Myweponsg00d

Does it give us the right to force them to accept a black person into their neighborhood though, regardless of what they may do to him/her? Yes, I am pretty sure that this community would have some serious problems if they did not want to sell a house to a black person...

Yes, all the views are the same except for the one that bases its views on reality. That isn't the point. The point is that anyone who chooses to believe in any of the popular gods is being highly descriminatory and close minded. FSM does not aim to disprove the existence of god, the FSM is a tool used against a specific religion. The FSM cannot be used to disprove god, unicorns, santa claus, or anything that you must believe in. FSM is a satire of religion, not god. If you need more clarification I'd be glad to elaborate.

But at the same time they're the ones that have to live with it there. As wrong as it is to stop it from being built, it's worse to force the issue when nobody near it wants it there. But of course, that decision becomes a lot easier when everyone that objects to you becomes a bigoted xenophobe who shouldn't be making decisions anyway. It still doesn't give a population the right to bully somebody...I'm sure there are many communities where the majority of the residents dislike black people. This doesn't give them the right to evict all the black people just cause the majority of the neighborhood would be upset.

FSM was created by an atheist for the sole purpose of showing the flaws in inherently unprovable ideas. The Judeo-Christian God is/was an answer to questions that were unanswerable thousands of years ago and even a few that are still today. That has to count for something, yes? Funny how no atheists though about that angle. But the flying spaghetti monster answers these same questions. Hell, I could come up with an infinite number for these same questions: 1. God accidentally let out a fart and created the big bang 2. A field of cosmic unicorns were playing together. They stomped on a flower and this is what the big bang was. 3. The universe has just always existed, this most recent big bang is just what we percieved to be "the" big bang. The only way a universe can exist is if it blows up many times 4. The same as #2 but with supernatural soccer players who accidentally blew up their soccer ball. 5. Allah 6. Buddah 7. Zeus etc... All of these "explanations" are equally as probable as the creation by the judeo christian god. Why favor any of them?

If you think the genesis story has any similarity at all to the idea of the big bang, you either are unfamiliar with the genesis story or the big bang theory. Genesis does not explain the nuclear reactions that form stars, it does not describe galaxies of stars, it does not include anything about life originating on earth in microbial form. Etc etc... And I have repeatedly tried to ask you what these things are. What events? What good has it brought? And again I will ask you, HOW is the FSM different from your god? You arent giving any response to anything. You haven't laid down a single shred of support for all of the claims you are making. For example, your reply should be "The FSM is inferior to my god because _____" where you then cite evidence to support your claim. Again I must either be illiterate or you have made some type of writing error. Don't understand what you are even trying to get at here. 1. It is absolutely insulting to use "religion/philosophy" with a slash together like that. They are not even remotely the same thing. 2. Who says we need somebody to create these answers to "why" questions? Why cant everyone just answer their own "why" questions?

Argument? It was an observation. That's what I've been seeing since this issue started up a week or so back. Though if you look through the thread, it isn't so wrong, is it? Everyone who's posted here, including me, is acting as an absolute moral voice in this, without any consideration to the people that will actually live near it. I don't think I'm going to touch the analogy there. It misses the point in a number of ways, but I'm not sure I could come up with a better one. And I'm asking you what the hell proximity has ANYTHING to do with whether or not someone can weigh in on the morality of the debate? If anything, I would trust someone who lives far far away from the site to be an UNBIASED voice on the issue. The people who live right next to the site are more likely to have their thinking clouded by animosity.

Why? Why are they seperate? If religion tries to tell me that my physical world was created by some magical being who pooped me out some day, why can I not examine my physical world and try to find evidence that supports the occurance? Religion is not a school of thought, it is a school of un-thought. If you were religious, and actually spent your time thinking instead of just blindly following, I dont think youd be religious for very long. Okay, even if that is the case, I'd still be curious what the answer to the question is. WHAT is there to appreciate?

You do't live in my apartment building, I'm gonna go kill my neighbors. You have no right to tell me it isnt right, since you dont live here. EDIT: again theres another reason why your argument is completely ludicrous. Okay, maybe someone lives in new york, but they dont live in the neighborhood where the towers were. Okay, well wait maybe it should be closer, maybe you have to live within 5 blocks to where it happened. You know what, nobody is authorized to have an opinion on it unless they were in the tower and survived. etc... How can you say how close is close enough? And how far is too far away?

I dont understand what the hell you are talking about here. Perhaps some specificity would help you Again it is impossible to understand you unless you have anything more specific to say. Otherwise I could simply say "You simply dont understand or appreciate atheism" You need to elaborate on your points.

Yes, the "theory" for what happened before the big bang is not a good theory. There is NO theory at the moment. Why? Because there is no evidence. There will never be a good theory unless we can gather strong evidence. Yet you seem more inclined to believe this fact-less theory than the existence of a God... I dont believe a factless theory. There is NO theory. I have no comment on what happened before the big bang, because nobody knows yet what happened before the big bang. The current scientific view on the matter is that we are not yet able to comment on what happened before the big bang, because we have no evidence. Why is it smarter to pretend that you have knowledge than to admit we can't yet figure it out? Also I've said it before, but god doesn't answer any questions. Why does that god exist? When did he come about? The suggestion of a god raises more questions than it answers. It is a terrible solution to the problem. It is smarter to say "I can't solve this problem yet" then to say "I'll solve this problem!" and create an idea that arises an infinite number of complications.

I've said this before and I'll say it again. It would be POSSIBLE for me to go see the evidence for any scientific theory. It would be impossible to see any evidence for religion. Relying on people for communication is different from having a faith in something that has no supportive evidence. The evidence is there, and I have actually seen plenty of the fossils in the smithsonian That is false. No good scientist would ever pretend that he or she is all-knowing about the truth behind any phenomenon. I am an evolutionist, but I would never ever say that evolution is, without a shred of a doubt, a 100% proven fact. I also would say the same thing about the existence of unicorns, garden gnomes, and vampires. Science admits that its theories could be incorrect. We dont pretend that we are all-knowing and then try to cover it up after the fact. Scientists do not think that the leading theories ARE correct, we just advance knowledge and live our lives based on the pretense that the leading theories are LIKELY correct. We don't just sit around, figure stuff out, and then pretend that our theories are infallible. Yes, the "theory" for what happened before the big bang is not a good theory. There is NO theory at the moment. Why? Because there is no evidence. There will never be a good theory unless we can gather strong evidence.

I'm a little confused. Are you saying that the mosque should be built, but you are just concerned that it isn't being built apologetically? Like a political incorectness in the way that the issue is being handled? And not an incorrectness in the planned course of action?

I really hate using old legislation as any sort of proof though...sure it might enhance the secularism debate, but it just gives them the right then to use the second ammendment as evidence in other debates... I don't think any ammendments or treaties should be held onto blindly. 200 years have passed since all that legislation was passed, and society has changed drastically with the invention of the telephone, airplane, internet, nuclear arms, etc. I mean back then, the right to bear arms meant that people could have a pistol that held single rounds and had poor accuracy at even 10-20 yards. Now, it means I can own basically a friggn sniper rifle. I really doubt that the founding fathers would have wanted such deadly technology so widely available. Though, it is interesting that 200 years ago, we made this country separated from religion, even though the ammount of evidence for the origin of man, earth, the sun, and the universe was miniscule/non-existant. Now we have solid theories for all of this, and people are trying to RAISE the power of the christian faith. F that.

Yes and I'm sure that the white plantation owners also had their feelings hurt when all their slaves were taken away from them. You can't really let hurt feelings get in the way of civil liberties. Also I do not think that sheltering these families from reality is the best way to deal with their feelings. If you stop the mosque from being built, you continue to isolate the families from the reality that muslims exist in this neighborhood. If you build the mosque, these families must confront reality and will eventually move on with their lives. You can't just step on people because youre afraid some other people might throw a temper tantrum.

What do you mean MY logical deduction? I have not done any work on cosmology, as I have only an undergraduate degree in physics. The big bang is, of course, the leading theory of what happened at the beginning of the universe. Is that what you are asking? Or are you asking what happened before the big bang? If that is your question then I would have to say that there is currently not enough evidence to make a rational conclusion at this time. If there is any evidence, I haven't heard of it. The last I heard, scientists suggest that the universe originated out of a singularity (similar to what a black hole is presumed to be). However I do not think there is any current theory for where this singularity came from, or whether indeed we can even say what it would mean for it to "come from" anything, since the phrase "come from" suggests an order of events. This wouldn't really make any sense, if what we call "time" actually started with the big bang.

You still haven't answered what we should do with Catholic Churches then? What about the assault to innocent children? What about the affront to their memory? Also, what about all the other mosques in the country? Its not like we are demolishing ground zero to build an enormous monument to Allah. How far away is far enough? The entire country was attacked. What about washington DC and Pennsylvania? Tragedies also happened in those locations. How many miles radius would be appropriate to allow a place of worship for a religion that these people oppose? Just doesn't make sense. I went to tour Pearl Harbor and I think there were probably more japanese/asian tourists there than american tourists. Hawaii is an insanely popular vacation destination for them. Theres no reason to oppose a group of people simply because some bad people happened to be alligned with their population. It would be like forbidding people from growing moustaches since so many famous bad people have had moustaches.

Well I'm sure some policemen hate the USA, but that doesn't mean we shouldnt build police stations.

So if a doctor thinks that there is a 90% chance that you'll survive if he gives you a medicine, and a 10% chance that youll survive if he gives you a different medicine, he should ignore this evidence and just guess, because either decision really could be the right one.

Exactly. For instance: I believe that there is a flying magic teapot orbiting saturn. Since this teapot is magical, it makes itself so tiny that it cannot be seen by any telescope or satelite. I havent seen any sources to deny this, so I guess I must be right. No, your not right, but you could be. Your not wrong either, but you could be. And? The fact that I could be correct gives me the right to make random guesses and hold on to those beliefs? Not sure what youre getting at.

Exactly. For instance: I believe that there is a flying magic teapot orbiting saturn. Since this teapot is magical, it makes itself so tiny that it cannot be seen by any telescope or satelite. I havent seen any sources to deny this, so I guess I must be right.

There is no leap of faith. The big bang does not claim to answer all questions. We do not have a theory that currently describes what was "outside" the big bang. It might be something, it might be nothing. Nobody knows and nobody claims to know. We have no blind faith that the big bang existed. We don't think that there absolutely IS something outside of the big bang, and we don't have faith that there isn't. We support the theories that currently have the most supporting evidence. There is currently no evidence to tell us what happened before the big bang, thus scientists would probably tell you that they have no theory. Any more brain busters?

No good scientist would say that they know that science will eventually explain everything about the universe. Scientists do not have a faith that science will eventually explain everything. Also, there is an enormous problem with submitting god for absence of knowledge. What about the god then? Where did he come from? Why did he want to make us? Where does he get his power? Why did he choose to make the universe so damn big? The "god hypothesis" rises more questions than it answers. So in absence of knowledge, your solution leads to even more questions. You replace one unknown with an unknown that can never be known. Science submits an unknown that may eventually be known if we discover enough evidence. Religion, basically, is giving up on knowing.

Are you saying that there is somebody who CAN prove it? Like that the priests are analogous to "scientists" of religion? If so, I would like to see the evidence that they based their conclusions on. I have been to the museum and seen fossils. If I wanted to, I could track down the scientific work on the fossils. I could become a paleontologist and fully observe the evidence for myself. No matter what I did, I could not see any evidence for god. Believing the work of thousands of scientists who consistently document and publicly display evidence (that you are free to observe) is far different from believing in something that has literally no evidence for it. What do you mean we cannot prove it? Technically you cannot prove anything. There is a significant difference between firmly believing that your theory is bulletproof vs. living your life based on a theory that is extremely probable. Atheism is not a faith that our current theories of the universe are 100% descriptive. Atheists are in favor of whichever theory has the most compelling evidence. Most atheists will not tell you that they think there absolutely is 100% no god. But these people would also probably say that there is an equal probability that there are gnomes in their garden, or unicorns in the forest.

But atheism is not a rejection of the idea of a god, it is the embrace of anything that is supported by evidence. If an intelligent designer or god was scientifically proven to exist, atheists would not blindly reject his existence. There is no brainwashing, there is brain freeing. A christian raised child can believe in one version of what they believe about the universe. An atheist child can believe in anything that has the most convincing evidence. Are you talking about morality? Or views about how the world/universe came to exist? If it has to deal with how the universe came to be, there most certainly is an objective way to determine if something is rational or irrational. If you are speaking of moral beliefs then I might have to agree that there is no way to objectively say that one moral system is more rational than others. Some philosophers would disagree though. But I am not a philosopher, so I dont really know what to say about that. Do you believe that people have the right to tell their children that since they are Republicans that the children must be Republicans? Do you think that people who dropped out of high school should force their kids to drop out? Do you think vegetarian parents should force their children to be vegetarians? Should football players force their children to be football players?

But I asked you, HOW is it a religion? What makes it a religion? You can't just make a statement and use it without anything to support your statement. If we are allowed to just make statements then I can just say "You are wrong" But please...what makes atheism a religion? Where is the faith? How am I religious, when the word A-THEISM means WITHOUT THEISM