At that time of my life I already had. It was the persistent lack of response that first got me to doubt it all. If there is a God, he's got a hell of a way of treating children.

I hear this all the time from people who walk away from God. Usually, it is one of three things..either some tragedy happens which throws their faith into doubt, or, it is because God didn't grant them what they wanted or didn't provide them signs to prove He exists.

Now, if one does read the word of God and follow it, it is fairly clear that there is no promise of a pain free life, one that is free from loss. In fact, it states precisely the opposite, that trials and persecutions will come, that we should expect them, and that they are to our benefit:

1 Peter

4:12 Beloved, don't be astonished at the fiery trial which has come upon you,
to test you, as though a strange thing happened to you.
4:13 But because you are partakers of Christ's sufferings, rejoice;
that at the revelation of his glory also you may rejoice with exceeding joy.

Romans 5:3-5

Not only so, but we also rejoice in our sufferings, because we know that suffering produces perseverance; perseverance, character; and character, hope. And hope does not disappoint us, because God has poured out his love into our hearts by the Holy Spirit, whom he has given us.

This is what Jesus said about signs:

Matthew 16:4

An evil and adulterous generation seeks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of Jonah.” So he left them and departed.

If you had faith in Jesus, and that what He said is truth, you wouldn't fail to notice the hand of God in your life. It is still there, though you do not see it. The reason you do not see it is because you refuse to budge:

Hebrews 11:6

And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.

and again:

James 4:8

Draw near to God, and he will draw near to you. Cleanse your hands, you sinners, and purify your hearts, you double-minded.

You want God to demonstrate His love, which He is always doing for you (which is plainly obvious each and every day if you could only see it), but what He wants is for you to demonstrate yours.

And as far as prayers go, He doesn't answer all prayers. Did He answer this prayer?:

Luke 22:42

"Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done."

Do you notice how Jesus prays? "yet not my will, but yours be done"? We don't know what we need, and much of what we ask for are things that are contrary to the Fathers will and planning. If there was ever a prayer He would have wanted to grant, it would be this one, yet if He had, then all would be dead in their sins. His plan was better, and Jesus allowed for it, as we should if we don't receive what we wanted.

The end truth is this:

John 14:21 Whoever has my commands and obeys them, he is the one who loves me. He who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love him and show myself to him."

To abide is His love is to submit to His Lordship. Notice the last part...

I read most of that site, at least I think I did. It's easy to get lost in the layout. I also watched several of the videos. I think you, and proselytizers in general, have this impression that non-believers are such only because they've never heard the story before. I've heard all of this hundreds and hundreds of times. I was raised with it. I heard it in Sunday school and at mass. I hear it at funerals. People knock on my door at 7am to tell me. Even the people who adopted my cat when I had to give him up took 20 minutes to tell me about Jesus.

You can read something a hundred times and never understand it..and I don't think you do from what you have shared with me thus far. It's good that you remain open-minded; I appreciate that about you.

I get that they (and presumably, you) think you are doing a good thing, but saying the same thing over and over does not make progress. I cannot take things, especially such fantastic things, on such weak evidence. No matter how many people believe, it's not proof. No number of anecdotes will convince me that a man was resurrected and, even if he was, it would still not prove there was a God. It would only be something without a definite explanation.

I'm doing what the Lord told me to do, and because I care, and in the end all I will be able to say is that I am an unworthy servant who (hopefully) did his duty.


The resurrection is proof that every word He said is true, as it is when you receive the Holy Spirit. When I first met you, I perceived a spirit about you, and I imagined that perhaps you were some kind of pagan. When I found out you were agnostic it occured to me that perhaps you were an ex-Christian. Now, that I know I can see that you do have the Holy Spirit with you, but that the light has been dimmed to almost nothing. So, the sad irony is that God already gave you your proof but you are completely oblivious to it.

As for the Penn Jillette video you mention at needhim.org, you're right, it's a nice story. I think you could learn something from the man that story is about. It's highly unlikely that you will ever convert anyone here but at the very least you'd be less despised if you weren't so angry and obnoxious all the time. You get more flies with honey than shit.

I cannot convert anyone, that is the work of the Holy Spirit. And I have been despised since the moment I came here and opened my mouth. Yes, I have said stupid things more than a few times, but I am only human. This has more to do with prejudice than anything else, and some people have recognized that and spoken out about it.
>> ^xxovercastxx:
>> ^shinyblurry:
If He showed up, would you give your life over to Him? I don't know if God is answering half-hearted prayers..
.

>> ^shinyblurry:

If He showed up, would you give your life over to Him? I don't know if God is answering half-hearted prayers..
You might also try to find out more about it.. http://www.needhim.org/ ..there is a good penn jillette video there

At that time of my life I already had. It was the persistent lack of response that first got me to doubt it all. If there is a God, he's got a hell of a way of treating children.

I read most of that site, at least I think I did. It's easy to get lost in the layout. I also watched several of the videos. I think you, and proselytizers in general, have this impression that non-believers are such only because they've never heard the story before. I've heard all of this hundreds and hundreds of times. I was raised with it. I heard it in Sunday school and at mass. I hear it at funerals. People knock on my door at 7am to tell me. Even the people who adopted my cat when I had to give him up took 20 minutes to tell me about Jesus.

I get that they (and presumably, you) think you are doing a good thing, but saying the same thing over and over does not make progress. I cannot take things, especially such fantastic things, on such weak evidence. No matter how many people believe, it's not proof. No number of anecdotes will convince me that a man was resurrected and, even if he was, it would still not prove there was a God. It would only be something without a definite explanation.

As for the Penn Jillette video you mention at needhim.org, you're right, it's a nice story. I think you could learn something from the man that story is about. It's highly unlikely that you will ever convert anyone here but at the very least you'd be less despised if you weren't so angry and obnoxious all the time. You get more flies with honey than shit.

It's natural that atheists proselytize, because atheism is a religion:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/6034949/Atheism-Is-Protected-As-a-Religion-says-Court-

It has its own creation story:

"Thus, a century ago, [it was] Darwinism against Christian orthodoxy. To-day the tables are turned. The modified, but still characteristically Darwinian theory has itself become an orthodoxy, preached by its adherents with religious fervour, and doubted, they feel, only by a few muddlers imperfect in scientific faith."

Grene, Marjorie [Professor Emeritus of Philosophy, University of California, Davis], "The Faith of Darwinism," Encounter, Vol. 74, November 1959, pp.48-56, p.49

with its own miracles:

"Time is, in fact, the hero of the plot... given so much time the 'impossible' becomes possible, the possible probable and the probable virtually certain. One has only to wait: time itself performs miracles."
George Wald, "The Origin of Life," Physics and Chemistry of Life, 1955, p. 12.

In which its adherants have total faith:

I have faith and belief myself... I believe that nothing beyond those natural laws is needed. I have no evidence for this. It is simply what I have faith in and what I believe.

Isaac Asimov
Counting the Eons P.10

I do not want to believe in God, therefore I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible: spontaneous generation arising to evolution

George Wald - Harvard Professor
Nobel Laureate

They believe it even in the face of contradicting evidence

Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed but rather evolved.

Francis Crick Nobel Laureate
What Mad Pursuit p.138 1988

Much evidence can be adduced in favor of the Theory of Evolution from Biology, Biogeography, and Paleontology, but I still think that to the unprejudiced the fossil record of plants is in favor of special creation.

EJH Cornor, Cambridge
Contemporary Botanical Thought p.61

It provides a comprehensive belief system:

Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideaology, a secular religion- a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with its meaning and morality...

Michael Ruse Florida State University
National Post 5/13/00

Atheists know they are right no matter what:

No evidence would be sufficient to create a change in mind; that it is not a commitment to evidence, but a commitment to naturalism. ...Because there are no alternatives, we would almost have to accept natural selection as the explanation of life on this planet even if there were no evidence for it.

Steven Pinker MIT
How the mind works p.182

Even if they have to suppress the truth to prove it:

"Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."

Lewontin, Richard C. [Professor of Zoology and Biology, Harvard University], "Billions and Billions of Demons", Review of "The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark," by Carl Sagan, New York Review, January 9, 1997. (Emphasis in original)

"In fact the a priori reasoning is so entirely satisfactory to me that if the facts won't fit in, why so much the worse for the facts is my feeling."

Erasmus Darwin, in a letter to his brother Charles, after reading his new book, "The Origin of Species," in Darwin, F., ed., "The Life of Charles Darwin," [1902], Senate: London, 1995, reprint, p215.

They are true believers:

of all choices, atheism requires the greatest faith, as it demands that ones limited store of human knowledge is sufficient to exclude the possibility of God.

francis collins human genome project

It won't be long before there are atheists churches and street preachers handing out tracks.

The "anonymous" suggestion is a fair point. But that's the way that people donate to charity these days. Are you two prepared to say that about everyone else who donates and wants to see their name on the list? That everyone who doesn't donate anonymously is doing it for political reasons? I could understand how someone who donated, even if they didn't think about their name in print, would be upset if they got a call that said, "Sorry, but because of your beliefs, we can't put you on a pedestal like we do with every single other donor that contributes."

Well, the reason the FBB was donating was to be listed as one of the teams on the "relay for life" program. That's what they were turned down for. Not only that, but they used to whole thing to garner publicity. So I am not feeling too much sympathy for them at this point.

I agree that the reason many people/organizations who donate large amounts of money is specifically to get on those lists. So yes, I am prepared to say that many on those lists are doing so for political reasons. Perhaps not all of them, but I would say probably the majority.

We may live in a society where those with religious beliefs might feel that things are going downhill. But by and large, the majority of America is still very uncomfortable with Atheism. Something like 70% of Americans believe that Christ is the savior in one way or another. And most of the rest are still religious. So I think it's understandable that atheists feel the need to stick up for themselves. Especially in situations like this, where they can show that they still care for their fellow human beings, regardless of anyone's beliefs.

Well, I think the problem that most believers have is that the stated goal of many atheists and atheists organizations is to remove religion from the public sphere or irradicate it entirely. The mouthpieces for the New Atheism say in no uncertain terms that people who have faith are pinheads and that religion is the worst thing to ever happen. It's certainly not a live and let live kind of attitude that is being promoted as representing atheism.

Shiny! What a coincidence that I am just recently becoming acquainted with the first few verses of Matthew!

Ahh, but I don't believe in coincidence.

Someone was passing around a picture of this giant mega-church the other day that was all sparkles and spot-lights and looked like the bridge to the Starship Enterprise. Anyway, I found this reference to Matthew 6:6 and was very surprised by the fact that people don't seem to recognize it in their lives.

Yes, and sadly, that is just scratching the surface. The bible for many seems to be book of allegory, filled with mere suggestions on how to live our lives, rather than the direct commands of God. That's why you'll find Christians in bars, Christians smoking weed, and Christians cheating on their taxes. More than that, false doctrine has invaded the church. A very popular one right now is the "Health, wealth and prosperity" gospel, which teaches that God only wants you to be rich, and people who are poor and suffering just don't have enough faith.

Now, I understand that proselytizing and praying are two different things. So I'm not telling you to shut up. But the idea that praying should be done in secret, according to the bible, is something that I find remarkable given the televangelist America that we live in. And obviously, if people truly cared, they would apply that same idea to charity as well. Unfortunately, as QM said above, everything seems to be political, even praying.

That is the thing, that it is all being done for show. It is not about salvation, or sanctification; it is about sterling and silver. This is what is truly harmful, that the public face of Christianity is so far astray from the true teachings of the bible. Light years away from it in fact. The airwaves are saturated with false teachers, who proclaim that God is the great ATM in the sky, and if you only send in some money He'll give you the pin number. They are wolves in sheeps clothing, preaching a man-centered doctrine, to tickle the itching ears of people who seek out teachers who will tell them what they want to hear. "No, you don't need to change! God loves you the way you are!" The bible is not so kind to such people:

Galatians 1:8

But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed.

Just out of curiosity, do you have a favorite version/translation of the bible? Because even simple things like the verses we're discussing seem to be changed around quite a bit. I especially love the ones that read Matthew 6:6 as: "Go into your closet to pray."

haha, yes..some of these translations are very poor/strange. I prefer the ESV, it is probably the best modern literal translation. The KJV can be a good supplement, because although it used less accurate manuscripts, its archaic language preserved some of the meaning that the more modern translations may have glossed over. bible.cc is a good site for comparing verses. Here's a good sermon on Matthew 6:5-6

http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=813081634369


>> ^Ryjkyj:
The "anonymous" suggestion is a fair point. But that's the way that people donate to charity these days. Are you two prepared to say that about everyone else who donates and wants to see their name on the list? That everyone who doesn't donate anonymously is doing it for political reasons? I could understand how someone who donated, even if they didn't think about their name in print, would be upset if they got a call that said, "Sorry, but because of your beliefs, we can't put you on a pedestal like we do with every single other donor that contributes."
We may live in a society where those with religious beliefs might feel that things are going downhill. But by and large, the majority of America is still very uncomfortable with Atheism. Something like 70% of Americans believe that Christ is the savior in one way or another. And most of the rest are still religious. So I think it's understandable that atheists feel the need to stick up for themselves. Especially in situations like this, where they can show that they still care for their fellow human beings, regardless of anyone's beliefs.
>> ^quantumushroom:
I don't pretend to know the atheists' true motives, but everything is political. Everything. This arrangement sucks and I wish it were not so, but it is. An anonymous donation would've been more apropos if the highest goal was really helping the charity versus branding positive atheism.
As we both know, that doesn't hold true online. Why, we may be the only two peeps online now who even admit to not having all the answers!

Shiny! What a coincidence that I am just recently becoming acquainted with the first few verses of Matthew!
Someone was passing around a picture of this giant mega-church the other day that was all sparkles and spot-lights and looked like the bridge to the Starship Enterprise. Anyway, I found this reference to Matthew 6:6 and was very surprised by the fact that people don't seem to recognize it in their lives.
Now, I understand that proselytizing and praying are two different things. So I'm not telling you to shut up. But the idea that praying should be done in secret, according to the bible, is something that I find remarkable given the televangelist America that we live in. And obviously, if people truly cared, they would apply that same idea to charity as well. Unfortunately, as QM said above, everything seems to be political, even praying.
Just out of curiosity, do you have a favorite version/translation of the bible? Because even simple things like the verses we're discussing seem to be changed around quite a bit. I especially love the ones that read Matthew 6:6 as: "Go into your closet to pray." <IMG class=smiley src="http://cdn.videosift.com/cdm/emoticon/smileopen.gif">
>> ^shinyblurry:
If they were humble, and this really was about helping cancer patients, they would have given the donation anonymously. Clearly for the atheists this was more about having a feather in their cap than helping people. Reminds me of this verse:
Matthew 6:2-3
Thus, when you give to the needy, sound no trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may be praised by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward.
But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you.

The "anonymous" suggestion is a fair point. But that's the way that people donate to charity these days. Are you two prepared to say that about everyone else who donates and wants to see their name on the list? That everyone who doesn't donate anonymously is doing it for political reasons? I could understand how someone who donated, even if they didn't think about their name in print, would be upset if they got a call that said, "Sorry, but because of your beliefs, we can't put you on a pedestal like we do with every single other donor that contributes."

We may live in a society where those with religious beliefs might feel that things are going downhill. But by and large, the majority of America is still very uncomfortable with Atheism. Something like 70% of Americans believe that Christ is the savior in one way or another. And most of the rest are still religious. So I think it's understandable that atheists feel the need to stick up for themselves. Especially in situations like this, where they can show that they still care for their fellow human beings, regardless of anyone's beliefs.

>> ^quantumushroom:

I don't pretend to know the atheists' true motives, but everything is political. Everything. This arrangement sucks and I wish it were not so, but it is. An anonymous donation would've been more apropos if the highest goal was really helping the charity versus branding positive atheism.
As we both know, that doesn't hold true online. Why, we may be the only two peeps online now who even admit to not having all the answers!


Shiny! What a coincidence that I am just recently becoming acquainted with the first few verses of Matthew!

Someone was passing around a picture of this giant mega-church the other day that was all sparkles and spot-lights and looked like the bridge to the Starship Enterprise. Anyway, I found this reference to Matthew 6:6 and was very surprised by the fact that people don't seem to recognize it in their lives.

Now, I understand that proselytizing and praying are two different things. So I'm not telling you to shut up. But the idea that praying should be done in secret, according to the bible, is something that I find remarkable given the televangelist America that we live in. And obviously, if people truly cared, they would apply that same idea to charity as well. Unfortunately, as QM said above, everything seems to be political, even praying.

Just out of curiosity, do you have a favorite version/translation of the bible? Because even simple things like the verses we're discussing seem to be changed around quite a bit. I especially love the ones that read Matthew 6:6 as: "Go into your closet to pray."

>> ^shinyblurry:

If they were humble, and this really was about helping cancer patients, they would have given the donation anonymously. Clearly for the atheists this was more about having a feather in their cap than helping people. Reminds me of this verse:
Matthew 6:2-3
Thus, when you give to the needy, sound no trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may be praised by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward.
But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you.

Where did this guy go? I like his thought process before he goes off on a multi-comment rant.>> ^Cronyx:

(I split the following up into a few posts because it was too large.)
I don't claim to be an expert, or an authority on this stuff. I will say that I've been fascinated by it on a personal level for over ten years. It started back in the ZDtv days (before TechTV), when Michio Kaku was on an episode of Big Thinkers. I read anything I can get my hands on, and watch all material that comes my way.
Take the following for what it's worth, I'm not trying to proselytize an agenda, just share some of my private thoughts.
I've got a number of analogies I could use here for describing the entire (11 dimensional) universe. Two of my favorites are a VHS tape and hologram baseball card. They both kind of work the same way in so far as how they relate to the thought experiment. I'll explain both.
In the case of the VHS tape, it has your favorite movie on it. You know it word for word, line for line. You've seen it a hundred times. But no matter how many times you watch it, the story will always end the same way. But, from the point of view of the characters (I'm talking in a 4th wall sense; the characters themselves, not the actors playing them), have no idea what will happen next. In fact, the same was true for you the first time you saw the movie. There may have been some foreshadowing, but hell, there's some of that in real life too.
The point is, with the tape, you can fast forward, rewind, pause, browse the timeline however you choose. But the characters are oblivious to this. You aren't really manipulating their timeline, you're just browsing it for your own perspective. If you eject the tape though, you're holding the entire timeline. You've collapsed their universe into a 3 dimensional object. It only has a 4th dimension when you put it in the VCR. When you watch it. But even during the novel first experience of the initial viewing, the end of the story was there. It was always there, predetermined at the end of the tape.
On to the baseball card for a moment. Now, given various factors in the developing process, that hologram card has a lot more information than what you can see at one time, flat on. You have to tilt it one way or an other to get a different view -- to access more of the data. And yet, viewing the different angels don't create that data. Knowing they're there doesn't make them exist. It only makes you aware of them. Holding the card, you still hold all the potential that image has all at once, in that one object, even if you can't be privy to it all at once.

>> ^quantumushroom:

it is correct that you should not judge other cultures by the standards of your own , but I don't know anyone that makes the argument that all cultural values are equal that's nether a left or right , conservative or liberal mind set.
If you believe that "you should not judge other cultures by the standards of your own" then you have no moral authority to judge the muslims. The irony is, while the Bible states "Judge not lest ye be judged" it doesn't mean anarchy for all, nor does it mean keep silent in the face of evil.
I don't know what planet y'all are from that you're suddenly offended by linking modern liberalism with moral relativism, but from what I see, it's the left that's constantly assaulting all of the moral and religious institutions. Not questioning, ASSAULTING, and making end runs around honest debate.
of the libral and "left" people I know they would use science to inform there position and stance as to weather a cultural practise was a good or bad one , and historically its more liberal and left groups that have taken action to stop circumcision and the spred of HIV in Africa and pore countries though promotion of safe sex and fee contraceptives.
Funny you mention "science", because the scientific proof is that circumcision REDUCES the transmission of HIV drastically. Science alone has no moral component.

In the case of assaulting a minor without there consent I think its pretty well established that this is not a "good" thing whatever political back ground sum-one adopts.
'Child-rape is not a 'good' thing.'
If that's the best denouncement of child-rape, I suggest better PR.



>> ^westy:
>> ^quantumushroom:
According to leftist doctrine, we are never to judge other cultures by the standards

of our own, as all cultural values are equal. The witch doctor and the neurosurgeon are on the same level. Christians proselytize, muslims rape children. Values-wise, there is no difference.

it is correct that you should not judge other cultures by the standards of your own , but I don't know anyone that makes the argument that all cultural values are equal that's nether a left or right , conservative or liberal mind set.
of the libral and "left" people I know they would use science to inform there position and stance as to weather a cultural practise was a good or bad one , and historically its more liberal and left groups that have taken action to stop circumcision and the spred of HIV in Africa and pore countries though promotion of safe sex and fee contraceptives.
In the case of assaulting a minor without there consent I think its pretty well established that this is not a "good" thing whatever political back ground sum-one adopts.




"If you believe that "you should not judge other cultures by the standards of your own" then you have no moral authority to judge the muslims. The irony is, while the Bible states "Judge not lest ye be judged" it doesn't mean anarchy for all, nor does it mean keep silent in the face of ev"

what I was saying is that BY DEFAULT you cannot make a claim that one arbitrary cultural accepted thing is better than another arbatrerry cultural thing.

"Funny you mention "science", because the scientific proof is that circumcision REDUCES the transmission of HIV drastically. Science alone has no moral component. "

You are right male circumcision does have a small affect in reducing transimtion of HIV ( its not drastic and the studies done are not conclusive) eather way contraception and education has a grater effect at reducing hiv and it is by using the scientific method we know this , also I was actually talking about female circumcision as much as male , The actual piont i was making still stands , historicaly it has been people that are more liberal/"left" that have promoted contraception , and it has been concervitievs that have been anti contraception and ignored scientific evidence and continued to use religion and dogma guide there thinking.

Finally its very hard for me to understand what points you are actually making or what you are actually getting at I cannot tell what position you have on things the way you write is all over the place for me ( i'm not saying how you write is inherently wrong just for me I struggle to understand what you are actually getting at due to the way you right).

I also think the use of left and right termanoligy confuses the issue, in america your left and right is different to englands and even within america it seems people have different understandings of what is exactly a left or right mentality. It would probably be easer if defined a mentality or thinking in a more precise way or made an argument with you saying , "if people x with x mentality think this then they are wrong to think x " that way it would be easy to agree or disagree with the statement.

I see what you did there. If we disagree with your statement we are automatically "left" and therefore there is room for us to move to the centre.

I would hope that everyone disagrees with the original, satirical statement, but the horror is, there are people who actually speak and think that way, and the majority of them are on the left. Political correctness came from the left side of the aisle. It is the left that has never taken the threat of communism seriously, even though 100 million people have been murdered by communist regimes the world over.

I call poppycock on that, in fact the whole argument of left vs. right is utter nonsense in my opinion, what matters much more is rational thought, a solid moral foundation, and the truth.

From a certain point of view, left versus right seems arbitrary and bizarrely divided. For example, if the left values "equality" then they would demand women and especially the elderly become handgun experts so as not to be victims of larger or multiple attackers. Conversely, if the American Right championed individual rights as much as it claims, hooking and drugs would already be legal for adults.

Rational thought, a solid moral foundation, and the truth? I'm a big fan of all three. Rational thought is too rare to be made national policy and while it's possible for atheists to be moral, a solid moral foundation is still owned by religion. The third, "truth" has very few friends, because it doesn't care who is offended by it.

Regarding this sift, since few will take a stand, I will: islam is not worth saving. It was founded by a gigolo/pedophile warlord, then layered with still-more bizarre interpretations after his demise. islam is "supercessionary", meaning its laws and doctrines "override" Christianity and Judaism. islam offers 3 choices for followers when they meet infidels: kill, convert, enslave. Any muslim who does not do one of these three is also considered an infidel to be killed.

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

No nation that wishes to survive should allow more than a handful of muslims to immigrate; they are ill-suited for life in First World Western nations in the 21st century, or the 19th century for that matter. No sane woman should want to see muslims take over, either.




>> ^ghark:

>> ^quantumushroom:
According to leftist doctrine, we are never to judge other cultures by the standards of our own, as all cultural values are equal. The witch doctor and the neurosurgeon are on the same level. Christians proselytize, muslims rape children. Values-wise, there is no difference.

I see what you did there. If we disagree with your statement we are automatically "left" and therefore there is room for us to move to the centre. I call poppycock on that, in fact the whole argument of left vs. right is utter nonsense in my opinion, what matters much more is rational thought, a solid moral foundation, and the truth.

it is correct that you should not judge other cultures by the standards of your own , but I don't know anyone that makes the argument that all cultural values are equal that's nether a left or right , conservative or liberal mind set.

If you believe that "you should not judge other cultures by the standards of your own" then you have no moral authority to judge the muslims. The irony is, while the Bible states "Judge not lest ye be judged" it doesn't mean anarchy for all, nor does it mean keep silent in the face of evil.

I don't know what planet y'all are from that you're suddenly offended by linking modern liberalism with moral relativism, but from what I see, it's the left that's constantly assaulting all of the moral and religious institutions. Not questioning, ASSAULTING, and making end runs around honest debate.

of the libral and "left" people I know they would use science to inform there position and stance as to weather a cultural practise was a good or bad one , and historically its more liberal and left groups that have taken action to stop circumcision and the spred of HIV in Africa and pore countries though promotion of safe sex and fee contraceptives.

Funny you mention "science", because the scientific proof is that circumcision REDUCES the transmission of HIV drastically. Science alone has no moral component.


In the case of assaulting a minor without there consent I think its pretty well established that this is not a "good" thing whatever political back ground sum-one adopts.

'Child-rape is not a 'good' thing.'

If that's the best denouncement of child-rape, I suggest better PR.







>> ^westy:

>> ^quantumushroom:
According to leftist doctrine, we are never to judge other cultures by the standards


of our own, as all cultural values are equal. The witch doctor and the neurosurgeon are on the same level. Christians proselytize, muslims rape children. Values-wise, there is no difference.

it is correct that you should not judge other cultures by the standards of your own , but I don't know anyone that makes the argument that all cultural values are equal that's nether a left or right , conservative or liberal mind set.
of the libral and "left" people I know they would use science to inform there position and stance as to weather a cultural practise was a good or bad one , and historically its more liberal and left groups that have taken action to stop circumcision and the spred of HIV in Africa and pore countries though promotion of safe sex and fee contraceptives.
In the case of assaulting a minor without there consent I think its pretty well established that this is not a "good" thing whatever political back ground sum-one adopts.

Liberalism = moral relativism. You better fucking believe it, jimmy. It's the same argument used by the left every time, for every crime, that because everyone and everything is equal, it's not wrong to take something from one at gunpoint and give it to another. Aren't the witch doctor and neurosurgeon both human beings? Don't they both want to help people get better? Then what's the difference between them?

As for the video, I expect barbarism from barbarians, just as I expect leftists to yawn at crimes of this magnitude, just like they ignore all the other failures their good intentions breed, especially when there's a cross at Ground Zero to protest.


>> ^Gallowflak:

>> ^quantumushroom:
According to leftist doctrine, we are never to judge other cultures by the standards of our own, as all cultural values are equal. The witch doctor and the neurosurgeon are on the same level. Christians proselytize, muslims rape children. Values-wise, there is no difference.

Liberalism != moral relativism. You've either not been paying attention or you're a fucking moron. Either way, it's good to know that not even this sort of barbarity can shock you into holding off on your repetetive, clueless, tasteless diatribes.

>> ^quantumushroom:

According to leftist doctrine, we are never to judge other cultures by the standards of our own, as all cultural values are equal. The witch doctor and the neurosurgeon are on the same level. Christians proselytize, muslims rape children. Values-wise, there is no difference.


I see what you did there. If we disagree with your statement we are automatically "left" and therefore there is room for us to move to the centre. I call poppycock on that, in fact the whole argument of left vs. right is utter nonsense in my opinion, what matters much more is rational thought, a solid moral foundation, and the truth.

>> ^quantumushroom:

According to leftist doctrine, we are never to judge other cultures by the standards of our own, as all cultural values are equal. The witch doctor and the neurosurgeon are on the same level. Christians proselytize, muslims rape children. Values-wise, there is no difference.


it is correct that you should not judge other cultures by the standards of your own , but I don't know anyone that makes the argument that all cultural values are equal that's nether a left or right , conservative or liberal mind set.

of the libral and "left" people I know they would use science to inform there position and stance as to weather a cultural practise was a good or bad one , and historically its more liberal and left groups that have taken action to stop circumcision and the spred of HIV in Africa and pore countries though promotion of safe sex and fee contraceptives.

In the case of assaulting a minor without there consent I think its pretty well established that this is not a "good" thing whatever political back ground sum-one adopts.

>> ^quantumushroom:

According to leftist doctrine, we are never to judge other cultures by the standards of our own, as all cultural values are equal. The witch doctor and the neurosurgeon are on the same level. Christians proselytize, muslims rape children. Values-wise, there is no difference.


Yea, sometimes you should shut the heck up with that political stuff.

>> ^quantumushroom:

According to leftist doctrine, we are never to judge other cultures by the standards of our own, as all cultural values are equal. The witch doctor and the neurosurgeon are on the same level. Christians proselytize, muslims rape children. Values-wise, there is no difference.


Liberalism != moral relativism. You've either not been paying attention or you're a fucking moron. Either way, it's good to know that not even this sort of barbarity can shock you into holding off on your repetetive, clueless, tasteless diatribes.

According to leftist doctrine, we are never to judge other cultures by the standards of our own, as all cultural values are equal. The witch doctor and the neurosurgeon are on the same level. Christians proselytize, muslims rape children. Values-wise, there is no difference.