Do we need Religion?

[lovely_girl_brunette]

I believe religion is only for weak minded who put their woes in life and blame other.religion divide people,religion make you a living zombie controlling your life.

[piratemonkey]

Religion: (n) A daughter of Hope and Fear, explaining to Ignorance the nature of the Unknowable. - Ambrose Bierce

[BoogyMan]

Religion: (n) A daughter of Hope and Fear, explaining to Ignorance the nature of the Unknowable. - Ambrose Bierce


Do we need humanism whose pedagogical efforts lead to the destruction of the inner man while holding up the infinitesimal reach of man as its god?

[piratemonkey]

Do we need humanism whose pedagogical efforts lead to the destruction of the inner man while holding up the infinitesimal reach of man as its god?


Explain why you think that the "pedagogical efforts" of humanism lead to the "destruction of the inner man."

That connection isn't intuitive and seems specious to me.

On top of that, explain why you think humanism has a "god" at all.

[Anti-Racism]

Religion: (n) A daughter of Hope and Fear, explaining to Ignorance the nature of the Unknowable. - Ambrose Bierce


Do we need humanism whose pedagogical efforts lead to the destruction of the inner man while holding up the infinitesimal reach of man as its god?


Liberalism/Humanism is a religion. Maybe we need neither.

[Technocrat]

Humanism is only a religion when it is religious Humanism. Not all Humanism is religious. There is a secular humanism.

You are confusing religion and philosophy when you claim "liberalism" and "humanism" are philosophies.

I also don't understand why you seemingly link Liberalism and Humanism; they are two separate philosophies. One is a political philosophy, while the other is an ethical one.

There's nothing wrong with Humanism or Liberalism (if you are talking about Rawlsian style Liberalism).

On the issue of Religions, not all religions are equal. Some are worse than others, and some aren't all that bad. Typically, the less bad a religion is, the less it deals with the "supernatural" stuff. They then end up resembling a coherent secular philosophy though.

[BoogyMan]

Do we need humanism whose pedagogical efforts lead to the destruction of the inner man while holding up the infinitesimal reach of man as its god?


Explain why you think that the "pedagogical efforts" of humanism lead to the "destruction of the inner man."

That connection isn't intuitive and seems specious to me.

On top of that, explain why you think humanism has a "god" at all.


The comment needs no explanation, you know exactly what I am talking about. Do you even know the full definition of specious? Egads man, I am not at all trying to be deceptive, I laid my view right out there on the table.

Humanism is little more than man elevating his own intellect to become his own god.

[Technocrat]

Humanism is hardly putting his intellect up "as his own God."

Humanism is a philosophy which puts Humans first and celebrates their achievements and contributions. It raises the welfare and needs of Humans above the welfare and needs of imaginary sky friends.

At least Humans are real.

Instead of putting it up as his own "God," it's more like acknowledging and supporting something known to exist and be useful, good.

[piratemonkey]

Do we need humanism whose pedagogical efforts lead to the destruction of the inner man while holding up the infinitesimal reach of man as its god?


Explain why you think that the "pedagogical efforts" of humanism lead to the "destruction of the inner man."

That connection isn't intuitive and seems specious to me.

On top of that, explain why you think humanism has a "god" at all.


The comment needs no explanation, you know exactly what I am talking about.Â*Â*Do you even know the full definition of specious?Â*Â*Egads man, I am not at all trying to be deceptive, I laid my view right out there on the table.

I know what you were talking about, but I wasn't sure you did.Â*Â*The syntax used in that sentence didn't resemble most of your postings.

It seems I know a bit more about the definition of "specious" than you. It doesn't necessarily mean deceptive. This is the meaning I was using:

specious SPEE-shuhs, adjective:
1. Apparently right; superficially fair, just, or correct, but not so in reality; as, "specious reasoning; a specious argument."
http://dictionary.reference.com/wordoftheday/archive/2003/06/03.html


Humanism is little more than man elevating his own intellect to become his own god.

You seem to be projecting the need for a god on secular humanists.

[BoogyMan]

I know what you were talking about, but I wasn't sure you did.Â*Â*The syntax used in that sentence didn't resemble most of your postings.Â*Â*

It seems I know a bit more about the definition of "specious" than you.Â*Â*It doesn't necessarily mean deceptive.Â*Â*This is the meaning I was using:

specious SPEE-shuhs, adjective:
1. Apparently right; superficially fair, just, or correct, but not so in reality; as, "specious reasoning; a specious argument."
http://dictionary.reference.com/wordoftheday/archive/2003/06/03.html


Obviously your desire to appear to be correct trumps your desire to be intellectually honest.Â*Â*The complete definition of specious includes the intent to deceive.Â*Â*If you wish to misuse words you should post a disclaimer with your commentary that you don't subscribe to normative conventions of usage and meaning.

Link Here (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/specious)

You seem to be projecting the need for a god on secular humanists.

Humanism is as humanism does, humanism puts man in the place of God.

[piratemonkey]

Obviously your desire to appear to be correct trumps your desire to be intellectually honest.Â*Â*The complete definition of specious includes the intent to deceive.Â*Â*If you wish to misuse words you should post a disclaimer with your commentary that you don't subscribe to normative conventions of usage and meaning.

*snicker*

I'm correct, but that isn't my motivation here.Â*Â*You started this pedantic nit-picking, remember?Â*Â*I'm defending myself from an oblique personal attack suggesting I don't know the meaning of the words I'm using.Â*Â*I showed very clearly that I knew the correct and most common meaning of the word.

Please re-read the above posted definition.Â*Â*It's the complete first definition, which by all conventions means that it's historically the first, discrete meaning.
http://www.m-w.com/help/dictnotes/def.htm

The link provided even gave a perfect example of the word "specious" being used without implying deception:
A specious theory is confuted by this free and perfect experiment.
-- Edward Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire

Let's look at your link:
specious [spee-shuhs]Â*Â*

–adjective 1. apparently good or right though lacking real merit; superficially pleasing or plausible: specious arguments.Â*Â*
2. pleasing to the eye but deceptive.Â*Â*
3. Obsolete. pleasing to the eye; fair.Â*Â*

Not surprisingly, your own link supports my position, not yours.Â*Â*You do understand that 1, 2 and 3 are discrete definitions, right?

If you'd like to keep going with this absurdity, please continue.Â*Â*Any objective observer who can pick up a dictionary will see that your claim of my error is very obviously wrong.Â*Â*Remember, I'm defending myself... you threw the first stone.


Humanism is as humanism does, humanism puts man in the place of God.

This presumes there to be a god in the first place.Â*Â*With no "god" there's nothing to replace.

[BoogyMan]

Your motivation is unknowable and definition must stand in absence of your correct usage of terms.

I love it when you behave in such a pompous manner, as you have done so time and time again. It actually shows that my previous assertion that you have an "i am more intelligent than you because I say so" attitude. Thanks for proving it once again.

Humanists simply, in the void of their own understanding, place themselves on par with God.

[piratemonkey]

Your motivation is unknowable and definition must stand in absence of your correct usage of terms.

hee hee.

Sucks when your own link shows that I'm right, eh?

And you seemed to think you knew a lot about my motivations last post:
Obviously your desire to appear to be correct trumps your desire to be intellectually honest.

*snicker*


I love it when you behave in such a pompous manner, as you have done so time and time again.Â*Â*It actually shows that my previous assertion that you have an "i am more intelligent than you because I say so" attitude.Â*Â*Thanks for proving it once again.

Here's the difference:Â*Â*I provide evidence for my positions... evidence that actually argues for my positions.



Humanists simply, in the void of their own understanding, place themselves on par with God.

Humanists are ignorant, so they are wrong.Â*Â*Great argument. :rolleyes:

[BoogyMan]

The hogwash you posted notwitstanding, your assessment of my commentary with regard to humanism is little more than assumption.

Lack of understanding does not equal ignorance. Lack of understanding in this case points to the void of a hold on the understanding that God is supreme, not man.

[underdawg]

I think that some people need religion. They want something that they feel will make them feel comforted in a chaotic world.

[Anti-Racism]

I think that some people need religion. They want something that they feel will make them feel comforted in a chaotic world.


Do we need them?

[lovely_girl_brunette]

Intellectual discussions sometimes missed the point,why not just make it simple.answer direct to the points.Yes or No then lil bit of why.Now im more confused.he!he!he!help.

[piratemonkey]

Lack of understanding does not equal ignorance.Â*Â*Lack of understanding in this case points to the void of a hold on the understanding that God is supreme, not man.


ARGUMENT FROM BLINDNESS (I)
(1) Atheists are spiritually blind.
(2) Therefore, God exists.

[Technocrat]

Humanism is as humanism does, humanism puts man in the place of God.


There's no God to put man before in the first place. You might as well say we put Man before flying twinkies.

[CheesyMuslim]

Sorry bout that,

1. But Yes.
2. Gawd does exist.
3. And his name is Jesus.
4. I found him when I was 33 years of age.
5. Or might I say he called me, is more like it.
6. No one is too sinful here to hear the call, and Gawd will not call those that are not his.
7. If you or anyone else hears the call you will be enlightened to listen, and obey.
8. It will be a life altering time for those who get the call, all you will have to do is take it slow, and Gawd will guide you to what he requires.
9. I for one hope that you get the call, you have a wonderful spirit, that does many good works, Jesus does not overlook, this fact.
10. And Jesus is not deaf, to the questions asked him directly.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[Elrathin]

Does God tell you to judge and insult others on the internet?

[CheesyMuslim]

Does God tell you to judge and insult others on the internet?



Sorry bout that,

1. But yes sort of, but I am not the judge.
2. But to shock with insults isn't all bad if I can get the message across that can steer others from sin, and wrong doing.
3. I express my views the best I know how, and with limited vocabulary, I do okay.
4. It does come across rather gruff at times, buts that's the way it is.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[piratemonkey]

Does God tell you to judge and insult others on the internet?

1. But yes sort of, but I am not the judge.
Huh?

You judge people, EXACTLY the way Jesus said not to... and you're not the judge how?


2. But to shock with insults isn't all bad if I can get the message across that can steer others from sin, and wrong doing.
So it's OK to sin if it keeps others from sinning.

AKA: The ends justify the means.

[Elrathin]

2. But to shock with insults isn't all bad if I can get the message across that can steer others from sin, and wrong doing.


So in other words, you go against your religion by insulting and judging others to steer them away from sin, and the result is they stay the same while you are in fact sinning.

That's the REALLY funny part, you steer NOONE away that wasn't already away. Your posts are soo chalk full of insults and outrageous ideas that anyone that COULD be steered away ISN'T.

Something tells me you need to rethink what you're doing if you're gonna use that excuse.

[CheesyMuslim]

Sorry bout that,

1. But I have hooked you.
2. You can't let go, you have to continue to respond.
3. Your a captive audience.
4. And sure, you complain alot about what you read of mine.
5. But still you can't let go, now can you?
6. I am having an affect on you, even thou you refuse to see it.
7. I will turn some here, but I won't even want the credit.
8. I have begun a work on you, and the other monkey dude.
9. You will see.
10. Time will show I am correct here.
11. And I will continue to insult you bastards, from time to time, as I see fit.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[Elrathin]

Sorry bout that,

1. But I have hooked you.
2. You can't let go, you have to continue to respond.
3. Your a captive audience.
4. And sure, you complain alot about what you read of mine.
5. But still you can't let go, now can you?
6. I am having an affect on you, even thou you refuse to see it.
7. I will turn some here, but I won't even want the credit.
8. I have begun a work on you, and the other monkey dude.
9. You will see.
10. Time will show I am correct here.
11. And I will continue to insult you bastards, from time to time, as I see fit.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas


It's called a message board, of course I am going to respond. But you have not refuted ANYTHING I have said. You haven't turned ANYONE.

You are having no effect on me whatsoever in changing my mind on anything. Insults and outlandish comments do not change the mind FOR your arguments.

I respond to you because you are responding to me on a message board. That is what message boards are for, posting.

If anyone is hooked, it's you because you can't refute anything I say. That is why you post what you did above. Because you can't refute it, so you post nonsense that has nothing to do with the topic.

I have proven that you yourself are sinning on message board. That means that you are either not a Christian, or you need to really step back and see what you are doing, because you aren't changing anyone's mind by insults, outlandish comments, and judging people and your sinning in the process.

[CheesyMuslim]

Sorry bout that,

1. But I am not going to get into a debate about who's a sinner with a heathern.
2. BLAH!!!!!!!!!!
3. You want to call me a sinner.
4. Okay, sure.
5. I know I am.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[Elrathin]

1. But I am not going to get into a debate about who's a sinner with a heathern.


You don't debate period, so what else is new?

[Technocrat]

He's trolling. Just ignore him Elrathin. It's really not worth it.

[Elrathin]

He's trolling. Just ignore him Elrathin. It's really not worth it.


ACtaully I have always had fun with Chess, proving he is a fraud on each on every board he goes to :) Well those that he doesn't get banned on anyway.

[CheesyMuslim]

Sorry bout that,

1. But just where have you been that I was banned from?
2. And what ID were you using?
3. You didn't learn your lesson over there, and keep getting punched around by me.
4. You know I am going to continue, but you keep taking hits on everything you believe in, if I disagree with it.
5. My words are far more powerful, than you constant questions of*Prove it!*.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[Elrathin]

5. My words are far more powerful, than you constant questions of*Prove it!*.


In the world of debate, your argument is only as good as what you can prove. So far you can prove nothing, and therefore, your words are meaningless.

Your posts are a joke, and a very funny one at that. Everyone sees it.

[CheesyMuslim]

Sorry bout that,

1. But my posts are affecting this world.
2. While you go about like a gnat bud.
3. You are the joke, and you feel you are some sort of superior brain.
4. I lol at your smallness.
5. Its rather funny.
6. But to each their own.
7. I am not surprised your a liberal.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[Elrathin]

1. But my posts are affecting this world.
2. While you go about like a gnat bud.


Again, you lash out at the truth with nothing but your ego. You provide no evidence to your claims, this is the truth. And no amound of spin can change that Chess. Pretty sad actually.

[Anti-Racism]

The ends justify the means.


I haven't yet found a single human being who doesn't believe this, and with good reason.

[piratemonkey]

The ends justify the means.


I haven't yet found a single human being who doesn't believe this, and with good reason.


Huh?

That is a morally unjustifiable position.

Not only do most people not "believe" it (bad term, as rational thought doesn't require belief), but they don't "believe" it for good, logical reasons.

[Technocrat]

The end itself cannot justify the means, since the means can clearly outweigh the ends. It makes no sense to say it always outweighs the other. Sometimes, it can. SOmetimes, it won't.

If the end is to save 1 innocent person, and you kill 50 innocent people,that's clearly a net loss all else equal. If you kill 2 to save 53, that's different, short some absurdly unrealistic scenario.

[Professor]

The ends justify the means.


I haven't yet found a single human being who doesn't believe this, and with good reason.


I do think everyone believes it on some level, the question is when to apply it.

About religion...

I think some people need it, therefore we need it. If someone feels the need for it then it is necessary. However, organized religion used as a device for controlling people, while I believe it is wrong and shouldn't be encouraged I can see how people would see the need for it.

[piratemonkey]

I think some people need it, therefore we need it.Â*Â*If someone feels the need for it then it is necessary.Â*

Some people feel the need to start fires.

Some people feel the need to molest children.

The idea that "someone feels the need" for something that it's morally justified is a hollow argument.

However, organized religion used as a device for controlling people, while I believe it is wrong and shouldn't be encouraged I can see how people would see the need for it.

And people feel the need for "alternative" cures for diseases.Â*Â*Does that make it right for snake oil salesment to give them what the feel the need for?

Or would it be better to educate the person as to why science-based medicine works better?

[Professor]

I think some people need it, therefore we need it. If someone feels the need for it then it is necessary.

Some people feel the need to start fires.

Some people feel the need to molest children.

The idea that "someone feels the need" for something that it's morally justified is a hollow argument.


Yes people feeling the need to do things that hurt others is wrong and should be stopped. However, I don't think religion falls into that category. Organized religion is at its base a group of people with the same individualized beliefs. If someone feels the need to live their life with the belief that Jesus died for them and they should live by his rules then fine. They are not hurting anyone only deciding upon their own standards. It's doesn't effect anyone else.

However, organized religion used as a device for controlling people, while I believe it is wrong and shouldn't be encouraged I can see how people would see the need for it.

[quote=piratemonkey]
And people feel the need for "alternative" cures for diseases. Does that make it right for snake oil salesment to give them what the feel the need for?

Or would it be better to educate the person as to why science-based medicine works better?


I don't understand what you are arguing here...if someone wants an alternative cure and they go to the snake oil salesman then what is the crime in him selling them the snake oil? And yes, I am always for education, no matter what the scenario. But part of education is showing the patient the medical procedures and the alternative ones. Education is not giving a person only one side of the story, that's simply explaining a point of view at best, indoctrination at worst.

I stand by my argument that if some people see the need for religion, as defined by faith in their lives and defined by an organized body of like believers, then we as a society need it. If there is a group of people within a society whose needs are not being met, the citizens of said society are not doing their jobs as contributing members.

[piratemonkey]

Yes people feeling the need to do things that hurt others is wrong and should be stopped.Â*Â*However, I don't think religion falls into that category.Â*Â*
I do.Â*Â*That's where we differ.


Organized religion is at its base a group of people with the same individualized beliefs.Â*Â*If someone feels the need to live their life with the belief that Jesus died for them and they should live by his rules then fine.Â*Â*They are not hurting anyone only deciding upon their own standards.Â*Â*It's doesn't effect anyone else.

Again, I disagree.

What happens to a child is taught faith-based thinking from birth when they become an adult?Â*Â*Do they limit faith-based thinking to religion... usually not.Â*Â*We see public, political decisions being made on faith ("Iraq has WMD," "A blastocyst deserves the same rights as a human adult")Â*Â*Those decisions hurt a LOT of people.

If people could limit this form of thought to private religion, I'd have less of a problem with it.


I don't understand what you are arguing here...if someone wants an alternative cure and they go to the snake oil salesman then what is the crime in him selling them the snake oil?Â*Â*
It's lying and fraud.

If someone goes to a doctor and says they want their leg removed because it's been posessed by demons, is it OK for the doctor to remove it?Â*Â* That's essentually what you are saying.


And yes, I am always for education, no matter what the scenario.Â*Â*But part of education is showing the patient the medical procedures and the alternative ones.Â*Â*Education is not giving a person only one side of the story, that's simply explaining a point of view at best, indoctrination at worst.

There's a huge hole in your argument.
(I teach this point in one of my treatment planning classes.)

As a practitioner, which alternatives am I obligated to discuss?Â*Â*All of them?Â*Â*No.Â*Â*Just the ones that have at least some scientific evidence to support them?Â*Â*Yes.

Otherwise, I'd be obligated to discuss faith healing every time I recommended a procedure.

In science, all opinions are not equal.


I stand by my argument that if some people see the need for religion, as defined by faith in their lives and defined by an organized body of like believers, then we as a society need it.Â*Â*If there is a group of people within a society whose needs are not being met, the citizens of said society are not doing their jobs as contributing members.


Again, this argument assumes that all needs are good.Â*Â*The point I'm making is that this is a need that does more harm than good.

[Professor]

Yes people feeling the need to do things that hurt others is wrong and should be stopped. However, I don't think religion falls into that category.
I do. That's where we differ.


How do you see that? I am not talking about the Pope, the abortion bomber or anything extreme, I am talking about person who goes to church on Sunday then leads their live for the rest of the week, without interfering with anyone else. They have a personal need for it, and they aren’t affecting anyone else.



Organized religion is at its base a group of people with the same individualized beliefs. If someone feels the need to live their life with the belief that Jesus died for them and they should live by his rules then fine. They are not hurting anyone only deciding upon their own standards. It's doesn't effect anyone else.

Again, I disagree.

What happens to a child is taught faith-based thinking from birth when they become an adult? Do they limit faith-based thinking to religion... usually not. We see public, political decisions being made on faith ("Iraq has WMD," "A blastocyst deserves the same rights as a human adult") Those decisions hurt a LOT of people.

If people could limit this form of thought to private religion, I'd have less of a problem with it.


I can actually rebut this with my life story. I was born, baptized a few weeks later in my parent's church. We went to that church for a few more years before changing to a different one that was closer to our new home. But my parents have pictures of my, two years old in white shoes, white socks, pink frilly dresses, pink hair bows, white hats and white gloves. I was sent to the Lutheran school attached to the Lutheran church (that was the new church closer to home) for preschool until 8th grade; so for 11 years. I got out of going to the Christian high school because it was expensive and our public school was pretty good. I still continued to work at the church and go to the youth group.

After all that, how did I turn out a war protesting, bush hating, pro-choice, freedom loving, political activist, sign waving, liberal, democrat? I started thinking for myself. I looked around my life and saw what was going on and thought about what people had told me. I decided what I really thought instead of what I 'thought' as a kid. I am not saying kids are incapable of independent thought, but it is much harder at a young age, especially when you are so keen to fit in.

Even with religion, and even being raised in the thick of it, I was able to come out of it and think for myself. Several of my friends have done the same. It is possible. Just because someone is raised a certain way, they don't have to remain that way. People can learn a second language.




I don't understand what you are arguing here...if someone wants an alternative cure and they go to the snake oil salesman then what is the crime in him selling them the snake oil?
It's lying and fraud.

If someone goes to a doctor and says they want their leg removed because it's been posessed by demons, is it OK for the doctor to remove it? That's essentually what you are saying.


No, why would the doctor remove the leg unless it WAS posessed by demons? But with the snake oil, I am assuming it is a viable option since I don't know anything about medicine. But no one poo poos getting a second opinion. So why not a second cure? I think this may be one point that we may have to agree to disagree on as it is only an example and the issue we are disagreeing on is alternative medicine while the debate is religion.




I stand by my argument that if some people see the need for religion, as defined by faith in their lives and defined by an organized body of like believers, then we as a society need it. If there is a group of people within a society whose needs are not being met, the citizens of said society are not doing their jobs as contributing members.


Again, this argument assumes that all needs are good. The point I'm making is that this is a need that does more harm than good.


I am arguing for the people whose needs are innocent and only for themselves, which I believe to be the majority of the people. The ones who blow up abortion clinics and go to such extremes are the minority. Until someone crosses the boundary into affecting others negatively then the need is innocent and people can have it.

Arguing that any religion should be outlawed because it might offend it like arguing that any homosexuality should be outlawed because it might offend. While both can be a personal irritant, both groups have the right to practice their beliefs and lifestyles as they please without interference as long as the actions remain acceptable.

[underdawg]

I also grew up within a religious community. I see absolutely nothing wrong with people wanting to believe in something as long as those people do no use their religion as a weapon against those who fall outside of their group.

[piratemonkey]

How do you see that?Â*Â*I am not talking about the Pope, the abortion bomber or anything extreme, I am talking about person who goes to church on Sunday then leads their live for the rest of the week, without interfering with anyone else.Â*Â*They have a personal need for it, and they aren’t affecting anyone else.

Except when they vote and continue to use the same faith-based thinking process to make those decisions.

Most people in the US don't "believe" in evolution.Â*Â*Should we have a vote to determine what we teach children with respect to this topic?

Faith-based thinking is, by definition, uncritical.


I can actually rebut this with my life story.Â*
Great story.Â*Â*I'm gratified that you can still think rationally as an adult.

This story is anecdotal.Â*Â*Over 98% of people raised in a religion, stay in that religion.Â*Â*Statistically this is impossible without a lack of objective judgment about one's own relgion.

You were lucky, and likely smart.Â*Â*It is possible, just rare.


No, why would the doctor remove the leg unless it WAS posessed by demons?Â*
Huh?

Â*But with the snake oil, I am assuming it is a viable option since I don't know anything about medicine.Â*Â*
Huh?Â*Â*I don't even get what you are trying to say here.

But no one poo poos getting a second opinion.Â*Â*So why not a second cure?Â*Â*I think this may be one point that we may have to agree to disagree on as it is only an example and the issue we are disagreeing on is alternative medicine while the debate is religion.
My point is that alternative medicine is mostly a faith-based endevour.Â*Â*If it wasn't, there would be scientific proof, and then it isn't "alternative."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snake_oil
(I'm talking about the quackery aspect of snake oil.)


I am arguing for the people whose needs are innocent and only for themselves, which I believe to be the majority of the people.
And I agree, 'cept for the "majority of the people" part.

If it's an innocent belief, self-limiting and doesn't hurt anyone, then I'm fine with it.

How do I know this isn't true much of the time?
More than 50% of Americans don't think evolution is real, but rather their fantastic Christian creation story.
That's sad.
Shocking.


Â*Â*The ones who blow up abortion clinics and go to such extremes are the minority.Â*Â*Until someone crosses the boundary into affecting others negatively then the need is innocent and people can have it.
And this is the problem with faith-based thinking.Â*Â*With no checks or balances in the real world, anyone using faith-based thought could end up believing anything.

How often to you see individual athiests doing such things?Â*Â*Ever?


Arguing that any religion should be outlawed because it might offend it like arguing that any homosexuality should be outlawed because it might offend.Â*

Have you read anything I've typed?

You are now propping up quite the Strawman.Â*Â*Where did anyone say religion should be illegal?

That's absurd.

Please argue against the points I'm making, not ones you imagine me making.