I don't believe in God

Frenchy, I agree with CJ on this one. My sophomore English teacher made us read parts of the bible. It wasn't "to keep us in line." In terms of a piece of literary work, not to mention the most influential literary work of all time, it has its merits. That's why I would agree with CJ and say that students should at least be asked to study it once in their high school career. It's beautifully written and hugely accessible.

Religion cannot ever be brought into the school system. I am sorry to say that but its a fact that cannot be overlooked.

The reason is, religion is to subjectmental to the whims of the teachers background. Religion would NEVER be taught as an unbiased extension of "Learning"

In the south, baptist reign. In the south that religion would be predominant. Up north, another type would be. See my point?

Religion should be taught fundamentally. Not ever turned into an extension of the local church.

I have voted against religion in school so often that its sickening that these assholes cannot see that its NOT GOIN TO PASS!!

Unless ALL aspects, both good and bad are taught, I say NO f**kIN WAY BUCKO's!

---

The best things in life, aren't things.

The bible in my school was taught not as a religious text but as a literary text. I personally never felt pressured in any way. If the teacher treats it as a work of fiction, would that satisfy your needs for a seperation of church and state?

<DIV class=quote>
<DIV class=quotetitle>? quoting Addicted to Morphine</DIV>
<DIV class=quotetext>The bible in my school was taught not as a religious text but as a literary text. I personally never felt pressured in any way. If the teacher treats it as a work of fiction, would that satisfy your needs for a seperation of church and state?
</DIV></DIV>

No. It wouldn't.. Fiction would go against the belief system of the ones who think its true.

If it were taught as an extension of HISTORY, then I'd be happy. The point is, the teachers pick "which" history instead of "ITS" history.

See my point?

[edit] TBH, I cannot stand all this crap NickelPlate writes about but I would never dream of forbidding it from happening. His kind of belief makes me ill. I have met far to many people like him but the point is, they have all the right in the world to believe HOW they see fit.

I cannot imagine myself ever forbidding someone their voice.

---

The best things in life, aren't things.

Students can treat the Bible however they like, but they definitely don't have to believe the Bible or "enjoy the Bible" to study it. For example: in high school I really hated to read the Scarlet Letter (and anything Nathaniel Hawthorne ever wrote) but I still respect it as a monumental literary work, an early piece of feminist fiction, as well as its literary techniques and the use of syntax in certain passages, etc.

A lot of people trace parts of American culture back to the Puritans. The Puritans were a highly religious people. Don't you think some understanding of the Bible would help students "connect the dots?" So much literature references the Bible, not to mention its huge effect on history.

What's the Bible's role in the tension between the West and the Middle East? The common high school student has no idea. He/she can't even find Iraq on a map. Madonna only holds significance as a singer to them. It's not freedom to learn, derived from the separation of church and state - it's shameful ignorance.

We should seek to understand the Bible, its strengths and flaws, not to blindside it out of education and ignore its existence. Whether we believe it or not is another story, but it should definitely form some part of the curriculum in public schools, although I doubt it ever will.

We should seek to understand the Bible, its strengths and flaws, not to blindside it out of education and ignore its existence. Whether we believe it or not is another story, but it should definitely form some part of the curriculum in public schools, although I doubt it ever will.

As soon as this would happen fanatic English teachers would use this method to preach the bible in their classes. I don't know. You can read a lot of general meaning from the bible but it still tells you that there was a guy called Jesus who healed the people with his bare hands and made water into whine. This can be read as metaphors but it's still glorification, thus a work of propaganda that cannot be taught without teaching religion in general. Especially not to children/teenagers.

The only moral/ethical values I have no problem with being taught in schools are the Human Rights. As long as you don't kill or hurt anyone and leave others their personal freedom people should form their picture of the world outside the school.

There is plenty of literature with good moral value. We do not need to resort to biblical versions to establish a guideline with.

If religion isn't taught as a history value subject, it doesn't belong in schools. Period.

As for the bible in general. Its to specific to be of use. It doesn't allow for many other religions to be compared to.

Until they can assure me that religion would be taught as a historical subject, the answer will forever remain, NO!

---

The best things in life, aren't things.

Orpheus said:
No. It wouldn't.. Fiction would go against the belief system of the ones who think its true.

But treating it any OTHER way would go against the ones who DONT beleive it. no matter what you do, you will always disagree with someone. If not, you're just a wishy-washy yes-man.

Orpheus said:
[edit] TBH, I cannot stand all this crap NickelPlate writes about but I would never dream of forbidding it from happening. His kind of belief makes me ill. I have met far to many people like him but the point is, they have all the right in the world to believe HOW they see fit.

I cannot imagine myself ever forbidding someone their voice.

You're just upset because someone has come up with a perfectly logical way of beleiving. You want to beleive that there is nothing to what we say, you want to beleive that we are all stupid following-sheep, but now that there is logic and reason to what we beleive, you just have to get upset. How impotent.

You know that you can not deny anyone thier voice NOW because that would make you a hypocrite. I do thank your majesty for so graciously allowing one such as me to speak freely.

---

I tried sniffing coke, but the ice cubes kept getting stuck in my nose.
http://www.dimebowl.com

<DIV class=quote>
<DIV class=quotetitle>? quoting Nickelplate</DIV>
<DIV class=quotetext>
<DIV class=quote>
<DIV class=quotetitle>? quoting Orpheus</DIV>
<DIV class=quotetext>

No. It wouldn't.. Fiction would go against the belief system of the ones who think its true.

</DIV></DIV>

But treating it any OTHER way would go against the ones who DONT beleive it.

</DIV></DIV>

No it wouldn't. Treating it as fiction would harm everyone. Believers and non-believers alike.

You have two views, those that believe and those who don't. Fiction would deny believers, and history would deny no one. Treating it "as" fiction would benefit no one either so your point is invalid.
I removed the rest of your post, it was all crap anyway. Sadly, an entire post having one sentace worth a s**t. :rolleyes:

---

The best things in life, aren't things.

Before someone falsely assumes that I am once again picking on Nickel, let me explain that its not him, but ALL religious nuts. There is no singling out process. And yes, its pretty nutty to constantly drone on and on. (case in point.. image sizes) No one seems to hesitate to think "Dammit won't he ever stop whining"

So yeah, I have some insight on nuts. :cool:

The main point I cannot tolerate is when people assume that "Religious=good" and as such, no one can possibly complain about a "good" thing.

This is an absolutely horrible way to determine what you will ignore.

Meat is considered by most to be good, but I doubt that a vegetarian would like someone to drone on incessantly about the virtues of eating animals. Ice cream is good, if you ignore the lactose intolerant among us. Honey suckle smells great but be forced to smell it all day and see if you can stand it.

The point is, when you cannot see the warning signs, which in this case is the constant droning about the virtues of faith, then you really need to wake up.

Religion has its perks. Even I see them but they are far from good enough to go on about every single post. Even every 10th post would be far to often. No other subject known to be posted here has so many entries.

Yes, I can ignore them for a while. We all can but the signs are there, heed them.

---

The best things in life, aren't things.

WOOT i'm picked on :razz:

i obviously don't frequent the pit enough.. i missed reading nearly all of them v___v .

i believe the light should be Shown to all , it is their choice to follow or not. Religion and love are DIRECT results of free will , and to remove it would be going against everything we believe.

i sometimes wish the best decision for me would be already decided for me .. but then i wouldn't have the same amount of faith that i have today. If we've learned anything from this thread .. it's that each person is entitled to his own say ...... but there is only one truth ..... and that's for us to find out...

Those that stop looking.. have already given up on everything..

Be it science, or be it god .. We must find the Grand theory. :biggrin:

---

.else /me ~kill you
www.arclan.net

Orpheus, we all know there are good and bad things about religion, just as there are good and bad things about anything else.

The difference is that religion has been crammed down so many people's throats for so long that they just want to be free of it and all the annoyances associated with it. Nobody wants to be told how to live by someone they don't trust. If you don't beleive in God, why the heck would you want to do what he says, right? I mean look at the child-molesting priests, the killers claiming that "God told them to kill," the nuts bombing abortion clinics with signs that say "thou shallt not kill."

There are lots of times when you see the imperfect people who represent God, and you don't see any good in religion. I understand it, beleive me; I'm disgusted with plenty of my fellow beleivers. I guess my whole point is, many times it takes a lot of effort on your part to be able to beleive in God. It took me 15 years to get to this point of strength in my faith.

Which brings me to another point. After 15 years of searching and researching (although the first few were as a child) it is just a bit insulting when some... guy tries to write you off as a psycho who beleives in fairies and unicorns.

For all I know, this guy is just going off of the Ned Flanderses and religious nuts he sees on TV. Now I know Orpheus has had a bit more experience than that, but some of our younger members seem to just hear something from some propaganda source and repeat it. That should not be enough to invalidate someone's life's work.

---

I tried sniffing coke, but the ice cubes kept getting stuck in my nose.
http://www.dimebowl.com

Now I know Orpheus has had a bit more experience than that, but some of our younger members seem to just hear something from some propaganda source and repeat it.

Because you said my view of Christians is distored in another post I feel spoken to. So I wanted to say that I don't think that today there's any propaganda against religion outside some communist regimes. There are news about religion gone nuts in TV (Al Qaida, Creationists, Mohammed caricartures, people voting for Bush because he goes to church and not because of his politics ect.) which are sad facts but no more propaganda than some news about the new pope or missionaries helping the poor. I never saw a banner saying "abandon god" or "religion is a lie, leave the church!". But I've seen a lot of "propaganda" (this can be a case for word a definition) from the church itself. In a local, very common newspaper there is one page in every issue written by a bishop. The visit of the pope in Germany was a week-long major event praised in all media. The Passion of the Christ made millions as did Jesus Christ Superstar. I'm living next to a big church, listening to the bells every hour. The next chuch is a hundered meter down the street. Yesterday there was a "night of the churches" where you could visit famous churches in the city, pray and even watch football during nightly events.

I don't think there is any reason for Christianity to to take the offensive. It has to accept that it's a way of living equal to Atheism or any other religion. And inferior to science when it comes to objectivity! And it has a power that must be controlled. It's not just praying and feel-good messages. It is for people taking a peaceful, tolerant approach but you can't just say the negative impact of religion on our society is just propaganda and things we saw on TV. It took a while before a critical program such as the Simpsons became accepted. Before hardly anyone dared to criticise overly devout lifestyles.

I have a brother. He had (its assumed had) a serious drug problem. He nearly died from it.

Some nutcase turned him onto God. Do you know what its like to have to force him to stop preaching? I cannot be nice and say "Matt, give it a rest today please" or " Matt, did'ja hear the one about..."

He just cranks it up to the next level. Because he had no will power when it came to drugs, it seems that he has no will power where it comes to politeness either.

He literally cannot comprehend someone not associating "Religion=good"

sighs

I see him less than once a year now because he has no off button to press. :sad:

Nickel, his conviction is every bit as strong as yours and, he has 10 times more motivation to succeed at his vocation. Can you not wonder why I get annoyed?

As far as your propaganda theory, I see no signs of it. In fact I notice many points to the contrary. There is a church literally on every street corner and those damnable crosses on every hilltop.

America is so horribly engrossed on this now.

/rant

---

The best things in life, aren't things.

Hmmmm... This is odd. I'm finding I agree with just about everyone, even both sides of the argument!

I'm aware that there are proportionally a lot more devout Christians in America than in England, so I can't quite identify with Orph's comment about "crosses on every hilltop" and "a church literally on every street corner".

I'm fairly happy with the view that people should have a discussion about religion where they can just say "Okay, I take your point, but look at it this way..." The same applies with teaching about the bible, where currently in RS it is generally taught: "X thought this, but Y said that. There are pros and cons, but its up to you to decide who you agree with".

Either way, I would argue that religion is intensely personal - you can tell from all the different viewpoints demonstrated here. As a result I'm not too keen on the whole banding-together-and-going-nuts sought of thing (sorry to stereotype), but I vaguely see why people do it if they share the same beliefs.

You will notice that the argument proper has only developed now that we're discussing how religion should be treated rather than what you believe, so its nice to see everything's still being treated maturely.

EDIT: Just came across this nice quote on Google Personalised: "As an adolescent I aspired to lasting fame, I craved factual certainty, and I thirsted for a meaningful vision of human life - so I became a scientist. This is like becoming an archbishop so you can meet girls." - M. Cartmill

Apologies to any present archbishops or scientists. :smile:

---

My site

I'll stand back and let a believer certify my words on the crosses and churches then.

There isn't any way they could fib about it I mean and then it will look more like what I said.

You can truly go to some towns and have a church on every corner... Let me rephrase that, "You can stand on certain corners and have a church on the others across from you on each of the other three." I didn't mean that to say that if your town had 100 corners it would have 100 churches. :sad:

As for the crosses. It seems that every town in America has those 3 wooden constructs now.

I think what bothers me most about them is, if every other religion picked a hilltop one of two things would happen.

1) we'd have millions of symbols.
2) the Christians would revolt and cause a stink. (It seems that only Christian crosses are permitted)

---

The best things in life, aren't things.

Fair enough. As I say, there are proportionally a lot more devout Christians in America than in England, so I can't say I'm entirely surprised by your comments. Over here, for some reason the churches are a lot less prominent, and if anything church attendance is falling rapidly.

---

My site

It seems to me like it's an American ideal to stick to something in a very optimistic manner, even if there is no concrete evidence wheter it will ever work. I admire this attitude because the tenacity it brings is responsible for many attainment of our modern society (including computers, the internet and all major websites for example). People are so open to new ideas in the USA and try out things people in Europe would never do because it appears to be so unmanagable. That's what I like about the country.

Religion and politics however are where this characteristic can go into the negative and lead to a form of fanatism we don't have here in Europe (we have other forms of it).

orph.. with the whole brother thing , ironically a similar thing happened to my brother . He fell into drugs .. kinda lost his willpower . and was on probation. He was forced to live at the house at the age of 19 or whatever. He was unhappy obviously , and hadn't talked to me in a long time...

Except in my case i was the nutcase that converted my brother.. and he's happy. Sure he may nag on me every day that i need to read the bible more.. but i think it's loads better than not having anything to live for... which is what he used to have.

I'm obviously not saying you should convert , i'm just saying .. it can be a positive influence on some people ... that really can't find much to live for.

before religion he had suicidal intentions and soforth.. but now they're gone and he has a "Grounding" on life , a foothold for sanity as i should say.

I'm not saying religion is good , or even that the people that teach it are good.. but certainly it can be a really really positive influence on a persons life .. and scince they've felt that , they wanna share it.

---

.else /me ~kill you
www.arclan.net

I don't fault the intentions 'Keet but, he's the one doing the penance not I. If only there was an off button.

The way I see it, it was his fault he got into drugs, he is the only one who should pay the piper.

---

The best things in life, aren't things.

yeah , i can understand yeh're position there :/ . i never thought of asking you this .. but how do athiests go on living when like.. it doesn't even matter ... i think i would just sit there and starve to death or something... because everything you do dissapears as soon as you die .. no matter what you do and the best thing you can hope for is like a lot of money or a nice wife or something.. and you can still lose your money and or your wife :/ and (stuff) all of it in general can rust or be stolen.

The worst part must be like if there were a god . .you still don't get to live forever O__o. Maybe it's because i think of death a lot that i don't understand.

Please don't take this offensively , i've just always been religious and i don't really understand it.

---

.else /me ~kill you
www.arclan.net

Its a bit disturbing reading your last reply 'Keet.

I am a bit uncomfortable contemplating someone who'd kill themselves if they were suddenly faced with the truth about God... Or the lack of one.

I am not saying there is or isn't one but the thought of you ending it all because he was missing is upsetting.

---

The best things in life, aren't things.

Some people (such as Parakeet here) need religion. Others (such as Orpheus) dont. I've heard of studies isolating areas of the brain associated with religion, I can't quote them directly but I beleive the studies did show that there is a physiological difference between those who are strongly religious and those who are not. I doubt either group will be able to fully understand why the other does/does not need that beleif in a higher power to function. I am strongly atheist, and I have many friends who are strongly christian/muslim. I could never go to church every sunday, or pray every night, but I accept that some people need that like diabetics need insulin.

---

"If you talk at all during this lesson, you have detention. Do you understand?"

• My yr11 Economics teacher

parakeet said:
yeah , i can understand yeh're position there :/ . i never thought of asking you this .. but how do athiests go on living when like.. it doesn't even matter ... [...] because everything you do dissapears as soon as you die ..

This life is a great opportunity. Think of all the things you can do, see, discover. If I die I'm not gone forever. I'm a little part of history. I was a link in this society. I created things, I made people laugh or called their attention to something that at one point maybe changed the way they look at life. I hope to have children someday. Grandchildren.

And most importantly I was in the exclusive club of beings that know there is such a thing as mankind. And I'm part of it's development... forever.

The idea that the thought of an afterlife is the only thing that motivates me is a bit distrubing to me, too. For me it's very comforting to think of all the other people that will continue building this world for a long time. I'm just a committed visitor for statistically 75 years.

It's true! There are a total of 23 churches in a local town of 2100 people. 'As for crosses on every hilltop,' I'm not sure exactly what that means. Anyway some of these churches in this town have only 10 people going to them. Some have none. That's religious freedom for you. If you support a right to atheism, why not a right to have a church on private land? If you support a right to own loud negro-stereo systems, why not some church bells that are not so offensive as "puff daddy?"

I don't know about your brother, Orpheus, but it seems that he is just another thing that is causing you to be bitter about religion in general. "Man, there's crosses everywhere." (I'm so glad you're not a vampire...) "My brother just won't shut up." It just sounds like you are mad at Christianity. I actually had a brother who was on drugs too, he stopped being a Christian so he could use drugs. He didn't like being told what to do.

As for my "propaganda theory:"

There are numerous ways in which Christians are made to look bad.

• we oppose the homosexual lifestyle, so we are "haters."
• We oppose abortion, but the media says we oppose "a right to choose" (makes it seem like a dictator.)
• Ned Flanders is a doofus
• Everyone associates us with THIS lady. http://media.putfile.com/Lady-Goes-Crazy-on-Trading-Spouses
• On NBC's TV show "the book of daniel." The children raised in the christian home are drug addicts and lechers.
• much more, but i gotta start working now.... more later...

---

I tried sniffing coke, but the ice cubes kept getting stuck in my nose.
http://www.dimebowl.com

• Everyone associates us with THIS lady. http://media.putfile.com/Lady-Goes-Crazy-on-Trading-Spouses

/Adopts Lenin voice

<span style="color: lightblue;">Stupid americans, hasn't anyone ever told you God doesn't exist? :heee:

TBH I think she was acting.

</span>

If you support a right to atheism, why not a right to have a church on private land? If you support a right to own loud negro-stereo systems, why not some church bells that are not so offensive as "puff daddy?"

There's a law against loud music (Disturbing the peace). I do not support the right of it.

The phrase "a right to atheism" makes me think. I never liked using the word "atheism" or "atheist". It's not an ism. It's the lack of an ism. Like "a-existentialism" or "a-dadaism". Atheism is like the neutral ground to which all religions add something.

Isms are so often extremisms (Islamism, Fanatism, ect.) noone speaks of theism or christianism. Atheism never downgrades Theism. When we criticise something we have proof that it's wrong. When we say that the earth must travel around the sun we don't do it because we believe it or because it means a lot to us, no we do it because the way the stars and sun move in the sky makes it obvious math. We don't even say that evolution can be proved because it goes over billions of years. We just say it's a very valuable theory without a proper counter-theory. There is no such thing as Atheism. It's just the lack of Theism. There's just a word for it because of the many theists. But the only reason the phrase actually exists is because there is theism.

Atheism is completely neutral and doesn't require any "right" to it. It's reasoning in it's purest form. You can't fight it with law or science, only with an irrefutable proof for God (and I think we both agree that there is none). We atheists only define ourselves through the fact that we don't believe in God. There is no ideology, no movement involved. Even Buddhists are atheists!

As for my "propaganda theory:"
There are numerous ways in which Christians are made to look bad.

• we oppose the homosexual lifestyle, so we are "haters."

I think you are. Because obviously there are homosexuals who cannot change their sexuality by turning a switch. It's like "opposing" infertility. You don't even identify the fact that you do oppose it as propaganda, only the criticism which I find surprising. But we already discussed this topic to death in "the other thread".

• Ned Flanders is a doofus

He is. Is he representative for a majority of Christians? I think not.

[*] Everyone associates us with THIS lady. http://media.putfile.com/Lady-Goes-Crazy-on-Trading-Spouses
[*] On NBC's TV show "the book of daniel." The children raised in the christian home are drug addicts and lechers.
[*] much more, but i gotta start working now.... more later...[/list]

Christians aren't the only ones being used for prepared TV scandals. It just was a "taboo" a few years ago. And I think most haven't learned to live with it.

If the reports about Creationisms I've seen (they were dry, German fact-checked documentaries) are just the tip of the iceberg it's still shocking and extreme. The amount of energy and stubborness involved in using science to prove believe is disturbing. I'm not talking about characters in fictional TV shows here. I'm talking about people with acted grins on their faces hiding a deeper bitterness and dependence on something that opposes any logic. Those people don't know how to give up. And that's not just a phrase, I think they have an psychological problem with it.

To make it clear I don't think you are a Creationist, Nickelplate. Very religious but a thousand times more reasonable then the people I criticise here. This is an example for where I think believe can lead to something negative. For why it's important to discuss these things and ask certain questions.

PS: wtf, did I just type all this? :rolleyes:

There is a major and distinct difference between "Hate" and "Saturated" Nickel.

I hate so few things in this life. Religion and Homo's are not among them however.

I am negative toward each, both for similar reasons but I do not hate.

I am just completely tired of each topic.

I wanna talk about things I like. A really firm breast, or small circumference vagina perhaps, but lets leave the religion and homosexual for 2007 or 2008 cause I am full of both topics.

---

The best things in life, aren't things.

Orpheus said:
I am just completely tired of each topic.

lets leave the religion and homosexual for 2007 or 2008 cause I am full of both topics.

if people want to discuss things then it's up to them, no? you're not obligated to participate in debates. + everyone knows your opinion on those topics anyway. If you don't want to participate in a topic, just skip it :wink:

---

These words are my diaries screaming out loud

I can see it now, on Jan. 1st 2007, Orph'll make two threads.

'Homosexuality debate 2007'
'Religion debate 2007'

It'll be just like this.

BlisTer said:
if people want to discuss things then it's up to them, no? you're not obligated to participate in debates. + everyone knows your opinion on those topics anyway. If you don't want to participate in a topic, just skip it :wink:

There is a whole plethora of topics I'd discuss that would prolly curl your toes. The point isn't freedom restriction but more a point of giving a topic time to cure a bit. Those two topics have been discussed more often than R_Speeds has, and everyone will admit that R_Speeds is a bit more important than they are.

I could abstain. I would more expect everyone else to abstain first however since, discussing it further will not advance the topics. However, abstaining could advance moral around here since I am pretty sure that I am not the only person tired of seeing those two topics arise.

I refuse to put it to a vote of any other democratic option since merely asking should by rights be enough to get everyone to avoid the topic for at least a little while.

Then again, perhaps not. But I warn you, I will indeed bring up a topic that will disrupt this site if I continue to be forced to endure these topics. Even if I have to invent it. :/

I dunno if any of the rest of you have noticed but, this site is in pain. It is in desperate need of something fresh to discuss. I fear that the current topics are driving people away nearly as fast as one of the other sites with nothing but children posting. Each atmosphere is detrimental to the health of any site.

This site is made up of nearly 100% mature posting active members. Lets try to find something else before we too fall into the category of "Sites best avoided"
I am not disrespecting you Blister, but I am indeed tired of these two topics and I will disrupt them completely if they do not end soon. With any methods I see fit to disrupt them with.

---

The best things in life, aren't things.

while you try to steer clear of it, this leans toward a totalitarian attitude, and exactly freedom restriction.

now don't get me wrong, i'm not all excited when i see topics emerging about religion or homos, but the difference between me and you is that i just skip it, and you feel obligated to have your say. and you are tired of repeating it over and over (which i can imagine).

now your argument that these kind of topics harm snarkpit and scare away people.. first of all, if it's true it will only scare away people that think of it as a needle in their eye, and not people who can easily skip the topic like me. Second, is it true? Topics don't emerge because someone wants to harm snarkpit, they emerge because someone wants to share a thought and hear other peoples opinions. It's what lives in the community, especially if there are many replies like in this one. So on what facts are you basing your theory that people go away because of these kinds of topics. People that dont like these topics can simply start other kinds of topics, no? or why don't they? It's not a zero-sum game. It's not because this topic is posted that another topic will not be posted. So there is no point in banning it either, it will not bring extra topics that you like, it will just bring silence or trivial topics.

If topics hold no value, they will bleed to death and go away automatically.

---

These words are my diaries screaming out loud

I am also bored stiff of homosexuality/religion/drugs/guns other
"moral" questions being discussed. I'm all for debates, but let's make
them relevant to todays news, at least. Todays world, whatever.

Orph - you don't have to participate in a discussion that doesn't
interest you - you are not obliged to post all the time.. Thats why
my posting rate has gone down tenfold. I don't think any of these
topics are particularly exciting as i've seen them all before and it's
90% arguments based on personal ideals, hearsay and Wikipedia.

So I don't contribute. Simple as that.

The way I see it, and this may only be my belief:

If everyone feels compelled to "avoid" posting, why bother coming here? There are an unlimited number of topics. We can avoid 99% of them and still have so many to debate that our lives can be full and fruitful.

Ask yourselves this, "Why are we seemingly compelled to talk about just these two topics predominantly?"

Yes, I can abstain, but I won't. You know I won't, and I know I won't. So the question remains, What will I do and what will you compel me to do?

I can, and most likely use humor to disrupt the flow of the conversation. Then I will try more intrusive methods. In the end, we will find something amongst the garbage to debate that isn't about those two topics.

The thing that you guys seem to not grasp is, if someone can "talk" about topics, someone else is free to talk about it in a disruptive fashion... Sadly, freedom works both ways. It pains me to say that but, freedom works only when everyone can employ it. Even when the party involved... Doesn't want to.

Right this moment, I am wondering who will make me the bad person again.

---

The best things in life, aren't things.

I looked up "really firm breast" on Wikipedia and it said that God created the earth in 6 days then breasted on the 7th. I think that is where they came from.

About the people who "try so hard to make creationism work:" Why the heck not? If you thought that ANYTHING else was the truth would you not do experiments to try to prove it? If religion is nothing more than a personal hypothesis on life, why deny them the scientific method?

About homosexuality, I'm not gonna say much coz it starts crap, but you can't compare it to infertility. while it DOES kinda lend itself to a no-children atmosphere, homosexuality is different from infertility in that homosexcuality is a feeling that CAN be supressed or changed (just like straight guys who turn gay, i'm sure it can work the other way; and many people go thier whole lives without heterosexual relations as well.) We view it like pyromania, you dont HAVE to light things on fire, you just WANT to.

I agree with you reaper: Atheism is a lack of ISM, but if that is so, why do people claim it under the "freedom of religion" part of the constitution. It's NOT a religion, its a lack thereof, and thus is not covered in "freedom of."

Also, reaper, I know there are LOTS of crazy christians who are stupid and stuff, but why do we have to choose THOSE to represent thw whole group? Can you name ONE living, internationally renowned Christian, who is famous for his Christianity?

I say let's dicuss something different. this topic was GREAT. because I finally outlined my beliefs so that all my other replies can be understandable to those who don't know the logic behind my beliefs. But anything else would be good to talk about too.

---

I tried sniffing coke, but the ice cubes kept getting stuck in my nose.
http://www.dimebowl.com

Orpheus said:
Ask yourselves this, "Why are we seemingly compelled to talk about just these two topics predominantly?"

who do you mean by "we" ? a lot of members aren't posting in those topics. does that mean the people posting in them are less mature than the ones not posting in them? no, it just means they're still searching for other opinions and visions. and the ones that feel *obligated* to participate are the ones that want to reach them those opinions. no harm in that, but if you're tired of sharing your opinions, dont close the debate all together, it can still be valuable for the ones still searching.

Orpheus said:
Yes, I can abstain, but I won't. You know I won't, and I know I won't. So the question remains, What will I do and what will you compel me to do?

I can, and most likely use humor to disrupt the flow of the conversation. Then I will try more intrusive methods. In the end, we will find something amongst the garbage to debate that isn't about those two topics.

i'm sorry but this just reminds me of a kid on the playground that wants to play his game, but the other kids are playing another game, so he joins them, boycots their game, so they have to play his game.

Orpheus said:
Right this moment, I am wondering who will make me the bad person again.

a pro-active selfdefense mechanism? :razz:

---

These words are my diaries screaming out loud

lol, BlistEr

We discuss these two topics (mainly religion) because it effects EVERY part of our lives and effects every decision we make as well as every opinion we have.

---

I tried sniffing coke, but the ice cubes kept getting stuck in my nose.
http://www.dimebowl.com

Allow me to quantify something Blister.(assuming I can even apply the word to myself). "Remember who you are addressing when forming a reply"

I am one of the very few here who thinks "ANY" topic is an open topic. The problem with this site is, it wants to allow topics but they never seem to want to allow them to run their course and DIE!

The reason religion and homosexuality continuously arise is because both sides of the discussion are never allowed to finish.

If people here would discuss things to the end, even if that end is a disgusting one then less topics would re-emerge.

What strikes me as funny is that you can think me a child on a playground, yet you cannot see how immature it is to repeatedly beat a dead horse. Only children "avoid" things in life that they feel are unsavory... At least children are the only ones who avoid things that they have control enough to alter. Adults avoid too, but in most cases its more self preservation.. I avoid speed traps because I know for a fact why they are there and I cannot afford to sponsor some cops children through college. (poor example, but the best I can come up with this close to bedtime)

In the end, you need to understand that being free can mean avoiding, or choosing not to. Even if the result of not avoiding... Goes up in smoke.

---

The best things in life, aren't things.

Anyone else feel that the topic has seemed to change?

Maybe the reason discussions never die out, is because the topics become changed before everyone's done?

---

Dark_Kilauea
DVS Administration
http://www.dvstudio-production.com/

Dark_Kilauea said:
Anyone else feel that the topic has seemed to change?

Maybe the reason discussions never die out, is because the topics become changed before everyone's done?

Read the heading. Then read the flow of the content. It changed pages ago.

However, not wanting to hear about it anymore can be considered "Back on topic"... or not.

The point is, the thread was used as another excuse to promote, instead of only to say "I don't".

See, we have had umpteen thousand threads about the virtues of religion, yet this one about not believing was ... Well, it didn't remain about not believing.

/sighing

---

The best things in life, aren't things.

To be honest, Orpheus, I thought the thread was pretty much on topic till the end. People explaining why they don't believe, people saying they couldn't imagine a life without, God-proving theory and the fanatism it involves, reasons for why people believe in god. I thought it was pretty interesting.

Anyway, I'm outta here.

Orpheus said:
...have control enough to alter...

as illustrated, if a topic is valuable for atleast 1 respected member, then who are we to alter/ban that topic out of personal preference

---

These words are my diaries screaming out loud

If you don't want to talk about something, and don't have the will
power to follow through I would classify that as a personal problem.

but I don't want to give anyone the satisfaction of derailing this otherwise interesting thread and I beg others who care/don't care to respect the community as a whole by keeping "on topic."

I'll call myself an Atheist. I do this because what seems to
stone wall most debate in the real world is people's overanalyse of
nouns and adjectives. For instance, nickel calls himself a
Christan, but backs it up with a detailed example of what it is to be a
Christan (in his opinion). What tends to happen is the word
"christian" is picked apart rather than his interpretation of
this. [I use nickel in a hypothetical example]

On that note; how do I go on through life without a "goal" like god or
afterlife? Well I do have a goal, and I feel that most people, if
not everyone has goals. If your goal is to live a life fit for
the afterlife or make a million dollars, its all the same kind of long
term goal. With out a goal in life there isn't much to live
for. For some, I suppose, the goal is just to live till tomorrow.

My goal is to understand this world with 100% accuracy. The best
way to do that is live for a long time, collect evidence, figure it all
out. To live a long time I need not to die, so I try not to die
everyday. To collect evidence I experience life. Again
something I try and do everyday.

ya know, in fact... I have the opposite view on "will to live" I see
the religious and think "why would they care about staying alive?" If I
knew there was a really nice afterlife god knows I'd be running around
risking my life (far more than I already do) because I'd have a soft
place to go if I died.

DrGlass said:
My goal is to understand this world with 100% accuracy.

May you reach your goal. And may nothing be as it now seems.

---

I tried sniffing coke, but the ice cubes kept getting stuck in my nose.
http://www.dimebowl.com

Ok, I really don't have time to read the remaining page and a half of
large posts, because i need to go to the dentist soon. I just
want to say why I believe in God, and also why I believe religion is
private/personal/subjective/etc.

Here's a paraphrase for CS Lewis, the theologian and author.

"What makes us do what we are doing
today? What we did yesterday. Events are caused by events,
which are caused by events, which are caused by events. But what
caused the first event?"

---

Also change the texture of the dock. Docks are rarely tile. -Facepunch
As I Lay Dying

A giant ball of gas and dust.

...and what caused the giant ball of gas and dust...? :biggrin:

This process could go on for some time...

---

My site

? posted by Loco

...and what caused the giant ball of gas and dust...? :biggrin:

Aye! theres the rub!. It's either by design or purely coincidental that we dont have a tangible starting point. Given our history, what would we as a race do with the answer to the great why?

The chicken or the egg?

Go figure.

Maybe God does have a sense of humor, or maybe it's just us.

Maybe the universe is automatic, and as a result we, as humans, find irony and purpose in the most basic of un-answered questions, as is natures design.

People mingle this most sought after event with religion and say it's "faith" that fills in the gap.

Scientists discover this most undiscoverable moment and say "The answers out there, just give us time."

Either way it's faith you see.

Faith in knowing that events cause events, this is a given.

Human nature is a given,(although wholy unrecognized by most humans with regaurd to their behaviour......more irony).

In my opinion, your best bet is to be the best kind of person you know how to be. This will insure your having the most of a go at life. God may be there, or may not. Your beliefs should not infringe upon anothers basic rights. The way I see it, if you believe or don't, according to christian doctrine, the life you've lived will determine your afterlife.

P.S. I am the son of a minister...more irony?.

Go figure.

God does have a sense of humor... have you seen what French Toast looks like IRL? (jk)

But in all seriousness, Juim. How do you figure that your actions determine your afterlife? One of the whole points of Christianity is that "I am the way, the truth, and the Light; No one comes to the father except through me." (Jesus said that) and that we cannot be saved by works alone, but by faith.

I'd like to know what makes you think that, If you don't mind sharing.

---

I tried sniffing coke, but the ice cubes kept getting stuck in my nose.
http://www.dimebowl.com

Being a more learned Catholic, I know of a lesser-known tenent of
Catholic doctrine: baptism by desire. In layman's terms, it means
that if you are unaware of God, but if you had been aware of him, you
would've been a full-fledged believer, you're still in the running for
heaven. People raised as athiests or who became athiests later
because of any reason involving misinformation aren't secluded from
heaven, if they are truly good people, what (G)god wouldn't let them in?

Common example: if (insert religion here) is universal, and anyone can
be saved through it, how does that help bands of people who can't come
into contact with it? How could natives living in the Americas go
to heaven without christianity, islam, buddhism, whatever?
Baptism by desire.

You don't necessarily need faith to be worthy of heaven.

---

Also change the texture of the dock. Docks are rarely tile. -Facepunch
As I Lay Dying