you refuse to go. You demand that others prove the unprovable as evidence that there is a God. Understand this: we agree that God is neither a flying spaghetti monster, nor a bearded old man laying on a cloud. Relax, I understand your position completely, because I've been where you are. It's okay. Each finds his own path in due time.[[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 11:36, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

Maybe there is a reason it is "unprovable." Truth be told, I think what passes for "good luck" is also random. Just as the rest of universe, this computer I'm typing on and the bowl of Cheerios I had for breakfast. It occurred through chance that this came about--not by a bearded man in the sky waving a wand. If you are looking for fantasy, watch Harry Potter or read the bible. I live in a world of facts and evidence and am content to do so until my lamp is extinguished. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 11:45, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

::I really have no idea what Harry Potter or the Bible has to do with the central question. After all this talking I have discerned (with much difficulty) that you attribute all that we see to "good luck". I call it "God" but I agree completely that whether it's just good luck or whether it is God this realization does not change reality. Other than that we are in complete agreement. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 11:48, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

Good, we agree that god is a delusion based on random chance and superstition in the ill-informed mind. Glad to hear that, too. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 11:51, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

No. We agree that your misinformed characterization of the word "God" is the based on your perceptions about what you think God is. Since we agree that the universe is the product of luck, henceforth I will refer to the guiding force behind the universe as Luck so as to not offend your belief-set.[[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 11:55, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

''Don't you love how the Truth flows like water? No matter where you damn it up, it will still find the way. This is the miracle of Luck to me.'' [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 12:05, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

good lord this is boring.... [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 12:11, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

How 'bout I say "you win" and you evangelize someone else? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 12:12, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

::That's "reasoning" for you ... heh ... [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 13:09, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Yes, you win by attrition. Congrats. Now, I'll go back to not going to churc and telling school children there is no god. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 13:16, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

::::See below regarding your concept of "Luck" (master of all the universe) if you seek further truth. If you choose ignorance, remain blissful and enjoy your life. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 13:39, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

::Funny, you took the words right out of my mouth. ;-) [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 13:40, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

::::So, in fact this is not attrition or victory (I was never trying to win). Rather the discussion is at an end because you have refused to expand the boundaries of your perceptions. You came here believing that god was a myth and you continue to believe that god is a myth. You refuse to examine the implications of this possibility: myths are myths, but God is something else entirely. The thing you call Luck, I call God. That's called finding common ground. Your current problem is your very fearful of where that common ground might take you. It might shatter your arrogantly held belief-set.

::::See below regarding your concept of "Luck" (master of all the universe) if you seek further truth. If you choose ignorance, remain blissful and enjoy your life. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 13:39, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

==Which Religion is the true Religion?==

::You havea copy of the Bible in God's handwriting? Or you beleive that every step from initial writing, through every translation throughout time has been divinely guided to lay out His message clearly? So, which translation is the divinely guided one? And if He were so inclined to so specifically direct the writing ans subsequent translation of a book, might he not have made it a bit clearer which translation is correct, and which parts of the Bible can be taken literally and which are metaphors? You claim to know the difference... I've never seen that footnote anywhere in the Bible. [[User:QNA|QNA]] 11:39, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

This statement has nothing to do with this discussion. The arguments about "which translation" and "God's handwriting" are filed under "Which religion is the true religion?" and they have no bearing on whether atheism vs. deism. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 11:48, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

::The copies and translations of the Bible are very accurate, and accurate enough to know what God was saying. And the phrase "every translation through time" is quite misleading, as mot current English Bibles have been translated directly from the original languages, i.e. a one-step translation. It couldn't get much better than that. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:56, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

:::I'm not prepared to defend the Bible as the "word of God", but I think it's an important question to examine, but I think it's a pointless discussion with those who haven't realized that there is a God. All your Bible proves to them is that someone wrote something a long time ago. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 12:16, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Ah, but I am not someone who denies the existence of God, just one who does not accept that the Bible is literal truth. I personally beleive it to be mostly metaphorical, with some history thrown in, though I'd still never use it for a primary history source, even on mundane topics (i.e. who ruled where at what time... etc...) [[User:QNA|QNA]] 12:22, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

::::I am pretty much in agreement with you QNA. I'm willing to allow the possibility that Phil Rayment's opinions about the Bible is correct. At the same time, I doubt he's right about that. On the other hand, I think that denying the existance of God is silly. However, arguing the nature of God is a worthwhile endeavor. The Bible and other texts are useful in this exercise because we can learn a great deal from those who have gone before us and who have already had these same arguments.

::::I will say without equivocation that the "God doesn't exist because I don't believe in bearded guys in the clouds with a magic wand" is pretty much an argument made from a posiition of ignorance about what most knowledgeable people think about God and the universe. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 13:15, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

==Good Luck==
Since all of the universe occurred out of good luck (according to Flippin), can we humans influence Luck? Should we attempt to commune with Luck? Do you think that hundreds of thousands of years ago, men (equally smart) pondered these same questions (since they didn't have a TV to occupied their evenings). Do you think luck, or perhaps Luck, resulted in the strange coincidence that after many generations the consensus view in every culture and society has always been that we can affect our luck by a combination of worshipping Luck and doing good things? [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 11:55, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

::No no no no no no no. The universe came to be the way it is due to the laws of physics etc, that so far have been proven to be as true as anything can be and apply to the universe exceedingly well. Add to this the theory of evolution, and yes there are one or two holes there, but soon we will have filled them all. The process of life is an attempt to discover things. You may say that we believe that we came here due to luck however i do not believe this to be true. We came here because of a reason that i do not know. However i have faith that i will not remain ignorant forever, and that soon we will know and we need not invoke luck or god to describe how we got here.

::I sympathise with you because of your above description of how you came to be a deist, however there are a few things that you might need to consider again. Firstly that just because we dont know something does not mean that we will always not know it. Look at the progress science has made over the past 500 years. We have gone from believing that the earth is at the centre of the universe and that the world is only 6000 years old, to the earth being just one planet revolving around an unremarkable star and is over 4 billion years old. Consider what we may discover in the next 500 years as our technology continues to progress and we begin to explore space outside the playground of the solar system. I would not be surprised if within my lifetime, we have an explanation for how life started and a reason for the big bang that does not rely on some higher being.

::As an aside i think that to say that as you grow older you grow wiser is slightly misguided. Yes a some people do because they have more experience and they have the foresight to use that to plan there future. However a large part of the human population does not use this experience at all, and simply assumes that they know best because they are older not because they are wiser. [[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 17:27, 27 April 2007

What's the difference between what you just said and what I just said? You wrote, "The universe came to be the way it is due to the laws of physics etc, that so far have been proven to be as true as anything can be and apply to the universe exceedingly well." Okay. we agree. So the universe is ordered. It has laws. How did the "laws" come about? Did the protons and electrons elect a neutron who decided what laws everyone should follow? I guess these laws are and always have been. I guess we were just lucky to have the Laws of Physics.

As an aside I find this assertion amusing, "As an aside i think that to say that as you grow older you grow wiser is slightly misguided." I'm not so much suprised that someone who believes there is more wisdom in youth than in age doubts the foundations of the philosophies that provided his every waking and sleeping daily need. I wish I were that naive again. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 08:21, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

::We, as in humanity, do not know why the laws of physics happen to be the way they are. Maybe there was no choice, and for the universe to have come into existence these laws must have been the way they are. Or maybe there are other explanations. We simply do not know, however again, this admission of lack of knowledge does not mean that I decide that therefore God must be the answer. I simply accept that I do not know everything and then I attempt to find out why such things are the way they are. I do not think that we were lucky to have the laws of physics, I am confident that there is a solid scientific reason that does not allow any greater sentience to have a hand in things and that this reason will become evident in the not to distant future.

::I do not think there is more wisdom in youth than in age. That is the reason I said 'slightly misguided'. Not totally misguided and not completely idiotic. Just that there are old people who are not wise just as there are young people who are. I do not claim to be one of those young people, I am not wise in any sense, although I do hope to learn from my experiences and others and thus become wise. However many people do not use experience in this way and so do not become wise, just as some people pick up on things quickly and are. I do not doubt the foundations of the philosophies that provide me with such. I doubt the philsophies of Thomas Aquinas, St Anselm and any that have agreed with these two charlatans parading themselves as philosophers.[[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 16:52, 28 April 2007

::''Bolly, '''please''' learn the conventions of colons to seperate text. (I'm tired of adding your colons.) I put instructions on your discussion page some days ago.''

==The Imaginary Catalyst==
There's a part of the concept you're having a very difficult time wrapping your head around. You wrote:

::''We simply do not know, however again, this admission of lack of knowledge does not mean that I decide that therefore God must be the answer.''

You don't know it but your making an argument of semantics not a argument of logic. It doesn't matter whether you call it Luck, God, or some as yet uknown catalyst, in the end all rational humans agree that SOMETHING is the answer. Once we agree that there answer then we can begin to examine by deduction the properties of that something. People tend to get hung up on words because it connects them to some childhood they are rebelling against or a childhood that they are attempting to validate.

Whether we call it God, Luck, Fate, No-alternative, the concept descriptor doesn't change the concept. In other to explain to others, I prefer to find use words which make sense to them, rather than fighting them about things that don't matter. Here's another way to look at it:

Do you remember the concept of ''i'', the imaginary number from mathematics? Conservapedia doesn't have an article about ''i'' yet, but you can read one from Wikipedia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imaginary_number | here]. The idea behind ''i'' is that some concepts are not fully understood but still can be examined in an objective manner. According to some Wikipedia editor,
:"''Many other mathematicians were slow to believe in imaginary numbers at first, including Descartes who wrote about them in his La Géométrie, where the term was meant to be derogatory.''"
Thus, I can understand why you are resistant to this concept. But if mathemeticians can do it, so can you.

Forget about "God", the word touches a fear deep in your psyche. The previous debater wanted to call it ''Luck''. How about for your benefit we call it ''g'', an as-yet unknown causation of the laws of physics and the origins of the universe as God. I agree we might one day learn all the properties of ''g'' but right now we don't know the properties of ''g''.

The atheistic proposition is we haven't discovered the imaginary catalyst yet, and therefore ''g'' doesn't exist. The deistic proposition is that it's silly to think that ''g'' doesn't exist just because we can't understand or define ''g''. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 09:45, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

What the heck is the question? What started the universe? I'm sure that is a physics question. And I'm sure they are working on an answer. Just because you lack the words to describe it in terms less vague then "the force" doesn't mean there aren't people who will discovery a non-imaginary solution. Welcome to reality where there are no imaginary answers. -Sam

==Atheism vs. Deism==
This debate has wandered far from the invalid question. I have reposted key parts of this debate under [[Atheism vs. Deism | Atheism_vs_Deism]] where I will continue discourse. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 10:23, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

:P.s. This is the most ridiculus concept of information ever. {{unsigned|Christianlove}}
::Pardon? What are you referring to, and why should we take any notice when you don't provide any explanation nor justification? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:32, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

Debate:Antisemitism

2007-11-26T19:04:55Z

SDSkinner:

This was a topic that was deleted. I wonder how long this will survive this time. If it should be in another category, yes, move it - place a note here.

The central belief in Christianity is that Jesus Christ died for the sins of all mankind. Thus the path to Heaven and God is through Christ alone. Given that God sent His only begotten Son to save humanity, the event leading to Christ's crucifixion and death were anticipated. Many Christians still believe that the Jews killed Christ, using Romans (or others) to do the deed. If the Jews were indeed responsible for killing Christ (I understand that this is NOT true), were they not doing God's bidding? After all, was not Christ's human sacrifice to save humanity from our sins? Why is that even after 2000 years, there is still simmering and often overt anti-semitism? And why is it that the children of Abraham - Jews, Christians and Muslims forget their common ancestry? [[User:Seekcommon]
::hmmm, fighting over that piece of land called Israel/palestine? [[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 17:08, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

People like to have a boggy man to blame the world's problems on. Leftist can't accept some people are normally bad and right wingers are always trolling for foes.

Personally I always thought the Masons make a better scare target. -Sam

Debate:What is the relationship between religion and the human tendency to kill each other?

2007-11-26T18:59:03Z

SDSkinner: /* No Religion? */

==No Religion?==
This sounds like John Lennons Imagine song. For those who don't know what the definition of religion is, you'd better look it up. What the question really should be asking is that if people didn't believe in anything would they have reason to kill each other. Maybe if they were indoctrinated to the point where they weren't allowed to take a stance on anything. Like if people ever really needed a reason. Don't worry, if there wasn't any religion I'm one hundred percent sure people would come up with a reason to kill, or go to war. Oh, and for you Humanist out there, that's right, Humanism is a religion too.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 18:37, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
::communism Vs. capitalism. [[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 18:40, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

Of course we would. Not all conflicts are really about religion. Oh, there may be some rhetoric about “God
being on our side” and all that, but most conflicts have been over territory, and the control of resources.

Well of course people would still kill each other, however a lot of killing would not have happened and there would be less conflict today. The crusades, purely religious motives. The Northern Ireland situation was caused by politics, however if there was no religion, then there would be no labels by which the two sides could remain two sides, and the whole conflict would now be over. [[Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 18:20, 20 April 2007

Kaine murdered Able because of jealousy.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 10:48, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

I think we would've found a reason to kill each other. But the reality is that now, conservative americans put the faith of the people as an excuse to get what they want.
===Some other reasons===
Well, there's money, pride, oil... [[User:Totnesmartin|Totnesmartin]] 16:58, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

hey did anyone forget jeffery dahmer? he was just hungry...
--[[User:Wally|Wally]] 19:50, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

There are a bunch of reason to fight wars that aren't based on religion. Genocide would be rarer though. It is either religiously or ethnically based and without faith the distinction between ethnic groups would be less.

==Lebensraum==

Whatever reasons humanity has to fight amongst each other, one fact will always be certain: Humans are creatures with an ever expanding population, living on a planet with limited living space. Therefore, if you remove every other reason for fighting wars, we will still need to fight wars simply to make room for people to live.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 17:06, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

Debate:Should Religion Play a Large Role in Modern Societies?

2007-11-26T18:55:21Z

SDSkinner: /* Yes */

{{debate}}

I think that religion is just a tool to make people feel safe and not alone in this world. However, many religious doctrines have been proven wrong by modern science. In the case of Christianity, science has disproved the biblical teaching that the world is flat. Science has shown us that the world cannot be 6,000 years old as the bible teaches through methods such as carbon dating with fossils. So now that we know how most of the world works there is no need for it anymore. I mean the world isnt flat right and we know the world isnt 6000 years old. So basically in this day in age we dont need an ancient book to tell us how the world works. i would like to think of myself as more intelligant then people who were alive 2000 years ago. All major religions (with the exception of buddhism which does not worship a higher being) were created to outline specific mores and give simple comprehendable explanations for things as complex as the creation of the universe. In today's world, religion can really only serve one of those two purposes effectively, that is to provide moral codes and societal rules. An ever increasing amount of "history" provided in the Bible has been proven to be false, and it seems unlikely that the entire universe was created by a being living in the third dimension and shaped like a human being (it also seems like an egocentrical thing to believe but that's beside the point). So religion's only real significant purpose today is to set up moral code. However, this is not to say that laws should be based on such moral codes. The moralities set up in each religion are different. Mores are not universally accepted or shared. Furthermore, many rules set up in the bible cause the infringement upon the rights of others (i.e. banning of gay marriage, bans on abortion etc.). If religion serves a purpose today than it is a considerably smaller one than it did a thousand years ago.
==Yes==
Religion has to be relevant in that so many people are influenced by it.
Religion is not relevant in discovering scientific truth and has only served to impede scientific understanding.
Religious truth is necessarily contradictory to factual understanding as the particular notion of truth only becomes the purview of religion is unsubstantiated or contradictory to physical or natural truth otherwise it is a general truth. Therefore the focus of conservipedia is the aspects of Christianity that focus on the discrepancies between reason and logic based on observable, quantifiable, understandable phenomenon and an interpretation of Christian text biased towards the Conservative Agenda.

So many inaccuracies and assumptions in your statement that I can't address them all without turning what should be a forum into a dialogue. Anyway, if by religion you mean faith in God and reacting to your faith in a manner similar to many others, then yes, it is of critical and eternally lasting importance. If you mean the highly ritualized practices of organized religion such as in Roman Catholic or Anglican services, then I would say it's less important, as the decline of "religion" in Western Europe over the last 50 years has shown. --[[User:Daniel B. Douglas|Daniel B. Douglas]] 18:15, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

Mr. Douglas, you voice your opinion that believing in God and being influenced by this belief is important or relevant (please correct me if im wrong). For the purpose of debate, could you please back up your arguement with facts or at least explain why you believe your opinion is accurate?
--[[User:Anti-Facio [[Facio]] 10:05, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

I'd say that Religion has always been relevant (or important or destructive) or whatever you choose to say. In my own view, Religion has been, by far, the Most destructive of all weapons of mass destruction. Arguing that the killings of humans by other humans in the name of religion is by a few zealots/crazies is missing the point. Today, we look at the extremists of the Islamic world with horror, a few centuries ago, it was the Christians slaughtering the non-believers in the Crusades. I do not believe that any part of the world, any religion has been insulated from the killings in the name of THAT religion. To dismiss this as the acts of a few, to grab power/money or whatever is not sufficient. We ought to examine why men have historically used religion as a weapon and not as they claim it is supposed to be used - show the path to eternal truths using persuasion and words and not the sword.

Of course religion is and was relevant what does not mean that it should be relevant. Most people in the world believe in a religion. And many live their religion. They arrange their day arround religious habits. Not working on Friday or Sunday. No meat, no pork, no alcohol, limited sexuality, ... there are many restrictions that restrict people in their life and in the way they behave in socciety. Fanatic religious people as well as people who pretend to be (fanatic) religious to gain more power for worldly plans are one of the biggest threats today. In that point it does not matter WHAT religion one has. If a person is holding some written or told words for true in every case without using the own brain, it leads often to murder and hatered. As allready mentioned in statement above mine, there was slaughtering in many religions including christianity. The church was there when the native americans were slaughtered. The church was there when "whiches" were burned. The church was there, when the Nazis took Jews to concentration camps. And today the christian church es in Germany still receive the taxes that were introduced by Hitler. (What means they are possibly the only institution still profiting from WW2) But that does not mean that the catholic church or even religions in total are evil? I would say NO! They are not evil. But many people, who are religious are evil. And for those it is easy to find credulous believers. For sure religion is relevant. But I say this is not good as religion is a big danger.--[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 07:14, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

A widely published author once wrote something like this: When religion fails to inculcate a sense of morality into society then the whole of law and enforcement falls onto the shoulders of government. In broad, general terms, religion is a force for morality, for good. Though not every religion has 10 commandments exactly, traditional religions have a moral code its followers are encouraged to follow. Yes, religion has a place in society, no matter how freely a society communicates within and without its borders. [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 17:50, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

I would have to disagree with both you and that author. In a Canadian city, about 40 years ago, the police went on strike for a day. Shops and banks were robbed, cars stolen, vandalism, looting etc. The town pretty much went to the dogs for that day, and almost every shop along the main drag was robbed and massive amounts of damage occured. Now, the majority of the people in that city were christians, and fairly devout ones as well, yet despite having a "strong moral code" they still participated in the robberies and muggings because the police weren't there. This suggests that faith in God is not enough to stop people doing bad things, a lot of people need something more mundane and real. Bolly Ottihw 09:30, 22 April 2007

I was under the impression inoculating you with morality is the responsibility of your parents and the community. -Sam

==No==
Religion is not relevant in todays society because Truth is absolute and not relative. Religion is a concept created to make false belief systems seem the same as the one true beleif system that the one true God allowed his only son to die for our sins.

So, if I understand what you're saying, you believe the very concept of religion gives rise to false beliefs and somehow grants them legitimacy? [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 16:16, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

'''Response'''
The use of the concept of religion allows nonchristians to marginalize the truth and accept their falsehoods as alternative versions of the truth. [[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 17 March 2007

I am curious - does that mean that in your opinion, Christians do not use the concept of religion? Perhaps you meant, Christians use the word religion correctly (i.e. accept the truth of God and Jesus) while Non Christians do not accept THE truth? [[User:kchittur|kchittur]] 18 March 2007

Religion? No, lets make this quite clear: Not all religions are equal. Christianity should play a large role in modern society, as God intended, for it is the Truth. But the abomination of Islam should be wiped out, destroyed by force if nessicessary - both for its constantly earthly attrocities and oppressions, and for leading people from Christ and thus damning them eternally. To speak of 'religion' lumps all religions together. Christianity is good, everything else is bad, and any christian who doesn't realise this just hasn't yet realised that by the fundamental tennants of Christianity they are allowing people to literially go to hell in the name of freedom. - BornAgainBrit, from a town just outside of Londonistan.

::Just to point it out, Religion is [http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/religion defined] as "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith". This could be God or God''s'', and doesn't make any reference to JC; there are thousands (maybe millions) of religions, and only one family encompasses JC and God. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 20:38, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

:The thing about science is that it is flexible and open to change, using the latest evidence. Religion isn't as flexible. I mean, a few centuries ago, we still thought the earth was the center of the universe. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 18:16, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

Riiiigghhttt... it was only 1998 when the Catholic Church announced that the world was not in fact, flat. Furthermore, Christian beliefs like the Earth being 6,000 years old have been long abandoned by most Christians after nearly irrefutable scientific evidence to the contrary. As for believing the Earth is the center of the universe, those following an entirely literal interpretation of the Bible still follow this belief.

And, being flexible is a good thing. Science changes constantly because more and more evidence is found and more and more research is done. As these changes continue, as new information is discovered, scientific thought begins to move further and further from the history told in the Bible. Many Christians however, hold on to what little in the Bible hasnt been unquestionably proven inaccurate claiming the Bible as absolutely true. Science advances, Christianity is still living in the Dark Ages.

'''Response'''You sir are not much of conservative. If you want to use you biased relative arguments then get thee to Wikipedia. Here on Conserapedia bold clear and simple assertions carry more weight than Socratic diatribes and explicit analogies.[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 24 March 2007
--Facio

Socrate's method was asking questions. Explicit analogies are by definition better then vague analogies. Biased relative arguements is the funniest statement I've heard in a while. The reson they don't say religion is evil is because it is a debate and discusion where you have to explain your position. -Sam

:Minor correction - in 1998, the Catholic Church did not admit the world was not flat. They never claimed that in the first place, it was a story made up to poke fun at them shortly after the continent of America was (re-)discovered. An easy mistake though - 1998 is the year in which they admitted that the earth is not the stationary center of the universe, and that not everything has to orbit around it. The RCC always knew the earth to be round, and even had a good idea of its size - both discoveries of Greek science. They did have some minor doctrine on the issue though: Church policy was that the other side of the earth was nothing but uninhabitable water, an assumption based on the idea that if there were another continent then they could not be exposed to the Second Coming of Christ, which the bible states will be witnessed by all people. - BornAgainBrit

oooookkk....so christianity has never done anything bad in its name over the past 2000 years, compared to islam? I think that to say that is in blatant ignorance of the facts of many atrocities commited in the name of the christian God and with the support of the church. The Crusades, the holocaust, the witch hunts, the spanish inquisition, the killing of doctors who carry out abortions, the list continues. To deny that the christian faith played no role in any of these is just plain stupidity. Bolly Ottihw 09:35, 22 April 2007

== Why Ask? ==

This seems to be a pointless question. Which religion are you refering to? Do you mean one in particular or just religiosity in general? If you say yes or no how far are you willing to go to bring about that outcome?

17:57, 24 May 2007 (EDT)17:57, 24 May 2007 (EDT)[[User:Evanave|Evanave]] 17:57, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

"Christianity should play a large role in modern society, as God intended, for it is the Truth." Right...because we know that this so called God said that Christianity was right and was the truth...Hey, why don't we all live like our savior Jesus...oh wait, Jesus was Jewish...If you want to follow his path, convert! Jesus was Jewish, get over it, this is a fact (as opposed to the existence of a god).

Also, I have trouble taking arguments seriously when I read:

"i would like to think of myself as more intelligant then people who were alive 2000 years ago." I'll let you slide on the I, but come on people...it is intelligent than, not intelligant then.

"destroyed by force if nessicessary - both for its constantly earthly attrocities and oppressions," nessicessary? attrocities? Try something like...necessary or atrocities.

Moving on...

There is no proof whatsoever of the existence of a supreme being. Not one single bit of information. There are approximately 6 billion people in this world, and if I'm not mistaken, over 80% of people are religious...That means 4-5 billion people waste their time praying to nothing (Assuming all of these people have prayed at some point or another)

What makes you believe in God? Somebody told you that God existed as a little child and you believed them. People also used to think that cigarettes weren't harmful to the body, but guess what, people were wrong!

Take a moment and think...what has God done for me? How would my life be different if I did not believe in God?

I have no answer, but then again, I'm atheist.

So, in response to the question, No, religion should not play ANY role in modern societies.

~Evan
:Lack of evidence does not speak ''against'' the truth/existence of anything, anybody with a basic knowledge of science should know that. And religion gives you a crutch, regardless of whether it is true or not; ''knowing'' (truly believing, knowing that you are undoubtedly correct) that there is a God who loves you can be the best drug ever. And don't take the politicized Christian Conservative views as the ''only'' kind of Christianity; There are plenty of forms which are much more Biblically accurate than evangelism (IMHO). --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 17:58, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

==Humanist==
Exactly what the Humanist Manifesto says is being repeated here. Waisting your time praying to nothing... etc. You are a Humanist. That is a religion. You say you are an atheist? You are a Humanist. You are religious. Non-theistic religion. You obviously don't even now what constitutes a religion. When someone says religion, you think of Judeo-Christianity. Whatever your religious belief is, and whether it is theistic or non-theistic, get over it. It's all religion, and every single one of you believe in something. So instead of criticizing everybody elses why don't you all get a life and tell us all what is so great about what you, that's right you, believe in. If all you got is bashing everyone else then it only tells the rest of us you ain't got nothin.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 22:14, 31 May 2007 (EDT)

That isn't true. I believe reality exists. The truth is out there and then it whops us on the head. Damn truth.
I was under the impression that religion had to do with belief in God(s). Morality and ethical codes are not religion because they are based on reality (it's the other people stupid).
(We) bash you because it reminds (us) of wack a mole. It is rather fun, although it can be tedious. - Sam

Debate:Should Religion Play a Large Role in Modern Societies?

2007-11-26T18:53:09Z

SDSkinner: /* Humanist */

{{debate}}

I think that religion is just a tool to make people feel safe and not alone in this world. However, many religious doctrines have been proven wrong by modern science. In the case of Christianity, science has disproved the biblical teaching that the world is flat. Science has shown us that the world cannot be 6,000 years old as the bible teaches through methods such as carbon dating with fossils. So now that we know how most of the world works there is no need for it anymore. I mean the world isnt flat right and we know the world isnt 6000 years old. So basically in this day in age we dont need an ancient book to tell us how the world works. i would like to think of myself as more intelligant then people who were alive 2000 years ago. All major religions (with the exception of buddhism which does not worship a higher being) were created to outline specific mores and give simple comprehendable explanations for things as complex as the creation of the universe. In today's world, religion can really only serve one of those two purposes effectively, that is to provide moral codes and societal rules. An ever increasing amount of "history" provided in the Bible has been proven to be false, and it seems unlikely that the entire universe was created by a being living in the third dimension and shaped like a human being (it also seems like an egocentrical thing to believe but that's beside the point). So religion's only real significant purpose today is to set up moral code. However, this is not to say that laws should be based on such moral codes. The moralities set up in each religion are different. Mores are not universally accepted or shared. Furthermore, many rules set up in the bible cause the infringement upon the rights of others (i.e. banning of gay marriage, bans on abortion etc.). If religion serves a purpose today than it is a considerably smaller one than it did a thousand years ago.
==Yes==
Religion has to be relevant in that so many people are influenced by it.
Religion is not relevant in discovering scientific truth and has only served to impede scientific understanding.
Religious truth is necessarily contradictory to factual understanding as the particular notion of truth only becomes the purview of religion is unsubstantiated or contradictory to physical or natural truth otherwise it is a general truth. Therefore the focus of conservipedia is the aspects of Christianity that focus on the discrepancies between reason and logic based on observable, quantifiable, understandable phenomenon and an interpretation of Christian text biased towards the Conservative Agenda.

So many inaccuracies and assumptions in your statement that I can't address them all without turning what should be a forum into a dialogue. Anyway, if by religion you mean faith in God and reacting to your faith in a manner similar to many others, then yes, it is of critical and eternally lasting importance. If you mean the highly ritualized practices of organized religion such as in Roman Catholic or Anglican services, then I would say it's less important, as the decline of "religion" in Western Europe over the last 50 years has shown. --[[User:Daniel B. Douglas|Daniel B. Douglas]] 18:15, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

Mr. Douglas, you voice your opinion that believing in God and being influenced by this belief is important or relevant (please correct me if im wrong). For the purpose of debate, could you please back up your arguement with facts or at least explain why you believe your opinion is accurate?
--[[User:Anti-Facio [[Facio]] 10:05, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

I'd say that Religion has always been relevant (or important or destructive) or whatever you choose to say. In my own view, Religion has been, by far, the Most destructive of all weapons of mass destruction. Arguing that the killings of humans by other humans in the name of religion is by a few zealots/crazies is missing the point. Today, we look at the extremists of the Islamic world with horror, a few centuries ago, it was the Christians slaughtering the non-believers in the Crusades. I do not believe that any part of the world, any religion has been insulated from the killings in the name of THAT religion. To dismiss this as the acts of a few, to grab power/money or whatever is not sufficient. We ought to examine why men have historically used religion as a weapon and not as they claim it is supposed to be used - show the path to eternal truths using persuasion and words and not the sword.

Of course religion is and was relevant what does not mean that it should be relevant. Most people in the world believe in a religion. And many live their religion. They arrange their day arround religious habits. Not working on Friday or Sunday. No meat, no pork, no alcohol, limited sexuality, ... there are many restrictions that restrict people in their life and in the way they behave in socciety. Fanatic religious people as well as people who pretend to be (fanatic) religious to gain more power for worldly plans are one of the biggest threats today. In that point it does not matter WHAT religion one has. If a person is holding some written or told words for true in every case without using the own brain, it leads often to murder and hatered. As allready mentioned in statement above mine, there was slaughtering in many religions including christianity. The church was there when the native americans were slaughtered. The church was there when "whiches" were burned. The church was there, when the Nazis took Jews to concentration camps. And today the christian church es in Germany still receive the taxes that were introduced by Hitler. (What means they are possibly the only institution still profiting from WW2) But that does not mean that the catholic church or even religions in total are evil? I would say NO! They are not evil. But many people, who are religious are evil. And for those it is easy to find credulous believers. For sure religion is relevant. But I say this is not good as religion is a big danger.--[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 07:14, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

A widely published author once wrote something like this: When religion fails to inculcate a sense of morality into society then the whole of law and enforcement falls onto the shoulders of government. In broad, general terms, religion is a force for morality, for good. Though not every religion has 10 commandments exactly, traditional religions have a moral code its followers are encouraged to follow. Yes, religion has a place in society, no matter how freely a society communicates within and without its borders. [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 17:50, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

I would have to disagree with both you and that author. In a Canadian city, about 40 years ago, the police went on strike for a day. Shops and banks were robbed, cars stolen, vandalism, looting etc. The town pretty much went to the dogs for that day, and almost every shop along the main drag was robbed and massive amounts of damage occured. Now, the majority of the people in that city were christians, and fairly devout ones as well, yet despite having a "strong moral code" they still participated in the robberies and muggings because the police weren't there. This suggests that faith in God is not enough to stop people doing bad things, a lot of people need something more mundane and real. Bolly Ottihw 09:30, 22 April 2007

==No==
Religion is not relevant in todays society because Truth is absolute and not relative. Religion is a concept created to make false belief systems seem the same as the one true beleif system that the one true God allowed his only son to die for our sins.

So, if I understand what you're saying, you believe the very concept of religion gives rise to false beliefs and somehow grants them legitimacy? [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 16:16, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

'''Response'''
The use of the concept of religion allows nonchristians to marginalize the truth and accept their falsehoods as alternative versions of the truth. [[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 17 March 2007

I am curious - does that mean that in your opinion, Christians do not use the concept of religion? Perhaps you meant, Christians use the word religion correctly (i.e. accept the truth of God and Jesus) while Non Christians do not accept THE truth? [[User:kchittur|kchittur]] 18 March 2007

Religion? No, lets make this quite clear: Not all religions are equal. Christianity should play a large role in modern society, as God intended, for it is the Truth. But the abomination of Islam should be wiped out, destroyed by force if nessicessary - both for its constantly earthly attrocities and oppressions, and for leading people from Christ and thus damning them eternally. To speak of 'religion' lumps all religions together. Christianity is good, everything else is bad, and any christian who doesn't realise this just hasn't yet realised that by the fundamental tennants of Christianity they are allowing people to literially go to hell in the name of freedom. - BornAgainBrit, from a town just outside of Londonistan.

::Just to point it out, Religion is [http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/religion defined] as "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith". This could be God or God''s'', and doesn't make any reference to JC; there are thousands (maybe millions) of religions, and only one family encompasses JC and God. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 20:38, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

:The thing about science is that it is flexible and open to change, using the latest evidence. Religion isn't as flexible. I mean, a few centuries ago, we still thought the earth was the center of the universe. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 18:16, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

Riiiigghhttt... it was only 1998 when the Catholic Church announced that the world was not in fact, flat. Furthermore, Christian beliefs like the Earth being 6,000 years old have been long abandoned by most Christians after nearly irrefutable scientific evidence to the contrary. As for believing the Earth is the center of the universe, those following an entirely literal interpretation of the Bible still follow this belief.

And, being flexible is a good thing. Science changes constantly because more and more evidence is found and more and more research is done. As these changes continue, as new information is discovered, scientific thought begins to move further and further from the history told in the Bible. Many Christians however, hold on to what little in the Bible hasnt been unquestionably proven inaccurate claiming the Bible as absolutely true. Science advances, Christianity is still living in the Dark Ages.

'''Response'''You sir are not much of conservative. If you want to use you biased relative arguments then get thee to Wikipedia. Here on Conserapedia bold clear and simple assertions carry more weight than Socratic diatribes and explicit analogies.[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 24 March 2007
--Facio

Socrate's method was asking questions. Explicit analogies are by definition better then vague analogies. Biased relative arguements is the funniest statement I've heard in a while. The reson they don't say religion is evil is because it is a debate and discusion where you have to explain your position. -Sam

:Minor correction - in 1998, the Catholic Church did not admit the world was not flat. They never claimed that in the first place, it was a story made up to poke fun at them shortly after the continent of America was (re-)discovered. An easy mistake though - 1998 is the year in which they admitted that the earth is not the stationary center of the universe, and that not everything has to orbit around it. The RCC always knew the earth to be round, and even had a good idea of its size - both discoveries of Greek science. They did have some minor doctrine on the issue though: Church policy was that the other side of the earth was nothing but uninhabitable water, an assumption based on the idea that if there were another continent then they could not be exposed to the Second Coming of Christ, which the bible states will be witnessed by all people. - BornAgainBrit

oooookkk....so christianity has never done anything bad in its name over the past 2000 years, compared to islam? I think that to say that is in blatant ignorance of the facts of many atrocities commited in the name of the christian God and with the support of the church. The Crusades, the holocaust, the witch hunts, the spanish inquisition, the killing of doctors who carry out abortions, the list continues. To deny that the christian faith played no role in any of these is just plain stupidity. Bolly Ottihw 09:35, 22 April 2007

== Why Ask? ==

This seems to be a pointless question. Which religion are you refering to? Do you mean one in particular or just religiosity in general? If you say yes or no how far are you willing to go to bring about that outcome?

17:57, 24 May 2007 (EDT)17:57, 24 May 2007 (EDT)[[User:Evanave|Evanave]] 17:57, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

"Christianity should play a large role in modern society, as God intended, for it is the Truth." Right...because we know that this so called God said that Christianity was right and was the truth...Hey, why don't we all live like our savior Jesus...oh wait, Jesus was Jewish...If you want to follow his path, convert! Jesus was Jewish, get over it, this is a fact (as opposed to the existence of a god).

Also, I have trouble taking arguments seriously when I read:

"i would like to think of myself as more intelligant then people who were alive 2000 years ago." I'll let you slide on the I, but come on people...it is intelligent than, not intelligant then.

"destroyed by force if nessicessary - both for its constantly earthly attrocities and oppressions," nessicessary? attrocities? Try something like...necessary or atrocities.

Moving on...

There is no proof whatsoever of the existence of a supreme being. Not one single bit of information. There are approximately 6 billion people in this world, and if I'm not mistaken, over 80% of people are religious...That means 4-5 billion people waste their time praying to nothing (Assuming all of these people have prayed at some point or another)

What makes you believe in God? Somebody told you that God existed as a little child and you believed them. People also used to think that cigarettes weren't harmful to the body, but guess what, people were wrong!

Take a moment and think...what has God done for me? How would my life be different if I did not believe in God?

I have no answer, but then again, I'm atheist.

So, in response to the question, No, religion should not play ANY role in modern societies.

~Evan
:Lack of evidence does not speak ''against'' the truth/existence of anything, anybody with a basic knowledge of science should know that. And religion gives you a crutch, regardless of whether it is true or not; ''knowing'' (truly believing, knowing that you are undoubtedly correct) that there is a God who loves you can be the best drug ever. And don't take the politicized Christian Conservative views as the ''only'' kind of Christianity; There are plenty of forms which are much more Biblically accurate than evangelism (IMHO). --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 17:58, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

==Humanist==
Exactly what the Humanist Manifesto says is being repeated here. Waisting your time praying to nothing... etc. You are a Humanist. That is a religion. You say you are an atheist? You are a Humanist. You are religious. Non-theistic religion. You obviously don't even now what constitutes a religion. When someone says religion, you think of Judeo-Christianity. Whatever your religious belief is, and whether it is theistic or non-theistic, get over it. It's all religion, and every single one of you believe in something. So instead of criticizing everybody elses why don't you all get a life and tell us all what is so great about what you, that's right you, believe in. If all you got is bashing everyone else then it only tells the rest of us you ain't got nothin.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 22:14, 31 May 2007 (EDT)

That isn't true. I believe reality exists. The truth is out there and then it whops us on the head. Damn truth.
I was under the impression that religion had to do with belief in God(s). Morality and ethical codes are not religion because they are based on reality (it's the other people stupid).
(We) bash you because it reminds (us) of wack a mole. It is rather fun, although it can be tedious. - Sam

Debate:Should Religion Play a Large Role in Modern Societies?

2007-11-26T18:46:10Z

SDSkinner: /* No */

{{debate}}

I think that religion is just a tool to make people feel safe and not alone in this world. However, many religious doctrines have been proven wrong by modern science. In the case of Christianity, science has disproved the biblical teaching that the world is flat. Science has shown us that the world cannot be 6,000 years old as the bible teaches through methods such as carbon dating with fossils. So now that we know how most of the world works there is no need for it anymore. I mean the world isnt flat right and we know the world isnt 6000 years old. So basically in this day in age we dont need an ancient book to tell us how the world works. i would like to think of myself as more intelligant then people who were alive 2000 years ago. All major religions (with the exception of buddhism which does not worship a higher being) were created to outline specific mores and give simple comprehendable explanations for things as complex as the creation of the universe. In today's world, religion can really only serve one of those two purposes effectively, that is to provide moral codes and societal rules. An ever increasing amount of "history" provided in the Bible has been proven to be false, and it seems unlikely that the entire universe was created by a being living in the third dimension and shaped like a human being (it also seems like an egocentrical thing to believe but that's beside the point). So religion's only real significant purpose today is to set up moral code. However, this is not to say that laws should be based on such moral codes. The moralities set up in each religion are different. Mores are not universally accepted or shared. Furthermore, many rules set up in the bible cause the infringement upon the rights of others (i.e. banning of gay marriage, bans on abortion etc.). If religion serves a purpose today than it is a considerably smaller one than it did a thousand years ago.
==Yes==
Religion has to be relevant in that so many people are influenced by it.
Religion is not relevant in discovering scientific truth and has only served to impede scientific understanding.
Religious truth is necessarily contradictory to factual understanding as the particular notion of truth only becomes the purview of religion is unsubstantiated or contradictory to physical or natural truth otherwise it is a general truth. Therefore the focus of conservipedia is the aspects of Christianity that focus on the discrepancies between reason and logic based on observable, quantifiable, understandable phenomenon and an interpretation of Christian text biased towards the Conservative Agenda.

So many inaccuracies and assumptions in your statement that I can't address them all without turning what should be a forum into a dialogue. Anyway, if by religion you mean faith in God and reacting to your faith in a manner similar to many others, then yes, it is of critical and eternally lasting importance. If you mean the highly ritualized practices of organized religion such as in Roman Catholic or Anglican services, then I would say it's less important, as the decline of "religion" in Western Europe over the last 50 years has shown. --[[User:Daniel B. Douglas|Daniel B. Douglas]] 18:15, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

Mr. Douglas, you voice your opinion that believing in God and being influenced by this belief is important or relevant (please correct me if im wrong). For the purpose of debate, could you please back up your arguement with facts or at least explain why you believe your opinion is accurate?
--[[User:Anti-Facio [[Facio]] 10:05, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

I'd say that Religion has always been relevant (or important or destructive) or whatever you choose to say. In my own view, Religion has been, by far, the Most destructive of all weapons of mass destruction. Arguing that the killings of humans by other humans in the name of religion is by a few zealots/crazies is missing the point. Today, we look at the extremists of the Islamic world with horror, a few centuries ago, it was the Christians slaughtering the non-believers in the Crusades. I do not believe that any part of the world, any religion has been insulated from the killings in the name of THAT religion. To dismiss this as the acts of a few, to grab power/money or whatever is not sufficient. We ought to examine why men have historically used religion as a weapon and not as they claim it is supposed to be used - show the path to eternal truths using persuasion and words and not the sword.

Of course religion is and was relevant what does not mean that it should be relevant. Most people in the world believe in a religion. And many live their religion. They arrange their day arround religious habits. Not working on Friday or Sunday. No meat, no pork, no alcohol, limited sexuality, ... there are many restrictions that restrict people in their life and in the way they behave in socciety. Fanatic religious people as well as people who pretend to be (fanatic) religious to gain more power for worldly plans are one of the biggest threats today. In that point it does not matter WHAT religion one has. If a person is holding some written or told words for true in every case without using the own brain, it leads often to murder and hatered. As allready mentioned in statement above mine, there was slaughtering in many religions including christianity. The church was there when the native americans were slaughtered. The church was there when "whiches" were burned. The church was there, when the Nazis took Jews to concentration camps. And today the christian church es in Germany still receive the taxes that were introduced by Hitler. (What means they are possibly the only institution still profiting from WW2) But that does not mean that the catholic church or even religions in total are evil? I would say NO! They are not evil. But many people, who are religious are evil. And for those it is easy to find credulous believers. For sure religion is relevant. But I say this is not good as religion is a big danger.--[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 07:14, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

A widely published author once wrote something like this: When religion fails to inculcate a sense of morality into society then the whole of law and enforcement falls onto the shoulders of government. In broad, general terms, religion is a force for morality, for good. Though not every religion has 10 commandments exactly, traditional religions have a moral code its followers are encouraged to follow. Yes, religion has a place in society, no matter how freely a society communicates within and without its borders. [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 17:50, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

I would have to disagree with both you and that author. In a Canadian city, about 40 years ago, the police went on strike for a day. Shops and banks were robbed, cars stolen, vandalism, looting etc. The town pretty much went to the dogs for that day, and almost every shop along the main drag was robbed and massive amounts of damage occured. Now, the majority of the people in that city were christians, and fairly devout ones as well, yet despite having a "strong moral code" they still participated in the robberies and muggings because the police weren't there. This suggests that faith in God is not enough to stop people doing bad things, a lot of people need something more mundane and real. Bolly Ottihw 09:30, 22 April 2007

==No==
Religion is not relevant in todays society because Truth is absolute and not relative. Religion is a concept created to make false belief systems seem the same as the one true beleif system that the one true God allowed his only son to die for our sins.

So, if I understand what you're saying, you believe the very concept of religion gives rise to false beliefs and somehow grants them legitimacy? [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 16:16, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

'''Response'''
The use of the concept of religion allows nonchristians to marginalize the truth and accept their falsehoods as alternative versions of the truth. [[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 17 March 2007

I am curious - does that mean that in your opinion, Christians do not use the concept of religion? Perhaps you meant, Christians use the word religion correctly (i.e. accept the truth of God and Jesus) while Non Christians do not accept THE truth? [[User:kchittur|kchittur]] 18 March 2007

Religion? No, lets make this quite clear: Not all religions are equal. Christianity should play a large role in modern society, as God intended, for it is the Truth. But the abomination of Islam should be wiped out, destroyed by force if nessicessary - both for its constantly earthly attrocities and oppressions, and for leading people from Christ and thus damning them eternally. To speak of 'religion' lumps all religions together. Christianity is good, everything else is bad, and any christian who doesn't realise this just hasn't yet realised that by the fundamental tennants of Christianity they are allowing people to literially go to hell in the name of freedom. - BornAgainBrit, from a town just outside of Londonistan.

::Just to point it out, Religion is [http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/religion defined] as "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith". This could be God or God''s'', and doesn't make any reference to JC; there are thousands (maybe millions) of religions, and only one family encompasses JC and God. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 20:38, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

:The thing about science is that it is flexible and open to change, using the latest evidence. Religion isn't as flexible. I mean, a few centuries ago, we still thought the earth was the center of the universe. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 18:16, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

Riiiigghhttt... it was only 1998 when the Catholic Church announced that the world was not in fact, flat. Furthermore, Christian beliefs like the Earth being 6,000 years old have been long abandoned by most Christians after nearly irrefutable scientific evidence to the contrary. As for believing the Earth is the center of the universe, those following an entirely literal interpretation of the Bible still follow this belief.

And, being flexible is a good thing. Science changes constantly because more and more evidence is found and more and more research is done. As these changes continue, as new information is discovered, scientific thought begins to move further and further from the history told in the Bible. Many Christians however, hold on to what little in the Bible hasnt been unquestionably proven inaccurate claiming the Bible as absolutely true. Science advances, Christianity is still living in the Dark Ages.

'''Response'''You sir are not much of conservative. If you want to use you biased relative arguments then get thee to Wikipedia. Here on Conserapedia bold clear and simple assertions carry more weight than Socratic diatribes and explicit analogies.[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 24 March 2007
--Facio

Socrate's method was asking questions. Explicit analogies are by definition better then vague analogies. Biased relative arguements is the funniest statement I've heard in a while. The reson they don't say religion is evil is because it is a debate and discusion where you have to explain your position. -Sam

:Minor correction - in 1998, the Catholic Church did not admit the world was not flat. They never claimed that in the first place, it was a story made up to poke fun at them shortly after the continent of America was (re-)discovered. An easy mistake though - 1998 is the year in which they admitted that the earth is not the stationary center of the universe, and that not everything has to orbit around it. The RCC always knew the earth to be round, and even had a good idea of its size - both discoveries of Greek science. They did have some minor doctrine on the issue though: Church policy was that the other side of the earth was nothing but uninhabitable water, an assumption based on the idea that if there were another continent then they could not be exposed to the Second Coming of Christ, which the bible states will be witnessed by all people. - BornAgainBrit

oooookkk....so christianity has never done anything bad in its name over the past 2000 years, compared to islam? I think that to say that is in blatant ignorance of the facts of many atrocities commited in the name of the christian God and with the support of the church. The Crusades, the holocaust, the witch hunts, the spanish inquisition, the killing of doctors who carry out abortions, the list continues. To deny that the christian faith played no role in any of these is just plain stupidity. Bolly Ottihw 09:35, 22 April 2007

== Why Ask? ==

This seems to be a pointless question. Which religion are you refering to? Do you mean one in particular or just religiosity in general? If you say yes or no how far are you willing to go to bring about that outcome?

17:57, 24 May 2007 (EDT)17:57, 24 May 2007 (EDT)[[User:Evanave|Evanave]] 17:57, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

"Christianity should play a large role in modern society, as God intended, for it is the Truth." Right...because we know that this so called God said that Christianity was right and was the truth...Hey, why don't we all live like our savior Jesus...oh wait, Jesus was Jewish...If you want to follow his path, convert! Jesus was Jewish, get over it, this is a fact (as opposed to the existence of a god).

Also, I have trouble taking arguments seriously when I read:

"i would like to think of myself as more intelligant then people who were alive 2000 years ago." I'll let you slide on the I, but come on people...it is intelligent than, not intelligant then.

"destroyed by force if nessicessary - both for its constantly earthly attrocities and oppressions," nessicessary? attrocities? Try something like...necessary or atrocities.

Moving on...

There is no proof whatsoever of the existence of a supreme being. Not one single bit of information. There are approximately 6 billion people in this world, and if I'm not mistaken, over 80% of people are religious...That means 4-5 billion people waste their time praying to nothing (Assuming all of these people have prayed at some point or another)

What makes you believe in God? Somebody told you that God existed as a little child and you believed them. People also used to think that cigarettes weren't harmful to the body, but guess what, people were wrong!

Take a moment and think...what has God done for me? How would my life be different if I did not believe in God?

I have no answer, but then again, I'm atheist.

So, in response to the question, No, religion should not play ANY role in modern societies.

~Evan
:Lack of evidence does not speak ''against'' the truth/existence of anything, anybody with a basic knowledge of science should know that. And religion gives you a crutch, regardless of whether it is true or not; ''knowing'' (truly believing, knowing that you are undoubtedly correct) that there is a God who loves you can be the best drug ever. And don't take the politicized Christian Conservative views as the ''only'' kind of Christianity; There are plenty of forms which are much more Biblically accurate than evangelism (IMHO). --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 17:58, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

==Humanist==
Exactly what the Humanist Manifesto says is being repeated here. Waisting your time praying to nothing... etc. You are a Humanist. That is a religion. You say you are an atheist? You are a Humanist. You are religious. Non-theistic religion. You obviously don't even now what constitutes a religion. When someone says religion, you think of Judeo-Christianity. Whatever your religious belief is, and whether it is theistic or non-theistic, get over it. It's all religion, and every single one of you believe in something. So instead of criticizing everybody elses why don't you all get a life and tell us all what is so great about what you, that's right you, believe in. If all you got is bashing everyone else then it only tells the rest of use you ain't got nothin.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 22:14, 31 May 2007 (EDT)