>> ^shinyblurry:

You're not lucifer but occassionally you speak his mind. As far as what you hate, it's the same as anyone else who is in rebellion; you hate Gods authority over your life. You're obviously not secure in your beliefs, and the reason is..God has made His existence plain to you. Although you have supressed the truth, you know there is a God and that you are under His authority. What you hate is the fact that you will account to Him one day, but still you do what you do knowing the consequences. You said you were once some manner of Christian..which means that the truth has become common to you..you rejected the Holy Spirit so you no longer understand it, but in your eyes you think you understand it better than people who do have the Spirit. It's caused you to become supremely arrogant towards God, and thus it is unlikely you will realize your error. It's not hopeless..you're obviously still pretty young and might grow up one day..but as it stands now you are in serious trouble.
As far as what you really feel about me..who knows? You don't know me, and in any case the persona you project here is always putting on a sarcastic little show..nothing real to be seen as of yet so its impossible to tell.


Firstly, congrats on the star, sb. Sincerely. You might actually be on your way to acquiring your downvote powers. If that happens, fellas...watch out, we'll have another ant on our hands.

Secondly, a serious question: Are you doing the whole "you're-just-angry-with-god" thing for hpqp's benefit or do you believe that is the case with all people who claim to be atheists?

In other words, do you accept the fact that there are people who are genuine non-believers for whom all these admonitions are moot? I realize they're real for you and that you think they're real for us too. But do you accept that we, that is to say: those of us who identify themselves as such, are genuine non-believers who do not lose a nanosecond of sleep worrying about whether we've made a terrible mistake?

Or is it your position that we're all secretly in denial?

(a copy of the messy comment above)

A collection of verses from the Qur'an about unbelievers

A person's beliefs about life (and afterlife) have a huge effect on how they live and perceive the value of other people's lives; it is nothing like blaming school shootings on violent video games, unless you assume that the shooters actually believed they lived inside a videogame.

The Qur'an, Islam's founding text, makes it quite clear that
a) The unbeliever will burn in hellfire forever (e.g. 4:56)
(nothing new here, M's recycling the holy texts already in existence)
and b) the unbeliever must be killed if he does not accept Islam (4:89), either by God or "or at our hands" (9:52); only Islam can exist on earth (2:193).
See this article on the history of Jihad and martyrdom in Islam.

Of course, the majority of muslims, like any other group of human beings, aspire to live their peaceful lives, etc. The difference between Islam and Christianity or Judaism, apart from its youth, is that it is founded upon a character and his book that are highly impervious to the effects of secularization. While the Bible is an edited compilation of transcripts written by several authors over centuries, the Qur'an was written by one warrior general in the space of his lifetime; questioning any part of the book's infallibility puts the whole faith in question, a risky thing when you read what the book in question has to say about non-believers. (I could go on, but really, Harris says it so much better than me in "The End of Faith" ...for free!).

But you want evidence, so here are a few things to ponder, in relation to what the Qur'an, and thus Islam, has to say about the topics in question. (Keeping in mind that Mohamed did not invent the barbarities that the book contains; they were contemporaneous, he simply enshrined them as the "infallible" word of God. Also: Mohamed's life, as transcribed in the Hadith, is considered a role model).

Honour killing: women considered property of men (see s.4:34) http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/02/0212_020212_hon
orkilling_2.html
Honour killing: adulterers should be killed anyway, no?
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/world/archives/2004/07/24/2003180222

Because of sharia law's stance on adultery, it remains a crime in several Islamic countries
(sharia law is for the most part copied from the Torah/OT; in Islam, adultery is one of the worst sins/crimes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zina_(Arabic) ):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adultery#Criminal_penalties

Also, denouncing rape can get you jailed... for adultery:
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=7943698

homosexuality: illegal in 75/195 countries; 32/48 Muslim countries. In 8 countries it is punishable by death... under sharia law, of course (Iran, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, UAE, Sudan, Nigeria, la Mauritania and Somalia).

Condoning slavery: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_slavery#Slavery_
in_the_contemporary_Muslim_world

forced marriage of minors: what Islamic doctrine/scholars say: http://muslim-quotes.netfirms.com/childbrides.html
women protest age limit laws: http://www.irinnews.org/Report.aspx?ReportId=88589
more statistics on child brides (once again, the problem did not stem from Islam, but is upheld by it... Mo+Aisha): http://marriage.about.com/od/arrangedmarriages/a/childbride.htm

Apostasy and human rights: http://www.iheu.org/node/1541

Of the 126 designated terrorist organisations, 73 (60%) are religious, 65 (51%) are Islamic extremists. To compare, the second highest ranking terrorist-fueling ideology, communism, has only 21 (17%) groups. Jihad anyone?

Government report on link between Koranic schools and terrorism: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RS21654.pdf

Of the 17 "Significant Ongoing Armed Conflicts of 2010", only 5 are not marked by religious ideologies (only 2 if communism is counted as a religious ideology). Eleven of these conflicts involve Islamists, who are either trying to instate an Islamic theocracy (in accordance with the teachings of the Qur'an), or they are fighting Muslim governments that are considered not "Muslim" enough.

A collection of verses from the Qur'an about unbelievers

A person's beliefs about life (and afterlife) have a huge effect on how they live and perceive the value of other people's lives; it is nothing like blaming school shootings on violent video games, unless you assume that the shooters actually believed they lived inside a videogame.

The Qur'an, Islam's founding text, makes it quite clear that
a) The unbeliever will burn in hellfire forever (e.g. 4:56)
(nothing new here, M's recycling the holy texts already in existence)
and b) the unbeliever must be killed if he does not accept Islam (4:89), either by God or "or at our hands" (9:52); only Islam can exist on earth (2:193).
See this article on the history of Jihad and martyrdom in Islam.

Of course, the majority of muslims, like any other group of human beings, aspire to live their peaceful lives, etc. The difference between Islam and Christianity or Judaism, apart from its youth, is that it is founded upon a character and his book that are highly impervious to the effects of secularization. While the Bible is an edited compilation of transcripts written by several authors over centuries, the Qur'an was written by one warrior general in the space of his lifetime; questioning any part of the book's infallibility puts the whole faith in question, a risky thing when you read what the book in question has to say about non-believers. (I could go on, but really, Harris says it so much better than me in "The End of Faith" ...for free!).

But you want evidence, so here are a few things to ponder, in relation to what the Qur'an, and thus Islam, has to say about the topics in question. (Keeping in mind that Mohamed did not invent the barbarities that the book contains; they were contemporaneous, he simply enshrined them as the "infallible" word of God. Also: Mohamed's life, as transcribed in the Hadith, is considered a role model).

Honour killing: women considered property of men (see s.4:34) http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/02/0212_020212_honorkilling_2.html
Honour killing: adulterers should be killed anyway, no?
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/world/archives/2004/07/24/2003180222

Because of sharia law's stance on adultery, it remains a crime in several Islamic countries
(sharia law is for the most part copied from the Torah/OT; in Islam, adultery is one of the worst sins/crimes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zina_(Arabic) ):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adultery#Criminal_penalties

Also, denouncing rape can get you jailed... for adultery:
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=7943698

homosexuality: illegal in 75/195 countries; 32/48 Muslim countries. In 8 countries it is punishable by death... under sharia law, of course (Iran, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, UAE, Sudan, Nigeria, la Mauritania and Somalia).

Condoning slavery: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_slavery#Slavery_in_the_contemporary_Muslim_world

forced marriage of minors: what Islamic doctrine/scholars say: http://muslim-quotes.netfirms.com/childbrides.html
women protest age limit laws: http://www.irinnews.org/Report.aspx?ReportId=88589
more statistics on child brides (once again, the problem did not stem from Islam, but is upheld by it... Mo+Aisha): http://marriage.about.com/od/arrangedmarriages/a/childbride.htm

Apostasy and human rights: http://www.iheu.org/node/1541

Of the 126 designated terrorist organisations, 73 (60%) are religious, 65 (51%) are Islamic extremists. To compare, the second highest ranking terrorist-fueling ideology, communism, has only 21 (17%) groups. Jihad anyone?

Government report on link between Koranic schools and terrorism: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RS21654.pdf

Of the 17 "Significant Ongoing Armed Conflicts of 2010", only 5 are not marked by religious ideologies (only 2 if communism is counted as a religious ideology). Eleven of these conflicts involve Islamists, who are either trying to instate an Islamic theocracy (in accordance with the teachings of the Qur'an), or they are fighting Muslim governments that are considered not "Muslim" enough.

edit: html's not working, so this looks like crap. sorry, i'm too tired to rearrange right now.


>> ^SDGundamX:

@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/hpqp" title="member since July 25th, 2009" class="profilelink">hpqp
You repeated his speaking points and provided no evidence to support them and then insinuated that I know nothing of Islam's teachings to boot. You've clearly learned from your teachers (Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens) quite well.
Show me some evidence please that shows that Islamic followers are more likely to cause harm to fellow human beings than others. By evidence I mean an empirical study that controls for other factors that include but are not limited to: education, income, regional cultural factors (other than religion), and local political systems (or lack thereof as the case may be, for example in countries such as Somalia).
And no, you didn't correct that for me. It doesn't matter their stated reasons for committing the violence. People who resort to violence do so for a complex array of reasons. I dispute the notion that people commit violence soley "because of their religion" any more than school shootings occur "because kids play violent video games."

>> ^KnivesOut:

<div id="widget_405781030">

I see Shinny's side of it. According to the fiction god gave us free choice. Along with the responsibility of free will he said, don't eat this apple (aka; don't do bad things). Therefore it's in our hands not to sin.

@NetRunner

I am a little confuzled about calling @Skeeve and my conversation both true and a non sequitur. I guess because I am addressing a more theoretical, man kind building question and you a more practical one. Your talking about the more practical, of making things work now, I am talking more about how I want things to work, for always. A the difference between the tangible and the ideal I guess.

The examples you pose are actually the exact ones I was thinking of when I think of the brutality of democratic things, at times. I have been considering the statement "the needs of the many..." for the course of a few weeks now. Forgive me, about to go on a tangent, but I want a trial by fire to so speak if you have the time. This will be a wall of text for the uninterested.

When I was first exposed to this phrase/idea, it was from Spock. And from then on, I always took it as the rational position one has to take to help the whole at the cost of the one. It was a profound idea in my youth. It had such a charity to it. It seemed to speak to the core of what is good. Everything that is good about man was contained in that one simple phrase. The devil is in the details, though, so I decided recently to examine my long held Vulcan heritage.

Over the past couple of years, since my fall from Grace, I have been increasingly interested in the role of evolution in the social development of our species. We have a lot in common with our animal kin, especially the social nature of mammalia. The role of emotions and intuitive social orders with post rationalized rule set changes are the order of our creed. For an animal that has a very long gestation period, few offspring per litter, and long maturation periods, certain social orders HAD to be developed or we wouldn't survive. Many of our longest held evolutionary advances aren't because they are "good" morally, but are good for survival when being chased by tigers. In that, I think the democratic pricible is actually as old as social creatures, and even more basic, as force.

I think the reason Spock's words stung so true in my heart of hearts is it spoke to millions of years of culture beyond my ability to fully comprehend. It spoke past my reason to the core of my being. Now, when I examine the phrase "the needs of the many..." and take into light the core being, I find a much different sentence. Let me tell you what I found that I didn't expect.

I find that the statement of "the needs of the many..." very closely relates to the Democratic position. When your tribe is 20 people, and the fate of your people all hang in the balance of routine decisions, evolutionary speaking, to survive, it is easier to remove the rational component of this choice. The rational implications of every choice you make determining the fate of your entire race is a burden that doesn't aid in decision making. It is much "better" to program in an emotional response and have that being post-rationalize later, intelligence is actually more of a burden than a tool in this area. This way, we remove the impotence one might face in the light of such a larger than life issue, and set in that mind a continuing sequence of emotional ties to the event through post-rationalizations.

I think the reason Democracy works so well, given this situation, is it very closely mimics the "rules of the jungle." By that, I mean force. Democracy is an interesting formalization of the rules of the jungle. Instead of the force being a stick or a knife, it is a vote. We might not consider our vote a weapon, but essentially, when you boil it down it is our most trusted language. So much so, that every animal we face understands it. We have subjugated nearly every animal on this planet via force, and now try our hands at the very planet itself. All the while, we never asked ourselves the question, is using force right?

When being chased by a tiger, you can't ask that question. Even more so, it is the application of force that seems to drive the evolution on this planet forward. However, it only advances the flags in the due course of force. Any being that comes after HAS to play by these rules or be defeated before it can flourish. But is this the way it HAS to be? Does humanity find itself on the precipice of being able to change the entire course of evolution on the planet? Perhaps so. Slowly, we have taken the cunning, and brutal wolfs of the winter lands to being the noblest of companions. And cats, wait, never mind, fuck cats.

Humans might soon, within perhaps our children's, children's lifetime, find themselves in the unique position to change the rules of the game, for good. Weather or not we want to will be the only question. So the question is, why? What is so wrong with Democracy and the underlying shreds of managed force something to be concerned about? Let me bring on my final point.

The course of discovery seems to be without end for man. It seems inevitable, that in time, each human will have access to such a level of technology that any one person could end all life on the planet with little to no effort. Our only current solutions for it are that of liberty, which would only take one crazy person to end it all, or regulations, of which would have to be of the most extreme kind to protect against knowledge that is easy to acquire and use. It seems that the current rules that bind this planet along with mans advancement in technology have set us on a collision course with a cruel destiny. While not a certainty, I do believe it is certain that the tools of Democratic force will not save us from our own self imposed destruction.

While I have still not made all my points, like why I also think the democratic position is actually bad (perhaps even morally bad); in spite of that, I do suppose that it is insufficient to manage our path. It isn't that I want it to be wrong, it is that we truly need something else if we intend to survive past an infant species. If we lose the game, the cycle of force will most likely continue on without us, spawning forth new entities of force. But if we win, we will rewrite the rules for all existence on the planet. No longer bound to rules that keep up from being eaten by tigers, but by rules that extend us to the furthest reaches of our dreams.

I think it will all start by eating all the cats, because anything that will bite you in your sleep isn't fit in this new world. And I yield my time back to an audience that is most likely not interested in my thought processes that go to solving less than practical problems. I will only continue on request as to not come off as pedantic, well, more so.


edit, grammar

I fear you're all wasting your time.

At the heart of this debate is one simple element: that of changeability. Is the theist changeable? Is the atheist changeable?

If neither is capable of changing their (or the other's) mind, then debate is a waste of time. For the theist, doubt and skepticism are poisonous to their faith so I'd be very surprised to hear any theist say they are open-minded (changeable) and really mean it. This thread is evidence of that.

On the other hand, I've never met any atheist (though I'm sure some exist) who couldn't describe, at the ready, a specific example of some otherworldly event that would change their mind about god forever. That's what results from placing value on evidence.

In The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins tells of a marvelous story at a lecture at Oxford's Zoology Department. I'll quote the author if that's OK with everyone:

...my belief in evolution is not fundamentalism, and it is not faith, because I know what it would take to change my mind, and I would gladly do so if the necessary evidence were forthcoming.

It does happen. I have previously told the story of a respected elder statesman of the Zoology Department at Oxford when I was an undergraduate. For years he had passionately believed, and taught, that the Golgi Apparatus (a microscopic feature of the interior of cells) was not real: an artefact, an illusion. Every Monday afternoon it was the custom for the whole department to listen to a research talk by a visiting lecturer. One Monday, the visitor was an American cell biologist who presented completely convincing evidence that the Golgi Apparatus was real. At the end of the lecture, the old man strode to the front of the hall, shook the American by the hand and said - with passion - 'My dear fellow, I wish to thank you. I have been wrong these fifteen years.'

We clapped our hands red. No fundamentalist would ever say that.

>> ^NetRunner:
It's easy, put your hands in the air and say "I surrender." At that point, killing him really would've been a war crime. There's no evidence that indicates he did anything of the sort.


Burden of proof? Evidence? Well, it's hard to have any evidence when the government rushes off under the cover of night and runs top secret exercises with zero transparency except for what they tell me they did. But, let's look at the facts. OBL was unarmed, he was shot, the government reported an untruth that a gun battle was waged, they also reported an untruth about him using his wife as a shield, they claimed they ran a DNA test and identified OBL, then cleaned him and dumped his body in the ocean all within 24 hours.

And you say the burden on proof is on the "we the people" of this country to prove or disprove the secret assassinations of our military and CIA? Rolling my eyes right now.

And, lol at "it's easy to raise your hands and say I surrender". What an apologist answer. Fucking murderous cretins. Yes, it's easy for you or me to raise our hands and say "I surrender" if the cops are outside our door with a bullhorn. Doubt anything remotely similar to that happened. lol

>> ^NetRunner:

But that's why I think you should explain your fixation with OBL's death. There are much better examples to use to advance the cause of civil liberties.


Gladly. 1. It's Osama Bin Laden. He's the bogeyman for our loss of liberties over the past decade and the reason we've marched headlong into wars. 2. The other "examples" weren't met with such momentous applause as the death of OBL - and the cheers were mostly from progressives I've always hoped were pro-human rights (namely the right to due process here). But instead what I see are a bunch of apologists who are pro-partisanship even at the cost of human rights.


>> ^Psychologic:

They didn't instantly teleport into his room... I doubt he was sleeping too well with helicopters hovering over his residence and gunshots being fired.
And as far as due process... while I agree with that notion in general, I'm wondering what the point would be in this case. Whether or not he actually perpetuated the 911 plans, he was more than willing to accept credit for it.
Bin Laden had at least several minutes to prepare from the time the heli arrived to the time his room was breached. I wouldn't discount the possibility of him having a bomb under his robe in the hopes they would try to arrest him.
Honestly, I have far more of a problem with predator drones nuking buildings than I do with this particular operation.


Yes, Osama heard the helicopters being valeted, got up, brushed his teeth, flossed, took a nice jaunt around the park, walked his dog, shat, and jerked it moments before strapping on his Explosinator 3000 under his robe.

Several minutes to prepare? You're obviously speculating. The reports of eye witnesses said the helis came fast as if they were out of nowhere.

As far as due process, what're you saying? That the premise for a trial is flimsy? And therefore assassination is a better recourse? Has everyone on here lost their fucking minds? Seriously, I think we're all getting hung up on this being OBL. Yes, he was a fucking scumbag that probably deserved worse than what he got, but goddammit he deserves a fair trial if we're to have a society of laws, no?

Isn't that what all you statists keep clamoring on and on about? That we should have laws? Well, where's your consistency here? A man, a very terrible scum of a human being, was robbed of his right to a fair trial. The "who" in this scenario is incidental. Rights aren't conditional based on someone's popularity. For fuck's sake.

And, yes, the drone planes are terrible. I despise those too, and we should constantly be outraged at that every second of every day and not stop voting out the lying bastards that continue bombing innocent people. Starting with Obama and any other Republican or Democrat that steps up in 2012 who isn't immediately in favor of ending these warlust aggressions against other people in sovereign lands.

Does that mean there is a fist under his combover?

>> ^shagen454:
He'll change China's ways? Now I know that we have the next Chuck Norris on our hands.

He'll change China's ways? Now I know that we have the next Chuck Norris on our hands.

>> ^rottenseed:

Wait wait wait...I let them off the hook too easy.
You know what, FUCK PLAYSTATION! Not because their security was breached, so much, but because of the way they forced our hand by keeping us from loading alternative operating systems because they said it was a "potential security risk". Well lookie now, fuckers. You probably managed to piss more people than not and painted a big target on your backs. Well now we're all fucked. Instead of securing the data better, you focused on trying to stay "ahead" of hackers with constant "voluntary" security updates. Yea, it was so voluntary that if you didn't do it, some games wouldn't work, PSN wouldn't work and your blu-ray player wouldn't work. You're a bunch of cunts sony...a bunch of cunts.
Furthermore, your fucking OS sucks...should've spent more time on improving that. Maybe I wouldn't be so disgruntled right now if you had...


Since I've recently been told that hijacking threads on VS can't be done, I'll just point out that this is the full definition of "voluntary" used by libertarians (and the libertarians who call themselves "voluntaryists").

Wait wait wait...I let them off the hook too easy.

You know what, FUCK PLAYSTATION! Not because their security was breached, so much, but because of the way they forced our hand by keeping us from loading alternative operating systems because they said it was a "potential security risk". Well lookie now, fuckers. You probably managed to piss more people than not and painted a big target on your backs. Well now we're all fucked. Instead of securing the data better, you focused on trying to stay "ahead" of hackers with constant "voluntary" security updates. Yea, it was so voluntary that if you didn't do it, some games wouldn't work, PSN wouldn't work and your blu-ray player wouldn't work. You're a bunch of cunts sony...a bunch of cunts.

Furthermore, your fucking OS sucks...should've spent more time on improving that. Maybe I wouldn't be so disgruntled right now if you had...

There's a common fallacy here: that "doing something - even if it's not effective - is better than doing nothing". That's not the case.

Lots of the measures people have and are suggesting for combating greenhouse gasses have significant costs and deliver nothing other than relieving the pressure to "do something".

We could completely gut the economy with taxes on transportation, heating, and other uses of energy - and still only slightly delay climate change. And, no, that isn't better than doing nothing. And saying you're committed to something and then not getting results is not better, in any way, than being honest and saying there's nothing significant you can do right now.

It's like we've lost control and we're driving towards a cliff, and some politicians are saying "ok... let's put our hands out the window and wave so we slow down". And then most of them don't even do that. The only real solution is to fix the steering wheel so we can turn.

How do we turn? We commit the same economic resources that would be used to cut energy, run ads, and fund recycling programs and instead find a new energy source that can meet the needs of humanity going forward. This is almost certainly fusion or novel means of fission. But it's easier to sell recycling, LED lights, and 20% more efficient cars than it is to sell scary new nuclear power.

So we're screwed. Thanks idiots!

--> @kceaton1
--> @peggedbea

The only reason I upvote these is that I think it's good for discourse. It's more useful for the lurkers on this site than really the involved members. I knew I would be bringing up a very neutral standpoint as I am on the fence; especially, recently as more biological evidence has direct implications on who you may be later in life. That is VERY important to remember for everyone reading. You have to remember that your brain collects and stores information and then processes it through "filters" before it is distilled into what you would say. Biologically you may be far more likely to be an atheist than a believer (the study makes no distinction religion wise; so they are talking about Islam, Christianity, Norse, Greek, Roman, Buddhist, Hinduism, etc...).

We need a table that we can (we, as in, the religious versus non-theist) talk at. More importantly logical minds and compassion MUST prevail for society to remain intact. If Richard Dawkins (maybe I'm thinking of Hitchens) really can't talk with creationists then he is as much a problem as the creationists themselves (of course one of these parties ARE correct, but the lack of civility is extremely annoying--from both sides).

If you want others to learn sometimes you need to act just like Mormon, Catholic, Evangelical, missionaries. You must expect the vitriol and swearing that usually comes out as highly defensive "maneuvering" or hate; the same that the missionaries get day in and day out. Sorry, "my brethren", but answering the door to purposefully create an unnecessary rude or hateful situation comes off as hate/bigotry speech or dismissive attitudes which is just as bad. This is morally corrupt behavior in my eyes. I suggest answering the door and being able to identify to them issues you have strongly opposed views of and why compared to what they do and about what they say. You have to hope, in this day of the Internet, that people will take ONE aspect of what you said and learn more about it.

I had Mormon seminary teachers that taught creationism, but creationism is extremely limited in acceptance within the Mormon church. For crying out loud BYU (Mormon based university for those that don't know; just south of Salt Lake City) accepts evolution WITHOUT ANY hesitation. They are very active in the sciences as well which is why they do believe; furthermore they are huge researchers when it comes to genealogy which eventually loops into evolution. In many situations the Bible is a work of allegory and followers that take it literal are the uneducated Mormons; even unto their own religion.

So when I have these seminary teachers it truly makes me wonder how they got to their position as they seem to follow their own set of tenets which ends up creating Mormons like Glenn Beck who literally don't stand for church beliefs as I knew them (and again why hasn't he been excommunicated--this actually bothers me a lot as he only hurts the churches standing; which is poor to begin with and is nothing like the Mormons I know). Science was always taught to be incredibly important; if not the most important as it was a way to "uncover even more of Gods truths"; plus it is the applicable "science". That is that it gives us our modern day of living and quality of life (like airplanes, microwaves, TV, energy, etc...). I may not believe in any religion now. But, I appreciate that sentiment; as I think it's a very healthy objectivity to have if in a religion: adaptability.

/ I have to agree somewhat with @gwiz665 as religion (like all things) from an atheists vantage point looks a lot like fear manipulation. I love the Golden Rule as it truly does incorporate perhaps the easiest summary of what it is to be good. But, I know religious people use this to their own ends, including what we see in Libya or on Fox News. To them, people and their beliefs are a joke and they abuse it. It often makes me wonder if these CEOs are truly religious (the ones that say they are) or just using it as a gateway--who knows. Which goes back to my first point. It's entirely possible that we as a species have a tendency to vote "sociopathic" or likewise people into office as they themselves, much like drug seeking personalities (like bi-polar) seek out these positions. The abuse of these positions are partially hard wired into their makeup. All this means is that we must be more diligent. We've come too far as atheists and the religious to let this civilization slip away out of our hands.

//If this is tl;dr, to you, go watch a monkey flinging poop on youtube.