This is Why you attack Religion!!

Exactly. Religious or not... there is no justifying the shuttered view of people like Paul Broun.

People ought to vote FAR AWAY and HARD AGAINST politicians who think as he does.

Paul Broun is dangerous, because he is nutz. It is as clear as that.

And if people are smarter than I believe they are... they won't keep fueling such craziness by voting for Republicans who are religious zealots.

 

If they believe in ghosts they are not atheists.

 

Valid Point Daggdad.
Religious belief sowed the seed for our current problems.
And, religion is a human attempt to hide from the God of our Declaration of Independence, "nature's God". Religion is the worship of self, the ego, society, and we call it God or G-d etc.

Instead of religion, we should have the "Weightier Matters of the Law" as the foundation for our society. Those weightier matters are Truth, Mercy and Faith.
Religion keeps up from putting those matters into our minds, hearts and actions.

 

. The Reptilians Sect. LOL. In Spain there is a "famous" blogger that defends that and other conspiranoias(conspiracy + paranoia)

 

I love talking to the dude. He used to belong to a cult in Georgia that Wesley Snipes belonged to that worships pyramids and stuff like that...I could listen to him talk all day. I bought Chinese food one time and we sat there and he was telling me about how I was part of the "Righteous 5%" of all whites who didn't suck and that someday a reckoning would come and all the rest of you guys would be killed, but he has the hookup for me.

 

Judging from kilgram's avatar I have to suspect he's not far removed from the Reptilian hypothocateurs he mentioned.

 

I understood your point, but deliberatley side stepped it.


Of course we have to enforce some morality. Otherwise we simply have anarchy. ANY law is an attempt at thursting a moral implication upon someone. I think for example, we can all agree that murder is wrong, and should be illegal. I dont need a bible to tell me that. Humans are generally empathic creatures.

The difference is how that morality is derived. And just "god says so" is not, and never will be, a good enough reason. At least not for me.



As for the last part of that. Does government have to do everything? Of course not. But when I send my child to a PUBLIC school, I expect them to be taught things that are rooted in science, math, history. Not the bible. And I expect the government AND the public school system to be 100% neutral regarding religion. It should do its best to teach math, history, science, as best as we understand those things.

If you want you child to learn about god, that shuld be for you to teach at home, or in Sunday school. It has no bearing in a public school where many children of many different faiths gather to learn.

 

That, and they're thoroughly confused.

 

Why? Why not simply adhere to the Non-Aggression Principle?

This is all over the place. First, anarchy and chaos are not the same thing. I imagine you mean "chaos" and I disagree with you on that point. Simply agreeing to non-aggression principles would prevent murder and keep everyone's "morals" within their home and community.

Why do you believe that religionists are the only ones attempting to place their morals on us? Is not "political correctness" a type of morals? Is not Affirmative Action an enforcement of secular morals? The soda ban in NYC...the War on Fat...the War on Drugs...the War on Poverty--all of these are moral movements by someone's standard.

Oh sure, but we're also graduating kids with a middle school reading level as our majority, so I highly doubt they are absorbing evolutionary theory while there.

Except that there are big words in the Bible and (again) I have my doubts that kids whose reading level is at 5th grade are heavy into a tome that thick.

I agree...too bad they aren't.

Uh-huh. Agreed.

 

Proof of Heaven: A Doctor’s Experience With the Afterlife ...

www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/10/07/proof-of-heaven-a-doctor...

Oct 07, 2012 · When a neurosurgeon found himself in a coma ... death, and I had always believed there ... His book, Proof of Heaven: A Neurosurgeon's Journey into the Afterlife ...

 

http://cdn.thedailybeast.com/content/dam/site/dailybeast/topic/books.png.dimg.png/37116a0-http://cdn.thedailybeast.com/content/dam/site/dailybeast/topic/books.png.dimg.png/37116a0-

 

I enjoy reading all the opinions and there are some good ones. I have a Jehovahno church down the street and they are always stopping by, I invite them in, listen to them, and take all their literature. I would never want to offend any of them. Religion is not part of my life, I don't know or care if there is a god or heaven or afterlife or whatever. It simply does not enter into my thought process. When it comes into Government, being the yahoo in the OP vid or Bachmann or whomever, it sets me off and I will not tolerate someone preaching out of a holy book to others from an elected position.

 

Hmm, so you don't like the whole freedom of religion and speech thing...check...

 

And your belief in secular humanism would effect your voting and decision making if you were in congress. These beliefs are offensive to me. I see them destroying this country that was founded on godly principles. However, if the people voted you in, they have a right to be represented.

 

This is how I feel about homosexuals. A US Congressperson who believes that sexual attraction/fulfillment with a member of the SAME SEX is an acceptable condition-- this person votes on legislation which affects our lives and he/she believes this?? IMO, people who vote on legislation should have good judgement.

So, I know where you're comin' from on the 9000 year thing.

 

I think she's crazy, but the aliens thing? That's a bipartisan (and mostly harmless) crazy. Now, if she were advocating legislature that was gaining traction on a local and state level already pertaining to this insane belief, I would make an issue of it with her. If that issue was predominately advocated by her party, I'd take an issue with that party. The reason I care about, say, creationists in congress, and not natural health nuts in congress, is because the natural health nuts stay well away from policy. You don't have congressmen clamoring to get the MMR vaccine banned; you do have them clamoring to refer to creationism as science.

Oh for god's sake, I get enough of this no true Scotsman crap from theists. If they believe in ghosts, they are probably not naturalists, and may be substance dualists, but neither of those positions (nor any other position having to do with ghosts or the spirit and not with god) makes someone not an atheist. It's perfectly possible to believe in ghosts and not believe in god. Atheism is not code word for "Skeptical Rationalist" or "Secular Humanist". All it means is that they don't believe in god. It certainly doesn't exclude the supernatural altogether.

Do you understand the difference between a belief and an epistemology? Because they're two very different beasts. Furthermore, you do realize that the US is a secular democracy, with that particular value enshrined in the constitution with the only other mention of religion from the founder's legislature being one of equality? But stepping back for a moment and getting to the core of your argument, you're making a huge false equivalence here: that somehow secular law, which encompasses, well, all law that isn't religious in nature, is equivalent to religious law. I mean, really, what has attacked your faith? Any bills in the last years that have attacked your faith which haven't been 100% based on facts and evidence? Anything at all? And at the same time, we've had encroaching religion. People pushing creationism into science classes. Increasing reduction of abortion rights to the point where Kansas has literally 1 abortion clinic in the whole state. Trying to ban a private property owner from building a mosque because it was within a few blocks of Manhattan. See the problems here?

 

Hey, I have a great idea! Let's take a moral value judgment that everything in modern ethics and psychology deems completely false and compare it to a claim which has been proven wrong so many times that anyone still making it is liable to be mentally handicapped! That's totally fair! Take that homophobic crap and stuff it up your rectal cavity.

 

People who believe in God, believe a lot of crazy things, but believing in God itself is not a crazy thing, it is just an acknowledgement of the obvious.

To believe there is no God, signals insanity.

To believe that it is impossible to know if there's a God, signals at least an apparent lack of good logic. (if man exists, and God exists, why wouldn't man be able to learn of the most all-encompassing thing (God) in the entire universe?

To believe that God exists is rational, but is often accompanied by conclusion drawn by those whose understanding tries makes God man-like, such as in trying to justify that God needs to test man, that God would punish man, that God would allow pain, etc. By believing that the universe is 6000 or 9000 years old, etc.

 

If you want to boink your same sex partner, go ahead. It's your "choice".

But if you try to convince me that that is a 'normal' or 'natural' choice, I'm going to refute you and tell you to leave me out of your "sex" life.

If you have nothing to justify, then stop trying to prove that you're justified.

 

Okay, but first you must stop assuming that homosexuality is 'okay'. That is standing in your way.

By the way, 'crap' BELONGS in the rectal cavity, at least before it's expelled.

And if you're going to insist that I put something there, then you should appreciate that I'm not gay, because if I were, there might be something in that cavity already which might be a positive hindrance to stuffing anything of YOUR suggestion up there.

Give it up dude. You WANT homosexuality to be 'okay', so you assume it is, and then fit all kinds of 'evidence' to suit your assumption. And you still can't explain why evolution bothered to make TWO sexes necessary for procreation, when it could have just as easily used ONE (as it did with some other organisms).

 

Your making me laugh, thanks for that. It is not the same. We can both come to the logical conclusion about the 9,000 years but it ends there. I fail to see how gays and lesbians having the same rights as heterosexuals effects my life or my marriage, but that would be a discussion for a different thread.

 

It is not obvious that a or multiple gods exist at all, nor is their nature privy to us. It is impossible to know if there's a god due to the nature of supernatural claims and the fact that god supposedly exists in a state and realm completely beyond our understanding. To believe that god exists is not rational, as it is never based on a rational argument that holds water.

Your statements about homosexuality bely your ignorance and hate. I welcome you to compare your statements to those about interracial couples and even black couples 50-100 years ago. It might be a bit of an eye-opener.

 

No, that is a reason to attack the religious right with the reality of the separation of church and state in the US. That is not a reason to attack religion. In the US people have freedom of religion and if you agree with living in a free, democratic society, you respect that.

Both Broun and your post are an affront on the values this country was built on.

My sexuality doesn't affect my politics and it shouldn't affect yours either. Discriminating against someone on the basis of their sexuality and insinuating that it affects their ability to do their job well is akin to discriminating against Romney on the basis of his religion rather than on his policy. Its stupid, its anti-American, and its weak.