TommyO

Being a person is very personal, who I am is very personal to me as, I would assume, it should be to you. Believeing that your belief's are more personal than mine just points out the arrogance of many Christians. Odd how that sort of thinking is not seen as insulting but disagreeing with it is, I guess the blinders do have an impact on thinking. I do love you however and hope that you are able to one day achieve rational thought. You can not know how wonderful it is to be able to think for yourself and begin to understand the exciting complexity of the universe. I know that some will now be mad and decide I am a vile person but they will not see any paralels to that statement and an earlier christian post.

I have noticed that although 1/3 of the world is Christian as soon as someoen points out when anyone of those 2.2 billion people does something bad it is decided that they weren't really Christians. I guess saying you are a Christian only counts when you need some stats to validate a point of view.

I am not upset by this thread, I do think that some people tend to read each post as if they are directed towards them. If I read that atheists, because they do not believe in God can not have morals I react. The reason for posting what I did was to show the hypocrasy. I read because I don't believe in God I can't have morals, I say anyone who believes that is an idiot. I do not think that my response was any worse than the statement I was responding to. The response to me was that I was a bad person for posting what I did. Oddly the accusation that atheists are immoral was not seen by those on the other side of the argument as a negative post. People tend to ignore the negativity when it comes from those they percieve to be on their side but rail against any slight from their oponents. One of the reasons I dislike partisan politics, although I know I am very partisan myself, funny!!

Lets be clear, I did not call Chrsitians idiots, I was not referring to any group in my statement and I think if you read my post you will discover this to be true. I have no control over how you intepreted my comments and I can't understand how you could draw that conlusion from my statement. I was not refering to Christians I was refering to anyone who believes that you must believe in God to have morals. I mean it is an idiotic premise that only those people who believe in a God can be moral people. We only need to take a look at the world we live in or throughout history to discover many people of high morals who do not believe in God. So I stand by statement that anyone who thinks that only people who believe in God can be moral is an idiot. I know many Christians that believe very strongly that their Athiest freinds are moral so this does not in any way single out Christians, only idiots.

The world is populated with moral and immoral people, some of these people believe in God and some don't. Morality is not exclusive to those who believe in God nor is it exclusive to those who don't. To argue anything different is ludicrous, you may very well believe you need God to be moral, you would be wrong but you can believe it.

I'm sorry but anyone who thinks that there must be a God for humans to be moral is an idiot.

Gadget, sorry I read you article and it seems to talk in circles. When I read the paper I assume that it was not written by someone who got the story from God. All of these arguments that I hear about who/what/where/when/why interprets the bible hold no water and always talk in circles. Isn't it a little odd that someoene would compare how we read the bible with reading the sports page. All I want to know is "Is it literall or not" As soon as you say it's literall but you have to intepret certain things I'm out. Now I must return to my marning coffee and the sports section.

Stupidity is genetic, you can't blame someone for their stupidity. In my life I have met a lot of smart people who have done dumb things (Myself included)and I would agree that it can be irritating although most often it's just funny. Knowledge is learned but we are born with inteligence so you can't fault stupid.

I have participated in this forum for about 3 years and this probably about the 5th time I have seen threads very similar to this one. Most members of this forum have a lifecycle. I won't go into detial but,the join and begin their participation by asking questions. They soon become active members and start to get involved in many ways. At some point they become annoyed at the new members that are asking questions that now seem simple to them. Eventually they no longer have much interset in the board and they move on. Usually this type of thread creates a controversy because it can offend new members. It is important to note that individuals learn and process information differently. Some people love to do volumes of research and others want to know what they need to know and they want to know it right now. Many people fall in the middle somewhere but it is unfair to condem anyone just because their learning style different or the knowledge of the topic is minimul. Honestly I have grown to dislike threads that discuss how other people should approach their journey or what types of questions are stupid and which ones are not. Conversley I probably took part in a similar thread as an agreable participant about 2 1/2 years ago. Just my thoughts TommyO

Gadget, here is my question. You maintain that the bible is a literal document. Some would say that it is written by man and so up for interpretation, you say no it was written by man through God. Given that you beleive that the world was created in 7 days (Actualy 6 plus one for a nap). So the bible is literal but in the bible says that the earth was a circle and the term circle is used because man is too stupid to understand Sphere at that time in history. I understand that man might not be able to understand what a sphere is but I bet someone who was omnipotant could explain it. But he couldn't explain it to man so he use the term circle okay. Why is it not possible that God wouldn't have simplified the whole genisis thing or the flood thing to stupid man. I mean really, God could have took a piece of clay and roled it into a ball and said "Hey stupid this here is a sphere" And how do we figure out what parts God dumbed down and what parts God explained in detail and who gets to decide. I continually here fundamentalist Christians say how the bible is literal but as soon as you point out something from the bible that is just plain silly the response is "you need to understand God was explaining this to an idiot" So the world was created in 7 days but I will use the term circle because you are too stupid to comprehend what a sphere is. As an old freind would say "It don't make no sense to me"

For the record, I am not anti Christian as a matter of fact I beleive strongly in the rights of an individual to believe what ever they want. I also believe that it is important to be able to disagaree about ones beliefs and to be able to debate. If I disagree with you it's not because I hate you it's because I disagree with you. If you should decide to take it personally I have no control over that. It, too often, is convenient to claim to be persecuted when you have nothing of value to add.

Elenation, FYI I wasn't talking to you at anytime in this thread and I was unaware, until your last post, that you were talking to me. I think if you read through the posts that preceeded my earlier post that this is in fact the case. I can see how you would be upset but you must keep in mind that there are a number of people participating in this thread. If you beleive that they are speaking directly to you all the time not only would you be upset you are probably somewhat confused. BTW I was not comparing Creationism to harsher laws I was discussing belief versus reality, as a matter of fact it was a little jab I was making for some fun. You may want to stand up some of this stuff seems to be going over your head (Another jab and this time at you)

P.S. You said " When the whole earth said the world was flat" When was that? You may have a sense of what the prevailing thought of western civilization may have been but I don't think you can surmise what the whole earth thought at any given time. Correct me if I am wrong but wasn't it the Christians who were adamant that the world was flat. Remember the Dark Ages, if I am not mistaken I think that was brought on by Christian's. Just another Christian movement that espoused backword ideals that impeded the advancment of mankind.

it is felt by many that that passage indicates that the earth existed inside the circle not outside, so oddly Isaiah does not refer to the earth as round but as a circle a one dimensional object.

FYI statistically crime rates and recidivism rates are only minutely affected by consequences, if at all. That is why, for example, states with the death penalty do not have lower murder rates. It is far more likely that you will find higher crime rates in the same places we find greater poverty. This would suggest that need is a far greater determination of crime then tough penalties. When people make claims like tougher laws are the answer to crime rates they make these claims because the solution seems obvious when in fact it is not. Just because we believe something doesn't make it so (See Creationism). So you can say that consequences work but there is plenty of evidence to the contrary. It is most important that we are motivated to act a certain way because of the moral code we live by. In short if you need hell to ensure that you don't kill someone I'm fine with that but please, please, please don't go backsliding on me now.

There seems to be Atheist organizations on the net, even one's that ask for donations. I have no desire to join and I certainly won't be making a donation but they are there. I must say I am somewhat disapointed in this, I know that like-minded people tend to congregate but I tend to be a strong believer in individuality. I also have a strong dislike for authority figures so you can imagine how I feel about the idea of God. I guess you could say if you want to be the Pope, God, the King or even the president of the Association of American Atheists you won't get me to submit.

I have a question, does one need to practice Athiesm to be an Athiest or does the fact that I do not believe in God/s make me an athiest. I ask because I do not believe in God/s but I also do not want to be part of a group or be identified as practicing any organized belief system.

I teach my children not to kill because it is wrong, not because they will go to jail. Consequenses seldom have an impact on an individuals decision to do something wrong. If the only reason people and their children don't kill people is because of jail then the world would be a very scary place.

My 2 Cents, ......... Forget it, I know I can only say something sarcastic so I won't say anything. Oh except, Gadget, your Hot, don't worry I'm am extremely happily married. Just thought I would be civil after your last note to me on another thread. TommyO

There is a big difference between a statement that is real and a statement that is purely hypothetical. If I say what if Einstein was never born vs saying what about abortion for rape victims. Eienstein was born so the first statement is not relevant. There are examples of rape causing pregnancy so there is a high degree of relevance in the later statement. When I am talking about what if statements I am specifically speaking to those scenarios that are purely hypothetical and that is why I say "As my Father would say If my aunt had balls...." You see she doesn't and she wouldn't be my Aunt if she did.

Here we go with the what if's again, Einstein was born and that is all that matters. Once again as my Father used to say "If my aunt had balls......." Abortion is legal, that's it that's all

It's time to put this puppy to rest, I think we can all agree on two things. The two sides of the abortion issue are very far apart and abortion is legal. Based on point two I think it's time to debate something else. I know how about Gun control!!!!

OH Julie, I agree 100% with al but the hates okay if you did me wrong statement. I would argue that much hatred between the races is often based on a percieved injustice perptrated by one side on the other and this opinion is held on both sides. I see your smiley face so I am guessing you were kidding.

You are defining racism diferently than I, if you see my definition you will note that there is no reference to the majority or a balance of power. Racism is purely the hatred by one race of another race based on preconception. Who holds the balance of power is not part of the equation. The idea that men hold the balance of power is a perfect example, men are not a race they are a group that is not defined by race. I know you said "white men" but I would suggest that throughout history in all races men have at times held the balance of power so if they held that power based on the idea that women are inferior this would not be racism. It would be sexism and it would be prejudicial and bigotry but not racism. If the roles were then reversed and a society existed were women held the balance of power based on a similar scenario, it would not be considered reverse sexism it would be sexism plain and simple. It would also be all of those other things except it would not be racism.

First let me add the definition of racism that meets with my definition: Wikipedia Definition Racism has many definitions, the most common being that members of one racial group consider themselves intrinsically superior to members of other racial groups. Racism inherently starts with the assumption that there are taxonomic differences between different groups of people. Without this assumption, prejudices against different peoples would be categorized as being prejudices related to national or regional origin, religion, occupation, social status or some other distinction. So by this definition there is no such thing as reverse racism, if a collective group of non-white people think thay are superior to white's they are racists pure and simple. It is important to note that by this definition, stereotypes are essential for racism to exist Also, if the question was about Prejudice or bigotry then the responses might be different because they have different meanings. Prejudice refers to pre-judging an individual based on any number of items not always race. Bigotry is similar to racism in that it is the dislike of groups but again this dislike does not need to be based on race. So for example If I hate all hispanics then I am a racists, if I hate a particular person because they have a tatoo then I am being prejudice and if I hate all people with tatoo's then I am a bigot. So Laurend is not splitting hairs she is simply trying to explain why she believes what she believes gased on the definitions of the words.