A religion for the mentally unstable...

[MadMaxReborn]

Pick a religious belief (that includes atheisim), then pick the loudest support, and then criticize and more importantly GENERALIZE. That isn't how personal belief works. In any group there are the good, the bad and the worst. The problem is placing all of your protests against that group into its loudest member and making the completely false assumption that you have criticized the group belief.

There is no worse harm to society than discrimination based on generalization.

I am a legal scholar, and I will tell you that this nation (USA) was NOT founded on separation of church and state in the way most people believe. The idea was to not allow the government to promote a certain religion. The idea was not to take religion out of the country, but that government regulation was not the best means to control religion. This country was founded with the belief that religious leaders were in a better position to control religion. The Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause do not protect the people from religion, but protects religion from the people.

Max

 

[marv]

Pick a religious belief (that includes atheisim),...

Atheism is not a "belief" system. An atheist simply does not accept the premise that there is, or need be, any form of deity(s). In fact, many atheists (myself included) have no objection to religion so long as the belief system provides a healthy benefit to themselves and others.

Of all major belief systems, Islam stands alone as a detriment and a danger to others by virtue of its practices and implementation. The only difference between the "best" muslim and the "worst" muslim is the intensity of their practice.

By the way, just what is a "legal scholar"?

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

I am a legal scholar, and I will tell you that this nation (USA) was NOT founded on separation of church and state in the way most people believe. The idea was to not allow the government to promote a certain religion. The idea was not to take religion out of the country, but that government regulation was not the best means to control religion. This country was founded with the belief that religious leaders were in a better position to control religion. The Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause do not protect the people from religion, but protects religion from the people.

Max

I would differ a tiny bit, there.

I would "stand it on it's head" so to speak.

The founding fathers understood very well the axiom that "power corrupts".

They also understood that a SECULAR basis for government permitted later generations to make CHANGES to the government, based on discourse and such.

Had it been based on RELIGIOUS grounds, then changes become MUCH harder to effect. Who can argue against "Well, GOD said So!". It becomes nearly insurmountable a project to change a RELIGIOUS based system. For a fine example, look how slowly changes take place in the Catholic Church: it's taken them hundreds of years to apologize for killing someone over the "sun-goes-around-the-earth" thing.

I submit to you, that the Founding Fathers were quite cognizant of this, and deliberately LEFT OUT all religious basis for the Constitution.

It IS a document chiefly interested in LIMITING the Power of Government in very specific ways, is it not?

...

Power Corrupts.

Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely.

Mixing the Power of Religion with the Power of Government is a Recipe for Utter and Complete Corruption ...

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

...Islam!

• As a muslim, you are ordered to spread Islam across the globe,
• To accomplish this, you may lie, cheat, steal, murder as required,
• If you die for the cause of Islam, you get some virgins for eternity if you're a man,
• Or you'll get some handmaidens to comb the hair you hid on Earth if you're a woman,
• You must pray 5 time a day, and you get to chew qat in between prayers,
• You may riot over the most trivial event,
• You must never wipe your ass with your right hand,
• You must always remain a muslim under penalty of death,
• You may never question what your tribal chief (imam) says, no matter how absurd.

Welcome......now commit suicide by blowing yourself up, a very insane act.

With minor details, you could fit ANY Religion in here.

Even "modern" Christianity. (Wasn't there something in the news, just the other day, wherein Federal Judges in PA were sent Death Threats, because they voted against the ID nonsense? How about the murder of Medical Doctors by fanatical christians?)

You could fit anti-belief systems in here, too, such as "athiesim".

...

There is a Third Road: It is why, I myself, am an Unbeliever or a Non-believer.

I neither believe, nor dis-believe in [a] God. I'm Undecided, as yet.

I have yet to settle this issue in my mind: it is still "unmade".

I am awaiting Further Developments and More Information.

I'm looking for proof(s) based on Reasoning, and based on what can be determined by any (or all) of the Five Senses.

It may be, that I will have to wait until I die, for a Definitive Answer. This will happen Soon Enough, and then I will Know [or Not, if Oblivion is the "answer" ]

I suppose "agnostic" covers it pretty well, but that word is so miss-used these days ...

 

[marv]

• Theist - one who accepts the existence of a deity without evidence, i.e., "believes".
• Atheist - one who rejects even the need for a diety.
• Agnostic - one who says, "Maybe there is a deity, or maybe not. I don't know for sure."

At least, the way I've always understood it to be. The strongest attraction to theism is the "I don't want to take the chance" argument. The weakness to that argument is deciding which deity(s) to choose.

 

[Hapsburg]

Of all major belief systems, Islam stands alone as a detriment and a danger to others by virtue of its practices and implementation. The only difference between the "best" muslim and the "worst" muslim is the intensity of their practice.

You seem to be forgetting Christian Protestantism. Thems the crazy motherfuckers. You don't have to reach that far back to find out. Who started the 2nd KKK in 1915? A Protestant reverend. Who makes up the majority of KKK and neonazi members today? Protestants. Who performed several terrorist attacks throughout the 60s, including the bombing of one of thier own churches, against black americans? Protestants.
Even in thier beginnings, they were a violent bunch. Not even Muslims were as violent and fanatical. In the 1500s through 1600s, civil war wracked France, England, and The Empire. For over a century and a half, protestants rebelled and caused destruction in every country they entered. A severely destabilized France. A destroyed English monarchy. A third of the German population. That was the cost of Protestantism's survival. In retrospect, they would've been better off crushed entirely at Mühlberg. Islam's imprint on destruction is minimal compared to the racism and insanity of Christianity.

 

[marv]

Hapsburg, your reading of history is a bit bizarre to say the least.

 

[I don't know]

Theist : one who believes in one god, with or without evidence
Atheist: one who does not believe there is a god
Agnostic: one who believes it's impossible to know whether or not there is a god

Heh, heh, heh,...I'm an atheist.

But seriously, I have no similar problem with Christianity or Judaism or Hinduism, or any other religion for that matter. For the most part, they're pretty benign. Haven't come across anybody lately that tried to kill me because I wasn't a Protestant or a Jew or a Hindu.

Atrocities? Well, as long as you compare 15th century Christianity with 21st century Islam, I suppose it's accurate. But you should update your knowledge base if you really want to try to make something out of it. I think most of those 15th century Christians are pretty dead by now - at least not in a condition to hijack an airliner...

- You don't really have to go that far back. 18th and 19th century christianity was quite horrible as well. Hell, if you visit the right places today, you'll find some of the most horrible acts imaginable being done by people who call themselves christians.

I would, but I don't want to be ass-rammed in prison.

Maybe...

- Please note that I'm joking. I'm an agnostic atheist myself, I was just parodying the first and third posts, kind of surprised that no one caught on to that.

:bugeye:
What the fuck are you talking about? The names of the months have very little to do with religion.

- The months are named after gods and (religious) kings. We're currently in the month of Mars.

In the french revolution, a great point was made out of changing the names of the months to something more "rational".

What's wrong with being positive?
And what limitations? Science does exactly what it is meant to do: explore and research various fields of physical reality.

- "Positivism is a philosophy developed by Auguste Comte in the beginning of the 19th century, which stated that the only authentic knowledge is scientific knowledge. It is sometimes referred to, in a pejorative way, as scientism."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positivism

Science is a very specific way of looking at the world, and if you limit yourself to that only, you'll find yourself unable to talk about a lot of very important things, like ethics or the nature of the divine.

 

[MadMaxReborn]

I would differ a tiny bit, there.

I would "stand it on it's head" so to speak.

The founding fathers understood very well the axiom that "power corrupts".

They also understood that a SECULAR basis for government permitted later generations to make CHANGES to the government, based on discourse and such.

Had it been based on RELIGIOUS grounds, then changes become MUCH harder to effect. Who can argue against "Well, GOD said So!". It becomes nearly insurmountable a project to change a RELIGIOUS based system. For a fine example, look how slowly changes take place in the Catholic Church: it's taken them hundreds of years to apologize for killing someone over the "sun-goes-around-the-earth" thing.

I submit to you, that the Founding Fathers were quite cognizant of this, and deliberately LEFT OUT all religious basis for the Constitution.

It IS a document chiefly interested in LIMITING the Power of Government in very specific ways, is it not?

...

Power Corrupts.

Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely.

Mixing the Power of Religion with the Power of Government is a Recipe for Utter and Complete Corruption ...

While that is a good opinion, I can provide a list of actual court cases that prove my point. I know that you cannot. The "founding fathers" were not at all concern with the static nature of religion (which is a false presumption anyway, religion has changed much through interpretation). The First Amendment freedoms have nothing to do with the fear of a government controlled by religion. The First Amendment recognized that the government's interest was in protection, not religion, but allowed for the formation of religious belief unhampered by the government. Religious expression is protected by the government--all religious expression. A fundamental fear was that certain religious views would be silenced if the government was to control religion.

The whole point of separation of religion and state was not to protect the government but to protect religious beliefs as a whole. It is an abridgement problem.

 

[MadMaxReborn]

Atheism is not a "belief" system. An atheist simply does not accept the premise that there is, or need be, any form of deity(s). In fact, many atheists (myself included) have no objection to religion so long as the belief system provides a healthy benefit to themselves and others.

Of all major belief systems, Islam stands alone as a detriment and a danger to others by virtue of its practices and implementation. The only difference between the "best" muslim and the "worst" muslim is the intensity of their practice.

By the way, just what is a "legal scholar"?

First a legal scholar is one who concerns him/herself with the development, history and future of the law. One who is familiar with the criteria for which a particular set of facts will be decided by. I stated that to show that I am not just giving an unsophisticated opinion, but one based on study and understanding. I have a J.D. and L.L.M in law.

Atheism is absolutely a belief system. Your definition implies a belief: "simply does not accept the premise." This is one component of a system, that system being what you believe. "Acceptance" cannot be taken out of the concept of "to believe." To believe is to accept something as being or not being. "So long as [it] provides a healthy benefit to others." This only shows your motivation for believing. Belief doesn't care why, but that you do.

If you have a definition of atheism that can completely take away the concept of belief, I would love to review it.

Max