user1991

Where does it say in the bible to treat women badly? JW The whole original sin thing has lead to contempt for women in Christianity for thousands of years, and it still continues pretty much to this day.

Getting rid of DARE is good as long as they replace it with something that is actually true and not pure propaganda. Kids should be educated about drugs. Educated, not scared. Problem with this is that It doesn't look like there will be a replacement, which is pretty bad.

I will never understand the mentality of those who think that they/or the state have the justification to tell people what they can and cannot do to themselves. In fact, what annoys me more is that these people are usually the same people who talk about "freedom" as if they actually know what the concept means, but then go on to support Bush with suspension of habeas corpus/all that good stuff. It's all about stigma, and a population of people who are too stupid/willfully ignorant to see past it all. When I look at these drug laws and think back to my experiences with drugs (both positive and negative) I think to myself, what the hell is wrong with these people? And I know they think the same way about me, and probably this makes me just as bigoted as them, but I can't possibly respect them no matter how hard I try. I used to be all about acceptance - that was my one ambition really, to accept everybody. Yet now, I just can't. I tried it for a while, and to be honest I'm not sure if I knew at the time whether it wouldn't work, or whether that's just me reflecting on that experience and trying to make sense of it all by conjuring some sort of concrete subconscious doubt that I had all along to make it seem as if I never changed. This leads me to believe that inside I'm scared of understanding that everything is always changing, and obviously I already know this, but there is a difference between knowing and understanding. I've never had so much contempt and hatred for people in my entire life as I have had in the past few months. When I look at society, I can't help but notice the masses of stupid, easily manipulated, empty shells of human beings that hold everybody with any substance back, and I can't decide whether they're happy because of ignorance or whether deep down they know their nature - and to be honest that's probably why real happiness scares me, in the sense that sometimes I find myself intentionally making things a little worse and a little bit more chaotic just so I have something to plague me at my core, cause without that cognitive dissonance and constant analysis of my self, I fear that I'll become one of the drones. I don't know how I got onto that from the topic at hand, but whatever lol. Anyway, all drugs should be legal, the government doesn't have the justification to tell you what you can and cannot do to yourself. Any government that does do this is inherently tyrannical simply by definition.

religious people tend to be more pious, not more moral. Not acting in a reserved manner doesnt make you less moral. No, but doing immoral things that religious people wouldn't do, does. BTK, Dennis Raider(spelling) was a serial killer and I believe the minister of his church(certain he was christian). How would that have gotten worse if he was an atheist? Thought you'd bring up something like that, this is exactly why I'm saying generally speaking. Everything that has to do with people and/or their actions has exceptions. Name me a moral action which a believer can perform, which an atheist/agnostic can not. To the guy who talks of the "hippy atheist liberals," I think you need to do a bit of research on the role of religion in mass atrocities. Sure, religion was the start of charity, and a lot of other good, but you are hardly innocent when it comes to acts of terror and violence done in the name of God. Don't get too hung up on this point, because this isn't the main part of what I'm saying, but quit acting like religion's influence is solely positive. Also, why do you think an objective moral standard can only come from God? Have you managed to solve the Euthyphro dilemma too? You say that you aren't forcing it on anybody, yet how else do you plan to solve the problem you believe there to be? Look, society and the common values of the people change over time. This isn't my opinion by the way, this is a fact. I'm not talking about morality even, just simply the way in which social contracts work and are formed, as well as managed by the state and by the majority. These all change. You need to stop trying to judge everything with the same religious moral certitude that people did in the 50s and 60s because we aren't living in those times. "drug use, teenage sex" - what is wrong with these things? (the age that it is legal to have sex is 16 here in the UK, and I think it is fine). Alcohol is a drug, do you go around condemning people sitting in bars relaxing with their friends after a week at work?

Never talk about religion with anyone (irl). Matters will not end well. You have an opinion that, sadly, I must admit I once held, but it's a juvenile one, and I hope you grow out of it. Somewhat. Sometimes people are religious for the wrong reasons, but that's no reason to make a prejudiced, unjust statement like the one you're makin' right now. Supernatural forces. =/= Religion. It's close but not the same. The only difference is that you give money to religion. :-k And that religion is based on using rituals and prayers to a supposedly higher being to influence the decisions of that force. You're misrepresenting religion. I'm not religious, but if you're going to debate them at least debate their actual position.

Not true. The majority of atheists do not oppose religious organisations - they just don't care. Atheism certainly is not a religion. It is not structured or organised like religion. Here be some highly amusing discourse between Dawkins and a religious lady. I'm positive she does not reflect the intellectual capacity of the bulk of the American religious however. let me rephrase that for clarity atheism functions as a religion(even though it technically isnt) because as long as most of the world is religious being atheist puts you in (metaphorical) opposition to the church. Its not a religion in the sense being implied but in many ways it does function as one Atheism is not a set of beliefs, it has no ritual or devotional observances or practices of religious beliefs, no superhuman agency/ies, no moral mode - the only thing it is, is a lack of belief in the idea of God. Again, the English language is confusing in the sense that one can easily make the mistake of assuming that because "lack of belief in God" and "I believe God doesn't exist" are similar statements and both are atheistic in nature, that the latter is somehow a positive assertion (which it isn't) Atheism is not a religion, in any way, shape or form.

Even if you were right about this, which you aren't, what is your view on the freedom standpoint? Why should women not have the freedom to have sex for money? Is it the role of government to tell you what you can and cannot do to yourself/with others in a consensual relationship? If I govern myself and choose to do something to myself, yet for this the government uses force and coercion against me to lock me in a cell, how is this not tyranny? The only possible justification you could have would be saying that the majority can decide what you can and cannot do to your own body, which is basically the same as saying "the majority owns you." Normally I'd agree with this but it's very rarely "women using freedom to have sex for money". What is your point? Because a lot of them are trafficked/forced into it (which bear in mind is increased by forcing the practice into the criminal underground), people shouldn't have the freedom to do whatever they want to themselves? Just from a freedom standpoint, the state doesn't have the justification to tell you what you can and cannot do to yourself.

Are you referring to secular humanism instead of atheism? There are a lot of secular humanists who are just as bad as the religious when it comes to the whole "faith" thing, so if that's your argument, I can see what you're saying. Atheism however, isn't a religion. It just isn't. It is lack of belief, nothing more.

Being stopped and searched without reasonable grounds (they said there was a violent crime in the area, which somehow nullifies your rights against searches) and being caught with cannabis and getting an £80 fine.

The fact that anyone still allows this thread to live blows mine... I certainly could see it if I chose to believe it. I define atheism as a religion mainly because there exists agnosticism, which makes no claims on either side. You have a belief on one side of an issue, I have a belief on the other. As to the last three, they contain qualifiers for a reason. Okay, how about this: atheism is a religion because it has varying levels of beliefs (or disbeliefs, not that it makes a difference) or devotion. I can't believe we're even arguing this again. It's completely irrelevant whether or not you call atheism a religion. Agnosticism is the idea that you cannot know whether a God/s exists or not. Plus, you're arguing as if atheism is the assertion that "there is definitely no God", which it isn't. Atheism is simply lack of belief. It isn't a case of Theism - Agnosticism - Atheism as you assume, with the outer two both being positive assertions. Can you not understand the difference between the assertion that there are "definitely no gods" and "I do not believe in God"? Even if 100% of atheists said "there is definitely no God", it still wouldn't be a religion because it doesn't meet ANY OF THE CRITERIA NECESSARY.

Are you accidentally posting here instead of the Legalizing Prostitution thread? No, I am responding to the people who say that homosexuality should be illegal.

"A set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, moral code etc." You're the ones making the positive assertions. Atheism is only a "set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, purpose of the universe" to the extent that we deny what you are saying. It is not the same thing. The fact that you cannot see this blows my mind. "Especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies." - Nope "Usually involving devotional and ritual observances" - Nope "Often containing a moral code" - Nope .

Again, I haven't received an answer from anyone on this point. If adults choose to engage in a social contract with eachother, and there is no harm that extends outside of said social contract, how is it the business of society/the state to say whether this is right/wrong, illegal/legal?

That's precisely it. It's a position on spirituality. You've taken a side on the issue of spirituality, therefore, it's a religion. I would not, for example, call agnosticism a religion. edit- [bleep], I've been dragged back into this thread. Anyone want to take up my position so I can stop arguing it? I edited my previous post as you were making a reply to tackle your other points. Atheism, is the lack of theism. It is the lack of belief in a God. "A position on spirituality" (which it isn't anyway) isn't the same as "a religion". Religion, as defined by Merriam-Webster online dictionary; Which of these criteria does atheism meet?

You know very well what I meant by that example. A rapist is not a chance for life, it's as you say a potential. There is a difference, if subtle. If a woman does not have an abortion, things will go naturally. In a rape situation, the rapist must act for something to happen. I could then interfere with my own action because an action is taking place by the will of someone else. And I just won't go into the debate about what defines a person, because your position is already clear, and me arguing with that solves nothing. Aside from all that, my point on topic still stands. People want the scripture to be the law of the land because they believe in it, not because God says so. Of course, that is a major factor for some people, and those are the people you call religious extremists. Every religion has them, even atheists. Please demonstrate how atheism is a religion? Atheism is simply lack of belief in a God/s. It's possibly the easiest thing to understand ever. No Gods, no scripture, no prayer, no sacrifice, none of that. Our position is so ridiculously easy to understand yet you continue to portray at as something which it isn't. And on the abortion issue (really shouldn't in this thread, but whatever,) how does a rapist's actions change anything? There is still the potential for life, and if the potential for life is more important than 9 months of an individuals life as you put it, then it is more important than the possible mental/physical trauma a person may go through. I don't see how there being an outside action changes anything in terms of arguing from potential. Your argument basically boils to "well it will be a person at some point" (unless of course you already consider it a person, in which case why would you even make an argument from potential), which is ridiculous because if it isn't a person, it isn't a person - whether it will be at some random point in the future is irrelevant. There are gradations in personhood, and a fetus, at least up to a certain point, possesses none of the things that we typically associate with being a person/having consciousness of one's own self existence etc in other areas of life. If someone is brain dead, then they are no longer a person. They are a human being yes, but personhood, in my opinion anyway, is something different. And back to the topic at hand, God - people want scripture to be the law of the land because they believe in it - and they believe in it because they believe it to be the word of God. I generally dislike religious belief concerning homosexuality for example, and if I see a Christian/Muslim spouting homophobic statements in a public forum I will argue with them - yet I would not, in a million years, condone making such thought illegal. Unfortunately, I can't say the same for the religious right.

I'm not going to drag myself back into this thread, but the only problem with that is that people aren't trying to drag religion into politics, they are trying to drag their beliefs into politics. Everyone does, even those who aren't religious. Those who are just happed to have different beliefs than those who do. Obviously, justifying by saying "God says so" isn't a good reason in real life, but, for example, I would argue that I am pro-life not because I am religious, but because I believe that a chance of life is worth more than 9 months of an individual's life. There are millions of people who believe that scripture should be the law of the land, both in the East and the West. And on that abortion token, this isn't the right thread, but in order to be consistent, would you stop a rapist raping a woman? That's a chance at life is it not? Isn't that chance of life worth more than the mental/physical trauma the woman would go through? Arguments from potential don't really work because if indeed there is "potential for life" then there is not life. No thoughts, no feelings, no pain, no suffering, no consciousness, no person.

Yes, but we need more encouragement from the moderately religious (like you) towards those in the religious right. I don't think you believe me, but I really don't care if people believe in God - it's their choice, not any of my business. The problem I have is when the religious try to influence the law/public education, or scare people into the faith with their religious beliefs - and this is exactly what a lot of them have been doing. In fact, I think that religion is inherently like this in its make up, ie theres a part of it that says "go out and preach", and this can only be avoided with a conscious decision of the believer to say to themselves, this is what I believe, let everyone else believe what they want. Obviously, if the religious want to advertise the virtues of their religions, that is fine - but I draw the line at religion having influence in public policy. I don't think that's too unreasonable.

Who said anything was created? Things formed, coalesced, revolved, rotated--but as far as we know, no creation took place. Since the Universe contains time within it, and is not contained within time, it is essentially timeless. It has no alpha or omega, no beginning, or end. Neither a creation or a destruction. It just is. And yet for some reason you don't think this could be true of God? He has no beginning nor end, he just is? Your own words right? As someone before mentioned and i thought was an awesome way of looking at it, who created gravity? Noone, it just is. Same as the God i believe in. No, the problem arises when you try to, in order to explain why the Universe is here, claim that God is infinite. For example, you say "the universe must have had a beginning, something must have started it, it can't have just been" and in order to explain this you fathom God. Look at it this way. To explain the Universe (the most complex physical thing), you create a God, more complex, than the thing that you can't explain in the first place. You give God the qualities of being either outside time or in time and somehow outside time at the same time, and a bunch of other stuff too, in order to explain how the Universe exists. This leads to the question, "where did God come from?", and you can't say "he just is," because you've already said that the universe must have had a beginning, and the universe is in turn less complex than God. This then leads to an infinite regression. That is the fundamental difference between what you're saying. Obviously, I'm not sure of the scientific data behind the idea that the universe just is, if indeed there is any at all, but if what we're talking here is the complexity of certain propositions, the universe being infinite is indeed less complex than God being infinite.

If negotiation fails, its time for hardball. If you ask politely and they still don't stop with their ridiculous rules, tell them that unless they give you more freedom, you're going to deliberately fail all of your classes.

Even if you were right about this, which you aren't, what is your view on the freedom standpoint? Why should women not have the freedom to have sex for money? Is it the role of government to tell you what you can and cannot do to yourself/with others in a consensual relationship? If I govern myself and choose to do something to myself, yet for this the government uses force and coercion against me to lock me in a cell, how is this not tyranny? The only possible justification you could have would be saying that the majority can decide what you can and cannot do to your own body, which is basically the same as saying "the majority owns you."

Yes you are absolutely correct. But the problem is, as I have said before, people believe in many different versions of God. Muslims believe in a different version to Christians. Because Christianity and Islam are some of the most popular Religions on the planet, it would not be wrong to pick their 'Gods' as an example. Stop being pugnacious. Albert Einstein was not religious. He was Pantheist, which basically means he used the term God as a metaphor. I think it would be nice to use God as a metaphor, however, discourse about semantics is not what this topic is about. Some Einstein quotes; "It was of course a lie, what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and have never denied this, but expressed it clearly. If something is in me that can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." "I am a deeply religious non-believer, that is a somewhat new kind of religion." If I choose to view god purely as a metaphor its not semantics, its just an abstract model. Temperature is nothing but the vibrating of particles but we still measure it. We agree their are flaws in the christian and muslim traditions, but that doesnt relate to whether some kind of god exists. Edison made one hundred or so things before he got a light bulb, certainly the incadensant bulb didnt become impossible since the first few forms were wrong on the quote, not believing in a personal god while religious entails ignoring religious establishment and believing the universe exists defined by science but their is some divine mechanism behind it. Largely metaphorical, feeling the universe has some divinity in it means searching for the source which I believe to be science math philosophy etc. I can't find your post, so would you please either link me/demonstrate your arguments from math/science for God? I remember reading them a while back (I think it was you), and noticing some flaws but didn't have enough time to post a reply.

"Sacred"? Do you think you have the right to tell people what they can and cannot do with their own bodies? Give people the freedom to do what they want to themselves, and as long as they do not impose on the freedoms of others, it should be legal. Drugs, prostitution, etc. It is not the role of government to tell people what they can and can't do to themselves. You people have a weird mentality. Not weird in the sense that you aren't normal, because obviously the majority agree with you, but I mean, you've been brainwashed to believe that the government should actually be able to legislate laws against things which you do to yourself. I govern myself. I have the right to do whatever I want to myself as long as I do not impose on the freedoms of others. The government telling you what you can and cannot do to yourself is basically the same as saying "we own you," which is tyranny. Rights aren't rights if they can be taken away. Americans, whatever happened to "give me liberty or give me death!"? The harms are irrelevant. Should a woman have the right to have sex with men for money? Yes. A lot of harms can also come with prostitution, a lot of which are only there because it is legal, but even so, you cannot suspend someone's rights.

I was under the impression we were debating if god exists, not if christianity and islam were correct. You can be as angry as you want, its not helping your case much, since I dont believe in christianity/islam your whole argument is fluff to me. We are. People believe in different versions of God. Stop being silly. He's arguing whether or not a God exists. Not God's supposed attributes. Obviously, if we're arguing whether or not a God with certain attributes exists then it is relevant to point out inconsistencies in said attributes, but that's not what he was talking about. Does a God exist? I don't think we really have any way of knowing, but even if we did prove the existence of a creator, we wouldn't know its attributes, its will, whether or not there was a moral standard or not, and if there was, the answer to the Euthyphro problem etc etc the list is endless. It's irrelevant really, the whole thing would just become redundant. What really gets to me, is when Christians/Muslims/people of most theistic schools of thought claim to not only know God's mind, but also assert that God's will should be the law of the land or taught as fact in public schools. I don't really have a problem with the religious unless they try to put their religion into law/education etc, which is exactly what a lot of them are doing. The religious always try and make out as if we're trying to make prayer and stuff illegal, which would be absurd, especially when you consider that the religious right are the ones behind the suspension of habeas corpus, phone tapping/wire tapping without warrants etc. I'm not saying that religion is the cause of this mentality, but simply that it is rather hypocritical of the religious right to assume that the secular are always trying to take away their "freedoms" when they are the ones that are so quick to suspend constitutional rights and such. Sure, I may believe that the world would be a better place if people weren't superstitious, but that doesn't mean that I think religion should be illegal. Why are these people so stuck on the concept of making something you don't like illegal?

The 2012 theory is one of the most stupid things I have ever heard. Do these people honestly think that just because the Mayan calendar ends on a certain day, the world is also going to end on that day? That really is idiotic. The Mayans, with their glorious skills of prediction, couldn't even predict the downfall of their OWN civilisation let alone the fate of the entire world.

Or we'll have both. By anarchy do you mean chaos or do you mean lack of coercive government?