condoning the murder of innocent fetis, approving of starving a brain damaged woman does not sound like moral high ground to me.

What's wrong with prayer? Being in touch with the commander of the universe can be a very good thing. How's the saying go....don't let God be your last resort but your first response. I know for a fact that prayer works. It's awesome!! We have not cuz we ask not.

As far as judgment goes.....the most oft repeated scripture used to be John 3:16 but now it's....."judge not lest you be judged." And it's taken wholly out of context. Too bad the rest of the context isn't quoted as well.....how convenient.

I thought I just said that, kingbee, have you suddenly become reading impaired?

not at all. i was merely trying to decipher my way thru your sloppy ambiguity.

When we remove God from moral equasions, we set man above all for determining right from wrong. The result of that is secular humanism, but when we then convince ourselves there *is* no absolute right and wrong, the result can only be a deterioration of our society.

now that you've cleared things up a bit, i'm no longer able to dismiss what appears to be a major revelation as a mere accident or the result of poor construction.

just one more conservative admitting she really doesn't believe mankind can be trusted with the freedom to make its own choices.

does this mean the freedom to worship in public? or just the right of the left to not allow any mention of religion in public?

secular humanism is not only a purposely redundant term but also a misleading one in that it suggests some sorta radical humanist cult. all humanism is by definition secular in the same--tho reverse--way that all benevolent despotism is anything but benevolent.

How DARE you sit in judgement???

Spoken from a true KKK mindset.

does this mean the freedom to worship in public? or just the right of the left to not allow any mention of religion in public?

For the excrutiatingly slow on the uptake, it means that anyone has the right and freedom to worship in public. Anyone has the right to mention religion in public. However, no religion should be organized or advocated by any governmental body, be it public schools or court houses, or even money, as far as I'm concerned. This is all that the Constitution is saying and is all that the ACLU is fighting for. Your suggestion that it is anything else is just your small-minded way of demonizing anyone who is in support of the Constitution. How utterly unpatriotic you really are, mod. You should be ashamed of yourself.

For the excrutiatingly slow on the uptake, it means that anyone has the right and freedom to worship in public. Anyone has the right to mention religion in public. However, no religion should be organized or advocated by any governmental body, be it public schools or court houses, or even money, as far as I'm concerned. This is all that the Constitution is saying and is all that the ACLU is fighting for. Your suggestion that it is anything else is just your small-minded way of demonizing anyone who is in support of the Constitution. How utterly unpatriotic you really are, mod. You should be ashamed of yourself.

I think if you twist things a little bit farther, they might snap.

Your logic is sound, but if it's student lead, why are administrators and teachers refusing to let children pray in school? And why is it that whenever a church stands up to say something against the current policies of government, the church is told it does not belong in politics, lest it loose it's tax-exempt status. The total opposite is true. The church or synagogue is the moral center of the community, and if it doesn't speak out, who will?

Peace,

Beebes

I think if you twist things a little bit farther, they might snap.

And, I'd certainly say the same about your argument. So, obviously, we're never going to agree. And, as for religious enterprises in schools, I'd say unless it's a religious school, in other words, a private school, it does not belong. Period. Religious beliefs are a right of anyone. But, they are not necessarily the moral fabric of society. Only those who are religious would think that. In fact, as I've already posted, morality is within the fabric of the individual, not his/her religion. Morality is independent of religion. Now, please tell me why so many wars are supported by and encouraged by religious people? The same people who think killing others is acceptable as long as they are no longer in the womb.

If you're referring to psudo Christians, it's usually pride or the other side has what they want as the reason they engage in war. If the Christian's are supporting a war it has to be justified which usually means sancity of life is involved and must be defended. That's why the same Christians who are pro life believe in Capitol Punishment in certain cases. To put a murderer to death protects the innocent and saves other lives. It all comes down to protecting life. Pure and simple. What I don't understand is the other side who are so quick to kill the babies and let the murderers live. Now what's up with that?

What's wrong with prayer? Being in touch with the commander of the universe can be a very good thing. How's the saying go....don't let God be your last resort but your first response. I know for a fact that prayer works. It's awesome!! We have not cuz we ask not.

I don't want to spend my time talking to something that doesn't exist. And I'm not going to be forced to pray to a god that doesn't exist, the same as how you wouldn't like it if I followed you around 24/7 and didn't let you pray.

That's what's wrong with prayer.

If the Christian's are supporting a war it has to be justified which usually means sancity of life is involved and must be defended.

A war with the sanctity of life?

How can...

Sanct...

Comic relief at its finest.

That's why the same Christians who are pro life believe in Capitol Punishment in certain cases. To put a murderer to death protects the innocent and saves other lives. It all comes down to protecting life. Pure and simple. What I don't understand is the other side who are so quick to kill the babies and let the murderers live. Now what's up with that?

But to put a murderer behind bars also protect the innocent and saves other lives. Plus one more.

And to kill an innocent person destroys lives. We can not say our justice system is perfect. Think Rubin Carter, David Milgaard, Randall Dale Adams (he actually was days away from getting executed), etc.

So who's trying to force you to pray? Can't be done. So you're safe there.

So you say God doesn't exist cuz.......you say so? Well that's pretty reliable. What if you're wrong? Have you ever been wrong before? I see you in a lose-lose situation here. If you are right and I am wrong, I still lose nothing. I've lived my life and kept God's word and tried to be like Him. Lived a peaceful and joyful life. So after that I take a long dirt nap. Now if you are wrong and I am right. You just lost everything. You've lost your chance to live for eternity. See life is short but eternity is a long, long, long, time. So if I were you, I'd spend some time checking the facts. At least while you still have time. I'm in a win-win situation and I have no doubts that there is a God. The evidence is there.

PacDragon said:

"The record seems pretty clear that human components alone don't get the job done."

Perhaps, but the record doesn't show that non- or super-human components would do a better job. Sounds similar to saying, "History has not shown that humans are capable of intergalactic travel. Hence, magic is the answer."

Your analogy would make a lot more sense if there was any reason to believe that mankind's morality problem was a technological problem. As it stands, technological advances seem to introduce new moral questions, instead of resolving the old ones.

Anyway secular humanism assumes that morally, man is already complete: we have innately everything we need to be perfect moral beings. Are you proposing that we simply lack the technology to "do the right thing"? That there's a moral equivalent to Fire, the Wheel, and the Warp Drive, and that once our smarty men invent it, our moral troubles will be over?

Because I love them, here's a little dialogue.

---

STUTEFISH: If man is self-perfectible, why hasn't he perfected himself yet?

PACDRAGON: Because he lacks the technology.

STUTEFISH: Since when does technology solve metaphysical problems?

So you say God doesn't exist cuz.......you say so? Well that's pretty reliable. What if you're wrong? Have you ever been wrong before? I see you in a lose-lose situation here. If you are right and I am wrong, I still lose nothing. I've lived my life and kept God's word and tried to be like Him. Lived a peaceful and joyful life. So after that I take a long dirt nap. Now if you are wrong and I am right. You just lost everything. You've lost your chance to live for eternity. See life is short but eternity is a long, long, long, time. So if I were you, I'd spend some time checking the facts. At least while you still have time. I'm in a win-win situation and I have no doubts that there is a God. The evidence is there.

Are you trying to use Pascal's wager to tell me that I am a fool to not believe in god?

First you assume the odds that god exists are greater than zero. That's not exactly a great assumption to start out with when talking to a strong atheist.

also, you do not lose nothing per se if you spend your life going to church and being devout. That takes time, and if we do not live forever, time is a commodity that is one we do not have a lot of. Therefore it is like playing the lottery. I don't play the lottery cause I know I won't win. But I'm still ahead of all the losers.

If I am wrong (which is a massive if), there still are problems to this:

What if we are both wrong? What if we get up there and some other religion was the "correct" one? Then we're both screwed.

If I am wrong, but live a good life trying to be a good person, am I still punished? Or, realizing that I am wrong, can I be rewarded for being a good person?

What if god just hates smartasses who change their religion in order too maximize their odds of gaining eternal life?

latour, I take it you're a strong atheist.

What would be the correct assumption to start out with, when talking to a strong atheist? Why is " the odds that god exists are greater than zero" such a bad assumption to make, when talking to a strong atheist?

Is it because strong atheists have special access to the true probability of god's existence? Or is it because strong atheists become unhappy when confronted with reasonable assumptions they 're not prepared to accept?

In any case, what's your assumption about the probability of God's existence, and upon what is that assumption based?