Romy

The thing is, once a God enters the picture, as in a deity who's absolutly perfect in it's essence, and that can decide what's good and what isn't, the ideology that's stretchable becomes a very fanatic, none-stretchable religion. Your definitions and labels may be nice, but it's the final outcome I'm discussing. Sure you could call Philosophy a religion. And? What of it? Bottom line is that Philosophy has no greater entity, and the different philosofical statements can be proven, unproven, and proven again. Religion cannot be proven, and neither unproven, which is where fanatics come from. As for your comment about the followers of religion who make it's cons- A. That's not entirely true (Slavery, Anti-Gayness, etc). B. If you call what's in A a followers' fault, then the pros of religion should be considered the followers' result aswell. C. It matters not where the cons come from, only that they exist and that they wouldn't have existed if it wasn't for religion. Who says religion can't be proven? Prove it then. (Just to make sure this isn't a miss-understanding- What I mean by cannot be proven is that you can't prove God exists). Well I certainly can't, but what I mean to say is (and I may have just misunderstood your post) maybe one day someone will find evidence that will PROVE God exists. If that day ever comes, would you believe in him? And do you mean can't prove right now, or can't prove ever? What if one day someone will prove God doesn't exist? Will you stop believing? Sorry for anyone taking that as an insult, but- If God isn't proven to exist, isn't it just like believing in the Flying Spaghetti Monster? As in, in something made up? P.S. I meant can't prove right now. Not that it matters... Well I could answer your question, or you could answer mine. ;) If someone proved there is no way ever in any way that God could exist, then I guess I would stop believing. But as of right now, God is as real to me as the laptop I'm typing on And you truthfuly don't see anything contradicting in that statement?? Actually, I don't. You really don't see anything wrong with your claim that God (an entity you've never seen or heard or touched, and nor is there a proof of it's existance) is as real as your Laptop (an object you've touched WHILE claiming what you had claimed, probably have used it countless times, I assume you know exactly where it originated from, and can easily understand what it's made of)? Perhaps he sees his God as a being reflected in the good will of others, and is an entity comprised of the total sum of souls, a nirvana-esque type being. Now explain to me, how do you know there are oxygen particles in the air you're breathing right now? Someone had to eventually prove it through observation under a microscope. Before hand, I wouldn't say that it is so impossible that educated people theorized that there was oxygen present in their air and that's how our respiratory systems worked, but they couldn't see or prove it. Another thing, do you see emotion? You see the result of emotion but you do not see the concrete hate, love, etc. There are many things we cannot see. Well, but if we go back in time back to when no one was certain about the oxygen particles, I wouldn't trust it as real as an object I'm using and that was made for the purpose I'm using it. Also, these theories are built on certain facts that could imply it's true, it isn't built on a "well, let's see... we don't know where we originated from, nor do we understand the concept of luck... it must be God then!" By the way, emotion is a definition of a certain process in our brain, it isn't an object nor an entity. Lastly, I wasn't saying God doesn't exist (you obviously do know my opinion about it though), only that his statement is wrong. How can this entity not proven to exist be as real as his Laptop?

Oh no you didn't... Soooooo didn't... Not even the slightest...

Oh no you didn't... Soooooo didn't...

Oh no you didn't...

440... Jeez...

The thing is, once a God enters the picture, as in a deity who's absolutly perfect in it's essence, and that can decide what's good and what isn't, the ideology that's stretchable becomes a very fanatic, none-stretchable religion. Your definitions and labels may be nice, but it's the final outcome I'm discussing. Sure you could call Philosophy a religion. And? What of it? Bottom line is that Philosophy has no greater entity, and the different philosofical statements can be proven, unproven, and proven again. Religion cannot be proven, and neither unproven, which is where fanatics come from. As for your comment about the followers of religion who make it's cons- A. That's not entirely true (Slavery, Anti-Gayness, etc). B. If you call what's in A a followers' fault, then the pros of religion should be considered the followers' result aswell. C. It matters not where the cons come from, only that they exist and that they wouldn't have existed if it wasn't for religion. Who says religion can't be proven? Prove it then. (Just to make sure this isn't a miss-understanding- What I mean by cannot be proven is that you can't prove God exists). Well I certainly can't, but what I mean to say is (and I may have just misunderstood your post) maybe one day someone will find evidence that will PROVE God exists. If that day ever comes, would you believe in him? And do you mean can't prove right now, or can't prove ever? What if one day someone will prove God doesn't exist? Will you stop believing? Sorry for anyone taking that as an insult, but- If God isn't proven to exist, isn't it just like believing in the Flying Spaghetti Monster? As in, in something made up? P.S. I meant can't prove right now. Not that it matters... Well I could answer your question, or you could answer mine. ;) If someone proved there is no way ever in any way that God could exist, then I guess I would stop believing. But as of right now, God is as real to me as the laptop I'm typing on And you truthfuly don't see anything contradicting in that statement?? Actually, I don't. You really don't see anything wrong with your claim that God (an entity you've never seen or heard or touched, and nor is there a proof of it's existance) is as real as your Laptop (an object you've touched WHILE claiming what you had claimed, probably have used it countless times, I assume you know exactly where it originated from, and can easily understand what it's made of)?

The thing is, once a God enters the picture, as in a deity who's absolutly perfect in it's essence, and that can decide what's good and what isn't, the ideology that's stretchable becomes a very fanatic, none-stretchable religion. Your definitions and labels may be nice, but it's the final outcome I'm discussing. Sure you could call Philosophy a religion. And? What of it? Bottom line is that Philosophy has no greater entity, and the different philosofical statements can be proven, unproven, and proven again. Religion cannot be proven, and neither unproven, which is where fanatics come from. As for your comment about the followers of religion who make it's cons- A. That's not entirely true (Slavery, Anti-Gayness, etc). B. If you call what's in A a followers' fault, then the pros of religion should be considered the followers' result aswell. C. It matters not where the cons come from, only that they exist and that they wouldn't have existed if it wasn't for religion. The idea that God can't be disproved is insane. Now, if you were to say a deist god can't be disproved, I would agree. However, the Christian God is something that exists within a certain boundary, which is that created by the Bible. The errors in the Bible are also errors in God, because from what the Bible says, they're part of the same thing. God is a perfect being though, but from what the Bible says he often fails to meet his own standards, or back track on his words. The perfect being would do no such thing, leading to areas to disprove him. This isn't even using science to disprove him, just knowing that humans made up errors whenever they came up with this God. That's not disproving his existance, that's finding errors. I also never referred to any specific God. Lastly, I don't believe in any God, and as such I see discussing with an atheist whether or not God exists as pointless. A perfect God with errors is imperfect. It disproves his existence because such things can't exist. I'm referring to any God with a holy text. If it was as simple as that, religion wouldn't be as popular (for the favour of Fakeitormakeit2, I'm referring to any religion that revolves Gods :P).

[hide=Long quote] I'm sorry but.... Do you know why Bobby Henderson created FSM? The original purpose was to debate whether or not Intelligent Design should be taught in public schools. Henderson claimed that if any one God is taught about, so should be for FSM, for there's as much proof it exists as there is about any God. When atheists made notice of it, it quickly caught on and in a very short period of time became a parody of religion. As such, it makes every bit of sense that God-mockery is it's direction. It took you all the way to page 166 to realize it's intention is to mock God? That's odd. There's no reason for logic behind it, that's why it can be so easily compared to religion. FSM is a perfect deity, invisible and undetectable that created the world with it's almighty apendage and had "planted proof" of evolution to see if it's followers will still trust it exists. There's as much proof that FSM exists, as there is of any God, or Darth Vader as others have pointed here. Also, they're not 2 sides of the same coin. You could say they're wrong for mocking others' beliefs, you could even say their behaviour is absolutly disgusting (I'd beg the differ, not that it matters), but you can't compare religous extremists, those who kill the innocent in the name of religion, or force their opinions on others whenever possible, to those who mock it. R'amen. I already knew as to why it was created. I have no problem with those who do not believe in Intelligent Design to debate against it, I myself do not believe in Intelligent Design. We all have the right to have our own opinion, and we have the right to criticize others as long as we do so in a CIVIL, ORDERLY and INTELLIGENT manner. The book basically is a mockery of religion for its entire length. Is that really necessary? No. Nor is it intelligent to do so, it's overkill. An atheist who disagrees with religion, debates intelligently against it while still maintaining civility, that is one whom I admire. But to even put such emphasis that one is an atheist rather then a theist is ridiculous because if we are not causing harm to each other, and on the contrary helping others, WHY THE HELL DOES IT MATTER? The point of religion isn't only that there's a God or not by the way. It's a mentality to do good to others, that prevails through all religions in some form or another. I act with goodness because it is in line with my human nature, therefore it is like God's. I do not help the poor, etc. because God requires me to. Rather it is the right thing to do. There is a difference between intelligent satire and repetitious mockery to the extent were it just gets annoying. And yes they're beliefs are both disgusting. And the extreme atheists do shove their beliefs down others throats by stating how illogical and stupid everyone who isn't an atheist is. Extremist atheists do not have the means to act, well extremely, because they are a very small minority (I believe it's like 2.6% of the US). Also because they reach their conclusion based from logical reasoning (considered an equally valid methodology to faith in the Catholic Church), normally they would reason that it is best to nonviolently approach something. Others arrive at cynical schools of thought where because there is no purpose, there would be no purpose in doing so. As a matter of fact, we have the right to criticize others even in a not CIVIL, ORDERLY and INTELLIGENT manner. It's called Freedom of Speech. As for necessary? Definitely not. Is this discussion necessary? I wouldn't believe so. It's an opinion and has every right to be named and heard by people. In addition, there's no point for an atheist to discuss religion intelligently because religion, in it's essence, has answer to everything (which is why it had survived for so many years. Even for "reason-less" questions, one could say God is a mystery, etc). The chances for an atheist to actualy convince someone else he's correct are so slim that it's almost pointless to try. However, when you present something similar to religion (such as FSM) it's both quick, to the point, and doesn't require any points or counterpoints. It's simply rediculous (IMO, just like religion, which is why I find it so interesting). I believe the "point" of religion is irrelevant to our discussion. Lastly, "extreme atheists" (put in quotes for the very weird label) don't "shove their beliefs down others throats", they simply over-act their opinions, something perfectly allowed by the Freedom of Speech. 1. You're right. It is a right, and one problem I have with people acting like this because it is a protected right is that they vain their speak because they have no control over their civility. If one wishes to discuss something that is fine, but if they will vain their speech in crudity and mockery they are an idiot and they discredit themselves as competent people to even discuss the subject. 2. You say religion is ridiculous. In some religions, they do not even contain a God and just advocate a just lifestyle. Then, how can you still make the statement that religion is ridiculous? If I also turn your attention to my signature, "your daily life is your temple and religion." In my religion, a lifestyle based upon a system of just ideals of any sort is a religion. Is then [i presume your ideals are just as you seem like a decent person] your lifestyle ridiculous? Which makes the "point" of religion very relevant. 3. As for the stereotypical Protestant who says your going to burn in hell because you don't believe in the "One true God", just as the some atheist thinks they're [developmentally delayed]ed and should go find the hell to which they speak and burn in it because their life is meaningless because it lacks logic, is just over acting their opinion? Also just because you have the freedom to do something doesn't mean you should lack self control to withhold yourself from doing so without civility. [/hide] 1. It's not only atheists who 'abuse' (I wouldn't use that term here, but meh) the Freedom of Speech. Pointing it directly at them, while there clearly are people who abuse it in much worse ways, seems unreasonable. 2. I was referring to any religion that revoles (a) God(s). I'll rephrase then- Any religion that revolves any Gods is rediculous *IMO*. 3. Exactly. They're speaking their opinions up. Perhaps not in a civil way, but that still is acting their opinion. You could argue that what the Protestants, for instance, are doing, is exactly that. But I believe that any ways of threat are a form of forcing your opinion. Also, please remember where this 3 in the numbering came from. I said you couldn't compare "extreme atheists" to "religous extremists" because what the RE do is long beyond that (you can't compare mockery to suicide bombing, right?). Which is why the rest of what I said on #3 not very important, as the point stands even without it. 4. (Your last statement)- You said "we have the right to criticize others as long as we do so in a CIVIL, ORDERLY and INTELLIGENT manner." and I replied with "As a matter of fact, we have the right to criticize others even in a not CIVIL, ORDERLY and INTELLIGENT manner." I wasn't trying to protect those who, according to you, are misusing Freedom of Speech, I was merely stating that the Freedom of Speech allows that (personaly I don't believe that the Freedom of Speech is as sacred as Democratic states believe, but that's a whole other discussion here).

1) Assuming, you mean, that humans are on the same moral level as animals. 2) I don't think I understand that point, but it's a question between existence and inexistence, and unless there's somewhere else other than this world that a child's soul can go, life would be the better option over death. 3) But that's assuming that life is indeed trying to ruin your existence. 4) Having a child can be a result of environmental pressure as a result of man's society, but cannot it not also be a result of love? And is that so selfish? 1) No.... It's simply a known need humans have. 2) 2 things here: A. Souls are not necessarily a true concept. It's fairly possible it's just our brain playing tricks. B. If souls do exist, the child's soul wouldn't go anywhere. As far as my knowldege of souls goes, souls are only matched with a living body... Not with say... sperm or something. 3) No, that's assuming life could turn out terrible for certain individuals. 4) Definitely... I don't see what makes you think it isn't :S...

One could argue that you'd (not you specificly) would devote said money, time, and effort out of the (selfish) desire to give your child the best you could. Just thought I'd add that in.

It's not that we can be very bad to nature, it's that we are consistantly harming nature (that's a fact, not an opinion). As for you Haiti comment... I agree... I just don't so how that's relevant to our discussion? Trust me, I've been here long before I created that account. I had another account (I can't even remember it's name) and also mostly was an observer. And no, I wasn't trying to tell you what I think, I was trying to explain what I concluded from what you said, and why.

But that still means an idea can be so stupid that no way it can be true. At this point God and Darth Vader have the same weight in argument. That is not a fact. To my knowledge, Darth Vader has never motivated millions of people (in real life, SW fanboys) to sacrifice their lives for his cause. I believe what Nick meant is that God should be pereceived as evident as Darth Vader.

I'm sorry but.... Do you know why Bobby Henderson created FSM? The original purpose was to debate whether or not Intelligent Design should be taught in public schools. Henderson claimed that if any one God is taught about, so should be for FSM, for there's as much proof it exists as there is about any God. When atheists made notice of it, it quickly caught on and in a very short period of time became a parody of religion. As such, it makes every bit of sense that God-mockery is it's direction. It took you all the way to page 166 to realize it's intention is to mock God? That's odd. There's no reason for logic behind it, that's why it can be so easily compared to religion. FSM is a perfect deity, invisible and undetectable that created the world with it's almighty apendage and had "planted proof" of evolution to see if it's followers will still trust it exists. There's as much proof that FSM exists, as there is of any God, or Darth Vader as others have pointed here. Also, they're not 2 sides of the same coin. You could say they're wrong for mocking others' beliefs, you could even say their behaviour is absolutly disgusting (I'd beg the differ, not that it matters), but you can't compare religous extremists, those who kill the innocent in the name of religion, or force their opinions on others whenever possible, to those who mock it. R'amen. I already knew as to why it was created. I have no problem with those who do not believe in Intelligent Design to debate against it, I myself do not believe in Intelligent Design. We all have the right to have our own opinion, and we have the right to criticize others as long as we do so in a CIVIL, ORDERLY and INTELLIGENT manner. The book basically is a mockery of religion for its entire length. Is that really necessary? No. Nor is it intelligent to do so, it's overkill. An atheist who disagrees with religion, debates intelligently against it while still maintaining civility, that is one whom I admire. But to even put such emphasis that one is an atheist rather then a theist is ridiculous because if we are not causing harm to each other, and on the contrary helping others, WHY THE HELL DOES IT MATTER? The point of religion isn't only that there's a God or not by the way. It's a mentality to do good to others, that prevails through all religions in some form or another. I act with goodness because it is in line with my human nature, therefore it is like God's. I do not help the poor, etc. because God requires me to. Rather it is the right thing to do. There is a difference between intelligent satire and repetitious mockery to the extent were it just gets annoying. And yes they're beliefs are both disgusting. And the extreme atheists do shove their beliefs down others throats by stating how illogical and stupid everyone who isn't an atheist is. Extremist atheists do not have the means to act, well extremely, because they are a very small minority (I believe it's like 2.6% of the US). Also because they reach their conclusion based from logical reasoning (considered an equally valid methodology to faith in the Catholic Church), normally they would reason that it is best to nonviolently approach something. Others arrive at cynical schools of thought where because there is no purpose, there would be no purpose in doing so. As a matter of fact, we have the right to criticize others even in a not CIVIL, ORDERLY and INTELLIGENT manner. It's called Freedom of Speech. As for necessary? Definitely not. Is this discussion necessary? I wouldn't believe so. It's an opinion and has every right to be named and heard by people. In addition, there's no point for an atheist to discuss religion intelligently because religion, in it's essence, has answer to everything (which is why it had survived for so many years. Even for "reason-less" questions, one could say God is a mystery, etc). The chances for an atheist to actualy convince someone else he's correct are so slim that it's almost pointless to try. However, when you present something similar to religion (such as FSM) it's both quick, to the point, and doesn't require any points or counterpoints. It's simply rediculous (IMO, just like religion, which is why I find it so interesting). I believe the "point" of religion is irrelevant to our discussion. Lastly, "extreme atheists" (put in quotes for the very weird label) don't "shove their beliefs down others throats", they simply over-act their opinions, something perfectly allowed by the Freedom of Speech.

The thing is, once a God enters the picture, as in a deity who's absolutly perfect in it's essence, and that can decide what's good and what isn't, the ideology that's stretchable becomes a very fanatic, none-stretchable religion. Your definitions and labels may be nice, but it's the final outcome I'm discussing. Sure you could call Philosophy a religion. And? What of it? Bottom line is that Philosophy has no greater entity, and the different philosofical statements can be proven, unproven, and proven again. Religion cannot be proven, and neither unproven, which is where fanatics come from. As for your comment about the followers of religion who make it's cons- A. That's not entirely true (Slavery, Anti-Gayness, etc). B. If you call what's in A a followers' fault, then the pros of religion should be considered the followers' result aswell. C. It matters not where the cons come from, only that they exist and that they wouldn't have existed if it wasn't for religion. The idea that God can't be disproved is insane. Now, if you were to say a deist god can't be disproved, I would agree. However, the Christian God is something that exists within a certain boundary, which is that created by the Bible. The errors in the Bible are also errors in God, because from what the Bible says, they're part of the same thing. God is a perfect being though, but from what the Bible says he often fails to meet his own standards, or back track on his words. The perfect being would do no such thing, leading to areas to disprove him. This isn't even using science to disprove him, just knowing that humans made up errors whenever they came up with this God. That's not disproving his existance, that's finding errors. I also never referred to any specific God. Lastly, I don't believe in any God, and as such I see discussing with an atheist whether or not God exists as pointless.

Really? So a fish couldn't eat another fish because they're both fish? A man couldn't hurt another man because they're both men? Nature couldn't hurt nature (I could debate whether or not humans are a part of nature, but lets say we are) because it's also (a part of) nature? That point is just wrong- You can't say someone couldn't hurt another because they're of the same kind. The point is that normally such arguments place humankind outside of nature. And again you pick one part and disregard the rest, I said we have dominion over everything because we advanced to a point in which we are basically stronger then everything else and we could destroy everything if we wanted. So please, point out to me, where did I say we are unable to harm nature because we are part of nature? I was stating I'm sick of a cliche, don't assume things. So if I disagree with you I must disagree with every single thing you said? That makes no sense to me... I found your nature comment wrong, and simply replied to it. Also, no, you never said that nature couldn't hurt nature. However, what you did say is "Yes, I am rather annoyed with the stupidity of hearing how bad we are to nature. We are nature." and as a response to me saying that nature could be better off without us. I think any person with a healthy mind could understand that you meant we couldn't be bad to nature because we are nature. Lastly, about the dominant part of nature- A. And if we are (and we are) so what? B. Humans techinically have that ability, yes. However, the human race wouldn't survive too long after doing that (we wouldn't have any animals to feed on, we'll miss the air (as there are no plants if we destroyed everything), I'd assume many other recources would be destroyed in the process aswell, etc). Then I must be extremely sickly in the head, because I could not even understand that I myself meant that. As for I questioned why you didn't comment on anything else was because I don't assume opinions, i.e. you would agree with anything else that I said. When I speak with people and they disagree, they normally say "Well I agree with you about [Point A], but [Point B]? That's completely unreasonable! etc." Edit: And my comment on the dominance of humans over nature was to disprove your claim that I think since we are nature we cannot harm nature. If I openly say we could destroy it all if we wished, then how does that mean I do not think humans [a part of nature] could not harm other natural things? Really? Let's take a quick recap on our personal discussion over this thread. You said "Yes, I am rather annoyed with the stupidity of hearing how bad we are to nature. We are nature. We exemplify natural selection and survival of the fittest, because if we wanted to, we could use our power to destroy everything else. However, with a different approach we have the obligation to maintain nature as we are the dominant nature." (page 2). You said that as a response to some of my posts of how the world (and especificly nature) could do better without us. Notice the "Yes, I am rather annoyed with the stupidity of hearing how bad we are to nature..We are nature." part, and especialy the part in bold. Considering you call it stupid to say we are bad to nature, and then immediately add "We are nature" (I assume a 'because' should fit between those 2), and you say all of that as a response to my "nature without humans" theory, my instincts tell me you mean we can't be bad to nature because we are [a part of] nature. Call me stupid but that's what I see. As for commenting on everything you said. I felt quite neutral to the rest of your post, didn't agree with it much, but not to the point that I think I should counterpoint it (mostly because it's an opinion) or argue over it (again, because I was somewhat neutral about it). You must understand that it's a forum, with thousands of replies added every day, and that you can't expect someone to comment on everything you say, every time they want to comment on something you said. Lastly, "And my comment on the dominance of humans over nature was to disprove your claim that I think since we are nature we cannot harm nature." That couldn't possibly be true because you said that before I commented on your post (see it on page 2).

This is much more interesting than the actual topic... You don't seem to have contradicted or agreed with any of my points :S. I've said it like 5 times in this thread (I think 4 of those were on the same page, lol) and I'll say it again. Bottom line is- Religion has it's cons and pros (regardless of where they come from). I believe it's cons overcome it's pros, and is why I think the world is better off without it. You can't argue that it's like that for everything else simply because it doesn't change the fact that without religion, religion's cons wouldn't exist. I'm also not arguing (here) whether or not God exists, only a cold "mathematical" analysis of cons vs. pros.

I'm sorry but.... Do you know why Bobby Henderson created FSM? The original purpose was to debate whether or not Intelligent Design should be taught in public schools. Henderson claimed that if any one God is taught about, so should be for FSM, for there's as much proof it exists as there is about any God. When atheists made notice of it, it quickly caught on and in a very short period of time became a parody of religion. As such, it makes every bit of sense that God-mockery is it's direction. It took you all the way to page 166 to realize it's intention is to mock God? That's odd. There's no reason for logic behind it, that's why it can be so easily compared to religion. FSM is a perfect deity, invisible and undetectable that created the world with it's almighty apendage and had "planted proof" of evolution to see if it's followers will still trust it exists. There's as much proof that FSM exists, as there is of any God, or Darth Vader as others have pointed here. Also, they're not 2 sides of the same coin. You could say they're wrong for mocking others' beliefs, you could even say their behaviour is absolutly disgusting (I'd beg the differ, not that it matters), but you can't compare religous extremists, those who kill the innocent in the name of religion, or force their opinions on others whenever possible, to those who mock it. R'amen.

The thing is, once a God enters the picture, as in a deity who's absolutly perfect in it's essence, and that can decide what's good and what isn't, the ideology that's stretchable becomes a very fanatic, none-stretchable religion. Your definitions and labels may be nice, but it's the final outcome I'm discussing. Sure you could call Philosophy a religion. And? What of it? Bottom line is that Philosophy has no greater entity, and the different philosofical statements can be proven, unproven, and proven again. Religion cannot be proven, and neither unproven, which is where fanatics come from. As for your comment about the followers of religion who make it's cons- A. That's not entirely true (Slavery, Anti-Gayness, etc). B. If you call what's in A a followers' fault, then the pros of religion should be considered the followers' result aswell. C. It matters not where the cons come from, only that they exist and that they wouldn't have existed if it wasn't for religion. Who says religion can't be proven? Prove it then. (Just to make sure this isn't a miss-understanding- What I mean by cannot be proven is that you can't prove God exists). Well I certainly can't, but what I mean to say is (and I may have just misunderstood your post) maybe one day someone will find evidence that will PROVE God exists. If that day ever comes, would you believe in him? And do you mean can't prove right now, or can't prove ever? What if one day someone will prove God doesn't exist? Will you stop believing? Sorry for anyone taking that as an insult, but- If God isn't proven to exist, isn't it just like believing in the Flying Spaghetti Monster? As in, in something made up? P.S. I meant can't prove right now. Not that it matters... Well I could answer your question, or you could answer mine. ;) If someone proved there is no way ever in any way that God could exist, then I guess I would stop believing. But as of right now, God is as real to me as the laptop I'm typing on And you truthfuly don't see anything contradicting in that statement??

The thing is, once a God enters the picture, as in a deity who's absolutly perfect in it's essence, and that can decide what's good and what isn't, the ideology that's stretchable becomes a very fanatic, none-stretchable religion. Your definitions and labels may be nice, but it's the final outcome I'm discussing. Sure you could call Philosophy a religion. And? What of it? Bottom line is that Philosophy has no greater entity, and the different philosofical statements can be proven, unproven, and proven again. Religion cannot be proven, and neither unproven, which is where fanatics come from. As for your comment about the followers of religion who make it's cons- A. That's not entirely true (Slavery, Anti-Gayness, etc). B. If you call what's in A a followers' fault, then the pros of religion should be considered the followers' result aswell. C. It matters not where the cons come from, only that they exist and that they wouldn't have existed if it wasn't for religion. Who says religion can't be proven? Prove it then. (Just to make sure this isn't a miss-understanding- What I mean by cannot be proven is that you can't prove God exists). I take it that you would be a fan of Blaise Pascal. Not really. I also don't see what in my post implies anything specific about him.

The thing is, once a God enters the picture, as in a deity who's absolutly perfect in it's essence, and that can decide what's good and what isn't, the ideology that's stretchable becomes a very fanatic, none-stretchable religion. Your definitions and labels may be nice, but it's the final outcome I'm discussing. Sure you could call Philosophy a religion. And? What of it? Bottom line is that Philosophy has no greater entity, and the different philosofical statements can be proven, unproven, and proven again. Religion cannot be proven, and neither unproven, which is where fanatics come from. As for your comment about the followers of religion who make it's cons- A. That's not entirely true (Slavery, Anti-Gayness, etc). B. If you call what's in A a followers' fault, then the pros of religion should be considered the followers' result aswell. C. It matters not where the cons come from, only that they exist and that they wouldn't have existed if it wasn't for religion. Who says religion can't be proven? Prove it then. (Just to make sure this isn't a miss-understanding- What I mean by cannot be proven is that you can't prove God exists). Well I certainly can't, but what I mean to say is (and I may have just misunderstood your post) maybe one day someone will find evidence that will PROVE God exists. If that day ever comes, would you believe in him? And do you mean can't prove right now, or can't prove ever? What if one day someone will prove God doesn't exist? Will you stop believing? Sorry for anyone taking that as an insult, but- If God isn't proven to exist, isn't it just like believing in the Flying Spaghetti Monster? As in, in something made up? P.S. I meant can't prove right now. Not that it matters...

The thing is, once a God enters the picture, as in a deity who's absolutly perfect in it's essence, and that can decide what's good and what isn't, the ideology that's stretchable becomes a very fanatic, none-stretchable religion. Your definitions and labels may be nice, but it's the final outcome I'm discussing. Sure you could call Philosophy a religion. And? What of it? Bottom line is that Philosophy has no greater entity, and the different philosofical statements can be proven, unproven, and proven again. Religion cannot be proven, and neither unproven, which is where fanatics come from. As for your comment about the followers of religion who make it's cons- A. That's not entirely true (Slavery, Anti-Gayness, etc). B. If you call what's in A a followers' fault, then the pros of religion should be considered the followers' result aswell. C. It matters not where the cons come from, only that they exist and that they wouldn't have existed if it wasn't for religion. Who says religion can't be proven? Prove it then. (Just to make sure this isn't a miss-understanding- What I mean by cannot be proven is that you can't prove God exists).

The thing is, once a God enters the picture, as in a deity who's absolutly perfect in it's essence, and that can decide what's good and what isn't, the ideology that's stretchable becomes a very fanatic, none-stretchable religion. Your definitions and labels may be nice, but it's the final outcome I'm discussing. Sure you could call Philosophy a religion. And? What of it? Bottom line is that Philosophy has no greater entity, and the different philosofical statements can be proven, unproven, and proven again. Religion cannot be proven, and neither unproven, which is where fanatics come from. As for your comment about the followers of religion who make it's cons- A. That's not entirely true (Slavery, Anti-Gayness, etc). B. If you call what's in A a followers' fault, then the pros of religion should be considered the followers' result aswell. C. It matters not where the cons come from, only that they exist and that they wouldn't have existed if it wasn't for religion.