In the name of God

[paultrr]

By the way Tinny. I'm not picking on you for that statement. Just showing a bit of a point where atheism itself tends to not be as impartial as they'd like to be given they see the world as that deterministic. Like it or not all human's tend to attach morality to certain acts in certain situations. In the end run weither or not free will actually exists we all see choices as having certain responcabilities. Everyone has their own version of what you sow is what you reap.

[paultrr]

"But when a self acknowledge follower of any of these texts actually does what the texts tell them to do, there is nothing that can remove that book and it's connected religion from direct responsibility for the action. It says kill and it's followers do. "

 

The Quran, in and of itself does not actually support what certain sects of the Musslim faith hold to. There has never been any grounds to label all religious people the same. Even those who are atheist in this country as part of what we term the State or people, as represented in our courts by officials have at times as the collective State been indirectly involved in cases where a not guilty person was tried and convicted for a crime they did not commit. Should we label all atheist or even all believers there responcible? No, those who looked at the evidence and interpreted such are those who did the act. Its simply wrong to label such that way if one is really impartial. You cannot claim to be impartial and yet, blame the whole for the acts of a few. That type of justice would be a blindfolded lady with one eye out from under the blindfold.

[paultrr]

i am curious if anyone can produce evidence taken from double blind testing done to determine the negative impact of religion on the human brain (like what has been done concerning violent material). otherwise, don't even attempt to convince anyone that your anti-religious views are anything but opinions formulated by condensing and trivializing the complexities of human behavior to suite a biased view.

 

I agree. There is no evidence of that out there at all and such a view is biased.

[paultrr]

Its almost as bad as certain Christians tending to lable all scientists as atheist. Some are, some are not. In general science just sees nature as providing its own answers. Nothing more and nothing less. B)

[C1ay]

Atheims has no basis for morality.

 

Are you saying a basis is required for morality? I have never found a need for anything to base my morals on other than trying to treat others the way I would like for them to treat me.

[Biochemist]

Are you saying a basis is required for morality? I have never found a need for anything to base my morals on other than trying to treat others the way I would like for them to treat me.

There is absolutely a basis required for morality. This ought to be another thread.

[Queso]

required? i don't think so. i think it's more of a.....social majority, kind of thing.

[IrishEyes]

There is absolutely a basis required for morality. This ought to be another thread.

Great idea.

Start one.

[Fishteacher73]

It's done...

[IrishEyes]

It's done...

You so totally rock, Squirt!

 

sorry, Finding Nemo is a favorite at my house... especially when nemo is working late! ;)

[Fishteacher73]

It's been a diet of Chicken Run and The Increadibles at my house...... ;)

[IrishEyes]

It's been a diet of Chicken Run and The Increadibles at my house...... ;)

Yeah, The INCREDIBLES! Now that's one that I'm thinking about hiding for a while ;)

Finding Nemo is quite awesome though. And of course, Shark Tale is great as well. But then again, the little one goes for The Little Mermaid. What can I say? We all love the water!

Back to topuic though, I like what paultrr (what does that mean anyhow?) said about the blindfolded lady with one eye peeking. Seems right on target to me...

[Fishteacher73]

Back to topuic though, I like what paultrr (what does that mean anyhow?) said about the blindfolded lady with one eye peeking. Seems right on target to me...

 

Can not find the refernce.... ;)

[IrishEyes]

cant's find the reference

post 70...

 

"But when a self acknowledge follower of any of these texts actually does what the texts tell them to do, there is nothing that can remove that book and it's connected religion from direct responsibility for the action. It says kill and it's followers do. "

 

The Quran, in and of itself does not actually support what certain sects of the Musslim faith hold to. There has never been any grounds to label all religious people the same. Even those who are atheist in this country as part of what we term the State or people, as represented in our courts by officials have at times as the collective State been indirectly involved in cases where a not guilty person was tried and convicted for a crime they did not commit. Should we label all atheist or even all believers there responcible? No, those who looked at the evidence and interpreted such are those who did the act. Its simply wrong to label such that way if one is really impartial. You cannot claim to be impartial and yet, blame the whole for the acts of a few. That type of justice would be a blindfolded lady with one eye out from under the blindfold.

[Fishteacher73]

True, descrimination of any sort is bad. I think everyones fath is their own buisness and it should not enter the public realm. (by this same token I think ones faith should not enter the public realm in any fashion in terms of law).

 

A theist state is not for me. There are some and if that is what you want go live in one. The US IS NOT one.

[IrishEyes]

I should move to Norway then, eh?

[Fishteacher73]

Almost all of Europe has state religions...

The "supreme law of the land", the Constitution, establishes secular gov't. The 2nd Amendment specifically states that the gov't should not promote nor hinder ANY religion.