Satenza

Heh, one of the main things i can appreciate about religion is it's inspiration on artists (both through belief and money :lol: ). I do not really mind all these apparent balsphemous art drawing, thats call free speech. One of the most disgusting things i have seen regarding this issue is the Salman Rushdie incedent in which many Isalmic countries issued a Fatwa on him for writing a "balsphemous" book, some offered up to 5 Million to the person who murdered him. Even when he was knighted a couple of months ago, people burn't effigies of him. It's a slippery road i think.

Barley any Christians have "pushed" their beliefs onto me. I mean my father is Catholic as are his side of the family, my mother and her side are atheist. Both sides have never tried to convert me (bar one cousin and she quickly understood my reasons). I mean, i did go through catholic schooling since 5 to 16 then into a Catholic College. Although i doubt that was to force me to accept christianity, they did what they thought was correct. I am now agnostic leaning towards atheism. The only person who tries (continually) to aline me with his religion is my neighbour who is a doctor. Probably one of the nicest people I have ever met . He invites me to church ceremonys and things but i always decline. Maybe in England it's different but i really do hardly see anyone try to push anything onto me. Most of my friends are catholic, well would identify themselves as catholic and have never attempted to convert me or anything. I think the whole pushing of religious people is very over exaggerated.

They did do it because of atheism. Theism recognizes another power besides the government as sovereign, and the atheistic government didn't like that. Maybe you're right, but i still think that the persecution is because of communism rather than atheism. Even Mao is thought of as a "God" figure in China now. I dont think there was ever a complete rejection of religion, i think it was a complete rejection of people opposing communism through religion. Just like those who were persecuted for opposing communism through politics.

They do not do it because of atheism however. They do it because of communism and require a shared morality for that to work, that and Lenin and Marx were always cirtical of religion as being backwards thinking. To be honest, China is in a ridiculous state at the moment and has been for the last 50+ years. However since 78' China has given people the right to beleive in religion, whether some sections of government dont respect that is another issue.

Yeah, but this thread is about picking one. Obviously everoyne wants a mix of both in reality.

Theres a difference between being intelligent and being smart. Smart can be learnt, intelligence can not. As for be I'd much rather have my intelligence. But I wouldn't I wouldnt call my self ugly, so I don't know how I would feel if I did. Yeah, I'd rather have intelligence actually.

Both, at this stage in my life i couldnt do without either. Edit: I assumed you meant in a partner. For myself I'd rather have beauty since i think intelligence can be learnt.

We arn't to say, i am only saying what sounds plausible. Since the christian God is perfection he must have been able to do it in less than an instant. The only reason i can see for going through evolution is deception, hence this is more of a deist theory. I dont think it neccessarily fits in with the Christian-Judeo God.

I don't know, but the Christian God going through all that jazz when he could have just snapped his metophorical fingers and created Adam, Eve and the whole damn universe does not sound plausible to me. Why go through all that? Deception, something the christian God isn't capable of apparently. This claim sounds more suited to a deist than a Christian.

Agnostic/Atheists? :P

Not its not science, and it will never be science. It's so ridiculous to call creationism a science. It's not even close. As I said before, and as many have said it's not science because it's not a theory. It's simply a claim with no possible way of studying it through the means of the scientific method. This is why it isn't taught in science classes because it is the complete opposite and it is nothing more than a kick in the face to empircism when you claim it to be science.

Of course. You're claiming to be a moral absolutist, however you do not know if the morals you hold are absolute at all. There is no way you can say your morals are absolute when they have not come from a source which is absolute (AKA your interpretation of the Bible). As i said you can claim to beleive that there is an absolute good or bad, but i find that worthless when you do not even know what that is. Your morals are subjective, it doesn't matter if you beleive they are subjective or not. I'll find them absolute when you bring some objective truth to the table. Which just shows you how being a moral absolutist is worthless if you can never know what those absolutes are. Gives you conviction and reason to act on your moral impulses which are not neccessarily absolute? You are taking the stance that only absolutes can mean things. I have an opinion, and it's just as valuable as your opinion to me. You have an opinion and because you deem it as absolute you think of mine as worthless. It's you who makes opinions worthless by beleiving that you have an infalliable and absolute answer which is not there.

If your morality does not come from an absolute source then I don't see how it would apply to anyone but yourself? Which is exactly the same as your morality. You can beleive it's objective all you like but that doesn't make it objective anywhere except inside of your head. It is exactly the same as moral relativity except you have dilluded yourself into thinking its not by basing it on the Bible. Christians can not decide together on morality, so why do you think that it is objective? Interpretation is subjective, you interpret some points of the Bible to shape your morality. There could be a God which has an abolsute sense of morality, but you can't say that you have his morals pinned down. So it's worthless being a moral absolutist when you don't really know what is absolutley right or absolutley wrong.

It is a completley "bunk theory" because it isn't a theory. It's a theological hypothesis which realistically speaking means nothing. Since it's unprovable, unfalsifiable, untestable ect. Evolution isn't a theory to discredit creation, infact either way we look at the universe at the moment it seems like you can't escape a supernatural element. We either accept that there was a first cause that started the universe- which goes against the laws of causality. Or we except an infinite regress of causes - which is illogical. I just think it's nieve to call the supernatural power "God" and assign characteristics to that.

That can't be explained because your definition of right and wrong is relative. I do not think that really matters at this stage, at least tell us your reasoning why you think it is right or wrong.

Yes, i remember going through the CTET applications and that being difficult. If someone is being pushy make that the reason for rejecting them, not contacting or asking a question to a staff member.

Yes, thats quite ironic. "Show your interest and submit an application, show your intrest any further and be denied".

I 100% agree there, i went to a devote roman catholic primary and high school. We had religion/philosophy classes and learn't about creationism then we went and learn't about evolution in science classes. Creation isn't a "theory" since it isn't science. Creationism has no means of testing, and really i don't understand how you can teach that in science class. What would you do, read the Bible? Thats not science.

I think the neccessity to eat animals plays an important part when distinguishing the non-consent of that animal with beastiality. Most Humans are omnivores as in we have the ability to digest both plants and animals and most of us do, therefore it would appear to be natural do eat meat. I do not really know whether beastiality is natural or if it's just humans being bored and occupying themselves. However anyway even if that was natural i do not think this relates to homosexuality. Thats between two consenting parties, there is no consent with beastiality. There is no consent with killing an animal to eat it, but it would appear to be both natural and neccessary to do so. This "you should be vegetarian" argument does not hold up for me. We have humane methods of killing animals to eat them, we do not have humane methods of having sex with animals. It's an act of non-consenting cruelty. Eating them is merley an act not requiring consent to sustain human life. It can become just as bad as beastiality i think, when the animals are not raised in the proper way (ie chickens in tiny cages, making it illegal to make animals bleed to death for certain types of meat, illegal to poach). This is why we have evergrowing animal activist groups. My friend is vegetarian and i know this does not speak for all vegetarians but she almost died numerous times due to that.

Who needs a weapon? If he's dumb enough to open his mouth then you've got one hell of a chance to knock his [wagon] out.. Or if he's smart enough to keep his mouth closed just fake a punch at his face, put everything you've got into a jab in his stomache and while he's bent over gasping for air take that chance for a finishing blow.. Cross out #3 and put a check next to #2. Looks like someones done this before.

I agree with the above posters. Campaign against something which actually effects others in a negative way, like trafficking children for prostitution, the humans starving and dying through AIDS in Africa and other places. Even the children, men and women you find littering the streets because they have no place to go. Go help people and if thats to much effort take on something closer to home. Like those damn pesky women speaking in Church. I know this thread is whether you agree or disagree with homosexuality. However really in comparison to the other things you deem disgusting in the world this sits very low on the list of issues to tackle.

Yet it is you who can't give one fullproof reason why it's wrong. How ironic for you. Ironically enough, you don't have an absolute basis for right or wrong. I do not claim it to be right or wrong. I do not need an "absolute basis" because when it comes down to it your "absolute basis" of morality is less justified than anything, because you may beleive whatever you like is divine word but a belief in reality amounts to nothing without empirical proof. So go ahead and continue to disillusion yourself, just don't persecute members of society over it. The only place you should act on that subjective belief is in your head until you bring some objective truth to the world.

Solipsism is the most ego-centric mode of thought i believe.

Not correct, only statutory rape if one partner is over 18. e.g If woman of 25 has sex with 15 year old boy she is guilty of statutory rape. Edit: The onyl thing in UK law that is different is if a girl is under 12 and the boy she has sex with is older it's statutory rape.

fake