Forum: Story Discussion and Feedback

In the case I link to (yes I read three or four media reports on it first) the clerk was wrong and her management should simply have directed her to issue the licences or remove her from the office for refusing to do her work in accordance with the law. But no, the people she upset went to get a court order and make it a media issue instead of going to her bosses and complaining.

She's an elected official. She doesn't have "a boss."

Plus, what's the problem with going to the courts to enforce your rights, anyway? Asserting otherwise reminds me of comments from the seventies about "women's libbers": How come they're so rude! What bitches! They should just ask politely ... and so on.

I think Martin Luther King, Jr. didn't protest quietly, if I remember correctly. For good reason.

Plus, what's the problem with going to the courts to enforce your rights, anyway?

It should be as a last resort, not the first.

As it is, in the article I read, she was instructed by her superior(s) to do as instructed, and refused. That's when it went to court.

And if impeachment is needed, then her boss should've started the process.

Yes, impeachment is needed and it is rather unlikely that the process can be started by anyone who is not a member of the Kentucky state legislature can start that process.

PS. The Kentucky state legislature is out of session at the moment, and the governor has explicitly refused to call an emergency session to handle an impeachment.

Yes, she does have a boss - the mayor or councillors etc who are the local equivalent of mayor etc that run the local government.

She is the County Clerk, not a city Clerk.

Government doesn't work the way you think it does. Despite working in the same government, independently elected officials are generally not directly answerable to any other government official.

The only government entity that can forcibly remove her from office is the Kentucky state legislature.

But all have someone they are responsible to

Not true at all. The mayor of a city for example is not answerable(in the way you are thinking) to anyone but the voters.


For all intents and purposes, the county clerks office is a completely separate and independent branch of the county government. The county clerk is the highest ranking official in the clerks office which is why that position is elected.

The only entity that can outright fire Kim Davis is the Kentucky state legislature. There is no single official with the power to do that.

Then the complaint should have gone to the Kentucky legislature first, to have her recalled.

I suppose so, but the problem here is that the Kentucky state legislature is in recess and will be for several months. The governor would have the power to call a special session, but has already ruled out doing so just to impeach Kim Davis.

The ultimate "head honcho" is the Kentucky electorate, but, barring a special election or a recall, they won't have a formal say until her term is up (the U.S. system doesn't have votes of confidence). The state legislature could impeach her, but, based on polls, they won't, because they agree with her. That leaves the current situation with her serving a renewable 30 day jail sentence, till she either declares that she'll do her job, or her term expires, whichever comes first, on a charge of Contempt of Court.

I agree, but they are in recess at the moment, and will be for several months yet, and the Governor, the only one with the power to call a special session has already ruled out doing so for the purpose of impeaching her.

What's more, she only ran for the position after her husband died in office, so it was more of a 'sympathy' vote.

Um, in the NY Times article linked in the original post, her husband was among the demonstrators outside the courthouse. Quoted as calling the judge a butt. Did she remarry?

"I also expect to see someone going to court soon when a minister of religion refuses to conduct a same sex marriage, despite the people getting married being able to get any judge etc to do it."

Churches and ministers of religion are exempt from this law. There is no requirement for a minister to marry anyone the minister objects to. No Catholic priest is going to marry a divorced person. No rabbi is going to be obligated to marry two Christians.

The law applies specifically to marriages performed by civil authorities. Plus, of course, you need a license to have your marriage recognized by the state.

All I know about the US legislation is what's been in the media and that one state where they've allowed same sex marriage for some time and a church was taken to court for not letting a same sex couple hold a wedding and reception on church grounds some years back.

Unlikely. Either you are misremembering or the article was wrong. But if you can give us a link or citation we can take another look.

There is a grey area-and it's a large one-where a religious organization also operates a non-religious activity: hospital, hotel, meeting area, restaurant, etc., and then the argument becomes whether the activity in question is "religious" or not, i.e., whether it's a "public accommodation" like a hotel or eatery that is not permitted to discriminate.

But the law and practice are pretty clear where we're talking about a church (or tabernacle or synagogue or mosque or whatever): there is no requirement to marry anyone in violation of the tenets of the faith. Nor is there any obligation to rent out the sacred space to persons who might engage in activities that violate the tenets of the faith.

A property owned by the Methodist Church group Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association in Ocean Grove, New Jersey, has a Boardwalk Pavilion owned and maintained by the OCGMA. In 2007 they refused same sex couples from having wedding receptions there and the couples took them to court for refusing them the use of the church owned property.

Right. See my post above where I pointed out that there is a gray area (meaning a disputed one) where the issue is an activity or locale owned by the church that is offered to the public as a venue for events. Such a locale is *not* a sanctuary, and there is no requirement for a church to permit the use of its sanctuary (for lack of a better term) for religious or other rites it does not approve of.

Your example does not cite a church being required to perform a religious ceremony for persons they deem unworthy. It discusses the use of what is in effect a public accommodation (as that term is used in U.S. civil rights law), not the use of the church or the performance of a religious rite.

thus it comes down to a matter of whose civil rights are the most important - the property owner who pays taxes or some noisy activist?

You mean noisy activists like Martin Luther King, Jr.? Or Rosa Parks? Susan B. Anthony? Pesky folks, those activists. They should just keep their mouths shut, right?

Funny how some Christians are painting themselves as victims when they aren't allowed to discriminate. Please note I said *some* Christians. The churches my family attended believed and acted differently.

In effect, the issue over the public space is exactly analogous to the baker or florist who won't provide service to a same-sex wedding. Just exactly like those who wouldn't serve African Americans. No longer allowed to discriminate.

Oh, and you have to pay taxes before you have civil rights? Well, we know justice is different for the rich than it is for the poor, no question, but here's what it boils down to: your civil rights end when they infringe significantly on someone else's. That's the long and the short of it. Where that point happens is a subject under vigorous debate.

Everyone should have the same rights, but no group should have the right to force their ideas on another

Well, the reality is the sometimes there's a conflict, and some rights take precedence over others, and in the U.S. that's what courts are for-to resolve that conflict.

For myself, I think I'll leave this discussion at that.

Cheers,
bb

C

"In The Wake Of Pigs"

It makes me sick that it's hard to distinguish,
An honest leader who preaches a cause;
That's not made, and not based,
On the profit they'll receive from telling the world.

What line divides you from the seeders,
Who sow without growing believers?
You point and you judge,
Forgetting that their faith is molded by your lead.

So where am I to find,
A voice that's pure and urging me to climb?
There's gotta be more, there's gotta be peace!
I've joined them and clawed at that ground for my feed!
I've seen bloodshed but the wounds still remain!
I left, I fled, I called, I cursed!
I chased from certain to searching!
But nothing has answered deserving faith.

The point I've tried to make was how organized religion has blinded humanity from the start and by your response , I've failed. You however did not address anything I have tried to convey, but chose to call me a Nazi. So much for the open mind. I was not pushing my views, simply stated the facts of the energy and the power church had over masses throughout centuries. And, I am glad that they are loosing ground more and more as the science marches on. Sure thing, science can not and will not have the answers for all the questions. But, imagine for a second, where would humanity be if we never asked and questioned the certainty the religion teaches? Back in the caves. Nobody can stop you to believe in whatever you choose to: gnomes, unicorns, gargoyles and such. If one chooses to surrender their basic faculties and follows the myths of bronze age goat herders is their business, but danger to the rest of us is that many of them have their finger on the button and can blow us all up any time they choose. Or, because some believed not so long ago that god was on their side when they flew planes into towers in New York. Anyhow, just few thoughts of an individual who will not buy into that racket.

Well Sir, we are at the odds still I'm afraid. It seems I have poked into a sore place in your psyche, the result being your terse response. If I did belong to any extreme wing I would have not be trying to debate with you. It is not my intention to anger you but my stance on religion throughout short history is making you uneasy. I therefore conclude that, even though you have sited a long list of extremisms you object to and dislike, religion or rather your faith in supernatural can not be a subject for discussion. This thread started with a premise of a possible increase in law suits regarding same sex marriage and degraded to where we are. My assertion was and still is, the objection to it stems from religious dogma. Judging by resent revelations (pun intended) Catholic priests were excluded from homosexuality and rape of children. Just one example of insidious nature of power some have usurped in the name of the cloth they have as a protection. As for fanatical atheist, there is no such a word, I will look it up though. A definition of an atheist is someone who does not believe in a supernatural being. Full stop. But even if there is a word you used, I'll be glad to be branded as being one, based on, if nothing else, on the rich history of religious hordes roaming the Europe for centuries. Now we are witnessing Islam on the march where we all are trembling at the possibilities of a state of theirs acquiring a thermo-nuclear weapon. So if I'm right about your religiosity, by all means pray to whichever deity you choose, but do not try to have a cake and eat it too. I'll repeat myself, one and only assertion in this exchange I make, is the evil of religion in this time we live in.

Thank you CW for you comment on my contribution on this thread. You are right in all but one point.

Atheism is NOT a religion, it is not a place where we congregate, chant the songs or confess our indiscretions to our friend upstairs, our judge, jury and the executioner, collect the money for the Pat Robertsons or Jerry Follwels of some other nut whom we blindly follow, a place where belief in rational logical and numinous is suspended and the myth of goat herding tribe of the past long forgotten let into our souls to be "saved" from the ills our supposed maker has endowed each and every one of us. We do not kneel five times a day and endlessly profess our faith and love for the one who is so good in playing seek and hide. We do not have special greetings to announce the color of the tribe we belong to, damn the others. No there is no such place.

We are everywhere and have been fighting the superstition, power and influence of those who married their faith with the law makers and politicians. And so should you. The United States of Amnesia is the only country in this world where the church is separated from the state by the law. But we need to be vigilant and fight the bustards every day.

Not long ago the rampaging horde of so called "faithful", were burning Embassies, kidnapping tourists , burned the flags of a small democracy in Europe, because, one of their newspapers printed cartoons of Muhammad. Such 'disrespect' of the prophet (no capitalisation on purpose) started an action of destruction of private and public property by
thousands of lunatics around the world, and stunned any civilised and free thinking individual. We have not recovered from it, have you noticed? But the worse thing of all, the MOST POWERFUL NATION in the world, cowered down and joined the silence and apologies to the thugs, from fear of repercussions! Not one outlet of printed media, cable canals, public TV, dared to show or print them, just to let the rest of us know what the fuss was all about. Each and every one of us knows, these individuals are enjoying freedom of expression in the West, and at the same time are oppressing the rest of us and would not be allowed to protest about ANY issue whatsoever in the countries they came from, UNLESS is to protect their religion! Shoot me if I'm wrong!

Come on ,CW,

you are smarter then that. Now we are talking about spirituality, another overrated virtue! And where did you find it? Not in your soul, your thoughts and your morning jog around a lake, but in a fucking church, UU or some-such, seeking approval with and from like-minded people, unsure of the uniqueness of your own feelings! A tribal act of a mammal I'd say. That is what it is. And it is fine, really, could not be happier for you. You are free to choose, congregate, believe or not believe, it's in The Constitution.

I NEVER questioned that and I never will!

I am "blue' in the face repeating the obvious.

The history of abuse humanity suffered,struggle to keep the church from meddling in our daily lives and the only way I know how, it is to ridicule it's stories, supposed "facts" the history of it's deeds and more importantly the present danger from the horde of lunatics we have freed from the shackles of oppression in the countries they were born. How we are being re-payed for the kindness, it is buy holding us hostage, blackmail and ever-present fear when we step outside. NO Sir, faith is not a virtue, not something to admire but the opposite. Listen carefully while a believer is professing, down the line there is a dark and dangerous detail, given the right conditions, would strike out and wreck havoc. It has happen and it will happen again.

"Ha-ha, run on sentences anyone?" I must be possessed.

Marry Webster Dictionary:

atheism

noun athe·ism ˈā-thē-ˌi-zəm

1. archaic : ungodliness, wickedness

2. a : a disbelief in the existence of deity

b : the doctrine that there is no deity

See atheism defined for kids

...the belief that there is no God

Now is that clear? IT IS NOT A RELIGION. I submit it to your perusal.

Yes, I have read your Catalyst, and your or anyones stance on religion is NOT an issue, here. All of us started this exchange from a premise or a possibility of increased court cases for a group of people trying to have what the majority enjoy. All this time we are too-ing and fro-ing because of the source of the difficulties humanity will always have. Fucking, organized , RELIGION!!!!

To think or wish to eradicate religion is silly at best. It will never happen, it should not happen or attempted to. None of us are, nor will ever be, ready to DIE! Every cell of our being wants and needs to live. Forever. That is why, psychology describes our need for everlasting existence and religion provides that to great many on this rock of ours.

The fact is that each and everyone of us has a finite days as living beings does not sit well with the majority. Hence, wishful thinking, and endless prayers to the lord.

I'll be nasty again, I just can not help myself, one can get the same result if one gets down on his/her knees in the garden and talks to a gnome!

With this, I will bow out of this discussion, thread. It has been enlightening, learned few things, confirmed many. It' time for my chem-o- therapy, and that is a bastard of thing. I'm sick afterwards for days, just to prolong the misery on this planet by a month or two. Such is will to live!

Cheers to all of you.

Just to carry a point to its extreme conclusion;

Due to the physiology of the human body, the brain has no direct access to the physical world outside of the body. The mind must accept on faith that the information transmitted by nervous system is true and accurate.

My point,based on the preceding information, is if belief in anything equates to religion, then all humans are religious based on their physiology.

I think what we have is a lack of an absolute definition of religion, assuming one would be accepted by the general population.

If I had said "direct link" I would have to agree with you. That is why I said "direct access". Perhaps I should have said "direct contact".
The brain must trust the the other components of nervous system to provide factual information. The brain is connected to the rest of the nervous system, not to the outside world.

Dear Sir,
putting a word in bold to emphasize your point is the way to do it, however, one needs to pick the right one. The operative word is "deity" not disbelief or doctrine. Grammar of English is not a trifle matter. It's admirable, sticking out for your 'beliefs' in this exchange with others. One point is glaringly obvious to an observer though, not once you addressed the points someone called "cavejug_1 was trying to raise. You were dodging the assertions by picking irrelevant points and words, never responding to the challenges directly brought up. Strange, however, understandable. Your professing and desire for fairness and equality for all, has been eroded by the very strong current of religiosity you are trying to hide.
Live long and prosper.

Well Sir,

with utmost respect, I disagree with you. Once again you are moving the goalposts of this debate.

You have made an assertion at the very top of this page, then couple of counter-claims were made by others. When I went to school 50+ years ago, the basic and essential rules of a debate or a discussion, exchange of views or whatever one wants to call it was that, a rebuttal must address the counter-claim brought up by an opponent, intent being to support and strengthen your own position, was it not, Sir?

Instead, you did not just stuck to your guns, you repeatedly asked us to go back and read your submission, as that was somehow going to clear-up your stance. I did, twice and it does NOT clear up a thing. You have broken every rule in a exchange of opinions. No debate requires a win just for sake of wining. A debate is a tool to open up to the views and thoughts of others, regardless how uncomfortable they may have been. It is not meant to be a bullying forum to drive it down for mass consumption even when an opponent strays, makes erroneous and unsubstantiated remarks. It is not meant to be a soap box to shout from. Louder you are, less and less of us will hear you.

To quote you, " I did deliberately ignore the rants against certain churches intended to start a flame war because a flame war would detract from the thread instead of adding to it." And that is for our benefit, right? How noble of you.. You Sir are dodging an issue! To discus an issue is precisely the point of a debate. You live in a country where the free speech is guaranteed in writing, are you not? But we must not insult a church or three, and there is the crucks of it. In this country you can get away with anything, just by prefacing you name with a word "Reverend". ( Read what the vile toad by the name of Jerry Fallwell said after 9/11, and you can get a glimpse of filth and bigotry from the fathful!

As a spices, humanity would not get this far if it was not for accommodating and cooperating with others, modifying our own prejudices, rules and very often, rigid and unshakable. So often with great pain and, sadly, spilled blood. Think of struggle the African-Americans went through and, if you are honest with yourself, still do, as we speak, struggle to scrape a living and have a meal every day like you or I. Or native Americans, who were slaughtered by the millions, driven from their land into the poorest and least productive reservations. We have done it, because, god was on our side. How often do you hear, openly bigoted a racist remarks even though, segregation is "behind us" and should not be brought up, today. Being silent about it, is a tacit approval. Same with the religion.

You are not throwing stones at your neighbor for mowing his/her lawn (yard) on Sundays, you do not have a slave or two in your shed, working for you around the clock or have a fit when you happen to smell fish being cooked on BBQ next door on Fridays, do you?

There was an attempt to point out difficulty gays and any other minorities have in our society. Religious dogma leads the way; like it or not that is where resistance to it is coming from and the only resort these people have are the courts. You would not address the possibility of it, let alone anything else.

Bertrand Russell said ""The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt." And that was someone we oath to take notice of, wouldn't you say?

It is a fact of life, Sir, older we get, more set and uncompromising, we become, somehow we a 'sure' life owes us something, for we are old a wise. On the contrary.

" Eyes are useless when mind is blind" late George Carlin have said. I tend to agree with him.

Hear Hear!

However,

I hate fanatics of all stripes.

-- I don't hate fanatics, just pity them, unless they are trying to impose their views on me.

The only situation where I think some should have different rights to others is that if some abrogate their responsibilities they should lose associated rights.

Dear Sir,
it is exasperating and it seems impossible to exchange an opinion with you, unless it coincides with your assertion. I happen to disagree with your stance and as such it is flatly rejected by you. No matter though, I've said what I needed to say, in my humble view, just as late Christopher Hitchens pointed out in his last contribution, before he died, to the sane and free thinkers, "God is not great_ how religion poisons everything". It is a very good read, believe it or not, so, if you 'force' yourself to see his point of view by reading it, it may broaden your horizons. I'm not holding my breath, though.

Your latest write up, stresses that discussion on religion is "out of bounce", something, you've acknowledged as an "anti-church rant" by cavejug_1, myself and, tentatively, one or two other contributors. The point being, the hassle we, as a spices, have had, that religion stifles any attempt by humanity to sideline it or remove or reduce its influence it has on our political life. This country is notoriously shackled by the so called "faith."

Having said that, I am not going to continue further then this except point up, on this page, "cavejug_1", mentioned chemotherapy, it sounded to me, he is a cancer sufferer, and in turn, that means I am not "him" as you suspect. Good day to you.

Dear Sir,
You are a waisting oxygen on this planet. Talking about stubbornness. And you do not have basic manners either. Good thing, you want be around forever.

Earnest, you're doing a piss poor job of avoiding a flame war. Just stop feeding the troll.

Thank you mate,
a new badge to pin on my chest and I'll gladly do it. Troll! Thank you. For the issue I am fighting for I'll make sure what you have given me, is very bright and always shiny.

Dear Mr Bywater,

I'm very grateful, you have provided me with entertainment out of the wast and wonderful mind of yours. Thank you. My life was so dull and empty, but now very much enriched by the quality and wisdom dripping out of every page you have so graciously gifted me with. My eternal gratitude Sir.

I really was sick and tired of drivel Spinoza, Aristotle, Socrates, just a few from the ages gone by as well as a horde of contemporaries were bombarding me with. Such persistence, logic and reason was to much for my simple mind. I can rest now, be happy, because I have you. And being a legend in your own mind, I am looking forward to your next masterpiece. It oath to be good, because I have faith.

This much for helping me to realize my idiocy.

As for my real name, NSA knows it. Ask them.

Thank you CW,

as you can see plainly, my opponent and I could not agree to disagree. Stating my opinion on my belief that the source of many prejudices, which by the way, I did not invent, history has proven and stands firm on conclusions of the kind, is digressing from the thread, while the scores of other comments ware brought up have differed from initial statement do not classify as such. Frankly, I never cared much, my mistake in this, I let myself get to personal, got sucked in a lost cause, lost my cool and ended up where I did not wanted to be. Such is life. I clearly do not belong in this conversation, since my beliefs are strong on certain subjects for which I can not apologize, nor I want to. After all, what makes us individuals is ability to think, reason, use the gray cells ' the 'lord has given me' and not let anyone to spoon feed us. I do not take my moral code in tablet form.

Being such an opinionated bustard, I obviously can not contribute to this forum in an acceptable and positive manner, so I do bow out with little dignity I am left with.

Cheers.

Just to clear up, "tppm" has labeled ME as a troll, I would not call Ernest or anyone a name like that. I do not take it personally though, I suspect the word used here is to categorize me as provocateur for a provocation sake. I rather think of it as being an ugly beast, as such, would draw attention to itself and be engaged. End I would be a very formidable troll too.

I am contradicting myself, by adding these lines, but intention to withdraw is a disappointment that a facts I have tried to bring into were not worth acknowledging, let alone being agreed with. I have let myself think there is a forum I could go to and participate in, without a need to conform and agree to a premise of others. Somehow, being one of the "flock" having a "shepherd" reduced me to a "bleating" individual.

I do not just defend the merits of atheism I actively fight for it. Lets acknowledge this at least if I may. Only in a secular State the freedom of religion IS guarantied.

Thanks again. re-edited because of a spelling omission in the last sentence.)

Unless you live under a bridge you are not a troll.

If you cross the bridge you may have to pay a toll. Perhaps the entity that collects the toll is a troll.

(Read or had far too many fairytales read to me at an early, or at least earlier age.)

but intention to withdraw is a disappointment that facts I have tried to bring into were not worth acknowledging,

No problem, if what you had introduced had been facts, rather than unprovable dogma.

Consider the following:

"If Bible is your Science, History and Philosophy book.... then you grasp neither Science, History nor Philosophy."

Never under estimate the power of stupid people in large numbers.

f you take the time to read the points and Bible quotes in my story about this on SOL ( https://storiesonline.net/s/11815/same-sex-marriage-d-eb-acle ) you'll see the UCC are not Christians but fake or pretend Christians because Jesus taught you should accept everyone for who they are as a person and not what they are.

If you'll take the time to read about the United Church of Christ (UCC) you'll find that you are totally off base with the North Carolina case. In North Carolina, the legislature passed legislation prohibiting same-sex marriage and providing penalties for any officiant, religious or secular, who performed such a marriage. The UCC sued in federal court (http://www.ucc.org/north-carolina-marriageequality-10102014) claiming that the legislation violated the church's First Amendment rights, and the court agreed.

The UCC supports marriage equality (http://www.ucc.org/lgbt_issues_marriage-equality_index).

Who is faux Christian and who isn't is a contentious issue. I'd put the UCC in the "real Christian" category.

I am sorry,Sir, but I am at the loss to understand your arguments when you say the following"

I'm saying that one group shouldn't have power over another, regardless of who they are.

That is precisely the world we exist in, hence, minority and majority. It is noble to think that we are all equals, we should strife to be so. We are not, in no respects but one, we all must take a breath every second. Equality was forced in China in Mao's regime. Can not work. While the small group of people exploits the wast number of other humans, there is no equality. We, as a species, are not there yet. No surprise to me though, Our evolution is yet to get us there. IT IS NOT going to be gifted to us by the invisible old man from above. You either fight to get us there or do not obstruct.

There is not one invention, discovery, advancement in medicine or any other benefit we enjoy this day and age that is contributed by religion. On the contrary, it was fought against by the members of the clergy, people were tortured, burned, dismembered, drowned, quartered, eyes put out, tongues cut of. WE OWE to those poor individuals who dared to question the church and died for. This man will not forget nor forgive. And look around nowadays, Sir, you can not get on the plane without everyone being scanned. And even after such precaution, you are not at peace. WHY is that. BECAUSE the parties of God has taken upon themselves to drive the fear into all of us.

On the point of religious texts, you can not possibly lecture me, Sir, unless you had dedicated 8.5 years of your life to the endless studies, incantations, songs, prayers and ceremonies, 24h a day, like I have been. I won't have it! You may have your doubts and hedge you bets on a possibility of existence of the savior, but not this primate.

As for Jesus, meek and mild, you should know a very small point. THERE is no Hell in the old testament. You died, end of story. So called New Testament gifts us with it, just to make sure, the celestial Dictatorship and the real fun start AFTER you die. Some design, some love. You and any other believer are welcome to it, not this monkey.

I here by finish my attempt to debate with you Sir, using a quote from a very knowledgeable and educated member of human race, Sam Harris

"If you wake up tomorrow morning thinking few Latin words over your pancakes is going to turn them into the body of Elves Presley, you've lost your mind. But if you think more or less about the same thing about a cracker and body of Jesus Christ,......... you are just a Catholic."

Because we are under English common law you can declare you are married and it will stand up in court .

You are wrong, at least as to the US. The majority of states outlawed common law marriage (what you are referring to) in the mid 19th century. Mostly so they could block interracial marriages.

There are maybe one or two states that recognize common law marriages today. If you are not in one of those states, sure you can cohabit and call yourselves married, but you won't be able to file taxes jointly or get many of the other legal benefits given to marriage.

No, the marriage license is to stop people participating in Polygamy, or Bigamy, it protects women as well as men, it ensures the child support when a partnership goes down the gurgle, and many other things a civilized society needs to survive. Do some reading, will you. You are embarrassing yourself.

when was multimarriage outlawed in the US and why ?All the lic does is raise money and give the goverment more control over our lifes .a man can live with as many women as he wishes aslong as he does not marry them . it proyects no one

He should be willing to give her any of the haircuts he offers, just as a beauty parlor should be willing to give a man any of the stylings they offer.

Shock horror! The end is neigh! Hide, hide, confess your sins! OR ask a Reverend. They tend to have all the answers! (Make sure , you've got some cash on you or a check-book with you. They do not work for free. God needs money, didn't you know?)

Its likely both Hitler and Stalin were atheists.

It took me less than a minute to find evidence which contradicts this statement. Please do a little research first; such blatant posturing throws other perfectly valid ponts you have raised into a bad light and invites ad hominiem arguments such as are being pursued by another poster here.

I read a very long Wikipedia article on Hitler. Deep in its inner recesses it indicated he was brought up Catholic but after he left home he never attended mass and often dismissed all Christianity as rubbish. He made a few public statements praising Martin Luther and Protestantism for political reasons but what I gathered from the article that he did not believe in God. I am not certain that made him an atheist but it comes pretty close to my understanding of the term.

I'll be happy, ad hominiem as you put it, to fight for all people who lost their lives at the hand of church in years gone by. Religion has never worked for the benefit of masses, on the contrary, it was and still is about power over us and the obedience. How is this for rational and logical thinking? NO person running for public position or office can be elected, regardless of their abilities, education, experience, unless he/she declares beforehand the allegiance to god! You have no idea how insulting and degrading that is to many of us who do not subscribe to the myths of the desert.

Here we go again. Neither Hitler nor Stalin were atheists, as you assert. It shows how little you have learned.

Stalin was in a monastery, preparing for the priesthood in Russian Orthodox Church for two years, and revolution came in 1917. And if you want to be in a business of a Dictator, you would not pass the opportunity to exploit the credulity of peasants, who for centuries were told that The Czar, the head of church and the state was not just a mere human, He was and revered as half a god and as such had unlimited and unquestionable power over all subjects in the vastness of the territory he and his family ruled over.

As for Hitler, when he got into power, elected as Chancellor of Germany in 1939, the first pact he signed was with Vatican, and from there on his birthday, each year was celebrated from the pulpit in every church in every country where Fascism was ruling. Portugal, Spain, Italy, Croatia, Austria, Hungary, Occupied Slovakia and Czech Republic as well as in Germany and Poland. But you did not know that, did you?. You also do not know, on every buckle on every SS soldier, was an inscription " Got zum alles" "God is with us", hardly an atheistic regime, wouldn't you say? Perhaps, you should sit down and do some reading next time you think of your god, you may, just may learn the illustrious history of Christianity. And what good job "some religious have done in teaching and education" as you put it? Story of Adam and Eve and a talking snake? Noah,s ark and the pissed off good, who decided to kill everything he has supposedly created, because we did not love him enough? Or, the story of turning water into wine, and some such nonsense. And do not mention charity and religion in the same sentence. You are embarrassing yourself by doing so! Do you know, that Hammas, a "terrorist organization" by our standard, works exclusively in Gaza strip and Lebanon for more then 25 years and keeps alive more then 35 000 displaced Palestinians, who have lost the land and homes to hordes of fanatical Jews who have one and only one goal; to drive all non-Jews out of Palestine and bring ALL Jews in, and then and only then, the Messiah will come back, they will be worthy of his re-appearance. How is that, but not an insanity of desert goat herders. Take a look at the footage of the "faithful, chanting and talking to the wall! I and people like myself are to "respect" their faith like a virtue? Hell NO! Never!

As for Mao and Pol Pot, I'll do some reading and get back to you.

Exactly.

Are you kidding? While blacks have been discriminated against for hundreds of years, and Jews have for thousands of years, the gays went from furtive meetings in men's rooms to open acceptance in only a few dozen years.

No, I am not. The religious right is already gearing up to push back HARD. There is a bill in congress right now being pushed by several Republicans that would prohibit any prosecution of someone for anti-gay actions taken on a religious motive.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/09/10/more-criticism-of-the-first-amendment-defense-act-from-the-right/

If the courts read it as broadly as possible, it could end up legalizing murdering gays.

Push the religious right too hard and they will try to push for constitutional amendments to roll back everything gays have won.

Push hard enough and many of the current fence sitters will support them.

christain are judge the same way

-- Tim Merrigan, agnostic Wiccan.

Can I be ElSol, The Agnostic Catholic... Unless The Pope Calls For The Streets To Run With The Blood Of The Unbelievers In Which Case I Will Be First In Line To Do Some Smiting?

Ooh -- Halloween is coming up!!!

Pessimists (realists) are seldom disappointed.

The pessimist thinks the glass is half empty.

The optimist thinks the glass is half full.

The realist knows the glass is always completely full. It's just a matter of what it is full of. A glass that was truly half empty would implode violently because it isn't strong enough to hold a vacuum.

And the MBA sees the glass as a candidate for downsizing, because it's twice as large as needed. That, or the person responsible for filling the glass is underperforming and should be reprimanded.

A Lawyer would sue the glass maker as clearly it must be leaking and is therefore defective. :)

An insurance underwriter would exclude coverage for any problem with the glass and insist that a warning be attached where it is clearly visible.

A mathematician would try to create the perfect formula to describe the glass. By the time he finished he would be so enthralled with the beauty of his formula that he will have completely forgotten that a real glass exists.

A Microsoft Tech Support person would suggest rebooting the glass to see if that fixes the problem.

if they had antiaircraft artillery or missiles they probably would not have been destroyed.

The first plane would have hit as there would have been total disbelief of impact until after it happened. The second probably too, as it would take time to mobilize the AA crews; even if AA was used, it would only drop the wreckage somewhere populated - unless the presence of AA caused a different target to be chosen - perhaps a sports stadium (e.g., see Wes Boyd's 'Magic Carpet' ch 31).

Actually, I think Microsoft bears some responsibility for the Towers being chosen: in the earliest MS flight simulator prog, trying to fly through the towers was about the only thing you could do unless you added pay options for airports and landscape.

How many religious who perform same sex marriages would want the glass to have wine in it?

Both of them.

How many religious who perform same sex marriages would want the glass to have wine in it?

Both of them.

Short answer: Lots. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/07/02/where-christian-churches-stand-on-gay-marriage/.

bb

OK, sorry, flippant answer from lightbulb jokes intended to highlight the low numbers. From the link you gave there do seem to be many religions supporting gay marriage, but I notice that the real heavyweights are in the 'not' column.

How many religious who perform same sex marriages would want the glass to have wine in it?

Both of them.

I can't speak for any of the others, but mine, Wicca, would, except for alcoholics and underage participants and guests, of course.

Stolen from how many ? would it take to change a light bulb.

How many mice would it take to screw in a light bulb.

Two, but don't ask me how they got in the light bulb. :)

- And I do not believe the court decision is right. Civil Union / Domestic Partnership contracts would be the answer, except that it's not enough for Gays to have equal rights, what they want is to be 'Officially Approved' by EVERYONE. And they want to bully those who don't agree into submission.*

Only if they're 100% identical to marriage. My wife and I spent 28 years in a domestic partnership, and got a $3,000 tax break the year we got married, for just one example.

* And if you don't believe that is egregious, dust off that Old Testament and read about the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. Too many people think God destroyed it because of 'Bunch of Queers'.

No. It was because of the rampant debauchery and hedonism, and the fact that the righteous were constantly assaulted by the depraved into participating in it.

You're, of course, assuming it happened at all. No archaeological evidence has been, definitely, found of Sodom or Gomorrah (there's one site, but it's controversial), so what actually happened there isn't known. That story was included, regardless of whether there was any truth to an actual destruction, to elucidate the limits to guest rights, to explain the salt pillars around the Dead Sea, and to rile against incest (oh, and to defame Lot's decedents, as results of incest.)

Oh, and whatever happened to Sodom and Gomorrah, if they ever existed at all, I'm sure can be adequately explained without God's intervention.

That story was included, regardless of whether there was any truth to an actual destruction, to elucidate the limits to guest rights, to explain the salt pillars around the Dead Sea, and to rile against incest (oh, and to defame Lot's decedents, as results of incest.)

And to note, without censure, that as a matter of course Lot offered his virgin daughters to the mob in an attempt to satisfy their lust for the visiting angels.

Not that there's anything wrong with that, of course.

Well before we stop this thread and (remove the free speech) let me contribute, please.

There favorite toy of humanity was religion, is religion and always will be. It is amusing how the people who have set their minds long ago on the subject of religion, are squirming under undisputed and overwhelming evidence by our improvements as as species in last hundred years, just because, we managed to separate the church from the state and repeatedly raise the babble, sorry , Bible, as proof of unprovable. WHY? Well, there is nothing else to reach for and support their claim.

This tread, which must be said, CW is right about, is getting tiresome for all, shows how, despite the fact billions of people are religious and will be for the foreseeable future we can not employ the knowledge gained by inquiry and disputing the obvious mistakes made at one point of our evolution. Oh, another point of contention! Damn! My bad.

I, however, believe, that most of us confuse the spirituality with blind faith.

I am very grateful, god made me an atheist and relieved me of the burden by having someone who was nice enough to be tortured to death 2000 years ego, without my permission or request, so I will live forever!

The three worst things to bring up in conversation with people you don't know personally; Religion, Politics and Sex.
I think we had a trifecta.
This will be my last post here also.

-- The three worst things to bring up in conversation with people you don't know personally;

-- Religion, Politics and Sex.

-- I think we had a trifecta.

-- This will be my last post here also.

I have two rules in adult discussion.

1. Never argue Religion

2. Recognize when the other person is talking about an Article Of Faith aka. Religion and don't argue with them.

Politics is an Article Of Faith, for just about fucking everybody.

Sex is an Article of Faith, for just about fucking everybody.

Good post! I like using fucking as both an adjective in the post about Politics and a verb in in the post about Sex. If you meant it as an adjective both times, but it works as a verb, too. fucking everybody. New techniques learned. And useful on SOL but not Fine Stories.

I love debating all three. It is imensly satisfying and rewording, makes my gray cells work overtime and tells me how much or how little my oponents know on the subject.

After all, the best comedy, satire, critic and art was produced by taking all three, separately or together in those endeavors.

What is especially heart warming, to get to where a participant runs out of arguments in support of his/hers claim.

That is a reward in debating, is it not? If not for our differences, wouldn't we live in a world of many shades of gray? As is, we enjoy all the colors of the rainbow. Or is that too gay for some?

OK CW, you've struck a cord, truly.

I nominate you, seriously, to start something "completely different". Remember "Monty Python" sextet?

Just to brighten up the mood and kick us of elsewhere.

just that the thread drift had gotten so bad no one could follow any of the conversations any more

It would be easier if threading worked properly (replies posted directly below the message replied to).

The absolute faith that logic will eventually prevail.

Which quite possibly makes it the most unwarranted faith of all.

Logic can not prevail in any universe that has humans in it. :)

Logic can not prevail in any universe that has humans in it

Logic is only as good as it's premises, and a major false premise is that the universe follows the rules of logic. Louis Carrol was a logician and Wonderland is 100% completely logical given it's premises.

Keep on believing that, particularly if it makes you happy. You harm no one, and if they disagree, they don't need to tell you. Faith, hope and charity, and the greatest of these is charity. Amazing what you remember when you free-associate. I am free, associate with me if you want to, and I want you to, too. I won't bore you with my faith, or lack of it, if you don't with yours.

PJ, I'm really sorry, but "atheism IS faith" is so far out there, I do not know where to start. I'll just make a very personal observation. Statement like yours leads me to conclude. You went to Sunday School and no other. Right?

Yet again,Sir,

the onus of proof of existence of supernatural was always on the individual who KNOWS that there is one.It matters not to me one way or the other. For me, the observable world and universe works rather well without one. The question was never about that. Remember, you are free to believe in what ever you choose to.

If that is what it makes you happy and content. It is unfortunate, it seems, you are trying to drive square peg into a round hole, by shifting the goalposts little by little. Again, I do not care, I've read your contributions from the start, and the situation has shifted far from you first assertion. It is obvious, so In fairness to you I would be disingenuous not to admit it.

As gently as some have tried to chip in and suggest, a viable source of the strife masses have with the state of perversion, humanity finds itself in, flatly rejected by you. Therefore, since you can not coincide even a possibility for it to be so, it is pointless to insist on it. Exchanging unpleasantness, serves no purpose nor it advances our stance.

There are hundreds of authors, on this site, and I for one, would love to see a story, fictional, or not on this perpetual discussion.

My personal experience along the way, is very positive, regardless of how heated up it has got along the way. If you have read our short history, our founding fathers, were at loggerheads with each other constantly. The Constitution and The Bill of Rights did come after prolonged battle. There are great many letter available at the Library, exchanged between various participants at that Convention.

But I'm pontificating here, forgive me.

Only long and exhaustive exchange will bring the fruits of compromise, most of us can live with.

That's Pollyanna in me, I do not let out that often.
So, over to you if you wish.

PJ, I'm really sorry, but "atheism IS faith" is so far out there, I do not know where to start. I'll just make a very personal observation. Statement like yours leads me to conclude. You went to Sunday School and no other. Right?

If atheism isn't faith, prove there are no gods. Atheism, being based on an unprovable premise, is a faith.

A very confused mind.

Please read the post above. You KNOW, there is god, a mammal like me , cock sure. What information do you have as a proof of his existance not available to me, I ask. You response is predictable;as in "I Believe."

Believing in something is not a proof I'm afraid and does not make it so. Say, I believe, I'll win Lottery in the next round. I'll be the only winer! How is that for faith. I can hear you from here, you are laughing your head of. Rightly so, because I've made a very stupid statement.
So please, enlighten me, where should I or any other non-believer, Buddhist, Chinese, believers in Thor, Zeus, Poseidon, look for god? Presumably, your god made us as well, did he not?

But, I DON'T know that there are gods, but, I don't know that there aren't either.

The statement, "I know that there is no god," is (IMHO) just as much a statement of faith as, "I know there are gods."

Also, re Navy atheists: A sailor deep in the innards of a sinking ship with a greater population than some small towns and with no chance in Hell of reaching an outer deck, much less a lifeboat, before he drowns, is just as likely to be praying as a soldier in a foxhole in a firefight. (And the soldier has a better chance of surviving.)

Kind Sir,

please read the following. This is taken, without permission from a gentleman, far more eloquent then I'll ever be, which beautifully pictures how a non-believer understands the subject. By no means complete but concise.


Paul Hackett - Shallow thinker when I think at all

Before I start I just want to say that my view is not meant as an offense or insult to any religious creed.

Please feel free to disagree with it but respect it as my view.

We humans, despite what we might prefer to think, are essentially lost in a world we don't understand and, probably, simply do not have the mental capacity to ever have more than a very superficial grasp of what's really going on.

Now why are we here? Well, from an evolutionary perspective, we came about quite by accident and inherited characteristics that were conducive to procreation.

So, if our existence has a purpose, it is no more than to propagate our own genes.

However, this leads to a number of fundamental conflicts.

First, as we want ONLY our genes to be successfully propagated and not those of others (that we see as rivals), males are naturally driven to mate with the maximum number of females.

However, this causes problems: other males will be aggrieved if a small number are impregnating all the females and will likely turn their aggression towards these few. Additionally, a male whose offspring number in the thousands will not have the capacity to provide for, and therefore guarantee, the survival of his progeny.

Also, we want our tribal companions to cooperate with us as we can't do everything ourselves. Cooperation among humans has led us to improve our quality of life and, therefore, the opportunities for our offspring to survive.

From this conflict derives MORALITY, good and evil, right and wrong. Basically, we have developed within our tribes and societies a set of golden rules that enable us, through uncomfortable but ultimately beneficial compromises, to maximize the chances of our DNA being passed to successive generations.

Secondly, we learn very early in our lives that death is inevitable for all of us. However, one of, if not THE, strongest instinct we have is to stay alive. We need to stay alive to do the mating and nurturing of our offspring necessary to guarantee procreation.

But, how do we reconcile the inevitability of death with our urge to avoid it? The notion of LIFE AFTER DEATH goes a long way towards a reconciliation.

Finally, to do what we are driven to do (procreate) takes quite some effort. What motivates us to expend our energy attracting mates, building homes and providing years of sustenance for our young?

We need to feel that we, as a race, are important, that we matter in the greater scheme of things.

Just as children benefit from the warm, comfortable, caring atmosphere generated by their parents, so our species as a whole needs to believe that we are being overseen by a kindly, but right-minded, FATHER-LIKE FIGURE who has our best interests at heart.

Indeed, two of the greatest cataclysms in human intellectual evolution (Copernicus/Galileo -- the earth is not the center of the universe; Darwin -- we are not made in the image of God but evolved from apes) were so fundamentally upsetting precisely because they attacked our belief in our self-importance.

The three concepts that essentially enable us to maximize our abilities to successfully propagate our DNA are all provided by religion.

Religion, or some variant of it, is, and has been for countless millennia, an integral part of all, or almost all, terrestrial societies.

How I wish I've seen this before I've joined this thread.

Hi there,

my experience of 65+ years showed me in regards to religious believes, a startling correlation between it and education. Namely, lower the education in natural science and the physical laws that govern, higher the religiosity.

The history speaks to support this stance.

I would never connect science and religion as one complementing the other. Quite the opposite.

Religion was, and always will, be against "interfering with gods creation" and has and will fight every scientific discovery which puts the god on the back foot.

It is quite obvious why that is. Loss of power over us, loss of revenue, much less bums on the seats and less greenbacks in the basket. I wish I stay alive long enough to see the bastards start paying taxes just like the rest of us. That would be my happiest day on this rock!

So, someone calling himself/herself as a scientist, and still "looking for a creator should ask for their money back, they've spent during university education. They are being frauds, both ways!

Sometimes the scientists don't discard the theories they hold dear (Einstein, God does not dice with the Universe. In his refutation of Physics that are now not all that radical.) What happens is the old scientists die off and new ones believe what the old ones wouldn't. It would be nice to believe Scientists don't act like people when new information or theories develop, but its not entirely true.

And our greatest problem these days is demise of science.
Just look around you - what are children learning?
They are learning that is important to be seen, to belong to some "hype", to get to money fast, etc (youst look at Youtube, Instagram, look at their mobile devices)...

They do not learn to think with their brains, don't learn to observe and conclude based on observations, they forgot about science, and we are guilty for this.

When I see what is said or written on "serious": news TV channels, web portals, papers (who is reading papers these days anyway???), blogs, even look at your "friends" on Facebook - i became afraid, very afraid of stupidity pouring to all of us ...

a statement by a media person or someone in authority or with political power is more important than facts or truth.

IF I didn't realise you were being cynical I would have thought you actually believed that c r a p

And why is there a demise of science? Because, at least here in the USA, States have found that cutting Education funding is an easy way to pay for the tax cuts to the 1%ers. It's especially true here in my home state.

I see two big problems over here:
1) "'elf 'n safety" - we can't have the little dears being at risk of getting their little mittens wet let alone scratched. Going back a bit when I was learning to make aniline dye (aged 16) a flask exploded covering three boys in 30N sodium hydroxide which is as nasty as you can get. Everyone on the class knew what to do; we simply soaked the victims with water and then soaked them again so they got away with losing all their clothes but only a slight reddening of the skin instead of serious burns. (The master was out of the room!) That is illegal now.
Later, in training for a weekend hobby the airport fire trainers who were teaching us were not allowed to come near us in case they got burned - we had a 30 second safety margin in our gear plus knowledge - they had several minutes plus water monitors. Health and Safety rules again.
2 Scientific investigation often has no immediate offshoots visible in advance. Who would think that space travel would yield the non-stick on your cooking pans? Without visible and certain financial returns the money men don't want to finance science. There is one famous exception to this - 3M encourage all their staff to take an hour a day following their own ideas at company expense - and it pays off in spades.

There is something much worse:

Public opinion is made in seconds, and public does not know a s*** about what they should know.

They even don't want to acknowledge that they don't know some subject.

Couple of days ago I witnessed heavy head smashing (read discussion on public TV) about microwave oven and dangers associated with it.

At the same time, participants were heavy using their mobile devices, wireless routers, bluetooth, etc...

Any student of physics 101 should know what is what, what emits around and what is shielded. But they didn't know anything, but were using heavy words masking their ignorance.

And that was aired on important TV station ...

Couple of days ago I witnessed heavy head smashing (read discussion on public TV) about microwave oven and dangers associated with it.

At the same time, participants were heavy using their mobile devices, wireless routers, bluetooth, etc...

Here the actual wattage of the RF signal makes a significant difference to any real risks.

The mobile devices, wireless routers, bluetooth, etc... have a tiny fraction of the power output of a microwave oven. They present no significant risk

Climb a long range RF transmission (Radio/TV) tower with the power on and it will cook you to death in minutes.

Here the actual wattage of the RF signal makes a significant difference to any real risks.

The mobile devices, wireless routers, bluetooth, etc... have a tiny fraction of the power output of a microwave oven. They present no significant risk

The medical thought over here is that using mobile phones CAN cause brain cancer though with less power being used these days the risk is somewhat reduced.

Here the actual wattage of the RF signal makes a significant difference to any real risks.

The mobile devices, wireless routers, bluetooth, etc... have a tiny fraction of the power output of a microwave oven. They present no significant risk

The medical thought over here is that using mobile phones CAN cause brain cancer though with less power being used these days the risk is somewhat reduced.

Impossible. microwaves are non ionizing. They can heat an object (given sufficient power) but they can't alter DNA any other way (which would be necessary for them to cause cancer.

Hold a strong enough microwave emitter up to you head and it will cook your brain. but that's all it can do.

You gentleman are mixing pears and apples. Phones of the 1990 were "analogue" while todays phones are "digital". Difference is, digital phones work in gigahertz region of frequency, while analogue were in Megahertz. Higher the frequency of the signal, further penetration with less power. Hence, power bellow 1 Watt.
If your remember asbestos and tobacco, we need just as long if not longer, to see the damage, if any. to our brains from the cell phones.

If your remember asbestos and tobacco, we need just as long if not longer, to see the damage, if any. to our brains from the cell phones.

No we don't Radio frequency EM radiation is non-ionizing even for the higher gigahertz range. That means regardless of the power level the only thing it can do to your brain is increase it's temperature. 5 or even 10 watts is not going to have enough effect to overwhelm your body's ability to regulate it's temperature.

Given enough wattage, RF radiation will cook you, but that will happen in minutes/hours, not years.

- How much someone must be stupid to climb on active RF tower?
- And how many cases of this terminal stupidity have you witnessed?
In my part of the world I found only one case, and that was long ago and was documented and punished murder (someone sent poor guy up to repair something and then activated power)

Even putting someone's head in microwave oven and activate it, is not so easy. At least you need to know how to bypass security (and not to mention that empty head is usually to big for that :D ).

On the other hand, how many minutes a day average teenager spend with mobile on his/her ear?
And, how close are you to your PC / Tablet / wireless router, now when you are reading this post?

You Sir are an example of someone that will always have something to say and maintain if not an existence of a god but a possibility of it. And it makes no difference whatsoever. This is something believers have been hanging onto forever.
It was never the job of science to prove or disprove the existence of god. Quite the opposite. You say, there is one, I say "I do not know" and more importantly if there is one, HOW THE FUCK DO YOU KNOW THAT.
A mammal just like myself makes a claim of extraordinary nature, without any means no evidence to show and defend the position. Believing there is one , does not make it so!
The only thing you're sure off is uncertainty, the only thing is certain is doubt, the main thing is Socratic principle, you only educated is to understand how ignorant you are.
Once you assume a creator and a plan, makes us objects in a cruel experiment whereby, we are created sick and commanded to be well. Over us to supervise this is installed a celestial dictatorship, kind of divine North Korea, greedy, exigent for uncritical praise from dawn till dusk, and swift to punish for original sins which so tenderly gifted us with, in the very first place.
However, let no one say there is no cure. Salvation is on offer, Redemption indeed is promised, at the low price of surrender of your critical faculties.

That is why the concept of a god will get to where it belong, on the shelf of myths and wishful thinking.

but declaring them mutually exclusive is just as foolish.

So true. Many atheists say this as if it will convince the religious to reject god in favor of science.

The reality is that by positioning science as being opposed to religion, they drive the religious to reject science.

Well, well, there is much more to say about the subject isn't there.

Gentleman, illusion, however convincing is still an illusion! While many over the years were inserting god in the huge gaps science had no answers to, the god had no choice, but to recede further and further back into the history of our ancestors.

I know, there are two billion Christians, 1.7 billion Muslims, and then the rest of us.

The silliness of monotheistic religion is in the very first page, but a believer in supernatural can not see it. The brain has been "infected" at the very young age by the people young child trusts the most. "God did it! Do not ask a silly question"

I am willing to put both of my hands on the chopping block and prove the following; if concept of god was introduced to a 15 year old, the laughter would be thundering.

As is, science takes the second if not the third stage, story of Noah, talking snake, walking on water and fun god had with Job, takes the first.

And The United States of Amnesia is sliding further and further down the scale of science and discovery.

Once a proud and leading nation, plays the second fiddle to China and India. Well done, Christian Right! We thank you!

Where do Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny and Tooth Fairy enter into this dichotomy between Science and Religion? Certainly not science. Probably not religion, not Christianity even though Mr. Claus may claim to be an alias of Saint Nicholas, who was a bishop in Turkey and gave gifts, if I recall how the saint was morphed into Santa Claus in the red suit, white beard and overweight sleigh rider with 8 reindeer, or maybe 9 with Rudolph.

I don't know if the USA is sliding down a scale. Maybe from democracy to republic to oligarchy. I doubt our problems arise from either Science or Religion. Maybe from Muslims that hate us makes it religion. If we weren't "Christian" they likely would hate us even more. There is a place in Muslim world view for people of the book (Christians and Jews) who submit and pay a tax. Atheists just get killed.

Where do Santa and bunny come from? Ask people of the cloth, they claim to know it all. From the history I was introduced to, Christianity was merging with pagan beliefs and variations to local folklore has produced "many shades of gray,"

As far as USA sliding down the toilet, get on the road and compare the life elsewhere with the life at home, and you'll see it.

It may be population pressure. Governments that worked for far fewer than 7 billion people or 300 million in the USA, are under pressure keeping far more bodies fed and amused. There is also the rising expectations fed by media. Not everyone can live like a millionaire as portrayed on Television on in motion pictures, or whatever the current media are. But people, at least young people either expect to or want to. When the pressure in a boiler raises too high, absent a safety valve, explosions occur. New frontiers used to be a safety valve. Wars were another, to mobilize a nation to forget about their current situation. Wars now between nuclear powers are too dangerous. We still seem to get lots of police actions. There is always an enemy if you need one.

You poor guys even don't know important parts of your history, when you don't know this -
Where do Santa and bunny came from?

From advertising, to be precise - from good old american advertising.
(Google for "Coca Cola add" from 1930s :D , and Bunny adds also - search for "vintage easter advertisements" ...)

If we are going to be honest, this two characters are from much older legends and stories - but global popularity they got from advertising...

And people are really showing how stupid they are believing in all this shit they see and hear in ads ...

Pj,

for fuck sake, look up the definition of the word FAITH! I'll save you 30 sec, of your life;

Atheism is opposite of believing in supernatural! So, if one wants to equate that to faith, one is free to do so, but it does not make it so.

I am glad you finished your post with last sentence as is. I read it like this.

"I am shit scared of death and desperately wish there is heaven where I'll bask in the sun forever." Bon Voyage.

The Star Trek Universe has Vulcans. I remember Mr. Spock pronouncing "That is not logical". So the Vulcans were, and that universe had humans in it.

Note: I did not say logic could not exist, I said it couldn't prevail. The logical Vulcans did not rule the Federation, nor have they converted any other races to the path of logic, so it's silly to say that logic has prevailed in the Star Trek universe.

You, Sir must have been asleep, when you watched Star Track and listen to Mr Spock. He never tried to convert, he simply stated " ...that is illogical"....and without exception, was right.

he simply stated " ...that is illogical"....and without exception, was right.

You must have a strange definition of prevailing.

How many times did Spock suggest that what Kirk wanted to do was illogical?

Of those, how often did Kirk go ahead and do what he wanted to do anyway?

You are very right in one aspect of it. However, Kirk was an emotional being {as all humans are) while Spock operated on pure logic.

You are very right in one aspect of it. However, Kirk was an emotional being {as all humans are) while Spock operated on pure logic.

What you miss was that the statement I originally replied to from Crumbly Writer

The absolute faith that logic will eventually prevail.

is a more universal statement than a wish for logic will prevail in his personal life/actions/decisions.

That some being or beings exist that operate on pure logic does not amount to logic prevailing in a universal sense.

How many times did Spock suggest that what Kirk wanted to do was illogical?

The first, and most, illogical thing that Capt. Kirk did was go on away missions himself. That's not the job of any of the bridge crew, much less the Captain.

if I remember dog tags correctly, and everybody had to have at least two, you had three choices. J for Jewish, R for Roman Catholic and everybody else got a P for Protestant.

I don't think it was ever that limited in the U.S. military, and as of a few years ago Wicca was added (the insignia is a pentacle).

Of course the Navy could have atheists. Naval combat does not involve foxholes. Hard to dig them in the water. Everybody knows there are no atheists in foxholes, so the Army didn't need a dog tag for it.

Tell that to a sailor in the bowels of a sinking battleship or aircraft carrier.

Do you see now, how religion poisons everything? A simple proposition as the one above. I would have thought, there was a human being in either circle. But again, I'm ignorant, only my invisible friend in the sky decides who is who. If he was not so lazy lately, would it not make things clearer and rectify our confusion if there was a visit, long overdue . No better player in "hide and seek" then him. Or is it her? We seek he hides. But that is blasphemous, is it not?

My theory is that the foxhole circle does not coincide with the atheist circle.

Please, if you are going to introduce mathematics to try to lend credence to your argument, get the terminology correct. Using the word 'coincide' here implies that you are in a foxhole if and only if you are not atheist - that is, the states are equivalent. The word you should have used is 'intersect', which permits both non-atheists not in a foxhole, and atheist foxhole occupiers.

You could also have 'contains' and 'is contained in', which permit only one or the other.

[edit] Re-reading, I deduce you are trying to state (in fancy language) the aphorism 'there are no atheists in a foxhole'. Your choice of a negative set, 'not an atheist', confuses matters and has thrown you off - you use the complement of this set in your statement. To state 'there are no atheists in a foxhole', you need the intersection of atheists (A) and foxhole occupiers to be null (non-overlapping, the empty set). Then, inverting A gives the statement you should have made to be consistent with your first definition of the circles, 'the foxhole circle is completely contained within the non-atheist circle'. Or, if we retain the 'non-atheist' label in the quoted statement, your statement logically says that everyone in a foxhole is an atheist, probably not what you meant.

We could also play games here cancelling the negating prefixes to use 'theist' instead of 'non-atheist', but the bottom of my barrel is filling with spent projectiles and I'm running out of piscenes.

I admit humans often work together. Doing the right thing, not so much. I suppose it depends on what the right thing is. Working together usually involves setting up organizations. A couple of inconvenient principles interfere with those organizations. The Peter Principle, workers get promoted to their level of incompetence and the observation work expands to fill the time available for its completion. Either nothing or the wrong things get done because of management incompetence, and deadlines for work getting done tend not to be met. I think the truth of these observations can be observed with NASA and our exploration of either the solar system or the universe. When was the last time we went to the moon, another planet, or built a space station, all themes of science fiction when NASA was conceived. We don't even send our astronauts into space on our own launch systems, as far as I recall. There are still large numbers of people working for NASA and I am sure they are busy, lobbying congress for more money, working on projects for the late 21st century, keeping the agency and its payroll alive. Work together, yes. The right thing, depends on what the right thing is. In World War Two, the Nazi Party and almost all the Geman people worked together. IMHO, not for the right thing.

With respect Sir,
you are just confusing this issue even further. I would like, just as you would no doubt like, that people agree with everything and anything I say. It is not going to happen! Ever.

The level of general knowledge in all things natural, between individuals, is so wast and leads to wild differences in opinions. We've got this far as a species, because we grudgingly found compromises along the journey. If it was not for cooperation, we would still tend to herds of half domesticated animals I'm afraid.

What am I if...

I believe God is true but he/she/it cannot allow himself/herself/itself to be known, as proof of God removes free will.

From a Christian perspective, knowledge of God does not remove free will. Lucifer had absolute knowledge of God and still had the freedom to rebel.

One has an original thought... he convinces others, but it is basically one.

I don't give us enough credit to be able to produce the one original thinker.

Yes CW,
what you brought up in this instance is often refereed as "Pascal's wager". And works well for people on the fence.

what you brought up in this instance is often refereed as "Pascal's wager". And works well for people on the fence.

Only if one believes there are only two choices, God and no God, but there are actually dozens, at least (actually an infinite number). Just the predominant ones that Pasquale would have known of are Catholic, any number of Protestant, Judaism, and Islam. And for at least three of those picking the wrong one would be worse than picking none.

You've got that very, very wrong. And it was not Pasquale. It was Blaise Pascal 1623-1662

Pascal's wager
noun:Philosophy
Pascals wager; noun: Pascal's wager

the argument that it is in one's own best interest to behave as if God exists, since the possibility of eternal punishment in hell outweighs any advantage in believing otherwise.

If you can be bothered, take a look at this, it explains it rather well, I should think.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/pasc-wag/

I'm familiar with Pascal's wager (sorry about the misspelling) but it doesn't work unless there are only two choices, God or no God, when, in fact, there are an infinite number of choices on the God side, some of which are mutually exclusive. What if the God hypothesis turns out to be true, but you chose the wrong god?

Hail Eris!

Ok ,
you can not be bothered to check the link I sugested and get few bits of info you may not have known about.

I would have thought that monotheism has settled on one god, point of their contention is the name and whatnot.

Again, I have ditched the religious teaching long ago as man made. Therefore, it matters not one way or the other. Further up the page, you could see how the Pascal was brought into this thread.
Cheers

One, monotheism has only settled that there's one god among monotheist religions. At the time Pascal formulated his wager there were several polytheist religions active, e.g. Hindu and various Asian, African, and Native American animistic religions.

And two, even among monotheistic religions if you pick the wrong one god you're in deep kimchi. For instance what if all the prophets after the building of second temple are heretics, or contrariwise, what if Joseph Smith is a true prophet?

I could not agree more on the subject of religion.

But I have already angered few people of faith by trying to debate the issue. It git heated up at the and, so, I'm not going there. It is tiresome. I like late George Carlin's quote: "The eyes are useless when mind is blind."

It sounds to me that God is willing for thou to have other gods, just none before me. Most religions allow the worship of money, for example.

If it means no gods but God, why did he put in "before me."?

Its hard not to confuse a church with its teachings or the scriptures they are supposed to be based on. There appear to be some religious or religions based on making a profit. There was one invented by a Science Fiction writer. There are passionate believers who probably make it a "real" religion. All you need is faith. That may make Science with a capital S a religion. If there is logical proof to believe in say gravity, that would indicate it isn't a religion. Global Warming as caused by human emission of carbon dioxide may be science, or it may be religion. If you say you haven't seen proof, you get a backlash that may indicate its based on a "religion" than scientific fact. OK, its getting warmer, in some places and may be getting colder in others, there appears to be climate change. Is it caused by human CO2 discharge? Might be. Might not be. Maybe the sun is a variable star and its going through a warm period. I heard somewhere Mars is getting warmer. Is that because of human CO2?

The Bible is the most Edited and rewritten piece of Writing in World History....every church and every Religion that believes in God has made it fit their agenda..it's more untrustworthy than Barack Insane O...

I won't argue with that. Surely it was originally created by a group of men who were used to controlling their women so anything that suggested that women could have any place in the Christian Church was eliminated. This was the Semitic culture overlaid with Judaism. Some of the ancient texts at least were ordered destroyed and there are numerous complaints about women close to the holy altar, touching religious vestments through the ages. Even Jesus' own wife and closest apostle was ignored and condemned

"Women are not allowed to approach the altar". [ Canons of the Synod of Laodicea, AD 370, Joannes Dom Mansi, Sacrorum Conciliorum nova et amplissma Collectio,tome II, Antonius Zatta Venice, 1759, cols 563-604;"

................

In 494 AD, for example, Pope Gelasius wrote to the bishops of Lucania:

"As we have learnt to our anger, such a contempt for the divine truths has set in that even women, it has been reported, serve at the holy altars. And everything that is exclusively entrusted to the service of men has been carried out by the sex that has no right to do it". [Letter IX, Ch. XXVI, PL vol. 59 cols 48, 55-56.]

"It has also been suggested by some persons that, contrary to the apostolic church order, - unheard of until this time! - women have been admitted to the levitical [= diaconal] ministry. I don't know in what place. This, however, is something church order does not allow because it is indecent. And since such an ordination has been performed against reason, it should be undone. Moreover, steps should be taken to ensure no one else will (Synod of Nimes AD 394)

You should hear my friend Chris (an ex-Catholic Priest and teacher at a seminary) who supplied about twenty texts on that concept alone, a few of which I précied above - No, the bible as we know it has been cobbled together at varying times by people on a mission - a mission apparently of self-service

I believe that Aliens...were the gods...and The bible was written to keep the peasants in line...and to extort money and aligance from them...

I've heard all that stuff every night on American TV - repeat something long enough and loud enough and someone somewhere might believe it.

Just like the Cult that calls its self Islam...

Call Islam a cult and you must call Christianity, Judaism; Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism etc. cults. (OK so that is the French for a religion but in English it is of itself debasing.

How else would you logically explain people living for 3-4-500 years...

We learned that in Aramaic type languages the references to numbers in this way merely indicated "a very long time". Thus when Jesus was 40 days in the desert it does not mean he was there for six weeks less 48 hours.

I'm now going to throw a spanner in the works here. Ancient Chinese texts talk of the sun not rising for three days and when it did rise it rose in the east and not in the west as theretofore. Was an old day the same length is a new day? an old year as long as a new Year? Did this affect understanding of the old Judaic texts? What did the Mayan's predecessors put on their styli (or didn't they have them then?)

There's over 900 Trillion stars in the universe and at least that number of planets..and yet we as a planet feel that somehow we're special enough to have Our Own God??

What makes you think that? There are umpteen deities worshipped on earth. The Christian God is considered "God of all Creation" - not just earth. Yahveh, Allah, all the Hindu gods, Iamenjah and his parallels, - who claims that they are only for earthlings? Believers might claim these Gods for their fellow believers but do they consciously and be design exclude aliens?

We probably won't find 1000 other races out in space in our great great great grandkids lifetimes but I would bet that there are millions of planets with more advanced civilizations than us out there

Sure, it's a big old place out there and our horses can't gallop so far so fast

This is a dead thread. Let it have some dignity in it's afterlife.

Please hold the debate for one hour, I have to run to the store. I'm out of popcorn.

1 hour? This thread had been dead for nearly two and a half months until imsly1 came along and tried to fire it back up.

Please, think this through again. It is nonsensical. Lookup the meanings of the words; theory, hypotheses, and a "fact". It seems to me you are not clear on those.

Are "U-bombs" like 1-bombs some authors get? They may be hazardous to author's mental health.

Ufff...

Sorry for misunderstanding.

In far away shit hole where I'm spending my days, this is word for atomic weapon of any size and power (like Uranium...)