Do I believe there is life on other planets somewhere out there in the solar system? Absolutely... it would be foolish (and grandiose) of anyone to ignore the mathmetics of that probability. Do I have proof? No... I do not.

Well. If probability is not a proof it's sure a good hint.
But if you say you believe there IS life elsewhere, then I disagree. If you say you believe there MAY be life elsewhere, then I totally agree. As long as we don't have proof, who knows ?

Do I believe dinosaurs once roamed the earth? Sure I do... we have some proof to that ALTHOUGH, I've never personally seen a dinosaur alive.

Well you couldn't because there aren't any more... But the...

Do I believe there is life on other planets somewhere out there in the solar system? Absolutely... it would be foolish (and grandiose) of anyone to ignore the mathmetics of that probability. Do I have proof? No... I do not.

Well. If probability is not a proof it's sure a good hint.
But if you say you believe there IS life elsewhere, then I disagree. If you say you believe there MAY be life elsewhere, then I totally agree. As long as we don't have proof, who knows ?

Do I believe dinosaurs once roamed the earth? Sure I do... we have some proof to that ALTHOUGH, I've never personally seen a dinosaur alive.

Well you couldn't because there aren't any more... But they WERE, we have scientifical proofs of that (fossils).

In religion, there are written accounts by "witnesses" to said events. Granted, if it were one or two witnesses, I could easily ignore this but, there are many and from varied time periods.

I disagree. We just have one book. This is in no way a proof. Even a witness wouldn't be a proof. He can lie. When this is a witness from 2000 years ago, this is even less a proof.

The real question is... Does it harm anyone to believe there is a God? Does it harm society? Not that I can surmise.

That could surprise you, but I totally agree with that.
What harms society, though (according to me) is that some organisations (churches) use that belief in men to dominate and gain political power. As I think what they used this political power for was (and still is) mainly bad (in my opinion), then churches do harm society.

I will admit that there are those that push the issue way too far on both sides. Any zealot, whether for or against religious beliefs, is a bad thing. I find some Muslims using religion to justify their horrendous actions totally comical. I still believe the large majority of Muslims are peaceful, compasionate people. The problem is, we don't hear from them. We only hear about the bad ones.

The same goes for Christianity. Let's face it, doing a news story on the 400 million Christians who lead a sedentary life, go to church, work and love everyone, wouldn't make for great popularity. So what do we hear about? The sensationalized "good stuff."

I am NOT saying that I am an angel by anymeans ...

I will admit that there are those that push the issue way too far on both sides. Any zealot, whether for or against religious beliefs, is a bad thing. I find some Muslims using religion to justify their horrendous actions totally comical. I still believe the large majority of Muslims are peaceful, compasionate people. The problem is, we don't hear from them. We only hear about the bad ones.

The same goes for Christianity. Let's face it, doing a news story on the 400 million Christians who lead a sedentary life, go to church, work and love everyone, wouldn't make for great popularity. So what do we hear about? The sensationalized "good stuff."

I am NOT saying that I am an angel by anymeans but if you look at how Jesus lived his life, that to me, represents what a good Christian should be. Patient, kind, loving, forgiving, accepting, peaceful, etc. All the things humanity SHOULD be. Anyone who starts a war because someone else doesn't share the same religious beliefs they do, should be castrated.

Anyway, if either side has convinced themselves that they can erase the other, they've fooled themselves.

What I am against is changing what is long established. This country was built by people that believed God had a hand in thier destiny. Why we would take that away? If you don't believe, then isn't it simple enough to just ignore it? It doesn't mention God or Jesus on my box of cereal but I don't go ballistic over it. I see people flying flags of other countries (even on the hoods of thier car) and while I don't appreciate it, I don't demand it stop.

We have to be a world of tolerance if we are to move anywhere towards having peace in our lives ever again.

BigBadWolf said:

If you don't believe, then isn't it simple enough to just ignore it?

I think not.
The central thing that is at the source of all those conflicts between believers/non-believers are not religious views itself; but the more pressing practical dilemma's that come with those views, like abortion, gay marriages, euthanasia, schoolcurricula (creationism/ID/evolution), etcetera.

So I don't really think it's "simple enough to ignore it". The problem, imho, is not 'holding a religious view', but the societal/political/moral implications of holding those views and acting upon them.

Furthermore, as a non-believer you simply can't ignore the fact that abortion, euthanasia...

BigBadWolf said:

If you don't believe, then isn't it simple enough to just ignore it?

I think not.
The central thing that is at the source of all those conflicts between believers/non-believers are not religious views itself; but the more pressing practical dilemma's that come with those views, like abortion, gay marriages, euthanasia, schoolcurricula (creationism/ID/evolution), etcetera.

So I don't really think it's "simple enough to ignore it". The problem, imho, is not 'holding a religious view', but the societal/political/moral implications of holding those views and acting upon them.

Furthermore, as a non-believer you simply can't ignore the fact that abortion, euthanasia, a gay marriage is illegal and prohibited; you are in fact bound by it. So, 'religious zealots' are imposing their own worldview and -morals upon every single individual.
The non-religious zealots however, don't try to impose their worldview on others, they just want to present us with the choice of acting upon or own beliefs. That's tolerance.

BigBadWolf - kudos, very well put!

Djiezes - ditto!

The concept BigBadWolf introduces is very sound in terms of its nature (although 'peaceful muslims' is certainly debatable), and if both sides tried to live with each other, believing what they believed, followed those beliefs and ignored the opposite - things would be fine. The problem is and that's where Djiezes makes a good point - even if you ignore - the other side doesn't... so it turns into a battle and that's where we are today.

No question that there were many bad, even some horrible things done in the past in the name of religion. The muslims of today are continuing in the same mode either by acting out or not condeming dispe...

BigBadWolf - kudos, very well put!

Djiezes - ditto!

The concept BigBadWolf introduces is very sound in terms of its nature (although 'peaceful muslims' is certainly debatable), and if both sides tried to live with each other, believing what they believed, followed those beliefs and ignored the opposite - things would be fine. The problem is and that's where Djiezes makes a good point - even if you ignore - the other side doesn't... so it turns into a battle and that's where we are today.

No question that there were many bad, even some horrible things done in the past in the name of religion. The muslims of today are continuing in the same mode either by acting out or not condeming dispeakable acts committed.

But, if one looks at what religion like Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism preaches - you can't argue that it's not a positive way to live and be.

So, it's back to the people, who certainly misuse religion for their own personal agendas regardless of what that agenda must be... but one can always find an agenda... ALWAYS.

Dijezes, I am talking about things like "In God We Trust" printed on a dollar bill. You're talking about social values.

The non-religious zealots however, don't try to impose their worldview on others, they just want to present us with the choice of acting upon or own beliefs.

I disagree... atheists can be just as over-zealous as religious ones. Aren't they trying to impose their worldview on everyone. By forcing people to accept gay marraige, isn't that imposing your view that "it's ok" on people? By telling people that are against it, "Abortion should be allowed!" isn't that imposing your view on people who are against it? Remember, you're asking these people to accept so...

Dijezes, I am talking about things like "In God We Trust" printed on a dollar bill. You're talking about social values.

The non-religious zealots however, don't try to impose their worldview on others, they just want to present us with the choice of acting upon or own beliefs.

I disagree... atheists can be just as over-zealous as religious ones. Aren't they trying to impose their worldview on everyone. By forcing people to accept gay marraige, isn't that imposing your view that "it's ok" on people? By telling people that are against it, "Abortion should be allowed!" isn't that imposing your view on people who are against it? Remember, you're asking these people to accept something which to them is morally wrong. Isn't this what the atheists are bitching about, religious people pushing thier beliefs on them?

Sort of hypocritical isnt it?

Guillaume said:

I disagree. We just have one book. This is in no way a proof. Even a witness wouldn't be a proof. He can lie. When this is a witness from 2000 years ago, this is even less a proof.

Actually, there are many books... The Bible (old & new testaments), the Koran, the Torah, the Book of Mormon, etc... The problem is just as you mentioned, these are books, and the accounts written within them are eye witness accounts or hear-say. Most modern studies show that both are very unreliable

Now, I'm not saying that the accounts are therefore false, I'm just saying they cannot be considered PROOF.

BigBadWolf said:

atheists can be just as over-zealous as religious one...

read more»

Guillaume said:

I disagree. We just have one book. This is in no way a proof. Even a witness wouldn't be a proof. He can lie. When this is a witness from 2000 years ago, this is even less a proof.

Actually, there are many books... The Bible (old & new testaments), the Koran, the Torah, the Book of Mormon, etc... The problem is just as you mentioned, these are books, and the accounts written within them are eye witness accounts or hear-say. Most modern studies show that both are very unreliable

Now, I'm not saying that the accounts are therefore false, I'm just saying they cannot be considered PROOF.

BigBadWolf said:

atheists can be just as over-zealous as religious ones. Aren't they trying to impose their worldview on everyone. By forcing people to accept gay marriage, isn't that imposing your view that "it's ok" on people? By telling people that are against it, "Abortion should be allowed!" isn't that imposing your view on people who are against it?

Actually, no they aren't trying to impose their worldview on anyone, they are stopping those who are trying to say YOU CAN'T have an abortion, or get married to the same sex, etc. That IS imposing your view. Imposing would be to FORCE you to have an abortion or get married to the same sex.

In fact, what they are trying to do is give people a choice. Just like you can choose to be Christian, Muslim, Jewish, etc. You follow your beliefs, but that doesn't mean that because YOU feel that homosexuality is wrong that someone else cannot get married, just that you religion may not perform the marriage.

BigBadWolf said:

If you don't believe, then isn't it simple enough to just ignore it?

Isn't it simple enough to ignore same sex marriage or abortion since it isn't you who is taking part?

TheCatWhisperer said:

Actually, no they aren't trying to impose their worldview on anyone, they are stopping those who are trying to say YOU CAN'T have an abortion, or get married to the same sex, etc. That IS imposing your view. Imposing would be to FORCE you to have an abortion or get married to the same sex.

I was just about to give the same argument.

If you don't believe in gay marriage, don't be gay and marry; if you don't believe in abortion, abort. The same for the other things.

It's when laws come in into place which forbid gays to marry, do an abortion, euthanasia, ... that you do not have choice therein. Because religious worldviews became law and as such dictate what...

TheCatWhisperer said:

Actually, no they aren't trying to impose their worldview on anyone, they are stopping those who are trying to say YOU CAN'T have an abortion, or get married to the same sex, etc. That IS imposing your view. Imposing would be to FORCE you to have an abortion or get married to the same sex.

I was just about to give the same argument.

If you don't believe in gay marriage, don't be gay and marry; if you don't believe in abortion, abort. The same for the other things.

It's when laws come in into place which forbid gays to marry, do an abortion, euthanasia, ... that you do not have choice therein. Because religious worldviews became law and as such dictate what every person can and cannot do.

It is your freedom and choice to think and act as it fits you best. Dictating what other people can and cannot do is a whole other discussion.

Tolerance is in fact a pretty shizophrenic value. It's about tolerating just those things that you yourself do not tolerate. That's why it's so hard.

BigBadWolf said:

If you are touting tolerance, then why fight to have our nations flags removed from public display? Why fight to have the words "In God We Trust" removed from the dollar bill? Why fight to have the word "God " removed from the Pledge of Allegience. Those are things that have existed for ages so where is the tolerance?

Who's fighting to have these removed? I'm not, so stop blaming me hehe... America was founded by fundamentalist Christian Pilgrims... I don't expect you to remove your history, I DO expect for you to grow with the times however, kind of like when y'all eventually abolished slavery & allowed women to vote... Same idea for same sex marriage & abor...

BigBadWolf said:

If you are touting tolerance, then why fight to have our nations flags removed from public display? Why fight to have the words "In God We Trust" removed from the dollar bill? Why fight to have the word "God " removed from the Pledge of Allegience. Those are things that have existed for ages so where is the tolerance?

Who's fighting to have these removed? I'm not, so stop blaming me hehe... America was founded by fundamentalist Christian Pilgrims... I don't expect you to remove your history, I DO expect for you to grow with the times however, kind of like when y'all eventually abolished slavery & allowed women to vote... Same idea for same sex marriage & abortion. These are accepted ideals in the civilized world, and as a "world leader" in freedom & democracy, you think y'all might step up to the plate and stop being so damned archaic.

BigBadWolf said:

As for gay marriage... as I said, marraige was created as a religious institution which is why I am against it. If you want to live with your gay partner, that is your business. Just don't ask to change a historically religious ritual to your convenience.

Really? Was it? there was no marriage before the Christian Church? huh.. PROVE IT. Until then, marriage is NOT a religious institution... It is often performed in churches, but in the US, Canada, and elsewhere it is also performed out of churches by government officials, captains of ships, lawyers, etc.. until it is only performed in Churches and only by religions that are against same sex marriage, you have no right to tell everyone else what they can and cannot do. You don't like same sex marriage? Then don't perform them, NOBODY is forcing you to.

BigBadWolf said:

I feel the same about abortion.. it's your choice.

It is as long as as a woman HAS the choice, Gerogie is trying to make that illegal too.

Guillaume said:

What does "see" mean ?

* You don't need to use your eyes to have proof. We do have some other senses, and we have reasoning.

* Sometimes your eyes (or other senses) can be tricked (you don't "see" the Earth is round for instance, if you stay on it - it appears flat)

Ugh.. I have to stick up for the believers here G, If you don't need your eyes, ears, etc to prove that something is real, then why can't you use the same reason for god? many people attest with great ferocity that they "feel" gods presence, and coupled with the bible (that yes, *could* just be a historical novel written by a number of different sources as a way to control the populous but put enough ...

Guillaume said:

What does "see" mean ?

* You don't need to use your eyes to have proof. We do have some other senses, and we have reasoning.

* Sometimes your eyes (or other senses) can be tricked (you don't "see" the Earth is round for instance, if you stay on it - it appears flat)

Ugh.. I have to stick up for the believers here G, If you don't need your eyes, ears, etc to prove that something is real, then why can't you use the same reason for god? many people attest with great ferocity that they "feel" gods presence, and coupled with the bible (that yes, *could* just be a historical novel written by a number of different sources as a way to control the populous but put enough historical facts and events in it to refute any claims that it is not in fact the word of god.. tangent) is more than enough proof for many. I mean if i can touch it is real, right? So when people feel their faith has healed them is that not proof? especially when the doctors no longer can tell them why their cancer miraculous receded... (I use this as an example as this actually happened to a friend's aunt... ) Now, *I* believe this was mere fact that she was in such positive spirits that she believed she would get better, and her body reacted positively.. there are documented cases showing that a positive outlook is almost better than medicine. But why couldn't it be god?

I'm rambling, sorry :|

Who's fighting to have these removed? I'm not, so stop blaming me hehe...

Liberals are.. you're a liberal aren't you?

Same idea for same sex marriage & abortion. These are accepted ideals in the civilized world

Oh are they? Last I checked a big majority of the worlds population were still against it. Perhaps you can back up your claim with some solid statistics?

Since you brought this up, I would not consider being gay an "ideal" taking into account it goes against our own physical makeup which has absolutely NOTHING to do with religion. Wouldn't we all be born hermaphrodites if that was the case? Are there examples of any other mammal showing signs of sa...

Who's fighting to have these removed? I'm not, so stop blaming me hehe...

Liberals are.. you're a liberal aren't you?

Same idea for same sex marriage & abortion. These are accepted ideals in the civilized world

Oh are they? Last I checked a big majority of the worlds population were still against it. Perhaps you can back up your claim with some solid statistics?

Since you brought this up, I would not consider being gay an "ideal" taking into account it goes against our own physical makeup which has absolutely NOTHING to do with religion. Wouldn't we all be born hermaphrodites if that was the case? Are there examples of any other mammal showing signs of same sex preference that I am not aware of?

you have no right to tell everyone else what they can and cannot do.

Excuse me? I am not telling anyone what they can and cannot do! I don't have that power.

You don't like same sex marriage? Then don't perform them,

I don't think you'll ever have to worry about me doing so.

BigBadWolf said:

Liberals are.. you're a liberal aren't you?

Actually, I'm a Socialist If we want to apply labels. And no, not all Liberals want to remove those words & such from the dollar bill, etc. Many do, but not all.

BigBadWolf said:

Oh are they? Last I checked a big majority of the worlds population were still against it. Perhaps you can back up your claim with some solid statistics?

Ok:

wikipedia said:

At present, same-sex marriages are recognized in the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, and Canada, and the U.S. state of Massachusetts. On 1 December, 2005, South Africa’s Constitutional Court extended marriage to include same-sex couples which will go into effe...

read more»

BigBadWolf said:

Liberals are.. you're a liberal aren't you?

Actually, I'm a Socialist If we want to apply labels. And no, not all Liberals want to remove those words & such from the dollar bill, etc. Many do, but not all.

BigBadWolf said:

Oh are they? Last I checked a big majority of the worlds population were still against it. Perhaps you can back up your claim with some solid statistics?

Ok:

wikipedia said:

At present, same-sex marriages are recognized in the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, and Canada, and the U.S. state of Massachusetts. On 1 December, 2005, South Africa’s Constitutional Court extended marriage to include same-sex couples which will go into effect by December 2006.

Civil unions, domestic partnerships, and other legal recognitions of same-sex couples which offer varying amounts of benefits attached to marriage are available in: Argentina, Brazil, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Israel, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Slovenia, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, the Australian Capital Territory and the states of New South Wales, Queensland, Tasmania, and Western Australia, and the U.S. states of California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maine, New Jersey, Vermont, and the District of Columbia.

link: Wikipedia: Same Sex Marriage

Is that good enough for you? Oh, you man POPULATION right.. When I said Civilized, I meant Democratic, 1st world nations... sorry

CatWhisperer said:

Until then, marriage is NOT a religious institution... It is often performed in churches, but in the US, Canada, and elsewhere it is also performed out of churches by government officials, captains of ships, lawyers, etc..

I'm with you Cat. I've been married for two years officially, but as you can imagine, there's no way I did that in a church. In France it's done in town halls (actually it was a beautiful 17th town hall and park, very nice wedding day). Of course (in France), you'll still free to organise a religious celebration if you're a believer, but is has no legal or juridic value at all.

But the gay weddings are still forbidden though. I can feel they wi...

CatWhisperer said:

Until then, marriage is NOT a religious institution... It is often performed in churches, but in the US, Canada, and elsewhere it is also performed out of churches by government officials, captains of ships, lawyers, etc..

I'm with you Cat. I've been married for two years officially, but as you can imagine, there's no way I did that in a church. In France it's done in town halls (actually it was a beautiful 17th town hall and park, very nice wedding day). Of course (in France), you'll still free to organise a religious celebration if you're a believer, but is has no legal or juridic value at all.

But the gay weddings are still forbidden though. I can feel they will soon be allowed (left-wing should win the next elections, and I think they will do that). Instead they have the "PACS" which gives gay couples somerights, but not as many as a heteroxexual wedding.

BigBadWolf said:

Since you brought this up, I would not consider being gay an "ideal" taking into account it goes against our own physical makeup which has absolutely NOTHING to do with religion. Wouldn't we all be born hermaphrodites if that was the case?

Maybe you mix up wedding and reproduction Wolfie ? They are not the same. Even sex and reproduction are not the same. A lot of people (I'm sure you too, don't you ?) have sex for "entertainment", not only to have babies... So in this regard, why would gay sex be less an ideal than heterosexual sex ? Isn't the ideal to be happy with the person you love ?

BBW said:

we're born with specific parts that go in specific places to serve specific functions

Well observed

But seriously though, we're also born wih an appendix. And with hairs. and feet nails. Etc. All of those are remnants of evolution, which don't hae any purpose any more, and will eventually disappear (or not, who can predict evolution ?)

I certainly don't mean are "remnants" and will disappear, but I mean that the fact we are born with them doesn't mean in itself that "this is the only way". We are deciding what to use our bodies for

If the great apes several million years ago had not decided to raise on their posterior feet to look above the high grass (despite the...

BBW said:

we're born with specific parts that go in specific places to serve specific functions

Well observed

But seriously though, we're also born wih an appendix. And with hairs. and feet nails. Etc. All of those are remnants of evolution, which don't hae any purpose any more, and will eventually disappear (or not, who can predict evolution ?)

I certainly don't mean are "remnants" and will disappear, but I mean that the fact we are born with them doesn't mean in itself that "this is the only way". We are deciding what to use our bodies for

If the great apes several million years ago had not decided to raise on their posterior feet to look above the high grass (despite their nature which was to walk with their feet and hands), then the human race wouldn't be here today.

Yearning for an edit button like I am eh G?

I'll admit, the fact that I disagree with much of what you say, makes for interesting conversation. If we agreed on everything... it would get rather boring wouldn't it?

Sexual intercourse plays a major role in Bonobo society, being used as a greeting, a means of conflict resolution and post-conflict reconciliation, and as favors traded by the females in exchange for food.

Wow... I'll be a gentleman and not elaborate what is going through my head right now.

As it brings pleasure, it's predominantly used for pleasure. Procreation is a side-effect. I agree it's a "major" side-effect (if this side-effect wasn't here, y...

read more»

Yearning for an edit button like I am eh G?

I'll admit, the fact that I disagree with much of what you say, makes for interesting conversation. If we agreed on everything... it would get rather boring wouldn't it?

Sexual intercourse plays a major role in Bonobo society, being used as a greeting, a means of conflict resolution and post-conflict reconciliation, and as favors traded by the females in exchange for food.

Wow... I'll be a gentleman and not elaborate what is going through my head right now.

As it brings pleasure, it's predominantly used for pleasure. Procreation is a side-effect. I agree it's a "major" side-effect (if this side-effect wasn't here, yhen we wouldn't be here to speak about it, but still, that's not usually the reason why we do it - and other species alike)

I still disagree... this is sort of a "what came first, the chicken or the egg?" thing. In my puny mind I see the pleasure coming long after the "bits and pieces" were in place to sort of influence procreation.

IF evolution is the way of the world, I think we would have evolved much differently by now. Some of the human characteristics are not favorable to our continued existance.

I'll admit, the fact that I disagree with much of what you say, makes for interesting conversation. If we agreed on everything... it would get rather boring wouldn't it?

Oh you don't know me. I can argue for hours with people I agree with I just love discussion...

I still disagree... this is sort of a "what came first, the chicken or the egg?" thing. In my puny mind I see the pleasure coming long after the "bits and pieces" were in place to sort of influence procreation.

Ok, my point was (to my knowledge) not backed up by any scientific evidence and was just my opinion, based on (before you yell "belief!" at me ) what I know about biologic and psychologic...

I'll admit, the fact that I disagree with much of what you say, makes for interesting conversation. If we agreed on everything... it would get rather boring wouldn't it?

Oh you don't know me. I can argue for hours with people I agree with I just love discussion...

I still disagree... this is sort of a "what came first, the chicken or the egg?" thing. In my puny mind I see the pleasure coming long after the "bits and pieces" were in place to sort of influence procreation.

Ok, my point was (to my knowledge) not backed up by any scientific evidence and was just my opinion, based on (before you yell "belief!" at me ) what I know about biologic and psychologic behavior. But honestly, I don't know.

And actually, I think both ways of seeing it are quite similar. Procreation is definitely (to state the obvious) what make us able to be there as a specy. So "pleasure" being a way to influence it could mean that we, as individuals, use sex for pleasure (my point) when in fact, without knowing it, the real reason is (biologically) procreation. So we agree, after all

IF evolution is the way of the world, I think we would have evolved much differently by now. Some of the human characteristics are not favorable to our continued existance.

You think so ? Which ones ?

And it's not as black and white as "it's not favorable so it disappears", it's the global specy that counts. If the specy is "the fittest", then it survives, even with "non favorable" traits, because its competitors are less "favorable", less able to survive. We don't need to be perfect absolutely, but just the best. And in ourr specific case, we got rid of all our predators, so we don't need to be "the best" anymore to survive. We already are (well maybe viruses could outlive us soon, who knows ?)