<!--QuoteBegin-Sky+Apr 24 2005, 04:23 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Sky @ Apr 24 2005, 04:23 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Cxwf+Apr 24 2005, 07:06 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cxwf @ Apr 24 2005, 07:06 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->What if you take the 'you' in "does not affect you" to mean everyone. So if it doesn't affect anyone else accept those who want to do it then why stop them?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I would point out the government still regulates a number of aspects of our life that don't seem to affect anyone else. For example, as a 20-year old, I can't go out and buy a drink. You aren't going to convince the government that they can't regulate anything that doesn't hurt other people. As to why regulate this particular action which "does not affect me", I turn again to religious reasons.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Fairly bad example, considering the number of traffic accident involve drunk drivers (a scary percent of which are underage). I'd say that affects the people around you. At 21, you're supposed to be more aware of your body and the risks you take whenever you drink, and you're supposed to be better equipped to handle yourself drunk (ie, not cause trouble). <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Ok, not precisely the best of examples. I could argue that its perfectly safe to drink in moderation just so long as I don't go get myself dead drunk, and I could argue that even that is mostly safe so long as I don't THEN proceed to hop in my car...but thats not the point. The point is that the government has fairly well convinced itself that it can regulate things even when they are very unimportant and don't really affect anyone other than the original user. Come up with your own examples if you want.
<!--QuoteBegin-Cxwf+Apr 24 2005, 09:32 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cxwf @ Apr 24 2005, 09:32 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Sky+Apr 24 2005, 04:23 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Sky @ Apr 24 2005, 04:23 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Cxwf+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cxwf)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It works like this--not all people who believe in Darwin's evolution are atheists, but all atheists believe in Darwin's evolution. Prior to Darwin's theory of evolution, quite simply, if you were an atheist you were not considered credible.
So now we have those who believe in God A, those who believe in God B, God C, and so on, and now we add those who quite firmly believe in God's Nonexistence. You can defend the theory of evolution with all the scientific facts you want, but the Nonexistence of God is as much a religious belief as any other. And this religious belief spawned its own set of moral thinking, based on the idea that no outside force can enforce a moral code on us, so we get to invent our own. I am not arguing (at least not today) about whether this moral code we invent is better or worse than any of the moral codes passed down by religions, but it will inevitably be <i>different</i>.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> First and for the last time, evolution is NOT a belief system. It's not even a belief. Scientific.Theory.
Now, another problem with your point of view is that, before Darwin, there <i>were</i> other ideas about where we came from. They were just shut up really quickly, both becaue they weren't exactly (or even remotely) true, AND because the Church was a lot more powerful back then. Remember Galileo? Yeah, and he was <u>right</u>. Imagine how hard it would have been to openly come out with a new scientific theory if your evidence was even slightly shaky. Darwin had the benefit of a lot of proof, a way with words, a (relatively) receptive audience, and a weakened Church. Otherwise, he would have been shot down, only to be vindicated later on (like Galileo and Copernicus have been). <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Didn't say evolution <i>was</i> a belief system. Read my post more closely. I said that evolution was the scientific theory that allowed the <i>atheist</i> belief system to move past the situation you describe where any alternate idea about our origins was immediately and forcefully silenced. It just so happens the two are very closely related, so they are confused often, but giving scientific arguments why "the Theory of Evolution" is science rather than belief misses the point that Atheism is belief rather than science. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--QuoteBegin-you+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (you)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It works like this--not all people who <b>believe</b> in Darwin's evolution are atheists, but all atheists <b>believe</b> in Darwin's evolution.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Ok, not precisely the best of examples. I could argue that its perfectly safe to drink in moderation just so long as I don't go get myself dead drunk, and I could argue that even that is mostly safe so long as I don't THEN proceed to hop in my car...but thats not the point. The point is that the government has fairly well convinced itself that it can regulate things even when they are very unimportant and don't really affect anyone other than the original user. Come up with your own examples if you want. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Terry Schiavo. Oh wait, religious people wanted the government to interfere in that case....
Just because something is a scientific theory rather than a religious belief system doesn't mean there still won't be people who <b>believe</b> the theory and people who don't...just take a look at this forum for plenty of examples of people arguing over the validity of the theory of evolution. Right here though, I am not attempting to either prove or disprove it...simply to point out that it happens to serve as the cornerstone of the Religious Faith of the Atheists. Again, there are plenty of people who support the theory who aren't atheists...but I have yet to meet an atheist who didn't take Evolution as an article of faith (ie, completely independant of whatever scientific proof they may or may not have bothered to research).
<!--QuoteBegin-Cxwf+Apr 25 2005, 01:59 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cxwf @ Apr 25 2005, 01:59 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Just because something is a scientific theory rather than a religious belief system doesn't mean there still won't be people who <b>believe</b> the theory and people who don't...just take a look at this forum for plenty of examples of people arguing over the validity of the theory of evolution. Right here though, I am not attempting to either prove or disprove it...simply to point out that it happens to serve as the cornerstone of the Religious Faith of the Atheists. Again, there are plenty of people who support the theory who aren't atheists...but I have yet to meet an atheist who didn't take Evolution as an article of faith (ie, completely independant of whatever scientific proof they may or may not have bothered to research). <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I think faith in evolution is essentially different than faith in God. When you put faith in evolution, you are believing in a theory that is accepted by 99% of biologists. It's not much of a leap of faith. Religion, however, is a huge leap of faith, since by definition, it has little concrete evidence (otherwise it would be science or history, not religion).
Atheists generally "believe" in evolution, because there is no alternate theory that doesn't involve a god.
Far too many quotes again <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->, oh well, here we go.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Well, since the religious concept of "marriage" has been around for millenia (8000 years if you trust Cyndanes date), the origin of the word would be far enough back that you couldn't easily trace its direct religious influences. For the duration of recorded history, the word has essentially always been religious in most languages. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So in other words there is no actual proof that marriage started off as religious what so ever? I'm sure you're right in that it soon became ritualised and incorporated into whatever religions were around at the time but... how does that damage my point? As we are talking about christianity influencing the law and stopping same-sex-marriages I'm still right in that the word marriage can be used fine. If marriage was around 6 thousand years before 'Jesus' was born and a fair few before anyone had even heard of 'god' in the way you mean then how can you tell they were <i>all</i> against homosexuals? For all you know the rituals first began <i>for</i> same-sex-marriages (unlikely but possible). So why can someone suddenly choose 'their' idea of what is right and wrong above other peoples and then enforce it for no reason?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I would point out the government still regulates a number of aspects of our life that don't seem to affect anyone else. For example, as a 20-year old, I can't go out and buy a drink. You aren't going to convince the government that they can't regulate anything that doesn't hurt other people. As to why regulate this particular action which "does not affect me", I turn again to religious reasons.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Over here in the UK the limit is 18 but the reason you can't drink younger is because you aren't considered in control enough to be allowed to drink. You will be more likely to get aggressive, start fights, be reckless with your own well being and, more importantly, others. I wouldn't say that is a very good example. Of course I'm sure that there are a fair few laws that stop you from doing things that don't harm others but they are probably also based on the christian idea of what is right and wrong. That just means the problem of religion corrupting politics is even worse than we are currently discussing. It doesn't mean the laws are right does it?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It works like this--not all people who believe in Darwin's evolution are atheists, but all atheists believe in Darwin's evolution. Prior to Darwin's theory of evolution, quite simply, if you were an atheist you were not considered credible.
So now we have those who believe in God A, those who believe in God B, God C, and so on, and now we add those who quite firmly believe in God's Nonexistence. You can defend the theory of evolution with all the scientific facts you want, but the Nonexistence of God is as much a religious belief as any other. And this religious belief spawned its own set of moral thinking, based on the idea that no outside force can enforce a moral code on us, so we get to invent our own. I am not arguing (at least not today) about whether this moral code we invent is better or worse than any of the moral codes passed down by religions, but it will inevitably be different. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I believe in magic pink (but invisible) intangiable dinosaurs that live in my shed, that is my religion. Does that mean your religion is the belief that I don't have those dinosaurs in my shed? Of course not, you don't believe, not out of faith, but because the idea is pretty ludicrous without any proof whatsoever. You don't have faith in the lack of dinosaurs, you just don't have faith in that regard at all. It takes no religious belief, there are no rituals. You don't believe in santa, is that a religion too? The easter bunny?
Of course not, they are just pretty stories to tell children to make the world seem a nicer world than it already is, to not believe in those stories is not a belief in itself, it is just sensible. Why is it different for us not to believe in god? Why is some all powerful perfect being that loves us all somehow better than the easter bunny? Is there more proof? No, there are just more books about him, more believers etc.
Before Darwin came up with the idea of evolution an athiest would have just said they didn't know but that they didn't think it involved gardens of eden and apples of knowledge. We aren't sure how life appeared from nothing so we just shrug our shoulders and say 'maybe one day we'll understand'. I think that is slightly better than making up stories about how life first appeared.
Athiesm does take belief yes, but it's a belief in the tangiable, it's a belief in the idea that the answers can be found instead of made up. More importantly, it's a <i>dis</i>belief in the myths and legends we tell to cover our ignorance.
It is not a religion. Evolution is not an article of faith, it is an idea that sounds about right to us but we will abandon it as soon as a better one comes along. The only people who take it on faith are those who don't care, who don't think about these things. Those same people will probably 'believe' in god because others say it exists but don't care either way, those people will let everyone else decide for them. That isn't faith, that is an intellectual appathy that doesn't deserve the word faith.
<!--QuoteBegin-CMEast+Apr 25 2005, 01:54 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CMEast @ Apr 25 2005, 01:54 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Far too many quotes again <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->, oh well, here we go.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Well, since the religious concept of "marriage" has been around for millenia (8000 years if you trust Cyndanes date), the origin of the word would be far enough back that you couldn't easily trace its direct religious influences. For the duration of recorded history, the word has essentially always been religious in most languages. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So in other words there is no actual proof that marriage started off as religious what so ever? I'm sure you're right in that it soon became ritualised and incorporated into whatever religions were around at the time but... how does that damage my point? As we are talking about christianity influencing the law and stopping same-sex-marriages I'm still right in that the word marriage can be used fine. If marriage was around 6 thousand years before 'Jesus' was born and a fair few before anyone had even heard of 'god' in the way you mean then how can you tell they were <i>all</i> against homosexuals? For all you know the rituals first began <i>for</i> same-sex-marriages (unlikely but possible). So why can someone suddenly choose 'their' idea of what is right and wrong above other peoples and then enforce it for no reason? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Sorry East, but I am going to have to burst your bubble now (Yet, inflate it some more). The religious term has been dated back before the egyptians came into being, and has always had to do with the joining of two people. Strictly religious meaning, however, just to help I would like to point out it was just between two people there was no gender preference untill the time of the christian era, after which a couple other religions adopted it, Judism, and Islam.
Before that, if two people reguardless of gender wished to be married it would be blessed by a priest, pharoh, druid priest, religious leader, gender nonwith standing. So yes, it has always been a religious term but never with a preference of gender untill recent times.
<!--QuoteBegin-theclam+Apr 25 2005, 02:52 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (theclam @ Apr 25 2005, 02:52 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Atheists generally "believe" in evolution, because there is no alternate theory that doesn't involve a god. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Exactly my point. And while the "leap of faith" may be <i>smaller</i> for atheists accepting evolution vs other believers accepting other religous tenets, that doesn't make it qualitatively different. Its still an area where they will quite simply refuse to consider any other theory, regardless of how much evidence is for or against them. I know this from arguing with some of them some years ago, before much of the chemical and DNA-type evidence we have today was available, and most of their arguments were really quite nonsensical. Their case, up until recently, was primarily based around this line of thought--
"God can't possibly exist, so life must have started on its own somehow. And once it did, it obviously must have evolved into what we see today, now that Darwin has shown us that is possible."
(note--I'm not trying to disprove evolution. In fact, I've started considering it as a viable theory myself. Just pointing out some things about atheist's mindset.)
Rearranging CMEasts post to line up with prior topic... <!--QuoteBegin-CMEast+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CMEast)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I believe in magic pink (but invisible) intangiable dinosaurs that live in my shed, that is my religion. Does that mean your religion is the belief that I don't have those dinosaurs in my shed? Of course not, you don't believe, not out of faith, but because the idea is pretty ludicrous without any proof whatsoever. You don't have faith in the lack of dinosaurs, you just don't have faith in that regard at all.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> You completely miss the point. Atheism is not a lack of belief in the Christian God, or of Magic Pink Dinosaurs, or of anything else <i>in particular</i>. It is the belief that there is NOTHING beyond the material, no spiritual world of any kind. No God, no soul, no afterlife, no angels, no demons, no nothing.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Athiesm does take belief yes, but it's a belief in the tangiable, it's a belief in the idea that the answers can be found instead of made up. More importantly, it's a disbelief in the myths and legends we tell to cover our ignorance.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> A belief in the tangible...yes, thats a good way to put it. I believe in the intangible, and you believe in the tangible and firmly believe that there IS no intangible. Well, since its intangible, you don't really know that do you? At least, you can't say there is no intangible with any more certainty than I can say there is this particular intangible. And everyone believes the answers can be found...they just look for them in different places.
[topic change] <!--QuoteBegin-CMEast+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CMEast)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->So in other words there is no actual proof that marriage started off as religious what so ever?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Neither is there any proof that it didn't, as the only texts that record the origin of marriage are religious, and therefore I'm sure you'd immediately dismiss them as being invalid forms of proof.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->So why can someone suddenly choose 'their' idea of what is right and wrong above other peoples and then enforce it for no reason?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Well, if it was just "my" idea, I wouldn't, obviously. On the other hand, if I can get another 150 million people to agree with me, a little thing called Democracy lets me make a law out of it.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Of course I'm sure that there are a fair few laws that stop you from doing things that don't harm others but they are probably also based on the christian idea of what is right and wrong...It doesn't mean the laws are right does it?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Granted. Laws are not right simply because they are laws. But we are not discussng laws in general (at least not anymore...we probably were at the beginning of the thread). We are discussing one particular law.
<!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+Apr 25 2005, 02:44 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane @ Apr 25 2005, 02:44 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Sorry East, but I am going to have to burst your bubble now (Yet, inflate it some more). The religious term has been dated back before the egyptians came into being, and has always had to do with the joining of two people. Strictly religious meaning, however, just to help I would like to point out it was just between two people there was no gender preference untill the time of the christian era, after which a couple other religions adopted it, Judism, and Islam.
Before that, if two people reguardless of gender wished to be married it would be blessed by a priest, pharoh, druid priest, religious leader, gender nonwith standing. So yes, it has always been a religious term but never with a preference of gender untill recent times. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Quoting myself, just inserting knowledge of old religious rituals.
<!--QuoteBegin-Cxwf+Apr 25 2005, 08:52 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cxwf @ Apr 25 2005, 08:52 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Exactly my point. And while the "leap of faith" may be <i>smaller</i> for atheists accepting evolution vs other believers accepting other religous tenets, that doesn't make it qualitatively different. Its still an area where they will quite simply refuse to consider any other theory, regardless of how much evidence is for or against them. I know this from arguing with some of them some years ago, before much of the chemical and DNA-type evidence we have today was available, and most of their arguments were really quite nonsensical. Their case, up until recently, was primarily based around this line of thought--
"God can't possibly exist, so life must have started on its own somehow. And once it did, it obviously must have evolved into what we see today, now that Darwin has shown us that is possible."
(note--I'm not trying to disprove evolution. In fact, I've started considering it as a viable theory myself. Just pointing out some things about atheist's mindset.)
Rearranging CMEasts post to line up with prior topic... <!--QuoteBegin-CMEast+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CMEast)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I believe in magic pink (but invisible) intangiable dinosaurs that live in my shed, that is my religion. Does that mean your religion is the belief that I don't have those dinosaurs in my shed? Of course not, you don't believe, not out of faith, but because the idea is pretty ludicrous without any proof whatsoever. You don't have faith in the lack of dinosaurs, you just don't have faith in that regard at all.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> You completely miss the point. Atheism is not a lack of belief in the Christian God, or of Magic Pink Dinosaurs, or of anything else <i>in particular</i>. It is the belief that there is NOTHING beyond the material, no spiritual world of any kind. No God, no soul, no afterlife, no angels, no demons, no nothing.
A belief in the tangible...yes, thats a good way to put it. I believe in the intangible, and you believe in the tangible and firmly believe that there IS no intangible. Well, since its intangible, you don't really know that do you? At least, you can't say there is no intangible with any more certainty than I can say there is this particular intangible. And everyone believes the answers can be found...they just look for them in different places. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Maybe they wouldn't consider your points because they weren't based on anything that made sense.
You see, I'm afraid that you completely missed <b>my</b> point. You're saying that if there is no proof for something then you can only base a world view on it if you <i>believe</i> and have <i>faith</i>. You can't prove there is a god but we can't prove there isn't and so both views are equal and take the same level of faith right?
Wrong. You see my point was that if you suddenly appeared on Earth with no other humans or human culture and with no preconceived notions what so ever. Finally, in this scenario you can live for as long as you need to get to our level of... complexity? Knowledge? My point is that you could quite conceivably discover maths, the sciences, evolution and every other idea we have discovered based on the world around us. These things are clearly visible to all who wish to grab a microscope or drop a ball. You can see gravity, you can see the solar system, everything.
Unless god comes down and says hi, you will <b>never</b> find god. Not in a single flower or animal, nowhere at all despite his omniprescence. He wouldn't need to have faith or belief in a godless world because there would be nothing in the world that could point towards the idea of one existing just as he couldn't find any evidence of those magic pink dinosaurs.
That's why god takes faith and athiesm doesn't, because athiesm is grounded in reality, it would be like having faith in 2+2=4. That doesn't necessarily mean that there isn't a god of course, just that faith on his existence is based on the stories you have already heard rather than evidence you have felt.
Yes yes, I know you guys have felt him 'whilst praying' or something, you can see evidence of his handiwork in everything around you blah blah. Can you guarentee me that if you had never been influenced by anyone else that you could suddenly see god in a deer or a bush (non burning)?
So maybe that is why they didn't consider more 'spiritual' alternatives. Because in the end they are absolutely meaningless whilst evolution is the most possible of the 'meaningful' alternatives.
<!--QuoteBegin-Cxwf+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cxwf)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-CMEast+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CMEast)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->So in other words there is no actual proof that marriage started off as religious what so ever?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Neither is there any proof that it didn't, as the only texts that record the origin of marriage are religious, and therefore I'm sure you'd immediately dismiss them as being invalid forms of proof.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I would dismiss any history book of a similar age and history whether is was written to record fact or perpetuate a myth.
<!--QuoteBegin-Cxwf+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cxwf)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Well, if it was just "my" idea, I wouldn't, obviously. On the other hand, if I can get another 150 million people to agree with me, a little thing called Democracy lets me make a law out of it.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I've already said what I thought of democracy and 150 million gullible/mislead people are just as wrong as the one. That's why laws should be based on what is good for society, not what a certian section of that society believes it is 'right'.
<!--QuoteBegin-Cxwf+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cxwf)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Granted. Laws are not right simply because they are laws. But we are not discussng laws in general (at least not anymore...we probably were at the beginning of the thread). We are discussing one particular law.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I'm still discussing the idea that religion and politics shouldn't ever mix but I'm using same-sex-marriages as a good example. Unfortunately we were distracted by the idea of what a marriage is. As I said if a 'union' of some sort was made the official term and marriage itself had no legal basis then that would fix things. However there are plenty of christian homosexuals who would still complain but they could get married in their own ceremony. The rituals wouldn't mean as much as they would have no real power except that given to them by those attending the ceremony at the time.
Until someone can give valid reasons as to why a same-sex marriage is bad for society I'm afraid all religion is doing is making sections of the populace second class citizens. Something which a fair government should be avoiding as much as possible.
[Edit]Urgh, awful errors, I'm far too tired <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/sad-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->[/Edit]
<!--QuoteBegin-Cxwf+Apr 25 2005, 03:52 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cxwf @ Apr 25 2005, 03:52 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-theclam+Apr 25 2005, 02:52 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (theclam @ Apr 25 2005, 02:52 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Atheists generally "believe" in evolution, because there is no alternate theory that doesn't involve a god. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Exactly my point. And while the "leap of faith" may be <i>smaller</i> for atheists accepting evolution vs other believers accepting other religous tenets, that doesn't make it qualitatively different. Its still an area where they will quite simply refuse to consider any other theory, regardless of how much evidence is for or against them. I know this from arguing with some of them some years ago, before much of the chemical and DNA-type evidence we have today was available, and most of their arguments were really quite nonsensical. Their case, up until recently, was primarily based around this line of thought--
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Maybe I should rephrase myself:
-Atheists generally "believe" in evolution, rather than an alternative theory, because there is no alternative theory that has good evidence. -Atheists generally "believe" in evolution, because there is a great deal of evidence, both fossil and molecular, that is more than enough to show that evolution is an excellent theory.
I believe in evolution because almost every biologist believes in evolution. I believe in gravity because almost every physicist believes in gravity. I find it interesting that some people think that the biologists are wrong, whereas the physicists are right, even though both biologists and physicists work off of the same logical tool, the scientific method, and both theories are equivalent in status. <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->"God can't possibly exist, so life must have started on its own somehow. And once it did, it obviously must have evolved into what we see today, now that Darwin has shown us that is possible." ... You completely miss the point. Atheism is not a lack of belief in the Christian God, or of Magic Pink Dinosaurs, or of anything else <i>in particular</i>. It is the belief that there is NOTHING beyond the material, no spiritual world of any kind. No God, no soul, no afterlife, no angels, no demons, no nothing. ... A belief in the tangible...yes, thats a good way to put it. I believe in the intangible, and you believe in the tangible and firmly believe that there IS no intangible. Well, since its intangible, you don't really know that do you? At least, you can't say there is no intangible with any more certainty than I can say there is this particular intangible. And everyone believes the answers can be found...they just look for them in different places.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> There are two different types of atheism, weak atheism and strong atheism. Weak atheists don't believe in supernatural forces. Strong atheists believe that there are no supernatural forces.
So, to use your words, weak atheists believe in the tangible and don't believe in the intangible because there is no evidence, whereas strong atheists believe in the tangible and firmly believe that there IS no intangible. I would think that most atheists are weak atheists and would accept that the supernatural exists if they were given conclusive evidence, but I haven't spoken to any atheists about it (besides myself, of course).
<!--QuoteBegin-CMEast+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CMEast)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You see, I'm afraid that you completely missed <b>my</b> point. You're saying that if there is no proof for something then you can only base a world view on it if you <i>believe</i> and have <i>faith</i>. You can't prove there is a god but we can't prove there isn't and so both views are equal and take the same level of faith right?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's not really about how much faith is required to <i>adopt</i> the belief. It's about the quantity of proof needed to <i>change</i> the belief once adopted. *looks for quote as example*
<!--QuoteBegin-DarkATI In "Bible" thread+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (DarkATI In "Bible" thread)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Let me ask a question, Cyndane, what would have to occur for you to believe in God, the Bible and Jesus, the whole enchilada? What are you looking for that you haven't found? (This question goes for anyone, I suppose.)<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-theClam In "Bible" thread+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (theClam In "Bible" thread)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I'm not Cyndane, but I am an atheist. To convince me about the existence of God, Jesus himself would have to fly down from heaven, speak to the entire world, and announce his existence.
Whether I'd worship him is another question.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane In "Bible" thread+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane In "Bible" thread)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Now on the DarkATi, what would it take for me to believe everything? Quite simply, it would take god, himself, coming down and tell me that, he influenced the first civlizations and the golden rule is the one we should live by since every religion(read old) has this rule in it some where. Just in case someone isn't familar with it. It reads as follows:
I would not accept Yeshua, Kirshna, IxChel, Ra, Mother Goddess, or any other man-made up diety. I'm sorry DarkATi but every religion IS the same just with different names and myths for various god-men and miracles done. That has almost been proven as fact, and is getting closer to when it will be.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
See what I'm getting at here? If you believe that, for example, quantum particles are best described by superstring theory (or whatever), most people are willing to change that belief when they run into an experiment that provides evidence to the contrary. They will then say, "well, I guess I was wrong...now that I know this new thing, what new theory will describe it better?"
On the other hand, atheists are much more likely to resemble theClam, saying, "I won't believe unless God himself comes down and talks to me". Note that theClam still reserved the right not to follow Jesus even after this proof. And Cyndane went a step further, saying she STILL wouldn't believe in any particular deity as described in earthly religions, just in the one particular generalized religious idea she's decided she's willing to accept. (I'm assuming Cyndane is female?)
Oh, and I'm not trying to claim that religious believers are any better---in fact I'm trying to point out that they are quite the same. I don't know quite what it takes to convince a new person to adopt Christianity as his first belief, but once he does, I'm sure you've seen yourself how insanely difficult it is to convince him differently.
<!--QuoteBegin-CMEast+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CMEast)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You see my point was that if you suddenly appeared on Earth with no other humans or human culture and with no preconceived notions what so ever. Finally, in this scenario you can live for as long as you need to get to our level of... complexity? Knowledge? My point is that you could quite conceivably discover maths, the sciences, evolution and every other idea we have discovered based on the world around us. These things are clearly visible to all who wish to grab a microscope or drop a ball. You can see gravity, you can see the solar system, everything.
Unless god comes down and says hi...<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> *takes moment to point to Jesus' 35-year visit to earth* <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->you will <b>never</b> find god. Not in a single flower or animal, nowhere at all despite his omniprescence. He wouldn't need to have faith or belief in a godless world because there would be nothing in the world that could point towards the idea of one existing just as he couldn't find any evidence of those magic pink dinosaurs.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm rather surprised at your logic, actually. Lets look at this from your point of view for a moment. A) There is no god, therefore god never came down to say "hi". B) Most of the peoples of the ancient world invented stories about God, even though he doesn't exist--and then believed these stories. C) Therefore, you can not develop the idea of a God unless someone else before you already thought of it and told you first. Explain that leap of logic to me.
However, even though I believe that most of the ancient world's God stories were at least partially based on real encounters with God, I suspect that your character here would develop his own God stories anyway. Would you honestly expect that a person randomly dropped into a world that contained no other human life would never start to wonder about HOW he got there? You point out that he could discover evolution...but since he has no parents, evolution is obviously not going to explain <i>his</i> origin. It's merely going to accentuate the extreme oddity of his existence on this planet. And eventually he is going to postulate the existence of some being more powerful than him that he can't see or touch, who put him there. Now he may not know much <i>about</i> this postulated God, but he will theorize all the same. He may even start worshipping the unknown God, just in the blind hope that God might take pity on him and solve his loneliness by taking him away to wherever God is.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->That's why god takes faith and athiesm doesn't, because athiesm is grounded in reality, it would be like having faith in 2+2=4.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> *points to first answer above*
[Change of Topic] <!--QuoteBegin-CMEast+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CMEast)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I've already said what I thought of democracy and 150 million gullible/mislead people are just as wrong as the one. That's why laws should be based on what is good for society, not what a certian section of that society believes it is 'right'.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Granted. But who defines what is "good" for society? You? Me? God? Unfortunately, the best system we have found so far (though noticeably flawed) for determining what is "good" for society involves convincing more people to support your side than the other side.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Until someone can give valid reasons as to why a same-sex marriage is bad for society I'm afraid all religion is doing is making sections of the populace second class citizens. Something which a fair government should be avoiding as much as possible.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> How are they being made second class citizens? Homosexuals currently enjoy EXACTLY the same legal rights and responsibilities as Heterosexuals. They can even get married, in ALL 50 STATES. There just happens to be a restriction on <i>who</i> they can marry, which same restriction applies to Heterosexuals.
<!--QuoteBegin-theclam+Apr 25 2005, 07:36 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (theclam @ Apr 25 2005, 07:36 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> There are two different types of atheism, weak atheism and strong atheism. Weak atheists don't believe in supernatural forces. Strong atheists believe that there are no supernatural forces.
So, to use your words, weak atheists believe in the tangible and don't believe in the intangible because there is no evidence, whereas strong atheists believe in the tangible and firmly believe that there IS no intangible. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Agreed, fully. Except this part.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I would think that most atheists are weak atheists and would accept that the supernatural exists if they were given conclusive evidence, but I haven't spoken to any atheists about it (besides myself, of course).<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You would think so, wouldn't you? Except that weak atheists in point of fact are extemely rare. I have run into strong atheists time and time again, but only met perhaps a handful of weak atheists in my life. Also, weak atheists tend to blur the line with "agnostics", of which there are also two types, mirroring the two types of atheists. Theres the Soft Agnostic "I/We don't know about God, at least not now" types, and the Hard Agnostic "I/We CAN'T know about God" types. I imagine most people who would have been weak atheists wind up being the soft agnostics instead, since there's really very little difference between the two.
So here's a test for you. Would you consider the Soft Agnostic description ("I have not yet seen sufficient evidence to convince me which, if any, God is real, and am therefore undecided") to be fairly close to your atheistic beliefs? If not, you are a Strong Atheist.
<!--QuoteBegin-Cxwf+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cxwf)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You would think so, wouldn't you? Except that weak atheists in point of fact are extemely rare. I have run into strong atheists time and time again, but only met perhaps a handful of weak atheists in my life. Also, weak atheists tend to blur the line with "agnostics", of which there are also two types, mirroring the two types of atheists. Theres the Soft Agnostic "I/We don't know about God, at least not now" types, and the Hard Agnostic "I/We CAN'T know about God" types. I imagine most people who would have been weak atheists wind up being the soft agnostics instead, since there's really very little difference between the two.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Weak atheists are extremely rare? You can't conclude this based upon anecdotal evidence.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->So here's a test for you. Would you consider the Soft Agnostic description ("I have not yet seen sufficient evidence to convince me which, if any, God is real, and am therefore undecided") to be fairly close to your atheistic beliefs? If not, you are a Strong Atheist.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> So it's either soft agnosticism or strong atheism?
Let me describe my religious beliefs. I believe that we don't have any evidence that there is a god. I acknowledge the fact that we don't know, which puts me towards agnosticism. However, I assume that there isn't a deity, because there is no evidence of one. Adding God without any evidence of God just adds another unnecessary entity, which Occam's Razor says is wrong. I assume that invisible pink unicorns don't exist, even though I don't know whether they exist or not. I assume that the sun will come up tomorrow, even though I don't know that it will. The burden of proof is on those who are making extraordinary claims.
I classify myself as a weak atheist, but you could also call me agnostic. Labels don't really capture the nuances of issues like this, although they are helpful.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It's not really about how much faith is required to adopt the belief. It's about the quantity of proof needed to change the belief once adopted. *looks for quote as example*<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I'd say that secular people are the ones who are most likely to change their beliefs if given evidence that they are wrong. They base their belief system on tangible evidence, so when they are presented with better evidence, it follows that they would change their views to reflect that evidence (although there are some exceptions; not all atheists are rational). I know that I have changed my political beliefs quite often (especially on economic issues), because I receive new evidence all the time.
People with religious views based on faith should be much less likely to change their views. They believe in things without any evidence for those things (that's the whole point of a leap of faith), so I wouldn't think that they'd accept any new evidence given to them, when they didn't base their original belief system on evidence.
Do you HAVE to start that argument again? I think it's pretty clear what we mean when we say homosexual marriage is illegal and they are thus being treated as "second class". Saying that they CAN marry is dancing around the subject, because they can't marry PEOPLE THEY ACTUALLY WANT TO BE WITH. A **** guy DOESN'T want to marry a woman.
I swear, if you bring up the slippery slope of it leading to marriages to children/animals I'm going to scream. So help me <deity> I will.
<!--QuoteBegin-Cxwf+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cxwf)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->How are they being made second class citizens? Homosexuals currently enjoy EXACTLY the same legal rights and responsibilities as Heterosexuals. They can even get married, in ALL 50 STATES. There just happens to be a restriction on who they can marry, which same restriction applies to Heterosexuals.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> This is a laughable argument. Would it be fair for heterosexuals if the only type of marriage allowed was homosexual marriage? The entire point of marriage is that you can form a long term bond with someone you love, and enjoy recognition from the government, culture, society, etc. Right now homosexuals are denied this right, while heterosexuals are granted this right.
<!--QuoteBegin-Cxwf+Apr 25 2005, 03:52 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cxwf @ Apr 25 2005, 03:52 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->So why can someone suddenly choose 'their' idea of what is right and wrong above other peoples and then enforce it for no reason?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Well, if it was just "my" idea, I wouldn't, obviously. On the other hand, if I can get another 150 million people to agree with me, a little thing called Democracy lets me make a law out of it. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Republic, not democracy. Big difference when it comes to issues like this one. <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->How are they being made second class citizens? Homosexuals currently enjoy EXACTLY the same legal rights and responsibilities as Heterosexuals. They can even get married, in ALL 50 STATES. There just happens to be a restriction on who they can marry, which same restriction applies to Heterosexuals. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Be careful. AvengerX made this exact same argument, almost word for word even. It didn't exactly endear him to anyone. <!--emo&::marine::--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/marine.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='marine.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Sky+Apr 25 2005, 09:17 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Sky @ Apr 25 2005, 09:17 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Cxwf+Apr 25 2005, 03:52 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cxwf @ Apr 25 2005, 03:52 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->So why can someone suddenly choose 'their' idea of what is right and wrong above other peoples and then enforce it for no reason?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Well, if it was just "my" idea, I wouldn't, obviously. On the other hand, if I can get another 150 million people to agree with me, a little thing called Democracy lets me make a law out of it. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Republic, not democracy. Big difference when it comes to issues like this one. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> It's actually democracy. Only in a direct democracy can 150 million people instantly make a law just by formally agreeing about something.
We are a republic... not a democracy <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> Which is why the average american citizen can not make a law by having 150 million people agree with him.
It would have to be proposed in either the house or senate first then go to the other of the house then to the pres then to the court if could be considered unconstitutional. :-)
But its ok, I'm not trying to endear myself to anyone. I'm pretty careful to avoid flaming, and I don't think I'm anywhere close to AvengerXs fate, so if a few people happen to like me less after this...so be it.
<!--QuoteBegin-theClam+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (theClam)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Would it be fair for heterosexuals if the only type of marriage allowed was homosexual marriage?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> *Checks definition of fair* "marked by impartiality and honesty : free from self-interest, prejudice, or favoritism " <a href='http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=fair' target='_blank'>Link</a>
Yes, it would be fair. I wouldn't <i>like</i> it. I would do my best to get the law changed, and failing that I would mostly likely move to another country that didn't have the law. But that has nothing to do with fairness.
<!--QuoteBegin-theClam+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (theClam)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The entire point of marriage is that you can form a long term bond with someone you love, and enjoy recognition from the government, culture, society, etc.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I know you're going to hate me for this one, but permit me to offer an alternate "point" for marriage. Marriage is an institution whereby God blesses the union of a man and a woman. "And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made [them] at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." (Matt 19 4-6).
Therefore, while I will let others argue about the value of letting Homosexuals form "a long term bond with someone you love, and enjoy recognition from the goverment, culture, society", I do not think they have a right to the word "Marriage". I firmly believe that should be reserved for God's union between Man and Woman.
<!--QuoteBegin-theclam+Apr 25 2005, 09:33 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (theclam @ Apr 25 2005, 09:33 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Sky+Apr 25 2005, 09:17 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Sky @ Apr 25 2005, 09:17 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Cxwf+Apr 25 2005, 03:52 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cxwf @ Apr 25 2005, 03:52 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->So why can someone suddenly choose 'their' idea of what is right and wrong above other peoples and then enforce it for no reason?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Well, if it was just "my" idea, I wouldn't, obviously. On the other hand, if I can get another 150 million people to agree with me, a little thing called Democracy lets me make a law out of it. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Republic, not democracy. Big difference when it comes to issues like this one. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> It's actually democracy. Only in a direct democracy can 150 million people instantly make a law just by formally agreeing about something. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> The US is definitely not a democracy, otherwise we wouldn't have such policies as affirmative action. Republics take their power from the people, while at the same time distancing the government from the people to ensure the mob won't rule, and the minority won't be trampled on by the majority.
<!--QuoteBegin-Cxwf+Apr 25 2005, 08:51 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cxwf @ Apr 25 2005, 08:51 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I seem to have struck a nerve with that one...
But its ok, I'm not trying to endear myself to anyone. I'm pretty careful to avoid flaming, and I don't think I'm anywhere close to AvengerXs fate, so if a few people happen to like me less after this...so be it.
<!--QuoteBegin-theClam+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (theClam)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Would it be fair for heterosexuals if the only type of marriage allowed was homosexual marriage?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> *Checks definition of fair* "marked by impartiality and honesty : free from self-interest, prejudice, or favoritism " <a href='http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=fair' target='_blank'>Link</a>
Yes, it would be fair. I wouldn't <i>like</i> it. I would do my best to get the law changed, and failing that I would mostly likely move to another country that didn't have the law. But that has nothing to do with fairness.
<!--QuoteBegin-theClam+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (theClam)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The entire point of marriage is that you can form a long term bond with someone you love, and enjoy recognition from the government, culture, society, etc.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I know you're going to hate me for this one, but permit me to offer an alternate "point" for marriage. Marriage is an institution whereby God blesses the union of a man and a woman. "And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made [them] at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." (Matt 19 4-6).
Therefore, while I will let others argue about the value of letting Homosexuals form "a long term bond with someone you love, and enjoy recognition from the goverment, culture, society", I do not think they have a right to the word "Marriage". I firmly believe that should be reserved for God's union between Man and Woman. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Incorrect once again, there were other religions long before christianity that have said marriage was okay between two people of the same or opposite gender. Therefore it is not "God's word".
Since many of my posts are being ignored.. I shall have to keep reposting them.
<!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The religious term has been dated back before the egyptians came into being, and has always had to do with the joining of two people. Strictly religious meaning, however, just to help I would like to point out it was just between two people there was no gender preference untill the time of the christian era, after which a couple other religions adopted it, Judism, and Islam.
Before that, if two people reguardless of gender wished to be married it would be blessed by a priest, pharoh, druid priest, religious leader, gender nonwith standing. So yes, it has always been a religious term but never with a preference of gender untill recent times. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Sky+Apr 25 2005, 09:56 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Sky @ Apr 25 2005, 09:56 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-theclam+Apr 25 2005, 09:33 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (theclam @ Apr 25 2005, 09:33 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Sky+Apr 25 2005, 09:17 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Sky @ Apr 25 2005, 09:17 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Cxwf+Apr 25 2005, 03:52 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cxwf @ Apr 25 2005, 03:52 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->So why can someone suddenly choose 'their' idea of what is right and wrong above other peoples and then enforce it for no reason?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Well, if it was just "my" idea, I wouldn't, obviously. On the other hand, if I can get another 150 million people to agree with me, a little thing called Democracy lets me make a law out of it. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Republic, not democracy. Big difference when it comes to issues like this one. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> It's actually democracy. Only in a direct democracy can 150 million people instantly make a law just by formally agreeing about something. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> The US is definitely not a democracy, otherwise we wouldn't have such policies as affirmative action. Republics take their power from the people, while at the same time distancing the government from the people to ensure the mob won't rule, and the minority won't be trampled on by the majority. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Even if 150 million people agree on something in the US, it won't be made a law unless you can get most of Congress to agree to it, too. So, if you're talking about 150 million people making a law, then it's a direct democracy.
<!--QuoteBegin-Cxwf+Apr 25 2005, 09:51 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cxwf @ Apr 25 2005, 09:51 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Therefore, while I will let others argue about the value of letting Homosexuals form "a long term bond with someone you love, and enjoy recognition from the goverment, culture, society", I do not think they have a right to the word "Marriage". I firmly believe that should be reserved for God's union between Man and Woman. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Your major hangup on legalizing homosexual marriage is the choice of word used to describe a union between two people of the same sex? I didn't know God was so semantic.
Frankly, I don't care if homosexuals are given marriage or civil unions, as long as they are entitled to the exact same rights granted to married heterosexual couples.
<!--QuoteBegin-theclam+Apr 25 2005, 10:24 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (theclam @ Apr 25 2005, 10:24 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Sky+Apr 25 2005, 09:56 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Sky @ Apr 25 2005, 09:56 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-theclam+Apr 25 2005, 09:33 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (theclam @ Apr 25 2005, 09:33 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Sky+Apr 25 2005, 09:17 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Sky @ Apr 25 2005, 09:17 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Cxwf+Apr 25 2005, 03:52 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cxwf @ Apr 25 2005, 03:52 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->So why can someone suddenly choose 'their' idea of what is right and wrong above other peoples and then enforce it for no reason?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Well, if it was just "my" idea, I wouldn't, obviously. On the other hand, if I can get another 150 million people to agree with me, a little thing called Democracy lets me make a law out of it. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Republic, not democracy. Big difference when it comes to issues like this one. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> It's actually democracy. Only in a direct democracy can 150 million people instantly make a law just by formally agreeing about something. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> The US is definitely not a democracy, otherwise we wouldn't have such policies as affirmative action. Republics take their power from the people, while at the same time distancing the government from the people to ensure the mob won't rule, and the minority won't be trampled on by the majority. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Even if 150 million people agree on something in the US, it won't be made a law unless you can get most of Congress to agree to it, too. So, if you're talking about 150 million people making a law, then it's a direct democracy. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Yes, and representative democracy would mean that Congressmen would always vote based on how the majority of their constituents would vote, which doesn't happen. They take into account the minority's opinion as well.
<!--QuoteBegin-Sky+Apr 25 2005, 09:17 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Sky @ Apr 25 2005, 09:17 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Be careful. AvengerX made this exact same argument, almost word for word even. It didn't exactly endear him to anyone. <!--emo&::marine::--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/marine.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='marine.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> */me foolishly searches up AvengerX's posts in the Discussion forum*
*shudders several times*
No he didn't. From what I can tell, AvengerX was too busy explaining why homosexuals should be "cured" to even bother with whether they should be able to get married. Please don't compare me to him...I am absolutely nothing like AvengerX.
<!--QuoteBegin-Cxwf+Apr 25 2005, 11:11 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cxwf @ Apr 25 2005, 11:11 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Sky+Apr 25 2005, 09:17 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Sky @ Apr 25 2005, 09:17 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Be careful. AvengerX made this exact same argument, almost word for word even. It didn't exactly endear him to anyone. <!--emo&::marine::--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/marine.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='marine.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> */me foolishly searches up AvengerX's posts in the Discussion forum*
*shudders several times*
No he didn't. From what I can tell, AvengerX was too busy explaining why homosexuals should be "cured" to even bother with whether they should be able to get married. Please don't compare me to him...I am absolutely nothing like AvengerX. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Quite right, you're <s>much more reasonable</s> a strong yet reasonable debater. On the AvengerX scale, that was one of his more moderate arguments, but he did say it, and at least for me it brings back bad memories. Like, I got deja vu when you posted that, it seemed so similar to something he had posted.
<!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+Apr 25 2005, 10:12 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane @ Apr 25 2005, 10:12 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Incorrect once again, there were other religions long before christianity that have said marriage was okay between two people of the same or opposite gender. Therefore it is not "God's word".
Since many of my posts are being ignored.. I shall have to keep reposting them.
<!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The religious term has been dated back before the egyptians came into being, and has always had to do with the joining of two people. Strictly religious meaning, however, just to help I would like to point out it was just between two people there was no gender preference untill the time of the christian era, after which a couple other religions adopted it, Judism, and Islam.
Before that, if two people reguardless of gender wished to be married it would be blessed by a priest, pharoh, druid priest, religious leader, gender nonwith standing. So yes, it has always been a religious term but never with a preference of gender untill recent times. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I don't know quite what you expect me to do with this. I've posted my (religous) source which claims to have knowledge of God's original commands to the very first humans. Now, there's really only two possibilities here. Either this source is right, in which case it makes no difference how long ago the egyptians or whoever wrote down their concept of marriage because we have God's original concept here, or else the source is wrong, in which case the date of the concept STILL doesn't matter because the entire concept is worthless. Why is it that your answer to any religious argument is "some other religion did it first!!"?
"Christianity, if false, is of no importance, and if true, is of the utmost importance. The only thing it cannot be is moderately important."
It only matters to me that "marriage" was originally a religious concept because I firmly believe that the Christian God was responsible for that religious concept. If he wasn't, then it doesn't really matter if it was invented by some other religion thousands of years ago, or if you just came up with the idea in your backyard last week. There's no in between.
So while in theory you might convince me that all religious concepts were actually invented by men and therefore have no relevance, you will never convince me that my particular religious concepts should be overruled by someone elses just because they wrote it down first.
SpoogeThunderbolt missile in your cheeriosJoin Date: 2002-01-25Member: 67Members
<!--QuoteBegin-Sky+Apr 25 2005, 10:44 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Sky @ Apr 25 2005, 10:44 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Yes, and representative democracy would mean that Congressmen would always vote based on how the majority of their constituents would vote, which doesn't happen. They take into account the minority's opinion as well. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I would reverse this:
Constituents vote for who they believe will represent their interests legislatively. If representatives were meant to vote exactly as the majority in their districts would, you'd get a direct democracy by proxy aka majoritarianism. Representative democracies instead place "the best person for the job" in a position to make decisions.
Sorry to be nitpicky but it's the only remnants of this thread I can respond to.
Comments
I would point out the government still regulates a number of aspects of our life that don't seem to affect anyone else. For example, as a 20-year old, I can't go out and buy a drink. You aren't going to convince the government that they can't regulate anything that doesn't hurt other people. As to why regulate this particular action which "does not affect me", I turn again to religious reasons.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Fairly bad example, considering the number of traffic accident involve drunk drivers (a scary percent of which are underage). I'd say that affects the people around you. At 21, you're supposed to be more aware of your body and the risks you take whenever you drink, and you're supposed to be better equipped to handle yourself drunk (ie, not cause trouble). <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ok, not precisely the best of examples. I could argue that its perfectly safe to drink in moderation just so long as I don't go get myself dead drunk, and I could argue that even that is mostly safe so long as I don't THEN proceed to hop in my car...but thats not the point. The point is that the government has fairly well convinced itself that it can regulate things even when they are very unimportant and don't really affect anyone other than the original user. Come up with your own examples if you want.
So now we have those who believe in God A, those who believe in God B, God C, and so on, and now we add those who quite firmly believe in God's Nonexistence. You can defend the theory of evolution with all the scientific facts you want, but the Nonexistence of God is as much a religious belief as any other. And this religious belief spawned its own set of moral thinking, based on the idea that no outside force can enforce a moral code on us, so we get to invent our own. I am not arguing (at least not today) about whether this moral code we invent is better or worse than any of the moral codes passed down by religions, but it will inevitably be <i>different</i>.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
First and for the last time, evolution is NOT a belief system. It's not even a belief. Scientific.Theory.
Now, another problem with your point of view is that, before Darwin, there <i>were</i> other ideas about where we came from. They were just shut up really quickly, both becaue they weren't exactly (or even remotely) true, AND because the Church was a lot more powerful back then. Remember Galileo? Yeah, and he was <u>right</u>. Imagine how hard it would have been to openly come out with a new scientific theory if your evidence was even slightly shaky. Darwin had the benefit of a lot of proof, a way with words, a (relatively) receptive audience, and a weakened Church. Otherwise, he would have been shot down, only to be vindicated later on (like Galileo and Copernicus have been). <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Didn't say evolution <i>was</i> a belief system. Read my post more closely. I said that evolution was the scientific theory that allowed the <i>atheist</i> belief system to move past the situation you describe where any alternate idea about our origins was immediately and forcefully silenced. It just so happens the two are very closely related, so they are confused often, but giving scientific arguments why "the Theory of Evolution" is science rather than belief misses the point that Atheism is belief rather than science. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-you+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (you)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It works like this--not all people who <b>believe</b> in Darwin's evolution are atheists, but all atheists <b>believe</b> in Darwin's evolution.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Ok, not precisely the best of examples. I could argue that its perfectly safe to drink in moderation just so long as I don't go get myself dead drunk, and I could argue that even that is mostly safe so long as I don't THEN proceed to hop in my car...but thats not the point. The point is that the government has fairly well convinced itself that it can regulate things even when they are very unimportant and don't really affect anyone other than the original user. Come up with your own examples if you want. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Terry Schiavo. Oh wait, religious people wanted the government to interfere in that case....
I think faith in evolution is essentially different than faith in God. When you put faith in evolution, you are believing in a theory that is accepted by 99% of biologists. It's not much of a leap of faith. Religion, however, is a huge leap of faith, since by definition, it has little concrete evidence (otherwise it would be science or history, not religion).
Atheists generally "believe" in evolution, because there is no alternate theory that doesn't involve a god.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Well, since the religious concept of "marriage" has been around for millenia (8000 years if you trust Cyndanes date), the origin of the word would be far enough back that you couldn't easily trace its direct religious influences. For the duration of recorded history, the word has essentially always been religious in most languages.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So in other words there is no actual proof that marriage started off as religious what so ever? I'm sure you're right in that it soon became ritualised and incorporated into whatever religions were around at the time but... how does that damage my point? As we are talking about christianity influencing the law and stopping same-sex-marriages I'm still right in that the word marriage can be used fine. If marriage was around 6 thousand years before 'Jesus' was born and a fair few before anyone had even heard of 'god' in the way you mean then how can you tell they were <i>all</i> against homosexuals? For all you know the rituals first began <i>for</i> same-sex-marriages (unlikely but possible). So why can someone suddenly choose 'their' idea of what is right and wrong above other peoples and then enforce it for no reason?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I would point out the government still regulates a number of aspects of our life that don't seem to affect anyone else. For example, as a 20-year old, I can't go out and buy a drink. You aren't going to convince the government that they can't regulate anything that doesn't hurt other people. As to why regulate this particular action which "does not affect me", I turn again to religious reasons.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Over here in the UK the limit is 18 but the reason you can't drink younger is because you aren't considered in control enough to be allowed to drink. You will be more likely to get aggressive, start fights, be reckless with your own well being and, more importantly, others. I wouldn't say that is a very good example. Of course I'm sure that there are a fair few laws that stop you from doing things that don't harm others but they are probably also based on the christian idea of what is right and wrong. That just means the problem of religion corrupting politics is even worse than we are currently discussing. It doesn't mean the laws are right does it?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It works like this--not all people who believe in Darwin's evolution are atheists, but all atheists believe in Darwin's evolution. Prior to Darwin's theory of evolution, quite simply, if you were an atheist you were not considered credible.
So now we have those who believe in God A, those who believe in God B, God C, and so on, and now we add those who quite firmly believe in God's Nonexistence. You can defend the theory of evolution with all the scientific facts you want, but the Nonexistence of God is as much a religious belief as any other. And this religious belief spawned its own set of moral thinking, based on the idea that no outside force can enforce a moral code on us, so we get to invent our own. I am not arguing (at least not today) about whether this moral code we invent is better or worse than any of the moral codes passed down by religions, but it will inevitably be different. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I believe in magic pink (but invisible) intangiable dinosaurs that live in my shed, that is my religion. Does that mean your religion is the belief that I don't have those dinosaurs in my shed? Of course not, you don't believe, not out of faith, but because the idea is pretty ludicrous without any proof whatsoever. You don't have faith in the lack of dinosaurs, you just don't have faith in that regard at all. It takes no religious belief, there are no rituals. You don't believe in santa, is that a religion too? The easter bunny?
Of course not, they are just pretty stories to tell children to make the world seem a nicer world than it already is, to not believe in those stories is not a belief in itself, it is just sensible. Why is it different for us not to believe in god? Why is some all powerful perfect being that loves us all somehow better than the easter bunny? Is there more proof? No, there are just more books about him, more believers etc.
Before Darwin came up with the idea of evolution an athiest would have just said they didn't know but that they didn't think it involved gardens of eden and apples of knowledge. We aren't sure how life appeared from nothing so we just shrug our shoulders and say 'maybe one day we'll understand'. I think that is slightly better than making up stories about how life first appeared.
Athiesm does take belief yes, but it's a belief in the tangiable, it's a belief in the idea that the answers can be found instead of made up. More importantly, it's a <i>dis</i>belief in the myths and legends we tell to cover our ignorance.
It is not a religion. Evolution is not an article of faith, it is an idea that sounds about right to us but we will abandon it as soon as a better one comes along. The only people who take it on faith are those who don't care, who don't think about these things. Those same people will probably 'believe' in god because others say it exists but don't care either way, those people will let everyone else decide for them. That isn't faith, that is an intellectual appathy that doesn't deserve the word faith.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Well, since the religious concept of "marriage" has been around for millenia (8000 years if you trust Cyndanes date), the origin of the word would be far enough back that you couldn't easily trace its direct religious influences. For the duration of recorded history, the word has essentially always been religious in most languages.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So in other words there is no actual proof that marriage started off as religious what so ever? I'm sure you're right in that it soon became ritualised and incorporated into whatever religions were around at the time but... how does that damage my point? As we are talking about christianity influencing the law and stopping same-sex-marriages I'm still right in that the word marriage can be used fine. If marriage was around 6 thousand years before 'Jesus' was born and a fair few before anyone had even heard of 'god' in the way you mean then how can you tell they were <i>all</i> against homosexuals? For all you know the rituals first began <i>for</i> same-sex-marriages (unlikely but possible). So why can someone suddenly choose 'their' idea of what is right and wrong above other peoples and then enforce it for no reason?
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sorry East, but I am going to have to burst your bubble now (Yet, inflate it some more). The religious term has been dated back before the egyptians came into being, and has always had to do with the joining of two people. Strictly religious meaning, however, just to help I would like to point out it was just between two people there was no gender preference untill the time of the christian era, after which a couple other religions adopted it, Judism, and Islam.
Before that, if two people reguardless of gender wished to be married it would be blessed by a priest, pharoh, druid priest, religious leader, gender nonwith standing. So yes, it has always been a religious term but never with a preference of gender untill recent times.
Exactly my point. And while the "leap of faith" may be <i>smaller</i> for atheists accepting evolution vs other believers accepting other religous tenets, that doesn't make it qualitatively different. Its still an area where they will quite simply refuse to consider any other theory, regardless of how much evidence is for or against them. I know this from arguing with some of them some years ago, before much of the chemical and DNA-type evidence we have today was available, and most of their arguments were really quite nonsensical. Their case, up until recently, was primarily based around this line of thought--
"God can't possibly exist, so life must have started on its own somehow. And once it did, it obviously must have evolved into what we see today, now that Darwin has shown us that is possible."
(note--I'm not trying to disprove evolution. In fact, I've started considering it as a viable theory myself. Just pointing out some things about atheist's mindset.)
Rearranging CMEasts post to line up with prior topic...
<!--QuoteBegin-CMEast+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CMEast)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I believe in magic pink (but invisible) intangiable dinosaurs that live in my shed, that is my religion. Does that mean your religion is the belief that I don't have those dinosaurs in my shed? Of course not, you don't believe, not out of faith, but because the idea is pretty ludicrous without any proof whatsoever. You don't have faith in the lack of dinosaurs, you just don't have faith in that regard at all.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You completely miss the point. Atheism is not a lack of belief in the Christian God, or of Magic Pink Dinosaurs, or of anything else <i>in particular</i>. It is the belief that there is NOTHING beyond the material, no spiritual world of any kind. No God, no soul, no afterlife, no angels, no demons, no nothing.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Athiesm does take belief yes, but it's a belief in the tangiable, it's a belief in the idea that the answers can be found instead of made up. More importantly, it's a disbelief in the myths and legends we tell to cover our ignorance.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
A belief in the tangible...yes, thats a good way to put it. I believe in the intangible, and you believe in the tangible and firmly believe that there IS no intangible. Well, since its intangible, you don't really know that do you? At least, you can't say there is no intangible with any more certainty than I can say there is this particular intangible. And everyone believes the answers can be found...they just look for them in different places.
[topic change]
<!--QuoteBegin-CMEast+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CMEast)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->So in other words there is no actual proof that marriage started off as religious what so ever?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Neither is there any proof that it didn't, as the only texts that record the origin of marriage are religious, and therefore I'm sure you'd immediately dismiss them as being invalid forms of proof.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->So why can someone suddenly choose 'their' idea of what is right and wrong above other peoples and then enforce it for no reason?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, if it was just "my" idea, I wouldn't, obviously. On the other hand, if I can get another 150 million people to agree with me, a little thing called Democracy lets me make a law out of it.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Of course I'm sure that there are a fair few laws that stop you from doing things that don't harm others but they are probably also based on the christian idea of what is right and wrong...It doesn't mean the laws are right does it?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Granted. Laws are not right simply because they are laws. But we are not discussng laws in general (at least not anymore...we probably were at the beginning of the thread). We are discussing one particular law.
Before that, if two people reguardless of gender wished to be married it would be blessed by a priest, pharoh, druid priest, religious leader, gender nonwith standing. So yes, it has always been a religious term but never with a preference of gender untill recent times. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Quoting myself, just inserting knowledge of old religious rituals.
"God can't possibly exist, so life must have started on its own somehow. And once it did, it obviously must have evolved into what we see today, now that Darwin has shown us that is possible."
(note--I'm not trying to disprove evolution. In fact, I've started considering it as a viable theory myself. Just pointing out some things about atheist's mindset.)
Rearranging CMEasts post to line up with prior topic...
<!--QuoteBegin-CMEast+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CMEast)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I believe in magic pink (but invisible) intangiable dinosaurs that live in my shed, that is my religion. Does that mean your religion is the belief that I don't have those dinosaurs in my shed? Of course not, you don't believe, not out of faith, but because the idea is pretty ludicrous without any proof whatsoever. You don't have faith in the lack of dinosaurs, you just don't have faith in that regard at all.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You completely miss the point. Atheism is not a lack of belief in the Christian God, or of Magic Pink Dinosaurs, or of anything else <i>in particular</i>. It is the belief that there is NOTHING beyond the material, no spiritual world of any kind. No God, no soul, no afterlife, no angels, no demons, no nothing.
A belief in the tangible...yes, thats a good way to put it. I believe in the intangible, and you believe in the tangible and firmly believe that there IS no intangible. Well, since its intangible, you don't really know that do you? At least, you can't say there is no intangible with any more certainty than I can say there is this particular intangible. And everyone believes the answers can be found...they just look for them in different places. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Maybe they wouldn't consider your points because they weren't based on anything that made sense.
You see, I'm afraid that you completely missed <b>my</b> point. You're saying that if there is no proof for something then you can only base a world view on it if you <i>believe</i> and have <i>faith</i>. You can't prove there is a god but we can't prove there isn't and so both views are equal and take the same level of faith right?
Wrong. You see my point was that if you suddenly appeared on Earth with no other humans or human culture and with no preconceived notions what so ever. Finally, in this scenario you can live for as long as you need to get to our level of... complexity? Knowledge? My point is that you could quite conceivably discover maths, the sciences, evolution and every other idea we have discovered based on the world around us. These things are clearly visible to all who wish to grab a microscope or drop a ball. You can see gravity, you can see the solar system, everything.
Unless god comes down and says hi, you will <b>never</b> find god. Not in a single flower or animal, nowhere at all despite his omniprescence. He wouldn't need to have faith or belief in a godless world because there would be nothing in the world that could point towards the idea of one existing just as he couldn't find any evidence of those magic pink dinosaurs.
That's why god takes faith and athiesm doesn't, because athiesm is grounded in reality, it would be like having faith in 2+2=4. That doesn't necessarily mean that there isn't a god of course, just that faith on his existence is based on the stories you have already heard rather than evidence you have felt.
Yes yes, I know you guys have felt him 'whilst praying' or something, you can see evidence of his handiwork in everything around you blah blah. Can you guarentee me that if you had never been influenced by anyone else that you could suddenly see god in a deer or a bush (non burning)?
So maybe that is why they didn't consider more 'spiritual' alternatives. Because in the end they are absolutely meaningless whilst evolution is the most possible of the 'meaningful' alternatives.
<!--QuoteBegin-Cxwf+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cxwf)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-CMEast+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CMEast)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->So in other words there is no actual proof that marriage started off as religious what so ever?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Neither is there any proof that it didn't, as the only texts that record the origin of marriage are religious, and therefore I'm sure you'd immediately dismiss them as being invalid forms of proof.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I would dismiss any history book of a similar age and history whether is was written to record fact or perpetuate a myth.
<!--QuoteBegin-Cxwf+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cxwf)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Well, if it was just "my" idea, I wouldn't, obviously. On the other hand, if I can get another 150 million people to agree with me, a little thing called Democracy lets me make a law out of it.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I've already said what I thought of democracy and 150 million gullible/mislead people are just as wrong as the one. That's why laws should be based on what is good for society, not what a certian section of that society believes it is 'right'.
<!--QuoteBegin-Cxwf+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cxwf)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Granted. Laws are not right simply because they are laws. But we are not discussng laws in general (at least not anymore...we probably were at the beginning of the thread). We are discussing one particular law.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm still discussing the idea that religion and politics shouldn't ever mix but I'm using same-sex-marriages as a good example. Unfortunately we were distracted by the idea of what a marriage is. As I said if a 'union' of some sort was made the official term and marriage itself had no legal basis then that would fix things. However there are plenty of christian homosexuals who would still complain but they could get married in their own ceremony. The rituals wouldn't mean as much as they would have no real power except that given to them by those attending the ceremony at the time.
Until someone can give valid reasons as to why a same-sex marriage is bad for society I'm afraid all religion is doing is making sections of the populace second class citizens. Something which a fair government should be avoiding as much as possible.
[Edit]Urgh, awful errors, I'm far too tired <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/sad-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->[/Edit]
Exactly my point. And while the "leap of faith" may be <i>smaller</i> for atheists accepting evolution vs other believers accepting other religous tenets, that doesn't make it qualitatively different. Its still an area where they will quite simply refuse to consider any other theory, regardless of how much evidence is for or against them. I know this from arguing with some of them some years ago, before much of the chemical and DNA-type evidence we have today was available, and most of their arguments were really quite nonsensical. Their case, up until recently, was primarily based around this line of thought--
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Maybe I should rephrase myself:
-Atheists generally "believe" in evolution, rather than an alternative theory, because there is no alternative theory that has good evidence.
-Atheists generally "believe" in evolution, because there is a great deal of evidence, both fossil and molecular, that is more than enough to show that evolution is an excellent theory.
I believe in evolution because almost every biologist believes in evolution. I believe in gravity because almost every physicist believes in gravity. I find it interesting that some people think that the biologists are wrong, whereas the physicists are right, even though both biologists and physicists work off of the same logical tool, the scientific method, and both theories are equivalent in status.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->"God can't possibly exist, so life must have started on its own somehow. And once it did, it obviously must have evolved into what we see today, now that Darwin has shown us that is possible."
...
You completely miss the point. Atheism is not a lack of belief in the Christian God, or of Magic Pink Dinosaurs, or of anything else <i>in particular</i>. It is the belief that there is NOTHING beyond the material, no spiritual world of any kind. No God, no soul, no afterlife, no angels, no demons, no nothing.
...
A belief in the tangible...yes, thats a good way to put it. I believe in the intangible, and you believe in the tangible and firmly believe that there IS no intangible. Well, since its intangible, you don't really know that do you? At least, you can't say there is no intangible with any more certainty than I can say there is this particular intangible. And everyone believes the answers can be found...they just look for them in different places.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There are two different types of atheism, weak atheism and strong atheism. Weak atheists don't believe in supernatural forces. Strong atheists believe that there are no supernatural forces.
So, to use your words, weak atheists believe in the tangible and don't believe in the intangible because there is no evidence, whereas strong atheists believe in the tangible and firmly believe that there IS no intangible. I would think that most atheists are weak atheists and would accept that the supernatural exists if they were given conclusive evidence, but I haven't spoken to any atheists about it (besides myself, of course).
<!--QuoteBegin-CMEast+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CMEast)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You see, I'm afraid that you completely missed <b>my</b> point. You're saying that if there is no proof for something then you can only base a world view on it if you <i>believe</i> and have <i>faith</i>. You can't prove there is a god but we can't prove there isn't and so both views are equal and take the same level of faith right?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's not really about how much faith is required to <i>adopt</i> the belief. It's about the quantity of proof needed to <i>change</i> the belief once adopted. *looks for quote as example*
<!--QuoteBegin-DarkATI In "Bible" thread+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (DarkATI In "Bible" thread)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Let me ask a question, Cyndane, what would have to occur for you to believe in God, the Bible and Jesus, the whole enchilada? What are you looking for that you haven't found? (This question goes for anyone, I suppose.)<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-theClam In "Bible" thread+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (theClam In "Bible" thread)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I'm not Cyndane, but I am an atheist. To convince me about the existence of God, Jesus himself would have to fly down from heaven, speak to the entire world, and announce his existence.
Whether I'd worship him is another question.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane In "Bible" thread+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane In "Bible" thread)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Now on the DarkATi, what would it take for me to believe everything? Quite simply, it would take god, himself, coming down and tell me that, he influenced the first civlizations and the golden rule is the one we should live by since every religion(read old) has this rule in it some where. Just in case someone isn't familar with it. It reads as follows:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Love thy neighbor as thy self<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I would not accept Yeshua, Kirshna, IxChel, Ra, Mother Goddess, or any other man-made up diety. I'm sorry DarkATi but every religion IS the same just with different names and myths for various god-men and miracles done. That has almost been proven as fact, and is getting closer to when it will be.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
See what I'm getting at here? If you believe that, for example, quantum particles are best described by superstring theory (or whatever), most people are willing to change that belief when they run into an experiment that provides evidence to the contrary. They will then say, "well, I guess I was wrong...now that I know this new thing, what new theory will describe it better?"
On the other hand, atheists are much more likely to resemble theClam, saying, "I won't believe unless God himself comes down and talks to me". Note that theClam still reserved the right not to follow Jesus even after this proof. And Cyndane went a step further, saying she STILL wouldn't believe in any particular deity as described in earthly religions, just in the one particular generalized religious idea she's decided she's willing to accept. (I'm assuming Cyndane is female?)
Oh, and I'm not trying to claim that religious believers are any better---in fact I'm trying to point out that they are quite the same. I don't know quite what it takes to convince a new person to adopt Christianity as his first belief, but once he does, I'm sure you've seen yourself how insanely difficult it is to convince him differently.
<!--QuoteBegin-CMEast+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CMEast)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You see my point was that if you suddenly appeared on Earth with no other humans or human culture and with no preconceived notions what so ever. Finally, in this scenario you can live for as long as you need to get to our level of... complexity? Knowledge? My point is that you could quite conceivably discover maths, the sciences, evolution and every other idea we have discovered based on the world around us. These things are clearly visible to all who wish to grab a microscope or drop a ball. You can see gravity, you can see the solar system, everything.
Unless god comes down and says hi...<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
*takes moment to point to Jesus' 35-year visit to earth*
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->you will <b>never</b> find god. Not in a single flower or animal, nowhere at all despite his omniprescence. He wouldn't need to have faith or belief in a godless world because there would be nothing in the world that could point towards the idea of one existing just as he couldn't find any evidence of those magic pink dinosaurs.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm rather surprised at your logic, actually. Lets look at this from your point of view for a moment.
A) There is no god, therefore god never came down to say "hi".
B) Most of the peoples of the ancient world invented stories about God, even though he doesn't exist--and then believed these stories.
C) Therefore, you can not develop the idea of a God unless someone else before you already thought of it and told you first.
Explain that leap of logic to me.
However, even though I believe that most of the ancient world's God stories were at least partially based on real encounters with God, I suspect that your character here would develop his own God stories anyway. Would you honestly expect that a person randomly dropped into a world that contained no other human life would never start to wonder about HOW he got there? You point out that he could discover evolution...but since he has no parents, evolution is obviously not going to explain <i>his</i> origin. It's merely going to accentuate the extreme oddity of his existence on this planet. And eventually he is going to postulate the existence of some being more powerful than him that he can't see or touch, who put him there. Now he may not know much <i>about</i> this postulated God, but he will theorize all the same. He may even start worshipping the unknown God, just in the blind hope that God might take pity on him and solve his loneliness by taking him away to wherever God is.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->That's why god takes faith and athiesm doesn't, because athiesm is grounded in reality, it would be like having faith in 2+2=4.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
*points to first answer above*
[Change of Topic]
<!--QuoteBegin-CMEast+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CMEast)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I've already said what I thought of democracy and 150 million gullible/mislead people are just as wrong as the one. That's why laws should be based on what is good for society, not what a certian section of that society believes it is 'right'.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Granted. But who defines what is "good" for society? You? Me? God? Unfortunately, the best system we have found so far (though noticeably flawed) for determining what is "good" for society involves convincing more people to support your side than the other side.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Until someone can give valid reasons as to why a same-sex marriage is bad for society I'm afraid all religion is doing is making sections of the populace second class citizens. Something which a fair government should be avoiding as much as possible.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
How are they being made second class citizens? Homosexuals currently enjoy EXACTLY the same legal rights and responsibilities as Heterosexuals. They can even get married, in ALL 50 STATES. There just happens to be a restriction on <i>who</i> they can marry, which same restriction applies to Heterosexuals.
So, to use your words, weak atheists believe in the tangible and don't believe in the intangible because there is no evidence, whereas strong atheists believe in the tangible and firmly believe that there IS no intangible. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Agreed, fully. Except this part.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I would think that most atheists are weak atheists and would accept that the supernatural exists if they were given conclusive evidence, but I haven't spoken to any atheists about it (besides myself, of course).<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You would think so, wouldn't you? Except that weak atheists in point of fact are extemely rare. I have run into strong atheists time and time again, but only met perhaps a handful of weak atheists in my life. Also, weak atheists tend to blur the line with "agnostics", of which there are also two types, mirroring the two types of atheists. Theres the Soft Agnostic "I/We don't know about God, at least not now" types, and the Hard Agnostic "I/We CAN'T know about God" types. I imagine most people who would have been weak atheists wind up being the soft agnostics instead, since there's really very little difference between the two.
So here's a test for you. Would you consider the Soft Agnostic description ("I have not yet seen sufficient evidence to convince me which, if any, God is real, and am therefore undecided") to be fairly close to your atheistic beliefs? If not, you are a Strong Atheist.
Weak atheists are extremely rare? You can't conclude this based upon anecdotal evidence.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->So here's a test for you. Would you consider the Soft Agnostic description ("I have not yet seen sufficient evidence to convince me which, if any, God is real, and am therefore undecided") to be fairly close to your atheistic beliefs? If not, you are a Strong Atheist.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So it's either soft agnosticism or strong atheism?
Let me describe my religious beliefs. I believe that we don't have any evidence that there is a god. I acknowledge the fact that we don't know, which puts me towards agnosticism. However, I assume that there isn't a deity, because there is no evidence of one. Adding God without any evidence of God just adds another unnecessary entity, which Occam's Razor says is wrong. I assume that invisible pink unicorns don't exist, even though I don't know whether they exist or not. I assume that the sun will come up tomorrow, even though I don't know that it will. The burden of proof is on those who are making extraordinary claims.
I classify myself as a weak atheist, but you could also call me agnostic. Labels don't really capture the nuances of issues like this, although they are helpful.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It's not really about how much faith is required to adopt the belief. It's about the quantity of proof needed to change the belief once adopted. *looks for quote as example*<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'd say that secular people are the ones who are most likely to change their beliefs if given evidence that they are wrong. They base their belief system on tangible evidence, so when they are presented with better evidence, it follows that they would change their views to reflect that evidence (although there are some exceptions; not all atheists are rational). I know that I have changed my political beliefs quite often (especially on economic issues), because I receive new evidence all the time.
People with religious views based on faith should be much less likely to change their views. They believe in things without any evidence for those things (that's the whole point of a leap of faith), so I wouldn't think that they'd accept any new evidence given to them, when they didn't base their original belief system on evidence.
I swear, if you bring up the slippery slope of it leading to marriages to children/animals I'm going to scream. So help me <deity> I will.
This is a laughable argument. Would it be fair for heterosexuals if the only type of marriage allowed was homosexual marriage? The entire point of marriage is that you can form a long term bond with someone you love, and enjoy recognition from the government, culture, society, etc. Right now homosexuals are denied this right, while heterosexuals are granted this right.
Well, if it was just "my" idea, I wouldn't, obviously. On the other hand, if I can get another 150 million people to agree with me, a little thing called Democracy lets me make a law out of it. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Republic, not democracy. Big difference when it comes to issues like this one.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->How are they being made second class citizens? Homosexuals currently enjoy EXACTLY the same legal rights and responsibilities as Heterosexuals. They can even get married, in ALL 50 STATES. There just happens to be a restriction on who they can marry, which same restriction applies to Heterosexuals. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Be careful. AvengerX made this exact same argument, almost word for word even. It didn't exactly endear him to anyone. <!--emo&::marine::--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/marine.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='marine.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Well, if it was just "my" idea, I wouldn't, obviously. On the other hand, if I can get another 150 million people to agree with me, a little thing called Democracy lets me make a law out of it. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Republic, not democracy. Big difference when it comes to issues like this one. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's actually democracy. Only in a direct democracy can 150 million people instantly make a law just by formally agreeing about something.
Which is why the average american citizen can not make a law by having 150 million people agree with him.
It would have to be proposed in either the house or senate first then go to the other of the house then to the pres then to the court if could be considered unconstitutional. :-)
But its ok, I'm not trying to endear myself to anyone. I'm pretty careful to avoid flaming, and I don't think I'm anywhere close to AvengerXs fate, so if a few people happen to like me less after this...so be it.
<!--QuoteBegin-theClam+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (theClam)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Would it be fair for heterosexuals if the only type of marriage allowed was homosexual marriage?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
*Checks definition of fair*
"marked by impartiality and honesty : free from self-interest, prejudice, or favoritism " <a href='http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=fair' target='_blank'>Link</a>
Yes, it would be fair. I wouldn't <i>like</i> it. I would do my best to get the law changed, and failing that I would mostly likely move to another country that didn't have the law. But that has nothing to do with fairness.
<!--QuoteBegin-theClam+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (theClam)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The entire point of marriage is that you can form a long term bond with someone you love, and enjoy recognition from the government, culture, society, etc.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I know you're going to hate me for this one, but permit me to offer an alternate "point" for marriage. Marriage is an institution whereby God blesses the union of a man and a woman. "And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made [them] at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." (Matt 19 4-6).
Therefore, while I will let others argue about the value of letting Homosexuals form "a long term bond with someone you love, and enjoy recognition from the goverment, culture, society", I do not think they have a right to the word "Marriage". I firmly believe that should be reserved for God's union between Man and Woman.
Well, if it was just "my" idea, I wouldn't, obviously. On the other hand, if I can get another 150 million people to agree with me, a little thing called Democracy lets me make a law out of it. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Republic, not democracy. Big difference when it comes to issues like this one. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's actually democracy. Only in a direct democracy can 150 million people instantly make a law just by formally agreeing about something. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
The US is definitely not a democracy, otherwise we wouldn't have such policies as affirmative action. Republics take their power from the people, while at the same time distancing the government from the people to ensure the mob won't rule, and the minority won't be trampled on by the majority.
But its ok, I'm not trying to endear myself to anyone. I'm pretty careful to avoid flaming, and I don't think I'm anywhere close to AvengerXs fate, so if a few people happen to like me less after this...so be it.
<!--QuoteBegin-theClam+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (theClam)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Would it be fair for heterosexuals if the only type of marriage allowed was homosexual marriage?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
*Checks definition of fair*
"marked by impartiality and honesty : free from self-interest, prejudice, or favoritism " <a href='http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=fair' target='_blank'>Link</a>
Yes, it would be fair. I wouldn't <i>like</i> it. I would do my best to get the law changed, and failing that I would mostly likely move to another country that didn't have the law. But that has nothing to do with fairness.
<!--QuoteBegin-theClam+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (theClam)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The entire point of marriage is that you can form a long term bond with someone you love, and enjoy recognition from the government, culture, society, etc.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I know you're going to hate me for this one, but permit me to offer an alternate "point" for marriage. Marriage is an institution whereby God blesses the union of a man and a woman. "And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made [them] at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." (Matt 19 4-6).
Therefore, while I will let others argue about the value of letting Homosexuals form "a long term bond with someone you love, and enjoy recognition from the goverment, culture, society", I do not think they have a right to the word "Marriage". I firmly believe that should be reserved for God's union between Man and Woman. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Incorrect once again, there were other religions long before christianity that have said marriage was okay between two people of the same or opposite gender. Therefore it is not "God's word".
Since many of my posts are being ignored.. I shall have to keep reposting them.
<!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
The religious term has been dated back before the egyptians came into being, and has always had to do with the joining of two people. Strictly religious meaning, however, just to help I would like to point out it was just between two people there was no gender preference untill the time of the christian era, after which a couple other religions adopted it, Judism, and Islam.
Before that, if two people reguardless of gender wished to be married it would be blessed by a priest, pharoh, druid priest, religious leader, gender nonwith standing. So yes, it has always been a religious term but never with a preference of gender untill recent times.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, if it was just "my" idea, I wouldn't, obviously. On the other hand, if I can get another 150 million people to agree with me, a little thing called Democracy lets me make a law out of it. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Republic, not democracy. Big difference when it comes to issues like this one. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's actually democracy. Only in a direct democracy can 150 million people instantly make a law just by formally agreeing about something. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The US is definitely not a democracy, otherwise we wouldn't have such policies as affirmative action. Republics take their power from the people, while at the same time distancing the government from the people to ensure the mob won't rule, and the minority won't be trampled on by the majority. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Even if 150 million people agree on something in the US, it won't be made a law unless you can get most of Congress to agree to it, too. So, if you're talking about 150 million people making a law, then it's a direct democracy.
Your major hangup on legalizing homosexual marriage is the choice of word used to describe a union between two people of the same sex? I didn't know God was so semantic.
Frankly, I don't care if homosexuals are given marriage or civil unions, as long as they are entitled to the exact same rights granted to married heterosexual couples.
Well, if it was just "my" idea, I wouldn't, obviously. On the other hand, if I can get another 150 million people to agree with me, a little thing called Democracy lets me make a law out of it. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Republic, not democracy. Big difference when it comes to issues like this one. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's actually democracy. Only in a direct democracy can 150 million people instantly make a law just by formally agreeing about something. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The US is definitely not a democracy, otherwise we wouldn't have such policies as affirmative action. Republics take their power from the people, while at the same time distancing the government from the people to ensure the mob won't rule, and the minority won't be trampled on by the majority. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Even if 150 million people agree on something in the US, it won't be made a law unless you can get most of Congress to agree to it, too. So, if you're talking about 150 million people making a law, then it's a direct democracy. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, and representative democracy would mean that Congressmen would always vote based on how the majority of their constituents would vote, which doesn't happen. They take into account the minority's opinion as well.
*/me foolishly searches up AvengerX's posts in the Discussion forum*
*shudders several times*
No he didn't. From what I can tell, AvengerX was too busy explaining why homosexuals should be "cured" to even bother with whether they should be able to get married. Please don't compare me to him...I am absolutely nothing like AvengerX.
*/me foolishly searches up AvengerX's posts in the Discussion forum*
*shudders several times*
No he didn't. From what I can tell, AvengerX was too busy explaining why homosexuals should be "cured" to even bother with whether they should be able to get married. Please don't compare me to him...I am absolutely nothing like AvengerX. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Quite right, you're <s>much more reasonable</s> a strong yet reasonable debater. On the AvengerX scale, that was one of his more moderate arguments, but he did say it, and at least for me it brings back bad memories. Like, I got deja vu when you posted that, it seemed so similar to something he had posted.
Since many of my posts are being ignored.. I shall have to keep reposting them.
<!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
The religious term has been dated back before the egyptians came into being, and has always had to do with the joining of two people. Strictly religious meaning, however, just to help I would like to point out it was just between two people there was no gender preference untill the time of the christian era, after which a couple other religions adopted it, Judism, and Islam.
Before that, if two people reguardless of gender wished to be married it would be blessed by a priest, pharoh, druid priest, religious leader, gender nonwith standing. So yes, it has always been a religious term but never with a preference of gender untill recent times.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't know quite what you expect me to do with this. I've posted my (religous) source which claims to have knowledge of God's original commands to the very first humans. Now, there's really only two possibilities here. Either this source is right, in which case it makes no difference how long ago the egyptians or whoever wrote down their concept of marriage because we have God's original concept here, or else the source is wrong, in which case the date of the concept STILL doesn't matter because the entire concept is worthless. Why is it that your answer to any religious argument is "some other religion did it first!!"?
I do agreee that it was orginally religious in nature, because it was and has been proven.
"Christianity, if false, is of no importance, and if true, is of the utmost importance. The only thing it cannot be is moderately important."
It only matters to me that "marriage" was originally a religious concept because I firmly believe that the Christian God was responsible for that religious concept. If he wasn't, then it doesn't really matter if it was invented by some other religion thousands of years ago, or if you just came up with the idea in your backyard last week. There's no in between.
So while in theory you might convince me that all religious concepts were actually invented by men and therefore have no relevance, you will never convince me that my particular religious concepts should be overruled by someone elses just because they wrote it down first.
I would reverse this:
Constituents vote for who they believe will represent their interests legislatively. If representatives were meant to vote exactly as the majority in their districts would, you'd get a direct democracy by proxy aka majoritarianism. Representative democracies instead place "the best person for the job" in a position to make decisions.
Sorry to be nitpicky but it's the only remnants of this thread I can respond to.