DK's and religion

[Goomf]

Quick question Behrens. Being a Christian, do you believe that it is necessary to go to Church in order to be a proper Christian?

[Chayesh]

Chayesh rescues Behrens.

To be a Christian, no. However...

...it is a causal relationship (i.e. you will want to go to worship) and a command in Scripture that one should not forsake gathering together to worship.

[Behrens]

Quick question Behrens. Being a Christian' date=' do you believe that it is necessary to go to Church in order to be a proper Christian?[/quote']

Yes and no.

Paul said to not forsake the congregation of the saints. Spending time with other men and women of faith strengthens your own faith, as you build on each other and help each other learn far more than you ever could alone.

However, as once was said "going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than sitting in a garage makes you a car". Christianity is about your personal relationship with G-d, not with other people.

So, my answer is that you don't need to, but that you should go to church.

[Dale]

Being a baptist myself.

I don't believe you have to put your entire 'self' into your religion in order to follow it correctly. I mean, is it brownie points or something? I don't think you have to attend church every sunday, or perhaps not at all, though it is proboly best you try. If you are in fact trying anyway.

[Chayesh]

Someone, I forget who, mentioned about how the universe is not as random as Behrens thought.

I actually think that's a brilliant point. In fact, I don't think that Behrens believes the universe to be random at all. Hence, my point that I stated earlier, the biggest deathblow to the theories of both evolution and the Big Bang (neither of which has been proven as all "evidence" presented so far has been debunked as hoax) is completely in contradiction to how the precisely ordered universe operates. In fact, the human body, nature, and the cosmos operate on such a magnitude of ordered complexity that its very nature points to the existence of a designer. This is what Behrens alluded to earlier when he mentioned seeing God in various natural wonders, I believe. Generating such order out of randomness or unguided genetic selection takes a greater leap of faith than believing in an all-powerful Creator and designer, as it completely ignores natural cosmic forces and things like the Law of Entropy. It's completely unnatural for anything to trend toward order from randomness without being acted upon by a conscious force. Most scientists don't talk about that much.

Incidentally, to this day, scientists and doctors cannot explain the paradox of the nuclei of cells either. They don't know why they don't fly apart. Science can't explain how it is possible for those similar charged particles not to repel each other, but somehow a precarious balance has been struck. Not bad for random explosive gasses (that came from...where again?) or some random organic matter (that came from where and was energized how again?).

The Christian who's up on his Scripture will quote from the book of Colossians that says (paraphrased) "In Christ, by Christ, and for Christ, all things consist."

[Behrens]

Pssst...

Chay, I believe in the Big Bang.

But your point is very valid, and I agree wholeheartedly.

[Goomf]

So you believe that Christianity doesn't really have to deal with material things, such as the 'house of g-d'. Is there such thing as a better Christian? I mean, isn't the whole point of the religion is to accept G-d in your heart, thus at the end going into Heaven? If so, there are judgements that abide by a set of limitations.

In all honesty, does this seem like something G-d would do? Being the supreme being and all, would he use a mathematical formula or any set number of formulas to judge people equally? I hear stories of murderers praying to G-d and converting completely to atone for past sins. If this is a viable way to go to Heaven, that would mean there are Christians, and there are better Christians. So what makes a Christian a better Christian?

From my understanding, you imply going to church, which is a physical manisfestation of God's house, would make you feel like you are closer to G-d. What about masses in an abandoned warehouse, or heck just someone elses house. Would that bring you closer to G-d?

There are countless examples in history where people abuse religion by calling themselves Christians or Catholics or whatever. And in those times, it is right for them to do so, because it is approved and the social norm. Missionaries slaughtered hundreds. The Salem Witch Trials. Would it be feasible that just because they go to Church, believe that they are closer to G-d and doing G-d's will, that they will go to heaven? If we go along with my presupposition, they are technically in the right to burn heathens because heck, it is G-d's will.

If you can answer them, that would be awesome.

All these questions bring me to my point. Religion is an evolving concept based on times, beliefs, and history. Once again, it is a CONCEPT, an IDEA, and being a belief, something that zealots like Osama uses as justification for terrorism, causes higher than normal conflicts.

[Chayesh]

Pssst...

Chay, I believe in the Big Bang.

But your point is very valid, and I agree wholeheartedly.

Okay...I will qualify my point by saying "those who believe in the Big Bang in the absence of a Creative Entity who manufactured that cataclysm" as I would imagine that you'd subscribe to a version where God initiated such an event according to His grand design.

[Chayesh]

So you believe that Christianity doesn't really have to deal with material things, such as the 'house of g-d'. Is there such thing as a better Christian? I mean, isn't the whole point of the religion is to accept G-d in your heart, thus at the end going into Heaven? If so, there are judgements that abide by a set of limitations.

In all honesty, does this seem like something G-d would do? Being the supreme being and all, would he use a mathematical formula or any set number of formulas to judge people equally? I hear stories of murderers praying to G-d and converting completely to atone for past sins. If this is a viable way to go to Heaven, that would mean there are Christians, and there are better Christians. So what makes a Christian a better Christian?

From my understanding, you imply going to church, which is a physical manisfestation of God's house, would make you feel like you are closer to G-d. What about masses in an abandoned warehouse, or heck just someone elses house. Would that bring you closer to G-d?

There are countless examples in history where people abuse religion by calling themselves Christians or Catholics or whatever. And in those times, it is right for them to do so, because it is approved and the social norm. Missionaries slaughtered hundreds. The Salem Witch Trials. Would it be feasible that just because they go to Church, believe that they are closer to G-d and doing G-d's will, that they will go to heaven? If we go along with my presupposition, they are technically in the right to burn heathens because heck, it is G-d's will.

If you can answer them, that would be awesome.

All these questions bring me to my point. Religion is an evolving concept based on times, beliefs, and history. Once again, it is a CONCEPT, an IDEA, and being a belief, something that zealots like Osama uses as justification for terrorism, causes higher than normal conflicts.

When asked such a question by the "woman at the well" in the Gospel of John, Jesus answered that worship isn't about a specific place but an attitude of the heart. It is the fellowship between believers that is the thrust of the command to gather together, not the sanctity of the specific place, as Jesus said wherever two or more are gathered in His name for the purpose of worshipping Him, He'd be in their midst.

Also, the concept of "better Christians" is dangerous ground. Christian doctrine would teach that man is judged by one criterion: Be holy as your Father in Heaven is holy. That's sinless perfection. None are, thus, Scripture teaches "there is none who is righteous, save God". Judging one's "holiness", or the illusion thereof, in the light of other flawed imperfect sinful human beings is not how one should live, but rather, viewing one's self in the light of God's perfection is a more correct doctrine.

[Behrens]

So you believe that Christianity doesn't really have to deal with material things, such as the 'house of g-d'. Is there such thing as a better Christian? I mean, isn't the whole point of the religion is to accept G-d in your heart, thus at the end going into Heaven? If so, there are judgements that abide by a set of limitations.

In all honesty, does this seem like something G-d would do? Being the supreme being and all, would he use a mathematical formula or any set number of formulas to judge people equally? I hear stories of murderers praying to G-d and converting completely to atone for past sins. If this is a viable way to go to Heaven, that would mean there are Christians, and there are better Christians. So what makes a Christian a better Christian?

From my understanding, you imply going to church, which is a physical manisfestation of God's house, would make you feel like you are closer to G-d. What about masses in an abandoned warehouse, or heck just someone elses house. Would that bring you closer to G-d?

There are countless examples in history where people abuse religion by calling themselves Christians or Catholics or whatever. And in those times, it is right for them to do so, because it is approved and the social norm. Missionaries slaughtered hundreds. The Salem Witch Trials. Would it be feasible that just because they go to Church, believe that they are closer to G-d and doing G-d's will, that they will go to heaven? If we go along with my presupposition, they are technically in the right to burn heathens because heck, it is G-d's will.

If you can answer them, that would be awesome.

All these questions bring me to my point. Religion is an evolving concept based on times, beliefs, and history. Once again, it is a CONCEPT, an IDEA, and being a belief, something that zealots like Osama uses as justification for terrorism, causes higher than normal conflicts.

Boy, a lot of questions.

First, the only thing that makes a man Christian is accepting the blood of Yeshua. Nothing else.

Second, in terms of "comparing" Christians, as Yeshua said "By their fruits shall they be known". Your relationship with G-d is in your own heart, but to show it to the world, you have to let it inform your actions as well. So Christians generally accept that being a "better" Christian means coming closer and closer to the ideal that G-d made flesh, Yeshua himself represented.

There is nothing wrong with executing justice, and witchcraft WAS a crime in Salem and biblically, punishable by death. The question of if they were truly witches or not is entirely a different one. It is just as wrong to kill an innocent man in the pursuit of justice as it is to murder him. That is why the Biblical system had so many ways to appeal the system and avoid death. One point that I heard, and found very true, is that all religion tends to deescalate wars. The Crusades, despite propaganda to the contrary, were actually surprisingly clean compared to sectarian violence of the day. With a few tragic exceptions (the Jerusalem Massacre, among others), the combatants respected the taking of prisoners and exchanging of oaths, to the point where several of the Knights Hospitalar retired before the battle of Acre rather than fight in violation of oath.

Now, this isn't to say that crazed religious people don't use incredibly heinous acts to further their end, but in all cases I have found, secular society used them first. This holds true even for religions that I think are horribly violent, such as Islam.

The fact is that society harbors a certain level of violence. Human males are violent, aggressive, strong animals. The fact that some human males who declare Christian ideals commit horrid acts is not a cause to reject Christianity. Rather, look at the fact that Christianity caused large-scale civilization to be possible by creating a code of values that allowed tens of thousands, even millions, of the incredibly volatile creatures known as men to live together without splintering into violence. In fact, where Christianity is weakest, you can see such tribal conflicts break out in short order.

Okay...I will qualify my point by saying "those who believe in the Big Bang in the absence of a Creative Entity who manufactured that cataclysm" as I would imagine that you'd subscribe to a version where God initiated such an event according to His grand design.

Exactly.

[goldbond]

Thou shall not piss off the One that implements the changes.

[Mudder]

Pali and WageofSin, thanks for representing!

I'm with you two! Athetits! Woohoo!

I've read this whole thing, took me a damn long time. I had SOOOOO much to say, that I won't even bother saying it. Christians will always play the "faith" card and there is no way to convice them otherwise, because they do not believe in fact. They ignore what they want and believe what they want. There is no way to change their minds.

The same goes for debating with republicans.

As for religion and politics? The two should NEVER be combined. It is against everything that is American. Where does gay marriage mess with anyone elses rights? Is it gross? Grow up, your not twelve. You don't want them to be married in your Church? Don't go to that church. You probably don't want to go to a church that approved of that anyway. Aside from that, most gay people wouldn't want to be married in a church anyway. Why embrace a society that completely hates you?

Heh, i'm writing more than I thought I would.

Evolution is scientific fact. How is occurs, that is the theory.

Religion was created by the uneducated to answer things they could not explain. It was then used to control the masses. Religion is complete control and domination. It is a tyrant, and rules by fear. Do this or go burn in eternal hell. A reign of terror indeed.

...So that makes three of us? Pali + WageofSin + Mudder = The Atheists of FL

[Behrens]

There is the die-hard religious atheist I was talking about.

Mudder, check your assumptions. I believe very firmly in fact. I am an engineer and a scientist.

I have debated with many Democrats, atheists and secularists. I have found them to be more absolute in their stance than most fundamentalists I've met.

You very much prove my point. There IS debate about the evolution and origin of the universe and our species. However, you choose only those who support your point of view, and call upon the very consensus that you mock when it stands against your views.

You combine your religion with your politics. Why can I not? I vote for men who believe what I believe and make laws that I believe in. I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. As long as people like me are the majority, we will control the government. If people who believe as you do become the majority? We'll see a change.

I am curious how you square the fact that the most educated men in history were religious and your belief that religion stems from lack of education. In fact, if you're not pursuing a grad or postgrad degree, it is likely everything you've learned was discovered by a Christian man.

[Zrothum]

Religion is a medium in which to find meaning in life. It's for people who feel as though there is an emptiness within themselves and need some sort of faith to complete them spritually, mentally, and perhaps physically. The stories of Christianity preach day-to-day morals and ethics. Nothing you can't learn on the street, given enough experiences. It's not for the uneducated or the weak. It's not about heaven or hell, because some religions don't have such places. Religion varies in many forms and NO ONE can prove the other wrong. It's all about what people what to believe, it's about what they NEED to believe in order to be happy and fulfilled in life.

Religion meant to fill the gaps and voids that people cannot answer with science. Faith is a blind answer, filled with assumption and a longing to believe.

That's what I think.

When you die, you don't go anywhere. You just die. No thought, no feeling, no pearly gates, no fiery pits. Complete nothingness.

Religion is a member of that fourth group of nouns you don't learn about in 1st grade. It's just an idea.

Just my 2 cents. I'm a believer in personal strength and intellect. I believe we as people can fill the voids ourselves. The human mind is the most powerful thing on the planet. We need to learn to use it to it's full potential, instead of turning to outside biased mediums and using them to answer the questions we're too afraid to find.

[WagesofSin]

Aw jeez! Always have to open up a new can of worms dontcha Behrens!

There is the die-hard religious atheist I was talking about.

Mudder, check your assumptions. I believe very firmly in fact. I am an engineer and a scientist.

I have debated with many Democrats, atheists and secularists. I have found them to be more absolute in their stance than most fundamentalists I've met.

Really, we just have to take your word for it for now but how can you be "fundamentalist" about reality?

You very much prove my point. There IS debate about the evolution and origin of the universe and our species. However, you choose only those who support your point of view, and call upon the very consensus that you mock when it stands against your views.

I find that the only place it's still debated is in the USA and third world countries. I live in Europe now and when I tell them of the crazy stuff going on in the US their jaws drop in astonishment. Take Poland as an example, I lived there for some time and this whole "evolution issue" does not exist there. Poland, might I add in case you don't know, is very religious. Openly they call themselves a christian nation. You won't find this issue(that is, evolution) much in non-anglo speaking Europe either. It seems this whole "rebellion" against science is predominantly in the US. When will people understand that science and religion are not mutually exclusive?

You combine your religion with your politics. Why can I not? I vote for men who believe what I believe and make laws that I believe in. I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. As long as people like me are the majority, we will control the government. If people who believe as you do become the majority? We'll see a change.

Really, I think we'll just have to agree to disagree because we're starting this race from to different points.

It is not our "religion", nobody is being dogmatic. We're talking about reality here. The thing about secular philosophy is that we try to be tolerant and with an open mind. Religious folk seem to want to force values on someone, while secular philosophy wants people to choose their values.

You believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. Then please, keep it to yourself. A secular philosophy tries to let people decide what THEY want for THEMSELVES. If a man wants to marry a man, so be it. Why do religious people make gay marriage seem like the ultimate moral problem? Please, let's concentrate on human suffering, not on peoples' sex life. There are so many other problems out there like poverty and aids, yet we still seem to mill around with the same psuedo-problems.

I am curious how you square the fact that the most educated men in history were religious and your belief that religion stems from lack of education. In fact, if you're not pursuing a grad or postgrad degree, it is likely everything you've learned was discovered by a Christian man.

I'm not sure why this is significant. Of course early intellectuals were religious(and many still are), mankind needed a starting point and religion was it(not to mention some religions were ENFORCED). We need to move on people.

Anyway, living outside of the US really shows me how ignorant americans with their americo-centrism are. The majority of americans have no idea what's going outside of their country and everytime I hear some politician call america the "best country in the world" it makes my stomach heave. I really hope that this fundamentalism leaves america soon, since it seems that it's only in the US where it is occuring so prominently.

Well, it's late, I'm tired, and I still need some halloween madness...

[a-guitarist]

I've got a lot I'd like to say. But I'll just be content with reading this thread instead.

WC knows I was, once upon a time, a hardcore, in-your-face atheist. I'm not anymore. I won't go into my personal ideas/relationship on/with spirituality and the like.

I wanted to thank you all for having a, dare I say it..., Adult conversation without going into flaming.

I had a lot of fun reading this thread.

So much fun, really made my day. You have no idea how much this helped me, guys.

a-g

[Behrens]

Aw jeez! Always have to open up a new can of worms dontcha Behrens!

Yes.

Really' date=' we just have to take your word for it for now but how can you be "fundamentalist" about reality?[/quote']

We are both fundamentalist about our realities. Your belief/religion/worldview makes it so that you reject any interpretation of reality that is inconsistant with it. You try to find a way to view any data so that it fits your worldview. This is fundamentalism. I am a fundamentalist Christian, and you a fundamentalist atheist/secularist. I have no problem with that being your religion, I just wish you would admit that it is your belief.

I find that the only place it's still debated is in the USA and third world countries. I live in Europe now and when I tell them of the crazy stuff going on in the US their jaws drop in astonishment. Take Poland as an example' date=' I lived there for some time and this whole "evolution issue" does not exist there. Poland, might I add in case you don't know, is very religious. Openly they call themselves a christian nation. You won't find this issue(that is, evolution) much in non-anglo speaking Europe either. It seems this whole "rebellion" against science is predominantly in the US. When will people understand that science and religion are not mutually exclusive?[/quote']

I lived in Korea, which also has a very high percentage of Christians in the population. I am hardly naive to the world outside. The reason that Christians react that way to "science" is that it becomes harder and harder to separate science from an atheistic religion/worldview, especially for those who can't spend years studying the subject. Just as you are not an expert on evolutionary biology, few Christians are experts on teleological concepts of scientific blending.

Really, I think we'll just have to agree to disagree because we're starting this race from to different points.

It is not our "religion", nobody is being dogmatic. We're talking about reality here. The thing about secular philosophy is that we try to be tolerant and with an open mind. Religious folk seem to want to force values on someone, while secular philosophy wants people to choose their values.

You believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. Then please, keep it to yourself. A secular philosophy tries to let people decide what THEY want for THEMSELVES. If a man wants to marry a man, so be it. Why do religious people make gay marriage seem like the ultimate moral problem? Please, let's concentrate on human suffering, not on peoples' sex life. There are so many other problems out there like poverty and aids, yet we still seem to mill around with the same psuedo-problems.

So, would you penalize me under law if I had a health care provider and would not provide married benefits to two gay men? Or would I be free to deny them married benefits? Whose freedom triumphs? Mine to say that marriage is between a man and a woman, or theirs to get "married" in their new definition? Are children to be taught in schools that homosexuality is a natural, good thing, or that homosexuality is an abberation and an abomination? Will my taxes have to pay for married benefits for homosexuals on welfare?

Whichever way you go on this, you are infringing on someone's belief. You believe that tolerance is the end-all of goodness, but this is not part of my morality. I am tolerant, but tolerance is not required for morality in my moral system. Why should I have to subscribe to your moral system? Again, you vote your morality, and I vote mine.

I suspect your vaunted Libertarianism does not extend far beyond allowing whatever sexuality people want. I suspect you are in favor of disallowing racial discrimination, or in favor of higher taxes to pay for government services.

Believe me, I am all for ending poverty, although my methods would likely differ sharply from yours, and I am all for healing the AIDS epidemic, again, I would likely take a different route than you.

I'm not sure why this is significant. Of course early intellectuals were religious(and many still are), mankind needed a starting point and religion was it(not to mention some religions were ENFORCED). We need to move on people.

Anyway, living outside of the US really shows me how ignorant americans with their americo-centrism are. The majority of americans have no idea what's going outside of their country and everytime I hear some politician call america the "best country in the world" it makes my stomach heave. I really hope that this fundamentalism leaves america soon, since it seems that it's only in the US where it is occuring so prominently.

Well, it's late, I'm tired, and I still need some halloween madness...

It is significant because if merely excellent intellect were required to escape the folly of religion, then Isaac Newton, Da Vinci, and other geniuses of the past would have left it. Instead, they were very devout men.

If you have read his writings, Pope Benedict XVI is possibly the most brilliant leader of any nation in the world, and he is very familiar with modern science.

I do believe America is the best country in the world, but I am hardly, as I've said earlier, some fool who has never looked beyond our borders. I've lived in Korea, visited Japan, Mexico, Canada, and studied the society and culture of many other countries. There are many things that other countries have better. I wish American men on the street were as polite as the Japanese (Koreans tend to be a bit ruder, closer to Americans ). But I accept the flaws of our culture with its benefits. We're not a perfect culture, but I believe we're the best.

Also, I'd like to make a point of what a secular society devolves into. If you look at the declared "secular" societies of our day, they are the most tyrannical, surpassing even the most fundamentalist Islamic states. I would rather live in Iran than in Soviet Russia or North Korea. (Note that I'd rather live in the USA than all of the above ). Men are, as I stated earlier, ferocious animals, with a strong pack and predatory instict. Women tend to feel this very acutely, as do men who are not in the "pack". Religion, even the worst, mitigates these effects. In fact, every terror tactic used today was initially developed by a secular group then adapted to the religious group. The most barbaric religion that exists today doesn't compare to the horror of secular communist rule.

[WagesofSin]

We are both fundamentalist about our realities. Your belief/religion/worldview makes it so that you reject any interpretation of reality that is inconsistant with it. You try to find a way to view any data so that it fits your worldview. This is fundamentalism. I am a fundamentalist Christian' date=' and you a fundamentalist atheist/secularist. I have no problem with that being your religion, I just wish you would admit that it is your belief.[/quote']

Correct me if I'm wrong, but your definition of "fundamentlism" seems to make the word lose all meaning? So what is it to not be a fundamentalist? Apathetic? People who don't inquire on how the world is? There are many " brands" of atheism and I'm not sure if I agree of the kind you seem to have lumped me into.

I'll add that atheism in itself is NOT a wolrdview. It is a statement on whether or not you believe in the concept of god. To get the worldview you need to go somewhere else like philosophy, maybe even science.

I lived in Korea, which also has a very high percentage of Christians in the population. I am hardly naive to the world outside. The reason that Christians react that way to "science" is that it becomes harder and harder to separate science from an atheistic religion/worldview, especially for those who can't spend years studying the subject. Just as you are not an expert on evolutionary biology, few Christians are experts on teleological concepts of scientific blending.

Agreed...to an extent I guess. I simply don't agree with the term atheistic "religion"(or even "worldview" as you call it). I feel there is enough evidence to prove that belief in a deity is learned. Atheist often say, "we're all born atheists" and I agree completely with that. Religion is learned, atheism is the default worldview. I base all of this on evidence as well.

So, would you penalize me under law if I had a health care provider and would not provide married benefits to two gay men? Or would I be free to deny them married benefits? Whose freedom triumphs? Mine to say that marriage is between a man and a woman, or theirs to get "married" in their new definition? Are children to be taught in schools that homosexuality is a natural, good thing, or that homosexuality is an abberation and an abomination? Will my taxes have to pay for married benefits for homosexuals on welfare?

The answers to your questions are dependent on why someone behaves the way they do. We can replace "homosexuals" with "blacks" or "people less than six feet tall that play FL". First let's ask: why do healthcare providers provide additional healthcare benefits for married couples(im not sure why they do really). Depending on the reason then, we can decide if homosexual unions should get the benefits. If the reason is simply "gays are icky", then I would definitely challenge that. Note, I feel you should be free to deny them benefits if the samesex marriage does not fill the criteria of the reasons you offered marriage benefits in the first place.

"Are children to be taught in schools that homosexuality is a natural, good thing, or that homosexuality is an abberation and an abomination?"

First off, what is natural what is non-natural? We should look at the facts and evidence first, then judge. My opinion is that non-natural behavior does not exist. ALL human behaviour is "natural" as you call it. We are products of nature- hence natural, how can we observe unnatural behaviour? What standard is there? Whether it be good or bad, well, that's a value judgement. Either way, I hope to look at the evidence first, and then judge. The problem lies in people that look at a holy book, then look for evidence to prove that book. That's not how reasoning and science work. You first look at evidence, and then draw your conclusions.

Whichever way you go on this, you are infringing on someone's belief. You believe that tolerance is the end-all of goodness, but this is not part of my morality. I am tolerant, but tolerance is not required for morality in my moral system. Why should I have to subscribe to your moral system? Again, you vote your morality, and I vote mine.

As longs as the belief is justified with evidence and the person is willing to question that belief then it wouldn't be a problem. Alas, most people don't want to question their beliefs/values.

I'm not about tolerance either, I'm about knowledge and understanding. In order to have those two, tolerance is usually needed.

I suspect your vaunted Libertarianism does not extend far beyond allowing whatever sexuality people want. I suspect you are in favor of disallowing racial discrimination, or in favor of higher taxes to pay for government services.

I don't recall calling my self a libertarian. I'm not even sure what I'd call myself. Just because your atheist doesn't automatically make you into a libertarian either. Like I said before, atheism is a simply a position on whether you believe in a god. You need to go elsewhere for worldviews.

Disallow racial discrimination? Sure, sounds like a good idea.

Higher Taxes for gov services? No opinion really, depends on the gov and what services.

It is significant because if merely excellent intellect were required to escape the folly of religion, then Isaac Newton, Da Vinci, and other geniuses of the past would have left it. Instead, they were very devout men.

True it's not always about intellect. Upbringing, society, and life experiences

come into the equation as well.

If you have read his writings, Pope Benedict XVI is possibly the most brilliant leader of any nation in the world, and he is very familiar with modern science.

I have not, anything you recommend?

I do believe America is the best country in the world, but I am hardly, as I've said earlier, some fool who has never looked beyond our borders. I've lived in Korea, visited Japan, Mexico, Canada, and studied the society and culture of many other countries. There are many things that other countries have better. I wish American men on the street were as polite as the Japanese (Koreans tend to be a bit ruder, closer to Americans ). But I accept the flaws of our culture with its benefits. We're not a perfect culture, but I believe we're the best.

Opinion noted.

Also, I'd like to make a point of what a secular society devolves into. If you look at the declared "secular" societies of our day, they are the most tyrannical, surpassing even the most fundamentalist Islamic states. I would rather live in Iran than in Soviet Russia or North Korea. (Note that I'd rather live in the USA than all of the above ). Men are, as I stated earlier, ferocious animals, with a strong pack and predatory instict. Women tend to feel this very acutely, as do men who are not in the "pack". Religion, even the worst, mitigates these effects. In fact, every terror tactic used today was initially developed by a secular group then adapted to the religious group. The most barbaric religion that exists today doesn't compare to the horror of secular communist rule.

"Secular societies" oh please, I hardly would call them secular. What do you mean by "secular societies" anyway. That's a HUGE over-generalization. If you look closely, theres nothing rational in their beliefs. All they did is stop worshipping the guy in the clouds to the guy who runs their country. And N.Korea still has plenty of churches and places of worship. So did many countries under Soviet rule(poland for example).

"Men are, as I stated earlier, ferocious animals, with a strong pack and predatory instict. Women tend to feel this very acutely, as do men who are not in the "pack"."

Is this a fact? Have a source, or is this just more anecdotal evidence? I disagree, but then again maybe Im not "in the pack" as you say. People act in many different ways depending on the situation.

"...every terror tactic used today was initially developed by a secular group then adapted to the religious group."

I've heard this before, and asked for evidence I rarely got it. I heard people claim that the Tamil tigers(the group that "invented" the suicide belt) was a secular group. Hardly. The conflict is a civil war. Religion has nothing to do with it. They did not kill in the name of non-belief, or athiesm.

"The most barbaric religion that exists today doesn't compare to the horror of secular communist rule."

Again a claim without evidence, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. All this proves is that people in power without the ability to reason suck and screw everything up. Those "secular societies" were just as dogmatic/fundamentalist as any religious society. They just replaced one creed with another non-tolerant one.

[Chayesh]

On the subject of men being predatory creatures, that is fact. Over 70% of all violent crime is committed by males.

As for same-sex unions, I'm wondering why heterosexual couples are not allowed the same benefits of domestic partnership. Just because they are not homosexual, they have to get married to enjoy those benefits? Why should they be forced to marry? Additionally, it was President Clinton, often touted a "friend" to the homosexual community, who signed the law stating that the federal government does not recognize homosexual union as legal. Quite the mixed message, I think, since he was thought to often champion homosexual causes.

As for secular communist rule, one might want to investigate the personages we IMMs were so recently compared with such as Stalin, Mao, etc., if you doubt the brutality committed by governments with an aspiritual outlook.

[WagesofSin]

On the subject of men being predatory creatures' date=' that is fact. Over 70% of all violent crime is committed by males.[/quote']

Won't deny that. What I'm questioning is whether the crimes are commited because men are predatory creatures. Maybe it's cultural? Maybe it's social position? Maybe some other reason? Let's not jump to conclusions. What methods have we used to determine all of this?

As for same-sex unions, I'm wondering why heterosexual couples are not allowed the same benefits of domestic partnership. Just because they are not homosexual, they have to get married to enjoy those benefits? Why should they be forced to marry?

Good point, good point.

Additionally, it was President Clinton, often touted a "friend" to the homosexual community, who signed the law stating that the federal government does not recognize homosexual union as legal. Quite the mixed message, I think, since he was thought to often champion homosexual causes.

Ya, well politicians suck. Usually they make decisions that they feel are politically"safe" to make.

As for secular communist rule, one might want to investigate the personages we IMMs were so recently compared with such as Stalin, Mao, etc., if you doubt the brutality committed by governments with an aspiritual outlook.

I'n not denying that they were horrible regimes. My point of contention is that the reason they were horrible in not because of atheism. Communism is not exclusively atheistic.

[Behrens]

North Korea is the best example of this. The state "religion" is Juche, a philosophical system that is rooted in the philosophies of Marx and Stalin. It is an atheistic ideal. Therefore, North Korea is a secular state.

The problem with secular philosophy is it has no root. A Christian, Hindu, Muslim, etc. philosopher is easily able to point to an absolute authority.

A secular authority cannot. Which is more important? Darwinistic survival or Eudamonic bachanalia? Is personal pleasure the greatest good or the survival of species?

Secular thinkers answer these questions in a huge variety of ways. For example, in modern China, to "avoid new births of inferior quality and heighten the standards of the whole population", women are screened and required to undergo sterilization or other birth control measures if they are determined to be at high risk for genetic diseases. This, as well as many other measures, are ethical to a society without a firm ethics base. And the Chinese, like most Oriental people, have a tradition of honor and spirituality. That even they could be reduced so quickly by a secular philosophy does not speak well to that philosophy.

[Pali]

It's a great misunderstanding among fundamentalists that Stalinism, Maoism, and similar doctrines committed their atrocities in the name of atheism. Yes, they were atheistic regimes, but that is far different than their actions being done in the name of atheism. Not only this, but such comparisons forget that the modern countries that are most atheistic in population and law, such as Norway and Sweden, have the lowest rates of violent crime, domestic violence, teen pregnancy, and even the lowest abortion rates. Morals are genetically preprogrammed into people, and the understanding of this is seen throughout all psychiatry. If all immoral behavior were caused by disruption of the soul, sociopaths would be treated by preachers trying to save them. Instead, they're treated by psychiatrists who put them on medication and therapy meant to correct physical/mental defects.

[WagesofSin]

North Korea is the best example of this. The state "religion" is Juche' date=' a philosophical system that is rooted in the philosophies of Marx and Stalin. It is an atheistic ideal. Therefore, North Korea is a secular state.[/quote']

I hope you do notice the religion-like qualities of this belief. Atheistic? Sure in the sense it does not appeal to some almighty god(but then again, some religions don't either). An "ideal"? Far from it. This, of course, is just N.Korea we're talking about where barely anyone is allowed to speak against it. There is no freethought in N.Korea, I would put N.Koreas idealogy in the religion category. No way in hell am I defending it, let's just get that straight.

The problem with secular philosophy is it has no root. A Christian, Hindu, Muslim, etc. philosopher is easily able to point to an absolute authority.

A secular authority cannot. Which is more important? Darwinistic survival or Eudamonic bachanalia? Is personal pleasure the greatest good or the survival of species?

I'm not sure what you're trying to prove with this. What's your point? What do you mean when you say that secular philosophy has no "root"?

I don't understand how "pointing" to an unproven idea of an absolute authority gives anything credibility, or as you say, a "root"? What is the significance of this "root".

Also, secular philophy does indeed have roots(you need to point out which secular philosophy you are talking about, there are many).

Note: religions don't point to an absolute authority. They point to an idea of an absolute authority.

Secular thinkers answer these questions in a huge variety of ways. For example, in modern China, to "avoid new births of inferior quality and heighten the standards of the whole population", women are screened and required to undergo sterilization or other birth control measures if they are determined to be at high risk for genetic diseases. This, as well as many other measures, are ethical to a society without a firm ethics base. And the Chinese, like most Oriental people, have a tradition of honor and spirituality. That even they could be reduced so quickly by a secular philosophy does not speak well to that philosophy.

Please, don't look at governments and politicians, they are horrible representatives of any idealogy as most of the time they take any steps necissary to try and balance peoples' wants and needs with any current problems that they may be facing. Rarely are governments and politicians consistant in their views, and most of the time merely oppurtunistic. There are many factors influencing your above example, to solely blame secular philosphy on it is inaccurate and dishonest.

[Behrens]

My point is that a secular philosophy can go in any direction because it is not constrained by any absolutes.

I never meant to imply (and indeed, do not believe) that either of you are interested in a North Korea-like system of government, or that you would support such a system.

The example is that whatever their disagreements, all Christian philosophers believe that "Thou Shalt not Murder". There is no reason for a secularist to follow this. A secularist may say that killing is to be avoided for a variety of reasons, but in the end, if there is a really compelling reason to murder an innocent, a secularist can be persuaded to do so. A Christian never can, because it violates a tenet of their faith (I am here assuming "perfect" Christians, of course). This is what I mean by foundation.

To use the example of geometry, spiritual philosophy has axioms, secularism does not. Therefore anything decided by secular philosophy can be changed by changing the assumptions.

[Celerity]

A good example of that would be the center of the universe (galaxy/solar system/whatever). Despite being proven wrong (Earth is not the center, it is not flat, etc) (the assumptions changed with advances in tech/math/etc), religions cling to old, indisputedly incorrect dogma.

You can argue for years (people have) on this.

Behrens is assuming that goodwill and morality came from religion. The counter argument is that religion came from goodwill and morality. There is very little difference between a law from the bible and a law on paper (in terms of the law itself).

Whether or not you have laws of morality does not determine if you are secular or not. I can have a society in which I declare spitting is immoral. I am not suddenly a religious state. If I write a book of such laws, it is not suddenly a religion.

edit: To go the next step...perhaps research finds that spitting has wonderful health benefits..so that law could be changed. The continual changing and adaptation to advancement/environment/etc is not a bad thing.