Why Atheism?

[Prime]

I answered your ****ing cheese question several times. If you're not happy with it find some other damned patsy who'll say what you want to hear, preferably one with more knowledge of religion and less of what you're trying to do.

Let's tone it down a notch, please.

[Jae Onasi]

Why, you heretic! There is more than one cheese-monster, as I've previously stated.

Looks like the new religion has undergone its first schism. Perhaps we can organise a small holy war at some point to settle the issue.

But, but, the Holy Flaming Napalm of Cheddar will melt the Holy Swiss (pun fully intended) of Gastronomic Delight, and then it'll be all one big melty mess, and it'll never get resolved. Kind of like the Middle East but that's another thread topic entirely.

 

"I believe in X. As I know that my particular bit of religious dogma was beamed down directly from God's own fax machine"

I needed some humor today....

 

I've only little bits of breaks here and there at work today so I'll address other things later.

[tk102]

And for the religious people who are terrified that Atheism is going to wipe out the Church or religion in general, if logic and reason really were enough to do that, they would have done so centuries ago.

I don't know about this. The rise of the Information Age has allowed people to express their opinions over distances and to audiences in ways that did not exist before. Look at this thread as an example.

[Mace MacLeod]

I don't know about this. The rise of the Information Age has allowed people to express their opinions over distances and to audiences in ways that did not exist before. Look at this thread as an example.

Modern technology might allow for the vastly more rapid dissemination of ideas and information than previously, but IMHO logic and reason are never going to drive religion out of the common mindset simply because religion fulfills some human curiosities and needs that logic and reason can't until scientific inquiry manages to produce a comprehensive inventory of the entire universe. What happens after we die? Do we really have souls? What started the creation of the universe? Is God real, and are he and Allah pissed off at their followers who still have wars over silly things like, "Who's got the bigger God?", or are they just having a laugh and concentrating on their much more interesting civilizations in the Andromeda galaxy? Until science can definitively answer those questions, people will always turn to religion, especially when it offers hope that your body rotting and decaying isn't the only thing to look forward to after you've been killed by a pack of wild boars or something.

[Nancy Allen``]

I'll give you these quotes and then the truth on Atheism.

 

not one person follows that type of religion and yet hundreds of millions are Christian, Jewish, Muslim, ect.

 

And as I said before, would it be such a bad thing if because of atheist logic, some religious person lost their delusion? A rational life is a moral life, it's a life that makes sense, it's a life with rational goals and purposes and the search for truth and right. It's a good life. And best of all, it's not a delusional life.

 

What gives me the moral right to speak rational truths? Why, that would be... the inviolable moral right (and responsibility) to speak rational truths.

 

Everyone has this right (and responsibility). And I've stated this already.

 

Now the truth of Atheism the way Spider AL sees it is that Atheism is fananticism. Fananticism is mindless, fananticism is dangerous, fananticism is stupid: Imagine damning another human being simply on the grounds that he didn't think like you. Because fanantics are mindless, they are guided by others and the others of course have ulterior motives. The others simply put the thought into the minds of the fanantics - which is like putting a gun into the hands of a murderer. If our aim in life is to seek peace, it is impossible to achieve it by fananticism. Peace and fananticism are incompatible.

[Mace MacLeod]

*sigh*

 

Spider AL's quotes do not show anything like fanaticism. He's shown he's a lot of things (not all of them absolutely wonderful), but mindless is certainly not one of them. How you manage to read fanaticism in those quotes is really beyond me.

 

BTW, you really didn't answer the cheeze question, you just responded by asking Al to disprove that God exists. And who exactly are the Atheists who are forcing people to abandon their religions again? You didn't answer that either.

 

I think Nancy is talking about Atheists who use logic to try to manipulate religious people that their God or Gods don't exist, because of apparent contradictions in the evidence for their specific religious beliefs, that Atheists observe.

So, they should conclude that their religion is flawed, as Atheists would argue.

And join them by accepting the most reasonable explanation.

If they don't accept the Atheists reasoning, then they are open to ridicule and will be looked as ignorant fools.

So, it's in religious people interest to accept that God or Gods don't exist, as some Atheists would be making the point as.

I really can't think of too many occurances where someone with faith has said to themselves, "Whoa, I don't want to look stupid or ignorant to these intelligent, cool, educated Atheists, so I'd better renounce my religion!" Atheism is a politically invisible movement in western society these days; far more often it's the religious folks who demand conformity and observance than the Atheists.

[Nancy Allen``]

He's said right there that Atheists have the right to do so and if he's unwilling to accept that people follow religion then he is a fanantic. As for the cheese question you're obviously blind because for the last time I have said that no one follows such a religion, so any creditbility it might have is basically null and void. Christianity, Judism, Islam, Buddism ect have a following of hundreds of millions making it something a lot of people believe in. Does it make it any more of a truth? For all I know when you die all that happens is you become worm food in the ground. What a horrible thought for so many people, if they want to believe in there being something more is that so bad? But is there any truth in such beliefs or are they insane ramblings that Atheists must wipe out? I cannot judge how valid any one religion might be but the fact so much has been written on all of them and how much is believed to be true. Have any of you tried looking at religious scripts and seeing what they have to say?

[Mace MacLeod]

Oh, what the hell. I've got some time on my hands tonight, I'll take this one apart. Of course, I'm looking forward to Spider AL ripping this apart far more ruthlessly than I can be bothered to...

 

He's said right there that Atheists have the right to do so and if he's unwilling to accept that people follow religion then he is a fanantic.

Those quotes don't say that he's unwilling to accept that people follow religion, only that he has the right to state logical and rational truths. And that the logical and rational truth he has arrived at is that religion is false.

As for the cheese question you're obviously blind because for the last time I have said that no one follows such a religion, so any creditbility it might have is basically null and void.

So no one follows such a religion. So what? It was a metaphysical question, and no, you didn't answer it. This isn't about whether those malicious cheddar cheese slices are presently being worshipped, it was whether or not you can prove they're not really out there. But then, I don't have to tell you that. You've read this whole thread, including Skinwalker's and Spider AL's comments, so you already know that, right?

Christianity, Judism, Islam, Buddism ect have a following of hundreds of millions making it something a lot of people believe in. Does it make it any more of a truth?

BTW, it's "Judaism" and "etc". Moving on, they can't all be right, now can they? That means millions of people are going to be wrong no matter what, so the fact that a religion has mass appeal or sheer numbers behind it doesn't mean too much, especially considering the number or religions that have come and gone on this little planet over the millenia.

Have any of you tried looking at religious scripts and seeing what they have to say?

Yes I have actually. Quite a few, from a variety of cultures and historical periods. I'm still agnostic.

For all I know when you die all that happens is you become worm food in the ground. What a horrible thought for so many people, if they want to believe in there being something more is that so bad? But is there any truth in such beliefs or are they insane ramblings that Atheists must wipe out?

Okay, just one more time for the record, who are these Atheists who are presently trying to force people into apostasy? Is that AL? Or Skinwalker? Those telepathic chunks of Brie orbiting Jupiter...?

[Nancy Allen``]

Well let's have a look at his two quotes just above and have a look shall we?

 

"And as I said before, would it be such a bad thing if because of atheist logic, some religious person lost their delusion?"

 

Here not only is he supporting Atheists forcing others to give up religion he's saying people who believe in religion are deluded.

 

"A rational life is a moral life"

 

So people who follow religion cannot be moral?

 

"it's a life with rational goals and purposes and the search for truth and right."

 

About five billion people follow religion of one form or another. I highly doubt all of them don't seek these things.

 

"And best of all, it's not a delusional life."

 

Again he says that a religious life is a deluded life, inferring that people who follow religion are deluded.

 

"What gives me the moral right to speak rational truths? Why, that would be... the inviolable moral right (and responsibility) to speak rational truths."

 

And here he once again supports Atheists forcing people who follow religion out of their beliefs.

 

That's five points where he's either said Atheists should persecute those who follow religion or otherwise say they're deluded. And by the way he's of the opinion that he isn't arrogant, condescending and trollish. Well with the mods permission would he be willing to have a poll where people can say whether or not he is these things?

[Mace MacLeod]

*double sigh*

 

He doesn't once mention forcing anyone to do anything, or forcing anyone to believe anything. As for the deluded part, he can defend himself well enough without my help.

 

This is going to be one of those "Nancy" things, isn't it? Like when I criticised the US invasion of Iraq, and you decided I hated the US and thought Bush was Hitler, right?

 

And by the way he's of the opinion that he isn't arrogant, condescending and trollish. Well with the mods permission would he be willing to have a poll where people can say whether or not he is these things?

Yeah, that would be a really constructive debate that wouldn't get locked or deleted or anything.

[Nancy Allen``]

If it looks like a fanantic, sounds like a fanantic, talks like a fanantic, walks like a fanantic, I interpret that as being...a GOAT!

[Taos]

There is no need for name calling simply because somebody does not agree with your position on this matter. Everyone ease up a bit please.

 

Well with the mods permission would he be willing to have a poll where people can say whether or not he is these things?

 

Such a thread will not be allowed.

[Darth333]

Play nice everyone! I don't see any reason why you wouldn't be able to post your point of view and discuss others' opinions without keeping a respectful tone towards the other members even if their opinions differ far from yours...

 

 

...and no, Nancy, that thread is out of question. If you have a problem with a thread or post, use the report post button. If you still have issues with how it's been dealt with, feel free to contact a mod, smod or admin to discuss it...there are a lot if interesting threads around here and it would be annoying to have to lock them because people can't maintain a civilized discussion or can't leave any arguments behind.

[Mace MacLeod]

If it looks like a fanantic, sounds like a fanantic, talks like a fanantic, walks like a fanantic, I interpret that as being...a GOAT!

Right. Getting back on topic, maybe you'd like to answer some of the questions I raised. Y'know, just on the remote chance that this thread won't wind up locked, it might be a lark to respond to the substance of the debate itself. Atheists...forcing people...well, been there, done that...still waiting...

 

@Darth333: Rgr.

[ET Warrior]

*words*

*blink* Leemu Taos? I haven't seen you around these parts going on 23 years! Goodness man! I rejoice!

 

 

On topic...

 

"A rational life is a moral life"

 

So people who follow religion cannot be moral?

That's not a logical inference from the quote. It would be similar to me saying "I am wearing pants, and therefore am not completely naked", and you deducing that I'm saying that anytime that I am not wearing pants I am completely naked.

The logic of the statement goes something to the effect of "If A then B". However, negating A does not inherently negate B unless it has been stated.

 

And here he once again supports Atheists forcing people who follow religion out of their beliefs.

I'm not sure if this is just an argument over semantics, or if there is a deep misunderstanding going on. I don't see how stating that I am an atheist, and telling religious people why I think that my world-view is right and theirs is wrong, is in any way forcing anyone out of anything. I'd genuinely like to know why you think it is. You keep quoting Al but none of us seem to understand why you think he means what I don't think he means.

 

I've seen no advocacy for persecution of religious people anywhere in this thread, nor advocacy for persecution of non-religious people, and really see no need for hostile attitudes on either side.

 

edit - off-topic - @mace: I like the word lark. It's neat.

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

Of course it wouldn't be moral. Because it's the moral duty of a teacher to teach what is rationally correct. And it's doing a disservice to one's pupils to teach anything but what is right. The social implications are negligible by comparison, morally speaking.

The bad part about debating morality is that morality doesn't have a set definition, personally, I'd rather make their lives a bit easier by teaching them what is and is not socially acceptable.

[SkinWalker]

"And as I said before, would it be such a bad thing if because of atheist logic, some religious person lost their delusion?"

 

Here not only is he supporting Atheists forcing others to give up religion he's saying people who believe in religion are deluded.

 

I think you've gone too far in your characterization of Spider here. There is not even the slightest hint of "forcing" someone to abandon their delusions. Unless, of course, you admit that by revealing logical and empirical truth -providing rational discourse over irrational- is "forcing" someone to change their beliefs. Finally, Spider is saying religion is a delusion because... it is. Unless it can be empirically demonstrated that "religious knowledge" has some evidenciary basis in reality, there is only delusion left. The problem is, you're taking delusion to be a derogatory term when it is but a logical and parsimonious one that most succinctly defines the effect religion has upon the human psyche.

 

Delusion is, very succinctly, a misguided belief. I can give countless examples of how this is true in various world religions. To draw upon an example from Christianity, I'll point out the myth of Exodus. Not only is there no evidence to support this biblical myth, there is actually archaeological evidence that says it was completely made up during the Iron Age. The myth is about figures and events that are alleged to have occurred in the Late Bronze Age. That this event really took place is a delusion. Another Christian delusion is transubstantiation: that a little cracker and grape juice becomes actual flesh and blood of Jesus after consumed. This is actually believed by many people. The delusion of prayer is another, and one that has been discussed at length in this very forum, with the only result being that there was no empirical evidence to support prayer and only a few anecdotes that could not be tested.

 

"A rational life is a moral life"

 

So people who follow religion cannot be moral?

 

This is what's known as a non sequitur, a statement made that doesn't follow the original statement. Very clearly, Spider did not say that the religious cannot be moral. To make such a statement is fallacious and deserves no further discussion.

 

"it's a life with rational goals and purposes and the search for truth and right."

 

About five billion people follow religion of one form or another. I highly doubt all of them don't seek these things.

 

This is yet another fallacy known as an appeal to popularity. Its actually a form of the non sequitur since, again, it doesn't follow that because there are a lot of adherents that a given cult's doctrine is fact. Lot's of people believe space aliens are abducting them (no offense to Windu), this doesn't mean they are correct. Lot's of people believe the Earth is only 10,000 years old, but in spite of their delusion, the evidence is overwhelmingly to the contrary.

 

"And best of all, it's not a delusional life."

 

Again he says that a religious life is a deluded life, inferring that people who follow religion are deluded.

 

By now, if you read my post, it is readily apparent. Delusion is a misguided belief. There is no logical or empirical support for religious beliefs of the supernatural. I grant logical support for common sense tenants of religion: do unto others; give to charity; be good to your fellow human; don't kill each other; etc. But these aren't the tenants that are delusional. We're talking about transubstantiation, various claims of afterlife/reincarnation/karma, the necessity of human sacrifice, 21 virgins for martyrs, demon possession, and various supernatural agents called 'gods.' These things have no empirical evidence nor are they verifiable. To live one's life under the assumption that such superstitions are facts of reality is delusional because one allows one self to believe they are true in spite of the lack of evidence.

 

"What gives me the moral right to speak rational truths? Why, that would be... the inviolable moral right (and responsibility) to speak rational truths."

 

And here he once again supports Atheists forcing people who follow religion out of their beliefs.

 

And, again, there is no hint of 'forcing' anyone. Free speech is being exercised. If you don't want to hear it, don't listen. Change the channel. Log onto a different site. At the very least, don't read posts from that particular poster. Spider may feel as I that when in public forum (in the broad sense of the term, not Lucas forum), irrational claims need a rational voice that offers a sound and reasoned perspective. If this is offensive to those that are deluded into beliefs of Tarot cards, astrology, ESP, alien abductions, channeling, religion, Atlantis, an exaggerated antiquity of man, ancient astronauts, etc., then so be it. There are those for whom it is one's duty to offend. I'll not permit anyone to issue personal insults to other members in this or other forums I moderate, regardless of my general agreement with them, but I'll also not censor their right to free speech and to respond to irrational thought with rational.

 

That's five points where he's either said Atheists should persecute those who follow religion or otherwise say they're deluded.

 

Now, I looked back over them and even ran a word search on each page. I failed to see where Spider said "persecute." I think you've confused rational discourse and debate with persecute.

 

And by the way he's of the opinion that he isn't arrogant, condescending and trollish. Well with the mods permission would he be willing to have a poll where people can say whether or not he is these things?

 

Permission denied.

 

My final word on the topic is this: if you're going to participate in debates on sensitive topics, be prepared to have your sensibilities challenged and even offended. I've participated in atheist vs. theist debates in many different forums (both internet and not). I've never seen the atheist position lose in a single one. And in nearly every single debate, the theists supporters appeared offended that their beliefs are challenged and questioned. Somehow it's appropriate to challenge the political beliefs of others; their academic beliefs; their economic beliefs; etc., but religion is expected to get a pass? I'm sorry, I don't subscribe to that.

 

If you don't like to debate theism vs. atheism, please don't participate in such threads. Certainly, don't start such threads. And if you do chose to participate, check your sensibilities at the door and do not -do not- allow being offended cause you to engage in a flame war.

 

That is all.

[Windu Chi]

 

 

That's not a logical inference from the quote. It would be similar to me saying "I am wearing pants, and therefore am not completely naked", and you deducing that I'm saying that anytime that I am not wearing pants I am completely naked.

The logic of the statement goes something to the effect of "If A then B". However, negating A does not inherently negate B unless it has been stated.

 

Heh, with his responses to this topic we are discussing, I will say with that circumstantial evidence of that quote he seem to be arguing that Atheists rational beliefs are superior and highly moral in comparison to religious people.

 

I highly doubt otherwise.

But I could be clouded by his arrogance and condescending behavior.

[Nancy Allen``]

You want an end to the arguement? Just say that you can accept that others follow religion (I know you do SkinWalker). Because I look at the way some speak about it and the impression I get is they cannot accept people follow religion...feel free to defend this position if you feel it's wrong, but looking at some of the posts from Atheists they believe they have the right to go after religion, as opposed to simply believing there is no God, and that is my issue.

[MasterRoss08]

There is no logical or empirical support for religious beliefs of the supernatural.

Yes thats why the faith I beleive in is blind faith. A believe

that somethings we as humans cannot explain,understand etc due to are minds

not being smart enough to understand. Thats what alot of religions have. things

we cannot explain but choose to do so because we believe that its true.

May it be delusional w/e you wanna call it.

Proof of things we cannot understand are stated above:

The exodus, Transubstanation etc.

Yes from a rational veiw they cant be proved in human minds but

thats why they are called mysteries or what you wanna call them delusions.

Mysteries or what you wanna call delusions that we choose to believe in.

There are alot of things we cant prove from theist or rational veiws most notable

when the earth was created,how it was ,why it was, whats it like when we are

dead etc. its all in what you believe in or what you think etc.

 

So I have a question of my own.

Why? Why do you want to what you think prove that what religions

believe in are delusions? It kinda sounds like the 'Im right your wrong type of

thing' or what windu stated ' Atheists rational beliefs are superior and highly moral in comparison to religious people.' .

And another question.

Does it really matter? There are so many things that are still questions to us

so why? So many things we cant prove etc.

I find it there is no problem for someone to go believe in something going in

blind (mysteries or what you wanna call delusions) due to im a believer myself

and there isnt really anything bad as what some of you are throwing at

religion as well.

I cant see whats wrong with people that believe in somethings we cant

explain or think is right or what rational people think they have already proven are

not true.

Religious people just choose to believe in somethings that may or may not

be true. We just dont know enough so whats the problem here?

[SkinWalker]

If it were a simple matter of religious people "just choos[ing] to believe in somethings," I would have no problem whatsoever. Their beliefs wouldn't matter a bit to me.

 

However, the reality we live in is one where religious people want to codify their beliefs in my public schools; in my government; they want public policy to reflect their superstitions with regard to scientific discovery, achievement, and research; they use their beliefs to discriminate against others; they feel the need to keep telling me I'm going to hell for not accepting their beliefs; and their are religious people that go so far as to kill from 1 to 3000 people in a single event because they think their deity will be pleased. To top it all off, there are religious people who are using my tax dollars to fund their superstitions and beliefs that I find to be disagreeable and even misguided.

 

I should not have to suffer their delusions, but if I must, I'm going to say my piece. And I should have full right to "go after" religion as I see fit as long as I cause no physical harm.

[Nancy Allen``]

And that's part of the problem, as I see things. Should people be allowed to believe in Atheism? Yes. Should they be allowed the same rights as those who follow religion? Yes. Should they be allowed to act out their beliefs? Yes. Should Atheists be allowed to believe they have the right to hound those who follow religion? No, and the reason why I say no is because if people believe they have that right then they will act on that belief and when they act on that belief they cause the exact same problems Atheists criticise religion for, which brings down what is a very valid and good belief to a lot of people.

[Jae Onasi]

I'll point out the myth of Exodus. Not only is there no evidence to support this biblical myth, there is actually archaeological evidence that says it was completely made up during the Iron Age. The myth is about figures and events that are alleged to have occurred in the Late Bronze Age. That this event really took place is a delusion.

I'd be interested in the journal citations for that one, as some of the evidence I've seen dictates otherwise.

Another Christian delusion is transubstantiation: that a little cracker and grape juice becomes actual flesh and blood of Jesus after consumed. This is actually believed by many people.

That is a church doctrine, not something specified in the Bible. Some view church doctrine on par with the Bible, I do not (Biblical doctrine supersedes church doctrine), though I recognize its importance on a number of spiritual matters.

 

The delusion of prayer is another, and one that has been discussed at length in this very forum, with the only result being that there was no empirical evidence to support prayer and only a few anecdotes that could not be tested.

The only thing I've determined is that the studies needed better design (note that's not 'better designed to prove prayer', but simply 'better designed to get a definitive answer'). However, since this is the realm of metaphysical rather than physical, it's going to be hard to create a good physical design.

My final word on the topic is this: if you're going to participate in debates on sensitive topics, be prepared to have your sensibilities challenged and even offended. I've participated in atheist vs. theist debates in many different forums (both internet and not). I've never seen the atheist position lose in a single one.

I would not call the debate between Dawkins and Zacharias a 'win' for Dawkins. Dawkins was on the defensive a large part of the time, though he did state his points well and I found his arguments interesting. I was impressed with their civility to each other, and that is the model I think of as something to which this forum could aspire. I cannot imagine that we would be so completely unable to achieve that.

 

And in nearly every single debate, the theists supporters appeared offended that their beliefs are challenged and questioned.

If you don't like to debate theism vs. atheism, please don't participate in such threads. Certainly, don't start such threads. And if you do chose to participate, check your sensibilities at the door and do not -do not- allow being offended cause you to engage in a flame war.

 

_If_ this is an oblique reference in my direction, let me reiterate--I don't object to debating the tenets of theism/atheism, so long as it's done respectfully. I do object to belittling, condescension, and arrogant replies, on both sides of the fence. Feel free to attack the ideas--I find the whole discussion fascinating, as long as it doesn't involve attacks on me (or anyone else) as well as, or instead of, the ideas. It's not a 'win' in the debate if the opponents are driven away by obnoxious behavior rather than facts. The tone and delivery in some posts are barriers to effective communication; once those barriers are overcome, however, I think an intriguing discussion could ensue.

The intent of this thread was never to debate theism or atheism itself, and obviously I erred by not making that very specific proviso worded in a very specific manner in the original post. I'm trying to get a sense of where the atheist/theist paradigms mesh and where they differ in regards to everyday life. About the only thing of significance that I've discovered so far is that we're all successful at annoying each other.

 

So, let me really narrow the focus, inspired jointly by the season and, believe it or not, one of Spider AL's comments somewhere along the way about Christmas and the celebration, or choice not to celebrate. I'm sure there are about as many different ways to celebrate Christmas/Hanukkah/Solstice/etc. as there are people here, and I'd be interested in people's traditions and where religious/non-religious celebrations are similar and different.

 

Spider AL, I agree completely with you that Christmas has become over-commercialized. It should not have turned into what it is today. It drives me nuts to see Christmas items on display in October (craft and sewing stores excluded--it takes a lot of time to do crafts/sewing projects, so people have to start early--they get a pass in my book, but they're the only ones). I don't know that we could go as far as you have and eschew gift-giving altogether--it's too much fun to make something or find something special for people who have a lot of meaning in my life. The looks in my kids' eyes when they receive gifts are precious. Family/friends derive joy from giving to me as well.

 

And moving on to make this more general to everyone now....With our kids we try to have them pick toys of their own that they'd like to give to charity--one toy donated for every toy received. They're not old enough to handle the deeper meanings, but they can grasp the concept that their donations mean another child will benefit. It helps them think of something besides themselves. We decorate the tree, have a little village, a creche set, and an advent calendar (I love counting down the days, what can I say). With my adult family members--we draw names and put a low limit on gift cost to avoid the trend towards commercialism. Homemade items are favorites. My agnostic aunt/uncle give gifts because they've worked hard and done very well for themselves financially, and they like to share it. Instead of receiving gifts, however, they ask for donations to be made to charity in their name, and they don't care what the amount is. I made my aunt a small scrapbook one year--she appreciated that more than anything I could have bought for her in a store.

 

A couple of my agnostic friends celebrate Christmas like any Christian does, except they don't go to church. They'll go to concerts and visit friends/families or host parties in lieu of church services. One of my agnostic friends has a 'Solstice party'--he and his family celebrate the changing of the seasons and the fact that the shortest day of the year is now behind him (he likes summer a lot better than winter. ). They decorate with evergreens, holly, natural seasonal items, and such but avoid any religious symbols.

 

 

Feel free to discuss other holidays--Christmas just happens to be convenient since it's only 5 days away.

[MasterRoss08]

If it were a simple matter of religious people "just choos[ing] to believe in somethings," I would have no problem whatsoever. Their beliefs wouldn't matter a bit to me.

Well thats great to here

 

However, the reality we live in is one where religious people want to codify their beliefs in my public schools; in my government; they want public policy to reflect their superstitions with regard to scientific discovery, achievement, and research

Please by all means give some examples. Im pretty sure with schools it involves intelligent design. So how about an idea here just dont teach anything involving creation. Have classes that will teach it but not have it as manditory to teach it. So basically just let the parents decide what they want there child to take etc. Thus both sides win. But will teacher boards go along with it I doubt it. Its either 1 or the other.

Well, I would go for intelligent design myself but from a stand point

that both dont have enough evidence to some from both sides why not either teach both or none all together.

[Windu Chi]

This is yet another fallacy known as an appeal to popularity. Its actually a form of the non sequitur since, again, it doesn't follow that because there are a lot of adherents that a given cult's doctrine is fact. Lot's of people believe space aliens are abducting them (no offense to Windu), this doesn't mean they are correct.

 

Ok, SkinWalker when the hell did I ever say, that aliens was abducting me?

You must really have misunderstood my arguments in that UFO thread.

Also if you didn't mean any offense you wouldn't have referred to me.

You think you are really slick, huh?